You never know what you will find at the scrapyard!!

[alchemy]

A contract scrapper I visit once had almost an acre of lawn mowers, in cardboard boxes, recall items. The only way they got them in was because of the scrap only contract. The manufacturer couldn't risk those products getting back out into circulation.

Imagine you manufacture backhoe buckets. You have a run that has substandard steel in them and you don't want those in circulation. Now imagine you're a TBN welder that visits the scrap yard and sees a stack of new backhoe buckets.

Are your want to buy for scrap price rights greater than the needs of the manufacturer to dispose of properly?

Great point. Still, I think the vast majpority of the time it is not something like that. The difference being whether it is a manufacturer of the parts or someone who used them. In my dupont example they were valves, fittings, pipe, all very expensive swagelok etc. but they were generic stuff used by anyone for many things. Assembled, as they had it, a person could have figured what they were doing if they wanted. They could have easily disassembled the stuff and they should have anyway if they had propietary concern. I say the government should give enough incentive to industry to not act like proud pigs and to sell/recycle their used and surplus stuff rather than melt it down. (For every usable item destroyed another will be made.) Then if it's something they are really and legitimately concerned about that much for propietary reasons, safety, liability etc. then they would also not mind losing the incentive benefit.
Probably the biggest problem I foresaw in this idea, in the meantime, is that government desk jockeys and politicians don't have much respect for people who buy "junk" and I can't picture them setting their pride and image aside to push it. The majority would have to start calling for it first.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Great point. Still, I think the vast majpority of the time it is not something like that. The difference being whether it is a manufacturer of the parts or someone who used them. In my dupont example they were valves, fittings, pipe, all very expensive swagelok etc. but they were generic stuff used by anyone for many things. Assembled, as they had it, a person could have figured what they were doing if they wanted. They could have easily disassembled the stuff and they should have anyway if they had propietary concern. I say the government should give enough incentive to industry to not act like proud pigs and to sell/recycle their used and surplus stuff rather than melt it down. (For every usable item destroyed another will be made.) Then if it's something they are really and legitimately concerned about that much for propietary reasons, safety, liability etc. then they would also not mind losing the incentive benefit.
Probably the biggest problem I foresaw in this idea, in the meantime, is that government desk jockeys and politicians don't have much respect for people who buy "junk" and I can't picture them setting their pride and image aside to push it. The majority would have to start calling for it first.

The problem I see with your concept of sorting is who would pay for it. Companies enter into scrap only contracts to insure bad products or materials are destroyed in the most positive way available, recycling. Someone has to sort the stuff the materials that present a threat from normally recycled materials. Keep in mind that recycling process is income for that company. The profit motive is why so many companies recycle everything these days. Sorting provides them no benefit unless the scrap company is willing to pay them for doing it. Scrap companies on the other hand are not going to pay for sorting a client's materials just so they can sell to individuals seeking a bargain.

Back in the day I can remember going to industry sales and auctions where aerospace corporation would sell surplus materials. I still have trick latches etc from attending those events. They were a source of income not for the corporation but for the employee events etc. The accountants hadn't discovered an income source for processing such stuff. Once the accountants got involved two things happened. The most important to people like us is they figured it was cheaper to get scrap price via competitive bids than it was to sort and hold a sale. The other was the employees lost out because an income source for their events became another income source for the corporation.

It's the way of the world. As soon as something is perceived to have a value then it disappears into the abyss that is big business.

I'm seeing this in my field of interest at this time. When I first came up with the idea of using trash plastic to make building blocks to create jobs and good houses in developing nations I thought of plastic bottles. Very quickly I realized that was not a good idea because the value of the bottles as a raw material for create new plastic products was too great. A plastic block that weighs seven pounds made with plastic bottles for instance is worth 1/6th of a days wages for the population the block was designed to help. Stealing and redeeming ten blocks will generate $3.50 for an individual in an economy that averages less than $2.00 per day.

Redemption centers buying plastic bottles are springing up in the slums. The problem with that is the plastic bottles weren't generated in the slums. They were thrown away up stream literally, in the more affluent neighborhoods, and washed down into the poorer communities along with all of the rest of the trash. Once the current supply in the slums is gone the individuals recycling them will once again be SOL. And, those up stream that threw the bottles away will now keep them to redeem because the bottles have value and it will only increase because the value is tied to the price of oil.

My TBN friends who lament the steel in the scrap yard they can't buy are sharing an experience with the poorest of the poor in developing nations who have discovered plastic bottles as a source of income.

 

[jake98]

An expanding economy is the only thing that ever kept us all from 'scraping'. Good post Harv.

 

[alchemy]

Companies enter into scrap only contracts to insure bad products or materials are destroyed in the most positive way available, recycling.

I can't agree with that. Sometimes yes, but most of the time no. Most of the time it is laziness, wastefulness, incompetence, carelessness for the rest of the world, and pride. Usually it is not bad products or materials or things that would expose their trade secrets. Government agencies do sort between items that would expose and confidentiality etc. and those that dont and they do auction off the usable surplus. I'd say that is because of the public eye on government waste. Huge companies just don't want to mess with it is what it boils down to. Government incentives could change that.

 

[alchemy]

An expanding economy is the only thing that ever kept us all from 'scraping'. Good post Harv.

yes that is the key factor relevent now. I go to alot of auctions and its really hard nowdays to compete with scrappers for things I actually want to use. Still, the average industrial surplus or liquidation auction I would guess only 5 or 10% of the sale money is from scrappers. Of course that would vary drastically depending on the auction but overall that's what it looks like to me.
Also it must usually be a better option because companies, corparations etc. who have tried it usually don't quit. It's the ones who haven't tried it that are the ones making excuse if why it would not work better.
All they have to do is have an auctioneer come in and take care of it and have someone taking out the stuff they don't want the public to have. The auctioneer will even give a bottom line estimate so they can figure which is more profitable.