Recycling, a rant

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by C420sailor

We had one burn up a few nights ago. Thermal runaway. Took many hours and an estimated 25,000 gallons of water to put it out and cool the pack off. A typical car fire? 500-750gal, tops...

Good thing that can't ever happen to electric boats (we've been told). But then, I suppose there is plenty of water available to put out battery fires in a boat.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Good thing that can't ever happen to electric boats (we've been told). But then, I suppose there is plenty of water available to put out battery fires in a boat.

Electric boats typically use LFP batteries which are less energy dense, but also safer than the stuff used in cars. In a car, the extra space and weight is a concern, but on a boat, much less so.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by wholybee

I am from California, but currently in Virginia. It is surprising how little people here care about recycling. Hell, just the amount of plastic bottles and trash floating down the Elizabeth river is surprising. You could probably just dump your trash in the river and I doubt anyone would care. (please don't)

Well, the bad news is Virginia has to pay people to move there.
Must be lovely?
https://roanoke.com/opinion/editoria...7a4c7c902.html

SV Cloud Duster

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Electric boats typically use LFP batteries which are less energy dense, but also safer than the stuff used in cars. In a car, the extra space and weight is a concern, but on a boat, much less so.

Oh Good, they're totally safe then.

AND, they won't have to be recycled in any case.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Nauticus

I dunno mike. You're usually spot on. I work in a recycling plant, and I certainly don't see things this way. I gotta work six days a week to keep up with the plastics. Maybe I just see it from another perspective.

Tim

Sounds like you have more direct information than most here Tim, certainly me. What kind of plant do you work in, and where does the feed stock come from, and go to? I've been basing my perspective on the various research studies and investigative journalistic pieces I've read over the years. I think they all concluded recycling diverts a small percentage of the total volume, and in some cases are more expensive than simply using virgin resources. But if this isn't the case, I'd love to learn otherwise.

My main point isn't that recycling, in itself, is a negative. It's just that the way we do it is basically a subsidy to industry and producers who really should be the ones responsible for the refuse they produce. And in the recent past many actually were. Externalizing the cost onto the commons removes any market signals that would incentivize producers to be more efficient in their use of packaging.

[Capt Clark]

The trash mountains of south Florida will be the only land left of this area in 100 years, so please, if in the area, stop the recycling crap. We are going to need the land!! I have petitioned the mayors of Miami-Dade and Broward counties (Havami & Ft Liquordale) that these practices should stop immediately! If fact, I think these counties should start collecting trash for a fee from other areas. Hey, a new revenue stream and additional land. What could go wrong?

[rwidman]

My wife was out shopping today so I called her and asked her to pick up a package of rubber bands. Simple rubber bans that you use to hold things together.

She brought them home and they were in a hard plastic box. A box that will exist in the environment for several hundred years! Why?

Back in the day a bunch of rubber bands came with a simple paper sleeve wrapped around them. Something that would dissolve in water or moisture in a few hours and leave no trace of it ever existing.

I'm not a big fan of over regulating things, but if manufacturers won't do their part, maybe the government needs to step in and examine packaging and make some reasonable rules.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My main point isn't that recycling, in itself, is a negative. It's just that the way we do it is basically a subsidy to industry and producers who really should be the ones responsible for the refuse they produce. And in the recent past many actually were. Externalizing the cost onto the commons removes any market signals that would incentivize producers to be more efficient in their use of packaging.

I think this is spot on, with the caveat that shifting the (packaging/recycling/disposal) costs back onto industry really means making the product more expensive for the consumer. This might need to happen to deal with the growing problem of plastic pollution, but it's an important reality to be aware of. As you point out, the cost is there regardless, and the only question is whether society at large or the individual consumer will bear it. Industry and producers, on the other hand, will simply pass it along.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There we have it again - all the consumer's fault.
Oh horsesh!t. Bedtime stories of the plutocrats. You clearly don't know the genesis of most recycling programs, who promised what, etc etc.
More BS. There have been heaps of government carrots and sticks around vehicle efficiency and pollution, most often led by California. Did the consumers demand unleaded gas and catalytic converters too? Gas crises made more consumers choose smaller and more efficient cars, fleet average goes down. Duh.

