7 ms·

I dont think its enough to matter, but if it was, some places incinerate trash so its still released as carbon dioxide. Wouldn't it rot in a landfill and end up

I dont think its enough to matter, but if it was, some places incinerate trash so its still released as carbon dioxide. Wouldn't it rot in a landfill and end up as methane or something?

gnramires 6y ago
Good question, I believe it depends on the landfill? Bacteria probably need the right conditions to efficiently break down materials, cellulose is quite tough. Some landfills capture the released methane and burn it (to avoid atmospheric pollution), which seems like a decent solution (even more with power generation). Some of the material will remain undecomposed (or take a really long time) so it is a net carbon sink. I think this depends on properly sealing landfills and arranging extraction infrastructure. Seems like a good resource: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-ga... Another idea would be to curb methane generation or decomposition somehow. Apparently aerobic decomposition reduces or prevents the release of methane: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/composting-avoid-methane-production https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/composting-avoid-... Burning trash directly is also an alternative I guess, though one I'm not very comfortable with due to trace elements contained in everyday items -- surely some mercury and heavy metals will sneak into residues? (and then into the atmosphere and our lungs)
- sthnblllII 6y ago
  Another reason compact fluorescent bulbs were a mistake.
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    There's more mercury released into the environment from incandescent bulbs than CFLs -- or there was, when incandescents were still common and so were coal-fired power plants, and the Obama-era regulation of mercury emissions from power plants hadn't come into force. Now, of course, we have LEDs in place of CFLs, and coal burning power generation is on the way out, so it's all moot.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Is that comparison true on a socket for socket basis? Low adoption of CFL shouldn't excuse any poor pollution characteristics.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    The idea was to get an efficiency law passed and now we have a huge move to LED bulbs as a result. So, no, it wasn't a mistake, the CFLs were a stepping stone.

I dont think its enough to matter, but if it was, some places incinerate trash so its still released as carbon dioxide. Wouldn't it rot in a landfill and end up as methane or something?

gnramires 6y ago

Good question, I believe it depends on the landfill? Bacteria probably need the right conditions to efficiently break down materials, cellulose is quite tough. Some landfills capture the released methane and burn it (to avoid atmospheric pollution), which seems like a decent solution (even more with power generation). Some of the material will remain undecomposed (or take a really long time) so it is a net carbon sink. I think this depends on properly sealing landfills and arranging extraction infrastructure. Seems like a good resource: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-ga... Another idea would be to curb methane generation or decomposition somehow. Apparently aerobic decomposition reduces or prevents the release of methane: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/composting-avoid-methane-production https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/composting-avoid-... Burning trash directly is also an alternative I guess, though one I'm not very comfortable with due to trace elements contained in everyday items -- surely some mercury and heavy metals will sneak into residues? (and then into the atmosphere and our lungs)

sthnblllII 6y ago
Another reason compact fluorescent bulbs were a mistake.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  There's more mercury released into the environment from incandescent bulbs than CFLs -- or there was, when incandescents were still common and so were coal-fired power plants, and the Obama-era regulation of mercury emissions from power plants hadn't come into force. Now, of course, we have LEDs in place of CFLs, and coal burning power generation is on the way out, so it's all moot.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Is that comparison true on a socket for socket basis? Low adoption of CFL shouldn't excuse any poor pollution characteristics.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  The idea was to get an efficiency law passed and now we have a huge move to LED bulbs as a result. So, no, it wasn't a mistake, the CFLs were a stepping stone.