PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE

Packag. Technol. Sci. 12, 235±239 (1999)

Estimation of the Energy Needs in Life Cycle

Analysis of One-way and Returnable Glass
Packaging
By K. Van Doorsselaer and F. Lox*

The current position on the environmental advantages offered by returnable

versus one-way glass packages is discussed. The energy needs of both options are
considered as important parameters. A critical concept in the published LCA
studies is the breakage rate, which serves to estimate the number (n) of returns
that a functional unit of bottles can perform. Normally the energy of production of
the glass (E) is divided by n. The authors consider this concept too theoretical and
for long-term situations demonstrate that, in all LCA calculations, an energy
value equal to 2E/n should be used. This value is useful in calculating the break-
even point. The paper summarizes the effect of different breakage rates and
distribution distances on the break-even point. It is clear that, for breakage rates
below 5%, returnable glass bottles remain competitive and advantageous, even
for quite long distribution distances. The methology proposed should be
applicable to other materials. Copyright O 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 10 August 1999; Accepted 23 September 1999
KEY WORDS: returnable packaging; glass; break-even point; LCA; breakage rate; energy

INTRODUCTION brium. All tend to the conclusion that returnables

The implementation of the European Packaging
and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62 EC)1,
actualized the discussion about the environmental
advantages of one-way versus returnable pack-
aging. While many LCA methodologies and case-
studies have been proposed for evaluating the
environmental impact of packaging systems in the
beverages sector 2,3,5,6,10 for glass packaging these
aspects are still not suf®ciently clear for political
action.
Most publications compare glass with other
packaging materials for the delivery of liquid
products (milk, wine, beer, water, carbonated and
non-carbonated drinks); the studies concerning
glass start on the basis of the breakage rate, a, the
possible mean return rate of packages, and
consider the delivery system at a state of equili-
show less environmental load than one-way
packages, when the delivery radius of ca. 100±
150 km is respected.9,10 Basic information on the
environmental impacts of one-way packaging and
returnables is available.3,4 In fact, there is no
publication available which will help managers
to decide, initially, whether a returnable system
becomes interesting or not.
The objective of this paper is to compare the
energy needs of both one-way and multi-way
systems for the delivery of beer, base a life cycle
inventory made with the active help of a Belgian
producer. The energy needs form an important
parameter in life cycle assessment or the study of
impact on the environment.7,8,11 The break-even
point is calculated for the system and is valid for
the ®rst stages. The in¯uence a possible non-return
rate, due to seasonal changes in sales, could have

* Correspondence to: F. Lox, Belgian Packaging Institute, Picardstraat 15, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium.

Copyright  1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CCC 0894±3214/99/050235±05 $17.50

Table 1. The in¯uence of transport distance
on energy needs
Energy needs (MJ)
Transport distance Returnable One-way
for delivery (km) bottles bottles *
100 320 143
250 800 358
500 1600 715
750 2401 1073
1000 3201 1431
* This energy includes 20% to cover the return of the empty truck.
on this break-even point is evaluated by a
sensitivity analysis of the breakage rate. We
considered also the parameter delivery distance
into our model in order to calculate its impact on
the break-even point.
Our methodology for evaluating glass packa-
ging systems can be used for other packaging
materials as well. Plastic bottles used as return-
ables, for example are faced with quality losses
mainly due to migration phenomena and weath-
ering effects: their shelf-life is mostly restricted to
two years. A `quality-loss factor' can take over the
function of the breakage rate.
ENERGY AND LCA
The delivery system of beer in one-way bottles and
returnables has been assessed, starting with the
production of the glass and taking into account the
recycling rate of 15%. The following aspects come
into the frame: transport of bottles from the
production unit to the ®lling company; production
of the secondary and tertiary packaging and
transport to the distributor. The energy needs to
support the re-use of so-called returned post-
consumer bottles, include washing, transport and
replacement by new bottles plus transport and
recycling of the bottles that are removed from the
system.
The functional unit is: packaging and delivery of
1000 l of beer in bottles of 25 cl. Energy-needs are
expressed in joules (J) and refer to primary energy
Copyright O 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
K. VAN DOORSSELAER AND F. LOX
resources the ef®ciency factor for electricity being
33%.
The energy consumption assumed in our case-
study for a delivery of 1000 l beer in bottles of 25 cl
over a distance of 155 km using 30 and 10 ton
trucks is as follows:
E1: Return-independent energy: 1269 MJ.
E2: Return-dependent energy: 12668 MJ.
E0: Energy invested for one-way bottles: 9321
MJ.
One-way bottles are produced from a smaller
amount of glass (142 g, compared to 242 g for the
returnable bottle): the lower energy consumption
for its distribution is considered as well. The
in¯uence of transport distance for the delivery of
the functional unit (®lling to distribution sector
and back) is summarized in Table 1.
The energy of transport is calculated by the
energy consumption of a 30 ton truck (0.44 MJ/
km.ton) multiplied by the load and multiplied by
the transport distance. The energy is related to the
functional unit.
The environmental impact of a returnable
system per functional unit is normally calculated
at equilibrium. The energy considerations (E per
trip) follow the breakage-rate a, assuming that a
population of bottles can perform 1/a = n returns
as a maximum.9,10,11 Thus:
E ˆ E1 ‡ E2 =n …1†
Following the theory of Bojkow4, populations with
a low loss rate a reach this stage of equilibrium
when the mean return rate of the bottles reaches
this number after many circulations (in theory
after an in®nite number of years). In practice, the
mean return rate of bottles is (n ‡ 1)/2 years and
thus it is more realistic to consider environmental
impact per trip of the functional unit, following the
relationship:
E ˆ E1 ‡ 2E2 =…n ‡ 1† …2†
Because we think that the break-even point is the
realistic economic and environmental vector to
decide for a returnable system, we consider the
following relationship, expressing the break-even
point as a function of the breakage rate:
…x ‡ 1†E0 ˆ …x ‡ 1†E1 ‡ E2 ‡ aE2 x …3†
assuming that the energy E per trip is:
236 Packag. Technol. Sci. 12, 235±239 (1999)
ENERGY NEEDS OF GLASS PACKAGING

