Largest U.S. recycling project to extend landfill life for Virginia residents
Posted by mooreds 15 hours ago
Comments
Comment by infecto 12 hours ago
I don’t say this as someone who is suggesting we not think about consumption but rather it’s a fake feeling that it’s going somewhere other than the landfill. I would be curious in other countries how economical it really is to recycle.my favorite is Japan where some areas will incinerate certain qualities of plastic for energy. I think that is a useful way to reuse it.
Comment by pfdietz 11 hours ago
I've heard Glass Beach in California is nice; maybe we should create some more of those by dumping waste glass on a shore with wave action and waiting a few decades? (not entirely unserious)
Comment by infecto 11 hours ago
Comment by wredcoll 11 hours ago
Comment by pfdietz 10 hours ago
Or, if you're going to put glass in a landfill, it could be cheaper to put it into a glass-only landfill that wouldn't need those protections.
If you're going to burn the waste them removing glass first makes that easier.
Comment by InMice 10 hours ago
Comment by edmundsauto 11 hours ago
Comment by reactordev 12 hours ago
That said, there are smaller plastic filament recyclers that are making their way onto the market that I’m super keen on. Being able to take plastics, shred them up, put them in this extruder and make a new filament spool for printing is awesome.
Comment by InMice 10 hours ago
Comment by jader201 11 hours ago
Or is it still worth it for some things? What about:
- Clean paper/cardboard
- Plastic grocery bags that go to a separate recycling center
How much depends on the local facilities and how they handle it?
I’ve tried to “do my part”, but the more I hear people talk about it, the more it sounds like we’re better off just landfilling it all.
Comment by throwup238 11 hours ago
None of it. With a few exceptions, non-metals take significantly more energy to recycle than to make from scratch and the end result is lower quality than the recycled material. Since that energy usually comes from fossil fuels, it's just pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere to save a tiny bit of landfill space, which isn't even remotely a pressing issue for our civilization (we have lots of space!)
Metals like aluminum and steel take more energy to make from scratch (ore) than to recycle, so they're worth recycling and anywhere from 50-80% of the steel and aluminum feedstock in the world is from scrap metal.
It also makes sense to recycle stuff like old tires because those turn into massive ecological hazards when they burn.
Comment by jltsiren 10 hours ago
For example, wood is a limited resource. In many parts of the world, almost all growth outside protected areas is harvested and used. By recycling paper and cardboard, you make wood available for higher-value uses.
Household waste is often incinerated. Even if you are not going to recycle glass, it can make sense to separate it from general waste.
Comment by infecto 10 hours ago
Comment by jltsiren 9 hours ago
Here in Finland, paper recycling started in the 1920s, and it was first purely for economic reasons. Household paper collection started soon after WW2.
Comment by pfdietz 8 hours ago
Comment by jcranmer 10 hours ago
Glass, plastic, and paper are generally at best marginal for recycling, especially because they can be sensitive to contamination in the recycling process (oops, somebody threw a greasy pizza box in the recycling!). Glass and some kinds of plastic products work really well for reuse rather than recycling, but a municipal recycling stream isn't conducive to reuse; you're probably more likely to see them ground up and 'recycled' as some kind of aggregate. For plastic, I'd expect that just about only a plastic water bottle or the like is close to practicably recyclable.
Comment by infecto 10 hours ago
Comment by infecto 11 hours ago
Comment by galleywest200 11 hours ago
This, plus soiled paper, can go in the "yard waste" bin here in western Washington state where it is sent to an industrial composter.
Comment by everdrive 9 hours ago
If there's really no tape or anything and it's just the cardboard without printing or gloss, these will compost just fine. If our paper towels don't have chemicals on them (ie, we used them as napkins) we actually just put them right in the chicken coop.
Comment by lesuorac 11 hours ago
If people started bringing back zillions of plastic bags to Krogers for disposal you bet they'd figure out reduce or re-use real fast.
Comment by seanmcdirmid 11 hours ago
Comment by wredcoll 11 hours ago
Comment by softwaredoug 11 hours ago
(Methane accounts for 1/3 of global warming)
Comment by ZeroGravitas 11 hours ago
Comment by SilverElfin 11 hours ago
Comment by howmayiannoyyou 11 hours ago
Metals, eWaste, Batteries ... all profitable to recycle.
Paper & cardboard ... depends on market price.
Plastics ... depends on oil prices, market price and type of plastic.
Tires ... usually profitable, usually involves a hauling fee.
AMP's robotic solution is going to face immense competition from general edge models, probably very soon. The mechanical piece is simple engineering. All the magic is (was) recognition.
Comment by phil21 10 hours ago
Sure, if you somehow have 99.9% cleaned and sorted plastic it can be maybe worth recycling at the margins. Same with paper and cardboard. The quality of these input streams needs to be so good it basically is nonexistent.
This might work somewhere like Japan, but in a major US city with "single stream" recycling it's a joke. One person tossing a bag of fast food trash into a recycling bin ruins the entire thing. Or a pizza box. You name it.
I'd be surprised if even 10% of the stuff put into the "blue bin" recycling bins here in Chicago actually makes it to recycling. The metals are near 100% since scrappers drive the alleys and scavenge anything of value before it even makes it to the recycling truck.
The amount of human labor to make recycling "worth it" makes it uneconomical. Either that labor can be done on the consumer side (like Japan seems to do) - or centralized - but most things only pencil out when you assume this cleaning and sorting labor is effectively free.
Comment by infecto 10 hours ago
But your callouts don’t make sense to me. Paper is rarely economical. We were mostly shipping it to China for the longest time. Only like 8% of plastics in the US are recycled. Most local waste systems don’t bother because the cost to sort far exceeds the value of the plastic. That’s the sham part and it’s prevalent across the country. The only reason tires work is because of government programs.
Again I am not saying recycling is bad but I wish in the US it was clearer and more strict. I would rather my local trash pickup tell me exactly what they want instead of following the propaganda that I can throw in paper and plastics when I know they are mostly throwing those in the dump.
Comment by comrade1234 14 hours ago
What I always wonder about though is just how much work it saves in the end for us to do it instead of at a central location. I mean, even with these strict rules they still need to sort the stuff that people didn't sort properly in the first place. So why not sort it all? (Except for the biowaste because that could contaminate the recycling)
Comment by OneDeuxTriSeiGo 13 hours ago
One of them is plastic grocery bags. They just cause a lot of problems in the mechanisation of recycling so it's very non-trivial to work around them.
Oils and biowaste of course are of course another issue. Especially for corrugated fiberboard (brandname: cardboard) and the like.
And then also it's hard for machines or lineworkers to easily differentiate plastics without sufficient market or regulatory pressure. If consumers are already generally sorting by broad category then they take most of the legwork out (leaving the facility to check their work) and those consumers also apply market pressure on manufacturers to make it obvious how their product is expected to be recycled.
And of course also there's just a general component of everyone doing a little at a time to keep things organised from the start making the entire process an order of magnitude easier and more efficient for everyone downstream.
Comment by InMice 14 hours ago
Comment by kingstnap 11 hours ago
I watched this video from Andrew Fraser on Indonesias plastic recycling industry. There were a few points during the documentary where this is pointed out. I had gemini point them out and verified them.
---
The documentary indicates that separating rubbish bins at the source is important because it eliminates an entire process and makes almost everything recyclable (14:18 - 14:24).
The speaker contrasts the Indonesian system, where scavengers sort mixed waste, with Western systems where waste is separated at the source (2:00 - 2:08, 6:57 - 7:00). At a modern processing facility, the speaker notes that if waste is not separated at the source, some material becomes too dirty to recycle (14:26 - 14:29, 20:26 - 20:29).
Furthermore, the video highlights that imported plastics from Western nations are highly valuable because they are clean, dry, sorted, and high-grade, having gone directly into the recycling side of consumer bins (28:57 - 29:11). This high-quality imported plastic is essential for Indonesian recycling plants like PMS to mix with lower-quality local waste, allowing them to process more raw domestic waste and create more jobs (28:01 - 28:27).
---
Comment by 47282847 11 hours ago
Comment by bluGill 13 hours ago
That depends. The big is there is so much volume that isn't recyclable that the costs of machines to sort everything (when most is waste) is just too high.
As the other post started to get to: for some things clean waste matters and is common enough to sort. If you have greasy paper about all that we can do is burn it, but clean paper has enough value as to be worth it. Thus a separate stream for clean cardboard/paper is something that should be done early.
For other things cleaning isn't as big a deal (unless you can get perfect clean they will need to clean again - but you still want it not to stink). Throw all your plastic (no bags - unless you have the rare system that can handle them), cans, and glass together: They have to sort anyway, but compartments for each (or separate trucks) are going to add up costs - One week there is more cans than others so you end up going back to the facility with half full compartments all the time burned fuel each way.
You still want to separate trash, (even if the bag issue was solved) as there is so much that we can't really do anything about that the quantity means the sorting machines needed to handle total volumes are too high unless most things we know can't be recycled are not in.
I'm not sure about organics. My impression is that most houses don't have enough of it as to be worth the bother in general. Businesses that have enough as to be worth it should also separate their kitchen waste but otherwise more fuel is burned in the trucks than we save.
We also have to ask what is done with regular waste. Landfills are slow compost piles for organics, and we do collect the methane these days. Incinerators turn organics and plastics into fuel which is often the best we can do with them (recycling plastics still needs a lot of energy/chemicals, burning releases some CO2, but perhaps less than the above - this has been argued many times to different conclusions)
Comment by Mountain_Skies 12 hours ago
Comment by bitwize 12 hours ago
Comment by lostlogin 13 hours ago
It’s a logical argument, but I feel another punishment in your future.
Comment by mc32 12 hours ago
Comment by lotsofpulp 13 hours ago
It's not about efficiency, it's about making some portion of the population feel good about their consumption. It is obvious that the production and use of pretty much all of these plastics leads to undesirable very long term outcomes, but very desirable short term outcomes.
Politically, it is untenable to completely ban the plastic as the people would revolt, but it is (or was) also politically untenable to not do anything about the problem.
Hence, the politically tenable solution is to pretend like society is doing something about the problem. It's the same thing with fossil fuels and carbon emissions.
Comment by mothballed 12 hours ago
Some parts of Oregon I lived in had high cost for general trash (almost every trash bin/dumpster I encountered was chained locked) and to use the city dump you needed an ID and maybe even required to live in the same county.
The result of these asinine policies to force people into 'recycling' things that aren't recyclable and making trash so onerous that all you can find is locked up dumpsters, is you would often see piles of trash and junk in the national forest or BLM land, the result of either extreme inconvenience or desperation.
Comment by gs17 12 hours ago
Comment by everdrive 13 hours ago
Comment by wongarsu 13 hours ago
Comment by slipheen 13 hours ago
I've seen the statistics, and we need to take dramatic steps in order to reduce the amount of single use plastics – but don't you think that it's better that we try?
I hear you about micro plastics, and I think that it's important to try to do better to fix this.
But given the limitations of our imperfect world, do you really think that we would be net-net better off without even making an attempt to recycle it?
Comment by everdrive 13 hours ago
This really depends on the specifics of how much we can move the needle. For instance, there's zero chance we're fully getting rid of plastics. Even in a world where we had perfect political will, you'd need them at a minimum for medical tools.
With regard to microplastic pollution, I think I'd need more information on the major causes. For instance, I've heard that car tires are one of the biggest causes on land, whereas fishing nets are one of the biggest causes in the ocean. To the extent that this is correct, recycling is not going to impact those problems one way or another. If for instance I were to learn that microplastic pollution from recycling was so minimal it can barely be measured, I would be open to changing my position. (my understanding that plastic recycling is a significant cause of microplastic pollution.)
I've rambled a bit here, but ultimately the question needs to be answered whether plastic recycling is doing more harm than good. If it's doing more harm then it makes no sense to "at least try," as "success" would put us in a worse position.
Comment by armedpacifist 12 hours ago
Reduce, reuse, recycle. I used to be big on trying to reduce my plastic usage, but I gave up on it because the more I got aware of how f*'d up it all is, the more guilty and depressed I started to feel. It felt like fighting a hydra.
I've witnessed it myself: a lot of the waste that gets recycled by the consumer gets thrown on the same pile and goes in the same incinerator. It's not economically feasable to properly recycle plastics. It's all bs greenwashing.
I just stopped caring at some point and became a little more pessimistic about humanity. Sad really.
Comment by james_marks 12 hours ago
There's a story in Junkyard Planet of this exact thing making someone wealthy when a product that was treated as waste became valuable to the steel industry, and they knew where to find it in the dump.
Comment by InMice 10 hours ago
Comment by InMice 14 hours ago
Comment by Simulacra 13 hours ago
Until we learn to do something with the plastic, recycling is just a pipe dream to make people feel better.
Comment by ZeroGravitas 12 hours ago
Does the USA or Missisippi have the lower recycling rate because they are uniquely immune to the corporate oil lobby that scammed Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium?
Is it because they instead reduce their consumption and reuse their empty containers unlike the lazy Belgians who are too addicted to feeling virtuous? Has the EU plastic use risen more than in America, because of recycling?
Comment by skywhopper 14 hours ago
Comment by theturtle 8 hours ago
Comment by josefritzishere 14 hours ago
Comment by irishcoffee 13 hours ago
I wonder what the next recycling movement will be? Discarded EV batteries? Dead solar panels?
How does this next iteration play out?
Comment by pjc50 12 hours ago
(the thin film ones are a separate category, some of which contain more poisonous materials, but fortunately they were never really economic)
Comment by howmayiannoyyou 11 hours ago
Comment by irishcoffee 11 hours ago
Solid plan.