[greenyes] Fw: [greenyes] Incineration vs. landfill

["Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604@no.address>]

 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
>