“We have this relationship with it like no other form of plastic.”
June 24, 2021 12:44 PM Subscribe
Can you elaborate on that? I collect vinyl in the sense of "I like music and I own a record player", but I don't know a lot of the technical aspects.
posted by haileris23 at 1:28 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by haileris23 at 1:28 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
The C in PVC is chlorine. Which is dangerous. So instead of recycling it... we burn it.
Well, of course we do.
posted by Splunge at 1:37 PM on June 24, 2021
Well, of course we do.
posted by Splunge at 1:37 PM on June 24, 2021
I would love to pay for my band's records to be on recycled vinyl.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:50 PM on June 24, 2021
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:50 PM on June 24, 2021
If you're gonna melt PVC, please wear PPE! Vinyl chloride gas causes nasty cancers.
I've seen too many features on hip young record makers with no respirators.
posted by head full of air at 2:43 PM on June 24, 2021
I've seen too many features on hip young record makers with no respirators.
posted by head full of air at 2:43 PM on June 24, 2021
Did anyone follow the Reasonably Sound podcast? It's final episode was a deep dive on this. And on how much carbon goes into LPs, CDs, mp3s, and streaming music. And then finally on just the general experience of failing against climate change as an individual. Highly recommend.
https://reasonablysound.com/2019/08/19/the-world-remade/
posted by cirrostratus at 2:45 PM on June 24, 2021
https://reasonablysound.com/2019/08/19/the-world-remade/
posted by cirrostratus at 2:45 PM on June 24, 2021
While we're doing lighter pressings because 180g wastes vinyl and doesn't sound as good as 150g and also takes up too much space on my shelf, can we get rid of unnecessary gatefolds to cut down on paper use and also take up less space on my shelf?
posted by goatdog at 2:46 PM on June 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by goatdog at 2:46 PM on June 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
A suggestion from the Soviet Union.
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 2:49 PM on June 24, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 2:49 PM on June 24, 2021 [4 favorites]
Viny is kind of a disaster from a disposal point of view. It doesn't degrade to minerals very easily at all, so it forms a significant and significantly durable portion of micro/nanoplastics. Worse, if burned it almost invariably turns into polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs in modern language, dioxins and furans in simpler, more general terms), which are pretty nasty compounds for environmental and human health.
I wish it weren't such a useful material. We're going to have a hangover from it for a long time as a species.
posted by bonehead at 3:11 PM on June 24, 2021 [3 favorites]
I wish it weren't such a useful material. We're going to have a hangover from it for a long time as a species.
posted by bonehead at 3:11 PM on June 24, 2021 [3 favorites]
Can you elaborate on that?
One of the biggest problems with traditional vinyl LPs (120g to 140g) is 'no fill' where the record stamper fails to completely fill the grooves with PVC causing distortion to the sound.
Adding more vinyl as part of a thicker disc makes 'no fill' much less likely to happen, but the benefit tails off once you get past 160g.
One of the biggest problems with heavier vinyl (180g to 200g) is that the disc is more likely to become 'dished' making it hard to maintain a good contact between the record and the turntable mat.
Classical music on vinyl has long been manufactured to higher quality standards than pop and rock, and those records are invariably 150-160g
I think it has to be said that you can get great sounding records at almost any weight, if the pressing plant did a good job.
Another consideration is that thicker records will very slightly alter the vertical tracking angle (VTA) of the stylus, but this is a very small effect that only the most 'golden eared' will be able to detect.
Heavier records do feel more substantial in the hand, like you are getting more for your money, but it's mostly a psychological benefit.
posted by Lanark at 4:05 PM on June 24, 2021 [6 favorites]
One of the biggest problems with traditional vinyl LPs (120g to 140g) is 'no fill' where the record stamper fails to completely fill the grooves with PVC causing distortion to the sound.
Adding more vinyl as part of a thicker disc makes 'no fill' much less likely to happen, but the benefit tails off once you get past 160g.
One of the biggest problems with heavier vinyl (180g to 200g) is that the disc is more likely to become 'dished' making it hard to maintain a good contact between the record and the turntable mat.
Classical music on vinyl has long been manufactured to higher quality standards than pop and rock, and those records are invariably 150-160g
I think it has to be said that you can get great sounding records at almost any weight, if the pressing plant did a good job.
Another consideration is that thicker records will very slightly alter the vertical tracking angle (VTA) of the stylus, but this is a very small effect that only the most 'golden eared' will be able to detect.
