DESIGN IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING PRODUCT
USING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
ONG CHEOW HONG
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
DESIGN IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING PRODUCT USING LIFE CYCLE
ASSESSMENT
ONG CHEOW HONG
A project report submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
degree of Master of Engineering (Industrial Engineering)
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
NOVEMBER 2009
iii To my beloved father, mother, wife, brother,
sister and my supportive friends…
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation
to my supervisor, Dr. Muhamad Zameri bin Mat Saman for his guidance, advice and
motivation throughout this project.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my family and friends for
their endless support whenever I face problems. Without the mentioned parties, it is
impossible for me to complete this project report successfully.
v ABSTRACT
Nowadays, environmental issues have become one of the hot issues. Many of
the manufacturing industries have established life cycle assessment (LCA) studies to
improve their products performance and it is important for the industry to continue to
be proactive in these areas. While life cycle assessment (LCA) conscious design
considerations have been integrated into the design of products and processes, life
cycle assessment (LCA) has not been fully implemented to reduce the overall
environmental impacts. By using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, it is can
achieve cooperative approaches to protecting the global environment and also to
compete in the global market. In this project the using of life cycle assessment (LCA)
approach to help designer to improve the current product in order to reduce the
environmental impacts. So a significant improvement in the evaluation of green
consumer products can be approached by the complementary use of the
methodologies of life cycle assessment (LCA) and risk assessment, which will be
discussed.
vi ABSTRAK
Pada masa kini, isu alam sekitar telah menjadi salah satu isu panas. Ini
menyebabkan banyak industri pembuatan telah menjalankan penilaian ‘life cycle
assessment’ (LCA) bagi produk untuk meningkatkan penilaian produk dan ia juga
penting bagi industri untuk terus proaktif dalam bidang ini. Sementara ‘life cycle
assessment’ (LCA) digunakan sebagai pertimbangan rekabentuk, ia telah
diintegrasikan ke dalam rekabentuk produk dan proses, penilaian ‘life cycle
assessment’ (LCA) tidak dilaksanakan dengan sepenuhnya untuk mengurangkan
kesan persekitaran secara keseluruhan. Dengan menerapkan ‘life cycle assessment’
(LCA), ini boleh mencapai metadologi target untuk melindungi persekitaran dan
produk boleh bersaing di peringkat antarabangsa. Dalam projek ini, penggunaan ‘life
cycle assessment’ (LCA) akan membantu perekabentuk mengurangkan kesan kepada
persekitaran.
Jadi signifikan pembaikan dalam evaluasi penghasilan produk
berasaskan kumpulan persekitaran boleh dikajian melalui penggunaan metodologi
‘life cycle assessment’ (LCA) dan penilaian risiko, ini semua dipertimbangkan dalam
projek ini.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
2
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
xiv
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Background of the Project
1
1.2
Problem Statement
2
1.3
Objective of the Study
2
1.4
Scope of the Study
3
1.5
Significant of the Study
4
1.6
Thesis Structure
4
1.7
Summary
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
7
2.1
Overview
7
2.2
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
7
2.2.1
History of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
8
2.2.2
Incorporation in Design Processes
10
viii 2.2.3
Theoretical Advantages of LCA
Incorporation Design
2.3
Methodology of LCA
12
2.3.1
Goal and Scope Definition
13
2.3.2
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
14
2.3.3
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
15
2.3.4
Life Cycle Interpretation
19
2.4
Principles of LCA
22
2.5
The Product Life Cycle
24
2.6
Key Features of LCA and LCA Methodology
26
2.7
Limitation of LCA
27
2.8
Uses and Application of LCA
28
2.8.1
Product Comparison
29
2.8.2
Strategic Planning
29
2.8.3
Public Sector Uses
30
2.8.4
Product Design and Environmental
30
2.8.5
Choosing Suppliers
31
2.8.6
Improving Exiting Products
31
2.8.7
Using Life Cycle Concepts in Early
Product Design Phase
3
11
33
2.9
Standardisation of LCA (ISO Series)
33
2.10
Summary
34
METHODOLOGY
36
3.1
Overview
36
3.2
