By Andy May
The recycling movement started in the 1970s and it has been very popular in Western countries. Participation varies with location, but in our small community of The Woodlands, Texas, over 90% participate in our curbside recycling program. However, the value of recycled materials has fallen dramatically in recent years because far too much unrecyclable material is put in the bins by the public and much of what is recyclable is contaminated with water, food, or other contaminates that make the “good” stuff unusable. Waste disposal companies often charge “contamination fees.” In addition to the contamination problem, the value of recyclables is going down and cost to process them into a usable form is going up. Processing, that is cleaning and sorting a load of recyclable material, has gone from earning a community $25/ton to costing the community $70/ton or more in many areas. In 2015 recycling was a revenue generator for Houston and other cities in the area. Bellaire, for example, generated $12,000 in 2015 from curbside recycling, but in 2017, they lost over $80,000 for the same program.
Paper and metals, especially aluminum, are the easiest and most valuable materials to recycle, but if they are stained with food or left-over beer or soda, they are rejected and wind up in the landfill anyway. Wet paper, even wet with water, often cannot be recycled. Paper stained with food cannot be recycled, this includes pizza boxes and juice boxes. For more details about what can be recycled and how the materials should be washed and prepared for recycling, see here. Be aware that recycling rules vary from place-to-place and that those I mention here may be different from those in your area. Follow your local rules. This lack of uniformity is confusing.
Glass is still recycled in some areas, but most reject all glass currently because non-recyclable glass items and dirty bottles are too commonly placed in the bins. Basically, any clean glass bottle or jar, intact, with a neck and lid can be recycled. But it must be clean and without any food contamination or it will be rejected, and the contents may contaminate other perfectly recyclable materials in the bin. This is also true of plastic bottles, tubs and jars, they must be very clean and have caps or lids. Only rigid plastic containers can be recycled, no film, no plastic bags and no scrap plastic. Yogurt, ice cream containers, etc. cannot be recycled, in fact all plastic covered paper and cardboard cannot be recycled. Milk bottles can be recycled, but they must be clean and still have the cap on them.
Some contamination in recycling bins is to be expected, but recycling companies and cities are severely penalized if more than 25% of the recycled materials are contaminated with food waste, water or other contaminants. This raises the cost of recycling dramatically and often causes communities to abandon recycling altogether.
China used to buy up to 70% of the world’s waste plastic, but they stopped taking it and this has caused the cost of recycling to go up dramatically. China stopped taking our recyclables because they were contaminated with “highly polluting” materials that were fouling their land, rivers and coasts. Even Vietnam, Malaysia, and some countries in Africa are limiting their imports of recyclables. They would welcome cleaner recyclables, but the contaminated portion of the loads wind up in local rivers and in the ocean, where they are not only unsightly, but they affect the fish and can causes disease.
So, what do we do with the 267 million U.S. tons of trash we generate each year? In 2017, the EPA estimates it was ultimately disposed of as shown in Figure 1. Notice that only 25% was recycled, this is after the contaminated garbage and unrecyclable materials were removed. Dry clean paper was 66% of the total and metals, like clean aluminum cans were 12%. Notice that plastic and glass are a very small fraction, although they provide most of the contamination. If you want to help the environment only put very clean, rigid plastic bottles, with their caps on, in the recycle bin. Glass must also be very clean, intact and have a lid.

Figure 1. U.S. waste and the destinations. Data from the EPA.
Roughly ten percent of our recycling, in the U.S.A., is composted. Most of this is yard and farm waste, the rest is mostly discarded food. Thirteen percent of the waste is incinerated in large industrial incinerators that recover some energy by generating electricity.
Incineration
As the quality of recycled materials has decreased, causing recycling costs to increase, incineration has become more popular worldwide. When western countries began exporting their trash, total world pollution did not decrease, it just moved to Africa and southeast Asia. It is no wonder that these areas rebelled. As noted above, for metal, plastic or glass to be recycled it must be intact and clean, when processed, whether in a foreign country or at home, huge amounts of water are required, this creates a lot of waste water that must be processed before it is discharged. It is this polluted wastewater that China objected to most, the recycling communities did not always process the wastewater prior to discharging it to the ocean or a river.
