The plastic revolution
Whilst travelling, we’ve witnessed how several Asian countries such as Cambodia and Indonesia have turned into plastic junkyards. Inland and coastal areas are littered with a colourful mixture of bags, bottles, cups, trays and everything else, it is truly a sad and terrible sight. A lot of countries, not just in Asia, suffer from bad solid waste management. Moreover, littering seems to be a deep engrained cultural element. Whilst care for the environment seems to be on the last stage of people’s and the government’s interests, the nature is suffering and people too.
Owing to the favourable properties of plastic – strength, durability and light weight, we embraced them in all areas of life. Plastics have created a revolution and improved the quality of life immensely, however, nowadays they seem to be one of greatest plagues of our planet. I can’t enumerate the number of times I came across an article talking about the great plastic vortex the size of Europe in the Pacific, and that the ocean will soon contain more plastic than fish.
Economic incentives
I believe that people (the end-users) are responsible for the plastic crisis, and should also be the ones to fix it. The great question then is, how can we convince people to undertake action? According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, economic incentives are a strong tool in changing consumer behaviour. Along these lines, some countries introduced a deposit for plastic bottles. But what about the other plastic: wrappers, bags, ropes, their value is too low to be considered for recycling.
The chemical elements of plastic
Most of the packaging plastics which pollute the environment are based on two to four chemical elements. Polystyrene, polyethylene and polypropylene are made of carbon and hydrogen, whilst PET (polyethylene terephthalate), used for bottles, contains also oxygen. Nylon, a polyamide, which is used to make fibres, also contains oxygen and nitrogen in its structure. These elements are essentially the same ones that fossil fuels are made of. This should be of no surprise, since plastics (long chain hydrocarbons) are also made of the same crude oil, as their “short chain” relatives- gasoline and diesel.
In other words: if burned well, plastics create the same products as wood and fossil fuels -> water and carbon dioxide
Recycle or burn plastics?
In conventional terms, it is environmentally more sound to recycle plastics than dispose them. This approach, however, has so far proven quite challenging and more frequently results in “downcycling”. But even downcycling requires large centralised facilities with advanced sorting lines and plastic recovery processes, which is very expensive and not applicable to solve the pollution problem.
So, you were always told that burning plastics is bad for the environment. Indeed, incomplete combustion of any hydrocarbon creates noxious smoke. As the above image depicts, burning plastics can create the same products as fossil fuel and wood. In waste incineration facilities, thousands of tons of plastic burn worldwide daily, generating heat and electricity.
Let’s be honest, who has never burnt a piece a plastic? Have you ever watched a bag or a bottle crumple when it comes into the scorching heat of the campfire, and then singe away with a smokeless flame? The experience of burning plastic here in Asia has been a different one. When the dusk comes, people start small fires on the roadsides: a few dried palm tree leaves and a pile of plastic waste smoulder under a cloud of black smoke and the familiar smell.
Burn plastic in a stove
Burning any material well and without smoke and noxious fumes needs a high temperature and plenty of oxygen. This is best achieved in a stove, where the heat is concentrated and can be put to good use.
I am no stove design expert or a fire engineer, but whenever making fire (a camp fire or a BBQ), I keep three rules in mind. To keep the fire burning you need 1) Fuel; this can be any combustible material- usually wood or gas, but plastic does the job as well. 2) Oxygen; 21% of air is made of it and a continuous supply of air is a must. Then the last factor is one people tend to forget, since it is not so obvious. 3) Heat transfer; solid fuel does not in fact burn, the gaseous products of its decomposition do. Decomposition takes place by supplying heat to the solid fuel. If not enough heat is supplied, no gaseous products are created and the fire stops burning. Most fires are based on these principles and a fire will keep growing until one of the three components becomes limiting. Then it will reach a “steady state combustion”.
The solution is theoretically simple. Supply stoves for burning plastic to the people or tell them how they are built. They will go out there to collect plastic and burn it efficiently to cook and satisfy their heating requirements.
The “rocket stove” concept is a good one to adapt, as well as the ideas shown on this site for wood burning stoves. Importantly, stoves should be designed from easily obtainable materials such as steel barrels or old propane cylinders.
People will soon find out, that burning plastic in stoves is advantageous. Plastic does not contain literally any moisture, neither does it produce as much ash as wood does. When plastic gets this new role, it will become economically interesting to go out there and pick the pile of plastic rubbish and burn it efficiently, instead of throwing it on an open fire or using wood or charcoal made of cut down trees.