to the system per use in order to replace the non-

Figure 1. Comparison of energy needs invested per use of the
functional unit for a given breakage rate.
E ˆ E1 ‡ E2 =…x ‡ 1† ‡ aE2 x=…x ‡ 1† …
where x is the number of re-uses and (x ‡ 1) is
number of uses to which the bottles are submitted
and the term a E2 is the amount of energy invested
returned bottles.
When (x ‡ 1) equals n = 1/a (the maximum
number of uses a series of bottles can perform
before breakage) the relationship [equation (4)] for
the energy per trip tends to equation (2):
E ˆ E1 ‡ E2 =n ‡ E2 …n ÿ 1†=n2
or, assuming n-1 n,
E ˆ E1 ‡ 2E2 =n
When, on the other hand, x becomes high (cf.
theory of Bojkow), assuming that a is very small,
relationship (4) can be transformed to:
E ˆ E1 ‡ E2 =x ‡ aE2
which agree with equation (1), when E2/x a E2. In
realistic situations it becomes equal to equation (2),
since x is related to a.
Taking these assumptions into account, equa-
tion (4) accords to the existing ones. Again,
equations (1) and (2) are used to calculate the
environmental impact of a return system per
functional unit and per use.
From equation (3) the minimum return rate
4† needed to make an operation advantageous is
calculated:
x ˆ …E1 ÿ E0 ‡ E2 †=…E0 ÿ E1 ÿ aE2 † …5†
In order to make the system realistic, the following

Table 2. The number of uses (x ‡ 1) at break-even point as a function of the breakage rate a for the
given case.
Number of uses at
Breakage-rate a (%) break- even point n = 1/a** (n ‡ 1)/2 a E2 (MJ) E0 ÿ (E1 ‡ a E2) (in MJ)*

ÿ5 1.53 <0 <0 ÿ633 8685

0 1.57 ? ? 0 8052
5 1.62 20 10.5 633 7419
10 1.68 10 5.5 1267 6785
15 1.75 6.7 3.8 1900 6152
20 1.84 5 3 2534 5518
30 2.09 3.3 2.2 3800 4252
35 2.28 2.86 1.93 4434 3618
40 2.55 2.5 1.8 5067 2985
50 3.69 2 1.5 6334 1718
60 11.23 1.7 1.35 7601 451
63.6 ? 1.6 1.3 8868 ÿ4.9
* Demonstrates the change of the denominator in equation (5).
** n: the maximum possible number of uses the bottles can perform per functional unit.

Copyright O 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 237 Packag. Technol. Sci. 12, 235±239 (1999)
 K. VAN DOORSSELAER AND F. LOX

(a = 3%), is shown in Figure 1. The minimum

Figure 2. The number of uses at break-even point as a
function of delivery distance and breakage rate. A, realistic
working area when breakage rate and number of required
returns at break-even point are taken into account. B,
unrealistic working area because the required number of
uses is not reached. C, unrealistic situations.
conditions must be ful®lled:
E1 ‡ E2 > E0 and E0 > E1 ‡ aE2
RESULTS
The comparison of energy needs invested per use
of the functional unit, for a given breakage rate
number of returns (break-even point) is deduced
graphically by the interception point of two lines,
E0 (considered constant for the one-way bottles)
and the energy line for the returnable system.
The dependency of the break-even point upon
the breakage rate a is calculated using equation (5)
and summarized in Table 2. Among the situations
studied, we took into account the possibility that
bottles remaining in the market become returned
at a certain moment: this means that a receives a
negative value. This is for instance, possible during
periods when the request for beverages becomes
reduced and many of the empty bottles are
returned.
It is clear that the calculated number of uses at
break-even point should be lower than the mean
number of uses the bottles in the functional unit
can perform. As shown in Table 2, a breakage-rate
of 35% results into an unrealistic number of uses
necessary to become competitive (or advanta-
geous) with a one-way system.
Figure 2 shows the dependency of the break-
even point as a function of the delivery distance
and breakage-rate. Although the energy of trans-
port accounts for 57% (155 km distance) or 75%
(500 km distance) in the return-independent
amount of energy (E1), there is a relatively small
change in the number of uses at break-even point.
Of course, both E0 and E1 rise when the distance of
delivery is extended, so that the relative in¯uence
on the break-even point seems to be negligible.
For a given number of uses of a returnable bottle
a lower breakage rate is required when the
delivery distance becomes extended. The realistic
working area for returnables as a function of

