Not entirely. All cans currently made (at least for the US) have a super thin plastic liner to help the drink avoid taking on too much of a metallic taste.
There are multiple YouTubes out there that will show you what happens when you dissolve an aluminum can; the dissolution process removes the aluminum and leaves the plastic liner.
A thin plastic film… in other words a plastic bottle.
Actually a resin. Made of BPA, which is released into the atmosphere during the recycling process. Which contributes to the 1 million pounds of bpa released every year.
Basically small amounts of plastic BPA, burned into the air for each and every can.
So no cans currently do not solve the plastics problem.
I think you may have an unworkable concept of what “solving” the plastic problem means, when you can’t tell the difference between a film and a bottle. Both of which have largely phased out BPA already.
Aluminium recycling/melting however needs a lot of energy, which again is often generated from non-renewable sources. So even cans are bad for the environment.
Cans.
Cans are actually recyclable containers, that fix most of the environmental problems of plastic bottles.
They’ve had resealable “bottle like” cans for a decade or more already.
Fountain drinks can use the same CO2 they already have, to pressurize cans of concentrate to pump the syrup to the fountain head.
Not entirely. All cans currently made (at least for the US) have a super thin plastic liner to help the drink avoid taking on too much of a metallic taste.
There are multiple YouTubes out there that will show you what happens when you dissolve an aluminum can; the dissolution process removes the aluminum and leaves the plastic liner.
Not sure what you mean by dissolving. As far as so know aluminum gets melted down. Any plastic, inks, or other impurities get burned off generally.
Like this https://youtu.be/7r7_SFdSdE4?si=r1Ihz73gdn9qx0Ek
Yah, that’s not how they are recycled. That gets burned off by the temps required to melt the aluminum.
I, nor the poster you replied to, never mentioned recycling. Your starting to put things into the discussion that was never there.
It does seem that way.
I guess I’m not sure what problem you’re talking about.
Their point was that buying a can just means you are buying a plastic container anyways, that happens to be reinforced with aluminum.
It’s still a plastic bottle.
It’s not. It’s a thin plastic film. One that doesn’t get into the environment at nearly the rate, since the aluminum is actually worth recycling.
A thin plastic film… in other words a plastic bottle.
Actually a resin. Made of BPA, which is released into the atmosphere during the recycling process. Which contributes to the 1 million pounds of bpa released every year.
Basically small amounts of plastic BPA, burned into the air for each and every can.
So no cans currently do not solve the plastics problem.
I think you may have an unworkable concept of what “solving” the plastic problem means, when you can’t tell the difference between a film and a bottle. Both of which have largely phased out BPA already.
Although they’re a bit better than plastic bottles, all aluminum cans require a plastic inner liner.
https://www.plasticstoday.com/business/liquid-death-may-murder-your-thirst-but-it-won-t-kill-plastic-no-matter-what-the-ads-say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W05yBVq18cY
Aluminium recycling/melting however needs a lot of energy, which again is often generated from non-renewable sources. So even cans are bad for the environment.
That’s a temporary problem. One solved by the renewable energy transition already underway.