Some claim that our planet has too much trash on it. So why don’t we just drop it into volcanoes?
I have read that by doing so, it will turn into ash and float up into the sky and pollute the planet even more.
But, why don’t they put the trash in giant steel containers. The trash will burn on the inside of the container before the container itself melts. When the container finally does melt, it will “contain” all the ash, thus keeping it from floating up towards the sky.
Have you ever put an aerosol can in a fire? No? You’re proposing putting bombs in volcanos.
There are few active volcanoes at any one time(active as in open pool of lava). That would mean dumping in trash while the volcano is erupting.
Do you have any idea how much trash is produced in one day across the country?
How do you propose to transport all that trash and get it into the volcano?
You can burn it locally for much cheaper and that saves people money.
The problem isn’t that we have too much trash on the planet, it’s that we have too much trash condensed in certain places.
If we could transfer all of New Jersey’s trash out to the middle of North Dakota there would be space a plenty to put it. It’s just not economically feasible to transport it there. Putting it into individual metal containers and dumping it into a volcano would be even more expensive.
WAG: it’s too valuable a commodity to waste by tossing it down a volcano. It’s more financially lucrative to use it to fill indentations in the Earth, pack it with soil on top, and build on top of it. Not to mention half a zillion other practical reasons, such as the cost of this hypothetical volcano scenario, and the simple fact that volcanos are not what we thought they were when we were little kids—they’re not holes leading to the center of the Earth. If you fell into a volcano, you’re not going to plunge into a pool of lava. Also, all the good volcanos are located in places where the Mafia doesn’t maintain branch offices. They’d be notably upset if we just willy-nilly took their jobs away from them and outsourced them to the Indonesians.
What wrong with the idea of digging a big hole and dumping the trash in there?
We have plenty of space to dump trash. The landfill crisis that was in the news during the 80s was simply because lots of east coast cities had created landfills in the 50s but those landfills were reaching capacity and no new landfills had been opened for a long time. What was the solution? To open new landfills. Problem solved.
You guys are right. Ideas like these always sound good in the brain, but when fleshed out they don’t always seem to work so well.
I don’t see how it would be economically productive. We don’t have volcanoes on every corner. Trash is bulky and expensive to transport. If you change it into sludge first, that somewhat defeats the objective of free disposal. Once you got close enough to the volcano, actually dumping it is would represent another engineering problem. And it would be a changing problem as the volcano changed it’s schedule and face. Volcanoes are not stable and predictable. Nope. Better to pile the trash up and cover it with dirt for a hill you can ski on and power the lights with. Save your money and go visit Hawaii.
I wish I could transfer all of New Jersey out to the middle of North Dakota.
That’s because you weren’t listening closely enough.
So why would North Dakotans have to put up with someone else’s mess. And all the free space you think is out there is providing food that keeps those Jerseyites alive, not to mention acting as a natural pollution scrubber for the air you breathe. Then there’s the potential pollution of the watershed used to grow the agriculture Jerseyites consume.
Rather than push the trash onto someone else and some other place, it’s better to reduce production of the waste first.
Not nearly. Even if the entire state were covered with farms (it’s not), just the corners of the square lots that don’t get irrigated would be by far more than enough.
Who would you have to make fun of, then?
Stranger
To put things into perspective the famous Fresh Kills landfill, once considered the largest manmade structure on the planet, covered 2,200 acres, or about 3.5 square miles. The Apex landfill in Nevada, currently the largest in the US, covers a similar area. So a few dozen square miles of total landfill area could contain a large portion of the waste we produce. We don’t even need a tiny fraction of South Dakota to put it. A tiny fraction of Rhode Island would do just fine, if you’re only worried about space.
One suspects that the residents of Rhode Island would take exception.
Delaware, on the other hand, would be happy to accommodate so long as they get corporate revenue from it.
Stranger
Pennsylvanians
Xenu’s Space Fleet?
Besides the other problems mentioned:
The lava might not be all that liquid; your container could just sit/float on top as it melts. And even if it sinks that won’t keep the result of the incineration from bubbling op to the surface. And steel is useful material, not something to be thrown away.
Or the volcano could suffer a violent eruption and what’s left of the container and contents land miles away.
You could just stockpile the trash near a volcano and then incinerate it while the volcano is erupting. Nature seems to get a free pass on its air pollution and who’s gonna notice a little extra smoke and ash, right?
This.
Here in Minneapolis, about 45% of the ‘trash’ is recycled, and used to produce more glass bottles, aluminum cans, etc. And most of the remainder is burned in a plant that heats many of the downtown buildings. And the burner is centrally located, thus reducing the gas spent transporting trash. They are now talking about diverting organic material into a composting system, for use by the city parks system.
If you stop thinking of it as trash, and think of it as fuel, suddenly it seems quite different.