Talk:Plastic recycling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section Cleanup

The "Financial justification" section seems very muddled and out of place. Further, the source it cites seems to be hand-written ("distric" was likely meant to be "district") and the title "Waste distric raises recycling fees" seems to present the opposite conclusion of that made by the section (that recycling became cheaper). Could someone check this out? 98.176.236.30 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

=="But in today’s new eco-friendly world there has been more of a demand for “green” products."

that phrase just doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me 67.204.6.114 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix the external links section heading just now but cannot determine if the link pointing to http://www.3d-pim.eu/ was supposed to be a reference or a new additional link (in which case it ought to have been below the header line). - phi (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Expansion request

Not very much is said about how plastic is successfully recycled, or what it is recycled into. The current version makes it sound like it is too hard to do at all. -- Beland 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This section needs a lot more information. It has very outdated information on current techniques. It should also include more information on what more countries around the world are doing about recycling plastic.

Begin of talk from Sam Tomato: The preceding paragraph is not signed and I did not write it. I think this article is a good example of a bunch of technical talk that most people do not understand or need and not much about what most people really need and want. It would help to make it more clear what can be recycled. Also, the various plastics can be categorized in terms of what is designated as reusable (not the same as recyclable). Sam Tomato (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A research paper to be incorporated

Kelsey Papst has released the following material for use under the GFDL: Plastic, although recycled less than paper and even glass and metal, has had a very large growth since its recycling process was introduced in the late 1980’s (AF&PA; Beck 2). In 2001, 1.6 million pounds of plastic was recycled, an increase in 580% since 1990 (Beck 2). However, in 1999, plastic only made up about 4% of packaging recycled with 1.1 million pounds of plastic packaging recovered (AFPA). The percent of plastic packaging recycled is actually higher than the total amount of plastics recycled in 1999, 9.7% vs. 5.6% respectively (Recycling in Ohio). In 1999, the amount of municipal solid waste created by plastics was 11.2 million tons. Obviously, plastic still has a long way to go in fulfilling its recycling potential. Different types of plastic are recycled differently. PET (polyethylene terephthalate) makes up 53% of recycled plastic, while HDPE (high-density polyethylene) makes up 47% (Beck 3). These materials are recycled 30-40% of the time, and are usually beverage bottles, jugs, and some bags (Recycling in Ohio). PET usually goes on to create fiber/carpet, and HDPE usually creates new bottles, although thick and not for food containers (Beck 10-11). Their demand is continually stronger and could certainly stand to be recycled more (11). LDPE (low-density polyethylene) is the most common packaging plastic (Plastics: Waste Management 49; Plastics 17) and is recycled the most after PET and HDPE (although exceptionally less). LDPE is plastic film and is most commonly seen (and recycled) as grocery bags. It is recycled less because of the high contamination rate and processed less because of this and its difficulty in separating from other plastics (Plastics 17-18). After recycling, it usually becomes dark trash bags (18) or a wood-polymer lumber (FBF). There are several different processes for the recycling of plastic, but the two most commonly used for LDPE are reprocessing and burning. In reprocessing, the polyethylene is sorted, shredded and ground into “fluff,” heated to melt it, and mixed to make other products (Baird 529; FBF). Burning, also called “energy recycling” or “waste-to-energy” uses incineration to create energy to be used elsewhere; this also decreases the volume of municipal solid waste (plastics’ biggest waste problem) by up to 90% (Waste-to-Energy). There are no proven environmental damages from these recycling processes, and actually, recycling plastic has a major advantage. Plastic is primarily made from oil, a limited resource, and oil has a high value of energy stored in it. Plastic recycling is more uncommon for probably two reasons: one, there is an opposition to burning plastic because of a fear of dioxin and furan formation (which is actually more possible in the creation of virgin plastic), and two, plastic is fairly expensive to recycle (Baird 528). Unfortunately, the page listing references has been lost. Many of the articles cited were found using Yahoo web search; the others are Environmental Chemistry, by Colin Baird, and several papers found using Scifinder Scholar at UCSD.

Removed unsourced assertion about cost of transporting plastic waste.

In accordance with WP:CITE, I reverted the edit [1] by Nsoltani that stated "However the cost of transporting plastic waste is equal or greater than the gain of it. 250% less carbon dioxide does not account the emission by transportation and the emission from the machines used to recycle plastic" because it did not have a source cited. If a source for this assertion could be cited, it can go back in the article. 70.133.83.58 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in for that. PenguiN42 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added source, the actual episode does cite its sources if anyone can bother writing them all. Nsoltani 19:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, a television program as a source, i'd rather look up a book with a similar quote to confirm this, since television shows usually aren't on my top list of trusted sources, as they often misquote. --AnotherDutchGuy 15:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherDutchGuy (talk • contribs)

It has been 5 years now, so probably no one cares, but... "250% less carbon dioxide"? You can't have 250% less of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.141.142 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)