Poll: Bottle or Can?

We aren't comparing how much energy it takes to move cans versus bottles from recycling facilities to industry. We are measuring environmental impact of using one versus the other, and from what I have read it is heavily in favor of glass as material of choice. It will become even worse as bauxite becomes harder and harder to find and extract, and more and more of it is needed to use in aluminum products.

 

Here is a link to a blind test of the same brand of beer from cans vs. bottles: http://thebeerists.com/the-beerists-podcast-episode-12-can-you-taste-the-difference/

The conclusion:

“In conclusion, we were all able to reliably guess correctly more than 50% of the time. We also thought that the samples that came from cans most often displayed the more favorable characteristics. Additionally, the canned samples displayed fewer flaws or off-flavors in our opinions.”

Cheers!

 

I prefer cans. They keep the light out better and take up less room/easier to stack. There's also lot of places that you can't take glass bottles so cans work perfectly there.

 

Huh?
"How much energy it takes to move cans versus bottle from recycling facilities to industry"
is a component of
"environmental impact of using one versus the other."
I agreed that you were right if you only look at the most environmentally-impactful part of the process (mining). But if you look at the entire environmental impact for the "use" of each container as it actually happens: mining > creation > transport (use for beer) > recycling (creation) > transport, and so on, the idea that one is substantially better than the other doesn't hold up. At least according to a few articles I've read. Like this one: http://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/the-greener-beer-bottles-v-cans/

 

What's wrong with people? Why would you prefer a can? I can see if you're going camping, biking, beach, etc. But other than that, how is it better? And canned beers don't taste as good as bottled.

 

I would encourage you to read the blind taste test that I linked above.

Cheers!

 

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html

You'll hafta tweak the numbers for the mix on aluminum as it is closer to 30% recycled now

 

I agreed from the beginning that mining material for cans was more environmentally impactful than for bottles. Not sure why you can't get past that point and on to the others I'm trying to make. Oh well.

 

I am reminded of an old quote from Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain): “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Dave, what is the source of the statistics for 30%?

FWIW, I found this: “The average aluminum can contains more than 50% post-consumer recycled aluminum.”

The above quote from here with no specific mention of year: http://www.adamsrecycling.net/recycling-facts/

Cheers!

 

Cans hand down. Reasons I prefer cans: they are easier to store and take up less room, get cold faster, are cheaper to ship / thus to trade and some of my favorite beers come in cans.
However my main reason for cans is that when I cellar a beer I lay it flat as it gives me more room in my beer fridge. Than I forget and open it up and the next thing I know my beer is foaming over the top leaving a huge mess. However my beers that I am cellaring are about 95% in bottles.

 

Because 70%+ of every aluminum can is made from mined material. It seems to be you having trouble with the concept.

This is a thread about which is better.

I say cans.

Did I miss something?

My apologies if I did, but as I recall I made that point earlier, and you replied disputing it?

 

It is a general figure for alumninum, and varies from product to product. It is quoted as high as 50 and as low as 20 for cans, and I was using the safe number. In this industry what is used in aluminum production varies by the market price of each, which has a wide variation.

Regardless, no matter which numbers you use, the amount of energy and resources (many of which are caustic, have their own environmental consequences of production and disposal, and/or require manufacturing themselves to use) and the amount of habitat degradation comparing aluminum to glass is clearly worse, by far, for aluminum.

 

I am not having trouble with that concept. I completely understand it. You can believe whatever you want, but I'm talking about the entire process of a can being a can. You made a claim about mining, I agreed. But I'm also reminding you (over and over) that the fact that cans take less energy to transport and recycle need to be included in the equation of total environmental impact. Those facts are there whether you ignore them or not.

 

I guess we agree that it is bottles, but the numbers show that it isn't close, which was your point, right, that it's pretty close? It isn't. The difference no matter how you look at it is lopsided in favor of glass. I could go on to explain further but gonna leave it here.

 

As a collector of bottlecaps of my favorite beers, I vote bottles.

 

Bottles are sexier but cans are better for transportation and cellaring. Oh and they are easier to recycle, etc.

 

Bottles for me.

Though I will take IPA's in the can.

 

Well the consensus is clear. More breweries need to start canning. Thanks for this insightful thread @Greywulfken

 

Just ipas and apas in cans. Everything else in bottles.

 

I'll take cans for the year round releases and seasonals. However, the barrel-aged stuff, big imperial stouts, lambics, etc., keep in bottles.