Sweden sends just 1% of its trash to landfills(reasonstobecheerful.world)
reasonstobecheerful.world
Sweden sends just 1% of its trash to landfills
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/waste-to-energy-sweden-power-plants/
114 comments
"Waste-to-energy prevents proper recycling"
Trouble is proper [Plastic] recycling is expensive and rarely done - in UK governmnet pays by the ton for recycling, which mostly consists of companies that pay another poorer country to take our trash, where it is usually not properly disposed of, and it ends up burnt or in the ocean.
Internatuonal trash trade should really be illegal - it is fundamentally uncontrollable, full of fraud and corruption.
I would rather we manage the trash here imperfectly, wherether that's landfilling or burning. At here we can have a handle on it.
Edit - spesified plastic
Trouble is proper [Plastic] recycling is expensive and rarely done - in UK governmnet pays by the ton for recycling, which mostly consists of companies that pay another poorer country to take our trash, where it is usually not properly disposed of, and it ends up burnt or in the ocean.
Internatuonal trash trade should really be illegal - it is fundamentally uncontrollable, full of fraud and corruption.
I would rather we manage the trash here imperfectly, wherether that's landfilling or burning. At here we can have a handle on it.
Edit - spesified plastic
> Trouble is proper recycling is expensive and rarely done
Especially with plastics. There have been plenty of stories in the past year or two showing that it's basically all been a sham and that it just ends up in the trash.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
Especially with plastics. There have been plenty of stories in the past year or two showing that it's basically all been a sham and that it just ends up in the trash.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
Thx for the link. I keep hearing and reading such articles; I need help connecting the dots though - I literally know people who work as "sorters" in local "recyling plants". Is that makeshift work? Why are we sorting, what do the recycling plants do? If there is an intentional deception on such a pervasive low level scale, that's astonishing. At the same time if there's not, what is the operational model or output of the local "recycling plants"? Are they really just sorting places that are unaware all their nicely sorted stuff ends up in same place?
No, there are still other things that are worth recycling. Sorting would separate out aluminum, paper, glass, plastic in a single stream recycling. The recycled material all gets bundled up and tested for some purity (i.e. this giant block of aluminum cans we crushed together is 98% aluminum). It is kind of more the fact that for a the blocks of aluminum, glass and paper there are buyers that can actually use that recycled material (if it is of a high enough purity) but the market for recycled plastic is small so it is likely cheaper to just throw anything plastic (or has some plastic) back in to the garbage.
The purity of the recyclables has been a problem and there are companies (like AMP Robotics [0]) working on machine learning to better sort and re-sort recycled material to get it up to a purity that it is actually financially worth using and won't get abandoned and thrown in the trash.
[0] https://www.amprobotics.com/
Edit: Not to say that there isn't intentional deception as well. The most blatant example I have seen in some municipalities is a city that has a "recycling program" to make people feel good but the trash truck comes by and dumps both the trash bin and recycling bin in to the same truck.
The purity of the recyclables has been a problem and there are companies (like AMP Robotics [0]) working on machine learning to better sort and re-sort recycled material to get it up to a purity that it is actually financially worth using and won't get abandoned and thrown in the trash.
[0] https://www.amprobotics.com/
Edit: Not to say that there isn't intentional deception as well. The most blatant example I have seen in some municipalities is a city that has a "recycling program" to make people feel good but the trash truck comes by and dumps both the trash bin and recycling bin in to the same truck.
You have to be careful with that last statement. Our truck does the same thing. Its a split body truck, and has separate compartments for garbage and recycling.
Here's an example of one in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd9-j0rHidU
Here's an example of one in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd9-j0rHidU
>If there is an intentional deception on such a pervasive low level scale, that's astonishing.
There is, by ourselves to ourselves. Everyone wants to save the planet, but no one wants to give up their detached single family houses, 2 cars, toys, and trips to Tahiti. Which is why there is no political support for the real solution to the problem - drastic increases in fossil fuel taxes to the point that consumption is drastically curbed.
There is, by ourselves to ourselves. Everyone wants to save the planet, but no one wants to give up their detached single family houses, 2 cars, toys, and trips to Tahiti. Which is why there is no political support for the real solution to the problem - drastic increases in fossil fuel taxes to the point that consumption is drastically curbed.
>> but no one wants to give up their detached single family houses, 2 cars, toys, and trips to Tahiti.
Who has those things? I'd love to own two cars, one would be electric, but my apartment does not have parking available for two. Tahiti? When? I have a job. I have a cellphone. Those things don't go away. Vacations are for the rich and unemployed/retired. We normals spend our "vacation" days catching up on sleep.
(As I type this I realize that I had totally forgotten that is Friday. Weekends are for rich people. I'm going to be at work tomorrow, except for when I duck out to pick up an amazon package before it gets stolen from my apartment lobby. Amazon delivery drivers don't take weekends off either.)
Who has those things? I'd love to own two cars, one would be electric, but my apartment does not have parking available for two. Tahiti? When? I have a job. I have a cellphone. Those things don't go away. Vacations are for the rich and unemployed/retired. We normals spend our "vacation" days catching up on sleep.
(As I type this I realize that I had totally forgotten that is Friday. Weekends are for rich people. I'm going to be at work tomorrow, except for when I duck out to pick up an amazon package before it gets stolen from my apartment lobby. Amazon delivery drivers don't take weekends off either.)
The people that consistently vote and contribute to election campaigns have those things. And many people aspire to have those things, so removing all doubt that they will ever get them may also be an undesirable thought.
