Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Restaurants Create a Mound of Plastic Waste. Some Are Working to Fix That.

News Feed
Tuesday, May 28, 2024

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. At Johnny’s Luncheonette, a family-style diner in the greater Boston area serving sandwiches and breakfast all day, customers can take their meal to go in a lime-green, durable plastic container that is borrowed like a library book and designed to be reused hundreds, if not thousands, of times by other restaurant patrons. Customers don’t pay extra for the reusable take-out box. They simply need to download an app called Recirclable, and—to avoid paying a $15 fee—return the container within two weeks to one of 14 restaurants participating in Recirclable’s reuse program. “Reuse is just smart. It’s smart resource-wise. It’s smart cost-wise.” Johnny’s Luncheonette is among a small but growing number of restaurants taking steps to move away from single-use plastic take-out containers, which usually end up in the trash because they can’t be recycled. Worse yet, mismanaged plastic waste eventually enters the oceans, where it kills sea creatures that ingest it and breaks apart into toxic microplastics the size of a lentil or smaller. Restaurants and food services use nearly 1 trillion pieces of disposable food service ware and packaging annually in the U.S., according to Upstream, a reuse advocacy organization. Johnny’s Luncheonette began offering the reusable take-out containers earlier this year because its owner, Kay Masterson, was tired of the Sisyphean search for an environmentally friendly disposable take-out box. “Ideas like Recirclable are a much better option because it takes out the conversation of, ‘Well, which takeout container is less bad?’” she said. “Reuse is just smart. It’s smart resource-wise. It’s smart cost-wise.” Masterson pays more per piece for the reusable packaging but said that she expects costs will drop below disposable packaging as more customers use the service. Thus far, only dozens of customers have selected the reusable option. In the kitchen at Johnny’s Luncheonette with a meal to go in a reusable container. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox) Many case studies show that while reusable containers cost more upfront, businesses start to save fairly quickly. What’s more, “It’s not just about saving money but about building resiliency so that you have shorter supply chains without so much global dependency,” said Elizabeth Balkan, director of Reloop America, at Reloop, a nonprofit operating in both Europe and the U.S. Moving from single use to reuse is one of the biggest opportunities for reducing plastic pollution, according to a report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a reuse pioneer. Reuse services targeting food businesses are growing quickly in the U.S., especially for arenas and stadiums, colleges and K-12 schools, corporate offices, and other institutions. Startups offering logistics and dishwashing are proliferating, as are nonprofit organizations providing strategic support, funding, and advocacy. But reuse is still far from the norm in the U.S. Communities need shared reuse infrastructure for the practice to pick up steam, according to Crystal Dreisbach, CEO of Upstream. Cohesive, city-scale systems could help shift consumer habits and increase the volume of materials being reused, which is essential for both economic and environmental impact. Enabling policies would hasten the transition. “You can’t have consumers running all over town, dropping off things in [different] places. You’re going to need big infrastructure that will accommodate this massive systemic change away from disposable to reusable,” Dreisbach said. Reuse on the Rise Reuse services are emerging in cities across the country, from the Bay Area to Brooklyn. Startups like Vessel and Turn Systems offer customers a reusable cup option at the point of sale that can be returned at kiosks or bins. DeliverZero provides reusable take-out containers at some 150 restaurants in New York City, Boulder, Colorado, and California, and at Whole Foods stores in Boulder. Usefull offers stainless steel containers on college campuses. Bold Reuse services large venues in Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Kansas City, and Phoenix, while Dispatch Goods in San Francisco and ReUso in Chicago serve restaurants and institutions. Dishwashing and sanitizing systems are also emerging, since they’re key to any reuse system. Restaurants handle their own dishwashing in Recirclable’s system. Other reuse companies provide dishwashing, including via mobile units at large venues, or contract it out to large washing stations like Re:Dish, which operates in New York City and Philadelphia and is equipped with technologies for tracking and sorting packaging. ReThink Disposable provides free reuse consulting to restaurants, institutions, and large venues in Minnesota, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New England. The nonprofit also raises funding to buy reusable packaging and/or install dishwashers at restaurants and food delivery programs run by nonprofits, such as Truro Community Kitchen. Reusable containers come in ceramic, glass, stainless steel, and plastic, depending on the venue, but, for takeout, “most restaurant owners prefer durable, No. 5 plastic [polypropylene type] because they store and stack easily,” are lightweight, and can be microwaved, said Amber Schmidt, New England zero-waste specialist at ReThink Disposable. While “reusable plastic may be an imperfect solution, it is still a critically important step in the right direction,” toward an overall reduction in plastic packaging, Balkan said. Volume Is Key Recirclable was co-founded in 2021 by Margie Bell, who worked for decades on ecommerce and point-of-sale applications in the software industry. “Our vision was, ‘Let’s have this happening at every restaurant and, like library books, you borrow at one and you return to another.’”  Recirclable’s volume is small. Its users are dedicated customers who follow it from restaurant to restaurant, Bell told Civil Eats. “We’re in the thousands—and we’d love to be in the tens and hundreds of thousands—but we have to grow the network” of restaurants. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox) “The biggest hurdle with Recirclable is just getting the word out there and changing habits,” said Masterson. Recirclable’s small network of restaurants also limits its growth. Customers must live near a restaurant where they can return the container, or the system doesn’t work for them. The number of steps required is another barrier. Johnny’s Luncheonette Manager David Martinez said that when some interested people learn they have to download an app and put in their credit card, they decline. “We recognize that can cause friction,” said Bell, who won an award from the EPA to develop a new system, launching this year, that will be accessed with one tap of a credit card. Recirclable is not alone in having difficulty reaching volume—“the cornerstone” of reuse, Dreisbach said. “You cannot make the system work, you cannot make the economics work, until you have volume.” Re:Dish’s washing station in Brooklyn, for example, can handle 75,000 reusables daily, but “we’re not anywhere near there right now,” CEO and founder Carolyn Vanderlip told Civil Eats. Re:Dish is on track to handle 4.5 million containers this year, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the trillion pieces of packaging used in the food sector, she said. Transformational Change To scale up reuse, Dreisbach envisions municipal waste and recycling centers becoming reuse centers. Reuse represents “a really cool new revenue stream” for recycling facilities, which struggle with volatility in recovered materials markets, she said. Private investment, government funding—including from the Inflation Reduction Act—and forward service contracts with large anchor clients such as arenas could support such infrastructure development. The nonprofit Perpetual, in fact, is now working to design and implement city-scale reusable food service ware solutions in collaboration with Ann Arbor, Michigan; Hilo, Hawaii; Galveston, Texas; and Savannah, Georgia. Laws mandating reuse would hasten the transition, as they have in Europe, where reuse is more widespread, Balkan told Civil Eats. Oregon, California, and Maine have passed laws moving in this direction that will raise funds for reuse, she said. But big consumer brands also need to lead the way on shaping consumer attitudes about reuse, said Driesbach. “They have a great deal of power to decide what that packaging is,” she said, adding that consumers are ready for reuse. “COVID really showed us what appeared in our trash cans at home because we were all getting takeout. Awareness about trash has increased hugely in the last five years.” The post Restaurants Create a Mound of Plastic Waste. Some Are Working to Fix That. appeared first on Civil Eats.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox. Customers don’t pay extra for the reusable take-out box. They simply need to download an app called Recirclable, and—to avoid paying a $15 fee—return the container within two weeks […] The post Restaurants Create a Mound of Plastic Waste. Some Are Working to Fix That. appeared first on Civil Eats.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Deep Dish, our members-only newsletter. Become a member today and get the next issue directly in your inbox.

At Johnny’s Luncheonette, a family-style diner in the greater Boston area serving sandwiches and breakfast all day, customers can take their meal to go in a lime-green, durable plastic container that is borrowed like a library book and designed to be reused hundreds, if not thousands, of times by other restaurant patrons.

Customers don’t pay extra for the reusable take-out box. They simply need to download an app called Recirclable, and—to avoid paying a $15 fee—return the container within two weeks to one of 14 restaurants participating in Recirclable’s reuse program.

“Reuse is just smart. It’s smart resource-wise. It’s smart cost-wise.”

Johnny’s Luncheonette is among a small but growing number of restaurants taking steps to move away from single-use plastic take-out containers, which usually end up in the trash because they can’t be recycled. Worse yet, mismanaged plastic waste eventually enters the oceans, where it kills sea creatures that ingest it and breaks apart into toxic microplastics the size of a lentil or smaller.

Restaurants and food services use nearly 1 trillion pieces of disposable food service ware and packaging annually in the U.S., according to Upstream, a reuse advocacy organization.

Johnny’s Luncheonette began offering the reusable take-out containers earlier this year because its owner, Kay Masterson, was tired of the Sisyphean search for an environmentally friendly disposable take-out box. “Ideas like Recirclable are a much better option because it takes out the conversation of, ‘Well, which takeout container is less bad?’” she said. “Reuse is just smart. It’s smart resource-wise. It’s smart cost-wise.”

Masterson pays more per piece for the reusable packaging but said that she expects costs will drop below disposable packaging as more customers use the service. Thus far, only dozens of customers have selected the reusable option.

In the kitchen at Johnny’s Luncheonette with a meal to go in a reusable container. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox)

Many case studies show that while reusable containers cost more upfront, businesses start to save fairly quickly. What’s more, “It’s not just about saving money but about building resiliency so that you have shorter supply chains without so much global dependency,” said Elizabeth Balkan, director of Reloop America, at Reloop, a nonprofit operating in both Europe and the U.S.

Moving from single use to reuse is one of the biggest opportunities for reducing plastic pollution, according to a report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a reuse pioneer. Reuse services targeting food businesses are growing quickly in the U.S., especially for arenas and stadiums, colleges and K-12 schools, corporate offices, and other institutions.

Startups offering logistics and dishwashing are proliferating, as are nonprofit organizations providing strategic support, funding, and advocacy. But reuse is still far from the norm in the U.S. Communities need shared reuse infrastructure for the practice to pick up steam, according to Crystal Dreisbach, CEO of Upstream. Cohesive, city-scale systems could help shift consumer habits and increase the volume of materials being reused, which is essential for both economic and environmental impact. Enabling policies would hasten the transition.

“You can’t have consumers running all over town, dropping off things in [different] places. You’re going to need big infrastructure that will accommodate this massive systemic change away from disposable to reusable,” Dreisbach said.

Reuse on the Rise

Reuse services are emerging in cities across the country, from the Bay Area to Brooklyn. Startups like Vessel and Turn Systems offer customers a reusable cup option at the point of sale that can be returned at kiosks or bins. DeliverZero provides reusable take-out containers at some 150 restaurants in New York City, Boulder, Colorado, and California, and at Whole Foods stores in Boulder. Usefull offers stainless steel containers on college campuses. Bold Reuse services large venues in Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Kansas City, and Phoenix, while Dispatch Goods in San Francisco and ReUso in Chicago serve restaurants and institutions.

Dishwashing and sanitizing systems are also emerging, since they’re key to any reuse system. Restaurants handle their own dishwashing in Recirclable’s system. Other reuse companies provide dishwashing, including via mobile units at large venues, or contract it out to large washing stations like Re:Dish, which operates in New York City and Philadelphia and is equipped with technologies for tracking and sorting packaging.

ReThink Disposable provides free reuse consulting to restaurants, institutions, and large venues in Minnesota, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New England. The nonprofit also raises funding to buy reusable packaging and/or install dishwashers at restaurants and food delivery programs run by nonprofits, such as Truro Community Kitchen.

Reusable containers come in ceramic, glass, stainless steel, and plastic, depending on the venue, but, for takeout, “most restaurant owners prefer durable, No. 5 plastic [polypropylene type] because they store and stack easily,” are lightweight, and can be microwaved, said Amber Schmidt, New England zero-waste specialist at ReThink Disposable.

While “reusable plastic may be an imperfect solution, it is still a critically important step in the right direction,” toward an overall reduction in plastic packaging, Balkan said.

Volume Is Key

Recirclable was co-founded in 2021 by Margie Bell, who worked for decades on ecommerce and point-of-sale applications in the software industry. “Our vision was, ‘Let’s have this happening at every restaurant and, like library books, you borrow at one and you return to another.’” 

Recirclable’s volume is small. Its users are dedicated customers who follow it from restaurant to restaurant, Bell told Civil Eats. “We’re in the thousands—and we’d love to be in the tens and hundreds of thousands—but we have to grow the network” of restaurants.

(Photo credit: Meg Wilcox)

“The biggest hurdle with Recirclable is just getting the word out there and changing habits,” said Masterson.

Recirclable’s small network of restaurants also limits its growth. Customers must live near a restaurant where they can return the container, or the system doesn’t work for them. The number of steps required is another barrier. Johnny’s Luncheonette Manager David Martinez said that when some interested people learn they have to download an app and put in their credit card, they decline.

