Talk:Cold brew tea: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Environmentally friendly?: new section |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"Known as "green brewing", this process of steeping is considered more environmentally friendly as it saves energy used to boil water." While more energy is required for boiling water, "hot" tea requires **much** less tea. The environmental cost of the extra tea most likely offsets the energy required to boil water. |
"Known as "green brewing", this process of steeping is considered more environmentally friendly as it saves energy used to boil water." While more energy is required for boiling water, "hot" tea requires **much** less tea. The environmental cost of the extra tea most likely offsets the energy required to boil water. |
||
[[Special:Contributions/192.34.76.226|192.34.76.226]] ([[User talk:192.34.76.226|talk]]) 12:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/192.34.76.226|192.34.76.226]] ([[User talk:192.34.76.226|talk]]) 12:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Environmentally friendly? == |
|||
I understands how not boiling water may be more environmentally friendly, but that would seem to be more than offset by the environment impact of having to use much more tea... I can't prove that's so, but this looks suspicious. [[User:Martijn faassen|Martijn Faassen]] ([[User talk:Martijn faassen|talk]]) 17:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:42, 14 September 2015
"Known as "green brewing", this process of steeping is considered more environmentally friendly as it saves energy used to boil water." While more energy is required for boiling water, "hot" tea requires **much** less tea. The environmental cost of the extra tea most likely offsets the energy required to boil water. 192.34.76.226 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Environmentally friendly?
I understands how not boiling water may be more environmentally friendly, but that would seem to be more than offset by the environment impact of having to use much more tea... I can't prove that's so, but this looks suspicious. Martijn Faassen (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)