Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 12, 2021 at 22:55 vote accept Kav
Mar 12, 2021 at 22:24 answer added Andrew timeline score: 2
Mar 12, 2021 at 21:43 comment added Andrew And if you found a replacement for PS, then there would be no S. It is produced primarily for making polymers like PS and ABS etc
Mar 12, 2021 at 17:57 comment added Kav Andrew, I think you are suggesting that the cost-effective process -- if exists --- makes S itself valuable than burning S or PS as fuel. Or in other words, the process counters the motives to find a plastic replacement of PS.
Mar 12, 2021 at 17:48 comment added Kav Well, the directions of ideas shall diverge then. Let us take polystyrene (PS) as an example. Firstly, find an alternative and/or replacement of PS. Secondly, pyrolyze PS to simple hydrocarbons and refine them in similar processes existent in petrochemical industries. Thirdly, potential eight carbons monomer -- styrene (S) -- is made into isooctane (IO) the fuel, instead of polymerization.
Mar 12, 2021 at 17:42 comment added Andrew If you have a cost-effective process for depolymerizing polystyrene back to relatively clean styrene, it's more valuable as styrene than fuel. But so far, such processes,while known, are not economically feasible.
Mar 12, 2021 at 17:41 history edited Kav CC BY-SA 4.0
added 31 characters in body
Mar 12, 2021 at 16:28 history edited Kav CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1 character in body
Mar 12, 2021 at 7:54 comment added Waylander The process is scientifically feasible. The problem is always the economics of doing this v the cost of preparing the product from raw ingredients
Mar 12, 2021 at 2:03 history asked Kav CC BY-SA 4.0