“We recognize that can cause friction,” said Bell, who won an award from the EPA to develop a new system, launching this year, that will be accessed with one tap of a credit card.

Recirclable is not alone in having difficulty reaching volume—“the cornerstone” of reuse, Dreisbach said. “You cannot make the system work, you cannot make the economics work, until you have volume.”

Re:Dish’s washing station in Brooklyn, for example, can handle 75,000 reusables daily, but “we’re not anywhere near there right now,” CEO and founder Carolyn Vanderlip told Civil Eats. Re:Dish is on track to handle 4.5 million containers this year, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the trillion pieces of packaging used in the food sector, she said.

Transformational Change

To scale up reuse, Dreisbach envisions municipal waste and recycling centers becoming reuse centers. Reuse represents “a really cool new revenue stream” for recycling facilities, which struggle with volatility in recovered materials markets, she said.

Private investment, government funding—including from the Inflation Reduction Act—and forward service contracts with large anchor clients such as arenas could support such infrastructure development. The nonprofit Perpetual, in fact, is now working to design and implement city-scale reusable food service ware solutions in collaboration with Ann Arbor, Michigan; Hilo, Hawaii; Galveston, Texas; and Savannah, Georgia.

Laws mandating reuse would hasten the transition, as they have in Europe, where reuse is more widespread, Balkan told Civil Eats. Oregon, California, and Maine have passed laws moving in this direction that will raise funds for reuse, she said.

But big consumer brands also need to lead the way on shaping consumer attitudes about reuse, said Driesbach. “They have a great deal of power to decide what that packaging is,” she said, adding that consumers are ready for reuse. “COVID really showed us what appeared in our trash cans at home because we were all getting takeout. Awareness about trash has increased hugely in the last five years.”

The post Restaurants Create a Mound of Plastic Waste. Some Are Working to Fix That. appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

From bombs to glass: Hanford site can now transform nuclear waste

The long-awaited development is a key step in cleaning up the nation’s most polluted nuclear waste site. Construction on the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant began in 2002.

SEATTLE — For much of the 20th century, a sprawling complex in the desert of southeastern Washington state turned out most of the plutonium used in the nation’s nuclear arsenal, from the first atomic bomb to the arms race that fueled the Cold War.Now, after decades of planning and billions of dollars of investment, the site is turning liquid nuclear and chemical waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation into a much safer substance: glass.State regulators on Wednesday issued the final permit Hanford needed for workers to remove more waste from often-leaky underground tanks, mix it in a crucible with additives, and heat it above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The mixture then cools in stainless steel vats and solidifies into glass — still radioactive, but far more stable to keep in storage, and less likely to seep into the soil or the nearby Columbia River.The long-awaited development is a key step in cleaning up the nation’s most polluted nuclear waste site. Construction on the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant began in 2002.“We are at the precipice of a really significant moment in Hanford’s history,” said Casey Sixkiller, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, in a video interview.Hanford’s secret was a key part of the Manhattan ProjectThe roughly 600-square-mile reservation is near the confluence of two of the Pacific Northwest’s most significant rivers, the Snake and the Columbia, in an area important to Native American tribes for millennia.Wartime planners selected the area because it was isolated and had access to cold water and hydroelectric power. In early 1943, the U.S. government seized the land for a secret project, displacing roughly 2,000 residents, including farmers.Tens of thousands of workers then responded to newspaper ads around the country promising good jobs