Recycling does not save energy
- Thread starter CrysisMcGee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
(And it's not you who failed That as of 18 in Australia you MUST vote. Actually you just have to be present and get your name ticked off at a ballot area on the day, there is no requirement to cast a vote.
Back in primary school we were lied to about being unable to divide say 7 by 2. Then they lied to us saying that you could, it just left a remainder, but couldn't be done further. Now we know about decimals and fractions.... Bastard math teachers.
Back in primary school we were lied to about being unable to divide say 7 by 2. Then they lied to us saying that you could, it just left a remainder, but couldn't be done further. Now we know about decimals and fractions.... Bastard math teachers.
There are quite a few lies in that post for starters.CrysisMcGee said:
Recyclcyling materials generally uses much less energy than extracting them from scratch look at the processes for extracting metals form ore, you dig tonnes of rock out of the ground, crush it, heat it up till the metal melts out of it(how hot does it need to be to melt rocks, answer is very), sieve it, remove all the crap and then you have your metal. Recycling involves taking the metal, melting it then sieving off the crap (much less than with the original ore. The actual process of recycling is a hell of a lot more energy efficient especially for metals aluminium recycling uses less than 10% of the energy it takes to extract the metal from bauxite.
The downside comes with gathering the materials together that need to be recycled as that requires energy too but even if you needed to drive a van full of cans a few thousand miles to a recycling depot it'd still be more efficient. But the more people that do recycle the more efficient that process becomes due to the economies of scale.
If we stick with the aluminium analogy it takes about 4 and a half tonnes of ore to make 1 tonne of aluminium and around 14000KWH of energy so that is saving around 12600KWH per tonne by recycling.
If we assume a gallon of petrol contains around 1.2KWH of energy and it takes approximatly 60000 cans to make a tonne and each person uses a gallon of petrol to travel to the recycling depot and back as long as they take more than 6 cans at a time you are saving energy. Add in recycling on an industrial scale and it is much more efficient.
Not all recycling is that efficient and as already mentioned saving energy is not the primary reason for recycling but the whole "anti green" it's a waste of time because of annoys me. Does anyone honestly think throwing all our used stuff in a hole in the ground when digging another hole to make new stuff is a better idea than recycling?
NO NO NO! Glass is not liquid. It's solid (below it's melting point, naturally). It took me five seconds to prove you wrong. That's less time that it's taking me to type this post. When wiki-fucking-pedia disproves you, you really need to check your facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Behavior_of_antique_glass)WhiteTiger225 said:
Admittedly glass does do weird things around it's melting point, which can be about room temperature, but for all intents and purposes: SOLID. And the flowing windows thing is just wrong.
In this case "natural" means anything made by non-humans. Calling us natural beings is somewhat missing the point, as the distinction exist to refer to things other than ourselves.
Glass is solid, but in ways not a solid. The first is a general use adjective to define something that is rigid and hard to deform. The second classification is determined by certain laws of chemistry, and in that sense glass is indeed somewhere between a solid and a liquid.StevieWonderMk2 said:
Either you have to admit in the end that Any item or structure, or terraform made to nature by an organic being is natural, OR you will have to admit that honey, bird nests, and ESPECIALLY beaver damns are not "Natural" (And in the case of the beaver damn, considered destructive to the natural flow of things, as this would render beavers public enemy #2 when it comes to "Unnatural destruction" of nature)fluffybacon said:
lol again you twist about my argument to fit your own views ^.^fluffybacon said:
I am saying, ethier you have to call ALL organic made by products and structures (Beaver dams, honey, our houses, nuclear reactors) unnatural. Or you have to accept they are all natural. To many people look and say "This is man made! It is not natural!" but then turn around and point to a beaver dam, a artificial structure made in order to house a beaver that has some severe effects on water flows and therefore the enviroment around it, and claim it is Natural. My original point is, going by that view, EVERYTHING is natural as we are natural beings, therefore we cannot make things "Unnatural" for what we make is a trait of our species. Synthetic molecules and atoms are not "Unnatural" if they weren't, we couldn't manipulate them with tools made from materials found from the earth and refined through the use of other tools made from the earth or past refinements of earthen materials to become such a thing. All we are doing in the end is an advanced version of manipulating the world and resources around us to do such things, that atom that is "Synthetic" is still considered part of nature in the end because all we as natural beings do is use things and process' found in nature in an advanced manner to create such a thing. To claim that Atom is not of nature because we used advanced tools to change it, once again, is claiming that a beaver dam is not natural because such a thing doesn't naturally form without intervention of some form of living being. So what it comes down too is, you either have to admit that everything humans make in the long run is natural because we are creatures of nature. Or you have to go ahead and point out that everything from deer tracks, to honey, to a beavers dam are not at all natural.