ENSO Plastics Product Carbon Footprint Analysis

2013 Carbon Footprint Analysis - ENSO Plastics
2013 ENSO Plastics, LLC Page 1 of 20

ENSO Plastics, LLC

A look into the carbon impact of both ENSO
RESTORE and ENSO RENEW products.

Abstract: The carbon impact of a
material is a critical factor in assessing
the overall environmental impact of a
product. This report reviews two product
families offered by ENSO Plastics and
includes typical disposal scenarios for
these products. The areas of focus are
sourcing and disposal conditions
primarily within the continental US.
Whereas many reports focus on idealistic
conditions and utopic scenarios, this
report is intended to reflect actual usage
and disposal of these products

INTRODUCTION

Environmental focus is an integrated and
critical part of ENSOs business strategy,
both internally and as it relates to products
supplied to our customers. The aim of this
report is to provide an overview of the
potential reduction a company may
capitalize on when utilizing the various
product lines offered by ENSO Plastics and
provide companies a path toward reducing
the carbon footprint of their products.
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1
GOAL: 2
METHOD / DATA 2
SCOPE 1: MATERIAL SOURCING
AND RESIN .............................................. 3
RENEW RTP ....................................... 3
RESTORE ............................................ 7
CUSTOM BLENDS .............................. 7
SCOPE 2: PRODUCT USAGE ................... 7
SCOPE 3: DISPOSAL
CONSIDERATIONS ................................. 8
RECYCLING: ....................................... 9
INCINERATION: ............................... 10
COMPOSTING: ................................. 10
LANDFILLING: ................................. 10
CONCLUSIONS 16
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 19

The information contained within this report attempts to
maintain the highest accuracy of content. Information contained
within this report is considered to be informational and does not
constitute a warranty or marketing claim in any way.
Carbon Footprint Analysis

GOAL:

The goal of this report is to provide
information regarding the carbon impact of
ENSO Products, namely ENSO RENEW and
ENSO RESTORE. With this information
companies can evaluate the carbon
footprint of their products and determine
new ways to incorporate materials that will
reduce their carbon footprint. The results of
this report can be used for the following
purposes:

- to focus improvement activities on the
most important impact-generating
materials;

- for communication with various
stakeholders and to exchange the
knowledge gained;

- to anticipate future legislation
regarding environment and certification
(product development);

- to determine the carbon footprint of
their products utilizing ENSO materials.

METHOD / DATA

In addition to metrics like ecological
footprint, all materials have a carbon
footprint, a way to measure the relative
impact of materials in terms of the
contribution made to global climate change.
Measured in carbon emissions (usually in
pounds, tons or kilograms), it's become an
increasingly useful and popular tool to help
contextualize global warming in products
and the materials they are made of.

A carbon footprint is the total amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse
gases emitted over the full life cycle of a
product or service. The carbon footprint
gives a general overview of various ENSO
products and their use when blended with
other polymers, taking into account the
carbon impact of the material production as
well as disposal considerations.

The methodology used to determine the
environmental impacts of ENSO does not
represent a complete picture of the
environmental impacts of a system. They
represent a picture of those aspects that
can be quantified. Any judgments that are
based on the interpretation of the data
must bear in mind this limitation and, if
necessary, obtain additional environmental
information from other sources (hygienic
aspects, risk assessment, etc.).

In discussing the results of the individual
profiles of products it is important to know
whether or not a process (or a life cycle
phase) has a significant contribution to the
overall carbon footprint. The importance of
contributions can be classified in terms of
percentage. The ranking criteria are:

A: contribution > 50 %: most important,
significant influence;

B: 25 % < contribution 50 %: very
important, relevant influence;

C: 10 % < contribution 25 %: fairly
important, some influence;

D: 2,5 % < contribution 10 %: little
important, minor influence;

E: contribution < 2,5 %: not important,
negligible influence.

In discussing the data the methodology
used is that a 20% influence is considered
significant.

This report does not cover all aspects of a
life cycle analysis as it is specifically focused
on carbon emissions from resin creation,
product life cycle and through to disposal in
those scenarios where the influence is 20%
or greater. All information provided within
this report is deemed accurate as of the
date of publication.

Data used in this report is a compilation of
data collected from sources such as the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Ramani Narayan of Michigan State
University, Utrecht University, US Energy
Information Administration (eia), European
Starch Industry, Japan MITI (2001), ENSO
Plastics and other trusted resources.

Much of the data is well known and
publicized in multiple peer reviewed
articles and technical documents, however
this report compiles the data in a simple to
understand and organized fashion for
evaluating the carbon impact of various
materials. (Reference Documents listed at the conclusion of
this report).

Additional information may be found by
contacting ENSO Plastics directly, or by
visiting www.ensoplastics.com.

