首页> 外文期刊>CIWM >Have Your Say
【24h】

Have Your Say

机译:说你的话

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

I read with interest the comment on CIWM's website from Kristian Dales of FCC entitled "Should the industry refuse a standard for RDF?". While I agree that too much Government intervention should be avoided, I believe that the introduction of a Government standard for RDF is essential and will lead to greater market consistency. In its response to a Call for Evidence on the RDF market, Defra stated that it wants to be confident that "all practicably recyclable materials are removed" before exporting RDF for energy recovery. Unfortunately, this simply isn't the case at present. A significant proportion of material exported is being classified as RDF before being treated and therefore being needlessly removed from the recovery/reuse cycle in the UK As an industry, we need to shift the focus on to recovery of the material for recycling, rather than simply opting to export it. This argument stands up from both an environmental and financial perspective.
机译:我感兴趣地阅读了FCC克里斯蒂安·戴尔斯(Kristian Dales)在CIWM网站上发表的标题为“该行业是否应拒绝RDF标准的评论”。尽管我同意应避免过多的政府干预,但我认为为RDF引入政府标准至关重要,并将导致更大的市场一致性。在回应RDF市场上的“证据征集”时,Defra表示希望在出口RDF进行能源回收之前“去除所有切实可行的可回收材料”。不幸的是,目前根本不是这种情况。出口的大部分材料在进行处理之前被归类为RDF,因此在英国被不必要地从回收/再利用周期中删除。作为一个行业,我们需要将重点转移到回收材料上以进行回收,而不是简单地选择将其导出。从环境和财务角度来看,这种观点都成立。

著录项

  • 来源
    《CIWM》 |2015年第2期|10-10|共1页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号