Study on External Environmnetal Effects - Case Studiesec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/ext_effects_appendix2.pdf · Case studies February 03 BIO Intelligence Service EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL

B I O I n t e l l i g e n c e S e r v i c e EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RELATED TO THE LIFE CYCLE OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

SSTTUUDDYY OONN EEXXTTEERRNNAALL EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL EEFFFFEECCTTSS

RREELLAATTEEDD TTOO TTHHEE LLIIFFEE CCYYCCLLEE OOFF PPRROODDUUCCTTSS AANNDD

SSEERRVVIICCEESS

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 22

CASE STUDIES

FEBRUARY 2003

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT Directorate A- Sustainable Development and Policy support

Contact BIO Intelligence Service Eric LABOUZE / Véronique MONIER � 01 56 20 28 98 � [email protected]; [email protected]

Case studies February 03


2

CC OO NN TT EE NN TT

Products with a third party verified label

PPPEEERRRSSSOOONNNAAALLL CCCOOOMMMPPPUUUTTTEEERRRSSS::: EEECCCOOOLLLAAABBBEEELLL VVVSSS... TTTRRRAAADDDIIITTTIIIOOONNNAAALLL ............................................................................................................................................................... 555

SSSCCCRRREEEEEENNN CCCOOOMMMPPPUUUTTTEEERRRSSS::: CCCAAATTTHHHOOODDDEEESSS RRRAAAYYY TTTUUUBBBEEESSS DDDEEESSSKKKTTTOOOPPP VVVSSS... LLLIIIQQQUUUIIIDDD CCCRRRYYYSSSTTTAAALLL DDDIIISSSPPPLLLAAAYYY ......... 111444

LLLAAAMMMPPPSSS::: FFFLLLUUUOOOCCCOOOMMMPPPAAACCCTTTSSS VVVSSS... FFFIIILLLAAAMMMEEENNNTTT LLLAAAMMMPPPSSS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 222333

FFFUUUEEELLLSSS FFFOOORRR VVVEEEHHHIIICCCLLLEEESSS::: FFFOOOSSSSSSIIILLL FFFUUUEEELLLSSS VVVSSS AAALLLTTTEEERRRNNNAAATTTIIIVVVEEE ...................................................................................................................................................... 222888

FFFLLLOOOOOORRR CCCOOOVVVEEERRRIIINNNGGGSSS::: PPPVVVCCC VVVSSS... RRRUUUBBBBBBEEERRR VVVSSS... LLLIIINNNOOOLLLEEEUUUMMM VVVSSS... PPPOOOLLLYYYOOOLLLEEEFFFIIINNN ................................................................................. 333777

RRROOOAAADDD PPPAAAIIINNNTTT::: WWWAAATTTEEERRR BBBAAASSSEEEDDD PPPAAAIIINNNTTT VVVSSS... SSSOOOLLLVVVEEENNNTTT BBBAAASSSEEEDDD PPPAAAIIINNNTTT .................................................................................................................. 444222

LLLIIIQQQUUUIIIDDD PPPAAACCCKKKAAAGGGIIINNNGGG SSSYYYSSSTTTEEEMMMSSS::: DDDIIISSSPPPOOOSSSAAABBBLLLEEE VVVSSS... RRREEEFFFIIILLLLLLAAABBBLLLEEE ........................................................................................................................... 444666

PPPRRROOODDDUUUCCCTTTSSS WWWIIITTTHHH AAA PPPAAARRRTTTIIICCCUUULLLAAARRRLLLYYY BBBIIIGGG EEENNNVVVIIIRRROOONNNMMMEEENNNTTTAAALLL IIIMMMPPPAAACCCTTT

SSSPPPAAACCCEEE HHHEEEAAATTTIIINNNGGG::: EEELLLEEECCCTTTRRRIIICCCIIITTTYYY VVVSSS... FFFOOOSSSSSSIIILLL FFFUUUEEELLLSSS VVVSSS... WWWOOOOOODDD .............................................................................................................................. 666222

HHHOOOUUUSSSEEESSS::: HHHIIIGGGHHH EEENNNEEERRRGGGYYY EEEFFFFFFIIICCCIIIEEENNNCCCYYY VVVSSS... TTTRRRAAADDDIIITTTIIIOOONNNAAALLL......................................................................................................................................................... 666777

IIINNNSSSUUULLLAAATTTIIIOOONNN::: EEEXXXPPPEEENNNDDDEEEDDD PPPOOOLLLYYYSSSTTTYYYRRREEENNNEEE VVVSSS... WWWOOOOOODDD VVVSSS... MMMIIINNNEEERRRAAALLL WWWOOOOOOLLL... ........................................................................... 777333

GGGOOOOOODDDSSS TTTRRRAAANNNSSSPPPOOORRRTTTSSS::: RRROOOAAADDD VVVSSS... RRRAAAIIILLL VVVSSS... BBBOOOAAATTT VVVSSS... PPPLLLAAANNNEEE ................................................................................................................................. 777888

PPPAAASSSSSSEEENNNGGGEEERRR TTTRRRAAANNNSSSPPPOOORRRTTTSSS::: PPPEEERRRSSSOOONNNAAALLL CCCAAARRR VVVSSS... PPPUUUBBBLLLIIICCC TTTRRRAAANNNSSSPPPOOORRRTTTSSS .................................................................................... 888333

TTTAAABBBLLLEEECCCLLLOOOTTTHHHSSS::: TTTEEEXXXTTTIIILLLEEESSS VVVSSS... PPPAAAPPPEEERRR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 888888

AAAGGGRRRIIICCCUUULLLTTTUUURRREEE::: IIINNNTTTEEENNNSSSIIIVVVEEE VVVSSS... IIINNNTTTEEEGGGRRRAAATTTEEEDDD VVVSSS... OOORRRGGGAAANNNIIICCC .......................................................................................................................................... 999333

PPPRRROOODDDUUUCCCTTT---SSSEEERRRVVVIIICCCEEE SSSYYYSSSTTTEEEMMMSSS WWWIIITTTHHH AAANNN IIINNNCCCRRREEEAAASSSIIINNNGGG DDDEEEGGGRRREEEEEE OOOFFF SSSUUUBBBSSSTTTIIITTTUUUTTTIIIOOONNN OOOFFF PPPRRROOODDDUUUCCCTTTSSS BBBYYY SSSEEERRRVVVIIICCCEEESSS

CCCAAARRR PPPOOOOOOLLLIIINNNGGG ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 999888

MMMEEEEEETTTIIINNNGGG::: VVVIIIDDDEEEOOOCCCOOONNNFFFEEERRREEENNNCCCEEE VVVSSS... TTTRRRAAANNNSSSPPPOOORRRTTTSSS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 111000222

MMMIIISSSCCCEEELLLLLLAAANNNEEEOOOUUUSSS PPPRRROOODDDUUUCCCTTTSSS

FFFLLLUUUSSSHHHIIINNNGGG SSSYYYSSSTTTEEEMMMSSS::: RRRAAAIIINNN WWWAAATTTEEERRR VVVSSS... DDDRRRIIINNNKKKAAABBBLLLEEE WWWAAATTTEEERRR ................................................................................................................................. 111000666

PPPLLLAAATTTEEESSS ::: PPPOOORRRCCCEEELLLAAAIIINNN VVVSSS... PPPAAAPPPEEERRR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 111111000



3

This part of the study compare in details the environmental impacts and externalities related to life cycle of various options to satisfy the same consumer demand.

Some of these case studies compare the difference in environmental impacts and externalities of products with a third party verified label.

According to the technical annexe, the choice has been made for the products with a big environmental impact and on products systems with an increasing degree of substitution of products by services.

Mainly case studies come from LCA available in the literature, only calculations have been made for categories which appear with a big environmental impact (transports, building occupancy…).



4

SCOPE OF THE CASE STUDIES

Case studies Categories Goal & Comments Functionnal unit Main conclusion

1 Personal computersThis study presents a LCA for a personal computer in order to establish the ecolabel criteria 10 personal computer

2 Desktop computer display

Cooperative project among the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program in the Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)The DfE Computer Display Project (CDP) report provides a baseline analysis and the opportunity to use the model as a stepping stone for further analyses and improvement assessments for these technologies. liquid crystal display cathodes ray tubes One desktop computer display over its lifespan

3 Lamps

Rubrik &D'Haese were commissioned by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) in Brussels to perform a study to frind ecolabeling criteria for lamps in general. compact fluorescent

compact fluorescent with magnestic ballast

compact fluorescent with electronic ballast

incandescent lamp with electronic ballast 10 million lumen hour

4 Car fuels

Most initiative from Swiss parliament aim to promote ecological fuels with fiscal advantages, in this way this study puprose to give the environmental profiles of different fuels for passengers and freigt transport. diester methanol and ethanol natural gas Liquid Petrol Gas petrol and diesel 1 000 vehicle.km

5 Floor covering

This summarise the study "Life Cycle Inventory with Life Cycle Analysis for Resislient Flooring Systems" for the European Resilient Floor Covering Manufacturers Institute".The purposes are to provide an over view of the whole number of 32 floor coverings systems, to focus on the different functionnal classes and the different material groups of the floor coverings, and to concentrate on quantifiable, non locally relevant environmental impact potentials, for which accepted transformation rules from the life cycle inventory stage into an impact assessment stage exist. linoleum rubber polyolefin PVC cushioned PVC 1 000 m2 flooring over a period of 20 years

6 PaintsThis LCA make a comparison between water paint and solvant based paint water based paint solvent based paint 100 m2 of road covered during 10 years

7 Liquid packaging systems

This study presents a LCA comparing the potential environmental impacts associated with different existing or alternative packaging systems for beer and carbonated soft drinks that are filled and sold in Denmark. Refillable packaging Disposable packaging Packaging and distribution of 1000 l of beverage

8 Space heatingThe analysis of 4 different energies in order to define the most environmental efficiency for space heating heat from wood heat from gas heat from petrol

heat from electricity

Energy consumption for space heating for one european during one year (calculated with 100 GJ)

9 Buildings

The method of life cycle assessment is used in order to analyse a whole building and to identify its major environmental impacts, instead of analysing single elements within buildings or building materials itself.

One semi-detached house over a life time of 80 years

10 Insulation methods

This analysis intends to show the environmental benefice of using insulation and to compare different way to insulate a concrete wall with the same efficiency. concrete concrete+EPS concrete+wood

concrete+mineral wood

concrete+particulate board 10 m2

11 Goods transportsThe analysis of different transports modes in order to define the most environmental efficiency for the transport of goods rail sea inland waterway road (truck) 1 000 tkm

12 Passengers transportThis case show the advantages and inconveniences of personnal car and differents kind of transports for passengers car bus railway air water 10 000 pkm

13 Tablecloths Comparison between paper and textiles tablecloths paper tablecloths cotton tableclothscotton-EPS tablecloths PES tablecloths 50 tables covered every day during 1 year

14 Agriculture

The prupose of this LCA is to determine the differences in ressource use and and environmental impacts beween different systems with equivalent function : giving that quantity of wheat containing 102 kg protein. organic agriculture integrated agriculture

intensive agriculture Quantity of wheat containing 1000 kg of protein

15 Car poolingThis case intend to measure the environmental effect to increase the use of car pooling.

16 MeetingWhat is the environmental benefice to use new technologies (Internet) for a meeting instead of travelling. videoconference train plane

1 4h-conference in Brussels with 3 persons, 1 living in brussels and two living in Madrid

17 Toilets rinsingThe study intend to show the possibilities to use rain water for flushing systems in an environmental point of view Conventional system

10% recovery of rain water

Economic system with drinkable water

10% recovery of rain water with economic flushing system

100% rai water recovery The rinsing of 1 000 toilets

18 Plates Comparison between paper and porcelaine plates paper plates porcelaine plates 100 000 meals

Options compared

Variant number of passengers in personal (1 to 3.5 pers/car)

Products with a third party verified label

These studies demonstrate that LCA is anefficicent instrument for analysing and assessingthe environmental performance of products troughtheir entire life cycle, in order to find weak pointand to develope improvment strategies.

Product-service systems with an increasing degree of substitution of products by services

Products with a particularly big environmental impact

LCA enable to increase the environmentalperformance of this product group through thechoice of the best alternative over the whole lifecycle

different way for disposal, reduction of enegry consumption, extension of the life time in order to define the ecolabel criteria

5 houses with different energy efficiency, heating system and building materials

Miscellaneous products

These studies prove the fact that the use ofnatural resources for the substution of existingtechnics do not improve the environmentalperformance

This cases demonstrate the environmentaladvantage of substitution of products by services



5

PERSONAL COMPUTERS: ECOLABEL VS. TRADITIONAL

A. Functional Unit

10 personal computers (control unit, monitor, keyboard).

B. Reference

LCA Study of the Product Group Personal Computers in the EU Ecolabel Scheme. March 1998. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ecolabel/pdf/personal_computers/lcastudy_pc_1998.pdf

C. System Studied

The goal of this study is to identify the environmental burdens of a personal computer trough a life cycle assessment in order to identify the way to reduce these burdens and define the ecolabel criteria.

[TAB 1] REFERENCES FOR DATA

Life Cycle Component Reference Comment Extraction and production of raw materials

EDIP database 7

Extraction and production of lead LDAI 8 , Battelle 9 and Paschen

Calculations made by IPU

Extraction and production of tin Erzmetall 11 and Ullmann’s 1Calculations made by IPU

Production of copper foil,copper wire and cables

Inventory of copper manufacture

Manufacturing of PWBs Anonymous companies, 1993 Calculations made by IPU Manufacturing and packaging of semiconductor devices

MCC Report The area of wafer for production of 220 semiconductor devices is the same as that used as in the MCC report

Manufacturing of CRT MCC Report The data for a 20 inch screen has been interpolated to a 15 inch screen.

Injection moulding of plastic EDIP database Metal manufacturing processes like bending and cutting

EDIP database

Power consumption in use ZITECH 15 (Monitor) Power consumption of control unit is derived from the maximum effect use as declared on the rear of the control unit

Computer lifetime Ad Hoc Working Group Meeting

It was decided at the meeting that the lifetime should be the same as the time span companies use for writing off a PC in their accounts.

Power Eurostat CORINAIR and ETH The electricity mainly use is calculated by IPU as an average for 1994, covering the EU of today.

Thermal energy EDIP database Transport EDIP database Disposal routes Study on waste disposal

systems in European countries

Data is for household waste and based on data from England,Wales, Germany, France and Spain

Manufacturing Production of materials Distribution Use End of life

Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



6

Included:

� raw materials and fuels extracted from the environment; � emissions to ambient air occur to operations after treatment; � residual waste are landfilled, emissions are based on the leachate during the first hundred years of the

landfill lifetime. Excluded:

� Direct and indirect over-heads operations; � Provision of capital goods and financial resources.

D. Main assumptions

1. Definition of one personal computer Parts Motherboard PCI with Intel SL-enhanced Processor (CPU) 486 DX4, 100 MHz 128 KB Cache RAM 8 MB RAM S3 805, 1 MB RAM IDE HDD/FDD controller 2S/1P port

Consisting of: Weight [g] Material Electric control unit CPU 620 Printed wiring board (FR4) and components Cooling body for processor 10 Aluminium, black anodised Electric function unit BUS-Print 120 Printed wiring board (FR4) and components Sum 750 340 MB IDE 3.5" Cover 60 Aluminium sheet Casing 205 Cast aluminium, perhaps alloy Hard disk plates 85 Assumption: alloy aluminium with coating Electric function unit 60 Printed wiring board (FR4) and components Sum 410 3½" floppy drive, 1.44 MB Mechanical part 110 Steel sheet, galvanised Mechanical part 130 Assumption: PS Cover 70 Aluminium sheet, bright Electric function unit 30 Printed wiring board (FR4) and components Sum 340 ASTEC power supply Cabinet 505 Steel sheet, galvanised Ventilator, sockets 100 Assumption: PS Electric function unit 100 Printed wiring board (FR4) and components Electrolytic capacitors 45 Al, Cu, Phenolic resin paper and PS Choking coils and Transformers 110 PVC, Lacquer insulated Cu + Ferrite Cooling body 30 Aluminium, bright Cable and plug 210 Copper, PVC and PS Sum 1 100 Desk top cabinet Metal frame 2680 Steel profile, electroplated Hard disk socket 250 Steel profile, electroplated Cover 2180 Steel sheet Front 210 PPO 27 Sum 5 320 Cables Flat band cable 100 Copper, POF and PS Mains cables (two), (TT-cable) 360 Copper and PVC 27 Sum 460 Packaging for Control unit Box 1780 Cardboard Insert 410 Cardboard Padding 160 PP, foam Sum 2 350



7

Total weight without packaging 8 380 g Total weight with packaging 1 0730 g Distribution: it was assumed to take 500 km by truck for delivery to supplier, and 25 km by van. Power: monitor = 100 W control unit = 60 W Lifetime: 3 years 8h / day 230 days / year End of life: 63% landfill 22% landfill 15 % recycling Energy: EU data for electricity generation.

2. Options chosen to reduce environmental burdens:

Option 1: Reduction of energy consumption for monitor

� 100 W in operational mode , 3.5 hours per day; � 60 W in stand by mode, after 15 min; 2 hours per day ; � 8 W in sleep mode, 15 min after stand by mode; 2.25 hours per day.

Option 2: extension of the lifetime Additional use period of 3 years by upgrading of equipments:

� Mother board; � Hard disk.

Option 3: Reduction of energy consumption for functional unit

� 60 W in operational mode, 3.75 hours per day; � 30 W in stand by mode, 4.25 hours per day.

Option 4: Best dismantling and recycling scenario

� removal of all metal rich components, including printed wiring board; � removal of plastic parts > 25 g; � removal of CRT, the metal is recycled, panel glass is recycled and funnel glass is dumping in hazardous

landfill; � no hazardous components such as capacitors with PCB, batteries with heavy metals and others.

Option 5: No brominated flame retardants in a large plastic part. Option 6: Recycled plastics for a large plastic part. Option 7: All packaging materials are recycled. Option 8: Lead free solder.



8

E. Main results for one functional unit.

Primary energy MJ

133 752 136 394 135 932 136 650

99 127

126 600109 180

124 474134 000

PC base case Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 1-3

Total External Cost Euros

385 404 409433 424 434

322

129172168172162160152

172140

434

352

min max min max min max min max min max min max min max mik max min max

PC basecase

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 1-3

Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq.

6 0716 494 6 325 6 500

4 843

6 500

5 753

5 2856 052


Depletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.

