Remix.run Logo
Ask HN: Why are electronics still so unrecyclable?
29 points by alexandrehtrb 3 hours ago | 56 comments

I was wondering why electronics and computer parts are so unrecyclable (is there a better word for that?).

From what I searched, only a small percentage of electronics are recycled and those that do, are through chemical processes. Electronics today use plastics and special metals, and extracting them isn't straightforward, because requires energy and big acid digestors.

Is there some kind of initiative on this area, on using other materials or designing chips and boards to be more recyclable or reusable?

Apreche 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is why the saying has always been “reduce, reuse, recycle” in that order.

Reducing is the best. Don’t buy or make surplus stuff, and that reduces waste overall.

Reusing is second best. If we did make something, the best thing to do is get as much use out of it as possible to prevent it from ever becoming trash.

Recycling is the last resort. Regardless of what is being recycled, it is an expensive and difficult process to try to salvage any value from the waste materials rather than just abandoning them.

Because recycling electronics is such a difficult problem, if we want to reduce e-waste a better idea is to increase our efforts to reduce and reuse them as much as possible. Installing Linux on an old laptop to keep it useful for somebody is easy to do, and much more effective than trying to recycle it.

jltsiren an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I find the "reduce, reuse, recycle" slogan misleading.

Everything that is manufactured will eventually become waste that must be disposed of responsibly. The overall volume of manufacturing only goes up if we leave it to the market, and there is no serious political will to legislate it down. That leaves us with an ever-increasing volume of waste that must be dealt with, making waste management an increasingly important issue.

porise 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I heard they changed it to 5Rs.

Refuse, reduce, reuse, recyle, rot.

renewiltord 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It’s even better when you make it 10 Rs: refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose, rehome, recycle, rot.

I think it’s twice as better.

marcosdumay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ignoring the ambiguity of the word "refuse", that often means "turn into trash", it's also completely redundant with "reduce". To the point that it doesn't add anything new.

Anyway, "rot" is a good one.

skipants an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like that a lot -- going to start using it

AlexandrB an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How confusing. There's no appreciable difference between "refuse" and "reduce". "Rot" is only applicable to organic waste, which is rarely considered part of "recycling" since the other Rs don't really apply.

Seems like change for change's sake.

imglorp an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Consumers have the option to "refuse" products from irresponsible or predatory vendors: ones which brick or obsolete devices.

Vendors should at a minimum open source APIs for abandoned hardware and allow unlocking it. "Refuse" to buy from those that don't. Ask for legislation forcing it.

I have a wonderful old ipad mini that's useless. I'd love to jailbreak it and put my OS on there but Apple wants a new sale instead.

randusername an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I read it as refuse categorically and rot regardless of type in a big sweep from best to worst

refuse to use any, reduce your usage, reuse yourself, recycle them into new products, or else they'll just rot

I like it.

NooneAtAll3 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Rot is about using bio-degradable options where there is one

if all fails, just leave an option for nature to do it for you

happymellon an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You have to be careful with that phrase through.

> using bio-degradable options where there is one

A lot of "biodegradable" will use a literal interpretation, in that it it degrades in nature. 500 years you say? But it still degrades...

Home compostable is really the only one that makes sense. Even industrial composting requires a high heat environment as the catalyst, so if something contaminates the batch and goes into general refuse then it will never break down.

AlexandrB an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Bio degradable packaging is not really suitable for composting yourself. Most of it takes a really long time to break down naturally or requires high composting temperatures that can be hard to achieve in a home compost pile. This is true even for basic stuff like cardboard and paper. You also need a lot of "green"[1] (high nitrogen) composting material to balance out cellulose from packaging.

The net result is that this is still an industrial process. Though probably less energy-intensive than recycling.

Source: we have a compost pile and it's not all sunshine and roses.

[1] https://www.thespruce.com/composting-greens-and-browns-25394...

coryrc an hour ago | parent [-]

They also sometimes coat your "compostable" bowls/plates/boxes in PFAS: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/pfas-compostable-food-packag...

lgleason 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Repairability would help as well. Many times the only viable option to fix something is to swap a board, or replace the entire item, instead of replacing the one failed component that caused the board to fail, or reflowing the board etc.. Many components also do not offer batteries that can be replaced, such as the magic mouse, so you end up needing to replace the entire item.

It's interesting how as certain things age, such as cars, cottage industries pop up to do just that when new replacement boards and parts are not available.

