The debris needed to be burnt outside Tsunami affected area is greatly reduced from 3,440,000 tonnes to 1 million tonnes.
Kawasaki mayor announced he won't accept debris. Kawasaki is near Tokyo, 300 kilometres from Fukushima .
Amagasaki mayor announced he postpones experimental burning because of the change of situation over broad transaction of debris.
Amagasaki is near Osaka, 800 kilometres from Fukushima.
Kitakyushu/Kokura mayor will announce whether to accept disaster debris on 13th of June. Kitakyushu is 1,300 kilometres away from Fukushima.
Kitakyushu can transact 40,000 tonnes a year.
Now in affected area 7 makeshift incinerators are operating fully, transacting 1,000 tonnes a day.
By this December total 31 incinerators will transact 5,000 tonnes a day.
For transporting 80 tonnes from Fukushima, Kitakyushu spent Y14 million, which is 179 214 U.S. dollars
If I were him, I won't accept it.
How polluting are the makeshift incinerators compared to the ones in the areas without quake/tsunami damage?
ReplyDeleteDepending how efficient the scrubbing is, the makeshift incinerators may put more pollution onto the west of Japan than the local garbage burners would.
At 1000 tons/day, 3.4 million tons requires about 10 years to process. At 5000 tons/day, about 2 years.
Makeshift burners include 2 kiln burners and 3 stoker burners.
ReplyDeletekiln burners; http://blog-imgs-56-origin.fc2.com/k/u/r/kurakurasakura/20120517113244d87.jpg
One of them opened in May.
3 stoker burners under construction;
http://blog-imgs-56-origin.fc2.com/k/u/r/kurakurasakura/20120517112729c01.jpg
One incinerator cost 4 billion yen, which is equivalent to 51 million U.S. dollars. This incinerator is especially designed for burning disaster debris. On the other hand our local ones are for general garbage. Besides makeshift burners are built in no man's land. Our local ones are located in a city.
Kitakyushu/Kokura will get 4 billion yen from government in aid of this transaction.
Those links are 404 for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure they'd answer my question about scrubbers anyway.
There must be national boundaries between links. I found these pictures in individual's blog. I posted them in a new blog.
ReplyDeleteBoth makeshift burners and our local ones have very good scrubbers, but they say it prevents 66 percent of radioactive caesium. Not perfect.
Given that the debris covered a very small fraction of the total area and collected about the same fraction of the fallout, and that the remaining 1/3 of contamination can be sent out to sea by burning when the wind is favorable, this could be a lot better than you seem to think.
ReplyDelete