As explained by Mikko Paunio, in his GWPF report, Saving the Oceans, and the plastic recycling crisis, plastic, and most other so-called “recyclables” are not truly recyclable. For these materials, incineration is best according to Paunio (see pages 2-4 of the cited report). It is safer because it does not require the waste to be sorted and better for the environment because there is no wastewater from washing the trash. Modern incinerators generate electricity and collect the fly ash from incineration in bag houses, so it doesn’t enter the atmosphere and can be disposed of properly. The bottom ash, the ash that does not become airborne, can be processed to extract valuable metals. The process reduces the volume of trash to about 15%-20% of the original, it also kills harmful bacteria and reduces many pollutants to safe component molecules. Harmful air pollutant chemicals, like mercury, SO2 or carbon monoxide, can be trapped or converted into safe compounds in pollution control equipment and made harmless, just as they are in modern coal-fired power plants.
Once the ash is processed for valuable metals, it is taken to a landfill for disposal, but occupies only one-fifth or less of the space it would have occupied before it was incinerated, and the ash is safer for the environment. Some misguided politicians have crippled waste incineration with costly regulatory demands, to the detriment of their countries. The most egregious example was in Italy in 2000. They prohibited (in effect, through regulations) incineration of trash and as a result their landfills quickly filled up. That meant local trash haulers had to stop collecting trash and the only option was to burn it in the open air without pollution control equipment and the Campania region became heavily polluted with dioxins (Paunio, GWPF Note 16 2019, page 3). When considering incineration of waste, it is important to consider the alternatives and their effects.
Plastic in the Oceans
According to Paunio (Paunio, GWPF Briefing 32 2018) the problem of plastic pollution in the oceans is mainly due to plastic from China and southeast Asia. However, much of the plastic dumped in the ocean in Asia, originally came from the United States and Europe and was simply shipped to China and southeast Asia as “recyclable.” Only a fraction of the plastic disposed of in western countries and shipped to Asia could be recycled, the rest wound up in rivers and in the ocean. This was not the reason that Asia stopped receiving the plastic waste, however, the reason they stopped all or most of the shipments was the water pollution created by cleaning the trash that was already supposed to be clean.
Paunio calls the plastic pollution in the oceans a crisis, but he does not offer any evidence, he simply assumes the plastic in the oceans is a crisis. His focus is on alternatives to recycling plastic, as the recycling is not working. For a discussion of the ocean pollution problem itself, we turn to another report, the Analysis of Greenpeace’s business model and philosophy, by an international team of researchers (Connolly, et al. 2018, page 29). A tiny amount of microplastic fragments are present in most ocean basins.
For most of the oceans, the concentrations of microplastics are negligible and almost undetectable. In a few “ocean gyres” collections of plastic waste fragments are found in higher concentrations, perhaps up to a few hundred tiny fragments per square mile. Figure 2 shows all the fragments collected from one pass of a trawler through the heart of one of the so-called “Oceanic Garbage Patches,” in the South Atlantic Gyre.

Figure 2. All the plastic fragments collected in a pass, with a fine mesh net, through the South Atlantic gyre “Garbage Patch.” The largest fragment is less than 1.5 cm. across. They found 110 pieces in a 0.5-mile pass. All 110 pieces would not fill a thimble. (Connolly, et al. 2018, page 33).
Studies suggest that larger, more visible plastic bottles, nets, ropes etc. are from fishing boats. The microplastic is mostly from developing nations, especially Asian nations. The largest contributors to ocean plastics are China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Vietnam. Until the recent changes took effect, these countries were also the largest importers of recyclable plastics. As we can see the samples collected from the “Great Ocean Garbage Patches” do not support the media hyperbole.
Conclusions
While the idea of recycling is attractive, it has not been effective, nor has it helped the environment. If everyone were extremely careful about what they put in their recycle bins, washed it carefully, replaced the lids on jars and bottles, kept the paper that they recycled dry and clean, it might help. But, this is unrealistic, people will throw half-drunk sodas and beers into the bins, along with wet newspapers, soiled aluminum foil and plastic; then the mess must be sorted out, cleaned and most of it will go into the regular trash anyway. A common complaint among the recycling public is, “Why should I wash my trash?” The simplest answer is, “If you don’t it will not be recycled.”
