4 ms·

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 mos

by 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.

by exolxe 14y ago

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.