h a l f b a k e r yChewable.
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.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
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. |
|
| |