Depolymerization of plastic for reuse or use as gasoline is energetically not sustainable hence not only not ecologically but also not economocially. PET for example can be recylced (and already is to a rather high extend in Middle Europe, of roughly 40-60%) without breaking up the whole chemical structural network.
Other plastics can not be reused/recycled in such a way, due to the very properties they were initially designed to have (high mechanical or thermical resistance). Those plastics can only be energetically recycled, what means that they have to be burned. If this is done i a proper way (depending on the specific plastic) it is just the same like burning wood. The energetical output and the released gases are pretty much comparable.
...Just adding to your depolymerize-into-gasoline-statement. ;)
Best,
mountain.phil28
I guess they must have pretty thick filters if they are burning plastic. And as usual, if the fine is cheaper than the less poisonous and probably more ecological solution, then the businesses will choose a fine, or some cheaper solution no matter of the consequences for environment. That's the way it is. And, I don't expect it to change it so soon.
Take PE (Polyethylen). It is built up out of Carbon and Hydrogen. Hence does even has less problematic Elements than Wood (N and S will form gaseous oxides). Burning PE (at appropriate elevated temperatures) will eventually lead to CO2 and H2O only.
Placing a fine on such a process to drive recycling towards 'depolymerization to gasoline' would be irrational and a bigger ecological burden than the other way round. I guess I have to do a more deep diving article on this topic to show the basic calculation behind. :-)
I didn't write this to propose or promote any fines, but to show that the impact of decomposing plastic is already shown on humans - that is on water and seafood.
When washing fleece it tiny fibers fall out and enter the sewage. Besides, I just wanted to show that there are other possibilities, too. The main purpost of my post was to show that we all use plastic and that it is already a very similar problem to humans as it is to animals. What we do to them, we do to us. Mass production causes this and mass consumtion, and the invention of plastic initially. Have humans ever invetened anything where the decompostion of waste (when a product comes to this stage) is included into the invention&production&consumption. So, what do they do with the CO2 and H2O from the incineration process? Do they sell it or just release it?
The main problem is inproper disposal/degradation and in some cases inproper use. Neither invention (as an intellectual process primarily) nor modern production are dangerous or harmful.
What a question... CO2 and H2O are released. Like IT is also done if you fire any 'natural' called energy carriers like wood.
First, you actually write here to earn for your own comments. Second, you try to tell me that nuclear bomb is harmless (sorry I remember quite good how Chernobyl felt). Third, CO2 is released and we pay carbon dioxide taxes. Yay!
Don't mix up knowledge/IP/Inventions and their actual way of usage. ;-)