Slashdot Log In
Soy-Based Toner Cartridges?
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue May 05, 2009 12:02 AM
from the it's-green-they-say-on-the-far-side-of-the-hill dept.
from the it's-green-they-say-on-the-far-side-of-the-hill dept.
Jon.Laslow writes "I'm getting a lot of pressure from managers to switch to soy-based toner cartridges for our laser printers because they are 'greener.' The problem is, the only information I can find on them is from sales pitches; and the reviews all seem to be user testimonials. Do you have any experience soy-based printing products? Did you have any issues with them, and how was the print quality?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Buy one... (Score:4, Funny)
...and let us know.
Soy Ink Green is (Score:5, Funny)
People!
Parent
Re:Buy one... (Score:5, Informative)
Standard toner consists of a pigment suspended in a petroleum-based polymer. As such, toner has the environmental impact of any other consumable plastic, including off-gassing and the potential exhaustion of a non-renewable resources. The real problem, however, is that toner must be removed from pulp when recycling paper. The toner removal process uses toxic chemicals and produces a non-biodegradable and non-recyclable sludge waste product.
Parent
new to me (Score:5, Informative)
To be honest, I hadn't even heard of this. This article [rechargermag.com] says the very first cartridges just became available at the end of last year. Amazon has them [amazon.com] but it looks they all come from one company (the one mentioned in the article I linked) and I couldn't find any reviews or comments. I did notice that as far as I can tell they are the only company selling soy based toner cartridges and they only sell them for HP right now - though I guess they plan to add others in the future. That may solve your issue right there though, unless you own the right printers.
Interestingly enough the link in TFA doesn't seem to point to a company that does anything other than refurbish and refill toner cartridges with regular toner. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see a thing about soy based toner. I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction on that if I'm mistaken.
So I'd be interested as well in hearing if anyone has actually used this yet, but unless it has been an immediate disaster it doesn't seem that enough time has passed to tell how well it is going to work.
Ad absurdium (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight...
You build an extremely precise little box out of highly refined metals, circuit boards and PCBs, manufactured from parts made all around the world before being shipped thousands of miles to your local Staples, and you're worried about the half ounce of INK!?!?!
That's like cuttng calories by skipping the cherry on your triple scoop ice cream sundae!
Want to go green? Use CFLs. Replace your shower heads. Bike to work. Email instead of printing. Open windows rather than hit the thermostat. Use GotoMeeting rather than fly. Plant some trees on the South side of your home and office buildings. Buy your food from a local Farmer's Market rather than the mega-mart to avoid 'fresh' food from Argentina or some other place 4,000 miles away in refrigerated containers.
When the ink jet containers themselves are made of soy, and the mfgs standardize their cartridges so that reuse is more feasible, I'll take notice. Otherwise, this flavor of 'green' is idotic.
Buy Soy ink because it's better, lasts longer, or is cheaper and don't delude yourself with false green.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Informative)
Want to go green? ... [snip list of recommendations that don't relate to the computer industry] ... When the ink jet containers themselves are made of soy, and the mfgs standardize their cartridges so that reuse is more feasible, I'll take notice.
I'd offer the suggestion that increased attention on the part of consumers and manufacturers to the polluting nature of manufacturing computer parts (and petroleum products in general) is a step in the right direction. Or do you really think we can get somewhere without taking one step at a time?
Anything that's used by individuals in small quantities may be insignificant, but taken as a whole, there's probably a incredibly large number behind the quantity that's manufactured. And then dump in our water or land.
I'm no green nut, but seriously, loosen up. Soy ink? Why the hell not? The newspaper industry adopted it years ago, and while the formulation isn't exactly 100% natural, it was a step in the right direction.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Informative)
Soy ink? Why the hell not?
Tackle the biggest issues first, the smaller issues become the biggest.
For my personal context that means: car (100), heating (73), electricity (26), exotic food imports (3)...
