Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Daniel, plastic bags #2 & #4 are recyclable. The main problem is they will clog and can damage the machinery used in normal waste recycling, so they are not normally accepted in standard curbside recycling programs. They also tend to mix readily with other commodities resulting in reduced value or rejection of some recyclable material contaminated with bits and pieces of torn plastic bags. The other issue is 20-yard receptacle full of plastic bags might only produce a small box of recyclable material when processed for recycling. Unless the buyer is close by, it's economically unfeasible to ship this product to a remanufacture.
On the mainland several communities now require plastic bag recycling from large retailers and supermarkets. You will find big bins in front of the stores for deposit of used plastic bags.
For additional info on the various programs check out plasticbagrecycling.org
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
Burning plastic does not get rid of it -- the form is changed, the toxicity is concentrated, and the toxins stays here. There is no 'away.' Burning plastic creates poisons.
Remember? Matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only moved around and changed in form.
Alternative? Use less. Reuse more. Recycle more.
It is prejudgmental to the extreme to say what would or would not happen with more recycling here.
As for what is possible 'now' -- incineration in Hilo would, at the soonest, be up and burning in 4 to 5 years. Is that now?
Next year -- in one year -- a re-use and recycling program can be operating; and in two years, paying its own way.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 310
Threads: 26
Joined: Feb 2004
I was reading the Cement News Wire and came accross this article on one of our plants in Sugar Creek. I didn't know that they are tapping methane from a landfill.
Latest News
Lafarge Sugar Creek taps industrial byproducts as new fuel source
Source: Lafarge North America
Herndon, Va.-based Lafarge, the largest supplier of cement products in the U.S. and Canada, has officially opened a state-of-the-art alternate solid fuels facility in Sugar Creek, Mo. At a recent dedication event cosponsored by the local chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Environmental Excellence Business Network, government officials, environmental professionals, business leaders, community members, and employees celebrated the company's continued commitment to the environment and to the use of sustainable resources.
Representing a $7 million investment, the 22,000-sq-ft facility is designed to process industrial byproduct materials from manufacturing firms throughout the region into fuel required for production operations at the Sugar Creek plant. Using this alternate solid fuel will not only meet 40 percent of the plant's total energy requirements but also will reduce the plant's reliance on fossil fuels (coal in particular) by 50,000 tons annually, which is equivalent to removing 6,629 passenger cars from the roadways or providing electricity to 3,931 households each year. It also diverts 50,000 tons of locally generated industrial byproduct materials from landfills each year.
"The reuse of materials that would normally be sent to landfills is a positive development for the environment, for the community, and for businesses throughout the region," said Rich Reuter, Sugar Creek plant manager. "Every ton we burn means one less ton of material going to landfills, less coal being mined, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions."
Located near Kansas City, Lafarge's Sugar Creek operation has a strong record of sustainable manufacturing through land stewardship, community outreach, energy efficiency, and innovation. The ISO 14001 certified plant has received the Energy Star Award from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2006 and 2007, one of only six plants in the nation to earn the award.
The new alternate solid fuels program supplements the plant's existing landfill gas program, which has been collecting methane gas from two closed landfills since August 2005. This methane gas currently accounts for 7 percent of fuels, which is approximately 1 ton per hour of solid fuel, replacing about 8,000 metric tons of coal or petroleum coke annually and offsetting more than 10,200 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. With the recent addition of gas from an adjacent active landfill, methane gas could eventually account for about 20 percent of the fuel needed at the plant, replacing about 20,000 metric tons of coal or petroleum coke annually.
Scott
Posts: 990
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2007
Oahu was able to get H power going because of one gutsy mayor named frank fasi! He stood up to the academics and treehuggers who so like to enlighten the natives. Kailua dump was getting closed down and frank had a good alternative with Hpower. Yeah, some emissions will slip through, perfection is impossible, look at uh! But the quantity of effluent is below hazardous levels generally, and the plant isn't shooting to pay big EPA fines. Those who work close to the toxics (pre filter) wear respirator gear and are monitered,ditto while cleaning stack filters. Constant exposure would otherwise be harmful, but the occasional exposure is not harmful. Try visit a recycling center in kapolei desert oahu. Almost no rain and they stink, when it occasionally rains it'd "gag a maggot". A recycling center here wouldn't need direction signs! But i'm sure smell is benign! Actually the best place for both operations would be the NELHA land in Kona, like H-power and reccling here, it's on a lee coast and dry. Plus as dilution is the most effective neutralizer and a strong offshore is pretty constant. Of course the kona residents would scream, as we might pollute their vog!
Gordon J Tilley
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
I disagree regarding the quality of H-Power's emissions and waste. H-Power has minimal testing. They only test for those items they are licensed to dispose of to determine if it exceeds minimum safe levels.
A prime example was the PCB burning.
-PCB tainted material was sent to H-Power.
-The workers weren't aware that they were exposed to PCBs.
-The tainted material was burned in the incinerator.
-They did no testing for PCB emissions.
-The community wasn't warned of potential PCB emissions.
-H-Power, workers, community, and anyone breathing air had no idea they were exposed to PCB emissions.
To this day, had the violator not voluntarily informed the EPA that they accidentally sent the material to H-Power, you, I, everyone would never have known!
Now the word is that hazardous or toxic material from Pearl, Schofield & Hickam were routinely disposed of at H-Power with not so much as one single concern being raise from H-Power.
