Marketing is as old as bartering. You could say that Terrazzo was used by the Romans and predates _modern_ marketing by a couple of millennia, but that'd be some sort of tautology. Replace the word _marketing_ with something else and it'd be equally meaningless.
I have a feeling that the world could have a lot to learn from Sweden in this regard. We actually don't use landfills at all. Except for food wasteand most of that is used to make gas for vehicles. All other materials are either recycled, reused or burned in energy stations that has best possible cleaning of the emissions. From those stations all metals that result from the burning is also reused when possible. Some simply used for nails or needles, but others remelted and used for industrial purposes. Sure, it's impossible to clean out all of the emissions, but it's certainly better than to burry it underground and hope for the best. We're actually being so effective with our own waste, that we have to import from Germany, Poland, Baltic States and Netherlands to keep our stations fed. As usual, when we do something in this country, it always ends up being overdone. But we're at least showing a good example, and there would not have been as much invested into it if it was not profitable. These stations are also used to make gas for busses and other public vehicles in the cities around wehre they are located. The result of this is that many medium to large cities get both electricity and heat from these stations, and the fuel comes form the populations waste. And since most of those stations are owned by the regional governments or cities, those cities get self sustainable on fuel for their busses and other vehicles. A good way to use stuff that would otherwise get thrown away i think.
I'm not sure that you burning it faster is a plus. As you yourself say the power stations are not exactly clean, though they could have heavy filtering. Some waste might be cleaner not being burned.
@@bzuidgeest I'm saying it is never possible to fully clean emissions from a burning operation. I'm not saying these furnaces is dirty. They've proven to be many times more effective than the current coal power stations when it comes to remove both Co2 and most other harmful chemicals. Also, as I said, most of the bi products from these operations are used for other purposes. For example fuel, source materials for industry, fertilizers and more.
As of 30+ years ago, I remember learning that these waste-to-energy facilities are actual net users, not producers of energy. (Energy to waste.) Also that while the emissions might be close to zero in laboratory conditions (where the fuel material is exactly identified and quantified and the exact right heat is applied), in the real world (at scale and with profit in charge) they're pretty bad. Worse than landfills. And furthermore that new toxic compounds are produced and released in the process, notably dioxins and furans. I can testify that they stink, and it's an unfamiliar stink. And they produce ash that is toxic and must be landfilled at higher cost in special hazardous waste landfills. IDK about Sweden, but in the 80s or 90s there were barges full of this stuff on the Mississippi river, and nobody wanted it. (The big idea was to use it as road fill, but somehow that bad idea got stopped.) I think they ended dumping it on a beach in Africa? Or was that a different story. AFAIK 30 years ago the big advantage of incineration was the cost compared to landfill. If it's much different now in 2023, or just in Sweden, I'll be surprised to learn it.
The binder is mostly lime. Which releases a lot of CO2 when made. The "chemical reaction" is just what happens when you mix lime and water. Their wording is rather disingenuous as the huge amounts of CO2 might not be generated during their product processing but was liberated ahead of time during lime production. All of this having nothing to do with the bulk waste as it's just filler. Also, "mineralization" and "fossilizing" are BS marketing terms since no such process is occurring with the waste itself. The filler is just entombed and conveniently powderized so that as the end product wears we get plentiful microplastics introduced into the environment uncontrolled. Also, the high porosity of the end material will mean that VOCs and solubles will leach out right through the lime. --- Makes for a rather convenient poison distribution system, no?
@@australien6611 - They aren't interested in making anything nice. The vast majority of these companies just exist for a select few to make money as the executives of these companies once they get investment capital. Then they fold. Ever notice that no meaningful results ever appear? They aren't intended to succeed on the stated mission they are intended to succeed in the actual mission. Making rich people richer off the backs of ignorant idealist investors. Open secret at this point.
The idea of entrainment into concrete immediately raises the specter of high-rise column failure and catastrophic collapse. No reputable structural engineer would spec it. Many General Contractors and subcontractors would. Time bomb is only one attribute.
the aggregat is the filling material in concrete. here we use filling material to fill the aggregat :) nice. for me, this is just another way to reduce the waste material and use it somehow. the same, as burning it for energy. two different ways, both better than letting it rot in the landfill. in the first place, we should produce less waste and the best way for that is to reduce consumption. cheers.
The lack of transparency is a huge red flag. Has anyone examined the finished product for microplastic levels, toxins, and what its finished form is made of? Until there's scientific oversight, it should be treated as greenwashing and potentially more polluting than the alternatives.
I heard when cars go across a road, they create friction which remove tiny specks of concrete, a petroleum base product, onto the surrounding environment. Now, imagine if the roads are made with trash w/ plastic , now the plastic and trash are shredded up piece by piece by constant wear and tear by cars into the environment which can include food crops.
0:53 it is SO DAMN HARD to avoid single use plastics sometimes. I found I -love- roasted seaweed, but it seems to only come in plastic trays with plastic desiccant pouches, wrapped in plastic and foil, and then again those bundled in another plastic bag, all for ~8 pieces per package. Hershey's started putting SOME candy unwrapped in pouches, but they look almost identical to the pouches of individually wrapped pieces and I've messed up and gotten those a few times now. And it's hard to avoid because there just aren't less wasteful options a lot of times. I'd happily buy a giant bag of roasted seaweed if it existed where I shopped.
@@thirdeye4654 exactly what I was going to say My kids don't get to eat much junk food cos it all comes in plastic, and also because it's poison (almost, or actually is if u think long term). In general what's good for the planet is good for your body. It's a win win. We cook lots of nice stuff (cakes, pies, biscuits) to satisfy their sweet tooth .
So they splinter waste into powder and glue it together. Seems like an excellent way to get the environment full of microplastics and other trash. The goal is to keep trash out of the environment, not to add it in another form. It might be better than burning it, but seems to me this just makes as distributed land fill
@@jeremyradford5103 you mean not falling for every piece of bullshit marketing? There is a lot of money to be made here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Keeping it a secret does not make it more believable.
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is, so I'll stay a bit skeptical, same as about the crazy battery claims everywhere around. But it would be nice to have ability to upcycle waste...
@@jeremyradford5103 You might be new to internet, so first of all, welcome. There are claims about new battery tech every day - from anodes that allow for super-fast charging (80% in 6 minutes), to energy density around 2x current, to non-flamable batteries that you can puncture and they still generate power up to extra cheap batteries that will cost 20-30% of current prices and will enable large-scale grid storage on the cheap. These claims are here last 5 years at minimum, if half of them were true, we would now have 2x the battery life costing 1/2 as much and recharged in under 6 minutes :) Those claims.
@rklauco lol. I've enjoyed home Internet since 1996, so hardly new. I have been following the transition to clean energy for 5 decades and clean transport for 7 years and have done a great deal of research. I have ben driving EVs for the last 5 years and driven over 50k miles in that time. Admittedly, there have been a few claims that have come to fruition when applied in practice, but most of the claims you listed are, in fact, true. For example, CATL has just announced an LFP battery going into production later this year, which will accept 250 miles of range in 8 minutes. The cost of producing a lithium-ion battery has fallen by 90% over the last 12 years, and there are already EV batteries in production using sodium ion technology, reducing cost even further. US company, Amprius, and CATL in China have both launched "condensed cell" or "solid state" battery, which have a 500Wh/kg energy density. So, you see, much more is possible and actually happening than you may imagine. However, I have not yet heard of an inflammable battery unless you are talking about the Redflow reduce battery that uses bromide in its electrolyte.
Are you being sarky? Our council gets a corruptly-appointed contractor to make our rubbish roads. Which fall apart and have to be repaired by a company that knows what they are doing, at 3 x the original cost.
@steiner554 Mmmm.. Microplastics. Our council learned the repair technique by carefully observing how the rubbish that fell from the back of their collection carts into the road got ground into the surface. They then refined this process to give us the ecologically sound methods they employ today.
Thanks for reporting on this and hopefully this is part of the solution. Also redoing "packaging" with recycling ease (cradle to grave/reuse) is an ongoing challenge.
We had modern society before we started using plastics... Plastics mostly came into use after WWII... Single use plastics are extra, longer use plastics are by definition a much smaller problem.
Exactly they want us to go back in time with Net Zero so why can't we use the packaging we used before plastic more and make sure its recycled by putting a deposit on it or perhaps make recycling easier so there's less of us sorting it out. This idea is definitely a step in the right direction
@@tims9434 I'm a firm believer of reusable package as per days-gone-bye, but we must remember that transport of empty glass bottles, crates, etc. isn't exactly cost (or carbon) free, hence one of the reasons why plastic packaging gained such traction. However, with a bit of imagination & modern usage algorithms I'm sure this is a path for the future.
Also are the construction industry going to use this "aggregate". How stable is this material? How consistent? What about the organic component that will presumably decompose releasing gases, creating cracks so weakening the concrete and allowing toxins, methane and CO2 to escape?