Heavier records do feel more substantial in the hand, like you are getting more for your money, but it's mostly a psychological benefit.
posted by Lanark at 4:05 PM on June 24, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm going to be the contrarian in this thread, although perhaps not in terms of consumer behavior, as 180g is currently a selling point in the vinyl community.
I've been buying vinyl since I was a kid in the '70s, and except for the lull in the aughts when vinyl stopped being an option, there is no question whatsoever that well-mastered heavyweight vinyl is far better to listen to than virtually any lightweight vinyl in terms of surface noise and distortion.
Don't get me wrong, lightweight vinyl can sound decent, especially on first listen. However, I've owned a whole lot of lightweight vinyl that has sounded like garbage (and IMO sounded far better on CD), while most of my heavyweight vinyl sounded good to begin with and still sounds fantastic today, decades later.
My non-audiophile partner, after listening to certain 180g reissues I've recently purchased and being surprised at how good it sounded, has come back around to vinyl, since those 180g releases have generally exhibited none of the problems (skipping, warping, low sound quality) they remember from buying records as a teen, while also not having the "lossy" qualities of those same recordings via streaming services.
I understand the disposal issues with vinyl, but to be honest, I've never bought vinyl that I've thought would not be resold to another listener, even back before recycling - I've only resold, never disposed of a record.
I'm deeply skeptical that the environmental costs of continually streaming from the cloud is less of a concern than having had purchasing a single physical record (and, in this day and age, included download) and listening to that recording multiple times within my own home on my local devices.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 5:50 PM on June 24, 2021 [4 favorites]
I've been buying vinyl since I was a kid in the '70s, and except for the lull in the aughts when vinyl stopped being an option, there is no question whatsoever that well-mastered heavyweight vinyl is far better to listen to than virtually any lightweight vinyl in terms of surface noise and distortion.
Don't get me wrong, lightweight vinyl can sound decent, especially on first listen. However, I've owned a whole lot of lightweight vinyl that has sounded like garbage (and IMO sounded far better on CD), while most of my heavyweight vinyl sounded good to begin with and still sounds fantastic today, decades later.
My non-audiophile partner, after listening to certain 180g reissues I've recently purchased and being surprised at how good it sounded, has come back around to vinyl, since those 180g releases have generally exhibited none of the problems (skipping, warping, low sound quality) they remember from buying records as a teen, while also not having the "lossy" qualities of those same recordings via streaming services.
I understand the disposal issues with vinyl, but to be honest, I've never bought vinyl that I've thought would not be resold to another listener, even back before recycling - I've only resold, never disposed of a record.
I'm deeply skeptical that the environmental costs of continually streaming from the cloud is less of a concern than having had purchasing a single physical record (and, in this day and age, included download) and listening to that recording multiple times within my own home on my local devices.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 5:50 PM on June 24, 2021 [4 favorites]
there is no question whatsoever that well-mastered heavyweight vinyl is far better to listen to than virtually any lightweight vinyl in terms of surface noise and distortion.
I'm gonna call nonsense on this. Sorry. I was born in 68 and bought vinyl for many, many years (and have step/siblings I've inherited records from who were born before me in the 60s and 50s and a mother born in '41). I've also made a living selling vinyl for more than 20 years (16 of that the most recent years). I have literally sold and heard 100s of thousands of records in my life. I still make my living with them from my Toronto shop.
The best records I've ever heard are Blue Note Plastylite records, mostly released in the early to mid 60s. I haven't weighed them but would put them at 150 to 160g by feel. I've not heard a single record pressed in the past 30 years, and certainly nothing since the bullshit 180g trend started, that comes near to them. It's not even remotely close.
Further, those records could take a beating. I've owned Blue Notes of that era with gouges on them that sound amazing -- whereas I can affect the play of a modern day pressing by the misplacement of a fingernail when pulling from an inner sleeve.
200g records are often among the worst pressings I've ever heard.
I own dozens of records older than me that sound brand new and infinitely better than anything pressed since CDs rose and fell.
Heavier records do feel more substantial in the hand, like you are getting more for your money, but it's mostly a psychological benefit.
This is 100% correct.
posted by dobbs at 6:46 PM on June 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm gonna call nonsense on this. Sorry. I was born in 68 and bought vinyl for many, many years (and have step/siblings I've inherited records from who were born before me in the 60s and 50s and a mother born in '41). I've also made a living selling vinyl for more than 20 years (16 of that the most recent years). I have literally sold and heard 100s of thousands of records in my life. I still make my living with them from my Toronto shop.
