5 ms·
> "Not just not biodegradable as the name suggests, but also not recyclable." As long as a significant portion of the material is from plants, rather than foss
by Reason077 6y ago
> "Not just not biodegradable as the name suggests, but also not recyclable."
As long as a significant portion of the material is from plants, rather than fossil origin, it's probably still an improvement.
Plastic used in long-life consumer goods is generally not recycled anyway (as opposed to the single-use PETE, HDPE, etc, plastics used in packaging).
- joshspankit 6y ago(plastics not generally being recycled aside since that’s a much heavier topic) I’d honestly disagree that it’s better to embed plant material in plastics or other non-degradable material. At least a fully plastic cup made of a single plastic could theoretically be recycled easily. When you embed it now has to have specific processes to deal with that before being recycled, and those processes might have to be specific to that one product (or at worst: the process becomes “burn out all the impurities, throw the smoke in the air”)
- fpoling 6y agoIt is relatively straightforward to dissolve cellulose. So adding it to epoxy does not necessary make it harder to recycle. I can speculate that with the right chemistry it can be more energy efficient to recycle the mixture compared with pure plastic.
- joshspankit 6y agoAnd to my point: You’re talking about a potential specific process for that one specific product. What if the manufacturer uses and emulsifier or infuses the cellulose with additional chemicals?