Slashdot Mirror


Plasma Plants Vaporize Trash While Creating Energy

Jason Sahler writes "Recently St. Lucie County in Florida announced that it has teamed up with Geoplasma to develop the United States' first plasma gasification plant. The plant will use super-hot 10,000 degree Fahrenheit plasma to effectively vaporize 1,500 tons of trash each day, which in turn spins turbines to generate 60MW of electricity — enough to power 50,000 homes!"

37 of 618 comments (clear)

  1. Slow down... by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am sure this will be deadly for some marine brine shrimp, or something, and will be regulated away. All sensible plans are...

    1. Re:Slow down... by RuBLed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, and what if the plasma leaks through the magnetic fields and consume more and more matter. We're doomed!!

    2. Re:Slow down... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 4, Funny

      My first thought was more directed towards destroying people without a trace. Push a guy into the machine and voila, no traces.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  2. Re:Environmental impact? by master5o1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, as long as it's not Carbon. Because we all know that Carbon is bad. Oxygen is good. Hydrogen, however explosive it might be, is still good because we can mix Oxygen and Hydrogen to make water, which we need. So as long as we don't have Carbon... because Carbon is damn evil. Die Carbon you element of satan! (I think I overshot my moderation target)

    --
    signature is pants
  3. Recently? by evilviper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Recently St. Lucie County in Florida announced that it has teamed up with Geoplasma to develop the United States' first plasma gasification plant.

    Yes, they recently announced that... Just a few couple after the first slashdot story, where they announced it:

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/09/10/0026243.shtml

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  4. The Doc is Back! by Narmacil · · Score: 5, Funny

    FINALLY! The Mr. Fusion is only a few years away!
    No longer will I need Plutonium to generate the 3.3 Jigawatts nessecary to power my Flux Capacitor.

  5. Reading and visualizing by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Still asleep here, so my visualizing of this was:

    "Plasma " ok that's the hot stuff

    " plants " O, the beautiful trees, the nature... hmm, wait a second. Plasma trees? plasma grass?! What the...

    " Vaporize trash " Dear freaking gawd! trash vaposizing red hot trees?!? Scorching grassy plains to vaporise trash on?

    " While creating energy " They are self sustaining?! It's the end of the world! We're all gonna diiie!

  6. Re:seems a bit stingy by Warhawke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only person who upon reading the title had the sudden mental image of flora with glowing plasma leaves that devour trash like venus fly-traps devour flies? Whew, I need to lay off the midnight sushi...

  7. Re:Sunshine by ben0207 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The man whose job it is to monitor the plasma (using 4 mechanical arms powered by an AI) could be struck by a solar flare when the machine goes out of control?

    --
    cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
  8. Re:No methane, but CO2? by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Funny

    Exactly! What we need to do is trap the carbon it makes and somehow dispose of it. Perhaps in some sort of landfill system.

    --
    -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
  9. Re:Conservation of energy by iamdrscience · · Score: 5, Funny

    This process will NOT "create" energy.

    See, this is my problem with you people who put all your faith and belief behind "science", it just leads to pessimistic attitudes. I mean sure, I know it's unlikely that this system would be the exception to conservation of energy or any other principle of physics, but there's always a possibility that maybe, just maybe, plasma garbage vaporizing is where physics breaks down. So, if you want, I'll let you live in your miserable world where you're always right and nothing exciting ever happens. All I ask is that you just don't disturb me in my world, a world of imagination and possibilities, a world where anything can happen, a world where flying cars, jetpacks and sophisticated sex robots are just around the corner and yes, a world where garbage vaporizes can run amok, producing more energy than is put into them thereby destroying the universe. Screw your science, that's the world I want to live in.

  10. Re:Environmental impact? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oxygen is good.

    Oxygen was invented by Shampoo.

  11. Re:Environmental impact? by master5o1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think you're having me on because it sounds like a sham and I'm not buying your lies.

    --
    signature is pants
  12. nt by shentino · · Score: 2, Funny

    This will be a gas...

  13. Re:Conservation of energy by terjeber · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why is it that so many people do not understand the difference between "an open mind" and "a hole in the head"?

  14. Re:Conservation of energy by dougisfunny · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because they don't have open minds.

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  15. Wasn't this is a movie? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I seem to recall a sci-fi/action movie where the sun's energy was used to create plasma which was then used to incinerate trash and create more energy and somehow save the planet or something, but it turned out to be a huge fraud and the creator/owner/whatever business-guy of the project was going to blow it up with the heroes stranded in it before anyone caught on that the project was a huge fraud and drain on public funds... or something like that. It's 3am and I just got up to use the bathroom... what am I doing here anyway?

  16. Re:Sunshine by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Funny

    He could get food poisoning from the cafeteria food.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  17. Re:seems a bit stingy by dougisfunny · · Score: 3, Funny

    or, whatcouldpossiblygrowwrong

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  18. I see the newspapers of tomorrow.. by sTERNKERN · · Score: 4, Funny

    The plant used super-hot 10,000 degree Fahrenheit plasma to generate enough power to effectively vaporize 50,000 homes creating 1,500 tons of trash.

  19. Re:OK - I'll bite by justinlee37 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I do a LOT of work on refuse disposal options, principally for the UK food industry

    A back of the metaphorical fag packet calculation

    Oh, you brits and your wacky words and silly sayings. As a yank, I never cease to be amused by it.

  20. Re:Conservation of energy by pallmall1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    All I ask is that you just don't disturb me in my world, a world of imagination and possibilities, a world where anything can happen...

    Neo, there is no spoon.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  21. Re:Conservation of energy by CubicleView · · Score: 5, Funny

    This solves nothing, once we hit peak trash production then we'll be screwed all over again.

  22. Re:seems a bit stingy by mcvos · · Score: 2, Funny

    1.2 kW per household? A hair dryer eats more than this.

    May I recommend turning your hair dryer off after you're done drying your hair?

  23. Re:Conservation of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The fecal molecule forms covalent bond with nylon diaper molecule, spent radiator fluid moves 10 places toward the center of the periodic table, and as it stabilizes to form lawn clippings, theta radiation (assorted bottle caps) is emitted:

    l----------l----------l----------l
    l-169----l-170----l-172---|
    l-Aq------l-Gr-----l-Tx------l
    l-Water-l-Grass-l-Fire---l
    l----------l----------l----------|

    The energy produced is used to power a sterling cycle heat engine, which can produce enough power to run at least 100 model railroads. There is some question however, as to whether the Iranians should be allowed to procure weapons grade Grass.

  24. Re:Conservation of energy by Whiteox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Screw your science, that's the world I want to live in

    I am intrigued by your rant and wish to subscribe to your spam.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  25. Re:Conservation of energy by ailnlv · · Score: 1, Funny

    Unfortunately, science is a tough bitch with a 14 inch strap on

  26. Re:Pyrolysis may be more useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    But when you have a pound of beef, you have a pound of food. When you have a pound of rice or soy beans, you still have to find some food to serve with it.

  27. Re:Conservation of energy by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Or the result of the experiment is politically incorrect, like for example that video games really do increase the likelihood of violent behavior, which is more than proven

    Ignoring the rest of your spew, I'd be interested in any sort of evidence you can produce to back up this statement.

    Other than that, you seem to be doing a good job of "knowing everything" - why don't we just crown you king and you can sort things out from your obviously superior vantage point?

  28. Actually pretty simple by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Throw away the products of this process, and, now that they are "garbage", feed them back into the machine. Voila! Free energy forever.

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  29. Re:Sunshine by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Funny

    YEA! It's totally misleading because C is SO much less than K! I mean 30,000K is only 29,726.85C! That guy is such a jackass!

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  30. Re:Pyrolysis may be more useful by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's because feeding cows grain is terribly inefficient. They basically shit them out undigested. If you think about one of the purposes of a grain, and one of the purposes of a cow, you'll see why...

  31. Re:Conservation of energy by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...effectively neutralizing virtually every known toxin and hazardous substance, the only exception is radioactive elements...

    Are you implying that there are no non-radioactive elements which are hazardous? Let me introduce you to my friend, the periodic table...

  32. Re:Pyrolysis may be more useful by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Funny

    the fact still remains that that land must be used to grow grain to feed the cattle.

    Look buddy, I don't know what country you live in, but in MY AMERICA, we feed our livestock nothing but CORN. You don't get massive government subsidies for growing grain, you get that for growing corn.

    Um, corn's a grain.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  33. Re:Conservation of energy by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

    a world where flying cars, jetpacks and sophisticated sex robots are just around the corner

    Jetpacks and sex robots already exist. It's simply that a jetpack makes it really easy to kill yourself in a spectacular fashion, and sex robots have as much to do with their fictional counterparts as welding robots used in factories do.

    I'd give 20 years, tops, before we have scifi-like sexbots. Since they'll likely come from Japan, they'll be shaped like six-year old girls with tentacles. Whether this is a plus or minus depends on your tastes, I suppose ;).

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  34. Re:Pyrolysis may be more useful by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Funny

    But when you have a pound of beef, you have a pound of food. When you have a pound of rice or soy beans, you still have to find some food to serve with it.

    Put another way, vegetables are what food eats. :-)

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  35. Re:Pyrolysis may be more useful by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The reality is that we don't have enough planet for everyone to be a meat-eater, at least not in the American sense.

    Technically, we do have enough planet for sufficient meat production if we were to switch to soylent green. This would also free up graveyard space for more crop fields.