I’ve always wondered this…
is there a reason they don’t burn garbage?
Would it cause too much pollution?
They burn where I live. How much is “too much” pollution? I’m guessing that garbage is a rather ineffecient fuel and causes higher pollution per energy yielded. In Japan they have an airport built on a landfill.
The economics of garbage incineration. See this:
So, why doesn’t every hamlet in America do away with its landfills and build one of these wondrous plants? The plasma gasification industry claims it’s mostly a matter of economics: Burying garbage has long been a lot cheaper than zapping it, even if you factor in the money to be made selling electricity. Landfills charge (PDF) municipalities an average of $35 per ton of trash; according to a recent study in Hamilton, Ont., dropping off a ton of garbage at a plasma gasification plant would run $172 per ton.
What about burning the garbage just to get rid of it? Not neccassarily produce energy.
Simply getting rid of garbage is in high demand. There’s no reason why we have to turn it into energy if its too expensive to do so.
Is it cheaper to just burn it and get rid of it?
The article I linked earlier implies that it’s cheaper to produce energy, since the revenues from energy production offset some of the costs from incinerating the garbage.
I don’t think landfill space is a problem in the first place. Can’t methane gas be extracted from landfills?
“I don’t think landfill space is a problem in the first place. Can’t methane gas be extracted from landfills?”
Doesn’t Al Gore kick anyone’s ass who extracts methane gas?
I invite all of you to read Rubbish: The Archaeology of Garbage. It’s a truly wonderful read. You will find many of the contradictions of landfills. For example, if I recall correctly, diapers and plastics are not as much of a problem as paper. Plastics have decreased in width and increased in durability whereas paper has relatively stayed the same size. I remember something about vegetable peelings (left over’s) being a huge problem accounting for more space then diapers, yet biodegrade somewhat faster. I also remember a statistic that stated that at current garbage rates, a hole a few miles wide and deep could store the amount of trash America produces all the way up to the year 3000 (I may have butchered that quote, but it was something that spectacular).
“I also remember a statistic that stated that at current garbage rates, a hole a few miles wide and deep could store the amount of trash America produces all the way up to the year 3000”
I’ll read the article…but I like how you throw that stat in there nonchalantly…
a few miles deep? thats freakin huge…
I took a class in waste management, and the main point I remember is that a landfill is engineered to work and be safe for the environment while a dump is just that…a dump. Once in a while I’ll hear about citizens protesting a landfill near their town, yet they assume they are putting a dump in their town.
Example of a landfill put to public use: Mt. Trashmore Park in Virginia Beach.
“a few miles deep? thats freakin huge…”
no doubt, but we are talking about a 1000 years henceforth of trash accumulation. Again, i may be misrepresenting the statistic.
I*'ve always wondered this…*
is there a reason they don’t burn garbage?
Would it cause too much pollution?
Yes, there is. It produces particulate matter that can be harmful. Better to put it into an sanitary landfill an extract the methane as it decompses.
They burn where I live. How much is “too much” pollution? I’m guessing that garbage is a rather ineffecient fuel and causes higher pollution per energy yielded. In Japan they have an airport built on a landfill.
I’ve been there (Kansai airport in Osaka). Great airport, great people, potentially great nation.
I don’t think landfill space is a problem in the first place. Can’t methane gas be extracted from landfills?
You’re absolutely right that landfill space is not a problem and methane can and is being extracted from landfills.