Is recycling BS?

Factual Questions
41

[QUOTE=Renob]
Why not? You (whom I presume are not an expert in the oil business) think that this type of technology will be useful to develop. Do you really think that, if this is true, you are the only one to think of it?
[/QUOTE]

Correct, IANAEITOB. But I never said I was the only one to think of it. Many people are doing the research now. I’m sure some research would have been done without mandatory recycling, but my point is that much more research is being done because of it.

[QUOTE=Renob]
OK, worst-case scenario: we have a bunch of plastic sitting in landfills. It certainly isn’t breaking down, so it will be there in the future when we need it. All it will take is some folks with backhoes digging it up.
[/QUOTE]

“Some folks with backhoes digging it up” is a major oversimplification. As robby said, landfills are capped. They’re also full of hazardous waste that was disposed of incorectly. They also produce methane and other gasses. Then there would also be the huge lag time as research caught up.

42

[QUOTE=robby]
In short, modern landfills are not cheap. And with the rising cost of oil, the less solid waste we have to haul around, the better.
[/QUOTE]
What percent of the waste going into landfills is potentially recyclable?

If it is a relatively large component (say, >30%), that would make recycling a good way to reduce landfill costs. However, if it is not a large component (say, <10%), it may be cheaper to build new landfills, or haul waste long distances to existing ones.

43

[QUOTE=masterofnone]
They’re also full of hazardous waste that was disposed of incorectly. They also produce methane and other gasses.
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much what you would find in an oil well. Our energy economy is founded on hazardous waste. I think we can handle it.

44

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Pretty much what you would find in an oil well. Our energy economy is founded on hazardous waste. I think we can handle it.
[/QUOTE]

Of course we can handle it if we have to. It’s just not as simple as Renob made it out to be.

45

Chiming in from the Netherlands, my local supermarket gives me a discount ticket when I take plastic soda bottles to be recycled, to the tune of 0.25 EUR per bottle. That discount ticket is valid for purchases from the supermarket itself.

When you buy the bottles, depending on the place, some will charge you the 0.25 EUR per bottle, but others won’t. Judicious buying in one place and redeeming at another can lead to a net gain when you do your shopping.

Just my 2 eurocent!

JoseB

46

[QUOTE=JoseB]
Chiming in from the Netherlands, my local supermarket gives me a discount ticket when I take plastic soda bottles to be recycled, to the tune of 0.25 EUR per bottle. That discount ticket is valid for purchases from the supermarket itself.

When you buy the bottles, depending on the place, some will charge you the 0.25 EUR per bottle, but others won’t. Judicious buying in one place and redeeming at another can lead to a net gain when you do your shopping.
[/QUOTE]

That seems expensive to me, but maybe it’s a real incentive. Here in my state of Michigan, we have a 10¢ bottle/can deposit for certain classes of beverages, including soda-pop and beer. I use so few of these deposit containers, that I don’t bother returning them for credit (it’s a slow, sticky, stinky process). On the other hand, their value is good for cash. It doesn’t matter what store they’re purchased in; as long as the store sells that brand, they have to accept them for refunds. All of the miscellaneous 10¢'s that I don’t return end up shared between the state coffers and the soda-pop distributors. Because it’s all UPC based, you can bring in cans/bottles from other states. It’s illegal, but not controlled. Because so many of us don’t care a whit, the state and distributors never actually lose money, but the state sees it as fraud due to the lost “income” that would otherwise be produced.

Supposedly the program was initiated in order to clean up our highways. They’re still mostly clean, despite all of the products that are consumed that aren’t returnable.

Perhaps a 0.25 euro deposit (that’s about 40¢ I’m estimating) would change my tune, because now it’s starting to be real money. It’d probably also increase cross-state deposit fraud. It’s even a logical step; the deposit’s been 10¢ since I was a kid in the 1970’s. Back in 1970’s money, that was a real income opportunity for a little guy like me. Now the small money just isn’t worth the time.

47

[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Are the plastics used to make containers petroleum based?

If so the oil crisis makes me grateful of at least one thing: the rising price of petroleum will torpedo any idea of beating the price of aluminum by switching to plastic.

I’m old enough to remember when most liquids came in glass containers. I don’t know what the environmental implications of glass are versus other materials, but it certainly improves the tactile experience of “a bottle of Coke”.
[/QUOTE]

I’d rather accidentally drop a plastic bottle of soda than a glass one. With the first, I have a spill to wipe up. For the second, I have a spill to clean up while being careful to find all the shards of broken glass.

48

Ugh, modern life is so complicated, let’s just all go back and live in the trees.

Who’s with me?

I said, Who’s with me!!!

