A Machine That Turns Plastic Back Into Oil

[shabby]

http://motherboard.tv/2010/8/22/a-machine-that-turns-plastic-back-into-oil--2

Akinori Ito, the CEO of Blest, a Japanese company, has somewhat of a panacea. If plastic is just oil, why don’t we simply turn it back into what it was, he pondered. So the guy made a machine to do just that. His solution is safe, eco-friendly and efficient.

“If we burn the plastic, we generate toxins and a large amount of CO2. If we convert it into oil, we save CO2 and at the same time increase people’s awareness about the value of plastic garbage,” Ito told Our World 2.0.

Home made gasoline? Yes please...

 

[CaptnKirk]

One of the biggest contributors to causing 'Oil Spills' is a tire fire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire_fire

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/tires/fires.htm

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/11/10504/html/biblio/htmls2/prh7.html

http://www.fuzzyworld3.com/pictures3/tirefire.html

 

[XZeroII]

That's never going to work. Why do you think they turned that oil into plastic in the first place? Because it was the part of the oil that wasn't any good for making gas! 1kw of electricity to make 1 liter of gas is a lot as well.

 

[spidey07]

That's never going to work. Why do you think they turned that oil into plastic in the first place? Because it was the part of the oil that wasn't any good for making gas! 1kw of electricity to make 1 liter of gas is a lot as well.

While I admire the idea, it just doesn't make any sense from an efficiency standpoint. The reason why oil is so awesome is the low cost to process it into all it's uses.

 

[iGas]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to burn the plastic in gasification incinerator for energy?

 

[Throckmorton]

Well if you turn it back into oil you can make that into other plastics

 

[Moonbeam]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to burn the plastic in gasification incinerator for energy?

Yes, those are very practical for an Indonesian village.

 

[Moonbeam]

Want to get rich? I have one word for you. Plastics!

 

[Toastedlightly]

I don't think people realize what this is. From my understanding, he is collecting the decomposition products from the heated plastics. These decomp products include benzene, toluene, styrene to name a few of the carcinogens. Does this strike anyone as a bit dangerous?

We have things called refineries and chemical plants which have strict rules about handing and disposal of these monomers (the polymer variants are harmless).

It seems like an interesting bit of gee-wiz but overall it is rather useless. I'd also like to know what the power consumption of this device is as well.

 

[nobodyknows]

Want to get rich? I have one word for you. Plastics!

The Graduate?

 

[werepossum]

Thermal depolymerization plants do the same thing; they initially seemed very promising, although I think there have been more problems in scaling than were anticipated. Can't say I'm overly impressed by this machine, but then 1 KW of electricity is a unit of power rather than energy, so we can't properly evaluate it. A KW-hour is roughly 12 cents on average, so if the almost-liter of oil is of good quality and is usable by the point source with the machine, and it takes only a couple hours to make the oil, then this might be a good thing. If on the other hand it takes a significant amount of time to produce the oil, or if as Toasted brought up if there are significant environmental issues, then this could be a bad thing.

 

[CycloWizard]

"If plastic is just oil..."

Well, there's the first place he went wrong. Plastic is not just oil. It's certain portions of oil which have been extracted during the refinement process, then covalently reacted, usually with other additives, to create huge molecules. Plastics which are made in large enough quantities to worry about in this discussion (billions of pounds per year) are made in such large quantities because their polymerization reactions are thermodynamically favorable (i.e. they are at a lower energy state in the polymerized form than as monomers - the reactions are exothermic). Reversing this to regenerate the monomers will always be an energy loser, even if it's technically achievable, because you have to overcome the thermodynamic cost of breaking the covalent bonds which hold the mess together. See the second quote in my sig to see where this guy is coming from.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://motherboard.tv/2010/8/22/a-machine-that-turns-plastic-back-into-oil--2



Home made gasoline? Yes please...

That guy and the machine are fantastic : ^_^

He makes it look so easy. Why do we not do this in the western world ?

 

[bigi]

If this were only remotely true, that guy would be dead already.

 

[William Gaatjes]

"If plastic is just oil..."

Well, there's the first place he went wrong. Plastic is not just oil. It's certain portions of oil which have been extracted during the refinement process, then covalently reacted, usually with other additives, to create huge molecules. Plastics which are made in large enough quantities to worry about in this discussion (billions of pounds per year) are made in such large quantities because their polymerization reactions are thermodynamically favorable (i.e. they are at a lower energy state in the polymerized form than as monomers - the reactions are exothermic). Reversing this to regenerate the monomers will always be an energy loser, even if it's technically achievable, because you have to overcome the thermodynamic cost of breaking the covalent bonds which hold the mess together. See the second quote in my sig to see where this guy is coming from.

If it costs a lot of energy hook it up to wind energy. Somethings do not have to be paying themselves back immediately with a net profit. He had the idea to do it locally. Everybody has a little bit of plastic waste. Combined it is a lot, separate not. That is what Akinori Ito is explaining, i think. Because it is so small it is possible. Scale it up and it will not work. Then what you mean becomes a problem, to much losses during the process . An ant is very strong for it's size. Scale an ant up with the same biological and chemical structure and he would fall apart.

 

[Toastedlightly]

If it costs a lot of energy hook it up to wind energy. Somethings do not have to be paying themselves back immediately with a net profit. He had the idea to do it locally. Everybody has a little bit of plastic waste. Combined it is a lot, separate not. That is what Akinori Ito is explaining, i think. Because it is so small it is possible. Scale it up and it will not work. Then what you mean becomes a problem, to much losses during the process . An ant is very strong for it's size. Scale an ant up with the same biological and chemical structure and he would fall apart.

You've completely ignored the post I made. Read werepossum's again as well. This technology is not feasable.

Hell, if you want to burn the oil, just burn the plastic. Its not as if something really different will be happening (just a lot more soot).

 

[bfdd]

But the reason these parts of oil were turned into plastics is because they've already taken out the hydrocarbons they need for fuel from the oil.... I don't see a point in this.

 

[zephyrprime]

It doesn't seem worthwhile to me. I bet recycling would be more efficient even if the polymers needed heavy processing to get back into a higher grade level.

 

[MJinZ]

Want to get rich? I have one word for you. Plastics!

Don't forget surgery.

 

[William Gaatjes]

You've completely ignored the post I made. Read werepossum's again as well. This technology is not feasable.

Hell, if you want to burn the oil, just burn the plastic. Its not as if something really different will be happening (just a lot more soot).

I did not ignore your post. I agree some improvements need to be done. I never had the idea to burn the oil. I am just very fond of local energy production, local waste processing, local agriculture. That kind of stuff. I do not want that oil burned. I want it processed and reused for real usable oils and plastics. But when it is all done locally on a small scale, once in a while it can be transported to a chemical plant. Would not really be an issue. It would just be entire new markets emerging. But that is just my idea. globally interconnected tribes. Only extremely high tech.

 

[Toastedlightly]

I did not ignore your post. I agree some improvements need to be done. I never had the idea to burn the oil. I am just very fond of local energy production, local waste processing, local agriculture. That kind of stuff. I do not want that oil burned. I want it processed and reused for real usable oils and plastics. But when it is all done locally on a small scale, once in a while it can be transported to a chemical plant. Would not really be an issue. It would just be entire new markets emerging. But that is just my idea. globally interconnected tribes. Only extremely high tech.

I do find the fact that somebody is selling this rather intersting (we all want our own version of Mr. Fusion after all), but it isn't practical, it isn't revolutionary, it is merely a waste of time.

Many platics can already be recycled. They are ground up, cleaned and re-melted into usable product. Some plastics cannot be re-purposed as such.

My main point however, isn't that recycling is already do-able, it isn' that the power requirements are large, it is the safety of operating the device and storing the chemicals.

Plastics (polymers) are some of the most non-reactive materials we encounter every day. The long (thousands long) chains of molecules are not apt to be absorbed by our body or to interupt biological processes. On the other hand, the monomers which make up the polymers (the repeat units) are very dangerous. I listed a few before which are known to be carcinogens, which are banned in gasoline, etc. Hell, california has banned the sale of many of the substances (when is the last time you purchased benzene and the local hardware store?).

Once again, it is novel that he is trying to find a new way around an old problem, but instead of finding a hidden pass through the mountians, he is trying to go around them by going the other way around the Earth.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I do find the fact that somebody is selling this rather intersting (we all want our own version of Mr. Fusion after all), but it isn't practical, it isn't revolutionary, it is merely a waste of time.

Many platics can already be recycled. They are ground up, cleaned and re-melted into usable product. Some plastics cannot be re-purposed as such.

What i have learned is that the procedure you describe produces inferior plastics. At a certain moment it can no longer be reused.

My main point however, isn't that recycling is already do-able, it isn' that the power requirements are large, it is the safety of operating the device and storing the chemicals.

Plastics (polymers) are some of the most non-reactive materials we encounter every day. The long (thousands long) chains of molecules are not apt to be absorbed by our body or to interupt biological processes. On the other hand, the monomers which make up the polymers (the repeat units) are very dangerous. I listed a few before which are known to be carcinogens, which are banned in gasoline, etc. Hell, california has banned the sale of many of the substances (when is the last time you purchased benzene and the local hardware store?).

Once again, it is novel that he is trying to find a new way around an old problem, but instead of finding a hidden pass through the mountians, he is trying to go around them by going the other way around the Earth.

I do understand that because of sheer size these polymers pose no threat.
I did not had the idea of people having it at home, just a local small utility place. every street could have one for example. And the containers to transport the monomer containing oil should be air tight as should be the whole process. However, if no reliable system can be created to shield those carcinogens properly, then it should not be done. But nowadays, these plastics are just burned away. And that is not really a solution either. And you cannot make me believe that burning will not release an amount of monomers into the air. Just CO2, i do not accept that. I am sorry.

 

[Toastedlightly]

What i have learned is that the procedure you describe produces inferior plastics. At a certain moment it can no longer be reused.




I do understand that because of sheer size these polymers pose no threat.
I did not had the idea of people having it at home, just a local small utility place. every street could have one for example. And the containers to transport the monomer containing oil should be air tight as should be the whole process. However, if no reliable system can be created to shield those carcinogens properly, then it should not be done. But nowadays, these plastics are just burned away. And that is not really a solution either. And you cannot make me believe that burning will not release an amount of monomers into the air. Just CO2, i do not accept that. I am sorry.

In a controlled combustion (read: incinerator) the temperatures are high enough to ensure no monomer escapes.

You are neglecting the energy cost of making this process work. If it were worth it, it would have been done by now. Maybe when petroleum feedstock for plastics becomes low, then it will be viable (industrially).

 

[CycloWizard]

If it costs a lot of energy hook it up to wind energy. Somethings do not have to be paying themselves back immediately with a net profit. He had the idea to do it locally. Everybody has a little bit of plastic waste. Combined it is a lot, separate not. That is what Akinori Ito is explaining, i think. Because it is so small it is possible. Scale it up and it will not work. Then what you mean becomes a problem, to much losses during the process . An ant is very strong for it's size. Scale an ant up with the same biological and chemical structure and he would fall apart.

Simply because you think favorably of local processes and saving energy does not make them scientifically feasible. You always have lots of ideas, but until an idea is tempered by reality, it has no real value. You would be much better off using a wind turbine to generate hydrogen via electrolysis than trying to degenerate plastics in this way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Simply because you think favorably of local processes and saving energy does not make them scientifically feasible. You always have lots of ideas, but until an idea is tempered by reality, it has no real value. You would be much better off using a wind turbine to generate hydrogen via electrolysis than trying to degenerate plastics in this way.

No because wind blows but plastic is destroying the environment because it has no worth. This process incentivises its destruction by giving its collection value.