Wasn't it George W Harris who wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:28:05 -0600, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>
>:The ultimate garbage disposer is built -- whatever is put into it is
>:broken down to its component elements which are then separated by
>:type.
>:
>:The inventor admits there are some minor problems with the process,
>:and number 1,896 on his list of things to change is that the carbon
>:comes out as flawless 36 pound crystals.
>:
>:It may be years before he gets around to fixing that. In the meantime,
>:it's piling up at the rate of about 1000 tons a day.
>:
>:The powers that be, eager to have this landfill-alternative shown to
>:be a practical process, put you in charge of disposing of it. (The
>:power companies don't want it -- diamond dust plays havoc with the
>:equipment.)
>:
>:What do you do with it?
>
> Burn it. At 1000 tons/day, I don't know how
>much electricity you could produce, but I'll bet it's significant.
Yes. And, if the garbage disposer won't accept CO2 directly, it would
probably only take a fraction of that energy to combine the CO2 with
hydrogen to produce something that the disposer will accept and give you
back the diamond and hydrogen. That gives you a perpetual motion
machine.
The only way that wouldn't work is if the disposer consumes something
like 200 gigaJoules of energy each time it outputs a ton of diamond.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
|
