How Green is your Coffee?
Sanita Dhaubanjar ’13, Hannah Hitchhner’12, Sicong Ma’13
Mass and Energy Balance- Picker Engineering Program, Smith College
Introduction
Melissa Krueger, the owner of Elbow Room Café, is planning to roast her own coffee beans. She is concerned about her air emissions involved in the process
and wants to make her Café environment friendly. An LCA is a powerful tool in evaluating the current status or repercussions of any product or service. This LCA
aims to outline where the performance of Elbow Room Café stands in comparison to coffee giant Starbucks at Northampton, who promotes various environment
friendly campaigns. In tracking the production of coffee the main focus will be on overall resource usage and the air emissions for the two coffee producers.
Life Cycle Inventory
The functional unit of comparison is taken to be 14 oz of brewed coffee and
the mass, energy and emissions that pertain to that single cup. Amount of
coffee bean used in both cases were calculated from collected data. Fig,1 & 2
outline the life cycle of one cup of coffee in each café. Mass and energy
balances were estimated based on an average estimate of the cups of coffee
the cafes sell per day and the overall energy they use up in one day. Roasting
calculations are based on one hour of machine run. For energy calculations,
the consumption section was controlled by the number of cups sold per day,
while all other calculations were based off amount of coffee used per cup.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The analysis focused on resources used and air emissions, mainly PM and VOC
emissions as they were found to be of major concerns in air regulation policies.
Figure 1. Mass-Energy Flowchart for
Elbow Room
Figure 2. Mass-Energy Balance for
Starbucks.
Resource Conservation(in Fig 3)
Emissions Control (in Fig 4)
Elbow Room has a comparative
advantage in resource consumption.
Roasting requires lesser energy for
Melissa because of the small capacity of
her machines. Small café size allows her
to optimize her energy use in
consumption despite the fact that she
uses more beans per cup. The proximity
of her roasting plant to her café reduced
the fuel and related emissions.
Starbucks is more environmental friendly
as compared to Elbow Room. It has high
CO2 emissions due to fuel used in
transportation and emissions from using
natural gas in roasting machines. But the
use of Cyclones and Thermal Oxidiser
has abated its PM, NOx and VOC
emissions in roasting while Elbow Room
is at a huge disadvantage despite her
energy efficient business.
Figure 3. Comparative advantage based on
Resource conservation.
Figure 4. Comparative advantage based on
Emission Factors.
Conclusion
Limitations
Decision
Starbucks energy use can be subtantialy reduced by
decreasing fuel consumption in transportation or having a
roasting plant closer to the cafe. Both of these
improvements are hard and expensive to achieve specially
in short run. Elbow Room can reduce its harmful emissions
by installing a thermal oxidiser or similar technologies even
in short run. Provided Melissa installs a thermal oxidiser,
Elbow Room Coffee will be the greener (only in terms of PM
and VOC emissions) and more energy efficient option.
This LCA neglected inclusion of an analysis of energy and emissions
in agriculture, cups, packaging, details on roasting, and disposal in
the life cycle process for both cafes, due to time constraints and lack
of information. It is also sensitive to the input of coffee beans and no.
of cups sold per day in the cafes.
Acknowledgments
Melissa Krueger, Managing Director, The Elbow Room Café
Chin Yen Tee, President, ESW
References (Arial, 36 points, bold)
Figure 5. Comparative advantage
based on Resource conservation.
Coffee roasting air pollution [Internet]. [updated 2003 Oct 2].
Colorado (Co): Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment Air Pollution Control Division; [cited 2010 Mar 5].
Starbucks Corporate Responsibility [Internet]. [updated 2007].
Starbucks Corporation; [cited 2010 Mar 20]
How Green is your Coffee?
Sanita Dhaubanjar ’13, Hannah Hitchhner’12, Sicong Ma’13
Mass and Energy Balance- Picker Engineering Program, Smith College
Introduction
Melissa Krueger, the owner of Elbow Room Café, is planning to roast her own coffee beans. She is concerned about her air emissions involved in the process
and wants to make her Café environment friendly. An LCA is a powerful tool in evaluating the current status or repercussions of any product or service. This LCA
aims to outline where the performance of Elbow Room Café stands in comparison to coffee giant Starbucks at Northampton, who promotes various environment
friendly campaigns. In tracking the production of coffee the main focus will be on overall resource usage and the air emissions for the two coffee producers.
Life Cycle Inventory
The functional unit of comparison is taken to be 14 oz of brewed coffee and
the mass, energy and emissions that pertain to that single cup. Amount of
coffee bean used in both cases were calculated from collected data. Fig,1 & 2
outline the life cycle of one cup of coffee in each café. Mass and energy
balances were estimated based on an average estimate of the cups of coffee
the cafes sell per day and the overall energy they use up in one day. Roasting
calculations are based on one hour of machine run. For energy calculations,
the consumption section was controlled by the number of cups sold per day,
while all other calculations were based off amount of coffee used per cup.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The analysis focused on resources used and air emissions, mainly PM and VOC
emissions as they were found to be of major concerns in air regulation policies.
Figure 1. Mass-Energy Flowchart for
Elbow Room
Figure 2. Mass-Energy Balance for
Starbucks.
Resource Conservation(in Fig 3)
Emissions Control (in Fig 4)
Elbow Room has a comparative
advantage in resource consumption.
Roasting requires lesser energy for
Melissa because of the small capacity of
her machines. Small café size allows her
to optimize her energy use in
consumption despite the fact that she
uses more beans per cup. The proximity
of her roasting plant to her café reduced
the fuel and related emissions.
Starbucks is more environmental friendly
as compared to Elbow Room. It has high
CO2 emissions due to fuel used in
transportation and emissions from using
natural gas in roasting machines. But the
use of Cyclones and Thermal Oxidiser
has abated its PM, NOx and VOC
emissions in roasting while Elbow Room
is at a huge disadvantage despite her
energy efficient business.
Figure 3. Comparative advantage based on
Resource conservation.
Figure 4. Comparative advantage based on
Emission Factors.
Conclusion
Limitations
Decision
Starbucks energy use can be subtantialy reduced by
decreasing fuel consumption in transportation or having a
roasting plant closer to the cafe. Both of these
improvements are hard and expensive to achieve specially
in short run. Elbow Room can reduce its harmful emissions
by installing a thermal oxidiser or similar technologies even
in short run. Provided Melissa installs a thermal oxidiser,
Elbow Room Coffee will be the greener (only in terms of PM
and VOC emissions) and more energy efficient option.
This LCA neglected inclusion of an analysis of energy and emissions
in agriculture, cups, packaging, details on roasting, and disposal in
the life cycle process for both cafes, due to time constraints and lack
of information. It is also sensitive to the input of coffee beans and no.
of cups sold per day in the cafes.
Acknowledgments
Melissa Krueger, Managing Director, The Elbow Room Café
Chin Yen Tee, President, ESW
References (Arial, 36 points, bold)
Figure 5. Comparative advantage
based on Resource conservation.
Coffee roasting air pollution [Internet]. [updated 2003 Oct 2].
Colorado (Co): Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment Air Pollution Control Division; [cited 2010 Mar 5].
Starbucks Corporate Responsibility [Internet]. [updated 2007].
Starbucks Corporation; [cited 2010 Mar 20]