Slashdot Mirror


Oslo Needs Your Garbage

lister king of smeg writes in with news that Oslo is running out of garbage which it burns to generate heat and electricity. "Oslo, a recycling-friendly place where roughly half the city and most of its schools are heated by burning garbage — household trash, industrial waste, even toxic and dangerous waste from hospitals and drug arrests — has a problem: it has literally run out of garbage to burn. The problem is not unique to Oslo, a city of 1.4 million people. Across Northern Europe, where the practice of burning garbage to generate heat and electricity has exploded in recent decades, demand for trash far outstrips supply." Back in October we told you about a similar garbage shortage facing Sweden.

202 comments

  1. Murika the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    just get more americans to settle there... best waste producers in the world !

    1. Re:Murika the solution by blagooly · · Score: 1

      It does prevent all those ships from inefficiently cruising back to China empty. Next? A bidding war on the best garbage. Followed by media coverage, "racist evil white male controlled American corporate firms send all the good garbage to white Norway, China gets second rate, low quality garbage. Why cant we just fairly share our good garbage?"

    2. Re:Murika the solution by mitgib · · Score: 1

      Or ship garbage from NYC that always seems to be in the news for a barge without a dock

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    3. Re:Murika the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure my city, and state, would be happy to ship garbage to them as long as they are willing to pay the cost of collecting and shipping it. If garbage is in such short supply then it must be increasing in value, right? Well, I'd be willing to give it away for free to anyone who wants it.

    4. Re:Murika the solution by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Always seems? It was 1987. (That's what I thought of too, though.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobro_4000

      (Amazing that googling "garbage barge" shows that as the top result.)

    5. Re:Murika the solution by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      They'd have to learn another language. Which is, as we know, not possible for Americans.

      (Native Americans excepted.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    6. Re:Murika the solution by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Chto ti govorish!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:Murika the solution by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Da. Ya ponimayu.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    8. Re:Murika the solution by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Khorosho. Znachit, chto mi "odin protsentnik"?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    9. Re:Murika the solution by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry, I'd have to get a dictionary at "prosentnik".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Never happened in Sim City 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never ran out in the game. Reality is failing to accurately model.

    1. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SC2K didn't model garbage.

    2. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4000 did.

    3. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      SC2K didn't model garbage.

      Duh! That's why he didn't run out of garbage in the game, as it wasn't simulated. To model reality correctly, it should've had garbage simulation and, an Oslo scenario where the garbage runs out at some point. ;)

    4. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by crutchy · · Score: 1

      i thought incinerators were bad. i tend to only use them when i'm desperate because they produce huge pollution and devalue nearby land.

      politicians burn pretty well... unfortunately the combustion products are highly toxic

    5. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by crutchy · · Score: 2

      without a whole bunch of command line parameters on startup just to make it run stable, sc4000 is garbage

    6. Re: Never happened in Sim City 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such game as 4000. You're either referring to Simcity 3000, or Simcity 4.

      Whilst we're on the topic of Simcity; Fuck you EA & Maxis. No seriously, and I thought Spore was the worst game I'd ever played, until I realised that it's had way more screen time than I gave Simcity (2013). You guys are fucking jerks for trashing (heh) such a renound classic.

    7. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      And by "whole bunch" you mean the single argument needed to make it run on one core?

    8. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      You are supposed to use the waste-to-energy incinerator and place it in the border so half the pollution goes to a neighboring county. Then you accept their trash in return a monthly cash payment, burn the trash to generate electricity, which you then resell to them. Profit.

    9. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Great, so you can use 1/4-1/8 of your CPU. That sure seems like quality software.

    10. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can achieve this in SimCity 4, where running out of trash for your waste to energy power plant is a fairly typical problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When simcity 4 was written, multicore was rare and one core then was worth less than one core is now. The game runs plenty fast on just one core of a modern PC. And if you have a fairly modern processor then your CPU will overclock itself while running few threads.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4000 never got ported, AFAIK. 2000 is what we have, so that's the Sim City.

    13. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      When most of the software I use on a daily basis was written that was true. None of it needs special flags to behave correctly.

    14. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      To run glquake I needed a .bat file that set my driver's gamma higher, launched the game with at least four parameters (width and height to set the resolution, and two more to set the water transparency), then set the gamma back to what it was before (executed after quitting the game).

      A single flag in a standard Windows shortcut is much easier.
      Playing networked or serial cable Doom 2 on custom maps was even more flag heavy, yet that has to be quality software :D

    15. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by crutchy · · Score: 1

      cool! seems obvious in hindsight to place them on map edge, but i'm stupid so i never thought of it before. ta.

    16. Re:Never happened in Sim City 2000 by crutchy · · Score: 1

      the cpu count one isn't the only one, but it is probably the most important

  3. Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The point isn't that Oslo doesn't produce enough garbage, it's that it uses more electricity than burning garbage can produce and because of high energy costs it's somehow cheaper to import garbage from Romania and Bulgaria than domestic generation costs.

    1. Re:Reword by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Well most countries would pay for someone else to deal with their garbage.
      Definitely makes it cheaper.

    2. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is amazing since they produce a lot of Oil & Gas, I guess though they can sell that for heaps where as garbage they probably get paid by other countries to take it.

    3. Re:Reword by kermidge · · Score: 2

      If Oslo et al paid for transpo costs, the U.S. would be in a fine situation. We could supply them for decades, I should think.

    4. Re:Reword by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed! I'm going to be renting a dumpster soon for some long overdue spring cleaning. If Oslo dropped off a dumpster at my place in southern California, I'd be happy to fill it up for them a few times.

    5. Re:Reword by nightcats · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's an old motto among plumbers (the real ones who work with pipes and stuff, not Nixon-era crooks), which loosely applies here: "your s#!t is our bread and butter."

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    6. Re:Reword by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of the burned garbage is used to feed central heating systems. Same with a lot of other cities in Scandinavia. A few large central furnaces and a big network of hot water pipes.

      Not so much to produce electricity. Most of the electricity in Scandinavia is water power or nuclear with a few coal/oil burners that are used for backup in case the current production is insufficient. Add to it a number of windmills but their contribution is small.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:Reword by gravious · · Score: 1

      The one I've heard is more succinct, "there's money in s#!t".

      --

      Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
    8. Re:Reword by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Before my grandfather started a successful retail tree nursery, he "peddled piles of shit" on the north side of Denver. It used to be that it was a pretty good spring/summer business, supplemented with firewood sales to all the condos in Vail/Breck/Aspen in the winter.

      In all that time since, seems the only thing we've learned is that it is better to build stuff out of wood instead of burning it, and instead burning the crap and trash for fuel.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    9. Re: Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on geography.

