Life Cycle Assessment Of North American Aluminum Cans
Life Cycle Assessment ofNorth American Aluminum CansOn behalf of The Aluminum Association1 of 65
Client:The Aluminum AssociationTitle:Life Cycle Assessment of North American Aluminum CansReport version:v1.0Report date:May 19, 2021 2021 Sphera. All rights reservedOn behalf of Sphera Solutions, Inc. and its subsidiariesDocument prepared byManuela Toro05/19/2021Vicki RyblQuality assurance byckoffler@sphera.comChristoph KofflerTechnical Director Americas05/19/2021Phone 1 617 247 4477Under the supervision ofMaggie WildnauerConsulting Director AmericasThis report has been prepared by Sphera Solutions, Inc. (“Sphera”) with reasonable skill and diligence within the terms andconditions of the contract between Sphera and the client. Sphera is not accountable to the client, or any others, with respectto any matters outside the scope agreed upon for this project.Sphera disclaims all responsibility of any nature to any third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known.Any such party relies on the report at its own risk. Interpretations, analyses, or statements of any kind made by a third partyand based on this report are beyond Sphera’s responsibility.If you have any suggestions, complaints, or any other feedback, please contact us at servicequality@sphera.com.2 of 65
Table of ContentsTable of Contents. 3List of Figures. 6List of Tables . 7List of Acronyms . 8Glossary . 9Executive Summary . 11Introduction . 161.Goal of the Study. 182.Scope of the Study . 192.1.Product System(s) . 192.2.Product Function(s), Functional Unit, and Reference Flow. 192.3.System Boundaries . 202.3.1.Time Coverage . 202.3.2.Technology Coverage . 202.3.3.Geographical Coverage . 202.4.3.Allocation . 212.4.1.Multi-output Allocation . 212.4.2.End-of-Life Allocation . 212.5.Cut-off Criteria . 232.6.Selection of LCIA Methodology and Impact Categories . 232.7.Interpretation to be Used . 262.8.Data Quality Requirements . 262.9.Type and Format of the Report. 262.10.Software and Database . 272.11.Critical Review . 27Life Cycle Inventory Analysis . 283.1.Data Collection Procedure . 283.2.Aluminum Can Production . 283.2.1.Overview of Product System . 283 of 65
3.2.2.Remelting, Casting and Sheet Rolling . 303.2.3.Can Manufacturing . 373.2.4.End-of-life . 393.3.3.3.1.Fuels and Energy . 403.3.2.Transportation . 413.3.3.Raw Materials and Processes . 413.4.4.Life Cycle Inventory . 43LCIA Results . 454.1.Overall Results . 454.1.1.Cradle-to-Gate . 454.1.2.Cradle-to-Grave . 464.1.3.Results for Various Conversions . 484.2.Sensitivity Analysis . 494.2.1.Cradle-to-Gate Primary Aluminum Content . 494.2.2.Cradle-to-Grave End-of-Life Recycling . 504.3.5.Background Data . 40Scenario Analysis . 514.3.1.Cradle-to-Gate Primary Aluminum Sourcing. 514.3.2.Cradle-to-Grave Best- and Worst-Case Scenarios . 53Interpretation . 555.1.Identification of Relevant Findings. 555.2.Assumptions . 555.3.Results of Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis . 565.3.1.Sensitivity Analysis . 565.3.2.Scenario Analysis. 565.4.Data Quality and Assessment . 565.4.1.Precision and Completeness . 575.4.2.Consistency and Reproducibility. 575.4.3.Representativeness. 575.5.Model Completeness and Consistency . 575.5.1.Completeness . 575.5.2.Consistency . 575.6.Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations . 585.6.1.Conclusions. 584 of 65
5.6.2.Limitations . 595.6.3.Recommendations . 59References . 60Annex A.Critical Review Statement . 62Annex B.Detailed Results . 64Annex B1: Water Consumption Results, Including Turbined Water . 64Annex B2: Sensitivity Analysis Results . 64Annex B3: Scenario Analysis Results . 645 of 65
List of FiguresFigure ES-1: Effect of EoL recycling rate on cradle-to-grave GWP . 12Figure ES-2: Selected LCI/LCIA results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-gate). 12Figure ES-3: Selected LCI/LCIA results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-grave) . 13Figure ES-4: Effect of primary aluminum sourcing on cradle-to-gate GWP assuming the same primary aluminumcontent of 27 percent but changing its region of origin . 13Figure ES-5: Cradle-to-grave reduction in carbon footprint of beverage cans in North America. Note: The sizes ofcans are slightly different between studies. . 14Figure ES-6: Cradle-to-grave reduction in primary energy demand of aluminum beverage cans in North America.Note: The sizes of cans are slightly different between studies. . 15Figure 2-1: Aluminum beverage cans . 19Figure 2-2: Schematic representations of the end-of-life allocation approaches . 22Figure 3-1: Cradle-to-grave life cycle inventory model of North American aluminum cans . 30Figure 3-2: Gate-to-gate remelting and direct chill casting model. 32Figure 3-3: Gate-to-gate sheet rolling model . 35Figure 3-4: Gate-to-gate can manufacturing model . 38Figure 4-1: Relative contributions for LCI and LCIA indicator results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-gate) . 46Figure 4-2: Relative contributions for LCI and LCIA indicator results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-grave) . 47Figure 4-3: Global Warming Potential contributions per 1,000 AI cans (13.46 kg, net scrap w/ embodied burdendebit) . 48Figure 4-4: Effect of primary aluminum content on Primary Energy Demand . 50Figure 4-5: Effect of primary aluminum content on Global Warming Potential . 50Figure 4-6: Effect of EoL recycling rate on Primary Energy Demand . 51Figure 4-7: Effect of EoL recycling rate on Global Warming Potential . 51Figure 4-8: Effect of primary aluminum sourcing on cradle-to-gate Primary Energy Demand . 52Figure 4-9: Effect of primary aluminum sourcing on cradle-to-gate Global Warming Potential . 53Figure 4-10: Effect of best- and worst-case on cradle-to-grave Primary Energy Demand . 53Figure 4-11: Effect of best- and worst-case on cradle-to-grave Global Warming Potential . 546 of 65
List of TablesTable 2-1: System boundaries . 20Table 2-2: LCIA impact category descriptions . 25Table 2-3: Other environmental indicators . 25Table 3-1: Remelting and direct chill casting unit process . 33Table 3-2: Sheet rolling unit process . 36Table 3-3: Can manufacturing unit process . 39Table 3-4: Key fuel and energy datasets used in inventory analysis. 40Table 3-5: Key transportation datasets used in inventory analysis . 41Table 3-6: Key material and process datasets used in inventory analysis . 41Table 3-7: Selected life cycle inventory results per 1,000 cans . 44Table 4-1: LCI and LCIA indicator results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-gate) . 45Table 4-2: LCI and LCIA indicator results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-grave) . 46Table 4-3. Cradle-to-gate results for various conversions . 48Table 4-4. Cradle-to-grave results for various conversions . 49Table 4-5. 2015 electricity consumption for regional aluminum production . 52Table B-1: Water consumption results, including turbined water, per 1,000 cans under cut-off approach (cradleto-gate) . 64Table B-2: Water consumption results, including turbined water, per 1,000 cans under closed loop approach(cradle-to-grave) . 64Table B-3: Effect of primary aluminum content on PED and GWP (cradle-to-gate) . 64Table B-4: Effect of EoL recycling rate on PED and GWP (cradle-to-grave) . 64Table B-5: Effect of primary aluminum sourcing on PED and GWP (cradle-to-gate) . 64Table B-6: Effect of best- and worst-case on PED and GWP (cradle-to-grave) . 657 of 65
List of AcronymsAAAluminum AssociationADPAbiotic Depletion PotentialAPAcidification tion PotentialGaBiGanzheitliche Bilanzierung (German for holistic balancing)GHGGreenhouse GasGWPGlobal Warming PotentialIPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeISOInternational Organization for StandardizationLCALife Cycle AssessmentLCILife Cycle InventoryLCIALife Cycle Impact AssessmentNCVNet Calorific Value (a.k.a. Lower Heating Value, LHV)NMVOCNon-Methane Volatile Organic CompoundODPOzone Depletion PotentialPEDPrimary Energy DemandRMERegional Middle EastRNARegional North AmericaSETACSociety of Environmental Toxicology And ChemistrySFPSmog Formation PotentialTRACITool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental ImpactsUBCUsed Beverage CanVOCVolatile Organic CompoundWHOWorld Health Organization8 of 65
GlossaryLife CycleA view of a product system as “consecutive and interlinked stages from raw material acquisition or generationfrom natural resources to final disposal” (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.1). This includes all material and energyinputs as well as emissions to air, land and water.Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)“Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product systemthroughout its life cycle” (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.2)Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)“Phase of life cycle assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs for a productthroughout its life cycle” (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.3)Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)“Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of thepotential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product” (ISO 14040:2006,section 3.4)Life Cycle Interpretation“Phase of life cycle assessment in which the findings of either the inventory analysis or the impact assessment,or both, are evaluated in relation to the defined goal and scope in order to reach conclusions and recommendations” (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.5)Functional Unit“Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit” (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.20)Allocation“Partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a product system between the product system under studyand one or more other product systems” (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.17)Closed-loop and Open-loop Allocation of Recycled Material“An open-loop allocation procedure applies to open-loop product systems where the material is recycled intoother product systems and the material undergoes a change to its inherent properties.”“A closed-loop allocation procedure applies to closed-loop product systems. It also applies to open-loop productsystems where no changes occur in the inherent properties of the recycled material. In such cases, the need forallocation is avoided since the use of secondary material displaces the use of virgin (primary) materials.”(ISO 14044:2006, section 4.3.4.3.3)9 of 65
Foreground System“Those processes of the system that are specific to it and/or directly affected by decisions analyzed in thestudy.” (JRC 2010, p. 97) This typically includes first-tier suppliers, the manufacturer itself and any downstreamlife cycle stages where the manufacturer can exert significant influence. As a general rule, specific (primary) datashould be used for the foreground system.Background System“Those processes, where due to the averaging effect across the suppliers, a homogenous market with average(or equivalent, generic data) can be assumed to appropriately represent the respective process and/or thoseprocesses that are operated as part of the system but that are not under direct control or decisive influence ofthe producer of the good .” (JRC 2010, pp. 97-98) As a general rule, secondary data are appropriate for thebackground system, particularly where primary data are difficult to collect.Critical Review“Process intended to ensure consistency between a life cycle assessment and the principles and requirementsof the International Standards on life cycle assessment” (ISO 14044:2006, section 3.45).10 of 65
Executive SummaryThis report documents the average life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results of1,000 aluminum beverage cans manufactured in North America (U.S. and Canada) in the reference year 2016.The study was commissioned by the Aluminum Association (AA) to update a previous study published in 2014 torespond to increasing market demand for up-to-date life cycle data on the environmental performance of products. The goal of this study is to provide current life cycle inventory data for beverage cans to help the aluminumindustry and its stakeholders, life cycle assessment practitioners, academic researchers and other interestedparties better understand the potential environmental impacts of aluminum cans and their improvement overtime.A life cycle inventory of a product quantifies all material and energy use and environmental exchanges (resources, emissions) over its entire life cycle from raw material acquisition through to recycling and/or disposal.The functional unit of the study is 1,000 unfilled aluminum cans with a weighted average size of 13.6 oz. beverage volume per can. This average represents a basket of small, medium, and large sized cans, represented bytheir relative market shares. The scope of the study is “cradle-to-grave”, i.e., starting with the extraction of bauxiteore and ending with the recycling and recovery of used beverage cans (UBCs). Beverage filling, distribution, refrigeration, and consumption are excluded from this study.In addition, “cradle-to-gate” results are provided for users who prefer to assess the environmental footprint ofthe cans from a different perspective or using an alternative allocation approach. “Cradle-to-gate” refers to thestages of the life cycle starting with raw material extraction and ending with a finished can at the manufacturingfacility.Both approaches used primary production data for the reference year 2016 to assess the same baseline scenario: A total metallic weight of 12.99 kg per 1,000 cans with an average size of 13.6 oz per can; An end-of-life (EoL) recycling rate of 50.4%; A recycled metal content of 73% per can including 50% from post-consumer sources and 23% frompre-consumer sources, but excluding internal scrap from can sheet rolling mills; and No embedded burden of primary aluminum production assigned to any scrap inputs.Focusing on two frequently cited assessment parameters – Primary Energy Demand (PED) and Global WarmingPotential (GWP, commonly called carbon footprint) – the study has reached the following conclusions: The cradle-to-gate PED and GWP for 1,000 cans, from raw material extraction to the point in which anempty beverage can is made, painted and sealed, are 1,320 MJ LHV and 77.1 kg CO2 equivalents,respectively. The cradle-to-grave PED and GWP for 1,000 cans, including end-of-life disposal and recycling, are1,630 MJ LHV and 96.8 kg CO2 equivalents, respectively.Notably, the cradle-to-gate footprint is lower than the cradle-to-grave footprint. This is unusual for products thatare fully recycled at the end of their useful life and receive a credit of primary production based on the amountof the recovered secondary material. In the specific case of aluminum cans made in North America, however,the EoL recycling rate is lower than the recycled content. Collecting less aluminum scrap in end-of-life recycling11 of 65
