Latest news with #DeBenedictis
USA Today
25-06-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Curious about what happens at Akron's Alterra recycling plant? We took a look inside
An Akron plastic recycling operation that has stirred neighbors' concerns about potential health effects wants residents to know the company is committed to safety — and it won't budge from that even if the bar is lowered for its environmental responsibility. Alterra Energy President Jeremy DeBenedictis said the Ellet plant would maintain its current standards even as President Donald Trump's administration and Republican lawmakers dismantle federal and state environmental protections. DeBenedictis said his company encourages industrywide, fair, fact-based, transparent regulation, "so that's why we're helping to educate people on how to set up those rules for this type of industry." "We live here," he said, "half of our company lives in the Greater Akron community, and we work here, too. We're going to do what we believe is the best thing, and if it's better than what the (Environmental Protection Agency) says in some cases then we'll do that. But we want to make sure we're keeping the community safe and keeping our employees safe. We believe in the thresholds the EPA has set. If for some reason it was a threshold that was lower, we would stick with where we're at right now." Steve Gross, Alterra's general counsel, said the company has a business incentive to operate conscientiously. Setting a high standard, he said, makes it harder for competitors and gives Alterra the advantage. The facility at 1200 E. Waterloo Road converts hard-to-recycle plastics — chip bags and bottle caps, for example — into synthetic oil through a process called pyrolysis. Then, Alterra sells it to third parties who makes new products including chemicals, waxes and lubricants, DeBenedictis said. He views it as a way to solve the problem of plastic pollution. "Let's not count on landfilling as a Band-Aid," DeBenedictis said, "let's actually solve the problem." "Every barrel that we make here of product replaces a barrel that someone would have had to extract from the ground, so it replaces a fossil barrel," he said, explaining that the factory, operating 24/7, produces 275 barrels per day. A majority of plastic packaging — 98%, he said — is created with oil extracted from the earth. While governments might be retreating from sustainability initiatives, it's people, he said, who ultimately make policy using their wallets and their vote, and there's significant demand from multiple generations to stay the course. "I talk to my kids, and that's the next generation of leaders, and they see what's happening," DeBenedictis said. "They see all the stuff going to the landfill, and they want us to reuse materials as much as we can." How does the process work? Some people have accused the facility of being a plastic incinerator. However, DeBenedictis said, incinerating plastic would leave nothing behind for Alterra to sell. On a guided tour, Bobby VerBrugge, Alterra's operations director, explained the process. Converting plastic waste back into oil is achieved through pyrolysis. First, Alterra purchases shredded plastic. Then, the shredded plastic, called feedstock, goes into an extruder where it's melted into a "Laffy Taffy consistency," said VerBrugge. Then, it's vaporized in an airless reactor to keep it from combusting. VerBrugge said the "Laffy Taffy" is converted by the reactor into a liquid, and then a gas. The more of the gas that's collected and condensed, he said, the more Alterra can sell. According to an EPA draft permit, unusable gases created during the process are sent to what's called a vapor combustor unit (VCU) "for control of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants" which is required to destroy at least 98% of unusable gases created during the process. The permit allows the facility to emit a certain number of pollutants annually: 35.2 tons of nitrogen oxides, 34.7 tons of volatile organic compounds, 13.44 tons of carbon monoxide and less than 10 tons of sulfur dioxide and particulate. DeBenedictis said Alterra's VCU destroys 99.6% of those unusable gases, "which puts us well, well below all the thresholds the EPA has in our air permit." Permit renewal hearing draws criticism Alterra is in the process of renewing a permit that will allow its continued operation, and "ensures we continue to meet strict environmental regulations," said company spokesman Omar Terrie. "The way the process works," DeBenedictis said, "is that we've been operating with a valid air permit since 2015. In 2017, it was up for renewal; we renewed it and it was good for five years, which means you have to renew it again in five years." For the past two-and-a-half years, he said, Alterra has been in the midst of the renewal process. He said the new permit under consideration contains additional regulations, recordkeeping/reporting requirements and operational restrictions. Dina Pierce, spokeswoman for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, said via email the permit also reduces the facility's feed capacity from 6,250 pounds per hour to 5,000. "In 2017, the company applied for and was granted a permit modification to increase its feed capacity to 6,250 pounds per hour," Pierce said. "The company, however, failed to implement the change within the stipulated 18-month time frame. As a result, the company's current maximum feed rate remains at 5,000 pounds per hour." "We monitor monthly, we report semiannually (to the EPA) those monthly records," VerBrugge said. Alterra received significant resistance from residents at a May 28 hearing, who told the Ohio EPA they doubt the company can operate in a way that's responsible to the community, criticizing the plant's proximity to a Head Start and densely packed neighborhoods, and said they believe granting the permit will allow Alterra to release more pollutants into the air, making people sick. Some reported headaches after marching near the facility, and cited increased asthma rates in the area. The volume of comments prompted the Ohio EPA to extend the public comment deadline, which closed June 18. DeBenedictis said the facility hasn't leaked in the two years it's been fully operational. Nor has it failed a stack test — a measurement, VerBrugge said, of what's emanating from the company's vapor combustion unit conducted, said DeBenedictis, by an independent third party and observed firsthand by the EPA. "Imagine I put a probe in the exhaust of your car," DeBenedictis said. The data collected, he explained, is used to "help with the modeling for the plant's renewal." If people in the surrounding areas are being made sick by the company, why are the people who work there unaffected, he asked, pointing out that he'd been diagnosed with asthma at a young age. "We're closest to the actual process, the daily routine," he said, adding that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cleared the plant as a safe place to work. Angela Sot, Alterra's marketing and community relations manager, said the company is "somewhat of an unknown, and there's definitely some misconceptions out there," between what industry in the region has done before and what Alterra is doing now. Sot invited some of the groups opposed to Alterra's operations in to take a tour, but she said they've declined for unknown reasons. DeBenedictis said Alterra is minuscule compared to other area plants, some of which have been operating for decades — so small, in fact, that the air permit isn't federally enforceable. "As Angela said, there's a history over the last hundred years of industrialization in the area," he said, "and there's also misinformation out there on the social channels because we're like the hot topic right now," pointing out that there are area organizations opposing the polymer and petroleum industry, two groups Alterra seeks to connect. Pierce of the Ohio EPA said via email the agency will now review every submitted comment, responding to them in writing. "The time to complete this can vary depending on the number of comments and the complexities they might include," said Pierce. "After the written responses are ready, and any needed changes are made to the draft permit, a decision will be made on whether a final permit will be issued." Contact reporter Derek Kreider at DKreider@ or 330-541-9413.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Turning the Red Planet green? It's time to take terraforming Mars seriously, scientists say
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The concept of terraforming Mars — transforming the planet's climate to support life as we know it — has long belonged to the realm of science fiction. But a new study argues that it's time to take the idea seriously. "Thirty years ago, terraforming Mars wasn't just hard — it was impossible," said Erika DeBenedictis, CEO of Pioneer Labs and lead author of the new paper. "But new technology like [SpaceX's] Starship and synthetic biology have now made it a real possibility." The paper debates the complex ethical questions that must be considered if we're to terraform Mars and lays the blueprint for a potential path forward. "Advocates argue that more life is better than less, and terraforming Mars could mark humanity's first act of planetary stewardship with a net positive environmental impact," said DeBenedictis. Put succinctly, "living planets are better than dead ones," said study co-author Edwin Kite, an associate professor at the University of Chicago. "We now know that Mars was habitable in the past, from data returned by the Mars rovers, so greening Mars could be viewed as the ultimate environmental restoration challenge." Though full terraforming may take centuries, if not millennia, the long-term goal would be a Mars with stable liquid water, breathable oxygen and a thriving ecosystem. In the short term, this might mean only small patches of microbial life; in the distant future, there could perhaps be human cities on the planet. And if we reach the scale of cities, perhaps that's a stepping stone to even more significant exploration for our species. "As we move out into the galaxy, we will need base camps, and a base camp on the scale of the galaxy is a habitable planet," said Kite. For co-author Robin Wordsworth, a professor of environmental and planetary science at Harvard, the argument for terraforming Mars goes beyond human colonization to the propagation of life in general. "I see humanity as part of the biosphere, not separate from it," he said. "Life is precious — we know of nowhere else in the universe where it exists — and we have a duty to conserve it on Earth, but also to consider how we could begin to propagate it to other worlds." It's not all about looking beyond the bounds of Earth; terraforming Mars could also help us solve climate and sustainability challenges at home, advocates say. Nina Lanza, a planetary scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a co-author on the paper, sees Mars as a prime testbed for planetary engineering. "If we want to learn how to modify our environment here on Earth, to keep it in a configuration that suits us and other life forms, maybe it would be better to experiment on Mars and say, 'Look, does this work?'" she said. "I personally would like to be a little more conservative with our home planet. This is the only place we can live." There are technological lessons to be learned, too. "Concretely, developing and adopting green technology on Earth often falters because it must compete with dirtier alternatives that benefit from decades of infrastructure investment and entrenched interests," said DeBenedictis. "Mars is a unique target market because it has no oil, no existing infrastructure and no status quo. For this reason, developing green technologies for space is a powerful strategy for maturing it for use on Earth." But we should take a few lessons from "Jurassic Park" when thinking about terraforming, some scientists say: Before asking, "Could we?" we need to ask, "Should we?" "If we decide to terraform Mars, then we will really change it in ways that may or may not be reversible," said Lanza. "Mars is its own planet and has its own history. When we terraform, then we effectively don't have the opportunity to study that anymore, and we may lose knowledge about how planets form and evolve." Most dramatically, we may destroy potential evidence of ancient Martian life, if such evidence exists. "If we modify the environment on Mars, we're going to change the chemistry of the surface and of the subsurface, eventually," said Lanza, pointing out that such actions might erase any traces of life on Mars. "I can't say for certain. It's very complicated, but it's a risk." Terraforming Mars would require massive changes, namely the warming of the planet to support both oxygen-producing microbes and liquid water. While all the technologies to terraform Mars are not yet available, the authors of the paper propose three phases of development. First, scientists would use abiotic climate engineering techniques — such as deploying reflective solar sails, dispersing nanoparticles, or laying aerogel tiles — to warm the surface by at least 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit), enough to melt subsurface ice and release trapped carbon dioxide. This warming would thicken the Martian atmosphere and potentially support the presence of stable liquid water. The second phase would introduce extremophile microbes — likely anaerobic and genetically engineered ones — capable of surviving in Mars' harsh conditions and kickstarting ecological succession. These organisms would begin producing oxygen and organic matter, slowly altering planetary chemistry. The third and longest phase would focus on building a complex biosphere, increasing atmospheric pressure and oxygen content to eventually support more advanced plant life, and, in the very long term, potentially allow humans to breathe unassisted. Related stories: — Could we really terraform Mars? — New Mars terraforming idea: engineered, heat-absorbing dust nanoparticles — Bad news for terraforming: Mars' atmosphere is lost in space The study's authors agree: If we're to have any chance of terraforming Mars, we must move forward on multiple fronts simultaneously. "Answering the question of when and how to start making other worlds habitable requires a clear understanding of the costs and benefits, which can only be adequately assessed based on a combination of theory and experiments, with input from diverse fields including physics, chemistry, materials science and biology," said Kite. Right now, we need to continue to study Mars. Lanza advocates for the Mars Sample Return mission, a NASA-European Space Agency campaign to bring home material collected on the Red Planet by the Perseverance rover. "The samples are incredibly well documented and analyzed to the best of our ability on Mars," she said. "Now we need to bring those back, because that's going to help us answer some of these fundamental questions. What is Mars made out of? Are there traces of life?" And, as we continue to visit the Red Planet, we can put terraforming concepts into practice. "Upcoming Mars surface missions in 2028 or 2031 should include small-scale experiments to de-risk terraforming strategies, such as warming localized regions," said DeBenedictis. Then, of course, we need to continue to innovate new technologies that will allow us to terraform Mars in the future. All this is to say, while fully terraforming Mars might take generations, the decisions start now. "This is how we get from the imagination and the concept to some reality that has totally changed our world," said Lanza. "We should really keep doing science — it's transformational." The new study was published last month in the journal Nature Astronomy.
