Sweden Runs Out of Garbage With Waste-to-Energy(pachamama.org)
pachamama.org
Sweden Runs Out of Garbage With Waste-to-Energy
http://www.pachamama.org/blog/models-of-sustainability-sweden-runs-out-of-garbage
28 comments
It's inefficient to do 10+ cans per person. It is more efficient to sort it at the garbage transfer station the way Canadians do. Most places have 3 cans. General, glass/plastic/cardboard, and biodegradable.
Also, SF is considered "progressive" for many of its completely unsustainable policies, like housing controls, which ultimately lead to further economic inefficiency. A truly progressive society is more like Toronto where the poor can generally get help, but we don't mind putting up condos or new office space.
Also the Swedes do some things that are much more right wing than America, like Free Schools (essentially private schools operating with a government payment, similar to the coupon model). It isn't a left-right difference. Furthermore, Sweden has cut services and taxes more than any other western country in the past decade.
Also you can't really compare it anyway. There is a far higher amount of cultural homogeneity in Sweden than the US, even in the white portion of the US, and the average IQ is 3 or 4 points higher.
As for homelessness, you are living in SF. This is what you get. The US has a much higher veteran rate than Sweden which highly correlates to homelessness (usually due to PTSD and associated drug abuse) and the capital of homelessness in North America is SF.
Also, SF is considered "progressive" for many of its completely unsustainable policies, like housing controls, which ultimately lead to further economic inefficiency. A truly progressive society is more like Toronto where the poor can generally get help, but we don't mind putting up condos or new office space.
Also the Swedes do some things that are much more right wing than America, like Free Schools (essentially private schools operating with a government payment, similar to the coupon model). It isn't a left-right difference. Furthermore, Sweden has cut services and taxes more than any other western country in the past decade.
Also you can't really compare it anyway. There is a far higher amount of cultural homogeneity in Sweden than the US, even in the white portion of the US, and the average IQ is 3 or 4 points higher.
As for homelessness, you are living in SF. This is what you get. The US has a much higher veteran rate than Sweden which highly correlates to homelessness (usually due to PTSD and associated drug abuse) and the capital of homelessness in North America is SF.
> It's inefficient to do 10+ cans per person.
I think he means that there are 10 cans for the entire condo complex.
Also, forcing individual _taxpayers_ to sort trash really keeps environmentalism in the forefront of voters' minds, which I imagine makes it much easier to keep environment-friendly legislation and public works projects going.
Consider the opposite extreme, having a single bin that absolutely everything goes in. It would be easy to just completely forget about whatever it is you're throwing away and never think about what ultimate fate each piece is destined for.
I think he means that there are 10 cans for the entire condo complex.
Also, forcing individual _taxpayers_ to sort trash really keeps environmentalism in the forefront of voters' minds, which I imagine makes it much easier to keep environment-friendly legislation and public works projects going.
Consider the opposite extreme, having a single bin that absolutely everything goes in. It would be easy to just completely forget about whatever it is you're throwing away and never think about what ultimate fate each piece is destined for.
Also, forcing individual _taxpayers_ to sort trash really keeps environmentalism in the forefront of voters' minds, which I imagine makes it much easier to keep environment-friendly legislation and public works projects going.
It would sure keep it in the forefront of my mind, but not in the way I think you'd like! More: "How can I get rid of the politicians who force me into this menial waste of time?"
I will happily pay in taxes whatever the added processing costs are for allowing me to continue to use Cambridge's terrific "single stream" system, which allows for an astonishing range of waste in a single bin. It doesn't cover the hazardous stuff like batteries and CFLs, but you can make that easier, too, without requiring individuals to maintain bins for 5 different varieties of plastic.
It would sure keep it in the forefront of my mind, but not in the way I think you'd like! More: "How can I get rid of the politicians who force me into this menial waste of time?"
I will happily pay in taxes whatever the added processing costs are for allowing me to continue to use Cambridge's terrific "single stream" system, which allows for an astonishing range of waste in a single bin. It doesn't cover the hazardous stuff like batteries and CFLs, but you can make that easier, too, without requiring individuals to maintain bins for 5 different varieties of plastic.
In which case you charge for rubbish collection on a combination of weight/volume and make it a premium for unsorted refuse. That gives people a choice. Pay the premium if they want someone else to do it, or take extra care themselves and save a bit of money.
I think in Paris (?) they have some underground storage for recycling on street corners. Someone was telling me about that when I was there.
In New Zealand (and some other places), garbage is put out in plastic bags - only official bags are picked up - and you pay per bag used.
Incentives to minimise hard-to-recycle waste could be a good thing.
I think in Paris (?) they have some underground storage for recycling on street corners. Someone was telling me about that when I was there.
In New Zealand (and some other places), garbage is put out in plastic bags - only official bags are picked up - and you pay per bag used.
Incentives to minimise hard-to-recycle waste could be a good thing.
Does requiring people to sort their trash actually work? What sort of feedback and enforcement is in place?
Where I live in California, we are given a large recyclables bin and a small trash bin, with the option to pay more for a larger trash bin. This sounds like an incentive to recycle, but it's a perverse one. If I were to just put all my trash in the recycle bin, there would be no consequences at all for me, because the recyclables truck just dumps it all into a big communal heap, with no possibility to trace it back to me. Is this cardboard too wet to recycle? Who knows? In it goes!
Where I live in California, we are given a large recyclables bin and a small trash bin, with the option to pay more for a larger trash bin. This sounds like an incentive to recycle, but it's a perverse one. If I were to just put all my trash in the recycle bin, there would be no consequences at all for me, because the recyclables truck just dumps it all into a big communal heap, with no possibility to trace it back to me. Is this cardboard too wet to recycle? Who knows? In it goes!
"Does requiring people to sort their trash actually work? What sort of feedback and enforcement is in place?"
No it doesn't. I live in so-called 'progressive' Holland where separate waste collection has been done for years. It's not efficient now any more (in 2013 we have better waste separation methods as was had in the 1990's) but people have become conditioned to 'separating waste = green' that it's hard to reverse now. Plus, the whole infrastructure exists now anyway, so the switching costs would take another decade to make back - an investment for which there is simply no room in these times.
No it doesn't. I live in so-called 'progressive' Holland where separate waste collection has been done for years. It's not efficient now any more (in 2013 we have better waste separation methods as was had in the 1990's) but people have become conditioned to 'separating waste = green' that it's hard to reverse now. Plus, the whole infrastructure exists now anyway, so the switching costs would take another decade to make back - an investment for which there is simply no room in these times.
That sounds like it is working, but you don't like it.
Oh sorry I was making another point than what was being asked. Yes it works, but what I am arguing is that it isn't the most efficient way. I do like it in the sense that it was the only thing we had for the last 20 years, and I obviously support separating waste (be it at the consumer level or centralized) for environmental purposes, but it's hard to tell what (in hindsight) was best: that we had separation at consumer for the last 20 years, but that we will have to live with a more inefficient system for the next decade(s); or that we would have postponed separate collection 20 years ago until let's say 10 or 5 years ago, and started with the more efficient (centralized) separation system.
It's an interesting question, and very difficult to answer. Like climate studies, you'd need to calculate so many side effects, that your answer might be different depending on the context you take into account. I've discussed this topic quite extensively with colleagues in urban planning and environmental sciences in countries across the world, but nobody knows (obviously) and people's preferences tend to align with what they have or have worked on. Personally I tend towards the automated / technology solutions (i.e., centralized), but I can't tell if that's because of a cognitive bias or from an increased ability in estimating these sort of things from experience, so that basically nullifies my opinion, too.
It's water under the bridge anyway.
It's an interesting question, and very difficult to answer. Like climate studies, you'd need to calculate so many side effects, that your answer might be different depending on the context you take into account. I've discussed this topic quite extensively with colleagues in urban planning and environmental sciences in countries across the world, but nobody knows (obviously) and people's preferences tend to align with what they have or have worked on. Personally I tend towards the automated / technology solutions (i.e., centralized), but I can't tell if that's because of a cognitive bias or from an increased ability in estimating these sort of things from experience, so that basically nullifies my opinion, too.
It's water under the bridge anyway.
Yes, to the point that people take pride in it. Colleagues suffer minor, humorous ridicule for putting something in the wrong bin and there are conversations about plastic type 5 vs plastic type 2. One guy is designated "Recycle Man" for leading office efforts. Under most desks in the office are two bins, one for cardboard/paper/etc. I don't know anyone who even thinks about it as a chore now.
It's counterintuive to me that forcing people to sort their trash will lead to a fondness for recycling. Did the draft engender a fondness for the Vietnam war?
A different approach would be to charge people for trash pickup. If the cost for sorted trash removal is enough of a savings, then people will do it.
A different approach would be to charge people for trash pickup. If the cost for sorted trash removal is enough of a savings, then people will do it.
(Living in Sweden)
Actually, the Swedes really do believe in this. Everyone I know conscientiously sorts their trash.
A Swede will happy carry their own bags up to their rooms in hotels, too. Most hotels don't have porters. They don't have the whole tipping thing either generally. You go through life doing things for yourself, not paying others to do things for you.
Maybe its the US psyche and is some kind of superiority complex? I'm half-serious; why do people on your side of the pond think its a hassle to sort their trash?
Actually, the Swedes really do believe in this. Everyone I know conscientiously sorts their trash.
A Swede will happy carry their own bags up to their rooms in hotels, too. Most hotels don't have porters. They don't have the whole tipping thing either generally. You go through life doing things for yourself, not paying others to do things for you.
Maybe its the US psyche and is some kind of superiority complex? I'm half-serious; why do people on your side of the pond think its a hassle to sort their trash?
I think you're dead on with the "boo-hoo god forbid I'd have to sort my trash, raise my own kid, pack my grocery bag, carry my luggage mentality."
Whenever I'm offered these services I feel annoyed - what do I look like, a giant baby? I can carry my own bag.
The larger the wealth gap is in society, the more people become obsessed with comparing themselves to others and the more patterns we see designed to enable them to feel they come out on top in this comparison.
Whenever I'm offered these services I feel annoyed - what do I look like, a giant baby? I can carry my own bag.
The larger the wealth gap is in society, the more people become obsessed with comparing themselves to others and the more patterns we see designed to enable them to feel they come out on top in this comparison.
I've never understood porters in hotels. You've just transported your bags for possibly thousands of miles and many hours but they are going to take them the last few meters to your room by elevator on a cart and then they expect a tip for it.
