this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
114 points (97.5% liked)
Asklemmy
44176 readers
2012 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's highly likely there's a catch, like you have to grow 250 tons of bacteria. Usually there is with amazing advances which get a news story but not a lot of reaction from other academics.
They’re still in the process of genetically engineering the bacteria, so their efficiency is still a work in progress.
There’s also the issue that economies of scale tip heavily in plastics direction,
It’s not a carbon neutral process. There’s significant both heating and cooling involved.
And, it doesn’t really solve the issue of retiring plastics.
The last update I read on the bacteria, prior to the genetic engineering, mentioned that the bacteria didn’t actually like the plastic and would only really break it down for want of something more practical. Presumably that has been solved, but I didn’t see it brought up in the article.
This feels like an ice 9 situation