What is Digg?47 Comments
- AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24"Is this the best we can do?"
We could stop consuming so much. - carbonetc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16That comment just made a hundred nerds twitch.
- mwosh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Is it just me, or does wrapping our trash with shrink-wrap seem backwards?
It's like saying, "Why don't we make a HUGE garbage bag, to put all the other garbage bags in?" - lettruthout, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11This reads like a press release. Where are the quotes from people that can see through this stuff?
- "And shipping by rail eliminates the need for greenhouse gas-emitting trucks." What, trains don't release any CO2?
- Plastic used to wrap + energy used to compress garbage + energy used to ship garbage hundreds of miles
= a huge amount of energy.
Is this the best that we can do? - lbeaty1981, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm not even a trekkie and that comment made me cringe...
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6actually, most freight trains in the US run on electricity that is generated by on-board diesel-electric motors. These motors run at their maximum efficiency 100% of the time which means they burn cleaner and longer than if the train were powered by a straight forward combustion engine. However, you're right that we don't have much, if any, electrified heavy rail in the US. But, you need to go back a few decades to start pointing fingers for that decision.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@lett Trains do not necessarily have to emit any CO2. They could run on electricity or hydrogen. Trucks won't be able to do that for a long, long time. And no sane source of electrical power available today would result in significant CO2 emissions.(sadly, a combination of the Big Oil/Coal lobby and misinformed environmental lobby have made us in the US pick the insane sources for some reason)
- alecks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Mr. Fusion?
- itseze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it does seem like a lot of work for a small potential result, but it is better then doing nothing.
seems like a good start! - gpickett00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I really like the title garbologists.
- Chazzer3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A very interesting idea, but I can't see it being 'ultimate' in any way. I'm sure there'll be a lot of ideas like this one in the near future, as the 'green' issue becomes bigger and bigger..!
- Tyr7BE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes but right now we're still shipping garbage. At least this way we'd be reusing the garbage to create more energy. It's not a panacea, but it's better than what we're doing now.
- DougMirror, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Of course trains make CO2, but they make a lot less per ton of cargo, than a truck would.
- qmeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The idea is that they can fit way more on a train car than they can on trucks more efficiently. i.e. one train car load equals "4 trucks off the road"....the train is already traveling in that direction, so if you have 10 train car loads traveling across 4 states to deliver the trash, then that's 40 trucks off the road going the same route...way more CO2.
- qmeister, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What are you talking about? recycling #1 plastics yields fleece and some carpets (plus whatever else)....I've seen a lot of fleece out there on people...seems like a good long term use for those water bottles we're using...instead of throwing them in a hole in the ground.
Please direct me to the resources you are citing on how "Wasteful" recycling is... - hode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I like how Doc takes care to pour the soda into Mr. Fusion, then just dumps the whole can in. I want my recycling to be that easy.
Marty, I need fuel! - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i believe people need to recycle more, since i started recycling my trash (plastic, cardboard, newspaper & magazines, tin cans, aluminum) my trashcan out at the curb for sanitation weekly pickup went from a 30 gallon trashcan to a 5 gallon bucket...
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd like to know just how long-lasting and leak-proof these bales really are. We seem to have a history of making unsinkable ships and permanantly sealed radiation containers that don't seem to work as advertised. I think this is an idea that merits further investigation and discussion, but there are a lot of questions to be answered.
- Sell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most "landfills" already are "fuel cells" producing natural gas from decomposition. The gas flows through perforated pipes running through each section (or whatever it's called).
- bigdoug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2{A variety of conversion technologies, including ones that use landfill gas to generate electricity, are being explored by garbologists in Europe and the United States.} - This would be great if it continues. Bringing corp and green together is awesome.
- glucoseboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks great. Reminds me of a giant DiaperGenie!
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Stop digging gabriels down! Most recycling in the US at least is very bad for the environment and costly.
- recycling paper is extremely polluting and is also more expensive than just growing more trees to make paper from(being almost all paper in the US is made from farmed trees)
-recycling plastics is also fairly polluting and expensive, and the end product cannot be used very well
So the only things worth recycling that we throw away are aluminum and tires, yet we spend the most on plastics and paper. I really want to live a green lifestyle, but endless recycling is not the answer. - KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Except we'd need to scale the one used in the move up a *few* times to fit train loads of trash. :p
- Takfam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It seems like the 2 major points are that it takes less trash trucks less distance to accomplish the same feat of disposal and that the disposal method itself is cleaner since it leads to less mass of solid waste (by way of compression and plastic wrap).
As for cleaner energy as a result, I guess they're using the Underpants Gnomes method of trash to energy conversion:
Step 1) Collect bundles of trash
Step 2) ??????
Step 3) Fuel Cell! - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6We need to stop wasting resources on recycling first. Although, this is a good service that could eventually do the job.
- hindinburg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good idea...but how much natural materials are we going to waste in producing the "shrink-wrap" green materials?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@kibibytebrain
LOL what freight train do you know of that runs of electricity in the US? none! - MrSidnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@light11
Packing it in plastic means once it's bundled, it's easier to handle. It's also compressed, making it smaller, and easier to move by rail.
"So every rail car full of neatly wrapped bales takes four or five exhaust-belching big rigs off the road. And it only takes a pound or so of plastic to encase several tons of trash."
Im sure they have done the math, and it's far cheaper to make a pound of plastic per bale then pay 5 guys $20/hr and 5 trucks including diesel to truck this trash around. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why isn't the ultimate goal to use landfills as sources of energy?
This is a great idea. - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thinnk that's mentioned in the article
- megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ironically, polyester fleece is a hell of a lot better for the environment than typical cotton fabric. Cotton takes huge amounts of water and pesticides to grow.
- megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This sounds like a variation on Buckminster Fuller's packaging toilet concept. His idea was to shrink-wrap human waste in plastic, thereby eliminating water as the transport medium, and use the packaged waste to make fertilizer.
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2but germany has hydrogen powered trucks, and US cities operate fleets of H-power busses and light utility vehicles. I think you're confusing your scientists with your lobiests.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@hoshi Wrong. That is why the continental US has 33% more trees then when European colonists first arrived. Tree farmers plant way more trees than they ever foresee cutting down. Most US paper is from tree farms. You are just plain wrong.
- hoshizakistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oops. I made a mistake. digg down.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow!
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Also a good source from the New York Times: http://www.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1landfills also make great iron ore and aluminum ore... they should purify it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Just what we need, more non-biodegradable items in our landfills
- hoshizakistar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ kibibytebrain:
I'm pretty sure trains can't run on hydrogen yet and won't for a VERY long time. heavier vehicles are much more reliant on fossil fuels because they're way more efficient than anything else we have right now. that's why they're working on hydrogen powered cars at the moment and not even considering trucks yet, let alone trains. - hoshizakistar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ kibibytebrain:
I won't disagree with your argument saying that recycling paper isn't as good as planting new trees but there are tons of problems with that argument. the first problem is that we're NOT PLANTING MORE TREES! instead, we clearcut forests and leave them to regenerate on their own which can take hundreds of years. another problem is the fact that trees don't grow very quickly and we would cut them down much quicker than they'd be able to grow.
in the meantime, we're reusing our scrap paper to slow our tree destroying processes so we don't cut down all the trees in the world at once and screw ourselves over. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I don't care who you are...that is a good idea right there...
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@gmeister http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-202.html
Many environmental groups have claimed to have debunked this analysis, and while it contains some errors, the main conclusions remain strongly supported. I consider myself to be an open minded person and would really love to believe that simply sorting my trash could help save the world, but sadly the EVIDENCE is against it. - qmeister, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2gitr done
(every dagum one of you wanted to say that...don't digg me down for that:) - nullenigma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Ironically, the knee-jerk rejection of anything technological has prevented a lot of ultimate environmental good. If you're just anti-technology and want to live in a cave with your beaded hemp necklaces, that's fine, but please stop trying to disguise anti-technology viewpoint as being for the benefit of the environment.
This is a first step in the right direction, and the best you anti-progress people can do is whine and cry and kick that it isn't 100% perfect, instead of thinking of your own PRACTICAL ideas. I'll keep doing my best to reduce my consumption and scale back the stuff I don't really need, but let's give good ideas a shot, just because someone has technology and money doesn't make them evil. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Step 4) PROFIT!!!
- MinisterOrange, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1We need a holodeck. Then we could just beam it into the sun. Problem solved!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is