Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Waste to energy might have its place, but incineration has some rather nasty byproducts: carbon and numerous other air pollutants, some highly toxic, but most particularly the ash, components of which require disposal as hazardous/toxic waste.  This is expensive and ultimately a future threat to water supplies.  Beyond that, my experience has been that local authorities are often motivated to reduce costs of monitoring and enforcement.
Burning wood is only minimally efficient, and then only if transport distances are short, I believe.
by Andhakari on Mon Nov 19th, 2018 at 09:44:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Burning waste only looks good in comparison to some alternatives, such as landfill and burning peat in Ireland, which not only produces similar carbon emissions, but destroys natural bog lands as well. Shipping waste all the way to China can hardly be energy efficient as well. So you are looking at the least worst solution, in many cases - other than actually focusing on reducing waste itself.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Nov 19th, 2018 at 09:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series