Heinz Stichnothe

Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks

PurposeThe UK carbonated drinks sector was worth £8 billion in 2010 and is growing at an annual rate of 4.9xa0%. In an attempt to provide a better understanding of the environmental impacts of this sector, this paper presents, for the first time, the full life cycle impacts of carbonated soft drinks manufactured and consumed in the UK. Two functional units are considered: 1xa0l of packaged drink and total annual production of carbonated drinks in the UK. The latter has been used to estimate the impacts at the sectoral level. The system boundary is from ‘cradle to grave’. Different packaging used for carbonated drinks is considered: glass bottles (0.75xa0l), aluminium cans (0.33xa0l) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (0.5 and 2xa0l).Materials and methodsThe study has been carried out following the ISO 14040/44 life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Data have been sourced from a drink manufacturer as well as the CCaLC, Ecoinvent and Gabi databases. The LCA software tools CCaLC v2.0 and GaBi 4.3 have been used for LCA modelling. The environmental impacts have been estimated according to the CML 2001 method.Results and discussionPackaging is the main hotspot for most environmental impacts, contributing between 59 and 77xa0%. The ingredients account between 7 and 14xa0% mainly due to sugar; the manufacturing stage contributes 5–10xa0%, largely due to the energy for filling and packaging. Refrigeration of the drink at retailer increases global warming potential by up to 33xa0%. Transport contributes up to 7xa0% to the total impacts.ConclusionsThe drink packaged in 2xa0l PET bottles is the most sustainable option for most impacts, including the carbon footprint, while the drink in glass bottles is the worst option. However, reusing glass bottles three times would make the carbon footprint of the drink in glass bottles comparable to that in aluminium cans and 0.5xa0l PET bottles. If recycling of PET bottles is increased to 60xa0%, the glass bottle would need to be reused 20 times to make their carbon footprints comparable. The estimates at the sectoral level indicate that the carbonated drinks in the UK are responsible for over 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 eq. emissions per year. This represented 13xa0% of the GHG emissions from the whole food and drink sector or 0.26xa0% of the UK total emissions in 2010.

Life cycle assessment of manure management and nutrient recycling from a Chinese pig farm.

Driven by the growing numbers of intensified pig farms around cities in China, there are problems of nutrient surplus and shortage of arable land for utilising the manure. Hence, sustainable livestock systems with effective manure management are needed. The objective of this study is to compare the existing manure treatment of a typical pig farm in Beijing area (separate collection of faeces; ‘Gan qing fen’ system) with an alternative system and to identify the nutrients flow of the whole farm in order to quantify environmental burdens and to estimate the arable land required for sustainable nutrients recycling. Life cycle assessment is used for this purpose. Acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP) and global warming potential (GWP) are analysed in detail; the functional unit is the annual production of the pig farm. The results show that the cropland area demand for sustainable land application of the effluent can be reduced from 238 to 139 ha with the alternative system. It is possible to transfer 29% of total nitrogen, 87% of phosphorus, 34% of potassium and 75% of magnesium to the compost, and to reduce the total AP, EP and GWP of manure management on the farm by 64.1%, 96.7% and 22%, respectively, compared with the current system. Besides an effective manure management system, a full inventory of the regional nutrients flow is needed for sustainable development of livestock systems around big cities in China.

European renewable energy directive: Critical analysis of important default values and methods for calculating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of palm oil biodiesel

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to evaluate assumptions and data used in calculationsxa0 related to palm oil produced for biodiesel production relative to the European Renewable Energy Directive (EU-RED). The intent of this paper is not to review all assumptions and data, but rather to evaluate whether the methodology is applied in a consistent way and whether current default values address relevant management practices of palm oil production systems.MethodsThe GHG calculation method provided in Annex V of the EU-RED was used to calculate the GHG-emissions from palm oil production systems. Moreover, the internal nitrogen recycling on the plantation was calculated based on monitoring data in North Sumatra.Results and discussionA calculation methodology is detailed in Annex V of the EU-RED. Some important aspects necessary to calculate the GHG emission savings correctly are insufficiently considered, e.g.:• “Nitrogen recycling” within the plantation due to fronds remaining on the plantation is ignored.xa0The associated organic N-input to the plantation and the resulting nitrous oxide emissions is not considered within the calculations, despite crop residues being taken into account for annual crops in the BIOGRACE tool.• The calculation of GHG-emissions from residue and waste water treatment is inappropriately implemented despite being a hot-spot for GHG emissions within the life cycle of palm oil and palm oilxa0biodiesel.xa0Additionally, no distinction is made between palm oil and palm kernel oil even though palm kernel oil is rarely used for biodiesel production.• The allocation procedure does not address the most relevant oil mill management practices. Palm oil mills produce crude palm oil (CPO) in addition either nuts or palm kernels and nut shells. In the first case, the nuts would be treated as co-products and upstream emissions would be allocated based on the energy content; in the second case the kernels would be treated as co-products while the shelöls are considered as waste without upstream emissions. This has a significant impact on the resulst or GHG savings, respectively.• It is not specified whether indirect GHG emissions from nitrogen oxide emission from the heat and power unit of palm oil mills should be taken into account.Conclusions and recommendationsIn conclusion, the existing calculation methodology described in Annex V of the EU-RED and default values are insufficient for calculating the real GHG emission savings from palm oil and palm oil biodiesel. The current default values do not reflect relevant management practices. Additionally, they protect poor management practices, such as the disposal of empty fruit bunches (EFB), and lead to an overestimation of GHG savings from palm oil biodiesel. A default value for EFB disposal must be introduced because resulting GHG emissions are substantial. Organic nitrogen from fronds must be taken into account when calculating real GHG savings from palm oil biodiesel. Further, more conservative data for FFB yield and fugitive emissions from wastewater treatment should be introduced in order to foster environmental friendly management options. Moreover, credits for bioenergy production from crop residues should be allowed in order to foster the mobilization of currently unused biomass.

A life cycle approach to measuring sustainability

Achieving sustainability requires balancing economic, environmental, and social aspects. The awareness of and interest in sustainability are growing but the main question still remains unanswered: what economic and industrial activities could be considered sustainable and how could progress toward sustainability be measured? This article looks into the subject of measuring sustainability using a life cycle approach. To illustrate its application, two examples are considered, one related to energy and another to food. The article demonstrates how the results of sustainability measurement could help industry and consumers to identify more sustainable options.