Startup Converts Plastic To Oil, And Finds A Niche

Startup Converts Plastic To Oil, And Finds A Niche

www.npr.org

It all starts with a machine known as the Plastic-Eating Monster. Thousands of pounds of shredded milk jugs, water bottles and grocery bags tumble into a large tank, where they're melted together and vaporized. This waste comes from landfills and dumps from all over the United States.

..."We don't make a synthetic 'other' product that has problems," he says. "We make an in-spec fuel like everyone else. If anything, the word 'alternative' has a stigma attached to it...

(visit the link for the full news article)

"They're getting value from something that would otherwise go to the landfill," he says, "because the plastics most of them are looking for, the plastics that are not easily recycled, they're of low quality or mixed-plastic types, or they're dirty — things that wouldn't be accepted into a recycler."

And because there's no lack of waste-plastic supply, and no lack of demand for oil, Maxted says JBI's technology has the potential to transform both industries.

I think this is pretty cool. Yeah, you are still burning oil, but perhaps they can now go back into older landfills that were abandoned long ago because they ran out of room, and start mining them for the plastics JBI can use to turn into consumable oil.

What I don't understand about this is that if it costs 10 bucks per barrel to produce, why is there such a high markup to 100 bucks a barrel? I thought the idea was to bring the cost down!

No, that wasn't the idea. The idea is to make money, just like every other greedy capitalist there is.

www.npr.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sorry but who wouldn't want to make money on it? Especially if it's your own idea.

Good on them, I always approve when it comes to coming up with ideas like this. Now we need to get a bunch of trolling boats to start fishing all the garbage we dumped into the ocean

reply to post by TrueAmerican


If they sold it at 10 dollars a barrel the oil companies would be pissed.
And I think that they would be given an offer they couldn't refuse.
If you get my drift.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


This concept has been recycled many times. Tires-to-fuel, plastics-to-fuel, plastics-and-coal-to-fuel, ad infinitum. While it is a good idea to recycle waste materials, especially tires, there really isn't enough to actually make a dent in the fuel demand. Fuels are a cheap mix of expensive chemicals, so the real money is in chemicals. These processes make complex mixtures that would require a separation which would add to the capital and operating costs. Usually, the light ends [methane, ethane, propane and unsaturates] are disengaged in the overhead and burned to provide process heat. If a process makes too many light ends and they are not recovered, it isn't economical.
One of the biggest problems in plastic recycling is separation of the plastics. PVC is problematic because it will make HCl which can corrode equipment and will also produce some chlorinated hydrocarbons; bad for engines and fuel systems if a transportation fuel is produced.
The bottom line is that this is just another "me too" waste to fuels process whch will have the same problems as all the other waste to fuel processes.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
What I don't understand about this is that if it costs 10 bucks per barrel to produce, why is there such a high markup to 100 bucks a barrel? I thought the idea was to bring the cost down!

No, that wasn't the idea. The idea is to make money, just like every other greedy capitalist there is.

Ah... Those greedy capitalists, again. Proving, once again, that innovation and job creating industry does not require government involvement.

Anyway, why do you feel it has to be one or the other? Why can't it, simultaneously, be beneficial to society and profitable for the innovators and producers have invested their blood, sweat and tears?

It is great to see the "recycle / reuse / reduce" concept.

Now lets see if they can apply that to the TPTB who will try to quash the idea based on some ridiculous excuse.

It is a step forward in the right direction though. Everything built these days seems to be build to be "disposable".

I would like to see a razor blade that lasts for 100 years. or a tire that rolls for 1,000,000 miles

everything is built like crap to recycle "money". and it doesn't work to the advantage of the consumer either.

Originally posted by Glargod

I would like to see a razor blade that lasts for 100 years.

Here ya go...



Mind you... if everyone bought one of those... the companies that make our modern shavers would have to send all their employees home without pay and close up shop

This sounds like a really good idea, and what a great concept, to use the things in old landfills for something productive. Maybe all of that trash is actually valuable.

What a strange concept, that plastic is made from oil and now we can make oil from plastic. I learn something new everyday.

reply to post by zorgon


I have never tried one of those. I heard they are a pain in the arse to get used to, but once you get used to it, you never go back.

reply to post by pteridine


Well I take it you have never heard of this than.

boingboing.net...

That link is to an Island of Plastic two times the size of Texas that weighs 3.5 Million Tons.

I bet that alone has enough capability to make a "dent" in the fuel production world.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Great alternative for recycling all the petroleum products already used and discarded sure. But we as a society will never be able to move from unstable economies and high energy prices if we don't start moving to a petrol free model of providing energy.

The science regarding renewable and clean energy is available, and the technology has long been hidden away by companies like GE among others. Looking into more petrol based solutions isn't solving the overall problem.

It just compounds the problem and provides more power to the oil companies. IMO these are just ploys created by them in order to justify their continued existence, in a world where they've become obsolete.

~Tenth

Great find, looking forward to seeing this technology disappear

In all seriousness though, I would think that the $10 production cost referred to in the article probably refers only to the energy and additional components required to create a barrel of oil from plastic already on hand in gear already on hand.

If you add in the cost of development, the cost to build the gear and the cost of sourcing plastic on a large scale to make this practical then I think it's understandable for the creators to charge more.

Obviously there's an element of wanting to fit into the existing crude oil market, but I don't think you should consider it as though they are saying 'if I gave you $10 today, you could give me a barrel of crude using this technique tomorrow'

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

It just compounds the problem and provides more power to the oil companies. IMO these are just ploys created by them in order to justify their continued existence, in a world where they've become obsolete.

~Tenth

Who ever you are working for , your obviously on the wrong team, haven't you heard that people are happy with crying about not earning enough or not doing enough, so what do "they do" , well , they simply supply the fuel to keep their motors going.


Ironic isn't it...

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by pteridine

 

Well I take it you have never heard of this than.

boingboing.net...

That link is to an Island of Plastic two times the size of Texas that weighs 3.5 Million Tons.

I bet that alone has enough capability to make a "dent" in the fuel production world.

Daily production is about 90 million barrels, at about 8 barrels per tonne* that's about 11 million tonnes per day - so that island is about 1/3rd of 1 days worth...assuming it can all be converted.

* - about 160 litres per barrel, assuming S.G. of 0.8....all rough but I think it's close enough for illustrative purposes

Of course recycling this stuff won't make the oil problem go away at all - it is still sourced from fossil fuels, and is stuill subject to and causing all the problems we associate with that.

Hey those kids in Slumdog Millionaire are gonna get rich.

2nd

reply to post by tothetenthpower


HAH! I remember hearing David Suzuki (? Pretty sure it was him?) back in the Bulsh days saying the US had spent enough on the Debacle in Iraq to convert it's oil based economy over to a Hydrogen based economy.
Gee I'd love to hear that interview again...

Don't see any upside to this considering plastics are made from oil and so are many other things.

Gotta have oil to make plastic....hmm.

reply to post by Silverkiss


Yeah David Suzuki is such an awesome and super smart guy, I love when he gives talks you could just listen for hours he's always so informative and in an easy to listen to way. Yeah im sure with the money they spent in Iraq they could of paid off everyones mortgage in the US so no one would have a home loan anymore , could of done so much good with all that money, but instead they kill a dictator that 'had' WMD's, well i guess he may have but the government maybe kept them for themselves, lol your government how more people dont get pissed off and shoot government officials there i dont know lol.

But back to the OP, its a good idea just depends if they can make it in such a way that it doesnt stuff up the engine or if it does rebuild the engine to a way that it can accept the stuff they are using, that or refine it more but surely there is a way to break down what was in its purest form oil, if they can do that yeah depends if it'll be cost effective, or in a cruder form it may work if they have a different type of engine setup that isnt so prissy, it might work in some older style engine maybe, idk im sure there is a way they could get it to work better but the cost may be more than its worth.