217
submitted 1 month ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

considers

So, this is a problem for the whole bottled drink industry. Bottled drinks exist because you have a disposable container, and people need a container to contain the drink.

It's possible to have non-disposable containers, but then you're:

  • Requiring everyone to carry around a non-disposable container. I keep a water bottle on my bike, but I don't normally have one everywhere I go, and I'm sure that most people don't either. There's a convenience factor.

  • Creating a problem of how to meter anything you sell. If I get a bottle of cola or whatever, it's pre-measured. 7-11 does provide an option to buy a 7-11 branded reusable container and then get a discount on sodas and slushies that use it, but that's measured in size; they aren't going to let people just come in and fill up a container that claims that it is of some arbitrary size. If you wanted to shift to non-disposable containers, where only the liquid is what stores sell, then you'd need to also shift to some kind of metered dispenser. We don't have that infrastructure in place today. I'd guess that that's because drink-dispensing were originally built for restaurants to use behind the counter, and then in some cases shifted to all-you-can-drink setups, but in either case, didn't need metering.

  • Losing the sanitary chain. Many drinks are sold in sealed containers, are sterile at time of sale. Until you open them, they won't "go bad", even stored at room temperature. For some things, that's fine -- you're going to consume them right away. But that's not true for everything out there.

  • A pallet of bottled drinks is pretty low-maintenance. A drink dispenser requires maintenance.

That being said, there are some potential gains:

  • Disposable containers have to be cheap, because they are, well, disposable. If you use reusable containers, there are a lot of nice things you can do. They can be more comfortable, can have nice lips, can have things like vacuum walls to keep temperature where you want it, etc.

  • You are much less constrained to use fixed-size units; it's easy to "add" another size unit to a machine that dispenses liquid: it just runs for longer. If you want to have large cups or thermoses or small cups or thermoses, you can. Without that, you're kinda constrained to one-size-fits-all.

  • You aren't constrained to one design of container. Some people are super-worried about plastic bottles and want metal bottles. Other people want something transparent that they can see through. Other people want something lightweight. Others want thermal insulation. You can let all of those groups be happy.

  • For drinks made with concentrate, if you don't care about the specific type of water, you can avoid a lot of costs. Some people do care, and is one reason that branded bottled water sells. But soda machines take pouches of syrup in boxes, and there, it's almost certainly more-space-efficient and probably more transport-efficient to use municipal water, rather than trucking in a bunch of bottles of water.

[-] Steve@communick.news 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Cans.
Cans are actually recyclable containers, that fix most of the environmental problems of plastic bottles.

They've had resealable "bottle like" cans for a decade or more already.

Fountain drinks can use the same CO2 they already have, to pressurize cans of concentrate to pump the syrup to the fountain head.

[-] kaitco@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Not entirely. All cans currently made (at least for the US) have a super thin plastic liner to help the drink avoid taking on too much of a metallic taste.

There are multiple YouTubes out there that will show you what happens when you dissolve an aluminum can; the dissolution process removes the aluminum and leaves the plastic liner.

[-] Steve@communick.news -1 points 1 month ago

Not sure what you mean by dissolving. As far as so know aluminum gets melted down. Any plastic, inks, or other impurities get burned off generally.

[-] P1nkman@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago
[-] Steve@communick.news -1 points 1 month ago

Yah, that's not how they are recycled. That gets burned off by the temps required to melt the aluminum.

[-] westyvw@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Their point was that buying a can just means you are buying a plastic container anyways, that happens to be reinforced with aluminum.

It's still a plastic bottle.

[-] Steve@communick.news 3 points 1 month ago

It's not. It's a thin plastic film. One that doesn't get into the environment at nearly the rate, since the aluminum is actually worth recycling.

[-] westyvw@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

A thin plastic film... in other words a plastic bottle.

Actually a resin. Made of BPA, which is released into the atmosphere during the recycling process. Which contributes to the 1 million pounds of bpa released every year.

Basically small amounts of plastic BPA, burned into the air for each and every can.

So no cans currently do not solve the plastics problem.

[-] Steve@communick.news 0 points 1 month ago

I think you may have an unworkable concept of what "solving" the plastic problem means, when you can't tell the difference between a film and a bottle. Both of which have largely phased out BPA already.

[-] westyvw@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

You tell me the difference when that film is continuously converted to a gas in the atmosphere. So you are saying as long as it's thin enough it's not important to worry about?

No they have not phased out bpa for all aluminum cans. As of September Germany for example is still waiting for regulations on bpa.

Also in Srptember a new company is about to replace yet another attempt at.making a clean lining for aluminum because the bpa became bps etc.

[-] P1nkman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I, nor the poster you replied to, never mentioned recycling. Your starting to put things into the discussion that was never there.

[-] Steve@communick.news 0 points 1 month ago

It does seem that way.
I guess I'm not sure what problem you're talking about.

[-] Temperche@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago

Aluminium recycling/melting however needs a lot of energy, which again is often generated from non-renewable sources. So even cans are bad for the environment.

[-] Steve@communick.news 5 points 1 month ago

That's a temporary problem. One solved by the renewable energy transition already underway.

[-] Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Glass bottles, you don't even have to melt them just sanitize and rebottle most of the time.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

There’s a solution and it’s standardized bottles. And I have seen it implemented in a place I never expected: Kentucky. They have growlers (large glass containers with screw top lids) of standard sizes that are in common enough usage for beer that many shops offer a tap to fill it with beer and charge based on it. It’s one of the things I wish was more common elsewhere.

And as for metering, offer a price per unit mass (show mass of a glass) and weigh fill weigh pay.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
217 points (96.6% liked)

News

23376 readers
2206 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS