On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:49:00 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Millions using several coffee pods a day? In the grand scheme of things
>>> with a weekly wheelie bin full of recyclables, it hardly registers.
>>
>> Everything registers in the long run. You can always use the its only a small
>
>> percentage argument about anything but percentages add up and if there is a
>> way of avoiding waste then why not do it.
>>
>> Though while millions of gullible fuckwits still buy bottled water full of
>> microplastics from the bottle they're in order not to drink perfectly safe
>tap
>> water because of spurious health reasons dreamed up by a PR company its all
>a
>> bit moot.
>>
>>
>
>What is greater, the environmental impact of the coffee pod or the
>production and distribution of the coffee? Are the bean grinders just
>kidding themselves they are being good?

Nothing is without an enviromental cost, but A + B + C > B + C.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 15:49:00 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Millions using several coffee pods a day? In the grand scheme of things
>>>> with a weekly wheelie bin full of recyclables, it hardly registers.
>>>
>>> Everything registers in the long run. You can always use the its only a small
>>
>>> percentage argument about anything but percentages add up and if there is a
>>> way of avoiding waste then why not do it.
>>>
>>> Though while millions of gullible fuckwits still buy bottled water full of
>>> microplastics from the bottle they're in order not to drink perfectly safe
>> tap
>>> water because of spurious health reasons dreamed up by a PR company its all
>> a
>>> bit moot.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What is greater, the environmental impact of the coffee pod or the
>> production and distribution of the coffee? Are the bean grinders just
>> kidding themselves they are being good?
>
> Nothing is without an enviromental cost, but A + B + C > B + C.
>
>

I’m querying the relative difference between the two.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 09:38:13 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 07:40:29 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 29/07/2022 23:55, Roger Lynn wrote:
>>> That's not surprising - producing aluminium from Bauxite uses a vast amount
>>> of electricity - that's why aluminium is relatively expensive.
>>
>>And why aluminium smelters are built near to power stations usually.
>
>Usually hydro because the electricity was 'free'?
>
Even more "free" if you own both the generator and its main intended
user.

>>
>>You are unlikely to find one next to a wind power station because a
>>period without wind would be disastrous. Our local aluminium smelter at
>>times has shut down because of lack of water but that is predictable
>>well in advance.
>>
>>Now in danger because of the SNP giving hundred of millions of pounds to
>>an Indian businessman.
>
>No worse than one based in Monaco who knows f**k all about building
>ferries.
>
Or one based in Southampton that never had any ferries built but still
tried to hire them out.

In message <tc3f8j$ev7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:29:39 on Sat, 30 Jul
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 11:36:11 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <ib5eri-u24.ln1@castle.rilynn.me.uk>, at 23:59:30 on Fri, 29
>>Jul 2022, Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
>>>On 27/07/2022 13:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <rdt1eh5feg4ohd204trrubhd84ni4l67co@4ax.com>, at 09:26:31 on
>>>> Wed, 27 Jul 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:19:13 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>In message <1ukvdhhlhj40ofi3qcvpag7lmuv4k33208@4ax.com>, at 12:48:10 on
>>>>>>Tue, 26 Jul 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:42:24 +0100, ColinR
>>>>>>><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Of corse you could always get someone else to do the hard work and buy a
>>>>>>>>pod machine such as Dolce Gusto, Nespresso or Tassimo!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is true but I think there would be a lack of congruence with the
>>>>>>>household environmental policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you are worried that much about the environmental impact of a tiny
>>>>>>amount of coffee packaging (did anyone actually do an audit), then buy a
>>>>>>can of instant that'll make a hundred cups. You can even get it "Costa"
>>>>>>branded these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The can is metal and recyclable, although I understand the national
>>>>>>average for that [all materials] is 8% of what *could* be recycled, so
>>>>>>blame your local council if they are guilty of contributing to the 92%
>>>>>
>>>>>And how much energy does constructing then recycling the pods use? And
>>>>>surely it's a hugely expensive way to make coffee?
>>>>>
>>>>>Out of all of the unnecessarily wasteful things that a consumer can do
>>>>>I've always considered coffee pods to be the just about the most
>>>>>egregious. I find them absolutely unconscionable. I'll stick to my
>>>>>AeroPress.
>>
>>>> I find it difficult to believe a small coffee pod is a crime against
>>>>the environment, compared to buying a slightly less self-indulgent
>>>>product in a metal can.
>>>
>>>One is insignificant. Millions of people using several per day is an
>>>environmental disaster.
>>
>>Millions using several coffee pods a day? In the grand scheme of things
>>with a weekly wheelie bin full of recyclables, it hardly registers.
>
>Everything registers in the long run. You can always use the its only a small
>percentage argument about anything but percentages add up and if there is a
>way of avoiding waste then why not do it.

