Recycle! Positive Comments Welcome

[Davie P]

Recycling definitely changes behaviour and this imho is how it will contribute the most to reducing waste....

 

100% agree on this. Making it a 'thing' that people are conscious of is a good first step.

 

I previously lived somewhere that had a recycling scheme introduced by the local authority. It was unpopular to start with and many complained that they were having some pen-pushers foisting an unnecessary burden on them, but it certainly changed people's habits. Like many such initiatives, once you get over the immediate 'inconvenience' then you wonder why it has taken so long to be introduced.

 

No scheme like this will ever be perfect or tailored to individual circumstances but I believe it represents a practical, and symbolic, move in the right direction.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Has the new sorting shed got planning permission yet?  Contractor appointed?  Going to be built ready for the part 1 rollout next week and part 2 roll out in July?

[George.]

No scheme like this will ever be perfect or tailored to individual circumstances but I believe it represents a practical, and symbolic, move in the right direction.

 

I would suggest that the only move, supposedly in the right direction, will be from one end of the Isles to the other end. That will cost a massive amount in diesel for the one or two wee loads of rubbish that are collected in passing, and it will be funded by the people that pay their council tax. Talking (about) garbage is epensive, as the council will prove. After all, they do a lot of it.

 

That is, of ourse, if anything is ever collected outside Lerwick. Regardless, the common man will pay for it - regardless.

Edited March 2, 2018 by George.

[engineer21]

What happens at the incinerator when there's much reduced rubbish to burn? 

district heating wont have a good capacity any more, i guess they will burn diesel....will this put the cost for consumers of district heating up??

[Ghostrider]

^ Exactly the point I've been banging on about since at least last summer, and why the SIC's plans aren't green, but a politically driven box checking exercise from Holyrood which the SIC could have, but chose not to oppose.

 

You ship rubbish out, that burns diesel, you ship back in either other folk's un-recycable rubbish, wood pellets or diesel etc to burn instead, that burns more diesel. You've gained nothing but put profit in shipping companies coffers, cost the SHEAP customers more expensive heat and created a carbon footprint in 'rubbish/fuel miles'.

 

Our rubbish is already here, the incinerator recycles it in to useable and used heat, the incinerator emits only 'clean' gasses - or at least that's what the same folk who are now insisting we ship our rubbish elsewhere to 'recycle it and be green' told us 20 years ago - did they lie then, or are they lying now? So the only additional cost of recycling our rubbish in to heat is the diesel it takes to transport the reletively small amount of ash the incinerator creates.

 

It should be a no brainer which is the most green, its only a political decison that ignores all the relevant facts that dicates that burning rubbish (regardless that its in a captured and re-used heat zero emissions system) is all "bad", and that creating a god knows how many transport miles carbon footprint and burning some other non-renewable resource instead is "good". The surpeme irony is of course both diesel and plastics are petrochemicals, so we're supposed to believe that burning a whoe lot more of one portion of every barrel of crude, just to save burning so much of some other portion of the same barrel is a good thing......

 

Remembe too, when you're seeing your district heating bills climbing as you watch the tanker loads of diesel of artic trailers of wood pellets come off the boat to create that heat, who presided over and pushed this scheme in the first place. Our newly appointed CEO, Mrs. Sandison.....its the kind of person who can get behind such a politically motivated piece of nonsense such as this, that's just be put in charge of the whole asylum.

[Space]

^ I agree. I think that if incineration was considered as recycling then there might be no argument with what you say (I'm not arguing btw) and the economics in terms of transporting waste etc is a good point. Recycling is returning materials to an earlier stage of a cyclical production process. Burning is different and less favorable option/ lower down the waste hierarchy.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Space

[Urabug]

Is it not a fact that our council has to comply with all these stupid EU regulations that most of the time do not take into consideration costs or common sense, especially for remote areas like we are in here in Shetland.

 

Ma'be when we are out of the EU some sense might be brought to bear on the subject.

 

Just one other point this covering up of old peat banks to cut down on what was it carbon dioxide emissions that are contributing to global warming,what about the pollution from all the terrible forest fires that were in America and else where last year did they not contribute a *ell of a lot more.

 

Puts our peat banks problem into insignificance in comparison I would think.

[engineer21]

I believe this will make the SHEAP plant too expensive in the long term, considering the age of the system its only getting older.... what i wonder is what was in the contracts to folk who had it installed? was there a buy out policy, i,e if they cannot deliver you can get out? or is there a ceiling price for the heat you use??

i live in the town district heating goes to both neighbours i enquired 5 yrs ago about it but they wouldn't take new customers where iam, after speaking with both neighbours one said its not hot enough and the other says its more expensive than the oil heating they had before...

most people havent even thought of the recycling implications on SHEAP (the guys that work there know whats going to happen) 

 

you would of thought with some proper explanations and discussions (being an island...with a large district heating scheme) fairly unique id say they could of giving a dispensation regarding the recycling rules? dont get me wrong we can still recycle stuff that cant be burnt....but just tailor make it rather than a one size dosent fit all system

[Ghostrider]

Recycling is returning materials to an earlier stage of a cyclical production process. Burning is different and less favorable option/ lower down the waste hierarchy.

 

Yes, but, when following that hierachy creates a non-renewable defecit rather than profit, as would seem likely with the Council's current plans, the hierachy becomes a nonsense and should be set aside, as its proving counter-productive and harmful in our circumstances.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

^ ...  Recycling is returning materials to an earlier stage of a cyclical production process..

First dictionary definition the interwebz gave on a search result for recycling:-

 

"convert (waste) into reusable material."

 

So using the incinerator and powering the district heating system IS recycling:  burn waste, convert the waste into a fuel.

[Space]

^ Furnace ash and flue gas is not recyclable. The heat produced is not recyclable/ renewable, unless you are using something like a wind turbine to produce it. Waste used as a fuel in a furnace to produce heat is single use... burn it and you then have to go and find more waste to burn. So wrong, incineration is not recycling. It doesn't even fit the definition you quoted.

[Space]

Yes, but, when following that hierachy creates a non-renewable defecit rather than profit, as would seem likely with the Council's current plans, the hierachy becomes a nonsense and should be set aside, as its proving counter-productive and harmful in our circumstances.

 

I agree again. It doesn't invalidate the waste hierarchy but it's use locally might be in question. I would be interested in any figure, costs, carbon footprint numbers etc. that come out of the new scheme to see if it is actually harmful.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@ Space - The waste IS being recycled, it doesn't have to be recycled zillions of times to be recycled just once meets the definition.  I'm not talking about the end product as a result of the recycled waste, albeit, it would appear that you are.

[Space]

^ Well I'm sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about, you're making no sense.

Your waste is not even recycled once when incinerated, can you not see that? Incineration is a form of disposal, a one way street, burned - ash, gases. Your materials e.g. cardboard box is gone, no more old cardboard to recycle into new cardboard boxes. Your heat goes into district heating, used/ gone.

The clue is in to word reCYCLE.

Incineration might complement recycling, but incineration is not recycling.

[George.]

Recycling.