[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.93 MB, 320x454, 1362614641814.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5625215 No.5625215 [Reply] [Original]

why dont we burn trash for fuel? surely we have the technology to clean the emissions from burning it.

>> No.5625218

>>5625215
>surely we have the technology to clean the emissions from burning it.
No. We do not.

If we did, we would use it to clean all emissions.
Pollution would be a thing of the past.
but unfortunately, this is not possible.

>> No.5625221

>>5625218
if they can do it for a coal fired power plant why not for a garbage fired power plant?

>> No.5625223

It's not economical.

>>5625218
Killyourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber

>> No.5625224

>>5625221
if they can do it for a coal fired power plant.
They can not.

Coal fired power plants do cause pollution.

>> No.5625235

>>5625224
You really do live under a rock don't you

>> No.5625236
File: 1.00 MB, 200x152, 1361451908903.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5625236

OH GOD THE INEFFICIENCY. The expense would be HELLISH, and the waste monumental! Not to mention Greenpeace would lead an armed revolution.

>> No.5625244

>>5625236
more expensive and wasteful than taking all of our shit and burying it in the ground? how would be be expensive? just take the garbage to a power plant instead of a dump.
>>5625224
much cleaner than they used to be. and if its so unclean then why don't we just use emission free nuclear plants?
>inb4 waste disposal
>inb4 meltdown

>> No.5625246

>>5625215

We do burn trash to produce electricity.

>> No.5625273

>>5625246
where?

>> No.5625280

I'm pretty sure the amount of trash you would have to put in your engine would be pretty huge and nobody wants to drive the hobomobile.

>> No.5625306

>>5625273
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy

>> No.5625308

Right now, the plants would cost too much.

It's better to just pile it up as savings. Later on, when the technology's ready, we can dig it up and process it for energy and materials.

>> No.5625324

>>5625244
>implying people know what meltdown means

>> No.5625437
File: 1.99 MB, 318x241, 1360795320322.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5625437

It's called an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant you plebs and it's used extensively. When did /sci/ become this stupid, oh yeah it always has been
> cant even basic technology

Shove in trash,it's processed, bacteria feed of it producing concentrated methane "biogas", solid waste produced by bacteria is spread over local farmland as a rich fertilizer. Normally found near landfills.

>> No.5625472

>>5625308
There are 69 plants in Germany, producing heat or electricity. It helps to have working trash separation system.

In Switzerland it's not even allowed to put household trash in landfills. They burn it all.

>> No.5625599
File: 13 KB, 300x225, power_plant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5625599

>69 plants in Germany

My place gets heated that way (district heating).
Waste incineration plus waste heat from the local power plant. Nukes be gone.

>> No.5625618
File: 310 KB, 1000x667, spittelau.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5625618

local incinerator

burning shit for cash dolla energy yo

>> No.5625621

If we burn the trash we'll rise the signified gamma desolators in the atmosphere and trust me you do not want that.

>> No.5625643

>>5625621

we just need to put the xel naga artifact in the antimass spetrometer and establish combine uplink to flux core your thingamagigs back into the Koprulu sector.

>> No.5625657

>>5625643
Its funny how you keep forgeting the raw-link statosphere meta-antirake fluid antistopes of DK-52 prolapse milk in the reverse version of axenormatic pre-liqued decoherance, which is really elementary in the cratic synapsolipsosis of the cis corp diffusaled nerf-roam

>> No.5625656

>>5625599
nuclear is the cleanest, safest, and most plentiful among those with a limited resource.

>> No.5625689

>>5625235
You're an idiot for thinking carbon emission advanced have eliminated pollution.

>>5625599
Burning trash for electricity is awesome, but what do you have against nuclear?

Where I live in Canada all our electric is powered by water (hydro). In Ontario though I know they use a lot of nuclear, and wind if I'm not mistaken. Out west it's all natural gas though. I wish Canada would become a bigger player with nuclear energy. We have enough empty space that we could easily put them strategically in places where even if they did melt down, no one would be (directly) affected.

>> No.5625700

>>5625599
germany: on the cutting edge of burning things en masse since 1939

no seriously man, thats great. wish we did that in the US.

>> No.5625709

>>5625700

i think recycling is better than burning though.

especially with the rise of 3d printers. time to get the infrastructure working properly.