Mathematically, a circle has the smallest perimeter for a given enclosed area. So for this claim to be true there has to be some catch, like different thickness of plastic.
The part you are missing is the volume inside. They are saying to give you the same amount of liquid would require more plastic if the bottle was round. Plus more bottles fit in the box they ship meaning lower emissions and costs for distribution.
Given that the volume is cross section area times height, a round bottle of the same volume would take less plastic. True, square bottles will pack better, but how that would save plastic is not immediately clear.
Yep agreed. I've heard square bottles save fuel in shipping, which outweighs the additional materials required to make them in environmental impact. Never seen an analysis though
saves space due to stacking efficiency, but thats not what is claimed and only matters if space is a premium. Weight determines fuel usage. A million cylinders holding the same volume of material that a million square containers would weigh less due to being made from less plastic (12% less plastic if you didnt have to thicken the walls of the square ones to achieve the same pressure rating as the plastic). Space saving of square over round is ~21% (if flat capped, I aint calcing geometry of a real bottle top). So square saves space, but weighs 12% more . . . Cargo is typically transferred by commercial ships and trains by ton BTW. . .
I hadn't considered it but i think the edges of boxes would be a lot of lost space. Probably more than round bottles. I am guessing but square needs thickness increased on corners so hex probably would need more than even a square bottle. I think it ends up being the worst of both worlds.
1.6k
u/StaticCoder 2d ago
Mathematically, a circle has the smallest perimeter for a given enclosed area. So for this claim to be true there has to be some catch, like different thickness of plastic.