SCOPE 1: MATERIAL SOURCING AND
RESIN

RENEW RTP

ENSO RENEW RTP is a renewable
thermoplastic resin sourced primarily from
the starchy byproduct of commercial potato
processing. Potatoes were chosen as the
starch source for several reasons, some of
which also contribute to lowering the
carbon footprint and environmental impact
of RENEW RTP.

One of the reason potatoes are ideal is that
starchy potatoes have the highest starch
yields per hectare, grow in sandy soils and
have a low water and carbon footprint. (6-
European Starch Industry Association 2012).

Potatoes avoid the controversy of utilizing
genetically modified products or competing
with food products. Potatoes contain an
abundant source of starch and it is a typical
byproduct of processing potatoes for
human food consumption.

By using locally grown potatoes as a source
ENSO is able to keep carbon emissions
during raw material transportation low.
ENSO RENEW RTP is produced very near
the farmed region, in most cases within the
same US State.

Unlike many other standard polymers and
bio-polymers, the impact of creating ENSO
RENEW RTP from the base products
(native starch and vegetable glycerin) is
limited to energy used to melt and pelletize
the resin, no chemicals or other harmful
byproducts are produced during this phase.

An additional environmental benefit is that
the starch industry produces close to zero
waste as most byproducts are used in other
processes and for other products.

To understand the overall value of utilizing
annually renewable biomass, like potatoes,
as opposed to petrochemicals (oil or
natural gas) as the feedstock for the
production of polymers needs to be
understood from a global carbon cycle
basis.

The below figure illustrates the rationale
for the use of annually renewable resources
(biomass feedstock) for managing our
carbon resources and CO2 emissions more
effectively.

Figure 1. (8. Environmental Footprint/Profile of Bio-
based Biodegradable Products - Ramani Narayan)

Carbon is present in the atmosphere as
CO2. Plants capture this carbon through
photosynthesis using sunlight as the energy
source. Over millions of years these plants
are fossilized to provide our petroleum and
natural gas (fossil fuels).

Traditionally we have consumed these
fossil resources to make our polymers,
chemicals & fuel which releases carbon
back into the atmosphere as CO2 in a short
time frame of 1-10 years. The CO2 problem
is merely a kinetic rate issue. The rate at
which carbon is sequestered is in total
imbalance with the rate at which it is being
released into the atmosphere, meaning that
we put out more CO2 than we sequester.

However, if we use annually renewable
feedstock, the rate at which CO2 is
sequestered becomes equal to or greater
than (if more biomass is planted than
harvested) the rate at which it is released.

The use of renewable crop feedstock allows
for:

Sustainable development of carbon
based polymer materials

Control and even reduce CO2 emissions
and help meet global CO2 emissions
standards Kyoto protocol

Provide for an improved environmental
profile

In utilization of renewable feedstock it is
interesting to understand where the largest
environmental impact is found when

considering the overall carbon footprint of
ENSO RENEW RTP resin.

Figure 2. The agricultural phase makes the most
important contribution to the environmental impact.
The use of energy, usually in the form of fossil fuels, is the
most important element of the carbon footprint for the
industrial process. (19-VITO 2012)

Since the main input for RENEW RTP is
agricultural crops, the carbon sequestering
during the growing of the crops is also of
interest. A final product made of RENEW
RTP could be used for products with a long
life cycle (20 years and more), this could
provide a carbon credit related to the CO2
uptake of the potato plants. Below the
carbon uptake of 1 ton raw material is
shown separately (19-VITO 2012)

Figure 3. Carbon footprint and carbon sequestering for 1
ton DS of the raw material (19. Life Cycle Assessment
study of starch products VITO Vision on Technology
2012)

The cultivation of raw materials ends up in
an larger carbon sequestering compared to
the carbon emitted (therefore a positive
carbon footprint).

Looking at the figures, this means that any
product with a long life cycle (e.g. blended
bio-plastics) would, as long as its
manufacturing process has a CFP of less
than 1000kg CO2 eq / ton of processed raw
materials, have a positive carbon footprint
(more carbon sequestered than emitted).

In comparing ENSO RENEW RTP to fossil
fuel based virgin Low Density Polyethylene,
the use of RTP is particularly advantageous
with regard to energy resources and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Figure 4. (Dinkel et al., 1996 LCA Analysis - restricted to
starch and LDPE pellets)

The above data is restricted to starch
polymer pellets and compares them with
pellets made of polyethylene. Additional
information will be given later to compare
various blends with different shares of
petrochemical polymers.

In the case of RTP pellets energy y
requirements are 25%-75% below those
Energy resources
(MJ)
GHG emissions
(kg CO2 eq.)
RTP 2550 +/- 15% 120 +/- 15%
LDPE 9170 +/- 5% 520 +/- 20%
ENERGY and GHG for RTP and LDPE
(Functional unit = 100kg plastic)

for polyethylene and greenhouse gas
emissions are 20%-80% lower. (These
ranges originate from the comparison of
different waste treatment and different
polyolefin materials used as reference).

RTP also scores better than PLA for GHG
and energy consumption. The cradle-to-
factory gate energy requirements for PLA
are 50+% higher than those for RTP, while
GHG emissions are about 60+% higher.

Figure 5. (10. Environmental Assessment of Bio-Based Polymers and
Natural Fibers Martin Patel)

Energy consumption during processing, an
important factor to consider, is often
dependent on the heating value of
polymers. Bio-based polymers generally
have lower heating values than most
petrochemical bulk polymers. In some
cases the difference is negligible (e.g.,
Polyhydroxybutyrate versus PET), while in
other cases it is substantial (RTP versus PE)
offering a tremendous opportunity for
energy savings.

Heating Value of Polymers
H
e
a
t
i
n
g

v
a
l
u
e
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

B
o
i
e
,

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

R
e
i
m
a
n
n

a
n
d

H
a
m
m
e
r
l
i
,

1
9
9
5

Type of Plastic
L ower Heating
Value
RTP 13.6
PLA 17.9
PET 22.1
PE 43.3
PS 39.4
PVC 17.9
Figure 6. (10. Environmental Assessment of Bio-Based
Polymers and Natural Fibers - Martin Patel)

RTP is considered to perform best in overall
environmental terms under the current
state of the art than the petrochemical
counterparts.

Figure7. Fossil fuel energy requirements for ENSO RENEW
are approximately half that of PLA and 75% lower than
traditional fossil fuel based resins. Data sourced and
compiled from Reference Documents 1, 6.

Type of
Plastic
Functional
Unit
Cradle-to-Gate
Non-Renewable
Energy Use
GHG Emmissions
(kg CO2 eq./Funtional
Unit)
HDPE 1kg 79.9 4.84
LLDPE 1kg 72.3 4.54
LDPE 1kg 91.7 5.2
PET 1kg 77 4.93
RTP 1kg 25.4 1.14
PLA 1kg 54 3.45
ENERGY and GHG Emissions For Various Plastics
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
ENSO
RENEW
HDPE PET PLA
Cradle to Factory Gate
Fossil Energy
Requirements (GJ/ton)

RESTORE
ENSO RESTORE is an additive material
that accelerates the natural biodegradation
of traditional petrochemical based
polymers. Designed to address the
customary disposal of common plastics,
RESTORE allows plastic materials to not
only return to the natural carbon cycle, but
also allows the additional benefit of clean
inexpensive energy in many cases.

The primary carbon impact of RESTORE
can be seen during the disposal phase
where resulting methane is managed and
converted to energy, approximately 5%
carbon reduction.(Reference Documents2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 16,
17)

Additionally, the carbon footprint of
RESTORE itself is approximately 30%
lower than that of LDPE (Reference Documents 1, 3,
8, 10); however, RESTORE is used at very
low loading so this decrease has less impact
on the overall products carbon footprint.

The carbon footprint of products using
ENSO RESTORE is addressed in Scope 3:
Disposal Considerations.

CUSTOM BLENDS
Brand owners may utilize a hybrid of both
ENSO RENEW and ENSO RESTORE to
provide customized product applications
that take optimal advantage of carbon
reductions.

Products using these hybrid blends carry
the benefit of huge carbon reductions
during the sourcing phase and capturing
the carbon reductions during the disposal
phase WITHOUT jeopardizing the carbon
reductions a company may choose to
implement during the use phase.

For example a product using 71% ENSO
RENEW and 29% LDPE, would have a
carbon footprint approximately 55% lower
than using standard LDPE. (Reference Documents 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17)

Figure 8. Various applications and blends allow for
customized results and varying carbon footprint reductions.
Ultimately, products able to utilize 100% ENSO RENEW will
benefit from the lowest carbon footprint. Data sourced and
compiled from multiple Reference Documents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17.

SCOPE 2: PRODUCT USAGE

Apart from the environmental impact of the
sourcing phase, environmental benefits
may also accrue from the use phase. These
savings typically are available by
manufacturing practices, transportation
and product design. Light-weighting has
1.14
5.04
3.50
4.02
2.30
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
ENSO RENEW
LDPE
ENSO RESTORE
30% RENEW/LDPE
70% RENEW/LDPE
Cradle to Gate CO2
Emissions
(kg CO2/kg Resin)

become a standard means by which
companies seek reduced carbon footprints.

According to some studies, adjustments in
practice during the use phase often result in
carbon reductions as high or even higher
than those reductions during the sourcing
and disposal phases. Ultimately, ideal
carbon savings will come from addressing
all three phases of a material life cycle.

Although the usage phase is a critical part
of a products overall carbon footprint, to
include calculations for this phase would be
impractical due to the varied conditions
and usage of each potential product.

