What's more "Green"

[elmer92413]

Ok consider a paper plate and all that goes into producing one versus a regular plate. And then the effect of washing the plate and throwing away the paper plate. Which has the smallest impact on the environment? Does it only take one use of the plate or does the difference not come out until multiple uses?
For the sake of this comparison the paper plate is a good comprise between quality and amount of material used, in short thickness. I'm not to sure about what material is best for plates, so I'll assume that if there is any major difference you'll mention it.

My first thought is that a regular plate is the best, but I'm not sure how the washing of it figures in. Would dishwashers and their power/water/soup use negate the initial benefit of regular plates? I'm pretty sure dishwashers are more efficient than hand washing.

So anyway I've been thinking about this for awhile and I thought you guys might be able to help settle this for me.

 

[irishScott]

Depends on the dishwasher. Also, theoretically you could recycle the paper plates, making them more efficient.

 

[CycloWizard]

I abhor the whole concept of "green." It's another meaningless buzzword that the media has coined in its ignorance, thereby creating an entire market for people who want to "Go Green!" or "Buy Green!" It makes me want to punch someone in the throat.

That said, it completely depends on which metric you want to look at. Paper plates take energy and materials to produce, just like ceramic plates. Paper plates also take energy to dispose of, whereas ceramic plates require energy and resources of different types and amounts. Paper plates cause virtually no pollution after the production process, require minimal energy to dispose of, as well as negligible space (which is eventually recovered). Ceramic plates require a finite amount of energy to clean, plus the detergent load on the wastewater. The wastewater plant is usually hungry for detergents though, as they actually help the plants do their job of removing oils and greases from the influent, so maybe that's a negative pollutant.

So, if we neglect the post-use requirements, which are more or less a push, it simply becomes a matter of which requires more energy/resources to produce. This one is really easy, since one may theoretically use a ceramic plate forever. That makes its energy/resource cost per use absolutely negligible such that even a minute cost per paper plate will always amount to a greater net cost.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Paper plates cause virtually no pollution after the production process, require minimal energy to dispose of, as well as negligible space (which is eventually recovered).

Actually, no - items which are normally biodegradable don't actually degrade in modern landfills. They are buried so thoroughly that there is no air or energy available for microbes to live and thus break things down. It's been shown that if you dig up an old landfill, you can still read newspapers from 1920 as if they just came off the presses, and everything your grandmother put in the kitchen wastebasket is easily identifiable.

Ceramic plates require a finite amount of energy to clean, plus the detergent load on the wastewater. The wastewater plant is usually hungry for detergents though, as they actually help the plants do their job of removing oils and greases from the influent, so maybe that's a negative pollutant.

Now that I did not know... :thumbsup:
You can also use a lot less water & soap by handwashing dishes, rather than relying on a machine, if you so choose.

So, if we neglect the post-use requirements, which are more or less a push, it simply becomes a matter of which requires more energy/resources to produce. This one is really easy, since one may theoretically use a ceramic plate forever. That makes its energy/resource cost per use absolutely negligible such that even a minute cost per paper plate will always amount to a greater net cost.

Infinite use is the key, and I'd add one more - clay is a plentiful non-organic material, whereas paper plates require cutting down a tree (living). When you're done with it, that formerly organic material either becomes useless in a landfill, or is burned, thus adding CO2 (and the paints that made it look pretty) to the atmosphere.

 

[lousydood]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Now that I did not know... :thumbsup:
You can also use a lot less water & soap by handwashing dishes, rather than relying on a machine, if you so choose.

No. Most dishwashers are much better about saving water than most humans.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Foxery
Actually, no - items which are normally biodegradable don't actually degrade in modern landfills. They are buried so thoroughly that there is no air or energy available for microbes to live and thus break things down. It's been shown that if you dig up an old landfill, you can still read newspapers from 1920 as if they just came off the presses, and everything your grandmother put in the kitchen wastebasket is easily identifiable.

Modern landfills are pretty good at breaking stuff down. Methane is harvested from stations around the landfill, which would obviously be impossible if landfills weren't breaking down anything. Next time you drive by one, look at all of the chimneys coming up out of the ground.

 

[Eeezee]

Hand wash your dishes if you want to go green. That is the best option.

Or go bachelor-style and eat out of whatever pan you just cooked in, and hand-wash that. Who needs plates?

 

[PolymerTim]

I've heard handwashing is best if you partially fill your sink with soapy water, wash all the dishes, then rinse in a basin of fresh water. Basically, if you let the water run while you're washing then its better to use the dishwasher, at least in terms of total water used.

I also heard about the century-old landfill excavations. I hope modern landfills do better. Maybe they add their own microbes etc to help out, but I'm not really sure.

"Green" is definitely an overly abused buzzword, just like "organic" and several others. Unfortunately, people rarely look at the total life cycle of a product, as this thread is doing pretty well. Looking at the big picture, some things labeled as green are actually worse for the environment.

My take on the paper vs ceramic plate:
Ceramic:
-Production costs can be assumed to be minor if used enough times
-Cleaning costs include water, detergent, and power (if using a dishwasher). Additionally, consider that the water will have to be cleaned at a treatment plant after use using more chemicals and power. The detergents and the chemicals required power to produce and transport. Most of these chemicals as well as the power are produced from non-renewable resources.

Paper:
-Production costs are non-negligible for single use and include power, chemicals, and trees (which can be renewable in some cases).
-Disposal costs are primarily transportation and then the question if anything has to be added at the landfill to help promote degradation or if it degrades at all.

I don't really know which is better since it depends on the magnitude of all these variables. I've done a similar thought process for other things like diapers (cloth vs disposable) and found they aren't as different as we sometimes think.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
I also heard about the century-old landfill excavations. I hope modern landfills do better. Maybe they add their own microbes etc to help out, but I'm not really sure.

Yeah, it's a common misconception that all microbes require oxygen to function. In fact, oxygen will instantly kill many microbes that can only survive in completely anaerobic environments. There is a third class that thrives in anoxic conditions. Each will break down different things depending on the conditions that they live in and what they are being fed. It's notoriously difficult to study anaerobic bugs because they die so easily upon oxygen exposure, but modern techniques have made it much easier and large gains are being made in this area. Wastewater plants are pretty cool places as a result of all of these bugs, and it's amazing how they're all grown in specialized enclosures and break down the waste on their own. More or less the same thing happens in a landfill, though it's a lot harder to see what's going on in there.

 

[Paperdoc]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Depends on the dishwasher. Also, theoretically you could recycle the paper plates, making them more efficient.

Considering the chemical additives likley used to make paper plates that stand up to wet use, etc, I doubt there's an economical recycling process for them.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Hand wash your dishes if you want to go green. That is the best option.

Or go bachelor-style and eat out of whatever pan you just cooked in, and hand-wash that. Who needs plates?

You haven't seen my wife hand wash dishes... 10 times more hot water is used than a dishwasher uses. However, I'd also like to point out that water is only a precious resource in locations where it's scarce. In other locations, it has no effect on the environment to use more water. I'm tired of hearing that everyone needs to conserve water. No, not everyone. Just the people in areas where it's unsustainable to use water at the rates you're using it.



Also, in regard to the landfill issue. Why would you want the stuff to decompose?? Every time you put a wood or plant based product into a landfill where it doesn't decompose, you've just sequestered carbon. Personally, I look forward to the day when people start mining old landfills. "Oh look, an Honus Wagner baseball card!"

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You haven't seen my wife hand wash dishes... 10 times more hot water is used than a dishwasher uses. However, I'd also like to point out that water is only a precious resource in locations where it's scarce. In other locations, it has no effect on the environment to use more water. I'm tired of hearing that everyone needs to conserve water. No, not everyone. Just the people in areas where it's unsustainable to use water at the rates you're using it.

This is an understated point. As any environmental engineer worth his salt will tell you, "The solution to pollution is dilution."

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You haven't seen my wife hand wash dishes... 10 times more hot water is used than a dishwasher uses. However, I'd also like to point out that water is only a precious resource in locations where it's scarce. In other locations, it has no effect on the environment to use more water. I'm tired of hearing that everyone needs to conserve water. No, not everyone. Just the people in areas where it's unsustainable to use water at the rates you're using it.

This is an understated point. As any environmental engineer worth his salt will tell you, "The solution to pollution is dilution."

OK, I think I missed the connection between these two.

But I'm not sure how you can assume that if you live in an area with plenty of water then there is no impact on the environment to use it. It may have less of an effect, but the last time I checked all the water that comes into our homes, even if it is only used to flush the toilet or water the lawn goes through a purification plant where it is made fit to drink. I don't know a thing about this process, but I imagine it uses a fair amount of power and chemicals. Maybe the power and chemicals come from renewable resources, but I doubt it. The point is that you often have to think past the immediate use to see the full impact that an activity has on the environment.

Now if you were hauling the wash water from the river by bucket...

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[
Modern landfills are pretty good at breaking stuff down. Methane is harvested from stations around the landfill, which would obviously be impossible if landfills weren't breaking down anything. Next time you drive by one, look at all of the chimneys coming up out of the ground.

I was recently working on a highway job over an old landfill, and we were pulling up readable newspapers from the 40's, as well as a crapload of toxins :^(

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Modern landfills are pretty good at breaking stuff down. Methane is harvested from stations around the landfill, which would obviously be impossible if landfills weren't breaking down anything. Next time you drive by one, look at all of the chimneys coming up out of the ground.

I was recently working on a highway job over an old landfill, and we were pulling up readable newspapers from the 40's, as well as a crapload of toxins :^(

See bolded phrase that apparently people keep missing here.

 

[piasabird]

Consider your Water bill the cost of heating water to clean the plate. Then there is the issue of the dish washing soap and the electricity it takes to run the dish washer. On the other side is the amount of land-fill space the paper fills up.

 

[BladeVenom]

Regular plates. Recycling water is easier and cleaner than recycling paper, but paper usually ends up in a landfill. New paper uses lots of water to manufacture, plus the chopping down of trees.

You might like this piece from Forbes, link.

 

[Throckmorton]

You can't recycle dirty paper plates. You can compost them.

 

[Paperdoc]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You can't recycle dirty paper plates. You can compost them.

Even this is difficult. The actual paper part of the plate is composed of wood fibres, which in turn are composed of cellulose molecules. Microorganisms commonly present in a backyard composter don't produce the enzymes needed to attack that cellulose polymer and break it down to simple sugars they can metabolize, so the process is very slow. But add to that the non-woody components. Most paper plates have additives for water resistance and wet strength, and often printed ink patterns and surface coatings. All these really don't suit the taste buds of composter microorganisms, so they will be just left behind in the mix of compost produced. Thus they will end up in the soil where the compost is spread for use in your garden.

I'd bet regular multi-use plates are better, provided they are washed with modest amounts of water and detergents.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim


But I'm not sure how you can assume that if you live in an area with plenty of water then there is no impact on the environment to use it. It may have less of an effect, but the last time I checked all the water that comes into our homes, even if it is only used to flush the toilet or water the lawn goes through a purification plant where it is made fit to drink. I don't know a thing about this process, but I imagine it uses a fair amount of power and chemicals. Maybe the power and chemicals come from renewable resources, but I doubt it. The point is that you often have to think past the immediate use to see the full impact that an activity has on the environment.

Now if you were hauling the wash water from the river by bucket...

Or if you use a well and septic tank, as millions of people do.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: PolymerTim


But I'm not sure how you can assume that if you live in an area with plenty of water then there is no impact on the environment to use it. It may have less of an effect, but the last time I checked all the water that comes into our homes, even if it is only used to flush the toilet or water the lawn goes through a purification plant where it is made fit to drink. I don't know a thing about this process, but I imagine it uses a fair amount of power and chemicals. Maybe the power and chemicals come from renewable resources, but I doubt it. The point is that you often have to think past the immediate use to see the full impact that an activity has on the environment.

Now if you were hauling the wash water from the river by bucket...

Or if you use a well and septic tank, as millions of people do.

Yup - a small amount of electricity is used to pump it up and it goes right back into the ground through the drain field; there's only a tiny impact back at the power plant, some dozens of split uranium atoms.