Ten million gallons later, Mont Cuet spot is still hot
Saturday 2nd May 2009, 2:29PM BST.
Some parts of the Mont Cuet landfill site are still 20C hotter than is desirable despite water having been pumped into the site for the past two weeks. Pictured are Rob Roussel (left) and Neil McMillan, monitoring technician. (Picture by Tom Tardif, 0765540)
MORE water is being pumped into Mont Cuet in an attempt to finally cool the hotspot at the heart of the landfill site.
In the past two weeks more than 10 million gallons of water have been transferred in from the overflows at the Vale Marais and Vale Pond pumping stations.
Before the operation started, temperatures at the site has been recorded up to about 90C. The aim was to reduce that to around 50C but the temperature in some areas of the site is still reaching 70C.
Public Services Department senior project manager Rob Roussel said readings were being taken at one-metre intervals.
‘Temperatures in most boreholes have been reduced to normal levels, but there is a small localised area showing higher readings,’ said Mr Roussel. ‘However, even there the temperature is significantly below the levels that we saw before the operation began.’
Pumping had been due to finish on Wednesday, but now additional water is being injected into the area to try to cool it.
‘We are confident that we can cool the area further,’ said Mr Roussel.
‘The temperature there is already falling, but we are just going to speed the process up by adding in more cool water. We will keep pumping until we are satisfied the temperature has been sufficiently reduced.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
“some areas of the site is still reaching 70C.”
Hardly the sun core is it? Wouldn’t even boil and egg in that. Another waste of taxpayers money?
Report abuse
I find it utterly amazing that on the one hand we hear that Guernsey will be a strong advocate of trying to stop further pollution, to help the Ozone layer.
Then on the other hand they fill a quarry with water to stop the inner burning.
Are the people who are in charge of all this to shy or too ignorant to ask for advice.
The gas produced by wast rubbish had high methane properties, and is far worse than CO2, producing 20 times more damage to the Ozone layer.
If a knowledgeable system had been used in the beginning (still not too late) then the gas at one site in the UK can produce 800KW of electricity for over 20 years.
Just Google : GAS FROM RUBBISH: plenty to read there with good ideas.
Remember this; it is quite feasible that former tips will one day produce a fire ball or explosion equal to several ton Bombs– think it over.
Report abuse
Don’t know where you get your eggs from Jackie, but the rest of us can certainly boil an egg at 70 degrees Celsius
70 degrees Fahrenheit would be different.
Report abuse
Water doesn’t boil at 70 degrees Stephen. I learned that in Domestic Science ;)
Anyone know the final figure on unsuccessfully putting a fire out that was never there?
Report abuse
Yes that’s easy Jackie it’s called
“Stubborn politicians.”
Oh incidently Jackie; One can fry an egg in seconds on a footpath if it is 70C.
You would also be gasping for air if too long in 70c.
Not trying to be smart Jackie; ‘cos I love your your letters.
Report abuse
An egg certainly can be cooked at 70 Celsius though it would take a bit longer than a conventionally boiled egg at about 100 Celsius.
Indeed many posh restaurants are cooking their eggs at about 65 Celsius, claiming a better texture.
This little item explores the topic further:-
http://blog.khymos.org/2009/04/09/towards-the-perfect-soft-boiled-egg/
Report abuse
Pedant that I am I think my original post used the word ‘boil’.
But for the sake of world peace I’ll bow to the semantics. ;)
Back to the subject. 70 degrees ‘fire’? Scary!!!
Report abuse
Eric & Michae R
I cook my eggs at 61.2879865887 degrees. And yes they taste even better than if they were cooked at 65C!
Report abuse
What if the hot spot is caused by a substance reacting exothermically with water?
Report abuse
What we need is an endothermic reaction. Then the whole site would freeze into one giant ice cube ;) Which given the severity of this super hot fire might already be happening. Can we go in the Guness book of Records for having the words coldest raging inferno?
Report abuse
As a gardener by trade there is unlikely to be a fire underground. This is simply rubbish decomposing due to the normal bacteria moving around vigerously as they do in any compost heap in a garden when they are all working to break down organic matter. You would not leave your hand in the centre of a garden compost heap for too long. 70 degrees sounds about right for the centre of a garden compost heap. This is only about 10 degrees hotter then a hot cup of tea or coffee, (I measured the temperatures of the above once a few years back).
This has all been yet another waste of money from our amateur states members.
Report abuse
Well david cranch.
It is already there, the gas (Methane)the water will make it liquid gas, and that my friends is potentially more dangerous than otherwise.
When will these boneheads realise that this potential’Bomb’ is at the moment smouldering.
When will those who are supposed to be in charge, get expert advice. France has perhaps the most expert of all. GET HELP NOW.
Don’t wait till the ballon goes up.
Report abuse
wow, the armchair experts are really out in force on this one. Do you really think that the States have not taken appropriate advice on this?
Eric – “liquid gas” – what are you talking about?? Methane liquifies at -161 degrees at normal pressure.
Report abuse
that’s “minus 161 degrees” by the way. the line break split the symbol from the numbers (on my screen at least)
Report abuse
Eric, congratulations on posting the most ridiculous comment I have ever read!
i.e.
If you pour water on a gas it turns it into a liquid gas.
Good grief.
Report abuse
Liquid gas – genius. I’ll be smiling about that all day!!!
