this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024

42 points (86.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35305 readers

1008 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Is it greener to just burn plastic? (feddit.uk)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just thinking in terms of compared to microplastics and toxins in recycled plastic.

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 47 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Definitely not burning it, but pyrolysis has been suggested (basically "burn" it in an oxygen-free environment).

The plastics are heated to about 500 °C in the absence of oxygen. The longer molecules break into liquid fractions like naphtha and diesel, solid cuts like waxes, and lower-molecular-weight gases. In most plants, roughly 10% of the product is char, a by-product.

It's not without its drawbacks. Some gases are produced, and those are either burned to (partially?) power the pyrolysis process or are flared off. About 10% is reduced to char and would have to be disposed of conventionally (unsure of the environmental impact of that).

I don't have time right now to dive deep into the topic (just throwing off what I do know plus a link that explains it), but it's possible it's less harmful overall than just throwing it in a landfill forever. (Assuming the input energy for the reaction chamber comes from clean sources.)

https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Amid-controversy-industry-goes-plastics-pyrolysis/100/i36

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No it isn't more 'green'

Burning it creates much more toxins etc. than a 'normal' recycling procedure. And of course lots of soot and CO2 and whatnot...

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Plus burning it allows those toxins to disperse across the environment while more traditional recycling can keep the toxins mostly concentrated on landfill/processing sites.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My guy is talking about a controlled environment with scientific processes and y’all here talkin’ like he wants to chuck it on a few logs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

The post was not clear to me that OP was talking about incineration facilities, I know several people who burn plastics and garbage frequently on their own property/camping. Even well filtered incinerators have a considerable amount of fallout.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago

Using high temperature incinerators, yes. IIRC you'll need at least 1000°C to reduce toxic fumes production when burning plastics.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (2 children)

With some plastics, in a proper incinerator, it can be, though you best be using the resultant heat to generate electricity.

In your firepit, no.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

Redneck from Kentucky "you ain't seen my firepit"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I think you could make an argument that even burning plastic in a firepit vs sending it to a landfill are roughly equal. Climate change and air pollution are both major issues, but so is plastic waste and microplastics working their way into everything. I have no idea of the overall harm of burning plastic is less than throwing it away; they both pollute the environment. I can see the the logic in thinking burning is a viable alternative.

Ideally, though, people would just stop using disposable plastic. Plastic is a fantastic material, but it was never supposed to be for "use once and discard" items. For creating durable objects with a decent lifetime, sure, use plastic. Don't use it as wrapping over another plastic object.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Incineration, is the standard way of getting rid of non recyclable waste (a lot of plastic can be recycled) not that green but it allows to produce electricity and hot water which saves some oil

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I wish we could get a mobile plasma arc gasification truck that goes around turning rubbish into glass and hydrogen with no landfill, but until that day... Don't burn it, just do your reasonable best to avoid buying it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

this is just burning plastic for energy with extra steps. remember, every extra step reduces efficiency

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Plasma arc gasification is very low emissions versus anything we currently do with it, but I would obviously prefer we just stop using plastic. Given how unlikely that is, the idea of plasma trucks going about eliminating the need for waste management infrastructure is at least fun enough to bring up conversationally.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

do you even get back energy used up on making that plasma in the first place? how badly does it get fucked up by HCl? these trucks are still infrastructure, just mobile and not even real. it has a hint of hyperloop trying to eliminate new railway projects

also trucking waste to waste energy extraction plant would probably still use up less energy than trucking around entire facility. this all makes it sound like badly thought out nonsense

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Freely admitted that it's a badly thought out idea. I am a random person on the internet, idly chatting. I'm not at leisure to join you right now, if you're needing more rigorous debate. I am speculating about technology that exists currently (wiki) but isn't yet advanced enough for such an application.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Japan has been burning plastic for energy as part of its recycling process - I think the parts that aren't able to be recycled

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Define "green". In terms of CO2 it would obviously be horrible and incredibly stupid.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's done in many modern parts of the world in proper incinerators, to produce electricity. The emissions are closely managed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Still not a great idea to burn recyclable resources. The stuff that would otherwise end up in a landfill, sure, but most plastics can be used again in some way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

When deciding to incinerate over recycle, that means the system has constrains on recycling ability or success such that incineration is preferable

So if the choices are plastic in the dump/plastic in the ocean or incineration, then there's a real decision to be made.

These are real world systems, not classrooms

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I don't see how they could possibly be true but I'm no scientist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

There is a lot of interesting info here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Is+it+greener+to+just+burn+plastic&ia=web

Also, I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article on microplastics.