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

321–330 of 333 posts

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#321

Post by CRConrad »

seb1204 wrote: post #262
sofixa wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Burning waste still releases harmful toxins into the environment and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions – even if it reduces landfill methane, which is a potent contributor to climate change This is not axiomatic. The gases from the incineration can be put into productive use (cf. Vienna heating and providing hot water off of their incinerator), and the harmful stuff can be filtered (cf. Vienna where the incin…

Yes they exist and they work. However to build them requires stringent regulations to make them a viable cost solution. If it is ok to blow out the toxic smoke the high end solution will not be built. The best thing is still avoiding waste.

> The best thing is still avoiding waste.

Yeah, and the as-yet-unattainable perfect is still the enemy of the currently-attainable good.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#322

Post by CRConrad »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #150
cogman10 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken. Though I do wonder how much of the methane released is from plastic decomposition and how much of it is from food/biomaterial decomposition. I'd naively assume the primary emission would come from readily decomposable materials and that most plastics would remain fairly stable for a lot longer than yesterday's half eaten hamburger.

Indeed, waste sorting might improve the situation, but all available evidence indicates there is no will to do this (caveats being parts of Europe, Japan, the Nordics, and anywhere else diverse multi stream waste management can be effectively operated), which leads me to believe gasification is the superior path (with a bypass stream for glass, brick, earth, rock, and metals, primarily to prevent process efficiency r…

You're repeating yourself:

> parts of Europe, Japan, the Nordics

The Nordics are a part of Europe.

DRY! :-)

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#323

Post by CRConrad »

barbazoo wrote: post #287
eru wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See also the German 'Green' party whose policies have led to lots and lots more CO2 emissions over the years.

Is that actually true? If you mean "over the last 20 years", then no, they weren't even a governing party between 2005 and 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Federal_Republic_of_Ge... You're perhaps talking about the downstream effects of sunsetting nuclear energy but even since then, the ratio of renewable energy has only increased. So what do you mean exactly? https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/ger…

> > See also the German 'Green' party whose policies have led to lots and lots more CO2 emissions over the years. reply

> Is that actually true?

> If you mean "over the last 20 years", then no, they weren't even a governing party between 2005 and 2021.

You don't have to be in cabinet to influence other parties.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#324

Post by CRConrad »

bluGill wrote: post #299
stouset wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually most that I know are all in that bucket. The trick is that this raises the deficits which they then get to blame on the next Democrat in office. It’s a fun party trick. Say what you will about “tax and spend” liberals but it’s a sight better than political faction that spends even more but forgets entirely about the revenue end of the equation.

The counter for that is that taxes change economic activity and so raising taxes doesn't bring in as much revenue as you would think because some activities are no longer worth doing (profitable) after paying higher taxes. (not to mention people looking for tax deductions). Of course taxes are not a revenue optimization problem to those pointing the above out. It is the tax and spenders that should be looking at the…

> childish claims that trickle down doesn't work

I'd think it's the claim that trickle down does work that is childish. It's had forty years to prove itself, and American workers are still waiting.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#325

Post by CRConrad »

_2d30 wrote: post #47
mikojan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single truck requires more energy to operate in a year.

A single truck requires more energy to operate in a year than 70k homes do!? I find this extremely difficult to believe. As far as I can tell, the EIA [1] suggests the average home uses 10,791 kWh a year. A gallon of gasoline contains ~33.7 kWh of energy per the EPA/Wikipedia [2]. This would mean that a single truck would be burning 70,000 * 10,791 / 33.7 = 22,414,540 gallons of gasoline a year or 61,409 gallons a da…

Most trucks -- at least of the kind used for transporting trash to a landfill -- don't burn any gasoline at all. They run on diesel fuel.

(But yeah, the original claim still seems orders-of-magnitude off; clearly BS.)

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#327

Post by CRConrad »

eru wrote: post #314
hmottestad wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we could just stop pumping up oil and gas from the ocean floor and then not make any plastics in the first place.

Plastics are useful (to many people). If all the externalities get priced in, you can let people decide for themselves what they want and need.

Big if there tho.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#328

Post by CRConrad »

CoffeeOnWrite wrote: post #291
strken wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest open cut mine in the world, Bingham Canyon, is more than ten times as deep. While it's not a good idea to just chuck stuff into an abandoned mine, the effort to excavate a hole that size is doable for a single site operated by a single company employing 2000 workers over a century. It's pretty trivial in comparison to any other environmental problem.

> hole that size Bingham Canyon is roughly cone shaped, not comparable to the rectangular prism described above. To achieve comparable volume of the rectangular prism, you will need to dig a much deeper cone. https://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature-top-ten-d...

> To achieve comparable volume of the rectangular prism, you will need to dig a much deeper cone.

Yeah, holes with sloped sides are easier to dig than vertical-walled ones. But you don't need to have them sloping all the way down to a deep point in the middle; for a shallow (comparatively, like this) hole you can just slope the walls down to the same flat bottom.

At a 45-degree angle, you could have the bottom of your 100-yard-deep pit be 35 miles - 100 yards across, and the opening 35 miles + 100 yards. Which would be a pretty negligible difference on the surface -- and, I think, make the volume a tiny bit bigger.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#329

Post by CRConrad »

mikojan wrote: post #160
gruez wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Exactly what statement is incorrect? Your original comment: >> Almost all plastic waste in developed countries ends up in landfills, not the natural environment. >This is horrifyingly incorrect! Developed countries process only some of their trash themselves. I guess you can weasel out of this by claiming that >85% counts as "some", but it's misleading at the very least. Moreover, your statement was trying to refute…

In reality, a significant portion is exported to developing countries, where it often ends up mismanaged. Claiming developed countries handle "almost all" of their plastic waste without acknowledging this export is detracting from wrongdoings me and you bear responsibility for as citizens of relatively free and open democratic societies. It is not somehow misleading. It is morally reprehensible.

> It is not somehow misleading.

True. The simpler and more exact statement is just: It is misleading. No need for a weaselly "somehow". Here's guessing that's not what you meant, but... Too bad for you, then.

Best way not to come off as a hot-headed zealot who's either ignorant of or intentionally twisting the truth is not to behave like a hot-headed zealot who's either ignorant of or intentionally twisting the truth.

Re: The Engineering of Landfills

#330

Post by kergonath »

barbazoo wrote: post #286
kergonath wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, Greenpeace energy selling organic gas. That’s is very funny until you realise that 1) they are serious, and 2) they vote.

Do you mean "renewable" gas? https://green-planet-energy.de/privatkunden/prowindgas I can't find anything about "organic" gas, maybe your auto translate did a wrong thing?!

Sorry, it was vegan gas, not organic. They stopped labelling it that way, obviously, after being thoroughly ridiculed. It’s difficult to find references to it now, but some articles from that time (2020-2022 I think) remain, e.g. https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/decouple/greenpeace-sel...

There might be some traces of it in the Internet archive.

[edit] there are traces here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210209184343/http://www.greenp...

It was prominently on their home page at some point, but I could not find it. I should have saved it.

Post reply on HN