Landfills
33 messages in this thread
Don, landfills aren't designed for decomposition, they're made for
containment, compression, and rarely, methane gas generation. Sure, us
gardeners can compost newspaper in the topsoil and it will disappear in a
season, but you can excavate any landfill in the country and read
40-year-old newspapers that might be moist but otherwise readable. Not to
mention intact refrigerators, shoes, etc. that are still there without any
signs of decomposition.
I wish there'd be more cities that turn to private enterprises for garbage
disposal… with a profit incentive, more companies can explore
alternatives like separation, recycling and composting. On the order of 40
percent of trash is entirely compostable in the manner you describe, it
becomes a rich soil amendment with a market value. Not to mention
composting and re-selling shredded lawn waste, tree-trimming waste, etc.
Instead, we have uninformed, unwilling municipal governments who can't see
past the way things were done 40 years ago.
John,
Methane gas generation has caught on down here. There are hmmmmm…two
I think here in Auckland and another land fill furhter south near
Wellington is to be converted to this form of energy generation. I think
that our countries experiment with privatising the major Govt. departments
has driven the Local City Govn't to look to this as a revenue earner and
also a way to cut costs, as the "Federal" Govt. does'nt supply so much
funding to them any more.
The old West Germany has taken a different tack and just made it Law
that ALL packaging and disused goods are returned to the manufacture OR
the store for recycling. This goes right up to your used Merc and BMW's.
Free enterprise is a good system except that business's especially the
big ones seem to get very tunnel visioned about profits and avoiding extra
costs.( I'm not saying that that is wrong, it makes them very good at
doing the main job) I think that we need an extra system in place to
either force them to do the recycling (ala Germany) or wave the profit
sign in front of them. Personally I prefer getting the "recycling" of
rubbish into the economy as a profit making business as there is a raw
material going for peanuts that can be made into another saleable product.
Mother Nature seems to take this approach with a "niche" type of
approach.
Well that's my 10c worth.
Laurie Carroll AKL NZ
Amiga-Via Falnet.APb
John,
Around here…it *costs* to recycle…there's not enough of a
market for "used" materials.
Don
Don,
actually, recycling _can_ be cost effective. The fundamental problem
with current approaches to recycling is that they target only a few niche
items, be it aluminum cans, newsprint, or greenery. If you examine the
actual composition of a standard landfill, utilize techniques pioneered by
the steel mini-mills, and more recently, techniques for the treatment of
hazardous waste utilizing an electron beam, it is quite feasible to recycle
most, if not all, of current waste. The problem, as stated above, is that
no one corporation or agency has gone full bore on attempting to recycle
the whole load.
There is another problem, this time regulatory. Under current
provisions, no material that has been placed in a landfill can ever be used
to contain a food product, no matter how it has been treated. This is why
you will see napkins made of recycled paper at a fast food restaraunt, but
not food containers. This is patently silly, given current sterilization
techniques. If nothing else, you could expose the material to gamma
radiation, much as the industry wishes to do with respect to fruit, and
completly sterialize the material. This, and other similiarly idiotic
regulations, prevent a rational approach to recycling.
Brian Bartlett
Hi,
Not your typical Amiga forum conversation! However, I happen to be in the
landfill business. My family owns and operates a medium sized landfill in
northeastern Ohio.
I don't agree with everything that has been discussed, but the regulatory
comment is spot on, but that is only the tip of the regula-burg. We are
literally being crushed by government regulation. The most frustrating
thing is that while the regulations cost a tremendous amount of money to
comply with – they do little or nothing to improve the environmental safty
of the landfill. All that wasted money (millions!) could have and should
have gone into comprehensive reduce/reuse/recycle/composting systems!
But the entire debate boils down to $money$!!! The majority of people will
do what is cheapest and buring garbage is still the most economical
disposal option available. Few people are willing to pay $100.00-$200.00
per ton for a full scale recycling/composting facility when landfills can
(in this part of the country) still function in the $15.00-$40.00 per ton
range!
Contrary to popular belief – landfill operators are the MOST interested in
keeping unnecessary items out of their facilities. We are concerned about
environmental issues and think that they are important, but this is a
business and unfortunately is largely driven by cost considerations. (no
this doen't mean that we will take illegal items to make a fast buck!)
Landfill space is very expensive to develope ($250,000 on up per acre) and
it just does not make sense to waste that space on anything that does not
absolutely positively have to be buried.
What few people realize is that EVERY process including recycling and
composting generate non-reusable residues; not to mention the tremendous
amount of non-hazardous industrial wastes generated every day. This non
reusable residue will always be with us in some amount and a landfill is
the only solution for its disposal.
The challenge in future years (assuming the recycling/composting ever
reaches it's full potential) will be to concentrate on reducing the amount
on non-reusable residue in our world.
Patrick 72210,1702
The challange is to take non-reusable residues and either [a] convert them
into something useful using anything from chemistry to fusion, when and if
that becomes available, or [b] send them somewhere they will *never* do
harm, for instance a lanfill on the _moon_, again, when economical
propulsion/transportation is available for the task, which I have no doubt
will not be very long from now, say 25 years max.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Ben,
I've often had the same thoughts, but I don't expect to see it in my
lifetime! I'm not sure making a new landfill site on the moon would really
do anything other than postpone the problem for our children to deal with.
How about this – shoot it to the sun! The hardest part is getting out of
the earth's gravity. I really do think that it may be a reasonable
solution for disposal of some of the really nasty things that we should not
keep on the planet.
Patrick
The sun would likely be able to dispose of anything we threw at it. A much
better thought for permanent disposal.
As for our children running into problems with trash on the moon….
somehow I have trouble conceptualizing that. Not to say it can't happen,
but it boggles me. :^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
(just playing devils advocate…)
Uhm… how about this suggestion… if we 'swap' enough mass (and I have
no idea how much is 'enough'), we alter the moon's orbit around the Earth
(if not the Earth's orbit around the Sun (assuming we send the mass off to
the sun, or otherwise don't keep it 'local')).
I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems reasonable that 'slight'
changes in either case may cause relatively severe changes in the
weather/geological systems.
Just something to think about,
Keith
"Look at all these rain-forests… let's cut some down… our children's
children will never miss 'em"
I have always thought that shooting nuclear waste into the sun would be
a good idea if large amounts of waste could be freed from earth's gravity
cheaply. Once in space cheap, throwaway rockets could give it a two second
push and the suns gravity would do the rest. It SEEMED like a good idea
until Challenger exploded.
Leslie,
with the proper safeguards, it's still a usuable notion. In case you
haven't examined the engineering data for the shuttle, they expect one in
fifty (yes, 1 in 50) launches to fail catestrophically. Sadly, that is
more due to the bastardized design of the shuttle than modern rocketry.
If you examine the data for launch failures for rockets, you will also
find a high failure rate. This is mostly due to inexperience on the part
of the launch crews (hey, the shuttle works, mostly) and the age of the
boosters. It was only recently that the firms concerned manufactured new
boosters, which, I believe, are not on the 'firing line' yet.
Do not misjudge the space program or a program for disposing of waste
products into the sun on the basis of current performance by NASA. They
have only recently put their sh*t in one sock. 🙁
Brian Bartlett
The point I'm trying to make is that shooting trash into the sun is no
big deal from a safety point of view. If the rocket/shuttle/whathaveyou
blows up it will rain coffee grounds and egg shells. However, if the same
rocket blows up carrying radioactive waste we are talking REAL problems!
Not necessarily. Put it in a strong box. Even the Challenger astronauts
survived until they hit the water.
I'm not real secure with the fact that the Challenger astronauts
survived until they hit the water when we are talking about transporting
radioactice waste. (For my information, how was that determined?) Imagine
if a rocket explosion were to rip open the cargo area and radioactive
materials rained down on land and water.
Leslie,
You can package nuclear material (or about anything else for that
fact) so that even if the rocket blew up…no nuclear material would get
out. That's no big deal…but it's not real efficient. 5 tons of packing
for 5 grams of material.
Don
That's pretty much my point, Don. I suppose you could armor plate a
cargo area, line it with lead and fill the gaps with some sort of gel to
absorb shock and retard leaks but, A) The cost would be HIGH, B) the
payload would be very heavy which could mean more powerful rockets, which
would mean more shielding, etc., C) You'd need a LOT of flights to put a
dent in the waste we have.
Leslie,
actually, 99% of the waste is less radioactive than your standard brick.
If you don't believe me, go down to a brick bank building with a multiple
type radiation meter. What many people do not realize is that standard
bricks have a 30-50 milli-roentgen field that can easily give them a dose
that exceeds the standards set by NRC.
<grin>
Brian Bartlett
>>..go down to a brick bank building with a multiple type radiation meter.
What!? Harmful radition AND low interest rates?! <g>
Ben,
Suppose we do start using the moon for a landfill. Won't the increase in
the moon's density from all the dumping increase the gravitational
attraction it has on our bodies of water, thus causing possible disasters
like extreme tidal changes. Also can you imagine what a full trashy moon
could do? Crime may double on those nights! Strange things happen to people
during full moons now, I can't even imagine what it would be like when we
refer to a full moon as the amount of trash put there! And sending it into
the sun could be a better solution. But would that cause a smog belt that
would shield the sun's rays from us, thus cooling the earth? Carl Sagan are
you lurking on this thread?
[ I know its a trashy thought – smile]
Chris
The moon? Bah. Go for the sun. 🙂
Steve
Sending refuse to the moon seems a little short sighted considering all the
talks of having a manned moon base in the near future. How about aiming it
at the sun?
-Sean
Brian,
We have several "demonstration" projects going on around here.
Every one of them costs more than traditional trash pickup. That's because
it costs more to pickup (already separated trash) and ship to recyclers
than recyclers will pay for the material.
We have no nearby steel mills, aluminium mills, paper producers,
etc.
Don
Don,
According to COPIRG (a Colordo based non-profit consumer advocacy group)
90% of all recyclable materials currently end up in landfills because
there is no market for them.
-sja
Steve,
I'd agree with those figures. While the stuff may be re-cyclable,
if no one wants to process it, then in effect…it's no longer re-cyclable.
Don
Steve, Hogwash! I can believe 10% but no more. As far as statistics go
you can make them say anything. I would have to look at that study very
carefully before I trusted it. A common thing that happens is that people
improperly prepare what they consider to be recyclibles, but if they are
not properly prepared they are still garbage no matter what the person
thinks. Depending how you count things like this the results can say
whatever you want!
BTW, this is a great thread!! from Garbage to Space dreams all in ONE!
Patrick
Don,
that's part of what I am trying to get across. Do NOT seperate the
materials prior to reaching the processing facility, which would probably
be best set up near the landfill for that 10% of materials that is best
buried. The processing facility would have the requisite machinery, be it
operated by a computer, or just cheap help, to disassemble that which
requires disassembly, and otherwise reduce the trash to small chunks.
Seperate out all the metals and melt them. From there, use various
techniques to refine them, if needed, although there should be some call
for generic metal, content unknown. Due to the high amounts of aluminum
and steel used in most metal objects, you could come up with a seperation
procedure just based upon gravitic seperation.
Heck, from the metals, you may even be able to recover precious metals,
as an added side line. Recovery of Copper would be cost effective as well.
For plastics, use air blasts to seperate out the light stuff and mulch
it for use as filler, recyled bottles, etc.
For fibers, greenery, cellulose, etc., just seperate it, grind it to a
fine powder, reconstruct to something the size of peanuts, and you can use
it for animal feed, packing material, packaging, etc.
As you stated, the current methods suggested for recovery of recyclable
material, by forcing it at the consumer level are ineffective and cost
prohibitive since the methods used do not recover costs, let alone make a
profit for the firm. By switching to a processing station approach, you
would gain the benefits of economy of scale, reduced reliance on the source
properly sorting the material, and perhaps several profitable sidelines.
Just a thought.
Brian Bartlett
Brian,
There is a very limited market for recyclables here in
Colorado…no matter where the material comes from. Aluminium is ok, so
are crushed cars (for the steel) and newspapers. For anything else, you
literaly have to pay them to take it off your hands.
Remember, there are no smelters, no glass makers and very few
plastics manufacturers in Colorado.
Don
Don,
and that's a good part of the problem <smile>.
Brian Bartlett
Don,
At least as of 3 months ago, there was no market for recycled newsprint.
The recyclers were charging folks to take their old newspapers off their
hands because there was such an overstock and no ready market to absorb it
(uh, here in Colorado, that is).
-sja
Steve… and idea!…. send Colorados's old newsprint to Pittsburgh…
they'll eat it up (at least as long as the Pittsburgh Press is out on
strike).
// Michael
\X/ …on AutoPilot
All Right!!! I could not have said it better!!! too bad some of the people
making the decisions (read politicians) would get the facts rather than
jumping to the latest fad ( source separation ) I have argued this point
publicly for years but no one is listening! Believe it or not we had to
fight a political campaign to get a change in zoning to allow for the
building of a large scale separation facility at our landfill and people
said they were for recycling but fought the issue anyway.
patrick
Patrick,
none of what you say is a suprise to me. I do my best to argue that
targeted seperation is best, but what can you do? The eco-freaks want to
involve everyone in the process to "make them aware" of the problem,
whether it makes economic sense, or not.
Brian Bartlett
Yes, there's garbage, and then there's aluminum cans, glass, and
newspapers. Around here, there was a brisk trade in aluminum, with
entrepreneurs reclaiming them from your trash at the curb on trash day; but
then the forward-thinking city of Madison made it illegal, with a $100 fine
for picking recyclables out of trash, and then made it illegal *not* to
recycle, with additional tickets if the trash collectors found recyclables
in your trash, and required everyone to buy certain plastic bags to use for
recyclables. Yes, some cities have created a market for companies who
charge to collect recyclables – and in Madison's case, they caused those
companies to appear, by eliminating the market that existed beforehand.
Now we've got a private company on intravenous to the city's budget, and
the independent companies can survive.