Monday, May 21, 2018
Friday, May 11, 2018
Solar Project - Vlog 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjZwIdqmcMg
Temperature Readings:
150ºF
180ºF
200ºF
Leavy, Thom. “How to Build a DIY Solar Oven.” Popular Science, Popular Science, 20 Dec. 2016, www.popsci.com/build-diy-solar-oven.
Temperature Readings:
150ºF
180ºF
200ºF
Leavy, Thom. “How to Build a DIY Solar Oven.” Popular Science, Popular Science, 20 Dec. 2016, www.popsci.com/build-diy-solar-oven.
Monday, May 7, 2018
Sunday, April 8, 2018
Pandora's Promise - Movie Review
Pandora's Promise was a documentary produced by Robert Stone in 2013, and it showcased some ordinary people and scientists discussing the use of nuclear energy. The documentary was interesting, because from what I could tell, the people who were being interviewed were initially very opposed and against the use of nuclear energy, but as they discuss the pros and cons and at the end of the film they are arguing for it and embracing its use. The whole idea that the film was based upon was that there were and are a lot of environmentalists who are very opposed to the idea of it, but in reality, it is actually a very safe and clean energy source. The documentary also discussed the increasingly severe problem of anthropogenic global warming and radiation.
One of the things that I learnt from the film was about the impact of radiation. I had always known that radiation can be very dangerous, especially in high levels, due to the damage that it does to the cells that make up the human body. However, I didn't realise the severity of it. One of the environmental experts that was interviewed discussed many of the power plant failures ranging from Chernobyl to Fukuyama. He proceeded to say "It must be absolutely awful to have a town wiped out by a tsunami or earthquake, and you can't even come back and rebuild because it's all contaminated by radiation." (7:20) This opened my eyes and made me more aware of the risks that high amounts of radiation can pose. However, it was comforting (in an odd way) to find out that flying a plane produces more than 20 times the radiation than the people living in Chernobyl get, as well as athe fact that no one has ever died from nuclear power plants in the US, but over 10,000 people die from coal dust every year. I also learned about the first nuclear energy source in the United States, which was built in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. It was a modified version of a large submarine reactor. Something I found that was very interesting is the the United States buys nuclear war heads from Russia, so that they can recycle them and use them as fuel in reactors, and very little waste is actually produced from new reactors because they have the ability to reuse and recycle their own material. There were two types of reactors described in the film: the breeder reactor and the light water reactor. The breeder reactor creates plutonium material and recycles it. The light water reactor is much simpler than the breeder reactor, but it produces much more waste. According to the film, the amount of energy consumed by humans is expected to double by 2050, and is expected to triple or even quadruple by the year 2100.
There were a few other things that I was quite shocked by. The first thing was when it showed footage that visually showed the danger that came with different types of energy. It communicated this information by showing different sized cubes. The first one looked like a normal sized cube and it said coal on it. It then zoomed in and got to smaller and smaller cubes, until it finally got to nuclear energy, which was said to be the second safest form of energy production, not far behind the safest: wind energy. Nuclear energy is even safer than solar panels and solar energy, because solar panels is an extremely toxic process! The other things that I was surprised by was was when one of the ladies being interviewed said " 70000 tons have accumulated, of used fuel in the US. I thought the quantity was staggering! In fact, all used nuclear fuel from nuclear plants in the United States could fit into a single football field, if stacked to about 3m. Of that, only a very small fraction is plutonium that would still be radioactive and dangerous years from now." (1:15:50). The next person followed up that claim by saying "volumetrically, nuclear produces tiny amounts of waste." After that he said, Nuclear energy power 80% of France's energy needs, and the waste could fit into one room, compared to the billions of tons of waste produced by coal burning.
I felt, as I mentioned, pretty surprised by the end of the documentary. Going into it, I didn't really know what to expect, and I didn't really know what the documentary was about, let alone the stance that it would take. Upon discovering it was a discussion on the use of nuclear energy, my immediate thoughts were primarily negative, thinking that nuclear energy and nuclear power plants are definitely not the way to go. I thought they were dangerous, I thought they produced a lot of toxic waste, and a plethora of other things that made me against using them. I was surprised that the documentary was kind of able to convince me otherwise. Some of the visuals and ways that they showed it's effect and size (waste fitting in one room, waste fitting in one football field, small scale comparisons in block size to other power sources, etc.) were very effective in convincing me that they made not be as bad and I had initially read them to be. Prior to starting the film, I had this awful idea of anything involving the word "nuclear". To be honest, I didn't know much of anything about it, I just thought it was something bad, because I associated with things like nuclear bombs. My ideas were confirmed at the start of the film when it said it is "primarily a weapon, not an energy source". The last thing that stuck out to me was the part where it showed the warming of the earth changing (32:20) and it suddenly got much redder once it hit the 2000's. I kind of expected this, but I didn't realise that there was such a prominent change once the millennials were introduced to the picture.
