|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
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 |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On 6/15/2019 12:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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? Yes. But curbside recycling has energy costs, and I'm sure much of the stuff we recycle has little monetary value. My guesses (with no research): Aluminum is probably highest value. Steel and glass may be next. But I suspect PET, polyethylene and newsprint are low enough in value that recycling them may be a net loss. I've mentioned this before, but we can "recycle" shopping bags only by dropping them in a big bin at the grocery store. The manager of the main township recycling center said those are actually never recycled; that there's no practical market for those, so they're actually dumped. Perhaps he was mistaken, but I'm sure it's not easy to design processing machinery that wouldn't be prone to clogging, jamming, etc. by that thin film. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:37:11 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 21:19:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:55:24 +0700, John B. wrote: The U.S. exported some 2.5 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2015. The volume dropped to only 1.07 million tonnes in 2018 primarily due to China refusing to allow the waste to be imported. (note: Chinese imports have decreased by some 96% from the 2015 figures) China didn't exactly ban the import of recyclables. They raised the contamination percentage requirement from 1.5% to 0.5%, which is nearly impossible to meet: https://www.wastedive.com/news/china-contamination-standard-MRFs/519659/ As of January, 2018, China banned 24 types of imported waste. The banned list includes: eight types of post consumer plastic scrap; one type of unsorted scrap paper; 11 types of used or scrap textile materials; and four types of metal slag that contain vanadium. Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was an outright ban. Announced April 2018: "China announces import ban on an additional 32 scrap materials" https://www.reuters.com/article/china-waste-imports/update-1-china-bans-imports-of-16-more-scrap-waste-products-from-end-2018-ministry-idUSL3N1RW1UK 16 items were banned in 2018, while another 16 are scheduled to be banned starting the end of 2019: https://images.magnetmail.net/images/clients/ISRIID/attach/MEEAnnouncement20182019BannedItems.pdf Your reference seems to be concerned with contamination limits on allowable imports. "China proposes new 0.5% contamination standard with March 2018 enforcement" https://www.wastedive.com/news/china-proposes-new-05-contamination-standard-with-march-2018-enforcement/511122/ Looks like you're right about it applying to allowed imports, but should China change it's mind and loosen the contamination requirements, it could easily be applied to all imports. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:50:00 +0700, John B.
wrote: A recent news article stated that Chinese companies are considering building re-cycling plants in the U.S. https://resource-recycling.com/plast...cycling-plans/ It's been proposed that US manufacturing companies be responsible for recycling their own products after their useful life has ended. That won't work because too much of our consumables and durable goods are imported and we're unlikely to be shipping garbage around the country back to the where it was manufactured. Even of US factories, shipping garbage around the country is too expensive. At best, this might inspire a redesign of some products into something that could be more easily recycled. However, I'm wondering if these proposed Chinese owned recycling plants are in anticipation of such a law being passed where the Chinese do the processing (for a hefty fee). Meanwhile, recycling in Mexico looks promising: https://mxmarketintelligence.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/mexicos-plastics-recycling-industry/ -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:58:26 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2019 12:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: 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? Yes. But curbside recycling has energy costs, and I'm sure much of the stuff we recycle has little monetary value. My guesses (with no research): Aluminum is probably highest value. Steel and glass may be next. But I suspect PET, polyethylene and newsprint are low enough in value that recycling them may be a net loss. I've mentioned this before, but we can "recycle" shopping bags only by dropping them in a big bin at the grocery store. The manager of the main township recycling center said those are actually never recycled; that there's no practical market for those, so they're actually dumped. Perhaps he was mistaken, but I'm sure it's not easy to design processing machinery that wouldn't be prone to clogging, jamming, etc. by that thin film. -- - Frank Krygowski Up here our plastic shopping bags go into the Paper Recycling bins. Cheers |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:58:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 6/15/2019 12:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: 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? Yes. But curbside recycling has energy costs, and I'm sure much of the stuff we recycle has little monetary value. Over here they certainly do re-cycle PET drink bottles and some home owners (my son) do save their plastic bottles for re-sale and they are collected by those who pick over garbage cans, but plastic bags are ignored probably because they are valueless. By "Sunday Ride" is over a major highway here and I normally see two garbage pickers (riding bicycles) who pedal slowly along the highway picking up every plastic bottle that they see while ignoring all the plastic bags. The largest department store chain in Thailand - "Lotus Tesco" - has a policy of giving buyers a small rebate for NOT requesting bags and you do see quite a lot of people who bring their own shopping bags so apparently the policy does work. However whether it results in a significant reduction in disposable plastic use is debatable. My guesses (with no research): Aluminum is probably highest value. Steel and glass may be next. But I suspect PET, polyethylene and newsprint are low enough in value that recycling them may be a net loss. I've mentioned this before, but we can "recycle" shopping bags only by dropping them in a big bin at the grocery store. The manager of the main township recycling center said those are actually never recycled; that there's no practical market for those, so they're actually dumped. Perhaps he was mistaken, but I'm sure it's not easy to design processing machinery that wouldn't be prone to clogging, jamming, etc. by that thin film. -- cheers, John B. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 10:50:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:50:00 +0700, John B. wrote: A recent news article stated that Chinese companies are considering building re-cycling plants in the U.S. https://resource-recycling.com/plast...cycling-plans/ It's been proposed that US manufacturing companies be responsible for recycling their own products after their useful life has ended. That won't work because too much of our consumables and durable goods are imported and we're unlikely to be shipping garbage around the country back to the where it was manufactured. Even of US factories, shipping garbage around the country is too expensive. At best, this might inspire a redesign of some products into something that could be more easily recycled. I recently read something about California having PET bottles with some code that indicated that they were "refundable" like the glass beer bottles were in years gone by. However, I'm wondering if these proposed Chinese owned recycling plants are in anticipation of such a law being passed where the Chinese do the processing (for a hefty fee). Meanwhile, recycling in Mexico looks promising: https://mxmarketintelligence.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/mexicos-plastics-recycling-industry/ As I said, PET bottles are readily re-sellable here so apparently the recycling industry is alive and well. As Frank has noted one reason for the re-cycling business in the U.S. being less than profitable is the difficulty of designing machines for separating the garbage into various categories. Here, on the ether hand, where wages are significantly lower than "THERE", hand separation is well and thriving. In fact, some years ago , I worked on a garbage recycling project where the raw garbage was to be simply dumped onto long conveyer belts and hand picked by multitudes of people. -- cheers, John B. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:32:15 +0700, John B.
wrote: I recently read something about California having PET bottles with some code that indicated that they were "refundable" like the glass beer bottles were in years gone by. Yes, CRV (California Refund Value). https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/programinfo/faq The remaining recycling centers continue to accept CRV recyclables, as long as the state continues to pay them for the collected materials. However, since nobody wants the PET bottles, it's unlikely that this practice will continue. "Your Recycling Gets Recycled, Right? Maybe, or Maybe Not" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html Other states have similar programs (and problems): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_in_the_United_States Meanwhile, recycling in Mexico looks promising: https://mxmarketintelligence.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/mexicos-plastics-recycling-industry/ As I said, PET bottles are readily re-sellable here so apparently the recycling industry is alive and well. As Frank has noted one reason for the re-cycling business in the U.S. being less than profitable is the difficulty of designing machines for separating the garbage into various categories. Near IR scanners are common and seem to work well with shredded plastics: https://oceanoptics.com/plastic-recycling-nir-spectroscopy/ https://www.nrtsorters.com/markets/plastics/ The problem is not identifying the various plastics, but rather the handling of the plastic. There are a few colored plastic bottles with pigments that tend to fool the scanners. Here, on the ether hand, where wages are significantly lower than "THERE", hand separation is well and thriving. In fact, some years ago , I worked on a garbage recycling project where the raw garbage was to be simply dumped onto long conveyer belts and hand picked by multitudes of people. "Santa Cruz Recycles Video" (2009) https://youtu.be/jcIDCbXZklY (9:23) Hand sorting starts at 4:28. The sorting is currently being done mostly by the mentally disabled. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 9:12:10 PM UTC-7, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:19:34 +0700, John B. wrote: However I note that as a result of the U.S. presidential ban on some imports from China the Chinese have, in return, banned the shipment of most types of plastic waste from the U.S. and Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam also are also placing bans on the import of plastic waste from the U.S. No sweat. We can ship it to Indianapolis. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ We use so much plastic in the US that it seems rather ridiculous for us to ship recyclables to China for them to reduce to blocks of plastic and sell back to us. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Protecting yourself
On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:42:45 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/13/2019 11:12 PM, Joy Beeson wrote: On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:19:34 +0700, John B. wrote: However I note that as a result of the U.S. presidential ban on some imports from China the Chinese have, in return, banned the shipment of most types of plastic waste from the U.S. and Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam also are also placing bans on the import of plastic waste from the U.S. No sweat. We can ship it to Indianapolis. It's a difficult problem: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/recycl...te-pet-2877869 labor and energy inputs are high compared to new material. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I would have to think about that Andrew. I suspect the numbers you're looking at are the present costs of the bulk chemicals vs the recycling costs rather than the energy used to manufacture the bulk chemicals used in manufacturing PET. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Protecting the head ... | Nick Kew | UK | 24 | December 30th 06 10:19 AM |
Protecting my shins | pkplonker | Unicycling | 8 | November 19th 06 10:02 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | firisfirefly | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:43 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | mornish | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:40 AM |
Protecting your saddle? | Jerrick | Unicycling | 0 | August 3rd 06 06:39 AM |