b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 463736 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | Popular

Valid point or NIMBYism?
www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Incinerator-fight-goes/article-1105941-detail/article.html
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:06, 9 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
Personally
I think incinerators are a much better idea than the alternative, which is landfill sites.

Don't believe the crap about being able to increase recycling. Some stuff, you just can't recycle. It is just rubbish, and it's better to burn it, recover some energy and release carbon dioxide than stick it in a hole, let it leach highly acidic water that has to be pumped out and treated, and give off methane, a far more potent greehouse gas and a risk to nearby buildings as it can migrate and explode.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:10, Reply)
^fucking this
A lot of the stuff you can recycle doesn't really do much good anyway. Aluminium is the only thing you'll get massive energy savings from. That's not to say recycling stuff is bad but the energy argument for it is often flawed.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:11, Reply)
NIMBY
There is nothing in the article to suggest otherwise.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:11, Reply)
On the other hand
I personally would not want an incinerator near my house, as in, if I could see the chimney from my window, I wouldn't be happy.

But if they are sited away from housing and in, preferably industrial areas, then I think they are a good thing.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:13, Reply)
Agreed
I can empathise entirely with people not wanting the thing built too near a residential area but the article gave no other reasons for them opposing it so it's NIMBYism even if it is understandable.

I'd rather have it build near some houses than spoiling some countryside or not built at all.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:17, Reply)
Which it is really
The proposed site is at Saltend, which is nothing more than a vast sprawling acetic acid plant dominated by two vast cooling towers. One more chimney won't make any impact.

Just off the M62 a few miles down from Goole is a vast landfill which is now more of a large hill of trash rather than just filling a hole in the ground.

I wonder if the people complaining ever attend a bonfire on Nov. 5th. I once read an article that one bonfire produces more toxins and carcinogens over the few hours it's burning than all the incinerators in country produce in a year.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:20, Reply)
There was a similar exhibition of NIMBYism last year sometime
when www.croda.co.uk/home.aspx?s=53&referer= decided to erect a wind turbine and reduce their electric bill.

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/environment/Croda-wind-turbine-divides-opinion/article-354694-detail/article.html

For me, the second sentence gives the impresion that the article was written by a 13 year old,
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:30, Reply)
I like that
"just" 335m from the turbine. How can 335m be "just" it's a very long way, top class sprinters would take upwards of 40s to run that distance. Most people would take a couple of minutes to run it.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:32, Reply)
The unnecessary accuracy
of the length of the blades halfway down the article made me chortle too.
(, Thu 25 Jun 2009, 12:42, Reply)

« Go Back | Reply To This »

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1