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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
Scrap glass is contaminated with metals (iron, aluminum) that color the glass. Starting with sand makes for clear glass
Transporting scrap glass takers energy
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Generally, yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
