What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- b9gh47q, on 11/16/2008, -1/+31I think that's a great idea, it really is a win-win situation.
- VodkanLemons, on 11/17/2008, -1/+21.21 jigawatts from garbage
- skrinak, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2http://www.adaptivearc.com/
- chlyon, on 11/17/2008, -7/+1Forget this rubbish where the F is my flying car ?
- alecks, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Amazing.... Buring our trash... who'da thunk it
- MxM111, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2What about CO2 production? I think it is really not better then burning fossil fuel...
- mstrebe, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Except that it generates more CO2 than burning fossil fuels, so I'd call that "win-win-lose"
- drewdavies, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Plasco Energy Group was attempting to put a plasma gasification facility in Port Moody, BC, but the offering was certainly not a win-win situation in many regards. They withdrew their proposal last month before the final city council meeting took place, which was likely to end in defeat due to strong community opposition.
http://www.zerowastevancouver.org - flameboy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Uhmm... This article sucks balls for not explaining any of the real questions in this field:
1. How much energy does it take to generate the "10,000 degree plasma"?
2. Landfills already capture methane gas and sell it. So whats the advantage here?
- IvanB, on 11/16/2008, -2/+20Environmental advances will never cease to amaze me! :)
- revslaughter, on 11/16/2008, -2/+13So what's the energy profit?
- b9gh47q, on 11/16/2008, -3/+4FTA: "vaporize 1,500 tons of trash each day, which in turn spins turbines to generate 60MW of electricity - enough to power 50,000 homes"
- revslaughter, on 11/16/2008, -0/+17I get that, but how much energy does it take to vaporize those 1500 tons of trash? Does this make more energy or less energy? Article doesn't say, and that picture is of the sun - in fact none of the pictures in the article are of anything that could be said to have anything to do with this plant.
Energy profit = 60MW - (amount of electricity used to power plasma arc)
This would only be useful if the energy profit was positive, and the article says nothing about that.- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5Actually, this would still be very useful even if it produced less energy than it created, as landfill availability is a problem in most first world countries. As well, the amount of methane (a known greenhouse gas) produced from landfills would be greatly reduced by the implementation of this technology on a wide scale.
Since the by-products are claimed to be fuel grade hydrocarbons and a glass-like amalgam with high leach-resistance, we can assume an even greater efficiency with electricity production and road-building as concrete or asphalt aggregate, respectively.
The claim is made that the fuel produced, when burned for electricity production would create more than enough to power the plasma, with 40% going to plasma, and the remaining 60% to enter the grid.
http://www.adaptivearc.com/resources/whitepapers.p ... (the 1st paper)
Bold claims, but it sounds like this technology will be the new norm for waste management in the very near future, as it is similar in cost to current incinerator systems while greatly reducing subsequent pollution, as well as being scalable and portable.
Landfill mining. Get ready for the future. - illt, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4if plasma made more energy than producing it, i think we'd have a fusion reactor on our hands.
- flameboy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Many new landfills are capturing the methane emitted and using it as a clean source of energy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/new-jerse ...
Why is this plasma-incinerator thing better? This article was lame due to complete lack of details. - Fustigations, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Plasma+1500 tons of trash a day > energy to create plasma.
40% of the 1500 tons of trash a day in fact goes into sustaining the plasma.
That's hardly a fusion reactor.
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5Actually, this would still be very useful even if it produced less energy than it created, as landfill availability is a problem in most first world countries. As well, the amount of methane (a known greenhouse gas) produced from landfills would be greatly reduced by the implementation of this technology on a wide scale.
- revslaughter, on 11/16/2008, -1/+12Ok, at least Scientific American says that it can power itself, but I can't find other sources. If that's true, that's great! It will provide more power than garbage currently provides (in the form of methane), if it all works. Still, I think that it's useful to recycle aluminum.
- lsoverdrive, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5...Why would they even bother building a generator that consumes more power than it produces?