The reason developing nations will not accept our recyclables anymore, is that they are dirty, and it takes too much water to clean them. The resulting wastewater, from cleaning the recyclables, is dangerously polluted and too expensive to prepare for discharge. Worse, in some countries the water used to clean the recyclables is not processed at all and discharged directly into rivers or the ocean with all the contaminants still in it. This fouls the rivers and oceans, endangers the fish and public health.

Greenpeace and other environmental organizations are spreading nonsense about the supposed “ocean garbage patches,” when they are not a problem at all. Not to the fish, China, southeast Asia or the U.S., Japan and Europe. The problem is the wastewater created when we clean our trash or export it to other countries that must clean it. Even after cleaning, a lot of the plastic and glass cannot be recycled as it is the wrong kind. Recycling just is not working well.
Incineration is a far better solution. No sorting or wasteful cleaning is required, all trash can be burned safely in a very environmentally friendly way in modern incinerators equipped with proper pollution control equipment (Paunio, GWPF Briefing 32 2018, page 4).
References
Connolly, Michael, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon, Patrick Moore, and Imelda Connolly. 2018. “Analysis of Greenpeace’s business model and philosophy, Greenpeace wants a piece of your green.” https://www.academia.edu/38956524/Analysis_of_Greenpeaces_business_model_and_philosophy.
Paunio, Mikko. 2018. Save the Oceans, Stop recycling plastic. GWPF, The Global Warming Foundation. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/06/Save-the-oceans.pdf.
Paunio, Mikko. 2019. Saving the Oceans, and the plastic recycling crisis. GWPF, Global Warming Policy Foundation. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/05/Paunio-Baselagreement.pdf.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
works pretty good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_in_South_Korea
Great process Steven, but checking every two hours and daily pickup? Very expensive and time consuming. I congratulate the Koreans, but doubt their process is exportable.
Just based on reality, I would guess that despite the record amount of “recycling” in Korea, the end results are the same as the US as noted in the original post.
Also, just for fun, internet search the history of the Chicago recycling program.
Recycling don’t mean a thing if it’s all based on myths.
Actually not that expensive, otherwise it would not work.
Poor folks need work too.
“Actually not that expensive, otherwise it would not work.
Poor folks need work too.”
You are adding a cost to recycling to make it even more expensive and inefficient.
Maybe we should send the garbage to prisons for free labor to sort and clean.
BWAHAHAHA !!!
The apartment complex has several people that “monitor residents” to make sure they are recycling correctly.
Won’t give a click to wiki-lies and the video does not address any of the issues in the original post about the fundamental problems with “recycling”.
In Steven’s ideal world, everyone would be closely monitored to make sure they only do things that government has pre-approved.
From Steve:
“when you try to solve the problem with the market, don’t be surprised when companies get picky about what trash they will buy.”
Yup, just like you said !!
They also help you if you cant tell the difference between paper and plastic.
After two years would it amaze you to find out that people can actually put cans
in the can bin!!
go figure!!
As for the problems with recycling. Well, we don’t have them. Counter example is the best retort.
go figure if you grow up being able to ship your trash around the world, don’t be surprised when
countries stop taking your shit.
when you try to solve the problem with the market, don’t be surprised when companies get picky about what trash they will buy.
The “massive landfill problem” isn’t. One account that I read had it figured that all the landfill generated by the USA for the next 100 years could be buried under just 1% of the nation’s grazing land – which would be just as useful after burying the waste as before.
But Incineration is the absolute winner: no sorting, washing or shipping to scattered recycle sites. Just burn it all and use the clinker for building material if no one BUYS it to extract the metals. If the heat can be used for space heating (as in Scandinavia) or electricity generation, go for it – but K.I.S.S.
My recycling needs me to sort it into several useless containers which give us a serious storage problem. As it rains a lot in the UK everything is wet. It is very difficult to find out what is actually recycled, and the answer by the Government is a “landfill tax” which keeps going up. Costs of collection is very large, and because the operatives have to put each item into bins causes serious traffic problems. I have a feeling that the wages and fuel and capital cost of the lorries is way more than the value of the recycling, so why do we do it? I do have direct experience of “green waste” recycling, a large scale composting of food waste and garden (yard) rubbish. It was nowhere near an effective and profitable business because no one wanted to buy the thousands of tonnes of compost, and the biggest problem was that the council made the process very difficult due to the smell and other “environmental” factors. It also needed a great deal of very expensive water and expensive runoff processing! It has to be just virtue signalling, has anyone ever seen anything on the economics of recycling published?
David Stone, a few years ago when China was still importing most of our recycling it was profitable for Waste Disposal companies to recycle and for the communities they served. But it all changed when China and other countries couldn’t deal with the pollution resulting from treating (basically cleaning) the recyclables. Now, recycling costs extra over regular trash, sometimes by a lot. Thus, incineration is now viable.
You keep writing about the “pollution” created by cleaning recyclables. How does cleaning the residual jelly or salad dressing from a plastic bottle or glass jar create dangerous pollution?
By the time the plastic waste had been containered from the US, EU or elsewhere to China, Malaysia, Indonesia or Vietnam the “residual jelly or salad dressing” had become a toxic mix of degraded chemicals containing a bacteriological nightmare including pathogens and their soluble toxins which are not easy to remove from large volumes of wash. However clear the instructions and whatever the penalties imposed, compliance at source will never be 100%. We are but human.
Incineration in properly controlled power plants (not on foreign beaches and riverbanks) is the solution. I would also include the dried sludge from sewage works, currently spread on agricultural land in many countries after “processing”. This is the source of microplastics from washing laundry which will become a far greater problem for humanity and the environment than plastic bottles washing up on beaches.
Not all containers, contain food.
Well, I generally don’t recycle because I believe in “giving back”.
Growing up in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s we had Re-usable lemonade (soda) bottles. These glass bottles had a deposit of 3d which was refunded or deducted from next purchase. Small and not so small children collected discaerded bottles for the deposit value. Dairies delivered milk in Re-usable bottles, in town delivered by electric milk float. In the country you took the bottle back to the shop. Most people rinsed the bottles out. H&S probably has something to say about re-use.
I think the schemes in the EU for a cash deposit/return will actually work, budding child entrepreneurs will use the refund as capital for investment. Cleaning up the area at the same time.
Every bottling plant thoroughly washed and sterilized the bottles before refilling.
Back then, recycling meant recycling. Even cans were crushed flat and sent to smelters for reuse.
Nowadays, it means it is someone else’s problem, usually not a recycler. Just someone who figures to make money from storing/forwarding the trash.
“Even cans were crushed flat and sent to smelters for reuse.”
About four years ago I talked to a lady executive at Waste Management. She told me that they no longer recommend flattening cans, because bits of glass can get stuck in them, and that when many cans are melted, even a bit of glass ruins ruins the whole batch.
She also told me that loose tin can lids are hard for the magnets over their conveyor belts to pick out. So I now put all my lids into a wide empty tomato can whose own lid is still attached by a hinge. When full, I press down its lid and discard it into the recycling bin.
Incidentally, there are bottle scrapers (search for them on Amazon) consisting of a stick with a silicone scraper at right angles to it at its end that I use to easily extract most of the hard-to-get contents from cans and bottles, so I waste less. This makes ones “recyclables” less gunky too. If one rinses them, as I do, less water is needed.
“Paper and metals, especially aluminum, are the easiest and most valuable materials to recycle, but if they are stained with food or left-over beer or soda, they are rejected and wind up in the landfill anyway.”
Clearly not true for metals, whereby the recycling process smelts then at very high temperatures, volatilizing any leftover residues.
Wash your garbage.
I chuckle every time I see/hear/ or do that and think about my deceased grandmother that grew up on a farm where the livestock had running water and the house didn’t.
She certainly never spent much time washing her garbage.
I bet your grandmother had an incinerator, we did in the small farm town I grew up in.
I grew up with a 55 gallon barrel in the back yard that we burned in !!
