4 ms·
There's a (relatively) much more sustainable solution right in front of us, commonly used in Europe, that nobody even considers in America because it costs more
by reverius42 2mo ago
There's a (relatively) much more sustainable solution right in front of us, commonly used in Europe, that nobody even considers in America because it costs more: burn it at a much higher temperature with specialized equipment (ensuring that combustion byproducts are themselves burned as well), use the resulting power for the grid, and compact the resulting ash in a well-managed landfill (which fills much, much more slowly vs. just throwing in garbage).
- gibbitz 2mo agoAlso the ash doesn't catch fire underground
- rangestransform 2mo agoModern incinerators still get a bad rap even compared to landfill
- squigz 2mo agoCan you link to any information about this process? I would think there's always some byproducts, other than just ash?
- maxerickson 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy_plant
- reverius42 2mo agoFrom Wikipedia: "Waste-to-energy plants cause less air pollution than coal plants, but more than natural gas plants." That sounds, uh, pretty good considering the input is garbage! GIGO doesn't apply when it comes to power generation, apparently.
- asdff 2mo agoThis is clean burning? No outputs beyond h2o and heat to atmosphere?
- Windchaser 2mo agoWell, we'd still expect CO2. (Do the SO2 and NO2 get scrubbed? And - what else?) Edit: read the wikipedia link someone gave below. Yes, SO2 and NO2 and particulates are scrubbed. Older incinerators released a fair amount of dioxins, but this is reportedly improved in newer models.
- Melatonic 2mo agoDidn't they discover that a lot of forever chemicals make it past that ? Besides that downside though it does sound fairly ideal