It is recommended that companies seeking
to understand their products carbon
footprint use the information within this
report in conjunction with the carbon
footprint during the use phase of their
specific product to understand the overall
carbon impact of their product lines.

SCOPE 3: DISPOSAL
CONSIDERATIONS

The final disposal/waste system has an
important role in the overall eco balance
and carbon footprint of a material. For most
products, there are many disposal scenarios
such as composting, incineration, landfilling
and recycling.

The primary focus of this report is
landfilling due to the statistic that over 85%
of all plastics are disposed of within
landfills. (Reference Documents 2, 3, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18)

Figure 9. Disposal scenarios for plastic waste (3. WARM Plastics
2012)

For instance; within the US: 31 million tons
of plastic waste was generated in 2010,
representing 12.4 percent of total MSW.

Figure 10. Within the US, the overwhelming majority (85%)
of plastics are disposed of in municipal landfills. Even for
specific items such as PET bottles, the percent landfilled
heavily outweighs any recycling programs. Very little plastic
is littered or composted. Data sourced and compiled from
Reference Documents 1, 3, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18

Only 7 percent of the total plastic waste
generated in 2010 was recovered for
-1%
-1%
85%
7%
8%
US Plastics Disposal
Composted Littered Landfilled
Recycled Incinerated

recycling. However, the recycling rate for
some plastics is much higher, for example
in 2010, 28 percent of HDPE bottles and 29
percent of PET bottles and jars were
recycled. (Reference Documents 2, 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18)

A brief discussion of each scenario is in
order to clarify and to assist with
determining the overall carbon footprint of
a material with each scenario, ultimately
however it is extremely difficult for a
company to control the final disposal of
their products.

The calculations within this report utilize
EPA reported municipal waste disposal
percentages and typical scenarios.

RECYCLING:
There has been an immense push over the
past 30 years toward the increase of
recycling programs and public awareness.
While the majority of studies show that in
theory, recycling plastics provides a lower
carbon footprint than landfilling or
incineration; recently controversial studies
have surfaced that contend the value of
recycling. (Reference Document 11, 14)

Such studies state, The footprint of
recycling is lower than that of landfills only
if at least half of the plastic ends up being
valorized.

In the majority of all regions worldwide,
seldom do recycling rates exceed 50% of
any specific plastic application and
extremely less when compared to overall
plastics production.
Additionally, it is recognized that plastics
will undergo some degradation with each
thermal recycling process and that
impurities in the recyclate may become
concentrated after subsequent recycling
steps. This needs to be taken into
consideration when one assumes a closed
loop recycling is undertaken and multiple
recycling loops are possible.

However most mixed plastics processors
will not recycle plastics packaging back into
packaging, so it is considered highly
unlikely to result in multiple recycling
loops. (15. LCA of Management Options For Mixed Waste
Plastics WRAP 2008)

Calculating the true carbon footprint of
recycling can be difficult as the calculation
must include the specific recycling rate,
energy requirements (for collection,
separation and processing), and the use of
the recycled materials.

Figure 11. Plastic waste generation and recovery in the US, 2010
(3. Warm Plastics 2012)

Due to the statistic that less than 8% of all
plastics will be recycled, the
increase/decrease of carbon emissions
when recycling is controversial, the carbon
impact of recycling/not recycling is not
included within this report.


However, it is prudent to bear in mind a
products ability to be easily collected,
sorted and recycled when making a
material selection as this will ultimately
affect the finished product environmental
impact and integration within waste
disposal.

Figure 12. The overall percent of plastics recycled has
continued to decline, despite industry and legislative efforts
to support recycling through legislative initiatives, education
and financial support. Graph courtesy of alumni.stanford.edu

INCINERATION:
Charging used plastics to waste
incinerators converts them largely to the
greenhouse-gas carbon dioxide, which then
goes straight into the atmosphere. This
footprint debit can be reduced somewhat
by generating power and heat from the
incinerator. Within the US, less than 8% of
plastics are incinerated, therefore this is not
a scenario that offers significant carbon
footprint impact and is not included within
this report. (Reference Documents 7, 9, 13, 15, 18)

COMPOSTING:
The increase in production and marketing
of bio-plastics and compostable plastics
warrants a brief on this disposal method.
Composting can be a natural process, as
seen in backyard composting; or it can be
the highly managed process utilized within
commercial composting facilities. Todays
consumers have limited, if any, access to
compost facilities and few of these compost
facilities accept plastic. Even fewer
consumers engage in backyard composting.

Composting materials provides conversion
to carbon, but does not allow for energy
capture as an anaerobic system would. A
study completed at the Michigan State
University concluded that in-vessel
composting is less favorable than
bioreactor landfilling with regard to cost,
overall energy use and overall waterborne
and airborne emissions. (Reference Document 17)

Fortunately, within the US, less than 1% of
plastics will ever be composted and as such
this scenario is not reflected within this
report.

