To make a ton of regular paper requires 100 tons of water, TBM says, while its Limex paper is made without water. In place of 20 trees, it uses less than a ton of limestone, as well as 200 kilograms of polyolefin.
...
"Making paper from wood chips involves planting trees, which can be carbon neutral, so I’m not sure how much appeal this will have" from an environmental perspective.
Appeal from an environmental perspective: zero. Less than zero. Polyolefins are plastics. The vast majority are made from fossils. Polyolefins can be made starting from biomass but then so is ordinary paper. It's baffling if the inventor or his customers think that he's improved on the traditional environmental tradeoffs associated with paper production.
Polyolefins are some of the safest plastics around, environmentally speaking, and are fully recyclable. The paper may actually be as good or better than standard pulp paper is.
It may not be, too! Calculating the lifecycle is complex. But it isn't something than is easy to assume one way or the other.
They're starting off by replacing a potentially renewable resource (trees) with two nonrenewable resources (plastic and limestone). It could still come out ahead in the lifecycle analysis, but it's not a great place to start.
>and are fully recyclable
How about after mixing them with a bunch of limestone? Generally "hybrid" materials aren't recyclable (tetrapacks, mylar bags, wet strength cardboard, etc).
So I know limestone is technically a non-renewable resource, since we're using it far faster than it is being created.
Should, uh, we actually be worried? It's like 7% of the Earth's crust; are we actually using limestone fast enough to use up a significant fraction of the usable limestone in the expected lifetime of humanity?
It lists a variety of elements (like antimony) that are surprisingly constrained. If I were to pick the most critical material on the list, though, it would be phosphates. The green boom that feeds the world needs phosphates, the world supply of phosphate-bearing rock is small, and there are no possible substitutes.
This. They are not making paper out of stone, they are mixing limestone in plastic. No doubt there are some benefits to it (less plastic is used - though not 80% less because limestone has higher density), but marketing this as "paper" is highly misleading.
Plastics are commonly whitened with Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide already. Calcium Carbonate is a pretty benign chemical as far as potential problems for the plastic waste stream go. I don't see any outstanding issue with its recyclability.
I did not say that polyolefins were dangerous. But they are less biodegradable and less renewable than the trees of which paper is normally made. And while polyolefins like empty distilled water jugs are easily recycled, I very much doubt that this blend of limestone and polyolefin can be recycled by the usual curbside collectors.
>But they are less biodegradable and less renewable than the trees of which paper is normally made.
This is not the safe bet many people think. If you look at the entire lifecycle of a product, plastic bags (to take an example) have a better footprint across the board than paper ones.
> If you look at the entire lifecycle of a product, plastic bags (to take an example) have a better footprint across the board than paper ones. //
Importantly we don't factor in destruction of the planet: use of non-renewable oil and pollution (and is impact on food supplies, etc.). This is where the cost seems higher with disposable plastic, a cost we are yet to pay.
The footprint calculation is our best effort to factor everything in, and that includes environmental degradation.
I don't want to minimize the difficulty of this- it's really, really hard to get right. But we do learn things, and (perhaps most importantly) we learn counter-intuitive things. And one of them is that plastics, even taking the tremendous problems with garbage patches in the ocean and the like, and not the clear-cut negative that our emotional side tends to think.
I guess the birds getting killed by plastic bags in the environment and the sea are happy to know that the life cycle energy consumption is better than paper.
That said I do not use paper bags or plastic bags but a recycled canvas bag I've used for hundreds of shopping trips.
Good to hear it. You're probably close to breaking even on the environmental cost it took to make that canvas bag.
//
The more energy it takes to make something, the greater the potential environmental impact.
Plastic in the ocean is awful. The vast majority of it comes from just a few countries. What some westerner uses to take home their groceries isn't even a rounding error in terms of source waste.
Reading the report says "Low-residual-value plastic waste is more likely to leak than high-value plastic [...] his means that products or packaging with low residual value (plastic shopping bags, for instance) are less likely to be collected; they therefore become a particularly significant contributor to ocean plastic"
Please also note that the biggest contributor, and the biggest reason for China being that contributor, is simple lack of a functional garbage collection system at all in large parts of the country.
I emphasize this because I think people tend to focus on the minutiae (ie, paper, plastic or canvas when it comes to grocery bags) when the bulk of the problem has nothing to do with bag choice, it has to due to a complete lack of wastestream infrastructure. It is understandable to a degree. The problem is so overwhelming, it feels like what one person can do is never going to be enough.
The only information I have regarding durable, intended-for-reuse grocery bags is for canvas, and the carbon break-even point is somewhere ~150 uses compared to getting one-off bags every time.
I would guess that heavy-duty plastic would fare significantly better, because cotton in general is an awful crop from an energy input standpoint, but I can't give you a more precise answer than that, I'm afraid.
If canvas bags are better after 150 uses, and in general are seen as wasteful to produce, I think that recycled plastic bags are fine. Thanks for the info.
Not to mention, limestone mining destroys the landscape just like any quarry does. Living on a 'limestone coast' I would hate to see that beautiful countryside pockmarked with any more limestone mines.
> limestone mining destroys the landscape just like any quarry does
In South East Asia, limestone quarrying and mining has destroyed the habitat of many species. There are dozens of species that are extinct, or are going extinct due to limestone mining. They clear entire limestone mountain ranges and turn them into cement.
All I can think is how this screws up existing recycle processes. In Denmark quite a lot of paper is recycled, but how does that work with this stone paper? If it cannot recycled together in a meaningful way, it's dead in the water.
What ever "semi-permanently" means. But I was thinking that both traditional paper and this stone paper will end in the same recycle bin, so that needs to be possible to seperate. If it can't, there is no reason to use this at all for general paper as it screws up the existing recycle process.
Pulping involves heavy use of chemicals and then treatment of the waste water. It's not obvious which process is more environmentally benign and along what dimensions.
...
"Making paper from wood chips involves planting trees, which can be carbon neutral, so I’m not sure how much appeal this will have" from an environmental perspective.
Appeal from an environmental perspective: zero. Less than zero. Polyolefins are plastics. The vast majority are made from fossils. Polyolefins can be made starting from biomass but then so is ordinary paper. It's baffling if the inventor or his customers think that he's improved on the traditional environmental tradeoffs associated with paper production.