Another benefit of burning plastics is that it can help in reducing deforestation. There are numerous reasons for deforestation. One of them is cutting wood for the use as fuel. Frequently, wood is first charred to make charcoal, a clean burning fuel suitable for indoor stoves and pits. The dark side of this material is that charcoal is best made of hardwood trees, which tend to grow slowly. The process of charring also removes often more than 70% from the usable energy from the wood, which could otherwise be used for cooking. A prime example of deforestation for cooking can be found on Haiti.
What are the downsides?
As most solutions, this one is not free of flaws as plastics such as PVC (polyvinyl chloride), which is used for plumbing, can create more dangerous products of decomposition – such as corrosive HCl gas; and several plastics. Usually the hard plastic used in motorbikes and cars contain flame retarders, which are too not the friendliest chemicals and may create toxic fumes when burned. Based on what I’ve seen, these plastics are a minority and PVC and hard plastics are denser than water and will sink If they end up in the sea. What you see washed up on the shore are light packaging materials and foams.
Conclusion
Plastic pollution is killing many animals and is undoubtedly aesthetically damaging the environment. Burning them might be the best way to quickly improve the situation. If people recognise the benefit of burning plastics in the right stove, it will save them money on fossil fuels, stop plastic pollution, limit deforestation, and improve the quality of life. Combustion of low value packaging plastics is not a totally new idea and a company has already received an award for it. Are you convinced that burning plastics is the solution? Are you up for developing a simple and low cost efficient burner? Let us know!
27 Comments. Leave new
This post is so full of unscientific shit it needs it own landfill…Please, come live by a cement kiln that burns plastic wastes.
Hi Jim
Thanks for your comment. What exactly do you mean? Some concepts are a bit simplified, but I don’t know what is unscientific. I imagine that living close to a cement kiln, which runs in reducing conditions and burns tires and other waste is not pleasant. Maybe you can elaborate and i can fix my post.
Hello Radek,
I believe that some of the reasons for Jim’s intervention might be the following:
1) The title of the page states “Burn Plastics for a Better Environment”.
2) The header text is “The surprising benefits of burning plastics”.
3) The end of this article URL is “burn-plastics”.
The impression that you give is that it is a good idea to burn plastics without clearly stating the conditions which are not natural nor easy to achieve for individuals in countries you mentioned. Those conditions being at least:
A) Have the right set up for the burning (combustion, oxygen, heat, location, filtering,…).
B) Take advantage of the heating power. Which is not surprising nor new.
C) Discriminate the plastics that can be burned from those that cannot.
This is a bit like stating that jumping off a cruising aircraft is fun and safe without mentioning the unnatural condition of the parachute. This could lead to people jumping off a cruising aircraft without a parachute. And let me tell you that people in my neighborhood don’t need to read the title of your article to falsly believe that burning plastics is a good idea.
Until we get this great magical cheap stove that can set the proper conditions to safely and efficiently burn some plactics, it would be better not to give the impression that burning plastics is good. This causes lots of damage to the environment and human health.
Also, I appreciate your effort in reducing water bottles platics waste through your product. Thanks for that. I wish you success.
Hi Deb Box, thanks for your elaborate comment and exhaustive analysis. When writing this post, I realized it would spark a lot of controversy and discussion. I really appreciate your feedback and as a result I will write a second post clarifying my views and addressing your points. I still believe burning certain plastics is a good idea and I will prepare a more solid basis! Keep an eye out and let me know if you get a chance to read it.
Dear Deb, Have a look at the new blog and tell me what you think. I will appreciate your comments.
This link is not working: http://wasteplastictechnology.blogspot.cz/
Hey Marc, thanks for letting us know! It seems that the owner has deleted that blog. We will update the info. Have a nice day!
When something is so utterly wrong I have to speak up. I never comment on things but this is so full of utter bullshit I had to.
Your “stoves” will never be able to deal with halogens or properly incinerate all carbon to an oxidized form, you will at best create free radical species.
Do this constantly and you WILL 100% be putting yourself and others at risk of dioxins and cancer.
I’m a genius moments should always be followed up by, why hasn’t someone done this before.
Think about it, there’s enough people out there doing things now that you aren’t that special, and it might save your life.
Hi Myke, although I respect your opinion, there a few fundamental misinterpretations. 1) halogens= unless you talk about PVC or other halogenated polymers, which I mentioned in the article, there is no need to worry about dioxins. 2) oxidising carbon ? That’s what you call burning. Free radical species are indeed created with a halflife of fractions of a second. This has been done before, and plastic gets burned daily in completely uncontrolled conditions. Although not flawless, i think it’s a good alternative. Please quote from the article, what is unclear or flawed in your opinion
Hi, would you like to read the second blog I just posted and tell me your opinion? Thanks, Radek
Good lord. DO NOT BURN PLASTIC. Burning plastic releases toxic chemicals such as CYANIDE. Why is that bad? Let me tell you why.
In small amounts, cyanides can be changed into thiocyanate, which is then removed from the body in urine. Small amounts of cyanide can also combine with a chemical to make B₁₂, which helps to keep nerve and blood cells healthy. However, in large amounts, it prevents cells from getting oxygen, and the cells eventually die. Symptoms of cyanide poisoning can start in minutes to seconds, and include headaches, seizures, nausea, difficulty breathing, loss of consciousness, cardiac arrest, weakness, and confusion. If cyanide poisoning is left unhandled, death may result. So, when cyanide is released into the air as plastic burns, it’s likely that the cyanide will be inhaled and many people will get cyanide poisoning. Since the burning on plastic is very popular, cyanide poisoning is likely to affect more and more people, especially as the amount of plastic in the world grows.
Not to mention, cyanide is flammable. Having said that, burning that plastic in an oven is not the smartest idea. Wait- now that I look at this website, cyanide is easily mixable with other gases and explosive gases can easily form. So, burning plastic in your own home without knowing how to deal with cyanide and other potentially harmful chemicals is not a good idea. It’s better to send them to a landfill or people who can safely burn them. Plus, your idea of plastic pollution killing animals is incorrect – These days, landfills cannot pollute water and are often sealed away from areas where animals can approach them (Made into golf fields, etc.) and if they are not made into a recreational or environmentally safe site, they are monitored closely. They cannot be made in environmentally sensitive areas, and are overall safe. However, as more come, there will need to be other techniques for disposing of plastic, but burning should not be one of them. Rather, we can urge companies to make less or completely stop making plastic, buy re-usable plastic items, and recycle as many plastics as you can. If they aren’t recyclable, a landfill would be the better choice, rather than burning them. Unless we can come up with a way to make an efficient burning system that can reduce chemicals, then burning is not ever the good decision. Oh, and before I go- Cooking after getting chemicals in the oven? What kind of idea is that!? There’s no guarantee that whatever magical stove you’re talking about can dispense all of those chemicals.
My apologies if this is not the most scientific. I’m quite young and I’m still growing, but I’m writing an essay on why plastic isn’t good for the environment or human beings and it takes a lot of research, and when I saw this title on Google, I read over this and saw a lot of errors. If you have any tips for me, please let me know. Once again, I’m still learning about this subject, so I don’t understand nearly as much as you. With that out of the way, thank you for your time. If you had anything wrong, I hope this helps you.
Hi Riannon, thanks for reading the blog thoroughly and posting your long and elaborate comment. Like I said in a previous response to a comment I’m preparing a new blog to further elaborate on this topic. There is a misconception that all plastics are the same and that burning them creates deadly chemicals. I think this a wrong dogma and there is a plenty of literature that supports burning of certain plastics. Could you please state any source where you read that burning plastics makes cyanide? It’s pretty general statement. As far as landfill goes, this practice is slowly being abandoned here in Europe and plastics are actually being burned in incinerators or power plants.
Plastic pollution is killing animals and is a threat as serious to biodiversity as global warming please read this article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change . If you visit many developing nations, you’ll learn that centralized waste management is very poor and that’s why decentralization is the best solution.
Doing without plastics is very hard and they do have many advantages and currently are not large-scale replaceable. Recycling is not feasible either.
I don’t think there is anything conceptually wrong in my post, I did however, commit a some degree of simplification which I will correct in the following blog this week. Please keep an eye out and read it. It will explain the process in more detail. I also invite you to read the sources in the article and do some more research. Cheers! Radek
Hello Radek.
You’re welcome. Like I said before, I’m still researching about this concept and don’t understand certain things about it. I try sticking to most .org, .(state initial).uk and .gov websites as my school directs me to, however I felt that this one seemed mostly reliable. (There are a few notes and topics I found offensive, though I have nowhere to speak because I haven’t learned about one yet, but besides that it seemed okay.) The website was here: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/6/2/1096855/-PSA-Burning-Plastic-Can-Kill-You
I’m not really one for thoroughly looking for things that prove it’s fake, so if you find something or know that it is fake, please let me know.
