Pyrolysis of Contaminated Waste Thin Film Plastics to Char

[QualityTime]

Does anybody have thoughts on this subject? This could be the solution to humankind's waste plastics problem. Do not confuse this with gasification

 

[QualityTime]

There is plenty of research going on to convert plastics to their constituent monomers and repolymerise back into polymers.

The solution to the plastics problem will require a multiprong approach. No one solution will fit the bill

The problem with converting plastics to their constituent monomers and repolymerising them back into polymers is that you need clean plastic. What I am doing is pyrolyzing plastics that have been contaminated with organic waste and other materials(i.e. your typical municipal waste stream). The expensive process of cleaning and sorting the waste streams is eliminated

 

[3DDave]

The links you provided called it biochar. If those are unrelated to your scheme then don't use them as examples of your scheme.

I think that, having worked on biowarfare projects, I can evaluate what BS you have written so far.

 

[QualityTime]

okay Dave, if you say so.

 

[3DDave]

Best of luck on your new career as pitchman for an unnamed company that has no intellectual property, no financing, and no future.

 

[QualityTime]

Thanks Dave.

 

[TugboatEng]

Sarcasm? I think you just killed the concept of pyrolysis.

 

[QualityTime]

No, I did not kill the concept of pyrolysis. It was sarcasm. I just got turned off by Dave. The investment to move this forward requires private and government investment. Preferably, the EPA, Department of Energy and the Plastics industry in collaboration

 

[TugboatEng]

People aren't going to take you seriously when you respond to critical questions and comments with sarcasm. EPA is a regulatory body, not a research organization. You should be pitching your idea on a municipal level, to the garbage companies.

 

[QualityTime]

EPA has the funding money for the research (Same for the Department of Energy and the plastics industry). They set the laws and rules. If the EPA says don't dump plastic then the states and municipalities have to follow the law. Municipalities won't spend money to stop dumping of plastic if it is not the law.

We are at the stage of wanting to validate what we are proposing on a demonstration scale. It all costs money. We believe that having the EPA and the plastics industry involved, for example, is the way to move this forward. Ideally, we want a heavy weight in the plastics industry research council in the US to front us. They have the political clout and the financial resources. Interestingly enough about a year ago I was talking to the spokesman for the Plastics Council of Canada (private industry association based advisory council). He, as everyone else is, was familiar with the standard approach of extracting energy from waste plastics via gasification. They talk about it in their brochures as a way to deal with the waste and the research they are doing. He had never heard of pyrolysis to make char.

 

[TugboatEng]

Remember, you're dealing with the same people who banned thin film plastic bags because they float around in the wind which makes them visible. Now we have heavy duty plastic bags that use 10x as much plastic to make. The end result doesn't matter, only the optics. Fertilizing fields with "burnt" plastic won't have good optics. You have a very uphill battle in front of you.

Remember, there is nothing logical or reasonable about the "green" movement.

 

[QualityTime]

I understand the obstacle regarding the optics of "burnt" plastics. Plastics have a bad image. I am betting on changing the image by making char. It does not even look like a plastic anymore. That is why I want to get EPA funding and Plastics Industry Funding.

 

[3DDave]

Google seems to find no mention of a "Plastics Council of Canada" and with that all credibility is gone.

Here's one list to get the story straight:

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/plastics-plastiques.nsf/eng/h_pl01425.html

There is also the Canada Plastics Pact if you want to claim you spoke with them some time later.

This group is who you need:

https://publicintegrity.org/environ...astic/inside-the-long-war-to-protect-plastic/

because claiming there is a safe endpoint for such plastics is certainly going far to protect the plastics industry.

 

[TugboatEng]

I see fuel cells as a good example of what you are fighting against. Fuel cells can run on gasoline and while cutting carbon emissions in half through higher efficiency as well as eliminating NOx and particulate emissions. BUT they aren't zero emission so they aren't good enough. There is little interest in fuel cells despite the technology being ready to implement (Toyota Mirai). As I said if you want green money it's going to have to be a plastic free pitch or bio-based plastics reduction. Those are the only "sexy" options.

 

[QualityTime]

Dave, please go away. You are so annoying. Get a life. I have to go back through my emails to find the correct name of the organization that I spoke to AND I am certainly not going to do it for you.

 

[QualityTime]

I hear you about the fuel cell analogy. The oil/gas/plastics industry would partially fund the work and apply for more grants from the EPA (or the USDOE etc). In order to get grants from the EPA you basically have to have a US company be the front man. The oil/gas/plastics industry have a lot of political push. Finding a solution to the pollution and contribute to GHG reduction is to the oil/gas/plastics industry's advantage

 

[TugboatEng]

Dave is a valuable contributor to this forum. Your posts here are attracting little attention because it seems most members here feel you are annoying and should go away. You've merely attracted a few of us looking for entertainment.

 

[QualityTime]

Dave may be a valuable contributor. But his Dick Tracy routine and accusations approach turns me off. Over and Out

 

[TugboatEng]

You need to understand, you came here and encountered engineers. We have a pragmatic understanding of things. You are targeting politicians with your idea. They have a different knowledge level that you need to target.

 

[QualityTime]

TugboatEng, I am not sure what pragmatism has to do with Dave's approach on how to communicate with people he disagrees with.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

QT, I think what you're seeing here is the typical engineer's aversion to marketing BS. We're engineers, which means we solve problems... but the closer things get to feel-good and/or marketing rather than problem solving, the less inclined we are to put on kid gloves. You're not asking us to solve a technical problem, you're asking us (or someone here) to financially back a process with no visibly new/ground-breaking technology. If it was new/ground-breaking, get a few patents and get back to us... if it's not, you're simply competing with existing competitors and have no basis for an "our process is better" claim. Without such a claim, you don't need engineers, you need marketing folk who can convince those in power you are a better solution... most every engineer here has been through the wringer on such non-concrete ideas, and we simply won't participate.

While Dave may not be expressing himself in the best manner, I have a strong feeling he is expressing the overall sentiment you're bound to receive from most of us on such an endeavor. You want a marketing forum, not engineering.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com