Compost

[Dave2002]

.... apart from a sealed wormery (Give it another try and leave the tap closed?).
Your local authority obviously doesn't do a waste food collection.

Have you tried wormeries? The ones available at the moment are ridiculously priced - I wonder if a B&Q bucket with a tap would do as well? Probably only be a few pounds, plus the cost of the worms - but nothing like £50+.

Pity though - as they may still be a worthwhile idea. I'm also guessing that digital printers couldn't really make these things - or not reliably or effectively.

AN alternative for food waste is simply to burn it - a garden incinerator could do the job, though in days of open fires I have known people just put the waste onto the fire.

[oddoneout]

So what should be done with food scraps? OK - one could simply put them into a refuse bin - SOEP model [Someone Else's Problem] - but are there responsible ways of getting rid of unwanted food waste without just assuming that someone, somewhere else, will do it?

That kind of issue was a concern which prompted us to try the green cone, and also a wormery. The wormery was great for a while until all the worms escaped when the tap was left open.

There are ways of dealing with food waste both at at district level and at individual household level. In the absence of national policy backed up with support, the district solution is a postcode lottery. Doorstep collection is most likely to happen in large urban areas. My local council is making vague "we are looking into" noises for such a collection being set up in my home town, which is a step forward I suppose from the flat "no" that they have maintained for years. The fact that the town over the past 15 years has increased from about 13,000 to 21,000 inhabitants, and the landfill situation is once again becoming critical, has possibly had a bearing.
At individual level I have over the years considered some of the hotbins and other devices that claim to be able to handle food scraps of the kind that shouldn't go in a compost bin. I don't believe the retailers and manufacturers claims that the cones and polystyrene box types are ratproof, having too much experience over the years of what they can do and where they can get into, and also seen a couple of instances where users have happily said they have no rats but I could see evidence of rat activity. It's a lot of money to shell out to have the same problem I already have! The bokashi bin would be the most suitable solution for me in terms of quantity of waste generated and being able to avoid the rat problem as the bin can be indoors. There are subsidised offers for the set-up available through the council but the ongoing costs (replacement of the fermentation bran) seem high, not least in relation to the amount of "problem" waste - ie items that I can't put in the compost heap; the type of food and the way I cook produces very little waste of the skin and bones variety. I think I would end up putting compostable waste in just to keep the process ticking over.
There are DIY solutions to the wormery cost issue, such as this one https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-t...composter.html. I got one of the bin type wormeries many years ago and when it worked it was good, but it was too hit and miss, for reasons I couldn't ascertain. I recently tried it again, with no success on either occasion so it will now be passed on. I know the worm casts and the worm pee are magic ingredients, but if they can't be reasonably consistently produced then the bin is just another tiresome space occupying thing to be dealt with. At work we had one of the round tiered type (as it's good for showing to children) which seemed to work rather better but I'm not inclined to invest.

[ardcarp]

I'm glad that our local authority issues dedicated waste-food bins which are put out to be collected weekly. Presumably the contents are composted, but the scale must be so huge that the heat generated will break down everything and deter vermin. Plastic, glass, tins and paper are collected weekly too. Full marks for that. Unfortunately the same local authority only collects the general refuse bins once every 3 weeks. I shudder to think what parents with young kids do with the disposable nappies......

I wonder if they'd compost well.....

[oddoneout]

I'm glad that our local authority issues dedicated waste-food bins which are put out to be collected weekly. Presumably the contents are composted, but the scale must be so huge that the heat generated will break down everything and deter vermin. Plastic, glass, tins and paper are collected weekly too. Full marks for that. Unfortunately the same local authority only collects the general refuse bins once every 3 weeks. I shudder to think what parents with young kids do with the disposable nappies......

I wonder if they'd compost well.....

Food waste goes to digesters such as here https://www.threerivers.gov.uk/news/...ood-waste-goes rather than being composted as green waste is. The more material is diverted from general waste bins the longer the intervals between collections can be in theory. Yes, nappies are a problem. I have on occasion offered the space in my bin for neighbours who found themselves with a problem. While quite often it was self-inflicted (too much rubbish that could have been sorted and gone elsewhere, either in the recycling bin or taken to the facility in town which is on the way to Tesco) it wasn't nice seeing the nappy bags spilling over the top of the bins and it got smelly as the bins are so close to the houses, so it seemed better to offer a solution and keep my thoughts to myself...

[french frank]

Food waste goes to digesters such as here https://www.threerivers.gov.uk/news/...ood-waste-goes rather than being composted as green waste is. The more material is diverted from general waste bins the longer the intervals between collections can be in theory.

