49
top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] radix@lemmy.world 98 points 5 months ago

Not sure why NA is being singled out here. Bottles are largely the same shape (with a few functional differences, see below) no matter where they come from.

The round shape is mostly a historical artifact from early designs that were hand-blown. A hexagonal (bestagons!) shape would pack better in an infinitely large container, but since most shipping crates are rectangular, there will be wasted space either way, and round is far easier and cheaper to mass-produce. Also, as a carbonated beverage, sharper corners could create stress points and exploding bottles.

Toppling over could potentially be reduced with a wider base, but fitting in the hand is a hugely important factor for any drinking container. There are larger-based bottles, but they also need more specialized packaging and storage space. By using bottles that are similar size to aluminum cans, lots of infrastructure can be dual-purpose (I'm thinking of things like can/bottle storage in your refrigerator, for example).

Double the volume of what? Glass bottles have to be thicker than other materials, so to get the same volume as a can with the same size base, it has to be taller.

If you want to do a lot more reading, here's a few sources I borrowed from:

https://sha.org/bottle/beer.htm

Regarding the functional design features referenced above:

https://www.hillebrandgori.com/media/publication/beer-bottle-sizes-and-their-surprising-history

Those ‘shoulders’ we keep mentioning remain in modern beer bottle design mainly for aesthetic reasons. Their original function was to provide a handy place for the yeast residue and dregs to collect, so that these didn’t pour out into the glass with the beer. Nowadays, most beer is filtered, so this design feature is no longer needed. Unless you’re bottling a yeast beer like a Belgian beer, of course.

[-] sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works 32 points 5 months ago

Not the deep dive I expected to go on today. Thank you, bottle scientist.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 8 points 5 months ago

By using bottles that are similar size to aluminum cans, lots of infrastructure can be dual-purpose (I’m thinking of things like can/bottle storage in your refrigerator, for example).

A great benefit of both containers being designed to fit in a hand!

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 33 points 5 months ago

Sounds like it’s time for a stubby.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 9 points 5 months ago

You forgot coors golden banquet

[-] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

Ahh, the old brown tit/nipple. Miss drinking from these bottles

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 31 points 5 months ago

NA = North American or non-alcoholic?

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

North America wasn't even on my radar! I suspect anyone who's worked in the industry thought non-alcoholic by default.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 5 points 5 months ago

I haven't tried a NA beer in some time, but when I did years ago it was in the same tall bottle that every other commercial beer uses. I honestly thought you meant north America and that other countries have differently shaped bottles (like how Sessions uses small 12oz bottles).

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

OP DID mean North America. I'm just a passerby that associated NA with Non Alcoholic. I also associate NR as meaning glass bottles, but I don't know if that's industry wide, or a local abbreviation.

Non alcoholic beers use the same bottles as regular (for the most part, there may be exceptions).

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

NA = North American or non-alcoholic?

NA = Never Ask

,-)

[-] mundane@feddit.nu 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

From a European, what does a standard NA beer bottle look like? I thought your bottles were similar to ours, which means bottom heavy and a slim neck.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You sometimes see some very minor variations, such as a mild taper on the thick part or a slightly different angle on the neck. But they all look basically like below. Pictured is a beer from the oldest brewing company in the US; established 1829.

[-] mundane@feddit.nu 4 points 5 months ago

That actually looks a bit top heavy.

[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 5 months ago

I've never really seen an issue with the standard glass beer bottle in North America, is there a superior bottle shape that I've been missing all my life?

[-] ValenThyme@reddthat.com 26 points 5 months ago

are they bagging their beer up in Canada now like their milk!?

[-] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago

Have they? Can you give an example? Any NA beer I've bought (which is quite a bit) has been in standard beer bottles. Assuming you mean non-alcoholic, right?

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 21 points 5 months ago

They're talking about standard beer bottles

[-] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Ok, but then... I'm confused. If the issue is beer bottles generally, why specify NA beers?

They mean the long neck bottles, but maybe they think different bottles are used in the rest of the world.

[-] algorithmae@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago

Probably North America

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago

North America. Still odd to specify that though.

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 5 points 5 months ago

More and more craft breweries are going can-only. It's better for the beer and the environment.

[-] OsaErisXero@kbin.run 23 points 5 months ago

I was under the impression that the glass was actually better, since the cans require a plastic lining to not ruin the beer and the bottles can either be recycled and reused as-is after a wash or ground up and remelted with little/no loss in quality.

[-] bluGill@kbin.run 7 points 5 months ago

The plastic lining is for soda - beer tends to be less acidic and so doesn't need it. (at least in general)

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 6 points 5 months ago

Cans must be recyclable as well as they come with a deposit and many people return them to recycling centers.

[-] KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

But they aren't reusable, which is always the preferable option.

[-] ebc@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

The lining in question is very thin (akin to a layer of paint) and just burns up when the cans are re-melted.

Recycling beer bottles is indeed pretty easy once you get them to the processing center intact, but it's getting there that's the hard part. They're fragile, pretty heavy and don't stack well unless you put them in some form of packaging.

