31–40 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a tropical country, India does not need much of indoor heating. Fine option for heating water.
India needs electricity though, and this can be used to generate electricity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would really depend on what is being burnt. If it is primarily food waste, paper products, natural fibers, wood, etc.. then yeah; all of that carbon was already "in the system". If they are burning lots of garbage made from petrochemicals then that garbage is basically just another fossil fuel. As I understand it, the real issue with "clean coal" is not the soot but rather the CO2. Depending on what this garbage a…
I found a case study about Oslo's waste management strategy: http://www.c40cities.org/c40cities/oslo/city_case_studies/wa... The study emphasizes their focus on composting for food products and recycling everything else, so a minimum of waste needs to be incinerated or dumped. Also, Oslo closed their landfill in 2007, and it seems they burn the residual gasses (methane?) for electricity, if not burning all of their o…
Oslo is powering their city by putting black ash into the air, which absorbs heat from sunlight, slightly increasing the amount of energy in all of our environmental systems. The place is powered by externalities, just like China. This solution is no better than coal-generated electricity, and this feel-good article is no more useful than clean-coal articles.
But the ash doesn't stick around, does it? Do you have an order-of-magnitude estimate for the heating effects of the ash? I'm guessing it's trivial compared to carbon offset.
Oslo is powering their city by putting black ash into the air, which absorbs heat from sunlight, slightly increasing the amount of energy in all of our environmental systems. The place is powered by externalities, just like China. This solution is no better than coal-generated electricity, and this feel-good article is no more useful than clean-coal articles.
Hmm. I was under the impression that burning garbage is different in that you are burning carbon that is already in play in the carbon cycle system - unlike burning coal, which without human intervention would never be introduced into the environment at such a rapid pace. I could be wrong! I was disappointed by the lack of an explanation, or even links to background on the science of this process. Just a puff/fluff p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. I was under the impression that burning garbage is different in that you are burning carbon that is already in play in the carbon cycle system - unlike burning coal, which without human intervention would never be introduced into the environment at such a rapid pace. I could be wrong! I was disappointed by the lack of an explanation, or even links to background on the science of this process. Just a puff/fluff p…
It would really depend on what is being burnt. If it is primarily food waste, paper products, natural fibers, wood, etc.. then yeah; all of that carbon was already "in the system". If they are burning lots of garbage made from petrochemicals then that garbage is basically just another fossil fuel. As I understand it, the real issue with "clean coal" is not the soot but rather the CO2. Depending on what this garbage a…
That doesn't make it better. We have too much carbon in the atmosphere. We should be growing corn for the sole purpose of pouring it into oil wells and coal shafts.
I suggest expansion into Mumbai... plagued by trash, lacking reliable energy.
But in a developed country with abundant hydroelectric resources, this is shameful. Unless they recover all the waste products, including all the gases and ash, and bury them in old mines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found a case study about Oslo's waste management strategy: http://www.c40cities.org/c40cities/oslo/city_case_studies/wa... The study emphasizes their focus on composting for food products and recycling everything else, so a minimum of waste needs to be incinerated or dumped. Also, Oslo closed their landfill in 2007, and it seems they burn the residual gasses (methane?) for electricity, if not burning all of their o…
Surely burning that methane is "in-system". Methane has a 20-year GWP of 72 and, unless my chemistry is far more rusty than I think it is, 1 mol of methane will burn with oxygen to form 1 mol of CO2. From a global warming standpoint, it would actually be wildly irresponsible to not burn that methane. In fact this seems to be the basis for the EPA's "Landfill Methane Outreach Program".
Oslo is powering their city by putting black ash into the air, which absorbs heat from sunlight, slightly increasing the amount of energy in all of our environmental systems. The place is powered by externalities, just like China. This solution is no better than coal-generated electricity, and this feel-good article is no more useful than clean-coal articles.
But the ash doesn't stick around, does it? Do you have an order-of-magnitude estimate for the heating effects of the ash? I'm guessing it's trivial compared to carbon offset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have noted, you can sort out the worst garbage and install filters, and modern filters are very good. It’s still worse for the air than putting the garbage in landfills, but landfills have their problems too.
It's better than landfill without methane recovery, greenhouse gas wise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As others have noted, you can sort out the worst garbage and install filters, and modern filters are very good. It’s still worse for the air than putting the garbage in landfills, but landfills have their problems too.
It's better than landfill without methane recovery, greenhouse gas wise.