Report Calls Recycling Costlier Than Dumping

NY Times ^ | February 2, 2004 | ERIC LIPTON

[HangThemHigh]

You are correct. I just read an article about the CO2 pumping scheme for sequestration and had a knee jerk reaction.

I do think that any discussion of CO2 reduction without talking about nuclear energy is a waste of time. If you don't burn garbage, but burn oil or coal instead, what have you gained? You can switch to hydrogen in your car, but that is just an energy storage system. If the energy used to produce the hydrogen came from coal, the CO2 reduction will not be all that great IMO.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I do think that any discussion of CO2 reduction without talking about nuclear energy is a waste of time."

Oh, I agree completely. The "Green's" (aka socialists by another name) failure to consider nuclear energy is just another example of their irrational hypocrisy. Another is/was the complete ban on DDT, with the result of 100,000,000 deaths (to date) from malaria.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Garbage into oil?

I've been following the Thermal Conversion or Thermal Depolymerization process myself. There are some big names involved in the investment. I don't remember who, but the Discover magazine Vol. 24 No. 05 | May 2003 article mentioned them. I had a copy of the article, but I lost it. Perhaps someone here is registered to Discover.com. Anyway, they claim 85% efficiency, with the 15% going to self-fuel the process. Like you, I haven't seen any reports from the field yet.

[American_Centurion]

Anything Into Oil

I have been watching for updates on this too. I'm very interested in this technology.

One of the big investors is Warren Buffet's son, possible Warren himself.

[Hanging Chad]

"...carbonaceous materials ... that are land-filled actually help to reduce "global warming" by sequestering CO2 that would normally be re-emitted to the atmosphere..."
- - -
How would burning garbage produce more CO2 than would be produced by the equivalent amount of coal and oil that burning the garbage would replace?
Anything to reduce foreign energy dependence - I am for it.

[Hanging Chad]

"...
1) garbage contains much water and other
non-flammables and only modest fuel value.
2) garbage contains many nasties; chlorides, mercury,
lead, and well, garbage. If the scrubber on this fails,
CO2 will be your least concern.
3) Last, but certainly not least, would you
want a garbage incinerator in your neighborhood?
..."
- - -
1) FREE btu's even of low btu/weight ratio is STILL FREE!
2) The technology exists to clean the stack gas.
3) Locate them ajacent to the existing landfills that already stink anyway.

[kidd]

Another fallacy is that recycing paper saves trees.

It does not.

Paper mills plant, grow and maintain specific types of trees to ensure a high quality future product. The trees that they use are typically NOT from the "old growth" forests. If the paper mills believe that recycling will reduce the need for future trees, then they will plant fewer trees. Thus, if you buy recycled paper products you are sending a message to the paper mills to plant fewer trees.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

If the paper mills believe that recycling will reduce the need for future trees, then they will plant fewer trees.

Exactly. Planting fast-growing conifers, converting them to paper, and then burying the used paper actually removes carbon from the atmosphere (if you believe in globaloney warming, which I don't). Young trees absorb carbon much faster than old trees, and old trees die and rot, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere.

[Wonder Warthog]

"How would burning garbage produce more CO2 than would be produced by the equivalent amount of coal and oil that burning the garbage would replace?"

It wouldn't---but landfilling paper REMOVES short-term cycling carbon into long-term storage.

"Anything to reduce foreign energy dependence - I am for it."

The only currently practical way is nuclear.

[Dan Evans]

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy/lack of thought on the part of the Greens, where their pet shibboleth of "recycling" is actually at cross purposes to their OTHER pet shibboleth of preventing "global warming".

Lack of thought is a prominent characteristic of the Greens but very likely they don't care. This is an example of where "follow the money" can be a guiding principle. The trash collection business historically has been mobbed up and such people are not averse to dipping their greedy paws into the public till.

The left is not about socialism, environmentalism or social justice, it is about evil, pure and simple. Evil has its own set of logical principles based not on truth but on death, destruction, greed and fear.

[cherry]

anyone with any common sense would know that collecting recyclables door to door with a special truck and crew IS more expensive than just dumping the whole lot....

That being said, I recycle furiously....cans, bottles, tins, magazines, glass, even batteries, and anything else I can get away with...

where I live, we don't have the recyling truck come out in the country( thank God!) so once a month I just haul all the stuff ( except the cans...I get money for those) to the dump/recyling center which is 5 easy miles away....

of course, you need space, and you need to have a way to store the junk until you depose of it, but I feel its good for my economy ( less garbage bill) and its good for the environment too....

[gathersnomoss]

Stop Making Sense...Talking Heads

[William Tell]

neverdem asks: "I wonder if that would be so if all glass was clear or at least the same color. "

Maybe.

I don't know what they use to provide color for glass.

I would guess that there are many other attributes of glass which would prevent economical recycling.

Window glass must be clear and suitable for tempering. Bottle glass must flow suitably to form the bottle. Eyeglass material must be machinable and polishable. Glass to make CRTs must have the strength to maintain a vacuum and melting properties that allow for sealing it.

I have a neighbor whose cousin was raised in East Germany. She was amazed at the variety of water faucets that she saw in my neighbor's home. It seems that East Germany had a single faucet maker and virtually all of the faucets used in the home would be identical.

If we tolerated an economy where uniformity was not just mandated but a political necessity, then we might find ourselves with just one type of glass to make windows, bottles, and every other glass object. The result would be products which are similar in construction and only partially suited to their intended purposes. It is not a sacrifice I would like to make in order to prevent disposal of used glass.

[neverdem]

I don't know what they use to provide color for glass.

Bottles or jars that contain anything for human ingestion most likely use FDA approved Food, Drug and Cosmetic dyes. Depending on the product it contains, it may use less stringent Drug and Cosmetic dyes. There are other dyes, pigments and chemicals that create new colors when oxidized, e.g. permanent hair dyes.

[MonroeDNA]

Good article, but we knew this years ago.