Life Cycle Assessment Comparison Of Plastic And Glass Water Bottles

For your chosen service (e.g. white board markers), identify two alternatives of getting the service (e.g. brand A, brand B). Choose the most environmentally friendly option by conducting life cycle assessment in GaBi. Alternatively, you can perform the LCA manually with known environmental impacts of components. Present the information in a report form as the first Part
Your report should include 
a)Write an executive summary
b)Problem definition as an introduction (i.e. service wanted and two alternatives and why you chose this problem) and briefly describe (flow chart is fine) the procedure recommended by the ISO to conduct LCA
c)Estimated weight of each component of each alternative (e.g. plastic type, ink etc. for a white board marker), service life etc.
d)A well-defined functional unit (usually in terms of service, e.g. 100 m of writing).
e)A balancedmaterial flow diagram for each alternative
f)An impact analysis for each alternative
g)Hot spot identification for each alternative (usually the component or process that gives the most environmental impact from life cycle analysis).
h)Remedial measuresfor the identified hot spot of each alternative and the feasibility ofimprovement options
i)Select the best alternative after the most feasible improvement of each alternative has been implemented and write conclusion.

Service Wanted and Alternatives

The objective of this report is to provide a comparison between two water bottles made from different materials manufactured using different materials. The assessment is based on the social efficiency, economic efficiency as well as environmental impact of the cycle of the product, that is from the point of manufacturing to the time of retirement of disposal (Ban, et al., 2012).

The service wanted is a water bottle that is able to effectively and comfortably used as well as that which is sustainable and supporting the going- green agenda (Battarbee & Binney, 2008). The sustainability of the bottle is sassed in terms of the its suitability towards being environmentally friendly, bio- degradable, recyclable, ozone friendly and contribution towards global warming (Ban, et al., 2012).

Two Alternatives of water bottles that are considered in this report are the plastic water bottle and the glass water bottle. The life- cycle of the two products will be assessed using a software. The assessment involve acquisition of raw material, processing of material, manufacturing and assembly, the uses and services of the products and the retirement and retirement (Fan, et al., 2011). The assessment also involves the investigation of the possible materials that are re- used, recycled or remanufactured (Sarancha, et al., 2014).

GaBi software will be used for the life cycle assessment process. GaBi software is a program for conducting life assessment modelling (Veronica, et al., 2011). The assessment is made up definition of scope and goal, analyzing the inventory, assessing the possible impacts well interpretating the results (Huijbregts, et al., 2015). The goal and scope definition involves the analysis off the purpose of the life cycle analysis and the target audience of the assessment (Curran & Marry, 2012). The inventory analysis on the other hand involves the functional unit of the assessment, the boundaries of the assessment, the required data set for purposeful analysis, the assumptions taken into consideration and similarly the limitations of the assessment process (Curran & Marry, 2012). Similarly, assessment of impact involves assessing the effects of the product’s cycle on the environment (Vahe & Susanna, 2008). The effects could be on the atmosphere, social effects and effects on the economy (Curran & Marry, 2012).

Procedure recommended by ISO have been followed to ensure the assessment of life cycle is conducted in a specific way (Ara, 2011). The procedure can be represented in a flow chart as shown in the diagram below. The flow chart is a brief outline of the procedure recommended by the ISO for conducting a life cycle assessment

 Stages of analysis using GaBi software include defining of goal and scope, inventory analysis, impact analysis and interpretation (Fan, et al., 2011). This implies that a life cycle analysis is like an iterative process where a process is repeated again and again to get the desired result (Surviatkina, 2008).  

Goal definition stage outlines the assessment purpose, the targeted group or groups, the decisions of the assessment as well as the extent of the decisions that are in place (Connolly, et al., 2014). In our case, the goal involve a decision on whether to use a plastic water bottle or a glass water bottle (Suroviatkina & Semenova, 2014). The decision is based on impact of these two alternative products on the environment and their contribution towards the going green initiative. The decision also involves the sustainability in terms of the environmental effects, economic effects as well as social effects.

GaBi Software and LCA Procedure

Scope definition of the other hand tells much about the product scope of the product to be assessed, the services that the product is capable of offering (the alternative products as well), the portion of the product that should be included and finally the environmental exchanges that are involved. The solution to base on this case is the effects that the two products (plastic water bottle and glass water bottle) have on the environment.

Environmental effects of a plastic water bottle is that the product is made from products that are not bio- degradable.

Inventory assessment looks at a number of aspects such as the data required, the quality of these data that are used for analysis, the systems that are needed as well as how to handle any uncertainties that might arise from the aspects of the data collected.

Estimated weight of the components of each alternative can be shown below. Data in our case include the materials needed to make 1 peace of a 500 milliliters water bottle. For a piece of plastic water bottle, the following materials are required:

Similarly, for a glass water bottle, the following materials are used;

Impact assessment section on the other hand outlines the consumption of resources and the potential impacts of the product use to the environment, to the economy and the social aspect (Simon, et al., 2008). The assessment outlines important impacts as well as those impacts that are considered as the most important. Similarly, we also assess the possible data gaps that exists in the product manufacturing process.

The following output was obtained from the step by step analysis using GaBi.

Conclusion

Based on the outputs above, it is demonstrated that the plastic water bottle have a higher emissions of toxic materials such as carbon into the atmosphere. Plastic materials are not bio-degradable as well (H & B, 2009). This implies that a glass water bottle is clearly the best option (Dehnen, 2011). Similarly, it is possible to see that the cost of manufacturing the two alternatives re the same, implying that given one option, glass is still the best option. Glass is satisfactorily environmentally friendly than a plastic water bottle. Furthermore, the major identified hotspot include biodegradability, economic and social responsibility (Frano, 2009).

References

Ara, H. M., 2011. Renewable energy project in Armenia:main results and outputs. Journal of the 21st Century, Volume 10, p. 29.

Ban, et al., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of renewable energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p. 10.

Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming || Holocene Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.

Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Journal of Appied Energy, Volume 143, p. 19.

Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Journal of Energy, 73(016), p. 16.

Assessment of Life Cycle using GaBi

Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization - Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.

Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's atmosphere. Volume 153, p. 15.

Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. 180(107), p. 9.

Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier. Journal of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.

Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production chain of oil-rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09, p. 9.

Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated Environment. 20(10), p. 1.

H, L. & B, V. M., 2009. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Volume 34, p. 8.

Huijbregts, Mark, A. J. & Hauschild, M. Z., 2015. The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment] Life Cycle Impact Assessment || Introducing Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Volume 94, p. 16.

Karpenko, V. I., Pysarev, S. I. & Golodok, L. R., 2008. Energy- Saving Systems with the use of Compact Bioenergy Devices. Volume 1, p. 5.

Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives, 25(10), p. 20.

Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable energy integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.

Robu, S., Bikova, E. & Siakkis, P., 2010. MARKAL Application for Analysis of Energy Efficiency in Economic Activities of the Republic of Moldova and Feasible use of Renewable Energy Sources. 23(4), p. 14.

Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare system optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.

Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the carbon footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.

Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe" (Denmark) Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.

Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.

Vahe, O. & Susanna, K., 2008. Renewable energy in the Republic of Armenia. Journal of the 21st Century, Volume 10, p. 13.

Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions and life cycle impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle assessment. 36(109), p. 7.

Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable energies in China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.