3 ms·

Aren’t they just releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere?

by EGreg 5y ago

frafra 5y ago
Not if they are built and operated correctly.
- coffeecat 5y ago
  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.
  - ars 5y ago
    Fluorocarbons are extremely rare in household trash.
    - coffeecat 5y ago
      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.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - frafra 5y ago
    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"
alkonaut 5y ago
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.
socialdemocrat 5y ago
Not at high temperature incineration with proper filters. Quite the contrary you get rid of a lot of the bad stuff.

Aren’t they just releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere?

by EGreg 5y ago

Aren’t they just releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere?

frafra 5y ago

Not if they are built and operated correctly.

coffeecat 5y ago
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.
- ars 5y ago
  Fluorocarbons are extremely rare in household trash.
  - coffeecat 5y ago
    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.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- frafra 5y ago
  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"

alkonaut 5y ago

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.

socialdemocrat 5y ago

Not at high temperature incineration with proper filters. Quite the contrary you get rid of a lot of the bad stuff.