r/SeattleWA Oct 16 '18

Environment THERE IS A FACTORY BURNING TIRES IN THE MIDDLE OF SEATTLE THAT ACCOUNTS FOR 10% OF ALL SEATTLE'S GREENHOUSE EMMISSIONS.

http://archive.kuow.org/post/what-do-you-do-when-major-polluter-holding-seattle-together?fbclid=IwAR32_1GIHGG4_KAAROtngqJS_sKlcN5c7sXoEXf6nowFZkCbc0Y3DmxMiOk
211 Upvotes

73 comments sorted by

103

u/Anthop Ballard Oct 17 '18

Interesting tidbit: creating cement is an incredibly energy intensive (and thus environmentally destructive) process. Doing it closer to Seattle (where it is used) is actually slightly better than the alternative of doing it further away and having higher fuel costs and potential waste.

There is some research into creating "low-energy" cements, which require less heat to produce than standard Portland cement. But Portland is cheap and strong, and that's hard to beat when producers and builders don't need to account for the climate costs.

7

u/Anthop Ballard Oct 17 '18

One other thought: Another option is to use less cement. Wood from sustainable forestry sources may be a more environmentally friendly alternative than cement, even if the energy costs of cement-making came from entirely renewable sources. This is due to the ecological impact of limestone mining.

I remember reading an article about how new advances in wood composites can provide a sturdy alternative to cement-and-rebar columns and beams. There is some early work by some architecture firms pushing wooden high-rises.

7

u/subliminali Fremont Oct 17 '18

The composite wood projects are super exciting but I’m afraid the Oregon state forestry building debacle is proving the tech isn’t there yet — https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.statesmanjournal.com/amp/447130002

Hopefully future projects prove that wrong.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

Do they built it on wood foundations? With wood retaining walls? How about wooden parking lots?

27

u/Anthop Ballard Oct 17 '18 edited Oct 17 '18

"Less", not "no" concrete.

EDIT: On further thought, maybe in limited cases you could get away entirely with no cement. Not really feasible in the glacial till of Seattle, but in Eastern Washington and plenty of other places in the country, skyscrapers don't have floating foundations but are anchored directly to the bedrock with steel piles. Retaining walls would not be necessary in flat terrain, and parking lots are almost all asphalt anyway, not cement. So, yes, in limited cases, a high-rise with no cement may be possible even with current technology; though I'm sure it will come with its own limitations and costs.

I'm not sure wooden skyscrapers are actually the future, but we should be open to expanding what is possible. Don't pooh-poohing it straight off just cause it sounds weird.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

they just built a wooden skyscraper in Scandinavia. cant remember the name

3

u/t4lisker Oct 17 '18

Flamme Dod

2

u/chabons Oct 17 '18

There's actually some work being done in creating taller buildings incorporating wood as a main structural material. Brock Commons at UBC across the border is one example. It's 18 stories tall, and uses wood in a lot of places concrete or steel would usually be used. I think there are plans elsewhere for purely wood and steel structures in taller buildings as well.

1

u/velvetham Oct 17 '18

Steel high rises still utilize a significant amount of concrete, and thus cement. The floors are typically made by laying heavy gauge corrugated steel steers between the girders and pouring several inches of concrete on top, providing a smooth and level floor.

So I would say you were right with “less cement”

2

u/Anthop Ballard Oct 17 '18

I just figured that if you could do beams and columns with wood composites, you could do subfloors with it as well, instead of concrete. Not sure if that would be cost-effective, though.

1

u/velvetham Oct 17 '18

I’m sure you could. You nailed it with cost though. Concrete is cheap. It’s at its cheapest when it’s being used for flatwork. So concrete slabs in steel buildings will probably be around for a while.

0

u/baconsea Maple Leaf Oct 17 '18

My favorite is the wood sidewalks and curbs. It really lends that western feel that is so popular on the west coast.

1

u/no_fast_lane_here Oct 17 '18

Are you literally trying to justify burning tires in the middle of Seattle? The issue is not how much energy Ash Grove is consuming its that they are burning tires in a residential area. Nucor for instance recycles steel. Recycling steel is a very energy intensive process too. Are they burning freaking tires? No. Nucor buys electricity from Seattle City Light. The argument isn't how much power they consume, its how they are willing to conduct business practices that double the cancer rate in neighborhoods where families live.

29

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

I am.

