Another recycled blog from http://www.nvireuk.com. Recycling ideas makes as much sense as recycling materials. Context moves on and an old idea may come back. Some of the UK coastline suffers badly from erosion. Many landfill sites are filling up. Plastics can stay around in the environment for hundreds of years, and recycling them isn’t always an ideal solution due to contamination with other materials. Coastal waters are often polluted. All of these problems could be addressed in part by deploying carbon reefs, made up mainly of plastic refuse. Instead of making concrete blocks to prevent erosion, and bearing in mind the enormous amount of CO2 generated during concrete manufacture, the large plastic bales made at recycling plants could be used instead. If these were dumped into the sea at erosion sites, they would protect just as well as concrete, but would also serve to dispose of low grade plastic waste, locking the carbon up for a long time. The waste could be blended with other sorts of waste too, designing the bales in such a way that pollution is minimised, but density is kept high enough for the bales not to be washed away. If organic waste is heat treated and carbonised, gas can be extracted during this process that could be used for energy production. The carbonised waste would act to absorb pollutants from the seawater, making a positive contribution to seawater quality. This would make beaches more pleasant for swimmers and also create a healthy environment on which corals and other sea creatures could make a home. In short, a plastic/carbon reef would result. Over time, this could be left as a reef or further dumping could result in reclaimed land. Ironically, although this idea could help the environment significantly, it would be illegal under current environmental protection legislation, which forbids dumping plastic in the sea. (Since I wrote this, Len Rosen @lenrosen4 informs me that this is not true, see his comment for details, thanks Len). Perhaps it could be circumvented by arguing that it is not dumping, but it isn’t obvious what line of distinction would be used. Environmentalists are once again shown to be enemies of the environment they claim to want to protect. Sad, very sad.
- Follow The more accurate guide to the future on WordPress.com
Ian Pearson BSc DSc(hc) FWAAS CITP FBCS FWIF
I’m an all-round futurist/futurologist with a sound engineering foundation and over 1800 inventions. I spend most of my time writing futures material for white papers or to accompany PR campaigns, but I’ve also delivered well over 1000 conference presentations and appeared over 700 times on TV and Radio, often following writing I’ve done for PR campaigns. I’ve written hundreds of commissioned reports, press articles and seven books, most recently Society Tomorrow, Space Anchor, Total Sustainability and You Tomorrow (2nd Edn). I sometimes undertake phone or face-to-face consultancy on any aspect of the future, usually from a technology perspective, using over 30 years experience as a futurologist and engineer. I have demonstrated about 85% accuracy when looking 10-15 years ahead.
I am a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society and a Fellow of the World Academy for Arts and Science and the World innovation Foundation.
My email address is email@example.com
My company: Futurizon
You Tomorrow 2nd Edition
My sci-fi book
Things that ought to work
Business Weekly Blog
- Future sleep: furniturenews.net/news/articles/… 7 hours ago
- I need one of those, but I need another machine to check if our cat is sleeping under one of the bushes first, or w… twitter.com/i/web/status/8… 10 hours ago
- RT @NGRColosimo: Green light for UK driverless car road trials - bbc.co.uk/news/technolog… 14 hours ago
- From a CO2 alarmist POV, electric car batteries look far less attractive if they cause so much CO2 to be produced s… twitter.com/i/web/status/8… 1 day ago
- My view is that there is a danger it might accelerate again after 2050: timeguide.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/wil… twitter.com/BjornLomborg/s… 1 day ago
- 184,432 hits