[HN Gopher] Plastic-Eating Enzyme Could Eliminate Billions of To... ___________________________________________________________________ Plastic-Eating Enzyme Could Eliminate Billions of Tons of Landfill Waste Author : FrankyHollywood Score : 104 points Date : 2022-05-18 20:04 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (news.utexas.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (news.utexas.edu) | rootusrootus wrote: | Can't help but wonder if this is a solution searching for a | problem. Landfills already have protections against leeching into | the surrounding environment. And we aren't going to plausibly run | out of space for landfills in the foreseeable future (images from | Wall-E notwithstanding). Isn't plastic basically inert once it | gets to a landfill anyway? Even if it takes centuries to break | down, who cares? | | IMO we'd be better off focusing research on reducing the waste | rather than improving disposal. | faitswulff wrote: | This could theoretically treat free-floating microplastics in, | e.g., the ocean, which you can't plausibly isolate in | landfills. | rootusrootus wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this process still | assume that the plastic is collected and heated (not super | hot, the claim seems to be "less than 50C")? In the case of | the ocean, it doesn't seem like this technology would be | useful until _after_ we collect all the little bits of | plastic. And at that point we could just put it in a landfill | anyway. | faitswulff wrote: | Yeah, good point. Theoretically, a more optimized enzyme | might be able to do it at ambient temperatures, which they | mention in the article as a target. Assuming the search | space for enzyme mutations isn't already exhausted. | nomel wrote: | > a more optimized enzyme might be able to do it at | ambient temperatures | | Releasing this into the ocean, in any appreciable amount, | seems like a very bad idea. I think collection from | plastic "hot spots", and then separate processing, would | make more sense. I think it's best to reduce the number | of foreign chemicals in the environment. | [deleted] | noizejoy wrote: | > IMO we'd be better off focusing research on reducing the | waste rather than improving disposal. | | And IMO there's much upside to pursue multiple avenues to | desired solutions, rather than making choices to eliminate | potentially contending solutions too early. | | Mother nature herself provides pretty much exactly that | template for evolution. So if we want to save nature, why not | use that same approach? It seems to have served the survival of | life on our planet rather well. | sschueller wrote: | We should be focusing on reducing trash and getting raw | materials back out of trash. The rest should be burned or | processed cleanly and maybe generate electricity while at it. | [deleted] | sudden_dystopia wrote: | Neat. Hope it can scale and soon! | FredPret wrote: | We use plastic in many places with the idea that it'll never rot. | | Obviously we want plastic to eventually biodegrade, but I wonder | what sorts of chaos would be caused by it. | Areading314 wrote: | Wouldn't this be extremely dangerous if a form of "plastic rot" | was created? Things like PVC sewer pipes, or any long-lived | plastic parts in cars/equipment could now degrade over time, | which could create huge costs to find alternative materials. | After all plastic is pretty useful _because_ it is biologically | and chemically inert. | ars wrote: | Even smarter would be to take that plastic and burn it for | energy, instead of giving that energy to an enzyme, that will | just make waste heat. | | After reading the article instead of the headline: | | They imply they can turn the plastic back into a monomer and then | rebuild it as a new polymer. Maybe that would work, but I have | huge doubts - a monomer is very chemically active, and it really | wants to polymerize. That enzyme may work in a lab, but I doubt | they can turn it into an industrial process. | | I take issue with this: | | "The most common method for disposing of plastic, besides | throwing it in a landfill, is to burn it, which is costly, energy | intensive and spews noxious gas into the air." | | This is utterly false, and I don't see how they can claim to be | scientific if they publish falsehoods. It makes me wonder about | the accuracy of the rest of the press release. | mistrial9 wrote: | https://no-burn.org and others.. incinerator waste to energy | has been a battle for at least fifty years.. | ars wrote: | Another organization we can blame for terrible environmental | outcomes? | | Why is it so common for people to pretend to be | environmentalists and advocate for things that directly harm | the environment? | mistrial9 wrote: | > we can blame for terrible environmental outcomes | | who is "we" here ? | | > to pretend to be environmentalists | | that is wildly defamatory, with no evidence, right? | ars wrote: | We is you and me. | | > that is wildly defamatory, with no evidence, right? | | The evidence is right on their own website. Their | advocacy