Page added on August 11, 2012
Almost all lead is recycled, among the only elements on the periodic table to earn that distinction. With good reason, mind you: the soft metal is a potent neurotoxic known to impact children’s brain development, among other nasty health effects. Today, nearly all lead is used in batteries (though it was once put into gasoline, leading to widespread contamination, and, in places like Afghanistan, still is.) Most of this dangerous element is now endlessly cycled from battery to battery, thanks to stringent regulations (though enough of it ends up being improperly recycled to constitute one of the world’s worst pollution problems.)
In principle, all metals are infinitely recycleable and could exist in a closed loop system, note the authors of a survey of the metals recycling field published in Science on August 10. There’s a benefit too, because recycling is typically more energy-efficient than mining and refining raw ore for virgin materials. Estimates vary but mining and refining can require as much as 20 times the amount of energy as recycling a given material. Think about it: a vast amount of energy, technology, human labor and time are expended to get various elements out of the ground and then that element is often discarded after a single use.
Lead is not alone in being recycled, of course. Aluminum, copper, nickel, steel and zinc all boast recycling rates above 50 percent (though not much above 50 percent). The same principles can be usefully applied to other materials, like plastics. After all, these ubiquitous polymers are made from another scarce resource oil and many are, in principle, recycleable. Yet, the overall recycling rate for plastics, grouped as a whole, is only 8 percent (as of 2010, per EPA numbers.) Take the case of polypropylene (or #5 plastic if you’re checking the bottom of your food containers). The bulk of this polymer that gets recycled comes from car batteries. It is, in essence, tagging along with the lead. In other cases water bottles, yogurt cups, you name it it simply disappears into the nation’s landfills.
Meanwhile, the majority of elements on the periodic table and we use almost every element on the periodic table for something or other are also nearly completely unrecycled.
As an example, industrial ecologists Barbara Reck and T.E. Graedel of Yale University compare the fates of nickel versus neodymium. Nickel is ubiquitous, particularly as an alloy for steel. Of the 650,000 metric tons of the silvery-white metal that reached the end of its useful life in one product in 2005, roughly two-thirds were recycled. And that recycled nickel then supplied about one-third of the demand for new nickel-containing products. That means the overall efficiency of human use of nickel approaches 52 percent. Not bad, but there’s room for improvement, given that almost half of all nickel is only used once before it is discarded.
Nearly 16,000 metric tons of neodymium a so-called rare earth metal were employed in 2007, mostly for permanent magnets in everything from hybrid cars to wind turbines. Roughly 1,000 metric tons of the element reached the end of its useful life in one product or another and “little to none of that material is currently being recycled,” the survey authors note. This despite the fact that a “rare earth crisis” stems from China’s near monopoly of the neodymium trade.
Mining for neodymium is not benign (which is why the world lets China monopolize its production). And it’s not just neodymium. Mining waste or tailings, leach ponds, slurries and the like are among the world’s largest chronic waste problems. North America alone produces 10 times as much mining waste as it does the municipal solid waste (as it’s known) from all the neighborhoods in the U.S. Much of that is just rock, sand and dust the mountaintop in mountaintop removal mining. And mined products also cause waste further down the product line, such as the ash leftover after the coal is burned (the U.S.’s largest single form of waste).
This issue of profligate use gets worse: we are currently making this problem even harder to solve. How? One word: gadgets. In most gadgets you can think of, tiny amounts of rare elements are used to enhance functionality. As the industrial ecologists write in Science: “The more intricate the product and the more diverse the materials set it uses, the better it is likely to perform, but the more difficult it is to recycle so as to preserve the resources that were essential to making it work in the first place.” It’s as true of iPhones as it is of photovoltaic panels and none of them have shown much success in being recycled. “End of life losses will also increase sharply soon,” unless something changes, the industrial ecologists warn.
Then there are the alloys, where thermodynamics dictate that the alloying element is almost always going to be lost due to the difficulty of separation. That means the chromium used in stainless steel will usually lose its luster, for example. Worse, this form of contamination can mean that the recycled alloy can’t be re-used manganese-aluminum alloys are unsuitable once recycled for 95 percent of the uses for aluminum. As a result, “current designs are actually less recycleable than was the case a few decades ago,” the authors note. Perhaps the use of such metal combinations should be minimized?
In the end, our approach to recycling is bizarre, given our resources. “Few approaches could be more unsustainable,” Reck and Graedel write. In the end, we’ll learn to reuse all the elements of the periodic table, or we’ll lose elements to use.
4 Comments on "Recycling Reality: Humans Set to Trash Most Elements on the Periodic Table"
BillT on Sun, 12th Aug 2012 1:54 am
Interesting isn’t it? We rely on plentiful cheap energy to make products that waste those same resources and then…when we have made all of that ‘stuff’, the cheap energy needed to recycle it is gone and the resources with it. Interesting that none of THAT part of the peak topic is ever mentioned or detailed in the propaganda telling us not to worry…
Norm on Sun, 12th Aug 2012 6:12 am
It is better to light a candle, than curse the dark. I have a unique habit, when I spot scrap metal, I do recycle it, and thats like, if I see a pop can in a parking lot. I understand the basic categories of recyclable metal. So if I see a broken tire chain on the highway in spring, i stop grab it and recycle it. Every 3 or 4 months, i have got a pickup truck of the stuff and I go to a scrap metal dealer.
but meanwhile, whats so dysfunctional about our country that i am the only one doing this? why is everybody else tossing metal into the roadways? i believe there should be aggressive recycling and it should form a new category of employment, which would help those who need work. i believe if somebody throws away a 1/4 pound bolt, that somebody else who is employed, should fish it out of the trash, via a sorting process. imagine, higher employment thru sustainable practices. but nobody listing to me about this, so the landfill piles get higher and higher.
its a shame that today’s USA people are so ignorant that they cannot even comprehend ‘what is recycling’ in regards to scrap steel, aluminum, copper, brass, etc.
DC on Sun, 12th Aug 2012 6:58 am
Call it yet another of welfare industrialisms many ‘market failures’. The products we ‘use’ (abuse) so casually, do not have the true cost of there production, distribution and disposal priced into them. In plain language, there too cheap and easy to throw away, with no penalty incurred to either the end-used or the manufacturer. Now SOME attempts have been made to rectify this on certain narrow ranges of products. Some govts charge separate ‘enviro-fees’ on things like car-tires and batteries and so on. But such efforts are half-hearted for the most part, widely ignored in many instances, and not really sufficient to modify behaviour on either end of the ‘stuff’ chain, even when they are consistently enforced. Its not that the idea is flawed, quite the opposite, rather most implementation leaves much to be desired.
For example bottle\can deposits are a good example of a fairly successful means of controlling waste from the soft-drink industry. In countries where the practice is long estasblished, they work quite well. Its noteworthy the US has refused to join the civilized world in mandating bottle and can deposits. A simple measure that produces huge benefits, yet the US blocks even that modest effort at controlling waste.
Its also important to not recyling has a its own point of diminishing returns too. Its debateable that if we got to point of digging up a few billion cell phones we shipped off to poison peoples ground water in africa, that we have much of an economy left that would be capable of producing anything from the metal we would recover from such an effort, or even if we could afford to go dig them up in 1st place.
I guess well see in the coming decades how far we are willing to go as things decline…
Johny K. on Mon, 13th Aug 2012 6:35 pm
Nature already recycles everything, and has been doing that for millions and billions of years. If there were just a little tiny loss in each cycle, only 1% or less, then during million years everything would have been lost.
If nature can do a 100% recycling, then we can do it, too.