4 ms·
How is this any better than burning + energy recuperation?
by Tharkun 11y ago
How is this any better than burning + energy recuperation?
- gregschlom 11y ago> The worms converted about half of the Styrofoam into carbon dioxide, as they would with any food source. I'm certainly not a chemist, but given that polystyrene is equal parts carbon and hydrogen (C8H8) and that carbon is roughly 12 times heavier than hydrogen I'd say that if the worms managed to convert only half of the polystyrene (by weight) into CO2 that looks much better than burning it, which -if done properly- would have converted all of the carbon into CO2. However, I don't know how much energy can be harvested from burning it, and how to take that into account in order to decide whether it's better to burn it or to degrade it with the worms.
- hobbes78 11y agoPlastic is inert in a landfill, but occupies a lot of space. If it's burned, CO2 is released into the atmosphere and toxic ashes are left behind, although way less space is occupied. If all plastic is degraded by these bacteria, apparently no disadvantages seem to be present.
- PixelB 11y agoWell, not quite. "The worms converted about half of the Styrofoam into carbon dioxide, as they would with any food source." So they produce CO2 as well as a byproduct.
- kijin 11y agoThe byproduct is called poop, and the article says it can be used as fertilizer.
- azinman2 11y agoNot quite inert -- it slowly degrades to micro particles that will be difficult to keep in place, and birds will eat the bits along the way.
- digler999 11y agoBut it's a myth that we're running out of landfill space.