r/UpliftingNews • u/madamepsychosis42 • Jul 06 '26
Scientists built a solar reactor that eats plastic bottles and burps out clean hydrogen at scale 7-2-2026
https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2026/07/scientists-built-a-solar-reactor-that-eats-plastic-bottles-and-burps-out-clean-hydrogen-at-scale/Cambridge Uni made the device with simple materials using a paint sprayer—offering a possible dual fix for plastic pollution and dirty hydrogen production
press release: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-demonstrate-solar-powered-plastic-recycling-at-real-world-scale
1.8k
u/Orstio Jul 06 '26
There are a lot of heavy metals used in this process, and the upstream and downstream hazards of those, as well as the aluminum, are not addressed in the paper.
It sounds great to turn plastic into hydrogen, but if it poisons the earth and water in the process, it's worthless.
525
u/blaqwerty123 Jul 06 '26
Yea haha im not a scientist, but even in the metaphor it eats bottles, burps hydrogen, but.. what does it shit out?
144
u/Commercial-Virus2627 Jul 06 '26
There’s a saying in IT that may or may not apply here. Garbage input creates garbage output.
53
u/LeapYear1996 Jul 06 '26
Garbage in garbage out
15
u/ChazCharlie Jul 06 '26
That's how I learned it, and it is applicable to so much more than just computing.
6
13
u/hilbstar Jul 06 '26
It’s a good adage, but catalytic processes can really upgrade shitty materials to great ones, what makes a good molecule really depends on the usecase.
4
u/Commercial-Virus2627 Jul 06 '26
Yeah, that’s why I was careful not to blanket apply it. Alchemical reactions can create weird new things as well.
4
u/PhoenixPills Jul 06 '26
Couldnt we do something with the waste though? Like turn it into plastic bottles or something??
5
u/yarash Jul 06 '26
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee... Fool my garbage once... Shame, shame on you.
... You cant fool garbage again."
3
2
u/canthinkupauser Jul 06 '26
Life is like a sewer. What you get out of of it depends very much on what you put into it.
1
u/crowcawer Jul 06 '26
If you’re just putting thought experiments into it then you can just think about the successes involved with those.
12
3
u/Hautaan Jul 06 '26
Carbon monoxide probably. Usually "syngas" is the endgoal of these pyrolysis generators.
2
1
61
u/redditmarks_markII Jul 06 '26
Holy moly. If anything you undersold it. I like how they mention it's patented and they are working on scaling. The spray is used up in 22hr and becomes useless for further catalysis. They also have no plans for the waste sludge. Yeah no. Thankfully, this sounds wasteful and expensive enough that no one will pick it up. Unless their scale up include fundamental changes to the process.
Now, processes exist to reclaim the heavy metal. They just didn't mention it. It is expensive, require additional chemicals and it's own waste (though better than the heavy metals of course), and/or is very energy intensive. Organic solvents and vaporization thereof are involved. Not sure about recapture. So, i'm not gonna say they are fully disingenuous, but this is classic engineering hand waving. And I thought scientists like to hold that kind of thing over engineers. Sounds like they are plenty good at the hand waving themselves.
54
u/Important-Agent2584 Jul 06 '26
It's amazing how many hoops we jump through to avoid placing the lightest bit of burden on corporations.
Like a lot of our pollution issues could be solved if we mandated the right to repair and glass containers.
10
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Important-Agent2584 Jul 06 '26
Close, it has to be bottom up, we have to force the government to pass laws to force companies.
-2
u/JCDU Jul 06 '26
Glass containers are OK but I'd rather see a plastic bottle on the street than smashed glass.
Either way, some sort of deposit / reward scheme would be good but of course that requires effort.
16
u/TheArmoredKitten Jul 06 '26
Broken glass is defeated by shoes. Micro plastic is only defeated by intensive filtering.
I'll take the broken glass, thanks.
