Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
@John Mathias - yes - as mentioned in the fourth paragraph, they''re accepting packaging from all brands.
@Tim Beesley - details of collection point locations and of the postage address can be found at https://www.terracycle.co.uk/en-GB/brigades/crisppacket
I presume they''re going to recycle any brand of crisp packet that is deposited at their recycling points and not just their own?
I presume they going to recycle any brand of crisp packet that is deposited at their recycling points and not just their own?
As the discussion is on single use plastics, you will notice in the Asian Plastics & Packaging Agreement that we take 5 years to address this issue with suitable alternatives. 1. Asia is complex and fragmented with different layers and levels of development. 2. Solutions need to be carefully thought through and include the supply chain of all and every viable solution. Lord Deben summed it up nicely at the Packaging Innovation Conference in London, September 2018. "There is no silver bullet to replacing single-use plastics which would appease both consumers and policymakers in the short term while generating long-term sustainability benefits. We cannot risk sustainability professionals who want to replace their company s plastic packaging ranges with potentially disastrous alternatives due to a lack of clear policy guidance on the best solutions to the plastic problem. Without an integrated answer, people go rushing after what seems to be an easy solution. For Circular Economy Asia, our next step in this process is to define, through a collaborative approach, what is a sustainable and circular plastics & packaging industry. Once this is done we will have a foundation to build upon and have a much better chance of reviewing and ideating the problem of single use plastics. Of course our peers and all the work already done by many people and companies will contribute to our work. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Well collecting them is a start I suppose and at least they are being diverted/prevented from contributing to marine pollution and general litter but a circular economy solution this treatment is not. In reality it is just another stop on the way to the tip...surface landfill by any other name. If we''re not careful we''ll be buried in plastic wood. #SurfaceLandfill
Anyone with any knowledge of H&M''s supply chain factories knows that this report is a complete lie. They claim that 100% of their supplier factories have "democratically elected worker representation". In China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Myanmar? Please don''t take us for fools. Visit any factory in Vietnam and you will find the factory-level union executive committee composed of the HR director as chairperson and the other seats filled by top supervisors. The same is true in China. In Bangladesh, if there is a worker representative body, they are chosen by management and function to prevent authentic worker representation by a labor union. The claims about wages are similarly false and misleading. 49% above the national minimum wage in Bangladesh is nowhere near a living wage. 24% above the national minimum in Cambodia is nowhere near a living wage. This is self-serving BS, and H&M must know it. They are using their Global Framework Agreement and the ACT process as a pretense, while for five years, H&M has claimed to be doing something about wages, and still the workers are malnourished and overworked. Let them have real unions, let them bargain for their wages, and you will see real progress. Until H&M does that, all their words are empty.
Dear Edie, Here in Asia we are pushing for a different approach to targets, elimination, bans and taxation. It''s a much more wholistic approach that begins with securing the supply chain from source. The ultimate aim is to establish a sustainable and circular plastics & packaging industry not just to achieve targets. We have published the Asian Plastics & Packaging Agreement with the first update that begins the process to ensure a more robust and achievable agreement. It is designed to ensure that even those companies that do not sign up for targets can still participate and take advantage of the benefits associated with a secure and certified supply chain. It also aims to create a plastics & packaging industry we can trust. You can download all the documents plus read the latest update from our website: http://www.circulareconomyasia.org/asia-plastic-packaging-agreement/. This will be a long slow process and Circular Economy Asia is in it for the long haul. But the continual discussion on the elimination of single use plastics is simply putting your finger into a leaking dyke. Adrienna Zsakay Executive Director Circular Economy Asia
Eliminate, reduce, recycle, we need consumers to take responsibility, if they have to use a paper cup they should recycle, it has never been easier to recycle a paper cup, with over 1,500 collection points, over 80% of councils offer bring-banks, and over 20% offer kerbside collections, and that is on top of all the in-store recycling in most national chains being done. We need more positive headlines "UK probably the largest recycler of paper cups in the world" might help.
It seems like a waste of resources to focus on individual recycling schemes: eg coffee cups, coffee grounds, tetrapacks, now crisp packets. They all use resources to make the containers, need space, extra transport emissions and most importantly will capture only the fraction of the total product that is discarded. Why not focus our efforts to the packaging design so it is easily recycled and/or the technical solutions and boosting capabilities of clean and dirty MRFs that actually process majority of the material? Just thinking out loud...