to support the Allied effort to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan in World War II, and a new company town arose in the desert.Most of the workers had no idea they were involved in building the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor until the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and President Harry S. Truman announced the existence of the Manhattan Project to the world.Hanford would grow to include nine nuclear reactors churning out plutonium for the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The last of these was shut down in 1987. Two years later, Washington state, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached an agreement to clean up the site.FILE - Caution signs are shown at a gate on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Thursday, June 2, 2022, in Richland, Wash.AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, FileToday, Hanford is focused on clean-upSeven of the nine reactors have been “cocooned” to prevent contamination from escaping until radiation levels drop enough to allow for dismantling, near the end of the century.There are also 177 giant underground tanks that hold some 56 million gallons of highly radioactive and chemically hazardous waste. Those tanks are well past their projected lifespan of 25 years. More than one-third have leaked in the past, and three are currently leaking.During its years producing plutonium for nuclear weapons, Hanford dumped effluent directly into the Columbia River and into ineffective containment ponds, polluting the surrounding groundwater and contaminating the food chain of wildlife that depends on it, according to a 2013 government assessment.Now Hanford is focused on cleanup, with an annual budget of around $3 billion.Turning nuclear waste into glass is effective — but expensiveEncasing radioactive waste in glass — called “vitrification” — has been recognized since at least the 1980s as an effective method for neutralizing it. There are plans for two facilities at Hanford: the one now approved to process low-level nuclear waste after repeated delays, and an adjacent facility for the high-level waste that remains under construction.More than $30 billion has been spent on the plants so far. The U.S. Department of Energy, which oversees Hanford, has faced an Oct. 15 deadline to have turned some of its stored waste into glass, per a cleanup schedule and consent decree involving the EPA and Washington state.The first waste to be mixed with glass will include pretreated radioactive cesium and strontium, according to a statement from the Department of Energy.Washington state Democrats question Trump administration’s commitmentThe Energy Department fired Roger Jarrell, its main overseer of the Hanford cleanup, earlier this month, prompting concerns about the Trump administration’s commitment. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said Energy Secretary Chris Wright told her by phone that he was looking to stall the vitrification operations.That prompted outrage from Washington state officials. Gov. Bob Ferguson, joined at a news conference by tribal leaders and labor representatives, threatened legal action.But Wright insisted the department had changed nothing, and on Sept. 17, a deputy signed paperwork allowing vitrification to proceed following approvals by state regulators.“Although there are challenges, we are committed to beginning operations by October 15, 2025,” Wright said in a statement last month. ”As always, we are prioritizing the health and safety of both the workforce and the community as we work to meet our nation’s need to safely and efficiently dispose of nuclear waste.”On Wednesday, with state approval issued, Ferguson urged the Energy Department to follow through.“Our state has done our part to start up the Waste Treatment Plant,” said Ferguson, in a statement. “Now the federal government needs to live up to its responsibilities and clean up what they left behind.”In a statement ahead of the government shutdown, Department of Energy said it would be able to continue all of its operations for one to five days. After that, the department’s work will cease unless operations are “related to the safety of human life and the protection of property.”--By Cedar Attansio/The Associated PressIf you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

