Why do local councils still landfill wood instead of burning it in power stations or leaving it for people ?

Question

to burn on there home fires

and why haven't we used the disused pits to back-fill waste into the hundreds of miles of seams

Answer 1

Too many sue happy people.   They go wandering over a pile of old lumber full of nails and step on one- the town's in for a lawsuit.    We used to do it, but were stopped for this reason supposedly.

Answer 2

Probably insurance reasons.

Answer 3

my dad reckons all of europe's old nuclear waste is buried in the old pits, that's why they were all closed around the time of the eurotunnel opening.

Answer 4

Some cities actually burn garbage for district heating. This way you get rid of the garbage and get energy.

Seperation is important of course.

Answer 5

Marcus! you cheeky bugger - I live in northumberland - believe it or not we now have indoor plumbing! LOL

Some of Northumberland's waste is being transported to teeside to be burned for fuel - the revenue raised is allegedly to help reduce the increase in council tax

Answer 6

Perhaps the council have forgotten that some people still have open fires, or maybe there's some government directive that says they have to get rid of in a certain way. Wood other than from trees may be contaminated in some way and unsuitable for burning on fires.

There must be some enterprising person who can negotiate with the council to take it and sell or distribute.

Where I live any wood from tree trimming is shredded and used by the council for mulching, and if anyone wants to rescue any other bits for their fires they only have to ask.

The council may also think the wood will turn into coal withing the next couple of years!

Answer 7

You must live in Northumberland :0)

Firstly there isn't that many solid fuel heating properties left. Untreated arbour is designated for composting or chipping. Contaminated wood is fouled with nails etc and in most cases treated. Pallets treated with tannin give of cyanide gas when burnt for instance. Not cost effective to sort.

The disused mine working are filled with water. Add landfill and you would contaminate the water table and poison any water course associated.

Before the closure of Lynemouth colliery concrete causeways were laid in the seams going under the North Sea. This was assumed to be for nuclear waste by the miners that laid them.

Edit:

All mine workings are below the water table, so if it rains the pollutants will enter the water table. Landfill sites are clay lined pits with filtration.

Going back to the late 90's, the Green Man bakery at Earth Balance, Bomarsund, Northumberland was fueled by waste arbour mostly supplied by Wansbeck and Northumberland Councils. The calorific return from burning arbour doesn't generate enough energy from the available suitable waste. Basically they ran out of wood, using only 0.75 tonne/day.

After that the council invested in a chipper and now it's used as footpaths in local woodland.

In the event of the proposed coal powered electricty station at Cambois actually being an incinerator that wouldn't get planning permission if it was called an incinerator :0), then waste arbour will be burned along with used disposable nappies and willow coppice.

EFW is more about politics than practical applications and EEC Directives on waste fail to take into account voters views.

Thanks for the oppertunity to rant!

I proof read L.A. 21 for Northumberland and we signed contracts for North Tynesides waste, (those of the Byker incinerator fame).