I read some time ago that a trial of using plastics in roads showed plastic nano particles were emitted, now polluting on a more ubiquitous manner. I don’t know the veracity of this study, but it’s something to test before widespread use.
Thanks for this. Small hopeful videos are better than watching the world go up in flames and hearing oil and gas companies say they are abandoning previous targets, while national governments open up more federal lands to fossil fuel development. All of that DOES make it easy to decide who to vote for, who to vote against, and who to expect to see in hell after this incarnation. Cheers!
from the start I'm always wondering with projects like this - What's the difference between this and a landfill? I mean if a plastic material is exposed to the enviroment, it will probably leeching some stuff out. Microplastics, probably too.
Plastics are not in the final product if they have been fossilized. They have been turned into minerals and carbon. Not sure of it is real, but according to what they say anyways...
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 Turning plastic into "carbon" sounds like burning to me. I'm skeptical they have another way to do that to mixed plastics. It would great if they proved us skeptics wrong. There are some plastic eating fungus but that doesn't appear to be what's happening there. Nothing looked like a bio reactor either.
AAAGGGH! It's a great idea (if it works) but I can't help feeling that this would just enable manufacturers to continue to ignore the afterlife of their products and packaging and continue their Alice in Wonderland approach to commerce. All producers should be liable for the entire lifespan of what they sell as well as the environmental costs of their raw materials to reflect the true cost of what they sell. We might get something slightly different on the shelves were that the case....
The human race has an extraordinary. ability to innovate. It just needs the right incentives to innovate in the interests of the population in general instead of just the few who hope to get rich out it. Many of things we can now buy could be made in a less destructive way and still be affordable and many things we can buy we don't really need but have a huge detrimental effect on the planet.@@nct948
It's a way of kicking the problem down the road, I suppose. It's still plastic, just pulverized, glued into aggregate and used in place of other aggregate in construction. If it's ever on the outside of whatever it's used in, and subject to abrasion or weathering, it's now pre-made microplastic ready to be blown into nature by the wind where critters can ingest it. And whenever the thing it's used in is going to be toen down, they'll have to figure out a way of separate the microplastic from the concrete. Unless I've completely missed something.
I am working with a company that is mineralizing CO2 directly from air with silicates just like Mother Nature has done to take CO2 out of air to make Calcium Carbonate forever. Given the CO2 capture that Neolithic is stating, I am pretty sure it is a silicates capture process to create Calcium Carbonate. Unfortunately big companies have stolen technology from small companies for years. Looking at Milkywire environmental investing, it is obvious that CO2 sequestering is chemically and technically possible just looking at a company like Silicates. So big companies quit gaslighting and come to table with your checkbook. Neolithic has a great idea to make road aggregate to improve aggregate roads. There are aggregate coatings that can agglomerate and provide cementing action to create a more stable aggregate road. Unfortunately, construction takes 50 years to change. We do not have 50 years unless big money starts flowing.
My rubbish actually is NOT going into a landfill, at least not directly. I'm pretty sure it's being incinerated first, so I get to breathe the toxic fumes from that process! THEN the ash is shipped to, you guessed it, the landfill.
@@lomiificationi had to laugh the other day, some new kind of cement using flyash, as though it was a natural product that you just dig up anywhere, good for countries that have coal fired power stations
You overlooked the processes developed by Jame Tour of Rice U.. They use a flash graphene process that they claim can be scaled up to transform wastes into graphene!
I spent my working career in concrete, asphalt, sand & gravel and was recently interviewed by a company called Fortera USA. The process of making cement is one of the largest emitters of CO2 and the Fortera company is developing a way to capture the emissions from the cement making process and actually convert those emissions into a cement-like product that in laboratory tests can replace much of the cement used in construction. From my own rudimentary research into the process it is a lot like how natural coral reefs form, using calcium carbonate from the surroundings that build themselves up into solid structures which can then be pulverized into the cement substitute. I didnt get the job. It seems no one wants to hire older guys anymore, my proof is 3 years of applying and no job offers.
Unfortunately, the vast majority is shipped off to southeast Asia, where it is then thrown into the ocean. The landfill option would be much better in this case. Thanks for another great video.
The embodied carbon in inert materials, yes...but 'In the UK, the largest contributor to methane emissions from the waste sector is landfill, accounting for 81% of emissions from the sector, with the remaining emissions coming from wastewater treatment and biological treatment of waste.' 15 Nov 2022 (gov .uk.) as you probably know. @@economicprisoner
Sometimes, especially when you get to old age, you suddenly remember the oddest things from your student days. That is how I remembered the subject of a poorly attended lecture during my 2nd year in the University of Sussex back in 1981. It was a lecture about the increasing levels of waste produced by us humans. Of course, at the time we were aware of the problems of landfills that were then being used for new homes because of the horrors reported on the TV at the time. At the time I thought that the appocaliptic nature of the lecture was a bit of an exaggeration. I think most of those attending the lecture too, thought it to be unrealistic that no one would pay attention to the problem and things would only get worse. It just seemed irrational and counterintuitive. I even remember the Q&A when someone asked: but surely we will find a solution to the problem. I mean it wasn't that long ago that we sent men to the moon. I also remember shaking of the head of the lecturer who said that he was telling us what the academics were talking about at the time and he obviously couldn't see into the future. How naive were we? I still wonder what did we underestimate. Was it the paradoxical nature of ourselves or the determinism of the Universe? Maybe the 2nd law of thermodynamics is far more prevelant than human brain can imagine.
You had more optimism in people’s will to solve the problem, but didn’t account for whether or not various ideological governments would be willing to give the necessary funding to solve those problems. As well as how hard corporations would fight to prevent government from making them change their operations.
@@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat6589 Here we go, yet another tight-ass OCD type who obsesses over spelling to the detriment of everything else without even knowing the history of spelling in English. I could have used spelling correction software (BTW have you ever come across them?) but how else would you show off your "knowledge"? That is why, you should really be thankful to me to make relevant. So, don't forget to say thank you in your next comment if you dare to make another one. Why don't you people get over it? Paraphrasing Bernard Shaw; Spelling in English was not meant for the intelligent which is why our continental friends find it totally absurd. At least study the history of how the current spellings of the language came about before commenting. I am a computer scientist where our studies included linguistics. How did you get your knowledge of linguistics? If you had just politely pointed it out, I would have corrected it but now I am not even going to bother, just to show how little I care for your type. In fact, I am leaving it like this to encourage others like you to come forward.Then, I am going to take pleasure in referring them to my response to your comment here. That way the likes of you will be humiliated and others will know why I left it as it is. So come on. I dare you. I am certain that you will reveal even more about your pettiness.
Another, great, informative video without bias, keep it up, by far my favourite RUclips channel. I was wondering if you could do a video on why we use so many different types of plastic and why we, as a society, are not trying to reduce these? Surely if food only came in one of 4 different plastic types it would mean we could recycle much more effectively, simplifying the process? It would need changes by the government, and it’s not the complete solution but would massively help with packaging issues.
Many plastic items have a logo saying what type of plastic they are. What we don't have is a definitive list of these types and how to dispose of them.
Great to see "waste" being tackled. Powdering up the plastic waste sounds hazardous and would require comprehensive air filters to prevent the "micro plastics" from escaping!
quite informative video. there is an Australian professor, at the university of New South Wales , nicknamed the recycling queen, Prof. Veena Sahajwalla, who is recycling waste glass and textiles into tiles. he is also using waste tyres for steel production and making alloys and printing filaments from electronic waste. I hope you will feature her work. she was awarded Australian of the year 2022, New South Wales.
A wonderful contribution to CO2 reduction solutions _IF_ (and only IF) the NeoLithe claims are 100% honest. I think the total lack of transparency, patent protections or supporting evaluation from the scientific community make that honesty extraordinarily unlikely. Relying on one company as the singular supplier of the tech also strangles the scalability and viability of their process. Until there is some factual evaluation and validation of the NeoLithe claims about their process, we can leave this one in the landfill.
That’s preposterous. Or you don’t know how capitalism works. They are going to hold their secrets as hard as their money will let them. If they can absolutely prove to the big boys how fabulous their process is the bigger the payday will be when the big boys start the bidding to buy them out! This isn’t rocket science, how business works, for all we know a bit of rocket science might be part of their process. Sure hope your not just a raised by shit heads that have left you with juvenile delinquent tendencies that make you want to just shit on anyones parade, cause You should really try some medication for that!
Who is talking about capitalism? However at some point investors are going to ask the questions. Serious investors are not going to invest if the product does not live up to the hype. Investors will want the data and in order to attract more investors the company . Investors do not like getting ripped off. That is how Capitalism works.
I SO wish that they'd just admit when food packaging is going to be incinerated instead of pretending it will be recycled when in fact it gets sent half way round the world and dumped. Paper contaminated with food in turn contaminating clean lines of recycling is a primary thing that ruins the whole plan to recycle paper at all. Best to admit it so people can dump their mixed plastic, dirty paper and non compostable food together and only really worry about keeping out glass and metals. The ash from the incinerators could then be added to asphalt with less processing. It will still be somewhat toxic and diluted by the mixture but at least it won't result in a gradual leeching of microplastics along with the existing particles from tyres.
I,wonder what happens in 20-50 years when they breakdown the building /construct where this product is use in. Hope this won't be a abestos problem of the future. I do like the idea.
Waste incineration does not need additional fuel. The plastic content has a high caloric value. Waste incineration can produce more electricity than it uses. Here in Switzerland all waste incineration plants have steam turbines that i keep running.
To the best of my knowledge, there are two companies in Cape Town that are doing that. They have been around since before Covid. The one makes an aggregate for the construction industry and the other makes decorative concrete pots. Not sure if they are still in business.
You’re thinking of landfill wrong. It is NOT there forever. For over 50 years landfills have been mapped. It’s only a few meters deep. When someone figures out something useful to do with it we will pull it out. Most technology takes 30 years to develop. There is battery technology that looks promising today that started 40 years ago. The cathode tube took 60 years to find a use. Television. Burning the gasses for energy is essentially is a wash, since the biological materials would rot and to greenhouse gasses anyway.
Sounds like a great way to leach microplastics and chemicals into the environment in a broad and uncontrolled manner as these surfaces break down over decades.
I still think that enormous scaling of that limestone-producing technology from carbonic acid in seawater is the best current model for removing human emissions. If it was scaled properly, with trillions of dollars of investment worldwide, we could justify burning all waste to reduce microplastics etc and then convert the CO2 and carbonic acid back into rock, leaving a small residue to be properly disposed of - so we wouldn't have to worry about needing to recycle trash in an endless cycle of microplastic production.
My thoughts as well. How permanently locked away can a part plastic mixture be. Unless the plastic is as hard as diamond. That won't occur in a low energy process.
Aren't you pouring cold water on a material yet to be fully tested? How do you know it will break down over decades or leach out chemicals? I don't understand the negativity that leaps out every time a potentially positive technology appears. What would be your solution for dealing with non-recyclable waste?
@morganspencer-churchill2136 Enormous is an understatement considering that CO2 emissions are still increasing and will continue to do so as long as we burn fossil fuels. I have a feeling you would like to bring in some mitigations to control atmospheric CO2(e) to maintain the status quo rather than tackle the primary cause of the problem.
@@jeremyradford5103because that‘s what plastic does under stress? Far more quickly than materials like stone or concrete? Sunlight makes it brittle, heat makes it soft and repeated compression makes it break. Each of the above on its own would make it break down eventually. All of them together will wear it down over time and release microplastics into the environment. While certain plastics can be designed in a way to resistant to certain stresses, a uncontrolled mix of "thrash" plastic won’t be. If plastic wasn’t breaking down on its own when exposed to the elements we wouldn’t already be having a microplastic problem in the first place.
Got a full outside bin? Reduce the size of the rubbish and recycling bag by sucking the air out of it using a hoover. This generates a vacuum and atmospheric pressure at 15lb per square inch crushes it into a smaller space. Afterwards fill another bag, do the same, and use it to fill the space created earlier.
The mineral binder has to be pozzolanic to harden without heat on the addition of water. Common pozzolanic materials are volcanic ash or tufa, fly ash from coal combustion, and even poultry litter ash from burning chicken litter. These materials may be considered low Carbon compared to cement but we'd need to see a full Life Cycle Assessment before the claims can be substantiated.
When you've got people like our beloved PM who is in receipt of bribes from Shell in exchange for licences to extract North Sea oil the UK cannot comment on any pollution anywhere it's just too embarrassing....
Let me give you some background, as I'm working in the recycling and re-use business for quite a while now. First of all: Grinding down plastic to powder size needs either a lot of time and very slow and careful milling, or very cold temperatures (down to the temperature of liquid nitrogen at -193°C, so-called cryo-cooling, but at least to -50 to -90 °C) to make the soft and rather low-melting polymers hard enough for grinding. Otherwise the mill would quickly get clogged and no longer work. The binder, if it shall be able to react with the plastic powder at low temperatures and do this reliably with such a wide variety of polymers and non-polymers (insulation material was mentioned, which may also be mineral wool), needs to be quite reactive. As they claim it is low-carbon, it would not be cement or something of that kind. However, I doubt it is clay or gypsum, or reactive silicates. So I strongly assume it is a kind of epoxy, maybe with inorganic fillers. In any case it needs to be something that will reliably seal the powder against the environment, so that no leaching or migration can happen (which could be a huge issue considering the big surface area of the powder). Personally, I'm actually not convinced that this concept is something really useful. To me it sounds just like an expensive way to make a landfill that doesn't look like one.
Thanks for the interesting comment. I was also struck by the idea of grinding soft plastics. Maybe they add construction waste so the polymers are just interstitial between the mineral grains. Could sodium silicate be used to bind the grains and encapsulate the polymers? What do you think.
@@dougkahl8124 Only with silicate probably not, except you find a way to make it a 3D-bonded network. But then it may still need molecular size grains. But when adding Calcium oxide, you basically have some kind of cement, which would probably work much better. However, this all comes with a price, or more precisely: a carbon footprint, as those substances are produced at high temperatures from natural minerals.
So this magic process doesn't release microplastic, nanoplastic dust as roadway is eroded, won't end up in stormwater, groundwater, streams, creeks, rivers, lakes, oceans?😉☹️
My room's floor is tiled up in terrazzo, but not the kind you've shown but, instead, the kind of terrazzo that was manufactured three centuries ago (my house's age): it's uniform, it's brick-like, it's somewhat brittle. Its shape is that of a brick, an elongated rectangle, although its thickness is only about one inch.
Really my only concern here is future erosion leading to even more microplastics being generated. It does seem like the kind of thing that would be great as concrete aggregate which would be ostensibly sequestered indefinitely. I'd be wary of it being used in roadways for example, but a lower emission fill in embankments? Sounds great!
I still have a little box of old broken faced cellphones. I'm not happy either. Line them up and pour a grout of waterproof flex seal and put a roof on the shed. LOL
I hope solutions for this can be found, it's such a huge issue. Friends of mine carefully separate the non-recylable plastics out, and then put them in with all the other plastics. In their head they think that it helps, but all it does is add to the cost of recycling measures. This mentality is dangerous because it assuages the guilt associated with buying things wrapped in a ton of plastic, which means they focus on recycling instead of reducing, and so keep buying these poorly packaged products.
Very thoughtful remark. Recycling reuse etc. doesn't compare with elimination. Not using (such as in pre-industrial times) is such a novel notion. We are after all self identified as consumers, are we not? The way forward is most assuredly the elimination of the consumer ie. ourselves. The cat is out of the bag so to speak. We are not going back and I can rationalize with the best of them. I can make claims of virtue and flexibility but deep down I know better: I am a princeling and why would I give up my throne?
@@danielfaben5838Not so novel. The use of plastic has grown exponentially in my lifetime and in my opinion is more linked to consumer driven capitalism than actual necessity. We have become a throw-away society that treats the planet like a giant dustbin. So, yes, produce less, reuse more, and recycle whatever we can.
There was no information about the cost or performance of the NeoLithe product relative to conventional aggregates. If the aggregate doesn't last the life of whatever you build with it, that's a problem. Part of the cost of the aggregate could be offset by the value of the carbon that it locks up.
I have been pondering this for a while, and think it is definitely a technology worth developing. I wish there were more companies like this popping up in the states, but it seems we don’t have the sense of urgency or economic incentive.
@davisray1453 , if this thing proves to be ecogically sound and somewhat profitable, more and larger companies will get involved and then the economies of scale will take over.
I don't think that putting plastic of any kind in roads is a good idea. The road will be a producer of microplastics like no other. Plastics are already being seen, more and more, to be a producer of cancer, obesity, hormone disruption, etc. Studies have shown this, but the industry is downplaying the studies much the way industries did with the studies about smoking and asbestos. Sometimes haste makes waste, no pun intended.
The process of fossilizing seems to largely, if not wholly, decompose the material on a molecular level. In other words, it's no longer made of plastic.
@@nagualdesignif that even if what happens, seems a lot of people suspect they just mix the powder with lime or something. Just using the trash powder as a filler. Without more details it's hard to know.
@@bzuidgeest Vacuum pyrolysis can be used to completely decompose plastics. Whether that's what they mean by 'fossilization' is anyone's guess, but simply melting plastic then pulverising it once it sets would be an expensive way of making a not-so-durable product.
@@nagualdesign it's all speculation for now. Until we know what they are doing I'm not going to trust them. There is a lot of money to be made in the green industry, so bad actors with fake products are around.
We have zero recycling in certain areas of Alabama in the 21st century. It either ends up in burn pile or landfill. That's this states answer to recycling is to burn it or bury it and it's not going change in my lifetime. The operative word is CHANGE!
