Contents  1. Executive summary ...................................................................................................3 2. Background to the Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator.............................................4 3. Background to the plastic bottle blow moulding sector ...................................................6

What the sector manufactures ....................................................................................6 How the sector manufactures......................................................................................7 Factors affecting business decisions .............................................................................9

Customer demands..........................................................................................9 Legislation....................................................................................................10

Energy reduction incentives ......................................................................................10 4. Key findings ...........................................................................................................11

How energy is used in processing ..............................................................................11 Extrusion blow moulding ................................................................................11 Injection stretch blow moulding.......................................................................12

Impact of bottle weight ............................................................................................12 Impact of speed of production...................................................................................13 Equipment idling .....................................................................................................14 Heat loss ...............................................................................................................15 Operator practice ....................................................................................................16 Energy management ...............................................................................................17

5. Opportunities..........................................................................................................18 Innovation in process control ....................................................................................18

Control of granulators (EBM)...........................................................................18 Production planning (ISBM) ............................................................................18

Innovative equipment ..............................................................................................19 Induction barrel heating (EBM)........................................................................19 Barrel insulation (EBM) ..................................................................................20 Infrared lamps (ISBM) ...................................................................................20

Summary of opportunities ........................................................................................21 6. Next steps .............................................................................................................22

Work together ........................................................................................................22 Install smart metering .............................................................................................22 Think strategically ...................................................................................................22 Get support............................................................................................................22

7. Methodology...........................................................................................................23 8. Acknowledgements..................................................................................................25

2

1. Executive summary One way for industry to achieve significant CO2 reductions is to improve energy efficiency in sector-specific manufacturing processes. The Carbon Trust has been working with a number of industry sectors, as part of its Industrial Energy Efficiency Accelerator (IEEA), to identify where savings can be made in each one. This novel approach aims to deliver quick and substantial reductions in industrial process emissions by accelerating innovation in process control and the uptake of low carbon technologies.

The plastic bottle blow moulding industry in the UK processes more than 630,000 tonnes of polymer a year through extrusion blow moulding (EBM) and injection stretch blow moulding (ISBM). The split between the two processes is roughly 42% EBM and 58% ISBM. Products include containers for food, medicine, soft and carbonated drinks, household and personal care products, automotive products and industrial applications.

In the UK, there are approximately 154 blow moulding sites. The sector consumes around 755 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy each year and emits around 400,000 tonnes of CO2 (tCO2). Most of its energy consumption is electricity, used in turning raw material into plastic.

We worked with the plastic bottle blow moulding sector in 2008 and 2009 to gain a better understanding of energy use in the manufacturing process and to identify ways of improving energy efficiency.

We focused our investigation on EBM and ISBM because these processes account for most of the CO2 emissions of this sector.

The detailed data we collected reveals a number of opportunities for making significant reductions in carbon emissions. These opportunities fall into two broad areas:

• innovation in process control

• innovative equipment.

The data we gathered indicates that taking action to become more energy efficient and to reduce carbon emissions can be a sound investment. Overall, the plastic bottle blow moulding sector could take a more strategic approach to reducing emissions. It could work more actively with customers and suppliers, and it could put itself in a better position to take advantage of the low carbon economy.

In this report, we discuss the opportunities for energy efficiency and carbon reduction.

3

2. Background to the Industrial Energy  Efficiency Accelerator 

Industry is responsible for 25% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions1. Experience at the Carbon Trust supports the view of the Committee on Climate Change, which indicated that savings of between four and six million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 (up to 4% of current UK emissions) should be realistically achievable in industry with appropriate interventions.

We believe that CO2 savings far beyond those set in current policy targets are possible by working more directly with organisations to clarify the opportunities. The impact of policy can also be accelerated and increased if industry sectors are helped to understand their energy use and how to make significant changes in a short timeframe, rather than gradually reduce their emissions over time. What’s more, direct intervention can help embed a culture of innovation and good energy management, resulting in a greater long-term impact.

Significant CO2 reductions in industry are possible by working with those medium-sized industry sectors that are outside of the EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS) but are affected by either Climate Change Agreements (CCAs) or the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme. These industries are moderately energy intensive and, in total, account for 84MtCO2 emissions per year2.

