New technology turns everyday trash into plastic treasure(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
New technology turns everyday trash into plastic treasure
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/climate-solutions/israeli-startup-ubq-turning-trash-into-plastic-products/
21 comments
Maybe we can use this and stop pulling new petroleum into the plastics cycle for most products. That would let us leave more of it in the ground. And this also lets us prevent the gases from the food, much of it generated using petroleum products, from entering the atmosphere, effectively sequestering carbon into the products.
If all the system really needs is heat and mechanical energy we can generate that in spades from sunlight. In fact, the sun is far more efficient at directly heating things up than it is at being turned into electricity. So we could actually have a recycling plant that for certain kinds of materials is far greener than throwing the materials away.
First we need to demonstrate that the process works, and that we can spend the energy to make something useful. Then we figure out if we can source the energy from somewhere green.
The only real questions I have are what are the chemical inputs, and where do they come from? And can those chemical inputs be generated directly using heat or do they require electricity?
It's interesting because it suggests that we can build a recycling machine that takes garbage and heat and outputs usable materials.
If all the system really needs is heat and mechanical energy we can generate that in spades from sunlight. In fact, the sun is far more efficient at directly heating things up than it is at being turned into electricity. So we could actually have a recycling plant that for certain kinds of materials is far greener than throwing the materials away.
First we need to demonstrate that the process works, and that we can spend the energy to make something useful. Then we figure out if we can source the energy from somewhere green.
The only real questions I have are what are the chemical inputs, and where do they come from? And can those chemical inputs be generated directly using heat or do they require electricity?
It's interesting because it suggests that we can build a recycling machine that takes garbage and heat and outputs usable materials.
It suggests that's possible, but we know that's possible already.
The hard part of plastics recycling which is already being done at various scales is isolating the plastic. How do you get foodstuffs out of plastic containers? How do you separate the components of waste, basically?
It's like cleaning metal by burning off everything that burns until all you have is metal. You're just moving the waste from one place to another.
In this case, the gasses are getting into the atmosphere just like they would at a traditional incinerating waste facility and there are lots of those already. They are not a good solution for the long term.
When people are being "coy" about something as the article indicates, there's usually a reason. In this case, I think it's because the solution solves the problem, but not better than existing technology and they don't want that to be revealed to the open market that would tear it apart.
The hard part of plastics recycling which is already being done at various scales is isolating the plastic. How do you get foodstuffs out of plastic containers? How do you separate the components of waste, basically?
It's like cleaning metal by burning off everything that burns until all you have is metal. You're just moving the waste from one place to another.
In this case, the gasses are getting into the atmosphere just like they would at a traditional incinerating waste facility and there are lots of those already. They are not a good solution for the long term.
When people are being "coy" about something as the article indicates, there's usually a reason. In this case, I think it's because the solution solves the problem, but not better than existing technology and they don't want that to be revealed to the open market that would tear it apart.
Years ago, there were high hopes for technologies like this, such as from Changing World Technologies. [1]
The idea was that the thermal depolymerization process would yield useful hydrocarbons and enough methane to run the entire process. Initially they had a pilot plant running on turkey processing waste (feathers and other stuff). In practice, it wasn't economically feasible.
We can recycle just about anything, the trick is to get it to be economical enough.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_World_Technologies
The idea was that the thermal depolymerization process would yield useful hydrocarbons and enough methane to run the entire process. Initially they had a pilot plant running on turkey processing waste (feathers and other stuff). In practice, it wasn't economically feasible.
We can recycle just about anything, the trick is to get it to be economical enough.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_World_Technologies
I was completely enamored with CWT when they first announced, and I'm bummed to this day that they failed.
It still seems like a technology worth refining -- despite having to compete with fossil fuels when they've been so heavily subsidized.
It still seems like a technology worth refining -- despite having to compete with fossil fuels when they've been so heavily subsidized.
Yes, it all sounded reasonable and scientifically plausible, speaking as a guy who's not done much beyond high school chemistry. (Though I did get A's!)
The idea that we could take random carbon-based materials and turn it into useful oil / feedstock was so cool.
The idea that we could take random carbon-based materials and turn it into useful oil / feedstock was so cool.
The meta of this article screams smoke and mirrors - The amount of space it devotes to pointing out how all of these former skeptics and people with all these qualifications were now believers just sets off so many alarms. It's pitched in a way that appears crafted to disarm the readers bullshit-o-meter rather than presenting some information in good faith.
Also stuff like this: >biotechnology expert Oded Shoseyov, a Hebrew University professor who has consulted for UBQ, says melting plastics and waste creates a homogeneous substance strengthened by fibers in the organic ingredients.
Put simply: no. We know that if you just 'melt' all that stuff that is not the outcome. If done in an oxygenated environment you decompose the organic matter and break the long-chain hydrocarbons into oxygen-bonded carbons i.e. co/co2. If you do it in the absence of oxygen you turn the plastic back into short-chain/oil and the organic matter into char.
