P. 1
LCA Study Complete file ESP

LCA Study Complete file ESP

|Views: 55|Likes:
Published by Rehan Refai

More info:

Published by: Rehan Refai on Apr 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/07/2011

pdf

text

original

Beer packaging study

challenges
Environmental impact of cans, glass and PET bottles revealed

preconceptions

Sidel releases the results from an environmental impact study on beer packaging. This study is called a Life Cycle Analysis, or LCA, that Sidel and its customer Martens, a Belgian beer maker, have requested from the Brussels-based consultants RDC Environment. This LCA study was focused on the comparison of four different non-returnable packaging types: PET bottles treated with Actis™ coating, glass bottles, aluminum cans and steel cans. A precise scenario was studied: the beer is produced in Belgium and then sold and consumed in Great Britain.

RDC Environment, Sidel and Martens speak about this study 

Bernard de Caevel, RDC Environment’s Managing Director, explains what LCA involves: “LCA is a method that quantifies environmental impacts of a product, in other words CO2 emissions as well as water consumption and non-renewable energy use and others. Our calculations take into account the entire product life cycle, from the extraction of the raw materials all the way through to product disposal. Along the way, we look at production, transport, distribution, use and recycling of the product.” 

luC desoutter, Sustainability Officer at Sidel, explains the objectives of this study. “Our customer Martens wanted fact-based information, so that it could benchmark its packaging (PET, glass and cans) from an environmental standpoint. At Sidel, we know that the environmental aspects of our solutions are becoming important criteria for our customers. For this reason, we ordered this study to be able to identify factors that have the greatest environmental impact and to propose specific improvements.” Several conclusions have been reached, says Desoutter: “First of all, we learned that the primary packaging had the greatest impact, along with beer production, and that transport and secondary packaging played a much less important role than we thought. We also learned that the results for each material varied as a function of three main factors: The end-of-life scenario for the packaging: The ranking is different, for example, depending on whether the beer is consumed in Great Britain or in Germany. Packaging weight: At or below 20 g, PET becomes preferable for the indicator “climate change”. The energy mix in the country of production also has an influence.” 

MarCel Krauth, Sidel’s Vice President of Beer Business Development explains how this study can be used by other Sidel customers. “RDC Environment built a tool called LCA user which will enable our customers to calculate environmental impacts for their own scenario by changing the parameters for country of production, country of distribution, transport, packaging weight, etc. This tool will help our customers analyze areas for improvement and make the best possible packaging choices for their markets.” 

Jan Martens, Martens Breweries Director, concludes: “This study will help convince distributors, retailers and consumers that beer in PET is an alternative product. As a brewer, we’ve also learned the two most important improvements we can make to minimize environmental impact are on the brewing process itself and the primary packaging we choose. This study provides empirical support of the added value to our products, giving us a competitive advantage in the market.” 

The results of this study can be downloaded at www.sidel.com

la eutrofización y el consumo de agua. sigue un método bien definido y responde a normas ISO específicas. Este análisis. botellas de vidrio de cuello largo. y determina la opción que menos penaliza el medioambiente. Esta es la conclusión de un estudio independiente encargado por el Grupo Sidel y llevado a cabo a partir de datos de clientes específicos. Su objetivo es comparar el conjunto de impactos medioambientales ocasionados por los productos y los servicios a fin de elegir los menos perjudiciales. mide el impacto de la producción de 100 litros de cerveza fraccionada en envases de 0. «El impacto medioambiental es un factor decisivo cuando nuestros clientes eligen el envase que van utilizar. en 1/4 .Comunicado de prensa 12 de noviembre de 2008 Un estudio sobre el envase de cerveza cuestiona los prejuicios Análisis del impacto medioambiental de las latas. «Nuestras soluciones de envase deben estar fundadas en datos sólidos». de las botellas de vidrio y en PET Contra toda expectativa. en términos de recursos y de contaminación. la acidificación del aire. este estudio evalúa el impacto medioambiental de la fabricación y del envasado de cerveza. el calentamiento global. Esto es. El LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) «análisis del ciclo de vida». desde el lúpulo hasta el uso final del envase.5 l sobre el consumo de energía. los rivales de las botellas en PET (hoy el 3 % de los envases de cerveza) en materia de resultados medioambientales no son las botellas de vidrio sino las latas de acero y de aluminio. Responsable de Sostenibilidad de Sidel. según Luc Desoutter. latas de aluminio y de acero. lo que ha motivado a la empresa a encargar un «análisis del ciclo de vida» sobre las diferentes opciones de envasado de la cerveza. A partir de los datos del fabricante de cerveza belga Martens. El estudio compara la producción de 100 litros de cerveza envasada en cuatro tipos de recipientes diferentes: botellas en PET con revestimiento Actis™.

el PET será la mejor elección en términos de cambio climático. pueden considerarse una buena elección para el envase de cerveza.5l no pesa más de 20g. las distancias recorridas y la mezcla energética varían de un país al otro y en el tiempo.todo el ciclo de vida de la cerveza. de consumo energético y de cambio climático. Los datos que sirvieron al estudio proceden de Bélgica (producción y envase) y del Reino-Unido (distribución y eliminación). se desarrolló una nueva herramienta de análisis del ciclo de vida (“LCA User”) para que los fabricantes de cerveza puedan elegir en 2/4 . mientras que la producción de las botellas de vidrio origina un mayor consumo. Estas observaciones nos permiten determinar las medidas necesarias para reducir el impacto ecológico del envase de cerveza. sobretodo para las latas en aluminio. Por supuesto. ya acabe en el vertedero. El envase primario genera el mayor impacto medioambiental en la fabricación de la cerveza Los resultados muestran que las latas de acero y las botellas en PET son las que tienen menor impacto en el calentamiento global y la acidificación del aire. Estos resultados permiten sacar un número de conclusiones. los resultados de este análisis reflejan la situación en los países estudiados (Bélgica para la producción y Reino Unido para el consumo y el fin de vida) y en un momento dado. y el final de vida del envase. incinerado o reciclado. Cuando su coeficiente de reciclado es elevado. el envase primario es más perjudicial en la fabricación de la cerveza. Se estudian todos los recursos: desde que las semillas se plantan. la producción de latas metálicas es la que menos energía primaria y menos agua utiliza. especialmente el coeficiente de reciclado y el peso de los envases. La mezcla energética utilizada para producir envases es un parámetro primordial para los indicadores de acidificación. Este estudio muestra también que si una botella en PET de 0. su entrega en los supermercados y a los clientes. se cosechan y se utilizan para fabricar la cerveza. hasta la producción de su envase primario. En términos de impacto medioambiental. El coeficiente de reciclado es un factor importante. ya que los coeficientes de reciclado. mientras que el transporte y el embalaje secundario tienen poco impacto. Por otro lado. Dos factores determinantes: el coeficiente de reciclado y el peso de los envases «El estudio ha permitido definir factores clave determinantes en el equilibrio medioambiental explica Luc Desoutter. Por ejemplo se podrán mejorar los coeficientes de reciclado y disminuir el peso de los envases.» Como resultado de este estudio.

experto en LCA de TNO en Holanda e Yvan Liziard. llevado a cabo a partir de los datos de las actividades industriales del fabricante de cerveza Martens. Las conclusiones obtenidas y este comunicado de prensa han sido verificados de manera independiente por Rene van Gijlswijk. experto en LCA especializado en envases. 3/4 . Este análisis. La herramienta LCA está disponible a través de Sidel.todo conocimiento de causa la solución de envase más ecológica en función de su producto y de la situación. ha sido realizado por la empresa RDCEnvironnement.

las auditorias y los consejos energéticos. Más de 5. Para más información. RDC ha trabajado en tres provincias belgas.com 4/4 . Las soluciones de envasado incluyen la botella PET. Para más información.000 máquinas instaladas en 190 países y un volumen de negocios anual de 1.be Martens Brewery Martens Brewery es la fábrica de cerveza más antigua de Limburgo en Bélgica. Sidel posee plantas de producción en doces países y sucursales comerciales y de servicios en 28 países. en Francia y con la Comisión Europea. estudios del impacto medioambiental.be Contacto de prensa: Sylvie ORY Tel: +33 2 32 85 81 33 sylvie. hasta las máquinas de envasado y los servicios asociados. consulte el sitio www. asistencia a la construcción sostenible (HQE).rdcenvironment. la empresa belga RDC-Environment realiza estudios complejos que exigen un nuevo enfoque para resolver los problemas medioambientales y poner en práctica estrategias de desarrollo sostenible.ory@sidel. la botella de vidrio y las latas. ocho generaciones de fabricantes de cerveza Martens han modernizado la empresa continuamente. es una de las más dinámicas del país.500 empleados en todo el mundo proporcionan a los clientes equipamientos y peritaje: desde el diseño de envases y la ingeniería de la línea. cerveza y bebidas alcohólicas. Con 250 años de experiencia. Sus principales sectores de actividad son el análisis del ciclo de vida (LCA) y los análisis costo-beneficio para la gestión de residuos.22 mil millones de euros en 2007. el Grupo Sidel es uno de los líderes mundiales en soluciones para el envasado de líquidos alimentarios: agua. bebidas sensibles. respetando las tradiciones de fabricación de la cerveza.com RDC-Environment Fundada en 1992.sidel. Desde 1758. consulte el sitio www.El Grupo Sidel Con más de 30. consulte el sitio www. leche. aceites. bebidas gaseosas. Para más información.martens.

vangijlswijk@tno. Health and Safety Téléphone : 0031 88 86 62029 rene.Business unit Environment.rdcenvironment.ooms@rdcenvironment.be.brunson@rdcenvironment. PET bottle.Life Cycle Assessment (“LCA”) of four beer packaging options: glass bottle. aluminium can & steel can Synthesis November 2008 Life Cycle Assessment produced by : RDC-Environnement : Téléphone :00 32 2 420 28 23 michael.be www. aurore.be Critical review led by : TNO Built Environment and Geosciences .nl .

Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options SUMMARY CONTEXT AND GOAL STUDY AIMS METHODOLOGY DEFINITION OF THE FUNCTIONAL UNIT STUDIED SCENARIOS CHOICES OF THE IMPACT CATEGORY 2 2 2 3 3 5 DATA SOURCES 7 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS WHAT IS THE BEST PACKAGING SOLUTION? MAIN CONCLUSIONS 8 8 9 2 Study synthesis November 2008 .

METHODOLOGY General The study is based on the LCA method. plastic bottles (PET. its customers and prospects with empirical decision-making elements to assist in the selection of primary packaging for beer. manufactures. 3 Study synthesis November 2008 . In order to publish the results and to follow the recommendation of the ISO. Identify the key factors which most influence environmental assessment (in order to determine actions to be implemented to reduce environmental impact) 3. These flows are then translated into indicators of potential environment impacts. Determine for each primary packaging material the values of the main environmental indicators 2. In particular. edible oil. Sidel commissioned a critical review to validate compliance with the study as well as the data selection and hypotheses used given the study’s scope and goals. milk. Sidel is one of the world’s leaders in solutions for packaging beverages and other liquid products including water. soft drinks. assembles. This methodology is based on the internationnal standards ISO14040 and ISO 14044. The LCA was performed by RDC Environnement.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options CONTEXT AND GOAL STUDY AIMS The life cycle assessment (“LCA”) study was conducted at Sidel’s request and based on Martens Brewery Industrial activities. Present the results in an environmental report The next step is a UserLCA tool able to measure the environmental impact for each packaging option and country. the goal of this study is to: 1. The members of the critical review committee were: René van Gijlswijk (LCA expert from TNO in the Netherlands). This methodology involves compiling a detailed account of all substances and energy flows removed or emitted from or into the environment at each stage of the life cycle. The LCA used for this study consists in quantifying the environmental impacts of the activities related to the chosen primary package type. beer and alcoholic beverages. sensitive beverages. supplies and sells complete packaging lines for beverages and other liquid products packaged in three primary package types: glass bottles (disposable and returnable). HDPE and PP) and beverage cans. Sidel designs. The goal of this study is to provide Sidel. Yvan Liziard (LCA expert specializing in packaging).

it is necessary to define a common reference in order to express the results for the same output: this common reference is called the functional unit. This approach is applied for: Electricity production : In this study. a long-term consequential mix is used. consumption and end-of-life. the functional unit is defined as: "Beer production of 100l of beer and full life cycle of the packaging associated" STUDIED SCENARIOS The geographical areas considered are Belgium for beer production and packaging. A long-term mix models the power plants to be built if the demand increases over the long term. 4 Study synthesis November 2008 . and the UK for distribution.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options The report has been reviewed by the panel. and the synthesis was held against the principles of ISO 14020 and checked for representativity (for the study) by René van Gijlswijk. In accordance with the general goal of this study. considering whether the recycling market is demand or offer-driven In this study. all derived from the "market based approach" (as opposed to the "average approach"). Consequential approach When modeling the function (decision) to be studied. “Allocation” for recycling. benefits of recycling at end-of-life are fully allocated to the material brought on the market as material recycled at end-of-life will offset production of virgin materials. as opposed to a short term mix which models the unused power plants to be actuated if the demand increases in the short term. the long term mix is adapted to the decisions that will have a long lasting structural effect on electricity consumption (e. Indeed. RDC follows the following principles. DEFINITION OF THE FUNCTIONAL UNIT To allow a consistent comparison between the different primary package options for beer.g. the decision to further develop rail transport will trigger an increase in electricity consumption for decades).

The principal goal of the study is to compare the environmental impact of this step to packaging. though in a streamlined LCA. Included processes This study includes: Production of the beer: Production of raw materials − Production of grains − Production of auxiliary materials and chemicals Beer production: − Energy consumption at the brewery: electricity and fuel Production of primary packaging: Table I-1 : Production steps of the four primary packaging types studied PET bottle Production of raw materials Injection of the PET in order to make preforms Stretch blow molding of the preforms ACTIS bottles TM Glass bottle Production of raw materials Heating and molding for the glass making Cans (aluminum and steel) Production of raw materials Production and rolling of aluminum and steel sheets Can manufacturing and coating coating of the Production of secondary and tertiary packaging (PE films and cardboard) : Production of raw materials Production of packaging materials Filling and grouping at the brewery: Energy consumption: electricity and fuel 5 Study synthesis November 2008 .Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options The materials studied are: PET bottles with ACTIS™ coating Glass long neck bottles Aluminium cans Steel cans All of them are 500ml beer packaging options. Beer production is also studied.

for example. is expected to have a negligible effect on the end results (0. 1 NDLC is the plant located in Bocholt Study synthesis November 2008 6 . However.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options Transport: from packagings producers to NDLC1 (transport supply) from NDLC to distribution centers (depot) from distribution centers platforms to supermarkets from supermarkets to the consumer's home Packaging end-of-life : Packaging house-hold waste: incineration and landfill in the UK of nonrecycled packagings Packaging recycling Not. for example filling machinery (though not its manufacture). This is justified by the fact that.e. expressed per functional unit. the use of the fridge by the consumer Glue (for labels). buildings have a long service life.) is also not taken into account in this LCA study (as in most LCA studies). i. etc. the following aspects are not taken into account: Consumption of the distribution logistics such as electric and fossil energy for distribution centers and supermarkets Home consumption. can thus be regarded as insignificant.45g/bottle) Infrastructure (buildings. CHOICES OF THE IMPACT CATEGORY The environmental impacts of the four primary packaging type systems studied are grouped into categories mentioned in Table I-. The environmental impacts of its construction and disposal. are included. using equivalency (characterization) factors for different elementary flows that contribute to the same environmental problem.Included processes In this study. the environmental effects related to the use of capital goods in production.

PO4 g eq. Pollutions Greenhouse effect enhancement Air acidification Water and air eutrophication Eco and human toxicity Ozone layer depletion MJ MJ liter g eq. CO2 g eq.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options Table I-2: Considered impact categories and reference units Impact category 1. and potentially relevant emissions included in databases are not often reliable. 1992 & 1995 & 1999) . The discussion on the category "human toxicity" and the reason this indicator is not used is made in the full report. Finally. Resource consumption Non renewable energy consumption Mineral resources consumption Water consumption 2. Biodiversity was also not taken into account because no scientifically-based model is currently able to forecast accurately the environmental impacts. This impact category is not relevant as there are no specific emissions. 7 Study synthesis November 2008 .CML 1998 Ecotoxicity and human toxicity are not taken into account in this study. Huijbregts 1999 and 2000 ODP steady state (WMO. CFC -11 Reference unit Characterization factors Buwal Eco indicator 99 None IPCC 2007 CML 1998 CML 1992 and 2001 USES 2.0: USES-LCA. SO2 g eq. depletion of the ozone layer is not taken into account. 1-4dichlorobenzene g eq.

IISI (steel).Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options DATA SOURCES Whenever possible. 8 Study synthesis November 2008 . secondary and tertiary) energy consumption for PET bottle production energy consumption for filling and grouping information about transport supply and distribution losses beer production materials and energy consumed in production The main sources of the secondary data used are the IVAM and the EcoInvent databases (second version). and the data provided by the materials association EAA (aluminimum). The primary data are: materials and weights of the different packaging (primary. All key data and assumptions are presented in the chapter IV of the full report. PlasticsEurope (PET). the data collected by RDC in similar studies. the primary data have been provided by Sidel and Martens Brewery Industrial.

For the consumption of primary energy. This is due to the fact that beer production. These figures include beer production. 9 Study synthesis November 2008 . the same for all four package types. and PET is quite close to steel. This is due to the fact that the main emissions are NOx and SOx emitted by the energy production (as greenhouse gases).Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS WHAT IS THE BEST PACKAGING SOLUTION? The following table illustrates the results for the five indicators of potential environmental impact that were used for this study for each primary packaging material. The figures in bold delineate the best primary packaging option for each indicator. the difference between the results had to be greater than 5% to justify a clear preference for one primary package material over another. is the largest driver. For this reason. glass is the worst while steel is the best. though the difference is not large enough to justify a clear preference among those two packaging materials. Regarding to the modeling assumptions and the data used for the different processes. Aluminum cans demand slightly less energy than PET bottles. The hierarchy for acidification is the same as that for greenhouse effect in that glass is the worst. Functional unit: Production and packaging of 100l of beer (including beer production) Primary energy non-renewable MJ Global warming potential (100 years) in g eq CO2 Air acidification in g eq SO2 Eutrophication in g eq PO42Water consumption in liter Packaging material PET bottles One way glass bottles Aluminum cans Steel cans 986 1178 911 723 58 243 91 981 65 762 52 770 234 362 293 216 120 126 118 117 877 1394 866 824 For the impact on greenhouse gases. For eutrophication the differences are not large enough to justify a clear preference for one primary packaging material over another. steel is the best. it is possible to have more than one “best” solution. we observe that steel cans are the best primary packaging option. PET is quite close to steel and glass is the worst.

production of the bottle or can. This phase is particularly important for "eutrophication" and "water consumption". The three other primary packaging materials are relatively close because beer production is the greatest consumer of water and it is common to all of the packaging types.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options The slight advantage of aluminium cans can be explained by its favorable recycling rate. MAIN CONCLUSIONS Conclusion 1: Primary packaging production and beer production are the highest impact phases The figures below shows the relative importance of the phases “beer production” and "primary packaging production" for each indicator including the end-of-life with recycling rates for the U.contribution of phases Water consumption Eutrophication Acidification Energy consumption Greenhouse effect 0% Transport 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Secondary and tertiary packaging + end of life Beer production Primary packaging production + end of life 10 Study synthesis November 2008 . conveying. and the end of life scenario.5%) is better than that of PET (20%). For water consumption. and the recycling rate for aluminum in the U.K. Recycling aluminum saves considerable energy. Beer production includes the filling.K. Primary packaging production includes production of the material. PET bottle . (48. glass is the largest water consumer. packaging and palletizing of the bottles or cans. Transport also includes the transport from the supermarket to the consumer.

contribution of phases Water consumption Eutrophication Acidification Energy consumption Greenhouse effect 0% Transport 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Secondary and tertiary packaging Beer production Primary packaging production + end of life Aluminum can .Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options Glass bottle .contribution of phases Water consumption Eutrophication Acidification Energy consumption Greenhouse effect 0% Transport 20% 40% 60% Beer production 80% 100% Secondary and tertiary packaging Primary packaging production + end of life 11 Study synthesis November 2008 .

12 Study synthesis November 2008 . it is the same for the other three primary packaging material options.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options Steel can . Martens operate an older plant (“BMB”) where they produce a German beer and a new plant where they produce both German and Belgian beers. Though cited for PET bottles. Figure III-1 aims to compare the different types of beer produced by Martens brewery for the indicator “Greenhouse effect”. In this figure. The goal was only to compare the environnmental impact of this step with that of the primary packaging. The figure represents the beer and the rest of the life cycle. we see the improvements made by Martens at its new brewery lead to a reduction of the greenhouse gases of 17% over the full life cycle.contribution of phases Water consumption Eutrophication Acidification Energy consumption Greenhouse effect 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Transport Secondary and tertiary packaging Beer production Primary packaging production + end of life Conclusion 2: Reducing the environmental impact of beer production would have the greatest impact Beer production was studied as a streamlined LCA. The phase "beer production" is the same among all four options studied with the only measurable though small difference being the losses between the different packaging types.

Greenhouse effect . The figure below shows the influence of the recycling rates for each material on the greenhouse gases.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options Comparison between different type of beer 60 000 Rest Beer production 50 000 g éq CO 2/100l 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 German production BMB German production NDLC Belgian production NDLC Figure III-1 : Comparison between different type of brewery Conclusion 3: The recycling rate is a very important parameter. especially for aluminum cans As the production of raw materials for primary packaging production is one of the most important phases of the full LCA (other than beer production.recycling 120 000 PET Glass Aluminium cans Steel cans 100 000 g éq CO2/100l 80 000 60 000 40 000 20 000 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Recycling rate 70% 80% 90% 100% 13 Study synthesis November 2008 . a high recycling rate measurably reduces the impact on all indicators. which is the same for all four packaging types).

K. above 40% for glass and aluminum cans). recylcing rates (20% for PET. recycling rates are approximately: PET bottles (70%). In this figure. Note: In Germany. Circles indicate the status at existing U.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options The figure above shows the influence of the recycling rates for each material. 14 Study synthesis November 2008 . At a recycling rate around 80% for each packaging material. it is evident that recycling PET bottles and steel cans enables savings of as up to 15 000 eqCO2/100l (between 0% and 100% recycling). PET bottles 3. Aluminum or steel cans 2. Based on these trendlines. A consumer who does not recycle his bottles shall prefer: 1. even more for aluminum cans which can conserve as much as 50 000 g eq CO2/100l. steel cans and PET bottles are roughly equivalent in impact reduction. we consider in a base case a long-term electric mix. "energy consumption" and "climate change" In this study. The conclusions are thus very different for each country or consumer behaviour. The figure below shows the impact of electricity in the full life cycle. Aluminum cans 3. It is evident that conclusions vary significantly by country based on consumer behaviour. Steel cans or PET bottles 2. Glass bottles Conclusion 4: The electric mix is an important parameter for the indicators "acidification". aluminium cans. we can also see that the conclusions vary depending on consumer behavior: A consumer who recycle 100% of his bottles shall prefer : 1. cans (89%) and glass (82%). Glass bottles Note: The difference between aluminum and steel cans is smaller than 5% for climate change. collection process and laws.

This is due to the fact that the long term approach considers the use of quite 100% of fossil fuels.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options Part of the electricity in the total life cycle 100 000 90 000 80 000 g éq CO 2/100l 70 000 60 000 50 000 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 PET Glass Aluminium cans Electricity Rest Steel cans Figure III-2 : Part of electricity in the full life cycle Because of the large role electricity plays in the total life cycle. The average mix has less impact for the greenhouse effect. As the figure below shows. Electricity mix comparison 100 000 90 000 80 000 g éq CO 2/100l 70 000 60 000 50 000 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 Long term Long term hyp2 PET Average mix Long term Long term hyp2 Average mix Long term Long term hyp2 Steel cans Average mix Long term Long term hyp2 Glass Average mix Aluminium cans Figure III-3 : Comparison between different electricity mix For the choice of packaging material. the choice of electricity mix is important. there is no difference between the different electric-mix for the relative position of the different primary packaging materials. 15 Study synthesis November 2008 . absolute value can be different with the use of different electricity mix.

Bottles weight 80 000 PET 70 000 60 000 g éq CO 2/100l 50 000 Steel c ans 40 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 10 15 20 25 g / bottle 30 35 40 Figure III-5 : Sensitivity on bottle weight (focus on PET bottles vs. after. steel is worse than PET. then PET bottles become preferable at a weight around 20g. If we assume steel cans cannot be further lightweighted (today they are at 27g). The figure below shows the sensitivity related to the bottle or can weight. Before this intersection. steel cans) 16 Study synthesis November 2008 . Steel and PET lines intersect at 15g.Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options Figure III-4 : Best solution based on electric mix Best option – long term mix Glass bottles Steel cans Aluminum cans PET bottles 4 1 3 2 Best option average mix 4 1 3 2 Conclusion 5: PET becomes preferable for the indicator “climate change” if the bottle weight can be reduced to or below 20g. it is the opposite.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->