That's not a 'fact'. Most people are unaware of how badly the promised recycling programs have turned out.

Consumers demanded cleaner air and water at a time when there was much less partisanship over environmental issues, along with serious, bona fide threats from lead being used in all sorts of consumer products. Catalytic converters were the result of a wide, bipartisan consensus that supported the goals of the Clean Air Act. So yes, it'd be fair to say that consumers demanded it, and did so through their elected representatives.

Doesn't do much for a civil discussion to start playing the blame game, especially when it means the usual simplistic, divisive class warfare memes that are so fashionable nowadays. I don't know what went wrong with (many) recycling programs either, but it's probably a reasonable bet that it had everything to do with feasibility and cost. If consumers had to directly bear the costs of recycling and disposal by an increase in the cost of their Frappacino's, then maybe they'd buy less of them as opposed to justifying their purchase because of a feel-good ban on straws. I'm pretty sure that may have been Valhalla's point, and I'm also pretty sure you regurgitated it otherwise to make a completely different point.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

My faults are many. But I think that lazy BS has to be called out. And I suspect valhalla enjoys trolling me, and I hate to disappoint.

Must be just a coincidence then that Valhalla often voices opinions that you happen not to like. Happens to me every time I log on to CF or read the news, but I guess I've learned not to hyperventilate over it. In other words, your definition of an internet troll could benefit from a less self-serving interpretation. Rather than just having bad luck attracting trolls, have you considered whether your treatment of your fellow shipmates may have something to do with the reaction you're getting? Probably just a silly thought . . . .

[Nauticus]

I work in town and we 2 plants on the same road. 1plant is fibre and plastic (fiber being cardboard of every variety as well as paper), the other is cans and glass.

Stock comes from City recycling contract, national chain stores, and the occasional office mover. The product is received, sorted several times before getting baled. We resell our baled product to manufacturers to make more crap for me to work. We also use our material in our own manufacturing processes as we also make paper products to sell worldwide. Ever been in a public washroom or factory that had brown paper towels to dry your hands? We likely made it. And from recycled materials to boot.

As far as it being more of an industry subsidy would agree if looked at in its entirety but from my little perch we recycle everything except actual garbage.

I do agree with the plethora of other posters who think that while places may have boxes and bins, what actually makes it to a place like mine.

Hope you're back with your boat Mike [emoji569][emoji1063]

Tim

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think this is spot on, with the caveat that shifting the (packaging/recycling/disposal) costs back onto industry really means making the product more expensive for the consumer. This might need to happen to deal with the growing problem of plastic pollution, but it's an important reality to be aware of. As you point out, the cost is there regardless, and the only question is whether society at large or the individual consumer will bear it. Industry and producers, on the other hand, will simply pass it along.

Yup, completely agree. How else would the "invisible hand" know where and how to manipulate things ?

[C420sailor]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

Well, the bad news is Virginia has to pay people to move there.
Must be lovely?
https://roanoke.com/opinion/editoria...7a4c7c902.html

SV Cloud Duster

Has nothing to do with how nice the area is. Vermont and Alaska have similar programs, and both are beautiful states.

Western part of VA is quite nice, just very rural. Since American manufacturing has dried up, and farming is on the decline, these rural areas are thinning out. No jobs in these areas, so no one wants to move there.

It’s happening all over the US. Has nothing to do with how nice an area is or isn’t. It’s all about the economy that’s ever shifting toward “service” jobs.

Note that the $10,000-12,000 paid will cover full property taxes on a house in Virginia worth WELL over $1M. And a $1M house is more like a huge mansion on a ton of land, unlike what you’ll get in California.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think this is spot on, with the caveat that shifting the (packaging/recycling/disposal) costs back onto industry really means making the product more expensive for the consumer. This might need to happen to deal with the growing problem of plastic pollution, but it's an important reality to be aware of. As you point out, the cost is there regardless, and the only question is whether society at large or the individual consumer will bear it. Industry and producers, on the other hand, will simply pass it along.

That's a naively simplistic take, here's one in response. The cost of pollution is being and will continue to be paid. We're only quibbling here about the timing and the medium of exchange. And maybe reexamining our priorities once in a while.

Consumers demanded cleaner air and water at a time when there was much less partisanship over environmental issues, along with serious, bona fide threats from lead being used in all sorts of consumer products. Catalytic converters were the result of a wide, bipartisan consensus that supported the goals of the Clean Air Act. So yes, it'd be fair to say that consumers demanded it, and did so through their elected representatives.

Yeah, right. It's a charming little story how lead got into gas in the first place, and how come it remained in there for so long. Spoiler alert - not exactly consumer demand.

Ultimately it was government regulations that got rid of lead, although it happened in a roundabout way. Smog was becoming a serious problem in several cities, especially in Los Angeles, where the sky was usually brown instead of blue. Because of it, the United States government passed the Clean Air Act in 1963, and in 1970, it formed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Three years later, the EPA announced that lead was a serious public health issue, and requested regulations to reduce its concentration in gasoline over the next five years. These were immediately stalled when oil companies filed lawsuits against the proposals.

What a bunch of sweethearts. Always thinking of others.

But there was no getting around the EPA’s other demands, which insisted on a reduction in tailpipe emissions. The automakers came up with several possible solutions, but the one that worked best was the catalytic converter. And not only were these converters expensive, but lead damaged them. Once cars had to have them, gasoline had to get the lead out.
...
The ban made a considerable difference. A 2008 study suggested that some 250,000 American children had elevated levels of lead in their blood, compared to a similar study in 1978 that estimated the number at 13.5 million. It was all good news, but ultimately, it was the health of an expensive vehicle component, not that of people, that brought an end to leaded gasoline.

Industry is amoral. Their job is to make money. Sometimes they choose options that are at odds with the other aims of society (aims like not choking on smog, not ingesting heavy metals or toxic chemicals, not dying of induced cancers or emphyzema... the little things that make life more bearable), and a responsible society has to whack them upside the head now and again. For maybe 20 or 50 years, til they get it. Got a cigarette, mac?

But whatever. When you little arch-capitalists tuck each other into bed at night, keep praising industry for its tireless devotion to the wellbeing of its consumers. And shake your head at how all those silly consumers demanded a toothless and ineffective recycling scheme that shifted all the burden away from the makers and sellers.

[Exile]

As usual, you're souring an otherwise worthwhile discussion where most share common goals but also have differing points of view. Shouldn't be a surprise, and some actually find a diversity of views educational and not personally threatening. Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of what's "amoral," or in any position to categorize people you don't know as "arch-capitalists" or anything else because they don't share your world view. Looking for demons to rail against makes for good theater but rarely builds the consensus needed to solve complex societal problems. Let people express their views and, when necessary, disagree agreeably.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by C420sailor

...
The Prius (and now Tesla) smug is the worst. It’s like they think that the energy they use to charge their car comes from magical jellybean fields in the sky. It’s certainly more efficient than an internal combustion engine, but the production and ultimate destruction of the vehicle is absolutely horrible for the environment...

Can you support that bold statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?
What are the actual unsubsidized life-cycle [cradle to grave] environmental [& economic] costs comparisons between ICE and EV vehicles?
How is this likely to change, or not, with the introduction of many more Evs to the fleet?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Good thing that can't ever happen to electric boats (we've been told). But then, I suppose there is plenty of water available to put out battery fires in a boat.

Because lithium reacts with water, to create flammable hydrogen gas [and lithium-hydroxide], pouring water on a lithium fire is often counterproductive, and very, very dangerous. . Furthermore, lithium floats in water, due to its low density, so smothering or submerging a lithium fire can be troublesome.