3 ms·

The article has a typo: "Most will be melted and turned into fuel that is burned, adding to carbon emissions." That should say "reducing carbon emissions", no

by ars 2y ago

The article has a typo: "Most will be melted and turned into fuel that is burned, adding to carbon emissions." That should say "reducing carbon emissions", not adding. Burning plastic for energy is a net reduction in CO2 emission.

pinkmuffinere 2y ago
Your point is interesting, but I think the weird phrasing is confusing people. Ars is saying (correct me if I’m wrong): Transforming plastic into fuel is more efficient than obtaining new fossil fuel. It actually reduces emissions compared to using net new fossil fuels. Still, transforming plastic into fuel is not an emissions reduction compared to renewable energy sources.
- mcswell 2y ago
  You're probably right. But given that all this plastic already exists, what should be done with it, if not burning it? If it can be truly recycled, that's one thing, but it's not clear it can be (although I don't know the reason for that--maybe it's just not economical, which is different from "it can't be recycled").
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    There's no shortage of land for landfill. Burying it and letting it decay for centuries is a perfectly valid option. It doesn't feel good, but you can then cover that land and use it for parks and other productive uses. In fact, when the alternative is burning the plastic, it's actually a form of carbon sequestration. That's not to say burying plastic is a good thing. It's obviously better to not have used single-use plastic in the first place.
- ars 2y ago
  > Still, transforming plastic into fuel is not an emissions reduction compared to renewable energy sources. And? Is that news to anyway? Your earlier point is the correct one: In a world where hydrocarbons are burned for energy, burning plastic the best possible way to deal with plastic. Once we transition to a different world we can do something else, but until then we should burn plastic.
insaneirish 2y ago
> That should say "reducing carbon emissions", not adding. Burning plastic for energy is a net reduction in CO2 emission. Not sure I understand that math. You have plastic. You burn it. That is a net increase in atmospheric CO2. The other option is you bury it, which sounds horrible, but at least doesn't increase atmospheric CO2. The problem is you're going to say that instead of burning the plastic, we burn something else. But maybe we don't do that, either?
- ars 2y ago
  > But maybe we don't do that, either? Explain what you mean by that? I mean, out here in the real world, we are burning things for energy. Are you talking about some theoretic magical world that doesn't exist? Because in the real world burning plastic for energy reduces CO2 emissions.
  - insaneirish 2y ago
    > Because in the real world burning plastic for energy reduces CO2 emissions. Compared to what? Over what period? Consider this at the extremes. Instead of investing in any photovoltaic, 100% of PV demand should be shifted to burning landfilled plastics. Would you argue that makes sense?
    - ars 2y ago
      Compared to what exists today, over the time period of right now. Do you only work in extremes? Either 100% plastic, or 100% pv? There is fuel that was pulled out of the ground, we can use it, or we can spend even more energy to pull even more fuel out of the ground and then burn that. Which is better?
      - insaneirish 2y ago
        There is already an argument that says "let's stop pulling stuff out of the ground purely to burn" and instead use renewable resources. That's a difficult enough argument that lots don't agree with. Saying "let's burn the plastic" without a plan to stop creating single use plastic creates a backdoor reason and economy to keep using plastic for everything.
rolandr 2y ago
At first, I thought this was a good overlooked point, but after digging into it, there isn’t a net reduction. According to [1], the gCO2e/kWh for the relevant energy sources are: Coal 850g Natural gas 385g Plastic incineration 512g According to [2], in the US in 2023, 43.1% of electricity was from natural gas and 16.2% from coal. Based on that, the average fossil fuel kWh resulted in 512 gCO2e. So, if you substitute the average fossil fuel with burning plastic, there is NO net improvement in CO2 emissions per kWh. Against just natural gas, burning plastic actually produces 33% more gCO2e. I think the above approach is the correct way to evaluate this. Basically, to get your kWh from nonrenewable sources, you are still burning something and have to choose one thing or another to be burned. Choosing plastic allows you to defer burning your fossil fuel (or, in other words, gives you more total fuel to burn), but it doesn’t help climate change efforts. [1] https://www.clientearth.org/media/1h2nalrh/greenhouse-gas-and-air-quality-impacts-of-incineration-and-landfill.pdf https://www.clientearth.org/media/1h2nalrh/greenhouse-gas-an... (page 29) [2] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
- ars 2y ago
  You are forgetting the energy cost in pulling the fuel out of the ground. It's actually quite a high amount! With plastic you get that for free.
  - rolandr 2y ago
    I don’t know if that source ultimately took into account the CO2 costs in extraction and transportation. However, plastic sure isn’t free in that regard! 8-10% of petroleum (which is pulled out of the ground, with increasing effort each year) is used to produce plastics. I’d put good odds on extraction and transportation CO2 costs for petroleum exceeding those for LNG - no good guess on coal. That also doesn’t account for your energy costs in moving the post-consumer plastic around. Plus, natural gas has significantly lower emissions than plastic to begin with. Obviously, which others touched on, it’s better to displace burning fossil fuels and plastics (arguably fossil fuel too) with renewables —- an effort that continues to accelerate.

by ars 2y ago

pinkmuffinere 2y ago

Your point is interesting, but I think the weird phrasing is confusing people. Ars is saying (correct me if I’m wrong): Transforming plastic into fuel is more efficient than obtaining new fossil fuel. It actually reduces emissions compared to using net new fossil fuels. Still, transforming plastic into fuel is not an emissions reduction compared to renewable energy sources.

mcswell 2y ago
You're probably right. But given that all this plastic already exists, what should be done with it, if not burning it? If it can be truly recycled, that's one thing, but it's not clear it can be (although I don't know the reason for that--maybe it's just not economical, which is different from "it can't be recycled").
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  There's no shortage of land for landfill. Burying it and letting it decay for centuries is a perfectly valid option. It doesn't feel good, but you can then cover that land and use it for parks and other productive uses. In fact, when the alternative is burning the plastic, it's actually a form of carbon sequestration. That's not to say burying plastic is a good thing. It's obviously better to not have used single-use plastic in the first place.
ars 2y ago
> Still, transforming plastic into fuel is not an emissions reduction compared to renewable energy sources. And? Is that news to anyway? Your earlier point is the correct one: In a world where hydrocarbons are burned for energy, burning plastic the best possible way to deal with plastic. Once we transition to a different world we can do something else, but until then we should burn plastic.

insaneirish 2y ago

> That should say "reducing carbon emissions", not adding. Burning plastic for energy is a net reduction in CO2 emission. Not sure I understand that math. You have plastic. You burn it. That is a net increase in atmospheric CO2. The other option is you bury it, which sounds horrible, but at least doesn't increase atmospheric CO2. The problem is you're going to say that instead of burning the plastic, we burn something else. But maybe we don't do that, either?

ars 2y ago
> But maybe we don't do that, either? Explain what you mean by that? I mean, out here in the real world, we are burning things for energy. Are you talking about some theoretic magical world that doesn't exist? Because in the real world burning plastic for energy reduces CO2 emissions.
- insaneirish 2y ago
  > Because in the real world burning plastic for energy reduces CO2 emissions. Compared to what? Over what period? Consider this at the extremes. Instead of investing in any photovoltaic, 100% of PV demand should be shifted to burning landfilled plastics. Would you argue that makes sense?
  - ars 2y ago
    Compared to what exists today, over the time period of right now. Do you only work in extremes? Either 100% plastic, or 100% pv? There is fuel that was pulled out of the ground, we can use it, or we can spend even more energy to pull even more fuel out of the ground and then burn that. Which is better?
    - insaneirish 2y ago
      There is already an argument that says "let's stop pulling stuff out of the ground purely to burn" and instead use renewable resources. That's a difficult enough argument that lots don't agree with. Saying "let's burn the plastic" without a plan to stop creating single use plastic creates a backdoor reason and economy to keep using plastic for everything.

rolandr 2y ago

At first, I thought this was a good overlooked point, but after digging into it, there isn’t a net reduction. According to [1], the gCO2e/kWh for the relevant energy sources are: Coal 850g Natural gas 385g Plastic incineration 512g According to [2], in the US in 2023, 43.1% of electricity was from natural gas and 16.2% from coal. Based on that, the average fossil fuel kWh resulted in 512 gCO2e. So, if you substitute the average fossil fuel with burning plastic, there is NO net improvement in CO2 emissions per kWh. Against just natural gas, burning plastic actually produces 33% more gCO2e. I think the above approach is the correct way to evaluate this. Basically, to get your kWh from nonrenewable sources, you are still burning something and have to choose one thing or another to be burned. Choosing plastic allows you to defer burning your fossil fuel (or, in other words, gives you more total fuel to burn), but it doesn’t help climate change efforts. [1] https://www.clientearth.org/media/1h2nalrh/greenhouse-gas-and-air-quality-impacts-of-incineration-and-landfill.pdf https://www.clientearth.org/media/1h2nalrh/greenhouse-gas-an... (page 29) [2] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

ars 2y ago
You are forgetting the energy cost in pulling the fuel out of the ground. It's actually quite a high amount! With plastic you get that for free.
- rolandr 2y ago
  I don’t know if that source ultimately took into account the CO2 costs in extraction and transportation. However, plastic sure isn’t free in that regard! 8-10% of petroleum (which is pulled out of the ground, with increasing effort each year) is used to produce plastics. I’d put good odds on extraction and transportation CO2 costs for petroleum exceeding those for LNG - no good guess on coal. That also doesn’t account for your energy costs in moving the post-consumer plastic around. Plus, natural gas has significantly lower emissions than plastic to begin with. Obviously, which others touched on, it’s better to displace burning fossil fuels and plastics (arguably fossil fuel too) with renewables —- an effort that continues to accelerate.