Can Sweden Solve The World's Waste Crisis? | Foreign Correspondent
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 08. 2018
- There’s a new push in Australia to build incinerators to burn our waste. Is this the way to go? Those clever Swedes think so. Foreign Correspondent sends War on Waste’s Craig Reucassel to Sweden to investigate.
Read more here: ab.co/2OxxX8I
Watch Foreign Correspondent on iview: iview.abc.net.au/programs/fore...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/ABCNEWSAUS
About Foreign Correspondent:
Foreign Correspondent is the prime-time international public affairs program on Australia's national broadcaster, ABC-TV. We produce half-hour duration in-depth reports for broadcast across the ABC's television channels and digital platforms. Since 1992, our teams have journeyed to more than 170 countries to report on war, natural calamity and social and political upheaval - through the eyes of the people at the heart of it all.
Connect with Foreign Correspondent:
Like Foreign on Facebook: / abcforeigncorrespondent
Follow Foreign on Twitter: / foreignofficial
Contributions may be removed if they violate ABC’s Online Terms of Use www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm (Section 3). This is an official Australian Broadcasting Corporation CZcams channel
Burning the garbage is a lot better than burrying it. By burrying the garbage specially the plastics and glasses is that you are just keeping the garbage, not eliminating it. Landfill will soon becomes full and risking contamination on the soil.
Thank you. As an American I commend them they are doing far better than us and they are bringing in money with the trash that hopefully is being used to help the people.
Using rubbish for heat and power is very smart. You can look at it this way, the rubbish before burning is like a battery.
You can use the energy when you need it just burn it.
To build giant battery banks and solar panels is crazy, when we have so much rubbish.
Thanks for the great report.
There is no perfect way to recycle something aka go back to zero net waste.
We have to go back and just reduce net waste to zero by using less packaging and building a system around utilizing the product over a lifetime or basically with food getting everything near raw with minimal packaging.
Only way to achieve this is by promoting a minimalist or lifetime use lifestyle so you don't keep churning through items.
Might take a few thousand years though for the human mind to realize this and achieve this as most people live in a now mindset and not lifetime mindset.
15:01 when you realize you never really read the instructions yourself.
recycling is not collecting and sorting but a manufacturing process , until its made into something someone uses it HAS NOT BEEN RECYCLED
The Swedish waste to energy issues seem to stem from the 1973 oil crisis when their energy supply was challenged and suggested to them that some level of energy independence is required. A lot of Swedish electrical and heating energy now comes from biomass and waste to energy (WTE). After recycling, WTE often produces about 400 tonnes CO2e in emissions divided between heating and electricity. So that is a challenge. However, the flue gas emission rates that were glossed over avoid all of the perceptions poisons coming out of the flue gasses (and there would be many without serious treatment). Biogas from organic waste provides biogas for transportation for carbon neutral operations where used. Significant recycling programs are in place but the challenge is where does the recycled material go? China is shutting down as a destination so recycling may not be that great from a final use point of view currently. So, overall Sweden is a great example of an approach others can consider. When one considers Australia with generally coal fired electric power, any step toward waste to energy. Aus should really get on board with PV and wind with storage to make a significant emission reductions. New coal mines in Aus may not be part of the solution
When looking for the magic bullet, take into account the climate context. Sweden needs a lot of winter heat and Aus does not need that much heat. The ground rules may be a bit different. I am in Vancouver, Canada and and live in a climate sort of between Sweden and Australia - so the challenges are a bit different. Hydro provides most of the electricity but heating can be a challenge in the colder regions.
"cooling to the node" , great line
1) Reduce
2) Re-use
3) Recycle
4) Clean incineration in a well designed plant
Lots of talk about reuse and recycle, but very little talk about reduction of waste at the first place. Unnecessary packing is the best place to start.
By the way, Sweden is doing an excellent job. Many developed countries, including UK and US send a portion of their waste to developing countries. I think that's horrible.
Sorry, sometimes you have to destroy resources to save the more necessary, like earth, trees and fertile land.
I just looked up the electrical emission factor for Australia. (873 tonnes CO@e/GWH) in a USEP SBIC document in 2009 shows that an overall emission rate for a WTE plant at 400 tonnes/ //CO2e GWH for a combination of heating and electricity looks pretty good. As ever we look to go from where we are now to PERFECTION and that just will not happen. How about we go for significant improvements and improve from there. NO MAGIC BULLETS!
I'm a human recycler...I eat food...it's fuels me up and gives me energy...then when the fuel is used up..I deposit it in my porcelain thrown and off it goes ...to be recycled again.
