11 ms·

So so, electronic waste landing everywhere while illusion of closed loop electronic recycling is being sold as a solution. My proposition: deposit of 25€ for sm

by lnsru 4y ago

So so, electronic waste landing everywhere while illusion of closed loop electronic recycling is being sold as a solution. My proposition: deposit of 25€ for small electrical devices and 50€ and more for bigger ones so that these do not land in landfills.

kennywinker 4y ago
This kind of solution is absolutely what's required. Two addendums: First, make the deposit a function of battery size not item size or cost (small battery $5 deposit, medium battery $10, large $50). This way the environmental cost of a specific battery is linked to the consumer's cost in a way that it isn't really now when the variation in battery cost is swallowed up in the cost of the item itself. Second, peg this deposit to inflation. 20 years ago the 5c deposit on a beer can meant a lot more than it does today. I'm old enough to remember my fairly well off grandparents saving up their cans and returning them. Today, nobody I know bothers.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  Yeah, if soda bottles had a $1 deposit on them to ensure proper recycling that would be pretty tough to adjust to but good for the environment.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It also provides an effective income for those disadvantaged enough; if the five cent deposit on cans had increased with inflation there'd still be an incentive to do it. $1-5 for vape devices would be similar.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  Third, make manufacturers pay for deposit on devices with non-replaceable batteries. As in tax them at the time of purchase, on batteries that render a device unusable.
  - Nition 4y ago
    I have to say, it seems ridiculous that we're at the point where people are dying in Europe this week from a heatwave exacerbated by climate change, and we're not even implementing basic measures like this yet.
    - gruez 4y ago
      How much contribution does "electronics with non-replaceable batteries" add to climate change? 10%? 1%? 0.1%? Bringing this up when talking about climate change is like bringing up plastic straws bans in first world countries when talking about microplastic pollution (ie. ignoring the fact that half of microplastics in the ocean comes from fishing gear).
      - ornornor 4y ago
        You’ve got to start somewhere though. And anywhere is marginally better than nowhere. As opposed to throwing your arms up in the air saying “it’s pointless we should be doing something else instead so let’s do nothing at all”. That’s exactly what the industry is aiming for, learned helplessness.
        exabrial 4y ago
        > And anywhere is marginally better than nowhere. No. Stepping over dollars to pick up pennies is stupid.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        The problem is a significant portion of people utterly refuse to say those dollars exist, or that they should be picked up.
        DoingIsLearning 4y ago
        > That’s exactly what the industry is aiming for, learned helplessness. I am wholely in agreement with you but there are some pretty big percentage wise holes that we need to plug. Namely: 1. Getting ride of coal and Natural Gas power generation (which means replacing with renewables +storage, or fission, none of which are easily deployable) 2. Stopping methane leaks in Oil&Gas pipelines and active/decomissioned wells.
- jefftk 4y ago
  > peg this deposit to inflation. 20 years ago the 5c deposit on a beer can meant a lot more than it does today Adjusted for inflation, 5¢ in 2002 would just be 8¢.
  - softfalcon 4y ago
    You might have to forgive them, if they’re talking about their folks with the ear marked “20 years” they’re likely old like me and think that means 1970. Us old folks tend to think “20 years ago” means 20 years before 1990’s. It’s a common mental flub. That would make the inflation value closer to $0.38 in today’s money. It’s not a lot, but when you’re getting almost 8x the amount for each can, it adds up.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      Bottle deposits aren't that old: MA is 1982, CA is 1987, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_... 5¢ in 1982 would be 15¢ now, so it's more, but not that much more?
      - drewzero1 4y ago
        It is 3X, and when it's per can that does add up to a significant amount. That would add $1.20 to a 12-pack case, which usually cost just $6 here (admittedly a state that doesn't do deposits).
      - ascar 4y ago
        Glass bottles have 8 Cent deposit in Germany and plastic bottles/tin cans have 25 Cent. I rarely ever not bring a plastic bottle or can back, but I do let glass bottles stand around near garbage cans for the bottle collectors. I see the same behavior among many others. It's just anecdotal, but that 3x seems to make a huge difference.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        Bottle deposits were a thing in the 1970s when I was a kid. Those bottles were heavy glass, made to be returned, washed, and re-used many times. I'm not sure it was legislated however, I think it was just what the local bottlers did to get their bottles back.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Maybe we should tax externalities of non-renewables more before we start taxing renewables?
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    A deposit isn’t a tax, it’s an incentive to make sure that a renewable stays in the cycle instead of ending up in the environment. Return it and you get your money back.
  - drekipus 4y ago
    I think we're talking about giving money, not taking money
UkrainianJew 4y ago
Sadly, this is not very practical. A lithium cell in itself is a chemical time bomb: if it gets mechanically damaged or short-circuited, it has enough oomph to burn your device, skin or house. For factory-produced battery packs this effect is mitigated by having protective circuits that monitor charge level, temperature and a bunch of other parameters, cutting off the power if the cell is deemed too dangerous. But once you take a random lithium cell off the street and try to revitalize it, you are opening a can of worms: depending on how it was used, it might be full of dendrites [0], ready to cause a fiery short-circuit a few charges after. It might have structural damage due to gas buildup, or someone literally stepping on it. It could have been under direct sunlight for longer than it should, and so on. It's fine to tinker around with it for your own experiments, but you don't want to ship it to anybody who's not going to be using it in a fireproof lab wearing eye protection. A better idea would be to find a way to properly recycle the raw materials (i.e. extract the lithium from a dead cell), but that could be several orders of magnitude more challenging. [0] https://www.batterypoweronline.com/news/a-look-inside-your-battery-watching-the-dendrites-grow/ https://www.batterypoweronline.com/news/a-look-inside-your-b...
- wffurr 4y ago
  The deposit can fund the materials recycling and encourage a take back program.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > But once you take a random lithium cell off the street and try to revitalize it, you are opening a can of worms: depending on how it was used, it might be full of dendrites [0], ready to cause a fiery short-circuit a few charges after. It might have structural damage due to gas buildup, or someone literally stepping on it. It could have been under direct sunlight for longer than it should, and so on. Yeah exactly what I was thinking.. I'm sure the cells used in these disposable devices weren't exactly the cream of the crop in manufacturing either. Probably cells that didn't pass QC or something. It's pretty risky messing around with them like that.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
gruez 4y ago
>My proposition: deposit of 25€ for small electrical devices and 50€ and more for bigger ones so that these do not land in landfills. This is already a thing in EU, and parts of US and Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Waste_Recycling_Fee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Waste_Recycling_Fee
- konschubert 4y ago
  Well, it's not a deposit. It's a tax that manufacturers pay, which finances some make-pretend recycling options. But consumes don't use the recycling options and the electronics still end up on landfills.
  - gruez 4y ago
    I don't get it. Everything you said applicable to the parent's suggestion as well. What exactly are is your point here?
    - konschubert 4y ago
