News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaura... by btilly on Friday January 01, 2021 @07:17PM (#25608818)
It is.

I had a friend whose father was a chemical engineer back in the 1980s who did a study on it. The cost per cubic yard to recycle styrofoam was insanely cheap. It was just that it required a specialized process that nobody implemented because creating more was also cheap. So it wasn't recycled, but it could have been.

Re:California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaura... by kibibyte on Friday January 01, 2021 @08:51PM (#25609441)
Is it also possible that food-contaminated styrofoam is significantly costlier to recycle than styrofoam on its own, or did this specialized process also take care of this problem?
Re:California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaura... by btilly on Friday January 01, 2021 @09:50PM (#25609863)
It is not significantly costlier to recycle.

The problem is that there is no money to be made from selling recycled styrofoam since it is competing with products that are themselves extremely cheap. If we imposed a high enough tax on the original product, then it would be cost effective. However we still have the trouble that we have to collect it, separate it out from other wastes in the waste stream, and so on.

So we could recycle styrofoam. But we don't because it is not cost effective to do so. So it is viewed as unrecyclable. And for that reason we have replaced it with things that are even less recyclable.

Re:California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaura... by user5994461 on Sunday January 03, 2021 @08:08AM (#25621552)
>>> The cost per cubic yard to recycle styrofoam was insanely cheap.

No wonder. Maybe volume is not the good metric to look at when comparing styrofoam to paper.

Styrofoam is insanely bulky. The same orders could be filled with a fraction of the volume of paper.