30 31 31 31

23

29

25

2831




9

1. The system PC The largest contributor to global warming come from the use stage, because of the electricity consumption. The second largest contributor is the manufacture stage which is three times less important than the use stage; it is due to energy consumption, notably electricity. The production of the CRT glass also contributes to global warming, but in a fewer part. The contribution from the disposal stage is half the size of the contribution from the material production. The main contributor to global warming in this stage is the emissions of methane from the landfilling of cardboard, while the emissions of CO2 from incineration of plastics have a small impact. The transports have a low contribution to global warming. The main contributor to acidification, nutrient enrichment and photochemical ozone formation is also the use stage followed by manufacturing, materials production, disposal and distribution, which is a very low contributor again. The main contributions are caused by the energy consumption. The disposal of cardboard in landfills gives a large part of the contribution to photochemical ozone creation for the disposal stage. Also for the waste, the use stage is the major contributor followed by manufacture. The main contributor is energy consumption, but for bulk waste landfilling of the PC is the main part of the disposal stage. Per year, the contribution of a PC to global warming is equivalent to 2% of one’s person contribution.

[TAB 3] CONTRIBUTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BY ELEMENT:

Control unit keyboard monitor packaging

Global warming 38% 1% 58% 3% Acidification 40% 1% 57% 1% Nutrient enrichment 40% 2% 57% 1% Photochemical 41% 1% 55% 3%

Bulk waste 43% 1% 54% 2% Hazardous waste 49% 1% 50% 0% Slag and ash 39% 1% 60% 0% Primary energy, materials 13% 15% 48% 25% Primary energy, processes 41% 0% 59% 0%

2. Analysis of the different options: Monitor energy consumption reduced Reduction of 20% in the life cycle of energy consumption and all environmental impact linked to the combustion processes used in generating the electricity for the use of PC. Extension of use life This design option results in improvement of 10-15% for all environmental impact categories and 15-50% for all resources except the energy carriers (lignite, hard coal, uranium, and reservoir water). Control unit energy consumption reduced It shows an energy reduction of 10% compared with the base case. The pattern is similar to that seen for reduction of the monitor energy consumption. Best possible dismantling / recycling scenario Compared to the base case this design option gives a modest improvement for nearly all environmental impact and larger contribution for generation of bulk waste (around 15%). The quantity of hazardous waste is increased about 60%. This is because recycling processes generate problem waste and because ABS that contains brominated flame retardants is treated as hazardous waste.



10

No brominated flame retardants in large plastic parts Recent studies have revealed their presence in blood samples of office workers. There are other potential sources of exposure, but the use as flame retardants in office equipment is suspected to be a primary cause. Upon incineration, in the disposal stage, the rather high content of brominated compounds serves as one of the main sources of bromine in the waste. The incineration process will lead to a certain emission of polychlorinated dioxin compounds and the closely related polybrominated compounds. The brominated compounds exert toxicity mechanisms similar to the chlorinated dioxins, which are considered among the most toxic compounds generated by human activities. The formation of compounds with dioxin-like toxicity by incineration of PCs increases substantially with the presence of large quantities of bromine in the product.

Recycled plastic for large plastic part It reveals insignificant improvements in all environmental impacts and resource consumptions. The reason is that those types of resources which are used for plastic production are also used as energy carriers for energy production – in much larger quantities.

All packaging materials are recycled Compared to the life cycle of the base case the model includes only changes in the disposal stage.

Lead free solder There are no positive effects on any environmental impact category, only the contribution to human toxicity via air is reduced and that by a mere few percent.

F. Conclusions of the authors and implication for criteria

Reduce Monitor Energy Consumption Energy consumption of the monitor holds very strong improvement potential.

Extend Lifetime This clearly improves the environmental profile of the PC.

Reduce Control unit Energy Consumption Energy consumption of the control-unit is not as critical as that of the monitor, but is nonetheless significant.

Ensure Take back and Recycling There is improvement from this option, although less significant than that of the first three.

Eliminate Brominated Flame Retardants It has not been possible to perform a quantitative assessment of the environmental improvement potentials by this design option.

Use Recycled in Plastic Parts This design option will not cause major reductions in the overall environmental impact of the PC. Nonetheless, it may be chosen as an area for criteria to help create or expand a market for recycled plastics and/or to support the electronic take back measures being initiated by DG XI.

Recycle All Packaging Apart from these resource savings the improvements are so small that they do not particularly merit the attention caused by setting labelling criteria for the packaging.



11

G. Differences between options

PERSONAL COMPUTERS: ECOLABEL VS. TRADITIONAL

Factor between the option having the lowest environmental impact and

the option having the highest environmental impact

Primary Energy Consumption 1.4

Global Warming 1.4

Depletion of non renewable resources 1.4



12

H. Detailed results

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values Values Values Values Values Values Values

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 31 25 28 29 30 31 31 31 23Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 6 500 5 285 5 753 6 052 6 071 6 494 6 325 6 500 4 843Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq.Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 56 44 51 51 54 55 55 56 40Photochemical oxidation kg ethylene eq. 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.2Linked to water effluentsEutrophication kg PO4 eq. 26 21 22 24 24 25 25 26 19Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 5.3 4.3 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 3.9Years of Life Lost year 1.7E-03 1.3E-03 1.5E-03 1.6E-03 1.6E-03 1.7E-03 1.7E-03 1.7E-03 1.2E-03Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneSediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneTerrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene

B/ Other Environmental Indicators

Primary energy MJ 134 000 109 180 124 474 126 600 133 752 136 394 135 932 136 650 99 127Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 27 843 27 260 24 447 27 628 27 691 27 840 27 805 27 842 27 045Dusts gDioxins gMetals into air gMetals into water gMetals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kg 1 400 1 149 1 252 1 308 1 217 1 400 1 376 1 400 1 058Hazardous waste kg 243 198 216 226 277 243 243 243 182Inert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min max min max min max mik max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 124 312 100 254 109 276 115 290 115 291 123 312 120 304 124 312 92 232Stratospheric Ozone Depletion EurosAir acidification Euros 8.1 80.9 6.5 64.6 7.4 74.0 7.5 74.9 7.9 78.9 8.1 80.8 8.0 80.4 8.1 80.9 5.9 58.6Photochemical oxidation Euros 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.6 0.9 1.1Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 39.2 39.2 32.3 32.3 33.9 33.9 36.7 36.7 37.4 37.4 39.1 39.1 38.9 38.9 39.2 39.2 29.8 29.8Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals EurosHuman health effects caused by dusts EurosHuman health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 172 434 140 352 152 385 160 404 162 409 172 433 168 424 172 434 129 322

Option 3 Option 7 Option 1-3Functional unit: 10 personal computers PC base case Option 1 Option 2 Option 4 Option 6 Option 8



13

A/ Environmental Impacts

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resourcesLinked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 81% 89% 93% 93% 100% 97% 100% 75%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Air acidification 100% 80% 91% 93% 98% 100% 99% 100% 72%Photochemical oxidation 100% 80% 91% 93% 93% 100% 97% 100% 73%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 83% 87% 94% 96% 100% 99% 100% 76%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 80% 91% 93% 98% 100% 99% 100% 72%Years of Life Lost 100% 80% 91% 93% 98% 100% 99% 100% 72%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic EcotoxicitySediment Ecotoxicity Terrestrial Ecotoxicity


Primary energy 100% 81% 93% 94% 100% 102% 101% 102% 74%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 98% 88% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 97%DustsDioxinsMetals into airMetals into waterMetals into soilMunicipal and industrial waste 100% 82% 89% 93% 87% 100% 98% 100% 76%Hazardous waste 100% 82% 89% 93% 114% 100% 100% 100% 75%Inert waste

Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 1-3Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4PC base case



14

SCREEN COMPUTERS: CATHODES RAY TUBES DESKTOP VS. LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY

A. Functional Unit

One desktop computer display over its lifespan.

B. Reference

Desktop Computer Displays: A Life-Cycle Assessment VOLUME 1. Maria Leet Socolof, Jonathan G. Overly, Lori E. Kincaid, Jack R. Geibig. University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies under grant #82537401 from EPA’s Design for the Environment Branch, Economics, Exposure, & Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/pubs/comp-dic/lca/index.htm

C. System Studied

The product system being analyzed in this study is a standard desktop computer display that functions as a graphical interface between computer processing units and users.

The product system is the computer display itself and does not include the central processing unit (CPU) of the computer that sends signals to operate the display. It is assumed that the Liquid Crystal Display (LCDs) operate with an analogue interface, and therefore are compatible with current Cathodes Ray Tubes (CRT) CPUs as plug-and-play alternatives.

[TAB 1] CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWO INVESTIGATED COMPUTER DISPLAY.

Specification Measure Display size 17" (CRT); 15" (LCD) Diagonal viewing area 15.9" (CRT); 15" (LCD) Viewing area dimensions 12.8" x 9.5" (122 in) (CRT);

12" x 9" (108 in) (LCD) Resolution 1024 x 768 colour pixels Brightness 200 cd/m Contrast ratio 100:1 Colour 262,000

An LCD is manufactured such that its nearest equivalent to the 17" CRT display is the 15" LCD. This is because the viewing area of a 17" CRT is about 15.9 inches and the viewing area of a 15" LCD is 15 inches. LCDs are not manufactured to be exactly equivalent to the viewing area of the CRT. Temporal boundaries: 1997-2000 technology. Electricity consumed in the life-cycles of the monitors was linked to the inventory of inputs and outputs from the U.S. (use step) or Japanese (production step) electric grid inventories, as appropriate.


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



15

[TAB 2] NET ELECTRICITY GENERATION

United States Japan Coal 57 % 18 % Gas 9 % 20 % Petroleum 3 % 21 % Nuclear 20 % 31 % Hydro 11 % 9 % Other <1 % 1 %

C.1. Main assumptions for the production step The weighted average of data collected and their associated DQIs are as follows:

� CRT, 43% of the data were measured, 34% calculated, 13% estimated, and 10% were not classified. � LCD: 33% measured, 30% calculated, 23% estimated, and 14% not classified.

[TAB 3] BILL OF PRIMARY MATERIAL INPUTS FOR A 17" CRT MONITOR Material/Component Mass (kg) weight % of total inputs Lead oxide glass 9.76 46.1%

Lead 0.45 2.1% Steel 5.16 24.4% Plastics 3.04 14.4%

Polycarbonate (PC) 0.92 4.36% Styrene-butadiene co-polymer 0.83 3.91%

Polyethylene ether (PEE) 0.74 3.47% Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) 0.32 1.52%

High-impact polystyrene (HIPS) 0.15 0.71% Triphenyl phosphate 0.05 0.25% Tricresyl phosphate 0.02 0.11% Phosphate ester 0.01 0.04% Printed wiring boards (PWB) and components 0.85 4.00% Cables/wires 0.45 2.13% Aluminium (heat sink) 0.27 1.29% Nickel alloy (invar) 0.27 1.29% CRT shield assembly 0.24 1.14% Ferrite 0.17 0.80% Deflection yoke assembly 0.15 0.71% Demagnetic coil 0.13 0.60% Video cable assembly 0.11 0.54% Power cord assembly 0.11 0.54% Electron gun 0.10 0.47% CRT magnet assembly 0.08 0.36% Audio cable assembly 0.07 0.34% Frit 0.07 0.32% Solder 0.03 0.13% Phosphors 0.02 0.08% Aquadag 0.02 0.07% Other (misc.) 0.06 0.30%

TOTAL 21.16



16

[TAB 4] BILL OF PRIMARY MATERIAL INPUTS FOR A 15" LCD MONITOR Steel 2.53 44.12% Plastics 1.78 30.98%

Polycarbonate (PC) 0.52 9.00% Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) 0.45 7.80%

Styrene-butadiene copolymer 0.36 6.31% Polyethylene ether (PEE) 0.30 5.23%

Triphenyl phosphate 0.09 1.61% Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 0.06 1.03%

Glass 0.59 10.31% Printed wiring boards (PWB) and components 0.37 6.52% Cables/wires 0.23 4.08% Aluminium (heat sink, transistor) 0.13 2.34% Solder (60% tin, 40% lead) 0.04 0.66% Colour filter pigment 0.04 0.65% Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) (for polarizer) 0.01 0.15% Liquid crystals, for 15" LCD, unspecified 0.0023 0.04% Backlight lamp (cold cathode fluorescent lamp, CCFL) 0.0019 0.03% Mercury 3.99E-06 0.0001% Transistor metals, other (e.g., Mo, Ti, MoW) 0.0019 0.03% Indium tin oxide (ITO) (electrode) 0.0005 0.01% Polyimide alignment layer 0.0005 0.01% Other (e.g., adhesives, spacers, misc.) 0.0031 0.05% TOTAL 5.73 100%

C.2. Main assumptions for the use step

[TAB 5] AVERAGE ENERGY USE RATE Full-on Power Mode Low Power Mode Monitor Type (W) (kW) (W) (kW) 17" CRT 112 0 0.113 13.1 0.013 15" LCD 39.7 0.040 6.44 0.006

[TAB 6] EFFECTIVE LIFE VALUES First life (4 years) Remaining life (2,5 years) Model totals User

environment Power mode

Operating pattern (hr/yr)

Total hours (4 years)

Operating pattern (hr/yr)

Total hours (2,5 years)

(hr/effective life)

Office (65%) Full-on 1 095 4 380 493 1 233 5 613 Low 2 263 9 052 1 018 2 545 11 597 Home (35%) Full-on 523 2 092 235 588 2 680 Low 793 3 172 357 893 4 065 Weighted Full-on -- --- --- --- 4 586 average Low -- - --- --- --- 8 961

[TAB 7] EFFECTIVE LIFE ENERGY CONSUMPTION Monitor

type Power mode

Energy use rate (kW)

Calculated lifespan (hours/life)

Energy consumption (kWh/life)

Full-on 0.113 4 586 518 Low 0.013 8 961 116

17" CRT

Total ---- 13 547 634 Full-on 0.040 4 586 183 Low 0.006 8 961 54

15" LCD

Total ---- 13 547 237



17

C.3. Distribution of transport modes and total distances per mode

[TAB 8] MAIN VALUES FOR TRANSPORTATION CRT LCD

Transport mode Distribution of mode

Approx normalised distance travelled per functional unit

Distribution of mode

Approx normalised distance travelled per functional unit

Large diesel truck 61% 3 km 58% 3 km Small diesel or gas truck 21% <1 km 35% <1 km Ocean 16% 37 km 3% <1 km Rail 2% <1 km 2% <1 km Air 0% 0 km 2% 52 km Total 100% 40 km 100% 56 km

C.4. Main assumptions for the end of life step

[TAB 9] DISPOSITION

CRT LCD Incineration 15% 15% Recycling 11% 15% Remanufacturing 3% 15% Hazardous waste landfill 46% 5% Solid waste landfill 25% 50%



18

D. Main Results for one functional unit

CRT indicators are greater than the LCD indicators in the following categories:

� renewable resource use; � non renewable resource use; � energy use; � solid waste landfill use; � hazardous waste landfill use; � radioactive waste landfill use; � global warming; � ozone depletion; � photochemical smog; � air;

� acidification; � air particulates; � biological oxygen demand; � suspended solids; � chronic health effect; � terrestrial ecotoxicity;

LCD indicators are greater than the CRT indicators in the following categories:

� water eutrophication; � aquatic ecotoxicity;

Primary energy MJ

2 840

20 800

Cathodes Ray Tubes Liquid Cristal Display


593

695


Air acidification kg SO2 eq.

5

3



1215

40

59

min max min max




19

E. Conclusions of the authors

CRT results:

� Energy used in glass manufacturing and associated production of LPG are driving the baseline CRT results (they dominate ten impact categories, including overall life-cycle energy use). The use of LPG fuel in glass manufacturing dominated ten impact categories: two directly from the LPG used in glass/frit manufacturing (energy use impacts and chronic occupational health effects) and eight from LPG production (renewable resource use, non-renewable resource use, photochemical smog, air particulates, water eutrophication, BOD water quality, TSS water quality, and aesthetics). In addition, impacts from the generation of electricity during the use stage dominated seven impact categories: solid waste landfill use, radioactive waste landfill use, global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, chronic public health, and terrestrial toxicity. The CRT tube manufacturing process, which represents the most functionally and physically (by mass) significant component of the CRT monitor, only dominated one impact category (aquatic toxicity). Twenty-six percent of the aquatic toxicity score was from phosphorus outputs from tube manufacturing, while most of the rest were from the materials processing life-cycle stage. The remaining two impact categories (hazardous waste landfill use and radioactivity) had greatest impacts from the landfilling of the assumed hazardous proportion of CRT monitors, and the release of Plutonium-241 in steel production, respectively.

� The large amounts of fuel used as energy sources are driving occupational health effects. � For the CRT, the use of lead could present health risks. � The generation of electricity for the use stage dominates seven impact categories. � Air emissions of sulphur dioxide from electricity generation (for the use life-cycle stage) drive chronic

public health effects, acidification, and terrestrial toxicity impacts. LCD Results:

The LCD impact results were less sensitive to an individual input or output than the CRT results, although in 11 of the 20 impact categories an individual input was still responsible for greater than 50% of the total impacts. In general, the LCD results are less uncertain than the CRT results. This is because most of the CRT results are being driven by either glass input data or data from secondary sources, while LCD impacts are being driven more by data from primary sources.

� The LCD monitor/module manufacturing process group had greatest impacts in six impact categories. � Although the top contributor to the energy impact category was electricity consumed in the use stage

(30%), the overall energy impacts were greater from the manufacturing stage than the use stage. � Sulphur dioxide emitted from electricity generation in the use stage, and constituting only 0.37% of the

air emission inventory dominates the acidification, chronic public health, and terrestrial toxicity impact categories. The high public health and terrestrial toxicity scores are due to its low non-cancer toxicity value and resulting high hazard value (HV).

� Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) from LCD monitor/module manufacturing was the single greatest contributor to the global warming impact score; however, carbon dioxide from the use stage and the materials processing stage also contributed significantly to the global warming impacts.

� The glass energy inputs did not directly dominate any impact categories, as they did for the CRT (due to the smaller mass of glass in the LCD); however, LPG production (required for the glass energy fuel) dominated two categories: Total Suspended Solids water quality and aesthetics.

� LNG (liquefied natural gas) as an ancillary inventory material was questionably very large and had greatest impacts in two categories: non-renewable resource use and photochemical smog.

Mercury

Mercury is contained within the fluorescent tubes that provide the source of light in the LCD. Mercury is also emitted from some fuel combustion processes, such as coal-fired electricity generation processes, which contribute to the life-cycle impacts of both CRTs and LCDs.

� The mercury emitted from the generation of power consumed by the CRT (7.75 mg) exceeds the entire amount of mercury emissions from the LCD, including both the mercury used in LCD backlights (3.99 mg) and the mercury emissions from electricity generation (3.22 mg). Although this was not expected because mercury is used intentionally in an LCD, but not in a CRT, the results are not surprising since mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are known to be one of the largest anthropogenic sources of mercury in the United States. Because the CRT consumes significantly more electricity in the use stage than the LCD, its use stage emissions of mercury are proportionately higher than those of the LCD.



