- James

PS here is how you know someone is behind what he says:
Here is my E-mail Address: JamesEoff@yahoo.com

I agree with your analysis (thanks also for the links to the info) and I absolutely think that we should consider the carbon footprint of the oil transport and business as usual methods of delivering goods such as plastic and oil.

My main question for anyone considering this machine as a potential solution is, and I mean it constructively, is this machine the BEST way to deal with the plastic we currently waste?

Would any of those plastic containers that we see being melted down be better served to be used again in their same form? Are their other means of recycling them (like into park benches or nylon fabric) and how much energy are these other methods going to cost?

I highly recommend a book called “Without The Hot Air” by David MacKay http://www.withouthotair.com for a sense of the framework of empirical evidence that I'm trying to ask for here.

As you said in your earlier comment the best action, broadly speaking, is to reduce our consumption. Perhaps that is outside the purview of the video, but that's precisely the difficulty I have with “green media.” It tends to emphasize buying our way out of the environmental and energy problems we have instead of focusing on reducing our consumption. Understandably, most people don't want to hear about using less and most funding for projects ultimately comes from corporations that need to sell new products. Yet as MacKay's book suggests its much easier to take fewer flights and buy less “stuff” than it is to cover 10% of the Earth's landmass with solar cells.

Anyway, based on http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_co... looking at the listing of petrol diesel we see 1 Barrel of Oil = 1700 kWh energy. Convert that to litres (159 litres per barrel) we find that one litre of diesel produces approximately 11 kWh = 11000 Wh which is GREATER than the 650 Wh of electricity that is needed for this Blest oil producing machine. So in the end, the benefit is a little more than 10000 Wh! This is good news and it's precisely what I wish they had stated in the video. Of course we should mention that I'm assuming that the bioenergy website is correct and we're not factoring any conversions (from electric energy to mechanical energy or chemical energy) into this back-of-the-napkin estimate. At least we know that the machine converts more energy from plastic than it uses.

Is there anything else that works better?

Thanks,
Jeff

Thanks for your feed back.

The central problem appears to be two-fold. First, we discard vast amounts of plastic on a daily basis, and in places like Japan a lot of that plastic is incinerated. It can also be recycled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_in_Japan) which is a good thing (I hope you agree).

Second, oil has to be transported from distant countries and requires a huge infrastructure that generates its own carbon footprint, so it could be argued that this footprint should be considered in some way. But we don't. Do you think we should know these figures as well?

Recycling plastics to oil in the view of Akinori Ito of Blest, is one way to respond to both of the above issues. He believes that the technology can be particularly effective in a small island or developing country context.

For more data on the process, I would encourage you to visit the Blest website and perhaps use something like Google translation tools. Here is a link to Blest and their QandA – http://www.blest.co.jp/s-5.html

From what I can see on the website, to turn 1kg of plastic into oil requires 650Wh of electricity. For 1kg of plastic, one liter of oil is produced.

It is still early days for this kind of technology and you are correct to point out that we need to look carefully at such solutions within the grand scheme of sustainability.

However, the same rigour needs to be applied to business as usual, but unfortunately it is not. That is why the story of plastics to oil is so interesting… it gets you thinking about how we use oil and plastics, about waste, and about being more efficient.

Frequently in “green media” we see a tendency toward adjectives when numbers are a more sober way of describing what the product really does. In the video we learn that this machine would “make [Japan's] CO2 emissions much lower.” What does that mean? Are you calculating the energy of the machine only? Or the transportation cost of both the plastics AND the machine? What about the total amount of energy consumed in making the oil from the plastic VS the energy created? If it takes more energy to create the oil than we get out of that oil then wtf good is this machine? They don't tell us that.

I like that there's money being put toward developing solutions, but we need to know (objectively and quantitatively) that the “solution” has taken all of these questions into consideration and that in the grand scheme of sustainability, it does more good than harm.

Thanks for your excellent and insightful comments.
Blest is just one example, from a number around the world, of a small company that has developed technology to convert plastic to oil. It has already been reported on in the international media. I recall watching a television report about Blest on BBC World News in 2008 by Chris Hogg at the time of the G8 Toyoko Summit. There is also a July 2007 article on Treehugger with an accompanying video from DIGINFO that I recommend you watch http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/making_oil_out.php.
There are other oil to plastics machines as reported in the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12141) and again in Treehugger (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/plastic-to-crude-oil-method-carbon-footprint-unknown-plas2fuel.php). The pros and cons are discussed here (http://www.fakeplasticfish.com/2009/03/plastic-into-oil-what-do-you-think.html).
I appreciate that these technologies, in environmental terms, are an intermediate solution. To learn more about the scale of the problem and some other solutions, I recommend you watch the “Addicted to Plastic” documentary.
From an environmental perspective, the best choice would be to reduce plastic at source. This would certainly prevent further aggravation of the problems in our oceans, again see link to Capt. Charles Moore presentation on TED for more on this.
But a ban on plastic is not happening yet and there is still the issue of what we do with all the plastic that is already out there.
What is interesting about the Blest story is the way that the main character uses the machine to teach (in Japan and elsewhere) that plastic is not waste, but a resource that can be reused. In Japan, a large amount of plastic is recycled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_in_Japan) into a range of products. However, even more is actually disposed of through incineration. The plastics to oil technology offers yet another option.

Anyone can be forgiven for craving the hope that could be gained by the validity of this story. It presents one man and his invention (and his newly-awakened concerns about the environment) which really must be questioned. It’s a very emotive and uneasy topic for anyone to take in: there’s very substantial (and scientifically verifiable) evidence that particles of plastic outnumber particles of plankton in very sensitive marine areas in several oceans. It’s understandable to want some good news in light of these undeniable facts.

Both this video and article need clarification and fact checking. Who is Blest Company? Are they controlled or owned by a ‘parent’ company? Has any independent scientific journal, organisation or laboratory confirmed that this machine actually does what the video implies (or, even states in no uncertain terms) that it can do?

It’s more rational than cynical to question this. The use of recylced plastics in the new manufacture of non recyclable plastics is old (and rather sad) news. This requires liquified plastics (some of it may be recycled) for new injection mouldings or for clothing fabrication. It’s needed to make new PVC plumbing pipes, window frames and polartec fleece, amongst other popular items. PVC doesn’t currently have a great environmental record, btw (http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/html/content/pvc3.html).

This video states the plastic ‘oil’ this machine generates can be used for heating or other alternative uses, perhaps even to make petrol or diesel, which may be theoretically possible, but also quite expensive. It’s more profitable, it should have been added, to sell this plastic ‘oil’ on to others to make new plastic, vinyl and fabric products, like tents, clocks, rain gutters, pens and disposable razors. It’s a fact that there are many, many factories all over southeast Asia and China ready and willing to buy this material. Someone should have checked if Blest Company sells this valuable plastic ‘oil’ on to these companies – it’s very likely they do.

If this story’s noble claims are accurate (and it’s not an exaggeration of a common process used to prepare plastics for use in new moulds), why wouldn’t the BBC or any other worldwide new services have reported this story, which ‘broke’ as long ago as 2007? (http://www.japancorp.net/Article.asp?Art_ID=14962) Why is the man in this video only shown with this machine in impoverished countries, and not in The Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Canada, the UK or the US?

Many, many questions are left unanswered – or even asked. Based on what’s written and shown in this video, facts about this machine are sorely lacking. If a stronger case can be made for this company and its product, please do so – or post a retraction of this online recommendation which apparently is offered without the benefit of any credible independent testing or verification. Offer these much-needed details, please – and this may be good news.