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

Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#91

Post by testfoobar »

unglaublich wrote: post #51
testfoobar wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying cause of climate change, air pollution and waterways full of plastic waste is the Tragedy of the Commons. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/climate-ch... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Yep. We should have forced mining and oil companies to pay opportunity costs to our future self whenever they extract finite resources from the planet.

Embedded in the tragedy of the commons is a Nash equilibrium where it is in the interest of individual parties to not cooperate - where cooperation would be mutually beneficial.

So, at country scale, implementing a carbon tax on any set of countries immediately reduces their competitiveness against tax-free countries. Over time, this difference will lead to wide divergences in outcomes.

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#92

Post by kragen »

fomine3 wrote: post #89
kragen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probably because landfills work fine if you aren't on an aircraft carrier. and they're cheaper. they're also rich veins of valuable minerals for the future, but that unfortunately doesn't figure into their present profitability

You missed many countries aren't huge unlike the US

do the math instead of posting random bullshit

i did

https://dercuano.github.io/topics/garbage.html

in particular

https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#a...

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#93

Post by kragen »

jquery wrote: post #85
kragen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pete isn't a different kind of plastic from pet, it's just a usa-only abbreviation to avoid the non-plastic-related pet trademark the pet company uses on their disposable drinking vessels made from whatever material the broader point is valid that recycling even hdpe is difficult because of the diversity of fillers and other additives, not to mention variation in molecular weight even before scission by ultraviolet,…

>if you hold industry liable for damage done by people improperly discarding its products, soon you will have no industry I don't see how this follows. It might make plastics more expensive... but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

liability for people improperly discarding your products is unlimited; there is no limit to how much damage they can do, and there's nothing you can do to stop them except screen your clients very carefully

and that's why, for example, armadillo aerospace went under; vendors of rocket-grade peroxide do screen their clients very carefully, for precisely that reason, and they had to scrap their peroxide engine design and go back to the drawing board

industry is going to happen instead in places like china where it's allowed (at least for chinese people)

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#94

Post by userbinator »

lysozyme wrote: post #32

As cool as this is, the word “microplastics” is a little misleading. There are dozens of types of plastic in common use, each made from a different monomer with a different chemical linkage, of which PET is only one. The engineered protein in TFA will only work on PET and we’ll need to design new proteins for the other types of plastic. (I can help with that.) The problem with enzymes eating plastic is that enzymes a…

the word “microplastics” is a little misleading

It was never about precision, truth, nor actual science. It was always about "plastics=bad" ideological virtue signaling, just like "chemicals=bad" and "(non-ionising) radiation=bad" before it.

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#95

Post by userbinator »

hx8 wrote: post #20
citrin_ru wrote: post #13

Is there any benefits to degrading plastic (using proteins or bacteria) if BPA/BPS will stay not degraded? From what I recon health harm comes not from plastic itself but from additives like BPA, BPS e. t. c.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Plastic and Microplastics are an environmental hazard to animal life, with a specific threat to aquatic life. The plastic itself is a significant physical hazard for the life. The attached link has an incredible photo of a the scale of a small fish and various microplastics. It's important to note that currently there is no cost effective way for water treatment plants to filter for thes…

From your own link:

Scientists are still unsure whether consumed microplastics are harmful to human or animal health

Because plastics are inert. Beware those who distort the truth and exploit fear for their own gains.

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#96

Post by whatshisface »

readyplayernull wrote: post #76
whatshisface wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see why there is a problem with degrading whole bottles. If you have separated from the waste stream, you can incinerate or even landfill them (it's not like you'd be wasting any resources). It's the microplastics that form when the bottles are dumped into the oceans or waterways and broken up by Nature which need a novel solution for removal.

Plastic aren't simply plastics, they have lots of additives to give them different properties. Incinerating is transforming these additives into other chemicals maybe making more toxic molecules escape to the environment in ashes, dust, smoke. And landfilling is storing trash for future generations to solve the problem.

Future generations will never have a reason to dig up landfills.

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#97

Post by autoexec »

userbinator wrote: post #94
lysozyme wrote: post #32

As cool as this is, the word “microplastics” is a little misleading. There are dozens of types of plastic in common use, each made from a different monomer with a different chemical linkage, of which PET is only one. The engineered protein in TFA will only work on PET and we’ll need to design new proteins for the other types of plastic. (I can help with that.) The problem with enzymes eating plastic is that enzymes a…

the word “microplastics” is a little misleading It was never about precision, truth, nor actual science. It was always about "plastics=bad" ideological virtue signaling, just like "chemicals=bad" and "(non-ionising) radiation=bad" before it.

> It was never about precision, truth, nor actual science. It was always about "plastics=bad" ideological virtue signaling

Microplastics were not a concept created for ideological virtue signaling. I don't know who manipulated you into thinking that was true, but you may wish to re-evaluate where you've been getting your information. The good news is that you don't have to depend on some invented sinister backstory for microplastics, you can instead read the paper where the phrase was coined for yourself (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8575062_Lost_at_Sea...) and see that it was just a lot of typical boring science like searching through sediment and plankton samples, and keeping track of what lugworms eat. A paper that concludes with "we'd need more research to determine if there are any environmental consequences" is about as far from ideological virtue signaling as it gets. Take your own advice and "Beware those who distort the truth and exploit fear for their own gains."

As far as precision goes, currently microplastics are for plastic bits smaller than 5mm. We even have primary and secondary categories for them. Nanoplastics are for bits smaller than 100 nm. Do we really need a better classification system at this stage? I imagine that shortly after we do, we'll get one. Science loves to come up with boxes to put things in.

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#98

Post by doubleg72 »

autoexec wrote: post #97
userbinator wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the word “microplastics” is a little misleading It was never about precision, truth, nor actual science. It was always about "plastics=bad" ideological virtue signaling, just like "chemicals=bad" and "(non-ionising) radiation=bad" before it.

> It was never about precision, truth, nor actual science. It was always about "plastics=bad" ideological virtue signaling Microplastics were not a concept created for ideological virtue signaling. I don't know who manipulated you into thinking that was true, but you may wish to re-evaluate where you've been getting your information. The good news is that you don't have to depend on some invented sinister backstory f…

There's always going to be that guy...

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#99

Post by in_vestor »

CptFribble wrote: post #64

Another story about waste "solutions," another opportunity to remind the gentle readers about plasma gasification. A re-post of an earlier comment of mine on the topic follows: --- Why are we still not talking about plasma gasification? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification As far as I can tell, the only real "disadvantages" if you can call them that, are: 1. more expensive than throwing the garbage in a…

The most frustrating problem with plasma gasification from my perspective is that it essentially down cycles metals. That is, the metals either end up in slag or as a difficult-to-refine mixture.

That was my understanding the last time I worked on this. I would love to hear about any progress on this.

For what it’s worth, I think the companies that have tried this have not pursued the correct business model. They all either want to sell their system (bad idea) or sell syngas (ok, but not enough). What they need to do is charge tipping fees like a landfill to simply dispose of the trash.

Re: Scientists create artificial protein that can degrade PET plastics in bottles

#100

Post by userbinator »

autoexec wrote: post #97
userbinator wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the word “microplastics” is a little misleading It was never about precision, truth, nor actual science. It was always about "plastics=bad" ideological virtue signaling, just like "chemicals=bad" and "(non-ionising) radiation=bad" before it.

> It was never about precision, truth, nor actual science. It was always about "plastics=bad" ideological virtue signaling Microplastics were not a concept created for ideological virtue signaling. I don't know who manipulated you into thinking that was true, but you may wish to re-evaluate where you've been getting your information. The good news is that you don't have to depend on some invented sinister backstory f…

Regardless what the origin was, it should be clear to see that the term has become associated with ideological virtue signaling and used to promote all manner of junk science and taken up by the engagement-chasing paranoia-spreading media.
Post reply on HN