LCA of Rivella and Michel Soft Drinks Packaging
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LCA of Rivella and Michel soft drinks packaging A Seed Sustainability project Master Thesis Spring Semester Geneviève Doublet 16.07.2012 Supervising Professor Prof. Dr. Stefanie Hellweg Supervisor Dr. Andy Spörri Project coordinator Dr. Michael Bürgi Statement regarding plagiarism when submitting written work at ETH Zürich By signing this statement, I affirm that I have read the information notice on plagiarism, independently produced this paper, and adhered to the general practice of source citation in this subject-area. Information notice on plagiarism: http://www.ethz.ch/students/semester/plagiarism_s_en.pdf Supervisor Andy Spörri Student Geneviève Doublet Place and date: Zurich, July 16, 2012 Signature _________________________ Impressum Author Geneviève Doublet [email protected] Institute Institute of Environmental Engineering (IFU) at ETH Zürich Chair of Ecological Systems Design (ESD) ETH Zürich, July 16, 2012 Abstract The Seed Sustainability platform, an initiative from ETH Sustainability, has set up a partnership between the soft drinks manufacturer Rivella AG and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich. The Seed project is aimed at assessing the sustainability of Rivella AG’s products. Rivella and Michel beverages have been assessed in the master thesis of (Eyman 2012) and in the bachelor thesis of (Knecht, Lanners et al. 2012), respectively. The focus of the present master thesis is on packaging. This thesis will perform a life cycle assessment (LCA) of refillable glass bottles and one-way PET bottles from their production to their disposal. Refillable glass bottles and one-way PET bottles are used in catering and retailing, respec- tively. Rivella AG requested a comparison between Rivella 50 cl PET and Rivella 33 cl glass bottles, as well as a comparison between Michel 75 cl PET and Michel 100 cl glass bottles. Due to different packaging volume and the reuse of glass bottles, the functional unit is based upon delivering a certain amount of beverage to the final customer. The functional unit for the Rivella comparison is the delivery of 9.9 l of Rivella soft drink in 19.8 PET bottles or in one glass bottle refilled 30 times. The functional unit for the Michel com- parison is defined as supplying 15 l of Michel juice in one glass bottle refilled 15 times or in 20 PET bot- tles. Glass and PET bottles are produced with primary and secondary material, i.e. cullets or recycled PET- Flakes and are recycled at their end-of-life into secondary material. This study applies and discusses two modelling approaches dealing with the allocation of the secondary material, namely the recycled content and the avoided burden approaches. Both methods show that Rivella and Michel refillable glass bottles have lower environmental impacts with regard to the ecological scarcity 2006 and the IPCC 2007 100 years methods. For glass bottles, the bottling process produces 50 % of the packaging’s environmental impacts. Other important life cycle steps are the bottle’s capping and the distribution to caterers, whose contributions are 20 % and 14 %, respectively. Because glass bottles are reused multiple times, the bottle’s manufac- ture is credited with less than 12% of the product’s impacts. For PET bottles, the manufacture of the PET bottle accounts for 60 % of the burden, while the second largest contribution is the bottling process with 20 %. Secondary and tertiary packaging amount to 5 % and the bottle incineration in MSWI accounts for 7 %. From the results, it can be concluded that refillable glass bottles should not be replaced by one-way PET bottles in catering. Due to their weight, one-way glass bottles are also not an alternative to PET bottles in retailing. Within each packaging, the sensitivity analysis shows that optimisation of the packaging weight and the recycled content should be set as priorities for both packaging types. From a wider perspective, beverage dispensing machines should be considered as an alternative to glass bottles in the catering sec- tor. Last but not least, the current trend to produce PET from renewable resources is not sustainable from an overarching LCA perspective. LCA of Rivella and Michel soft drinks packaging LCA of Rivella and Michel soft drinks packaging Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 LCA methodology .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Goal and scope definition ..................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Outline of the study .............................................................................................................. 3 2.2.2 Life cycles of glass and PET packaging ................................................................................... 3 2.2.3 Modelling approaches on recycling of materials .................................................................. 6 2.2.4 Functional unit and reference year ....................................................................................... 6 2.3 Life Cycle Inventory ............................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Transport ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Bottle manufacturing ............................................................................................................ 7 2.3.3 Bottling at Rothrist ................................................................................................................ 8 2.3.4 Closure and label ................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.5 Secondary and tertiary packaging ......................................................................................... 9 2.3.6 Distribution and selling ....................................................................................................... 10 2.3.7 Collection and sorting ......................................................................................................... 11 2.3.8 Recycling of PET bottles ...................................................................................................... 12 3 Results ................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Vetropack packaging glass .................................................................................................. 14 3.2 Rivella .................................................................................................................................. 14 3.2.1 Ecological scarcity method .................................................................................................. 14 3.2.2 Global warming potential .................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Michel .................................................................................................................................. 16 3.3.1 Ecological scarcity method .................................................................................................. 16 3.3.2 Global warming potential .................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Avoided burden approach ................................................................................................... 18 3.4.1 Rivella .................................................................................................................................. 18 3.4.2 Michel .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.5 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................... 19 3.5.1 Rivella .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.5.2 Michel .................................................................................................................................. 20 3.5.3 Update primary PET production .......................................................................................... 21 3.5.4 Glass bottle versus PET bottle ............................................................................................. 21 4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Areas with potential for improvement ............................................................................... 23 4.2 Alternative packaging .......................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Recycled content approach versus avoided burden approach ........................................... 25 4.4 Energy production at MSWI ................................................................................................ 26 4.5 Uncertainties ......................................................................................................................