Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
Just something that has been knocking about in my mind for a while.
With the current domestic recycling there are some plastics which can be recycled and some which can't. For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. Does this render the whole thing non-recyclable, and thus destined for land fill? Or is a small percentage of contamination acceptable? Or is most of the stuff we put in blue bins just for show and goes to land fill anyway? Cheers Dave R -- Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article ,
David writes: Just something that has been knocking about in my mind for a while. With the current domestic recycling there are some plastics which can be recycled and some which can't. For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. Does this render the whole thing non-recyclable, and thus destined for land fill? Or is a small percentage of contamination acceptable? Or is most of the stuff we put in blue bins just for show and goes to land fill anyway? In most cases, small amounts of contamination reduce the value of the reclaimed plastic - it means there are some things it can't be used for, but less critical things it still can. Same with paper. Some councils required all plastic removed including plastic envelope windows, etc. When there is a glut of recycled paper, theirs is the only type which can be sold. In both cases, incineration is still an option when there's no market for reuse. OTOH, the more effort you require people to put in to recycling separation, the percentage of recycled waste drops dramatically. Automated separation at recycling plant is now quite advanced, and uses things like electric fields to separate different types of plastic bottles. My recycle bin probably fills at least twice as fast as my non- recycle bin. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message ... In article , David writes: Just something that has been knocking about in my mind for a while. With the current domestic recycling there are some plastics which can be recycled and some which can't. For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. Does this render the whole thing non-recyclable, and thus destined for land fill? Or is a small percentage of contamination acceptable? Or is most of the stuff we put in blue bins just for show and goes to land fill anyway? In most cases, small amounts of contamination reduce the value of the reclaimed plastic - it means there are some things it can't be used for, but less critical things it still can. so employee "professional" to sort it properly, relying on amateurs to guess is just dumb tim |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article ,
"tim....." writes: "Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message ... In article , David writes: Just something that has been knocking about in my mind for a while. With the current domestic recycling there are some plastics which can be recycled and some which can't. For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. Does this render the whole thing non-recyclable, and thus destined for land fill? Or is a small percentage of contamination acceptable? Or is most of the stuff we put in blue bins just for show and goes to land fill anyway? In most cases, small amounts of contamination reduce the value of the reclaimed plastic - it means there are some things it can't be used for, but less critical things it still can. so employee "professional" to sort it properly, relying on amateurs to guess is just dumb Some councils did kerbside sorting by trained staff. I think that's all gone now - the quality of the sorted results were good, but the labour cost was prohibitive and almost certainly outweighed any additional value of the separated recyclables. Like I said, automated sorting can separate out most of the plastic types nowadays, although that may not yet be operating in all areas. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
From recent news I've read most plastic is in small thin fibres and buried
in the ocean sediment, where it causes problems for life which filters though the detritus for food, clogging up their filters. However, I understand that the film stuff is only bonded at the outside and this is cropped off. Still there are lots of things that have multiple materials in them, cassette tapes for example, and some drinks containers which are cardboard with a silver substance glued inside. Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "David" wrote in message ... Just something that has been knocking about in my mind for a while. With the current domestic recycling there are some plastics which can be recycled and some which can't. For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. Does this render the whole thing non-recyclable, and thus destined for land fill? Or is a small percentage of contamination acceptable? Or is most of the stuff we put in blue bins just for show and goes to land fill anyway? Cheers Dave R -- Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message ... In article , "tim....." writes: "Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message ... In article , David writes: Just something that has been knocking about in my mind for a while. With the current domestic recycling there are some plastics which can be recycled and some which can't. For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. Does this render the whole thing non-recyclable, and thus destined for land fill? Or is a small percentage of contamination acceptable? Or is most of the stuff we put in blue bins just for show and goes to land fill anyway? In most cases, small amounts of contamination reduce the value of the reclaimed plastic - it means there are some things it can't be used for, but less critical things it still can. so employee "professional" to sort it properly, relying on amateurs to guess is just dumb Some councils did kerbside sorting by trained staff. I think that's all gone now - the quality of the sorted results were good, but the labour cost was prohibitive and almost certainly outweighed any additional value of the separated recyclables. of course it's not cost effective for every 5 minutes of sorting they are doing 5 minutes of collecting and 5 minutes of travelling. It needs to be arranged so that trained sorters sort and the other task are done by other staff Like I said, automated sorting can separate out most of the plastic types nowadays, although that may not yet be operating in all areas. I must have missed that bit. My initial comment wasn't referring to the use of manual labour over technology, I was referring to the practice of LAs to expect residents to be qualified sorters and then having the gall to try and fine you if you turn out to be useless at it tim |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 20 Dec 2014, Tim Streater grunted:
