Upload
j3hdz
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
1/43
Eco-Efficiency Analysis
101: How to Leverage this
Strategic Lifecycle Tool
Bruce UhlmanSenior Sustainability Specialist, BASF
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
2/43
What we ll learn today
n What is an Eco-Efficiency Analysisn What its used forn What it measuresn Three examples:
n Commercial wall systemsn Cladding systemsn
Concrete formulations
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
3/43
Eco-confusion
EmbodiedEnergy
Design for the Environment
Green
NaturalRecycled Content
Petroleum based
Bio-based
Compostable
Eco-friendly
EnvironmentalProductDeclarations(EPD)
WaterFootprint
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
4/43
Changing Course
Eco-EfficiencyDefinition coined in 1992 publication by WBCSD, Changing Course
Based on the concept of creating more goods and services while usingfewer resources and creating less waste and pollution
Delivering more with less
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
5/43
What is an Eco-Efficiency Analysis?
n Rigorous tool for assessing the relative sustainability ofproducts and processes on scientific, comprehensive,comparative basis
n Holistic assessment of economic and environmentalimpact over various lifecycle stagesn Raw material extractionn Energy productionn Manufacturen Use phasen End-of-life (recycle or disposal)
n Uses a defined customer benefit andspecific system boundary
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
6/43
What is an Eco-Efficiency Analysis
used for?n Balance economy and ecology (understand trade-offs)n Support strategic decision making
n Evaluate product portfolion Enhance R&D effortsn Enhance customer and stakeholder communication
n Comparison of multiple products or systemsn Economic and environmental advantages and
disadvantages of possible alternatives
n Holistic view of entire lifecycle prior to making a decision orwriting a specification
n Performance in applications i.e. painting 1 m2 of a wall
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
7/43
Is the Eco-Efficiency Analysis credible?
n Third-party validations/verifications:n Methodology:
nRhineland Technical Surveillance Association (TVRheinland)
n NSF International NSF Protocol P-352, Validation andVerification of Eco-Efficiency Analyses Part A
n Individual studiesn NSF International NSF Protocol P-352, Validation and
Verification of Eco-Efficiency Analyses Part Bn TV, PE International, DEKRA
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
8/43
What does an Eco-Efficiency Analysis
measure?
n Economic data (Total Cost of Ownership)n Raw material costsn Labor costsn Energy costsn Investment costsn Maintenance costsn Environmental health
and safety programscosts
n Illness and injury costsn Property protection and
warehousing costs
n Waste costsn Training costsn Other costs as
applicable
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
9/43
What does an Eco-Efficiency Analysis
measure?
n 11 environmental impacts in 6 categories:Energy Raw Materials
Risk EmissionsToxicity Potential
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
10/43
Lifecycleenvironmentalimpactareas*
Cumulativeenergy utilizationplus remaining
energy content
Fossil andrenewableresources
Consump(onof
EnergyEmissions
Described bycategories- Air
- Water- Solid
Toxicity
Poten(al
Definition forhazardousmaterials used by
EU law
Maximumpossible hazardused
RiskPoten(al
Risk assessmentapproachBased on
publishedstatistical data
(e.g. insuranceassociations;
government)
Consump(onof
RawMaterials
Materials areweightedaccording to
reserves andglobal
consumption
LandUse
Index calculatedby assessmentcriteria and
impact factors
What does an Eco-Efficiency Analysis
measure?
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
11/43
What does an Eco-Efficiency Analysis
measure?
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
12/43
n Category weighting:n Societal factors
n Third-party market research andpublic opinion polls to determine the
value society places on reducing oneimpact category relative to others
n Relevance factorsn Unique for each study and based on
statistical data for each regionn Helps put into context the
significance of eachenvironmental impactn Example: what does the emission
(or energy consumption)contribute to total emissions (orenergy consumption) in the
region considered
What does an Eco-Efficiency Analysis
measure?
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
13/43
Customerbenefit :
1 functionalunit for.
high eco-efficiency
0.0
1.0
2.00.01.02.0
Costs (normalized)
Envi
ronmentalImpact(normalized)
Alternative AAlternative BAlternative C
low eco-efficiency
The most eco-efficient
product has the lowest
combined environmental
impact and cost. Eco-
efficiency is measured from
the diagonal line.
Alternative B ismost eco-efficient.
What does an Eco-Efficiency Analysis
measure?
