• Aria\’s Blog

  • How is Evidence-Based Design Different from Research-Based Design?

8th November 2012

How is Evidence-Based Design Different from Research-Based Design?

April 16, 2012 at 1:09 pm 2 comments


LifeScape Medical Associates - Scottsdale, Arizona

That’s a good question.  Research-based design―research about the environment―has been around for a very long time and I think thoughtful architects and designers have for many years employed research in an informal way when they’re designing spaces.  I would say the best architects and designers have very good intuition as well that feeds into that.  But just using research does not mandate in and of itself that you’re going to embark upon a formal process.

When we’re talking about evidence-based design, there is a formal process that one has to follow and this is outlined in the book.  You start with the hypothesis, here’s what I think will be true if we design the nursing unit this way, and then, if you’re an architectural firm, one of the best things to do is find a consultant who is perhaps associated with an academic institution, a researcher, to work with you to develop this.  I am vastly simplifying the process in this description but it starts with a literature review and figuring out with hospital leadership the best issues to study—those with the greatest leverage—then creating hypotheses and eventually developing the metrics by which you’re going to measure this at six months and 12 months after occupancy.  You look at the data and what it tells you, maybe everything wasn’t successful, but some aspect of it was successful.  Now you publish the outcomes—what worked and what didn’t work—and then the next hospital, or next 20 or 40 hospitals, doesn’t make that same mistake.  They can look at what you did and say, “that was really effective for this sub-group of patients, which was great.”

And over time, I’m sure it will take at least 10 years to have a large enough database built-up, one learns from another and another—as the knowledge base grows.  One sees greater rigor coming from Medicare; you see it in clinical care the past few years, the work that IHI, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, has embarked upon.  That’s where we’re going and design has to follow, it has to be as rigorous.

(Excerpts from an interview with Hospital Interior Design expert, Jain Malkin regarding her book, A Visual Reference for Evidence-Based Design, published by The Center for Health Design, 2008; View the video – Evidence-Based Design – How evidence-based design is different from research-based design)


posted in Engineering, Hospital | 0 Comments

8th November 2012

5 Ways Hospital Design Influences Patient Health

It is no secret that hospital patients are influenced by their surroundings. Hospital design directly impacts patient health – in more ways than one might think. Today hospital designers are trying to evolve hospitals beyond their infamously sterile décor. Care is being taken to use color, nature and wayfinding to ease a patient’s hospital stay. The following are five ways hospital design influences patient health – where care should be taken to improve patient recovery.

In the paper, Is there a Psychologist in the Building by Christian Jarrett, hospital layout is listed as quite an important factor for patients. Going beyond simple signage, hospital patients should be able to have a sense of their location without ever feeling lost. It has been found that having a sense of place helps keep patient stress levels down.(1)

Also important to hospital design is the frequency of private rooms in a hospital. Providing private rooms reduces medication error and falling instances.(1) I’m sure you can imagine that private rooms also make for better visiting with patients and their loved ones.

Hospitals that include nature and artwork are providing for more positive patient experiences. Both nature and artwork contribute to patients having a greater “sense of well-being” where spaces lend themselves toward contemplation and feeding the senses.(1)

A major problem within hospitals today is noise. Often patients cannot sleep through the night as medical carts screech through the halls and doors open and close. Hospital designers should pay greater attention to acoustics within hospitals as noisy environments generate more stress for patients. Also, sleep is critical for patient recovery.

Use of color in hospital design has a multitude of uses. Color can help patients have a sense of orientation – where color is used to give different hospital areas a sense of place. Also, color has been known to be associated with mood. Using the right colors in waiting areas, examination rooms, hallways or patient private rooms can have a definite affect on patient motivation and stress levels.

All in all, progress is being made to design better hospitals. Much study and research is now underway to more completely understand what patients truly need. So often, it is the patient that never gets their needs heard during the design process. For this reason it is nice to know that healthcare design is now getting more attention and making improved headway.

(1) Jarrett, Christian. Is there a psychologist in the building?. The Phychologist. Vol 19 No 10. October 2006.


posted in Education, Engineering, Health, Information Technology, Medical | 0 Comments

8th November 2012

AutoCAD 2012 and AutoCAD LT 2012 Bible

Author: , Date: 28 May 2012, Views: 5513,

2011 | ISBN-10: 1118022211 | EPUB | 1296 pages | 44.92 Mb
The latest version of this perennial favorite, in-depth, reference-tutorial
This top-selling book has been updated by AutoCAD guru and author Ellen Finkelstein to provide you with the very latest coverage of both AutoCAD 2012 and AutoCAD LT 2012. It begins with a Quick Start tutorial, so you start creating right away. From there, the book covers so much in-depth material on AutoCAD that it is said that even Autodesk employees keep this comprehensive book at their desks. A DVD is included that features before-and-after drawings of all the tutorials and plenty of great examples from AutoCAD professionals.
Explains in depth both AutoCAD 2012 and AutoCAD LT 2012
Written by Ellen Finkelstein, a long-time AutoCAD instructor and very popular author of many editions of the AutoCAD Bible
Starts with a tutorial on AutoCAD 2012 that covers the basics of creating drawings, using commands, and specifying coordinates
Builds on early chapters to cover more complex 2D and 3D drawing techniquesDiscusses advanced topics such as customization and programming AutoCAD using AutoLISP and VBA
If you’re eager to create 2D and 3D technical drawings with AutoCAD 2012, the AutoCAD 2012 and AutoCAD LT2012 Bible is what you need!

Download: http://www.4shared.com/office/Ndmu5TQ0/AutoCad_2012.html

posted in Computer, Downloads, E-books, Engineering | 0 Comments

8th February 2012

Pendingin udara

Pendingin udara atau disebut juga sebagai penyejuk udara atau populer dengan sebutan A/C (bahasa Inggris: Air Conditioner) adalah alat, sistem, atau mekanisme yang dirancang untuk mengalihkan pans dari suatu tempat menggunakan siklus pendinginan. Pendingin udara berfungsi sama seperti kulkas dan pompa panas. Alat ini berguna untuk menyediakan kenyamanan selama hari yang panas di rumah ataupun mobil.

Gambaran sederhana siklus dingin. 1: kondensor, 2: katup ekspansi, 3: evaporator, 4: kompresor.

Sekilas tentang perhitungan AC.

Sebagai contoh AC 1 PK ( 745watt), adapun data konversi energy yang digunakan

1 kCal = 3968 btu/h

1 TR = 3517 kW (Ton Refrigrasi),

1 PK (input) = 2546.699 btu/h

Perlu diingat bahwa daya input dan output tidaklah sama. 1 HP (2547 BTU/hr) adalah besar daya input compressor, Sedangkan 9000 BTU/hr adalah besar beban pendinginan yg mampu diserap oleh evaporator dengan menggunakan compressor yg mempunyai daya 1 HP. Jadi yg disebut AC 1PK, adalah daya dari kompresor tersebut, bukan beban pendinginannya. Cara untuk mengetahui kemampuan beban pendinginan dari sebuah compressor dapat dilihat dari diagram P-h pada siklus kompresi uap standard.

Karena 1 HP yang dimaksud adalah daya kompresor, sedangkan 9000 BTU/hr adalah daya pendinginan. Dengan daya input 2547 BTU/hr, kita bisa mendapatkan efek pendinginan sebesar 9000 BTU/hr. Untuk sistem pendingin, performance sistem ditunjukan dengan Coefficient of Performance (COP) yang besarnya daya pendinginan dibagi daya input kompresor. Untuk air cooled system di Indonesia, nilai COP 3,5 memang sudah tipikal, kalau dengan epavorative cooling (water cooled dengan cooling tower) nilai COP bisa diatas 5.

Sebagai tambahan bahwa sebelum tahun 70′an, para teknisi AC tidak pernah bicara soal PK dalam menentukan kapasitas pendingin suatu AC.

Jaman itu kapasitas pendingin yang dikenal adalah Btuh. Sejak unit AC dari Jepang masuk pasaran, maka istilah PK yang sebenarnya Input Power [bukan kapasitas pendinginan], menjadi patokan penjual, mengapa begitu ?

jawabannya karena ada AC yang membutuhkan input listrik 1 PK kapasitas pendinginannya 8000 Btuh tetapi ada juga AC dengan input power yang sama dengan kapasitas 10.000 Btuh, dan tentunya yang belakangan lebih efisien.

Dasar tukang dagang……pembeli dikecohkan dengan istilah PK tanpa diingatkan untuk melihat yang benar yaitu kapasitas pendinginannya, lalu dipukul rata saja kalau 1 PK sama dengan 9000 Btuh, padahal bisa 8000 sampai 10.000 Btuh tergantung efisiensinya. Percaya atau tidak, dalam sepuluh yang akan datang akan ada AC yang 1 PK nya menghasilkan sekitar 20.000 Btuh. Sistimnya sudah dikembangkan belasan tahun yang lalu, sayangnya material magnit yang ada beberapa tahun yang lalu belum stabil pada temperatur kamar dan didunia ada 3 negara yang meneliti yaitu Amerika, Jepang dan Swedia / Denmark[?].

Jadi kita do’akan saja agar dalam waktu dekat mereka berhasil mendapatkan bahan magnetik yang stabil dan segera melemparnya kepasar karena ukurannya hanya 1/3 dari yang ada sekarang, tidak menggunakan kompresor yang berisik, tidak menggunakan freon dan sangat hemat energi……nama sistimnya “Magnetic Cooling”.