About three years ago people locally started a project to recycle crisp
packets. Of which there are also a large number, although again it's a
tiny percentage of the weekly shop. By they time they'd driven them to
the collection points, and someone else had rounded them all up and
taken to a facility the other end of the country, I'm far from convinced
the overall material/energy budget wasn't negative.
--
Roland Perry

On 31/07/2022 06:36, Roland Perry wrote:
> About three years ago people locally started a project to recycle crisp
> packets. Of which there are also a large number, although again it's a
> tiny percentage of the weekly shop. By they time they'd driven them to
> the collection points, and someone else had rounded them all up and
> taken to a facility the other end of the country, I'm far from convinced
> the overall material/energy budget wasn't negative.

I think that is the case with a lot of recycling then of course much of
the 'recycled' items just go to landfill.

I remember a friend on Skye telling me that he watched the 'recycled'
glass being tipped into the same lorry as the stuff going to landfill. A
lot of 'recycling' is just a box-ticking exercise.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 06:36:57 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tc3f8j$ev7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:29:39 on Sat, 30 Jul
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Everything registers in the long run. You can always use the its only a small
>>percentage argument about anything but percentages add up and if there is a
>>way of avoiding waste then why not do it.
>
>About three years ago people locally started a project to recycle crisp
>packets. Of which there are also a large number, although again it's a
>tiny percentage of the weekly shop. By they time they'd driven them to
>the collection points, and someone else had rounded them all up and
>taken to a facility the other end of the country, I'm far from convinced
>the overall material/energy budget wasn't negative.

Possibly not but you balance one type of pollution against the other.
Personally I don't believe the energy spent on recycling plastics is worth
it when they can just be burnt for energy which solves the problem for good
instead of kicking the can down the road for a bit longer until it all ends
up as carpet no one wants.

In message <tc56ki$5fpu$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:14:42 on Sun, 31 Jul
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 31/07/2022 06:36, Roland Perry wrote:
>> About three years ago people locally started a project to recycle crisp
>> packets. Of which there are also a large number, although again it's a
>> tiny percentage of the weekly shop. By they time they'd driven them to
>> the collection points, and someone else had rounded them all up and
>> taken to a facility the other end of the country, I'm far from convinced
>> the overall material/energy budget wasn't negative.
>
>I think that is the case with a lot of recycling then of course much of
>the 'recycled' items just go to landfill.
>
>I remember a friend on Skye telling me that he watched the 'recycled'
>glass being tipped into the same lorry as the stuff going to landfill.
>A lot of 'recycling' is just a box-ticking exercise.

Yes, that sort of thing happens a lot (not every council has facilities
to everything all of the time) but the materials in question are
processed through existing channels and not (as I suspect recycling
coffee pods would be) through a completely new channel with all of its
additional set-up and operating costs.
--
Roland Perry

On 30/07/2022 13:34, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 30/07/2022 11:18, ColinR wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2022 09:45, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2022 13:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <rdt1eh5feg4ohd204trrubhd84ni4l67co@4ax.com>, at 09:26:31 on
>>>>>> Wed, 27 Jul 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:19:13 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <1ukvdhhlhj40ofi3qcvpag7lmuv4k33208@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>> 12:48:10 on
>>>>>>>> Tue, 26 Jul 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:42:24 +0100, ColinR
>>>>>>>>> <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Of corse you could always get someone else to do the hard work
>>>>>>>>>> and buy a
>>>>>>>>>> pod machine such as Dolce Gusto, Nespresso or Tassimo!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is true but I think there would be a lack of congruence with
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> household environmental policies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are worried that much about the environmental impact of a tiny
>>>>>>>> amount of coffee packaging (did anyone actually do an audit), then
>>>>>>>> buy a
>>>>>>>> can of instant that'll make a hundred cups. You can even get it
>>>>>>>> "Costa"
>>>>>>>> branded these days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The can is metal and recyclable, although I understand the national
>>>>>>>> average for that [all materials] is 8% of what *could* be
>>>>>>>> recycled, so
>>>>>>>> blame your local council if they are guilty of contributing to the
>>>>>>>> 92%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And how much energy does constructing then recycling the pods use? And
>>>>>>> surely it's a hugely expensive way to make coffee?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Out of all of the unnecessarily wasteful things that a consumer can do
>>>>>>> I've always considered coffee pods to be the just about the most
>>>>>>> egregious. I find them absolutely unconscionable. I'll stick to my
>>>>>>> AeroPress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe a small coffee pod is a crime against
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> environment, compared to buying a slightly less self-indulgent product
>>>>>> in a metal can.
>>>>>
>>>>> One is insignificant. Millions of people using several per day is an
>>>>> environmental disaster.
>>>>
>>>> I find myself wondering what the relative amounts of metal involved
>>>> are per
>>>> cup, comparing pod and large can.  The surface area of metal will be
>>>> larger
>>>> for individual serving packages, but the metal can be probably be
>>>> thinner.
>>>> It’s probably an seven more awkward comparison since the can will
>>>> probably
>>>> be steel rather than aluminium.
>>>
>>> I do not know about others, but Dolce Gusto pods are plastic, not metal.
>>> There is a foil top though so maybe a little metal. OK, that goes on to
>>> the single use plastic argument!!
>>
>> There are also the rarer metals used to make the chip which authorises
>> the machine to brew the coffee by identifying it as a "genuine" pod.
>> They are single-use, and complicate recycling of the rest of the pod.
>>
>
> I can only find references to one brand (which I'd never heard of) using a
> system like that, and they seem to have abandoned it in 2017
> <https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/11/keurig-takes-steps-towards-abandoning-coffee-pod-drm>
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

Tend to agree, Dolce Gusto machines work with third party pods (the
Co-op for example).

--
Colin

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:13:16 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>Although OT, I'm sure this is a subject that has become familiar to
>most members of the group over the years.
>
>My coffee grinder is on its way out and I am looking at replacement.
>Prices range from �9 (Asda) to several hundred pounds. I know the
>experts say that burr is better than blades and ability to set the
>fine-ness is important to the brewing process. However, for an
>average, inexpert, low-use coffee drinker looking for a palatable mug
>of coffee, does it really make much difference? (You can always very
>the time to adjust the fine-ness.)

What has become of the group? The question would have been how long
to let tea stew in the pot before it had reached optimum.

And on coffee, it's one of those blade machines, press the button,
whirr for a few seconds, stop, then do again, check the coffee with
fingers, repeat till right. Put coffee in a Moka pot filling a
patting down to the desired consistency and then let it slowly
splutter away. All equipment in use is at least 50yrs old and used as
my mother taught me.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

AnthonyL <nospam@please.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 12:13:16 +0100, Scott
> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Although OT, I'm sure this is a subject that has become familiar to
>> most members of the group over the years.
>>
>> My coffee grinder is on its way out and I am looking at replacement.
>> Prices range from ｣9 (Asda) to several hundred pounds. I know the
>> experts say that burr is better than blades and ability to set the
>> fine-ness is important to the brewing process. However, for an
>> average, inexpert, low-use coffee drinker looking for a palatable mug
>> of coffee, does it really make much difference? (You can always very
>> the time to adjust the fine-ness.)
>
> What has become of the group? The question would have been how long
> to let tea stew in the pot before it had reached optimum.
>
> And on coffee, it's one of those blade machines, press the button,
> whirr for a few seconds, stop, then do again, check the coffee with
> fingers, repeat till right. Put coffee in a Moka pot filling a
> patting down to the desired consistency and then let it slowly
> splutter away. All equipment in use is at least 50yrs old and used as
> my mother taught me.

My grandfather used to have a glass Cona machine with a little spirit lamp
under it.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply