Why Craft Breweries Should Stop Using Cans
May 3, 2010 at 15:48 | Nor Cal Beer Guy Aluminum cans are becoming an increasingly popular choice among craft brewers due to the ease of canning, consumer demand, and the recyclability of aluminum.
Canning lines themselves take up far less room that a glass bottling line, require less variables (caps, labels, glue), and break down less often. A craft brewer sees this as an easy way to get their product to market with incredible ease and speed. Consumers are also demanding craft beer in aluminum cans be it for the beach where glass is prohibited, backpacking where a light-weight durable container is needed, or even airline flights.
Another thing breweries mention over and over is how environmentally friendly aluminum is. “Aluminum cans are recycled more than bottles, aluminum is easier to transport, aluminum uses less material than glass.” Those statements contain a flaw, a big environmental one, and it's not the plastic rings that hold the cans together which account for untold death among wildlife. It's the mining process itself.
;)
Aerial view of a bauxite mining operation.Aluminum is strip mined. It is found in bauxite, a plentiful ore located close to the surface of the Earth. Mining it requires removing a deep layer of topsoil from the entire surrounding environment. This means vast acres of forests and other terrain is completely removed prior to or during the mining process. It's almost beautiful in how clean mined areas look. Their incredible efficiency in removing everything is astounding.
Removing such a huge layer of topsoil and vegetation causes significant problems: the land loses its ability to retain water, causing mudslides and heavy flooding. These factors combined cause heavy saturation of nutrients and iron rich dirt in local rivers and lakes which suffocate fish, kill off amphibious life, and are responsible for huge blooms of harmful bacteria. The list goes on. These effects are why you primarily see bauxite mining in poorer countries and not in the United States.
Next, in order to get the aluminum out of the bauxite, chemicals are needed to dissolve it out of the ore materials. An extremely corrosive sodium hydroxide solution is used to saturate the ore along with extreme heat to extract the aluminum for easier shipping and handling. It is estimated that for every ton of raw alumina (unrefined aluminum) it takes three tons of bauxite. When you think of how many millions of tons of alumina certain countries produce each year, we're talking about mountains here.
This alumina is then sent to countries like the United States and Canada for further refining into finished aluminum. We've dumped all the processing on the Third World.
The rough refining process uses a lot of energy. Countries, even the United States, built dam after dam in order to power the aluminum refining process. The Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River Gorge was built for such a reason, another nail in the coffin for the dwindling salmon population as well as other river wildlife. I don't think I need to go into greater detail with you on how negative an impact dams have on the environment, but if you want further reading check out this great article 'Dammed If You Do.'
Dams are bad for other reasons as well. The Akosombo Dam in Ghana, holding back the largest man-made reservoir by surface area in the world, displaced 80,000 people. About 700 villages went underwater in the flooding. Volta Aluminum Company provided funding for the building of the dam and ensured that they would always have enough power for their smelts. 80% of the power generated by the dam goes to the Volta Aluminum Company while only 20% goes to the people. We're talking a lot of energy too, 1020 Megawatts. Rolling blackouts are common in Ghana and neo-colonial contracts mean the aluminum industry will always have priority over the people.
Ghana has it the worst. The forced relocation of 80,000 destroyed the economy, the lake has increased disease in the area due to mosquitoes and flies, and Lake Volta covered over 3,000 square miles of farm land. The kicker? The added weight of the water on the Earth's crust has caused re-adjustments in the Earth's crust and hence more earthquakes in the region.
;)
A red mud lake right next to a major river. Spillages occur frequently.Jamaica is another country hit hard by the aluminum industry. Highly alkaline and sodium-rich soil from the refining process creates what's called “red-mud,” a by-product that is very toxic. Residues include silicone, titanium, lead, sodium, magnesium and calcium oxides. With no vegetation from the strip mining to soak up the excess minerals, it is finding its way into the water supply of the local populace which in turn causes severe health problems.
The metal-rich dust created by the mining process messes with the lungs of locals and workers alike. Even the gasses released during the refining process are causing havoc in the ozone layer along with the people. Sulfur dioxide, chlorine, carbon monoxide and the incredibly dangerous hydrogen fluoride. Hydrogen fluoride is particularly nasty. It is prone to explosion ("Exposure to moisture or steam may produce highly explosive hydrogen gas." -OSHA), replaces calcium in the body causing brittle bones, and when it comes in contact with skin it turns into a corrosive acid. You can read all about it in this comprehensive study.
Run-off near the port and spillage from the loading process is killing off the coral reefs in Jamaica. Even the dust in the air from the mining is causing respiratory illness in the communities surrounding the area. Being so poor, Jamaica is finding it very hard to stop mining such a precious material. The Earth and the people that live there are in dire need of help. Most of the countries that are huge aluminum producers are so poor that they have no other choice but to keep mining, the result is that the red mud run-off has decimated their forests but more importantly their shores.
;)
The bottom line is this: aluminum is in no way environmentally friendly. Sure, after it is ripped from the Earth, smelted, shipped, refined, and made into a product it is easily recyclable and very light weight, but the cost is far too great. The cost to the environment and to the people living around these areas is just too much. Clean aluminum is like the myth of clean coal, it's a total lie.
At least glass comes from sand, is reusable, and when thrown away goes back to sand. Aluminum? It lasts forever.
The returnable bottle is what environmentally conscious breweries should be looking into, it's the responsible thing to do.
Reader Comments (10)
What are the environmental consequences of glass in comparison? Both the production and the extra resources needed to transport it. Glass factories seem to use a huge amount of power as well. But I presume mining sand isn't as damaging?
