photo courtesy of photoxpress.com

Water On the Go

Americans are hooked on bottled water. In fact, in 2009 alone, Americans consumed 8.45 billion gallons of the beverage. We grab one and go…to the gym, to work, and to school. And why shouldn’t we? Bottled water is oh-so-convenient as well as healthy; our bodies need lots of it every day.

 The Good

In response to environmental concerns, some of the larger bottled water manufacturers have made strides to reduce the size of their plastic bottles, thereby using fewer resources to manufacture while also producing less waste. Furthermore, plastic water bottles are recyclable and can be easily tossed into your curbside bin or else brought back to the grocery store or recycling center. And if you live in one of the 11 states that has a bottle bill, you can even pocket a nickel for each plastic bottle you do return. In fact, bottle bill or not, Americans are recycling over 2 billion pounds of plastic water bottles every year. This must be good, right?

 The Not-So-Good

While any effort to recycle and reduce waste is good, the problem remains that while over 2 billion pounds of plastic bottles are being recycled in the U.S. each year, this number represents a relatively small recycling rate of about 25 percent. This is in contrast to paper recycling, which has a rate of around 50 percent. That means that at least 75 percent of post-consumer plastic bottles are being incinerated or thrown in the trash each year! To add to the not-so-good news, standard water bottles, which are made with PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) materials are said to take about 500 years to biodegrade. Environmental watchdog groups say that we have so much plastic in our landfills that the breaking down process simply can’t keep up. As a result, some of this surplus washes away with the ground water and inevitably ends up in our oceans, threatening precious marine wildlife.

photo courtesy of photoxpress.com

Part of the Solution

There are things we can do to reduce the amount of plastic going into landfills each day, the first of which is to become a responsible consumer. Being mindful of how much plastic waste we create each day is a great first step, along with remembering to recycle consistently. We can set a good example for our children by teaching them how to responsibly dispose of their plastic containers and while making recycling fun. Allow them to collect plastic bottles around the house or out in the community and reward them for doing so.

The second step is to purchase water bottles that are made from biodegradable plastic. For example, ENSO Bottles has created the technology for a biodegradable PET plastic water bottle. ENSO’s “Bottles for a Healthier Earth” can be recycled along with other PET plastics, but are also biodegradable in landfill environments. ENSO’s promising technology, along with some mindful changes on the part of consumers, are both important parts of the solution to plastic bottle pollution, both now and in the future.

photo courtesy of photoxpress.com

Share this:

There have been some in the PLA (corn plastics) industry who use quotes from Dr. Rathje’s book to support an argument that composting biodegradable plastics is better for the environment than landfilling them.  Their argument takes some of the data out on context by looking at the hundred year old “poor” environmental designs of landfills.  The printing of “RUBBISH!” was in 1991 with most data provided in the book ending in 1988.  Most of the data in the book is over 20 years old.  As with many things from our past we eventually discover better and more environmentally sound solutions.  Yes, it is absolutely true that traditional dry-tomb landfilling is not the best solution for dealing with our garbage.  As a society we have made significant improvements to the methods we use for disposing of garbage.  Since the writing of the book we have implemented hundreds of recycling programs as well as the EPA requiring methane from the anaerobic biodegradation process happening in landfills to be captured and burned or used to create clean energy.  The EPA in the last 5 years has also changed laws with recirculating leachate through a landfill so to accelerate biodegradation by up to 10x.

Dr. Rathje does briefly address composting as a solution to some of our organic garbage.  He points out that composting is expensive  and the issues is that most compost becomes tainted with hazardous elements, such as the heavy metals used in inks and pigments as well as yard waste containing traces of pesticides and herbicides.  Another issue with composting biodegradable plastics is that the corn used in fermenting the lactic acid is Genetically Modified corn, because of this, if PLA plastics are composted that compost cannot be labeled “organic”.  For many composting facilities this would severely impact the marketability of the compost material.

What Dr. William Rathje, and those using the book to bash biodegradable plastics neglect to mention is that over the last few years we have made significant improvements to the way we handle our trash.  One of these improvements is called landfill bioreactors, which is not discussed at all in the book.  These types of landfills are designed in the beginning to better control the anaerobic biodegradation process by circulating the leachate back through the garbage.  This not only helps to accelerate anaerobic biodegradation by adding moisture but it has also been discovered to improve the quality of the leachate.  These bioreactors are built with collection systems for collecting not only the leachate but also the methane.  So from the beginning of the bioreactor landfill life the methane is being captured and typically used to create clean inexpensive energy.  In fact, energy from methane captured from landfills is the least expensive form of “green” energy we can create today.  It is less costly than solar, wind, or hydro.  In April 2004, the EPA finalized a rule permitting the transformation of landfills into bioreactors.  Landfill bioreactors produce MUCH more gas than traditional landfills, about 10 times the amount and are at concentrations of up to 50%.  Bioreactors with their advanced LFG collection systems are able to collect more than 90% of the methane gasses.

Another benefit of bioreactor landfills is that the life of the landfill is extended by as much as 25 years.  This means that the same physical space of land that would traditionally have been filled up and capped can now be used for another 25 years longer before needing additional bioreactor landfill cells.  There is some discussion that a bioreactor landfill could later on be dug up to use the soil for fertilizer and then reuse the landfill space again, but this is yet to be a reality.

The key to utilizing anaerobic biodegradation with organic garbage is that it creates a greater value proposition over composting.  With composting, the organic material is artificially processed to accelerate aerobic biodegradation resulting in compost material which makes a great rich soil.  What is off gassed is CO2 which is released into the atmosphere as a GHG.  Some would argue that this would be a zero sum game but it really depends on the organic material and the life cycle of that material.

