CustomPubs

BethByChocolate at 1:28PM March 19

Does anyone agree with me that you really can’t save with the low-flow toilets since you have to flush them and clean them twice (at least) as much?

BethByChocolate at 9:53AM March 17

Ah, very interesting. As a person who doesn’t have a sense of smell, I didn’t think about the material of the reusable bag absorbing various odors. Noted – thanks!

KL at 10:15AM March 18

We should all use reusable bags for so many good reasons. However, of all the retail stores I shop, I have only found ONE retail store who proudly displays on the outside of their bag “Made in the USA”. This bag is sold by Trader Joe’s Grocery.

Grace at 1:52PM March 18

It’s a great idea. One good thing about plastic bags, though, is using them for wastecan liners.

matt foley at 7:47PM March 09

Incinerating muninipal waste is not recyling. The items that they should recycle, wood, paper and plastic is exacyly what Covanta want to burn to make steam. To call the air pollution source a green process is outrageous!

DIZ at 6:45AM March 10

Why are there always big plumes of steam, I assume – perhaps incorrectly, being released into the atmosphere if all “the rest of the steam goes to Citizens Thermal for the downtown heating loop.” What are they releasing from their smokestacks, if it is not steam and how is it good for the environment?

IndySun at 1:24PM March 11

The article does not claim incineration is recycling. The materials they incinerate are being diverted from the landfill not a recycling facility, so ‘should’ recycle in the case of this article and what Covanta does is a moot point. It is a green process in that they have diverted ‘16,000 tons of ferrous (derived from iron) metals such as steel, iron and alloys, and 1,000 tons of nonferrous metals (aluminum, brass and copper)’ in 2009 from a landfill back into recycled products. Also, the incineration of waste, which is a lot cleaner than burning coal, reduced the needed coal supply and replaced the burning of 175,000 tons of coal in 2009. On top of increased power, reduced coal consumption and reclaiming the recyclables, the waste is reduced by 90%… this means we can fit 10X the amount into the same landfill space.

I think most of the smokestack emmissions that you see are steam, but it’s steam from the combustion process not the steam in the power loop. I believe the trash is burned which heats water creating the steam inside a closed loop that is used for power. Works like heating a teapot on the stove, except the steam is run through a pipeline that eventually leads back to the teapot.

The emissions aren’t neccessarily ‘good’ for the environment… they aren’t making the air cleaner, but given the alternative of burning an extra 175,000 tons of coal these emmissions are very ‘clean’ meaning a lot less toxic chemicals and heavy metal scrubbing that has to be done prior to emitting into the atmosphere. Plus, as stated in the article, you don’t have the methane build up from decomposition.

crusader10 at 6:29PM March 12

I agree that waste-to-energy is better than coal, but to call it “clean” is stretching things a bit. The pollution it generates may be less than goal, but it’s still pollution. The only “clean” energy sources are wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

To call it renewable is also a bit dubious as it’s only renewable because we live in a wasteful society.