Monthly Recycling

[The Joker 10]

It means more in the black bins for Veolia to burn as they are running short on supply to keep the power generation output at optimal.

 

I feared that would be the case.

 

Veolia / Onyx didn’t spend £millions repairing the incinerator and tying the city council into a decades-long waste contact to promote recycling did they ??

[apelike 10]

I've got no problems with 6am collections,

 

I have.. its much too early to be making that sort of noise in the morning and unacceptable. TBH I though there were limits on workmen making a noise before 7:30 AM, in any case why that early?

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2017 at 20:00 ----------

 

I feared that would be the case.

 

Veolia / Onyx didn’t spend £millions repairing the incinerator and tying the city council into a decades-long waste contact to promote recycling did they ??

 

Notice they have also bribed given SCC a refund of £5.6 million as well.

[Jeffrey Shaw 89]

I feared that would be the case.

 

Veolia / Onyx didn’t spend £millions repairing the incinerator and tying the city council into a decades-long waste contact to promote recycling did they ??

Whichever system is most cost-effective is a desirable system! Recycling paper, for instance, makes sense only if it does not involve using extra energy to achieve the aim.

Incineration yields heat/power for immediate re-use and therefore minimises landfill, transportation costs, etc. That's got to be good, hasn't it?

[Cyclone 10]

Cost is only one measure, pollution/harm would be another.

[landi 10]

Environmental Health discourage commercial waste companies from making noisy collections in residential areas before 7.30am or after 10pm Monday to Saturday or before 9am or after 9pm on Sundays and Bank holidays.

[iansheff 84]

Environmental Health discourage commercial waste companies from making noisy collections in residential areas before 7.30am or after 10pm Monday to Saturday or before 9am or after 9pm on Sundays and Bank holidays.

 

So the 6am start will happen then, as EH only discourage it.

[Grenoside123 10]

I try and recycle whatever I can so we fill our recycling bin and box almost every 2 weeks. This effectively will mean (for us at least) that less will be recycled as when the bin is full 2-3 weeks into the month, the rest will go into the black bin.

Looks like not so much thought put into the recycling of waste, just the penny pinching aspect considered.

[Jeffrey Shaw 89]

Cost is only one measure, pollution/harm would be another.

Yes, but it does not make sense for the Council to waste more energy simply in order to hit an illusory 'reduce pollution' target.

[apelike 10]

Whichever system is most cost-effective is a desirable system! Recycling paper, for instance, makes sense only if it does not involve using extra energy to achieve the aim.

Incineration yields heat/power for immediate re-use and therefore minimises landfill, transportation costs, etc. That's got to be good, hasn't it?

 

I think you will find that its not too much to do with cost effectiveness but profit. Veolia are in the business of incineration and want the incinerator to run to capacity to maximise that profit. I agree about what you say on recycling paper as that is not cost effective. It costs to transport it to a processing plant which uses some nasty chemicals in the process and as it can only be recycled a few times, better to burn it! Minimising landfill is also not really a concern of Veolia and in a sense just a result of incineration, but that incineration also produces bottom ash which can also be fairly toxic and does then go to landfill. They use the heat from incineration to provide hot water which is then sold on to SCC who then sell it on at a profit to its customers. They also use it to produce electricity which is sold on the the NG and they also make money on recycling.

 

The Veolia chief executive also announced recently about SCC negotiations that; "Handling waste from other areas to increase revenues was also cited as another option."

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, but it does not make sense for the Council to waste more energy simply in order to hit an illusory 'reduce pollution' target.

 

In what way is the target illusory? Perhaps you meant arbitrary? Perhaps you think that the morality of minimising environmental harm is arbitrary as well?

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

And when the conveyor belt busts, or the fire goes out or some other minor disaster occurs, it all gets tipped together in the landfill, yes/no.

 

Angel1.

[Jeffrey Shaw 89]

And when the conveyor belt busts, or the fire goes out or some other minor disaster occurs, it all gets tipped together in the landfill, yes/no.

Keep the home fires burning, then.