The problem of woodwork waste.

[DrPhill]

I used to add powder product which was sold as an accelerator. How did that work then?

Soil microbes, nitrogenous fertilizer, and good marketing. :lol:

 

[Lons]

Soil microbes, nitrogenous fertilizer, and good marketing. :lol:

So a bit of a con then?

Wife used to buy it - not me - I was just the lacky :wink: :lol:

 

[DrPhill]

Soil microbes, nitrogenous fertilizer, and good marketing. :lol:

So a bit of a con then?

I suspect so, but cannot say for sure. None of the books that I have read on the topic mentioned the need for such additives.

I imagine that in the unlikely situation where the microbes are missing adding some will help, and maybe a small amount of nitrogen might kick start a torpid heap. But in such a cases I would recommend a spadeful of soil and a bucket of p*ss.

 

[doctor Bob]

But in such a cases I would recommend a spadeful of soil and a bucket of p*ss.

Reminds me of that old joke, old farmer marries a young attractive woman, shows her around his home and the outside toilet, which has no lock on it, she says "its got no lock on it, aren't you worried!!!",

"don't you worry about that my luv, we haven't had a bucket of sh*t pinched for 20 year"

 

[Paul Chapman]

:lol:

 

[jack55]

I compost some 25,000 tonnes of municipal waste a year. never needed an additive yet.

Eric. Recycling isn't about saving landfill its about saving resources, which if we continue to use them at the rate we do we need another two planets. All landfills in the Uk have to be lined and leachate recovered. Its a simple case of reusing or recycling materials so we don't run out. Mind you some of the so called green agenda needs some more consideration though. Bio mass burners (wood) need massive amounts to feed them something like 250,000 tonnes a year, so MDF could become more expensive than OAK in the future as the woodfibre goes to be burnt.

 

[DrPhill]

I compost some 25,000 tonnes of municipal waste a year. never needed an additive yet.

A professional then? Assuming so, then you are the first that I have 'met'. Could I ask for your view on the methane production of landfill? Is it significant? Is it trapped? Is it measured? Is it regulated?

Eric. Recycling isn't about saving landfill its about saving resources, which if we continue to use them at the rate we do we need another two planets. All landfills in the Uk have to be lined and leachate recovered. Its a simple case of reusing or recycling materials so we don't run out.

I expect that, as we are the early stages of training the population, there are some wrinkles to be ironed out. The reduce/reuse/recycle thing is as much of a social attitude as it is a practical implementation of the attitude. Separating the waste can lead to massive savings if the separated wastes are recycled, but I hope that involving the population in the disposal process by getting them to do the separation will also raise awareness of where waste comes from. For example, maybe people will notice how much food they are wasting, they may then reflect on the cost of that wasted food, and reduce their purchasing accordingly. That will be good for their pockets and for the environment.

Or maybe I am just an idealist on a soapbox.........

 

[Jacob]

.....
Or maybe I am just an idealist on a soapbox.........

No not at all, it all has to be thought about!
Biomass burning for me means waste wood and paper, basically not recyclable elsewhere.

A biological material or timber based economy? Tax benefits for all timber building, engineering and other products?
Result - increased value of forestry and re-planting, which with the increased range of timber products effectively sequesters increased levels of CO2. Also generates increased biomass waste for burning from timber processing at the start and disposal of materials at end of life (derelict timber buildings etc). Add all packaging materials to be biomass burnable - paper cloth etc
Add all clothing to be natural materials. All white and black goods could at least have timber casings.
And so on.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Eric. Recycling isn't about saving landfill its about saving resources

That was my point!

If you 'recycle' stuff for which there is no use, you are wasting resources doing it. And we do, and we are.

Right now we're wasting fuel, vehicles, manpower and lots of money.

There are other reasons though why it's not working for us: for example, in global terms our labour costs are way too expensive. This is one very significant reason why we throw away stuff rather than mend it.

Also, as mentioned, retailers are under hardly any incentive to reduce the amount of packaging, etc.

What annoys me is the systematic lying on all this from central and local government, not to mention the EU. Some people are getting very rich - where there's muck, etc.

Sorry it's a bit of a hobby horse. Here, we try to be as green as possible, and we go into it very carefully.

Regards,

E.

 

[DrPhill]

.....
Or maybe I am just an idealist on a soapbox.........

No not at all, it all has to be thought about!
Biomass burning for me means waste wood and paper, basically not recyclable elsewhere.

A biological material or timber based economy? Tax benefits for all timber building, engineering and other products?
Result - increased value of forestry and re-planting, which with the increased range of timber products effectively sequesters increased levels of CO2. Also generates increased biomass waste for burning from timber processing at the start and disposal of materials at end of life (derelict timber buildings etc). Add all packaging materials to be biomass burnable - paper cloth etc
Add all clothing to be natural materials. All white and black goods could at least have timber casings.
And so on.

I was wondering when people would realise that not only is timber a good store for carbon, but that it can be used to make things too!
Carbon is stored in timber as approximately CH2O formula weight (12+2+16) 30. The same amount of CO2 has a formula weight of 44, so 30kg of timber traps carbon that would have made 44Kg of CO2. I found that result surprising when I first did the calculation.

Eric. Recycling isn't about saving landfill its about saving resources

That was my point!

If you 'recycle' stuff for which there is no use, you are wasting resources doing it. And we do, and we are.

Right now we're wasting fuel, vehicles, manpower and lots of money.

There are other reasons though why it's not working for us: for example, in global terms our labour costs are way too expensive. This is one very significant reason why we throw away stuff rather than mend it.

Also, as mentioned, retailers are under hardly any incentive to reduce the amount of packaging, etc.

What annoys me is the systematic lying on all this from central and local government, not to mention the EU. Some people are getting very rich - where there's muck, etc.

Sorry it's a bit of a hobby horse. Here, we try to be as green as possible, and we go into it very carefully.

Regards,

E.

I have much sympathy for your view - but I am more frustrated by the missed opportunities that by the effort spent missing them. I console myself that it will take time for a system to evolve and mature into an efficient disposition for materials. I would rather have a faulty system than none atall, assuming there is the will to improve it.

I am glad that I am not alone on my soapbox. Plenty of room for all.

 

[Jacob]

Carbon sequestration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Interestingly it gets it quite wrong here:

Reforestation is the replanting of trees on marginal crop and pasture lands to incorporate carbon from atmospheric CO2 into biomass.[6] For this process to succeed the carbon must not return to the atmosphere from burning or rotting when the trees die.[7] To this end, the trees must grow in perpetuity or the wood from them must itself be sequestered, e.g., via biochar, bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS) or landfill.

Carbon can be returned, by burning, to the atmosphere carbon neutrally, as long as it is matched by replanting. Furthermore simple storage of wood either as timber or in wood products, creates a large carbon store in addition to that growing.
Even further - replacement of non organic materials by wood adds to the store at the same time as it reduces the CO2 generated by steel making and other processes.

Woodworkers can save the planet!

 

[kirkpoore1]

Carbon sequestration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Interestingly it gets it quite wrong here:

Reforestation is the replanting of trees on marginal crop and pasture lands to incorporate carbon from atmospheric CO2 into biomass.[6] For this process to succeed the carbon must not return to the atmosphere from burning or rotting when the trees die.[7] To this end, the trees must grow in perpetuity or the wood from them must itself be sequestered, e.g., via biochar, bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS) or landfill.

Carbon can be returned, by burning, to the atmosphere carbon neutrally, as long as it is matched by replanting. Furthermore simple storage of wood either as timber or in wood products, creates a large carbon store in addition to that growing.
Even further - replacement of non organic materials by wood adds to the store at the same time as it reduces the CO2 generated by steel making and other processes.

Woodworkers can save the planet!

Jacob:

Although your final statement is correct (at least to a certain degree), your claim that the reforestation paragraph is wrong is itself a misreading. Returning carbon to the air through burning is part of the carbon cycle. Carbon sequestration requires that the carbon (in wood form, or whatever) is not returned to the air. So for reforestation to lead to sequestration, the wood must be not be burned or allowed to rot.

Kirk

 

[DrPhill]

Woodworkers can save the planet!

More so if we restrict ourselves to hand tools, and eschew the electric tools that require carbon generation (coal, gas....) to operate. Roll on the new-artisan economy!

(UK average carbon footprint of electricity is 0.47kg/KWh - equivalent to a tad over 300g of wood sequestered CO2)

 

[Jacob]

Carbon sequestration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Interestingly it gets it quite wrong here:

Reforestation is the replanting of trees on marginal crop and pasture lands to incorporate carbon from atmospheric CO2 into biomass.[6] For this process to succeed the carbon must not return to the atmosphere from burning or rotting when the trees die.[7] To this end, the trees must grow in perpetuity or the wood from them must itself be sequestered, e.g., via biochar, bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS) or landfill.

Carbon can be returned, by burning, to the atmosphere carbon neutrally, as long as it is matched by replanting. Furthermore simple storage of wood either as timber or in wood products, creates a large carbon store in addition to that growing.
Even further - replacement of non organic materials by wood adds to the store at the same time as it reduces the CO2 generated by steel making and other processes.

Woodworkers can save the planet!

Jacob:

Although your final statement is correct (at least to a certain degree), your claim that the reforestation paragraph is wrong is itself a misreading. Returning carbon to the air through burning is part of the carbon cycle. Carbon sequestration requires that the carbon (in wood form, or whatever) is not returned to the air. So for reforestation to lead to sequestration, the wood must be not be burned or allowed to rot.

Kirk

Right. If only matched by replanting you get zero sequestration (but also zero emission).
What I meant to add was that if burning/planting were both increased then there would be positive sequestration.
And you also replace fossil fuel use and the CO2 it would have emitted. A double benefit.

 

[jack55]

A professional then? Assuming so, then you are the first that I have 'met'. Could I ask for your view on the methane production of landfill? Is it significant? Is it trapped? Is it measured? Is it regulated?

There are some myths and facts involved in methane production at landfills. Methane is produced by the decomposition of organic matter in a landfill, of that there is no doubt. What is nearly always not mentioned is that methane is a food to some species of bacteria. Depending on the size of landfill and the rate of methane production, bacteria in the soil can and does breakdown the methane as it passes through the top layers of soil. This can be seen on old landfill sites which have not been restored, the site will be covered in grasses weeds and self seeded bushes and trees. No growth would be possible if the soils were rich in methane. So if left alone nature can take care of its self. However pollution occurs when nature is overwhelmed and large landfill sites could do just that. Given all landfill sites are now capped and properly restored, and there is a statutory requirement to recover the methane and either use it (electricity production) or flare it so it does not get released into the atmosphere. In fact there is a healthy profit to be made in using the methane to run gas engines which power turbines and produce electricity.

Bio mass unfortunately does not mean burning bits of waste organic materials, it means diverting forestry production from timber to fuel. A biomass power plant was proposed here and the majority of saw mills objected to it.


By definition you cannot recycle something for which there is no use for. Recycling is taking something and reducing it into a raw materials for re manufacture. Aluminum cans are turned back into aluminum, glass bottles and jars back to glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles into fleeces, pipes and flower pots, newspapers back to newsprint cardboard to plasterboard backing.
Again it is understandably myth that supermarkets have no interest in reducing packaging. It is in fact not true. Supermarkets along with manufacturers which use, produce or sell goods in packaging have a statutory obligation to reduce, reuse or recycle a predetermined tonnage of all packaging they use. The obligation is in the form of The Packaging Regulations. " Valpack" have a web site which explains them in lay terms. In short organisations like supermarkets coco cola and the like have to spend millions in complying with the regulations, the more packaging they are involved with the more they pay. Some packaging is there to prevent theft, some to protect the goods. Believe me supermarkets would not give us any packaging at all if there was not a good (in money terms) reason for it.

 

[DrPhill]

There are some myths and facts involved in methane production at landfills.........

Thank you Jack55 for taking the time to respond. I found your post interesting and informative. It is good to know that current landfill does not add to the greenhouse effect by making methane.

I understand what you say about using biomass to make energy - reports already have it raising timber prices and displacing food production (which will also add to the rise in food prices). As with most things we are finding novel ways to 'enjoy now' (cheap energy, cheap food, wasteful practices) and 'pay later' (pollution, climate change, resource depletion, high prices).

As for the packaging - I see that as a symptom of the 'delocalisation' of the food industry. Small, local food production and distribution never needed all the packaging (or the food miles) but the supermarket system absolutely requires it. Package costs money, and reduces profits so is only done when needed. Supermarkets also suck money from local economies and give it to investors who have no interest in or responsibility for those local communities.

Sorry, I warned you all this was my soapbox.

 

[Jacob]

....
Bio mass unfortunately does not mean burning bits of waste organic materials, it means diverting forestry production from timber to fuel. A biomass power plant was proposed here and the majority of saw mills objected to it....

I agree that biomass burning in that sense is not good, I was thinking of non-recyclable bio waste, which for me means sawdust, small offcuts, building demolition waste, packaging etc.

 

[jack55]

Getting back to the origin of this thread. It does annoy me when local authority waste officers (and i am one) forget the legislation which governs their actions. Household waste is not defined by the type of waste (that definition was changed in 1990) it is defined by the source. Ergo, household waste is produced by a domestic property, a domestic property does not become a commercial property because there is saw dust in the bin. Local Authorities are restricted by law as to what they can charge for. They have to provide an uplift of domestic waste free of any charge, they may make a charge for bulky items which cannot fit into a standard bin or weigh more than 56 lbs and for garden waste. They cannot make a charge to householders disposing of refuse at local Civic amenity sites (skip sites) Household waste sites, what every they are called. If they do refuse to take sawdust or wood waste and you are not a commercial property, remind them that the definition of household waste is given in The Collection and Disposal Regulations 1992, which enact the relevant sections of The Environment Protect Act 1990, and ask them what section of these acts they are using to justify the refusal to collect. If you want to get an answer send the request as a complaint through you MP.

 

[treeturner123]

Jack55

Sanity at last! At our local amenity site, there seems to be an assumption that if you have a white van, it must be commercial. Indeed in the past, one of my friends had to give up being 'Neighbourly' by taking some OAPs' waste because the site management wanted to charge him!

I must remember the act and may be write it on the windscreen of my car!

Joking aside, your contribution is very welcome indeed

Phil

 

[Lons]

Jack55 Joking aside, your contribution is very welcome indeed Phil

+1 =D> =D>

Does the same regulation apply in England as Scotland?

Bob