The best records I've ever heard are Blue Note Plastylite records, mostly released in the early to mid 60s. I haven't weighed them but would put them at 150 to 160g by feel. I've not heard a single record pressed in the past 30 years, and certainly nothing since the bullshit 180g trend started, that comes near to them. It's not even remotely close.
Further, those records could take a beating. I've owned Blue Notes of that era with gouges on them that sound amazing -- whereas I can affect the play of a modern day pressing by the misplacement of a fingernail when pulling from an inner sleeve.
200g records are often among the worst pressings I've ever heard.
I own dozens of records older than me that sound brand new and infinitely better than anything pressed since CDs rose and fell.
Heavier records do feel more substantial in the hand, like you are getting more for your money, but it's mostly a psychological benefit.
This is 100% correct.
posted by dobbs at 6:46 PM on June 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
If you have the option of purchasing a 180g or a lighter pressing with the same mastering, go for the lighter one. "Heavyweight" vinyl is a marketing stunt. It is unequivocally bullshit, impo.
posted by dobbs at 7:04 PM on June 24, 2021
posted by dobbs at 7:04 PM on June 24, 2021
The best records I've ever heard are Blue Note Plastylite records, mostly released in the early to mid 60s. I haven't weighed them but would put them at 150 to 160g by feel.
Which... makes them heavyweight records. The standard weight of most vinyl records over the past century has been 120-140g, with many below that (such as bargain K-Tel discs).
I have no doubt your well-mastered 150g+ Blue Note records sound great. That's my point. (If you want to replace 180g as being the reference with 150g, I'm not going to complain too much.)
The "weight doesn't matter" people are nuts. It absolutely makes a difference, and everyone who suffered from warped, skipping records in the '70s knows that. Seriously, do you guys want your Miles Davis mastered on flexi-discs? Do you want to put nickels on them to hold them on the platter?
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 7:08 PM on June 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
Which... makes them heavyweight records. The standard weight of most vinyl records over the past century has been 120-140g, with many below that (such as bargain K-Tel discs).
I have no doubt your well-mastered 150g+ Blue Note records sound great. That's my point. (If you want to replace 180g as being the reference with 150g, I'm not going to complain too much.)
The "weight doesn't matter" people are nuts. It absolutely makes a difference, and everyone who suffered from warped, skipping records in the '70s knows that. Seriously, do you guys want your Miles Davis mastered on flexi-discs? Do you want to put nickels on them to hold them on the platter?
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 7:08 PM on June 24, 2021 [2 favorites]
"I'm deeply skeptical that the environmental costs of continually streaming from the cloud is less of a concern than having had purchasing a single physical record (and, in this day and age, included download) and listening to that recording multiple times within my own home on my local devices."
I have no idea which is better/worse for the environment in the long run*, but for the vast majority of people who listen to vinyl, they're not just listening to vinyl. They're most likely just listening to vinyl in one spot in their home, and listening to the same music in digital format in their car, at the office, jogging, etc. So the vinyl, with its large cardboard packaging, is on top of the resources most people consume just from streaming.
* My guess is that it is indeed vinyl. The same amount of resources goes into the recording, and you're using the same electricity to play it (probably more, since a turntable motor has to have more current draw than whatever device you're streaming from). At this point, with so much data going into people's homes, the difference in the amount of energy used to send that small percentage of data that would be used for streaming has to be negligible. If I listen to a song 200 times via streaming, I'd bet money that it uses less resources than if I buy a vinyl record (which I do on occasion), listen to the song 100 times on my record player, and 100 times from the download (via the included card) or streaming.
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:17 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
I have no idea which is better/worse for the environment in the long run*, but for the vast majority of people who listen to vinyl, they're not just listening to vinyl. They're most likely just listening to vinyl in one spot in their home, and listening to the same music in digital format in their car, at the office, jogging, etc. So the vinyl, with its large cardboard packaging, is on top of the resources most people consume just from streaming.
* My guess is that it is indeed vinyl. The same amount of resources goes into the recording, and you're using the same electricity to play it (probably more, since a turntable motor has to have more current draw than whatever device you're streaming from). At this point, with so much data going into people's homes, the difference in the amount of energy used to send that small percentage of data that would be used for streaming has to be negligible. If I listen to a song 200 times via streaming, I'd bet money that it uses less resources than if I buy a vinyl record (which I do on occasion), listen to the song 100 times on my record player, and 100 times from the download (via the included card) or streaming.
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:17 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
They're most likely just listening to vinyl in one spot in their home, and listening to the same music in digital format in their car, at the office, jogging, etc. So the vinyl, with its large cardboard packaging, is on top of the resources most people consume just from streaming.
Let's say I want to listen to an album via the cloud.
I make a request to listen to that album, and it is streamed from a hard drive, on a server, on an Ethernet connection in a data center to a load balancer and edge router to whatever the uplink is at that data center to the cloud at large. It goes from that data center to a more central router, criss-crossing the country via network providers until it reaches my ISP, where it then gets delivered to the edge router at my ISP, the DSLAM or cable modem feed, pushed down to the local head-end of my connection, and then, finally, to my own personal Internet access device, which then sends it to my Wi-Fi, which sends it to my laptop, which can finally perform the music via its speakers.
Compare that with the fact that I can take a pencil, stick it in the middle of a record, create a cone of paper and a needle, spin the record and functionally listen to a record with literally no power and still hear the music in some reasonable way?
OK, sure, that's not practical. Let's take my turntable and preamp and Sonos speaker, how many watts am I using? Less than a single watt for the average turntable and preamp, a few watts for my Sonos. 5w max unless I really crank it.
Am I really using less than 5w to stream an album all the way across the Internet, the cloud and on my local equipment? Naah. Come on.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 7:36 PM on June 24, 2021
Let's say I want to listen to an album via the cloud.
I make a request to listen to that album, and it is streamed from a hard drive, on a server, on an Ethernet connection in a data center to a load balancer and edge router to whatever the uplink is at that data center to the cloud at large. It goes from that data center to a more central router, criss-crossing the country via network providers until it reaches my ISP, where it then gets delivered to the edge router at my ISP, the DSLAM or cable modem feed, pushed down to the local head-end of my connection, and then, finally, to my own personal Internet access device, which then sends it to my Wi-Fi, which sends it to my laptop, which can finally perform the music via its speakers.
Compare that with the fact that I can take a pencil, stick it in the middle of a record, create a cone of paper and a needle, spin the record and functionally listen to a record with literally no power and still hear the music in some reasonable way?
OK, sure, that's not practical. Let's take my turntable and preamp and Sonos speaker, how many watts am I using? Less than a single watt for the average turntable and preamp, a few watts for my Sonos. 5w max unless I really crank it.
Am I really using less than 5w to stream an album all the way across the Internet, the cloud and on my local equipment? Naah. Come on.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 7:36 PM on June 24, 2021
What I find interesting in this whole discussion is that no one has mentioned the most environmentally lightweight of all music decisions - make your own. We all have vocal cords. There are 100 items in your home right now that could be refashioned into a drum or other music instrument. We are bickering over the various environmental and human costs of various ways of consuming music. The problem is at heart the consumption, feeding the insatiable wheel of capitalism. Why not try making music instead?
posted by birdsongster at 7:59 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by birdsongster at 7:59 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
"Am I really using less than 5w to stream an album all the way across the Internet, the cloud and on my local equipment?"
I have no idea for sure, but my guess is yes. Those watts aren't being used JUST to stream that song to you. All that equipment is going to be used regardless of whether you're streaming that song or not. I guess if we banned streaming music completely, we could measure this, but until then, we'll have to guess.
I occasionally buy releases on vinyl. I'm a graphic designer, so I love packaging. And listening to records can definitely be fun. I'm also a musician who records and releases his own and other people's music, so I'm well aware of all the sacrifices and comprmises one must make with their music to release it on vinyl (low frequency content related to length per side, low frequency content related to song order on each side, etc.) and I'm also well aware that vinyl is not an accurate representation of what was recorded at the studio. You may like the way it sounds, but it's not accurate. If people were serious about sound quality, and insisted on analog, they'd be listening to half inch tape. But that would take up even more space, use just as many chemicals and energy, and be just as inconvenient. So listen to it all you want (I will, too), but considering the resources used, the space it takes up, the effort it takes to move it around, its fragility, and the compromises required to release music on it, it's hard to see it as anything other than a fetish.
Also, a Technics SL-1210 uses 13.5 watts. I Imagine other turntables are similar.
posted by jonathanhughes at 8:20 PM on June 24, 2021 [5 favorites]
I have no idea for sure, but my guess is yes. Those watts aren't being used JUST to stream that song to you. All that equipment is going to be used regardless of whether you're streaming that song or not. I guess if we banned streaming music completely, we could measure this, but until then, we'll have to guess.
I occasionally buy releases on vinyl. I'm a graphic designer, so I love packaging. And listening to records can definitely be fun. I'm also a musician who records and releases his own and other people's music, so I'm well aware of all the sacrifices and comprmises one must make with their music to release it on vinyl (low frequency content related to length per side, low frequency content related to song order on each side, etc.) and I'm also well aware that vinyl is not an accurate representation of what was recorded at the studio. You may like the way it sounds, but it's not accurate. If people were serious about sound quality, and insisted on analog, they'd be listening to half inch tape. But that would take up even more space, use just as many chemicals and energy, and be just as inconvenient. So listen to it all you want (I will, too), but considering the resources used, the space it takes up, the effort it takes to move it around, its fragility, and the compromises required to release music on it, it's hard to see it as anything other than a fetish.
Also, a Technics SL-1210 uses 13.5 watts. I Imagine other turntables are similar.
posted by jonathanhughes at 8:20 PM on June 24, 2021 [5 favorites]
I’m not sure about vinyl, but I did an in-depth lifecycle analysis on kindles vs physical books years ago. The single biggest impact on lifecycle carbon cost for physical media was how it is transported to your house- if you’re driving a few miles to your local bookstore then you’re tripling the impact. The takeaway here being that there are a lot of variables and the impact of various decisions is weighted in somewhat unintuitive ways. So maybe we can stop trying to blanket optimize people’s music consumption by positing unresearched guesses as to what they’re doing wrong, and get back to judging people for what they’re listening to instead of how they’re listening, like god intended.
posted by q*ben at 8:41 PM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by q*ben at 8:41 PM on June 24, 2021 [11 favorites]
What I find interesting in this whole discussion is that no one has mentioned the most environmentally lightweight of all music decisions - make your own. We all have vocal cords.
Have you *seen* the environmental impact of calories? Why go so far as to give up on recorded music, but stop there? Music is vibration, after all. Vibration is heat. If you really want to be green & want to skip recorded music, skip music altogether!
posted by CrystalDave at 10:26 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
Have you *seen* the environmental impact of calories? Why go so far as to give up on recorded music, but stop there? Music is vibration, after all. Vibration is heat. If you really want to be green & want to skip recorded music, skip music altogether!
posted by CrystalDave at 10:26 PM on June 24, 2021 [1 favorite]
PVC is produced by cracking Ethane, a by product of petroleum refining. Even if everyone stops buying vinyl records those by chemicals are still going to be produced, they will just end up as packaging or inside furniture, or something else that likely will have a shorter lifespan than a vinyl record.
When the age of petrol and plastic comes to and end, we will have to go back to making records from shellac or something else, but in the meantime I say enjoy it while the format lasts.
As for the Co2 production:
It is possible to demonstrate this by translating the production of plastics and the generation of electricity (for storing and transmitting digital audio files) into greenhouse gas equivalents (GHGs).
The research shows GHGs of 140 million kilograms in 1977, 136 million kilograms in 1988, and 157 million in 2000. But by 2016 the generation of GHGs by storing and transmitting digital files for those listening to music online is estimated to be between 200 million kilograms and over 350 million kilograms in the US alone - Dr Brennan, University of Glasgow
Even if the energy cost of streaming is double that of vinyl, they are both a rounding error compared to the power needed for a medium/large power amplifier, so the truly green option is to listen on headphones.
posted by Lanark at 2:11 AM on June 25, 2021
When the age of petrol and plastic comes to and end, we will have to go back to making records from shellac or something else, but in the meantime I say enjoy it while the format lasts.
As for the Co2 production:
It is possible to demonstrate this by translating the production of plastics and the generation of electricity (for storing and transmitting digital audio files) into greenhouse gas equivalents (GHGs).
