Lifecycle Assessment: reusable mugs vs. disposable cups" Refiller, Bern 25 April 2013
The comparisons" 4 comparisons are made in this document" #" Reusable" VS" Disposable" 1 ceramic mug paper cup 2 KeepCup paper cup 3 ceramic mug styrofoam cup 4 KeepCup styrofoam cup 25 April 2013 2
Lifecycle Assessment: reusable mugs vs. disposable cups ASSUMPTIONS" 25 April 2013 3
Ceramic mug" Reusable" Brand Material Weight IKEA Färgrik ceramic 300g/mug 25 April 2013 4
KeepCup" Reusable" Brand Materials Total weight KeepCup Lid (PE-Plastik): 20g Cup (PP-Plastik): 41g Plug (TPU): 9g Band (Silicone): 15g 85g/cup 25 April 2013 5
Paper cup" Disposable" Brand Material Total weight 25 April 2013 standard Lid (HIPS): 3g Cup (paper): 12g Coating (PE-plastic): 0.1g 15.1g/cup 6
Styrofoam" Disposable" Brand Materials Weight standard Lid (HIPS): 3g Cup (EPS): 10g 13/cup 25 April 2013 7
Lifecycle description 1" Manufacturing / Use / Disposal" Same assumption for all ceramic mug, paper cup, styrofoam cup: - Transport from production to place of use: 800km (truck) for example from Germany. Transport from place of use to waste treatment: 20km (truck) to the next incineration Assumptions for KeepCup: - Transport from production to place of use: 25 000km by boat + 1 000km by truck (produced in Australia). Transport from place of use to waste treatment: 20km (truck) to the next incineration 25 April 2013 8
Lifecycle description 2" Manufacturing / Use / Disposal" It is assumed that no transport is involved each time reusables are washed (washing machine usually located in the same place of consumption). Potential energy recovered from incineration not taken into account as: Incineration of materials does not save much energy while producing a lot of CO2 (Source: http:// www.dunand.northwestern.edu/courses/case%20study/scott%20cronin%20-%20coffee%20cup %20Comparison.pdf ) 25 April 2013 9
LCA Indicators" Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Non-renewable Energy (NRE)" Global Warming Potential (GWP) " Impact based Unit: kg CO2-Eq / kg Non-renewable Energy (NRE) " Resource based Unit: MJ-Eq / kg 25 April 2013 10
Washing machine" For ceramic mugs" Based on the canteen in the University Basel (Petersgraben 1, Basel, CH) of the firm SV Group AG, the model used for this comparison is: Winterhalter GS515 (http://www.winterhalter.co.uk/index.php?id=768) Energy use: 0.12 kwh/rinse cycle Capacity: 20 mugs per basket Water use: 2.4L water/rinse cycle" Environmental impact of washing:" 0.00094 kg CO2-eq/mug (GWP) 0.058 MJ-eq/mug (NRE) 25 April 2013 11
Hand washing" For KeepCups" Water use: 0.5L water use per cup washed " Environmental impact of washing:" 50% hot water (0.25L): - 0.005 kg CO2-eq/mug (GWP) - 0.281 MJ-eq/mug (NRE) 50% cold water (0.25L): - 0.00022 kg CO2-eq/mug (GWP) - 0.005 MJ-eq/mug (NRE) 25 April 2013 12
Break-even" The minimum number of times a reusable cup/mug has to be reused (and washed) in order to be environmentally friendlier than using the same amount of disposable cups. Source: http://www.dunand.northwestern.edu/courses/case%20study/scott%20cronin%20-%20coffee%20cup%20comparison.pdf 25 April 2013 13
Lifespan" Reusable / Disposable" Reusable" It is assumed that the lifespan of reusable ceramic mugs or KeepCups is 500 uses. - 1 year, 48 weeks/year, 5 workdays/week, ~2 coffees/day - Ceramic mugs have usually a max. lifespan of 1000 uses - The firm KeepCup offers a warranty of 1 year, the cups are meant to be used several times a day Disposable" Disposables are only used once and thereafter disposed in the garbage. 25 April 2013 14
Lifecycle Assessment: reusable mugs vs. disposable cups SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT" 25 April 2013 15
Summary of environmental impacts" At 500 uses" GWP [kg CO2-eq./cup]" NRE [MJ/cup]" Product" Production" Washing" Total" Production" Washing" Total" Paper cup" 29.502745 0 29.503 284.61303 0 284.613 Styrofoam cup" 59.21435 0 59.214 692.8754 0 692.875 Ceramic mug" 0.75269 0.291 1.043 13.41948 15.845 29.264 KeepCup" 0.55321 0.291 0.844 8.453808 15.845 24.299 25 April 2013 16
Lifecycle Assessment: reusable mugs vs. disposable cups COMPARISONS" 25 April 2013 17
Comparison" #1 ceramic mug vs paper cup" Break-even" LCA indicator Number of uses GWP 13 NRE 25 Comparison (at 500 uses)" Ceramic mugs emit 28 times less CO2-eq. emissions than disposable cups Ceramic mugs require 10 times less nonrenewable energy than disposable cups 25 April 2013 18
Comparison" #2 KeepCup vs paper cup" Break-even" LCA indicator Number of uses GWP 9 NRE 16 Ecological comparison (at 500 uses)" KeepCups emit 35 times less CO2-eq. emissions than disposable cups KeepCups require 12 times less non-renewable energy than disposable cups 25 April 2013 19
Comparison" #3 ceramic mug vs styrofoam cup" Break-even" LCA indicator Number of uses GWP 6 NRE 25 Ecological comparison (at 500 uses)" Ceramic mugs emit 57 times less CO2-eq. emissions than styrofoam cups Ceramic mugs require 24 times less nonrenewable energy than styrofoam cups 25 April 2013 20
Comparison" #4 KeepCup vs styrofoam cup" Break-even" LCA indicator Number of uses GWP 5 NRE 16 Ecological comparison (at 500 uses)" KeepCups emit 70 times less CO2-eq. emissions than styrofoam cups KeepCups require 29 times less non-renewable energy than styrofoam cups 25 April 2013 21
Lifecycle Assessment: reusable mugs vs. disposable cups SAVINGS ESTIMATION OF THE PILOT PROJECT REFILLER-FRIENDLY UNIVERSITY OF BASLE " 25 April 2013 22
Estimation of potential savings" Based in the pilot project Refiller-Friendly University Basel " The coffee at the university is either served in ceramic mugs or paper cups. The status quo is (same period of last year), that 70% of the coffee is served in paper cups. During a pilot project, the introduction of communication measures aim to change people s habits and bring them to have their coffee in ceramic mugs instead of paper cups. During the pilot project the amount of coffees served in paper cups drop from 70% to 10%. Assumption: total coffee consumption doesn t change. Only ceramic mugs and paper cups are taken into account. Timespan of pilot project: 9 weeks (25. Februar bis 26. April 2013) Total amount of coffee served in 9 weeks: 20 000 25 April 2013 23
Calculations (only GWP)" Status quo" % of total # coffee sold GWP (kg) Waste (kg) Waste bags (60L) Paper Cup 70% 14,000 826.08 210.0 70 Ceramic mug 30% 6,000 12.52 Total 100% 20,000 838.60 Pilot project" % of total # coffee sold GWP (kg) Waste (kg) Waste bags (60L) Paper Cup 10% 2,000 118.01 30.0 10 Ceramic mug 90% 18,000 37.56 Total 100% 20,000 155.57 Difference (Status quo Pilot project)" % of total # coffee sold GWP (kg) Waste (kg) Waste bags (60L) Paper Cup 60% 12,000 708.07 180.0 60 Ceramic mug -60% (12,000) (25.04) Total 0% - 683.03 25 April 2013 24
Conclusions" By changing consumption from single-use paper cups to porcelain mugs, the 9 weeks of pilot project at the University of Basle improved the situation in three main ways: " - 12 000 paper cups were substituted by reusing ceramic mugs" - 180 kg less waste produced from paper cups (corresponding to 60 waste bags (60L) - 680 kg of CO2-equivalent emissions have been saved (corresponding to driving a standard car almost 7 000 km) " 25 April 2013 25