5 ms·
> It’s being trucked to a cement plant northeast of Salt Lake City that burns it for fuel. That seems way worse than putting it in a landfill?
by saddlerustle 5y ago
> It’s being trucked to a cement plant northeast of Salt Lake City that burns it for fuel.
That seems way worse than putting it in a landfill?
- ashtonkem 5y agoOn which metric? For global warming it’s worse, but it’s probably better in terms of water and soil pollution.
- saddlerustle 5y agoThe water and soil pollution from a landfill is predominantly caused by biodegradable waste. Hard plastics aren't a big contributor because they're stable for a hundred years.
- TheRealPomax 5y ago"This is future humanity's problem, if there ever is one" is not a great argument though. Eventually it destabilized, and 400 years from now all the plastic we've put in the grounds in the last few decades will "suddenly" all create a whole new problem.
- saddlerustle 5y agoYes, but climate change is definitely going to cause problems in far less than 400 years, and landfill soil pollution is highly regional problem, not a global problem.
- zug_zug 5y agoWell, I'd presume it's releasing a lot of chemicals into the air. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/21/bpa-exposure-hormone-disrupting-fda-missouri-study-bisphenol-endocrine https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/21/bpa-exp...
- Spooky23 5y agoCement is a cornucopia of nasty stuff anyway.
- ashtonkem 5y agoIt also releases CO2 at roughly a 1:1 ratio too. One ton of cement is roughly one ton of CO2.
- ashtonkem 5y agoI skimmed, but I don’t see anything in that article about burning. Given that BPA begins to decompose at a measly 227C, I doubt a lot of it would escape a proper incinerator.
- ju-st 5y agoIt's better for global warming when the plastic is replacing oil/gas in the cement plant.
- Forge36 5y agoIs burning the waste to CO2 worse than the methane from decay in a landfill?
- saddlerustle 5y agoPlastics don't decay into methane in significant quantities.
- toast0 5y agoBurning waste for fuel is generally a good thing, if done with reasonable emissions controls. Less waste to store in a landfill. Less new fossil fuel extracted to run the cement plant. Less fuel used to transport the fuel.
- saddlerustle 5y agoIt makes no difference to the atmosphere whether you're burning oil or plastics made out of oil. It's better to not burn oil at all!
- escape_goat 5y agoThis is a somewhat blinkered perspective. It's true in a sense, but the emissions can be offset by not burning some oil that's in the ground not causing any problems. In the meantime, it is an optimal way of getting rid of huge categories of toxic or otherwise intransigent waste that will have harmful effects if they are not removed from the biosphere.
- saddlerustle 5y agoBut carbon in the atmosphere has a much worse effect on the biosphere than plastics in a landfill.
- escape_goat 5y agoThis is a false assertion. There is always carbon in the atmosphere and there should always be carbon in the atmosphere. The only thing that has a negative impact is when the total amount of carbon is excessive. "Plastics in a landfill" are poorly and temporarily sequestered and are a potential source of future groundwater contamination.
- saddlerustle 5y agoIt’s very well established that the current amount of carbon is the atmosphere is excessive.
- thrower123 5y agoWith modern emissions controls in an incinerator, you take a tractor trailer load of waste and turn it into a coffee can of ash that needs to go in the landfill. And you get a megawatt/hour of electricity out.
- saddlerustle 5y agoA landfill is a far more sensible place for the waste to end up than the atmosphere.
- crisdux 5y agoNot necessarily. In countries like Japan and Sweden, they claim that their waste to energy (trash burning) operations reduce greenhouse gases when all factors are considered. So much so that Sweden imports trash to burn. Landfills arent the best place either. For example, organic waste decomposing in landfills produces methane gas, which is way more potent than carbon dioxide. There is an argument to be made that burning organic waste is better than burying it. Trash incinerations are too controversial in the US to expand much. I think because of a ill-informed public.
- saddlerustle 5y agoVolatile organic waste yes, but most plastic waste doesn't decay into methane in significant quantities.
- crisdux 5y agoBut still, America has a large untapped opportunity to curb greenhouse gas emissions through more use of trash burning power plants. What's required is the right controls, technology and public education. That included mixed trash with plastics. Our efforts to reduce emissions need to be multi pronged.