Beer packaging study

challenges
preconceptions
Environmental impact of cans,
glass and PET bottles revealed

Sidel releases the results from an environmental impact study on beer packaging. This study
is called a Life Cycle Analysis, or LCA, that Sidel and its customer Martens, a Belgian beer
maker, have requested from the Brussels-based consultants RDC Environment.

This LCA study was focused on the comparison of four different non-returnable packaging
types: PET bottles treated with Actis™ coating, glass bottles, aluminum cans and steel cans.
A precise scenario was studied: the beer is produced in Belgium and then sold and consumed
in Great Britain.

RDC Environment, Sidel and Martens speak about this study 

 Bernard de Caevel, RDC Environment’s Managing Director, explains what LCA involves:
“LCA is a method that quantifies environmental impacts of a product, in other words CO2
emissions as well as water consumption and non-renewable energy use and others.
Our calculations take into account the entire product life cycle, from the extraction of the raw
materials all the way through to product disposal. Along the way, we look at production, transport,
distribution, use and recycling of the product.” 

Luc Desoutter, Sustainability Officer at Sidel, explains the objectives of this study.
“Our customer Martens wanted fact-based information, so that it could benchmark
its packaging (PET, glass and cans) from an environmental standpoint. At Sidel, we know that
the environmental aspects of our solutions are becoming important criteria for our customers.
For this reason, we ordered this study to be able to identify factors that have the greatest
environmental impact and to propose specific improvements.”
Several conclusions have been reached, says Desoutter: “First of all, we learned
that the primary packaging had the greatest impact, along with beer production, and that
transport and secondary packaging played a much less important role than we thought.
We also learned that the results for each material varied as a function of three main factors:
The end-of-life scenario for the packaging: The ranking is different, for example,
depending on whether the beer is consumed in Great Britain or in Germany.
Packaging weight: At or below 20 g, PET becomes preferable for the indicator “climate change”.
The energy mix in the country of production also has an influence.” 

Marcel Krauth, Sidel’s Vice President of Beer Business Development explains how this study
can be used by other Sidel customers.
“RDC Environment built a tool called LCA user which will enable our customers to calculate
environmental impacts for their own scenario by changing the parameters for country
of production, country of distribution, transport, packaging weight, etc. This tool will help
our customers analyze areas for improvement and make the best possible packaging
choices for their markets.” 

Jan Martens, Martens Breweries Director, concludes:

“This study will help convince distributors, retailers and consumers that beer in PET is an
alternative product. As a brewer, we’ve also learned the two most important improvements
we can make to minimize environmental impact are on the brewing process itself and
the primary packaging we choose. This study provides empirical support of the added value
to our products, giving us a competitive advantage in the market.” 

The results of this study can be downloaded at www.sidel.com

Comunicado de prensa
12 de noviembre de 2008

Un estudio sobre el envase de cerveza

cuestiona los prejuicios
Análisis del impacto medioambiental
de las latas, de las botellas de vidrio y en PET

Contra toda expectativa, los rivales de las botellas en PET (hoy el 3 % de los
envases de cerveza) en materia de resultados medioambientales no son las
botellas de vidrio sino las latas de acero y de aluminio. Esta es la conclusión
de un estudio independiente encargado por el Grupo Sidel y llevado a cabo a
partir de datos de clientes específicos. A partir de los datos del fabricante de
cerveza belga Martens, este estudio evalúa el impacto medioambiental de la
fabricación y del envasado de cerveza, desde el lúpulo hasta el uso final del
envase. El LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) «análisis del ciclo de vida», mide el
impacto de la producción de 100 litros de cerveza fraccionada en envases de
0.5 l sobre el consumo de energía, el calentamiento global, la acidificación del
aire, la eutrofización y el consumo de agua.

«El impacto medioambiental es un factor decisivo cuando nuestros clientes eligen el

envase que van utilizar. «Nuestras soluciones de envase deben estar fundadas en
datos sólidos». Esto es, según Luc Desoutter, Responsable de Sostenibilidad de
Sidel, lo que ha motivado a la empresa a encargar un «análisis del ciclo de vida»
sobre las diferentes opciones de envasado de la cerveza. Este análisis, sigue un
método bien definido y responde a normas ISO específicas. Su objetivo es
comparar el conjunto de impactos medioambientales ocasionados por los productos
y los servicios a fin de elegir los menos perjudiciales.

