Related Posts
Food Waste Converted to Renewable Energy in San FranciscoIf you’ve been actively following the news here on GreenFudge, you may remember an article posted a couple...
20% of Denmark’s energy needs supplied by wind power
The energy crisis of the 1970s kick started an energy revolution in Denmark. Previously dependent on foreign oil,...
Danish climate report sees nation fossil fuel-free by 2050
A new Danish report states that the Scandinavian country could produce all of its energy without fossil fuels...
Portugal’s green energy revolution
During a trip last month from the Portuguese capital of Lisbon to its second largest city Porto, in...
Italy: 800+ municipalities have energy surplus
Investment in wind turbines and solar panels has paid dividends for over 800 Italian communities, which produce enough...
Tip of the Day
To save energy, remember to turn off the light when leaving a room
Danish incinerators are shining examples of clean energy and waste disposal
waste-to-energy plant in Vienna, Austria; photo by Contributor (source: Wikimedia Commons)
According to EPA and Eurostat figures, Denmark recycles 42% of its waste and burns 54% in heat and power stations. The US, by comparison, recycles 33% while only 13% is used in waste-to-energy incinerators. The majority of US trash – 54% – ends up in landfills, compared to only 4% in Denmark.
Denmark’s state-owned garbage burning power plants are also newer and more state-of-the-art than America’s privately owned pay-to-burn incinerators. They burn cleaner and produce more heat and energy, making them attractive additions to even wealthy communities. Quite a contrast from the smelly, smoke-belching eyesores that come to mind when someone says the word ‘incinerator’.
A New York Times piece by Elisabeth Rosenthal highlights the success of European incinerators that turn garbage into heat and electricity while releasing minimal pollution:
Denmark now has 29 such plants, serving 98 municipalities in a country of 5.5 million people, and 10 more are planned or under construction. Across Europe, there are about 400 plants, with Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands leading the pack in expanding them and building new ones.
Hørsholm is a well-to-do municipality in Denmark that lies 25 km (15 miles) north of the capital Copenhagen. It is also home to a large waste-to-energy plant owned by five adjoining communities. The plant is popular because it lowers heating costs and raises home values. But the benefits of such ultra-modern incinerators are manifold: they reduce energy costs, pollute far less, lessen the need for landfills and cut dependency of fossil fuels. They also produce less pollutants and greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and methane.
Read the entire article here in the New York Times.
Additional resources:
New York Times – The Incinerator as Eye Candy
Tags: denmark, energy, heat, incinerators, New York Times, plant, power, waste
4 Comments
You can also log in to post a comment.
Other Greenfudge.org posts
History Comes Alive: Australian Scientists Discover Living Prehistoric Creatures Below Great Barrier Reef
The history of this planet is an awesome thing to learn about and there are so many ways you can do that. You can go to a museum, read books, check out a historical reenactment event, or specialize in the hunt for fossils and other artifacts. Some people say history comes alive, but what if it never died in the first place? Australian scientists have stumbled upon an amazing find at Osprey Reef, which is part of the Great Barrier Reef....
Books vs. E-Readers: Which is Greener?
The debate between digital books and paper books has remained an issue since the introduction of the first e-readers in the mid 2000s. The e-book reader was invented as a way for people to store many books on one device and hopefully reduce many of the costs associated with traditional books. Since e-readers have existed for several years now, it is easier to project their impact on the world today than it was when the readers were first released. It...
More Streaming Trash: The Rampant Industrialization of China – Environmental, Political and Human Consequences
TOXIC: Linfen, China - VBS travels to the single most polluted place on earth, the coal-mining town of Linfen in Shanxi Province, China, where kids play in dirty rivers and the sun sets early behind a thick curtain of smog. - vbs.tv Linfen, China’s coal capital was named the most polluted city in the world by the Blacksmith Institute, an organization that focuses on identifying heavily polluted areas and providing help to the people who live in them. A city of over...
Is there anything funny about COP15?
Surely there must be some humor about climate change, environmental disasters and missed opportunities at Copenhagen amongst all the doom and gloom, denial and political deal making. Maybe I'm a jaded snob, but the guy in the polar bear suit just isn't funny to me. I'm actually a bit tired of polar bears and pandas. They're cute and all, but no one really cares about them that much. The emblem of environmentalism should be something that the most people with...
More giant snail news
Not long after a neighborhood in Miami, Florida was invaded by giant African snails, New Zealand has suffered a massive loss in their own native population of giant snails. While Miami’s interloping giant snails are considered a nuisance due to their tendency to eat houses and leave grody giant snail trails around the place, New Zealand’s giant land snails are considered an endangered species. Because of the giant land snail’s endangered status, 6,000 of them – the entire population of the species,...
Can climate change affect natural disasters?
If you want a simple answer to whether climate change can affect natural disasters then it has to be a broad and resounding yes. Yet, as simple answers often go, it is a 'yes' that doesn’t quantify how much human activity contributes to climate change or therefore how much such contributions impact the rate or severity of natural disasters. Nor is it an answer qualified by which specific kinds of natural disasters are probably influenced by climate change. Obviously, simple...
