Wax-coated Cardboard & Aluminum Soapbox

[da]

Walking back from lunch at the University Plaza, elbie_at_trig & I counted about half a dozen Tim Hortons cups and at least that many pop cans.

Now, I know the Tims cups have a wax/plastic lining, so recycling probably isn't cost effective (though I seem to remember that some western municipality, perhaps Vancouver(?) found the political will to recycle them anyhow). But can anybody explain why there isn't an aluminum can deposit in Ontario?

[Concerning Tims cups: I wonder how many people realize that the year-round discount for using one's own mug is considerably higher than the 1:9 odds of winning a free coffee or doughnut during the "Roll Up the Rim" month. That is, my mug rings in at "medium" but it's 20 oz. ...so, something like 2/3 a free medium in each cup. All things considered, I'd prefer they keep their empty cup, and I'll keep my mug.]

Comments

[zanate.livejournal.com]

Roll up the Rim to Litter!

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

1:1 will win... an ugly environment!

[kraig.livejournal.com]

They will sometimes give you an empty one to roll up the rim anyway. Depends on the cashier.

I've wondered what the gross environmental cost of a mug vs paper cups is. Paper comes from a renewable resource; my aluminum mug does not. Presumably if I purchase a mug, and only use it two or three times, the gross cost of that is higher than if I'd just used paper in the first place, but at what point does it balance out?

As it happens, I have three aluminum mugs and use at least two of them daily, so I'm sure the cost is now less than if I'd used paper each time, but...

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

They will sometimes give you an empty one to roll up the rim anyway.

Yeah. I've decided not to take 'em, if they offer.

Yes, the paper comes from a renewable resource, but the plastic they coat the inside with doesn't. I don't know what kind of plastic it is, but that's why they're not recyclable.

If I were to guess, energy-to-produce is probably at least proportional to cost on the open market. I think an aluminum can costs 2 cents, and I'd hazard a guess that a good mug might cost 100 times that. A paper cup might have a penny worth of paper, so my guess is roughly 200 uses make a mug more cost-efficient (and hopefully energy efficient too). Leaving aside the energy to wash the mug, which is hopefully pretty low.

I don't even remember when I got my plastic mug. Oh wait, yes I do, it came from a computer conference in 1998.

[quingawaga.livejournal.com]

FWIW I think it's more of a wax coating on the inside of the Timmy's cups rather than plastic.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Heh. I would've said the same, but various sources said "plastic and wax":

http://www.theconcordian.com/media/paper290/news/2005/11/23/News/Is.Tim.Hortons.Making.A.Mess.Of.Our.Province-1113475.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.theconcordian.com

That article describes some interesting student research that suggests that Tims doesn't follow their own code of conduct on waste (promoting reusable mugs, not using disposables for in-store consumption, and so on). And 85% of customers don't know about the reusable mug thingy. Both, which I'd believe is also true locally.

[kraig.livejournal.com]

I frequently see paper cups in-store. I see it more when they're busier; I suspect most stores likely don't have very fast dishwashing (probably somebody gets nominated to check it when they have time).

They could do more to advertise the reusable mugs thing though.

[kraig.livejournal.com]

Those sound like reasonable guesstimates.

I was wondering more about the environmental cost of production though - not money costs. My aluminium mug costs a hole in the ground and everything else associated with mining. Glass or plastic are different but the same, particularly the latter. Metal used in the production of my mug can't be used for something else; with a paper cup (plastic coating aside) you can always replant the tree.

Recycling is a whole 'nother thing: I'm not convinced that it's always The Best Thing To Do, although that's more borne of my suspicion of "golden bullet" solutions than any actual hard data.

I've no doubt that over a time period of sufficient length that Al or plastic cups, or china mugs, are more friendly than continually using new paper cups - but how long does that time period need to be?

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Uh, aluminum cans are recyclable by putting them in the blue box in Waterloo. I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of public drops as well. They're all over Toronto.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are, though not as ubiquetously as in Toronto. But I'm specifically asking about a deposit (say, a nickel) similar to beer cans and bottles.

http://www.bottlebill.org/geography/canada_summary.htm

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Ohh. I dunno. There used to be on glass bottles.

[nobodyhere.livejournal.com]

When I was in the maritimes, I found having a deposit on bottles actually made them more difficult to recycle. Most stores didn't take them back for refunds, and there weren't recycling bins in various places like there are here. After carrying a bottle around for a day trying to find somewhere to return it, I gave it to a cashier and asked them to keep the deposit.

But then I'm weird in that beer bottle deposits have no effect on me. Mostly I put beer bottles out with the blue box and someone walking by takes them for the deposit.

(hi! just wandered by from Joy's LJ.)

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Yes! Hi! I've been meaning to wander by your j as well, but you beat me to it.

...It was at least a year, maybe two, after moving here that we learned that beer bottles have deposits. Going by our rather slow rate of consumption, that didn't faze us too much.

In NY State, most grocery-stores accept deposits; I think they're requred to by law? Not exactly sure though. There are also other places that seem to specialize in reedeming cans and other recyclables.

By this point, many groceries have machines that look just like pop machines, but they work in reverse- you feed them cans, one at a time, and they feed you dollar bills when you're done. Pretty neat stuff.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Ah, and now I remember one 'o the other things you mentioned about your journal- I was thinking, "ah, good cook, interesting person, I need to ask kourneyshort to friend me." Can you friend me please? :)

[bats22.livejournal.com]

I've wondered what the gross environmental cost of a mug vs paper cups is. Paper comes from a renewable resource; my aluminum mug does not.

Answers provided by Google--you just have to know what terms to start searching for ("embodied energy paper cup").

http://www.ilea.org/lcas/hocking1994.html

The payback period for ceramic and glass mugs is on the order of 15-40 uses, compared to paper cups. This analysis includes washing water energy use. In a surprise to me, foam cups have a substantially lower embodied energy compared to paper cups. I guess there's not much weight to them.

Unfortunately, the aluminum travel mug that you have probably has a much higher embodied energy than ceramic or glass: for an order of magnitude check, see analysis of embodied energy of various building materials, including glass and aluminum (32 MJ/kg vs. 145 MJ/kg). It's not a great comparison, but it at least shows there's a pretty big difference (factor of 5). Heedlessly applying linear behavior to these ballpark estimates, and assuming that the aluminum and glass/ceramic mugs are the same weight, it would imply that you need to use your mug 70-180 times to have an energy payback. The authors of the study conclude:

The lesson of this life-cycle energy analysis is that the choice between reusable and disposable cups doesn't matter much in its overall environmental impact. One should use one's best judgement.

Indeed, in situations where cups are likely to be lost or broken and thus have a short average lifetime, disposable cups are the preferred option.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Well those are unexpected results, on foam cups.

But at least they're from home boys, U Vic.

...I'm not convinced this is actually the measure kraig was after- the overall environmental cost. It seems that's just manufacturing and reuse cost; w/o disposal cost or cost to the system of using a reusable vs nonreusable resource. I think disposal costs would be low in the case of a disposable, by virtue of how little material is in it, but I don't know how low as compared with the embodied energy; nor do I have figures on "system costs" however the heck that should be measured.

But, I think I know where to look.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

I'll be. Even the environmentalist web-magazine "Grist" approves of foam cups.

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2003/02/06/umbra-styrofoam/index.html

Should you avoid [Expanded Polystyrene] EPS? There is some debate in the environmental community about whether EPS is an ecologically good or bad product choice. Because it is derived from petroleum, it is not a renewable resource, and it is completely non-biodegradable. Industry advocates consider this a selling point, as EPS will not leach any nasty chemicals into landfill. Solid-waste experts are still unclear as to whether it is better to use products made from paper or EPS; if I uncover any decisive literature in the future, I'll let you know immediately.

But I couldn't find stats there on total energy costs of reusables versus disposables. (I'm lazy, they're lazy, etc).

Bats, thanks for your research by the way- I did appreciate that. :)