Plastic from thin air
-
This could change everything, even if the inventor is doing it for the $$$ only.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/company-unlocks-secret-to-making-plastic-out-of-air/
-
Trouble is, the $$$$ mean we don't get an independent analysis - it IS promising, but I never quite trust these sensationalist reports. I'd want to know...
-
1.8tn pound emissions from "the plastics industry". Is that just to refine raw plastics, or does it include manufacturing too (which would not be saved by this process). He's gonna want to make that number look as big as possible, after all.
-
There are 1000s of types of plastic. What proportion of that can be replaced by the miracle substance? What chance that the process is adaptable to other materials?(especially if the process is kept secret).
-
"Carbon emissions are captured from..." - that isn't quite "thin air" then is it?!
-
Is it biodegradable? recyclable? carcinogenic? mutagenic? Best scenario - it's unharmful and biodegradable, in which case the CO2 will be re-released as it breaks down, so only carbon-neutral. Otherwise, it's still a pollutant.
-
How much energy does the process require? Where does it come from?
-
What are the other raw materials used? And what waste products are there?
-
How does the "harvested" CO2 get to the plastics plant? Some clever new means that requires no energy? What happens to all the stuff that isn't CO2?
-
-
@solo said:
:shock:
This could change everything, even if the inventor is doing it for the $$$ only.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/company-unlocks-secret-to-making-plastic-out-of-air/
Solo
Not sure "even if the inventor is doing it for the $$$ only", why you imply this would be bad. Have you started to do Sketchup for free for the good of your clients. If so, I have a lot of stuff you could be doing for me.
Trogluddite post hits the nail on the head.
Ken
-
Reading a little more into the report, it seems that it is methane rather than CO2 that the enzymes convert to plastic. Now that I think about it, that makes sense, as methane would be a much more viable monomer for turning into plastics.
On the face of it, that's quite good. Volume for volume, methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 - e.g. cattle farts from intensive beef production are a seriously big contributor to climate change, as I understand it.
However, methane has a lot of potential as a relatively clean energy source, certainly compared to the likes of oil and coal. You would still output CO2 from the combustion, but at least you are turning a very bad greenhouse gas into a slightly less damaging one, and without the problems associated with particulates, acid-rain, oil spills and preventable accidents/illness caused by coal-mining.
So in that sense, this could be a case of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' - the energy from the methane could probably be put to better use to power a recycling plant for existing plastic than to make more of the stuff.
-
@unknownuser said:
@solo said:
Solo
Not sure "even if the inventor is doing it for the $$$ only", why you imply this would be bad. Have you started to do Sketchup for free for the good of your clients. If so, I have a lot of stuff you could be doing for me.
Ken
Many times actually, for friends and people in need, actually doing one at the moment for a guy who needs to get visuals out for a patent who cannot afford my services yet, maybe in future and if all goes well he will.
Client: a recipient of goods or services in return for monetary or other valuable considerations
-
But, if it is indeed a good environmental and efficient recycling of materials-- making money from it is the key to success of the technology, unlike some great systems we already have but which pay back poorly and are slow for adoption.
-
It should NOT require a profit-motive for the human race to protect its own life-support systems! Does any of us have to be paid to cross the road carefully? 'Incentivised' not to eat rotten food?
If it requires a profit-motive before we will take care of the planet that supports us, then bending over backwards to create such incentives is not the answer - we need to fix our societies so that the sociopaths who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing do not get to call all the shots!
-
@trogluddite said:
It should NOT require a profit-motive for the human race to protect its own life-support systems! Does any of us have to be paid to cross the road carefully? 'Incentivised' not to eat rotten food?
If it requires a profit-motive before we will take care of the planet that supports us, then bending over backwards to create such incentives is not the answer - we need to fix our societies so that the sociopaths who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing do not get to call all the shots!
I see were you are coming from but this guy has been working for 11 years on the project. He probably has built up a huge overdraft developing the process. I imagine he would be happy to share the patent if he was properly reimbursed and secured business / employment also allowed to continue with further development.
-
I agree with you, Mike - even if the process is only some small part as beneficial as he claims, he and his investors deserve some reward for their innovation. And I bear him no malice for a bit of exaggeration and hyperbole - he has to do his work within the same economic constraints as any other business.
Institutions like investment via stocks, limited liability companies etc. were set up to provide a framework for encouraging risky ventures just like these - I think that where things have gone wrong is that they have become an end in themselves rather than the means.
An individual or business wishing to see themselves and their families provided for as return on their investment I have no problem with. But for humanity as a whole not to secure its future viability because there's "no money in it" is a different matter - we have to find a way to make these things happen when the exchange economy cannot provide the solution.
-
Then it will take taxes. You don't get something for nothing. I just think it is good for people to get paid for their work, best if it can be done without bake sales and more taxes. I agree the choices we make should not have to be "incentivized". I think a workable economic solution will spread more quickly, since it will not depend on governments to move forward and do more good.
Regulation, Carbon tax, cap and trade are ways to do as you say and make us pay as we go for pollution and consumption, because apparently the market can't achieve that. I am not against that either. Again it takes governments to do it. Some like Europe will do it more than others.
Advertisement