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

[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. :)