My next car will have about 25% more fuel efficiency, and if I drive 20% less distance I will bring the weighted score for my car to 60. Or a 20% improvement of my energy consumption (40/(100+73+26))
Now, what would be the effect if I was planning on how to buy more environmental friendly toiletpaper? 0.001 points (haven't got any actual data to back that up), but worse, I would be side tracked and not tackle things that have a big impact.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Funny)
Actually I think we can get farther by taking an angry mob and beating with sacks of potatoes and doorknobs every manager and yuppie that talks about "being green" and suggests stupid non green ways. Soap in a sock works great as well.
Anyone at your office is against telecommuting? beat the shit out of them. They driving a hybrid instead of using real Green alternatives? Beat the shit out of them. a fully window office is wasted for the exeutive that is never there? Beat the shit out of him. Continue until they are crying and hiding under their desks, or actually get a clue.
Parent
Common Geek Fallacies (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you really think we can get somewhere without taking one step at a time?
Actually, most geeks are under the faith-based assumption that at some point, this is entirely possible. That Transporter Pads or Jump Drives or simple Teleportation is merely a question of time. It is so inculcated our geek culture that certain things will simply come easy once the elegant solution appears, as if by magic. Further, I think it affects how we view most problems.
Take environmentalism. Clearly the solution is greener products; things that will fit into a sustainable economy. But it's a binary clause; if your entire product can be green, then it should be. Otherwise, who are you fooling!? There is no sense of bootstrapping, of having to replace pieces as you can.
The subset of the culture that subscribes heavily to this stance tends to be against refactoring code, and for simply writing programs wholesale by themselves in their attic. They're against good test procedures and using older technologies because they're not shiny enough. Ironically, they're also the sorts who probably haven't written their own libraries - or even approached the idea. They buy most of their stuff, because whatever their realm of expertise, it's limited in scope. Fix plumbing? Hell no! Drill something, or saw something? What is the point - something you pay for is clearly going to be better, and in the end that arbitrary sense of idealistic quality is all that matters.
I hope that as we move forward we get more geeks like you, value_added, who recognize that it's not about suddenly being in Nirvana. It's about constantly changing the little bits that are pain points once any better solution becomes available, rather than holding out for some mythical day brought about in some opaque fashion wherein everything is just right of it's own accord.
In the end it's simple economics; the time-value of progress suggests that a little 'money' or 'value' now, and a little later, and a little later will yield a total greater value than a simple lump sum at the end.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Insightful)
Mercury that one broken bulb can raise airborne mercury levels in your house to above safe levels.
Light bulbs don't break during normal operation, let alone CFLs which are made of much sturdier glass. Unless you play your baseball indoors you probably have better things to worry about.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Informative)
According to the EPA [energystar.gov], the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere every year is 104 metric tons, mostly created by coal fired power plants. Since most of the mercury is bound to the CFL bulb as it is used, even if every CFL that was sold in 2007 (290 million bulbs) were sent to landfill, it would only release
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp [snopes.com]
Everyone involved agrees a $2000 cleanup crew is ridiculous and should never have been recommended. It was never in fact used, as the person who broke the bulb couldn't afford it. There are now published cleanup instructions from various environmental agencies along the lines of "ventilate the room well".
Per the WP article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Mercury_emissions [wikipedia.org] ... ...
"CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain small amounts of mercury as vapor inside the glass tubing, averaging 4.0 mg per bulb
In areas powered by coal, CFLs end up saving on mercury emissions versus incandescent bulbs, due to the offset power use (coal releases mercury as it is burned).
In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 tons) that year."
So, yeah, use CFLs.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Funny)
There's probably a dozen more dangerous chemicals then mercury in most kitchens.
Ah, I see you've tasted my cooking.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:5, Informative)
Power factor doesn't quite work that way. Power factor is not like an efficiency. A bulb with a power factor of .5 (terrible, but common for CFLs) doesn't ACTUALLY consume double the power that it would at a PF of 1. It DOES double the resistive losses in the wiring and so should be corrected, but that's not the same as doubling total energy consumption.
