SR4 is too modern or near modern sometimes, futuristic consistency Options

[Jack Kain]

[Austere Emancipa...]

[kzt]

[Austere Emancipa...]

EMP might be able to fry the circuits of the weapon -- though these should be pretty easy to shield since they require no wireless connection -- but the primers themselves are far more insensitive. The EtronX uses a 150-volt current, extracted from the 9-volt battery, to ignite the primers, and inducing 150 volts into a piece of metal 1-3 inches long requires one massive EMP (a nuke detonated above 50km would do this marvellously, no idea how many kV/m other EMP weapons manage). They're supposed to be proof against electrostatic discharge as well.

[Oracle]

[Thanee]

[cristomeyers]

You know, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. I mean, there IS a giant super-furnace right down the block...

[Eleazar]

Yes, through bacteria and also some other means I am forgetting. I will link the articles if I find it.

[Ed_209a]

March 07 Pop Science covers a machine that uses a plasma arc to convert anything except radioactives into hydrocarbon gases and molten glass. It even powers itself once it starts up. The escaping gas turns a turbine, powering the machine and providing exces power. Then you can convert the gases into more useful hydrocarbons for even more profit.

At an industrial scale, a 1/4 billion dollar plant would handle the garbage from a city of 1 million and pay for itself in 10 years from the excess power generated.

[Austere Emancipa...]

[Ed_209a]

That same article from Pop Sci said that toxic waste was a lot easier to dispose of than nuclear, because with toxic waste, generally the _molecule_ is the hazard. Crack the molecule enough and the parts are harmless.

In nuclear waste, the _atom_ is the hazard.

[cristomeyers]

[Spike]

As I understand it, those furnace things to cook garbage have been in use in France since the 70's in one form or another. The article I read some 15 years ago was a tractor that bored into the mounds of garbage and dropped a contact into the hole and cooked the mess from the inside out. Of course, I don't think that was the actual system in use, only that a 'similar technique' was being used...

Great way to get rid of a lot of junk. As I understand it the carbonized remains are turned into asphalt...

[Eleazar]

Here are two articles but there other groups other than the Stanford and German ones doing this. This is the bacteria method I mentioned
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...14/MN103893.DTL
http://www.physorg.com/news6046.html

Here is another method that shortens the halflife of certain isotopes making them decay at a much faster rate.
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn...st-decades.html

The other method mentioned, the plasma torch, can be used on low-level radioactive waste.

The final method is creating a heck of a lot less radioactive waste by using Thorium instead of Uranium.

All of these methods would be considerably improved upon given 63 years into the future, especially with the advent of nanotechnology. I still can't find the other method I was referring to in my previous post. I remember seeing it in some technology magazine that had a dedicated article about new energy sources and safer nuclear technologies.

[Kyoto Kid]

[Spike]

Just a comment on Hydrogen power and internal combustion engines.

There is no great feat of engineering to create a hydrogen powered vehicle. ICE's will run on anything that will burn, the sole issue becomes one of 'how much fuel in the cylinder'. Obviously, in order to run an ICE off of wood, you'd need fairly massive cylinders and an incredibly slow cyclic rate, you'd be better of harnessing steam at that point.

But Hydrogen is easy. Take a standard, petroleum powered engine (non-diesel works better for this by a country mile as I understand it) and change the flow valves, run liquid hydrogen from an insulated tank into the cylinders as regular fuel and you are actually good to go (changing the oxygen flow is assumed to be a part of this process...). The difficulty currently exprienced is our society is a bit gunshy about pure hydrogen as fuel, as it is considerably more likely to explod then petrol. So now you have ineffeicent fuel cell technologies that convert hydrogen into a reasonable stable solid, then release it at a controlled rate into the engines. I suspect the engines in question are rather more complex that strictly necessary to keep the fuel effiency further in the red just to maintain a monopoly on petrol fuels. But I'm a cynic.

[Garrowolf]

If you are wanting to get rid of garbage then go the Total Conversion Process route. I think I heard about some technologies connected with attempts at fusion to make use of radioactive waste. There is also medical technologies that are working with radioactives so we may get to a point that all this radioactive waste becomes radioative gold!

[bibliophile20]

[Garrowolf]

Just take the engine out and use paranormal hamsters!

[cetiah]

[Spike]

Sure you can. Note you need a liquid state hydrogen to make it work because of those design considerations.

Most ICE's are just highly specialized versions of a'multifuel' engines. Any volatile liquid can be fed into them, the real art is gettign the mix right. effiency is an issue, but really what you actually burn isn't.

There would be, however, some minor parts swaps involved. The real trick, my friend, is getting a decent source of liquid hydrogen. :P

[Oracle]

[Crakkerjakk]

Okay, not the same thing you guys are talking about, but in an article in the most recent IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) magazine, Spectrum, there was an article on how the French have been recycling nuclear fuel for a while now. Obviously, not the same as cleaning up contaminated sites, but I thought it might add to the discussion.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/4891

*EDIT*

And also, until we can create launch systems that have an incredibly low failure rate, lofting radiactive waste into the upper atmosphere on top of a crap-ton of rocket fuel is a Bad Idea, in my opinion. As soon as we get a dependable space elevator, or laser powered launch vehicles, where there's a lot less to go wrong, I'm all for throwing garbage into the sun, but given the current failure rate of our aging shuttle fleet, and the untested(and unbuilt) nature of the new heavy lifter rockets(Ares, i believe they're called?) Waste in Space™ is a no-no.

[eidolon]

I'm almost finished with the issue of Pop Sci, but I read that article a couple of days ago. Really interesting stuff.

[Faelan]

I can think of several problems with liquid hydrogen running in an unmodified multi fuel ICE 1) The temperature of the fuel will lead to a quick breakdown of the engine, due to increased brittleness in parts, and a lower viscosity because of said temperature in engine lubricants, 2) Maintaining it in a liquid state will require a constant refrigerant effect in spite of insulated tanks (have fun when the battery dies and the car goes boom), 3) The gaskets in engine are not designed to operate under the temperatures that using liquid hydrogen would require, and lastly getting enough oxygen into the engine to feed the reaction would be a bitch. Even if you constructed one specifically to run on liquid hydrogen it would be unsafe due prolonged storage issues, and impractical because in energy content it would require 4 liters of liquid hydrogen to gain the same amount of energy as 1 liter of gasoline.