In article , David wrote: For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. And what about those bloody boxes for stuff like quiche that have windows, and it says 'cardboard carton recyclable; window not recyclable', so you're expected to grovel about, picking off the plastic. It's the wide available products like these which to my mind demonstrate the lack of will to seriously address recycling -- David |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 20/12/14 18:29, Lobster wrote:
On 20 Dec 2014, Tim Streater grunted: In article , David wrote: For example, moulded plastic food trays are marked as recyclable, but the label often says that the plastic covering film is not. For meats, bacon, and many other foods the covering film is sealed to the rim of the plastic tray, so that it is virtually impossible to remove all the film. So the tray is recyclable but with a small amount of non-recyclable plastic fused to the rim. And what about those bloody boxes for stuff like quiche that have windows, and it says 'cardboard carton recyclable; window not recyclable', so you're expected to grovel about, picking off the plastic. It's the wide available products like these which to my mind demonstrate the lack of will to seriously address recycling Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it Really http://www.cowbridgecompost.com/news.htm |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 20/12/2014 19:35, rbel wrote:
Householders sort into 4 bins - They have got it up to five round here. -- Rod |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article ,
rbel writes: On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:31:32 +0000 (UTC), (Andrew Gabriel) wrote: Some councils did kerbside sorting by trained staff. I think that's all gone now - the quality of the sorted results were good, but the labour cost was prohibitive and almost certainly outweighed any additional value of the separated recyclables. Like I said, automated sorting can separate out most of the plastic types nowadays, although that may not yet be operating in all areas. Our recycling uses a hybrid arrangement. Householders sort into 4 bins - paper, plastic packaging and tins; glass, cardboard, foil and drink cartons; food waste; all non-recyclable waste. That's quite a common arrangement, although food waste and/or garden waste vary quite a bit. Garden waste is sometimes charged extra, although councils which offered it when this government came to power are not allowed to increase the charge (or to start charging if they didn't do so beforehand). Some councils tried even more separation, but found it causes recyling percentages to drop. In one area I visit regularly which has the separate food waste, I noticed almost no one uses it. It doesn't exist in my area. Battery collection is sometimes separate, because they are not supposed to allow that to go into landfill anymore. OTOH, all shops which sell batteries also have to take back old ones now, and even before that, many companies provided battery recycling bins for their workers. Then there is a kerbside check by the collection crew - a driver and 2 operatives. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article sting.com,
Sailor writes: The Natural Philosopher wrote Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it Really http://www.cowbridgecompost.com/news.htm South Beds (back when it existed) got a government grant to buy all the garden compost wheelie bins (probably 15 years ago?), but they made a profit from the collection, composting, and sale of garden compost. Councils which charged for garden waste collection generally got far too small participation for it to be a profitable business. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 20/12/14 20:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article sting.com, Sailor writes: The Natural Philosopher wrote Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it Really http://www.cowbridgecompost.com/news.htm South Beds (back when it existed) got a government grant to buy all the garden compost wheelie bins (probably 15 years ago?), but they made a profit from the collection, composting, and sale of garden compost. Councils which charged for garden waste collection generally got far too small participation for it to be a profitable business. Rother has this year switched from free to chargeable garden waste. |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article ,
