🚀 go-pugleaf

Walter Bright (bright@nazgul.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan15.185508.25411@ssc.com> fyl@ssc.com (Phil Hughes) writes:
: /Next time you consider buying something in an aluminium can, remember that
: /it is about one kilowatt hour per can as opposed to 1 KWH/per six bottles
: /for glass.  If you want to do something about rising energy consumption,
: /think before you buy.  For example, one package of bleached paper towels =
: /1KHW of energy to do the bleaching.
: 
: Obviously, there must be some cost advantage to cans over bottles because the
: soft drink industry is all cans. I'm guessing, but perhaps some of that
: is *weight*. Weight costs energy (in transportation costs). And sand is
: cheap. So why do soft drink companies prefer cans?

Oh, there is a cost advantage.  First, the unreasonably low cost of
electricity subsidizes the aluminum industry.  When I lived on a farm
we had "real power" for the house at about $.02/kwh and
"interruptable power" for the irrigation pump at $.006/kwh.  The
interruptable was never interrupted and seldom is.  This is the kind
of power the aluminum industry uses.

In addition, aluminum cans weigh less, are smaller (because the can is
thinner than a bottle) and are less likely to break.  I am sure the
bottling industry picks cans over bottles because, to them, the cost
is lower.  Unfortunately, the cost to them is not the cost to society.
We have various subsidies for transportation as well as cheap
electricity well below the market cost for the aluminum industry and
depletion allowances for using mined ore over recycled aluminum.

Thus it is fairly difficult to compute what type of packaging has the
lower impact on the population.  Based on my research, however, I feel
that bottles have the lower impact.  And I think reused bottles would
have a lower impact still.  Yes, it probably costs more money for a
boteler to sort, clean and reuse bottles but having people employed
doing these tasks rather than having them on welfare roles I expect
increases the cost to society.

Is there a fair solution?  I think so but it is hard to implement as
long as lobbiests have control of government.  Personally I would
rather subsidize the cost of health care than the cost of putting
pepsi in aluminum cans.  Isn't it more in the American spirit to be
able to say "everyone has access to health care in our country" than
"everyone saves $.05 on a can of pepsi"?
-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl