| ▲ | exabrial 2 days ago |
| Yeah that’s the problem. Plastic solves a logistics problem, not a structural problem. Are your Twinkies stuck in a hot truck in Texas for a week? No problem! |
|
| ▲ | loktarogar 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It doesn't _only_ solve long-term logistical problems. Plastics are used for things like takeout containers, drink cups and straws, amongst others - things that are only needed for a short time. |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | All of those need to hold hot and wet things for long enough without contaminating them. | | |
| ▲ | loktarogar 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Agree, but I don't see any mention of that in the article, so I don't have enough information to argue for that. I'm sure we can agree though that having 17-day decomposing plastics that don't contaminate with heat and water is a good thing, so I hope it is that. | | |
| ▲ | account42 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Decomposing isn't a binary process where you wait 17 days and then the plastic disappears. Something that decomposes in 17 days will have ~0.25% disintegrate every hour which means there is now contamination in your food. Personally I'd rather not wait for that contamination to be shown to cause health issues. | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m pretty sure 17 days is far too short for most serious uses. | | |
| ▲ | kortilla 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Who cares. If 50% of the usage is short term stuff like takeout, grocery bags, etc then this wipes out that waste. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If even 5% of the time it fails, no one will buy it for those purposes. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | yellowapple 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What contaminants would result from cellulose-based plastics like in the article? I'd guess probably things that'd at worst make the hot and wet thing taste bad, no? |
| |
| ▲ | exabrial 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is your shipment of drink containers stuck in a hot truck in Texas for a month? No problem! They’re plastic | | |
| ▲ | loktarogar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | My point is it doesn't have to be a complete solution to replacing plastic to be able to have some benefits to replacing some plastics. You can have local manufacturing processes so that it doesn't have to get stuck in a truck in Texas for a month. And there'll still be uses for the long lived plastics. You don't have to use one plastic for everything - like we don't today. Building a box that can last for centuries when you're only going to use it for 25 minutes and toss it is pretty wild if you think about it. | | |
| ▲ | exabrial 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Bro I’m not agreeing with it, single use plastics are ridiculous. The failure in replacements continues to be what problems they solve for the supply chain. Unless you want to eat at Applebees, a small, locally sourced, organic, etc restaurant owner can’t conjure up a supply of biodegradable containers. But your local joint can order 5000 of them and keep them in a back room in less than ideal conditions for a year at minimal costs. Not saying it’s right, just trying to draw attention to reality | | |
| ▲ | loktarogar 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Again, not all replacements need to replace 100% or even 10% of plastic use to be able to have an a positive impact. There's space for a short-life plastic just like there's (currently) reasons for long-life plastics |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They used to make it work with waxed paper. There's no reason why that can't be used for a large proportion of food packaging again. |
| |
|
| ▲ | senthil_rajasek 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I want my produce wrapped in this plastic not the forever plastic. Maybe the bio-degradable plastic has it's use cases for other special purpose packaging with a very short self life. |
|
| ▲ | red369 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't know much about this area at all, but it seems like it would be neat to have a plastic that stood up well to heat and moisture, but you could leave it soaking in some petrol/diesel/oil liquid, and it would melt into that and leave you with something still useable. As I write this, it sounds like I'm just describing something like petrol in a solid form at room temperature. Perhaps there's something a little less far-fetched that people are working towards? |
| |
| ▲ | ars 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > it sounds like I'm just describing something like petrol in a solid form at room temperature That's what plastic IS. That's why it sounds like it, because plastic is in fact solid hydrocarbon. So not only is it not farfetched, it exists today, which is also why incinerating plastic for energy is the best possible way to dispose it. You remove the plastic from the world, you reduce the amount of oil pumped for fuel, and you get to use the oil you do pump, twice! Once for plastic, and again for fuel. It's one of those environmental slam dunks with zero downsides. (Before you ask: Modern incinerators do not release any toxins from burning plastic, none.) | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Polyolefin plastics like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypropylene and even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene are "solid hydrocarbons" but most plastics are more complex than that. One reason we quit burning trash in many places is the presence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride which produces HCl which eats the incinerator. [1] Sure you can build a chemically tougher incinerator and add lime but practically stripping toxins from incinerators is a function of building a stripper tuned to whatever toxins are expected to be in the particular waste and frequently adding something that reacts with them. You can't really "burn up" heavy metals and certain other poisons and those either go up the stack or are part of the ash that has to be disposed of. A technology you hear about more than you hear about real implementations is "chemical recycling of plastics" through pyrolysis which implement more or less controlled combustion and captures petrochemical molecules that can be used either for fuel or to make plastics and other chemicals: these manage to capture or consume most of the products but some of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that are produced when you burn plastic are practically drugs that cause cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene [1] Plenty of others contain oxygen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate or nitrogen such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile_butadiene_styren... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon | | |
| ▲ | ars 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Most disposable plastic is not PVC. Because Chlorine prolongs the life of the plastic, it's specifically used on things that you don't throw out. In any case incinerators can handle the chlorine - it's so reactive that it's actually very easy to filter. > You can't really "burn up" heavy metals There are no heavy metals in plastic, and very little in consumer waste as a whole. > are "solid hydrocarbons" but most plastics are more complex than that But those 3 you listed are the vast majority of the thrown out plastics. | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Municipal waste has a large fraction of waste from demolished buildings which includes wood, concrete, bricks, all sorts of stuff. PVC is a significant part of that waste because it is used for siding, floors, etc. In a consolidated municipal waste stream heavy metals are a concern because they concentrate in the ash which has to be carefully stored. This kind of system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification is supposed to encapsulate heavy metals into slag particles that aren't very mobile and can be incorporated into roads, building aggregates and such but people have struggled to make them work, part of it is that the syngas plant and whatever uses the syngas and cleans up the syngas and/or the products of using the syngas is a chemical factory that depends on the inputs having a certain composition and the composition of a municipal waste stream is not at all constant. PET is a major thrown-out plastic that's not a hydrocarbon, it's also the most recycled. Polystyrene, funny enough, is easy to chemically recycle but not through pyrolysis, it's the sort of thing you might even demo in a high school chemistry class if styrene wasn't so carcinogenic. It's never caught on because expanded polystyrene is hard to handle, transport and bring back to a chemical factory large enough to efficiently consume. | | |
| ▲ | ars 2 days ago | parent [-] | | How is PET not a hydrocarbon (for the purposes of burning it)? It's (C10 H8 O4)n the oxygen makes it not technically a hydrocarbon, but it will burn just fine and cleanly. Your point about building waste is valid, but I think most of that stuff goes in dumpsters and can be directed to a different wasting handling. | | |
| ▲ | lstodd 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Hah. We burned shavings/rejects from a polyester-resin+glass boat building.. in a 200L drum. That was quite smoky and smelly, but still I think better than just shipping it all off for burying in a landfill. And fiberglass decomposed basically into fine sand too. | | |
| ▲ | kragen 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Environmentally speaking, shipping it off to a landfill would have been orders of magnitude better; burning it released thousands or millions of times more pollution. Most polyester resins are aromatic, so incomplete combustion can produce a wide variety of quite toxic substances. | | |
| ▲ | lstodd 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I guess we did release some. Mostly soot and half-burned hydrocarbons to be decomposed by solar UV. Still, thinking of all this just being buried for like 2e6 years ... that seems even more wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | yellowapple 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It's one of those environmental slam dunks with zero downsides In relation to directly burning oil for fuel, yeah. In relation to other disposal methods, there's still the pretty major downside of being dependent on a non-renewable resource, in addition to… > (Before you ask: Modern incinerators do not release any toxins from burning plastic, none.) Greenhouse gas emissions are still an issue, though, no? Or do the incinerators capture that? | | |
| ▲ | toast0 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If you were going to burn oil for power, and instead you burn used plastic that for power, greenhouse gas emissions from the burning are roughly similar. However, you skip the emissions from oil extraction and transport, assuming the plastic is burned close to its use / collection. |
| |
| ▲ | kortilla 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How do these systems handle the extra crap on the plastic? | |
| ▲ | par1970 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So do we already do this? And if not, why not? | | |
| ▲ | ars 2 days ago | parent [-] | | We sure do, Sweden imports trash (actual trash, not recycling) because it's a huge part of their energy source. A large amount of plastic recycling is burned, but always in secret, because when people find out they freak out, because they mistakenly think that making some new plastic out of it is somehow better. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Petrol is really quite harsh and includes cancerous chemicals like benzene in sizable quantities. It’s not something you can soak something in and then use to expose to food. Diesel and other oils tend to be (somewhat) less bad - but there are many oils in food which are nearly identical, and hence anything which breaks down in those situations is likely to breakdown while in food contact too. |
|
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