LANDFILLING:
The primary focus of disposal scenarios is
landfilling and the varied GHG impact of
using landfill biodegradable materials, as
opposed to non-biodegradable, as this is the
primary disposal and a brand manager can
directly determine if their product should
incorporate biodegradability to reduce
their overall carbon footprint.

Landfilling is the primary common disposal
method of plastic waste, with
approximately 85-90% of all plastic waste
being discarded in landfills. In 2010, the US
discarded over 30 million tons of plastic

waste into landfills; equating to over
96,000,000 cubic yards of landfill space
each year.

Often LCA reports of municipal waste fail to
consider that this waste will decompose
and that the result of this decomposition
can be energy production. Instead the
reports assume rogue methane and the
resulting environmental impact, while
denying that the waste experiences any
decomposition, resulting in an unbalanced
and inaccurate assessment of the scenario
and an unsubstantiated assumption that
landfilling waste is a less than desirable
approach. (15. LCA of Management Options For Mixed Waste
Plastics WRAP 2008)

The true carbon impact of waste materials
within a landfill must consider that 34% of
all methane produced within US municipal
landfills is used in methane to energy
conversion offsetting the energy
production through combustion of fossil
fuels. This has a direct carbon footprint
reduction as will be discussed further.

To clarify this it is prudent to first review
the process of landfill biodegradation and
the resulting impact on GHG production as
provided by US EPA WARM 2012.

After entering landfills, biodegradable
material decomposes and eventually is
transformed into landfill gas and/or
leachate. Aerobic bacteria initially
decompose the waste until the available
oxygen is consumed. This stage usually
lasts less than a week and is followed by the
anaerobic acid state, in which carboxylic
acids accumulate, the pH decreases and
some decomposition occurs. Finally, during
the methanogenic state, bacteria further
decompose the biodegradable material into
CH4 and CO2

Carbon entering the landfill can have one of
several fates: exit as CH4, exit as CO2, exit
as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), exit
dissolved in leachate, or remain stored in
the landfill.

The rate of decomposition in landfills is
affected by a number of factors, including:
waste composition; factors influencing
microbial growth (moisture, available
nutrients, pH, temperature); and whether
the operation of the landfill retards or
enhances waste decomposition. Most
studies have shown that the amount of
moisture in the waste, which can vary
widely within a single landfill, is a critical
factor in the rate of decomposition (22.
Barlaz et al., 1990).

Carbon dioxide is produced in the initial
aerobic stage and in the anaerobic acid
stage of decomposition. However, relatively
little research has been conducted to
quantify CO2 emissions during these stages.
Emissions during the aerobic stage are
generally assumed to be a small proportion
of total organic carbon inputs, and a
screening-level analysis indicates that less
than 1 percent of carbon is likely to be
emitted through this pathway (Freed et al.,
2004).


Methane (CH4) production occurs in the
methanogenic stage of decomposition, as
methanogenic bacteria break down the
fermentation products from earlier
decomposition processes. Since CH4
emissions result from waste decomposition,
the quantity and duration of the emissions
is dependent on the same factors that
influence waste degradability (e.g., waste
composition, moisture).

Figure 13. Carbon process in landfills

To date, very little research has been
conducted on the role of VOC emissions in
the landfill carbon mass balance. Hartog
(2003) reported non-CH4 volatile organic
compound concentrations in landfill gas at
a bioreactor site in Iowa, averaging 1,700
parts per million (ppm) carbon by volume
in 2001 and 925 ppm carbon by volume in
2002. If the VOC concentrations in landfill
gas are generally of the order of magnitude
of 1,000 ppm, VOCs would have a small role
in the overall carbon balance, as
concentrations of CH4 and CO2 will both be
hundreds of times larger.

Leachate is produced as water percolates
through landfills. Leachate is increasingly
being recycled into the landfill as a means
of inexpensive disposal and to promote
decomposition, increasing the mass of
biodegradable materials collected by the
system and consequently enhancing
aqueous degradation (Chan et al., 2002;
Warith et al., 1999). Although a significant
body of literature exists on landfill leachate
formation, little research is available on the
carbon implications of this process. Based
on a screening analysis, Freed et al. (2004)
found that loss as leachate may occur for
less than 1 percent of total carbon inputs to
landfills.

The principal stocks and flows in the
landfill carbon balance are:
Initial carbon content (Initial C);
Carbon output as CH4 (CH4C);
Carbon output as CO2 (CO2C); and
Residual carbon (i.e., landfill carbon
storage, LFC).