49

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Since neither cite offers an explanation for for their claims I can’t argue their points, and in a brief perusal of on-line sites, the general claim seems to be that recycling glass saves energy, but the stated figures vary widely, and seem to be based on “pure” cullet (recovered glass material) that comes from production waste of glass manufacture rather than the impurities (stabilizers, colorants) typically found in finished glass products like bottles and windows…
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your great reply - I can see the logic of it - in the case of metal recycling, there’s a big saving from not having to reduce the ores - is it definitely the case that melting sand for the first time is equivalent to, or more frugal than - in terms of energy requirements - melting ground, graded and purified cullet?

I find it interesting because here in the UK, glass recycling is very common - it’s probably actually the longest-established recycling stream here - ‘bottle banks’ have existed for as long as I can remember - I wonder if it’s the comparative density of industry and population that tips it over into profitability/viability here (the average distance between glass collection points and remanufacturing facilities must be shorter here than in the USA), or the scarcity of landfill space that drives an economic incentive, or if perhaps there is some state subsidy for glass recycling.

50

The only “recycling” method for glass that actually saves energy is crushing the glass and using it as cullet (in asphalt paving). Remeting glass scrap makes no sense whatever, and results in higher energy use.

51

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The only “recycling” method for glass that actually saves energy is crushing the glass and using it as cullet (in asphalt paving). Remeting glass scrap makes no sense whatever, and results in higher energy use.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yes - as has been baldly stated in this thread several times (as well as expounded and explained a bit in other posts). Question is: why does everyone else say it saves energy? Also, much of the glass recycling industry is operated by commercial businesses - how are they making a profit out of it?

52

Just to add… some of the sites stating that there is an energy saving in recycling glass claim this is because cullet has a lower melting point than sand (even though soda, lime and other things are added to lower the melting point) - given that quartz is a crystalline solid and glass is amorphous, that doesn’t seem a wholly unreasonable assertion…

53

[QUOTE=Balthisar]
That seems expensive to me, but maybe it’s a real incentive. Here in my state of Michigan, we have a 10¢ bottle/can deposit for certain classes of beverages, including soda-pop and beer. <snip>

Supposedly the program was initiated in order to clean up our highways. They’re still mostly clean, despite all of the products that are consumed that aren’t returnable.
[/QUOTE]

Back in the 70’s, my family used to frequently travel to the UP of Michigan to visit grandparents. I still remember all the beer cans you used to see all over the road sides and even back into the forests. When the 10¢ deposit went into place, it seemed like almost over night all of those cans disappeared. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was initiated more for the cleanup then for the recycling.

54

[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate]
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was initiated more for the cleanup then for the recycling.
[/QUOTE]

It was. Even in the Recycling Center of the Country (California) it was pushed as a litter-control measure more than a recycling measure.

55

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Well, yes - as has been baldly stated in this thread several times (as well as expounded and explained a bit in other posts). Question is: why does everyone else say it saves energy? Also, much of the glass recycling industry is operated by commercial businesses - how are they making a profit out of it?
[/QUOTE]

  1. Scrap glass is contaminated with metals (iron, aluminum) that color the glass. Starting with sand makes for clear glass
  2. Transporting scrap glass takers energy
  3. Glass making is capital intensive-it is more efficient to be a huge producer than have several small plants
    For these reasons, your local recycler is bettr off dumping scrap glass than sending it out. (For recycling). Anyone claiming to do this profitably probably gets a subsidy.
56

[QUOTE=ralph124c]

  1. Scrap glass is contaminated with metals (iron, aluminum) that color the glass. Starting with sand makes for clear glass
  2. Transporting scrap glass takers energy
  3. Glass making is capital intensive-it is more efficient to be a huge producer than have several small plants
    For these reasons, your local recycler is bettr off dumping scrap glass than sending it out. (For recycling). Anyone claiming to do this profitably probably gets a subsidy.
    [/QUOTE]
    Did I miss something up-thread? It seems this has been asserted repeatedly, but all the given cites say the opposite. Can I get a cite that it is more efficient/economical to landfill glass than to recycle it?
57

[QUOTE=ralph124c]

  1. Scrap glass is contaminated with metals (iron, aluminum) that color the glass. Starting with sand makes for clear glass
    [/quote]
    Granted, there is a requirement for the material to be of a certain consistent quality.

So does transporting sand - not as much as collecting scrap glass from multiple sources, but surely not a heck of a lot more either.

In densely-populated countries (such as the UK), collecting enough scrap material into one place isn’t a big problem, so this can still be done.

Dunno - it just doesn’t seem like that’s the case - all kinds of sources are stating a significant energy saving by starting with recycled materials - there may be subsidies on recycling the stuff (or differential taxes on making it from new materials) - but I can’t seem to find a lot of evidence for it, even though there are a lot of people talking about glass recycling being profitable or worthwhile - there’s even an export market for processed cullet from recycled domestic glass - I’m sure the places it’s being sent to don’t have a shortage of sand, and I don’t think there’s going to be a cross-border subsidy in place.

So for the moment, I’m still not really finding the argument against very convincing - a number of people have flatly stated it in this thread, but based on what?

