3 ms·

There is a process called pyrolysis which basically distills any kind of plastic into oil / diesel fuel. A number of things can be added to the process, such a

by aliswe 6y ago

There is a process called pyrolysis which basically distills any kind of plastic into oil / diesel fuel. A number of things can be added to the process, such as pressure, vaccuum, and catalysators, to make it more efficient. It even works on old tyres! The rest is basically sludge or soot which allegedly also can be utilized in some way. It also emits "pyrolytic gases" (iirc) which I guess are bad? Toxic? Bad for the environment? Idk... Heres one out of tonnes of YT videos: https://youtu.be/TFuTCpCVSbM https://youtu.be/TFuTCpCVSbM

toomuchtodo 6y ago
This is an underrated solution. As everyone mentions in this thread, plastic reuse furthers the problem due to microplastic breakdown. Ideally, you're gasifying with plasma [1] [2] [3], with the slag going into road aggregate or other construction processes as feedstock. This doesn't work (yet) at hobbyist/small scale, but is entirely possible at municipal waste stream scale. Plastics (anything really, except metals, soil, and rock) go in, clean burning syngas and slag come out. Could even do carbon capture off the syngas to sequester the CO2 if you colocate somewhere where you can mineralize below ground, and use renewables to provide whatever power you can't recover from generation off the syngas. This assumes you also outlaw single use plastics/disposable plastics to solve for the other side of the equation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification [2] https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=honorstheses https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... (Treatment of Plastic Wastes Using Plasma Gasification Technology) [3] https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/westinghouse https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasificati...
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I've read about plasma gasification for years, including some nebulous plan for New York City to buy one. But from the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification_commercialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification_commercial...) it looks like there are a total of 5 sites operating anywhere in the world, which is quite a small number. The Wikipedia page also lists a bunch of failed projects which seem to mostly have been held up by red tape and locals being afraid that it's unsafe or toxic. Moreover, the Wikipedia page lists these downsides: * Little or even negative net energy production. * Frequent maintenance and limited plant availability. The former I find weird, because landfills don't generate energy either. But the latter could be a problem. The UNL paper you linked also mentions that such plasma gasification isn't necessarily more profitable than traditional recycling. This is such a weird angle to me. Safe and environmentally-friendly waste disposal is a public good, specifically one for which the benefits are dispersed across many individuals while the costs are concentrated on whoever has to build and run the facility. So why should we rely on for-profit market forces to produce it in efficient (welfare-maximizing) quantities? It's strange what in the USA does and does not get seen from this angle. Fire protection, police, drinking water treatment (I think?), and schools are owned and operated directly by towns/cities. But medical facilities & ambulance companies, electricity, sewage/wastewater treatment, and heating fuel are provided by private companies that residents either pay directly or through the town/city government. Not sure about landfills. Garbage collection and road construction are (usually, I think?) contracted out. I'm sure there are, or were, economic reasons why each of these scenarios evolved the way it did. But inertia is very much a thing, and just because something was sensible in the past doesn't mean it remains sensible today.

by aliswe 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago

This is an underrated solution. As everyone mentions in this thread, plastic reuse furthers the problem due to microplastic breakdown. Ideally, you're gasifying with plasma [1] [2] [3], with the slag going into road aggregate or other construction processes as feedstock. This doesn't work (yet) at hobbyist/small scale, but is entirely possible at municipal waste stream scale. Plastics (anything really, except metals, soil, and rock) go in, clean burning syngas and slag come out. Could even do carbon capture off the syngas to sequester the CO2 if you colocate somewhere where you can mineralize below ground, and use renewables to provide whatever power you can't recover from generation off the syngas. This assumes you also outlaw single use plastics/disposable plastics to solve for the other side of the equation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification [2] https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1081&context=honorstheses https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... (Treatment of Plastic Wastes Using Plasma Gasification Technology) [3] https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/westinghouse https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasificati...

nerdponx 6y ago
I've read about plasma gasification for years, including some nebulous plan for New York City to buy one. But from the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification_commercialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification_commercial...) it looks like there are a total of 5 sites operating anywhere in the world, which is quite a small number. The Wikipedia page also lists a bunch of failed projects which seem to mostly have been held up by red tape and locals being afraid that it's unsafe or toxic. Moreover, the Wikipedia page lists these downsides: * Little or even negative net energy production. * Frequent maintenance and limited plant availability. The former I find weird, because landfills don't generate energy either. But the latter could be a problem. The UNL paper you linked also mentions that such plasma gasification isn't necessarily more profitable than traditional recycling. This is such a weird angle to me. Safe and environmentally-friendly waste disposal is a public good, specifically one for which the benefits are dispersed across many individuals while the costs are concentrated on whoever has to build and run the facility. So why should we rely on for-profit market forces to produce it in efficient (welfare-maximizing) quantities? It's strange what in the USA does and does not get seen from this angle. Fire protection, police, drinking water treatment (I think?), and schools are owned and operated directly by towns/cities. But medical facilities & ambulance companies, electricity, sewage/wastewater treatment, and heating fuel are provided by private companies that residents either pay directly or through the town/city government. Not sure about landfills. Garbage collection and road construction are (usually, I think?) contracted out. I'm sure there are, or were, economic reasons why each of these scenarios evolved the way it did. But inertia is very much a thing, and just because something was sensible in the past doesn't mean it remains sensible today.