The Plastics Problem

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Honestly, I really didn't know whether to upvote that as "Great Response!" or "Ha!Ha!"  

In all seriousness now, I remind readers that all plastics can (and should) be 100% bulk recyclable by placing the plastic scrap into a Converter, where the material is converted into valuable gasoline.  That gasoline would be roughly 100 octane, need no MTBE, and you can dispense with the blending of ethanol.  Clean-burn plastic-scrap gasoline is totally pure stuff, and I see a nice market for ethanol-free gasoline such as for light aircraft engines. I anticipate a gold-rush of such plants getting built, now that landfilling is getting difficult (at best) and the Chinese have closed the doors to taking it in. 

I think the returns on equity would be spectacular.  Probably running at 100% per year. 

Jan, it boils down to reverse engineer and the breaking of the chemical bonds and the ability to reconfigure the bonds so it reverts to a liquid hydrocarbon. All plastics have those molecules and therefore can be converted back into the original feedstock. Companies are doing it some slower than others a few have got it right and more will follow.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Jan, it boils down to reverse engineer and the breaking of the chemical bonds and the ability to reconfigure the bonds so it reverts to a liquid hydrocarbon. All plastics have those molecules and therefore can be converted back into the original feedstock. Companies are doing it some slower than others a few have got it right and more will follow.

Sure!  For example, HDPE and LDPE plastics all started out as ethylene monomer, then ploymerized into polyethlenes.  So if you break those chains you are back to carbon and hydrogen,  the components of gasoline  (C8H18).  Heat, pressure, and catalysts will do the trick.  Enjoy! 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 6/25/2019 at 5:02 PM, Ward Smith said:

Where I live, they installed a "waste to energy" plant with much fanfare and to the tune of over $380 million dollars. I inspected the plant as it was going in, and filed a formal complaint about how government money was being spent. Specifically, I called them out for having insufficient electrical power for what they were claiming. Of course my complaint was rejected because I didn't have "standing".

Fast forward a decade and we have a big power delivery problem (remember Enron? ), and people start writing into the newspaper asking about how much power "their" waste to energy plant is producing. FINALLY someone associated with the plant confessed that they don't have the proper high voltage lines going into the facility and in fact, have no ability to produce or deliver electricity whatsoever. 

Why is that, and where did did all that state and federal money go? Think Sopranos and you'll have a clue. 

Notwithstanding the alleged issues around appropriate connection lines a problem sometimes seen with waste incineration projects is where other policies compete for calorific sources of waste - paper, plastic, textiles and green wastes. Where these are removed through recycling schemes the calorific value of the waste falls dramatically which lowers the potential energy production of the plant - sometimes even pushing it into negative figures because fuel is needed to adequately burn the waste stream.  

If a Municipality want to go down the WTE route then the best advise for consumers is to leave combustibles in the waste stream and ideally separate out metals and glass for recycling. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Notwithstanding the alleged issues around appropriate connection lines a problem sometimes seen with waste incineration projects is where other policies compete for calorific sources of waste - paper, plastic, textiles and green wastes. Where these are removed through recycling schemes the calorific value of the waste falls dramatically which lowers the potential energy production of the plant - sometimes even pushing it into negative figures because fuel is needed to adequately burn the waste stream.  

If a Municipality want to go down the WTE route then the best advise for consumers is to leave combustibles in the waste stream and ideally separate out metals and glass for recycling. 

I'm not sure I have the time, or crayons to argue with you. 

Suffice to say You're wrong

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

I'm not sure I have the time, or crayons to argue with you. 

Suffice to say You're wrong

Oh go on. I'd really like to hear a grade A, Walter Mitty Cretin like you discuss the calorific content of plastic and paper. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Oh go on. I'd really like to hear a grade A, Walter Mitty Cretin like you discuss the calorific content of plastic and paper. 

All right now, fellas, that is quite enough. No more insults, please.  Both you guys have strong personalities, no need to get into a slugfest with bloody noses here on the Community. Please.  Let's all stay friendly. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

I'm not sure I have the time, or crayons to argue with you. 

Suffice to say You're wrong

Walter - Your post has nothing to do with the point I was making which was that waste management policies can compete with each other 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

the calorific value of the waste falls dramatically

OK, so granting that argument, how about incorporating woodlot waste (chips, bark, sawdust) into the fireburn chamber and adding yard waste, especially leaves (in season)?  That should get it hot enough!

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

All right now, fellas, that is quite enough. No more insults, please.  Both you guys have strong personalities, no need to get into a slugfest with bloody noses here on the Community. Please.  Let's all stay friendly. 

I wasn't even arguing with Walter Mitty. I was simply adding a point as described in my previous post about waste management strategies potentially conflicting with each other. 

Any moron with a double figure IQ should be able to work out that if you strip out a proportion of the combustibles from the waste stream the incinerator is going to have a lower output. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 minutes ago, NickW said:

Oh go on. I'd really like to hear a grade A, Walter Mitty Cretin like you discuss the calorific content of plastic and paper. 

Flagged for being insulting with no class. At least up your game. 

Calorific? Is that term supposed to scare me? Lol.

The link had an instructive chart.  I suggest you view it. You can comprehend charts can't you? 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Ward Smith

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, NickW said:

if you strip out a proportion of the combustibles from the waste stream the incinerator is going to have a lower output. 

All true, Nick.  

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

Flagged for being insulting with no class. At least up your game. 

Calorific? Is that term supposed to scare me? Lol.

The link had an obstructive chart.  I suggest you view it. You can comprehend charts can't you? 

Yes Walter. I wasn't even arguing your point but simply adding to the conversation. 

Calorific - no, I'm not scared by the word either.  I would assume a man with your superlative intelligence would fully understand what was meant. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, so granting that argument, how about incorporating woodlot waste (chips, bark, sawdust) into the fireburn chamber and adding yard waste, especially leaves (in season)?  That should get it hot enough!

Quite - you also need sufficent temperature to burn off nasties like Dioxins

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Flagged for being insulting with no class. At least up your game. 

Calorific? Is that term supposed to scare me? Lol.

The link had an obstructive chart.  I suggest you view it. You can comprehend charts can't you? 

I wasn't arguing against recycling but pointing out the conflict in trying to apply both approaches. 

Furthermore what has happened to that paper and plastic - well local markets get flooded so it gets exported to developing countries where they basically get paid the land fill tax to dump it or burn it on a bonfire. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by NickW

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, NickW said:

to burn off nasties like Dioxins

All true, Nick, and that remains a problem with incineration.  And I do not see a solution for that on the horizon.  Has anyone stumbled across a workable solution for segregating dioxins out of an exhaust stream?

[NickW + 2,714]

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

All true, Nick, and that remains a problem with incineration.  And I do not see a solution for that on the horizon.  Has anyone stumbled across a workable solution for segregating dioxins out of an exhaust stream?

High temperature burn and pass the flu gases through a catalytic oxidiser. 

I think the process is to convert Chlorine atoms to Hydrochloric Acid. 

Electrostatic filters and other abate may capture a proportion and entrain in the ash produced which ultimately ends up in a land fill or converted into building blocks. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by NickW

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

@NickWbegan by insinuating my statement was a fabrication. Notwithstanding that unlike him, I know what three phase power looks like, and have delivered same in copious quantities where needed, the further point lost is that BURNING GARBAGE is going the way of the dodo bird. Calling it waste to energy is a scam, at best a ton of garbage rich in plastics delivers 500 kw. Now compare that to coal. It is also amazing that utilities burning coal receive grief about parts per million pollutants, while these waste to energy plants get a free pass sending dioxins by the ton into the atmosphere, let alone CO2 that Nick seems to be allergic to. 

[NickW + 2,714]

14 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

@NickWbegan by insinuating my statement was a fabrication. Notwithstanding that unlike him, I know what three phase power looks like, and have delivered same in copious quantities where needed, the further point lost is that BURNING GARBAGE is going the way of the dodo bird. Calling it waste to energy is a scam, at best a ton of garbage rich in plastics delivers 500 kw. Now compare that to coal. It is also amazing that utilities burning coal receive grief about parts per million pollutants, while these waste to energy plants get a free pass sending dioxins by the ton into the atmosphere, let alone CO2 that Nick seems to be allergic to. 

Nope - I wasn't insinuating anything - thats your paranoia at work

I know  what 3 phase power which in any case is not relevant to this point. That obviously comes from my conversation with Wastral who is starting to sound like your sock puppet.

I am not a great fan of burning garbage either buts its a better alternative to landfilling where space is at a premium or export for 'recycling'

I don't know about the USA but certainly in Europe WTE plants do not get a free pass when it comes to emissions. Infact follow the link below - they don't get a free pass in the US

"Sending dioxins by the Ton' - get real the national inventory of emissions is measured in grams😄

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin/recordisplay.cfm?deid=235432

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by NickW

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 minutes ago, NickW said:

Nope - I wasn't insinuating anything - thats your paranoia at work

I know  what 3 phase power which in any case is not relevant to this point. That obviously comes from my conversation with Wastral who is starting to sound like your sock puppet.

I am not a great fan of burning garbage either buts its a better alternative to landfilling where space is at a premium or export for 'recycling'

I don't know about the USA but certainly in Europe WTE plants do not get a free pass when it comes to emissions. Infact follow the link below - they don't get a free pass in the US

"Sending dioxins by the Ton' - get real the national inventory of emissions is measured in grams😄

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/dioxin/recordisplay.cfm?deid=235432

 

Micro grams per ton of input streams. But how many tons of input are there? 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Plastics problem about to be solved!!!

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Five major forces that have traditionally acted independently will converge over the next decade, threatening a largely unprepared target.

Although the above statement may read like the storyline of a science-fiction novel, it is actually the scenario that Deloitte LP lays out in a new study about potential looming upheaval across the downstream value chain. Moreover, the consultancy contends that many refining and chemical companies – with their combined $3 trillion asset base – have been ignoring the series of forces and are set to enter a “brave new world” for the downstream.

Based on its analysis of more than 1,350 downstream companies worldwide, Deloitte has identified five disruptors tied to increasing market risks and increasing commoditization. The firm’s study, “One Downstream: Strategic Imperatives for the evolving refining and chemical sectors,” asserts that the factors are shrinking the operating margin spread between the least and most profitable downstream companies and laying the foundation for consolidation on a grand scale. A breakdown of the five downstream disruptors that Deloitte envisions over the next decade follows.

• More renewable feedstocks for petroleum products and chemicals: Sustainability will likely force companies to increasingly resort to more mechanical, chemical and thermal recycling of plastics where both the hydrocarbon and energy content is fed into polymerization units.
• More end-market disruption to feedstocks: End-products – such as unrecyclable plastic waste – could increasingly be converted into primary fuels or raw materials for manufacturing.
• Changing self-regulation: Sustainability initiatives driven by stakeholder expectations and boardroom agendas could increasingly extend to internal and external factors such as feedstock, technology, end-markets and globalization. Examples of such industry-driven activities include using renewable feedstocks and advancing crude-to-chemicals technologies.
• Globalization: The downstream industry cannot afford to stand aside or take a defensive posture on the topic of globalization as new feedstock resources become more widely available and the energy trade and investment become more regionally concentrated in Asia and the Middle East.
• Changing large-scale operational tech landscape: The functionality and economics of off-the-shelf technologies and commoditized processes that have been used for decades face potential threats from changes in feedstock mix (single to diversified), stricter and proactive green mandates and anticipated end-market disruption such as peak oil demand by 2030.

“The report draws attention to the possibility that the recent very positive business environment, with healthy margins across the entire downstream sector, has masked a broad set of emerging risks,” said Andrew Slaughter, executive director of Deloitte’s Energy, Resources and Industrials group. “It is striking that while risk exposure has turned negative, a large number of companies are not sufficiently updating their recognition of their deteriorating risk profile – either for their firm, their sector or for downstream in general. Could this leave them ill-prepared as these risks strengthen? Quite possibly.”

Slaughter also pointed out that the looming convergence of downstream disruptors will be ongoing rather than a one-time event. He said that disruption will resemble a market with a rate of change faster than what the downstream has witnessed in recent decades.

“We expect the overall balance of downstream, in terms of investment and capacity, to pivot a bit more to the chemicals side, which likely has higher growth potential than fuels over the long term, but companies with the ability to flex operations will do better in terms of weathering the change,” said Slaughter. “There could be more consolidation in the smaller or more focused spaces in the sector.”

To be sure, Slaughter noted that some downstream firms are better-positioned to confront the looming convergence of disruptive forces than others – particularly large, well-capitalized, diversified refining and chemical companies with a global reach.

“In a market with changing needs and changing feedstock supply patterns, firms which have developed flexibility to use different feedstocks and to produce different end-product portfolios seem likely to have the most durable success,” he said. “Firms focusing on simpler and more focused feedstock to product operations will likely be exposed to more volatility in the market, with such niche players doing well under favorable market conditions but being more vulnerable when market conditions turn against them.”

Slaughter added that guidance does exist for downstream firms seeking to develop plans for navigating the threats on the horizon.

“There is an opportunity to learn from companies in adjacent sectors about how they are identifying and adapting to emerging risks,” Slaughter concluded. “And this could lead to more opportunities for collaboration and partnership up and down the value chain.”

 

https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/industry/oil-and-gas/one-downstream-view-of-industry-strategic-imperatives.html

 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

20 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Honestly, I really didn't know whether to upvote that as "Great Response!" or "Ha!Ha!"  

Anecdotal evidence to remind all plastics haters that plastics are popular for more than one reason, such as cost. They do save a lot of trouble as packaging.

[Janet Alderton + 124]

On 6/26/2019 at 9:43 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Sure!  For example, HDPE and LDPE plastics all started out as ethylene monomer, then ploymerized into polyethlenes.  So if you break those chains you are back to carbon and hydrogen,  the components of gasoline  (C8H18).  Heat, pressure, and catalysts will do the trick.  Enjoy! 

I have been very intrigued by this process and investigated the possible air emissions problems. Turns out that polyvinyl chloride plastics must be excluded to have a clean-running non-polluting system. The non-PVC plastics are heated in an oxygen-free environment to a level that is adequate to break the polymer bonds. This heat threshold is low enough that dioxin formation is avoided. 

The plastics do not need to be 100% clean.

I do not know what can be done to recycle PVC plastics.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

40 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

I do not know what can be done to recycle PVC plastics.

And it may come to the point that PVC will have to be abolished.  At least, as a consumer product.  Fortunately, I suspect PET would be adequate as a product substitute.  PVC will continue to be used in an industrial context, such as sewer piping.  If you need to scrap that, then possibly grinding up and using the material in a casting environment would work for recycling. 

Thanks for writing.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

Plastics Makers Welcome Introduction of Save Our Seas Act 2.0

WASHINGTON (June 26, 2019)—The American Chemistry Council (ACC) today praised the Senate’s introduction of the Save Our Seas Act 2.0 and thanked Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for continuing to lead a collaborative, bipartisan effort to address the problem of marine debris.

“We are excited to work with Congress toward the passage of this important and much needed legislation,” said Steve Russell, vice president of ACC’s Plastics Division. “America’s plastic makers strongly support the bill’s focus on developing ways to repurpose our plastic resources. And we welcome new opportunities to work with other governments to increase knowledge sharing and improve plastic waste management and recycling infrastructure.”

The Save Our Seas Act 2.0 seeks to support scientists and agencies in studying innovative ways to repurpose used plastics in and beyond infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, and to study technologies for converting used plastics into chemicals, feedstocks and other products for new manufacturing. These steps are critical for accelerating the move toward a circular economy in the United States and abroad.

Additionally, passage of this bill would create a state revolving fund to strengthen our domestic recycling infrastructure. In 2018, America’s plastics makers established a goal of making all plastic packaging in the United States recyclable or recoverable by 2030 and for all plastic packaging to be recycled or recovered by 2040. A collaborative effort—involving government, industry, recyclers, and other stakeholders—will be critical to achieving these goals.

Many of America’s plastic makers are among the founders of and contributors to the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, a new nonprofit with a goal of deploying $1.5 billion to help develop the systems, knowledge, and infrastructure needed to collect and repurpose waste, including in regions where most environmental leakage occurs. Other key members of the Alliance include brand owners, plastic processors and recyclers.

 

 

https://endplasticwaste.org/

 

https://www.americanchemistry.com/Sustainability/Circular-Economy.html