May. 05, 2025
Environment
Hannah DeFelice, Rochester Institute of Technology; and Kaitlin Stack Whitney, Rochester Institute of Technology.
For more information, please visit Anhui Tian jian.
Cite as: DeFelice, Hannah, and Kaitlin Stack Whitney. . “Understanding Electric Composting Machines as a Potential Household Food Waste Management Strategy”. Food-Fueled, 1, e. doi:10./.
web address: https://edspace.american.edu/foodfueled/issues/volume-i/understanding-electric-composting-machines-as-a-potential-household-food-waste-management-strategy/
Please click here to download the piece as a PDF. The text is also listed below.
Abstract:
Household food waste is a significant problem in the US, with billions of dollars of food waste being generated by households each year. In addition to financial loss, food that is disposed of in landfills and through incineration also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Composting has long been one method of dealing with household food waste, but traditional composting methods may not be feasible for many households, including those living in the city, in apartments and those with physical limitations. Newly created electric household composters are being advertised as a potential solution to these barriers, but little research has been done into the effectiveness of these machines. This study tested two different brands of electric household composters to determine their usability and effectiveness at reducing food waste and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Our study found that while electric household composters did reduce the mass of food waste there were still limitations in their feasibility as a large-scale solution to the problem of food waste.
Introduction
Food waste is a significant problem in the United States and around the world. Every year approximately 30% of all edible food, weighing an estimated 67 million tons, is wasted at the consumer and retail level1. In the US, over 24% of all municipal solid waste entering landfills comes from food waste2. Once in landfills, food waste breaks down and contributes greenhouse gas emissions3. For households and individuals, the most effective method of reducing food waste is prevention, but complete prevention is not possible. Some food waste results from the preparation of food for cooking, such as peels of fruits and vegetables, or because foods spoil before being eaten, such as leftover cooked food1. Rather than throwing these items in the trash, composting provides a more environmentally friendly method of managing food waste.
Composting is the use of heat, aerobic conditions, and biological decomposition to reduce the volume of organic waste and to create a product that stabilizes carbon. Compost provides nutrients, specifically carbon, to plants4. Traditional methods of household composting allow households to dispose of food waste and utilize it for household gardens, or landscaping. These methods have generally included outdoor compost piles and turning composters, as well as indoor vermicomposting. Upkeep of these composting methods can be relatively simple and involves occasionally turning over the compost and rotating between piles over time. Individuals who intend to use the compost for gardening or landscaping may want to invest additional time and energy to ensure that the compost has the desirable nutrient balance. However, if the goal of composting is simply to reduce the amount of food and yard waste entering the municipal garbage system, this is not necessary.
Unfortunately, these methods of composting have significant barriers for many households. Renters are significantly less likely to engage in composting as many apartments do not have access to outdoor space for composting5. These methods can also be physically demanding and may be challenging for some senior citizens and individuals with disabilities. Finally, some people find compost piles to be gross and may not be willing to compost because of concerns about pests or general “ickiness.”5. A study in New York City, for example, found that 35% of city residents who had access to composting through a pilot program chose not to compost out of concerns about rodents and other pests6. In some areas, compost piles may even be restricted by HOA rules or municipal ordinances -especially when there are concerns about certain animal pests such as rodents6.
One possible solution to some of these composting barriers is newly designed household electric composters. These are small, countertop machines that break down food using heat and a rotating mechanism. There are several different brands on the market, and they claim to produce high-quality compost in a few hours while also reducing food waste by 60% or more and limiting greenhouse gas emissions7-9. They also advertise as reducing some of the ickiness factors involved in composting7-9. If these claims are true, these electric composters could be a solution to managing household food waste for households who are unable to use outdoor methods.
Yet there is limited research so far on the effectiveness of electric composting machines for household food waste management, as well as potential usability factors such as odor, noise, and electricity usage. Thus, our research objective was to examine how electric composting machines perform as a potential tool to manage household food waste. Additionally, we examined how electric composting machines compared to several existing common composting methods.
Methods
Comparison of Composting Methods
We used literature review to compile information on several common existing ways to manage household food waste, specifically: outdoor compost piles and tumbling composters and vermicomposting. We assessed: the physical space requirements needed for the composting method, the volume of food waste the composting method had the capacity to handle, the time required for the food waste to break down into compost, the startup supplies and materials needed, the cost of those supplies, and the time required to set-up the method. In addition, we assessed energy usage with a watage meter, energy source and energy costs, noise generated with a decibel meter, odors generated, and any pest concerns. We obtained information about the existing composting methods from agricultural extension websites, government agency reports and academic databases, including Web of Science and Google Scholar.
Electric Composting Machine Testing
In order to study the effectiveness of electric household composters, we purchased two brands of composting machines, the Lomi Classic model (Machine A) and the Pursonic Food Waste Processor (Machine B). As cost was one of our research interests, we intentionally purchased these two machines from the high and low end of the price spectrum respectively. We collected food waste, including fruit and vegetable peels, eggshells, coffee grounds and cooked grains. We did not include food waste items that were listed by the companies as being incompatible with their machines, including: hard bones, cooking oils, and fruit pits. We also excluded several items that were listed as compostable by the companies, including: compostable household products and meat by-products. These items were excluded for reasons of consistency and personal preferences of the testers to not work with meat products. A full list of items included and excluded is available in Appendix A.
We set up the machines and following the instructions provided by the manufacturer, we ran replicate samples using each machine. In total, we ran fifteen cycles using three different cycles on these two machines. For Machine A, we tested two different cycle types. For each cycle type tested for Machine A, we ran 5 replicates each. For Machine B, we ran 5 replicates of the default cycle. For each replicate tested, we measured the volume, mass, and composition of the food waste before and after the machine finished running. We also measured the total energy used by the machine per cycle using a wattage meter. To assess usability, we measured noise production using a decibel meter and heat production using an electric thermometer at two, 10 and 20 feet from the machine. We also observed the machine and surrounding indoor environment during the cycles to assess for odor, ease of clean-up and other ickiness factors.
Results
Comparison of Composting Methods
We reviewed three existing composting methods, including outdoor compost piles and tumbling composters as well as indoor vermicomposting (Table 1). Outdoor compost piles and turning composters had the potential to hold the largest volumes of food and yard waste and did not require any additional energy outputs since the heat required for composting comes from the sun. Vermicomposting bins hold a smaller volume of food waste (<20L) but can be stored indoors and do not need external energy inputs once they are set up. All of these methods can be set up in relatively little time (1-3 hours) and at low cost although options for more expensive and labor-intensive bins and turners are available. However, these methods require considerable time for food waste to break down into compost. This can take 2-6 months in turning composters and 3-6 months with outdoor compost piles and vermicomposting. They also require ongoing upkeep, including turning over compost bins and tumblers, maintaining conditions in bins for vermicomposting and occasionally switching between bins as food waste breaks down. All three methods also have the potential for considerable pest-related issues as well as odor and other ickiness factors. Vermicomposting, since it requires the use of worms in an indoor environment, may strike some people as particularly challenging.
Electric Composting Machine Testing
For both machines, there was a significant decrease in the mass of food waste after composting—ranging from a 54 – 76% reduction. From our tests of machine B, we found the average mass of food waste decreased by 66% from the start to end of the cycle. The average energy use per cycle with this machine was 1.187 kilowatt hours (KWH). From our tests of machine A, we found the average food waste mass decreased by 64% overall. The different kinds of cycles that can be programmed with this machine generated slightly different findings, with the Eco-cycle having an averaged decreased mass of 76% and the Grow-cycle having an average of 54% mass decrease per cycle tested.
Energy use per composting cycle was relatively low between 0.881 – 1.187 KWH, slightly less energy than the average dishwasher uses per load10. Overall machine A energy use was an average of 0.962 KWH per cycle. Again, we observed differences by the specific cycle programmed. The Eco-cycle averaged 1.042 KWH per cycle, while the Grow-cycle averaged 0.881 KWH.
Noise production at 2 feet was also relatively low for both machines, ranging from 35 – 50 dB – similar to the sound of a refrigerator running. On average, machine A had slightly lower noise production than machine B, however, the variation was not appreciatively different.
Excess heat production at 2 feet was negligible for machine A, and ~2 degrees F for machine B. However, the room where the machine was tested did not have consistent temperature generally, with larger variation depending on distance from windows. Thus we concluded that precise quantitative measurements about the heat generated from the machine specifically
could not be determined, and we accordingly did not include these in the results tables (Table 2).
There were some significant differences observed between the two machines tested in terms of durability and wear-and-tear. Machine B stopped performing well after the 4th cycle run and failed completely after the 5th cycle run. This machine also showed considerable wear and began losing some of its non-stick coating. Machine A did not have any observed issues with wear or performance during the testing period.
Discussion
Our results show that electric composters could be a potential solution to addressing some of the barriers to household composting. Compared to three common composting methods examined, we found electric composters use less space to operate, less time to process food waste, and less time to set up. However, these machines have some significant limitations that would need to be addressed before they could be considered a viable large-scale solution to addressing household food waste. Currently, the machines have a high purchase price which may put them out of reach for many households. In addition, they require electricity which can add an additional cost burden as well as contribute to further greenhouse gas emissions if a household does not have renewable forms of electricity. Finally, there seems to be significant variation in the performance and longevity of different models. The lower-cost model we tested (machine B) broke after only five uses and we noticed other issues with it during testing – including odors that could prevent many individuals from wanting to run it indoors. As a result, for most households who are able, an outdoor compost pile or turning composting bin remains a less expensive and more environmentally friendly method of reducing food waste. Other common methods of composting have lower start-up costs and may generate lower greenhouse gas emissions because they do not require electricity.
Our results are in line with other investigations of electric composting machines. While there are limited studies on the two specific models we tested, New Yorker author, Helen Rosner, has done some similar, informal studies with electric composting machines, including the same model of Lomi as we used in our research (Machine A). Her research found that while these machines dramatically reduced the volume of food waste, whether they ultimately reduced the negative environmental impacts of food waste was less clear and depended on the household’s energy grid and what was done with the food waste once it has been processed through the machines14. Our findings are also aligned with recent research on consumer preferences for electric compost machines, which found that people want a “user-friendly” method of composting15. That study also found that cost was not a high-priority consideration of those surveyed which potentially indicates that the high price point may not be a barrier for everyone.
If you want to learn more, please visit our website Fully Automatic Food Waste Composting Machine.
Related links:Further research looking at a wider range of machines and testing over a longer duration could help us to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of utilizing these machines. There are also many other models of electric composting machines on the market. Testing our study on additional models may find different results.
Additionally, critical questions remain about whether electric compost machines produce usable compost and what potential benefits or harms the output could have when applied to potted plants or outdoor gardens. For example, other models of indoor food scrap processing machines refer to their output as ‘dehydrated food waste’ and discuss the process as volume reduction, not compost16. This distinction refers to the potential distinction that electric machines may be outputting mixtures that are significantly different in nutrients than traditional compost. Several studies looking at the nutrient ratios from compost produced by eclectic composting is not similar to that of compost produced through outdoor compost bins, tumblers or vermicomposting 18-20. This has recently been confirmed by several of the machine producers, including Lomi founder Jeremy Lang17. While our study did not assess the nutrient value of the product produced by these machines, it does agree with these studies that currently, these machines are unlikely to be a better solution for individuals who have the ability to deal with food waste through more traditional methods.
Ultimately, our findings show that electric composters have many positive attributes when compared to three other common composting methods. The relatively small size of the machines and the ability to run them on a daily or weekly basis allows households without space for an outdoor composting method to reduce the amount of food waste they throw away. In addition, these machines may be more accessible for some senior citizens and individuals with disabilities because of the small size and relative ease of operation. However, the machine’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by food waste is more limited and likely offset by the need for electricity to run the machine. More research on electric compost machines is needed to better understand their full life cycle impacts and comparison to other potential methods of managing wasted food in households.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Dr. Callie Babbitt for the use of her lab space and for supporting this research. Thank you to Ariella Knight for her assistance with the illustrations in Figure 1.
Funding
This work was supported by NSF Grant # SRS RN: Multiscale RECIPES (Resilient, Equitable, and Circular Innovations with Partnership and Education Synergies) for Sustainable Food Systems. Findings and conclusions reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
References
Tables
Table1: Comparison of three existing composting methods
Table 2. Results from testing two models of electric compostingmachines
Figures
Figure1:Composting methods examined in the study
Appendices
Appendix A. Food scraps used in study
* Machine claims to be able to compost, but we did not include.
** Teabags are ok if they are labeled compostable and are not made of plastic. Remove any staples.
In the course of a week, my kitchen produces a shocking quantity of what we might think of as edible trash: apple peels, garlic nubs, a bit of gristle from a steak, Dorito dust, tea bags, the iron-hard heel of a loaf of bread that’s been sitting out overnight. The meat scraps I feed to my dog. The bones and vegetable scraps I store in the freezer in gallon-size ziplock bags and periodically bung into a pot and simmer into stock. But even then, once the stock is made, and the chicken bones or onion ends are leached of all their flavor, I’m left again with edible trash—only now it’s soggy. And then there are the times when the strawberries aren’t sealed right and become fuzzy with mold, or the delivery sandwich turns out to be gross, or the refrigerator’s compressor breaks and somehow we don’t notice, or I’m just exhausted and overwhelmed and want everything gone.
I hate putting food into the trash, because food that goes into the trash is bound for a landfill, and landfills—dense, lightless, airless mountains of waste—are the worst possible place that food can go. In that nightmarish, anaerobic environment, organic matter produces the greenhouse gas methane with terrifying efficiency. Globally, landfills are the third-greatest human source of methane emissions, just behind the fossil-fuel industry and factory livestock farming. How much food we waste, and what we do with it, is both an urgent issue and—like so many facets of the climate crisis—one that feels entirely remote in the day-to-day. A large portion of organic matter in landfills (forty per cent by one E.P.A. estimate) comes from households, so on this front, at least, our individual choices do matter—even when it feels overwhelmingly as if they don’t. Obviously, we should buy less, and we should eat more of what we buy; the weekly package of baby spinach that turns to goo in the crisper drawer benefits neither self nor planet. Cookbooks dedicated to minimizing food waste are a good place to find tidy strategies for salvage and reuse: puree the spinach glop into a green soup, for example, or take root-vegetable peelings, toss them in a bit of oil and salt, and roast at four hundred for twenty minutes to make superbly crispy little snacks. (“The Everlasting Meal Cookbook,” by Tamar Adler, is chock-full of smart ideas like these.) Pulverizing eggshells into powder for a homemade calcium supplement? Brilliant, babe. Go with God.
But, lately, I’ve been thinking about what food-waste people call diversion, which encompasses all the places we can send scraps besides the large intestine and the landfill. It’s a mistake to think that anything not eaten is necessarily wasted, that consumption is the only valid form of use. Take composting, for example: you really don’t need to torture yourself by making and eating and claiming to enjoy a bitter carrot-top pesto if the carrot tops can simply be flung into a thoughtfully maintained organic-matter pile and, with time, be converted into fuel for further carrots, whose bitter tops you yet again will not feel obligated to eat. Admittedly, it’s work: there’s a lot more to converting unwanted vegetable matter into nutrient-rich fertilizer than just making a big heap and walking away. (This is, more or less, exactly how to make a landfill.) It makes sense that compost is the provenance of the gardener: in a way, it is its own category of cultivation, requiring care and consideration, a proper balance of dry and wet matter, regular aeration, attentive temperature control, and season-spanning patience.
For those who lack the space, the time, or the diligence to do such things, solutions must be found elsewhere—for instance, in a slew of new (and newish) consumer appliances that promise to help reduce food waste and its impact. One such appliance is the FoodCycler ($399.95), which is distributed in the U.S. by Vitamix, the same folks who make extremely expensive and effective blenders. It is hulkingly large, like a night-black bread machine. The Lomi ($449, or $359 plus a twenty-dollar-per-month accessory subscription), manufactured by a company that also produces bioplastics, is satin white and curvy, with the countertop footprint of an upright stand mixer. Both the FoodCycler and the Lomi are very heavy. (The two machines were recently provided to me as samples, without cost.) The function of each is mostly the same: a user fills a provided bucket with food scraps, inserts it into the machine, sets a lid in place, and presses a Power button. Then the machine spends several hours using heat and abrasion to grind down and dehydrate the food scraps. The end result will vary in color and texture based on the raw materials you started with, but it always comes out looking pretty much like dirt.
The first day that I had the Lomi, I happened to come into possession of a somewhat ridiculous quantity of leeks. In the interest of science, I cut off their fibrous, dark-green tops (which I’d normally save for stock) and stuffed the machine’s bin up to the fill line. The Lomi has three modes, one of them meant for conserving microbes for eventual composting (it runs for a long time, at low heat), and another for breaking down bioplastics (it runs for a medium-long time, at high heat). I processed the leeks on the third mode, “eco-express,” to which the machine is preset; it runs fast and hot. Five hours later, what had started out as a football-size clump of dense vegetable matter had turned into about a half cup of dark-brown, crumbly dust that smelled faintly—though unmistakably—of burned onions. It was thrilling. I had made—well, not compost, exactly, but something that was much smaller and easier to dispose of than what it had originally been.
During the next few weeks, I continued to process food waste in the Lomi, and later on I switched to the FoodCycler. I’d often run the machines overnight, and then giddily peek in the next morning. Twisting off their lids felt like taking a nickel to a scratch-off ticket: Would the new crop of dehydrated muck be pale tan? Chestnut brown? Wispy? Chunky? Dirt-like? Mossy? For a period, I found myself cooking with more vegetables than usual, just to have material to feed the machine: potato eyes, wilty, green carrot tops (my nemesis), perhaps a larger chunk of the root end of a shallot than my fussy dicing habits might otherwise have allowed to remain. I put in shrivelled tortellini that had stuck to the sides of the pot and—goodbye, five-second rule—crackers that had fallen onto the floor. Leftovers were no longer just for eating or throwing out. A container of week-old pho need not elicit guilt when you find it languishing in the back of the fridge; simply feed your FoodCycler a snack of soup-logged sprouts, onions, noodles, and herbs. Sure, you could probably get the same net effect with a blender and a low-temperature oven, but it would smell worse. At one point, I left town for two weeks without emptying the Lomi, and returned to a kitchen smelling like absolutely nothing: these machines have activated-charcoal filters that trap seemingly every single molecule of odor.
Using the machines was fun; they made disposal feel like creation, not waste. But is that a good thing? Many proponents of traditional composting find products such as the Lomi and the FoodCycler galling, because, despite what a person might infer from how they’re marketed, they do not actually create compost. They have blades or shears, to grind, and heating elements, to dehydrate. What emerges, at the end of a process cycle, is not the nutritious black gold that results from a proper compost system but, rather, an organic fluff of nicely cooked, thoroughly dried-out stuff. (The FoodCycler’s manual dubs the end product “RFC”: Recycled Food Compound; the Lomi just calls it dirt.) “It’s like the exact opposite of composting,” one Reddit user wrote, in response to someone’s query about the Lomi, but that’s not exactly true, either. Even throwing your dehydrated food scraps straight into the trash is, if not a net good, then at least a net better: a round in one of these machines leaves would-be trash both lighter and smaller, lessening its landfill impact. Even better, the end product can be disposed of through community composting—it provides a useful fibre layer—or added to the soil in gardens or houseplants, where it still contributes trace nutrients. You can also buy add-on probiotic tablets that reintroduce all the microbes that the dehydration process has burned off, but this, to me, seems almost farcical: if you’re equipped for the compost process that follows the reintroduction of beneficial bacteria, why are you buying one of these machines in the first place?
Mill, a startup that promises an “entirely new system to prevent waste,” is not just a device but a service. Mechanically, Mill’s “kitchen bin” functions almost identically to the Lomi and the FoodCycler—dry it out, grind it down, catch the smells—but it is several times larger and is designed to sit on the floor. For thirty-three dollars per month, customers lease the machine and are provided pre-labelled boxes so that they can mail the end product back to the company. (I was loaned a sample machine for a few weeks, before the device was made available to the public. It’s now popular enough that there’s a waiting list.)
Unlike its competitors, the Mill machine runs its cycle nightly, on its own governance. Each evening, at 10 P.M. exactly (the precise timing can be adjusted in the accompanying app), mine would sense that there was food to digest and begin to emit a purr so gentle that it disappeared into the ambient noise of the rest of my life. The experience seems designed to encourage you to think of the machine as a living creature. During setup, the app prompts you to give it a name. (I went with Ammit, the ancient Egyptian devourer of souls.) A lighted Lock button on the lid brightens and fades with a breath-like cadence. Step on the pedal and it opens hungrily, like the mouth of a humpback whale. I never thought I’d refer to a trash receptacle with personal pronouns, but I found myself saying things like “I think she’s about to lock for her processing cycle” and “I gave her that stale bagel that’s been on the counter for three days” and “Do you think we’re allowed to give her chicken?”
The chicken question is an important one, because the gimmick, with Mill, is that once you’ve mailed the company your end product (which it calls Food Grounds™), it turns around and processes those scraps to be used in chicken feed, which it sells to poultry farms. Can chickens eat chicken? The answer, at least in the United States, and also according to Mill’s in-app list of what is and isn’t O.K. to put into the bin, turns out to be yes. The company thus cleverly resolves the problem of what we should actually do with the matter our machines produce. All my desiccated food scraps were cleared away, from both my kitchen and my conscience.
