The 'Ocean Cleanup' Device Is Finally Catching Plastic (fastcompany.com) 84
An anonymous reader quotes Fast Company's report on the Ocean Cleanup's project's trouble-plagued multimillion-dollar floating boom:
After redesigning the system, it's finally working: the nonprofit announced today that it's successfully catching plastic. The newest prototype, which sailed to the middle of the Pacific Ocean in June, is now capturing large pieces of plastic trash -- and huge "ghost nets" littered by fishing boats, a major hazard for marine life -- along with microplastics as small as 1 millimeter, the team says.
"After beginning this journey seven years ago, this first year of testing in the unforgivable environment of the high seas strongly indicates that our vision is attainable and that the beginning of our mission to rid the ocean of plastic garbage, which has accumulated for decades, is within our sights," Boyan Slat, the company's founder, said in a release. The device still needs more tweaking, the team says, to be able to retain plastic for long periods of time. Another redesign will follow. But the team is now one step closer to the ultimate goal of harvesting plastic from the ocean to bring it back to land, where it can be recycled into new products.
Their press release notes that their system "is using the natural forces of the ocean to passively catch and concentrate plastic, thereby confirming the most important principle behind the cleanup concept."
"After beginning this journey seven years ago, this first year of testing in the unforgivable environment of the high seas strongly indicates that our vision is attainable and that the beginning of our mission to rid the ocean of plastic garbage, which has accumulated for decades, is within our sights," Boyan Slat, the company's founder, said in a release. The device still needs more tweaking, the team says, to be able to retain plastic for long periods of time. Another redesign will follow. But the team is now one step closer to the ultimate goal of harvesting plastic from the ocean to bring it back to land, where it can be recycled into new products.
Their press release notes that their system "is using the natural forces of the ocean to passively catch and concentrate plastic, thereby confirming the most important principle behind the cleanup concept."
Well done (Score:5, Insightful)
Well done for getting this to work. There were a lot of people rushing in to criticise and say it would never work, but you stuck with the hard engineering work and made it happen.
Combined with some drone ships we can start making an effort to clean up our mess now. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
If it works we can only hope that more of them will be deployed.
Re: (Score:3)
If it works we can only hope that more of them will be deployed.
That depends on what you mean by "work". Straining micro-bits of plastic out of millions of square miles of open ocean, and then hauling it thousands of miles to land, is going to be way way way less efficient that cleaning up the problem here [pinimg.com].
Re:Well done (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to do both. At source and deal with what is already out there.
Microplastics are a difficult problem. Hard to filter out of the oceans. Don't really want to introduce microplastic eating algae into that ecosystem. Still, if we collect the larger bits they won't be breaking down into microplastics any more.
The handy thing about the ocean is that drones float on it, so a solar powered drone is quite feasible. Maybe even a giant RTG powered one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microplastics disappear on their own when abrasive and biological action turns them into molecules.
Re:Well done (Score:5, Insightful)
Not nearly quickly enough.
Which is not relevant, either way, because this device isn't removing microplastics, only the bigger pieces. For the microplastics, the only solution is to wait until they disappear, whether it goes quickly or slowly.
To prevent new microplastics, the far easiest solution is to remove the source.
And the biggest danger to fish population is not plastics, but people eating too many. And if we reduce the fishing fleet, we'll also reduce plastic from fishing nets.
Re: (Score:2)
Abuse of buzzwords demonstrates their legitimacy.
Microplastics are defined as pieces up to 5mm in length. (Presumably that includes 5mm plastic spheres.) You've only demonstrated your illiteracy.
This is like calling a gnat a microorganism.
It's not a great name. But what would be better? It has to be catchy. Descriptive is not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Milli- would have been a good prefix to use, as it well fits objects hovering between macroscopic (naked-eye obvious) and microscopic (without optics, invisible as single entities). Catchy? It's not terrible. It's not like "microplastics" just rolls off the tongue either.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean when fish eat them, and then we eat the fish, and they go around through mouths and colons enough times.
We really need to stop releasing microplastics into the ocean because there is no way to clean them up.
Re: (Score:2)
We really need to stop releasing microplastics into the ocean because there is no way to clean them up.
Around a quarter of oceanic plastics come from tire dust. Are we ready to give up cars yet? Because there's literally no other way to fix that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Around a quarter of oceanic plastics come from tire dust.
No. What the study found is that about a quarter of plastic microparticles in SAN FRANCISCO BAY came from tire dust.
The lessons are:
1. Americans generate very little plastic litter.
2. Oceanic plastics is almost entirely created by the 3rd world.
3. Plastic pollution should be stopped at the source, not by sending ships to the middle of the ocean.
Re:Well done (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't really want to introduce microplastic eating algae into that ecosystem.
It may take a few hundred thousand years, but it will happen eventually. There is energy in those bonds, life will find a way to digest plastics naturally in the ocean and the environment.
There was a time when the world was covered with the wood of deceased trees because no fungus or biological entity could break it down (a lot of coal comes from this time period), once life learnt to break down wood it quickly spread around the planet. Once life learns to break down plastic, it too will spread around the planet.
I expect plastivores will be released into nature by humans, by accident long before evolution finds a way though- then we'll all be worrying about how we keep our plastics from "rotting".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Once life learns to break down plastic, it too will spread around the planet."
awww, shiiit. :-)
Then the same extremists (who used to parade around with their "coal not dole" banners) will no doubt be complaining about the bacterial crisis and demanding the world's government do something about the plastic eating bugs that will destroy our way of life.
Re: Well done (Score:2)
Re:Well done (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't the first time microplastics have been found in otherwise "pristine" natural environments; they've also been found in remote lakes in Italy and Mongolia, in floodplain soils in a Swiss nature reserve, and in melting Arctic sea ice. The conclusion is clear: Microplastics are being transported through the air, making them a global problem, not a regional pollutant."
https://psmag.com/environment/... [psmag.com]
Why not both? (Score:2)
This is for the stuff already in the ocean.
It should in no way stop anyone from stopping the nightmare that can be seen in your picture too.
Jesus fucking Christ, what are the people there thinking? Al least the *smallest* amount of effort (a net to catch it, and hauling it to a pile somewhere) would completely solve the symptoms. (Throwing it there, in the water, needs to be solved right after.)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Absolutely, now if only the climate extremists currently demanding western governments "do something" would go to S.E.Asia and get them to do something instead.
but then I doubt its really about climate change or pollution at all for those people.
Re: Why not both? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
SYNERGY! (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure this joke has been made repeatedly since this idea was first floated in 2012.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be easier to refrain from ridiculing them if they spared us bullshit like "harvesting plastic from the ocean to bring it back to land, where it can be recycled into new products".
It could. You cook the plastics, capture their gases, and use them in manufacturing. It's not profitable so nobody does it, but it's a viable tactic for recycling that stuff if we care about cleanup.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they using sailboats to do this, or are they using diesel fuel engines?
Re: (Score:1)
Um, it will "work" but will not have any effect on the problem. It would take literally hundreds of thousands of these running.
The problem isn't whether this works or not (Score:2)
The problem is encapsulated by this statement:
There are no recycling facilities that will take it, because those are commercial entities and there's no profit due to the high cost or sorting and cleaning.
Re: (Score:2)
This still results in carbon release but reduces the need to pull as much oil from the ground and most importantly would be a destination for those "unrecycleable plastics" other than the oceans or landfills. With
Re: (Score:1)
The problem I have with it is that there's not a chance in hell that it isn't killing sea life. Their original press release talked about things like fish, and turtles.
But it's not until you've climbed out of the ocean after a night dive, with a stinging sensation all over your right hand, thinking you've got a jellyfish tentacle around it before looking down to see loads of pin-prick sized black eyes looking up at you from what appear to be glass shards, when upon looking closer you realise your hand is be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we recently found out microplastics are dispersed in the atmosphere and landing like snow in the Swiss Alps. That one will probably be harder to clean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Groovy, baby... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, today's Daily Dilbert [dilbert.com] has something to say.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you remove one of the sources of later sub-micro bits, you have an indirect way to deal with at least some of the micro plastic. It's no full solution to all our worries, but it is at least a solution for a significant part of it.
On the other hand, today's Daily Dilbert [dilbert.com] has something to say.
Unfortunately Dilbert's PHB is an excellent model for the way the people who run this planet think.
The biggest most dangerous problem here... (Score:1)
Is that some asshole will declare the oceans "clean" as soon as all the *visible* (macro) plastics are gone. Making it much more unlikely that the micro-plastics will be filtered out too.
Re: (Score:2)
microplastics eventually filter up to the top predators. i.e. humans. if we bury or cremate the remains we'll slowly filter the ocean through many generations.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, It looks like the yellow balls (floaters) used in the machine are made of some plastic as well? I suppose, these will constantly rub and shed plastic dust?
Cleanup good, lack of pain bad (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Fishermen usually don't catch 1mm category particles unless they are krill-fishing in which case they come at least within one magnitude close.
2) The art is to fish for junk and not the fish and not leave your half broken nets behind in the ocean.
I see some differences there your so called professionals don't have expertise in.
unforgivable environment (Score:4, Funny)
What did the high seas do that was so bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Well it refuses to recycle plastic trash. Humans dump it there so it's out of sight and out of mind, but the ocean won't play ball...
Re: (Score:2)
in the unforgivable environment of the high seas What did the high seas do that was so bad?
They turned out to be unable to yield infinite amounts of resources and accommodate infinite amounts of garbage.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So no microplastics then. (Score:3)
The ones below 1mm that are the biggest problem.
Re: (Score:3)
They are also problems largely created through the breakdown of larger plastics.
Re: (Score:2)
And the simplest and cheapest solution is to stop dumping garbage in rivers.
Re: (Score:2)
And the simplest and cheapest solution is to stop dumping garbage in rivers.
Then why have we just made it legal to dump waste into rivers again?
Re: (Score:2)
Then why have we just made it legal to dump waste into rivers again?
Good question, but the answer is not "let's go out in a boat in the middle of the ocean, and try to catch plastic that came out of some river where we legalized dumping"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it is. You go tell others what they can and can't do. We'll sit around and try and solve problems instead of wishful thinking.
Please leave the hopes and prayers to the US gun lobby.
Fools (Score:2)
Negativist fools who have zero experience in hard science or tough engineering challenges claimed this would never work and tried to make them give up after it failed the first time. Lesson from this is the same as that from the space program â" learn from errors and keep trying.
Re:Fools (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is very light on details. How do they define "working" ? What percentage of the newly dumped plastic can be cleaned up by one vessel ?
Re: (Score:2)
What percentage of the newly dumped plastic can be cleaned up by one vessel ?
Slightly odd metric. If the vessels are cheap and can be autonomous we could have a lot of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You would need about 400,000 new of them every year just to keep up with the increased waste stream.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly odd metric. If the vessels are cheap and can be autonomous we could have a lot of them.
It's not a complete metric, because there are many other factors involved (like cost), but at least it would give us some idea of the scale of the problem.
Somehow I don't have high hopes of a vessel working for very long in such 'unforgivable' environment as the world's oceans, without somebody ready to fix mechanical issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, another way to stop dumping of plastics by fishing vessels is by having the ocean heave it back on board...
Re: (Score:3)
How do they define "working" ?
It functions as designed to capture oceanic garbage. Perhaps you should read about the design. [wikipedia.org]
The system uses passive floating structures localized in the ocean gyres, where marine debris tends to accumulate. These structures act as a containment boom. The boom drifts with the wind, waves and ocean currents to capture marine debris. A solid screen underneath the floating pipe catches subsurface debris. The system requires no external energy.
What percentage of the newly dumped plastic can be cleaned up by one vessel ?
That's as silly as asking what percentage of new fires will be pu
Re: (Score:2)
There is never any question you can catch plastic with nets. It isn't a "hard science". However, it is pointless. You will never catch a significant enough percentage. That is the "hard science". People like you don't understand the magnitude of the problem.
Dead sealife (Score:2)
There have been reports of the cleanup device also capturing sealife, which then dies.
Ocean Cleanup says the will further tune their cleanup mechanism to avoid this from happening.
Still, i rather have a few fish die and have clean(er) oceans, not forgetting that these plastics kill way more.
wow! (Score:2)
and huge "ghost nets" littered by fishing boats
This is quite a system if it can gather nets full of fishing boats!!
How can it catch only plastic (Score:2)
...and not everything else drifting in the water at the same time - eg marine life?
Genuine question.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't. That's why it's deployed where the ratio of wildlife to trash is low and the density of the trash is high.
false positives (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What about the neustons? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Does pollution capture outweigh pollution output (Score:1)
What a joke (Score:2)
The reason why it ended up in the ocean to begin with is because somebody decided to "recycle" it. If we want to stop plastic from going into the ocean there are two ways to do it: burn it or bury it. The recycling sham has been revealed.
How much marine wildlife does it collect? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)