      I thought the parents suggestion was that the consumer pays 25 Euro and receive them back when recycling the electronic device. Like... a deposit on bottles. I'm afraid this would have the opposite effect though. Instead of donating old phones or CD players, people would have them trashed to get their deposit back.
      - jrockway 4y ago
        I think as soon as you add a monetary value, people think something like "I don't need the $25, I'll just put it in the trash." People are complaining about the current state of recycling, but I save up all my lithium batteries and pay to have them recycled every few years. You can't throw that shit away.
        jeroenhd 4y ago
        In some European countries this type of deposit is normal for plastic and glass bottles and other drinks containers, though the deposit is usually much lower (25 to 50 cents). The impact is significant, even if it's such a low amount of money. A €25 deposit would definitely keep people from throwing out these things en masse. There will always be people who will act selfishly and against their self interest, but you've got to be pretty damn rich to throw out €25 like it's nothing.
onion2k 4y ago
This would just mean wealthy people get to trash the environment with impunity.
- bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
  They already get to though, so...
- sschueller 4y ago
  I am not saying this is OK nor acceptable however with a deposit people can pull batteries out of the trash and redeem them like cans and bottles. Just that a battery is worth a lot more.
ratsmack 4y ago
I made this point today, but it was summarily dismissed as "not a problem". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248
- margalabargala 4y ago
  Account names don't match so not sure which alt account is "you", but: The reason what you said was dismissed/started an argument is the reason a lot of arguments start: using terms whose definitions have been overloaded. People can both be talking about "green" energy but mean entirely different things and get frustrated talking past one another, as happened here. Specifically, for many people right now, the pressing reason for "green" energy is climate change. Ergo "green" energy is energy which does not release significant amounts of CO2 when used. Solar panels are "green" energy in that they help solve a chronic environmental problem. At the same time, as was pointed out, solar panels require some incredibly toxic chemicals to be created, and to the extent they are recyclable, that recycling process also involves, creates, and produces as waste even more horrific chemicals. Therefore solar panels are not "green" energy in that they directly contribute to an acute environmental problem. The root of the issue is picking some abstract label, "green energy", and then each person argues whether something meets their own personal definition of that abstract label. A more useful question may be "in which ways are solar panels good for the environment, in which ways are they harmful, and does one obviously outweigh the other?" A supporter of solar would probably say "solar panels breakeven for co2 in just 3 years, a fraction of their lifespan, so they spend most of their life replacing fossil fuels which is good. While toxic chemicals are a byproduct of their creation, and those toxic chemicals would be harmful if released into the environment, they can be contained, stored, and disposed of in a way that localizes all harm to the point that there is no widespread environmental impact from their manufacture".
  - ratsmack 4y ago
    That's odd, I used that link several times from that comment, but now it's changed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248
flir 4y ago
Wouldn't that kill the second-hand market? Reduce, reuse, recycle.
- davewasthere 4y ago
  The value of that deposit would be reflected and transferred.
dotancohen 4y ago
> deposit of 25€ for small electrical > devices and 50€ and more for bigger ones That sounds like a terrific way to encourage even more device theft.
gibolt 4y ago
One bonus side effect of this is that an influx of batteries meant to be recycled means it will be easier and more profitable for battery recycling to get off the ground. That means more materials and better future recycling process discoveries

