World's First 1-Step Method Turns Plastic Into Fuel At 95% Efficiency (interestingengineering.com)
- Reference: 0178899350
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/08/27/2258214/worlds-first-1-step-method-turns-plastic-into-fuel-at-95-efficiency
- Source link: https://interestingengineering.com/science/us-china-turn-plastic-to-petrol
> As the authors put it, "The method supports a circular economy by converting diverse plastic waste into valuable products in a single step." To carry out the conversion, the team combines plastic waste with light isoalkanes, hydrocarbon byproducts available from refinery processes. According to the paper, the process yields "gasoline range" hydrocarbons, mainly molecules with six to 12 carbons, which are the primary component of gasoline. The recovered hydrochloric acid can be safely neutralized and reused as a raw material, potentially displacing several high-temperature, energy-intensive production routes described in the paper. "We present here a strategy for upgrading discarded PVC into chlorine-free fuel range hydrocarbons and [hydrochloric acid] in a single-stage process," the researchers said. Reported conversion efficiencies underscore the potential for real-world use. At 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius), the process reached 95 percent conversion for soft PVC pipes and 99 percent for rigid PVC pipes and PVC wires.
>
> In tests that mixed PVC materials with polyolefin waste, the method achieved a 96 percent solid conversion efficiency at 80 degrees Celsius (176 degrees Fahrenheit). The team describes the approach as applicable beyond laboratory-clean samples. "The process is suitable for handling real-world mixed and contaminated PVC and polyolefin waste streams," the paper states. SCMP points to an ECNU social media post citing the study, which characterized the achievement as a first, efficiently converting difficult-to-degrade mixed plastic waste into premium petrol at ambient temperature and pressure in a single step.
[1] https://interestingengineering.com/science/us-china-turn-plastic-to-petrol
Interesting option... (Score:1)
But at the same time, it is a complex chemical process. What's wrong with just turning plastic into fuel at 100% efficiency, by incinerating it for power?
Re: Interesting option... (Score:3, Informative)
"...traditional waste-to-energy methods, including incineration, require PVC to be dechlorinated before processing to avoid releasing toxic compounds."
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to have to make it more unattractive - releasing toxic compounds doesn't bother most people who still stan for fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue if you have PVC in your plastic is that burning it can produce some nasty chlorine compounds in the exhaust. And if you don't have PVC in your plastic - how sure are you that you don't?
The innovative bit here seems to be separating the chlorine out of a PVC mix, leaving only hydrocarbons which can be safely burned.
Re: Interesting option... (Score:2)
Chlorine isnt too much of an issue as theres usually some bacteria that can break down organochlorides. The real problems start when theres fluorine in the mix. You REALLY dont want organoflourides in the enviroment but unfortunately we've been producing these forever chemicals such as PFAs for decades now and nothing in our ecosystem can break them down.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Chlorine is an issue with incineration, because you get PCDD and PCDF easily. While they get broken down with time, for exactly that time, they are very toxic.
Re: Interesting option... (Score:2)
Higher incineration temps are the solution to those
Re: Interesting option... (Score:2)
Your car doesnâ(TM)t run on plain plasticâ¦.
Other chemicals that you donâ(TM)t want to burn, but are part of the trash.
But a reason not to even use this technology is that it will release greenhouse gases on the short term after burning the gasoline, while keeping it as plastic wonâ(TM)t.
Re: (Score:2)
> But at the same time, it is a complex chemical process. What's wrong with just turning plastic into fuel at 100% efficiency, by incinerating it for power?
Chlorine, that's to stop you. Incineration of PVC is highly toxic and a major environmental concern at plastic waste incineration facilities. If you can extract the chlorine first then it is likely a net benefit to the environment.
Only PVC (Score:1)
It's only about recycling PVC, not other plastics like PET. But it's still a good milestone.
Re:Only PVC (Score:4, Insightful)
The first sentence of the fine article points to how this is a process for mixed plastic waste, not just PVC. This is mentioned again later on about the problem of keeping PVC out of plastic waste for recycling as the chlorine in the plastic can contaminate the processes used for plastics other than PVC. Apparently PVC has been so difficult to recycle up to this point that few people bothered, but as PVC is so pervasive in spite of being only 10% of the problem it's been a goal to find a universal process for plastic recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I do wish the article had made it clear that polyolefins include polyethylene and polypropylene, which as I understand it make up the bulk of plastic waste. Ya know, for those of us who aren't organic chemists.
It sounds as though reliably removing PVC from the waste stream makes recycling the rest of the plastics a lot easier and cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's about removing PVC from a mixed waste stream, turning it into something valuable enough to sell, and then you also have a PVC-free waste stream which makes it easier to recycle (or just burn) because it doesn't have toxic chlorine in it (the C in PVC).
Plastic waste shortage (Score:2)
starting in 3..2..
It would be funny to see the reactions ... (Score:2)
... if we really do find a way to make plastic use just fine.
I mean, it's hard to turn off decades of religious observance ("plastics baaaaaad!!") just like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the microplastics in your balls.
Re: (Score:2)
You turn it into fuels, which you then burn and release the CO2 into the atmosphere. How is this "fine"?
East China Normal University? An old translation? (Score:1)
From the fine article:
> The work involves researchers from the US Department of Energyâ"funded Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Columbia University, the Technical University of Munich, and East China Normal University (ECNU), SCMP reports.
I find mention of East China Normal University as a bit odd for a few reasons. First is that with relations with China not being the best it's odd to see the US DOE working with anyone in China on something that could be considered at least adjacent to national security, as in preserving our sources of energy in case of a trade dispute, natural disaster, or something like a declaration of war. Not that we declare wars any more, for some reason that went out of style 80 years ago, we
Re: (Score:2)
> Saving my biggest point for last... This is a clear "violation" of the claims I have thrown at me that there could never be an economically viable means to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels.
This is a strange conclusion to make, since you don't know how much the process costs. (Note: literally begging the question).
Re: (Score:2)
> This is a strange conclusion to make, since you don't know how much the process costs.
If this was an obviously expensive process then would there be so much excitement about it? I re-read the fine article to be sure and indeed they didn't state explicitly that this was a low cost process. What they did point to were implications of cost savings by removing steps in recycling, no need to provide heat to the chemical reactors, less labor, and how the products of the process are valued commodities.
Are you seeing anything that would imply this is something that costs too much to be useful?
In s
Re: (Score:2)
> If this was an obviously expensive process then would there be so much excitement about it?...I find it strange to conclude that there's an obvious flaw that escaped mention
Look at facts, look at what was mentioned. Look at what wasn't mentioned. The article says it has real world potential, it doesn't say it's inexpensive (or even ready for the real world). There's no analysis at all of the drawbacks.
Right now, the CCP is in the process of formulating its next [1]five year plan [www.gov.cn]. Groups are hyping up their accomplishments in order to justify the funding they've been given and ensure continued funding in the future.
[1] https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202507/30/content_WS6889c65fc6d0868f4e8f48bf.html
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the CCP believes they can produce sustainable aviation fuel, and do so in a volume and price that they believe they can export it for profit.
[1]https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/... [chinadaily.com.cn]
I saw nothing in the fine article that implied this was a technology ready for "the real world" as most every announcement of a new technology will fail to do because rarely is any new technology ready for mass production at a competitive cost immediately after it's discovered and first developed. Rather than look for flaws i
[1] https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/04/WS674fac0da310f1265a1d0ebc.html
Re: (Score:2)
> This is a clear "violation" of the claims I have thrown at me that there could never be an economically viable means to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels. That, so the claims continue, there's so much loss in thermodynamic efficiency to synthesize hydrocarbons that we'd be better off abandoning internal combustion engines and move everything to battery-electric power with the greatest urgency than make any attempts to develop carbon neutral liquid fuels.
It's not clear to me that the process under discussion supports your claim. Any planet-saving activity that starts out with hydrocarbons which we burn , can ONLY work if we find a way to cheaply extract CO2 in huge volumes from the atmosphere. And by definition, the energy to power that process would have to come from low-carbon renewable sources such as solar and wind.