From Bombs to Glass: Hanford Site Can Now Transform Nuclear Waste

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state produced plutonium for most of America's nuclear arsenal through the end of the Cold War

SEATTLE (AP) — For much of the 20th century, a sprawling complex in the desert of southeastern Washington state turned out most of the plutonium used in the nation’s nuclear arsenal, from the first atomic bomb to the arms race that fueled the Cold War.Now, after decades of planning and billions of dollars of investment, the site is turning liquid nuclear and chemical waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation into a much safer substance: glass.State regulators on Wednesday issued the final permit Hanford needed for workers to remove more waste from often-leaky underground tanks, mix it in a crucible with additives, and heat it above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 Celsius). The mixture then cools in stainless steel vats and solidifies into glass — still radioactive, but far more stable to keep in storage, and less likely to seep into the soil or the nearby Columbia River.“We are at the precipice of a really significant moment in Hanford’s history,” said Casey Sixkiller, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, in a video interview. Hanford's secret was a key part of the Manhattan Project The roughly 600-square-mile (1500-square-km) reservation is near the confluence of two of the Pacific Northwest’s most significant rivers, the Snake and the Columbia, in an area important to Native American tribes for millennia.Wartime planners selected the area because it was isolated and had access to cold water and hydroelectric power. In early 1943, the U.S. government seized the land for a secret project, displacing roughly 2,000 residents, including farmers.Tens of thousands of workers then responded to newspaper ads around the country promising good jobs to support the Allied effort to defeat Nazi Germany and Japan in World War II, and a new company town arose in the desert. Most of the workers had no idea they were involved in building the world's first full-scale plutonium production reactor until the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and President Harry S. Truman announced the existence of the Manhattan Project to the world.Hanford would grow to include nine nuclear reactors churning out plutonium for the nation's nuclear arsenal. The last of these was shut down in 1987. Two years later, Washington state, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached an agreement to clean up the site. Today, Hanford is focused on clean-up Seven of the nine reactors have been “cocooned” to prevent contamination from escaping until radiation levels drop enough to allow for dismantling, near the end of the century.There are also 177 giant underground tanks that hold some 56 million gallons (212 million liters) of highly radioactive and chemically hazardous waste. Those tanks are well past their projected lifespan of 25 years. More than one-third have leaked in the past, and three are currently leaking.During its years producing plutonium for nuclear weapons, Hanford dumped effluent directly into the Columbia River and into ineffective containment ponds, polluting the surrounding groundwater and contaminating the food chain of wildlife that depends on it, according to a 2013 government assessment. Turning nuclear waste into glass is effective — but expensive Encasing radioactive waste in glass — called “vitrification” — has been recognized since at least the 1980s as an effective method for neutralizing it. There are plans for two facilities at Hanford: the one now approved to process low-level nuclear waste after repeated delays, and an adjacent facility for the high-level waste that remains under construction.More than $30 billion has been spent on the plants so far. The U.S. Department of Energy, which oversees Hanford, has faced an Oct. 15 deadline to have turned some of its stored waste into glass, per a cleanup schedule and consent decree involving the EPA and Washington state. Washington state Democrats question Trump administration's commitment The Energy Department fired Roger Jarrell, its main overseer of the Hanford cleanup, earlier this month, prompting concerns about the Trump administration's commitment. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said Energy Secretary Chris Wright told her by phone that he was looking to stall the vitrification operations.That prompted outrage from Washington state officials. Gov. Bob Ferguson, joined at a news conference by tribal leaders and labor representatives, threatened legal action.But Wright insisted the department had changed nothing, and on Sept. 17, a deputy signed paperwork allowing vitrification to proceed following approvals by state regulators.“Although there are challenges, we are committed to beginning operations by October 15, 2025," Wright said in a statement last month. "As always, we are prioritizing the health and safety of both the workforce and the community as we work to meet our nation’s need to safely and efficiently dispose of nuclear waste.”On Wednesday, with state approval issued, Ferguson urged the Energy Department to follow through.“Our state has done our part to start up the Waste Treatment Plant,” said Ferguson, in a statement. “Now the federal government needs to live up to its responsibilities and clean up what they left behind.”In a statement ahead of the government shutdown, Department of Energy said it would be able to continue all of its operations for one to five days. After that, the department's work will cease unless operations are “related to the safety of human life and the protection of property.”Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

Venezuelan Students Help Turn Plastic Waste Into School Desks

MARACAIBO (Reuters) -Piles of discarded plastic and broken school furniture are being given a second life in northwestern Venezuela, where a local...

MARACAIBO (Reuters) -Piles of discarded plastic and broken school furniture are being given a second life in northwestern Venezuela, where a local foundation is turning waste into desks for students.El Zulia Recicla, based in Zulia state's capital, Maracaibo, has refurbished 160 desks so far using plastic waste collected by students.Instead of building new furniture, the foundation repairs damaged metal frames and replaces missing parts with molded plastic panels made in its workshop."We show people that the desks they use today – with damaged wood, falling apart – can be restored," said Nicolino Bracho, the foundation's research director.At Ramon Reinoso Nunez School, where students had been sitting on the floor or using backpacks as chairs, 20 desks have already been delivered."We have many issues with desks, because of course theft and wear over time take their toll," said school director Maritza Jaimes."We hoped they could take more, but we're grateful to have 20 restored ones," she said.The initiative, partly funded by the French embassy, aims to deliver 200 desks to 10 schools in vulnerable areas and is part of the foundation's broader effort to reduce plastic pollution and raise environmental awareness in the region.(Reporting by Mariela Nava and Efrain Otero)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Engineered Microbes Pull Critical Minerals from Mining Waste

Biomining uses engineered microbes to harvest critical minerals

October 1, 20255 min readMeet the Microbes That Munch Mountains of Mining WasteBiomining uses engineered microbes to harvest critical mineralsBy Vanessa Bates Ramirez edited by Sarah Lewin FrasierEscondida Mine, located in Chile’s Atacama Desert. The copper-bearing waste is poured into the impoundment area as a liquid (green region at image center) and dries to the lighter tan and gray color. Science History Images/Alamy Stock PhotoAt the northern edge of Chile’s Atacama Desert sits a pile of rocks that’s so big that you can see it from space—and it’s teeming with invisible activity. Billions of microbes are hard at work dissolving compounds in this giant mound of crushed ore from Escondida, the biggest copper mine on the planet.“Microbes are the world’s oldest miners,” says Liz Dennett, founder and CEO of the start-up Endolith Mining, based near Denver, Colo. “They’ve had billions of years to become incredibly good at eating rocks.”Scientists at Endolith and elsewhere are engineering microbes to get even better at this process, called biomining—to work faster, extract more copper and even pull out other kinds of minerals. Endolith tests different microbes to see which are most fit for the job and then exposes them to harsh conditions to further strengthen them. “Think of it like a superhero training camp,” Dennett says. In May the company’s engineered microbes demonstrated copper extraction superior to microbes found in nature; its first field deployments are scheduled for later this year.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Biomining, if it can be scaled up, could make it possible to decrease reliance on global supply chains, which are becoming ever more fragile. “If we can make biomining work, we can break the monopoly that states like China have on critical metals,” says Buz Barstow, a biological and environmental engineer at Cornell University. Barstow is leading a project called the Microbe-Mineral Atlas that catalogs microorganisms, their genes and how they interact with minerals. The project’s goal is to build genetically engineered microorganisms that can effectively mine critical metals.As many countries transition to renewable energy, they will require fewer fossil fuels but more minerals such as lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel and zinc. These are not only needed for wind turbines, solar panels and batteries; they’re also crucial for the laptops and cell phones we use every day. Copper demand, in particular, is set to skyrocket. Forecasts show we’ll need more copper in the next 30 years than has been mined throughout all of history. Much of the low-hanging fruit—that is, high-grade ore—has been picked, and mines have to work a lot harder than before to get the same quantity.Trucks hauling earth from Escondida.Cavan Images/Alamy Stock PhotoConventional mining techniques are resource-intensive, expensive and harmful to the environment. After using explosives and heavy machinery to extract ore from the earth, mining companies must isolate and purify the minerals in question. Often, that means breaking chemical bonds that keep minerals bound to sulfur in sulfide ores. This is most commonly done using heat through a process called smelting or acid through a process called leaching. Smelting requires extremely high temperatures, reached by burning fossil fuels or using a lot of electricity. On top of the carbon dioxide emissions this generates, burning sulfur produces toxic sulfur dioxide gas. Acid leaching, meanwhile, carries the risk of acid mine drainage, where fluids contaminate rivers or groundwater and harm the surrounding ecosystem. The sulfuric acid used for this process can cause harm before it even reaches mines. “Production of sulfuric acid is very nasty,” Dennett says. “There’s a lot of secondary and tertiary effects on the environment.”Microbes can do the same work as heat and acid, but their cost and environmental impact are much lower. “Microbes use at least six different mechanisms for biomining,” Barstow says. The most common is an oxidation-reduction reaction, or redox reaction, in which microbes break the chemical bonds in a sulfide ore by “eating” their sulfur and iron. This releases the minerals in the ore, breaking them down until they can dissolve in water. The mineral-rich solution is collected in a pond after it is drained from the rock and is then exposed to solvents and electricity that attract the minerals like a magnet while leaving water, acid and impurities behind.The microbes still need a small amount of sulfuric acid to kick-start the process of breaking down the ore. Piles of rock such as the one at Chile’s Escondida mine—called heap leaches—are sprayed with an acid-water mixture that only needs to be added once because microbes make more acid naturally as they break the ore’s chemical bonds. “Replacing [most] sulfuric acid is a big economic benefit, as it can often be the largest operating expense for a mine,” says Sasha Milshteyn, founder of Transition Biomining, a company that analyzes the DNA of microbes found in ores to develop custom additives for increased copper recovery.Though the process avoids toxic gas emissions, uses less energy and water than conventional methods and minimizes hazardous chemicals, it has its limitations. It’s slower than traditional mining: while smelting can take hours to days, and acid leaching takes days to weeks, microbes do their work over several months. They’re sensitive to pH, temperature, and moisture levels and can be killed off or slowed down by changes in any of these. And they still produce acidic solutions that need to be contained and treated. As Barstow puts it, “Biomining won’t be an environmental panacea; it will just be quite a bit better than what we do now.”The real promise of biomining is that it can squeeze more out of rocks than conventional methods do. “Modern mining technologies ‘skim the cream’ of economically valuable metals from a deposit and leave everything else behind in [waste rock called] tailings,” Barstow says.That waste is worth far more than it usually gets credit for. A study recently published in Science found that recovering the minerals in waste from existing U.S. mines could meet nearly all of the country’s critical mineral needs; recovering just 1 percent would substantially reduce import reliance for many elements. “If large mines just added additional recovery circuits to their process, this could bring needed minerals into production relatively quickly,” says the study’s lead author Elizabeth Holley, a mining engineer at the Colorado School of Mines.Copper mine waste can hold bits of tellurium, cobalt or zinc; coal ash can contain lithium, manganese and rare earth elements. The quantities are too small for conventional mines to bother with, but they’re not too small for microbes. Besides being used in heap leaches or pumped straight into the ground, microbes can be applied directly to waste streams, where they can pull out tiny amounts of minerals that can add up to be significant.Microbes may be the world’s oldest miners, but biomining as a technology is still new, Milshteyn notes, and doesn’t yet leverage the full complexity of microbial ecosystems. “The heaps that perform best in the field have thriving ecosystems of diverse microbes working together,” he says. “I think the next generation of biomining has to contend with that complexity.”It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Biomethane not viable for widespread use in UK home heating, report finds

