How e-scrap is processed

Originally Posted by rbrooks715

the caps were one of the reasons and they did receive the most media. solder joints have been a problem and have caused several law suits. especially on the old rear projections tv's. that law suit is still going.

however, the traces on the boards have been just as big a problem with a lot less media exposure. most of those mb failures have been in the sff and usff units. tho it does occur in larger case profiles that have been upgraded to higher watt cpu's and graphic cards. or that use multiple drive arrays. the traces simply melted from heat. the most common problem in electronics.

What you stated has nothing to do with gold plating, regardless if it's thin or thick gold plating, gold melts at 1948 degrees F. So the gold traces will not melt if the electronic equipment heats up. The equipment would have to burn really hot before the gold would melt. The only case where gold traces could possibly melt would be if there was a continuous arc of electricity that created a plasma stream hot enough to melt noble metals. And I believe I am correct in stating that the equipment would fail long before an electrical arc of that temperature could be created, let alone sustained long enough to melt the gold plating on a mother board. Solder could melt, but that's only because lead is involved, and only because lead melts at 621.5 degrees F and is alloyed with other metals who's melting temp is lowered when alloyed with lead. If you have read anywhere that gold traces on motherboards has melted due to the motherboard heating up, I would like to see that article, it's simply not true. Furthermore, gold does not corrode, it doesn't dissolve under normal conditions, not unless it is in the presence of a strong acid, and strong oxidizer.

Originally Posted by rbrooks715

this is not as common in the commercial and industrial arena but it is more common today than 20 years ago.

the prevailing marketing seems to show that the public is willing to deal with these failures. which will only encourage more of the same 'cheap' production.

i do agree that we have not seen a discernible reduction in recoverable materials from the latest generation of circuit boards. yet.

there was a large drop in recoverable material from the boards produced from 98 ish to 05 in comparison to previous generations. those currently make up the majority of recycled material.

In 2002 gold prices started to skyrocket, industry responded by replacing older plating technology with newer, more efficient technology. However, gold prices raised to a point that made it even more profitable to recover precious metals from these new boards. So the new plating technology didn't affect the recycle industry at all, contrary, it was more profitable than ever to recover those precious metals.

Originally Posted by rbrooks715

we have not seen the newer generation boards in sufficient quantity to assess just how much lower that recovery may be.

the circuit board manufacturers continue to lower their bid/costs per sq inch per demands from the computer manufacturers. those lower costs are directly related to the decreasing use of, and type of, plating and trace materials.

We are talking about the profitability of recovering precious metals from e-waste. Think about what you are saying, you are claiming that electronics fail faster. This would create even more e-waste, making even more precious metals available for processing. If people are replacing electronics twice as fast, that means twice as less precious metals could be used and the cost of processing that scrap wouldn't really go up that much, and industry would respond paying less so as to keep the same net profit margin.

Originally Posted by rbrooks715

simply put. we will see more circuit boards being used in more items. the recyclable value of those boards is/was the question. from several different views. adding a second processing line must be a viable investment. roi and cap. even more important, you must continue to have a viable feed stock. if the board prices were to drop,( ie. low grade), how would that impact your incoming material volume.

how many of the current or potential future 'scrappers' would continue if the average board was a $.25 / lb pricing?

at what point does the cost to recycle a product over come the return of that recycled product.


as you stated, the pm is what drives the price, and the return. eliminate the pm from the product and you have a pricing system that will soon resemble sheet metal.

how many of the current sellers of circuit boards will continue to recycle electronics for sheet metal pricing.

you are not going to sustain a circuit board processing facility on plastic, glass and base, (low end), metals. the cost of that processing is simply too high.
there has been a huge increase in the number of recycling centers and individuals. yet the number of new board processors is not increasing. it is why we see an increasing lead time from current processors. the volume of material has increased, but the capacity to process has not.

This is not a circuit board facility, watch the video. However, even if it was a circuit board facility, the very way circuit boards are usually processed by refineries is to incinerate, and recover values from the ashed material. This same process is used for many other types of waste that contain precious metals, so that particular system would not be affected even if e-waste was not available tomorrow to process.

So long as you keep the same net profit margin, and adjust your purchasing of material accordingly, no matter what industry does you will make the same profit margin and if efficient can even increase it. It's business, you operate as a business in the ways a business is suppose to. It seems you assume that the same prices would be paid for less profitable material, that is not the way to run a business, nor the way industry responds to markets. If the material is worth less, you buy it for less, thus keeping the same net profit.

Originally Posted by rbrooks715

the financing for a facility is not the tough part. the time frame and permitting is far more difficult. and at this time, a new processing facility does not pass long term viability.

Where did you read that, where are the figures. I have posted a lot of information proving otherwise beyond any doubts. Where are you getting the information you are basing your argument on? You are just simply wrong in your assumptions. You cannot post an opinion as if it were a fact and then base your entire argument on it. New processing facilities are obviously needed. Matter of fact, we could increase the number by 80% before we ever hit saturation, considering that under 20% of all the e-waste generated in this country is currently being processed. And that's just e-waste, that's not counting all the other material you see being put on the belt, in the video I provided in the post that started this thread.

Originally Posted by rbrooks715

no. i am just giving a different view. a longer term view of this particular business.

If that is your opinion of long term viability, what in the world are you doing here, on this forum, concerning yourself with processing e-waste at all?

Originally Posted by rbrooks715

to be honest, i think the politicians are going to do more to screw this up than anything else. govt. is broke and they see this industry as their new cash cow. between all of the new proposed permits, licenses and taxes, many currently in the business will simply find find an easier path to tread.

The US Government does not see recycling as their cash cow, considering that 45% of our gross national product has something to do with war, in some way, I think the US Government is more concerned about which war to get involved in so we can keep churning out weapons, which keeps our economy going and allows us to purchase the cheap electronics China creates, and we recycle. I am not sure how you can even state something like that when not only state governments are putting up huge amounts of cash in the forms of loans, redemptions, tax breaks and out right grants, but the Federal Government, and it's agencies such as the EPA as well.

If you don't see this industry as being a growth industry, again, why are you on this forum at all?

There exists no entrepreneurs that have had any amount of success who have built that success on the belief that they could not do so. Contrary, all have believed they could.

When I was in the grocery business we had a saying. Success comes in Cans, not cannots. I think this also applies to recycling, success comes in recycled cans, not in unrecycled cannots.

Scott