all 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 40 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Also, the most common 3D printing filament is made of the bioplastic polylactic acid, which is typically derived from corn. Whether that is strictly "better" from an environmental perspective is a fair question.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The only thing that matters is if it’s biodegradable. If the plastic won’t break down naturally, it doesn’t matter if it’s made from starch or crude oil.

    Polylactic acid is a low weight semi-crystalline bioplastic used in agriculture, medicine, packaging and textile. Polylactic acid is one of the most widely used biopolymers, accounting for 33% of all bioplastics produced in 2021. Although biodegradable in vivo, polylactic acid is not completely degradable under natural environmental conditions, notably under aquatic conditions. Polylactic acid disintegrates into microplastics faster than petroleum-based plastics and may pose severe threats to the exposed biota.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-023-01564-8

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    From what I've seen, at the bare minimum, it will break down completely back into plant polymers faster than other plastics could hope to break down into anything non-dangerous to the environment, and even if it does break down into microplastics quicker, I'd rather have something like that, which can then later break down into plant polymers, rather than something that slowly leeches microplastics into the environment for the next few centuries, and doesn't really break down into anything much less dangerous past that point.

    To cite some interesting points from the paper you referenced:

    The biodegradation of polylactic acid occurs in two main steps: fragmentation and mineralization. [...] which can be biotic or abiotic. For instance, biotic hydrolysis involves microorganisms and/or enzymes, whereas abiotic hydrolysis involves mechanical weathering.

    This means it can break down via multiple mechanisms, with or without the presence of any microbes, but only given specific environmental circumstances, which is why it doesn't work well in aquatic environments, as previously mentioned. However, some of it does still break down there, and if it later exits that aquatic environment, other processes can begin to break down what remains.

    The authors concluded that polylactic acid and its blends are similar to non-biodegradable plastics in terms of biodegradation in aquatic environment.

    [They] proposed that low temperatures along with low bacterial density make the sea water unsuitable for the biodegradation of polylactic acid.

    However, on the microplastics point, while they do state it degrades quickly, in terms of overall quantity of microplastics produced, it's actually lower than other common plastics.

    The authors reported that polylactic acid forms almost 18 times fewer microplastics as compared to the petroleum-based plastic, polypropylene.

    They do still mention that it will still likely have many negative effects on marine life, though, even given that. Surely we'll stop dumping plastics in the ocean now, for the good of the planet! Or not, because profits matter more, am I right?

    From another study, it seems that soil with certain combinations of bacteria, at regular temperatures found in nature, could mineralize about 24% of PLA in 150 days, which is pretty damn good compared to how long it would take non-bioplastics to do so.

    And of course, when put into dedicated composting facilities that can reach high temperatures, PLA can be composted extremely effectively. And this is just regular PLA we're talking about, not things like cPLA, which can be 100% composted within regular composting facilities within 2-4 months. (coincidentally, most biodegradable utensils are now made of cPLA)

    I wouldn't doubt we start seeing even more compostable variants of filament for 3D printers specifically popping up as actual distribution and manufacturing for the material becomes more cost effective and widespread. I was able to find cPLA filament at a reasonable price just from a simple search, and there's even a biodegradable flexible filament as an alternative to TPU, made of oyster powder, which is 100% compostable (though is about 4-8X the price of regular TPU per gram as of now)

    None of this discounts any of the current environmental impacts of 3D printing materials, of course, but a lot of PLA now can already be almost entirely, if not actually entirely composted in local municipal composting facilities, and there's even more compostable alternatives that exist today.

    I compost my failed or no-longer-needed PLA prints, and my city even explicitly states to put it in my compost bin, as it's supported by our composting system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you're only using natural (unpigmented) PLA that's one thing, but the pigments in colored PLA vary widely in terms of environmental effects and compostability. Composting old PLA prints may release all sorts of crud into the end product you really don't want to fertilize your garden with, always check your filament's MSDS first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • The MSDS for the filament I use says that it doesn't contain any PBT/vPvB substance or endocrine disruptors. I presume that means it's likely fine, at least for the brand I use.

    The only 2 ingredients are PLA, and calcium carbonate, which is also found in egshells, some vegetables, and is coincidentally commonly used as an additive to composting piles that can eliminate pathogens.

    I also think the overall amount of pigment entering the environment from something like this will be quite low compared to practically any other contaminant that enters the waste stream from people who just don't know what's compostable throwing random things in the bin.

    There's also the fact that there's probably larger overall harms from all the microplastics existing in a landfill rather than being broken down entirely into plant proteins in a composting facility but with a minute amount of contamination. It's not perfect, but it's probably better than leaving all the microplastics floating around for decades if not centuries, depending on the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Do you rather have me buying a complete new device than printiner a spare part with PLA (not derived from oil)?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago*

    The plastic filament I use can be near infinitely recycled and is also biodegradable, while being made from plant resin and not hydrocarbons. This shit will break down before it even gets a chance to be used if not stored properly.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    yes my 3d printer is the problem, not factories or corporations.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 110 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (53 children)

    Do you....drive a car? Rubber rubbing off from your tires onto the road is one of the main contribution (2nd highest) to ocean micro plastics as your tires are filled with them suspended in the tire...

  • source
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (39 children)

    Tires are made of rubber though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Tires have suspended micro plastics in the rubber, and small particles of rubber are still under the 'micro plastics' umbrella as a synthetic plastic polymer, glad you have such an understanding

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Shouldn't those be micro rubbers and I'm not talking about my condoms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    The main definition of rubber is only differentiated by it's elastic makeup, I understand you're working with a 5th grade reading level but, homie... they're classified as micro plastics as much as you want to ...do whatever this is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Fifth grade?

    I can't afford me no college education you liberal!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Dude this is a place for shitposting. Go somewhere else if you want to be pedantic.

    You realize you're arguing with Satan's maggoty cum fart, yeah? Might be a hint of something...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    I'll have you know Sire Pipette SatansMaggotyCumFart Esq. (Formally known as the Artist cumfart) and I are on nominal grounds and I will assuredly still be acting in such a manner

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You must live in a city, elitist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Even if you personally decide 'auhh my micro rubbers' a tire isn't a solid block of rubber, it has structural enforcement that is plastic, and both of these polymers, when under 5mm, is micro plastic by definition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    5mm what's that like ten inches?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Rubber, including natural rubber, is a hydrocarbon polymer and should probably count as a plastic in any useful definition of the word for this context. Normally natural rubber is biodegradable, of course, but we vulcanise it for usage in tyres, and that makes it much less so. As such, tyres are a huge source of either microplastic pollution or, if you want to call it something else, functionally-identical microrubber pollution

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    This isn't someone who is ignorant, they're just a troll don't strain yourself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    In my defence they had not posted the replies to others when I had started typing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    And in my defense this is a shitpost community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    In my defense, in certain terms, you've got an itty bitty peepee

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    And here I thought you blocked me!

    I’m glad you saw the light and would like to continue to see my genius contributions to the conversations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Oh yeah buddy you are blocked and I'm delighted, I just didn't want a notification every time you spoke I can still see your messages and contribute voluntarily, love learning nuance of moderation systems, anyway, it's been an honor to hear that when Ur-a-pee-an, your dick is 5mm and honestly, it's been a delightful honor to be gifted this knowledge by one such as you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Sir (or madam) you do realize this is a serious shitposting community right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I even put up a nice little sign for you, I thought it was cute, it was my favorite from google

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    See it doesn’t hurt to have a bit of a sense of humor now does it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    pokes gently nop, good job cumfart

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    This section is actually so long that my app is not letting me see your replies because the (continue thread) button doesn't work but, Pipette SatansMaggotyCumFart esq. Formally known as cumfart, just wanna say what a great name that is and you're beautiful for it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    tbf what matters here more is microplastic production per capita rather than overall production

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That is what's referred to as 'a distinction without a difference'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 68 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    PLA is basically plant starch. most 3d printing is done with PLA

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    made from doesn't mean same properties (e.g. biodegradability)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    PLA doesn't not hold up to the elements. sunlight breaks it down

    it turns to floppy noodle in summer heat

    do you even know anything about PLA?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    sorry for spez site but here you go

    I use PLA all the time and I get that it degrades in sunlight, but every fucking plastic does. Degradation isn't decomposition and you can still enjoy 3D printing while understanding that it's not 100% environment friendly

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What do you think the net pollution of Luigi's alleged Glock and suppressor print is, all things considered?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This paper estimates the CO2e emissions of roughly a 1kg spool (estimates are done by length of filament, not weight, but weight would end up being about 1kg) of PLA filament at 3.10kg of CO2e.

    The model used to print the alleged ghost gun is the FMDA 19.2 by "the Gatalog," which when I load it into my slicer shows an estimated 55g of filament used to print when using 15% infill, and 94g with 100% solid infill, for an estimated 0.1705-0.2914 CO2e of emissions for the printed parts. (This doesn't include any support material, depending on print positioning)

    There's no easy way to determine how much of that could theoretically end up as microplastics though. As for the metal parts, I have no clue lmao, I don't care to estimate it that much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    PLA is made from corn, sugarcane and other plants. Don't get it twisted.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    The fashion industry and the automotive industry are far and away the largest contributors to global microplastics. I'm not even sure if 3d printing people crack the top 100.

    The majority of the 3d printed slop people see around is printed in PLA because it's the cheapest and easiest to print typically. PLA will completely degrade in a few months in the correct conditions. At worst it will still break down after a few hundred years.

    The more expensive and chemically complex filaments are a different story. The good news is that most people only print "useful" things with those more expensive materials. I have never seen anyone printing a Pikachu toothpaste poop dispenser out of carbon fiber reinforced nylon filament.

    Of all the things to be worried about in terms of micro plastics 3d printing really shouldn't bother you. There are many MANY much larger fish to fry in that department first.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Look, you see the world around you? You think it’s worth saving? We had a good run, time to burn it down

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Think of the animals that preceded us. Humans are so self-absorbed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments