JBI's Plastic To Oil Gets Operating Permit

Someday by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 20:55 · Score: 0

No more trash island.

Re:Someday by Adolf+Hitroll · 2010-12-15 21:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you mean continent?
BTW, that's what you get when you let fucking sodas define your personality: very little of these bottles are drunk by thirsty people.

--
Smile, don't click...

Just what we need... by A+beautiful+mind · 2010-12-15 20:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Hurray, we can turn safely contained pollution on/in the ground into air pollution! Someone managed to rebrand this exercise as environmentally conscious, while all we're doing is burning trash. Hat's off, really.

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say

Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 21:00 · Score: 0

Are you mocking what an idiot might consider sarcasm?
Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 22:15 · Score: 1

well if we're going down this avenue...
is this possibly a concern; that this has become economically viable in contrast to the old method of just ripping it from the ground i.e. is this a sign of peek oil?
Re:Just what we need... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-12-15 23:00 · Score: 1

Any reason why this fuel oil couldn't be converted back into a different plastic? It's been a while since I studied hydrocarbon cracking, but if producing fuel oils is now a two way process, why not?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 23:39 · Score: 2, Informative

The output is mostly diesel, it also creates propane, methane, and a few other things, that are captured for either further processing, or use in its current state. Apparently JBI has been running a demo unit for a while under a demo permit, and has tankers full of fuel ready for further use. Posting Anonymously, because, well, because its safer that way...
Re:Just what we need... by commodore64_love · 2010-12-15 23:43 · Score: 4, Informative

You make an invalid assumption that oil==bad.
In modern SULEV cars the air coming out of the exhaust is actually cleaner than the air going in, due to the catalytic converter neutralizing lung-damaging poisons like NOx and CO as the air passes from intake to exhaust. Ditto oil-burning electric plants. I consider that better than letting the solidified oil (plastic) lay in the ground or float in the ocean for a thousand years until bacteria breaks it down.
Converting our waste to oil will also allow us leave a few million tons of crude in the mantle rather than dig it up. The ideal would be to reach a point where we don't need to dig-up any oil, and can just run our society on the accumulated plastics of the last ~100 years, plus solar power.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 00:14 · Score: 0

We're burning the trash WITH A BENEFIT/USE now, though.
Re:Just what we need... by Doc+Ruby · 2010-12-16 00:30 · Score: 1

You have a link to a source explaining that the SUVLEV and oil-burning electric plants exhaust is cleaner than the intake air?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Just what we need... by bhtooefr · 2010-12-16 00:44 · Score: 1

At least one source (marketing, though) claiming that PZEV can emit less than ambient: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/automobiles/low-cost-path-to-low-emissions.html
And, there are other sources detailing how to accurately test a PZEV to avoid getting a negative emissions reading.
Re:Just what we need... by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2010-12-16 00:48 · Score: 2

I heard that a lot, it's worth checking. At the very least, I didn't find it on Snopes.
It's just USA Today, but this is what I found so far:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-09-16-cleancar_x.htm
Re:Just what we need... by commodore64_love · 2010-12-16 01:24 · Score: 1

Please note that PZEV is essentially a subset of the SULEV standard.
PZEV is a SULEV car with an extended 150,000-mile warranty on the exhaust control system.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Just what we need... by confused+one · 2010-12-16 02:26 · Score: 1

While it might be better to avoid creating the plastic waste in the first place... If the plastic is headed to the landfill anyway, the eventual decay byproducts will include gasses like methane anyway. Better to put it to use than let it escape into the atmosphere.
Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 02:40 · Score: 0

That is exactly was my first thought :) LOL
Re:Just what we need... by Mr.+Slippery · 2010-12-16 02:54 · Score: 1

In modern SULEV cars the air coming out of the exhaust is actually cleaner than the air going in, due to the catalytic converter neutralizing lung-damaging poisons like NOx and CO as the air passes from intake to exhaust.
But it does not trap CO2, which is the number one problem with burning fossil fuels.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Just what we need... by interkin3tic · 2010-12-16 03:36 · Score: 1

Hurray, we can turn safely contained pollution on/in the ground into air pollution!

You're presenting it as instead of landfill bulk, we now have pollution in the air. That's a false dichotomy. We're already going to burn oil, doesn't matter if we get the oil from plastic recycled or "fresh" from the ground.
This way we have only the air pollution instead of air pollution, plastic bottles in the sea, AND oil spills in the gulf of Mexico.
Re:Just what we need... by ShavedOrangutan · 2010-12-16 03:44 · Score: 1

The ideal would be to reach a point where we don't need to dig-up any oil, and can just run our society on the accumulated plastics of the last ~100 years, plus solar power.
I think that recycling is bad for future generations.

After we've exhausted all the earth's natural resources, future generations will be able to mine the landfill for all the empty beer cans I've thrown out and forge them into new products. I am helping future generations by concentrating these materials in easily reclaimed locations.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Re:Just what we need... by operagost · 2010-12-16 03:49 · Score: 1

I assume you don't use any vehicles or devices that burn fossil fuels, then? Because if you did, then you'd have to face the fact that you're a hypocrite. You would also secretly acknowledge that, in fact, technology has made modern engines so clean compared to those as little as 20 years ago that the EPA's had to claim that the carbon dioxide that every animal exhales is a pollutant to maintain their relevance (and power).

TLDR: no, it's not like burning trash.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Just what we need... by caseih · 2010-12-16 04:12 · Score: 1

It's also true that the air coming out of a tier-4 diesel engine is supposed to be cleaner than the air that went in, in terms of articulates and NOx. But that does very little to address the root causes of global climate change, which is net CO2.
If it does reduce dependency on foreign oil, it's a good thing, though, but it's certainly not about reducing CO2 emissions.
Re:Just what we need... by Pharmboy · 2010-12-16 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think that is the main point: You take a barrel of oil and you get to use it twice. And while the whole world is fretting about CO2, the idea of reducing the footprint of plastic trash from 100% to 1% is nothing to sneeze at. Add the other ongoing research to create alcohol out of cellulose (another major portion of trash), and all of a sudden you are virtually "mining" trash by reusing the plastics and paper, making recovering of the aluminum and steel easier. This also decreases water pollution in the long run.
What matters is that using plastics to create oil isn't going to INCREASE CO2, as those cars would be burning something or another to run regardless of source. What also matters is that this would DECREASE the need for agriculture to be specific for fuels, which pushes food prices up and increases the amount of fertilizer (and other pollutants) in the system. It isn't a silver bullet that fixes pollution, but it can be part of a better overall energy policy.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Just what we need... by jbengt · 2010-12-16 04:58 · Score: 1

The article you linked does not actually state that the vehicles will emit air cleaner than the ambient, except "by some measures". It does also quote someone who states that a jogger will breathe better air jogging behind one of these vehicles if the radiator is treated to remove ambient ozone (so in a high ozone area, the air would be improved, apart from tailpipe emissions).
Re:Just what we need... by Posting=!Working · 2010-12-16 04:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

That is just a completely wrong statement, NOx and CO emissions are much larger problems than CO2. The CO and NOx can kill you directly. You take care of the actual poisons first, which is what they've done. Causing acid rain and direct respiratory damage are way worse than contributing to global warming.

--
This sentence no verb.
Re:Just what we need... by jbengt · 2010-12-16 05:05 · Score: 1

The article you linked does not state that the tailpipe emissions are cleaner than the ambient air:

Tailpipe pollution of a PZEV is as much as 90% less than from other new cars.

The cars won't deliver California levels of low pollution without California's unique blend of low-sulfur gas

But even on non-California gasoline, PZEVs pollute little. Ford says the PZEV Focus puts out a pound of smog-producing pollutants in 15,000 miles on California gas, roughly two pounds on typical U.S. fuel. A non-PZEV Focus would put out 10.7 pounds in 15,000 miles, Ford calculates.
Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 05:11 · Score: 0

That was my knee-jerk reaction too, but think of it another way.
For any given unit of fuel:
As it is now - plastic goes to land fill, oil is pumped out of the ground to make fuel, land fill is more full, more oil is used
As it will be - plastic makes fuel, oil isn't pumped out of the ground, plastic doesn't go to the land fill
Or to put it differently, the same amount of fuel is consumed (assuming the two processes have similar efficiencies), but less oil is uses and less landfill space is consumed. Net pollution is reduced, and land is saved.
Looks like a win all the way around. Sure, its not "perfect", but it is a whole lot better.
Re:Just what we need... by base_chakra · 2010-12-16 07:29 · Score: 1

In other words, it doesn't clean the air. (Of course it doesn't!) You have to hand it to doublespeak. Marketing copywriters are managing to convince some people that automobile exhaust is more breathable than air. Astonishing.
Re:Just what we need... by ninja59 · 2010-12-16 07:50 · Score: 1

Isn't it a step in the right direction? At least the material is being used twice before becoming waste. I don't think anyone expects it to replace gasoline but it give more options, alleviating dependence on any one source for energy.
Re:Just what we need... by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 08:10 · Score: 1

The air is not cleaner. Try breathing it. Go into your garage and start the car, sit in there for a while and just breathe.
Re:Just what we need... by cvtan · 2010-12-16 10:21 · Score: 1

That article is from 2003.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Re:Just what we need... by cvtan · 2010-12-16 10:22 · Score: 1

It's sort of missing the oxygen part, if you care about that kind of thing.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Re:Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 20:31 · Score: 0

Why don't you just stick your nose in the exhaust of a modern SULEV car, i don't foresee any problems.

I remember Mendeleev's quote... by geegel · 2010-12-15 20:55 · Score: 4, Informative

... after studying the chemical composition of oil: "This stuff is way too valuable to simply burn it".

--
right...

Re:I remember Mendeleev's quote... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 21:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

Couldn't find that one

his words about burning oil in stoves being equivalent to burning bank notes in a stove
Though I enjoyed this one more

Why do they [Americans] quarrel, why do they hate Negroes, Indians, even Germans, why do they not have science and poetry commensurate with themselves, why are there so many frauds and so much nonsense? I cannot soon give a solution to these questions ... It was clear that in the United States there was a development not of the best, but of the middle and worst sides of European civilization; the notorious general voting, the tendency to politics... all the same as in Europe. A new dawn is not to be seen on this side of the ocean.
Re:I remember Mendeleev's quote... by geegel · 2010-12-15 21:42 · Score: 2

I know the quote from my high school organic chemistry teacher.
He's best known for the periodic table, but he was also a pioneer in petro-chemistry.

--
right...
Re:I remember Mendeleev's quote... by Cyberax · 2010-12-15 23:27 · Score: 1

The full quote is even more badass: "Oil shouldn't be used burned, one can burn paper money just as well".
Re:I remember Mendeleev's quote... by cheater512 · 2010-12-15 23:50 · Score: 2

I prefer burning my plastic Australian currency.
Best of both worlds. :)
Re:I remember Mendeleev's quote... by ogl_codemonkey · 2010-12-16 01:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Mine won't burn hot enough to stay alight - is there a process (grinding?) I'm missing, or do I just need a bigger bundle?
Re:I remember Mendeleev's quote... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 05:40 · Score: 0

Yeah, I'm an advocate of burning body fat.
At least here in Canada (and the US, from what I read), we have an excess of that.
If we did it right, we'd also have lower health-care and infrastructure costs.

Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by thegarbz · 2010-12-15 20:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

So your average plastic water bottle requires about 1/4 a litre of refined oil products to be produced. How much oil do you get back from this?

Don't get me wrong it's a great solution to what's already in the landfill, but if most people re-used, re-cycled or substituted (wtf do you need to buy bottled water anyway, the stuff runs from every tap in the city), then there would be a much bigger impact. How much energy does the process need? What are the impacts with regard to the catalyst that is used? How hard is it to manufacture the catalyst?

Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by zero0ne · 2010-12-15 21:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

From their website, it shows that 1 kilogram of plastic converts roughly to one litre of oil.
So the big question in my book is, how much does 1 kilogram of scrap plastic cost, and how much power is needed to do that conversion.
If we say that one litre of oil is worth ~$1, 1 tonne of plastic is ~$200, and power used for one kilogram conversion is a minuscule 1kilowatt.
You have ~$0.30 in direct costs, but after factoring in the plant, machinery, tankers, etc etc etc, the margins on this process must be hair thin.
OH, thats right, lets not forget the government subsidies!
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by lloydchristmas759 · 2010-12-15 21:38 · Score: 5, Informative

power used for one kilogram conversion is a minuscule 1kilowatt.
Power is meaningless here. Energy is what shall be considered. And the physical unit for energy is the Joule (J), or possibly the kilowatt-hour (kWh).

Usually I don't try to explain that anymore, but here it's different, it's Slashdot...

--
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by igreaterthanu · 2010-12-15 21:41 · Score: 2

And which way are the oil prices headed?
You have to think long term.

--
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Asic+Eng · 2010-12-15 21:53 · Score: 4, Informative

1 tonne of plastic is ~$200
I think you would have to get paid in order to take the plastic - putting plastic in a landfill is not free. So 1 tonne of plastic costs $x to store in a landfill - residue costs $y to store in a landfill - so $x-$y would contribute to your margin.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Jafafa+Hots · 2010-12-15 22:15 · Score: 2

Might be why they're locating in Niagara Falls.
Niagara Falls has (or at least had) tons of industry because plentiful cheap hydro energy.
Businesses regularly get that cheap hydro at a discount to entice jobs.
Hasn't worked like it used to because the offshore production costs were so much cheaper it eliminated the advantage... but in this case, it might make sense... the main cost for this process is likely to be energy, and it wouldn't work to offshore this industry, I'd think.

--
This space available.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by awestruk · 2010-12-15 22:31 · Score: 1

Lets not forget the costs to pay people to sort these plastics, facilitate buildings to store them, and truck them all over each region....
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by tjansen · 2010-12-15 22:33 · Score: 2

"So your average plastic water bottle requires about 1/4 a litre of refined oil products to be produced."
I have no idea of plastic production, but it looks wrong to me: if oil costs about $40 per barrel (159l), 1/4 litre is about $0.05. I can't imaging a plastic bottle costing that much - I can buy a bottle of water in a supermarket for not much more than 5 cent. Am I missing something?
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by tjansen · 2010-12-15 22:40 · Score: 2

Oh, just checked oil prices... $88 per barrel. That means a plastic water bottle's raw material costs over $0.10?
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 23:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes you are. The 1/4 litre is refined oil products not raw crude oil. During refining many components in crude are separated and depending on the economics of the refinery various products are made, be it diesel, kerosene, jet, bitumen, extracted impurities such as sulphur, mercaptain, and if there's a chemical plant nearby often propylene and other feedstocks to create plastics through polymerisation. If there's no chemical plant around hydrcarbons like propylene are either minimised or converted to more profitable products.

So while 1/4 litre of refined product is needed to make a bottle, much more crude is needed, however that crude contains other quite valuable products that also generate money, so there never can be a generalised direct link between the price of oil and the price of a finished product as it heavily depends on the economics of the individual refinery.

I work at a refinery which is currently burning propylene and butylene through the flare because the unit which uses that feed is down, and it's cheaper to burn it than to try and sell it to a chemical plant. That doesn't directly affect the price of bottles in the local shops either :)
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by thegarbz · 2010-12-15 23:23 · Score: 0

And god knows why I posted that AC :-/
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by rolfwind · 2010-12-15 23:57 · Score: 2

My concern is if you get a net win in energy. If you do, that's great. If you don't, then it should be scrapped like ethanol should be scrapped and not subsidized simply as a feel good program.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by tjansen · 2010-12-16 00:02 · Score: 2

Hmm.. but in that case, the bottle would be made of less valuable components. Which would mean that the demand for the components required for a plastic bottle is lower than the demand for the other components, and thus plastic bottle are merely a by-product. So I wonder, would reducing the number of plastic bottle have any impact on the general oil consumption?
After all, even if there wouldn't be any plastic bottles anymore, the oil would still be needed because of the other components.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 00:09 · Score: 0

What is so bad about a subsidy, it does not mean that the subsidy has to remain forever, but if they can do it and get rid of a lot of plastic then hey it might be worth doing, what is better for the next hundred years?? The subsidy is done in the interest of the people/planet so a few people pocket some big dollars along the way,and a unviable energy sourse is run for a while and the world only has 100 billion tonnes of plastic left to recycle before peak plastic.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by carvalhao · 2010-12-16 00:18 · Score: 1

Although I don't put much faith in this process until I have more data, the "government subsidies" is not a good argument, since the oil being worth $1 a litre does not account for all the indirect subsidy of military intervention to insure constant suply.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Neil+Boekend · 2010-12-16 00:27 · Score: 1

They would probably not produce it. The basic materials for plastic are polymerised to form the required plastics. They can tune the equipment to not form the monomeres, but to form more fuel.
The polymer Polyethylene is made of the monomer ethylene.To create ethylene you have to crack the light hydrocarbins (an energy intensive task). Most of those hydrocarbins could have been used as fuel themselves.

Note: IANAPC

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by cduffy · 2010-12-16 00:37 · Score: 1

...offset by the fact that the plastics in question would be trucked and stored regardless (by a trash-disposal entity being paid to take them).
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Rockoon · 2010-12-16 01:29 · Score: 1

...and just to be fully clear...

The difference is the dimensionality of the units..

Energy = Work
Power = Rate at which Work is performed

The GP mentioned "1 kilowatt" which is equal to 1000 Joules per Second, aka 1.34 HorsePower.

In the end, costs are based on the number of Joules used. On your electric bill that is listed in the units Kilowatt Hours, and 1 kWh = 3600000 Joules (3.6 megajoules)

In the movie Back To The Future, they needed a power source that produced 1.21 gigawatts, but no actual timeframe was given for how long this power needed to be sustained.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:36 · Score: 0

that's only true if a net energy gain is your only goal. there are other secondary goals here, such as simply reducing the amount of garbage that needs to be stuffed into landfills. if you can re-use that garbage for something else, even if there's a cost associated with it, you're helping to meet that secondary goal.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by lloydchristmas759 · 2010-12-16 01:39 · Score: 1

Amen. As a side note regarding the movie, you should have said 1.21 jigowatts instead...

--
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by natehoy · 2010-12-16 01:41 · Score: 1

This isn't really long term, it's medium term at best. You need oil to make the disposable plastic bottles in the first place, so the cost of oil is going to roll directly into the cost of the bottles that get disposed to be recycled into a small fraction of the fuel you could have gotten out of the oil if you had turned it into automotive fuel in the first place.
In other words, they are inefficiently reclaiming a small portion of an inefficient use of fossil oil. Good as far as it goes, but as oil prices go up people will start using it in smarter ways and stopgap technologies like this will die off as their cheap source of supplies dry up.
That's not to say this is a bad idea, it's certainly worth reclaiming what we can out of the waste we've made. But it's hardly long term - it still depends on a steady supply of petroleum-based products.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by natehoy · 2010-12-16 01:46 · Score: 2

Even if the energy is break-even, you're converting electricity from a hydro plant where very little manufacturing exists any more into fuel that can be used in cars and trucks. It's still more efficient than battery-based electric cars (which are great, don't get me wrong, but with battery storage losses and range issues, anyone other than a short-haul commuter won't find them very useful).
We can easily convert petroleum into electricity, but this is a way to convert electricity plus garbage into petroleum. It's a stopgap until we can figure out a better way to propel our vehicles than the burning of a limited resource that has so many more valuable uses.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by SillyNickName4me · 2010-12-16 02:11 · Score: 1

I'd like to point out 2 things here:
1. this is a form of re-cycling
2. there are many uses of plastics that are near impossible to avoid as a consumer.
So while I agree with your statement about bottled water, I think your statement about re-use/re-cycle/substitute is overly simplified, and ignores that this is just another way of re-cycling.
Yes, those things will help a fair bit but having a way to better re-cycle the plastic we end up with anyway is solving a problem independent of if people re-use/substitute plastics wherever they can.
That said, if turning it back into some form of oil and then burning it is an environmentally friendly solution is a good question.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by hesaigo999ca · 2010-12-16 02:12 · Score: 1

You cant look at it like a regular business model though....that is the problem.
Consumers like you are looking only at the cost of operating, instead of the gain we have from NOT affecting or killing our environment, and that is priceless.
A consumer person will look at the cost of turning plastic back into gas and think, this is not really cost effective, ...but when you consider,
less time to decompose garbage because less plastics sitting in the landfills,
and also less land mass needed for that garbage to sit there.....
also, the exact calculation I still have not seen,
but if I take what you said to be truth and that 1 kilogram = 1litre....
and I were to take all the plastics from every landfill and turn that into gas, you can bet your ass, there would be much less garbage sitting there, hence if we can do a better service of recycling plastics at the source,
at your door, so that like none actually get to the landfill, and all plastics make it to a destination designated to recylcing into gas the plastics, then we again leave less for the garbae men to pick up, and less tax payer money is used to fill the garbage trucks with gas to pick up less garbage then before...
Let's also not forget the environment, we affect less species other then ourselves by not contaminating as much the lands and the lakes, with unbreakable plastics, if we were as plastic recycling hungry as a zombie looking
for some brains in one of those movies, you would not even see any of the wildlife (duck) walking arouns with a beer 6 pack plastic cover around its neck, because someone tossed it into the wild, (true story, saw the picture of that duck, sick really!)
instead we would do all we could to save our plastic, bring it back to xxx place taking in all plastics, and get a refund for the kilos of plastics brought back, to be used at the pump. Can you imagine if the government stepped in and offered a program, to give a refund like at the pump for the plastic your bring back, to get credit for gas to be used....wow, people would be swamping the landfills trying to find all the water bottles they could!....
Man looking for plastic>Excuse you, are you finished with that yet...?
Man eating lunch> I still haven't finished my lunch!?!(looking at the tupperware container his lunch is in)
Man looking for plastic> Thats ok, i'll wait.... (looks at the man, waiting silently...)
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 04:26 · Score: 0

Do these processes always have to be net energy positive?
We have a whole shiatload of plastic just sitting around in landfills, blowing around in bag form, and generally unusable, just cluttering up everything and choking fish. So we take this vast excess, and turn it into oil/gas products, which we don't have a vast excess of, and in fact have something of a shortage of so therefore it is economically viable.
In the end we take an undesirable product, and create a desirable one. Assuming you aren't using oil to convert the plastic to oil, there is still a benefit.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Mr.+Slippery · 2010-12-16 05:03 · Score: 1

My concern is if you get a net win in energy. If you do, that's great. If you don't, then it should be scrapped like ethanol should be scrapped
Corn ethanol is not very efficient, but does have a modestly positive energy balance, with estimates ranging from 1.24 to 1.6. Other sources of ethanol -- sugarcane, switchgrass, waste cellulose -- are better.
Corn ethanol is debatable; we might argue over whether it's better to produce a more energy efficient crop, or to stick with one that we already have people growing and that has many uses. And we can argue the relative merits of ethanol versus butanol. But the general statement that "ethanol should be scrapped" is not supportable. It's an easily produced efficient biofuel.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 06:01 · Score: 0

OH, thats right, lets not forget the government subsidies!
No, let's not forget them, wherever they are used, including traditional petroleum projects.
That's in addition to the indirect costs to government (and therefore taxpayers) to provide the infrastructure and support necessary for traditional petroleum production.
See the cost of war webpage for one such cost, financed by borrowing. $746B+, last time I checked.
Not to mention the taxpayer-funded infrastructure costs required for a network of roads just to consume 70%+ of the end product.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 06:24 · Score: 0

Europe and Japan should be very thankful too, since they are the primary consumers of that oil. The US gets more of it's oil from Canada and Mexico than it does the Middle East.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 06:36 · Score: 0

More importantly is how/who is going to dig thru all the trash to get all the plastic that was destined for landfill? The plastic that was NOT destined for landfill was already destined for recycling. Someone needs to come up with a process (not cheap humans) of sorting out the "useful" stuff from trash and separating them (iron, steel, aluminum, plastics, paper/cardboard, etc). So that all trash is sent to a facility where all the "useful" stuff is removed and then the real trash is sent on to landfill. Not an easy problem to solve.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 08:19 · Score: 1

Waste management has some equipment like this, they use static to separate plastic.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 08:21 · Score: 1

Go look up fungible.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by thegarbz · 2010-12-16 08:37 · Score: 1

Spot on. As I mentioned the refinery I work at doesn't have a chemical plant. We minimise ethylene production, and convert the light ***ylenes into alkylate, a very high octane blending component for petrol.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 09:12 · Score: 0

Because it has to be cost effective before we start taking better care of our waste?
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by zero0ne · 2010-12-17 09:18 · Score: 1

I mistyped, I should have said that I was going to assume 1kWh as the required energy needed. I was just looking for a way to associate a price with the energy needed.
Re:Given how much oil it takes to make plastic.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-19 04:51 · Score: 0

And that secondary goal is not trivial.
Sadly, people don't appreciate the scale of the problem of garbage disposal, residential and commercial.
A steady high-volume stream of something nobody wants... it has to go somewhere.
That's before we even look at what happens after it's dumped... polluted land and water, poisoned wildlife, etc.
Just dumping garbage carries a heavier cost than people think.
Not to mention the costs if it's decided to reclaim a landfill later.

Landfill? by matt4077 · 2010-12-15 21:04 · Score: 4, Informative

If it ends up in a landfill right now, you're doing something wrong. Some countries (Scandinavia) have recycling quotas >90% already.

--
Fleur de Sel

Re:Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 21:35 · Score: 1

Just for plastics, or everything? If it's the latter, when you consider all the lifecycle energy costs and the solvents etc it's necessary to use, it's actually environmentally harmful to recycle so much. Paper in particular, despite being one of the most widely advertised recycled goods, would often be better off ending up in an incinerator (with the heat being put to some use or other.)
Re:Landfill? by PARENA · 2010-12-15 22:04 · Score: 3, Informative

I've been living in Finland for a few years now and over here we can recycle separately: plastic bottles, glass bottles, different types of other glass, different types of metal, textiles and plastic bags even. And that's just what you can take to our local shopping centre. At home I can take away separately my bio-trash, paper, cardboard and 'other'. It's a bit more work than just dumping it all together, but I'm willing to do that if the facilities are available.

--
Here's the secret to immortality: ...oh dang, I forgot.
Re:Landfill? by slugstone · 2010-12-15 22:20 · Score: 0

Where I live in the USA we do that to. Well some of us do that here.
Re:Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 22:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Plastic bottles recycled? I guess you mean they have a pawn as in you get money when you return the bottle. But what happens to the plastic bottle after this? It's not recycled like paper.
Many many years ago Finland was "recycling" all plastic. But instead of actually recycling it it was simply dumped or burned.
Recycling plastic in Finland is very minuscule.
Re:Landfill? by rolfwind · 2010-12-15 23:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

I like what Germany does (perhaps other European countries too) with drinks, slap a deposit on it and any place that sells it must take it back and refund said deposit. None of this recycling center hodgepodge BS. Most drinks are in glass bottles (which I greatly prefer) although unfortunately plastic bottles have been coming in on personal size more and more.
Oh, and since almost all drinks come in plastic crates (also a deposit and reused) when you buy in quantity, including water, applejuice and Coca-Cola and the like, the customer isn't using plastic bags upon plastic bags getting it home, which is a f-ing hassle if you ask me. There are even services through most of the country that bring crates of whatever you want drink-wise to you, they'll come once a week, once a month, or whatever, take the empty bottles in the crates and exchange them. Like milkmen of lore here.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaschenpfand
or it translated to English (and yes, I realize there is an English wikipedia page on it, but it doesn't cover prices and other details).
Still, glass rules. Clean and no worries about organic chemistry this or that.
I wish they implemented the pfand system here in the states, not just with water bottles, but with CFLs and fluorescent lights, electronics, batteries and other things - things THAT SHOULD NOT BE THROWN AWAY in the trash, but people rarely do otherwise because it's either an inconvenience or expensive to do it properly. Often, it's expensive to do it properly because it's not done on a massive scale (for instance, it costs me more to recycle my fluorescent tubes than it is to buy them - that ain't right).
Walmart does this with car batteries, charging something like $8 and gives it back when you bring you're old one in. But I don't know if that is voluntary on Walmart's behalf, and limited to my state or other states -- but it's a good system.
Re:Landfill? by ledow · 2010-12-16 00:05 · Score: 0

The UK has recycling, for everything from paper to plastic to car batteries.
News reports revealed recently that what mostly happens to that stuff is that we cherry-pick the obviously easily recyclable stuff (e.g. the lead, the simple plastics, the clean paper) and send the rest (95% or more) off to India and China who will happily sign off that they were "recycle" it, only for the stuff to end up on landfill. Same with WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) regulations - you basically pay someone to drop it off at Heathrow where's it's shipped to a 3rd world country who are happy to charge to pollute their own country so long as they get regular money. I used to hire a guy who had a government-authorised WEEE certificate that I had to check every time he visited - so long as we threw in a bunch of copper cables, he'd take anything. He got paid by the people to collect the gear, paid £1 a monitor by a guy at Heathrow and neither would cover his transport of heavy IT gear to Heathrow from a local business - but the copper in the cables meant that he made a living by stripping off the plastic and melting down the copper. The monitors were shipped abroad (by a guy paying £1 per monitor because some government could subsidise his "recycling" business) - all with proper paperwork - and invariably ended up in landfill abroad.
Just saying "it's gone into the recycling bin" doesn't mean it was ever recycled. Or that it could ever be recycled *sensibly* (i.e. does a hot wash that's required to sterilise old food containers actually cost more to occur than recycling would ever save? Does the collection costs for THREE separate bins - usually by three separate trucks and three separate workforces in the UK - outweigh the advantages gained? Does the product have a nature that it *can* be recycled without expending more energy than it would save to recycle?)
Don't fall for the greenie line - most waste still ends up in landfill, but nowadays after incredibly expensive transport to countries that JUST DON'T CARE, and that stuff that doesn't actually probably costs MORE to recycle than the sum total damage it would do to just landfill it. To recycle plastic you usually have to grind it and melt it - already you're into significantly more energy expense than the plastic took to be put into a landfill - how much energy do you need to melt a tonne of plastic?
*Some* recycling works, but it's a TINY proportion and really not even made up for by the damage that just having another bin, or someone transporting it to a recycling centre, costs.
Re:Landfill? by rhook · 2010-12-16 00:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Walmart does this with car batteries, charging something like $8 and gives it back when you bring you're old one in. But I don't know if that is voluntary on Walmart's behalf, and limited to my state or other states -- but it's a good system.
Every place that sells car batteries does that, it's called a core fee. Most auto parts that can be re-manufactured have it.
Re:Landfill? by Confusador · 2010-12-16 01:02 · Score: 1

For what it's worth, Michigan does exactly what you describe (link is to PDF), at least with bottles and cans. I don't know why other states with deposits don't do the same, or for that matter why so few states have deposits.
Re:Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:30 · Score: 0

Finnish guy here. I used to see these very heavily scratched but sturdy 1.5L plastic bottles. Today, the plastic is thin, soft and clear. They used to wash the stronger bottles, now the new thin bottles are crushed and melted or something. I don't know which is better for the environment. Crushed bottles take less space (trucks) to transport, but melting might take more energy than washing. Washing does require water and detergents and god knows what.
Re:Landfill? by Rockoon · 2010-12-16 01:47 · Score: 1

I dont understand this aversion to landfills.

At the rate trash is produced, we have more than enough land to bury it.

My recycling beliefs are such that anything that can be recycled for a profit will be recycled by the free market, without my help, and the stuff that can't be recycled for a profit shouldn't be recycled.

Recycling stuff just for the sake of recycling is stupid. Recycling stuff that can be profitably recycled in smart.

I mean think about it.. suppose its the 1960's and you figured that at some point in the future that it would be smart is recycle plastic. Would you support wasting money on stupidly recycling it with 1960's technology or would you be for storing it someplace (like a landfill) until technology caught up?

We are approaching the point where recycling plastic is Smart, and when it becomes Really Smart then landfills will start being dug up (especially older ones, where all the biodegradable stuff is gone) just for the profit potential (plastics, metals...)

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Landfill? by Rockoon · 2010-12-16 01:51 · Score: 2

I like what Germany does (perhaps other European countries too) with drinks, slap a deposit on it and any place that sells it must take it back and refund said deposit.
America does that for many drinks, and not just ones that come in plastic bottles. Glass and Aluminum are also targeted.

We did not enact this for the recycling benefits .. we enacted it to stop the bulk of non-biodegradable littering.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 02:04 · Score: 0

"It's a bit more work than just dumping it all together, but I'm willing to do that if the facilities...."
Theres the problem...
I and a MAJORITY of the waste producers in the US, which since this is in the US (Western NY), is all that applies, AM NOT WILLING to do this.
I am NOT going to separate trash into x,y,z... I have a trash can, I dump it all in there, and that is it. You want to recycle it, go right ahead! BUT I am NOT doing YOUR WORK to SEPARATE it!
Slap a 5/10/15/25/30 cent deposit on it plastic or cans. You will reach a point which will price the item out of the market, and Pepsico and Coca-Cola and other producesr of these drinks,as an example, will revolt when their sales PLUMMIT! I'll purchase a fountain system for home use.
Slap all the "deposit" taxes you want on it. This will only go so far in the US till you will kill the product off.
In the US those recycle trucks whiz through the neighborhoods at 50+MPH why? ?? ? NONE of those bins are ever put out by 99% of the residents. They are used for storage or other uses by the residents. I consider the bins the local municipality dropped off abandoned property and will make use of them in any way, shape and form I please. They refuse to come collect them, even when marked as TRASH PLEASE TAKE! So they will be used for some thing else as they are not going to take up room and not be used.
You can show off all the examples of EU and UK recycling laws and how this or that will get me to do it. NO IT WILL NOT! I am not the garbage man!
Here is my !@)(*$!&$)(!*@$ garbage... take it way... After you collect it what you do with it afterwards I could care less! Recycle it, burn it, pile it up... don't care.
Re:Landfill? by baKanale · 2010-12-16 02:37 · Score: 1

...slap a deposit on it and any place that sells it must take it back and refund said deposit.
We have a five cent deposit on soda here in New York State. Half the people I see just throw their cans and bottles in the garbage can anyway. Amusingly, it's often the people with the lower incomes who are the ones just tossing that money in the trash. Though maybe we need a deposit larger than 5 cents...
Re:Landfill? by Malenx · 2010-12-16 03:03 · Score: 1

Being a Michigan resident, I can vouch that it's incredibly efficient.
As a plus, I can't remember that last time I saw a bottle on the side of the road. The entire state is basically swept clean by homeless people looking to collect cans for money. They go through trash cans and dumpsters all the time looking for items to recycle. In the end, I think charging 10 cent deposits on all cans is a great thing that helps the environment and people down on their luck.
I hope someday they start to expand the program into all plastic drinking containers and beyond. Right now it's only carbonated beverages and glass drinking bottles.
Re:Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 03:21 · Score: 0

And it's not that hard to recycle the rest in Germany here either. Since moving here a few months ago for an assignment and living on the economy, I've gone from filling a big blue waste bin every week in the US to routinely having my small "waste" container only half full every 2 weeks and putting out 2-3 times that amount of metal and plastic recyleables. Seeing that it floors me how much was going into the landfill every week back home.
Re:Landfill? by couchslug · 2010-12-16 03:25 · Score: 1

"Oh, and since almost all drinks come in plastic crates (also a deposit and reused) when you buy in quantity, including water, applejuice and Coca-Cola and the like,"
I love the crate system, which BTW is a most excellent way to carry beer. The ceramic "pop tops" with rubber gaskets on some bottles ensure reusability.
"Walmart does this with car batteries, charging something like $8 and gives it back when you bring you're old one in. But I don't know if that is voluntary on Walmart's behalf, and limited to my state or other states -- but it's a good system."
They can turn a nice profit on scrapping vehicle batteries, which have been recycled as long as they existed for their delicious lead. I keep a couple of dead batteries handy for exchange (so I can use marginal batteries for other applications) and accumulate as many as possible for scrap runs.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Landfill? by bratloaf · 2010-12-16 03:25 · Score: 1

Here in NY too, in fact I think we were the first state with a "bottle bill" back in the mid 80's. All the nonprofit groups in NY collect bottles and cans as a fundraiser, and people are often willing to donate a big old bag of cans more than they would shell out $10. Homeless people and others collect them willingly from anywhere. There used to be lots of trash, cans, bottles, etc on the sides of roads and in ditches. Not so much anymore, in fact after the bottle law passed there were virtually none (bottles and cans). They just added a deposit on water bottles (GOOD idea, IMHO) and I have seen most of these also disappear from roadsides and parking lots, etc.
Really, the deposit idea is a great system. Now, actually DOING something useful (like this plastic to fuel project, or a plastic to plastic, or etc) with the recycled goods is another story, but here in NY I think the majority do get recycled into a variety of things. There was in fact a show on TV about bottle plastic and all the goods that are made from it.
Re:Landfill? by clone52431 · 2010-12-16 03:35 · Score: 1

We are approaching the point where recycling plastic is Smart, and when it becomes Really Smart then landfills will start being dug up (especially older ones, where all the biodegradable stuff is gone) just for the profit potential (plastics, metals...)
^^ This.
Perhaps we haven’t yet reached the point where it is worthwhile to dig up old landfills, but breakthroughs (like this one) are exactly what we need to move in that direction.

--
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:Landfill? by ShavedOrangutan · 2010-12-16 03:58 · Score: 1

I like what Germany does (perhaps other European countries too) with drinks, slap a deposit on it and any place that sells it must take it back and refund said deposit.
Some U.S. states do this.

In Iowa, they have machines to reclaim aluminum cans which read the bar code to make sure the can originally sold with a deposit. If it can't read the bar code, it rejects the can and gives it back to you. At that point, you have to throw it in the trash bin next to the machine. There is no other way to recycle it.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Re:Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 06:21 · Score: 0

Every place that will sell you a car battery actually IS obligated by law to take back your used one. You, on the other hand, are not allowed to throw it away either. It has to get recycled.
Lead-acid batteries are actually one of the most recycled products out there. Nearly all used batteries are recycled and nearly everything in the battery is reused. The lead plates are remade into lead ingots and used for anything where lead is used. The plastic bits of the case are crushed and recycled. Even some of the the acid is cleaned and converted for use in making other products. The rest is neutralized.
The net result is that we end up not needing to mine as much lead because so much of what is in use is continuously recycled.
Re:Landfill? by jbengt · 2010-12-16 06:49 · Score: 1

At the rate trash is produced, we have more than enough land to bury it.
How about we bury it on your land

My recycling beliefs are such that anything that can be recycled for a profit will be recycled by the free market, without my help, and the stuff that can't be recycled for a profit shouldn't be recycled.
That only holds if the costs to society, clean air, clean water supplies, depletion of natural resources, etc. are borne by the trash dumpers and the producers of replacement products - costs they do not currently bear.

Note, I'm not saying the recycling is always a good answer. Most of the time reducing wasteful production is a much better, and cheaper, option.
Re:Landfill? by Red+Flayer · 2010-12-16 06:55 · Score: 1

That view does not account for external costs, and thus is not the most efficient way to deal with trash.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:Landfill? by bartmanus · 2010-12-16 07:15 · Score: 1

Some countries (Scandinavia)
Scandinavia is not a country. If you had chosen to postfix an n to your noun in parenthesis to make it an adjective, then you would be correct.
Sorry all, I just had a grammar nazi urge. But being a non native English speaker and writer, my statements above are probably riddled with errors, too. :)
Re:Landfill? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 13:14 · Score: 0

All places that sell car batteries do it. Lead batteries have a very high recycle rate (97%) in the US. Partially because they do a core charge deposit system, and partially because most batteries are changed in autoshops so collection and sale to scrap dealers is easier.
As much as tree huggers like to gripe about the automobile it leads the way in terms of recycling (95%) which is just the scrap rate. Parts recycling drives utilization rates above 100%.
Re:Landfill? by mattack2 · 2010-12-16 13:43 · Score: 1

No, Oregon was the first state in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Bottle_Bill
I was trying to find confirmation about whether the US was before Germany, but didn't find it. (I had thought the U.S. might had been first in the world, but it wasn't even first in North America.)

global resource corp's microwaves seem cooler by nido · 2010-12-15 21:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've been watching GRC for a while now... Last I heard their prototype microwave was functional, and they were taking orders. The prototype uses a vacuum chamber: fill the chamber with used tires, apply vacuum, turn on the microwave, and *poof*, out comes the hydrocarbons.

Every 20lb tire yields a gallon of diesel fuel, ~50 cubic feet of "propane" (butane and... something else), recyclable steel, and carbon black. Haven't seen anything recently, just a new patent for using microwaves to desalinate seawater...

This thing looks useful too - there's a ton of plastic warehoused in the world's garbage dumps, and it won't be long until they start getting mined.

--
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com

Re:global resource corp's microwaves seem cooler by StewBaby2005 · 2010-12-16 01:06 · Score: 1

'carbon black' sounds interesting. Could that be used for Ink jet refills?
Re:global resource corp's microwaves seem cooler by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 08:25 · Score: 0

And good luck pumping down a large chamber full of dirty, outgasing polymer objects.
Re:global resource corp's microwaves seem cooler by Patersmith · 2010-12-20 02:10 · Score: 1

This company's financials look dire. About five years ago they were trading near $5 but just last week their stock hit $.05 on news of a financial squabble with a key partner. None of the insiders have bought stock for almost a year.
Sadly, it looks like this company is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. I wish it were something worth investing in.

Floating plastic in the ocean by scsirob · 2010-12-15 21:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I remember reading about a huge amount of plastic floating in the ocean. Since it was just garbage no-one seemed interested in cleaning that up.

Now this plastic has become a valuable supply for producing oil, I'm sure some entrepreneur will stand up and collect it for a profit!

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB

Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by Asic+Eng · 2010-12-15 21:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

No yet, I think. The "garbage patch" is a huge area of the ocean which consists of a mixture of plastic particles and sea water. Getting the plastic out of that corrosive sea water, in an inaccessible location - that's going to be a lot more expensive than recycling plastic which would otherwise be transported to a landfill. You'd probably start mining closed landfills first before you'd consider the garbage patch.
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by Lispy · 2010-12-15 22:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Your view on the world is criminally simplistic. The great pacific garbage patch is several thousands of miles away from the west coast of the US. Furthermore this stuff is highly fragmented into tiny pieces. Processing this would be really painful. Even if youd set up your plant right there floating in the ocean transportation would hardly justify the cost of harvesting. I really wish you would have a point but I dont see this happening for a long time. If you compare this to the gulf of mexcio where you can easily drill for oil in your backyard there is no way this would work. Its sad put this probably isnt a solution. The big benefit for this technology could be that we just stop dumping our trash into the ocean in the first place. But for whats there already we might have to come up with something else. Like somebody said in this thread: Just dont buy bottled water and try to avoid plastics if you can find a reasonable alternative. Its actually pretty hard, I have been trying to do this for the last year and often theres just no option: e.g. keyboards, toothbrushes, tupperware and so on...
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by AlecC · 2010-12-15 23:07 · Score: 1

But there is a difference between long life objects such as toothbrushes and keyboards such as keyboards and toothbrushes, which have a life of three months to indefinite, and single-use stuff such as water bottles, food trays, wrapping and padding. If you uses it for at least three months, the cost is spread so thin that I wouldn't worry. Conversely, if it is only used for the 30 minutes from supermarket to home, you should really be using an alternative.
Being the season that it is, one thing I find marginal is children's toys. Once they have been opened, the children seem to be surrounded by a sea of plastic. Nominally they are long life items, but they have so darned many of the things that I bet many of them get only a few minutes of play before being put away, eventually to be dumped.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 00:26 · Score: 0

Interesting, but I think the density of the garbage is pretty low - like one every 10 square meters or so. Hard to collect. Plus, it isn't all plastic.
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by foniksonik · 2010-12-16 00:32 · Score: 1

Craigslist is the ultimate recycler for things like toys. I have kids. I buy maybe 5 toys a year at retail, mostly impulse buys. My kids have hundreds small and large.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by natehoy · 2010-12-16 01:52 · Score: 1

I'll also put in a plug for Freecycle, if you have a local site. There's lots of good stuff on there.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by kent_eh · 2010-12-16 03:06 · Score: 1

Technically, that's the second "R", Re-use.
Which is better for everyone than re-cycling. (well, perhaps not better for Wal-Mart, but that doesn't upset me much)

--

---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 07:44 · Score: 0

Actually, that might depend on how the garbage patch is distributed (depth) and how the potential recycling processes work. Basically the stuff out there is mostly already broken into pieces and sorted (stratified)... so if there's a layer with contents that are a good candidate for recycling, the harvesting might be a lot cheaper than digging it out of landfills or ferrying it around in garbage trucks.
It'd probably only use that one ideal layer, though, still leaving a crapload of plastic out there.
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 08:25 · Score: 0

Hawaii was said somewhere to have a significant energy consumption composed mostly of imported oil. The plastic patch is surrounding the area..
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 08:31 · Score: 0

I buy maybe 5 toys a year at retail, mostly impulse buys. My kids have hundreds small and large.
At 5 per year, accumulation of 100 toys would take 20 years. Hundreds implies at least 200, the accumulation of which would take 40 or more years. Just how old are your kids???
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by Skidborg · 2010-12-16 09:41 · Score: 1

That's why he mentioned Craigslist: most of those toys he didn't buy retail.

--
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Re:Floating plastic in the ocean by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-12-17 10:52 · Score: 1

Your view on the world is criminally simplistic
I think you're missing the bigger picture too. It may be possible, with this new technology, to build a rig that will clean up the garbage patch and power itself with the garbage. Greenpeace (or a sane version of it) could fund the project.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-15 21:31 · Score: 0

That plastic water bottle you tossed in the trash could soon be fueling your car instead of sitting in a landfill for 1000 years."

So this means that yet more sequestered carbon dioxide will be pumped into the atmosphere? If that's the case then... Wonderful! It's exactly what we need.

Blasphemy! by Jhyrryl · 2010-12-15 21:36 · Score: 3, Funny

The Earth wants plastic for itself, and created us to make it! (Thank you, George Carlin.)

--
Jhyrryl

Way to catch the previous train here by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2010-12-15 21:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

So this guy has a process that takes plastic and turns it into oil to power cars. Great...

Well guess what: the new trend is electric, or hybrid-electric cars. Their main fuel is electricity, and there's already a very efficient way to turn waste plastic into electricity, by burning it to fuel a power plant (with the proper filters at the smokestacks to avoid polluting and all). Even accounting for the loses in transportation, battery storage and reuse in electric motors, I bet the plastic-powered electric car is way more efficient than the plastic-gasoline powered ICE car.

So yes, the market for plastic diesel is huge today, but it'll only go down over the years, as oil prices rise and people buy more electric vehicles. In short, I'm not investing.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Way to catch the previous train here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:45 · Score: 0

Hate to disappoint you but the trend toward hybrid and electric has a long way to go. There is not enough efficiency in the battery technology that we currently are utilizing. You must also take into account the long range driving people in the US do. Let me give you an example In Texas for me to drive to Dallas From Houston is 285 miles (roughly) I have yet to see a battery operated car " In Production" that can travel long distances at speeds of 70+ mph. Hybrids are not nearly as efficient as you may think take a look at the raw data from sources like Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver etc. And you will never get Americans to loose their sports cars, trucks and luxury vehicles. Especially in the South where the car is king and trucks are necessary. So you will wait maybe 10- 15 years before we can get an electric vehicle to perform like a Porsche and get distance needed for long trips, since we have no rail infrastructure and flying 300 -500 miles costs too much.
El Che
Re:Way to catch the previous train here by natehoy · 2010-12-16 01:55 · Score: 2

The main output of this is Diesel fuel. The fuel used to power large trucks. The same trucks that can't be converted to electricity because we don't have anywhere NEAR the energy density necessary in electric storage to power a cross-country truck.
We can very easily convert petroleum into electricity. We have few means of turning electricity plus old petroleum into new petroleum. This is a stopgap measure that will be obsolete in 50 years, but will still be useful for at least a few more decades.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Way to catch the previous train here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 02:11 · Score: 0

So, you are refusing to invest because you are sure that the market price of his end product is going to go up? Please explain how that works.
Re:Way to catch the previous train here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 02:24 · Score: 0

The trend is not electric cars or even hybrids. The one mainstream electric car has only just debuted (first unit delivered yesterday). Time will tell if it is successful. Hybrids make up 3-4% of the market at best (this dipped below 3% recently but has been on the rebound as oil prices increase).
The main fuel of most hybrids is gasoline. The Volt, if used in certain patterns, may use electricity as its main fuel. But only 10,000 Volts are planned to be produced in the first year, then expanding to 40,000 (first unit was delivered last week).
To put this in context, there are nearly 1 million Prius in the US, and about 200,000 new units sold each year.
Motor vehicle fuels aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Re:Way to catch the previous train here by kent_eh · 2010-12-16 03:07 · Score: 1

Oil isn't just used for burning.
even electric card need lubricating oil, and hydraulic oil.

--

---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh

Panorama Chemicals by dugeen · 2010-12-15 22:05 · Score: 1

They have clearly been watching the Doctor Who story 'The Green Death' (1973) and decided to reverse the oil-to-sludge process described therein.

meh by fireylord · 2010-12-15 22:08 · Score: 1

The density of same isn't really high enough to make this feasible as I understand it (Can't remember the details exactly)

Why is this a better solution by Tar-Alcarin · 2010-12-15 22:10 · Score: 2

Why is JBIs solution supposed to be a better alternative than the UN sponsored machine made by Blest (founded by Akinori Ito)?
IIRC, /. reported on this earlier this year, but no-one mentions a comparison between these solutions.

Check out the article and the video about Blests "plastic to oil" solution.

From what I can see, two of Blests major advantages, is that the equipment is so small that it's portable, and that it requires no chemical additives to do its thing.
That's going to be a huge factor when it comes to introducing this to the developing countries, which we most definitely will need to do in the long run.

Re:Why is this a better solution by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 08:51 · Score: 1

Probably the normal tradeoff, big in-place plant more efficient but requires higher investment.

Plastic mining by Pflipp · 2010-12-15 22:11 · Score: 2

Quick! Start buying up landfills!

Plastic mining is the way of the future.

--
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]

Re:Plastic mining by Tar-Alcarin · 2010-12-15 22:19 · Score: 2

I get the sense that you're being sarcastic here, but I honestly believe you're on to something.
After all, it is getting more and more expensive (both in terms of money and energy) to retrieve crude oil. Once the energy cost of producing a barrel of oil exceeds the energy we can retrieve from it, there is going to be a huge market for alternative sources for oil.
If the cost of recycling plastics back into oil becomes lower than pumping up new oil, this becomes a viable alternative.
Re:Plastic mining by connect4 · 2010-12-15 22:32 · Score: 1

Once the energy cost of producing a barrel of oil gets anywhere near the energy we can retrieve from it, game over
Re:Plastic mining by ricewar · 2010-12-15 23:42 · Score: 0

You're right. And our descendants will refer to this as the oil age. Petroleum is our only god.

Saudi proverb. "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Oil
Re:Plastic mining by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:21 · Score: 0

Hooray! The USA can be energy independent! If there's one resource we can dominate production of, it's plastic landfills!
Re:Plastic mining by natehoy · 2010-12-16 02:00 · Score: 1

Except these bottles came from... oil. So this is a stopgap. When oil becomes expensive enough that something like this is a lot cheaper than sucking the remaining dead dinosaurs out of their graves, we'll have long since stopped using our precious remaining petroleum reserves for something as horribly wasteful as disposable plastic bottles or propelling our automobiles.
It's a GREAT stopgap, mind you, but it has a supply even more limited than that of the petroleum that went into the bottles in the first place. It's just that this supply is currently large and very easy to obtain, and really has no better use.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Plastic mining by Tar-Alcarin · 2010-12-16 02:26 · Score: 1

When oil becomes expensive enough that something like this is a lot cheaper than sucking the remaining dead dinosaurs out of their graves, we'll have long since stopped using our precious remaining petroleum reserves for something as horribly wasteful as disposable plastic bottles or propelling our automobiles.
I very much agree with your sentiment, and sincerely hope you are right in this, but with world oil consumption still on the rise and peak oil production having occurred sometimes in the late 70's, I just can't manage to be optimistic about this.
I guarantee that we're going to stop using oil frivolously, but I fear it's not going to be because we can, but rather because we will be forced to, through the sheer economics of the situation.
Re:Plastic mining by natehoy · 2010-12-16 02:38 · Score: 1

Either way, it comes to the same result, plus or minus a few wars here and there. We're gonna run out of oil, we're not a very rational species with a good track record of playing well in large groups, and each group is going to want to hang on to the best living standard they can.
There's little I or anyone else alive who has an interest in changing this can do to change it, and those who have the power to change it have the power to make sure it doesn't happen to them or their kids, so they won't do anything to prevent it because sustaining the current system means their grandkids have an advantage over everyone else.
I conserve what I can, carpooling and being efficient and whatnot, knowing that by doing so I'm just feeding more resources into the pockets of those who will win anyway, but hoping to stave off the eventual energy collapse until after I'm dead and buried and don't care about it any more.
And, just in case, I intentionally remain in a more rural area where I have enough land to at least eke out an existence should it become necessary in my lifetime.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Plastic mining by apoc.famine · 2010-12-16 02:55 · Score: 1

I've been predicting a boom in mining landfills for several years now. As we strip the surface mines bare, the relative concentration of minerals in landfills will start to exceed the concentration in non-war-torn areas that we can mine. Plus, as environmental law gets more strict, it gets less cost effective to mine. Focus instead on landfills, get some subsidies from the govt or owner of the landfill, and you might turn a decent profit. Methane, heavy metals, lead, steel, aluminum, plastics, oil.... there's a lot to be found in high concentrations in a landfill.

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor

Recycling is wrong... by Joce640k · 2010-12-15 22:34 · Score: 2

Try Germany ... they refill the bottles and use them again. Wow!

--
No sig today...

Re:Recycling is wrong... by mike260 · 2010-12-15 23:27 · Score: 0

Try Greece. I frequently get into arguments with shopkeepers who insist on putting my purchase in a plastic bag, no matter how hard I try to talk them out of it. Ugh.
Re:Recycling is wrong... by mike260 · 2010-12-16 00:08 · Score: 1

Huh?
Re:Recycling is wrong... by ShavedOrangutan · 2010-12-16 03:54 · Score: 1

Try Greece. I frequently get into arguments with shopkeepers who insist on putting my purchase in a plastic bag, no matter how hard I try to talk them out of it. Ugh.
12 rolls of toilet paper.
4 each plastic wrapped together.
3 sets of 4 in a larger plastic wrap.

Grocery store insists on stuffing the whole thing into another bag.

That's three layers of plastic. For toilet paper.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Re:Recycling is wrong... by Ambvai · 2010-12-17 11:40 · Score: 1

Taiwan, where you have to pay for your plastic bags. Yes, the thin normal ones. For the cost of 5 bags or so, I could get dinner at a dumpling place down the street from where I lived.

Back to the Future? by awestruk · 2010-12-15 22:36 · Score: 0

I recall Doc putting some sort of plastic bottle into DeLorean for energy. Science Fiction writers always seems to be shockingly more accurate in future predictions than any academic I've come across...

Re:Back to the Future? by mike260 · 2010-12-15 23:42 · Score: 2

IIRC, he put the bottle into a fusion-reactor along with some banana-peels, then the car flew away. You might be cherry-picking your facts a little here...

That plastic bottle ... by aliquis · 2010-12-15 23:40 · Score: 1

... got recycled, because I live in the civilized part of the world.

The only thing going straight to the land-fill is cat litter in a plastic bag.

Maybe you should try it sometime. And don't give that Bullshit-BS. It still recycle resources and maybe your recycling would be more efficient if it happened on a large scale instead of just a few states.

Re:That plastic bottle ... by natehoy · 2010-12-16 01:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Ah, but have you talked to the people who are actually doing your "recycling"? Most of the towns around here contract with a firm in New Hampshire. That firm sells the plastic to the highest bidder, which is as it should be. Trouble is, there are few bidders for it.
Currently, as I understand it, most of the recyclables are going into the previously empty shipping containers making the return trip to China after bringing over all the stuff we import from there. Once it's in China, it can be recycled in methods free of US environmental laws, and the bulk of the plastic is simply burned for fuel because it can be done over there in a land without environmental law.
We're not actually "recycling" a lot of what we recycle. We're saving it from going into a landfill, and we're not polluting air in our close vicinity, so we're calling it good.
I'm not saying it's bad, it's just not quite as good as you might think.
I do it because the recycling company breaks even on it, so it doesn't cost me money like bags of actual garbage do.
Projects like this are cool and uncool at the same time, from an environmental perspective. They are cool because we've found a use for old plastic. They are uncool because they lengthen the time before we find more environmentally-conscious alternatives to both burning shit in our automobiles for propulsion AND encourage the use of disposable plastic bottles under a commonly-held myth that recycling them makes it all better.
Remember the chant of the treehugger. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle". We're putting waaaaayyyy too much emphasis on the last of those, when "recycle" should be the absolute last resort because it's horribly inefficient and only marginally effective at best. Reduce and reuse come first and second in terms of efficiency.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:That plastic bottle ... by aliquis · 2010-12-16 02:38 · Score: 2

Ah, but have you talked to the people who are actually doing your "recycling"?
No, but I've seen the number of states doing any bottle recycling at all in the US, and even less so plastic bottles if I remember accordingly. I've also seen the numbers for how many bottles got recycled in the state with the highest refund upon returning.
I assume the numbers where quite similar for our whole country as they where for that state. Think it was well above 90%.
Some people only want to look at cost or energy consumption, and I'm not convinced recycling fails even there, but anyhow atleast you recycle the material as well. Also who wants to throw in an estimated price for cleaning up the great pacific garbage patch? No one?
It's quite easy to make the numbers work if you decide what you want to count or not ..
I have no reason to speak to them. I'm quite sure it works well here.
http://pantamera.se/start.asp
http://pantamera.se/aluburken.asp
91% of our ~1 one billion aluminum cans get recycled.
Latest recycling refund is 1 sek = 0.15 US$
http://pantamera.se/pet.asp
88% of our 600 million plastic bottles get recycled.
Refund is 1-2 sek depending on size.
http://www.ftiab.se/
Handles more or less everything else.
5800 recycling stations spread around the country, but the you got local collection points as well.
Stations in my city:
http://se.ftiab.se/fti/sokavs/private/avsresult.aspx?kommun_id=11880&ort=%D6rebro
Items you can leave at the largest ones:
http://www.orebro.se/307.html
Myths:
http://www.ftiab.se/hushall/faktamyter/myter.4.405877db1168b3d892a80001405.html
Q & A:
http://www.ftiab.se/hushall/faktamyter/fragorsvar.4.405877db1168b3d892a80001426.html
"Did you know?"
http://www.ftiab.se/hushall/faktamyter/vissteduatt.4.405877db1168b3d892a80001412.html
* 9 of 10 recycle packaging and papers.
* 3 of 4 packages get recycled.
* 4 of 5 papers.
* 750.000-800.000 metric tones of packaging get recycled every year.
* 459.000 metric tones of papers 2008, 52 kg / inhabitant.
* One metric tone of hard plastic can become 84.000 plastic flower pots.
* Every day 'Fiskeby Board' manufactures enough carton of recycled paper packaging material to make a 3.7 meter wide roll long enough to cover the distance from Malmö to Norrköping.
* If you put all the glass packages collected in Sweden within a year on a row they would reach around the earth.
* Paper can be recycled seven times before the fiber is worn out and gets burned for energy.
* Recycling of steel saves 75% of the energy which would had been used if you had made new one instead. If all steel packages where recycled that would be enough energy to heat 5.400 small houses.
* Recycling of aluminum saves 95% .. 8.500 houses.
* Recycling of glass saves 20% of the energy.
* There is as much energy in 1 kg of plastic packaging as there is in 1 kg of oil.
* Manufacturing of recycled paper only need 1/3 the energy of new one.
* Recycling of 1 kg of plastic saves 2 kg of carbon dioxide release compared to manufacturing new one.
Recycling process:
http://www.ftiab.se/hushall/omatervinningen/atervinningsprocessen.4.405877db1168b3d892a800077.html
Statistics:
Re:That plastic bottle ... by ByOhTek · 2010-12-16 03:29 · Score: 1

my cat's litter goes in a paper bag you insensitive clod!

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:That plastic bottle ... by ShavedOrangutan · 2010-12-16 03:40 · Score: 1

Ah, but have you talked to the people who are actually doing your "recycling"?
I carefully collect my used engine oil and deposit it in the recycle tank at the county landfill. Only thing is, it's not recycled. They burn it for heat. Oh well, at least it doesn't end up in the ground water.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by operagost · 2010-12-16 03:51 · Score: 1

Well, if it's not being dumped, then it's either being reused or recycled. I guess we could call this recycling, since it's being given a different use (heat).

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by pz · 2010-12-16 03:59 · Score: 2

Reduce and reuse come first and second in terms of efficiency.
This is a commonly held myth that can be corrected with the following very simple thought experiment: as an individual, I use a certain number of plastic bags each month. If I am careful and pack the bags better, I'll use perhaps 10 or 20 percent fewer. If I use each bag just *twice* instead of once, I've reduced my consumption of bags 50%. If I manage to use each bag *three* times instead of once, my use drops to 1/3 of previous.
Re-use is a far, far more powerful method than conservation.
So, re-use those boxes from Amazon; re-use those bags from the grocery store; re-use the containers your food comes in! You'll save money too, for not having to buy empty new containers made of exactly the same stuff (besides, you've already paid for the containers that your Amazon delivery came in, or your grocery bags, or your food containers ... it's built into the cost of those goods).

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by Vegeta99 · 2010-12-16 04:11 · Score: 1

I agree. Not much you can do with used motor oil. I remember back in the day when they didn't collect the stuff. I was young, and emptied a lawn mower's oil into a corner of the back yard, and that damn patch didn't grow grass for YEARS.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by natehoy · 2010-12-16 04:21 · Score: 1

Right, I'm not at all arguing against recycling, or at least the safe disposal of stuff like motor oil and the segregation of things we can have a further incremental use for but can't actually recycle.
At least your used motor oil is finding another last use as heat (so the dump doesn't have to burn fresh petroleum product), and the potential groundwater pollution is worse than the air pollution produced by burning it. It's not a perfect solution, but engines have to be lubricated and the lubricant has to go somewhere when it becomes useless. So you're doing the best you can with that, and good on ya for doing it.
It's just that I see people justifying the use of disposable plastic bottles under the myth that recycling them "makes it all better". It is better than throwing them away, sure. But it doesn't make it all better. Recycling is inefficient and costly last resort, marginally better than throwing it away, but not by a whole heckuva lot. But it gets more press than better methods, like reducing and reusing.
Reduce, where practical, has 100% efficiency. You didn't make the stuff in the first place. Yay.
Reuse, where practical, has an efficiency lower than 100% but still pretty high, depending on how many times you reuse the product. If you buy a disposable water bottle and refill it from the tap 9 times instead of buying 9 more bottles, reuse in this case has a 90% efficiency, because you're using 1/10th the number of bottles you might have. Even refilling plastic bottles once from the tap is better than buying a second one, that's a 50% reduction in waste.
Recycling for plastics has an efficiency far lower than 50%. Probably close to zero, but just enough over zero to make the other environmental advantages (like not filling up landfills) worth pursuing things like this.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:That plastic bottle ... by MoeDrippins · 2010-12-16 04:23 · Score: 1

I believe the "reduce" mantra refers to not using said item in the first place. Your "percent reduction" anecdote is well constructed, but in your 33% less scenario you've used one "bad" bag. In the similarly anecdotal "reduce" scenario, you use a paper or other biodegradable bag in its place, and you've used zero "bad" bags.

--
Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by natehoy · 2010-12-16 04:25 · Score: 1

I'd call it "repurposing" if you want to stick with an "R" word so the mantra still works (grin).
It's getting one last use, for something different than the original intent of the product. In terms of efficiency, it's generally going to be a step above landfill and a step below recycling.
So, if you want to complete the treehugger mantra, it would be "reduce, reuse, recycle, repurpose".
And a lot of what we call recycling today is actually repurposing. We're not giving it another cycle of its original use, we're finding what incremental use of it is left and making the best of that.
It's better than throwing it away, but worse than actually recycling it, assuming you can practically recycle it (which is hard with plastics).

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:That plastic bottle ... by ShavedOrangutan · 2010-12-16 04:35 · Score: 1

At least your used motor oil is finding another last use as heat ... Recycling is inefficient and costly last resort, marginally better than throwing it away, but not by a whole heckuva lot.
I certainly agree with plastic - reuse is much better than recycle. Engine oil is by far the easiest substance to recycle. Just run it back through the refinery and it comes out as clean motor oil again.

The oil is dirty because it's absorbed the nasties left over from gasoline combustion. I have to wonder if releasing all that into the atmosphere by burning is a bad thing. Of course, if they re-refine it, those impurities will come out somewhere else and have to be disposed of somehow. No free lunch.

But for now, the only other choice is to pour it out on the ground so I'll continue giving it to the landfill and they get free heat.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by pz · 2010-12-16 04:36 · Score: 1

I believe the "reduce" mantra refers to not using said item in the first place. Your "percent reduction" anecdote is well constructed, but in your 33% less scenario you've used one "bad" bag. In the similarly anecdotal "reduce" scenario, you use a paper or other biodegradable bag in its place, and you've used zero "bad" bags.
Reduce means conserve. If I'm replacing the use of plastic bags with the use of paper ones, then I'm still consuming a large amount of raw materials and using them not nearly to their fullest. If I replace each plastic bag with a paper one, I'm still using the same number of bags. If I reuse each bag *just* *once* then I've cut my overall consumption of materials by HALF.
Re-use is far more powerful than reduce. Show me another method that has nearly as much impact in the total amount of consumed goods. A minor change in behavior -- re-using each bag *just* *once* -- cuts in half the total consumption. Think of your phone/heating/cable/internet bill being cut in half. That's an astonishing reduction.
*Just* *once*. Re-use your items *just* *once*.
That should be the mantra. The global consumption of plastic bags / paper bags / cardboard boxes / whatever would get cut in half. Please show me another method that has so profound an impact for such a small change in behavior.

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by natehoy · 2010-12-16 04:50 · Score: 1

"Reduce" comes from not using disposable bags in the first place, but there is a tradeoff of course, and you have to take that into account.
The following numbers are made up for discussion purposes.
Let's say I take a canvas (or heavier plastic) bag with me to the grocery store. That bag, obviously, had more environmental impact to make than the two-to-three plastic bags it replaced in my grocery trip. Let's say it has the environmental impact of 10 plastic grocery bags.
Plastic grocery bags, however, can be practically reused a very small number of times before they become too fragile to reuse any more.
I can reuse my canvas bag for decades.
So the investment in creating the canvas or heavier plastic bag means it is suitable for more reuses, reducing the number of low-reuse plastic bags I need to have created to meet my demand.
Reduce trumps reuse. Each of the plastic bags that didn't need to be manufactured for my use saves 100% of the resources necessary to produce them.
Reusing the disposable plastic bags can only approach 100% as I reuse them repeatedly, and since they are disposable they weren't designed with reuse in mind, so they will fail early.
But, having said that, reuse trumps recycling, since your reuse of your bags repeatedly at least doubles the efficiency of a given bag for each time you reuse it.
And, of course, if you need disposable plastic bags for other uses (say, garbage bags), it's more efficient to get one residual use out of a disposable bag than it is to buy a fresh one-time-use bag for the purpose. So if you use plastic bags for your garbage, and you can use grocery bags instead, you might as well use grocery bags for the purpose rather than getting a canvas bag to carry home your disposable plastic garbage bags...
It's all about optimization. Invest in reusable items where you will use them enough times to make it worth the extra investment. Use disposable when it makes more sense.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:That plastic bottle ... by pz · 2010-12-16 04:59 · Score: 1

Let's say I take a canvas (or heavier plastic) bag with me to the grocery store... I can reuse my canvas bag for decades... So the investment in creating the canvas or heavier plastic bag means it is suitable for more reuses... Reduce trumps reuse.
This example is precisely a re-use scenario because you are re-using the canvas bag many times. That is the only factor driving the total reduction of raw materials. Swapping canvas for plastic merely increased the number of re-uses required for parity since the materials consumption for canvas is much higher.

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by Golddess · 2010-12-16 05:04 · Score: 1

The only thing going straight to the land-fill is cat litter in a plastic bag.
Every time I hear something like that, I think to myself, "when did 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust' turn into 'ashes to plastic, plastic to eternity'?".

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:That plastic bottle ... by Grishnakh · 2010-12-16 05:25 · Score: 1

Don't be so sure. Where I live, we have curbside recycling, so everyone's free to put their recyclables in the blue container so they don't go to the landfill like all the stuff in the alley trash bins. However, every time I put my trash in that bin (about half of which is cat litter in a plastic bag, incidentally), I see plenty of stuff that should have been put in the blue recycling bin.
The fact is, people are stupid and lazy, and many of them would rather not bother with recycling at all. Who knows how much stuff goes in the landfill that could be recycled?
Re:That plastic bottle ... by Grishnakh · 2010-12-16 05:35 · Score: 1

Personally, I "repurpose" my plastic bags: they're used for disposing of kitty litter.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by aliquis · 2010-12-16 05:55 · Score: 0

Yeah, people do a piss-poor job here to.
This region got mostly immigrants though so I assume they are just too retarded or used to the shit-hole they came from.
If you're used to leave your trash out on the street maybe it's not so weird that you do it here to..
They leave large items out in the parking lot for "someone else" to pick up and leave there they should be left.
Anyhow, yeah, they suck, regardless the statistics is pretty good. But of course it would probably be even better if everyone only lived in the cities with close distances to the recycling stations and with less filthy immigrants.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by aliquis · 2010-12-16 05:58 · Score: 1

I didn't got your point, but in reality the rest garbage will be burnt and hence the plastic and cat poo will turn into energy and the cat litter won't burn so I guess that may end up in the land fill.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by Coren22 · 2010-12-16 06:10 · Score: 1

In my area it is actually resold as heating oil, so older building with oil furnaces buy it up, and the county makes a bit of money.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:That plastic bottle ... by natehoy · 2010-12-16 06:17 · Score: 1

It's both, we're just putting emphasis on different parts of the transaction.
You say reuse drives reduce, I say reduce is driven by reuse, we're saying the same thing in two different ways.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:That plastic bottle ... by NFN_NLN · 2010-12-16 06:55 · Score: 1

> * 750.000-800.000 metric tones of packaging get recycled every year.
Am I the only one annoyed by the term "metric ton"?
It's a megagram or Mg! And don't top it off with thousands of metric tons. That's just gigagrams! If people can learn the prefixes for bytes they can apply them like they're suppose to for other units.
Sorry for the bytes analogy, the IEC binary prefixes is another can of worms.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by aliquis · 2010-12-16 07:26 · Score: 1

It's still thousands so I don't see the problem.
I don't know what your native units are though :)
Anyway, what I find much more disturbing is the fact that one liter of water weight 1 kilo gram (old definition)
WTF is up with that?
Why isn't the definition 1 gram = 1 liter of water?
1 milliliter of water = 1 gram
1 liter of water = 1 kilogram.
1 kiloliter of water = 1 megagram.
Yeah, that makes sense .. :D
Re:That plastic bottle ... by aliquis · 2010-12-16 07:33 · Score: 1

... but then we don't say "metric ton" or "kilogram."
We say ton and kilo. And that's all.
And then it's not that confusion, at least if you're used to it since the start of your life.
Because then "ett kilo" = weight unit, "ett hekto" = smaller weight unit, "ett gram" = 1/1000 of a weight unit ;) and finally "ett ton" = 1000 weight units!"
Funny how the weight unit is named in kilos. Makes me wonder whatever the kilo = 1000 or kilo = weight definition came first?
Also I can't remember any occurrences of hearing "how fast do you run one hektometer?"
"Stereon? Den kostar två kilo fem hektokronor!"
Re:That plastic bottle ... by memnock · 2010-12-16 07:38 · Score: 1

i'm a grad student in a natural resources program. there are recycling bins within view of the garbage cans, yet, i still see cans and plastic bottles from the other nat. res. students in the garbage cans. if those "ooh, i'm a scientist, i'm so smart" lazy-ass people can't realize the impact of their actions, i think it's safe to say that the trashed recycling items issues is fucked.

--
"To stop the terrorists."
Re:That plastic bottle ... by aliquis · 2010-12-16 07:49 · Score: 1

.. confusing.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 07:58 · Score: 1

I try, but getting beer in growlers is expensive and most places do not offer it.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 08:05 · Score: 1

I have a cloth bag I have used for near a decade. That is reduce. I have reduced away all plastic bag use, save for those that I use for cat litter. If I could find a better bag for those I would.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by operagost · 2010-12-16 08:42 · Score: 1

With heating oil near $3/gallon, I'd run it through a filter and put it in my oil tank (not recommended in volume unless you have a waste oil boiler).

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by mattack2 · 2010-12-16 09:33 · Score: 1

How can I recycle black plastic (usually #1 plastic). It's in TV dinner trays(*) and lots of other things. The recycling center I go to specifically says no black plastic. Even plastic milk bottles are forbidden to be recycled.
(*) Yes, it has actually somewhat changed my buying habits, but I still buy them once in a while, and have been keeping them hoping to find a way to recycle them.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by treeves · 2010-12-16 14:56 · Score: 1

Paper can be recycled seven times before the fiber is worn out and gets burned for energy.
How do they know how many times a given piece of paper has been recycled?
What does that even mean since many pieces of paper get commingled in the recycling?
Are we supposed to make any sense of this statement?
My recycler has not asked me to segregate paper based on the number of previous recyclings.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by Friggo · 2010-12-16 23:46 · Score: 1

Perhaps they can check the fibers and see if they are too worn?
Perhaps they can separate the fibers in the manufacturing process depending on how worn they are?
There are probably any number of ways they can check this without knowing exactly how many time any given piece of paper or cardboard have been recycled..
Re:That plastic bottle ... by treeves · 2010-12-17 08:57 · Score: 1

You really think someone (or a machine, I don't care) is looking at individual pieces of paper in recycling bins to figure out if the fibers are too worn out to recycle them? Sounds like like a pretty major bottleneck for recycling paper. I don't think so.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:That plastic bottle ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-21 11:09 · Score: 0

But if you buy a few reusable canvas bags, you can reduce your consumption of plastic bags by 100%. That's what reduce and reuse is about.

Maybe the next war by HangingChad · 2010-12-16 00:02 · Score: 1

Maybe the next war will be fought over those floating piles of trash in the ocean.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

Drat and bother by onyxruby · 2010-12-16 00:22 · Score: 1

Ok, having worked in a recycling center doing IT work I would imagine that paper economies and plastic economies are much the same. The way it works is that depending on economic factors they would likely take the plastic for free, or might pay a small dividend for it.

It's really up to their providers to determine the costs of sorting the plastic out. If your already sorting plastic to begin with than it makes sense, if you aren't than the costs of sorting the plastic out of the garbage and transporting it would easily exceed the financial gain from selling your recycles.

The real costs have nothing to do with the supply costs. They are sunk into transportation, sorting (manpower), and machinery. Unless these types of factories sprout up by the thousands, there just isn't going to be a lot of demand to drive up the price - regardless of the cost of a barrel of oil. In this case the costs for getting the material vs disposal are going to be a far higher consideration for most areas than the amount of money to be gained from selling the oil.

A supplier isn't going to spend their own money to send them plastic vs the landfill unless they are already owned by the supplier or live in an area that already strictly dictates the sorting of plastics to begin with. The bottom line is that it has to cheaper for the supplier to send them the plastic than it is for them to get rid of it on their own.

They should be cheered at, not sneered at for being willing to take this kind of financial risk for a low profit margin endeavor. Whether you like government subsidies or not, I would imagine that a plant like this would probably be at least moderately dependent upon them. By all means, it is another form of recycling and we should embrace it and be grateful that another chunk of our garbage isn't going to a landfill.

OT: What is going on here? by Zorpheus · 2010-12-16 00:32 · Score: 0

Why is everyone's post starting at score 2, but mine are starting at score 1? No wonder no one takes them serious...

Re:OT: What is going on here? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:24 · Score: 0

Karma 's a bitch...
Re:OT: What is going on here? by Zorpheus · 2010-12-16 02:01 · Score: 1

It says "Karma: positive". But no idea what this means in detail.
I think it started after my comment on the probably larger nuclear waste from a large number of small nuclear reactors. I was tagged "flamebait" immediately. No one understood it, and I got mostly flaming replies.
So this identity is now an outcast of the slashdot community, and I have to start a new one if I want to stay? What a nice system.
Oh and thanks for rating me down again.
Re:OT: What is going on here? by natehoy · 2010-12-16 02:11 · Score: 1

I think you need "Karma: Excellent" to start at more than +1. There's a whole FAQ on the karma system, but with respect, talking about your karma as an off-topic thread on a discussion is a great way to take a karma hit, and I'm sure I'll take a hit for even replying. Oh, well.
Karma can be hit down easily by a couple of misunderstood or off-topic posts. That's the way the karma system works. Posts get misunderstood. Moderators are human.
Don't sweat it, just keep posting. People can see +1 posts, so if you remain polite and constructive, you'll get post upvoted and you'll be back in "Karma: Excellent" territory before you know it.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:OT: What is going on here? by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 09:06 · Score: 1

Or maybe you need to build up some karma first. All newbs start at 1.
Re:OT: What is going on here? by Zorpheus · 2010-12-16 11:15 · Score: 1

Sorry all for posting this here, I must have missed some things. I guess I forgot about that start phase at score 1 because it was not for too many posts.

"very little residue" by ThatsNotPudding · 2010-12-16 00:32 · Score: 1

that tastes like delicious fig pudding but is luminous green and toxic.

and by ThatsNotPudding · 2010-12-16 00:35 · Score: 1

the amount of power required to run its how many kilowatts?

Re:and by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:53 · Score: 1

Come back to me with an electric battery that's got the same energy density as diesel fuel and that argument might be worth a damn.

Not a sustainable practice by bl8n8r · 2010-12-16 00:35 · Score: 2

The point is, we can't keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we have been for the last 110 years. The Carbon, Methane and other environmentally detrimental byproducts released when fossil fuels burn is a bigger problem than running out of oil.

--
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org

Re:Not a sustainable practice by GodfatherofSoul · 2010-12-16 04:14 · Score: 1

We can if we keep coming up with ways to manufacture them, rather than mine them. Which is what I think will happen before we get viable hydrogen power.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Allow me to translate by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 00:37 · Score: 0

"I took the time to say you are wrong but I'm far to busy to look up factual evidence."

Re:Allow me to translate by witherby · 2010-12-16 02:49 · Score: 1

"I took the time to say you are wrong but I'm far too busy to look up factual evidence."

FTFY.

Cue "I took the time to correct the grammar of an AC but I'm far too chicken to void my mods."

at least, a water bottle feels no pain by ArsenneLupin · 2010-12-16 00:48 · Score: 2

That plastic water bottle you tossed in the trash could soon be fueling your car instead of sitting in a landfill for 1000 years.

In any case, that's a lot more humane than using cats for this purpose

What? by denzacar · 2010-12-16 00:50 · Score: 1

You mean to say that "go suck on a tailpipe" will cease to be a death-wishing insult?

What is this world coming to?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Re:What? by commodore64_love · 2010-12-16 01:30 · Score: 1

You won't be poisoned by a SULEV or diesel car's carbon monoxide (since both are essentially zero), but you will develop lung cancer & heart disease from the particulate matter (carbon ash). So no I don't recommend sucking tailpipes. Makes a good fertilizer for plants though. ;-)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:What? by Grishnakh · 2010-12-16 05:39 · Score: 1

Actually, if you don't breathe some different air quickly, you'll die from lack of oxygen. There's no oxygen in tailpipe emissions, since it was all consumed inside the engine, and humans need to breathe oxygen to live.

Actually, it was a soda can... by denzacar · 2010-12-16 01:14 · Score: 1

In both versions.

Possibly a beer can... but it was a can.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

It already happened by DavMz · 2010-12-16 01:16 · Score: 1

In Future Boy Conan.

Plastics collection.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:27 · Score: 0

"That plastic water bottle you tossed in the trash could soon be fueling your car instead of sitting in a landfill for 1000 years."

Please explain how they will be doing the trash separation? ?

If they are going to rely on consumer separation, they have failed.

Here is my trash... if you want the recyclable material from it, have fun, dig through it, but *I* am not doing it for you.

This is the problem all these plans suffer from, they expect that Jane Consumer is going to do part of the work to separate them out... WRONG!

Only the treehuggers will, and thats a very MINOR amount of the population.

You want to recycle, great, heres my trash, recycle it all you want.

Re:Plastics collection.... by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 09:09 · Score: 1

So we change the law, and charge $1000 for each recyclable item found in your garbage if the garbage man spots it. To encourage him we will give him 50% of all fines.
Re:Plastics collection.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 21:30 · Score: 0

Good idea.. NOT going to happen in the US.
The current economics of garbage collection is pushing this to semi automated trucks... Many areas are going to a truck that has a driver and thats it... He drives down the roads, a semi automated grabber picks up the bin and dumps it.. Driver never gets out... and if he does your billed.. you get two of these a year, period. Required muni provided bins...another stupid bin to store at the street.
So while that looks good on paper.. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE US.
You and all the other treehuggers need to either get up off your butts and separate the garbage out or accept that garbage comes in, dumped out and is separated by hand if need be... The rest of the US population couldn't give a (*&(*&(*& about recycling not matter what the cost. 99.999999% of US recycling programs are jokes, money wasting resource hogs. Only implemented to look good on paper.
Room for some entrepreneurs to devise a separation system...
QUIT TRYING to CHANGE the HABITS of the CONSUMER and you will prosper. Heres the garbage dig out what you can recycle, burn the rest.

Isn't this all the wrong way round? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:30 · Score: 0

It seems like it would be a stupid move to turn plastic (i.e. 'captured carbon') into polluting CO2, rather than investing in machines to turn CO2 pollution into useful plastic. Am I missing something here or did we not just burn our way through 100 million years worth of forest that we now need to start capturing back again?

Re:Isn't this all the wrong way round? by nedlohs · 2010-12-16 02:21 · Score: 1

CO2 is not the only thing in the world that matters.

sounds rather sketchy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 01:41 · Score: 0

The Curriculum Vitae of the founder John Bordynuik Inc. (JBI) seems a bit flimsy.
Computer nerd turned physical chemist?

their special "catalyst": by unclepedro · 2010-12-16 02:19 · Score: 1

The tears of orphans!

Start Mining Now by buddhapop · 2010-12-16 02:53 · Score: 1

So is the next big thing going to be mining for bottles?

--
Where does the white go when snow melts?

Alas... it is not the same... by denzacar · 2010-12-16 03:10 · Score: 1

Wishing cancer and/or heart disease on someone is more of a long-term situation.

Sure, it may be more "entertaining" in the long run, but it just ain't the same.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Why no just burn it in a power plant by Jeff1946 · 2010-12-16 03:24 · Score: 1

If you are just "recycling" it for a fuel, it should be more efficient to burn it in a power plant.

Con Who? by carrier+lost · 2010-12-16 03:31 · Score: 1

That plastic water bottle you tossed in the trash could soon be fueling your car instead of sitting in a landfill for 1000 years.

I'm still waiting to run my car off turkey guts.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

--
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen

So wrong... by lga · 2010-12-16 04:29 · Score: 1

This is wrong way around. We need plastics far more than we need oil. We can get our energy from other sources, but do we want to return to fabric wrapped wiring and wooden cases for equipment?

--
A latent existence

Re:So wrong... by h4rr4r · 2010-12-16 09:10 · Score: 1

So make plastic out of the oil they make using this process.
Where is the problem?

Smells fishy by plopez · 2010-12-16 05:00 · Score: 1

I looked on their website too. None of it got into details. I wish they would post an energy balance. They say they get 1 litre of oil from 1 kg of plastic. One liter of oil has a mass of .8 kg. An 80% mass conversion rate seems a bit high to me. Though the paper linked below talks about a 3:2 conversion ratio plastic to oil. Or a 1/3 loss in mass, 66% conversion. f it is a revolutionary new pprocess it may work out. However, the paper I am citing speaks of by products such as coke and tar.

On standard barrel oil has a mass of about 138.8 kg. so 1 kg works out to have a value of $0.64, base on *spot* prices. All this makes me a bit dubious. Cold fusion anyone?

reference:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/ArtemGindin.shtml

Mohammad Nahid Siddiqui, Halim Hamid Redhwi, Catalytic coprocessing of waste plastics and petroleum residue into liquid fuel oils, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, Volume 86, Issue 1, September 2009, Pages 141-147, ISSN 0165-2370, DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2009.05.002.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TG7-4WBK76Y-3/2/7e1ad7372e75ec73f303bf7419e119fa)

Abstract:
Waste plastics of different types were catalytically coprocessed with petroleum residue of light Arabian crude oil in the presence of a number of catalysts. The purpose of the study was to explore effects of various conditions such as catalyst type, amount of catalyst, reaction time, pressure and temperature on the product distribution. The waste plastic studied included low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polystyrene (PS) and polypropylene (PP). A series of single (waster plastic with catalyst) and binary (waste plastic and residue with catalyst) reactions were carried out in an autoclave reactor under variable reaction conditions. The reaction conditions used were 1, 3 and 5 wt.% catalysts, 30-120 min reaction time, 400-430 [degree sign]C reaction temperature and 500-1200 psi hydrogen pressure. The product distribution achieved for residue/plastic/catalyst system showed higher yields of liquid fuels as compared to residue/plastic system. Hydrocarbon gases were formed as well along with heavy oils, insoluble gums and coke. At the reaction conditions of 3 wt.% NiMo catalyst, 90 min reaction time, 1200 psi hydrogen gas pressure, 430 [degree sign]C temperature and residue to plastic feed ratio of 3:2 (wt.) afforded maximum conversion of the plastics into liquid fuel oils.

Keywords: Waste plastic recycling; Coprocessing; Catalysis; Zeolites; Hydrocracking; Residue upgrading; Fuel oils

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

Re:Smells fishy by Animats · 2010-12-16 06:02 · Score: 0

They claim to get their process heat from combustion of their own process gases, so it's not a scam like ethanol from corn. Many US ethanol-from-corn plants are fueled by natural gas. They get the subsidy on the ethanol coming out, and aren't required to fuel their process from its own output. Thus, they can make money even if there's a net energy loss.
If the plant is self-powering, though, it's hard for it to be a net energy loss.

Canada by phorm · 2010-12-16 05:46 · Score: 1

Canada does the recycled bottle thing too, doesn't the US?

Often homeless people scrounge the bins etc for recyclables that can be returned for cash. It's not much, but I suppose it adds up after volume.

Old Plastic?? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 06:19 · Score: 0

So this is old, un-recyclable plastic, right?
Because transforming plastic into something that gets used up is...well...retarded.

Plastic is needed for medical equipment, safety devices and other objects that are designed to enhance and prolong our life, it should not get burnt up.
The day that plastic becomes as valuable as gold will be a scary day.

Stupid idea by booch · 2010-12-16 08:07 · Score: 1

Plastic is generally made from oil, and we're still making lots of plastic. So it doesn't make sense to turn some of that plastic back into oil, instead of recycling the plastic into new plastic products. It just wastes energy converting it back and forth.

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Leave it buried. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-16 09:22 · Score: 0

Burying plastic for 1000's of years is the best way to sequester carbon, offsetting to a small extent the carbon added to the atmosphere by burning petroleum.

Penn & Teller (BullSh*t) showed that the country doesn't really have a landfill space issue.

Slashdot Mirror

JBI's Plastic To Oil Gets Operating Permit

223 comments