It's a problem for power companies because most of the losses are incurred on their side of the meter so they don't get to bill for it.
Note though, since a 60Watt equivalent CFL will be 14 Watts, even doubling it to 28Watts would leave you well ahead of the game.
Longer term, whole house power factor correction is an option. Or the utility can add it per neighborhood. Finally, it could be added at the light socket. If the power companies start installing meters that measure power factor and providing billing incentives for correcting power factor (as they do for larger customers now), the power factor problem will be fixed.
Even better, A major limitation of CFLs is that they must fit a majority of lamps and fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs. That sets an upper limit on the size of the electronics. In turn, that means they design the electronics with a limited life and make them disposable.
Ideally, the electronics would be a separate long life module and the actual fluorescent tube would be the disposable part. Then it would be practical to include power factor correction in the electronics.
Parent
Re:Ad absurdium (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent hit on one of the most important issues related to local agriculture: seasonality. Getting produce when it is naturally in season in your area will really reduce carbon output for the produce. My prof subscribed to a local organic agriculture program where he received produce in season for over half the year. Not only did he reduce his carbon footprint but he liked the fact that every few weeks he'd get something totally different (with suggested recipes). He'd get types of produce he'd never seen before and couldn't buy in a store if he wanted to.
Parent
Re:new to me (Score:5, Funny)
Toner is either carbon based, or far more commonly a polymer. A fine powder of plastic if you will. Take one giant slab of coloured plastic, grind it up in to a very fine powder, add some creative marketing and an astronomical price tag.
In truth, toner is getting more and more complex, some manufacturers grow it, like a plant, then harvest it in its virginal state, it's pure, it's microscopic. Virgins make for better print quality on your paper apparently.
Parent
Lickable sheets anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
So, basically, they could create lickable sheets with that process? ... Makes the Rolling Stones tongue [991.com] suddenly look completely different ...
Be Green (Score:5, Insightful)
Soy Ink? What a freaking joke! The total octopi, or whatever they get ink from, saved by Soy Ink, is truly insignificant.
If your company wants to be green, they need to buy recycled paper, or buy a sustainable forest, or replace all that horrid grass outside with natural prairie and woods.
When are people going to get that using "green" products is still producing consumer waste, and that if you want to truly make an impact, you need to ride your bike sometimes, or something!
Re:Be Green (Score:5, Informative)
Soy toner has two things really going for it: first is, it's easier (ie cheaper) to recycle. Paper with soy toner is easier to recycle. Second, the cost is about the same as normal toner.
I haven't actually seen it in use, so I can't say what it will look like, but if the quality is equivalent to that of carbon based toner, then there is no reason not to use it, and a few small reasons TO use it.
Parent
Re:Be Green (Score:4, Insightful)
So all that's left is "how does it hold in front of humidity" ?
This is a major advantage of laser printing vs. a number of inkjets. Does soy make a difference ?
Parent
Re:Be Green (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Be Green (Score:5, Funny)
That's right! If you want it to be "green", you have to use Organically Grown Soy so those horrible GMOs won't, uh, get on your paper and ... uh ... club the baby seals ... umm ...
Damn! Lost my place in the chapter about soy in my copy of "Liberal Rants for All Occasions." If only it wasn't printed on hemp paper, maybe we wouldn't have smoked the table of contents.
Parent
Re:Be Green (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you could explain the purpose of the woodchip mill at Eden, in the south east corner of Australia, then. Old growth forest is logged and then chipped in that mill and shipped to Japan to make paper. And i'm certain that's not the only place in the world where old growth forests are logged for paper production.
Parent
Print on Rice Paper (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Print on Rice Paper (Score:4, Funny)
Use rice paper, then you can eat any extra printouts.
Soy Ink on Rice Paper? Eat your words!
