[afransen]

From Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/slideshow.cfm?...&photo_id=F7F63043-DFB0-47DF-D619930E91E35B74

BIG BELLY:

By incorporating solar cells into the top of a trash compactor, Big Belly Solar has created a new urban garbage solution that has already survived four years on the mean streets of Flushing in Queens, N.Y. The compactor cuts garbage collection costs—and pollution from those garbage trucks—80 percent by reducing the need for pickup.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

what happens when the top gets plastered with ads?

 

[afransen]

what happens when the top gets plastered with ads?

Perfectly covered?

 

[taal]

Or snow

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

they'd be good in park areas with the least amount of shade.


how much do they cost?

 

[Hydrogen]

Great, they seem to be promising to make trash lighter. Suddenly all that compacted trash will fit into fewer trucks (you know, the trucks with the big compacters in back).

 

[afransen]

Great, they seem to be promising to make trash lighter. Suddenly all that compacted trash will fit into fewer trucks (you know, the trucks with the big compacters in back).

No. They're promising fewer collections because each garbage bin holds more trash (by weight). So, same number of trucks, but each journey made by a truck is shorter as each stop collects more waste.

 

[Hydrogen]

No. They're promising fewer collections because each garbage bin holds more trash (by weight). So, same number of trucks, but each journey made by a truck is shorter as each stop collects more waste.

The trucks have weight limitations. Compacting more trash will not overcome that weight limitation. Trucks will not be able to carry more weight because of these trash cans. Besides, the trucks are far better at compacting garbage.

So why get trash cans that can be broken/break down when the truck can already do the job of compacting trash?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

So why get trash cans that can be broken/break down when the truck can already do the job of compacting trash?

they could be useful in remote areas where pickup times are less often.

 

[Dilla]

The trucks have weight limitations. Compacting more trash will not overcome that weight limitation. Trucks will not be able to carry more weight because of these trash cans. Besides, the trucks are far better at compacting garbage.

So why get trash cans that can be broken/break down when the truck can already do the job of compacting trash?

If you could send trucks without heavy hydraulic systems attached (as the garbage is already compacted), they'd be much lighter to begin with...

 

[Hydrogen]

...and not be able to carry as much weight (more trips).

 

[afransen]

The trucks have weight limitations. Compacting more trash will not overcome that weight limitation. Trucks will not be able to carry more weight because of these trash cans. Besides, the trucks are far better at compacting garbage.

So why get trash cans that can be broken/break down when the truck can already do the job of compacting trash?

I know a thing or two about logistics. Here's some logic for you to follow:

Given:

-the amount of trash by weight is constant whether compacting or typical receptacles are used
-the compacting receptacle will hold (say) four times as much trash than the typical receptacle.
-a truck will collect garbage until it's weight limit is reached

We can conclude that the truck would have to visit four times the number of typical receptacles than compacting receptacles to reach its capacity. Presumably this would mean four times as much distance traveled per truck capacity worth of garbage collected (given the assumption that there are the same number of cans, in the same locations, under either scenario).

Alternately, each compacting receptacle can go four times as long without a collection as a typical receptacle.

Costs are reduced by shortening the time and distance traveled required to fill a truck to its capacity with garbage, as fewer collections are required to fill it. Now, of course a CBA would have to be done to determine whether the increased capital cost of the compacting receptacle is outweighed by the decreased capital costs of collection trucks (fewer trucks required to haul a given amount of garbage per day), decreased labour (each of your $80k/year garbage collectors is more productive), and decreased fuel costs.

Of course, you could accomplish the same task by making garbage bins four times larger by volume (or whatever the compacting factor is). That may not be all that desirable, though.

 

[Hydrogen]

I know a thing or two about logistics. Here's some logic for you to follow:

Given:

-the amount of trash by weight is constant whether compacting or typical receptacles are used
-the compacting receptacle will hold (say) four times as much trash than the typical receptacle.
-a truck will collect garbage until it's weight limit is reached

We can conclude that the truck would have to visit four times the number of typical receptacles than compacting receptacles to reach its capacity. Presumably this would mean four times as much distance traveled per truck capacity worth of garbage collected (given the assumption that there are the same number of cans, in the same locations, under either scenario).

Alternately, each compacting receptacle can go four times as long without a collection as a typical receptacle.

Costs are reduced by shortening the time and distance traveled required to fill a truck to its capacity with garbage, as fewer collections are required to fill it. Now, of course a CBA would have to be done to determine whether the increased capital cost of the compacting receptacle is outweighed by the decreased capital costs of collection trucks (fewer trucks required to haul a given amount of garbage per day), decreased labour (each of your $80k/year garbage collectors is more productive), and decreased fuel costs.

Of course, you could accomplish the same task by making garbage bins four times larger by volume (or whatever the compacting factor is). That may not be all that desirable, though.

Okay smart guy, are you going to be the one who would go out to every garbage compactor in the city in order to audit every single one of these bins to find out how frequently they are used or how quickly they are being filled up and when? Just curious.

Since some will obviously fill faster than others at different times (and sometimes at different places), it's safe to say that the frequency of visits to empty them would tend towards more visits than less in order to prevent overflow. That's the reality of service delivery.

The only way this problem could be (partially) overcome is by way of more technology. An example would be for each compacter to outfitted so as to transmit a signal that the bin is approaching being full. That would result in more targeted pick ups. It would also result in more stuff to get broken on one of these things.

As fun as you think your logic is, don't confuse it for the real world.

 

[afransen]

Hydrogen, it's the kind of thinking that used by real businesses, in the real world in their modelling.

Different rates of waste being placed in bins is a problem with both typical and compacting receptacles so it's not a very useful basis for criticizing either. All else equal, compacting bins will need to be emptied less frequently. It's possible that when typical bins are full people litter instead.

In the real world, I'd imagine that rather than a homogeneous fleet, there would be mostly typical bins, with compacting bins in high traffic locations.



If you want to pay me to audit garbage cans, I can start tomorrow.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen, it's the kind of thinking that used by real businesses, in the real world in their modelling.

You've claimed knowledge of the logistics. Are you assuming to know the logistics of this particular situation the basis of the sales ad for these compacters?

"Real world" modeling is, in the end, just modeling. It's at best an approximation, and only as good as the originating data that initializes the study. Without any "audit" on the effectiveness of such trash compactors, you could very well see no reduction in pick-ups.

Different rates of waste being placed in bins is a problem with both typical and compacting receptacles so it's not a very useful basis for criticizing either.

Yes it is. Modeling fails to take into consideration unknown variables. So some weeks, some compactors could easily fill more quickly than others - unless you presume to know the exact patterns and habits of the users. Dealing with such variability would require a visit for pick-up to prevent overflow, or possible break-down.

In the real world, I'd imagine that rather than a homogeneous fleet, there would be mostly typical bins, with compacting bins in high traffic locations

Which means the that all the promises concerning fuel consumption and so on are being way oversold by the manufacturer.

If you want to pay me to audit garbage cans, I can start tomorrow.

No doubt you'd want to see a new tax in Toronto to support that job.

If it were up to me, I'd offer you the job. But I'd want you to live in the city first.