The Carbon Trust currently works with industry by supporting companies to reduce their carbon emissions. The approach is applied across a range of industries but does not offer detailed advice on sector-specific manufacturing processes. More energy intensive industries frequently cite the fact that survey recommendations do not address the bulk of their energy use as a reason for not implementing them. Between 50% and 90% of a site’s energy consumption could typically be used by a sector-specific manufacturing process.

In addition, the Carbon Trust Applied Research Scheme has supported the development of a number of industry-related technologies. This scheme is offered in response to applications for support, rather than targeting specific technologies.

Recognising the challenge of reducing CO2 emissions from industry, and the carbon reduction potential of sector-specific manufacturing processes, we looked at how we could best engage with industry to significantly increase the rate of carbon reduction beyond that delivered by carbon surveys. As a result, we developed the IEEA approach, which was launched as a pilot in 2008.

The IEEA approach focuses on identifying and addressing the reasons why opportunities to reduce emissions in industrial processes are not put into action. It is a three-stage process:

1 Committee on Climate Change Report, December 2008. 2 Source: DECC CRC Presentation, Westminster Energy Forum, January 2009.

4

In 2008/09 we undertook the investigation and solution identification stage with three pilot industry sectors: animal feed milling, asphalt manufacture and plastic bottle blow moulding. This report details the results and key findings from the investigation into the plastic bottle blow moulding sector.

5

3. Background to the plastic bottle blow  moulding sector 

The UK’s plastic bottle blow moulding industry processes more than 630,000 tonnes of polymer a year through EBM and ISBM. There are around 154 blow moulding sites, which consume around 755GWh a year and emit around 400,000tCO2. Most of the sector’s energy consumption is electricity, used to turn raw material into plastic.

The sector is represented by the British Plastics Federation (BPF), although blow moulders make up a very small proportion of BPF membership. The sector has had a CCA since October 2009.

What the sector manufactures The plastic blow moulding industry produces containers for foods, medicine, soft and carbonated drinks, household and personal care products, automotive products and industrial applications.

In this study, we have concentrated on EBM and ISBM. These processes are described in more detail in the following section. The split between the two processes is roughly 42% EBM and 58% ISBM.

ISBM containers are generally made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), though other polyester polymers may be used for specialised applications such as babies’ bottles. PET containers have a clarity similar to glass and a very low gas permeability, which means they can be used for carbonated drinks.

6

How the sector manufactures The EBM and ISBM processes are made up of a number of stages. A simplified diagram of the EBM process is shown in Figure 1, and the ISBM process in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Flow diagram showing the main stages of the extrusion blow moulding process and the major energy demands

7

Figure 2: Flow diagram showing the main stages of the injection stretch blow moulding process and the major energy demands

8

Factors affecting business decisions As in all businesses, the decisions made by plastic bottle blow moulders are influenced by a number of key factors. Figure 3 shows some of the most important factors that affect business decisions in this sector.

Figure 3: Factors affecting business decisions in the plastic bottle blow moulding sector

Customer demands

Immediate customers are usually drinks manufacturers or manufacturers of other liquid products. Supermarkets and consumers, however, have an indirect but increasingly important impact on suppliers, for example, through the carbon footprinting of products such as bottles of milk.

To minimise transport costs, many bottle blow moulding plants are located on filling sites owned by drinks manufacturers, such as dairies. Often the bottle blow moulding company pays the site owner, rather than the energy supplier, for the energy they use, and they pass the cost back to them in the price of each bottle. So, if the bottle blow moulding company reduced its energy use, the site owner would expect a lower price per bottle. This is clearly a disincentive for bottle blow moulding companies to reduce their energy use.

9

Legislation

The plastic bottle blow moulding industry pays the Climate Change Levy (CCL). The BPF, on behalf of the plastics sector as a whole, negotiated a CCA with the Government that began in October 2009. This gives participating companies 80% of the CCL back, subject to meeting energy efficiency targets. In 2008, the CCL cost the blow moulding sector £3.5m.

The industry will also be affected by the CRC. Many sites use more than the 6,000 megawatt hours (MWh) minimum for inclusion in the CRC and are included unless they are part of the CCA. Some companies on the borderline for inclusion had an extra incentive to reduce their emissions before the scheme began.

Energy reduction incentives Energy use costs plastic bottle manufacturers a significant amount – around 20% of overall operating costs. The specific energy consumption for each site falls in the region of 1.5kWh/kg to 2kWh/kg. However, energy efficiency has not previously been a high priority for the sector.

Some companies have received advice and audits from the Carbon Trust, but most have not. The industry argues that tight profit margins mean its focus must always be on cost management rather than carbon management. This suggests a lack of awareness of the direct financial benefits of carbon management within the sector.

It doesn’t help that there is very little data for production and energy use within the manufacturing process. Submetering of the process is poor or non-existent. Where data exists, there are no resources to analyse or understand its implications.

Although the sector is increasingly willing to think about energy efficiency issues, there is a lack of coordination and impetus. Many companies feel they are not getting the advice they need about the impact of climate change legislation.

 

10

4. Key findings We measured the typical energy use for both EBM and ISBM processes and found wide variations depending on the way equipment was used, the size and schedule of production and how operators carried out their work.

How energy is used in processing

Extrusion blow moulding

Figure 4 shows the energy flow through a typical extrusion blow moulding machine during normal operation.

Figure 4: A breakdown of electricity consumption for an extrusion blow moulding machine

This process uses electricity, and most of that energy is used to power the extrusion drive motor and the motor that runs the hydraulic system used in machine movements.

The plastic material is melted using the heater bands on the outside of the extruder and by frictional heat produced as the material passes through the extruder. Where the report refers to ‘other’ uses of energy in the process, this includes power for conveyors, material handling systems and other ancillary equipment.

Although compressed air and water for cooling are also used in the process, we haven’t included them in this study because energy efficiency improvements for compressors and chillers are widely documented and are available from our website.

11

Injection stretch blow moulding

Figure 5 shows the energy flow through an injection stretch blow moulding machine.

Figure 5: A breakdown of electricity consumption during the blow stage of injection stretch blow moulding

This process uses electricity, and more than 90% of that energy is used to heat the pre-forms above their glass transition temperature (around 100°C), so that they can be blown to the required shape. The rest of the power is used for motion – the direct electric motor that powers conveyors to move the pre-forms and bottles around the machine; and for ventilation – motors used to extract hot air from the ovens, draw cooler ambient air into the machine or circulate air in the ovens.

Other resources include high- and low-pressure compressed air for blowing the pre-forms, and water to extract heat from the blown bottles and keep the neck area cool in the ovens.

Impact of bottle weight Figure 6 shows the variance in energy consumed per unit of material for the different sub-processes, when different weight bottles are manufactured on the same machine.

The weight of the bottle has a significant impact on the energy used by the extruder and the amount of heating required – heavier bottles generally consume more energy per unit of material in their manufacture. A process called ‘light weighting’, which reduces material and energy costs, is carried out in consultation with the customer who sells the filled bottle.

12

Figure 6: Effect of different bottle weights on energy consumption for extrusion blow moulding processes

Impact of speed of production It was thought that the weight of material extruded per hour would affect the amount of electricity consumed by the extruder and the heater bands. Surprisingly, the considerable variation in energy used, even though extrusion rates stay the same, shows there is no correlation between energy use and the amount of material being processed. This may well point to poor process setting.

Figure 7: The relationship between extrusion rate and power consumption of extruder and heater

13

Equipment idling Figures 8 and 9 show the total energy consumption of an extrusion and injection blow moulding machine over time.

There are stoppages throughout the period and, in general, these are due to mechanical breakdowns. The larger gaps may indicate that the machine has been switched off because there is no operator available or production is not required. Bottle production often has to match the filling rate, and problems at the filling line have an impact on the consistent operation of the bottle production line. Another possible factor is that the speeds of the blowing machine and filling line may be poorly matched.

However, even when the machine is stopped there is background power use from the heating elements and ancillary equipment. The ISBM process can be more easily stopped and started than the EBM process, which has advantages when the blowing machine has to match speed with the filling line.

Figure 8: Power consumption (kW) of an EBM machine

14

Figure 9: Power consumption (kW) of an ISBM machine

Over 21 hours of monitoring, the machine operated for only 1.5 hours, but the heaters and ancillaries were left on continuously. Switching off the granulator and other ancillary equipment would have saved 150kWh of electricity. If the heaters had been switched off, a further 83kWh would have been saved. Annually, that could add up to a cost saving of £1,900 for just one machine.

