Way OT, but hopefully others find it interesting... On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Jim Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find this an interesting argument, but I'd like to see some real analysis > (with numbers), or at least sources. > > If you're right, I'm doing it wrong (3 old trucks (2 toyota landcruisers, > one 67 chevy converted to a flatbed) + selling new computer components). > > I don't see much evidence (in the US) for the post-consumer recycling of > vehicles.
I was wrong about 90%+ of automobiles by weight being recycled, I think I got that mixed up with lead-acid batteries. Automobiles are recycled about 75% by weight - from what I understand, it's the most highly recycled "appliances" there are. Just Google for "automobile recycling". In terms of emissions, new vehicles are so much less polluting. In terms of energy expenditure, it's only worth replacing if you are replacing it with something more efficient. > And computers get replaced far more often. The newest car I own is a 1988 > landcruiser. The other is a 1974. I can't imagine running pfsense on a > circa 1988 computer. Nope. And how much of your typical PC do you think is recycled by weight? The vast majority of them get sent off to China where some poor kid melts the thing down releasing all sorts of toxins into their local environment. Back on topic - pfSense is great in that it's perfectly functional for the vast majority of users on something as small and inexpensive as an ALIX box with a 400-500MHz CPU and 128-256MB ram. This means you could run pfSense on 10 year old hardware (that's about what was common 10 years ago) without any issues if you want. Of course, in all these cases, you need to look at how much energy goes in to production, and how much goes in during use. Unfortunately, there are so many variables involved that it's difficult to say when it's better to replace something with something new - but in general - the longer you plan on using something, the quicker it makes sense to replace that something with something more efficient. -Dave