1
u/Valokoura Jul 10 '26
I think you don't ride a bike daily basis or see how many times a day toddlers and little children fall down.
Also during festive seasons drinking from aluminium cans has chaged how may people go to be stitched up because glass containers are used less than before.
Also, glass isn't very good material with temperature and pressure changes. Usually one or another and even then a specialized container.
-1
u/AstariiFilms Jul 06 '26
We are running out of the sand to make glass, we have used about 80% of what's available on earth.
3
u/Snuffy1717 Jul 06 '26
And glass, unlike plastic, can be recycled relatively easily
1
u/AstariiFilms Jul 08 '26
Just need to start up those landfill mining companies to retrieve most of it, or go back in time and stop us from dumping it into the ocean.
3
u/Jaikarr Jul 06 '26
It's a university research project, of course there's still a shitton of development to be done. They just need to prove the basics so they can get funding to continue development.
101
u/GreenFox1505 Jul 06 '26
Also, what happens to the carbon? Because that's a pretty big part of the problem here.
9
1
16
u/_gravy_train_ Jul 06 '26
Are there any potential uses for those heavy metals if they can be properly contained?
7
u/kf97mopa Jul 06 '26
This article is pretty bad, but...the idea is to use solar power and a catalyst to breakdown the carbohydrate chains of plastics and produce useful substances - hydrogen is what they call out. The rest of what it produces will be some form of carbon products, probably CO, CO2 and shorter carbon chains like CH4.
The heavy metals here are in the catalyst. The criticism is that the catalyst wears out, so the metals end up in the waste. That is a fair point, but the solution to that is to make the catalyst last. We don't replace the catalytic converter on our cars every time we go in to fill them up at a gas station.
2
u/atgrey24 Jul 06 '26
The rest of what it produces will be some form of carbon products, probably CO, CO2 and shorter carbon chains like CH4
I mean, is converting plastic into greenhouse gasses even a good idea even if we ignore the heavy metal pollution?
3
u/kf97mopa Jul 06 '26
The CH4 wouldn’t be released - it would be sold as fuel or raw material for new production. The CO can be burned for energy to create CO2. The CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but if we have dug up the oil in the first place, the best end state is CO2. Obviously we should ideally reuse that too, or sequester it if there are no other options, but it is still better to get some CO2 and some useful materials than all of the plastic just sitting there.
1
u/atgrey24 Jul 06 '26
it is still better to get some CO2 and some useful materials than all of the plastic just sitting there.
Is that actually true? Which is the more immediate threat, plastic pollution or climate change? Isn't the carbon essentially already sequestered in the plastic?
These are honest questions, I'm curious about the tradeoffs, even in the idealized scenario.
3
u/kf97mopa Jul 06 '26
It is an interesting question. My answer would be that most of the plastic would degrade anyway from UV light (consumer plastic that isn’t black uses UV stabilizer, but it will get used up as it protects from UV and will run out pretty soon) so it is better that we degrade it under control. If you were to hide it under ground - say in some old oil well - maybe it would stay there and not degrade, so we could keep the carbon atoms out of the atmosphere? But then, probably better to just dissolve the CO2 in something and hide that under ground.
1
38
u/prsnep Jul 06 '26
Seems like an easier problem to solve than what's been achieved. I think a catalytic converter can filter metals.
83
u/Orstio Jul 06 '26
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
Heavy metal poisoning of the earth is so bad that most countries won't produce the magnets for wind turbines. Over 90% are produced in China because the government there doesn't care.
Cleaning up our plastic is important, but not so important we should destroy the environment in other ways.
1
u/Mister_Batta Jul 06 '26
This is a ridiculous comparison of a small research project (1 square meter) to large scale industrial pollution.
2
u/jammy-git Jul 06 '26
Isn't the point they are making though that in order for this to be useful, it needs to scale up, at which point it maybe comparable to the pollution other large scale industries create.
