new washer rant

The "Corporate" nature of modern recycling makes little sense. "Let's *pay* to save stuff".

When I was a kid, we used to recycle newspaper and glass -- by dropping it off at a "lot" set aside by the town for that purpose. Volunteers would load the BALED newspaper into a semi trailer parked on the lot.

There were three concrete walled "pens" for white, green and brown glass. Folks could drop off paper trash bags (they hadn't invented plastic ones) of presorted glass by these pens and volunteers would empty the bags on the growing mountains of glass.

Folks who were more "interested" in an opportunity to throw glass bottles at a concrete wall WITH IMPUNITY would elect to empty their own bags! :>

The problem with most landfills is they are too close in and eventually become developed land. The city is currently addressing a problem related to trying to support a bridge on land that had previously been a landfill. The "soil" isn't strong enough to support the load and, as a result, pilings must be driven much deeper through the accumulated trash.

Recycling shouldn't be addressed AS "recycling" but, rather, as a multitude of reuse/reclamation techniques -- and each evaluated with respect to the cost of that activity vs. the potential gains from it.

If you can divert an item from a landfill (or incinerator) and reuse it "as is", there is high value for little cost. If you can invest a small amount (time/money) and reuse or repurpose, then you similarly achieve worthwhile results.

[I've probably WITHHELD $40-50K from the economy over the past decade simply by rescuing, repurposing and reusing items that would otherwise be buried under a layer of soil!]

It costs very little to pull an aluminum or copper heat sink off a CPU and toss it in a barrel. Then, haul that barrel to a firm that will pay you for that (reasonably) clean metal.

OTOH, tossing the computer that HAD that heatsink in it into the trash -- or, to a recycler -- adds lots of cost to extract that chunk of metal.

Apparently, aluminum cans are relatively easy to recycle. Yet, the local munis do NOT want it in the "unsorted recyclables" that they (pay someone!) to pick up at curbside, each week. OTOH, they are happy to accept "tin" cans, paper, plastics, etc.

Clearly, someone needs to start counting beans before making "feel good" policy.

Reply to
Don Y
Loading thread data ...

Recycling is good if done properly. At work we take foam plastic and recycle it. A local appliance dealer gives us a bunch of it about once a month. And we also get people coming by to drop off 8 ounces of plastic and are driving a big '65 Caddy getting 6 mpg.

Trash to energy can be done cleanly too.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

emphasis should be on making durable long lasting appliances etc.....

the current build it as heap as possible so we can sell a new one.

should be make it very durable, so it will last a long time and be easily repairable.

this would cut the trash stream..........

Reply to
bob haller

Containing the toxic soup forever so that it doesn't enter the groundwater, aquifers, etc, wherever it winds up is really the main problem.

The city is currently addressing a problem

Presumably that is part of the process and decision on what to do with trash. Putting it in a landfill isn't cheap, especially if you have to haul it away from civilization. I think most municipalities are considering the cost of putting it all in a landfill vs recycling a lot of it. We've been recycling here for decades now and it's greatly extended the life of the landfill and it's been done on the basis of minimizing cost.

What is done varies by area. Here bottles, cans, plastics, cardboard, and paper all go into one stream. Regular garbage is another.

I think in most cases they do, and in general recycling typical household stuff works out economically, but I'm sure there are places doing some things that don't work out economically.

Reply to
trader_4

Do most people want appliances that last a lifetime and are they willing to pay the increased cost for them? I don't. I have no complaints as to the longevity of any appliances that I've bought. Only exception would be a fairly expensive Sony LCD TV that I bought that only lasted about 5 years.

Reply to
trader_4

there are 2 expenses to consider.

the cost to buy the whatever.....

the cost to build, ship, recucle the cheap model vs a long term long lived item

the lifetime costs of the cheap item may be far more than the long lived one

Reply to
bob haller

Actually, it appears that the *market* is driving the rush to the bottom. How many folks "buy on time"? Isn't buying a cheap, (inferior) product an direct analogy? Pay a little -- and get a LITTLE use out of it?

Think of *all* the people that you know. How many *do* repairs? Change the oil in their vehicles? Rotate their own tires? Do their own plumbing? Maintain their own computers? etc.

Is their excuse for NOT doing these things that "it's too physically demanding"? Or, "too intellectually challenging"?

Or, "I'd rather watch the ballgame and pay someone to deal with that stuff"?

So, what incentive is there to make items that can be repaired WITHOUT special tools? (damn near everything is "easily repairable" -- once you have invested in the tools (and knowledge) to do so!

Reply to
Don Y

I assume you are talking about major appliances that do their job well. I expect the washer, refrigerator and the like to last a long time. Other stuff not so much.

New technology becomes affordable quickly and I don't always want it to last forever. I did add a hard drive to my 8088 computer but it still seems to lag the ones used today. When my 19" portable TV we bought in

1966 dies I'm going to get a color set. Meantime, I'm getting my money's worth from it.
Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

How do you differentiate between those that "do their job well"? Price? Size? Weight?

You can easily spend more on a TV (or PC) than a "major appliance". Should the TV have a longer expected lifespan due to its higher cost? (it's not doing any *work* -- moving a mass through a distance -- so why should it "wear out"?) Ditto your poor, "overworked" cell phone?

