What is the CO2 footprint of your waste management operation? Ir is an important question, for all our sakes, and must be considered by waste producers, operators, planners and regulators alike. Thus far, however, it has largely passed us by.
Over several years, we have questioned here on the Clinical Waste Discussion Forum the CO2 footprint of various waste operations, often challenging exaggerated claims that are largely unsubstantiated even by the flimsy evidence presented.
Support for various more environmentally friendly waste treatment options had, at one time, been supported by the regulators who used this as a wishy washy excuse to favour a particular process or operator. That simply will not do.
As yet, independent researchers have not yet addressed the question of CO2 impact of various waste processes and procedures. Once complete, the results must be published in a reputable peer-review scientific publication for wider consideration.
The Medivac Metamizer is a relatively new, compact steam sterilisation system that is more suited to on-site operation in medium to large hospitals. Commendably, the manufacturer has commissioned studies comparing the CO2 emissions of Metamizer operation compared with other technologies. The results, a brief synopsis of which can be read here, make interesting reading.
“From a carbon footprint perspective, the MetaMizer’s MM240 performance is on par with or better than that of commonly employed clinical waste management methods such as incineration and autoclave sterilisation In fact, on a best case scenario an on site MetaMizer is almost twice as good as local incineration and nearly 3 times as good as interstate incineration.”
Verey interesting. What about manufacture and servicing impact including the manufacture, delivery and disposal of input and outpuit streams. That might include a whopping great lump of metal shipped a substantial distance to the site of installation, fuel, effluent clear-up processing including power to maintain gas cleaning, and the onward impact of dust and other pollutants from fly ash capture. By contrast, steam generation per unit of waste processed may compare favourably, but there exists a much reduced solid residue that must be sent to landfill or incinerated. Some resource recovery options exist but are not in routine use. Additionally, the processes are heavy on water use and loose much heat, adding to their environmental impact.
Greenhouse gases from transport of waste to a regional incinerator was ignored by regulators and some planning authorities but must be reviewed in comparison to local treatments that require fewer and shorter journeys. The proximity principle is not to be overlooked.
Medicav have chosen not to release a copy of the full report of their studies and we look forward to reading the final report. Proper scientific publication would inform much needed professional debate. We look forward to the full report, and hope that others will provide funding and support for more extensive comparative studies of this type.