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

181–190 of 294 posts

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

#181

Post by mrpopo »

flaviut wrote: post #85
wyager wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would infinitely rather have a bit more gaseous carbon than a 10,000 year source of endocrine disruptor microplastics leaching into the water.

It's a good thing we're all rich here, able to move to places with better climates or buy air conditioners, not the billions of poor people who have no way to survive intensifying extreme weather events.

Plastic production worldwide is 300 million tons. I am not sure how this would convert to tons of CO2 as it burns (each carbon in the polymer chain associates with more oxygen in the air so it becomes heavier) but the world's CO2 emissions are 30 billion tons, so this would be in the order of 1 to 3% of the whole world's emissions.

Not saying it's good, but burning plastic if it has environmental and health benefits is not out of question. Probably most of it is burned already (it definitely is in Asian countries).

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

#183

Post by tintedfireglass »

bscphil wrote: post #134
zackees wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Also, the very premise that more CO2 is existential is contradicted by historical record: 250 million years ago earth was 15 degrees warmer than it is now and CO2 was a lot more abundant. Maybe this is just a joke that sailed over my head, but this is obviously false and doesn't mean anything of the sort. Existential for whom ? All you can definitely conclude is that the Earth won't explode if the climate increases…

The Earth will keep spinning round no matter what. It is ourselves who we harm

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

#184

Post by pastage »

not2b wrote: post #110
Baeocystin wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. That's almost all due to food waste, though. FWIW. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-...

Yes, for that reason Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) is pushing hard to divert food waste out of the garbage and get it composted instead: it's supposed to go in with yard waste, not the regular trash. Not sure how successful this is as it counts on people putting things in the correct bin.

Composting is good, but it's heavy and hence energy inefficient if it's transported too far. This goes for almost all waste but the amount of water in compost and the transport distance adds upp. Handling waste and composting as local as possible is important.

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

#185

Post by Supermancho »

ars wrote: post #125
Supermancho wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can just trade one type for another types You cannot replace most oil-based fuel with incinerators. So I'll disagree there. The utility of oil-based fuels is the energy density in combustion. Burning plastic doesn't come close to the same exchange.

> The utility of oil-based fuels is the energy density in combustion. Burning plastic doesn't come close to the same exchange. The energy density of plastic (by weight, not volume) is virtually identical to that of oil. Yes, the machine used to burn oil vs plastic looks different, but coal plants can burn plastic without much modification - and they would be much much cleaner than coal when they do so.

> The energy density of plastic (by weight, not volume) is virtually identical to that of oil.

Oil-based unleaded fuel is not oil. You probably could run trains on plastic. That's if you didn't mind hot plastic raining down around the tracks as the coal dust and soot did when we used it for trains.

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

#186

Post by gibolt »

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…

Don't forget methane! It is 80x more potent (eventually degrading to CO2 in the atmosphere)

We leak it all over the place, with no plans to plug the holes. Instead we keep adding new piping all over.

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

#187

Post by pastage »

DANK_YACHT wrote: post #169
jrms wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it needs constant monitoring it's a potential problem... And at some point it will happen... We know that from ages of software development, if it can fail, it will fail at some point.

You’d be surprised by the number of things that need to be constantly monitored. Building structures, power plants, roads, dams, mass transit, etc. basically everything.

Dams break and wreck havoc on ecosystems, the US has had it's fair share of coal mine sludge disasters. Even countries with strict environmental agencies and long history of mining have accidents.

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

#188

Post by ipaddr »

bscphil wrote: post #134
zackees wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Also, the very premise that more CO2 is existential is contradicted by historical record: 250 million years ago earth was 15 degrees warmer than it is now and CO2 was a lot more abundant. Maybe this is just a joke that sailed over my head, but this is obviously false and doesn't mean anything of the sort. Existential for whom ? All you can definitely conclude is that the Earth won't explode if the climate increases…

We see animals and people living with 15 degrees spread now. That won't change.. people and animals would exist at 25 degrees. Not as many and not in all places.. but we can be sure humans will survive somewhere aided by technology.

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

#189

Post by Auracle »

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…

Sperm counts have been dropping for a long time (50%-60% over the past 50 years) without stopping, and plasticizers are the suspected culprit. It's incredible how many people need to do IVF now. I would argue that might be the most imminent threat but nobody seems to care.

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

#190

Post by ipaddr »

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".

People believe if you truly care about reducing CO2 not using nuclear means you will not be able to move off of fossil fuels until we are well past too late.

It's the flaw that makes reducing global warming a talking point vs an actionable item. It's a big elephant in the room.

Until that gets resolved many will think some are spinning your wheels.

Post reply on HN