“Urban Mining of E‑Waste is Becoming More Cost-Effective Than Virgin Mining”
Electronic waste — including discarded televisions, computers and mobile phones — is one of the fastest-growing waste categories worldwide. For years, recyclers have gleaned usable parts, including metals, from this waste stream. That makes sense from a sustainability perspective, but it’s been unclear whether it’s reasonable from an economic viewpoint. Now researchers report in ACS’ journal Environmental Science & Technology that recovering gold, copper and other metals from e-waste is cheaper than obtaining these metals from mines.
Projections indicate that about 50 million tons of e-waste will be discarded around the world in 2018, according to the United Nations’ Global E-waste Monitor report. This type of waste contains a surprising amount of metal. For example, a typical cathode-ray tube TV contains almost a pound of copper and more than half a pound of aluminum, though it only holds about 0.02 ounces of gold. Xianlai Zeng, John A. Mathews and Jinhui Li obtained data from eight recycling companies in China to calculate the cost for extracting such metals from e-waste, a practice known as “urban mining.” Expenses included the costs for waste collection, labor, energy, material and transportation, as well as capital costs for the recyclers’ equipment and buildings. These expenses are offset by government subsidies and by revenue from selling recovered materials and components. The researchers conclude that with these offsets, it costs 13 times more to obtain these metals from ore than from urban mining. The researchers also draw implications for the economic prospects of urban mining as an alternative to virgin mining of ores, based on the “circular economy,” or recirculation of resources.
The authors acknowledge funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the National Social Science Fund of China.
The American Chemical Society is a not-for-profit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. ACS does not conduct research, but publishes and publicizes peer-reviewed scientific studies. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.
drumsOFwar on April 6th, 2018 at 14:52 UTC »
I think that there is a large error in their calculations. They used Chinese companies to figure costs. The number of worker protections and wages are far lower than many other places and the amount of skilled workers are far less. Many mine workers have specialized training. In this regard, I would estimate the true cost to be much higher if this was to be applied to other places.
huitcinq on April 6th, 2018 at 14:21 UTC »
A few things:
1) The idea of a standard cost differential between mining and recycling is pretty absurd. Due to the quantity of labour required in recycling vs mining, it seems that a number like this could only be applicable in countries with very low labour costs and lax health and safety standards (ie: China). On top of that, there's a huge range in mining costs depending on the location of the mine and nature of the ore deposit. The study suggests that its findings about this specific industry in China could be applied to other countries, but that's not true for the same reason why you wouldn't build iPhones in America.
2) There's no mention of the cost of "gathering" the e-waste. Sure, in China it's cheap because everyone sends them their waste. In fact, they get paid to receive the e-waste. In reality, there's a massive cost attached to the recycling effort and shipping. How much does it cost to get an old computer from someone's apartment in the US to a recycling centre in China? So you're not comparing apples to apples, because a recycling centre in China does not have an "extraction" cost like a mine in China has. That "extraction" cost is paid for by recycling programs & e-waste taxes in other countries. A study that looks at that entire chain would be more interesting.
3) This goes without saying but the quantities recovered from recycling can never actually replace mining. Chile alone produces ~5.6 million tonnes of copper per year. You would need 12 billion televisions (per year) to replace this production as per this study.
That being said, recycling of electronics is a critical issue and needs to be pursued. But, as explained above, it's hard to envision any kind of economic model comparable to mining. Governments receive royalties for ore mined on their territory, but Governments collect taxes which are spent on recycling programs to gather e-waste. If what this study is saying is actually true from an all in cost perspective, and would somehow be applicable to other countries, metal extraction from recycling would be profitable enough for private industry to launch electronic recycling programs and even pay royalties to governments for the privilege of doing so. That is not happening.
Though it's fun to imagine a "recycling claim" system where companies compete for the right to collect people's old electronics across certain territories, that would certainly solve a lot of problems posed by e-waste.
EDIT: Yes, the study claims it includes "waste collection, labor, energy, material and transportation" costs. But this is from the recycler's perspective, in China. It's an important distinction. Chinese recylers don't have to worry about driving a little recycling truck through Manhattan, collecting people's discarded CRTs. They receive massive, concentrated quantities of discarded electronics, at their doorstep, for free. From there the study begins counting the cost of collection, sorting, transportation, etc. But there's huge collection and transportation costs that lead up to the Chinese recycler's collection point.
DrWigglesMcGulicutty on April 6th, 2018 at 13:17 UTC »
Not sure why this study pretends to be a new idea. This is already a massive industry. Values of e-waste components are well established.