Why are green activists against incineration of domestic refuse?

Question

I plan to incinerate my domestic refuse. I will use the heat to pump water to top up my micro hydro scheme and hence generate electricity.
Why are green activists against incineration? If we generate the waste (i agree the volume should be cut) and it goes to landfill it generates methane which is a worse GH gas than C02 and we get nothing back from it.

Answer 1

most domestic refuse that cannot be either composted or recycled does not burn very well. Unless very high temperatures are reached and there is carefull control of the oxygen supply, then, some nasty toxins are released. In particular from plastic film, chipboard etc. Also the ash from these systems will be toxic so cannot be returned to the environment.

for a small domestic system there is a serious danger of poisoning yourself.
The losses in multiple energy exchanges in the system you propose will be very inefficient. most of your extra electric would be used in powering your incinerator system, fans, shredders, control & converyer systems. it is better to use heat directly as space heating.
a small methane generator for your organic waste would be a better, more efficient & healthier option.

The wider economic/social argument against incinerators is that the council is locked into an aggreement (often for 30 years) to supply a large quanity of waste to the incinerator company. As individuals & companies reduce their waste some districts are now having to import waste - there is no incentive to reduce waste & waste generation.

Answer 2

I think they would give you a pass if they heard how you were putting it to work. The green activists are against large scale burning of refuse that just burns. The incinerator at the dump is a problem because all that comes out is smoke and gas. The energy created is not being put to use so there is no redeeming quality to the burn.

Answer 3

The problem is with the emmissions. You've seen what people dump in the garbage. I can only imagine what toxins are released when some of this stuff is burnt. With advances in technology I think this is a viable option but are we willing to spend the money to get there?

My big question is how are you going to generate enough garbage to product any measurable power? That doesn't sound like a good investment at all.

Answer 4

A new report published today by Greenpeace reveals a wide body of evidence demonstrating the negative health impacts of waste incineration. These include cancers, heart disease, birth defects, allergies and breathing problems. Despite these health concerns, new political analysis shows that the Labour Party are the only mainstream party that favours incineration.
Current Government plans identify more than 100 potential new incinerators, despite widespread public opposition and the fact that both Tories and Lib Dems are seeking a moratorium.

The report, called Incineration and Human Health (Acrobat File), is a comprehensive review of all available scientific data on the impacts of incineration on human health and the effects of specific chemicals discharged from incinerators.

Greenpeace toxics campaigner Mark Strutt said
"This review makes it clear that by any reasonable assessment of the available evidence it is reckless and harmful to continue the incineration of domestic waste. Rather than proposing a massive expansion in the number of incinerators, the Government should be shutting them down as soon as possible."

"Labour are clearly the party of incineration. Their waste policy compromises any attempts to appear green and they will suffer the political consequences of attempting to foist more than 100 incinerators on an unwilling public."

People living near incinerators risk exposure to a range of toxic chemicals by breathing contaminated air or by eating contaminated produce like vegetables, eggs and milk, or by skin contact with contaminated soil. The most notorious by-products of burning rubbish are dioxins, which are formed when substances that contain chlorine like PVC are burnt. Dioxins are highly toxic and accumulate in the food chain. One of the dioxin family has been described as the most toxic chemical known to science.

Numerous studies confirm that a typical incinerator releases a cocktail of toxic chemicals, including dioxins, lead, cadmium, mercury and fine particles, into the atmosphere. However, there has been little follow up investigation into the effects of these poisons on people near incinerators.

by

http://www.dhaarvi.blogspot.com

Answer 5

Boy, you must have a lot of waste!

Do incinerators
(which put HEAT into the atmosphere!!!)
have filters to help reduce toxic emissions?
I don't know...

Answer 6

`cos they cannot think for themselves and can only repeat what their controllers tell them to say, they are a step away from collecting train numbers, they do not give a damn about the enviroment for if they did they would be picketing the embassies of the countries that produce most pollution and that `aint the UK. If they where to study science, they may have a different opinion.