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

51–60 of 143 posts

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

#51

Post by aristofun »

xyst wrote: post #44
matt_heimer wrote: post #38

Ease of recycling is not prioritized during design or manufacturing because there is no monetary incentive (for the manufacturer) to do so it most cases. It would eat into profits. Simple as that. Unless a component is expensive to manufactory and recycling/reuse could save the manufacturer money it won't happen. The only real solution are laws requiring it.

It should be regulated to make devices repairable and upgradeable. End soldering of components to motherboard. Make service manuals publicly available. Components sold and available.

NO! We have enough regulations already

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

#52

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

danrecht wrote: post #4

Collecting small things from many sources over meaningful distances is hard. Separating things made of many materials is hard, especially when some components are hazardous. Purifying materials drawn from waste is hard. These aren’t impossible challenges, but physical facts of the problem that have kept costs too high for electronics recycling to be widespread. Longer lasting electronics that can be repurposed or reu…

At some point in the 90s I remember hearing an NPR story about a new startup that was "pioneering" technology that would basically permit atomic/small-molecule level "cat cracking" of just about anything: a furnace that was so hot that everything put inside it broke down to atoms/small-molecules which could then be fractionated off for re-use.

I was so excited. I was so naive.

The idea seems to have gone nowhere.

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

#53

Post by marcosdumay »

porise wrote: post #14
Apreche wrote: post #11

This is why the saying has always been “reduce, reuse, recycle” in that order. Reducing is the best. Don’t buy or make surplus stuff, and that reduces waste overall. Reusing is second best. If we did make something, the best thing to do is get as much use out of it as possible to prevent it from ever becoming trash. Recycling is the last resort. Regardless of what is being recycled, it is an expensive and difficult p…

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

Ignoring the ambiguity of the word "refuse", that often means "turn into trash", it's also completely redundant with "reduce". To the point that it doesn't add anything new.

Anyway, "rot" is a good one.

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

#54

Post by marcosdumay »

xyst wrote: post #44
matt_heimer wrote: post #38

Ease of recycling is not prioritized during design or manufacturing because there is no monetary incentive (for the manufacturer) to do so it most cases. It would eat into profits. Simple as that. Unless a component is expensive to manufactory and recycling/reuse could save the manufacturer money it won't happen. The only real solution are laws requiring it.

It should be regulated to make devices repairable and upgradeable. End soldering of components to motherboard. Make service manuals publicly available. Components sold and available.

At some point, sockets add enough failure modes that making components switchable increases the amount of waste. And it's not a far, theoretical point; it's one we often meet in practice.

Any regulation about that has to be detail-focused and conservative.

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

#55

Post by marcosdumay »

pkilgore wrote: post #47

Not to be glib, but the second law of thermodynamics. You are attempting to filter out trace amounts valuable dopants and some small amounts of metals with value from, essentially, a pile of sand. This is not energetically or chemically easy.

The second law of thermodynamics is very forgiving here. It's actually not the problem. Energy depends on the log of the concentration.

The problem is with our technology; we don't know how to recycle things well.

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

#57

Post by randusername »

I like how threads like this are like a reverse nesting doll. Somebody says the problem is the specific metals, then someone says it is recovery processes, then market forces, then legislation, and I think I spied a comment on thermodynamics.

I will take a shot in the dark somewhere in the middle. Intellectual property. As long as transparency and standardization are disincentivized it will be pretty hard to orchestrate un-building anything.

I wonder if we're converging on all products becoming "good enough" that the pace of innovation will slow and this will change for the better?

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

#59

Post by renewiltord »

porise wrote: post #14
Apreche wrote: post #11

This is why the saying has always been “reduce, reuse, recycle” in that order. Reducing is the best. Don’t buy or make surplus stuff, and that reduces waste overall. Reusing is second best. If we did make something, the best thing to do is get as much use out of it as possible to prevent it from ever becoming trash. Recycling is the last resort. Regardless of what is being recycled, it is an expensive and difficult p…

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.

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

#60

Post by refulgentis »

jltsiren wrote: post #40
Apreche wrote: post #11

This is why the saying has always been “reduce, reuse, recycle” in that order. Reducing is the best. Don’t buy or make surplus stuff, and that reduces waste overall. Reusing is second best. If we did make something, the best thing to do is get as much use out of it as possible to prevent it from ever becoming trash. Recycling is the last resort. Regardless of what is being recycled, it is an expensive and difficult p…

I find the "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan misleading. Everything that is manufactured will eventually become waste that must be disposed of responsibly. The overall volume of manufacturing only goes up if we leave it to the market, and there is no serious political will to legislate it down. That leaves us with an ever-increasing volume of waste that must be dealt with, making waste management an increasingly import…

So the idea of reducing consumption is misleading, the real solution is to reduce consumption (via the law forcing quotas on manufacturers and rationing on consumers)
Post reply on HN