Umumnya AC yang dijual dalam satuan PK:

1/2 PK = 5000 BTU

3/4 PK = 7000 BTU

1 PK = 9000 BTU

1-1/2 PK = 12000 BTU

Sedangkan untuk memudahkan penggunaannya biasanya digunakan rumus 500 btuh/m2 ruangan

Jadi untuk kamar tidur 3 x 4 m² = 12 m² x 500 BTU = 6000 BTU, cukup memakai AC 3/4 PK.

Walau dalam skala lebih rumit ada perhitungan jumlah jendela kaca, jumlah lampu, jumlah orang dalam ruangan, tapi perhitungan simple seperti di atas sudah cukup mewakili pada kondisi wajar.

posted in Engineering | 0 Comments

8th February 2012

Sesuaikan Daya Pendingin AC (BTU/hr – PK) dengan ruangan, caranya?

Tentu Anda bingung bagaimana cara memilih AC untuk ruangan Anda? Ada 3 faktor yang

Tentu Anda bingung bagaimana cara memilih AC untuk ruangan Anda? Ada 3 faktor yang perlu diperhatikan yakni daya pendinginan AC (BTU/h – British Thermal Unit per hour), daya listrik (watt), dan PK kompresor. Sebagian dari kita mungkin lebih mengenal angka PK (Paard Kracht/Daya Kuda/Horse Power (HP)) pada AC. Sebenarnya PK itu adalah satuan daya pada kompresor AC bukan daya pendingin AC. Namun PK lebih dikenal ketimbang BTU/hr di masyarakat awam termasuk para teknisi kami dalam service AC di Bali. Terus bagaimana cara menghitung dan menyesuaikan daya pendingin AC dengan ruangan Anda? Untuk menyiasatinya, maka kita konversi dulu PK – BTU/hr – luas ruangan (m2).

1 PK = 9.000-10.000 BTU/h
1 m2 = 600 BTU/h
3 m = 10 kaki —> 1 m = 3.33 kaki

Daya Pendingin AC berdasarkan PK :
AC ½ PK = ±5.000 BTU/h
AC ¾ PK = ± 7.000 BTU/h
AC 1 PK = ± 9.000 BTU/h
AC 1½ PK = ±12.000 BTU/h
AC 2 PK = ±18.000 BTU/h

Kemudian ada rumus untuk menghitung

(W x H x I x L x E) / 60 = kebutuhan BTU
W = panjang ruang (dalam feet)
H = tinggi ruang (dalam feet)
I = nilai 10 jika ruang berinsulasi (berada di lantai bawah, atau berhimpit dengan ruang lain). Nilai 18 jika ruang tidak berinsulasi (di lantai atas).
L = lebar ruang (dalam feet)
E = nilai 16 jika dinding terpanjang menghadap utara; nilai 17 jika menghadap timur; nilai 18 jika menghadap selatan; dan nilai 20 jika menghadap barat.

Misal :
Ruang berukuran 3mx6m atau (10 kaki x 20 kaki), tinggi ruangan 3m (10 kaki) tidak berinsulasi, dinding panjang menghadap ke timur. Kebutuhan BTU = (10 x 20 x 18 x 10 x 17) / 60 = 10.200 BTU alias cukup dengan AC 1 PK.

source : ideaonline

posted in Engineering | 0 Comments

8th February 2012

How to convert VA to Watts and KVA to Kilowatts


Since watts is volts times amps, what is VA? VA (or volt-amps) is also volts times amps, the concept however has been extended to AC power. For DC current

VA = Watts (DC current).

In AC if the volts and amps are in phase (for example a resistive load) then the equation is also

VA=Watts (resistive load)

where V is the RMS voltage and A the RMS amperage.

In AC the volts and amps are not always in phase (meaning that the peak of the voltage curve is does not happen at the peak of the current curve). So in AC, if the volts and amps are not precisely in phase you have to calculate the watts by multiplying the volts times the amps at each moment in time and take the average over time. The ratio between the VA (i.e. rms volts time rms amps) and Watts is called the power factor PF. Read the rest of this entry »

posted in Engineering | 0 Comments

8th February 2012


Daya listrik dalam pengertiannya dapat dikelompokkan dalam dua kelompok sesuai dengan catu tenaga listriknya, yaitu :
Daya listrik DC
Daya listrik AC.

Daya listrik DC dirumuskan sebagai :

P = V . I

dimana :

P = daya (Watt)

V = tegangan (Volt)

I = arus (Amper)
Read the rest of this entry »

posted in Engineering | 0 Comments

29th December 2011

Mengelola limbah padat rumah sakit dengan menggunakan incinerator medis

Limbah rumah sakit / limbah terinfeksi telah menjadi permasalahan lingkungan hidup. Limbah rumah sakit tidak hanya berbahaya bagi lingkungan, orang lain namun juga bagi tenaga medis dan pengelola limbah tersebut. Sering kali limbah rumah sakit dibuang bebas secara serampangan tanpa perhitungan, dibakar tak terkendali, dan dikuburkan tidak bertanggung jawab. Namun saat ini mucul kesadaran untuk mengelola limbah rumah sakit agar didapatkan lingkungan yang lebih bersih, lebih hijau dan lebih aman.

Pengelolaan limbah padat rumah sakit dengan incinerator

Limbah rumah sakit disamping berupa limbah cair dapat pula berbentuk limbah padat, misalnya botol dan selang infus, spuit dan jarum suntik, serta peralatan medis lain. Atau bisa juga kain, kassa yang tercemar oleh darah atau cairan tubuh lainnya. Sering kali pula dijumpai jaringan tubuh manusia. Ada beberapa cara yang dianjurkan dalam pengelolaan limbah padat antara lain: mengubur atau membakar limbah padat tersebut. Yang paling aman adalah dengan melakukan pembakaran dalam suhu tinggi hingga 1200 C. Alat yang dapat mencapai suhu tersebut adalah incinerator.

Pembakaran limbah merupakan tahap akhir dan mungkin tahap yang paling komprehensif setelah pengurangan limbah, daur ulang dan pembersihan. Insinerator adalah tungku pembakaran dengan bilik ganda yang berjajar. Dua ruang bakar bekerja di bawah berbagai kondisi temperatur, tekanan dan konfigurasi pembakaran.

Ruang utama beroperasi dalam mode “Tanpa udara” atau Pirolisis dan ruang Sekunder bekerja di bawah mode “Udara Berlebih”’. Ruang pembakaran yang berlapiskan di bagian dalam yang berbatasan dengan udar panas terbuat dari aluminium dan yang berbatasan dengan bagian dingin brelapiskan batu bata dendan dan lapisan rangka baja yang kokoh di luar.Tingginya efisiensi pembakaran diperoleh dari hubungan anatara suhu ruang bakar yang khusus dan adanya pembakar otomatis (burner) dengan bahan bakar dari minyak bakar atau gas alam (LPG). Setiap incinerator dilengkapi dengan sistem gas buang yang dibuat khusus untuk menghilangkan polutan gas sebelum dibuang ke atmosfir (pembakaran asap) sehingga didapatkan gas buang yang bebas asap (smokeless).

Untuk mendapatkan alat kesehatan rumah sakit khususnya incinerator medis yang baik, bergaransi dan didukung jaminan pelayanan purna jual, Anda dapat menghubungi DIKAMED (http://dikamed.com) sebagai partner Anda dibidang alat kesehatan.

incinerator1 Mengelola limbah padat rumah sakit dengan menggunakan incinerator medis

re-upload from : “dikamed

posted in Engineering | 0 Comments

29th December 2011

Incinerator, berkah atau bencana ?



Incinerator solusi untuk menyelesaikan masalah sampah ? BERKAH ATAU BENCANA ?


            Permasalahan sampah di DKI Jakarta sangatlah pelik, dari mulai mencari lokasi penimbunan yang selalu menimbulkan gejolak penolakan masyarakat disekitarnya, sampai mencari solusi penanganan/ pemusnahan yang penuh intrik dan kepentingan bisnis berbagai pihak. Sehingga Gubernur Sutiyoso pun dibuat pusing olehnya, melebihi pusingnya menghadapi para demonstran yang menentang pengangkatannya dulu. Masalah sampah tidak dapat dibiarkan begitu saja, seperti menghadapi demostran didiamkan akan hilang sendirinya seiring berjalannya waktu. Sampah semakin dibiarkan akan semakin menumpuk, menunda membersihkannya berarti semakin menumpuk permasalahan yang akan ditimbulkannya.


            Walaupun demikian pelik, tetapi memusnahkan sampah dengan membakar menggunakan incinarator bukanlah solusi yang tepat, bahkan sangat membahayakan kelangsungan kehidupan. Banyak permasalahan yang ditimbulkan oleh incinerasi sampah dibandingkan manfaat yang dihasilkannya. Memang secara kasat mata volume reduksi yang dihasilkannya sangat menjanjikan, dari segunung sampah padat dapat menjadi hanya beberapa karung abu. Tetapi ada hal yang tidak kasat mata dan dapat dibuktikan secara kimiawi dihasilkan pada proses pembakaran sampah. Banyak senyawaan kimia sangat beracun terbentuk pada proses pembakaran sampah yang tidak terkontrol, apalagi jika sampah yang dibakar adalah sampah yang heterogen, belum lagi ditinjau dari segi ekonomi dan dampak sosialnya.


            Tulisan ini akan mengupas sedikit tentang dampak pembakaran sampah dengan incinerator, sehingga masyarakat umum dapat memahami. Terutama para pengambil kebijakan dalam persampahan, dapat bersikap lebih arif dan berfikir berulang kali, sebelum memutuskan untuk mengolah sampah padat dengan membakar menggunakan incinerator. Hal yang perlu menjadi suatu pertimbangan sangat penting dalam incenerasi sampah ialah, tentang polutan yang dilepaskan ke udara atau media lainnya, biaya yang diperlukan dan tenaga kerja yang tersingkirkan serta hilangnya energi pada proses incinerasi.


            Banyak polutan yang dihasilkan pada incinerasi sampah, apalagi sifat sampah domestik (sampah rumah tangga dan pasar) yang heterogen. Segala macam benda ada didalamnya, sisa makanan, sisa sayuran dan buah-buahan, bekas pembungkus (kaleng, karton dan plastik), kayu, logam, batu, gelas dan lain-lainnya. Sampah yang heterogen ini jika langsung di incinerasi tanpa dilakukan pemilahan sebelumnya maka hasilnya sangatlah berbahaya. Sampah basah, sisa makanan, buah-buahan dan sayuran jika akan diincinerasi memerlukan energi yang sangat besar untuk mngeringkannya sebelum dapat terbakar. Sedangkan material sampah yang berupa logam, batu, tanah dan gelas tidak dapat terbakar, material ini hanya akan menggangu proses pembakaran dan memboroskan energi.




Dioksin dan Furan.


Hasil emisi yang paling berbahaya pada pembakaran sampah heterogen ialah terbentuknya senyawa dioksin dan furan. Dioksin dan furan adalah sekelompok bahan kimia yang tidak berwarna dan tidak berbau. Dalam molekulnya mengandung atom karbon, hidrogen, oksigen dan klor. Dioksin terdiri dari 75 senyawaan kimia yang dibedakan oleh posisi dan jumlah atom klornya, sedangkan furan terdiri dari 135 senyawaan.


Dioksin dilingkungan dapat bertahan dengan waktu paro (waktu yang diperlukan sehingga jumlahnya tinggal separonya) sekitar tiga tahun, tetapi akibat yang telah ditunjukkannya karena masuknya dioksin dalam rantai makanan sangat mengerikan. Pengaruh dioksin pada manusia telah banyak menjadi perbincangan dalam dua dekade terakhir, bukan karena kesabilan dari dioksin tetapi disebabkan karena dioxin itu adalah suatu racun yang sangat kuat. Dioksin saat ini dipercaya sebagai senyawa yang paling beracun yang pernah ditemukan manusia, karena dapat menyebabkan kerusakan organ secara luas misalnya, gangguan fungsi hati, jantung, paru, ginjal serta mengganggu fungsi metabolisme dan menyebabkan kerusakan pada sistem kekebalan tubuh. Pada percobaan terhadap binatang di laboratorium, dioksin menunjukkan carcinogenic (penyebab cancer ), teratogenic (penyebab kelahiran cacat) dan mutagenic (penyebab kerusakan genetic). Dari seluruh golongan senyawa dioksin yang paling beracun ialah senyawa 2,3,7,8-Tetra-Chloro-Dibenzo-para-Dioxin atau disingkat 2,3,7,8-TCDD yang menurut Badan Kesehatan Dunia (WHO) mempunyai nilai tingkat bahaya racun (TEF/Toxic Equivalency Factors) adalah 1 (satu) dan ini merupakan nilai yang paling tinggi dibandingkan dengan Strychnine (racun tikus) hanya 1/2000 dan Sianida (banyak digunakan untuk meracuni ikan) yang hanya 1/150.000.



Gambar 1: Rumus molekul Dioksin dan Furan.


Kejadian masa lalu yang menyebabkan manusia terpapar oleh dioksin adalah kasus Orange Agent (yang terkontaminasi dioksin), yaitu herbisida yang digunakan oleh tentara Amerika pada perang Vietnam untuk merontokkan daun agar hutan menjadi gundul dan musuh dapat terlihat. Telah menyebabkan banyak kasus kematian akibat kanker dan bayi lahir cacat di Vietnam usai perang melawan Amerika, bahkan para veteran tentara Amerika pun banyak yang terkena kanker setelah terpapar dioksin. 


Baik dioksin maupun furan tidak mempunyai nilai komersial, senyawaan ini terbentuk secara tidak sengaja karena akibat aktifitas manusia, misalnya pada pembakaran sampah atau produk samping pada pembuatan pestisida seperti Pentachlorophenol (PCP). Pada proses pembakaran sampah, terutama jika sampah yang dibakar adalah material organik yang kompleks (lignin, kayu, kertas, plastik, dll) dengan adanya donor atom Klor (garam dapur/natrium klorida, asam klorida, senyawaan organik yang mengandung klor, plastik/PVC, dll). Campuran material tersebut  jika dibakar pada suhu antara 400oC sampai dengan 600oC sangat berpotensi terbentuk dioksin, apalagi jika pembakarannya tidak sempurna, kekurangan oksigen dan pemanasannya tidak merata. Dioksin 98% terbentuk di fly ash (abu hasil pembakaran) dan bukan di asapnya. Tetapi jika suhu pembakarannya lebih besar dari 800oC (tidak perlu sampai 1500oC) maka dioksin akan hancur terurai membentuk karbon dioksida/CO2 , air/H2O dan asam klorida/HCl.


Pada tahun 2000 lalu, WHO merekomendasikan bahwa jumlah dioksin yang diperbolehkan masuk ke dalam tubuh manusia per hari agar tidak menimbulkan bahaya (Tolerable Daily Intake) adalah 1 sampai dengan 4 pikogram ( 10-12 gram) per kilogram berat badan. Untuk mendeteksi dioksin adalah sangat sulit karena jumlahnya yang sangat kecil sekali sehingga diperlukan suatu instrumen yang sangat sensitif yaitu GCMS (Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer)-High Resolution, bahkan di Indonesia tidak ada satu Laboratoriumpun yang kompeten untuk menganalisanya.




Logam berat dan gas pembentuk hujan asam.


            Selain dioksin dan furan, incinerator juga merupakan sumber utama pencemar logam berat misalnya, mercury (Hg), timbal (Pb), kadmium(Cd), arsen(As), cromium(Cr) dan gas pembentuk hujan asam yaitu oksida nitrogen (NOx) dan oksida sulfur (SOx). Logam-logam  berat tersebut pada proses incinerasi sangat mudah menguap, walaupun telah berbentuk oksidanya sifat racunnya hampir tidak berkurang. Misalnya mercury, merupakan racun yang sangat kuat menggangu sistem saraf, panca indera dan menurunkan kecerdasan, demikian pula pengaruh logam-logam berat lain pada umumnya.


            Oksida nitrogen (NOx) dan oksida sulfur (SOx) adalah gas pembentuk hujan asam, jika banyak terdapat diudara dan terjadi hujan maka airnya akan bersifat asam. Hujan asam ini dapat menyebabkan korosif pada bangunan/gedung , tanah menjadi tandus dan gatal-gatal jika terkena  kulit, sedangkan gasnya sendiri dapat menyebabkan kerusakan pada sistem pernafasan.






            Limbah padat (sampah: kota, rumah sakit, pabrik kertas dll) biasanya dimusnahkan dengan dibakar didalam Incinerator (tungku pembakar). Incinerator pada umumnya beroperasi pada suhu antara 400oC - 600oC (suhu yang sangat ideal bagi pembentukan dioksin), jika suhu operasi incinerator dinaikkan hingga lebih besar dari 800oC maka diperlukan biaya operasional yang besar, karena bahan bakar yang diperlukan juga banyak. Disamping hal tersebut peralatan incineratornya juga akan cepat rusak dan berkarat karena suhu tinggi, jika di dalam incinerator digunakan  batu tahan api maka akan mudah pecah atau retak, sehingga biaya perawatan incineratornya akan sangat besar.


            Banyak kaum industriawan pembuat incinerator yang membodohi kita, dikatakan incinerator buatannya sanggup membakar sampah pada suhu diatas 800 oC. Tetapi kalau kita amati dengan seksama, ternyata termometer pengukur suhu di tempatkan sedemikian rupa sehingga yang terukur adalah titik api pembakarnya dan bukan suhu gas buang hasil pembakarannya. Tentunya ini sangat ironis, karena pembentukan dioksin ada didalam gas buang hasil pembakarannya terutama di dalam fly-ash (abu terbang), sehingga persyaratan suhu tinggi diatas 800 oC adalah suhu bagi gas buangnya, bukan hanya suhu proses pembakarannya. Suhu tinggi ini harus tetap dapat dipertahankan ketika material baru sampah padat dimasukkan ke dalam incinerator. Biasanya ketika diberikan input baru sampah padat, maka suhu incinerator akan turun drastis, jika terjadi fluktuasi suhu maka incinerator tersebut merupakan penghasil dioksin.


Ada pakar incinerator lain mengatakan, untuk mengurangi pencemaran dioksin pada emisi gas buang dari incenarator ialah dengan menambahkan filter yang modern. Perlu kita ingat bahwa filter khusus untuk dioksin harganya sangat mahal, dan secara berkala harus diganti karena cepat mampat dan jenuh, tentunya hal ini akan menambah biaya operasional incinerator. Tetapi yang menjadi permasalahan pokok adalah, setelah dioksin terkumpul di dalam filter mau dikemanakan ? mengingat dioksin adalah zat no 1 paling beracun di dunia.


            Di Jepang saat ini penggunaan incinerator untuk membakar limbah padat mulai dilarang, boleh digunakan tetapi dengan pengawasan ketat sambil menunggu teknologi penggantinya. Menurut berita dari www.asahi.com tertanggal 6-April 1999, bahwa Kementrian kesehatan dan kesejahteraan Jepang telah mensurvei  5886 industri yang mengolah limbahnya dengan incinerator, didapatkan 2046 industri terbukti menghasilkan dioksin, sehingga dari jumlah itu 1393 diperintahkan ditutup secara permanen, sedangkan sisanya 653 ditutup secara bertahap.


            Penggunaan incinerator adalah pemborosan, biaya untuk membeli sebuah incinarator berkisar dari beberapa ratus juta hingga beberapa milyar rupiah. Untuk mengoperasikannya jelas diperlukan bahan bakar yang cukup besar, belum lagi biaya perawatan yang luar biasa besarnya karena beroperasi pada suhu tinggi sehingga komponennya cepat rusak dan karatan.(Ingat kasus incinerator sampah di Kodya Surabaya yang hanya berumur beberapa bulan, padahal incineratornya buatan luar negeri yang dibeli dengan harga beberapa milyar dengan uang rakyat).




            Mengingat bahaya dan kerugian yang diakibatkan oleh penggunaan incinerator baik secara ekonomi sosial dan dampak perusakan lingkungan, maka perlu dipikirkan dan dikaji lebih mendalam dan seksama tentang penggunaan incinarator untuk pembakaran limbah padat.


Kepada para pembuatan kebijakan atau instansi yang terkait, misalnya Kementrian Lingkungan Hidup agar membuat regulasi yang lebih ketat tentang incenerator jika perlu dilarang digunakan jika telah ditemukan teknologi penggantinya. Incenerator yang telah terlanjur beroperasi harus diawasi secara ketat dan diwajibkan menggunakan sistem pengolah emisi, baik gas buang maupun limbah cairnya, sehingga pencemaran lingkungan dapat ditekan seminimal mungkin.


            Dibalik kegagalan sistem incinerator yang telah ada, sebenarnya hal ini merupakan suatu peluang dan sekaligus tantangan bagi para peneliti di Indonesia, untuk saling berlomba dan mengembangkan ide. Sehingga dapat menciptakan suatu sistem pengolah sampah yang inovatif dengan teknologi yang lebih maju, efisien, tidak boros energi, biaya perawatannya murah dan terutama ramah lingkungan.

re-upload from : www.migas-indonesia.com/files/article/Incinerator_z.doc

posted in Engineering | 0 Comments

29th December 2011


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other forms of waste plant that produces energy, see waste-to-energy.

“Incinerator” redirects here. For the fictional character, see Incinerator (Transformers).

“Incinerate” redirects here. For the Sonic Youth song, see Incinerate (song). For the Dew-Scented album, see Incinerate (album).

The Spittelau incineration plant in Vienna, designed by Friedensreich Hundertwasser.

SYSAV incineration plant in Malmö, Sweden capable of handling 25 metric tons (28 short tons) per hour household waste. To the left of the main stack, a new identical oven line is under construction (March 2007).

Incineration is a waste treatment process that involves the combustion of organic substances contained in waste materials.[1] Incineration and other high temperature waste treatment systems are described as “thermal treatment“. Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into ash, flue gas, and heat. The ash is mostly formed by the inorganic constituents of the waste, and may take the form of solid lumps or particulates carried by the flue gas. The flue gases must be cleaned of gaseous and particulate pollutants before they are dispersed into the atmosphere. In some cases, the heat generated by incineration can be used to generate electric power.

Incineration with energy recovery is one of several waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies such as gasification, Plasma arc gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion. Incineration may also be implemented without energy and materials recovery.

In several countries, there are still concerns from experts and local communities about the environmental impact of incinerators (see arguments against incineration).

In some countries, incinerators built just a few decades ago often did not include a materials separation to remove hazardous, bulky or recyclable materials before combustion. These facilities tended to risk the health of the plant workers and the local environment due to inadequate levels of gas cleaning and combustion process control. Most of these facilities did not generate electricity.

Incinerators reduce the solid mass of the original waste by 80–85% and the volume (already compressed somewhat in garbage trucks) by 95-96 %, depending on composition and degree of recovery of materials such as metals from the ash for recycling.[2] This means that while incineration does not completely replace landfilling, it significantly reduces the necessary volume for disposal. Garbage trucks often reduce the volume of waste in a built-in compressor before delivery to the incinerator. Alternatively, at landfills, the volume of the uncompressed garbage can be reduced by approximately 70%[citation needed] by using a stationary steel compressor, albeit with a significant energy cost. In many countries, simpler waste compaction is a common practice for compaction at landfills.

Incineration has particularly strong benefits for the treatment of certain waste types in niche areas such as clinical wastes and certain hazardous wastes where pathogens and toxins can be destroyed by high temperatures. Examples include chemical multi-product plants with diverse toxic or very toxic wastewater streams, which cannot be routed to a conventional wastewater treatment plant.

Waste combustion is particularly popular in countries such as Japan where land is a scarce resource. Denmark and Sweden have been leaders in using the energy generated from incineration for more than a century, in localised combined heat and power facilities supporting district heating schemes.[3] In 2005, waste incineration produced 4.8 % of the electricity consumption and 13.7 % of the total domestic heat consumption in Denmark.[4] A number of other European countries rely heavily on incineration for handling municipal waste, in particular Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany and France.[2]



[edit] History

The first incinerators for waste disposal were built in Nottingham by Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. in 1874 to a design patented by Albert Fryer. They were originally known as destructors.[5]

[edit] Technology

An incinerator is a furnace for burning waste. Modern incinerators include pollution mitigation equipment such as flue gas cleaning. There are various types of incinerator plant design: moving grate, fixed grate, rotary-kiln, and fluidised bed.

[edit] Burn pile

The burn pile, or burn pit is one of the simplest and earliest forms of waste disposal, essentially consisting of a mound of combustible materials piled on bare ground and set on fire. Indiscriminate piles of household waste are strongly discouraged and may be illegal in urban areas, but are permitted in certain rural situations such as clearing forested land for farming, where the stumps are uprooted and burned.[6] Rural burn piles of organic yard waste are also sometimes permitted, though not asphalt shingles, plastics, or other petroleum products.[6]

Burn piles can and have spread uncontrolled fires, for example if wind blows burning material off the pile into surrounding combustible grasses or onto buildings. As interior structures of the pile are consumed, the pile can shift and collapse, spreading the burn area. Even in a situation of no wind, small lightweight ignited embers can lift off the pile via convection, and waft through the air into grasses or onto buildings, igniting them.

[edit] Burn barrel

The burn barrel is a somewhat more controlled form of private waste incineration, containing the burning material inside a metal barrel, with a metal grating over the exhaust. The barrel prevents the spread of burning material in windy conditions, and as the combustibles are reduced they can only settle down into the barrel. The exhaust grating helps to prevent the spread of burning embers. Typically steel 55-US-gallon (210 L) drums are used as burn barrels, with air vent holes cut or drilled around the base for air intake.[7] Over time the very high heat of incineration causes the metal to oxidize and rust, and eventually the barrel itself is consumed by the heat and must be replaced.

Private burning of dry cellulosic/paper products is generally clean-burning, producing no visible smoke, but the large amount of plastics in household waste can cause private burning to create a public nuisance and health hazard, generating acrid odors and fumes that make eyes burn and water. The temperatures in a burn barrel are not regulated, and usually do not reach high enough or for enough time to completely break down chemicals such as dioxin in plastics and other waste chemicals. Therefore plastics and other petroleum products must be separated and sent to commercial waste disposal facilities.

In The United States, private rural incineration is typically permitted so long as it is not a nuisance to others, does not pose a risk of fire such as in dry conditions, and the fire is clean-burning, producing no visible smoke. However, many states, such as New York, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, have laws against private burn barrels due to EPA findings that one household burning their own waste can release more dioxins and furans annually than a modern incinerator processing 1,000 tons per day.[8] People intending to burn waste may be required to contact a state agency in advance to check current fire risk and conditions, and to alert officials of the controlled fire that will occur.[9]

[edit] Moving grate

Control room of a typical moving grate incinerator overseeing two boiler lines

The typical incineration plant for municipal solid waste is a moving grate incinerator. The moving grate enables the movement of waste through the combustion chamber to be optimised to allow a more efficient and complete combustion. A single moving grate boiler can handle up to 35 metric tons (39 short tons) of waste per hour, and can operate 8,000 hours per year with only one scheduled stop for inspection and maintenance of about one month’s duration.[10] Moving grate incinerators are sometimes referred to as Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (MSWIs).

The waste is introduced by a waste crane through the “throat” at one end of the grate, from where it moves down over the descending grate to the ash pit in the other end. Here the ash is removed through a water lock.

Municipal solid waste in the furnace of a moving grate incinerator capable of handling 15 metric tons (17 short tons) of waste per hour. The holes in the grate elements supplying the primary combustion air are visible.

Part of the combustion air (primary combustion air) is supplied through the grate from below. This air flow also has the purpose of cooling the grate itself. Cooling is important for the mechanical strength of the grate, and many moving grates are also water-cooled internally.

Secondary combustion air is supplied into the boiler at high speed through nozzles over the grate. It facilitates complete combustion of the flue gases by introducing turbulence for better mixing and by ensuring a surplus of oxygen. In multiple/stepped hearth incinerators, the secondary combustion air is introduced in a separate chamber downstream the primary combustion chamber.

According to the European Waste Incineration Directive, incineration plants must be designed to ensure that the flue gases reach a temperature of at least 850 °C (1,560 °F) for 2 seconds in order to ensure proper breakdown of toxic organic substances. In order to comply with this at all times, it is required to install backup auxiliary burners (often fueled by oil), which are fired into the boiler in case the heating value of the waste becomes too low to reach this temperature alone.

The flue gases are then cooled in the superheaters, where the heat is transferred to steam, heating the steam to typically 400 °C (752 °F) at a pressure of 40 bars (580 psi) for the electricity generation in the turbine. At this point, the flue gas has a temperature of around 200 °C (392 °F), and is passed to the flue gas cleaning system.

In Scandinavia scheduled maintenance is always performed during summer, where the demand for district heating is low. Often incineration plants consist of several separate ‘boiler lines’ (boilers and flue gas treatment plants), so that waste can continue to be received at one boiler line while the others are subject to revision.

[edit] Fixed grate

The older and simpler kind of incinerator was a brick-lined cell with a fixed metal grate over a lower ash pit, with one opening in the top or side for loading and another opening in the side for removing incombustible solids called clinkers. Many small incinerators formerly found in apartment houses have now been replaced by waste compactors.

[edit] Rotary-kiln

The rotary-kiln incinerator[11] is used by municipalities and by large industrial plants. This design of incinerator has 2 chambers: a primary chamber and secondary chamber. The primary chamber in a rotary kiln incinerator consist of an inclined refractory lined cylindrical tube. Movement of the cylinder on its axis facilitates movement of waste. In the primary chamber, there is conversion of solid fraction to gases, through volatilization, destructive distillation and partial combustion reactions. The secondary chamber is necessary to complete gas phase combustion reactions.

The clinkers spill out at the end of the cylinder. A tall flue gas stack, fan, or steam jet supplies the needed draft. Ash drops through the grate, but many particles are carried along with the hot gases. The particles and any combustible gases may be combusted in an “afterburner”.[12]

[edit] Fluidized bed

A strong airflow is forced through a sandbed. The air seeps through the sand until a point is reached where the sand particles separate to let the air through and mixing and churning occurs, thus a fluidized bed is created and fuel and waste can now be introduced.

The sand with the pre-treated waste and/or fuel is kept suspended on pumped air currents and takes on a fluid-like character. The bed is thereby violently mixed and agitated keeping small inert particles and air in a fluid-like state. This allows all of the mass of waste, fuel and sand to be fully circulated through the furnace.

[edit] Specialized incineration

Furniture factory sawdust incinerators need much attention as these have to handle resin powder and many flammable substances. Controlled combustion, burn back prevention systems are essential as dust when suspended resembles the fire catch phenomenon of any liquid petroleum gas.

[edit] Use of heat

The heat produced by an incinerator can be used to generate steam which may then be used to drive a turbine in order to produce electricity. The typical amount of net energy that can be produced per tonne municipal waste is about 2/3 MWh of electricity and 2 MWh of district heating.[2] Thus, incinerating about 600 metric tons (660 short tons) per day of waste will produce about 400 MWh of electrical energy per day (17 MW of electrical power continuously for 24 hours) and 1200 MWh of district heating energy each day.

[edit] Pollution

Incineration has a number of outputs such as the ash and the emission to the atmosphere of flue gas. Before the flue gas cleaning system, the flue gases may contain significant amounts of particulate matter, heavy metals, dioxins, furans, sulfur dioxide, and hydrochloric acid.

In a study from 1994, Delaware Solid Waste Authority found that, for same amount of produced energy, incineration plants emitted fewer particles, hydrocarbons and less SO2, HCl, CO and NOx than coal-fired power plants, but more than natural gas fired power plants.[13] According to Germany’s Ministry of the Environment, waste incinerators reduce the amount of some atmospheric pollutants by substituting power produced by coal-fired plants with power from waste-fired plants.[14]

[edit] Gaseous emissions

[edit] Dioxin and furans

The most publicized concerns from environmentalists about the incineration of municipal solid wastes (MSW) involve the fear that it produces significant amounts of dioxin and furan emissions.[15] Dioxins and furans are considered by many to be serious health hazards.

In 2005, The Ministry of the Environment of Germany, where there were 66 incinerators at that time, estimated that “…whereas in 1990 one third of all dioxin emissions in Germany came from incineration plants, for the year 2000 the figure was less than 1 %. Chimneys and tiled stoves in private households alone discharge approximately 20 times more dioxin into the environment than incineration plants.”[14]

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, incineration plants are no longer significant sources of dioxins and furans. In 1987, before the governmental regulations required the use of emission controls, there was a total of 10,000 grams (350 oz) of dioxin emissions from US incinerators. Today, the total emissions from the 87 plants are 10 grams (0.35 oz) annually, a reduction of 99.9 %.

Backyard barrel burning of household and garden wastes, still allowed in some rural areas, generates 580 grams (20 oz) of dioxins annually. Studies conducted by the US-EPA[16] demonstrate that the emissions from just one family using a burn barrel produced more emissions than an incineration plant disposing of 200 metric tons (220 short tons) of waste per day by 1997 and five times that by 2007 due to increased chemicals in household trash and decreased emissions by municipal incinerators using better technology[citation needed].

[edit] Dioxin cracking methods and limitations

Generally, the breakdown of dioxin requires exposure of the molecular ring to a sufficiently high temperature so as to trigger thermal breakdown of the strong molecular bonds holding it together. Small pieces of fly ash may be somewhat thick, and too brief an exposure to high temperature may only degrade dioxin on the surface of the ash. For a large volume air chamber, too brief an exposure may also result in only some of the exhaust gases reaching the full breakdown temperature. For this reason there is also a time element to the temperature exposure to ensure heating completely through the thickness of the fly ash and the volume of waste gases.

There are trade-offs between increasing either the temperature or exposure time. Generally where the molecular breakdown temperature is higher, the exposure time for heating can be shorter, but excessively high temperatures can also cause wear and damage to other parts of the incineration equipment. Likewise the breakdown temperature can be lowered to some degree but then the exhaust gases would require a greater lingering period of perhaps several minutes, which would require large/long treatment chambers that take up a great deal of treatment plant space.

A side effect of breaking the strong molecular bonds of dioxin is the potential for breaking the bonds of nitrogen gas (N2) and oxygen gas (O2) in the supply air. As the exhaust flow cools, these highly reactive detached atoms spontaneously reform bonds into reactive oxides such as NOx in the flue gas, which can result in smog formation and acid rain if they were released directly into the local environment. These reactive oxides must be further neutralized with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (see below).

[edit] Dioxin cracking in practice

The temperatures needed to break down dioxin are typically not reached when burning of plastics outdoors in a burn barrel or garbage pit, causing high dioxin emissions as mentioned above. While plastic does usually burn in an open-air fire, the dioxins remain after combustion and either float off into the atmosphere, or may remain in the ash where it can be leached down into groundwater when rain falls on the ash pile.

Modern municipal incinerator designs include a high temperature zone, where the flue gas is ensured to sustain a temperature above 850 °C (1,560 °F) for at least 2 seconds before it is cooled down. They are equipped with auxiliary heaters to ensure this at all times. These are often fueled by oil, and normally only active for a very small fraction of the time.

For very small municipal incinerators, the required temperature for thermal breakdown of dioxin may be reached using a high-temperature electrical heating element, plus a selective catalytic reduction stage.

[edit] CO2

As for other complete combustion processes, nearly all of the carbon content in the waste is emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere. MSW contains approximately the same mass fraction of carbon as CO2 itself (27%), so incineration of 1 ton of MSW produces approximately 1 ton of CO2.

If the waste was landfilled, 1 ton of MSW would produce approximately 62 cubic metres (2,200 cu ft) methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. Since the global warming potential of methane is 21 and the weight of 62 cubic meters of methane at 25 degrees Celsius is 40.7 kg, this is equivalent to 0.854 ton of CO2, which is less than the 1 ton of CO2 which would have been produced by incineration. In some countries, large amounts of landfill gas are collected, but still the global warming potential of the landfill gas emitted to atmosphere in the US in 1999 was approximately 32 % higher than the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted by incineration.[17]

In addition, nearly all biodegradable waste has biological origin. This material has been formed by plants using atmospheric CO2 typically within the last growing season. If these plants are regrown the CO2 emitted from their combustion will be taken out from the atmosphere once more.

Such considerations are the main reason why several countries administrate incineration of the biodegradable part of waste as renewable energy.[18] The rest – mainly plastics and other oil and gas derived products – is generally treated as non-renewables.

Different results for the CO2 footprint of incineration can be reached with different assumptions. Local conditions (such as limited local district heating demand, no fossil fuel generated electricity to replace or high levels of aluminum in the waste stream) can decrease the CO2 benefits of incineration. The methodology and other assumptions may also influence the results significantly. For example the methane emissions from landfills occurring at a later date may be neglected or given less weight, or biodegradable waste may not be considered CO2 neutral. A study by Eunomia Research and Consulting in 2008 on potential waste treatment technologies in London demonstrated that by applying several of these (according to the authors) unusual assumptions the average existing incineration plants performed poorly for CO2 balance compared to the theoretical potential of other emerging waste treatment technologies.[19]

[edit] Other emissions

Other gaseous emissions in the flue gas from incinerator furnaces include sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, heavy metals and fine particles.

The steam content in the flue may produce visible fume from the stack, which can be perceived as a visual pollution. It may be avoided by decreasing the steam content by flue gas condensation and reheating, or by increasing the flue gas exit temperature well above its dew point. Flue gas condensation allows the latent heat of vaporization of the water to be recovered, subsequently increasing the thermal efficiency of the plant.

[edit] Flue gas cleaning

The quantity of pollutants in the flue gas from incineration plants is reduced by several processes.

Particulate is collected by particle filtration, most often electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and/or baghouse filters. The latter are generally very efficient for collecting fine particles. In an investigation by the Ministry of the Environment of Denmark in 2006, the average particulate emissions per energy content of incinerated waste from 16 Danish incinerators were below 2.02 g/GJ (grams per energy content of the incinerated waste). Detailed measurements of fine particles with sizes below 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) were performed on three of the incinerators: One incinerator equipped with an ESP for particle filtration emitted 5.3 g/GJ fine particles, while two incinerators equipped with baghouse filters emitted 0.002 and 0.013 g/GJ PM2.5. For ultra fine particles (PM1.0), the numbers were 4.889 g/GJ PM1.0 from the ESP plant, while emissions of 0.000 and 0.008 g/GJ PM1.0 were measured from the plants equipped with baghouse filters.[20][21]

Acid gas scrubbers are used to remove hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, mercury, lead and other heavy metals. Basic scrubbers remove sulfur dioxide, forming gypsum by reaction with lime.[22]

Waste water from scrubbers must subsequently pass through a waste water treatment plant.

Sulfur dioxide may also be removed by dry desulfurisation by injection limestone slurry into the flue gas before the particle filtration.

NOx is either reduced by catalytic reduction with ammonia in a catalytic converter (selective catalytic reduction, SCR) or by a high temperature reaction with ammonia in the furnace (selective non-catalytic reduction, SNCR). Urea may be substituted for ammonia as the reducing reagent but must be supplied earlier in the process so that it can hydrolyze into ammonia. Substitution of urea can reduce costs and potential hazards associated with storage of anhydrous ammonia.

Heavy metals are often adsorbed on injected active carbon powder, which is collected by the particle filtration.

[edit] Solid outputs

Operation of an incinerator aboard an aircraft carrier

Incineration produces fly ash and bottom ash just as is the case when coal is combusted. The total amount of ash produced by municipal solid waste incineration ranges from 4 to 10 % by volume and 15-20 % by weight of the original quantity of waste,[2][23] and the fly ash amounts to about 10-20 % of the total ash.[citation needed] The fly ash, by far, constitutes more of a potential health hazard than does the bottom ash because the fly ash often contain high concentrations of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, copper and zinc as well as small amounts of dioxins and furans.[24] The bottom ash seldom contain significant levels of heavy metals. In testing over the past decade, no ash from an incineration plant in the USA has ever been determined to be a hazardous waste.[citation needed] At present although some historic samples tested by the incinerator operators’ group would meet the being ecotoxic criteria at present the EA say “we have agreed” to regard incinerator bottom ash as “non-hazardous” until the testing programme is complete.[citation needed]

[edit] Other pollution issues

Odor pollution can be a problem with old-style incinerators, but odors and dust are extremely well controlled in newer incineration plants. They receive and store the waste in an enclosed area with a negative pressure with the airflow being routed through the boiler which prevents unpleasant odors from escaping into the atmosphere. However, not all plants are implemented this way, resulting in inconveniences in the locality.

An issue that affects community relationships is the increased road traffic of waste collection vehicles to transport municipal waste to the incinerator. Due to this reason, most incinerators are located in industrial areas. This problem can be avoided to an extent through the transport of waste by rail from transfer stations.

[edit] Debate

Use of incinerators for waste management is controversial. The debate over incinerators typically involves business interests (representing both waste generators and incinerator firms), government regulators, environmental activists and local citizens who must weigh the economic appeal of local industrial activity with their concerns over health and environmental risk.

People and organizations professionally involved in this issue include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a great many local and national air quality regulatory agencies worldwide.

[edit] Arguments for incineration

Kehrichtverbrennungsanlage Zürcher Oberland (KEZO) in Hinwil, Switzerland

  • The concerns over the health effects of dioxin and furan emissions have been significantly lessened by advances in emission control designs and very stringent new governmental regulations that have resulted in large reductions in the amount of dioxins and furans emissions.[14]
  • The U.K. Health Protection Agency concluded in 2009 that “Modern, well managed incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. It is possible that such small additions could have an impact on health but such effects, if they exist, are likely to be very small and not detectable.”.[25]
  • Incineration plants can generate electricity and heat that can substitute power plants powered by other fuels at the regional electric and district heating grid, and steam supply for industrial customers. Incinerators and other waste-to-energy plants generate at least partially biomass-based renewable energy that offsets greenhouse gas pollution from coal-, oil- and gas-fired power plants.[26] The E.U. considers energy generated from biogenic waste (waste with biological origin) by incinerators as non-fossil renewable energy under its emissions caps. These greenhouse gas reductions are in addition to those generated by the avoidance of landfill methane.
  • The bottom ash residue remaining after combustion has been shown to be a non-hazardous solid waste that can be safely put into landfills or recycled as construction aggregate. Samples are tested for ecotoxic metals.[27]
  • In densely populated areas, finding space for additional landfills is becoming increasingly difficult.
  • The Maishima waste treatment center in Osaka, designed by Friedensreich Hundertwasser, uses heat for power generation.

    Fine particles can be efficiently removed from the flue gases with baghouse filters. Even though approximately 40 % of the incinerated waste in Denmark was incinerated at plants with no baghouse filters, estimates based on measurements by the Danish Environmental Research Institute showed that incinerators were only responsible for approximately 0.3 % of the total domestic emissions of particulate smaller than 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) to the atmosphere in 2006.[20][21]

  • Incineration of municipal solid waste avoids the release of methane. Every ton of MSW incinerated, prevents about one ton of carbon dioxide equivalents from being released to the atmosphere.[17]
  • Incineration of medical waste and sewage sludge produces an end product ash that is sterile and non-hazardous.[citation needed]
  • Most municipalities that operate incineration facilities have higher recycling rates than neighboring cities and counties that do not send their waste to incinerators.[28] This is in part due to enhanced recovery of ceramic materials reused in construction, as well as ferrous and in some cases non-ferrous metals that can be recovered from combustion residue.[29] Metals recovered from ash would typically be difficult or impossible to recycle through conventional means, as the removal of attached combustible material through incineration provides an alternative to labor- or energy-intensive mechanical separation methods.
  • Volume of combusted waste is reduced by approximately 90%, increasing the life of landfills. Ash from modern incinerators is vitrified at temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) to 1,100 °C (2,010 °F), reducing the leachability and toxicity of residue. As a result, special landfills are generally no longer required for incinerator ash from municipal waste streams, and existing landfills can see their life dramatically increased by combusting waste, reducing the need for municipalities to site and construct new landfills.[30][31]

[edit] Arguments against incineration

Decommissioned Kwai Chung Incineration Plant from 1978. As of late February 2009, it has been demolished.

  • The Scottish Protection Agency’s (SEPA) comprehensive health effects research concluded “inconclusively” on health effects in Oct. 2009. The authors stress, that even though no conclusive evidence of non-occupational health effects from incinerators were found in the existing literature, “small but important effects might be virtually impossible to detect”. The report highlights epidemiological deficiencies in previous UK health studies and suggests areas for future studies.[32] The U.K. Health Protection Agency produced a lesser summary in September 2009.[25] Many toxiocologists criticise and dispute this report as not being comprehensive epidemiologically, thin on peer review and the effects of fine particle effects on health.[citation needed]
  • The highly toxic fly ash must be safely disposed of. This usually involves additional waste miles and the need for specialist toxic waste landfill elsewhere. If not done properly, it may cause concerns for local residents.[33][34]
  • Some people are still concerned about the health effects of dioxin and furan emissions into the atmosphere from old incinerators; especially during start up and shut down, or where filter bypass is required.
  • Incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels.
  • Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) has elevated levels of heavy metals with ecotoxicity concerns if not reused properly. Some people have the opinion that IBA reuse is still in its infancy and is still not considered to be a mature or desirable product, despite additional engineering treatments. Concerns of IBA use in foam concrete have been expressed by the UK Health and Safety Executive in 2010 following several construction and demolition explosions. In its guidance document, IBA is currently banned from use by the UK Highway Authority in concrete work until these incidents have been investigated.[35]
  • Alternative technologies are available or in development such as Mechanical Biological Treatment, Anaerobic Digestion (MBT/AD), Autoclaving or Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) using steam or plasma arc gasification (PGP), which is incineration using electrically produced extreme high temperatures, or combinations of these treatments. Erection of incinerators compete with the development and introduction of other emerging technologies. A UK government WRAP report, August 2008 found that in the UK median incinerator costs per ton were generally higher than those for MBT treatments by £18 per metric ton; and £27 per metric ton for most modern (post 2000) incinerators.[36][37]
  • Building and operating waste processing plants such as incinerators requires long contract periods to recover initial investment costs, causing a long term lock-in. Incinerator lifetimes normally range 25–30 years. This was highlighted by Peter Jones, OBE, the Mayor of London’s waste representative in April 2009.[38]
  • Incinerators produce fine particles in the furnace. Even with modern particle filtering of the flue gases, a small part of these is emitted to the atmosphere. PM2.5 is not separately regulated in the European Waste Incineration Directive, even though they are repeatedly correlated spatially to infant mortality in the UK (M.Ryan’s ONS data based maps around the EfW/CHP waste incinerators at Edmonton, Coventry, Chineham, Kirklees and Sheffield).[39][40][41] Under WID there is no requirement to monitor stack top or downwind incinerator PM2.5 levels.[42] Several European doctors associations (including cross discipline experts such as physicians, environmental chemists and toxicologists) in June 2008 representing over 33,000 doctors wrote a keynote statement directly to the European Parliament citing widespread concerns on incinerator particle emissions and the absence of specific fine and ultrafine particle size monitoring or in depth industry/ government epidemiological studies of these minute and invisible incinerator particle size emissions.[43]
  • Local communities are often opposed to the idea of locating waste processing plants such as incinerators in their vicinity (the Not In My Back Yard phenomenon). Studies in Andover, Massachusetts strongly correlated 10% property devaluations with close incinerator proximity.[44]
  • Prevention, waste minimisation, reuse and recycling of waste should all be preferred to incineration according to the waste hierarchy. Supporters of zero waste consider incinerators and other waste treatment technologies as barriers to recycling and separation beyond particular levels, and that waste resources are sacrificed for energy production.[45][46][47]
  • A 2008 Eunomia report found that under some circumstances and assumptions, incineration causes less CO2 reduction than other emerging EfW and CHP technology combinations for treating residual mixed waste.[19] The authors found that CHP incinerator technology without waste recycling ranked 19 out of 24 combinations (where all alternatives to incineration were combined with advanced waste recycling plants); being 228% less efficient than the ranked 1 Advanced MBT maturation technology; or 211% less efficient than plasma gasification/autoclaving combination ranked 2.
  • Some incinerators are visually undesirable. In many countries they require a visually intrusive chimney stack.
  • If reusable waste fractions are handled in waste processing plants such as incinerators in developing nations, it would cut out viable work for local economies. It is estimated that there are 1 million people making a livelihood off collecting waste.[48]

[edit] Trends in incinerator use

The history of municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration is linked intimately to the history of landfills and other waste treatment technology. The merits of incineration are inevitably judged in relation to the alternatives available. Since the 1970s, recycling and other prevention measures have changed the context for such judgements. Since the 1990s alternative waste treatment technologies have been maturing and becoming viable.

Incineration is a key process in the treatment of hazardous wastes and clinical wastes. It is often imperative that medical waste be subjected to the high temperatures of incineration to destroy pathogens and toxic contamination it contains.

[edit] Incineration in North America

The first incinerator in the U.S. was built in 1885 on Governors Island in New York.[49] In 1949, Robert C. Ross founded one of the first hazardous waste management companies in the U.S. He began Robert Ross Industrial Disposal because he saw an opportunity to meet the hazardous waste management needs of companies in northern Ohio. In 1958, the company built one of the first hazardous waste incinerators in the U.S.[50] The first full-scale, municipally operated incineration facility in the U.S. was the Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery Plant, built in 1975 and located in Ames, Iowa. This plant is still in operation and produces refuse-derived fuel that is sent to local power plants for fuel.[51] The first commercially successful incineration plant in the U.S. was built in Saugus, Massachusetts in October 1975 by Wheelabrator Technologies, and is still in operation today.[23]

There are several environmental or waste management corporations that transport ultimately to an incinerator or cement kiln treatment center. Currently (2009), there are three main businesses that incinerate waste: Clean Harbours, WTI-Heritage, and Ross Incineration Services. Clean Harbours has acquired many of the smaller, independently run facilities, accumulating 5–7 incinerators in the process across the U.S. WTI-Heritage has one incinerator, located in the southeastern corner of Ohio (across the Ohio River from West Virginia).

Several old generation incinerators have been closed; of the 186 MSW incinerators in 1990, only 89 remained by 2007, and of the 6200 medical waste incinerators in 1988, only 115 remained in 2003.[52] No new incinerators were built between 1996 and 2007. The main reasons for lack of activity have been:

  • Economics. With the increase in the number of large inexpensive regional landfills and, up until recently, the relatively low price of electricity, incinerators were not able to compete for the ‘fuel’, i.e., waste in the U.S.
  • Tax policies. Tax credits for plants producing electricity from waste were rescinded in the U.S. between 1990 and 2004.

There has been renewed interest in incineration and other waste-to-energy technologies in the U.S. and Canada. In the U.S., incineration was granted qualification for renewable energy production tax credits in 2004.[53] Projects to add capacity to existing plants are underway, and municipalities are once again evaluating the option of building incineration plants rather than continue landfilling municipal wastes. However, many of these projects have faced continued political opposition in spite of renewed arguments for the greenhouse gas benefits of incineration and improved air pollution control and ash recycling.

[edit] Incineration in Europe

In Europe, with the ban on landfilling untreated waste, scores of incinerators have been built in the last decade, with more under construction. Recently, a number of municipal governments have begun the process of contracting for the construction and operation of incinerators. In Europe, some of the electricity generated from waste is deemed to be from a ‘Renewable Energy Source (RES)’ and is thus eligible for tax credits if privately operated. Also, some incinerators in Europe are equipped with waste recovery, allowing the reuse of ferrous and non-ferrous materials found in landfills. A prominent example is the AEB Waste Fired Power Plant.[54][55]

[edit] Incineration in the United Kingdom

The technology employed in the UK waste management industry has been greatly lagging behind that of Europe due to the wide availability of landfills. The Landfill Directive set down by the European Union led to the Government of the United Kingdom imposing waste legislation including the landfill tax and Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. This legislation is designed to reduce the release of greenhouse gases produced by landfills through the use of alternative methods of waste treatment. It is the UK Government’s position that incineration will play an increasingly large role in the treatment of municipal waste and supply of energy in the UK.

In 2008, plans for potential incinerator locations exists for approximately 100 sites. These have been interactively mapped by UK NGO’s.[56][57][58][59]

See the list of incinerators in the UK.

[edit] Small incinerator units

An example of a low capacity, mobile incinerator

Small scale incinerators exist for special purposes. For example, the small scale[60] incinerators are aimed for hygienically safe destruction of medical waste in developing countries. Small incinerators can be quickly deployed to remote areas where an outbreak has occurred to dispose of infected animals quickly and without the risk of cross contamination.[citation needed]

[edit] In popular media

[edit] See also

Sustainable development.svg Sustainable development portal

[edit] References

  1. ^ Knox, Andrew (February 2005). “An Overview of Incineration and EFW Technology as Applied to the Management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)” (PDF). University of Western Ontario. http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf
  2. ^ a b c d “Waste to Energy in Denmark”. Ramboll. 2006. http://www.zmag.dk/showmag.php?mid=wsdps
  3. ^ Kleis, Heron; Dalager, Søren (2004) (PDF). 100 Years of Waste Incineration in Denmark. http://www.ramboll.com/services/energy%20and%20climate/~/media/Files/RGR/Documents/waste%20to%20energy/100YearsLowRes.ashx
  4. ^ Danish Energy Statistics 2005. Danish Energy Authority. 9 January 2007. http://ens.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Statistik_UK/Energy_statistics_2005/index.htm
  5. ^ Herbert, Lewis (2007). “Centenary History of Waste and Waste Managers in London and South East England” (PDF). Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. http://ciwm.activedition.com/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.aspx?lID=1094&sID=469
  6. ^ a b Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources NR 502.11.2 (a) and (d):
    Exemptions. The following woodburning facilities are exempt from licensing and all requirements of this section, although a burning permit from the department may still be required during certain times of the year in counties within a forest fire control area. These exempt facilities may not burn wet combustible rubbish, garbage, oily substances, asphalt, plastic or rubber products, unless these substances are exempt under s. NR 429.04.
    (a) Burning of trees, limbs, stumps, brush or weeds, except for yard waste, as a result of agricultural or silvicultural activities, if the burning is conducted on the property where the waste is generated.
    (d) Burning of yard waste and small quantities of dry combustible household rubbish, including paper, cardboard and clean untreated wood from a single family or household, on property where it is generated, unless prohibited by local ordinance.
  7. ^ “Safe Debris Burning”. Oregon Department of Forestry. 13 May 2009. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/safedebrisburning.shtml
  8. ^ “An Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the U.S. for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000″. EPA. November 2006. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159286
  9. ^ “Burning Permits – It’s Your Responsibility”. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 21 September 2009. http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/fire/burning-rp.htm
  10. ^ “Vestforbrænding anlæg 6 – Danmarks største forbrændingsovn” (in Danish) (PDF). 2004. http://vestforbraending.dk/Om_VF/Tekniske_anlaeg/Anl%E6g_6_oktober_2004.pdf
  11. ^ “HTT rotary kiln solid waste disposal system”. HiTemp Technology. http://www.hitemptech.com/downloads/HTTSolidWasteRotaryKilnQuotation.pdf
  12. ^ “Air Pollution Control and Incineration Systems photos”. Crown Andersen. 1998. http://www.crownandersen.com/Rotary.html
  13. ^ “Waste-to-Energy Compared to Fossil Fuels for Equal Amounts of Energy”. Delaware Solid Waste Authority. Archived from the original on 26 January 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080126190327/http://www.dswa.com/programs_wastetoenergy4.html
  14. ^ a b c “Waste incineration – A potential danger? Bidding farewell to dioxin spouting” (PDF). Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. September 2005. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Waste_Incineration_A_Potential_Danger.pdf
  15. ^ Beychok, Milton R. (January 1987). “A data base for dioxin and furan emissions from refuse incinerators”. Atmospheric Environment 21 (1): 29–36. doi:10.1016/0004-6981(87)90267-8
  16. ^ “Evaluation of Emissions from the Burning of Household Waste in Barrels” (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency. November 1997. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/barlbrn2.pdf
  17. ^ a b Themelis, Nickolas J. (July–August 2003). “An overview of the global waste-to-energy industry”. Waste Management World: 40–47. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/papers/global_waste_to_energy.html
  18. ^ “Energy From Waste”. Renewable Energy Association. http://www.r-e-a.net/power/biomass-bioenergy/energy-from-waste
  19. ^ a b Hogg, Dominic; Baddeley, Adam; Gibbs, Adrian; North, Jessica; Curry, Robin; Maguire, Cathy (January 2008). “Greenhouse Gas Balances of Waste Management Scenarios” (PDF). Eunomia. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/docs/greenhousegas/greenhousegasbalances.pdf
  20. ^ a b Nielsen, Malene; Illerup, Jytte Boll; Fogh, Christian Lange; Johansen, Lars Peter. “PM Emission from CHP Plants < 25MWe (DOC). National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark. http://www2.dmu.dk/1_Viden/2_Miljoe-tilstand/3_luft/4_adaei/doc/Poster_Eltra_PM.doc
  21. ^ a b “Emissionsfaktorer og emissionsopgørelse for decentral kraftvarme” (in Danish) (PDF). Ministry of the Environment of Denmark. 2006. http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/rapporter/FR442.pdf
  22. ^ “Kraftvärmeverket: avfall blir el och värme” (in Swedish). SYSAV. 2003. http://www.sysav.se/upload/ovrigt/AKV%20stor%20sv.pdf
  23. ^ a b “Waste-to-Energy: Less Environmental Impact than Almost Any Other Source of Electricity”. Integrated Waste Services Association. Archived from the original on 25 June 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080625103459/http://www.wte.org/environment/
  24. ^ Chan, Chris Chi-Yet (1997) (PDF). Behaviour of metals in MSW fly ash during roasting with chlorinating agents. Chemical Engineering Department, University of Toronto. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp03/NQ27620.pdf
  25. ^ a b “HPA position statement on incinerators”. Health Protection Agency. 2 September 2009. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1251473372175
  26. ^ Michaels, Ted (21 April 2009). “Letter to Committee on Energy and Commerce” (PDF). Energy Recovery Council. http://wte.org/userfiles/file/090421%20Waxman%20ltr%20re%20ACESA.pdf
  27. ^ Abbott, John; Coleman, Peter; Howlett, Lucy; Wheeler, Pat (October 2003). “Environmental and Health Risks Associated with the Use of Processed Incinerator Bottom Ash in Road Construction”. BREWEB. http://www.precautionaryprinciple.ca/pdfs/IBA_risk_assessment.pdf
  28. ^ “Using & Saving Energy”. Energy Kids. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/recycling/solidwaste/wastetoenergy.html
  29. ^ “Covanta Fairfax”. Covanta Energy. http://www.covantaholding.com/site/locations/covanta-fairfax.html
  30. ^ Wheelabratortechnologies.com[dead link]
  31. ^ EPA.gov, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  32. ^ “Incineration of Waste and Reported Human Health Effects” (PDF). Health Protection Scotland. 2009. http://www.documents.hps.scot.nhs.uk/environmental/incineration-and-health/incineration-of-waste-and-reported-human-health-effects.pdf
  33. ^ van Steenis, Dick (31 January 2005). “Incinerators – Weapons of mass destruction?” (DOC). RIBA Conference. http://www.elc.org.uk/papers/2005vansteenis.doc
  34. ^ “Hazardous Waste: Treatment and Landfill”. Grundon. 2005. http://www.grundon.com/PDFs/leaflets/technical/Haz_Landfill_Flyer_Mar_2004.pdf
  35. ^ “Interim advice note 127/09: The use of foamed concrete” (PDF). Highways Agency. October 2009. http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ians/pdfs/ian127.pdf
  36. ^ “Costs compared for waste treatment options”. letsrecycle.com. 15 August 2008. http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10309
  37. ^ Wrap.org.uk[dead link]
  38. ^ “UKWIN AGM, Peter Jones”. YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4271FDF41ADA0282. Retrieved 31 January 2010. 
  39. ^ Ryan, Michael (2008). “Maximum and minimum Infant Mortality Rates 2003–06 in Coventry’s electoral wards (ONS data)” (PDF). UK Health Research. http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/coventrymap.pdf
  40. ^ “Capel Action Group”. Mole Valley. http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/index.cfm?Articleid=3585[dead link]
  41. ^ “Suffolk Together says no to incinerators”. Suffolk Together. http://www.suffolktogether.com/Wesaynotoincinerators/198/Home.html
  42. ^ van Steenis, Dick (31 January 2005). “Incinerators – are WMD’s?”. Country Doctor. http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/precis/precis%20-%20Incinerators%20-%20WMDs.htm
  43. ^ Nohamr.org[dead link]
  44. ^ Shi-Ling Hsu, ed (2 December 1999). “Brownfields and Property Values” (PDF). Economic Analysis and Land Use Policy. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://epa.gov/ncer/publications/workshop/pdf/EE-0428-01.pdf
  45. ^ Connett, Paul (20 September 2006). “Zero Waste: A Global Perspective” (PDF). Recycling Council of Alberta Conference 2006. http://www.recycle.ab.ca/2006Proceedings/PaulConnett_Zero_waste.pdf
  46. ^ Connett, Paul et al (21 May 2007) (Video). Energy from Waste: Part 1 – The Myths Debunked. YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB5iOtxlpCs
  47. ^ “Main EU Directives on Waste” (PDF). Friends of the Earth. Archived from the original on 7 October 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20071007232207/http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/main_uk_directives.pdf
  48. ^ Medina, M. (2000). “Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America.”. Resources 31: 51–69. 
  49. ^ Hickmann, H. Lanier, Jr. (2003). American alchemy: the history of solid waste management in the United States. ForesterPress. ISBN 9780970768728. http://books.google.com/?id=gEfuG590qNoC
  50. ^ “About us”. Ross Environmental. http://www.rossenvironmental.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=ross&layout=ross&id=27&Itemid=27
  51. ^ “Resource Recovery: A Division of Public Works”. Ames City Government. http://www.cityofames.org/worksweb/resourcerecovery/default.htm
  52. ^ Tangri, Neil (14 July 2003). “Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology”. GAIA. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070927171339/http://www.no-burn.org/resources/library/wiadt.pdf
  53. ^ “Renewable Energy Production Incentives”. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 25 September 2008. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/energyrec/rpsinc.htm
  54. ^ Themelis, Nickolas J. (July/August 2008). “WTERT Award nominees – Acknowledging major contributors to global waste-to-energy developments”. Waste Management World 9 (4). http://www.waste-management-world.com/display_article/339835/123/ARCHI/none/none/
  55. ^ Mehdudia, Sujay (30 January 2009). “Making the most of waste: gold, power and more from Amsterdam’s refuse”. The Hindu. http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/30/stories/2009013052772200.htm
  56. ^ “Household Waste Incinerators”. UK Without Incineration Network. http://www.ukwin.org.uk/map/
  57. ^ “Map launched of all planned UK incinerators”. letsrecycle.com. 22 July 2008. http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10222
  58. ^ “New map shows over 100 communities threatened by rubbish-burners” (Press release). Friends of the Earth. 22 July 2008. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/new_map_rubbish_burners_22072008.html
  59. ^ Clarke, Tom (21 July 2008). “30 new rubbish incinerator plants planned for the UK”. Channel 4 News. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/30+new+rubbish+incinerator+plants+planned+for+the+uk+/2351677
  60. ^ “Healthcare Waste Management for primary health facilities”. Centre for Renewable Energy, Appropriate Technology and Environment. http://www.create.org.in/Medical_waste_disposal_unit.htm

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Incineration
Look up incineration in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

[edit] Anti-incineration groups

[edit] British Society for Ecological Medicine

Page erased

[edit] Burn barrels

[edit] EU information

[edit] International Solid Waste Association position

[edit] Overviews

[edit] Tutorials

[edit] Diagrams

posted in Engineering | 0 Comments