Prepared by: Rajat Nag Student ID:

Transcription

1 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: DECEMBER 2015 UCD School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

2 TABLE OF CONTENT 1. GENERAL ASPECTS: ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 1.1. LCA commissioner, practitioner of LCA (Name and address) Date of report Statement that the study has been conducted according to the requirements of this international standard Other contact information or release information GOAL OF THE STUDY 2.1. Reasons for carrying out the study Its intended applications The target audiences 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 Statement of performance characteristics Any omission of additional functions in comparisons Functional unit Consistency with goal and scope Definition Result of performance measurement System boundary Omissions of life cycle stages, processes or data needs Quantification of energy and material inputs and outputs Assumptions about electricity production Cut-off criteria for initial inclusion of inputs and output Description of cut-off criteria and assumptions Effect of selection on results Inclusion of mass, energy and environmental cut-off criteria Modifications to the initial scope together with their justification Decision criteria Description of the unit processes: decision about allocation Data Decision about data Details about individual data Data quality requirements Choice of impact categories and category indicators LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS 4.1. Data collection procedures Qualitative and quantitative description of unit processes Aluminium can production..6

3 Glass bottle production Sources of published literature Calculation procedures Validation of data Data quality assessment Treatment of missing data Sensitivity analysis for refining the system boundary Allocation principles and procedures Documentation and justification of allocation procedures Uniform application of allocation procedures LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 5.1. The LCIA procedures, calculations and results of the study Limitations of the LCIA results relative to the defined goal and scope of the LCA The relationship of LCIA results to the defined goal and scope The relationship of the LCIA results to the LCI results Impact categories and category indicators considered Descriptions of characterization factors LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION 6.1. The results Assumptions and limitations associated with the interpretation of results, both methodology and data related Data quality assessment CRITICAL REVIEW 1.1. Name of the reviewer Critical review reports Responses to recommendations ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 9. REFERENCE 10. APPENDIX FOR DATASHEET AND CALCULATION

4 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, Date of report: December 20, Release information: Version 2 - December 20, 2015 Version 1 - December 19, 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-oflife 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 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 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 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 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

5 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 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 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 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= 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 Definition According to ISO 14040: 2006 functional unit has been defined as quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit 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 The weight of 500 ml beer = 1.046*500 = 523 g Weight of empty glass bottle + cap weight (5 gm assumed) ml beer = 916 g Weight of empty glass bottle = ( ) = 388 g Weight of empty alminium can ml beer = 541 g Weight of empty alminium can = ( ) = 18 g Weight of glass bottle to be considered Weight of alminium can to be considered (388/1000) * 2000 bottle = 776 kg (18/1000) * 2000 bottle = 36 kg

6 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.

7 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 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 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) Assumptions about electricity production According to reports published by Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland the emission factor for electricity is g CO2 equivalent to produce 1 kwh electricity in kwh equals to 3.6 MJ. Hence the emission factor taken (468.9/1000)/3.6kg CO2 equivalent /MJ = kg CO2 equivalent /MJ 3.4. Cut-off criteria for initial inclusion of inputs and output 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 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.

8 5 Table 1: Influence of mass per piece of product and initial input-output ratio Observations Scenario Reference flow Mass per piece Proportion of minerals per unit Bauxite Transport distance Scrap proportion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% co2e Inclusion of mass, energy and environmental cut-off criteria For hazardous and toxic materials and substances the cut-off rules do not apply 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 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 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 Data 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 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 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 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.

9 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 Qualitative and quantitative description of unit processes 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)

10 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

11 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 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. Year Product Reference Reports Publishing date mentioned RTI International Glass bottle February (2003) [8] Aluminium can European Aluminium Association (2013) [9] April 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

12 9 aluminium can production whereas for glass production the data is limited, it shows only one single process 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)] 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. CO2e vs for Aluminium can SUM Aluminium can Aluminium foil Metal sheet Electrolysis Alumina Bauxite mining Thousands Diagram 1: Sensitivity analysis result for Aluminium can 298 CO2e vs for Glass bottle SUM Glass bottle production Diagram 2: Sensitivity analysis result for Glass bottle

13 Allocation principles and procedures 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) 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). GWP (kg CO2e) by gas Contribution of Nox 1.8 CO2e Thousands 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 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) The relationship of the LCIA results to the LCI results

14 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 (MJ) Electri city Energy required (MJ) Energy (MJ) Oil Energy (MJ) Natural gas Energy (MJ) Diesel CO2 non fossil Emissions (kg CO2 equivalent) CH4 NOx Life cycle impact assessment kg CO2 equivalent Impact categories and category indicators considered Global warming is the impact category and kg CO2 equivalent emission is the indicator 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) CO2 1 CH4 23 NOx 310 Conversion factor by mass Table 3b: Emission factor for oil, diesel and electricity (MJ to Natural kg CO2e / oil diesel electricity kg) gas MWhr Nox NA 1 MWh = 3600 MJ CO 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.

15 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 Unit/ 2000 Glass bottle can bottles Fresh water resource depletion m3 GREENHOUSE GAS kg CO EMISSION equivalent Electricity consumption MJ Oil consumption MJ Natural gas consumption MJ Diesel consumption MJ As the reference flow is same (2000) for aluminium can and glass bottle, a single aluminium can has been found to be / = 1.88 times more susceptible to greenhouse gas emission than glass bottle. Comparison of Aluminium can and Glass bottle Diesel consumption Natural gas consumption Oil consumption Electricity consumption Greenhouse gas emission Glass bottle Aluminium can Fresh water resource depletion Thousands Diagram 4: Comparative result described in the form of bar diagram

16 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 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 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.

17 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 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 (October 2006) 2. International Standard (ISO): Environmental management - Life cycle assessment: Requirements and Guidelines. ISO (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), 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), 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), 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), 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

18 15 Engineering, 90(1), 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: [Accessed 20 Dec. 2015]. Sushil Yeole (reviewer) Dublin, Address of the reviewer: Student: MSc Sustainable Energy, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. sushil.yeole@ucdconnect.ie, Mobile:

19 10. APPENDIX FOR DATASHEET AND CALCULATION Inventory data for Aluminium can production Bauxite mining kg 4326 kg 183 Transport Lime stone Alumina mining production + NaOH kg 1922 Transport Electrolysis Waste kg 1000 Ingot Casting yard Unscalped rolling ingots kg 400 Scrap kg 1000 kg 1000 kg 1000 Metal sheet production Aluminium foil production Aluminium can production 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 Inventory data for Aluminium can production Bauxite mining Bauxite Allocated mass (kg) 1000 Resource use Fresh water 5.00E-01 m E-01 m3 Sea water 7.00E-01 m E-01 m3 Energy use (process exclusing transportation) Electricity 9.00E-01 kwh E+00 MJ Oil 2.00E-01 kg E+00 MJ Natural gas 0.00E+00 Diesel 3.00E-01 kg E+01 MJ Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation) CO E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv. CH E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv. NO x 0.00E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv.

20 Alumina production Alumina Allocated mass (kg) 1000 Resource use Bauxite 2251 kg E+03 kg Fresh water 3.60E+00 m E+00 m3 Sea water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Energy use (process exclusing transportation) Electricity 1.81E+02 kwh E+02 MJ Oil 5.82E+03 MJ E+03 MJ Natural gas 4.30E+03 MJ E+03 MJ Diesel 1.00E+00 MJ E+00 MJ Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation) CO E+02 kg E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv. CH E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv. NO x 1.11E+00 kg E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv. Electrolysis Ingot Allocated mass (kg) 1000 Resource use Alumina 4805 kg E+03 kg Fresh water 1.69E+02 m E+02 m3 Sea water 4.85E+02 m E+02 m3 Energy use (process exclusing transportation) Electricity 1.49E+01 MWh E+04 MJ Oil 0.00E+00 MJ E+00 MJ Natural gas 0.00E+00 MJ E+00 MJ Diesel 0.00E+00 MJ E+00 MJ Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation) CO E+03 kg E+03 kg of CO 2 eqv. CH E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv. NO x 4.40E-01 kg E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv.

21 Metal sheet production Sheet Allocated mass (kg) 1000 Resource use Unscalped rolling ingots 1004 kg E+03 kg Fresh water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Sea water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Energy use (process exclusing transportation) Electricity 5.69E+02 kwh E+03 MJ Oil 3.10E+01 MJ E+01 MJ Natural gas 3.30E+03 MJ E+03 MJ Diesel 2.80E+01 MJ E+01 MJ Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation) CO E+02 kg E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv. CH E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv. NO x 4.20E+01 kg E+04 kg of CO 2 eqv.

22 Aluminium foil production foil Allocated mass (kg) 1000 Resource use Metal sheet production 1010 kg E+03 kg Fresh water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Sea water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Energy use (process exclusing transportation) Electricity 8.29E+03 MJ E+00 MJ Oil 1.78E+03 MJ E+03 MJ Natural gas 2.93E+03 MJ E+03 MJ Diesel 2.60E+01 MJ E+01 MJ Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation) CO E+02 kg E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv. CH E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv. NO x 9.70E+01 kg E+04 kg of CO 2 eqv.

23 Aluminium can production can Allocated mass (kg) 1000 Resource use Extrusion ingot 1000 kg E+03 kg Fresh water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Sea water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Energy use (process exclusing transportation) Electricity 9.59E+02 MJ E+00 MJ Oil 1.60E+01 MJ E+01 MJ Natural gas 3.33E+03 MJ E+03 MJ Diesel 7.70E+01 MJ E+01 MJ Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation) CO E+02 kg E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv. CH E+00 kg E+00 kg of CO 2 eqv. NO x 1.30E+01 kg E+03 kg of CO 2 eqv.

24 Inventory data for Glass bottle production 359 kg Limestone mining 1323 kg Glass sand mining Soda ash miming Feldspar mining 426 kg Glass container manufacturing & fabrication 243 kg 135 kg In-house cullet 2000 kg Note: However data provided, are including the energy and emission data of recycling with system expansion Inventory data for Glass bottle production Glass container manufacturing & fabrication Allocated mass (kg) 1000 Resource use Fresh water 1.98E+00 m E+00 m3 Sea water 0.00E+00 m E+00 m3 Energy use (process exclusing transportation) Electricity 6.27E+01 kwh E+02 MJ Oil 6.80E-01 gal E+01 MJ Natural gas 5.08E+03 cu ft E+03 MJ Diesel 3.03E+00 gal E+02 MJ Direct atmospheric Emissions during process (exclusing transportation) CO 2non fossil 1.30E-01 lb E-02 kg of CO 2 eqv. CH E+01 lb E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv. NO x 3.46E+00 lb E+02 kg of CO 2 eqv.