Once they're broken, they're basically useless; glass isn't recycled much except as grit material for sandpaper; re-melting it is resource-intensive and sensitive to impurities.

[-] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Each to their own, but I always prefer the taste of beer from a bottle over beer from a can.

[-] Nemo@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

You're supposed to decant it into a glass for optimal experience, but I hear you. I can drink straight from a bottle in a way I won't from a can.

[-] meekah@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Glass is almost always the most environmentally friendly packaging for drinks. Aluminium needs a lot of energy to be recycled and can only be used once. I'm not sure how it works in the states but here in Germany we reuse our glass bottles up to 50 times.

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 months ago

Yeah here in the US no containers get reused as is, due to corporate lobbying from pre 1990. Aluminum also is less energy intensive to transport since containers weigh less! Both are infinitely preferable to plastic containers.

[-] meekah@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Ahhh corporate lobbying is a beautiful thing. Halting progress to make sure the rich get richer! But thanks dor that explanation. Also a good point about Aluminium being lighter.

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Aluminum also takes way less energy and is much cheaper to recycle than to produce new! I think roughly around 2/3rds of all aluminum ever produced is still in use because of that. Don't remember the exact figure, just remember it from my material science electives from college. Aluminum beverage containers usually have BPA liners, which is far from ideal, but as a material in general, it's pretty nice

[-] meekah@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

yeah, absolutely! I'm not trying to say that aluminium is a bad material. Just that it's not the right choice as a drink container, at least once you convince the population to return bottles to the store (the deposit system here in germany works pretty well. when people don't want to return the bottles, they put them next to the closest trash can, so homeless people can collect them and return them to the store for a small reward)

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

There's a bottle and can deposit system in some states! You pay an extra 5c per beverage and get 5c back by returning the empty container. Only in like 5 states, but it works well. They don't get reused, just recycled, but I think that's pretty much the only way plastic bottles get recycled here, as most recycling is extremely contaminated.

Sorry not disagreeing with you about beverage container material choices! I just like chiming in with more info because I really enjoyed those packaging science classes I took. If I could live my life over again I'd do that instead of software tbh. Glass containers being reused instead of recycled is the dream, imo, but in the current US if you replaced all plastic beverage containers with aluminum ones that would still be a massive win. Transportation energy costs should only improve, so as time goes on that will matter less and less in the equation, but you can also achieve denser packing easier with aluminum packaging than glass. Glass containers don't take non-cylindrical shapes as easily, or rather, cylindrical containers are far easier, more reliable to produce, and in general a lot more durable. If you swapped from plastic bottles to hexagonal aluminum ones, where you can achieve near perfect packing efficiency, that would be amazing. Far more containers per load, a roughly equivalent weight per container, made from a material that's ACTUALLY recyclable, and (this I don't actually know but I believe to be true) more easily automatically sorted out from contaminated recycling, that also has a financial incentive built into it to be recycled? That would be really really really good. Ultimately glass is better, the reusability is REALLY nice and glass also recycles incredibly well, and isn't harmful as a pollutant, and also doesn't require a questionably toxic (I believe BPA is an endocrine disruptor, but this isn't something I know for sure) plastic lining? Oooooo yeah. That's where it is.

Also just a fun fact, blue glass is like incredibly contaminating color wise, it only takes a tiny bit of blue glass to color a load of clear glass it's being added to blue! Not a problem with the material, just cool.

Another fun fact, ever wondered why bottles have the bumps running around the edge on the bottom? It's because the containers warp subtly as they cool, and with a purely circular base, this would give you an ever so slight saddle shape and it wouldn't sit stably. With the bumps, there's always at least 3 points of contact, so it's stable!

[-] meekah@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Ohh thanks for chiming in! A lot of cool info in your comment, especially that last part about the bumps at the bottom of glass bottles.

I can only agree that aluminum is better than plastic, but I'm not sure about hexagonal cans. The cans we know nowadays are insanely well engineered and only use a minute amount of material, taking advantage of the pressure of carbonized drinks. I don't think there's any way to increase packing efficiency of Aluminium cans without increasing material thickness to an unreasonable degree. But regardless, if all drink containers were regulated to be Aluminium (or glass), it would certainly be a big improvement.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

I only drink my beer by the growler.

[-] Paragone@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

The "stubby" bottles were replaced with tall "classier" bottles in a surge of .. fashion-moment, or something.

I remember somebody did a news vid, or documentary on it, & the industry lost usable-storage-effectiveness when they went with the taller bottles, and there's more glass in them, too..

They said if they'd known what the actual results would be ( it didn't alter the market to increase the percentage of the population which is always buying beer, for some reason.. ), they wouldn't have done it.

Well, Duh..

"never believe your own hype" IS a rule, because when you're believing your own marketing-bumf, then you're not competent at calculating any sort of project balance-sheet, right?

this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
49 points (82.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35806 readers
1614 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS