Keep up to date with the Space calendar 2022: Rocket launches, sky events, missions and more!
That's a point indeed, Cat. I agree with that. Will the plastic-fuel be able to be energy-efficient?There is a further limitation to be considered. There are two types of plastic, thermosetting and thermoplastic. The thermosetting ones, as the name implies, "set solid". They will be destroyed by further heating. They cross-link so all the bonds are used up. They are like long strands with joins between the strands. I don't think these can be recovered???
The thermoplastic ones are just like the long strands. They don't join between themselves. In my opinion, these might have a better chance of recovery - but at what energy cost??
I like that too, but the thing is, I don't think it would be energy-efficient to make fuels out of plastic. I would rather recycle plastic for plastic than turn it into a fuel if I had a recycling factory.I just like idea of recycling waste for some useful purpose
I would like to turn your attention to post #17 of this thread.People are pointing out that the energy in the fuel would be less than the energy to produce it. Yes, of course. But you are forgetting the other benefit of this process, the elimination of tons of non-degrading plastic waste. Any cost/benefit analysis has to take both of these benefits into consideration.
I did see that. The comparison of the alternatives would have to include plastics recycling as well. Recycling of plastics so far has had limited success. Also the difference between thermosetting and thermoplastic materials, as Catastrophe (#18) pointed out.I would like to turn your attention to post #17 of this thread.
Time crystal application and contribution to the space exploration needed purposes. 'Braking physics laws (especially 2nd Law of Thermodynamics'. Should make us faster and amazingly more effective.I suggest that you would take more energy making the conversion than you would get out. My reasoning? 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.