Content uploaded by Mauro Moresi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mauro Moresi on Jun 23, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Mitigation measures to minimize the cradle-to-grave beer carbon footprint as related to the brewery size and primary packaging materials
Abstract and Figures
Brewing is quite an energy-intensive process, and its environmental impact has been the object of several life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. In this work, the potentialities of a series of options directed to mitigate the main hotspots of the beer life cycle were evaluated to minimize the cradle-to grave carbon footprint (CFC2G) of 1 hL of beer produced in three large- (LS), medium-(MS) and small-(SS) sized breweries and packed in 66-cL glass or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles by using a previously developed LCA model. As the annual brewery capacity reduced from 3 × 10⁶ to 600 hL/yr, the estimated CFC2G scores increased from ∼127 to 192, or 103–169 kg CO2e hL⁻¹ for glass or PET bottles, respectively. Their main hotspots depended on the primary packaging material used, even in the case of PET bottles for the large-sized brewery only. By replacing progressively virgin materials with 100%-recycled glass or PET bottles, road transport with rail one, barley grown abroad using conventional agriculture methods with local organic one, fossil fuel energy with solar photovoltaic one, etc., CFC2G declined to 56–60, or 80 kg CO2e hL⁻¹ in the case of LS and MS, or SS breweries, respectively, independently of the primary packaging material used. Such an approach appeared to be useful to identify how to reduce effectively CFC2G, as well as to decide to invest on the collection of selected primary data or assessment of other environmental impact categories to avoid burden shifting.
Figures - uploaded by Mauro Moresi
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Mauro Moresi
Content may be subject to copyright.
... However, some studies only focused on the industrial brewing process [47]. Furthermore, the packaging or waste disposal phase or the transport phase of the product and its consumption are frequently considered [2,27,32,[35][36][37][38]44,51]. ...
... Most of them favored FU, the unit intended for the consumer, i.e., 1 L beer [2,37]. Occasionally, packaging material was included in the functional unit [36,38]. However, 1 hL of beer [38,39], the per capita consumption of beer [33], the consumption of 1kWh of electricity [52], 1 barrel/keg of beer [47], and the packaging required to contain 1 L of beer were also considered as functional units [2,10,35,37,47]. ...
... The diversity of the methods used in LCA studies shows the variety of methodological approaches for assessing impacts. In addition, some studies used single-issue methods: Cumulative energy demand (CED) [35], carbon footprint (IPCC 2007) [2,10,[35][36][37][38][39]41,[43][44][45]47,63,64], and water footprint [44]. The application of LCA methods allows the outputs of a process to be calculated and grouped into impact categories. ...
The production of beer, a beverage of global cultural and industrial importance, has a significant impact on the environment due to the use of natural resources and the emissions generated during the various stages of the production process. Therefore, this article examines the sustainability of beer production through a review of literature articles that have used Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess its environmental impacts. A systematic literature review was conducted by selecting peer-reviewed articles published between 2001 and July 2024 using databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar. The search included studies analyzing different stages of the beer life cycle, from raw material production to packaging and distribution, using specific keywords related to LCA and brewing. The results showed that energy use and packaging are the two critical aspects identified in the review, which represent a significant part of the environmental footprint. However, it is important to note that the available studies on the subject are few and heterogeneous and they use different methodologies, impact categories, and functional units, which complicates the comparison and synthesis of results, limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Recommendations were made to improve sustainability, including the adoption of more efficient technologies, the use of recycled materials for packaging, and the implementation of sustainable agricultural practices. These strategies could aim to significantly reduce the overall environmental impact of beer production.
... The studies examined presented a variety of definitions of system boundaries depending on the purpose of the study. In general terms, the following life cycle phases are recognized in an LCA study of beer ( Figure 2) [10,23,28,32,41,46]: -Raw materials and auxiliaries: barley and hop cultivation, barley malt production, production of sodium hydroxide, sulphuric acid, carbon dioxide, and other auxiliary materials. -Beer Production: electricity and materials for beer production, including preparation and milling of malt, fermentation, carbonation, storage, filtration, and bottling. ...
... Most of the studies considered the raw material cultivation phase [2,23,28,35,39,42,47,48], however, some studies only focused on the industrial brewing process [43]. Furthermore, the packaging or waste disposal phase or the transport phase of the product and its consumption are frequently considered [2,23,28,[31][32][33][34]40,47]. ...
... Most of them favored FU the unit intended for the consumer, i.e. 1 L beer [2,33]. Occasionally, packaging material was included in the functional unit [32,34]. However, 1 hL of beer [34,35], the per capita consumption of beer [29] the consumption of 1kWh of electricity [49], 1 barrel/keg of beer [43], and the packaging required to contain 1 L of beer were also considered as functional units [2,10,31,33,43]. ...
This article examines the sustainability of beer production through a review of the available scientific literature. Beer production, a beverage of both cultural and industrial importance at a global level, significantly impacts the environment due to the use of natural resources and emissions generated during the various stages of the production process. This study adopts the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach to assess the environmental impact of beer production, from the extraction of raw materials to the disposal of the finished product. Only peer-reviewed studies published between 2001 and July 2024 that address at least one stage of the beer production process were included in the review. The results highlight the critical points of the production cycle and suggest sustainable practices to reduce the environmental impact. This study provides a detailed overview of LCA methods applied to beer production, including defining objectives and scope, life cycle inventory, impact assessment and interpretation of results, and providing recommendations to improve sustainability in the brewing sector. The objectives of this study were to identify the critical point within the beer production cycle that significantly contributes to environmental impacts and to suggest sustainable practices and strategies that can be adopted to reduce the environmental footprint of beer production.
... As regards energy, utilities costs amount to 3-8% of breweries' budget: breweries are relatively intense users of both thermal and electric energy, with craft breweries showing a generally lower energy efficiency (Cimini and Moresi, 2018;Salazar Tijerino et al., 2023). Thermal energy is used to produce steam in boilers, which is then applied to wort boiling and water heating, as well as in the bottling hall. ...
... The literature studies related to LCA application to craft breweries are summarised in Table S2: most of the studies aim to improve the overall sustainability of craft breweries, considering the generally higher environmental impact of small-scale breweries (Cimini and Moresi, 2018;Salazar Tijerino et al., 2023) as well as their raising popularity (Shin and Searcy, 2018). Packaging has a relevant impact on the overall production chain: steel cans show the lowest impact on the impact categories of primary energy demand, abiotic resources depletion, acidification, and marine and terrestrial toxicity, while bottled beer is the worst environmental option for primary energy demand and global warming (Amienyo and Azapagic, 2016). ...
... Possible solutions to reduce the environmental impacts in craft breweries include replacing virgin materials for packaging with recycled ones, substituting road with rail transport, implementing PV energy (de Paula Diniz et al., 2021), substituting barley grown abroad with local one (Cimini and Moresi, 2018). The limited financial resources of craft breweries may sometimes impair the implementation of environmentally sustainable practices (Shin and Searcy, 2018), so dedicated incentive schemes are needed to fully move towards circularity. ...
Due to the constantly growing customers’ demand for local products, a significant rise in craft breweries' number, as well as in craft beer production, has been observed in the last years. The sustainability of craft breweries is a hot scientific topic, which involves water and waste management, energy efficiency, and renewable energy implementation. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) are useful tools to compare alternative waste management pathways in a standardised manner, highlighting the hotspots with the highest environmental/economic impact.