    10. Re:Reword by skovnymfe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Denmark doesn't have hydro power (no mountains) and it doesn't have nuclear (oooh, Chernobyl..!). It's primarily the burning of natural gas and coal, plus whatever the wind farms produce, that keeps the lights on.

    11. Re:Reword by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Denmark depends on their neighbors pumped hydro to dump excess wind generation, and draw upon when the wind isn't blowing. Nice arrangement for them, as it is essential for the success of wind or solar. Sadly, availability is limited, and Germany's choice to abandon nuclear is also stressing the grid in that region, and causing trouble for neighboring nations.

    12. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      As in Helsinki, Sweden.

    13. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of the burned garbage is used to feed central heating systems. Same with a lot of other cities in Scandinavia. A few large central furnaces and a big network of hot water pipes.

      Not so much to produce electricity. Most of the electricity in Scandinavia is water power or nuclear with a few coal/oil burners that are used for backup in case the current production is insufficient. Add to it a number of windmills but their contribution is small.

      In Sweden (starting with Sweden, since I'm Swedish), windmills make out about 1/20 (slightly more, this far into 2013) of the total of the electricity produced that reach the public distribution network (it is also the second (after solar power) largest electric power production technology that produce electricity for local use by private buildings, and that production is not part of the official statistics). It is roughly the same amount of electricity that is produced in Sweden by waste heat from industry (most "waste" heat is reused for central heating, not electricity production, and Swedish industry is really good at reusing heat in production (e.g. compared to U.S. industry, which that, for example, use 20 times more energy to create heat per produced unit in smeltwerks and 10 times more in paper mills)). The wind turbines contribution to Swedens electricity production grew by 18% in 2012, and is still growing at an accelerated rate.

      I'm not sure that I would call more then 1/20 of electricity production for a country with a small population, but with a huge heavy industry (mostly producing iron and copper or products made of steel and copper, and paper, all very power consuming processes), a small contribution.

      In Denmark wind power stand for more then 1/4 of the electricity production and consumption. And most of the technology they use to produce it is several decades old, so the production will grow as they replace old technology with newer more efficient one. Most electrical energy used in Denmark is used for farming or food production (most of the bacon consumed in the world is produced in Denmark). Denmarks protectorate Iceland, mostly use thermal power, but wind power is on the rise. Its other large protectorate, Greenland, is mostly dependent on fossil fuel. But the amount of electricity consumed by the small Icelandic and Greenlandic populations is minuscule, compared to that used by main Denmark.

      I'm not sure that I would call more then 1/4 of electricity production for a small country a small contribution.

      Norway mostly rely on water power for their energy needs. But the last 2 years they've built new wind power plants even faster then Sweden.

      Sweden, Denmark and Norway are self sufficient when it comes to energy consumption. Small amounts of electricity is imported from other European countries during consumption peaks and exported during production peaks.

    14. Re:Reword by Iskender · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure that I would call more then 1/20 of electricity production for a country with a small population, but with a huge heavy industry (mostly producing iron and copper or products made of steel and copper, and paper, all very power consuming processes), a small contribution.

      You should be sure though. 5% is 5%, the population or usage doesn't matter. 5% is small.

      If that 5% were somehow permanently knocked out it wouldn't be a huge problem. The other 95% is vital on the other hand.

      I like wind power, and it's obvious you do too. But you shouldn't let it cloud your sense of proportions.

    15. Re:Reword by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      pecunia non olet

      --
      ---
    16. Re:Reword by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      There's always money in the shit pipes.

    17. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the Swedes do not call it Helsinki after all, it is Helsingfors. So in some ways they are still holding on to Finnland :-)

    18. Re:Reword by ibwolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Denmarks protectorate Iceland, mostly use thermal power, but wind power is on the rise. Its other large protectorate,

      Iceland has NOT been a "protectorate" of Denmark for nearly 70 years. Also, wind power is NOT on the rise here. There is currently only one test wind mast (and that blew down recently, not sure if they have it back up) with no plans for further development. We do, however, have plenty of hydro and geothermal energy.

    19. Re:Reword by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      I remember reading that Germany was stressing its neighbors grid by producing too much electricity from wind-farms.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    20. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be a grammar nazi since you're obviously Swedish from your post but you did it 4 times. It's more than and faster than. Then is temporal not comparative.

    21. Re:Reword by operagost · · Score: 1

      That's funny... there are only kernels of corn in mine.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I heard Germany was stressing its neighbors by being too awesome.

    23. Re:Reword by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Most of the burned garbage is used to feed central heating systems. Same with a lot of other cities in Scandinavia. A few large central furnaces and a big network of hot water pipes.

      Not so much to produce electricity. Most of the electricity in Scandinavia is water power or nuclear with a few coal/oil burners that are used for backup in case the current production is insufficient. Add to it a number of windmills but their contribution is small.

      There is quite a lot of cogen too. If you are burning the fuel anyway, it makes a lot of sense to use the high-temperature combustion gasses to boil water at high temperature and then run a steam turbine. The steam needed for heating houses, running laundromats, heating businesses, etc is extracted at some point in the turbine.

      Why? We can burn a fuel at several thousand degrees F. However, the best pipes we can make can only stand about 1100F (600C) and 3500psi, and these are very expensive and problematic. (For reliability, usually most power plants run at 1000F, 1050F and 2400psi, or sometimes slightly higher). Even at these lower conditions, pipes in the boiler still burst quite frequently (and pipes outside the boiler require wall thickness of several inches). Having high-pressure, high temperature, and high-cost steam pipes running all over town is both prohibitively costly and a safety hazard. So we run the steam turbine, and use cheap piping to houses at much lower pressure and temperature. WE Energies in Milwaukee, for example, tries to run their system between 1 and 200psi, with temperatures near the saturation point.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    24. Re:Reword by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Except here it's not steam pipes - it's hot water that's pumped through the net, so even if it springs a leak it's not going to be a problem.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    25. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not countries that burn it for power. In much of Europe garbage is a commodity like anything else.

    26. Re:Reword by unixisc · · Score: 1

      You're sure that Oslo is not in the Danish protectorate of Iceland? /sarc>

    27. Re:Reword by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Electric energy isn't exactly expensive in Norway - due to huge amounts of hydropower, its probably the cheapest in Europe, and probably cheaper than California. Most homes are heated by electricity - and it can get *COLD* in the winter. Prices have risen a bit lately, mostly due to stronger connections to the common EU grid, making export more viable. OTOH, we now avoid having huge peaks in price / availability problems some winters.

      The case here is that Oslo invested in a huge garbage burner, which would deliver hot water for heating houses. A few years later they started a quite successfull recycling program, which drastically reduced the ammount of garbage to be burned.

      By the way: I used to see the pipes from this plant from my living room window.

    28. Re:Reword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automatic +5 Troll warning!

      The point isn't that Oslo doesn't produce enough garbage, it's that it uses more electricity than burning garbage can produce and because of high energy costs it's somehow cheaper to import garbage from Romania and Bulgaria than domestic generation costs.

      Achtung! We actually have an extreme amount of incoming garbage from Romania and Bulgaria but it isn't politically correct to advocate burning them, so please be careful of what you say ;)

      Let the flaming commence!

  4. Choice quotes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, other areas of Europe are producing abundant amounts of garbage, including southern Italy, where cities like Naples paid towns in Germany and the Netherlands to accept garbage, helping to defuse a Neapolitan garbage crisis. Yet though Oslo considered the Italian garbage, it preferred to stick with what it said was the cleaner and safer English waste. “It’s a sensitive question,” Mr. Mikkelsen said.

    In a hierarchy of environmental goals, Mr. Haltbrekken said, producing less garbage should take first place, while generating energy from garbage should be at the bottom. “The problem is that our lowest priority conflicts with our highest one,” he said.

    “So now we import waste from Leeds and other places, and we also had discussions with Naples,” he added. “We said, ‘O.K., so we’re helping the Neapolitans,’ but that’s not a long-term strategy.”

    “In the short-term view, of course, it’s better to burn the garbage in Oslo than to leave it in Leeds or Bristol.”

    But “in the long term,” he said, “no.”

    1. Re:Choice quotes by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      Amsterdam has invested in a huge facility for converting trash into electricity, and is improving the barge infrastructure so it can import more waste from neighboring countries. Anecdotally it seems to be a more efficient approach to create electricity, (and salvageable metals), as opposed to merely heat. The trams run on electricity, for example.

      http://www.amsterdam.nl/aeb/english

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    2. Re:Choice quotes by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Amsterdam has invested in a huge facility for converting trash into electricity

      but they can't do that... prostitution is a popular tourist attraction in amsterdam

  5. Nothing new by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Informative

    This started decades ago already.

    First step was to keep compostables out of the trash (kitchen and garden wastes). Direct result: the rest of the trash, including lots of plastic and some paper, burned much hotter than it used to with all the wet stuff inside. And that caused problems for the ovens that were built for a different kind of fuel mix.

    Over the recent years more and more plastics are being taken out from the trash. First the PET bottles, nowadays in large parts of Europe all kinds of plastic packing material has to be kept separate.

    Most of the stuff that burns well (paper, plastics, organic wastes) is being recycled now, and kept out of the incinerators. What remains: not much, really. Some glass, stone, metals. Not much that burns well. Some wood will burn, some plastic that's attached to something else or otherwise ended up in the wrong bin. Baby diapers will burn quite well, too, as that's mostly paper and plastics. Rags that are so worn they're not offered to some charity.

    Now indeed the volume of trash is decreasing (anything that's taken out to recycle is not trash), and the trash that's there won't burn as well as it used to. So no surprise really that it's causing problems for the operators of waste incinerators.

    1. Re:Nothing new by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      And honestly, I'd say that's a good thing. You're running out of waste. It's convenient to use waste to produce electricity, but it's not efficient nor really environmentally friendly (sure, it's not in the ground anymore, but it's in the air instead). You're much better off reusing/recycling whatever you can and scaling up more efficient energy sources instead.

    2. Re:Nothing new by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Funny

      Baby diapers will burn quite well, too, as that's mostly paper and plastics.

      With one HELL of an organic deposit in them.

    3. Re:Nothing new by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Reduce, reuse, recycle. And if that all fails: recover the energy out of it.

      Stuff like medical waste and hazardous waste are burned in special incinerators using lots of oil or gas, as these wastes (that often won't burn well by themselves, if at all) must be burned at really high temperatures to render them harmless. That will always continue, and recovering that heat and putting it to some other use is just an economically sound thing to do.

    4. Re:Nothing new by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      This started decades ago already.

      Exactly. Scientists have been warning about Peak Garbage for years, but no, the energy companies didn't want to listen. They wanted to act like we had an unlimited supply of fuel for their wasteful power plants. (Powering thousands of air conditioners, I'm sure.) Well, now they have to start garbage fracking, just to keep production going. They have to get it from the fracking English, and the fracking Romanians, but luckily for Italy's eco-refuse system, the fracking Neopolitans (sp?) were turned down.

      So, now that Peak Garbage has been scientifically proven, are the Osaleonians (sp?) going to change their environmentally conscientious ways?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could burn shit from sewage plants. Yes, some would say "it is fertilizer", but not really thanks to industrial waste dumped into it.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130410201824.htm

      So, dry and burn the shit while limiting heavy metal emissions. Dry shit burns really really well.

    6. Re:Nothing new by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Just realize that when burning in a large centralized furnace there is a possibility to control the process more and have more advanced filters to take out the worst stuff. Compare that to when everyone did burn coal in their own stove at home in London.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:Nothing new by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      If done properly it can also be carbon negative since some of carbon that was headed back to the biosphere as methane/CO2 can be sequestered by burrying what's left of the burnt shit. Since the carbon tax was introduced in Australia pig farmers have become more interested in the technology.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Nothing new by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Osaleonians

      What on earth does that mean?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Nothing new by gravious · · Score: 1

      Neapolitan/Napoletano/a.

      Oslovian.

      These are demonyms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym
      FTL: The word demonym comes from the Greek word for "populace" ( demos) with the suffix for "name" (-onym).

      --

      Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
    10. Re:Nothing new by hankwang · · Score: 3, Informative

      "What remains: not much, really. Some glass, stone, metals. Not much that burns well."

      I'm not sure what country you're describing, but here in the Netherlands, we separate paper, glass, plastic packaging (PE, PET, PP, PS), organic waste, electrical equipment, chemical waste. Stones (e.g. from breaking down a wall) are not supposed to be mixed with household waste. Laminated materials such as potato crisp bags and milk cartons, styrofoam, discarded household items go into the "other waste" bin. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to, but plastic with food scraps sticking onto it don't make it to my plastics container since I don't want them to rot and smell. My trash bags will burn pretty well.

      For the Netherlands, I think company offices are a big contributor to incinerable waste. They separate the paper, but not the plastics. Many company restaurants are not separating compostable waste from what the employees leave on their trays.

