7 ms·

In 2020 only 10% of plastic was recycled in Sweden. [0] The rest was burnt to produce heating and electricity - which releases an enormous amount of CO2 gases

In 2020 only 10% of plastic was recycled in Sweden. [0] The rest was burnt to produce heating and electricity - which releases an enormous amount of CO2 gases and other pollutants. Not just a US problem. [0] in Swedish: https://www.ivl.se/press/nyheter/2020-02-21-lattlast-rapport-ger-fakta-och-tips-om-plast.html https://www.ivl.se/press/nyheter/2020-02-21-lattlast-rapport...

ars 4y ago
> which releases an enormous amount of CO2 gases and other pollutants. No it does not. This is simply untrue. Burning plastic does not release pollutants, and the CO2 released just replaces CO2 released from burning other fuel (oil, natural gas, etc). It's a 100% win, and every country should copy them.
- saddlerustle 4y ago
  In terms of CO2 per unit energy burning plastic is much worse than burning natural gas (and much much worse than any zero carbon source). Energy is fungible, there's no reason to encourage producing CO2 when it's possible not to.
  - ars 4y ago
    > CO2 per unit energy burning plastic is much worse than burning natural gas That is simply not true. Polyethylene (the most common plastic) is C2H4, while natural gas is a mix ranging from CH4 to C3H8. i.e. almost identical in terms of CO2. Plastic is actually better in some ways since you don't need to spend energy a second time to extract even more oil from the ground, you can just burn what you already have. Plus the world does not burn exclusively natural gas, not even close. > when it's possible not to. As should be pretty obvious the idea is you don't burn some other oil, and instead burn plastic. When we are 100% off of oil/coal/etc we can stop burning plastic, but right now, today, burning plastic is the best option. Burning plastic is not going to magically cause extra CO2 emissions, it would simply substitute one for another, with total amount unchanged.
    - diebeforei485 4y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your argument. It's not how many CO2 molecules per molecule of thing being burned. It's about how many CO2 molecules per joule of energy released. You'd have to look at the enthalpy (delta H) of these combustion reactions to make a meaningful comparison, correct?
      - ars 4y ago
        Yes, correct. My method was just a shortcut which yields basically the same number because it all atoms of hydrogen, carbon, etc that are burned release the same amount of energy (but you do need to account for the binding energy of the molecule, which my method does not do). I used it because I didn't immediately find data on the enthalpy of burning plastic in combination with CO2 released. Plastic is also a hydrocarbon, so the binding energy will be quite similar to natural gas, so my method is sufficiently accurate.
- zackees 4y ago
- mrinterweb 4y ago
  > Burning plastic does not release pollutants Very false
  - ars 4y ago
    You are very misinformed. An industrial incinerator for burning plastic does not release any pollutants, only water and CO2.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      What if you consider CO2 to be something you would prefer not to add to the atmosphere if avoidable? What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation?
      - ars 4y ago
        Who's adding CO2? You substitute CO2 from oil, with CO2 from plastic. This actually reduces the total amount of CO2, because you don't need to pump extra oil out of the ground, which costs extra energy. > What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. If there's simply too much of it, but some amount is ok, that might be a problem, but that's not a pollutant. Otherwise a flood from a hurricane would be called "Water pollution", which I hope you can see is a pretty silly definition.
        braingenious 4y ago
        > Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of “pollutant” enables the justification of burning darn near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that don’t otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition serve a practical purpose? edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in hurricanes. I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of “pollution” to serve one’s pre-existing ideas or pedantic need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely pointless at best, though.
- otikik 4y ago
  > It's a 100% win, A 100% win would be not producing the plastics in the first place in order to not have this problem, and then producing heat via a renewable source. Everything below that is less of a 100% win. > Burning plastic does not release pollutants That is strictly false. It depends on the plastic. "Dioxins are just one of the many harmful emissions from incinerators. They are highly toxic and can cause cancer and damage to the immune system" https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/incineration-burning-plastic-crisis/#:~:text=Burning%20plastic%20waste%20also%20releases,damage%20to%20the%20immune%20system https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/incineration-burning-plas....

ars 4y ago

> which releases an enormous amount of CO2 gases and other pollutants. No it does not. This is simply untrue. Burning plastic does not release pollutants, and the CO2 released just replaces CO2 released from burning other fuel (oil, natural gas, etc). It's a 100% win, and every country should copy them.

saddlerustle 4y ago
In terms of CO2 per unit energy burning plastic is much worse than burning natural gas (and much much worse than any zero carbon source). Energy is fungible, there's no reason to encourage producing CO2 when it's possible not to.
- ars 4y ago
  > CO2 per unit energy burning plastic is much worse than burning natural gas That is simply not true. Polyethylene (the most common plastic) is C2H4, while natural gas is a mix ranging from CH4 to C3H8. i.e. almost identical in terms of CO2. Plastic is actually better in some ways since you don't need to spend energy a second time to extract even more oil from the ground, you can just burn what you already have. Plus the world does not burn exclusively natural gas, not even close. > when it's possible not to. As should be pretty obvious the idea is you don't burn some other oil, and instead burn plastic. When we are 100% off of oil/coal/etc we can stop burning plastic, but right now, today, burning plastic is the best option. Burning plastic is not going to magically cause extra CO2 emissions, it would simply substitute one for another, with total amount unchanged.
  - diebeforei485 4y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your argument. It's not how many CO2 molecules per molecule of thing being burned. It's about how many CO2 molecules per joule of energy released. You'd have to look at the enthalpy (delta H) of these combustion reactions to make a meaningful comparison, correct?
    - ars 4y ago
      Yes, correct. My method was just a shortcut which yields basically the same number because it all atoms of hydrogen, carbon, etc that are burned release the same amount of energy (but you do need to account for the binding energy of the molecule, which my method does not do). I used it because I didn't immediately find data on the enthalpy of burning plastic in combination with CO2 released. Plastic is also a hydrocarbon, so the binding energy will be quite similar to natural gas, so my method is sufficiently accurate.
zackees 4y ago
mrinterweb 4y ago
> Burning plastic does not release pollutants Very false
- ars 4y ago
  You are very misinformed. An industrial incinerator for burning plastic does not release any pollutants, only water and CO2.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    What if you consider CO2 to be something you would prefer not to add to the atmosphere if avoidable? What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation?
    - ars 4y ago
      Who's adding CO2? You substitute CO2 from oil, with CO2 from plastic. This actually reduces the total amount of CO2, because you don't need to pump extra oil out of the ground, which costs extra energy. > What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. If there's simply too much of it, but some amount is ok, that might be a problem, but that's not a pollutant. Otherwise a flood from a hurricane would be called "Water pollution", which I hope you can see is a pretty silly definition.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        > Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of “pollutant” enables the justification of burning darn near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that don’t otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition serve a practical purpose? edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in hurricanes. I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of “pollution” to serve one’s pre-existing ideas or pedantic need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely pointless at best, though.
otikik 4y ago
> It's a 100% win, A 100% win would be not producing the plastics in the first place in order to not have this problem, and then producing heat via a renewable source. Everything below that is less of a 100% win. > Burning plastic does not release pollutants That is strictly false. It depends on the plastic. "Dioxins are just one of the many harmful emissions from incinerators. They are highly toxic and can cause cancer and damage to the immune system" https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/incineration-burning-plastic-crisis/#:~:text=Burning%20plastic%20waste%20also%20releases,damage%20to%20the%20immune%20system https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/incineration-burning-plas....