What I liked about this film was that it was meant for ordinary people. They didn't use a lot of very scientific terms that were difficult to understand. Also, as I mentioned, it was very effective and I was quite hooked in it, because I completely agreed with the kinds of things they were staying towards the start of the film, but there was a very smooth and dragged out transition from them saying it was bad to saying it was good, and I felt like I was brought along this journey alongside them, which made it all the more convincing to me. I wouldn't say I'm now a 100% strong advocate for using nuclear power, but I definitely see it in a much more balanced way now. There are, of course, some things that aren't great about using nuclear power plants, but there are pros and cons with everything. Nuclear power is "by far the safest, cleanest source of world power", and a quote I really liked that they used at the end of the film was that "loving your children is about loving the future and the world that they will inherit". Although it's not directly related, I remember that when I was reading about Cape Wind, there was a quote that said something like "Society has to at some point accept that if we want electricity, we have to get it from somewhere and wherever that is, it won't be zero impact" I think this quote is very true, and nuclear power sources are very small impact, but there is still some impact, and it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons of different power sources. I think that nuclear power sources are one of the better, safer options out of some of the others. As a whole human race, we have to cut down on our energy use, because there are only so many ways that we can find sustainable energy sources, and these sources can only be so sustainable. Being "sustainable" doesn't mean it can support ALL our needs and wants forever. The ending of the film said they were hopeful for the next generation, and I'd like to hope that I can be too.
One of the things that I learnt from the film was about the impact of radiation. I had always known that radiation can be very dangerous, especially in high levels, due to the damage that it does to the cells that make up the human body. However, I didn't realise the severity of it. One of the environmental experts that was interviewed discussed many of the power plant failures ranging from Chernobyl to Fukuyama. He proceeded to say "It must be absolutely awful to have a town wiped out by a tsunami or earthquake, and you can't even come back and rebuild because it's all contaminated by radiation." (7:20) This opened my eyes and made me more aware of the risks that high amounts of radiation can pose. However, it was comforting (in an odd way) to find out that flying a plane produces more than 20 times the radiation than the people living in Chernobyl get, as well as athe fact that no one has ever died from nuclear power plants in the US, but over 10,000 people die from coal dust every year. I also learned about the first nuclear energy source in the United States, which was built in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. It was a modified version of a large submarine reactor. Something I found that was very interesting is the the United States buys nuclear war heads from Russia, so that they can recycle them and use them as fuel in reactors, and very little waste is actually produced from new reactors because they have the ability to reuse and recycle their own material. There were two types of reactors described in the film: the breeder reactor and the light water reactor. The breeder reactor creates plutonium material and recycles it. The light water reactor is much simpler than the breeder reactor, but it produces much more waste. According to the film, the amount of energy consumed by humans is expected to double by 2050, and is expected to triple or even quadruple by the year 2100.
There were a few other things that I was quite shocked by. The first thing was when it showed footage that visually showed the danger that came with different types of energy. It communicated this information by showing different sized cubes. The first one looked like a normal sized cube and it said coal on it. It then zoomed in and got to smaller and smaller cubes, until it finally got to nuclear energy, which was said to be the second safest form of energy production, not far behind the safest: wind energy. Nuclear energy is even safer than solar panels and solar energy, because solar panels is an extremely toxic process! The other things that I was surprised by was was when one of the ladies being interviewed said " 70000 tons have accumulated, of used fuel in the US. I thought the quantity was staggering! In fact, all used nuclear fuel from nuclear plants in the United States could fit into a single football field, if stacked to about 3m. Of that, only a very small fraction is plutonium that would still be radioactive and dangerous years from now." (1:15:50). The next person followed up that claim by saying "volumetrically, nuclear produces tiny amounts of waste." After that he said, Nuclear energy power 80% of France's energy needs, and the waste could fit into one room, compared to the billions of tons of waste produced by coal burning.
I felt, as I mentioned, pretty surprised by the end of the documentary. Going into it, I didn't really know what to expect, and I didn't really know what the documentary was about, let alone the stance that it would take. Upon discovering it was a discussion on the use of nuclear energy, my immediate thoughts were primarily negative, thinking that nuclear energy and nuclear power plants are definitely not the way to go. I thought they were dangerous, I thought they produced a lot of toxic waste, and a plethora of other things that made me against using them. I was surprised that the documentary was kind of able to convince me otherwise. Some of the visuals and ways that they showed it's effect and size (waste fitting in one room, waste fitting in one football field, small scale comparisons in block size to other power sources, etc.) were very effective in convincing me that they made not be as bad and I had initially read them to be. Prior to starting the film, I had this awful idea of anything involving the word "nuclear". To be honest, I didn't know much of anything about it, I just thought it was something bad, because I associated with things like nuclear bombs. My ideas were confirmed at the start of the film when it said it is "primarily a weapon, not an energy source". The last thing that stuck out to me was the part where it showed the warming of the earth changing (32:20) and it suddenly got much redder once it hit the 2000's. I kind of expected this, but I didn't realise that there was such a prominent change once the millennials were introduced to the picture.
What I liked about this film was that it was meant for ordinary people. They didn't use a lot of very scientific terms that were difficult to understand. Also, as I mentioned, it was very effective and I was quite hooked in it, because I completely agreed with the kinds of things they were staying towards the start of the film, but there was a very smooth and dragged out transition from them saying it was bad to saying it was good, and I felt like I was brought along this journey alongside them, which made it all the more convincing to me. I wouldn't say I'm now a 100% strong advocate for using nuclear power, but I definitely see it in a much more balanced way now. There are, of course, some things that aren't great about using nuclear power plants, but there are pros and cons with everything. Nuclear power is "by far the safest, cleanest source of world power", and a quote I really liked that they used at the end of the film was that "loving your children is about loving the future and the world that they will inherit". Although it's not directly related, I remember that when I was reading about Cape Wind, there was a quote that said something like "Society has to at some point accept that if we want electricity, we have to get it from somewhere and wherever that is, it won't be zero impact" I think this quote is very true, and nuclear power sources are very small impact, but there is still some impact, and it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons of different power sources. I think that nuclear power sources are one of the better, safer options out of some of the others. As a whole human race, we have to cut down on our energy use, because there are only so many ways that we can find sustainable energy sources, and these sources can only be so sustainable. Being "sustainable" doesn't mean it can support ALL our needs and wants forever. The ending of the film said they were hopeful for the next generation, and I'd like to hope that I can be too.
Monday, April 2, 2018
Northern Pass - Response Essay
In the simplest words, the Northern Pass is a 192-mile transmission line from
Hydro-Quebec that would carry hydroelectric power from Canada to New England.
It would bring 1090 megawatts of “clean”, affordable energy to NH and the rest
of New England. It was in the process of being built, but is now currently on hold,
and at the moment, is not being/going to be built. While there are many advantages to
the building of the Northern Pass (more surface level things like creating jobs, which
are in fact, very temporary), I feel that the costs outweigh the benefits in this case, and
in my opinion, I do not think the Northern Pass is a good idea, and it should not be built.
Hydro-Quebec that would carry hydroelectric power from Canada to New England.
It would bring 1090 megawatts of “clean”, affordable energy to NH and the rest
of New England. It was in the process of being built, but is now currently on hold,
and at the moment, is not being/going to be built. While there are many advantages to
the building of the Northern Pass (more surface level things like creating jobs, which
are in fact, very temporary), I feel that the costs outweigh the benefits in this case, and
in my opinion, I do not think the Northern Pass is a good idea, and it should not be built.
I think that the biggest thing is that the building of the Northern Pass would mean that
it would be a huge disruptor and would cause great destruction to scenic landscapes,
national park lands and habitats. Today in class, we discussed and learned that it would
likely cut right through the White Mountains (where we spent wilderness orientation).
There is a lot of natural heritage and historic monuments in New Hampshire that would
be greatly affected, and I think that this is worth more than the energy that wouldn’t
even hugely benefit residents. This would create a major drawback in visitors, and it
would create major economic implications for tourism. Furthermore, the economic
implications would also be seen in the depreciation of home and property value. It
would cut through agricultural land, lowering its property value and usage ability.
it would be a huge disruptor and would cause great destruction to scenic landscapes,
national park lands and habitats. Today in class, we discussed and learned that it would
likely cut right through the White Mountains (where we spent wilderness orientation).
There is a lot of natural heritage and historic monuments in New Hampshire that would
be greatly affected, and I think that this is worth more than the energy that wouldn’t
even hugely benefit residents. This would create a major drawback in visitors, and it
would create major economic implications for tourism. Furthermore, the economic
implications would also be seen in the depreciation of home and property value. It
would cut through agricultural land, lowering its property value and usage ability.
New Hampshire’s total energy consumption and per capita energy consumption is
one of the lowest in the entire nation, so really, New Hampshire residents wouldn’t
reap huge benefits. Furthermore, New Hampshire residents can’t even use the direct
current energy. They can only access it when the DC is converted to alternating
current (AC) energy. According to notonorthernpass.com, the project “is not about
clean energy, it is about an unfair market advantage, cloaked in false “green”
promises. The Northern Pass would effectively turn NH into a glorified extension cord”.
one of the lowest in the entire nation, so really, New Hampshire residents wouldn’t
reap huge benefits. Furthermore, New Hampshire residents can’t even use the direct
current energy. They can only access it when the DC is converted to alternating
current (AC) energy. According to notonorthernpass.com, the project “is not about
clean energy, it is about an unfair market advantage, cloaked in false “green”
promises. The Northern Pass would effectively turn NH into a glorified extension cord”.
In conclusion, I do not think the Northern Pass is a good idea. Along with the NH
site evaluation committee, I think that there are definitely more severe consequences
to building the Northern Pass and many flaws in the idea, that just aren’t worth the
minimal amount of benefits that it would provide. The scales just aren’t nearly
balanced.I acknowledge that there are, of course, big benefits to building it, but it’s
just not something I think we need. Furthermore, I definitely think that there are
other ways to reap those same benefits. The Northern Pass would be a huge production
that, statistics show that of over 3,000 public comments that were submitted to the
SEC, 95% of NH residents oppose it. Nearly every community along the proposed
route of towers has spoken up to oppose the project, and as have others across the
state. I agree that we need to expand our energy, but the Northern Pass is not the
way to do it, because it would do irreparable damage to the beautiful state.
site evaluation committee, I think that there are definitely more severe consequences
to building the Northern Pass and many flaws in the idea, that just aren’t worth the
minimal amount of benefits that it would provide. The scales just aren’t nearly
balanced.I acknowledge that there are, of course, big benefits to building it, but it’s
just not something I think we need. Furthermore, I definitely think that there are
other ways to reap those same benefits. The Northern Pass would be a huge production
that, statistics show that of over 3,000 public comments that were submitted to the
SEC, 95% of NH residents oppose it. Nearly every community along the proposed
route of towers has spoken up to oppose the project, and as have others across the
state. I agree that we need to expand our energy, but the Northern Pass is not the
way to do it, because it would do irreparable damage to the beautiful state.
Bibliography:
“Home.” No To Northern Pass, www.notonorthernpass.com/.
“Northern Pass Is Wrong for New Hampshire.” New Hampshire Business Review, www.nhbr.com/February-2-2018/Northern-Pass-is-wrong-for-New-Hampshire/.
The Northern Pass.” Forest Society, 8 Feb. 2018, forestsociety.org/advocacy-issue/northern-pass.
“Northern Pass.” Appalachian Mountain Club, www.outdoors.org/conservation/hot-issues/northern-pass.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Monday, February 12, 2018
Transfer Station/Recycle Center - February 10th, 2018
Lauren Ho
"Visit to the Transfer Station/Recycle Center"
640 Main Street, Andover, New Hampshire
Date of Excursion: February 10th, 2018
On February 10th, the class all brought trash/recycling from our dorms to APES class first block, and headed onto the bus with Alan to make our way to the Town of Andover Transfer Station and Recycling center, located at 640 Main Street. It was a short trip of 2.1 miles and it was only about 3 minutes in the bus one way. It was a relatively warm morning when we went, leaving at around 8:20am and returning at around 9:00am to head to our next class. There was snow on the ground, but not too much. The sun was out, but not shining directly on us, and the winds were still so it was the perfect combination of hot and cold. It was a little chilly, but we all had coats to keep up warm. It was a relatively small place over all.
Screenshot from Google Maps Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
The Andover Transfer Station and Recycling Center is where residents of Andover, New Hampshire, go to dispose of their trash and recycling. It is a processing site and waste management (chapter 22 vocabulary) that it used for the temporary deposition of waste generated by the town. It is not meant for industrial solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary). In order to use the transfer station, residents of the town must obtain a permit in the form of a sticker that will be placed on their car. They come with the small fee of $5.00 per car, and proof of residency must be provided when residents apply for a permit. There were a few different waste disposal group areas that we looked at. The trash, recyclables and dispolables are laster sent onto other places to be properly recycled or disposed of, such as Boston, Rochester, Concord and New London.
We started by looking at the general trash dump and took turns throwing in the trash bags we had brought. This is where all municipal solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary) is disposed of. We were lucky enough to be able to see the compacter in action, squishing all the bags and creating space for more trash. When we were here, Alan talked about the sign above the trash disposal that said "DUMPING RECYCLABLES HERE MEANS HIGHER TAXES FOR ALL". He went on to described how reducing our overall trash generation would reduce costs for the town, because it is measured by weight and taxes follow accordingly. On another note, the state of New Hampshire is currently working on finding a way to require transfer stations to compost food waste, because this will results in a very significant trash waste reduction.
Throwing trash - photo taken by Lauren Ho General trash disposal - photo taken by Lauren Ho
After looking at the general trash disposal area, we moved into a room in which there were a lot of items (such as toys, books etc.) including televisions - E-Waste - and we learned that they ship these away to be disposed of. It is sent to another company for about $0.48/lb to be recycled. It costs between $2-$16 for an Andover resident to dispose of e-waste here. This price covers the price of sending it off to be recycled. I believe electronics are sent to Rochester after the transfer station. The company that receives the waste from the transfer station tries to recycle the plastics, metals and as much of the product as possible. We learned that items in this room could be taken, picked up or traded by any resident of Andover. In this room, there was also a box to dispose of lightbulbs and other mercury-containing items. I learned that it is against the law to throw items containing mercury in the trash. This includes anything from fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, thermometers, thermostats, to tilt switches, manometers and button batteries. It is unknown where electronics and alkaline batteries go after they leave the facility. Mercury containing products can be harmful to the environment if they are improperly disposed of. Consumers are encouraged to bring their mercury products along with their other recyclables and either dispose of them through "collection and recycling at municipal facilities", "household hazardous waste (Chapter 22 vocabulary) collection events" (they host one day where they collect all household hazardous waste for free!!) or "municipal and commercial thermostat recycling locations. The reason why is because mercury is a highly toxic chemical that when it accumulates in human bodies, it never breaks down into a non-toxic form. It can be damaging to the liver, kidney and brain(causing neurological disorders). It can also be absorbed by plants and animals once it's released into the air. It bioaccumulates and moves up the food chain. (http://www.andover-nh.gov/assets/municipal/10/Products_Containing_Mercury_List_1476198738.pdf)
E-Waste - Photo by Lauren Ho Tradable trash - Photo by Lauren Ho
When we were done inside, we moved onto the recyclables disposal and learned that Andover recycles about 70% of their waste. Some of us who brought our recycling threw it in, and then we learned about single stream recycling. By definition single stream recycling refers to "a system in which all paper fibers, plastics, metals and other containers are mixed in a collection truck, instead of being sorted by the depositor into separate commodities." Also, we weren't allowed to throw in the recycling bags, but instead had to pour all the recyclables out into the disposal. Because this facility requires that residents have to sort their own trash, they have very clear guidelines on what should be recycled and what shouldn't. It is important that people individually sort out their own trash, because failure to do so would increase in fees and taxes for everyone. It's like a team effort. When describing how the single stream recycling works, Alan said "This site has a whole automised system that will pick out all these things and bundle them into collections and send them off into the market or whoever wants to recover this material" (-Alan McIntyre). He talked about how China was the biggest buyer of plastics, and the plastic market is now collapsing, that means that we have a lot of plastic resources in this country and "if someone is innovative enough, they could make that into manufacturing stuff and make America great again." (-Alan McIntyre).
Single stream recycling - Photo by Lauren Ho Pouring out recyclables - Photo by Lauren Ho
Recycling Disposal - Photo by Lauren Ho
After that, we moved forward and took a look at the glass disposal. The glass disposal was just a big, bright orange dumpster. It was filled with snow and just has glass bottles sticking out of it here and there. The first thing that Alan said to us here was that "at every dump, at every recycling center, at every trash can, there are errors that are made. And these recycling services expect that about 10% of stuff that doesn't belong. They don't like to go over that number. The more pure it is, the better it is for recovery" (-Alan McIntyre). Because there weren't many bottles disposed of in this dumpster, we were able to immediately identify some things that didn't belong, such as a styrofoam cup from Dunkin' Donuts. Building off of what Alan said, because more purity means it's better for recovery, other countries and areas may have stricter rules. Because we have zero-sort, we are more prone to having errors. However, the biggest issue is that people don't participate in recycling to begin with. The reason why the town went single stream was because they were trying to increase the amount of stuff recovered. It's impossible to have a perfect system, because there are always pros and cons. Other places such as Germany and Italy have very strict rules of enforcement, they have better recovery rates and purer streams for the market, and they don't have participation issues because people are required to participate. One way to get a lot of participation to do "pay as you throw", whereas this is free. There are also a lot of other factors that influence the cost, for example the cost of moving it. The glass is charged by weight, gasoline is used, so the price of gasoline influences it. The glass in this particular bin would be headed to New London, and a plant there would break it down and mix it in with asphalt. "There is more glass in the waste stream in the state of New Hampshire than anything else, so you don't get a lot of money for that. If there's an oversupply and not enough demand...that's economics. Cardboard, we usually make lots of money on cardboard." (-Alan McIntyre) What is important about this is exactly in the quote. We have too much glass and there isn't enough demand for it, so we are making a minimal about of money, whereas with things with higher demand, such as cardboard, we make more money off it and we hope for a higher supply of it.
