Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Engineering of Landfills

practical.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 333 posts

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#181

Post by lolinder »

renewiltord wrote: post #158
bko wrote: post #2

I found this interesting: > Another option is to put it to beneficial use to create heat or even electricity. The Puente Hills landfill I showed earlier has a gas-to-energy facility that’s been running since 1987, and even though the landfill is now closed, it currently provides enough electricity to power around 70,000 homes. And towards the end > Landfills seem like an environmental blight, but really, properly des…

Environmentalists in the US are against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal energy. They are against high-rise buildings and pro-golf-courses. They can be safely ignored since their stated goals and their actions can only be concordant if one assumes they're idiots or enemies.

Can you please point me to a single environmentalist who is against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal energy, and high-rise buildings but is for golf courses?

I'm sure you can find plenty of people who check one or more of those boxes, but I'm interested to know if there's anyone who checks enough of them to be self-contradictory.

If you can't point me to one person who holds all beliefs, then you're falling for the classic fallacy of treating a group of individuals as if they were a hive mind. See comments about how "HN" both believes in unrestricted capitalism and supports privacy regulations.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#182

Post by scoofy »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #179
scoofy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I might be wrong, I seriously doubt the plastics creating the methane emissions you are referring to. That is almost certainly the organic matter. I have no idea how you think plasma gasification -- requiring extreme amounts of energy -- is in any way helpful to our current environmental concerns. Unless we somehow magically start relying on 100% renewables, it seems like landfills are far-and-away the best way…

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/opinion/solar-power-free-... By the end of this year, the world will be deploying 660GW of solar annually. Within 18 months, that figure rises to 1TW/year (based on current manufacturing ramp trajectories). On the contrary, I’m unsure how you think we don’t have the clean power for this, not even accounting for the power you can generate from the syngas that is a byproduct of the pr…

Because solar isn't balanced and we haven't fixed the duck curve. We're burning obscene amounts of nat gas, petroleum, and even coal currently. Until those numbers are at-or-near zero, every ounce of renewable electricity needs to be offsetting dirty electricity.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#183

Post by renewiltord »

lolinder wrote: post #181
renewiltord wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmentalists in the US are against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal energy. They are against high-rise buildings and pro-golf-courses. They can be safely ignored since their stated goals and their actions can only be concordant if one assumes they're idiots or enemies.

Can you please point me to a single environmentalist who is against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal energy, and high-rise buildings but is for golf courses? I'm sure you can find plenty of people who check one or more of those boxes, but I'm interested to know if there's anyone who checks enough of them to be self-contradictory. If you can't point me to one person who holds all beliefs, then you're falling for…

Sure. Cost and contact information for research contract is in my profile.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#184

Post by toomuchtodo »

scoofy wrote: post #182
toomuchtodo wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/opinion/solar-power-free-... By the end of this year, the world will be deploying 660GW of solar annually. Within 18 months, that figure rises to 1TW/year (based on current manufacturing ramp trajectories). On the contrary, I’m unsure how you think we don’t have the clean power for this, not even accounting for the power you can generate from the syngas that is a byproduct of the pr…

Because solar isn't balanced and we haven't fixed the duck curve. We're burning obscene amounts of nat gas, petroleum, and even coal currently. Until those numbers are at-or-near zero, every ounce of renewable electricity needs to be offsetting dirty electricity.

Think when these plants would come online. Think when solar and storage will be up to speed on the grid. Skate to where the puck is going to be. Think in systems. To say no today because of current state today is irrational and ignores the data. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth within ~30-60 minutes to power all of humanity for a year, and an enormous global clean energy flywheel is coming up to speed (first solar, with batteries right behind).

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#185

Post by userbinator »

ianburrell wrote: post #157
OptionOfT wrote: post #66

I find it sad that the USA doesn't use more plasma burners [0] to get rid of waste. But, land is cheap in the USA, and the USA has a lot of land, so landfills win. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification

The problem is that burning trash produces CO2 from stuff, like plastic, that doesn't degrade in landfill. It is net positive CO2. The ideal is to sequester the carbon in landfill. This assumes that landfill is capturing and burning methane, because methane is worse than CO2.

Plants will take the CO2 and put it back in the ground... more slowly.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#186

Post by dylan604 »

lolinder wrote: post #181
renewiltord wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmentalists in the US are against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal energy. They are against high-rise buildings and pro-golf-courses. They can be safely ignored since their stated goals and their actions can only be concordant if one assumes they're idiots or enemies.

Can you please point me to a single environmentalist who is against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal energy, and high-rise buildings but is for golf courses? I'm sure you can find plenty of people who check one or more of those boxes, but I'm interested to know if there's anyone who checks enough of them to be self-contradictory. If you can't point me to one person who holds all beliefs, then you're falling for…

Donald Trump comes to mind

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#187

Post by astrodust »

DrNosferatu wrote: post #152
cm2012 wrote: post #9

So many people misunderstand landfills. All the garbage produced in the U.S. for the next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles across on each side. That is, landfills take a trivial amount of space. Putting stuff in a landfill is way better for global warming since its not burned, the carbon is buried. Almost all plastic waste in developed countries ends up in landfills, not the natural en…

Note that western countries export waste to developing countries.

We (Toronto) used to export our trash to Michigan when the incinerator was de-commissioned and the landfill was full.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#188

Post by x-complexity »

barbazoo wrote: post #143
fsckboy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP is thinking of people who bumper sticker "Believe Science" but never took science beyond grade school or a required "science for poets" class. People who think "chemicals are bad, but organic is good". These are not bad people, but they don't know what they're talking about enough to form their own opinions, but they don't know that.

That would be quite the strawman but whatever works for them.

> That would be quite the strawman but whatever works for them.

These types of people exist, and in worryingly large numbers.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#189

Post by lolinder »

dylan604 wrote: post #186
lolinder wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please point me to a single environmentalist who is against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal energy, and high-rise buildings but is for golf courses? I'm sure you can find plenty of people who check one or more of those boxes, but I'm interested to know if there's anyone who checks enough of them to be self-contradictory. If you can't point me to one person who holds all beliefs, then you're falling for…

Donald Trump comes to mind

I'm not convinced Donald Trump believes anything at all, so I think he doesn't count.

(Not to mention that Trump tower would seem to exclude him from being against high rises.)

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#190

Post by pstuart »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #106
scoofy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely use landfills, especially with plastic waste, as shibboleth to know whether I'm talking to somebody who is an environmentalist or somebody who is an "environmentalist." Anyone who thinks recycling plastic is some sort of normative good because "waste is bad" clearly hasn't put any thought into what environmental issues need to be focused on right now.

How do you feel about plasma gasification to ensure robust destruction of anything non-inert? I love landfills too! But humans are various shades of tricky, lazy, cost adverse, and untrustworthy (think limited liability) as it pertains to long term custodianship and management of things bad for people and the environment. TLDR You must engineer around the human. Potentially harmful physical matter that requires waste…

Not OP but long been intrigued by possibilities in this domain (ever since Changing World Technologies promised to, um, change the world -- not plasma based but same proposition).

I've yet to see a truly viable solution in this space that can economically compete; it would be nice to see it happen.

Post reply on HN