Permanently Deleted
What a total shock! I really thought Rishi was being honest when he said Rosebank would benefit young people, and I'm even more stunned that the King's Speech wasn't totally accurate. Wow!
You can't really do much with plastics. It can handle being reprocessed once or twice before it just becomes too brittle.
We can only reduce to fix our worst pollutants. Well, until we get some plastic eating bacteria.
Plastic eating bacteria introduces all sorts of new problems, actually. Plastic is popular because plastic is forever (as long as it's protected from excessive heat and UV light)
It's going to be bad when your plastic can rot.
Sorry, my response was to the comment about recycling plastic.
I completely agree that it would cause issues ones it has plastic eating bacteria, but there are many reasons why plastic recycling hasn't taken off, the biggest being "it doesn't actually recycle".
It does recycle, though. You can't recycle plastic bottles into plastic bottles forever, but they can become lower grade plastics meant for different tasks for their entire life cycle. Highly degraded plastic can be made into building materials and roads, for example.
The real reason it hasn't taken off is because it's not profitable.
And we do that already.
But considering you can only do it basically twice, you can't mash different types of plastics together, and you can't "recycle" into the types of plastics that are in demand, it's all rather pointless.
They make low grade building materials, think benches, and flake easily so roads are a really bad idea. There are only so many benches you can make and Walkers have that covered with the green washing of crisp packets.
you can only do it basically twice,
If you stick to the cheapest recycling process of just washing, grinding, and heating the plastic. That's mostly all that is done because it's the only process that's even slightly profitable .
you can’t mash different types of plastics together, and you can’t “recycle” into the types of plastics that are in demand
You actually can in a chemical process called transesterification. Rather than just grinding the plastic into flake and heating it, it can be refined and rebuilt into new polymers.
Repolymerization (transforming polymers back into monomers to purify them) can also be used to recycle plastics almost indefinitely.
There's actually a lot of chemical recycling processes that can be used that we just don't bother doing, because again, profitability.
Do you have an example of anyone providing transesterification recycling options?
Googling only provides research papers, which say that it is extremely energy intensive, has only been demonstrated on PET, and being research, is no where near ready for scaled use as they are only 6 months old.
Nope. I guess I should say I believe that there are recycling processes that can be used and am convinced by what I found.
I also know that they aren't profitable, so they won't be. Not until they become cheaper or raw resources become more expensive, anyway.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Rosebank field was given the green light in September and has the potential to produce 500m barrels of oil in its lifetime, which, when burned, would emit as much carbon dioxide as running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year.
The project has faced stiff resistance, with hundreds of climate scientists and academics and more than 200 organisations, from the Women’s Institute to Oxfam, joining tens of thousands of people across the UK in opposing it.
The Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who submitted the parliamentary question, said: “This government’s answer proves Rosebank is not about supplying the UK with oil and gas, it’s purely another gimmick designed to appeal to a section of the electorate which has no concern for either the future of the planet or their own children.
Government spokespeople have repeatedly defended the plan, saying it will “help us meet our energy needs, while also supporting UK jobs, generating tax revenues and attracting investment”.
Alexander Kirk, of the climate justice group Global Witness, said the government had finally admitted that drilling and exporting more “planet-wrecking, expensive fossil fuels will do nothing for the UK’s energy security”.
They added: “We will continue to back the UK’s oil and gas industry, which underpins our energy security, supports up to 200,000 jobs, and will provide around £50bn in tax revenue over the next five years – helping fund our transition to net zero.”
The original article contains 668 words, the summary contains 234 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The increased supply will reduce the global price which makes oil products cheaper to UK consumers.
Sorry buddy but the price of energy in the UK is no longer correlated with supply and demand and hasn't been for at least two years now.
Obviously it is. When oil prices are high, do petrol prices go down?
A better question is, if the underlying cost of providing energy has increased, why are fossil fuel companies reporting record high profits.
Because when you charge 20% on something and the value of that thing doubles you make double the amount too. I think the UK government is way too cosy with big oil and is scared of asking for more
Think about what you just said for a second.
If the price doubles and the profit margin remains the same, that exactly means that the price is inelastic.
Which is directly synonymous with saying the price is not subject to supply and demand pressure because that would imply elasticity.
You pointed to price inelasticity as proof of price elasticity. God fucking damn.
It makes the already-wealthy owners of the extraction license wealthier and nothing more than that you [edit personal insult removed because I didn’t realize this wasn’t Hexbear, disculpe]
