Some landfills ARE collecting the gas,not venting it.
Some have private companies bid on doing the task,I believe.
the problem is,though we gain methane from the rotting refuse,what of the
OTHER stuff buried with the decaying organics?
That is what leaches into the surrounding soil and water.(despite the clay
and plastic underlayments and dams)
You just said what I have been thinking all along. We have recycling
centers for alum cans, tin cans, glass, plastic bottles, paper, etc.
Why not have another slot for florescent bulbs, batteries, and other
things like that. The mercury used in these bulbs should be reusable,
so why not do it. Quite honestly I see that being much more important
than tin cans and glass. I also believe that ALL burnable trash such
as kitchen (food) garbage, paper, non-recy plastics, yard waste, wood,
SHOULD be burned to generate power. This must account for the largest
percentage of waste anyhow, since we have already removed the cans and
glass, and lately most appliances. For example, we now have a place
that takes electronics such as computers, to eliminate all the lead
solder and other chemical containing capacitors and stuff from the
landfills. The computer I am using right now is made from components
that they offer for sale to the public. Thats a great idea to help
the environment, save having to make more mines to "harvest" lead and
other metals, and I like being able to have a place to buy a used (but
good) video card, memory, or hard drive for a few bucks.
And since we are discussing this, part of the responsibility of trash
should be placed on the SOURCE. Those assenine clamshell packages are
a good place to start. Besides being a pain in the ass to open, they
are just more plastic pollution, which we as consumers pay for each
time we buy something inside of them. Look at these digital camera
cards. The cards are an inch square, but come in 6 x 10 inch
clamshells. Yes, the reason is because of retail theft. But wouldn't
it make more sense for the manufacturers to just provide the stores
with a locked display cabinet? Thinks about the extra gasoline that
would be saved too. A semi truck could probably haul a million camera
cards if they were sold without the clamshells, but now they can only
get less than hundred cards in a box. Almost everything in the stores
these days contain excessive packaging. If the govt. wants to control
what we dispose in our trash, why dont they also start to control the
sources of all the trash we as consumers have to handle. I am old
enough to remember when a chocolate candy bar came wrapped in paper.
If that paper was tossed on the ground, it would decompose in a year
or less. If however, someone tosses the new plastic wrappers on the
ground, they will stay there forever or until someone disposes of them
or burns them.
Finally, it seems that few people realize that all plastics are made
using crude oil. We are supposed to curtail our use of fuels, yet how
many millions of barrels of oil are used each day to produce plastic
packaging, which we toss in the trash the minute it leaves the store.
If all plastic packaging was turned back in time to papers, (which are
renewable), we would see the gas prices come down real fast.
Alvin
How does mercury leach -into groundwater? (and what form does it take?)
Doesn't it combine with other elements in the soil?
ISTR that fish pick up mercury from eating bottom stuff,not from water
intake.
Beats me. I've never read about the detailed mechanics of the process - just
that it *has* been found in groundwater plumes which picked up the chemical
from landfills where it was KNOWN that mercury was dumped. Based on this
information, people sometimes lose the use of their well water.
...
A given point source would depend on local chemistry, but an example
from some mine tailings piles is the Hg forms a highly soluble Hg-CN
complex and makes it into the water in that form. There are bound to be
other water-soluble salts/compounds at most any landfill if not much
cyanide, specifically.
You are correct that metallic or inorganic Hg isn't much of a problem in
that form because it is poorly absorbed by the digestive tract and
therefore, mostly simply eliminated. But, methylmercury—an organic form
is highly toxic to the nervous system. Methylmercury is produced from
inorganic mercury by methylation, a microbial process enhanced by
chemical and environmental variables, such as the presence of organic
matter and oxygen. To compound the problem, this form of mercury
biomagnifies to high concentrations at the top of food chains.
People who try and explain away the dangers of mercury have probably never
heard of this:
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Minimata-Mercury-Victims.htm
yup. The key issue is what quantities, concentrations, exposure, etc.
When I was a kid, mercury as the metal was freely available in school
science laboratories. Liquid mercury was used on a large scale as a
bearing for filter arms on trickling beds at sewage works. Our exposure
to mercury was much greater in the past. The uncontrolled disposal was
much greater in the past. Emissions to atmosphere from incinerators and
coal fired power stations was much greater. These emissions are both
scrubbed and monitored now.
We do need to control its use but I would suggest that we are in danger
of getting paranoid about it!
Here in the UK ( and guess similar over The Pond), during the 70's there
was a legimate outcry at the exposure of workers to asbestos dust.
Controls were rightly brought in. However since that outcry, society has
been ripped off by contractors charging high prices for the removal of
asbestos from buildings, aided and abetted by ignorant and over-zealous
regulators. It is only when there is danger of certain types of asbestos
creating a dust that can be inhaled that there is a risk, (and even then
the exposure has to be for a significant amount of time).
There was even a concern that we should remove all asbestos cement water
supply pipes from the ground! It's the sense of proportion (or lack of
it) that concerns me.
In some place, the emissions are scrubbed and monitored. But, some utilities
have purchased the appropriate agency appointees so they could avoid
installing the most modern equipment. Surely you've read about that.
Really? Tell me why you think it's bullshit. It's either because you don't
think such things could happen here, or because of other information you
have.
Which is it?
Sorry, that's not enough information to prove that your allegations have
any basis in fact.
But, roughly 15 years initially as engineer/senior engineer w/ major
manufacturer/vendor, last 20+ as consulting engineer working mostly w/
fossil utilities, specializing in instrumentation and controls including
for monitoring pulverized coal flow for eventual finer control at the
individual burner to improve heat rate and lower NOx and other
emissions, designing many test programs for evaluating boiler
performance for NOx and other compliance, serving on design/review/
recommendation panels on best use of (always limited) capital
expenditure funds for "best bang for the buck" selection of which
technology/vendor for which plant at what point in time...the list could
go on ad nauseum...
--
Because of discussions like this, I wish I had a notepad next to me every
single time I read something on paper, because I never know when I'll run
into someone who needs a cite. I guess you missed some of what I've read
about utilities claiming it would be financially unfeasible for them to
clean up their emissions to modern standards.
Your job description also means you were never responsible for providing
assignments to lobbyists.
The last statement is completely different than the allegation of buying
appointees. And, it definitely is true that it's financially unfeasible
(and sometimes even technically infeasible as well) to retrofit all old
plants to current regulations. Would you pay to update your Ford Pinto
to meet current emission and other DOT standards and think that a
reasonable thing to do? Many of these plants are of an equivalent age
or even older, if your unaware of that fact.
I have even no clue as to what your meaning is in the above babblespeak...
--
What does that have to do with anything you raised before? Lobbyists
are a part of the legislative process and are at least as well funded by
the environmental side of the issues as the utilities. Their existence
(on both sides) is a prime way in which legislators learn about the
issues that affect their constituents and that is their function. That
is a useful and necessary function, again on both sides.
You have addressed none of the actual points you raised in the least.
If you want to discuss particulars of a particular event or decision or
technology or power plant, I'll be glad to participate. If you want to
simply continue to throw unsubstantiated allegations, not so much...
--
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.