ENSO Plastics Product Carbon Footprint Analysis

2013 Carbon Footprint Analysis - ENSO Plastics

2013 ENSO Plastics, LLC Page 1 of 20

ENSO Plastics, LLC

A look into the carbon impact of both ENSO

RESTORE and ENSO RENEW products.

Abstract: The carbon impact of a

material is a critical factor in assessing

the overall environmental impact of a

product. This report reviews two product

families offered by ENSO Plastics and

includes typical disposal scenarios for

these products. The areas of focus are

sourcing and disposal conditions

primarily within the continental US.

Whereas many reports focus on idealistic

conditions and utopic scenarios, this

report is intended to reflect actual usage

and disposal of these products

INTRODUCTION

Environmental focus is an integrated and

critical part of ENSOs business strategy,

both internally and as it relates to products

supplied to our customers. The aim of this

report is to provide an overview of the

potential reduction a company may

capitalize on when utilizing the various

product lines offered by ENSO Plastics and

provide companies a path toward reducing

the carbon footprint of their products.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1

GOAL: 2

METHOD / DATA 2

SCOPE 1: MATERIAL SOURCING

AND RESIN .............................................. 3

RENEW RTP ....................................... 3

RESTORE ............................................ 7

CUSTOM BLENDS .............................. 7

SCOPE 2: PRODUCT USAGE ................... 7

SCOPE 3: DISPOSAL

CONSIDERATIONS ................................. 8

RECYCLING: ....................................... 9

INCINERATION: ............................... 10

COMPOSTING: ................................. 10

LANDFILLING: ................................. 10

CONCLUSIONS 16

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 19

The information contained within this report attempts to

maintain the highest accuracy of content. Information contained

within this report is considered to be informational and does not

constitute a warranty or marketing claim in any way.

Carbon Footprint Analysis



GOAL:

The goal of this report is to provide

information regarding the carbon impact of

ENSO Products, namely ENSO RENEW and

ENSO RESTORE. With this information

companies can evaluate the carbon

footprint of their products and determine

new ways to incorporate materials that will

reduce their carbon footprint. The results of

this report can be used for the following

purposes:

- to focus improvement activities on the

most important impact-generating

materials;

- for communication with various

stakeholders and to exchange the

knowledge gained;

- to anticipate future legislation

regarding environment and certification

(product development);

- to determine the carbon footprint of

their products utilizing ENSO materials.

METHOD / DATA

In addition to metrics like ecological

footprint, all materials have a carbon

footprint, a way to measure the relative

impact of materials in terms of the

contribution made to global climate change.

Measured in carbon emissions (usually in

pounds, tons or kilograms), it's become an

increasingly useful and popular tool to help

contextualize global warming in products

and the materials they are made of.

A carbon footprint is the total amount of

carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse

gases emitted over the full life cycle of a

product or service. The carbon footprint

gives a general overview of various ENSO

products and their use when blended with

other polymers, taking into account the

carbon impact of the material production as

well as disposal considerations.

The methodology used to determine the

environmental impacts of ENSO does not

represent a complete picture of the

environmental impacts of a system. They

represent a picture of those aspects that

can be quantified. Any judgments that are

based on the interpretation of the data

must bear in mind this limitation and, if

necessary, obtain additional environmental

information from other sources (hygienic

aspects, risk assessment, etc.).

In discussing the results of the individual

profiles of products it is important to know

whether or not a process (or a life cycle

phase) has a significant contribution to the

overall carbon footprint. The importance of

contributions can be classified in terms of

percentage. The ranking criteria are:

A: contribution > 50 %: most important,

significant influence;

B: 25 % < contribution 50 %: very

important, relevant influence;



C: 10 % < contribution 25 %: fairly

important, some influence;

D: 2,5 % < contribution 10 %: little

important, minor influence;

E: contribution < 2,5 %: not important,

negligible influence.

In discussing the data the methodology

used is that a 20% influence is considered

significant.

This report does not cover all aspects of a

life cycle analysis as it is specifically focused

on carbon emissions from resin creation,

product life cycle and through to disposal in

those scenarios where the influence is 20%

or greater. All information provided within

this report is deemed accurate as of the

date of publication.

Data used in this report is a compilation of

data collected from sources such as the US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

Ramani Narayan of Michigan State

University, Utrecht University, US Energy

Information Administration (eia), European

Starch Industry, Japan MITI (2001), ENSO

Plastics and other trusted resources.

Much of the data is well known and

publicized in multiple peer reviewed

articles and technical documents, however

this report compiles the data in a simple to

understand and organized fashion for

evaluating the carbon impact of various

materials. (Reference Documents listed at the conclusion of this report).

Additional information may be found by

contacting ENSO Plastics directly, or by

visiting www.ensoplastics.com.

SCOPE 1: MATERIAL SOURCING AND

RESIN

RENEW RTP

ENSO RENEW RTP is a renewable

thermoplastic resin sourced primarily from

the starchy byproduct of commercial potato

processing. Potatoes were chosen as the

starch source for several reasons, some of

which also contribute to lowering the

carbon footprint and environmental impact

of RENEW RTP.

One of the reason potatoes are ideal is that

starchy potatoes have the highest starch

yields per hectare, grow in sandy soils and

have a low water and carbon footprint. (6-European Starch Industry Association 2012).

Potatoes avoid the controversy of utilizing

genetically modified products or competing

with food products. Potatoes contain an

abundant source of starch and it is a typical

byproduct of processing potatoes for

human food consumption.

By using locally grown potatoes as a source

ENSO is able to keep carbon emissions

during raw material transportation low.

ENSO RENEW RTP is produced very near

the farmed region, in most cases within the

same US State.



Unlike many other standard polymers and

bio-polymers, the impact of creating ENSO

RENEW RTP from the base products

(native starch and vegetable glycerin) is

limited to energy used to melt and pelletize

the resin, no chemicals or other harmful

byproducts are produced during this phase.

An additional environmental benefit is that

the starch industry produces close to zero

waste as most byproducts are used in other

processes and for other products.

To understand the overall value of utilizing

annually renewable biomass, like potatoes,

as opposed to petrochemicals (oil or

natural gas) as the feedstock for the

production of polymers needs to be

understood from a global carbon cycle

basis.

The below figure illustrates the rationale

for the use of annually renewable resources

(biomass feedstock) for managing our

carbon resources and CO2 emissions more

effectively.

Figure 1. (8. Environmental Footprint/Profile of Bio-

based Biodegradable Products - Ramani Narayan)

Carbon is present in the atmosphere as

CO2. Plants capture this carbon through

photosynthesis using sunlight as the energy

source. Over millions of years these plants

are fossilized to provide our petroleum and

natural gas (fossil fuels).

Traditionally we have consumed these

fossil resources to make our polymers,

chemicals & fuel which releases carbon

back into the atmosphere as CO2 in a short

time frame of 1-10 years. The CO2 problem

is merely a kinetic rate issue. The rate at

which carbon is sequestered is in total

imbalance with the rate at which it is being

released into the atmosphere, meaning that

we put out more CO2 than we sequester.

However, if we use annually renewable

feedstock, the rate at which CO2 is

sequestered becomes equal to or greater

than (if more biomass is planted than

harvested) the rate at which it is released.

The use of renewable crop feedstock allows

for:

Sustainable development of carbon based polymer materials Control and even reduce CO2 emissions and help meet global CO2 emissions standards Kyoto protocol Provide for an improved environmental profile

In utilization of renewable feedstock it is

interesting to understand where the largest

environmental impact is found when



considering the overall carbon footprint of

ENSO RENEW RTP resin.

Figure 2. The agricultural phase makes the most

important contribution to the environmental impact.

The use of energy, usually in the form of fossil fuels, is the

most important element of the carbon footprint for the

industrial process. (19-VITO 2012)

Since the main input for RENEW RTP is

agricultural crops, the carbon sequestering

during the growing of the crops is also of

interest. A final product made of RENEW

RTP could be used for products with a long

life cycle (20 years and more), this could

provide a carbon credit related to the CO2

uptake of the potato plants. Below the

carbon uptake of 1 ton raw material is

shown separately (19-VITO 2012)

Figure 3. Carbon footprint and carbon sequestering for 1

ton DS of the raw material (19. Life Cycle Assessment

study of starch products VITO Vision on Technology

2012)

The cultivation of raw materials ends up in

an larger carbon sequestering compared to

the carbon emitted (therefore a positive

carbon footprint).

Looking at the figures, this means that any

product with a long life cycle (e.g. blended

bio-plastics) would, as long as its

manufacturing process has a CFP of less

than 1000kg CO2 eq / ton of processed raw

materials, have a positive carbon footprint

(more carbon sequestered than emitted).

In comparing ENSO RENEW RTP to fossil

fuel based virgin Low Density Polyethylene,

the use of RTP is particularly advantageous

with regard to energy resources and

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Figure 4. (Dinkel et al., 1996 LCA Analysis - restricted to

starch and LDPE pellets)

The above data is restricted to starch

polymer pellets and compares them with

pellets made of polyethylene. Additional

information will be given later to compare

various blends with different shares of

petrochemical polymers.

In the case of RTP pellets energy y

requirements are 25%-75% below those

Energy resources

(MJ)

GHG emissions

(kg CO2 eq.)

