Energy Benchmarking Survey, Carbon Footprinting and Life Cycle Analysis

Transcription

1 Energy Benchmarking Survey, Carbon Footprinting and Life Cycle Analysis Gordon Jackson*, Gary Freeman and Richard Sharpe Campden BRI, Coopers Hill Road, Nutfield, RH1 4HY, UK * presenting author ABSTRACT There is increasing pressure for breweries and other manufacturers to reduce their energy use. There is also an increasing awareness of carbon footprinting of products; one supermarket in the UK has already done carbon footprinting of over 150 products in its stores. To complete the picture, there are pressures to reduce consumption of water and several brewing groups have set challenging targets for minimising water use. This paper summarises the data from benchmarking studies on energy use and reviews the tools available to the brewer to reduce consumption. This includes using the IBD-Campden BRI Environmental Website to identify currently available techniques for auditing energy and water use and waste minimisation, the results of benchmarking performance against other breweries and using self-assessment benchmarking tools such as the Energy Saver. It also outlines the current position on carbon footprinting and the results of carbon footprints of a beer brand. Finally, it reviews water use in breweries and summarises the methods used to reduce consumption. INTRODUCTION This paper reviews the results of benchmarking of energy use in breweries and opportunities for reducing consumption. It also looks at the pressures for carbon footprinting of beer brands and the results of a carbon footprint study in a brewery. Finally, it reviews the results of water consumption in breweries and the measures available to minimise water use. Energy Use and Saving Energy use in UK breweries has been monitored by the British Beer and Pub Association (1). The results show that average Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) in 2007 was 138 MJ/hectolitre; an 11.0% reduction on 2005 (155 MJ/hectolitre). For breweries with an output of more that 0.5 million hectolitres the SEC was 131 (range 89 to 235), for those in the range 100,00 to 499,000 hectolites it was 215 (range 141 to 339) and for smaller breweries (less than 100,000 hectolitres) it was 207 (range 106 to 459). For international brewing groups (2) the SEC was as follows: Fosters 115, SABMiller more than 150, Inbev 140, Anheuser Busch 194, Asahi 217 and Grupo Modelo 217. These figures should be taken as approximations since they were taken from bar

2 charts published in corporate booklets. Also, the figures for Fosters and Inbev include the production of other beverages. Campden BRI and KWA have benchmarked energy use in breweries with an output of more than 0.5 million hectolitres per year. The data for this study was normalised to take account of factors that are beyond the control of the brewer such as climate, packaging mix, evaporation rate and high gravity brewing. The results are therefore not strictly comparable with the data given earlier. The results showed (Table 1) that in 1999, when 86 breweries submitted data; the SEC was 271. In 2004 the SEC was 239 (158 breweries) and in 2008 this figure had fallen to 229 (from 143 breweries). The reduction is best represented by an 11% reduction (from 176 to 156 MJ / hl) in the value required to be in the top ten percent (decile) in the world. Year Number of Breweries Respondent Specific Energy Consumption (SEC) (MJ / hl) Mean Standard Median Decile Deviation Table 1. Results from the three international energy benchmarks. The IBD Campden BRI website outlines measures that the brewer can take to reduce energy consumption. The website was set up with the assistance of a grant from The Grants Committee of the Institute of Brewing and Distilling. It offers guidance on environmental protocols for the brewing and distilling industries.for example (Figure 1) to reduce energy use in the boilerhouse the brewer can measure performance and ensure efficient operation, or optimise the boiler with investment or increased energy recovery.

3 Figure 1. A sample page from the IBD Campden BRI Environmental Auditing web site. Campden BRI together with KWA have developed a self-assessment benchmarking tool for energy use. This enables the user to measure how the brewery performs on energy efficiency compared to other breweries in the group on both plant level and also on process unit level. It also enable brewers to identify potential measures for reducing energy use, the potential saving per process unit and the payback time. For example (based on the data input by the brewer) the software calculates the total energy consumption for the brewery and the breakdown into total fuel and total electricity consumption. The user can then view fuel and energy consumption by individual processes to identify where reductions can be made (Figure 2). Figure 2. A sample page from the Energy Saver software, quantifying energy usage in certain unit operations and comparing with best practice. Carbon Footprinting and Life Cycle Analysis There is increasing pressure on food and drink producers to at least be aware of the carbon footprint of their products. In the UK one supermarket chain has already requested carbon footprint information on more that 150 products in its stores. There is little data available on carbon footprints for beer brands. In addition, it is difficult to compare existing data because of the lack of a carbon footprinting

4 standard. The PAS2050 standard, introduced in 2008 in the UK, should rectify this and enable a better comparison of data from carbon footprint studies. PAS2050 is a publically available specification, which is in effect a draft standard. It is envisaged that after due experience with use it will become the basis for UK and then international Standards. A comparison of data published in corporate reports for international brewers shows that the carbon footprints (kg CO2 equivalents per hectolitre) were Asahi 10.5, Fosters 14, Heineken 10.5, Inbev 13, Grupo Modelo less than 16 and SABMiller more than 12. The Fat Tire brewery has already published the results of its carbon footprint analysis. This showed that the overall carbon footprint (kg CO2 equivalents per hectolitre of beer) was 27.9 for malt production and transport, 5.8 for brewing processes, 40 for packaging materials (of which 32.3 was accounted for by glass production), 12.9 for distribution, 12.3 for storage in the outlet and 2.4 for waste disposal. Water Use and Saving There have been a number of studies and publications of water use in breweries. For UK breweries water use has been monitored for many years by the British Beer and Pub Association (1). The results show that Specific Water Consumption (SWC) in 2007 was 4.8 hl/hl; this is a 4% reduction on usage in 2005 (5.0 hl/hl). For breweries with an output of more that 0.5 million hectolitres the average SWC was 4.0 (range 3.04 to 10.41), for those in the range 100,00 to 499,000 hectolites it was 6.56 (range 3.74 to 17.28) and for smaller breweries (less than 100,000 hectolitres) it was 5.91 (range 3.04 to 10.41). For international breweries, a review of water consumption figures in their corporate reports (2) showed that in 2007 the SWC was: Fosters 3.3, SABMiller 4.6, Inbev 5.0 and Anheuser Busch 5.5. However these figures must be regarded as approximate since they are taken from imprecise bar charts in published reports and may include operations other than brewing (for example production of soft drinks). SABMiller has set a target is to reduce its SWC from 4.6 in 2008 to 3.5 by 2015 by setting up a water footprinting project to identify how much water is used at each stage of the chain. Other brewers have also set challenging targets for SWC. Anheuser Busch has set a (pre-merger) target of 4 hectolitre / hectolitre by 2010 (compared with an SWC of 5.5 in 2007). Campden BRI in conjunction with the Dutch company KWA carried out a benchmarking project on water use in The survey was limited to breweries with outputs greater than 0.5 million hectrolitres per year. 130 breweries submitted data for water use. The results showed (Figure 3) that best practice was 2.3 hectolitre / hectolitre, with the top 10% (the decile) at 3.5 hectolitre / hectolitre or below.

5 Figure 3. A plot of specific water consumption of the breweries on probability paper. There are a range of measures available to brewers to help reduce water use. These are summarised on the IBD Campden BRI Environmental website ( For example, the site lists current measures to reduce water consumption in mashing (Figure 4). These include recommendations on, for example, cleaning practices and product scheduling.

6 Figure 4. A sample page from the IBD - Campden BRI Environmental Auditing web site. To assist brewing groups to reduce water use Campden BRI and KWA have developed a self-assessment tool. The Water Saver software tool enables brewing groups to compare water performance of the breweries within the group and to identify the sites and production areas where water use requires improvement. Figure 5 shows the main page - this enables the brewer to enter production and cost data. The software uses these figures to generate benchmarking and investment appraisal information. The results can be displayed by individual process(figure 6), which identifies priority areas for action. The tool also enables the brewer to generate user-friendly management reports, compare brewing sites within a group if appropriate and appraise water-saving projects in terms of pay-back time.

7 Self assessment Results Water saving measures Extra Figure 5. The opening page of the Water Saver software package. Figure 6. Water Saver enables water usage to be quantified by unit operation and compared with best practice. In summary, the brewing industry is performing well in terms of ongoing improvement in its environmental footprint. It is essential to measure these key performance indicators and benchmark them against the industry as a whole. This paper has outlined some tools that enable us to make these measurements and thus continue to improve our performance.

8 REFERENCES 1. British Beer and Pub Association, Thirty Years of Environmental Improvement (private communication) 2. Brewer s Guardian, April 2009, 18-20,30