Tim Watts writes: On 20/12/14 20:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote: South Beds (back when it existed) got a government grant to buy all the garden compost wheelie bins (probably 15 years ago?), but they made a profit from the collection, composting, and sale of garden compost. Councils which charged for garden waste collection generally got far too small participation for it to be a profitable business. Rother has this year switched from free to chargeable garden waste. Interesting. Reading (and other places) tried to do that, and goverment told them the charge would count against them as a council tax increase, and so they abandoned the idea and it remains free AFAIK. Although collection of garden waste in Reading was free from the beginning, residents had to buy the garden recycling bin, so the take-up was not universal by any means. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 20/12/14 22:13, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , Tim Watts writes: On 20/12/14 20:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote: South Beds (back when it existed) got a government grant to buy all the garden compost wheelie bins (probably 15 years ago?), but they made a profit from the collection, composting, and sale of garden compost. Councils which charged for garden waste collection generally got far too small participation for it to be a profitable business. Rother has this year switched from free to chargeable garden waste. Interesting. Reading (and other places) tried to do that, and goverment told them the charge would count against them as a council tax increase, and so they abandoned the idea and it remains free AFAIK. Although collection of garden waste in Reading was free from the beginning, residents had to buy the garden recycling bin, so the take-up was not universal by any means. Our charge is reasonably nominal £25 per annum and includes the standard sized wheelie bin. Uptake has been partial here. For me it was a no brainer as I have a long hawthorn hedge and clippings are not practical to compost[1], would rip my car to bits if I shoved it in for the dump and I fill my brown bin about 75% of the year (fortnightly collections). [1] I have wondered if a chipper would work - but hawthorn is so wiggly and stiff I wonder if it would even be possible to feed it into a domestic shredder at any sane rate - unlike say long thin sticks of ash. My house is not bonfire friendly - short all round garden - whenever I have tried to burn materials I have smoked someone out in short order. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On Saturday, 20 December 2014 18:55:42 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it I know a farmer who buys it for 50p per tonne. There are lots of bits of plastic bag in it, but they don't cause him a problem. John |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Bill |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
"Tim Watts" wrote in message ... On 20/12/14 22:13, Andrew Gabriel wrote: In article , Tim Watts writes: On 20/12/14 20:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote: South Beds (back when it existed) got a government grant to buy all the garden compost wheelie bins (probably 15 years ago?), but they made a profit from the collection, composting, and sale of garden compost. Councils which charged for garden waste collection generally got far too small participation for it to be a profitable business. Rother has this year switched from free to chargeable garden waste. Interesting. Reading (and other places) tried to do that, and goverment told them the charge would count against them as a council tax increase, and so they abandoned the idea and it remains free AFAIK. Although collection of garden waste in Reading was free from the beginning, residents had to buy the garden recycling bin, so the take-up was not universal by any means. Our charge is reasonably nominal £25 per annum and includes the standard sized wheelie bin. Uptake has been partial here. For me it was a no brainer as I have a long hawthorn hedge and clippings are not practical to compost[1], would rip my car to bits if I shoved it in for the dump and I fill my brown bin about 75% of the year (fortnightly collections). [1] I have wondered if a chipper would work - but hawthorn is so wiggly and stiff I wonder if it would even be possible to feed it into a domestic shredder at any sane rate - unlike say long thin sticks of ash. My house is not bonfire friendly - short all round garden - whenever I have tried to burn materials I have smoked someone out in short order. I compost all my own stuff including hedge clippings. I take stuff from my neighbours too. Takes one/two years to compost thicker twigs. I run anything over 10mm dia through the shredder & it will compost in six months. I also buy compost at the recycle centre. They will deliver by the truck load if you want. There are no separate bins for garden waste here |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
"Sailor" wrote in message
ldhosting.com... The Natural Philosopher wrote Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it Really http://www.cowbridgecompost.com/news.htm Hmmm... "Live - On YouTube You can now watch us on YouTube. The facility, our machinery, the process and our estate." .... couple of three year old videos. |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:10:54 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote:
snip However, I understand that the film stuff is only bonded at the outside and this is cropped off. snip Ah! Makes sense to crop the rim off - I just wasn't sure that they would go to the extra expense of doing this. Cheers Dave R -- Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 21/12/14 10:36, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-21, Bill Wright wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Actually it gets used to make glass fibre insulation. Some. How much glass fibre did you use last year? How many glass bottles did you throw away? I'll bet the second was an order of magnitude greater than the first -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 21/12/2014 00:39, Bill Wright wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Bill It costs next to no CO2 to send stuff to china, the empty container ships are going there anyway. |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article ,
Bill Wright writes: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. It was crushed and used here as hardcore, thereby avoiding landfill tax, but there was some concern that according to EU rules, it probably should still be subject to landfill tax, even when buried under roads and pavements as hardcore. It's never worth recycling back into glass - there's almost no market for low grade glass made from recycled glass, and it costs more than making new glass. Even the crushed glass hardcore costs more than real hardcore, and is only marginally worthwhile due to avoiding landfill tax. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 21/12/2014 11:43, Dennis@home wrote:
It costs next to no CO2 to send stuff to china, the empty container ships are going there anyway. Even if it were the case that the container ships use not even one extra joule nor emit a single extra molecule of CO2, the transport from numerous collecting points to the ships ain't going to be without any CO2 emissions. -- Rod |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... On 21/12/14 10:36, Huge wrote: On 2014-12-21, Bill Wright wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Actually it gets used to make glass fibre insulation. Some. How much glass fibre did you use last year? How many glass bottles did you throw away? I'll bet the second was an order of magnitude greater than the first But if you are a commercial new build, I suspect it is not tim |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message ... In article , rbel writes: On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:31:32 +0000 (UTC), (Andrew Gabriel) wrote: Some councils did kerbside sorting by trained staff. I think that's all gone now - the quality of the sorted results were good, but the labour cost was prohibitive and almost certainly outweighed any additional value of the separated recyclables. Like I said, automated sorting can separate out most of the plastic types nowadays, although that may not yet be operating in all areas. Our recycling uses a hybrid arrangement. Householders sort into 4 bins - paper, plastic packaging and tins; glass, cardboard, foil and drink cartons; food waste; all non-recyclable waste. That's quite a common arrangement, although food waste and/or garden waste vary quite a bit. Garden waste is sometimes charged extra, although councils which offered it when this government came to power are not allowed to increase the charge (or to start charging if they didn't do so beforehand). Some councils tried even more separation, but found it causes recyling percentages to drop. well there's something that they couldn't have predicted - not! tim |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 20/12/2014 18:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The compost ends up in grow bags and potting compost sold by the supermarkets/sheds. -- mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 21/12/2014 00:39, Bill Wright wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Much of the recycling is not CO2 effective. Add also the environmental cost of people transporting glass to the collection points in cars. As I've posted before people sort glass into the various colours, place in in the nominated bins and then the truck comes along and it ALL gets mixed up in the same load back to the 'recycling' plant. -- mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article ,
alan_m writes: On 21/12/2014 00:39, Bill Wright wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Much of the recycling is not CO2 effective. Add also the environmental cost of people transporting glass to the collection points in cars. Well "driving to the bottle bank" is a euphemism for pointless recycling! I only started recycling glass when they started collecting it from the kerbside. As I've posted before people sort glass into the various colours, place in in the nominated bins and then the truck comes along and it ALL gets mixed up in the same load back to the 'recycling' plant. Those date back to the original (failed) attempts to reuse the glass as bottles and whatnot - that never worked. The giant bins with compartments for each type of glass - the separators between the compartments were long since taken out. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In article ,
"harryagain" writes: I compost all my own stuff including hedge clippings. I take stuff from my neighbours too. Takes one/two years to compost thicker twigs. I run anything over 10mm dia through the shredder & it will compost in six months. I've had a compost bin running for about 4 years. Mostly grass cuttings and other stuff the mower picks up - twigs and holly tree leaves. The bin has been full at end of last two summers, but settles enough over winter to get the next year's in (helped by me jumping up and down on it at the end of this year). The stuff at the bottom is not well rotted yet. Holly leaves appear not to rot at all, and neither have the twigs completely. New grass added at the top always looks like it's starting to rot down nicely a week or two later. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
Andrew Gabriel posted
In article , Bill Wright writes: The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. It was crushed and used here as hardcore, thereby avoiding landfill tax, but there was some concern that according to EU rules, it probably should still be subject to landfill tax, even when buried under roads and pavements as hardcore. What's bad about putting it into landfill anyway? (I mean from the Eurocrats' POV - obviously it's bad from our POV because the Eurocrats tax it!) -- Les |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 21/12/14 15:59, tim..... wrote:
well there's something that they couldn't have predicted - not! tim Our recycling went up a lot when the council switched from their previously laughable multi-sorted boxes (one with types 1,2,3 only plastics plus cans, one for pristine paper, one for garden waste) to optional garden waste and green bin for *everything* vaguely recyclable (any paper, card, all plastics, tetrapaks, tins) plus glass in a separate box. The green bin is full every 2 weeks and the black general refuse bin is a lot less full. |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 21/12/2014 10:01, David wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:10:54 +0000, Brian Gaff wrote: snip However, I understand that the film stuff is only bonded at the outside and this is cropped off. snip Ah! Makes sense to crop the rim off - I just wasn't sure that they would go to the extra expense of doing this. Cheers Dave R Semi-rigid packaging is either PVC or more commonly nowadays for food is Apet, to heat seal the top film to the pack uses mostly PP and this is laminated to the film during the production process. Just to cut of the sealed area still leaves the laminated PP over the rest of the pack. Vacuum packs i.e. bacon cooked meats etc. are Nylon laminated with PP, again this is an overall coating. As for Co2, rigid cooked food containers contains 75% Co2 the rest being N2, you often get a whiff when opening the packs. Fresh red meats contain 30% Co2, the rest being N2 and a large volume of O2 which keeps the meat red for presentation. As for my recycle bin they allow all plastics & paper including yoghurt/butter tubs which are PS which previously went to landfill so everything goes in there if at all plastic, always plenty of room in the general bin come day of collection which is every other week. Just recently they now take small electrical goods and batteries, just have to leave them in a carrier bag next to the bin, also Xmas trees the first week in Jan. My green bin takes garden refuse apart from cooked items which I put out for the fox's/Badgers, peelings etc. go on the compost heap along with shredded personal documents, anything else I burn, I love a good bonfire. I come under Central Beds Council and with no extra charge on top of the tax, they seem to be doing a decent job. Barry |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In message , polygonum
writes On 21/12/2014 11:43, Dennis@home wrote: It costs next to no CO2 to send stuff to china, the empty container ships are going there anyway. Even if it were the case that the container ships use not even one extra joule nor emit a single extra molecule of CO2, the transport from numerous collecting points to the ships ain't going to be without any CO2 emissions. And in terms of ton/mile is probably not insignificant. Adrian -- To Reply : replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter, DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness. For a better method of access, please see: http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
|
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 15:58:15 -0000, tim..... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... On 21/12/14 10:36, Huge wrote: On 2014-12-21, Bill Wright wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Actually it gets used to make glass fibre insulation. Some. How much glass fibre did you use last year? How many glass bottles did you throw away? I'll bet the second was an order of magnitude greater than the first But if you are a commercial new build, I suspect it is not tim There's a 330,000 sq. ft. new unit not far away - all the insulation is (labelled) as wool - not many bottles in that, I hope. -- Peter. The gods will stay away whilst religions hold sway |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
On 21/12/2014 16:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , "harryagain" writes: I compost all my own stuff including hedge clippings. I take stuff from my neighbours too. Takes one/two years to compost thicker twigs. I run anything over 10mm dia through the shredder & it will compost in six months. I've had a compost bin running for about 4 years. Mostly grass cuttings and other stuff the mower picks up - twigs and holly tree leaves. The bin has been full at end of last two summers, but settles enough over winter to get the next year's in (helped by me jumping up and down on it at the end of this year). The stuff at the bottom is not well rotted yet. Holly leaves appear not to rot at all, and neither have the twigs completely. New grass added at the top always looks like it's starting to rot down nicely a week or two later. I was talking to a guy whose company have the contract to maintain our local park. All the shrub cuttings get left in their "yard" and put back on the council beds a year later, despite none of the twiggy bits having broken down. Sill, it's the right colour, and it probably acts as a mulch of sorts, but it's a wasted round trip in a way. |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
In message , at 16:15:04 on Sun, 21
Dec 2014, alan_m remarked: As I've posted before people sort glass into the various colours, place in in the nominated bins and then the truck comes along and it ALL gets mixed up in the same load back to the 'recycling' plant. My local bottle bank has two bins. One is labelled "Clear", and the other is labelled both "Green only" and "Brown only". Obviously a psychology experiment. (The truck which collects them has two compartments) -- Roland Perry |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT - effectiveness of recycling?
"PeterC" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 15:58:15 -0000, tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... On 21/12/14 10:36, Huge wrote: On 2014-12-21, Bill Wright wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Its all a green con anyway. no one uses council compost because its likely contaminated. nearly all waste ends up as landfill anyway despite what you do to it The glass gets sent to China for use as hardcore, at a massive cost in CO2 emissions. Actually it gets used to make glass fibre insulation. Some. How much glass fibre did you use last year? How many glass bottles did you throw away? I'll bet the second was an order of magnitude greater than the first But if you are a commercial new build, I suspect it is not tim There's a 330,000 sq. ft. new unit not far away - all the insulation is (labelled) as wool - not many bottles in that, I hope. just because some commercial new builds aren't insulated with glass fibre products, doesn't negate the fact that those that do are using up more than their own quantity of previously "consumed" glass containers. tim |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Email effectiveness | Home Repair | |||
CWI - how to measure effectiveness? | UK diy | |||
Loctite's effectiveness after heating? | Metalworking | |||
How to improve effectiveness of fireplace - fit a woodburning stove? | UK diy | |||
Does mouse poison lose its effectiveness? | Home Repair |