Resident disposing of glass - Lauren Ho // Glass dumpster - photo by Lauren Ho
"If you market your budget and your workers based off the volatility of the recycling market... you're in trouble" - Alan McIntyre
We then headed over to another dumpster, which was the white goods, which is the generic term for appliances with chemicals in them. Disposal of these cost about $5-$8 per item. It is expensive because someone has to extract the chemicals which are hazardous to the environment out of them. These are sent to Concord after the transfer station. Over on the other side, there was a dumpster for flame retardant products, specifically construction debris, they're hazardous so they have to be separated. On Proctor's campus, it would be the stuff that we keep behind the hockey rink. That is where we keep our construction debris. We saw the metal scraps dump but didn't walk over because of the coldness and the snow, and we didn't talk too much about it. We then walked over to a burn pile.
Metal Scraps and White goods - Photo by Lauren Ho
Flame Retardants & Metal Scraps Burn Pile (covered in snow)
Photo by Lauren Ho Photo by Lauren Ho
"The biggest challenge for any town dump or transfer station is that most towns are growing, and most people create more and more trash every year. The idea is to create zero waste and have everything go back into its own cycle," like closed loop recycling (chapter 22 vocabulary), breaking the cradle-to-grave system and turning it into a cradle-to-cradle (chapter 22 vocabulary) system. "Yard waste and food waste is something this town is yet to master. 20% of the trash flow is organic." -Alan McIntyre
There was a lot of snow in the 'burn pile' and we found out that they usually wait until it melts a little bit before they pile it up, add gasoline and burn things. The last thing that we looked at (from a distance) was a trailer full of tires. It costs $5 for a tire to dispose of them, and they can either be incinerated (chapter 22 vocabulary) or they can be recycled.
Tire Trailer - photo by Lauren Ho
"Not all transfer stations are some cruel, capitalist service" -Alan McIntyre
(A Proctor service group collected 45 tires along the rail trail in the fall and the town didn't charge them $5 a tire, because that would be almost $200. They took the tires because they were grateful that the group cleaned up and reduced hazards of mosquitoes etc.)
"All these materials are going to be useful for something - whether it's life forms, composting, or for human innovation - recycling." -Alan McIntyre
Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
Reflection:
This experience/field trip was extremely eye opening for me, because I got to see that there are so many details that go into sorting 'garbage'. Things that we throw away when we are done with them aren't just one big category of 'garbage'. They aren't even just two big categories of "recyclable" and "non-recyclable". There are countless subcategories within both of those two major groups. It also gave me an opportunity to see where my waste goes after I throw it into the trash can or recycling bin and it gets taken out of my dorm. Although it makes me sound very arrogant and snobby, I had never heard of a transfer station before this. I don't believe there are any transfer stations in Hong Kong, and we never had to drive our trash anywhere to dispose of it. Growing up, all I knew about the disposal of trash was that I threw it into the big garbage can in the kitchen or under my desk, and it got taken out the back door in the stairwell. Someone would then come a few mornings a week, take all the trash from the backdoors of the entire building, throw it into a truck, and then I would never know anything about where it went after the big truck disappeared around the corner of our driveway. There was also no option for recycling in my apartment building. Everyone's trash went in one place and it got taken away, all to the same place. Being able to experience this and see ordinary Andover residents piling into the transfer station to dispose of their trash properly, to boost economics and to increase the health of the environment was really inspiring and (for lack of a better word) surprising to me. It was also very shocking to me the amount of trash that the tiny town of Andover produces. With only about 700 people bringing their garbage there every week, it is a lot of trash for a mere 7 days. It makes me really curious to know what a transfer station in a big city might look like, New York, or even Hong Kong for example. On a ending note, hearing Alan talk about the way things are managed and briefly hearing from one of the workers there, he very clearly stressed the importance of everything being sorted well and safely at the transfer station to simplify and make everything after that much smoother. I really hope to be able to learn more about transfer stations and the waste cycle.
"Visit to the Transfer Station/Recycle Center"
640 Main Street, Andover, New Hampshire
Date of Excursion: February 10th, 2018
On February 10th, the class all brought trash/recycling from our dorms to APES class first block, and headed onto the bus with Alan to make our way to the Town of Andover Transfer Station and Recycling center, located at 640 Main Street. It was a short trip of 2.1 miles and it was only about 3 minutes in the bus one way. It was a relatively warm morning when we went, leaving at around 8:20am and returning at around 9:00am to head to our next class. There was snow on the ground, but not too much. The sun was out, but not shining directly on us, and the winds were still so it was the perfect combination of hot and cold. It was a little chilly, but we all had coats to keep up warm. It was a relatively small place over all.
Screenshot from Google Maps Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
The Andover Transfer Station and Recycling Center is where residents of Andover, New Hampshire, go to dispose of their trash and recycling. It is a processing site and waste management (chapter 22 vocabulary) that it used for the temporary deposition of waste generated by the town. It is not meant for industrial solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary). In order to use the transfer station, residents of the town must obtain a permit in the form of a sticker that will be placed on their car. They come with the small fee of $5.00 per car, and proof of residency must be provided when residents apply for a permit. There were a few different waste disposal group areas that we looked at. The trash, recyclables and dispolables are laster sent onto other places to be properly recycled or disposed of, such as Boston, Rochester, Concord and New London.
We started by looking at the general trash dump and took turns throwing in the trash bags we had brought. This is where all municipal solid waste (chapter 22 vocabulary) is disposed of. We were lucky enough to be able to see the compacter in action, squishing all the bags and creating space for more trash. When we were here, Alan talked about the sign above the trash disposal that said "DUMPING RECYCLABLES HERE MEANS HIGHER TAXES FOR ALL". He went on to described how reducing our overall trash generation would reduce costs for the town, because it is measured by weight and taxes follow accordingly. On another note, the state of New Hampshire is currently working on finding a way to require transfer stations to compost food waste, because this will results in a very significant trash waste reduction.
Throwing trash - photo taken by Lauren Ho General trash disposal - photo taken by Lauren Ho
After looking at the general trash disposal area, we moved into a room in which there were a lot of items (such as toys, books etc.) including televisions - E-Waste - and we learned that they ship these away to be disposed of. It is sent to another company for about $0.48/lb to be recycled. It costs between $2-$16 for an Andover resident to dispose of e-waste here. This price covers the price of sending it off to be recycled. I believe electronics are sent to Rochester after the transfer station. The company that receives the waste from the transfer station tries to recycle the plastics, metals and as much of the product as possible. We learned that items in this room could be taken, picked up or traded by any resident of Andover. In this room, there was also a box to dispose of lightbulbs and other mercury-containing items. I learned that it is against the law to throw items containing mercury in the trash. This includes anything from fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, thermometers, thermostats, to tilt switches, manometers and button batteries. It is unknown where electronics and alkaline batteries go after they leave the facility. Mercury containing products can be harmful to the environment if they are improperly disposed of. Consumers are encouraged to bring their mercury products along with their other recyclables and either dispose of them through "collection and recycling at municipal facilities", "household hazardous waste (Chapter 22 vocabulary) collection events" (they host one day where they collect all household hazardous waste for free!!) or "municipal and commercial thermostat recycling locations. The reason why is because mercury is a highly toxic chemical that when it accumulates in human bodies, it never breaks down into a non-toxic form. It can be damaging to the liver, kidney and brain(causing neurological disorders). It can also be absorbed by plants and animals once it's released into the air. It bioaccumulates and moves up the food chain. (http://www.andover-nh.gov/assets/municipal/10/Products_Containing_Mercury_List_1476198738.pdf)
E-Waste - Photo by Lauren Ho Tradable trash - Photo by Lauren Ho
When we were done inside, we moved onto the recyclables disposal and learned that Andover recycles about 70% of their waste. Some of us who brought our recycling threw it in, and then we learned about single stream recycling. By definition single stream recycling refers to "a system in which all paper fibers, plastics, metals and other containers are mixed in a collection truck, instead of being sorted by the depositor into separate commodities." Also, we weren't allowed to throw in the recycling bags, but instead had to pour all the recyclables out into the disposal. Because this facility requires that residents have to sort their own trash, they have very clear guidelines on what should be recycled and what shouldn't. It is important that people individually sort out their own trash, because failure to do so would increase in fees and taxes for everyone. It's like a team effort. When describing how the single stream recycling works, Alan said "This site has a whole automised system that will pick out all these things and bundle them into collections and send them off into the market or whoever wants to recover this material" (-Alan McIntyre). He talked about how China was the biggest buyer of plastics, and the plastic market is now collapsing, that means that we have a lot of plastic resources in this country and "if someone is innovative enough, they could make that into manufacturing stuff and make America great again." (-Alan McIntyre).
Single stream recycling - Photo by Lauren Ho Pouring out recyclables - Photo by Lauren Ho
Recycling Disposal - Photo by Lauren Ho
After that, we moved forward and took a look at the glass disposal. The glass disposal was just a big, bright orange dumpster. It was filled with snow and just has glass bottles sticking out of it here and there. The first thing that Alan said to us here was that "at every dump, at every recycling center, at every trash can, there are errors that are made. And these recycling services expect that about 10% of stuff that doesn't belong. They don't like to go over that number. The more pure it is, the better it is for recovery" (-Alan McIntyre). Because there weren't many bottles disposed of in this dumpster, we were able to immediately identify some things that didn't belong, such as a styrofoam cup from Dunkin' Donuts. Building off of what Alan said, because more purity means it's better for recovery, other countries and areas may have stricter rules. Because we have zero-sort, we are more prone to having errors. However, the biggest issue is that people don't participate in recycling to begin with. The reason why the town went single stream was because they were trying to increase the amount of stuff recovered. It's impossible to have a perfect system, because there are always pros and cons. Other places such as Germany and Italy have very strict rules of enforcement, they have better recovery rates and purer streams for the market, and they don't have participation issues because people are required to participate. One way to get a lot of participation to do "pay as you throw", whereas this is free. There are also a lot of other factors that influence the cost, for example the cost of moving it. The glass is charged by weight, gasoline is used, so the price of gasoline influences it. The glass in this particular bin would be headed to New London, and a plant there would break it down and mix it in with asphalt. "There is more glass in the waste stream in the state of New Hampshire than anything else, so you don't get a lot of money for that. If there's an oversupply and not enough demand...that's economics. Cardboard, we usually make lots of money on cardboard." (-Alan McIntyre) What is important about this is exactly in the quote. We have too much glass and there isn't enough demand for it, so we are making a minimal about of money, whereas with things with higher demand, such as cardboard, we make more money off it and we hope for a higher supply of it.
Resident disposing of glass - Lauren Ho // Glass dumpster - photo by Lauren Ho
"If you market your budget and your workers based off the volatility of the recycling market... you're in trouble" - Alan McIntyre
We then headed over to another dumpster, which was the white goods, which is the generic term for appliances with chemicals in them. Disposal of these cost about $5-$8 per item. It is expensive because someone has to extract the chemicals which are hazardous to the environment out of them. These are sent to Concord after the transfer station. Over on the other side, there was a dumpster for flame retardant products, specifically construction debris, they're hazardous so they have to be separated. On Proctor's campus, it would be the stuff that we keep behind the hockey rink. That is where we keep our construction debris. We saw the metal scraps dump but didn't walk over because of the coldness and the snow, and we didn't talk too much about it. We then walked over to a burn pile.
Metal Scraps and White goods - Photo by Lauren Ho
Flame Retardants & Metal Scraps Burn Pile (covered in snow)
Photo by Lauren Ho Photo by Lauren Ho
"The biggest challenge for any town dump or transfer station is that most towns are growing, and most people create more and more trash every year. The idea is to create zero waste and have everything go back into its own cycle," like closed loop recycling (chapter 22 vocabulary), breaking the cradle-to-grave system and turning it into a cradle-to-cradle (chapter 22 vocabulary) system. "Yard waste and food waste is something this town is yet to master. 20% of the trash flow is organic." -Alan McIntyre
There was a lot of snow in the 'burn pile' and we found out that they usually wait until it melts a little bit before they pile it up, add gasoline and burn things. The last thing that we looked at (from a distance) was a trailer full of tires. It costs $5 for a tire to dispose of them, and they can either be incinerated (chapter 22 vocabulary) or they can be recycled.
Tire Trailer - photo by Lauren Ho
"Not all transfer stations are some cruel, capitalist service" -Alan McIntyre
(A Proctor service group collected 45 tires along the rail trail in the fall and the town didn't charge them $5 a tire, because that would be almost $200. They took the tires because they were grateful that the group cleaned up and reduced hazards of mosquitoes etc.)
"All these materials are going to be useful for something - whether it's life forms, composting, or for human innovation - recycling." -Alan McIntyre
Photo taken from @proctoracademy Instagram
Reflection:
This experience/field trip was extremely eye opening for me, because I got to see that there are so many details that go into sorting 'garbage'. Things that we throw away when we are done with them aren't just one big category of 'garbage'. They aren't even just two big categories of "recyclable" and "non-recyclable". There are countless subcategories within both of those two major groups. It also gave me an opportunity to see where my waste goes after I throw it into the trash can or recycling bin and it gets taken out of my dorm. Although it makes me sound very arrogant and snobby, I had never heard of a transfer station before this. I don't believe there are any transfer stations in Hong Kong, and we never had to drive our trash anywhere to dispose of it. Growing up, all I knew about the disposal of trash was that I threw it into the big garbage can in the kitchen or under my desk, and it got taken out the back door in the stairwell. Someone would then come a few mornings a week, take all the trash from the backdoors of the entire building, throw it into a truck, and then I would never know anything about where it went after the big truck disappeared around the corner of our driveway. There was also no option for recycling in my apartment building. Everyone's trash went in one place and it got taken away, all to the same place. Being able to experience this and see ordinary Andover residents piling into the transfer station to dispose of their trash properly, to boost economics and to increase the health of the environment was really inspiring and (for lack of a better word) surprising to me. It was also very shocking to me the amount of trash that the tiny town of Andover produces. With only about 700 people bringing their garbage there every week, it is a lot of trash for a mere 7 days. It makes me really curious to know what a transfer station in a big city might look like, New York, or even Hong Kong for example. On a ending note, hearing Alan talk about the way things are managed and briefly hearing from one of the workers there, he very clearly stressed the importance of everything being sorted well and safely at the transfer station to simplify and make everything after that much smoother. I really hope to be able to learn more about transfer stations and the waste cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)