I agree with Michael. 70C is the top end for the temperature of the bacteria that compost rubbish. Much beyond this temperature however lies the risk of combustion – as we’ve seen! The problem lies with insufficient aeration of the rubbish, allowing the temperatures to build up, so I think the only solution is to employ students to dig up Mont Cuet and aerate the compost.
Report abuse
May I just say, it was a pleasure that people had a good laugh.
However I did make a big hash of it didn’t I?
What I meant but put badly was that the water would push the gas out even faster, not make ‘lIQUID’GAS as I wrote.
However once said( or written) there is no escape. so enjoy your laugh.
Then go to Google an write Liquid gas, the scroll down to Gas solid liquid and all that’s there: A diagram will explain what I meant to say but muffed it.
I can only apologise Being the 1st to ever make a mistake; my only joy was, it made for good laughing.
Report abuse
sorry Eric, I’ve followed your google instructions and come across a document produced by Harcourt School explaining the differences between gases, liquids and solids. Is that what you meant?
If it is, then try googling Methane and see the temperature at which it changes from gas to liquid. If you really think that pumping pond water into a gas filled rubbish dump will produce temperatures of minus 161 degrees celcius then you are barmier than I thought!
I really do think that this is not a matter on which any of us should be criticising the States, when frankly we know very little about the issues involved other than what we can find in 2 minutes on the trusty (but not always trustworthy) internet. There is nothing to indicate that they have not taken all appropriate advice and are not doing everything that should be done. So to try to second guess what is being done is pointless.
Eric, as you love quoting sayings to make your point, try this one “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”! ;-)
Report abuse
Eric – I Googled your theory as suggested, but found several pages that could relate to “Gas solid liquid”, could you please post a link?
I think you are trying to debate a subject that you have no prior knowledge about by searching the internet and hastily copying the first thing you find!
Report abuse
Well TL
I think your last comment might fit yourself as well; at least I do not try to be that bombastic and push my thoughts forward.
Dean if that is what you think, then good luck, you are like anyone else entitled to your views on any given subject.
I have apologised for making a mess of my already infamous statement. I cannot go down on my knees and beg for understanding.
What I had in mind at the time was that as gas is lighter than water, the the pumping of water would push the lighter gas up and at any time anything could ‘light’ that gas.
In the same way if you half fill a bottle with petrol the pour water in, the petrol floats to the top almost instantaneously, but there again some one will find fault with what ever may be said.
Report abuse
You all need to get out more… Seriously!!!
Report abuse
ah, now I see what you mean Eric. Yes, you are correct in that the pumping of the water pushes out the gas.
However, the States are themselves well aware of that, which is why a major part of this process has involved drilling bore holes to tap off the gas so that it could be burnt off – in the same way that oil rigs burn off gas that is released when drilling for oil.
Sorry if you think I have been bombastic, but I do get frustrated when people seem to be very quick to leap into criticism of the authorities on here. Criticism is our right but we should exercise it when we know what we are talking about. I’m not pushing my own views, just pointing out flaws in the basis of some of the criticism.
Report abuse
by the way Eric, I think that you may have missed the attempt at a smiley at the end of my earlier post – to indicate a certain amount of tongue in cheek. No offence meant.
Report abuse
I truly don’t mind criticism, what I do detest is the haughty manner of various people, who immediately jump on a Faux pas.
I do not detest or even think ill of you, a little hurt that such a mistake, and then an apology wasn’t enough.
As for the smiley; well there was a time when such a smile came my way, at the same time a fist flatted me. so smileys- I am very wary of them.
I dare say that you weren’t even born in those days.
Report abuse
Eric – I’m going to twist the knife a bit deeper because you also seem to be confusing ozone depletion and global warming. Chloro flouro carbons (CFC’s) are mainly responsible for the hole in the ozone layer. Methane is a greenhouse gas albiet much more potent than CO2.
Report abuse
Don’t worry about it Cliff;
I’ve had plenty knives, and deep so your knife is a mere scratch.
I am not confusing anything, as for methane gas; I think if you look back I did say that methane was far more dangerous than CO2
Whatever; it will seem that if one should make a mistake as I did-and was brave enough to admit so. It will make no difference- there will always be that pedant who will never be satisfied. or as the word says “a boastful display of learning”
Report abuse
Eric – it was not the fact that you made a mistake that I was picking up on (although thanks for the amusement, as you graciously acknowledged!) as we certainly all make mistakes from time to time.
I challenged your assertion because you had put yourself forward as an expert by alleging that the States were boneheads for not doing the job properly. Although you were man enough to admit your initial mistake, you persisted with the argument that the States were not doing it properly – when the reality is that they are doing exactly what you suggested they should be doing.
There is enough criticism of the States on here without letting unjustified criticisms go unchallenged.
Anyway, nothing on here is either too serious or too personal and so hopefully it is all still friendly banter all around.
Until next time ;-) (and that is a purely friendly smiley!)
Report abuse
Indeed methane is much more dangerous than CO2.
If you open a bottle of methane with your pipe stoked up…..bang! Do the same with CO2 and your pipe will go out.
Mind you dry ice could be quite dangerous if lobbed at someone…
Report abuse
Well TL:
I don’¨t think there will be a ‘next’ time: it is such a stony path; I feel a little peace (or piece) would for my part suffice.
Report abuse