- Murdats, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6@isoverdrive
because its primary purpose isn't power production but it can generate some power to reduce it's running costs, electric cars produce less power then they consume but things like regenerative braking reduce how much they consume. - MoeMoeMoe, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7To vaporize trash.
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2It powers itself and produces 60MW of power for consumption down the line. So, 60MW is after the unit has powered itself.
There was a mention of this in a show on the Science channel, and I've read several other articles about it. Google "plasma gasification". - thesnarebear, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Google "site:popsci.com plasma gasification" for a simple six pages on how it works.
- aikimoe, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3After a small initial zap of electricity, it makes it's own.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prop ... - Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2
http://www.adaptivearc.com/resources/whitepapers.p ...
Enjoy!
- dangerousgoat, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Energy profit = 60MW - (amount of electricity used to power plasma arc) + (amount of electricity saved over using a typical trash incinerator)
The last variable would be debatable, but still an excellent question.
- wildest, on 11/16/2008, -2/+20Genius, do they do cremation services too?
- lycao25, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Only if you're in the mob.
- TheImaginator, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1They should use the sun furnace for generating plasma and cremating bodies as well as rubbish.
This idea of using electricity to power a plasma furnace seems counter productive.
- TheImaginator, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1They should use the sun furnace for generating plasma and cremating bodies as well as rubbish.
- lycao25, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Only if you're in the mob.
- GoRedRaiders, on 11/16/2008, -8/+25We need Nuclear power, now.
- nick111, on 11/17/2008, -6/+6Oh great. A nuke-bot.
- killerpotato, on 11/17/2008, -5/+6Oh great. A nuke-bot-bot.
- Garofoli, on 11/16/2008, -1/+9Innovative and practical. Killing two birds with one stone.
- agaiziunas, on 11/16/2008, -1/+78"Plasma gasification was invented by NASA 40 years ago". They've also invented some other things you might have heard of:
-Cordless tools
-CAT scans
-Water filters
-Kidney dialysis
-Long-distance & global telecommunication
-Smoke detectors
NASA's current FY 2008 budget of $17.318 billion represents about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget.
For comparison, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars have cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $604 billion over the past seven years vs. the entire fifty year history of NASA expenditures.- damian7, on 11/17/2008, -10/+5......................................__....................................................
.............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,..............................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,......................................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..................................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll..................................
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll................................
..............lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,...........................
...............lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,..........................
................llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-..*`*;..)...........................
.................,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/............................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/...........................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*............................
................|.../.../.../.*`..............................)....)¯`~,...................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,..............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---........../..../..|..........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../......................
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|......................
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,.....................
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,................ - TommyTikal, on 11/17/2008, -2/+13But...but...NASA preaches the religion of Global Warming. Clearly they know nothing about science.
/More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette... - valkyries, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4nasa, also had almost 4% of the gdp 40 years ago.
- Sammyshoe, on 11/17/2008, -0/+440 years ago, nasa's programs were more focused on military research (ICBMs), so the budget comparison for then isn't very fair.
- valkyries, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1the Apollo program wasn't very cheap.
- Scaryclouds, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1And look at all the technology we got from that. I'm not saying we need to get back up to those levels, but it's really hard to over fund R&D and other technological and scientific pursuits.
- DarthDiabetes, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9Bravo. Thank you for highlighting this.
Public Science is the perennial whipping boy of government watchdogs but rarely does this sector get the credit it deserves. - ricksite, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2Maybe if the money was in the hands of the people it would have generated more inventions. Seriously, the list of things invented by private individuals is a lot bigger.
- Remelox, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2So what are you saying? Instead of NASA which we know invents some incredibly practical things by researching the scientific unknown, we should give the money to indviduals who have less access to resources, a smaller base of knowledge to draw from, and limited scope of vision? Would private individuals have managed to reach the moon in 1969?
So much was learned incidentally in that lofty goal but even more importantly, people around the world were inspired to enter scientific fields. While the act itself may seem impractical to most, there are benefits that can not be measured.
I, however, think such goals are practical. I don't want the human race trapped on this single planet. Once we have ruined this planet, we are going to need to leave and ruin other planets. - ricksite, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2"Instead of NASA which we know invents some incredibly practical things by researching the scientific unknown, we should give the money to indviduals who have less access to resources, a smaller base of knowledge to draw from, and limited scope of vision?"
Are you serious? The whole of NASA with its billions of dollars and decades of inventions hasn't come close to the advancements brought about by the work of Nikola Tesla. - Fustigations, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0If I had $40B, I'd go invade Iraq. That'd show em!
- Remelox, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2So what are you saying? Instead of NASA which we know invents some incredibly practical things by researching the scientific unknown, we should give the money to indviduals who have less access to resources, a smaller base of knowledge to draw from, and limited scope of vision? Would private individuals have managed to reach the moon in 1969?
- damian7, on 11/17/2008, -10/+5......................................__....................................................
- GregFD3S, on 11/16/2008, -1/+12Don't the Energy corporations own the patent on Plasma?
I think they hold the patents on garbage and air too.
So that means we won't see this technology actually used for at least 120 more years.
/s- Aaryn015, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1If it was developed by Nasa 40 years ago using tax payer dollars, I'd say Nasa and the US govt holds the patent.
- FLarsen, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Notice his /s tag.
- GregFD3S, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Wow, I was debating the "/s", because I was laying the sarcasm on pretty thick when I said they hold patents on garbage and air.
Some people don't have the sarcasm radar I guess...
- Aaryn015, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1If it was developed by Nasa 40 years ago using tax payer dollars, I'd say Nasa and the US govt holds the patent.
- nichesiteexpert, on 11/16/2008, -0/+24We're one step closer to Mr. Fusion :)
- Vocifer, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8These should replace landfills in the long run, so long as the net costs aren't too overbearing and there aren't any negative environmental externalities of the plasmification.
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Not only will this replace landfills, they are talking about MINING landfills. Eventually, the trash in the landfills will be worth the money to plumb and completely consume.
Think of it as drilling for oil before it becomes oil.
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Not only will this replace landfills, they are talking about MINING landfills. Eventually, the trash in the landfills will be worth the money to plumb and completely consume.
- itsjusth, on 11/17/2008, -1/+8What is the environmental effect of this incinerator? Sure you can burn trash to make power, but does that just mean we have 1500 tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere every day?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Lol yeah when it cools and turns into toxic gas in the atmosphere...
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6No. The carbon given off in this process actually condenses into what is being called a "carbon silicate", which the inventors suggest could be used in tarmac for roads, jewelry, and many other industrial applications.
- alecks, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1The byproduct is diamonds
- Fustigations, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0DeBeers will be PISSED!
- rentmitchum, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3If it comes with a Vash the Stampede I'm all for it..
- excavationist, on 11/17/2008, -4/+11Did anyone else read this and think plants like...trees and what not?
- Khast, on 11/17/2008, -3/+1Well, next time I am out at the Greenhouse, I will look for a Nuclear plant, and a Power plant... I am surprised that the electric company withheld these plants for so long! Er, wait, weren't they banned, like Marijuana? Because they would put a few multi-billion dollar industries out of business?
Damn corporate greed.
/sarcasm - reno77, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2Yeh i intially read it as "Plasma Plants To Vaporize White Trash While Generating Energy"
- Fustigations, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0I'd buy that for a dollar!
- Khast, on 11/17/2008, -3/+1Well, next time I am out at the Greenhouse, I will look for a Nuclear plant, and a Power plant... I am surprised that the electric company withheld these plants for so long! Er, wait, weren't they banned, like Marijuana? Because they would put a few multi-billion dollar industries out of business?
- thebrinkman, on 11/17/2008, -3/+3Which will in turn pollute the ectoplasmic fields in which the intangible residents of the sixth dimension graze on fairy dust.
- jaxontyler, on 11/17/2008, -8/+1I highly doubt this can work.
Reminds me of the principal behind perpetual motion. You CAN'T win.- swgbex, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8It can because the "fuel" source is trash. You aren't getting something for nothing.
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4You should try to read the full article, and then perhaps do some research before giving your uninformed opinion. A simple google of the terms here would show you that in fact, this is extremely viable, economically sound, environmentally sound and safe, and a general net gain for humanity.
- danconia, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7Plasma arc gasification aka plasma conversion. This stuff hits Digg in the form of a new article once a week...
But that doesn't change how AWESOME it is! - Novakog, on 11/17/2008, -3/+4Where does the energy come from that is used to create the plasma? I suspect that that energy could be used in some other way to generate more electricity (although it wouldn't vaporize the gas), so it's really more like a "win-compromise" than a "win-win". Still awesome though.
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4The energy to start the process comes from existing power sources. We have lots of those. I'm sure someone cunning enough could even find a pretty smart way of storing enough energy to kick-start one of these without requiring a traditional station, too. Say, a solar/wind/hydro plant?
With regard to where the energy ultimately comes from, that's a non-issue. we've already tied up the energy required to produce the "fuel" this will use...trash. So, it's squeezing efficiency from an existing process. - nowhereelse, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure why you were Dugg down for asking a perfectly sensible question. Even the article states that the process needs to become more efficient to be viable.
Believe me, there are a host of alternative energy ideas that just need to become more efficient to be viable. I work in the field and many of the methods that are being researched involve so much energy input that it's hard to imagine they will ever be feasible. Using energy from solar or wind sources would simply waste the energy harvested unless the plasma process were extremely efficient.
Another thing glossed over in the article is how the energy is recovered. The syngas which is generated doesn't drive turbines directly. It's burned and used to heat water which drives the turbines. Syngas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. When burned it produces carbon dioxide and water.
The only argument for waste processing to produce carbon dioxide is that it would prevent emission of methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. but this could be achieved equally well by bio-processes which operate with less energy input. Furthermore bioprocesses can produce hydrogen free of carbon monoxide which is important if you want to run fuel cells since CO poisons fuel cell catalysts.- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1The claim is made that the fuel produced, when burned for turbine energy production would create more than enough to power the plasma, with 40% going to plasma, and the remaining 60% to enter the grid.
http://www.adaptivearc.com/resources/whitepapers.p ...
(1st paper)
They are also talking about site remediation with the technology's ability to break down complex organic compounds (i.e., toxic waste.) CO2 seems relatively benign next to asbestos and heavy metals. - nowhereelse, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1If that sort of efficiency were achieved it would be worth pursuing. As yet, though, it hasn't.
Although it's conceivable that plasma treatment could convert asbestos to more benign silicates, it could do nothing to handle heavy metals. In fact, treating heavy metal wastes with heat would vaporise them and make them more hazardous. The plasma process is aimed at organic wastes only and therefore its end products would be carbon dioxide and water.
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1The claim is made that the fuel produced, when burned for turbine energy production would create more than enough to power the plasma, with 40% going to plasma, and the remaining 60% to enter the grid.
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4The energy to start the process comes from existing power sources. We have lots of those. I'm sure someone cunning enough could even find a pretty smart way of storing enough energy to kick-start one of these without requiring a traditional station, too. Say, a solar/wind/hydro plant?
- chirt, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12YAY SCIENCE!
- thesnarebear, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9I read this in Popular Science a couple of years back. If I remember correctly, the gasification actually creates enough energy to sustain itself and produce more, but that could have been conjecture.
Here's that article: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prop ...- ThanatosST, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I read that then too. I'm curious as to why it's taken so long to A) make it to Digg and B) get into action.
- pedepy, on 11/17/2008, -4/+1yes cause the atmosphere can surely handle all that extra trash plasma vapor
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1
Read up about the tech. And let's put a smile on that face!
http://www.adaptivearc.com/resources/whitepapers.p ...
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1
- JFitzpatrick, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7Even if the answer would always be "Yes!", I'd watch a vidcast of "Will It Burn?"
- CrushThemTorg, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I'm holding out for "Will it Sublimate?"
- sean151, on 11/17/2008, -3/+1Or we could always reduce waste, reuse items and if those don't work we could recycle. Then after all that's been done we can put it in one of these. I think reducing the waste would be a better idea than saying "hey, look. I created a way to dump all our garbage into the air and it can create energy, so it must be clean. Don't worry about wrappers anymore we can just burn it into the atmosphere."
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6It doesn't dump CO2 or toxins into the air. Do some research. Moreover, this could be used to clean up more than recyclable items. Also, and this might blow your mind, we can use this to do away with landfills that have been created previously. Imagine that! Humanity cleaning up its own mess!
- nowhereelse, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1It doesn't? So where does all the material end up when it's burned? The plasma process produces syngas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) which is burned to produce carbon dioxide and water.
You don't burn material without producing more, different, material. Do some research yourself.
- nowhereelse, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1It doesn't? So where does all the material end up when it's burned? The plasma process produces syngas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) which is burned to produce carbon dioxide and water.
- bjs3171, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1we, uh, already have a bunch of trash...
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6It doesn't dump CO2 or toxins into the air. Do some research. Moreover, this could be used to clean up more than recyclable items. Also, and this might blow your mind, we can use this to do away with landfills that have been created previously. Imagine that! Humanity cleaning up its own mess!
- Aaryn015, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6Hail Science!
However, whenever I read incredibly short descriptions of ground breaking scientific advances, I always get that "too good to be true" feeling.
There has to be a trade-off somewhere, either financial or ecological.
Sounds like a dream come true though and once again Nasa proves their worth beyond simply space exploration. - Jaydamis, on 11/17/2008, -4/+3Win Win? Are you kidding, your aura in that area will go from blue to red...
It IS only 7500 simeoleans tho... - GlassAgate, on 11/17/2008, -2/+6After this: a structure in space that will collect loose asteroids, and melt them down for their raw materials.
After that: a larger structure to do the same.
After that: a even larger structure to do the same. If we wanted to, and needed the raw
materials, we could devour an entire planet, if it was void of life.
After that: install a computer system, with a very advanced AI, so that humans wouldn't
have to man the structure. It could travel to distance universes, in search of raw materials.
Does anyone see any problem with this idea? I got the idea from some movie from the 80's.- Tahiri, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Dead Space?
- GlassAgate, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Transformers The Movie.
I was making a joke. Think about Unicron. - bjs3171, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1you watch too many movies?
- singularityv, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Reading Digg while drunk is bad. I misread the headline as "Plasma Plants Vaporize White Trash To Generate Energy" at first.
- floridadigg, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3The plant in Port St. Lucie will eliminate the local landfill entirely by 2017.
- davidlaz, on 11/17/2008, -5/+0Win/Win, but how much power does maintaining or generating the plasma actully consume? A crapload more than whats generated.
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3You are wrong. Try googling.
- Fustigations, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0Or reading the thread. Informed opinions are worth more.
- Digisurfer, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4I believe the process if very clean based on something I watched on Discovery Channel a while back. The majority of what is toxic is looped back to feed the plasma process. What your left with in the end is a completely inert lump of black glass basically, which can be ground up and used for any number of things. Of course that is if this is the same process being used here.
- Mihey, on 11/17/2008, -4/+5Hmm... what about the byproducts? The gasses? Some of trash out there would release dangerous gasses that would then kill anything within vicinity of the plasma plant.
I won't jump out of excitement until I know what happens with the gasses.
