3 ms·

Even smarter would be to take that plastic and burn it for energy, instead of giving that energy to an enzyme, that will just make waste heat. After reading th

by ars 4y ago

Even smarter would be to take that plastic and burn it for energy, instead of giving that energy to an enzyme, that will just make waste heat. After reading the article instead of the headline: They imply they can turn the plastic back into a monomer and then rebuild it as a new polymer. Maybe that would work, but I have huge doubts - a monomer is very chemically active, and it really wants to polymerize. That enzyme may work in a lab, but I doubt they can turn it into an industrial process. I take issue with this: "The most common method for disposing of plastic, besides throwing it in a landfill, is to burn it, which is costly, energy intensive and spews noxious gas into the air." This is utterly false, and I don't see how they can claim to be scientific if they publish falsehoods. It makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the press release.

r00fus 4y ago
Isn't the problem with plastic burning the fact that most plastic waste is actually contaminated with food/non-plastics that burn differently?
- williamtwild 4y ago
  Yes. I see quite a few three letter accounts advocating for burning plastic. Let them throw some in their fireplace of the chimnea while relaxing with the family and see how that goes.
  - ars 4y ago
    PET burns very clean with enough air. I use it as a fire starter for outdoor fires. A fireplace is a smoky thing, without enough air (even the wood makes a lot of smoke). An incinerator makes sure to supply enough air.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Industrial waste incineration is not at all the same thing as burning trash in a backyard fire.
  - toast0 4y ago
    I recall throwing some plastic bottlecaps in fireplaces during my youth. IIRC, they'd get melty, then the puddle would ignite and burn very hot, until it was spent, and that would be about it. Might have smelled funny, but I can't remember that far back; was less sooty than the wood at least. Of course, water bottle caps aren't likely to have food waste or much of anything else other than the plastic, maybe a smidge of water and some fingeroils from handling. I also didn't have a gas spectrometer or anything, and the fireplace wasn't an industrial furnace with process controls and what not. On the topic of food waste, my time in the kitchen says most foods will burn just fine. Although, they often leave residues that I could see being problematic when they build up. As with everything, you'd need specifics to determine the right tradeoffs. It would seem to me there's potential in reducing the transport distance and land use of solid waste, and also reducing extraction, transport, and burning of some fossil fuels, if a burn the trash for electricity program works. But specifics matter, of course.
williamtwild 4y ago
Which part is false? There is at least one part of that statement that is absolutely true.
- ars 4y ago
  The only part that is true is that burning is the most common method, with recycling being a close third. > which is costly Burning is not costly it is cheaper than all other methods. It's so cheap it's actually profitable. > energy intensive It actually provides extra energy, and reduces energy waste (because now we have to pump less oil.) > and spews noxious gas into the air. It spews nothing except water and CO2.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    I wouldn't exactly call it noxious, but C02 isn't exactly something we want to be spewing more of. Isn't a landfill full of plastic pretty much just a big pile of captured carbon?
    - ars 4y ago
      It's captured oil basically, not captured CO2. (Don't say "captured carbon", when you mean "captured co2", because it leads to confusion - do you mean burned or unburned carbon?) And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful.
      - thfuran 4y ago
        >do you mean burned or unburned carbon? I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. >And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful. I suspect that overall energy production in the US probably emits less CO2 per kwhr than burning garbage does, so starting to burn garbage for energy would be, in that regard, a net negative. Furthermore, it would likely require moderately significant capital expenditure that could've instead been used for something better.
Geezus-42 4y ago
- ars 4y ago
  Exactly. Everyone thinks there will be black smoke, but actually plastic burns very clean in a proper incinerator.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    They're dirtier than natural gas power plants, however. (and the pollution that they do create can be particularly nasty) We're better off in terms of emissions-per-watt by burying the plastic and using natural gas instead.
    - ars 4y ago
      > They're dirtier than natural gas power plants, however That is not true. > and the pollution that they do create can be particularly nasty That is also not true. Plastic is made of the exact same atoms as natural gas, plus oxygen. Plastic burns very very clean, with no waste except for water and CO2. PVC has chlorine, but is rare in trash, and the small amount of chlorine is easily filtered out of the exhaust. > We're better off in terms of emissions-per-watt by burying the plastic and using natural gas instead. This is also not true because it costs energy to extract the natural gas. The plastic is already there, and needs to be dealt with one way or another. Plastic makes about the same CO2/watt as gasoline.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        Plastic that goes into the trash is not pure plastic, it is trash and it has a lot of other junk in it. i.e. heavy metals and other stuff. That's one of the biggest reasons we have trouble recycling it. Are there even any WTE plants that burn only plastic?
        ars 4y ago
mistrial9 4y ago
https://no-burn.org https://no-burn.org and others.. incinerator waste to energy has been a battle for at least fifty years..
- ars 4y ago
  Another organization we can blame for terrible environmental outcomes? Why is it so common for people to pretend to be environmentalists and advocate for things that directly harm the environment?
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    > we can blame for terrible environmental outcomes who is "we" here ? > to pretend to be environmentalists that is wildly defamatory, with no evidence, right?
    - ars 4y ago
      We is you and me. > that is wildly defamatory, with no evidence, right? The evidence is right on their own website. Their advocacy that they are so proud of is actively harming the planet and they are sitting there proud of it.

