Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Thats worse. Lets say you have a tonne of plastic.

Option 1, burn it:

Plastic burned release energy roughly equivalent to fossil fuels. Therefore, burning it displaces an equal amount of fossil fuels.

Option 2: landfill it

You still fossil energy so you produce it, but producing it is very energy intensive.

Also you now have a landfill filled with a molecular sponge absorbing toxins, breaking up into microscopic pieces and releasing the toxins elsewhere.




> Dominic Hogg from Eunomia told BBC News: "When coal is phased out for generating electricity, incineration of unrecycled waste will be the most CO2-intensive form of generation.

> The environment minister Therese Coffey told the Commons: "In environmental terms, it is generally better to bury plastic than to burn it."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43120041




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: