life cycle assesment of beer production in greece

8/12/2019 Life Cycle Assesment of Beer Production in Greece

1/7

Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece

C. Koroneos), G. Roumbas, Z. Gabari, E. Papagiannidou, N. Moussiopoulos

Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering, P.O. Box 483, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

Received 21 April 2003; accepted 10 September 2003

Abstract

A case study of beer production in Greece has been performed. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) has been used to identify and quantify

the environmental performance of the production and distribution of beer. LCA methodology provides a quantitative basis forassessing potential improvements in environmental performance of a system throughout the life cycle. The system investigated

includes raw material acquisition, industrial refining, packaging, transportation, consumption and waste management. Energy use

and emissions are quantified and some of the potential environmental effects are assessed. The impact categories most affected by the

beer production, are the earth toxicity, or heavy metals, and the category of smog formation. Bottle production, followed by

packaging and beer production are found to be the subsystems that account for most of the emissions. Thus, the attempt to

minimize the adverse environmental impacts caused by the beer production should focus on the minimization of the emissions

produced during these subsystems.

2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Beer production; Case study; Life cycle analysis; Greece

1. Introduction

The food production industry requires large inputs of

resources and causes several negative environmental

effects. The food production systems are oriented and

optimised to satisfy economic demands and the nutri-

tional needs of a rapidly growing world population.

Environmental issues, however, have not been given

much attention. There are many difficulties in conduct-

ing life cycle studies of food products. Ideally, a complete

study should include agricultural production, industrial

refining, storage and distribution, packaging, consump-

tion and waste management, all of which togethercomprise a large and complex system. The lack of public

databases hinders collection of suitable data. Another

difficulty is that life cycle studies involve many scientific

disciplines. Most food life cycle studies performed thus

far treat either agricultural production or industrial

refining.

The aim of this study was to perform a life cycle

analysis of beer production in order to identify those

parts of the life cycle that are important to the totalenvironmental impact. The type of beer chosen is lager,

which is produced by a Brewery of Northern Greece,

located in the industrial zone of Sindos, Thessaloniki.

As the work was done in close co-operation with the

local producer of lager beer, it was possible to obtain

a large amount of site-specific inventory data. The

impact assessment made includes the following environ-

mental effects: greenhouse effect, ozone depletion,

acidification, eutrophication, smog formation, human

toxicity and earth toxicity.

2. Method

2.1. Goal definition

The main goal of the case study was to identify key

issues associated with the life cycle of beer production,

such as:

the steps of the life cycle which give rise to the most

significant environmental input and output flows,

that is hot spots,

) Corresponding author. Tel.: C30-2310-995068; fax: C30-3210-

996012.

E-mail address: [email protected](C. Koroneos).

Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 433e439

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

0959-6526/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.09.010
mailto:[email protected]://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcleprohttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepromailto:[email protected]


2/7

and to propose improvements and optimise the

system.

2.2. The product and the system investigated

The product studied was one of the most common

brands of beer sold in Greece; it is marketed in 0.5 l

green glass bottles. In the present LCA study the

cultivation of barley and the production of malt is not

included in the system boundary. The complete system

investigated is shown inFig. 1.

The system investigated was divided into five

subsystems.Table 1shows a summary of the subsystems

and the processes they include.

The life cycle can be described briefly as follows.

Raw material acquisition: The LCA study starts with

the transportation of the raw materials to the fer-mentation factory. Some of the raw materials are

Fig. 1. Schematic presentation of the system investigated.

Table 1

The beer production subsystems

Subsystem Processes included

Raw material acquisition Transportation of raw materials to the fermentation factory

Beer production Barley malt processing and fermentation including liquid waste processing and solid waste management

Bottle production Raw materials acquisition, production process of glass, production of bottles

Packaging Bottle processing and bottling of beer including liquid waste processing and solid waste management

Transportation/Storage/Distribution Transportation of the bottle beer to the consumers, recycling of bottles and glass

434 C. Koroneos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 433e439


3/7

produced in Greece while others are imported from

Western European countries. The transportation tothe factory is made mainly by heavy-duty vehicles

(containers and tracks), which use diesel fuel. The air

emission factors (g pollutant/km) and the fuel

consumption are calculated with the use of the

Corinair programme[1]. The calculation is based on

the type of vehicle and the average speed of

the vehicle. The pollutants that are calculated were

CO, NOx, VOC, PM, CO2, and SO2. The emissions

and the fuel consumption from road transportation

are then calculated based on the km travelled per

trip. Table 2 presents the data from road trans-

portation. Beer production: The main ingredient for the pro-

duction of beer is water and barley malt. To produce

1 litre of beer, the brewery will consume 5.25 litres of

water, a number is close to the 7 litres reported in the

literature [2]. The production of beer is a batch

process and 12,000 kg of barley malt are processed

in each batch. Fig. 2 shows the basic input and

outputs in the beer production subsystem.

