incinerators

Are we the only ones “out there”? This question and many like it have been asked for years, with no concrete answers available. But as scientists delve further into deep space and discover distant galaxies, the most likely answer seems to be coming more and more into focus: no.

Because, really, how can we be the only intelligent beings in such a vast universe? In recent years, scientists have discovered that “super-Earths,” or other, slightly larger, earth-like terrestrial planets, are far more common than originally thought.

“Super-Earths are expected to have deep oceans that will overflow their basins and inundate the entire surface, but we show this logic to be flawed,” said Nicholas Cowan, a researcher involved in a new study, Water Cycling Between Ocean and Mantle: Super-Earths Need Not Be Waterworlds. “Terrestrial planets have significant amounts of water in their interior. Super-Earths are likely to have shallow oceans to go along with their shallow ocean basins.”

Conventional wisdom has dictated that super-Earths would likely be waterworlds, with their surfaces completely covered in water. But Abbott and Cowan challenge this logic, presenting a new model that shows there could, in fact, be more earthlike planets out there than previously believed.

The study, co-written by Cowan and Doran Abbott, will be published on January 20th in the Astrophysical Journal. According to Abbott’s and Cowan’s model, these planets could store significant amounts of water in their mantles, allowing them to go from being “waterworlds” to having a combination of continents and oceans. This combination of characteristics would likely create a much more stable planet environment, not dissimilar to Earth’s.

Using this “water storage” method, Cowan says, “We can put 80 times more water on a super-Earth and still have its surface look like earth.” He continues, “These massive planets have enormous seafloor pressure, and this force pushes water into the mantle.”

http://quietkinetic.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/super-earths-far-more-common-than-originally-thought-researchers-say/

the streets of the Royal Trails neighborhood were lined with new large tan bins, two per household. Two trailers loaded with dozens of bulky containers drove off as four workers delivered the new recycling and trash carts last week to Lake residents..

lRelated Read Lauren Ritchie’s columnsNewsRead Lauren Ritchie’s columnsSee all relatedí

The process has been a longtime coming. After dumping a controversial contract that used a garbage incinerator, county officials decided to change to a “1-1-1” collection system. The new 7-year contract offers residents in unincorporated Lake an option of three different-sized trash and recycling carts — 95, 65 and 35 gallons — at no additional cost.

Homeowners will receive a 95-gallon cart for trash and a 65-gallon cart for recyclables. The once-a-week trash, once-a-week recycling and once-a-week yard-waste pickup collection begins Oct. 6.

Skip McCall, Lake’s solid waste division manager, said the transition process has been smooth sailing so far, although some residents were concerned about the cart sizes.

incinerator

“You can mix the sizes of your carts,” he said. “We try to make it as user-friendly as possible.”

He said he encourages residents to test the new carts for a few weeks before opting to change the sizes.

“Trash is a very sensitive topic to talk about,” he said. “We try to give the residents options so we’re not telling them, ‘this is what you have to have.'”

The new garbage and recycling carts will be collected with trucks equipped with an automated arm, which will save money by cutting the number of workers needed per truck from three to one, McCall said. He said officials hope to increase the county’s recycling rate from 8 percent to about 25 percent during the first year.

“Our recycling percentage is very low within this county. A lot of that is attributed to everything in the past, having to go to the incinerator,” McCall said. “The more we’re able to recycle, that means our disposal cost at the landfill is going to be less.”

Last year, county commissioners voted in favor of hauling trash to a Sumter landfill operated by ACMS Inc. over continuing with the Okahumpka incinerator, which was used since 1988 and required the county to supply 163,000 tons of garbage a year. Commissioner Leslie Campione argued against the change, saying the county could have saved money with other options, including sticking with incinerator owner Covanta Energy, which proposed a $25 million recycling facility.

Officials started issuing the new trash and recycling carts in August to the 67,040 residential units affected and held 24 community meetings to inform residents of the changes. Residents may switch trash and recycling cart sizes at no charge through April 1. Extra garbage carts are available for $60 and the additional disposal cost will be charged to homeowners’ tax bills.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-lk-new-garbage-carts-lake-county-20140927-story.html

The primary factors considered in the design and construction of a modified De-Montfort type intermittent incinerator for combusting medical wastes were the waste types, fuel, chimney size, and flue gas residence time. The design analysis was based on flue gas flow rate of 0.13 m3/s, maximum primary chamber temperature of 870 °C and minimum ambient temperature of 27 °C. The total flue gas residence time of 6.9 s was achieved for the three chamber system of 0.9 m3 total volume. The medical wastes generated from the four medical facilities in Ga East District (Ghana) consisted of infectious sharp objects, syringes, wound dressings and gloves; which were incinerated at a throughput of 80 kg/day with destruction efficiency of 98.47 %, using fuelwood as primary fuel. The natural convection thermo-fluid flow was controlled by ambient wind speed of ~ 3.8 ms-1, at temperature of 31.5 °C. The primary combustion chamber temperature attained was ~ 516 °C, while the third chamber temperature reached 760 °C, which ensured complete combustion of the wastes with reduced particulate matter emissions. At optimum operating capacity of 0.6 m3, up to 4 cycles of incineration were done in a day, each cycle lasting about 80 minutes.

HEREFORDSHIRE Council is standing by the incinerator plan pitched as the future for the county’s waste despite double blows against the project this week – as reported by the Hereford Times.

Support for the incinerator for reiterated at a meeting of the council this morning in responses to two questions from councillors.

MPs have already turned the heat on the incinerator, criticising the near  £90 million paid to the PFI project so far  without the facility being built.

The Commons public accounts committee questioned the basis of  government grant funding for the incinerator and its future in a sector where technology is continually evolving.

A report from the council’s external auditors Grant Thornton found that cabinet members did not get the detail  of why officers – rather than consultants – saw an incinerator as the future with a relevant appraisal recommending cabinet support lacking detail and clarity.  .

Grant Thornton has said it cannot now conclude its 2013-14 audit of the council or issue the council with its audit certificate until it has “completed consideration”  of specific issues raised around the incinerator plan.
The energy from waste incinerator at Hartlebury, Worcestershire, is integral to a joint 25 year waste disposal contract with West Mercia Waste signed by Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council.

An initial capital cost for the project is reported to be more than £160 million, but opponents claim ongoing maintenance will at least double this over the 25 years  while the cost using PFI funding could triple.

In February, Herefordshire Council passed a 2014-15 budget committing the council to paying £40m for the  incinerator at Hartlebury, Worcestershire, over three years.

A budget strategy estimated council borrowing as increasing by £50.8 million over 2014/15, pushing the overall debt up to £218.2 million, including £11 million borrowed over the year for the incinerator.

At full council this morning, Cllr Glenda Powell asked for “assurance to members and taxpayers” as to the plant’s future effectiveness.

Cllr Harry Bramer, cabinet member for contracts and assets, stood by a financial and options appraisal put to Cabinet in December last year supporting EfW) as the most “cost effective and viable solution” for the county’s waste over 25 years

Cllr Liz Harvey referenced her questioning “confidence” in capital borrowing for the incinerator at the council’s budget setting meeting in February.

Then, Cllr Bramer said confidence in capital borrowing as a best value option came from analysis and appraisals  in both the joint waste management strategy and a cabinet report completed in accordance with relevant government guidance.

This morning, Cllr Harvey raised the findings of the public accounts committee , specifically the conclusion that the Department for environment, food and rural affairs made decisions on waste projects focused on the need to meet EU targets without regard to the impact on local authorities.

Cllr Bramer said the council “does not disagree” with the findings quoted but cited the findings as focused on DEFRA’s oversight of PFI contracts.

It was, said Cllr Bramer, a matter for DEFRA to respond to the committee’s findings rather than either of the two councils.

The committee found PFI contracts of  25-30 years are “inappropriate” for the waste sector where technology is continually evolving with the amount of waste in  hard to predict.

Funding agreements for early PFI waste deals were “poorly drafted”  by the then Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)  and “too lax” in requiring payments for key assets that had not been built.

As such, the committee found that the funding agreement signed with Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils highlighted the “shortcomings” of early PFI projects, with payments to the council aligned with payment made by the councils to the contractor.

Grant payments started as soon as the councils started to pay the contractor, with the government, through either the DETR or its successor the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),  legally committed to making grant payments ever since.

In December 1998, the DETR signed a funding agreement with Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council for £143 million and the payment of related grants started shortly after.

The terms of the original funding agreements did not allow central government to stop payment or alter the payment terms in the event that key capital assets were not delivered.

Since its creation in 2001, DEFRA  has had responsibility for overseeing these grants and did not review the agreements until 2011.

Terms with Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils were not successfully renegotiated until 2013, resulting in a £30 million cut in total funding.

The process of renegotiation was time-consuming. In the case, of the Herefordshire and Worcestershire DEFRA confirmed to the committee that it took them six months to approve the new funding approach the councils were proposing.

With contractor apparently unwilling to fund the incinerator, the councils were left considering using the rate income generated from the populations of both counties to cover the cost of the contract.

At the end of the 2013-14 financial year, both councils had received nearly £90 million for an incinerator plant that had still to be built

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11498537.Council_stands_by_under_fire_incinerator/

http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/article/2014-09-27/181354/

Rwandans need to observe proper medical waste management to ensure environmental health.The appeal was made during activities to mark the World Environmental Health Day yesterday.The day was marked under the theme: “Environmental Health Inequality”.

“This day is important because micro-organisms are everywhere and can affect us. So maintaining a clean environment is paramount in preventing diseases,” said Enock Karekezi, from the Ministry of Health’s Department of Environmental Health.

He said people living outside urban areas have access to cleaner air due to lesser pollution, while people living far away from hospitals, factories and landfills also enjoy a healthier environment because of less waste in their vicinity.

Karekezi pointed out that health care waste management  is a major concern, adding that the ministry has injected Rwf1.5 billion in the purchase of seven incinerators for referral hospitals and one for the Mageragere site.

A moderate incinerator burns 60 kilogrammes of waste per hour, he said.

Dr Wim Schonbee, a physician at Gahini Hospital, explains that an incinerator burns needles and blood stains that may cause Hepatitis B if they get into contact with the human body.

“The incinerator treats the smoke from burning the waste and releases it high up in the sky so it has no immediate effect on the environment,” Schonbee said.

However, the smoke released shouldn’t be black as this is dangerous.

Engineer Joshua Nsabimana, of King Faisal Hospital, said incinerators are the best option to dispose of health care waste.

Incinerators have a primary chamber to burn the waste introduced and then a secondary chamber to burn the resulting black smoke s0 it is released when white. That way the combustion is complete, Nsabimana explained.

He added that clean plastic waste is recycled at the recycling plants but if the plastic contains medical waste that has to be disposed of, it is burnt at above the minimum heat of 500 degrees to avoid the creation of dioxin emissions which can cause environmental destruction.

If the incinerators are well used, they can protect the environment from poor disposal of waste, open air burning, and control diseases.