Showing posts with label recycler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recycler. Show all posts

Friday, December 26, 2014

Can Recycling Increase Your Attractiveness?


shutterstock_95091373Who knew that recycling could make people consider you more attractive? Usually when I’m at a restaurant or and at party and ask “is there somewhere that this can be recycled?” the response I get is “Are you serious? Relax.” but according to the results of a poll by PepsiCo I may be hanging around the wrong people.
During a survey of 1,140 Americans, PepsiCo found that many Americans over the age of 18 find recycling an attractive, mate worthy trait. Hooray!
The study found the following:
- 40% of people said they would have a more positive opinion of someone if they learned they recycled
– 21% of people said they would be turned off if they found out on the first date the other person didn’t recycle.
– 2 in 5 respondents want a significant other who cares about the environment
Improved sex appeal (attractiveness) is a pretty powerful incentive. For many people increasing attractiveness may be a more powerful incentive then increasing sustainability and doing our part to protect the environment.
Of course, the numbers still need to be improved upon. Only 2 in 5 people want a significant other who cares about the environment?  I personally would appreciate higher numbers, but websites like Glamour and Yahoo found PepsiCo’s findings significant enough to share.
Though only 40% said that finding out the other person recycled would...READ MORE.http://blog.enn.com/can-recycling-increase-your-attractiveness/

Monday, July 6, 2009

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Russia flexes muscle over arctic oil and gas treasures

WASHINGTON, March 6 (UPI) -- Global warming doesn't just mean there will be new patterns of mass migration, wars and border lawlessness in the 21st century. For the great climate change isn't affecting just the warmest parts of the world; it's also affecting areas that used to be the coldest.

The great Arctic Ocean polar ice cap is already melting. The Arctic Ocean could be navigable year-round within decades. The rate of melting of the ice cap, scientists say, is actually accelerating. This may completely transform the strategic resource map of the world.

For the seabed of the arctic, especially the continental shelf north of Russia, is believed to be a fresh treasure trove of oil, natural gas and precious minerals. They were all inaccessible throughout history because the severe cold weather and the great ice cap made geological prospecting, let alone extraction, virtually impossible. But thanks to global warming, that is changing fast.

The Russian government takes the prospect of an energy and mineral bonanza beneath the melting arctic ice extremely seriously. As Ariel Cohen and Lajos Szaszdi wrote for UPI on Dec. 1, 2008: "Russia recognizes the multifaceted potential of the arctic and is moving rapidly to assert its national interests. Moscow has submitted a claim to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea to an area of 460,000 square miles -- the size of Germany, France and Italy combined."

They continued, "The Kremlin is (also) pursuing its interests by projecting military power into the region."

Continued 1 2 Next > http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/03/06/Russia_flexes_muscle_over_arctic_oil_and_gas_treasures/UPI-93571236356510/

Saturday, August 16, 2008

How to: Recycle Your Computer

One of the best ways to get clean recycling is simple: just ask questions. A reputable recycler should be able to tell you where hardware is sent, and if the company exports or uses prison labor. The recycler should also be able to tell you how it handles data destruction

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Printed wiring board value rebounds

