Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
On top of all the other bad things we can attribute to plastics pollution (the damage to marine life, the leaching of toxic chemicals into the environment, and making gross and unsightly beaches, etc.), a team at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa’s Center for Microbial Oceanography has found one more: Plastics are releasing potent greenhouse gases, including methane and ethylene, into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. (Is there any other kind of rate?)

Worse still, of the seven kinds of plastic tested in the new study, published Wednesday in PLOS One — polycarbonate, acrylic, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) — the worst offender was also the most commonly used. Great.
Just wonderful. Embrace the Chaos aka Entropy. /s

Source

Journal
 

·
Otherworlder
Joined
·
7,517 Posts
*shrugs*
its not just plastics really, any byproduct waste of humans are a source of greenhouse gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
*shrugs*
its not just plastics really, any byproduct waste of humans are a source of greenhouse gas.
Well, any waste product that is subject to decomposition. Excluding nuclear waste I guess, if you want to count radioactive decay.

There's plenty of other waste products like traditional plastics, metals etc. that aren't a source of greenhouse gasses.
 

·
Otherworlder
Joined
·
7,517 Posts
Well, any waste product that is subject to decomposition. Excluding nuclear waste I guess, if you want to count radioactive decay.

There's plenty of other waste products like traditional plastics, metals etc. that aren't a source of greenhouse gasses.
maybe not directly, but their production does produce greenhouse gas as a byproduct.
metal foundries for example burn coal or use a lot of electricity to smelt ores into metal ingots.

in this case, anything that requires energy input would inevitably produce greenhouse gas as a byproduct.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Learn to recycle. Many countries around pacific have used it as a dumpster and test site instead, thinking it will hide in there.
maybe not directly, but their production does produce greenhouse gas as a byproduct.
metal foundries for example burn coal or use a lot of electricity to smelt ores into metal ingots.

in this case, anything that requires energy input would inevitably produce greenhouse gas as a byproduct.
Recycling comes at a huge costs and costs money too all thanks to the system we are in. The product that are being recycled need to be worth something otherwise, if they can just be recycled, and they can't be sold to the highest bidder, it's just going to end up in landfill which is where 95% of your recycled items end up in. That lands up in the ocean, part of the food chain and we have a bit of plastic and medical waste all of us. As gross, disgusting, sick and wrong as that may sound, that is a fact.
 

·
High Clocker
Joined
·
3,428 Posts
Recycling comes at a huge costs and costs money too all thanks to the system we are in. The product that are being recycled need to be worth something otherwise, if they can just be recycled, and they can't be sold to the highest bidder, it's just going to end up in landfill which is where 95% of your recycled items end up in. That lands up in the ocean, part of the food chain and we have a bit of plastic and medical waste all of us. As gross, disgusting, sick and wrong as that may sound, that is a fact.
Then it ends up like where I live. Regional goverment invested lots into a recylcing schyme.
8 months into it the place they were sending all the recylcing shuts down since China stopped taking the raw byproducts. National goverment trys to bail them out by throwing more money at recylcing place, CEO and high level management takes money and ditches the country. Then the whole lot of pastics and glass just ends up going into land fill.
 

·
Otherworlder
Joined
·
7,517 Posts
this reminds me, why can't they think of ways to "clean up" greenhouse gases instead of complaining about all the sources it comes from?
for example, dry scrubbers for chimney stacks massively reduces emissions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Then it ends up like where I live. Regional goverment invested lots into a recylcing schyme.
8 months into it the place they were sending all the recylcing shuts down since China stopped taking the raw byproducts. National goverment trys to bail them out by throwing more money at recylcing place, CEO and high level management takes money and ditches the country. Then the whole lot of pastics and glass just ends up going into land fill.
Most of those CEOs and Managers have zero science background. They just got there because someone pulled some strings and now they have a comfortable seating job for the rest of their lives until retirement age. For them, they just want the crap out of sight literally and so that people don't make a scene out of it. These people don't care about the planet or us which is why they are creating this mess in the first place.

However, earth will clean itself like it has done over billions of years and that bit of plastic will simply be compressed and compacted but I don't think we are going to survive with the way things are going.
this reminds me, why can't they think of ways to "clean up" greenhouse gases instead of complaining about all the sources it comes from?
for example, dry scrubbers for chimney stacks massively reduces emissions.
Problem 1- where do you store all that greenhouse gas? If you store it in the ground, it's going to explode. Sending it into space is costly and expensive. Can't put it down a volcano because that will release toxic fumes in the air causing more problems for us and a PR disaster.

Carbon neutral is extremely difficult to achieve which is why everyone is looking to crack fusion though I am still iffy about it not giving out any waste because that defies the laws of thermodynamics. The only clean energy so far is hydrogen which as clean as you can get as it is the most abundant thing in the entire universe. I am 100% that we have the means of cracking fusion but because there is no sense of urgency, they don't want to crack it now otherwise, the scientists will be out of a job. Life on this planet is carbon based so the only way to reduce greenhouse gases is for us to stop producing waste or for us not to be on this planet.
 

·
Otherworlder
Joined
·
7,517 Posts
theres actually quite a few notable means in getting rid of those "contained" greenhouse gas.
CO2 for example can be turned into 2MgO + C by burning magnesium in a pure CO2 atmosphere, MgO is way more useful than CO2.
using the same principle, catalytic converters absorbs emission by reacting with the unwanted gases.

on that note, certain toxic wastes isn't quite possible to process, so storing it like nuclear wastes is the only means, its costly but less hazardous to the environment.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
theres actually quite a few notable means in getting rid of those "contained" greenhouse gas.
CO2 for example can be turned into 2MgO + C by burning magnesium in a pure CO2 atmosphere, MgO is way more useful than CO2.
using the same principle, catalytic converters absorbs emission by reacting with the unwanted gases.

on that note, certain toxic wastes isn't quite possible to process, so storing it like nuclear wastes is the only means, its costly but less hazardous to the environment.

But the trouble is where do you store it safely away from causing environmental damage? Problem with the carbon based lifeform is that it tends to produce lots toxic waste when we decompose or anything living for that matter. This is not limited to benzene/methane and all sorts of other toxic gases which is what causes the temperature to rise.
 

·
Otherworlder
Joined
·
7,517 Posts
But the trouble is where do you store it safely away from causing environmental damage? Problem with the carbon based lifeform is that it tends to produce lots toxic waste when we decompose or anything living for that matter. This is not limited to benzene/methane and all sorts of other toxic gases which is what causes the temperature to rise.
make a leak-resistant bunker? aren't nuclear wastes stored that way?

anyway, storage is mostly just a temporary means, whats needs to be done is actually developing the means of turning these toxic wastes into reusable materials.
even nuclear wastes are undergoing research for recycling, and its not like the earth has unlimited materials so it somewhat becomes necessary in the long run.

on that note, everything boils down to just "throw more money at it", and we all know that nobody wants to do that. :lachen:
 

·
Frog Blast The Vent Core
Joined
·
6,114 Posts
theres actually quite a few notable means in getting rid of those "contained" greenhouse gas.
CO2 for example can be turned into 2MgO + C by burning magnesium in a pure CO2 atmosphere, MgO is way more useful than CO2.
using the same principle, catalytic converters absorbs emission by reacting with the unwanted gases.

on that note, certain toxic wastes isn't quite possible to process, so storing it like nuclear wastes is the only means, its costly but less hazardous to the environment.
I think you fail to appreciate the scale involved. There is not enough raw material to come even close to the amount of CO2 we'd need to chemically process it into something.

Trees are far better at it than anything we could come up with, but it still doesn't really address the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,934 Posts
reminder - just recently it was announced that the USA is the only nation who signed the Kyoto Accord on climate change to have met every goal for greenhouse gas reduction (in fact it's still the only signer to even reduce greenhouse gas production). The fact that the trump administration, which rejected and tossed out the Kyoto accord much to the hypocrites in Europe's general rage only for this fact to come around and slap them in the face only made it a bigger black eye for environmentalists (seeing as the only major anti global warming legislation the "industrial world" signed has been broken by every nation except the USA, who rejected the treaty in it's entirety, making the treaty worth less the the paper it's printed on)

As a result the global warming crew needs something else to scream about to badger the US government about, hence plastic decomposing. Because we've reduced our carbon footprint far beyond the Kyoto accord goals, now they need something else so that they can claim Trump and the USA by extension is ruining the world (this is all about moving the goalposts, the socialist-democratic countries in Europe who are all so green friendly only paid lip-service to the Kyoto accord, and never bothered to do a darned thing about CO2 production, yet global warming is still "trump's" fault somehow).