20

F. Differences between options

SCREEN COMPUTERS LCD VS. CRT



Primary Energy Consumption 7.5

Global Warming 1.8

Air acidification 1.8



21

G. Detailed results

Functional unit: One computer desktop during its lifespan Cathodes Ray Tubes Liquid Cristal Display

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 695 593Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 2.1E-02 1.4E-02Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 5 3Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 171 141Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 48 50Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 107 182Years of Life Lost year 2.1E-04 1.3E-04Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 8 731 2 149Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 20 458 5 392Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 836 310


Primary energy MJ 20 800 2 840Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 13 100 2 820Dusts g 301 115Dioxins g 3.8E-07 1.8E-07Metals into air g 2.4 0.1Metals into water g 5.1 1.4Metals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kg 172 52Hazardous waste kg 9 6Inert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 13 33 11 28Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 1.4E-05 1.4E-05 9.3E-06 9.3E-06Air acidification Euros 0.8 7.7 0.4 4.3Photochemical oxidation Euros 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 0.4 17.8 0.2 6.8Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros 4.9E-03 1.1E-02 2.3E-03 4.9E-03

Total External Cost Euros 15 59 12 40



22

Liquid Cristal Display Cathodes Ray Tubes


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) g CO2 eq. 100% 117%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 100% 150%Air acidification g SO2 eq. 100% 177%Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 100% 121%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 100% 97%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 59%Years of Life Lost year 100% 166%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 406%Sediment Ecotoxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 379%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 270%


Primary energy MJ 100% 732%Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 100% 465%Dusts g 100% 262%Dioxins g 100% 216%Metals into air g 100% 2090%Metals into water g 100% 370%Metals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kg 100% 329%Hazardous waste kg 100% 150%Inert waste kg



23

LAMPS: FLUOCOMPACTS VS. FILAMENT LAMPS

A. Functional Unit

10 million lumens1 hours. (This correspond to roughly 1.6 times the light yield of a conventional filament lamp and a bout one fifth of that of a compact fluorescent lamp).

B. Reference

The International Journals of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 1 N°1 1996, page 8. Case studies: Comparison between Filament lamps and Compact Fluorescent Lamps. Rolf P. Pfeifer.

C. System Studied

Four different alternative types of lamp were selected for analysis:

� A conventional standard filament lamp, with a power input of 60W, a light output of 650 lm, and an average life of 1000 h.

� A compact fluorescent lamp with integral electronic control gear, a power input of 15 W, a light output of 600 lm, and an average life of 8000 h.

� A compact fluorescent lamp with integral inductive control gear, a power input of 13 W, a light output of 650 lm, and an average life time of 8000 h.

� A compact fluorescent lamp with a separate ballast, a total power input of 11 W, a light output of 600 lm and an average life time of 8000 h for the lamp and 32 000 h for the ballast.

The authors were forced to use exclusively data from the literature reference available in the public domain, as none of the lamp producers was willing to provide further information. The author stress explicitly that the available data is insufficient and that there are, in part, substantial data gap.

Only energy consumption of the production and use phases is considered in this paper.

[TAB 1] ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MJ Incandescent lamp Compact fluo lamp

with integrated magnetic ballast

Compact fluo lamp with integrated

electronic ballast

Compact fluo lamp

Production step 0.8-3.1 1.1-3.7 1.0-2.1 0.6

Use step 875 174 189-214 116-174

Total 875-878 175-177 190-216 117-175

1 Lm (lumen) is the unit of luminous flux, and thus quantifies the light output emitted by a source or, colloquially speaking, the “brightness” of a lamp. Lux is the unit of illumination of a surface, whereby one lux equals to one lumen per square meter.


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



24

[TAB 2] MIX OF ENERGY IN THE ELECTRICITY MODEL – 1 KWH

Electricity from coal B250 kWh 17,4% Electricity from gas B250 kWh 7,4% Electricity from hydropower B250 kWh 16,4% Electricity from lignite B250 kWh 7,8% Electricity from uranium B250 kWh 40,3% Electricity from oil B250 kWh 10,7%

D. Main Results for one million lumen hours

Primary energy MJ

5 4325 4956 705

27 256

Incandescant lampwith intergrated

electronic ballast

Compact fluorescentlamp with integrated

magnetic ballast

Compact fluorescentlamp with integratedelectronic ballast

Compact fluorescent


220

1 105

272223


electronic ballast


magnetic ballast


Compact fluorescent


1.5

7.7

1.91.6


electronic ballast


magnetic ballast


Compact fluorescent



25


24

139

528

634

528

min max min max min max min max

Incandescantlamp w ith

Compactf luorescent lamp

Compactf luorescent lamp

Compactf luorescent


The LCA clearly finds much more favourable results for the compact fluorescent lamp. The decisive weak point of the conventional filament lamp is its energy consumption in the use stage. Only some 1-5% of the total primary energy consumption are to produce the lamp itself, while approx. 95-99% are consumed in the use stage. In total, a filament lamp consumes about five to height times more primary energy than a compact fluorescent lamp. A further consequence of the higher consumption of the filament lamp is that its ascribable emissions to air are much higher than those of the compact fluorescent lamp. Mercury emissions: Compact fluorescent lamps use mercury in production, and contain mercury in the final product. The total emissions of mercury over the whole life cycle of both lamp types, the filament and the compact fluorescent lamp, are approximately equal. This is due to the fact that the comparatively higher mercury emissions of the compact fluorescent lamp in the production and disposal stages are compensated by the mercury emissions of the filament lamp that follow from its higher energy consumption. Coal has a slight, but detectable mercury content, and this is emitted by the conventional coal-fired power plants that supply the power for the lamp.


FLUOCOMPACT VS. FILAMENT LAMP



Primary Energy Consumption 5

Global Warming 5

Air acidification 5



26

G. Detailed results

Functional unit: one million lumen hour


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 8 2 2 2Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 1 105 223 272 220Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 0.22 0.04 0.05 0.04Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 7.7 1.6 1.9 1.5Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 674 136 166 134Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 32.2 6.5 7.9 6.4Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 12 031 2 425 2 960 2 398Years of Life Lost year 3.4E-04 6.8E-05 8.3E-05 6.7E-05Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 2 336 471 575 466Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 7 490 1 510 1 843 1 493Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 90 18 22 18


Primary energy MJ 27 256 5 495 6 705 5 432Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 670 135 165 134Dusts g 1 247 251 307 249Dioxins gMetals into air g 376 76 93 75Metals into water g 1 119 226 275 223Metals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 21.0 53.0 4.2 10.7 5.2 13.0 4.2 10.6Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 1.5E-04 1.5E-04 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 3.7E-05 3.7E-05 3.0E-05 3.0E-05Air acidification Euros 1.1 11.3 0.2 2.3 0.3 2.8 0.2 2.2Photochemical oxidation Euros 0.49 0.63 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.12Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 4.7E-03 4.7E-03 9.5E-04 9.5E-04 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 9.4E-04 9.4E-04Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 1.73 73.93 0.35 14.90 0.43 18.19 0.35 14.74Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 24 139 5 28 6 34 5 28

Values

Values

Values

Incandescant lamp with intergrated electronic

ballast

Compact fluorescent lamp with integrated

magnetic ballast


electronic ballastCompact fluorescent



27


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources 100% 502% 101% 123%Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 502% 101% 123%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 100% 502% 101% 123%Air acidification 100% 502% 101% 123%Photochemical oxidation 100% 502% 101% 123%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 502% 101% 123%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 502% 101% 123%Years of Life Lost 100% 502% 101% 123%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 502% 101% 123%Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 502% 101% 123%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 100% 502% 101% 123%


Primary energy 100% 502% 101% 123%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 502% 101% 123%Dusts 100% 502% 101% 123%DioxinsMetals into air 100% 502% 101% 123%Metals into water 100% 502% 101% 123%Metals into soilMunicipal and industrial wasteHazardous wasteInert waste

Incandescant lamp with intergrated electronic

ballast


magnetic ballast


electronic ballastCompact fluorescent



28

FUELS FOR VEHICLES: FOSSIL FUELS VS ALTERNATIVES

A. Functional Unit

1000 vehicles.km

B. Reference

Documents environnement n° 104 Air. Eco profile de carburants. Office fédérale de l’environnement, des forêts et du paysage (OFEFP-BUWAL) 1998.

C. System studied

1. Goal and scope

The goal of the study is to compare the impact on atmospheric pollution of 12 different fuels in personal and commercial vehicles:

� 3 kind of petrol and 4 kind of diesel; � natural gas and liquefied petrol gas; � methanol and ethanol; � diester;

The flows taken in consideration are the exhaust fumes, of which emissions are normalised, and other pollutants, in particularly greenhouse gases and toxic gases for human health.

2. Characteristics of the fuels considered: Petrol:

� Unleaded petrol: correspond to the quality distributed in Swiss in 1994, this carburant is the reference for the comparison of other fuels.

� Reformulated petrol (“Carb” program of California): is the future petrol which will commercialised in California in order to decrease the tropospheric ozone creation due to the emission of hydrocarbons and NOx.

� Petrol according to the European commission proposition: this carburant is the result of the program “Auto-oil”. This fuel contains more aromatic hydrocarbons and sulphur than the Swiss petrol, but less benzene (25%).

[TAB 1] TECHNICAL DATA FOR PETROL CONSIDERED: Vapour

pressure [bar] Ebullition temp. [°C]

Benzene [% vol]

Aromatics [% vol]

Sulphur [% weight]

Olefins [% vol]

Unleaded petrol Swiss 0.71 55 2.1 29.6 0.01 8.9

Reformulated petrol (Carb) 0.47 56 0.8 22 0.003 4

EU commission proposition

0.58 53 1.6 37 0.015 11


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



29

Diesel:

� Swiss diesel: Correspond to a average diesel commercialised in Swiss. � Green life diesel (MICROL society): less content of sulphur, poly aromatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. � Swedish diesel: less content of sulphur, poly aromatic and aromatic hydrocarbons than green life or

Swiss diesel. � Diesel according to the European commission proposition: similar to the Swiss diesel (more poly

aromatic hydrocarbons).

[TAB 2] TECHNICAL DATA FOR DIESEL CONSIDERED: Density

[kg/l] Cetan indice

T95 [°C]

Aromatic HC [% vol]

PAHs [% vol]

Sulphur [% weight]

Swiss diesel 0.828 51 350 30 3 0.04

Green life diesel 0.822 53 340 10 n.d. 0.002

Swedish diesel 0.815 57.9 283 3.6 0.12 0.001

EU commission diesel

0.835 53 350 n.d. 6 0.03

Alternatives fuels:

� Compressed natural gas: high content of methane, and few ethane, nitrogen oxides and other hydrocarbons. The methane proportion can fluctuate from 80% to 99%.

� LPG: it is a secondary product of refinery. Mainly composed with propane (20%-96%) and butane. � Methanol: it was assumed that the methanol is extracted from natural gas (other sources are: biomass,

coal or cellulose). � Ethanol: product from biomass. It’s considered only for personal car. � RME (Rapeseed oil Methyl Ester): is the product of methanol and rapeseed oil esterification. It can be

used in a diesel engine.

3. Conditions considered for the driving cycle: For European fuels, the analysis is based on the new European test for exhaust fumes: (New European Drive Cycle, NEDC) which include cold starting and the intra - extra city driving. For US fuels, the results are based on the US-test 75 (FTP 75) which is similar to the European one.

4. Technologies considered for motors: � Petrol: three ways catalyser � Personal car diesel: direct injection, oxidizing catalyser � Commercial engine diesel: direct injection, no catalyser � Natural gas: three ways catalyser � LPG: three ways catalyser � RME: same technologies than diesel.

5. Comparison of fuels: Two categories have been defined, on the one hand, the comparison is made between each categories of petrol and diesel, on the other hand, a comparison is made between alternative fuels (RME, ethanol, NG, LPG...) and classical fuels (petrol and diesel).

Case studies

February 03

BIO

Inte

llige

nc

e S

erv

ice

E

XTERN

AL EN

VIRO

NM

ENTAL E

FFECTS R

ELATED TO

THE LIFE C

YCLE O

F PR

OD

UC

TS AND

SER

VICES

30

D. M

ain Results for 1000 vehicles.km


192190

193198

197203

119

52

233234

228206

Unleadedpetrol

Californianreformulated

petrol

Petrol UEEproposition

AverageSwiss diesel

DieselGreenlife(Migrol)

Swedishdiesel

(classe 1)

Diesel UEEproposition

Natural Gas

LPG

Methanol

Ethanol

RME

Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq.

123118

115

574

167

323

203106

219294

324336Unleaded

petrol

Californianreformulated

petrol

Petrol UEEproposition

AverageSwiss diesel

DieselGreenlife(Migrol)

Swedishdiesel

(classe 1)


Natural Gas

LPG

Methanol

Ethanol

RME



31

Air acidification g SO2 eq.

498 482522

108

202

310

460503529

362379

479

Unl

eade

dpe

trol

Cal

iforn

ian

refo

rmul

ated

petro

l

Petro

l UEE

prop

ositio

n

Aver

age

Swis

s di

esel

Die

sel

Gre

enlife

(Mig

rol)

Swed

ish

dies

el(c

lass

e 1)

Die

sel U

EEpr

opos

ition

Nat

ural

Gas

LPG

Met

hano

l

Etha

nol

RM

E


13.8 13.4

10.4 10.7

5.9

1.2

4.14.23.94.24.7 4.7

12.5 12.1

min max min max min max min max mik max min max min max

Unleaded petrol Petrol UEEproposition

Average Swissdiesel


Natural Gas Methanol RME



32

Diesel vs. petrol:

� Diesel emits more nitrogen oxides, particulates butadiene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, � Petrol emits more hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, xylene and CO2. � There are no significant differences with Swiss petrol, the Californian model for petrol release less

benzene, toluene and formaldehyde than the Swiss one. Alternative fuels:

� Natural gas: fewer pollutants are emitted with natural gas engine (NOx, N2O, HC…), the CO2 emissions are equivalent to the diesel engine, but a large amount of methane is release.

� LPG: the use of LPG release less pollutants in general, except CO2, Non methanic Organic Compounds and NOx (only for personal car).

� Methanol, Ethanol, RME: release more pollutants than natural gas and liquefied petrol gas. The use of methanol release a lot of formaldehyde and the RME release more NOx.

Production step: The databases for the production of fuels are not dependable, so there are more uncertainty data for the production step than for the use step. But some observations are made on this aspect: The part of pollutants emitted during the production is according to the kind of fuel, but they do not change significantly the eco-profile of fuels. The most important variations are observed for the fuel made with renewable resources: the ecological advantages of the use step are counterbalanced by the additional emissions of the production step (CO2 and NOx for RME, NOx for ethanol). For the ameliorated petrol and diesel (less sulphur), the ecological advantages are tempered by the higher consumption of energy for their production than the “classical” fuels, what entrains CO2 emissions. For diesel with less sulphur, the production release much SO2.


If the technical development of engine is considered, for personal car the limits proposed (EURO3, EURO4) for diesel and petrol will go in the same way, so the eco-profiles of fuels will not change significantly one compared with another. For trucks, the EURO3, 4 criteria will cause fewer emissions of atmospheric pollutants. For diesel, the new technologies will make the emissions decrease significantly. For gas engine, the emissions are already according with EURO 3, so the difference will be minor and this kind of vehicles can lose their advantages compared with classic fuels, but the development potential of gas motor is not totally exploited. It’s not possible to demonstrate that the reduction potential of atmospheric emissions is really more important for one fuel if we do not consider the technology development of engines. With the actual statement of the technique, the natural gas and LPG present an important potential of reduction for pollutants emissions, but not for global warming. The advantages of the reformulated fuels, like green life diesel and EU-petrol are tiny if the engine technology do not change. However, the employment of this new reformulated fuels could reduce immediately and significantly the emission of pollutants because they would be able to generate new technologies for motors and exhaust fumes treatment, that is particularly right for diesel (particulate filters and NOx catalysers).



33


Fuels for vehicles : Fossil fuels vs. alternatives



Global Warming 4.5

Photochemical oxidation 5

Human toxicity 50



34

G. Detailed results

Unleaded petrolCalifornian

reformulated petrol

Petrol UEE proposition

Average Swiss diesel

Diesel Greenlife (Migrol)

Swedish diesel (classe 1)

Diesel UEE proposition Natural Gas LPG Methanol Ethanol RME

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values Values Values Values Values Values

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 233 228 234 206 192 190 193 198 197 203 119 52Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq.Air acidification g SO2 eq. 479 362 379 529 498 482 522 108 202 310 460 503Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 336 294 324 219 123 118 115 574 167 323 203 106Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq.Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 21 006 10 676 16 566 44 367 23 762 18 006 876 2 997 6 183 1 313 3 631 27 558Years of Life Lost year 2.1E-05 2.0E-05 2.1E-05 3.8E-05 3.7E-05 3.6E-05 3.9E-05 9.5E-06 1.5E-05 2.5E-05 3.8E-05 4.7E-05Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 35 21 34 128 7 96 0 23 35 149 25 157Sediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 22 11 18 101 22 66 0 14 23 80 13 106Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 5 2 4 13 0 10 0 3 4 17 3 17


Primary energy MJFossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kgDusts g 5 n.a. n.a. 49 45 39 55 4 4 4 4 44Dioxins gMetals into air g 8.0E-02Metals into water gMetals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min max min max min max mik max min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 4.43 11.19 4.33 10.93 4.44 11.22 3.91 9.88 3.65 9.22 3.61 9.12 3.67 9.26 3.77 9.52 3.74 9.46 3.86 9.75 2.26 5.71 0.99 2.50Stratospheric Ozone Depletion EurosAir acidification Euros 0.07 0.70 0.05 0.53 0.06 0.55 0.08 0.77 0.07 0.73 0.07 0.70 0.08 0.76 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.30 0.05 0.45 0.07 0.67 0.07 0.73Photochemical oxidation Euros 0.25 0.31 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.30 0.16 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.42 0.53 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.30 0.15 0.19 0.08 0.10Linked to water effluentsEutrophication EurosLinked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals EurosHuman health effects caused by dusts Euros 0.007 0.297 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.068 2.906 0.063 2.669 0.054 2.313 0.076 3.262 0.005 0.208 0.005 0.208 0.005 0.208 0.005 0.208 0.061 2.609Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 5 12 5 12 5 12 4 14 4 13 4 12 4 13 4 10 4 10 4 11 2 7 1 6

Values

Functional unit: 1000 vehicule.km

Values Values Values



35


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resourcesLinked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 118% 115% 118% 104% 97% 96% 97% 99% 102% 60% 26%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Air acidification 100% 445% 337% 352% 492% 464% 449% 486% 188% 289% 428% 468%Photochemical oxidation 100% 58% 51% 56% 38% 21% 20% 20% 29% 56% 35% 18%Linked to water effluentsEutrophicationLinked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 701% 356% 553% 1480% 793% 601% 29% 206% 44% 121% 919%Years of Life Lost 100% 221% 215% 221% 401% 393% 374% 405% 155% 261% 400% 494%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 153% 90% 147% 555% 30% 418% 0% 154% 647% 108% 681%Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 155% 78% 128% 710% 156% 461% 0% 163% 563% 94% 742%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 100% 201% 92% 152% 520% 2% 408% 0% 152% 666% 111% 667%


Primary energyFossil energyConsumption of raw materialsDusts 100% 143% n.a. n.a. 1400% 1286% 1114% 1571% 100% 100% 100% 1257%DioxinsMetals into airMetals into waterMetals into soilMunicipal and industrial wasteHazardous wasteInert waste

Diesel UEE propositionNatural Gas LPG Methanol

Californian reformulated

petrol

Petrol UEE propositionUnleaded petrol RMEEthanolAverage Swiss

dieselDiesel Greenlife

(Migrol)Swedish diesel

(classe 1)



37

FLOOR COVERINGS: PVC VS. RUBBER VS. LINOLEUM VS. POLYOLEFIN

A. Functional Unit

1000 m2 flooring over a period of twenty years.

