Interesting bit on this morning’s BBC Global News podcast regarding the ability to efficiently(-ish) make plastic from carbon dioxide emissions. I have issues with searching the BBC website, so here’s a couple blurbs on MSNBC, and the Telegraph for you Anglophiles. Two teams of scientists (led by Thomas E. Müller from Germany and Toshiyasu Sakakura from Japan, respectively) presented their (separate) work today at the ACS spring meeting in N’awlins. Now people have been working on this for some years, but apparently these fellas have been able to make the process more efficient. That is to say the process wouldn’t actually generate more CO2 than it captures in the polycarbonate.
I actually didn’t know what sort of polymer CDs and DVDs are currently made of, but apparently it is in fact polycarbonate[pdf], so i’m guessing not much if any change would be required in the manufacturing process. However, it seems that most beverage containers are made from some form of polyethylene or PVC. I certainly can’t speak to the feasibility of making such things from polycarbonate. Another issue is that, according to that graphic, polycarbonate would be a #7 for recycling, which i think many/most cities and towns won’t take- though it certainly can be done.
Of course this is no solution to CO2 emissions, and some are quite rightly skeptical about its true benefit, but it’s got to be a step in the right direction, yea? Certainly better than spewing it into the atmosphere, even arguably better than sequestration- assuming the plastic would actually get recycled.
Chemists, what do you think?
April 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I’d just like to know how the carbon dioxide in doesn’t equal the carbon dioxide out, and what other byproducts are generated. There is a basic question of how the thermodynamics works out and where they get their energy from. I imagine they took that into account when presenting their findings, but I’d still like to know how they do it.
April 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Agreed, Bastard. None of the articles i saw went into anything remotely specific (i imagine because they hadn’t presented yet, let alone published).
Perhaps a paper or two will come out soon, or at least more detailed news stories.
April 9, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I get really excited about these newly popular waste-stream recycling processes, even when they technically have negative efficiency. The reason it’s exciting is because they compound each other’s effects. The more waste streams we can recycle, the more efficient all of our processes become. That’s not even mentioning the possibility that landfill costs may eventually cut into the efficiency of non-recycling methods. I know there’s some circular reasoning at play here — I’ve caught it myself before — but I’ll be damned if I can scoff at someone trying NOT to offload the long-term consequences on my grandkids.
April 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Yeah, so this reminds me of the whole “burning sea water” thing. Just like B-shot said–what’s the net balance of energy here? Unless they’ve developed some biologically-based catalyst with exceptional turnover quantity, how could it possibly be energetically feasible?
April 9, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I wouldn’t hold my breath, at least with regard to mainstream news. I’m pretty sure words like ‘thermodynamic’ are completely banned from their sites. You might find something about net CO2 production, but again it probably won’t be in enough detail to see if the calculations are robust and assume ‘worst-case’, or at the least average, CO2 emission from power sources.
I’d also like to know what kind of catalysts and stuff are used. A lot of alternative energy or carbon sequestration solutions get killed off by issues of scale. It will work in the lab, but not in a huge industrial plant, let alone on a national level.
April 10, 2008 at 8:16 am
Good points all around, thanks duders! I certainly wouldn’t expect anything thorough from the regular news, and i’m not sure it would make much of a splash on /. and the like, but maybe there will be some press release or story from the ACS or their respective institutions. The BBC podcast made it sound like they’re being good about their setup and match, but again who knows for sure.