Ban nonrecyclables! That's freckin' easy, innit? And, don't buy rubbish in a supermarket - go local!
It's not that simple. If you use aluminium foil or Glad wrap - those thin sheets are effectively one-use, non-recyclable items.
If you use paper in the office - paper is one of the few products that costs more energy to recycle than it does to use fresh paper; plus with data security a lot of paper is shredded, making it effectively non-reusable.
If you use unlabelled plastics - and there are a _ton_ of plastic products that are not labelled with the recycling codes 1-7 - then that product is not recyclable, even if it might be made of a material that is recyclable.
If you use packaging, be it cardboard or plastic or waxed paper packaging - the packaging is often not recyclable unless it is a cardboard box.
If you ban it there must be a substitute, or there must be an alternative way of doing things.
I think that in these cases there is a pretty big role for regulation to play in ensuring all commodity products are labelled in a way that tells people whether it is recyclable or not. But more importantly the convenience of the functions that non-recyclables play should be replicated in some other way, and hopefully in a cheaper way too. Often people stick with commodity products simply because they are the cheapest. Making the alternatives cheaper is the best way of going about assuring replacement. The alternative to Glad Wrap, for example, is food boxes. But it is more expensive and bulkier to store foods in a box as opposed to wrapping a plate of leftovers. If food boxes were on par with a roll of Glad Wrap for price - and some of them are - then it makes sense. If they were just as quick and easy to clean and non-tainting as Glad wrap then uptake would be faster.
I think that more importantly there is a role for improved technology to play as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
Thermal depolymerisation doesn't care about _what_ kind of plastic is put into the process. It even does paper and rubber tyres too! You simply shred _all_ kinds of plastic products and put it through the process, add heat and steam and crude oil comes out the other side, which can then be remade into other plastic products. No more need to label products, and even plastics like Glad wrap can be recycled in this way.
Of course the downside is that thermal depolymerisation requires a not insignificant amount of energy. And here is the rub: currently the cost of energy is what makes it cheaper to simply mine virgin material instead of recycling existing material. Plentiful, reliable energy is _essential_ to making a "closed circuit" economy. Now with climate change it is even more important for that energy to be low carbon too. Right now the _only_ 2 energy technologies that offer both low carbon _and_ high reliability are nuclear power and hydroelectricity. Australia has hydro, but bans nuclear. Ensuring that the next generation does not have to live with landfills means an energy policy that includes both.
I worked in a gas station and everyone wants a bag even if they just have a soda or candy bar. It’s not that easy.
It's a shame the ABC gets so few views on their videos.
Hayden Dunner Not surprising. They do not allow comments on many of their videos -- I refuse to watch such videos.
Because?
It is obviously commendable to seek higher recycling rates, however what ever plastics are recycled in stead of turned into energy, an equal or similar amount of "new petrol" will have to be burned in stead to provide the requested energy. Until fusion power becomes the new norm... if it does.
energy to the node - count me in!
You mean like, a substation?
YESSS! You hired him!!!
The "art" on the wall at 9:21
DEFINITELY belongs in an incinerator.
Need to shred it first so it burns up faster.
Art is about the making. Not about beeing liked by strangers form the internet.
:D, ikea? , just kidding :)
A better question: will profiteers allow it?
Japan does too
OMG @ how he is cutting that cucumber at 10:40.
Little Brother I think he’s Gordon Ramsay
He seems to act as if recycling is so inconvenient. Charging electrical car going somewhere to recycle things into a been hard work. It is! lol.🤣
Double Entry Book Keeping is a solution to the Measurement Problem situation in Physics and closed Energy Cycles that is the Observable Eternity-now Logarithmic Time Universe.
At some stage in the past, fossil fuel burning disrupted the typical short-term stability of annual emissions and recovery.
This is an Accountability framework that is not subjected to proper analysis, because if it was, it would be obvious that Nuclear Power Systems are merely long-term Cycles of QM-TIME sync-duration connectivity function in pure-math relative-timing Perspective.
So... if burning rubbish is recycling rubbish, burning coal is recycling coal?
Coal = manmade rubbish? Burning rubbish and calling it recyckling is kinda vage but you do recycling it to create heat/electricity instead of burying it and have no use for it.
Nope... because coal is not a waste. It's a product made with the purpose to be burned. The difference is that with the rubbish somebody had some use for such product, before it was discarded.
Thank you ABC. I feel smarter. What happens to the solid ash after burning? Is there any?
Depends on the ash. Often it will be incorporated into cement and used as building material. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
But if the ash contains hazardous heavy metals or organic toxins like dioxins it might not be suitable for use as cement in construction and so it might have to be buried in a disused mine or with some other disposal method.
As far as disposal methods go it's not a terrible idea especially if you are starved for space. In Australia though the practice is simply to landfill the waste. There is a possibility to recover energy even from landfill as the decomposition of food and other organic material in anaerobic conditions produces methane, which can be burned to produce heat and electricity.
Plasma arc gasification might be an alternative to incineration as it avoids the generation of organic toxins, and the slag produced can itself be reclaimed for metals. But commercialisation efforts have been slow and failure prone. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification .
That said, if you did not care about spending energy to gasify waste you could conceivably take the resulting gas mixture of CO and H2 (syngas) and put it through Fischer Tropsch for production of alkane gases. If you did not care about water use you could even add water to the gas stream to contribute enough hydrogen to produce longer alkanes and eventually petroleum fractions. I don't think it's actually done though as it is a lot cheaper and easier to import oil than it is to try to make oil domestically using waste to energy schemes. Things like that usually only happen when on a war footing, like Germany's Fischer Tropsch plants during the second world war that turned bituminous coal into petroleum products.
molasses >>>> Watercress >>> Raisins >> glog
No wonder older generations don't believe in recycling! I'm chocked to hear this.... 17:45
I'll still recycle of course and try to buy less plastic stuff....
If you're lucky, you'll be instead getting cooling to the curb (reverse-powered by your home's electricity). Innovation nation 😎😎😎😎😎😎
Why not melt it build big plastic rocks and build
Islands.
For underwater Kelp Forests?
I am find new plastic carbon fuel,this fuel burning 1kg to 3-4hr higher heat energy release ,(no pyrolysis method and other method) completely convert ash no melt no plastic resin,95 process finished ,product release soon.
Sounds interesting, if I understood your poor english correctly.
Go Slovenia...
Did you check and verify those claims?
23:29 what the duck????
The solution to pollution is dilution. Maybe we just need a bigger planet, it's that simple.
that nice I have to pay every three month $67. 00 dollar I do not have any trast that much!
well...its like paying for things like schools and hospitals when you don't have kids or get sick....all part of a developed country...Or you can live in India and throw your crap out on the street!
Stop using plastic.
If you're typing that on a computer, you're using a product that includes plastic; if nothing else due to the conformal coating on the circuit board. Electronic waste is just about the nastiest shit there is, too. Lots of heavy metals, composite materials (impossible to recycle), engineering plastics (practically non-degradable) and useful, but inaccessible commodities locked up in it like copper and gold.
It's easy to act a saint, but hard to not be a hypocrite.
It would be more constructive to find ways to sidestep the need for trying to sort and regrind and remould plastic like plasma arc gasification or thermal depolymerisation, or to demand stricter labelling requirements that result in efficient sorting and reuse, or to use recyclable alternatives like metals. But all of these alternatives do not come cheaper than landfill or incineration - and yet the alternatives cannot duplicate in form and function the plastics they replace.
Food packaging is a prime example. A thermally sealed package of, say, meat, reduces spoilage and food waste. Or the plastic shells at the bottom of fruit crates enables efficient stacking without bruising of citrus. These cut down on packaging requirements and wastage in a way that simply having items loose would not do. Recall that it takes a _lot_ more resources to grow food than to produce, use, and throw away its packaging. Less packaging often means more food waste and downstream pollution as well as food insecurity as now more is lost in transit than getting to the table.
Everything in life is a tradeoff. There are no simple answers.
I think for food packaging there should be a move towards more use of HDPE (milk bottle plastic) and PP (drink bottle plastic) and moving away from polystyrene. HDPE and PP are more recyclable than PS, don't taint as much and are less hazardous if burned. So there is a role for either legislative intervention or for consumer demand there. I think that the system as it stands although improving slowly could still be pushed further and gain better outcomes.
But simply throwing up the hands and saying 'don't use plastic' doesn't change anything. It won't change the minds of all but the most environmentally aware - in which case you're preaching to the choir. And it won't change producer habits because there isn't that demand there for more sustainable packaging. Ultimately the impetus for change must come from an informed and alert populace. Sweden has one, inculcated from primary school. But the infrastructure must also be there too. Improperly labelled or unlabelled plastics can't be reused - the remoulder can't ensure a quality product if it is contaminated with other plastics. And the energy of transport, reuse and redistribution must also be cheaper than a one way trip to the landfill or incinerator. I think _that_ is the litmus test for a closed cycle economy - where energy is so cheap that commodities are recycled _because_ it is comparatively more expensive to use virgin material.