El estudio compara la producción de 100 litros de cerveza envasada en cuatro tipos

de recipientes diferentes: botellas en PET con revestimiento Actis™, botellas de
vidrio de cuello largo, latas de aluminio y de acero, y determina la opción que
menos penaliza el medioambiente, en términos de recursos y de contaminación, en

1/4
todo el ciclo de vida de la cerveza. Se estudian todos los recursos: desde que las
semillas se plantan, se cosechan y se utilizan para fabricar la cerveza, hasta la
producción de su envase primario, su entrega en los supermercados y a los
clientes, y el final de vida del envase, ya acabe en el vertedero, incinerado o
reciclado. Los datos que sirvieron al estudio proceden de Bélgica (producción y
envase) y del Reino-Unido (distribución y eliminación).

El envase primario genera el mayor impacto medioambiental en la fabricación

de la cerveza
Los resultados muestran que las latas de acero y las botellas en PET son las que
tienen menor impacto en el calentamiento global y la acidificación del aire. Por otro
lado, la producción de latas metálicas es la que menos energía primaria y menos
agua utiliza, mientras que la producción de las botellas de vidrio origina un mayor
consumo. Estos resultados permiten sacar un número de conclusiones. En términos
de impacto medioambiental, el envase primario es más perjudicial en la fabricación
de la cerveza, mientras que el transporte y el embalaje secundario tienen poco
impacto. El coeficiente de reciclado es un factor importante, sobretodo para las
latas en aluminio. Cuando su coeficiente de reciclado es elevado, pueden
considerarse una buena elección para el envase de cerveza. La mezcla energética
utilizada para producir envases es un parámetro primordial para los indicadores de
acidificación, de consumo energético y de cambio climático. Este estudio muestra
también que si una botella en PET de 0.5l no pesa más de 20g, el PET será la
mejor elección en términos de cambio climático.

Dos factores determinantes: el coeficiente de reciclado y el peso de los

envases
«El estudio ha permitido definir factores clave determinantes en el equilibrio
medioambiental explica Luc Desoutter, especialmente el coeficiente de reciclado y
el peso de los envases. Estas observaciones nos permiten determinar las medidas
necesarias para reducir el impacto ecológico del envase de cerveza. Por ejemplo se
podrán mejorar los coeficientes de reciclado y disminuir el peso de los envases. Por
supuesto, los resultados de este análisis reflejan la situación en los países
estudiados (Bélgica para la producción y Reino Unido para el consumo y el fin de
vida) y en un momento dado, ya que los coeficientes de reciclado, las distancias
recorridas y la mezcla energética varían de un país al otro y en el tiempo.»
Como resultado de este estudio, se desarrolló una nueva herramienta de análisis
del ciclo de vida (“LCA User”) para que los fabricantes de cerveza puedan elegir en

2/4
todo conocimiento de causa la solución de envase más ecológica en función de su
producto y de la situación.

Este análisis, llevado a cabo a partir de los datos de las actividades industriales del
fabricante de cerveza Martens, ha sido realizado por la empresa RDC-
Environnement. Las conclusiones obtenidas y este comunicado de prensa han sido
verificados de manera independiente por Rene van Gijlswijk, experto en LCA de
TNO en Holanda e Yvan Liziard, experto en LCA especializado en envases. La
herramienta LCA está disponible a través de Sidel.

3/4
El Grupo Sidel
Con más de 30.000 máquinas instaladas en 190 países y un volumen de negocios
anual de 1.22 mil millones de euros en 2007, el Grupo Sidel es uno de los líderes
mundiales en soluciones para el envasado de líquidos alimentarios: agua, bebidas
gaseosas, leche, bebidas sensibles, aceites, cerveza y bebidas alcohólicas. Las
soluciones de envasado incluyen la botella PET, la botella de vidrio y las latas. Sidel
posee plantas de producción en doces países y sucursales comerciales y de
servicios en 28 países. Más de 5.500 empleados en todo el mundo proporcionan a
los clientes equipamientos y peritaje: desde el diseño de envases y la ingeniería de
la línea, hasta las máquinas de envasado y los servicios asociados. Para más
información, consulte el sitio www.sidel.com