The reason for leaving the heaters on was the length of time needed to heat up the barrel to a stable condition. However, better production planning would allow ancillary equipment to be switched off when not in use without disrupting production when the machine was needed again.

Another factor is that when a change of bottle size occurs, the change-over for the blowing equipment is completed more quickly than the filling line change-over. This leads to a period of four or five hours when the blowing machine is run sporadically, waiting for the filling line to be ready. Reducing the change-over time would reduce energy use and, again, could be achieved with better production planning.

Heat loss On injection stretch blow moulding machines, heat is lost as hot air from the top of the oven. Temperature and energy flow measurements showed this to be at a rate of around 30kW.

The extruder and the motors on the extrusion blow moulding machine radiate the most heat. Between 30% and 60% of energy may be lost in this way, depending on machine size. Infrared images of these areas during operation show temperatures of up to 110°C. In Figure 10, the blue zones represent areas of lower radiant temperature and move up the spectrum to red and white for areas of higher radiant temperature.

15

Figure 10: Thermal image showing heat radiating from a motor

Operator practice Although a number of factors affect energy use in these processes, operators are more likely to use settings that are ‘familiar’, rather than tuning the machine for optimum energy and production performance. This is due to a lack of technical knowledge in the industry, and a lack of data to demonstrate links between operations and energy saving.

Figures 11, 12 and 13 show there is no correlation between bottle weight and energy consumption or between extrusion rate and energy consumption, where a relationship would usually be expected. Since most energy use is in heating and plasticising the material, lower material loads should reduce energy. This suggests poor process control and a lack of awareness of energy consumption when setting up processes.

Figure 11: Energy consumption of extrusion blow moulding machines for different bottle weights

16

Figure 12: Energy consumption of injection stretch blow moulding machines for different bottle weights

Figure 13: Energy consumption of extrusion blow moulding machines by rate of extrusion

Energy management There are few dedicated energy managers in the plastic blow moulding sector and there is little specialist and independent support available. Sites capture little production information, and there tends to be no energy use information at process level to inform energy management decisions and measure improvements in performance. Managers are not generally aware of opportunities for energy reduction and don’t have the data to build a strong business case for change.

17

5. Opportunities Before we carried out this study as part of the IEEA, very few plastic blow moulding sites had been surveyed from the Carbon Trust. Most weren’t familiar with conventional energy efficiency measures such as energy efficient motors, variable speed drives (VSDs), efficient lighting and plant and pipe lagging.

The majority could certainly benefit from these measures. However, most of the energy use on blow moulding sites is related to the actual process of producing plastic bottles. This study has identified several other opportunities for process control innovations and innovative equipment specific to bottle production.

Innovation in process control These opportunities tend to be cheaper, have a shorter payback period than other types and tend to be fairly straightforward to implement. For these reasons, they are also the most popular with the industry.

Control of granulators (EBM)

The EBM process was monitored for more than 1,450 hours on a number of sites and machines. We found that for 10.5% of the time when machines weren’t working, the granulators and ancillary equipment were still running. It would cost nothing to make staff more aware of this and, by turning off this equipment, save both energy and money. Alternatively, an automatic sensor could be fitted to each granulator to switch it off when the machine was not producing bottles.

More than 80% of blow moulding sites could take this opportunity, leading to savings of around 11,000tCO2 a year.

Cost

The cost of installing granulator control is around £2,000 a machine. The saving would be around £1,900 per machine per year, giving a payback time of just over a year.

Barriers

Lack of awareness and involvement of machine operators stands in the way of adopting better granulator control. This could be easily addressed with an energy saving campaign and by sharing best practice across the organisation.

Production planning (ISBM)

When the bottle size is changed on the filling line and blowing machine, it takes an average of eight hours to reach a steady state of production. During this time, the blowing machine is left running and still consumes energy at around half its full speed rate. During monitoring of 588 running hours, energy wasted in this way amounted to 600kWh.

Bringing in better production planning at just half the UK’s sites could save 35,000tCO2 a year.

18

Cost

Better production planning should cost companies nothing and give immediate payback.

Barriers

The main barrier is the shortage of time and skills to educate and train staff. Changing operational practices for energy saving reasons is often disregarded because meeting production targets is seen as more important. This shows that companies don’t recognise that energy efficiency actually brings financial and operational benefits.

Innovative equipment These options tend to involve capital outlay, so businesses need solid evidence to be able to draw up a case for adopting them. Because equipment isn’t renewed very often in this industry, it would also take longer for a significant impact to be felt in the sector as a whole.

Induction barrel heating (EBM)

Our monitoring shows that around 8%-10% of energy consumption in bottle blow moulding is used in heating the barrel. The injection moulding industry has brought in a new method of barrel heating that cuts energy use by between 50% and 70%. This induction heating method is illustrated in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Heating the barrel using induction energy

Around 80% of plastic bottle blow moulding sites in the UK could adopt induction heating – leading to savings for the whole sector of around 50,000tCO2 a year.

19

Cost

The estimated cost of adopting induction barrel heating is £16,500 per machine. The payback period should be just less than two years.

Barriers

Transferring induction heating technology to extrusion blow moulding isn’t a simple process because of the use of cooling fans at the front of the barrel. It’s also not clear what level of CO2 savings can be achieved, which makes it difficult to build a business case for investment. This technology would need to be tested and adapted for extrusion blow moulding before wider adoption in the sector.

Barrel insulation (EBM)

Clip-on barrel insulation is used in the extrusion blow moulding industry and can save up to 45% of the energy use. However, it has to be removed whenever operators need access to the heater bands, and is rarely replaced after removal. The solution would be integrated units with insulated heater bands.

Around 80% of plastic bottle blow moulding sites in the UK could take up this option – leading to savings for the whole sector of around 32,000tCO2 a year.

Cost

The estimated cost of integrated barrel insulation is £3,500 per machine. The payback period should be 18 months.

Barriers

The main barrier is lack of awareness among operators of the energy and cost saving benefits.

Infrared lamps (ISBM)

Improving infrared lamp technology could bring significant savings in energy consumption in the ISBM process. Making the lamps more reflective and lowering power consumption are target areas for some manufacturers and, if implemented, could save around 15% of energy.

If just half the sector adopted these improvements, there could be a saving of 4,000tCO2 a year.

Cost

The cost of improved infrared lamps is around £10,000 and could have a payback of around two years. It is more likely, though, that the lamps would be replaced only when the whole machine was replaced.

Barriers

When manufacturers specify new blow moulding machinery, the energy efficiency of the infrared lamps is only one of several factors and unlikely to take priority.

20

Summary of opportunities Figure 15 summarises the financial case for the major opportunities identified for reducing carbon emissions in plastic bottle blow moulding.

Opportunity Cost per machine Payback Annual C02 savings (tonnes)

Production planning (ISBM) Minimal Immediate 35,000

Control of granulators (EBM) £2,000 <1 year 11,000

Barrel insulation (EBM) £3,500 18 months 32,000

Infrared lamps (ISBM) £10,000 2 years 4,000

Induction barrel heating (EBM) £16,500 2 years 50,000

Figure 15: Summary of opportunities

21

6. Next steps Generally speaking, the level of awareness of the need to save energy in the plastic bottle blow moulding sector could be improved. Comparison to other industrial sectors suggests that the sector’s CCA will raise that awareness and be an incentive for energy efficiency. However, companies in the blow moulding sector still need to do more to get staff involved and raise awareness of the opportunities to improve energy efficiency and save money. Companies need to develop a culture in which accepted practices are challenged.

Work together Cross-sector collaboration, particularly between machine suppliers and manufacturing companies, could lead to the development and adoption of more energy efficient equipment. Companies could also benefit from cross-sector training and sharing best practice. The CCA gives the BPF the mandate to bring the sector together in this way.

Install smart metering All companies in the sector would benefit from detailed submetering of the manufacturing process at their sites. This would give them information for more efficient day-to-day operation of the process, as well as providing evidence to justify investment in more significant energy saving opportunities.

Think strategically The low carbon economy offers opportunities for manufacturers. Customers’ buying decisions may change, and supermarkets are already measuring the carbon footprint of some of their products. Managers of plastic bottle blow moulding companies need to think strategically about how the low carbon economy will affect them and how they can position their business to take advantage of this new business environment.

They need to work more closely with customers to understand how purchasing decisions may change and to influence those decisions. There is a real opportunity to increase market share by reducing energy use and then using this fact as a selling point.

Get support Companies should ensure they are taking advantage of all the available support and financial incentives to help them reduce energy and carbon emissions now. We offer a range of support to all sizes of business, and there is more information about our range of services on our website at www.carbontrust.co.uk.

The sector should also continue to work with the Carbon Trust as part of the IEEA to maximise energy savings from the manufacturing process.

22

7. Methodology The purpose of the work undertaken in stage one of the IEEA with the plastic bottle blow moulding sector was to examine the sector-specific manufacturing process in-depth, to understand energy use and links with other systems, and identify possible ways to improve energy efficiency.

The focus of the investigation was extrusion blow moulding and injection stretch blow moulding, as these processes are used by most companies in the sector and account for most of the sector’s carbon emissions.

We contacted the BPF, the trade body for the plastics sector in the UK, with a view to using its influence in the industry. Unfortunately, it was unable to get involved in the project in stage one. So a number of potential host companies were independently identified, using the knowledge and experience of the project team and through research. Sites were selected to ensure representative data in terms of the processes, products and types of equipment used. After a number of meetings, four major companies volunteered to take part in the accelerator – two working with extrusion blow moulding and two with injection stretch blow moulding.

We installed electricity submetering equipment to cover the main energy using items of plant on the sites below:

Site no. Company Site Process Annual energy consumption

1 RPC Raunds EBM 12GWh

2 Robert McBride Manchester EBM 13GWh

3 Britvic Norwich ISBM 14GWh

4 Highland Spring Blackford ISBM 6GWh

The methodology used in this study included:

• an initial information gathering phase to build relationships and an understanding of the process and sector

• desk-based research into equipment and innovation

• analysis of historic process and energy data and new submetered data, using advanced techniques to identify areas of poorer performance and quantify energy efficiency opportunities

• site visits and discussions with industry contacts and site personnel

• workshops to identify and address barriers to taking up opportunities.

A range of data from submetering of the main components of the blow moulding process was collected in this study:

• extruder (kW)

• granulation unit (kW)

• hydraulic pump (kW)

23

• heating (kW)

• total (kW).

These readings were taken every half-hour to get an accurate breakdown of power consumption without generating unwieldy data sets. Capturing data at 10-minute intervals and to the nearest 0.1kW instead of 1kW would have given greater detail to allow further investigation. As well as continuous monitoring, the flow rate of the cooling water on some of the machines was also recorded, along with the incoming and outgoing water temperatures. Thermal images of some of the machinery were also taken.

Host sites provided production data on the number of bottles produced and run times, and this was checked for anomalies in comparison with the energy data.

A workshop was held to get more people from the plastic blow moulding sector involved in discussing energy saving opportunities and the barriers to taking up energy efficiency opportunities. Although no representatives from the BPF were able to attend, the Polymer Machinery Manufacturers and Distribution Association and several member companies were represented.

24

8. Acknowledgements This report has been produced by the Carbon Trust with support from AEA Technology Ltd, David White Consulting, Atkins, the Plastics Machinery Manufacturers and Distributors Association, Britvic, Highland Spring, RPC Containers Ltd and McBride.

25

The Carbon Trust receives funding from Government including the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and Invest Northern Ireland. Whilst reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the information contained within this publication is correct, the authors, the Carbon Trust, its agents, contractors and sub-contractors give no warranty and make no representation as to its accuracy and accept no liability for any errors or omissions. Carbon Trust trademarks, service marks or logos used in this publication, and copyright in it, are the property of the Carbon Trust. Nothing in this publication shall be construed as granting any licence or right to use or reproduce Carbon Trust trademarks, service marks, logos, copyright or any proprietary information in any way without the Carbon Trust’s prior written permission. The Carbon Trust enforces infringements of its intellectual property rights to the full extent permitted by law. The Carbon Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales under Company number 4190230 with its Registered Office at: 6th Floor, 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF. CTG019 © The Carbon Trust 2010. All rights reserved.