An environmental comparison of polymers - SEM …

1 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialAn environmental comparison of polymersIntertek Report May 20111 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialGoal of the StudyTo compare the environmental impacts of rigid polymers : PP PET HDPE PVC PS PC Based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods to quantify life cycle environmental impacts of the energy and materials used, wastes generated and emissions released Background data : WRAP Courtauld II methodology. This is the methodology used by major retailers to measure their carbon footprints and contribute to UK carbon reduction targets This study includes the production of granulate, its forming into a rigid product, its transport to the forming location and to the retail location, plus its disposal to landfill and environmental comparison of polymersSource : IntertekWrap - Waste & Resources Action 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialCarbon FootprintAn environmental comparison of polymers3 Source.

2 Intertek 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialCarbon FootprintKg CO2 eq/TonneMaterial productionFormingTransportDisposalTotal Carbon FootprintPP19751250381933456 PET 29851250382504523 HDPE 19351250381573380 PVC 19151250382503453PS 34151250381584861PC 77761250381939257An environmental comparison of polymers4 Production of Material dominates each Carbon footprint !PP is superior to PET, PS and PC and competitive with PVC & Tonne, PP has a 24 % lower carbon footprint than PET: For every Tonne of PET replaced with PP, 0,8 to 1 Tonne of CO2 are saved ! Source : Intertek 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialCarbon footprint Forming/Processing contributes for 36 % of Carbon FootprintPolypropylene5 Source : Intertek 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialCarbon footprint 1067 kilogramsof CO2equivalent emissions are avoided for every metric tonne of PET replaced with PP.

3 If Europe s leading new cars emit around 160 grams CO2 per km, the carbon footprint saving achieved by moving from a tonne of PET to a tonne of PP is equivalent to not driving around 6,700km. That s further than driving from Madrid to Stockholm and back again!Polypropylene versus PET6 Source : Intertek 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialClear PPYour preferred choice for Clarity, sustainability & cost efficiency 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialCase Study : Dunkin Donut TF Drink Cup 950 mlClear PP versus PET : lighter and stiffer cups8 Source : polymer prices EPNPP : 1650 /TPET : 1750 /TSource : CF by polymer IntertekCF PP : 3456 kg CO2/TCF PET : 4523 kg CO2/TDensityPP : 900 kg/m PET : 1300 kg/m * : Prices based on PP without additiveClear PP versus PET 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialCase Study : TF Drink Cup 475 mlClear PP versus PET : lighter and equal stiffness feeling9 Source.

4 polymer prices EPNPP : 1650 /TPET : 1750 /TSource : CF by polymer IntertekCF PP : 3456 kg CO2/TCF PET : 4523 kg CO2/TDensityPP : 900 kg/m PET : 1300 kg/m * : Prices based on PP without additiveClear PP versus PET 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialPolypropylene with HyperformCycle Time Reduction 10 2010 Milliken, Private & ConfidentialCycle Time ReductionPolypropylene with Hyperform11 Higher Crystallisation Temperature for PP nucleated with Hyperform reduces the cooling times and enables faster productions ratesPeak Crystallization Temperature (Tc)Productivity (%)