RTP 2550 +/- 15% 120 +/- 15%

LDPE 9170 +/- 5% 520 +/- 20%

ENERGY and GHG for RTP and LDPE

(Functional unit = 100kg plastic)



for polyethylene and greenhouse gas

emissions are 20%-80% lower. (These

ranges originate from the comparison of

different waste treatment and different

polyolefin materials used as reference).

RTP also scores better than PLA for GHG

and energy consumption. The cradle-to-

factory gate energy requirements for PLA

are 50+% higher than those for RTP, while

GHG emissions are about 60+% higher.

Figure 5. (10. Environmental Assessment of Bio-Based Polymers and

Natural Fibers Martin Patel)

Energy consumption during processing, an

important factor to consider, is often

dependent on the heating value of

polymers. Bio-based polymers generally

have lower heating values than most

petrochemical bulk polymers. In some

cases the difference is negligible (e.g.,

Polyhydroxybutyrate versus PET), while in

other cases it is substantial (RTP versus PE)

offering a tremendous opportunity for

energy savings.

Heating Value of Polymers

Hea

tin

g v

alu

es c

alc

ula

ted

acc

ord

ing

to

Bo

ie, C

om

pa

re

Rei

ma

nn

an

d H

am

mer

li, 1

99

5

Type of Plastic L ower Heating

Value

RTP 13.6

PLA 17.9

PET 22.1

PE 43.3

PS 39.4

PVC 17.9 Figure 6. (10. Environmental Assessment of Bio-Based

Polymers and Natural Fibers - Martin Patel)

RTP is considered to perform best in overall

environmental terms under the current

state of the art than the petrochemical

counterparts.

Figure7. Fossil fuel energy requirements for ENSO RENEW

are approximately half that of PLA and 75% lower than

traditional fossil fuel based resins. Data sourced and

compiled from Reference Documents 1, 6.

Type of

Plastic

Functional

Unit

Cradle-to-Gate

Non-Renewable

Energy Use

GHG Emmissions (kg CO2 eq./Funtional

Unit)

HDPE 1kg 79.9 4.84

LLDPE 1kg 72.3 4.54

LDPE 1kg 91.7 5.2PET 1kg 77 4.93

RTP 1kg 25.4 1.14

PLA 1kg 54 3.45

ENERGY and GHG Emissions For Various Plastics

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

ENSORENEW

HDPE PET PLA

Cradle to Factory Gate Fossil Energy

Requirements (GJ/ton)



RESTORE

ENSO RESTORE is an additive material

that accelerates the natural biodegradation

of traditional petrochemical based

polymers. Designed to address the

customary disposal of common plastics,

RESTORE allows plastic materials to not

only return to the natural carbon cycle, but

also allows the additional benefit of clean

inexpensive energy in many cases.

The primary carbon impact of RESTORE

can be seen during the disposal phase

where resulting methane is managed and

converted to energy, approximately 5%

carbon reduction.(Reference Documents2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17)

Additionally, the carbon footprint of

RESTORE itself is approximately 30%

lower than that of LDPE (Reference Documents 1, 3,

8, 10); however, RESTORE is used at very

low loading so this decrease has less impact

on the overall products carbon footprint.

The carbon footprint of products using

ENSO RESTORE is addressed in Scope 3:

Disposal Considerations.

CUSTOM BLENDS

Brand owners may utilize a hybrid of both

ENSO RENEW and ENSO RESTORE to

provide customized product applications

that take optimal advantage of carbon

reductions.

Products using these hybrid blends carry

the benefit of huge carbon reductions

during the sourcing phase and capturing

the carbon reductions during the disposal

phase WITHOUT jeopardizing the carbon

reductions a company may choose to

implement during the use phase.

For example a product using 71% ENSO

RENEW and 29% LDPE, would have a

carbon footprint approximately 55% lower

than using standard LDPE. (Reference Documents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17)

Figure 8. Various applications and blends allow for

customized results and varying carbon footprint reductions.

Ultimately, products able to utilize 100% ENSO RENEW will

benefit from the lowest carbon footprint. Data sourced and

compiled from multiple Reference Documents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,

8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17.

SCOPE 2: PRODUCT USAGE

Apart from the environmental impact of the

sourcing phase, environmental benefits

may also accrue from the use phase. These

savings typically are available by

manufacturing practices, transportation

and product design. Light-weighting has

1.14

5.04

3.50

4.02

2.30

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

ENSO RENEW

LDPE

ENSO RESTORE

30% RENEW/LDPE

70% RENEW/LDPE

Cradle to Gate CO2 Emissions

(kg CO2/kg Resin)



become a standard means by which

companies seek reduced carbon footprints.

According to some studies, adjustments in

practice during the use phase often result in

carbon reductions as high or even higher

than those reductions during the sourcing

and disposal phases. Ultimately, ideal

carbon savings will come from addressing

all three phases of a material life cycle.

