burning your trash? seriously?

[Stid2677]

I burn from time to time, much depends on how I'm hunting and how long before I get back. Most times I have my titanium stove, so I burn my trash in it then dump it and pack out the unburnt stuff. Last thing I want in bear country is residual food items in my pack smelling it up so a bear, wolf or wolverine might drag it off. I always walk my campsite and make sure I leave no sign I was there.

I have traveled all over the world and burnt my share of "trash", not getting my shorts in a twist over burning a ziplock or two.

 

[Colberjs]

I'm sure there could be more to the story and you can't always believe everything you see on the internet (especially Facebook) but I saw this this morning and thought of this thread.

ATTN: - We should burn our garbage like Sweden does.

Like... | Facebook

 

[mtnwrunner]

That's it. I am going to hop in my Toyota prius and go burn some trash............

Randy

 

[Gr8bawana]

Guess we should all stop burping and farting because all that methane is going to kill us.

 

[tipsntails7]

I'm sure there could be more to the story and you can't always believe everything you see on the internet (especially Facebook) but I saw this this morning and thought of this thread.

ATTN: - We should burn our garbage like Sweden does.

Like... | Facebook

There is a lot more to it, Sweden and other countries actually have bans on recyclable materials in their trash... and actually enforce it with spot checks. They also have a process where the off gas is treated to acceptable pollution levels.

Americans as a whole will never except the upfront cost of creating the infrastructure necessary to make this viable. Hopefully at some point I am wrong.

It's very similar to organic waste digesters. In the long run it is a much better option, but the initial sticker shock is hard to swallow, especially for officials up for re-election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BroodBuster]

The simple fact is burning trash on site takes way less energy and produces way less waste and pollution then having it properly disposed of. I'm stunned that someone can look at the industry of waste disposal and come to any other conclusion is kind of mind boggling to me.

I burn all my trash and then dig thru it and pack out any left over debris.

 

[les welch]

I burn what I can. Ocassionally something won't burn, but melt down. No biggie. Burn it, sift out anything but ash and haul it out.

 

[Backpack Hunter]

There is a lot more to it, Sweden and other countries actually have bans on recyclable materials in their trash... and actually enforce it with spot checks. They also have a process where the off gas is treated to acceptable pollution levels.

Americans as a whole will never except the upfront cost of creating the infrastructure necessary to make this viable. Hopefully at some point I am wrong.

It's very similar to organic waste digesters. In the long run it is a much better option, but the initial sticker shock is hard to swallow, especially for officials up for re-election.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Detroit has the largest incinerator in the US. It is now privately owned due to debt. It is considered a huge pollutant and enviromental groups are constantly bashing it. Check out the incinerators in NJ, and PA, basically insolvency. Environmental groups are constantly protesting against incinerators claiming too much toxins/pollutants.....most recently in FL I believe.
In short, it costs too much to make, and too much to keep, and it is touted as being bad for the environment. Seems like a lose lose proposition.

 

[tipsntails7]

Detroit has the largest incinerator in the US. It is now privately owned due to debt. It is considered a huge pollutant and enviromental groups are constantly bashing it. Check out the incinerators in NJ, and PA, basically insolvency. Environmental groups are constantly protesting against incinerators claiming too much toxins/pollutants.....most recently in FL I believe.
In short, it costs too much to make, and too much to keep, and it is touted as being bad for the environment. Seems like a lose lose proposition.

Except those views are wrong....

It does cost ALOT to get up and running, but done correctly it will pay itself off then will actually start earning you money. That's why certain countries in Europe are literally buying other countries trash...

Those plants have air quality boards, environmental health and SWLEA they have to answer to, along with declarations on environmental impact they had to have approved prior to start up.
Those plants either failed to secure flow control of solid waste, failed to control what was contained in their waste stream, or their projections were to illustrious and their elected officials were unwilling to continue to carry the note for the facility.

Environmental groups are constantly bashing something. Hunters, ranchers, loggers, pretty much whatever they can. Without knowing the actual groups it's tuff to use that argument to substantiate anything.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gr8bawana]

I always wonder why people make comparisons to what other countries do when just the state of California has a higher population than many entire countries. That's comparaing apples to oranges and is not relavant.

