4 ms·

Yeah, burning trash isn't a great answer

• ch4s3 1mo ago
  I'd say it depends. Amager Bakke in Denmark is a combined heat and power plant that burns waste and emits 687 grams of CO2 per kWh vs natural gas at 290 to 930 grams per kwh and coal at 900 to 1,050 grams per kwh. This makes burning trash CO2 competitive with Natural Gas. Using it for district heating probably improves the picture here because resistive electrical heating on a standard grid emits more CO2 than natural gas heat or pumped district heating. It plausible that in cold climates burning trash has significant advantages.
• Flavius 1mo ago
  90% of countries use some kind of fossil fuel to generate electricity or heat, so burning trash instead won't increase the CO2 emissions. The rule is simple: if you already burn fossil fuels, you should burn trash instead.
  • butlike 1mo ago
    I disagree. Burning trash creates an implicit stopgap where the trash burning is better than the fossil fuels, so the process is placated until the trash burning isn't good enough, or its downsides rear their ugly heads. Instead of turning to trash burning as a solution if fossil fuels are already being burnt, a more long-term 3rd solution should be explored while still in the 'unsatisfactory' mindset.
• zejn 1mo ago
  It's not great, but burning trash in controlled incinerator is still much better than burning trash in an uncontrolled underground landfill fire.[1] [1] https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2026-08-06/boiling-point-toxic-disaster-landfill-fire https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2026-08-06/bo...