Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LCA and Cost Comparison of Current and Proposed Pallet Treatment
Methods
September, 2010
Charles Ray, Sebastian Anil , Li Ma, Kelli Hoover, and John Janowiak
School of Forest Resources, Department of Industrial Engineering, Department of Entomology
The Pennsylvania State University
Problem Description and Motivation
• Absence of LCA studies that compare ISPMtreatment methods
• Current treatment methods generate high carbonfootprint and costs
• Phase out of Methyl Bromide due to high ozonedepletion potential
• High capital costs, operating costs during heattreatment of pallets
Life Cycle Analysis of pallet types and treatment methods
Research Objectives
• Determine the environmental impacts of all pallet life cyclestages
• Compare Heat treatment, Fumigation, RF heating using LCA
• Compare current Heat Treating schedule vs. proposedschedules
• Support the development of ISPM guidelines to include RFheating as an alternative and environmentally viabletreatment option
Life Cycle Analysis of pallet types and treatment methods
Life Cycle Analysis
• Goals
•Compare environmental impacts of:
•Heat Treatment
•Methyl Bromide Fumigation
•Radio Frequency Heating
•Compare environmental impacts of:
• 56C/30M
• 60C/60M
• 71C/75M
Life Cycle Analysis – System boundaries
Life Cycle Analysis – Wooden Pallets
Life Cycle Stage Carbon Footprint (Kg CO2 eq.)
Manufacture 7.86
Heat Treatment (current ISPM 15)
2.20
Transportation 8.58
End of Life 2.03
Total 20.67
Global Warming Impacts
Wood PalletsPlastic
Pallets
Heat
Treatment
Me-Br
Fumigation
RF
Heating
(est)
No
Treatment
Production 7.86 7.86 7.86 53.6
Transportation
(per trip) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1
Phytosanitary
Treatment 2.2 5.46 0.6 0
End of Life 2.03 2.03 2.03 5.76
Total 12.69 15.95 11.09 60.46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Heat Treatment Me-Br Fumigation RF Heating Plastic Pallets -No Treatment
Emis
sio
ns
(Kg
CO
2 E
q.)
Treatment Type
End of Life Treatment
Transportation Production
LCA comparison of wood and plastic pallets
Global Warming Impacts (Kg CO2 eq.)
LCA of Treatment Methods• Comparing Heat Treatment, MeBr Fumigation and RF Heating
• Basis: Carbon footprint generated during the treatment of 1 pallet
• Me Br fumigation has a high Ozone Depletion Potential of 0.51
• RF Heating produces NO harmful emissions from the treatment process – yellowbars below are the result of the generation of the electricity used
Impact by Process Component
Uncertainty Analysis
Sample data set for current ISPM standard
Estimation of fuel consumption per treatment schedule
HT treatment
(oC/min)
Required
Minimum
Temperature
(oF)
Measured
Minimum
Temperature
(oF)
Preheating
Time (min)
Treatment
Duration
(min)
Kiln
Operation
time (min)
Fuel
Consumption
(BTU/pallet)
56/30 133 140 96.1 30 116.128 4775
60/60 140 147 105.9 60 145.897 5999
71/75 160 167 143.0 75 193.014 7936
CO2 Emission Comparison
Carbon emission for one pallet in different treatment types
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
HT 56/30 HT 60/60 HT 71/75 MB RF
Treatment Type
Carb
on F
ootp
rint (C
O2 e
q.)
Production Transportation Treatment End of Life
Loads Treated per Day
0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00
56/30
60/60
71/75
Time
Heat
Tre
atm
en
t
Timeline for Heat Treating Pallets
1st load 2nd load 3rd load
12:00 PM8:00 AM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM
Longer treatment time incurs opportunity cost for the industry
Cost of heat treating pallet with different treatment types and
loads
0.245
0.464
0.679
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
56/30 60/60 71/75
Treatment Type
Cost
($/p
alle
t)
3 loads/day 2.4 loads/day 2 loads/day
450,000 Pallets/yr
600 Pallets/load
1 kiln for one plant
Opportunity Cost included
Preliminary Findings
Life Cycle Analysis of pallet types and treatment methods
• Methyl Bromide fumigation produces the largest carbonfootprint of the treatment types
• RF Heating has a much lower estimated life-cycle costthan either conventional Heat Treatment or MethylBromide fumigation
• Proposed longer heat treatment schedules will createadditional environmental impacts, and will increase thecost of treatment significantly
• Increasing cost of wood pallet use for furtherphytosanitary protection may transition the huge globalpallet market toward alternatives with more overallenvironmental impact
To be continued…