Gas derived from farm waste can meet only 18% of current gas demand by 2050, despite claims of fossil fuel lobbyists, study findsGas derived from farm waste will never be an alternative to the widespread adoption of heat pumps, research shows, despite the claims of fossil fuel lobbyists.Biomethane, which comes mainly from “digesting” manure, sewage and other organic waste, has been touted as a low-carbon substitute for fossil fuel gas, for use in home heating. Proponents say it would be less disruptive than ripping out the UK’s current gas infrastructure and installing heat pumps. Continue reading...

Gas derived from farm waste will never be an alternative to the widespread adoption of heat pumps, research shows, despite the claims of fossil fuel lobbyists.Biomethane, which comes mainly from “digesting” manure, sewage and other organic waste, has been touted as a low-carbon substitute for fossil fuel gas, for use in home heating. Proponents say it would be less disruptive than ripping out the UK’s current gas infrastructure and installing heat pumps.But research seen by the Guardian shows that while there may be a role for biomethane in some industries and on farms, it will not make a viable alternative for the vast majority of homes.A study by the analyst company Regen, commissioned by the MCS Foundation charity, found that biomethane could account for only up to 18% of the UK’s current gas demand by 2050. That is because the available sources: manure, farm waste and sewage, cannot be scaled up to the extent needed without distorting the UK’s economy, or using unsustainable sources.Faced with the limitations of biomethane, ministers would do better to rule out its widespread use in home heating and concentrate on heat pumps, MCS concluded.Garry Felgate, the chief executive of the MCS Foundation, said: “Biomethane has an important role to play in decarbonisation – but not in homes. If we are to meet our climate targets and ensure that every household has access to secure, affordable energy, there is simply no viable way that we can continue to heat homes using the gas grid, whether that is using fossil gas, hydrogen, or biomethane.”Gas companies have a strong vested interest in the future of biomethane because its widespread use would allow them to keep the current gas infrastructure of pipelines, distribution technology and home boilers in operation. If the UK shifts most homes to heat pumps, those networks will become redundant.The same arguments are made by gas companies, and by some trade unions, in favour of hydrogen, which has also been touted as a low-carbon alternative to heat pumps, but which numerous studies have shown will not be economically viable at the scale required.At the Labour party conference this week, delegates were bombarded by lobbyists claiming that biomethane could take the place of 6m gas boilers and delay the phase-out of gas boilers.Felgate said ministers must require the decommissioning of the gas grid by 2050, and set a clear deadline for phasing out boilers.“Failure to plan for the decommissioning of the gas grid will result in it becoming a stranded asset,” he said. “Consumers and industry need certainty: biomethane will not replace fossil fuel gas in homes, electric heating such as heat pumps is the only viable way to decarbonise homes.”Tamsyn Lonsdale-Smith, the energy analyst at Regen who wrote the report, said there were uses for biomethane in industry, but that it was not suitable for widespread consumer use. “Biomethane can be a green gas with minimal environmental and land use impacts – but only if produced from the right sources, in the right way and at an appropriate scale,” she said. “The government is right to be focusing on scaling up biomethane production, but as sustainable supplies are likely to be limited, it is critical that its use is prioritised for only the highest value uses where carbon reductions are greatest.”A government spokesperson said: “Biomethane can play an important role in reducing our reliance on imported gas, increasing our country’s energy security and helping to deliver net zero. We are looking at how we can further support the sector and plan to publish a consultation on biomethane early next year.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.