So the "battery-electric power" you sneered at is a sine qua non for the "carbon neutral fuel" you thirst for. Unless, that is, we go nuclear
Re: (Score:1)
If the only problem were global warming/carbon emissions, then I would agree with you. But plastics in the environment are a problem in their own right. So, finding a way to get rid of them benefits the environment a lot in that regard. One might say that plasics 'sequester' carbon, and this process 'releases' carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and is harmful in that regard. So, I dunno, maybe it's an overall win. maybe it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
> Assuming for the moment that nuclear energy is off the table, can you describe a credible scenario in which we might - within two decades or so - achieve large-scale carbon sequestration?
Why would anyone assume nuclear energy is off the table when for the first time since the 1970s there's dozens of nuclear power plants under construction at the same time? If we are to assume that nuclear power is off the table then we can assume that we'd see either growth in use of fossil fuels like we've never seen before in history, or we'd see levels of poverty, disease, and starvation like we've never seen before. We've been "coasting" on nuclear power plants built in the 1970s to hold up a good siz
What about contaminated plastics? (Score:2)
This is great, but I have serious questions about residual labels left on plastic bottles and other plastic waste. Paper is highly reactive with HCl and could cause contamination or challenges that they didn't mention or explore. Likewise for glue or other binders used with the labels. And remember that the waste is crushed and bailed, so a simple wash won't remove these items.
Re: (Score:3)
Having taken a tour of a paper recycling plant I heard mention of a concern on filtering certain plastics out of the recycled paper. The issue is that some plastics and paper have the same density so the usual methods of filtering by centrifuges, dropping it in water or something and skimming what floats to the top, and likely more that wasn't mentioned or I have since forgot. I don't recall if they mentioned what they did about this, other than imply they grin and bear it with product that had contaminan
Author confuses straight line for circle (Score:1)
It's great news the plastic waste problem. We might actually have a viable form of recycling here, instead of the current smoke screen. However circular economy it ain't. We'll just have a new node on this particular oil processing pipeline: crude > PVC > petrol > CO2. Aluminium processing is circular, oil isn't, so no help for our climate problem; yes orange man, there is one.
Great! (Score:1)
The best news is that stupid youtube scammer using energy net negative pyro-whatever scamming people on crowdfunding can shut up now.
The bad part is that they're China and they're lying.
Lack of information.... (Score:2)
Interesting that they had great efficiencies with PVC wire - presumably, at this stage, just the PVC coating on wire.
One of the big hang-ups for recycling wires for the copper has been seperating the copper from the covering, often PVC. There are all kinds of processes for trying to do that economically, but it's still a challenge. Copper doesn't react with HCL, so if they could run this process on a pile of scrap wiring, they should end up with gasoline and copper; a valuable by-product of the recycling.
Does the article *exist* though? (Score:2)
Sources that I can find cite PNNL as the lab and August edition of Science as the pub... but I'm not seeing it on the PNNL site and the recent issue of Science doesn't seem to have it. Searching for the supposed quotes doesn't bring the actual paper up anywhere. [1]https://www.science.org/toc/sc... [science.org] It all seems *too* convenient. PVC solution into useful hydrocarbons and hydrochloric acid at room temp and standard pressure? Really? I'm not certain we're not being had.
[1] https://www.science.org/toc/science/389/6761
Re: (Score:2)
Updated: Found the link! It does exist. [1]https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
[1] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adx5285
More stupidity (Score:2)
When combusted this fuel produces the same greenhouse gases as fuel thats come from oil or coal.
Once again these people call themselves scientists, yet they are ignore the most important problem
with combustible fuels. I suppose they think this is a clever way of dealing with plastics waste, yet at the
same time starting new business that cannot exist unless our society is wasteful. Reducing the honus
on individuals and companies to tackle the climate and avoid single use plastics.
Once again more validation th
Whoo hoo! (Score:2)
Back yard gasoline refineries, here we come!