The other issue is cost cutting. Many components are made cheaply and fail pre-maturely. Great examples of this are mains voltage LED bulbs where the rectifier circuits that power the LED's fail, but the only real option is to replace the entire thing, creating a lot of e-waste in the process.

lefra an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Changing the PCB for a known-good one: $10 + maybe half an hour of low-skill work.

Changing the failing component: maybe a few minutes, probably a few hours of an electronics engineer that's familiar with the design (plus his expensive tools). He's probably bad at soldering, so you'll need someone else to do that. Then you need to revalidate the board.

It almost never make economical sense to try to repair the board.

AlexandrB an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Seeing LED bulb reliability rapidly degrade as the technology matured was like seeing the Phoebus Cartel[1] play out in real time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

MostlyStable an hour ago | parent | next [-]

There was a cartel, but this is one of those "more complicated than it appears" situations. In incandescent bulbs, there is a real tradeoff between durability of the bulb, efficiency (lumens/watt), and brightness/quality of the light, for physics reasons you _can't_ improve one without degrading the other.

Since "quality of light" is a very difficult thing to market, there was an incentive to push "lifetime of the bulb" in marketing and just make the light quality increasingly worse. The cartel attempted to halt that by making everyone agree on a lifetime/quality to hit and not participate in a race to the bottom (and yes, there was also the obvious benefit to the cartel members of increased sales and profits, which they explicitly talked about in internal documents).

I want to be very clear that I'm anti cartels and I'm not trying to say "so this was all hunky dory", just that this was not (and these things very rarely are) a simple case of "they made the product objectively worse for the sole sake of more money". Instead, they chose a different point on the pareto-frontier of brightness/efficiency/lifespan that also had the benefit of making them more money.

But yes, LED bulbs are currently mostly garbage and have terrible heat/power management electronics which means that in practice you almost never get anywhere close to the theoretical life span increases (because the electronics die from overheating far before the actual LEDs themselves would go out), and finding out information on how well a given bulb brand does on heat/power management is essentially impossible.

coryrc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wish we had a Phoebus Cartel to enforce an expected 50k-hour lifetime.

schmidtleonard an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

TechnologyConnections debunked the Phoebus Cartel a while ago.

tl;dw incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient and brighter by running them hotter, but this reduces the lifetime. The obvious Nash Equilibrium involves increasingly hot/bright/efficient bulbs and as much lying about lifetime as a typical consumer would accept, which is a lot. The idea behind the Phoebus Cartel was to force honesty on the dimension where it was most likely to disappear. You are free to disapprove of this and reject bulb lifetime policing, but if so you support the "everybody lies" alternative. Pick your poison.

PaulDavisThe1st an hour ago | parent [-]

> TechnologyConnections debunked the Phoebus Cartel a while ago.

A link would be good, to mirror the one in the GP.

MostlyStable an hour ago | parent [-]

https://youtu.be/zb7Bs98KmnY

oulipo2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly! That's what motivated us to design a repairable e-bike battery at https://infinite-battery.com

danrecht 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Collecting small things from many sources over meaningful distances is hard.

Separating things made of many materials is hard, especially when some components are hazardous.

Purifying materials drawn from waste is hard.

These aren’t impossible challenges, but physical facts of the problem that have kept costs too high for electronics recycling to be widespread.

Longer lasting electronics that can be repurposed or reused is the lever I’d be most excited to pull here.

PaulDavisThe1st an hour ago | parent | next [-]

At some point in the 90s I remember hearing an NPR story about a new startup that was "pioneering" technology that would basically permit atomic/small-molecule level "cat cracking" of just about anything: a furnace that was so hot that everything put inside it broke down to atoms/small-molecules which could then be fractionated off for re-use.

I was so excited. I was so naive.

The idea seems to have gone nowhere.

tastyfreeze 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Depends on what you are trying to recover. Recovering precious metals from electronics is no more difficult than processing precious metal ore.

wongarsu 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which comes back around to logistics and scale: refining ore is cheap because ore is delivered on multiple 300t haul trucks or in giant trains

amelius 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Longer lasting electronics that can be repurposed or reused is the lever I’d be most excited to pull here.

Capitalists are pulling the lever in the other direction, though. And there's many of them. Or they pay people to pull.

matt_heimer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ease of recycling is not prioritized during design or manufacturing because there is no monetary incentive (for the manufacturer) to do so it most cases. It would eat into profits. Simple as that.

Unless a component is expensive to manufactory and recycling/reuse could save the manufacturer money it won't happen. The only real solution are laws requiring it.

xyst an hour ago | parent [-]

It should be regulated to make devices repairable and upgradeable.