by ars 4y ago

r00fus 4y ago

Isn't the problem with plastic burning the fact that most plastic waste is actually contaminated with food/non-plastics that burn differently?

williamtwild 4y ago
Yes. I see quite a few three letter accounts advocating for burning plastic. Let them throw some in their fireplace of the chimnea while relaxing with the family and see how that goes.
- ars 4y ago
  PET burns very clean with enough air. I use it as a fire starter for outdoor fires. A fireplace is a smoky thing, without enough air (even the wood makes a lot of smoke). An incinerator makes sure to supply enough air.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Industrial waste incineration is not at all the same thing as burning trash in a backyard fire.
- toast0 4y ago
  I recall throwing some plastic bottlecaps in fireplaces during my youth. IIRC, they'd get melty, then the puddle would ignite and burn very hot, until it was spent, and that would be about it. Might have smelled funny, but I can't remember that far back; was less sooty than the wood at least. Of course, water bottle caps aren't likely to have food waste or much of anything else other than the plastic, maybe a smidge of water and some fingeroils from handling. I also didn't have a gas spectrometer or anything, and the fireplace wasn't an industrial furnace with process controls and what not. On the topic of food waste, my time in the kitchen says most foods will burn just fine. Although, they often leave residues that I could see being problematic when they build up. As with everything, you'd need specifics to determine the right tradeoffs. It would seem to me there's potential in reducing the transport distance and land use of solid waste, and also reducing extraction, transport, and burning of some fossil fuels, if a burn the trash for electricity program works. But specifics matter, of course.

williamtwild 4y ago

Which part is false? There is at least one part of that statement that is absolutely true.

ars 4y ago
The only part that is true is that burning is the most common method, with recycling being a close third. > which is costly Burning is not costly it is cheaper than all other methods. It's so cheap it's actually profitable. > energy intensive It actually provides extra energy, and reduces energy waste (because now we have to pump less oil.) > and spews noxious gas into the air. It spews nothing except water and CO2.
- thfuran 4y ago
  I wouldn't exactly call it noxious, but C02 isn't exactly something we want to be spewing more of. Isn't a landfill full of plastic pretty much just a big pile of captured carbon?
  - ars 4y ago
    It's captured oil basically, not captured CO2. (Don't say "captured carbon", when you mean "captured co2", because it leads to confusion - do you mean burned or unburned carbon?) And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      >do you mean burned or unburned carbon? I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. >And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful. I suspect that overall energy production in the US probably emits less CO2 per kwhr than burning garbage does, so starting to burn garbage for energy would be, in that regard, a net negative. Furthermore, it would likely require moderately significant capital expenditure that could've instead been used for something better.

Geezus-42 4y ago

ars 4y ago
Exactly. Everyone thinks there will be black smoke, but actually plastic burns very clean in a proper incinerator.
- kube-system 4y ago
  They're dirtier than natural gas power plants, however. (and the pollution that they do create can be particularly nasty) We're better off in terms of emissions-per-watt by burying the plastic and using natural gas instead.
  - ars 4y ago
    > They're dirtier than natural gas power plants, however That is not true. > and the pollution that they do create can be particularly nasty That is also not true. Plastic is made of the exact same atoms as natural gas, plus oxygen. Plastic burns very very clean, with no waste except for water and CO2. PVC has chlorine, but is rare in trash, and the small amount of chlorine is easily filtered out of the exhaust. > We're better off in terms of emissions-per-watt by burying the plastic and using natural gas instead. This is also not true because it costs energy to extract the natural gas. The plastic is already there, and needs to be dealt with one way or another. Plastic makes about the same CO2/watt as gasoline.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Plastic that goes into the trash is not pure plastic, it is trash and it has a lot of other junk in it. i.e. heavy metals and other stuff. That's one of the biggest reasons we have trouble recycling it. Are there even any WTE plants that burn only plastic?
      - ars 4y ago

mistrial9 4y ago

https://no-burn.org https://no-burn.org and others.. incinerator waste to energy has been a battle for at least fifty years..

ars 4y ago
Another organization we can blame for terrible environmental outcomes? Why is it so common for people to pretend to be environmentalists and advocate for things that directly harm the environment?
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > we can blame for terrible environmental outcomes who is "we" here ? > to pretend to be environmentalists that is wildly defamatory, with no evidence, right?
  - ars 4y ago
    We is you and me. > that is wildly defamatory, with no evidence, right? The evidence is right on their own website. Their advocacy that they are so proud of is actively harming the planet and they are sitting there proud of it.