Post on 16-Apr-2017
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
ON ALUMINIUM CAN AND
GLASS BOTTLE FOR
PACKAGING OF 500 ml BEER
ABSTRACT Comparison of the environmental impacts of two
different products, glass bottle and aluminum can for
packaging of 500ml beer
Prepared by: Rajat Nag Student ID: 15202684
DECEMBER 2015
UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College
Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. GENERAL ASPECTS: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 1.1. LCA commissioner, practitioner of LCA (Name and address)………………………..…1
1.2. Date of report……………………………………………………………………………..1
1.3. Statement that the study has been conducted according to the requirements of this
international standard……………………………………………………………………..1
1.4. Other contact information or release information…………………………………….......1
2. GOAL OF THE STUDY
2.1. Reasons for carrying out the study………………………………………………………..1
2.2. Its intended applications……………………………………………...…………………...1
2.3. The target audiences………………………………………………………………………1
2.4. Statement as to whether the study intends to support comparative assertions intended to
be disclosed to the public………………………………………………………………….1
3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
3.1. Function………………………………………………………….……………………….2
3.1.1. Statement of performance characteristics…………………….………………………..2
3.1.2. Any omission of additional functions in comparisons………….……………………..2
3.2. Functional unit………… ………………………………………………………….……..2
3.2.1. Consistency with goal and scope………………………………………………….……..2
3.2.2. Definition…………………………………………..……………………….………………2
3.2.3. Result of performance measurement………………………………………….…………2
3.3. System boundary………………………………………………………………….……....3
3.3.1. Omissions of life cycle stages, processes or data needs…………………….………..4
3.3.2. Quantification of energy and material inputs and outputs……………….…………..4
3.3.3. Assumptions about electricity production………………………………….…………...4
3.4. Cut-off criteria for initial inclusion of inputs and output………… ……………….………..4
3.4.1. Description of cut-off criteria and assumptions……………………………..…….…..4
3.4.2. Effect of selection on results……………………………………………………..…...…..4
3.4.3. Inclusion of mass, energy and environmental cut-off criteria…………….……….5
3.5. Modifications to the initial scope together with their justification………………….…….5
3.6. Decision criteria……………………………………………………………………….….5
3.7. Description of the unit processes: decision about allocation…………………….………..5
3.8. Data……………………………………………………………………………………….5
3.8.1. Decision about data………………………………………………………….…….5
3.8.2. Details about individual data……………………………………………….….….5
3.8.3. Data quality requirements………………………………………………….…..….5
3.9. Choice of impact categories and category indicators……………………………….…….5
4. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
4.1. Data collection procedures………………………………………………………………….…….6
4.2. Qualitative and quantitative description of unit processes…………………………………….6
4.2.1. Aluminium can production………………………………………………………….…….6
4.2.2. Glass bottle production…………………………………………………….…..….7
4.3. Sources of published literature…………………………………………………….…..….7
4.4. Calculation procedures…………………………………………………………….…..….7
4.5. Validation of data………………………………………………………………..….…….8
4.5.1. Data quality assessment…………………………………………………..….……8
4.5.2. Treatment of missing data………………………………………………..….…….9
4.6. Sensitivity analysis for refining the system boundary……………………………...….….9
4.7. Allocation principles and procedures………… …………………………………...…....10
4.7.1. Documentation and justification of allocation procedures…………………...….10
4.7.2. Uniform application of allocation procedures………………………………...…10
5. LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1. The LCIA procedures, calculations and results of the study………………………..…...10
5.2. Limitations of the LCIA results relative to the defined goal and scope of the LCA….....10
5.3. The relationship of LCIA results to the defined goal and scope……………………...….10
5.4. The relationship of the LCIA results to the LCI results………………………….…....….10
5.5. Impact categories and category indicators considered…………………..………….……11
5.6. Descriptions of characterization factors…………………………………….………...…11
6. LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION
6.1. The results…………………………………………………………………………...…..12
6.2. Assumptions and limitations associated with the interpretation of results, both
methodology and data related………………………………………………………...….13
6.3. Data quality assessment…………………………………………………………………13
7. CRITICAL REVIEW 1.1. Name of the reviewer……………………………………………………………………14
7.1. Critical review reports…………………………………………………………………...14
7.2. Responses to recommendations…………………………………………………………14
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
9. REFERENCE
10. APPENDIX FOR DATASHEET AND CALCULATION
1
1. GENERAL ASPECTS: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
1.1. LCA commissioner (Name and address)
Professor Nicholas Holden
School of Biosystems & Food Engineering, Agriculture and Food Science, Belfield,
Dublin 4, Telephone: Ext. 7460, Email: nick.holden@ucd.ie
1.2. Date of report: December 20, 2015.
1.3. Release information: Version 2 - December 20, 2015
Version 1 - December 19, 2015
2. GOAL OF THE STUDY
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) addresses the environmental aspects and potential
environmental impacts (e.g. use of resource and the environmental consequence of releases)
through a product’s life cycle from raw material acquisition through production, use, end-of-
life treatment, recycling and final disposal (ISO14040). Here the analysis is performed on the
basis of environmental impact of the product from cradle to gate through which we can
compare that, glass bottle or aluminum can which option is greener for beer packaging.
2.1. Reasons for carrying out the study
Aluminium is very energy intensive, this is because the mining of the bauxite and the
process of alumina and aluminium are far more energy intensive than other glass materials
and emits more greenhouse gases. However aluminium has an advantage that it has light
weight, so its transportation cost is lesser than glass bottle in terms of fuel consumption.
At the same time glass bottles can be recycled up to certain numbers. So without LCA it
is very difficult to assess the environmental impact of the two different products and
choice of greener options.
2.2. Its intended applications
The outcome of the study is to compare the environmental impact of two different
products, glass bottle and aluminum can for packaging of 500ml beer. Further, it will help
us to understand the requirement and potentiality of Irish packaging industry. This report
is also going to focus on the opportunities available for the Irish beer production industries.
2.3. The target audiences
Environmental protection agency (EPA), Planning commission, Agriculture & Food
department, Irish beer companies are intended audience. It will also help the government
to build policies for food packaging sectors.
2.4. This study intends to have a reference for future comparisons in order to evaluate the
evolution of the sector. To compare the products it is preferable to compare apples with
apples. That means comparison has been performed with a glass bottle and a beer can
2
which is associated to carry 500ml of beer. The comparison will focus on greenhouse gas
emissions, fossil fuel consumption and water consumption related to the above mentioned
products.
3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
3.1. Function The goal of this case study is to compare two systems to produce container for a typical 500ml
beer. The packaging could be made of glass bottle or aluminium can. Both options do not look the
same, but have the same function: contain and protect the precious beverage.
3.1.1. Statement of performance characteristics The first option will be called ‘Glass bottle (GLB)’ and the other one ‘Aluminium can (ALC)’
however both performs equally well to serve the purpose of beer container. To avoid too
complicated models in this case study, the sealing and cap options will not be considered, but
only the core body of the packaging.
3.1.2. Any omission of additional functions in comparisons
As the product inside the container is same for glass bottle and aluminium can the
calculation for beer production has been omitted.
3.2. Functional unit
The functional unit for this study is ‘the packaging and delivery of 1000 liter beer to
the customer’. To meet this criteria numbers of 500 ml bottle required = 1000/0.5=2000.
3.2.1. Consistency with goal and scope
The amount of functional unit required to calculate and achieve the function of the
product, process or system is termed the “reference flow”. With the help of reference
flow we can conclude to our goal to find out the better option for beer container.
3.2.2. Definition
According to ISO 14040: 2006 functional unit has been defined as quantified
performance of a product system for use as a reference unit.
3.2.3. Result of performance measurement
Flow Category Flow type Reference flow Unit
Empty beer bottle Case study – beer bottle Product 2000 bottles Item
According to record specific gravity of beer is 1.046
The weight of 500 ml beer = 1.046*500 = 523 g
Weight of empty glass bottle + cap weight (5 gm assumed) + 500 ml beer = 916 g
Weight of empty glass bottle = (916-5-523) = 388 g
Weight of empty alminium can + 500 ml beer = 541 g
Weight of empty alminium can = (541-523) = 18 g
Weight of glass bottle to be considered (388/1000) * 2000 bottle = 776 kg
Weight of alminium can to be considered (18/1000) * 2000 bottle = 36 kg
3
3.3. System boundary All processes contributing significantly to the environmental impacts of the system are investigated.
In a comparative LCA, it is particularly important to include all processes where the difference
between the systems is significant. When the results are intendent to form part of the basis for a
decision, as in this case, the LCA should include all processes that are significantly affected by the
decision. A decision on national standard for packaging will, of course, affect the packaging
system, but it will also have a significant impact on other systems. As illustrated by Figure 1, the
systems investigated in this study do not only include the packaging systems, but also parts of other
product systems that are significantly affected by the choice of packaging system.
Figure 1: Simplified illustration of the system investigated
The illustration is valid for refillable glass bottles and aluminium can both. Transports other than
the distribution of beverage are not included in this illustration, nor is production of caps and levels.
4
An LCA should include all processes contributing significantly to the environmental impacts of the
system investigated. In a comparative LCA, it is particularly important to include all processes
where the difference between the systems is significant. When the results are intendent to form part
of the basis for a decision-as in this case-the LCA should include all processes that are significantly
affected by the decision. A decision on national standard for packaging will, of course, affect the
packaging system, but it will also have a significant impact on other systems. As illustrated by
Figure 1, the systems investigated in this study do not only include the packaging systems, but also
parts of other product systems that are significantly affected by the choice of packaging system.
Boundary assumptions
Upstream supply is fully elastic: the induced demand for one unit of product leads to the
production and supply of one unit of product with associated emissions and resource
consumption.
Other users of the resource are assumed not to be effects (Attributional LCA only).
Downstream demand is fully elastic: production of one unit of product leads to consumption
of one unit of product.
3.3.1. Omissions of life cycle stages, processes or data needs
The stages of beer production does not fall into our system analysis as it has common
impact on both systems. Hence it is indicated in dotted box in Figure 1.
3.3.2. Quantification of energy and material inputs and outputs
All source of energy input are in terms of Oil, diesel and electricity use. The unit is
mega Jule (MJ) unless otherwise specified. Mass input and output are expressed as
kilogram (kg).
3.3.3. Assumptions about electricity production
According to reports published by Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland the
emission factor for electricity is 468.9 g CO2 equivalent to produce 1 kWh electricity
in 2013. 1 kWh equals to 3.6 MJ. Hence the emission factor taken (468.9/1000)/3.6kg
CO2 equivalent /MJ = 0.130 kg CO2 equivalent /MJ
3.4. Cut-off criteria for initial inclusion of inputs and output
3.4.1. Description of cut-off criteria and assumptions
At least, all material flows going into the aluminium processes (inputs) higher than
1% of the total mass flow (kg) or higher than 1% of the total primary energy input
(MJ) are part of the system and modelled in order to calculate elementary flows. All
material flows leaving the product system (outputs) accounting for more than 1% of
the total mass flow is part of the system.
3.4.2. Effect of selection on results
All available inputs and outputs, even below the 1% threshold, have been considered
for the LCI calculation. The initial input-output ratio (Proportion of minerals per unit
Bauxite) has no influence in the model (refer Figure 1 and appendix for calculations)
as specified.
5
Table 1: Influence of mass per piece of product and initial input-output ratio
Observations Scenario 1 2 3 3 3 3
Reference flow 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
Mass per piece 0.018 0.03 0.05 0.018 0.018 0.018
Proportion of minerals
per unit Bauxite 4 4 4 4.00 4.25 5.50
Transport distance 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100
Scrap proportion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
co2e 2272 3786 6310 2272 2272 2272
3.4.3. Inclusion of mass, energy and environmental cut-off criteria
For hazardous and toxic materials and substances the cut-off rules do not apply.
3.5. Modifications to the initial scope together with their justification
In first attempt the energy considered in the form of diesel, electricity and oil only. As an
impact the model was not so much accurate as presented in Diagram 4 the natural gas is
one of the biggest hot spot in the analysis.
3.6. Decision criteria
Decision criteria will focus mainly in terms of resource depletion of fresh water and
greenhouse gas emissions in terms of kg CO2 equivalent.
3.7. Description of the unit processes: decision about allocation
Unit process is described in section 4.2. Allocation is avoided by being no allocation and
avoiding allocation by using system expansion (scrap issue, described in Figure 2 and 3).
The co-products are avoided keeping outside the system boundary. The economic value
of comparable products are considered the same, hence mass allocation is applied to both
system.
3.8. Data
3.8.1. Decision about data
Geographical conditions are avoided for data collection as glass bottle production
reflects the US technology data for aluminium can production is based on European
industries.
3.8.2. Details about individual data
As the cutoff criteria has been set to 1% in the reports and journals the detail about
data is nicely met.
3.8.3. Data quality requirements
The quality of data is very important due to setting out new decision about choice of
product depending on environmental impact. Unit process data is considered well
depicted in the national reports of both process industry.
3.9. Choice of impact categories and category indicators
Choice of impact category is set for mainly global warming criteria however resource
depletion of water is also considered in calculations.
6
4. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
4.1. Data collection procedures
A life cycle inventory is a process of quantifying energy and raw material requirements,
atmospheric emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, and other releases for the
entire life cycle of a product, process, or activity.
4.2. Qualitative and quantitative description of unit processes
4.2.1. Aluminium can production
The following sections describe the manufacture of aluminium can from raw materials
extracted from the earth. This analysis identifies the primary components for the aluminium
container. The steps for the production of aluminium containers are as follows
Bauxite mining
Alumina production
Electrolysis
Ingot Casting yard
Metal sheet production
Aluminium can production
Figure 2: Material flow diagram of aluminium can production (Cradle to gate)
7
4.2.2. Glass bottle production
The following sections describe the manufacture of glass bottle from raw materials
extracted from the earth. This analysis identifies the primary components for the glass
container. The steps for the production of glass containers are as follows.
Limestone mining
Glass sand mining
Soda ash mining
Feldspar mining
Cullet (in-house)
Glass container manufacture.
Figure 3: Material flow diagram of glass bottle production (Cradle to gate)
4.3. Sources of published literature
For aluminium: Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium
Industry, European aluminium association (2013) [9]
For glass: Life-cycle inventory data sets for material production of aluminium,
glass, paper, plastic, and steel in North America, RTI International (2003) [8]
4.4. Calculation procedures
First the data has been collected from published articles or journals
According to the material process diagram (Figure 2 and 3) the entire process has
been split in to unit processes.
Data collected for each of the unit process and all the units of energy, emissions
are converted to mega jule. Next the normalized values are multiplied by the mass
accumulation factor in each input-output stages. If any stage has scrap the system
8
has been expanded and energy or emissions are taken care to the original value by
adding them up.
If the data shows only the CO2 emissions due to non-fossil fuel only (refer
Equation 1), all the fuel value in mega jule are converted into equivalent CO2
emissions by an appropriate multiplication factor.
A + B + heat (generated by electricity or fossil fuel) → C + D + CO2↑ fossil fuel burning +
CO2↑reaction only … Equation 1
Transportation distance are assumed to meet the criteria within the republic of
Ireland. Again the conversions factor for diesel is applied to get the CO2e
emissions.
At the end the result is compared for both aluminiam can and glass bottle.
Sensitivity analysis performed with global warming potential of NOx as 298
instead of 310 to check how sensitive the system is. Validation of data, including
4.5. Validation of data
4.5.1. Data quality assessment
Data sources are identified and a data quality assessment performed to the
extent possible in each of the specific material LCI profiles. The data presented
are from reports published by authorities of government and pier reviewed
journals only.
Geographic coverage refers to the geographical area from which data for the
unit processes or system under study were collected. For example, the
aluminium data have been collected to represent average aliminium
manufacturing in Europe whereas the data for glass bottle has been collect from
USA.
Time duration of the data are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Time related coverage of data.
Product Reference Reports Publishing date Year
mentioned
Glass bottle RTI International
(2003) [8] February 2003 2000
Aluminium
can
European Aluminium
Association (2013) [9] April 2013 2010
Technological coverage means the technology used during the production
mentioned in the report is based on Europe and America. So mixed type of
technology is depicted in absence of data for glass in Europe.
Consistency is a qualitative understanding of how uniformly the study
methodology is applied to the various components of the study. The consistency
measure is one of the most important in the LCI data development process. To
ensure consistency, it is crucial to have a clear communication and
understanding of what data is needed, how it is measured, how it is reported,
and how it is to be used. For example the breakdown data is excellent for
9
aluminium can production whereas for glass production the data is limited, it
shows only one single process.
4.5.2. Treatment of missing data
The missing data of water consumption in glass bottle process is taken from
Eco Invent database [packaging glass production, brown, without cullet,
GLO, (Author: Bo Weidema inactive)].
4.6. Sensitivity analysis for refining the system boundary
Sensitivity analysis has been performed and found ok about the system. It is sensitive
(Diagram 1, 2) to the change of global warming potential data of NOx as 298 from
310 CO2 equivalent mass.
Diagram 1: Sensitivity analysis result for Aluminium can
Diagram 2: Sensitivity analysis result for Glass bottle
0.00
0.22
0.32
0.48
1.10
0.15
2.27
0.00
0.22
0.32
0.46
1.05
0.15
2.20
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Bauxite mining
Alumina…
Electrolysis
Metal sheet…
Aluminium foil…
Aluminium can…
SUM
Thousands
CO2e (kg) @310 vs CO2e @298 for Aluminium can
CO2e @ 298
CO2e @310
1205.01
1205.01
1175.36
1175.36
0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00
Glass bottle
production
SUM
CO2e (kg) @310 vs CO2e @298 for Glass bottle
CO2e @ 298
CO2e @310
10
4.7. Allocation principles and procedures
4.7.1. Documentation and justification of allocation procedures
The data used in this study are from secondary sources, the allocation approach was
defined by APME (1992). Coproduct allocation was based on the calorific content for
all stages of oil refining, gas extraction/processing, and cracking. The model for
combustion and pre-combustion fuel and electrical energy-related environmental
releases was developed by Franklin Associates (1998).
4.7.2. Uniform application of allocation procedures
This study assumes that fuels used in Europe are characteristically the same as those
extracted in the U.S. (i.e., calorific values of fuels in the U.S. and Europe are assumed
to be the same).
5. LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1. The LCIA procedures, calculations and results of the study
The values of methane and NOx are multiplied by global warming potential factor; 23
and 310 respectively to get equivalent CO2 emissions. The entire calculation is
available in Microsoft excel format on request.
According to functional unit all energy use data, water use, CO2 equivalent emissions
are listed and compared in a bar chart form (section 6.1).
Diagram 3: Contribution of NOx to the global warming effect due to aluminium can
production
5.2. Limitations of the LCIA results relative to the defined goal and scope of the LCA
Data for glass production is limited as the cut off level is set to 1% in the scope. The data
for aluminium can production is excellent in terms of detail.
5.3. The relationship of LCIA results to the defined goal and scope
The LCIA result is perfectly meeting the criteria of goal and scope (refer sections 2.4, 3.9).
5.4. The relationship of the LCIA results to the LCI results
2.3
1.8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
CO2e
Contribution of Nox
Thousands
GWP (kg CO2e) by gas
11
All the available energy consumptions and emissions are put together in terms of kg CO2
equivalent. Calculation is available on request.
Table 2: Sample result showing relationship to the results of LCIA and LCI.
Energy required (MJ) Emissions (kg CO2
equivalent)
Life cycle
impact
assessment
Energy
(MJ)
Electri
city
Energy
(MJ)
Oil
Energy
(MJ)
Natural
gas
Energy
(MJ)
Diesel
CO2
non fossil CH4 NOx
kg CO2
equivalent
175.2 77.3 4176.1 344.510 0.0 148.931 766.145 1205.0
5.5. Impact categories and category indicators considered
Global warming is the impact category and kg CO2 equivalent emission is the indicator.
5.6. Descriptions of characterization factors
The impact of global warming ability is not same for different gases because the
absorbance of heat is a characteristic property of molecules. Hence if we looking at the
total impact of emissions we need to convert the impact in an equivalent unit and then we
can add them up. Likewise in case of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel is not same
depending on the energy released by cracking (breaking of long carbon – hydrogen bond)
scenario. So from one mole of burning fossil fuel the amount of CO2 emission is unique
for a particular fuel. In the process the source of energy are considered as natural gas, oil,
diesel and electricity. All the factors are listed in the Tables 3a to 3c.
Table 3a: Conversion factor (global warming potentials)
Particulars Conversion
factor by mass
CO2 1
CH4 23
NOx 310
Table 3b: Emission factor for oil, diesel and electricity
(MJ to
kg)
Natural
gas oil diesel electricity 468.9
kg CO2e /
MWhr
Nox 0.00019 0.00015 0.0013 NA 1 MWh = 3600 MJ
CO2 0.056 0.0798 0.078 0.13025 0.13025 kg CO2e/MJ
Table 3c: Emission factor for diesel consumed in transportation
Transportation by train 87 ton-km/L of diesel
1 Liter diesel emits 2.7 kg CO2
The contribution to global warming is calculated as Equation 2.
12
…Equation 2
Where Ei is the mass of substance i emitted to the air and GWPi is the Global Warming
Potential of the substance i.
6. LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION
6.1. The results
The result of the assessment regarding choice of product from Life cycle impact
assessment is tabulated below.
