4 ms·

In a world where fossil fuels are still a thing, how does burying it stack up against just burning it as fuel? I get that it's sequestered if it's in a landfil

In a world where fossil fuels are still a thing, how does burying it stack up against just burning it as fuel? I get that it's sequestered if it's in a landfill, but it seems like it might be more efficient to burn the carbon already extracted and turned into plastic than it would be to dig up new stuff and burn that (i.e. you get to leave more of the already-sequestered oil-carbon in the ground rather than digging it up and sequestering the plastic-carbon).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
The scientific consensus is that recycling > burning with energy recovery > well managed landfill > badly managed landfill > open burning. Nations not under the control of fossil fuel groups have been putting this into action for decades. Landfill seems to be the contrarian's choice but this appears to some anti-regulation propaganda after effect. Headlines like "Thing you do to save the planet actually hurts the planet" is like catnip for some people, and they dont ask any awkward questions about who is claiming this and why.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Landfill as an imagined route to sequestration is easily seen through with the right thought experiment. If you incinerate the trash instead of burying it, carbon does indeed get released. If you burned enough coal/naturalgas/oil to produce the same amount of energy produced by incinerating, you would release a comparable amount of carbon. Burying it doesn't sequester anything, if you assume it gets burnt to produce energy. If you burn it, you displace burning fossil fuels. I wish recycling was more realistic, it frustrates me to no end that out of all those cute numbers that indicate you should feel good putting it in the recycling bin, odds are that anything you put in made of 3, 4, 5 (sort of), 6, or 7 is counterproductive. It just contaminates the good stuff. But tangent aside, if you consider the plastics to be fuel it makes absolutely no sense to sequester them instead of burning them to displace fossil fuel use, reduce land use, and also centralize a major pollution source (plastics and such contaminating groundwater near landfills over centuries vs a centralized emissions filter).
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    The fly in the ointment of this idea that it’s better to just burn it for energy is that 40% of US electricity is already carbonfree, ie not coal, oil, or gas, plus burning trash tends to be less efficient than high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plants.
    - neltnerb 5y ago
      I do sure wish it was further along, and agree that it makes more sense to sequester it or convert to syngas for converting it back to useful products with more free energy. It seems like a lot is simple once most electricity has a low marginal cost (environmentally, of course they'd usually negotiate feed-in tariffs or other guaranteed long term pricing that accounts for the capital costs of construction).
jacknews 5y ago
As I understand, I may be wrong, burning it releases the carbon to the atmosphere, but also releases some noxious chemicals unless burned at high temperatures, which often requires energy input. And any ash that's left can be problematic too. Also I believe landfills will be future mines. I wonder if it's possible though to turn garbage to charcoal, to sequester the carbon in a more stable form, and at the same time burn the 'wood-gas' for energy. Like bio-char, garbage-char.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

The scientific consensus is that recycling > burning with energy recovery > well managed landfill > badly managed landfill > open burning. Nations not under the control of fossil fuel groups have been putting this into action for decades. Landfill seems to be the contrarian's choice but this appears to some anti-regulation propaganda after effect. Headlines like "Thing you do to save the planet actually hurts the planet" is like catnip for some people, and they dont ask any awkward questions about who is claiming this and why.

neltnerb 5y ago
Landfill as an imagined route to sequestration is easily seen through with the right thought experiment. If you incinerate the trash instead of burying it, carbon does indeed get released. If you burned enough coal/naturalgas/oil to produce the same amount of energy produced by incinerating, you would release a comparable amount of carbon. Burying it doesn't sequester anything, if you assume it gets burnt to produce energy. If you burn it, you displace burning fossil fuels. I wish recycling was more realistic, it frustrates me to no end that out of all those cute numbers that indicate you should feel good putting it in the recycling bin, odds are that anything you put in made of 3, 4, 5 (sort of), 6, or 7 is counterproductive. It just contaminates the good stuff. But tangent aside, if you consider the plastics to be fuel it makes absolutely no sense to sequester them instead of burning them to displace fossil fuel use, reduce land use, and also centralize a major pollution source (plastics and such contaminating groundwater near landfills over centuries vs a centralized emissions filter).
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  The fly in the ointment of this idea that it’s better to just burn it for energy is that 40% of US electricity is already carbonfree, ie not coal, oil, or gas, plus burning trash tends to be less efficient than high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plants.
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    I do sure wish it was further along, and agree that it makes more sense to sequester it or convert to syngas for converting it back to useful products with more free energy. It seems like a lot is simple once most electricity has a low marginal cost (environmentally, of course they'd usually negotiate feed-in tariffs or other guaranteed long term pricing that accounts for the capital costs of construction).

jacknews 5y ago

As I understand, I may be wrong, burning it releases the carbon to the atmosphere, but also releases some noxious chemicals unless burned at high temperatures, which often requires energy input. And any ash that's left can be problematic too. Also I believe landfills will be future mines. I wonder if it's possible though to turn garbage to charcoal, to sequester the carbon in a more stable form, and at the same time burn the 'wood-gas' for energy. Like bio-char, garbage-char.