On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:34:51 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
<jrs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In rec.arts.sf.science message <djdaq3d27uk2ivrbfsitf82sl5q4opd7iq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>om>, Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:28:05, Wildepad <noreplies@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> posted:
>>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?
>
>A thousand tons a day does not seem nearly enough to represent the
>carbon content of the world's garbage - it's about 150 mg / head. So
>many more plants can be used.
The first one has to be shown practical before others can be built.
>Of course, ignoring the subject line, ISTM that diamond is not the only
>crystalline form of carbon - graphite could be more acceptable as
>output, or buckytubes for use as an engineering material.
In time, the inventor will have to decide how to change it, but it's
far down the list.
--
|