Only the more expensive hotels in the United States have porters. The Courtyard Marriott in Gettysburg, PA doesn't send a uniformed porter to get your bags. As far as porters in hotels in Sweden, most of the luxury hotels do (at least in Stockholm.) Trying to turn this into an "American superiority complex" thing is completely silly. Visit any major city in the world and nearly any full-service hotel in the world and there will be porters -- and it isn't just for the American tourists. I happen to like the Swedes and Sweden, however I hardly consider their culture any more superior than any other. All cultures have value and generalizations of any culture are pretty ridiculous.
man you just love yourself some tangents dont you?
According to what I read about our history, the US tried to get rid of tipping early on, in an effort to have a more egalitarian society, but people couldn't stand the idea.
As far as I have ever seen, most people don't mind sorting the trash, the different bins just aren't there.
In places where there is a single recycling can, I can't remember anyone throwing recycling into the trash can, with righteous indignation, muttering about the extra cost to their personal time.
As far as I have ever seen, most people don't mind sorting the trash, the different bins just aren't there.
In places where there is a single recycling can, I can't remember anyone throwing recycling into the trash can, with righteous indignation, muttering about the extra cost to their personal time.
"Actually, the Swedes really do believe in this. Everyone I know conscientiously sorts their trash."
Too bad they're wrong though. Talk about 'Stockholm syndrome' (get it? I'm so funny)
Too bad they're wrong though. Talk about 'Stockholm syndrome' (get it? I'm so funny)
Are you really under the impression that there are people out there who believe recycling is immoral and will lead to countless deaths?
Sorting your garbage rarely leads to a sucking chest wound.
It's worked in Australia IMO. Everyone takes recycling a lot more seriously than 10+ years ago when it was first on the radar. It's natural now and is done without thinking.
Change leads to awareness. Whether this awareness leads to fondness depends on the context. In the case of the environment, this seems to sometimes be the case. I think young Swedish people have a much greater appreciation of and respect for the environment than our parents.
In the case of the Vietnam war, the awareness clearly lead to - how should I put it - an extreme absence of fondness, as it should have.
In the case of the Vietnam war, the awareness clearly lead to - how should I put it - an extreme absence of fondness, as it should have.
its counterintuitive to me that you think something intelligent and good for society like sorting the trash that you generate is even remotely comparable to fighting a war that shouldn't have happened to start with - and spraying agent orange at a bunch of innocents.
I won't defend the Vietnam War, however generalizing the bunch innocents is a bit daft. The US gets criticized for torture yet the US version of torture compared in no way to the torture perpetuated by that 'bunch of innocents.' Let's not even get into that 'peaceful' Communist group just across te border known as the Khmer Rouge. It's stylish to be a Che Guevara-shirt wearing anti-American granola eating hippy, yet Che, the North Vietnamese, the Soviets and every other group idolized by armchair academics were far more brutal than anything ever done by the United States. Yes there were innocent victims, but it takes two sides to make a war. And given the state of Vietnam today (compared to, for example, South Korea) the war seems like it was justified in intent despite the deficiencies of its execution. Bloggers have been sent to prison in Vietnam for simply critising the government. As 'bad' as the US might be, at least we don't send people for prison for speaking their mind. You can still burn te flag if you want, that's your right. The fact that you can't do that in Vietnam kind of proves my point.
Go blame Ho Chi Minh as well for the war that shouldn't have happened. Of course by doing that, you'll likely be kicked out of the organic food co-op.
I prefer that we kept all politics off Hacker News. Nobody cares about my (or your) political views unless they pertain to something extremely relevant to the tech and startup communities.
Go blame Ho Chi Minh as well for the war that shouldn't have happened. Of course by doing that, you'll likely be kicked out of the organic food co-op.
I prefer that we kept all politics off Hacker News. Nobody cares about my (or your) political views unless they pertain to something extremely relevant to the tech and startup communities.
Your post could've done without the first paragraph - the "I prefer that we kept all politics off Hacker News" was sufficient without the over-the-top generalisations like "anti-American granola eating hippy".
Also the conviction of the North Vietnamese and Che Guevara of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge.
if im an anti-american granola eating hippy (yum granola!) - then you´re nothing more than a stars and stripes boxers wearing nut - who´s gone off on a tangent about politics - the idea was just to point out that theres a very big difference between something thats generally a positive thing - and something that obviously was in a very gray zone. Don´t get your panties up in a bunch and get all ad hominem - the point wasn´t to bash the US - the point was that the poster before me seemed to make a very skewed comparison that just didnt make sense.
also for wanting to keep politics off HN - you failed pretty badly at that mate!
also for wanting to keep politics off HN - you failed pretty badly at that mate!
Equating these uses of "force" is an almost troll-like stretch.
It's a standard libertarian scowl of disapproval.
Instead of charging, they simply just leave the trash on the curb if they notice it has too much of the wrong type of garbage in it. Its a little annoying having so many different days when trash needs to be taken out, but sorting it isn't that annoying once you start doing it for a month or so.
> Also, forcing individual _taxpayers_ to sort trash really keeps environmentalism in the forefront of voters' minds, which I imagine makes it much easier to keep environment-friendly legislation and public works projects going.
Indeed. I always get a bit surprised when I see visiting people throwing cans out of the car window, or a plastic wrapper while walking down the street. I guess its a wonder that they only regard the street as a garbage can and not as a toilet.
Indeed. I always get a bit surprised when I see visiting people throwing cans out of the car window, or a plastic wrapper while walking down the street. I guess its a wonder that they only regard the street as a garbage can and not as a toilet.
Cultural norms...
When I was in certain large, developed cities in China (nearly 15 years ago now) most of the toddlers I saw in public had "open bottom" outfits on; they literally used the street as a toilet. Some parents would hold them over the bin when they needed to go. Many wouldn't.
When I was in certain large, developed cities in China (nearly 15 years ago now) most of the toddlers I saw in public had "open bottom" outfits on; they literally used the street as a toilet. Some parents would hold them over the bin when they needed to go. Many wouldn't.
They still do that, even in the nicest neighborhoods in Shanghai. I lived there a little over a year ago and it was poop central for the little ones on the street. Allegedly it results in faster potty training and one could argue that it cuts down on diaper waste.. so it could be called environmental, despite the horror is causes for the foreigners who witness it. Some parents did have more talent than others at aiming their child appropriately.
I was in a train going North-East from Beijing (can't remember where we were going, or more to the point, whether it was a 'rural' train or not) as little as 5 years ago, and the grandmother in the section opposite the corridor from us made here grandson go nr 2 right there in the middle of the train. Every time the train would swerve, the turds would roll from left to right and back :O| Cultural differences be damned, who in their right mind would accept this as a common practice...
I live across the street from a small park. It's sad how much garbage is in my yard after the Saturday tee-ball games. I just wonder how these same people would feel if I came to their neighborhood and just dumped my trash in their yards.
Wait, you're saying I left India for this!
Yes 10 cans for the complex, which consists of ballpark 50 units. Awareness is definitely a huge part of it - a lot of once "progressive" ideas like recycling and sexual equality was taught to us as kids, and the kids ended up educating the parents.
Your point is valid; when you "abstract" away recycling to a centralized plant, the individual most likely won't consider the environmental impact of his purchasing decisions and habits nearly as much.
Your point is valid; when you "abstract" away recycling to a centralized plant, the individual most likely won't consider the environmental impact of his purchasing decisions and habits nearly as much.
How does 10+ cans for a condo complex work? 10+ different chutes? Do you have to walk your trash down to the trashcans yourself?
Yeah, that's the way it's usually done (that you walk your trash down to a common room where the cans are, that is). All garbage chutes I've seen in the last few years have been bolted shut.
[deleted]
Regarding schools: the "Free Schools" are quite unusual, almost all universities and certainly the top ones are run by the state and free, and people are accepted based on academic merit. I went to arguably the best engineering physics program in Sweden; it was free, and they paid me a $250 stipend per month, the rest of money needed to live was borrowed at a low rate.
It is true that Sweden has cut services a lot in the last few years and the "right wing" coalition had unprecedented voter support in the last election. There's a massive backlash against them, and I'll be shocked if the ruling coalition or party doesn't swing massively left next year - as will most Swedes.
Regarding vets: yes I'm sure that if you send somebody to the hell that is war, and doesn't take care of him when he comes back, that this will increase his chances of ending up in the streets vs the average civilian. I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe we should reallocate some of the wealth to taking better care of these people, and enter into fewer wars?
It is true that Sweden has cut services a lot in the last few years and the "right wing" coalition had unprecedented voter support in the last election. There's a massive backlash against them, and I'll be shocked if the ruling coalition or party doesn't swing massively left next year - as will most Swedes.
Regarding vets: yes I'm sure that if you send somebody to the hell that is war, and doesn't take care of him when he comes back, that this will increase his chances of ending up in the streets vs the average civilian. I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe we should reallocate some of the wealth to taking better care of these people, and enter into fewer wars?
"Regarding schools: the "Free Schools" are quite unusual..."
In the UK, the right-wing Education Minister, Michael Gove, is a particularly enthusiastic proponent of "free schoools" and has been strongly influenced by the Swedish free school model. In fact, the 2010 Conservative election manifesto even included a page praising the Swedish free school policy.
In the UK, the right-wing Education Minister, Michael Gove, is a particularly enthusiastic proponent of "free schoools" and has been strongly influenced by the Swedish free school model. In fact, the 2010 Conservative election manifesto even included a page praising the Swedish free school policy.
1) Nothing is free. We pay the most taxes in the world.
2) We don't accept based on academic merit. We accept based on government unemployment programs.
Edit: Spello
Edit: Spello
> We don't accept based on academic merit. We accept based on government unemployment programs
That's overly pessimistic.
Compared to most of the world, the fact that the size of your wallet doesn't directly determine which schools we can go to is remarkable.
That's overly pessimistic.
Compared to most of the world, the fact that the size of your wallet doesn't directly determine which schools we can go to is remarkable.
But now you are saying that has do with the size of your wallet (or rather lack of), which is true, but that does not mean we are basing it on academic merit. That is jumping to conclusions and assumptions.
What is the academic merits to become a teacher today? Zero?
Edit: Added extra paragraph.
What is the academic merits to become a teacher today? Zero?
Edit: Added extra paragraph.
> That is jumping to conclusions and assumptions.
Sure. I didn't arrive at this through reasoning, it's a contingency. I hope I didn't leave anything non-obvious out:
* In most places, you have to afford the school and you need the grades/SAT scores (academic merit).
* In Sweden, you don't need to afford the school: you only need the grades/SAT scores (academic merit).
Sure. I didn't arrive at this through reasoning, it's a contingency. I hope I didn't leave anything non-obvious out:
* In most places, you have to afford the school and you need the grades/SAT scores (academic merit).
* In Sweden, you don't need to afford the school: you only need the grades/SAT scores (academic merit).
