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

Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#101

Post by jbgt »

singularity2001 wrote: post #97
bradley13 wrote: post #9

Some years ago, Switzerland completely stopped using landfills. All garbage is incinerated. The resulting slag is then processed to reclaim nearly all metals as well as some other important elements. Of course, the burning creates CO2. However, you don't have to mine and refine metal ores, and the incinerators also generate electricity and district heating. So the ecological balance is actually pretty good. As a fina…

what happens to the remaining mess of thousands upon thousands of unknown and or toxic mixed chemicals?

They are broken down at the incineration temperature of around 700C.

Cement plants are also interesting because of the even higher temperatures of 1200C I believe.

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#102

Post by jbgt »

bradley13 wrote: post #9

Some years ago, Switzerland completely stopped using landfills. All garbage is incinerated. The resulting slag is then processed to reclaim nearly all metals as well as some other important elements. Of course, the burning creates CO2. However, you don't have to mine and refine metal ores, and the incinerators also generate electricity and district heating. So the ecological balance is actually pretty good. As a fina…

There's also a company called Selfrag (selective fragmentation) which uses electrical current to break the conglomerate slag along mineral fault lines to be able to more easily extract the metals..

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#103

Post by olyjohn »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #8
incrudible wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If mining landfills was profitable, recycling would be profitable even before that.

I thought recycling was sometimes profitable? At least for metals

I took a truckload of scrap steel and aluminum to the scrap yard and got a pretty good chunk of money for it. Used metals are definitely worth something. All old cars are cushed and paid for by the ton. You can even take old wire and piping to the scrap yards for money. That's why abandoned houses will get ripped apart for copper pipes and wiring.

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#104

Post by singularity2001 »

jbgt wrote: post #101
singularity2001 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what happens to the remaining mess of thousands upon thousands of unknown and or toxic mixed chemicals?

They are broken down at the incineration temperature of around 700C. Cement plants are also interesting because of the even higher temperatures of 1200C I believe.

are you telling me all molecules and amalgams break down at 700C?

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#106

Post by nobodyandproud »

gosub100 wrote: post #7

I've wondered why they haven't implemented a compromise between recycling and tossing, which would just be segregating certain materials for later sale or recycling. If they put all the plastic bottles in one section of landfill, all the glass, etc it would be a bet toward there someday being a change in technology, materials science, or market prices that might make it worth mining. It would also be cheaper because…

Something I haven’t seen ever answered? Why push this responsibility on consumers and down-stream waste management?

Why not start at the end-product and manufacturing? Most of my trash is food or packaging.

Why not reassign the packaging cost back to manufacturers?, rather than making it a cost born by consumers?

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#107

Post by lazide »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #28
grogenaut wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm super excited for all the plastic in the world and all the devices that we use everyday to rot because we developed a bacteria that eats it and now your iPhone internals have an infection and your phone just disintegrates and the steering wheel falls off your car

Would you do me a kindness and let me know later if sarcasm gets through people who can’t care about the environment a bit more than their own consumption? I’ve tried reason but it never works.

If you think about it, there are strong evolutionary incentives for people to take from someone/something else rather than reduce their own consumption voluntarily. Hell, it’s what all ecosystems are built on!

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#108

Post by odiroot »

ponector wrote: post #22
WirelessGigabit wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has way too much space for incineration to become more cost-effective than just dumping it in a giant hole in the ground.

Could be true for small cities. But try to find an empty space suitable for landfill near NYC.

Tony Soprano might have an answer.

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#109

Post by user_named »

gruez wrote: post #79
morsch wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your math right? 90 million tons of water/10 m gets me 1.7 km2, so a 1 sq mi landfill would last around ... 1 year, not 287. That said, of the 90 million of waste, 60-70 million is construction waste, and just 6 million tons is municipal waste. On the other hand, I'm not sure you can just assume that waste has the same density as water; from a cursory glance it seems to about 1/3. https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en…

> Is your math right? 90 million tons of water/10 m gets me 1.7 km2, so a 1 sq mi landfill would last around ... 1 year, not 287. You're right, looks like I forgot to convert liters to tons. >On the other hand, I'm not sure you can just assume that waste has the same density as water; from a cursory glance it seems to about 1/3. is this before or after compaction? Intuitively speaking, most things I throw out would s…

Well you clearly don't have great intuition

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#110

Post by imtringued »

kragen wrote: post #89
ianburrell wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to reduce carbon emissions to zero in couple decades. Burning trash isn't an issue now, but we need to keep in mind that isn't really "green" when deciding to build more plants. The problem with burning trash is that it turns all of the carbon into CO2. Trash in landfill does produce methane which is worse greenhouse gas, but it sounds like landfill are starting to capture or burn methane. The best option is…

i thought this was an order of magnitude problem, like when people react the same way to an epidemic that could kill a hundred thousand people or a hundred million, but it turns out to be a sensible thing to be concerned about you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it matters the amount produced by bur…

>you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it matters

This is a classic misrepresentation of the problem. Policy makers don't care about how much CO2 you emit as long as it stays within the bio capacity of the planet. I.e. is there a net accumulation of CO2 and yes, yes there is. The CO2 you breathe had to be captured by the plants in the first place and therefore doesn't represent a net accumulation. The CO2 emissions involved in the agricultural processes of the food you eat, however do represent a net accumulation since the fuels were dug out of the ground.

Post reply on HN