XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: nospam@needed.invalid   
      
   On Sat, 12/20/2025 1:46 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   > On 2025-12-20 18:14, Paul wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 12/20/2025 7:15 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Garbage should be burnt (if burnt at all) in a high temperature oven with   
   filters for toxic fumes.   
   >>   
   >> An entrepreneur tried this and eventually gave up.   
   >> The process was not clean enough to be used, without consequences.   
   >>   
   >> Any of the chemists I graduated with, could have told this person it won't   
   work.   
   >>   
   >> It might have been something like dioxin. There was never a "final report"   
   >> or "lessons learned", to put a stop to someone else trying it.   
   >   
   > Well, there are countries doing it, and they claim to be happy about it.   
   Switzerland, for instance.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>     "When plastic burns, it releases a cocktail of harmful chemicals   
   into the air.   
   >>      These include dioxins, furans, mercury, and polychlorinated   
   biphenyls (PCBs).   
   >>      Dioxins, in particular, are known carcinogens and can cause   
   reproductive and   
   >>      developmental problems, damage the immune system, and interfere   
   with hormones."   
   >>   
   >> There is a difference between filtering a truly trace chemical, and buckets   
   >> of bad stuff coming out the bottom of the rig.   
   >>   
   >> This is what happens when the consumption method is not at a high enough   
   >> temperature. Raising the temperature of the process, increases the   
   >> price per ton, of the processing. But humans will "try to burn that shit   
   >> with gasoline", and even with a pure oxygen supply for help (dangerous),   
   >> the temperature of the output reactants is too low. Only a few combustive   
   >> gas mixtures, give relatively high output temperatures, and usually involve   
   >> relatively tiny molecules. It's possible an acceptable combustion process   
   >> needs three times that temperature, a plasma of some kind maybe. You can't   
   >> get there with combustion, it's going to take something a lot more whizzy   
   >> (and energy consumptive).   
   >>   
   >> The Sun would make a good garbage bucket. But you'd have to find an article   
   >> that analyzes the consequences (other than the cost per ton of launching   
   >> garbage).   
   >>   
   >> A fusion reactor gets nice and warm. The ignition facility (NIF) in the   
   States   
   >> used for fusion research, the target zone there gets nice and warm, but   
   >> this is hardly cheap kit to be burning garbage. In the fusion reactor,   
   >> you're ruin the containment walls, with discarded tomato sandwich splatter   
   :-)   
   >>   
   >>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facili   
   y#/media/File:NIF_target_chamber_2.jpg   
   >>   
   >> There are continuing comments in the local news, about "solving our garbage   
   >> problem by burning it". I was born in a city that did this, burned garbage   
   >> in a relatively low temperature incinerator. I've been to that incinerator   
   >> in a pickup truck. The tailgate fell off our truck, into the pit which   
   buffers   
   >> the garbage fed into the incinerator. It's 200 feet down. There is a ladder   
   on   
   >> the side of the pit, covered in slime, for you to climb down :-) Well, the   
   >> crane operator at the pit was a champ. He picked up our tailgate with the   
   >> bucket scoop jaws, pulled it up the two hundred feet, and deposited it   
   >> on the ground next to the offload area. It was "only a little bit bent".   
   >>   
   >> That incinerator used to shower us in soot and fallen debris. Any washing   
   >> outside, would get covered in debris and need to be washed again. It all   
   >> depended on the wind direction, as to who got the "output".   
   >>   
   >> They don't do that any more. But I bet the politicians reminisce about   
   >> how "successful" that operation was. Today, there is a lawn over top of   
   >> everything that went on there, and methane vent pipes on the premises.   
   >> That garbage today, is like most cities, driven out of town on 40 foot   
   trailers   
   >> and such.   
   >>   
   >> Today, a new town dump costs about $500,000,000 to build, and has a   
   >> liner in the bottom to collect toxic fluids. That figure, is what   
   >> stokes all this interest in combustion :-)   
   >   
   >   
   > I agree with you, but some people tell me that the EU sanctioned way is an   
   incinerator.   
      
   The article here, goes into the detail of all the steps to control the output.   
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration   
      
   The thing someone was working on here, was some sort of sealed method, so   
   it didn't involve large volumes of materials moving though a plant. the steps   
   in the Wikipedia description would require a fairly large building to do the   
   work.   
   Even the crude incinerator we used to have, which had the fly ash problem,   
   it was a rather large facility. You couldn't see the incineration part, as   
   it was up closer to where the crane operator lived. The waste was lifted up   
   maybe a hundred feet (above grade) and deposited out of eyesight. The pit went   
   down two hundred feet below grade. (The garbage trucks could dump directly   
   at the pit edge.) The incinerator had a stack, but the "fallout" from the   
   tall stack, meant the bit that did not fall right at the   
   incineration stack... fell at our house.   
      
   I doubt that incinerator, had any of the refinements from the Wikipedia   
   article.   
      
      Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)