5 ms·

Cleaning up the significant amount of plastic that is on the surface still seems like a step in the right direction, even if there is other micropastic further

Cleaning up the significant amount of plastic that is on the surface still seems like a step in the right direction, even if there is other micropastic further down. The impact on ocean life is not well understood, but we do know that plastic is already having a devastating impact on such life, and I have a hard time imagining this would be worse. The engineering challenges are significant, as they are clearly discovering, but they are at least trying. Are there other more promising projects to clean up existing plastic from the ocean you are aware of?

sandworm101 8y ago
There is only so much money and energy in the world. Wasting resources on doomed projects doesn't help. It only takes away resources from far more efficient projects. Most ocean plastic comes form a limited number of sources, a handful of large rivers. Cleanup should begin at those rivers. This project is like someone cleaning the coal ash off the forest rather than prevent it from getting there in the first place.
- deadwing0 8y ago
  This argument reminds me of the EEV vlog on solar raods. :D Edit: https://www.eevblog.com/2014/06/20/eevblog-632-solar-roadways-are-bullshit/ https://www.eevblog.com/2014/06/20/eevblog-632-solar-roadway...
cultus 8y ago
It's not a significant amount. It's important to grasp just how huge the ocean is. This would clean up a pointlessly small fraction of the garbage patch. Not only that, but it would be destroyed in a storm quite quickly, generating even more marine debris.
- mrpopo 8y ago
  > Not only that, but it would be destroyed in a storm quite quickly, generating even more marine debris. This was mentioned multiple times, but it's even more daring in your comment. How can it be so insignificant and pointless, but at the same time cause of worry for more marine debris?
  - cultus 8y ago
    Well, it's not a significant amount of new plastic on a global scale. However, why does it make sense to spend gobs of money on something that at best won't help and at worst will make things slightly worse? Why not invest in proven strategys, like bag bans or trash collection around populated rivers and bays? An example of this is the Baltimore trash wheel cleaning up the bay. It's cheap and effective, because it cleans up garbage when it is: a) Not broken down to be microscopic. b) Concentrated. I should also point out that they claim they can finance a big part of this by recycling the degraded ocean plastic. I shouldn't have to tell you that that is absolutely whackadoo.
zdragnar 8y ago
I don't mean to sound condescending, but I truly don't understand this line of thinking, as I've seen it crop up every so often. The notion that "at least they're doing something" isn't a valid justification in my mind. There are plenty of reasons to believe that this wouldn't work, and adding more garbage certainly does make matters worse (even if by a miniscule amount, relatively speaking). As for more promising projects, we'd be better off doing research to find those projects than throwing away people's money on a pipe dream. Pretty much any project at this point would be better- engineering bacteria to eat it, Dyson funnels to very slowly separate it out, whatever. I'm not a marine or materials scientist. I'm a person with limited funds to contribute towards things, and I don't like being sold snake oil, especially when the response to criticism is "well at least they're doing something!"
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stephen_g 8y ago
  There was similar responses to the ‘solar roads’ projects. There were so many practical problems, and at the end of the day, it was just throwing away 30-50% efficiency putting them flat in the road, compared to just putting panels on structures next to the road, or on building roofs, or in solar farms. So it was always going to be way more expensive per-kWh generated and per unit area of solar panels, meaning that it was both a waste of money and resources. But so many people were willing to ignore it, because “at least they’re doing something”. Instead, better to do the calculations to see if these kind of things are feasible, and if not, to look for an idea that is more feasible rather than wasting time, money and resources on things we know won’t really help!
  - riskable 8y ago
    I thought the point of solar roads wasn't that they were more efficient than, "just putting them on buildings or the sides of roads" it was more of a way to utilize otherwise "wasted space". As in, when you're laying down a new road why not add some solar generating capacity as just another thing you lay into the pavement just like those little reflectors or paint.
ummonk 8y ago
>The impact on ocean life is not well understood, but we do know that plastic is already having a devastating impact on such life, and I have a hard time imagining this would be worse. I can't tell whether this is satire or not. This seems to be the textbook example of "We've got to do something about it! At least they're doing something! What could possibly go wrong?" I've come to be accustomed to much more technically astute posts at HN, and am pretty surprised by the kinds of comments I'm seeing in this thread. I guess the high quality technical discussion usually occurs when talking about software or theoretical fields.
- solarengineer 8y ago
  Per their technology explanation video, marine life would swim under or away from the boom. The impact is indeed not well understood. They are closely observing the first boom with the intention of iterating and improving. It doesn't appear to be destructive like an ocean trawler - the ill effects of which are very well understood and yet people continue to eat harmfully procured fish. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1EAeNdTFHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1EAeNdTFHU

sandworm101 8y ago

There is only so much money and energy in the world. Wasting resources on doomed projects doesn't help. It only takes away resources from far more efficient projects. Most ocean plastic comes form a limited number of sources, a handful of large rivers. Cleanup should begin at those rivers. This project is like someone cleaning the coal ash off the forest rather than prevent it from getting there in the first place.

