Dr. Chris Furedy" <furedy@yorku.ca> wrote:
>Thanks for your explanation, Rogier.  There are certainly complications to
>calculating output and contribution to reducing MSW for disposal, if non
>compostables are being stored on site, and previously produced compost is
>added in to figures as a later stage!  I think these practices warrant a
>footnote in your paper.  Eventually, the non-compostables at both sites
>have to go somewhere, and that will be to garbage dumps, or, worse still,
>into the urban or peri-urban environment.

Indeed, there are many complications to try to say something about the
effectivity of MSW reduction through composting and its output. To go
somewhat more into details: in the case of Bangalore, TF only takes in
separated organic materials mainly from households whereas KCDC is taking in
mixed municipal waste.

Therefore I have to make a correction regarding my last message in which I
wrote that KCDC is taking in (only) organic wastes of 10.500 ton/year. KCDC
is processing 17.500 ton/year of mixed municipal waste of which 60% is
organic, that is the organic waste element is 10.500 ton/year. To my
knowledge the 40% is dumped at KCDC compound and hence is simultaneously
functioning as a dumpsite for a certain period of time.

What could be of interest is to know whether KCDC is using some sort of a
buffer volume of mixed wastes on its compound to feed its compostprocess and
end up with 9.600 ton/year of output. In other words, in order to produce
9.600 ton/year of compost KCDC must process more than it is taking in as
organic waste (the 60% or 10.500 ton/year). This could explain the
difference between the intake volume and output.

Rogier