Talk:MSWI plants and plans in southern Finland

MSWI constrained by EU-directive

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--1: . The MSWI in Hämeenkyrö should comply with the Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) Eva (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ←--2: . Directive objective is "to prevent or reduce, as far as possible, air, water and soil pollution caused by the incineration or co-incineration of waste, as well as the resulting risk to human health." Limit values for incineration plant emissions to atmosphere in Annex 1. Limit values for co-incineration plant emissions to atmosphere in Annex 2. "The quantity and harmfulness of incineration residues must be reduced to a minimum and residues must, as far as possible, be recycled." → Insert arrow from 'MSWI in Hämeenkyrö' to 'Constrained by EU-directive' in model. Eva (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----3: . It is a good idea to put an arrow to the legislation, I agree. How to do it? Marjaleena 11:29, 28 September 2006 (EEST)193.167.195.60 11:25, 28 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----4: . This discussion itself is the thing that looks like an arrow to an orange argument box in the pyrkilo diagrams. Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Incineration or co-incineration?

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--5: . Definition of Co-incineration plants: Facilities whose main purpose is to produce energy or material products and which use waste as a regular or additional fuel, this waste being thermally treated for the purpose of disposal Eva (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--6: . As far as I can tell at this moment the only MSWI is in Turku, but future plans are mainly for waste incineration, not for co-incineration. So Annex 1 is valid for the most part. Marjaleena 11:29, 28 September 2006 (EEST)193.167.195.60 11:25, 28 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----7: . It seems that the purpose of the plant determines the status, not the fraction of fuel that is waste. However, based on these data this is not clear. Jouni (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Waste management options

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--8: . The EU has a framework for coordination waste management within the Community in order to limit the generation of waste (orginal Directive: 75/442/EC): "Member states must prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste. They shall promote waste prevention, recycling and processing for reuse." ..."establishing an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations (taking account of the best available technologies)." → Insert arrow from 'Waste management options' to 'Constrained by EU-directive' in model. Eva (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)