Here we are again!!! It would seem that the illusion that wind power, entirely dependent on the wind,(now there''s a surprise!!), has, by chance, generated the number of megawatthours sufficient to meet the demand of about 97% of the demand over a period of time, is still with us. It seems to be a many headed Hydra. MAY WE BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, SUPPLYING POWER IN RESPONSE TO DEMAND. GENERATION IS VARIABLE WITH TIME, IRRESPECTIVE OF DEMAND. IT IS GRAB IT WHEN YOU CAN GENERATION. Generation on demand still has be available in order to satisfy demand whenever the wind drops. And indeed, being by statute forced to operate in this uneconomic fashion, has to be subsidised. The fact that wind generation between May 31 and June 5, this year, total metered wind power for all on and off-shore facilities, fell to less than 1GW (we have 20GW installed), was not highlighted by edienews. Richard Phillips
For the period 14 Nov to 12 December 2018 the Offshore Wind Generation for UK has been 10.9%. Onshore wind generation has been 7.2%. Cant get the numbers quoted on this report to add up to 100%.
This is welcome news, but no mention is made of matching supply and demand! What happens when the wind blows strongly at night, when there is low demand? Where is the excess electricity used or stored? Perhaps it is exported to England, and then Scotland buys electricity back when the wind does not blow in the Highlands... A partial story, I''m afraid. A good headline, but one that leaves a lot of crucial questions unanswered.
"and thousands of houses suffered subsidence." The same thing happened in 1976, but the spell of hot dry weather was uninterrupted between May and September. Not broken by rain as this year. The damaged houses had inadequate foundations. A friend of mine took notice and had a concrete raft for his new build, made to better specifications, in order to avoid this situation. Seems that all builders did not do the same. Computer models are fine; as long as ALL variables are modelled. The IPCC today have ceased to consider variations of solar activity. The output only reflects the input. Example; the Mann Hockey stick, three times found by official US statisticians to be based on a fraudulent programme, (it gave a hockey stick prediction even when random number data was used as input!!). I have yet to see an official explanation, at molecular level, on the mechanism whereby CO2 is able to punch so much above its weight. But there is huge amount of money at stake, and it is not just talking, it''s shouting at the top of its voice!!! Richard Phillips
Our principal renewable power source is wind, followed by solar in daylight. Both are variable and beyond any control. Biomass at about 4GW maximum, is dispatchable. It would be interesting, but I suspect impossible, to know whether all the electricity supplied as Renewable, and paid for as such, is actually being generated at the time of supply, or are we back to the old MWhour deceptions? What official control, or even monitoring, is there upon the supply and charging for this power? Richard Phillips
So, can you provide an address to send crisp packets to? Is there a specific Freepost address to use? It would be good to start spreading full news about the facility here and now in this article. I''ll pull a few packets out of my bin to send straight away! I looked at Terracycle''s web site previously and found no mention of this following your previous article.
