Joseph Crapo

Assessing the Environmental Impact of Glass Production and the Value of

Optimization and Recycling
Glass impacts the environment directly through the pollutant byproducts that result from
manufacturing processes and the waste product left at the end of the life cycle, and indirectly
from the energy costs which bring about pollutants from energy production. Altogether, these
impacts account for a negligible environmental impact, but optimization is a path that should still
be explored.
The main source of pollution at a glass manufacturing plant is operation of the furnaces.
This produces sulfur and nitrogen oxides, both strictly regulated pollutants. Estimates for
industry production of nitrogen oxides were at around 3.95*10^4 metric tons in 1998, with sulfur
oxides at around 3.95*10^4 metric tons [5]. Both of these byproducts are severe environmental
dangers, and as such are strictly regulated by the US government under the Clean Air and Water
Act. Under pressure of these regulations, glass manufacturers have moved money into research
and development with an aim to reduce emissions. This has produced largely positive results,
with techniques such as oscillating combustion, wherein fuel flow rate to furnaces is oscillated to
create heat flow within the furnace, have shown reduction of up to 50% of nitrogen oxide
emissions [1]. These types of technologies (retrofit) will be essential moving forward as the age
of glass plants increases and the techniques originally used become obsolete and outdated.
However, the largest portion of the environmental impact comes not from emissions or
waste products, but from energy costs. Glass production in the US accounts for 20% of
worldwide glass production. This sector of the market is sized at around $16 billion annually [5].
However, about 10% of the money changing hands in this market ($1.6 billion) went to the
purchase of energy for manufacturing purposes [5]. The energy consumed in the melting
processes necessary provide for the greatest opportunity for optimization. Regenerative systems
that take advantage of the excess heat can improve the efficiency of the furnaces up to 65% [1].
In 1999, the US glass industry energy use was placed at 395.3 trillion Btu [5], and it rises with
the expansion of glass use in consumer technology products such as tablets, laptops, smartphones
and televisions. Unfortunately, most of this energy (about 80%) goes to process heating, which is
fantastically inefficient. Only 40 percent of the energy goes directly towards the
thermodynamically necessary heating [5]. Close to 30 percent is lost to furnace structure [5].
Fortunately, natural gas is the primary energy provider to the glass industry, but contributions
from oil based energy, which contribute far more in the way of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants, are still substantial. In short, the energy requirements of the glass industry are
massive, and conceptually, they are unavoidable. The production of glass requires melting
substituents, which in turn requires huge amounts of heat. However, with a peak stoichiometric
efficiency of around 40% of the current consumed heat, complacency is inexcusable. Dropping
the energy use in half through optimization of the furnace structure and use of regenerative
heating is an achievable goal, and would remove close to $1 billion annually from the energy
market, which would go a very long way to reducing the pollutants produced from energy
production. After all, you cant emit byproducts if there is no demand for your product.

Expanding on these optimization options, many are small, often overlooked methods,
procedures, or enhancements that can add up to significant savings. Compressed air, a large
component of the production of specialized glass, often are held in older tanks with leak rates of
up to 30% [1]. Little things like appropriate sizing, insulation, and maintenance of boilers can
lead to 15-20% efficiency improvements [1]. Overall, while glass production is a complex
system with a lot of overhead in the form of excess energy, putting legitimate efforts into the
increase of the energy efficiency of these plants.
Waste is the final topic in need of addressing. Glass cannot be readily disposed of by the
environment like compost products, the waste will simply build on itself. This leaves an
impossible problem to solve without recycling. However, the percent of glass recovered has been
increasing dramatically since the 1960s, indicating that it is a problem that has fortunately not
gone unaddressed. And ultimately, the silver lining to the recycling conversation is the makeup
of post-consumer waste glass. This comes in large part from disposed bottles, but sees
contributions also from consumer technology products. This material is in large part almost
entirely recoverable, providing that some small amount of new batch material is provided to
account for the components lost in the original process. This is encouraging, as it leads to an
eventual solution for any and all glass waste problems: recycle it. The use of cullet (main waste
product) could reach as high as 40 percent in almost all processes soon. Indeed, over a six-year
period ending in 2001, it was shown that the fiber glass market (in the US) recycled about 7.2
billion pounds of waste glass [5]. So, we are left with a growing and eventually fully recoverable
product in waste glass to relieve any pressures (not yet felt) on the natural resources necessary
for glass manufacture. In addition, it appears that recycled glass requires less energy for melting,
the biggest sink of money and hazard to the environment. In fact, the use of recycled materials
drops gas use by about 1.2*10^5 Btu per ton of glass [3]. And while these savings are largely
mitigated by the transportation and collection costs associated with recycling, it is encouraging to
know that scientifically there is further reason to recycle.
However, with this in mind, another topic must be discussed: the economic and
environmental viability of recycling. Recycling must be at the least financially achievable to be
considered an option for reducing the environmental impact of glass production. After all, what
good is it to put the glass manufacturers out of business enforcing regulations of their business?
Well, we touched on the energy savings, which results overall in a 13% reduction to energy costs
when compared to raw materials [3]. However, the transportation costs of recycling are a
variable that limit this number, and recycling further than 100 miles away negates the energy
reduction [3]. Keeping recycling sites close to home then, is best. However, energy costs in other
aspects of the processing further reduce these savings such that the use of recycled glass is at
best, a very small positive in terms of energy use. This, while not exciting, falls well within what
can be called a viable alternative to raw materials, and with this in mind, recycling efforts should
continue strongly and hopefully expand as our landfills do also.
In conclusion, we are left with a fairly messy, extraordinarily expensive, but not
altogether damning situation. Yes, there are some hazardous emissions in the form of sulfur and
nitrogen oxides. Yes, the energy costs associated with glass production are exceptionally high,

and can be pegged largely to inefficient, outdated furnaces, boilers, and a general disinterest in
overly strict maintenance procedures. And, yes, we have a sizable amount of glass waste piling
up in landfills every year. But in spite of all of this, we are left with rapidly expanding recycling
programs which can recover more and more waste glass every year, emerging technologies
which are slowly but surely cutting down on the amount of harmful emissions, and as older
techniques in the melting phase get replaced by more efficient methods, energy costs may yet
level out despite an expanding market. Particularly in the case of energy, there is little need for
worry, as much of the negative impacts felt from investing in dirty energies will be marginalized
with the rise of clean, sustainable energies such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal.
For these reasons, it can be stated that despite the room for improvement, glass production has a
largely negligible environmental impact when viewed in the lens of a global market.

REFERENCES:
Galitsky, C., E. Worrell, and E. Masanet (2005). Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost
Saving
Opportunities for the Glass Industry: An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy and
Plant Managers. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. LBNL-57335.
[1]
Larsen, Anna W., Hanna Merrild, and Thomas H. Christensen. "Recycling of Glass: Accounting
of Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Contributions." Waste Management &
Research 27.8 (2009): 754-62. DOI: 10.1177/0734242X09342148
[2]

Gaines, L. L., and M. M. Mintz. Energy Implications of Glass-Container Recycling. Rep.

Washington, DC: USDOE, 1994. DOI: 10.2172/10161731
[3]
Scalet, Bianca Maria, Marcos Munoz Garcia, Aivi Querol Sissa, Serge Roudier, and Luis Sancho
Delgado. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Manufacture of
Glass. Rep. no. 2010/75/EU. N.p.: European Commission, 2013.
[4]
Pellegrino, Joan L., and Energetics, Inc. Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Glass
Industry. Rep. N.p.: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Industrial Technologies, 2002.
[5]