NOTE: Just to be crystal clear we did not meet those carbon goals thanks to Trump, meeting those goals was mostly due to the work of clinton, bush and obama, trump has been deadset against the Kyoto Accord due to it not including china or india (two countries that have more then trippled their carbon footprint since kyoto was signed).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
make a leak-resistant bunker? aren't nuclear wastes stored that way?

anyway, storage is mostly just a temporary means, whats needs to be done is actually developing the means of turning these toxic wastes into reusable materials.
even nuclear wastes are undergoing research for recycling, and its not like the earth has unlimited materials so it somewhat becomes necessary in the long run.

on that note, everything boils down to just "throw more money at it", and we all know that nobody wants to do that. :lachen:
The trouble with having the waste stored in a location is that you also need to take into account the local wildlife as well as the toxic waste not leaking into the water supply. Extremely difficult and almost impossible given that the system we are in. In order to build it leak proof, it needs to be dense and resistance to corrosion/rust and general wear and tear. Digging deep into the earth's crust and dig so deep, that we can close it, still does not guarantee safety either. It needs to be safe from any fault line or any close to any volcano or any ground that is safe from erosion and sink holes that form due to limestone. Not cheap or cost effective given how deep you'll need to dig deep for it.
 

·
Fantastic Mr Fox
Joined
·
5,859 Posts
Recycling comes at a huge costs and costs money too all thanks to the system we are in.
Yep. In Australia recycling bins are usually co-mingled, so the cost of sorting the waste makes recycling even less economical. In addition, because many people don't know what can be recycled and what can't (it really is confusing), recyclable waste is often contaminated with non-recyclable items, causing the whole lot to be dumped.
 

·
Smug, Jaded, Enervated.
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
About time we just grew large swaths of Hemp, and replaced a lot of products with it...but that would be too logical and easy, and we can't have logical and easy solutions to massive species affecting problems now can we?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
*shrugs*
its not just plastics really, any byproduct waste of humans are a source of greenhouse gas.
Most of those CEOs and Managers have zero science background. They just got there because someone pulled some strings and now they have a comfortable seating job for the rest of their lives until retirement age. For them, they just want the crap out of sight literally and so that people don't make a scene out of it. These people don't care about the planet or us which is why they are creating this mess in the first place.

However, earth will clean itself like it has done over billions of years and that bit of plastic will simply be compressed and compacted but I don't think we are going to survive with the way things are going.
Problem 1- where do you store all that greenhouse gas? If you store it in the ground, it's going to explode. Sending it into space is costly and expensive. Can't put it down a volcano because that will release toxic fumes in the air causing more problems for us and a PR disaster.

Carbon neutral is extremely difficult to achieve which is why everyone is looking to crack fusion though I am still iffy about it [highlight]not giving out any waste because that defies the laws of thermodynamics[/highlight]. The only clean energy so far is hydrogen which as clean as you can get as it is the most abundant thing in the entire universe. I am 100% that we have the means of cracking fusion but because there is no sense of urgency, they don't want to crack it now otherwise, the scientists will be out of a job. Life on this planet is carbon based so the only way to reduce greenhouse gases is for us to stop producing waste or for us not to be on this planet.
Fusion doesn't generate any waste products, the only product of the reaction is helium. It almost certainly would produce waste energy, as conversion isn't going to be 100% efficient, however energy (in whatever form) is not a greenhouse gas.

And people absolutely do want to crack it now, and it is urgent, that's why we're building a $20 billion fusion reactor and there are literally innumerable research projects ongoing into design, modelling and the underlying science to make it possible.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Yep. In Australia recycling bins are usually co-mingled, so the cost of sorting the waste makes recycling even less economical. In addition, because many people don't know what can be recycled and what can't (it really is confusing), recyclable waste is often contaminated with non-recyclable items, causing the whole lot to be dumped.
Things are just going to get worse. The trouble is that because plastic is so cheap and so easy to manufacture, it has zero value. We can recycle precious metals such as aluminium, Copper, Zinc and Gold, but the thing with plastic is that it's worthless because it's so easy to make. In other words, recycling costs money so no one is willing to recycle it, so it gets dumped.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top