Leslie,
Your response is sure to fire up an interesting debate now ! You are
obviousely implying here that the technologies you mention would
qualify as zero waste initiatives. That's an important question that
the zero waste community is going to need to answer, and soon. I know
that in California they are discussing "conversion" technologies in a
serious manner, and our venerable friend Gary Liss is officially
engaged in those discussions on behalf of the GRRN. I'm sure that
Gary has his opinions, but I'm also sure he would like to hear from
the folks on this list whether or not they agree with Leslie's
suggestion here?
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Nowinski <lnowinski@no.address>
To: Eric Lombardi <eric@no.address>
Cc: greenyes@no.address <greenyes@no.address>
Date: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [greenyes] What would a $400 million Zero Waste Plan look
like?
New technologies such as Plasma waste conversion, Gasification and
Thermal Depolymerization that use MSW to create electricity or oil
without creating pollution are something to consider. A company like
Startech is a good place to start...
www.startech.net
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 05:31 PM, Eric Lombardi wrote:
Greetings GreenYessers,
This proposed Broga incinerator has a $400 million price tag to handle
1,500 TPD. What would the 1.500 TPD Zero Waste Plan look like, and how
much would it cost? Until we can answer that question, we haven't
lived up to our potential. If anyone has the answer, there are some
folks in Malaysia that would like to talk to you...and so would I. And
let's be careful not to fall into that familiar old trap of creating
only end-of-pipe solutions ... that's not Zero Waste, that's just
Maximum Recovery.
Eric Lombardi
Eco-Cycle
(Source: MalaysiaKini)
"Malaysians not gullible customers of incineration salesmen "
Dr Spin
6:35pm Mon Aug 25th, 2003
Now that the release of the Broga environmental impact assessment
report has been delayed until October, there is an opportunity for
those who have not researched the subject of incinerator feasibility
and safety to now do so.
No one would expect every Malaysian resident or voter to check the
international experience regarding incinerators, but those who make
decisions and present cases for and against the project should surely
do so.
In one developed country after another, the findings have been the
same - incineration of municipal waste is neither economically
feasible nor safe.
The claimed benefits and safeguards cannot be proven while sensible
analysis of issues such as toxic waste streams, site suitability and
community risk versus benefits suggests that there are better and
safer options. Waste reduction including zero waste strategies and
recycling are not only options but essential measures for the future.
In Australia, after years of attempting to develop the SWERF
incinerator technology (Solid Waste to Energy Recycling Facility), the
project was scrapped as being uneconomical as well as socially and
environmentally unacceptable.
The Broga site is particularly unsuitable for an incinerator as it is
in valley among beautiful hills, forest and water catchment areas and
close to a township which is a showpiece of good environmental care by
residents.
No site is really suitable for an incinerator. However, the fact that
the authorities did not select a truly remote and well-ventilated site
- but rather the Broga site which sits too close to human development
and where the massive quantities of water vapour and waste emissions
will not readily disperse - indicates a grave lack of understanding.
Malaysian do care for the well-being of themselves and their children.
They do not want to be seen a third-world, ignorant and gullible
customer of ruthless and irresponsible big business.
If Malaysians use the next two months to voice their concerns, the
government may realise that it is not only the future of residents
that is at stake - but also that of the government and the reputation
of Malaysia.