58

[QUOTE=robby]

Typical landfill construction costs range from $300,000 to $800,000 per acre for the initial construction, not including ancillary structures and facilities, or access roads. When the landfill closes, it has to be capped (approximately half the cost of initial construction), and the groundwater has to be monitored for decades.

The initial cost of construction (not including ancillary structures and facilities) for the 10-mile by 10-mile landfill (64,000 acres) mentioned in the “Eight Great Myths of Recycling” would be in the range of $20 billion to $50 billion (2005 dollars). The 35 miles square landfill (784,000 acres) mentioned in Cecil’s column would cost between $235 billion and $630 billion.

In short, modern landfills are not cheap. And with the rising cost of oil, the less solid waste we have to haul around, the better.

[/QUOTE]
First of all, Robby, thanks for putting some numbers out there. I’m going to dismiss the 35 square mile landfill mentioned in the Cecil column since it was referenced in the question and uncited (though I’m pretty sure you have an arithmetic mistake there.)

The 100 square mile landfill referenced in the “Eight Great Myths” article was for all of the United States’s garbage for the next century. $20 - $50 B over a century is just $200 M - $500 M annually, which is around $1 / person / year. Frankly, if these numbers are right, I’d call that pretty damn cheap.

59

[QUOTE=sweeteviljesus]
What about plasma gasification? I understand that these plants produce about 1/3 again more electricity than they consume and reduce the waste to a form suitable for road surfacing. I further understand they can handle any waste that isn’t radioactive. The article I read about them stated that a plant that can handle about 2000 tons of waste per day runs about $250 million…
[/QUOTE]
All of the plasma gasification plants that I’m aware of are still in the pilot program stage, and at this point, they still generally consume more electricity than they produce.

[QUOTE=Cicero]
Also with landfills- isn’t there a by product of methane production to offset the maintenance costs?
[/QUOTE]
The methane produced in landfills is mixed with various contaminants that generally cause problems (such as corrosion) when you attempt to use it constructively (e.g. in a methane-fired electrical generator). This is why most landfills simply vent off or flare off the methane.

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I’ve been wondering about this. Is there a mechanical reason why the smoke from incineration has to be released into the atmosphere? I would have thought you could rather easily filter all the solid particulates and even most of the gases using power generated by the incineration process itself.
[/QUOTE]
Trash incinerators do make extensive use of scrubbers to screen particulates. However, not only are they are very expensive, but no scrubber works with 100% efficiency. Finally, there is no practical way to capture “most of the gases” produced. The combustion gases go right up the stack.

[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Are the plastics used to make containers petroleum based?
[/QUOTE]
Generally, yes.

[QUOTE=Renob]
And when it is, then people will pay you to do it. The fact that the only things people will pay you to recycle are aluminum cans indicates that recycling aluminum is a better use of resources than mining it. The fact that it costs more to recycle glass and plastic than it does to make these things new indicates that recycling wastes more resources than it saves. A higher price is an indication of inefficiency. . When the resources to make glass and plastic become scarce, the price of making new products from these resources will rise. Eventually the price of recycling them will indicate that it wastes less resouces to recycle. It’s a pretty simple concept that, unfortunately, most don’t seem to grasp. The idea that recylcle=good has been pounded into us for so long that we can’t understand that in many cases recycle=wasteful.
[/QUOTE]
One problem with this analysis is that, for many environmental issues, the market does not have to deal with many of the ultimate costs resulting from various policies. One of the hidden costs of NOT recycling is the fact that landfills will fill up that much faster.

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
What percent of the waste going into landfills is potentially recyclable?
[/QUOTE]
For New York City, about 35% of the entire waste stream is recyclable. Even with recycling efforts in place, 23% of the residential “garbage” collected for disposal is unrecycled recyclable material.

[QUOTE=Do Not Taunt]
First of all, Robby, thanks for putting some numbers out there. I’m going to dismiss the 35 square mile landfill mentioned in the Cecil column since it was referenced in the question and uncited (though I’m pretty sure you have an arithmetic mistake there.)
[/QUOTE]
Where do you see a math error? It wasn’t 35 square miles. It was 35 miles square (i.e. 35 miles by 35 miles, or 1,225 square miles). This was for the “1,000 year landfill,” and at 12.25 times bigger than the 10 mile by 10 mile square landfill, (which was supposed to be for the “100-year landfill”), the math appears to be reasonable, within an order of magnitude.

[QUOTE=Do Not Taunt]
The 100 square mile landfill referenced in the “Eight Great Myths” article was for all of the United States’s garbage for the next century. $20 - $50 B over a century is just $200 M - $500 M annually, which is around $1 / person / year. Frankly, if these numbers are right, I’d call that pretty damn cheap.
[/QUOTE]
None of these numbers included ancillary structures and access roads, transportation to the landfill, operating costs, or landfill closure and monitoring. Besides, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. :wink:

60

In Australia methane production from landfill is not uncommon. I don’t know the precise details.