Bristol had its first anaerobic digestion plant in 2012 and two years ago launched its first fleet of bio-methane buses. Garden waste for compost is collected separately (green wheelies and paper sacks). Yesterday was our wheelie waste collection day and after a fortnight my bin was still completely empty.

[Dave2002]

Bristol had its first anaerobic digestion plant in 2012 and two years ago launched its first fleet of bio-methane buses. Garden waste for compost is collected separately (green wheelies and paper sacks). Yesterday was our wheelie waste collection day and after a fortnight my bin was still completely empty.

Some interesting pages have appeared here. Comments - firstly - how do ADs produce electricity? Secondly - interesting about Bristol's bio-methane buses. Do these run solely on bio-methane, or do they mix bio-methane with some other petro-chemical product. Sounds interesting though - seems to be quite a scaled up project with a significant number of buses.

[oddoneout]

Some interesting pages have appeared here. Comments - firstly - how do ADs produce electricity? Secondly - interesting about Bristol's bio-methane buses. Do these run solely on bio-methane, or do they mix bio-methane with some other petro-chemical product. Sounds interesting though - seems to be quite a scaled up project with a significant number of buses.

Burning the methane - I don't think there is a direct link from the digester to a turbine as happens with for instance waste heat power generation. ADs are not looked on with favour in deep green circles because of the generation and subsequent burning of a greenhouse gas.

[french frank]

ADs are not looked on with favour in deep green circles because of the generation and subsequent burning of a greenhouse gas.

I'm frequently reminded of Harry Enfield with his character's catchphrase of "You don't want to do it like that. You want to do it like this."

Is it the case that in "deep green circles", A is better than B is just not good enough - A must be perfect?

'AD electricity emits 203 kg CO2-eq./MWh, compared to 357 kg CO2-eq./MWh for the UK grid mix. Compared to renewables, such as wind and solar, AD electricity has lower energy demand, toxicity potentials and metal depletion. However, it has higher global warming potential, ME, TA and PMF. At the UK level, treating 4.9 Mt of kerbside FW collected annually could provide 0.37% of the national electricity demand and save 190,000 t CO2-eq./yr compared to the grid electricity.'

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479719301422

[Dave2002]

I'm frequently reminded of Harry Enfield with his character's catchphrase of "You don't want to do it like that. You want to do it like this."

Is it the case that in "deep green circles", A is better than B is just not good enough - A must be perfect?

'AD electricity emits 203 kg CO2-eq./MWh, compared to 357 kg CO2-eq./MWh for the UK grid mix. Compared to renewables, such as wind and solar, AD electricity has lower energy demand, toxicity potentials and metal depletion. However, it has higher global warming potential, ME, TA and PMF. At the UK level, treating 4.9 Mt of kerbside FW collected annually could provide 0.37% of the national electricity demand and save 190,000 t CO2-eq./yr compared to the grid electricity.'

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01479719301422

Thanks for spotting this. In this situation, even though ADs don't "solve" all the problems, within a limited context they seem to be better than the alternatives.

Have you found out more about the Bristol bio-gas buses - where does the methane come from, and is it mixed with petro-chemical derivatives?

It might be better if less food were produced in the first place - which could probably be done without people starving.

[oddoneout]

I'm frequently reminded of Harry Enfield with his character's catchphrase of "You don't want to do it like that. You want to do it like this."

Is it the case that in "deep green circles", A is better than B is just not good enough - A must be perfect?

'AD electricity emits 203 kg CO2-eq./MWh, compared to 357 kg CO2-eq./MWh for the UK grid mix. Compared to renewables, such as wind and solar, AD electricity has lower energy demand, toxicity potentials and metal depletion. However, it has higher global warming potential, ME, TA and PMF. At the UK level, treating 4.9 Mt of kerbside FW collected annually could provide 0.37% of the national electricity demand and save 190,000 t CO2-eq./yr compared to the grid electricity.'

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01479719301422

There is a tendency for that line of thinking. In this case one argument is that the food waste shouldn't arise in the first place, and any that does would not be a problem to deal with as we should be vegan.
Over the years I have had occasion to discuss this attitude many times that if the perfect solution(as that person sees it) is not available or not being done then any alternative is as bad as the initial offence. The defence of this approach is that if bad alternatives are allowed or accepted then there is no incentive to move to better. There is some justification for that view, especially when one looks at how things are done (or not) in this country where commercial and other interests drive how solutions are implemented to the exclusion all too often of the greater or longer term good, but my approach is that it is better to try and do something even if it isn't ideal or the perfect solution ( so long as it doesn't exacerbate the original problem), especially if it is something the general public can do themselves or support/tolerate/participate in.

[oddoneout]

Thanks for spotting this. In this situation, even though ADs don't "solve" all the problems, within a limited context they seem to be better than the alternatives.

Have you found out more about the Bristol bio-gas buses - where does the methane come from, and is it mixed with petro-chemical derivatives?

It might be better if less food were produced in the first place - which could probably be done without people starving.

I don't know to what extent it is still true but some years ago a view was put forward, with supporting figures, that enough food was being produced in the world as a whole to feed the people of the world to a basic but adequate calorific level. The problem wasn't the quantity but inadequate storage and distribution, problems which disproportionately affect the poorest parts of the world. Solutions don't have to be high tech or expensive, and may in some cases be bringing back methods which had been used in the past but which had fallen out of favour. The failure of collective agriculture in the former USSR demonstrated the distribution issue; enormous quantities of foodstuffs were produced but the infrastructure to get it to where it was needed and could be used was not in place or didn't work. Serious and chronic shortages in the shops while crops were left in the fields or piled up at non-functioning collection points to rot.
I would think that the combination of climatic change and the enormous numbers of displaced people have had an effect on whether the numbers still add up but the core of the basic premise - the need to improve the balance of what and how much with where the demand is still exists and is more urgent.

[Dave2002]

Distribution and management of food production could indeed be problems. However you mention they disproportionately affect the poorer people - which doesn't influence the impact that many of us in the "developed" countries have - "requiring" to have food flown in from much remoter parts of the world just because we can, and fancy it - at any time of the year. Swordfish steaks anyone?

[ardcarp]

It may be seen as good economy to use methane from the 'digestion' of food waste for household heating, but sadly the main by-product of burning methane is CO2 which is a major greenhouse gas. So not a way to save the planet.

[Dave2002]

It may be seen as good economy to use methane from the 'digestion' of food waste for household heating, but sadly the main by-product of burning methane is CO2 which is a major greenhouse gas. So not a way to save the planet.

To check that one has to compare the leaks of methane into the atmosphere with the burning of anything to produce CO2. It is correct that creating CO2 and releasing it into the atmosphere is not a good thing, but it it also not a good thing to release methane as it has much greater significance regarding any greenhouse effects than CO2. Ideally neither gas would be produced or released into the atmosphere, but that's not the current situation. The issue here is that if there are two options, A and B, and neither is very good, then surely one has to choose the option which is least damaging. If there were better options then clearly those should be chosen instead of either A or B.

Unfortunately collectively we are going to consume food, which also implies that we produce it - with significant waste. Minimising the waste might be a "C" option (better than A or B above) - but for many reasons it may be hard to implement, and in any case there might still be a significant remaining residual problem for which we go back to the choice of least bad options. It does not automatically follow when designing systems that we can always manage problems in such a way that any residual issues are so small that they can be neglected.

[oddoneout]

It may be seen as good economy to use methane from the 'digestion' of food waste for household heating, but sadly the main by-product of burning methane is CO2 which is a major greenhouse gas. So not a way to save the planet.

It may not be a way to save the planet, but then neither is the current alternative which it is trying to address which is burying the waste to emit methane over an extended period, which may or may not be captured. As Dave points out CO2 is the lesser of two evils, in a big issue that needs tackling on many fronts.
It's going away from the bio waste aspect, but the plastic problem is so ubiquitous and so daunting as to overwhelm both the concerned individual and the current ways of dealing with it. Do we say "Plastic is bad, we shouldn't make it, burning it damages the environment, there isn't a good way to deal with it, let's do nothing", or do we carry on with imperfect, small attempts all the while trying to find a better alternative, including tackling the many causes of the problem?
What I find frustrating is that it is not easy to get the full picture of the true cost (of all kinds)of various solutions put forward. That information should be freely and easily available but as the greenwashing business is very active and much supported by those businesses in whose interests it operates it can be hard to get the facts for some kind of audit to balance the pros and cons. The pro-environment lobby can be just as bad as those they are opposing in the way facts are selectively used and then shouted loudly, sometimes aggressively, without engaging in debate. Alerting people to teh problem is essential but if the methods make them turn away not just from the immediate attack but from the whole topic then how does that improve matters?
The BTL commenters of my local rag demonstrate that effect - not helped by the entrenched political block to even minimal thought - with any mention of climate change shot down out of hand, and extreme language used about any form of awareness raising activity however civilised, non-aggressive and non-obstructive, as all such activity is seen through the prism of the aggressive negative actions of a few and then dismissed, equally aggressively and negatively. It's not just lack of progress on the challenges facing us all, it's going backwards, and in a way that is difficult for those who don't favour the football mob approach to life to tackle.