[lorenzo]

Scientists succeed in making a polyester-like bioplastic from orange peel oil, using CO2 as a catalyst.
More and more renewable biopolymers are being discovered and created on an almost daily basis now. And it becomes very feasible to use carbons from coal or straight CO2 as binders and triggers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4191737.stm

By the time peak oil arrives, it is likely that we have plenty of renewable substitutes ready to be used. So the plastics industry doesn't have to worry.

Another peak oil myth gone.

[Ludi]

This is nothing new. People have been studying hydrocarbons from plants for decades. Doesn't mean these things will be able to replace the enormous cheap quanitity of plastics we have from petroleum.

[Guest]

it is likely that we have plenty of renewable substitutes ready to be used. So the plastics industry doesn't have to worry.

Another peak oil myth gone.

The astute reader will note:

1) A claim of "likely" - with no basis.
2) Then the poster moves to "doesn't have to worry" No basis as to why the move from 'there might be a solution' to 'no need to worry', because a sane and rational person grounded in reality knows that 'likely' is not the same as 'shown to work in large industrial processes'. Once there is one to one equivelance for materials, AND you can make it in mass quanity AND the cost is "the same" - then you are in 'don't worry' land WRT the physcial science.

But most of all:
3) 'Another peak oil myth gone.'

Hardly. You have not shown the biomass needed to make the plasics, nor have you shown the cost difference. Peak Oil is the END of cheap energy and the END of cheap 'feedstock' for various materials.

Perhaps in your head you have done a fine job, but outside your head - not so much. The only thing to worry about is your lack of intellectual honesty, and people who'd choose to believe you.

[Mechanical-Engineer]

I agree Lorenzo jumps rather quickly to his conclusions. Rather he should point out that another piece of the post-peak puzzle seems ready to fall into place.

No single solution can replace peak oil, but a combination of factors will alleviate the overall effects, such that catastrophic consequences will be averted.

Polymers from renewable source and using CO2 might not kill two birds with one stone, but at leas wounds them. It relieves a bit the depency on oil, and relieves a bit the CO2 currently in the atmosphere and thus global warming.

Bravo to the scientist involved in the research, hope they have many more such success in the near future!

[Guest]

I agree Lorenzo jumps rather quickly to his conclusions.

And ignores that citrus peels used to be waste until Digital used it to replace Freon for cleaning electronics.

So this 'solution' would now compete with the freon cleaning replacement chemicals.

[Ludi]

So this 'solution' would now compete with the freon cleaning replacement chemicals.

Many of these "new wonder technologies" such as biodiesel and bioplastics have that problem - these materials are already in great demand for other products. My sister tried to get into making biodiesel, but she was unable to get sufficient used vegetable oil. It isn't thrown away, it's sold for applications such as producing glycerine for soaps, cosmetics, food, and other uses. Other would-be biodiesel manufacturers in our area are having the same problem.

[0mar]

Thing is that most produce and plants are harvested by oil fueled machinery. Reduce the supply of oil --> reduce the intake of produce/agriculture in general. Not to mention that agriculture is sustained today by oil and natural gas pesticides and fertilizers. Many of the soils in North America are so chemically saturated that without fertilizers, nothing can grow.

It addresses one side of the equation, but the other side simply gets bigger to compensate.

The real problem is not the decline of oil but our unsustainable, regardless of the valiant efforts of industry and science, culture. We can put bandages here and there, but the entire house of cards is held up by cheap, abundant oil.

So when produce comes into more demand for plastics, more oil will have to be used to produce them (at every level, from growth, to maintence, to harvesting). You can't win unfortunately.

[Guest]

I agrea that this won't replace our current use of mineral oil for plastic, but post peak, it may be usefull for making plastics.

Plastics have uses that natural fibers (or glass) don't have, so even if they take more effort/energy to make/use, they are still usefull. Just not in current ways.

[lorenzo]

these materials are already in great demand for other products.

But unlike oil, you can plant more of them, and you can grow them each year again. That's why they're called renewables. That's why the products carry the prefix "bio".

Oil is non-renewable. It's a major difference, don't you think?

I'm not saying we will ever easily replace all plastics with bio-alternatives, but all bits are welcome, aren't they?

The same with the fertilizer argument: there are alternative non-petro based fertilizers, and genetically modified varieties will open a whole new future of higher yields.

[fastbike]

Polymers from renewable source and using CO2 might not kill two birds with one stone, but at leas wounds them. It relieves a bit the depency on oil, and relieves a bit the CO2 currently in the atmosphere and thus global warming.

The CO2 was used as a catalyst, not a reagent, and thus does not get used up in the process. So it's not an answer to climate change/global warming.

[Ludi]

Yes, all alternatives are welcome, but they were offered above as a panacea as far as I could tell "another peak oil myth gone." maybe you're confused about the claims of peak oil.

Regarding genetically modified crops. You might want to look into this more because you seem to be somewhat misinformed. GM crops are bred to require more inputs of pesticides, herbicides, etc in many cases. They are designed to make money for the manufactuers, not to make life easier for farmers. But I have a big chip on my shoulder against them. I see nothing good in them whatsoever.

You just seem to be missing the point entirely, which is that there are no alternatives which are likely to replace the cheap products of petroleum. No one is saying there are no alternatives, they are saying (over and over and over again in case someone misses the point) that there are no alternatives which replace cheap petroleum.

[Guest]

I'm not saying we will ever easily replace all plastics with bio-alternatives, but all bits are welcome, aren't they?

Well what exactly ARE you saying? 1st you have 'likely', then you have 'don't worry', then you have 'oh, it won't be easy to replace'. "all bits are welcome" is not 'have nothing to worry about'.

'Don't worry' is not at all close to 'we MAY not be able to replace all the present plastic do-dads'.

You are all over the map, hon. Now, can you actually answer the direct challenge to your claim of 'dispelling the myth of peak oil'?

Stake out a consistant position in the debate. A position that has clear language, none of this " I'm not saying we will ever easily replace all plastics with bio-alternatives" BS. Otherwise it looks like you won't admit when you've been shown to be wrong.

[Licho]

fastbike:
still, using biological source of carbon at least doesnt increase ammount of CO2 dumped into atmsphere..

Sadly, industry is using only very few processes that actually consume CO2, that are CO2 negative.. only few acids are produced in that manner. So every bit helps..