"

Beverage Containers Justin Connell

Christopher Liman Andrew Fang Richard Zou

Introduction

  The global beverages industry generated a total of $1.125 trillion in 2007[1]

  Beverage containers represent ~5% of the waste stream, but take up a disproportionate amount of space in landfills, a significant stress on the waste management system[2]

  For example, PET bottles take up approximately 9.8 cubic yards per ton, compared to 2.75 cubic yards for “average” landfill materials[2]

[1] www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/835602/drinks_companies_report_global_top_10.pdf [2] www.tennessee.gov/environment/swm/pdf/TFBottleBill2.pdf

Containers for Comparison

  Bottle of Red Wine from France

  Aluminum Bottle of Venom Black Mamba Energy Drink from New York

  PET Bottle of FIJI Water from Fiji

  Steel Can of Asahi Beer from Japan

  Cardboard Carton of Milk from Wisconsin

(All quantities are per liter of liquid contained)

Glass Bottle   750mL standard bottle of red wine from France

  Assume no refrigeration required for red wine

  ~8000km total trip by sea freight and truck

-5000.0

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

Energy (kJ/L)

-400.0

-200.0

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

CO2 Emitted (g/L)

Aluminum Bottle   Venom Black Mamba Energy Drink from New York

(~1200km by truck from New York to Chicago)

  Assumed energy drink ≈ soft drink, used energy to produce soft drink

  Assume no refrigeration

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Energy (kJ/L)

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

CO2 Emitted (g/L)

PET Bottle   Bottled water from Fiji Islands (~20,000km by sea freight

and truck including empty bottle transport)

  1 L PET bottle, not refrigerated

  Water extraction is negligible

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Energy (kJ/L)

‐50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

CO2Emi'ed(g/L)

NotBurned

Burned

Steel Can

  Steel can of Asahi beer from Japan

  Shipping by sea freight and by truck (~10,700km trip)

  350mL can, kept refrigerated

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Energy (kJ/L)

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

CO2 Emitted (g/L)

Cardboard Carton   ½ Gallon carton of milk from Wisconsin

  Assume refrigerated transport (~400 miles round trip Green Bay to Chicago)

  Assume cardboard burning is carbon neutral (i.e. trees cardboard is processed from are grown sustainably)

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Energy (kJ/L)

Not Burned

Burned

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

CO2 Emitted (g/L)

Without Cows

With Cows

With Cows, burned

Total Energy Consumption

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

25000.0

Wine Energy Drink Water Beer Milk

Total Embedded Energy (kJ/L)

Not Burned

Burned

Total CO2 Emissions

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

Wine Energy Drink Water Beer Milk

Total CO2 Emitted (g/L)

CO2 (g)

CO2 (g), with cows

CO2 (g), burned

Conclusions

  In terms of total embodied energy, bottle of wine from France was by far the worst, while milk and water were the two best.

  In terms of CO2 emitted, the bottle of wine was also the worst, with the bottle of water being the best (if you include the CO2 emitted by cows from milk production)

  Milk has a much larger carbon footprint if you factor in the CH4 (and thus CO2) emitted by the cows that are necessary to produce the milk

Questions?