Yes, Cereplast, the one who will be going to contract manufacturing is rolling out a new bio-foam application. Pretty cool as it will compete against Sytrofoam. We wonder what the heat deflection temp is? Can coffee be poured into these new bio-foam cups? We doubt it, but applications will be tremendous.
In the article posted at Cleantech.com, Cereplast CEO Frederic Scheer said that the cost for the product is 20-25% more expensive than traditional polystyrene. Furthermore the starch bases biofoam is produced at tempuratures of 185 degrees Fahrenheit vs. 400-500 degrees for polystyrene.
Other advantages noted in the article; less dense than other biofoams, reduced energy costs, and is only half a pound heavier per cubic foot vs. polystyrene.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
THE GREAT DEBATE FOR DEGRADABLE PLASTICS
And so it begins. Environmental Leader reports today that greenwashing lawsuits are up, and so is climate change deception by companies to position themselves in front of policy decision makers. Then there is news from The National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) calling for restraint in the use of degradable additives in PET products.
Specifically, NAPCOR states in their press release from May 28th that no data has been made publicly available to substantiate or document: 1) the claims of degradability of PET resin products containing degradable additives; 2) the effect of degradable additives on the quality of the PET recycling stream; 3) the impacts of degradable additives on the products made from recycled PET; and 4) the true impact on the service life of these products.
Points 1 & 4 are the major concerns when looking at the market as a whole. With the increase in “green” product claims, and an increase in deception by companies marketing “green,” it serves the plastic PET industry right by getting out in front to ensure customers and brand owners are getting/providing what is being marketed.
Degradable plastic and Bio-degradable plastic are two different products, and the inputs are different at their core. Degradable = Petrochemical. Biodegradable =Agri-chemical. Both are organic, but one is renewable feedstock. I’m not saying one is better than the other. We’re saying we need truth in labeling when consumers are making a purchasing choice. A very wise and respected plastics professional/professor summed it up, “You don’t know what the impact is if there happens to be a lead colorant in the product. Where does that lead end up?”
Point being, we just don’t know what are in these products when marketed as degradable or biodegradable. Yes there are standards both here in the U.S. and the European market, but how do I really know that a credit card marketed as biodegradable is truly degradable? Especially when they have not gone after USDA or BPI certified?
Friday, June 5, 2009
Cap & Trade, Chemcials, Green Amendment
Usually Friday is a slow news day, but for those interested in Cap & Trade, chemicals, and green products you may want to read the full articles over at Washington Post.com and the Wall Street Journal.
Washington Post, High Stakes Quest for Permission to Pollute, by Steven Mufson
Green Amendment drafted into Waxman Markey Bill and introduced by Rep. Gene Green (how awesome is it to have a Rep. named Green in Congress. All “green” legislation should go through his office. Or, would that be more green-washing?) The amendment inserted “emission points” and deleted “sources” and is directed at the petroleum refining industry.
As explained in Mufson’s article, the green amendment has the potential to allow oil refineries the ability to cut carbon emissions at one processing unit rather than the entire facility. Refiners would have to cut Co2 emissions at the single unit by 50%. Of course the bill is still working its way through Congress, many changes will be made, but it is better to have it in now than having to try an insert later.
Here is why I think this is important
Wall Street Journal, Chemical Makers Poised to Gain in Cap-and-Trade System, by Ana Campoy
Over at the Wall Street Journal, Ana Compoy, has an excellent article on how chemical companies stand to gain from the Cap & Trade legislation. She references Dupont Co. expectations that 50% of sales by 2015 will come from renewable materials.
When producing renewable materials, ie green chemicals, large chemical companies will be emitting less Co2 right of the bat. I’m guessing here, but my presumption is that there will be very little re-tooling when taking that “one single unit” and converting it to a green chemical production unit. It is a wide assumption, but I’m betting chemical companies and refiners see this as really good legislation. Especially when they are getting allowances, or otherwise known as free, carbon credits.
I am sure that I’m completely off my rocker, but this is my initial read on what this provision does for the oil refining and chemical industry. Just a few weeks ago there were stories about large refiners and chemical companies being very interested in ethanol and other renewable fuels. See where I’m going with this?
Ms. Compoy leaves us with an excellent quote from Dow Chemical’s Rich Wells, VP of Energy, “Whether your inspiration is cap-and-trade or the prospect of $140-a-barrel oil, you need to be strategically involved in this space.”
Washington Post, High Stakes Quest for Permission to Pollute, by Steven Mufson
Green Amendment drafted into Waxman Markey Bill and introduced by Rep. Gene Green (how awesome is it to have a Rep. named Green in Congress. All “green” legislation should go through his office. Or, would that be more green-washing?) The amendment inserted “emission points” and deleted “sources” and is directed at the petroleum refining industry.
As explained in Mufson’s article, the green amendment has the potential to allow oil refineries the ability to cut carbon emissions at one processing unit rather than the entire facility. Refiners would have to cut Co2 emissions at the single unit by 50%. Of course the bill is still working its way through Congress, many changes will be made, but it is better to have it in now than having to try an insert later.
Here is why I think this is important
Wall Street Journal, Chemical Makers Poised to Gain in Cap-and-Trade System, by Ana Campoy
Over at the Wall Street Journal, Ana Compoy, has an excellent article on how chemical companies stand to gain from the Cap & Trade legislation. She references Dupont Co. expectations that 50% of sales by 2015 will come from renewable materials.
When producing renewable materials, ie green chemicals, large chemical companies will be emitting less Co2 right of the bat. I’m guessing here, but my presumption is that there will be very little re-tooling when taking that “one single unit” and converting it to a green chemical production unit. It is a wide assumption, but I’m betting chemical companies and refiners see this as really good legislation. Especially when they are getting allowances, or otherwise known as free, carbon credits.
I am sure that I’m completely off my rocker, but this is my initial read on what this provision does for the oil refining and chemical industry. Just a few weeks ago there were stories about large refiners and chemical companies being very interested in ethanol and other renewable fuels. See where I’m going with this?
Ms. Compoy leaves us with an excellent quote from Dow Chemical’s Rich Wells, VP of Energy, “Whether your inspiration is cap-and-trade or the prospect of $140-a-barrel oil, you need to be strategically involved in this space.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)