But I'm saying that is not based on academic merit when anyone can attend.
Not anyone can - only those who can get the grades. And while grades are an imperfect measure of academic merit they're the best one we have.
For a long time we have had a public policy that anyone can go to higher education if they want to and in combination with different labor programs that pushes unemployed and under skilled to universities, that leads to undermining academic merits to a point where its not left.
And that we granted every small education institution with the status of university.
So to sum up: the goal of "free" education is to make higher education available for more people. This will lead to lowering of standards of already existing programs because more will attend (normal distribution of skill) and in the universities self interest a majority will pass because universities is paid per graduated student.
And with a gradual lowering of standards this opens up for unqualified students to attend, especially in combination with government programs.
Ergo academic merits does not matter.
In Swedish Almost anyone can be a teacher http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/nastan-vem-som-helst-kan-bl...
This is now norm on many programs at the Swedish universities.
And that we granted every small education institution with the status of university.
So to sum up: the goal of "free" education is to make higher education available for more people. This will lead to lowering of standards of already existing programs because more will attend (normal distribution of skill) and in the universities self interest a majority will pass because universities is paid per graduated student.
And with a gradual lowering of standards this opens up for unqualified students to attend, especially in combination with government programs.
Ergo academic merits does not matter.
In Swedish Almost anyone can be a teacher http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/nastan-vem-som-helst-kan-bl...
This is now norm on many programs at the Swedish universities.
I gather you're unhappy about the falling demand for a degree in teaching, but the whole argument you're describing is politicised and unsupported. The article suggests there's low demand for a degree in teaching; extending that to "academic merits does not matter" is a crazy stretch.
This link shows statistics for people accepted into higher education for this fall semester: http://statistik.vhs.se
Both in the design of the system and in its actual results, it's clear that academic merit matters more than any other factor.
This link shows statistics for people accepted into higher education for this fall semester: http://statistik.vhs.se
Both in the design of the system and in its actual results, it's clear that academic merit matters more than any other factor.
That link just shows academic merits relative to other students, not absolute academic merits.
Politicized is the one that accepts the reality of politics, I don't because I look at result not intent.
Politicized is the one that accepts the reality of politics, I don't because I look at result not intent.
The suggestion that Sweden is homogeneous is too common and simply false. I've lived in Stockholm for 6 months and it's a very diverse city. Far more cultural and economic diversity than, say, many Midwestern cities of comparable size. In fact, wikipedia can point you to the facts "As of 2011, Statistics Sweden reported that around 19.6% or 1.858.000 inhabitants of Sweden had foreign background, defined as born abroad or born in Sweden by two parents born abroad." (from "Demographics of Sweden")
What is more, the notion that homogeneity and IQ have anything to do with the capacity of a nation to recycle is both offensive and absurd.
What is more, the notion that homogeneity and IQ have anything to do with the capacity of a nation to recycle is both offensive and absurd.
It's the standard racial theory of Scandinavian social order aka 'We would be like them, except better, if it weren't for those stupid, violent, harmony-disrupting minorities.'
It's definitely not homogenous. It's getting "culturally enriched" by Somali Muslim "refugees" over time. The enrichment includes street harassment of Swedish women, no-go enclaves of illegal immigrants, increased rape rates, female genital mutilation, and other nice things.
If you get an ethnic Swede drunk and ask him about third world immigration and its effect on his nation, be prepared for an eye opener!
If you get an ethnic Swede drunk and ask him about third world immigration and its effect on his nation, be prepared for an eye opener!
I'm an ethnic Swede and I hope Internet anonymity is a sufficient substitute for being drunk. I don't mind the immigrants. I think the overall effect on the nation is positive.
And I'm fed up with stupid racists that think that they just say what everyone really thinks. You don't represent us. We think you are stupid and ignorant.
And I'm fed up with stupid racists that think that they just say what everyone really thinks. You don't represent us. We think you are stupid and ignorant.
Definitely agree about the racists.
Much like the internet at large is getting culturally enriched by trolls from flashback. Is it really necessary to bring a conversation about recycling down to this level?
A big factor in homelessness is also just weather. You get far more homeless people in a location with year-long homogeneously nice weather like SF, because you actually won't die being homeless. Swedish winters are harsh, and the country's not so big that these people can just go somewhere nicer for the winter. I don't have any stats (does anyone?), but I'm certain a good proportion of the homeless in SF arrived from further away.
I do think the northern European schooling/education model makes a lot more sense, and could be a solution for a lot of the societal problems at the root. However, the cultural diversity of SF makes that a much more complex problem than it is in Sweden/Finland. And so we come full circle, this stuff is just not that easy as "look it works over there, we should do it too"
I do think the northern European schooling/education model makes a lot more sense, and could be a solution for a lot of the societal problems at the root. However, the cultural diversity of SF makes that a much more complex problem than it is in Sweden/Finland. And so we come full circle, this stuff is just not that easy as "look it works over there, we should do it too"
A couple of counterexamples. Moscow used to have plenty of homeless people (not sure how it is these days) despite harsh winters. New Zealand has very few, despite similar weather conditions to SF.
While it's probably true that SF has more homeless due to migration, I don't think it's the root cause. You really have to look at the societal structure, government support and so on for the causes.
While it's probably true that SF has more homeless due to migration, I don't think it's the root cause. You really have to look at the societal structure, government support and so on for the causes.
New Zealand doesn't have anywhere that poor people can immigrate from. But you can take a bus or two to California.
I still don't like the regimented age-based education heirarchy, which Europe still subscribes to. Beyond basic skills for human interaction (an understanding of the dominant language, basic arithmetic, necessary social skills like knowing traffic signs, what emergency lights mean what, how to calculate taxes, how interest rates work, and some basic history of the world and the local country) the most important thing is getting them interested in learning more, but it has to be by their own will, or else they won't absorb the information you try to force down their throats. The best way to do that is through exposure - I can easily see children aged 6 - 12 going through a school system where half their day is learning basic requirements to function in society (and none of the really unnecessary things for basic interaction like 18th century literature, ancient civilizations, trigonometry, and the number of electron orbitals on Iron) and the other half is exposure to professions, concepts, and ideas (go to a museum, go to a baseball game, go watch the local smelters forge aluminum, observe a busy intersection and discuss traffic patterns). In other words, to expose them to and enable them to explore a broader spectrum of the world than sitting behind decks looking at a chalkboard reading from a book and writing down notes to repeat on a test and forget the next day.
Theory of education systems is really complicated, and something I tried to read a lot about, and hypothesize about. I used to think along your exact lines as well. However, this is a very instrumentalist [1] approach to education.
I don't think this is terrible, but it has costs associated with it that will become apparent further down the road -- similar to how the existing education system born from the industrial revolution's needs has proven to. The system you have suggested has a prominent lack of means to introduce people to advanced theoretical physics, economics research, astronomy, abstract mathematics, etc, you get the picture. A generation without a hint of knowledge in the non-practical fields will function fine in the short-term, but it will lead to a stagnation of advancement until an external trigger brings it back about.
Essentially, as I'm guessing you're a hacker-hustler-type, you see the primary course of education to promote passion in "doing," and that's my first instinctual priority for education as well. But classically, education has had a role to do much more than just that (albeit extremely inefficiently) for many generations, and it could be detrimental to focus on only one educational priority of "learn to do things well", with a potential to lose being able to gain exposure to other kinds of intellectual commitments. Maybe it won't happen, but it's a real risk. Who knows what we may have lost already from generations past?
Of course, everyone in the world agrees that the "sitting behind desks competing on test scores forgetting all the knowledge and then stumbling through relearning the real world from scratch" model of today's education is broken and pretty stupid, but it's not that straightforward to fix, unfortunately. Your suggestion is definitely something a single school could adopt (and broad institutionalized educational requirements should be abolished), and I would love to send my future kids there over anything that exists today.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
I don't think this is terrible, but it has costs associated with it that will become apparent further down the road -- similar to how the existing education system born from the industrial revolution's needs has proven to. The system you have suggested has a prominent lack of means to introduce people to advanced theoretical physics, economics research, astronomy, abstract mathematics, etc, you get the picture. A generation without a hint of knowledge in the non-practical fields will function fine in the short-term, but it will lead to a stagnation of advancement until an external trigger brings it back about.
Essentially, as I'm guessing you're a hacker-hustler-type, you see the primary course of education to promote passion in "doing," and that's my first instinctual priority for education as well. But classically, education has had a role to do much more than just that (albeit extremely inefficiently) for many generations, and it could be detrimental to focus on only one educational priority of "learn to do things well", with a potential to lose being able to gain exposure to other kinds of intellectual commitments. Maybe it won't happen, but it's a real risk. Who knows what we may have lost already from generations past?
Of course, everyone in the world agrees that the "sitting behind desks competing on test scores forgetting all the knowledge and then stumbling through relearning the real world from scratch" model of today's education is broken and pretty stupid, but it's not that straightforward to fix, unfortunately. Your suggestion is definitely something a single school could adopt (and broad institutionalized educational requirements should be abolished), and I would love to send my future kids there over anything that exists today.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
Sweden has cut services and taxes more than any other western country in the past decade.
They still have some of the highest taxes in the world and an extensive welfare state.
They still have some of the highest taxes in the world and an extensive welfare state.
Though statistically you are correct, I'd like to see a comparison of not only current tax rates, but tax rates compared to debt/deficits.
The US may be collecting less taxes, but if they're just putting the remainder on credit, then they aren't really any further ahead (and possibly behind).
I did a quick search, but didn't come up with anything.
The US may be collecting less taxes, but if they're just putting the remainder on credit, then they aren't really any further ahead (and possibly behind).
I did a quick search, but didn't come up with anything.
Any such comparison is tricky. Swedish taxes also pay for child care, medical care, elderly care, and even burial, which are seen more as a purely personal/employer cost in the US.
Sweden collects high taxes even compared to other nations. When it comes to debt, the US is the outlier.
Actually the US debt-to-GDP ration isn't all that bad, and its deterioration (or increase, depending on interpretation...) of the last decade is largely due to spending on war, not due to fiscal or socio-economic factors (that is to say, this is spending that can 'easily' be cut). Whereas the other countries with ratios similar to that of the US have historically not had much better figures, and their deficits are due to enshrined socio-economic structures.
Considering that the average trash stays for at least 10-12 hours inside the house/apartment, it's inefficient to segregate once the waste is in this mixed state for that duration. At least the organic/inorganic waste has to be segregated at source.
My city (Oslo) has reduced some of the cans by having an optical sorting robot at the garbage processing facility. You can use one can for general, biodegradable and plastic by using different colored bags.
My city (Trollhättan, Sweden) had that policy until a few months ago. But earlier this year we got a notice saying that the city's per capita waste bills were some of the highest in Sweden, so they were switching to a bin-based separation system instead.
So on the IQ thing, is that because they properly care for the physical and mental well-being of their children, expectant mothers and parents? Or is it because they are some kind of Aryan super-race?
It's politically very hard to study the first hypothesis scientifically, and practically impossible for the second. So we don't know, and won't until society has matured to the point we can face these questions.
(I understand what little evidence we have points to maternal health/diet/wellbeing as the single biggest causal factor. Handouts of food - or simply money - to mothers in the latter part of pregnancy are the most effective intervention we know. But again, we know very little and it's very difficult to find anyone who can study these effects from a position of neutrality)
(I understand what little evidence we have points to maternal health/diet/wellbeing as the single biggest causal factor. Handouts of food - or simply money - to mothers in the latter part of pregnancy are the most effective intervention we know. But again, we know very little and it's very difficult to find anyone who can study these effects from a position of neutrality)
Probably not.
> It's inefficient to do 10+ cans per person.
I don't understand how you can make this claim when it has so obviously worked to great success for Sweden. The evidence shows that they are the best at managing their trash; why shouldn't we learn from them?
I don't understand how you can make this claim when it has so obviously worked to great success for Sweden. The evidence shows that they are the best at managing their trash; why shouldn't we learn from them?
> It's inefficient to do 10+ cans per person
It's actually much more efficient. Sorting is expensive. Collecting cans is trivial.
I would love to have 10 cans and help the environment. Something like this:
Glass, plastic, paper, metal, bio/food, electronics, rubber, textiles, everything else.
Right now most of that stuff gets mixed and gets piled up polluting ground water.
It's actually much more efficient. Sorting is expensive. Collecting cans is trivial.
I would love to have 10 cans and help the environment. Something like this:
Glass, plastic, paper, metal, bio/food, electronics, rubber, textiles, everything else.
Right now most of that stuff gets mixed and gets piled up polluting ground water.
> Sorting is expensive. Collecting cans is trivial.
Collecting 10 cans is not really trivial. And even with 10 different cans, the result still needs to be further sorted (there are 20 or 30 types of recyclable plastic alone). Glass needs to be sorted into 4-5 different colors. Paper needs to be sorted into 4-5 different qualities.
Industrial waste sorting certainly is expensive -- due to capital expenditure, not ongoing costs -- but it's needed in every recycling solution. The problem with expecting the public to sort, is that humans are less good at sorting than (well-designed) machines and relying on humans sorting reducing the percentage of recyclable material that is actually recycled.
There are serious arguments that all general waste should be machine sorted since it's the only way to maintain maximum levels of recycling.
Collecting 10 cans is not really trivial. And even with 10 different cans, the result still needs to be further sorted (there are 20 or 30 types of recyclable plastic alone). Glass needs to be sorted into 4-5 different colors. Paper needs to be sorted into 4-5 different qualities.
Industrial waste sorting certainly is expensive -- due to capital expenditure, not ongoing costs -- but it's needed in every recycling solution. The problem with expecting the public to sort, is that humans are less good at sorting than (well-designed) machines and relying on humans sorting reducing the percentage of recyclable material that is actually recycled.
There are serious arguments that all general waste should be machine sorted since it's the only way to maintain maximum levels of recycling.
> the result still needs to be further sorted (there are 20 or 30 types of recyclable plastic alone
They actually have machines for that. There's a youtube video on how they sort types of plastic.
> Glass needs to be sorted into 4-5 different colors
Sorting by color is trivial to automate.
> Paper needs to be sorted into 4-5 different qualities.
Yes. However where I live you have to separate cardboard from everything else. Most other paper gets shredded into pulp and recycled.
They actually have machines for that. There's a youtube video on how they sort types of plastic.
> Glass needs to be sorted into 4-5 different colors
Sorting by color is trivial to automate.
> Paper needs to be sorted into 4-5 different qualities.
Yes. However where I live you have to separate cardboard from everything else. Most other paper gets shredded into pulp and recycled.
"It's actually much more efficient. Sorting is expensive. Collecting cans is trivial."
Nope. 10 years ago it was like that, not any more. Sorting technology has gotten much better. Here is the thing: you need to sort anyway, even if you collect waste separately, because you can't rely on everybody being 100% correct in putting stuff in the right container. So 2 decades ago when people started collecting separately, the sorting stations were partly automated and could only process relatively small amounts of 'pollution' (e.g. cans in heaps of paper), and the rest was done manually. Nowadays machines can handle much more capacity, and the overhead of collecting things separately has become higher than the costs of processing everything from a big heap of mixed materials.
Nope. 10 years ago it was like that, not any more. Sorting technology has gotten much better. Here is the thing: you need to sort anyway, even if you collect waste separately, because you can't rely on everybody being 100% correct in putting stuff in the right container. So 2 decades ago when people started collecting separately, the sorting stations were partly automated and could only process relatively small amounts of 'pollution' (e.g. cans in heaps of paper), and the rest was done manually. Nowadays machines can handle much more capacity, and the overhead of collecting things separately has become higher than the costs of processing everything from a big heap of mixed materials.
In Finland, neighbouring Sweden, we also have more different containers for different trash than you'd care for. It takes time to learn all that and when you've finally sorted out all your trash properly to different bins, you sit on your balcony and look at the garbage truck reversing to the yard. The guy goes inside the garbage shed and brings out one bin of certain color, empties it in the truck, and drives away to the next address only to come back a few days later to do the same. When your mind accidentally multiplies this activity by the number of different colored bins you have there, you begin to imagine the local emissions produced by these different trucks circling around all the time, emptying one type of trash each. There are so many bins that each of them must be rather small, so the buffering capacity of the garbage sheds causes excess traffic and pollution due to regular visits by the garbage trucks. Further, some things are collected in certain recycling points, such as non-returnable glass waste like jars and olive oil bottles, which means people take them there with private cars!
For a long time we used to have general waste and compostables. That was quite understandable because you really want the compostables into a separate heap because of...well, composting and you can produce bio gas off composts if the percentage of decomposing waste is high enough. But I'm pretty sure the separation of glass, wood, papers, cardboards etc. could be done in some automated way that reaches a good enough success rate that would make it economically and ecologically viable.
For a long time we used to have general waste and compostables. That was quite understandable because you really want the compostables into a separate heap because of...well, composting and you can produce bio gas off composts if the percentage of decomposing waste is high enough. But I'm pretty sure the separation of glass, wood, papers, cardboards etc. could be done in some automated way that reaches a good enough success rate that would make it economically and ecologically viable.
It depends on the scale. In Denmark, while we can do it privately by driving to recycle stations - highly inefficient as you mention. The sorting in urban areas however, is mostly glass, paper (and the like), and general waste - it does not matter if a truck picks this up, because he would have to do so as general waste anyway, if it wasn't sorted. Many larger stores also have facilities for batteries, but I'm unsure how many uses them as most people I know toss them in with the general waste.
It has also been tried many times to separate organic matter from the rest (different colour of bags), and using automatic systems to sort it. It has been mostly dropped because it's more expensive than just burning everything unfortunately. Which brings me to the main point. We can be very efficient and recycle most of the waste, find a optimum point where we minimize the environmental footprint - it's just expensive, and the first thing to go when the city need to save money. People just don't care about future generations, or don't believe it's a problem, to accept the cost of recycling.
It has also been tried many times to separate organic matter from the rest (different colour of bags), and using automatic systems to sort it. It has been mostly dropped because it's more expensive than just burning everything unfortunately. Which brings me to the main point. We can be very efficient and recycle most of the waste, find a optimum point where we minimize the environmental footprint - it's just expensive, and the first thing to go when the city need to save money. People just don't care about future generations, or don't believe it's a problem, to accept the cost of recycling.
I live in London, and here recycling is largely driven by cost cutting: Landfills are limited, and there are severe restrictions on incinerators, so many councils use recycling as a way to drive down their costs for waste disposal.
That is political incentive though, they aren't quite as strict here. I think, no matter how we do it, it will be more expensive to recycle. That is, unless there is a political decision to tax waste burning/landfills, or resources become very scarce.
But it really is a shame, because high density areas like Copenhagen, are ideal for pushing recycling. You get quantities, and you don't have to collect over a large geographical area. So the running cost of collecting is significantly less, and you can build larger and more efficient facilities to process and recycle the waste.
But it really is a shame, because high density areas like Copenhagen, are ideal for pushing recycling. You get quantities, and you don't have to collect over a large geographical area. So the running cost of collecting is significantly less, and you can build larger and more efficient facilities to process and recycle the waste.
essentially free of homeless
I feel it's worth mentioning that other cities and even other states have long had an unofficial policy of sending their homeless/crazy people to places like SF. This has now become the subject of lawsuits - see for example http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/first-lawsuit-fil...
As a fellow Euro, I agree with your overall argument, however.
I feel it's worth mentioning that other cities and even other states have long had an unofficial policy of sending their homeless/crazy people to places like SF. This has now become the subject of lawsuits - see for example http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/12/first-lawsuit-fil...
As a fellow Euro, I agree with your overall argument, however.
> I don't know but I assume that part of the reason that Swedes are able to deal effectively with the trash is that they sort it properly at the source, so that they more easily can process it.
Nope, you can burn unsorted garbage. The reason for sorting is so you can recycle materials instead of putting it in a incinerator.
Nope, you can burn unsorted garbage. The reason for sorting is so you can recycle materials instead of putting it in a incinerator.
so when is sweden going to accept open immigration from all of the poorer neighbors?
I'll be impressed if it can keep social cohesion while allowing immigrants to make a better life for themselves. It's easy for an elite society to stay closed and elite. SF is open to some of the poorest people on earth.
I'll be impressed if it can keep social cohesion while allowing immigrants to make a better life for themselves. It's easy for an elite society to stay closed and elite. SF is open to some of the poorest people on earth.
Did you just call the American poor "some of the poorest people on earth?" Or were you talking about immigrants? One town in Sweden (Södertälje) has received more Iraqi refugees alone than all of the US has, the country that actually started the war. Sweden's immigrants are actually some of the poorest people on earth, mainly refugees of war and people who would be prosecuted/killed if they returned to their home country. Contrast that with the US that receives heaps of well educated people every year. Today, the ratio of foreign born people in Sweden is roughly equal to that of the US, but again, mainly refugees.
I was referring to the large amount of asian, mexican and central american people who live in SF. SF is known as an amnesty city (along with NYC, LA and Chicago).
What is the racial/ethnic diversity of Sweden? Showing stats on high immigration where the top of list is finnland, germany, denmark, etc. It's great sweden takes refugee's, but that is easy if they are a tiny fraction of the population. What percentage of the population is a different race or ethnicity? Here is san fransisco http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html
What is the racial/ethnic diversity of Sweden? Showing stats on high immigration where the top of list is finnland, germany, denmark, etc. It's great sweden takes refugee's, but that is easy if they are a tiny fraction of the population. What percentage of the population is a different race or ethnicity? Here is san fransisco http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html
Your categories (being the US census categories) are, of course, US-centric so cannot be directly compared to other countries. That is, in the Swedish context, why should Swedes and Iraqis both be categorized as "white" while Chileans are in their own category of "Hispanic or Latino"?
For some hard numbers, "15% of the [Swedish] population was born abroad, 5% of the population was born in Sweden to two parents born abroad, and another 7% was born in Sweden to one parent born abroad. Resulting in 27% of the Swedish population being of at least partly foreign descent." (Wikipedia for Immigration_to_Sweden#Current_population_of_immigrants_and_their_descendants . That also shows the complete breakdown, with Iraq, Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, and Iran in positions #2-5, after Finland.)
Compare that to the US: "According to the Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey, the US immigrant population was 38,517,234, or 12.5 percent of the total US population." (http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=8... )
12.5% for the US is less than 15% for Sweden.
It's hard to compare the Swedish immigration numbers to the ones in the link you gave, which talks about ethnicity in San Francisco, because the Swedish government tracks nationality, not ethnicity.
It's also difficult to compare San Francisco, which has a higher than average diversity in the US, with all of Sweden. For example, in Botkyrka Municipality near Stockholm nearly half the population has at least one parent born in another country, and that rises to 65% in one of its neighborhoods; a neighborhood where 26% of the neighborhood is a foreign national.
By comparison, that number is 30% (instead of 26%) for the SF Bay Area. However, even then it's not a good comparison because I picked a single neighborhood of 82k people in Sweden, against the Bay Area, which has a population of 7.15 million. The entirety of Sweden is only 9.5 million people.
So yes, you can easily say that San Francisco is a very culturally diverse city. No one disagrees with you.
However, purplelobster's point was that Sweden currently, and over the last two decades, takes in a lot of refugees on a per-capita basis, and even more than the US does - a fact which is not in dispute.
For some hard numbers, "15% of the [Swedish] population was born abroad, 5% of the population was born in Sweden to two parents born abroad, and another 7% was born in Sweden to one parent born abroad. Resulting in 27% of the Swedish population being of at least partly foreign descent." (Wikipedia for Immigration_to_Sweden#Current_population_of_immigrants_and_their_descendants . That also shows the complete breakdown, with Iraq, Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, and Iran in positions #2-5, after Finland.)
Compare that to the US: "According to the Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey, the US immigrant population was 38,517,234, or 12.5 percent of the total US population." (http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=8... )
12.5% for the US is less than 15% for Sweden.
It's hard to compare the Swedish immigration numbers to the ones in the link you gave, which talks about ethnicity in San Francisco, because the Swedish government tracks nationality, not ethnicity.
It's also difficult to compare San Francisco, which has a higher than average diversity in the US, with all of Sweden. For example, in Botkyrka Municipality near Stockholm nearly half the population has at least one parent born in another country, and that rises to 65% in one of its neighborhoods; a neighborhood where 26% of the neighborhood is a foreign national.
By comparison, that number is 30% (instead of 26%) for the SF Bay Area. However, even then it's not a good comparison because I picked a single neighborhood of 82k people in Sweden, against the Bay Area, which has a population of 7.15 million. The entirety of Sweden is only 9.5 million people.
So yes, you can easily say that San Francisco is a very culturally diverse city. No one disagrees with you.
However, purplelobster's point was that Sweden currently, and over the last two decades, takes in a lot of refugees on a per-capita basis, and even more than the US does - a fact which is not in dispute.
This is something people frequently ignore, and point to the areas of the US being culturally diverse as an excuse for poor school results or high crime. This annoys me slightly as it carries an implication that there are some ethnic backgrounds which are inherently bad\stupid\poor\whatever.
My implication is different (altho I agree some people use it as a racist argument). My implication is that social cohesion policies are not easy when you have a ethically diverse population with different cultures and values. It's perfectly natural for people to form into groups and not trust 'others' (which isn't racist). This natural tendency makes it hard for social policies to be successful. When 95% of your population is white, with similar cultural values, its easy to have a policy where you spread the wealth to fellow group members you identify with. It's a lot harder to have policies when your population is split into 3 different camps.
As a EU member Sweden is open to most of our European neighbors... We also take in way more immigrants than most.
"SF is open to some of the poorest people on earth." no more so than the rest of the United States is insofar as immigration goes. I don't believe there are many (any?) people living in SF that qualify as the poorest people on earth though.
SF is an amnesty city, with a lot of immigrants from central america. Many other US cities have an active deportation policy, SF does not. SF does not push out the homeless either.
My point was if Stockholm had the same weather and immigration policies as San Fransisco, it would be facing some of the same challenges with poverty and homelessness.
My point was if Stockholm had the same weather and immigration policies as San Fransisco, it would be facing some of the same challenges with poverty and homelessness.
For a different perspective I found this older article which ponders the economic impact of forcing 9 million people to spend time and energy sorting their trash: http://mises.org/daily/2855
I find sorting garbage to be better and cleaner for me, personally, actually. You don't have one large festering heap in your home, you have three heaps and only one of them actually smells. The rest are used up plastic containers, bottles, paper, etc. - materials that don't decompose on their own. You get to throw all the biological waste in one place, which can be smaller than the rest and you can clean it up every other day. You can of course throw all your trash away every other day, but it's easier when you only have to throw away only a small portion of it.
I currently live in a city that doesn't collect trash separately and I still separate my trash - it's just nicer and cleaner.
The marketing budget needed to convince people to transition to the new model will pay itself off shortly. Consider also that you'll get unpaid "split-trash evangelists" in most neighbourhoods doing your work for you.
I currently live in a city that doesn't collect trash separately and I still separate my trash - it's just nicer and cleaner.
The marketing budget needed to convince people to transition to the new model will pay itself off shortly. Consider also that you'll get unpaid "split-trash evangelists" in most neighbourhoods doing your work for you.
... an article which of course assumes that the costs of the (not spelled out) alternatives are zero...
My parents do this and it's not like it's very onerous.
My parents do this and it's not like it's very onerous.
Well, the point he makes is that the same is true for the other statistics. It'd probably be cheaper environmentally for a garbage truck to pick up all your garbage for instance, rather than each person traveling to the recycling center themselves.
I've lived in a couple of villages/towns/cities in Sweden, and the garbage trucks do pick up the sorted household garbage. Recycling centers are for stuff like old furniture, used engine oil, etc.
I guess you could implement a system for that too. Inform the city when you have less common items to throw away and when the quota for your neighborhood is full, a truck gets dispatched to pick it up. Would require some extra infrastructure I guess, but it might be worth it.
I guess you could implement a system for that too. Inform the city when you have less common items to throw away and when the quota for your neighborhood is full, a truck gets dispatched to pick it up. Would require some extra infrastructure I guess, but it might be worth it.
Here in Portugal - or at least, in many municipalities - you can call up the city and arrange for them to pick it up at a certain day, for free (yes, it's paid by taxes, yada yada).
They take furniture, appliances and green waste (from gardens and such).
They take furniture, appliances and green waste (from gardens and such).
In Oakland you get one free "bulk load" trash pickup a year kindly provided by Waste Management.
In Australia, virtually no one travels to the "recycling center themselves" - we have three bins (green waste, recyclables [paper/card/plastics/tins/etc], general). General waste is picked up from the kerb each week, while the other two are picked up on alternate weeks. Even accounting for the more frequent pick-ups of general waste, I still produce more recycling (wine bottles, etc) or green waste (weeding, pruning, etc) than general rubbish.
Last I checked, no one is "forced" to do anything. They are free to let the trash pile up in their homes, so long as they keep it from impacting their neighbors. Instead, the service of trash disposal is being offered with restrictions.
And if you wish to engage a more sane trash disposal service?
That article is biased and full of exaggerations (and possibly also outright errors). I live inside the city in Stockholm and have lived both in a suburb and a small town in another part of Sweden in my life. No one I've met spend much time "cleaning and sorting" their garbage. Sure, we might rinse out our cans and milk cartons before putting them in their respective bags underneath the sink, but that takes probably less than three seconds, and we do it mostly so that it won't smell. I've never met anyone that separates the paper from cans. Everyone I know would laugh at such ideas.
Furthermore, the kinds of things we recycle from day to day do not consist of more than 6 categories. Two colors of glass, metal (cans mostly), cartons, paper, plastic. Everyone I know collects this in their own home in paper bags, and then leaves them at a collection point close to their house when they get full. And of course, we don't normally take an extra trip to do this. I leave it on my way to the subway, other people might leave them when they take the car to work. It's really not much of an extra workload. I'm guessing I spend 15 minutes a month on my recycling.
Then we have more rare trash. Electronics, batteries, light bulbs, wood, paint etc. For the suburbs and small towns they have larger recycling plants in each municipality which you can drive to. They have shipping containers where you dump your old bikes, tv's, your large pine tree that you cut down to get some more sun in your yard, etc. A typical family might visit this place one to three times a year to dump some more hazardous or clunky trash.
If you live in an apartment complex (and possibly don't have access to a car) there's usually a room in the complex for all of these things. They have the plastic, glass, metal, batteries and electronics containers close to your own apartment.
For me who live in the city and don't have access to a car, there is actually a truck that comes around a few times a year for me to deposit these things. It has a few collection points close to me (within walking distance) and sends out a text message to my phone a few weeks before they're coming, besides having a schedule online.
Having been raised in this type of a recycling system, I'm always amazed by people, even in Sweden, who think it's too cumbersome. Sure, it happens that I forget to empty my recycling bins at the collection points some times, and then I do throw cartons and cans in my regular garbage (which from what I know is not illegal, btw). But in general there really isn't any noticeable overhead.
Furthermore, the kinds of things we recycle from day to day do not consist of more than 6 categories. Two colors of glass, metal (cans mostly), cartons, paper, plastic. Everyone I know collects this in their own home in paper bags, and then leaves them at a collection point close to their house when they get full. And of course, we don't normally take an extra trip to do this. I leave it on my way to the subway, other people might leave them when they take the car to work. It's really not much of an extra workload. I'm guessing I spend 15 minutes a month on my recycling.
