Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Thrash Burning: Any way to make it less polluting?

  1. #1 Thrash Burning: Any way to make it less polluting? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    I read recently that someting like a quarter of the worlds CO2 emissions can be traced to the open burning of trash. With an ever increasing percentage of the world population using manufactured goods that come in disposable packageing , the problem is expected to be worse in the future.
    In developed countries either high temp municiple incinerators or managed buried land fill methods are used for trash disposal which presumptively reduce the air pollution. The problem is that these are tech intensive solutions and cost money. Frequently the cost is directly bourn by the consumer. I pay $1.50 (US) per bag of household trash picked up at the curb and have to truck bulky items to the dump where I pay by the pound, with a $15.00 surcharge for upolstered funiture or mattresses. I'm sure others pay more. The temptation to just burn it all is great.
    In less developed nations where there may not be municipal dumps and in tropical areas where having organic waste material accummulating is a health hazzard, open burning is an attractive option.

    MY question : can anyone think of a relatively low tech way to make the burning of household trash less polluting? I was thinking along the lines of an inexpensive back yard forced draft incinerator.

    Any other ideas?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    MY question : can anyone think of a relatively low tech way to make the burning of household trash less polluting? I was thinking along the lines of an inexpensive back yard forced draft incinerator.
    Don't need forced air. Just an enclosed incinerator would help a lot. A catalytic converter would be even better but with trash would tend to get fouled quickly.
    Overall you are probably better improving trash collection systems and/or recycling.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Just because you don't like thrash metal, doesn't mean you should burn Megadeath albums.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Is burning thrash metal albums less harmful to the environment than burning a record pertaining to the ricercar genre of the classical period?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,514
    We only burn green waste, about every 3 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    I read recently that someting like a quarter of the worlds CO2 emissions can be traced to the open burning of trash. With an ever increasing percentage of the world population using manufactured goods that come in disposable packageing , the problem is expected to be worse in the future.
    In developed countries either high temp municiple incinerators or managed buried land fill methods are used for trash disposal which presumptively reduce the air pollution. The problem is that these are tech intensive solutions and cost money. Frequently the cost is directly bourn by the consumer. I pay $1.50 (US) per bag of household trash picked up at the curb and have to truck bulky items to the dump where I pay by the pound, with a $15.00 surcharge for upolstered funiture or mattresses. I'm sure others pay more. The temptation to just burn it all is great.
    In less developed nations where there may not be municipal dumps and in tropical areas where having organic waste material accummulating is a health hazzard, open burning is an attractive option.

    MY question : can anyone think of a relatively low tech way to make the burning of household trash less polluting? I was thinking along the lines of an inexpensive back yard forced draft incinerator.

    Any other ideas?
    Is the trash really garbage or crop wastes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    I read recently that someting like a quarter of the worlds CO2 emissions can be traced to the open burning of trash. With an ever increasing percentage of the world population using manufactured goods that come in disposable packageing , the problem is expected to be worse in the future.
    In developed countries either high temp municiple incinerators or managed buried land fill methods are used for trash disposal which presumptively reduce the air pollution. The problem is that these are tech intensive solutions and cost money. Frequently the cost is directly bourn by the consumer. I pay $1.50 (US) per bag of household trash picked up at the curb and have to truck bulky items to the dump where I pay by the pound, with a $15.00 surcharge for upolstered funiture or mattresses. I'm sure others pay more. The temptation to just burn it all is great.
    In less developed nations where there may not be municipal dumps and in tropical areas where having organic waste material accummulating is a health hazzard, open burning is an attractive option.

    MY question : can anyone think of a relatively low tech way to make the burning of household trash less polluting? I was thinking along the lines of an inexpensive back yard forced draft incinerator.

    Any other ideas?
    You won't reduce the CO2 emission this way, of course. Surely the best solution is for the heat from burning to be used, so that the inevitable CO2 release will at least displace some burning of fossil fuel? Some municipal incinerators do this. Landfill sites now increasingly get covered over and used as a source of methane, which can run engines or (if the gas purity is high enough, which often it isn't) gas turbines, to generate electricity first and then put the waste heat into a CHP scheme. Seems to me all this is best left to specialist installations where the complexity of the energy recovery can be optimised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,514
    Exchemist

    i like
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    I can not offer a proper science answer.. as I just do not actually know what science would a judge this method; But from a Geographic Channel I seem to recall a super furnace method of extreme heat to incinerate wastes.. almost no pollution detected from its solid wast remnants..everything else had been converted to a plasma state and allowed to the atmosphere.. clean. I would want for more informed science please.. I do not think this sort of heat can be found in your back of garage situ.. Please report any findings.. It's a interest..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    Thanks for the input. I am sure that large municipal disposal is more efficient but the problem is to offer an economical alternative to the open burning of household wastes, primarily packaging materials. So far the incinerator needs to be covered and needs to reach high temps to totally reduce the wastes to a plasma state. It would be ideal to capture the heat to do some useful work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree One beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    442
    A problem that will always be with us is people in the third world burning trash in their backyards. They can't afford any sort of incinerator, which is why they do this. If you go to India for example, you see trash bonfires in the street, on the beach, everywhere. And also they burn plastics too, so there's all sorts of goodness-knows-what going into the atmosphere.

    So, as has been said, collection is probably the key, along with industrial scale processing and incineration. I have heard it said that the most important function of a local council is the collection and processing of rubbish/trash.

    OB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,514
    PLASTIC? UGH!!

    We burn brush, that is it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    If a covered fire burns cleaner, would you get less pollution from a trash fire in a simple covered incinerator like a webber grill? I tried this yesterday and it produced a smelly fire of long duration, and a lot of smoke. It did not appear to be a net gain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Unless you are scrubbing the CO2 from the combustion or decomposition products the pollution level of that remains the same. (Largely true also of landfill, except you extend the time frame.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    If a covered fire burns cleaner, would you get less pollution from a trash fire in a simple covered incinerator like a webber grill? I tried this yesterday and it produced a smelly fire of long duration, and a lot of smoke. It did not appear to be a net gain.
    If you accept you can't do anytihng about the CO2 generation then I think for minimal chemical pollution you need a high temperature for the combustion, so that everything is broken down to simple gases CO2, N2, H2O etc. A municipal incinerator does this, often with scrubbers to remove NOx and SOx etc from the flue gas.

    If you get a lot of smell and smoke when you do it yourself then you clearly have incomplete combustion. I wold be tempted t burn it along with something else that gives a high temperature, for example in a coke burning stove or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    That squares with what I intuitively did to clean up the mess I had created. Took the cover off the Webber, added a handful of dry kindling wood and watched the last remanents of the trash burn in a bright, clean, smokeless flame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    We should not conflate CO2, the greenhouse gas, with particulate "pollution" that offends the human eye and nose. We're already doing far too much, IMO, suppressing smokey fires that provided a natural check to warming. In my opinion.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman crushmymugshot112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20
    This information will help you gain a better understanding of questions homeowners may have about backyard trash burning. The sections below provide more information on this topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Burning Hydrogen
    By AskerFishAnswerBird in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2013, 02:13 PM
  2. Burning fermenting maize
    By Zerghost in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 7th, 2010, 05:50 AM
  3. Polluting the moon
    By rzrpack in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 14th, 2009, 09:04 PM
  4. BURNING QUESTION
    By BurningQuestion in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 1st, 2008, 09:24 PM
  5. Burning water (autotermia)
    By pakost in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 20th, 2007, 08:36 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •