Coca-Cola to replace vending machines in Japan to go eco-friendly

[dArKeR]

The emblematic US firm Coca-Cola said it will replace all its 980,000 drink vending machines across Japan in a bid to reduce gas emissions in line with the landmark Kyoto Protocol.

It will take the US beverage giant's Japanese unit at least 15 years to install vending machines without hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, across all the streets and lobbies of Japan.

The United States and Australia are the main holdouts against the Kyoto treaty, which sets targets for industrialized nations to slash their greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050527/sc_afp/environmentjapanusdrinkcocacolacompany

[tuvor]

1. Doing it because they have to. Not because they want to.

What good corporate citizens.

[1monster]

2. Why on Earth do they need hydrofluorocarbons in a vending machine

anyway?!?!

[unblock]

4. it's a cheap refrigerant

it's what keeps the cans cold.

actually, there are many different hydrofluorocarbons as well as chlorofluorocarbons that act as refrigerants. and can destroy ozone, as well.

[1monster]

5. ahh... freon... I had forgotten.

[unblock]

6. correction: hfcs don't destroy ozone, BUT

they nevertheless still contribute to global warming. not sure of the mechanism.

[NNadir]

8. They simply represent one of many hundreds of industrial compounds

with strong infrared absorbances.

Many compounds have much stronger absorbances than carbon dioxide and have large All of the old CFC's have such absorbances, as does the persistent, nearly indestructible compound carbon tetrafluoride, a side product of the aluminum industry (It is also a side product of the chip industry.)

Some discussion of these gases can be found in the links below. Apparently the reductions in some of the gases that are claimed to have been reduced are "voluntary." According to the link that follows, aluminum companies have reduced their output of environmentally persistent perfluorinated carbon compounds by 3,691,507 metric tons or 85%. This means that they are only emitting 650,000 metric tons of this stuff today. (I was recently informed by a Greenpeace twit that this happy state of affairs, the fact that emissions have been reduced, means that aluminum manufacture is now free of environmental impact - at least if it is used in the production of solar cells.)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/vr99data/chapter6.html

Another very, very, very persistent greenhouse chemical, is sulfur hexafluoride, which replaced polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) in many electrical systems, notably transformers, when PCBs were found to have unacceptable toxicity.

Compounds that have only partially fluorinated, as opposed to perfluorinated (completely fluorinated), are somewhat less persistent if they can be oxidized. Under these conditions, they often decompose to give fluorophosgene, and ultimately HF, hydrofluoric acid.

The GWP, or global warming potential, of a gas is a function of the strength of it's absorbance and it's atmospheric lifetime. Arbitrarily, the GWP of carbon dioxide is 1, and all other gases are compared to carbon dioxide. Typically GWP's are given with a number of years.

If you look in the following link, it will be clear what this means:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

(Scroll down to Table 2.)

You can see that the atmospheric lifetime of carbon tetrafluoride is about 50,000 years. Viewed in terms of its global warming forcing potential, after 500 years, 1 metric ton of CF4 is equivalent to the release of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Put another way, 500 years from now, the 650,000 metric tons of CF4 stillbeing released by the aluminum industry will be equivalent to the release of 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide today. Moreover, there is no way to remove this potential from the atmosphere. In theory, one could remove CO2 from the atmosphere through biological or direct chemical means. This is not possible with CF4. So much for the lunacy of claiming that aluminum is environmentally benign.

The situation with SF6 is even worse.

[thegreatwildebeest]

9. Well...

(I was recently informed by a Greenpeace twit that this happy state of affairs, the fact that emissions have been reduced, means that aluminum manufacture is now free of environmental impact - at least if it is used in the production of solar cells.)

Greenpeace does have a tendency for greenwashing, as does anyone who supports the status quo of industrial society. This is why more radical groups have come out of them (The Sea Shepard Society, Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front) to insist on something more than just asking corporations to stop polluting a little less. In fact, it is Earth First! Katuah that is working with many other organizations in the Mountain Justice Summer program to go toe to toe with the big coal companies who are doing mountain top removal in WV, VA, TN, and KY. Industrial society as a whole needs to be scaled back.


Another very, very, very persistent greenhouse chemical, is sulfur hexafluoride, which replaced polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) in many electrical systems, notably transformers, when PCBs were found to have unacceptable toxicity.

And these exact same electrical systems would exist even in the event of nuclear energy production, as you have so vigorously proposed on this board. In general you take to task time and time again those "twits" who insist on abandoning nuclear energy in favor of renewables, pointing out (and this is right) that such a situation could not sustain the current industrial economy and that such people want other people to "have no future". Yet you are insisting on maintaining the status industrial quo time and time again, in the face of the fact that such a system is not environmentally sustainable, and you have asserted as much here, if simply on the narrow issue of aluminum. An industrialized society is not sustainable on the scale we have it now, if it ever really was.

[NNadir]

10. Clearly our industrial system is not sustainable.

I have been quite clear on that.

You are however, completely mistaken when you say that I am for the "status quo." I have been quite clear in calling for changes, including, but not limited to, the rapid increase of the use of nuclear energy.

What I am for is risk minimization, because unlike a Greenpeace twit, I recognize that risk elimination is not possible. The fact is that by insisting on some kind of fantasy world that they have no plan, no technical capability, and no financial ability to build.

In the status quo, coal provides almost 50% of electrical energy at an unbelievable and unacceptable environmental cost. I believe that nuclear energy should provide in the next several centuries, 60-70% of energy produced on earth, because it is demonstrably (this involves something called experience or experimentally shown) that nuclear energy is the safest form of energy known.

I have been clear also all along that the root cause of the environmental catastrophe through which we are living is over population. Where I differ with Greenpeace is that Greenpeace seems to believe that offering a theoretical solution for one third of the world's existing population in 2040 is sufficient, and the poorer two thirds can be damned.

I am a liberal. I believe that contempt for the poor is immoral, whether it comes from the far right religions (Islam, Christianity, etc...) or the far left religions (solar-fantasy religion, Marxism, etc...).

The fact is that the issue of aluminum and solar power is not irrelevant. It is the province of the "solar only" fantasy to maximize the problems of nuclear (interminably large numbers of threads about the leaky pipe at Sellafield) and minimize the risks associated with their largely untested fantasy: Wide scale PV. The installation of solar cells will require the transfer of millions and millions of tons of matter. This will certainly have greenhouse implications. Hand wave as much as you like. It is still true that aluminum production has a vast environmental impact.

It is very typical of the Greenpeace crowd to sweep what is equivalent of 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. It is a pretty precise demonstration of exactly how far their heads are up their asses.

[NobleCynic]

12. CF4 and solar power

The new generation of solar technology (nanotech) most likely won't have the same concerns with CF4. While aluminum production and chip production (both used in standard solar cells) both generate CF4, titania dye, quantum dot and other nanotech photovoltaics still in the development stage don't unless the frame construction contains aluminum. Silicon substrates and other semiconductors are not necessary for the new tech, as the production process is completely different. That being said, solar will likely not have the same greenhouse gas impact during construction that it does now. Whether or not costs will come down as well remains to be seen.

[noamnety]

3. That's very nice of them

Will they also stop stealing the disappearing ground water of villagers in India whose wells are running dry?

[NNadir]

7. What would be interesting is to know what the refrigerant is.

It could be carbon dioxide, or it could be something flammable.

My favorite wonder substance, DME, is an excellent refrigerant, but it is flammable.

[NobleCynic]

11. DME eh?

I take it that DME is flammable enough that there are liability concerns if it is misused? (Thinking of someone kicking or tipping a vending machine.)

[NNadir]

13. DME is very flammable. It is widely proposed as a motor fuel.

It can also replace natural gas.

It's largest use today is in hair spray cans.