    11. Re:Nothing new by enz · · Score: 1

      It might be true that the ovens need to be run with different parameters or even built differently, but taking the wet garden and kitchen waste out of the mix is a good thing. Obviously some energy goes into drying the wet components before they can burn. Also, if the burning plant is used for electricity generation (and many plants in Europe are hybrid, i.e. they produce both electricity and heat), then burning at a hotter temperature produces more electricity out of the same amount of trash (see Carnot's law of thermodynamics).

    12. Re:Nothing new by gravious · · Score: 2

      Here in Ireland local councils have been trying to get waste incinerators built for years but because of NIMBYism it still hasn't happened yet. Environmental concerns are also cited (prions I think?). So the good folk of Ireland are against incineration, nuclear, fracking, wind farms to name but a few 20th century technologies. And we import all our energy and export our waste. We don't have the climate for solar. And they don't want us to burn fossil fuels - but indeed we burn the peat from our bogs. What a depressing country, no wonder so many emigrate and never return. Yay, go Ireland!

      --

      Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
    13. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, they'll just find something else to burn like food. For example, shelled corn is burnt for heat.

      Next, it'll probably be corpses, then they could set up suicidal tourism or something -- the fuel comes to YOU. But that's really eating into their future, since they would be burning organic matter that would one day become fossil fuel.

    14. Re:Nothing new by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Taking all that garden and kitchen waste out is certainly a good thing: that's why they do it in the first place.

      Some power plants may be hybrids, for most heat is waste. The problem of heat is the transportation - and it has a relatively low economic value. You can only reuse heat if you have someone that needs the heat close by. With power plants far from the cities, heating homes with waste heat is often not practical. And in summer you don't need to heat your homes, while the power plants still have this heat to get rid of.

    15. Re:Nothing new by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      Burning the garbage is better than letting it rot and produce methane.
      Norway does both materials and energy recycling of garbage, ~45% is recycled for materials and ~40% is burnt to reclaim energy. Only ~15% goes on landfills.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    16. Re: Nothing new by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I remember campaign - "Incinerators mean dioxins, dioxins mean death".

      All I could think was that I saw plenty of healthy people in Vienna where they have a (pretty cool looking) incinerator slap band in the city.

      I also remember hearing about the plan for a crematorium in Ovens in Cork, that would have been gas.

    17. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baby diapers will burn quite well, too, as that's mostly paper and plastics.

      Something tells me that you never had the "baby diappers experience".

    18. Re:Nothing new by aliquis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, as the others have said they of course got good filtering, and likely burn at high temperatures / efficiently.

      Also feel free to look at this picture from MÃlarenergi (I guess it's in VÃsterÃ¥s, Sweden):
      http://www.malarenergi.se/PageFiles/8317/Illustration_BB.jpg
      Missing the next part of the image.
      Here's the full "article" (in their own magazine) in Swedish describing the process and with the full picture:
      http://www.malarenergi.se/PageFiles/7417/Pages%20from%20nonstop-4-2012.pdf
      A young kid interested in it:
      http://www.malarenergi.se/PageFiles/7417/Folke1_3.pdf
      Page two here got the full illustration of how it's supposed to work, page one is a description in English - Enjoy.
      http://www.malarenergi.se/Documents/Broschyrer/fornyelseprojektet-eng-2013.pdf

      http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/om-malarenergi/vara-anlaggningar/kraftvarmeverket/Valkommen-till-fornyelsebloggen/Blogginlagg/En-robust-bransleberedning-helt-avgorande-for-Block-6/
      http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/om-malarenergi/vara-anlaggningar/kraftvarmeverket/Valkommen-till-fornyelsebloggen/Blogginlagg/Varfor-bygger-Malarenergi-en-avfallsforbranningsanlaggning/
      http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/om-malarenergi/vara-anlaggningar/kraftvarmeverket/Valkommen-till-fornyelsebloggen/Blogginlagg/Avfall-som-bransle/
      http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/om-malarenergi/vara-anlaggningar/kraftvarmeverket/Valkommen-till-fornyelsebloggen/Blogginlagg/Miljo/
      http://www.malarenergi.se/sv/om-malarenergi/vara-anlaggningar/kraftvarmeverket/Valkommen-till-fornyelsebloggen/?category=turbine

    19. Re:Nothing new by Sique · · Score: 1

      About twenty years ago I visited a waste burning plant in Mannheim, Germany. The guide was proud to tell us, that the air above the plant is of better quality than the air above downtown Mannheim due to all the filtering they do to the exhaust fumes.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    20. Re:Nothing new by crutchy · · Score: 1

      burning methane is much more environmentally friendly than burning garbage

    21. Re:Nothing new by crutchy · · Score: 1

      judging by how active my kids are i find it hard to believe there would be any useful energy left in their diaper deposits

    22. Re:Nothing new by crutchy · · Score: 1

      they could just make a deal with the ira... they can bomb whoever they like as long as they throw some garbage in too

    23. Re:Nothing new by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      judging by how active my kids are i find it hard to believe there would be any useful energy left in their diaper deposits

      Human, I told you before: There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. There are, in fact, degrees of shit we are willing to eat.

    24. Re:Nothing new by darthdavid · · Score: 2

      Paradoxically you can actually run an aircon off waste heat using an absorption cooler so central heat (or steam depending on how the plant is set up) can be just as useful in summer as in winter. A lot of places in NYC are air-conditioned this way actually...

    25. Re:Nothing new by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Many places in the world (like most of Europe) only need heating in winter, no cooling in summer (other than large shopping malls and so).

    26. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was an excellent comment on The Register earlier this week examining this very question:

      "You could always burn your own dung for heat and cooking!"

      I doubt it. If the tods are dry enough, and your diet high enough in plant materials, then there's a chance it will give out some modest heat because the lignin fibres that your body hasn't digested do have a similar energy content as wood fibres of similar weight. But lookin at what Lester's selected the rice doesn't look to be whole grain, eggs will leave nothing, chick peas will be good, so on balance I reckon he'll be crimping off lengths of regular clay, and that doesn't burn well even if dried.

      If you don't have any other choices, dried elephant dung picked up off the African savannah may be a just about useable fuel, but for the reasons above I doubt that Reg writer droppings will be anything like as good. This is why sewage plant companies have to use fossil fuels to incinerate sewage sludges. If Lester has got some of the fine sieves used in (for example) sedimentology, then he could dissolve his dreadnoughts and used tissue in a bucket of water, and filter the resulting solution, rinse a few times, and he'll have the lignin fibres on their own, ready to use as soon as they are dried. Even so, any neighbours may take issue with Lester's renewables, and the actual energy recovered will be very small indeed. Like most other forms of renewable energy, in fact.

    27. Re:Nothing new by jez9999 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're much better off reusing/recycling whatever you can

      Debatable. See this Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode, and consider how much empirical evidence you've actually seen that recycling is always best for the environment or whether, in many cases, it would actually be better to landfill stuff and create new stuff from scratch, especially things like glass where we have an effectively infinite supply of sand to create new glass with.

    28. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is actually done as well, although providing the 'ideal' rot seems to be tricky.

    29. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, no one show this article to Jeremy Irons. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57581740/jeremy-irons-talks-trash/

    30. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if it's rotting slowly in a landfill it's not as easily or likely to be trapped, recovered and burned.

    31. Re:Nothing new by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Penn and Teller are full of bullshit.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    32. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recycling paper is pretty questionable environmentally due to the high energy costs involved with transportation, bleaching and reforming. Of course it's widely recycled anyway, but this has more to do with governments wanting to appear green than with rational cost/benefit analysis. Unless the transport distance is unusually short it would be better to incinerate it and use the energy.

    33. Re:Nothing new by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Actually, what it really comes down to is that recycling sucks, and reusing is much much better. For instance, if you're the sort of person who buys bottled water regularly, try just refilling the same bottle from the tap periodically instead of buying new bottles all the time.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    34. Re:Nothing new by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      I got the same lecture when I toured the local incinerator 15 years ago. Who thought watching garbage burn was so exciting? There wasn't any worries about running out of garbage either, that place was pretty busy. Even some of the byproducts of burning garbage were recycled. The remaining soot is turned into asphalt fill. The plant itself is self sustaining running off the electricity it produces.

    35. Re:Nothing new by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While Bullshit! is entertainment and I occasionally disagree with them strenuously on some point or other, mostly because they're using specious reasoning like the appeal to authority, they're right about recycling. Much of what is "recycled" is simply sorted and then landfilled. And glass, in particular, should never be recycled. Toxic additives should be outlawed, and then it should just be dumped in the ocean someplace. We all like beach glass. It costs more energy to recycle it than to just replace it. Of course, we used to refill glass, and that took less energy still...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Nothing new by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So we have an unlimited amount of landfill space?

      Penn & Teller are willing to store all of this for us?

    37. Re: Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in the paper biz and can add that paper recycling is profitable and can survive as long as people "donate" their material.

    38. Re:Nothing new by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. It has some fun similar examples like Neapolitan.

      Funny story: I was a teenager before I realized that the tri-color ice cream was not named after a short European conqueror.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    39. Re:Nothing new by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      That's why I feel the important part of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is left out. It's Reduce, Reuse, Recycle IN THAT ORDER. One of the best things we can do for our environment is to stop using so much stuff in the first place. Or if you do use stuff. Make sure it's reusable. It's not so good for the environment to recycle plastic water bottles all the time, when you could just have a reusable one. They even have ones that roll up so you don't have to worry so much about carrying around a big empty bottle. It's nice to recycle packaging for products, but wouldn't it be much better if the packaging wasn't there at all? Sure some things need packaging to stay intact during transit, but most things these days have an extreme excess of packaging.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    40. Re:Nothing new by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Option 1: burn the garbage, use it as fuel for heat/electricity generation. Needs serious scrubbers to clean the fumes.

      Option 2: burn natural gas (methane), and dump the garbage in a landfill where it can rot (release methane, amongst other gases) and leech pollutants to the ground water.

      I think Option 1 is the overall less damaging one. And it saves a lot of space.

    41. Re:Nothing new by Ost99 · · Score: 1

      If you collect the methane, a non-trivial problem.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    42. Re:Nothing new by Politburo · · Score: 1

      If sand were the only input to glassmaking, perhaps. But energy is also a large input, glass furnaces run up to 1500 degC. It takes less energy to melt existing glass than it does to make new glass.

      Waste glass (which is called cullet) can also be recycled into other products. This typically replaces sand, so what's the point? While sand may be plentiful, it must also be collected, refined/sorted, and shipped to the point of manufacture. Glass is used everywhere, and in many parts of the country we're already doing the collection/sorting.

    43. Re:Nothing new by Deltaspectre · · Score: 1

      In a local college town, I remember seeing ads not to toss your pizza boxes in with the rest of the cardboard recycling, because it will contaminate the whole batch. Sounds like you're doing it right!

      --
      My UID is prime... is yours?
    44. Re:Nothing new by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      mostly because they're using specious reasoning like the appeal to authority

      Could you give a few examples? (Does this mean I'm appealing to your authority??)

      I think Penn is very entertaining (I'm glad he has a podcast again), but I thought B.S. was mostly preaching to the choir with a few times when I very much disagreed with them. That doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining, I just stopped watching it at some point.

    45. Re:Nothing new by crutchy · · Score: 1

      many landfills have caps over them (covered with topsoil) with vents, because otherwise there would be dangerous build ups of methane. these vents would make perfect sources to tap for burning, but the amount of methane from a landfill is much less compared to biowaste

      nonetheless, carbon in the ground (landfill) is much more environmentally friendly than carbon in the air (incinerators)

    46. Re:Nothing new by crutchy · · Score: 1

      leech pollutants to the ground water

      i'm assuming this was the deciding factor

      however, what do you think happens to those pollutants when you burn them? instead of them (possibly) going into the drinking/irrigation water supply (only a problem if you dump in a catchment area), you release them into the air. i know a lot of people blather on about how carbon dioxide isn't really a problem, but carbon dioxide is just a common component of "pollution" in general that can be measured. the combustion products that are more dangerous are NOx and SOx.

    47. Re:Nothing new by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      NOx, SOx, dioxines, ash, etc can all be caught quite well by scrubbers.

      You still have your pollutants, but much more concentrated (less overall material to handle), and many of the heavier elements are molten into slag, and rendered safe that way.

      It is more expensive than landfill, but when done well it's the better option. Now the remaining ash and slag often goes to landfill again (alternatively it's used in construction) but the volume is a tiny fraction of the original.

    48. Re:Nothing new by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Could you give a few examples? (Does this mean I'm appealing to your authority??)

      No specific examples, I didn't dedicate that much real estate to being outraged at a show I find amusing. But they often say "but so and so says such and such" without any explanation of why one should find that compelling.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:Nothing new by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't need AC doesn't mean it's not nice to have, especially if you're not burning a bunch of electricity to get it.

    50. Re:Nothing new by crutchy · · Score: 1

      It is more expensive than landfill, but when done well it's the better option

      or even better, if waste is burned and then pumped deep into the ground... combines the best of both worlds

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

  6. We can help. by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dear Europe,

    The United States has so much trash, we're dumping it into the ocean. For a small additional fee, we'll ship you all the waste of the eastern seaboard. Note to slashdot mods: I'm not joking. We really do dump it into the ocean.

    Buy American. Buy trash.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:We can help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA (1st paragraph even):

      This is a city that imports garbage. Some comes from England, some from Ireland. Some is from neighboring Sweden. It even has designs on the American market.

    2. Re:We can help. by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not joking. We really do dump it into the ocean.

      According to the EPA, that stopped completely by 1992.

      "The main objective of the federal Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 has been realized--we have stopped dumping sewage sludge into the ocean," Reilly said. "EPA will continue to enforce the consent decrees which require the establishment of long-term, land-based disposal alternatives. We will also continue to encourage solutions that have beneficial uses. Through these efforts, not only are we preventing pollution by protecting the ocean from use as a dump, we are now seeing sludge recognized more and more as a resource, not as a waste.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:We can help. by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      We really do dump it into the ocean

      21 years ago.

    4. Re:We can help. by skovnymfe · · Score: 2

      I'm not joking. We really do dump it into the ocean.

      According to the EPA, that stopped completely by 1992.

      That's about when they started splicing foreign elements into corn and soy, isn't it? I wonder where all that waste is going...

    5. Re:We can help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we have stopped dumping sewage sludge into the ocean

      Sewage != trash.

    6. Re:We can help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sewage sludge != trash

    7. Re:We can help. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I don't think any MSW is dumped in the ocean (legally), that ended decades ago. Feel free to provide a counter-example.

  7. Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of a Futurama episode.
    Fry had to teach the New York of 3000 how to litter like the New York of 2000.

    1. Re:Futurama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At /., it reminds us all of Futurama. You're supposed to give us a quote so we can say, "Hey, I recognize that line from Futurama S1E8!"

      "But garbage is not something you just find lying in the streets of Manhattan."

  8. Where I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where I live (Edmonton, Canada), recycling plastic, paper and glass has been around for years. Household waste thrown into the garbage along with everything else is composted. The city is nearing 1.1 million people (growing by about 5000 per month), and the composting facility separates out metals and wood, then within 30 days everything else goes from garbage to dirt. Heat is recycled, methane is de-watered, compressed, and burned in vehicles. You can't burn garbage here. I'm surprised they are allowed to burn garbage there.

    1. Re:Where I live by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you're still in Edmonton. Zing!

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
  9. Never get that 3 garbage plant. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't they know Garbage always gets expensive in the mid game? Haven't they played Powergrid?

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Never get that 3 garbage plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess we are in mid game then.. time to start switching my plants to huge coal plants, maybe supplemented by one big nuclear. Soon everyone will have nuclear plants, and it's going to be impossible to get uranium. If that fusion plant comes around you better snatch that one also. As a back up get a good sized wind farm. Or just rush to finish it before others have their plants ready!

    2. Re:Never get that 3 garbage plant. by AeneaTech · · Score: 1

      Awesome, I wish I had mod points!

    3. Re:Never get that 3 garbage plant. by crutchy · · Score: 1

      solar plants!

    4. Re:Never get that 3 garbage plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Beaten to the obvious punch. (For those who don't get it: have a look.)

      I was going to say that Oslo obviously needs to manoeuvre itself into last place in turn order, to get the cheap resources. And to be able to get its pick of new power plants.

  10. Mr. Fusion by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Doc

    1. Re:Mr. Fusion by ericb11 · · Score: 1

      Hey Tablizer, I've been programming for half a year now (ruby, C, tiny bit of assembly) and I have in the past experienced your table-epiphany when working with large datasets in MATLAB. The ability to treat everything as a MATRIX and essentially script everything as a matrix manipulation was much clearer and intuitive to me than marrying the data to code. Basically my question is: what options exist for us who want to work with tables? What languages can we use right now?

    2. Re:Mr. Fusion by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Recent tools tend to be anti-table, so I cannot recommend any current stuff, and the older table-oriented tools have too many outdated features (not related to tables). Maybe the pendulum will swing back soon. (Hang out at the c2 wiki if you want to discuss tables some more...)

      Glad to hear you are experimenting with tables and matri (matrices?)

  11. Obligatory New Jersey reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world's energy demands can be met -- not by harnessing the power of the atom, but by harnessing the garbage of New Jersey.

    1. Re:Obligatory New Jersey reference by Chas · · Score: 2

      That's like saying "The answer to our energy needs is in the Earth's core".

      Sure. That may be true. But actually GETTING there and doing anything in that particular area is a very dangerous proposition.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:Obligatory New Jersey reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying "The answer to our energy needs is in the Earth's core".

      Sure. That may be true. But actually GETTING there and doing anything in that particular area is a very dangerous proposition.

      But not quite so dangerous as letting world leaders fight wars over oil, no?

    3. Re:Obligatory New Jersey reference by crutchy · · Score: 1

      gang wars in jersey are bad enough

    4. Re:Obligatory New Jersey reference by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      And we can even ship the radioactive waste parts of New Jersey to France for reprocessing into nuclear fuel with breeder reactors.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  12. We can help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When 3D printing finally gets past its 15 minutes, we can ship them all our misshapen plastic trinkets. Should keep them going for decades.

  13. Ikea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely a few more Ikea stores would solve the problem:-)

  14. Tropical Paradise of Norway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait a couple decades, then you won't need heaters at all.

  15. The garbage market by dristoph · · Score: 3

    So will other countries be paying Norway to deal with their garbage, or will Norway be paying other countries for supplying them with fuel?

    1. Re:The garbage market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the moment countries are paying Norway to deal with their garbage.
      The system they use is most viable in colder climates but if all northern nations including Canada and Alaska starts to use a similar system for heating perhaps we will see a time where there is a shortage of organic waste. This could bring the price for garbage up in the positive.

  16. Garbage Ball 3K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe there is a large ball of garbage orbiting the sun and due back circa 3000.
    Grab your Smelloscope and you should be able to find it on it outbound trajectory

  17. Garbage Mines by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 2

    We have nigh uncountable garbage mines in this country. Why should we not support our overseas friends power needs by opening them as concessions.

    Which would lead to the natural conclusions: The EPA will regulate garbage mining, the Sierra Club will start decrying the spoilation of our resources, the paranoid will start advocate government control to assure our future garbage needs....

    1. Re:Garbage Mines by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Some day, not long after the last drop of oil is sucked from the Earth and all the trash has all been burned, the future humans will look back through the ages and curse our ignorance: "All that valuable material for making and recycling plastics, and they FUCKING BURNED IT?!"

    2. Re:Garbage Mines by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      We have nigh uncountable garbage mines in this country. Why should we not support our overseas friends power needs by opening them as concessions.

