2 ms·
Except by burning it as fuel, yes, that's basically what I'm saying. I don't think this would be news to a material scientist trained since the 90s, but marketi
by neltnerb 6y ago
Except by burning it as fuel, yes, that's basically what I'm saying. I don't think this would be news to a material scientist trained since the 90s, but marketing is strong.
- SahAssar 6y agoI think some people take the "plastic recycling is not viable" to mean that all recycling is not a thing, so I wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand you about things like glass, cardboard, paper, metal and so on. I think it's even harder to separate those concepts if you throw all recycling in the same bin.
- neltnerb 6y agoI think the point of the NPR piece is that the recycling symbols started intentionally and have continued to be for marketing. I don't think it's viable to recycle paper products meaningfully, but they're also made from farmed trees and burn so I don't object overmuch to them. Worst case they sequester carbon... Glass is tricky and probably cheaper to make fresh right now but it's not that big a difference to recycle it. You'd only need a marginal incentive, or for sand to somehow become more expensive. Metal is really worth recycling economically, energetically, and technically. Glass is worth keeping separate since it can be recycled pretty easily. Paper products frankly just burn em as biofuels. Plastics... well... I just kind of wish they didn't exist except for special applications where their unique properties were necessary. They are space age, high performance, specialty materials and we use them like they're paper cups. Use PTFE for specialty tubing, great. Use rubber tires for cars, great. Use plastics where the properties matter. Don't use it for cups... it's just so sad...