that they are so proud of is actively harming | the planet and they are sitting there proud of it. | Geezus-42 wrote: | ars wrote: | Exactly. Everyone thinks there will be black smoke, but | actually plastic burns very clean in a proper incinerator. | kube-system wrote: | They're dirtier than natural gas power plants, however. | (and the pollution that they do create can be particularly | nasty) We're better off in terms of emissions-per-watt by | burying the plastic and using natural gas instead. | ars wrote: | > They're dirtier than natural gas power plants, however | | That is not true. | | > and the pollution that they do create can be | particularly nasty | | That is also not true. | | Plastic is made of the exact same atoms as natural gas, | plus oxygen. Plastic burns very very clean, with no waste | except for water and CO2. | | PVC has chlorine, but is rare in trash, and the small | amount of chlorine is easily filtered out of the exhaust. | | > We're better off in terms of emissions-per-watt by | burying the plastic and using natural gas instead. | | This is also not true because it costs energy to extract | the natural gas. The plastic is already there, and needs | to be dealt with one way or another. Plastic makes about | the same CO2/watt as gasoline. | kube-system wrote: | Plastic that goes into the trash is not pure plastic, it | is trash and it has a lot of other junk in it. i.e. heavy | metals and other stuff. That's one of the biggest reasons | we have trouble recycling it. Are there even any WTE | plants that burn only plastic? | r00fus wrote: | Isn't the problem with plastic burning the fact that most | plastic waste is actually contaminated with food/non-plastics | that burn differently? | williamtwild wrote: | 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. | ars wrote: | PET burns very clean with enough air. I use it as a fire | starter for outdoor fires. | | A fireplace is a smoky thing, without enough air (even the | wood makes a lot of smoke). An incinerator makes sure to | supply enough air. | SoftTalker wrote: | Industrial waste incineration is not at all the same thing | as burning trash in a backyard fire. | williamtwild wrote: | Which part is false? There is at least one part of that | statement that is absolutely true. | ars wrote: | 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. | thfuran wrote: | I wouldn't exactly call it noxious, but C02 isn't exactly | something we want to be spewing more of. Isn't a landfill | full of plastic pretty much just a big pile of captured | carbon? | not2b wrote: | Depends on what the waste products are and how they are captured, | otherwise you trade one problem for another. The plastic takes up | space but if it's in a landfill you have carbon capture, best not | to release that carbon into the air as CH4 or CO2. | BurningFrog wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | j-bos wrote: | Or those of us who don't like microplatics in our fish, | water, and bodies | stjohnswarts wrote: | Those microplastics aren't coming from landfills. They're | coming from your everyday interactions with plastic and | people dumping plastic in rivers and oceans. | noja wrote: | > Yeah, landfills are not major environmental problems | | ... yet? | google234123 wrote: | If you are worried about space i recommend that you look at | the surface area of earth and the volume of space that's | accessible to us underneath the surface. | DANK_YACHT wrote: | What would cause them to be an environmental issue? As far | as I know they can be built in a safe manner and there is | plenty of space for them. | candiddevmike wrote: | Most landfills contain icky things like heavy metals or | arsenic. Having that leak into an aquifer Would Be Bad. | DANK_YACHT wrote: | That's why they're sealed with clay and plastic and | constantly monitored for leakage. | mschuster91 wrote: | In the Western world maybe, but outside of it... hell | even in the Western world we have regular reports of | mismanagement and corruption, just look at Italy. | | We need to reduce the amount of trash we produce, not | hope for a miracle technology. | DANK_YACHT wrote: | Landfills are not a miracle technology. They exist | already and are technologically sound. It'd be way more | of a miracle if we somehow managed to greatly reduce | waste. | paulryanrogers wrote: | How sustainable are landfills? There's limited land for | farming, residences, manufacturing, and everything else | we use it for. And trucking trash to deserts to landfill | there isn't carbon neutral either. Trash also doesn't | breakdown as quickly in covered landfills (for better or | worse depending on what one dumps). | stjohnswarts wrote: | People love to "what if" landfills. Best to not bother | arguing with them. We have tons of problems with | emissions, plastics pollution, industrial dumping. | However landfills ain't one of them, but people won't | give up. I've learned to not bother discussing anything | with them if they don't know a few basics of how modern | landfills are run (at least in western nations). | not2b