25 Calculations - aluminium can Imputs for Aluminium can Reference flow 2000 pieces Emission factors (MJ to kg) oil diesel electricity kg CO2e / MWhr Transportation by train 87 ton-km/l of diesel Sensitivity Analysis NOx to CO2e Cont. Mass per piece of aluminium can kg Nox NA calculation 1 MWh = 3600 MJ 2 Liter diesel emits 2.7 kg CO2 Characterisation factors Proportion of minerals per unit Boxite 4 CO kg CO2e/MJ Scrap mass fraction w/w 0% Refer Note Global warming potential taken for Nox FU 36 kg < 1000 kg Change of value Process Life cycle inventory data Flow Input output names Mass required (kg) Reference mass flow (kg FU/ kg) Transport distance (km) Normalised water required (m3) Fresh Sea Normalised energy required (MJ) Energy (MJ) Electricity Energy (MJ) Oil Energy (MJ) Natural gas Energy (MJ) Diesel Normalised emissions (kg CO2 equivalent)* CO 2 CH 4 NO x Energy (MJ) Electricity Energy required (MJ) Energy (MJ) Oil Energy (MJ) Natural gas Energy (MJ) Diesel CO 2 Emissions (kg CO2 equivalent) CH 4 NO x Additional CO2 emissions (kg CO2) Electricity Transport Life cycle impact assessment Fresh water (m3) Sea water (m3) kg CO2 equivalent GHG Data for Sensitivity Bauxite mining Input minerals 4000 Output Bauxite Alumina production Input Bauxite 2251 Output Alumina Electrolysis Input Alumina 4805 Output Ingot Metal sheet production Input Ingot 1004 Scrap 0% Outputs Sheet Aluminium foil production Input Sheet 1010 Scrap 0% Outputs foil Aluminium can production Input foil 1000 Scrap 0% Outputs can SUM 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 of fuel consumed, as well as the direct emissions to air from combustions, in the field for operations fuel. Bauxite mining Hence the Emission factors listed above is applicable for electricity and on road transportation. Refer below Alumina production Electrolysis * Already factored by global warming potentials Metal sheet production Contribution of Nox CO2e GWP (kg CO2e) by gas Thousands 298 Aluminium foil production Aluminium can production GWP (kg CO2e) by gas SUM CO2e Contribution of Nox Observations Scenario Reference flow pieces Mass per piece kg Proportion of minerals per unit Bauxite Transport distance km Scrap proportion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% co2e SUM Aluminium can production Aluminium foil production Metal sheet production Electrolysis Alumina production Bauxite mining Note: the proportion of mineral per unit Bauxite has no influence in the model as specified. CO2e vs for Aluminium can Thousands 298

26 Calculations - Glass bottle Imputs for Glass bottle Reference flow 2000 pieces Emission factors (MJ to kg) Natural gas oil diesel electricity kg CO2e / MWhr Transportation by train 87 ton-km/l of diesel Sensitivity Analysis NOx to CO2e Cont. Mass per piece of aluminium can kg Nox NA calculation 1 MWh = 3600 MJ 2 Liter diesel emits 2.7 kg CO2 Characterisation factors Proportion of minerals per unit process CO kg CO2e/MJ Scrap mass fraction w/w 0% Refer Note Global warming potential taken for Nox FU 776 kg < 1000 kg Change of value Process Life cycle inventory data Flow Input output names Mass required (kg) Reference mass flow (kg FU/ kg) Transport distance (km) Normalised water required (m3) Fresh Sea Normalised energy required (MJ) Energy (MJ) Electricity Energy (MJ) Oil Energy (MJ) Natural gas Energy (MJ) Diesel Normalised emissions (kg CO2 equivalent)* CO 2non fossil CH 4 Glass bottle production Input minerals Output Glass bottle NO x Energy (MJ) Electricity Energy required (MJ) Energy (MJ) Oil Energy (MJ) Natural gas Energy (MJ) Diesel Emissions (kg CO2 equivalent) CO 2non fossil CH 4 NO x Additional CO2 emissions (kg CO2) Electricity Transport Fossil fuel burning Life cycle impact assessment Fresh water (m3) Sea water (m3) kg CO2 equivalent GHG Data for Sensitivit y SUM Notes: 1. Values are including scrap recycling that is energy and emission included in data. CO2e 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 vs for Glass bottle Hence the Emission factors listed above is applicable for electricity, fossil fuel burning and on road transportation. Glass bottle production * Already factored by global warming potentials SUM GWP (kg CO2e) by gas GWP (kg CO2e) by gas SUM Contribution of Nox CO2e Contribution of Nox CO2e Glass bottle production Observations Scenario Reference flow pieces Mass per piece kg Proportion of minerals per unit glass bottle Transport distance km Scrap proportion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% co2e Note: the proportion of mineral per unit glass bottle has no influence in the model as specified.