Why not... burn all the trash in the world.That would get rid of it and not make landfills?
>>1424491Aｓ preＶiｏUSＬY ｍｅNtＩOnｅＤ,_Ｔｈeｓｅ_mEｓSＳAgES_ＷilＬ ＣoｎtｉＮＵＥ_ｕＮＴIＬ ＹoＵ pEＲＭａNＥＮｔLｙ StｏＰ ａTＴａCｋiNｇ And ＦｕCkInＧ_ＷＩtｈ ＷWW.ＡＮoNDeｒＰTＡＬＫ.SE_(ｒeＭＯve ＴｈＥ_ＤｅRP), rｅＭｏｖE AｌＬ ilＬEGAｌ_clＯnES_ｏF Iｔ aNＤ Lｉeｓ_AbＯuＴ ｉＴ_Aｎｄ ｄOＮａｔE aｔ_LeAｓｔ A_MiＬＬＩＯN_uSＤ ｔｏ Sｙsop_Ａｓ cｏＭpeｎｓａTiＯＮ_fOｒ_ＴＨＥ MASsｉｖe_ｄAＭＡＧe_ＹOＵ_ＲETaｒｄｓ ｈAvＥ cａuＳｅｄ.kbyi xr phexeps pbzenfhf rn k dtk fn wu
OH MAN YOU'RE SO SMART
>>1424495i agree with OP. Let's start with old tires that no one uses anymore.
OP is so smart!If only CO2 wasn't deadly for the ozone!
I'm just asking is all... if trash is a big problem, why not recycle some and burn the ones you can't recycle.
>>1424527Dumb
Let's throw radioactive waste into volcanoes while we're at it
>>1424527Because burning trash doesn't get rid of it.You can't destroy matter completely all of the trash, even though it is burned, has to go somewhere. You destroy more of the environment burning it than you do putting in landfills, either way, trash sucks.
>>1424495Do that and then you have the aftermath of smog and methane explosions.
>>1424536Well thanks, guys.I've learned now. I'll be on my way. Good day to ya.
Isn't there a way to do it at a closed place and filtrate the CO2 or save it in a container?
Not OP, but I has a question.Does garbage in landfills break down at all? Or will it always be there forever and it'll just keep piling up for centuries?Makes me wonder when we'll eventually start running out of space to put all this garbage as the human population continues to expand it'll only get worst.
>>1424536What? That's not the problem with this idea, the problem is the massive carbon emissions.What's so bad about landfills? Throw it in, cover it and harvest the methane from the garbage to power shit. A decade later, you can build a park or a nice golf course.
>>1424544Super-heating the trash and then taking the CO2 emitted? I don't know where you would put it though. What can you do with CO2 that's not harmful?
>>1424494ａＳ ＰRｅVIｏｕSLY_MＥｎtｉoｎEd,_thEＳe meｓsSaＧｅＳ_ＷＩLL_ＣOｎｔｉＮUE uｎtｉＬ_Yｏu_ＰeRＭａｎｅnTLy_StＯｐ_AＴｔAckｉｎｇ_ＡNd FucＫinｇ ＷｉTH WＷｗ.ａNＯＮdErPＴALｋ.ｓＥ_(ｒEＭoVＥ_ＴＨe deｒＰ),_rＥMｏVＥ aLｌ iLlｅｇＡL cLoNｅs_oＦ_ｉt Aｎｄ_ｌieS ａｂOｕt_IＴ_ａNd ＤｏnＡＴＥ Ａｔ LｅaｓＴ ａ ｍiＬＬＩoＮ usｄ Tｏ_ＳYｓOP_ＡS_ＣoMPｅNsａＴIOＮ fOr tHe mａssivE dAｍａgｅ_ｙOU_retＡrDＳ ｈａＶＥ_ＣaUSEd.wvagxugmt y pgur itmxq atbqy a x qudj h ifkynrydyjt ahzyq
>>1424549Eventually, just some of it takes thousands of years
That's why I'm a big proponent of shooting it into space.Let the fucking martians deal with that shit
WHAT IF YOU IONIZED THE TRASH AND USED THE GAS TO RECREATE PURE COMPOUNDS?
>>1424561could potentially backfire. Also, it would have to be a large amount. The money required to launch a rocket into space might not be worth a couple tons of trash
>>1424569Who said anything about rockets?I meant building like a giant super-cannon and just launching that shit.
burning trash is actually being used as an alternative energy source in other countries, like germany. they have these huge vats that are contained and just burn everything to cinders.
>>1424564Ionize it how?
>>1424561We could place our garbage in giant capsules (so we don't litter space) and fire the capsules at the sun and let the sun burn destroy it all.
>>1424574Because that wouldn't take astronomical amounts of money>>1424578How do you use CO2 as an alternative energy?
>>1424574A cannon that shoots several tons of garbage at escape velocity would be as expensive as a rocket.
>>1424574rocket, super cannon, it doesn't matter. The process of shooting garbage into space would be expensive.
>>1424587>How do you use CO2 as an alternative energy?well, not directly but it can be used in carbon capture, or raising algae for biofuelburning trash doesnt use the co2 for energy though, its just acts like thermal energy i think
>>1424584Do you have any idea how much money and energy that would take?
>>1424591>>1424588>>1424587Fuck you guys I'll find a way.
>>1424569>implying more garbage wouldn't require more rockets
>>1424592True thermal energy is good, but then that becomes something somewhat dependent on trash which is not good at all
in any case, landfill and trash arent exactly that big of an issue right now. the best thing to do would be find a profitable way to use it, such as energy.
>>1424599no, because you should never become dependent on one thing. the benefit of burning trash is we get something back rather than just burying it under ground.
In Canada we've burned the trash and used the gas to turn turbines and then stored the gas in tanks for recycling.
we should send the trash through a wormhole
>>1424596>>1424596like you would ever be able to shoot garbage into spacepeople already complain about the existent garbage in space and no one was sending rockets with garbage
Re-asking:Isn't there a way to do it at a closed place and filtrate the CO2 or save it in a container?
>>1424616Probably. I'm sure there's ways to do lots of cool things. But when you factor in reality it may not always make sense to do them. Would the benefit be greater than the cost?
>sending garbage with a rocket into the spacestop beliving in Futurama's lies.
What about forcing the garbage into a volcano?
>>1424613>doesn't know the difference between 'trash' orbiting earth and common urban trash
>>1424662nope
If everyone took their own trash, burnt it in their homes to make heat, we'd all be totally green.i'm serious guys.
>>1424669Toxic gases would pollute breathing air and cause lung cancer.
Jesus Christ, watch this fucking video and shuttup:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzLebC0mjCQRecycling is a waste of resources over just trashing it, except in the case of aluminum cans. (ie.e: stop recycling, you're wasting money and resources. Unless it's cans.)And we aren't even close to running out space for landfills. At all.
>>1424675I guess it's hard to get sarcasm across on the internet. haha
>>1424683yes lol
>>1424676>Recycling is a waste of resources over just trashing it, except in the case of aluminum cans. (ie.e: stop recycling, you're wasting money and resources. Unless it's cans.)Glass bottles are OK as well if they aren't broken.
>>1424688if you recycle the glass as a whole, maybe but crushing it down and recycling glass no. the recycling market got really hurt by the recession
Does anyone have a youtube link of the whole Touhou team moaning for like 20 minutes? Shit was [spoiler]magical.
>>1424675>>1424683yeah if you just make a fire throw the trash in it lol so randumlrn2 technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration
>>1424676>implying Penn and Teller aren't just fat, old faggots who don't know shit about shit.
>>1424729> Implying they aren't capable of doing research. They do plenty of it, watch the video.
>>1424707That doesn't change the point.
>>1424707>lrn2 technologyLearn to not refer to a system that requires billions of dollars.
>>1424756what point? that you are trying to make a joke out people burning trash as alternative energy and that its dangerous?>>1424772it pays for itself.
>>1424755Full of cussing and one-sided interviews. Totally scientific.
>>1424782
>>1424701>if you recycle the glass as a whole, maybe but crushing it down and recycling glass no.That's what I said retard.>haveyoueverherpedsohardyouderped.jpg
>>1424782It doesn't pay for itself. The amount of energy needed to burn fuel would have to come from somewhere. Also it would just make pollutants in the air which was the original point.
>>1424794Stay classy faggot.
>>14247971) the fuel used would be less than other methods2) there are methods for cleaning the waste3) carbon capture
>>1424794learn the difference between recycling and reusing.
>>14248081)the fuel used would produce waste 2)there are methods for cleaning waste but restrict budget ergo production3)Impossibly expensiveNot only that, we were talking about a fucking household. Think.
>>1424804Sorry you are so offended because I pointed out your stupid.>>1424813>He thinks reuse isn't recycling!laughinggirls.jpg
>>1424834
>>1424852I accept your defeat.
>>1424790Riiiight.
>>1424831oh we are still talking about households? i was talking about just using waste as energy. it probably is cost prohibitive to actually burn trash individually, but sourcing it to a central plant would be efficient
>>1424854That's a funny way of saying you're so butthurt you're pretending you won an argument.
ITT people act like carbon is a contaminant and not a vital building block for life.>hyurr wat can we do with the co2 thats nat harmfaulI don't know, feed it to plants for photosynthesis? Grow algae with it? Diatoms?
>>1424834HURP DURP>Recycling involves processing used, unwanted materials (waste) into new products
>>1424872Because the amount of carbon dioxide is proportional to the amount of plants. Derp.
>>1424869It's so obvious mate. Just give it up.
>>1424872oh thats cute, how about you let the adults talk?
>>1424882Yeah, but don't forget that when you talk, you talk on carbon's sufferance. Without carbon you wouldn't be here, asshole.
>>1424880Are you expressing your thoughts? Because I think you need to [spoiler]calm yourself.
Guys were not running out of space we still have the grand canyon.
>>1424890>spoiler tags on >>>/sci/.
>>1424707I was making an It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia reference.
>>1424888its called 'fund pollutant'just because a system uses something doesnt mean that a FUCK TON of it is a great thing. you know how taking a ton of vitamins can kill you? yeah, its just like that. too much co2 can already be seen as a problem just by looking at the ocean, its raising the acidity and killing off coral reefs etcits all about balance. when you add more than what a system can use, it overloads it and causes effects.
Just gather it on to a space ship and shoot it into the sun.
>>1424920>too much co2 can already be seen as a problem just by looking at the ocean, its raising the acidity and killing off coral reefs etcCoral reefs don't do shit for us anyway.
>>1424928herp derp biome
>>1424495Japan already does this. Needless to say, it is an environmental disaster. Great space saver though.
>>1424920You moron, that's why you balance out the system yourself. Photosynthetic organisms are a completely viable method of carbon sequestration.
>>1424958i suggested using algae as a carbon capture methodhowever, encouraging growth of wild algae etc isnt a great idea, eg red tide
>>1424974Don't just grow the algae in the ocean, have it contained in vats.Or perhaps wall off parts of the ocean for algae farming.
