PDS AP Environmental Science 8th Period 2011-12

Sorry this is a bit late, but I went to Davidson to see my Wildcats win tonight. Remember, when you use the term “hazardous” to describe waste it is defined as such by law (RCRA) and so, regulated (at least the industrial stuff). Here are the slides from today’s presentation as well as the 3 minute clip I showed on the dangers of e-waste:

Tags: ewaste, hazardous waste, toxins

I have two questions.  The first one is if we have to know anything about the details of how exactly a closed landfill is engineered.  If so, my second question is if anyone can describe the setup for me? I know that some mixture of clay, sand, and liner are involved but I’m not exactly sure in what order and why.

I missed friday, so I am still a little confused with the ecoindustrial revolution.  I read the scribe post and watched the short film. I got that the goal is cradle to cradle and that two more R’s were incorporated but I’m still confused on this topic.  Is it the two extra R’s that make it cradle to cradle? If someone could clarify/explain in a simpler way that would be awesome, thanks!

If you missed Friday, we discussed the “next” industrial revolution. Did you know it was underway?

The last industrial revolution gave us the linear material flow economy-the one we diagrammed earlier in the week. While recycling programs do reduce some waste disposal and some extraction, they focus on the “downstream” end of that flow (waste disposal). Today, we learned of an ecoindustrial revolution that seeks to eliminate the concept of waste (so, waste = food). Yes, it seems like an oxymoron but we are talking about mimicking nature or  industrial ecology. Idealistic? If you missed the movie shown in class, here is a 20 minute TEDTalk by William McDonough (from 2005) on some of his design ideas you should watch:

Seems idealistic, but you have to realize this is ALREADY changing BIG businesses (like Nike, Ford) in positive ways. If we do focus on two new Rs, redesign (design with no waste in mind) and refuse to use toxins in production, we can prevent a great deal of waste (esp. hazardous waste) and spend less money on/spend less time worrying about trash and recycling it. Some texts call this idea the “P2″ approach (Pollution Prevention). So, Will McDonough is a champion of a new set of Rs and if his revolution succeeds, we’ll no longer have a “grave.”

*Notice this puts a greater burden on engineers and product designers to eliminate waste, and lesser burden on the consumer to dispose of it. So, McDonough envisions all things being designed to stay in one of two cycles: biological and technical. Biological products are for consumption and can be composted (biodegradable). Technical products are “products of service” and can be recycled indefinitely. Radical?

**Folks in class saw me submerge a book (meant to be made of a technical cycle nutrient) in a beaker of water. Several folks were curious about the material use to make that book, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way we Make Things, so here is a little more info on it: http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm

Book made from a "technical nutrient"

Tags: recycling, reduce, solid waste, toxins

In class on Thursday, February 9th, we had a debate on whether recycling was worth the trouble. Everyone in class was assigned to a team, either pro-recycling or anti-recycling (regardless of their actual opinion). There were 2 articles from which the teams got their information, “Recycling Is Garbage” (New York Times) is anti-recycling and “Anti-Recycling Myths” by R. Denison and J. Ruston is pro-recycling. The following are the points that were brought up by both teams:

PROS:    

• Recycling is safer for the environment; it’s more beneficial long-term to cut out the pollution from producing twice as many products.
• Without recycling, there are two options for trash disposal: landfills and incinerators. Landfills are detrimental because of the methane gas they release into the air (methane gas is more harmful than CO2, and causes global warming). Landfills use money yet don’t produce anything, and incinerators also require money, but produce minimal energy.  
• Extracting materials for new products is expensive.
• Recycling reduces the need to extract new raw materials. This way, consumers don’t pay for new materials, and recycling can pay for itself. 
• Recycling causes trash production to decrease, while having no recycling programs encourages waste production (i.e. having a waste system makes people feel better about throwing more things away and producing more waste).
• The collection, sorting, and reproduction of materials will create new jobs and opportunities for workers. Recycling can potentially pay for itself. 

CONS:

• Collecting, sorting, and the entire recycling process of the materials is more expensive than landfills.
• New technologies lessen the impact of pollution from production. This means that we don’t need the same materials that used to be necessary (for example, copper, aluminum, and glass are not required in every products as much as they used to be).
• Recycling is more expensive than landfills or incinerators, and it’s paid for by tax dollars (can be $500 million-$800 million). Some people can’t afford the additional money needed to transport the garbage away from cities to rural areas and landfills.
• Recycled materials are undesirable by most companies and businesses, so the government forces them to purchase recycled materials and therefore increase their spending and decreasing their profit.

“Recycling Is Garbage” by John Tierney

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

“Anti-Recycling Myths” by J. Ruston and R. Denison

http://www.proprecycles.org/Commentary%20about%20Recycling.html

IMAGES:

http://www.bourboncountyks.org/recycling_program.htm

http://julesmay.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/why-recycling-is-bad-for-the-environment/

Tags: recycling, solid waste

In class on Wednesday, February 8, we discussed the Material Flow Economy, or, as our textbook calls it, “the waste stream.”

Here is a visual representation of the waste stream. This can also be called a "cradle-to-grave" model.

Basically, the material flow economy talks about how goods are produced and where they eventually end up (this model began with the Industrial Revolution). In other words, products that consumers buy and use move in a linear pattern from the cradle, or the raw materials used to produce a good, to the grave, where we eventually put that good once we’ve finished using it (basically where the trash or waste goes). So, there are two ends of the spectrum: upstream and downstream. Upstream is where goods are not yet finished; they are still in production. Downstream is the end of the spectrum that collects the waste. The first step of the process begins with extraction of virgin resources. Here, we must drill, mine, and harvest in order to collect all of the raw materials that producers of goods will use to make a product. These virgin resources are natural–they are things like trees, oil, and metals. Then, we move onto the production stage. This is where we use raw materials to make something, such as paper, toys, or electronics. This is the step where we process, refine, and manufacture goods. At this point, the term waste comes into existence. Especially in the production of goods, many industrial wastes never make it into the consumers’ hands, and so the extra “stuff” must go somewhere. Before we talk about the last stage of where waste ends up, let’s first talk about the distribution step. Here, consumers buy the manufactured products. Distribution occurs in stores and markets (on the diagram the store is Wal-Mart). The distribution step incurs the consumption step, in which consumers, people that buy goods, go to the stores to get goods that they will use. But eventually, the things that people use end up in the trash. We no longer use them, and so they become waste. So, what do we do with our trash? Here we hit upon either throwing waste “away” or the three R’s: reduce, reuse, or recycle. First, let’s talk about the “away.” Where does it go? Trash is either buried or burned. If it is buried, it goes to a landfill. Here’s a video about how landfills work.

Basically, there are pipes to collect the leachate so that it doesn’t reach the water table, and there is also a layer of plastic and a layer of clay (which contributes a layer that has low absorption so as not to infiltrate the ground with the liquid of the garbage). Finally, a cap is added to the top, on top of which grass is planted. But there must be a vent to allow the methane gas to escape. The gas is produced since the environment is anaerobic. Unfortunately, this methane gas is much worse for the environment than carbon dioxide (it is a heat-trapping gas).

If trash isn’t buried, then it is burned. Here, trash is brought to an incinerator facility where the volume of trash is greatly reduced, but the mass stays the same (it becomes ash and gas emissions). Here’s a video about how waste-to-energy incinerators work:

Finally, trash can also be recycled. This step would take place right after consumption. The advantage to recycling MSW (municipal solid waste) is that after products are taken to a MRF (materials recovery facility), the materials are brought back to the stage of production. So, by recycling, the entire stage of extracting raw materials is skipped. In a sense, this allows producers to use materials that have already been used, thus eliminating the need to create more impact on the environment by, for example, cutting down more trees. Here’s a video about how a MRF works.

Finally, consumers can also reduce the amount of items that they use, or they can reuse the items that they already have, thus avoiding the need to send waste to either be burned, buried, or recycled.

The basis for the material flow economy diagram is explained in this video about “The Story of Stuff.”

Tags: incinerators, landfills, recycling, reduce, reuse, solid waste