solymnar
Distinguished
- Jun 26, 2006
- 84
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]Why should we? When all is said and done, recycled plastic costs more than non-recycled and is of lower quality.[/citation]
The plastic situation has to deal with the chemistry. Most people think that two different plastics if you melt them will combine. This unfortunately is not the case at all. So often you get something similar to particle board out of recycled plastic efforts but less sturdy and far less bio degradable.
The "correct" way to recycle plastics is to make them biodegradable to begin with or create processes that can breakdown the individual mers to their building blocks and separate them out cleanly. Not easy tasks to balance when their densities are often very similar.
Recycling paper is far and away more expensive than growing more trees currently and produces quite a bit more pollution. Many types of paper degrade pretty well on their own. So simply using those kinds and having an expedient way for it to breakdown is a better call that trying to turn it back into usable pulp.
Its not that its regionally economical or not. It always not economical regardless of region. But it makes people feel warmer and fuzzier even when (in the case of paper products) it cost more energy and pollution to recycle.
As mentioned metals are a pita to mine and refine and the recycle process is much more effective (owing to very different properties of metals) and yeilds a perfectly equivalent product to being mined in most cases.
Its not the TV that bother's stoner. Its having a decision made for him that "should have been his to make".
There is a fine line in regards to that.
(my own theory based on a bit of study and reading)
I suspect in large part the whole point of getting us more energy efficient is so that when (not if) the oil crash hits we can survive through it without the nation collapsing completely into ruins while we flip to coal/nuclear/etc. Lets face it, if energy is cheap and easy, stoner and everyone else will burn it like its going out of style because its their right to do so. So it has to be made artificially more expensive in stages to push development and changes.
It can (and is) argued about when the oil crash will happen. Some say 10 years, some say 50. No one perfectly knows. But what we DO know is that re-ramping the US to be near completely non-dependent on oil will take a long time and a lot of effort and resources. Better to start now and hopefully be ready than caught with your pants around your ankles.
The plastic situation has to deal with the chemistry. Most people think that two different plastics if you melt them will combine. This unfortunately is not the case at all. So often you get something similar to particle board out of recycled plastic efforts but less sturdy and far less bio degradable.
The "correct" way to recycle plastics is to make them biodegradable to begin with or create processes that can breakdown the individual mers to their building blocks and separate them out cleanly. Not easy tasks to balance when their densities are often very similar.
Recycling paper is far and away more expensive than growing more trees currently and produces quite a bit more pollution. Many types of paper degrade pretty well on their own. So simply using those kinds and having an expedient way for it to breakdown is a better call that trying to turn it back into usable pulp.
Its not that its regionally economical or not. It always not economical regardless of region. But it makes people feel warmer and fuzzier even when (in the case of paper products) it cost more energy and pollution to recycle.
As mentioned metals are a pita to mine and refine and the recycle process is much more effective (owing to very different properties of metals) and yeilds a perfectly equivalent product to being mined in most cases.
Its not the TV that bother's stoner. Its having a decision made for him that "should have been his to make".
There is a fine line in regards to that.
(my own theory based on a bit of study and reading)
I suspect in large part the whole point of getting us more energy efficient is so that when (not if) the oil crash hits we can survive through it without the nation collapsing completely into ruins while we flip to coal/nuclear/etc. Lets face it, if energy is cheap and easy, stoner and everyone else will burn it like its going out of style because its their right to do so. So it has to be made artificially more expensive in stages to push development and changes.
It can (and is) argued about when the oil crash will happen. Some say 10 years, some say 50. No one perfectly knows. But what we DO know is that re-ramping the US to be near completely non-dependent on oil will take a long time and a lot of effort and resources. Better to start now and hopefully be ready than caught with your pants around your ankles.
/www.tomsguide.com/us/tesla-model-s-sedan-electic,news-3706.html
Facebook
Twitter