I feel it might be too late to turn around the increasing climate emergency but a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction. Yes I realized that last bit was a constant but it is what it is😉
As always it will come down to whether their aggregate is cheaper than the traditional stuff and if they can maintain supply. If heat is needed for the process and they say they do not add heat then I can only think that the heat comes from the chemistry or more likely that when forming the product they use extrusion under pressure which can produce its own heat due to friction. I hope it works.
It's funny there was a recent ted talk that does the same (the beauty of building with mud and trash) by Vinu Daniel ... sounds like we have found their abundant material eco friendly
We have a lot of innovation, but usually we sell it off to large American companies. That way, they take the financial risk of going to market. So you don't see a lot of big high profile companies in the EU. Doesn't mean we don't innovate. In some ways we might even innovate more.
Recycling going to landfill being so common. Well, sorry to disappoint. Try South Australia for size. WE DON'T put the recyclables in landfill; they actually all get recycled with very little going to energy. Don't put us all in the same boat. Some communities (1.5 million of us) really do it well and and the community knows where the recyclables go!
Judging by the process and look of the aggregate, they use limestone mixed with some refinery product to powder the crushed wastemateriel. Using limestone is not exactly environmentally friendly, but i guess somewhat ok. But more important, i think they use a binding component from a refinery or maybe a gelantinish materiel. What would negate it being a green solution, more so a greenish solution. If the just use a certain limestone mix and water, that would be very interesting.
if this works it would be useful in island countries that dont have landfill space and import aggregate every time they come up with something to revolutionize trash recycling... i wonder if it work work with existing landfills... IE how much would it cost to "mine" the landfill... recycle metals capture hazardous materials that need to be cleaned up sometime anyways.
ive said this before, things like shold be used as much as they can in building work...like i wouldnt fully trust a hosuse or a small apartment block out of this stuff(yet), this would be great for paving and walls etc - its these kind if ideas that reduce carbon by just a small amount but all these different ideas working together they can reduce carbon by a great deal
@JustHaveaThink I like it, and suggest it is used for a seawall system to protect against sea level rise, and use it to encapsulate all waste at the same time. Maybe some sea level rise can be avoided with climate restoration AKA geoengineering.
Sea water is extremely corrosive. If there is a possibility that the material degrades by releasing micro-plastics, seawalls would not be the best choice for its use. It would have to prove at least as resistant to erosion as granite.
The " 0:59 term aerosol masking effect" came up in an article I reviewed. Could you make an episode about it's effect and how stopping burning fuels would affect the rise in flobal temperatures?
Roads experience a lot of wear and tear. So if you use plastics in the road material, you will end up with a lot diffusely soread microplastics. Also after the road is tore down or resurfaced what do you with the mixed pladtics material? If you cannot recycle that again you just shifted the dispisal problem to the future.
At onetime I thought I heard of a company that took 'raw trash' and finely ground it, then did magnetic and 'air column' separation for various materials. How has that tech come along?
Isn't there already enough microplastics everywhere? At what concentration of microplastics in your blood and lungs would you consider making streets and sidewalks out of plastic a bad idea? It seems that washing clothes out of plastic is not enough.
Wouldn't locking it in the concrete and sidewalks keep it from getting into your bloodstream and lungs at least for a longer period of time because those things take longer to the degrade???
@@bryanjohnson8162 The issue (as I see it), would be that it won't stay locked away. It'll break down and get spread over a large area, so I can't imagine it'd be as good as they claim. With that said, if it does what they claim, it might be an idea. If for no other reason, then that we don't really have the option of picking the best option anymore in the fight against climate change, because governments won't take the necessary steps. Time is ticking on dealing with climate change, and the actions taken by developed countries are honestly glacially slow.
Bryan Johnson makes a good point, and also consider what roads are already made of. Bitumen is another oil based product, and I don't think it's likely to be any better for you than microplastics.
In the end the only way to actually deal with plastic is going to be through enzymatic de-polymerisation ... either directly or by biodegradation by fungi or bacteria. The amount of energy locked up in plastics and ubiquity means that evolution will guarantee that this will be happening on a massive scale in millions of years time. We just need to find a way to make it happen NOW.
Hi…interesting use of the unusable. But I also like the idea of using plastics as a additive for actually building roads. I’m sure you’ve heard of the work done by macrebur. Anyway, I always enjoy your videos.
Oh goodness! In the first moments you've obliterated a sincerely useful flooring material and many masterful works of art by some dedicated tradesmen of yore, but ok... Still love ya! :) Having done this kind of work it's not scrap marble chips, it's quite involved and messy and now very expensive so it isn't done much. I will have to come back later for watching the rest of this one. The topic is interesting as usual.
"Trash" Dave? "Trash".... surely "Rubbish" would have been more appropriate 😂😂😂! Fascinating statistics and ideas though, as always! 🤔🧐😉 This company need a bigger mixer though to support their product. A large bakers dough mixer doesn't do it for me 😅😅😅!
Very near my home there’s a significant construction project that is building a new road that will lead to a new bridge over a railway line, so is using phenomenal amounts of aggregate to raise the terrain. At a recent open day I was able to speak to one of the engineers and I asked where it comes from. He explained that the majority comes from a quarry about ten miles away, because logistically it makes sense to get it from as close as possible (common sense), but for some parts they have to get it from further away because they need the aggregate to meet certain specifications. They buy it to a specification and then test it again on arrival to check it meets the specification, which is also common sense since the spec matters a lot. Hence, just having a think about this video and that project, I figure part of the viability of this solution must be in being able to source the waste and manufacture this stuff reasonably close to the construction project. Hopefully that is viable because it could be worse to transport thousands of tonnes of this stuff hundreds of miles, versus hopefully a reasonably local circular economy from waste collection to construction site. Secondly, as I learnt from the engineer, the size and hardness of the aggregate needed matters a lot, so again, I hope it’s viable to make this stuff to a wide variety of specifications, and they’re not just hoping to cream off the “easy” market for the softer aggregate, for example. If so, I think this could be really promising because the amounts involved can be huge… they literally move mountains!
My father was a Terrazzo manufacturer.
Terrazzo was used by the Romans and predates "marketing" by a couple of millenia.
I expect marketing existed in Roman times and before. Primarily at market stalls :)
Marketing is as old as bartering. You could say that Terrazzo was used by the Romans and predates _modern_ marketing by a couple of millennia, but that'd be some sort of tautology. Replace the word _marketing_ with something else and it'd be equally meaningless.
I have a feeling that the world could have a lot to learn from Sweden in this regard. We actually don't use landfills at all. Except for food wasteand most of that is used to make gas for vehicles. All other materials are either recycled, reused or burned in energy stations that has best possible cleaning of the emissions. From those stations all metals that result from the burning is also reused when possible. Some simply used for nails or needles, but others remelted and used for industrial purposes. Sure, it's impossible to clean out all of the emissions, but it's certainly better than to burry it underground and hope for the best.
We're actually being so effective with our own waste, that we have to import from Germany, Poland, Baltic States and Netherlands to keep our stations fed. As usual, when we do something in this country, it always ends up being overdone. But we're at least showing a good example, and there would not have been as much invested into it if it was not profitable. These stations are also used to make gas for busses and other public vehicles in the cities around wehre they are located.
The result of this is that many medium to large cities get both electricity and heat from these stations, and the fuel comes form the populations waste.
And since most of those stations are owned by the regional governments or cities, those cities get self sustainable on fuel for their busses and other vehicles.
A good way to use stuff that would otherwise get thrown away i think.
Thats great.
I'm not sure that you burning it faster is a plus. As you yourself say the power stations are not exactly clean, though they could have heavy filtering. Some waste might be cleaner not being burned.
@@bzuidgeest I'm saying it is never possible to fully clean emissions from a burning operation. I'm not saying these furnaces is dirty. They've proven to be many times more effective than the current coal power stations when it comes to remove both Co2 and most other harmful chemicals. Also, as I said, most of the bi products from these operations are used for other purposes. For example fuel, source materials for industry, fertilizers and more.
As of 30+ years ago, I remember learning that these waste-to-energy facilities are actual net users, not producers of energy. (Energy to waste.)
Also that while the emissions might be close to zero in laboratory conditions (where the fuel material is exactly identified and quantified and the exact right heat is applied), in the real world (at scale and with profit in charge) they're pretty bad. Worse than landfills.
And furthermore that new toxic compounds are produced and released in the process, notably dioxins and furans.
I can testify that they stink, and it's an unfamiliar stink.
And they produce ash that is toxic and must be landfilled at higher cost in special hazardous waste landfills. IDK about Sweden, but in the 80s or 90s there were barges full of this stuff on the Mississippi river, and nobody wanted it. (The big idea was to use it as road fill, but somehow that bad idea got stopped.) I think they ended dumping it on a beach in Africa? Or was that a different story.
AFAIK 30 years ago the big advantage of incineration was the cost compared to landfill. If it's much different now in 2023, or just in Sweden, I'll be surprised to learn it.
