文章 Articles

北京垃圾的出路

在中国首都北京,市民和专家正在审议商讨各种垃圾处理的方式。霍伟亚就讨论中的方案进行了调查。

Article image

奥运之后,北京“垃圾围城”的威胁盖过了交通和空气质量的争议,成为公众和媒体最为关注的环境问题。

8月上旬,搜狐绿色频道、中外对话等机构组织30多名媒体人员和北京市民参观了北京的阿苏卫、高安屯两处垃圾填埋场(以下简称“阿苏卫”、“高安屯”),实地考察城市垃圾处理现状。

阿苏卫建成于1994年,北京最早的垃圾填埋场,现在每日填埋生活垃圾3800吨,超出设计量1800吨,垃圾焚烧项目将在年底开工建设。因早期建设的垃圾填埋场防渗性都很差,填埋场渗滤液污染地下水,有媒体报道阿苏卫周边居民的患病率增加或与此有关。

高 安屯上世纪80年代曾是附近居民的垃圾倾倒点,1995年改造成垃圾填埋场,去年北京奥运会之前建成的垃圾焚烧厂目前仍处于调试阶段。去年8月30日,难以忍受高安屯垃圾场恶臭的数百居民曾手持标语戴着口罩,上街表达抗议,引起媒体和社会各界的广泛关注。政府随后快速整治了高安屯的恶臭问题,一是通过覆盖塑料膜和喷洒除臭剂来除臭;二是把其承担的一部分垃圾处理任务转移到北神树和阿苏卫两家垃圾场,减轻处理负担。

但铺设易受损的塑料膜和转移处理不是根本的解决之道。北神树和阿苏卫两家垃圾场虽然距离居民区较远,但也存在臭味问题,尤其阿苏卫本身已处于严重超负荷运作。去年高安吞居民集体抗议的发起人之一赵蕾女士,对政府的整治措施和结果并不满意,仍在为此各处奔走。

就在今年7月,北京海淀区政府表示,由于超负荷运作,接纳该区全部生活垃圾的六里屯垃圾卫生填埋场经要提前4年关闭。政府规划在此处建一座垃圾焚烧厂,备受臭味煎熬的附近居民曾在2007年的世界环境日围住国家环保总局(现已升级为环保部)办公楼。因为焚烧厂排出的二恶英致癌,他们反对在此处建垃圾焚烧项 目,至今项目仍处于博弈状态。

根据北京市市政市容管理委员会的资料,北京垃圾以每年8%的速度增加,2008年日产垃圾1.84万吨,预计2012年全市垃圾生产量将达日均2.5万吨,2015年达日均3万吨,届时,北京现有垃圾填埋场将全部填满。

面对垃圾量加速整长,北京市政府早在1996年就已经提出垃圾分类的倡议,民间组织“北京地球村环境教育中心”也在这一年开始在北京市的社区中试验垃圾分类,但十多年过去,生活垃圾依然混合填埋。

北京市公共场合中布置有“可回收”和“不可回收”两种垃圾桶。但城市居民都知道,即使他们愿意在源头做垃圾分类,末端处理时分好的垃圾还是被混合在一起填埋,缺乏分类运输、分别处理的机制和设施条件,这正是多年分类无果的原因。

北京市政市容管理委员会设施处副处长卫潘明日前表示,“我们设施建设的很快,但是垃圾增长量更快,压力比较大。所以要通过源头分类,资源再利用,减少垃圾产 生量,每年降低一到两个百分点,到2015年实现垃圾总产生量的零增长。”这是政府新一轮的垃圾分类表态,但实践上还未见有多少改进。

一些民间环保组织欲模仿日本的做法,把详细分类作为最终目标,暂时先从简单分类做起。但做垃圾生意的合加资源股份有限公司总经理张景志认为不应该过度分类。 “有机质如剩菜、剩饭分出来非常好,但其他的东西垃圾处理厂的机械设施完全可以进一步分出来,为什么要在源头上耗那么大成本?” 他认为“可回收”与“不可回收”的定义也有问题,一般人理解一个烂苹果是不能回收的,但“在我眼里这个烂苹果一定是可回收的,它可以做成很好的有机肥料。 ”

