The first technology, currently being used in Singapore, involved incineration of trash with a byproduct of hazardous ash. The ash is taken offshore and placed inside a four mile impervious barrier to create an island. Top-coated with clean soil, the island can support trees and vegetation. The impervious barrier combined with an on-going monitoring system prevents leakage.
The second technology, currently in limited use, involves using gas plasma to totally eliminate the trash while producing a residual gas. While expensive, it allows for the recovery of certain elements such as precious metals.
Third was a technology being tested in Australia using a process invented centuries ago in South America. Organic trash such as wood chips and food waste are incinerated to form biochar (similar to charcoal). The char is mixed into non-productive soil and the process eventually results in a dark soil that is very productive for farming.
The final technology was a process for extracting heat from raw sewerage and using that heat to generate electricity. Great idea, currently used somewhere in Scandinavia, but limited to only one area of the waste stream.
The contest was limited to one winner. The judge's assignment: "if we could only choose one of these technologies to deal with our rapidly increasing waste disposal problems, which would be best?"
The winner - Biochar for several reasons recited by the judge. However, as any good scientist should do, the judge also listed the advantages and disadvantages of each technology.
The show accomplished its mission. But it left something unsaid that every problem solver must consider: Each of the technologies had a use for certain applications. Indeed, for some applications, biochar was not the best answer. But the contest needed a winner as we often do when considering alternatives in our problem solving efforts. We evaluate our alternatives using the best data and logic available, and then choose the best alternative. The creators of the best alternative are congratulated and we get on to implementing the solution. In effect, our contest ends. We turn to other problems and issues. And often times leave behind some very good ideas in our less-than-best solutions for this particular problem.
If the Science Channel judge had the option, it seems to me that the best answer was to use all four technologies. Use heat from sewerage for electricity in areas where that is cost effective. Use plasma technology to extract precious resources such as platinum from that segment of the waste steam. Use biochar incineration for the organic waste stream. See if there are other technologies to handle other remaining segments of the trash stream. Then anything that remains can be conventionally incinerated into an ash that takes up far less space in landfills (or seafills if we want to add to the shoreline or build an island).
The Science Channel program chose the best alternative as we should do for our business problems. But as problem solvers we would be best advised to take an additional step. Once we've chosen our winner, we need to examine each of the other alternatives and ask ourselves, "Is there any way we can make use of this idea now or in the future?"
Tough to do when the problem is solved and we have to get back to work. And I think its safe to say that it won't get done unless we include that step in our action plan, budget the time to do it, and most importantly, commit to doing it so no good idea gets left behind.
By the way, the show was so good it prompted me to write this, my first attempt at a post, back in December. It's been in my draft folder ever since with the intention of telling you about the show so you could see it too. Unfortunately the series ended in early January and I couldn't find any re-runs scheduled when I checked a few days ago. But The Science Channel still has information and some short videos available on their website.
Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment