Precious Plastic is in trouble

Practicality and Scale of Precious Plastic Machines

• Many see the machines as too small, power‑hungry, expensive and fiddly to be more than hobby tools (e.g., 15 kW for a single sheet, “several sheets per day”).
• Skepticism that plastics processing can be safely and efficiently miniaturized to “cottage industry” scale; industrial plants use continuous processes with heat recovery that are hard to replicate.
• Others report successful educational labs and small workshops using PP designs, arguing the compromises (manual, small‑batch, simple) fit prototyping, education, and small series production.
• Debate over whether buying small industrial machines from Alibaba or used industrial gear is cheaper/more practical than building PP’s open‑source designs.

Organization, Finances, and Governance

• Strong criticism that key problems are self‑inflicted: no insurance, weak budgeting, lack of financial transparency, deletion/migration of old forums, and giving away a €100k donation to the “community” instead of shoring up the core organization.
• Some see this as evidence of incompetence or “performative” activism and are wary of donating again without clear changes in leadership or structure.
• Others defend PP’s low burn rate, non‑profit ethos, and willingness to let the project die if it can’t find a sustainable path, framing it as a public good rather than a failed startup.

Community, Education, and Open Hardware Value

• Supporters argue PP’s main contribution is building a global community, sharing open‑source machine plans, and making plastics, materials, and circular economy concepts tangible.
• Even critics concede PP inspired more practical spin‑offs and cottage industries, especially in developing countries, which used the ideas to build more robust, locally adapted systems.
• PP is contrasted with industrial suppliers by its open hardware focus and “microfactory” vision, not pure throughput.

Wider Debate: What Should We Do with Plastic?

• Multiple comments argue small‑scale recycling is ecologically marginal or harmful: recycled plastics are lower quality, shed microplastics, and are often non‑recyclable again.
• Proposed alternatives include:
  • High‑temperature incineration / waste‑to‑energy.
  • Plasma gasification.
  • Landfilling as de‑facto carbon sequestration in well‑engineered sites.
  • Chemical depolymerization and advanced recycling, if economics and scale can work.
• Several argue the real lever is upstream: taxing plastics, extended producer responsibility, bans on single‑use items, and systemic reduction and reuse rather than consumer “recycling theater.”

Safety, Liability, and Legal Exposure

• Discussion of a New York lawsuit over an accident with PP machinery; US legal costs (e.g., $600/h lawyers) are seen as a major drag.
• Some suspect the shredder design is inherently risky (amputation/entanglement hazard) and insufficiently guarded, making liability hard to deflect.

Communication, Roadmap, and Trust

• Many readers found PP’s appeal confusing: unclear description of what they actually do, what “Version 5” means, and how new funds would be used.
• Calls for a concrete, directional roadmap (technical goals, organizational reforms) before further fundraising, and concern that “we’re so close, just one more version” sounds like chasing sunk costs.