Brewery-spent grain (BSG) represents the main organic by-product of beer production; traditionally, it has been used as animal feed. However, not always there are enough farms to utilise all the produced BSG locally, especially in developed countries and industrialised areas, so alternative solutions should be exploited. This review gives a thorough overview of the different technological pathways for BSG valorisation considering the state-of-the-art of research on the topic, including both traditional (animal feed, composting, anaerobic digestion) and innovative (thermochemical processes, pellets production, food production, chemicals' extraction) solutions. The applicability of each technology to craft breweries is specifically discussed. To enhance craft breweries’ sustainability and decarbonise industrial processes, renewable energy generation is considered as well either through photovoltaic (PV) or solar thermal: while solar thermal implementation appears cumbersome due to the batch nature of the processes, PV installation is a mature, simple and straightforward solution. Geothermal energy integration is mentioned as well. Finally, a lack of studies on LCA/LCC application to compare the presented alternative BSG management pathways is highlighted, requiring intensive future research.
... Furthermore, the use of cleaning agents and chemicals can have an impact on the environment. Harsh chemicals have the potential to pollute water and harm aquatic ecosystems [8,9]. ...
... Corresponding to RQ2, the section provides how a closed-loop supply chain provides better results in a supply of RP as compared to the open-loop supply. Sustainability requires the utilization of circular plastic obtained by recycling plastic to replace or reduce the consumption of virgin plastic as a raw material (Jeswani et al. 2021 (Cimini and Moresi 2018). The supply chain concerns produced by upstream suppliers are related to unstable prices, unavailability, and poor quality while the demand is also variable depending on the transition and awareness of the customers toward green products (Kurowski et al. 2022). ...
Plastic waste is one of the major constituents of environmental pollution due to the increasing applications of plastic material in today's economy. Regulation and customer preferences compelled firms to use recycled plastic (RP) for sustainable production and a circular economy. Companies have already started using recycled plastic from the market in the open-loop supply chain system, but they are facing issues in managing that with the current planning system due to unpredictable variations in quality, quantity, lead time, and prices. As a result, their production system is affected by shortages, increasing waste, high maintenance costs, and poor product quality, which ultimately results in high cost and customer loss for circular businesses. This paper first identifies the sources of these variations in the supply of RP to guide industrial experts and practitioners to avoid when transforming businesses from linear to circular systems. Ineffective recycling processes, inexperienced recyclers, competition against incineration, and a poor supply market are the main problems that make the supply chain more vulnerable. Secondly, a strategic framework is developed based on infrastructure design, technology, production planning, product design, supplier integration, and customer engagement to guide firms in making their production system and supply chain resilient against the uncertain supply of RP in closed-loop supply chain management.
... Morgan et al. (2022) showed that all breweries participating in their study can achieve reductions in multiple impact categories if single-use glass bottles are replaced with aluminium cans or reusable glasses, and further reductions are possible if the mode of transport is changed from small delivery vans to lorries for distribution to retailers. Cimini and Moresi (2018) also recognised the importance of packaging in the environmental impact of beer. In particular, the authors suggested that by progressively replacing virgin materials with 100 %-recycled glass or PET, the environmental impact of the beer industry can be significantly lowered. ...
The beer industry stands as a significant player in the global economy, and it is increasingly renowned not only for its diverse flavours, but also for its impact on the environment. Amidst its popularity, the beer sector faces mounting pressure to address environmental concerns, particularly related to packaging. As the world is increasingly embracing sustainability as a guiding principle, the beer industry's approach to packaging has come under scrutiny for its ecological footprint. This study aims to shed some light on the environmental footprint of beer production by applying a life cycle assessment, comparing different types of packaging. This study calculated the product environmental footprint of beer consumed in PET kegs, glass bottles and aluminium cans, and performed three sensitivity analyses on load factors of transport, waste transport distance and recycled content. The results identified draught beer in PET kegs as the most sustainable solution for beer consumption, with a footprint of around 90 % lower than the other types of packaging. However, the analysis showed that the biggest environmental impact is found in the cultivation, packaging and use phases, that account for a contribution of 60 %, 27 % and 11 % respectively. The results of this study highlighted the importance of the load factor in the distribution phase, of recyclability and of the use of secondary raw materials for packaging. This study stands as an original and valuable contribution, offering a comprehensive understanding of the environmental impact of beer packaging and of the beverage industry. Its insights can guide breweries, policymakers, and consumers towards sustainable choices, fostering a positive change within the sector. It also questions the sustainability of circular solutions by comparing recycling and reuse options. This study revealed also that a green supply chain management is key in the transition towards a circular economy and in the decarbonization process.
... When comparing the results of [14,25], and those presented herein, it is observed that the size of the breweries has a significant influence on the environmental impacts, as large breweries can be more efficient both in brewing and in distribution. Cimini [26] had already identified that the emissions associated with beer vary with brewery size and primary packaging materials, and when brewery size reduced from 300 × 10 6 L/y to 60 × 10 3 L/y, the emissions increased from 1.27 to 1.92 kg CO 2 -eq/L when using 660 mL bottles. ...
Beer is the most widely consumed alcoholic beverage in the world, and the craft beer market has been continuously growing in recent years. The objective of this study is to detail the production of craft beer and quantify its environmental impacts. The microbrewery is located in João Pessoa, northeast Brazil, and produces 180,000 L/year. The life cycle assessment methodology is employed, and 16 environmental indicators have been selected. Two environmental impact assessment methods are used: IPCC 2021 GWP 100y and ILCD 2011 Midpoint. The results indicate that the best packaging options (lowest environmental impacts) are 10 L stainless-steel kegs and 330 mL aluminum cans. The primary hotspot is the distribution to the points of sale, which employs diesel vehicles. When electric vehicles substitute diesel ones, the environmental impacts are three times lower. The adoption of electric mobility and increasing the consumption of local products are two strategies that can be explored to further mitigate the environmental impacts associated with craft beer.
This study presents the significance of sustainable manufacturing practices and carbon footprints on beer production. The main goal is to create a novel methodology that combines Discrete Event Simulation (DES) with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to assess Carbon Footprints (CF) more efficiently. The research uses simulation software to collect site-specific data on resource consumption and emissions throughout the production process. Principal findings demonstrate that the DES-LCA framework significantly improves the precision and pertinence of environmental evaluations by facilitating dynamic analyses that consider particular operational conditions. The integration of these technologies addresses significant issues associated with conventional LCA, including dependence on static models, providing a more flexible instrument for manufacturers. The proposed framework offers quantitative insights into greenhouse gas emissions and assists manufacturers in pinpointing areas for enhancement in sustainability practices. This framework enhances the understanding of environmental impacts, supporting the shift to sustainable production methods in accordance with Industry 4.0 standards. The results highlight the capacity of simulation-based tools to enhance LCA processes, promoting a culture of ongoing improvement in sustainable manufacturing.
Rising environmental consciousness has prompted increased scrutiny of the environmental impact of everyday activities, such as barbecuing—a popular summertime activity in Germany. This study aimed to explore the environmental impacts of three grilling techniques, charcoal (including reusable types such as swivel, round, and kettle grills, as well as disposable charcoal grills), gas, and electric grills, utilizing a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach including the manufacturing of grills, consumption of energy sources and grilling ingredients, as well as the end-of-life of the grills. Five impact categories were considered: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), abiotic depletion potential fossil (ADP), and land use (LU) according to the CML2016 and ReCiPe 2016 methodology. This study found that a barbeque event for four people results in GWP, AP, EP, ADP, and LU values ranging from 18 to 20 kg CO2-eq., 174 to 179 g SO2-eq., 166 to 167 g PO4-eq., 102 to 138 MJ, and 36 to 38 m² annual crop-eq., respectively, across different types of grills. Furthermore, the ingredients proved to be the most significant contributor, surpassing 70% in all impact categories. Among the three types of grills, the electric grill emerged as the most environmentally friendly, while the disposable grill had the greatest environmental impact across the majority of categories. Lastly, the environmental impacts of varying consumer behaviors were evaluated to potentially assist consumers in adopting more sustainable grilling practices.