貌似简单的分类,倡导了十多年,仍没有一个清晰、可操作的机制。

目前中国600多座城市每年产生近1.5亿吨城市垃圾,大部分都在面临垃圾处理的麻烦。包括北京在内的很多城市都想发展垃圾焚烧项目,以此快速实现城市垃圾的减量化。

而垃圾焚烧却是目前北京乃至全国争议最大的垃圾处理方式。卫潘明认为北京建立垃圾焚烧厂按照欧盟标准,技术上没问题,而且“所有重金属污染,都是累计性的, 不可能吃一点点就中毒了。”但包括民间环保组织、焚烧厂周边居民以及部分专家在内的反对派对此疑虑重重,垃圾焚烧在国际上是不是一个即将淘汰的技术?目前中国城市生活垃圾的成分复杂,适不适合焚烧?能否做到科学选址和严格的运营管理?这些争论目前仍未结束。

但根据北京市政府4月出台的《关于全面推进生活垃圾处理工作的意见》(以 下简称“意见”),接下来北京生活垃圾工作的目标是“增能力、调结构、促减量”。所谓“调结构”,卫潘明解释,就是“2012年垃圾焚烧、生化处理和填埋 比例为2:3:5,实现城区原生垃圾零填埋;2015年比例为4:3:3”,这意味着未来北京的垃圾处理将可能是三种方式并存的局面。

并不是“所有的垃圾都去焚烧”,卫潘明说,“不同的垃圾用不同的处理方法”,只要“污染控制方便了,成本上经济了,最后达到一个好的效果。”但好的效果”如何评判,政府、企业、公众的利益并不一致,专家的观点已经失信于民,焚烧争论考验的是各方的智慧。

不管怎样,垃圾焚烧在中国正处于上升阶段。“存在是合理的,国家确实是要提高焚烧比例。我们即将在今后一两年内建成几个大型焚烧发电厂。” 张景志说,“垃圾焚烧作为BOT,利润模式是两块,第一是政府垃圾处理补贴,第二是上网电价补贴。”

电价补贴来自电网公司,对于受垃圾数量困扰、急于寻找垃圾出路的地方政府来说,焚烧通过特许经营既能解决垃圾问题又没有财政压力,是一个相当划算的选择。

“特许经营制度可以为公共部门和私人部门合作进行垃圾处理搭建平台,垃圾收集、运输、处理等环节都可以实行特许经营。” 特许经营专家徐宗威认为,只是“垃圾设施的投资规模大,回收期长,民营企业进入时,需要对可能存在的困难和风险有足够的分析和判断。”

但全国工商联环境商会副会长傅涛强调,“垃圾处理作为政府职能之一,仍属于公益性事业。政府可以请别人帮它做,但并不能因此免责。”


霍伟亚是中外对话在北京的运营主管。 曾任《绿色大学生论坛》环境文化通讯主编。

首页图片来自 搜狐绿色
 

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

资源是用来存储而不是浪费的!

让我们从环保教育的角度来考虑污染问题。从我的教学经验中我发现,孩子们对于全球变暖有所意识,但是并不清楚工业污染和碳排放在温室效应中的影响。并不是每个人都需要知道环境问题的方方面面,但从小学开始的基础环境普及教育对于保护环境来说非常重要,让学生们意识到资源的有限性和控制消耗是环保的第一步。对于一次性筷子和聚苯乙烯泡沫塑料袋的限制政策就有效地减少了市区的垃圾量。此外自从限塑令实施之后,许多消费者都自带购物袋去购物。类似地,在外卖餐盒和一次性筷子上的收费也给人们上了一堂环保课从而有效地减少了垃圾。随身带着自己的筷子多么简单!关键是让人们随时随地有讨论环保问题的意识,不论是在教室或者餐厅。

Stash it don't trash it!

Let’s think more deeply about issues of pollution through the lens of environmental education. While teaching I learned that most of my students were aware of environmental problems such as global warming but did not understand industrial pollution and carbon emissions role in the “greenhouse effect”. Everyone doesn't need to understand these aspects environmentalism, but basic environmental education, beginning in primary school is crucial to protect the planet.

Teaching young students about how natural resources are finite and emphasizing recycling and conscious consumption is a great first step towards 环保. Public policy initiatives to lessen or ban use of disposable chopsticks and Styrofoam containers would drastically reduce the amount of trash that collects in urban areas. Look at the success of the “plastic bag tax”, myriad consumers now bring their own shopping bags after a fee was placed on bags. A similar tax on "take out food" containers and chopsticks would teach environmental ethics and reduce rubbish. Its simple to carry your own chopsticks! The key point is to make environmental issues discussed whether in the classroom or at the noodle shop.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