(Please know that I do realize the article says “Building materials or plastic products don’t typically contain HCN itself (unless, as a remote possibility, as a dye) but hydrogen cyanide itself is very flammable and solid HCN will probably burn to nothing…”, however, from what I took away after a few readings, it seemed as if the article was saying that plastic, when burned, produced cyanide. If this is wrong, it would really help to know. I’d prefer if you’d phrase it..Not very complex? I don’t understand many scientific terms, so using the term “dioxin” or any other slightly complex or very complex scientific terms may confuse me, since I’m still looking into dioxins and what they are. Thank you!)
I suppose I didn’t phrase that very well. LANDFILL plastic pollution is not a huge threat, and while, yes, in certain areas the pollution is unreasonable and the monitoring is very low, however, places like such (As far as the USA says) are typically noticed and change. However, with developing nations, it makes sense that the waste management is not the best. I do understand that plastic pollution is an issue, and the website you pulled up for me to read is really going to help me with the essay I am writing.
Plastics do have their advantages, but not always are those advantages worth the harm that they can do. Plastic smells like food to fish, and with so much plastic in the sea-8.3 billion metric tonnes (1 metric tonne = 1000 kilograms)- fish are going to start dying very quickly. (Article about plastic in the sea: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/plastic-how-planet-earth-environment-oceans-wildlife-recycling-landfill-artificial-a7972226.html ) (Article about plastic smelling like food to fish: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/plastic-sea-smells-fish-food-new-study-anchovies-pollution-waste-a7895041.html#gallery ). Not to mention, I did not say we had to replace plastic, just that we needed to lower our use of plastic.
Thank you!
Hi, I made a new blog on this topic, come and have a look.
3governor
Great post! I don’t get why so much push back. A wonderful idea, practiced by almost the entire continent of Africa and their air is just so wonderful and clean and the land so natural.
What is bad for the environment is jet exhaust from the globalist and billionaires flying their private jets everywhere, if we want to help climate change, ground those private jets spewing tons of harmful pollution into our precious air.
Unless we can began building roads and buildings from plastic, it should be burned. The ozone has holes in it and releases any toxins regularly so to worry about burning plastic is to overreact because the government trained you to. Let’s stand strong for a cleaner environment and burn the plastics instead of littering and killing our wildlife.
Hi, Thanks for the positive feedback. It is clear, that burning plastic carries dangers, as described in the blog. On the other hand, if you can create energy from it, you at least give it some value, and prevent it from becoming a littered waste. But if it is done, it must be done correctly – not in an open fire, but under well controlled conditions in a stove.
Your suggestion is the most practical one for countries like India where piles of plastic waste grow to 100ft in most cities. When it catches fire somehow, it smokes for months spreading poisonous gases due to incomplete combustion. If some diesel is poured to the smoke and light it from a safe distance and blowersare engaged, it will cause full combustion and oxidation and waste becomes ash. It’s practical and cheap., undoubtedly. Sometimes we need to fight fire with fire..
Burning plastics may sound as a good solution. But this advice cannot be given to people in poor countries. They may not take the necessary precautions to burn them completely. Incinerator burning may be fine, but not open burning in my opinion.
ALL plastics are made from crude oil and are FOREVER molecular compounds that DO NOT biologically break down; but continually break apart into micro (10 to the minus 6th power) and even further smaller particles called nano-plastics (10 to the minus 9th power) that can penetrate biological cell walls. Sixty years ago, large amounts of consumables like mustard, ketchup, mayo, beverages, etc. and many, many other food products were packaged in GLASS containers that were either reused directly or melted down to make new containers. Manufacturers then started using plastics for virtually everything in place of metal and glass because plastics were ECONOMICALLY CHEAPER, and far more damaging to the environment. Also, department stores and grocery stores used PAPER sacks instead of plastic sacks 60 years ago but switched to plastic sacks for purely economic reasons. There has been an ongoing and ever-worsening environmental disaster of plastic waste because plastics are FOREVER molecular compounds. Many bloggers here neglect the breaking down of plastics into microplastics and then into nano-plastics which is extremely un healthy, too. Governments need to ban the manufacture of plastic containers and other plastic products which the products could easily be replaced with recycleable glass and metals. There is NO economically viable and environmentally viable alternative but to BURN plastic if the plastic cannot be recycled. Landfills are not the solution and neither is dumping plastics into the rivers and oceans.