Bottle production: The bottle production was investi-

gated and analysed. The bottles are produced mainly

Fig. 2. Input and outputs in the beer production subsystem for one batch.

Table 2

Road transportation data for the raw material acquisition

Raw Materials Vehicle

Type

Mixed Weight

in tn

Km travelled

per trip

Average Speed

km / h

Quantity transported

per trip

Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) Container 46 7 40 30 tn

Propane Container 18 7 40 1.5 tn

Barley Malt Container 22 2.650 60 17 tn

Hop (humulus lupulus) Track 30 1.800 60 2.34 tnPVPP, siligel Track 12 3 40 3 tn

Filtration Earth Track 30 1.200 80 22 tn

Detergents Track 12 3 40 3 tn

Bottles Track 38 510 80 48 048 bottles

Returned Bottles Track 38 510 80 31 200 bottles

Bottle caps Track 14 510 80 10 400 000 caps

Labels Track 3.5 15 60 13 000 000 labels

Boxes Track 14 430 80 2080 boxes

Pallets Track 17 90 80 340 pallets

435C. Koroneos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (2005) 433e439


4/7

from recycled glass. Table 3 summarises the basic

inputs for the production of bottle glass.

Packaging and bottling: The bottling of one batch

requires 140,376 bottles (0.546 kg of glass per bottle)

including losses (about 3% of which is returned to

the bottle producer as scrap glass). Of these bottles,

about 51% is from returned bottles to the factory

and the rest come from the bottle producer. The

total bottled beer produced is about 136,600 bottles.

Fig. 3shows the basic inputs and outputs from the

packaging process.

Transportation/Storage/Distribution: The LCA study

was completed with the transportation and distri-

bution of the produced beer to the consumers. Also

the distribution of solid wastes and recyclable

materials was taken into account. Again programme

Table 3

Inputs for the production of 1000 kg glass including the energy for the shaping of the bottle

Raw Materials kg / 1,000 kg produced glass Energy Energy for the production of 1,000 kg glass in MJ

Scrap Glass 1.050 Electricity 2500

Limestone 5.36 Diesel 150

Water 0.06 Natural Gas 590

Halite 6.71 Heating Oil 7780

Chromium 0.67 Lignite 50Propane 100

Fig. 3. Input and outputs in the packaging subsystem for one batch.



5/7

Corinair [1] was used in order to calculate the

emissions. In Table 4 the data from road trans-

portation are presented.

2.3. The functional unit

The functional unit is one bottle of beer (combined

weight of beer and glass 1.066 kg), which is defined as:

0.52 l of beer (520 g of beer) and

0.546 kg of green glass.

3. Results

The use of primary energy and potential contribu-

tions to global warming, ozone depletion, acidification,

eutrophication (nitrification), photo-oxidant formation,human toxicity and ecotoxicity, at subsystem level, are

presented in the following paragraphs.

3.1. Energy

The distribution of energy and the use of energy

sources per subsystem are shown in Figs. 4 and 5

respectively. The distribution of energy per type of

energy is shown inFig. 6.

It is clear that the bottle production is the greatest

energy consumer in beer production cycle (85%). In the

bottle production subsystem the main energy input

comes form diesel fuel (71%) followed by electricity

(21.4%) and natural gas (5.3%). Diesel fuel is the main

energy source used in the beer production system

(67.3%) followed by electricity (20.7%) and heavy fueloil (HFO 6.4%).

Carbon intensity is defined as the kilograms of

equivalent CO2(Table 5, seesection 3.2) produced from

a process or from the production cycle of a product per

unit of energy consumed by the process or the pro-

duction cycle. Carbon intensity is an indicator of the

environmental and the energetic efficiency of the process

or the production cycle of a product. High carbon

intensity values mean low energy efficiency or use of

low-grade fuels or both. InFig. 7 the carbon intensity

expressed as kgCO2eq/kWh per subsystem is shown. It

can be seen that beer production and raw materialacquisition subsystems have greater carbon intensity

than bottle production, packaging and transportation/

storage/distribution subsystems. The carbon intensity of

raw material acquisition and of transportation/storage/

distribution depends on the km travelled (Tables 2 and

4). The high value of raw material acquisition is due to

km travelled. The high value of beer production

Table 4

Road transportation data for the distribution

Outputs Vehicle type Combined weight of vehicle in tn km per trip Average speed km/h Quantity transported

Scrap glass Track 35 170 80 18 tn

paper Track 11.5 3 40 3 tn

Bottle caps Track 18.6 (10 clean weight) 5 40 50 kg

Boxes Track 38 510 80 2500 boxes

Pallets Track 19.5 5 40 135 pallets

Bottled Beer Track 38 510 80 31 200 bottles

Solid waste for cattle food Track 9 20 40 6 tn

Trub for processing Container 10 3 40 7000 lt

Distribution of beer Track 4 40 40 100 boxes

Fig. 4. The distribution of energy in the beer production system. Fig. 5. The use of energy in the beer production system.



6/7

subsystem is due to the use of low grade fuel (Heavy

Fuel Oil) (Fig. 5).

3.2. Environmental effects

The emissions of the system have been grouped into

impacts (characterisation step) based on the Sima-Pro

method[3,4]. The characterisation results are shown in

Table 5, while Fig. 8 shows the contribution of each

subsystem to each impact category. From Fig. 8 it can

be seen that the bottle production subsystem is the

major contributor to global warming effect as expected

because Diesel is the major energy source.

Normalization reveals which effects are large, and

which effects are small, in relative terms. It says nothing

of the relative importance of these effects. Valuation

factors are used for this purpose. The evaluation of the

environmental score of each effect is calculated based on

the formula:

Environmental scoreZCharacterised value!

Normalisation!Weighting factor

Due to lack of such factors for Greece, Holland factors

have been used for the evaluation process. These factors

are shown inTable 6 [4].

The normalization results (Characterised value !

Normalisation factor) are shown inFig. 9, whileFig. 10

presents the evaluation results (environmental score).

FromFigs. 9 and 10it can be seen that the categories

most affected by the beer production are the earth

toxicity and the smog formation.

The total environmental scores of each subsystem areshown in Fig. 11 and the contribution of the environ-

mental effect to the environmental score of each

subsystem is given in Fig. 12.

It is clear that bottle production & packaging has the

largest environmental scores that result from emissions

that contribute to earth toxicity and photochemical

smog.

Fig. 6. Distribution of energy per type of energy.

Table 5

Characterization results per functional unit

Category Characterized value Unit

Greenhouse Effect 392.46 kg CO2-eq

Ozone Depletion 0.00234 kg CFC11-eq

Eutrophication 0.40895 kg PO4-eqAcidification 0.00015 kg SO2-eq

Smog formation 21.413 kg C2H4-eq

Solid wastes 557.9 kg

Human toxicity 6.724E-05 kg B(a)P

Earth toxicity 0.05161 kg Pb

Fig. 7. Carbon intensity expressed as kgCO2eq/kWh per subsystem.

Fig. 8. Characterisation results.



7/7

4. Conclusions

The results presented illustrate the complexity ina scientific evaluation of a products environmental

performance; the results of the energy analysis do not

always point in the same direction as those of the impact

assessment. From the results obtained, it can be seen that

for many of the impact categories, bottle production

followed by packaging and beer production are the

subsystems that contribute mostly to the adverse environ-

mental impacts of the beer production. Thus, the attempt

to minimize the adverse environmental impacts caused by

the beer production should focus on the minimization of

the emissions produced during these subsystems.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank deeply the Brewery

of Northern Greece, located in the industrial zone of

Sindos, Thessaloniki, for the site-specific data it pro-

vided, and for answering patiently all of the questions.

References

[1] COPERT IIdComputer programme to calculate emissions from

road transport. European Environment AgencydEuropean Topic

Center on Air Emissions, November 1997.[2] Pauli G. Zero emissions: the ultimate goal of cleaner production.

J Clean Prod 1997;5(1-2):109e13.

[3] Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape

(SAEFL). Life cycle inventories for packagings, Vols. IeII. Berne;

1998.

[4] SimaPro. Method: Eco-Indicator 95, Europe g. PRe Consultants

BV. Amersfoort, The Netherlands, http://www.simapro.com.

Christopher J. Koroneosis a special Scientist at the Laboratory of Heat

Transfer and Environmental Engineering of the Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki in Greece. He is teaching at the Department of

Mechanical Engineering. He was previously teaching at Columbia

University in New York, where he also received his BS, MS and Ph.D.

in Chemical Engineering.

Table 6

Normalization and weighting factors

Category Normalized factor Weighting factor

Greenhouse Effect 0.0000742 2.5

Ozone Depletion 1.24 100

Eutrophication 0.0262 5

Acidification 0.00888 10

Smog formation 0.03065 3.75Solid wastes 0 0

Human toxicity 106 10

Earth toxicity 17.8 5

Fig. 9. Normalization results per functional unit.

Fig. 10. Evaluation results per functional unit.

Fig. 11. Environmental scores of each subsystem per functional unit.

Fig. 12. Contribution of the each impact category to the environmental

score of each subsystem.

http://www.simapro.com/http://www.simapro.com/

life cycle assesment of beer production in greece

Documents