Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EGGG167 Fall 2006
Sustainability and its Impacts on Civil &
Environmental EngineeringSue McNeil
[email protected] 6578
Dupont Hall 360D
2
4
5
Sustainable
• ‘Meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future generations.’– Egalitarian viewpoint of equal outcomes– Technological progress may negate concern.
• ‘Economic and social change to improve human well being while reducing the need for environmental protection.’– Human centric viewpoint
6
Triple Bottom Line for Sustainability
• Economic: effective investments (eng. econ.), essential finance, job creation
• Environmental: natural systems, public health– Reduce use of non-renewable resources– Better manage use of renewable resources– Reduce the spread of toxic materials.
• Social: equity, justice, security
7
Numerous Environmental Issues
• Global climate change• Spread of toxic materials:
– Conventional air and water pollutants such as particulates
– Organic materials such as endochrine disrupters
• Dwindling biodiversity• Overuse of common resources such as
fisheries.
8
Triple Bottom Line Assessment Analytical Difficulties
• Multi-objective problem – many dimensions of impact.
• Valuation problems for many items.
• Priorities differ among stakeholders.
• Trade-off and dominance analysis relevant.
• Role of precautionary principle – do not risk irreparable harm.
Infrastructure Concepts
• ‘Tangible capital stock’: buildings, roads, telecommunications, water systems, etc.– Long lived investments with spatial extent
• ‘Foundation of an organization’– Rather broad, including human capital
• ‘Publicly owned capital’– Consistent with government statistics.
ASCE 2001 & 2005 Infrastructure Report Card
• Aviation: D 01, D+ 05• Bridges: C, C• Dams: D, D• Drinking Water: D, D-• Energy Grid: D+, D• Haz. Waste: D+, D• Waterways: D+, D-• Parks: --, C-
• Rail: --, C-• Roads: D+, D• Schools: D-, D• Security: --, I• Solid Waste: C+, C+• Transit: C-, D+• Wastewater: D, D-• GPA: D
Economic Sectors of Highest % of External Air Emissions Costs
Commodity Sector Total DirectCarbon black 87% 82%Electric services (utilities) 34% 31%Petroleum / natural gas well drilling 34% 31%Petroleum / gas exploration 31% 29%Cement, hydraulic 26% 19%Lime 22% 16%Sand and gravel 20% 16%Coal 19% 15%Products of petroleum and coal 18% 12%Primary aluminum 15% 6%Average over all 500 sectors 4% 1%
Ref.: H. Scott Matthews, PhD Dissertation. 1992 Data.
Some US Construction Impacts
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
GDP Electricity GWP Haz. Waste TRI Air
% U
S T
otal
Infrastructure Failure: New Orleans
Triple Bottom Line Failure in New Orleans Levee Failure
• Economic – massive losses of buildings and economic activity, large rebuilding costs.
• Environmental – significant clean up issues.
• Social – accusations of class and racial prejudice.
Coming Sustainable Infrastructure Information Technology
• Structural health monitoring.
• Toll collection and infraction identification.
• Operational monitoring and improvement.
• Multi-tasking: wireless communications.
• Quality and security monitoring.
• Etc.
Life Cycle Perspective
• Infrastructure inherently exists for a significant period of time.
• Focusing upon one life cycle phase can be misleading – minimizing design or construction costs can increase life cycle costs, even when discounted.
Residential Life Cycle Energy
1509 1669
14493
4725
31
34
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Standard Efficient
En
erg
y C
on
sum
pti
on
(G
J)
Demolition
Use
Fabrication
Source: Ochoa, Hendrickson, Matthews and Ries, 2005
Motor Vehicle Energy Use
1053310800 95418
1100211
413337215160676
191432
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Vehicle Life Cycle Stage
En
erg
y U
se (
MJ)
Suppliers
Industry/Vehicle
Life Cycle AnalysisExtraction to End of Disposal
Need to Account for Indirect Inputs
Life Cycle Analysis Approaches
• Process Based LCA – Build up individual processes from mineral extractions through end of life.
• Economic Input-Output Based LCA – Use the Leontief Model of an economy.
• Combined or Hybrid LCA – use both process models and economic input-output models.
Some Tools (Continued)
• Triple bottom line assessments (multi-objective optimization)
• Life Cycle Analysis
• Consider wide range of design alternatives (not a tactic limited to sustainable infrastructure, of course…)– New technology (datalogger, new materials)– Alternative approaches (different modes)
Example: Producing Electricity in Remote Locations
• 52% of electricity is produced from coal
• Coal deposits are generally not close to electricity demand
• The Powder River Basin produces more that 1/3 of U.S. coal, 350 million tons shipped by rail up to 1,500 miles
• Should PRB coal be shipped by rail?
Alternative Shipment Methods
• Coal by rail
• Coal by truck or waterways (non-starters!)
• Coal to electricity and ship by wire
• Coal to gas and ship by pipeline
• Coal to gas and ship by wire
• Beyond scope of example: move demand, reduce demand, alternative energy sources
Wyoming to Texas Coal Transport
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year
Fre
igh
t (m
illi
on
to
n-m
iles
)
Truck
Railroad
US Freight Traffic is Increasing
Roadway Capacity is Stable
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
Year
US
Lan
e-M
iles
Rail Mileage is Declining
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
1980 1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Mil
es o
f R
ailr
oad
Ow
ned
Leading to Heavier Use
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
16019
90
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Rel
ativ
e C
han
ge
(199
0=10
0)
Truck (ton-mi)
Railroad (ton-mi)
Roadway lane-miles
Track rail-miles
Transporting Energy from WY to Texas: All New Infrastructure
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Capital O&M Fuel Externalities Total
An
nu
al C
ost
($m
illio
n)
Coal by Rail Coal by Wire Coal to Gas by Pipeline Coal to Gas by Wire
Annual Cost ($millions
Emissions from Transporting Energy
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
SO2 CO NO2 VOC PM10 GWP(Thousands
of MT)
Em
issio
ns (
MT
)
Coal by Rail Coal by Wire Coal to Gas by Pipeline Coal to Gas by Wire
Shipping Energy Conclusions
• If infrastructure exists (rail lines), then it is best to use it.
• For new investment, alternatives to rail can be attractive but involve trade-offs.
Some Other Familiar Tools (Continued)
• Appropriate boundary setting.
• Risk and uncertainty analysis.
• Life cycle cost analysis.
What can be done to promote sustainable infrastructure?
• Policy
• Education
• Research
• Local Action
• Personal Action
Some Policy Examples
• Fuel economy requirements and incentives – reduce infrastructure needs.
• Higher density development encouragement
• Brownfields re-development encouragement.
• Toxics emissions reporting and regulation.
• Full cost pricing.
• Green buildings, e.g. LEED certification
Some Research Examples
• Re-use and recycling of goods.
• Alternative fuels and power generation.
• Energy efficient buildings.
• Carbon sequestration.
• New Technology (bio-materials, information technology, etc.)
Switchgrass (Cellulosic) Ethanol
Distribution of Consumer
Preferences
Compact Car
Sports Car
Light TruckHydrogen
Gasoline
EthanolBiomass
Oil
Tar Sands
Plug-in Hybrid Electric
Internal Combustion
Fuel Cell
DistributionPipelines
Manufacturing Use End of Life
Rail Shipping
ProcessingResource Use Transportation
Coal Electricity
Vehicles ConsumersEnginesFuelsResources
Infrastructure& Policy
Decisions in the Marketplace
Impact:Life Cycle Analysis
Policy
Some Resources• Center for Sustainable Engineering (ASU,
Carnegie Mellon, Texas): http://www.csengin.org/
• Carnegie Mellon Green Design Institute: www.gdi.ce.cmu.edu
• Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment: website at www.eiolca.net. Book: Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods & Services: An Input-Output Approach, 2006.
38
Self Evaluations
• www.myfootprint.org
• www.travelmatters.org
