| ▲ | olejorgenb 18 hours ago |
| > Plastic recycles very poorly. While I'm sure this is true in general, my impression is that the PET used in drink-bottles recycle well. For drink bottles I don't think we have a good option either? Glass is too heavy, aluminum is more energy intensive (I assume) even when it's recycled. Reusable bottles is unlikely to be realistic. |
|
| ▲ | strogonoff 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I’ve seen varying (lack of certainty is a sign in itself) estimates for how many times it can be recycled, from up to 2–3 to up to 7 times, where plastic closer to the end of that is only viable for uses like car tires, and read that PET leeches more plastic into drinks after being recycled[0]. In my mind, it does not pass the “recycles well” threshold if you compare it to materials like glass. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... |
| |
| ▲ | olejorgenb 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the paper. I've been wondering about how well we're actually able to filter/clean out contaminates in plastic recycling. Seems more research is needed, but it does look worrisome. As the paper also mention - stricter rules for packaging designed for clean and easy recycling is a tool in the toolbox. They mentioned a study found that a majority of contaminant detected stemmed from labels, adhesive, etc. There's also chemical recycling which I get the impression [1] can solve some of these challenges, but don't seem to be used much yet. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221334372... |
|
|
| ▲ | abdullahkhalids 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why is glass too heavy? For decades, when average income was lower, it was the standard container in which soft drinks came in. Its just that plastic is cheaper, and replaced glass. But surely richer people can afford glass now. Interestingly, both have different environmental externalities, and not sure how those have changed over the decades and will in the future. |
| |
| ▲ | olejorgenb 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | "too heavy" is of course relative, but the addition cost/energy-use of the heavier transportation surely is non-trivial? If the bottles are to be reused, volume become an challenge. I admit I don't have any references at hand, but I'm quite sure I've seen articles claiming plastic bottles "win" by a comfortable margin from an energy perspective. Of course - energy is not everything. |
|
|
| ▲ | Molitor5901 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even Legos will not use recycled plastic, although maybe that is changing? Lego drops plans to make bricks from recycled plastic bottles
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/25/business/lego-abandons-re... Lego plans to make half the plastic in bricks from renewable materials by 2026
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/aug/28... |
|
| ▲ | olejorgenb 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Collection rates in countries having an reverse-vending system is also high to very-high. 80-95% IIRC |
| |
| ▲ | unwind 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Deposits on cans and PET bottles is well-established in Sweden, and rates seem to be around 90% now according to the responsible company [1], so yes. [1]: https://pantamera.nu/en/private-citizen/facts--statistics/de... | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Inconvenience is also very high, compared to "throw it in a recycling bin". | | |
| ▲ | rob74 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The inconvenience of throwing it in a recycling bin vs. just throwing it out of the window is also higher, so the next logical step is, I assume, to simply throw it out of the window? | |
| ▲ | throwaway03312 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Several countries add a deposit to each bottle, so you would actually throw money away. It's not a big inconvenience to throw the bottles in a small bag and bring it with you to the machine at the grocery store, when you are going there anyway. 9 of 10 bottles are returned in Norway, so the system works. | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's not a big inconvenience to throw the bottles in a small bag and bring it with you to the machine at the grocery store, when you are going there anyway. 1) "when you are going there anyway", which many people don't anymore. 2) Yes, it's absolutely a big inconvenience; I remember those days, and it took 15-30 minutes each time, leaving aside the inconvenience of bagging and lugging them, and the extreme unreliability of the machines. Not going to happen. A recycling bin that gets picked up alongside the trash bin is far, far more convenient. I live in a state that has a can/bottle deposit, and despite that I just toss them in the recycling bin. If there wasn't a recycling bin or the recycling bin didn't allow them, they'd go in the trash bin, because life is too short to spend any of it feeding plastic bottles into a machine. My state also incentivizes recycling in other ways: trash bins are small with high fees, recycling bins are huge and free. | |
| ▲ | Ekaros 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or huge sack and then use the newer models of machines that will automatically process whole sack of mixed pet and cans in a couple minutes. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | RobotToaster 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Reusable bottles is unlikely to be realistic. It used to be the norm in the UK for milk. |
| |
| ▲ | Propelloni 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Agreed. Glass bottles were the absolute norm in Europe up to the late 1980s. A widespread re-use network for glas bottles existed (and still exists, esp. for beer bottles). Add on top a glass recycling system dor single-use and spent glass bottles and recovery rates were very good, albeit expensive in terms of transportation and energy use. Independent of glass, according to Wikipedia over 75 % of all PET-bottles in the DACH region are also re-used before they are recycled (which can mean burning them). So, yes, it is absolutely realistic to have a system where the majority of bottles are reused. |
|
