Some state laws allow incentives to turn plastics into fuels as well as other plastics:
In the US, people are asking their elected leaders to reduce plastic pollution.
To that end, environmental advocates are seeking policies to reduce the use of single-use plastics such as beverage bottles and snack bags. They point out that less than 10% of plastic used in the US ends up recycled.
Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the major trade group for the chemical industry, is offering another plan—policies to promote chemically recycling plastics by breaking them down into molecular building blocks for reuse. [...]
"Policy makers are very interested" in advanced recycling, says Craig Cookson, senior director of plastics sustainability for the ACC. "Their constituents are coming to them and saying they want to see greater amounts and more types of plastics recycled in their communities."
[...] Industry effort to promote the new state laws "is all about public relations," says Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, a group that seeks to end single-use plastic pollution through the reduction and reuse of the material. Producers are trying to acknowledge that plastic pollution is a problem while preserving business, she says.
Instead of working to generate less plastic waste, companies are seeking a technical fix that will let them keep producing—and reaping huge profits from—plastic, says Renée Sharp, the strategic adviser for Safer States, an alliance of health and safety advocates that tracks environmental legislation in states.
"We're seeing legislators who think that they're actually doing something that's good for the environment, but they have bought the industry line. They don't really understand what these technologies are," Sharp tells C&EN. Backers of the state bills include Democrats and Republicans alike.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @11:24PM
If God wanted us to reduce our plastic consumption, he wouldn't have made it so convenient. You know who does have lower plastic consumption? Communists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 22 2022, @11:49PM
no chem phd here but methinks making plastic from oil is overall a exothermic ...uhm... process. not like exothermic that one could build a rocket to orbit that ejects plastic bottles but exothermic so that the plastic after the reaction is in a lower energy state.
so i guess recycling plastic requires a chemical or such energy INPUT ... and since most energy is derived from ... oil, why not, instead, exothermically (read: for free) react it to new plastic bottles instead?
it's not like we're running out of oil. the recent price increase is 'cause "green" and more expensive oil equals less plastic bottles ... not higher drink prices, right?
well, that's my theory anyway.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @12:01AM (10 children)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @12:13AM (9 children)
i don't see plastic bottles as pollution. it doesn't intrude on you. unlike burning oil intrudes. plastic bottles can't really hurt you. try selling flowers at a red light crossing the whole day.
it's just a durable container nobody wants.
fun "fact"? the chinese emporer and entourage aet from premium porcellain ...errr... stuff. it was used only once then broken thru discard.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @03:39AM (8 children)
Durable? If it was so durable, those containers wouldn't shed microplastics, which cause all sorts of problems.
The issue isn't just that the plastics go to landfills and sit there, but that the plastics break down in the landfills into smaller pieces that don't necessarily stay in the landfills. Plastic may be a necessary evil, but we can at least reduce the amount of plastics that we use. One study found that 99.36% of microplastics came from landfills. Keeping plastics out of landfills is probably one of our best options for reducing the amount of microplastics.
When those microplastics are killing aquatic organisms, they're definitely pollution.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @04:15AM (6 children)
Funnily enough (not really funny), a lot of that microplastic pollution is because 'Eco-friendly' people got incinerators banned. If you burn plastic in a hot enough fire with plenty of O2 it turns into CO2 and a small amount of ash. Even if something else does get out it is usually a highly reactive compound that will quickly degrade.
Yes, CO2 is currently the devil, but compared to other sources the amount was small and far less damaging than all those micro particles clogging up the wildlife.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @01:07PM
makes sense that making plastic from oil does not magically increase the number of carbon atoms in plastic and thus burning plastic cannot release more "C"o2 then was originally present in oil or just burning the oil.
compressing plastic bottles and " injecting" them into the ground shohld thus also count as carbon capture or sequestering (and give green credits)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @03:35PM
I don't think that is true, though possibly a decent point about just burning plastic waste.
Most microplastics come from products shedding, not end of life stuff. Tires, washing plastic based clothing, food packaging, and good old trash. They should warehouse plastic waste, or make a single location landfill that could be the site of a massive recycling center someday. Also, those highly reactive compounds don't necessarily get destroyed before loisoning something, and many would float ibto the air not stay in the pile of reaiming ash.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 23 2022, @03:54PM (3 children)
Home incinerators were banned specifically because they could not provide sufficient heat or O2 to do anything near total combustion. Hint: if you can see smoke you are not 100% combusting.
