You’d have a lot less to bury if you burned it first, right?
In: 23
Looking at the prior answers, they are all based on a US model. Here in Europe, they have been doing it since the 1970s. Even back then, the refuge was pre-sorted before being burned to remove toxic waste that can harm the environment. Filters were heavily researched from the 1950s for the Nuclear power industry. The innovations from that industry were taken for the fledgling incinerator building in later decades. The filters catch emissions from the incineration process, burning only the items that cannot be recycled or will not be turned into compost. The rules to prevent pollution are strict and covered by EU law, Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC.
If I use the example of my home city in Coventry, UK. It built its incinerator in the 1970s, and during its construction, pipelines were laid to the schools, hospitals, factories and council buildings in the city centre. These pipelines take heat to provide a source of free heating in the winter. In the 1990s, they retrofitted the burners into boilers and included water heating, power generation and water purification plant for the local river. The waste, once burnt, provides five different forms of energy recovery to maximise the benefit from it. Before incineration, the items are sorted by machine and then by hand to ensure all waste is thoroughly upcycled, recycled and toxic elements removed for treatment. The side processes are;
1. Area heating.
2. Electricity generation.
3. Water purification of the river that passes the plant.
4. Water heating for the city’s municipal swimming pools.
5. Ash (once all toxins are removed) for farmers to spread on their fields as part of the fertilisation process.
It only takes the will and foresight (plus money) to turn something highly wasteful to be ‘buried’ rather than finding forms to recover the energy in the product.
Latest Answers