Thermodynamics: it's hard to unmix cake batter.
Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
81–90 of 143 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#82Repairability would help as well. Many times the only viable option to fix something is to swap a board, or replace the entire item, instead of replacing the one failed component that caused the board to fail, or reflowing the board etc.. Many components also do not offer batteries that can be replaced, such as the magic mouse, so you end up needing to replace the entire item. It's interesting how as certain things a…
Human-scale engineering is underrated. It is very satisfying when you can repair something yourself using your hands, without having to need specialist equipment. For example when you have a circuit board that can be serviced with a soldering iron, without having to use a microscope or reflow-oven.
It is underrated in terms of personal satisfaction. It is overrated in terms of potential impact to municipal waste management.
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rot is about using bio-degradable options where there is one if all fails, just leave an option for nature to do it for you
You have to be careful with that phrase through. > using bio-degradable options where there is one A lot of "biodegradable" will use a literal interpretation, in that it it degrades in nature. 500 years you say? But it still degrades... Home compostable is really the only one that makes sense. Even industrial composting requires a high heat environment as the catalyst, so if something contaminates the batch and goes…
500 years is only a blink in Earths lifespan.
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#84The ultimate reason is there isn't economic reason so. It cost's a lot to recycle anything, and most electronics would net you almost nothing valuable. Let's look at an example. Let's say your phones main board, which will net a few hundred grams of raw materials. First thing by weight the actual board itself is probably the biggest, if you could perfectly decompose it to it's parts you would have some fiberglass, gl…
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?
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#85Did you know only about 5% of plastic in the US is recycled? The rest is floating in the ocean or not degrading in landfills. Plastic.
I'm surprised it is that high. Plastic is cheap to produce, and the quality of plastic from US recyclers is poor. It is so infamously dirty that China banned importing recycled plastic from the US. By the time you wash the peanut butter out of each peanut butter jar, you've spent more in water and labor than the plastic is worth.
But ultimately, landfills are a good place to put plastic. It sequesters the carbon and keeps the pollution contained.
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard they changed it to 5Rs. Refuse, reduce, reuse, recyle, rot.
How confusing. There's no appreciable difference between "refuse" and "reduce". "Rot" is only applicable to organic waste, which is rarely considered part of "recycling" since the other Rs don't really apply. Seems like change for change's sake.
Organic waste can be reused. Ever watch Human Centipede?
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#87The ultimate reason is there isn't economic reason so. It cost's a lot to recycle anything, and most electronics would net you almost nothing valuable. Let's look at an example. Let's say your phones main board, which will net a few hundred grams of raw materials. First thing by weight the actual board itself is probably the biggest, if you could perfectly decompose it to it's parts you would have some fiberglass, gl…
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
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#88Repairability would help as well. Many times the only viable option to fix something is to swap a board, or replace the entire item, instead of replacing the one failed component that caused the board to fail, or reflowing the board etc.. Many components also do not offer batteries that can be replaced, such as the magic mouse, so you end up needing to replace the entire item. It's interesting how as certain things a…
Try buying an LED flashlight.. when the LED circuitry/bulb goes out, the whole thing's a brick, battery, assembly, everything. You have to throw it all out. The bulb assembly is usually fused to the frame so that it's hard just to recycle that frame.
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#89Earlier 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
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.
Re: Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
#90Earlier 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…
Maybe it's because people spread FUD about the effectiveness of "reduce and reuse" instead of convincing others that "reduce and reuse" has value as a concept.