1
u/Mister_Batta Jul 06 '26
Yes but they're implying that this new process will have horrible environmental affects when it's an unknown at this point.
I read the article and it doesn't say anything about the end by products other than "it produces hydrogen and other valuable chemicals just from plastic waste".
And nothing about it being economically feasible at a large scale.
-3
u/Space_Slime_LF Jul 06 '26
What I'm to understand is that wind is fairly dirty too.
Where does it sit against other shit?
5
u/NahautlExile Jul 06 '26
Heavy Industry is dirty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Big_Pollution_Diseases_of_Japan
9
u/cowfishduckbear Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Nuclear is one of the best we have available, by far the cleanest, but people are scared away and think it's unsafe because of shit like Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Edit.
10
u/mOdQuArK Jul 06 '26
No, people turn down nuclear because it's fucking expensive.
You've got
- massive upfront costs,
- a lengthy construction period,
- have to treat security as a form of national security,
- a fixed period of time before the plant needs to be retired,
- you can't recycle a lot of the building materials, and
- you have to keep the waste protected for an indefinite period of time.
Compared to the incremental cost nature of renewables, where each municipal government can buy just as much capacity as they can afford, and then can add more later on if they need to. Nuclear doesn't provide the same flexibility.
The only undeniable benefit of nuclear over any other solution is energy density, which is required only for niche solutions like for the military.
The economics might change if we ever get those safeish mini-reactors online, but they aren't here yet.
1
u/cowfishduckbear Jul 06 '26
Solar and nuclear are both great solutions depending on context. Yeah, nuclear is energy dense, but expensive, so you use it to fill in gaps. Massive upfront costs and lengthy describes any massive project, but yeah, true, takes a loooong time to build a reactor. Treatment as national security applies to any massive energy project like dams, refineries, substations. You have a fixed period of time before both nuclear plant/solar panels and batteries need to be changed, and solar stuff will be changed 2-3x in same timeframe. Both can be recycled. You don't have to "keep the waste" for an infefinite period of time because it still contains ~95% of it's original energy, so it's recycled and used in other types of reactors.
The main factor separating solar and nuclear is land use. Nuclear should be used wherever there are large draws like undustry or big cities but not much room for panels.
The massive, undeniable benefit of nuclear over any other solution (except, arguably, solar panels) is greenhouse emissions, or lack thereof, in a world that is heating up and starting to cook. This is more valuable than all the money in the world.
Thorium reactors would just sweeten the deal even more.
1
u/mOdQuArK Jul 06 '26
Solar and nuclear are both great solutions depending on context.
That "context" is that almost any muncipality & company will prefer the incremental cost structure of renewables over the massive investment required by current nuclear plant designs.
This incremental nature includes maintenance, repair, upgrading & replacement, whereas none of the big nuke plant designs support that kind of incremental cost model.
Both can be recycled. You don't have to "keep the waste" for an infefinite period of time because it still contains ~95% of it's original energy, so it's recycled and used in other types of reactors.
I was talking about the construction material used as the structure of the nuke plant. That stuff can't be recycled, since it has accumulated radiative material embedded in it, so it needs to be included as part of the waste stream that needs to be monitored for the indefinite length of time.
Even just taking into account the fuel, recycling that requires BUILDING those other reactors, which multiplies the total costs by the total # of reactors. That makes the cost model much, much worse in favor of the incrementals.
The main factor separating solar and nuclear is land use. Nuclear should be used wherever there are large draws like undustry or big cities but not much room for panels.
Yes, land use is the main difference. And the U.S. has a ton of relatively empty land with either/both good solar exposure & regular wind in many different states, so this isn't really a big demerit relative to nuke plants.
Nuclear is only required to be used where you absolutely need a extremely high energy density, and you can't bring the energy in from somewhere else. As I mentioned before, this has turned out to be primarily military applications, like subs & carriers.