Sometimes, a need to keep industrial processes confidential is understandable. When you're proclaiming to have a 'solution' such as this, it's suspicious.
Also stuff like this: >biotechnology expert Oded Shoseyov, a Hebrew University professor who has consulted for UBQ, says melting plastics and waste creates a homogeneous substance strengthened by fibers in the organic ingredients.
Put simply: no. We know that if you just 'melt' all that stuff that is not the outcome. If done in an oxygenated environment you decompose the organic matter and break the long-chain hydrocarbons into oxygen-bonded carbons i.e. co/co2. If you do it in the absence of oxygen you turn the plastic back into short-chain/oil and the organic matter into char.
Sometimes, a need to keep industrial processes confidential is understandable. When you're proclaiming to have a 'solution' such as this, it's suspicious.
> adding as little as 10 percent of its material can make the result carbon neutral
Do they mean making plastics with 10% UBQ pellets is carbon neutral? If so, how can that be? Imagine a world where all plastic was made that way. Each time a new thing is made, 90% of it is new plastic, the production of which produces (among other things) carbon dioxide.
Do they mean making plastics with 10% UBQ pellets is carbon neutral? If so, how can that be? Imagine a world where all plastic was made that way. Each time a new thing is made, 90% of it is new plastic, the production of which produces (among other things) carbon dioxide.
Seems like promising technology that I will be following, but I will remain cautious with my expectations. It seems like every week or so a new, revolutionary technology pops up and completely loses steam.
If it turns out to be sound, I think it's a step in the right direction: "Substituting a ton of UBQ’s pellets for the same amount of polypropylene saves the equivalent of about 15 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, Quantis concluded; adding as little as 10 percent of its material can make the result carbon neutral, depending on the type of plastic being created."
Ultimately we need a solution that does not create more plastic, but that's just my uninformed opinion.
Ultimately we need a solution that does not create more plastic, but that's just my uninformed opinion.
Oh no, the last thing we need is a way to turn biomass into plastic. That's the opposite of a solution.
Anyhow, Molten Salt Oxidation is an exothermic reaction that can reprocess pretty much anything non-metallic (it's used for chemical weapons and munitions disposal) into syngas.
Anyhow, Molten Salt Oxidation is an exothermic reaction that can reprocess pretty much anything non-metallic (it's used for chemical weapons and munitions disposal) into syngas.
I’m wondering if they’re just processing syngas back into polymers.
This sounds a lot like normal recycling. What am I missing here? Are they thermal cracking the waste into an entirely new polymer?
Unlike normal recycling, this process can tolerate impurities (i.e., foodstuffs or differing plastics) in the plastic waste input stream, due to the relatively high temperatures (for thermoplastics) involved (>400 Celsius). Normal plastic recycling doesn't even permit different types of plastic to be mixed together.
It's not clear if the biowaste is being burned away or if its constituent parts are being incorporated into the polymer like additives.
It's not clear if the biowaste is being burned away or if its constituent parts are being incorporated into the polymer like additives.
FYI article is paywalled BUT: I tracked down a request, that if blocked - or modified but since it's HTTPS => too much work - gets you FULL read access to any article AND FULL browsing/reading access to WaPO as your heart desires.
In Chrome -> Dev Console -> Request blocking tab -> Enable it and add the following entry: "https://www.washingtonpost.com/pwapi-proxy/*"
Now just refresh the page and you got full reading + browsing rights. [leave the dev tool window open or minimized]
In Chrome -> Dev Console -> Request blocking tab -> Enable it and add the following entry: "https://www.washingtonpost.com/pwapi-proxy/*"
Now just refresh the page and you got full reading + browsing rights. [leave the dev tool window open or minimized]
For those who have read this, what are the problems with this approach? Environmental damage is the single most horrible problem with the capitalist way of things.
From a legislative point of view, I think if every company was forced to recycle the crap they make, would it make sense?
From a legislative point of view, I think if every company was forced to recycle the crap they make, would it make sense?
wow between this and the Bill Gates Heliogen story, earth is saved?
Also we can make plastic from waste fish scales now!
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/bioplastic-made-fr...
Seems like it. I’d say we have nothing more to worry about.
The article then goes on to describe a typical waste recycling facility plus:
> a multi-chamber reactor that sits behind a closed sliding door to block prying eyes. Temperatures up to 400 degrees break down the organic matter into its core elements, and then it and the plastics are re-engineered into a matrix through chemical and physical reactions that UBQ keeps secret.
I fear there is really no story here. There is a lot of energy being put into this system. Something comes out, yes, but is it worth it? How is it better than a garbage incinerating facility?
There is no evidence presented that the material output is as good as the material input. Or that the energy required is less than traditional recycling methods.
This is way too early and way too long of an article to spend a lot of time on at this point.