How Much Energy Goes Into Making a Bottle of Water?
March 17, 2009 By Lisa Zyga
Researchers have calculated that the energy required to produce bottled water is up to 2,000 times more than the energy required to produce tap water. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Most people who buy bottled water have access to clean drinking water virtually for free (in the US, tap water costs less than a penny per gallon, on average). Nevertheless, the consumption of bottled water continues to grow, far surpassing the US sales of milk and beer, and second only to soft drinks.
Since world consumption of bottled water has increased by 70% since 2001 to 200 billion liters in 2007, some people have become concerned about the environmental, economical, and social impacts of bottled water. In a recent study, researchers Peter Gleick and Heather Cooley from the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, have estimated the energy required to produce bottled water, including the energy required to manufacture plastic, fabricate the plastic into bottles, process the water, fill and seal the bottles, transport the bottles, and chill the bottles for use.
Combining all the energy input totals, Gleick and Cooley found that producing bottled water requires between 5.6 and 10.2 million joules of energy per liter, depending on transportation factors (a typical personal-sized water bottle is about 0.5 liters). That’s up to 2,000 times the energy required to produce tap water, which costs about 0.005 million joules per liter for treatment and distribution.
In 2007, US consumers purchased more than 33 billion liters of bottled water, or 110 liters (30 gallons) per person. The total energy required to produce 33 billion liters is equivalent to 32-54 million barrels of oil (although not all the energy used comes from oil). Energy to produce bottled water accounts for about one-third of one percent of total US energy consumption.
To break down the energy requirements, Gleick and Cooley found that producing the plastic bottles and transporting the bottles greatly dominated the energy input. Most single-use plastic water bottles are made out of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), recognized in the US by the recycling code “1” imprinted on the bottle. Large containers are more likely made of polycarbonate, which requires about 40% more energy to produce than bottle-grade PET. Although some companies are experimenting with producing lightweight bottles, the researchers calculated that the manufacturing cost of PET is about 4 million joules of energy per typical 1-liter PET bottle weighing 38 grams, and the cap weighing 2 grams. Even though using recycled materials could lead to some energy savings, almost all plastic bottles for water are currently made from virgin PET.
“Our previous work had suggested that bottled water production was an energy-intensive process, but we were surprised to see that the energy equivalent of nearly 17 million barrels of oil are required to produce the PET bottles alone,” Cooley told PhysOrg.com.
Transportation costs vary depending on the distance and mode of transport, and both factors depend on the type of bottled water. There are two main kinds of bottled water in the US: “spring water,” which comes from an underground spring, and accounts for 56% of US sales; and “purified water,” which is municipal tap water that has received further treatment, and accounts for 44% of US sales. Spring water can only be derived from certain locations, while purified water can be produced locally. (In the US, Nestlé is the largest producer of spring water, while Coca-Cola (Dasani), Pepsi (Aquafina) and Nestlé (Pure Life) account for most of the country’s purified water sales.)
In their analysis, Gleick and Cooley evaluated three different transportation scenarios, and calculated the energy requirements per liter of bottled water. For purified water distributed locally by truck within Los Angeles, the total transportation energy is about 1.4 million joules per liter. In the second situation, spring water shipped from Fiji (such as Fiji Spring Water) across the Pacific to Los Angeles, and then delivered locally by truck, requires about 4 million joules per liter for transportation. Third, spring water transported by truck from French springs (such as Evian) to French sea ports, then shipped across the Atlantic, transported by train from the east coast to Los Angeles, and then delivered locally by truck has a transportation energy cost of about 5.8 million joules per liter. For the two spring water scenarios, the transportation energy equaled (in the case of Fiji) or exceeded (in the case of France) the energy required to produce the bottle.
The energy required for processing, bottling, sealing, labeling, and refrigeration were much smaller than the energy for making the bottles and transporting them. With this data, the researchers hope that future studies will have the ability to make specific estimates for different scenarios, and possibly find ways to cut energy costs.
“With the US consumption of bottled water exceeding 33 billion liters a year, and with intensifying efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, these data should help identify ways to reduce the energy costs of bottled water and may help consumers themselves make more environmentally sustainable choices,” Cooley said.
More information: Gleick, P.H. and Cooley, H.S. “Energy implications of bottled water.” Environmental Research Letters 4 (2009) 014009 (6pp).
Copyright 2009 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
Feb 08, 2010
http://www.oxygen4energy.com/
I have no problem with drinking filtered water - I don't believe tap water is the best thing we can be drinking. However, people need to start filtering it THEMSELVES. Invest in a freakin' reverse osmosis filter, already - and stop burying this planet in plastic and air pollution.
But bottled water became fashionable by and because of leftists. Why? Who kept stating how polluted and dangerous our water supply is or potentelly is? Environmentalists. Movie stars, the rich and fashionable (mostly leftists) wanted something better than what the ordinary folks drink.
What happened next was that the commoners started liking the convience of bottled water. Now the commoners are condemned.
Just like Al Gore et al, keep using their private jets, have their monster manson's, their SUVs, while condeming others for flying coach for a vacation, using a suv to take their kids to soccer, and having a 4 bedroom house. People who will make their money condming water bottles will fly to meeting, drink their bottled water, and write reports against the commoners being allowed the convience.
If people want to pay for it, let them have it. It may be a waste of money, but it creates honest jobs, unlike the jobs created by and for those in the environementalist movement.
I bicycle tour in the 500 miles/week range and drink lots of bottled water. Some of it is pure crap and worse than from a shallow well in small town.
'Purified' water is as much a scam. Consider that seagoing nuclear power plants make reactor grade water from seawater. Steam distillate is pure enough and too pure to drink.
So, what do I do? I have filters attached at the point where water enters my home. That way ALL water is filtered. No chlorine or pharmaceuticals or other stuff I really do not want to consume.
I also have an atmospheric water collection system that I have built that is similar to a dehumidifier but is more productive. Hence, no more chlorinated water and no more "bottled" water.
We haven't even discussed the off gassing of the container if the bottles get worm - either in shipping, storage or while you carry it about.
Cheers.
With bottled water you have a container with someone's name on it to hold accountable if things go wrong.
Some corporate and political leaders think they've succeeded when they take their exorbitant salaries, bonuses, and retirements, but what they've really done is corrode the fabric of trust that holds our great country together.
I understand some peoples' tap water isn't as good as the stuff in my city. So, like some above posters mentioned, install a reverse osmosis filter. Do it, or you'll never believe water could taste SWEET due to purity!
(Aside: bisphenol-A doesn't scare me. I actually did the math of dangerous levels for males my age vs. the average leaching out of my bottle size/type. I might be concerned about letting little babies drink out of NEW bisphenol-A water bottles though...)
There is all kinds of things that can be done to save energy and lives, and can be proven effective, ... but at the cost of your personal freedom!! Lets have the government controlled electric company prevent you from setting your air below 78*,... or lets ban driving after 6:00pm to save lives,... or lets forces companies to work a 4 day schedule,.. or etc.
You bone heads are fooled by even entering into the idiotic debate,... once these things become an acceptable debate, than the moron left will have government up your a$$, because they are nothing but a bunch of do-gooder naive dolts.
You will have a group of half wits in the gov thinking their clever going over statistics finding ways to make decisions for the masses removing one right after another. Their is zero wrong with bottled water!,.. it takes energy to make TV's, stereo's, to flush the toilet, to make computers, the list is endless you dimwits! It all creates jobs and allows freedom.
If the ignorant left wanted to 'save energy' they would have backed nuclear energy. This energy bs is a scam to change world gov, particularly the USA to socialism.
A bunch of mental children, they left are. The 'scientists who do these studies enter an area so wide open ( because normally freedom is respected),.. that even they, as dumb as they are,.. can make 'discoveries'!
There is no energy shortage, there is plenty of oil for centuries to come, by which time due to expense alternatives will be developed naturally, not forced into existance. The Hiroshima bomb used less than 1% of two lbs of uranium and fusion is even more efficient,.. there is plenty of energy and time.
plant, not sure as to what % is going into our virgin PET but we do reduce the amount of product that makes into our waste-stream. We are conserving energy with out "eco light weight" program and also looking into using "corn" resins that can bio-degrade in about 100 days if it makes it into a land fill.
GW is not accepted by any means as a consensus, it is an industry, popular hysertia, political tool, many things, but not a consensus to those not employed in its research. They just don't have proper scientific knowledge about the Earth and Suns climate cycles.
Using a faucet or home filter to refill is much more economical while saving the added convenience of a disposable plastic container.
On an added note, the whole AGW debate happening here and other places on the net is not only invalid, but also a red-herring. You're arguing whether or not there is enough oil for decades, or if man is responsible (wholly or in part) for our climate change, OR if we could do something about it.
What you neglect to realize is this argument is completely moot, and mostly for very negative reasons. Bottom line is, any polluting industry must be incentivized to not pollute; otherwise we jeopardize the future of our posterity - going directly against the core principles of government's social contract - namely ensuring the sanctity and security of the commonwealth (via Life, Liberty, pursuit... etc.). So the argument then becomes, not one of placing blame or slinging false-accusations (pro- and anti- AGW alike) based largely on subjective opinion and anecdotal science; but one of how to constructively improve ourselves and our modality of environmental impact (and further understanding of self and happiness) to set a good example for our kids. Ever heard of "leave no trace?" If you had, you would show a greater reverence for nature, and understand your invested interest in maintaining and conserving everything we can.
This is not left-wing do-gooder naivety. It's common economical and scientific sense. In line with the laws of physics, the natural conservation of energy, and thermodynamics. Something abandoned by most opining blow-hards on the web and in the MSM. Well, you can't deny physics. Either we fix it ourselves, or it will be done for us - without the convenience and expediency of discriminatory action.
BTW, when has a consensus ever been right? Look at the foundation of US government. It is specifically designed to undermine the mob-mentality of the "general consensus" through division of shared responsibility.
Keep diluting yourselves and your argument, and your accusations (on both sides) of Al Gore and other AGW BS may just become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Pot, meet kettle.
Buy a PUR water filter. Tastes great, less filling.
There's nothing to debate here, the findings are obvious and simple. If you can have the same thing in two different ways, one more energy efficient than the other, then by going the energy efficient route you're taking stress off of the environment.
That energy comes from somewhere, and while we don't have nuclear reactors powering the country, we need to be mindful of our energy usage as it comes from sources that pollute the environment -- an environment that each of us directly depends on, regardless of our political leanings.
Neither chlorine, hypochlorite ions or any other breakdown products are known or even suspected carcinogens. Large, long-term animal studies have been performed using chlorinated water and the result is diddly squat.
The burden of proof is on you; you're the one claiming a contrary result to the vast body of scientific evidence on chlorinated tap water.
Anyone tell you that you sound like an ignorant nut case?
CEO: "How stuppidde do I think those Americans are? Ha! I weel sell them WATER!"
Other Members: "Non! Non! Impossible, Jen-Luc! Not even those Yanks are THAT stupide!"
CEO: "Mais oui! C'est tres facile! Easy! We just pay some of their stupide film stars to tell them eet is an issue of freedom! Pas problem! They are children, I tell you!"
With the spate of very recent studies that detail the amount of pharmaceuticals contained in domestic water supplies, I'll keep on drinking it. I originally stared drinking spring water because I think it tastes much better than tap water, however, I now have a better reason, no pharmaceuticals.
While I think that the intent of this study was to call attention to the energy use of bottling water, I think it unfortunate that it seems to neglect other issues surrounding the consumption of spring water. IMHO, drinking bottled filtered tap water makes no sense since you can filter and bottle it yourself. Spring water, OTOH, is a different story.
Know what you mean Noumenon, nanny states slowly removing our freedoms is a pain in the a$$ indeed.
Water doesn't have a taste unless you add one.
Where do you think the water pumped to your tap comes from? Water is water regardless of the source. there's no special "spring" H2O in chemistry.
For a long time we had perfectly clean water comming through our pipes and into our homes, then we decided that we'd rather pay for it, and so water controls slacked off because it wasn't considered a health hazzard any longer.
We took something as basic and easy as water and made it difficult to appease lunatics. Now we hear daily reports about how contaminated our water infrastructure is, well of course it is. When bottled water became the norm we stopped spending money on maintaining our source. Now we use the quality of the source to maintain an ignorant stance that bottled water is better for you.
Unbelievable. Now I understand why my parents said our generation was ignorant. It's because we are.
Dr. Suzuki predicted it thirty years ago and no-one believed him. "They will take away even Canada's faith in the very water around us".
We should be furious. Instead we pay them. I agree with poster was above who said something like "can bottled air be very far off now?"
Too true. When I was young drinking water was something you did when you were thirsty. Now there's a recommended water consumption level of 1/2 an ounce per pound of your body weight.
I'm probably a little under average for my height at 210 pounds. So by the recommendation I should be consuming 102 ounces of water a day. That's 9 12 ounce bottles at around $2 per bottle equating out to $18 a day.
I don't pay that much for the gallons of water that are pumped into my house each month let alone each day.
Getting away from the cost part, there are a lot of medical professionals saying we drink too much water and it's robbing our bodies of necessary nutrients and vitamins. So now you need suppliments to maintain your body because you drink 80-100 ounces of water a day, when you could just have a drink, from the tap, for pennies, when you're thirsty. Technically you'd be helping the environment, reducing your consumption and reliance on multiple resources, not the least of which are fossil fuels and other energy sources, flipping big pharma the finger (which is always a worthy cause), and saving yourself a ton of money.
So who says our resource management systems are in line and efficient?
I would like to mention the article at the top of this page, if nobody else minds: the one that does not discuss the content of bottles of water, but does discuss the cost of producing the container. You know, those trendy glass bottles in a variety of shapes and colours for you to collect and use as ornaments (and ignorant politic statements) around pretentious homes.
Glass is a heavy material. Cost of transportation alone should have proved prohibitive, but you continue providing money for those bragging rights: I can afford it; I have the lifestyle of the beautiful and famous.
Plastic bottles are much lighter, the transportation costs drop far away from glass counterparts, unless you look at the growing market for 'sports bottles', (which should not deserve further comment). However, as the average internet connected armchair science commentator knows, plastic is an oil product. So while you hide your SUV in the garage for special occasions and take to the electric car, you are still using oil in your water drinking behaviour.
Recycling? Whether glass or plastic, recycling helps to reduce the amount of your life buried in the ground for future (very confused) archaeologists, but the process of turning a voluntarily submitted product - such as a bottle - back into a raw material to be used again - for another bottle perhaps - uses oil. Recycling does not reduce oil dependency, and it does emit a significant amount of gases during the process.
So, you don't trust the content of the water pipe? Form a group, go and ask your water supplier for an accurate account of what they supply in your water, and why - and then test that the water in your home matches what they tell you. Conspiracy theories about water delivered drugs are partially true, no doubt about it. But you need to know what drugs and why they are there. And then, if your group disagrees with the cocktail being served, talk to your local politicians and lobby for a change, instead of talking to your supermarket manager about what he can sell you (this week).
Freedom comes with responsibility. Choose well.
I can't believe anyone sane enough to wander around unrestrained could believe in "conspiracy theories" about tapwater. Flouridation concerns, though groundless, are not conspiracy theories. What the heck is it that you nut-cases think the "government" is putting into your water now? (easy there now buddy, I'm sure your alien friends will be back soon to re-do that anal probe. Just take a few deep breaths and pray to that stump over there. NOT THAT ONE, the "real" one further left!)
Unfortunately, since we stopped funding public water at an acceptable level, most cities and towns have stopped adding fluoride.
Looks like it's worse in bottled water:
http://www.physor...352.html
Today's WINNER is ..........Velanarris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as usual, the guy just has a good head on his shoulders