Entropy and environmentalism

[Gen1GT]

I'm posting this idea in the quantum theory section because I know entropy is a quantum physics based concept. I was listening to some Brian Greene, and he was speaking about black holes and entropy. The idea that energy in a system can only increase got me thinking about recycling and other environmental concerns.

 

When we manufacture consumer products, we're decreasing entropy of the object itself (car, toy or whatever), but with entropy of the manufacturing taking a beating. Now, when we recycle something that's already required a net increase in entropy, aren't we compounding the entropy by wasting resources in recycling it? Isn't it better to let consumer goods rot in a land fill than recycle them? I would think the process of recycling, in an attempt to reduce entropy, would just end up speed up the increase in entropy.

 

Thoughts?

[EdEarl]

You are thinking too much. Recycling is good.

[studiot]

 

I'm posting this idea in the quantum theory section because I know entropy is a quantum physics based concept. I was listening to some Brian Greene, and he was speaking about black holes and entropy. The idea that energy in a system can only increase got me thinking about recycling and other environmental concerns.

 

These are very strange ideas, where did you get them?

[ACG52]

Entropy is based in classical physics, specifically thermodynamics.

[swansont]

Proper recycling creates less entropy than the fabrication of the same item (or some new item) out of the raw materials. That's the comparison you need to make.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Proper recycling creates less entropy than the fabrication of the same item (or some new item) out of the raw materials. That's the comparison you need to make.

The key being proper. There are a lot of elements of recycling programs that miss the mark. Generally the "disorder" they save is important, such as reducing landfill or scarring the environment, but do not necessarily create less entropy than fabricating from new materials.

[Delta1212]

There's also the point that, as long as the sun is shining, we're a long way from having to worry about the total entropy of our environment in the way you seem to be concerned about.

[Gen1GT]

Sorry, when I said, “…The idea that energy in a system can only increase…,” I actually meant “The idea that ENTROPY in a closed system can only increase…”

 

Although I thought of this idea myself, upon further research, I found out I’m not the only one. Timothy Gutowski, a professor at MIT published a paper in the journal Environmental Science & Technology about the subject.

 

One example they found was in tires. The tires containing post-consumer recycled rubber had higher rolling resistance, which increased the fuel consumption of the car they rode on, cancelling the energy saved by recycling.

 

Also, some new products are produced on such massive scales that micro-managed and locally manufactured products cannot compete in production volume and the resulting savings in energy. Most products made from petroleum require more energy to recycle than to produce new. The scale of new plastic production is so massive and efficient compared to recycling it.

 

A recycled plastic has to be collected by fleets of trucks getting 2.8 miles per gallon (84 litres/100km!!). The product then has to be sorted (entropy created by the machines, the building and the people). At this point, the recycled plastic will start being processed equidistance from final product as newly produced plastic. The first two stages of recycling create WAY more entropy than petroleum processing.

 

Is it not true that the more you try to organize nature the more entropy is created as a result?

 

-edited to remove an error

Edited July 5, 2013 by Gen1GT

[studiot]

Yes I agree there is a good deal of politically correct 'recycling' going on.

 

However your comparison is unfair.

 

Option 1)

 

Make new, no recycling.

You have not added in the energy or $ cost of dealing with the resulting discard

 

Option 2)

 

Recycle at greater energy / $ cost but no discard costs involved.

 

Here is an interesting quote form John Le Carre

 

 

He said there are so many eggs and suasages in the Gorodok supermarket that the shoppers pour in by bus from Novosibirsk and empty the shelves by ten in the morning.

Why could not the eggs make the journey instead of the people?

 

 

[swansont]

Although I thought of this idea myself, upon further research, I found out I’m not the only one. Timothy Gutowski, a professor at MIT published a paper in the journal Environmental Science & Technology about the subject.

 

One example they found was in tires. The tires containing post-consumer recycled rubber had higher rolling resistance, which increased the fuel consumption of the car they rode on, cancelling the energy saved by recycling.

 

As JCM pointed out, there are other economic factors to consider, since recycling is not just about energy savings. Landfill space has a cost associated with it, so recycling tires keeps them out of landfills.

 

 

Also, some new products are produced on such massive scales that micro-managed and locally manufactured products cannot compete in production volume and the resulting savings in energy. Most products made from petroleum require more energy to recycle than to produce new. The scale of new plastic production is so massive and efficient compared to recycling it.

 

A recycled plastic has to be collected by fleets of trucks getting 2.8 miles per gallon (84 litres/100km!!). The product then has to be sorted (entropy created by the machines, the building and the people). At this point, the recycled plastic will start being processed equidistance from final product as newly produced plastic. The first two stages of recycling create WAY more entropy than petroleum processing.

 

 

That's why recycling and garbage collection are often coupled. Since you were going to collect the garbage anyway the fuel cost for the recycling is basically free. And again, there's a cost savings for keeping the plastic out of landfills. One also recycles aluminum, which has a huge energy savings — only about 5% of the energy to make aluminum from bauxite. (Throwing away an aluminum can wastes energy as if it were filled ~halfway with gasoline. Older, thicker cans it was like it was full)

[EdEarl]

Today, man is pathetically poor at recycling compared to Nature, who recycles everything she needs. Roots dig into the ground everywhere to recover everything she needs from a highly disorganized system, the ground. They efficiently transport raw materials to trillions of factories, cells, that rebuild Nature day in and day out. Nature is so incredible, she is even recycling the plastisphere.

 

There are many reasons to recycle using the technology we have today, among them the opportunity to improve our recycling technology. However, we must become adept at using nanotechnology before we have the opportunity to rival Nature. The 4D printing era has barely begun. Consider a house constructed by nanotechnology using roots to pull materials from the ground. The plans for the house are on our computer, which commands a 4D nanoprinter to build, maintain, and modify our home. Nanotech mycelium can process trash and waste from our home, and carry it into our garden or use it to maintain the house.

 

Recycling today is important to avoid making a total mess of the planet, and it is practice to better ourselves with Nature our role model.

Edited July 6, 2013 by EdEarl

[swansont]

Today, man is pathetically poor at recycling compared to Nature, who recycles everything she needs. Roots dig into the ground everywhere to recover everything she needs from a highly disorganized system, the ground. They efficiently transport raw materials to trillions of factories, cells, that rebuild Nature day in and day out. Nature is so incredible, she is even recycling the plastisphere.

 

emphasis added

 

"the scientists also found evidence that microbes may play a role in degrading plastics"

 

IOW, not actual evidence that the plastic is being "recycled". One of the points of man-made objects is that they don't readily degrade. (unless built that way)

[EdEarl]

Perhaps these marine microbes are not recycling plastic. It is possible they merely decimate it, leaving microscopic bits of plastic in the ocean, and elsewhere. On the other hand, life must eat to survive and evolution will favor organisms that find food of any kind.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/blogs/boy-discovers-microbe-that-eats-plastic#

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329075919.htm