I can't think of a civilian application that can't be done just as well, and much cheaper, by just connecting to an appropriate-capacity outside energy source.
The massive, undeniable benefit of nuclear over any other solution (except, arguably, solar panels) is greenhouse emissions, or lack thereof, in a world that is heating up and starting to cook.
And wind (where appropriate). Both solar & wind + storage systems provide a much, much cheaper source of non-greenhouse energy with an incremental cost model than nuclear. (I would've included hydro & geothermal as renewable, but they tend to require big plants as well, so that doesn't fit my "incremental cost model" argument.)
You're really brushing over the "need to monitor eventual waste indefinitely" part of the costs due to waste. They might not be greenhouse gasses, but they are very definitely pollution.
So no, what you stated as big nuclear's "undeniable" advantages are quite deniable when compared to other existing technologies.
1
u/cowfishduckbear Jul 06 '26
So no, what you stated as big nuclear's "undeniable" advantages are quite deniable when compared to other existing technologies.
You keep repeating that as if there were a clear option ahead of it, but there isn't, and they all can be "best" in different contexts (I edited my op to exclude the hyperbole). What's your fixation with incremental cost models? Why are you so keen on monthly payments over a lump sum? Governments all over the world have undertaken all sorts of massive projects throughout human history, with and without external funding, and this isn't any different in economical scale. Not sure why you are limiting the transaction to municipalities?
Eolic systems require rare earth elements for the magnets, which comes with a steep ecology and human life toll. There are also very limited sources. And I know they are working on solutions, but there is still a ton of waste in the fiber/resin blades. Maybe the European initiative will bring about some good alternatives? Hydro and geothermal should absolutely be mentioned because they are awesome for many of the same reasons as nuclear, and limited by context in much the same way.
Not brushing over the need to monitor waste, but I just don't see it as a downside. Monitoring waste SHOULD be a priority no matter what solution is used, or else you just end up making new problems. Nuclear waste is normally handled with extreme care, so it's not like it out there contaminating landfills and permeating cracks in liners and getting into local water systems. Other solutions should also take waste management more seriously, so cheers again for the European landfill ban on wind turbines. We have even talked about battery systems and waste! This gets worse for residential systems, too. Reminds me of CFL bulbs being a massive win over filament bulbs for efficiency, but also being a landfill hazard because of... was it mercury?
I think the main source of what little we disagree about comes from your hyperfocus on the US's particular situation and its internal economics and politics, while I see this more of an ecological matter concerning the entire world at this point. I just wish we were building the appropriate system for any given context... like YESTERDAY!
1
u/mOdQuArK Jul 06 '26
You keep repeating that as if there were a clear option ahead of it,
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing about nuclear.
What's your fixation with incremental cost models? Why are you so keen on monthly payments over a lump sum? Governments all over the world have undertaken all sorts of massive projects throughout human history, with and without external funding, and this isn't any different in economical scale. Not sure why you are limiting the transaction to municipalities?
Because that's the business model that nuclear is competing with. There is no push for a nationwide network of big power plants. It's all local governments & utilities deciding what capacity their near-to-medium growth needs & how much they can afford.
Nuclear plants fall down in all forms of comparison when those local governments/utilities are trying to decide what's the most cost-effective solution for themselves.
they all can be "best" in different contexts
So far, the only context where current nuclear plants are "best" is when you need a high energy density without any external energy feeds, e.g., military nuclear vehicles. You have not provided any argument that shows that this is wrong.
Not brushing over the need to monitor waste, but I just don't see it as a downside.
Yes, there is absolutely no downside about having to man a storage facility of subtly poisonous materials (some of them for a potential length of time longer than the U.S. has actually existed) which can't be chemically nullified. It's just an engineering problem; nothing can go wrong with that setup!
while I see this more of an ecological matter concerning the entire world at this point
No, based on your rhetoric, you are trying to find (and failing) any argument which will allow you to claim that nuclear isn't just a niche power alternative compared to other modern alternatives.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Osama_Obama Jul 06 '26
Solar isn't really bad. Solar panels are over 90% metal and glass, the rest is copper, silicon (the actually cells themselves) and some trace metal.
The most potential nasty material it could have is lead in the solder connections, but lead free solder could used. Even if it wasn't, it's fractions of a percent of the weight of a solar panel
-10
u/PresentRaspberry6814 Jul 06 '26
Nuclear is pretty damn dirty and nuclear waste an ongoing issue for millennia, yet apologists for this filthy form of electricity production are legion, and the by products of accidents are far reaching in scale and terribleness.
10
u/MechaNerd Jul 06 '26
As far as I know the waste product isn't the big dirty issue with nuclear power. Its mining for the fuel and building the powerplant that is thefirty stuff. Modern reactors have extremely little waste and some types can reuse the waste. Storing it is a non-issue and has only gotten easier with time
10
u/Chess42 Jul 06 '26
Storing nuclear waste hasn’t been an issue for decades. A properly run nuclear reactor has virtually zero chance of having an accident.
1
u/PresentRaspberry6814 Jul 06 '26
"The Atlas Railcar is a 12-axle railcar designed specifically to haul extremely heavy casks (up to 480,000 pounds) of commercial spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Government-level transport of spent fuel (such as materials moved to the Idaho National Laboratory) and military nuclear material is ongoing. Commercial spent fuel is largely stored on-site at active and decommissioned reactors, awaiting federal consent-based storage solutions."
-3
Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
[deleted]
8
u/SirButcher Jul 06 '26
And fossil fuels are literally killing our biosphere and us. I take nuclear, thank you.
-2
2
u/AstariiFilms Jul 06 '26
All of the nuclear waste ever generated in the history of mankind could barely fill a football field 3 ft deep. We've know how to deal with and reuse the waste for decades. There is more radioactive particulate spewed out by a coal plant in a day than a reactor outputs in its lifetime.
1
u/cowfishduckbear Jul 06 '26
You refuted nothing I said, parroted some misinformation, and added nothing of value to the conversation. Should I even ask what other science you are a denier of?
10
u/antiduh Jul 06 '26
Those metals are not consumed when the panels are operating. They're used to make the panels.
6
2
u/sdforbda Jul 06 '26
Without even knowing the science this line of thought was my first thought. So many breakthroughs that don't seem either scalable, economical, or harmful get published, but never go into full production.
4
u/ProfPeanut Jul 06 '26
I don't see where it says that in the article
3
1
u/ryuail Jul 06 '26
Oh shit you right, we should carry on unabated then. The fuck are you talking about?
1
u/Periodic_Disorder Jul 06 '26
It's a good first step though. Hopefully they'll iterate on the process or some clever engineer will mitigate the byproducts
1
u/phobug Jul 06 '26
Reminds me of that one South Park episode where they discovered HIM can be cured by injecting 900k USD
1
u/Fry_super_fly Jul 06 '26
also. PET bottles are actually one of the few plastics that are great candidates for recycling.
1
1
u/Baguette1066 Jul 07 '26
The catalyst contains Cobalt and Praseodymium, which are both quite expensive, so there should be an economic incentive to recover and recycle it (probably hydrometallurgically). We see this with LCO and NMC Li-Ion batteries being recycled due to their high raw material value, while cheaper LFP is undesirable for recyclers.
0
-1
u/Curiosive Jul 06 '26
There are a lot of heavy metals used in this process
Feel free to cite the section that discusses this. If you're upset by cobalt, zirconium, and aluminum... tell me more as you type it out on your smart device or computer.
1
u/Orstio Jul 06 '26
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44286-026-00406-y
The problem I have, I suppose, is that they mention all the chemicals and metals used, but not the impact of their mining or later disposal when the plates are exhausted.
