/sci/ - Science & Math

no

Darn :c

>>3425505

why not?

So /sci/. Got a hypothesis for ya!

What if we threw giant ice cubes into oceans! Problem solved for the climate crisis c:

>>3425549
because lava isn't a magical "make things disappear" goo. It's just hot rocks, and all it'll do is make hot garbage. The exact same amount only in liquid and gaseous forms.

>>3425505
I think this guy's on to something.

>>3425505
Why can this not work?

I guess it's difficult to get stuff deep enough. Active volcanos may not be ideal.

>>3425558
but it sure can destroy any communal waste
(not sugesting we throw all of it in there)

Active volcanos are pretty dangerous, they are not some lava pit somewhere. It's probably easier just to incinerate them.

then we can just throw the lava in the lava, and we've created millions of jobs, because someone has to keep throwing the molten garbage lava back into the volcano

It'd work the same as incinerating the garbage, so in actuality doing that and generating power from the result would be a wiser plan.

>>3425552
Don't they do that already?

>>3425558
What is garbage Anon? What is pollution? Uranium, oil and dioxides all exist naturally.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, nor easily the primal forms of matter. In this sense, man made nothing. It was all there for us to rearrange.

Earth recycles material through subduction. OP makes an interesting point.

Good idea except that there's far too many materials we can harvest from landfills disregarding profitability.

>>3425866
This thread isn't about availability of raw materials.

Why don't we just grab the garbage and put it somewhere else?

>>3425956
But that is why hurling garbage into the sun/volcanoes/black holes/anti-matter garbage dumps is retarded.

.>>3425977
No. Excluding volcanoes ( I don't know), it's because it's tremendously inefficient. Otherwise that would be an ideal solution.

>>3425989
>destroying resources
>ideal

You heard it here first folks

>>3425989
A volcano would essentially incinerate and release the same stuff as an incinerating power station would. The power used to fire things in to space would cause several orders of magnitude more pollution than atomising the garbage and feeding it directly into the stratosphere then setting fire to it.

>>3426009
>implying waste matter is a resource

>>3426028
Depends entirely on what the waste is. I wouldn't call the majority of landfill unuseful, because it has uses as fuel. It's just not easily used,

why don't we make a tube that goes into space and dispose all the garbage into spehhs?

>>3426035
It is an arbitrary definition imposed specifically by the relative difficulty of reusing a given material.

It's not as easily used.