IWC’s Latest Whaling Proposal Vexes All Sides
The IWC definitely has its hands full with the whole whaling issue. Unfortunately for them, they can’t seem to make anyone happy. If they completely eliminate whaling altogether, the environmentalists will be happy, but the whalers won’t be. If they allow more whaling (but under stricter limits), neither the environmentalists nor the whalers will be happy. What, exactly, are they to do? Their current proposal would allow Iceland, Japan and Norway to hunt whales for 10 years, but under stricter limits...
Dreaming of a Green Christmas?
Christmas day and its frenzied build up is certainly not kind on Mother Earth and when you think of all the thousands of tons of plastic, wrapping paper and unwanted gifts it could leave you feeling as white as the snow outside, but does this have to be the case? A new website, EthicalCommunity.com has recently launched which aims, amongst other things, to help us reduce our environmental impact. Eco conscious shoppers can browse from over 7,000 products, learn about the...
Google and Energy Inc. lay the groundwork for energy-efficient homes
Google has recently announced its partnership with Energy Inc. to help address one major issue we are all facing – climate change. Both companies are developing convenient means to monitor electricity consumption and at the same time make this information accessible to individual consumers in real time. Extensive studies have shown that keeping consumers adequately informed on the rate of their energy consumption is an effective approach to make them understand that individual responsibility can play a significant role in energy...
Podcast: Climate skepticism, Sarah Palin, waterbeds
Looking for acerbic wit, political banter and arguments about how certain words should be pronounced? Then check out the new podcast from yours truly and author Saci Lloyd, in which we discuss climate skeptics, Sara Palin and some other incidental nonsense. We're Green and a bit Red and we don't know how or why popcorn happens. Go on, press play or click on the below link – this will be a regular thing. Climate skepticism, Sarah Palin, waterbeds Join the Facebook group...
View all articles
[...] as the capture technology improves, these risks are being mitigated and managed. In super-green Denmark, incineration plants are very popular and effective – only 4 percent of all trash ends up in [...]
[...] minutes, Denmark in the early 1990s harnessed the power-generation potential of cow manure, among other sources, and Brazilians were riding in alternative-fueled buses and cars more than a decade before the [...]
Thanks for your comments and info, Frankie.
As for the dioxins from new Danish incinerators, here is a link to a study by the Ministry of Environment, which says that dioxin levels ‘peaked in the 80s’. However they linger in nature for quite some time.
http://www.mst.dk/English/Chemicals/Substances_and_materials/Dioxin/
/
The Times article is about the new state-of-the-art incinerators and how they have drastically reduced pollution to levels far below what is permitted by EU regulations. Perhaps calling them ‘clean energy’ is going too far, however.
/
The EPA/Eurostat figures are from a graphic linked in the Times article. To clarify, they state that the CO2 from Danish incinerators is far less than that produced by gas collecting landfills used to generate electricity based on what produces 1 kwh of electricity:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?ref=earth
/
I certainly don’t believe that incinerators are a quick fix or a universal solution. For example Denmark is also ahead in recycling and wind power, but there are indeed great projects in SF.
You may wish to investigate the higher levels of dioxins found in the blood of those in Denmark in a recent scientific study, and how it is effecting the development of male reproductive organs and increasing infertility levels, before you draw to a final coclusion about the success of Danish incineration.
You may wish to investigate the higher levels of dioxins found in the blood of those living in Denmark in recent scientific studies, and how they are effecting the development of male reproductive organs and increasing infertility levels, before you draw to a final conclusion about the success of Danish incineration. In Denmark, just under five per cent of boys are born with a certain malformation of their sexual organs. Of course it is always hard to prove the link between incineration and dioxin levels, but for sure Denmark is not quite the shiny example of clean living that we all thought was the case, and incinerators have long been linked to production of dioxins.
Rather than looking to Denmark as an example of what should be done with your waste, I suggest you have a look closer to home at San Fransisco which is making huge strides towards zero waste, creating more jobs in the process, saving more energy, and not polluting their environment!
Also, this article is incorrect in stating that incinerators produce less C02 than landfill. Regarding greenhouse gas emissions, incinerators produce a huge amount of C02 – yes less methane, but landfill with methane collection is a far greener option in terms of climate change.
Indeed the negative consequences of incineration are manifold: very expensive, creation of few jobs for the amount of investment, depletion of all our natural resources (non sustainable), 25% ash created in the process which is high in metals and dioxins, frequent malfunctions releasing large amounts of pollution, the release of nanoparticles and ultrafines which travel long distances and get deep into the organs, the forming of acid rain contributing to the acidification of the oceans, huge amounts of C02, a waste of energy (far more reclaimed through anaerobic digestion and true recycling)….I could go on and on.
Now the benefits: shareholders get really rich and we can continue to live in denial regarding our over consumption with a ‘one solution burns all’ quick fix – who cares about the consequences for the future generations? Who cares that we are trashing the planet and draining our economy of its future resources? Who cares for our kids?