|  | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Qwertyminater  | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2023 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Lego abandons effort to make oil-free bricks | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | LEGO products | |
|
| In LEGO products, jaradtke writes:
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2023 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: Lego abandons effort to make oil-free bricks | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | LEGO products | |
|
| In LEGO products, jaradtke writes:
I wonder if it’s a quality issue, or finding enough of the alternate substances.
Nita Rae
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ghyde | | Posted: | Sep 24, 2023 20:00 | | Subject: | Re: Lego abandons effort to make oil-free bricks | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | LEGO products | |
|
| In LEGO products, cosmicray writes:
| | In LEGO products, jaradtke writes:
I wonder if it’s a quality issue, or finding enough of the alternate substances.
Nita Rae
|
There's certainly no shortage of plastics that don't get recycled and
are instead stored in a warehouse or other storage facility.
The whole point of making something sustainably recyclable wouldn't be to
make it oil-free, it would actually be to make it take plastics for recycling
into LEGO bricks. Which in turn could themselves be recycled into other plastic
items. Thus completing the cycle.
What TLG wanted was close but not ideal.
They really need to focus their efforts on reducing the amount of waste plastic
that ends up in a landfill because nobody can be bothered to filter it out of
the incoming waste streams.
Just my opinion.
Cheers ...
ghyde
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Fr0stByt3 | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2023 07:17 | | Subject: | Re: Lego abandons effort to make oil-free bricks | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | LEGO products | |
|
| In LEGO products, cosmicray writes:
"It said the reason for that was because extra steps were required in the
production process, which meant it needed to use more energy.
As a result, it said it has "decided not to progress" with making bricks
from the material."
I'm somewhat skeptical. If the new bricks would have caused more carbon emissions
because they require more energy to produce, then wouldn't that be less of
an issue if the energy used to create them was sourced from wind, solar, or nuclear?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2023 09:27 | | Subject: | Re: Lego abandons effort to make oil-free bricks | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | LEGO products | |
|
| In LEGO products, Fr0stByt3 writes:
| | […]
"It said the reason for that was because extra steps were required in the
production process, which meant it needed to use more energy.
As a result, it said it has "decided not to progress" with making bricks
from the material."
I'm somewhat skeptical. If the new bricks would have caused more carbon emissions
because they require more energy to produce, then wouldn't that be less of
an issue if the energy used to create them was sourced from wind, solar, or nuclear?
|
If some of those extra steps are during brick production (moulding factories),
then tell me which of these countries are 100% “wind, solar, or nuclear”?
China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Mexico, USA, Vietnam.
My guess is (most of) the extra steps are during the making of the raw material.
So, second question: in which country should the PET be recycled to use 100%
wind, solar, or nuclear?
You have more choice here (lots of more bad choices  ).
And then, how do you transport the to-be-recycled PET to this new recycling factory
and how do you transport the recycled pellets to the moulding factories? Without
adding more CO²?
(PET transport should be as CO²-expensive as for ABS (unless the weight is highly
different), so that question should reduce to: Without adding more transport?)
Besides, even if you found a magical country that has 100% wind, solar, or nuclear,
and that could produce the PET (yeah, that small 2-huts island won’t do), neither
wind, solar, or nuclear are 0% CO²: you’re using energy that could be used for
something else, so you’re requiring more energy capacity, so you’re requiring
more wind turbine, solar panel, or nuclear plant to be built, and that’s never
CO²-free.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2023 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: Lego abandons effort to make oil-free bricks | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | LEGO products | |
|
| In LEGO products, SylvainLS writes:
| | In LEGO products, Fr0stByt3 writes:
| | […]
"It said the reason for that was because extra steps were required in the
production process, which meant it needed to use more energy.
As a result, it said it has "decided not to progress" with making bricks
from the material."
I'm somewhat skeptical. If the new bricks would have caused more carbon emissions
because they require more energy to produce, then wouldn't that be less of
an issue if the energy used to create them was sourced from wind, solar, or nuclear?
|
If some of those extra steps are during brick production (moulding factories),
then tell me which of these countries are 100% “wind, solar, or nuclear”?
China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Mexico, USA, Vietnam.
My guess is (most of) the extra steps are during the making of the raw material.
So, second question: in which country should the PET be recycled to use 100%
wind, solar, or nuclear?
You have more choice here (lots of more bad choices ).
And then, how do you transport the to-be-recycled PET to this new recycling factory
and how do you transport the recycled pellets to the moulding factories? Without
adding more CO²?
(PET transport should be as CO²-expensive as for ABS (unless the weight is highly
different), so that question should reduce to: Without adding more transport?)
Besides, even if you found a magical country that has 100% wind, solar, or nuclear,
and that could produce the PET (yeah, that small 2-huts island won’t do), neither
wind, solar, or nuclear are 0% CO²: you’re using energy that could be used for
something else, so you’re requiring more energy capacity, so you’re requiring
more wind turbine, solar panel, or nuclear plant to be built, and that’s never
CO²-free.
|
Good questions making a good read.
Let's make that CO² → CO₂ and I totally agree. Did you use up all your Unicode
credits with the œ explanation? The ₂ Unicode U+2082 is intended for the fractional
part of custom fractions, but since this forum strips the (sub)2(/sub) markers,
this will do. Let's not square the carbon monoxide but stick to carbon-dioxide
only - or actually, this is more about the entire picture of energy transformation
that's irrevocably lost to entropy.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2023 19:06 | | Subject: | Re: Lego abandons effort to make oil-free bricks | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | LEGO products | |
|
| In LEGO products, hpoort writes:
| | […]
Good questions making a good read.
Let's make that CO² → CO₂ and I totally agree. Did you use up all your Unicode
credits with the œ explanation?
|
It’s laziness¹ and “good enough is the only best”
———
¹ On my keyboard:
— Œ is AltGr + O
— ² is ^ then 2, where 2 is Shift + «
— ₂ is Compose then _ then 2, where Compose is Fn + CtrlRight ², _ is AltGr +
Space and 2 is Shift + «.
² Damned laptop keyboard.
| | The ₂ Unicode U+2082 is intended for the fractional
part of custom fractions, but since this forum strips the (sub)2(/sub) markers,
this will do. Let's not square the carbon monoxide but stick to carbon-dioxide
only -
|
^ this should be a —, not a hyphen 
| | or actually, this is more about the entire picture of energy transformation
that's irrevocably lost to entropy.
|
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Minnesota
Ireland, Cork
Australia, Queensland
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Netherlands, Groningen