"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:50:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle.

Any references to this?

On TV an expert was arguing the point that re-cycling as a waste
of time and uneconomical. He said that burning the waste is the best
option
all around: landfill, reduces fossil fuel usage, local heating of houses,
etc, and that emissions are well within the regs pointing to the defra
web
site. His argument was well reasoned.

I would have thought recycling glass bottles and aluminium cans saves
more energy than created by incinerating them, even recycling paper is
likely to give a net energy saving. Also it's hard to see how
incinerating something can create less landfill than recycling it,
which creates no landfill at all. Did the 'experts' well reasoned
argument cover all this....?

Yes. They only have to find a landfill for the ashes of the waste which is
very small in comparison. The waste incinerators have metal sifting
mechanisms anyhow and this is recycled via the incinerator.

On 3 Apr 2004 17:53:56 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Pete C writes:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:50:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle.

Any references to this?

It's the London Borough of Barnet.

Pointless waste of time & money, IMNHO.

Might be better to give people a small discount off their council tax
if they recycle, more of a carrot than a stick approach.

Still we need a good way of encouraging us lazy brits to catch up with
our continental cousins somehow.

cheers,
Pete.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 19:47:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Pete C" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:50:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle.

Any references to this?

On TV an expert was arguing the point that re-cycling as a waste
of time and uneconomical. He said that burning the waste is the best
option
all around: landfill, reduces fossil fuel usage, local heating of houses,
etc, and that emissions are well within the regs pointing to the defra
web
site. His argument was well reasoned.

I would have thought recycling glass bottles and aluminium cans saves
more energy than created by incinerating them, even recycling paper is
likely to give a net energy saving. Also it's hard to see how
incinerating something can create less landfill than recycling it,
which creates no landfill at all. Did the 'experts' well reasoned
argument cover all this....?

Yes. They only have to find a landfill for the ashes of the waste which is
very small in comparison. The waste incinerators have metal sifting
mechanisms anyhow and this is recycled via the incinerator.

I still fail to see how incinerating glass, metal and paper saves more
energy and landfill than recycling it. It may be worth doing
alongside recycling but it's not best option by any means.

Also I wouldn't like to live downwind of an incinerator no matter how
good the emissions are supposed to be. All those Ni Cad batteries
going up in smoke, mmmmm.....

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 19:47:22 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Pete C" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:50:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle.

Any references to this?

On TV an expert was arguing the point that re-cycling as a waste
of time and uneconomical. He said that burning the waste is the best
option
all around: landfill, reduces fossil fuel usage, local heating of
houses,
etc, and that emissions are well within the regs pointing to the defra
web
site. His argument was well reasoned.

I would have thought recycling glass bottles and aluminium cans saves
more energy than created by incinerating them, even recycling paper is
likely to give a net energy saving. Also it's hard to see how
incinerating something can create less landfill than recycling it,
which creates no landfill at all. Did the 'experts' well reasoned
argument cover all this....?

Yes. They only have to find a landfill for the ashes of the waste which
is
very small in comparison. The waste incinerators have metal sifting
mechanisms anyhow and this is recycled via the incinerator.

I still fail to see how incinerating glass, metal and paper saves more
energy and landfill than recycling it. It may be worth doing
alongside recycling but it's not best option by any means.

It is the best option overall.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On 3 Apr 2004 17:53:56 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Pete C writes:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:50:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle.

Any references to this?

It's the London Borough of Barnet.

Pointless waste of time & money, IMNHO.

Might be better to give people a small discount off their council tax
if they recycle, more of a carrot than a stick approach.

Still we need a good way of encouraging us lazy brits to catch up with
our continental cousins somehow.

No, just incinerate it all and the re-cycling is done at the incinerator.
Mush cheaper all around and you don't need to fine people. Having a law
that prosecutes people for something which is needless is just plain crazy.

John Schmitt wrote in message ...

some of the bigger players in the sector have student populations
comparable to that of Gibraltar.

http://www.clarke-energy.co.uk/dundee.htm

By way of comparison they have 3MW and Gibraltar has a
capacity of 36.8MW (2001) and we are buying more.

According to the website the UK higher education sector currently
has some 21 MW of CHP

Interestingly enough the air conditioning in the summer now
uses more than the heating in the winter. There is no gas.

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Set Square wrote:


In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Neil Jones wrote:



"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message
...


"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

snip

What you want is a steam turbine.
Heat the water with a gas jet.




Sort of miniature power station in my garden shed? What's involved
and is this really a practical consideration?


The thought was prompted by memories of a country show where there
were loads of old small stationary steam engines.

They did all sorts of things including generating electricity.

AFAICS it wouldn't be difficult to convert a coal fired steam engine
to run on gas.

Steam turbine was one step further (too far?).

A steam engine with a rotating flywheel could drive a generator no
problem - a lot of older rural houses had diesel gennies which AFAIR
were in two parts - engine and generator.

Not as whizzo efficient as a modern petrol generator, I presume, but
a quaint and interesting power source none the less :-)



Certainly would be a talking-point!



Actually, I'd like to be able to generate *all* my electricity from

gas -

not just in an emergency. Bearing in mind that the marginal cost per

kWHr of

(on peak) electricity is 3.6 times that of gas, I would save on fuel

costs

as long as the overall conversion efficiency was more than about 27.5%


Definitely possible with 50 grands worth of gas turbine and generator

Do a google on 'natural gas turbine CHP'

Lots of stuff out there.


Ludicrous. Off the shelf piston and Stirling engines/gennys are run off
natural gas.



No. Turbines are very effecient beasties. More efficient than stirlings.

Pete C wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:50:47 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle.


Any references to this?


On TV an expert was arguing the point that re-cycling as a waste
of time and uneconomical. He said that burning the waste is the best option
all around: landfill, reduces fossil fuel usage, local heating of houses,
etc, and that emissions are well within the regs pointing to the defra web
site. His argument was well reasoned.


I would have thought recycling glass bottles and aluminium cans saves
more energy than created by incinerating them, even recycling paper is
likely to give a net energy saving. Also it's hard to see how
incinerating something can create less landfill than recycling it,
which creates no landfill at all. Did the 'experts' well reasoned
argument cover all this....?


Yes.

The points are broadly these.

(i) It doesn't take a lot of energy to make paper and its overall carbon
neutral when you burn it. Taking it miles on congested highways to
recycling plants is a lot more wasteful of fuel than buring it to heat
hoses where it becomnes 'waste'. Its much easier to process known
quality terees than to procvess a load of assorted much full of god
knows what fillers etc etc and you can't make high grade paper out of
waste paper.

(ii) the transport issues are killers for bottles. Bottles if smashed up
and tossed in teh sea turn into shingle in no time and get recycled
rather well. It takes more energy to take a bottle to a recycling plant
- even to a bottle bank - than it does to bury it nearby.

Nearly all plastics and papers are suitable for high temperature
incineration, and high temperature incinerators are quite easy to make
clean and safe and do localises rubbish disposal. Recycling planst are
by contrast less easy to do locally and need fairly massive investment.
And tehre is always teh cost of transport of the waste to the processing
plant.

The bigger problem is metal waste - ores DO take huge energy to make,
and are often poisonous when buried. Aluminium of course burns fairly
well, and the residue is actually similar in volume to the original
materials.

The really big problem of recycling, is how to break teh materials down
to the cionstituent parts. Nio amount of recycling that doesn't involve
e.g. more energy than making from scratch is going to make a clear glass
bottle from a green one.

Nature is the best recycler in the world. Landfill is a great way to let
nature use the next few millionyears to turn a miuntain of bottles back
into sand again.

The trouble is that all these silly environmentalists think that by
loading up their volvos with a ton of waste paper and using a couple of
gallons of fuel to drive them to the wate paper site, they are
benefitting the eco system.

Wheras if they stuffed them in an incinerator, and compsted teh ahs,
they could get useful energy out of them and heat theior houses, and
leave the volvo in teh garage.







cheers,
Pete.

IMM wrote:


Yes. They only have to find a landfill for the ashes of the waste which is
very small in comparison. The waste incinerators have metal sifting
mechanisms anyhow and this is recycled via the incinerator.




Once again IMM's very sketchy education is growing thin.

All materials when burnt gain weight and mass. The volume of a metal
oxide is actally greater than the metal.

Glass does not burn.

Organics turn into gases and liquids tho, which is why e.g. wood ash is
much less than teh wood it comes from. The rest has gone out in carbon
and hydrogen (and ofen sulphur, nitrogen and other) gaseous oxides.

Pete C wrote:


I still fail to see how incinerating glass, metal and paper saves more
energy and landfill than recycling it. It may be worth doing
alongside recycling but it's not best option by any means.


Simply because the logistics of recycling it use a lot of road space and
fuel to get it to the recycling plant.

Personally I think there is a great future in a machine that would grind
glass to a powder suitable for use instead of sand as building material.

Metals are a different matter. They are economically recyclable - almost.

Organic waste - in the sense of stuff mmade of hyrdocarbons - wood,
paper, plastics etc - is far better burnt as locally as possible,
provided that this does not result in toxic emissions, and especially if
the waste heat can be used to do something useful.
..



Also I wouldn't like to live downwind of an incinerator no matter how
good the emissions are supposed to be. All those Ni Cad batteries
going up in smoke, mmmmm.....

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote
| Might be better to give people a small discount off their
| council tax if they recycle, more of a carrot than a stick
| approach.
| Still we need a good way of encouraging us lazy brits to
| catch up with our continental cousins somehow.

Perhaps we could start by the council collecting the rubbish every week in
the first place. And picking up the rubbish that spills out of ripped
binbags when they haven't collected it for three weeks.

Owain

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

You could have a large tank at high level and one at low level. The mains
water turns the genny to produce power to heat a thermal store of water.
The genny turbine would have another pump on the same shaft. This pump,
pumps water from the low tank to the high level tank. When the high tank is
full the water from the high tank is released to turn the genny and flows
into the lower tank. Start all over again. You are getting the power to
raise the water free ( the water companies pumps in fact).

That's a wonderful way of wasting the precious resource of clean water.
--

Dave

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (sPoNiX) saying
something like:

I'd also wondered about building a generator that runs off mains water
pressure...granted it wouldn't be enough to power the whole house but
it *should* power the lighting.

Just light a candle and don't waste water.
--

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...
Pete C wrote:

I still fail to see how incinerating glass, metal and paper saves more
energy and landfill than recycling it. It may be worth doing
alongside recycling but it's not best option by any means.

Simply because the logistics of recycling it use a lot of road space and
fuel to get it to the recycling plant.

Transport is needed to get it to incineration too.


Personally I think there is a great future in a machine that would grind
glass to a powder suitable for use instead of sand as building material.

I've seen claims from one council that their collected glass gets made
into bottles - I thought that was impossible though. Are they telling
fibs?


Strikes me that a lot of emphasis is being put on recycling but not
enough on re-use. For the most part the reuse ideas around seem pretty
naive, but there are more sensible ways to do it too. I idly came up
with several possibilities, which of course may or may not stand up to
further scrutiny.


Regards, NT

(sPoNiX) wrote in message ...

I'd also wondered about building a generator that runs off mains water
pressure...granted it wouldn't be enough to power the whole house but
it *should* power the lighting.

This was done during WW2. Power output was single figure watts, ie
enough to run one dim CFL. And the water consumption of course...


Regards, NT

"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message ...
"Set Square" wrote in message

Actually, I'd like to be able to generate *all* my electricity from gas -
not just in an emergency. Bearing in mind that the marginal cost per kWHr
of
(on peak) electricity is 3.6 times that of gas, I would save on fuel costs
as long as the overall conversion efficiency was more than about 27.5%

Is isnt, thats the problem. If you want efficiency you need complex
kit. OTOH you can get something to work with about a tenner plus a
ride to the auction. If you have unlimited time, and the expertise to
get old junk running.


Regards, NT

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
N. Thornton wrote:

"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message
...
"Set Square" wrote in message

Actually, I'd like to be able to generate *all* my electricity from
gas - not just in an emergency. Bearing in mind that the marginal
cost per kWHr
of
(on peak) electricity is 3.6 times that of gas, I would save on
fuel costs as long as the overall conversion efficiency was more
than about 27.5%

Is isnt, thats the problem. If you want efficiency you need complex
kit. OTOH you can get something to work with about a tenner plus a
ride to the auction. If you have unlimited time, and the expertise to
get old junk running.


Regards, NT

What sort of old junk do you have in mind?

--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is Black Hole!

IMM wrote:
Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle. On TV an expert was arguing the point that re-cycling as a waste
of time and uneconomical. He said that burning the waste is the best option
all around: landfill, reduces fossil fuel usage, local heating of houses,
etc, and that emissions are well within the regs pointing to the defra web
site.

How exactly do you get metal cans and glass bottles to burn exactly? ;-)


#Paul
NB: I suppose oxidising the metal might count, at a pinch.

"N. Thornton" wrote
| Strikes me that a lot of emphasis is being put on recycling
| but not enough on re-use.

Apparently children no longer scour the hedgerows and rubbish-bins for
discarded Irn-Bru bottles (20p deposit on each) because it's not 'kewl' to
be poor.

(And, of course, you can't redeem them at McBurgers.)

Prosperity produces waste.

Owain

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:25:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Still we need a good way of encouraging us lazy brits to catch up with
our continental cousins somehow.

No, just incinerate it all and the re-cycling is done at the incinerator.
Mush cheaper all around and you don't need to fine people. Having a law
that prosecutes people for something which is needless is just plain crazy.

Might be a bit hard to separate all those fragments of glass and metal
out of the toxic incinerator ash, don't you think? Also it's hard to
recycle paper once it's been though an incinerator.

Much better to recycle as much as possible, and consider incinerating
the rest.

cheers,
Pete.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Yes. They only have to find a landfill for the ashes of the waste which
is
very small in comparison. The waste incinerators have metal sifting
mechanisms anyhow and this is recycled via the incinerator.

Once again IMM's very sketchy education is growing thin.

All materials when burnt gain weight and mass. The volume of a metal
oxide is actally greater than the metal.

Glass does not burn.

Organics turn into gases and liquids tho, which is why e.g. wood ash is
much less than teh wood it comes from. The rest has gone out in carbon
and hydrogen (and ofen sulphur, nitrogen and other) gaseous oxides.

The snotty uniness is coming through again. All research on the matter
points to incineration to be effective economically. And less hassle to the
customer.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

You could have a large tank at high level and one at low level. The
mains
water turns the genny to produce power to heat a thermal store of water.
The genny turbine would have another pump on the same shaft. This pump,
pumps water from the low tank to the high level tank. When the high tank
is
full the water from the high tank is released to turn the genny and flows
into the lower tank. Start all over again. You are getting the power to
raise the water free ( the water companies pumps in fact).

That's a wonderful way of wasting the precious resource of clean water.


It's the same water being pumped from tank to tank. Pay attention.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Set Square wrote:


In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Neil Jones wrote:



"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message
...


"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...

snip

What you want is a steam turbine.
Heat the water with a gas jet.




Sort of miniature power station in my garden shed? What's involved
and is this really a practical consideration?


The thought was prompted by memories of a country show where there
were loads of old small stationary steam engines.

They did all sorts of things including generating electricity.

AFAICS it wouldn't be difficult to convert a coal fired steam engine
to run on gas.

Steam turbine was one step further (too far?).

A steam engine with a rotating flywheel could drive a generator no
problem - a lot of older rural houses had diesel gennies which AFAIR
were in two parts - engine and generator.

Not as whizzo efficient as a modern petrol generator, I presume, but
a quaint and interesting power source none the less :-)



Certainly would be a talking-point!



Actually, I'd like to be able to generate *all* my electricity from

gas -

not just in an emergency. Bearing in mind that the marginal cost per

kWHr of

(on peak) electricity is 3.6 times that of gas, I would save on fuel

costs

as long as the overall conversion efficiency was more than about 27.5%


Definitely possible with 50 grands worth of gas turbine and generator

Do a google on 'natural gas turbine CHP'

Lots of stuff out there.


Ludicrous. Off the shelf piston and Stirling engines/gennys are run off
natural gas.

No. Turbines are very effecient beasties. More efficient than stirlings.

Cost? Stirling and IC genies are freely available.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 21:25:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Still we need a good way of encouraging us lazy brits to catch up with
our continental cousins somehow.

No, just incinerate it all and the re-cycling is done at the incinerator.
Mush cheaper all around and you don't need to fine people. Having a law
that prosecutes people for something which is needless is just plain
crazy.

Might be a bit hard to separate all those fragments of glass and metal
out of the toxic incinerator ash, don't you think? Also it's hard to
recycle paper once it's been though an incinerator.

Much better to recycle as much as possible, and consider incinerating
the rest.

No it isn't Research proved re-cycling a silly idea.

IMM wrote:
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM"
saying something like:

You could have a large tank at high level and one at low level.
The mains water turns the genny to produce power to heat a thermal
store of water. The genny turbine would have another pump on the
same shaft. This pump, pumps water from the low tank to the high
level tank. When the high tank is full the water from the high
tank is released to turn the genny and flows into the lower tank.
Start all over again. You are getting the power to raise the water
free ( the water companies pumps in fact).

That's a wonderful way of wasting the precious resource of clean
water.


It's the same water being pumped from tank to tank. Pay attention.

An 'infinity' engine?
Water drives genny to power pump to replace water? And enough spare energy
for an immersion heater.
I'm impressed but reckon you should get a patent on this asap.

--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'

In message , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Ludicrous. Off the shelf piston and Stirling engines/gennys are run off
natural gas.

No. Turbines are very effecient beasties. More efficient than stirlings.

Cost? Stirling and IC genies are freely available.

I suppose you just rub the lamp and out they pop

--
geoff

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:20:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


The points are broadly these.

(i) It doesn't take a lot of energy to make paper and its overall carbon
neutral when you burn it. Taking it miles on congested highways to
recycling plants is a lot more wasteful of fuel than buring it to heat
hoses where it becomnes 'waste'. Its much easier to process known
quality terees than to procvess a load of assorted much full of god
knows what fillers etc etc and you can't make high grade paper out of
waste paper.

Processing trees into pulp requires far more effort, energy and
transportation than turning waste paper back into pulp. And newsprint
and cardboard packaging do not require high grade paper and so can use
a high proportion of recycled material.

(ii) the transport issues are killers for bottles. Bottles if smashed up
and tossed in teh sea turn into shingle in no time and get recycled
rather well. It takes more energy to take a bottle to a recycling plant
- even to a bottle bank - than it does to bury it nearby.

Transporting bottles to the coast and chucking them in is not really a
sensible way of recycling them, you might as well transport them to a
recycling plant instead.

Nearly all plastics and papers are suitable for high temperature
incineration, and high temperature incinerators are quite easy to make
clean and safe and do localises rubbish disposal. Recycling planst are
by contrast less easy to do locally and need fairly massive investment.

They don't need investment, the facilities for recycling glass, cans
and paper exists already.

And tehre is always teh cost of transport of the waste to the processing
plant.

Little more than transporting them to landfill or an incinerator.

The really big problem of recycling, is how to break teh materials down
to the cionstituent parts. Nio amount of recycling that doesn't involve
e.g. more energy than making from scratch is going to make a clear glass
bottle from a green one.

No, you recycle green glass into green bottles, etc etc

Nature is the best recycler in the world. Landfill is a great way to let
nature use the next few millionyears to turn a miuntain of bottles back
into sand again.

Suitable places for landfill are already in short supply, less
suitable places do exist but there are risks involved.

The trouble is that all these silly environmentalists think that by
loading up their volvos with a ton of waste paper and using a couple of
gallons of fuel to drive them to the wate paper site, they are
benefitting the eco system.

This is a typical can't do attitude, suprising from someone who calls
themself a natural philosopher. Most supermarkets have collection
points for glass, paper and cans, so there is no need to use extra
fuel taking them there.

cheers,
Pete.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:48:43 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Much better to recycle as much as possible, and consider incinerating
the rest.

No it isn't Research proved re-cycling a silly idea.

And whose research is this? Your own?

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:48:43 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Much better to recycle as much as possible, and consider incinerating
the rest.

No it isn't Research proved re-cycling a silly idea.

And whose research is this? Your own?

Read all the thread again. Nothing has sunk in with you. Do you make money
fro re-cycling?

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:20:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


The points are broadly these.

(i) It doesn't take a lot of energy to make paper and its overall carbon
neutral when you burn it. Taking it miles on congested highways to
recycling plants is a lot more wasteful of fuel than buring it to heat
hoses where it becomnes 'waste'. Its much easier to process known
quality terees than to procvess a load of assorted much full of god
knows what fillers etc etc and you can't make high grade paper out of
waste paper.

Processing trees into pulp requires far more effort, energy and
transportation than turning waste paper back into pulp. And newsprint
and cardboard packaging do not require high grade paper and so can use
a high proportion of recycled material.

(ii) the transport issues are killers for bottles. Bottles if smashed up
and tossed in teh sea turn into shingle in no time and get recycled
rather well. It takes more energy to take a bottle to a recycling plant
- even to a bottle bank - than it does to bury it nearby.

Transporting bottles to the coast and chucking them in is not really a
sensible way of recycling them, you might as well transport them to a
recycling plant instead.

Nearly all plastics and papers are suitable for high temperature
incineration, and high temperature incinerators are quite easy to make
clean and safe and do localises rubbish disposal. Recycling planst are
by contrast less easy to do locally and need fairly massive investment.

They don't need investment, the facilities for recycling glass, cans
and paper exists already.

And tehre is always teh cost of transport of the waste to the processing
plant.

Little more than transporting them to landfill or an incinerator.

The really big problem of recycling, is how to break teh materials down
to the cionstituent parts. Nio amount of recycling that doesn't involve
e.g. more energy than making from scratch is going to make a clear glass
bottle from a green one.

No, you recycle green glass into green bottles, etc etc

Nature is the best recycler in the world. Landfill is a great way to let
nature use the next few millionyears to turn a miuntain of bottles back
into sand again.

Suitable places for landfill are already in short supply, less
suitable places do exist but there are risks involved.

The trouble is that all these silly environmentalists think that by
loading up their volvos with a ton of waste paper and using a couple of
gallons of fuel to drive them to the wate paper site, they are
benefitting the eco system.

This is a typical can't do attitude, suprising from someone who calls
themself a natural philosopher. Most supermarkets have collection
points for glass, paper and cans, so there is no need to use extra
fuel taking them there.

Get the big picture. The snotty uni one is saying that re-cycling is a daft
idea to burning it and using the heat.

"Toby" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM"
saying something like:

You could have a large tank at high level and one at low level.
The mains water turns the genny to produce power to heat a thermal
store of water. The genny turbine would have another pump on the
same shaft. This pump, pumps water from the low tank to the high
level tank. When the high tank is full the water from the high
tank is released to turn the genny and flows into the lower tank.
Start all over again. You are getting the power to raise the water
free ( the water companies pumps in fact).

That's a wonderful way of wasting the precious resource of clean
water.

It's the same water being pumped from tank
to tank. Pay attention.

An 'infinity' engine?

No. Pay attention.

Water drives genny to power pump
to replace water? And enough spare energy
for an immersion heater.
I'm impressed but reckon you should get
a patent on this asap.

It is quite clear what it is. Focus please.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Ludicrous. Off the shelf piston and Stirling engines/gennys are run
off
natural gas.

No. Turbines are very effecient beasties. More efficient than
stirlings.

Cost? Stirling and IC genies are freely available.

I suppose you just rub the lamp and out they pop

Nice one Maxie, and not even 1st April.

"Owain" wrote in message ...
"Pete C" wrote
| Might be better to give people a small discount off their
| council tax if they recycle, more of a carrot than a stick
| approach.
| Still we need a good way of encouraging us lazy brits to
| catch up with our continental cousins somehow.

Perhaps we could start by the council collecting the rubbish every week in
the first place. And picking up the rubbish that spills out of ripped
binbags when they haven't collected it for three weeks.

Owain

Heck if they collected it every 2 weeks I'd do it. Here they just take
the p, making the system unworkable. Sorry but I'm not willing to have
big piles of rubbish mount up for 1 month plus, taking it in and out
hoping they'll collect it some day. I'm on the verge of giving up
rubbish recycling altogether. Theyre just not willing to take the
stuff.

Regards, NT

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:25:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


External combustion Stirling engines are the best for power generation. Do
a web search and tons of stuff comes up.


Maybe if you mean steam not stirling. Define best, is it maximum
conversion of heat energy to electricity, minimum capital cost,
minimum operating cost or what?

AJH

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 19:05:58 +0100, "Nick Finnigan"
wrote:

"Set Square" wrote in message
...

Actually, I'd like to be able to generate *all* my electricity from gas -
not just in an emergency. Bearing in mind that the marginal cost per kWHr of
(on peak) electricity is 3.6 times that of gas, I would save on fuel costs
as long as the overall conversion efficiency was more than about 27.5%

Which it isn't; and you'd want batteries to handle the peak loads.
Once you've got the batteries, you can store off-peak electricity.

Yes you can but is it worth it? With even a charge discharge return of
80% you still need to factor in the capital cost and lifetime of the
battery. I once did the calculations on a 5kWh battery pack with an
estimated life of 8 years, warranted 5 years, with a 50% dod and it
was higher per kWhr stored than the peak price.

AJH

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:08:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



No. Turbines are very effecient beasties. More efficient than stirlings.

Yes but stirlings aren't at all efficient in converting high grade
heat to movement. Their potential lies in cleanliness and long working
life.

I think diesels still win hands down on anything except combined cycle
systems, and they can also be enhanced by this. High speed diesels
will exceed 40% conversion of heat to electricity, low speed ones
(burning even cheaper fuel) nearly reach 50%.

It's scalability that's difficult with CHP. None of the current
generating technologies scale down well or have particularly good
performance when turned down. Small alternators are inherently less
efficient than larger once because of engineering tolerances and
magnetic losses.

"Good" chp systems seem to feature loads in the MW levels and minimum
loads approaching 1/3 of peak loads. They feature multiple engines
running in their peak efficiency regions, as loads increase more
engines are brought online, the price is the higher O+M costs of
reciprocating engines. They also make use of both the coolant and
exhaust heat, for heating and cooling via adsorption coolers. As
someone else said more electricity is used worldwide for cooling than
heating, intuitively this is because most heating is by non electrical
means.

At the MW(e) level you are buying your prime energy at industrial
rates, which will be half to a sixth what a small domestic user will
be charged.

AJH

Owain wrote:

"Pete C" wrote
| Might be better to give people a small discount off their
| council tax if they recycle, more of a carrot than a stick
| approach.
| Still we need a good way of encouraging us lazy brits to
| catch up with our continental cousins somehow.

Perhaps we could start by the council collecting the rubbish every week in
the first place. And picking up the rubbish that spills out of ripped
binbags when they haven't collected it for three weeks.

Owain




Yeah. We have had teh brown bin out for three weeks now and they haven't
collected it yet.

N. Thornton wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...

Pete C wrote:


I still fail to see how incinerating glass, metal and paper saves more
energy and landfill than recycling it. It may be worth doing
alongside recycling but it's not best option by any means.


Simply because the logistics of recycling it use a lot of road space and
fuel to get it to the recycling plant.


Transport is needed to get it to incineration too.



Yes, but the issue is that incineration is something that is easier to
arrange locally than a paper making plant.




Personally I think there is a great future in a machine that would grind
glass to a powder suitable for use instead of sand as building material.


I've seen claims from one council that their collected glass gets made
into bottles - I thought that was impossible though. Are they telling
fibs?



Its possible. Glass is infinirely resusable, but you cannot take out the
admixtures used to crate it in the first place. In time it probably
means all bottles end up a muddy brown.



Strikes me that a lot of emphasis is being put on recycling but not
enough on re-use. For the most part the reuse ideas around seem pretty
naive, but there are more sensible ways to do it too. I idly came up
with several possibilities, which of course may or may not stand up to
further scrutiny.


Nearly all our waste is packaging materials.

Or marketing collateral.

Basically its tins, bottles, pots, wrappers etc etc.


The odd bit of building material from the endless DIY...

The food scraps get composted, as does all garden watse.

Most wood gets burnt, one way or another.

So does a lot of the paper.

Its the things that useable things come in that need to be disposed off.





Regards, NT

Set Square wrote:

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
N. Thornton wrote:


"David W.E. Roberts" wrote in message
...

"Set Square" wrote in message

Actually, I'd like to be able to generate *all* my electricity from
gas - not just in an emergency. Bearing in mind that the marginal
cost per kWHr

of

(on peak) electricity is 3.6 times that of gas, I would save on
fuel costs as long as the overall conversion efficiency was more
than about 27.5%

Is isnt, thats the problem. If you want efficiency you need complex
kit. OTOH you can get something to work with about a tenner plus a
ride to the auction. If you have unlimited time, and the expertise to
get old junk running.


Regards, NT


What sort of old junk do you have in mind?



Go and buy a model steam engne and hook it up to a bike dynamo.

wrote:

IMM wrote:

Last week a North London borough said it will fine people who do not
re-cycle. On TV an expert was arguing the point that re-cycling as a waste
of time and uneconomical. He said that burning the waste is the best option
all around: landfill, reduces fossil fuel usage, local heating of houses,
etc, and that emissions are well within the regs pointing to the defra web
site.


How exactly do you get metal cans and glass bottles to burn exactly? ;-)


Aluminium burns very well. So does iron if enough air is blasted in.

Aluminium and iron filings=thermite=incendiary bombs.

Glass is admittedly different - its silicon oxide already.


Hence grind it down and use as sand.





#Paul
NB: I suppose oxidising the metal might count, at a pinch.