Life cycle ASSESSMENT Bcom Beer - Essay Example

Life Cycle Assessment Bcom Beer Chart interpretation Mass: There is a direct relation between the quantity of emission of resources and freshwater. With an increase in emission to freshwater, there is a proportionate increase in resources. However, emission to sea water, agriculture soil, industrial soil, air and deposited goods remain on the minimum. The emissions increase up to around 38,000kgs then at first then decrease gradually after a while. The emissions decrease to an almost negligible quantity except for the last life cycle where refinery takes place.

Here emissions increase to around 5,800kg and 5,600kg for resources and emissions to fresh water respectively. Eutrophication: As the life cycle of the beer begins there is an initial increase in eutrophication potential as organic emission to air increases to about 6kg of Phosphate. As the production process goes on, the organic emission decreases only for there to be a sharp increase in emission to water (2kgs) when barley is prepared. Just before the hops stage and diesel mixing after aluminum sheet ELCD stage, there is a sudden emission to air at 5kgs and 4kgs respectively.

At the end of the LCA, the emission to fresh water and inorganic emission to air reaches 36.5 and 31.5kgs respectively. Generally, there are eutrophication emissions at the initial stages the breaks are experienced with periodical emissions taking place later on during the production of the beer. Acidification: It is notable that inorganic emission to the air is the only kind of emission causing acidification. The initial stages of the product cycle indicate there is inorganic emission to the air starting at 5kgs of SO2 then increasing to around 5.

5kgs of the same. The acidification potential then decreases to a low of 2kgs. These levels off at the last electricity mix just before the barley stage. The acidification potential then increases to 5kgs at the beverages cans stage then there is no emissions till just before the hops. The most acidification potential is at the final stage where it gets to around 62kgs. Global Warming Potential (GWP): According to the graph, there is a high potential for global warming during the initial stages of the beer life cycle.

The global warming starts at the second stage of electricity grid mix getting to highs of 23kgs of CO2. This rate increases at the next stage to around 33kgs and lowers to 5kgs in the next stage. The GWP finally levels off to nil after the last grid mix stage just before the barley stage. It is noted that the organic emission remains to be quite low until the final stage of the beer LCA where it reaches highs of 17kgs which is low compared to 76kgs of the inorganic emission to the air that occurs at this stage.

Weak Point Analysis Impact Category Process Impact Flow Relative Contribution Mass Quantities related to the weak point Mass US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) Flows 22.55 54,402.49 US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) Resources 11.27 27,201.98 US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) Material resources 11.27 27,197.34 Acidification US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) Hydrogen sulphide 0.94 0.004 RER: Aluminium sheet ELCD/EAA Flows 10.39 0.049 RER: Aluminium sheet ELCD/EAA Emissions to air 10.39 0.049 Eutrophication US: Diesel mix at refinery PE Emissions to air 31.55 0.018 US: Diesel mix at refinery PE Nitrate 0.

003 Global Warming Potential US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) Emissions to air 24.6552943 12.79 US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) Inorganic emissions to air 22.8465293 11.85 US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) Carbon dioxide 21.8986827 11.36 Recommendations The following are recommendations to better three weak points: US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix), US: Diesel mix at refinery PE and RER: Aluminium sheet ELCD/EAA. 1) US, West: Electricity grid mix (production mix) I recommend the modification of the use of electric energy in the packaging process which is emitting a lot of inorganic emission to the air.

Instead of electricity, I recommend the use of nuclear power which does not produce any carbon and is quite efficient. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power are the lowest compared to other energy sources. The use of this energy source will go a long way to reduce the global warming effect associated with the packaging process which requires a lot of energy. There is also a higher degree of safety that can be achieved by nuclear power use as compared to other energy sources.

It is a feasible energy source as it is cheaper and much more efficient. The cost of generating nuclear power is quite low compared to others. It is therefore cheaper to use too. 2) US: Diesel mix at refinery PE I recommend the use of bio diesel instead of diesel at the refinery as well as by the vehicles ferrying the raw materials. With the use of vegetable oils in the diesel engines, there is bound to be lower emissions of SO2. Being derived from agricultural products, the bio fuel has lesser negative effects as compared to the traditional diesel fuel.

This recommendation targets the diesel mix at the refinery as well as the transport vehicles used to ferry the raw materials. This process was chosen as a target because there are weak points associated with the process and there is a ready alternative that can be applied to solve the situation. Apart from doing away with the negative SO2 emission in diesel fuel use, the bio-diesel has almost the same advantages and consumption quantities requirements for the production of same throughput as the diesel fuel.

Thereby there is not much difference in costs. 3) RER: Aluminum sheet ELCD/EA I recommend the changing of the beer packaging from aluminum cans to glass bottles. The aluminum cans have different alloys used at different parts. The alloys help achieve set strength and rigidity levels. The alloys contain 1% Manganese and 1% Magnesium. Energy used to produce one can is approximately 1.2MJ2. Though the can does not contain any toxic materials, aluminum refining makes use of toxic chemicals such as fluoride and also releases toxic particulates and greenhouse gasses.

On the other hand the glass bottles require approximately 680kj to make (single bottle). They are the most sustainable as they are easily recycled. They can be recycled indefinitely thereby saving on energy (Soffen T.,, Shevlin, R., 2009). RER: Aluminium sheet ELCD/EAA is the process targeted by this process. The changing of the packaging will considerably reduce on the energy used up in the production of the aluminum cans. Impact of this recommendation is that the customers will be more satisfied as they are known to state that beer packaged in glass bottles tastes better compared with beer packed in aluminum cans.

I specifically targeted this process with the positive effects of the glass bottle use in mind as well as the energy saving that would occur in the recycling of the brown glass beer bottles. Reference Tanya Soffen, Ryan Shevlin, (2009) Glass and Aluminum Beverage Bottle Comparison. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, March 2nd,