Perceptions of Sustainability and Functional Aspects on Liquid Carton Board Packaging Materials versus Competing Materials for Juice Applications in Sweden

This research explores the downstream perceptions of liquid carton board versus competing materials in packaging applications for juice. The methodology used is focus groups. The context is sustainability and functional performance, and related potential implications for the beverage industry value chain. The purpose is to get a deeper insight and understanding of functionality in relation to juice beverage packaging. The results confirm that there is no optimal packaging for every juice product, but a multitude, depending on the distribution channel, retail outlet, customer preferences, and context of consumption. There are some general packaging preferences, but the main deciding criteria for purchase seem to be the product characteristics in terms of quality, taste, brand, price and shelf life. For marketing reasons, packaging has to be adopted to the product and its positioning, liquid carton board packaging seem to have some functional advantages in distribution and is considered as sustainable and functional among many consumers. Major drawbacks seem to be shape limitations, lack of transparency, and lack of a “premium look”. To improve packaging performance and avoid sub-optimization, actors in the beverage industry value chain need to be integrated in development processes.

Photovoltaic System Design for a Contaminated Area in Falun – Comparison of South and East- West Layout

In this thesis the solar part of a large grid-connected photovoltaic system design has been done. The main purpose was to size and optimize the system and to present figures helping to evaluate the prospective project rationality, which can potentially be constructed on a contaminated area in Falun. The methodology consisted in PV market study and component selection, site analysis and defining suitable area for solar installation; and system configuration optimization based on PVsyst simulations and Levelized Cost of Energy calculations. The procedure was mainly divided on two parts, preliminary and detailed sizing. In the first part the objective was complex, which included the investigation of the most profitable component combination and system optimization due to tilt and row distance. It was done by simulating systems with different components and orientations, which were sized for the same 100kW inverter in order to make a fair comparison. For each simulated result a simplified LCOE calculation procedure was applied. The main results of this part show that with the price of 0.43 €/Wp thin-film modules were the most cost effective solution for the case with a great advantage over crystalline type in terms of financial attractiveness. From the results of the preliminary study it was possible to select the optimal system configuration, which was used in the detailed sizing as a starting point. In this part the PVsyst simulations were run, which included full scale system design considering near shadings created by factory buildings. Additionally, more complex procedure of LCOE calculation has been used here considered insurances, maintenance, time value of money and possible cost reduction due to the system size. Two system options were proposed in final results; both cover the same area of 66000 m2. The first one represents an ordinary South faced design with 1.1 MW nominal power, which was optimized for the highest performance. According to PVsyst simulations, this system should produce 1108 MWh/year with the initial investment of 835,000 € and 0.056 €/kWh LCOE. The second option has an alternative East-West orientation, which allows to cover 80% of occupied ground and consequently have 6.6 MW PV nominal power. The system produces 5388 MWh/year costs about 4500,000 € and delivers electricity with the same price of 0.056 €/kWh. Even though the EW solution has 20% lower specific energy production, it benefits mainly from lower relative costs for inverters, mounting and annual maintenance expenses. After analyzing the performance results, among the two alternatives none of the systems showed a clear superiority so there was no optimal system proposed. Both, South and East-West solutions have own advantages and disadvantages in terms of energy production profile, configuration, installation and maintenance. Furthermore, the uncertainty due to cost figures assumptions restricted the results veracity.