Thanks for those details Torstein. There was talk of similar problems burning pelletised "leafy" material in furnaces, leaving deposits on the heat exchangers. All clouded in mystery!!! I still prefer nuclear fission, PWRs, with CCGT, about 80:20 And in the future we should have fast reactors, we have fuel in the cupboard, 115 tonnes of plutonium. Richard Phillips
@ Richard Phillips "Why not pelletise the grass on the spot, ready for direct combustion as a domestic or industrial fuel???" Torrefaction before pelletization or briquetting makes the fuel less sticky, something about the fibers, it gets brittle enough to be able to be crushed into "dust bombs" that ignite at maximum efficiency in combustion chambers. Like coal do now, and regular pellets do not. Torrefied pellets/briquettes are also water resistant, like coal, while regular pellets are not (making transport and storage cheaper). Regular pellets can only work as fuel in a co-firing situation, while torrefied briquettes are so alike coal that they can be used as the only fuel. Regular pellets leaves a residue in the combustion chambers that make them somewhat unconvenient to use, it requires more maintenance and is thus more expensive. Regrettably I can''t give a meaningful response to your other points that I''m sure are valid, because I simply don''t have enough knowledge in chemistry. I suggest you contact the company directly, hopefully someone with technical knowledge can answer your questions, and if they do, please post what you learned here. You can contact them here: https://nextfuel.com/contact-us
No, Torstein, I had not wondered at all! A major constituent of all such plant matter is cellulose (C6 H10 O5)n. Upon roasting, a great deal of the H10 O5 part will be driven off as water, leaving just the carbon, the only combustible part of the molecule. You are quite correct, this residue is just where the heat potential resides. In pure cellulose, over half the weight is "water", not as such, but evolved as water upon heating. Upon combustion of pure cellulose, all the heat comes from carbon, the H and O are evolved as water (and incidentally as steam, the heat of evaporation coming from the carbon, but wasted as it seldom industrially recovered ), this is common to all "carbohydrates", like sugar. The wood fired Drax power station does not operate heat recovery from the flu gas, but you must have a condensing gas central heating boiler!! Why not pelletise the grass on the spot, ready for direct combustion as a domestic or industrial fuel??? As industrial fuels, biomass or biofuel, I am extremely cynical; ethanol has only half the calorific value of petrol, its addition to vehicle fuel reduces he mpg. But politicians rarely have any scientific knowledge, or the desire to acquire it. Richard Phillips
Correction: The output is 5.51 MWH, not 5.05 MWH.
@ Richard Pillips Maybe you also wondered why the briquettes were at 23-28 gigajoule per ton while elephant grass itself has an energy content of approximately 18 gj/t.? To produce 1 ton of NextFuel, you need 1.56 ton of elephant grass. Basically the torrefaction process gets rid of all the unimportant stuff in the grass, and the end result is a very energy dense briquette. Only 2.5% of the energy content of the briquette originates from the use of electricity in the briquette production process, the rest originates from the grass itself!
It seems as if the Welsh have gone completely mad, and I just hope they won''t come running to England for help when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow and their nuclear power station is being serviced. The Germans decided to abandon nuclear power and bought their electricity from France - 80% nuclear generation - and then used lignite - much worse than coal for CO2. FoE Wales quotes David Attenborough in Katowice: The Times carried the story at the bottom of page 17 - and got the importance about right. We will all wake up soon and realise that the impending catastrophe has been oversold...
@ Richard Phillips "Dry elephant grass contains, per unit mass, a certain amount of heat energy, released upon complete combustion with oxygen. [...] No amount of completing the process by a variety of paths can give more energy." Now I understand your concern, of course you are correct. But the "carbon negativity" claim is not based on pseudo-scientific claims like this, that somehow you get more energy output than energy input. On the contrary, there is of course less energy coming out of the process than going in, 7.07 MWH is going in, while 5.05 MWH is coming out. The "carbon negativity" claim rests upon basically three factors, 1.) carbon is deposited in the roots and soil below the plants, 2.) the briquette processing itself is very efficient, and 3.) if the fuel is grown and used in relatively close proximity to each other, the transport is also very energy efficient. Basically, factor 1, the depositing of carbon in the soil ("natural" CCS) outweighs the energy use of factor 2 (fuel production) and factor 3 (transport). If you grow your fuel locally, and have access to this new efficient processing technology, you get a CO2 negative fuel.
Dry elephant grass contains, per unit mass, a certain amount of heat energy, released upon complete combustion with oxygen. No more, no less. It is a founding principle of thermochemistry. There is no free lunch. No amount of completing the process by a variety of paths can give more energy. In fact the greater the complexity of the process, the less efficient the heat recovery becomes. There is nothing new in the concept of roasting complex organics; the Gas Light and Coke Company were doing this on a huge scale at the Beckton Gas Works a century ago using coal. They produced coke, town gas, and a variety of organic materials. The science is quite absent from this report. Richard Phillips
The problem with this knee jerk "good intention" is it ignores the fact that the majority of the hydrocarbons produced are NOT used for fuels but for petrochemicals including fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, synthetic fabrics and a thousands other essential everyday products. I happen to agree that we can not continue to waste this essential resource by burning it, be that in a power station or a vehicle, but that does not mean we will stop extracting it safely and utilising it