Parent
I'd be concerned about the nutritional claims (Score:4, Funny)
Soy based toner cartridges are probably ok, but I'd want to see the nutritional composition clearly labeled so we can compare the carbohydrate content with other equipment, such as our roughage-based fax machine.
I think the Ford Model T had Bakelite components, which were made from processed soy protein. But relatively few owners took them apart and shook the components to get more mileage, iirc.
they suck... (Score:5, Informative)
initial printouts were as dark as conventional toners. they did not match the darkness of original oem carts but were ok with our HP remanufactured carts in quality with oem toner.
after 3-4 weeks we started to see fade. think thermal fax machine fading type fade. they dont last long with UV light exposure (basically sunlight hitting the laser printout). we've since stopped using em.
YMMV.
Re:they suck... (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, we got ours from :
http://www.lasermonksgreen.com/ [lasermonksgreen.com]
as noted in the FAQ the ink is easier to de-ink and recycle (cuz it comes off the paper easier) and yield is more since less ink sticks to the paper due to the high heat ability of soy inks. for temporary printing this is great. for offices - ok for some, not ok for others.
see here :
http://www.lasermonksgreen.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=66 [lasermonksgreen.com]
#
Simpler and less capital intensive in the de-inking process (recycling)
#
Higher yield - for many of the toner cartridges, soy ink yields 10% more pages
HTH.
Parent
Hey - cool feature (Score:4, Funny)
That is two solutions in one:
1 - any report becomes invisible after a while. I bet Arthur Andersen would have paid a fortune for that feature alone. Besides, anything thicker than an 1 inch when printed is redundant the moment it's sent to the print queue (I just made that up, but feels about right in my experience :-).
2 - the paper can be recycled. Maybe not as printer paper, but scrap. And folded paper planes look much nicer without print on them, I just don't know what soy toner does to the aero dynamics. I suggest a week long study to find out.
On the serious side, thanks. Fade is a feature worth avoiding..
Parent
You're doing your job wrong (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, might as well let the workers stay home. It will boost morale and help the environment. Win win. They will leave with a confused look that means you can get back to your game of nethack.
Either that, or use it as an excuse to surf to slashdot during work hours. Which it appears is what you did.
Not carbon friendly (Score:5, Funny)
You gotta RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Those user testimonials are great! I like how all their users synchronized their postings! There are 3 on June 2nd from 11:32 to 11:34, 1 on June 5th, and 5 from June 20th from 12:30 to 12:31.
Hilarious...
Sounds Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Green, greener, soy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be cool to have soy based toner in your printer, but the overall damage to the environment may be wider and larger. A lot of companies greenwash their products in order to widen their customer base.
The Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article seems to have some answers. Moving away from petroleum is an advantage.
Re:Green, greener, soy? (Score:4, Informative)
"We identified an approach to use soy resins and polymers formulated into use for toners for office printers, faxes and copy machines," says Bhima Vijayendran, Battelle researcher. The research trial converted soybean oil and protein to a polymer, which was then processed into flakes or powder and mixed with pigments to create the necessary color."
http://www.soynewuses.com/downloads/biobased/BiobasedSolutionsNov2007c.pdf [soynewuses.com][PDF]
Parent
Integral cartridge vs separate drum and toner (Score:5, Informative)
You can improve on this dismal performance by getting a commercial recycling company to refill old cartridges for you, but after a couple of refills the drum is no longer as good as it was, and print quality starts to deteriorate (on the other hand, one drum may be able to print perhaps 50-60000 report printouts or similar.)
Many of the more heavy duty printers use separate toner tanks and drums. This is far more effective at the expense of requiring an IQ in excess of 100 to replace toner. The drum unit may last from around 20000 pages on smaller machines to, say, several hundred thousand on a Kyocera. In Xerox printers I've looked at, the actual toner may account for more than half of the toner tank mass.
