I imagine all plastics will be out of the question. I’m wondering about what ways food packaging might become regulated to upcycling in the domestic or even commercial space. Assuming energy remains a $ scarce $ commodity I don’t imagine recycling glass will be super practical as a replacement. Do we move to more unpackaged goods and bring our own containers to fill at markets? Do we start running two way logistics chains where a more durable glass container is bought and returned to market? How do we achieve a lower energy state of normal in packaging goods?
You must log in or register to comment.
Why does energy have to be scarce?
Anyway, reusing metal and glass containers seems like a straightforward plan.
Why does energy have to be scarce?
Reality.
Barring a major technological breakthrough, all current means of energy generation have significant environmental drawbacks. Even among the “renewable” energy generation there’s problems: hydroelectric destroys river ecosystems, nuclear produces radioactive waste, solar and battery systems require mined materials (and become toxic waste at the end of their lifecycles), wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds and bats annually, etc. Meanwhile rather than solving environmental and climate problems at their sources, we’re relying more heavily on powered solutions, from electric vehicles to de-carbonization systems, while also needing to use more electricity to combat the ill-effects of climate change (e.g. more air conditioning in the face of warming summers). If we’re gonna start turning the boat around on environmental issues we need to dramatically reduce our energy consumption as a society. Instead we’re mining bitcoin and barrelling headfirst into an AI “revolution”…
Nuclear, deep-well geothermal, and concentrated solar are all good, low-impact thermal power options. We should always be improving energy efficiency, but I just don’t see why we have to reduce energy consumption so much that we can’t have reusable metal and glass containers anymore.
nuclear produces radioactive waste,
Radioactive waste is not nearly as significant a problem as has been drilled into our heads. All that waste is dangerous precisely because it is so energetic.
“Fast” reactors reprocess and burn “spent” fuel rods and other high-level waste, leaving only low-level waste with half-lives measured in weeks and months. This low-level waste stabilizes (becomes less radioactive than a banana) in decades, not millennia.
A sufficiently large, sufficiently expensive stockpile of high level waste from low-efficiency reactors provides a hell of an incentive to build fast reactors.
Okay, but even in an efficient system there’s still a waste product. My point wasn’t to compare-and-contrast trade-offs, simply to acknowledge that every form of energy generation has them to some degree. Plus nuclear still requires a mined resource, and again, mining is an environmentally damaging activity. Just because something is better than alternatives that doesn’t give it a free pass.
