Volcano can become garbage incinerator it?

The idea is good . There toss volcano every day, it appears to be an ideal natural elimination of garbage incinerator. However, I know you want to, but that there is kind of the center of the crater lake of lava lovely. Like some of the shield volcano in Hawaii, they will spray lava slowly to the ground, burning garbage seems very appropriate.

But in fact most of the volcanoes on Earth is called stratovolcanoes, they occasionally have lava flows, but once the heat is too high inside the volcano, the lava “exploding”, but said that the explosion on the explosion. Take one of the Kilauea volcano, the 20th century it erupted 45 times, still often eruption (Figures are it erupted April 23, 2015 in, HVO / USGS). If you’re close to bring garbage thrown into lava, volcanic ash in the distance, just a splash of lava and toxic gases can make you die of.
We want to deal with waste is not insignificant. Said generation American, four pounds per person per day and a half of garbage a year is 250 million tons. If we want to deal with volcanic waste, we need to first lock on the appropriate active volcano, put the garbage there. Few people live near an active volcano, delivered to the garbage will spend a lot of time, money and fuel. You always have to worry about people throwing trash or garbage truck safety.
You have to know that when touched to a large number of normal garbage magma may explode instantly. In 2002, researchers in Ethiopia will be a 30-kilogram bag of garbage thrown into the crater, the result was shocking to see the spectacular explosion. And that package is only equivalent to the United States four garbage home half of the week garbage “yield.” Scientists also observed scene rockfall fall when the lava lake in Hawaii, lava spilled 85 meters of altitude, lava splashing into distant fence and scientific network cameras. So go down garbage, a little too risky.
Not to mention that all the gas you when burning garbage in the volcano, the generated directly into the atmosphere, resulting in a lot of air pollution. And today’s formal regulatory incinerator has systems to ensure that garbage incineration smoke treated before entering the atmosphere. System to prevent the spread of major pollutants is ozone, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide.
Human civilization can not be manufactured pieces of debris are thrown into the volcano, there is another reason. That some of the more specialized waste, such as medical waste or nuclear waste, they tend to be particularly dangerous thing. The volcanic lava in a temperature of approximately 700 to 1250 degrees Celsius, which is of course very hot, but the temperature is not enough.
So, with volcanoes act as a garbage incinerator is probably slightly wrong. But still this sentence: a good idea. Please continue to think, to act as a viable method envisaged transfer of volcanic waste incinerator.QQ图片20151223143317

Composting vs. Waste-to-Energy: The Politics Of Green Waste

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, green waste is very much on the political agenda. According to Tulsa World, the city’s trash board voted this week to pursue a plan to collect and incinerate it rather than invest in an active composting facility. Proponents of the composting plan are deeply disappointed by the vote.

City Councilor Karen Gilbert says, “That [vote] sets us further back from the original plan of having an active composting, mulching facility,” Gilbert said. “It’s frustrating that we start off with an investment, but then we don’t follow through with the priority of that investment.”

Those in favor of the incinerator approach complain that the city can’t afford the cost of the proposed composting facility and that is costs too much money to separate out the green waste from the rest of the city’s trash. Doesn’t it seem as though the situation in Tulsa is a microcosm of the entire “global warming/climate change” debate going on around the globe?

Green waste consists of two components: yard waste, such as leaves and grass clippings, and food waste. Disposing of them requires different strategies but taken together, they account for a significant proportion of all the waste going into US landfills every year.

According to GreenWaste.com, about 75% of solid waste is recyclable, but at present only about 30% actually gets recycled. 21.5 million pounds of food waste gets sent to our landfills every year. If that food waste were composted, the reduction in harmful emissions into the atmosphere – mostly methane – would be equivalent to taking 2,000,000 cars off the roads in America.

In Washington State, a local prison is vermicomposting all its food waste and saving about $8,000 a year in disposal costs. The compost then gets spread on the prison gardens to help grow food for the kitchen. At North Carolina State University, an ambitious program to collect and compost empty pizza boxes is on track to process more than 370 tons of the containers in its first year. And in Massachusetts and Seattle, new laws mandate composting of food wastes.

In Sweden, 99% of all trash is recycled, composted or burned. Sweden does not have the amount of open available land needed for large landfills. It also does not have the abundance of natural resources that the United States does. So it operates a number of large incinerators that provide electricity and heat for government buildings. Critics say that burning only adds pollutants to the atmosphere, but that nation’s political leaders maintain that modern technology removes virtually all of the harmful emissions and the electricity generated goes a long way towards meeting Sweden’s power requirements.

The best conclusion to draw from all this is that local needs will govern how trash – particularly green waste – gets handled by various communities. There is no “one size fits all” solution. One could argue that Tulsa is taking the easiest way out and looking only at short term costs versus long term benefit. But the real answer is provided by Göran Skoglund, an official with the municipal power facility in Helsingborg, a city in southwest Sweden. He says he hopes the supply of waste to keep the city’s incinerator going will disappear. “This sounds strange…[but] that would be great for this planet. It’s not sustainable producing the amounts of garbage that we do.”

And that’s the take away from this story. Ultimately, it is not about burning vs. composting vs. recycling. In the end, it is about reducing the amount of waste that people generate. That’s where the focus of the political debate about waste products should be.

HICLOVER Waste Incinerator 10-500kgs/Hr.Double Combustion Chambers


Items/Model

TS100(PLC)

TS150(PLC)

TS300(PLC)

TS500(PLC)

Burn Rate (Average)

100 kg/hour

150 kg/hour

300 kg/hour

500 kg/hour

Control Mode

PLC Auto.

PLC Auto.

PLC Auto.

PLC Auto.

Combustion Chamber

1200L

1500L

2000L

3000L

Internal Dimensions

120x100x100cm

150x100x100cm

170x120x100cm

210x120x120cm

Secondary Chamber

600L

750L

1000L

1500L

Smoke Filter Chamber

Dry Scrubber

Dry Scrubber

Dry Scrubber

Dry Scrubber

Feed Mode

Manual

Manual

Manual

Manual

Voltage

220V

220V

220V

220V

Power

1.38Kw

1.69Kw

2.57Kw

4.88Kw

Diesel Oil Consumption (kg/hour)

Ave.20.4

Ave.24.2

Ave.33

Ave.44

Natural Gas Consumption (m3n/hour)

Ave.24.5

Ave.29

Ave.39.6

Ave.52.8

Infection Monitor



Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Temperature Protection

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Oil Tank

200L

300L

500L

500L

Feed Door

80x60cm

80x60cm

 

 

Chimney

10Meter

10Meter

14Meter

14Meter

Chimney Form

Stainless Steel

Stainless Steel

Stainless Steel

Stainless Steel

1st. Chamber Temperature

800℃–1000℃

800℃–1000℃

800℃–1000℃

800℃–1000℃

2nd. Chamber Temperature

1000℃-1200℃

1000℃-1200℃

1000℃-1200℃

1000℃-1200℃

Residency Time

2.0 Sec.

2.0 Sec.

2.0 Sec.

2.0 Sec.

Gross Weight

6000kg

8500kg

11000kg

16000kg

External Dimensions

260x150x180cm

300x160x190cm

400x210x300cm

450x210x300cm

2020-07-27

Three Combustion Chambers(Optional)

3 Ranked for high risk waste

Pet Cremation Equipment

For Pet(small/big) Cremation Business

Animal Incineration Equipment

For other animal incineration

General Waste Incinerator

For MSW

Mobile Incinerator(Optional)

Small-Middle scale, cellular function by

1. ) Wheel

2.) DC-Power Trolley

3.) Containerized

Wet Scrubber for Smoke Filter(Optional)

1. ) 1 Section Wet Scrubber

2.) 3 Fragrant Wet Scrubber

1 Section Wet Scrubber

S.S304 Cooling Spray tower

3 Sections Wet Scrubber

1.) S.S304 Dust Scrubber

3.) Front/Side Manual Loading

2.) Top Feeding Door(Optional)

3.) Auto. Feeding Door(Optional)

3rd Combustion Chamber(Optional)

 

Stainless Steel Main Body(Optional)

S.S201 or S.S304

Control Model

1.) Electric control box(Semi-automatic)

2.) PLC Auto.control box(Automatic)

 

Light Weight Upgrade(Optional)

 

W2E(Waste to Energy)(Optional)

Hot Water(Non-drinking water)

Fuel Burner

Italy Baltur Brand

4.) Both D.O and N.G/LPG(not 2in1 burner, swap burner kind )

Temperature Thermocouple

1.) K Type,Stainless Steel 1300(Standard)

2.) K Form,Corundum 1300(Optional)

3.)  S Form,Platinum Rhodium 1600(Optional)

Control Case Material

1.) Steel (Conventional )

2.) Stailess Steel(Optional)

 

Chimney/Stack

1.) Stailess Steel (Standard)

2.) Steel(Optional)

3.) Length(Optional)

4.) Thickness(Optional)

400x210x300cm

450x210x300cm

HICLOVER Solution for Fighting COVID-19, Medical Waste Incinerator

Tel:  +86-25-8461 0201   
Mobile: +86-13813931455(whatsapp/wechat)
Website: http://www.hiclover.com/ 

Nanjing Clover Medical Technology Co.,Ltd.


 

2020-07-27


incinerator for medical waste

incinerator for medical waste

incinerator for medical waste.Controlled air medical waste incinerator designed for incineration of bio-medical waste generated at a blood-processing center. The waste to be treated mainly includes bio-waste (i.e. bodily fluids), infectious and hazardous waste such as syringes, needles, and other medical waste (i.e. silicon rubbers, plastic, textiles, papers, packs, etc.). a  diesel  fired  medical  waste  incinerator  with  a  capacity  of  300Kg/hr.  to  be  installed  at  a  waste  disposal  site  away  from  populated  areas.

Standards
1) Bidder or Manufacturer ISO 9001 Certified
2) Respecting international emission standards
Electrical characteristics
3) A 230V, 60Hz single-phase electrical source.
4) Protections against over-voltage and over-current line conditions.
5) Compliance with applicable Ghanaian standards and regulations.
Operational characteristics
6) Two-stage incineration with dual chamber combustion.Incinerator with Oil Burner .
Require Quantity – 1 complete Unit / Set
Type of Materials To  be Burn –  Solid Waste
Burner Capacity  – 0.2 Kw ( 200 watts )
Capacity   –  2 ton per day
Oil Tank capacity of Burner – 300 Lit
Oil pump capacity   – 0.4 Kw ( 400 watts ).medical waste Incinerators for burning hospital waste
so we are looking for a source

High Temperature Incineration Procedure HICLOVER YD30


Phone: +86-13813931455(whatsapp/wechat)
Website: http://www.hiclover.com/ 

Nanjing Clover Medical Technology Co.,Ltd.

Model YD-30 
Burning Rate  average 30 kgs/hour
Feed Capacity average 40 kgs
Paimary Combustion Chamber 200 Liters
Secondary Combustion Chamber 100 Liters
Mix Combustion Chamber Yes
Feed Mode Manual
Voltage 220V
Power 0.59Kw
Fuel Type Diesel Oil
Burner Italy Original
Oil Consumption (Diesel Oil) average 13.3 kg/hour
Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) ***
Internal Dimensions 80 x 50 x 50cm (paimary chamber)
External Dimensions 125 x 90 x 180cm (without chimney)
Temperature Monitor Yes
Oil Tank Capacity(if oil fuel) 60 Liters
Door Opening 40 x 40cm
Chimney Length 1.0 Meters
Chimney Type Stainless Steel
Equipment Gross Weight 1000 kgs



what is incineration
what is the cost of building incenerator in uganda
3d drawing of incinerator

HICLOVER Solution for Fighting COVID-19, Medical Waste Incinerator

 


China Arrests 60 For Waste Incinerator Protests

Residents were protesting waste incinerators without proper emission filters.

Residents were protesting waste incinerators without proper emission filters.

Early this week, protests erupted in China over plans to build a waste incinerator in an eastern city where officials didn’t seek public approval before proceeding. The demonstrations have been running for more than two weeks and turned violent on Saturday, with hundreds of police descending on to the streets of Yuhang, close to the eastern tourist city of Hangzhou. Previous to this week, officials repeated in state media that they would seek public support for the incinerator, but recently have made dozens of arrests in Hangzhou, with at least 10 demonstrators and 29 policemen injured.

Waste incinerators without proper emission filters can release the carcinogen dioxin, said Wu Yixiu, head of environmental group Greenpeace’s toxics campaign in East Asia. Several neighbors of the Hangzhou site cited that risk and noted that incinerators in Germany were required to filter out the toxin. Following large protests in March against a proposed paraxylene plant in the city of Maoming, officials said they would not proceed with facilities if public resistance remained high.

China’s fast growing cities produce around 160 million tons of domestic waste each year, according to domestic reports, and the country is planning around 300 such incinerators within the next three years as part of a “Great Leap Forward in garbage incineration”. For years, China witnesses tens of thousands of so-called “mass incidents” which have recently been linked to several environmental issues. In March, Li Keqiang, the prime minister, vowed to “declare war” on pollution and said his country would turn its back on “inefficient and blind development.”

Council stands by under fire incinerator

HEREFORDSHIRE Council is standing by the incinerator plan pitched as the future for the county’s waste despite double blows against the project this week – as reported by the Hereford Times.

Support for the incinerator for reiterated at a meeting of the council this morning in responses to two questions from councillors.

MPs have already turned the heat on the incinerator, criticising the near  £90 million paid to the PFI project so far  without the facility being built.

The Commons public accounts committee questioned the basis of  government grant funding for the incinerator and its future in a sector where technology is continually evolving.

A report from the council’s external auditors Grant Thornton found that cabinet members did not get the detail  of why officers – rather than consultants – saw an incinerator as the future with a relevant appraisal recommending cabinet support lacking detail and clarity.  .

Grant Thornton has said it cannot now conclude its 2013-14 audit of the council or issue the council with its audit certificate until it has “completed consideration”  of specific issues raised around the incinerator plan.
The energy from waste incinerator at Hartlebury, Worcestershire, is integral to a joint 25 year waste disposal contract with West Mercia Waste signed by Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council.

An initial capital cost for the project is reported to be more than £160 million, but opponents claim ongoing maintenance will at least double this over the 25 years  while the cost using PFI funding could triple.

In February, Herefordshire Council passed a 2014-15 budget committing the council to paying £40m for the  incinerator at Hartlebury, Worcestershire, over three years.

A budget strategy estimated council borrowing as increasing by £50.8 million over 2014/15, pushing the overall debt up to £218.2 million, including £11 million borrowed over the year for the incinerator.

At full council this morning, Cllr Glenda Powell asked for “assurance to members and taxpayers” as to the plant’s future effectiveness.

Cllr Harry Bramer, cabinet member for contracts and assets, stood by a financial and options appraisal put to Cabinet in December last year supporting EfW) as the most “cost effective and viable solution” for the county’s waste over 25 years

Cllr Liz Harvey referenced her questioning “confidence” in capital borrowing for the incinerator at the council’s budget setting meeting in February.

Then, Cllr Bramer said confidence in capital borrowing as a best value option came from analysis and appraisals  in both the joint waste management strategy and a cabinet report completed in accordance with relevant government guidance.

This morning, Cllr Harvey raised the findings of the public accounts committee , specifically the conclusion that the Department for environment, food and rural affairs made decisions on waste projects focused on the need to meet EU targets without regard to the impact on local authorities.

Cllr Bramer said the council “does not disagree” with the findings quoted but cited the findings as focused on DEFRA’s oversight of PFI contracts.

It was, said Cllr Bramer, a matter for DEFRA to respond to the committee’s findings rather than either of the two councils.

The committee found PFI contracts of  25-30 years are “inappropriate” for the waste sector where technology is continually evolving with the amount of waste in  hard to predict.

Funding agreements for early PFI waste deals were “poorly drafted”  by the then Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)  and “too lax” in requiring payments for key assets that had not been built.

As such, the committee found that the funding agreement signed with Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils highlighted the “shortcomings” of early PFI projects, with payments to the council aligned with payment made by the councils to the contractor.

Grant payments started as soon as the councils started to pay the contractor, with the government, through either the DETR or its successor the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),  legally committed to making grant payments ever since.

In December 1998, the DETR signed a funding agreement with Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire County Council for £143 million and the payment of related grants started shortly after.

The terms of the original funding agreements did not allow central government to stop payment or alter the payment terms in the event that key capital assets were not delivered.

Since its creation in 2001, DEFRA  has had responsibility for overseeing these grants and did not review the agreements until 2011.

Terms with Herefordshire and Worcestershire councils were not successfully renegotiated until 2013, resulting in a £30 million cut in total funding.

The process of renegotiation was time-consuming. In the case, of the Herefordshire and Worcestershire DEFRA confirmed to the committee that it took them six months to approve the new funding approach the councils were proposing.

With contractor apparently unwilling to fund the incinerator, the councils were left considering using the rate income generated from the populations of both counties to cover the cost of the contract.

At the end of the 2013-14 financial year, both councils had received nearly £90 million for an incinerator plant that had still to be built

 

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11498537.Council_stands_by_under_fire_incinerator/