Turns out that figuring out exactly what fuel O2 mixture to use on your random pile of trash is kind of a difficult problem...
Such an environmentally friendly practice in that photo, crazy eco warriors! [kpcc.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @11:44AM (2 children)
I was talking about the municipal incinerators actually. They were much better run. Now all the trash has to be sorted into categories before they dump it all in the same landfill.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 24 2022, @05:12PM (1 child)
Well those were never banned.
There are currently 75 waste incineration plants in operation in the US. [epa.gov]
And they generate electricity from the heat too which is pretty cool.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2022, @03:11AM
From your link.
So, ok technically not banned, they just don't get built because of public opposition and short-term cheapness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @02:19PM
When those fishers are killing aquatic organisms, they're definitely... what?
If you value the lives of aquatic organisms above human lives, VHEMT welcomes you. https://www.vhemt.org/ [vhemt.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @01:33AM (2 children)
"Repent ye infidels!" and "Technical solutions bad because technical" and "You all MUST suffer because WE SAID SO!!!"
Who is funding all these "Beyond Plastics", "Safer States", and suchlike nests of parasites?
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @03:57AM (1 child)
No, this is being criticized because of the harmful pollution [nrdc.org] that comes from the so-called chemical recycling. If this were truly a clean solution, or if the waste was safely contained at the facilities where this process occurs like with nuclear power, I suspect it would have a lot of support. But this is a green solution in name only, and that's why there's so much opposition to it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 24 2022, @05:17PM
I am in favor of a careful reintroduction of nuclear power into our mix.
But to just handwave away the massive upset release at Three Mile Island and the waste storage issues we've failed to deal with for the last 50 years is pretty damned disingenuous.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @02:04AM
SPIN ME ROUND RIGHT ROUND!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Tokolosh on Monday May 23 2022, @02:39AM (8 children)
Please convince me that properly landfilling plastics is not better than recycling.
Please convince me that plastics are not better than alternatives.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @03:50AM
Show you the science?
You mean like this [nih.gov]?
Landfills sure do produce a lot of microplastics. Just saying...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday May 23 2022, @08:17AM
Landfills are disasters. Aside from the stupid waste of land, they leak. I don't care how well you line them, they will leak. Basically, you are creating time bombs that future generations will have to deal with.
Incinerate your garbage. You can extract lots of valuable metals and other elements, you get "free" energy, you don't waste land, and you don't leave time bombs for your descendants to deal with.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @10:48AM
Plastics suck. Everything should be made out of metal like in the old times.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @11:10AM (4 children)
> Please convince me that plastics are not better than alternatives.
Reducing or eliminating excess plastic packaging is clearly better than carrying on with this plastic use.
As long as you use a reusable grocery bag enough times (we do), it's better than disposable plastic sacks.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @01:35PM (2 children)
One biological object produces "is clearly better" when asked for reasoned proof, another (or same?) tags it "Insightful". I despair for the Homo ex-sapiens species.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @03:39PM (1 child)
If you can't figure out why a reusable grocery bag is better than using hundreds of disposable plastic ones, then the answer is go back to school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @08:56PM
From your inability to invent or google any less infantile insult, it is obvious no school in the world can help you any.
Maybe your breed does already need a separate species name, to avoid allusions of sapience where none can develop.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday June 09 2022, @11:37AM
You've conflated 2 orthogonal concepts, and are attempting to compare two objects by measuring one along one axis, and the other along the other axis.
c.f. Your mum's fatter than your dad is stupid.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2022, @01:13PM (1 child)
would be interesting to know how much plastic bottle.oil equivalent is required to make same sized new glass bottle? from broken old glass bottle and from.scratch.
say 1 liter plastic bottle requires X amount of oil.
how much X is required for same sized glass bottle (which when broken can hurt a lot). need to melt that shit somehow.
posted from shitty android keyboard
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatOutdoors on Monday May 23 2022, @02:23PM
Depends on the scale of your operation. If small-medium scale, you could collect sun in the desert and focus it on the chamber that melts the glass, significantly decreasing your energy needs.
Yes, I did make a logical argument there. You should post a logical response.