How much energy DOES it take to recycle a new aluminum can or a set of newspaper?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 21 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]542386[/snapback]</div>

According to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sa...vingenergy.html 95% less energy is consumed using recycled aluminum versus mined aluminum.

I think things get much fuzzier with paper.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Brian Baldridge @ Nov 21 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]542395[/snapback]</div>

Aluminum is just about the only thing (other than steel) that consumers should recycle. The $ in collection of paper, transportation, processing far outweighs any benefits. I just find it a bit humorous when I see the big-nice person recycling trucks, belching out black smoke, driving down the street, collecting recycleables! The amount of fuel their trucks burn, cost of maintenance, cost of workers, cost of processing the trash.. Have got to be high!

With paper, The sludge/slury, bleach, chemicals, and other by products of the process needs to be disposed of. The amount of energy to process, bleach, press, and product any kind of product is out of whack with virgin wood. Plus you have a far inferior product, that (usually) costs a lot more than virgin material.

Modern paper is made from purpose built tree farms. Every piece of paper you consume, they are planting trees to replace it. They are not clear cutting mature forests for paper.

You recycle paper and plastic, more, to feel better, than to actually 'help'. Steel and aluminum are easy to turn back into new products with no downside and limited by-products.

Plus some truck workers piss off even the greenest of tree-huggers everywhere.. I have seen some friends go off the hook because the truck refused their entire recycling bin due to a violation (wrong product material, or improper packing, etc) of the rules!

I just chuck everything into the trash other than soda cans and bottles (as they have a deposit). Much easier to deal with!

 

i saw recently on tv that you can make insulation from post-consumer paper. they add some kind of flame retardant to it and it's got a high R value so it's supposedly good for insulation. of course, i'm just parroting what i saw on tv so i don't know how it is in actual use.

 

Last time I looked, phantomracer, the main point of recycling was to avoid the problem of where to actually put the stuff. Not saving energy, or saving money, although they're certainly useful benefits too. Unfortunately, extolling side benefits like energy saving then causes anti-environmentalists to start concentrating on them rather than the more fundamental reason.

Over here we're running out of space to actually dispose of rubbish. Presumably that's less of an issue in the US, as you've got more land still available to dig up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Nov 21 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]542426[/snapback]</div>

Yup, lots of space in the US to dump trash (regardless of what the media tells us). The trash companies are all fighting for our business (for those of us who pay for the service)! Trash service is BIG business!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 21 2007, 12:17 PM) [snapback]542421[/snapback]</div>

It is a great product! Better than fiberglass batting for air infultration, but it does tend to settle a bit when blown into walls. Not sure how long the fire retardant will last (I HOPE the life of the product), but it does work, and work well. Not itchy like fiberglass. Easy to blow into existing homes (just a small hole in each wall cavity)

Downside it is messy to install (need a blower).

Widely available, at least in the US

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phantomracer @ Nov 21 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]542405[/snapback]</div>

And what kind of farms are these and where are they? I Think you are missing the big picture. These "tree farms" are replacing natural forests with monocultures. As far as replacements go, they plant 20 seedlings in place of one giant tree and think that those sedlings are going to make up for the ecosystem loss? Not hardly. How many forests are cleared in other countries by large multi-national corporations? How many indigenous people are then left to pay the price? Riperian systems and coral reefs everywhere are in serious stages of degredation due to clear-cutting so the ague that it is not happening is clearly not driven by data. Sure some areas are using mono-culture tree farms for wood pulp but that is kinda like 1 person driving a Prius in a sea of Hummers. *note* even the "Prius" in this model is still bad for the environment/humanity.

I work with people who have been in the industry and people who fight against those industries and it is not nearly as clean as you make it sound. The recycling part is somewhat correct.

I suggest looking into the RainforestActionNetwork, Forest Stweradship Council, and Forest Ethics websites.

Even better than just recycling paper is to buy paper products that induce less damage in the first place. Here is a link from the FSC that show which companies has passed inspection (look for the links on the right side of the page). The best policy is to use less paper altogether.

State of the Paper Industry Report.pdf

 

Cutting down wasteful use of paper is far more important than recycling it.
I've got some choice words for the printers in Wilmington Delware....It seems most junk mail comes from there. Newspapers are a complete waste of resources when all that information is readily available online and very few of the pages in the paper are ever read by anyone. Phone books too...They should be available to pick up, but why do I need 3 different companies leaving me a giant new phonebook every dang year? Even schools need to switch over to electronic paperwork/homework/notices to parents/etc.

Plastic should not be thrown away, and it ticks me off to hear someone say it should be. It does not biodegrade, it leaches nasty chemicals into the soil and water tables, and it does have 2nd hand value. Just heat it and mold it into bulky products such as park benches, landscaping timbers, etc. It is strong, cheap, and does not rot or rust.

 

a good start would be to get yourself off junk mail lists!
https://www.dmachoice.org/MPS/
https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t

i call and remove our names from all catalog and other junk mail lists whenever something unwanted comes in. what drives me INSANE is the mass-distributed junk that everyone in town gets. we use the newspaper-like one for our bird cage but the rest is just recycled, not even looked at. i wish they would stop.

we don't get bills in the mail either, they're all online through our bank. we rarely get mail and i prefer it that way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Nov 21 2007, 01:32 PM) [snapback]542516[/snapback]</div>

What about magazines? Community newsletters? Why single out newspapers & yellow pages?
I tend to agree with your stance, but not 100%. There are A LOT of people, (approximately 40% of the US population) who do not have access to the Internet and therefore need to get their information the 'old-fashion' way -- on paper. Also, there is a lot of advertising which is not allowed on the Internet, but must be printed in a newspapers -- there are specific laws about them in NJ. I'm thinking of public notices specifically.

Most newspapers printing plants used recycled newsprint, which is one small step in the right direction.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phantomracer @ Nov 21 2007, 08:40 AM) [snapback]542432[/snapback]</div>

Well, it depends on where you live. Increasingly, companies are having to resort to trucking trash long distances to dispose of it.

Our local landfill just started charging for greenery recycling. So now it will be more economic to just dump it in with the rest of the trash (for that which can't easily be mulched at home). Unfortunate and short-sighted.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phantomracer @ Nov 22 2007, 01:20 AM) [snapback]542405[/snapback]</div>

You are living in a land of make believe, old growth forests of Tasmania are being pulped as I type.

Storage of waste is just that, it wont go away so sooner or later someone has to deal with it.

I heard just today, the electricity required to produce enough aluminium from ore for 1 aluminium drink can is enough to run a 26 inch CRT TV for 6 hours!!!!

This: -
The electrical current enables alumina to react with the carbon anode to form aluminium and carbon dioxide. Between 13,000 and 15,000 kilowatt-hours of elecricity are used to make one tonne of aluminium. The oxygen combines with the carbon to form carbon dioxide at the top of the cell.
From http://www.riotintoaluminium.com/ourapproa...f_aluminium.asp an interresting read.

When you recycle aluminium you negate the need for so much smelting.

Recycling is a huge industry here and getting bigger, our local dump is full and now a sorting centre stands atop the mountain of trash then trucks carry any waste that can not be recycled, 50 to 100km north of Adelaide to be buried. PET plastics are granulated and reused, paper is already discussed, glass is very recyclable, even wooden pallets and scrap is recycled at a profit too. These recyclers are private companies too.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 22 2007, 01:47 AM) [snapback]542421[/snapback]</div>

I have had celulose fibre insulation in my ceiling for 18 years and it works very well. My walls have rock-wool insulation.

 

I use my lawn mower to mulch small branches of trees in my garden, I mulch under those same trees, I also spread cardboard under the mulch for weed control. It works well until it breaks down and feeds the worms and soil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 27 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]545110[/snapback]</div>

The silver lining is that it makes recycling more attractive to waste management companies. As trash has to be hauled further and further away the costs soar. Thus, reducing trash via recycling becomes a much better option for these companies. The rising cost of aluminium also helps with this effort.

Landfills aren't necessarily a bad thing. They're a good source of renewable baseload power. The company Waste Management is looking at generating over 700 MW of power from 60 landfill projects over the next couple of years. That's the same as a pretty big coal fired power plant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 28 2007, 03:51 PM) [snapback]545327[/snapback]</div>

With the benefit of being largely carbon-neutral. All the methane being generated in the landfill and used for fuel derives from recent plant or animal materials, as few if any petrochemical-derived plastics can be digested or fermented by existing bacteria.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Nov 28 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]545340[/snapback]</div>

Indeed. And hey, if we can decommission a few coal fired plants then it's be carbon negative from a certain point of view.

 

Aluminum is processed from Bauxite ore which as you correctly state is very energy intensive in mining, transporting, refining etc

so recycling is FAR cleaner than digging more bauxite out of the ground

On the other hand aluminum is becoming much more popular and as the Chinese consumers mature they will be using more aluminum than the US does today

Curently there are shortages that are starting for copper, steel, and some other basics. Most of this is due to Chinese industry

 

Wow.. if you applied this type of logic to buying a Prius over a conventional car, you wouldn't. In many cases, a Prius' cost of ownership over its lifetime will exceed that of buying (f. ex.) a Matrix. But I bought a Prius because it was the biggest environmental statement I could make (regarding my vehicle), and one that would be visible on the roads every day that I drive it. I tend to believe what others have posted (re: old forests, recycling) and try to recycle/compost everything I can.

I couldn't agree with you more. My local newspaper here in Davis has all of its articles available online, however, you can not buy an online subscription to view the entire paper. If you want to view individual articles, you can, but it costs about $1 for each article you wish to view.
When I inquired about an online subscription last year (trying to sell them to the points of how much it would save them, re: delivery cost, printing cost), they said there was some kind of legal issue with it (probably advertising... but even that, they can get around if they really wanted to... just advertise online).

In addition to the two opt-outs above for junkmail and prescreened credit offers, here's one for getting off catalog lists. You can actually go in and select which catalogs you still want, and specifically say no to the ones you already receive (provide customer number and it gets forwarded to the company).
http://www.catalogchoice.org

 

And what kind of farms are these and where are they? I Think you are missing the big picture. These "tree farms" are replacing natural forests with monocultures. As far as replacements go, they plant 20 seedlings in place of one giant tree and think that those sedlings are going to make up for the ecosystem loss? Not hardly. How many forests are cleared in other countries by large multi-national corporations? How many indigenous people are then left to pay the price? Riperian systems and coral reefs everywhere are in serious stages of degredation due to clear-cutting so the ague that it is not happening is clearly not driven by data. Sure some areas are using mono-culture tree farms for wood pulp but that is kinda like 1 person driving a Prius in a sea of Hummers. *note* even the "Prius" in this model is still bad for the environment/humanity.

I work with people who have been in the industry and people who fight against those industries and it is not nearly as clean as you make it sound. The recycling part is somewhat correct.

I suggest looking into the , and Forest Ethics websites.

Even better than just recycling paper is to buy paper products that induce less damage in the first place. from the FSC that show which companies has passed inspection (look for the links on the right side of the page). The best policy is to use less paper altogether.

Your statement that the majority of paper companies are not participating in sustainable forestry is simply false. Checking the FSC's page for companies passing inspection reveals that MOST major companies are on the list. I am an engineer for the largest paper company in the world and most, if not all, of our facilities are on this list. This is a very common misconception with the production of paper; that we are clear-cutting forests and destroying the ecosystem because of tree harvesting. Sustainable forestry is a HUGE part of the paper industry and nearly all major paper company participate. ONE, because it's good for the environment, and TWO, because you can't operate a business without managing your raw materials. To clear-cut forests and not re-plant is simply irresponsible and unsustainable land-area wise and business wise. The paper industry has been around for decades and, as a result, is incredibly efficient with raw material and energy use. Granted, nobody likes seeing a smoke-stack spewing carbon dioxide but the amount of usable products that result from this process vastly outpace many other manufacturing processes. Energy efficiency in a simple gasoline engine pales in comparison to that of a paper mill. Use less paper if you have an issue with paper companies. But please, don't use facts that contradict your argument. After all, we make products to demand, not the other way around. Drive less, conserve, reduce, reuse.

 

Absolutely (and applies to everything, not just paper). This is why the mantra is:

1) REDUCE (less needs to be produced - this is the most beneficial)
2) REUSE (lengthen the life-cycle by re-purposing, therefore reducing other production needs)
then
3) Recycle (cheaper than producing from raw materials)

The Prius is part of step 1 as far as gasoline consumption goes, and hopefully the parts can be recycled to make future hybrids cheaper to produce.

To get back to the whole tree-farm newspaper thing, first of all it doesn't address the landfill problem, and second of all, recycled paper as a raw material requires cutting ZERO trees. There are a lot of other things sustainably-harvested lumber is needed for, why waste it on something that can be created from recycled materials?