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.