Life cycle energy and GHG emissions of PET recycling: change-oriented effects

被引:69
|
作者
Shen, Li [1 ]
Nieuwlaar, Evert [1 ]
Worrell, Ernst [2 ]
Patel, Martin K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Fac Sci, Dept Sci Technol & Soc, Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Utrecht, Fac Geosci, Dept Innovat & Environm Sci, Utrecht, Netherlands
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT | 2011年 / 16卷 / 06期
关键词
Bio-based PET; Change-oriented; LCA; PET; Recycling; Open-loop; Energy; Global warming; Packaging; ASSESSMENT LCA; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-011-0296-4
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The demand of PET bottles has increased rapidly in the past decades. The purpose of this study is to understand the environmental impact of PET recycling system, in which used bottles are recycled into both fibre and bottles, and to compare the recycling system with single-use PET. Consequential LCA modelling was applied to understand four change-oriented effects for the recycling system. These include the effect of multiple-recycling trips, the effect of changing the share of recycled PET pellets used to make bottles or fibre, the effect of changing the reference system and the effect of introducing bio-based PET. The functional unit of the baseline case was determined as 350 kg of bottles and 650 kg of fibre based on the current market demand of PET. The system boundary is cradle to grave excluding the use phase. We applied the "system expansion" method to open-loop recycling. The analysis compares the baseline recycling system, where PET is recycled once, with the reference system, where PET is not recycled. The environmental impacts assessed are non-renewable energy use and global warming. The baseline recycling system reduces both impacts by 20% when compared to the reference system. Multiple-recycling trips can maximally reduce the impacts by 26% but the additional savings are negligible after three recycling trips. Bottle-to-fibre recycling offers more impact reduction than bottle-to-bottle recycling when more fibre is needed than bottles in a functional unit. The maximal impact reduction of 25% can be achieved when all recycled PET pellets are used to make fibre. If the functional unit is reversed, i.e. changed to 650 kg of bottles and 350 kg of fibre, 30% of the impact reduction can be achieved. Both impacts can be further reduced when the quantity of the recycled PET is maximised. The bio-based PET recycling system, offers at least 36% impact reduction, has the lowest impact among all systems studied. The sensitivity analyses show that the recycled PET content in a recycled bottle is not influential to the overall environmental performance. All PET recycling systems in this study show important impact reduction compared to the reference system. The impact savings are around 20-30% depends on the configurations of the recycling system. We conclude that the system's environmental impact can be optimised by maximising the amount of recycled PET in the system and by using bio-based polymers.
引用
收藏
页码:522 / 536
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of Life Cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of natural gas, biodiesel and diesel buses of the Madrid transportation system
    Garcia Sanchez, Juan Antonio
    Lopez Martinez, Jose Maria
    Lumbreras Martin, Julio
    Flores Holgado, Maria Nuria
    ENERGY, 2012, 47 (01) : 174 - 198
  • [32] Life cycle assessment of primary energy demand and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of four propylene production pathways in China
    Zhao, Zhitong
    Liu, Yong
    Wang, Feng
    Li, Xuekuan
    Deng, Shuping
    Xu, Jie
    Wei, Wei
    Wang, Feng
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2017, 163 : 285 - 292
  • [33] Realizing low life cycle energy use and GHG emissions in coal based polygeneration with CO2 capture
    Li, Sheng
    Gao, Lin
    Jin, Hongguang
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2017, 194 : 161 - 171
  • [34] Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic ethanol: a review of key factors and methods affecting calculated GHG emissions and energy use
    Gerbrandt, Kelsey
    Chu, Pei Lin
    Simmonds, Allison
    Mullins, Kimberley A.
    MacLean, Heather L.
    Griffins, W. Michael
    Saville, Bradley A.
    CURRENT OPINION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2016, 38 : 63 - 70
  • [35] Life cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of biomass-to-hydrogen process in comparison with coal-to-hydrogen process
    Li, Guoxuan
    Cui, Peizhe
    Wang, Yinglong
    Liu, Zhiqiang
    Zhu, Zhaoyou
    Yang, Sheng
    ENERGY, 2020, 191
  • [36] Assessing the effects of climate change on crop production and GHG emissions in Canada
    Smith, W. N.
    Grant, B. B.
    Desjardins, R. L.
    Kroebel, R.
    Li, C.
    Qian, B.
    Worth, D. E.
    McConkey, B. G.
    Drury, C. F.
    AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2013, 179 : 139 - 150
  • [37] Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power
    Raadal, Hanne Lerche
    Gagnon, Luc
    Modahl, Ingunn Saur
    Hanssen, Ole Jorgen
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2011, 15 (07): : 3417 - 3422
  • [38] Home grown or imported? Biofuels life cycle GHG emissions in electricity generation and transportation
    Tokunaga, Kanae
    Konan, Denise Eby
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2014, 125 : 123 - 131
  • [39] Change impact analysis on the life cycle carbon emissions of energy systems - The nuclear example
    Nian, Victor
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2015, 143 : 437 - 450
  • [40] Life Cycle Energy and GHG Analysis of Hydroelectric Power Development in India
    Varun
    Prakash, Ravi
    Bhat, I. K.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY, 2010, 7 (04) : 361 - 375