Jimcalagon Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I would have thought that the ideal solution for the island's waste would be a Thermal depolymerisation plant. Thermal depolymerisation is a chemical process which allows you to take most types of waste - ordinary household waste including plastics, chemical waste, old tyres, even bio-hazardous waste that is usually difficult to dispose of safely - and break it down into light crude oil and gas. Thermal depolymerisation does seem quite good. Even so, despite the benefits one gets from recycling, does that make it ok for this litter to be washed up on the beaches - i.e. making this desirable? I would have thought that the ideal solution for this waste would be for the people dumping the rubbish at sea to be recycling it in this way - and not contaminating the sea and polluting coastlines. Yes, that would be ideal. However the world (and the buggers who live in it) is not ideal. The problem is that the plastic on the beaches here could have come from the UK, Ireland, the USA, West Africa, Brazil... Unless Manx Scientists develop a doomsday device and threaten to use it if marine littering continues I don't see how we are going to stop it. I suggested TDP as an alternative to Frances' posting above IMO the best action for the island is to burn it in the incinerator - the cost (both financial + energy) in collecting, sorting and transport to UK would be high - after all it is equivalent to importing fuel oil for Peel power station and that is burnt If it's going to happen, let's make the best of it. Also we could have an open-cast rubbish quarry at the Point of Ayre to provide lots of lovely waste for a TDP plant - it could be our biggest resource and we could then laugh at all those daft Europeans who have short-sightedly 'recycled' all their precious waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 tho in terms of hot air produced per capita the Island must be in the premier league - however with a population of around 100,000 I cannot see that we can afford both the incinerator (in which much money has been sunk) and a TCP - TCP produces fuel oil which will then be burnt, its advantage is that the oil may replace some of that imported however unless the conversion efficiency of the incinerator/power plant is very low I cannot see how TCP produced oil could be significantly more efficient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 The problem is that the plastic on the beaches here could have come from the UK, Ireland, the USA, West Africa, Brazil... Unless Manx Scientists develop a doomsday device and threaten to use it if marine littering continues I don't see how we are going to stop it. I'd have thought with modelling tidal flows one could be pretty sure whether it came from UK or Ireland or further afield. If UK or Ireland, then something could be done. Also the litter itself I'm sure gives some clues - origin, length of time in water etc. Sure not everything is as easy and straightforward as CSI Miami - but by no means impossible to trace the problem. I'd think it would trace to somewhere not too distant. Don't need to threaten to use a doomsday device. See earlier post. Also I'd imagine it could be taken up with EU if UK or Ireland did not respond. Good neighbourliness and all that stuff in the treaty. It's probably someone illegally dumping anyway - UK environmental protection would be equally concerned and wouldn't need a doomsday device to get them to take action against such illegal dumping. I suggested TDP as an alternative to Frances' posting above.... If it's going to happen, let's make the best of it. ... Fair point - but still better if could stop it happening in the first place. Getting into the way to deal with it like this may simply deflect from really doing what ought to be done (if possible) - which is stopping it getting on to the beaches in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 tho in terms of hot air produced per capita the Island must be in the premier league - however with a population of around 100,000 I cannot see that we can afford both the incinerator (in which much money has been sunk) and a TCP - TCP produces fuel oil which will then be burnt, its advantage is that the oil may replace some of that imported however unless the conversion efficiency of the incinerator/power plant is very low I cannot see how TCP produced oil could be significantly more efficient At least with TCP we won't have to disinfect our rubbish. OK - population is 80,000, FYI. How much will the proposed landfill at Archallagan cost to run? All of this waste could be converted to oil. The one TDP plant runs at 85% efficiency - that means that 85% of the rubbish it processes comes out as oil - this is after all the energy costs of running the plant have been accounted for. Try reading through the link and google a couple of sites to see the details The TDP process currently being used is licenced to one company - let them come in and build it, at their own expense, next to the incinerator. They get the profits, we get the tax revenues from their profits and a cleaner island. Better than that daft incinerator. (BTW did anyone see on Northwest Tonight that Peel Holdings are looking to build a very similar incinerator in Cheshire?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I'd have thought with modelling tidal flows one could be pretty sure whether it came from UK or Ireland or further afield. If UK or Ireland, then something could be done. Also the litter itself I'm sure gives some clues - origin, length of time in water etc. Sure not everything is as easy and straightforward as CSI Miami - but by no means impossible to trace the problem. I'd think it would trace to somewhere not too distant. Those CSI programmes are absolutely ludicrous - on one last week I saw them using a device which could telll tham something was ceramic just from pointing it at it from 6 inches away. I think they must have borrowed a tricorder from Star Trek. What a load of bollocks. In reality rubbish washed up on a beach can come from anywhere in the world. Read This story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I think you will find the population nearer 90,000 if not more - certainly the Gov appears to estimate 120k for all capital projects. The Archallagan tip is needed to dispose of all non-organic solid waste - anything organic has already been burnt (producing mainly water + CO2) - the TCP takes organic waste only (eg abattoir waste, sludge from the IRIS plant, old tyres etc) and converts this to oil (or similar) which can then be used as fuel - why not just extract all energy from the organic component of waste during the burn process at the incinerator - the heat there is used to raise steam for power generation (exactly the same as the oil burnt in eg Peel power station) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I take it before anyone spouts off about people dropping litter you have examined the tidal flows around the island and calculated that there is a strong chance 80% of this shite comes from UK I don't think anybody is saying that the locals are dropping all this stuff. The Marine Conservation survey just shows that this litter is ending up on our beaches and has to be dealt with. A high percentage is cotton buds which are probably flushed down toilets by local residents who don't know where the sewers are discharged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 the TCP takes organic waste only (eg abattoir waste, sludge from the IRIS plant, old tyres etc) and converts this to oil (or similar) which can then be used as fuel - why not just extract all energy from the organic component of waste during the burn process at the incinerator - the heat there is used to raise steam for power generation (exactly the same as the oil burnt in eg Peel power station) No, if you read through the description, the TDP process (I assume that's what you mean when you keep saying 'TCP') can take pretty much any waste - including old computers, disposable nappies, oil refinery residues, plastic bottles and poisons such as dioxin and PCBs (which are broken down safely) Read this article from The Guardian or this one Also , according to the wikipedia page - "The fixed carbon solids produced by the TDP process have multiple uses as a filter, a fuel source and a fertilizer. It can be used as activated carbon in wastewater treatment, as a fertilizer, or as a fuel similar to coal." Isn't that better than an incinerator (which, contrary to your statement above does not 'extract all energy' from from anything) - 'hey let's get all our rubbish and burn it and bury the ashes in archallagan'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Both of those articles are from over four years ago, and the wikipedia page suggests that not only has this technology not been more widely adopted, but that the orginal plant is now loss-making. It seems extremely suspect that a technology that seems to have so much explicit potential has not expanded at all during this time, despite the claims of its proponents. Some of the claims being made about this are extremely suspect. Firstly, it is not 85% efficient, because you still have to burn the oil and, if we are comparing it to the incinerator, that will be used to heat water and drive a turbine, resulting in a substantial decrease in efficiency. Furthermore, it is not a 'closed carbon loop.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.