Sunday, February 25, 2024

Plastic to Electricity? The Pros and Cons of Burning Plastic

    Ways to deal with the ever-growing amount of plastic have been discussed for decades now. While the only effective solution is to completely shut down the production and use of plastics, that is not feasible because they've become an essential part of everyday life. Due to this unwillingness, many ideas have been proposed on what to do with all this plastic. Recycling first comes to mind and has been an active strategy in the battle against plastic waste. However, in recent decades, it has actually become more expensive to recycle materials than it is to simply send them to a landfill (Romuno, 2021). Additionally, plastic industries did not help this effort by making their resin identification codes (RICs) look like the already established recycling symbol, which briefly muddied the waters on what can or cannot be recycled.

RIC vs. Recycling Symbol (Sam, 2019)


    Burning plastic for energy is another option and the topic of discussion. The most common plastics in the world, polyethylene and polypropylene, are essentially long chains of greasy hydrocarbons that can, in theory, be converted into petroleum/crude oil and used for fuel. Waste-burning plants exist in many Asian countries where waste is usually exported, with the idea that plastic can be converted into usable energy. 

    Electricity can also be a byproduct of plastic combustion. In a paper published in 2022, pyrocycling was proposed to be a useful alternative. The plastic was burned in a vacuum chamber and the steam byproduct was used to move a turbine in which the mechanical energy was transformed into electrical energy (Jawale et al., 2022). The researchers found that combusting 2kg of plastic produced 300 kW-hr of electricity. 

Chemical Structures of Polyethylene and Polypropylene


    However, unlike the pyrocycling example, most plastics are not burned in an oxygen-free vacuum. Instead, plastic fumes react with the air and form noxious byproducts like dioxin and furan derivatives (Wirsig, 2022). Additionally, because of the fact that the majority of plastics are just solid forms of fossil fuels (petroleum/crude oil, natural gas, etc.), burning them would release more gaseous fossil fuels into the environment, something we are actively trying to mitigate. 

    All of these factors would suggest that burning plastic is not an effective method of utilizing our massive amounts of plastic. Moreover, this push to burn plastic can be seen as a greenwashing tool: a way to mask the actions of industry giants as "green" while using plastic combustion as a quick fix to promote single-use plastics (Tachev, 2022). As stated at the beginning of this post, the only way to fix our plastic problem is to stop using plastic, or at least minimize its use. Producing less plastic should be the main goal, and until that is achieved, our plastic crisis will always remain. 

Plastics and other materials being burned


References 

Agency, G. (2022, July 28). What is the difference between polyethylene and polypropylene?. MDI. https://www.mdi.org/blog/post/what-is-the-difference-between-polyethylene-and-polypropylene/

Jawale, R., Umredkar, S., Khode, S., Kumbhare, H., Sharma, B., Deshpande, A., & Dutta, A. (2022, October 31). Pyrocycling-the technique to generate electricity from plastic waste. AIP Publishing. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-abstract/2494/1/070011/2827033/Pyrocycling-the-technique-to-generate-electricity?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Recycling questions answered. Tangletown Neighborhood Association. (n.d.). https://tangletown.org/recycling-questions-answered/

Romuno, J. (2021, May 11). Is recycling worth it? costs and benefits of recycling: RTS. Recycle Track Systems. https://www.rts.com/blog/is-recycling-worth-it/

Tachev, V. (2022, May 17). Burning plastic: A real waste-to-energy solution or a greenwashing tool?. Energy Tracker Asia. https://energytracker.asia/burning-plastic-a-real-waste-to-energy-solution-or-a-greenwashing-tool/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Burning plastic can affect air quality, public health (environmental factor, August 2022). National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. https://factor.niehs.nih.gov/2022/8/science-highlights/burning-plastic

Wirsig, K. (2023, June 16). Burning plastic is a terrible idea. here’s why. Environmental Defence. https://environmentaldefence.ca/2022/03/18/burning-plastic-is-a-terrible-idea/





1 comment:

  1. I like your title and your lede. It sets up the problem of plastic pollution well. I also like the graphic which emphasizes the difficulty of effectively recycling plastic. The chemical structures are also effective emphasizing the molecular basis of the problem. Your discussion of pyrolysis as an alternative recycling method touches of the relevant points. The purpose of the blog is to consider the impression given by popular media of chemistry and chemically related issues. It might have been better, therefore, to mention something from a general interest news source like this: (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report) from The Guardian. This piece mentions "chemical recycling," or the pyrolysis methods you discuss to which it gives references. One possible criticism of the media discussion of the pyrolysis methods is the absence of the consideration of energy balance. The vacuum pyrolysis of plastics requires a lot of energy. It produces hydrogen which can be converted into clean energy and unsaturated hydrocarbons like ethylene which can be converted into new plastic. It would be interesting to know whether the energy produced equals the energy required for the pyrolysis. Overall an interesting post.

    ReplyDelete