Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece

Koroneos, C.; Roumbas, G.; Gabari, Z.; Papagiannidou, E.; Moussiopoulos, Ν.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.09.010

Cited by 81 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Then, Fig. 4 compares the results of the LCA in terms of GWP to those of three selected literature studies: one for an average Spanish wine (Aranda et al 2005), one for an average Australian wine (SAWIA 2004), and one for a typical lager beer produced in Greece (Koroneos et al 2005). All results are expressed in terms of grams of CO 2 -equivalent per functional unit (FU), and have been rescaled to the same FU, i.e., 0.75 L of bottled beverage.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the few literature studies that could be used for comparative purposes, the following three were selected: a life cycle assessment of wine produced in the Spanish regions of Aragón and La Rioja (Aranda et al 2005), a report by the South Australian Wine Industry Association (SAWIA 2004), and a life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece (Koroneos et al 2005). Two other studies were also found to be potentially interesting, but could not be used for comparative purposes, since they only reported results in terms of aggregated single-score indicators, without allowing for a transparent evaluation of the individual contributions to the considered impact categories (Cordella et al 2008;Talve 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks?

Gazulla

Raugei

Fullana–i–Palmer

2010

Int J Life Cycle Assess

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background, aim, and scope This paper presents the results of the LCA of wine production in the region of La Rioja (Spain). The aim of this study was twofold: to identify the most critical life cycle stages of an aged Spanish wine from the point of view of the associated environmental impacts and to compare its environmental performance with that of other wines and beers for which comparable information could be found in the scientific literature. All the product's life cycle stages were accounted for, namely: grapes cultivation (viticulture), wine making and bottling, distribution and sales, and disposal of empty bottles. Materials and methods Foreground data were directly obtained from wine producers, farmers, and oenologists; background data were instead sourced from the GaBi professional database. In order to limit the uncertainty and subjectivity of the results, the choice was made to only employ midpoint indicators of environmental impact (global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential, eutrophication potential, photochemical ozone creation potential), in addition to gross energy requirement (GER) and water demand (WD). The calculated environmental indicators were allocated to the following co-products on the basis of the associated economic revenues: wine, pomace, lees, and press syrup. The avoided impacts associated to electricity generation were accounted for according to the displaced marginal technology. ResultsThe GWP of Rioja wine was found to lie between 900 and 1,000 g(CO 2 -eq)/bottle, depending on the assumed distribution scenario. GER is around 8-9 MJ/bottle, and WD is approximately 5 kg/bottle. The most relevant life cycle stages from the point of view of most of the considered impact categories were found to be viticulture (and fertilizer use in particular) and the production of glass for the bottles. Transportation of the wine and final disposal of the empty bottles cumulatively account for a maximum of 30% of the overall impact, depending on the specific indicator and the assumed distribution scenario.Discussion The analysis appears to be in good agreement with previous literature studies, the results of which lie within a comparatively narrow range. Within such range, the more upmarket Rioja wine can arguably be seen as providing a greater net benefit to the economy per unit of impact. Conclusions The present analysis has shed light on which are the two main environmental bottlenecks in the life cycle of industrialized wine, namely viticulture and glass production for bottle manufacture; GWP results are in the same range as those from previous literature studies. New insight is also provided on a possible measure of "economic return on environmental investment." Recommendations and perspectives As it stands, the study presented here is arguably among the most complete and transparent analyses in the alcoholic beverage sector. It could be further enhanced at a later stage by also including those secondary sub-processes which were cut off due to lack of available data (including herb...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks?

Gazulla

Raugei

Fullana–i–Palmer

2010

Int J Life Cycle Assess

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several studies of life cycle environmental impacts of beer produced in different countries, including Australia (Narayanaswamy et al 2004), Greece (Koroneos et al 2005), Italy (Cordella et al 2008), Spain (Hospido et al 2005), Japan (Takamoto et al 2004) and USA (Climate Conservancy 2008). Some studies considered beer production in whole regions, including the Nordic countries (Talve 2001), Europe and North America (BIER 2012).…”

Section: Responsible Editor: Almudena Hospidomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, according to Talve (2001), the agricultural production of beer ingredients contributes almost 80 % to the (weighted) environmental impacts, followed by transport (8 %) and production of auxiliary materials (6 %) and beer (5 %). On the other hand, Koroneos et al (2005) found that the bottle production was the highest contributor (up to 94 %) to the impacts while Hospido et al (2005) reported that the production of packaging as well as the cultivation of ingredients and transport were responsible for the largest portion of impacts. The inclusion of different environmental impacts and the methods used to estimate them also varies across the studies, which makes crosscomparisons difficult.…”

Section: Responsible Editor: Almudena Hospidomentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer production and consumption in the UK

Amienyo

Azapagic

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Global beer consumption is growing steadily and has recently reached 187.37 billion litres per year. The UK ranked 8th in the world, with 4.5 billion litres of beer produced annually. This paper considers life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer production and consumption in the UK which are currently unknown. The analysis is carried out for two functional units: (i) production and consumption of 1 l of beer at home and (ii) annual production and consumption of beer in the UK. The system boundary is from cradle to grave. Methods Life cycle impacts have been estimated following the guidelines in ISO 14040/44; the methodology for life cycle costing is congruent with the LCA approach. Primary data have been obtained from a beer manufacturer; secondary data are sourced from the CCaLC, Ecoinvent and GaBi databases. GaBi 4.3 has been used for LCA modelling and the environmental impacts have been estimated according to the CML 2001 method. Results and discussion Depending on the type of packaging (glass bottles, aluminium and steel cans), 1 l of beer requires for example 10.3-17.5 MJ of primary energy and 41.2-41.8 l of water, emits 510-842 g of CO 2 eq. and has the life cycle costs of 12.72-14.37 pence. Extrapolating the results to the annual consumption of beer in the UK translates to a primary energy demand of over 49,600 TJ (0.56 % of UK primary energy consumption), water consumption of 1.85 bn hl (5.3 % of UK demand), emissions of 2.16 mt CO 2 eq. (0.85 % of UK emissions) and the life cycle costs of £553 million (3.2 % of UK beer market value). Production of raw materials is the main hotspot, contributing from 47 to 63 % to the impacts and 67 % to the life cycle costs. The packaging adds 19 to 46 % to the impacts and 13 % to the costs. Conclusions Beer in steel cans has the lowest impacts for five out of 12 impact categories considered: primary energy demand, depletion of abiotic resources, acidification, marine and freshwater toxicity. Bottled beer is the worst option for nine impact categories, including global warming and primary energy demand, but it has the lowest human toxicity potential. Beer in aluminium cans is the best option for ozone layer depletion and photochemical smog but has the highest human and marine toxicity potentials.

show abstract

“…Extensive work in the application of LCA for aluminium cans has been performed by both the aluminium industry (e.g. Stichling and NguyenNgoc 2009;EAA 2013), as well as by beer and packaging manufacturers companies, either for comparing the environmental performances of different packaging (Cordella et al 2008;Detzel and Mönckert 2009) or to identify the hotspot in beer production (Talve 2001;Koroneos et al 2005). The most effective solution for reducing the environmental impacts of beer packed in aluminium cans pointed by LCA studies is an increase in collection rate (Detzel and Mönckert 2009;Stichling and Nguyen-Ngoc 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circular economy: To be or not to be in a closed product loop? A Life Cycle Assessment of aluminium cans with inclusion of alloying elements

Niero

Olsen

2016

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Packaging, representing the second largest source of aluminium scrap at global level, deserves a key role in the transition towards the circular economy. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of aluminium products has been typically based on one life cycle considering pure aluminium flows and neglecting the presence of alloying elements and impurities. However, this simplification undermines the potentials of using LCA to quantify the environmental performances of products in multiple loops, as required in the circular economy. This study aims to investigate the effects of including the actual alloy composition in the LCA of aluminium can production and recycling, in order to understand whether a can-to-can (i.e. closed product loop) recycling should be promoted or not. Mass balance of the main alloying elements (Mn, Si, Cu, Fe) was carried out at increasing levels of recycling rate, corresponding to a temporal interval of five years. Different aluminium packaging scrap sources were considered: mixed packaging aluminium scrap and used beverage can scrap.The outcomes of the mass balance were used to quantify the amount of Mn and primary Al that needs to be reintegrated in each scenario according to the recycling rate and this information was further used to perform an LCA of 30 loops of aluminium can production and recycling, based on the actual alloy composition. The LCA revealed that the closed product loop option (considering used beverage can scrap) has lower climate change impacts over the other recycling scenario using mixed Al packaging scrap. The main recommendation from an LCA methodological point of view is to include the idea of multiple co-functions in the functional unit definition. To further improve the environmental performances of the aluminium beverage can sector towards circular economy implementation the key actions are: to reduce the weight of the lid, to develop methods to separate the body and lid at the point of collection, and to investigate the potentials of a closed supply chain loop for aluminium cans in terms of combined environmental and economic value creation.

show abstract

Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece

Cited by 81 publications

References 1 publication

Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks?

Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks?

Life cycle environmental impacts and costs of beer production and consumption in the UK

Circular economy: To be or not to be in a closed product loop? A Life Cycle Assessment of aluminium cans with inclusion of alloying elements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About