Recycling: Myth?

[skadistic]

Here's a thought.

When I went to do my brakes the rotors needed to be turned back to true. New ones from China were $11 a piece. Getting the old ones turned that had plenty of steel left cost me $38. One place wanted to charge me $100. This has become a toss away society.

 

[Samson]

I agree with you. Just look at all the electronic junk being produced today. Meant to last two, three years - even if it could last more, that would bring less profits to the companies producing and selling these things.

Quite. And when threy do go it is usually just a dry sloder joint of something that could be fixed by anyone if the education and encuragement was there. Intead we get get stuff sealed (for our own good) and it says in the instructions to throw it away if it is faulty.

 

[Samson]

Here's a thought.

When I went to do my brakes the rotors needed to be turned back to true. New ones from China were $11 a piece. Getting the old ones turned that had plenty of steel left cost me $38. One place wanted to charge me $100. This has become a toss away society.

But why did they need to be turned back to new? I expect you know what you are talking about, but groves in the rotors (you do mean the brake disks?) actually increases brake functioning as it increases the braking area. I do not change them unless they look like they are imminantly going to fall apart.

 

[skadistic]

But why did they need to be turned back to new? I expect you know what you are talking about, but groves in the rotors (you do mean the brake disks?) actually increases brake functioning as it increases the braking area. I do not change them unless they look like they are imminantly going to fall apart.

The best possible condition is to get them flat and true even on both sides. Groves allow heat to build up and actualy warp faster leading to harmonic distortions that can damage everything in the drivetrain back like hub bearings, CV joints, transmission seals and suspension parts like tie-rod ends. Vibrations in your brakes can be very dangerous in that you aren't getting proper clamping. Heat will also lead to boiling of your brake fluid that gets you bubbles and bubbles are bad. The grooves in the rotor them selves don't give more frictional area since the pads dont press against the side of the grooves only the bottom of it. The grooves will however trap gas build up that gives you fade in prolonged braking.

 

[Samson]

The best possible condition is to get them flat and true even on both sides. Groves allow heat to build up and actualy warp faster leading to harmonic distortions that can damage everything in the drivetrain back like hub bearings, CV joints, transmission seals and suspension parts like tie-rod ends. Vibrations in your brakes can be very dangerous in that you aren't getting proper clamping. Heat will also lead to boiling of your brake fluid that gets you bubbles and bubbles are bad. The grooves in the rotor them selves don't give more frictional area since the pads dont press against the side of the grooves only the bottom of it. The grooves will however trap gas build up that gives you fade in prolonged braking.

Hmm, I expect you are right, as you really seem to know what you are talking about. I shall have to read up on it.

 

[Masquerouge]

Hmm, I expect you are right, as you really seem to know what you are talking about. I shall have to read up on it.

either that, or I wouldn't want to play poker with him

 

[skadistic]

either that, or I wouldn't want to play poker with him

Hah you'd lose your shirt one way or another.


And to keep with the recycling thingy I'd give it the thrift store to sell!

I do wish people bought and sold more stuff at thrift stores. Its a good way to recycle.

 

[Phlegmak]

What does a magician know?

What! What do you mean? You're questioning his ability to learn something just because his work is in a field not related to something else? Come on. Please tell me you're joking. I'm a programmer. So I can't know about linguistics, or art, or anything else?

 

[Swedishguy]

I was waiting for someone to make this thread. Maybe now we can realize the dangers of recycling.

 

[The Fjonis]

Even if some people might be against recycling, I see no good arguments for landfills. Why not burn the crap instead and get energy back? That's what we're doing more and more in Norway. Landfills are bad because they give off lots of methane and other gases. (For example, organic stuff like food which is left to rot in landfills give off methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas, but if you burn it, you only get CO2)

 

[Swedishguy]

Even if some people might be against recycling, I see no good arguments for landfills. Why not burn the crap instead and get energy back? That's what we're doing more and more in Norway. Landfills are bad because they give off lots of methane and other gases. (For example, organic stuff like food which is left to rot in landfills give off methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas, but if you burn it, you only get CO2)

With modern landfills, that methane is used for energy purposes and not harmful to nature. What you're talking about is a bad landfill. PWNED!

 

[The Fjonis]

But my main argument, which is recycling of energy, still remains. Why pile up the plastic and paper in a landfill instead of burning them?

 

[Godwynn]

But my main argument, which is recycling of energy, still remains. Why pile up the plastic and paper in a landfill instead of burning them?

It costs more energy to recycle them than to make them brand new.

 

[The Fjonis]

What do you mean? Incinerators don't have to be that expensive, do they? In the long run I mean..

 

[Godwynn]

What do you mean? Incinerators don't have to be that expensive, do they? In the long run I mean..

From my limited knowledge of incinerators (Simcity 3000), they emit a lot of air pollution.

 

[The Fjonis]

I've looked at the Wiki article about this to get some information. Seems like with the necessary filtering technology installed their net efficiency can be as low as 12-15%, and they are quite expensive, so they need quite a few years of operation to become cost effective. But arguments about CO2 emissions are of course totally daft, since this CO2 would be eventually be relased to the atmosphere due to biodegradation anyway in a landfill.

To decide which is better (incineration or bioreactor landfilling (=Methane capturing from landfills)) we need more info on the cost and efficiency of the latter. Is anybody in the know?
-

 

[Ayatollah So]

Steel and Aluminum are a straightforward example of efficient recycling because you don't get any energy from burning them and it takes a lot of energy to get those out of the earth and into usable form. So they easily top the list of energy efficient recycling.

I get my salary from recycling aluminum and steel - mostly from scrapped cars Aluminum is, pound for pound, far and away more lucrative for recycling. There's a lot more steel in auto scrap, but the aluminum is where the major $$ dwell. Of course it is, 'cause that's where the really huge energy savings are.

[... deleted]
Note: they do not take into account energy costs of sorting the plastics and they don't show energy savings for many common plastics, like PVC, Polystyrene, Teflon, Polyamides, Polyacrylamide etc. thats for the reason that those plastics never are energy efficiently recycled, but when you collect them with the household waste to recycle PE, PET and PP which themselves might merit recycling you loose the energysavings by collecting and transporting those other products usually.

My city, Ann Arbor, recycles (HD)PE and PET(E), but I don't think PP is included. I wonder how much of the other plastics they get from the local moron contingent, and how hard or easy it is to separate them.

Anyway, thanks for the info

 

[luiz]

I don't know if most recycling is wasteful (recycling alluminium sure as hell is not), but recycling paper is not only wasteful as it is bad for the environment.

 

[Samson]

Even if some people might be against recycling, I see no good arguments for landfills. Why not burn the crap instead and get energy back? That's what we're doing more and more in Norway. Landfills are bad because they give off lots of methane and other gases. (For example, organic stuff like food which is left to rot in landfills give off methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas, but if you burn it, you only get CO2)

I do not know the validity of the agrument, but it has been said that the best way to provide future generations with the scarce elements and compaounds that we throw out is to landfill. One technology improves and reacorces get more limited then future generatinos can mine the landfills and extract the recorces easier than if they are burnt.

Of course you need to collect the methane, but that is doable and can be profitable.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

The more trees thing is almost certainly about the United States' territory rather than being a worldwide figure. And even then, trees in the rainforest are more valuable to the environment than trees in the boreal forest.

It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.

I love you.