I don't think replacing oil-based products with stuff made from biomass is a good idea. There are several issues about plastics and similar materials that need to be solved, but crucially, none of them will be solved by using biomass as raw material. Quite the opposite, actually. 1/ - ThreadSky

fischblog.bsky.social • 34 days ago

I don't think replacing oil-based products with stuff made from biomass is a good idea.

There are several issues about plastics and similar materials that need to be solved, but crucially, none of them will be solved by using biomass as raw material. Quite the opposite, actually.
1/

Comments

fischblog.bsky.social•34 days ago

For example, the glues in this article may derive from biodegradable stuff, but they are chemically modified and highly cross-linked. So whether they can be recycled or are biodegradable is not at all clear. And if they are not, they will produce microplastics like conventional polymers.
2/

fischblog.bsky.social•34 days ago

It's also just a myth that biomass-based chemistry is inherently less dependent on toxic materials than petrochemistry. You still need reactive stuff and solvents. Yes, chemistry can be "green" and sustainable. But for that the whole process needs to change, independent from raw materials.
3/

fischblog.bsky.social•34 days ago

Biomass has the advantage that it starts out with a carbon uptake. However, this might be negated if it needs more processing, depending on quality. Also biomass needs to grow somewhere at scale, and the resulting land use change may not be carbon neutral.
4/

fischblog.bsky.social•34 days ago

Generally replacing oil-based material with biomass presents a problem of scale: where is all that biomass supposed to come from? Will it compete with food production? (likely yes) Will it compete with natural habitats? (likely yes)
So this creates a number of thorny issues we could do without.
5/

fischblog.bsky.social•34 days ago

Finally I don't really see the rationale for phasing out petrochemical materials. The big issue with fossil stuff is that we keep burning it for fuel. But this has nothing to do with using it as raw material. I see very few advantages of biomass as a feedstoc and a lot of problems.
6/

fifaldara.bsky.social•33 days ago

It might become much more expensive if the infrastructure upkeep cost falls on petrochemistry alone vs distributing over all kinds of uses. @gruberte.bsky.social talks a lot about how the infrastructure is only relatively cheap because of the scale.

tozinameran.bsky.social•34 days ago

Do you have an estimation which percentage of oil/gas is simply burned and which part ist used for chemistry like plastics?

hennue.bsky.social•34 days ago

Aren't most petrochemicals burned at the end of their life? Afaik burning is the standard for plastic waste etc.. It's probably a drop in the bucket compared to energy production, but this could still be a problem in the long run, or couldn't it?

ccosima.bsky.social•34 days ago

Gibt es dazu Bilanzen von der Menge her, könnte das klimaneutral kompensiert werden? (Die Beibehaltung der fossilen C- Quellen?)

colliu.bsky.social•34 days ago

The issue with fossil stuff is that it’ s going to run out?

bascb.bsky.social•34 days ago

Good point. If we end up going for mostly re-usable stuff from petrochemicals (or bio bases where that makes sense from foodprint and toxicity), use degradable packaging in one-way or short life cycles while stopping buringing it for energy usage, it'd be a different world.

bjoern.starkimarm.de•33 days ago

About the only reasonable idea would probably be using organic waste for biogas for seasonal storage (and of course wood for building etc.).

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply