A scientist decided there was a way of treating the refuse to the landfill to remove the organic carbon BEFORE it becomes methane and other gases such as nitrous oxide.
Waste Manag. 2013 Oct;33(10):2099-107. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.028. Epub 2013 Feb 28.
Spatial variability of nitrous oxide and methane emissions (click here) from an MBT landfill in operation: strong N2O hotspots at the working face.
Harborth P, Fuss R, Münnich K, Flessa H, Fricke K.
Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) is an effective technique, which removes organic carbon from municipal solid waste (MSW) prior to deposition. Thereby, methane (CH4) production in the landfill is strongly mitigated. However, direct measurements of greenhouse gas emissions from full-scale MBT landfills have not been conducted so far. Thus, CH4 and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from a German MBT landfill in operation as well as their concentrations in the landfill gas (LFG) were measured. High N2O emissions of 20-200gCO2eq.m(-2)h(-1) magnitude (up to 428mgNm(-2)h(-1)) were observed within 20m of the working face. (20 meters deep) CH4 emissions were highest at the landfill zone located at a distance of 30-40m from the working face, where they reacheIf d about 10gCO2eq.m(-2)h(-1). The MBT material in this area has been deposited several weeks earlier. Maximum LFG concentration for N2O was 24.000ppmv in material below the emission hotspot. At a depth of 50cm from the landfill surface a strong negative correlation between N2O and CH4 concentrations was observed. From this and from the distribution pattern of extractable ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate it has been concluded that strong N2O production is associated with nitrification activity and the occurrence of nitrite and nitrate, which is initiated by oxygen input during waste deposition. Therefore, CH4 mitigation measures, which often employ aeration, could result in a net increase of GHG emissions due to increased N2O emissions, especially at MBT landfills.
The technique applied did not result in an improvement of the GHG (Green House Gas) emissions from the landfill. However, it needs to be pursued. There are two sources of emission of GHG with products placed in landfills, first when the products are produced and then when those same products degrade in landfills producing GHG.
There needs to be a better way, both, from the product production and the mitigation of the organic carbon.
Landfills are terrible things. There is water runoff because there is no containment layer. Such LININGS of a landfill is used for hazardous waste, as if that never ends up in regular landfills.
...The first federal legislation (click here) addressing trash or more properly solid waste management was the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (SWDA) that created a national office of solid waste. In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) expanded the federal government’s role in managing waste disposal. RCRA divided wastes into hazardous and solid waste categories, and began the process of developing standards for sanitary landfills and closing or upgrading existing dumps to meet the sanitary landfill standards. (The Office of Solid Waste was transferred to the US EPA in 1974....
Biodegradable packaging should be mandatory at the very least. It would have to be determined if biodegradable products and/or packaging actually makes a difference. It may not. The USA took a look at packaging some time ago, but, reduced garbage was never mandated. There should be a law that at least rewards product manufacturers to reduce packaging garbage in the way of a tax incentive. It would vastly reduce the waste municipalities have to invest in a landfill.
As a rule, people don't really want landfills anyway.
April 14, 2016
Waste Manag. 2013 Oct;33(10):2099-107. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.028. Epub 2013 Feb 28.
Spatial variability of nitrous oxide and methane emissions (click here) from an MBT landfill in operation: strong N2O hotspots at the working face.
Harborth P, Fuss R, Münnich K, Flessa H, Fricke K.
Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) is an effective technique, which removes organic carbon from municipal solid waste (MSW) prior to deposition. Thereby, methane (CH4) production in the landfill is strongly mitigated. However, direct measurements of greenhouse gas emissions from full-scale MBT landfills have not been conducted so far. Thus, CH4 and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from a German MBT landfill in operation as well as their concentrations in the landfill gas (LFG) were measured. High N2O emissions of 20-200gCO2eq.m(-2)h(-1) magnitude (up to 428mgNm(-2)h(-1)) were observed within 20m of the working face. (20 meters deep) CH4 emissions were highest at the landfill zone located at a distance of 30-40m from the working face, where they reacheIf d about 10gCO2eq.m(-2)h(-1). The MBT material in this area has been deposited several weeks earlier. Maximum LFG concentration for N2O was 24.000ppmv in material below the emission hotspot. At a depth of 50cm from the landfill surface a strong negative correlation between N2O and CH4 concentrations was observed. From this and from the distribution pattern of extractable ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate it has been concluded that strong N2O production is associated with nitrification activity and the occurrence of nitrite and nitrate, which is initiated by oxygen input during waste deposition. Therefore, CH4 mitigation measures, which often employ aeration, could result in a net increase of GHG emissions due to increased N2O emissions, especially at MBT landfills.
The technique applied did not result in an improvement of the GHG (Green House Gas) emissions from the landfill. However, it needs to be pursued. There are two sources of emission of GHG with products placed in landfills, first when the products are produced and then when those same products degrade in landfills producing GHG.
There needs to be a better way, both, from the product production and the mitigation of the organic carbon.
Landfills are terrible things. There is water runoff because there is no containment layer. Such LININGS of a landfill is used for hazardous waste, as if that never ends up in regular landfills.
...The first federal legislation (click here) addressing trash or more properly solid waste management was the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (SWDA) that created a national office of solid waste. In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) expanded the federal government’s role in managing waste disposal. RCRA divided wastes into hazardous and solid waste categories, and began the process of developing standards for sanitary landfills and closing or upgrading existing dumps to meet the sanitary landfill standards. (The Office of Solid Waste was transferred to the US EPA in 1974....
Biodegradable packaging should be mandatory at the very least. It would have to be determined if biodegradable products and/or packaging actually makes a difference. It may not. The USA took a look at packaging some time ago, but, reduced garbage was never mandated. There should be a law that at least rewards product manufacturers to reduce packaging garbage in the way of a tax incentive. It would vastly reduce the waste municipalities have to invest in a landfill.
As a rule, people don't really want landfills anyway.
April 14, 2016
Open Letter to Legislative Chairman Alden Wolfe (click here) and the Rockland County Legislature from Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition, Inc.
Dear Mr. Wolfe,
We are writing to inform you of a webinar about waste reduction that will take place on April 14, 2016. <https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5307184670312417537>.
The Finger Lakes region unfortunately contains the three largest active landfills in New York State. These landscape-altering monuments to waste are visible from miles away and on the all too frequent bad days the stench generated by these dumps is also detectablefrom miles away. It is no coincidence that your county is at the top of our notification list about the webinar. You may not be aware of this, but your county sends more waste to the Ontario County dump than any other single entity, including sources in other counties, the New England states and Canada. We have examined the records of this dump for the past four years and have also noted that the amount of your waste sent there has increased every year.
Your county deposited 224,810 tons in 2012 and 247,071 tons in 2013, an increase of 22,260 tons. In 2014, over 263,382 tons was deposited, comprising 41 percent of the total annual amount received that year. In 2015, you sent us 302,967 tons, a 40,000 ton increase, comprising over 46 percent of the total amount received. Although we are aware that you have worked on increasing your county’s recycling rate, it has not resulted in a decrease in your exported waste to our region....
Your county deposited 224,810 tons in 2012 and 247,071 tons in 2013, an increase of 22,260 tons. In 2014, over 263,382 tons was deposited, comprising 41 percent of the total annual amount received that year. In 2015, you sent us 302,967 tons, a 40,000 ton increase, comprising over 46 percent of the total amount received. Although we are aware that you have worked on increasing your county’s recycling rate, it has not resulted in a decrease in your exported waste to our region....