I don't think we are there yet.
Stop using computers.
No carbon fiber scrub'r to remove chemical and grab that carbon. 😢 note oil from plastic is a natural resource and I hate to see on the rim of fire when you miss your next hit I hope that bio fule mix will be top quality by then. and what happens when it's filled with water iam sure there is a sand pit in the states looks like it poped filing the sand above I would like to now my self😑. Are theu thinking of moving to China$.
Hmmm.. I am just saying
Naja radio Mc: What you saying
Peace
I agreed with the investigator
This guy is very talented...
Reduce,….world population
Australia have lands fills and export a lot to China. Come back when you are actually doing something smart.
china has stopped taking it. we're currently just stockpiling until prices get better. czcams.com/video/xlNx46hqfNE/video.html
China no longer accepts waste from other countries since this year.
czcams.com/video/4XHlX6j9V04/video.html
Craig Reucassel has no idea about economics. How much will it cost to recycle as he suggests? If it is such a good idea people will just do it as more economical/better and no need to force people with laws. Get in the real world instead of fancyland.
Recycling is prohibitive only because the cost of energy makes it prohibitive. if you have cheap abundant energy and improved industrial automation you could even mine landfills for valuable materials (or if your country is poor enough, people might pick through the waste themselves, risking life, limb and disease for a few pennies of usable scrap).
The drivers to recycle are either one of two things: either the penalty is really, really bad, or the cost of energy is really, really cheap. In space you have to recycle all the air and water or otherwise, you die (prohibitive penalty). On earth people choose only to recycle when either compelled to (by law) or when encouraged to (where energy is cheap enough that using virgin material makes less sense than reusing existing material).
If recycling is to really take off then the eco-topias as imagined by the green romanticised ideology are incompatible. Because in those imaginings energy is expensive and energy services are austere, with activity slaved to the capricity of the wind and the sun. The time when recycling would make sense - with plentiful electric arc smelters and organic gasifiers/thermal depolymerisers - requires energy that is literally cheaper than dirt. It would otherwise be more tempting to use virgin material instead. Make energy cheap enough and you can recycle even concrete, or fiber reinforced composites. But for now these materials must be disposed of.
Also, the incentive is to make plastics that are simpler and more easily recycled.
New taxes in the EU 'Circular Economy' package will reinforce this.
MediaOne productions: recycling plastic is very hard as there are multiple types which are better for each situation. There is no one size fits all. When plastic is mixed together it is very hard to "recycle" into real end products that have demand. The cost to separate and get a 95% pure product is very expensive but crazies just want to pass that cost onto consumers/business when Australia is too expensive already for a average person. New taxes just take away from the productive and move to unproductive goals because they would happen naturally if beneficial.
agree- that's why the pressure is now coming on producers to make the plastics that are simpler, and for which there is a recycling market.
all the best
That's not really a realistic expectation though. The producers will make what the market demands. That means HDPE milk bottles, PP drink bottles, polystyrene cutlery, nylon hosiery, polyethylene teraphthalate tote bags and PVC piping. There are very good reasons _why_ those plastics are in those applications. Simply taxing them won't change habits or demand.
PVC is often proclaimed to be a poisonous legacy plastic that should no longer be used. But it is valuable _because_ of its environmental resistance and good toughness and fire retardance. In Europe it is recycled but the lack of specialised facilities elsewhere mean that often it is easier to simply dump it.
Nylon is also found in commodities like toothbrushes and hosiery. It is often unlabelled and so it goes into landfill even though it is theoretically quite recyclable, retaining much of its properties even after regrinding and remoulding.
Polypropylene is tough, eminently recyclable and yet lots of it winds up incinerated or in landfill. Why? Because it is often used in laboratory or healthcare work where contamination concerns mean that it is unsuitable for reuse.
I believe that the way forward for plastic is to not try to recycle it at all, but thermally depolymerise it - expose it to enough heat and steam and it will degrade into something similar to crude oil. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization .
There are simply too many different kinds of plastic with wildly different methods of recycling and all of it requiring inordinate amounts of effort versus the minimal payoff. Some are recyclable but become useless if contaminated by oils or body fluids. Some plastics aren't recyclable in any way, like the thermosets or fiber reinforced composites. So these durable products wind up in landfills where they almost never degrade because the plastics in question were chosen for their environmental resistance. Thermal depolymerisation sidesteps all of that and what's more, produces a valuable product with a lot of uses to boot.
Sweden's choice in incinerating all the combustibles for energy is cheap and easy and is a bit of a copout. But at least they are trying to do more.