Table 3. Realistic working area for returnables as a function of distribution distance

Breakage rate a Minimum number of uses needed as a function of distance between ®ller and distribution sector
(%) 100 km 155 km 250 km 500 km 750 km 1000 km

0.05 1.62 1.6 1.68 1.77 1.92 2.07

0.1 1.68 1.6 1.75 1.88 2.03 2.2
0.2 1.84 1.9 1.93 2.1 2.33 2.59
0.3 2.09 2.1 2.23 2.5 2.87 3.36
0.4 2.55 2.6 2.8 3.35 4.18 5.53
0.5 3.7 3.9 4.38 6.34 11.4 58.9
0.6 11.4 15.4 7.02 15.6 ± ±
= unrealistic working area for returnables.

Copyright O 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 238 Packag. Technol. Sci. 12, 235±239 (1999)
ENERGY NEEDS OF GLASS PACKAGING
distance is thus restricted, as shown in Figure 2
and summarized in Table 3.
The environmental impact due to the extension
of delivery distance results in other effects: the
impact remains directly dependent on the dis-
tance. It is only the change of the system (e.g.
transport by container followed by a delivery in
returnables) that can become more advantageous
and justi®able for both economic and environ-
mental aspects, which are beyond the scope of this
study.
CONCLUSION
This study indicates a way of thinking in order to
make a choice between the delivery of beverages in
one-way bottles or returnables more justi®ed. The
energy needs invested in both systems is taken as
the parameter to make comparison possible. The
in¯uence of breakage rate on the least number of
uses the returnable bottles have to ful®l can be
calculated. It has been shown that the impact of
distance on the break-even point is negligible
when breakage rates remain below 5%. The
methodology proposed may be of interest when
other packaging materials are considered, and/or
to determine an acceptable break-even point when
considering other environmental parameters (e.g.
CO2 emissions with regard to the greenhouse
effect).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Mr Pas of the Brewery Palm for active
cooperation in the collection of data.
Copyright O 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
REFERENCES
1. European Packaging and Packaging Waste Direc-
tive, 94/62 EC, Of®cial Journal, pp. 10±23 (December
1994).
2. Anon., Equivalence entre emballages boissons re-
remplissables et valorisables en Belgique, Ecobilan
S.A., EÂtude pour la SocieÂte Fost Plus, France (May
1995).
3. E. Bojkow, GetraÈnkeverpackung und Umwelt: Daten
und Fakten zur Verpackungsdiscussion, Springer-
Verlag, Vienna (1989).
4. E. Bojkow, Basic considerations on the calculation of
trippage number for returnable containers, Packa-
ging Technology and Science, 4, 315±331(1991).
5. D. Ceuterick and D. Huybrechts, Vergelijkende
levenscyclusanalyse van verpakkingsaltematieven
voor wijn, VITO, studie uitgevoerd in opdracht
van Etn. Colruyt N.V. (March 1994).
6. M. Franke, Umweltauswirkungen durch GetraÈnke-
verpackungen Ð Systematik zur Ermittelung der
Umweltauswirkingen von Komplexen Prozessen
am Beispiel von Einweg- und Mehrweg-GetraÈnke-
behaltem, Berlin, EF, Verlag fuÈr Energie- und
Umwelttechnik GMBH, (1984).
7. K. Habersatter and E. Widmer, Ecobalance of
packaging materials state of 1990, Swiss Federal
Of®ce of Environment, Forests and Landscape,
Berne (1991).
8. K. Habersatter and I. Fecker, Life Cycle Inventories
for Packagings, Swiss Agency for the Environment,
Forests and Landscape, Berne (1998).
9. F. Lox, Packaging and Ecology, Pira International,
UK (1992).
10. F. Lox, Waste ManagementÐ Life Cycle Analysis of
Packaging, Vrije Universiteit BrusselÐ Viaamse
Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek±Belgisch
Verpakkingsinstituut (May 1994).
11. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC), Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment. a
Code of practice, 1st edn. From the SETAC Work-
shop held at Sesimbra, Portugal, 31 March±3 April
1993, Brussels, Belgium, and Pensacola, FL, USA,
August 1993.
239 Packag. Technol. Sci. 12, 235±239 (1999)