Earth matters

[Montegriffo]

Simply burning plastics is a really bad idea.

... waste-to-energy plants have the potential to emit low levels of toxic pollutants such as dioxins, acid gases, and heavy metals. Modern plants employ sophisticated scrubbers, precipitators, and filters to capture these compounds, but as the World Energy Council cautiously states, in a 2017 report, “These technologies are useful as long as the combustion plants are properly operated and emissions controlled.”

Some experts worry that countries lacking environmental laws, or strict enforcement, may try to save money on emissions controls. And then there’s incineration’s constant production of greenhouse gases. In 2016, U.S. waste incinerators released the equivalent of 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than half of which came from plastics.Another way to convert waste to energy is through gasification, a process that melts plastics at very high temperatures in the near-absence of oxygen (which means toxins like dioxins and furans aren’t formed). The process generates a synthetic gas that’s used to fire turbines. But with natural gas so cheap, gasification plants aren’t competitive.

A more attractive technology right now is pyrolysis, in which plastics are shredded and melted at lower temperatures than gasification and in the presence of even less oxygen. The heat breaks plastic polymers down into smaller hydrocarbons, which can be refined to diesel fuel and even into other petrochemical products—including new plastics. (The Alliance to End Plastic Waste includes pyrolysis companies.)

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/en ... -good-idea

[Speaker to Animals]

This sounds crazy, but I wonder if you could use shredded plastics as a substitute for pottery shards in making terra preta.

[Montegriffo]

This sounds crazy, but I wonder if you could use shredded plastics as a substitute for pottery shards in making terra preta.

No, far too many toxic chemicals. This is why putting plastics into landfill is a bad idea.

...Then again, landfills are hardly a great choice for waste management, either, what with their space-taking, greenhouse gas-generating ways. So in a head-to-head, what is the best option for handling non-recyclable plastics? The answer depends on what kind of burning you’re talking about, Wilburforce.

If you’re referring to burning your own plastics out back, then heavens, get thee to a landfill. Burn barrels and other backyard incineration methods release terrible, toxic smoke packed with dangerous chemicals, and plastics produce some of the worst offenders. Among them: dioxins and furans (hormone-disrupting, cancer-causing substances that build up in water, soil, crops, and our own bodies) and styrene gas (which damages the nervous system). This sort of thing is dangerous not only to you, the burner, but to your neighbors. Much better to sequester your plastics in a landfill — if those are your only two options.

But if you’re referring to large-scale trash incinerators, often called waste-to-energy plants, then the picture gets a lot fuzzier. Such plants torch garbage at very high temperatures, creating steam that is then used to generate electricity and sometimes also heat buildings. They are quite popular in Europe, where they don’t have nearly as much open space to fill with landfills as we do, but they remain rather controversial around these parts.

Proponents of waste-to-energy (let’s think of them as the Fire Planeteers) argue that these facilities are a great idea because, for one, they reduce the staggering volumes of garbage we create. The average American is personally responsible for generating 4.4 pounds of trash every day, but incinerators can turn 2,000 pounds of waste into 300 to 600 pounds of ash. They also say keeping garbage out of landfills prevents the emissions of globe-warming methane and is more efficient than trucking trash to faraway dumps. Plus, plastics generate more energy than other refuse when burned. Their thinking goes: Since we’re throwing most of our plastics away anyway — recycling rates are stuck around 30 percent — why not burn it to recover that energy? Otherwise, we’d probably be burning a virgin fossil fuel for the same power.

Anti-burners (the Earth Planeteer seems like a good fit here), on the other hand, are concerned that incinerators spew the same noxious chemicals we discussed above — dioxins, furans, heavy metals, et al. They still create toxic ash that ends up in landfills, and those high-temp fires emit more carbon than a coal plant. And they distract us from the real solutions, opponents say, which should be recycling and composting, not simply burning. In some places, communities have to supply a certain amount of garbage to a waste-to-energy plant to keep it in the black – which can mean perfectly good recyclables end up diverted to the flames. In other places, incinerators primarily deal with non-recyclables.

