|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 11, 2017 8:16:17 GMT
I was going to open a new thread as a Myth, but, decided I needed to run it past the lot of us, in order to sort out truth from fiction.
Waste plastic.
If its burnt, it produces "Toxic" gasses.
How toxic, and could a catalytic converter deal with it?.
I ask, as I am wondering, Plastics come from the petrol-chemical industry, yes?.
So therefore, they are e heavy oil product?.
Correct me as we go along here, we need clarification.
So why can not plastics be incinerated if you had the right exhaust filters on the incinerator?.
I know it cant be as simple as just sticking a catalytic converter from a car exhaust up the chimney on a standard home fire to deal with the problem of waste plastic, but, what if it was?.
Instead of consigning huge amounts of very slow degrading plastic problems to landfill, why not a home incinerator, and convert the cr@p to heat, and maybe a few bits of residue, that take up a LOT less space in landfill?.
If you have ideas, let me know.
Final intent, send out a fleet of fishing vessels to catch all the waste plastic in the ocean, and harvest the fuel with intent of converting it to energy and cleaning up the oceans as we go.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Dec 11, 2017 14:13:14 GMT
Very possible and already being done. At a previous job, Part of it was around setting up a classified production system for the Department of Energy. Part of setting this system up was figuring our how to dispose of our garbage that contains classified garbage. One of the methods that we looked into was taking our waste to a incinerator. I got to tour a couple sites as part of our evaluation process. These incinerators would take a mix of various wastes and burn it at very high temperatures. The high temps would reduce the complex pollutions to more traditional waste gasses that would go though a series of scrubbers to remove the remainder of the pollution. These facilities had a lot of requirements from both state and federal environmental control agencies and were quite proud that they met or exceeded all pollution control standards. Another option is thermal depolymerization. This process will take about any carbon rich materiel (plastics, used tires, animal carcasses, etc), and a lot of water and process it. The result of he processing is steam, oil, diesel fuel, and natural gas(that is used to fire the process). The only pollutant generated is the CO2 from burning the natural gas to heat the system. The problem here is that the cost of building and running these system. When oil prices are high, these systems are popular and cam make oil for cheaper than market value. However, when oil is lower cost, the system run a loss cost wise. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerizationNote both of these are large industrial setups, not at-home applications. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2017 16:13:01 GMT
what I have found from dealing with free-burning waste plastics is that they release a lot of particulate carbon. I am curious about the idea of marine skimmers for waste plastics. it seems like so much of a no-brainer, that there must be challenges.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 12, 2017 7:07:45 GMT
'Scuse my eyes, screen wipe please...
I read that mistakenly as used Trees...... I thought you were demolishing the Squirrels home?..
Running at a loss, yeah, its ok, I am back on sensible ground now.
But running at a loss... so what they produce is slightly more expensive than normal oil.
What about when you factor in the disposal of the waste products into Landfill?.
There is a cost per ton of that, and then the cost per year of renting the land, then the cost per decade of keeping an eye on that as well to vent off waste gasses etc, and then the environmental damage that all that cases as well.?.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 12, 2017 7:09:47 GMT
what I have found from dealing with free-burning waste plastics is that they release a lot of particulate carbon. I am curious about the idea of marine skimmers for waste plastics. it seems like so much of a no-brainer, that there must be challenges. The cost of diesel used to power a ship, what you get back, in possible fuel from the waste, is less than you burn recovering it. However... if I may suggest, has anyone tried a solar powered ship yet?. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 12, 2017 15:28:35 GMT
what I have found from dealing with free-burning waste plastics is that they release a lot of particulate carbon. I am curious about the idea of marine skimmers for waste plastics. it seems like so much of a no-brainer, that there must be challenges. The cost of diesel used to power a ship, what you get back, in possible fuel from the waste, is less than you burn recovering it. However... if I may suggest, has anyone tried a solar powered ship yet?. oh, yeah, the "how much money can I make doing this" challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 9, 2018 12:52:33 GMT