Although the usage phase is a critical part

of a products overall carbon footprint, to

include calculations for this phase would be

impractical due to the varied conditions

and usage of each potential product.

It is recommended that companies seeking

to understand their products carbon

footprint use the information within this

report in conjunction with the carbon

footprint during the use phase of their

specific product to understand the overall

carbon impact of their product lines.

SCOPE 3: DISPOSAL

CONSIDERATIONS

The final disposal/waste system has an

important role in the overall eco balance

and carbon footprint of a material. For most

products, there are many disposal scenarios

such as composting, incineration, landfilling

and recycling.

The primary focus of this report is

landfilling due to the statistic that over 85%

of all plastics are disposed of within

landfills. (Reference Documents 2, 3, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18)

Figure 9. Disposal scenarios for plastic waste (3. WARM Plastics

2012)

For instance; within the US: 31 million tons

of plastic waste was generated in 2010,

representing 12.4 percent of total MSW.

Figure 10. Within the US, the overwhelming majority (85%)

of plastics are disposed of in municipal landfills. Even for

specific items such as PET bottles, the percent landfilled

heavily outweighs any recycling programs. Very little plastic

is littered or composted. Data sourced and compiled from

Reference Documents 1, 3, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18

Only 7 percent of the total plastic waste

generated in 2010 was recovered for

-1% -1%

85%

7% 8%

US Plastics Disposal

Composted Littered Landfilled

Recycled Incinerated



recycling. However, the recycling rate for

some plastics is much higher, for example

in 2010, 28 percent of HDPE bottles and 29

percent of PET bottles and jars were

recycled. (Reference Documents 2, 3, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18)

A brief discussion of each scenario is in

order to clarify and to assist with

determining the overall carbon footprint of

a material with each scenario, ultimately

however it is extremely difficult for a

company to control the final disposal of

their products.

The calculations within this report utilize

EPA reported municipal waste disposal

percentages and typical scenarios.

RECYCLING:

There has been an immense push over the

past 30 years toward the increase of

recycling programs and public awareness.

While the majority of studies show that in

theory, recycling plastics provides a lower

carbon footprint than landfilling or

incineration; recently controversial studies

have surfaced that contend the value of

recycling. (Reference Document 11, 14)

Such studies state, The footprint of

recycling is lower than that of landfills only

if at least half of the plastic ends up being

valorized.

In the majority of all regions worldwide,

seldom do recycling rates exceed 50% of

any specific plastic application and

extremely less when compared to overall

plastics production.

Additionally, it is recognized that plastics

will undergo some degradation with each

thermal recycling process and that

impurities in the recyclate may become

concentrated after subsequent recycling

steps. This needs to be taken into

consideration when one assumes a closed

loop recycling is undertaken and multiple

recycling loops are possible.

However most mixed plastics processors

will not recycle plastics packaging back into

packaging, so it is considered highly

unlikely to result in multiple recycling

loops. (15. LCA of Management Options For Mixed Waste Plastics WRAP 2008)

Calculating the true carbon footprint of

recycling can be difficult as the calculation

must include the specific recycling rate,

energy requirements (for collection,

separation and processing), and the use of

the recycled materials.

Figure 11. Plastic waste generation and recovery in the US, 2010

(3. Warm Plastics 2012)

Due to the statistic that less than 8% of all

plastics will be recycled, the

increase/decrease of carbon emissions

when recycling is controversial, the carbon

impact of recycling/not recycling is not

included within this report.



However, it is prudent to bear in mind a

products ability to be easily collected,

sorted and recycled when making a

material selection as this will ultimately

affect the finished product environmental

impact and integration within waste

disposal.

Figure 12. The overall percent of plastics recycled has

continued to decline, despite industry and legislative efforts

to support recycling through legislative initiatives, education

and financial support. Graph courtesy of alumni.stanford.edu

INCINERATION:

Charging used plastics to waste

incinerators converts them largely to the

greenhouse-gas carbon dioxide, which then

goes straight into the atmosphere. This

footprint debit can be reduced somewhat

by generating power and heat from the

incinerator. Within the US, less than 8% of

plastics are incinerated, therefore this is not

a scenario that offers significant carbon

footprint impact and is not included within

this report. (Reference Documents 7, 9, 13, 15, 18)

COMPOSTING:

The increase in production and marketing

of bio-plastics and compostable plastics

warrants a brief on this disposal method.

Composting can be a natural process, as

seen in backyard composting; or it can be

the highly managed process utilized within

commercial composting facilities. Todays

consumers have limited, if any, access to

compost facilities and few of these compost

facilities accept plastic. Even fewer

consumers engage in backyard composting.

Composting materials provides conversion

to carbon, but does not allow for energy

capture as an anaerobic system would. A

study completed at the Michigan State

University concluded that in-vessel

composting is less favorable than

bioreactor landfilling with regard to cost,

overall energy use and overall waterborne

and airborne emissions. (Reference Document 17)

Fortunately, within the US, less than 1% of

plastics will ever be composted and as such

this scenario is not reflected within this

report.

LANDFILLING:

The primary focus of disposal scenarios is

landfilling and the varied GHG impact of

using landfill biodegradable materials, as

opposed to non-biodegradable, as this is the

primary disposal and a brand manager can

directly determine if their product should

incorporate biodegradability to reduce

their overall carbon footprint.

Landfilling is the primary common disposal

method of plastic waste, with

approximately 85-90% of all plastic waste

being discarded in landfills. In 2010, the US

discarded over 30 million tons of plastic



waste into landfills; equating to over

96,000,000 cubic yards of landfill space

each year.

Often LCA reports of municipal waste fail to

consider that this waste will decompose

and that the result of this decomposition

can be energy production. Instead the

reports assume rogue methane and the

resulting environmental impact, while

denying that the waste experiences any

decomposition, resulting in an unbalanced

and inaccurate assessment of the scenario

and an unsubstantiated assumption that

landfilling waste is a less than desirable

approach. (15. LCA of Management Options For Mixed Waste Plastics WRAP 2008)

The true carbon impact of waste materials

within a landfill must consider that 34% of

all methane produced within US municipal

landfills is used in methane to energy

conversion offsetting the energy

production through combustion of fossil

fuels. This has a direct carbon footprint

reduction as will be discussed further.

To clarify this it is prudent to first review

the process of landfill biodegradation and

the resulting impact on GHG production as

provided by US EPA WARM 2012.

After entering landfills, biodegradable

material decomposes and eventually is

transformed into landfill gas and/or

leachate. Aerobic bacteria initially

decompose the waste until the available

oxygen is consumed. This stage usually

lasts less than a week and is followed by the

anaerobic acid state, in which carboxylic

acids accumulate, the pH decreases and

some decomposition occurs. Finally, during

the methanogenic state, bacteria further

decompose the biodegradable material into

CH4 and CO2

Carbon entering the landfill can have one of

several fates: exit as CH4, exit as CO2, exit

as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), exit

dissolved in leachate, or remain stored in

the landfill.

The rate of decomposition in landfills is

affected by a number of factors, including:

waste composition; factors influencing

microbial growth (moisture, available

nutrients, pH, temperature); and whether

the operation of the landfill retards or

enhances waste decomposition. Most

studies have shown that the amount of

moisture in the waste, which can vary

widely within a single landfill, is a critical

factor in the rate of decomposition (22.

Barlaz et al., 1990).

Carbon dioxide is produced in the initial

aerobic stage and in the anaerobic acid

stage of decomposition. However, relatively

little research has been conducted to

quantify CO2 emissions during these stages.

Emissions during the aerobic stage are

generally assumed to be a small proportion

of total organic carbon inputs, and a

screening-level analysis indicates that less

than 1 percent of carbon is likely to be

emitted through this pathway (Freed et al.,

2004).



Methane (CH4) production occurs in the

methanogenic stage of decomposition, as

methanogenic bacteria break down the

fermentation products from earlier

decomposition processes. Since CH4

emissions result from waste decomposition,

the quantity and duration of the emissions

is dependent on the same factors that

influence waste degradability (e.g., waste

composition, moisture).

Figure 13. Carbon process in landfills

To date, very little research has been

conducted on the role of VOC emissions in

the landfill carbon mass balance. Hartog

(2003) reported non-CH4 volatile organic

compound concentrations in landfill gas at

a bioreactor site in Iowa, averaging 1,700

parts per million (ppm) carbon by volume

in 2001 and 925 ppm carbon by volume in

2002. If the VOC concentrations in landfill

gas are generally of the order of magnitude

of 1,000 ppm, VOCs would have a small role

in the overall carbon balance, as

concentrations of CH4 and CO2 will both be

hundreds of times larger.

Leachate is produced as water percolates

through landfills. Leachate is increasingly

being recycled into the landfill as a means

of inexpensive disposal and to promote

decomposition, increasing the mass of

biodegradable materials collected by the

system and consequently enhancing

aqueous degradation (Chan et al., 2002;

Warith et al., 1999). Although a significant

body of literature exists on landfill leachate

formation, little research is available on the

carbon implications of this process. Based

on a screening analysis, Freed et al. (2004)

found that loss as leachate may occur for

less than 1 percent of total carbon inputs to

landfills.

The principal stocks and flows in the

landfill carbon balance are:

Initial carbon content (Initial C);

Carbon output as CH4 (CH4C);

Carbon output as CO2 (CO2C); and

Residual carbon (i.e., landfill carbon

storage, LFC).