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
14/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
n Compare different systems forinsulating the exterior wall sampleof a commercial building:n 9-square-meter samplen One 0.6 x 1.2 meter windown R-value 20 ft2*h*F/(BTU*in)n 25-year lifespann
Wall assembly meetsrequirements of National BuildingCode of Canada (NBC) and sprayfoam meets the Canadianstandard for spray polyurethane:
CAN/ULC-S705.1
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
15/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
nAlternatives studied:n WALLTITE Eco (Closed-cell spray-applied
polyurethane foam (SPF))
n Expandable polystyrene (EPS)n Mineral fiber boardn Extruded polystyrene (XPS CO2 blowing agent)n Extruded polystyrene (XPS HFC Blend blowing agent)
These alternatives were selected as they represent the most commonly availabletechnologies when selecting commercial building insulation systems; theyrepresent the majority of the market and reflect updates in technologies (e.g.blowing agents).
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
16/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systemsBoundary conditions
Transport
Installation
ProductionProduction
Raw materialsacquisition
and transport
Insulation production
Steel &concrete
production
Membrane &
primerproduction
Masonry ties
Use
Buildinguse
Disposal
Disposal via
landfill
Removal ofinsulation
Grey boxes are not considered, since they are the same for all alternatives.
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
17/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systemsClosed cell spray foam
Closed cell spray foam
5. Transition / Flashing membrane
4. Architectural masonry(not considered)
3. Masonry tie
1. Concrete block(not considered)
3. Masonry tie
2. Steel structure(not considered)
5. Transition / Flashingmembrane
6. Caulking (not considered)
For insulation alternatives other thanthe closed cell spray foam, the entirewall surface is covered with amembrane, and additional membraneis required around each masonry tie.
Otherwise the systems are identical.
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
18/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
Lifecycle costs Table 6: Life cycle costs
For this study, WALLTITE Ecohas a significantly lower lifecycle cost thanthe other competing alternatives.
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
19/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
Environmental impacts energy consumption
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
20/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
Environmental impacts resource consumption
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
21/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
Environmental impacts global warming potential
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
22/43
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
Environmental fingerprint
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
23/43
Eco-Efficiency portfolio
Insulation of theexterior of 9 m2 wall
surface for acommercial building,with one 0.6 x 1.2 mwindow, an R-value of20 ft2*h*F/(BTU*in)over a period of 25yrs to meetrequirements such as
the National BuildingCode of Canada(CAN/ULC-S705.1)
For this study, WALLTITE Eco is clearly the most eco-efficient alternative.
Example study #1:
commercial wall systems
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
24/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
n Comparison between brick, stucco and Senergy EIFS*n Wall designs, maintenance schedules and all costs
supplied by RS Means
n Construction, use and disposal of 3,000-square-foot wallassembly, designed with steel stud framing andexterior-grade gypsum sheathingn Assembly was 30 long by 8-stories high, with
three windows per floor and a 12 span betweensupporting structures
nAll wall sections insulated to level consistent with LEEDEnergy and Atmosphere performance targets
n All claddings used fluid-applied air/water-resistivebarrier,
n Allowed direct comparison betweenmaterials of construction
*Proprietary Channelled Adhesive Design
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
25/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
n Energy use related to insulation not a factor in this studyn < U-0.077 per NBI Core Performance Guide Climate
Zones 1 6
n R-5 XPS ci + R-13 cavity for brick and stuccon 3 EPS continuous exterior insulation used for EIFS
n 50-year projected service lifen Based on Canadian Standards Association
S478-95 Durability of Buildings
n Modeled using published data** and real-worldobservations
n For disposal phase, all materials assumed to go tolandfill
**Long-term Performance of External Thermal Insulation Systems (ETICS), H. Knzel, H.M.Knzel, K. Sedlbauer, Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, Architectura 5 (1) 2006,
11-24
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
26/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
Energy consumption
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
EIFS Brick Stucco
MJ/CB
Transport 2
Maintenance
Transport 1
Insulation
Studs, Lintels
Veneer
Misc
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
27/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
Resource consumption
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
EIFS Brick Stucco
kg/(a*Miot)^1/2/CB
Transport 2
Maintenance
Transport 1
Insulation
Studs, Lintels
Veneer
Misc
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
28/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
Air
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
EIFS Brick Stucco
Acidification Pot.
Photochemical Ozone
Ozone Depletion Pot.
Global Warming Pot.
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
29/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
Water
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
EIFS Brick Stucco
Lcritic
alamountwater/CB
Transport 2
Maintenance
Transport 1
Insulation
Studs, Lintels
VeneerMisc
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
30/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
Senergy EIFS has lowest environmental impact in all 6 categories Key factor is assembly weight:
Brick: 46.0 pounds/ft2 Stucco: 17.8 pounds/ft2 EIFS: 6.2 pounds/ft2
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
31/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
Lifecycle cost 3,000-sf, 8-story wall
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
32/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
EIFS is more eco-efficient than brick or stuccoHigh brick lifecycle cost skews normalized data
EIFS compared with brick and stucco
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
33/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
Rescaled data with brick removedSimilar cost, different eco-footprintEIFS is more eco-efficient than stucco
0.7
1.0
1.3
0.71.01.3
costs (norm.)
environmentalburden(norm.)
EIFs
Brick
Stucco
5% significance
EIFS compared with stucco
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
34/43
Example study #2: cladding systems
n Material quantities were the main factor influencing eco-profilesn Steel and cement had the heaviest eco-profiles
n Cost differences consistent in the Construction, Use and Disposalphases
n Brick is clearly the most expensive choicen 12 span understates the relative performance of EIFS
n At larger spans, stucco and brick need much more steel than EIFSn Greater framing weight increases cost and environmental footprint
n Impact of weight on building and foundation outside study scopen Weight savings would favor EIFS (lighter alternative)
n Material consumption is directly correlated with environmental burdenn Design professionals concerned with sustainability should factor
weight reduction into their building designs
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
35/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
Concrete Plant
Cement
Aggregate
Quarry
Blast/mineCrushSeparate sizesStore/load/ship
Mine raw materialsHeat in kilnGrind with gypsumStore/load/ship
Cement
Production
Receive raw materialManufacture moleculesBlend ingredientsStore/load/ship
Chemical
Admixture
s
Reduced usage ofpotable water
Water
Separate andprocess
Store/load/ship
Recycled
Materials
Concrete analyses can beconducted on ready mixed, precast,
manufactured concrete products,paving, self-consolidating and
pervious concrete.
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
36/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
n Compare reference ready-mix concrete to 4alternative concrete mixtures:n Fly ash 15%n Fly ash 40%n Slag 50%n Green SenseSM proprietary optimized-performance
concrete
n Customer benefit: production and placement ofone cubic yard of concrete
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
37/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
n Green Sense optimized-performance concrete:n Supplementary cementitious and
non-cementitious materials, combined withengineered chemical admixtures
n Capitalizes on usable by-products typicallycharacterized as waste
n Strength, durability and operational benefits needed tokeep customers satisfied
n Economic and environmental benefits
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
38/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
Environmental fingerprint
The four concrete alternatives are shown tobe progressively more environmentallypreferable in relation to the Reference Mix.
0.00
Energy consumption
Emissions
Toxicity potential
Risk potential
RM consumption
Use of area
Reference Mix
Fly Ash 15%
Fly Ash 40%
Slag 50%
Proprietary Formulation
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
39/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
40/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
0.5
1.0
1.50.5
Costs (normalized)
environ
mentalimpact(normalized)
ReferenceMixFly Ash 15%Fly Ash 40%Slag 50%Proprietary
Formula(on
1.5 1.0
The Green Senseproprietary concrete mixhas the lowest overallenvironmental burden andis the most economical toproduce.
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
41/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
n Strategic decisions made based on this studyincluded:n Internet-based Eco-Efficiency manager application
createdn Provide external access to customizable reports
n Marketing to ready-mixed concrete plant owners andoperators, architects, project specifiers, tradeassociations, and both government and non-government organizations
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
42/43
Example study #3:
concrete formulations
n Real-world application of Eco-Efficiency data!n Freedom Tower project in New York City required 38,000
cubic yards of concrete
nUsed Green Sensebased on concrete performanceprovided and environmentalresults from Eco-Efficiency analysis
n Project resulted in savings of*:n Over 30,000 gallons of
fresh watern 8 million kWh of energyn 12,000,000 pounds of
CO2 emissions
n Nearly 750,000 pounds offossil fuel *vs a typical concrete mix formulation
7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt
43/43
How can you use an
Eco-Efficiency Analysis?
n Designed to let YOU compareimpact of different products
and systemsn Holistic and science-based datan Results are transparentn Download reports from
NSF.org or construction.basf.us