6 ms·

Which part is false? There is at least one part of that statement that is absolutely true.

ars 4y ago
The only part that is true is that burning is the most common method, with recycling being a close third. > which is costly Burning is not costly it is cheaper than all other methods. It's so cheap it's actually profitable. > energy intensive It actually provides extra energy, and reduces energy waste (because now we have to pump less oil.) > and spews noxious gas into the air. It spews nothing except water and CO2.
- lstodd 4y ago
  Yeah, no. It spews NOx and the whole bunch of undesirable things like dioxines. You don't get pure PET and oxygen in, and you don't get pure CO2+H2O out. It's messy to the point that it's debatable if it's better just to bury it.
  - ars 4y ago
    Why would you have NOx? The fire is not that hot. And no, there are no dioxines because they burn up in the fire. > It's messy to the point that it's debatable if it's better just to bury it. No, it's not. You do get that people are doing this already, right now? It's not some theoretical - there's a huge amount of plastics being burned, and it's very clean.
- thfuran 4y ago
  I wouldn't exactly call it noxious, but C02 isn't exactly something we want to be spewing more of. Isn't a landfill full of plastic pretty much just a big pile of captured carbon?
  - ars 4y ago
    It's captured oil basically, not captured CO2. (Don't say "captured carbon", when you mean "captured co2", because it leads to confusion - do you mean burned or unburned carbon?) And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      >do you mean burned or unburned carbon? I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. >And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful. I suspect that overall energy production in the US probably emits less CO2 per kwhr than burning garbage does, so starting to burn garbage for energy would be, in that regard, a net negative. Furthermore, it would likely require moderately significant capital expenditure that could've instead been used for something better.

ars 4y ago

The only part that is true is that burning is the most common method, with recycling being a close third. > which is costly Burning is not costly it is cheaper than all other methods. It's so cheap it's actually profitable. > energy intensive It actually provides extra energy, and reduces energy waste (because now we have to pump less oil.) > and spews noxious gas into the air. It spews nothing except water and CO2.

lstodd 4y ago
Yeah, no. It spews NOx and the whole bunch of undesirable things like dioxines. You don't get pure PET and oxygen in, and you don't get pure CO2+H2O out. It's messy to the point that it's debatable if it's better just to bury it.
- ars 4y ago
  Why would you have NOx? The fire is not that hot. And no, there are no dioxines because they burn up in the fire. > It's messy to the point that it's debatable if it's better just to bury it. No, it's not. You do get that people are doing this already, right now? It's not some theoretical - there's a huge amount of plastics being burned, and it's very clean.
thfuran 4y ago
I wouldn't exactly call it noxious, but C02 isn't exactly something we want to be spewing more of. Isn't a landfill full of plastic pretty much just a big pile of captured carbon?
- ars 4y ago
  It's captured oil basically, not captured CO2. (Don't say "captured carbon", when you mean "captured co2", because it leads to confusion - do you mean burned or unburned carbon?) And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >do you mean burned or unburned carbon? I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. >And since we are still pumping oil of the ground, leaving a different form of oil (plastic) in the ground doesn't accomplish anything useful. I suspect that overall energy production in the US probably emits less CO2 per kwhr than burning garbage does, so starting to burn garbage for energy would be, in that regard, a net negative. Furthermore, it would likely require moderately significant capital expenditure that could've instead been used for something better.