Jump to content

The new type of rocket fuel which is remade from plastic waste


Recommended Posts

Have you ever heard about green rocket fuel that is made from plastic waste? Scientists from one space company figured out how to remake plastic waste into rocket fuel that has already been successfully tested
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Its still burning plastic though. Nobody smells that and says "oh this must be great for the environment"

Yea I'm curious about that.

The amount of plastic lying around is not cool, but how bad is burning plastic and having it go airborne? Like is it just "smelly" and actually not that bad, or is it going to end up giving me some form of cancer or something? (what doesn't lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MKI said:

Yea I'm curious about that.

The amount of plastic lying around is not cool, but how bad is burning plastic and having it go airborne? Like is it just "smelly" and actually not that bad, or is it going to end up giving me some form of cancer or something? (what doesn't lol)

You can burn plastic but you need an very good cleaning system for your smoke, think an coal powered  power plant. 
The problem with recycling  plastic is that its lots of types of it, it works well if you have one type like waste from casting. 
But if you accept all sort of plastic its like mixing all sort of metals but now they melt at mostly the same temperature. 
Even if you have an recycle system for plastic bottles you might not want to use them for bottles because people use them to store weird stuff including mercury. 
So you use it to make planes of instead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

You can burn plastic but you need an very good cleaning system for your smoke, think an coal powered  power plant. 

The EPA's solution? Stick a catalytic converter on the end of the nozzle!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Plus it will keep their teeth clean!

on fire, clean, same thing. 

4 hours ago, MKI said:

Yea I'm curious about that.

The amount of plastic lying around is not cool, but how bad is burning plastic and having it go airborne? Like is it just "smelly" and actually not that bad, or is it going to end up giving me some form of cancer or something? (what doesn't lol)

if you burn it with environmental controls on the smoke stack it would probably be ok. in a rocket, nope. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only particular kinds of plastic waste that can be remade into the rocket fuel. The following types of plastic waste: Polypropylene (PP). Polyester (PE). Polystyrene (PS) and their mixtures and analogs

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

They should develop a hybrid rocket fueled with old tyres.

  Hide contents

b2b637190eae302b79a4cf4ffbca532e.jpg

And fluorine.

 

Well, isn't everything a fuel when mixed with fluorine? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The type of the rocket fuel I`ve mentioned before has already been tested and the result of the test was pretty good.  The new type of rocket fuel ( made of plastic )is 1% - 3% better than kerosene by its energy characteristics. I wonder if it`s possible to use such kind of fuel in long space journeys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the kerosene is enough stable and non-cryogenic to be stored for years. Also it maybe reloaded or loaded partially,
While the plastic can go cracking in frost, so the engine can get unstable as any other SRB.

And if the oxidizer is less stable than the fuel, then it's a limiting factor, not the fuel.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2021 at 6:07 PM, magnemoe said:

You can burn plastic but you need an very good cleaning system for your smoke, think an coal powered  power plant. 
The problem with recycling  plastic is that its lots of types of it, it works well if you have one type like waste from casting. 
But if you accept all sort of plastic its like mixing all sort of metals but now they melt at mostly the same temperature. 
Even if you have an recycle system for plastic bottles you might not want to use them for bottles because people use them to store weird stuff including mercury. 
So you use it to make planes of instead. 

In addition to what you said, there is no way rockets are going to absorb all our plastic waste. We simply do not launch enough rockets. And even if we did, we would literally be putting combusted hydrocarbons in the atmosphere, just the same as more efficient fuels, so it seems logical to make the most efficient rocket fuels, and also make the most efficient plastic recycling (and yes, I know how it is not viable currently. That's kinda my point)

 

On 4/9/2021 at 3:39 AM, bearnard1244 said:

There are only particular kinds of plastic waste that can be remade into the rocket fuel. The following types of plastic waste: Polypropylene (PP). Polyester (PE). Polystyrene (PS) and their mixtures and analogs

I honestly do not believe we can make a good argument for using this as a fuel if we are burning reprocessed plastic jugs, clothing and styrofoam. These are all considered "high density" with regards to plastic, but extremely low density compared to current rocket fuels. Like are we talking cardboard tube rockets here or orbital class rockets?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Piscator said:

I've got the impression that the fuel in question is made from plastic, but not a plastic itself. A link would be nice so we're all on the same page.

To be more accurate this is special machine that is called Ecosene. This technology allows to produce high-quality  green rocket fuel  from waste plastic, obtained from local councils. And as far as I have already mentioned the new type of rocket fuel has already been successfully tested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Producing hydrocarbons (= fuel) from other hydrocarbons (plastic waste) never was much of an issue, the cost is. And as long as fossil carbon sources are cheaper than renewables/recycling noone will do the latter ones. It has always been a political problem, not a technical one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2021 at 5:24 PM, MKI said:

Give me some form of cancer or something? (what doesn't lol)

California thinks everything causes cancer. Seriously. It seems like almost every product, from screwdrivers to mobile cranes to radios causes cancer to them. Those "Known by the State of California to cause cancer" labels actually do more harm than good, since when there is a product that actually could give you cancer, nobody would care! It's like "The little boy who cried wolf".

(Yes, California thinks cranes cause cancer. On the Liebherr website, on the information about the LTM 1030-2.1, there was an image of the cancer label. It was actually referring to the diesel exhaust. Not healthy to breathe, obviously. But does it really cause cancer? I'm not a doctor, so I don't really know.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ben J. Kerman said:

(Yes, California thinks cranes cause cancer. On the Liebherr website, on the information about the LTM 1030-2.1, there was an image of the cancer label. It was actually referring to the diesel exhaust. Not healthy to breathe, obviously. But does it really cause cancer? I'm not a doctor, so I don't really know.)

The unburnt hydrocarbons in diesel exhaust can certainly cause cancer, although how much you'd have to breathe isn't listed.  That's the real problem with these laws (and similar "avoid anything with any toxicity at all" clickbait) is that they ignore the dosage.  Toxicity is meaningless without a dosage,  and those labels are equally meaningless.  Certainly you want to avoid bioaccumulation, but even then you have to wonder if the warning was for "millions of years of exposure might be dangerous" or worse.

I have a similar attitude with hypergolics.  Using them  for a first stage is a crime against the locals and  anyone downrange, and overall environmental nightmare.  Using them for a second stage would ordinarily imply that you couldn't light a second stage (and thus shouldn't be anywhere near hypergolics), but more likely means you have similar missile designs but nothing safer off the shelf.  Using them for vernier thrusters makes all kinds of sense, although I understand that spacex prefers compressed air simply to avoid decontaminating a reusable booster that has leftover hypergolics around (and possibly unburnt residue on the sides).  I do remember that they do use hypergolics in dragon2 (wildly higher Isp  and thrust/mass than anything else in that size) as plenty of sightseers in boats simply *had* to get way to close to Bob and Doug on their way home (and the Dragon 2 had hypergolic contaminants).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, yes. I got it. Still, I wouldn't be sitting (Actually, those cranes are pretty tall. I would need to stand or something) right next to the exhaust, breathing in all those good crane fumes. :wink:

Dosage is important. would 5 grams of (Insert toxic substance) hurt you, 5 micrograms, how about 5 milligrams, or 5 kilograms? (I know the amounts are out of order)

800x0_s3-45575-1s3-45575-S-VA-LIEBHERR-PRILLAMAN-CRANE-100_JPG.jpgSee how big these cranes are!! It surprised me too.

Edited by Ben J. Kerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...