@@bozo563230 years is a lot of time to work on efficiency.
The binder is mostly lime. Which releases a lot of CO2 when made. The "chemical reaction" is just what happens when you mix lime and water. Their wording is rather disingenuous as the huge amounts of CO2 might not be generated during their product processing but was liberated ahead of time during lime production. All of this having nothing to do with the bulk waste as it's just filler. Also, "mineralization" and "fossilizing" are BS marketing terms since no such process is occurring with the waste itself. The filler is just entombed and conveniently powderized so that as the end product wears we get plentiful microplastics introduced into the environment uncontrolled. Also, the high porosity of the end material will mean that VOCs and solubles will leach out right through the lime. --- Makes for a rather convenient poison distribution system, no?
microplastics, exactly the probem.
Aww cant we ever have anything nice?
@@australien6611 - They aren't interested in making anything nice. The vast majority of these companies just exist for a select few to make money as the executives of these companies once they get investment capital. Then they fold. Ever notice that no meaningful results ever appear? They aren't intended to succeed on the stated mission they are intended to succeed in the actual mission. Making rich people richer off the backs of ignorant idealist investors. Open secret at this point.
The idea of entrainment into concrete immediately raises the specter of high-rise column failure and catastrophic collapse. No reputable structural engineer would spec it. Many General Contractors and subcontractors would. Time bomb is only one attribute.
@@oakenarbor2046 what about using it for roads?
the aggregat is the filling material in concrete. here we use filling material to fill the aggregat :) nice.
for me, this is just another way to reduce the waste material and use it somehow. the same, as burning it for energy. two different ways, both better than letting it rot in the landfill.
in the first place, we should produce less waste and the best way for that is to reduce consumption.
cheers.
The lack of transparency is a huge red flag. Has anyone examined the finished product for microplastic levels, toxins, and what its finished form is made of? Until there's scientific oversight, it should be treated as greenwashing and potentially more polluting than the alternatives.
I heard when cars go across a road, they create friction which remove tiny specks of concrete, a petroleum base product, onto the surrounding environment. Now, imagine if the roads are made with trash w/ plastic , now the plastic and trash are shredded up piece by piece by constant wear and tear by cars into the environment which can include food crops.
0:53 it is SO DAMN HARD to avoid single use plastics sometimes. I found I -love- roasted seaweed, but it seems to only come in plastic trays with plastic desiccant pouches, wrapped in plastic and foil, and then again those bundled in another plastic bag, all for ~8 pieces per package. Hershey's started putting SOME candy unwrapped in pouches, but they look almost identical to the pouches of individually wrapped pieces and I've messed up and gotten those a few times now.
And it's hard to avoid because there just aren't less wasteful options a lot of times. I'd happily buy a giant bag of roasted seaweed if it existed where I shopped.
The only way to sometimes avoid it, is to reject the product.
@@thirdeye4654 exactly what I was going to say
My kids don't get to eat much junk food cos it all comes in plastic, and also because it's poison (almost, or actually is if u think long term). In general what's good for the planet is good for your body. It's a win win.
We cook lots of nice stuff (cakes, pies, biscuits) to satisfy their sweet tooth .
@@varshana81 wow, sounds great..if I can find the ingredients here I'll give it a go. Thanks for sharing
So they splinter waste into powder and glue it together. Seems like an excellent way to get the environment full of microplastics and other trash. The goal is to keep trash out of the environment, not to add it in another form. It might be better than burning it, but seems to me this just makes as distributed land fill
We have to hope that the end product goes through very rigorous testing to assess its suitability as a building material of sort.
I admire your instant negativity.
@@jeremyradford5103 you mean not falling for every piece of bullshit marketing? There is a lot of money to be made here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Keeping it a secret does not make it more believable.
Hopefully, the chemical reaction takes care of the microplastic issue, but, without detailed information about the full process, its hard to know.
@@bzuidgeest Come back when you have proof it's bullshit marketing.
When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is, so I'll stay a bit skeptical, same as about the crazy battery claims everywhere around. But it would be nice to have ability to upcycle waste...
Here is why its a shit idea: Microplastics and chemical leachates.
The granite in Tarrazo is inert, landfill waste is anything but.
@@aenorist2431 He specifically mentioned that the waste COULD NOT be inert at around 5:18
What crazy battery claims?
@@jeremyradford5103 You might be new to internet, so first of all, welcome.
There are claims about new battery tech every day - from anodes that allow for super-fast charging (80% in 6 minutes), to energy density around 2x current, to non-flamable batteries that you can puncture and they still generate power up to extra cheap batteries that will cost 20-30% of current prices and will enable large-scale grid storage on the cheap.
These claims are here last 5 years at minimum, if half of them were true, we would now have 2x the battery life costing 1/2 as much and recharged in under 6 minutes :) Those claims.
@rklauco lol. I've enjoyed home Internet since 1996, so hardly new. I have been following the transition to clean energy for 5 decades and clean transport for 7 years and have done a great deal of research. I have ben driving EVs for the last 5 years and driven over 50k miles in that time.
Admittedly, there have been a few claims that have come to fruition when applied in practice, but most of the claims you listed are, in fact, true.
For example, CATL has just announced an LFP battery going into production later this year, which will accept 250 miles of range in 8 minutes.
The cost of producing a lithium-ion battery has fallen by 90% over the last 12 years, and there are already EV batteries in production using sodium ion technology, reducing cost even further.
US company, Amprius, and CATL in China have both launched "condensed cell" or "solid state" battery, which have a 500Wh/kg energy density.
So, you see, much more is possible and actually happening than you may imagine.
However, I have not yet heard of an inflammable battery unless you are talking about the Redflow reduce battery that uses bromide in its electrolyte.
Our local council have been making and repairing our roads with rubbish for decades. Clearly well ahead of the conservation pack.
Are you being sarky? Our council gets a corruptly-appointed contractor to make our rubbish roads. Which fall apart and have to be repaired by a company that knows what they are doing, at 3 x the original cost.
Very good. Like it.
😀👍
@steiner554 Mmmm.. Microplastics. Our council learned the repair technique by carefully observing how the rubbish that fell from the back of their collection carts into the road got ground into the surface. They then refined this process to give us the ecologically sound methods they employ today.
@steiner554 He was using irony, not celebrating repairing roads with plastic waste. The was referring to the poor quality of repairs.
Thanks for reporting on this and hopefully this is part of the solution. Also redoing "packaging" with recycling ease (cradle to grave/reuse) is an ongoing challenge.
We had modern society before we started using plastics... Plastics mostly came into use after WWII... Single use plastics are extra, longer use plastics are by definition a much smaller problem.
Exactly they want us to go back in time with Net Zero so why can't we use the packaging we used before plastic more and make sure its recycled by putting a deposit on it or perhaps make recycling easier so there's less of us sorting it out. This idea is definitely a step in the right direction
@@tims9434 I'm a firm believer of reusable package as per days-gone-bye, but we must remember that transport of empty glass bottles, crates, etc. isn't exactly cost (or carbon) free, hence one of the reasons why plastic packaging gained such traction. However, with a bit of imagination & modern usage algorithms I'm sure this is a path for the future.
Yes I'm sure this is one for "another look pile"
Also are the construction industry going to use this "aggregate". How stable is this material? How consistent? What about the organic component that will presumably decompose releasing gases, creating cracks so weakening the concrete and allowing toxins, methane and CO2 to escape?
I read some time ago that a trial of using plastics in roads showed plastic nano particles were emitted, now polluting on a more ubiquitous manner. I don’t know the veracity of this study, but it’s something to test before widespread use.
This guy is my favorite up loader. I love his approach... thanks!
Thanks for this. Small hopeful videos are better than watching the world go up in flames and hearing oil and gas companies say they are abandoning previous targets, while national governments open up more federal lands to fossil fuel development. All of that DOES make it easy to decide who to vote for, who to vote against, and who to expect to see in hell after this incarnation. Cheers!
from the start I'm always wondering with projects like this - What's the difference between this and a landfill? I mean if a plastic material is exposed to the enviroment, it will probably leeching some stuff out. Microplastics, probably too.
with a ratio of 20:80 I suspect this is not fit for UV or chemical exposure.
Best fit for filler construction probably.
I'd like to hear from the people buying the finished product.
Wouldn't there be microplastics? And how about the performance of the aggregate?
@@ArthursHD Will there be leaching? What about disposable or recycling?
Yeah. It'd be nice to hear both sides.
Plastics are not in the final product if they have been fossilized. They have been turned into minerals and carbon. Not sure of it is real, but according to what they say anyways...
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 Turning plastic into "carbon" sounds like burning to me. I'm skeptical they have another way to do that to mixed plastics. It would great if they proved us skeptics wrong. There are some plastic eating fungus but that doesn't appear to be what's happening there. Nothing looked like a bio reactor either.