The initial carbon content is used to
estimate each material types emission
factor. In a simple system where the only
carbon fates are CH4, CO2 and carbon
storage, the carbon balance can be
described as CH4C+CO2C+LFC=Initial C
If the only decomposition is anaerobic, then
CH4C = CO2C.3 Thus, the carbon balance
can be expressed as
= Initial C2CH4C+LFC=Initial C


Another factor in estimating material-
specific landfill emissions is the rate at
which a material decays under anaerobic
conditions in the landfill. The decay rate is
an important factor that influences the
landfill collection efficiency; although the
final adjusted CH4 yield will eventually
occur no matter what the decay rate. The
rate at which the material decays influences
how much of the CH4 yield will eventually
be captured for landfills with collection
systems.

This captured landfill gas is a significant
determination of the final carbon footprint.
In practice, the landfill gas collection
system efficiency does not remain constant
over the duration of gas production. Rather,
the gas collection system at any particular
landfill is typically expanded over time.

Usually, only a small percentage (or none)
of the gas produced soon after waste burial
is collected, while almost all of the gas
produced is collected once a final cover is
installed. Consequently, The US EPA uses
temporally-weighted average gas collection
efficiencies to provide a better estimate of
gas collection system efficiency (21. Barlaz
et al., 2009).

The temporally-averaged gas collection
efficiencies are evaluated from the
perspective of a short ton of a specific
material placed in the landfill at year zero.

The efficiencies are calculated based on one
of three landfill gas collection practices
over a 100-year time period, which is
approximately the amount of time required
for 95 percent of the potential landfill gas to
be produced in a Dry or Sanitary landfill
scenario. The final average efficiency is
equal to the total CH4 collected over 100
years divided by the total CH4 produced
over 100 years.

Figure 14. Gas collection efficiencies for various landfill designs.

The CH4 component of landfill gas that is
collected from landfills can be combusted to
produce heat and electricity, and recovery
of heat and electricity from landfill gas
offsets the combustion of other fossil fuel
inputs.

The US EPA applies non-baseload electricity
emission rates to calculate the emissions
offset from landfill gas energy recovery
because the model assumes that
incremental increases in landfill energy
recovery will affect non-baseload power
plants (i.e., power plants that are demand-
following and adjust to marginal changes
in the supply and demand of electricity).

EPA calculates non-baseload emission rates
as the average emissions rate from power
plants that combust fuel and have capacity
factors less than 0.8 (EPA, 2010a).

EPA estimates the avoided GHG emissions
per MTCO2E of CH4 combusted using
several physical constants and data from
EPAs Landfill Methane Outreach Program
and eGRID (EPA, 2010b; EPA, 2010a). The
mix of fuels used to produce electricity
varies regionally in the United States;
consequently, EPA applies a different CO2-
intensity for electricity generation
depending upon where the electricity is
offset. (EPA, 2010a).

The formula used to calculate the quantity
of electricity generation emissions avoided
per MTCO2E of CH4 combusted is as
follows:

4=
Where:
BtuCH4 = Energy content of CH4 per
MTCO2E CH4 combusted; assumed to be
1,012 Btu per cubic foot of CH4 (EPA,
2010b), converted into Btu per MTCO2E
CH4 assuming 20 grams per cubic foot of
CH4 at standard temperature and pressure
and a global warming potential of CH4 of 21
HLFGTE = Heat rate of landfill gas to energy
conversion; assumed to be 11,700 Btu per
kWh generated (EPA, 2010b)
a = Net capacity factor of electricity
generation; assumed to be 85 percent (EPA,
2010b)
Egrid = Non-baseload CO2-equivalent GHG
emissions intensity of electricity produced
at the regional or national electricity grid
R = Ratio of GHG emissions avoided from
electricity generation per MTCO2E of CH4
combusted for landfill gas to energy
recovery.

The following illustrations obtained from
the US EPA Warm version 12 show
variables in the GHG emissions offset for
the national average fuel mix. The final
ratio is the product of columns (a) through
(h). Exhibit 14 shows the amount of carbon
avoided per kilowatt-hour of generated
electricity and the final ratio of MTCO2E
avoided of utility carbon per MTCO2E of
CH4 combusted (column (g) and resulting
column (i)). (2. WARM Version 12 Landfilling United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA))

Figure 15. (Illustrations above obtained directly from US EPA
WARM version 12)

The process of gas production is the same
in sanitary landfills as it is in bioreactor
landfills that promote accelerated
biodegradation; it simply occurs faster.

As in sanitary landfills, basic procedures
carried out in bioreactor landfills are
spreading and compacting the solid waste
materials in layers, and covering the
material with soil at the end of each day.
Bioreactor landfill systems include liquid,

usually leachate, and/or air circulation
systems, with leachate and gas collection.

