Specialists from one space agency figured out how to remake plastic waste into rocket fuel that has already been successfully tested. This type of rocket fuel can be used in some small launches like delivering microsatellites and so on... The new type of fuel for rockets might be another step towards solving environmental issues.
Plastic does come from petroleum. I wonder if or when they will turn it to a fuel that cars and bikes can run on.
Plastic can be recycled and processed into a whole bunch of things with minimal/feasible effort. The issue is with segregation. There are too many types of plastics being thrown away. Collection she separation of individual postive is very very expensive and inefficient. Which is why most plastic waste goes to dumpyards in low income countries. Here, people may physically go through the waste. So don't expect this thing anytime soon. Also, the carbon footprint of burning plastics is not necessarily better than the current rocket fuels.
https://www.treehugger.com/europe-s-plastic-recycling-is-getting-dumped-in-the-ocean-5070465 The point of recycling plastic is to save marine life. And since the ocean produces 50-80% of the world's oxygen burning it would likely be better than dumping it in the ocean.
Seems costly and taking into consideration the investment into rockets, I think the unspoken problem is how much finance the whole project needs (fuel, rockets, production and maintenance)
you need quite some power to transform plastic beforehand even going back to mineral oil you wouldnt have enough energy density for rocket fuel (see planes where they use kerosine instead of petrol) rocket fuel in general is quite nasty stuff (if you ignore the water pressure hobby rockets ) so you spend enery to make plastic into some toxic highly combustable substance and burn it giving you CO2 + some more toxic waste products how many rockets would be needed to get rid of the plastic waste ? and is it any better than burning it directly ? plastic is isnt only plastic pp, pet, pu, nylon etc and everything would need different approaches for processing it also doing that transformation might be nice but what substances are used in the process? how many energy is needed, how many fuel would you gain by 1ton of plastic ... possible and reasonable arent the same
Since the OP included no links or any context for this, I'm going to assume this is what's being discussed: https://www.skyrora.com/ecosene As I understand it, they're making something similar to kerosene. Per their website, they expose polypropylene, polyester, and polystyrene (three specific types of plastics) to pyrolysis and refining. Pyrolysis just means they heat it, which uses a lot of energy. God knows what refining means in this context, but I bet it uses a lot of energy. Until the process is energy-positive, which doesn't seem to be the case based on their website and press materials, then it's best to keep the plastic as plastic and recycle it the old-fashioned way or burn it so it doesn't end up in landfills.
changing to bio degredable plastics might be the way to go i think some managed to make milk into compostable plastic bags
Converting to biodegradable plastics or plastic substitutes is a good step forward, but it doesn't address all the plastic that already exists. We have to come up with something profitable to do with the plastics we already have to keep them out of landfills and the environment at large. For better or worse, the world is profit-driven. If there's not a financial gain to be seen from getting plastics out of the ocean and the environment at large, that's where it'll stay. I'm not sure I like the idea of taking carbon that's essentially sequestered in plastics, converting it to fuel, and pumping it into the atmosphere. That said, I like that people are researching ways to make recycling plastics profitable enough to make extracting or harvesting it from the environment financially feasible.
that would be a problem in itself - like the clima change fighting it cost money, some might get profits out of it but the overlooked part is "what happens/would it cost if nothing is done ? there is an estimated sea level rise worldwide of 2,7m until 2100. Think of the lost land, the lost costal cities (that mostly double with their habours as trading hubs). On the other hand parts of the world will get to hot to be habitable over the whole year. As for the plastic it all comes back to the humans as it enriches with the maritime food chain similar to lead and other substance and how many ppl live or die by what they get out of the ocean ? ... less landmasses, more refugees, increasing world population (i think i heard a prediction of about 11.000.000.000 for 2100) expect gigantic costs later- so acting now might save alot of money
If acting preemptively was something humans were good at doing, we'd have switched to mostly renewable energy sources and cleaned up the environment as soon as it was apparent that it could doom humanity, which was decades ago. As it stands, things get done most quickly when you engage the private sector. Even if the environment is crumbling around us, privately funded companies can't subsist on goodwill. As a private entity, you have to make a profit. If you don't, you go bankrupt. In short, the private sector won't move if there isn't a profit to be made. Either governments need to start ponying up a lot more funds to entice private involvement, or the private sector needs to find a way to make it profitable. Plastics to rocket fuel is an example of the latter, even if their method isn't profitable yet. Once there's a profit motive for plastic recycling, people will be out in droves to harvest it from easily accessible locations, like the garbage patches in the ocean and landfills. If you build it, they will come.
You can just burn it for energy without the expensive process of making it into a rocket fuel. Then use the cost difference between the two to invest into renewables. It would have a much higher ROI, ROEI and better for the environment.
I know, and I am specifying specifically to burn it for energy. The amount of plastics is finite, so spending a ton of money on trying to get rid of something easily finite is a waste of time and money. Switch to biodegradable bags, burn the plastics for energy, offset the savings of making that fuel by investing into renewables. I do agree that any process has to be economic, and I can't help but facepalm when purists get all dicey about how companies are in renewables to make a profit, not for the environment. What they don't realize is companies being in it for money is a good thing, that means that it can be done sustainably!
Burning plastics is already happening. The problem is that it's cheaper and easier to burn coal and natural gas. The added costs of sourcing recycled plastics and scrubbing the waste gases make it less profitable and less enticing without grants or tax rebates. Everything on Earth is finite. There's 150 million metric tons of plastic in the ocean, not to mention what's on land. There's close to an additional 10 million tons added to the ocean each year. Those numbers are finite, but that's still enough material for companies to spend years, if not decades, chewing through. Solutions don't need to be permanent. As long as a company can exist for years and turn a profit, that's enough. Yup. I wish goodwill were enough to run a company on. The sad truth is that what a company does needs to be self-sustaining. Until companies can sustain on recycling plastics without outside funding, plastics are likely to stay where they are.
Maybe you should invent some plastic eating termites. There are lots of things that are non-bio degredable, all kinds of alloys and metals. Just that plastics cost less to produce and cost more to recycle, unlike metal alloys like copper and aluminum. And yes. Mecha termites that eat steels doesn't exist.
Plastic eating termites don't exist, but plastic eating bacteria are a thing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/03/10/the-race-to-develop-plastic-eating-bacteria/ Like most things in the world of plastic recycling, it's not a usable solution, yet. But, it's one possible tool that could be used in the future to combat the issue of plastic pollution and to make recycling profitable.
Guess plastics are becoming more and more bio degredable. Guess in the future, I not only have to worry about my plastics became yellowing, preserving them with all the chemicals and UV lighting. But have to do sterilization to prevent mold growing on it. If those bacteria/fungus run loose in to the wild. The damage would be catastrophic. I still prefers bigger organisms than any kinds of bacteria or fungus of any kind.