Then we have more rare trash. Electronics, batteries, light bulbs, wood, paint etc. For the suburbs and small towns they have larger recycling plants in each municipality which you can drive to. They have shipping containers where you dump your old bikes, tv's, your large pine tree that you cut down to get some more sun in your yard, etc. A typical family might visit this place one to three times a year to dump some more hazardous or clunky trash.
If you live in an apartment complex (and possibly don't have access to a car) there's usually a room in the complex for all of these things. They have the plastic, glass, metal, batteries and electronics containers close to your own apartment.
For me who live in the city and don't have access to a car, there is actually a truck that comes around a few times a year for me to deposit these things. It has a few collection points close to me (within walking distance) and sends out a text message to my phone a few weeks before they're coming, besides having a schedule online.
Having been raised in this type of a recycling system, I'm always amazed by people, even in Sweden, who think it's too cumbersome. Sure, it happens that I forget to empty my recycling bins at the collection points some times, and then I do throw cartons and cans in my regular garbage (which from what I know is not illegal, btw). But in general there really isn't any noticeable overhead.
Mr Bylund's article has some points, but I rather read scientific critisism than political.
Libertarians don't like recycling because it's a political intervention into the market.
Not only do they dislike that on principal, if people start to like any one particular intervention (which many people do with recycling) then it undermines their entire political approach.
Not only do they dislike that on principal, if people start to like any one particular intervention (which many people do with recycling) then it undermines their entire political approach.
Thank you!
I really think the fact that Sweden is 30 time smaller than the US is a significant aspect of the problem, which ought to be highlighted a bit more when doing a comparison between these two countries on their energy models.
How hard would it be for the US to implement such solution (assuming the cost would not be as prohibitive as it is compared with nuclear energy), first in a large city like NY (or LA) as a test bed? Maybe something like that already exist in the States?
I really think the fact that Sweden is 30 time smaller than the US is a significant aspect of the problem, which ought to be highlighted a bit more when doing a comparison between these two countries on their energy models.
How hard would it be for the US to implement such solution (assuming the cost would not be as prohibitive as it is compared with nuclear energy), first in a large city like NY (or LA) as a test bed? Maybe something like that already exist in the States?
Trash sorting is an embarrassingly parallel problem.
Japan has about a third of our population and they do garbage sorting pervasively. I believe it's less onerous than the Swedish scheme, though.
About ten years ago, in Tokyo, at least the business districts, it was somewhat difficult to find public trash receptacles rather than recycling receptacles. The recycling setups I saw were typically three-ish receptacle configurations.
Go look up Harrisburg and how their trash->energy plant as worked out.
>Go look up Harrisburg and how their trash->energy plant as worked out.
Or look up Lancaster, PA (one county over from Harrisburg) and how their trash->energy plant "is considered a national model for waste disposal, featured in industry trade publications."[1], and how they (Lancaster county) are in the process of buying the Harrisburg facility.[2]
[1] http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/tale_of_t... [2] http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/856655_County-waste...
Or look up Lancaster, PA (one county over from Harrisburg) and how their trash->energy plant "is considered a national model for waste disposal, featured in industry trade publications."[1], and how they (Lancaster county) are in the process of buying the Harrisburg facility.[2]
[1] http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/08/tale_of_t... [2] http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/856655_County-waste...
Yeah because a mismanaged city project in a dysfunctional city is a great example of the actual technology, especially when you hire totally unqualified companies to do it. But hey, we could have spent all that money on a Wild West Museum instead or maybe just prayed some more for a balanced budget.
Yeah, that comment was a little snarkier than I had intended it to be. My point was more that it had been tried in the US, but in this one case it failed, mostly because of complete incompetence. Not that the tech was bad.
The dirty secret here is CO2 emissions. Everything Sweden does to cut down waste to begin with is awesome. But of course you're going to run out of trash if you BURN EVERYTHING LEFT.
What marks this as a puff piece is the lack of honesty around CO2. The only place they mention it is in comparing it to.. generating the same amount of power from burning oil. It is spun as a way to reduce CO2, because look at all the oil we aren't burning. But this is a disingenuous comparison.
A proper comparison would pit burning trash against renewable energy sources that don't produce greenhouse gases. Nowhere do they even let on that incinerating trash is anything but a total positive for the environment.
There are other signals that this is a PR piece. They note that they've reduced "emissions" by 90-99 percent. Sounds like a miracle. But if you look closely and read all the details.. they don't count CO2 as an "emission".
Source (that the article is based on): http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_en...
What marks this as a puff piece is the lack of honesty around CO2. The only place they mention it is in comparing it to.. generating the same amount of power from burning oil. It is spun as a way to reduce CO2, because look at all the oil we aren't burning. But this is a disingenuous comparison.
A proper comparison would pit burning trash against renewable energy sources that don't produce greenhouse gases. Nowhere do they even let on that incinerating trash is anything but a total positive for the environment.
There are other signals that this is a PR piece. They note that they've reduced "emissions" by 90-99 percent. Sounds like a miracle. But if you look closely and read all the details.. they don't count CO2 as an "emission".
Source (that the article is based on): http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_en...
"A proper comparison would pit burning trash against renewable energy sources that don't produce greenhouse gases"
Not really, because carbon neutral renewable energy usable for heating are not plentiful. AFAIK there is only: Sustainable wood pelet burning with particles filters, Heat pumps.
And there is contestations about heat pumps being a green energy source http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/08/heat-pump...
Not really, because carbon neutral renewable energy usable for heating are not plentiful. AFAIK there is only: Sustainable wood pelet burning with particles filters, Heat pumps.
And there is contestations about heat pumps being a green energy source http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/08/heat-pump...
Not plentiful? Iceland does most of their district heating with geothermal. Their total energy production is over 80% renewables.
Of course it's a proper comparison. Even if heat pumps have drawbacks, so does burning trash. You compare the two.
Of course it's a proper comparison. Even if heat pumps have drawbacks, so does burning trash. You compare the two.
Better article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/europe/oslo-copes-wi...
This is a naïve but genuine question.. is shipping trash from the UK to Norway and then setting it on fire better for the environment than burying it? (Or, at the very least, is it better to burn trash than to extract and burn something else?)
"is shipping trash from the UK to Norway and then setting it on fire better for the environment than burying it?"
Definitely! Landfill takes up a lot of space. Yes, it's buried underground, but there is a risk that harmful toxins or chemicals can leak into the soil. Landfill gases can leak into the air. A lot of that rubbish will not decompose.
The UK has a landfill tax to discourage excess waste, but unlike Sweden and Norway, we have not come up with clever, forward-thinking solutions to tackle the problem.
Definitely! Landfill takes up a lot of space. Yes, it's buried underground, but there is a risk that harmful toxins or chemicals can leak into the soil. Landfill gases can leak into the air. A lot of that rubbish will not decompose.
The UK has a landfill tax to discourage excess waste, but unlike Sweden and Norway, we have not come up with clever, forward-thinking solutions to tackle the problem.
One thing about shipping costs are that they're very low.
A number from oil tankers: the "freight cost" of shipping a supertanker's worth of oil halfway around the world works out to a few pennies per gallon -- 1% of the net cost, and an even smaller fraction of the energy content.
A number from oil tankers: the "freight cost" of shipping a supertanker's worth of oil halfway around the world works out to a few pennies per gallon -- 1% of the net cost, and an even smaller fraction of the energy content.
Oh they burn it? I though they were doing that bacteria to methane idea?
I don't know about the Swedish one but the Norwegian one in the other linked article says:
Oslo, a recycling-friendly place where roughly half the city and most of its schools are heated by burning garbage — household trash, industrial waste, even toxic and dangerous waste from hospitals and drug arrests — has a problem: it has literally run out of garbage to burn.
So it seems so, yeah :-(
Oslo, a recycling-friendly place where roughly half the city and most of its schools are heated by burning garbage — household trash, industrial waste, even toxic and dangerous waste from hospitals and drug arrests — has a problem: it has literally run out of garbage to burn.
So it seems so, yeah :-(
I live in a Swedish city, and I recently visited the local "garbage burning" power plant. It's not like the trash is just burned and the fumes released into the atmosphere, they pass through like 10-15 different types of filters removing and recycling different particles. The fumes that finally are released supposedly have a very negligible environmental impact. I'd link you some sources, but I got this information first-hand from the plant engineers, not sure where to look.
Yes, emission from dioxin has been reduced by 99% since the 1980s beacuse of better filtering and much higher temperatures when burning the garbage.
From Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency)
In Swedish http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Vaglednin...
Google translate http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
From Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency)
In Swedish http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Vaglednin...
Google translate http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
much higher temperatures
There exist a NOx tax (since 1992) for polluting the air with nitrogen oxides when burning garbage. But how much a furnace pollutes when doing that, not sure at all.
The amount of polluted nitrogen oxides to the level of produced energy unit has dropped some the last few years, but not much.
The general nitrogen oxide levels in Sweden has been reduced since the 90s according to this source
In Swedish http://www.miljomal.se/Miljomalen/Alla-indikatorer/Indikator...
"Från 1990 till 2011 har utsläppen minskat från cirka 270 000 ton till cirka 145 500 ton. Det är en minskning på 46 procent."
"From 1990 to 2011, emissions have been reduced from about 270 000 tonnes to around 145 500 tonnes. This is a decrease of 46 percent."
Google translate http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
The source is from Miljömål (Environment Goal),site runned by Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
The amount of polluted nitrogen oxides to the level of produced energy unit has dropped some the last few years, but not much.
The general nitrogen oxide levels in Sweden has been reduced since the 90s according to this source
In Swedish http://www.miljomal.se/Miljomalen/Alla-indikatorer/Indikator...
"Från 1990 till 2011 har utsläppen minskat från cirka 270 000 ton till cirka 145 500 ton. Det är en minskning på 46 procent."
"From 1990 to 2011, emissions have been reduced from about 270 000 tonnes to around 145 500 tonnes. This is a decrease of 46 percent."
Google translate http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=...
The source is from Miljömål (Environment Goal),site runned by Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
[deleted]
A number of WTE plants do a couple of things -- 1) biological / wet fraction goes to a digester for methane, which is either burned as additional fuel or sold to municipalities, 2) solid waste is burned, 3) ash from burning used for additional projects (road, train beds, etc).
Most also do cogeneration as well (energy + heat/steam distribution).
Most also do cogeneration as well (energy + heat/steam distribution).
But completely unrelated.
I agree, it is a better article. But the OP is about Sweden, and reads as a poorly executed "Us too" press release. Your article is about a similar (but slightly different) problem in Norway. Hence my down vote.
I agree, it is a better article. But the OP is about Sweden, and reads as a poorly executed "Us too" press release. Your article is about a similar (but slightly different) problem in Norway. Hence my down vote.
