Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

blest.co.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 288 posts

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#261

Post by userbinator »

hinkley wrote: post #232
userbinator wrote: post #22

More information here: https://blest.co.jp/eng/faq/ This seems to be intended for PP/PE which is basically a long-chain hydrocarbon anyway, but does make up the bulk of plastic use. It seems to be a very stereotypically Japanese product.

The current wisdom is that PP is one of the least problematic plastics wrt to leachate contaminating the contents. HDPE is also fairly well regarded. In theory LDPE is also considered 'food safe' but if you can smell the plasticizers evaporating off of LDPE (which I absolutely can) then what's it doing to your food? I read something about PE in the environment recently but I can't recall if it said it was the hardest…

but if you can smell the plasticizers evaporating off of LDPE

It's more likely you're smelling unpolymerised ethylene. LDPE itself doesn't require plasticisers --- it's already extremely flexible without them.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#262

Post by trompetenaccoun »

outworlder wrote: post #259
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite simple: Gather a sufficient amount of iron (4 million times earth's mass will probably do). Bring it all in one place, it will naturally compact. Wait for the resulting supernova - you do want to keep your distance for this step. Lastly collect gold and other heavy elements.

Yeah. It's even better since you are starting with iron, don't have to wait billions of years for everything to burn first.

Exactly right. And to think there are still simpletons who dig in the ground for gold like neolithic primitives. Of course the doubters don't want us to know about this simple trick for turning iron into gold.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#264

Post by didericis »

outworlder wrote: post #240
didericis wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://youtu.be/Zmtc22uPLd4 I’m not a chemist/someone else can offer a more detailed explanation (just love the excuse to post that song), but with most of these kinds of things the energy and advanced equipment required to go in a theoretically plausible direction for a minuscule amount of yield is usually absurd. Including turning iron into gold. (I think it might theoretically be possible to do that at this point…

Turning iron to gold is not possible as a chemical reaction. They are elements. You need a nuclear reaction.

I have a vague memory of someone or some article saying there’s a way to get from lead to gold if you really wanted to with some combination of available nuclear tech, but it’d be completely absurd/ludicrously expensive (I think the context was somebody humoring what would be needed for atomic level assembly/star trek replicator stuff). I assume the same would apply to iron.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#265

Post by chii »

cal85 wrote: post #205
HackOfAllTrades wrote: post #201

Why do people keep falling for this? This same fraud used to pop up only every 10 years. Now it's 5 or less. I'm a PhD chemist. Please consider this: While plastics and oil are both hydrocarbons they have this important difference. Liquid hydrocarbons have short carbon chains and lots of hydrogen. Plastics have very LONG carbon chains, usually with many double bonds, and very little hydrogen. That is why, when you he…

Interesting, thanks. As someone with little understanding of chemistry, can you clarify why "adding a source of hydrogen" is not possible/practical?

Free elemental hydrogen isn't common. Most are stuck as water, or inside hydrocarbons in the first place (see natural gas), and using those sources basically defeats the purpose.

So therefore, it would take more energy to free that hydrogen from water than the recovered output would give you - which is fine, as oil is a dense storage of energy, and current technology is geared towards using it. However, it makes more sense to directly utilize the electricity that is expended freeing hydrogen in the first place.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#266

Post by [deleted] »

cal85 wrote: post #205
HackOfAllTrades wrote: post #201

Why do people keep falling for this? This same fraud used to pop up only every 10 years. Now it's 5 or less. I'm a PhD chemist. Please consider this: While plastics and oil are both hydrocarbons they have this important difference. Liquid hydrocarbons have short carbon chains and lots of hydrogen. Plastics have very LONG carbon chains, usually with many double bonds, and very little hydrogen. That is why, when you he…

Interesting, thanks. As someone with little understanding of chemistry, can you clarify why "adding a source of hydrogen" is not possible/practical?

[deleted]

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#267

Post by andrewflnr »

didericis wrote: post #264
outworlder wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turning iron to gold is not possible as a chemical reaction. They are elements. You need a nuclear reaction.

I have a vague memory of someone or some article saying there’s a way to get from lead to gold if you really wanted to with some combination of available nuclear tech, but it’d be completely absurd/ludicrously expensive (I think the context was somebody humoring what would be needed for atomic level assembly/star trek replicator stuff). I assume the same would apply to iron.

Yeah, but even worse. You need to add a lot of nucleons to iron just to get to (impure, radioactive) lead, and then from there to gold.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#268

Post by userbinator »

HackOfAllTrades wrote: post #201

Why do people keep falling for this? This same fraud used to pop up only every 10 years. Now it's 5 or less. I'm a PhD chemist. Please consider this: While plastics and oil are both hydrocarbons they have this important difference. Liquid hydrocarbons have short carbon chains and lots of hydrogen. Plastics have very LONG carbon chains, usually with many double bonds, and very little hydrogen. That is why, when you he…

Plastics have very LONG carbon chains, usually with many double bonds, and very little hydrogen.

Which plastics? The most common ones, polyethylene and polypropylene, which this method is designed to process, are entirely hydrogen and carbon, with no double bonds. I don't dispute that additional hydrogen is necessary to crack the polymers into shorter ones, but your description of plastics does not seem to be completely correct.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#269

Post by cowpig »

andrewflnr wrote: post #267
didericis wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a vague memory of someone or some article saying there’s a way to get from lead to gold if you really wanted to with some combination of available nuclear tech, but it’d be completely absurd/ludicrously expensive (I think the context was somebody humoring what would be needed for atomic level assembly/star trek replicator stuff). I assume the same would apply to iron.

Yeah, but even worse. You need to add a lot of nucleons to iron just to get to (impure, radioactive) lead, and then from there to gold.

Iron (26) -> Lead (82) -> Gold (79)

How does that work?

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#270

Post by userbinator »

FearlessNebula wrote: post #27
whoomp12342 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In china, its common to cook with "gutter oil" which is sewage, filtered and refined. Humans are amazing.

How do people ever consume that without immediately getting sick?

Because it's refined oil.
Post reply on HN