4 ms·
Sorry for being so negative, but it looks more translucent than fully transparent to me. I also would worry a little bit about all the different chemicals need
by whyenot 3y ago
Sorry for being so negative, but it looks more translucent than fully transparent to me. I also would worry a little bit about all the different chemicals needed to bleach/clear the wood and then fill it with resin. Is this really better than glass, which is inert, doesn't require numerous chemical treatments, and is almost completely recyclable?
- bobthepanda 3y agoWeight. Glass is pretty heavy, which increases transport cost and fuel usage. TFA also mentions that in applications where transluency is okay, it's a better insulator. https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recycling-US-broken/97/i6 https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recy... > But even if the US shifted more to multistream collection, there are other economic factors standing in the way of increasing glass-recycling rates to European levels. One significant difference between the US and European nations is size. Distances in the US between a materials recovery facility and a cullet supplier, or a cullet supplier and a buyer tend to be greater. Transporting glass waste and cullet is costly because of their weight, and those costs can be a deal breaker for some glassmakers and can prevent would-be cullet suppliers from opening processing facilities. For example, in the US, some materials recovery facilities do not recover any glass from their single streams because there are no nearby buyers to make it worthwhile, according to Rue.
- wffurr 3y agoIt’s just another kind of fiberglass, just with wood fibers instead of glass or carbon fiber.