It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying something like:
You're still wasting water; either from discharge into waste from the driving turbine or, if that's discharged into the lower tank, then pumped up to the upper tank to refill the lower tank. Either way you have a surplus of a tankful of wasted water. Water that could have been used to hold your head under.
So two different bottles couldn't end up combined in a new item? Can't really see them separating the Stella bottles from the Hardys. I'm sure if it's melted to liquid and mixed it can't be that different from baking with a combination of plain & self raising flour.
is
The turbine/pump is driven by mains water which is the water you only use for normal everyday function. No waste. It is obvious. Pay attention. Draw a little sketch.
You can use old fryer oil to run a diesel engine for next to nothing as the burger chains give it away and are glad to see you take it it off their hands, and the burn is super clear compared to fossil diesel fuel. Here is how you do it.
Vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at:
currently
I'm pretty sure it was this article:-
Neil
Yes, many councils that do not have huge landfill problems have isntitired the par that costs the taxpayer monye - bringing bottles to teh bank - but not teh part that costs them money - recycling.
MUCH essier to emty a bottle bank or five than 300 waste bins.
It costs YOU more, but looks good on teh tax bills. They can then spend the money in installing more speed bumps in your raod so you can get to burn more fuel negoitioating them, and buy new shock absorbers every 2 years instead of every 10...
Government exists promarily to justify its own existence. This is done by creating 'issues' and using them as an excuse to raise taxes to support yet more bureacrats, or line their own pockets. What is not required is that problems of a real and urgent nature be solved. All that is requied is that obvious efforts to solve them are apparently being made...since there is now no education of an intellectual or scientific nature, and the average person can no longer even add up without a calculator, its easier to talk in pictures and fool everybody all of the time.
So we have bottle banks. And ban hunting. Meanwhile we burn ever more irreplaceable fuel on congested rodas making journets we don't need to make, and fill out ever more paper forms to explain why we exceeeded teh speed limit on the only clear stretch of road for 200 miles.
In short, the fgovernment and the powers that be respond only to media pressure, not to actual calculations by sober men.
"Toujours bolleaux"
I thought that was what 'mixing' dies. Distrubutes everything uniformnly throughthe mediem so it all ends up wwth the same coeefficient.
Anyway, one more nail in the bottle bank coffin. Glass it seems cant be recycled...
Yup. burn it and use the energy.
To quote your own advice: "Do some research."
John Schmitt
After a promising start, yet again IMM fails to be able to maintain a sensible discussion.
I'll let IMM have the last word:
Oh noooooooo!!!!!! We'll be here until Christmas! ;)
PoP
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying something like:
Bwahhahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh f*ck. You've outdone yourself this time.
I know I am brilliant. Keep reading the thread... then your brainache might go away.
Here it is:
-----
I'm an 11 bag man myself...
and, frankly, that's rubbish. Simon O'Hagan is shocked to discover just how much one man, his wife, two children and a cat can throw out
14 July 2002I'm not proud of the fact that in only one week my family managed to accumulate no fewer than 11 bags of rubbish ? so many that the wheelie bin was full to overflowing and the rest of them had to be sidestepped on the way to our front door. And the three black bags' and eight swing-bin liners' worth of refuse ? all of it produced by just two adults, two children and one cat ? didn't include the stuff we put in our recycling box. Disgraceful.
Shame is one thing. It would be quite another to have to pay £10 a week, £500 a year, for the removal of this quantity of stuff. For that is what the more profligate among us were threatened with last week in a proposal to charge for the removal of excess amounts of rubbish. What constitutes excess, you might ask. Well, anything over two black bags per week per household, suggests the Performance and Innovation Unit, which carried out the research for the Government. Every additional bag would cost £1. Yikes! We O'Hagans, along with millions of other people, are going to have to change our ways.
The Government has since distanced itself from the scheme. It won't happen, says Gordon Brown. But it concentrated people's minds, and left the question: how do we reduce the amount of rubbish we create? The obvious answer is to acquire less stuff in the first place. But assuming that people need everything that comes into their homes, how does one minimise the amount that ends up contributing to the problem of Britain's rapidly expanding refuse tips and landfill sites?
Rubbish is one of those areas where we Britons lag hopelessly behind our Continental neighbours. We produce far more ? 400kg per person annually compared with, for example, 300kg in France, and it's growing by 3 per cent a year.
We also recycle far less ? a pathetic 11 per cent compared with, for example, 52 per cent in Switzerland. The Germans recycle 48 per cent of their rubbish, the Dutch 46 per cent, and the Norwegians 40 per cent. All these countries, and many others, have higher targets still for recycling. And while we might think of America as a shrine to the consumer, we should also recognise that it recycles a commendable 31.5 per cent of what it chucks away.
Somewhat lost amid last week's warning of financial penalties was the parallel recommendation that the policy would only work alongside a much improved recycling collection service. At the moment only half of British households are offered any kind of recycling service ? and what's more there's a limit to what can go into a recycling bin. Into ours go glass bottles, newspapers and tins (labels removed), but there's no provision for plastic containers or cardboard which, in theory, are also recyclable. Food packaging remains a blight on the environment, but in a society where the rise of the single-occupancy household means ever more demand for convenience food, that's not a problem that is going to go away. No wonder binmen are due to go on strike.
I phoned our local authority ? Brent ? to find out what more I could do. It recommended one of their compost bins, on special offer at £5. But demand was outstripping supply, and I would have to wait at least twice the 35-day delivery period that it said on the form.