A huge reason for cans is shipping. If you stack two six packs of cans on top of eachother, you will notice that it takes up about the same space as one sixpack of bottles. The bottle needs to be redesigned for better shipping and it will encourage more brewers to use bottles instead of cans.
Great post - I had no idea about that actually. So what you're saying then is the environmental angle is being used as the reason to switch, but the real reason is savings ($$$).
If you look on cans and talk to the people who use them, they keep citing how recyclable aluminum cans are. I agree, they are very recyclable. Yet I believe they don't know or choose to ignore the fact that to get the aluminum in the first place requires a huge cost to the environment and to the people around the mines.
Glass? You scoop up some sand, wash it, melt it into a bottle, you're done. You may run into the same problems such as transportation and energy consumption, but sand is plentiful, easily found, and you don't need dangerous chemicals to extract it. You drive up, scoop up sand, and drive off.
The bottle is shaped that way because it's a durable shape, stress is distributed well over that shape and so there is less breakage. We just need to get into the mentality of reusable glass. A wine bottle in Europe is used an average of seven times before it gets recycled, imagine that here. The thing is, we used to do this. Coke bottles we returnable. We switched to plastic and it was all over.
Plus personally, I think beer (like Coke and milk) tastes better in glass.
Recycling aluminium is incredibly efficient. Recycling an aluminum can takes only 5% of the energy it took to create it from scratch. To recycle a glass bottle takes anywhere from 70% to 95% as much energy as it did to create it from scratch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling#Cost-benefit_analysis http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/energy/how-much-energy-saved-by-recycling-one-aluminum)
Refilling glass bottles, however, takes 0% production energy. But since in the US we have a much more established recycling infrastructure than we do refilling infrastructure, recycling of aluminum may have less environmental impact than recycling glass for now.
I'm all for refilling bottles, we should do it whenever possible but when it's not possible encouraging the use and recycling of aluminium seems reasonable.
I've also heard, but been unable to find documentation, that there are many local, state, and federal laws that make refilling glass bottles illegal.
The transportation costs of glass are dramatically more than aluminum since a glass bottle weights so much. So the efficiency of refilling glass is predicated on short distribution trips.
Perhaps instead of "aluminium is bad", "refilling locally is awesome" should be the mantra.
Also, beer preserves much better in opaque containers. So maybe, "refilling is awesome" and "dark bottles rock".
I consider myself relatively concerned with the environment and reasonably informed on environmental issues, but I am far from a professional or expert. However, I find this post terribly lacking in many areas.
First of all, production of glass still requires you to "scoop up some sand" from somewhere, and I'm pretty sure this process also usually involves removal of topsoil, although heavy metal contamients are probably much less of an issue.
Secondly, recyclability is completely ignored. The energy use required to recycle glass is incredible compared to aluminum. Considering recycling is done locally (not outsourced to the "third world"), most of this energy is going to come from coal, which is not exactly environmentally friendly either.
Third, craft beer is a ridiculously tiny consumer of aluminum overall and I would feel pretty confident in saying that they have no effect whatsoever on the extent of mining operations. Some simplified calculations based on a little internet searching told me at the extreme high end, Oskar Blues (one of the biggest craft canners) uses enough newly-refined aluminum to make 11.5% of one Boeing 747 in one year or 1.4% of all 747s made last year (8). And that's just one product, in one industry that uses aluminum. This is also assuming OB only cans and has no keg operation, which isn't true.
This leads me to another point. Even within the craft segment of the beer industry, I'd guess that aluminum kegs make up a pretty significant portion of the aluminum use in the industry. Yes, some are steel and yes, they are used many times before being recycled, and no, I don't have any specific numbers on this, but just think about the number of breweries that can and the number that keg.
Reusable bottles may be a good start, but they use twice as much glass as non-returnables, and the shipping cost is astronomically higher, due to increased weight and volume. Currently, we pretty much only use non-renewable fuels for cargo transport. And without the backing of the big producers, setting up a system for returning bottles is pretty difficult. There is a local brewery (Point) that does returnable bottles for the local (in-town) markets, but everything else is cans and non-returnable bottles.
There are many more factors here, such as less energy required for cooling and less waste due to skunking or breakage, but I think I have made my point. That is that there are many many factors to be considered here and lots of numbers to be crunched before one can reasonably take a stance on what packaging method is best for single servings of beer. I personally think plant-based PET bottles is an option that should be explored.
I am also not trying to belittle your efforts to raise awareness of the terrible environmental consequences of mining, which are absolutely unacceptable. I am more upset at the judgement put forth without considering a wider range of factors.
What I see the article saying is "aluminum mining is hurting the environment so we should stop viewing it as friendly to the environment." What you guys are saying is "it's worth the cost." After seeing that video can you honestly say it's worth the cost?
Eamon, they're many things to consider. No matter what material is used to bottle beer there will be an environmental impact. I think it is important to analyze all options and strategies for beer distribution so that we can have an honest and informed discussion about how to achieve the least net impact on the environment.
Factoring in distance transported, refill vs not refilled, etc. I'm sure there are scenarios where the net environmental impact of aluminum cans is less than glass and others where the net impact of glass is less. In scenarios where the net is less for aluminium I *can* honestly say that it is worth the cost.
lived in Jamaica all my life and now that ive seen this its a total eye opener
Aluminum Bauxite spill in Hungary. That place is so screwed. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/10/a_flood_of_toxic_sludge.html