Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are already landfills where they've dug methane wills and get enoughDon Klipstein wrote:
In<1amymk2ohu588$.1bahbs56b8su5$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote
SNIP to the point of recycling
Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.
The rest costs more energy than making it anew, more energy, untill we
convert to purely atomic (with hydroelectric to compensate daily
fluctuations) means more pollution.
Sure, we should get rid of glass containers, that cost more to recycle
than to make from sand, are heavy (so their transportation pollutes
more) and don't incinerate.
How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the
cost of trucking recyclable trash to landfills, or the even greater cost
of
landfill dumping fees. (Landfill dumping fees are boosted by NIMBY types
that oppose everything and the many those of the "greenies" that oppose
too much of everything.)
There is also the matter that plastics are made from fossil fuels -
non-renewable natural resources that are limited in supply and which have
great demand. Recycling plastic trash or using it as fuel, as opposed to
dumping it in landfills, will make a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.
For that matter, I think that paper and wood trash should be used as
fuel (for electricity generating stations if nothing else) when recycling
is less economically favorable than that.
Landfills are a special case. They consist of large, high-grade
deposits of every sort of raw material you need for a technological
society. In a century or two, they'll all have been mined.
That's pure ideology. By the time folks get round to mining landfills,In<bcKdnd6unpuczLvQnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@supernews.com>, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In<1amymk2ohu588$.1bahbs56b8su5$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote
in part:
SNIP to the point of recycling
Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.
The rest costs more energy than making it anew, more energy, untill we
convert to purely atomic (with hydroelectric to compensate daily
fluctuations) means more pollution.
Sure, we should get rid of glass containers, that cost more to recycle
than to make from sand, are heavy (so their transportation pollutes
more) and don't incinerate.
How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the cost
of trucking recyclable trash to landfills, or the even greater cost of
landfill dumping fees. (Landfill dumping fees are boosted by NIMBY types
that oppose everything and the many those of the "greenies" that oppose
too much of everything.)
There is also the matter that plastics are made from fossil fuels -
non-renewable natural resources that are limited in supply and which have
great demand. Recycling plastic trash or using it as fuel, as opposed to
dumping it in landfills, will make a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.
For that matter, I think that paper and wood trash should be used as
fuel (for electricity generating stations if nothing else) when recycling
is less economically favorable than that.
Landfills are a special case. They consist of large, high-grade
deposits of every sort of raw material you need for a technological
society. In a century or two, they'll all have been mined.
Lots of minerals are commercial in quantities of ounces per ton of ore,
so landfills will one day be very attractive places to look.
I think the mining for minerals and metals will get easier and more
economical if there is less plastic, paper and glass to dig up, haul, and
sort. And that fossil fuel prices will be less along the way to that time
if plastics and paper products don't get to the landfills in the first
place.
I think the mining for minerals and metals will get easier and moreDon Klipstein wrote:
In<1amymk2ohu588$.1bahbs56b8su5$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote
in part:
SNIP to the point of recycling
Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.
The rest costs more energy than making it anew, more energy, untill we
convert to purely atomic (with hydroelectric to compensate daily
fluctuations) means more pollution.
Sure, we should get rid of glass containers, that cost more to recycle
than to make from sand, are heavy (so their transportation pollutes
more) and don't incinerate.
How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the cost
of trucking recyclable trash to landfills, or the even greater cost of
landfill dumping fees. (Landfill dumping fees are boosted by NIMBY types
that oppose everything and the many those of the "greenies" that oppose
too much of everything.)
There is also the matter that plastics are made from fossil fuels -
non-renewable natural resources that are limited in supply and which have
great demand. Recycling plastic trash or using it as fuel, as opposed to
dumping it in landfills, will make a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.
For that matter, I think that paper and wood trash should be used as
fuel (for electricity generating stations if nothing else) when recycling
is less economically favorable than that.
Landfills are a special case. They consist of large, high-grade
deposits of every sort of raw material you need for a technological
society. In a century or two, they'll all have been mined.
Lots of minerals are commercial in quantities of ounces per ton of ore,
so landfills will one day be very attractive places to look.