5 ms·
> And while the amounts in each phone are small – 0.034g of gold, for example – they quickly add up when you consider that around 42 million tonnes of e-waste w
by dilemma 10y ago
> And while the amounts in each phone are small – 0.034g of gold, for example – they quickly add up when you consider that around 42 million tonnes of e-waste were generated in 2014 alone, and the UN Environmental Program estimates that figure is increasing by 3-5% each year.
What are the economics of this?
> In Sahajwalla’s vision of the microfactory, pre-programmed automated drones are used to pick out items such as circuit boards from a pile of smashed e-waste. These boards are then put into a tiny furnace which uses selective temperatures to extract the valuable resources, such as copper alloys. The glass and plastic can also be combined in this high-temperature smelter to produce silicon carbide nanoparticles, which have a range of industrial applications.
How?
- xyzzy123 10y agoI agree this vision (as stated) is fantasy, but I've often speculated about whether it would be smart to buy up land that was formerly used as landfill. It doesn't generally seem to be considered valuable. I suppose this is because it is not desirable for property development or agriculture... the killer might be assuming some liability for environmentals but I never investigated that in detail. An interesting option would be to try and buy just the mineral rights. The seller will probably think you're crazy, and they might be right. In any case, a landfill operation is close to the reverse of mining, and while the extraction technology one would need isn't here yet, it's hard to think of how you could get greater concentrations of natural resources all in one place. Plus everything is at least close to the surface. Another major downside I can see is that landfills tend to be too close to built-up areas. People want their trash to go "away", but also they don't want to take it too far. Which then leads to the surprising mental image of landfill "ore" being dug up and transported to a remote processing site. [this is why I think the author's vision is mostly fiction -- it's hard for most people to imagine the sheer scale that modern resource extraction operations need to be profitable]. The slightly unfortunate part is the "crazy grandpa" image that leaving such a legacy to your descendants creates...
- itgoon 10y agoIn other discussions about this, the point is made that there are some very nasty things buried in those landfills. (I'm certainly no authority) Hazerdous waste, bio-waste, etc. The mining technology would have to include something to mitigate that. Not just as immediate safety, but what do you do with it once you've dug it up? Or through it?
- xyzzy123 10y agoMining has always been hazardous, both in terms of the materials themselves and the industrial processes involved. Likewise, most resource extraction creates significant waste problems, whether that is just mountains of tailings or giant pools of arsenic or whatever. I don't really see any difference (modulo surprising technology of the future). For purposes of discussion, imagine that the waste processing plant is out in the desert, and the waste is run through multiple extraction passes, where it might get dug up and put back in the ground again several times. Of course, a lot of ore just gets shipped offshore to where processing is cheaper so that could be an option too.
- mjfl 10y agoForget the drones. Buy up a bunch of land next to a landfill. Buy an old excavator for $20k. Buy an industrial shredder for $30k. Buy large steel wheel. Spin wheel to separate particles by density. Recycle plastics. Melt metals. Sell. Be unprofitable. Lose money. Have fun.
- tomcam 10y agoOk, writing this one down...
- sogen 10y agoAbout your first question:hugely profitable
- agumonkey 10y agoThe near future makes me laugh since it resemble a bad parody of nature. We're almost primitive, can't wait.