Don’t you have regulations, or at least discouragements, against e-waste >>> going to landfill?
Yes, in the last two decades. A quarter century ago, not so much.
This is 'Murica, pretty much everything goes in the trash here...
Nonsense.
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
Don’t you have regulations, or at least discouragements, against e-waste >>>> going to landfill?
Yes, in the last two decades. A quarter century ago, not so much.
This is 'Murica, pretty much everything goes in the trash here...
Nonsense.
It's sort of true. In my town they pick up paper and containers and yard waste
at the curb but I have to take electronics down to the recycling dump.
Most
people don't bother.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:21:57 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
Don’t you have regulations, or at least discouragements, against e- >>>>> waste
going to landfill?
Yes, in the last two decades. A quarter century ago, not so much.
This is 'Murica, pretty much everything goes in the trash here...
Nonsense.
It's sort of true. In my town they pick up paper and containers and yard
waste
at the curb but I have to take electronics down to the recycling dump.
Most
people don't bother.
In Austin we have recycling, but at the sorting department, recycled
glass is diverted straight to the garbage dump.
On 5/23/2025 9:21 AM, John Levine wrote:
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
Don’t you have regulations, or at least discouragements, against e-waste
going to landfill?
Yes, in the last two decades. A quarter century ago, not so much.
This is 'Murica, pretty much everything goes in the trash here...
Nonsense.
It's sort of true. In my town they pick up paper and containers and yard waste
at the curb but I have to take electronics down to the recycling dump. Most >> people don't bother.
Theoretically, they pick up recycling (paper and plastic), but whether
or not they bother is another matter. Usually the garbage trucks come by
and empty both bins, so it might not make much difference.
Though, looking, it might depend on state as well.
On 5/23/2025 8:17 AM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:21:57 +0000, John Levine wrote:
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
Don’t you have regulations, or at least discouragements, against e- >>>>>> waste
going to landfill?
Yes, in the last two decades. A quarter century ago, not so much. >>>>>
This is 'Murica, pretty much everything goes in the trash here...
Nonsense.
It's sort of true. In my town they pick up paper and containers and yard >>> waste
at the curb but I have to take electronics down to the recycling dump.
Most
people don't bother.
In Austin we have recycling, but at the sorting department, recycled
glass is diverted straight to the garbage dump.
Interesting. I thought glass was supposed to be the easiest thing to recycle. Perhaps separate clear from colored, then just melt it down and reuse.
On 5/23/2025 12:43 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 16:57:57 +0000, Stephen Fuld wrote:
But, it almost stands to reason in a way:
Aluminum, Silicon, and Oxygen, are among the most common elements in
Earth's crust; the world isn't going to run out of glass and aluminum
anytime soon.
So, it likely comes down to the relative cost of mining and processing
of new material, vs transporting and reprocessing existing material.
On 5/23/2025 12:34 PM, BGB wrote:-------------
On 5/23/2025 12:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Contrast, say, in suburbs or housing developments where the houses are
basically right next to each other with very little yard space.
Well, I am now not so sure about my area estimates...
I think my numbers were a bit off.
But, as I understand it:
1/4 acre, typical for suburbs;
Much of the lot is taken up by the house itself.
Yard is mostly superficial (*1).
1/2 acre, slightly bigger yard
Say, neighbor's house is like 20 feet away or something.
1 acre
Roughly the size of a typical used car lot or gas station.
2 acre
Roughly twice the area of a gas station.
Could fit multiple houses if each had a smaller yard.
...
On 5/23/2025 12:34 PM, BGB wrote:
On 5/23/2025 12:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
On 5/23/2025 9:21 AM, John Levine wrote:
According to Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net>:
Don’t you have regulations, or at least discouragements, against >>>>>>>> e-waste
going to landfill?
Yes, in the last two decades. A quarter century ago, not so much. >>>>>>>
This is 'Murica, pretty much everything goes in the trash here... >>>>>>Nonsense.
It's sort of true. In my town they pick up paper and containers and
yard waste
at the curb but I have to take electronics down to the recycling
dump. Most
people don't bother.
Theoretically, they pick up recycling (paper and plastic), but whether >>>> or not they bother is another matter. Usually the garbage trucks come by >>>> and empty both bins, so it might not make much difference.
There are trucks that have two holding areas, so they can make
the trip with one truck rather than two. In my rural neighborhood,
there are three trucks - trash, recycling and greenwaste. I have
the smallest trash can they offer and it takes me two to three
weeks to fill it.
No greenwaste trucks, one has to take any tree branches or similar down
to the greenwaste place themselves, if not burn them.
The area I am in, isn't really either urban or rural I think.
IIRC, yard here is around 2.5 acre, whereas a neighbor has somewhere
around 8 acres (so a much bigger yard).
Another neighbor (across a different fence), having a much smaller yard
(around 1 acre).
Contrast, say, in suburbs or housing developments where the houses are
basically right next to each other with very little yard space.
Well, I am now not so sure about my area estimates...
I think my numbers were a bit off.
But, as I understand it:
1/4 acre, typical for suburbs;
Much of the lot is taken up by the house itself.
Yard is mostly superficial (*1).
For a lot of the CNC stuff I am doing, aluminum is one of the most
common metals used (primarily 6061, sometimes 7075 and similar),
followed by carbon steel.
Sometimes stainless steel, but stainless steel is both more expensive
and a pain to work with.
Theoretically, one could melt and recast aluminum, but less likely to be considered as "acceptable" (as the quality and metalurgy properties are
less likely to be the same as newly bought metal).
Say, if one goes and melts down the contents of their chip buckets (and probably getting some ambiguous mixture of 6061 and 7075 and similar).
Don't forget to factor in energy costs. The energy costs
to refine and produce virgin aluminum are very high, relative
to the costs of recycling aluminum.
Granted, but possibly depends on the relative cost of energy.
But, likely, as more total aluminum is produced the relative cost of
aluminum would go gown. While recycling aluminum makes sense, it does
come with the tradeoff that recycling aluminum reduces the relative cost
of aluminum (and thus the value of producing new aluminum would go
down), so is less likely to be favored by the primary producers (where a >relative scarcity is better for profit margins, ...).
According to BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>:
Don't forget to factor in energy costs. The energy costs
to refine and produce virgin aluminum are very high, relative
to the costs of recycling aluminum.
Granted, but possibly depends on the relative cost of energy.
But, likely, as more total aluminum is produced the relative cost of >aluminum would go gown. While recycling aluminum makes sense, it
does come with the tradeoff that recycling aluminum reduces the
relative cost of aluminum (and thus the value of producing new
aluminum would go down), so is less likely to be favored by the
primary producers (where a relative scarcity is better for profit
margins, ...).
Aluminum is produced from bauxite which is around 40% aluminum and
needs a multi-step energy intensive process to turn into metallic
aluminum. But aluminum scrap is already metallic aluminum. My
impression is that we are about as far down the experience curve as
we are likely to get, and using scrap as a source will always be far
cheaper than bauxite.
Your profit margin thing is backwards -- producers charge whatever
the market will bear for the product (plus tariffs these days which
is a separate issue) so the more scrap they can use, the lower their
costs so the more money they make.
Looks up more, apparently Oklahoma also has cheaper natural gas, at
around $5 per thousand cubic feet, vs $13 (US average). Apparently
Oklahoma and Texas are among the top producers of natural gas in the US
(well, besides Pennsylvania; which also makes a lot).
...
I wonder if this is because they are capturing "waste" methane at the >wellhead of fracked oil wells. I know thay used to consider methane >by-product at oil wellheads to be worthless waste, to be flared off
on-site, until EPA started fining them for the practice.
I am aware though they are apparently building a new aluminum plant / refinery somewhere in the area (near Inola). Will apparently be the
biggest aluminum plant in the US once finished.
Looking it up, seems the current going rate for power (for commercial/industrial use):
$0.05 / kWh (general)
$0.02 / kWh (off-peak)
I guess the area is known partly for having comparably cheap
electricity, vs current US average price of $0.19/kWh.
Looks it up, most of the local power plants are using natural gas.
Looks up more, apparently Oklahoma also has cheaper natural gas, at
around $5 per thousand cubic feet, vs $13 (US average). Apparently
Oklahoma and Texas are among the top producers of natural gas in the US (well, besides Pennsylvania; which also makes a lot).
...
On 2025-05-24, BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
I am aware though they are apparently building a new aluminum plant /
refinery somewhere in the area (near Inola). Will apparently be the
biggest aluminum plant in the US once finished.
Looking it up, seems the current going rate for power (for
commercial/industrial use):
$0.05 / kWh (general)
$0.02 / kWh (off-peak)
I guess the area is known partly for having comparably cheap
electricity, vs current US average price of $0.19/kWh.
Looks it up, most of the local power plants are using natural gas.
Looks up more, apparently Oklahoma also has cheaper natural gas, at
around $5 per thousand cubic feet, vs $13 (US average). Apparently
Oklahoma and Texas are among the top producers of natural gas in the US
(well, besides Pennsylvania; which also makes a lot).
...
I wonder if this is because they are capturing "waste" methane at the wellhead of fracked oil wells. I know thay used to consider methane by-product at oil wellheads to be worthless waste, to be flared off
on-site, until EPA started fining them for the practice.
On 5/24/2025 4:45 PM, Michael S wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 20:36:50 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>:
Don't forget to factor in energy costs. The energy costs
to refine and produce virgin aluminum are very high, relative
to the costs of recycling aluminum.
Granted, but possibly depends on the relative cost of energy.
But, likely, as more total aluminum is produced the relative cost of
aluminum would go gown. While recycling aluminum makes sense, it
does come with the tradeoff that recycling aluminum reduces the
relative cost of aluminum (and thus the value of producing new
aluminum would go down), so is less likely to be favored by the
primary producers (where a relative scarcity is better for profit
margins, ...).
Aluminum is produced from bauxite which is around 40% aluminum and
needs a multi-step energy intensive process to turn into metallic
aluminum. But aluminum scrap is already metallic aluminum. My
impression is that we are about as far down the experience curve as
we are likely to get, and using scrap as a source will always be far
cheaper than bauxite.
Aluminum from bauxite is almost pure aluminum. Aluminum from scrap
contains significant and unpredictable amounts of magnesium, copper and
silicon. Removing them is hard, in case of copper very hard.
Possibly why aluminum cans are "more favorable" for recycling, as the
alloy the cans are made of is pretty much pure aluminum.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 5:38:36 +0000, BGB wrote:
On 5/23/2025 12:34 PM, BGB wrote:-------------
On 5/23/2025 12:03 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> writes:
Contrast, say, in suburbs or housing developments where the houses are
basically right next to each other with very little yard space.
Well, I am now not so sure about my area estimates...
I think my numbers were a bit off.
But, as I understand it:
1/4 acre, typical for suburbs;
An acre is 208.7^2 feet.
My 2450 sq-ft house sits on 95×65 foot lot; 14% of acre.
With 5 foot easements on all sides.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:43:24 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,155 |