5 ms·
Sassy! Uninformed, but sassy! It’s is substituting one fossil fuel product that is buried in the ground with a fissile fuel that’s about to be tossed in the oc
by sbdodbdjfzi 7y ago
Sassy! Uninformed, but sassy!
It’s is substituting one fossil fuel product that is buried in the ground with a fissile fuel that’s about to be tossed in the ocean.
Would it be better to recycle said fissile fuel? Somewhat [0], but recycling is very hard and is not going to happen any time soon.
[0] recycling the plastic is only better if you also substitute the need to burn most any fissile fuels (since you could always make CH4 from the plastic) We’re not there yet, so burning plastic is probably the best we can do using scalable, easily accessible and proven technology.
- thinkingkong 7y agoBest we can do to accomplish what goal? If we’re just talking about keeping it out of oceans then thats fine. But let’s not do semantic gymnastics and call it recycling.
- sbdodbdjfzi 7y agoNo semantics needed. In both cases waste plastic is transformed into feedstock for a process that would have otherwise extracted non-renewable resources. Except one works but gives people the geebee geebes. The other one makes us forget our opulent consumption but doesn’t work and kills marine life.
- DennisP 7y agoEven though I support nuclear energy, I'm kinda glad plastic isn't fissile :)