Reusable vs. disposable cups revisited: guidance in life cycle comparisons addressing scenario, model, and parameter uncertainties for the US consumer

PurposeDespite interest in an environmentally conscious decision between disposable and reusable cups, a comprehensive and current study for US consumers is not yet available. Guidance in favor of single-use cups rely on outdated or non-ISO-compliant results with limited uncertainty information. Such claims are insufficiently generalizable. This article delivers an updated comparative life cycle impact assessment of reusable ceramic cups and single-use expanded polystyrene cups.MethodsThe ReCiPe midpoint model was selected. Scenario uncertainties are addressed by evaluating compliant standard dishwashing appliance models from 2004 to 2013 used in 26 US subregional utility grids. A utility snapshot from 2009 is applied with extension to recent shifts in generation from increased penetration of natural gas and renewable energy. Parameter uncertainty is quantified through statistical methods.ResultsWhere there is statistical difference, results almost entirely favor reusable cups in the USA. For climate change, 16 % of users have higher impact for ceramic cups washed in 2013 by minimally compliant dishwashers. Higher climate change impacts for 32 % of reusable cup users is indicated with 2004 average dishwashers, though using a cup twice between washes shifts the impact in favor of the reusable cup.ConclusionsDisposable cup scenarios do not account for film sleeves, lids, printing, and less conservative shipping weights and distances and therefore reflect a best case scenario. Impact for reusable cups is expected to decrease further as the electricity mix becomes less CO2-intensive with replacement of coal-fired generators by natural gas, wind, and solar and as less efficient dishwashers are replaced with new units compliant to current laws.

[1]  Laan van Westenenk Single use Cups or Reusable (coffee) Drinking Systems: An Environmental Comparison , 2007 .

[2]  X H Zhou,et al.  Methods for comparing the means of two independent log-normal samples. , 1997, Biometrics.

[3]  Barry M. Popkin,et al.  Patterns and Trends in Food Portion Sizes , 2013 .

[4]  Tim Cooper,et al.  Prospects for household appliances , 2000 .

[5]  C. Hendrickson,et al.  Using input-output analysis to estimate economy-wide discharges , 1995 .

[6]  Danny S. Parker,et al.  How Energy Efficient are Modern Dishwashers , 2008 .

[7]  Ashok K. Singh,et al.  The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental Applications , 1997 .

[8]  Markus Berger,et al.  Methodological Challenges in Volumetric and Impact‐Oriented Water Footprints , 2013 .

[9]  T. Gutowski,et al.  Appliance remanufacturing and life cycle energy and economic savings , 2010, Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology.

[10]  G. Psacharopoulos Overview and methodology , 1991 .

[11]  T. Gutowski,et al.  Material efficiency: A white paper , 2011 .

[12]  A Ivi,et al.  Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation , 1994 .

[13]  Erwan Saouter,et al.  A database for the life-cycle assessment of procter & gamble laundry detergents , 2002 .

[14]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data , 1998 .

[15]  H Scott Matthews,et al.  Environmental effects of interstate power trading on electricity consumption mixes. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Jonathan Chapman,et al.  Design for (Emotional) Durability , 2009, Design Issues.

[17]  B. Popkin,et al.  Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998. , 2003, JAMA.

[18]  R. Frischknecht,et al.  Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.2 , 2010 .

[19]  Ulf Olsson,et al.  Confidence Intervals for the Mean of a Log-Normal Distribution , 2005 .

[20]  T. Cooper Slower Consumption Reflections on Product Life Spans and the “Throwaway Society” , 2005 .