The biggest problem recycle faces is not technology (this is not unexpected), it is supply chain. Getting the tons of waste from people's houses to a large recycling facility is an expensive and cumbersome challenge. Creating the concept that the old mattress has a "value" is a wrong idea, it has a cost, much like with batteries and tires these mattresses need to have a recycle fee attached to the price of sale, the central fund used then to pay for the logistics.
A quick thought exercise, how much would you have to be paid to take your mattress to your local "large recycle facility"... the value of the 20kg of recycled materials maybe after processing (that includes the processing cost) is $20 -$40...If it was much more, mattresses would be very expensive.
It is something we need to do, we just need a good business model...think of a $1,000 mattress needing a $100 recycle fee in the sale price. It could work
I remember attending some seminars about Niaga when I was at DSM and thinking similar things.
The logistics are *hard*. A foam mattress typically absorbs a substantial amount of water during use and by the end of its life may weigh up to 40% *more* than when new. I feel like in large metro areas there need to be receiving facilities that dramatically simplify logistics by dehydrating mattresses, chopping them up, and vacuum sealing them in a transportation friendly manner. That also simplifies pickup of recycling feedstock.
Roman is absolutely right that a mattress must be considered a feedstock for an end product rather than a valuable asset. That kind of focus allows one to innovate realistic path to value generation rather than wishful thinking and green washing/marketing proposals.
The other question I have is the energy and %recovery state of the art in reversing a polyurethane reaction. It is *much* easier to recycle rPET because 1) it's not cross-linked, 2) polyesters can undergo simple hydrolysis while polyurethanes form a much more stable bond.
I've seen "green" feedstocks offered on the market at 2x the price with 1/4 the supply chain certainty (which is already fraught). As much as I want to make my products as green as possible, doing so to the maximum possible extent is both fiscally and strategically irresponsible. You cannot create a sustainable product with an unsustainable commitment to your customers on quality and supply. Perhaps the polyol feedstocks can be blended into commodity feedstocks at quality and served as a product that's not distinguished, if they can get their marketeers and publicity folks to be ok with that.
The biggest problem recycle faces is not technology (this is not unexpected), it is supply chain. Getting the tons of waste from people's houses to a large recycling facility is an expensive and cumbersome challenge. Creating the concept that the old mattress has a "value" is a wrong idea, it has a cost, much like with batteries and tires these mattresses need to have a recycle fee attached to the price of sale, the central fund used then to pay for the logistics.
A quick thought exercise, how much would you have to be paid to take your mattress to your local "large recycle facility"... the value of the 20kg of recycled materials maybe after processing (that includes the processing cost) is $20 -$40...If it was much more, mattresses would be very expensive.
It is something we need to do, we just need a good business model...think of a $1,000 mattress needing a $100 recycle fee in the sale price. It could work
I remember attending some seminars about Niaga when I was at DSM and thinking similar things.
The logistics are *hard*. A foam mattress typically absorbs a substantial amount of water during use and by the end of its life may weigh up to 40% *more* than when new. I feel like in large metro areas there need to be receiving facilities that dramatically simplify logistics by dehydrating mattresses, chopping them up, and vacuum sealing them in a transportation friendly manner. That also simplifies pickup of recycling feedstock.
Roman is absolutely right that a mattress must be considered a feedstock for an end product rather than a valuable asset. That kind of focus allows one to innovate realistic path to value generation rather than wishful thinking and green washing/marketing proposals.
The other question I have is the energy and %recovery state of the art in reversing a polyurethane reaction. It is *much* easier to recycle rPET because 1) it's not cross-linked, 2) polyesters can undergo simple hydrolysis while polyurethanes form a much more stable bond.
I've seen "green" feedstocks offered on the market at 2x the price with 1/4 the supply chain certainty (which is already fraught). As much as I want to make my products as green as possible, doing so to the maximum possible extent is both fiscally and strategically irresponsible. You cannot create a sustainable product with an unsustainable commitment to your customers on quality and supply. Perhaps the polyol feedstocks can be blended into commodity feedstocks at quality and served as a product that's not distinguished, if they can get their marketeers and publicity folks to be ok with that.