GreenYes Archives

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


Re: [greenyes] Incineration vs. landfill


Why are burn or bury the only two options?

Why not use source separation to generate "clean food waste" and
contaminated paper as feedstock for an anaerobic digester to produce biogas
from the organics? The waste solids from the biogas project could become
feedstocks for a class A compost which could be recycled to the community as
a revenue resource?

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604@no.address


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod" <rodmuir@no.address>
To: <greenyes@no.address>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52 AM
Subject: [greenyes] Incineration vs. landfill


I wonder, if we might approach this from another direction.
Presuming that for the near term we need to either burn or bury waste
my question has always been
what are the items in the waste stream you most certainly want to remove
after traditional recycling prior to disposal

My list based on average (?) knowledge.

From landfill
Organics
(While you may capture some gas compost 50 feet underground is of no value.
We must be returning soil to our increasingly depleted farmland)

From incineration
PVC

From both
Batteries (cad. & lead)
Thermostats thermometers (mercury)

Such a list could perhaps be used to prioritize zero waste initiatives

I would welcome further additions
Rod Muir
Waste Diversion Canada







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