veringer t1_j9p54fc wrote on February 23, 2023 at 4:06 PM

Cancer risks aside, is this fuel source actually energy-positive? Does it produce more energy than it requires to manufacture?

LogicThievery t1_j9p7s90 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 4:23 PM

Boy do I hope not, if these petro-vultures smell any profit we'll see this poison go mainstream under a new age-y 'green' branding in like 5 years.

veringer t1_j9qbb45 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 8:27 PM

Right. I brought up the question because I suspect many are only moved by economic arguments, rather than environmental or health-related ones.

Goddess_Peorth t1_j9sjqwy wrote on February 24, 2023 at 6:27 AM

> is this fuel source actually energy-positive?

Plastics are a petroleum product to start with, so it isn't unreasonable to want to convert them to fuel for recycling.

The specious part is calling it "climate-friendly." A lot of the carbon is still sequestered when it is a plastic. Converting it to a fuel releases that carbon when it is burned. So even if it was energy-positive when looking just at the process itself, it is still going to be net worse for the environment than new petroleum production. All it offers is a way for an oil company to output more fuel and make a little more money.

veringer t1_j9u93so wrote on February 24, 2023 at 4:33 PM

I get the problem with how it's being labelled and why it's (at best) a gradation between bad and worse. I also know that some significant fraction of people will only be swayed by economic arguments. So, if it's not energy-positive (or even just break-even), it's likely dead in the water.

All that said, if it did work, it might be interesting if we started converting plastic into energy that had to be used to scrub carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it in a way that doesn't tend to produce microplastics. That would require improved tech and a functional regulatory system, but, let's dream for a while.