大家好,
先從資源回收這個最有效減少垃圾的概念說起(垃圾場的問題是眾所皆知的,而且其所需的空間也愈來愈少,有限的原料或許可以經由回收的程序提供),我不認為〞人工〞的垃圾分類能解决问题。首先是高風險的污染(比方出于無知或蔑視規則),這表示多數的例子裡,回收需要額外的再分類與處理。更重要的是,人工分類通常需要很高的人力成本(疾病的風險,傷害…)。隨著中國採取永續發展的挑戰,或許政府應考慮採行最新且最有效的科技而不是追隨发达國家的行卻仍不足的科技。而關於廢物收集,舉例來說目前有機械系統處理並能分門別類任何廢物,包含已分類或未分類。(再如一個從腐敗物質中抽取出一個2mm的玻璃顆粒或者在60%潮溼的情況下 (待續…)DaDa SDS

authomated machine based waste sorting and treatment Part1

Hi, starting from the idea that resource recovery is the most appropriate approach to reduce waste (landfill problems are well known and the space needed is become scarcer, there is a finite supply of raw materials that could be available trough the recycle process, ...),
I don't think “man-based” waste separation could be the the right answer, first of all for the high risk of contamination (for example due to ignorance or rules contempt). This means that in the majority of the cases, the cycle needs additional re-sorting and treatments.
What's more, man-based separation often happens with a high human cost (risk of disease, injury, ...).
As China has undertaken the challenging way of Sustainable Development, maybe Government should take into consideration the adoption of newest and most effective technologies instead than follow technologies that developed countries are dismissing.
For waste collection there are for example efficient machine-based systems treating ANY waste, both sorted and unsorted, able to separate different materials (even for an example a 2 mm particle of glass from putrescent material or in condition of 60% of humidity!) ( ...continue...) DaDa SDS

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

北京垃圾的分类和处理 第二部分

(接第一部分)因此垃圾经过循环,最终分为不同种类(惰性清洁垃圾,用于循环使用),一少部分惰性物质用于生产能源和其他用途,例如将这些物质应用于建筑当中。这种技术已经被开发出来并已经在欧洲开始应用于实践,我们正在致力于在中国推广使用这种技术及其他先进的循环技术。这并不那么容易,但我们充满信心:-) by DaDa SDS

sorting and treatment Part2

(follows from part1)
So the result at the end of the cycle are the sorted materials (inerted and cleaned, ready for recycle processes) and a small amount of inert material that could be used as energy source or for other pourpose, for example for construction).

This technology already exists, it's already implemented in Europe and we're trying to promote it in China, together with other advanced recycle technologies. It's not easy but we're confident :-)
by DaDa SDS

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

一个资源有限的世界中的选择

任何一个政府所拥有的资源都是有限的,然而许多的需求在相互竞争着。
在一个像中国这样的发展中国家里,医疗卫生、社会保障(退休)应该在有限的政府资源中占据优先位置。除非“环境”考量能转换为财富,最好是能产生收益,虽然这不大可能——因为实在是有着太多的地方需要政府的资金投入。
by zhuubaajie

Choices in a Limited Resource World

Any government has only a finite amount of resources. There are MANY competing needs. In a still developing country like China, you'd think that health care and social security (retirement) would be much higher in priority in terms of claims to the limited government resources. Until and unless the "environmental" considerations can be turned into yuan and fen, and hopefully be profit generating, not much is going to happen - as there really are more demands for the use of government funds than there are funds.

by Zhuubaajie

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

是时候了

即便属于发展中国家,中国也是全球第二大经济体,理所应当地具备足够资源来贯彻实施可持续发展。更重要的是,无论哪个国家,不珍惜本国资源都是无法创利的。中国是时候需要考虑环境问题了,不然就晚了。

(hunt.lee译)

Now is the time

Even though China is a developing country, it has the second largest economy IN THE WORLD! Surely there are enough resources to implement sustainable development. More importantly, any country cannot create profits if it wastes all of its natural resources. China needs to think about environmental problems now, before it is too late.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

匿藏而非丢弃

我同意Zhubaajie的意见,中国在很多问题亟待解决,但环境和公众健康的直接联系却不容迟疑。如果空气质量得不到盖上,环境中的高金属比例以当前的速度持续增长,纳闷中国公众健康将面临非常严峻的考验。

相比减少垃圾,工业污染要更难解决,更具政治敏感性。SDS针对人工垃圾分类的评论是公众环境意识教育的一个组成部分。目前只有乞丐和拾荒者才去检索垃圾,靠挑出的残羹冷炙为食,贩卖回收瓶谋生。

公众需要对可回收塑料、金属和纸张有更充分的认识。减少垃圾需要改变自己的生活方式。即便中国有某些环保主义者已经开始从自己做起,降低自身对环境的影响,然而我们需要更多大众参与,共同努力保护环境。

在北京,人们需要在危机临界点到来之前解决垃圾问题。3li4s

3li4s comment #2 I wrote stash it not trash it

I agree with Zhubaajie that there are other pressing needs in China but there is a direct correlation between environmental health and public health. China is a facing a severe public health If the air quality and presence of heavy metals and carcinogens in the environment continues to increase at current rate.

Issues of industrial pollution are far more difficult and politically sensitive to address than that of garbage reduction. SDS’ comments on manual trash sorts are an integral aspect of public education on environmental issues. As of now, only the beggars and “bottle collectors” examine the trash as they thrive on food scraps and selling bottles for their subsistence. The public needs to understand the statistics on the accumulation of “reusable” plastics, metals and paper. Reduction of waste requires changes to lifestyle. Granted there are some prevalent environmentalists living in China who are already making conscious decisions to reduce their impact on the planet, but the greater public needs to work together to address environmental protection.

In Beijing, people need to work to address problems of garbage well before the brinking point. by 3li4s

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国处理垃圾的办法就是:首先分离,回收,再把剩下的转化成乙醇

花了四年建造一个垃圾处理厂并使之运行是无稽之谈。同样的事情可以用更短的时间完成,前提条件是有这样的决心做这件事。同时,它可以不造成环境破坏,如果资金足够的话。
目前中国全国以及如北京上海这样的大城市对于建造垃圾焚烧厂很热衷,该领域内的工程专家和顾问也故意赞同这样的做法。这样的处理厂可能对于一些国家适用,比如德国丹麦,日本台湾,但是这些国家的垃圾处理厂近些年也面临问题。这是由于处理厂会排放二恶英,呋喃和颗粒,它们具有危害,违反了斯德哥尔摩公约。而中国也是该公约的签署国之一。
正如报道所说,焚烧厂排放的二恶英及呋喃对于上百万的人来说就像核辐射一样。当你发现后果的时候,已经太晚了。就像核污染的危害时间会比人想象的长很多一样。这主要是因为有毒物质会在孕妇腹中的胎儿里改变人类基因,通过乘数效应,把风险从1000亿分之一提升到1万分之一,这一过程仅仅需要这个孩子长到六岁的那么长时间。而到了他的儿孙那一代,风险有多大就可想而知了。这样看来北京的官员遵从民意的做法是完全正确的。
但我重申,政府说不可能在四年内建成替代的垃圾处理系统是不实的。现在的技术很发达,可以在材料分类系统(MRF)中把可回收物分离出来(它可以分离玻璃,塑料,石头和灰尘),把残余物和城市固体垃圾中的生物可降解部分留下(在欧盟有时称之为bmw,但更确切的名称是木质纤维素或生物质),这些可用来转换成乙醇,作为化石燃料的替代物,用于交通。
这不是新技术了。早在19世纪20年代就研究出来,20世纪在两次世界大战间被使用。随后用在了简单笨拙的坦克里。每吨干生物质可以产出超过230升的乙醇。现在产量更加提升了,运用Genesyst公司发明的重力压力容器。它使处理过程变得连续,缩短了从糖发酵变成乙醇的时间,原来是6小时,现在只需几分钟。同时把产量潜力提升了超过75%,最终达到理论上的85%至90%。这样的改进意味着当前这项技术可以用来处理任何来源的生物质,包括从城市固废转化来的。
更棒的是,这些技术使用的是很简易的机器,可以从自来水工业获得。而且建造和维护都很便宜。这就使在两年内建造它,在随后的六到十个月内运行它变得更为可行。在约克郡和南米尔福德,这项技术已经被采用,经受了检验。(30万吨干生物质转化成940万升乙醇。地中海地区:28万吨生物质变成960万升乙醇;荷兰:20万吨生物质变550万升乙醇;越南:20万吨生物质变乙醇,用来发电,以及世界其他地方都在用这项技术,像美国肯塔基州,和即将投入使用的世界各地的工厂)
由英国Genesyst公司设计的这个项目已经为银行和金融家所研究,研究表明,与焚烧/气化/离子化设施相比,这项设计和建造的费用是很有竞争力的,大约只是建造焚烧厂的费用的30%。更好的是,这种方法不会产生有毒排放物,而且把垃圾总量减少到零废物填埋。
英国有这样的技术,对于中国和北京可能是最合适的垃圾处理技术。它可以提供高达60%的中国所需的燃料,用乙醇代替汽油和柴油。

(此评论由懂鹤冰翻译)

Treatment of Waste in Chin...Firstly Separate and Recycle then Convert the Rest to Ethanol

Sirs/Madams:

The notion that it takes 4 years to build a Waste Treatment Facility and have it working is a nonsense. It can be done in much less time provided there is a will and it is directed to the right environmentally acceptable process and provided it can be afforded.

So far the Peoples Republic of China [PRC] and the Metropolitan Areas of Beijing and Shanghai have been at the mercy of the builders of incineration plants and the Consulting Engineers and Advisors for these have purposefully followed suit promoting these. But although these style of plants may have been suited to say Denmark or Germany etc. and to a similar extent in Japan and Taiwan and the like the uses there in these Countries has been much in question in recent time because of the issues reported here in the questionable effects of Dioxin Furan and Particulates emissions and the non compliance with the Stockholm Convention to which the PRC is a signatory.

As the Municipality has reported playing around with the lives of millions of people through the release of Dioxins and Furans from incineration plants [and their analogous facilities like energy from waste or gasification or plasma arc-gasification plants] is like playing with radioactivity: you only find out the consequences when it is too late and the damage has been done. And just like radiation the effects of the pollutants are much more long lived than you could normally expect. This mainly because the poisons can attach themselves to the very DNA of humans and in the foetus inside a pregnant woman and in the very young the multiplication of effects are so enormous that a risk of 1 in 100 billion will become lessened to 1 in 10,000. by the time a child reached 6 years of age! and at this intensity this is by far a risk too far to bequeath to our children and grand-children. So it is wholly right that the City Officials in Beijing should accede to the wishes of the Public.

But I repeat to say that it is not possible to build replacement systems within the time frame of 4 years is a mi-statement. We now have the technology developed to fully separate the recyclables in an Materials Recovery Facility [MRF] (to free glass metals and plastics as well as stones and ash) to leave the residual materials and biodegradable fraction of the municipal solid waste [sometimes referred to in the EU as bmw but more correctly known as Biomass or Lignocellulose] which can then be converted to make the transportation fuel Ethanol and substitute for petrol/gasoline. This is not a new process as it was developed in the 1820s and used in the 20th century during the two World Wars and afterwards in relatively simple but cumbersome tanks above ground. These gave yields of Ethanol as high as 230+ litres per dry tonne of Biomass. Now however those yields have been increased by changing the operation of the process into a continuous one by using the Gravity Pressure Vessel developed by Genesyst reducing the process operating time to make the sugars for fermenting to Ethanol from 6 hours to less than a few minutes whilst at the same time increasing potential yields to over 75% and ultimately as high as the theoretical maximum of 85 to 90% This improvement means that what was investigated by the founder of the Company (James A Titmas P.Eng.) will now be available to any source of Biomass including that found in Municipal Solid Waste.

And better still, because the process uses very simple equipment obtained from the water industry it is inexpensive to build and operate and maintain. This further means that it is possible;e to build such a plant within 2 years and have it fully operational with 6 to 10 months there following. This process has been confirmed for adoption in Yorkshire at the South Milford plant (300,000 tonnes dry mass of Biomass to make over 94+ million litres of Ethanol, in the Mediterranean Area to convert 280,000 tonnes of dry Biomass to make over 96+ million litres of Ethanol, and for 500,000 tonnes of dry Biomass to make 180+ million litres of Ethanol, in Hardenberg Holland to convert 200,000 tonnes of dry Biomass to make over 55 million litres of Ethanol, in Vietnam to convert 200,000 tonnes of dry Biomass to make 55+ million litres of Ethanol as a fillip to generate electricity, and elsewhere including Kentucky USA and a series of other plants shortly to be announced in other countries around the World.)

Such design and build programmes being developed by Genesyst UK in Yorkshire and the Mediterranean Area have already been vetted by the banks and financiers to show that compared to an incineration facility the design and construction costs will be very competitive and around 30% of the equivalent costs associated with incineration/gasification/plasma systems. Better still the process will not generate any produce any gaseous emissions or toxic fumes etc. and they will reduce the total waste quantity down to a Zero Waste to Land fill.

So yet again Sirs/Madams you should be careful with what you say as there is a process currently being developed by Genesyst United Kingdom which will be most appropriate for Beijing and China and by its use could supply China with up to 60% of its fuel needs as Ethanol to substitute for petrol/gasoline.