Skip to main content

Razer's Plastic-Hunting Robot Aims To Clean up the Oceans

The Razer-designed Cleanbot
(Image credit: Razer)

The latest release from Razer, creator of some of the "most interesting" products ever to grace a desktop, is a partnership with ClearBot a marine waste cleaning enterprise with a prototype AI robot. The AI powered boat is designed to detect and collect some of the 11 million tons of plastics that are polluting our oceans each year.

Image 1 of 4

Sneki Snek floor rug

(Image credit: Razer)
Image 2 of 4

Sneki Snek eye mask

(Image credit: Razer)
Image 3 of 4

Tree conservation road map

(Image credit: Razer)
Image 4 of 4

Sneki Snek slippers

(Image credit: Razer)

ClearBot, designed by Razer, doesn’t appear to be festooned with Chroma RGB, but it is at least wireless, and in traditional Razer style its hull is about as matt black as Batman’s bedroom once Alfred has turned off the lights at night. It’s solar powered, and is capable of collecting 250kg of plastic from the ocean in one ‘cycle’, however long that may be, and it can detect marine plastics within two meters of rough water.

“ClearBot’s unique AI and advanced machine learning technology will enable and empower governments and organizations around the world to broaden their sustainability efforts. We urge other innovative startups to reach out to Razer for collaboration opportunities as we strive to make the world a safer place for future generations,” says Patricia Liu, Chief of Staff at Razer. The partnership sees engineers and designers from Razer volunteering their time and knowledge to work on the prototype with a view building a smarter and more efficient robot.

Razer's partnership with ClearBot is trying to draw attention to its green credentials, which includes a 10-year sustainability roadmap and some green investments. The company has been protecting trees as well, in partnership with Conservation International, and to mark saving 300,000 of the leafy planet-oxygenators it has released a celebratory floor rug featuring its sustainability mascot, Sneki Snek. 

There’s the threat of some slippers, too, if they can save another 100,000 trees. Gaze upon the merchandise if you dare, but know that every sale enables Conservation International to save ten trees.

  • Findecanor
    As long as Razer Gamma (previous name Softminer) is running, they still have no credibility when it comes to sustainability.
    Reply
  • helper800
    Findecanor said:
    As long as Razer Gamma (previous name Softminer) is running, they still have no credibility when it comes to sustainability.
    How does reducing plastics in the ocean have anything to do with them giving their own customers the option of mining as a background service? Companies that use a lot of electricity or encourage it is not even the problem, its where the electricity is coming from. I don't even like Razer products.
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    helper800 said:
    How does reducing plastics in the ocean have anything to do with them giving their own customers the option of mining as a background service? Companies that use a lot of electricity or encourage it is not even the problem, its where the electricity is coming from. I don't even like Razer products.
    What's the first R in the three Rs?
    Reply
  • helper800
    hotaru.hino said:
    What's the first R in the three Rs?
    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Whats your point? If our energy grids we made sustainable then we could use all we want to. Giving a company crap for doing a good thing about one issue because it is in some facet or another giving consumers an option to mine is a ridiculous notion. Harp on the bad when they do bad, encourage the good when they do good, and don't incessantly bag on companies when they do good because that one other thing they do that is "bad."
    Reply
  • hotaru.hino
    helper800 said:
    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Whats your point? If our energy grids we made sustainable then we could use all we want to. Giving a company crap for doing a good thing about one issue because it is in some facet or another giving consumers an option to mine is a ridiculous notion. Harp on the bad when they do bad, encourage the good when they do good, and don't incessantly bag on companies when they do good because that one other thing they do that is "bad."
    I don't see how it's more environmentally friendly to replace existing energy grids with sustainable versions if we still demand more energy from the environment to begin with, especially for something that's in the pursuit of trying to make more money and that money ultimately gets spent on things on things that violates the 3 Rs. I'd rather a company who claims to commit to green initiatives do it throughout the entire stack, which includes not encouraging (i.e., providing the option) to mine.

    Or in another way, I don't see how it's better to replace a coal plant with swathes of wind and solar, because those have their own environmental problems. If we want to be more mindful of our environment, we should do our best to reduce our impact overall.

    It's the same kind of criticism Apple gets. How can they claim to be a "green company" when they want to destroy the right to repair?
    Reply
  • pixelpusher220
    helper800 said:
    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Whats your point? If our energy grids we made sustainable then we could use all we want to. Giving a company crap for doing a good thing about one issue because it is in some facet or another giving consumers an option to mine is a ridiculous notion. Harp on the bad when they do bad, encourage the good when they do good, and don't incessantly bag on companies when they do good because that one other thing they do that is "bad."
    Actual non-green energy use isn't countered by vaporware/prototype AI vehicles that won't survive even a modicum of real world use cases.
    Reply
  • helper800
    hotaru.hino said:
    I don't see how it's more environmentally friendly to replace existing energy grids with sustainable versions if we still demand more energy from the environment to begin with, especially for something that's in the pursuit of trying to make more money and that money ultimately gets spent on things on things that violates the 3 Rs. I'd rather a company who claims to commit to green initiatives do it throughout the entire stack, which includes not encouraging (i.e., providing the option) to mine.

    Or in another way, I don't see how it's better to replace a coal plant with swathes of wind and solar, because those have their own environmental problems. If we want to be more mindful of our environment, we should do our best to reduce our impact overall.

    It's the same kind of criticism Apple gets. How can they claim to be a "green company" when they want to destroy the right to repair?
    The problem with the three R's is that the first R is useless if the last two are upheld, though that is more philosophical argument as the real world is different and the sole reason the first R is there. Anyway I am not going to start a debate, as I am unwilling to invest the time and energy willing to convince you or anyone else reading this.

    TLDR Company do good, encourage further good actions. Company do bad, shame and regulate them.
    Reply
  • helper800
    pixelpusher220 said:
    Actual non-green energy use isn't countered by vaporware/prototype AI vehicles that won't survive even a modicum of real world use cases.
    This exact attitude is why a lot of companies who are rightly the bad guys on environmental issues don't get anywhere. They want to do some good but are berated until they just say "screw it" and stay what they are expected to be, an evil profit-motivated environmental polluter. Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot take this technology for anything other than what it is at face value, a potential solution to cleaning our oceans and good faith gesture by at least two companies. Anything more is rampant speculation on motivations that are being assigned to them and not yet earned by them.
    Reply
  • pixelpusher220
    helper800 said:
    This exact attitude is why a lot of companies who are rightly the bad guys on environmental issues don't get anywhere. They want to do some good but are berated until they just say "screw it" and stay what they are expected to be, an evil profit-motivated environmental polluter. Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot take this technology for anything other than what it is at face value, a potential solution to cleaning our oceans and good faith gesture by at least two companies. Anything more is rampant speculation on motivations that are being assigned to them and not yet earned by them.
    Sort of like Chevron celebrating PRIDE month....while donating to GOP bigots pushing anti-trans legislation - We shouldn't criticize them for that?

    There is zero need for Razer to be in the crypto business. Like none. Stop the bad things.
    Reply
  • helper800
    pixelpusher220 said:
    Sort of like Chevron celebrating PRIDE month....while donating to GOP bigots pushing anti-trans legislation - We shouldn't criticize them for that?

    There is zero need for Razer to be in the crypto business. Like none. Stop the bad things.
    Sure, encouraging Razer to stop doing bad things is good, but talk about it on a relevant post. Razer's crypto mining venture may contribute to ecological damage and even to climate change, but considering the amount of people mining their currency I would suspect the car you are driving is worse for the environment than the whole of the operation. Also, who are you to know "whats best" for Razer?
    Reply