wrote: | As others have mentioned they are a major source of | methane emission, though this can be addressed (do a | better job separating out food waste and compost it). | xxr wrote: | Is there enough raw material on earth for landfills to | become major environmental problems? (genuinely curious) | BurningFrog wrote: | Maybe this makes me sounds like a jerk, but: | | All material that can end up in landfills is already on | Earth. | drew-y wrote: | I wouldn't go that far. | | > Per the most recent Inventory Report, U.S. landfills | released an estimated 109.3 million metric tons of carbon | dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) of methane into the atmosphere | in 2020; this represents 16.8 percent of the total U.S. | anthropogenic methane emissions across all sectors. | | https://www.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about- | landfill-g.... | Baeocystin wrote: | Sure. That's almost all due to food waste, though. FWIW. | | https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management- | food/sustainable-... | not2b wrote: | 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. | snek_case wrote: | 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 CO2, and realistically, in the future, we'll be able | to mine it out of there and refine it into something usable | if we need it. | therealdrag0 wrote: | Garbage is also a problem in the environment like plastics | in oceans, but the problem is not enough (well run and | used) land fills (in Asia) not too many! | zackees wrote: | We've had the solution to fossil fuels for over a century | in the form of nuclear. By the numbers, it's the safest | large scale energy source ever invented. The new ones even | eat nuclear waste as fuel. | | The will to solve the CO2 question is done and we have the | means. The people controlling the media won't allow it. | This is common knowledge. | | 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. | | Now if we go 15 degrees colder then we are in an ice age | and a mass extinction event. If anything, we want to kick | up the temperature to buffer against an ice age. | paulryanrogers wrote: | Nuclear fuel must first be mined, correct? That's not | renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat. That | said I imagine it may be better as a base load than dirty | coal. | shepherdjerred wrote: | We're not running out of fissionable material any time | soon | paulryanrogers wrote: | What are the limiting inputs? Because I imagine there is | a lot to do to go from the ground to the reactor and back | again? | lkbm wrote: | The article talks about using it for environmental cleanup, but | the paper seems more focused on recycling back into fresh | PET[0]: | | > ...and a circular carbon economy for PET is theoretically | attainable through rapid enzymatic depolymerization followed by | repolymerization or conversion/valorization into other products | | > Finally, we demonstrate a closed-loop PET recycling process | by using FAST-PETase and resynthesizing PET from the recovered | monomers. Collectively, our results demonstrate a viable route | for enzymatic plastic recycling at the industrial scale. | | [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04599-z | wyager wrote: | I would infinitely rather have a bit more gaseous carbon than a | 10,000 year source of endocrine disruptor microplastics | leaching into the water. | flaviut wrote: | 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. | hprotagonist wrote: | So, uh, what are the CO2 emissions like on eating that much | sequestered carbon? | bobbylarrybobby wrote: | What would be really cool is if we got something that could eat | plastic and produce as a waste product some environmentally | neutral substance like (say) some kind of alcohol. Is there | anything like that on the horizon? | ars wrote: | Please define environmentally neutral. Because alcohol will | just oxidize into water and CO2. | | Do you want to just sequester the Carbon? Something very | environmentally neutral would be .... plastic. Anything | biodegradable would eventually become CO2 and water. | | Best option is to burn it and capture the energy for a useful | purpose, instead of letting that energy be wasted when it | biodegrades. | paulryanrogers wrote: | Can plastic combustion be done with releasing CO2 into the | atmosphere? Or worse chemicals? | motohagiography wrote: | Or rather, how will governments and NGOs manage the problem | (and by extension, the economy) if someone invents a technology | that actually just solves it? | superjan wrote: | The press release points to the paper's abstract. From that, it | appears that it is specific to PET plastic. It can de-polymerase | PET for later synthesis in new PET products. PET is already being | recycled, the issue there is that recycled PET is not clean | enough to reuse as food packaging. I hope this method does not | suffer from this limitation. | mistrial9 wrote: | having done some research on this topic, the problem is not what | goes _into_ the landfills.. the problems are in the plastics that | do not make it into the landfills, the production of the | plastics, and the over-dependence on single-use plastics since | the era of the Bic-Pen | noizejoy wrote: | The phrase "single use" is doing some heavy lifting there, and | I have no idea why that particular product is made to be | patient zero for this. | | A pen presumably gets hundreds or thousands of uses, depending | on how you count. For example, one way product packaging is | much more of a single use plastic. | | That being said, I'd hate to lose plastics for bulk food | packaging, unless there's an equally food safe successor. | nikanj wrote: | I've read this headline monthly since the 90s. | icefox11 wrote: | You happen to read anything related to removing salt from | seawater as well? | jimmySixDOF wrote: | DeepMind's AlphaFold capabilities to model protein-folding is | going to accelerate this kind of discovery at a quantum leap | order of magnitude. The featured article notes a custom CNN was | used here - but AlphaFold is a game changer in synthetic biology | in general even though the first goals were human medical | application focused. | | BBC Science in Action [1] interviewed Prof John McGeehan of the | Centre for Enzyme Innovation at Portsmouth University working on | Bacteria breaking down Plastic in landfills. He explained his | workflow of maybe selecting one candidate very carefully and | occasionally out of many due to the cost/time involved & how | DeepMind gave him more results in a single weekend (for free) | than he had expected to see over his entire reasearch career. | | [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1l3y | tda wrote: | Plastic waste should be burned for heat and/or electricity in an | incinerator. Every other usage/disposal method seems like a waste | to me. Instead of burning fossil fuels directly, we get much more | value from them if we first turn it into some plastic product, | and only then burn it. And as long as we keep burning fossil | fuels for heat and power, let's not wate out attention on | recycling (downcycling actually) plastics as we can much better | burn the old and make fresh new plastic from the fossil fuels we | didn't have to burn because of that. | | When we are not relying on fossil fuels anymore for heat and | power (which is hopefully sooner than later), only then we need | to start looking into plastic recycling | seoaeu wrote: | Whether we should burn, recycle, or dump plastic into a | landfill depends entirely on the relative amount of energy | generated and CO2 emitted by those different options. Just | because plastic and natural gas both are/come from hydrocarbons | doesn't mean that burning them produces anywhere near the same | amount of emissions per MWh, or that the economics would be at | all close. | | And if you are proposing the construction of new power plants | to burn trash, your justification also has to explain why that | would be preferable to building wind/solar instead | mistrial9 wrote: | this is widely promoted (incinerator to energy) and widely | disliked (state of the air in industrial locations around the | world) .. not a new idea | tda wrote: | I think just about all household trash in the Netherlands is | incinerated. And as far as I know the exhoust fumes are | manageable, but definitely not something to live next to. | Just like any other fossil fuel run powerplant by the way. | r00fus wrote: | Doesn't burning plastic produce large amounts of toxic off | gassing? | [deleted] | Nydhal wrote: | My understanding is that incinerators don't just release the | output. The exhaust is pumped back into the system and dealt | with somehow. The extent to which the release is "dealt with" | is the tricky part. | Workaccount2 wrote: | I'm going to guess that large amounts of CO2 is a byproduct | and is vented. | ars wrote: | No, they produce water and CO2. Nothing toxic, unless you | don't give enough air (so obviously make sure to give enough | air). | | This isn't some theory - right now, today, lost of plastic is | being burned, and it works just fine. They try to keep is off | the radar because of misinformed people thinking it's bad. | williamtwild wrote: | Yes , it does. Burning plastic without somehow accounting for | that is a terrible idea. | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | Is there a way to mitigate this, or make use of the waste | gasses? | devops_monkey wrote: | See my other comment as well as this HN thread: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20551946 | devops_monkey wrote: | This is actually the "best" answer for our plastics problem. | There was an NPR/Planet Money podcast on it recently here: | https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/912150085/waste-land and there | are plenty of other sources that all agree on this premise. I | have worked in waste management a few years ago and recycling | is not the long-term solution. | wang_li wrote: | Why do we want to put the plastic's carbon into the | atmosphere instead of back into the ground where it came | from? | ars wrote: | Because then we can avoid pumping oil out of the ground and | burning that. | | The hydrocarbons are going to get burned one way or | another, you can just trade one type for another types. | Supermancho wrote: | > 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. | zrail wrote: | I remember reading about this in middle school. | | https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/86452.Ill_Wind | d--b wrote: | How much co2 does this release? Humanity needs to pick its | battles carefully... | BLanen wrote: | I've been hearing this for 20 years. | | I assume nothing will happen while this "news" will be used by | fossil fuel companies to virtue signal "technological progress" | in the plastic problem. | powerbroker wrote: | I understand that the pits, that are the foundation of landfills, | are lined with impermeable plastic sheets. Their purpose is to | avoid ground-water contamination. So, there may be some redesign | of landfills required before this technology can succeed. | coryrc wrote: | I thought it's usually just natural clay, but I bet it varies | based on local conditions. | kube-system wrote: | According to this, a municipal landfill in the US requires: | | > a flexible membrane (i.e., geo-membrane) overlaying two | feet of compacted clay soil lining the bottom and sides of | the landfill. | | https://www.epa.gov/landfills/municipal-solid-waste- | landfill... | abcc8 wrote: | I was thinking the same. Worst case scenario with a solution | like this one is that these organisms get into the wild, gain | more mutations, and then rapidly release a large volume of | carbon, currently sequestered as plastic, into the atmosphere. | Or, plastic-tropic organisms used as a weapon, sprayed over | cities, etc. | netizen-936824 wrote: | Did I miss something? What organism are you referring to? | | An enzyme is a protein not an organism | bitwize wrote: | An enzyme is a protein molecule, not a living thing. Probably | the biggest risk is that some wildlife or fish may be | allergic to it. | CameronNemo wrote: | Perhaps plastic should start being compressed into bricks for | long term storage that does not lead to leaching. | faitswulff wrote: | Note: the article talks about an enzyme, which is a simple | protein. They might manufacture it via organic means, but the | enzyme by itself has no capacity to reproduce or mutate. | abcc8 wrote: | That is true, but the best and easiest way to make a huge | mass of a specific enzyme is to grow it in something, | either bacteria or yeast. If it is in an organism, the | organism can escape into the wild. | faitswulff wrote: | That's a much smaller threat than if the organism itself | were to be applied directly to plastics. | | Designer organisms aren't generally well-suited to | spreading in the wild and even if they were, they could | be engineered to require a certain dependency that they | would die without. But yes, still theoretically it's | possible. | [deleted] | scohesc wrote: | I wonder what the potential harm to infrastructure would be if | this bacteria were to escape landfills / remediation sites and | happen to get into places where PET is used in something | important. | | Not that I'm against finding ways to _actually_ recycle or break- | down plastics, just it seems like something we need a microscope | to see might be hard to keep track of. | hh3k0 wrote: | > I wonder what the potential harm to infrastructure would be | if this bacteria were to escape landfills | | At the very least, I'm sure it won't be as bad as in BioMeat: | Nectar. | jy14898 wrote: | Manufacturers will love that their products break down and | require replacing more often | [deleted] | bhouston wrote: | And then this escapes and starts to eat plastics in cars and | other durable goods thus rendering increased near term | maintenance costs across a large number of industries.... just a | thought. | 323 wrote: | Dumb question, but if plastic eating bacteria starts spreading, | wouldn't we all be in a lot of trouble? | | Will car plastic interior start to rot? | | Will PET soda and water bottles start decomposing in the grocery | store, and will they require refrigeration to prevent that? | | Will our computer keyboards require new materials? | [deleted] | ars wrote: | This is for an enzyme, not bacteria, but to answer your | question bacteria still need water, so if you keep the plastic | dry it should be fine even in such a world. | | PET soda bottles will be sterilized, then sealed. The outside | is dry and won't decompose. You won't be able to re-close it | and leave it out though. | | For things that need to stay wet, like drain pipes, you would | add chlorine and use PVC which is unlikely to be edible to | bacteria. | kwhitefoot wrote: | See Doomwatch - Plastic Eaters from 1970: | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0564476/ | northisup wrote: | what are the biproducts? | Animats wrote: | 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. | intrasight wrote: | Who else things of "Grey Goo" | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-18 23:00 UTC)