7 ms·
Complicated solution for a "simple" problem. It will probably not work. Why not build more garbage incinerators instead? Proven, readily available technology,
by fancythat 4y ago
Complicated solution for a "simple" problem. It will probably not work.
Why not build more garbage incinerators instead? Proven, readily available technology, that can solve immediate danger of not having enough gas for heating.
Unfortunately, EU is biased against it (https://zerowasteeurope.eu/press-release/european-parliament-steps-forward-to-stop-burning-eu-funds/ https://zerowasteeurope.eu/press-release/european-parliament...), maybe it is time to change that stance.
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoBurning garbage in a furnace is an obsolete technology with serious GHG emissions. The page you yourself link has a case study in Madeira island where garbage burning uses up 20% of funds for waste management but only deals with 1.4% of waste. With cheap and easy to roll out Solar and Wind these furnaces are an evolutionary dead end in energy policy.
- fancythat 4y agoSolar and wind are great technologies that need impractical and eco-unfriendly batteries to become long term solutions. That doesn't mean that garbage burning cannot be augmented by wind and solar where there is opportunity for this. The argument for waste burning is quite simple: you are left without gas and you substitute what you don't have with what you have, in this case garbage. That doesn't automatically exclude other alternatives, but rather together with them, makes them more viable.
- yakak 4y agoUm, the article I went to from the OPs links complains that the incinerator has too much capacity and uses nearly all available garbage on Madeira, so Madeira is missing recycling targets. Electricity being more valuable would imply even better economics.