by akeck on 1/14/24, 7:40 PM with 88 comments
by jp57 on 1/14/24, 8:17 PM
A kind of pyrolysis, I assume, and very energy intensive. Does this process really produce more stored energy in the output product than it took to run the reaction?
by yread on 1/14/24, 9:26 PM
You can see how dirty the burning is producing soot-heavy smoke when he drives it around Arnhem
by Neil44 on 1/14/24, 9:23 PM
by tsimionescu on 1/14/24, 8:23 PM
Plastic waste is carbon that isn't going into the atmosphere, not very fast at least. Turning it back into oil and then burning that is the very opposite of what we should be doing with it.
by SigmundA on 1/14/24, 10:16 PM
With an electric car you are not limited to any one fuel, whether it be solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, nat gas, oil, coal or plastic / garbage this is the big win decoupling fuel from transport.
by WalterBright on 1/14/24, 10:19 PM
Even a tiny whiff of burning plastic makes me nauseous for hours. I want nothing to do with that. If I seal clothes in a plastic tub for a few years, the clothes take on a plastic smell that also makes me nauseous. It doesn't wash out, so those clothes get thrown out. Long ago I got rid of all the dishes made of plastic. Even plastic cups impart a plasticy taste to water.
by Uptrenda on 1/15/24, 1:25 AM
1. The still needs a way to generate heat to work. A primitive method done in some poorer countries (and in DIY stills) is to use wood to heat it. Guessing the way his still works here relies on fossil fuels to incinerate the plastic (maybe butane or his own fuel -- but if using his own fuel then he would have needed to bootstrap it.)
2. I realize the article mentions this but unless you read the entire article carefully you may not notice this. A lot of people are just going to assume that the designer found a way to recycle plastic without realizing how insanely toxic what they're doing is. Even in the incinerators designed for this purpose scientists have found chemicals in their ashes that never break down from combustion.
3. The author of this article makes frankly a bizarre logical leap by saying that since plastics are already burnt in incinerators doing this isn't that different. They neglect to mention that incinerators are still horrible ways to dispose of waste and that plastic specifically can be recycled into other materials without burning it into a toxic mess.
Overall, the still will generate an extremely dirty fuel capable of being used by ancient engines. For the modern gentleman who gives absolutely zero fucks about the environment. A possible next step from this project would be to figure out how to run a car on nuclear waste so that your car can be a fukushima/chernobyl on wheels.
by dotancohen on 1/14/24, 8:24 PM
> Making 1 liter of diesel requires burning 1 kg of plastic, which results in 2-2.7 kg of carbon emissions.
Does that number (1 kg) include the plastic consumed in the burning process, whose heat is then used to define (opposite of refine) the plastic back to liquid? How does 1 kg of plastic contain 2 kg of carbon? Or is the O2 in CO2 so heavy that "carbon emissions" weigh significantly more than the source hydrocarbon? > Second, there is the combustion of diesel fuel while driving, which emits 2.7 kg of carbon dioxide per liter.
Same question.by bdcravens on 1/14/24, 8:27 PM
> 1 kg of plastic gives 0.5 liters of diesel, so the fuel economy is 7.14 liters per 100 km
This converts to about 33 MPG
https://convertermaniacs.com/liter-per-100-kilometers-to-mil...
by MuffinFlavored on 1/14/24, 9:21 PM
by eterevsky on 1/14/24, 9:04 PM
by yreg on 1/14/24, 8:08 PM
Why don't the fuel producers do this? Is it less efficient than recycling the waste?
by stere0 on 1/14/24, 8:39 PM
by foul on 1/14/24, 10:45 PM
by M95D on 1/15/24, 8:51 AM
by jokoon on 1/14/24, 10:35 PM