Why?
Glass jars/bottle usually have metal or plastic caps… And this is what recyclers demand? That incompatible components be securely attached to each other?
Absurd!
“must be clean…”
I’m sorry, exactly which industrial process never “cleans” the incoming materials?
Across the industrial/farming landscape, washing incoming materials is always a part of the process.
What the recyclers are really stating is that food contaminated materials attract insects, rodents, dogs, raccoons, ursus and other often fierce critters.
And that the recyclers want to maximize their profits, so all of this material must be washed in the most inefficient means/methods possible; by people in their homes focusing on one isolated product at a time.
Deal killer.
A) My dog occasionally gets into the recycling. He loves plastic bottles as they crunch so noisily satisfyingly.
Trouble is, if the bottle has a lid one, it is the first thing he chews off; and frequently swallows.
I pull the lids off everything and I frequently clip that little circle of plastic around the neck that signifies opened/unopened.
i) The lids on bottles and jars are usually incompatible with the bottle or jar. i.e. they are completely different product streams and definitely contaminate the recycled product.
ii) Why lid on? Because the recyclers do not want mosquito breeding places!
iii) The question is why do not recyclers shred or crush bottles and jars immediately? We’re back to the profit motive… The recyclers are not in the business of recycling; they are in the business of store and sometimes forward.
Cart, meet horse.
Efficient centralized controlled cleansing versus inefficient highly variable distributed cleaning.
Nor have I seen many industrial processes where “home washing” meet the high consistent controllable standards of “industrial washing”.
ATheoK,
Some communities (mine is one) want the lids on to prevent contaminating the interior of the bottle or jar. That way they only need to clean the outside, if anything is inside the bottle or jar, it cannot get out and contaminate the rest of the bin of recyclables. Other communities want the lids removed, it varies with the recycle facility.
Your comment and many others like it in this comment section, simply confirm my suspicion that general recycling has no future. Incineration is best. Perhaps we can continue to recycle dry high quality paper, aluminum, batteries, appliances and electronics, but in the future recycling will be very limited. Given the reluctance of the public to properly prepare their trash for recycling and to understand what can be recycled and what cannot, it will not work. Just my opinion.
“Perhaps we can continue to recycle dry high quality paper, aluminum, ”
About ten (?) years ago soda makers came out with thin steel cans, which cost them less than aluminum. But greenies forced them to go back to aluminum, lest the value of recyclables decline so much as to make recycling obviously uneconomic.
“And that the recyclers want to maximize their profits, so all of this material must be washed in the most inefficient means/methods possible; by people in their homes focusing on one isolated product at a time.”
yup.
Using recycled waste plastic in stone mastic asphalt makes the roads more flexible and durable. It should be mandatory for all roads.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=using+recycled+waste+plastic+in+stone+mastic+asphalt&fr=yfp-t&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
The UK has a landfill tax invented by the EU because landfill is not possible in the Netherlands and so the morons who run our country keep making it more and more difficult to dispose of waste – and more expensive. The UK is seeing a big increase in fly tipping – I wonder why? And of course, instead of looking at the cause of the problem – and repealing the legislation now that we have left the EU – councils are going to spend more of our money to clear up the problem they have created which will probably mean increasing waste disposal costs so that there is more fly tipping. One interesting fact that I did learn recently was that the landfill directive is part of the Single Market too. This means that the non-EU members chose to accept it but didn’t have to and had the UK taken the sensible option to remain in the Single Market while working on an improved relationship with the EU, we could have dropped the landfill tax by using article 112.
In many ways, the home recycling effort is a “feel-good” exercise..If we took a serious look at the amount that winds up in landfills versus what is actually recycled most people would question why we even bother.
There is something wrong with the idea that metal cans must be clean of all trace of food. The same can has a coating on the inside and outside. In the case of an aluminum pop or beer can, the coating is a greater portion of the mass than the aluminum. So it does not make sense that the same process that melts the can with the applied coating can’t handle the trace of food. And the same places that are supposed to require food free metal cans are recycling paint coated aluminum siding or steel in the form of shredded cars. The idea that metal needs to be free of all trace of food when all these other contaminants are not a problem just doesn’t make sense.
Tomg,
At least here, in my city, any plastic coated metal or paper is rejected and not recycled. It is thrown in the landfill, food stained or not.
“… much of the plastic dumped in the ocean in Asia, originally came from the United States and Europe and was simply shipped to China and southeast Asia as “recyclable.”
Thank you for confirming what I had long suspected. The plastic “ocean garbage patches” are our recycling. Want to get rid of it? Stop plastic recycling programs.
Beyond that, these “ocean garbage patches” are almost entirely mythical.
That may be the case, but my experience in Indonesia says the locals contribute to a large fraction of the plastic.
In 2019 Vermont passed the most extensive recycling law in the US. Starting in 2020, single use plastic bags and Styrofoam food containers will be banned. All eligible materials (the usual suspects) are sent to a “single stream” facility in Rutland. Food scraps must be composted (all business and residential).
I’m lucky enough to live in a town which charges age 62+ residents $7/year for a transfer station sticker, plus they will take any old electronics for free. All the recyclables are dumped into a compactor, black garbage bags into a separate compactor. Most of the glass breaks up when it hits the steel floor of the compactor.
We generally put all our food scraps in a composter and then let the bears have at it.
I have no idea where the end product winds up, probably a landfill somewhere.
Will be shopping more next door in New Hampshire where they have not encountered this level of silliness yet.
Andy ==> I don’t believe there is any evidence for this accusation: “However, much of the plastic dumped in the ocean in Asia, originally came from the United States and Europe and was simply shipped to China and southeast Asia as “recyclable.”
The ISWA reports present only vague suspicions that some of the plastic waste exported to China “leaks” into the environment because of poor or unregulated handling there. There is NO evidence presented of active intentional “dumping”.
It is true, however, that the majority of oceanic plastic comes from Asia and Africa — as well as a substantial amount from almost all coastal 3rd World Countries. Very little, overall, from USA, Canada, and Europe.
Hi Kip,
Greenpeace is not a reliable source, but this is what they say:
The report is called The Recycling Myth. I’ve spent a lot of time in China and the story rings true to me. There is not much difference between companies and criminal organizations. Here is a link to the report. https://storage.googleapis.com/planet4-southeastasia-stateless/2019/04/7c9f822c-7c9f822c-the-recycling-myth-malaysia-and-the-broken-global-recycling-system.pdf
Andy ==> Yes, I agree — but “dumped” in a landfill and dumped in the sea (or river) are two entirely different ideas and have totally different consequences.
There is No Doubt that troublesome, un-recyclable materials are simply land-filled in China — and that some of them go into unofficial landfills.
As you know from your own 3rd World experiences, plastics often end up on the streets, as litter and spilled trash, and then are washed by rains and floods into the rivers and thus to the sea.
I think that the persistent rumors and accusations of “dumping at sea” are probably false. No one has ever found one of the giant bales of plastics at sea.
“No one has ever found one of the giant bales of plastics at sea.”
Well you don’t want to make your illegal activity too obvious, do you? You break the bands and then you dump it in the river.
” Only a fraction of the plastic disposed of in western countries and shipped to Asia could be recycled, the rest wound up in rivers and in the ocean. This was not the reason that Asia stopped receiving the plastic waste, however, the reason they stopped all or most of the shipments was the water pollution created by cleaning the trash that was already supposed to be clean.”
Funny thing, this was true for years but it never stopped China etc. from accepting plastic. Plastic in the ocean was moaned at for years but only blamed on China for a few months before they quit taking our refuse. Certain kinds of economic consequences are highly predictable as when you pay the Calabrian Mafia to dispose of nuclear waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta
Or when you outlaw alcohol or opiates. Or when you flood underdeveloped countries with cheap grain (and put the local farmers and merchants out of business). Or any time you put the state in control of the production of goods and services.
And of course it has been the environmentalists who created all these environmental disasters, by campaigning against incineration, nuclear energy, logging, grazing, and so on. Don’t go giving them or China any more credit than they deserve. –AGF
I was interested to read that at least in a few locations containers that aren’t cleaned out end up in the landfill. In Arizona we’re told not to bother rinsing out containers, because that doesn’t matter, so I stopped rinsing things before I tossed them in the bin. I wonder if my stuff ends up being recycled or landfilled.
