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

Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

news.utexas.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 294 posts

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#141

Post by toast0 »

williamtwild wrote: post #27
r00fus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the problem with plastic burning the fact that most plastic waste is actually contaminated with food/non-plastics that burn differently?

Yes. I see quite a few three letter accounts advocating for burning plastic. Let them throw some in their fireplace of the chimnea while relaxing with the family and see how that goes.

I recall throwing some plastic bottlecaps in fireplaces during my youth. IIRC, they'd get melty, then the puddle would ignite and burn very hot, until it was spent, and that would be about it. Might have smelled funny, but I can't remember that far back; was less sooty than the wood at least. Of course, water bottle caps aren't likely to have food waste or much of anything else other than the plastic, maybe a smidge of water and some fingeroils from handling. I also didn't have a gas spectrometer or anything, and the fireplace wasn't an industrial furnace with process controls and what not.

On the topic of food waste, my time in the kitchen says most foods will burn just fine. Although, they often leave residues that I could see being problematic when they build up.

As with everything, you'd need specifics to determine the right tradeoffs. It would seem to me there's potential in reducing the transport distance and land use of solid waste, and also reducing extraction, transport, and burning of some fossil fuels, if a burn the trash for electricity program works. But specifics matter, of course.

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#142

Post by derriz »

zackees wrote: post #99
snek_case wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main problem is that the average Joe/Jane confuses all types of pollution as equally bad. The real, most imminent threat is really CO2. That's what we have to spend the most money/energy on, because it could have absolutely catastrophic consequences in the next few decades. Plastic in a landfill is just... Stuck there. It's unnatural, sure, but it's not immensely harmful, not nearly on the same scale as C…

Quoted post unavailable.

This is a striking example of what I've observed in many places which has often made me wonder why the intersection between nuclear advocacy and some form of climate change denialism is so large? The inconsistency is odd: "I passionately believe we should be using nuclear power to solve a problem I don't actually believe is a problem".

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#143

Post by lstodd »

Animats wrote: post #29
northisup wrote: post #16

what are the biproducts?

That's the real question. It doesn't "eliminate" anything. It turns it into - what? Organic sludge? Is that useful for something? Plastic bottle recycling into new plastic pellets works quite well. Southern California has a huge plant doing it. Non-bottle plastic is more of a problem but less of the volume.

Nothing eliminates anything. It's all CxHy + zO2 -> nCO2 + mH2O

There is such thing called second law of thermodynamics.

The only question is into how much stages we can split this process, and how much useful stuff we can extract from each of those.

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#144

Post by lstodd »

ars wrote: post #69
williamtwild wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part is false? There is at least one part of that statement that is absolutely true.

The only part that is true is that burning is the most common method, with recycling being a close third. > which is costly Burning is not costly it is cheaper than all other methods. It's so cheap it's actually profitable. > energy intensive It actually provides extra energy, and reduces energy waste (because now we have to pump less oil.) > and spews noxious gas into the air. It spews nothing except water and CO2.

Yeah, no.

It spews NOx and the whole bunch of undesirable things like dioxines.

You don't get pure PET and oxygen in, and you don't get pure CO2+H2O out.

It's messy to the point that it's debatable if it's better just to bury it.

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#145

Post by boc »

derriz wrote: post #142
zackees wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is a striking example of what I've observed in many places which has often made me wonder why the intersection between nuclear advocacy and some form of climate change denialism is so large? The inconsistency is odd: "I passionately believe we should be using nuclear power to solve a problem I don't actually believe is a problem".

Eh it's probably just a version of "owning the libs". By and large the leftist environmentalists and "tree huggers" are anti-nuclear, so you basically annoy them in two different ways.

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#146

Post by sacrosancty »

notahacker wrote: post #119
xxr wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there enough raw material on earth for landfills to become major environmental problems? (genuinely curious)

Depends what you mean by "major environmental problem". Landfills aren't going to singlehandedly cause anthropogenic climate change, but they contribute significantly to it, and a poorly sealed landfill leaching its contents into the local water table can cause some pretty drastic problems with the local environment

How are they worse than any alternative? If I dump my food waste in the garden, is that emitting less GHG than letting it decompose in a landfill?

Is it that it comes out as methane from landfills but less harmful CO2 from a little pile? That should be solved by flaring the methane.

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#147

Post by hajile »

snek_case wrote: post #62
BurningFrog wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, landfills are not major environmental problems, AFAIK, but they offend the neat freak within all of us. And, as you say, they're pretty good carbon deposits, which is supposed to be The Most Important Thing.

I think the main problem is that the average Joe/Jane confuses all types of pollution as equally bad. The real, most imminent threat is really CO2. That's what we have to spend the most money/energy on, because it could have absolutely catastrophic consequences in the next few decades. Plastic in a landfill is just... Stuck there. It's unnatural, sure, but it's not immensely harmful, not nearly on the same scale as C…

The real threat is the nearly 1 trillion tons of toxic waste we're racking up PER YEAR. It's the most lethal stuff this planet has ever encountered.

If the CO2 levels spike, life on the planet (including many or maybe even most humans) will survive. If you look at historic levels, they were hundreds of times higher and the planet was the greenest it has ever been.

If/when that toxic waste leaks out and starts killing, NOTHING will survive.

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#149

Post by catalyst5a »

hajile wrote: post #147
snek_case wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main problem is that the average Joe/Jane confuses all types of pollution as equally bad. The real, most imminent threat is really CO2. That's what we have to spend the most money/energy on, because it could have absolutely catastrophic consequences in the next few decades. Plastic in a landfill is just... Stuck there. It's unnatural, sure, but it's not immensely harmful, not nearly on the same scale as C…

The real threat is the nearly 1 trillion tons of toxic waste we're racking up PER YEAR. It's the most lethal stuff this planet has ever encountered. If the CO2 levels spike, life on the planet (including many or maybe even most humans) will survive. If you look at historic levels, they were hundreds of times higher and the planet was the greenest it has ever been. If/when that toxic waste leaks out and starts killing…

I haven’t heard this before. What kinds of toxic waste are you talking about?

Re: Plastic-eating enzyme could eliminate billions of tons of landfill waste

#150

Post by fomine3 »

snek_case wrote: post #62
BurningFrog wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, landfills are not major environmental problems, AFAIK, but they offend the neat freak within all of us. And, as you say, they're pretty good carbon deposits, which is supposed to be The Most Important Thing.

I think the main problem is that the average Joe/Jane confuses all types of pollution as equally bad. The real, most imminent threat is really CO2. That's what we have to spend the most money/energy on, because it could have absolutely catastrophic consequences in the next few decades. Plastic in a landfill is just... Stuck there. It's unnatural, sure, but it's not immensely harmful, not nearly on the same scale as C…

"decarbonization" is a bad term. CO2 is the problem.
Post reply on HN