h a l f b a k e r yOh yeah? Well, eureka too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Where a country does not have a toxic waste disposal plant it will pack up it's nasty filth, put it on a boat and send it to a country where there are the facilities to process it (or Nigeria, which ever is cheaper/easier (to get away with)). This obviously involves quite a bit of risk to the oceans.
Once I had a look around a toxic waste processing plant (which basically burn the stuff at very high temperatures) and, in betwen challenging the guide to tell me the function of random pipes (there were lots), I found out that one of the safety measures at such plants (apart from having a huge sump beneath the whole plant to catch any umska lost in a leak) is that there are no pipes running in or out of the plant to make accidental leaks into other systems impossible. The idea I had at the time, and which I now present for your comments, is why not stick the whole thing on the back of a boat and transport the waste processing plant across the oceans to where the waste is? The boat/ship could be drydocked, process the waste, scrub up and go somewhere else.
[link]
|
| |
Welcome to the 'bakery Mony! I like - a mobile waste processing facility makes kind of sense, it makes me think of a sort of Tarkus/Aquatarkus type thing. |
|
| |
Thanks. I was thinking that it could have domestic waste processor on board too to turn local rubbish into fuel pellets to supplement the fuel needed to process the toxic stuff. |
|
| |
Can't pay, won't pay ........ ? |
|
| |
Why not stick it on the front of a boat? |
|
| |
....vaguely recall the portable part being baked for contaminated soil reclamation, but the ship idea's a new one. |
|
| |
// If the country can't afford to destroy its own toxic waste how will it pay to have someone else do it for them?// |
|
| |
Nigeria gets around 40 million dollars a day from it's oil revenue. It also gets money from 'storing' other countries' toxic waste. Sooo... |
|
| |
Most hazardous waste is hazardous because it contains a metal like mercury, cadmium, chrome VI, lead, etc. Incinerating this kind of waste will just release the metals into the atmosphere. This is a bad thing. |
|
| |
As I understand it, most of the waste that gets incinerated is not classed as hazardous - it's mostly stuff like household scraps, plastics and oils. (The exception is medical waste, which is definitely hazardous). |
|
| |
So incineration is not a good way to deal with most of the waste you are talking about. |
|
| |
The idea is not to edit the current toxic waste processing methods. These are already well understood. The idea is to put a processing plant on a boat. |
|
| |
Contrast with [UnaBubba]'s recycling whale, and I think it's not too dissimilar in that it recognises the issue that often the waste is in an entirely different place to the facilities capable of processing it. |
|
| |