RDC-Environment
Fundada en 1992, la empresa belga RDC-Environment realiza estudios complejos
que exigen un nuevo enfoque para resolver los problemas medioambientales y
poner en práctica estrategias de desarrollo sostenible. RDC ha trabajado en tres
provincias belgas, en Francia y con la Comisión Europea. Sus principales sectores
de actividad son el análisis del ciclo de vida (LCA) y los análisis costo-beneficio
para la gestión de residuos, estudios del impacto medioambiental, asistencia a la
construcción sostenible (HQE), las auditorias y los consejos energéticos. Para más
información, consulte el sitio www.rdcenvironment.be

Martens Brewery
Martens Brewery es la fábrica de cerveza más antigua de Limburgo en Bélgica. Con
250 años de experiencia, es una de las más dinámicas del país. Desde 1758, ocho
generaciones de fabricantes de cerveza Martens han modernizado la empresa
continuamente, respetando las tradiciones de fabricación de la cerveza. Para más
información, consulte el sitio www.martens.be

Contacto de prensa:
Sylvie ORY
Tel: +33 2 32 85 81 33
sylvie.ory@sidel.com

4/4
 Life Cycle Assessment (“LCA”)
of four beer packaging options:
glass bottle, PET bottle, aluminium can
& steel can

Synthesis

November 2008

Life Cycle Assessment produced by :

RDC-Environnement :
Téléphone :00 32 2 420 28 23
michael.ooms@rdcenvironment.be,
aurore.brunson@rdcenvironment.be
www.rdcenvironment.be

Critical review led by :

TNO Built Environment and
Geosciences - Business unit
Environment, Health and
Safety
Téléphone : 0031 88 86 62029
rene.vangijlswijk@tno.nl
 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

SUMMARY

CONTEXT AND GOAL 2

STUDY AIMS 2

METHODOLOGY 2

DEFINITION OF THE FUNCTIONAL UNIT 3

STUDIED SCENARIOS 3

CHOICES OF THE IMPACT CATEGORY 5

DATA SOURCES 7

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 8

WHAT IS THE BEST PACKAGING SOLUTION? 8

MAIN CONCLUSIONS 9

2 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

CONTEXT AND GOAL

STUDY AIMS
The life cycle assessment (“LCA”) study was conducted at Sidel’s request and based
on Martens Brewery Industrial activities. Sidel is one of the world’s leaders in solutions
for packaging beverages and other liquid products including water, soft drinks, milk,
sensitive beverages, edible oil, beer and alcoholic beverages. Sidel designs,
manufactures, assembles, supplies and sells complete packaging lines for beverages
and other liquid products packaged in three primary package types: glass bottles
(disposable and returnable), plastic bottles (PET, HDPE and PP) and beverage cans.
The goal of this study is to provide Sidel, its customers and prospects with empirical
decision-making elements to assist in the selection of primary packaging for beer.
In particular, the goal of this study is to:
1. Determine for each primary packaging material the values of the main
environmental indicators
2. Identify the key factors which most influence environmental assessment
(in order to determine actions to be implemented to reduce environmental
impact)
3. Present the results in an environmental report
The next step is a UserLCA tool able to measure the environmental impact for each
packaging option and country.

METHODOLOGY

General

The study is based on the LCA method. The LCA used for this study consists in
quantifying the environmental impacts of the activities related to the chosen primary
package type. This methodology involves compiling a detailed account of all
substances and energy flows removed or emitted from or into the environment at each
stage of the life cycle. These flows are then translated into indicators of potential
environment impacts. This methodology is based on the internationnal standards
ISO14040 and ISO 14044. The LCA was performed by RDC Environnement.
In order to publish the results and to follow the recommendation of the ISO, Sidel
commissioned a critical review to validate compliance with the study as well as the data
selection and hypotheses used given the study’s scope and goals. The members of the
critical review committee were: René van Gijlswijk (LCA expert from TNO in the
Netherlands), Yvan Liziard (LCA expert specializing in packaging).

3 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

The report has been reviewed by the panel, and the synthesis was held against the
principles of ISO 14020 and checked for representativity (for the study) by René van
Gijlswijk.

Consequential approach

When modeling the function (decision) to be studied, RDC follows the following
principles, all derived from the "market based approach" (as opposed to the "average
approach").
This approach is applied for:

Electricity production :
In this study, a long-term consequential mix is used. A long-term mix models
the power plants to be built if the demand increases over the long term, as
opposed to a short term mix which models the unused power plants to be
actuated if the demand increases in the short term. Indeed, the long term mix is
adapted to the decisions that will have a long lasting structural effect on
electricity consumption (e.g. the decision to further develop rail transport will
trigger an increase in electricity consumption for decades).

“Allocation” for recycling, considering whether the recycling market is demand
or offer-driven
In this study, benefits of recycling at end-of-life are fully allocated to the
material brought on the market as material recycled at end-of-life will offset
production of virgin materials.

DEFINITION OF THE FUNCTIONAL UNIT

To allow a consistent comparison between the different primary package options for
beer, it is necessary to define a common reference in order to express the results for
the same output: this common reference is called the functional unit.

In accordance with the general goal of this study, the functional unit is defined as:

"Beer production of 100l of beer and full life

cycle of the packaging associated"

STUDIED SCENARIOS
The geographical areas considered are Belgium for beer production and packaging,
and the UK for distribution, consumption and end-of-life.

4 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

The materials studied are:

PET bottles with ACTIS™ coating

Glass long neck bottles

Aluminium cans

Steel cans
All of them are 500ml beer packaging options.

Beer production is also studied, though in a streamlined LCA. The principal goal of the
study is to compare the environmental impact of this step to packaging.

Included processes

This study includes:

Production of the beer:
 Production of raw materials

− Production of grains
− Production of auxiliary materials and chemicals

 Beer production:
− Energy consumption at the brewery: electricity and fuel

Production of primary packaging:

Table I-1 : Production steps of the four primary packaging types studied

PET bottle Glass bottle Cans (aluminum and steel)

Production of raw materials Production of raw materials Production of raw materials
Injection of the PET in Heating and molding for Production and rolling of
order to make preforms the glass making aluminum and steel sheets
Stretch blow molding of the Can manufacturing and
preforms coating
TM
ACTIS coating of the
bottles

Production of secondary and tertiary packaging (PE films and cardboard) :

 Production of raw materials

 Production of packaging materials

Filling and grouping at the brewery:

 Energy consumption: electricity and fuel

5 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

Transport:
1
 from packagings producers to NDLC (transport supply)

 from NDLC to distribution centers (depot)

 from distribution centers platforms to supermarkets

 from supermarkets to the consumer's home

Packaging end-of-life :
 Packaging house-hold waste: incineration and landfill in the UK of non-
recycled packagings
 Packaging recycling

Not- Included processes

In this study, the following aspects are not taken into account:

Consumption of the distribution logistics such as electric and fossil energy for
distribution centers and supermarkets

Home consumption, i.e. the use of the fridge by the consumer

Glue (for labels), is expected to have a negligible effect on the end results
(0.45g/bottle)

Infrastructure (buildings, etc.) is also not taken into account in this LCA study
(as in most LCA studies). This is justified by the fact that, for example, buildings
have a long service life. The environmental impacts of its construction and
disposal, expressed per functional unit, can thus be regarded as insignificant.
However, the environmental effects related to the use of capital goods in
production, for example filling machinery (though not its manufacture), are
included.

CHOICES OF THE IMPACT CATEGORY

The environmental impacts of the four primary packaging type systems studied are
grouped into categories mentioned in Table I-, using equivalency (characterization)
factors for different elementary flows that contribute to the same environmental
problem.

1
NDLC is the plant located in Bocholt
6 Study synthesis November 2008
 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

Table I-2: Considered impact categories and reference units

Impact category Reference unit Characterization factors

1. Resource consumption
Non renewable energy
MJ Buwal
consumption
Mineral resources consumption MJ Eco indicator 99
Water consumption liter None
2. Pollutions
Greenhouse effect enhancement g eq. CO2 IPCC 2007
Air acidification g eq. SO2 CML 1998
Water and air eutrophication g eq. PO4 CML 1992 and 2001
g eq. 1-4- USES 2.0: USES-LCA,
Eco and human toxicity
dichlorobenzene Huijbregts 1999 and 2000
-11 ODP steady state (WMO, 1992
Ozone layer depletion g eq. CFC
& 1995 & 1999) - CML 1998

Ecotoxicity and human toxicity are not taken into account in this study.
Biodiversity was also not taken into account because no scientifically-based model is
currently able to forecast accurately the environmental impacts. The discussion on the
category "human toxicity" and the reason this indicator is not used is made in the full
report.
Finally, depletion of the ozone layer is not taken into account. This impact category is
not relevant as there are no specific emissions, and potentially relevant emissions
included in databases are not often reliable.

