The fallacy of bioplastics
Recently, I was at a client meeting. The client was a large retailer, and the topic we were discussing was bioplastics. I was surprised to hear that they were against them. In theory, bioplastics are a great idea - they don't require us to change our current consumption of plastics, just substitute them. And they biodegrade!
However, as the fellow who managed recycling for the retailer indicated, bioplastics are a logistical nightmare. He said that there are a wide variety of bioplastics available, and a wide quality of bioplastics available. This makes them hard to recycle. On top of that, they are often mistaken for normal plastics, and thrown into the same stream, often contaminating what is usually a profitable recycling venture. And lastly, some of the claims of biodegradability of these bioplastics are not as good as they seem - apparently the three month time frame for biodegrading is under really specific conditions.
So, in conclusion - until there are standards and facilities for bioplastics, they are not a packaging panacea. What are your thoughts on bioplastics? Will a resin identification code system need to be created for these too?
posted by hkm @ 8:13 PM
4 Comments:
Production of just one million tonnes of bioplastic would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by FOUR millions tonnes a year, this is why bioplastics are booming, and it's why we should all change to bioplastics wherever it is practical to do so. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will help reverse the climate change that is responsible for many crop failures, thus increasing the amount of food available in the world.
Forget 'degradable' and 'oxo-degradable' plastics, they are made from ordinary high CO2 generating plastic, the fact they 'might' biodegrade is irrelevant as they have already done their damage by then, by increasing CO2 levels by a factor of at least double their own weight.
http://www.european-bioplastics.org/index.php?id=151
Bioplastics use as little as 25% of the energy used in making plastic.
Read the FAQ on biopastics, these are the facts not the hype, rumour, or old wives tales about Bioplastic
http://www.european-bioplastics.org/index.php?id=191
The best and cheapest bioplastic is made in Europe from mostly potato starch, this bioplastic and products made from it like bags, trays, film, cutlery, promotional items, etc, can be sourced from these sites:
http://www.stanelcoplc.com
http://www.biotec.de
http://www.sphere.eu
http://www.sphere-spain.es
http://www.indaco.ca
http://www.comp-bio.co.uk
http://www.isracaps.com
http://www.biopak.com.au
http://www.biotec-distribution.eu
http://www.atoutpub.fr/documents/produits_bio.pdf
http://www.cep-inform.es/JornadasBio08.pdf
http://www.previtalia.it/P_Landwirtschaft.html
http://www.senatorpen.com/default3.aspx
http://www.nature-pen.com/
http://greensax.com/
http://www.hbabio.cz/produkty.html
http://www.anlplastics.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=95
There are more, just look out for Bioplast GS2189, Bioplast GF105, Bioplast 106, Bioplast GS2189/GF106 blends
This post has been removed by the author.
I like your comments. In North America, we get a different story because most of the plastics here are made of corn starch, which I think is not as environmentally friendly as potato starch. I will check out these websites you have posted.
Thanks!
Hi HKM,
There are benefits for both types of starch(corn or potato) there are also a number of other starch sources that are being applied to Bioplastics, the next biggest would be cassava which is abundent in the far east. The starch in the different sources have different size particles and lead to different characteristics for strengh, melt temperature etc.
Potato wins because it gives the highest starch yield. One snippet from Sphere states [translated from French by Google] "Indeed, for 100.000 tons bioplastic they are 250.000 tons of starch used, that is to say more than 5.000 hectares of potatoes or 10.000 ha to corn", so potatos yield double the amount of starch per hectare than corn. This can be increased by using the Amflora GM potato from BASF which gives 20% more starch.
http://www.corporate.basf.com/en/stories/loesungen/amflora/start.htm?id=V00-5E.7kDFEEbcp3ln
Corn loses out on the PR front because of the use of corn for Biofuels, which in the USA is subsidized and has caused the price of corn to rocket, Bioplastic made from corn gets blamed for this too by people that know nothing about it, the truth is that corn use for Bioplastic is so small an amount it has no effect on the price of corn, also corn for Bioplastic is wanted at the lowest possible price, so that the resultant Bioplastic can compete with 'cheap' petro-plastics, whereas corn for Biofuel is competing with fuel that is not 'cheap' so the Biofuel industry can afford to pay a much higher price to get the corn, thus driving up prices.
The subsidy on Biofuel should be eliminated, hopefully the new President will make this change, as the subsidy causes far too many problems to several different industries.
As for the amount of land that will be used for Bioplastic in the future, the effect on food supplies is still not the issue the hype suggests, as there is a huge amount of land unused in Europe(called set-aside land) and in developing countries, potatoes are easier to grow than corn, and what most people don't know is that China is the biggest potato growing country by far.
http://www.potato2008.org/en/world/index.html
Post a Comment
<< Home