New Construction Technology

[Scott5114]

Aspahlt, though, is the most recycled material in the world. Plastic is not and can only certain types - once cleaned - can be recycled only once or twice in their lifecycle. I do wonder how recyclable this pavement is at the end of its lifespan.

The article states that the additive is "non-recyclable waste plastic destined for landfill", implying that it's made up of plastics other than PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2).

[Road Hog]

Aspahlt, though, is the most recycled material in the world. Plastic is not and can only certain types - once cleaned - can be recycled only once or twice in their lifecycle. I do wonder how recyclable this pavement is at the end of its lifespan.

The article states that the additive is "non-recyclable waste plastic destined for landfill", implying that it's made up of plastics other than PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2).

It has long frustrated me that anything other than a 1 or a 2 might as well be chucked into the regular bin. Same for other trash such as pizza boxes which might be perfectly fine save for an olive oil stain and a couple of forgotten pizza bones. Boo hoo.

[Scott5114]

Aspahlt, though, is the most recycled material in the world. Plastic is not and can only certain types - once cleaned - can be recycled only once or twice in their lifecycle. I do wonder how recyclable this pavement is at the end of its lifespan.

The article states that the additive is "non-recyclable waste plastic destined for landfill", implying that it's made up of plastics other than PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2).

It has long frustrated me that anything other than a 1 or a 2 might as well be chucked into the regular bin. Same for other trash such as pizza boxes which might be perfectly fine save for an olive oil stain and a couple of forgotten pizza bones. Boo hoo.

It's all about the money, of course. Recycling #1 and #2 turns a profit; anything else virgin material is cheaper than the recycled goods so we "can't" recycle them. Nobody wants to finance it and there's not the political will to enact a tax on production of virgin plastic.

I put all of my plastic waste in the bin and don't separate out anything by type of plastic. I'm not a chemical engineer so I have no idea what is what kind of plastic if it's not stamped on the bottom. If the recycling vendor wants to spend money digging the stuff they don't want out and throwing it away, let them.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

I stopped recycling altogether when I started working for the county and realized they just incinerate all of that shit

[seicer]

At least with incineration, you can generate power. Many municipalities do that because of the high costs of landfills and recycling centers.

This is at least a start to hold companies responsible for recycling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/maine-becomes-first-state-to-shift-costs-of-recycling-from-taxpayers-to-companies/2021/07/13/aa6fbe44-e416-11eb-8aa5-5662858b696e_story.html

[kernals12]

At least with incineration, you can generate power. Many municipalities do that because of the high costs of landfills and recycling centers.

This is at least a start to hold companies responsible for recycling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/maine-becomes-first-state-to-shift-costs-of-recycling-from-taxpayers-to-companies/2021/07/13/aa6fbe44-e416-11eb-8aa5-5662858b696e_story.html

Incineration is also really, really, really bad for the environment.

[GaryV]

Our recycling takes anything with a recycle symbol.  They don't care what number.

[kalvado]

Our recycling takes anything with a recycle symbol.  They don't care what number.

Probably because it goes to the same landfill anyway

[SEWIGuy]

Aspahlt, though, is the most recycled material in the world. Plastic is not and can only certain types - once cleaned - can be recycled only once or twice in their lifecycle. I do wonder how recyclable this pavement is at the end of its lifespan.

The article states that the additive is "non-recyclable waste plastic destined for landfill", implying that it's made up of plastics other than PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2).

I would rather have "non-recyclable waste plastic" going into a landfill than into a roadway where it could break down into microplastics and run-off into a stream or lake. 

[jeffandnicole]

At least with incineration, you can generate power. Many municipalities do that because of the high costs of landfills and recycling centers.

This is at least a start to hold companies responsible for recycling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/maine-becomes-first-state-to-shift-costs-of-recycling-from-taxpayers-to-companies/2021/07/13/aa6fbe44-e416-11eb-8aa5-5662858b696e_story.html

Well, since the companies aren't just going to eat the cost, they'll pass the expenses along to the consumer - the taxpayer - anyway.

[kalvado]

Aspahlt, though, is the most recycled material in the world. Plastic is not and can only certain types - once cleaned - can be recycled only once or twice in their lifecycle. I do wonder how recyclable this pavement is at the end of its lifespan.

The article states that the additive is "non-recyclable waste plastic destined for landfill", implying that it's made up of plastics other than PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2).

I would rather have "non-recyclable waste plastic" going into a landfill than into a roadway where it could break down into microplastics and run-off into a stream or lake.

Breaking into fine dust is likely safer, and sun exposure is much more effective in a plastic embedded into a road arrangements. That's it, if you take microplastic story at face value to begin with.

[kphoger]

Aspahlt, though, is the most recycled material in the world. Plastic is not and can only certain types - once cleaned - can be recycled only once or twice in their lifecycle. I do wonder how recyclable this pavement is at the end of its lifespan.

The article states that the additive is "non-recyclable waste plastic destined for landfill", implying that it's made up of plastics other than PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2).

I would rather have "non-recyclable waste plastic" going into a landfill than into a roadway where it could break down into microplastics and run-off into a stream or lake.

Breaking into fine dust is likely safer, and sun exposure is much more effective in a plastic embedded into a road arrangements. That's it, if you take microplastic story at face value to begin with.

Microplastics are today's MSG.

– It's in there!
– So?
– It's bad.
– How?
– It's bad for health.
– Based on what science?

[kalvado]

Aspahlt, though, is the most recycled material in the world. Plastic is not and can only certain types - once cleaned - can be recycled only once or twice in their lifecycle. I do wonder how recyclable this pavement is at the end of its lifespan.

