digg

Join DiggAbout

Greener Plastics: CO2 Helps Reduce The Use of Fossil Fuels watch!

sciencentral.com — Using carbon dioxide as an ingredient in plastics could help reduce the use of fossil fuels, and be another market for waste CO2. A Cornell chemist has started up a company that's now making plastics containing up to 50 percent CO2.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LilCarrots, on 07/09/2008, -3/+24I guess if we HAVE to have plastics this is a good way to do it. But something also has to be done about packaging overkill.
    • sphigel, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Give me a break! It's breakthroughs like this that are going to save our planet. Do you seriously think people will radically change the way they live? Have you?

    • EricAnderton, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2The healthcare industry (read: hospital emergency rooms) go through *tons* of the stuff just to maintain a sterile environment for patients. Plastic is *essential* for many people to survive.
  • WallsOfPeril, on 07/09/2008, -0/+14"I want to say one word to you. Just one word."
    "...Yes, sir."
    "Are you listening?"
    "Yes, I am."
    "Plastics."
    "...Just how do you mean that, sir?"
  • webman77, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1"sounds" surreal :)
  • Truzseeker, on 07/09/2008, -11/+5dugg only because CO2 is converted to oxygen through osmosis that is a long established fact...how much dumber can people believe that a CO2 level can be harmful when it only enriches plant life.
  • tyshro, on 07/10/2008, -9/+4CO2 is hard to convert to O2. Yes plants eat CO2 and many spit out O2 but in today's earth there is too much CO2 for the plants to eat.

    And Walls of Peril - Mrs Robinson looked great.
    • Badandy127, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6Too much CO2 for plants to "eat"? I'm going to need a citation for that, because that's a natural regulation on earth: The more CO2 in the air, the richer the plant life, the more plants convert to O2. Unless you are trying to say that .037% is too much for plants, whereas .0369 wasn't?
      • B1663r, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5I have been studying DIY greenhouse gardening lately, and actually, he is wrong about that. You can increase CO2 levels in your greenhouse right up to and beyond the point where the air is poisonous to humans and it makes the plants grow faster. In fact, in temperature controlled greenhouses, you HAVE to add CO2 because the plants will deplete the CO2 in the air, and stop growing.

        /looks out window...

        My victory veggie garden was an utter failure this year, but now I am moving onto hydroponics, aeroponics, and the guides tell me it is not only easy, but it is easier than plain old dirt gardening, because there are no weeds, and you don't have to mess with soil.
      • wendelgee2, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2This is all assuming that "more plant life" is a good thing. Considering that the oceans cover 80% of the
        earth, what it will likely mean is more algae blooms, and then dead zones when the dead algae sinks to the bottom and sucks up oxygen as it decays.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology% ...
      • B1663r, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1The wiki article you link to suggests that the hypoxic events are cause by eutrophication rather than CO2.

        At the same time, high CO2 levels in the water inhibit calcification in shell fish and ocean corals, a critical CO2 sink.

        Also, the effect you are talking about is not all bad, it is also a suggested carbon sequestration technique. Fertilize the oceans with iron ore, and create large scale red tide, in the deep ocean, and you not only enhance the ocean ecosystem, but you sequester carbon very efficiently. The discoverer of the effect said “Give me half a tanker of iron, and I’ll give you an ice age”

