The parameters chiefly analysed over here are the outcomes – for application in other areas which need intervention on a similar basis.
The past 5 years with their ups and downs have proved that solid waste management is a dynamic process and can never be implemented through a set piece model with rigid rules. A programatic approach requires a certain degree of flexibility which involves local-based solutions for local-based problems and a set of guidelines rather than rules.
The pandemic has made a deep impact on the way we generate waste. A more sedentary lifestyle and consumerism has led to an increase in the generation of plastic waste which cannot be easily recycled. We seem to be moving on from generating discards which leave a lower carbon footprint to those that which have a higher.
Space constraints prevent us from penning down all our observations – but the ultimate conclusion is that in waste management – Reduction and Re-Use appear to be of prime importance and all others components secondary.
Dry Waste Handling
Total Waste Delivered in tons since Nov 2019
Total Waste Processed in tons since Nov 2019
Wet Waste Composting
Total Waste Delivered in tons since May 2022
Total Waste Processed in tons since Jun 2022
The Carbon Footprint
The only viable alternatives for running a Resource Recovery Centre for handling dry waste and a Composting Unit for the wet component are incineration of the former and landfill of the latter. The solutions may sound to be cost-effective but leave a much higher Carbon Footprint.
Our activities have roughly on a monthly average, saved about 71 tonnes equivalent of CO2 emissions on the dry waste front, and yet another 15 on the wet.
The savings for dry waste are measured against the projected emission of .0012 kg of CO2 eq for each kg incinerated. As for wet waste the reduction is based on the release of 0.27 kg CO2 eq for each kg composted as against the 0.35 when the same is landfilled.