Edit: Lookit... from the article:
"Second, the output gas is very clean. With the machine I’ve read about (Starteck’s machine in the second picture) they have a complex and highly efficient system of separators and scrubbers. In the end only hydrogen and other useful gasses like methane are produced. Anything else is trapped and contained. The trapped waste is stored in a stable inert medium which can then be deposed of properly."
I'm not convinced, though.- nick111, on 11/17/2008, -3/+1I'm not convinced either.
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Perhaps you should begin with Plasma. The organic compounds that scare you (toxic waste) are denatured in the intense heat of the plasma. Which is to say that they are broken apart into their constituent atoms and further, into ions, most of which are hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Cooling the output gases in stages, as well as controlling pressure, the system can "scrub the gas", by tuning the interactions between the constituent ions as they return to standard pressure and temperature, to form compounds.
The difference between this and normal incineration, though simple, is quite extraordinary.- Mihey, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Oh, but the system is not perfect. Plasma is contained by magnetic fields, as there are no materials strong enough to remain solid in that heat. The containment chamber does exist, however, as do gasses, that escape the scorching heat and reside along relatively colder walls, until the cleaning day comes.
Moreover, certain atoms are lethal to us and our environment. Some would cause an erosion of the containment chamber, requiring an expensive maintenance. How long has such a plasma furnace been functioning?
Still not convinced. There are always two sides to a coin... good, that everyone is so excited about, and the bad, dark side that everyone would rather not see until it bites us back.
Like the nuclear energy. "It is perfectly safe! *cough*wheeze* Excuse me, it is time for my chemo..."
- Mihey, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Oh, but the system is not perfect. Plasma is contained by magnetic fields, as there are no materials strong enough to remain solid in that heat. The containment chamber does exist, however, as do gasses, that escape the scorching heat and reside along relatively colder walls, until the cleaning day comes.
- Dragonskies, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Now we just need to shrink that thing and put it on a DeLorean.
- aikimoe, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2Popular Science has lots of great info on this amazing machine.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prop ... - CrushThemTorg, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3Call me a complete moron, but what happens when we run out of trash?
- GlassAgate, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Don't worry. Give society five years, and we'll have lots
of trash. How dare you question our ability to make trash. - Fustigations, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0Phils' trash plant and mortuary at your service!
- GlassAgate, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Don't worry. Give society five years, and we'll have lots
- dimplemonkey, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3So what's the byproduct that we'll get when we transmogrify this trash besides energy?
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2http://www.adaptivearc.com/resources/whitepapers/B ...
A glass-like amalgam with physical properties similar to obsidian, that is reported to be highly stable, with a low susceptibility to leaching (as it will contain traces of metals.)- daveisfera, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Ya, but then what do we do with all of that?
- Intercon, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1The idea of using it as an aggregate in roads and building construction has been suggested...
- kyletehgreat, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1i dugg you cause you used 'transmogrify'
- Intercon, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2http://www.adaptivearc.com/resources/whitepapers/B ...
- Hullabalootoo, on 11/17/2008, -1/+0Peace, brothers...what goes around, comes around...I believe he was reffering to a Plasma Ray from a Plasma Gun...I've seen them use it on Star Treck. Mr. Spock aimed it at a Clingon and "Vaporized" him. That's the concept, tho...and as to mass, it isn't destroye, it is only converted into another form-Einstei, I think, said that.
Namaste! - Ricemanstm, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Uh huh. Cost? "No word yet on the cost-effectiveness of maintaining such plants (all that plasma gas and filtration must be expensive)." Calm down people. This is NOT A REASON to stop drilling. Again, keep drilling to finance the research.
- Remelox, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2So, this has been coming up repeatedly on the internet and in magazines for years. I'm all for it but I keep seeing setbacks and skepticism surrounding it. Until a plant is in operation for some time, I will remain skeptical myself. It's one of those things that sounds too good to be true. I do want it to be true, though. It doesn't even have to make a profit to be worth it, it just needs to reduce the cost we currently pay for waste disposal.
- moulin1, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2It's a good idea on the face of it but there are problems putting it into practice. We have had a variety of high temperature incinerator technologies for many years but few plants are built. The problem is that they are only efficient if they operate continuously. Obviously it takes a lot of energy to get up to temperature. The simple fact is that they will run out of trash to burn. It's hard think of it this way but trash is not an unlimited resource like solar and wind. There is a finite amount.
- daveisfera, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems easier to just haul all the trash to this one place than to make the wind blow on a calm day or the sun shine at night.
- moulin1, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1You miss my point. If the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow you don't create any energy but you don't lose it either. High temperature incinerators take fuel to start. You don't get to 10,000 degrees by throwing a match on a pile of trash. So if you stop and start you have to burn fuel or electricity. You can lose money and get a net negative return on energy if you can't keep it fueled 24 hours a day. While we have an excess of trash most places it's not unlimited and there are other uses for trash like landfill. The first loads are free but when demand goes up municipalities are going to start selling their trash. That's what happened with recyclables.
- daveisfera, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems easier to just haul all the trash to this one place than to make the wind blow on a calm day or the sun shine at night.
- SexyFarts, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Ok, but how much energy does it take to power up these plasma plants? If the answer is more than 60MW, then it's not sustainable...
- flowctrl, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1From the referenced SCIAM article:
"The plant is scheduled to go online by 2011; it will process 1,500 tons of garbage a day, sending 60 megawatts of electricity to the power grid (after using some to power itself)."- daveisfera, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1That still doesn't answer how much energy it consumes from the grid.
- Fustigations, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0In another post, I read that 40% of the energy is used in the process which means that 100MW gross are produced, 40MW used in the process, 60MW sent to grid. Happy?
(I didn't check source of 40% process energy, but it seemed legit on the face)
- flowctrl, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1From the referenced SCIAM article:
- audiogeek5, on 11/17/2008, -1/+0But, will it blend?
- Jabani1414, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0I'm guessing this going to smell like roses to the homes around the plant.
- champ2153, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1What sort of byproducts are being produced after the vaporization?
- flowctrl, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Ottawa has had a plasma gasification plant up and running for more than a year now:
http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/
Coming soon to Red Deer AB, Vancouver BC, and Los Angeles CA. - Nickygnads, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0They're trying to open a plant in Iowa to phase out their landfill, and the city government won't allow for the technology to take hold. There always seems to be a reluctance for progress in these ways.
http://www.wastenotiowa.org/ - rh88, on 11/19/2008, -0/+0It's a proven technology that has yet to hit the commercial market,
but when it does it'll be biger than post-it notes. It not only
thermally converts the waste to a fuel gas and a potentially vitrifiable,
non-leaching building aggregate, but also eliminates the inetvitable GHG
resultant from landfilling our non-diverted waste streams. A chacteristic
of the plasma arc gasification sytem is the variety of fuel stocks accepted
as well as the useful products available at the end of the process. Hydrogen
fuel station, F-T process bio-diesel fuel station, integrated electrical power grid
generation... Can you say "new economy"? - sering, on 12/02/2008, -2/+1http://greatcar.freehostia.com
http://forexposed.com
http://tembol.freehostia.com/
http://dianika.com/hotel
http://dianika.com/insurance/
http://remboka.freehostia.com
http://wekoman.ej.am
http://wungka.freehostia.com/
http://unik.blogetery.com/
http://p812.com
http://nasavo.com
http://hyipnews.freehostia.com/hyip - davidlt, on 01/01/2009, -0/+1I'm learning about this for the first time only just now, but like what I'm reading so far! http://rwheatingandairconditioning.com/information ... http://superiorheatingandair.com/information/2/hea ... http://hoffmanheating.net/heating-and-air-conditio ...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is 