B. Reference

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment; Vol.2 N°2 1997, page 73. “Life Cycle Assessment Study on resilient Floor covering” A. Günter, H.C. Langowski.

C. System studied

� Life cycle of all system components � Manufacturing � Use phase: maintenance � Waste management: incineration, landfill

Materials for floor covering � PVC � Cushioned PVC � Polyolefin � Linoleum � Rubber

FLOW CHART

Main production sequence:

Manufacturing of floorings: mixing,

calendaring, coating, finishing etc…

Distribution, laying

Raw material

Ancillary components

Use phaseMaintenance (scaling parameter: lifetime)

Energy generation:

electricity, heat, steam...

Raw material

Transport operations

RemovalWaste management: incineration, landfill


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



38

D. Main Results for 1000 m2 floorings

� Municipal and chemical waste: the biggest part of the municipal waste comes from the laying reject and the removal of the floorings after use. Therefore, rubber floorings show the biggest amount of municipal waste by mass.

� Acidification potential: energy supply process and pre-chain process (emission of sulphur due to the vulcanisation for rubber) generate nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides.

� Global warming potential: two substances dominate the anthropogeneous global warming: methane which is generated under anaerobic conditions by biodegradable substances at the dump site and carbon dioxide as a result of fossil carriers for energy supply. Floorings with biodegradable substances show the highest effect, followed by floorings with a high energy demand.

Primary energy MJ

17 000

130 000

162 500145 000135 000

Floor coveringPVC

Floor coveringcushioned PVC

Floor coveringPolyolefins

Floor coveringLinoleum

Floor coveringRubber


9 000

16 500

9 500

6 500

11 500

Floor coveringPVC


Floor coveringPolyolef ins




125

66

38

61

35

Floor coveringPVC


Floor coveringPolyolef ins





39


129

368 319

843

189

614545

648

189228

min max min max min max min max min max

Floor coveringPVC


Floor coveringPolyolefins




� There is no material specific ranking for “best” or “worst” environmental performance, whereas relative advantages concerning specific categories are to be found.

� The results within one material group may differ, largely depending on the individual formula of a given

product.

� Contract dry cleaning may require more energy over the lifetime of a typical flooring (6 GJ) than the production of all floorings investigated; similarly the water input for contract wet cleaning (26 m3) may exceed the water demand in the production of all floor coverings by far.

� The influence of transports is weak because only bulk material is carried.

� The effect of a premature change of a flooring have a higher influence on the environmental

performance of the product system “flooring” than most other options for improvement.


Floor coverings : PVC vs. Rubber vs. linoleum vs.

polyolefin



Primary energy 9

Global Warming 3

Air acidification 3



40

G. Detailed results

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values Values

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 11 500 9 500 6 500 16 500 9 000Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq.Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 66 61 38 35 125Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq.Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq.Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneYears of Life Lost yearLinked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneSediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneTerrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene


Primary energy MJ 162 500 135 000 145 000 130 000 17 000Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 75 000 31 250 87 500 75 000 81 250Dusts gDioxins gMetals into air gMetals into water gMetals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kg 3 050 1 900 3 000 2 450 3 650Hazardous waste kg 325 235 20 25 70Inert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 219 552 181 456 124 312 314 792 171 432Stratospheric Ozone Depletion EurosAir acidification Euros 10 96 9 89 6 56 5 51 18 182Photochemical oxidation EurosLinked to water effluentsEutrophication EurosLinked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals EurosHuman health effects caused by dusts EurosHuman health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 228 648 189 545 129 368 319 843 189 614

Values

Floor covering Rubber

Functional unit: The typical use of 2 000 m2 flooring over a period of twenty years Floor covering PVC

Floor covering cushioned PVC

Floor covering Polyolefins Floor covering Linoleum



41

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values Values Values

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resourcesLinked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 121% 146% 39% 183%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Air acidification 100% 108% 158% 109% 28%Photochemical oxidationLinked to water effluentsEutrophicationLinked to human healthHuman ToxicityYears of Life LostLinked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic EcotoxicitySediment Ecotoxicity Terrestrial Ecotoxicity


Primary energy 100% 120% 93% 112% 765%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 240% 36% 117% 92%DustsDioxinsMetals into airMetals into waterMetals into soilMunicipal and industrial waste 100% 161% 63% 122% 67%Hazardous waste 100% 138% 1175% 80% 36%Inert waste

Floor covering LinoleumFloor covering Rubber Floor covering PVCFloor covering cushioned

PVC Floor covering Polyolefins



42

ROAD PAINT: WATER BASED PAINT VS. SOLVENT BASED PAINT

A. Functional Unit

100 square meter of road covered with paint during its life (10 years).

B. Reference

Analyse de cycle de vie comparée de deux types de peintures pour signalisation routière. ADEME – PROSIGN – Bio Intelligence Service. Mai 2002.

C. System studied

FLOW CHART

NB: the water based paint has received the “NF Environnement” French ecolabel for road paint.

Transport 5

Transport 2

Transport 4

Transport 3

Transport 1

Raw materials

Constituting materials Production

Constituting materials conditioning

Paint preparation

Final products and co-products conditioning

Paint : application on road

Use and end of life

Materials production for the packaging of

constituting materials

Materials production for the packaging of final products and

co-products

End of life of packaging materials



43

Data included in the study:

� raw materials extraction; � the production of constituting elements of paint; � transport and packaging for:

raw materials provisioning; constituting elements; final products; other (new towels for the preparation step, solvents for cleaning of materials…);

� paint preparation (mix of the constituting elements); � application on the road; � use and end of life step.

Data excluded in the study:

� production, maintenance, dismantling of infrastructures; � research and development process needed for the paint formulation; � throwing out of paint due to its use.

Environmental impacts considered:

� raw materials consumption; � energy consumption; � airborne emissions; � water borne emissions; � emissions in soil; � solid waste (hazardous, municipal and inert waste).

D. Assumptions:

The data for the paint production, raw materials consumption, packaging and transports come directly from the manufacturer for both cases. For the other data, like electricity production, raw materials production etc., the data used are taken from the Boustead database. The environmental burdens of paint sludge treatment (incineration in cement plant or in municipal waste incinerator), emitted in the production step, are considered like “waste to incineration”, because of the lake of data for this processes.

E. Main Results for 1 000 m2 covered with paint during 10 years

� The paint soluble in water has a best environmental profile than the paint soluble in solvents for all environmental impacts studied.

� For the covered of the same surface, the paint soluble in water as an energy requirement 55% less than the paint soluble in solvent.

� The global warming potential of the solvent paint is 50% higher than the water paint and this difference can be observed for all environmental impacts except for the emission of volatile organic compounds, which is 90% higher for the solvent paint.



44

Primary energy MJ

14 326

6 076

Water based paint Solvant based paint


296

583


Photochemical oxidation kg ethylene eq.

43.6

2.3




45


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 2.34 5.63 100% 241%Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 296 583 100% 197%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 4.4E-02 6.6E-02 100% 148%Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 2.4 4.1 100% 167%Photochemical oxidation kg ethylene eq. 2.3 43.6 100% 1864%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication kg PO4 eq. 16.1 30.5 100% 190%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 5 777 10 637 100% 184%Years of Life Lost year 4.3E-04 7.6E-04 100% 177%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1 155 529 2 121 117 100% 184%Sediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 3 717 703 6 821 082 100% 183%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1 745 3 537 100% 203%


Primary energy MJ 6 076 14 326 100% 236%Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 8 212 29 364 100% 358%Dusts g 5 436 9 826 100% 181%Dioxins g 2.6E-10 3.7E-10 100% 140%Metals into air g 2.3 3.7 100% 163%Metals into water g 32.9 99.0 100% 301%Metals into soil g 3.0E-02 4.3E-02 100% 144%Municipal and industrial waste kg 20.1 30.6 100% 152%Hazardous waste kg 1.5 2.8 100% 193%Inert waste kg 52.3 73.8 100% 141%

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 5.6 14.2 11.1 28.0Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 3.0E-05 3.0E-05 4.5E-05 4.5E-05Air acidification Euros 0.4 3.6 0.6 6.0Photochemical oxidation Euros 1.7 2.2 31.8 40.5Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 2.5E-02 2.5E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration Euros 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Disaminity caused by landfilling Euros 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00Linked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 5.6E-04 5.6E-04 1.1E-03 1.1E-03Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 8 322 14 583Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros 3.4E-06 7.3E-06 4.8E-06 1.0E-05


Functional unit: 100 square meters recovered with paint during one year

Values

Values

Solvant based paintWater based paint

Values



657

1557

342

min max min max



Water based paint vs. solvent based paint



Primary energy 2

Global Warming 2


G. Detailed results



46

LIQUID PACKAGING SYSTEMS: DISPOSABLE VS. REFILLABLE

A. Functional Unit

Packaging and distribution of 1000 litres of beverage.

B. Reference

Environmental project N° 339 -1998: Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Systems for Beer and Soft Drinks. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. T. Ekvall, L. Person, A Righberg and J Widekeden; Chalmers Industriteknik. N. Frees, P.H. Nielsen, Bo Weidema Pederson, M Wesnaes, Insitut for Products Development.

C. System Studied

The goal of this study is to update the life cycle assessment, comparing the environmental impacts associated with different existing or alternative packaging systems for beer and carbonated soft drinks. The packaging materials recycled are compared to the refillable packaging systems. It is assumed that all the analysed systems operate under a return scheme, similar to the one presently in operation in Denmark for refillable glass bottles, in which a deposit is paid by the consumer along with the beverage and paid back when returning the package to the retailer.

The results of the study are valid for the situation in Denmark today and for a few years.

The distribution is included in the functional unit to stress the fact that the assessment includes not only the different packagings but also the distribution of the beverage.

The LCA includes different versions of six packaging systems, which covered the most commonly used packaging materials for beer and carbonated soft drinks in Europe. The packaging systems include the life cycle of the primary packaging: the bottle or the cans, and the secondary packagings: polyethylene crates, cardboard and corrugated trays, and transport packaging, e.g. wooden pallets.

[TAB 1] THE PACKAGING SYSTEMS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY

Packaging systems Beer Soft drinks Refillable glass bottles 33cl, green glass 25cl, colourless Disposable glass bottles 33cl, green glass 33cl, colourless Aluminium cans 33cl and 50cl 33cl and 50cl Steel cans 33cl and 50cl 33cl and 50cl Refillable PET bottles 50cl and 150cl Disposable PET bottles 50cl and 150cl

The glass and steel from the packaging system replace 100% virgin materials in other products systems, for PET, the packaging system replaces 50% virgin PET and 50% recycled PET from other systems.


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



47

D. Refillable glass bottles

FLOWCHART: REFILLABLE GREEN GLASS BOTTLES 33 CL

FLOWCHART: REFILLABLE COLOURLESS GLASS BOTTLES 25 CL

1.5 % - 14.2 kg

100 % - 960 kg

Recycled glass

46% - 12.1 kg

2.5 % - 24.1 kg

54% - 14.2 kg

Extraction of virgin materials

Production of glass bottles

Filling etc.

Distribution and use

Waste management

98.5 % - 947 kg Glass to material recycling

1 % - 11.2 kg

1.5 % - 13.8 kg

100 % - 909 kg

Recycled glass

83% - 19.4 kg

2.5 % - 22.8 kg

17% - 4 kg



Filling etc.


Waste management

98.5 % - 896 kg Glass to material recycling

1 % - 10 kg



48

The packaging systems with refillable glass bottles contribute most to the global warming potential, it also contributes considerably to the generation of hazardous waste. The most important processes for the environmental impacts of a 33cl refillable green glass bottle are presented in the following table:

[TAB 2] MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS FOR REFILLABLE GLASS BOTTLE

GWP POCP AP NP Bottle production 11 Washing and filling 50 24 22 NaOH production 12 Tinplate production 11 Distribution 17 56 30 41

The figures are given in % of the net total potential environmental impact GWP: Global Warming Potential POCP: Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential AP: Acidification Potential NP: Nutrification potential Washing and filling: the process of washing and filling the bottles is the largest contributor to the global warming potential, caused by emissions of CO2. This process is also a large contributor to the following impact categories:

� Acidification potential: caused by the emissions of NOx and SO2.

� Nutrification potential: caused by emission of NOx. Distribution: the distribution is the largest contributor to the following categories:

� Nutrification potential, caused by emissions of NOx

� Acidification potential, caused by emissions of NOx and SO2

� Photochemical ozone formation caused by emissions of NMVOC from diesel engine.

The hazardous wastes are generated at the brewery (washing and filling).



49

E. Disposable glass bottles

FLOWCHART: DISPOSABLE GREEN GLASS BOTTLES 33 CL

FLOWCHART: DISPOSABLE COLOURLESS GLASS BOTTLES 33 CL

10 % - 44 kg

100 % - 439 kg

46% - 219 kg

100 % - 439 kg

54% - 258 kg



Filling etc.


Waste management

Glass to material recycling

90% 396 kg

Recycled glass

10 % - 44 kg

100 % - 439 kg

Recycled glass

83% - 373 kg

100 % - 439 kg

17% - 77kg



Filling etc.


Waste management

Glass to material recycling

90% 396 kg



50

90% 39.4 kg

10 % - 4.4 kg

100 % - 43.8 kg

100 % - 43.8 kg

Production of primary aluminium

Production of aluminium cans

Filling etc.


Waste management

Recycling

90% 39.4 kg

10 % - 4.4 kg

100 % - 43.8 kg

100 % - 43.8 kg

Production of primary aluminium

Production of aluminium cans

Filling etc.


Waste management

Recycling

90% 33.3 KG

10 % - 3.7 KG

100 % - 37 KG

100 % - 37 KG

PRODUCTION OF PRIMARY ALUMINIUM

PRODUCTION OF ALUMINIUM CANS

FILLING ETC.

DISTRIBUTION AND USE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

RECYCLING

The packaging system with disposable glass bottles contributes most to the following environmental impacts: � Global warming potential

� Acidification potential

[TAB 3] MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS FOR DISPOSABLE GLASS BOTTLE

GWP POCP AP NP Bottle production 73 16 68 58 Recycled glass from other systems 36 101 37 39 Virgin raw glass materials Distribution 18 Trp. Bottles 25 10 Recycled glass bottles 64 14 59 50 Virgin glass bottles (avoided) -100 -112 -95 -87

The figures are given in % of the net total potential environmental impact

GWP: Global Warming Potential POCP: Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential AP: Acidification Potential NP: Nutrification potential

The production of bottles is a large contributor to the global warming potential (CO2 emissions), the acidification potential and nitrification potential (caused by emissions of NOx, NO2, SO2).

F. Aluminium cans

FLOWCHART:ALUMINIUM CANS 33CL FLOWCHART:ALUMINIUM CANS 50CL



51

100 % - 80.4 KG

100 % - 80.4 KG

6 % 5.6 kg

10 % - 8 kg

EXTRACTION OF VIRGIN MATERIALS

PRODUCTION OF TIN STEEL

FILLING ETC.

DISTRIBUTION AND USE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Production of aluminium

PRODUCTION OF STEEL CANS

STEEL SCRAP 11%

TO STEEL RECYCLING 90% 72.4 kg

89 %

92 % - 85.5 KG

[TAB 4] MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS FOR ALUMINIUM CANS

GWP POCP AP NP Electrolysis 27 15 22 16 Strip rolling 13 Can production 23 14 14 15 LDPE production 12 Remelting 14 10 10 Distribution of beverage 25 14 Alternative energy production -14



The largest contributions to global warming, acidification potential and nitrification potential are caused by the processes included in electrolysis etc., i.e. electrolysis, casting, anode production, petroleum coke production, pitch production, cathode production and AlF3 production. The main contributing are CO2 (GWP), SO2 (AP), and NOx (AP and NP). The production of the cans mainly contributes to the global warming.

The hazardous waste consists mainly of oil and unspecified hazardous waste. The oil is generated at strip rolling and at can production. The unspecified hazardous waste is generated at production of epoxy resins (used as inside coatings), at strip rolling and at cans production.

G. Steel cans

FLOWCHART: STEEL CANS 33CL FLOWCHART: STEEL CANS 50CL

100 % - 85.3 kg

100 % - 85.3 kg

6 % 8.5 kg

10 % - 8.5 kg


Production of tin steel

Filling etc.


Waste management

Production of aluminium

Production of steel cans

Steel scrap 11%

to steel recycling 90% 76.8 kg

89 %

94 % - 95.5 kg



52

3.5% 3.7 kg

98.5 % 104.4 kg

1.5 % - 1.6 kg

100 % - 106 kg

5 % - 5.3 kg

5% - 5.3 kg

Production of virgin raw materials

Production of PET bottles

Filling etc.


Waste management

PET to material recycling

3.5% 2.5 kg

98.5 % 69 kg

1.5 % - 1 kg

100 % - 70 kg

5 % - 3.5 kg

5% - 3.5 kg



Filling etc.


Waste management


[TAB 5] MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS FOR STEEL CANS

GWP POCP AP NP Steel can production 77 60 39 39 Trp of iron to tinplate production 14 15 Primary aluminium production 46 27 54 39 Distribution of beverage 21 12 Avoided steel production -37 -33 -22 -19



The largest contributions to global warming, photochemical ozone creation potential are caused by the production of steel cans. The main contributing parameters are CO2 (GWP), CO (POCP). The production of steel cans also contributes significantly to acidification potential and nutrification potential, caused by emissions of NOx and SO2.

The largest contributions to acidification and nutrification potential are caused by emissions of NOX and SO2 from the production of primary aluminium. It also contributes to global warming.

The distribution of beverage contributes significantly to photochemical ozone creation caused by emissions of NMVOC from diesel engine. The industrial waste is generated at steel can production. The hazardous waste consists mainly of unspecified, hazardous waste and is generated at steel can production.

H. Refillable PET bottles

FLOWCHART: REFILLABLE PET BOTTLE 50CL FLOWCHART:REFILLABLE PET BOTTLE 150CL



53

100% - 28 kg

90% 25.2 kg

10 % - 2.8 kg

100 % - 28 kg

100% - 28 kg



Filling etc.


Waste management


[TAB 6] MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS FOR REFILLABLE PET BOTTLES

GWP POCP AP NP PET resin production 17 83 39 24 Bottle production 14 20 Washing filling 31 11 12 Caps & inserts production PP production 20 14 Distribution of beverage 27 26 28 48 PET production (avoided) -29 -14



The largest contribution to POCP and AP is caused by hydrocarbons emissions and emissions of SO2 and NOx from the PET resin production. The production of PET resin also contributes to NP mainly due to NOx emissions. The production of PP causes high emissions of hydrocarbons to.

The production of bottles mainly contributes to AP, which is caused by SO2 emissions. The largest contribution to global warming is caused by CO2 emissions from the washing and filling process in the brewery.

I. Disposable PET bottles

FLOWCHART: DISPOSABLE PET BOTTLE 50CL FLOWCHART:DISPOSABLE PET BOTTLE 150CL

100% - 56 kg

90% 50.4 kg

10 % - 5.6 kg

100 % - 56 kg

100% - 56 kg



Filling etc.


Waste management




54

Primary energy MJ

4 353

5 117

4 766

Disposable green glass bottle -33 cl

Aluminium cans - 33 cl Steel cans - 33 cl

Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq.944

586

473

Disposable colourless glassbottle - 33 cl


[TAB 7] MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS FOR DISPOSALE PET BOTTLES

GWP POCP AP NP PET resin production 54 156 82 79 Bottle production 45 41 27 Distribution of beverage 13 PET production (avoided) -22 -70 -36 -35 Alternative enrgy production -11


GWP: Global Warming Potential POCP: Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential AP: Acidification Potential NP: Nutrification potential The largest contribution to POCP, AP, NP and GWP are caused by hydrocarbons, SO2, NOx and CO2 emissions from PET resin production. The alternative energy production in the waste incineration contributes to avoided impacts for GWP due to the avoided emission of CO2.

J. Case studies

Comparison between 33cl beer packaging

� Refillable glass bottles � Disposable glass bottles � Aluminium cans � Steel cans


382.9

34.3

116.39.620.6 19.9

min max min max min max





55

Energy demand: Energy demand is lower for refillable glass bottle and aluminium can. Electricity demand is high for aluminium and steel cans. Half of this electricity is used for primary aluminium production (Al cans and lie on steel cans). Global Warming Potential: The global warming of refillable glass bottle is less than half the GWP of competing systems. In the steel and aluminium can systems, more half CO2 is emitted at production of electricity, which is used at the production of primary aluminium. In the disposable glass system, the CO2 emissions are caused by the production of glass. Photochemical ozone creation: The potential photochemical ozone creation is nearly twice high for the steel cans compared to the refillable glass bottles. In the refillable glass bottle system, the emissions are caused by transport, the emissions from transport for aluminium and steel cans are lower because these packaging are lighter. In the steel can system, POCP is caused by emissions associated with tin plate and can production. For the disposable glass bottle, the emissions are due to the production of raw materials and the glass production. Acidification potential: Disposable glass bottles and steel cans are three times higher than refillable glass bottles. This is mainly to acid emissions for the production of aluminium and steel. For glass bottle system, the emissions are due to the glass production. Nutrification potential: The NP of the disposable glass bottles and steel cans is twice than refillable glass bottle. The differences between the systems are to large extent associated with the production of glass, steel, aluminium and cans. Waste: The can systems generate more industrial waste than the glass bottle systems. The disposable glass bottles generate less hazardous waste than the competing packaging. The steel cans generate less than the other packaging. For slag and ash the relations are opposite. Conclusions

The demand for primary fossil energy is significantly lower for the refillable packaging systems than for the aluminium can if the marginal electricity production is based on fossil fuel. The global warming potential is mainly due to CO2 emissions, the GWP of refillable glass bottle is less than half of the disposable glass bottle. The GWP is lower for refillable glass bottle than disposable glass bottle and steel can. The difference in GWP between the disposable glass bottle and aluminium cans is relatively small. This difference is not significant due to the uncertainties in electricity production collection rate. The POCP is significantly lower for the refillable glass bottle and steel can. However, the difference between the refillable glass bottle and the aluminium can is not quite large enough to be significant. The acidification is mainly caused by NOx and SO2 emissions. The acidification potential is nearly three times lower for the refillable glass bottle than for the disposal glass bottle and the steel can; and it is less than half the acidification potential of the aluminium can, this difference is significant only if the marginal electricity production to a large share is based on fossil fuel other than natural gas. Based on the sensitivity analyses, we estimate that the acidification potential is also significantly lower for the aluminium can than for the disposable glass bottle and steel can. The glass bottles generate less municipal waste than the can systems. Disposable glass bottles generate less hazardous waste than the other packagings. The largest amount is generated by the steel cans, but they also generate less slag and ash than the other packagings.



56

Comparison between 50cl beer packaging

� steel cans; � aluminium cans ;

Primary energy MJ

4 5704 184

1 274

3 485

Aluminium cans - 50 cl Steel cans - 50 cl Refillable PET bottles -50 cl

Disposable PETbottles - 50 cl


395

100

465

302




18.46.5

296.1

28.115.6

8.0 2.16.4



Disposable PET bottles- 50 cl

Energy demand: Primary energy is higher for steel cans because the demand for fossil fuel is double for steel can system. Global Warming Potential etc.: Acidification, nutrification and photochemical ozone formation are all approximately 20% less for the aluminium can system than for the steel can system. The difference is due to the larger amount of coal used at the production of pig iron. Waste: The aluminium can generates more than half much of municipal waste as the steel can. On the other hand, the amount of slag and ashes is more double the amount of steel cans.



57

Primary energy MJ

4 353

5 117

4 766

Disposable green glass bottle -33 cl


Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq.944

586

473




382.9

34.3

116.3

9.620.6 19.9




Comparison of 33cl soft drink packagings � 33cl disposable, colourless glass bottles � 33cl aluminium cans � 33cl steel cans

Energy demand: The electricity demand is higher for the aluminium and steel cans, whereas the fossil fuel demand is lower for the steel can, but high for the production of glass and raw materials for glass bottle. Global Warming Potential etc.: the global warming potential of the steel can system is approximately 25% higher than for the disposable glass bottle and the aluminium glass. POCP: The steel can contributes slightly more to the potential photochemical formation of ozone than the competing packagings. However the difference between the systems is small and not significant. Nutrification and acidification potential: There is no significantly difference between each system. Waste: The disposable glass bottle generates less municipal waste and hazardous waste than the other packagings. The steel cans generate more hazardous waste than the other packagings. For slag and ash the relations are opposite.



58

Primary energy MJ

4 5704 184

1 274

3 485




395

100

465

302



Comparison of 50cl soft drink packagings � Refillable PET bottles � Disposable PET bottles � Aluminium cans � Steel cans

Energy demand: The demand for primary fossil energy resources is lower for the refillable bottle than for the competing packagings. Global Warming Potential etc.: The refillable PET bottles contribute least to the potential global warming, acidification and nutrification. The differences are large: the results indicate that the GWP of the competing packagings is three the GWP of refillable PET bottles. For the acidification and nutrification categories, the other packagings contributes more than twice as much as the refillable PET bottles. POCP: The PET bottles contribute slightly more to this impact than aluminium cans. Waste: The PET bottles generate less waste than the cans. This is true to all waste categories.



59

Primary energy MJ

2 627

967

Refillable PET bottles - 150 cl Disposable PET bottles - 150 cl


182

84

Refillable PET bottles - 150 cl Disposable PET bottles - 150 cl

Comparison of 150cl PET bottles � Refillable PET bottles � Disposable PET bottles

Energy demand: The electricity demand is the same for the two systems, but the fossil fuel demand is double for the disposable bottle system, because in this case of refillable PET, resin production is avoided. Global Warming Potential etc.: The large difference in the potential warning, acidification and nutrient enrichment is due to the fact that PET resin production and bottle production is much larger in the disposable bottle system. As a consequence, emissions of CO2, SO2 and NOx are much larger in the disposable bottle system. POCP: The difference in photochemical ozone formation is mainly due to the large difference in VOC emissions from PET resin production Waste: The waste flows from the disposable PET systems are larger than the flows from the refillable system. However, all waste flows from the PET systems are relatively small.



60

K. General conclusion of the authors

Refillable vs. disposable glass bottle: The energy demand, potential global warming, acidification, nutrification and photochemical ozone creation, are all significantly lower for the refillable glass bottles than for the disposable glass bottles of the same size. The reason is that recycling of glass demands more fuel and electricity than washing and filling of refillable bottles. Refillable glass vs. aluminium: The differences in potential global warming, photochemical ozone formation, acidification and nutrification are not significant. The main reason for this is the large uncertainties in the environmental impacts of long term marginal production of base load electricity. Aluminium vs. Steel Aluminium cans are likely to be environmental superior to steel cans with aluminium lids, as long as the aluminium lid is not separately recycled. The difference of the environmental impacts of the aluminium and steel cans is relatively small – approximately 20% - but it is significant when the collection rate is in order of 90 %, if recycled aluminium and steel replace 100 % primary metals. This conclusion is valid for the potential global warming, acidification, nutrification and photochemical ozone formation. The total energy demand is also lower for aluminium than for steel cans, there is a significant difference in fossil fuel demand. These relations are valid for 50 cl cans as well as for 33 cl cans for beer as well as for soft drink cans. The main reason for the differences is that the aluminium in aluminium lid is lost in the steel recycling process,. As a result, the demand for primary aluminium is higher in the steel can system than in the aluminium can system. In addition, the steel can system demands tin steel. Refillable vs. disposable PET bottles The energy demand, the potential global warming, acidification, nutrification and photochemical ozone creation are significantly lower for the refillable PET bottles than for the disposable PET bottles of the same size. The conclusion is valid for 150 cl and 50 cl bottles. The reason is that recycling of PET demands more fuel and electricity than washing and filling of refillable bottles. Refillable PET vs. aluminium The potential global warming, acidification, and nutrification are much lower for the 50 cl refillable PET bottles than for the other 50 cl soft drink packaging, including the aluminium can. One important uncertainty concerns the environmental of the long term base load marginal electricity production. We only consider the potential global warming significantly different.

L. Differences between options

Liquid packaging systems Factor between the option having the lowest environmental impact and


Primary energy 3

Global Warming 3



61

Refillable green glass bottle -

33 clRefillable colourless glass

bottle - 25 clDisposable green glass

bottle - 33 clDisposable colourless

glass bottle - 33 cl Aluminium cans - 33 cl Aluminium cans - 50 cl Steel cans - 33 cl Steel cans - 50 cl Refillable PET bottles - 50 cl

Refillable PET bottles - 150 cl

Disposable PET bottles - 50 cl

Disposable PET bottles - 150 cl

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values Values Values Values Values Values Values Values Values Values

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 0.26 0.28 0.53 4.24 0.95 0.74 0.96 0.74 0.12 0.10 0.20 0.14Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 212 234 429 944 473 395 586 465 100 84 302 182Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 7.4E-03 8.0E-03 1.5E-02 1.2E-01 2.7E-02 2.1E-02 2.7E-02 2.1E-02 3.3E-03 3.0E-03 5.6E-03 3.8E-03Air acidification g SO2 eq. 591 652 1 438 5 039 1 580 1 249 1 714 1 344 335 289 914 571Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 108 127 232 543 212 205 322 237 142 106 694 403Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 3 3 10 26 5 11 15 12 2 7 5 4Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 406 440 826 6613 1486 1151 1506 1155 183 163 311 212Years of Life Lost year 6.3E-05 7.4E-05 1.3E-04 2.8E-04 9.8E-05 7.8E-05 4.4E-04 3.4E-04 2.5E-05 2.1E-05 7.5E-05 4.6E-05Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 79 85 160 1283 288 223 291 223 35 32 60 41Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 252 273 513 4115 924 716 934 716 114 101 192 131Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 3 3 6 49 11 9 11 9 1 1 2 2


Primary energy MJ 2 226 2 423 4 766 17 715 4 353 3 485 5 117 4 184 1 274 967 4 570 2 627Fossil energy MJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Consumption of raw materials kg 23 24 46 368 83 64 84 64 10 9 17 12Dusts g 422 547 464 1 064 154 119 5 935 4 579 19 17 32 22Dioxins gMetals into air g 13 14 26 207 46 36 47 36 6 5 10 7Metals into water g 38 41 77 615 138 107 139 107 17 15 29 20Metals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kg 60 67 67 50 91 72 152 163 16 13 48 25Hazardous waste kg 26 8 53 53 21 474 17 14 1 1 3 2Inert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 4.04 10.20 4.44 11.23 8.15 20.59 17.94 45.32 8.98 22.70 7.51 18.98 11.13 28.13 8.84 22.34 1.89 4.78 1.59 4.03 5.73 14.48 3.45 8.72Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Air acidification Euros 0.09 0.86 0.10 0.95 0.21 2.10 0.73 7.35 0.23 2.30 0.18 1.82 0.25 2.50 0.20 1.96 0.05 0.49 0.04 0.42 0.13 1.33 0.08 0.83Photochemical oxidation Euros 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.40 0.50 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.30 0.17 0.22 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.51 0.65 0.29 0.37Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration Euros 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Disaminity caused by landfilling Euros 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Linked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 0.6 25.0 0.8 32.5 0.6 27.5 1.5 63.1 0.2 9.1 0.2 7.1 8.3 352.0 6.4 271.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.3Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 4.8 36.2 5.4 44.8 9.2 50.5 20.6 116.3 9.6 34.3 8.0 28.1 19.9 382.9 15.6 296.1 2.1 6.5 1.7 5.6 6.4 18.4 3.9 11.2

Functional unit: packaging and distribution of 1000 litres of beverage



62

SPACE HEATING: ELECTRICITY VS. FOSSIL FUELS VS. WOOD

A. Functional Unit

100 GJ of heat delivered to the consumer.

B. Reference

This study.

C. System studied

The differences between four kinds of energy used for space heating:

� Electrical energy � Heat from gas � Heat from petrol � Heat from wood

[TAB 1] MODULES USED IN SIMAPRO FOR LCI Electricity Electricity UCPTE B 250 Gas Heat gas B 250 Petrol Heat petrol B 250 Wood Heat wood B 250

No specific efficiency is used for gas, petrol and wood; the record is based on 100% conversion.

[TAB 2] MIX OF ENERGY IN THE ELECTRICITY MODEL – 1 MJ

Electricity from coal B250 MJ 17,4% Electricity from gas B250 MJ 7,4% Electricity from hydropower B250 MJ 16,4% Electricity from lignite B250 MJ 7,8% Electricity from uranium B250 MJ 40,3% Electricity from oil B250 MJ 10,7%

D. Main Results for 100 GL delivered to the consumer

� The use of electricity for space heating has a worst environmental burden because of its poor efficiency (primary energy demand is about 3 times higher than the other energies), the impact on global warming, and airborne emissions in general, reflect the combustion of fossil fuel for the production of electricity.

� If we look at fossil fuels utilization for space heating (petrol and gas), we can see that petrol has a worst environmental profile compared to gas, the effect on global warming is 1.5 times higher for petrol, the acidification is 2.5 times higher for petrol, this is due to the most important content of sulphur in fuel which is released in atmosphere in oxidised form: SOx. The use of gas releases more NOx than other fossil fuel but the total contribution to air acidification is less important than fuel because of its poor content in sulphur.

Infrastructure of the energy systems

Production of materials Distribution Use End of life

Included Excluded



63

� The use of gas does not release more methane in atmosphere than the use of fuel or electricity, but it releases more volatile organics hydrocarbons than the use of fuel. If we look at the photochemical oxidization, the fuel has a higher contribution and this is due to the release of carbon monoxide, which is 100 higher for fuel than for gas, but the impact on human toxicity is worst for fuel because its utilisation induces a releasing of AOx in water.

� The wood, used as combustible for space heating, provide the best choice for all environmental impacts considered, but its utilisation releases more dusts than fuel (10 times) and gas (40 times).

Remark: the life cycle inventory used for heat from wood does not show any dioxins release, but an inventory made in France by ADEME (Agence de l’Environment et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie) shows that the burning of wood is a significant source of dioxins emission.

Primary energy MJ

310 427

100 000120 000 102 421

Space heating -Electricty

Space heating -Fuel

Space heating -Gas

Space heating -Wood


12 584

47

6 089

9 159


Space heating -Fuel

Space heating -Gas

Space heating -Wood



64

Human Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene

137 031

8293 571

431 846


Space heating -Fuel

Space heating -Gas

Space heating -Wood


278

558

118322

24

798

1 582

184



Space heating -Fuel

Space heating -Gas

Space heating -Wood

E. Differences between options

Space heating (Electricity vs. Fossil fuels vs. Wood)



Primary energy 3

Global Warming 275

Human toxicity 520



65

F. Detailed results


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 88 56 43 0Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 12 584 9 159 6 089 47Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 2.5 7.4 0.1 0.01Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 88 18 6 763 10 199Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 7 671 7 1 3Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 366 252 7 891Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 137 031 431 846 3 571 829Years of Life Lost year 3.9E-03 5.5E-04 3.8E-04 1.3E-03Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 26 606 86 338 572 63Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 85 305 277 828 1 835 203Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1 024 83 22 34


Primary energy MJ 310 427 120 000 102 421 100 000Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 7 633 2 838 2 379 6 214Dusts g 14 200 1 450 306 13 100Dioxins gMetals into air g 4 283 70 11 64Metals into water g 12 746 1 001 225 7Metals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 239 604 174 440 116 292 1 2Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.005 3.5E-05 3.5E-05 5.2E-06 5.2E-06Air acidification Euros 13 128 3 26 1 10 1 15Photochemical oxidation Euros 6 7 5 6 1 1 2 2Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 0.56 0.56 0.39 0.39 0.01 0.01 1.37 1.37Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 19.7 842.1 2.0 86.0 0.4 18.1 18.2 776.8Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 278 1 582 184 558 118 322 24 798

Space heating - Wood

Functional unit: 100 GJ Space heating - Electricty Space heating - Fuel Space heating - Gas



66


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources 100% 129464% 82152% 63699%Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 26538% 19314% 12840%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 100% 32551% 97027% 678%Air acidification 100% 864% 172% 66%Photochemical oxidation 100% 295% 263% 57%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 41% 28% 1%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 16533% 52103% 431%Years of Life Lost 100% 290% 41% 28%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 42030% 136387% 903%Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 42116% 137165% 906%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 100% 3017% 244% 66%


Primary energy 100% 310% 120% 102%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 123% 46% 38%Dusts 100% 108% 11% 2%DioxinsMetals into air 100% 6653% 108% 18%Metals into water 100% 183319% 14398% 3240%Metals into soilMunicipal and industrial wasteHazardous wasteInert waste

Space heating - ElectrictySpace heating - Wood Space heating - Fuel Space heating - Gas



67

HOUSES: HIGH ENERGY EFFICIENCY VS. TRADITIONAL

A. Functional Unit

One semi-detached house for 80 years.

B. Reference

6th LCA Case Studies Symposium SETAC-Europe, 1998. Life cycle assessment of buildings. D.A. Quack, RWTH Aachen, Germany. Insitut für Wohnbau, RWTH Aachen.

C. System studied

Goal and scope The case study analysed six different pairs of semi-detached houses over a life time of 80 years. The units contained two flats: the first was a relatively small one ine the basement of the building and the second flat extended from the ground to the first floor. This flat included an internal garage and a balcony. The houses differed in their energy efficiency and the heating system as well as in building materials (Tab 1). The energy standard of house R meets the legal requirements set in the Germany Wämeschutzverordnung (applied since 1995) and corresponds to the standard actually build in Germany. It had an energy requirements for heating of 98 kWh/m2a. The other houses (A, B,C,D and E) needed between 34 and 52 kWh/m2a, which characterize low energy houses. The houses only differed slightly in their sizes and layouts. Exclusions:

� The houses site was not included in the analysis system. � The local impact and the infrastructure are not considered because it was assumed that there were no

differences between the buildings. � The wiring and plumbing was partly taken in consideration. � Production, maintenance, and disposal of the installation were mot included.


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



68

[TAB 1] BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS. Building R Building A Building B Building C Building D Building E Living space 177 m2 176 m2 178 m2 200 m2 183 m2 185 m2 Energy requirements for Space heating

98 kWh/m2a 34 kWh/m2a 43 kWh/m2a 47 kWh/m2a D1 52 kWh/m2a D2 43 kWh/m2a

51 kWh/m2a

Electric energy required for installation

2.9 kWh/m2a 6.1 kWh/m2a 8.5 kWh/m2a 4.9 kWh/m2a D1 2.8 kWh/m2a D2 3.9 kWh/m2a

7.7 kWh/m2a

Outer wall Light brick d: 30 cm towards earth ferroconcrete d: 24cm

Lime sandstone d: 17.5 cm with external insulation d: 20 cm, towards earth ferroconcrete d: 24 cm with external polystyrene d: 8 cm

Light weight concrete form block d: 25 cm filled with polystyrene d: 12 cm

Gas concret d: 36.5 cm. U value : 0.31 W/m2K

Structural wood framing system thermal insulation D1 d: 24 cm; D2 d: 17.5 cm; light brick (basement) d: 30 cm; towards earth ferro concrete d: 24 cm

Gas concrete d : 37.5 cm

Partition wall Lightweight concrete form block-filled with concrete d: 12.5 cm

Lime sandstone d: 11.5 cm

Lightweight concrete form block-filled with concrete d: 12.5 cm

Gas concrete d: 17.5 cm

Hollow brick (basement) d; 30 cm and structural wood framing system d: 17 cm with plaster board and mineral wool d: 10 cm

Gas concrete d: 17.5 cm

Windows Double pane insulation glass, timber frame

Triple pan heat absorbing glass, timber frame

Double pane heat absorbing glass, plastic frame

Double pane heat absorbing glass, timber frame



Roof Structural wood system, thermal insulation intermediate rafter d: 14 cm

Structural wood system, thermal insulation, intermlediate rafter and under rafter d: 18 resp. 3 cm

Structural wood system, thermal insulation above and intermediate rafter d: 14 resp. 8 cm

Structural gas concrete system, d: 20 cm, external thermal insulation d: 12 cm

Wood ceiling, with mineral wool d: 20 cm

Gas concrete ceiling d: 25 cm

Ceilings Ferroconcrete ceiling (basement ground floor) d: 18 cm, wood ceiling (first floor), thermal insulation d: 11.5 cm

Ferroconcrete ceiling (basement, ground, floor) d: 20 cm; wood ceiling (first floor), thermal insulation d: 11.5 cm

Ferroconcrete ceiling (basement ground floor) d: 18 cm, wood ceiling (first floor), thermal insulation d: 11.5 cm

Gas concrete ceiling (no ceiling in the first floor) d: 24 cm

Wood ceiling, with mineral wool d: 20 cm

Gas concrete ceiling d: 25 cm

Inside wall Hollow brick d: 11.5 and 24 cm

Line sandstone d: 11.5 and 17.5 cm

Lightweight concrete form block d:11.5 to 25 cm partly filled with concrete resp. polystyrene

Gas concrete d: 12.5 to 30 cm

Hollow brick (basement) d: 11.5 and 24 cm; structural wood framing system d: 12 to 22 cm

Gas concrete 12.5 to 30 cm

Heating system

Gas fired boiler atm. blow pipe


Gas fire condensing boiler

C1: gas fired boiler atm. blow pipe C2: gas fired condensing boiler

D1 : gas fired boiler blow pipe with ventilation. D2: electric heating




69

D. Main Results for one semi-detached house during 80 years

Primary energy MJ

7 470 0006 620 000

11 650 000

7 690 0007 470 000

10 310 000

6 720 0005 520 000

Building R Building A Building B Building c1 Building c2 Building d1 Building d2 Building E


426

338

546

442

333391

583

426



318370 352

409

332389

310362

458523

361420

350

442

302

518

min max min max min max min max min max min max min max mik max


� Except for summer smog, carcinogenic substances and global warming potential variant D2 proves to be the one with the highest impacts. This can be explained by the fact that D2 has an electric stove heating.

� The impacts for heating clearly dominate.

� The gas heating systems lead to relatively high impacts on summer smog and carcinogenic substances in other variants.



70

Variant R shows the second highest impacts on most criteria; this is due to the high energy demand during the 80 years of use. Nevertheless the difference is lower than would be expected from the differences in energy standards. This can be substancied by the fact that the other variants consume up to a maximum of three times more electricity than R, which result in higher values for winter smog. This effect can also explains why house D1 has the best result: it has a relatively good energy standard and at the same time consumes only as much electricity as R. When the annual results are normalised on the basis of the emission per head of the population in Europe (Goedkoop 1995), it can be seen that the criteria ozone depletion potential and eutrophication contribute to less than 1 % of the emission. In comparison, the values of all other criteria lay between a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 220 percent. Especially striking are the values for heavy metals emissions, which are without exception over 160 percent. For that reason it would seem to be sensible to concentrate on the comparison and development of measures on the criteria that contribute to more than 5%.


� The analysed houses have low energy requirements for heating compare with the building stock, the impacts of energy consumption during the use-phase clearly dominate the results. Even in a low energy house, electric heating has a very high environmental impact. Besides heating, energy requirements for installation proved to be crucial.

� The influence of the different installed materials was relatively small.

� The impacts of the construction, maintenance, and disposal phase of heavy metals are comparatively high, they are considerably determined by short term elements.

� The criteria ozone depletion and eutrophication are negligible.


Houses : High Energy efficiency vs. Traditional



Primary energy 2

Global Warming 2



71

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values Values Values Values Values Values

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 583 333 391 426 426 338 546 442Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 150 130 130 150 150 130 230 160Air acidification g SO2 eq. 1 416 1 258 1 483 1 394 1 324 1 184 4 144 1 624Photochemical oxidation kg ethylene eq. 283 180 195 214 212 205 217 220Linked to water effluentsEutrophication kg PO4 eq. 146 107 109 122 110 100 188 125Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 46 545 25 873 29 889 37 915 37 913 30 468 19 600 31 050Years of Life Lost year 4.3E-05 3.8E-05 4.5E-05 4.2E-05 4.0E-05 3.6E-05 1.3E-04 4.9E-05Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 14 8 9 11 11 9 6 9Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 45 25 29 37 37 29 19 30Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 83 46 53 67 67 54 35 55


Primary energy MJ 10 310 000 5 520 000 6 720 000 7 470 000 7 470 000 6 620 000 11 650 000 7 690 000Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kgDusts gDioxins gMetals into air gMetals into water gMetals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min max min max min max mik maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 11.1 28.0 6.3 16.0 7.4 18.8 8.1 20.4 8.1 20.4 6.4 16.2 10.4 26.2 8.4 21.2Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1Air acidification Euros 0.2 2.1 0.2 1.8 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.0 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.7 0.6 6.0 0.2 2.4Photochemical oxidation Euros 206.6 263.2 131.4 167.4 142.4 181.4 156.2 199.0 154.8 197.2 149.7 190.7 158.4 201.8 160.6 204.6Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 224.2 224.2 164.3 164.3 167.4 167.4 187.4 187.4 169.0 169.0 153.6 153.6 288.8 288.8 192.0 192.0Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals EurosHuman health effects caused by dusts EurosHuman health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 442 518 302 350 318 370 352 409 332 389 310 362 458 523 361 420

Functional unit: one semi-detached house during 80 years

Building R Building A Building B Building EBuilding c1 Building c2 Building d1 Building d2



72


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resourcesLinked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 117% 175% 128% 128% 102% 164%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 100% 100% 115% 115% 115% 100% 177%Air acidification 100% 118% 113% 111% 105% 94% 329%Photochemical oxidation 100% 108% 157% 119% 118% 114% 121%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 102% 136% 114% 103% 93% 176%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 116% 180% 147% 147% 118% 76%Years of Life Lost 100% 118% 113% 111% 105% 94% 329%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 116% 180% 147% 147% 118% 76%Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 116% 180% 147% 147% 118% 76%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 100% 116% 180% 147% 147% 118% 76%


Primary energy 100% 122% 187% 135% 135% 120% 211%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materialsDustsDioxinsMetals into airMetals into waterMetals into soilMunicipal and industrial wasteHazardous wasteInert waste

Building RBuilding A Building B Building c1 Building c2 Building d1 Building d2

133%123%129%122%

117%

120%129%

120%120%120%

139%

Building E



73

INSULATION: EXPENDED POLYSTYRENE VS. WOOD VS. MINERAL WOOL.

A. Functional Unit

10 square meter with the same insulation efficiency (0,1W/m2).

B. System studied

The goal of this study is to compare the amount of materials that it is necessary to use for the same insulation efficiency.

1. Boundary: Production of materials is considered and end of life is considered is dumping in inert landfill. Transports have been considered.

[TAB 1] MODULES USED IN SIMAPRO FOR LCI:

Modules Concrete Concrete production ETH T EPS EPS production BUWAL 250 Wood Wood board massive production ETH T Particle board 2 Mineral wool Mineral wool production ETH

The same surface (one square meter) is considered, with five cases:

� Concrete only � 20 cm concrete + x cm expanded polystyrene � 20 cm concrete + x cm wood � 20 cm concrete + x cm particleboard � 20 cm concrete + x cm mineral wool

[TAB 2] INSULATION TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION:

λ : Thermal conductivity (W.m-1.K-1) Expanded polystyrene 0.042 Wood (pine) 0.15 Particleboard 0.16 Mineral wool 0.038 Concrete 1.4

Data from site web isochanvre.com

2 Life Cycle Assessment of Particleboards and Fibreboards. A. Frühwald, University of Hamburg/Germany. J. Hasch, Kronopol Zary/Poland


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



74

2. Calculations: The loss of heat is estimated with the formula:

� τ: reduction factor for temperature, is equal to 1 if the contact of the wall is with exterior

� K: heat flow (W.m-2.K-1) is estimated with the formula: 1/K = 1/hi + 1/he + Σ(e/λ) h: superficial exchange temperature (i: interior, e: exterior) e: thickness of the material 1/hi + 1/he = 0.17

� S: surface of the wall (m2) In our case D = K (τ=1; S=1)

� D = 0.1 W. °C-1 � 1/hi + 1/he + Σ(e/λ) = 10 � 1/hi + 1/he = 0.17 � Σ (e/λ) = 9.83 (with e concrete = 20 cm)

Transports: transports have been considered with the following assumptions

� Distance: 110 km3 � Vehicle: it was assumed to take a 28 t truck

C. Results for a 10 square meter wall

[TAB 3] RESULTS:

Thickness (m) Density (kg/m3) Weight (kg) Concrete (kg) e concrete 13,8 2400 33 029 - e EPS 0,4 25 10 480 e Wood 1,5 700 1 017 480 e Particle board 1,5 690 1 069 480 e Mineral wool 0,4 130 48 480

Primary energy MJ

18 17415 306

434 470509 575

76 081

Concrete Concrete + EPS Concrete + w ood Concrete +particulate board

Concrete +mineral w ool

Remarks

3 Eurostat: distance average in EU for goods transport

D (W.K-1) = τ x K x S



75

The module in SIMAPRO FOR LCI for wood board shows a high energy requirement. A study made by Bio I.S. on energy in furniture materials for ADEME (Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie) showed that primary energy for wood board is less than the value provided by ETH database. So, we have considered that the results for wood are not significant. It would be interesting to considerer bio materials, like hemp wool, for the case B, but it couldn’t be taken into consideration because of the lake of data for the life cycle inventory.

D. Differences between options

Houses : High Energy efficiency vs. Traditional



Primary energy 34

Global Warming 53

Discussion: comparison between naked surface and insulated surface.

This case has been studying in order to estimate the environmental advantage of an insulated wall compared to a naked one, when only heat losses are considered.

[TAB 4] CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE:

Surface 1 m2 Concrete thickness 0,2 m Insulation thickness 0,05 m Loss of heat: calculations

[TAB 5] LOSS OF HEAT:

D (W.K-1)

Expanded polystyrene 0.042

Wood (pine) 0.15

Particleboard 0.16

Mineral wool 0.038

Concrete 1.4

Loss of heat of the surface, during four months in winter with a temperature gradient of 20°C: (number of hour for calculation : 2880)

D (Wh) D(MJ) Concrete (naked) 1,84E+05 51.1 Concrete+EPS 1,31E+04 3,6 Concrete+wood 1,63E+04 4,5 Concrete+Particleboard 1,64E+04 4,6 Concrete+Mineral wool 1,28E+04 3,5

Results Synthetic insulation (EPS) and mineral wool allow winning about 93% of heat loss compared with a naked concrete wall, and wood insulation (pine and particleboard) allow about 91%. Environmental burdens follow the same way because they are correlated with the production of energy.

[TAB 6] ENERGY MIX FOR SPACE HEATING – 1 MJ

1 m

5 cm

In Out

Concrete Insulation

20 cm

∆T = 20 °C



76

Electricity 8%Petrol 26%Gas 56%Biomass 10%

Primary energy MJ

4.45.6

63.1

5.64.5

Concrete (20cm) Concrete (20cm)+ EPS (5cm)

Concrete (20cm)+ w ood (5cm)

Concrete (20cm)+ particulateboard (5cm)

Concrete (20cm)+ mineral w ool

(5cm)



77

E. Detailed results


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 244 7 39 7 8Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 59 346 1 137 32 547 5 583 1 588Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 30 0.6 3.9 1.1 0.7Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 247 6 42 44 8Photochemical oxidation kg ethylene eq. 53 1 8 3 2Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 1 332 22 168 1 658 46Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1 037 564 21 915 125 263 38 202 24 817Years of Life Lost year 1.5E-02 3.2E-04 2.6E-03 1.4E-03 3.8E-04Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 208 224 4 380 25 080 7 660 4 997Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 668 857 14 074 80 592 24 630 16 038Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 130 13 59 3 4


Primary energy MJ 509 575 15 306 434 470 76 081 18 174Fossil energy MJ 0 0 0 0 0Consumption of raw materials kg 700 754 28 281 25 082 005 30 277 724 165Dusts kg 17 0 12 1 1Dioxins g 8.7E-06 1.3E-07 7.6E-06 1.8E-07 1.6E-07Metals into air g 870 20 181 32 21Metals into water g 19 819 337 3 282 377 810Metals into soil g 1 020 15 157 39 27Municipal and industrial waste kg 0.9 3.1E+01Hazardous waste kg 0.4Inert waste kg 2.6

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 1 127.57 2 848.60 21.60 54.58 618.38 1 562.23 106.08 267.99 30.18 76.24Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 2.1E-02 2.1E-02 3.8E-04 3.8E-04 2.7E-03 2.7E-03 7.5E-04 7.5E-04 4.9E-04 4.9E-04Air acidification Euros 36 361 1 8 6 61 6 64 1 12Photochemical oxidation Euros 39 49 1 1 6 7 2 3 2 2Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 2 2 0.03 0.03 0.3 0.3 3 3 0.1 0.1Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling Euros 0.02 0.08 0.2 0.6Linked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 1.8 1.8 0.03 0.03 1.9 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.04Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 23.3 995.4 0.6 26.8 17.2 733.4 0.9 39.2 1.3 56.7Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros 1.1E-01 2.4E-01 1.7E-03 3.5E-03 9.9E-02 2.1E-01 2.3E-03 5.0E-03 2.1E-03 4.6E-03

Total External Cost Euros 1 230 4 258 24 91 650 2 366 119 377 35 147

Concrete

Functional unit: one square meter with the same loss of heat (0,1W/m2) Concrete + mineral wool

Concrete + particulate boardConcrete + woodConcrete + EPS


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources 100% 538% 96% 114% 3407%Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 2862% 491% 140% 5219%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 100% 704% 196% 129% 5452%Air acidification 100% 748% 783% 146% 4432%Photochemical oxidation 100% 696% 297% 214% 4762%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 746% 7384% 207% 5931%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 572% 174% 113% 4734%Years of Life Lost 100% 793% 431% 118% 4691%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 573% 175% 114% 4754%Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 573% 175% 114% 4752%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 100% 465% 27% 30% 1018%


Primary energy 100% 2839% 497% 119% 3329%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 88687% 107% 2561% 2478%Dusts 100% 2740% 147% 212% 3719%Dioxins 100% 5971% 142% 129% 6853%Metals into air 100% 919% 161% 105% 4424%Metals into water 100% 974% 112% 241% 5882%Metals into soil 100% 1045% 262% 178% 6774%Municipal and industrial waste 100% 3386%Hazardous waste 100%Inert waste 100%

Concrete + particulate board

Concrete + mineral wool ConcreteConcrete + EPS Concrete + wood



78

GOODS TRANSPORTS: ROAD VS. RAIL VS. BOAT VS. PLANE

A. Functional Unit

1 000 tkm.

B. Reference

This study.

C. System Studied

Four different alternative types of transports were selected for the analysis:

� road transport, characterised by a 28 tonnes truck;

� rail transport;

� sea transport, characterised by an oceanic freighter;

� inland waterway, characterised by an inland freighter.

[TAB 1] MODULES USED IN SIMAPRO FOR LCI

Road Truck 28t ETH Rail Rail transports ETH T Sea Fighter oceanic ETH T Inland waterway Freighter inland ETH T




Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



79

D. Main Results for 1000 tkm

Primary energy MJ

850

3 564

1 153

657

Road Sea Rail Inland w aterw ay


61

9

58

222



1 15

1

8

25

0

5





80


Goods transports : Road vs. Rail vs. Boat vs. Plane



Primary energy 6

Global Warming 25

Discussion A simulation with changing the ratio of each kind of transport shows the environmental gain when using more rail and inland water way modes:

Data used for the study on external environmental

effects (initial)

Modifications and results

Ratio road for goods transport 45% 25% Ratio sea for goods transport 40% 40% Ratio rail for goods transport 8% 18% Ratio inland water way for goods transport 4% 14% Pipelines 3% 3%

Contribution of goods transports to the total environmental impact in Europe Global warming potential 10% 7% Acidification potential 15% 11% Primary energy 10% 7%

For the global warming potential, the simulation shows a gain of 258 kg CO2 eq. per capita per year, which represents about 96 million tonnes of CO2 eq for all Europe (with a population of 375 million inhabitant in Europe).