Your post might have seemed like a good idea in 2017, but incinerating plastic has since been proven to be much more harmful than recycling or for that matter, disposing of it in landfills. You purport to care about the environment. I noticed that you replied to another critical comment by asking for more information so that you could fix your article. The only fix is to take it down. If you really do care about protecting the planet that is what you’ll do. Here’s just one article. If you need more please go research the issue yourself. I like to think that with a bit more, and updated data at your disposal you’ll do Mother Earth a solid and take this down! 🙂 https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-europe-a-backlash-is-growing-over-incinerating-garbage
Absolutely inane. The post you linked to cites only 2 downsides to municipal incineration of waste: carbon emissions and (I kid you not) racial equity concerns (in Europe, LOL). How is this “much more harmful” than recycling? Here are 2 papers from the last year which show how recycling is not only largely a sham, but also outright harmful to consumers’ health:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772416623000803
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340923008090
Carbon emissions are a MUCH more tractable problem than plastic pollution, as we already have a million potential solutions (reforestation, regenerative grazing, renewable energy sources, public transit, among many others). However, the proliferation of plastics in the environment has NO available solution besides total conversion of environmental plastic into heat and non-volatile gases. What are we supposed to do, keep geometrically scaling plastic production & consumption forever, landfilling it, letting the 3rd world dump it in the ocean? Without any attempt to gather up the plastic in the environment and dispose of it responsibly?
The post’s OP has presented a great idea: simple, affordable, and effective devices which can be distributed to convert plastic into useful energy, burn off the volatile compounds that aren’t effectively caught by open firing of plastic, AND effectively incentivize a crowd-sourced solution to plastic pollution (the current status quo has every incentive going the opposite way: developing countries’ populations measurably do not give a shit about littering, they think it’s convenient: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/visualized-ocean-plastic-waste-pollution-by-country/).
With solutions like that proposed here, we could move the needle on plastic pollution for the first time since its invention. And you’re countersignaling it. What’s wrong with you?
Hi I like the concept of burning plastic, the article you wrote is fine but it should not have been printed by itself. This is like a book without beginning and end. Yes you can burn it but it should have started out with the things needed to burn plastic how to do it correctly, how you identify which plastic to use, preparation if needed. Also what are the drawbacks of it etc. You know how people are they see a heading and from their it goes some don’t read the article to find out what your saying. It’s assumed from the header that it’s ok to burn plastic that’s all what some people see. That’s why if you want to print something like that you have to be careful on how you word things and make people see that first you have to have this or that in place before you can have that kind of result if not this is the outcome. You also have to write it where everyone can understand it and the shortest way you can because not everyone wants to read a long as article.
I read your article which isn’t bad but for example you should say you can burn this kind of plastic in this kind of stove and say which stove is needed. Their are hundreds of different stoves out their just because you know what you mean doesn’t mean the person reading it will.
Hi, thanks for your tip. I think I chose the title on purpose like this.
Hi, good article. I wondered if you had made any progress with your plastic combusted stoves since 2017. I live on an island on Lake Victoria, Uganda, setting up and implementing the country’s first protected area or fish breeding/growing area. The Fisheries Protection Unit capture a lot of illegal nets and burn them in the open, emitting poisonous toxins into our clean air.
Your stoves could be a good solution.
Hi, in general, the best idea is burning it in a stove where you can use the heat for another purpose – for example cooking or energy generation. It is best to use it as an addition to other fuels such as wood. Make sure that everything you burn is first dry!
I’m from India…As mentioned in the article, most developing countries do not invest in any kind of systematic, comprehensive or meaningful waste management. I was born and brought up in a developed country where waste management was taken seriously, because of which I was appalled by how even the most scenic of tourist locations had plastic and even human waste littered.
Even today my neighborhood doesn’t have a transparent waste disposal system…I live in a flat in the city. Luckily I’ve a biogas plant for my food waste, which only I use…I also hv an incinerator for sanitary napkins…some plastic and paper waste are bought by vendors…but most of it, especially plastic covers from food and other packaging items, glass, aluminum foils, thermocol, used clothes, foot-wear etc. are stored and taken by me to my village. Luckily, my village panchayat has started a waste management program.
I was just trying to say, as I was exposed to waste management in my childhood, I take all that pain. Many ppl just litter and dump waste wherever they can. If waste management is a paid service, financially strained ppl try to get around that.
As noted by the author, waste management is a culturally ingrained and socio-economic phenomenon. Burning is a practice people in developed countries can readily practice, if the conditions mentioned by the author are available and the science behind burning is solid. I wish there was a better way. But until then….
If you have been in a country where littering is the norm (it makes you feel the world is hopeless!), and if you feel empathetic for the ocean life, this alternative is far better. Again only if the science behind it is solid.
Thanks for this article. I started reading more on the topic.