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

Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 401 posts

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#141

Post by pxtail »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #14

Recycling mentioned on Hacker News always depresses me. The way problems with it are treated as fundamentally unfixable always strikes me as against the site's ethos, yet people love pointing them out. Recycling just gets dumped in landfill! Ok, lets ban that. But, actually, its more environmentally friendly to landfill it! Are you sure? Science doesnt really agree. But anyway, can we make recycling more efficient? N…

I think it's like this because topic is difficult and everyone is guilty so there is attempt to marginalize it and just think "I did my part, I placed bottle in correct container". This part is easy and there is the problem - it's too easy and not enough to make a real difference.

Problem with waste stems also from wild consumptionism - for example: most phones, notebooks, displays produced nowadays are perfectly fine to last and be usable 5 years and more, cars - 20 years and more, but I doubt that majority of hn visitors are using their devices this long.

Recently I read here comment from someone who is using his Samsung phone for 10 years! I'm seriously admiring his dedication - it is hard to fight off desire, urge and social pressure to buy a new shiny toy.

Another topic is poverty and incredible amount of waste thrown into the rivers and oceans in some parts of Africa and Asia- when people are poor and they don't have sufficient living conditions then they don't care, waste management and environment is the last thing they think of. I remember how it was in 90s in central europe and how it changed over course of time.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#142

Post by hinkley »

ed_elliott_asc wrote: post #23

The thing is they don’t need that plastic lid. They say without it the food would be spoiled but if you have a big bag of crisps, you open them and eat them or they go off - this is no different. Kellogg’s seem to believe they have invented a type of crisp that can only be eaten over a period of time.

Pringles hold up well in lunchboxes, and the can could go a week per child even if they prefer one flavor. I think people underestimate the packing density of Pringle’s. There is a lot of (mashed) potato in that can.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#143

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #72
andrepd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "chips model" works perfectly well for thousands of products. Want detergent? Bring a bottle to a machine that fills it up rather than taking home a brand new plastic bottle every time. Ditto for fruits and vegetables. Biscuits. Candy. Anything that doesn't need a plastic bag for health and safety reasons.

How would fill-your-own-bottle work with online shopping and home delivery, which more and more people are doing even for groceries?

1. A factory ships a product to the seller in a durable container. Puts $1 into a smart contract to resolve on that container's return.

2. I buy $5 worth of product in durable container from seller and pay $7.

3. Seller gets $5, remaining $2 goes into smart contract from step 1.

So now there's three incentives to get the container back to the factory (each is $1 in this example, but would be a parameter in reality).

4. If the container shows up at the factory at all, whoever delivers it gets $1 for facilitating the delivery and the factory gets their $1 back because they didn't contribute to litter.

5. If it arrives back at the factory clean and in good condition, I get $1 back for not contributing to litter and for doing my part to ensure that the container is reusable rather than merely recyclable.

If you find a durable container in the wild that doesn't have a bounty on it, it's proof that the factory is cheating and the government gives you a $1 for it, and takes that $1 out of the factory's taxes.

If you find a bottle with the factory's bounty but not the consumer's bounty, it's evidence that the seller or buyer is cheating. The government gives you $2 for it and collaborates with the factory to take $2 out of the seller's taxes.

If you find a container with both bounties on it, it's evidence that I was too lazy to take it back to the factory, so you give it to the factory and get the $1 reward.

If I keep the container and repurpose it, the factory doesn't get their $1 back, but whatever I'm using it for hopefully counts as good advertising for them. Also, I can always just return it much later when it's done with the reuse purpose.

If you find a damaged container in the wild, recycle it with society's thanks and know that whoever let that happen paid $1 for their crime.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#144

Post by everdrive »

It's quite sad, since there's no reason for pringles to exist in the first place. They're not good for you, they have no nutritional value, and they come with tons of waste. All this mess just because a few people with poor impulse control wanted to be a bit more comfortable.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#145

Post by hinkley »

detaro wrote: post #89
m0nty wrote: post #85

> Kellogg's says these lids will still produce the distinctive "pop" associated with the product. No it isn't. Is this "pop" really such a big deal that they've been holding back on the redesign for so long?

Isn't it like the Pringles marketing thing?

I can’t recall the last time I saw a Pringle’s ad, but wasn’t their slogan “Once you pop, you can’t stop?”

Although that’s a double edged argument. If you say the marketing is true (we need the pop!) then you’ve just stated that don’t think the can needs to be resealable...

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#146

Post by rlpb »

mellavora wrote: post #109
rlpb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only containers which are infinitely recyclable are aluminum and coloured glass (nearly), but that takes energy. I've heard people say that the environmental cost of producing the clean water necessary to wash bottles for reuse is also harmful. I'd really like to see a side-by-side comparison of the environmental cost of the different available "obvious" options. > We need to just force manufacturers to bear th…

Part of me finds this really appealing. it only requires getting everyone on the planet to accept that things cost 10x what they do now. which is a hard pill to swallow when you are living paycheck to paycheck, which is most of the world's population.

It could be done gradually. The first step is to introduce the assessment and remittance infrastructure. Governments could then choose to start with a 95% discount on the fee for example, and ramp it up over time. It could also choose to reduce the fee or entirely exempt certain products. You could see these as "environmental subsidies" on things that we consider important. The important thing is that costing in the environmental economic externality[1] would become the norm, rather than the exception.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#147

Post by Zippogriff »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #69
kbos87 wrote: post #4

If you want to have your eyes opened about just how little of the material you probably think you are recycling actually gets recycled, watch the recent Frontline episode called “Plastic Wars”. The sad truth is that while recycling is worthwhile, it’s also a woefully insufficient solution that has been held up by the petroleum industry as a cure all to prevent a backlash against plastic. Even products that are labele…

And many cities subsidize waste by charging money for trash hauling but not for putting trash in the recycling bin. Seattle even introduced a punitive fine for NOT contaminating the recycling stream!

Regular trash costs extra money after a couple bags, here, so we're encouraged to put anything in recycling that can go there. Our city has us put recycling out at the curb, unbagged and uncovered, in plastic bins.

Meanwhile, wind exists.

It's more of a littering program than a recycling program, really.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#148

Post by dojitza1 »

remote_phone wrote: post #121
pkphilip wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the key issues with using bottles is the cost, weight and the fact that there is a lot of breakage. The weight alone increases the cost of the supply chain by several times. One key invention which could really help here is flexible glass packaging. Interestingly, one of the lost technologies from the Roman era is flexible glass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_glass Corning does have flexible glass, bu…

Let the costs increase then. All food containers must be recyclable or compostable. This should be a rule across the globe. We should also ban single-use plastic. If costs need to go up, then let them go up. Consumers need to understand the costs of their consumption and we can’t destroy our planet so that corporations can be more profitable.

I agree. But an average human won't. A perceived cost increase or to put it more generally a perceived life standard decrease incurs a strong emotion in humans. Let earth and our future be be damned, I want more dopamine in my brain as soon as possible. This is the reason why most people live in debt, instead of an obviously optimal alternative of saving up for your purchases. We evolved in an unstable world, where future was uncertain and happiness now was worth a lot more than the possibility of happiness in the future.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#149

Post by hinkley »

BlackLotus89 wrote: post #56
sandGorgon wrote: post #31

FWIW - Pringles tubes are very effective in increasing wifi signal range. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-a-wifi-antenna-out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ioJ8i56pA

No they are not. They were used because someone did it and documented it, but the diameter and length is sub-optimal (75mm is too small) should be between 84 and 92mm (diameter). Since this was probably more a joke I won't get too much into the details, but if you really want to build a "cantenna" there are great resources out there.

So we need Pringle’s Extra (you can fit your hand in there!) and a little campaign about mesh networking...

I’m guessing the diameter and length are also wrong for 5Ghz as well?

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#150

Post by strogonoff »

Ensorceled wrote: post #16

We need to focus on the second R, reuse. I have mason jars that my grandmother and then my mother used for pickling. The only waste is the rubber ring which needs to be replaced occasionally and THAT could be recycled. Many of these bottles have been used for 80+ years now. I have a few Ball jars which my GREAT grandmother used 100+ years ago. Beer bottles in Canada are reused dozens of times and are recyclable (brow…

On board with mandating recycling and encouraging use of infinitely recyclable materials in container manufacturing.

A couple nits to pick, though.

– You have to be specific when advocating for reuse. Some like to keep using—for long periods of time—bottles made from cheap thin disposable plastic. That plastic, when repeatedly emptied, may quickly accumulate tiny cracks and leech chemicals, which in case of P(V)C may well be BPA. How harmful this could be depends on country’s regulations.

– Pure aluminum containers are rare, if exist. Aluminum cans & bottles contain plastic inside.

I personally advocate for glass, and if glass is not an option—recycle, don’t reuse disposable plastic or aluminum containers more than a couple of times for the sake of your and your descendants’ health.

Post reply on HN