Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#131

Post by KellyCriterion »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #87
KellyCriterion wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are stats that in 1t of recycled smartphones is around 200g of Gold, while in mining 1t contains around 2-3% of Gold. Does this match somehow?

2-3% of 1 ton is 40-60 pounds of gold, and that's using the smaller, non-metric tons. 200g is about half a pound, so you'd be looking at 80x more gold per ton from traditional mining on the low end

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2509

"Indeed, a natural ore mine can produce 5 g of gold (Au) per ton of ore, while 200–250 g Au can be recovered from the same mass of computer boards (300–350 g Au/t for mobile phones) [6]."

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#132

Post by KellyCriterion »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #89
entropicdrifter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2-3% of 1 ton is 40-60 pounds of gold, and that's using the smaller, non-metric tons. 200g is about half a pound, so you'd be looking at 80x more gold per ton from traditional mining on the low end

And the gold in electronics is usually in microscopically thin layers, so it only makes commercial sense to extract it when other sources become more expensive... and at that point, doing an ecological extraction won't be a top priority. Really, the reduce and reuse parts are our best bet, because recycling only delays the inevitable, unless some groundbreaking technological change achieves 100% electronics recycling…

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2509

"Indeed, a natural ore mine can produce 5 g of gold (Au) per ton of ore, while 200–250 g Au can be recovered from the same mass of computer boards (300–350 g Au/t for mobile phones) [6]."

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#135

Post by hulitu »

jltsiren wrote: post #73
benhill70 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are forgetting about time. If the rate of stuff needing to get recycle is lower, then there is more time to recycle. If there the rate is too high then the facilities are overwhelmed and resort to less optimal strategies. This is why reduce and reuse are important.

It's misleading because it focuses on actions that are clearly not working. People on the average are increasing their consumption, not reducing it. That means the actual problem — the waste at the end of the pipeline — is growing every year. Waste management is the actual problem that needs to be solved. "Reduce and reuse" can be a part of the solution, but people are not doing enough voluntarily to make it a major…

> It's misleading because it focuses on actions that are clearly not working

Of course it is not working. The bloat and planned obsolescence of "modern software" is legendary. I had to replace the hard drive on an older computer becsuse Win 10 is slow as a dog on it, even with LTSC version and even with most of the crap disabled. And making things require the incompatible latest and greatest instead of fixing things (hello Google) , does not help either.

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#136

Post by fainpul »

renewiltord wrote: post #59
porise wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard they changed it to 5Rs. Refuse, reduce, reuse, recyle, rot.

It’s even better when you make it 10 Rs: refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose, rehome, recycle, rot. I think it’s twice as better.

  $ grep '^re' /usr/share/dict/words | wc -l
    5374
rewind, revive, refill, retrieve, retouch and a thousand more...

Let's just call it re*

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#137

Post by KellyCriterion »

hulitu wrote: post #134
pabs3 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Linux you could probably just move the drives over and it would work.

Probably.

I could try but then propably I have to open a thread like: "Tell HN: I crashed my 15 year old machine setup this evening by trying to switch to Linux" :-D

But this time would be really a great option to finally switch on this machine, you are right - I thought about it for years now and I found out in the meantime that most of the apps are running without any problems in virtualization (if required)

The thing is - by now, I'm too lazy :-) (Esp. I should add a backup machine for this procedure, since this old Windows setup is in productive use)

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#138

Post by alexandrehtrb »

westurner wrote: post #124

Electronic waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44269481 : > From "Turning waste into gold" (2024) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240229124612.h... : >> Researchers have recovered gold from electronic waste. Their highly sustainable new method is based on a protein fibril sponge, which the scientists derive from whey /? e-waste: https://hn.algo…

> I have some notes on a semiconductor fabrication process with just sustainable inputs: Ethyl Lactate, Lignin-Vitrimer, Nitrogen, CO2, Laser-induced Graphene, A-CNT, PCLP Photo-cleavable Lignin Polymer, Hexyl Cellulose

Yeah, I was thinking of something like that. If there are fewer chemical components, recycling gets easier.

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#139

Post by westurner »

alexandrehtrb wrote: post #138
westurner wrote: post #124

Electronic waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44269481 : > From "Turning waste into gold" (2024) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240229124612.h... : >> Researchers have recovered gold from electronic waste. Their highly sustainable new method is based on a protein fibril sponge, which the scientists derive from whey /? e-waste: https://hn.algo…

> I have some notes on a semiconductor fabrication process with just sustainable inputs: Ethyl Lactate, Lignin-Vitrimer, Nitrogen, CO2, Laser-induced Graphene, A-CNT, PCLP Photo-cleavable Lignin Polymer, Hexyl Cellulose Yeah, I was thinking of something like that. If there are fewer chemical components, recycling gets easier.

A biodegradable product out of biodegradable inputs would be great for computing

Before looking into Lignin I was looking at deoxidizing rGO reduced graphene oxide with hydrogen plasma.

I learned that the work functions of graphene and CNT are actually sufficiently different such that the graphene could be a substrate for CNT FET without the charge jumping out of the gate to the board. Salt apparently dissipates electric discharge about as well as silicon.

But a plasma process would probably have a lower yield rate unless there are masks, which are expensive to fab but maybe necessary to compete at production scale.

Monolithic chip fab is slower but the fabrication plant CapEx and OpEx are lower.

LCS SLM with LCoS, CO2 fiber laser / Yb Laser, plain old DUV

Some helpful prompts for a sustainablefactory agent skill:

Identify and redesign to eliminate production health hazards and environmental hazards

Find and compare sustainable alternatives, workarounds, substitutes for

Consider cellulose, graphene CNT and other carbon allotropes, CO2, nitrogen

Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?

#140

Post by renewiltord »

fainpul wrote: post #136
renewiltord wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s even better when you make it 10 Rs: refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose, rehome, recycle, rot. I think it’s twice as better.

$ grep '^re' /usr/share/dict/words | wc -l 5374 rewind, revive, refill, retrieve, retouch and a thousand more... Let's just call it re*

Some say that `git rerere` was invented for this purpose.
Post reply on HN