UsikFark: I want to see how cheerios are made. I'm assuming it's not unlike a pasta machine with a rotating cutter, then they bake the little Os. Or they hire fairies to make tiny oat bagels.
UsikFark: lacydog: glass was not profitableRTFA. They claim they "can't get enough" recycled glass because it costs way less to melt it down than to make new glass from raw materials.
MythDragon: I save my empties to wing at dirty hippies who hitchhike on the side of the highway because their bio-diesel converted 1967 VM bug broke down on the way to the Phish concert.
airsupport: Cheerios are actually breaded rat buttholes.
UsikFark: Copper Spork: UsikFark: You would use a very fast optical sensor to pull RGB values from each fragment and sort accordingly, I assume.Why does it need to be fast? You just place it further back on the conveyor belt.You could drop a stream of glass pieces through the air and have the blower sort them into bins. Why not move the stream as fast as the reader can handle and ship more sorted glass per day? The bit of glass is only going to be in front of the optical device for a fraction of a second.
greenboy: In New Zealand, they have something called "swap a crate". It may be jargon, but the gist is that you bring back the crate (12 bottles) back to the store and you get a discount on the next one you buy. It certainly encouraged me to hold onto my bottles as opposed to throwing them at baby seals.
GoodOmens: Still don't understand why our soda companies don't use reusable glass bottles like every other country in this world. That would be much more green then breaking the bottle down and remelting it.
ReapTheChaos: Because in most cases making new bottles is cheaper than the cost of transporting, cleaning, sterilizing, sorting etc. the old bottles.
Lando Lincoln: Or conversely, convince the public that the color of the glass isn't that goddamn important for most beverages and then just mix the colors up willy-nilly.
bjorky: Those who have posted about the recycled glass programs in Germany neglect one very important aspect -- population density. Germany has ~80M people in a country the size of Montana, ca. 609 people per square mile. Only New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maryland have that level of density. 35 out of 50 states have less than a third of that, and the overall density of the US is ~ 88.08 inhabitants per square mile. As many point out, transporting empty glass isn't free, and when manufacturing and distribution are as distant as they are in the US (not to mention the logistics of transport, cleaning, and re-use) the overall feasibility of such a system drops significantly. And, on top of that, many beers and other bottled beverages come in the same container, so Company X can clean and use bottles that came from Company Y, and vice-versa, but for that to work on US companies, they would have to agree to use a single bottle-type, or on a selection of similar bottles (I do acknowledge that Coca-cola has such a foothold in Europe and elsewhere that they use their own unique-shaped bottles for deposit bottles, but many beers come in a familiar 0,5l brown bottle where the brewer adds the beer, label, and bottlecap.)
NkThrasher: Sure state by state that density doesn't carry very well, but certainly in places such as New York City even though the state wide density doesn't support it the regional density should. There's a lot of empty space in upstate New York to skew that number down for the overall state (or a small and very populated area to skew it up, depending on your view).If we assume that once an area has more than X people per square mile that a bottle reuse program could be more cost efficient than a bottle recycling program, why once we have an area past X people per square mile don't we do it? Or do we and we just don't realize it?
bjorky: The argument about population density is to point out that there are reasons such a program would work in a place like Germany (where no point in the entire country is more than 876km (544 mi.) from any other, ) and that the country has an overall density of consumers that make such a program practicable. If you were to build 50 bottle re-use centers in Germany equidistant from each other in the most efficient way possible, each center would service 2756 square miles, or approximately 1.6M consumers per center, servicing the entire country. Contrast that with placing a center near the 50 largest US cities (and presume that this method is efficient for dealing with all of the bottles within those cities), you have service to a population of ~50-60M total, and that leaves no service to 240-250M other Americans. Even if you inflate that number by 100% by the notion that such a bottle recycling center would service twice as many people in the area as there are in the city's population (suburbs and nearby areas), you still have no service for 2/3 of the country -- and a country that is not at all close together. When looking at large population cities, the states of Delaware, Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming don't even have cities over 100,000.
Todd300: Oh goodie, which gif details the chinese kids melting them down?Or I know, how about a shiny infographic showing how more petro resources go into 'recycling' an item verses disposal?Want to help the enviroment? Stop buying shiat.
NkThrasher: ReapTheChaos: Because in most cases making new bottles is cheaper than the cost of transporting, cleaning, sterilizing, sorting etc. the old bottles.Then why does Germany do it with their glass bottles?I'd buy a "With the way American bottling facilities are distributed and equipped" reason, but I can't imagine that it's just inherently inefficient.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 25 2017 08:03:20
Runtime: 0.304 sec (304 ms)