The gross value of printed wiring board scrap in June 2008 was $4.65 per pound, up 2.9 percent from the May figure. The figure is up 28 percent over June 2007's numbers. The average value of board scrap for the first half of 2008 is now $4.71 per pound, a 33-percent improvement over the first six months of 2007.
This data represents the full metallic values of boards over time and are not the recycling values, as those values do not include the costs involved in actually extracting metal from boards, including freight, sampling charges, assay assessments, smelting, refining, process loss, return on investment, and penalties for various elements, including beryllium, bismuth and nickel.
These values are for the estimated intrinsic metal content of recovered PC boards. Some consumers label such material as mid-value. Lower-value scrap includes monitor and television boards. Higher-value scrap includes network and video cards, and motherboards.
The March 2008 printed-wiring board value, at $5.03 per pound, was the highest in almost seven years, with the lowest, at $1.62 per pound, in November 2001.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Across the country, local governments are faced with the challenge of meeting recycling goals, reducing solid waste tonnage and minimizing costs. Glass is one of the most challenging materials to recycle, with most county and city recycling programs incurring net costs to recycle the material. Over the years, several alternative uses for recycled glass have been identified, such as “glassphalt” and landscaping applications. However, a Florida program evaluating the feasibility of using pulverized recycled glass for beach renourishment may provide a cost-effective approach for managing this material.
In the July 2005 issue of Waste Age, an article entitled “Beach in a Bottle” (www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_beach_bottle/index.html) described a project that Broward County, Fla., is conducting to investigate the feasibility of using recycled glass for beach renourishment. The following is an update on that project.
The first phase was designed to gauge public perception of the project while conducting a comparative analysis of the properties of natural beach sand and the artificial sand made from glass cullet. On the public perception side, tourism officials and beach professionals were very interested in the concept, while Broward County residents found the idea equally appealing. Meanwhile, geotechnical and contaminant analyses of grain size, distribution, munsell color, carbonate content, grain angularity and chemical composition revealed that glass cullet compares closely to natural sand.
More recently, the county has been conducting additional research to determine the long-term viability of using recycled glass for beach erosion control and renourishment.
Aquarium and Abiotic Testing
In 2005, the county developed a biological analysis program to monitor the survivability of fish and other fauna species within specific proportions of natural sand and glass cullet. Species then were introduced into a matrix comprised of varying ratios of cullet and natural sand. The species' ability to survive was monitored for any deviations from natural sand. The glass cullet utilized for these and subsequent tests was similar in grain size to natural beach sand (approx. 0.33 to 0.90 mm). After two months of testing, officials determined that pulverized glass cullet does not adversely affect macro or microorganisms. The species studied displayed normal active behavior with the glass cullet and showed no adverse signs of physical stress. Results indicated that the organism mortality rate was equivalent to natural sand.
In March 2006, a test plot was constructed on the upland portion of Hollywood Beach for a six-month experiment to determine if glass cullet mixtures exhibit the same abiotic characteristics (temperature, moisture content, gas exchange) when compared to natural beach sand. The test plot simulated a sea turtle hatchery enclosure and contained 16 individual test areas, each measuring 5 feet square and 3 feet deep. The results indicated that the glass cullet/sand mixtures displayed no significant difference from natural sand, and the mixtures could allow for proper sea turtle embryo development.
Next Steps
The overall results of the geotechnical, public perception, aquarium and abiotic tests indicate that the project is technically feasible. In Broward County, the presence of nesting loggerhead turtles and the beach-based economy create unique concerns that must be considered and addressed in all beach erosion control and renourishment efforts. However, research shows that manufacturing a sand product from recycled glass is a promising solution anywhere beaches are eroding and glass is a net cost to recycle.
Broward County currently is permitting phase two of this demonstration project, which will involve experimental testing at the shoreline on Hollywood Beach. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of pulverized glass cullet will be placed at the shoreline, allowing the county and its project consultants to monitor its performance and evaluate its similarities to the existing beach sand when subjected to wind and waves. Specifically, the testing will determine if glass cullet can be used to address erosion “hot spots” on the beach, which are smaller areas that suffer from critical erosion problems. As part of this phase, the county also will be investigating the feasibility of long-term methods of producing the pulverized glass.
Peter Foye, Director, Recycling and Contract Division, Broward County, Fla.; Phil Bresee, Recycling Program Manager, Broward County, Fla.; Sanford Gutner, PE, Senior Associate, Malcolm Pirnie Inc.; Holly M. P. Burton, PE, Associate, Malcolm Pirnie Inc.; Ryann M. Davis, Engineer, Malcolm Pirnie Inc.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Does recycling pay?

In the early 1980s, New Jersey environmental officials adopted a slogan: "Recycling Pays." They now regret that choice of words.

Recycling managers in New Jersey and throughout the nation are in-creasingly under scrutiny to justify the costs and benefits of their operations. Many managers feel that they are fighting against the unrealistic expectations of residents and elected officials, who want to see profits from the sale of recycled materials.

As providers of public services, recycling managers should be able to quantify the costs and benefits of their programs, but the programs should not be judged against a profit goal. Because recycling is a solid waste management option, it should be judged against competing options such as source reduction, landfilling, incineration and composting.

The critical question is not, "Did your recycling program cost the residents money?" Cost is unavoidable and must be expected. Instead, ask, "Do the recycling costs reduce the total cost of disposing your community's solid waste?" Residents expect to pay for garbage disposal, and recycling is simply an alternative method for disposing of their household waste.

To answer these cost-benefit questions, first identify the community's or organization's total cost of recycling. Then, compare that figure to costs that would have been incurred without recycling. The calculation is built around the following formula: Net costs or savings of recycling is equal to total recycling collection and processing costs plus or minus recycling disposal costs minus avoided costs of garbage collection and disposal.

For managers at public agencies, some relevant costs may be difficult to quantify. For example, private firms must account for the cost of renting or acquiring property and facilities such as garages or administrative office space. Public operations often do not have comparable costs on their ledgers, but the costs can be estimated using average local rental rates for office and garage space. Total costs also must include direct and overhead costs of employees whose functions are not directly related to recycling programs, such as receptionists, lawyers, custodians and auditors.

Many publicly run programs have never had to consider such items, but they must be included to determine the full cost of providing a public service.

Next, add these costs to any additional charges required to dispose the recyclables. If you are able to sell your materials rather than pay to dispose them, sales revenue should be subtracted from program costs to determine the total cost of recycling. Regional price differences, transportation costs, quality factors and volatility in market prices may dictate that some operations receive money for their materials while others pay markets to accept them.
Finally, the total costs of recycling must be compared with any reduced garbage collection and disposal costs to determine the net costs or savings of recycling.

Figuring It Out To illustrate the point, consider an example in which a municipal recycling program identifies $147,810 in direct and overhead expenses to provide curbside commingled recycling to a community of 15,000 residents. The program collected 1,950 tons of recyclables, and it paid an average of $10 per ton to send its recyclables to a privately operated material recovery facility.

In one year, the community contracted with a private hauler to collect solid waste at a fixed cost of $357,000 for the year, paid a garbage tipping fee of $100 per ton at a transfer station and disposed 9,440 tons of garbage.

The calculations for net cost or savings of recycling are:

* The cost of recycling collection ($147,810) plus the cost of disposing recyclables (1,950 tons at $10 per ton) equals the total cost of recycling ($167,310).

Does recycling pay?

In the early 1980s, New Jersey environmental officials adopted a slogan: "Recycling Pays." They now regret that choice of words.


Recycling managers in New Jersey and throughout the nation are in-creasingly under scrutiny to justify the costs and benefits of their operations. Many managers feel that they are fighting against the unrealistic expectations of residents and elected officials, who want to see profits from the sale of recycled materials.


As providers of public services, recycling managers should be able to quantify the costs and benefits of their programs, but the programs should not be judged against a profit goal. Because recycling is a solid waste management option, it should be judged against competing options such as source reduction, landfilling, incineration and composting.


The critical question is not, "Did your recycling program cost the residents money?" Cost is unavoidable and must be expected. Instead, ask, "Do the recycling costs reduce the total cost of disposing your community's solid waste?" Residents expect to pay for garbage disposal, and recycling is simply an alternative method for disposing of their household waste.


To answer these cost-benefit questions, first identify the community's or organization's total cost of recycling. Then, compare that figure to costs that would have been incurred without recycling. The calculation is built around the following formula: Net costs or savings of recycling is equal to total recycling collection and processing costs plus or minus recycling disposal costs minus avoided costs of garbage collection and disposal.


For managers at public agencies, some relevant costs may be difficult to quantify. For example, private firms must account for the cost of renting or acquiring property and facilities such as garages or administrative office space. Public operations often do not have comparable costs on their ledgers, but the costs can be estimated using average local rental rates for office and garage space. Total costs also must include direct and overhead costs of employees whose functions are not directly related to recycling programs, such as receptionists, lawyers, custodians and auditors.


Many publicly run programs have never had to consider such items, but they must be included to determine the full cost of providing a public service.


Next, add these costs to any additional charges required to dispose the recyclables. If you are able to sell your materials rather than pay to dispose them, sales revenue should be subtracted from program costs to determine the total cost of recycling. Regional price differences, transportation costs, quality factors and volatility in market prices may dictate that some operations receive money for their materials while others pay markets to accept them.
Finally, the total costs of recycling must be compared with any reduced garbage collection and disposal costs to determine the net costs or savings of recycling.


Figuring It Out To illustrate the point, consider an example in which a municipal recycling program identifies $147,810 in direct and overhead expenses to provide curbside commingled recycling to a community of 15,000 residents. The program collected 1,950 tons of recyclables, and it paid an average of $10 per ton to send its recyclables to a privately operated material recovery facility.


In one year, the community contracted with a private hauler to collect solid waste at a fixed cost of $357,000 for the year, paid a garbage tipping fee of $100 per ton at a transfer station and disposed 9,440 tons of garbage.


The calculations for net cost or savings of recycling are:


* The cost of recycling collection ($147,810) plus the cost of disposing recyclables (1,950 tons at $10 per ton) equals the total cost of recycling ($167,310).

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Nationwide recycling

TWO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. House of Representatives are trying, once again, to create a national e-waste recycling system. In early January, Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., introduced the National Computer Recycling Act (H.R. 425).

The bill would direct the Washington-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add a fee of up to $10 — to be paid by consumers — on the sales of new computers, monitors and other electronic devices designated by the EPA administrator. The monies would fund EPA grants to local governments, organizations and individuals to carry out computer recycling programs. Manufacturers and retailers that have their own computer recycling programs would be exempt from charging the fee.

If passed, the bill would also require the EPA to study e-waste and develop recommendations for addressing the growing disposal issue.

As technology improves, people are replacing and disposing of their old electronic devices in significant quantities. Roughly 2 million tons of e-waste make their way into landfills each year, according to the EPA. And some environmental groups worry that toxic substances in e-waste could harm human health and the environment. However, solid waste industry members note that there is no evidence that toxic substances leach from e-waste when it is placed in landfills.
Reps. Thompson and Slaughter acknowledged the environmental concerns in introducing the bill. However, the bill has died twice before when it was sent to the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2003 and 2002.

Nevertheless, Thompson has introduced the bill a third time because he believes there is more political momentum for e-waste legislation now, says Matt Gerien, Thompson's press secretary. “E-waste has gained a lot of notice lately in the press,” he says. “We feel like there's a lot more support for the bill right now.”

Chaz Miller, state programs director for the Washington-based National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), is not so sure, and says the chances of the bill passing are “pretty slim.” “With all due respect to the [bill's] authors, they are members of the minority party, and they are not on the committee of jurisdiction,” Miller explains. “If a bill that is similar to this is picked up by a Republican on that committee, then it's going to be taken more seriously politically.” Also, “Congress, for better or worse, has other priorities right now, and they don't see a pressing need to engage this issue.”

NSWMA has yet to take a position on the bill and typically does not do so on legislation until hearings on it are held and debate begins, Miller says. However, the organization supports advance recycling fees or takeback programs to avoid unfunded e-waste recycling mandates, he says.

John Skinner, executive director and CEO of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), Silver Spring, Md., says his organization supports the bill's concept but has questions about how it would be put into practice. For example, SWANA wants to prevent a situation in which a consumer has paid the fee and then, because of how the funds were distributed geographically, does not have a local system that will take back the material. “We feel that needs to be explored further,” he says.


Cash for Computer and TVs
CPU eScrap Cable Phone Metals Top dollar for eScrap eWaste paid
www.ewastedisposal.net

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Basel Action Network

30 January 2007 (Seattle, WA.) – The Seattle based toxic trade watchdog, Basel Action Network (BAN), is concerned that Microsoft has done little to prevent or mitigate the massive hardware obsolescence that is likely to be caused by the release of its latest operating system known as Vista. The environmental organization predicts that the software launch will create a 'tsunami' of e-waste exported to developing countries already awash in e-waste exports, as consumers in rich countries dispose of their existing computers and buy new machines capable of running the new operating system.

BAN noted the contradiction of Microsoft founder Bill Gates latest high-tech progeny in light of the charitable mission of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation "to bring innovations in health and learning to the global community."

"Today with the release of Vista, Microsoft could bring both a massive digital dump and a perpetuation of the digital divide to the global community," said Jim Puckett, coordinator of the Basel Action Network. "It is shameful how little innovation and concern the electronics industry continues to demonstrate for the long-term consequences of their products in light of their abilities to innovate front-end gadgetry to encourage sales." he said.