7 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

DATA SOURCES

Whenever possible, the primary data have been provided by Sidel and Martens
Brewery Industrial. The primary data are:

materials and weights of the different packaging (primary, secondary and
tertiary)

energy consumption for PET bottle production

energy consumption for filling and grouping

information about transport supply and distribution

losses

beer production materials and energy consumed in production
The main sources of the secondary data used are the IVAM and the EcoInvent
databases (second version), the data collected by RDC in similar studies, and the data
provided by the materials association EAA (aluminimum), IISI (steel), PlasticsEurope
(PET). All key data and assumptions are presented in the chapter IV of the full report.

8 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

WHAT IS THE BEST PACKAGING SOLUTION?

The following table illustrates the results for the five indicators of potential
environmental impact that were used for this study for each primary packaging
material. These figures include beer production.
The figures in bold delineate the best primary packaging option for each indicator.
Regarding to the modeling assumptions and the data used for the different processes,
the difference between the results had to be greater than 5% to justify a clear
preference for one primary package material over another. For this reason, it is
possible to have more than one “best” solution.

Functional unit: Production and packaging of 100l of beer (including beer production)

Global warming
Primary energy Air Water
Packaging potential Eutrophication
non-renewable acidification consumption
material (100 years) in g eq PO42-
MJ in g eq SO2 in liter
in g eq CO2

PET bottles 986 58 243 234 120 877

One way
1178 91 981 362 126 1394
glass bottles
Aluminum
911 65 762 293 118 866
cans
Steel cans 723 52 770 216 117 824

For the impact on greenhouse gases, we observe that steel cans are the best primary
packaging option, PET is quite close to steel and glass is the worst.
The hierarchy for acidification is the same as that for greenhouse effect in that glass
is the worst, steel is the best, and PET is quite close to steel. This is due to the fact that
the main emissions are NOx and SOx emitted by the energy production (as
greenhouse gases).
For eutrophication the differences are not large enough to justify a clear preference
for one primary packaging material over another. This is due to the fact that beer
production, the same for all four package types, is the largest driver.
For the consumption of primary energy, glass is the worst while steel is the best.
Aluminum cans demand slightly less energy than PET bottles, though the difference is
not large enough to justify a clear preference among those two packaging materials.

9 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

The slight advantage of aluminium cans can be explained by its favorable recycling
rate. Recycling aluminum saves considerable energy, and the recycling rate for
aluminum in the U.K. (48,5%) is better than that of PET (20%).
For water consumption, glass is the largest water consumer. The three other primary
packaging materials are relatively close because beer production is the greatest
consumer of water and it is common to all of the packaging types.

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 1: Primary packaging production and beer production are the

highest impact phases

The figures below shows the relative importance of the phases “beer production” and
"primary packaging production" for each indicator including the end-of-life with
recycling rates for the U.K.
Primary packaging production includes production of the material, production of the
bottle or can, and the end of life scenario.
Beer production includes the filling, conveying, packaging and palletizing of the bottles
or cans. This phase is particularly important for "eutrophication" and "water
consumption".
Transport also includes the transport from the supermarket to the consumer.

PET bottle - contribution of phases

Water consumption

Eutrophication

Acidification

Energy consumption

Greenhouse effect

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Transport Secondary and tertiary packaging + end of life Beer production Primary packaging production + end of life

10 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

Glass bottle - contribution of phases

Water consumption

Eutrophication

Acidification

Energy consumption

Greenhouse effect

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Transport Secondary and tertiary packaging Beer production Primary packaging production + end of life

Aluminum can - contribution of phases

Water consumption

Eutrophication

Acidification

Energy consumption

Greenhouse effect

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Transport Secondary and tertiary packaging Beer production Primary packaging production + end of life

11 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

Steel can - contribution of phases

Water consumption

Eutrophication

Acidification

Energy consumption

Greenhouse effect

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Transport Secondary and tertiary packaging Beer production Primary packaging production + end of life

Conclusion 2: Reducing the environmental impact of beer production

would have the greatest impact
Beer production was studied as a streamlined LCA. The goal was only to compare the
environnmental impact of this step with that of the primary packaging. The phase "beer
production" is the same among all four options studied with the only measurable
though small difference being the losses between the different packaging types.
Figure III-1 aims to compare the different types of beer produced by Martens brewery
for the indicator “Greenhouse effect”. The figure represents the beer and the rest of the
life cycle. Though cited for PET bottles, it is the same for the other three primary
packaging material options.
Martens operate an older plant (“BMB”) where they produce a German beer and a new
plant where they produce both German and Belgian beers. In this figure, we see the
improvements made by Martens at its new brewery lead to a reduction of the
greenhouse gases of 17% over the full life cycle.

