Live data from Hacker News

Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

blest.co.jp

271–280 of 288 posts

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#271

I have a better idea: reduce plastic consumption. I know, I know, totally OC donut steel.

I'm all for it. How do we as consumers do that in a practical way?

It's all about small decisions. I'll list some examples but keep in mind that they're just examples.

* Prefer markets that overall use less plastic, even if this might bring you a small inconvenience. For example if market A sells groceries in bulk (bring your own bag) and market B sells the same groceries in styrofoam trays, then you buy it in market A, even if it's a bit further from your home.

* Actively refuse unnecessary plastic. For example, where I live bakeries often put bread inside paper bags, and the paper bags inside plastic bags; so I usually tell the workers there "no need for the plastic bag". I'm still creating some garbage (the paper bag) but it's way less than I would otherwise.

* Homemade alternatives for store-bought products. It doesn't even need to be the same product, as long as it fills the same role for you - like homemade fruit juice versus soda, homemade tomato sauce, or buying Parmesan in chunks and grating it instead of buing it pre-grated in small packages. You'll need to take your tastes into account, but some replacements might be even cheaper or better than what you're replacing.

* Reusing containers so you need to buy less tupperwares. Like ice cream pots, soda bottles, even margarine pots. Where I live there are even jokes about how ice cream pots never contain ice cream, but cooked beans.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#272
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still not as bad as kwh/hr. That one is showing up on some car UIs now.

Why can’t we just use the right unit for energy - Joule? A battery capacity should be stated in MJ / GJ.

I hear this occasionally, but what are the benefits relative to kwh?

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#273
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea how this thing works but why wouldn't it destroy all "dyes"? It breaks every other bond, why not dye bonds? I'm also curious that the liquid is clear, though, because you'd think this thing creates a soup of organic chemicals each with different color responses.

> No idea how this thing works I just have a suspicion that this thing doesn't work , and the claims on the website aren't real...

Well this machine has been around for a decade or so I think

Here is some organization in Alaska demonstrating the operation but like I said in my other comment in this thread, the tabletop unit is more of a demonstrator model that is meant for educational purposes and their goal is to upsell on the industrial units.

[1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhvogn49riI

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#274
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ha, woops. I was just assuming Gold had higher atomic number. But I don't know, maybe a convenient positron emission decay path.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also old diesel engines are bad for air quality and efficiency

There's an argument to be made here for refurbing the best of the container ship engines after the ship hulls reach end of life. The higher end engines are three storey high multistaged diesel engines with filters, scrubbers and some of the highest bunker oil -> power efficiencies on the planet. They're ideal for generating baseload power and worth the rejuvenation effort.

Most (80% was the number I saw) large bunker-oil engines with scrubbers installed simply dump the removed sulphides into the sea as wastewater instead of venting it into the atmosphere. Not to mention the colossal amounts of carbon-related pollutants.

Solvable problems via a retrofit to be sure, but overall I'd rather than the HFO's are simply not burned at all.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#276
post #265
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are still usages where it can be useful like planes and ships. And some small portion of cars. Right?

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#277

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…

>I'm a PhD chemist.

This sort of "chrust me, I have kwalifikashuns" is rather fitting the overall poor quality of your comment.

There are a thousand things wrong with this application. Viability of the process is NOT one of them, as already attested in the literature. Refer for example to

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016523701...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09213...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31917892/

The reaction boils down to R'-CH₂-CH₂-R" → R'-CH=CH₂ + H-R". It's practically the reversal of the polymerisation that created the plastic on first place. It's specially obvious by the third paper that I've listed as example, since they're generating butadiene and olefins from polyethylene.

It is by no means on the same level as "selling you a way to change Iron into Gold".

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

General purpose polymers like polyethylene and polypropylene do not usually have double bonds. Specially not in the main chain (that you need to cleave to get smaller molecules). You'll only get double bonds in the main chain if your monomers had a triple bond in its place, as one of the bonds is broken in the polymerisation. Most monomers however start with a double bond and the resulting polymers have single bonds. Here, let me show it to you:

(...) + R'=R" + R'=R" + (...) → (...) + [·R'-R"·] + [·R'-R"·] + (...) → (...)-R'-R"-R'-R"-(...)

This is common knowledge among chemists.

>That is why, when you heat plastic it decomposes into char -- as in charcoal.

Yeah, because the hydrogens magically disappear. The presence of nearby oxidants (specially one that you, QuackOfAllTrades, should stop consuming, for a better humankind) is totally unrelated.

_____________________

For actual criticism of the application:

You'll get nasty junk oil as output. That oil will have ONE purpose: to be burned down. If you're burning down the oil might as well burn the plastic directly.

This could be solved by fractional distillation... yeah good luck doing it at home.

What happens if some clueless individual tries to recycle PAN? Or even PVC, given how nasty organochlorines are. So there is both health and environmental concerns.

What's the catalyst being used? Plenty catalysts are environmentally nasty.

1KWh/kg is a lot of energy, and it will have an environmental footprint.

It is not trying to sell you a magical device that transforms iron into gold. Instead it is trying to sell you a device that converts good iron into crappy iron, and marketing the crappy iron as if it was more useful than it is.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#278

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 complet…

> I don't dispute that additional hydrogen is necessary to crack the polymers into shorter ones

polyethelelene -> cycloalkanes doesn't require any additional hydrogen.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#279
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea how this thing works but why wouldn't it destroy all "dyes"? It breaks every other bond, why not dye bonds? I'm also curious that the liquid is clear, though, because you'd think this thing creates a soup of organic chemicals each with different color responses.

> No idea how this thing works I just have a suspicion that this thing doesn't work , and the claims on the website aren't real...

Breaking polymers down is a thing though. Not my area of expertise, but they try to make feedstock organic or of it. Lots of research to make it cheap and better control off the outputs.

But I wouldn't expect a crystal clear liquid output. Again, not my area.

Re: Plastic to Oil – Produces 80% Oil

#280

Great, another reason I'm pissed off about plastic recycling! I've been collecting my plastic for as long as I can remember and recycling it, then they tell us only about 12% has EVER been recycled. Now we can break it down to get the oil back! A$$holes!

Be careful where you get stats like that. If the stat says that "12% of plastic (ever produced globally) is recycled" that doesn't mean your local recycling program is terrible. I just got a notice from my trash company that only 10% of their collected material is contaminated / not recyclable.

The problem with plastics (polymers, really) is that if even 1% off collected polymer of type A (say PE) is off type B (say ABS), then their melt wont mix.

If the mix doesn't melt you get spinal decomposition, as microstructure that looks like lamella. It is very weak compared to plastic A or B. Therefore you cannot simply melt plastic back together unless you have an almost 100% pure feedstock.

But melting things together is the easiest and cost effective way to recycle anything really. Metals aren't as finicky and they are relatively easy ways to separate them in a dumb fashion (big old electromagnet).

With plastics you can just break down and make (relatively bad) feedstock or burn it for energy (actually a good solution).

Burning plastic, however, has the risk of burning chlorinated or fluoridated plastic and that really sucks.

Polymers are amazing, but they also suck.

Post reply on HN