Alan B.,
> Imagine Adian,
Close - at least you've got the letters right!

>how much more economic activity the would be if we emulate mother nature herself and just recycle everything
I imagine the increase would be less than 1%. Some materials would get slightly cheaper but not enough to revolutionise anything.

>All that prevents just that! Is a source of reliable dispatchable power.
I don't know where you got that ridiculous idea. It's labour costs, not power costs, that are the biggest obstacle.to recycling more. Indeed recycling typically uses less energy than mining.

As for the rest of you suggestions, I can explain why you're being completely ridiculous if you like, but despite your denial I think you already know.

Come on Aiden, you are at it again.

Recycling, just like global warming, sounds great if you don't think too much about it.

However apart from the recycling of materials at the factory that makes stuff, domestic recycling is totally waste.

It takes much more energy & materials to gather, sort, assemble in quantities, & redistribute, before remanufacturing with rubbish, than is saved by using the stuff. That's why most of it was shipped to China before they wised up & rejected the stuff.

Like all things green, you don't have to look too deeply to find another catastrophe, once a greenie is involved.

"Put simply, thorium-based reactors are still not economically viable for the most part...The result is that at least for now thorium reactors are unlikely to gain the upper hand over uranium reactors. It’s possible that thorium reactors could become more dominant in the future, but a lot of work will have to be done to get to that point.

This is an updated version of an article originally published by the Investing News Network in 2015."

Experts say that molten salt uranium reactors will be cheaper to run.

At what again, Hasbeen?

>It takes much more energy & materials to gather, sort, assemble in quantities, & redistribute, before remanufacturing with rubbish, than is saved by using the stuff.

Do you have any evidence at all for that claim? It runs contrary not just to what's normally claimed, but also to common sense as starting with partially processed material avoids a lot of the energy intensive processes that starting from scratch would involve.

>That's why most of it was shipped to China before they wised up & rejected the stuff.

ITYF that has a lot more to do with China's low labour costs than energy costs.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
Bhutan's Gross National Happiness indicator is not an excuse to neglect basic physical needs. Indeed physical wellbeing is part of it.

I suggest you take a look at what Bhutan's GNH indicator actually involves. After that, you're welcome to declare it to be useless propaganda (or whatever else you regard it as being). But until then, please don't diss what you're too lazy to try to understand!

Well done Dr Dr Dr Keith
May I add to the discussion about the use of GDP by pointing out that the OECD Chief Statistician who prepares the GDP figures has led the development of a complementary and/or possibly alternative statistics on "Wellbeing". Refer to https://www.oecd.org/gender/Durand.pdf

Her work on the "OECD Better Life Index" is published at http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/life-satisfaction/
She posted a contribution I made to her Paris workshop in February 2017 on "Well-being opportunities" at: http://www.oecd.org/statistics/Workshop-on-Measuring-Business-Impacts-on-Peoples-Well-being-Paper-Turnbull.pdf

Aiden, I have to say that after many years of following this 'recycling' circus, and being involved in the engineering and transport industry, I have, over time, begun to realise, with the information and the actual physical and cost analysis, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify recycling in many products, not all, but many.
Enough to either find newer and more cost effective ways of handling the process of recycling to the point where either some new, cost neutral method is found or we have to consider giving some, or most of it, up altogether.
The greens and like minded are just not the ones to be giving advice on this topic.
They are not educated enough and certainly not experienced enough to give advice on this issue.
They lack the commercial and economic credentials and experience to even begin to offer ANY commercially viable or credible ideas or suggestions.
As has been the MO of the greens and Co, they virtue shame people into making themselves out to be the virtuous ones, when all along they are redundant and ineffective, to the point of being dangerous and irresponsible.
If we want to increase our GDP and our individual well being, firstly let's get rid of the greens.
Then when they are dead and buried, never to darken our doorsteps again, we can move forward with a positive vision, and clear minds uncontaminated by the greens and the like, to come up with new ideas, and ones that work, for everyone!