A great use for all of the plastics!

Could you imagine having a home machine, maybe one for the neighborhood.

I imagine the initial oil produced would probable run in a diesel, you would not have to do any refining, and then as a heat source I'd go with a solar prismatic lens.

Ralph

i was imagine a factory ship, and pumping gal of oil from floating plastics....

Japanese guy, invented a few years ago if I remember.
Bought up by a huge Japanese company if I remember correctly.
Theres certainly nothing about this here unfortunately

Just like Shell bought the rights to the engine that could run on water.

Interesting, Ive never heard anything more about this from here, only that the guy was nominated for a Nobel prize.
Theres  a catch though...

Prices for these machines begin at under $200,000 for the B-240

It probably costs more to run the thing than the value of whatever comes out of the back end.  If there was any kind of reasonable ROI on these, I think you would be hearing more about them.

An efficient burner with a scrubber to remove remaining toxins from the exhaust would make more sense for energy reclamation from waste plastics.  You can't run a tractor with something like this, but there are plenty of other useful applications.

If you want to get rid of your waste filament, find someone who does plastic fabrication and uses a hot air welder.  They'd probably be happy to take it off your hands

But how many watts?  It's curious that there doesn't seem to be much easily obtainable information for the amount of energy required to produce 1 liter of usable fuel.  Or how much energy is required to pre-process the materials.  Or what happens to the waste byproducts which are possibly very toxic and concentrated, thereby likely requiring costly disposal.

The general rule is: If they don't openly volunteer this type of information, there's probably a good reason.  There's no such thing as a free lunch.  Converting one type of matter to another is always an energy loss proposition.  It remains to be seen as to whether the losses are higher than the gains in reclaiming the material.  My guess is that it ends up being a "wash" in that regard, which is why I suggested that simply burning it would be a better approach.

So in essence, after paying the .75 (assuming these numbers are first factual, typical, and not best case), and waiting 2 1/2 hours, you end up with a liquid that has most of the nasty stuff which was present in the original compound, and which likely burns no cleaner than just igniting the plastic itself, with some sort of residual which requires disposal.  And then there is machine cleaning and maintenance, operator costs, transportation costs of raw materials and the resulting liquid to refinerys, etc.  And then there is the question as to how toxified the water becomes as a result of the process.

On-site refining and reclaiming on a massive scale may provide cost benefit, but it's very unlikely at a smaller scale.  I see nothing which indicates the "massive ROI" claimed in an earlier post.  If it takes 100 years to pay for itself, it's not a good solution.

Maybe, but those extra bonders, stabilzers, etc. have to end up somewhere.  There doesn't seem to be anything in the system to separate these from the resulting oil, so it's probably safe to assume they are part of it.  Maybe broken down to the point that they no longer perform the function they were intended to perform when added, but probably not less nasty in the end.  One thing that is glaringly absent from the videos is the maintenance of the machine, showing what is left in the hopper after the process, etc...  But they do show some poor old guy with some scissors cutting up stuff to fill the heating chamber.

Maybe they should use virgin pellets (like they probably did when getting those efficiency figures)

I love the immediately dismissive attitude of some.
How many millions of tons of plastic are there filling landfill sites in every country/sea of the world?

Unbelievable.

I do not miss the point your trying to make about things being cost effective and all processes, electricity, wages, etc etc etc that need to be taken into consideration for it to be a realistic proposition.

I think it is yourself that totally misses the point.

If you dont have the technology in place in the first place it doesnt matter how cost effective anything is if you cant do it.

Regarding your 2 points
A) In Japan there are 4 collections of rubbish a week, for burnable, unburnable, card board boxes, PET bottles, Cans, and Glass (not all at once obviously). This is a clear demonstration of the point your trying to make, that yes its inefficient, yes it costs a lot, and the further recycling that takes place after even less efficient and even less cost effective.
But A) It happends and yes B) They just trade one issue for another but I think its better to try than to just say sod it chuck it away its cheaper to make new.

Perhaps the world is different over here than it is wherever you live.