LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ON ALUMINIUM CAN AND GLASS BOTTLE

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: [email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

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: [email protected], Mobile: +353894463232.

mailto:[email protected]

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


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


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


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


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





Electrolysis Ingot Allocated mass (kg) 1000


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


Electricity 1.49E+01 MWh 3600 5.36E+04 MJ

Oil 0.00E+00 MJ 1 0.00E+00 MJ


Diesel 0.00E+00 MJ 1 0.00E+00 MJ




NOx 4.40E-01 kg 310 1.36E+02 kg of CO2 eqv.

Resource use


factor

Converted data



factor

Converted data



factor

Converted data

Resource use


factor

Converted data




factor

Converted data


factor

Converted data

Metal sheet production Sheet Allocated mass (kg) 1000


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



Oil 3.10E+01 MJ 1 3.10E+01 MJ


Diesel 2.80E+01 MJ 1 2.80E+01 MJ





Resource use


factor

Converted data



factor

Converted data



factor

Converted data

Aluminium foil production foil Allocated mass (kg) 1000


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


Electricity 8.29E+03 MJ 0 0.00E+00 MJ

Oil 1.78E+03 MJ 1 1.78E+03 MJ


Diesel 2.60E+01 MJ 1 2.60E+01 MJ





Resource use


factor

Converted data



factor

Converted data



factor

Converted data

Aluminium can production can Allocated mass (kg) 1000


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


Electricity 9.59E+02 MJ 0 0.00E+00 MJ

Oil 1.60E+01 MJ 1 1.60E+01 MJ


Diesel 7.70E+01 MJ 1 7.70E+01 MJ





Resource use


factor

Converted data



factor

Converted data


factor

Converted data


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


Fresh water 1.98E+00 m3 1 1.98E+00 m3

Sea water 0.00E+00 m3 1 0.00E+00 m3



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


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


Converted data

Converted data


Glass sand

mining

Soda ash

miming

Feldspar

mining

Glass container

manufacturing

& fabrication


factor


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


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


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


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


CO2e 1205.0

Contribution of Nox 766.1


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


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


LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ON ALUMINIUM CAN AND GLASS BOTTLE

Documents

Transcript of LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ON ALUMINIUM CAN AND GLASS BOTTLE