3 ms·
Ah the realities of the difficulty involved in recycling like for like come to the fore. In some ways I think this situation has been exacerbated by proponents
by ChuckMcM 7y ago
Ah the realities of the difficulty involved in recycling like for like come to the fore.
In some ways I think this situation has been exacerbated by proponents of plastic who have marketed it as "infinitely recyclable" for many years. That statement is technically true, in that there exists a process by which you can take post consumer plastic and reduce it back to its component parts for re-use. At the same time it ignores the reality that 'original' plastic, as the end product of a chemical process, is quite pure.
Thus when you build a system that uses plastic to create products, if you build it to assume the purity levels of pre-consumer plastic, then the onus is on the recycler to create the same level of purity. Estimates on the cost of doing that range from 10x to 100x the cost of creating plastic out of raw pre-cursor chemicals. The reality is that there isn't a market for $20 coffee cups over $2 coffee cups because they are "100% post consumer".
I think getting the discussion on to a more realistic footing is a good one. It is much easier to make policy when you have a shot at working with markets rather than against them.
To that end, incinerating plastic to generate energy makes a lot of policy sense in a 'peaker' plant. It isn't "reused" in the sense of making more product but it does give additional benefit to the consumer.
I am also a proponent of structural re-use of post consumer plastics. It has good insulation value, especially when foamed, and building engineered walls with the post-consumer plastic providing a better than air insulation layer has a durable long term effect of reducing baseline energy load which goes to environmental control (heating/cooling) in buildings.
It violates the stories that people have been told that their shopping bags will be infinitely recycled into new shopping bags, but it feels to me as a much more authentic way to represent recycling.
- kardos 7y ago> I am also a proponent of structural re-use of post consumer plastics. Wouldn't the flammability of plastic make this a non-starter?
- joshspankit 7y agoIt’s feasible to think that additives would reduce the flammability of plastics to at or below drywall. Add to this that extrusion can create a beam that can take the place of the much more flammable lumber, and it’s worth exploring at least.
- ChuckMcM 7y agoAdding fire retardant to plastic is straight forward [1,2]. One of the things about the NIST presentation [2] that is also relevant is that it discusses the additives that are added to plastics for one reason or another. Those additives add additional difficulty in processing post consumer plastic into precursors for new things. [1] https://sciencing.com/burn-potassium-nitrate-7708552.html https://sciencing.com/burn-potassium-nitrate-7708552.html [2] https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/fire_research/2-Reilly.pdf https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/el/fire_r...
- verbify 7y ago> Estimates on the cost of doing that range from 10x to 100x the cost of creating plastic out of raw pre-cursor chemicals. The reality is that there isn't a market for $20 coffee cups over $2 coffee cups because they are "100% post consumer". Plastic cups cost about a penny to manufacture (at least I can buy 1000 for £10). Many people will certainly pay 10p for recycled cups, and possibly more.
- benj111 7y ago"To that end, incinerating plastic to generate energy makes a lot of policy sense in a 'peaker' plant" Whilst I don't disagree, I do have concerns A) That the need for fuel will see unsuitable material diverted to incineration. B) That to help with the payback, it wont just be run as a peaker. C) That it will be sold by politicians as a solution, rather than the least worst option. Basically it's the same dynamic as waste to power plants.