5 ms·
"This sounds too cool, let's check HN comments for the disappointment"
by manbitesdog 4y ago
"This sounds too cool, let's check HN comments for the disappointment"
- ahmedk92 4y agoBefore looking, it will probably be more pollution.
- koheripbal 4y agoThere is a reason that portion of the crude oil was made into plastic, and not sold as oil or fuel to begin with.
- perrygeo 4y agoMy first thought was "what kind of oil?". It matters. The clean burning, energy dense stuff was turned into fuel from the start. The rest of it is barely fit for a cigarette lighter. But beyond that, not all plastics come from crude oil directly. Many plastics, especially baggies and consumer plastics of the type shown in these photos, come from liquids that are removed from natural gas. Either way, you're certainly dealing with a liquid hydrocarbon of inferior quality. And at the huge energy cost of having refined it twice. I'd be surprised if this provided any net-positive energy. And it's certainly a dirty burning fuel with low BTU per volume. Why not just burn the plastic directly at this point?
- leeoniya 4y agothere was an infuriating segment on the local news last night that single-use/disposable coffee cups (e.g. keurig) are somehow "greener" because they supposedly use water/energy more efficiently than "traditional" ways of making coffee. of course, zero mention of where these things end up after their 15 seconds of fame. https://wgnradio.com/the-business-of-food-with-steve-alexander/coffee-pods-or-old-school-drip-which-is-better-for-the-environment/ https://wgnradio.com/the-business-of-food-with-steve-alexand... it's like CO2 is the only impact to the environment that matters. you can always find greener ways to source the energy, but you're not going to find a lot of ways to reduce plastic trash.
- CoffeeOnWrite 4y agoOmg infuriating. Telling me my French press wastes hot water is absurd.
- csours 4y agoIf you wanted to burn plastic for energy, you can already do it at a electrical generation plant. You have to put more energy in to get oil out. Um. And climate change.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 8note 4y agoBurning plastic however, has high temperature requirements to avoid giving off toxic fumes in the smoke, which I think you would reduce by doing a conversion to oil first.
- killjoywashere 4y agoSome of it doesn’t even burn: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-india-plastic-recycling-pollution/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-india-plastic-recycl...
- Reason077 4y agoWaste-to-energy plants are designed to reach those high temperatures, amongst other measures, to minimise and prevent toxic emissions. They still produce a lot of CO2, though: plastic is still a fossil fuel. From a climate perspective, we’d be better to bury the stuff in the ground than to burn it. And ideally, we’d just produce a lot less plastic in the first place!
- yowlingcat 4y agoAre you suggesting to bury it in the ground so it can leach into groundwater and soil rather than even trying to capture and reuse the CO2? Are you serious or are you joking?
- csours 4y agoDigging a hole and lining it with clay and polymer, filling it with household waste, and then covering it with a polymer liner is significantly cheaper than what you are describing. It's not great, there's no great solution, the problem is hard on multiple levels. If a solution made sense, people would already be doing it.
- suh_dude 4y agoGlad I'm not the only one who thinks that...