[HN Gopher] Researcher finds a new method for recycling polystyrene ___________________________________________________________________ Researcher finds a new method for recycling polystyrene Author : geox Score : 95 points Date : 2022-08-24 16:36 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (vtx.vt.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (vtx.vt.edu) | ParksNet wrote: | Why don't we just burn all these plastics in waste2energy plants? | | Even with perfect recycling, the limitation seems to be on | collection and separation. | shagie wrote: | Combustion products. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene#Incineration | | > If polystyrene is properly incinerated at high temperatures | (up to 1000 degC) and with plenty of air (14 m3/kg), the | chemicals generated are water, carbon dioxide, and possibly | small amounts of residual halogen-compounds from flame- | retardants. | | > When polystyrene was burned at temperatures of 800-900 degC | (the typical range of a modern incinerator), the products of | combustion consisted of "a complex mixture of polycyclic | aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from alkyl benzenes to | benzoperylene. Over 90 different compounds were identified in | combustion effluents from polystyrene." The American National | Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research found 57 chemical | by-products released during the combustion of expanded | polystyrene (EPS) foam. | | Yes, you can burn it... but the things you make out of it | unless you are _really_ trying to burn it (and then its a burn | it to dispose of it rather than get energy from it) leave some | less than desirable compounds. | noselasd wrote: | Is there currently a bottleneck that prevents burning it at | 1000degC and getting energy out of it ? Sounds like business | opportunities ! Make an practical incinerator ? | orangepurple wrote: | Yeah there may be awful byproducts at burn temperatures | required for optimal power generation but if they can be | captured/condensed/solidified they can be collected as solid | waste and buried. | KennyBlanken wrote: | Yeah, let's just bury those toxic cancer-causing compounds! | What could possibly go wrong? | | _looks over at the 1300 superfund sites around the nation_ | shagie wrote: | The energy to condense out and capture the undesirable | products becomes comparable to the energy capture it. | | Japan's approach isn't because they need energy but rather | that they are trying to minimize landfill (as its an island | and space is at a premium). | | The resulting products are carcinogenic toxic waste - which | comes with additional challenges for disposal. In the US, | it is likely more desirable to bury the inert polystyrene | rather than trying to deal with the PAHs ( https://en.wikip | edia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbo... ) and other | byproducts. | | The article is describing a process where UV light and a | catalyst break down/transform polystyrene into | diphenylmethane ( | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenylmethane ) which is a | feed stock for many other (useful) processes. | | The paper referenced in the article is Cascade degradation | and upcycling of polystyrene waste to high-value chemicals | https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2203346119 | ezconnect wrote: | That's the solution of the Japanese, and they are very | efficient on it, burn them and turn them to electricity and the | extra waste get used as land fills. | kzrdude wrote: | Also Sweden burns a lot of waste (landfills for household | waste are entirely obsolete). Rest heat is used for domestic | heating. | loudmax wrote: | Wouldn't it be better to bury plastic in landfills? Keep the | stuff out of the ocean, but I don't understand the harm in | landfills. Put that carbon back in the ground where it came | from. | KennyBlanken wrote: | Plastics recycling is a sham, invented by the plastic industries | to defuse criticism for an explosion in single-use packaging. | | The vast majority of plastics are never recycled and end up in | landfills or dumped at sea. | | It's not economical to recycle plastics because separating | plastics is expensive, the percentage of material that has to be | chucked because of contamination (food, chemicals, labels, etc) | and the recovered material itself has little to no value due to | degradation of the polymers. | | Methods like these are important, but what's more important is | replacing, reducing, etc. | mediaman wrote: | This is a claim that's often repeated ad nauseum: plastic | recycling doesn't work and it's a sham. | | There's an element of truth to it: plastics recycling in the | USA today is, in aggregate, in a sorry state. | | But it's become "common knowledge" that there's no way to make | it better. That's not true. | | Turn, for example, to British Columbia, which passed an | Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law several years ago, | which created a system to stabilize the prices of recycled | plastics so that recyclers could raise money to build the | facilities to process the material. | | Now they have the most sophisticated sortation and recycling | centers in North America. Laser-based systems identify plastic | types and use shots of compressed air to automatically direct | plastic onto the proper conveyor. | | Each stream is shredded and ground, and then hot washed and | dried. Then it's sorted again, this time for color, by computer | vision and more compressed air to create streams of clear | material and streams of green or other colors. | | The result is that 56% of rigid plastic packaging in BC is | recycled. That's not perfect, but it's pretty good, and | definitely not a "sham". | | The problem we have in America is that, broadly, we need | public-private partnerships to invest in the sort of equipment | that can do this. The technology exists, it works, and it's | already being used. Virgin plastic should be taxed and then | that tax should subsidize and stabilize the price of recycled | material so that private capital can supply the equipment | financing. And regional authorities should organize recycling | so that enough material can go through one facility to amortize | the $30m in equipment over the poundage. (These contracts can | be bid at auction to keep them fair.) | | In other words, this is not an area where a pure free market | works, and it typically requires coordination across regional | population centers of 7m+ to get enough poundage through the | system. | | If we can do what BC did, the rewards are big: plastic is, by | far, a lower emitter of GHG than paper-based packaging, does a | better job reducing food shrink than any other material, and | offers massive weight savings (and GHG savings) versus glass. | | Today, of course, it's become much more en vogue to pursue high | GHG packaging solutions ("because everyone knows plastic is | bad!") rather than build public pressure to adopt the political | steps required to implement already proven production | technology. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | California has something like this passed recently: | | https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/06/california- | recycl... | | In the EU: | | https://packagingeurope.com/news/how-the-soft-drinks- | industr... | coryrc wrote: | > The result is that 56% of rigid plastic packaging in BC is | recycled. That's not perfect, but it's pretty good, and | definitely not a "sham". | | Or, we could say with all of the advanced systems possible, | massive subsidies, and creation of large amounts of inferior | recycled product, still 44% is rigid plastic packaging is | wasted (let alone all the other kinds): "Sham" seems fair. | algo_trader wrote: | I was just reading about TheOceanCleanup [1] and its | depressing. It is hard to collect the garbage, it cant be | disposed off, and there is a huge ongoing flow of new garbage. | | Can we at least recycle plastics into other low-quality plastic | which can be degraded/mix-quality/blended or something? I am | not an expert. | | [1] https://theoceancleanup.com/ | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | And what happens with this low-quality plastic when it's no | longer needed? Make even lower quality plastic? | ISL wrote: | In some countries, lower-quality garbage is incinerated to | generate electric power. | and-not-drew wrote: | Not disagreeing, but do you have a source? I'd like to know | more about this. | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | "Plastic recycling sits quite low in the waste hierarchy as a | means of reducing plastic waste. It has been advocated since | the early 1970s,[11] but due to severe economic and technical | challenges, did not impact plastic waste to any significant | extent until the late 1980s. The plastics industry has been | criticised for lobbying for the expansion of recycling | programs, even while industry research showed that most | plastic could not be economically recycled and simultaneously | increasing the amount of virgin plastic, or plastic that has | not been recycled, being produced." | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling | xxs wrote: | It's pretty much a well known fact. Recycling is extra hard | due to the need to separate the plastics and then the molding | new plastics requires specific type of plastic molecule. Many | plastics are even blends, e.g. ABS + PC, or glass fiber | filled ones. | | "Plastics" are just so many types, different in all kinds of | ways. So separating them and using them in anything sensible | doesn't happen often at all. | mackal wrote: | Someday I'll have something to do with my Warhammer sprues I | guess | Silverback_VII wrote: | Would be very nice to have many worms and bacteria who start to | eat away the synthetic garbage. However, the will als start to | eat solar panels and your shoes. | | But I'm still very much for the engineering of such creatures. | MassPikeMike wrote: | Burning plastics isn't great because of all the awful combustion | products. | | Plasma gasification sounds like a good alternative. The molecular | bonds in the plastics are broken and you end up with mostly | carbon monoxide plus hydrogen gas, itself a nice fuel source. | Metals and other heavy elements are typically allowed to settle | into some molten glass to keep them contained. | | A publicly traded company called StarTech trying to do this was | getting lots of publicity as recently as 2007 | (https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prophet-garba...) | but went bankrupt in 2013 after the death of its founder, Joseph | Longo (https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Wilton-s- | environmental-d...). | | A company called InEnTec claims to have the technology deployed | in a few places (https://inentec.com/pem-technology/deployed-pem- | technology/) but overall one doesn't hear much about this | possibility. I wonder why not. | theplumber wrote: | The best form of recycling is not producing it in the first | place. Less plastic produced = less harm. It's no longer an | unanswered questionx | CatWChainsaw wrote: | einpoklum wrote: | Up until the last word of the title I was sure it was going to | say: | | "Virginia Tech researcher finds a new method for recycling | papers" | | :-P | proee wrote: | Why don't we promote more single-use aluminum containers? Are | aluminum cans considered a success in terms of recycling and not | going into the landfill? Why don't we have aluminum yogurt | containers, aluminum milk cartons, etc? Has the 5-cent deposit | program by some states been a success? If so, this seems like a | good solution for more products than just beverages. | | Aluminum seems like a really cool material for packaging. One | obvious downside though is that aluminum is not clear. | TonyTrapp wrote: | From what I know aluminium is also not safe to use with all | kinds of foods, especially if they are acidic. Among your | examples, this might be a problem with yogurt. | thfuran wrote: | It's already regularly used for soda, which is a good deal | more acidic than yogurt. The cans are all coated in plastic. | eatbitseveryday wrote: | Agreed, though some folks will remind us that alu cans are | lined with plastic (which is more a health argument than | recycling), but similar to paper cartons, that may need to be | stripped prior to recycling. | eptcyka wrote: | Aluminum is no panacea - its expensive to mine both | ecologically and energy wise, and its energy intensive to | recycle. I'd be more interested in reusable containers. | abraae wrote: | Not a panacaea but another benefit of aluminium (the correct | term for many of us around the world :) is that the process | acts as electricity storage, providing a useful way to soak | up excess power when it is cheap. | shagie wrote: | American Companies Still Make Aluminum. In Iceland. - | https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/american- | comp... | | > Electricity in Iceland costs about 30 percent less than | what Alcoa might pay in the United States. That's a crucial | consideration, because the Alcoa smelter alone uses more | than five million megawatt-hours of electricity each year | -- about the same as the half-million people and all the | businesses in the city of Colorado Springs. | shagie wrote: | https://recycling.world-aluminium.org/review/sustainability/ | | https://citizensustainable.com/recycling-aluminum/ | | https://www.treehugger.com/the-benefits-of-aluminum- | recyclin... | | From the last link: | | > Recycling aluminum saves 90% to 95% of the energy needed to | make aluminum from bauxite ore. It doesn't matter if you're | making aluminum cans, roof gutters or cookware, it is simply | much more energy-efficient to recycle existing aluminum to | create the aluminum needed for new products than it is to | make aluminum from virgin natural resources. | | > So how much energy are we talking about here? Recycling one | pound of aluminum (33 cans) saves about 7 kilowatt-hours | (kWh) of electricity. With the energy it takes to make just | one new aluminum can from bauxite ore, you can make 20 | recycled aluminum cans. | | > Putting the energy question into even more down-to-earth | terms, the energy saved by recycling one aluminum can is | enough to power a television set for three hours. | | Aluminum is _extremely_ recyclable and energy efficient at | doing it. Estimates put it at 75% of all aluminum that has | ever been created is still in circulation having been | recycled because it is so easy to do it. | | https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/wastewise/web/. | .. | | > Aluminum can be recycled using less than 5 percent of the | energy used to make the original product. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling | | > Recycling aluminium uses about 5% of the energy required to | create aluminium from bauxite; the amount of energy required | to convert aluminium oxide into aluminium can be vividly seen | when the process is reversed during the combustion of | thermite or ammonium perchlorate composite propellant. | | > Aluminium die extrusion is a specific way of getting | reusable material from aluminium scraps but does not require | a large energy output of a melting process. In 2003, half of | the products manufactured with aluminium were sourced from | recycled aluminium material. | | That wouldn't be the case if it was intensive to recycle. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | One drawback of aluminum is that it still has to be lined with | plastic, which is burned off before recycling the aluminum. The | plastic also leeches into food. | samstave wrote: | 100%, but know that hte 5-cent program has been literally one | of hte biggest frauds. | | But here is where I am, "Are you a 'millenial'? NO I am anti | petro. Period. | | I literally look at every product I purchase and see micro- | plastics. | | When I look at any product on the market, I evaluate how much | micro-plastics I am buying. | | If you are a company that builds products with plastic | containers, I do my best to avoid you. | | But your point is spot on. | | THE BIGGEST TAX PAYERS IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE ANYONE THAT | SUPPLIES THEIR PRODUCT IN SINGLE_USE PLASTIC. | | My "recycling" bin should contain less bullshit than my | garbage. | | Its a weird phenom that we are conditioned to be "proud" of the | amount of fill in our recycle bin. | theplumber wrote: | >> Its a weird phenom that we are conditioned to be "proud" | of the amount of fill in our recycle bin. | | I really