Do they sequester the massive amounts of CO2 that trash burning generates? If not, sinking that carbon into the ground may be a better idea. Or not: landfills produce methane and other natural gases which are more potent than carbon dioxide if they're not captured and reused. Has anyone done the math?
Most of a typical waste stream consists of current/recent biomass -- a surprising amount by both volume and weight is paper and paper products.
Plastics and such do represent fossilized carbon (usually) but are a smaller percentage overall.
So the net carbon impact is much lower than burning fossil fuels. And yes, the methane reduction helps, though methane does have a pretty short (about a decade) residency in the atmosphere as I understand.
Plastics and such do represent fossilized carbon (usually) but are a smaller percentage overall.
So the net carbon impact is much lower than burning fossil fuels. And yes, the methane reduction helps, though methane does have a pretty short (about a decade) residency in the atmosphere as I understand.
These articles about "running out of garbage" make it sound like a great thing, but it seems to me that it's a big disadvantage of any kind of waste-to-energy scheme. I mean, the concept is that you spend a ton of money making these power generation facilities that do waste-to-energy, and then that cost is partially defrayed by selling the energy.
But if you don't actually have enough garbage to run the facility, then it is that much less cost-efficient. It implies that something has gone badly wrong. Why did you build so many facilities?
But if you don't actually have enough garbage to run the facility, then it is that much less cost-efficient. It implies that something has gone badly wrong. Why did you build so many facilities?
I wonder if they even cost much, after all a furnace is not some terribly new technology. In Copenhagen they seem to have excess money to turn it into a giant smoking ski slope: http://www.archdaily.com/339893/bigs-waste-to-energy-plant-b...
A brief web search didn't come up with any cost estimates of the Swedish facilities, but this page lists the cost of a singaporean one at about $500 million.
http://www.keppelseghers.com/en/content.aspx?sid=3028
It's possible that that's drastically different than the Swedish ones, but I fundamentally do not believe that any power generation facility is a terribly cheap facility to build or maintain. If you do, I suggest that that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
http://www.keppelseghers.com/en/content.aspx?sid=3028
It's possible that that's drastically different than the Swedish ones, but I fundamentally do not believe that any power generation facility is a terribly cheap facility to build or maintain. If you do, I suggest that that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
One of the newest waste burning plants in Sweden, Block 5[1], cost $150mm (SEK 1bn) to construct in 2005-2006.
[1] http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppsala_Block_5
[1] http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppsala_Block_5
Yes, this is the problem with cellulosic ethanol as well. Right now, when we just discard corn husks and such, it seems like a no-brainer to use them as a free input to an ethanol process. But if you actually scale it up you'll run out of source material pretty quickly.
No worries, we have money to burn.
I am so overflowing and stuffed from all these NSA revelations, that I read "Snowden Runs Out Of Garbage" two times in a row.
My home municipality on the west coast of Norway sends their waste to Sweden to be burned. Before we did that, all households had to sort the waste into separate bins for plastic and organic waste. The organic waste were turned into compost locally. It changed because Miljøverndepartementet (Ministry of Environmental Protection) changed the regulations for depositing plastic waste. So many municipalities have trucks going "over the mountain" with waste to Sweden to be burned. And we actually have the ability to burn waste for energy here on the west coast of Norway, but I guess simply sending it to Sweden is cheaper. And it actually isn't quite as bad as it sounds like because many trucks also deliver manufactured goods from Sweden and would have return empty.
I have no idea what the net environmental benefit is (or if it even is positive (or if anyone really knows)).
I have no idea what the net environmental benefit is (or if it even is positive (or if anyone really knows)).
they have a big PDF that shows they've been able to cut emissions of almost all the bad stuff except NOx, a precursor to acid rain: http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_en...
Reminds me of the Daily Show's incisive documentary about Sweden. http://www.videogum.com/65751/the_daily_show_visits_robyns_b...
Ames, Iowa, home of Iowa State University, does something similar. All of their trash gets burned to generate electricity for the city. Seems to work quite well for them, been doing it for probably 30 or 40 years, now.
How do they produce safe emissions from trash? They have a hard enough time when burning something where they control the input.
I don't think they do; however, it seems to be possible.[1] Googling "batch oxidation" gives back this PDF[2] describing it. Answering your question again:
"Unlike incinerators and other thermal processes, the BOS™ does not use a high temperature, turbulent processes to reduce the waste. The “quiet”, non‐turbulent smouldering of waste during the gasification phase means that the production of fly‐ash is almost eliminated, and the process does not suffer from temperature peaks and troughs, thus reducing problems with the formation of NOx and dioxins. However, many waste materials contain chemical components which can cause problems in any thermal process. Acid gases and metals must be neutralised and or / removed, and dioxins, furans, and particulates must all be reduced to minute amounts in order to meet the stringent EU legislation and compliance requirements. BOS™ achieves this by the use of a comprehensive Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) system through a dedicated Best Available Technology (BAT) program. The injection of sodium bicarbonate and activated carbon in a powdered form neutralises the acid gases and absorbs heavy metals and dioxins. Urea, injected into the Secondary Combustion Chamber, reduces NOx levels dramatically, and a bag-house filter system removes any last traces of particulate before the exhaust goes to atmosphere."
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/energy-environmen...
[2]http://wtecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WtEC-BOS-Web...
"Unlike incinerators and other thermal processes, the BOS™ does not use a high temperature, turbulent processes to reduce the waste. The “quiet”, non‐turbulent smouldering of waste during the gasification phase means that the production of fly‐ash is almost eliminated, and the process does not suffer from temperature peaks and troughs, thus reducing problems with the formation of NOx and dioxins. However, many waste materials contain chemical components which can cause problems in any thermal process. Acid gases and metals must be neutralised and or / removed, and dioxins, furans, and particulates must all be reduced to minute amounts in order to meet the stringent EU legislation and compliance requirements. BOS™ achieves this by the use of a comprehensive Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) system through a dedicated Best Available Technology (BAT) program. The injection of sodium bicarbonate and activated carbon in a powdered form neutralises the acid gases and absorbs heavy metals and dioxins. Urea, injected into the Secondary Combustion Chamber, reduces NOx levels dramatically, and a bag-house filter system removes any last traces of particulate before the exhaust goes to atmosphere."
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/energy-environmen...
[2]http://wtecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WtEC-BOS-Web...
Phrases like "... a dedicated Best Available Technology (BAT) program." give me cause for concern.
It amounts to "we're not provably worse than any of the other technologies that have been adopted"... aka it's far from the best available, which I'm sure is cost prohibitive.
That aside, I do have a lot of respect for the work that goes into this sort of chemical engineering - absolutely fascinating stuff.
It amounts to "we're not provably worse than any of the other technologies that have been adopted"... aka it's far from the best available, which I'm sure is cost prohibitive.
That aside, I do have a lot of respect for the work that goes into this sort of chemical engineering - absolutely fascinating stuff.
Here's a presentation regarding the 'SYSAV' waste-to-energy facility in Malmö, Sweden:
http://www.sysav.se/upload/flash/sysav.swf
There's an extensive pollution collection/scrubbing system that captures the pollutants as solids and liquids.
http://www.sysav.se/upload/flash/sysav.swf
There's an extensive pollution collection/scrubbing system that captures the pollutants as solids and liquids.
Burn it hot enough and emissions turn out mostly ok.
[deleted]
I have no idea. Here's a page about the Resource Recovery System:
http://www.cityofames.org/index.aspx?page=168
Interesting the me as a Swede, I read about this "problem" at HN first. Never read/heard anything about this in mainstream swedish media.
I might if course have missed it, but if its such a big problem as the article like to state, I like to think I should have heard of it, otherwise it would be fair to question the sources of this.
The article mentions incinerators; I wonder how it is impacting air quality, specifically dioxin levels.
I recently saw this documentary which discusses various approaches to managing trash: http://www.trashedfilm.com/references.php#tabair
I recently saw this documentary which discusses various approaches to managing trash: http://www.trashedfilm.com/references.php#tabair
That's certainly better than setting it all out to float in the ocean as new garbage islands.
All our green buses here in the south of Sweden (Scania/Skåne) run on biological waste. There are big campaigns for getting more food and having people separate food and biological waste in their trash.
In the third world, the poor comb through garbage dumps seeking anything that might have value.
Obviously, I'd like to see that end. There are many more productive things humans can do that are far less of a risk to their health.
But imagine robots that are able to do it, either at the source or before the garbage is burned or buried or shipped off elsewhere.
A lot of work still remains before that happens, but one day robots will be carefully examining each item discarded and sending it to the most appropriate place.
Obviously, I'd like to see that end. There are many more productive things humans can do that are far less of a risk to their health.
But imagine robots that are able to do it, either at the source or before the garbage is burned or buried or shipped off elsewhere.
A lot of work still remains before that happens, but one day robots will be carefully examining each item discarded and sending it to the most appropriate place.
Of course, when those poor people can afford robots to scavenge in the trash, they won't need to scavenge in the trash. As far as more productive things, when you don't have anything to eat and nothing of value, there's nothing more productive than trying to find something of value. Also, scavenging trash dumps is probably the least of their health concerns. Let's solve clean water before we start worrying about trash sorting in Somalia.
'Robots' do sort garbage, but it doesn't work as well as humans, and it's probably suited only to certain types of garbage.
Are there any negative externalities turning garbage into energy? What are the byproducts? Pollution released into the air? Spread to everyone else?
Because this is wonderful!
Because this is wonderful!
It's certainly a better option than putting it into a landfill, where the organic portion will turn into energy anyway, and the non-organic portion will do nothing but potentially pollute the groundwater.
Sounds like they do a pretty good job of controlling the emissions. My primary concern, and this is a fairly uneducated concern, but I always envisioned a (bleak) future where we had already mined all the precious and rare-earth metals and minerals and were forced to use our garbage dumps to re-claim those materials. Of course a good recycling program, would in theory, prevent this from ever being necessary, but in general, burning stuff to create energy feels sooo 20th century, we should really be using renewables and nuclear.
Well my primary concern was the garbage and pollution, such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. If we really found a way to cut our garbage down to 4%, that's pretty incredible ... of course if we start generating 25x more garbage to begin with then it will negate that.
This story illustrates both the upsides and limitations of trash-to-energy programs.
On the positive side: many sources will pay you to take their trash from them. There's nothing like free energy.
On the negative side:
- Sweden's exhaustion of its own sources of trash show that the concept is inherently limited, even in an abundant consumption economy. That is, one which is producing ample waste streams. As the article notes: "the fastidious population of Northern Europe produces only about 150 million tons of waste a year, he said, far too little to supply incinerating plants that can handle more than 700 million tons." That's a kind way of saying that Sweden's overbuilt its trash-to-electric capacity by 467%.