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq)than what is consumed during production leads to a net scrap deficit of the product system, which burdens theproduct system and increases the PED and GWP of the beverage can over the full life cycle. Bringing back morealuminum cans through increased consumer recycling is therefore one of the key opportunities to reduce thecradle-to-grave environmental footprint of aluminum beverage cans in the future (Figure ES-1).1601401201.02 kg CO2eq decrease per1% increase in recycling rate10080Base caserecycling rate is50.4%60402000%20%40%60%Recycling Rate80%100%Figure ES-1: Effect of EoL recycling rate on cradle-to-grave GWPThe study also shows the impact of raw material usage on the environmental footprint of aluminum beveragecans. The contributions of individual life cycle stages to the total footprint (both cradle-to-gate and cradle-tograve) are shown in Figure ES-2 and Figure ES-3. Although the average aluminum can contains only 27% primaryaluminum, that input is responsible for the majority of the can’s total life cycle environmental footprint. As such,reducing the use of primary aluminum while increasing the use of recycled aluminum can effectively reduce thecradle-to-gate footprint of the can.Global warming77.1Primary energy, total1320Primary energy, fossil1030Primary energy, n2.63Smog formation0.0233Particulate matterWater consumption (excl. turbined water)1830%00. Primary ingot20%01. Remelting and casting40%60%02. Can sheet rolling80%100%03. Can manufactureFigure ES-2: Selected LCI/LCIA results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-gate)12 of 65
Global warming96.8Primary energy, total1630Primary energy, fossil1210Primary energy, 53.41Smog formationParticulate matter0.0338Water consumption (excl. turbined water)00. Primary ingot03. Can manufacture-10%20010%30%50%01. Remelting and casting04. UBC EoL processing70%90%02. Can sheet rolling05. UBC EoL credit/debitFigure ES-3: Selected LCI/LCIA results per 1,000 cans (cradle-to-grave)Raw material sourcing is also critical, as not all primary aluminum is created equal. As seen in Figure ES-4,changing the source of primary aluminum can have a significant impact on the cradle-to-gate environmentalfootprint of the average aluminum can. For instance, primary aluminum sourced from Canada is made almostexclusively using renewable hydropower while primary aluminum made in China is made largely with coal-generated power. This difference can have a profound impact – an aluminum can made using the same content (inthe current case 27%) of primary aluminum sourced in China would be almost twice as carbon intensive in production than the average North American can made today using a mixture of primary metal sourced from NorthAmerica and several other countries. If aluminum can made in China used more primary aluminum and lessrecycled metal, the difference would be much wider.Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq)140130120931008077626040200North AmericaCanadaChinaMiddle EastFigure ES-4: Effect of primary aluminum sourcing on cradle-to-gate GWP assuming the same primary aluminum contentof 27 percent but changing its region of origin13 of
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) "Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product" (ISO 14040:2006, section 3.4) Life Cycle Interpretation "Phase of life cycle assessment in which the .
2.1 Life cycle techniques in life cycle sustainability assessment 5 2.2 (Environmental) life cycle assessment 6 2.3 Life cycle costing 14 2.4 Social life cycle assessment 22 3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in Practice 34 3.1 Conducting a step-by-step life cycle sustainability assessment 34 3.2 Additional LCSA issues 41 4 A Way Forward 46
life cycles. Table of Contents Apple Chain Apple Story Chicken Life Cycle Cotton Life Cycle Life Cycle of a Pea Pumpkin Life Cycle Tomato Life Cycle Totally Tomatoes Watermelon Life Cycle . The Apple Chain . Standards of Learning . Science: K.7, K.9, 2.4, 3.4, 3.8, 4.4 .
Life Cycle Impact Assessment—phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product. Life Cycle Interpretation—phase of life cycle assessment in which the findings of either the
4.UNEP/SETAC (2011). Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases. UNEP/SETAC Life-Cycle Initiative. ISBN: 978-92-807-3021-. 5.UNEP (2003). Evaluation of environmental impacts in Life Cycle Assessment, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Production and Consumption Unit, Paris. 6.ISO 14040 (2006).
3.1 life cycle 3.2 life cycle assessment 3.3 life cycle inventory analysis 3.4 life cycle impact assessment 3.5 life cycle interpretation 3.6 comparative assertion 3.7 transparency 3.8 environmental aspect 3.9 product 3.10 co-product 3.11 process 3.12 elementary flow 3.13 energy flow 3.14 feedstock energy 3.15 raw material LCA MODULE A1 18
2.0 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 5 2.1 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) 7 2.2 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) 11 2.3 Framework 13 2.4 System Boundaries 16 2.5 Limitation and Problems 19 3.0 Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) 20 3.1 Life Cycle Cost (LCC) 20 3.2 Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) 22 3.3 Financial Supplementary Measures 23
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental
AM I MY BROTHER’S KEEPER? Lanecia A. Rouse “In the Habit” session for use with devozine meditations for January 12–18, 2015. MAKING THE CONNECTION “The other day I was sitting in a local coffee shop writing a devotion. Needing a break, I looked up from my computer and out a big window in front of me to view the city scene. I noticed outside a woman wearing house shoes, and she seemed .
