[Daniel_Newby]

That aluminum paper was right.

Firstly, aluminum is originally made on-site at hydroelectric plants in inconvenient places. While it is energy intensive, nobody else is competing for that electricity. Cost = price of dam ÷ decades of aluminum production.

Secondly, aluminum recycles really well. Dumb machines can separate and purify it to high levels. The majority of aluminum has been recycled at least twice, amortizing the energy cost over a much larger amount of products.

Thirdly, aluminum is ductile (does not shatter) so containers can be made paper thin, and researchers are constantly devising ways to make it thinner. With recycling and thinness, the original production energy can be amortized over 10-100× more containers than an equal strength of glass.

[ScottBurson]

You make a good case, but I would like to see the numbers. What would it cost, for example, to run power lines to these "inconvenient places"? Under present-day circumstances, might it not be cost-effective?

Anyway, I still find it disingenuous that the paper never mentioned any of these issues (I think I looked carefully, but this was years ago so who knows). I think that's essential context that had to have been omitted deliberately.

[ott2]

Your first point is false -- in some countries bauxite is processed with power from coal-fired plants. Your other points seem valid.

[Daniel_Newby]

That's madness or desperation. Sensible people ship bauxite as far as necessary to find cheap energy.