Slashdot Mirror


Purdue Makes Trash To Electricity Generator

musicon writes "A group of scientists at Purdue University have created a portable refinery that efficiently converts food, paper, and plastic trash into electricity. The machine, designed for the U.S. military, would allow soldiers in the field to convert waste into power. It could also have widespread civilian applications in the future. Researchers tested the first tactical biorefinery prototype in November and found that it produced approximately 90 percent more energy than it consumed."

7 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. I really, really hope that what they mean is by ed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that in order to run the kit and transform the rubbish into a form that actually powers the generaor, they require x energy.

    From the consumption of the next stage they get x + 90% energy, , otherwise it's a load of keech.

  2. Dual Purpose by supernova_hq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This seems to have two uses, both of which are, by them selves very amazing, together even more amazing:
    1. It reduces garbage 30:1 and turns it into "ash" which seems to be a very easy thing to dispose of (especially at 1/30th of the amount)
    2. It CREATES energy in the process.

    As for the 90% thing, i believe they are saying that the input power would be what-ever power source you give it to turn the trash into electricity, I am pretty sure that the energy already in the trash is not counted in the input.

    Just think, not only could you use your own garbage to power this thing, but just consider the fact that the one thing we have been trying to find a way to get rid of, and inadvertently stockpiling in land fills, can now be reduced by a factor of 30 and turned into electricity, just take a bunch of these to a local landfill and viola, less garbage and more electricity.

    Any municipal government that does not take advantage of this (assuming it gets further developement) should be considered completely incompetent.

  3. Dreaming in technicolor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If a lot of people have been working on a problem for a long time, you shouldn't expect a huge breakthrough. The reason I say these people are dreaming in technicolor is that they imagine that every restaurant will want one of these to process its food waste. The technology to do that has existed for a long time. The reason everyone isn't doing it is because it isn't economic.

    People have been doing biodigesters since forever. The guys at Purdue haven't said they have found a magical new process. AFAICT, they are using the same process as everyone else. Ergo, they should have the same results as everyone else.

    The other part of their system involves gassifying paper and plastic trash. That's another area where people have been working for a long time. It's the holy grail for municipal trash disposal. In fact, many municipalities are generating electricity from garbage but their plants are glorified incinerators not gas generators. In the early twentieth century many/most cities had gassification plants for coal. Now they are having to clean up the coal tar that was left behind to pollute the environment. The guys at Purdue didn't mention how nasty the waste product from their process might be. The people converting turkey guts to oil said that was one of the main problems they had to solve.

    The guys in the story seem to have combined existing technologies and they haven't mentioned the known issues that the existing technologies suffer from. I don't expect to see one of these behind my local restaurant any time soon.

  4. Re:90% of what? by BlackTachyon29 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would not be benificial to the average joe, however for the military I am guesing that it is a much better solution. We do not actually know how much more it weighs over a standard military generator and all the fuel that would be lugged around. In addition it reduces a units "signature" by removing the trash that would otherwise have to be hauled back out or destroyed in some other way. Also once it had been primed with several hours worth of diesel, it would be self supporting untill you either ran out of trash, or moved the unit somewhere and had to reprime it. I can see it reducing the logistics for diesel fuel and trash hauling for a military unit setting up a temporary base of operations.

  5. Re:Incredible by dangitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suggest you take a drive to your local dump, and start sorting through it for recyclable items.

    I didn't say all of it. But it would be possible if humans actually cared enough to put any effort into sustainable energy. Why do you think it's not possible?

    Yeah, good luck generating all the world's electricity from solar and wind. Let me know when you've finished that up...

    I didn't say all of it. But it would be possible if humans actually cared enough to put any effort into sustainable energy. Why do you think it's not possible?

    Why the defeatist attitude? Humans have done many things that were deemed impossible only a short time ago. Like flying, or reaching the moon, or transmitting messages invisibly through the air. Solar and wind power are proven to work, we just lack the will to implement it properly. In many ways, powering everything from sustainable sources is much less "far out" than travelling into space was considered a short time ago. I guess we shouldn't bother trying, because you don't think it's possible?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  6. Re:In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamic by nagora · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If the equation were 1:1.9 as you suggest, then the machine would net more energy out than in, which would break a fundamental law of physics (suggesting that E does not equal mc^2).

    Only globaly/universally. From the point of view of the (non-closed) system of the machine, it is giving out more energy than it is getting in.

    Pointing at the mass and saying E=mc^2 is about as useful in this context as pointing to a lump of coal in your living room and saying that it can heat the room for the rest of your life. But it remains a lump of coal until you extract the energy. If you use less energy to ignite and burn the coal than it emits then you're ahead of the game, regardless of E=mc^2 or any other pointless appeals to thermodynamics.

    I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying that your argument is irrelevant to a discussion of the usefulness of this device.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  7. Re:YA Ridiculous solution to a non-problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with some of your assessment, however I think there are some aspects being overlooked.
    First: This was designed for a specific military purpose, and will presumably serve that purpose well. The soldiers need electricity (among other things) and have trash and garbage they want to eliminate. Sounds like a good trade.

    Second: If this innovation (i.e. small form factor bio-reactor) can serve additional purposes, then great. The article is not stating that your local McDonalds will have one of these portable reactors outside converting leftover stale fries and leftover scraps next year. What it is saying is that when and where there is an emergency, FEMA (or anyone) can airlift and truck in hundreds of these to provide local power. Presumable there is plenty of trash and garbage around that can be converted into power. Again, there is likely a need for electricity and plenty of resources to convert.

    Third: EPA decided the ash is benign. It will not be considered hazardous waste.

    Fourth: If this technology can be improved and made cost effective, it will be used at the local level, rather than in regional trash burning plants. There are many things which are ineffective and inefficient at regional/large scale which are more efficient and effective at local levels (Bureaucracy, zoning, and waste management are examples).

    Fifth: There is a definite problem in this country of waste volume and landfills. If this technology can be used to extend the life of a current landfill by 10%, 50%, or even 3,000% (30:1 volume reduction), then this savings must be considered in the total cost and benefit of the reactor. A city can spend millions of dollars purchasing land for a 30 year landfill. This technology can be used to extend the life of current landfills and also enable the city to find multiple smaller sites in the future. Not to mention the reduced costs of transportation in time, labor, and fuel.

    Sixth: Your point that diesel fuel would be more efficient to run the generator is ass backwards. The point is that we have a resource that is costing us time, money, and space to dispose. This technology enables us to use it to generate a positive net of electricity AND reduce the cost of disposal. Using diesel or gasoline to power a generator is definitely NOT more efficient when looking at the larger system.

    My only questions are how much one of these units costs to purchase and maintain, how heavy are they, and what kind of regulations will we need to follow to have one in our towns permanently? I wouldn't mind taking my recycling AND garbage to the local collection place, knowing that one will be reused and the other will be turned into electricity.