4 ms·
All plastics can be recycled. Does not mean they do. In fact, we have unmitigated leaking dumps here in the US, but since it is not in your backyard you don't
by whatever1 6y ago
All plastics can be recycled. Does not mean they do.
In fact, we have unmitigated leaking dumps here in the US, but since it is not in your backyard you don't care. Not your problem, someone elses problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#:~:text=The%20Hanford%20Site%20is%20a,the%20U.S.%20state%20of%20Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#:~:text=The%20Han....
I can play the environmentalist on the backs of other people as well. Super easy.
- dtech 6y agoMost plastics are very hard if not impossible to recycle. Especially when different plastics are mixed or a product is made of multiple materials, i.e. nearly all products.
- whatever1 6y agoAll plastics can be recycled. Is it economical? No. Same goes for nuclear waste.
- redisman 6y agoWhat do you mean by recycled in this case? From my understanding you can pretty much only grind it down to garbage filler and maybe press it into some primitive shape. It’ll never become cling film or whatever again
- whatever1 6y agoPolymers can fundamentally be de-polymerized and then you can reuse the monomers, for example see [1]. They call it "chemical recycling". Questionable whether it will ever be price competitive with direct production from crude oil derivatives. You can also burn them (pyrolysis), collect the carbon and start from scratch. Of course this is insane (economically and thermodynamically), but hey, you are "recycling" the same carbon. [1] https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Plastic-problem-chemical-recycling-solution/97/i39 https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Plastic-problem-ch...
- exporectomy 6y agoIf you convert it to solid carbon, there's no need to recycle it any further because it's already harmless to the environment. So perhaps it could be more cost effective than it seems.
- godelski 6y agoMost plastics aren't actually recyclable, which is why they aren't recycled. But we say that we can because it shifts the burden. Companies like Coke have been saying that they'll have 50% recycled material in the next 20 years for the last 60. ~~Fusion~~Full recycled product chain is only 20 years away! Also, 17% of France's energy comes from recycled nuclear (70% from nuclear)[0] [0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
- Chris2048 6y agoIs this literally "not recyclable" or, not economically recyclable?
- amluto 6y agoI presume one could, with present technology, incinerate a stream of mixed plastics, collect the CO2, and turn it back into hydrocarbons. I’m not sure this counts as recycling.
- godelski 6y ago"Not recyclable" in the literal sense. You have lower yields when you reform plastics and there's always contaminants which are difficult (read "we don't know how to") remove. This is a complicated technical challenge. In fact, the recent John Oliver episode was on this topic[0]. There's kinda this weird conspiracy about this, which is more about shifting responsibility. Though the more honest answer is closer to "mostly not recyclable, a bit not economically viable". But that also depends what we mean by "economically viable". If we're using it in the typical sense of "slightly more expensive for producers" then a small percentage increase. But if we're talking about "if producers had infinite resources" then well still no, but we'd be able to recycle a bit more (we're still not talking much more). I'm assuming the former because the latter is an absurd position. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E
- adrianN 6y agoMost plastics can be recycled into energy by burning them, just like "spent" nuclear fuel. The difference is that plastic waste occurs everywhere and collecting it would cost way too much, but nuclear waste collection works very well.
- coryrc 6y agoHanford is nuclear weapons research waste, not from nuclear power. Marie Curie died from radiation but we give x-ray examinations every day.
- whatever1 6y agoAnd as expected, 0% of that has been recycled. Yet the parent comment makes the case that nuclear waste is not a problem (or maybe they think it is a trivial one?). In any case, current facts do not align with the narrative that nuclear waste management is a solved (technically & economically) problem.
- Klinky 6y agoActually some of the hazardous waste at Hanford is from the PUREX "recycling" process to extract Plutonium for weapons research. A lot of people just don't want to admit that nuclear is very dirty, and while we're potentially able to better capture its waste compared to other waste producing energy sources, our track record with nuclear material in general is very poor.
- Klinky 6y agoHanford is a great example of what happens when you don't manage or plan for nuclear waste properly. Also x-ray technicians stand behind a shield, because x-rays are still dangerous.