New Trash Disposal Tech

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
Hawkwings
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3372
Joined: 2005-01-28 09:30pm
Location: USC, LA, CA

New Trash Disposal Tech

Post by Hawkwings »

As seen in the most recent issue of Popular Science

It takes waste, breaks the molecular bonds between them, and creates nothing more than gas and glass from it.
Then the two usher me into the lab, where the gleaming 15-foot-tall machine they’ve named the Plasma Converter stands in the center of the room. The entire thing takes up about as much space as a two-car garage, surprisingly compact for a machine that can consume nearly any type of waste—from dirty diapers to chemical weapons—by annihilating toxic materials in a process as old as the universe itself. Called plasma gasification, it works a little like the big bang, only backward (you get nothing from something). Inside a sealed vessel made of stainless steel and filled with a stable gas—either pure nitrogen or, as in this case, ordinary air—a 650-volt current passing between two electrodes rips electrons from the air, converting the gas into plasma. Current flows continuously through this newly formed plasma, creating a field of extremely intense energy very much like lightning. The radiant energy of the plasma arc is so powerful, it disintegrates trash into its constituent elements by tearing apart molecular bonds. The system is capable of breaking down pretty much anything except nuclear waste, the isotopes of which are indestructible. The only by-products are an obsidian-like glass used as a raw material for numerous applications, including bathroom tiles and high-strength asphalt, and a synthesis gas, or “syngas”—a mixture of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide that can be converted into a variety of marketable fuels, including ethanol, natural gas and hydrogen.
Plus, it can even create electricity during this, meaning it can sustain itself, and sell power back into the grid.

Apparently it's been around for a while, but the people who run the landfills don't like it, so they're trying to block cities from building them.
User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

Re: New Trash Disposal Tech

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

Hawkwings wrote:Apparently it's been around for a while, but the people who run the landfills don't like it, so they're trying to block cities from building them.
Never underestimate the capability of people to sacrifice the Greater Good for their own profit margin. Nice tech btw.
Image Image
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Re: New Trash Disposal Tech

Post by Lord Zentei »

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Hawkwings wrote:Apparently it's been around for a while, but the people who run the landfills don't like it, so they're trying to block cities from building them.
Never underestimate the capability of people to sacrifice the Greater Good for their own profit margin. Nice tech btw.
Or rather, don't underestimate people's capacity to fail and see where opportunity exists.

These landfill people could easily participate in the project, shifting from one technology to the other, but still providing trash removal services. They choose not to, lacking imagination and courage.

And yes, this tech is indeed amazing.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Behold: the molecular furnaces to power Silencer-7.
User avatar
Dave
Jedi Knight
Posts: 901
Joined: 2004-02-06 11:55pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Post by Dave »

I enjoyed the article, but this
PopSci web article pg. 5 wrote:Of course, the technology, still unproven on a large scale, has its skeptics. “That obsidian-like slag contains toxic heavy metals and breaks down when exposed to water,” claims Brad Van Guilder, a scientist at the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which advocates for clean air and water. “Dump it in a landfill, and it could one day contaminate local groundwater.” Others wonder about the cleanliness of the syngas. “In the cool-down phases, the components in the syngas could re-form into toxins,” warns Monica Wilson, the international coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, in Berkeley, California.
makes me pause.

Now, torching trash with plasma, sounds very delightful and Sci-Fi-ish. (Homeworld, anyone? Plasma Conduits, Plasma Bomb(er)s and Ion Beams!)

However, I think (if there are as many free ions floating around as I think there will be) this is going to generate plenty of toxic crap in the "glass." Toxic heavy metals such as lead and mercury don't get destroyed, just distributed evenly in this "obsidian-like glass." Instead of being physicaly removable (poured out of glass thermometers, etc.), they must be removed chemicaly. This simply creates a new material that must be stored safe from environmental weathering (though it is more compact.)

Disclaimer: I know enough about plasma to be dangerous only to myself (if that much), so feel free to correct my stupidity.
User avatar
Hawkwings
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3372
Joined: 2005-01-28 09:30pm
Location: USC, LA, CA

Post by Hawkwings »

I think the point is that this slag traps the toxic materials. And really, I'd like to see glass, obsidian, or other similar things break down to water in any reasonable timeframe. There was a similar article regarding nuclear waste, where they proposed to zap the waste into glass and bury it. This sounds rather similar.

Also, now that the toxic chemicals are *not* sitting in landfills, and are instead entombed in glass, wouldn't it be easier to handle?
darthbob88
Jedi Knight
Posts: 884
Joined: 2006-11-14 03:48pm
Location: The Boonies

Post by darthbob88 »

Hawkwings wrote:Also, now that the toxic chemicals are *not* sitting in landfills, and are instead entombed in glass, wouldn't it be easier to handle?
I think it's a compromise. On the one hand, yes, there is no risk of spilling the stuff and contaminating large amounts of soil and groundwater. On the other hand, no, there is practically no way to recover these materials and make everything else safe.

Personally, I'd like to see the organic material get sent through this first, and the remains get fed into that plasma critter.
This message approved by the sages Anon and Ibid.
Any views expressed herein are my own unless otherwise noted, and very likely wrong.
I shave with Occam's Razor.
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Stark »

I'm more interested in a) how it produces net energy, and if there's a minimum/maximum flow-rate of rubbish that has to be maintained to keep the output up and b) how long each cylinder will work before it needs to be replaced and how toxic it is once removed.
Howedar
Emperor's Thumb
Posts: 12472
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:06pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Post by Howedar »

Hawkwings wrote:I think the point is that this slag traps the toxic materials. And really, I'd like to see glass, obsidian, or other similar things break down to water in any reasonable timeframe. There was a similar article regarding nuclear waste, where they proposed to zap the waste into glass and bury it. This sounds rather similar.

Also, now that the toxic chemicals are *not* sitting in landfills, and are instead entombed in glass, wouldn't it be easier to handle?
Not if you're grinding it away day by day as a constituent material in asphalt!
User avatar
Sikon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 705
Joined: 2006-10-08 01:22am

Post by Sikon »

It sounds like toxic chemicals would tend to be broken down from temperature and oxidation, with carbon ending up in the carbon monoxide, metals becoming metal oxides in the glass, and so on. Of course, the one clear exception would be toxic elements like lead, arsenic, mercury, etc. But those may be in low concentrations relative to the total. There is going to be some trace amount acceptable, and the question would be how much. For example, there are naturally about 14 milligrams of lead per kilogram in the average rock (~ 14 ppm crustal concentration).
Image
[/url]
Image
[/url]Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

― Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
User avatar
drachefly
Jedi Master
Posts: 1323
Joined: 2004-10-13 12:24pm

Post by drachefly »

I eagerly await independent verification.

As for the forming of poisonous compounds (as opposed to elements), I think there are ways to minimize that.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Sikon wrote:It sounds like toxic chemicals would tend to be broken down from temperature and oxidation, with carbon ending up in the carbon monoxide, metals becoming metal oxides in the glass, and so on. Of course, the one clear exception would be toxic elements like lead, arsenic, mercury, etc. But those may be in low concentrations relative to the total. There is going to be some trace amount acceptable, and the question would be how much. For example, there are naturally about 14 milligrams of lead per kilogram in the average rock (~ 14 ppm crustal concentration).
Not that it really matters if it's going into constructing roads anyway. If it were to be used for other purposes, then I'd be wary of keeping the concentrations ultra low. As it is, anything toxic is going to avoid human contact anyway.
Post Reply