Quite simply the best and most effective way to make your printing less environmentally offensive is to go over the entire estate, identify the older machines that use heavy cartridges with a short life, and scrap them. (this will piss off middle managers who probably have them on their desks, but then they wanted it in the first place.) Then do a little homework on actual needs and replace them with something more cost effective. Replacing individual printers with workgroup printers shared among 5-15 people (based on their workload) reduces the carbon footprint per page printed for more than anything else, and tinkering with toner won't be significant in comparison.
Hmmm, sushi (Score:4, Funny)
And the beauty is, if a cartridge springs a leak, you can always use the ink to dip your sushi in.
Fix the whole problem! (Score:4, Informative)
Recycling the whole consumable is possible: http://www.closetheloopusa.com/ [closetheloopusa.com] actually uses toner to make a wood substitute among other things. They have agreements with many of the printer manufacturers. The aim is zero waste to landfill, and eventually to make printer/photocopier consumables totally recyclable in the sense of returning the materials back to their manufacturers.
Uncle Bob. (Score:4, Insightful)
This slashdot posting really evoked similar feelings in me. Pressure from managers to switch to soy-based toners, in an attempt to be greener. There is no world in which this is reasonable. If we are headed for ecological destruction, this obviously will do nothing to ameliorate the result; it's meaningless feel good tripe. If the ecological Armageddon isn't coming, this sort of in-efficiency for the sake of PR and... well, feel good tripe will ruin the economy, and is a good example of the tortuous lack of sense that will haunt us until our death. We, humanity as a whole, seem incapable of approaching any significant rationally. Like John Connor, suddenly fear we aren't going to make it.
Re:Did you search? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Did you search? (Score:4, Funny)
Further proof of the internet conspiracy to make SigNuZX728 look like an idiot.
Parent
Re:What next? (Score:5, Informative)
When i worked as an offset litho printer, back in the early 90s, we used soya bean ink. It was good stuff - and, as far as i remember, gave off less chemical fumes than standard ink.
Parent
Re:Soy Printers ? (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer soylent toner.
Parent
Re:Soy Printers ? (Score:4, Funny)
I prefer soylent toner.
FInally, a way to make clueless users productive!
Parent
This message (Score:4, Funny)
...is brought to you by Soylent red and Soylent yellow, high energy vegetable concentrates, and new, delicious, Soylent green. The miracle food of high-energy plankton gathered from the oceans of the world.
Parent
Re:How is it green? (Score:5, Informative)
Soy ink is made from a non-food soy that is distinctly different from "regular" soybeans. However, that is used for the oil in the ink, not the pigment, and there is no oil in toner. So it is questionable just what they are doing with that soy in "soy-based" toner.
In any case, back to the subject: you may be right about the soy crops, but the answer to that is simple: stop using Monsanto soy. That is not exactly rocket science.
And as for the Roundup, it needs to be sprayed directly on plants, in order to be absorbed and do its work. Roundup is biodegradable in the extreme: it is broken down into harmless naturally-occurring chemicals shortly after it contacts the soil. That is why so many people found Roundup to be so frustrating: it would kill all the weeds in their yard, but even before they were completely dead, new weeds would start popping up. Because any roundup that did not touch a weed disappeared within a couple of days.
I applaud your concern for the environment (and in particular the non-reproducing crop garbage that corporations have tried to pull), but you should do some research before willy-nilly pointing fingers.
Parent
Re:How is it green? (Score:5, Informative)
At an ag-educated guess, the black pigment for "soy-based toner" comes from burnt soybean *hulls*.
As to the phytoestrogens, some interesting reading that is backed by considerable research:
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/04birthdefects.htm [soyonlineservice.co.nz]
(Be aware that flaxseed meal has 3 to 4 TIMES as much phytoestrogen as soy, and is sufficient to be somewhat effective as a contraceptive, and to cause birth defects, when used in dog food.)
Parent
The amount is minute (Score:5, Informative)
The selenium isn't the issue, just as the trace of mercury in CFLs isn't the issue, it's the wastefulness of putting the whole, nonbiodegradable thing into landfills.
Parent