by lnsru 4y ago

kennywinker 4y ago

This kind of solution is absolutely what's required. Two addendums: First, make the deposit a function of battery size not item size or cost (small battery $5 deposit, medium battery $10, large $50). This way the environmental cost of a specific battery is linked to the consumer's cost in a way that it isn't really now when the variation in battery cost is swallowed up in the cost of the item itself. Second, peg this deposit to inflation. 20 years ago the 5c deposit on a beer can meant a lot more than it does today. I'm old enough to remember my fairly well off grandparents saving up their cans and returning them. Today, nobody I know bothers.

BizarroLand 4y ago
Yeah, if soda bottles had a $1 deposit on them to ensure proper recycling that would be pretty tough to adjust to but good for the environment.
bombcar 4y ago
It also provides an effective income for those disadvantaged enough; if the five cent deposit on cans had increased with inflation there'd still be an incentive to do it. $1-5 for vape devices would be similar.
DoingIsLearning 4y ago
Third, make manufacturers pay for deposit on devices with non-replaceable batteries. As in tax them at the time of purchase, on batteries that render a device unusable.
- Nition 4y ago
  I have to say, it seems ridiculous that we're at the point where people are dying in Europe this week from a heatwave exacerbated by climate change, and we're not even implementing basic measures like this yet.
  - gruez 4y ago
    How much contribution does "electronics with non-replaceable batteries" add to climate change? 10%? 1%? 0.1%? Bringing this up when talking about climate change is like bringing up plastic straws bans in first world countries when talking about microplastic pollution (ie. ignoring the fact that half of microplastics in the ocean comes from fishing gear).
    - ornornor 4y ago
      You’ve got to start somewhere though. And anywhere is marginally better than nowhere. As opposed to throwing your arms up in the air saying “it’s pointless we should be doing something else instead so let’s do nothing at all”. That’s exactly what the industry is aiming for, learned helplessness.
      - exabrial 4y ago
        > And anywhere is marginally better than nowhere. No. Stepping over dollars to pick up pennies is stupid.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        The problem is a significant portion of people utterly refuse to say those dollars exist, or that they should be picked up.
      - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
        > That’s exactly what the industry is aiming for, learned helplessness. I am wholely in agreement with you but there are some pretty big percentage wise holes that we need to plug. Namely: 1. Getting ride of coal and Natural Gas power generation (which means replacing with renewables +storage, or fission, none of which are easily deployable) 2. Stopping methane leaks in Oil&Gas pipelines and active/decomissioned wells.
jefftk 4y ago
> peg this deposit to inflation. 20 years ago the 5c deposit on a beer can meant a lot more than it does today Adjusted for inflation, 5¢ in 2002 would just be 8¢.
- softfalcon 4y ago
  You might have to forgive them, if they’re talking about their folks with the ear marked “20 years” they’re likely old like me and think that means 1970. Us old folks tend to think “20 years ago” means 20 years before 1990’s. It’s a common mental flub. That would make the inflation value closer to $0.38 in today’s money. It’s not a lot, but when you’re getting almost 8x the amount for each can, it adds up.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Bottle deposits aren't that old: MA is 1982, CA is 1987, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_... 5¢ in 1982 would be 15¢ now, so it's more, but not that much more?
    - drewzero1 4y ago
      It is 3X, and when it's per can that does add up to a significant amount. That would add $1.20 to a 12-pack case, which usually cost just $6 here (admittedly a state that doesn't do deposits).
    - ascar 4y ago
      Glass bottles have 8 Cent deposit in Germany and plastic bottles/tin cans have 25 Cent. I rarely ever not bring a plastic bottle or can back, but I do let glass bottles stand around near garbage cans for the bottle collectors. I see the same behavior among many others. It's just anecdotal, but that 3x seems to make a huge difference.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      Bottle deposits were a thing in the 1970s when I was a kid. Those bottles were heavy glass, made to be returned, washed, and re-used many times. I'm not sure it was legislated however, I think it was just what the local bottlers did to get their bottles back.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Maybe we should tax externalities of non-renewables more before we start taxing renewables?
- kennywinker 4y ago
  A deposit isn’t a tax, it’s an incentive to make sure that a renewable stays in the cycle instead of ending up in the environment. Return it and you get your money back.
- drekipus 4y ago
  I think we're talking about giving money, not taking money

UkrainianJew 4y ago

Sadly, this is not very practical. A lithium cell in itself is a chemical time bomb: if it gets mechanically damaged or short-circuited, it has enough oomph to burn your device, skin or house. For factory-produced battery packs this effect is mitigated by having protective circuits that monitor charge level, temperature and a bunch of other parameters, cutting off the power if the cell is deemed too dangerous. But once you take a random lithium cell off the street and try to revitalize it, you are opening a can of worms: depending on how it was used, it might be full of dendrites [0], ready to cause a fiery short-circuit a few charges after. It might have structural damage due to gas buildup, or someone literally stepping on it. It could have been under direct sunlight for longer than it should, and so on. It's fine to tinker around with it for your own experiments, but you don't want to ship it to anybody who's not going to be using it in a fireproof lab wearing eye protection. A better idea would be to find a way to properly recycle the raw materials (i.e. extract the lithium from a dead cell), but that could be several orders of magnitude more challenging. [0] https://www.batterypoweronline.com/news/a-look-inside-your-battery-watching-the-dendrites-grow/ https://www.batterypoweronline.com/news/a-look-inside-your-b...

wffurr 4y ago
The deposit can fund the materials recycling and encourage a take back program.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
> But once you take a random lithium cell off the street and try to revitalize it, you are opening a can of worms: depending on how it was used, it might be full of dendrites [0], ready to cause a fiery short-circuit a few charges after. It might have structural damage due to gas buildup, or someone literally stepping on it. It could have been under direct sunlight for longer than it should, and so on. Yeah exactly what I was thinking.. I'm sure the cells used in these disposable devices weren't exactly the cream of the crop in manufacturing either. Probably cells that didn't pass QC or something. It's pretty risky messing around with them like that.
- mrguyorama 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>My proposition: deposit of 25€ for small electrical devices and 50€ and more for bigger ones so that these do not land in landfills. This is already a thing in EU, and parts of US and Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Waste_Recycling_Fee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Waste_Recycling_Fee

konschubert 4y ago
Well, it's not a deposit. It's a tax that manufacturers pay, which finances some make-pretend recycling options. But consumes don't use the recycling options and the electronics still end up on landfills.
- gruez 4y ago
  I don't get it. Everything you said applicable to the parent's suggestion as well. What exactly are is your point here?
  - konschubert 4y ago
    I thought the parents suggestion was that the consumer pays 25 Euro and receive them back when recycling the electronic device. Like... a deposit on bottles. I'm afraid this would have the opposite effect though. Instead of donating old phones or CD players, people would have them trashed to get their deposit back.
    - jrockway 4y ago
      I think as soon as you add a monetary value, people think something like "I don't need the $25, I'll just put it in the trash." People are complaining about the current state of recycling, but I save up all my lithium batteries and pay to have them recycled every few years. You can't throw that shit away.
      - jeroenhd 4y ago
        In some European countries this type of deposit is normal for plastic and glass bottles and other drinks containers, though the deposit is usually much lower (25 to 50 cents). The impact is significant, even if it's such a low amount of money. A €25 deposit would definitely keep people from throwing out these things en masse. There will always be people who will act selfishly and against their self interest, but you've got to be pretty damn rich to throw out €25 like it's nothing.

onion2k 4y ago

This would just mean wealthy people get to trash the environment with impunity.

bobbylarrybobby 4y ago
They already get to though, so...
sschueller 4y ago
I am not saying this is OK nor acceptable however with a deposit people can pull batteries out of the trash and redeem them like cans and bottles. Just that a battery is worth a lot more.

ratsmack 4y ago

I made this point today, but it was summarily dismissed as "not a problem". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246&p=2#32121248

margalabargala 4y ago
Account names don't match so not sure which alt account is "you", but: The reason what you said was dismissed/started an argument is the reason a lot of arguments start: using terms whose definitions have been overloaded. People can both be talking about "green" energy but mean entirely different things and get frustrated talking past one another, as happened here. Specifically, for many people right now, the pressing reason for "green" energy is climate change. Ergo "green" energy is energy which does not release significant amounts of CO2 when used. Solar panels are "green" energy in that they help solve a chronic environmental problem. At the same time, as was pointed out, solar panels require some incredibly toxic chemicals to be created, and to the extent they are recyclable, that recycling process also involves, creates, and produces as waste even more horrific chemicals. Therefore solar panels are not "green" energy in that they directly contribute to an acute environmental problem. The root of the issue is picking some abstract label, "green energy", and then each person argues whether something meets their own personal definition of that abstract label. A more useful question may be "in which ways are solar panels good for the environment, in which ways are they harmful, and does one obviously outweigh the other?" A supporter of solar would probably say "solar panels breakeven for co2 in just 3 years, a fraction of their lifespan, so they spend most of their life replacing fossil fuels which is good. While toxic chemicals are a byproduct of their creation, and those toxic chemicals would be harmful if released into the environment, they can be contained, stored, and disposed of in a way that localizes all harm to the point that there is no widespread environmental impact from their manufacture".
- ratsmack 4y ago
  That's odd, I used that link several times from that comment, but now it's changed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32120246#32121248

flir 4y ago

Wouldn't that kill the second-hand market? Reduce, reuse, recycle.

davewasthere 4y ago
The value of that deposit would be reflected and transferred.

dotancohen 4y ago

> deposit of 25€ for small electrical > devices and 50€ and more for bigger ones That sounds like a terrific way to encourage even more device theft.

gibolt 4y ago

One bonus side effect of this is that an influx of batteries meant to be recycled means it will be easier and more profitable for battery recycling to get off the ground. That means more materials and better future recycling process discoveries