Life Cycle Assessment & Energy Efficiency in Sustainable Systems

This assignment comprises two reports: a life cycle assessment (LCA) of water bottles (plastic vs. glass) using GaBi software and an energy efficiency analysis. The LCA report evaluates the environmental impact of each bottle type, considering raw material acquisition, processing, manufacturing, usage, and disposal. It finds that glass water bottles have lower emissions and are more environmentally friendly due to the non-biodegradable nature of plastic. The energy efficiency report assesses energy consumption rates and their impacts. Both reports include executive summaries, introductions, cost-benefit analyses, and conclusions, adhering to Harvard WesternSydU referencing style. The overall goal is to assess the sustainability and environmental impact of different products and processes, with a focus on biodegradability, economic responsibility, and social responsibility.

Sustainable Systems Assignment No.2
Institution Name:
Student Name:
Due date: 25 October 2018
Word Count:

Contents
A REPORT OF LIFE CYCLE (LCA) ASSEMENT OF WATER BOTTLE........................................3
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................3
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
Assessment of Life Cycle using GaBi...................................................................................................5
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................12
References...........................................................................................................................................12
A REPORT OF ENERGY EFFECIENCY..........................................................................................14
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................14
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................15
Cost Benefit Analysis..........................................................................................................................15
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................16
References...........................................................................................................................................16

A REPORT OF LIFE CYCLE (LCA) ASSEMENT OF WATER BOTTLE
Executive Summary
LCA is as the framework that is used to identify and evaluate the material, energy and
impacts on the environment of a material or process or even a system across its life span from
manufacturing (raw material stage) to retirement or disposal (Curran & Marry, 2012). Life
cycle assessment looks at the product life by closely analyzing the aspects such as the input
materials and output materials (Chau, et al., 2015). The inputs can be thought of as the raw
material materials and the energy used in the production process of a product (Fan, et al.,
2011) On the other hand, the output include emissions into the atomosphere, wastes released
into water bodies, general solid wastes, bi-products and many other (Ara, 2011). In a
nutshell, the specific areas which are looked at in the LCA consist of raw materials, material
processing, manufacturing and assembly and retirement and recovery (Gehrer, et al., 2014).
Based on the outputs above, it is demonstrated that the plastic water bottle have a higher
emissions of toxic materials such as carbon into the atmosphere (Goverdhan & Saikat, 2010).
Plastic materials are not bio-degradable as well. This implies that a glass water bottle is
clearly the best option (Dehnen, 2011). Similarly, it is possible to see that the cost of
manufacturing the two alternatives re the same, implying that given one option, glass is still
the best option. Glass is satisfactorily environmentally friendly than a plastic water bottle.
Furthermore, the major identified hotspot include biodegradability, economic and social
responsibility (Frano, 2009).
Introduction
The objective of this report is to provide a comparison between two water bottles made from
different materials manufactured using different materials. The assessment is based on the
social efficiency, economic efficiency as well as environmental impact of the cycle of the

product, that is from the point of manufacturing to the time of retirement of disposal (Ban, et
al., 2012).
The service wanted is a water bottle that is able to effectively and comfortably used as well
as that which is sustainable and supporting the going- green agenda (Battarbee & Binney,
2008). The sustainability of the bottle is sassed in terms of the its suitability towards being
environmentally friendly, bio- degradable, recyclable, ozone friendly and contribution
towards global warming (Ban, et al., 2012).
Two Alternatives of water bottles that are considered in this report are the plastic water
bottle and the glass water bottle. The life- cycle of the two products will be assessed using a
software. The assessment involve acquisition of raw material, processing of material,
manufacturing and assembly, the uses and services of the products and the retirement and
retirement (Fan, et al., 2011). The assessment also involves the investigation of the possible
materials that are re- used, recycled or remanufactured (Sarancha, et al., 2014).
GaBi software will be used for the life cycle assessment process. GaBi software is a program
for conducting life assessment modelling (Veronica, et al., 2011). The assessment is made up
definition of scope and goal, analyzing the inventory, assessing the possible impacts well
interpretating the results (Huijbregts, et al., 2015). The goal and scope definition involves the
analysis off the purpose of the life cycle analysis and the target audience of the assessment
(Curran & Marry, 2012). The inventory analysis on the other hand involves the functional
unit of the assessment, the boundaries of the assessment, the required data set for purposeful
analysis, the assumptions taken into consideration and similarly the limitations of the
assessment process (Curran & Marry, 2012). Similarly, assessment of impact involves
assessing the effects of the product’s cycle on the environment (Vahe & Susanna, 2008). The

effects could be on the atmosphere, social effects and effects on the economy (Curran &
Marry, 2012).
Procedure recommended by ISO have been followed to ensure the assessment of life cycle is
conducted in a specific way (Ara, 2011). The procedure can be represented in a flow chart as
shown in the diagram below. The flow chart is a brief outline of the procedure recommended
by the ISO for conducting a life cycle assessment
Assessment of Life Cycle using GaBi
Stages of analysis using GaBi software include defining of goal and scope, inventory
analysis, impact analysis and interpretation (Fan, et al., 2011). This implies that a life cycle
analysis is like an iterative process where a process is repeated again and again to get the
desired result (Surviatkina, 2008).
Ram material
Acquisition
Material
Processing
Manufacturing&
Assembly Use & Service
Retirement &
Recovery
Treatment
Disposal

Goal definition stage outlines the assessment purpose, the targeted group or groups, the
decisions of the assessment as well as the extent of the decisions that are in place (Connolly,
et al., 2014). In our case, the goal involve a decision on whether to use a plastic water bottle
or a glass water bottle (Suroviatkina & Semenova, 2014). The decision is based on impact of
these two alternative products on the environment and their contribution towards the going
green initiative. The decision also involves the sustainability in terms of the environmental
effects, economic effects as well as social effects.
Scope definition of the other hand tells much about the product scope of the product to be
assessed, the services that the product is capable of offering (the alternative products as well),
the portion of the product that should be included and finally the environmental exchanges
that are involved. The solution to base on this case is the effects that the two products (plastic
water bottle and glass water bottle) have on the environment.
Environmental effects of a plastic water bottle is that the product is made from products that
are not bio- degradable.
Inventory assessment looks at a number of aspects such as the data required, the quality of
these data that are used for analysis, the systems that are needed as well as how to handle any
uncertainties that might arise from the aspects of the data collected.
Estimated weight of the components of each alternative can be shown below. Data in our
case include the materials needed to make 1 peace of a 500 milliliters water bottle. For a
piece of plastic water bottle, the following materials are required:
Material Quantity

High Density Polythene Terephthalate
(PET)
400grams
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 50grams
Fluoride Treated (PS) 300 milliliters
Similarly, for a glass water bottle, the following materials are used;
Material Quantity
Borosilicate Glass 400 grams
Treated Soda Lime Glass 300 grams
Soda Lime Glass 450 grams
Impact assessment section on the other hand outlines the consumption of resources and the
potential impacts of the product use to the environment, to the economy and the social aspect
(Simon, et al., 2008). The assessment outlines important impacts as well as those impacts that
are considered as the most important. Similarly, we also assess the possible data gaps that
exists in the product manufacturing process.
The following output was obtained from the step by step analysis using GaBi.

Conclusion
Based on the outputs above, it is demonstrated that the plastic water bottle have a higher
emissions of toxic materials such as carbon into the atmosphere. Plastic materials are not bio-
degradable as well (H & B, 2009). This implies that a glass water bottle is clearly the best
option (Dehnen, 2011). Similarly, it is possible to see that the cost of manufacturing the two
alternatives re the same, implying that given one option, glass is still the best option. Glass is
satisfactorily environmentally friendly than a plastic water bottle. Furthermore, the major
identified hotspot include biodegradability, economic and social responsibility (Frano, 2009).
References
Ara, H. M., 2011. Renewable energy project in Armenia:main results and outputs. Journal of the 21st
Century, Volume 10, p. 29.
Ban, et al., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of renewable
energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p. 10.

Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming || Holocene
Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.
Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy
Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Journal of Appied Energy,
Volume 143, p. 19.
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable transport fuels
that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Journal of Energy,
73(016), p. 16.
Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable
Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization -
Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.
Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's atmosphere.
Volume 153, p. 15.
Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for environment
conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. 180(107), p. 9.
Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier. Journal
of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.
Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production chain of oil-
rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09, p. 9.
Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated Environment.
20(10), p. 1.
H, L. & B, V. M., 2009. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of
Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Volume 34, p. 8.
Huijbregts, Mark, A. J. & Hauschild, M. Z., 2015. The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment] Life
Cycle Impact Assessment || Introducing Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Volume 94, p. 16.
Karpenko, V. I., Pysarev, S. I. & Golodok, L. R., 2008. Energy- Saving Systems with the use of Compact
Bioenergy Devices. Volume 1, p. 5.
Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration
in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives, 25(10), p. 20.
Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable energy
integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.
Robu, S., Bikova, E. & Siakkis, P., 2010. MARKAL Application for Analysis of Energy Efficiency in
Economic Activities of the Republic of Moldova and Feasible use of Renewable Energy Sources.
23(4), p. 14.

Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare system
optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.
Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the carbon
footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.
Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe" (Denmark)
Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.
Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high
concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.
Vahe, O. & Susanna, K., 2008. Renewable energy in the Republic of Armenia. Journal of the 21st
Century, Volume 10, p. 13.
Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions and life cycle
impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle assessment. 36(109), p. 7.
Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable energies in
China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.
A REPORT OF ENERGY EFFECIENCY
Executive Summary
Energy efficiency of a given product is measured in terms of the quantity and rate of energy
consumed by the product and the impact to the environment that the use that given product
may cause. In our case (Xiliang, et al., 2010). In our case, we consider a home product called
a light bulb (Robu, et al., 2010). The analysis has been done in special consideration to the
energy consumption rate, the source of energy and the environmental impact (Poul, 2009).
Simple payback cost benefit analysis is shown below; from the result below, it is clear that
the payback period is 2 years. It is not beneficial to have this product (Madgin, 2010). In
terms of efficiency, it is good because it is more reliable. Similarly, the cost is manageable

enough for a number of below. It is also good to note that the product does produce
environmentally friendly materials (Karpenko, et al., 2008)
Introduction
The problem in this context is to evaluate the impact of the product on the environment. The
major focus will be on whether product and the energy sources it uses are environmentally
friendly, whether they are biodegradable or not, whether the energy source is renewable, the
effects of the source to ozone layer and global warming in process in general as well as the
green housing effects. This simply means that we assess the environment sustainability of the
energy source, the environmental, economic and social effects of the energy source and the
product use in general.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Relevant information about a light bulb include; a light bulb is made of glass halogen which
makes up about 2.3% of the total materials used for making it. There is also a quartz halogen
which makes about 3.5% of the total material used for manufacturing a complete bulb. The
overall luminous of a light bulb made of glass halogen is 16MW. The cost of a light bulb is
$14.99 in New South Wales. The location of New South Wales is 146° 22' 26" E
Energy sources for a light bulb which is either solar energy or electricity. Our main aim is to
evaluate these sources and the amount of energy that a light bulb consumes. Some of the
notable sources of electricity are geothermal, water, and other biological sources of
electricity. The cost benefit analysis has been done on the GaBi software.
The selection guide applied in this scenario is SA. The organizations in Australia that
promotes energy is the Voluntary Approach for Environmental Conservation (EPA).
A simple payback cost benefit analysis is shown below; from the result below, it is clear that
the payback period is 2 years. It is not beneficial to have this product.

Simple Pay back
Year cost income NPV
0 12 14 2
1 12.6 14 1.4
2 13.8915 14 0.1085
3 16.08115 14 -2.08115
Conclusion
A simple payback cost benefit analysis is shown below; from the result below, it is clear that
the payback period is 2 years. It is not beneficial to have this product (Madgin, 2010). In
terms of efficiency, it is good because it is more reliable. Similarly, the cost is manageable
enough for a number of below. It is also good to note that the product does produce
environmentally friendly materials (Karpenko, et al., 2008).
References
Ara, H. M., 2011. Renewable energy project in Armenia:main results and outputs. Journal of the 21st
Century, Volume 10, p. 29.
Ban, et al., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of renewable
energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p. 10.
Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming || Holocene
Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.
Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy
Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Journal of Appied Energy,
Volume 143, p. 19.
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable transport fuels
that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Journal of Energy,
73(016), p. 16.
Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable
Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization -
Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.
Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's atmosphere.
Volume 153, p. 15.

Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for environment
conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. 180(107), p. 9.
Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier. Journal
of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.
Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production chain of oil-
rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09, p. 9.
Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated Environment.
20(10), p. 1.
H, L. & B, V. M., 2009. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy systems—The case of
Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Volume 34, p. 8.
Huijbregts, Mark, A. J. & Hauschild, M. Z., 2015. The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment] Life
Cycle Impact Assessment || Introducing Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Volume 94, p. 16.
Karpenko, V. I., Pysarev, S. I. & Golodok, L. R., 2008. Energy- Saving Systems with the use of Compact
Bioenergy Devices. Volume 1, p. 5.
Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration
in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives, 25(10), p. 20.
Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable energy
integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.
Robu, S., Bikova, E. & Siakkis, P., 2010. MARKAL Application for Analysis of Energy Efficiency in
Economic Activities of the Republic of Moldova and Feasible use of Renewable Energy Sources.
23(4), p. 14.
Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare system
optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.
Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the carbon
footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.
Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe" (Denmark)
Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.
Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high
concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.
Vahe, O. & Susanna, K., 2008. Renewable energy in the Republic of Armenia. Journal of the 21st
Century, Volume 10, p. 13.
Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions and life cycle
impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle assessment. 36(109), p. 7.

Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable energies in
China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.