81

F. Detailed results

Road Sea Rail


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.4Linked to dr emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 222 9 58 61Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 0.31 0.01 0.05 0.08Air acidification g SO2 eq. 1 603 257 401 408Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 497 28 64 123Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 7.9 0.1 1.8 1.8Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 10 809 413 1 442 2 889Years of Life Lost year 1.2E-04 1.0E-05 2.1E-05 2.9E-05Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 2 166 82 288 580Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 6 971 265 925 1 868Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 741 168 199 188


Primary energy MJ 3 564 657 1 153 850Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 2 836 44 1 445 431Dusts g 195 8 26 72Dioxins g 2.5E-08 5.3E-10 9.4E-09 6.8E-09Metals into dr g 8.9 0.4 2.4 0.7Metals into water g 41.6 0.7 38.1 8.4Metals into soil g 11.5 0.5 1.7 2.9Municipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 4.2 10.6 0.2 0.4 1.1 2.8 1.2 3.0Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 2.1E-04 2.1E-04 8.1E-06 8.1E-06 3.1E-05 3.1E-05 5.3E-05 5.3E-05Air acidification Euros 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.6Photochemical oxidation Euros 0.36 0.46 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.11Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 2.2E-04 2.2E-04 2.7E-03 2.7E-03 2.8E-03 2.8E-03Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 6.8E-04 6.8E-04 1.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 0.3 11.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.1 4.3Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros 3.3E-04 7.0E-04 6.9E-06 1.5E-05 1.2E-04 2.6E-04 8.9E-05 1.9E-04


Functional unit: The transport demand per capita (7970 tkm/cap) with different transport modes. Inland waterway



82

Sea Road Rail Inland waterway


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources 100% 2808% 725% 679%Linked to dr emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 2498% 649% 693%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 100% 2558% 379% 650%Air acidification 100% 623% 156% 159%Photochemical oxidation 100% 1767% 229% 438%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 5414% 1223% 1261%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 2618% 349% 700%Years of Life Lost 100% 1149% 205% 281%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 2626% 349% 704%Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 2629% 349% 704%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 100% 440% 118% 112%


Primary energy 100% 543% 176% 129%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 6383% 3252% 971%Dusts 100% 2514% 331% 922%Dioxins 100% 4774% 1775% 1291%Metals into dr 100% 2295% 610% 182%Metals into water 100% 5574% 5100% 1130%Metals into soil 100% 2551% 374% 653%Municipal and industrial wasteHazardous wasteInert waste



83

PASSENGER TRANSPORTS: PERSONAL CAR VS. PUBLIC TRANSPORTS

A. Functional Unit

10 000 pkm.

B. Reference

This study.

C. System studied

The differences between four kinds of transports used for personal travelling:

� personal car; � bus; � plane; � train; � use of inland waterways.

D. Assumptions

The transport demand in Europe represents about 12 750 passengers kilometre per capita, the analysis of 5 transport modes has been evaluated with the following modules in SIMAPRO:

[TAB 1] MODULES USED IN SIMAPRO FOR LCI Road Car petrol (total I) Rail Rail transports ETH T Bus Bus transport Boustead model Plane Air transports A 320 Boustead model Inland waterway Freighter inland ETH T

The scenarios have been evaluated with conversion factors in order to have goods units with LCI:

[TAB 2] CONVERSION FACTORS

Conversion

factors Results Car 1.28E+04 pkm/cap 1.6 pers/unit 7.97E+03 km/cap Bus 1.28E+04 pkm/cap 1 - 1.28E+04 pkm/cap Railway 1.28E+04 pkm/cap 0.08 t/p 1.02E+03 tkm/cap Air 1.28E+04 pkm/cap 0.095 t/p 1.21E+03 tkm/cap Metro 1.28E+04 pkm/cap 0.07 t/p 8.93E+02 tkm/cap Inland waterway 1.28E+04 pkm/cap 0.08 t/p 1.02E+03 tkm/cap

t/p: tonne per passenger


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



84



E. Main results for 10 000 pkm

Primary energy MJ

26 786

680

14 935

922

18 246

Car Bus Railw ay Air Water


1 874

49

1 480

46

885




85

Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq.

1 013

99

1 172

52

3 976



179

1 4

38

112

1 6

3222

88




Passengers transports : Personal cars vs. public

Transports



Primary energy 40

Global Warming 41




86

G. Detailed results


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 8.1 5.2 0.3 11.9 0.3Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 1 480 885 46 1 874 49Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 0.04 0.06 Air acidification g SO2 eq. 4 776 9 839 321 8 936 327Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 3 976 1 172 52 1 013 99Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 1.6 0.2 1.4 0.6 1.5Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 24 11 1 153 15 2 311Years of Life Lost year 4.4E-04 6.0E-04 1.7E-05 6.2E-04 2.3E-05Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 708 2 370 230 339 6 079 464 372Sediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1 776 877 739 687 2 249 1 494 289Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 101 0 159 0 151


Primary energy MJ 18 246 14 935 922 26 786 680Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 424 1 243 1 156 2 709 345Dusts g 110 2 030 21 143 57Dioxins g 7.5E-09 5.5E-09Metals into air g 8 0 2 0 1Metals into water g 0.8 30.5 6.7Metals into soil g 1.3 2.3Municipal and industrial waste kg 23.2 3.2Hazardous waste kg 6.8 0.1Inert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 28.1 71.1 16.8 42.5 0.9 2.2 35.6 89.9 0.9 2.4Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 2.5E-05 2.5E-05 4.2E-05 4.2E-05Air acidification Euros 0.70 6.97 1.43 14.35 0.05 0.47 1.30 13.03 0.05 0.48Photochemical oxidation Euros 2.90 3.70 0.86 1.09 0.04 0.05 0.74 0.94 0.07 0.09Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 2.5E-03 2.5E-03 3.4E-04 3.4E-04 2.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 2.2E-03 2.2E-03Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling Euros 0.18 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06Linked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 8.5E-04 8.5E-04Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 0.15 6.52 2.82 120.38 0.03 1.22 0.20 8.51 0.08 3.40Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros 9.7E-05 2.1E-04 7.1E-05 1.5E-04


Functional unit: 10 000 pkm WaterAirRailwayBusCar



87

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources 100% 3711% 94% 2524% 1627%Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 4070% 107% 3215% 1921%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Air acidification 100% 2785% 102% 1489% 3067%Photochemical oxidation 100% 1964% 191% 7711% 2273%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 46% 103% 113% 15%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 1% 200% 2% 1%Years of Life Lost 100% 3678% 137% 2606% 3550%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 3% 202% 0% 1%Sediment Ecotoxicity Terrestrial Ecotoxicity


Primary energy 100% 2904% 74% 1978% 1619%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 234% 30% 37% 108%Dusts 100% 697% 279% 534% 9858%DioxinsMetals into airMetals into waterMetals into soilMunicipal and industrial wasteHazardous wasteInert waste

Water Car BusRailway Air



88

TABLECLOTHS: TEXTILES VS. PAPER

A. Functional Unit

50 tables covered each day for one year with 133 x 175 cm for textiles and 130 x 180 cm for paper. It represents 18 250 uses.

B. Reference

J F Berendsen Group Environment. Environmental comparison at the group Environmental of Sophus Berendsen, Jeppe Frydendal.

C. Studied Parameters

� Energy consumption. � Water consumption. � Solid waste. � Airborne emissions.

FLOW CHART


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages

Cotton growing

Ginning

Polymerisation of PET

Manufacture of PET fibres

Yarn manufacturing

Manufacture of fabrics

Sewing

Laundering

Use*

Disposal

Forestry

Manufacture of paper pulp

Paper manufacturing

Use

Disposal

TEXTILES PAPER

Raw material stage

Production stage

Use stage * When cotton textiles can no longer be used as tablecloths, they can be used as wiping cloths

Disposal stage



89

D. Main Results for 18 250 uses of tablecloths

Paper 100% cotton

50% cotton 50% polyester

100% polyester

Energy consumption 220 000 125 000 100 000 85 000 (MJ) Paper production Laundering

Water consumption 450 1600 1000 250

(m3) Cotton irrigation Solid waste (kg) 890 110 120 110 Airborne emissions (g) CO2 9 300 7 800 600 5 500 CO 9 000 5 000 7 500 7 600 Nox 43 000 21 500 17 000 15 500 Sox 43 000 37 500 27 500 2 000

Primary energy MJ

220 000

85 000100 000

125 000

Paper tablecloths Cotton tablecloths Cotton-PES tablecloths PES tablecloths



90


5.5

9.3

7.8

0.6



13

110

10

84

8

62

216



Excluded Data: Heavy metals, for dyes in paper products, and pesticides, for cotton crop protection, are not considered.


� The amount of polyester has a positive effect on the environmental performance of a textile product.

� Cotton requires more energy in the drying process than polyester.

� Irrigation of cotton fields consumes high amounts of water. The water used at the laundry is much less.

� The production of paper needs a high amount of energy which causes a high environmental impact in a life cycle perspective.



91


Tablecloths : Paper vs. Cotton vs. Cotton PES vs PES



Primary energy 3

Global Warming 2



92

G. Detailed results



Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 9.3 7.8 0.6 5.5Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq.Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 73.1 55.8 41.5 10.2Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 3.5 2.5 2.0 0.7Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq.Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 55.7 29.4 23.0 18.8Years of Life Lost year 3.2E-03 2.1E-03 1.6E-03 7.6E-04Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneSediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneTerrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene

B/ Other Environmental IndicatorsValues Values Values Values

Primary energy MJ 220 000 125 000 100 000 85 000Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 450 1 600 1 000 250Dusts gDioxins gMetals into air gMetals into water gMetals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 0.18 0.45 0.15 0.37 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.26Stratospheric Ozone Depletion EurosAir acidification Euros 10.7 106.6 8.1 81.3 6.1 60.5 1.5 14.8Photochemical oxidation Euros 2.6 3.3 1.9 2.4 1.5 1.9 0.5 0.7Linked to water effluentsEutrophication EurosLinked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals EurosHuman health effects caused by dusts EurosHuman health effects caused by dioxins Euros


PES tablecloths Paper tablecloths Cotton tablecloths Cotton-PES tablecloths


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) g CO2 eq. 100% 169% 142% 11%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq.Air acidification g SO2 eq. 100% 720% 549% 409%Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq.Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq.Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 100% 297% 156% 123%Years of Life Lost year 100% 427% 277% 211%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneSediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzeneTerrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene


Primary energy MJ 100% 259% 147% 118%Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 100% 180% 640% 400%Dusts gDioxins gMetals into air gMetals into water gMetals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

Values

Functional unit: 50 tables covered every day during one year (133x175 cm textiles / 130x180 cm paper)



93

AGRICULTURE: INTENSIVE VS. INTEGRATED VS. ORGANIC

A. Functional Unit

The quantity of wheat containing 1 000 kg of protein.

A. Reference

Harmonisation of environmental Life Cycle Assessment for agriculture; Final report, concerted action AIR3-CT94-2028. European commission DG VI Agriculture.

B. System Studied

The purpose of this LCA is to determine the differences in resource use and environmental impacts between different systems with equivalent function: giving that quantity of wheat containing 1000 kg protein. Three alternative methods of growing wheat:

A- a high inputs system under British conditions (intensive): an intensive production system on a large arable farm without animal production, typical of East Anglia, with a high input level for fertilisation and plant protection. 40% of the straw is baled and the remainder incorporated. The grain yield is 8t/ha with a protein content of 12%.

B- a reduced input system under Swiss conditions (integrated): based on a non-livestock farm, typical of wheat growing in Switzerland. Thomas meal (a waste product from steel production) is used as phosphate fertilizer. All the straw is incorporated. The grain yield is 6t/ha and the resultant protein content is expected to be 11% on average.

C- a low input system under Swiss conditions (organic): based on organic farm in Switzerland. Farm manure and mechanical or manual weed control are used instead of synthetic fertilisers and chemical, respectively. The whole straw is baled. The wheat variety is selected to give a high protein content (12%). The yield amounts to 4t/ha.

[TAB 1] MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE INVESTIGATED WHEAT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS PER HECTAR WHEAT CROPING.

System A System B System C Fertilization

N (kg) 240 132 86 P (kg) 26 22 24 K (kg) 50 10 215

Active ingredients (Number) 115 7 0 Manpower (h) 15.6 17.2 31.5 Tractor and combine harvester (h) 12.6 13 21.7 Fuel use (l) 125.4 104.8 125.8 Grain yield (t) 8 6 4 Protein content (%) 12 11 12 Straw yield (t) 5 3.5 5

- baled (%) 40 0 100 - incorporated (%) 60 100 0


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



94

The use of more powerful machinery and tractors in system A results in a reduction of the time requirements per area in comparison to B. however, this saving of time is more or less compensated on the one hand by the higher degree of intensity (more passages for fertilising and pesticides applications), on the other hand by straw baling and bale carting. The higher time requirements for tractors in system C are due to the use of mechanical weed control, farm manure (instead of mineral fertilisers) and the baling of the whole straw yield.

FLOW CHART

Primary cultivation

Mineral fertilizers Mechanization

Fuel

Man power

Seedbed preparation

Fertilization

Organic fertilizers

Maintenance & plant protection

Products :

Herbicide Fungicide Insecticides Growth regulator

Harvest, transport and drying



95

C. Main Results for 1 000 kg protein producted

D. Conclusions of the authors

For the same quantity of protein produced, the high impact of integrated agriculture for human toxicity and eutrophication can be explained by the high content of chromium in Thomas meal (1000 time higher than in a mineral fertiliser), and the high content of phosphate (12-20%). Thomas meal is a by product of cast metal process.

[TAB 2] HEAVY METALS CONTENTS OF THOMAS MEAL (MG PER KG FERTILISERS) As 0.6Cd 0.25Cr 1953Hg 0.013Pb 12Zn 68

For scenario C, the hypothesis of zero heavy metals emissions allocated to wheat production leads to a restricted impact. In this case land use and acidification represent the largest share of the remaining impact. Concerning the safeguard subject human health, the impact of oxidant formation is limited and represents less than 1%of the total human toxicological impact. For impacts on ecosystem health, oxidant formation, acidification and eutrophication have limited impacts which respectively amounts 0.1%, 2% and 0.8% of total impact on the ecosystem.

Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) g CO2 eq.

4 461

3 588

2 225

Intensiveagriculture

Integratedagriculture

Organicagriculture

Primary energyMJ

32 059

27 745

30 980



Organicagriculture

Total External cost Euros

1.0E+02

3.3E+02

6.8E+01

3.3E+023.1E+02

1.7E+02




Organic agriculture

Eutrophicationg PO4 eq.

4.6

58.8

1.0



Organicagriculture



96

In terms of energy requirements for the different farming systems, the mineral fertilisers are particularly important in systems A and B. However, the energy requirements for constructing and maintaining buildings and machinery are also important (13-37% of the total energy consumption in the three systems), this reflect the poor efficiency of use of agricultural machines.


Agriculture : Intensive vs. Integrated vs. Organic



Primary energy 1.6

Global Warming 2

Eutrophication 60



97

Intensive agriculture Integrated agriculture Organic agriculture Organic agriculture Intensive agriculture Integrated agriculture

A/ Environmental Impacts A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values

Linked to resources consumption Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. Depletion of non renewable resourcesLinked to air emissions Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 4 461 3 588 2 225 Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 200% 161%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 61 45 153 Air acidification 100% 40% 29%Photochemical oxidation kg ethylene eq. 1.6 1.8 2.4 Photochemical oxidation 100% 67% 75%Linked to water effluents Linked to water effluentsEutrophication kg PO4 eq. 4.6 58.8 1.0 Eutrophication 100% 470% 6000%Linked to human health Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1 843 137 14 422 549 369 Human Toxicity 100% 500000% 3912500%Years of Life Lost year 1.8E-03 1.4E-03 4.6E-03 Years of Life Lost 100% 40% 29%Linked to ecotoxicological risk Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 37 15 1 Aquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 3500% 1417%Sediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1.4E-08 1.6E-08 2.1E-08 Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 67% 75%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 2.7 4.5 Terrestrial Ecotoxicity

B/ Other Environmental Indicators B/ Other Environmental Indicators

Primary energy MJ 32 059 30 980 27 745 Primary energy 100% 116% 112%Fossil energy MJ Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials kg Consumption of raw materialsDusts g DustsDioxins g DioxinsMetals into air g Metals into airMetals into water g Metals into waterMetals into soil g Metals into soilMunicipal and industrial waste kg Municipal and industrial wasteHazardous waste kg Hazardous wasteInert waste kg Inert waste

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 84.75 214.12 68.18 172.24 42.28 106.82Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Air acidification Euros 8.86 88.64 6.58 65.77 22.30 223.04Photochemical oxidation Euros 1.15 1.46 1.29 1.64 1.72 2.19Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 7.08 7.08 90.35 90.35 1.51 1.51Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals EurosHuman health effects caused by dusts EurosHuman health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 102 311 166 330 68 334

Functional unit: Quantity of wheat containing 1000 kg protein

F. Detailed results



98

CAR POOLING

A. Functional Unit

10 000 pkm with personal cars.

B. Reference

This study.


The goal of this study is to measure the environmental benefice to use a personal car with a variant number of passengers: 1.6 / 2 / 2.5 / 3 / 3.5, this in order to evaluate the effects of personal car conveyance in the balance sheet of environmental impacts linked to the consumption of products and services in Europe. The main impacts which will be analysed are those which are mainly due to personal cars:

� energy consumption ; � global warming ; � photochemical oxidation.

This model is based on 19% diesel cars and 81 % petrol cars14 with the following modules used for LCI:

� SIMAPRO petrol car (combustion only) _ 1 km; � SIMAPRO diesel car (combustion only) _ 1 km.

The Intra-EU and domestic transport demand per capita represents 12 750 passengers – kilometre, of which 79% is made with personal cars [2]. Conversions factors have been used to convert passengers’ kilometre (pkm) in kilometre (km). 1.6 persons by car is the data given in SIMAPRO, this value is considered like the reference (used in LCA Study on external effects...). The conversion is simply made with the dividing of passengers – kilometre with the number of passengers per car, in order to have a number of “kilometre equivalent per capita”. The domestic transports demand represents 10 073 pkm per capita.

[TAB 1] DATA USED FOR EVALUATION

Car conveyance_1 1.6 pers/car 10 000 km/cap Car conveyance_2 2 pers/car 6 250 km/cap Car conveyance_3 2.5 pers/car 5 000 km/cap Car conveyance_4 3 pers/car 4 000 km/cap Car conveyance_5 3.5 pers/car 3 333 km/cap

14 Consumers in Europe, facts and figures. Data 1996-2000.


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



99

D. Main results for 10 000 pkm

The use of personal car with two persons instead of 1.6 allow to economise 289 kg CO2 eq per capita per year. The contribution of personal car to global warming would decrease of 17.3% to 14.5%.

