4 ms·

Japan incinerates essentially all of their trash, and it's not a polluted hellscape.

by kleton 3y ago

Obscurity4340 3y ago
So why aren't we doing that? Like what's the rub? And it better not be BigRecycling or imma lose my mind right now (you know what I mean) :/
- kleton 3y ago
  Long ago, they tried burning trash in other countries and it was just basically an open burn pit, so incineration is a political no-go. Even though now it's possible to attain essentially complete oxidation and no nox/sox/ash in flue gas.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    You're telling me that a/the solution is to do exactly what all the "burn baby burn" people are sort of saying in some sense?
    - orangepurple 3y ago
      The solution is to burn everything and aggressively scrub the exhaust
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Dingdingding! So how do we make it happen? Is there anyone with "eco"-credibillity who is saying exactly this?
wahnfrieden 3y ago
>Nevertheless, every incinerator produces excess GHG emissions and therefore every state’s GHG emissions intensity is higher than it would be without incinerators. These results are consistent with those of Tabata [83], who analyzed 727 power-producing incinerators in Japan and found that only five did not produce excess fossil CO2 emissions.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Ya but do they quantify the corresponding emissions created in the aggregate by our alternative efforts to deal with waste disposal and if that is the case, is it still clear that "our" way is superior to "Japan"'s way with respect to: 1) GHG emissions 2) palpable and visible environmental pollution/damage 3) cost 4) reliabillity (labour/cost/lack of long-term potentiation of any existing or novel variable that is reasonably foreseeable based on existing knowledge as informed by current data
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Like, by you saying what you're saying and if Japan indeed operates in their way, than there's a contradition to the effect that Japan's really being hurt more than helped by it and its one of those "dolphin" areas for them
- rafaelmn 3y ago
  We're still burning coal and gas for power - burning thrash is win/win in that regard. Problem with incinerators is nobody wants one in their backyard, despite safety claims.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Is that like legit the rub that I'm talking about? Imma be so fucking pissed if this is ultimately all-rooted in freakin NIMBYers and Boomer Entitlement in general bullshit
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Also, I feel as if the world hears they can burn their garbage so thats one less thing to worry about going forward, makes the world and hopefully everyone in it a little more receptive to the idea of everybody pooling our funding (to replace other garbage garbage programs in place) and start where emissions are worst and burn baby burn however it can be done properly. Its insane we're not already doing this if all the other stuff is more likely than not true.

Japan incinerates essentially all of their trash, and it's not a polluted hellscape.

by kleton 3y ago

Japan incinerates essentially all of their trash, and it's not a polluted hellscape.

So why aren't we doing that? Like what's the rub? And it better not be BigRecycling or imma lose my mind right now (you know what I mean) :/

kleton 3y ago
Long ago, they tried burning trash in other countries and it was just basically an open burn pit, so incineration is a political no-go. Even though now it's possible to attain essentially complete oxidation and no nox/sox/ash in flue gas.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  You're telling me that a/the solution is to do exactly what all the "burn baby burn" people are sort of saying in some sense?
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    The solution is to burn everything and aggressively scrub the exhaust
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Dingdingding! So how do we make it happen? Is there anyone with "eco"-credibillity who is saying exactly this?

wahnfrieden 3y ago

>Nevertheless, every incinerator produces excess GHG emissions and therefore every state’s GHG emissions intensity is higher than it would be without incinerators. These results are consistent with those of Tabata [83], who analyzed 727 power-producing incinerators in Japan and found that only five did not produce excess fossil CO2 emissions.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
Ya but do they quantify the corresponding emissions created in the aggregate by our alternative efforts to deal with waste disposal and if that is the case, is it still clear that "our" way is superior to "Japan"'s way with respect to: 1) GHG emissions 2) palpable and visible environmental pollution/damage 3) cost 4) reliabillity (labour/cost/lack of long-term potentiation of any existing or novel variable that is reasonably foreseeable based on existing knowledge as informed by current data
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Like, by you saying what you're saying and if Japan indeed operates in their way, than there's a contradition to the effect that Japan's really being hurt more than helped by it and its one of those "dolphin" areas for them
rafaelmn 3y ago
We're still burning coal and gas for power - burning thrash is win/win in that regard. Problem with incinerators is nobody wants one in their backyard, despite safety claims.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Is that like legit the rub that I'm talking about? Imma be so fucking pissed if this is ultimately all-rooted in freakin NIMBYers and Boomer Entitlement in general bullshit
Obscurity4340 3y ago
Also, I feel as if the world hears they can burn their garbage so thats one less thing to worry about going forward, makes the world and hopefully everyone in it a little more receptive to the idea of everybody pooling our funding (to replace other garbage garbage programs in place) and start where emissions are worst and burn baby burn however it can be done properly. Its insane we're not already doing this if all the other stuff is more likely than not true.