[FoRK] CO2 -> 43% by weight of an ABS-replacement bioplastic

Bill Kearney wkearney99 at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 15 09:57:55 PDT 2012


My question was directed more toward the deforestation question.  As in, 
if you're going to use trees as a source then what impact are the 
plants, and at what stages of their development, on CO2 levels?  Instead 
of just stupidly ranting about deforestation.

On 8/15/2012 12:46 PM, Stephen Williams wrote:
> On 8/15/12 6:42 AM, Bill Kearney wrote:
>> How about some numbers that compare CO2 processing rates of the
>> various plants being considered?  And how they process it during their
>> life cycle.  What does a more efficient job?
>
> The CO2 sequestering was directly absorbed in a chemical reaction using
> the finished oil, not even considering the CO2 sequestering of the plant
> itself.  The former captured 43% by weight.  The latter would increase
> that overall number.
>
> They were saying that the result was sunlight stable and was suitable
> for surface coatings, epoxy resin, etc.  All things that cannot
> breakdown too easily to be useful.
> Many materials have much better properties than one or more of their
> ingredients.  Polymers in general have that characteristic, as do many
> types of important large molecules.


More information about the FoRK mailing list