The initial carbon content is used to

estimate each material types emission

factor. In a simple system where the only

carbon fates are CH4, CO2 and carbon

storage, the carbon balance can be

described as CH4C+CO2C+LFC=Initial C

If the only decomposition is anaerobic, then

CH4C = CO2C.3 Thus, the carbon balance

can be expressed as

= Initial C2CH4C+LFC=Initial C



Another factor in estimating material-

specific landfill emissions is the rate at

which a material decays under anaerobic

conditions in the landfill. The decay rate is

an important factor that influences the

landfill collection efficiency; although the

final adjusted CH4 yield will eventually

occur no matter what the decay rate. The

rate at which the material decays influences

how much of the CH4 yield will eventually

be captured for landfills with collection

systems.

This captured landfill gas is a significant

determination of the final carbon footprint.

In practice, the landfill gas collection

system efficiency does not remain constant

over the duration of gas production. Rather,

the gas collection system at any particular

landfill is typically expanded over time.

Usually, only a small percentage (or none)

of the gas produced soon after waste burial

is collected, while almost all of the gas

produced is collected once a final cover is

installed. Consequently, The US EPA uses

temporally-weighted average gas collection

efficiencies to provide a better estimate of

gas collection system efficiency (21. Barlaz

et al., 2009).

The temporally-averaged gas collection

efficiencies are evaluated from the

perspective of a short ton of a specific

material placed in the landfill at year zero.

The efficiencies are calculated based on one

of three landfill gas collection practices

over a 100-year time period, which is

approximately the amount of time required

for 95 percent of the potential landfill gas to

be produced in a Dry or Sanitary landfill

scenario. The final average efficiency is

equal to the total CH4 collected over 100

years divided by the total CH4 produced

over 100 years.

Figure 14. Gas collection efficiencies for various landfill designs.

The CH4 component of landfill gas that is

collected from landfills can be combusted to

produce heat and electricity, and recovery

of heat and electricity from landfill gas

offsets the combustion of other fossil fuel

inputs.

The US EPA applies non-baseload electricity

emission rates to calculate the emissions

offset from landfill gas energy recovery

because the model assumes that

incremental increases in landfill energy

recovery will affect non-baseload power

plants (i.e., power plants that are demand-

following and adjust to marginal changes

in the supply and demand of electricity).

EPA calculates non-baseload emission rates

as the average emissions rate from power

plants that combust fuel and have capacity

factors less than 0.8 (EPA, 2010a).



EPA estimates the avoided GHG emissions

per MTCO2E of CH4 combusted using

several physical constants and data from

EPAs Landfill Methane Outreach Program

and eGRID (EPA, 2010b; EPA, 2010a). The

mix of fuels used to produce electricity

varies regionally in the United States;

consequently, EPA applies a different CO2-

intensity for electricity generation

depending upon where the electricity is

offset. (EPA, 2010a).

The formula used to calculate the quantity

of electricity generation emissions avoided

per MTCO2E of CH4 combusted is as

follows:

4=

Where:

BtuCH4 = Energy content of CH4 per

MTCO2E CH4 combusted; assumed to be

1,012 Btu per cubic foot of CH4 (EPA,

2010b), converted into Btu per MTCO2E

CH4 assuming 20 grams per cubic foot of

CH4 at standard temperature and pressure

and a global warming potential of CH4 of 21

HLFGTE = Heat rate of landfill gas to energy

conversion; assumed to be 11,700 Btu per

kWh generated (EPA, 2010b)

a = Net capacity factor of electricity

generation; assumed to be 85 percent (EPA,

2010b)

Egrid = Non-baseload CO2-equivalent GHG

emissions intensity of electricity produced

at the regional or national electricity grid

R = Ratio of GHG emissions avoided from

electricity generation per MTCO2E of CH4

combusted for landfill gas to energy

recovery.

The following illustrations obtained from

the US EPA Warm version 12 show

variables in the GHG emissions offset for

the national average fuel mix. The final

ratio is the product of columns (a) through

(h). Exhibit 14 shows the amount of carbon

avoided per kilowatt-hour of generated

electricity and the final ratio of MTCO2E

avoided of utility carbon per MTCO2E of

CH4 combusted (column (g) and resulting

column (i)). (2. WARM Version 12 Landfilling United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA))

Figure 15. (Illustrations above obtained directly from US EPA

WARM version 12)

The process of gas production is the same

in sanitary landfills as it is in bioreactor

landfills that promote accelerated

biodegradation; it simply occurs faster.

As in sanitary landfills, basic procedures

carried out in bioreactor landfills are

spreading and compacting the solid waste

materials in layers, and covering the

material with soil at the end of each day.

Bioreactor landfill systems include liquid,



usually leachate, and/or air circulation

systems, with leachate and gas collection.

In bioreactors, accelerated transformation

and microbial degradation of organic

matter is accomplished through the

controlled recirculation of leachate or other

sources of moisture. In this method,

leachate quality is also potentially

improved, leading to reduced leachate

disposal costs. LFGs are emitted earlier in

the process and at a higher rate than the

conventional dry-tomb landfill but for a

total shorter duration, typically within 510

years of implementation. (17. Aerobic Composting Compared with BioReactor Landfilling Maria Theresa Caraban,

Milind Khire, Evangelyn Alocilja)

Contrary to popular belief, the US EPA has

identified that biodegradation continues to

occur in all landfills (bioreactor and

sanitary) creating significant methane

emissions which are required to be

collected and managed. Over 75% of all

methane produced in landfills from

municipal solid waste is effectively

managed. Active management of landfill

gasses begins within the first 5 years of a

landfill and continues for approximately 30

years after landfill closure. (Reference Documents 2, 3, 5, 9, 15, 16, 18)

Landfill gas management entails capturing

and flaring methane gases, ideally

converting the methane to energy during

the flaring (LFGE). In 2012 there were 594

active LFGE sites and an additional 540

candidate sites. Currently 34% of all landfill

methane is generated in LFGE sites.

Figure 16. Landfills that capture and manage methane

emissions account for over 72% of all landfill methane

produced within the US, with (34%) of landfill methane

being captured and actively converted to energy. Data

sourced and compiles from Reference Documents 2, 5, 7,

9, 15, 16

The NRDC states that the use of landfill gas

for energy has the potential to offset up to

12,006lbs of CO2 per MWh, as it offsets

traditional energy production such as coal

and gas. Current LFGE sites in the US

generate over 1,730MW of electricity per

year and deliver over 310 million ft3 per

day of gas to direct use applications (as a

fuel source). (Reference Documents 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16)

With coal typically containing 84% carbon

and 4% hydrogen (the remainder being

coal ash) 26 this implies that 1 kg coal

contains 70 moles of carbon and 40 moles

of hydrogen potentially reacting with 90

moles oxygen in the iron ore.

Polyolefins have a carbon:hydrogen ratio of

1:2 (ignoring fillers, additives, etc.) and so

contain 85.8% carbon and 14.2% hydrogen.

As such, 1 kg polyolefin contains 71.5 moles

of carbon and 142 moles of hydrogen

potentially reacting with 142.5 moles

0.38

0.34

0.28

With LFG Recovery and Flaring

With LFG Recovery and Energy Conversion

Without LFG Recovery



oxygen in the iron ore. This leads to a

substitution based on 1 kg polyolefin

replacing 1.58 kg coal. (15. LCA of Management Options for Mixed Waste Plastics WRAP 2008)

This is the primary value relating to carbon

footprint for ENSO RESTORE as it offers

the ability to convert landfilled plastics to

energy generation. Utilizing the data

included within this report, it is possible to

calculate the carbon value of this energy

conversion taking into account that 34% of

all the ENSO RESTORE treated materials

will be disposed of within landfills that will

ultimately convert the product to clean

energy.

Figure 17. Ultimately the most significant carbon reduction

is seen when using 100% ENSO RENEW . As more

traditional resin is blended the reduction decreases as

expected. The primary carbon reduction is seen in the

sourcing portion of the products LCA with ENSO RENEW ,

whereas with ENSO RESTORE the value is primarily seen

during the disposal.

Experts have suggested that traditional

plastics will take hundreds of years to fully

biodegrade. This biodegradation will

produce methane but will not be managed

effectively as it is outside the window of

landfill gas management. Ideally, all carbon

based materials placed into a landfill,

including plastics, should biodegrade

within the active management period (5-30

years) for optimal methane management

and energy recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, most products are designed with

limited consideration to their ecological

footprint especially as it relates to their

ultimate disposability. Of particular

concern are plastics used in single-use

disposable packaging and consumer goods.

Designing these materials to be

biodegradable and/or bio-based and

ensuring that they end up in an appropriate

disposal system is environmentally and

ecologically sound.

In spite of these uncertainties and the

information gaps mentioned above the

body of work analyzed overwhelmingly

indicates that biodegradable and bio-based

polymers and offer important

environmental benefits today and for the

future.

Of all materials studied, ENSO RENEW

RTP performs best in overall environmental

terms under the current state the art and

5.08

5.07

4.06

2.34

1.18

5.08

4.31

3.45

1.99

1.00

5.08

4.82

3.86

2.22

1.12

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

LDPE

LDPE / RESTORE

LDPE / RENEW (30%)

LDPE / RENEW (70%)

RENEW

Carbon Impact Including LFG Collection and Energy

Conversion (kg CO2/kg resin)

Landfill Average

Landfill w/ LFG Energy

Landfill w/o LFG Collection



current waste management scenarios;

while RESTORE offers a unique

opportunity to lower the carbon footprint

of traditional materials disposed of within

landfills.

The data represented within this report

indicates a significant opportunity for

brand managers to reduce carbon footprint

in several ways: in sourcing by full

conversion to ENSO RENEW or partial

offsetting with a percentage of ENSO

RENEW and incorporation of ENSO

RESTORE for carbon reduction during

disposal. All three scenarios offer differing

advantages during sourcing, usage and

disposal.

The most significant carbon reduction is

seen when replacing traditional plastics

such as PE and PET with ENSO RENEW.

Replacement of 100% can reduce a

products carbon footprint by 78%.

Complete replacement also allows for home

and industrial composting as an alternative

disposal; however these disposal methods

do not decrease the carbon footprint.

Brand owners may choose to blend ENSO

RENEW with their current resin to retain

specific physical properties while

benefiting from the lower footprint of the

RENEW resin. When using 30% RENEW

a brand owner can realize a carbon

reduction of 20%, while usage of 70%

RENEW can reduce the footprint by 55%.

When identifying carbon impact for varying

blends of LDPE/RENEW the following

calculation can be used as a guide:

(%RENEW *1.14)+(%LDPE*5.04) = kg CO2

per kg blended resin

Brand owners may also benefit from

reduced carbon footprint during the

disposal of plastics by incorporating ENSO

RESTORE into existing resins and blended

ENSO RENEW /Traditional Resin

applications. When disposed of within a

LFGE site, the energy offset provided

through methane capture and conversion

reduces the footprint up to 15%. In

consideration of the average LFGE vs. Non-

Energy Converting landfills, the actual

decrease in carbon a company should

expect would be closer to 5%. The current

trend toward increasing the number of

LFGE sites, will also contribute to additional

carbon savings for landfill biodegradable

products.

Overall it is clear that ENSO products

provide clear advantages in respect to

carbon footprint when compared to

traditional resins, and provide varying

solutions to accommodate specific needs

and goals of brand managers, from

reducing their carbon footprint just 5% to

near 80%.



For Further information regarding this report or ENSO product lines and customized

solutions, please contact:

ENSO Plastics, LLC

4710 E Falcon Dr. #220

Mesa, AZ 85215

www.ensoplastics.com

866-936-3676

Plastics make it possible

ENSO makes it responsible.



REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1. Review and Analysis of Bio-based Product LCAs

Ramani Narayan, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science,

Michigan State University

Martin Patel, Department of Science, Technology and Society,

Utrecht University, Netherlands

2. WARM Version 12 Landfilling

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

3. WARM Version 12 Plastics


4. Carbon Emissions and How They Are Determined

2011 Special Reports- Sosland Publishing

5. Landfill Gas Energy

United States Environmental Protection Agency 2012

6. European Starch Industry Association Position Paper 2012

7. Information obtained from US Energy Information Association (eia)

8. Environmental Footprint/Profile of Bio-based Biodegradable Products

Ramani Narayan, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science,

Michigan State University

9. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases


10. Environmental Assessment of Bio-Based Polymers and Natural Fibers

Martin Patel, Department of Science, Technology and Society

Utrecht University, Netherlands

Catia Bastioli, Novamont

Luigi Marini, Novamont

Geookol Eduard Wurdinger, Bavarian Institute of Applied Environmental

Research and Technology

11. Landfill Could Be Greener Than Recycling When it Comes to Plastic Bottles

Eric Johnson, Atlantic Consulting, Zurich Switzerland

12. Biodegradable Over Recyclable

Virgo Publishing 2009

13. Is It Better to Burn or Bury Waste For Clean Energy Production

P. Ozge Kaplan, Joseph Decarolis, Susan Thorneloe

USA EPA and North Carolina State University

14. When Recycling is Bad for the Environment

Rachel Cernansky

15. LCA of Management Options For Mixed Waste Plastics



WRAP 2008

16. Integrated Scenarios Of Household Waste Management

S. Lassaux, University of Liege, Blegium

17. Aerobic Composting Compared with BioReactor Landfilling

Maria Theresa Caraban, Milind Khire, Evangelyn Alocilja

18. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/01/31/what-happens-to-all-that-plastic

19. Life Cycle Assessment study of starch products

VITO Vision on Technology 2012

20. Barlaz MA, et al (2003) Comparing recycling, composting and

landfills. Biocycle 44.9:6066

21. Staley, B. F., & Barlaz, M. A. (2009). Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the

United States and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield. Journal

of Environmental Engineering, 135 (10), 901909. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-

7870.0000032

22. Barlaz, M. A., Ham, R. K., & Schaefer, D. M. (1990). Methane Production from Municipal

Refuse: A Review of Enhancement Techniques and Microbial Dynamics. Critical Reviews in

Environmental Control, 19 (6), 557.