Question - at what point will mining landfills become profitable??
about when the next technological species arises after the Anthropocene Extinction Event
probably termites or ants
I've been thinking that .
LOL@@PaulG.x
AAAGGGH! It's a great idea (if it works) but I can't help feeling that this would just enable manufacturers to continue to ignore the afterlife of their products and packaging and continue their Alice in Wonderland approach to commerce. All producers should be liable for the entire lifespan of what they sell as well as the environmental costs of their raw materials to reflect the true cost of what they sell. We might get something slightly different on the shelves were that the case....
Maybe things we cannot afford to buy anymore?
The human race has an extraordinary. ability to innovate. It just needs the right incentives to innovate in the interests of the population in general instead of just the few who hope to get rich out it. Many of things we can now buy could be made in a less destructive way and still be affordable and many things we can buy we don't really need but have a huge detrimental effect on the planet.@@nct948
It's a way of kicking the problem down the road, I suppose. It's still plastic, just pulverized, glued into aggregate and used in place of other aggregate in construction. If it's ever on the outside of whatever it's used in, and subject to abrasion or weathering, it's now pre-made microplastic ready to be blown into nature by the wind where critters can ingest it. And whenever the thing it's used in is going to be toen down, they'll have to figure out a way of separate the microplastic from the concrete.
Unless I've completely missed something.
I am working with a company that is mineralizing CO2 directly from air with silicates just like Mother Nature has done to take CO2 out of air to make Calcium Carbonate forever. Given the CO2 capture that Neolithic is stating, I am pretty sure it is a silicates capture process to create Calcium Carbonate. Unfortunately big companies have stolen technology from small companies for years. Looking at Milkywire environmental investing, it is obvious that CO2 sequestering is chemically and technically possible just looking at a company like Silicates. So big companies quit gaslighting and come to table with your checkbook. Neolithic has a great idea to make road aggregate to improve aggregate roads. There are aggregate coatings that can agglomerate and provide cementing action to create a more stable aggregate road. Unfortunately, construction takes 50 years to change. We do not have 50 years unless big money starts flowing.
My rubbish actually is NOT going into a landfill, at least not directly. I'm pretty sure it's being incinerated first, so I get to breathe the toxic fumes from that process! THEN the ash is shipped to, you guessed it, the landfill.
Proper incineration is so hot that it's not getting much for toxic fumes
@@lomiificationi had to laugh the other day, some new kind of cement using flyash, as though it was a natural product that you just dig up anywhere, good for countries that have coal fired power stations
You overlooked the processes developed by Jame Tour of Rice U.. They use a flash graphene process that they claim can be scaled up to transform wastes into graphene!
I spent my working career in concrete, asphalt, sand & gravel and was recently interviewed by a company called Fortera USA. The process of making cement is one of the largest emitters of CO2 and the Fortera company is developing a way to capture the emissions from the cement making process and actually convert those emissions into a cement-like product that in laboratory tests can replace much of the cement used in construction.
From my own rudimentary research into the process it is a lot like how natural coral reefs form, using calcium carbonate from the surroundings that build themselves up into solid structures which can then be pulverized into the cement substitute. I didnt get the job. It seems no one wants to hire older guys anymore, my proof is 3 years of applying and no job offers.
Staying hopeful!
Unfortunately, the vast majority is shipped off to southeast Asia, where it is then thrown into the ocean. The landfill option would be much better in this case.
Thanks for another great video.
At least in the landfill the embodied carbon is sequestered.
The embodied carbon in inert materials, yes...but 'In the UK, the largest contributor to methane emissions from the waste sector is landfill, accounting for 81% of emissions from the sector, with the remaining emissions coming from wastewater treatment and biological treatment of waste.' 15 Nov 2022 (gov .uk.) as you probably know. @@economicprisoner
Why are councils not responsible for the clean up of seas when they effectively fly tipped in another country
Sometimes, especially when you get to old age, you suddenly remember the oddest things from your student days. That is how I remembered the subject of a poorly attended lecture during my 2nd year in the University of Sussex back in 1981. It was a lecture about the increasing levels of waste produced by us humans.
Of course, at the time we were aware of the problems of landfills that were then being used for new homes because of the horrors reported on the TV at the time. At the time I thought that the appocaliptic nature of the lecture was a bit of an exaggeration. I think most of those attending the lecture too, thought it to be unrealistic that no one would pay attention to the problem and things would only get worse. It just seemed irrational and counterintuitive. I even remember the Q&A when someone asked: but surely we will find a solution to the problem. I mean it wasn't that long ago that we sent men to the moon. I also remember shaking of the head of the lecturer who said that he was telling us what the academics were talking about at the time and he obviously couldn't see into the future.
How naive were we? I still wonder what did we underestimate. Was it the paradoxical nature of ourselves or the determinism of the Universe? Maybe the 2nd law of thermodynamics is far more prevelant than human brain can imagine.
you went to a (brown brick) university and can't spell "apocalyptic". Maybe that's why we are in the mess we're in.
You had more optimism in people’s will to solve the problem, but didn’t account for whether or not various ideological governments would be willing to give the necessary funding to solve those problems. As well as how hard corporations would fight to prevent government from making them change their operations.
Let's not blame the universe!
@@CampingforCool41 like they had to fight at all? Governments always seem roll over like slavering goofy labradors in the face of corporate interests.
@@zygmuntthecacaokakistocrat6589 Here we go, yet another tight-ass OCD type who obsesses over spelling to the detriment of everything else without even knowing the history of spelling in English.
I could have used spelling correction software (BTW have you ever come across them?) but how else would you show off your "knowledge"? That is why, you should really be thankful to me to make relevant. So, don't forget to say thank you in your next comment if you dare to make another one.
Why don't you people get over it? Paraphrasing Bernard Shaw; Spelling in English was not meant for the intelligent which is why our continental friends find it totally absurd.
At least study the history of how the current spellings of the language came about before commenting.
I am a computer scientist where our studies included linguistics. How did you get your knowledge of linguistics?
If you had just politely pointed it out, I would have corrected it but now I am not even going to bother, just to show how little I care for your type. In fact, I am leaving it like this to encourage others like you to come forward.Then, I am going to take pleasure in referring them to my response to your comment here. That way the likes of you will be humiliated and others will know why I left it as it is.
So come on. I dare you. I am certain that you will reveal even more about your pettiness.
Another, great, informative video without bias, keep it up, by far my favourite RUclips channel. I was wondering if you could do a video on why we use so many different types of plastic and why we, as a society, are not trying to reduce these? Surely if food only came in one of 4 different plastic types it would mean we could recycle much more effectively, simplifying the process? It would need changes by the government, and it’s not the complete solution but would massively help with packaging issues.
Many plastic items have a logo saying what type of plastic they are. What we don't have is a definitive list of these types and how to dispose of them.
Your videos continue to impress, always helpful and always optimistic. Thank you for your hard work putting this information together
Thank you bud. As always have a good one too.
Thank you as usual.
I’d suggest looking to B.C. Canada as a supplier for plastic waste material, but I think we already average about 90% plastics recycling here. 😉💜
Thanks!
Thanks for your support Eleanor. Much appreciated :-)
Great to see "waste" being tackled. Powdering up the plastic waste sounds hazardous and would require comprehensive air filters to prevent the "micro plastics" from escaping!
Also how they prevent those microplastics from being released through the wear and tear of the final product?
@@pomodorino1766 they can chat gtp a green washed press release surely. I dont why they bother with just have a think.
quite informative video. there is an Australian professor, at the university of New South Wales , nicknamed the recycling queen, Prof. Veena Sahajwalla, who is recycling waste glass and textiles into tiles. he is also using waste tyres for steel production and making alloys and printing filaments from electronic waste. I hope you will feature her work. she was awarded Australian of the year 2022, New South Wales.
A wonderful contribution to CO2 reduction solutions _IF_ (and only IF) the NeoLithe claims are 100% honest. I think the total lack of transparency, patent protections or supporting evaluation from the scientific community make that honesty extraordinarily unlikely. Relying on one company as the singular supplier of the tech also strangles the scalability and viability of their process. Until there is some factual evaluation and validation of the NeoLithe claims about their process, we can leave this one in the landfill.
That’s preposterous. Or you don’t know how capitalism works. They are going to hold their secrets as hard as their money will let them. If they can absolutely prove to the big boys how fabulous their process is the bigger the payday will be when the big boys start the bidding to buy them out! This isn’t rocket science, how business works, for all we know a bit of rocket science might be part of their process. Sure hope your not just a raised by shit heads that have left you with juvenile delinquent tendencies that make you want to just shit on anyones parade, cause You should really try some medication for that!
Instead of leaving it in the landfill their claims should be verified by independent scientific review.
@@shawnr771 again, that’s not how capitalism works. Or is that just a concept to far for you to grasp?
Who is talking about capitalism?
However at some point investors are going to ask the questions.
Serious investors are not going to invest if the product does not live up to the hype.
Investors will want the data and in order to attract more investors the company .
Investors do not like getting ripped off.
That is how Capitalism works.
@@shawnr771 wow I’m not going to even try!
I SO wish that they'd just admit when food packaging is going to be incinerated instead of pretending it will be recycled when in fact it gets sent half way round the world and dumped. Paper contaminated with food in turn contaminating clean lines of recycling is a primary thing that ruins the whole plan to recycle paper at all. Best to admit it so people can dump their mixed plastic, dirty paper and non compostable food together and only really worry about keeping out glass and metals. The ash from the incinerators could then be added to asphalt with less processing. It will still be somewhat toxic and diluted by the mixture but at least it won't result in a gradual leeching of microplastics along with the existing particles from tyres.
How does one chemically bond materials together when the inputs are a random bunch of wood, textiles, and plastics?
I,wonder what happens in 20-50 years when they breakdown the building /construct where this product is use in. Hope this won't be a abestos problem of the future. I do like the idea.
2023: What if we made the roads out of carcinogens and radioactive materials because sustainability hurts profits?
Waste incineration does not need additional fuel. The plastic content has a high caloric value. Waste incineration can produce more electricity than it uses. Here in Switzerland all waste incineration plants have steam turbines that i keep running.
Thanks
Thanks again for your support Martin :-)
To the best of my knowledge, there are two companies in Cape Town that are doing that. They have been around since before Covid. The one makes an aggregate for the construction industry and the other makes decorative concrete pots. Not sure if they are still in business.
You’re thinking of landfill wrong. It is NOT there forever. For over 50 years landfills have been mapped. It’s only a few meters deep. When someone figures out something useful to do with it we will pull it out. Most technology takes 30 years to develop. There is battery technology that looks promising today that started 40 years ago. The cathode tube took 60 years to find a use. Television.
Burning the gasses for energy is essentially is a wash, since the biological materials would rot and to greenhouse gasses anyway.
Always look forward to your videos, Dave! 😊
Glad you like them!
Sounds like a great way to leach microplastics and chemicals into the environment in a broad and uncontrolled manner as these surfaces break down over decades.
I still think that enormous scaling of that limestone-producing technology from carbonic acid in seawater is the best current model for removing human emissions. If it was scaled properly, with trillions of dollars of investment worldwide, we could justify burning all waste to reduce microplastics etc and then convert the CO2 and carbonic acid back into rock, leaving a small residue to be properly disposed of - so we wouldn't have to worry about needing to recycle trash in an endless cycle of microplastic production.
My thoughts as well.
How permanently locked away can a part plastic mixture be. Unless the plastic is as hard as diamond. That won't occur in a low energy process.
Aren't you pouring cold water on a material yet to be fully tested? How do you know it will break down over decades or leach out chemicals?
I don't understand the negativity that leaps out every time a potentially positive technology appears. What would be your solution for dealing with non-recyclable waste?
@morganspencer-churchill2136 Enormous is an understatement considering that CO2 emissions are still increasing and will continue to do so as long as we burn fossil fuels. I have a feeling you would like to bring in some mitigations to control atmospheric CO2(e) to maintain the status quo rather than tackle the primary cause of the problem.
@@jeremyradford5103because that‘s what plastic does under stress? Far more quickly than materials like stone or concrete? Sunlight makes it brittle, heat makes it soft and repeated compression makes it break. Each of the above on its own would make it break down eventually. All of them together will wear it down over time and release microplastics into the environment. While certain plastics can be designed in a way to resistant to certain stresses, a uncontrolled mix of "thrash" plastic won’t be.
If plastic wasn’t breaking down on its own when exposed to the elements we wouldn’t already be having a microplastic problem in the first place.
Thank you David.
Got a full outside bin? Reduce the size of the rubbish and recycling bag by sucking the air out of it using a hoover. This generates a vacuum and atmospheric pressure at 15lb per square inch crushes it into a smaller space. Afterwards fill another bag, do the same, and use it to fill the space created earlier.
"Anthropocite aggregate" - what a beautiful name.
Ya a.i operate a junk yard.or sor e I ment, a environmental recycling facility
The mineral binder has to be pozzolanic to harden without heat on the addition of water. Common pozzolanic materials are volcanic ash or tufa, fly ash from coal combustion, and even poultry litter ash from burning chicken litter. These materials may be considered low Carbon compared to cement but we'd need to see a full Life Cycle Assessment before the claims can be substantiated.
When you've got people like our beloved PM who is in receipt of bribes from Shell in exchange for licences to extract North Sea oil the UK cannot comment on any pollution anywhere it's just too embarrassing....
Allegedly* (although I think you're probably right)
Let me give you some background, as I'm working in the recycling and re-use business for quite a while now. First of all: Grinding down plastic to powder size needs either a lot of time and very slow and careful milling, or very cold temperatures (down to the temperature of liquid nitrogen at -193°C, so-called cryo-cooling, but at least to -50 to -90 °C) to make the soft and rather low-melting polymers hard enough for grinding. Otherwise the mill would quickly get clogged and no longer work.
The binder, if it shall be able to react with the plastic powder at low temperatures and do this reliably with such a wide variety of polymers and non-polymers (insulation material was mentioned, which may also be mineral wool), needs to be quite reactive. As they claim it is low-carbon, it would not be cement or something of that kind. However, I doubt it is clay or gypsum, or reactive silicates. So I strongly assume it is a kind of epoxy, maybe with inorganic fillers. In any case it needs to be something that will reliably seal the powder against the environment, so that no leaching or migration can happen (which could be a huge issue considering the big surface area of the powder).
Personally, I'm actually not convinced that this concept is something really useful. To me it sounds just like an expensive way to make a landfill that doesn't look like one.
Thanks for the interesting comment. I was also struck by the idea of grinding soft plastics. Maybe they add construction waste so the polymers are just interstitial between the mineral grains. Could sodium silicate be used to bind the grains and encapsulate the polymers? What do you think.
@@dougkahl8124 Only with silicate probably not, except you find a way to make it a 3D-bonded network. But then it may still need molecular size grains. But when adding Calcium oxide, you basically have some kind of cement, which would probably work much better.
However, this all comes with a price, or more precisely: a carbon footprint, as those substances are produced at high temperatures from natural minerals.
I love all shows on companies finding ways to use waste into products. Can’t solve everything, but should be part of it.
So this magic process doesn't release microplastic, nanoplastic dust as roadway is eroded, won't end up in stormwater, groundwater, streams, creeks, rivers, lakes, oceans?😉☹️
My room's floor is tiled up in terrazzo, but not the kind you've shown but, instead, the kind of terrazzo that was manufactured three centuries ago (my house's age): it's uniform, it's brick-like, it's somewhat brittle. Its shape is that of a brick, an elongated rectangle, although its thickness is only about one inch.
I wonder if the tiles lead to micro plastics?
Excellent video. Let's hope these projects become the norm
Its a bit like nuclear power really as the waste isn't recycled its put off to be dealt with at a later date.
Sounds like a good idea.
I hope it lives up to the hype.
Really my only concern here is future erosion leading to even more microplastics being generated. It does seem like the kind of thing that would be great as concrete aggregate which would be ostensibly sequestered indefinitely. I'd be wary of it being used in roadways for example, but a lower emission fill in embankments? Sounds great!
I still have a little box of old broken faced cellphones. I'm not happy either. Line them up and pour a grout of waterproof flex seal and put a roof on the shed. LOL
That waterproof flex seal is too expensive to risk contaminating it with old mobiles.
I hope solutions for this can be found, it's such a huge issue. Friends of mine carefully separate the non-recylable plastics out, and then put them in with all the other plastics. In their head they think that it helps, but all it does is add to the cost of recycling measures. This mentality is dangerous because it assuages the guilt associated with buying things wrapped in a ton of plastic, which means they focus on recycling instead of reducing, and so keep buying these poorly packaged products.
Very thoughtful remark. Recycling reuse etc. doesn't compare with elimination. Not using (such as in pre-industrial times) is such a novel notion. We are after all self identified as consumers, are we not? The way forward is most assuredly the elimination of the consumer ie. ourselves. The cat is out of the bag so to speak. We are not going back and I can rationalize with the best of them. I can make claims of virtue and flexibility but deep down I know better: I am a princeling and why would I give up my throne?
@@danielfaben5838Not so novel. The use of plastic has grown exponentially in my lifetime and in my opinion is more linked to consumer driven capitalism than actual necessity. We have become a throw-away society that treats the planet like a giant dustbin. So, yes, produce less, reuse more, and recycle whatever we can.
Great video Dave! Pop bottles to filaments: I think you would do a great job exploring how this could also help reduce waste!!
car tires and sand will grind any exposed plastics into micro plastics that can enter lungs and the food chain
There was no information about the cost or performance of the NeoLithe product relative to conventional aggregates. If the aggregate doesn't last the life of whatever you build with it, that's a problem. Part of the cost of the aggregate could be offset by the value of the carbon that it locks up.
I have been pondering this for a while, and think it is definitely a technology worth developing. I wish there were more companies like this popping up in the states, but it seems we don’t have the sense of urgency or economic incentive.
@davisray1453 , if this thing proves to be ecogically sound and somewhat profitable, more and larger companies will get involved and then the economies of scale will take over.
I don't think that putting plastic of any kind in roads is a good idea. The road will be a producer of microplastics like no other. Plastics are already being seen, more and more, to be a producer of cancer, obesity, hormone disruption, etc. Studies have shown this, but the industry is downplaying the studies much the way industries did with the studies about smoking and asbestos. Sometimes haste makes waste, no pun intended.
When this ultimately degrades after x decades won’t this result in a ridiculous amount of micro plastic?
The process of fossilizing seems to largely, if not wholly, decompose the material on a molecular level. In other words, it's no longer made of plastic.
@@nagualdesignif that even if what happens, seems a lot of people suspect they just mix the powder with lime or something. Just using the trash powder as a filler. Without more details it's hard to know.
@@bzuidgeest Vacuum pyrolysis can be used to completely decompose plastics. Whether that's what they mean by 'fossilization' is anyone's guess, but simply melting plastic then pulverising it once it sets would be an expensive way of making a not-so-durable product.
@@nagualdesign it's all speculation for now. Until we know what they are doing I'm not going to trust them. There is a lot of money to be made in the green industry, so bad actors with fake products are around.
We have zero recycling in certain areas of Alabama in the 21st century. It either ends up in burn pile or landfill. That's this states answer to recycling is to burn it or bury it and it's not going change in my lifetime. The operative word is CHANGE!
I feel it might be too late to turn around the increasing climate emergency but a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction.
Yes I realized that last bit was a constant but it is what it is😉
As always it will come down to whether their aggregate is cheaper than the traditional stuff and if they can maintain supply. If heat is needed for the process and they say they do not add heat then I can only think that the heat comes from the chemistry or more likely that when forming the product they use extrusion under pressure which can produce its own heat due to friction. I hope it works.
It's funny there was a recent ted talk that does the same (the beauty of building with mud and trash) by Vinu Daniel ... sounds like we have found their abundant material eco friendly
Great to see an EU company being innovative. I do like this channel, it exposes some really good potential!
Hopefully the potential will live up to the hype.
Thank you :-)
We have a lot of innovation, but usually we sell it off to large American companies. That way, they take the financial risk of going to market. So you don't see a lot of big high profile companies in the EU. Doesn't mean we don't innovate. In some ways we might even innovate more.
Interesting idea, hope it works. Cheers Dave!
Fingers crossed!
Thanks mate
This looks pretty good Dave. Try and keep tabs n it for us if you can.
Recycling going to landfill being so common. Well, sorry to disappoint. Try South Australia for size. WE DON'T put the recyclables in landfill; they actually all get recycled with very little going to energy. Don't put us all in the same boat. Some communities (1.5 million of us) really do it well and and the community knows where the recyclables go!
Here in N Z a company is turning plastic rubbish into fence posts.
Judging by the process and look of the aggregate, they use limestone mixed with some refinery product to powder the crushed wastemateriel. Using limestone is not exactly environmentally friendly, but i guess somewhat ok. But more important, i think they use a binding component from a refinery or maybe a gelantinish materiel. What would negate it being a green solution, more so a greenish solution. If the just use a certain limestone mix and water, that would be very interesting.
if this works it would be useful in island countries that dont have landfill space and import aggregate
every time they come up with something to revolutionize trash recycling... i wonder if it work work with existing landfills... IE how much would it cost to "mine" the landfill... recycle metals capture hazardous materials that need to be cleaned up sometime anyways.
ive said this before, things like shold be used as much as they can in building work...like i wouldnt fully trust a hosuse or a small apartment block out of this stuff(yet), this would be great for paving and walls etc - its these kind if ideas that reduce carbon by just a small amount but all these different ideas working together they can reduce carbon by a great deal
@JustHaveaThink I like it, and suggest it is used for a seawall system to protect against sea level rise, and use it to encapsulate all waste at the same time. Maybe some sea level rise can be avoided with climate restoration AKA geoengineering.
Sea water is extremely corrosive. If there is a possibility that the material degrades by releasing micro-plastics, seawalls would not be the best choice for its use. It would have to prove at least as resistant to erosion as granite.
Gracias
No real comment on it Dave; just wanted to say hello and increase channel engagement by leaving a cimment.
I'd love for you to cover what companies have plans for what happens after we pass the 1.5c limit we're not supposed to cross because... reasons.
I worry about the constant friction creating micro plastics.
The " 0:59 term aerosol masking effect" came up in an article I reviewed. Could you make an episode about it's effect and how stopping burning fuels would affect the rise in flobal temperatures?
There is a new type of tennis racquet that transforms into a golf stick.
It's a real game changer.
Roads experience a lot of wear and tear. So if you use plastics in the road material, you will end up with a lot diffusely soread microplastics. Also after the road is tore down or resurfaced what do you with the mixed pladtics material? If you cannot recycle that again you just shifted the dispisal problem to the future.
Greensake Environmental and Humanitarian Endeavors would like to buy one of those. We have been needing just that.
At onetime I thought I heard of a company that took 'raw trash' and finely ground it, then did magnetic and 'air column' separation for various materials. How has that tech come along?
Thanks Dave. Didn’t Australia use plastics for road resurfacing a while ago ?
Isn't there already enough microplastics everywhere? At what concentration of microplastics in your blood and lungs would you consider making streets and sidewalks out of plastic a bad idea? It seems that washing clothes out of plastic is not enough.
Wouldn't locking it in the concrete and sidewalks keep it from getting into your bloodstream and lungs at least for a longer period of time because those things take longer to the degrade???
@@bryanjohnson8162 The issue (as I see it), would be that it won't stay locked away. It'll break down and get spread over a large area, so I can't imagine it'd be as good as they claim.
With that said, if it does what they claim, it might be an idea. If for no other reason, then that we don't really have the option of picking the best option anymore in the fight against climate change, because governments won't take the necessary steps. Time is ticking on dealing with climate change, and the actions taken by developed countries are honestly glacially slow.
Bryan Johnson makes a good point, and also consider what roads are already made of. Bitumen is another oil based product, and I don't think it's likely to be any better for you than microplastics.
@@danyoutube7491 Not sure what the conclusion is but good point about the bitumen.
In the end the only way to actually deal with plastic is going to be through enzymatic de-polymerisation ... either directly or by biodegradation by fungi or bacteria. The amount of energy locked up in plastics and ubiquity means that evolution will guarantee that this will be happening on a massive scale in millions of years time. We just need to find a way to make it happen NOW.
Keep up the good work!
My guess is it bonds with a calcite... sounds feasible and possibly stable long term
Hi…interesting use of the unusable. But I also like the idea of using plastics as a additive for actually building roads. I’m sure you’ve heard of the work done by macrebur. Anyway, I always enjoy your videos.
Great stuff
Oh goodness! In the first moments you've obliterated a sincerely useful flooring material and many masterful works of art by some dedicated tradesmen of yore, but ok... Still love ya! :)
Having done this kind of work it's not scrap marble chips, it's quite involved and messy and now very expensive so it isn't done much.
I will have to come back later for watching the rest of this one. The topic is interesting as usual.
"Trash" Dave? "Trash".... surely "Rubbish" would have been more appropriate 😂😂😂! Fascinating statistics and ideas though, as always! 🤔🧐😉 This company need a bigger mixer though to support their product. A large bakers dough mixer doesn't do it for me 😅😅😅!
We making progress in recycling and renewable energy. The issue is for many people it is simply not fast enough.
Already done in some countries, including my own, Singapore. Even used in concrete. But I think the concrete one is still not exactly out to market
Very interesting how potentially good stuff coming
Very near my home there’s a significant construction project that is building a new road that will lead to a new bridge over a railway line, so is using phenomenal amounts of aggregate to raise the terrain. At a recent open day I was able to speak to one of the engineers and I asked where it comes from. He explained that the majority comes from a quarry about ten miles away, because logistically it makes sense to get it from as close as possible (common sense), but for some parts they have to get it from further away because they need the aggregate to meet certain specifications. They buy it to a specification and then test it again on arrival to check it meets the specification, which is also common sense since the spec matters a lot.
Hence, just having a think about this video and that project, I figure part of the viability of this solution must be in being able to source the waste and manufacture this stuff reasonably close to the construction project. Hopefully that is viable because it could be worse to transport thousands of tonnes of this stuff hundreds of miles, versus hopefully a reasonably local circular economy from waste collection to construction site. Secondly, as I learnt from the engineer, the size and hardness of the aggregate needed matters a lot, so again, I hope it’s viable to make this stuff to a wide variety of specifications, and they’re not just hoping to cream off the “easy” market for the softer aggregate, for example. If so, I think this could be really promising because the amounts involved can be huge… they literally move mountains!