For decades there's been a 'climate change denier'-esque movement against recycling. They used to attack all recyling as government overreach, and claim it was a scam invented by the mafia and that it was bad for the planet and other things that now seem ridiculous.
Here's a classic of the genre from 1996:
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-gar...
Notice that even in that, he admits recycling of certain things is a sensible idea, but the bleading heart liberals have taken it too far.
As it became more standard globally they had to slowly shift their target as they retreated. Now they're down to complaining really loudly about how some subset of plastic recycling is all a big scam by evil corporations and using that to pivot to how environmentalist are all stupid and evil and communist and we should never listen to them. Regulating these evil corporations that are lying to us apparently isn't an option.
Here's a classic of the genre from 1996:
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-gar...
Notice that even in that, he admits recycling of certain things is a sensible idea, but the bleading heart liberals have taken it too far.
As it became more standard globally they had to slowly shift their target as they retreated. Now they're down to complaining really loudly about how some subset of plastic recycling is all a big scam by evil corporations and using that to pivot to how environmentalist are all stupid and evil and communist and we should never listen to them. Regulating these evil corporations that are lying to us apparently isn't an option.
I hadn't read that in years, amazing to revisit it.
There's a paragraph about how expensive recycling is, which is all sourced from "Keep America Beautiful" the green washing group that are the people cited in the recent "corporate America invented recycling to fool you" stories. That organization was set up originally to stop governments introducing 5 cent returns on bottles in the 1950s, which the corporations didn't want, so instead they said it was all the public's fault. The very next paragraph in the article attacks these return schemes as even worse than recycling.
There's a paragraph about how expensive recycling is, which is all sourced from "Keep America Beautiful" the green washing group that are the people cited in the recent "corporate America invented recycling to fool you" stories. That organization was set up originally to stop governments introducing 5 cent returns on bottles in the 1950s, which the corporations didn't want, so instead they said it was all the public's fault. The very next paragraph in the article attacks these return schemes as even worse than recycling.
> He says what he saw was an industry that didn't want recycling to work. Because if the job is to sell as much oil as you possibly can, any amount of recycled plastic is competition.
Key quote, which nails the key question. Does recycling not work or was it intentionally and turned into a culture war topic in America, while many other nations just got on with it.
And now the same industry, is using their own shady moves in the 70s, to undermine and stall further regulation.
This is like quoting fossil fuel industry internal documents about how renewables can never work, and their ads pretending they were going green, to undermine renewables as a scam.
Key quote, which nails the key question. Does recycling not work or was it intentionally and turned into a culture war topic in America, while many other nations just got on with it.
And now the same industry, is using their own shady moves in the 70s, to undermine and stall further regulation.
This is like quoting fossil fuel industry internal documents about how renewables can never work, and their ads pretending they were going green, to undermine renewables as a scam.
why do you assume recycling works? If it has never worked (for plastic)? The devil may not be pretending to recycle, but pretending that it could ever work. Pretending recycling works is also to the benefit of commerce to never have to "degrow" or "turn off the tap".
If they genuinely cared about recycling, containers and bottles would all have standard shapes and sizes. That is not a thing afaik.
If they genuinely cared about recycling, containers and bottles would all have standard shapes and sizes. That is not a thing afaik.
"containers and bottles would all have standard shapes and sizes"
Indeed, thsts the absolute sinolest thing to do, takes no real effort. Reuse before you recycle - and
Indeed, thsts the absolute sinolest thing to do, takes no real effort. Reuse before you recycle - and
It does happen where it's been regulated that it's the producers responsibility to pay for the full cost of disposal. Because it's cheaper.
But the point is that properly burying plastics is better than burning it; that way, fossil fuels are returned into the ground.
This is only true if no fossil fuels are being burnt.
It is getting truer, as the grid becomes greener, which both a) means less fossil fuels are being burnt and b) any energy used for recycling is less carbon intensive, but anyone telling you it was best to bury plastic for the last couple of decades likely was politically connected to the people who sell the raw input for making current plastics, fossil fuels.
It is getting truer, as the grid becomes greener, which both a) means less fossil fuels are being burnt and b) any energy used for recycling is less carbon intensive, but anyone telling you it was best to bury plastic for the last couple of decades likely was politically connected to the people who sell the raw input for making current plastics, fossil fuels.
It’s also true if burning gas is “cleaner” than burning plastics.
It's not just the burning you need to worry about, there's greenhouse gas concerns around both fossil fuel extraction and landfills.
Energy recovery comes one stop above above disposal or incineration without energy recovery in the waste hierarchy.
Energy recovery comes one stop above above disposal or incineration without energy recovery in the waste hierarchy.
I agree. Plastic basically cannot be recycled. Most so-called "recycled" plastic is actually mixed with virgin (new) plastic from oil
I often think about 'How did this work before cheap plastic was avaliable" and often I don;t know the answer. Like supermarkets with pre-packaged food are literally impossible without plastic
A History of Packaging: https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/cdfs-133
Summary:
Leaves -> paper -> glued paper -> cardboard -> corrugated cardboard
Also: wax paper, glass, metal
Overall, the article is pretty interesting
Also: wax paper, glass, metal
Overall, the article is pretty interesting
In Poland, there are many criminal groups which form companies and take waste (usual toxic, sometimes regular municipal) from Western clients and bury them into the ground or just dump on some rented lot. There are hundreds of such cases now.
Government is finding these lots full of dangerous chemicals and has to spend taxpayer money to properly dispose of them (it can be as high as 20 milion EU per lot).
Apparently it has started a couple years ago when China banned importing EU waste.
Apparently it has started a couple years ago when China banned importing EU waste.
>Tradeoffs everywhere.
I wish every journalist writing about complex environmental topics would just start every first draft with that sentence, and then evolve it into an article.
I wish every journalist writing about complex environmental topics would just start every first draft with that sentence, and then evolve it into an article.
I've really become exhausted at the first world default assumption that something is wrong if it's not a win-win situation. Is that not a part of the psychology of many who can't accept things like nuclear and natural gas as alternatives to arguably worse solutions because there are those tradeoffs? I agree that it would be great if journalists could move from win-win thinking to tradeoffs thinking, and that's a transition that globalized societies should move towards as well.
Another phrase for this concept is "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," something a lot of people struggle (or outright refuse) to understand.
Yes, exactly. And if one can't ever be satisfied with that, at least momentarily, then they are stuck in whataboutism hell.
Same goes for Youtubers who go "in depth" on futuristic technologies. They always hype you up before they introduce some realism.
Yep. Self-driving cars are a great example. They will solve every transportation-related problem a modern city has! Cue the horrible dystopian animation of an intersection without traffic lights. Sorry to be a Luddite buzzkill, but what I do if I live near one and want to walk?
All you would need for that is the traditional "Walk/Don't Walk" sign. Sensors will detect when you are at the intersection, and coordinate with all the autonomous vehicles to stop so you can walk. After they have all stopped, the Walk sign will light. No need for traffic lights. That is an easily solvable problem.
Respectfully. If they were true journalist they would do this. Unfortunately, we too often get hacks posing as journalists.
We, The Public, need to stop giving credit where credit is not due.
Put another way, if your pet barked would you call it a cat? Of course not, yet we allow hacks to pass themselves off as journalists. Such language abuse is Orwellian, at best.
We, The Public, need to stop giving credit where credit is not due.
Put another way, if your pet barked would you call it a cat? Of course not, yet we allow hacks to pass themselves off as journalists. Such language abuse is Orwellian, at best.
I am all against trash incineration. The bulk of it is hydrocarbons (plastics/paper etc). Burning means turning solid or liquid carbon into gaseous CO2. Imho a kilo of carbon buried in a landfill is less damaging than a kilo of it floating around the atmosphere.
I've started to see a degree of synergy in landfills. Carbon is extracted from the ground in solid or liquid forms (mined coal/oil). Burning it into CO2 causes climate change. But landfills bury carbon back in the ground from whence it came, at least out of the atmosphere. Turning trash into invisible CO2 might look good but is doesn't help the climate. We might not like the sight of trash piles but we need to have a serious talk about whether burying is actually worse than releasing yet more carbon into the atmosphere. Nothing ever really goes away.
I've started to see a degree of synergy in landfills. Carbon is extracted from the ground in solid or liquid forms (mined coal/oil). Burning it into CO2 causes climate change. But landfills bury carbon back in the ground from whence it came, at least out of the atmosphere. Turning trash into invisible CO2 might look good but is doesn't help the climate. We might not like the sight of trash piles but we need to have a serious talk about whether burying is actually worse than releasing yet more carbon into the atmosphere. Nothing ever really goes away.
What you say is true, but the alternative used by neighboring countries right now is that the garbage is buried in the ground while gas, oil and coal are produced or imported and burned in the place of trash.
Only if you're only looking at it from a co2 emissions perspective. If you consider other forms of air pollution and the sibling comment is correct[1], burning garbage is probably worse than burning coal. It's definitely worse than a natural gas power plant.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30957607
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30957607
Does your opinion change if it's coupled with proper carbon capture and sequestration?
Now is not the time to burn trash. If you get carbon capture, we are better applying it to natural gas first (AKA, right now), and only extend it to trash once global warming is more under control.
I'm also skeptic about the rarer pollutants. How much mercury and lead are they throwing at the environment? (Surely, it's controlled, but how well is it controlled?) What else is on that trash? (That certainly isn't controlled.)
Proper trash recycling will probably use a burning stage once we get it. And I'm all for experiments on it. But I really don't think we currently have the tech to do it right, and the CO2 problem is a huge one right now.
I'm also skeptic about the rarer pollutants. How much mercury and lead are they throwing at the environment? (Surely, it's controlled, but how well is it controlled?) What else is on that trash? (That certainly isn't controlled.)
Proper trash recycling will probably use a burning stage once we get it. And I'm all for experiments on it. But I really don't think we currently have the tech to do it right, and the CO2 problem is a huge one right now.
>> proper carbon capture and sequestration?
Just skip the burning step. Get electricity from sun/wind/nuclear and "sequester" the trash. New branding for landfills: "Early-cycle carbon sequestration and storage facilities". They could sell carbon credits for every ton of carbon they inter in their below-ground solid carbon storage facilities.
Just skip the burning step. Get electricity from sun/wind/nuclear and "sequester" the trash. New branding for landfills: "Early-cycle carbon sequestration and storage facilities". They could sell carbon credits for every ton of carbon they inter in their below-ground solid carbon storage facilities.
Maybe? Even clean plastic degrades eventually (although I don't have a sense of how the timelines compare with modern carbon sequestration approaches), and much of the waste is probably things that decompose into methane and/or CO2 much faster. Meanwhile, you're not going to get much solar power at the times of year when Sweden probably most needs energy generation.
The point is very well taken from other comments, though, that pollutants other than CO2 are probably also a significant concern even if CCS is, in isolation, up to the task.
The point is very well taken from other comments, though, that pollutants other than CO2 are probably also a significant concern even if CCS is, in isolation, up to the task.
On the other hand, temporary carbon sequestering is still way better than immediate release.
This is a only because we make things out of fossil fuel. When we stop doing that burning garbage will not be a problem.