The research shows GHGs of 140 million kilograms in 1977, 136 million kilograms in 1988, and 157 million in 2000. But by 2016 the generation of GHGs by storing and transmitting digital files for those listening to music online is estimated to be between 200 million kilograms and over 350 million kilograms in the US alone - Dr Brennan, University of Glasgow
Even if the energy cost of streaming is double that of vinyl, they are both a rounding error compared to the power needed for a medium/large power amplifier, so the truly green option is to listen on headphones.
posted by Lanark at 2:11 AM on June 25, 2021
One thing to keep in mind in the LP/Streaming debate is that often the mastering is different, so it's an apples to oranges comparison. For example, I can't conventionally stream the either the 1982 or 1986 Japanese red-wax mono pressings of Sgt. Pepper's.
posted by mikelieman at 3:06 AM on June 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 3:06 AM on June 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
Most of this argument has nothing to do with (the very interesting!) FPP.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:20 AM on June 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:20 AM on June 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
We can make pretty much any petroleum product from plants, so it should be possible to make non-fossil-fuel-sourced vinyl.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:03 PM on June 25, 2021
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:03 PM on June 25, 2021
Shellac is the answer.
Also, just to make people cringe in as many ways as possible, in grade school in the late 1950s I remember crafting ash trays for our parents by softening up classical records (not, I think, LPs) in the oven and forming the grooves to hold cigarettes around pencils.
posted by skyscraper at 7:50 PM on June 25, 2021
Also, just to make people cringe in as many ways as possible, in grade school in the late 1950s I remember crafting ash trays for our parents by softening up classical records (not, I think, LPs) in the oven and forming the grooves to hold cigarettes around pencils.
posted by skyscraper at 7:50 PM on June 25, 2021
PVC is produced by cracking Ethane, a by product of petroleum refining. Even if everyone stops buying vinyl records those by chemicals are still going to be produced, they will just end up as packaging or inside furniture, or something else that likely will have a shorter lifespan than a vinyl record.
Ethane has a VAST number of uses that don't require a chlorine molecule anywhere near them. To suggest that continuing to make records is fine based on the existence of ethane in the petroleum-fraction marketplace is muddled thinking imnsho.
On the flip side PVC has VAST uses that have nothing to do with records, the two most obvious ones to me being piping (water, chemical services, wastewater -- this is the blue green or grey stuff you see on construction lots) and housing extrudates including siding and window frame profiles. I feel confident that the vinyl record market could vanish tomorrow and the global demand for pvc would barely take a dip.
In fact, I got a little curious about this and did some quick and dirty math. Finding annual sales figures for vinyl records and making some assumptions about record costs and pressed mass, and comparing to 2018 global pvc production, *in super duper rough numbers* vinyl records appear to consume a small handful of hundredths of percentage points of annual PVC production (specifically for my math, 0.000293 as a ratio.
Don't get me wrong, pvc is a massively problematic material and I routinely try to substitute it out in the design work I do (wastewater plants, drinkign water, some primary chemical) but many city engineering departments, clients, and contractors will accept no others. Lightweight, dimensionally stable, easy to cut and join, easy to support, vast supply network and institutional knowledge. Too bad it's hella toxic.
posted by hearthpig at 10:37 AM on June 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
Ethane has a VAST number of uses that don't require a chlorine molecule anywhere near them. To suggest that continuing to make records is fine based on the existence of ethane in the petroleum-fraction marketplace is muddled thinking imnsho.
On the flip side PVC has VAST uses that have nothing to do with records, the two most obvious ones to me being piping (water, chemical services, wastewater -- this is the blue green or grey stuff you see on construction lots) and housing extrudates including siding and window frame profiles. I feel confident that the vinyl record market could vanish tomorrow and the global demand for pvc would barely take a dip.
In fact, I got a little curious about this and did some quick and dirty math. Finding annual sales figures for vinyl records and making some assumptions about record costs and pressed mass, and comparing to 2018 global pvc production, *in super duper rough numbers* vinyl records appear to consume a small handful of hundredths of percentage points of annual PVC production (specifically for my math, 0.000293 as a ratio.
Don't get me wrong, pvc is a massively problematic material and I routinely try to substitute it out in the design work I do (wastewater plants, drinkign water, some primary chemical) but many city engineering departments, clients, and contractors will accept no others. Lightweight, dimensionally stable, easy to cut and join, easy to support, vast supply network and institutional knowledge. Too bad it's hella toxic.
posted by hearthpig at 10:37 AM on June 27, 2021 [3 favorites]
Meanwhile, the records made from 'ocean vinyl' that are featured in the FPP look really cool. I'd love to see more of that.
posted by spilon at 9:27 AM on June 28, 2021
posted by spilon at 9:27 AM on June 28, 2021
« Older Music Hath Not Charms... | A Soaring Arts Scene in Los Angeles Confronts a... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Lanark at 1:18 PM on June 24, 2021 [6 favorites]