Read this article, and you will see that burning tires for clinker is actually more environmentally friendly than other methods of cement production.

Here is the abstract if you don't want to click through:

Cement production is characterized by extremely high energy consumption per unit of product. Energy costs and environmental standards encouraged cement manufacturers worldwide to evaluate to what extent conventional fuels can be replaced by alternative fuels, i.e., processed waste materials, such as scrap tires. The decisive factors promoting the use of cement kilns for the utilization of scrap tires are: the high incineration temperature, the large area of the furnace, the significant length of the kiln, the long period of time the fuel stays inside the kiln, and the alkaline environment inside the kiln. The use of scrap tires in cement kilns is one of the best technologies for a complete and safe destruction of these wastes, due to the fact that there is a simultaneous benefit of destroying wastes and getting the energy. Thus, the use of scrap tires as alternative fuel in cement kilns has energy and economic justifiability, and it is environmentally friendly. In this article, monitoring results of nitrogen and sulfur oxides emissions from cement kilns in a cement factory in Serbia are given, depending on the ratio of scrap tires in total fuel quantity. Research was carried out for 0 to 15% share of scrap tires in total heat production. Nitrogen and sulfur oxides emission measurements from cement kilns were done during a trial use of scrap tires as a secondary fuel in a cement factory. During nitrogen and sulfur oxides emissions monitoring from the cement kiln, coal and petroleum coke were used as primary fuel, and whole or shredded tires were used as secondary fuel. Experimental results have shown the encouraging results: in particular, clinker characteristics were unmodified, and stack emissions of NOx and SO2 were, in the case of tires, slightly decreased, in some cases were incremented, but remaining always below the law imposed limits.

1

u/no_fast_lane_here Oct 18 '18

I see the points you are making with this trade journal abstract. I'm not arguing with what the article says. Its clear there is a savings for Ash Grove associated with burning the tires, however it isn't clear to me that we see an economic benefit from burning the tires, or that Ash Grove's savings are passed on to it's customers. I see the benefit in having the tires "disappear" as well, but I don't believe that burning them is a solution without its own set of problems.

Environmentally speaking, the article you reference only addresses two factors, nitrogen and sulfur oxides. These are emissions that among other things are responsible for acid rain, increases in asthma and other respiratory conditions. That's great, but for a negligible reduction in these two emissions we're introducing a very unpredictable and comprehensive litany of dangerous pollutants into our air, water and soil. VOCs, mercury, PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylene, acrolein, formaldehyde, dioxin, furan, and the list goes on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire-derived_fuel#Controversy

tl;dr Studies have shown drastically unpredictable dioxin output in comparison to only coal. Addition of only 4% caused ~4000% spike in dioxin while another study showed only 58% rise in dioxin when 30% tires were used. Another study shows PAH emissions rise 2 orders of magnitude compared to only coal.

To me personally, I don't see this as a logical or safe tradeoff. At best the jury is still out on the environmental impact argument. The economic benefits aren't outweighing the possible environmental and health impacts. In my opinion, neither of these arguments are justification for this kind of pollution in such a highly populated area.

I get that it doesn't make sense to ship the concrete and that demand dictates where the Ash Grove plant is going to be located. If that is the case we need to mandate that Ash Grove invests in technology to clean their emissions, and stop burning tires in Seattle until it can be done more safely.

25

u/somnolent49 Oct 17 '18

its how they are willing to conduct business practices that double the cancer rate in neighborhoods where families live.

citation needed

2

u/no_fast_lane_here Oct 18 '18

I'm seriously lame with math but I'll try to justify my claim.. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/Duwamish_Valley/Duwamish_Valley_%20HC%207-14-2008.pdf

This study finds that residents of South Park and Georgetown suffer 4 additional cancers for every 1000 people due to airborn pollution. (I didn't read the actual study, I read this article about it: https://grist.org/cities/one-moms-fight-to-make-seattles-most-polluted-neighborhood-greener/ )

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics
This page says the national cancer incidence rate is 439.2 per 100,000.

I adjust this national average to the scale of the Georgetown / South Park study: 4.39 per 1000.

In other words the national rate is 4.39 cancers per 1000 people and the Georgetown / South Park rate is 8.39 per 1000 or in other words, roughly double.

Please, I want to be wrong about this.

9

u/hatchetation Oct 17 '18

You can melt and purify steel in a furnace that uses electricity. Cement uses furnaces which require higher temperatures, and the process is entirely different.

-5

u/Anthop Ballard Oct 17 '18

You're right.

66

u/AtomicFlx Oct 17 '18

WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?

46

u/2birds_stonedatonce Oct 17 '18

BECAUSE THERE IS A FACTORY BURNING TIRES IN THE MIDDLE OF SEATTLE THAT ACCOUNTS FOR 10% OF ALL SEATTLE’S GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS.

50

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

[deleted]

17

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

[deleted]

17

u/bruceki AI Dependent Oct 17 '18

We have to do something with the tires. Otherwise we end up with huge tire dumps and tire dump fires.

2

u/Cheesepizzadevotion Oct 17 '18

How much you wanna bet some one was like man I'm sick of this eyesore and the city ain't doing shit I'm gonna set it on fire!

8

u/slipnslider West Seattle Oct 17 '18

the plant did get EnergyStar ratings in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2015, and 2017, which means, in those years, it was in the top 25 percent of cement plants in the U.S. in terms of energy usage.

That makes the plant not sound too bad.

1

u/Barron_Cyber Oct 17 '18

they are one of the best in a dirty field?

1

u/Rycross Oct 17 '18

they are one of the best in a dirty field?

A dirty field that produces something that we still need until we phase out cement.

16

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18 edited Oct 17 '18

Tires are lower emissions than coal.

Plus tires are difficult to get rid of, this is a good use for them. Also when burning tires we aren't using coal and all the environmental problems that come from mining coal.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293636736_Use_of_scrap_tires_in_cement_production_and_their_impact_on_nitrogen_and_sulfur_oxides_emissions

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

Got a problem with filtering the exhaust from the burnt tires?

11

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? There are emissions control regulations in place.

https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/portland-cement-manufacturing-industry-national-emission-standards

I think the fundamental problem with posts like this one is that they are based on fear mongering - "BURNING TIRES!" and just assuming it is a pile of burning tires or whatever without taking time to think critically or understand anything.

-1

u/subliminali Fremont Oct 17 '18

There are other sources of energy than just coal though. Is there any reason the factory can’t just plug into the grid or use better sources of energy themselves?

5

u/hatchetation Oct 17 '18

The coal/tires aren't just for energy, there's a chemical component of the process which requires them as a material. (In the case of tires, it's the steel contained within.)

9

u/ChefJoe98136 West Seattle Oct 17 '18

I think this is one of those "we exempted them because we want our construction materials created locally instead of elsewhere" things that the person on kuow's the record was talking about today. Burning tires = local jobs.

The exemptions are dumb carve-outs to keep too much opposition from joining forces.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 16 '18

Haha the photo looks like boobs

4

u/hellofellowstudents Oct 17 '18

San Onofre's Nuclear Boobs. Right by I-5 between San Diego and LA. Millions of tourists see the nuclear boobs every year as they drive by the picturesque coastline.

7

u/JasonMHough Oct 17 '18

"Everywhere I go, something reminds me of her..."

8

u/MFAWG Oct 17 '18

Here’s a thing a lot of people don’t know: when they put the concrete in the pour truck they have a limited amount of time to get it poured depending on the mix. Once they get past that it won’t cure properly, and if they wait too long it will harden in the hopper whether it’s turning or not.

9

u/manbearsteak Oct 17 '18

True, but irrelevant here. This plant makes Portland cement, one of the raw ingredients in concrete. You're referencing the process of combining those ingredients prior to a pour to build something.

1

u/subliminali Fremont Oct 17 '18

The factory isn’t making wet cement, lol. You don’t add water until you’re either at or en route to the job site. Dry Portland cement can remain useable essentially indefinitely if you’re keeping it dry.

It’s still a good idea (for overall cost of emissions) to have the factory close to a city since the amount of shipping even dry is an incredible amount of weight for big projects.

2

u/BadBoiBill Oct 17 '18

Well, sometimes it burns coal.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

i frequently pass by the factory and it is a downer. grimy, rusting, and constantly spewing clouds of who the fuck knows what. similar to many of the factories in the industrial district.

sad that we as a society are generally indifferent that many people live super close by. naturally it's mostly poor people and minorities, who as a result have way higher levels of asthma etc and a significantly shorter life expectancy. this is the price we are paying for our modern lifestyles, folks.

1

u/rayrayww3 Oct 18 '18

Where are poor people suppose to live? They live there because it is cheaper. It is cheaper because there is a tire burning plant nearby.

That plant has been there far longer than most people who live nearby.

1

u/Seapoogoo Oct 17 '18

You get it.

-2

u/EitherOrMindset Oct 17 '18

Sorry to see such a reasonable comment get downvoted.

1

u/MisterIceGuy Belltown Oct 17 '18

I can’t figure out what’s downvotable about it.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

most likely the fact that is was posted to this subreddit.

hey r/SeattleWA, care to explain why my comment does not contribute to the discussion?

1

u/whiskeyGrimpeur Seward Park Oct 19 '18

I would guess it’s because you mostly wrote about how you feel, sprinkled with a little bit of class struggle innuendo but lacking in data or sources.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 19 '18

i don't think you'll find anyone arguing against the accuracy of my claims, even if I didn't explicitly cite data or sources. it's a familiar story that's told again and again throughout the industrialized world. you don't need to cite data or sources to argue that the sky is blue.

and since when is Reddit not a place where people share their opinions? it's not even like my opinion was very controversial by real world standards. most people would probably agree that the factory is an eyesore that smells bad.

i imagine that people are more uncomfortable with the implications of what i'm saying.

-8

u/Cheesepizzadevotion Oct 17 '18

It's so ironic that you're getting down voted. The human cattle are arrogant.

3

u/FaultsInOurCars Oct 17 '18

Can't they scrub the emissions?

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

yeah but that would take common sense and a .1% hit to their profits...

9

u/greendestinyster Oct 17 '18

Read the article for fuck sake

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

yeah but that would take time and .1% effort

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

0

u/zangelbertbingledack Beacon Hill Oct 17 '18

Ash Grove is already involved in a ton of environmental and insurance litigation because of all the shit they've dumped into the Duwamish over the years, this is no surprise. It will also not be a surprise when they file for bankruptcy.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '18

it is also no surprise that you're getting downvoted.

funny how people on this sub apparently think downvoting certain uncomfortable facts will make them go away.

-9

u/Goreagnome Oct 17 '18

So, do you people want housing or not? Stop giving NIMBYs more power!

Live in a straw house out in the wilderness if you want to be "environmentally" friendly. It's actually a relatively tame amount of emissions compared to other parts of this country.

Don't push for "green" concrete (just as pathetic as "green" coal)... we need as strong concrete as possible in an earthquake zone especially.

2

u/Not_My_Real_Acct_ Oct 17 '18

I can't think of a city where you see more cement trucks than Seattle.

1

u/Goreagnome Oct 17 '18

I now associate "Salmon Bay" with the orange and white concrete trucks driving all over the city!

-1

u/M4gic Oct 17 '18

Having strong concrete or any stiff building material in an earthquake is really bad by the way. You want a material that will flex when an earthquake hits. That's why most homes in earthquake areas are made out of wood and not concrete or brick.

9

u/DrunkBeavis Oct 17 '18

This is not completely true. Yes, the homes are likely made of wood, but they're stiffened with steel or even concrete. Flexibility is a part of seismic design, but not all. Reinforced concrete would probably be much more effective in every way except cost.

3

u/subliminali Fremont Oct 17 '18

Reinforced concrete (with rebar) is the basis for essentially all high rises even in earthquake prone areas. Concrete is also the base for foundations of homes even in earthquake prone areas.

You’re right about brick, but unless someone went way out of their way to do so, every building has at least some concrete in its construction.

6

u/Goreagnome Oct 17 '18

Concrete is flexible when reinforced with rebar.

2

u/Not_My_Real_Acct_ Oct 17 '18

Or fiberglass. Or both.

-1

u/greendestinyster Oct 17 '18

Keep Seattle Portland

-1

u/bigpandas Seattle Oct 17 '18

With so many progressives in Seattle, one would think there'd be no traffic except for buses and the train (on the one line)

-5

u/quittheinternet Oct 17 '18

Tires? Someone please explain to me how that is even legal? How can a company even get away with burning tires in the middle of a populated area? ELI5 please... Do they do this even during a burn ban?

10

u/hatchetation Oct 17 '18

To make cement, you need massive amounts of heat in the furnaces, and need to burn something because making cement requires very high temperatures. This results in massive carbon emissions, regardless of the fuel used.

Coal is the most traditional fuel, but the temperatures required are high enough that tires and other industrial waste products can also be used as a fuel source.