LCA: General Definition LCA Procedure Paper Recycling Housing Bioethanol Review Environmental Life Cycle Assessment 1 Firoz Jameel, Jesse Daystar and Richard

LCA: General Definition LCA Procedure Paper Recycling Housing Bioethanol Review

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment

1

Firoz Jameel, Jesse Daystar and Richard A. Venditti*Department of Wood and Paper Science

North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8005

*Corresponding author:[email protected], (919) 515-6185

mailto:[email protected]


Introduction

Learning Objectives of this section:

a) Be able to define a LCAb) To understand an LCA’s importancec) To identify important aspects of an LCA

2


Sustainability?

• How do we supply societies needs without harming the environment or future generations’ ability to meet their needs?

• We have many options to meet our demands.

• How to choose the “best” option?

• Life cycle assessment helps to inform our choices.

3


What is a Life Cycle Assessment ?

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool to assess the potential environmental impacts of products, systems, or services at all stages in their life cycle [ISO 14001:2004].

Types of LCA

• Cradle to Gate: raw materials to finished good (no use or end life considerations)

• Cradle to Grave: Considers everything from harvesting materials to the disposal of the finished goods

4


Example LCA Process

5

Production Transportation Use Disposal

Recycle

EnergyEnergyEnergy Energy

Waste

Waste

WasteWaste

Emissions to air and water




Recycled Materials

Raw Materials

Energy

Waste


Why is an LCA Important?

• Helps ensure compliance with government regulations• Helps decrease the environmental impact of a given product

- Identifies ways to improve sustainability- Identifies ways to “green” all aspects of product’s life

• Can reshape company strategy• Can help marketing

- Can reshape company image- Develop product advantage of competition

6


Important Aspects of Life Cycle Assessment

Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis

Goal and Scope Definition

7




a) To understand how to properly define the goals of an LCA

b) To understand how to establish the boundaries of an LCA

8


Defining Goals

• Should state the intent of the study– Intended application– Intended use– Intended audience

• Should also include reason for the study

9


Defining Scope

• Define functional unit of product• Help establish system boundaries for the LCA• Determine data collection methods

10


Goal and Scope Definition: Your Turn

Exercise: Define the goal and scope of an LCA designed to study the life cycle of a peanut butter and jelly

sandwich

11



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


12


Inventory Analysis


a) To understand what needs to be included in an inventory analysis

b) To understand the steps and processes included in an inventory analysis

13


Inventory Analysis: What Needs to be Included?

• All relevant stages of the life of a product

– Raw Materials/Energy Needs

– Manufacturing

– Transportation, Storage & Distribution

– Use, reuse, and maintenance

– Recycle & Waste Management

14

Production Transportation Use Disposal

Recycle

EnergyEnergyEnergy Energy

Waste

Waste

Waste

Waste



Emissions to air and water Emissions to air

and water

Recycled Materials

Raw Materials

Energy

Waste


Inventory Analysis: Setup• In an LCA, it is necessary to standardize all units of measure• For measuring energy use

– Use mega joules (MJ) to measure potential energy from non-renewable sources

– Use kilowatt hours (kW-h) to measure electrical energy• For measuring waste materials and emissions

– Use tons to measure airborne emissions and solid waste– Use gallons or liters to measure waterborne emissions

• Create a standard basis for comparison– Example: per product piece, or per kg of product

• Establish rigid boundaries for the Inventory Analysis

15


Inventory Analysis: Raw Materials & Energy Needs

• Two types of Raw Materials– Primary- first use material– Secondary- second use material (recycled)

• Analyze energy requirements– Energy required to harvest the raw materials– Energy required to convert the raw materials to the finished product

• Look at materials associated with maintaining the raw materials• Define and quantify emissions and wastes associated with the production of

the raw materials

16


Inventory Analysis: Manufacturing

• Manufacturing should take into account the following– Tools

• Molds, machinery, etc.

– Processes– Waste Material – Packaging– All emissions produced– Energy used

17


Inventory Analysis: Transportation, Storage and Distribution

• Transportation– Equipment used to move goods

• Airplanes, trucks, trains, etc

– Distance • Storage and Distribution

– Warehouses– Wholesalers– Retailers

18


Inventory Analysis: Use, Reuse and Maintenance

Inventory or materials and energy required to fully utilize the product

• Use– Energy required for normal use– Emissions from normal use of the product

• Reuse– Reusing product for the intended purpose– Reusing the product in a different manner

• Maintenance– Replacement parts– Maintenance fluids

• Oils, grease, polish, paint, etc

gasoline

CO2, H2O

motor oil, oil & air filter, hoses, tires, etc.

spent motor oil, oil & air filter, hoses, tires, etc.

spare parts for newer cars

19


Inventory Analysis: Recycle and Waste Management

• Recycle– Salvage of useful parts– Production of secondary raw materials

• Waste Management– Disposal of non-salvageable product

• Landfills, hazardous waste dumps, etc• Incineration• Composting

20


Inventory Analysis: Types of Pollution

• Three main types of pollution– Airborne emissions

• Carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, etc

– Waterborne emissions• Wastewater, untreated chemicals, etc

– Solid waste• Scrap materials, process waste, etc

21


Inventory Analysis: ISO Standard

• Overall steps for LCA are defined in ISO 14044• Steps for conducting an inventory analysis are explained in ISO 14041• Steps involved

1. Preparing for data collection

2. Data collection

3. Validation of data

4. Relating data to unit process

5. Relating data to functional unit and data aggregation

6. Refining system boundaries

22


Inventory Analysis: Example

• Example product: copy paper• Raw Materials

– Wood, water, various chemicals, energy– Chemical and Energy Recovery

• Manufacturing– Machinery, processes, packaging material

• Transportation and Distribution– Storage of paper in warehouses, selling of it via wholesalers/retailers

• Use– Products associated with the use of copy paper

• Disposal– Waste products, Recycling, landfilling– Energy recovery

23


Inventory Analysis: Your Turn

Exercise: Conduct an Inventory Analysis of a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich:

24



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


25


Impact Assessment


a) To understand what needs to be included in an impact assessment

b) To identify the usual steps and processes included in an impact assessment

26

Definition:

Impact assessment is the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action. (cbd.int/impact)


Impact Assessment: ISO Standard

• Overall steps for LCA are defined in ISO 14044• Protocol for an impact assessment is explained in ISO 14042• Mandatory elements for an impact assessment

– Selection of impact categories– Assignment of inventory analysis results– Calculation of category indicator results (characterization)

• Optional elements– Calculation of the magnitude of category indicators (normalization)– Grouping– Weighting

27


Impact Assessment: What Needs to be Included?

All environmental impacts associated with the production, use and disposal of the product

• Ecological Systems Degradation• Resource Depletion• Human Health & Welfare

28


Impact Assessment: Ecological Systems Degradation

• Chemical – Toxicity

• Physical – Habitat Loss

• Biological – Foreign Species 29

Ecological system : An ecosystem is a natural unit consisting of all plants, animals and micro-organisms (biotic factors) in an area functioning together with all of the non-living physical (abiotic) factors of the environment. (Christopherson, 1996)

Invasive species-Kudzu


Impact Assessment: Ecological Systems Degradation – Risks

Assessment• Ecological Response to Indicator • Intensity of Potential Effect• Time Scale of Recovery• Spatial Scale• Transport Media

There is no global agreement in weighting risks

C

F

Cl

ClCl

Freon 11

30

Hole in ozone layer caused by

Freon


Impact Assessment: Resource Depletion

• Resources are either renewable or non-renewable– Renewable

• Hydroelectric energy, biomass products, most crops, etc

– Non-renewable• Oil, minerals, metals, etc

• Ideally want to recycle as many non-renewable based components as possible

31


Impact Assessment: Human Health & Welfare

• Analyze impact of product on human health– Diseases that could potentially be caused by

using the product• Cigarettes: Cancer

– Diseases that can be caused by wastes produced by the product or the production of it

• Solid particulates emitted in stack gasses for a coal burning plant: Cancer

• Products that harm human health can have a negative impact on a company’s image

32


Environmental Indices

33

1. IGW – global warming 2. ISF – smog formation3. IOD – ozone depletion 4. IAR – acid rain5. IINH – human inhalation6. IING – ingestion toxicity7. ICINH -human carcinogenic inhalation8. ICING – carcinogenic ingestion toxicity 9. IFT – fish toxicity


Impact Assessment: Example

• Example product: copy paper

• Ecological systems degradation– Impact of cutting down

trees – Impact of discharged

chemicals in the water waste on the water quality

• Resource depletion– Resource is renewable

because it is trees, but it is not rapidly replaceable

– The paper is easily recyclable, reducing primary raw material needed

– For energy, mostly self sufficient

• Human health and welfare– Impact of chemicals used

on human health – Impact of stack emissions

from chemical and energy recovery on health of population around mill

34


Impact Assessment: Your Turn

Exercise: Conduct the impact assessment for a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich

35



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


36


Interpretation


a) To be able to identify what needs to be included in an interpretation

b) To understand how this step can be best used

37


Interpretation: ISO Standard

• Overall steps for LCA are defined in ISO 14044 • Proper protocol for interpretation is explained in ISO 14043• Aside from presenting results, the interpretation should conduct these

checks– Completeness check– Sensitivity check– Consistency check

• Include conclusions and recommendations

38


Interpretation: The Feedback Mechanism

• Analyze opportunities to reduce or mitigate the environmental impact throughout the whole life cycle of a product, process or activity.

• Analysis may include both quantitative and qualitative measures of improvement– Changes in product design– Changes in raw material usage– Changes in industrial processes

Original product

After Improvement Analysis

39


Interpretation: Example• Example product: copy paper• Changes in product design

– Determining potential areas of improvement for the product design

– Lighter weight paper?– Lower brightness paper?

• Changes in raw materials– Using more secondary materials in place of

primary materials– Use alternative chemicals

• Changes in industrial process– Changing from Acid to Alkaline papermaking– Changing from chlorine containing bleaching

processes to chlorine free bleaching processes

40


Interpretation: Your Turn

Exercise: Interpret the results of your LCA and present them to the group

41

LCA: General Definition LCA Procedure Paper Recycling Housing Bioethanol Review 42

Carbon Footprint Model

for Bleached Pulp and Paper Products

Trevor H. Treasure, Jesse S. Daystar and Richard A. Venditti*Department of Wood and Paper Science

North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8005

*Corresponding author:[email protected], (919) 515-6185



Waste PaperWhat do we do with it all?

43

Paper• More than 700 lb/person annual paper

consumption in the USA• 40% of all municipal waste is paper

• What should be done with waste paper?


Life Cycle Assessment-Recycling Paper Products

Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


44


Goals

• To compare the carbon footprint of three waste management scenarios for copy paper

1. Landfilling2. Incineration3. Recycling

• To perform a systematic and quantitative evaluation of these three waste management options

• To provide a tool for consumers and waste management personnel for determining the best waste management practices

45



Scope

• Three waste management scenarios considered.1. Landfilling 2. Incinerating 3. Recycling

• This study will not consider the effect of recycling on the value of wood or its consequences on the wood market

• A full impact assessment will not be performed• This analysis only accounts for carbon emissions• Other significant pollutants are emitted but are not

accounted for in this study, example heavy metals

46



Assumptions 1 of 2

• Increased recycle production has no effect on tree production

• Methane emissions from land fills have been converted to carbon dioxide equivalents using a ratio of 21:1 (IPCC 1995, table 4, pg. 26)

• Avoided CO2 releases based on fuel mix for national electricity grid

• Heating value of copy paper 6213 BTU/lb (PTF White Paper No.3)

• Net heating value of methane 21,433 BTU/lb (engineeringtoolbox.com)

47


Assumptions 2 of 2

• Responsible silviculture replant to harvest ratio equals 1:1

• Carbon sequestration based on wood makeup and weight percent carbon of cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin

• All mills are considered to be average in energy and production efficiency

• Office paper is assumed to be 20% inert, inorganic filler material

• Office paper fibers: 20% softwood and 80% hardwood

48


Life Cycle Assessment -recycling paper products

Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


49


Raw Material Composition

50

Component Softwood HardwoodCellulose 42% 45%Hemicellulose 27% 30%Lignin 31% 25%

Paper Composition % % Soft Wood 20%% Hard Wood 80%

Component % carbon by weightMajor Hemicellulose - SW 44.68%Minor Hemicellulose - SW 47.31%Major Hemicellulose - HW 37.76%Minor Hemicellulose - HW 43.60%Lignin 60.93%

Source: Dr. Dimitris S. Argyropoulos, course pack for WPS 332


Carbon Equivalents

51

• Carbon Equivalents Conversion

`

12+(4x1)=16

CO2 Tons 12 g carbon/mol =Carbon Equivalents

44 g CO2/mol

Methane Tons 12 g carbon/mol =Carbon Equivalents

16 g CH4/mol

Methane Tons combusted 12 g carbon/mol =Carbon Equivalents

16 g CH4/mol


Process Flow Diagram 1 of 2Virgin Production + Landfilling

52

Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

Filler


Process Flow Diagram 1 of 2

53

CO2 Emissions

Carbon Stored in landfill

Energy/fuel

Electricity production

Energy/fuelCO2 EmissionsMethane Emissions

CO2 Emissions=0 Energy/fuel=0


Process Conversions

54

Process lb CO2 Per ton SourceGreen Wood Transportation 305 Green wood Paper Task Force White PaperVirgin Production 2995 Paper Paper Task Force White PaperTransportation to Market 33 Paper Paper Task Force White PaperCollection and Landfill Equipment 84 Paper Paper Task Force White Paper

Landfill % by wieght SourceCO2 Landfill Emmisions 15.2% Paper task force white papersMethane Landfill Emissions 22.9% Paper task force white papersCarbon Sequestured 61.9%Mathane Recovered 50.0% Assume 50% (CORRIM)CO2 from Methane Combustion 75.0%

Carbon Offset from Electrical Production SourceCO2 Offset from Electrical Production 127 CO2 lbs per MMBTU Paper Task Force White PaperNet BTU 21433 BTU per lb Methane Engineering Tool Box

• 1 ton methane is equal to 21 ton CO2 equivalents


Virgin Production + Landfill Energy Requirements and Carbon Emissions

55

• Negative values represent either energy created or carbon sequestered

EnergyMMBTU UNIT PROCESS

Emissions Ton Carbon Equivalents

0 Tree Growth -7911909 Tree Harvest and Transport 139

37913 Paper Mill 1418205 Paper Transport to Market 4.5~0 Use of Product ~0527 Collection Vehicle & Landfill Equipment 11.5

-1863 Landfill 30.538690 Total 812


Process Flow Diagram 1 of 2Virgin Production + Incineration

56

Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions


Process Flow Diagram 2 of 2

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

Carbon

CO2 EmissionsMethane Emissions

Energy/fuel=0 CO2 Emissions=0


Virgin Production + Incineration Calculations

58

White paper #3

tons carbon in wood Virgin paper mill yield % Fiber in paper

tons paper

tons virgin production

6213 BTU 2000 lbs

lb paper ton 1,000,000 BTU

1 MMBTU

• Incinerator carbon equivalents emissions=

• Energy produced from paper combustion=


Virgin Production + IncinerateEnergy Requirements and Carbon Emissions

59




0 Tree Growth -7911909 Tree Harvest and Transport 138.6

37913 Paper Mill 1418205 Paper Transport to Market 4.5~0 Use of Product 0.0297 Collection Vehicle & Landfill Equipment 6.5

-11643 Incineration 89.028680 Total 866


Process Flow Diagram 1 of 3Recycled Production + Recycling

60

Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

Energy/fuel

Filler

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

Rejects to waste treatment


Energy/fuel

Possible decrease in demand

Forest used in more profitable ways such as construction


NOTE: Tree growth loss is assumed to be zero for this study

Energy/fuel=0 Carbon sequestered in product

CO2 Emissions


Energy/fuel

CO2 EmissionsMethane Emissions


CO2 Emissions


CalculationsRecycled Production + Recycle

tons carbon in wood

Tons virgin production

Virgin paper mill yield % Tons recycled paper

Carbon sequestered in use=

tons organics

Filler content

(1-.382)

Carbon sequestered in landfill=

Tons organics in sludge=Tons recycled paper % FillerTotal sludge

Paper Task Force: White Papers


Recycled Production + RecycleEnergy Requirements and Carbon Emissions

64




989 Recovered Paper Collection 26.5283 Material Recovery Facility 5.3205 Transport to Recycle Mil 6

20300 Recycle Paper Mill 470205 Transportation to Market 4.5

0 Use -380227 Collection Vehicle and Landfill Equipment 4.9

-1133 Landfill 1921077 Total 156.1


Unit Process Emissions

65

All values are tonsVirgin Prod. + Landfill

Virgin Prod. + Incinerate

Recycle Prod. + Recycle

Carbon sequestered in tree growth -791 -791 N/A

Raw material acquisition 139 139 37.3Paper mill production 1418 1418 470Transport to market 4.5 4.5 4.5Carbon sequestered in product 0 0 -395Collection and landfill equipment/ sorting 11 6 4.9Landfill 265.1 0.0 161Carbon sequestered in landfill -235 0 -143Incinerate N/A 89 N/ATotal Carbon Equivalents 812 866 141Total Carbon Equivalents per ton 0.812 0.866 0.141Total Carbon Equivalents per ton 0.812 0.866 0.141


% Difference From Landfilling

66

Carbon Equivalents Emissions Comparison % Difference from Landfilling

Landfill reported in tons for comparisonVirgin Prod. + Landfill

Virgin Prod. + Incinerate

Recycle Prod. + Recycle

Raw material acquisition 139 0% -73%Paper mill production 1418 0% -67%Collection and landfill equipment/ sorting 11 -44% -57%Landfill 265 -100% -39%Carbon sequestered in landfill -235 -100% -39%Total Carbon Equivalents 812 7% -83%Total Carbon Equivalents per ton 0.812 7% -83%


Sensitivity Analysis Virgin Production + Landfill

67

• Base case value of .812 carbon equivalents per ton of production

• Landfill methane recovery rate has the largest impact on carbon emissions

• Methane is 21 times more harmful than CO2

Sensitivity Analysis on Carbon Equivalents per ton for Virgin Production + Landfill

Percent Change 10% -10%% Change from base

CaseSoftwood % 0.808 0.817 0.58%Transportation emissions 0.828 0.797 1.90%Landfill methane recovery 0.763 0.862 6.12%


Sensitivity Analysis Virgin Production +Incinerate

68

Sensitivity Analysis on Carbon Equivalents per ton for Virgin Production + Incinerate Percent Change 10% -10% % Change from base CaseSoftwood % 0.863 0.869 0.35%Transportation emissions 0.881 0.851 1.73%Landfill methane recovery 0.866 0.866 0.00%


• The carbon emissions of this waste management practice are not greatly impacted by these sensitivities


Sensitivity Analysis Recycled Production + Recycling

69

Sensitivity Analysis on Carbon Equivalents per ton for Recycled Production + RecyclePercent Change 10% -10% % Change from base CaseSoftwood % 0.141 0.141 0.00%Transportation emissions 0.145 0.136 2.95%Landfill methane recovery 0.110 0.171 21.50%


• Landfill methane recovery rate has the largest impact on carbon emissions

• Transportation emissions significantly impacted the total


Interpretation

• The Recycling scenario has the smallest carbon footprint

• Landfill carbon footprint is highly dependent on the methane recovery rate

• Increased recycling may reduce green house gas emissions

• Increased recycling may impact the wood market – These impacts are outside the scope of this study

70

Waste Management Method ton C produced/ton paperVirgin Production + Landfill 0.650Virgin Production + Incinerate 0.725Recycle Production + Recycle 0.207


Interpretation: Environmental Improvement Opportunities

• Potential Process Improvement– Increase methane recovery in landfills – Decrease transportation of products and raw materials– Increase paper production efficiency

• Energy– Use renewable transportation fuels– Utilize renewable electrical power– Increase energy efficiency in production process

71


Wood for Building HousesAn Example of LCA

Adam TaylorAssistant Professor

Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries203 Forestry Products, 2506 Jacob Drive

Knoxville, TN [email protected]: 865-946-1125

72


What Do You Think?

http://www.ussi.ca/residential_steel.html

73

http://www.ussi.ca/residential_steel.html


Acknowledgment

• All of the information in this presentation is based on work conducted by CORRIM

• http://www.corrim.org/

74

http://www.corrim.org/

http://www.corrim.org/


CORRIM

• Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials

• Aims to provide a database of information for quantifying the environmental impacts and economic costs of building materials

75


Motivation• The environmental consequences of changes in forest

management, product manufacturing, and construction are poorly understood

• Lack of up-to-date, scientifically sound, product life-cycle data in the United States, particularly life-cycle data regarding wood and bio-based products

• For example, concerns about the sustainability of present forest practices have lead to changes in forest harvesting in the US. As a result, the US wood products sector has lost a substantial market share to non-wood substitutes and foreign suppliers

76


Mission: To create…• A consistent database to evaluate the environmental

performance of wood and alternative materials from resource regeneration or extraction to end use and disposal, i.e., from "cradle to grave. (Figure 1).

• A framework for evaluating life-cycle environmental and economic impacts.

• Source data for many users, including resource managers, manufacturers, architects, engineers, environmental protection and energy analysts, and policy specialists.

• An organizational framework to obtain the best science and peer review

77


Membership in CORRIMResearch Institutions and Voting Board MembersUniversity of WashingtonOregon State University University of MinnesotaUniversity of IdahoFORINTEK, CanadaVirginia Tech North Carolina State UniversityPurdue UniversityUniversity of MainePenn State UniversityState University of New YorkAPA, The Engineered Wood AssociationWestern Wood Products AssociationComposite Panel Association Research FoundationWashington State UniversityLouisiana State UniversityMississippi State University

78


Life Cycle Assessment -applied to building products

Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


79


Goals

• To develop a database and modeling system for environmental performance measurements associated with materials use

• To respond to specific questions and issues related to environmental performance and the cost effectiveness of alternative management and technology strategies.

80


Scope Houses built with different materials

• Minneapolis (cold climate) - wood & steel

• Atlanta (warm climate) - wood & concrete

81


Minneapolis House – Front Elevation

82


Design Differences: Minneapolis

Characteristic Wood Design Steel Design

1st and 2nd Floors Engineered wood “I” –joists @ 16” (400mm) o/c & 19/32” (15mm) plywood decking

Steel 18 ga. “C” joist @ 12” (300mm) o/c & 19/32” (15mm) plywood decking

Above grade exterior walls 2” x 6” wood studs @ 16” (400mm) o/c, #15 organic felt, OSB sheathing, R19 fiberglass batt insulation, 6mil polyethylene vapor barrier, 12mm gypsum board, vinyl siding

1.5” x 3.63” Steel 20 ga. “C” studs @ 16” (400mm) o/c, #15 organic felt, OSB sheathing, R13 fiberglass batt insulation, 1.5” EPS insulation, 6mil polyethylene vapor barrier, 12mm gypsum board, vinyl siding

Below grade exterior walls 2”x4” wood studs @ 24” (600mm) o/c, R13 fiberglass batt insulation, poly vapor barrier, 12mm gypsum board

1.5” x 3.63” Steel 25 ga. “C” studs @ 24” (600mm) o/c, R13 fiberglass batt insulation, poly vapor barrier, 12mm gypsum board

Partition walls 2”x4” wood studs @ 16” (400mm) o/c, 12mm gypsum board two sides

1.5” x 3.63” Steel 25 ga. “C” studs @ 16” (400mm) o/c, 12mm gypsum board two sides

Full Basement 2062 sq.ft. 2 story

83


Design Differences: Atlanta2153 sq.ft. 1 story On-Slab

Characteristic Wood Design Concrete Design

Single-family dwelling type 1 story bungalow slab-on-grade

Floor area 2153 sq. ft. (200 sq.m)

Structure & Envelope

Foundation (footing and slab) 3000psi (20 Mpa) concrete

Foundation walls None

Main floor 100mm reinforced Slab-on-grade on footings

Exterior walls 2”x4” wood studs @ 16” (400mm) o/c, #15 organic felt, OSB sheathing, R13 fiberglass batt insulation, 6mil poly vapor barrier, 12mm gypsum board, vinyl siding

Concrete Block furred out with 2x4 wood studs 24”(600mm) o/c, R13 fiberglass batt insulation, 6mil poly vapor barrier, 12mm gypsum board, two-coat stucco finish

Window system PVC frame, operable, double glazed Low “E” Argon filled

Partition walls 2”x4” wood studs @ 16” (400mm) o/c,12mm gypsum board two-sides

Roof Light Frame Wood Trusses with OSB sheathing, R30 blown cellulose insulation, 6mil poly vapor barrier, 16mm gypsum board with 25 yr durability asphalt shingles over #15 organic felt building paper.

84



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


85


Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Wood Building Materials

OTHER RELEASES

PRODUCTS

COPRODUCTS

EMISSIONS

EFFLUENTS

SOLID WASTESMATERIALS

ENERGY

WATER

Forest Management (Regeneration)

(Transportation)

Raw Material Acquisition(Harvest)

(Transportation)

Product Manufacturing(Transportation)

Building Construction

(Transportation)

Use/Maintenance(Transportation)

Recycle/Waste Management(Transportation)

86


System Boundaries

Forest Resources: NW and SE (25-100+ years)

Harvesting ( < 1 Year)

logs NW and SE

Processing ( < 1 Year)

lumber SE and NW (green and dry) plywood NW and SE OSB SE Glulam, LVL, I-Joists

Construction ( < 1 Year)

wood and steel Minneapolis (cold) wood and concrete Atlanta (warm)

Use and Maintenance (40 – 100+ years)

Disposal (< 1 Year)

“Cradle”

“Gate to Gate”

“Grave”

87


Boundaries: Regeneration to waste disposal Primary source for wood data Secondary source for non wood data (ATHENA)Regional product detail Multi-material detail

Environmental Performance:

Air, water, toxic substances, energy, carbon, waste

• mid-point parameters for human health risk

Protocol: Strategic Research Plan (1998) • Study Guideline (2000) – ISO consistent

88


Building Product LCI’s

• For building products– for lumber, plywood, OSB, LVL, glulam, I-joists, trusses

• Unit process descriptions (saw, dry, plane etc.) • Mill surveys at unit process level• Non-wood inputs (energy by source, raw materials)• Emissions and solid waste outputs• Yields, flows (co-products) and mass balances• Unit factor estimates (raw materials, air, water, and solid

emissions, energy, carbon) before and after impacts from purchased energy and transportation

89


U.S. LCI Database Project

• ATHENA & NREL• Publicly available info on common materials,

products and processes• Could lead to “eco-impact labels”

– similar to food labeling

90


INPUTS OUTPUTSMaterials Units Per MSF Materials Units Per MSF

3/8-in. basis 3/8-in. basis

Wood/resin Bark

Roundwood (log) ft.3 6.56E+01 1.31E+01lb. 1.89E+03 7.75E+00

Phenol-formaldehyde lb. 1.59E+01 2.09E+01

Extender and fillers

a lb. 8.90E+00

Catalyst a lb. 1.11E+00

9.91E+02

Soda ash a

lb. 3.30E-01

Bark b lb. 1.98E+02

4.25E+02

Dry veneer lb. 6.81E+00

4.62E+01

Green veneer lb. 1.51E+01

3.10E+01

Electrical energy

Veneer downfall 3.44E+00

Electricity kWh 1.39E+02

1.07E+02

Fuel for energy

9.63E+00

Hog fuel (produced)

b lb. 3.83E+02

Solid dry veneer 6.68E+01

Hog fuel (purchased)

lb. 3.40E+01

6.89E+02

Wood waste lb. 5.00E-01Liquid propane gas gal. 3.59E-01

1.12E-02

Natural gas ft.3 1.63E+02

4.80E-03

Diesel gal. 3.95E-01

4.95E-074.77E-041.91E+002.78E+02

CO 2 non-fossil 2.78E+022.08E-011.80E-021.28E-012.34E-01

Organic substances 2.20E-023.47E-01a These materials were excluded based on the 2% rule.8.27E-03b Bark and hogged fuel are wet weights whereas 7.74E-04all other wood materials are oven dry weights;

Bark wasteBark ashTotal ProductsPlywoodCo-productsWood chipsPeeler coreGreen clippings

Panel trimSawdust

TotalAir emissionsAcetaldehydeAcetone Acrolein Benzene CO CO 2 fossil

Dust (PM10) Formaldehyde Methanol NO x

Particulates Phenol

SO 2 SO x

lb.lb.lb.

lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.

lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb.lb. 1.01E-01bark weight is included in the “hog fuel (produced)” weight.

VOC lb. 6.26E-01

Life-Cycle Inventory results 1.0 MSF 3/8-in. basis plywood production

b

91



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


92


An example of LCI comparisons: Minneapolis

Extraction (primary materials in kg)

558

5,595

352 390 691

-6,398

2,457

162

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Limestone (kg) Iron Ore (kg) Water (1000liters)

ObsoleteScrap Steel

(kg)

Coal (kg) Wood Fiber(kg)

MetallurgicalCoal (kg)

Prompt ScrapSteel (kg)

Steel minus Wood

93


An example of LCI comparisons : Atlanta

Extraction (primary materials in kg)

2,072

160

6,421

583

-1,620

367

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Limestone(kg)

Iron Ore (kg) FineAggregate

(kg)

ObsoleteScrap Steel

(kg)

Wood Fiber(kg)

PromptScrap Steel

(kg)

Concrete minus Wood

94


GWP: Minneapolis and Atlanta

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Steel Wood Concrete Wood

Minneapolis Atlanta

TO

NS

CO

2 E

qu

iva

len

t

CH4

N2O

CO2

95


Summary - Minneapolis Building

Minneapolis design Wood Steel Difference

Other Design vs. Wood (%

Change)

Embodied Energy (GJ) 651 764 113 17%

Global Warming Potential (CO2 kg) 37,047 46,826 9,779 26%

Air Emission Index (index scale) 8,566 9,729 1,163 14%

Water Emission Index (index scale) 17 70 53 312%

Solid Waste (total kg) 13,766 13,641 -125 -1%

96


Summary - Atlanta Building

Atlanta Design Wood Concrete Difference

Other Design vs. Wood (% Change)

Embodied Energy ( GJ) 398 461 63 16%

Global Warming Potential (CO2 kg) 21,367 28,004 6,637 31%

Air Emission Index (index scale) 4,893 6,007 1,114 23%

Water Emission Index (index scale) 7 7 0 0%

Solid Waste (total kg) 7,442 11,269 3,827 51%

97


Other Studies – Same Results

• 1992 New Zealand study– Wood office building 55% of energy/70% carbon

versus concrete– Steel wall 4x energy of wood wall

• 1992, 1993 Cdn studies – Wood 1/3 energy and CO2 versus steel and

concrete• Wood consistently lower emissions and less

energy

98



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


99


Product Manufacturing Carbon Emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1 2 3 4 5

CO

2:

Kg/cu

bic

mete

r w

ood e

q

NW KD Lumber NW Plywood SE OSB Concretefloor area eq.

carbon neutral biofuel

fossil emissions

Not All Energy is Equal

100


Emissions to Water: Minneapolis

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Biological Oxygen Demand

Suspended Solids

Dissolved Solids

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Non-Ferrous Metals

Cyanide

Phenols

Phosphates

Ammonia & Ammonium

Non-Halogenated Organics

Halogenated Organics

Chlorides

Aluminum & Alumina

Oil & Grease

Sulphates

Sulphides

Nitrates & Nitrites

Dissolved Organic Compounds

Phosphorus

Iron

Other Metals

Acids

Other

Wood

Steel

101


Emissions to Water: Minneapolis On Equal Health Risk Basis

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

TDSPAH

Non-FerrCN

PhenolNitr-Al

Halo-OrgChlorAlum

Oil-GrSulphateSulphide

Iron

Wood

Steel

102


Energy in Building Life Cycle

Minneapolis House Atlanta HouseWood Steel Wood Concrete

Structure (GJ) 646 759 395 456

Maintenance (GJ) 73 73 110 110

Demolition (GJ) 7 7 7 9Embodied energy total (GJ) 727 840 512 573

75 years of heat & cooling energy (GJ)

7800 4575

103


Carbon Dynamics vs. Steady State

• LCI provides a cross sectional profile of all processes -- a steady state analysis

• Tracking carbon pools over time offers a dynamic alternative for a more financial cost/benefit perspective

104


Net Product Life Carbon Emissions

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

CO

2:

Kg/cubic

mete

r w

ood e

q.

includes carbon stored in product

no product

carbon to store

KDLumber Plywood

OSB

Concretefloor area eq.

105


GWP Emissions for Framing Alternatives

0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

10 0%

12 0%

14 0%

16 0%

18 0%

1 2

CO

2 in

cre

ase

(%

) fr

om

no

n-w

oo

d f

ram

e

ThroughConstruction

ThroughConstruction

With Product Carbon

With Product Carbon

Steel frame/wood frame

Minneapolis

Concrete frame/wood frameAtlanta

106


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110 2120 2130 2140 2150 2160

Year

Metr

ic T

on

s P

er

Hecta

re

45 80 120 NA

Carbon In Forest Pools

FIA data on old stands

Harvest rotation years

No harvest

107


Carbon Dynamics Need to be Considered

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

45 80 120 NA 45 80 120 NA 45 80 120 NA 45 80 120 NA

Rotation Length in Years

Me

tric

To

ns p

er

He

cta

re

Forest Products, Emissions, and Displacement Sustitution

0-45 Years

0-80 Years

0-120 Years

0-165 Years

Averages over time intervals

108


Carbon Emissions in Representative Building Life Cycle Stages

CO2 Minneapolis House Atlanta House

Metric Tons Wood Steel Wood Concrete

Emissions in MfgConstruction & Demo

37.1 46.8 21.4 28.0

Emissions from Biofuel 3.6 2.6 3.4 2.7

Emissions from Maintenance 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.1

Emissions from Heating & Cooling 390 390 232 232

Subtotal of Sources 434 443 261 267

Forest Sequestration (467) (246) (103) (85)

Wood product Storage (22.4) (11.8) (17.1) (14.1)

Subtotal of Sinks and Stores (489) (258) (121) (100)

Net emissions (55) 185 140 167

109


Interpretation: Environmental Improvement Opportunities

• Redesign the house – use less fossil-intensive products (wood is good!)– reduce energy use (both active and passive)– improve durability to increase useful life

• Improve the product– greater use of biofuel – engineered products for greater raw materials efficiency– increase process efficiencies, especially in drying – pollution control improvements– increase product durability

• Reduce, reuse and recycle demolition wastes

110


LCA Strengths & Weaknesses

• Pro– System wide– Quality and

objectivity– Multiple impact

factors

• Con– Dependent on

quality of LCI– LCI difficult to

establish– Steady state

– Resources change

– Time value of money

111


Life Cycle Assessments

Biomass to Ethanol from Different Regional feedstocks

Jesse Daystar, Richard Venditti*Based on work of Kemppainen and Shonnard

Department of Wood and Paper ScienceNorth Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC 27695-8005*Corresponding author:

[email protected], (919) 515-6185



Biomass to Ethanol

• U.S. Department of Agriculture Biomass Estimation– Estimated 3.56 million dry tons on a sustainable basis in U.S.

per day2

• U.S. Oil Consumption– 868.6 million gallons/day1

• Potential ethanol production– 9.58 million gallons per day of oil equivalents2

113


Life Cycle Assessment -applied to cellulosic ethanol

Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


114


Goals

• To compare the environmental impacts of two processes that utilize different regional cellulosic feedstocks to produce ethanol.1. Yellow Poplar regional to Michigan 2. Recycled Newsprint

115


Scope• "Cradle to gate”

– Acquisition of raw material through production of ethanol

• Different from “cradle to grave”– Will not investigate the impacts of the use of ethanol

• Why Cradle to Gate?– End use of ethanol for both alternatives is identical

116

Cradle Production Gate



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


117


Simulation and ModelingYellow Poplar

118

diesel & gasoline

Felling & Skidding Chipping Ethanol Production

Pre-manufacturing

diesel

Transportation

electricity

Raw material & energy

Boustead ModelEmissions Factors & EFRAT

ASPEN Simulation & EFRAT


Simulation and ModelingNews Print

119

diesel & gasoline

Collection & Sorting Pulping Ethanol Production

Pre-manufacturing

diesel

Transportation

electricity

Raw material & energy

Boustead ModelEmissions Factors & EFRAT

ASPEN Simulation & EFRAT


Feedstock Composition

120

% dry wt basis

component

Yellow Poplar(NREL)

3

Yellow Poplarupper Michigan timber newsprint

cellulose 42.6 49.15 63.77

xylan 19.05 16.89 5.26

arabinan 0.79 1.04 0.61

mannan 3.93 3.76 4.96

galactan 0.24 1.01 0.61

acetate 4.64 3.38 0.00

lignin 27.68 24.45 21.26

ash 1.00 0.31 3.54

moisture 47.9 68.4 5.0


Boustead Model

121

Custom Data Sets

Standard Data Sets

Transportation distances, materials used, utilities

Life Cycle Inventory Results


NREL Process Modeling

122

• Modeling softwareASPEN

• Developed by M.I.T. and the Department of Energy• Process modeling• Process optimization

Life Cycle Inventory Results


Pre-manufacturing Energy Usage

123

upper MI timber newsprint

Kg/h MJ/h Kg/h MJ/hPremanufacturing, Chemicals

ammonia 1,194 88,620 638 47,370ammonium sulfate 108 2,216 169 3,376antifoam 268 21,628 356 28,696calcium phosphate 108 1,161 169 1,899diesel 470 557 0 0gasoline 938 1,088 978 1,134lime 693 8,124 570 6,647sulfuric acid 1,839 9,495 1,680 8,651

subtotal 132,889 97,773

Premanufacturing, Operationsfelling (gasoline) 21 1,688 0 0skidding (diesel) 33 2,216 0 0transportation (diesel) 157 6,752 232 9,917chipping (gasoline) 12 633 0 0pulping (electricity) 0 9,073

subtotal 11,289 18,990


Simplified Process Flow

124

Steam

Feed Handling

Pretreatment (Detoxification)

Hydrolysis & Fermentation

Product & Water Recovery

EthanolStorage

Waste Combustion

Utilities

Waste Water Treatment

(Solid Separation)Cellulase

Electricity

Steam

Feedstock

Recycle water

Enzyme

Chips Sugars

Ethanol

Recycle WaterNutrientsAir

Ammonia, Lime, Acid

Excess Condensate

Still Solids


Detailed Process Flow


Energy BalanceUpper Michigan Timber

• Process loses 9.7% of total energy through processes inefficiencies

• 30% of total energy consumed in cooling water systemThis is higher than newsprint due to higher boiler throughput

• Energy balance is off by 2.12%


Energy BalanceNews Print

• 2.2% more energy leaves with ethanol compared to timber process

• 1.3% less energy required for cooling process compared to timber process

• Energy balance is off by .32%


Process Air Emissions


LCA Progress So Far

129

• So far we have• Defined scope• Defined goal/objective• Performed inventory analysis• Performed energy balance

• Next• Impact assessment• LCA interpretation• LCA improvement

☐

☐



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


130


Impact Modeling

131

• Environmental Fate and Risk Assessment Tool (EFRAT)

• Developed by Michigan Technological Institute Department of Chemical Engineering

• Model basissimulation output preprogrammed chemical and soil properties

• Evaluates8 environmental indicesSafety factorsEconomic factors


Environmental Indices

132

1. IGW – global warming 2. ISF – smog formation3. IOD – ozone depletion 4. IAR – acid rain5. IINH – human inhalation6. IING – ingestion toxicity7. ICINH -human carcinogenic inhalation8. ICING – carcinogenic ingestion toxicity 9. IFT – fish toxicity


Environmental Indices(Kg/L EtOH)

133

Fish Toxicity Ingestion Toxicity Human Inhalation

carcinogenic ingestion toxicity

Human Carcinogenic

Inhalation

Global Warming

Smog Formation Acid Rain

Upper Michigan Timber

premfg process a 3.83E-06 1.52E-07 0.129 1.83E-11 6.1E-13 0.526 1.85E-05 3.59E-03

mfg process 2.32 26.1 0.415 0 0 -0.33 6.66E-04 3.46E-02

total (kg/L EtOH) 2.32 26.1 0.542 1.83E-11 6.1E-13 0.196 6.68E-04 2.82E-02 Newsprint

premfg processb 3.20E-06 1.65E-07 0.119 2.42E-11 8.08E-13 0.478 1.78E-05 3.36E-03

mfg process 1.02 26.9 0.433 0 0 0.291 5.44E-04 3.09E-02

total (kg/L EtOH) 1.02 26.9 0.552 2.42E-11 8.08E-13 0.769 5.60E-04 3.43E-02

a Impacts from producing chemicals used in the ethanol process, for felling, skidding, and transportation of timber and of chipping.

b Impacts from producing chemicals used in the ethanol process, of transportation of newsprint, and of pulping


Normalized Environmental Indices

134

• Each environmental index is multiplied by a weighting factor

• The sum of all weighted indices= IL-CC – life cycle composite index

• Life cycle composite index gives an overall value to process impacts


Normalized and Weighted Environmental Indices(Kg/L EtOH)

135

Upper MI Timber Newsprint

(Kg/L) IndexWeighted

IndexWeighting

Factor IndexWeighted

IndexWeighting

Factor

ICINH 6.10E-13 1.45E-18 2.4E-06 8.08E-13 1.93E-18 2.4E-06

ICING 1.83E-11 4.33E-17 2.4E-06 2.42E-11 5.70E-17 2.4E-06

IFT 2.32 1.78E-08 7.7E-09 1.02 7.85E-09 7.7E-09

IING 26.1 1.01E-07 3.8E-09 26.9 1.04E-07 3.8E-09

IINH 0.542 2.09E-09 3.8E-09 0.552 2.13E-09 3.8E-09

IAR 3.83E-02 2.12E-11 5.5E-10 3.43E-02 1.91E-11 5.5E-10

ISF 6.68E-04 8.80E-14 1.3E-10 5.60E-04 7.40E-14 1.3E-10

IGW 0.196 8.93E-14 4.6E-13 0.769 2.49E-13 4.6E-13IL-CC MI Timber 1.21E-07 Newsprint 1.14E-7

Higher Weighting

Factor

Lower Weighting

Factor



Interpretation

Impact Assessment

Inventory Analysis


136


Life Cycle Improvement Analysis

137

Process improvements to reduce emissions

1. Cellulase seed reactor vent recycle stream

2. Cellulase seed reactor vent stream as combustion air


Life Cycle Improvement AnalysisSeed Reactor Recycle Stream

138

• Recycle 75% of Cellulase seed reactor vent back to the Cellulase seed reactor

Recycle stream already at operating pressureRecycle stream contains 90% of required O2 concentration

Yellow Poplar4.8% reduction of compressed air7.5 % reduction in total utilities2.2% reduction in IL-CC

Newsprint50% reduction in compressed air8.6% reduction in utility consumption6.4% increase in IL-CC


Life Cycle Improvement AnalysisSeed Reactor vent stream recycle

139

• Indices compared to original process

• Yellow Poplar• All indices decreased• Less volatile organic compounds released

• Newsprint• Increase in IFT, IING, and ISF

• Decrease in IGW and IAR


Life Cycle Improvement AnalysisSeed Reactor vent stream as combustion air

140

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from the seed reactor are combusted and used for energy

• Yellow Poplar0.4% utilities reduction20% decrease in ISF, and IING

2.7% reduction in IL-CC

• News Print2.1% utilities reduction20% decrease in ISF, and IING

18.0% reduction in IL-CC


Life Cycle Improvement AnalysisSeed Reactor vent stream as combustion air

141

• Indices compared to original process

• The smog formation indices decrease significantly as a result of utilizing the heating value of ethanol to offset natural gas usage

• Reduction in the ingestion index also results from less ethanol in the vent stream


Life Cycle AssessmentConclusions

142

NewsprintPros

1. Less fossil fuel required in pre-manufacturing2. Lower ecotoxicity 3. Lower overall IL-CC

Cons4. Manufacturing process is not energy self sufficient5. Higher index for IING, IINH, ICING, ICINH, and IGW

Yellow Poplar TimberPros

6. Manufacturing process is self sufficient and exports electricity to the grid7. Lower global warming index8. Lower impacts to human health

Cons9. More fossil fuel required in pre-manufacturing10.Higher ecotoxicity 11. Higher overall IL-CC


Life Cycle AssessmentConclusions

143

Main chemical contributors to indices• acetic acid• Carbon monoxide• Ethanol

Fossil fuel energy required to produce transportation fuel• Yellow Poplar (ethanol)- 14% of energy content• Newsprint (ethanol)- 27% of energy content• Petroleum (gasoline/diesel)- 20% additional energy needed

Future Work

• Impacts of large scale timber harvesting need to be examine

• Additional studies comparing biomass-to-ethanol facilities to petroleum refineries needed to evaluate local health impacts1


LCA Overall Review

144

• What you learned how to• Define the goals and scope of a LCA• Perform inventory analysis• Perform an impact assessment

• Examples reviewed• Copy paper case study• Building material case study• Bioethanol case study


Copy Paper Case Study Review

145

• The Recycling scenario has the smallest carbon footprint

• Landfill carbon footprint is highly dependent on the methane recovery rate

• Increased recycling may reduce green house gas emissions

• Increased recycling may impact the wood market – These impacts are outside the scope of the study


Housing Case Study Review

146

• Atlanta house• Wood-

• 512 GJ embodied energy

• Concrete-• 573 GJ embodied energy• 26% higher emissions• 120% higher emissions when including carbon sequestered

• Minneapolis• Wood-

• 727 GJ embodied energy

• Steel frame-• 840 GJ embodied energy• 31% higher emissions• 156% higher emissions when including carbon sequestered


LCA Overall Review

147

• LCA has a great potential to help decrease the impacts of industrial processes

• LCAs can be a powerful marketing tool

• LCA can be an effective means to quantify and minimize emissions

• LCA may become increasingly important with the introduction of carbon credits


References

1. Energy Information Administration, Petrolium basic statistics; http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

2. Kelly, Stephen; Forest Biorefineries: Reality, Hype or Something in Between?; Paper Age, March 2006;

3. Kemppainen, Amber; Shonnard, David; Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment for Biomass-to-Ethanol Production from Different Regional Feedstocks; Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University; Biotechnol. Prog. 2005, 21, 1075-1084.

4. Wooley, R.; Ruth, M.; Sheehan, J.; Ibsen, K.; Majdeski, H.; Galvez. A. Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Current and Future Scenarios; National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-580-26157, July 1999

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Documents

LCA: General Definition LCA Procedure Paper Recycling Housing Bioethanol Review Environmental Life Cycle Assessment 1 Firoz Jameel, Jesse Daystar and Richard