Did this just make recycling worth doing? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, most things you recycle these days go straight to a landfill. It'd be nice for them to actually be recycled, since you put forth the effort.
Re:Did this just make recycling worth doing? (Score:5, Informative)
> No, because it only deals with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which amounts to about 10% of plastic waste.
Near the end of the fine article they point out how this is useful for mixed plastic waste. There's been a problem previously of sorting out PVC that will contaminate other recycling processes with chlorine and so severely impact efficiency. This new process is very efficient, can process PVC as well as other common plastic waste, produces hydrocarbons in the "gasoline range", and produces hydrochloric acid as a byproduct that can be sold as an industrial chemical.
I'm guessing this is a big step to variations on a theme of hydrocarbon synthesis, something that can be adapted for producing carbon neutral fuels for use in the average commuter car and light trucks. I'm thinking this technology can be adapted to process organic polymers found in wood, paper, cotton, and other natural materials from industrial waste, municipal waste, agricultural byproducts, and perhaps more to allow us to close the loop on the carbon we use in our fuels.
Re: (Score:1)
This all sounds great!!!
I"m sure someone will get in there, however and bitch that this won't help promote EV adoption and keep ICE on the roads and somehow lead to the end of mankind......
Oops....I'm sure they'd term it "human-kind".....
Re: (Score:2)
> This all sounds great!!!
I know, but some people can't be happy about much of anything.
> I"m sure someone will get in there, however and bitch that this won't help promote EV adoption and keep ICE on the roads and somehow lead to the end of mankind......
It's already started, you might just have to scroll down a bit or reload the webpage.
> Oops....I'm sure they'd term it "human-kind".....
I haven't seen that yet. Maybe I just need to reload the page.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, because it only deals with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which amounts to about 10% of plastic waste.
Still better to have that 10% going to a landfill. To get to 100%, or even 50%, you gotta start somewhere. Crazy, I know.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in landfill it means most of the greenhouse gasses are trapped. Turning it into fuel means they will end up in the atmosphere. Also the associated general pollution.
Re: Did this just make recycling worth doing? (Score:2)
Not really because the fuel that would have been produced from the PVC will still be required, itll just come from oil instead. Plus you now have more toxic waste in the ground that will eventually leach into the ecosystem. Burning or converting plastic for fuel is the only sane way to dispose of this material.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be better to recycle the plastic, to sequester it, or to convert it to something that doesn't release those gases but can be used by us in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. But this would be the best second recycling if you can't turn it in other useful plastic products.
Re: (Score:2)
> It would be better to recycle the plastic, to sequester it, or to convert it to something that doesn't release those gases but can be used by us in some way.
It would be better if we could get all of our energy needs from magical fairy dust too. But that's not reality. As the person you replied to correctly stated, that fuel will be burned regardless. It can be extracted from the ground and refined, or it can come from plastic that's going to just break down into more microplastic.
Tossing it in a landfill and sealing it off is a temporary solution at best. Eventually whatever material that's being used to seal it away will deteriorate and release it or a nat
Re: (Score:3)
> It would be better to recycle the plastic, to sequester it, or to convert it to something that doesn't release those gases but can be used by us in some way.
Nope, it would be worse. Whether it's made into plastic or fuel won't really affect the supply of plastic or fuel. It won't change the price enough to cause more plastic or fuel to be consumed--whichever one it's recycled into will be produced from the earth a bit less. However if people believe plastic can finally be recycled, they will use more plastic. Whereas if they believe it's burned, I think they will neither be encouraged to use more plastics nor to drive more.
Re: (Score:1)
> Did this just make recycling worth doing?
They made incineration worth doing: the key word here is fuel.
No. (Score:2)
Recycling remains the last option. Especially this form of recycling is a single use. The output of this effort is set on fire and creates carbon emissions. Better options are always Reduce, and Reuse. Recycling is not only last, but recycling plastic into plastic is more "circular".
Calling this "circular economy" is gaslighting. This is only one step removed from simply yeeting plastic into an incinerator.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns it into fuel, which will then be burnt and go into the atmosphere. This isn't "sustainable".