A study by the Softchoice Corporation[i] estimated that about half of the average business PCs in North America do not meet the minimum requirements for Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system, and 94 percent do not meet the system requirements for Vista Premium -- the enhanced business version. While some of this obsolescence can be solved with RAM upgrades, it is likely that many businesses will not bother with such labor intensive servicing but will simply discard their existing computers.

According to BAN, more than 50% of these computers globally, are exported to developing countries either whole or dissassembled, where they are processed and disposed of in a manner that causes serious damage to workers and local environments. The result of this is that the gains of the electronics industry translate into serious environmental costs externalized to the poor. BAN earlier documented the cyber-age nightmares in such countries as China, India or Nigeria where women and children 'cook' lead-tin soldered circuit boards over small fires, soak chips in dangerous acid baths along river ways, smash lead and phosphor laden cathode ray tubes, and burn wires and plastic housings in open dumps.[ii]

Further, BAN notes that every time software makes hardware obsolete, the digital divide is actually perpetuated, because the divide is not defined by the gap between those with computers and those without, but by those with the latest innovations and those without. And when exported obsolete computers are handed down to developing country consumers for re-use, a toxic timebomb is created there due to the fact that the electronics industry has made no effort to ensure that infrastructure is in put in place to properly collect and manage their products at end-of-life.

"Most developing countries have no infrastructure whatsoever to collect and recycle computers, so when they die they are simply dumped and burned," Puckett said. "A truly responsible industry will take steps to ensure that innovation does not automatically equate to obsolescence, toxic waste and a growing population of hardware have-nots," he said.

BAN hopes to work with its Seattle area neighbor Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to ensure that innovation and obsolescence are de-linked in future.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Haul of America

David Kutoff, CEO for Eagan, Minn.-based e-waste recycling firm Materials Processing Corporation (MPC), says he was initially surprised at the number of people eager to rid themselves of a once state-of-the-art computer or other previously coveted electronics. “It was pretty substantial,” he says.

Beginning on Nov. 15 — America Recycles Day — those people lined up to take part in the country's largest e-waste collection project, the Great Minnesota eCycling Event. For three days, the public was invited to drop off e-waste free of charge at the nation's largest shopping mall, Minneapolis' Mall of America.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as much as 1.9 million tons of outdated electronics ended up in landfills in 2005. Only 345,000 to 379,000 tons were recycled. “There are numerous places in Minneapolis — and Minnesota overall — that are available to drop off your electronics, and a lot them happen to be for free as well,” says Kutoff. “People just don't know anything about [these resources], which is an issue. Part of our goal [for] this event was to create overall awareness about electronics recycling and that there are places to get that stuff done.”

So, on “Green Thursday” (a nudge at “Black Friday”), the event kicked off, drawing hundreds of participants. Teams of workers helped unload, categorize and pack e-waste for shipment. Kutoff says some of the discarded devices dated back to the 1960s. After dropping off their items, participants were provided with e-waste recycling information and a few shopping discounts.
Expecting to collect only a few thousand pounds of e-waste, organizers were astonished by the massive response to the event. At one point, traffic entering the mall was backed up for at least two miles. Kutoff says crowds were so substantial on the second day that organizers were forced to turn some people away.

“I was really amazed at the amount of time and dedication of some of these people to actually wait on line to get rid of something as small as a DVD player,” Kutoff says. “It was very encouraging that people here are that conscious of the environment that they never threw the stuff out.”

Kutoff estimates that 1.2 million to 1.5 million pounds of electronics were collected at the event, filling 86 trucks. All items were sent for processing at MPC's facility, which touts its “No Landfill” policy. Kutoff says the amount of waste collected is a good indication of the need for more e-waste recycling drop off sites. “[Organizing] these events on a regular basis or [making them] just a little bit more localized for people is definitely a need. But I think what it creates is awareness,” he says.

e Waste Disposal LA/OC
Free pick up monitors CPU phones Calif green recycler 24/7 drop off
www.ewastedisposal.net

HVAC boot cleared of Asbestos in Los Angeles

http://www.ewastedisposal.net