believe the subject of banning plastics has been | hijacked by oil interests to ecourage "recycling" knowing | that it's a broken model. Just like the ESG stocks where you | have oil companies being on top of the sustainability chart | due their diversity score and high wages. | ryanmarsh wrote: | I have a way of recycling polystyrene that's also good for | dealing with tyrants. | lsllc wrote: | Even with this development in recycling, Styrofoam should just be | banned for packaging. Aside from disposal, it's very brittle and | you end up opening a box only to find smashed up Styrofoam that | now escapes all over the house/outside/car which is nearly | impossible to clean up adding yet more micro plastics to the | environment. | | There's nothing wrong with using formed cardboard packing instead | of styrofoam and it can be recycled again, or at least if it ends | up in a landfill, it'll biodegrade instead of still being there | at the eventual heat death of the universe. | purpleblue wrote: | Styrofoam should absolutely be banned. It should be considered | toxic waste at this point. There are incrementally more | expensive solutions that companies can use instead of | styrofoam, there's no excuse for its use anymore. It's | literally single-use and no one else can use a piece of | styrofoam efficiently. It often takes up so much space that it | fills up your landfill garbage bin. As a planet we should ban | its use with prejudice. | crazygringo wrote: | I'm really trying to think, but I don't think I've encountered | styrofoam in _years_. All the packaging for mid-sized consumer | products that would have used it in the past (small blender, | air purifier, dust buster, etc.) seem to use either formed | cardboard or else folded cardboard with cutouts. | | The last times I remember seeing it were when I bought a window | AC unit and a portable digital piano. Both of which weigh 25+ | pounds, where I think only styrofoam is the only economical | material which exists that is both protective enough but also | able to support all that weight. I'd guess heavy blenders would | also still need it. | | So not sure we need to ban it if manufacturers have already | mostly stopped using where cardboard is a viable replacement? | Unless there are categories of products still using it that I'm | missing? | | Same with styrofoam for to-go food containers -- everything I | see is plastic or cardboard now, haven't seen styrofoam in | years. Unless this is regional? | Tronno wrote: | I have encountered it as building insulation recently. | | In my neighborhood, millions of styrofoam beads blew away | from a construction site, then settled like snow on grass | fields, in gutters, and in other nooks and crannies. I | reported it to the city and they did nothing. Now that | styrofoam will be out there forever. | | I would not be opposed to a ban. | HappySweeney wrote: | They got mealworms to eat styrofoam, so that stuff will likely | be everywhere soon as the "environmental" container material. | Apocryphon wrote: | Doesn't that mean microplastics will end up in the food chain | from the animals that eat mealworms | shagie wrote: | Nope - its digested (chemically processed). | | https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200527105055. | h... | | > The team placed 50 superworms in a chamber with | polystyrene as their only carbon source, and after 21 days, | the worms had consumed about 70% of the plastic. The | researchers then isolated a strain of Pseudomonas | aeruginosa bacteria from the gut of the worms and showed | that it that could grow directly on the surface of | polystyrene and break it down. Finally, they identified an | enzyme from the bacteria, called serine hydrolase, that | appeared to be responsible for most of the biodegradation. | This enzyme, or the bacteria that produce it, could someday | be used to help break down waste polystyrene, the | researchers say. | | It is decomposed into simpler components that can be used | by the bacteria itself for energy. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serine_hydrolase | Apocryphon wrote: | That's reassuring. Perhaps biopunk will allow us to | create a brighter solarpunk future. | happymellon wrote: | Now to try and gather all the styrofoam... | | It still doesn't feel like a reasonable picture. | | Not when we have alternatives such as corrugated | cardboard. | shagie wrote: | Gathering all the styrofoam is a problem. However, | cardboard doesn't fit all the roles that styrofoam fills | (in particular insulation). | | There's certainly a need to use the most recyclable | solution (rather than cheapest) of the practical options. | It is also important to remember that not all recyclable | solutions are practical. | | For packing fill and protection, switching from styrofoam | to cardboard increases its carbon footprint because of | the increased weight of the cardboard needed for | packaging. | | https://theecobahn.com/packaging/plastic-vs-cardboard- | packag... | | Having better recycling with plastic products can mean | reduced shipping footprint, reduced water usage | (recycling paper products is water intensive) and a | reduced demand for wood pulp meaning that planted trees | can capture more carbon before they're needed as a | resource. | | Our current use of plastics (lack of recycling options | leading to disposal in landfill) is not something that is | sustainable but going with solutions like corrugated | cardboard can hide other costs. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-24 23:02 UTC)