12 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

Comparison between different type of beer Rest

Beer production
60 000

50 000
g éq CO 2/100l

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0
German production BMB German production NDLC Belgian production NDLC

Figure III-1 : Comparison between different type of brewery

Conclusion 3: The recycling rate is a very important parameter, especially

for aluminum cans
As the production of raw materials for primary packaging production is one of the most
important phases of the full LCA (other than beer production, which is the same for all
four packaging types), a high recycling rate measurably reduces the impact on all
indicators.
The figure below shows the influence of the recycling rates for each material on the
greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse effect - recycling PET

120 000 Glass
Aluminium cans
Steel cans
100 000
g éq CO2/100l

80 000

60 000

40 000

20 000

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Recycling rate

13 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

The figure above shows the influence of the recycling rates for each material. Circles
indicate the status at existing U.K. recylcing rates (20% for PET, above 40% for glass
and aluminum cans).
Based on these trendlines, it is evident that recycling PET bottles and steel cans
enables savings of as up to 15 000 eqCO2/100l (between 0% and 100% recycling),
even more for aluminum cans which can conserve as much as 50 000 g eq CO2/100l.
At a recycling rate around 80% for each packaging material, aluminium cans, steel
cans and PET bottles are roughly equivalent in impact reduction.
Note: In Germany, recycling rates are approximately: PET bottles (70%), cans (89%)
and glass (82%). It is evident that conclusions vary significantly by country based on
consumer behaviour, collection process and laws.
The conclusions are thus very different for each country or consumer behaviour.

In this figure, we can also see that the conclusions vary depending on consumer
behavior:

A consumer who recycle 100% of his bottles shall prefer :
1. Aluminum or steel cans
2. PET bottles
3. Glass bottles
Note: The difference between aluminum and steel cans is smaller than 5% for
climate change.

A consumer who does not recycle his bottles shall prefer:

1. Steel cans or PET bottles
2. Aluminum cans
3. Glass bottles

Conclusion 4: The electric mix is an important parameter for the

indicators "acidification", "energy consumption" and "climate change"

In this study, we consider in a base case a long-term electric mix.

The figure below shows the impact of electricity in the full life cycle.

14 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

Electricity
Part of the electricity in the total life cycle
Rest
100 000

90 000

80 000
g éq CO 2/100l

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0
PET Glass Aluminium cans Steel cans

Figure III-2 : Part of electricity in the full life cycle

Because of the large role electricity plays in the total life cycle, the choice of electricity
mix is important. As the figure below shows, absolute value can be different with the
use of different electricity mix. The average mix has less impact for the greenhouse
effect. This is due to the fact that the long term approach considers the use of quite
100% of fossil fuels.

Electricity mix comparison

100 000

90 000

80 000

70 000
g éq CO 2/100l

60 000

50 000
40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0
Long Long Average Long Long Average Long Long Average Long Long Average
term term mix term term mix term term mix term term mix
hyp2 hyp2 hyp2 hyp2
PET Aluminium cans Steel cans Glass

Figure III-3 : Comparison between different electricity mix

For the choice of packaging material, there is no difference between the different
electric-mix for the relative position of the different primary packaging materials.

15 Study synthesis November 2008

 Life Cycle Assessment of four beer packaging options

Figure III-4 : Best solution based on electric mix

Best option – Best option

long term mix average mix
Glass bottles 4 4
Steel cans 1 1
Aluminum cans 3 3
PET bottles 2 2

Conclusion 5: PET becomes preferable for the indicator “climate change”

if the bottle weight can be reduced to or below 20g.

The figure below shows the sensitivity related to the bottle or can weight. Steel and
PET lines intersect at 15g. Before this intersection, steel is worse than PET; after, it is
the opposite.
If we assume steel cans cannot be further lightweighted (today they are at 27g), then
PET bottles become preferable at a weight around 20g.

Bottles weight
80 000

PET
70 000 Steel c ans

60 000
g éq CO 2/100l

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
g / bottle

Figure III-5 : Sensitivity on bottle weight (focus on PET bottles vs. steel cans)

16 Study synthesis November 2008