deadwing0 8y ago
This argument reminds me of the EEV vlog on solar raods. :D Edit: https://www.eevblog.com/2014/06/20/eevblog-632-solar-roadways-are-bullshit/ https://www.eevblog.com/2014/06/20/eevblog-632-solar-roadway...

cultus 8y ago

It's not a significant amount. It's important to grasp just how huge the ocean is. This would clean up a pointlessly small fraction of the garbage patch. Not only that, but it would be destroyed in a storm quite quickly, generating even more marine debris.

mrpopo 8y ago
> Not only that, but it would be destroyed in a storm quite quickly, generating even more marine debris. This was mentioned multiple times, but it's even more daring in your comment. How can it be so insignificant and pointless, but at the same time cause of worry for more marine debris?
- cultus 8y ago
  Well, it's not a significant amount of new plastic on a global scale. However, why does it make sense to spend gobs of money on something that at best won't help and at worst will make things slightly worse? Why not invest in proven strategys, like bag bans or trash collection around populated rivers and bays? An example of this is the Baltimore trash wheel cleaning up the bay. It's cheap and effective, because it cleans up garbage when it is: a) Not broken down to be microscopic. b) Concentrated. I should also point out that they claim they can finance a big part of this by recycling the degraded ocean plastic. I shouldn't have to tell you that that is absolutely whackadoo.

zdragnar 8y ago

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I truly don't understand this line of thinking, as I've seen it crop up every so often. The notion that "at least they're doing something" isn't a valid justification in my mind. There are plenty of reasons to believe that this wouldn't work, and adding more garbage certainly does make matters worse (even if by a miniscule amount, relatively speaking). As for more promising projects, we'd be better off doing research to find those projects than throwing away people's money on a pipe dream. Pretty much any project at this point would be better- engineering bacteria to eat it, Dyson funnels to very slowly separate it out, whatever. I'm not a marine or materials scientist. I'm a person with limited funds to contribute towards things, and I don't like being sold snake oil, especially when the response to criticism is "well at least they're doing something!"

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stephen_g 8y ago
There was similar responses to the ‘solar roads’ projects. There were so many practical problems, and at the end of the day, it was just throwing away 30-50% efficiency putting them flat in the road, compared to just putting panels on structures next to the road, or on building roofs, or in solar farms. So it was always going to be way more expensive per-kWh generated and per unit area of solar panels, meaning that it was both a waste of money and resources. But so many people were willing to ignore it, because “at least they’re doing something”. Instead, better to do the calculations to see if these kind of things are feasible, and if not, to look for an idea that is more feasible rather than wasting time, money and resources on things we know won’t really help!
- riskable 8y ago
  I thought the point of solar roads wasn't that they were more efficient than, "just putting them on buildings or the sides of roads" it was more of a way to utilize otherwise "wasted space". As in, when you're laying down a new road why not add some solar generating capacity as just another thing you lay into the pavement just like those little reflectors or paint.

ummonk 8y ago

>The impact on ocean life is not well understood, but we do know that plastic is already having a devastating impact on such life, and I have a hard time imagining this would be worse. I can't tell whether this is satire or not. This seems to be the textbook example of "We've got to do something about it! At least they're doing something! What could possibly go wrong?" I've come to be accustomed to much more technically astute posts at HN, and am pretty surprised by the kinds of comments I'm seeing in this thread. I guess the high quality technical discussion usually occurs when talking about software or theoretical fields.

solarengineer 8y ago
Per their technology explanation video, marine life would swim under or away from the boom. The impact is indeed not well understood. They are closely observing the first boom with the intention of iterating and improving. It doesn't appear to be destructive like an ocean trawler - the ill effects of which are very well understood and yet people continue to eat harmfully procured fish. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1EAeNdTFHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1EAeNdTFHU