TrashTsar
The Basics
- Name: TrashTsar
TrashTsar’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
We use "rented" sheep and goats to graze our 93-acre closed landfill. As the site is just a few miles from Google, we may use the very same animals, in fact.
Why do we use livestock instead of mechanical mowers and why don't we just get rid of the grass?Answering the second question first, the grass is required as part of our landfill closure plan. Without it, the topsoil cover would erode during the winter rains here in California. Erosion would allow damage to the engineered clay cap that seals the top of the landfill and keeps the garbage and methane from escaping.
During the rains, the grass grows waist high, then it drys out around May, posing a real fire hazard to us and to our industrial neighbors. Of the grass removal methods we have available, mowers cause fires--goats do not. When we used tractor mowers, they twice started grass fires, and one of the fires spread to 10 acres before the fire department put it out.
Also, as Umbra pointed out, goats help to eradicate weeds. We have seen a sharp reduction in the amount of noxious yellow star thistle since we started using goats. The fertilizer they leave behind is a plus.
Finally, buried all over in the top foot or two of the landfill cover is a lot of plastic pipe (under vacuum) that collects the landfill gas and moves it to the big engine-generators where it is burned to make electricity. When we used tractors, their weight did a lot of serious, but hidden damage to those pipes, which posed real problems for the engine-generators. The last time we hired tractor mowers to cut the grass, the cost of the gas system damage was more than the dollar value of the contract, and we were chasing vacuum leaks for months.
And of course, the goats and sheep are far more pleasing than tractors. Our landfill gets a lot of recreational foot traffic and the walkers really like having the critters around.
On Ask Umbra on mowing with goats posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 8 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Picture 105 Truckloads of Single-Use Diapers
Umbra, Umbra--I thought you had more common sense than this!
With the disposable diaper industry enjoying revenues of billions of dollars per year, of course they don't mind spending a very small fraction of that to "buy" a scientist to write them a report slamming the competition (cloth diapers).
Paper plants and plastic-making factories use immense amounts of water to make disposables--far more than is consumed in washing cloth diapers. Not to mention the one-way flow of resources and energy from forest and earth to the landfill.
When we studied (1995) what was in the trash generated by our city of 135,000, we found residents threw away 840 tons of single-use diapers per year--that's the equivalent of 105 trash truck loads per year! And the diaper-clad make up a pretty small slice of our population.
As a solid waste manager, I'm distressed that so much of my City's financial resources are spent collecting and hauling these unnecessary items.
Our City Council is on record supporting reusable diapers. It's just common sense.
Mark Bowers
Solid Waste Program Manager
City of Sunnyvale, CaliforniaOn Umbra Fisk on the great diaper debate posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 11 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Like All the Other Markets, Recycling has Crashed
We're having similar problems in the US. A big part of the problem is that the lockup in the credit markets has made it difficult for Chinese buyers to get the "letters of credit" that facilitate exports. Without a letter of credit, a seller in the US has no assurance of getting paid.
Adding to the problem is that, in response to the worldwide economic slowdown, paper mills and other industries in China have slowed output and thus slowed or stopped their imports of recycled raw materials. That has caused prices for recyclables to fall very far and very fast. Mixed paper, for example, has fallen from $120 per ton in July to -$3 today (yes, we PAY the "buyer" $3 to recycle the paper!).
Recycled content requirements and extended producer responsibility are important concepts that will help in the long term. But in the short run, if the economy is dead, there's just no demand for recyclables.On As material prices fall, U.K. grapples with mounds of un-recycled recyclables posted 1 year ago 3 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Thanks for Poo-pooing Biodegradable Bags
Umbra,
As a landfill manager and recycler, I thank you for noting that biodegradable bags are generally a waste of money. This is a point on which many members of the public are very confused/deluded.
Bags that biodegrade (assuming they live up to their advertising claims) do little to assist us at the landfill. If I had my way, nothing in my landfill would degrade. That would spare me the cost of managing the landfill gas (methane) that results from decomposition. Decaying garbage causes the surface to settle and creates low spots that collect rain water and get me in trouble with the regulators.
Post-consumer plastic bags are very hard to recycle as it is. The few buyers that exist are very picky about contaminants like bread crumbs, moisture, paper receipts, price tags, and the like. The last thing they want to do is introduce biodegradable plastics into the mix and end up with a product that decomposes in the hands of a consumer who was looking to buy a durable product.
Biodegradability is a red herring when it comes to plastic bags.
Bottom line? Take a reusable bag to the store, and if you NEEd a bag for some use, buy one!On Umbra on trash bags posted 1 year, 7 months ago 21 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Making Paper Takes Lots of Water
Anyone (hubby, in this case)who advocates using paper plates to save water has never been to a paper mill. The paper manufacturing process uses LOTS of water. Making a single paper plate likely requires far more water than washing a durable plate.On Umbra on paper plates posted 1 year, 9 months ago 15 Responses