On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 11:40:15 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2019 12:36 AM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:27:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:37:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

But, said my friend, money made by recycling was not taxed.
(Californians may want to chime in on whether that was true - for me,
it's just hearsay.) So the guy spent all his time bicycling around,
collecting roadside aluminum cans to supplement his income.

I don't know, and could not find anything definitive with Google.
However, the continuing decline in the number of recycling centers in
California seems to indicate that recycling is NOT a thriving business.

It all depends on what industry will pay for the collected goods./rubbish.

In my youth, t was rofitble for various community groups to hold paper
drives, bottle recycling, etc. Now it isn't worth the effort. it costs
far more in fuel then you'll ever get for the product.

The major changes of the massive production of raw materias like
newsprint, lastic nurdles,etc couple with rock bottom international
shipping prices.

I've wondered about the overall energy balance of recycling efforts. On
one hand, recycling aluminum uses far less energy (and must certainly
cost less) than refining new aluminum from ore.

At the other extreme, driving your SUV five miles to drop a PET bottle
in a bin is probably a net loss. Most overall recycling processes must
fall between those extremes, but I wonder where the break even point is.

BTW, thanks for the new vocabulary word. I used to be an engineer in a
plastic processing factory, but I never heard the word "nurdle." We
called them pellets.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Don't you have curbside recycling pickup like you do with your household garbage?

Cheers