      You know what's funny about all of this? Here in Canada we can't even get garbage incineration off the ground in most places, because environmentalists are so "up in arms" over the entire thing. They then pressure up the local residents, and it becomes an environmentalist/nimby problem. And at the end of the road, we end up shipping garbage to abandoned quarries, or in other cases off to Michigan or other US states.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Garbage Mines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best place for it, make it feel at home with all the other merkin garbage.

    4. Re:Garbage Mines by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Some day, not long after the last drop of oil is sucked from the Earth and all the trash has all been burned, the future humans will look back through the ages and curse our ignorance: "All that valuable material for making and recycling plastics, and they FUCKING BURNED IT?!"

      If we're still actually on this mudball by then, we'll deserve what we get. You don't need oil to make plastics, it's just the cheapest way to do it. You can get what you need from plants, or out of the air directly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. geo-thermal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that place ran on geo-thermal.... oh well, another green illusion shattered.

    1. Re: geo-thermal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, actually we're powered by hydroelectric plants + imports... which reminds me: when did Oslo get a population of 1,4 million?

    2. Re: geo-thermal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The metropolitan area holds about 1400K people. However I think this includes Lillestrøm and Sandvika. The city itself only has ~600K.

    3. Re:geo-thermal?? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That's Iceland.

      The only thing shattered here is your ignorance.

  19. This smells like... by r33per · · Score: 3, Funny

    an episode of Futurama...

  20. Waxed paper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much more packaging could be made of biofuel.

  21. Not a unique problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine this is only a problem in certain Scandinavian cities. Garabge incarceration that drives generators has been the standard way of processing non-recyclable refuse for decades in most of Europe.

  22. 1.4 million?? by FalMunir · · Score: 1

    Last time I counted, we were 623,966 residents here. Give or take a dozen. Did the city need garbage so badly they started to burn the population now?

    1. Re:1.4 million?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Oslo_Region

      You can see that the 1400K includes several other cities as well.

    2. Re:1.4 million?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, that is just a conversion error between metric and imperial residents.

    3. Re:1.4 million?? by The+Wannabe+King · · Score: 3, Informative

      The present city border is completely arbitrary. The municipality and county of Oslo has 623,966 residents (or so), but in most directions from the city centre, it is imposssible to guess when you cross into the neighbouring county of Akershus. The figure of 1.4 million is for the Oslo metropolitan area which at least I think gives a better idea of the city's size.

    4. Re:1.4 million?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if Oslo is 623,966 and neighboring Akershus is 523,272, that's still short with 252,762 from the number stated in the article. And Akershus (the name translates to the house in the fields) is mostly farmland.

      This, and the fact that I have lived in Oslo for 30 years and have never heard about over half of the city being heated by burning trash, I doubt the accuracy of this article...

    5. Re:1.4 million?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's only counting the legals and none of the "tourists" who have avoided getting eaten by the trolls.

      If it continues like this we're soon going to be overrun by slavering gluttonous trolls :|

    6. Re:1.4 million?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah it's only the trolls feeding.

  23. Utter stupidity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Burning waste for heating would not be so bad had the waste been sorted first. Sadly that is not the case and everything is burnt no matter how toxic. The whole garbage collection system in Sweden at least is centered around recycling, not burning. The waste from the process is released in full into the air or buried into the ground as ashes. Burning do not destroy all the toxic things in the waste so a lot of things is realeased into the air that is worse than burning coal or oil.

    I hate it but sadly the green idiots seem to think it is a great idea releasing the stuff into the air instead of recycling it.

    1. Re:Utter stupidity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burning do not destroy all the toxic things in the waste so a lot of things is realeased into the air that is worse than burning coal or oil.

      That is, unless you really, really burn it.
       
      .

  24. this is fueled partly by nimbius · · Score: 1

    and pardon the pun, by europes landfill bans. to think that somehow burning your trash is a more acceptable alternative is actually quite absurd. the arguments against it are compelling
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerator

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:this is fueled partly by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How is it absurd?
      When land is cheap you can use some for a landfill, when land is expensive you may never make enough money on the landfill to pay for the land you use. If the landfill will not be profitable you won't do it.

  25. There's a reason it's called "Bullshit!". by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#Environmental_skepticism

    Environmental skepticism

    Penn & Teller describe themselves as environmental skeptics. They have made several television appearances attempting to discredit environmental concerns. The "Environmental Hysteria" episode attempted to "prove the global warming crisis, among other things, was created by the out of control imagination of hysterical hippies and environmentalists".

    When subsequently challenged at the James Randi Educational Foundation's The Amazing Meeting 6 about their views on global warming, Penn Jillette published a piece in the Los Angeles Times saying "I don't know about climate change".[16]

    Also:

    Penn acknowledged his and Teller's biases, saying, "We're fair and we never take people out of context. We're biased, but we try to be honest."

    I.e. Biased and with an agenda.
    Seek information on recycling and environment elsewhere.
    All Penn and Teller provide on that topic is one-sided, "mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous" bullshit.

    Also bigoted, as Jillette's idea of being "fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous" is saying "Hey! What do I know? Sure. I'm being an asshole and I'm spouting nonsense from my position of authority (just look at all the other crazy shit I very loudly rant about on TV - all the shit I rant about MUST BE crazy) - but it's not like I reeeaaaly know anything.
    Cause, in essence - you simply can't know some things. They are beyond our comprehension..."

    They are bigoted assholes, just like the creationists bible-thumpers . It's just that they are YOUR KIND of assholes.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:There's a reason it's called "Bullshit!". by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The op-ed piece you link to is quite bizarre. "Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject?" What kind of allowance is he looking for? An allowance to say wrong things, from a bully pulpit on TV, and in particular one whose format is to call others out on their own misstatements, without having those who aren't ignorant call you out on it?

      What the hell is he driving at? It looks for all the world like he knows that he's wrong and is turning himself inside-out to avoid having to admit it.

  26. Re:Not enough garbage?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We do already import large amounts of garbage from Romania though. It's called gypsies.

    Nothing like a little racism....

  27. Argentina can help by mordejai · · Score: 1

    We'll send you a container with our best politicians.

    They should burn well, as they are all full of shit.

  28. Bigotry is bigotry by gottabeme · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why does no one cry "bigot!" when someone slanders an entire nation? It's pure hatred, as evil as hating Jews or Muslims or Asians or blacks.

    Oh, but it's ok to hate those people, because I don't like some of the things their government has done.

    Hypocrisy at its finest.

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    1. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate everyone equally.

    2. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      No, in this case, it's not our government, but the trash-per-capita, an artifact of our consumerist society, that does hold substantial individual liability. While I don't endorse "prejudice by averages" as that leads to all sorts of fallacious beliefs that harm people.

