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

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Wed Aug 15 10:20:56 PDT 2012


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:57:55PM -0400, Bill Kearney wrote:
> 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.

Not all plants are created equal. Palm oil is a net evil.

You want it green, use PV electricity and CO2 scrubbed
from air and hydrogen from water.

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


More information about the FoRK mailing list