3 ms·

The big problem with plastic waste is getting it to the landfill (or incinerator) in the first place. Once the plastics are captured, I don't see too much bene

The big problem with plastic waste is getting it to the landfill (or incinerator) in the first place. Once the plastics are captured, I don't see too much benefit in incinerating it beyond freeing up landfill space. But that's really not a major issue as you can always dig a deeper and wider landfill. In fact, a major downside of incinerating the plastic is you end up with greenhouse gasses as a byproduct.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Certainly, you are generating some greenhouse gasses in the process, which is a trade off to ensure immediate waste destruction. To note, you will have to flare methane from the landfill in perpetuity when landfilled. If one is so inclined, internalize the cost of direct air carbon capture into the cost of waste disposal for those emissions. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-ga... > Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are the third-largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 14.4 percent of these emissions in 2022. The methane emissions from MSW landfills in 2022 were approximately equivalent to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from more than 24.0 million gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year or the CO2 emissions from more than 13.1 million homes’ energy use for one year. At the same time, methane emissions from MSW landfills represent a lost opportunity to capture and use a significant energy resource. TLDR Whether landfills or gasification, you are paying the piper regardless for emissions. Don't trust the human, pull forward the disposal.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Point taken. Though I do wonder how much of the methane released is from plastic decomposition and how much of it is from food/biomaterial decomposition. I'd naively assume the primary emission would come from readily decomposable materials and that most plastics would remain fairly stable for a lot longer than yesterday's half eaten hamburger.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Indeed, waste sorting might improve the situation, but all available evidence indicates there is no will to do this (caveats being parts of Europe, Japan, the Nordics, and anywhere else diverse multi stream waste management can be effectively operated), which leads me to believe gasification is the superior path (with a bypass stream for glass, brick, earth, rock, and metals, primarily to prevent process efficiency reduction during gasification but also for reuse of those materials). Hardly the best solution, but I argue the least worst solution. Landfilling is just too much risk considering leaching from lining failures (putting water tables and aquifers at risk from permanent contamination) and the lifetime of methane destruction that must be accounted for.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      You're repeating yourself: > parts of Europe, Japan, the Nordics The Nordics are a part of Europe. DRY! :-)
    - ianburrell 2y ago
      What has been successful in my city, Portland, is separating the food and yard waste. The food and yard wastes are composted. Composting produces methane, but there is a trial to capture the methane which is burned as natural gas. Capturing methane from compost should be easier than whole landfill. It also keeps the organics instead of losing them.
      - eru 2y ago
        You don't really lose anything in a landfill. You just lock it up for a while. We can 'mine' landfills in the future, if that becomes economically viable.
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        A wrinkle I read somewhere - organics in traditional landfills kept toxic materials like heavy metals "locked up", less risk of such stuff leeching out in the ground water.
    - 2y ago
- concordDance 2y ago
  Interesting point I hadn't thought of! Had previously thought that obviously things should go straight in the ground to avoid CO2 emissions and hadn't thought about decomposition.
- scoofy 2y ago
  While I might be wrong, I seriously doubt the plastics creating the methane emissions you are referring to. That is almost certainly the organic matter. I have no idea how you think plasma gasification -- requiring extreme amounts of energy -- is in any way helpful to our current environmental concerns. Unless we somehow magically start relying on 100% renewables, it seems like landfills are far-and-away the best way to go until we are able to grapple with climate change.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/opinion/solar-power-free-energy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/opinion/solar-power-free-... By the end of this year, the world will be deploying 660GW of solar annually. Within 18 months, that figure rises to 1TW/year (based on current manufacturing ramp trajectories). On the contrary, I’m unsure how you think we don’t have the clean power for this, not even accounting for the power you can generate from the syngas that is a byproduct of the process. The process is not energy positive, but it’s also not wildly net negative due to the energy content of the matter being gasified. > Plasma gasification uses around 800 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of power per ton of municipal solid waste (MSW). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890421011547 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01968...
    - scoofy 2y ago
      Because solar isn't balanced and we haven't fixed the duck curve. We're burning obscene amounts of nat gas, petroleum, and even coal currently. Until those numbers are at-or-near zero, every ounce of renewable electricity needs to be offsetting dirty electricity.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Think when these plants would come online. Think when solar and storage will be up to speed on the grid. Skate to where the puck is going to be. Think in systems. To say no today because of current state today is irrational and ignores the data. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth within ~30-60 minutes to power all of humanity for a year, and an enormous global clean energy flywheel is coming up to speed (first solar, with batteries right behind).
eru 2y ago
> But that's really not a major issue as you can always dig a deeper and wider landfill. The submission suggests that landfills ain't dug, but just piled high. Digging a hole costs more time, money and effort than not digging a hole.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Certainly, you are generating some greenhouse gasses in the process, which is a trade off to ensure immediate waste destruction. To note, you will have to flare methane from the landfill in perpetuity when landfilled. If one is so inclined, internalize the cost of direct air carbon capture into the cost of waste disposal for those emissions. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-ga... > Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are the third-largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 14.4 percent of these emissions in 2022. The methane emissions from MSW landfills in 2022 were approximately equivalent to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from more than 24.0 million gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year or the CO2 emissions from more than 13.1 million homes’ energy use for one year. At the same time, methane emissions from MSW landfills represent a lost opportunity to capture and use a significant energy resource. TLDR Whether landfills or gasification, you are paying the piper regardless for emissions. Don't trust the human, pull forward the disposal.