      That doesn't justify your stupid comment, because the GP didn't mention our government at all.

    3. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Gentle reader...
      I would advise you to try to determine the difference between sarcasm and hate speech. I know this is difficult "on the Internet" but perhaps a nice walk in the woods before posting your rant would help your perspective.
      While you are at it, you could also investigate irony which is greatly misunderstood.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah OK so bigotry is still cool only but only when it involves the US gov. Thank you for the clarification!

      Thing is, most people are bigoted in some way. They have their 'group' they do not like. Say "I am a republican" in the midst of a democrat national convention and you will get hiss's and boos. I have found over the years the words "I am open minded" to mean "if you do not share my opinion I will be a dick to you".

    5. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that the trash from my 4 person household would no where near cover what would need to be burned to cover our electricity demands for a week.

    6. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      That's not what I said at all, thanks. The rest of your post is pretty mindless babble blindly attacking a group people, the very thing you're ostensibly trying to prevent.

      Con-gratu-fucking-lations. You win today's ignorance contest hands-down.

    7. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's that moshpit here in washington that contains 535 big bags-of-mostly-water^H^H^H^H^Hgarbage. the hot air that blows from these bags when under even the slightest pressure should be enough to heat the whole of norway for decades. just watch out for the exhaust -- it's toxic and no known filtering makes it safe. but the oddest thing, they will also do wonders for your pork industry. what? you have no pork industry up there? well you will now! whether you want it or not.

      and one other thing. no returns or refunds! we dont want 'em back.

    8. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Nathan Poe is watching this discussion from Heaven above and weeping, gently weeping, to himself.

      (Yeah, I know he's not dead, and probably doesn't believe in Heaven anyway. Just go with it.)

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is Americans being bigoted against themselves. That's wrong? It's just self criticism.

    10. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      To me the OP's comment bears strong anti-American connotations, which people seem to justify by criticizing what the USA has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Interpreting it in that light, he didn't need to be so specific. So I don't think my comment was stupid. It's all a matter of perspective.

      Your perspective is extremely negative, judging from your itchy finger on the putdown trigger. Might I suggest you relieve your stress in more positive ways?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    11. Re:Bigotry is bigotry by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the irony in my comment. Please enlighten me, gentle...whatever...

      My perspective is that attacking America is all the rage nowadays, and people love to jump on the bandwagon with stupid memes. But if an American were to make such a comment about some other nation, there would be outrage.

      I do detect a hint of irony in your comment, though...

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  29. Someone contact Ontario by raind · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can stop trucking there waste to Michigan

    --
    Get up!
  30. New tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Palm beach county, Florida is installing a system that turns trash into a plasma and apparently consumes it completely. The energy produced is to be used on the grid. Since the local method of garbage disposal is building garbage mountains it is a welcome technology. The highest mountain in Florida is the Ft. Lauderdale garbage dump. Frankly i would like to give our wretched governor Rick Scott a home on top of that garbage mountain. Miami was even worse as the city used to throw away the corpses of the poor on their dump. You can't imagine how ugly the tops of those garbage mountains are. It is like hell on earth and the buzzards and sea gulls eat away at the trash up there and broadcast their waste all over Florida as well as the ocean. I used to have to dump loads of logs up there and it was so bad that at times i threw up. You just have to see trucks dumping all kinds of chicken guts and the like in the hot sun here and smell the horror to understand i suppose. With a bit of luck you might stick your foot in the belly of a dead body up there.
                      The Satanists think the stink helps their prayers and they actually are forced to have security guards on the mountain all night, every night. After all we wouldn't want a warlock hurting himself and suing the county.

  31. This is ridiculous by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2

    First, burning garbage is not the epitome of clean green energy. While it might be greener than coal or even natural gas its a trite solution implemented as a cheap alternative instead of finding a real clean source of energy. Also burning garbage is not a global solution to power, its only about alleviating the municipal headache of maintaining and finding new landfills.

    Second, places like this are probably so consumed by an incessant need to recycle and compost that they have depleted their own source of "garbage" energy.

    This is another reason why green society is just inherently Stupid (with a capital S), because its always about myopic applications of solutions without looking at the bigger picture. You can't remove all recyclables from municipal waste and then try to also power your city off of garbage, its one or the other.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:This is ridiculous by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Not everything that burns, is recyclable.

      And the story is not about trash having no caloric value; it's about the total quantity that's available.

  32. Garbage and landfills as a valuable resource by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    Right now, most of us see garbage as a problem and landfills as an environmental crisis.

    In the future our descendants might see landfills as a resource. Vast amounts of reusable materials are stored in landfills for future reuse.

    In a post scarcity future, 100 years from now, landfills may end up being some of the most valuable land, guarded and strip-mined.

    After we use up all the cheap oil, and our technology has advanced. so that reuse is more practical, people may curse the "damned fools" who burned/recycled all those resources instead of storing them for the future in landfills.

  33. Futurama by Cybernot · · Score: 1

    They should watch Futurama "A big piece of Garbage" episode and learn from Fry how to solve their garbage problem

  34. Alternative source by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Run a pipeline from US Senate/House of Reps. to Oslo. Operate incinerator off the methane vapors.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  35. Could we ship them Florida? by tekrat · · Score: 1

    After reading the article about the girl expelled from school, I'm thinking the entire state could be sent there as Garbage.. Oh, I mean White Trash.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  36. America needs to do this by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, we need to encourage cities like NYC to do this and pull in garbage from around the area. This is far better than throwing it away in a dump or in the ocean.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  37. Really? by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Really?

    You mean Celine Dion does tours in Detroit?

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  38. They can have mine... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    They just have to clean my house in the process of taking it.

    --
    That is all.
  39. Plenty of trash available for the taking! by MrWin2kMan · · Score: 1

    Just send some ocean-going barges out to the North Atlantic Garbage Patch or the Pacific Trash Vortex...right up the greenies alley...

    --
    Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
  40. Retort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent : Starving kids in Africa would love to have that kind of food to eat !

    Child : But freezing kids in Norway need this in the trash to keep warm !

  41. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could just send them the cast of Jersey Shore... that should satisfy their needs for the next 20 years or so.

  42. If they're not afraid of a long boat ride... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a Texas sized Island of trash floating in the Pacific ocean. Last time I checked the Spanish hadn't claimed it yet.

  43. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened already in Trondheim, 20 years ago.
    Their trash burning plant, which was was primarily used for heating residential houses, had to add petroleum to the mix to get the garbage to burn, after paper recycling gained popularity. I remember the chairman of the electric company railed against paper recycling for this reason.