Dave,
It was almost certainly landfilled. Very little glass and plastic is actually recycled, as you can see in figure 1. 8% or less.
The issue with traditional waste to energy (incineration) is economic. When the big WtE build-out happened in the ’80s thru the early ’90s, the plants couldn’t compete with landfills via tip fees. Landfills were too cheap. States did two things to compensate:
1. Give WtE operators a special rate for electricity produced by the plant. Typically around $0.12 per kWh (big $$ back in the late ’80s for wholesale power).
2. Implement ‘flow control’ that forced waste haulers to use the WtE plant, restricting them from moving waste out of state.
With energy deregulation, the special rate per kWh is gone. Covanta (the largest operator of WtE plants) gets about $0.026 per kWh. Flow control was ruled unconstitutional decades back. WtE plants are dependent on high tipping rates. In the NYC metro area, the rates can go over $100 per ton. Where the rates were under $40, companies like Covanta have closed plants.
The ‘Holy Grail’ for waste is gasification, as once you make high quality syngas you can then make a wide variety of products. Example: You make methanol from syngas. Methanol is a primary feedstock to make plastics. So plastics made from this methanol would 100% ‘recycled’ and about 65% ‘bio’ (about 2/3rds of the municipal waste stream is items like paper, food waste, yard waste, etc.).
Gasification attempts though has been failure after failure. So there is great hesitance to invest in the technology. To the best of my knowledge, there are two companies that went back the drawing board and have developed working pilot plants. Disclosure: I am with a group that is trying to build a plant based on one of the company’s tech.
I
I have to admit that I DO take the time, and use the water to wash the trash that goes into my recycling container. I just like the idea of keeping garbage as clean as I can. There’s something fulfilling about being this tidy. Raw food refuse goes into the compost heap. Stained stuff beyond saving goes into the trash. I’ve actually used some of my own recycled garbage for garden walls, containers, even dog toys. And, hey, why buy food storage containers, when recycled ones work great.
Whether it is working economically or not on a mass scale is not so much an immediate concern to me — I still do it, because it keeps things neater, better organized, less smelly, and more usable for a longer time.
If I were homeless, I think I could figure out how to build a fairly comfortable tiny house out of what most people throw away.
Meanwhile, over in China they have come up with this solution:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/china-deploys-40-mobile-incinerators-wuhan-report
I never rinse recycle stuff. The clean water is far more valuable than any difference rinsing could make to the value of the thing recycled.
We would have to move to refilling bottles. Go to store with your clean bottles and refill them with milk, water, beer etc.
Sorry, MUST be sterilized…
Andy, how wide was the 1/2 mile trawl through the ocean gyre? I am curious to see the amount of plastic per square mile.
From the Connolly, et. Al. Article cited in the post.
See their pdf for more details.
the original definitive treatment “Recycling is Garbage”:
https://web.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html?fbclid=IwAR2-_zq_VpFwuG51GpN8GPvyAloRo0C6tPTQtfn9BzkGQ0Ok-lWYoMuhYs0
and the follow up 20 years later that says essentially the same thing. “The Reign of Recylcing”:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-recycling.html
The lesson here is that landfilling is just fine. We’ve got plenty of space. I’m not necessarily opposed to useful incineration technologies although I imagine there is a bit of a tradeoff in potentially mobil and soluble cosntituents of the ash. But there simply isn’t a problem with landfilling, especially when you look at the life cycle and opportunity costs of recycling.
Can anyone explain why it matters if there are traces of food in glass. They crush it up and melt it in a kiln where any contaminates will burn off.
My local recycler insists that any plastic bottle or milk container WITH the lid on will be rejected. When crushed, the lid can potentially become a dangerous projectile. Furthermore, the lid is non-recyclable.
If female greenies want to do something personal to reduce plastic pollution, they should switch from pantyhose to stockings, a pair of which weighs 60% less. Over their lifetimes, over a hundred pounds of waste could be avoided.