ERA Convention 2019, “RENTAL: A SHARING ECONOMY”, Madrid, 15 and 16 May

Please react on Twitter, @era_rental, #eraconvention2019

Carbon Footprint of

Construction Equipment

Martijn IN’T VELD, Leonardo VERKOOIJEN, Climate Neutral Group

Marijn BIJLEVELD, CE Delft

Construction equipment and its carbon footprint

Project goal

To compare efficient and inefficient use of equipment

To demonstrate possible reductions in CO2-emissions.

Battery drillTelehandler

Mini-excavator Excavator

Generator

Electric articulating boom lift

Wheel loader

Mast boom liftBreakerScissor lift

Team

SGS Search – LCA

CE Delft – Comparative analysis

CNG – Project management and verification

Special thanks to:

• Volvo

• JCB

• Atlas Copco

• JLG

• Haulotte

• Genie

• and all other contributors

Approach

Phase 2: • Definition of parameters• Comparative analysis of parameters

effects on selected products• Use case scenarios and calculator

Phase 1: • Carbon Life Cycle Assessment,

ISO 14040 & 14044 LCA standard

Resource extraction

Material processing

Product assemblyDistributionUse phase

End of life / recycling

Various parameters determine the impact of use

Intensity of use Energy consumption Transportation: distance, load factor, vehicle type

Recycling(yes/no)

Enables innovation

A calculation tool

SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2

500 hours6 yearsEfficient transportEfficient energy

250 hours8 yearsInefficient transportInefficient energyDIFFERENCE?

IMPACT per hour

TransportEnergyProduction

CO2

What if…

Efficient use <-> inefficient use

SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2

DIFFERENCE?100 km40 km

S1 S2

CO2

ASSEMBLYPRODUCTIONof materials

5.000 kg CO2-eq

-1.800 kg CO2-eq

3.200 kg CO2-eq

DISASSEMBLY RECYCLING(average)

PRODUCTIONof components

Energy consumption

LUNCHTIME!Difference:

2.1 kg CO2-eq/hr

Energy consumption

LUNCHTIME!Difference:

2.1 kg CO2-eq/hr

960 kg CO2-eq

At 500 h/yr

…

Transport

CLIENT 1

CLIENT 2CLIENT 3

DEPOT

Truck size

Load factor

Distance

SCENARIO 1

28 ton

80%

30 km

Truck size:

Average load factor:

Average distance:

Result per time of use 13 71 kg CO2-eq.

Transport

SCENARIO 2

7.5 ton

50%

50 km

SCENARIO 1

28 ton

80%

30 km

Truck size:

Average load factor:

Average distance:

Result per time of use 13 71 kg CO2-eq.

At 60 jobs per year:

Transport

SCENARIO 2

7.5 ton

50%

50 km

3,500 kg CO2-eq/hr

Difference:

Hours of use Impact of production

3,200 kg CO2-eq.

SCENARIO 1

Utilisation rate (h/yr)

Years of (1st) use:

Total hours of use:

SCENARIO 2

500

6

3,000

250

8

2,000

Impact of capital goodsper hour

1,1 1,6 kg CO2-eq.

Hours of use

Earlier replacement by a 10% more energy efficient machine

Saves 1,800 kg CO2-eq per year

Life cycle impact

kg C

O2-

eq

Saves 29,000 kg CO2-eq

in 6 years.

30.500

59.400

-10.000

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

kg C

O2 e

q./

hr

Carbon footprint, kg CO2 eq./hrPer hour of use

End-of-life

Transport in use

Energy in use

Production

Total

30.500

58.400

-10.000

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

kg C

O2 e

q./

hr

Carbon footprint, kg CO2 eq./hrPer hour of use

End-of-life

Transport in use

Energy in use

Production

Total

500h/yr6 yearsEfficient

500h/yr6 yearsInefficient

250h/yr8 yearsInefficient

10 X 3,200 =

32,000 kg CO2-eq

CLIENT

CLIENT

CLIENTCLIENT

CLIENT

CLIENT

And that’s just one machine. Imagine…

Conclusions

• Rental model generally increases efficient use, which can lead to large CO2-benefits compared to inefficient use

• Shared use avoids production and can have a large CO2-benefit

• But inefficient use can counteract these benefits.

What applies to your practice, your company?

Do you know what applies to you?

Join us in the workshops, talk with us about efficient vs inefficient use, so we can sharpen different scenario’s and parameters.