Keep in mind that the burning often replace other forms of burning to generate power/heat. Until all power/heat generation is clean this will not matter.
For any country that has a coal or gas plant this will not increase emissions but will make dealing with hazardous material easier.
Keep in mind that the burning often replace other forms of burning to generate power/heat. Until all power/heat generation is clean this will not matter.
For any country that has a coal or gas plant this will not increase emissions but will make dealing with hazardous material easier.
> Tradeoffs everywhere.
Indeed.
Incinerators can emit 2.5 times more greenhouse gasses than coal-fired plants, according to a 2021 Earthjustice report. They emit up to 18 times more lead and 14 times more mercury, along with elevated levels of other harmful emissions, it said. ref: https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2022/04/01/burning...
I'm with you in that I'm not unilaterally condemning one method but it'd be helpful to have some progress-based comparisons. eg: Compared to burying, burning reduces % of methane emissions. Outputs of these toxins increases by %, primarily affecting a region of sq mi. Overall, burning [effects] CO2 by %.
Indeed.
Incinerators can emit 2.5 times more greenhouse gasses than coal-fired plants, according to a 2021 Earthjustice report. They emit up to 18 times more lead and 14 times more mercury, along with elevated levels of other harmful emissions, it said. ref: https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2022/04/01/burning...
I'm with you in that I'm not unilaterally condemning one method but it'd be helpful to have some progress-based comparisons. eg: Compared to burying, burning reduces % of methane emissions. Outputs of these toxins increases by %, primarily affecting a region of sq mi. Overall, burning [effects] CO2 by %.
I generally agree with all the points in that report, but note they are talking about US plants, located in minority areas, that regularly fail to meet the US standards for air quality, and don't seem particularly motivated to do so for whatever reason.
You can have crappy, low-tech, poorly-regulated coal plants / landfills / trash incinerators etc. that do worse than the average of examples of the same tech.
You can have crappy, low-tech, poorly-regulated coal plants / landfills / trash incinerators etc. that do worse than the average of examples of the same tech.
> note they are talking about US plants, located in minority areas,
The one plant I am directly familiar with is located in a rural, ~100% white area. The others may well be in minority areas.
The one plant I am directly familiar with is located in a rural, ~100% white area. The others may well be in minority areas.
> I'm also not particularly against landfills, which are in a sense merely a form of carbon and pollutant sequestration
I personally think that landfills are underrated, but is this true? Landfills produce a lot of methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas.
I personally think that landfills are underrated, but is this true? Landfills produce a lot of methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas.
Proper landfill management includes capturing and burning that gas, that gets trapped there and is toxic if you let the pressure build up enough for it to escape.
And even better management is burning that for productive purposes (like running the garbage trucks)!
The methane largely comes from organic waste.
A good chunk of this organic waste can instead be composted.
The main benefit of composting, as I see it, isn't to enrich the soil of whatever, but to prevent greenhouse gas emissions from landfill.
A good chunk of this organic waste can instead be composted.
The main benefit of composting, as I see it, isn't to enrich the soil of whatever, but to prevent greenhouse gas emissions from landfill.
How does one deal with ground water pollution when just leaving trash in the ground? It must be much easier to clean pollutants like heavy metals from gases , than it is to clean whatever the rain dissolves out from under a landfill? Being Swedish, the idea of leaving trash in a hole at all feels strange. But then I'm assuming incineration is reasonably "clean" in the sense that pollutants can be filtered.
You generally have lots of layers of separation between trash and ground. Usually layers of clay and plastic.
https://www.epa.gov/landfills/municipal-solid-waste-landfill...
https://www.epa.gov/landfills/municipal-solid-waste-landfill...
Being completely ignorant of the process, I don't understand how burning would possibly make it better. Let's say that you perfectly filter/capture bad stuff (and I'm extremely skeptical of both our ability to do it, and industry claims of our ability to do it). What do you do with it then... other than, put it in the ground / find some way to store it, and now we're back where we started?
I think a lot of us have this childhood mental image that "burning makes stuff go away". But it doesn't!
I think a lot of us have this childhood mental image that "burning makes stuff go away". But it doesn't!
If you can capture and things like heavy metals or toxins, it's obviously going to be tiny amounts. Or - the amounts are the same but having a kg of cadmium in a jar is obviously easier to handle than a kg of cadmium dissolved in 20 tons of water.
Incineration replaces a large problem with a smaller one. Instead of having large amounts of bulk garbage, you get a smaller amount of hazardous waste. You need a much smaller landfill. You can also choose a location that minimizes the environmental impact, even if it's much farther away, because you don't have to worry so much about logistics.
But we all agree it doesn't disappear, right? Instead of large problem on the ground, I now have large problem in the air and small one on the ground.
What are the things that are easier to handle in the air than on the ground?
I feel either I am having a complete and utter intuitive misunderstanding of conservation of mass and stuff, or everybody else is :-D. I feel we are replacing stuff I can touch and move and cover and isolate and manage, with stuff that I now breathe in forever and lands in the water and on plants and people in a completely uncontrolled fashion. It did not magically go away somewhere, right? :-O
What are the things that are easier to handle in the air than on the ground?
I feel either I am having a complete and utter intuitive misunderstanding of conservation of mass and stuff, or everybody else is :-D. I feel we are replacing stuff I can touch and move and cover and isolate and manage, with stuff that I now breathe in forever and lands in the water and on plants and people in a completely uncontrolled fashion. It did not magically go away somewhere, right? :-O
> And Sweden imports trash to burn, raking in $100m/year in doing so.
