Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

THANK GOD THE WORLD IS SAVEDFollow

#1 Nov 10 2013 at 4:39 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
Plastic made from Carbon pulled from the air is now a thing.

It's cheaper than plastic made from Oil.

I don't know how energy-(electricity)-intensive it is to make.

They call it AirCarbon plastic.

http://www.newlight.com/aircarbon-thermoplastic.php
#2 Nov 10 2013 at 5:38 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I don't know how energy-(electricity)-intensive it is to make.
Assuming they're not being misleading about it or otherwise ignoring other issues(other potential pollutants caused by the manufacture of the plastic or even the machines used to make it, for instance), they do say that it's Carbon Negative, so it more or less sounds like the electricity used is low enough that it's offset by the amount of oil saved.
#3 Nov 10 2013 at 5:44 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
So how long until this can/will actually be used?
#4 Nov 10 2013 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Toyota is making plastic from potatoes, but being able to pull carbon molecules from the air sounds way cooler.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#5 Nov 10 2013 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
How long until we actually find out that the carbon is being pulled from the people that are standing too close to the machine?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#6 Nov 10 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Please don't let this go the way of thermal depolymerization. Smiley: crymore
#7 Nov 10 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Now we just need to actively support research into controllable micro-organisms or fungi that can eat plastic and we're all set.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#8 Nov 10 2013 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
they could also just go out and get all that floating plastic trash out in the ocean and..wait for it.. recycle it.
____________________________
Sandinmyeye | |Tsukaremashi*a |
#9 Nov 10 2013 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
they could also just go out and get all that floating plastic trash out in the ocean and..wait for it.. recycle it.
But that's expensive.
#10 Nov 10 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
they could also just go out and get all that floating plastic trash out in the ocean and..wait for it.. recycle it.
But that's expensive.
I read somewhere that the island of plastic trash in the pacific ocean is kind of a misnomer. That it isn't really a big island of solid plastic garbage floating on the surface of the water, and it apparently isn't visible from the air. They don't know exactly where it is or some junk like that.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#11 Nov 10 2013 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
**
496 posts
They know where it is: it's everywhere. It's too spread out to be worth collecting.
#12 Nov 10 2013 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
TirithRR wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
they could also just go out and get all that floating plastic trash out in the ocean and..wait for it.. recycle it.
But that's expensive.
I read somewhere that the island of plastic trash in the pacific ocean is kind of a misnomer. That it isn't really a big island of solid plastic garbage floating on the surface of the water, and it apparently isn't visible from the air. They don't know exactly where it is or some junk like that.

Most of it has turned into plastic soup. Really goopy stuff that fish can't breathe in.
#13 Nov 10 2013 at 11:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
It is a workable idea. We have net fabric available, and net designs that would keep anything larfer than a golf ball out of the net intake, but still be able to remove tons of the stuff. In water it tends to seperate into layers by density too, so you would end up with a fairly consistant, relitivly clean take of recyclable plastic. The problem is twofold. Most of the plastic is going to be an ABS or PVC derivitive. ABS can be purchased clean, ready to go in pellet form for about $0.50 a pound retial, PVC even less. Lets say you get a ship to the garbage patch, set it to scooping, and you harvest 3 tons an hour for a 12 hour shift (which is about average for a midsize fish factory ship fish haul from a seine net) you're looking at around theoretically $36,000 worth of plastic per day. But you have to subtract labor, fuel costs, ship cost, equipment costs, etc from that figure, and thats not even taking into account the likely reqirement to further sort and process the stuff after you collect it. By the time you factor that all in, it would be more worth the money to go salmon or crab fishing with the same size boat, or just haul cargo back and forth.

The other big problem is that the pile of junk is in international waters, which means no government is in a hurry to offer any tax incentives for people to go clean it up. I'm actually suprised one of the bigger corporations out there hasn't launched a small fleet of clean up ships anyways though just for the public relations gain, but there are sources closer to home that are easier to aquire for higher profit margins that haven't been exhausted yet. If you have the $1,000,000 to throw at a plastic recycling plant in one of the areas that isn't already covered by recycling contracts, you can pretty much make your money back in a year and then double it on domestic recycling corporate incentives.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#14 Nov 11 2013 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Don't thank me, I had nothing to do with it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Nov 11 2013 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
How long until we actually find out that the carbon is being pulled from the people that are standing too close to the machine?


This reminds me of Magneto suckin iron out of a guard...great, now plastic processing takes on a whole new light...population control!
#16 Nov 11 2013 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Wordaen, Keeper of the Banstick wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
How long until we actually find out that the carbon is being pulled from the people that are standing too close to the machine?


This reminds me of Magneto suckin iron out of a guard...great, now plastic processing takes on a whole new light...population control!


One day I realized that was Ty Olsson. That was weird.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#17 Nov 11 2013 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm gonna put on my chemist hat, I guess.

Just to discuss this thing.

Carbon capture is something that is happening (and there are lots of papers on this popping up just over the last few months), but that's right at carbon dioxide sources, not randomly from the air. Like, you can collect it fairly well with some new custom materials if there's a lot coming out of some factory or whatever. This whole thing will be carbon negative, for obvious reasons.

Using CO2 in organic synthesis is also totally viable (for specific reactions). I skipped all the polymer chem classes, so I don't know the synthetic routes there, but I don't think it's usually done this way.

It's also theoretically viable to do this with the CO2 in the air. Except that its partial pressure is v. low, so it'd be slow. Like, ridiculously slow. Asymptotically approaching nothing happening at all.

Edited, Nov 11th 2013 6:35pm by Kalivha
#18 Nov 11 2013 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I thought the linked site looked too good to be true. Still, it's not that bad an option I guess.
#19 Nov 11 2013 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
If it's truly carbon negative, but all it does is capture carbon dioxide before we add more to the atmosphere, then it's still a fairly major improvement.
#20 Nov 12 2013 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Boo, science ruined the fun. Thanks, Kali... Smiley: disappointed

I bet you're now going tell me that gamma radiation exposure doesn't create superpowers, right? Sigh, there goes my 7th grade science project plans.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#21 Nov 12 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
You were going to expose 7th graders to radiation?
#22 Nov 12 2013 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You were going to expose 7th graders to radiation?

I say let him do it. Can you think of a better use for them?
#23 Nov 12 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
We can expose the spiders to radiation to make them radioactive so they can bite the 7th graders! Smiley: schooled
#24 Nov 12 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
They know where it is: it's everywhere. It's too spread out to be worth collecting.

But still more concentrated than CO2 in the air.

I imagine the AirCarbon technology only becomes carbon neutral because it's removing CO2 from the air - which probably yields some bonus credit when determining net emissions.

CO2 is already a manufacturing by-product that is recaptured for reuse. And at much higher concentrations than pulling it out of ambient air.

Imagine at 200ppm CO2 in the air and how much air you'd then need to capture and scrub to get a bit of usable carbon.

I honestly don't see CO2 sequestration as being a source for carbon as a manufacturing material.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Nov 12 2013 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You were going to expose 7th graders to radiation?


Going to?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#26 Nov 12 2013 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
They're already brain dead from the EMF's their cell phones are pelting them with. Smiley: wink
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 290 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (290)