First Ocean Cleanup System will begin operations in a few weeks and sixty systems will remove 50% of ocean plastic within 5 years

After six months of assembly, the System 001 Ocean Cleanup system is officially complete. The cleanup system will start to be towed in two days by the Maersk Launcher.

The system (floater, skirt and stabilizers) were transferred into the lagoon on August 24th to assemble the last few elements. These include the E&I pods, that are equipped with the navigation lights, GPS, satellite communication equipment, cameras and AIS tracking devices. The pods also include solar panels to power the electrical equipment on the system while it is out at sea.

It will head to a Pacific Trials location, 250-350 nautical miles offshore. After 2 weeks of operational testing, the Maersk Launcher and System 001 will continue their journey to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, another 1000 nautical miles away.

Ocean Cleanup has had 273 scale model tests, six at-sea prototypes and performed a comprehensive mapping of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch with 30 vessels and an airplane.

Cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch using conventional methods – vessels and nets – would take thousands of years and tens of billions of dollars to complete. Ocean Cleanup projects passive systems are estimated to remove half the Great Pacific Garbage patch in just five years, and at a fraction of the cost.

Ocean cleanup technology creates an artificial coastline. The Ocean cleanup system consists of a 600-meter-long floater that sits at the surface of the water and a tapered 3-meter-deep skirt attached below. The floater provides buoyancy to the system and prevents plastic from flowing over it, while the skirt stops debris from escaping underneath.

Both the plastic and system are being carried by the current. However, wind and waves propel only the system, as the floater sits just above the water surface, while the plastic is primarily just beneath it. The system thus moves faster than the plastic, allowing the plastic to be captured.

Models show that a full-scale cleanup system roll-out (a fleet of approximately 60 systems) could clean 50% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in just five years.

After fleets of systems are deployed into every ocean gyre, combined with source reduction, The Ocean Cleanup projects to be able to remove 90% of ocean plastic by 2040.

79 thoughts on “First Ocean Cleanup System will begin operations in a few weeks and sixty systems will remove 50% of ocean plastic within 5 years”

  1. So what? You don’t dispute the facts that I say, I noticed. That is all that matters. NBF is…and never has been…a ‘safe place’.

    Reply
  2. So what?You don’t dispute the facts that I say I noticed. That is all that matters.NBF is…and never has been…a ‘safe place’.

    Reply
  3. So what? You don’t dispute the facts that I say, I noticed. That is all that matters. NBF is…and never has been…a ‘safe place’.

    Reply
  4. So what?You don’t dispute the facts that I say I noticed. That is all that matters.NBF is…and never has been…a ‘safe place’.

    Reply
  5. still an improvement and if the 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} is less impactful (e.g. small fragments) the net improvement may be greater than 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.

    Reply
  6. I think that’s the point of a passive system. Supposedly you just let float around for a while until has captured enough plastic to be worthwhile removing. What is the damage to aquatic life and ecosystem are you referring to? I thought the major problem was sealife +eating+ the plastic, so removing it before it gets eaten is a net positive.

    Reply
  7. I think that’s the point of a passive system. Supposedly you just let float around for a while until has captured enough plastic to be worthwhile removing. What is the damage to aquatic life and ecosystem are you referring to? I thought the major problem was sealife +eating+ the plastic so removing it before it gets eaten is a net positive.

    Reply
  8. Then put all the waste collected through a plasma torch to turn it into syngas which can then be made into liquid fuels or new plastic crap.

    Reply
  9. Then put all the waste collected through a plasma torch to turn it into syngas which can then be made into liquid fuels or new plastic crap.

    Reply
  10. I think that’s the point of a passive system. Supposedly you just let float around for a while until has captured enough plastic to be worthwhile removing.

    What is the damage to aquatic life and ecosystem are you referring to? I thought the major problem was sealife +eating+ the plastic, so removing it before it gets eaten is a net positive.

    Reply
  11. bit.ly/2Q8Lrtb {Stemming the Plastic Tide: 10 Rivers Contribute Most of the Plastic in the Oceans} ^ How about just putting the system in front of these rivers and capture it at the source?

    Reply
  12. bit.ly/2Q8Lrtb {Stemming the Plastic Tide: 10 Rivers Contribute Most of the Plastic in the Oceans}^ How about just putting the system in front of these rivers and capture it at the source?

    Reply
  13. Everything beneath the surface and little tiny that can’t be seen with the naked eye are all missed by this. Note, it’s still probably a good idea but doing more to see that plastic doesn’t end up in the ocean in the first place is much more important. Note, this isn’t the only gyre. Also note, there are four other major gyres in addition to a number of minor ones.

    Reply
  14. Everything beneath the surface and little tiny that can’t be seen with the naked eye are all missed by this. Note it’s still probably a good idea but doing more to see that plastic doesn’t end up in the ocean in the first place is much more important. Note this isn’t the only gyre. Also note there are four other major gyres in addition to a number of minor ones.

    Reply
  15. Will remove 50% of the Pacific garbage patch is VERY DIFFERENT from will remove 50% of ocean plastic. It will (apparently) remove 50% of one particular patch of ocean. A spot that admittedly has more plastic than is considered desirable, but nothing like all the plastic in the ocean.

    Reply
  16. Will remove 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the Pacific garbage patch is VERY DIFFERENT from will remove 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of ocean plastic.It will (apparently) remove 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of one particular patch of ocean. A spot that admittedly has more plastic than is considered desirable but nothing like all the plastic in the ocean.

    Reply
  17. And by removing it it will destroy the habitat of a multitude of fauna and flora, who took arbor on those floating islands… That’s the reason that some turtle get sometimes caught on some net and some bird eat some plastic piece. So you save some and kill others. Now a good question, since it provides food for some animals would those animals be born or alive if that source didn’t existed?

    Reply
  18. And by removing it it will destroy the habitat of a multitude of fauna and flora who took arbor on those floating islands… That’s the reason that some turtle get sometimes caught on some net and some bird eat some plastic piece. So you save some and kill others. Now a good question since it provides food for some animals would those animals be born or alive if that source didn’t existed?

    Reply
  19. A reader who names himself “Warrentheape” and who starts all his screeds with “stupid libtard” sounds to me like one of those trailer park Trump supporters.

    Reply
  20. A reader who names himself Warrentheape”” and who starts all his screeds with “”””stupid libtard”””” sounds to me like one of those trailer park Trump supporters.”””

    Reply
  21. Why waste my time on fictional characters in a fictional story that you happen to choose to be deluded into believing are real?

    Reply
  22. Why waste my time on fictional characters in a fictional story that you happen to choose to be deluded into believing are real?

    Reply
  23. So? How does that have anything to do with justifying stupid things like straw bans when the US’ contribution to this mess is infinitesmal?

    Reply
  24. So? How does that have anything to do with justifying stupid things like straw bans when the US’ contribution to this mess is infinitesmal?

    Reply
  25. Ehm… I’ll try to explain it to you in really, really simple terms: – this system works well for eliminate CONCENTRATED floating garbage – most of damage to the aquatic life and the ecosystem has been already done during it’s 2~300 miles journey – this solution won’t be efficient at collect the garbage before it’s accumulate in a stable position, because the garbage will be too sparse – this solution, which it’s GREAT, has to be coupled with massive source reduction

    Reply
  26. Ehm… I’ll try to explain it to you in really really simple terms:- this system works well for eliminate CONCENTRATED floating garbage- most of damage to the aquatic life and the ecosystem has been already done during it’s 2~300 miles journey- this solution won’t be efficient at collect the garbage before it’s accumulate in a stable position because the garbage will be too sparse- this solution which it’s GREAT has to be coupled with massive source reduction

    Reply
  27. Translation: You can’t argue against what I said. And yes, ‘libtard’ is a valid term as it is technically definitional now. “… one of those trailer park Trump supporters.” Ah….then there is the hypocrisy in what you write.

    Reply
  28. Translation: You can’t argue against what I said. And yes ‘libtard’ is a valid term as it is technically definitional now. … one of those trailer park Trump supporters.””Ah….then there is the hypocrisy in what you write.”””

    Reply
  29. So why did stupid libtards pass plastic straw bans even though the US ‘contribution’ to the plastics pollution in the oceans is a sub percent of a percent? And why bother with it now if this system will clean all that up, anyway? Because libtard is as libtard does, apparently.

    Reply
  30. So why did stupid libtards pass plastic straw bans even though the US ‘contribution’ to the plastics pollution in the oceans is a sub percent of a percent? And why bother with it now if this system will clean all that up anyway?Because libtard is as libtard does apparently.

    Reply
  31. Everything beneath the surface and little tiny that can’t be seen with the naked eye are all missed by this. Note, it’s still probably a good idea but doing more to see that plastic doesn’t end up in the ocean in the first place is much more important. Note, this isn’t the only gyre. Also note, there are four other major gyres in addition to a number of minor ones.

    Reply
  32. Will remove 50% of the Pacific garbage patch is VERY DIFFERENT from will remove 50% of ocean plastic.

    It will (apparently) remove 50% of one particular patch of ocean. A spot that admittedly has more plastic than is considered desirable, but nothing like all the plastic in the ocean.

    Reply
  33. And by removing it it will destroy the habitat of a multitude of fauna and flora, who took arbor on those floating islands… That’s the reason that some turtle get sometimes caught on some net and some bird eat some plastic piece. So you save some and kill others.

    Now a good question, since it provides food for some animals would those animals be born or alive if that source didn’t existed?

    Reply
  34. Ehm… I’ll try to explain it to you in really, really simple terms:
    – this system works well for eliminate CONCENTRATED floating garbage
    – most of damage to the aquatic life and the ecosystem has been already done during it’s 2~300 miles journey
    – this solution won’t be efficient at collect the garbage before it’s accumulate in a stable position, because the garbage will be too sparse
    – this solution, which it’s GREAT, has to be coupled with massive source reduction

    Reply
  35. Translation: You can’t argue against what I said. And yes, ‘libtard’ is a valid term as it is technically definitional now.

    “… one of those trailer park Trump supporters.”

    Ah….then there is the hypocrisy in what you write.

    Reply
  36. So why did stupid libtards pass plastic straw bans even though the US ‘contribution’ to the plastics pollution in the oceans is a sub percent of a percent? And why bother with it now if this system will clean all that up, anyway?

    Because libtard is as libtard does, apparently.

    Reply

Leave a Comment