Costs and benefits of using wood-based materials in packaging. Prof Ali Harlin, PhD Sara Paunonen VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Transcription

1

2 Costs and benefits of using wood-based materials in packaging Prof Ali Harlin, PhD Sara Paunonen VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

3 The amount of wood? World: Industrially used wood 1600 milj. m 3 In 2012, chlorine free pulp production (EFC) reached ~ 94 milj. m 3, totalling more than 93% of the world market share. In Finland: Forest inventory: 2200 milj. m 3 Annual growth 100 milj. m 3 Accelerated by global warming Timber 60 milj. m 3 /a Surplus 26 milj. m 3 /a Sawmills 32 milj. m 3 /a Pulp & paper 28 milj. m 3 /a * * Will be reduced due to structural changes in the industry.

4 The use of wood Case Finland In Finland, there is ~30 milj. m 3 more wood available than is used.

5 Vision: Biomass-based circular economy * N a t u r a l c a r b o n l o o p C a r b o n s i n k s *Nuottamo O, Stora Enso

6 Myths related to packages 1 It is environmentally friendly to buy a big product package. The amount of packaging materials needed per unit of product is reduced. This is not true - a bigger package will lead to unnecessary consumption. Or a part of the product may not be utilized! Packages are significant sources of environmental concern. The product itself causes bigger environmental loads than the packages! Packages protect the product. With good packages, unnecessary production of products can be avoided. Overproduction leads to much bigger environmental impacts! Source: FUTUPACK EKO2010

7 Myths related to packages 2 When planning a package, it is of utmost importance to minimize the amount of packaging materials. This is true only if the minimization of material use will not lead to bigger product loss, and the package still fulfils other required functions and properties! Some packaging material is more or less ecological than others. Materials can not be categorised as more/less ecological as such. Every material has its strengths and weaknesses. Environmentally sound packaging is based on protection properties! Source: FUTUPACK EKO2010

8 CASE Finland: Material recycling fiber-based materials 2013 Corrugated Board Packaging tons OCC Old Corrugated Containers Collected from retailers and industry: tons Collected from consumers tn 93 % Industrial Fiber-Based Packaging tons Carton and Paper Packaging tons Collected from industry: tn From consumers tn 75 % 25 % Recycling rate 76 % Liquid Packaging Board tons From consumers tn 40 % Packages on the market: tons Packages to material recycling: tons Recycling of fiber-based materials in FInland.

9 CASE Finland: Recycling of corrugated board 2013 (1000 tn) Recycling rate: 93 % Consumers: 23 Consumers 18 Energy recovery 15 Export 30 Domestic Market: 225 Industry: 45 Retailers: 157 Retailers & Industry: 192 Material Recycling 210 Domestic 180 Recycling of fiber-based materials.

10 CASE: Transport package Transport or electronics (Nokia Networks): New light-weight cabinets Wooden pallets and containers were replaced by recycled fiber-based material & reused cardboard The weight of materials was reduced by appr. 1,400 tonnes (8 kg less per packaging)* Space, and fuel is saved in transport, less packaging material used Saving around 650 tonnes of CO 2 emissions* (43% cut) * NSN Sustainability report 2011/ Eltete

11 CASE: Transport package The product is not packed in additional containers. It stands on a pallet, protected by paperboard profiles.

12 CASE: MAP Bio-Packaging Primary packaging, bottom PP/PE/PA/EVOH Carton/PE/EVOH APET/EVOH/PE APET/EVOH/PE Primary packaging upper light PP/PE/EVOH PP/PE/EVOH PE/EVOH/ PET PE/EVOH/ PET Product size 300 g and 150 g 300 g and 150 g 300 g 150 g Package weight 5.3 g 12.5 g 15.5 g 7.9 g End of life: Landfill Packaging waste to the landfill (plastics, carton) Food waste 18 % to landfill, 82 % to compost Energy recovery Packaging waste 99 % to energy recovery, 1 % to landfill Food waste 18 % to landfill, 82 % to compost

13 CASE: MAP Bio-package Production of the product dominates the carbon footprint Product processing Package Product loss Waste management APET/EVOH/PE 300g 0 slices APET/EVOH/PE 300g1 slices 0 APET/EVOH/PE 300g 2 slices APET/EVOH/PE, 150g 0 slices APET/EVOH/PE, 1 slices APET/EVOHIPE,150g 2 slices PP/PA/PE/EVOH, 300g 0 slices PP/PA/PE/EVOH, 300g 1 slices PP/PA/PE/EVOH, 300g 2 slices PP/PA/PE/EVOH, 150g 0 slices PP/PA/PE/EVOH, 150g 1 slices PP/PA/PE/EVOH, 150g, 2 slices Carton/PE/EVOH/PP 300g 1 slices Carton/PE/EVOH/PP 300g 0 slices Carton/PE/EVOH/PP 300g 2 slices kgco2-eq/ton final product Carton/PE/EVOH/PP, 150g 2 slices Carton/PE/EVOH/PP, 150g 0 slices Carton/PE/EVOH/PP, 150g 1 slices

14 Kg CO2-eq/t ham CASE: MAP Bio-package Carbon footprint, production and waste mgt (energy recovery) Waste management, compensation Waste management Package production 0-50 APET/EVOH/PE + PE/EVOH/PET(upper lid) 150g PP/PA/PE/EVOH+PP/PE/EVOH(upper lid), 150g Carton/PE/EVOH/PP +PP/PE/EVOH (upper lid)150g -100

15 Professor Ali Harlin, D.Sc. Biologinkuja 7, Espoo PO.Box. 1000, VTT, FINLAND