What is the new Low Tech like?

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

Originally Posted by Bruno

THey can't get cheap access to garbage, because the kind of garbage they want is already used commercially. So is offal, poop, and plastic - medical waste varies.

Then why is so much plastic going into landfills and oceans, and manure going into rivers? Most recyclable plastic can only be recycled once and never again, and plenty of plastic cannot be recycled even once. Much of the manure from factory farms is so concetrated that farmers can't or won't use it for fertilizer. Then there's styrofoam, polyester, nylon, organic solvents, teflon, adhesive tape, paint, latex, insulation stripped from wires, organic types of toxic waste...

The process works on any garbage, as long as it is organic. According to the article, it had already been tested on several kinds of garbage including plastic, tires, turkey guts, and electronics. The only constraints I saw mentioned were that it had to contain enough carbon to generate the diesel fuel, and it had to be depolymerized in relatively homogenous batches.

Customers pay garbage companies to haul garbage away. I doubt that any company which already has the legal right to haul garbage has attempted to depolymerize it.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

Customers pay garbage companies to haul garbage away. I doubt that any company which already has the legal right to haul garbage has attempted to depolymerize it instead of throwing it into a landfill or incinerator.

If the technology were newly invented, I would believe the story that no one has caught on to the economic opportunity it offers. But you say it's been around for a while. That suggests that at least one of the following is true:

* The sale price of the fuel is too low to provide an adequate return on capital
* The cost of setting up to process the raw material is too high to provide an adequate return on capital
* The payment you get for hauling away the raw material is too low to make up for the previous two problems
* The business faces regulatory barriers to entry, operation, or competition
* Established energy producers are getting subsidized in some way that depolymerizers don't have access to
* Depolymerization is already being done, but the economically feasible output is too small to take over the fuel market

This is based on the theory that capitalists are eager to make money and will try out any line of enterprise that seems to have a chance of letting them do so; so if they aren't pursuing this one it's likely because it's been tried unsuccessfully. Not being in the business yourself, you may not be aware of some cost that's well known to those who actually pursue it.

Or, in short, the opinions of armchair enterpreneurs are on a par with those of armchair generals. That's not aimed at you specifically; I'm not competent to judge such matters, either.

Bill Stoddard

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by whswhs

* The cost of setting up to process the raw material is too high to provide an adequate return on capital

The problem with most schemes to extract energy from waste is in the per unit cost rather more than the set up. Trash is a mixture of stuff, much of which will mess up your process - even if you had a miracle process that would convert anything organic, and hype to the contrary thermal depolymerization is not, you need to tailor the conditions to what you want to depolymerize to get useful conversion rates - streams with metals or glass would still clog your system.

Garbage use schemes almost all hinge on either getting a feed stream that's not very mixed in the first place (e.g. a waste stream from some other industrial process), or being able to get people to do the sorting for you for free. It's much the same problem as with recycling. And once you have sorted trash, well, at that point there are other markets for it, simply *because* it's now feasable to use it as a feedstock for something, and there are likely products more profitable than oil.

[Gudiomen]

This is getting a long way from the topic, no?

[Wedhro]

I don't like the way this topic about Low Tech turned into a topic about garbage. Sounds rude and unfair to the people working on it ;)

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

This is getting a long way from the topic, no?

Welcome to the Internet.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

This is getting a long way from the topic, no?

No, actually, it's not. It's directly relevant to the reasons that many alternative technological paths were alternative, which is actually discussed a bit in the book. We have a box on the difficulties of inventing gunpowder early, for example. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by malloyd

The problem with most schemes to extract energy from waste is in the per unit cost rather more than the set up. . . .

Garbage use schemes almost all hinge on either getting a feed stream that's not very mixed in the first place (e.g. a waste stream from some other industrial process), or being able to get people to do the sorting for you for free. It's much the same problem as with recycling. And once you have sorted trash, well, at that point there are other markets for it, simply *because* it's now feasable to use it as a feedstock for something, and there are likely products more profitable than oil.

I suppose it's fair to make that distinction. I tend to think of being able to pay people to do the work as one of your capital costs; you have to have a wages fund to keep them on the job until you get product onto the market, and that wages fund comes out of your startup capital. In fact, it's one of the most important things that capital is needed for. But I have to grant that most people don't think of paying wages as a capital expenditure.

Bill Stoddard

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by whswhs

We sent in an enormous list of art references and suggestions for illustrations of archaic tech. . . .

Originally Posted by Nymdok

Excellent! Coming from a gaming background where armor is normally described in a single word (Plate, leather, chain etc), one of the tough parts for me in taking up GURPS was learning some of the more subtle terms. Martial Arts did a great job with weapons, and Im hoping that Low tech does as well with armor. Just having a picture that diagrams the difference between Sollerettes, Greaves, lamellar, banded, splinted and other terms will go a long way towards accessability.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Please be warned that we can't promise art for every item of tech or even a good percentage of artifacts. We always request many times more art suggestions than we could ever use, because a certain percentage of these inevitably won't work with the book's visual style, while those that remain are subject to being wedged in as layout permits . . . and visual style and layout are concerns addressed months after we request art suggestions from the writers. From what I've seen, while Low-Tech will have a clean, easy-to-use layout, it will definitely be text-heavy and art-light.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I do think, though, that illustrations of armour types might enhance the value of the book for those gamers who do not possess Dan Howard's encyclopedic knowledge of the subject*, but nevertheless would like** to be able to visualise their characters in the gear that they may spend most of their day wearing.

I Nice 'companion' would be a Web Art Gallery focused around being match the Book's Text content with the Art equivalents (with out and of the Book's content other than Names and possible page number on the site)

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by whswhs

No, actually, it's not. It's directly relevant to the reasons that many alternative technological paths were alternative, which is actually discussed a bit in the book. We have a box on the difficulties of inventing gunpowder early, for example. . . .

Bill Stoddard

How about the opposite issue of how long it could remain undiscovered?