 

[tipsntails7]

I always wonder why people make comparisons to what other countries do when just the state of California has a higher population than many entire countries. That's comparaing apples to oranges and is not relavant.

Last I checked we both create waste... the US would actual benefit because of Economics of scale. It's Literally apples to apples.

That's like saying you should not compare large cities to small cities within the same state as far as how they do anything.

If someone has a good solution and is able to make it successful and efficient in a small scale all it takes is planning on how to escalate that scale. Manufacturers do this all the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Backpack Hunter]

Except those views are wrong....

It does cost ALOT to get up and running, but done correctly it will pay itself off then will actually start earning you money. That's why certain countries in Europe are literally buying other countries trash...

Those plants have air quality boards, environmental health and SWLEA they have to answer to, along with declarations on environmental impact they had to have approved prior to start up.
Those plants either failed to secure flow control of solid waste, failed to control what was contained in their waste stream, or their projections were to illustrious and their elected officials were unwilling to continue to carry the note for the facility.

Environmental groups are constantly bashing something. Hunters, ranchers, loggers, pretty much whatever they can. Without knowing the actual groups it's tuff to use that argument to substantiate anything.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure how you can argue against failure? It has been tried, and it failed. In Detroit's case it had to be sold to a private company, and taxpayers were forced to keep paying it off. If I remember correctly we paid it off in 2009. Personally I'm not willing to pay $150 a ton to get a project like this paid off anymore.
My point in mentioning environmental groups was not a plus or minus for or against incinerators it was merely an illustration of how you can have one faction saying this is great for pollution and another group saying the opposite. I'm writing this out on my phone so forgive the directness and lack of depth.

 

[tipsntails7]

I'm not sure how you can argue against failure? It has been tried, and it failed. In Detroit's case it had to be sold to a private company, and taxpayers were forced to keep paying it off. If I remember correctly we paid it off in 2009. Personally I'm not willing to pay $150 a ton to get a project like this paid off anymore.
My point in mentioning environmental groups was not a plus or minus for or against incinerators it was merely an illustration of how you can have one faction saying this is great for pollution and another group saying the opposite. I'm writing this out on my phone so forgive the directness and lack of depth.

No I get it, and I'm not saying it is the only option out there. But being from Detroit their decisions as a city have not been the wisest.

The problem is it is solely dependent on being able to provide trash to the incinerator, the volume must be consistent with your projections. And those projections must take into account current and future waste reduction activities, and population growth or lack there of (IE build the thing SMALLER than you think you will need). Which Detroit absolutely did not do, and to their defense they probably had no way of knowing their population would tank like it did. They have basically half the population they did when they built that. They built it in anticipation of expansion, as it is ****ing HUGE, yet the opposite happened. You immediately lose all advantages that that system provides in a situation like that.

There is a lot of issues with Detroit and that entire project. That is not a measuring stick, it's a how not to book...


I can completely understand why you as a resident would be angry, as you rightfully should be. Because they botched that entire project.

As far as the environmentalist, hybrid cars are a perfect example. People always tout their low or zero emissions, but what is not said is the footprint it took to create that enormous battery that's goes into your car, and the end of life disposal of that battery as well.
So your on road emissions will be less than gas cars, your total footprint may actually be more in the end.

None of this is a simple answer, and it's absolutely not a plug and play system and I don't believe it is an end all be all, but I do believe that it is a piece of the bigger puzzle.

Regardless, this thread has veered way of track, and if you want to discuss further in PM I'd be happy to as I've visited incinerators and anaerobic digesters in other countries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maninthemaze]

I'm curious what the actual emissions standards are between all the countries. For example I know, because I'm a control room operator at a coal fired power plant in KY, that our NOx limit is .700 lb/mmBTU and our SO2 limit is .800 lb/mmBTU. This is just a small sample of what we're allowed to put out the stack. People state that they meet their countries emissions standards, but it would be nice to compare apples to apples that way. What is the total emissions from the plant, and more importantly, who has the lower limit.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Backpack Hunter]

Either way it is headed...or starting to head towards burning. One should be near completion or completed already in FL, another getting ready in MD. A couple more states are investigating viability as well.