Which is basically nothing. Sweden's annual expenditure is $100 billion, meaning this covers 0.1% of their expenses. That's the equivalent of a person on 50k getting $50 as some offm
Agreed with all of the rest of your points though!
Which is basically nothing. Sweden's annual expenditure is $100 billion, meaning this covers 0.1% of their expenses. That's the equivalent of a person on 50k getting $50 as some offm
Agreed with all of the rest of your points though!
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_rates_by_country sweden isnt doing too bad at "normal recycling" (7th in that list).
> “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries"
That would be alarming news in a country that doesn't burn oil or coal like a dioxin junkie.
That would be alarming news in a country that doesn't burn oil or coal like a dioxin junkie.
Landfill is worse than incineration with energy recovery, though both are at the bottom of the list of options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy#/media/File:Wa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy#/media/File:Wa...
Yeah I'm a little skeptical of the "we make less of this ... because we make a whole lot of that" kinda trades. Not that it can't be a good trade, but for me "less landfill" is not the biggest fight I'd want to fight ...
Aren’t they just releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere?
One should remember that the comparison shouldn't necessarily be between burning trash and digging it down, so long as anything else would be burned instead of the trash, for energy. And that's (unfortunately) still the case at least some parts of the year for Sweden, i.e. that the renewable and nuclear doesn't completely cover the electricity/heating needs.
So the comparison in that situation is between on the one hand to burn trash, and on the other hand putting thash in a landfill and then burning fossil fuels.
So the comparison in that situation is between on the one hand to burn trash, and on the other hand putting thash in a landfill and then burning fossil fuels.
Not if they are built and operated correctly.
Where do all the nasty fluorocarbons end up? As far as I can tell, the answer is that they're simply emitted out the smokestack and into the environment.
That is a big family of chemical compounds, so it is not easy to give an easy answer.
I think that you are referring to a specific subset, fluoropolymers, also called "forever chemicals", like PTFE/Teflon/Goretex. They do not release in the air the most studied PFAS (like PFOA) under controlled condition, but more studies are needed to see if the same happens in commercially run incinerators.
What is the alternative? Landfill. PFAS are more concentrated in landfills, which accept non-incinerated ashes/waste.
What seems to be a valid general guideline for incineration? The higher the temperature, the better.
I found a nice report if you are interested: "Disposal of products and materials containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A cyclical problem"
I think that you are referring to a specific subset, fluoropolymers, also called "forever chemicals", like PTFE/Teflon/Goretex. They do not release in the air the most studied PFAS (like PFOA) under controlled condition, but more studies are needed to see if the same happens in commercially run incinerators.
What is the alternative? Landfill. PFAS are more concentrated in landfills, which accept non-incinerated ashes/waste.
What seems to be a valid general guideline for incineration? The higher the temperature, the better.
I found a nice report if you are interested: "Disposal of products and materials containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A cyclical problem"
Fluorocarbons are extremely rare in household trash.
Please define "extremely rare". They're found in many products including dental floss, clothing, furniture, carpets, pizza boxes, fishing line, and only-God-knows-what-else.
It's certainly small as a mass fraction of household waste, let's say 0.01%. According to the article, European waste-to-energy plants burn 96 million tons of trash annually. So that's 9600 tons annually of fluorocarbon pollution, which will build up cumulatively in the environment because it effectively never breaks down.
It's certainly small as a mass fraction of household waste, let's say 0.01%. According to the article, European waste-to-energy plants burn 96 million tons of trash annually. So that's 9600 tons annually of fluorocarbon pollution, which will build up cumulatively in the environment because it effectively never breaks down.
[deleted]
Not at high temperature incineration with proper filters. Quite the contrary you get rid of a lot of the bad stuff.
Wow, they import all that pollution for about the ARR of a small SaaS company? Jesus, that's embarrassing.
I don't understand people's aversion to landfills. Perhaps it's because people intuitively understand that dumping garbage is not sustainable indefinitely, i.e. Earth will eventually run out of room. However, there is currently plenty of space for landfills. I think more things should go into landfills. Don't try to recycle plastic, just make sure it securely ends up in a landfill without ending up in the ocean and lock it away forever. That seems great. Why you'd want to take a perfectly stable thing and combust it, potentially leaking toxins into the atmosphere and environment, is beyond me.
I used to work designing landfills and they're not a bad choice. Right now many landfills in the us are the worlds largest bags. They definitely are now better engineered so that toxic substances have less chance of leaching into the ground.
They roll out large sheets of plastic and weld them together. Some states (NY) require dual liners (bags in a bag) and piping to collect the liquid that comes out at the bottom "(leachate). When they put the plastic top on holes are made to allow waste gas to escape. Landfills tend to be dry and nothing rots in them.
I think they work well, but its better to reduce the waste going into them. I'm assuming many places in the world aren't handling the trash like this leading to issues with groundwater contamination and other problems.
They roll out large sheets of plastic and weld them together. Some states (NY) require dual liners (bags in a bag) and piping to collect the liquid that comes out at the bottom "(leachate). When they put the plastic top on holes are made to allow waste gas to escape. Landfills tend to be dry and nothing rots in them.
I think they work well, but its better to reduce the waste going into them. I'm assuming many places in the world aren't handling the trash like this leading to issues with groundwater contamination and other problems.
How is the leachate treated? That must be a mix of lots of (unknown) bad stuff.
Isn't the main problem that landfills aren't sustainable? Burning is bad for CO2 in the atomsphere, but it frees up de-bonds matter so they can be taken up again.
Isn't the main problem that landfills aren't sustainable? Burning is bad for CO2 in the atomsphere, but it frees up de-bonds matter so they can be taken up again.
I mean landfills are burying useful matter. Stuff doesn't really rot it just sits there.
I'm not sure how the leachate was treated. At the end of the day the cap was supposed to keep the water out, so when closed there wouldn't be much more leachate.
I'm not sure how the leachate was treated. At the end of the day the cap was supposed to keep the water out, so when closed there wouldn't be much more leachate.
What's the lifetime of that plastic liner? It will break down eventually, no?
The ones we specified were high quality HDPE plastic placed on top of a bentonite mat or 1 foot of clay (a low water permiable material). I’m guessing it would last a long long time.
Acording to this study 400 years.
https://deq.mt.gov/files/Land/Hardrock/Documents/TintinaMine...
>I don't understand people's aversion to landfills. Perhaps it's because people intuitively understand that dumping garbage is not sustainable indefinitely, i.e. Earth will eventually run out of room. However, there is currently plenty of space for landfills.
That's exactly it. It's the whole reason why there was a huge recycling push in the 80s/90s.
>GONZALEZ: There were all these stats coming out at the time that showed that the number of landfills in America was plummeting. Landfills were closing, and people kept citing these stats in stories about the garbage barge.
>KINNAMAN: And so people put it all together, and in their minds, the conclusion was that the United States is running out of landfill space. The United States was full - that we couldn't store any more.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/739893511
That's exactly it. It's the whole reason why there was a huge recycling push in the 80s/90s.
>GONZALEZ: There were all these stats coming out at the time that showed that the number of landfills in America was plummeting. Landfills were closing, and people kept citing these stats in stories about the garbage barge.
>KINNAMAN: And so people put it all together, and in their minds, the conclusion was that the United States is running out of landfill space. The United States was full - that we couldn't store any more.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/739893511
If the trash was sorted so we buried "caches" of plastic separate from chemicals, cardboard, electronics, etc I think there is some short term sense here. My issue with landfills is that mixing all that stuff into a big pile in the ground just makes more useless for the future. I believe that future us might find a way to make use of some of these types of waste if they were separated and easy to get back. To put it another way, at least make it as easy as possible for the future to try to fix this if we must be so wasteful.
Most of the plastics I deal with is packaging. North of 60% of all packaging material was recycled. So that needs to come from somewhere.
My point is that plastic comes from oil stored in the ground. There is nothing wrong with taking oil out of the ground, turning it into plastic, and then putting the plastic back in the ground. "Recycled" plastic packaging is much worse. Oil is taken out of ground and turned in to plastic, which is then shipped to south east Asia or Africa for recycling, Most of the plastic can't economically be recycled and ends up in the ocean due to poor sanitation standards, and then finally you get your recycled plastic packaging after the recycled plastic is shipped back to you.
Landfills give off huge amounts of greenhouse gases
The majority of which come from food waste that's left to decompose in the landfill. Those could and should be separated for composting. The released methane and stuff can also be captured.
My council has been collecting and composting that for years. Once a year we can go and collect free compost.
Like many articles on the same topic, this is very scant on the ecological consequence of burning things. Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone. That’s why ICE car drivers think what they do is fine. If you’d ask them how big is the cloud of toxic pollutants that they emit, they’d struggle to imagine even the scale (it’s a basic estimation based on two numbers that are in front of them at all times).
This sentence is alarming and should lead to a lot more investigation than what the article gives them:
> “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries.”
Because dioxin is nowhere near as innocuous as CO2: that’s what Russia used to disfigure the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko. I feel like “Oh, yeah, we are releasing a lot of arsenic in the air” wouldn’t be dismissed as casually.
This sentence is alarming and should lead to a lot more investigation than what the article gives them:
> “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries.”
Because dioxin is nowhere near as innocuous as CO2: that’s what Russia used to disfigure the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko. I feel like “Oh, yeah, we are releasing a lot of arsenic in the air” wouldn’t be dismissed as casually.
"That’s why ICE car drivers think what they do is fine." I'm sorry what? ICE car drivers don't have an option to think most of time because there are no other options. For almost the entirety of driving there have been two options, gas or diesel. Hybrids have slowly started to arrive, electric cars even slower. This idea that everyone is just out there picking ICE cars because they don't care what comes out the tail pipe is a joke. People are broke, finance cars to 96 month terms, for a $17,000 used car. If there were affordable options for hybrid or electric cars sure, but this grand idea that the general public has a choice in the matter grinds my gears.
You are missing the obvious alternatives: public transport, cycling, walking.
I'm sitting on an electric suburban train. I don't know where the energy comes from, but there's a lot less needed than any car.
I'm sitting on an electric suburban train. I don't know where the energy comes from, but there's a lot less needed than any car.
All of those alternatives are highly dependent on where you live. The comment that I responded to had to do with those picking ICE car drivers, as if there were non ICE car options.
Here in America 99% of the time your options are car, or nothing. Public transport either doesn't exist or doesn't go where you need it to if it's even on time. Cycling is dangerous and mostly used as exercise, and walking the distance is just too far.
Would I love to cycle to work? Absolutely. Am I willing to risk my life every day to do so? I don't think so.
The choices you call on as obvious, are just not depending on location. Tell someone in Texas to try cycling, taking the bus, or walking to work and see what their reaction is. Tell someone in Japan and the reaction is much different.
Here in America 99% of the time your options are car, or nothing. Public transport either doesn't exist or doesn't go where you need it to if it's even on time. Cycling is dangerous and mostly used as exercise, and walking the distance is just too far.
Would I love to cycle to work? Absolutely. Am I willing to risk my life every day to do so? I don't think so.
