Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could your trashcan solve the energy crisis?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-23-09 10:32 AM
Original message
Could your trashcan solve the energy crisis?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227051.500-could-your-trashcan-solve-the-energy-crisis.html

Could your trashcan solve the energy crisis?

22 April 2009 by Phil McKenna
Video: http://www.newscientist.com/articlevideo/mg20227051.500/20472801001-could-your-trashcan-solve-the-energy-crisis.html">Eco-fuel from rubbish

Editorial: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227053.000-waste-gasification-needs-more-light-and-less-heat.html">Waste gasification needs more light and less heat

AT FIRST glance, 303 Bear Hill Road in Waltham, Massachusetts, doesn't look like the scene of an environmental revolution. But packed into a shipping container in the car park of this modest suburban commercial building is a compact piece of technology that its maker http://www.istenergy.com/">IST Energy insists can turn even the filthiest waste into clean, green energy. "Trash will move from being a liability to an asset, providing a clean source of energy that can be used right where it is produced," says Stuart Haber, the company's CEO.

IST is not alone in this revolution. It is one of a growing number of companies and research groups around the world working on gasification - a process that zaps household waste into energy and which, its advocates say, produces few or no harmful emissions. Yet as pilot gasification plants begin to spring up around the world, this apparent environmentalist's dream is not being universally welcomed. Opponents argue that the process is far from clean and that its track record in terms of energy efficiency and emissions can hardly be considered green. Not to mention the fact that it encourages the throwaway society that the environmental movement has been trying so hard to get rid of. So what is the real story? Is vaporising trash the http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125695.900-vaporisation-could-turn-landfills-into-power.html">answer to our energy and waste-disposal woes, or an environmental wolf in sheep's clothing?

The idea of converting waste into energy has been around for decades. Heat from garbage-fuelled incinerators can generate steam that drives a turbine that in turn drives an electrical generator. Now fears over energy security and climate change, combined with the http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026761.500-theres-gold-in-them-there-landfills.html">rising cost of dealing with the world's waste, are raising the possibility of disposing of household trash using higher-energy methods once reserved for hazardous materials such as medical waste and asbestos.

Gasification, and its cousin plasma gasification, involve heating waste to a high temperature inside a sealed chamber. This is done in the near absence of oxygen, so organic components in the waste do not burn but instead reform into syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This can be filtered and chemically "scrubbed" to remove toxic particles and gases, and then burned to produce energy or converted into other fuels such as methane, ethanol or synthetic diesel. All that's left to dispose of at the end is ash, dirty filters and chemicals from the scrubbing process, which can be treated and sent to landfill or into the sewers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why weren't all our coal plants designed to be gasifiers?
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 06:49 AM by madokie
gasifying coal produces in the neighborhood of 60% less CO2 than direct burning plus by using a gasifier it makes it somewhat easier to capture the CO2 also.

splchk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Because coal was cheap
Why weren't all of our cars hybrids? It's not like the technology is new. (Because gasoline was cheap.)

If oil and coal had always been expensive, we would have built our technology to use less of them, but they weren't, so we didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC