3 ms·

As I said recycling is most of the time actually downcycling. Don't get me wrong it's better than burning, but the fact we think bottle to bottle is the norm wh

by h1fra 3y ago

As I said recycling is most of the time actually downcycling. Don't get me wrong it's better than burning, but the fact we think bottle to bottle is the norm while it's absolutely not is a sign that we have failed somewhere.

baal80spam 3y ago
> the fact we think bottle to bottle is the norm Do people actually think so? I know nothing about recycling and I'd think that AT BEST 25% of materials are actually "got back" from a product.
phero_cnstrcts 3y ago
As the system currently is it’s actually more environmentally friendly to burn plastics instead of shipping it to China where it will either be burnt or dumped in the ocean.
- anticensor 3y ago
  What if we threw those thermoplastics in the oil refinery and let them pyrolyse under the heat of the distillation&cracking column?
soco 3y ago
That's a question I always had: is burning plastics bad? I mean, if we had a clean burning, no toxins and toxic ashes...? If this is true, then at least we are not damaging the environment with it (the overconsumption issue aside)
- varjag 3y ago
  Most plastics are pure carbon and hydrogen so burn cleanly at high enough temperature in the furnace. Naturally CO2 emissions still an issue.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  This is why I have developed an aversion towards any plastics containing halogens: chlorinated like PVC, materials with brominated flame retardants, or worse: fluorinated compounds like PFAS. Burn those, and a whole slew of nasties is produced. Common plastics like PE, PP & such at least in theory can burn cleanly. If so: make 'm bio-based, maybe a few downcycling steps, followed by burning, maybe isn't too bad overall. I have a bigger problem with discarded plastic (and related: microplastics) getting everywhere in our environment. That's an overlapping but different problem. Plastics have their uses & advantages, but we really should be more critical about where they're needed & where not.

by h1fra 3y ago

baal80spam 3y ago

> the fact we think bottle to bottle is the norm Do people actually think so? I know nothing about recycling and I'd think that AT BEST 25% of materials are actually "got back" from a product.

phero_cnstrcts 3y ago

As the system currently is it’s actually more environmentally friendly to burn plastics instead of shipping it to China where it will either be burnt or dumped in the ocean.

anticensor 3y ago
What if we threw those thermoplastics in the oil refinery and let them pyrolyse under the heat of the distillation&cracking column?

soco 3y ago

That's a question I always had: is burning plastics bad? I mean, if we had a clean burning, no toxins and toxic ashes...? If this is true, then at least we are not damaging the environment with it (the overconsumption issue aside)

varjag 3y ago
Most plastics are pure carbon and hydrogen so burn cleanly at high enough temperature in the furnace. Naturally CO2 emissions still an issue.
RetroTechie 3y ago
This is why I have developed an aversion towards any plastics containing halogens: chlorinated like PVC, materials with brominated flame retardants, or worse: fluorinated compounds like PFAS. Burn those, and a whole slew of nasties is produced. Common plastics like PE, PP & such at least in theory can burn cleanly. If so: make 'm bio-based, maybe a few downcycling steps, followed by burning, maybe isn't too bad overall. I have a bigger problem with discarded plastic (and related: microplastics) getting everywhere in our environment. That's an overlapping but different problem. Plastics have their uses & advantages, but we really should be more critical about where they're needed & where not.