In terms of return programs and not “what you did with?”, I think it should be the way the industry should go. There are many reasons for that including the following:
filament spools are different depending on brands (colorFabb ones are clear transparent plastic for example)
it would be stupid to destruct an object that would need to be recreated
it is the way all brands are going. See Nespresso for example.
This discussion is getting very interesting to me but, TBH, I’m having trouble keeping track of people’s inputs though. Perhaps the way I’m viewing the page or maybe just the format. BUT!! I think we have something here. Not p*** in anyone’s fire here. Just want to structure thoughts a bit…
1) There’s no sense recycling spools because they’re useful and it would use still more energy to do so
2) There are many different spool formats and sizes
3) If, for every geographical “set” of printers, there were a “centralised” shredding, extruding, spooling facility, we’d be able to get recycled material with many financial and environmental advantages.
4) Such a facility would be scalable, according to local print demand and number of printers.
5) Diversity of spool designs need not be a big issue as facility spool stock would probably reflect usage of the local printers to a large extent.
I’m sure I’ve missed something. Anybody got anything to add?
You’re right about the forum format. It is very hard to follow and also because the email alerts won’t put at the right position in the posts (they are not anchored).
Having a centralized “hub” for all (call it the way you want) seems a bit difficult for all brands.
It could perhaps be easier per spool style. Think about the colorFabb ones that are completely different than simple polycarbonate ones that are also completely different than Cube X cartridges.
Because I also sell colorFabb filament in Switzerland, I am really interested to find a solution for my customers. However, I am not interested at all to find a solutions for other brands which would give me a lot of work!
@GloomySparker@Pot8oSH3D totally agree on the readability issue. We’re aiming to tackle this in the next sprint so please hang in there a little longer