The cost of diesel used to power a ship, what you get back, in possible fuel from the waste, is less than you burn recovering it. However... if I may suggest, has anyone tried a solar powered ship yet?. oh, yeah, the "how much money can I make doing this" challenge. Large ship-diesels are in the MW range. Direct sunlight (noon, middle of summer, near equator) gives you 1kW/m² OR LESS! The global average is just 300kW/m². The theoretical maximum efficiency of a solar panel is 50%. The real efficiency is 5..10% for cheap panels, 20% for really good and highly expensive panels and around 30..40% when money is no problem and the power is desperately needed. Let's say we need 1MW 24/7 for a container ship. A normal solar panel perfectly directed at the sun can receive at least 100W/m² in average over the day if the weather is not too bad for too long. With realistic efficiency you get 20W/m² in electric power at best. So 1MW @ 20W/m² you get a surface area of 50,000m². Since a container ship is around 270m long, the panel is almost as wide and long as the ship itself is in lenght. And you need to align it to the sun which requires a huge construction. The ship won't fit into any harbor or through any canal. Also batteries not included, they would ban most of the payload of the ship. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 9, 2018 13:02:00 GMT
I was going to open a new thread as a Myth, but, decided I needed to run it past the lot of us, in order to sort out truth from fiction. Waste plastic. If its burnt, it produces "Toxic" gasses. How toxic, and could a catalytic converter deal with it?. I ask, as I am wondering, Plastics come from the petrol-chemical industry, yes?. So therefore, they are e heavy oil product?. Correct me as we go along here, we need clarification. So why can not plastics be incinerated if you had the right exhaust filters on the incinerator?. I know it cant be as simple as just sticking a catalytic converter from a car exhaust up the chimney on a standard home fire to deal with the problem of waste plastic, but, what if it was?. Instead of consigning huge amounts of very slow degrading plastic problems to landfill, why not a home incinerator, and convert the cr@p to heat, and maybe a few bits of residue, that take up a LOT less space in landfill?. If you have ideas, let me know. Final intent, send out a fleet of fishing vessels to catch all the waste plastic in the ocean, and harvest the fuel with intent of converting it to energy and cleaning up the oceans as we go. The problem is that all you get is heat. Converting that to power is not that efficient. All you get is a conventional power plant which runs on plastic than on coal. Coal is very compact energy and usually mined near the plants while plastic is very light and bulky and needs to be collected from all over the country. SO you need a lot of energy for transportation. So coal is much more efficient in its carbon footprint. What makes sense is to recycle plastic so you don't need so much of the oil to make fresh plastic. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 9, 2018 16:17:41 GMT
I was going to open a new thread as a Myth, but, decided I needed to run it past the lot of us, in order to sort out truth from fiction. Waste plastic. If its burnt, it produces "Toxic" gasses. How toxic, and could a catalytic converter deal with it?. I ask, as I am wondering, Plastics come from the petrol-chemical industry, yes?. So therefore, they are e heavy oil product?. Correct me as we go along here, we need clarification. So why can not plastics be incinerated if you had the right exhaust filters on the incinerator?. I know it cant be as simple as just sticking a catalytic converter from a car exhaust up the chimney on a standard home fire to deal with the problem of waste plastic, but, what if it was?. Instead of consigning huge amounts of very slow degrading plastic problems to landfill, why not a home incinerator, and convert the cr@p to heat, and maybe a few bits of residue, that take up a LOT less space in landfill?. If you have ideas, let me know. Final intent, send out a fleet of fishing vessels to catch all the waste plastic in the ocean, and harvest the fuel with intent of converting it to energy and cleaning up the oceans as we go. The problem is that all you get is heat. Converting that to power is not that efficient. All you get is a conventional power plant which runs on plastic than on coal. Coal is very compact energy and usually mined near the plants while plastic is very light and bulky and needs to be collected from all over the country. SO you need a lot of energy for transportation. So coal is much more efficient in its carbon footprint. What makes sense is to recycle plastic so you don't need so much of the oil to make fresh plastic. if it made sense, our recyclers wouldn't be rejecting all but a little bit of plastic. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 9, 2018 17:26:58 GMT
The problem is that all you get is heat. Converting that to power is not that efficient. All you get is a conventional power plant which runs on plastic than on coal. Coal is very compact energy and usually mined near the plants while plastic is very light and bulky and needs to be collected from all over the country. SO you need a lot of energy for transportation. So coal is much more efficient in its carbon footprint. What makes sense is to recycle plastic so you don't need so much of the oil to make fresh plastic. if it made sense, our recyclers wouldn't be rejecting all but a little bit of plastic. The problem with plastic recycling is that it is a random mix of various kinds. We can not make a pure kind of plastic from economic recycling methods. What we currently can do is making "low quality" plastic by recycling. They now use it for construction, garden chairs, watering cans, garbage bins and other simple, chunky stuff. Recycled plastic can't be used for food, any application that requires special properties or is transparent. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 10, 2018 2:18:24 GMT
if it made sense, our recyclers wouldn't be rejecting all but a little bit of plastic. The problem with plastic recycling is that it is a random mix of various kinds. We can not make a pure kind of plastic from economic recycling methods. What we currently can do is making "low quality" plastic by recycling. They now use it for construction, garden chairs, watering cans, garbage bins and other simple, chunky stuff. Recycled plastic can't be used for food, any application that requires special properties or is transparent. and the problem with that is there isn't currently enough market for that kind of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 11, 2018 7:01:01 GMT
The problem with plastic recycling is that it is a random mix of various kinds. We can not make a pure kind of plastic from economic recycling methods. What we currently can do is making "low quality" plastic by recycling. They now use it for construction, garden chairs, watering cans, garbage bins and other simple, chunky stuff. Recycled plastic can't be used for food, any application that requires special properties or is transparent. and the problem with that is there isn't currently enough market for that kind of stuff. Perhaps make legislation and tax breaks to make use of that stuff attractive?. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2018 13:36:47 GMT
and the problem with that is there isn't currently enough market for that kind of stuff. Perhaps make legislation and tax breaks to make use of that stuff attractive?. so, give you 1% off your taxes if you buy a thing you have no need for that will just clutter up your garden shed? |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 11, 2018 20:19:18 GMT
Perhaps make legislation and tax breaks to make use of that stuff attractive?. so, give you 1% off your taxes if you buy a thing you have no need for that will just clutter up your garden shed? Perfect! So the stuff isn't sitting in a landfill, it is sitting in your backyard instead. And then someone inherits it which makes it a SEP! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2018 23:06:56 GMT
so, give you 1% off your taxes if you buy a thing you have no need for that will just clutter up your garden shed? Perfect! So the stuff isn't sitting in a landfill, it is sitting in your backyard instead. And then someone inherits it which makes it a SEP! problem is it seems to always end up MY problem. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2018 23:38:04 GMT
the idea I have come up with is to shred it all up, and come up with a good way to bond it together - maybe a low temperature plastic could be sorted out and melted to make a bonding agent. then mold it into inserts that can be incorporated into paving for crosswalk markings and such. you could probably make patio pavers out of it, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Mar 11, 2018 23:58:34 GMT
the idea I have come up with is to shred it all up, and come up with a good way to bond it together - maybe a low temperature plastic could be sorted out and melted to make a bonding agent. then mold it into inserts that can be incorporated into paving for crosswalk markings and such. you could probably make patio pavers out of it, too. The problem is that different properties of the plastic pieces. What is done is sorting plastic electronically and/or by density. This allows to make sure the mix has enough plastic kinds that melt inside. Then everything is heated and pressed. They do make crude (sound protection) walls for highways, mix plastic with concrete to support roadtops and use it for other construction purposes. In theory, you can crack the molecular bounds and then make anything you want with the chemical elements. The trouble is that it is so hard to do and consumes so much energy (and time) that the result is highly expensive. As long as crude oil is cheap, recycling won't be economic at all. And when the oil is gone, it is still easier to make plastic from plant materials. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 12, 2018 0:21:47 GMT
the idea I have come up with is to shred it all up, and come up with a good way to bond it together - maybe a low temperature plastic could be sorted out and melted to make a bonding agent. then mold it into inserts that can be incorporated into paving for crosswalk markings and such. you could probably make patio pavers out of it, too. The problem is that different properties of the plastic pieces. What is done is sorting plastic electronically and/or by density. This allows to make sure the mix has enough plastic kinds that melt inside. Then everything is heated and pressed. They do make crude (sound protection) walls for highways, mix plastic with concrete to support roadtops and use it for other construction purposes. In theory, you can crack the molecular bounds and then make anything you want with the chemical elements. The trouble is that it is so hard to do and consumes so much energy (and time) that the result is highly expensive. As long as crude oil is cheap, recycling won't be economic at all. And when the oil is gone, it is still easier to make plastic from plant materials. now that you mention concrete, they could use it in "cultured stone" too. (cultured stone is a concrete composite, often with lightweight filler, with an exterior surface mimicking stone) |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 12, 2018 2:07:37 GMT
First order of business to solving this problem:
We need to stop these bleeding heart environmentalists from making this about dolphins getting their noses stuck in six-pack rings and all that. If it doesn't affect our daily lives, the majority of people just don't care!
What we need to focus on if we're going to change anything is that plastic waste in our oceans is a serious health hazard to humans. Whether or not the Hawaiian monk seal survives into the next century may not be of any consequence to me, but some of my best friends are humans and I care about them.
Second order of business (and I'll probably be labeled a commie for this) is to take this problem so seriously that we get governments involved in sponsoring non-profits that can and will solve it. If we leave this purely up to people who won't do it unless there's a buck to be made from it, it'll never get done. If we can't rally around saving our own species unless we can make money on it, then we honestly don't deserve to survive.
The current model of capitalism created this problem, so relying on it to solve it is just silly. It's like pouring water on something to make it dry faster. We need a new way of thinking.
Capitalism works to a certain extent and is perfectly natural. "I have something you want and you have something I want, so let's trade" will never go out of style because it allows us to specialize and exchange expertise, meaning the carpenter doesn't also have to be an amateur farmer in order to put food on his table and the farmer doesn't have to be an amateur carpenter in order to have a house to live in. That makes sense.
What's beginning to make a lot less sense as we graduate towards an ever more globalized society is the way we ascribe value to goods and services. We're still only thinking in terms of "what value does this have to me?" If we're going to not only survive, but move forward as a species, we need to start thinking more in terms of "what value does this have to us?" We're no longer at a point where affecting a few dozen or hundred or even a couple of thousand people in the general vicinity is the largest possible consequence of what we do. What's done in India or Venezuela or Canada can now have consequences for every person on the entire planet.
That being the reality of our situation, going "which country is picking up the tab on this one?" simply isn't good enough any more! Just like one city can't solve a nation-wide problem, one nation can't solve a global problem. We're ALL contributing to these problems and one way or another, we're ALL paying for them!
Question is, do we come together as a species and see the value in helping each other pay for the solutions, or do we keep only seeing the value in doing what's best for ourselves and simply pay for the consequences...?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 12, 2018 3:09:00 GMT
First order of business to solving this problem: We need to stop these bleeding heart environmentalists from making this about dolphins getting their noses stuck in six-pack rings and all that. If it doesn't affect our daily lives, the majority of people just don't care! What we need to focus on if we're going to change anything is that plastic waste in our oceans is a serious health hazard to humans. Whether or not the Hawaiian monk seal survives into the next century may not be of any consequence to me, but some of my best friends are humans and I care about them. Second order of business (and I'll probably be labeled a commie for this) is to take this problem so seriously that we get governments involved in sponsoring non-profits that can and will solve it. If we leave this purely up to people who won't do it unless there's a buck to be made from it, it'll never get done. If we can't rally around saving our own species unless we can make money on it, then we honestly don't deserve to survive. The current model of capitalism created this problem, so relying on it to solve it is just silly. It's like pouring water on something to make it dry faster. We need a new way of thinking. Capitalism works to a certain extent and is perfectly natural. "I have something you want and you have something I want, so let's trade" will never go out of style because it allows us to specialize and exchange expertise, meaning the carpenter doesn't also have to be an amateur farmer in order to put food on his table and the farmer doesn't have to be an amateur carpenter in order to have a house to live in. That makes sense. What's beginning to make a lot less sense as we graduate towards an ever more globalized society is the way we ascribe value to goods and services. We're still only thinking in terms of "what value does this have to me?" If we're going to not only survive, but move forward as a species, we need to start thinking more in terms of "what value does this have to us?" We're no longer at a point where affecting a few dozen or hundred or even a couple of thousand people in the general vicinity is the largest possible consequence of what we do. What's done in India or Venezuela or Canada can now have consequences for every person on the entire planet. That being the reality of our situation, going "which country is picking up the tab on this one?" simply isn't good enough any more! Just like one city can't solve a nation-wide problem, one nation can't solve a global problem. We're ALL contributing to these problems and one way or another, we're ALL paying for them! Question is, do we come together as a species and see the value in helping each other pay for the solutions, or do we keep only seeing the value in doing what's best for ourselves and simply pay for the consequences...? I think the final answer will be "we're going to continue being selfish (profanity)s and keep dumping our litter in someone else's back yard, until someone forces us to stop and then we're going to whine and scream about how unfair it is we have to clean up our own mess. |
|