H-Powers operation would be illegal on the mainland because of the lack of ability to know within reason what the heck is going up in flames. But it seems that Hawaii is more concern about the landfill and a few kilowatts than they are about the citizens. Funny still is the citizens think this is some form of blessing to them. Maybe Hawaii is that third world country some say it is. I'm sure the people of Bopal thought Dow was good for them.
Posts: 990
Threads: 22
Joined: Dec 2007
I speak of the military facilities, and you and be assured they are taking all precautions with Hazmat materials, including tracking after purchase (purchase only allowed to persons authorized to purchase it) and the quantity bought. Tracked to where it was used and the empty container or leftover material logged out and properly disposed of. Every movement is signed for, and the records kept for up to 50 years. Where the fed has been erant in the past, they're making up for it. If somthing does slip through, it's because of worker error, and is more likely a few rags missed in a cleanup than any damaging volume. If it is through negligence or on purpose, he'd hang.
You and weatherford seem to see any trace amount of a toxin as lethal. You cite a neighborhood test incinerator sounding an alarm over a towel and glass scraps from a flourescent light bulb producing a damaging dose in an incinerator. Yet now we're mandating them into our homes. The initial puff of dust is the lethal part as inhalation is the most damaging route of exposure. A small quantity of many toxic substances always has been always will exist. Minimize their releases, but don't ruin an economy and lifestyle over them! Or kill foreward progress, even if it affects your ideals!
Gordon J Tilley
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
gtill said, "...ruin an economy and lifestyle over them! Or kill foreward progress..."
Please do your homework, so that you might perhaps show evidence of having some clue as to what you are talking about, because your post above reveals a shameful ignorance of actual circumstances.
An incinerator in Hilo would be bad for the local economy, while a successful Zero Waste policy (the like of which we are seeing plenty of here in New Zealand) is good for the local economy -- local businesses, local jobs, and local health.
The 'lifestyle' that has gotten us where we are is a dead end, use-it-up now and to-hell-with-the-future mess.
As for the amount of toxins? First, with the concnetration of dioxin resulting from burning plastic, only a very minute amount is known to cause cancer. Second, a very dark side to incinerators is bioaccumulation of heavy metalsin the food chain, leaving the deadly consequences for later generations.
As for Federal regulations, there are numerous examples these simply failing to protect communities from incinerator-generated pollutants.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by gtill
I speak of the military facilities, and you and be assured they are taking all precautions with Hazmat materials,
Unfortunately, the military has a deplorable record on tracking hazardous, toxic, and dangerous material. Their own reports give them what amount to an F-. Gee they went on for years about how they absolutely have not ever used depleted uranium shells on the Big Island. Of course, when it was found on Oahu, suddenly they are now saying that yes they did use it on the Big Island. Respective of the danger of depleted uranium shells (that’s in another topic), the fact that they denied something that should have been well known, speaks for their honesty and reliability in telling the truth. FYI, the military has admitted that material sent to H-power may not have been legally allowed. If they are willing to concede even the smallest admission that they did this, what do you really think happened?
quote:
Originally posted by gtill
A small quantity of many toxic substances always has been always will exist. Minimize their releases, but don't ruin an economy and lifestyle over them! Or kill foreward progress, even if it affects your ideals!
But that’s the whole point. What is and is it a small amount? They don’t know and can’t tell.
The bigger issue is this type of incinerator is the very type that many cities, counties and states on the mainland are now banning. H-Power’s fuel source isn’t something revolutionary; it’s been around for decades. The difference is on the mainland, they had those decades to analyze the operation and draw sound environmental and health conclusion. But on Hawaii, some people act like it’s some form of brand new technology and are willing to throw away years of facts for a few kilowatts and reduced landfills.
Gee, even third world countries are abandoning the wholesale incineration of their garbage without some form of source removal of the fuel from everything else. Scott mentioned the operation at Lafarge. Now that’s a form of incineration that is accepted.
Believe me, H-Power is about as low tech and environmentally unsound as you can get. Its time has come and gone, yet on Hawaii, you would think they are comparing it to a laptop versus an adding machine. Talk about some backward people. To get an idea, H-Power currently extracts metals and visible (when inspected) hazardous material from the waste stream. Now think about all the items (residential, commercial, industrial, and military) that are dumped into the garbage stream each day. How many batteries, drugs, chemical fertilizers, insecticides, computers, human body parts, dogs, goats, cleaning fluids, oils, hair spray, beer, human excrement, toner, lead paint, bile, arsenic, lye, condoms, tampons, treated lumber, brake fluid, chlorine, plastics 1-6, drain cleaner, recalled toys from China, and so on. Do you really think people only throw away clean garbage?
But the biggest point of discussion is:
Would you be willing to sign a petition to have the incinerator for the east side of the BI built next to your home?
Anyone have a guess as to why the state regulations would keep the information withheld ?
....details of the recommendation are still being withheld from the public.
Within seven days, residents will know how much it would cost to build a proposed waste-to-energy incinerator in Hilo, but in the meanwhile state procurement regulations are forcing officials to keep the information under wraps,....
-------------
On this day in History:
State of Hawai'i and City of Honolulu pledge $1 million to clean up a noxious weed, the invasive species Salvinia molesta, in Wahiawa's Lake Wilson, 2003.
Hunter Bishop blogs about this on his entry today.
Why the secrecy around this just blows my mind[  ]
-------------
On this day in History:
State of Hawai'i and City of Honolulu pledge $1 million to clean up a noxious weed, the invasive species Salvinia molesta, in Wahiawa's Lake Wilson, 2003.
|