Several carbon footprint (CF) studies have been so far carried out to assess the environmental impact of the brewing industry. In this study, a series of reliable secondary data for small-, medium-, and large-sized breweries were collected and used to develop a simplified model to estimate the cradle-to-grave (C2G) CF of the production of a functional unit consisting of 1 hectoliter (hL) of lager beer packed in 66-centiliter (glass or polyethylene terephthalate [PET]) bottles. With reference to the typical operating conditions of nine breweries of different size, the C2G CF was found to increase up to 43% or 45% either for glass or PET bottles as the brewery size reduced from 10 × 10⁶ to 500 hL per year. Whatever the brewery size, the use of PET instead of glass bottles lowered the beer CF by 2.7 ± 0.9%. The contribution of the consumer and postconsumer waste disposal phases was found to be significant. Thus, beer makers should pay attention to the recycling ratio of postconsumer packaging in the sales areas. The C2G CF tended to increase linearly with the overall (thermal and electric) energy needed to produce 1 hL of beer, almost independently of the primary packaging material used. Such a simple and easy-to-measure quantitative indicator might be more than sufficient not only to estimate qualitatively the environmental burden of beer production, but also to identify which mitigation opportunities might be explored or to prioritize primary data collection efforts to refine CF calculation.
Purpose
Global beer consumption is growing steadily and has recently reached 187.37 billion litres per year. The UK ranked 8th in the world, with 4.5 billion litres of beer produced annually. This paper considers life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer production and consumption in the UK which are currently unknown. The analysis is carried out for two functional units: (i) production and consumption of 1 l of beer at home and (ii) annual production and consumption of beer in the UK. The system boundary is from cradle to grave.
Methods
Life cycle impacts have been estimated following the guidelines in ISO 14040/44; the methodology for life cycle costing is congruent with the LCA approach. Primary data have been obtained from a beer manufacturer; secondary data are sourced from the CCaLC, Ecoinvent and GaBi databases. GaBi 4.3 has been used for LCA modelling and the environmental impacts have been estimated according to the CML 2001 method.
Results and discussion
Depending on the type of packaging (glass bottles, aluminium and steel cans), 1 l of beer requires for example 10.3–17.5 MJ of primary energy and 41.2–41.8 l of water, emits 510–842 g of CO2 eq. and has the life cycle costs of 12.72–14.37 pence. Extrapolating the results to the annual consumption of beer in the UK translates to a primary energy demand of over 49,600 TJ (0.56 % of UK primary energy consumption), water consumption of 1.85 bn hl (5.3 % of UK demand), emissions of 2.16 mt CO2 eq. (0.85 % of UK emissions) and the life cycle costs of £553 million (3.2 % of UK beer market value). Production of raw materials is the main hotspot, contributing from 47 to 63 % to the impacts and 67 % to the life cycle costs. The packaging adds 19 to 46 % to the impacts and 13 % to the costs.
Conclusions
Beer in steel cans has the lowest impacts for five out of 12 impact categories considered: primary energy demand, depletion of abiotic resources, acidification, marine and freshwater toxicity. Bottled beer is the worst option for nine impact categories, including global warming and primary energy demand, but it has the lowest human toxicity potential. Beer in aluminium cans is the best option for ozone layer depletion and photochemical smog but has the highest human and marine toxicity potentials.
Background, Aim and ScopeSoybean meal is an important protein input to the European livestock production, with Argentina being an important supplier. The area cultivated with soybeans is still increasing globally, and so are the number of LCAs where the production of soybean meal forms part of the product chain. In recent years there has been increasing focus on how soybean production affects the environment. The purpose of the study was to estimate the environmental consequences of soybean meal consumption using a consequential LCA approach. The functional unit is ‘one kg of soybean meal produced in Argentina and delivered to Rotterdam Harbor’. Materials and Methods
Soybean meal has the co-product soybean oil. In this study, the consequential LCA method was applied, and co-product allocation was thereby avoided through system expansion. In this context, system expansion implies that the inputs and outputs are entirely ascribed to soybean meal, and the product system is subsequently expanded to include the avoided production of palm oil. Presently, the marginal vegetable oil on the world market is palm oil but, to be prepared for fluctuations in market demands, an alternative product system with rapeseed oil as the marginal vegetable oil has been established. EDIP97 (updated version 2.3) was used for LCIA and the following impact categories were included: Global warming, eutrophication, acidification, ozone depletion and photochemical smog. ResultsTwo soybean loops were established to demonstrate how an increased demand for soybean meal affects the palm oil and rapeseed oil production, respectively. The characterized results from LCA on soybean meal (with palm oil as marginal oil) were 721 gCO2 eq. for global warming potential, 0.3 mg CFC11 eq. for ozone depletion potential, 3.1 g SO2 eq. for acidification potential, −2 g NO3 eq. for eutrophication potential and 0.4 g ethene eq. for photochemical smog potential per kg soybean meal. The average area per kg soybean meal consumed was 3.6 m2year. Attributional results, calculated by economic and mass allocation, are also presented. Normalised results show that the most dominating impact categories were: global warming, eutrophication and acidification. The ‘hot spot’ in relation to global warming, was ‘soybean cultivation’, dominated by N2O emissions from degradation of crop residues (e.g., straw) and during biological nitrogen fixation. In relation to eutrophication and acidification, the transport of soybeans by truck is important, and sensitivity analyses showed that the acidification potential is very sensitive to the increased transport distance by truck. DiscussionThe potential environmental impacts (except photochemical smog) were lower when using rapeseed oil as the marginal vegetable oil, because the avoided production of rapeseed contributes more negatively compared with the avoided production of palm oil. Identification of the marginal vegetable oil (palm oil or rapeseed oil) turned out to be important for the result, and this shows how crucial it is in consequential LCA to identify the right marginal product system (e.g., marginal vegetable oil). Conclusions
Consequential LCAs were successfully performed on soybean meal and LCA data on soybean meal are now available for consequential (or attributional) LCAs on livestock products. The study clearly shows that consequential LCAs are quite easy to handle, even though it has been necessary to include production of palm oil, rapeseed and spring barley, as these production systems are affected by the soybean oil co-product. Recommendations and PerspectivesWe would appreciate it if the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment had articles on the developments on, for example, marginal protein, marginal vegetable oil, marginal electricity (related to relevant markets), marginal heat, marginal cereals and, likewise, on metals and other basic commodities. This will not only facilitate the work with consequential LCAs, but will also increase the quality of LCAs.
Many books on sustainability have been written in the last decade, most of them dealing with agricultural systems, communities, and general business practices. In contrast, Handbook of Sustainability for the Food Sciences presents the concept of sustainability as it applies to the food supply chain from farm to fork but with a special emphasis on processing. Structured in four sections, Handbook of Sustainability for the Food Sciences first covers the basic concepts of environmental sustainability and provides a detailed account of all the impacts of the food supply chain. Part two introduces the management principles of sustainability and the tools required to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and services as well as environmental claims and declarations. Part three looks at ways to alleviate food chain environmental impacts and includes chapters on air emissions, water and wastewater, solid waste, energy, packaging, and transportation. The final part summarizes the concepts presented in the book and looks at the measures that will be required in the near future to guarantee long term sustainability of the food supply chain. Handbook of Sustainability for the Food Sciences is aimed at food science professionals including food engineers, food scientists, product developers, managers, educators, and decision makers. It will also be of interest to students of food science.
