Why Isn't Landfill Mining More Popular?

Post by Loughla » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

grogenaut wrote: post #23

kulahan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology of landfills has massively improved over the years. It's not the old pile of garbage covered in birds forever; they turn them into parks and whatnot. It's probably worth looking up, because there's some cool scientific advancements behind it. I'm pulling this next sentence completely out of my ass, but I also imagine it would be convenient, once we develop bacteria to break this stuff down in an enviro…

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

Post by notfromhere » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 7:16 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #26

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…

>you don't have literal square miles of landfills that occupy land Land area is a non-issue. Google says Switzerland produces "80 to 90 million tonnes" of garbage per year. Assuming that garbage has the same density of water, and a landfill is 10 meters deep, a 1 sq mi landfill will last 287 years. Moreover, Wikipedia says Switzerland has 15,940 square miles of land, so that will only take up 0.006% of the country's…

Post by manuel_w » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 7:18 PM UTC

ianlevesque wrote: post #18

kulahan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology of landfills has massively improved over the years. It's not the old pile of garbage covered in birds forever; they turn them into parks and whatnot. It's probably worth looking up, because there's some cool scientific advancements behind it. I'm pulling this next sentence completely out of my ass, but I also imagine it would be convenient, once we develop bacteria to break this stuff down in an enviro…

> once we develop bacteria to break this stuff down in an environmentally friendly way Sounds as mythical as plastic recycling to me to be honest.

Post by rascul » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 7:18 PM UTC

Solvency wrote: post #24

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.

Until you go to your local landfill and see the massive fuming hellscape spanning thousands of acres with mountains of garbage just laying there and mentally extrapolate how it will look even 10 more years from now.

Post by isk517 » Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 7:21 PM UTC

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #25

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…

How come the slag is far less problematic? You didn’t describe where it goes. I also don’t see the “ecological balance” here. That usually refers to relationships among organisms in an ecosystem where one’s waste is another’s sustenance, but where does the generated CO2 go? Or did you mean a trade-off of pollution?