In bioreactors, accelerated transformation
and microbial degradation of organic
matter is accomplished through the
controlled recirculation of leachate or other
sources of moisture. In this method,
leachate quality is also potentially
improved, leading to reduced leachate
disposal costs. LFGs are emitted earlier in
the process and at a higher rate than the
conventional dry-tomb landfill but for a
total shorter duration, typically within 510
years of implementation. (17. Aerobic Composting
Compared with BioReactor Landfilling Maria Theresa Caraban,
Milind Khire, Evangelyn Alocilja)

Contrary to popular belief, the US EPA has
identified that biodegradation continues to
occur in all landfills (bioreactor and
sanitary) creating significant methane
emissions which are required to be
collected and managed. Over 75% of all
methane produced in landfills from
municipal solid waste is effectively
managed. Active management of landfill
gasses begins within the first 5 years of a
landfill and continues for approximately 30
years after landfill closure. (Reference Documents 2,
3, 5, 9, 15, 16, 18)

Landfill gas management entails capturing
and flaring methane gases, ideally
converting the methane to energy during
the flaring (LFGE). In 2012 there were 594
active LFGE sites and an additional 540
candidate sites. Currently 34% of all landfill
methane is generated in LFGE sites.

Figure 16. Landfills that capture and manage methane
emissions account for over 72% of all landfill methane
produced within the US, with (34%) of landfill methane
being captured and actively converted to energy. Data
sourced and compiles from Reference Documents 2, 5, 7,
9, 15, 16

The NRDC states that the use of landfill gas
for energy has the potential to offset up to
12,006lbs of CO2 per MWh, as it offsets
traditional energy production such as coal
and gas. Current LFGE sites in the US
generate over 1,730MW of electricity per
year and deliver over 310 million ft
3
per
day of gas to direct use applications (as a
fuel source). (Reference Documents 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16)

With coal typically containing 84% carbon
and 4% hydrogen (the remainder being
coal ash) 26 this implies that 1 kg coal
contains 70 moles of carbon and 40 moles
of hydrogen potentially reacting with 90
moles oxygen in the iron ore.

Polyolefins have a carbon:hydrogen ratio of
1:2 (ignoring fillers, additives, etc.) and so
contain 85.8% carbon and 14.2% hydrogen.
As such, 1 kg polyolefin contains 71.5 moles
of carbon and 142 moles of hydrogen
potentially reacting with 142.5 moles
0.38
0.34
0.28
With LFG Recovery and Flaring
With LFG Recovery and Energy Conversion
Without LFG Recovery

oxygen in the iron ore. This leads to a
substitution based on 1 kg polyolefin
replacing 1.58 kg coal. (15. LCA of Management
Options for Mixed Waste Plastics WRAP 2008)

This is the primary value relating to carbon
footprint for ENSO RESTORE as it offers
the ability to convert landfilled plastics to
energy generation. Utilizing the data
included within this report, it is possible to
calculate the carbon value of this energy
conversion taking into account that 34% of
all the ENSO RESTORE treated materials
will be disposed of within landfills that will
ultimately convert the product to clean
energy.

Figure 17. Ultimately the most significant carbon reduction
is seen when using 100% ENSO RENEW . As more
traditional resin is blended the reduction decreases as
expected. The primary carbon reduction is seen in the
sourcing portion of the products LCA with ENSO RENEW ,
whereas with ENSO RESTORE the value is primarily seen
during the disposal.
Experts have suggested that traditional
plastics will take hundreds of years to fully
biodegrade. This biodegradation will
produce methane but will not be managed
effectively as it is outside the window of
landfill gas management. Ideally, all carbon
based materials placed into a landfill,
including plastics, should biodegrade
within the active management period (5-30
years) for optimal methane management
and energy recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, most products are designed with
limited consideration to their ecological
footprint especially as it relates to their
ultimate disposability. Of particular
concern are plastics used in single-use
disposable packaging and consumer goods.
Designing these materials to be
biodegradable and/or bio-based and
ensuring that they end up in an appropriate
disposal system is environmentally and
ecologically sound.

In spite of these uncertainties and the
information gaps mentioned above the
body of work analyzed overwhelmingly
indicates that biodegradable and bio-based
polymers and offer important
environmental benefits today and for the
future.

Of all materials studied, ENSO RENEW
RTP performs best in overall environmental
terms under the current state the art and
5.08
5.07
4.06
2.34
1.18
5.08
4.31
3.45
1.99
1.00
5.08
4.82
3.86
2.22
1.12
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
LDPE
LDPE / RESTORE
LDPE / RENEW (30%)
LDPE / RENEW (70%)
RENEW
Carbon Impact Including LFG
Collection and Energy
Conversion (kg CO2/kg resin)
Landfill Average
Landfill w/ LFG Energy
Landfill w/o LFG Collection

current waste management scenarios;
while RESTORE offers a unique
opportunity to lower the carbon footprint
of traditional materials disposed of within
landfills.