        So it is not as bad as you have been led to believe, but still something needs to be done.
  • Rudigity, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3more info please, you come off as a science show after all
    • ddawggin, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Yeah... I was wondering why Science Central wasted time explaining what "catalysts" were instead of actually going into the specific details. I was curious as to how they accomplished this.
    • Gigamesh, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1so agree, i thought u would assume being a science show that people understood what a catalyst was. so funny how they made it sound like a catalyst is this new discovery.
  • realskullzero, on 07/10/2008, -5/+0Dude dugged it...;)
  • cashman57, on 07/10/2008, -17/+20I have to laugh at people who believe CO2 is a pollutant and that the global warming crap is reality.
    In reality the only way that the "scientists" can show global warming is by omitting all data from volcanic activity.
    I am still waiting for those who dig me down to come up with one single solitary computer model that shows global warming without omitting all data from volcanic activity.
    There are none. None of the IPCC computer models that show global warming have that data and so the only way they can claim global warming is real is to pretend volcanoes do not exist.
    • sb76117, on 07/10/2008, -4/+11and cow farts! where are the cow farts slides, gore!?
      • chamberlanderic, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2we need to tap that too and transform our Horse power into cow power !
      • gn0stik, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Cow Belches. Cow's belch far more methane than they fart.
    • B1663r, on 07/10/2008, -5/+14Wow, you should write a paper and submit it to a peer reviewed scientific journal, I am sure they would be interested in hear your criticisms of their science. Phew! The whole scientific establishment overlooked volcanoes until cashman57 pointed out their error!!

      Thanks cashman57!!!!
      • JonForTheWin, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4>The whole scientific establishment

        citation needed
      • B1663r, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4No citation needed, this can be handled semantically. If you are a global warming denier at this point, you are no longer a member of the scientific community.

        Doubt me? Google it yourself.
    • dekuscrub, on 07/10/2008, -9/+5Global warming = biggest hoax of the 21st century.
      • PHiZ187, on 07/10/2008, -3/+7No, that would be "compassionate conservatism."
      • zeromous, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3"Social Security" and "Medicaid" called, they want their title back so they can duke it out to the death.
    • PHiZ187, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2Volcanoes? Really dog? Really? And I take it you're not talking about the noxious gasses that volcanoes spew (CO2, which you don't seem to think contributes to global warming), but about the actual heat generated by them?

      Really dog? Wow. Wow.

      How many volcanoes are their in the world, as a percentage of land mass? 0.000000001% ?
    • chamberlanderic, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3don't forget sun activity, ozone layer depletion and air pollution:
      http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-07/ ...
    • kingp, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I am now officially convinced that Global Warming is a hoax. Thank you for opening my eyes.
    • SpyDerMann, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I find it fascinating that all the people who deny global warming (or at least the most vocal) are US citizens. Does the US media have something that international media don't?
    • cashman57, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1Looking through the replies I see that nobody has yet found any computer model that shows global warming without omitting all data from volcanic activity. The ash spewn into the stratosphere stays there and blocks sunlight for years. This has been proven with modern instrumentation and scientific study. There has not been a single year we have not seen above ground volcanic activity and its effect on the climate, not one.
      I guess so many people are so hung up on junk science they want to disbelieve reality.
      So, find me one single solitary computer model that shows global warming without omitting all data from volcanic activity or STFU!
  • sngx1275, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3What does it biodegrade to?

    Isn't CO2 pretty much an end product? So that being the case, I can see CO2 being one of the products of degradation. If the goal here is to help the environment by removing CO2 from the air, this isn't going to accomplish that. Where it might work is if they can make it cheaper than Polyethelene.
    • BadseedJR, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Did you read the article? It degrades back to CO2 and water vapor.
    • gn0stik, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3The article is about recycling waste co2 into a usable component of plastics, rather than using petroleum which would introduce new carbon during manufacture.
  • ldw4686, on 07/10/2008, -5/+8I think that cashman57 should check out this article
    http://softpixel.com/eof/1998,9/volcanoes/The%20Ef ...