[TAB 2] EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFICES 2 persons

/ car 2.5 persons /

car 3 persons /

car 3.5 persons /

car Kg CO2 saved per capita per year5 289 520 674 784

Contribution to the global warming per capita per year 14.5% 12% 10.4% 9%

The benefices to global warming are directly linked to energy consumption and that is right for all environmental impacts.


765656

1 148

919

1 435

1.6 persons/car 2 persons/car 2.5 persons/car 3 persons/car 3.5 persons/car

Primary energy MJ

9 6448 266

18 083

11 573

14 466


5 Compared to one person per car.



100


68

20

55

16

46

14

393124

85




Car pooling Factor between the option having the lowest environmental impact and


Primary energy 2

Global Warming 2



101

F. Detailed results


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 8.1 6.5 5.2 4.3 3.7Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 1 435 1 148 919 765 656Stratospheric Ozone Depletion kg CFC-11 eq.Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 4.5 3.6 2.9 2.4 2.0Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 3.5 2.8 2.2 1.8 1.6Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 44.2 35.4 28.3 23.6 20.2Years of Life Lost year 4.0E-04 3.2E-04 2.6E-04 2.1E-04 1.8E-04Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 815 652 521 434 372Sediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 1 879 1 503 1 203 1 002 859Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 294 235 188 157 134


Primary energy MJ 18 083 14 466 11 573 9 644 8 266Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 436 349 279 233 199Dusts g 113 91 73 60 52Dioxins gMetals into air g 11 9 7 6 5Metals into water g 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5Metals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 27.3 68.9 21.8 55.1 17.5 44.1 14.5 36.7 12.5 31.5Stratospheric Ozone Depletion EurosAir acidification Euros 0.7 6.5 0.5 5.2 0.4 4.2 0.3 3.5 0.3 3.0Photochemical oxidation Euros 2.5 3.2 2.0 2.6 1.6 2.1 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.5Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 2.1E-03 2.1E-03 1.7E-03 1.7E-03 1.3E-03 1.3E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 9.5E-04 9.5E-04Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 1.8E-03 1.8E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 9.3E-04 9.3E-04 8.0E-04 8.0E-04Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 0.2 6.7 0.1 5.4 0.1 4.3 0.1 3.6 0.1 3.1Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros


2 persons/car 2.5 persons/car 3 persons/car 3.5 persons/carFunctional unit: 10 000 passengers km with personal cars 1.6 persons/car


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Air acidification 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Photochemical oxidation 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Years of Life Lost 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Sediment Ecotoxicity 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%


Primary energy 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Fossil energyConsumption of raw materials 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Dusts 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%DioxinsMetals into air 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Metals into water 100% 117% 140% 175% 219%Metals into soilMunicipal and industrial wasteHazardous wasteInert waste

1.6 persons/car2 persons/car2.5 persons/car3 persons/car3.5 persons/car



102

MEETING: VIDEOCONFERENCE VS. TRANSPORTS

A. Functional Unit

One conference during 4 hours in Brussels, with 3 persons: one in Brussels and two in Madrid.

B. Reference

LCA of a videoconference – a comparative study of different way of communication. Eriksson E, Chalmers Industrieteknik, Göteborg, Sweden.

C. System studied and assumptions

Personal computer

[TAB1]: CONSTITUTING MATERIALS OF A PERSONNAL COMPUTER AND MODULES USESIN SIMAPRO FOR LCI

Materials & weight (kg) Modules used in SIMAPRO

Steel 8.1 Steel ETH T Aluminium 1.1 Aluminium 0% recycled EHT T Copper 1.8 Copper ETH T ABS 4.8 ABS I PVC 0.7 PVC B250 production Printed board 1.5 Printed board production Glass 7.2 Glass white B250 TOTAL WEIGHT (kg) 25.2

Assumption: the power of the personal computer considered is 500 W, for the videoconference (4 hours) its electrical consumption is 2 kWh. It’s been assumed to consider the entire life of the personal computer with these considerations:

� 3 years if utilisation; � the PC is used 47 weeks per year, 5 days a week and 8 hours per day;

5 640 hours of utilisation is considered for the entire life of the personal computer, with only 4 hours of used for the videoconference. All flows will be calculated for 4 hours of utilisation.




Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



103

Transports:

The distance between Madrid and Brussels is about 1 600 km so the travel represents 3 200 km. Two persons are considered for the travel, it represents 6400 passengers’ kilometres; a conversion factor of 0.08 tonnes per passenger is used to convert pkm to tkm.

[TAB 3] MODULES USED IN SIMAPRO FOR LCI Railway 512 tkm Rail transport 1 tkm ETH T Air plane 512 tkm Air transport A320 1 tkm Boustead database

D. Main results for a 4 hours meeting

This study shows the environmental benefice of using videoconference which provides a lower burden for all environmental impacts considered.

The primary energy requirement is about 300 times higher for plane and 10 times higher for train than a videoconference. The use of plane induces an increase in global warming about 500 times higher than using a videoconference system. The use of train induces more than 10 times greenhouse gases emissions.

Primary energy MJ

52 590

14 436

Videoconférence Train Plane


1 009 941

29 4652



Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



104


2.5

20.4

60.6

0.05 0.300.6




Meeting: Videoconference vs.

Transports Factor between

the option having the lowest environmental impact and the option having the highest environmental impact

Primary energy 269

Global Warming 454



105

F. Detailed results

Videoconférence Train Videoconférence Train Plane

A/ Environmental Impacts A/ Environmental ImpactsValues Values Values

Linked to resources consumption Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 0.02 0.21 6.41 Depletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq. 100% 1334% 41695%Linked to air emissions Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 2 29 465 1 009 941 Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) g CO2 eq. 100% 1328131% 45522819%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 3.8E-04 2.3E-02 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq. 100% 6069% 0%Air acidification g SO2 eq. 23 205 4 816 Air acidification g SO2 eq. 100% 898% 21066%Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 2 33 546 Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 100% 1357% 22446%Linked to water effluents Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 0.1 0.9 0.3 Eutrophication g PO4 eq. 100% 626% 240%Linked to human health Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 393 738 197 7 846 Human Toxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 188060% 1999%Years of Life Lost year 8.5E-07 1.1E-05 3.3E-04 Years of Life Lost year 100% 1265% 39164%Linked to ecotoxicological risk Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 4 147 417 3 276 Aquatic Ecotoxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 3502627% 77847%Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 13 473 400 1 212 Sediment Ecotoxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 3509804% 8988%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 149 102 3.4E-05 Terrestrial Ecotoxicity q. 1-4-dichlorobenz 100% 68% 0%

B/ Other Flows Not Taken Into Account in the Environmental Impacts Above B/ Other Flows Not Taken Into Account in the Environmental Impacts Above

Primary energy MJ 52 590 14 436 Primary energy MJ 100% 1129% 27605%Fossil energy MJ Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kg 6 740 1 460 Consumption of raw materials kg 100% 11443% 22583%Dusts g 3 13 77 Dusts g 100% 526% 3086%Dioxins g 2.2E-10 4.8E-09 Dioxins g 100% 2211%Metals into air g 0.6 1.2 Metals into air g 100% 195%Metals into water g 2 19 Metals into water g 100% 988%Metals into soil g 1.3E-03 8.6E-01 Metals into soil g 100% 68759%Municipal and industrial waste kg 1.2E-02 1.7E+00 Municipal and industrial waste kg 100% 14384%Hazardous waste kg 3.0E-03 3.2E-02 Hazardous waste kg 100% 1059%Inert waste kg 4.8E-01 Inert waste kg 100%

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.4 19.2 48.5Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 2.6E-07 2.6E-07 1.6E-05 1.6E-05Air acidification Euros 3.3E-03 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 3.0E-01 7.0E-01 7.0E+00Photochemical oxidation Euros 1.8E-03 2.3E-03 2.4E-02 3.1E-02 4.0E-01 5.1E-01Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 2.2E-04 2.2E-04 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 5.4E-04 5.4E-04Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration Euros 2.0E-06 6.8E-06Disaminity caused by landfilling Euros 3.0E-03 9.4E-03 1.0E-02 3.3E-02Linked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 3.9E-05 3.9E-05 7.4E-04 7.4E-04Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 3.5E-03 1.5E-01 1.8E-02 7.8E-01 1.1E-01 4.6E+00Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros 2.8E-06 6.0E-06 6.2E-05 1.3E-04

Total External Cost Euros 0.05 0.30 0.6 2.5 20.4 60.6

Functional unit: One conference during 4 hours in Brussels, with 3 persons: one in Brussels and two in Madrid.

Plane



106

FLUSHING SYSTEMS: RAIN WATER VS. DRINKABLE WATER

A. Functional Unit

The rinsing of 1000 toilets.

B. Reference

Documents environment n°147. Approvisionnement en eaux. Analyse du Cycle d’approvisionnement en eau et récupération d’eau de pluie. Rapport final du projet cycleaupe. Office federal de l’environnement, des forêts, et du paysage (OFEFP – BUWAL), Berne 2002.

C. System Studied

The goal of this study is to quantify the environmental burdens of the systems using either water rain or drinkable water for the rinsing of toilets.

Five scenarios have been defined:

Conventional scenario (CONV): it is the reference scenario, in which the water is pumped in ground, treated (chlorine, activated charcoal, use of ozone, etc…). The energy requirement is based on the Swiss model (average of 0.35kWh/m3). The house considered is a two flats house with two families of four persons (16 persons in total). The toilets required 9 litres for rinsing.

Recovery scenario (REC10): the water rain is stocked in a polyester tank and pumped to the toilet. The tank can provide water for 11.6 days, which represent 57% of the annual water necessity for toilets rinsing. A connection is made with the drinkable water network when the tank is empty. The energy demand for this system is 0.09kWh/m3 (due to the use of pump).

Conventional scenario with economic toilets (CONVeco): it is the same system than the conventional one but the system for rinsing use 3.5 litres for rinsing.

Recovery scenario with economic toilets (RECeco): it is the same scenario than REC10, with an economic system for the flushing system (3.5 litres for rinsing).

Independent recovery scenario (REC100): the water rain is collected in a 20 m3 tank; this system can provide 97 % of the water demand.

Distribution network, drinkable water treatment, installations for the recovery of rain water and purification of waste water is considered. The heat loss, due to the warming of cold water is also included. Similar elements in the different cases and the pipe, which section is less than 100 mm, are not considered.

The transfer of pollutant in drinkable and rain water have been estimated with the pollutant concentration of each one. The difference in heavy metals concentration is significant and has a important role in the becoming of pollutants.


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages



107

D. Main results for the rinsing of 1 000 toilets

Energy: The systems which provide a reduction of water consumption allow a decrease in energy consumption. For the scenarios with rain recovery the energy supply is lightly than conventional scenarios, it is due to the production of sanitary installations. The 100% recovery scenario shows that the energy requirement is high owing to the fact of the tank production.

Primary energy MJ

700

550

1 300

500

1 270

Conventional Rec 10% Conventional +eco

Rec 10% + eco Rec 100%

Airborne and waterborne emissions:


3532

69

24

62



Pollutants emission in air and water, except heavy metals which will be discussed later, are mainly linked to the energy consumption. The economic toilets provide less emissions and the fact to use drinkable water is better than use of rain water. The conventional economic scenario is the more favourable whereas the 100% recovery scenario presents a more important impact because of the tank production.



108

Heavy metals

Metals into water g

1111

19

6

16



The heavy metals emissions are more important for a recovery scenario because the water rain content more heavy metals than drinkable water.


0.8

2.5

0.7

3.3

0.8

3.6

1.4 1.5

5.76.8




E. Conclusion of the authors

This study can provide a first approach for the use of rain water for domestic utilisations. It makes appear that the use of economic flushing systems is more environmentally friendly than conventional systems.

� The use of economical flushing systems must be promoted in first place. � The insulation of the flushing systems allows a reduction of heat loss due to the warming of cold water. � With a recovery system, the overpressure must as less as possible. The fact to use rain water in order

gardening would have a negative environmental effect because the pressure must be about 4 bars, for a flushing system it must be around 1.5 bars.

� The materials used for the roof must be chose in order to avoid heavy metals diffusion in the collected water.


Flushing systems : Rain water vs. Drinkable water



Primary energy 2.5

Global Warming 3

Emissions of metals into water 3



109

G. Detailed results


Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 62 69 24 32 35 100% 132% 147% 257% 287%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq.Air acidification g SO2 eq. 185 243 72 131 163 100% 182% 227% 257% 338%Photochemical oxidation g ethylene eq. 66 104 26 64 95 100% 249% 370% 257% 406%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq. 29 26 177 11 12 100% 6% 7% 16% 15%Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 13 15 5 41 7 100% 802% 135% 257% 300%Years of Life Lost year 1.02E-05 1.30E-05 3.98E-06 6.82E-06 8.05E-06 100% 171% 202% 257% 327%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 6 2 2 5 3 100% 222% 131% 257% 97%Sediment Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 13 4 5 9 6 100% 178% 125% 257% 81%Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 100% 101% 116% 257% 97%


Primary energy MJ 1 300 1 270 500 550 700 100% 110% 140% 260% 254%Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kgDusts g 40 50 15 26 27 100% 169% 173% 257% 324%Dioxins gMetals into air g 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 100% 164% 202% 205% 329%Metals into water g 16 19 6 11 11 100% 170% 178% 257% 304%Metals into soil g 14 1 5 3 3 100% 60% 56% 257% 10%Municipal and industrial waste kgHazardous waste kgInert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min max min max min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 1.2 3.0 1.3 3.3 0.5 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.7 1.7Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Euros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Air acidification Euros 0.03 0.27 0.04 0.35 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.19 0.02 0.24Photochemical oxidation Euros 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.09Linked to water effluentsEutrophication Euros 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Linked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals Euros 9.43E-04 9.43E-04 1.25E-03 1.25E-03 3.66E-04 3.66E-04 6.78E-04 6.78E-04 7.46E-04 7.46E-04Human health effects caused by dusts Euros 0.06 2.35 0.07 2.96 0.02 0.91 0.04 1.54 0.04 1.58Human health effects caused by dioxins Euros

Total External Cost Euros 1.4 5.7 1.5 6.8 0.8 2.5 0.7 3.3 0.8 3.6

Rec 100%Functional unit: 1000 use of flushing system for toilet rinsing

Conventional Rec 10% Conventional + eco Rec 10% + eco Rec 100% Conventional Rec 10%Conventional + eco Rec 10% + eco



110

PLATES : PORCELAIN VS. PAPER

A. Functional Unit

100 000 meals.

B. Reference

LCA – Paper plates vs. Porcelain plates. Group C6. Monday October 2001. Miljöteknik for E3. A. Anderson, Tomas Carlsson, A Holmgren, A Lindahl, D marmander, M Molander and A Winther.


� Energy consumption � Solid waste � Airborne emissions

PORCELAIN PLATES FLOW CHART


Included Excluded

Life Cycle Stages

300 kg – 1000 km

Clay

Electrical energy

Dishwashing (1000 times)

Water

Landfilling (300 kg – 100 km)

Waste water

300 kg – 500 km

Porcelain production



111

PAPER PLATES FLOW CHART

D. Assumption:

� The study is based on a “restaurant case”; � porcelain plates are white and weight 300g, one plate lasts 1000 dishes. the dishwasher takes clean

water and discharge water + washing-up liquid; � washing liquid are phosphate free, so the environmental load can be neglected; � the two products are made in Sweden. a paper plate is only used once whereas a porcelain plate is used

1000 times (restaurant estimates). the dishwasher is 70 % full; � the porcelain plates are reused 1000 times, a paper plate is only used once; � food wastes are equal for the two products and will not affect the comparison; � electrical energy that is produced in Sweden is considered to have a standardized impact on the

environment; � raw materials, except oil and clay, are available in Sweden;

10 km

1000 kg 700 km

Recycling 200 kg

100 kg 700 km

50 kg 100 km

1000 km

5 kg 100 km

3000 kg 200 km

Electrical energy

Forest

Paper production

Paper board production

Package

Wholesaler Retailer

Consumer

Oil

Plastic production

Incineration Landfilling

800 kg

850 kg 500 km

100 km 850 kg



112

E. Main Results for 100 000 meals

[TAB 1] ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS PER MEAL Paper plates Porcelaine plates SO2 1.14E+00 g/meal 8.47E-05 g/meal NOx 6.40E-01 g/meal 6.11E-04 g/meal CO2 6.90E+01 g/meal 1.51E+00 g/meal HC 9.20E-02 g/meal 9.40E-05 g/meal Cl2 3.00E-03 g/meal - g/meal Energy 0.6 MJ/meal 1.0 MJ/meal

Primary energy MJ

100 000

60 000

Paper plates Porcelaine plates


6 900

151



7

164

3

587

min max min max




113

F. Conclusions of the authors

The worst environmental impact load for the paper plate is caused by their transportation, which contributes to acid rain and global warming. The porcelain plates are being reused so many time that both production and transportation are negligible to environmental load caused by dishwashing. The paper plates produce more waste materials for landfill than porcelain does. The differences between a full and a 70 % full dishwasher has been investigated. The results show that the full dishwasher case is the best alternative; however the 70 % case is better than using paper plates. The paper have to been reused ten times to makes its impact comparable with a porcelain plat.

G. Differences between options

Paper plates vs. Porcelain plates Factor between

the option having the lowest environmental impact and the option having the highest environmental impact

Primary energy 1.6

Global Warming 46



114

Functional unit: Environmental impact for100 000 meals Paper plates Porcelaine plates Paper plates

A/ Environmental ImpactsValues

Linked to resources consumptionDepletion of non renewable resources kg antimony eq.Linked to air emissionsGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) kg CO2 eq. 6 900 151 100% 4573%Stratospheric Ozone Depletion g CFC-11 eq.Air acidification kg SO2 eq. 169 0.04 100% 414599%Photochemical oxidation kg ethylene eq. 11 0.01 100% 189125%Linked to water effluentsEutrophication g PO4 eq.Linked to human healthHuman Toxicity kg eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 88 0.1 100% 104544%Years of Life Lost year 6.3E-03 3.0E-06 100% 210182%Linked to ecotoxicological riskAquatic Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 0.05Sediment Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 0.13Terrestrial Ecotoxicity g eq. 1-4-dichlorobenzene 0.33


Primary energy MJ 60 000 100 000 100% 60%Fossil energy MJConsumption of raw materials kgDusts gDioxins gMetals into air g 0.02Metals into water gMetals into soil gMunicipal and industrial waste kg 30 000Hazardous waste kg 114Inert waste kg

C/ External Cost

Linked to air emissions min max min maxGreenhouse effect (direct, 100 yrs) Euros 131 331 3 7Stratospheric Ozone Depletion EurosAir acidification Euros 25 246 0.01 0.06Photochemical oxidation Euros 8 10 0.00 0.01Linked to water effluentsEutrophication EurosLinked to solid wasteDisaminity caused by incineration EurosDisaminity caused by landfilling EurosLinked to human healthCarcinogenic potential of heavy metals EurosHuman health effects caused by dusts EurosHuman health effects caused by dioxins Euros


Values

Porcelaine plates

H. Detailed results