31–40 of 46 posts
Before long we're going to campaign protecting the unique ecosystem that arose on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The Patch is shrinking, we will say, due to ongoing cleaning/mining operations, and its endemic creatures are struggling without their home.
I feel like I see one of these every few years. I remember the Japanese one from a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGGabrorRS8 The article does mention this particular technique tries to get bigger yields and remove the need of sorting that other methods require. If it works as they claim, I could see it working for mining landfills, but when it comes to plastic patches in the ocean, I have trouble seeing…
I feel like I see one of these every few years. I remember the Japanese one from a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGGabrorRS8 The article does mention this particular technique tries to get bigger yields and remove the need of sorting that other methods require. If it works as they claim, I could see it working for mining landfills, but when it comes to plastic patches in the ocean, I have trouble seeing…
There are natural "gyres" in the oceans that collect garbage - see this link for the "Great Pacific garbage patch" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch ). It's about the size of Texas and has a significant amount of plastic in it, although of smaller sizes. That would seem to be a great place to focus these collection and conversion efforts.
> 200,000 pieces per square kilometer in the North Atlantic garbage patch.
> 4 particles per cubic meter in the Great Pacific garbage patch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_garbage_patch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
It's a serious problem, but it's one that requires people to stop using so much plastic; to make sure they re-use plastic; and to make sure that plastics are recycled after use.
Microbeads in cosmetics and microfibres from clothing are a huge problem.
No mention of the carbon footprint of this thing.
All carbon that comes from fossil sources should be avoided. This is only a good idea if it prevents further extraction of oil or coal. Otherwise we will just be adding more extra carbon to the carbon cycle, by dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
In fact, having the carbon stored in the garbage patch is better for the environment (and the organisms that depend on a stable environment) than burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere.
The money would be going to getting rid of it...not pork projects or paying for $400,000 pensions for civil servants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are natural "gyres" in the oceans that collect garbage - see this link for the "Great Pacific garbage patch" ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch ). It's about the size of Texas and has a significant amount of plastic in it, although of smaller sizes. That would seem to be a great place to focus these collection and conversion efforts.
Except even in those places the density of plastic is very low. > 200,000 pieces per square kilometer in the North Atlantic garbage patch. > 4 particles per cubic meter in the Great Pacific garbage patch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_garbage_patch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch It's a serious problem, but it's one that requires people to stop using so much plastic; to make s…
So much this and I don't know that we really have an answer to fix this. This micro things are toxic to the entire aquatic ecosystem.
Even better is to simply recycle for use in some other application. The cost of plastic monomers is typically higher than fuel.
The holy grail will be to get monomers back to generate pristine polymer back!
If there was a way to really do it, I would not mind a x% tax on items that use plastic. Plastics make our life easier, much easier, so we can afford to pa x% more to safely recycle it. The money would be going to getting rid of it...not pork projects or paying for $400,000 pensions for civil servants.
Container deposits such as bottles and cans have proven to be effective. It's worth exploring whether expanding the concept to cover materials in general would yield similar benefits. It wouldn't have to cost consumers anything more and it provides an incentive for the consumer to take on more responsibility for material and environmental stewardship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have trouble seeing a ship being able to recover enough plastic to be greater than its fuel use skimming through it. I don't think this would be the idea. I think by making it worth money to recycle the plastic it doesn't get into the oceans. It's certainly not worthwhile trying to getting the existing plastic out of the oceans, this has been well covered by engineers.
You don't even have to recycle it. Burning it for heat energy is enough. Most plastic only produces water and co2 when burned...
So, technically, it is 'most', but chances are fairly good a random selection of garbage plastic contains chloride, too, and that can be nasty.