The brewing industry is one of the largest industrial users of water. In spite of significant technological improvements over the last 20 years, energy consumption, water consumption, wastewater, solid waste and by-products and emissions to air remain major environmental challenges in the brewing industry. This article reviews some of these challenges with a focus on key issues: water consumption and waste generation, energy efficiency, emission management, environmental impact of brewing process and best environmental management practices which do not compromise quality of beer. The review is meant to create an awareness of the impact of beer production on the environment and of, practices to reduce environmental impact.
This paper describes an investigation of the carbon footprint associated with plastic trays, used as packaging for foodstuffs (e.g., mushrooms). In recent years there has been an increase in both consumer and legislative pressure on the packaging sector to reduce the environmental impact of its products, which are often only single use items. Using data from a plastics manufacturer, a cradle-to-grave study was conducted for trays produced from recycled polyethylene terephthalate, calculating their product carbon footprint and analysing how various parameters affect the carbon footprint. A model based on a spreadsheet analysis was developed, which allows the product carbon footprint to be determined using production batch data. It was found that the cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of 1 kg of recycled polyethylene terephthalate trays containing 85% recycled content was 1.538 kg CO2e. The raw material, manufacturing, secondary packaging, transport and end-of-life stages each contributed 45%, 38%, 5%, 3% and 9% of the total life cycle greenhouse gases respectively. The recycled content of raw material was found to have a significant effect on product carbon footprint: a 24% decrease in tray carbon footprint could be obtained by manufacturing trays from 100% recycled content, compared to the current recycled content level of 85%. A reduction in tray weight was found to give almost an equivalent proportionate reduction in carbon footprint, with 20% and 30% tray weight reductions resulting in product carbon footprint reductions of 18.7% and 28% respectively. Transport was found to only contribute a minor amount of the greenhouse gases (3%) and hence improving transport efficiency had very little effect on the carbon footprint. The effect of end-of-life treatment was also found to be relatively small. The worst case scenario of no recycling taking place in the end-of-life stage results in the carbon footprint of the trays increasing by 2.7%, while increasing the recycling rate from 23.7% to 32% and 50%, results in the carbon footprint decreasing by 1% and 3% respectively. In both the extrusion and thermoforming processes, the specific manufacturing carbon footprints arising from consumption of electricity, chilled water energy and compressed air were found to decrease logarithmically with production speed. The greatest reductions in the carbon footprint of recycled polyethylene terephthalate trays can be achieved in the raw material and manufacturing life cycle stages. The proportion of recycled raw material should be maximised while extrusion and thermoforming process speeds should be optimised as significant manufacturing energy reductions can be attained when the speeds of both processes are increased. Tray light-weighting should be implemented to as great an extent as possible without compromising tray structural integrity while high recycling rates in the end-of-life stage should continue to be targeted.
Due to rising fuel costs and a need for the reduction of CO2 emissions, renewable energy sources have gained growing importance in industrial energy concept planning. In the food industry, a significant percentage of raw materials used leaves the process as biological waste. In this study a small scale brewery situated in Northeast England was audited. Based on the data obtained, the feasibility of biogas generation was modelled. The model included a planned extension to production capacity. Several scenarios for conversion were simulated, their gas demand determined, performance compared and economic viability calculated.
A case study of beer production in Greece has been performed. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) has been used to identify and quantify the environmental performance of the production and distribution of beer. LCA methodology provides a quantitative basis for assessing potential improvements in environmental performance of a system throughout the life cycle. The system investigated includes raw material acquisition, industrial refining, packaging, transportation, consumption and waste management. Energy use and emissions are quantified and some of the potential environmental effects are assessed. The impact categories most affected by the beer production, are the earth toxicity, or heavy metals, and the category of smog formation. Bottle production, followed by packaging and beer production are found to be the subsystems that account for most of the emissions. Thus, the attempt to minimize the adverse environmental impacts caused by the beer production should focus on the minimization of the emissions produced during these subsystems.