There is still only a fraction of British households that uses compost bins, and clearly they have no role to play if you don't have a garden. But we do, and a compost bin would account for leftover food and a lot of cardboard. Add that to all the other recyclable materials and I could see how Friends of the Earth estimates that up to 80 per cent of what we throw away could be recycled.
"This figure is based on a higher provision for home collections," Martin Williams, an FoE parliamentary campaigner, told me. "It's no good if people have to drive to recycling centres, thereby cancelling out the environmental benefits." The FoE is running a "doorstep recycling campaign", with the support of 270 MPs. In agreeing that the Government's proposals are a good idea only if there is a recycling service to every home, Greenpeace warns that without one, "it could become a fly-tipper's charter".
In defence of my family's recent rubbish record, I'd like to point out that one bag had a couple of discarded pillows in it, and another comprised an empty cardboard box. And I'm sure I could reduce the number further by packing our rubbish more neatly. But that's not really good enough, is it?
-----
Although it doesn't mention collected glass being landfilled it's mostly okay, but could be a lot better.
I don't doubt that some collected glass was landfilled in the past when the facilites for dealing with it weren't in place, but nowadays I would have thought that it was a tiny minority of collected material if at all.
cheers, Pete.
From
Aylesford Newsprint manufactures 100% recycled newsprint which is sold under the Renaissance brand name and used by leading European newspaper publishers. We recover half a million tonnes per annum of used newspapers and magazines to produce some 400,000 tonnes of recycled newsprint.
Looks profitable to me... they also raise money for charity in the process, do sawmills do this?
The above company is in Kent, nearer than Scandaknavia AFIAK.
No matter how efficiently we'll ever be able to live, we ALL NEED transportation to somewhere at some point, be it walking, cycling or by car. So why not make extra use of it?
Burning domestic rubbish in the home is not really a practical solution, a binliner of rubbish wouldn't yield that many kWh.
Ingesting ground glass is far more harmful than ingesting sand, so it's not the same. I would prefer to have sand trodden in the house than ground glass.
A lot of your points are quite IMM-like.
Doesn't cost me a penny to recycle anything.
In the UK? Have you got a reference?
Far less. Zero. Even when doing IT contracting.
Still a very small proportion compared to car use.
No need to make a special trip to the recycling bank, so no need to burn extra fuel taking them there.
A few bottles might not do any harm, but tens of millions would end up everywhere, and pollute beaches in the process.
(viii) Burn rubbish in the home?
(ix) Grind up glass to use in the garden or chuck it on the nearest beach?
Not the most practical ideas.
True, I've cancelled my Screwfix and Viking Direct and all other catalogues. Why do they insist on sending a paper catalogue when you have ordered online? And then make you phone up to cancel them when it could be done though a web page...
So how many miles a year do you drive? Is all your driving vastly more important by comparison?
cheers, Pete.
OK - this wasn;t the article I had in mind then. I'll carry on looking. The one I recall mentioned there were a number of pilot projects looking into reusing coloured glass but none of them had been shown to be profitable when scaled up to a commercial venture.
Neil
hmm... fear and loathing in west surbiton? ;-)
Yes I think cement kilns derive some of their heat from this when firing tyres.
Isn't it aluminium powder and an iron oxide, a displacement of one oxide for another plus heat?
AJH
Wrong
In general wrong in the west. The fractions of the forest harvest were largely obtained either from a thinning operation to establish a sawlog crop or after the premium crop, sawlogs, was removed. Latterly the premium part tended to subsidise the pulp fraction. Now, due in no small part to recycling (largely imported) paper, more of the top is abandoned in the wood than 30 years ago.
AJH
For what reason?
I don't see what the prime mover has to do with it, if we restrict ourselves to the ability of an alternator to convert rotary motion into synchronous ac supply then there is a big difference between a large alternator's efficiency than a small one of the same type. From a brief perusal of specs there seems to be a point above 100kW where the scale economies slow down, if we are still talking about self generation for a home this is way above most requirements but fits well with a district chp.
Also one needs to consider the cost of various alternator types, the cheapest appears to be a capacitively excited induction generator, a more efficient type would be a permanent magnet one. At the 2-5kW level the efficiencies are 85% for one and 95% for the latter, the cost/kW for one are GBP20 and GBP200 respectively. Producing electricity to compete with current domestic rates would indicate a return of 12% on the investment running 24/7. At the industrial level with super cheap fuel it pays to run everything conservatively with the lowest O+M costs.
So what?
Agreed, capital and O+M costs feature very strongly in generating costs.
Probably
Yes but there are not many opportunities for making use of this heat at the multi MW level, hence the "community scale" chp dveices need to stay in the low MW class best served by multiple IC engines, despite their inherent higher O+M costs compared with GW scale steam turbines.
Give us proof then.
Non sequitur, we have already established that the price of wholesale electricity is built up from fuel cost, O+M cost and capital charges, this is what the producer receives, what the consumer pays also carries the distribution and sales costs. Thus baseload plant will continue spinning at the night rate because there is a price in not doing so, Other generating sets will choose to shut down when the price is low. I previously provided figure, which I think you disputed, on the cost of producing electricity when using fuel which had bourn all the retail distribution costs, IIRC I used a figure of
1.4p/kWhr(t) the domestic gas rate (at any time of the day). Once you start using gas at the MW(t) level you will be paying industrial rates not available to a retail user.AJH
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember snipped-for-privacy@hp.com saying something like:
Precisely.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.