From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 16:15:18 MDT
--- Chuck Kuecker <ckuecker@ckent.org> wrote:
> At 10:10 06/13/2003 -0700, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> >Or just store all of them, to the maximum extent
> >possible. (Eliminating sweat, for example, would
> >cause problems, but even there it could be made
> more
> >efficient by removing the aromatic compounds, no?)
> >Excrete only under controlled circumstances. If
> >you're willing to go cyborg, make this to a small
> >thermal depolymerization unit: turning organic
> waste
> >into fuel was one of its expected uses anyway.
>
> I keep hearing about thermal depolymerization as
> some sort of panacea. How
> much thermal energy do you put in to a gram of waste
> for how many
> milligrams of fuel, and what's the heating value of
> the fuel? Consider also
> that human waste is probably 75% water - that needs
> to get separated out
> first, most likely.
>
> TANSTAFFL...
Of course there ain't. If all you want is fuel,
systems dedicated to making fuel will always be much
waster. Thermal depol's main objective is to turn
waste products into usable goods - including minerals
and purified water, as well as fuel. Depending on the
particular type of waste fed in, it might be doing
well just to generate enough fuel to power itself.
But in this case, mostly what we want is the
elimination of waste products; it's okay if the
process consumes more energy than can be usefully
extracted from the fuel it produces. Which is a fit
for TD's strengths and weaknesses.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 13 2003 - 16:24:30 MDT