GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


Re: [greenyes] Re: Changing World Technologies


Date sent: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:09:42 -0500
From: Alan Muller <amuller@no.address>
Subject: Re: [greenyes] Re: Changing World Technologies
To: JRay3@no.address, greenyes@no.address

Dear all,

I am writing from Kerala India where we are running a programme called the Zero
Waste Kovalam. (www.zerowastekovalam.org)

While we are talking about confusing on combustion, lets not forget that no body is
blaming combustion. Its only burning the wrong stuff that is being blamed, and most of
our materials that are used and thrown out as waste are on the wrong side.

In our programme, we fought down an incinerator which was to burn tons of waste left
off by the tourist who visit this beautiful beach. And instead embarked on the Zero
waste. And in the first stage when we implemented a biogas (anaerobic digestor ) plant
and a Resource Recovery facility for the non-biodegrdagabe waste, we recovered
something like 2000 dollars worth of fuel gas and another 50 dollars worth of recovered
material in an year from a small institition alone, which generates some 400 kg of
garbage per day. So, what would all this translate to for tons of garbage that are
recklessely being burnt in incinerators ( or called by any other fancy names ) and
wasted.

And incinerators are surely not at all the best way to get back fuel, and not worth it on
the ground, whatever it be on the papers that these companies give out.

sridhar


At 05:42 PM 3/11/2004 -0500, JRay3@no.address wrote:
>Alan and others,
>
>I was trying to point out how mindfully.org was confusing the issue by
>equating depolymerization with incineration. I know the differences very
>well.
>Several organizations have in my view been confusing the issue by making
>sweeping generalities about waste combustion in any form, such as
>www.mindfully.org and GAIA at www.no-burn.org
>Combustion will provide the great majority of our power for the forseeable
>future, so we should advocate for the least harmful methods of combustion
>available.

I don't have a lot of energy for debating this, but I looked around the
mindfully.org site for a few minutes. That site has articles on both
sides of the issue, including one in which a gullible reporter calls
garbage incinerators "transformation
stations."
(http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Incinerator-Waste-to-Energy5may03.htm).

As I, Bob Krasowski and others keep pointing out, the incinerator people
are always coming up with new terminology for the same nasty old stuff.

Also note that the EPA has apparently given ten million $ in grants for the
CWT turkey whatever-it-is and other such projects.

Green Delaware has never taken the position that there should never be any
burner of any kind anywhere on earth. And we try to be reasonably
open-minded. But garbage burner proposals never stand up to
scrutiny. If one has a very uniform, well-characterized waste stream it
might be possible to burn it very carefully. But in that case there are
always better things to do with it. The question here seems to be whether
CWT is really offering a "better thing" or whether they are just offering
some sort of combustion system.

We certainly disagree with this:

>"Combustion will provide the great majority of our power for the forseeable
>future, so we should advocate for the least harmful methods of combustion
>available."

This is a bit like saying that since the death penalty is here to stay, we
should all advocate for the most humane methods of execution.

Alan Muller






[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]