- Some trash is more equal than others. Countries such as Switzerland and Germany which offer highly segregated waste streams find themselves with many takers. Italy, who is stereotypically ... less organized, not so much. Again, noted in the article.
- There are issues with contaminants, which require monitoring of the input waste stream, the combustion process, and emissions controls.
- Ultimately there's the question of how much trash will exist in a world with a leaner energy profile. In which case it's likely we'll find that there's a very high excess of trash-to-energy infrastructure, though much of it might be applied to other feedstocks, including biomass. Though this also has its limits:
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange...
Putting this in an American context (likely familiar to most readers):
Americans produce 230 million tons of waste stream, about 4.3 - 4.6 pounds per person per day.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/garbage/solidwaste.html
http://www.epa.gov/osw/basic-solid.htm
In a best-case scenario, this would be pure biomass. I'll assume the same energy potential as carbohydrate (oil-based products will have roughly double this, glass, metal, and inorganic solids less), at 4 calories/gram, or roughly 971 GWh of electrical energy. That's an appreciable amount of energy, but given that annual electrical production is 4.1 tera watt-hours, my hypothetical puts waste-stream energy production at less than 1/4 of electrical energy usage, or roughly 6% of total energy usage. And that's before considering the energy requirements of collecting and processing the wastestream itself, or the effects on waste production in a reduced-energy environment.
On the positive side: many sources will pay you to take their trash from them. There's nothing like free energy.
On the negative side:
- Sweden's exhaustion of its own sources of trash show that the concept is inherently limited, even in an abundant consumption economy. That is, one which is producing ample waste streams. As the article notes: "the fastidious population of Northern Europe produces only about 150 million tons of waste a year, he said, far too little to supply incinerating plants that can handle more than 700 million tons." That's a kind way of saying that Sweden's overbuilt its trash-to-electric capacity by 467%.
- Some trash is more equal than others. Countries such as Switzerland and Germany which offer highly segregated waste streams find themselves with many takers. Italy, who is stereotypically ... less organized, not so much. Again, noted in the article.
- There are issues with contaminants, which require monitoring of the input waste stream, the combustion process, and emissions controls.
- Ultimately there's the question of how much trash will exist in a world with a leaner energy profile. In which case it's likely we'll find that there's a very high excess of trash-to-energy infrastructure, though much of it might be applied to other feedstocks, including biomass. Though this also has its limits:
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange...
Putting this in an American context (likely familiar to most readers):
Americans produce 230 million tons of waste stream, about 4.3 - 4.6 pounds per person per day.
http://www.learner.org/interactives/garbage/solidwaste.html
http://www.epa.gov/osw/basic-solid.htm
In a best-case scenario, this would be pure biomass. I'll assume the same energy potential as carbohydrate (oil-based products will have roughly double this, glass, metal, and inorganic solids less), at 4 calories/gram, or roughly 971 GWh of electrical energy. That's an appreciable amount of energy, but given that annual electrical production is 4.1 tera watt-hours, my hypothetical puts waste-stream energy production at less than 1/4 of electrical energy usage, or roughly 6% of total energy usage. And that's before considering the energy requirements of collecting and processing the wastestream itself, or the effects on waste production in a reduced-energy environment.
I think you're off by a factor of 1000. I get 980 terawatt-hours of energy.
If, as you say, 971 GWh is equivalent to 6% of total energy usage, then 980 TWh is 6000% total energy usage. Of course, you don't get 100% efficiency in incineration, but an oversupply of 60x leaves a lot of room for inefficiency.
Here's my calculation. I've used scientific notation to reduce the possibility of order-of-magnitude errors:
> 230 million tons Avoirdupois = 2.3e8 tons
> 2.3e8 tons * 2e3 pounds/ton = 4.6e11 pounds
> 4.6e11 pounds * 0.45 kg/pound = 2.07e11 kg
> 2.07e11 kg * 1000 g/kg = 2.07e14 g
> 2.07e14 g * 17 kJ/g for carbohydrates = 3.52e15 kJ
> 3.52e15 kJ * 2.78e-4 kWh/kJ = 9.8e11 kWh
That's 980 billion kWh, or 980 million MWh, or 980 thousand GWh, or 980 TWh.
I wonder if maybe you're getting nutrition Calories (uppercase) confused with gram calories (lowercase). Nutrition Calories are actually kilocalories!!! If you forgot to multiply by 1000 to account for this, then that would explain your result.
In Europe, nutrition labels are listed in kilojoules. This eliminates the confusion over calories.
If, as you say, 971 GWh is equivalent to 6% of total energy usage, then 980 TWh is 6000% total energy usage. Of course, you don't get 100% efficiency in incineration, but an oversupply of 60x leaves a lot of room for inefficiency.
Here's my calculation. I've used scientific notation to reduce the possibility of order-of-magnitude errors:
> 230 million tons Avoirdupois = 2.3e8 tons
> 2.3e8 tons * 2e3 pounds/ton = 4.6e11 pounds
> 4.6e11 pounds * 0.45 kg/pound = 2.07e11 kg
> 2.07e11 kg * 1000 g/kg = 2.07e14 g
> 2.07e14 g * 17 kJ/g for carbohydrates = 3.52e15 kJ
> 3.52e15 kJ * 2.78e-4 kWh/kJ = 9.8e11 kWh
That's 980 billion kWh, or 980 million MWh, or 980 thousand GWh, or 980 TWh.
I wonder if maybe you're getting nutrition Calories (uppercase) confused with gram calories (lowercase). Nutrition Calories are actually kilocalories!!! If you forgot to multiply by 1000 to account for this, then that would explain your result.
In Europe, nutrition labels are listed in kilojoules. This eliminates the confusion over calories.
I'll double-check my math, but suspect my numbers are closer to the truth.
Keep in mind that you're also limited by heat-engine efficiencies. I need to double-check if steam turbines are governed by Carnot cycle (35% max efficiency) or others, but that's another factor to keep in mind.
And yes, the calorie/kilocalorie distinction is important ;-)
Keep in mind that you're also limited by heat-engine efficiencies. I need to double-check if steam turbines are governed by Carnot cycle (35% max efficiency) or others, but that's another factor to keep in mind.
And yes, the calorie/kilocalorie distinction is important ;-)
If you've got 6000% the required energy, then 35% efficiency is not of major concern.
Three orders of magnitude makes a world of difference.
Three orders of magnitude makes a world of difference.
It does.
And I'm confirming your numbers, FWIW, which makes me suspect there's something wrong with my assumptions. I'll see if I can't dig up other references on waste-to-energy estimates.
And I'm confirming your numbers, FWIW, which makes me suspect there's something wrong with my assumptions. I'll see if I can't dig up other references on waste-to-energy estimates.
So essentially, waste to energy should be seen primarily as a way to reduce the waste problem, not as a way to produce energy. The energy is just a nice side effect that helps to make it attractive to reduce landfill usage.
So it still serves a useful purpose. It's just not going to solve our energy issues.
So it still serves a useful purpose. It's just not going to solve our energy issues.
That's pretty much my stance.
And for some countries,say, India, which has tremendous issues with trash and a severe energy shortage, this might be useful. If the logistics, pollution, and wastestream segregation issues can be worked out.
And for some countries,say, India, which has tremendous issues with trash and a severe energy shortage, this might be useful. If the logistics, pollution, and wastestream segregation issues can be worked out.
In your best case scenario, what about the reduced expenditure on shipping trash to places where landfills are open? E.g. I believe NYC ships a good bit of trash down to the Carolinas.
Also only 54% is currently sent to a landfill, so that would reduce your energy return to 524 GWh. That's about 20 years worth of new power plants coming online. (It appears most years the US adds about 20-25 GWh in power generation capacity a year)
Also only 54% is currently sent to a landfill, so that would reduce your energy return to 524 GWh. That's about 20 years worth of new power plants coming online. (It appears most years the US adds about 20-25 GWh in power generation capacity a year)
A few months back, I wrote a newspaper article about this as well as Mexico City's waste management schemes.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/ikea-burritos-and-...
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/ikea-burritos-and-...
[deleted]
burning trash for energy is not really efficient. It's better than leaving it on a landfill but it is not the same as recycling. A one-off reuse is still far from perfect situation where most material can be reused (with let's say 10% loss of material in each cycle). Congratulations to Sweden for being better than everyone else but there's still room for improvement!
How is that economically/environmentally sound to import garbage? Garbage should be burned locally to avoid extra pollution.
Probably better to ship it to a high quality incinerator than to burn it in a primitive one emitting lots of pollution.
Transport by sea requires negligible amount of energy. Local transport will likely waste more energy than the transport between two countries.
Transport by sea requires negligible amount of energy. Local transport will likely waste more energy than the transport between two countries.
Not in my backyard!
Seriously, that's why it's shipped rather than burned locally. Some people don't want these plants around them no matter what the benefit.
Seriously, that's why it's shipped rather than burned locally. Some people don't want these plants around them no matter what the benefit.
For example: Detroit
http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/...
http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/...
Sweden is pretty spacious anyway. I could imagine that tightly packed countries in Western Europe could want to alleviate some of that garbage by sending it to be burned in some remote place in Northern Sweden, for example.
There's a reason the waste-to-energy plant was always my favorite in Sim City. I too ran out of trash a few times.
Dear India - Are you listening ?
Nope. India is practicing Gandhi's 3 monkey principle when it comes to garbage.
No. They're busy worshiping 5th generation Gandy monkey.
There is Finland with millions Russian tourists - endless source.))
Can't they just go to Ikea to get more?
NYC. Problem solved.
0. NYC, like many big cities, creates a ton of trash (excluding writers and actors).
1. I didn't see anything about CO2/CO/COx emissions. Landfills are semi-sequestration. Burning is definitely not sequestration. It doesn't seem scalable. See also: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_why_we_should_build_wooden_skyscrapers.html
I don't know but I assume that part of the reason that Swedes are able to deal effectively with the trash is that they sort it properly at the source, so that they more easily can process it.
When I read stuff like this it honestly makes me homesick. I've lived half my life on the left side of the political spectrum (Sweden/France) and the other half on the right side here in the US. I love it in SF, but this supposedly "progressive" city has - especially considering how many smart people that live here - an appallingly poor understanding of how to architect a civilized society.
There is no reason this city shouldn't be clean, essentially free of homeless (and sometimes insane) people, have great public roads, excellent public transportation, low crime, worry about more interesting things than what size diamond ring Kanye bought for his lady, and so forth.
There is a good data driven TED talk on how points like the above correlate with wealth and equality: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html