Mac wrote: On Jan 28, 7:46 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote: That accept paper, but they won't pay you for it. ...because you don't have, say, a containerload of it. And because you are in Phoenix, never forget that part, too. They won't pay for steel, either. Is steel free? I suppose it is if you steal it. I think you'll see it is going for
On Jan 28, 7:46 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote: On Jan 28, 5:19 pm, Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote: As I said "the marginal value of newsprint for recycling is zero. Cheaper and easier to landfill it." And, just as it was when you said it, it's a bit of a lie. Even with the current depressed market, recyclable newsprint's value is in the same
************************************************************** JobCircle.com is the largest regional job board in the Mid-Atlantic region, with tens of thousands of job offerings in PA, NJ, DE, MD, NY, and Washington D.C. To learn more, visit http://www.jobcircle.com?source=ng ************************************************************** Job Title: Postdoctoral Research Associate
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:19:59 -0800, Mac wrote: I think this is generally true. If you have newspaper being dumped by large forced recycling efforts, there's little reason for a recycler to pay end users for it. In other words, the marginal value of newsprint for recycling is zero. Cheaper and easier to landfill it. I'm saying that they
On Jan 27, 12:14 pm, "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: In other posts, it was claimed that it was the shipping that to some extent made recycling a net negative. Now we find out that shipping is "cheap". As I stated before, materials are now sometimes collected commingled into two, I think it is, streams