The data represented within this report
indicates a significant opportunity for
brand managers to reduce carbon footprint
in several ways: in sourcing by full
conversion to ENSO RENEW or partial
offsetting with a percentage of ENSO
RENEW and incorporation of ENSO
RESTORE for carbon reduction during
disposal. All three scenarios offer differing
advantages during sourcing, usage and
disposal.

The most significant carbon reduction is
seen when replacing traditional plastics
such as PE and PET with ENSO RENEW.
Replacement of 100% can reduce a
products carbon footprint by 78%.
Complete replacement also allows for home
and industrial composting as an alternative
disposal; however these disposal methods
do not decrease the carbon footprint.

Brand owners may choose to blend ENSO
RENEW with their current resin to retain
specific physical properties while
benefiting from the lower footprint of the
RENEW resin. When using 30% RENEW
a brand owner can realize a carbon
reduction of 20%, while usage of 70%
RENEW can reduce the footprint by 55%.

When identifying carbon impact for varying
blends of LDPE/RENEW the following
calculation can be used as a guide:

(%RENEW *1.14)+(%LDPE*5.04) = kg CO2
per kg blended resin

Brand owners may also benefit from
reduced carbon footprint during the
disposal of plastics by incorporating ENSO
RESTORE into existing resins and blended
ENSO RENEW /Traditional Resin
applications. When disposed of within a
LFGE site, the energy offset provided
through methane capture and conversion
reduces the footprint up to 15%. In
consideration of the average LFGE vs. Non-
Energy Converting landfills, the actual
decrease in carbon a company should
expect would be closer to 5%. The current
trend toward increasing the number of
LFGE sites, will also contribute to additional
carbon savings for landfill biodegradable
products.

Overall it is clear that ENSO products
provide clear advantages in respect to
carbon footprint when compared to
traditional resins, and provide varying
solutions to accommodate specific needs
and goals of brand managers, from
reducing their carbon footprint just 5% to
near 80%.


For Further information regarding this report or ENSO product lines and customized
solutions, please contact:

ENSO Plastics, LLC
4710 E Falcon Dr. #220
Mesa, AZ 85215
www.ensoplastics.com
866-936-3676

Plastics make it possible
ENSO makes it responsible.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1. Review and Analysis of Bio-based Product LCAs
Ramani Narayan, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science,
Michigan State University
Martin Patel, Department of Science, Technology and Society,
Utrecht University, Netherlands
2. WARM Version 12 Landfilling
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
3. WARM Version 12 Plastics
4. Carbon Emissions and How They Are Determined
2011 Special Reports- Sosland Publishing
5. Landfill Gas Energy
United States Environmental Protection Agency 2012
6. European Starch Industry Association Position Paper 2012
7. Information obtained from US Energy Information Association (eia)
8. Environmental Footprint/Profile of Bio-based Biodegradable Products
Ramani Narayan, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science,
Michigan State University
9. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases
10. Environmental Assessment of Bio-Based Polymers and Natural Fibers
Martin Patel, Department of Science, Technology and Society
Utrecht University, Netherlands
Catia Bastioli, Novamont
Luigi Marini, Novamont
Geookol Eduard Wurdinger, Bavarian Institute of Applied Environmental
Research and Technology
11. Landfill Could Be Greener Than Recycling When it Comes to Plastic Bottles
Eric Johnson, Atlantic Consulting, Zurich Switzerland
12. Biodegradable Over Recyclable
Virgo Publishing 2009
13. Is It Better to Burn or Bury Waste For Clean Energy Production
P. Ozge Kaplan, Joseph Decarolis, Susan Thorneloe
USA EPA and North Carolina State University
14. When Recycling is Bad for the Environment
Rachel Cernansky
15. LCA of Management Options For Mixed Waste Plastics


WRAP 2008
16. Integrated Scenarios Of Household Waste Management
S. Lassaux, University of Liege, Blegium
17. Aerobic Composting Compared with BioReactor Landfilling
Maria Theresa Caraban, Milind Khire, Evangelyn Alocilja
18. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/01/31/what-happens-to-all-that-plastic
19. Life Cycle Assessment study of starch products
VITO Vision on Technology 2012
20. Barlaz MA, et al (2003) Comparing recycling, composting and
landfills. Biocycle 44.9:6066
21. Staley, B. F., & Barlaz, M. A. (2009). Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield. Journal
of Environmental Engineering, 135 (10), 901909. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-
7870.0000032
22. Barlaz, M. A., Ham, R. K., & Schaefer, D. M. (1990). Methane Production from Municipal
Refuse: A Review of Enhancement Techniques and Microbial Dynamics. Critical Reviews in
Environmental Control, 19 (6), 557.

ENSO Plastics Product Carbon Footprint Analysis

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ENSO Plastics Product Carbon Footprint Analysis

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2013 Carbon Footprint Analysis - ENSO Plastics

2013 ENSO Plastics, LLC Page 1 of 20

Вам также может понравиться