cogman10 2y ago
Point taken. Though I do wonder how much of the methane released is from plastic decomposition and how much of it is from food/biomaterial decomposition. I'd naively assume the primary emission would come from readily decomposable materials and that most plastics would remain fairly stable for a lot longer than yesterday's half eaten hamburger.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Indeed, waste sorting might improve the situation, but all available evidence indicates there is no will to do this (caveats being parts of Europe, Japan, the Nordics, and anywhere else diverse multi stream waste management can be effectively operated), which leads me to believe gasification is the superior path (with a bypass stream for glass, brick, earth, rock, and metals, primarily to prevent process efficiency reduction during gasification but also for reuse of those materials). Hardly the best solution, but I argue the least worst solution. Landfilling is just too much risk considering leaching from lining failures (putting water tables and aquifers at risk from permanent contamination) and the lifetime of methane destruction that must be accounted for.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    You're repeating yourself: > parts of Europe, Japan, the Nordics The Nordics are a part of Europe. DRY! :-)
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    What has been successful in my city, Portland, is separating the food and yard waste. The food and yard wastes are composted. Composting produces methane, but there is a trial to capture the methane which is burned as natural gas. Capturing methane from compost should be easier than whole landfill. It also keeps the organics instead of losing them.
    - eru 2y ago
      You don't really lose anything in a landfill. You just lock it up for a while. We can 'mine' landfills in the future, if that becomes economically viable.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      A wrinkle I read somewhere - organics in traditional landfills kept toxic materials like heavy metals "locked up", less risk of such stuff leeching out in the ground water.
  - 2y ago
concordDance 2y ago
Interesting point I hadn't thought of! Had previously thought that obviously things should go straight in the ground to avoid CO2 emissions and hadn't thought about decomposition.
scoofy 2y ago
While I might be wrong, I seriously doubt the plastics creating the methane emissions you are referring to. That is almost certainly the organic matter. I have no idea how you think plasma gasification -- requiring extreme amounts of energy -- is in any way helpful to our current environmental concerns. Unless we somehow magically start relying on 100% renewables, it seems like landfills are far-and-away the best way to go until we are able to grapple with climate change.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/opinion/solar-power-free-energy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/opinion/solar-power-free-... By the end of this year, the world will be deploying 660GW of solar annually. Within 18 months, that figure rises to 1TW/year (based on current manufacturing ramp trajectories). On the contrary, I’m unsure how you think we don’t have the clean power for this, not even accounting for the power you can generate from the syngas that is a byproduct of the process. The process is not energy positive, but it’s also not wildly net negative due to the energy content of the matter being gasified. > Plasma gasification uses around 800 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of power per ton of municipal solid waste (MSW). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890421011547 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01968...
  - scoofy 2y ago
    Because solar isn't balanced and we haven't fixed the duck curve. We're burning obscene amounts of nat gas, petroleum, and even coal currently. Until those numbers are at-or-near zero, every ounce of renewable electricity needs to be offsetting dirty electricity.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Think when these plants would come online. Think when solar and storage will be up to speed on the grid. Skate to where the puck is going to be. Think in systems. To say no today because of current state today is irrational and ignores the data. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth within ~30-60 minutes to power all of humanity for a year, and an enormous global clean energy flywheel is coming up to speed (first solar, with batteries right behind).

eru 2y ago

> But that's really not a major issue as you can always dig a deeper and wider landfill. The submission suggests that landfills ain't dug, but just piled high. Digging a hole costs more time, money and effort than not digging a hole.