[HN Gopher] Self Destructing Plastics via Embedded Enzymes
___________________________________________________________________
Self Destructing Plastics via Embedded Enzymes
Author : baybal2
Score : 50 points
Date : 2021-10-12 18:12 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (contest.techbriefs.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (contest.techbriefs.com)
| userbinator wrote:
| I can't help but think this and other attempts at
| biodegradability going to lead to even more planned obsolescence.
| Things which used to last basically forever will self-destruct
| with no way to stop it; of course it'll be heralded as the next
| generation of environmental friendliness, but it's actually a way
| to keep the consumers consuming and the producers producing
| (nevermind how much resources get used in the production of these
| things...)
| asxd wrote:
| I think that's exactly the point. In this context, planned
| obsolescence of plastics is the goal, because currently they
| last much longer than needed. I'm having trouble seeing how
| this might lead to planned obsolescence of non-plastic goods
| that you would want to keep around for a long while.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I have some older plastic items that have become very fragile
| and brittle. They're not lasting forever.
|
| I also left one of those clear plastic tubs where the sun
| shines through a window on it. After a couple years, the
| plastic became very brittle, lost its strength, and the tub
| pretty much disintegrated.
| bordercases wrote:
| The current situation is that planned obsolescence exists
| without biodegradable materials. So you get two externalities:
| products that aren't made to last due to poor make causing
| artificial demand, which also won't degrade when disposed.
|
| So now we can potentially legislate the use of biodegradable
| materials where planned obsolescence exists, while
| simultaneously demanding less planned obsolescence as a
| separate problem.
|
| You might argue that there would be less reason to respond to
| incentives if disposables were more environmentally efficient
| to maintain, but on the other hand I'm unsure if producers are
| responding now in the first place. This is an area where I'd be
| happy to be proven wrong.
| johnebgd wrote:
| Things wear out. Thats a natural part of life.
|
| Ensuring that the things wearing out can be biodegradable is a
| big net positive for society.
|
| Making things more repairable / upgradeable is a good way to
| make things last longer.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| To be fair, reducing the lifespan from a few centuries to a few
| decades will not impact most consumers. Especially if we're
| talking about stuff that'll see very few uses, such as plastic
| bags.
| dpeck wrote:
| If it's economically viable, there is no way that this isn't used
| against buyers as part of planned obsolescence schemes.
| hinkley wrote:
| This will become a prime example of 'being poor is expensive'.
| microplastics wrote:
| Not enough information here to really pass judgement, but
| multiple issues to consider: 1) 40C is easily the temperature
| products will see on a tarmac in Arizona while being shipped
| cross country. Unless they are working with enzymes with a higher
| temperature range, this would essentially require a cold chain
| and limit end-use environments which would be a nonstarter for
| most manufacturers/products. 2) Most plastics are melt processed
| (extruded/injection molded) at temperatures high enough to
| denature enzymes/proteins, I do not see an indication that they
| are working with a heat stable enzyme, which suggests they are
| relying on manufacturing methods that are likely to be less
| economically viable. 3) Enzymes are expensive! Unless they are
| working with (or are plausibly developing) a cost effective
| solution, I wouldn't be surprised if their material is orders of
| magnitude more expensive than commodity packaging plastics.
| stevespang wrote:
| All important points, enzyme proteins are quite temperature
| sensitive
| frellus wrote:
| Beautiful, love it - let's get on with it already, though. I hate
| plastic, I love these ideas. Down with plastic, bring back glass
| for all liquids at a minimum.
| gootler wrote:
| Who gives a fuck. Have pla forever, plant based plastics, break
| down seamlessly.
| btbuildem wrote:
| These enzyme-embedded plastics should be the cheapest option, so
| that all the disposable garbage that gets made would use them as
| ingredients. Durable / long lasting plastics would cost a premium
| and only get used for things meant to last.
| blawson wrote:
| In general love the idea of these sorts of plastics
| improvements and hope it can solve a lot of the existing waste
| issue. And cut down on the awful micro plastics!
|
| But the cynic in me is wondering about the articles 10 years
| down the road talking about how these enzymes are now basically
| "salting the earth" and we can't wait to figure out how to get
| them out of the soil and water.
| bluGill wrote:
| That is my worry. They are putting in a development near my
| house so I'm watching them put in a lot of pipes using a
| large amount of energy (6 high horse power tractors emitting
| a lot of CO2 for weeks on end). If those pipes last forever
| (as currently expected), then overall the impact is low, but
| if they start degrading we will be spending even more CO2 to
| replace them.
|
| Though a part of me wonders how much more it would cost to
| put in a subway when they already have the ground dug up.
| drekipus wrote:
| You're right, best to stick with the good ol' reliable
| 1000-years-to-break-down pollution
| [deleted]
| userbinator wrote:
| I suspect plastics may become as valuable as oil today in
| the far future.
| therein wrote:
| Opinions on this?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSjyvIHVLw
| Nasrudith wrote:
| If you define far future as far enough then it may well
| be coal or oil. The same thing with lignin is what made
| coal - it was a hydrocarbon "plastic" of its day that
| bacteria hadn't figured out how to consume.
|
| Of course if we assume a remotely industrial era
| progression of advances oil reserves may be near-
| worthless. Why dig down say fifty feet for enough oil to
| fill the shelves of a Walmart camping section?
| therein wrote:
| It isn't an either this or that kind of situation. You're
| imposing a false dichotomy on the issue.
|
| Just because we don't want to stick with the good ol'
| reliable 1000-years-to-break-down pollution like the way
| you put it, doesn't mean we should jump on the first
| promising path we see. Or else you might find yourself in
| ten years with all the seagulls dead or something.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-12 23:01 UTC)