3 ms·

We hit a peak of canned food durability probably 20-40 years ago. Where we figured out manufacturing well enough, but hadn't gone fully synthetic with liners,

We hit a peak of canned food durability probably 20-40 years ago. Where we figured out manufacturing well enough, but hadn't gone fully synthetic with liners, overly minimized wall thickness, etc. Probably packaging contamination issues as well. I've had more (young) cans rupture in the last decade than any time before, even as they're stored next to much older ones. We're doing the same thing right now with plastic - drink bottles now weak thin and brittle vs the relatively strong/ ductile stuff of 10-15yrs ago.

SkyPuncher 2y ago
Sounds like manufacturing is getting better at reducing waste, since they’re able to use less material per can. Yes, you should recycle, but we all know that not everyone does.
- beerandt 2y ago
  If the product is ruined, the entire package and contents become waste. Metal is at least mostly recoverable energy. The footprint of the contents lost is not. And ironically the lighter plastic packaging makes it more likely to be trashed and not reused, or even attempted to be recycled. (Reuse is 1-2 magnitudes more efficient than recycling.)
  - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
    >Metal is at least mostly recoverable energy. The footprint of the contents lost is not. It should be, but how much of that is actually recycled vs. how much ends up in a landfill.
    - beerandt 2y ago
      Doesn't matter. Marginal savings is meaningless if the resulting product is worthless. On top of that- 99% of people who find a ruptured can with black ooze are trashing it. And the other 1% are spending more energy/resources to clean a contaminated container than the recycling will save. (Washing things is surprisingly expensive in terms of energy/resources. Often worth it for reuse, but not recycling.) Now you're essentially comparing mpg on a trip to no where.
      - kragen 2y ago
        on the contrary, if you can reduce the environmental cost per can by 30%, but the result is that 20% of the cans rupture and go to waste, you have still reduced the total environmental cost you are likely to go bankrupy tho
  - SkyPuncher 2y ago
    Sure, but what percent of product are you actually loosing? It’s not a lot.
    - beerandt 2y ago
      It varies. The manufacture has an interest in delivering it undamaged, but less in storage or handling or longevity. They used to overshoot to ensure hitting the goal they car about. It's probably efficient for them. They draw the system boundary after delivery. Because that doesn't necessarily make the full Life Cycle of the container and contents efficient as its actually used. It's similar to 'water saving' toilets. The manufacture sells a product with gal/flush, not gal/use. Real world use differs from nominal, and interests aren't always aligned, especially if regulatory bodies are involved. But the point is- the number is different depending on if you're the manufacturer, retailer, consumer, or recycling/ waste agency. Maximizing one parties efficiency doesn't mean an increase in net efficiency as viewed by others.
Scoundreller 2y ago
Wine bottles are continuing to go down in size too. The glass is still roughly half of the carbon footprint. Weights range wildly (and glass is largely unnecessary). https://www.joannasimon.com/post/lightly-does-it-reducing-bottle-weight-and-alternative-formats https://www.joannasimon.com/post/lightly-does-it-reducing-bo...
- beerandt 2y ago
  I think ultimately we'll realize overengineered glass (even if it's single use or crushed/repurposed or landfilled or recycled) is the best all around solution, especially taking into account health and future abundant (fusion-similar) energy. But also from big picture pollution/environmental and even carbon perspectives.

SkyPuncher 2y ago

Sounds like manufacturing is getting better at reducing waste, since they’re able to use less material per can. Yes, you should recycle, but we all know that not everyone does.

beerandt 2y ago
If the product is ruined, the entire package and contents become waste. Metal is at least mostly recoverable energy. The footprint of the contents lost is not. And ironically the lighter plastic packaging makes it more likely to be trashed and not reused, or even attempted to be recycled. (Reuse is 1-2 magnitudes more efficient than recycling.)
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  >Metal is at least mostly recoverable energy. The footprint of the contents lost is not. It should be, but how much of that is actually recycled vs. how much ends up in a landfill.
  - beerandt 2y ago
    Doesn't matter. Marginal savings is meaningless if the resulting product is worthless. On top of that- 99% of people who find a ruptured can with black ooze are trashing it. And the other 1% are spending more energy/resources to clean a contaminated container than the recycling will save. (Washing things is surprisingly expensive in terms of energy/resources. Often worth it for reuse, but not recycling.) Now you're essentially comparing mpg on a trip to no where.
    - kragen 2y ago
      on the contrary, if you can reduce the environmental cost per can by 30%, but the result is that 20% of the cans rupture and go to waste, you have still reduced the total environmental cost you are likely to go bankrupy tho
- SkyPuncher 2y ago
  Sure, but what percent of product are you actually loosing? It’s not a lot.
  - beerandt 2y ago
    It varies. The manufacture has an interest in delivering it undamaged, but less in storage or handling or longevity. They used to overshoot to ensure hitting the goal they car about. It's probably efficient for them. They draw the system boundary after delivery. Because that doesn't necessarily make the full Life Cycle of the container and contents efficient as its actually used. It's similar to 'water saving' toilets. The manufacture sells a product with gal/flush, not gal/use. Real world use differs from nominal, and interests aren't always aligned, especially if regulatory bodies are involved. But the point is- the number is different depending on if you're the manufacturer, retailer, consumer, or recycling/ waste agency. Maximizing one parties efficiency doesn't mean an increase in net efficiency as viewed by others.

Scoundreller 2y ago

Wine bottles are continuing to go down in size too. The glass is still roughly half of the carbon footprint. Weights range wildly (and glass is largely unnecessary). https://www.joannasimon.com/post/lightly-does-it-reducing-bottle-weight-and-alternative-formats https://www.joannasimon.com/post/lightly-does-it-reducing-bo...

beerandt 2y ago
I think ultimately we'll realize overengineered glass (even if it's single use or crushed/repurposed or landfilled or recycled) is the best all around solution, especially taking into account health and future abundant (fusion-similar) energy. But also from big picture pollution/environmental and even carbon perspectives.