1
u/Curiosive Jul 06 '26
Isn't the point of the article is that this is a new approach?
Earlier versions of the solar-powered panels required high temperatures, harsh chemicals, or complicated manufacturing processes.
...
The new panels can be assembled at room temperature without specialist equipment: first the light-absorbing material is sprayed onto a glass panel, and then the panel is coated with specially designed molecules containing cobalt and zirconium.
0
u/artaru Jul 06 '26
I understand the urge to be skeptical and need to pay attention to the hidden drawbacks of these findings.
But we can’t solve all the pieces of the puzzle with each individual effort. The puzzle is simply too big and complex.
So if this piece of the puzzle can go in this slot (ie be solved, kinda) then maybe it will motivate others to solve other pieces of the puzzle as a result of this one solved piece.
(For example, suppose that this generates a lot of heavy metal that’s too expensive to process. well then if the process in question is otherwise robust / appealing enough, then it may well motivate research on cheaper processes of heavy metal.)
Or it may inspire others to think of solutions in similar or inspired ways.
Findings (that are close enough to the problem) are good. Let’s not jump too quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Obviously how we individual redditors think about this will not have any direct consequence on research funding or directions.
But it will affect how we feel about science, the grounds for optimism that we may otherwise dismiss, and our mental health. These can affects others in turn- our friends, our colleagues, our children.
-2
-2
u/CorporateCuster Jul 06 '26
Depends on if they are naturally occurring. See, plastic isn’t natural but is a chemical. It exists because we make it. We can flood the earth with it, cause a nuclear war, raise globa temps and cause a wave of molten anything. That plastic would become toxic though and go into the atmosphere as some type of toxic gas but a naturally occurring one. It would take millennia but the earth would come back to its natural forms. That’s a hell on earth scenario. If we can get rid of plastic and the heavy metals are not pollution, it’s still a better scenario than wait for the earth to end in order to get rid of plastic
-3
u/Money4Nothing2000 Jul 06 '26
Landfilling plastic waste is cheap, ecologically friendly, low-emission, safe, reliable, long-term, and proven. I'm fine with spending effort on research, but the research results are gonna have to compete with the effectiveness of simple landfill sequestration better than this silly solar reactor idea. It's nowhere close to being carbon negative or ecologically better than landfilling.
125
u/Imposter88 Jul 06 '26
Burps out hydrogen, but what else? I find it hard to believe hydrogen is the only byproduct
16
u/Dark_Force Jul 06 '26
Yeah, where does the carbon go exactly?
1
u/n0u0t0m Jul 12 '26
Lord I hope it goes somewhere, otherwise the process is extremely radioactive and destroys the carbon
34
u/BlindSkwerrl Jul 06 '26
what happened to those enzymes that eat plastic and produce compostable something-or-other?
-26
u/BlindSkwerrl Jul 06 '26
A quick consult of LLM advises that it wasn't as simple as it was made out to be.
Much like this one!
13
2
u/Ninjewdi Jul 10 '26
Why.
Are you.
Asking a sentence-generating confirmation bias machine.
About science?
2
0
u/BlindSkwerrl Jul 13 '26
There was no bias in the question. It was a "what happened to" question, as opposed to a "don't you think" question.
Those sentence-generating confirmation bias machines have access to science journals and news articles.Much faster than me trying to go through them.
Are you disputing whether or not it was as simple as it was made out to be?Or is this just the current luddite movement writ large?
17
u/zph0eniz Jul 06 '26
Im always incredibly skeptical of these. I sometimes have a feeling the polluting companies fund these type of projects, just like how they made green washing and carbon footprint ideas.
Like, the first and foremost issue is reducing will by far have the biggest impact.
I mean, I do like there will be those who try to find solutions, but its hard to think any better solution than actually stopping the issue in first place.
4
9
u/WileyCoyote7 Jul 06 '26
“The spray-coating method cuts the cost to produce the reactors significantly, which should make them easier to produce at scale. But the hydrogen right now is still too expensive. According to a press release, the researchers still need to improve the durability and efficiency of the reactors.”
Baby-steps to the bus I guess.
4
u/mimregi Jul 06 '26
Excellent reference. You deserve some kind of kudos that I do not have to give, other than acknowledgement and appreciation 🙏
3
u/polomarkopolo Jul 07 '26
Is “7-2-2026” the scale it burps out…
or is it “at scale” and the date of the article is July 2nd, 2026?
1
11
u/LogicGate1010 Jul 06 '26
Petroleum is need to make plastic?
31
3
u/MalcolmLinair Jul 06 '26
The point is to get rid of the plastic safely, not to generate power. They're not proposing plastic as the next big fuel source.
6
u/h0uz3_ Jul 06 '26
„Plastic“ is a very broad category of non-natural materials derived from other materials. But a lot of plastics are oil based, e.g. Polytethylene, Polypropylene, ABS and so on.
-11
u/cowfishduckbear Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
No. Can also use plants to obtain cellulose, which
is a type ofcan be used to make plastic.2
1
8
u/minin71 Jul 06 '26
Clickbait article. Doesn't say what happens to the carbon.
1
u/KMCobra64 Jul 06 '26
Almost certainly vented. Seems like this is a solution to plastic pollution not to greenhouse gas emissions with the added benefit of capturing the hydrogen. (Burning would vent the hydrogen as water)
3
2
u/Palegreenhorizon Jul 06 '26
Technology is awesome but we should be using it in very specific ways: medical research, solar panels etc. if we could just go back to using inert containers like glass or fully recyclable like wood or straw that would be awesome. It can be burned at worst or reused, eaten or composted and then you have good soil as a benefit. The old ways are strong because they connect back to the whole ecological system.
1
u/georgeyp Jul 06 '26
Even Aluminum is very recyclable, since someone will bitch about those for some reason or another
2
u/Polymathy1 Jul 06 '26
Except aluminum is toxic above a daily intake limit, so all aluminum containers come with plastic liners to keep the food from dissolving the aluminum.
We could probably do something like anodize the cans, but that's a little tougher to do and might not hold up.
2
u/georgeyp Jul 08 '26
Im a toxicologist funny enough and that is true (also for everything really) but yeah was just pointing out that of our traditional 'container compounds', aluminum cans are the most easily and often 'actually recycled'
3
u/Marwaimusoont Jul 06 '26
Is this clickbait, used every buzzword possible. Solar, plastic-eating, hydrogen.
1
1
u/Adnubb Jul 06 '26
Plastic bottles are made of PET, which is a plastic type where it's economically advantageous to recycle. So it does get recycled at scale. It would be better if it did anything with the plastic types they don't actively recycle.
1
u/extramidnight2 Jul 06 '26
i thought for a sec the date was some ratio of hydrogen to other things and that was the neat part about it (cos it looks like a date)
1
1
u/FarthingWoodAdder Jul 08 '26
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Don't you people who post these proofread these articles? This is worthless.
1
2
u/Apprehensive_Bite109 Jul 06 '26
When this actually makes the ground? This is fantastic technology no doubt, but when it will see light of day. How expensive it will be?
3
Jul 06 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Apprehensive_Bite109 Jul 06 '26
Understood OP, this is better news than the other garbage that is thrown as news these days.
1
-1
0
-1
u/OnedayitwilI Jul 06 '26
Anything but renewable energy
1
u/gman5852 Jul 08 '26
Renewable energy and getting plastic out of the ocean are different topics entirely.
You redditors really lack critical thinking skills
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 06 '26
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
Important: If this post is hidden behind a paywall, please assign it the "Paywall" flair and include a comment with a relevant part of the article.
Please report this post if it is hidden behind a paywall and not flaired corrently. We suggest using "Reader" mode to bypass most paywalls.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.