The article states that the additive is "non-recyclable waste plastic destined for landfill", implying that it's made up of plastics other than PETE (#1) and HDPE (#2).

I would rather have "non-recyclable waste plastic" going into a landfill than into a roadway where it could break down into microplastics and run-off into a stream or lake.

Breaking into fine dust is likely safer, and sun exposure is much more effective in a plastic embedded into a road arrangements. That's it, if you take microplastic story at face value to begin with.

Microplastics are today's MSG.

– It's in there!
– So?
– It's bad.
– How?
– It's bad for health.
– Based on what science?

I had an impression microplastic agenda dialed down after these events:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/groundbreaking-study-dangers-microplastics-may-be-unraveling

[english si]

The UK must've renamed their cabinet post because previously it was Ministry of Transport (MOT) and was almost universally cursed for its stringent smog tests.

The cabinet post has always been Secretary of State for Transport (when it was merely 'Minister of Transport', it wasn't a cabinet post). Well, at least since it was restored after Labour merged Transport in with other stuff so they could get away with ignoring it while pretending it was important.

The Ministry of Transport ceased to have that name in 1970. All the government departments named 'Ministry of x' rather than 'x Office' became 'Department of' around then.

MoT for the motor vehicle testing regime has long been an anachronism, even though it remains the term, and is probably where your confusion came from.

Coating the world in plastic doesn't sound good for the environment, especially as the pavement degrades over time.

You realize that kernals12 thinks climate change is a good thing, right? He says that warmer winters in Boston outweigh the huge list of negatives such as entire islands full of people being underwater. Maybe hurting the environment is the whole reason he's obsessed with this.

The DfT is keen on environmentalism (and stopping climate change specifically within that*), as is the UK government in general. I imagine that finding a use for unrecyclable plastic waste, rather than unenvironmentally either landfill, incineration or exporting it for dumping/burning elsewhere, was why they looked at using plastics for road surfacing.

The slogan for resource usage in the UK goes: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In that order. This reuse (especially as the plastics involved can't be recycled) is a good thing.

*Though this is more about general environmentalism rather than specifically about climate change - while carbon would be released with transporting or incinerating waste, this notion goes beyond that. Landfill is deemed to be worse than this use, hence why this use has been approved.

[HighwayStar]

Coating the world in plastic doesn't sound good for the environment, especially as the pavement degrades over time.

You realize that kernals12 thinks climate change is a good thing, right? He says that warmer winters in Boston outweigh the huge list of negatives such as entire islands full of people being underwater. Maybe hurting the environment is the whole reason he's obsessed with this.

Those islands are mostly outside the US, while Boston is certainly not, so I can't say he is entirely wrong.

[kphoger]

Only people inside the US matter?

[HighwayStar]

Only people inside the US matter?

US policy is made for the benefit of US constituents, not foreign nationals. Russian policy is made for the benefit of Russian constituents, not foreign nationals. Chinese policy is made for the benefit of Chinese constituents, not foreign nationals. Indian policy.....

[SectorZ]

Only people inside the US matter?

I live near Boston, and personally I care more about the people on random islands than I do the people of Boston.

[Scott5114]

Only people inside the US matter?

US policy is made for the benefit of US constituents, not foreign nationals. Russian policy is made for the benefit of Russian constituents, not foreign nationals. Chinese policy is made for the benefit of Chinese constituents, not foreign nationals. Indian policy.....

Lame-ass nationalism. Got it.

[kphoger]

You realize that kernals12 ... says that warmer winters in Boston outweigh the huge list of negatives such as entire islands full of people being underwater. Maybe hurting the environment is the whole reason he's obsessed with this.

Those islands are mostly outside the US, while Boston is certainly not, so I can't say he is entirely wrong.

US policy is made for the benefit of US constituents, not foreign nationals. Russian policy is made for the benefit of Russian constituents, not foreign nationals. Chinese policy is made for the benefit of Chinese constituents, not foreign nationals. Indian policy.....

You do realize that |kernals12| doesn't set US policy, right?

[kphoger]

Also, I'm fairly certain that it isn't actually "US policy" to allow "entire islands full of people being underwater" in order for the residents of a New England city buy lighter-weight socks for the winter.

[jakeroot]

I'm a bit baffled. What country doesn't have some form of foreign policy?

Also, I'm fairly certain that it isn't actually "US policy" to allow "entire islands full of people being underwater" in order for the residents of a New England city buy lighter-weight socks for the winter.

Never mind all the socks for the climate refugees whose islands are now under water...

[kernals12]

Since January, a handful of motorists in the town of Hampden, Maine have been experiencing a revolution right under their wheels. On Grist Hill Road, an old decaying 70 year old bridge was replaced by a new one. This one does away with the two materials we've been using for the last 150 years to build our civilization: steel and concrete. Instead this one, built by Advanced Infrastructure Technologies and developed in collaboration with the University of Maine, is made out of 5 lightweight beams consisting of a composite of fiberglass, carbon fiber, foam, and resin.

This results in a bridge that is lightweight, easy to install, and best of all, immune to rust. I'm guessing this bridge will be the first of tens of thousands. And I'm sure they're working on flyover ramps made out of this stuff.

It's fun when an invention makes it out of the laboratory.

[Max Rockatansky]

You throw out terms like "revolutionary"  and "ground breaking"  pretty much on everything you post.  It's a neat bridge in the link but come get me when 3D printers start constructing even 5% of new spans.

[SectorZ]

Since I did the hard work here, this is an ACTUAL story discussing the bridge in question.

https://www.tidc-utc.org/2021/02/24/the-grist-mill-bridge-in-hampden-maine-now-open/

(Also kudos to my alma mater on this one)