Manufacturers design to what their markets will tolerate -- which is usually different from what they will EXPECT.

Reply to
Don Y

Balance is the key. You say a TV does no work by your definition, but it does a function. Anything mechanical or electrical will eventually wear out or break. I have expectations for the TV to last 8 to 10 years but I don't expect it to have the same quality of parts used in a space shuttle. Lives don't depend on it and it is relatively easy to repair or replace. A TV built to last a respectable time can be built for $500 and I'm happy with that. If it can be made to last 40 years and cost $2000, I'm not interested. The technology will be outdated. As you say, it is what the market will tolerate.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Of course. My point was most "major appliances" have moving parts. You *expect* moving parts to wear -- and wear proportional to the amount of use (and abuse) they experience.

Lives don't depend on your dishwasher, washing machine or refrigerator, either! :>

Sadly, the difference in longevity amounts to almost peanuts!

I routinely rescue "defective" LCD monitors and TV's. The former usually "die" from capacitor failure (or, FETs in the inverter that runs the backlights).

Capacitors typically fail from prolonged exposure to heat.

Locating the capacitors in a cooler place on the circuit board can improve lifespan. Adding active (or passive) cooling can, as well.

But, a manufacturer can also specify a component that is rated at a higher lifespan AT that elevated temperature, if this is an expected failure mode! For example, IN SINGLE UNIT QUANTITIES (monitor manufacturers buy in HUGE quantities!), a "1000Hr" component may cost 51c -- while a "7000Hr" component costs 62c.

In a monitor, you may have half a dozen of these (not all of which are problematic based on their roles in the circuit). So, add 60c to the cost of the product (again, assuming you are making JUST ONE of them!).

Most electronic (consumer) kit has a 350% markup. So, the end user sees that product "price" go up a whopping $2 -- on a $100+ item

(again, assuming you're only building ONE of them!)

The 62c drops to 31c if you buy 100 (i.e., enough to make ~16 monitors). Then, to 20c if you buy 1000.

(by contrast, that 51c item is 15c at 1000. So, 5c premium per component for 6 components is a 30c adder to the product cost. Or, ~$1 to the consumer)

So, when I rescue a monitor, I look at the time its going to take me to disassemble it, troubleshoot, order replacement components, install those components and *test* the repaired device -- then consider whether I want to "invest" an extra 60c (the *cost* difference for the components to me) to double/triple/quadruple the time between when I might NEXT have to do this.

[The answer doesn't even merit the time to consider the question!]

The same sort of calculus applies to TV's. Our plasma was manufactured in 2003. It's *tried* to give up the ghost but I've not let it :>

As soon as I can clear some floor space, I'll set to work repairing the two LCD TV's (no doubt, their problem is caps in the power supply or LDO regulators) -- another "cheap" fix.

So, why don't manufacturers take those extra steps?

I suspect a lot of it is churn. But, also, a cut-throat marketplace. How do you justify an extra few dollars on your selling price for something that the purchaser won't be able to fathom? (And, surely, you don't want to state that your REGULAR product is only designed with a SHORT lifetime in mind!)

[A *smart* strategy is to offer a "slightly better" product to a resaler that intends to push "extended warranties". The resaler charges an extra $50 for the warranty *knowing* that the manufacturer has added $2 to his price to minimize the chances of those "typical" failures resulting in a warranty claim in that period!]
Reply to
Don Y

...wasn't *that* his point?

Reply to
bob_villain

+1

And I guess we agree that from what I see today, the balance point is OK. 10 years for a TV is good, long before that technology has already improved and I wouldn't want to pay extra money up front for one that will last 15 or 20. If they had made those rear projection big screen TVs to last 20+ years, instead of 10+, charging more, would people really have been better off?

For major kitchen appliances, 20 years is good for me. Before that, it typically is looking old, outdated, etc. About the only thing that I see people reporting that I would be concerned about is maybe a furnace and central AC. Seems a lot of people are reporting new high eff furnaces failing at 10 to 15 years. There 20 min would be good and I'd probably pay more for one that would last. But IDK how many other people would, because today a lot of people aren't in the same house for 20 years.

Reply to
trader_4

That's more of an urban planning problem. The land can be zoned for parks, not construction. Or the stuff can be transported further away by very efficient barge or rail transport.

I had a friend who bought a house that ended up near a trash incinerator. It was not a good experience as humans seem very able to detect even minute particles of smoke in the air. I also shudder to think what went into that trash that really shouldn't have been burned because I've watched police academy cadets sort through garbage looking for murder victim parts.

I've read that a gypsum-like byproduct of some mining process added to the landfills really stiffens the soil enough to build *small* buildings on. As I recall they inject it under pressure to fill all the voids in the landfill material and it eventually harders. IIRC, it works best with sewage sludge. (-:

That's one of those problems that can be solved by adding a little more money to compensate for bad planning (anchoring a bridge in a landfill!!!).

Some problems, like the poor resistance to earthquake shaking, can't be solved with just a little money. I believe several areas in California and Japan have already suffered the consequences. The civil engineers who allow landfilled land to be used inappropriately should be interred in those landfills when the die. (-:

Reply to
Robert Green

Robert Green posted for all of us...

Have you found a cure for ED?

Reply to
Tekkie®

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.