4 ms·

Does anyone have an idea what the impact of burning the trash has on the air pollution?

by Bjoern 14y ago

whatshisface 14y ago
Burning trash releases (among other things) dioxins. They are thought to cause cancer, according to the EPA. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/nceaQFind.cfm?keyword=Dioxin http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/nceaQFind.cfm?keyword=Dioxin However, I am sure clever filtering could solve the problem. (Credit where credit is due: A banned user posted a link to a UK guardian article about air pollution due to garbage incineration, giving me a good place to start my research.)
- jws 14y ago
  Dioxins are created by burning trash at low temperatures, e.g. in a personal burn barrel. At high temperatures dioxins are destroyed. Please don't scare the Swedes.
  - jonke 14y ago
    At high temperatures above 1000 degrees C, dioxin decomposes and the incinerators here are constructed for that. Offical numbers: "The total emissions of dioxins to air in Sweden in 2008 was about 38 grams of TCDD equivalents." Of that 5g is supposed to be from wasteburning. (That number is disputed by greenpeace who claims that to be 114g)
- jonke 14y ago
  This facility is located in the town where I live: http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Search/Plant-page/?pid=1279 http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Search/Plant-p...
exolxe 14y ago
In theory all that's emitted is carbon dioxide and water after filter and wet-cleaning stages. I'm sure it's not perfect, though it's lightyears better than most comparables, especially considering the reduction in environmental impact from landfills . Here's a pdf on the process: http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_eng.pdf http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_en...
- jlgreco 14y ago
  It's also worth noting that since they primarily burn organic matter (plastics and metals get recycled in other ways), the CO2 that is released into the air is CO2 that was taken out of the air only a few years earlier. (Instead of, say, a few million years ago, as is the case with petroleum products)
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    @throwawayjoke No, this is not an example of a sunken costs fallacy. This is not "in for the penny, in for the pound" sort of logic. Consider that the alternative is letting the organic waste rot, and in the process, release C02 and methane. What they are doing here is removing CO2 temporarily from the atmosphere with solar power, then releasing the CO2 to produce heat which they then convert to electricity. It's solar power, they just use photosynthesis and the general population gets some use out of the middle step. The reason this is not a good idea to do with CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere millenia ago is that 1) we don't want that much CO2 back in the atmosphere, and 2) we don't want that much CO2 back in the atmosphere that fast. Doing it in the short term, unlike in the long term, is not creating "unplanned" conditions.
  - throwajoke 14y ago
    isn't this just the sunk-costs fallacy? Notice how it seems to be an argument, but you're just anchoring to burning things from "a few years ago" is better than from "a few million years ago." In fact the net effect is the same. If you have a house and a tornado rips off an extension, the effect is the same as if the tornado rips off a much older extension - it just doesn't feel like it.
jonke 14y ago
For those interested http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Emissions-to-Air/ http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Emissions-to-A... (Sweden) http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri10/nationalanalysis/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri10/nationalanalysis/index.... (USA)

Does anyone have an idea what the impact of burning the trash has on the air pollution?

by Bjoern 14y ago

Does anyone have an idea what the impact of burning the trash has on the air pollution?

Burning trash releases (among other things) dioxins. They are thought to cause cancer, according to the EPA. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/nceaQFind.cfm?keyword=Dioxin http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/nceaQFind.cfm?keyword=Dioxin However, I am sure clever filtering could solve the problem. (Credit where credit is due: A banned user posted a link to a UK guardian article about air pollution due to garbage incineration, giving me a good place to start my research.)

jws 14y ago
Dioxins are created by burning trash at low temperatures, e.g. in a personal burn barrel. At high temperatures dioxins are destroyed. Please don't scare the Swedes.
- jonke 14y ago
  At high temperatures above 1000 degrees C, dioxin decomposes and the incinerators here are constructed for that. Offical numbers: "The total emissions of dioxins to air in Sweden in 2008 was about 38 grams of TCDD equivalents." Of that 5g is supposed to be from wasteburning. (That number is disputed by greenpeace who claims that to be 114g)
jonke 14y ago
This facility is located in the town where I live: http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Search/Plant-page/?pid=1279 http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Search/Plant-p...

exolxe 14y ago

In theory all that's emitted is carbon dioxide and water after filter and wet-cleaning stages. I'm sure it's not perfect, though it's lightyears better than most comparables, especially considering the reduction in environmental impact from landfills . Here's a pdf on the process: http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_eng.pdf http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_en...

jlgreco 14y ago
It's also worth noting that since they primarily burn organic matter (plastics and metals get recycled in other ways), the CO2 that is released into the air is CO2 that was taken out of the air only a few years earlier. (Instead of, say, a few million years ago, as is the case with petroleum products)
- jlgreco 14y ago
  @throwawayjoke No, this is not an example of a sunken costs fallacy. This is not "in for the penny, in for the pound" sort of logic. Consider that the alternative is letting the organic waste rot, and in the process, release C02 and methane. What they are doing here is removing CO2 temporarily from the atmosphere with solar power, then releasing the CO2 to produce heat which they then convert to electricity. It's solar power, they just use photosynthesis and the general population gets some use out of the middle step. The reason this is not a good idea to do with CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere millenia ago is that 1) we don't want that much CO2 back in the atmosphere, and 2) we don't want that much CO2 back in the atmosphere that fast. Doing it in the short term, unlike in the long term, is not creating "unplanned" conditions.
- throwajoke 14y ago
  isn't this just the sunk-costs fallacy? Notice how it seems to be an argument, but you're just anchoring to burning things from "a few years ago" is better than from "a few million years ago." In fact the net effect is the same. If you have a house and a tornado rips off an extension, the effect is the same as if the tornado rips off a much older extension - it just doesn't feel like it.

jonke 14y ago

For those interested http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Emissions-to-Air/ http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/en/Emissions-to-A... (Sweden) http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri10/nationalanalysis/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri10/nationalanalysis/index.... (USA)