4 ms·

How are you defining efficiency? Time to “disappear” the styrofoam? If yes, that’s not the problem to solve here. Health concerns are to be reduced from used st

How are you defining efficiency? Time to “disappear” the styrofoam? If yes, that’s not the problem to solve here. Health concerns are to be reduced from used styrofoam. Burning reacts it with air, and as another has commented, that produces harmful byproducts. Decomposing into CO2 (perhaps which can be captured) and manure is perhaps a better alternative?

ars 6y ago
> Burning reacts it with air, and as another has commented, that produces harmful byproducts. It does not. Burning in an incinerator is completely clean and releases only water and CO2. If you burn it badly you can make smoke, so don't do that. Also, it does not make manure, that's false info. It makes CO2 and water, nothing else, even with mealworms.
- eatbitseveryday 6y ago
  > It does not. Burning in an incinerator is completely clean and releases only water and CO2. If you burn it badly you can make smoke, so don't do that. I suppose I should have been more careful with my terms - "burning" was meant as a layman's "making fire" rather than in a controlled process within an incinerator as you mentioned. If this is clean, why are people so motivated to look for alternatives for its disposal, giving up and resorting to landfill? Is incineration cost-prohibitive? Or is the transport to the incinerators inefficient?
  - ars 6y ago
    Because people are not rational and incineration "seems" dirty somehow, even though it is - by far - the mostly environmentally friendly way to deal with plastic. Far outclassing recycling. It just looks bad, and recycling is about feeling good, not the environment. Incineration not only disposes of the plastic, it also gives you back the energy embodied in the raw material used to make it. Then you can avoid burning some other oil, and use that other oil to make fresh plastic. You can think of it as recycling with extra steps :)

ars 6y ago

> Burning reacts it with air, and as another has commented, that produces harmful byproducts. It does not. Burning in an incinerator is completely clean and releases only water and CO2. If you burn it badly you can make smoke, so don't do that. Also, it does not make manure, that's false info. It makes CO2 and water, nothing else, even with mealworms.

eatbitseveryday 6y ago
> It does not. Burning in an incinerator is completely clean and releases only water and CO2. If you burn it badly you can make smoke, so don't do that. I suppose I should have been more careful with my terms - "burning" was meant as a layman's "making fire" rather than in a controlled process within an incinerator as you mentioned. If this is clean, why are people so motivated to look for alternatives for its disposal, giving up and resorting to landfill? Is incineration cost-prohibitive? Or is the transport to the incinerators inefficient?
- ars 6y ago
  Because people are not rational and incineration "seems" dirty somehow, even though it is - by far - the mostly environmentally friendly way to deal with plastic. Far outclassing recycling. It just looks bad, and recycling is about feeling good, not the environment. Incineration not only disposes of the plastic, it also gives you back the energy embodied in the raw material used to make it. Then you can avoid burning some other oil, and use that other oil to make fresh plastic. You can think of it as recycling with extra steps :)