The choices you call on as obvious, are just not depending on location. Tell someone in Texas to try cycling, taking the bus, or walking to work and see what their reaction is. Tell someone in Japan and the reaction is much different.
Public transport, cycling and walking aren't a reasonable option for the vast majority of those in the US.
I'm just outside of Washington DC (Northern VA, inside the 'beltway') - a locale that ostensibly has some of the best public transit the US has to offer. My neighborhood is highly walkable - any sort of quotidian essential (grocery, pharmacy, doctors, dentists, dining, library, etc.) is accessible within a ~20 minute walk of my home. But without a car, access to locales outside typical walking range is severely limited by public transit service frequency and coverage.
The shortest public transit route to my suburban office ~8 miles north? 80 minutes one way, including 30 walking minutes, half of which do not include any paved sidewalks. There are no sane or safe bike routes to this location. It is only a ~15 minute commute by car.
My commute to a typical downtown DC office location (Penn Quarter) by public transit alone? 75 minutes one way, again with 30 of it walking. That can be cut to ~50 minutes (inclusive 10 walking) if I drive to the nearest DC Metro station and take the train in, but then I have to rely on a car anyway, and I might as well just do the whole ~35ish minute drive into the city. Taking a bike to the train station would eliminate any time savings, and require dangerous riding on high-ish speed local roads and crossing a busy highway.
The situation isn't going to change without investing incredible sums in infrastructure (which probably won't yield improvement for close to a decade, realistically) and massive changes in local zoning and development policy to promote dense development near suburban transportation hubs (never going to happen with NIMBY attitudes and warring municipal interests).
I'm just outside of Washington DC (Northern VA, inside the 'beltway') - a locale that ostensibly has some of the best public transit the US has to offer. My neighborhood is highly walkable - any sort of quotidian essential (grocery, pharmacy, doctors, dentists, dining, library, etc.) is accessible within a ~20 minute walk of my home. But without a car, access to locales outside typical walking range is severely limited by public transit service frequency and coverage.
The shortest public transit route to my suburban office ~8 miles north? 80 minutes one way, including 30 walking minutes, half of which do not include any paved sidewalks. There are no sane or safe bike routes to this location. It is only a ~15 minute commute by car.
My commute to a typical downtown DC office location (Penn Quarter) by public transit alone? 75 minutes one way, again with 30 of it walking. That can be cut to ~50 minutes (inclusive 10 walking) if I drive to the nearest DC Metro station and take the train in, but then I have to rely on a car anyway, and I might as well just do the whole ~35ish minute drive into the city. Taking a bike to the train station would eliminate any time savings, and require dangerous riding on high-ish speed local roads and crossing a busy highway.
The situation isn't going to change without investing incredible sums in infrastructure (which probably won't yield improvement for close to a decade, realistically) and massive changes in local zoning and development policy to promote dense development near suburban transportation hubs (never going to happen with NIMBY attitudes and warring municipal interests).
What you're saying really can be summed up in that last paragraph; we've invested a lot into car-centric infrastructure amd it'll take time, effort, and sacrifices in the short-term to build something new.
I don't blame people for driving, when the alternatives suck. We need to push to make those alternatives better. It's a chicken and egg problem.
I don't blame people for driving, when the alternatives suck. We need to push to make those alternatives better. It's a chicken and egg problem.
If EVERYONE that was driving an ICE decided to take your train, you'd be waiting a few weeks to get to work.
Given that in practice, former car commuters don't uniformly decide to all take the train at once, this isn't really a realistic problem. Ramp up service capacity as demand increases. Plenty of global public transit providers have managed to scale to accommodate situations where the vast majority of commuters are in fact using trains (or bus service) as the primary transport to/from work.
Do we even know how much/whether fully electric cars are ecologically better than ICE cars?
The tires are just as bad on electric cars. The humongous batteries are expensive to produce and hard to efficiently recycle. The energy used to charge an electric car still has to be created somehow, which in practice often includes... combustion.
The tires are just as bad on electric cars. The humongous batteries are expensive to produce and hard to efficiently recycle. The energy used to charge an electric car still has to be created somehow, which in practice often includes... combustion.
> Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone.
In many cases it is, because proper incineration leads to chemical degradation of waste to simpler compounds. There are still some ash and flue gases that needs to be properly handled.
In many cases it is, because proper incineration leads to chemical degradation of waste to simpler compounds. There are still some ash and flue gases that needs to be properly handled.
> Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone.
What makes you think anyone who suggests this is a good idea is under the impression that incineration makes things go away?
What makes you think anyone who suggests this is a good idea is under the impression that incineration makes things go away?
> “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries.”
Three incinerators out of...? And why a potential violation of EU regulation would mean that incineration as a hole is bad?
There are plenty of incredibly clean incinerators, with emissions of dioxins and furans so low that you need to accumulate them over multiple days to be able to even detect them sometimes. If you use that recovered energy for heating, you probably avoid emitting other pollutants (even dioxins and furans).
The alternative is landfill disposal of non-inert waste, which is way worse than any kind of incineration, and it is very hard and complex to manage properly. There are plenty of landfill disasters.
Three incinerators out of...? And why a potential violation of EU regulation would mean that incineration as a hole is bad?
There are plenty of incredibly clean incinerators, with emissions of dioxins and furans so low that you need to accumulate them over multiple days to be able to even detect them sometimes. If you use that recovered energy for heating, you probably avoid emitting other pollutants (even dioxins and furans).
The alternative is landfill disposal of non-inert waste, which is way worse than any kind of incineration, and it is very hard and complex to manage properly. There are plenty of landfill disasters.
Your last paragraph is simply false.
Which part is false? "any kind of incineration" could be a broad definition, and I should have specified "any kind of incineration process compliant with modern regulation" maybe. I do not know about regulations in the US, but in EU they are pretty strict, thus incineration of non-inhert waste should be done (look for "Waste prevention and management" on the European Commission website)
EU waste legislation is based on false premises, according to your comment. There have been plenty of disasters related to landfill disposal. Complexity is also there, as a lot of chemistry happens and toxic subproducts can be generated, even if the waste is not toxic in the first place, just because of interactions with the ground. The sheets used to cover the ground are easy to scratch, costly to replace, and accidental damage is often ignored. Monitoring lasts for decades or more, with greenhouse emissions. The stability of the terrain under and over landfill could also change, as there are processes that run for a long time.
I would highly suggest attending a university course on waste management if your country allows you to do that for free and without registration.
EU waste legislation is based on false premises, according to your comment. There have been plenty of disasters related to landfill disposal. Complexity is also there, as a lot of chemistry happens and toxic subproducts can be generated, even if the waste is not toxic in the first place, just because of interactions with the ground. The sheets used to cover the ground are easy to scratch, costly to replace, and accidental damage is often ignored. Monitoring lasts for decades or more, with greenhouse emissions. The stability of the terrain under and over landfill could also change, as there are processes that run for a long time.
I would highly suggest attending a university course on waste management if your country allows you to do that for free and without registration.
The amount of solid waste I generate daily is amazing. Most of it is from single use consumer product packaging. There should be a standardized consumer container to deliver goods, sort of a shipping container for consumers. The consumer container could be cleaned and reused, or the container destroyed and the material recycled, or the material could be biodegradable.
Every kind of packaging should be from some (very clearly visually distinguishable, e.g. with a mandated specific color) single recyclable/compostable material. No more mixed-material packages of (non-biodegradable) plastic film stuck to cardboard. No more one-off specialty plastics for packaging. No more wrapping sheets of plastic around everything. No more Mylar. No more plastic single-piece candy wrappers. No more loads of plastic tape everywhere. A lot more cardboard / waxed paper food packaging. Etc. And vendors should pay whatever the full lifecycle of their products/packaging costs.
It should be possible for every consumer to easily clean and sort their waste into a relatively small number of bins, or for a recycling sorting center to easily sort mixed-stream waste into the appropriate homogeneous categories. Everything that can’t be easily sorted should be required to be biodegradable.
It should be possible for every consumer to easily clean and sort their waste into a relatively small number of bins, or for a recycling sorting center to easily sort mixed-stream waste into the appropriate homogeneous categories. Everything that can’t be easily sorted should be required to be biodegradable.
I'm amazed more people don't push this. Germany's bottle laws (weaker now than they once were) was a clear step in the right direction. I'd love to see something similar for everything I consume.
That's a great prompt for some fun industrial design especially for liquids - meeting criteria of being strong, packable, easily cleaned, easy to pour, etc. Fun!
3% of New England ISO's energy resource mix is refuse burning, about the same as wind and more than solar. https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ .
Only .4% is landfill gas.
Only .4% is landfill gas.
According to Eurostat Sweden has one of the highest disposal rates of waste in Europe
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
Can someone explain why how that fits together?
Edit: seems to really depend on what kind of waste you are looking at. Sweden's landfill rate for waste excluding major mineral waste is still 8%: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/t2020_rt110/d...
the 1% target is reached only for waste collected by the municipality: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/municipal-wast...
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
_30-04-2021.png){kind=link}
Can someone explain why how that fits together?
Edit: seems to really depend on what kind of waste you are looking at. Sweden's landfill rate for waste excluding major mineral waste is still 8%: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/t2020_rt110/d...
the 1% target is reached only for waste collected by the municipality: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/municipal-wast...
An alternative to plain incineration is plasma gasification which has some advantages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification
I talked to the local waste trucking company about it and was told that to build a plasma gasification plant would require handling the trash from several New England states to make it economical. Otherwise they wouldn't have enough trash to keep it fed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification
I talked to the local waste trucking company about it and was told that to build a plasma gasification plant would require handling the trash from several New England states to make it economical. Otherwise they wouldn't have enough trash to keep it fed.
Friendly reminder: read the article before commenting.
Can someone please explain to me why putting plastics in well managed landfills isn’t carbon capture? Like if plastics don’t break down for hundreds of years isn’t that carbon capture? And why burning it and producing co2 is environmentally friendly?
I feel like I’m being gaslit
I feel like I’m being gaslit
Despite of not being perfect in handling it, it seems no other country is doing better.
The article does not state what percentage goes to the Eurovision Song Contest
Sweden buys Norway's trash and sometimes Norway buy trash back to burn in central heating systems. Burn baby burn.
I don't think we even have landfills anymore here in Finland
We burn the rest. :)
Halfway down, some controversy is mentioned:
> “Waste-to-energy prevents proper recycling and makes climate change worse.” Vahk is also skeptical about the plants’ safety. “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries.”
And Sweden imports trash to burn, raking in $100m/year in doing so.
I'm not at all against trash incineration, especially if they are capturing the energy, but there a many incentives (financial and feel-good) to paint it one way or another. It's simply a series of tradeoffs that we should be cognizant of.
I'm also not particularly against landfills, which are in a sense merely a form of carbon and pollutant sequestration. Not mentioned in the article is that many landfills also trap that methane gas and then burn it to do more or less the same energy reclamation process, and that this is potentially less energy intensive and less pollutant intensive, since they are not burning plastics etc. It would be nice if they had a comparison.
Tradeoffs everywhere.