Steve Heath wrote:
While neither a proponent or opponent, that article has one problem with it, in that the scientist quoted says there is a net energy loss ... by the time he factors it all the way back to the raw materials stage.
Now, if we didn't have the raw materials through usage stages, we wouldn't have any garbage at all and none of this would be necessary, those are sunk costs that have nothing to do with considering the options of disposing of garbage. Basically, once someone puts it out on the curb, the options are recycle it, pile it up, or burn it, none of which are even energy positive from this point if you count the energy used in the manufacturing of the disposal distribution systems, the fuel used to transport it, etc... but we don't want the garbage building up in our homes, so we need some form of distribution.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting informed and making your decision, but to do that you need to compare apples and apples. Nowhere have I seen anywhere near enough information to make a reasonable decision, so my rule of thumb come the election is "as far away as possible without intruding on someone else".
That's why I personally am leaning for the waste facility since it is far down 25, while I am very against the Pristine Power facility because of how close it is to a number of subdivisions.
Steve.
In general, the laws of physics say that there is no energy psitive process. Every process has a net energy loss. It is as simple as that.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