End soldering of components to motherboard. Make service manuals publicly available. Components sold and available.

marcosdumay 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

At some point, sockets add enough failure modes that making components switchable increases the amount of waste. And it's not a far, theoretical point; it's one we often meet in practice.

Any regulation about that has to be detail-focused and conservative.

aristofun an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

NO! We have enough regulations already

randusername 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I like how threads like this are like a reverse nesting doll. Somebody says the problem is the specific metals, then someone says it is recovery processes, then market forces, then legislation, and I think I spied a comment on thermodynamics.

I will take a shot in the dark somewhere in the middle. Intellectual property. As long as transparency and standardization are disincentivized it will be pretty hard to orchestrate un-building anything.

I wonder if we're converging on all products becoming "good enough" that the pace of innovation will slow and this will change for the better?

irishcoffee 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you know only about 5% of plastic in the US is recycled? The rest is floating in the ocean or not degrading in landfills.

Plastic.

snarfy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Energy has an environmental cost. If the energy required to recycle is more than the environmental cost it's not worth it.

adrianN an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That is true but it is unclear why you believe that to apply to recycling electronics. I doubt anyone can put hard numbers on the environmental costs involved.

ahf8Aithaex7Nai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If the moon is a folding chair, then pigs can fly.

RationPhantoms 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If my grandmother had wheels, she would've been a bike.

nebula8804 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well it seems uneven. The materials in electronics are so varied that there seem to be different levels of recycling, hopefully with materials pricing going up the worst forms of recycling can go away.

China sells a machine for anything you can imagine: Here is a wire grinding machine to recover the copper from wires: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/p_hmDdGIk7g

PCBs first seem to be cut up before put into similar machines machine above: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WO-VvucMq4E

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/q_O1EpEcKaM

Dont know what happens to the ground epoxy resin, maybe mixed with other materials?

mahrain 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was shocked to find that even electronics that are collected in Europe seem to be shipped to Africa, set on fire, and at most, metals are collected from the ashes, including traces of gold and copper. That's about it. Batteries have a bit better recycling path but not by much.

SPICLK2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On the upside, at some point the ground in those infamous electronics "recycling" towns will become so contaminated they'll be able to strip-mine for rare earths!

AlexandrB an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

A lot of recycling seems to amount to shipping waste overseas so it can be disposed of in jurisdictions with few/no environmental protections. Pretty sad state of affairs.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/waste-recyclables-malaysia-p...

ahf8Aithaex7Nai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The reason is simply that there are not enough incentives for manufacturers to do so. I would be happy if nothing on smartphones was glued together but everything was screwed or plugged in, and if I could simply replace batteries in smartphones and laptops, as was the case in the past. If these things are not made mandatory requirements, the thinner device, the lighter device, the device where the manufacturer can use battery life as the upper limit for device life will win.

I don't know anything about chips and boards, but in the EU, a regulation will come into force in 2027 that requires batteries in portable devices to be replaceable by the user without special tools.

adrian_b an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everything is very unrecyclable, because there are no laws forcing true recycling.

Designing something to be recyclable and also designing the equipment that could recycle it is much more expensive than designing it to be just dumped as garbage and designing only the equipment needed to make it from pure raw materials.

Using most materials in closed cycles (except those that can already be recycled efficiently by living beings), which is absolutely necessary for the survival of mankind, will never happen unless mandated by law, because any business tries to push such costs to someone else.

Recycling will happen only when the sales of any object will be forbidden, unless the raw materials from which it has been made, besides a list of exceptions, can be recovered in a very high proportion, e.g. 99% and someone will be liable if this does not happen.

Obviously, if such laws will ever be adopted, they would have to implemented very gradually, i.e. there should be a grace period of several years, and then the mandated efficiency of recycling should be initially very low, with a plan to raise every few years. Similarly, the number of exceptions might be initially large, but then some of the exceptions should be eliminated when adequate technologies are developed.

For now, there is no serious research in true recycling technologies, which really reverse the fabrication process of a product, because there are neither any money to be gained from having such technologies, nor any money to be lost from not having such technologies.

Electronics devices are harder to recycle completely than almost anything else, because besides materials that are used in great quantities, e.g. plastic, copper and silicon, there are a lot of chemical elements that are used in minute quantities, e.g. arsenic, antimony, germanium, hafnium, cobalt, tungsten and many others.

Those elements, even if they are much more valuable than the major elements from an electronic device, are also much more difficult to extract from a device, because of their very low proportion.

JohnFen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Short answer: it's too expensive.

But us hobbyists can help out. I get about half of my electronic components for free or close to free by parting out electronics that others are throwing away or sending to e-waste centers.

tjwebbnorfolk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Recycling stuff is hard, expensive, and energy-intensive. Why should electronics be uniquely recyclable?

We need to get past this idea that just because recycling makes you feel good must mean it IS good. Most of the time recycling stuff uses more CO2 than simply throwing it into a hole and making another one.

emsign an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It comes down to entropy and cost of labour. It takes more work to undo entropy turning a complex material mix which is either an appliance still intact or crushed and mixed even more back into its raw materials.

Processing mineral ores into raw materials is cheaper.

So the only way is to regulate market, meaning forcing companies to put in the extra work.

Currently these regulations tend to be circumvented by illegally exporting e-waste into countries with cheap labour, no such regulations or corruption (usually all at the same time).

steve1977 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guess one aspect is that electronics are not one homogeneous thing but often very complex composites of many things, bonded together in a way so that they can resist the temperature etc. that they operate under.

That's very different from say a newspaper, a glass bottle or a Coca Cola can.

pkilgore an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not to be glib, but the second law of thermodynamics.

You are attempting to filter out trace amounts valuable dopants and some small amounts of metals with value from, essentially, a pile of sand.

This is not energetically or chemically easy.

marcosdumay 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

The second law of thermodynamics is very forgiving here. It's actually not the problem. Energy depends on the log of the concentration.

The problem is with our technology; we don't know how to recycle things well.

iancmceachern an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they are so manufacturable.

When we design these things (which I do for a living) we often find we are forced into tradeoffs between repairability/recycleability and manufacturability/cost. The market wants cheaper and cheaper things. To accommodate we need to make them less repairable and recyclable.

allinonetools_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A big issue is that most electronics are optimized for cost and performance, not disassembly. Once components are tightly integrated and bonded together, separating materials becomes economically harder than producing new ones. Design-for-recycling would need to be a requirement early in the product lifecycle.

Analemma_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Recycling works best when you have a big lump of bulk material which can be melted down and reforged/recast. Aluminum cans are some of the best objects for recycling because apart from the labels they are almost pure aluminum, and so you just toss them in a furnace and get the constituent material back.

Electronics are the exact opposite of this: they’re highly heterogenous, with bits of material scattered all over the place. Also, most of that material isn’t particularly valuable: silicon is literally as abundant as sand. So all you can really do is melt it all into slag or dissolve it in acid and then try to extract the trace amounts of valuable bits like gold, but this is so energy-intensive for so little material that it’s not worth it at any reasonable material price.

lgleason 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

repairability would help quite a bit. How many times do you have to replace an entire board in something when replacing just a component would actually fix things?

xyst an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

recyclable and reusable aren’t profitable for companies. They want you hooked on buying the latest incremental/minute change.

If companies like Apple cared truly cared about the environment. We would have phones, laptops with easily repairable and upgradeable hardware.

Framework is the closest we have come to having a thin profile laptop and easily repairable and upgradeable hardware.

GuinansEyebrows 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

bluntly: a lack of regulation mandating that consumer goods manufacturing responsibilities cover the lifecycle of the goods (including end-of-life).

yes i'm fully aware that recycling components is difficult and costly; if you truly believe in the market as an innovating force, you could stand to be a little more optimistic that we could make this a reality :)

Joel_Mckay an hour ago | parent [-]

You obviously are not in manufacturing.

USB-C charger reuse is now common (Apple chargers still gets the UK/EU law exemption)

RoHS prevents Pb content in recycled parts (less toxic waste)

Lithium battery recycling drop bins are next to the store entrance (financial incentives)

ATX12V/EPS12V power supply in your PC is a standard component between motherboards

Aluminum and steel instead of plastics is common (consumers like the aesthetics too)

Under the guise of recycling, problems arise when third-world people use vats of acid to strip trace gold/platinum from electronics. Others strip, relabel (laser marking), and resell aged chips as new stock... this can cause safety/reliability problems.

Some firms now use solder centrifuges to extract RoHS solder off parts, and resell the tin bar-solder back to manufacturers.

e-Waste can be a desirable resource, but few people want old Lead contaminated CRT or mixed plastic filled with inserts etc.

Companies like AMD with AM5 compatibility across chip generations should get an award for their great work reducing waste. Linux <6.0.8 kept a lot of laptops out of the landfills too, but now kernel >6.0.15 will no longer support old GPU/Laptops as NVIDIA ends legacy driver support. =3