Table 4: Result of comparative analysis
Factors Aluminium
can Glass bottle
Unit/ 2000
bottles
Fresh water resource depletion 7.0 1.5 m3
GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSION 2271.8 1205.0
kg CO2
equivalent
Electricity consumption 2145.6 175.2 MJ
Oil consumption 1090.2 77.3 MJ
Natural gas consumption 1099.5 4176.1 MJ
Diesel consumption 10.0 344.5 MJ
As the reference flow is same (2000) for aluminium can and glass bottle, a single
aluminium can has been found to be 2271.8 / 1205.0 = 1.88 times more susceptible to
greenhouse gas emission than glass bottle.
Diagram 4: Comparative result described in the form of bar diagram
0.0
2.3
2.1
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.2
0.1
4.2
0.3
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Fresh water resource depletion
Greenhouse gas emission
Electricity consumption
Oil consumption
Natural gas consumption
Diesel consumption
Thousands
Comparison of Aluminium can and Glass bottle
Glass bottle
Aluminium can
13
In conclusion the glass bottle is more environmental friendly in terms of greenhouse gas
emission. Use of more natural gas and less use of oil and electricity created the difference.
The hot spot for the analysis is the natural gas use and electricity used during electrolysis
process to prepare molten ingot aluminium.
6.2. Assumptions and limitations associated with the interpretation of results, both
methodology and data related
The Energy production, technology used are considered similar in America and
Europe.
The energy consumption in the process of conveyer belt for beer packaging is
assumed same, however in actual it is proportional to mass.
Availability of raw materials are assumed similar for both processes.
The emission factor of fossil fuel is depending on number of C-H bond (cracking
energy). So it is different from butane and octane, however the fossil fuel is
considered to have only one type of hydro carbon in two processes.
The impact of co-products and waste in actual scenario may create some difference
in terms of economic gain or disposal issue, however it is justified to neglect those
as it is outside our system boundary.
The recycling and final disposal part are not considered because it depends on the
human activity to return the bottle or can to the store or garbage bin.
The unit mass flow is considered as elastic in all stages. But in actual say, the
electricity per unit production may differ according to number of reference flow.
If the final transportation from beer production gate to distributer is further added
to the system boundary the magnitude of the difference in comparative result may
vary as one empty glass bottle is 388/18= 21.5 times heavier than one empty
aluminium can.
The process of capping and sealing is not considered in this study.
Not economic allocation is applied to the system like cost of different types of fuel
are not taken into account.
At last, this study does not intend to take part in the debate between two industries.
It has a rather exemplary character, showing the functions and capabilities of the
software and sharing a typical case of eco-design.
6.3. Data quality assessment
The data of glass bottle needs to be more split to unit mass flow to calculate the emissions
and hidden mass flow. Further scope of the study may include the data for transportation
from beer factory to distributers, recycling flow, solid waste management and
transportation for final disposal to the landfill.
7. CRITICAL REVIEW
The critical review was conceived as a review by one independent external reviewer according
to ISO 14044, section 6.2. The more demanding review according to the panel method (14044,
section 6.3, at least three reviewers including the chair) deem necessary, since comparative
assertions can be derived from the data collected.
14
7.1. Name of the reviewer
Sushil Yeole
7.2. Critical review reports
The LCI data has been checked and found OK however data for glass bottle (2000) is
limited and not comparable to data for aluminium can (2010). Unit system flows of unit
process may be shown graphically in data sheet as it is available inside the referred article.
It will help for better understanding.
7.3. Responses to recommendations
The unit mass flow diagrams are incorporated in the datasheet. Due to limitation of time
the updated and elaborated data for glass bottle in European context may be considered
for future scope of study.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author of this review would like to thank Professor Nicholas Holden for his valuable
guidance and suggestions.
9. REFERENCE
1. International Standard (ISO): Environmental management - Life cycle assessment:
Principles and framework. ISO 14040 (October 2006)
2. International Standard (ISO): Environmental management - Life cycle assessment:
Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044 (October 2006)
3. Amienyo, D., Gujba, H., Stichnothe, H. and Azapagic, A. (2013) 'Life cycle environmental
impacts of carbonated soft drinks', The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
18(1), 77-92.
4. Detzel, A. and Mönckert, J. (2009) 'Environmental evaluation of aluminium cans for
beverages in the German context', The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
14(S1), 70-79.
5. Gatti, J. B., Queiroz, G. D. and Garcia, E. E. C. (2008) 'Recycling of aluminum can in
terms of life cycle inventory (LCI)', INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE
ASSESSMENT, 13(3), 219-225.
6. Mata, T. M. and Costa, C. A. V. (2001) 'Life cycle assessment of different reuse
percentages for glass beer bottles', The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
6(5), 307-319.
7. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N. and Shiina, T. (2009)
'A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products', Journal of Food
15
Engineering, 90(1), 1-10.
8. RTI International (2003) Life-cycle inventory data sets for material production of
aluminium, glass, paper, plastic, and steel in North America.
9. European Aluminium Association (2013) Environmental Profile Report for the European
Aluminium Industry
10. Seai.ie, (2015). SEAI - Energy in Ireland. [online] Available at:
http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland/ [Accessed 20
Dec. 2015].
Sushil Yeole (reviewer)
Dublin, 19.12.2015
Address of the reviewer:
Student: MSc Sustainable Energy, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Email: sushil.yeole@ucdconnect.ie, Mobile: +353894463232.
10. APPENDIX FOR DATASHEET AND CALCULATION
Inventory data for Aluminium can production
Bauxite mining
kg 4326
kg 183 Transport
Lime stone
mining
Alumina
productionWaste
+ NaOH kg 1922
Transport
Electrolysis
kg 1000Ingot Casting
yardScrap
Unscalped rolling ingots kg 400
kg 1000Metal sheet
production
kg 1000Aluminium foil
production
kg 1000Aluminium can
production
Inventory data for Aluminium can production
Bauxite mining Bauxite Allocated mass (kg) 1000
Amount Units Amount Unit
Fresh water 5.00E-01 m3 1 5.00E-01 m3
Sea water 7.00E-01 m3 1 7.00E-01 m3
Amount Units Amount Unit
Electricity 9.00E-01 kWh 3.6 3.24E+00 MJ
Oil 2.00E-01 kg 41.86 8.37E+00 MJ
Natural gas 0.00E+00
Diesel 3.00E-01 kg 43.14 1.29E+01 MJ
Amount Units Amount Unit
CO2 2.00E+00 kg 1 2.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
CH4 0.00E+00 kg 23 0.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
NOx 0.00E+00 kg 310 0.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
Note : Refer output diagram for
scrap handlimg according to
GABI output considered in the
journal. All energy data
provided, are including the
energy required due to process
of scrap to material regeneration
taking the help of system
expansion
Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Energy use (process exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Converted dataConversion
factor
Resource use
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Alumina production Alumina Allocated mass (kg) 1000
Amount Units Amount UnitBauxite 2251 kg 1 2.25E+03 kg
Fresh water 3.60E+00 m3 1 3.60E+00 m3
Sea water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Amount Units Amount Unit
Electricity 1.81E+02 kWh 3.6 6.52E+02 MJ
Oil 5.82E+03 MJ 1 5.82E+03 MJ
Natural gas 4.30E+03 MJ 1 4.30E+03 MJ
Diesel 1.00E+00 MJ 1 1.00E+00 MJ
Amount Units Amount Unit
CO2 8.34E+02 kg 1 8.34E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
CH4 0.00E+00 kg 23 0.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
NOx 1.11E+00 kg 310 3.44E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
Electrolysis Ingot Allocated mass (kg) 1000
Amount Units Amount Unit
Alumina 4805 kg 1 4.81E+03 kgFresh water 1.69E+02 m3 1 1.69E+02 m3
Sea water 4.85E+02 m3 1 4.85E+02 m3
Amount Units Amount Unit
Electricity 1.49E+01 MWh 3600 5.36E+04 MJ
Oil 0.00E+00 MJ 1 0.00E+00 MJ
Natural gas 0.00E+00 MJ 1 0.00E+00 MJ
Diesel 0.00E+00 MJ 1 0.00E+00 MJ
Amount Units Amount Unit
CO2 1.57E+03 kg 1 1.57E+03 kg of CO2 eqv.
CH4 0.00E+00 kg 23 0.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
NOx 4.40E-01 kg 310 1.36E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
Resource use
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Energy use (process exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Resource use
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation)
Energy use (process exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Metal sheet production Sheet Allocated mass (kg) 1000
Amount Units Amount Unit
Unscalped
rolling ingots1004 kg 1 1.00E+03 kg
Fresh water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Sea water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Amount Units Amount Unit
Electricity 5.69E+02 kWh 3.6 2.05E+03 MJ
Oil 3.10E+01 MJ 1 3.10E+01 MJ
Natural gas 3.30E+03 MJ 1 3.30E+03 MJ
Diesel 2.80E+01 MJ 1 2.80E+01 MJ
Amount Units Amount Unit
CO2 2.36E+02 kg 1 2.36E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
CH4 0.00E+00 kg 23 0.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
NOx 4.20E+01 kg 310 1.30E+04 kg of CO2 eqv.
Resource use
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Energy use (process exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Aluminium foil production foil Allocated mass (kg) 1000
Amount Units Amount Unit
Metal sheet
production1010 kg 1 1.01E+03 kg
Fresh water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Sea water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Amount Units Amount Unit
Electricity 8.29E+03 MJ 0 0.00E+00 MJ
Oil 1.78E+03 MJ 1 1.78E+03 MJ
Natural gas 2.93E+03 MJ 1 2.93E+03 MJ
Diesel 2.60E+01 MJ 1 2.60E+01 MJ
Amount Units Amount Unit
CO2 3.61E+02 kg 1 3.61E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
CH4 0.00E+00 kg 23 0.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
NOx 9.70E+01 kg 310 3.01E+04 kg of CO2 eqv.
Resource use
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Energy use (process exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Aluminium can production can Allocated mass (kg) 1000
Amount Units Amount Unit
Extrusion
ingot1000 kg 1 1.00E+03 kg
Fresh water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Sea water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Amount Units Amount Unit
Electricity 9.59E+02 MJ 0 0.00E+00 MJ
Oil 1.60E+01 MJ 1 1.60E+01 MJ
Natural gas 3.33E+03 MJ 1 3.33E+03 MJ
Diesel 7.70E+01 MJ 1 7.70E+01 MJ
Amount Units Amount Unit
CO2 2.34E+02 kg 1 2.34E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
CH4 0.00E+00 kg 23 0.00E+00 kg of CO2 eqv.
NOx 1.30E+01 kg 310 4.03E+03 kg of CO2 eqv.
Resource use
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Energy use (process exclusing transportation)
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation)
Inventory data for Glass bottle production
359 kg
Limestone
mining
1323 kg
2000 kg
426 kg
243 kg
135 kg In-house cullet
Inventory data for Glass bottle production
Glass container manufacturing & fabrication Allocated mass (kg) 1000
Amount Units Amount Unit
Fresh water 1.98E+00 m3 1 1.98E+00 m3
Sea water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3
Amount Units Amount Unit
Electricity 6.27E+01 kWh 3.6 2.26E+02 MJ
Oil 6.80E-01 gal 146.52 9.96E+01 MJ
Natural gas 5.08E+03 cu ft 1.06 5.38E+03 MJ
Diesel 3.03E+00 gal 146.52 4.44E+02 MJ
Amount Units Amount Unit
CO2non fossil 1.30E-01 lb 0.4535 5.90E-02 kg of CO2 eqv.
CH4 1.84E+01 lb 10.4305 1.92E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
NOx 3.46E+00 lb 140.585 4.87E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.
Raw data Conversion
factor
Converted data
Resource use
Energy use (process exclusing transportation)
Converted data
Converted data
Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation)
Glass sand
mining
Soda ash
miming
Feldspar
mining
Glass container
manufacturing
& fabrication
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
ParticularsRaw data Conversion
factor
Note: However data provided, are including the energy and emission data
of recycling with system expansion
Particulars
Imputs for Aluminium can
Reference flow 2000 pieces Emission factors (MJ to kg) oil diesel electricity 468.9 kg CO2e / MWhr Transportation by train 87 ton-km/L of diesel Sensitivity Analysis
Mass per piece of aluminium can 0.018 kg Nox 0.00015 0.0013 NA 1 MWh = 3600 MJ 2 Liter diesel emits 2.7 kg CO2 Characterisation factors
Proportion of minerals per unit Boxite 4 CO2 0.0798 0.078 0.13025 0.13025 kg CO2e/MJ Scrap mass fraction w/w 0% Refer Note Global warming potential taken for Nox 310 298
FU 36 kg < 1000 kg Change of valueP
roce
ss
Flo
w
Inp
ut
ou
tpu
t n
am
es
Ma
ss r
equ
ired
(k
g)
Fre
sh
Sea
En
erg
y (
MJ
) E
lect
rici
ty
En
erg
y (
MJ
) O
il
En
erg
y (
MJ
) N
atu
ral
ga
s
En
erg
y (
MJ
) D
iese
l
CO
2
CH
4
NO
x
En
erg
y (
MJ
) E
lect
rici
ty
En
erg
y (
MJ
) O
il
En
erg
y (
MJ
) N
atu
ral
ga
s
En
erg
y (
MJ
) D
iese
l
CO
2
CH
4
NO
x
Ele
ctri
city
Tra
nsp
ort
Fre
sh w
ate
r (m
3)
Sea
wa
ter
(m3
)
kg
CO
2 e
qu
iva
len
t G
HG
Bauxite mining Input minerals 4000
Output Bauxite 1000 0.395 500 0.5 0.7 3.2 8.4 0.0 12.9 2.0 0.000 0.0 1.3 3.3 0.0 5.110 0.8 0.000 0.000 0.2 0.006 0.197 0.276 1.0 1.0
Alumina production Input Bauxite 2251
Output Alumina 1000 0.175 500 3.6 0.0 651.6 5822.0 4299.0 1.0 834.0 0.000 344.1 114.3 1021.2 754.1 0.175 146.3 0.000 60.358 14.9 0.003 0.631 0.000 221.5 219.2
Electrolysis Input Alumina 4805
Output Ingot 1000 0.037 0 169.0 485.0 53568.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1574.0 0.000 136.4 1955.5 0.0 0.0 0.000 57.5 0.000 4.979 254.7 0.000 6.169 17.705 317.1 317.0
Metal sheet production Input Ingot 1004
Scrap 0%
Outputs Sheet 1000 0.036 0 0.0 0.0 2048.4 31.0 3302.0 28.0 0.0 0.000 13020.0 74.5 1.1 120.1 1.018 0.0 0.000 473.407 9.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 483.1 464.8
Aluminium foil production Input Sheet 1010
Scrap 0%
Outputs foil 1000 0.036 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1778.0 2929.0 26.0 361.0 0.000 30070.0 0.0 64.0 105.4 0.936 13.0 0.000 1082.520 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 1095.5 1053.6
Aluminium can production Input foil 1000
Scrap 0%
Outputs can 1000 0.036 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 3332.0 77.0 234.0 0.000 4030.0 0.0 0.6 120.0 2.772 8.4 0.000 145.080 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 153.5 147.9
SUM 1100 2145.6 1090.2 1099.5 10.0 226.0 0.000 1766.3 279.5 0.009 7.0 18.0 2271.8 2203.4
Notes 1. Values are including scrap recycling that is energy and emission included in data.
2. The input data is based on GABI software output specified in journals. The model includes the cradle-to-gate emissions by process
CO2e
@310
CO2e @
298
of fuel consumed, as well as the direct emissions to air from combustions, in the field for operations fuel. Bauxite mining 0.96 0.96
Hence the Emission factors listed above is applicable for electricity and on road transportation. Refer below Alumina production 221.54 219.20
http://www.gabi-software.com/fileadmin/gabi/Modelling_Principles/GaBi_Agriculture_Modelling_Documentation.pdf Electrolysis 317.15 316.95
* Already factored by global warming potentials Metal sheet production 483.11 464.78
Aluminium foil production 1095.52 1053.61
Aluminium can production 153.50 147.89
GWP (kg CO2e) by gas SUM 2271.78 2203.40
CO2e 2271.8
Contribution of Nox 1766.3
Observations Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reference flow 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 pieces
Mass per piece 0.018 0.03 0.05 0.018 0.018 0.018 kg
Proportion of minerals per unit Bauxite 4 4 4 4.00 4.25 5.50
Transport distance 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 km
Scrap proportion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
co2e 2272 3786 6310 2272 2272 2272
Calculations - aluminium can
Life cycle inventory data
Ref
eren
ce m
ass
flo
w (
kg
FU
/ k
g)
Tra
nsp
ort
dis
tan
ce (
km
)
Normalised water
required (m3)Normalised energy required (MJ)
Note: the proportion of mineral per unit
Bauxite has no influence in the model as
specified.
Cont.
calculation
Life cycle impact assessmentAdditional CO2
emissions (kg CO2)
NOx to CO2e
Data for
Sensitivity
Normalised emissions (kg CO2
equivalent)*Energy required (MJ)
Emissions (kg CO2
equivalent)
0.00
0.22
0.32
0.48
1.10
0.15
2.27
0.00
0.22
0.32
0.46
1.05
0.15
2.20
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Bauxite mining
Alumina production
Electrolysis
Metal sheet
production
Aluminium foil
production
Aluminium can
production
SUM
Thousands
CO2e (kg) @310 vs CO2e @298 for Aluminium can
CO2e @ 298
CO2e @310
2.3
1.8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
CO2e
Contribution of Nox
Thousands
GWP (kg CO2e) by gas
Imputs for Glass bottle
Reference flow 2000 pieces Emission factors (MJ to kg) Natural gas oil diesel electricity 468.9 kg CO2e / MWhr Transportation by train 87 ton-km/L of diesel Sensitivity Analysis
Mass per piece of aluminium can 0.388 kg Nox 0.00019 0.00015 0.0013 NA 1 MWh = 3600 MJ 2 Liter diesel emits 2.7 kg CO2 Characterisation factors
Proportion of minerals per unit process 1.1215 CO2 0.056 0.079 0.0786 0.13025 0.13025 kg CO2e/MJ Scrap mass fraction w/w 0% Refer Note Global warming potential taken for Nox 310 298
FU 776 kg < 1000 kg Change of valueP
rocess
Flo
w
Inp
ut
ou
tpu
t n
am
es
Mass
req
uir
ed
(k
g)
Fresh
Sea
En
ergy (
MJ)
Ele
ctr
icit
y
En
ergy (
MJ)
Oil
En
ergy (
MJ)
Natu
ral
gas
En
ergy (
MJ)
Die
sel
CO
2n
on
fo
ssil
CH
4
NO
x
En
ergy (
MJ)
Ele
ctr
icit
y
En
ergy (
MJ)
Oil
En
ergy (
MJ)
Natu
ral
gas
En
ergy (
MJ)
Die
sel
CO
2n
on
fo
ssil
CH
4
NO
x
Ele
ctr
icit
y
Tran
sport
Foss
il f
uel
bu
rn
ing
Fresh
wate
r (
m3)
Sea w
ate
r (
m3)
kg C
O2 e
qu
ivale
nt
GH
G
Glass bottle production Input minerals 1121.5
Output Glass bottle 1000 0.776 1100 2.0 0.0 225.7 99.6 5381.6 444.0 0.059 191.921 486.8 175.2 77.3 4176.1 344.510 0.0 148.931 766.145 22.8 0.026 267.050 1.536 0.000 1205.0 1175.4
SUM 1100 175.2 77.3 4176.1 344.5 0.0 148.931 766.1 22.8 0.026 1.5 0.0 1205.0 1175.4
Notes:
1. Values are including scrap recycling that is energy and emission included in data.
2. The input data isbased on journal. The model includes the cradle-to-gate emissions which is CO2 emission (direct from non fossil fuel) by process
CO2e
@310
CO2e @
298
Hence the Emission factors listed above is applicable for electricity, fossil fuel burning and on road transportation. Glass bottle production 1205.01 1175.36
* Already factored by global warming potentials SUM 1205.01 1175.36
GWP (kg CO2e) by gas
CO2e 1205.0
Contribution of Nox 766.1
Observations Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reference flow 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 pieces
Mass per piece 0.388 0.5 0.6 0.388 0.388 0.388 kg
Proportion of minerals per unit glass bottle 1.1215 1.1215 1.1215 1.12 2.00 3.00
Transport distance 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 km
Scrap proportion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
co2e 1205 1553 1863 1205 1205 1205
Calculations - Glass bottle
Note: the proportion of mineral per unit
glass bottle has no influence in the model as
specified.
Life cycle inventory data
Refe
ren
ce m
ass
flo
w (
kg F
U/
kg)
Tran
sport
dis
tan
ce (
km
)
Normalised water
required (m3)Normalised energy required (MJ) Life cycle impact assessment
Data for
Sensitivit
y
Additional CO2 emissions (kg
CO2)
Cont.
calculation
NOx to CO2e
Normalised emissions (kg
CO2 equivalent)*Energy required (MJ) Emissions (kg CO2 equivalent)
1205.01
1205.01
1175.36
1175.36
0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00
Glass bottle production
SUM
CO2e (kg) @310 vs CO2e @298 for Glass bottle
CO2e @ 298
CO2e @310
1205.0
766.1
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0
CO2e
Contribution of Nox
GWP (kg CO2e) by gas