 |
| |
Home
:: Polyvinyl Chloride :: Life Cycle Analysis |
The story of less polluting materials.
Any product can be replaced by alternatives. But if they are
less polluting, that is another question. In the following page,
some complete Life Cycle Analyses, which were made by governments
or companies not involved in the chlorine/PVC discussion, are
shown. They all give as result that PVC is one of the least
polluting materials, comparable with other plastics and far
better than a lot of traditional materials.
A Norwegian LCA of PVC in packaging
In Norway the Ministry of Environmental Protection asked
for a phase out of PVC in all packaging and to look at the
drawbacks of PVC and alternatives in long-life applications.
This question was going to the SEM, the Coordinating Council
for Packaging and the Environment. The council was composed
of:
material producers (paper, glass, aluminium and plastics).
producers of packaging products.
manufacturers of finished products (food industry and pharmaceuticals).
wholesale and retail trade.
environmental interests (Naturvernforbundet - NNV).
labour union.
national authorities by the Ministry of Environment. 
The results of the investigation of the SEM are condensed
in the following table:
Comparison of emissions of PVC in juice bottles, vinegar
bottles and margarine tubs with resp. PET, glass and laminate.
| Comparison of juice and vinegar bottles
and margarine tubs |
|
Type of pollution
|
|
PVC |
PET |
glass |
lamin. |
| greenhouse effect |
ratio: |
1.0 |
2.8 |
1.8 |
2.5 |
| classif.: |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
| ozone destruction |
ratio: |
1.0 |
0.3 |
1.5 |
3.7 |
| classif.: |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| fotochemical smog |
ratio: |
1.0 |
1.7 |
1.5 |
3.7 |
| classif.: |
1 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
| acid rain |
ratio: |
1.0 |
0.8 |
3.2 |
1.0 |
| classif.: |
2 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
| nutrification agents |
ratio: |
1.0 |
2.0 |
5.3 |
2.0 |
| classif.: |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
| organic toxic emiss. |
ratio: |
1.0 |
1.2 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
| classif.: |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
| inorg. toxic emiss. |
ratio: |
1.0 |
0.0 |
80.0 |
0.0 |
| classif.: |
3 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
| amount of waste |
ratio: |
1.0 |
0.8 |
3.4 |
1.4 |
| classif.: |
2 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
| energy use |
ratio: |
1.0 |
1.2 |
4.0 |
1.5 |
| classif.: |
1 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
| non-renewable raw materials |
ratio: |
1.0 |
3.1 |
1.7 |
3.1 |
| classif.: |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
| average result: |
ratio: |
1.0 |
1.4 |
10.3 |
2.0 |
| classif.: |
1.7 |
2.1 |
3.1 |
2.7 |
classification: 1 = best ... 4 = worst
All emissions are in weighted ratio to PVC, which is set
to 1. |
Source: Disposable packaging containing PVC and PVDC in Norway
SEM, January 15, 1993.
Because of these results, SEM said in their report:
SEM's analyses thus does not provide any grounds for imposing
the phasing out of PVC in disposable packing. Parts of the
analysis clearly indicate that PVC on the whole is a better
alternative environmentally than its possible replacements.
The environmental group (NNV) agreed with the main conclusion
of the report, but pointed out that ecotoxicologic effects
were not taken in account. The NNV made a report on PVC and
environmental hazards, mainly on the possible emissions of
dioxins from PVC. This is of course one-sided, because the
real emissions of dioxins from the alternatives are not at
all mentioned and even not measured. See dioxin releases of
materials during their life cycle.
We have not mentioned the financial aspect of the change
to alternatives until now, but interestingly, the SEM did
calculate, to a certain extend, what the financial consequences
would be for a change-over from PVC toward alternatives. They
calculated:
Profits:
No need for neutralisation of hydrochloric acid when incinerating
at municipal incinerators: NOK 0.65 million/year.
Expences:
Investments in new packaging machines in only three factories:
NOK 25 million.
Extra costs for the customers, because of more expensive materials,
only for three factories: NOK 11 million/year!
Why should you pay more for alternatives, which are NOT more
environmentally friendly?
A Flemish LCA of PVC and alternatives in packaging
In Belgium, a heavy ecotax was voted on PVC bottles, to price
them out of the market. In the mean time, an investigation In
Flanders, the North of Belgium was started by the local government,
as a result of a years long discussion between environmentalists
and producers about the environmental impact of PVC. Environmental
groups (BBL - Bond Beter Leefmilieu - Allience for a better
environment), industry and government settled the rules and
the products to investigate. The investigation on PVC and alternatives
bottles for mineral water was done by VITO, the governmental
research institute.
Comparison of emissions of PVC and PET one-way bottles with
glass return bottles for mineral water.
| PVC and PET one-way bottles with glass
return bottles for mineral water. |
| Type of pollution |
Glass1 |
Glass4 |
PET1 |
PET4 |
PVC1 |
PVC4 |
| Use of fossile energy (MJ) |
1750 |
2500 |
2500 |
2750 |
2000 |
2250 |
| Use of inorganic raw materials (kg) |
27 |
45 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
11 |
| Use of processwater (kg) |
2150 |
1800 |
400 |
400 |
500 |
500 |
| Global warming effect (kg CO2-eq.) |
170 |
260 |
180 |
210 |
120 |
140 |
| Photochemical oxydants (g C2H4-eq.) |
260 |
390 |
330 |
370 |
210 |
240 |
| Acidification (g SO2-eq.) |
1000 |
1650 |
780 |
950 |
1100 |
1300 |
| Chemical oxygen demand (COD g) |
240 |
200 |
70 |
70 |
50 |
50 |
| Non-radioactive solid waste (kg) |
18 |
25 |
14 |
15 |
14 |
15 |
| Radioactive solid waste (g) |
3.7 |
7.7 |
3.6 |
4.8 |
3.5 |
4.7 |
| Air pollution (1000 m3 units for air) |
300 |
500 |
220 |
250 |
230 |
260 |
| Water pollution (m3 units for water) |
250 |
250 |
25 |
25 |
50 |
50 |
| Dioxin1 (ng TEQ) |
0.2 |
0.2 |
3 |
3 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
| Dioxin2 (ng TEQ) |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
Glass4: 759 g, 15 returns, from France (average
700 km return)
Glass1: 759 g, 30 returns, within Belgium (average 300
km return)
PET1: 38.9 g, within Belgium (150 km one-way, 30 km to
disposal)
PET4: 38.9 g, from France (350 km one-way, 30 km to disposal)
PVC1: 43.6 g, within Belgium
PVC4: 43.6 g, from France
Dioxin1: municipal waste incineration as it was in 1993
Dioxin2: nowadays, after renewal of the incinerators |
Source: VITO studie verpakkingen van 1000 l niet-bruisend mineral
water
(VITO investigation of packaging of 1000 l non sparkling mineral
water)
February 1994
A lot of other scenario's, like more recycling were investigated
too, these are even more in favour of the plastic one-way bottles.
Based on this investigation, the proposed ecotax on PVC bottles
in Belgium was lifted.
A Dutch investigation of gasdistribution systems
In the Netherlands, the most recent study is from Gastec, a
consulting firm for the gas industry. They are in no way involved
in the chlorine/PVC discussion. They ordered the study to know
the environmental impact of different materials in use for gas
distribution systems (PE, cast iron, PVC) and one future material
(PE-X). They were very surpised themselves of the results.
The results for different materials, used in gas distribution
systems
| Comparison of different materials, used
in gas distribution systems |
| Environmental item: |
cast
iron |
PE-80 |
PVC |
Photochemical oxydant creation (POCP)
|
216 |
216 |
215 |
| Aquatic Ecotoxicity (ECA) |
26 |
6.4 |
3.9 |
| Global warming potential (GWP) |
31 |
22 |
21 |
| Adicification potential (AP) |
13 |
2.5 |
1.1 |
| Abiotic depletion potential (ADP) |
9.7 |
1 |
0.45 |
| Human toxicity (HT) |
14 |
1.9 |
0.76 |
| Nutrification potential (NP) |
2.5 |
0.61 |
0.33 |
| Odour treshold limit (OTL) |
11 |
0.39 |
0.48 |
| Ozone depletion potential (ODP) |
0.25 |
0.17 |
0.07 |
| Energy content (EC in GJ) |
748 |
303 |
139 |
| All figures in world-normalised scores (year.10^-10). |
As a result of this investigation, the government of The Netherlands
recommends now PVC for all sustainable building purposes (after
years of negative publicity!)...
THE ALTERNATIVES
All alternatives for PVC, do give pollution during production,
transport, recycling and/or incineration. In many cases, they
use more energy and more scarce raw materials than PVC and in
many cases they give more important air and water emissions
than the production, transport, use, recycling, incineration
and accidental fires of PVC.
CONCLUSION
There is no reason to treat the environmental impact from PVC
in its whole lifecycle different than for the alternatives.
And there are no reasons at all to ask for a ban on PVC, only
some minor for a change-over to alternatives. But there are
at least as much reasons for a change-over from the alternatives
to PVC.
|
