{"id":15044,"date":"2025-09-08T09:15:28","date_gmt":"2025-09-08T13:15:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theness.com\/neurologicablog\/?p=15044"},"modified":"2025-09-08T09:15:28","modified_gmt":"2025-09-08T13:15:28","slug":"upcycling-plastic-and-reducing-mineral-waste","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theness.com\/neurologicablog\/upcycling-plastic-and-reducing-mineral-waste\/","title":{"rendered":"Upcycling Plastic and Reducing Mineral Waste"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"It is becoming increasingly clear, in my opinion, that we need to further shift from an overall economic system based on a linear model of extraction-manufacture-use-waste to a more circular model where as much waste as possible becomes feedstock for another manufacturing process. It also seems clear, after reading about such things for a long time, that economics ultimately drives such decisions. If the one-way road to waste is the cheapest pathway, that is the path industry will take. Unfortunately, this model historically has lead to massive pollution, growing waste, and a changing climate. How do we switch to an economically viable circular economy, to minimize waste and environmental impact without decreasing standard of living? That is always the $64,000 question.<\/p>\n

Here are two recent possibilities I came across. They have nothing to do with each other, but both represent possible ways to think differently about our priorities. The first one has to do with mineral extraction<\/a>. The method currently used for developing mines and refining metals is driven entirely by economics. The percentage of a metal in ore that is deemed worth refining depends entirely on the value of that metal. Precious metals like gold may be refined from ore with as little as 0.001%. Copper ore typically has 0.6% copper. High grade iron ore has the highest percentage at about 50%. Any mineral present at too low a concentration to be economically viable is considered a by-product, and simply becomes part of the ore waste.<\/p>\n

The industry has largely evolved to pick the low-hanging fruit – find high grade ores for specific metals, perhaps recover some high value lower concentration metals, and the rest is waste. To meet growing needs, new mines are opened. Right now the US has 75 “hard rock” mines in operation. Opening a new mine, assuming a site with high grade ore is identified, takes on average 18 years and costs up to a billion dollars. Mining waste also has to be managed. This is not just rocks that can be dumped anywhere, ore is often crushed into a powder to be refined. Properly disposing of the waste (which is a complex issue – see here<\/a>) can also be costly and have environmental impact. Further, as we deplete high-grade ore, new mines often go after lower and lower quality ore, with more waste.<\/p>\n

The new proposal is to extract more and more minerals from existing ore rather than just opening up more mines. If the US, for example, increased our mineral extraction per ore by 1% that could significantly reduce our dependence on foreign minerals. According to the study, if we increased it to 90% we would be mineral independent with existing mines (this may not be realistic, but is based simply on what ores are present). What would this take?<\/p>\n

The authors recommend that first we do a more detailed survey of which minerals are present in which existing ore. We also need to invest in research and development of commercially viable refining techniques that will extract even low concentration minerals from ore. This is where governments can play a role – shifting the economics from a process resulting in maximal waste to one resulting in minimal waste. They can invest in R&D, they can also provide economic incentives to invest in improved refining facilities rather than opening new mines (not to imply we will never open new mines if it makes sense to do so). That’s the carrot approach. They may also apply the stick of taxing companies for the environmental impact of their mining activity.<\/p>\n

Also – economics will shift by themselves. As demand for minerals increases, this makes it more commercially viable to extract minerals from lower quality ore, which can be done by opening up new mines (which we do not want) or to refine more metals from existing ore (which we do want). Ultimately it’s also about choices and priorities. What kind of world do we want to live in? This, of course, also requires having full and accurate information about the total impact of the choices we collectively make.<\/p>\n

The second news item is about plastic<\/a> – specifically PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastic. Plastic waste is a huge problem globally, with much ending up as microplastics in the environment. About 9% of plastic is recycled, while 12% is incinerated, and the remaining 79% winds up in landfills. This is not sustainable. At the same time, plastic is a very useful material, which is why we use so much of it. Some plastics are also hard to recycle – PET plastic, highly degraded plastics, and mixed plastics. This is where the new study comes in.<\/p>\n

They report: “Herein, we demonstrate a chemical upcycling of PET waste into materials for CO2<\/sub>\u00a0capture via aminolysis. The aminolysis reaction products\u2014a bis-aminoamide (BAETA) and oligomers\u2014exhibit high CO2<\/sub>\u00a0capture capacity up to 3.4 moles per kilogram as a stand-alone organic solid material. BAETA shows strong chemisorption featuring high selectivity for CO2<\/sub>\u00a0capture from flue gas (5 to 20% CO2<\/sub>) and ambient air (~400 parts per million CO2<\/sub>) under humid conditions. Our thermally stable material (>250\u00b0C) enables CO2<\/sub> capture at high temperatures (up to 170\u00b0C) for multiple cycles.”<\/p>\n

Essentially they can chemically treat the PET to “upcycle” it to BAETA, which can be used for carbon capture. BAETA is stable at temperatures it would encounter in manufacturing flues and can store a lot of CO2. The result can then be sequestered, or the BAETA can be heated to release the CO2 for other use, freeing the BAETA to be used again. It’s still too early to say if this will become a major manufacturing process, but it does seem plausible.<\/p>\n

Ideally this could divert a significant proportion of PET plastic from landfills, while providing a useful material for carbon capture, either ambiently or in factory flues. This would also not detract from existing plastic recycling efforts at it uses different plastics.<\/p>\n

Individually developments like these will likely make little difference. They are just examples of the kinds of changes we can make to shift our economy overall into a more circular paradigm, minimizing waste, the need for endlessly increasing raw material streams, and overall environmental impact. Ultimately it’s just about doing things smarter. Pure economic forces are not enough. While they do favor things like efficiency, they also can incentivize externalizing costs, degrading the environment, and dumping waste. We need to leverage economic forces with smart regulations and incentives to make the final equation work for everyone.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is becoming increasingly clear, in my opinion, that we need to further shift from an overall economic system based on a linear model of extraction-manufacture-use-waste to a more circular model where as much waste as possible becomes feedstock for another manufacturing process. It also seems clear, after reading about such things for a long […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":15045,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-technology"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t