Rebuttal time: Fire Planeteers retort that high-tech scrubbing tools keep their chemical emissions well under EPA air quality standards. Earth Planeteers counter that the methane from landfills can be collected as biogas and burned for power, too. Both sides then say the other’s methods aren’t good enough, and meanwhile troubling emissions still leak through. And on it goes.

My take, Wilburforce? There’s no perfect solution to plastic disposal, so what we really should be doing is creating and using less plastic — especially the types that can’t be recycled easily. On an individual basis, this means steps such as buying in bulk, using reusable containers for everything, and shopping secondhand (find more zero-waste tips here). More broadly, we need to urge manufacturers to stop using throwaway plastic packaging — write your favorites and tell them so (see, there’s always something you can do!). I’m hopeful that one day, we’ll reach a point where consumer materials are reused and recycled ad infinitum. Until that day, don’t forget your coffee mug, reusable takeout container, party glasses, menstrual cups … and on it goes.

https://grist.org/living/whats-worse-bu ... -landfill/

[Hastur]

Up here in super environmentally friendly Sweden we burn everything. Often locally in our many cogeneration plants. Turns garbage into power and district heating. It works great.
We burn all the waste that isn’t recycled. All our landfills are gone and we are even importing garbage now.

[Speaker to Animals]

This sounds crazy, but I wonder if you could use shredded plastics as a substitute for pottery shards in making terra preta.

No, far too many toxic chemicals. This is why putting plastics into landfill is a bad idea.

...Then again, landfills are hardly a great choice for waste management, either, what with their space-taking, greenhouse gas-generating ways. So in a head-to-head, what is the best option for handling non-recyclable plastics? The answer depends on what kind of burning you’re talking about, Wilburforce.

If you’re referring to burning your own plastics out back, then heavens, get thee to a landfill. Burn barrels and other backyard incineration methods release terrible, toxic smoke packed with dangerous chemicals, and plastics produce some of the worst offenders. Among them: dioxins and furans (hormone-disrupting, cancer-causing substances that build up in water, soil, crops, and our own bodies) and styrene gas (which damages the nervous system). This sort of thing is dangerous not only to you, the burner, but to your neighbors. Much better to sequester your plastics in a landfill — if those are your only two options.

But if you’re referring to large-scale trash incinerators, often called waste-to-energy plants, then the picture gets a lot fuzzier. Such plants torch garbage at very high temperatures, creating steam that is then used to generate electricity and sometimes also heat buildings. They are quite popular in Europe, where they don’t have nearly as much open space to fill with landfills as we do, but they remain rather controversial around these parts.

Proponents of waste-to-energy (let’s think of them as the Fire Planeteers) argue that these facilities are a great idea because, for one, they reduce the staggering volumes of garbage we create. The average American is personally responsible for generating 4.4 pounds of trash every day, but incinerators can turn 2,000 pounds of waste into 300 to 600 pounds of ash. They also say keeping garbage out of landfills prevents the emissions of globe-warming methane and is more efficient than trucking trash to faraway dumps. Plus, plastics generate more energy than other refuse when burned. Their thinking goes: Since we’re throwing most of our plastics away anyway — recycling rates are stuck around 30 percent — why not burn it to recover that energy? Otherwise, we’d probably be burning a virgin fossil fuel for the same power.

Anti-burners (the Earth Planeteer seems like a good fit here), on the other hand, are concerned that incinerators spew the same noxious chemicals we discussed above — dioxins, furans, heavy metals, et al. They still create toxic ash that ends up in landfills, and those high-temp fires emit more carbon than a coal plant. And they distract us from the real solutions, opponents say, which should be recycling and composting, not simply burning. In some places, communities have to supply a certain amount of garbage to a waste-to-energy plant to keep it in the black – which can mean perfectly good recyclables end up diverted to the flames. In other places, incinerators primarily deal with non-recyclables.