Markets for compost material are very specific to the geographical location of that composting facility.  In many cases today, there are not enough markets available to utilize the compost material and a lot of it ends up as soil cover in landfills.  With utilizing anaerobic biodegradation either in anaerobic digesters or bioreactor landfills we can capture the methane and use it for cleans energy.  Once the methane is burned to create that energy the CH4 is converted into CO2 which now we are right back to where we were with composting but now we created clean energy which reduces our reliance on fossil fuels.  The soil that remains from anaerobic biodegradation can also be used as fertilizer.  The additional value proposition of creating CH4 vs. CO2 has much more value and results in a better environmental solution.

According to the EPA as of April 2009, there are approximately 480 operational LFG energy projects in the United States. In addition, about 130 projects are currently under construction or are exploring development options and opportunities. These are landfills that convert the LFG to clean, inexpensive energy.  New Jersey’s Governor Jon S. Corzine’s Energy Master Plan touts landfill methane gas as one of the key renewable energy sources that the state hopes will combine to supply 30 percent of New Jersey’s electricity by 2020. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/new-jersey-landfills-capt_n_138076.html

There is much we can learn about our past, present and how to better design our future from both a social and environmental perspective.  It is in the nature of archaeology to look at the past but it is in the best interest for the human race to stay focused on the future.

References:

By Danny Clark
ENSO Bottles, LLC

Share this:

• The first PET bottle was recycled in 1977.

• An estimated 9,400 curbside collection programs and 10,000 drop-off programs collect PET plastic in the United States, currently.

• Approximate number of PET beverage bottles per pound:
  16 oz. — 18 bottles per pound
  20 oz. — 16 bottles per pound
  1 liter — 12 bottles per pound
  2 liter — 9 bottles per pound
  3 liter — 5 bottles per pound

• Cubic yards conserved in a landfill by recycling PET beverage bottles:
  4,800 recycled 16-ounce bottles saves a cubic yard
  4,050 recycled 20-ounce bottles saves a cubic yard
  3,240 recycled 1-liter bottles saves a cubic yard
  2,430 recycled 2-liter bottles saves a cubic yard
  1,350 recycled 3-liter bottles saves a cubic yard

• Since 1978, manufacturers have reduced the weight of a two-liter bottle by about 29%, from 68 grams to 48 grams.

• Recycling a ton of PET containers saves 7.4 cubic yards of landfill space.

• According to the EPA, recycling a pound of PET saves approximately 12,000 BTU’s.

• The average household generated 42 pounds of PET plastic bottles in the year 2005.

• Custom bottles (which are bottles used for products other than carbonated soft drinks) represent 62% of all PET bottles available for recycling.

• Fourteen 20 oz. PET bottles yield enough fiber for an extra large T-shirt.

• It takes 14 20 oz. PET bottles to make one square foot of carpet.

• It takes 63 20 oz. PET bottles to make a sweater.

• Fourteen 20 oz. PET bottles yield enough fiberfill for a ski jacket.

• It takes 85 20 oz. PET bottles to make enough fiberfill for a sleeping bag.

Used from NAPOR website.

Danny Clark
ENSO Bottles, LLC
866-936-3676
www.ensobottles.com

Share this:

Sonoma, CA, September 25, 2007 – PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles have garnered a great deal of media attention recently, some of it raising questions about PET safety. According to the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), the trade group for PET packaging, it’s time to clear up any fallacies and set the record straight: Consumers can continue to rely on the safety of PET bottles.

If you drink a single-serve water or carbonated beverage from a plastic bottle, chances are you’re drinking it from PET, identified with a small number “1” or “PETE” on the container side or bottom. The PET bottle is a well-accepted package all over the world and is completely safe to drink from as well as lightweight, unbreakable, and recyclable.

But, can you safely freeze a PET bottle? Yes. There is no danger in the freezing of PET bottles, and no truth to the rumors that dioxins leach from frozen PET bottles. There is no dioxin in PET plastic. Dioxins are formed by combustion in incinerators at temperatures above 1700 degrees F. — and by volcanoes. Furthermore, freezing does not affect PET bottles.

Leave a PET bottle in your hot car? Yes. The idea that PET bottles “leach” chemicals when heated in hot cars is not based on any science, and is unsubstantiated by any credible evidence. This allegation has been perpetuated by emails until it has become an urban legend, but it just isn’t so.

Reuse a PET bottle? Yes. Just wash it first, as you would any other food or beverage container after use.

Do PET bottles contain “bis-phenol A” which some claim can cause birth defects? No. Bis-phenol A is not used to make PET, nor is it used to make any of the component materials used to make PET.

What about the chemicals called “phthalates? They are not in PET. In spite of the similarity of part of PET’s chemical name, PET is not the kind of “phthalate” that is being talked about. The type of “phthalate” about which concern has been raised is used to make various plastics more flexible, and in that role is called a “plasticizer.” PET does not contain plasticizers or the type of “phthalate” that is used in plasticizers.

What about Antimony? Antimony oxide is often used in extremely tiny amounts as a “catalyst” in the production of PET plastic. Its very low toxicity combined with very low extraction rate from PET translates to very, very low risk. Its use in PET does not endanger workers, consumers, or the environment.

NAPCOR Contacts: Dennis Sabourin (707) 996-4207, X13 or Kate Eagles, x16

Share this: