5 ms·
If 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 clima
by csours 4y ago
If 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.
- worik 4y agoThe solution is to not generate waste we cannot dispose of
- yowlingcat 4y agoI think this is the correct approach. No need to recycle what we do not generate. My only question is, how much legacy plastic would remain in the supply chain and what do we do with it?
- ars 4y ago> From a climate perspective, we’d be better to bury the stuff in the ground than to burn it. Actually from a climate perspective we'd be better off burning the plastic, and reducing how much fresh oil we pump. I'd rather "bury" if you will, the oil, instead of the plastic.
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoAt the point where the plastic is already produced it's the exact opposite. It makes more sense to burn it and reduce our fossil fuel consumption. There may be edge cases where it's debatable, like in Iceland which already runs on 100% renewables. Btw all these processes aren't as simple. For example decomposing polyethylene produces methane which can leak into the atmosphere where it's one of the worst greenhouse gases of all. If you burn it you "only" produce CO2, which is much preferable. The oil and gas was (semi)-permanently trapped before humans started digging it up without knowing the consequences. Putting waste into a surface dump and covering it with a few meters of soil and maybe some plastic sheets is not the same thing at all. This is not permanent carbon sequestration. Everyone should consider there are many things we do not understand. In the media we're often presented "experts" who purport to know it all, but it's not true. And many laypeople have strong opinions despite understanding even less.
- missedthecue 4y agoNot all energy is created equal though. There are applications where 1kwh of oil is more valuable than 1kwh of electricity.