    It explains how volcanoes actually help cool the planet and that the chemicals they release don't contribute to global warming. If there is scientific evidence stating the volcanoes have nothing to do with global warming, how do you explain how the Earth is heating up? B/c it is, the Earth's core temperature has risen 1 degree in 100 years. I know that doesn't sound like much, but it is effecting fragile eco-systems. I would rather believe that global warming is real than wait until it is too late to do anything about it. But hey, if you want to gamble with your life, not to mention the billions that call Earth home, than just keep doing what you're doing. I know that I am not willing to take that risk. You can call it dumb, but I don't want to risk it and it seems easy to change a few things in your routine to cut down your carbon footprint. But that's just me:)
    • NJank, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6there's a reply button for a reason.
    • BadseedJR, on 07/10/2008, -2/+7I don't see why "carbon footprints" always have to be related to global warming. Can't we just ask people to reduce emissions to cut down on air pollution? Everyone knows air is polluted, there's no debate about that one.
    • wendelgee2, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1That is a very reputable looking website. /s
    • cashman57, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I thank you for pointing out that volcanic activity cools the planet and thus is the reason they leave it out of their data in the computer models. All you need to do to make global warming disappear is put the data from volcanic activity into the computer model.
  • leerayIG88, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4From the picture, it looks like cocaine.
    • nickfartzone, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3agreed. Also I've always believed that CO2 should be the chemical name for coke.
  • AndrewMB, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3Great....now all we have to do is get rid of the Co2 then we can start to worry that there isn't enough in the air to keep plant life alive. This could create a problem while trying to solve another one.
  • radiofrequency, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Oh great, another environmentalist scam to make commodities more expensive. We already recycle our plastics. How much more expensive are these "greener" plastics?
    • SpyDerMann, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1perhaps you should say "pseudo-enviromentalist".
  • Mustard911, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Least no one is proclaiming the Global Warming political campaign from Zionist Rothschild's, etc.

    Good to see new products that help cut oil use, but hope it's cheap to manufacture.
  • grail1973, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I want to see a tech data sheet on the material and a reactor for the making of this polymer bigger than a benchtop. How stable is it really? Can it be molded, blown, or extruded? Is it really useful?
  • MiRK, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Do you remember that story about that kid making better plastic for a school project? i can't remember what kind of plastic it was but i think it was something similar.
  • armakaryk, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1i remember reading about this some months ago in a science journal. absolutely brilliant, and palm-to-the-face obvious at the same time.
    potentially one could use the process to building structures and equipment from the martian atmosphere, that would be exciting to see.
  • Isidore, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Well cashman you'd better laugh at those poor fools at NASA who do believe that human are now changing the climate. If you are interested in science look here http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Note the CO2 concentration graph, It wavers during northern summer/winter but is going steadily upwards. If volcanoes made a significat contribution you would see massive spikes - but you don't. human activities inject 150 times more CO2 into the athmosphere than all volcanoes combined.

    Maybe NASA knows more than you do about climate.
    • cashman57, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1If they did they would not exclude all data from volcanic activity to get the result.
      But then again global warming believers are not too keen on real science and can't even tell me how many volcanoies there are erupting today in the oceans.
      I buried your comment for stupidity.
      You linked to an article which quoted the IPCC, and they are the ones who decided that volcanic activity needed to be dropped out of the equation. Also your link was about CO2, which is not a pollutant and whose presence is not a disaster. Link me to a computer model that shows global warming without omitting all data from volcanic activity or STFU!
  • SBColt15, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I like how the narrator uses "catalysts" like it's some kind of big word and borderline misuses it at that. He makes it seem as though only these molecules are called catalysts when in fact any substance that instigates a chemical reaction is a catalyst. Good effort though...jack ass.
    • WallsOfPeril, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Considering that only 28% of Americans were considered scientifically literate as of 2006 (which is actually a huge improvement over the 10% in 1988) there's still some work to be done before news reports written for a broad audience can *casually* refer to "big words." It's great that you're smart, but most people aren't. (jack ass)
      http://www.arcsfoundation.org/Pittsburgh/JMiller.p ...
  • cashman57, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I find it quite amusing that none of the responders seem to be able to grasp the fact that the IPCC is the sole source for information about "global warming" and none of their computer models which show global warming have any data from volcanic activity.
    Volcanic activity above ground creates an ash cloud that remains in the stratosphere blocking and reflecting sunlight for years.
    This is not news, we have seen the evidence of it in our lifetime with the eruptions of Pinatubo and Mt St Helens.
    Both put ash into the stratosphere and that ash fell all around the world. The fact the ash was blocking sunlight cannot be denied and the resulting cooling of the planet cannot be denied but the IPCC chose to pretend those events did not happen and thus created a computer model that proves global warming exists.
    If global warming really exists they would not have to pretend volcanoes do not.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.