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

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#111

Post by ZeroGravitas »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #106
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?

This is called "Extended Producer Responsibility" and is the basis of modern regulations in the EU and California.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibili...

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#112

Post by mike_hearn »

junofan wrote: post #83
tmountain wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this align with NPRs fairly recent report that recycling probably isn't even worth it? https://www.npr.org/2021/04/21/987111675/video-is-recycling-... How many hours have we (as a species) wasted sorting and meticulously managing our waste when the vast majority of it never gets recycled anyway? I'm asking the question as someone who cares deeply about the environment. I just think recycling is a fake soluti…

After moving to Switzerland I remember receiving a pamphlet with something like 15 different types of recycling I was supposed to do. There were special trash detectives that could fine people and imprison those who couldn’t pay. I lived above a recycling depot and watched locals diligently separate their trash by type of metal, color of glass, and like 10 other factors. Then once or twice a week I watched the pickup…

The trash detectives are iirc looking for people who throw out trash without using the taxed bags, not for people who aren't sorting recycling correctly. I've heard of people being fined for not using the proper bags but never for just tossing things in the regular trash.

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#114

Post by nobodyandproud »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #111
nobodyandproud wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is called "Extended Producer Responsibility" and is the basis of modern regulations in the EU and California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibili...

This is a take-back scheme. But does this extend to the daily, non-food trash meant to be thrown out by consumers?

Think of how plastic packaging becomes waste, because it’s one-time use.

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#115

Post by kragen »

imtringued wrote: post #110
kragen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

i think that my comment already covers this, except that the policy makers are not people whose judgment is of interest; the only way that they're relevant to this discussion is that they caused the problem in the first place

in particular, i said that your emissions from breathing are

> hopefully sourced from the air via plants. so, too, is most of the combustible garbage

the story is a little more complicated, though, because point-source carbon capture is feasible for trash incinerators (and, say, container ships) but not for people breathing, so trash incinerators could conceivably provide indirect atmospheric carbon capture by way of the trees and food that ended up in the garbage. i didn't want to get into these complexities, which is why i didn't go into more detail in my original comment

more importantly, though, i don't appreciate being called a fucking liar (even if euphemistically) because i disagree with you about something. people like you are why i always regret engaging on this site. please begin adhering to minimal norms of civility before you fucking comment again

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#116

Post by ZeroGravitas »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #114
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called "Extended Producer Responsibility" and is the basis of modern regulations in the EU and California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibili...

This is a take-back scheme. But does this extend to the daily, non-food trash meant to be thrown out by consumers? Think of how plastic packaging becomes waste, because it’s one-time use.

This is not a take back scheme.

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#117

Post by sgregnt »

user_named wrote: post #109
gruez wrote: post #79

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. 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

Why is that, could you elabotate?

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#118

Post by cranky908canuck »

analog31 wrote: post #17

My knee jerk reaction is that I wouldn't trust a mining operation to clean up after itself. While I'm sure that landfills could be cleaner, whatever level of cleanliness they achieve is based on the assumption that the sites won't be disturbed.

My notion was, conventional mining often doesn't bother to clean up after itself (eg., orphan wells), whereas landfill mining will likely be held to a higher standard.

Re: Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

#119

Post by feoren »

feoren wrote: post #59
progne wrote: post #57

I've heard that the biggest barrier to reuse is the expense of purifying the inputs of the various recycling processes. A few stray baked beans can gum up the works. If so the economics would be greatly changed by a robot running AI software that can just sort and wash trash the way we're supposed to at home.

I've never before heard anyone ever suggest that we're "supposed to" be sorting and washing our trash at home. What an unbelievably wasteful and pointless notion.

I somehow knew everyone was going to assume I was talking about recycling. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about TRASH. GP mentioned TRASH. We're talking about mining, or sorting, LANDFILLS. Why is everyone talking about recycling in their replies?
Post reply on HN