What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
129 Comments
- 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. - b9gh47q, on 11/16/2008, -1/+31I think that's a great idea, it really is a win-win situation.
- nichesiteexpert, on 11/16/2008, -0/+24We're one step closer to Mr. Fusion :)
- IvanB, on 11/16/2008, -2/+20Environmental advances will never cease to amaze me! :)
- wildest, on 11/16/2008, -2/+20Genius, do they do cremation services too?
- 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. - GoRedRaiders, on 11/16/2008, -8/+25We need Nuclear power, now.
- chirt, on 11/17/2008, -0/+12YAY SCIENCE!
- 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 - 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.
- 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... - revslaughter, on 11/16/2008, -2/+13So what's the energy profit?
- 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 ... - inactive, 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. - swgbex, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8It can because the "fuel" source is trash. You aren't getting something for nothing.
- inactive, 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.
- Garofoli, on 11/16/2008, -1/+9Innovative and practical. Killing two birds with one stone.
- 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?
- excavationist, on 11/17/2008, -4/+11Did anyone else read this and think plants like...trees and what not?
- 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! - MoeMoeMoe, on 11/17/2008, -0/+7To vaporize 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!
- 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.
- JFitzpatrick, on 11/17/2008, -1/+7Even if the answer would always be "Yes!", I'd watch a vidcast of "Will It Burn?"
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- b9gh47q, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4http://journeyhomeburke.files.wordpress.com/2007/0 ...
- FLarsen, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Notice his /s tag.
- 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.
- lsoverdrive, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5...Why would they even bother building a generator that consumes more power than it produces?
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - valkyries, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4nasa, also had almost 4% of the gdp 40 years ago.
- lycao25, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4Only if you're in the mob.
- 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 ... - nowhereelse, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3I'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. - floridadigg, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3The plant in Port St. Lucie will eliminate the local landfill entirely by 2017.
- 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.
- dimplemonkey, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3So what's the byproduct that we'll get when we transmogrify this trash besides energy?
- DrDabbles, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3You are wrong. Try googling.
- GlassAgate, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Transformers The Movie.
I was making a joke. Think about Unicron. - inactive, 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.
- CrushThemTorg, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3Call me a complete moron, but what happens when we run out of trash?
- rentmitchum, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3If it comes with a Vash the Stampede I'm all for it..
- 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. - 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 