Do these devices actually Make a Difference, in the scheme of things? A useful metric is the “break-even point”: How many times do you have to use this machine (or this cotton tote bag, or this reusable coffee cup, et cetera) before it earns back the energy and carbon costs of its own existence? Mill and Lomi both publish detailed impact reports, taking into account manufacturing, shipping, the (fairly marginal) energy usage of the machines, and, in Mill’s case, the impact of their chicken-feed operation. The process of tipping over into net climate beneficial depends on how much a person uses the machine, and what kind of energy grid her home runs on. According to Lomi’s analysis, if you send the machine’s output to the landfill instead of adding it to soil or compost, you will break even approximately never.
One evening, during my weeks using the Mill machine, I was struck by an eerie sensation as I closed down my home before bed. My kitchen bin hummed away happily on the floor, chewing up pizza crusts and fennel fronds into eventual chicken feed, while on the counter directly above it sat another device that, years before, I had purchased in an attempt to feel less alienated from the natural world: an all-in-one hydroponic AeroGarden, whose purple-pink grow light would shine all night over a thicket of Thai basil and flat-leaf parsley. My sanitized, fuss-free, apartment-friendly garden plot and my sanitized, fuss-free, apartment-friendly compost heap: not a farm, just a simulacrum of a farm. Both machines plugged into the same outlet, neither meaningfully contributing to the other, no shared cycle save inescapable samsara.
And yet there was something nice about it all, about this pleasant little illusion in which I, a twenty-first-century city dweller, could participate in a virtuous cycle of responsible consumption, if only I bought the right machines. It feels good to grow my little tangle of herbs (and sometimes tomatoes!) on a countertop, especially during the long, dark nights of winter, especially with the automated assist of a machine that lets me know that I need to add more plant food, or top up the water reservoir. It feels good to dispose of my food scraps in a way that bypasses the oblivion of the trash can or the landfill, without having to worry about fiddling with pH levels or insuring that I’m raking and stirring for proper aeration. A countertop hydroponic garden and a food-waste minimizing machine appeal to a part of me that has a primal urge to grow my own food—to experience the natural processes of growth and decay, to revel in the fecundity of both life and death—while also appealing to the part of me that is impatient, antisocial, and lazy. With the hydroponic herb garden, at least, those rewards are tangible enough to garnish a salad with. What a person gets from using the Mill machine, the Lomi, the FoodCycler, and their cohort is, in contrast, just a feeling: the pleasurable, bourgeois satisfaction of having done the right thing without working too terribly hard at it. Food-waste processors neatly produce lighter-weight, lighter-footprint waste, but that’s not their primary purpose: they are machines for the efficient alleviation of guilt.
Before my experiment in at-home devices, I had been in the habit of bringing packages of food scraps to the “smart compost bins” that the New York City Department of Sanitation (D.S.N.Y.) have been installing throughout the city since . Before that, I would bring bags of ends and peelings to my local farmers’ market. There, GrowNYC, the nonprofit that manages the city’s greenmarkets, maintains one of their forty-five compost-collection sites. (The organization reports that these booths cumulatively diverted more than thirteen hundred tons of food scraps from the landfill last year.) This is my very favorite thing to do with food waste: give it to someone else to deal with it for me. Community composting, whether handled municipally or through neighborhood organizations, is to my mind the most unadulterated good thing in our whole horrible food cycle. Mayor Eric Adams promises that curbside compost pickup will roll out citywide before the end of . In the meantime, D.S.N.Y.’s bright-orange receptacles are bolted to sidewalks like hi-viz mailboxes. The app that manages access to the bins is glitchy and frustrating; I’ve arrived at my local one only to find it locked, and presumably full, and the ground around it strewn with food scraps. The bins themselves—as objects, and as a program—almost certainly have an astronomical break-even point. But, scaled to the size of a city, a program like this could have a truly awesome impact: thousands and thousands of pounds of organic material collected each night, distributed among various large-scale compost processors, and eventually put to work nourishing parks and gardens that, in turn, nourish us. ♦
For more information, please visit Sewage Lifting Device.
Previous: Benefits and Performance of Graphene Engine Oil Additives
Next: 5 Modi Inaspettati per Utilizzare gli Oli Lubrificanti di Base
If you are interested in sending in a Guest Blogger Submission,welcome to write for us!
All Comments ( 0 )