Rebuttal time: Fire Planeteers retort that high-tech scrubbing tools keep their chemical emissions well under EPA air quality standards. Earth Planeteers counter that the methane from landfills can be collected as biogas and burned for power, too. Both sides then say the other’s methods aren’t good enough, and meanwhile troubling emissions still leak through. And on it goes.

My take, Wilburforce? There’s no perfect solution to plastic disposal, so what we really should be doing is creating and using less plastic — especially the types that can’t be recycled easily. On an individual basis, this means steps such as buying in bulk, using reusable containers for everything, and shopping secondhand (find more zero-waste tips here). More broadly, we need to urge manufacturers to stop using throwaway plastic packaging — write your favorites and tell them so (see, there’s always something you can do!). I’m hopeful that one day, we’ll reach a point where consumer materials are reused and recycled ad infinitum. Until that day, don’t forget your coffee mug, reusable takeout container, party glasses, menstrual cups … and on it goes.

https://grist.org/living/whats-worse-bu ... -landfill/

I did not say I want to burn the plastics. You still need to slow burn wood to create the char. I am talking about the clay pottery component of terra preta that causes it to actually grow as the shards migrate through the natural soil, carrying the fertile soil biome on the surfaces.

[Montegriffo]

Up here in super environmentally friendly Sweden we burn everything. Often locally in our many cogeneration plants. Turns garbage into power and district heating. It works great.
We burn all the waste that isn’t recycled. All our landfills are gone and we are even importing garbage now.

What do you do with the toxic ash which comes from burning plastics and other pollutants?

[Montegriffo]

I did not say I want to burn the plastics. You still need to slow burn wood to create the char. I am talking about the clay pottery component of terra preta that causes it to actually grow as the shards migrate through the natural soil, carrying the fertile soil biome on the surfaces.

Plastics will degrade and release their toxins into the soil.
Short term gain long term loss.
Plastics aren't porous like primitive terracottas either so I'm not sure they would even work.

[Hastur]

Up here in super environmentally friendly Sweden we burn everything. Often locally in our many cogeneration plants. Turns garbage into power and district heating. It works great.
We burn all the waste that isn’t recycled. All our landfills are gone and we are even importing garbage now.

What do you do with the toxic ash which comes from burning plastics and other pollutants?

There are no toxins from burning plastic bags. That is sweet fuel. Other plastics can be a problem. I don’t know. The worst stuff is the fly ash that is separated out from the smoke. That’s where most of the nasty stuff goes. Currently that is shipped to Norway and stored underground in an abandoned mine. There is some concern though that we are missing a lot of valuable metals that could be extracted and reused. We have scientists working on it.
They are also looking at the less dangerous ash that today is dumped in designated places.
A lot of nutrients and metals are trapped there that could be recycled. Even some of the bulk material, mostly lime, could be reused if it was possible to clean it. When they burn biofuel in the works the ash goes to the cement industry. The way we use lime as a one use thing today needs to be looked into.

[Montegriffo]

Concrete releases CO2 into the atmosphere as it cures (for up to a hundred years). That is another material we need to look into alternatives for.
Even the top scientists miss that sometimes. It took a builder to point out to NASA why the CO2 levels in Biosphere 2 were much higher than predicted.

[PartyOf5]

This ''we need to stop using oil'' is, of course, a strawman.
What we need to do is stop burning it.
Same with all the useful products which come from oil. There isn't a problem with making cars full of plastics so long as they are easily recyclable. Single-use plastics are the issue.

I don't burn plastic bags. In fact, I recycle them at Wal-Mart. They take plastic bags back for recycling.

What I don't recycle I use as garbage bags for smaller trash cans and for the dog crap. If I can't use plastic bags I guess I can just pile the crap up in the back corner of the yard and let it decompose there naturally. The neighbors will be so pleased. And don't say to get rid of the dogs. They are necessary as comfort animals to help everyone deal with the nightmare of the world ending in 12 years.

I've seen people who carry the reusable bags to the store. Many of those bags are full of mold inside.