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
37
3.3
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
37
3.4
Life Cycle Interpretation
39
3.5
Assumption
39
3.6
Life Cycle Assessment Boundary
39
3.7
Summary
40
ix 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
41
4.1
Overview
41
4.2
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater Case
Study (Life Cycle Inventory)
4.2.1
4.2.2
41
Introduction of Microcomputer Controlled
Foot Heater
41
Product Stages
43
4.2.2.1. Product Stage (Assembly)
43
4.2.2.2. Data for Current Design and
Alternative 1
45
4.2.2.3. Data for Alternative 2 and
Alternative 3
4.3
4.2.3
Product Stage (Life Cycle)
48
4.2.4
Product Stage (Disposal Scenario)
49
4.2.5
Product Stage (Disassemblies)
50
4.2.6
Product Stage (Reuse)
51
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater Case
Study (Life Cycle Impact Assessment)
4.3.1
Current Design, 100% Disposal
4.3.2
Alternative 1, Recycling and Disposal
Design
4.3.3
4.3.4
Alternative 3, Design for Reuse
4.3.5
Comparison of Current Design and Three
Alternatives
5
52
54
57
59
61
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater Case
Study (Life Cycle Interpretation)
4.5
51
Alternative 2, PCB Improvement and
Material Selection
4.4
46
Summary
64
65
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
66
5.1
Conclusions
66
5.2
Recommendations
67
x REFERENCES
68
APPENDICES A – E
74
xi LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO
3.1
TITLE
Damage and impact categories in the Eco-indicator
method in SimaPro
4.1
PAGE
39
Comparison Table of Current Design and Alternative
1, 2 and 3
43
4.2
List of part for Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater
44
4.3
Data for Current Design and Alternative 1
46
4.4
Data for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
48
4.5
Product life cycle analysis
49
4.6
Product disposal scenario analysis
50
4.7
Parts disposal scenario analysis
50
4.8
Disassemblies scenario
50
4.9
Reuse scenario
51
xii LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO
TITLE
2.1
The main stages in an LCA study according to ISO14040
2.2
Relationship of Interpretation Step with other Phases of
PAGE
12
LCA
20
2.3
Stages in the Life Cycle of a Product
25
4.1
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater
42
4.2
Explosion view of Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater 44
4.3
Characterisation results of Current Design for product with
5 years life cycle
4.4
Weight results of Current Design for product with 5 years
life cycle
4.5
57
Weight results of Alternative 2 for product with 5 years
life cycle
4.11
56
Characterisation results of Alternative 2 for product with
5 years life cycle
4.10
56
Single score results of Alternative 1 for product with
5 years life cycle
4.9
55
Weight results of Alternative 1 for product with 5 years
life cycle
4.8
54
Characterisation results of Alternative 1 for product with
5 years life cycle
4.7
53
Single score results of Current Design for product with
5 years life cycle
4.6
52
58
Single score results of Alternative 2 for product with
5 years life cycle
58
xiii 4.12
Characterisation results of Alternative 3 for product with
5 years life cycle
4.13
Weight results of Alternative 3 for product with 5 years
life cycle
4.14
60
Comparison on weight results of current design and
all alternatives
4.16
60
Single score results of Alternative 3 for product with
5 years life cycle
4.15
59
61
Comparison on weight results of current design and
all alternatives in human health, ecosystem quality
and resources
4.17
62
Comparison on single score results of current design
and all alternatives
63
xiv LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Current Design
74
B
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Alternative 1
76
C
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Alternative 2
78
D
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Alternative 3
80
E
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Comparison of
Current Design and All Alternatives
82
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the Project
Presently the world population is 6.7 billion people and it is increasing at a
fast pace everyday. With this increase in population a lot of emphasis is made in
order to produce better products and to sustain this growing population. Everyday,
every second in different part of the world new products are being produced in order
to improve livelihoods of people. When we talk about sustainability of human
population we come across the sustainability of the environment, which has to play a
great role in human sustainability. Deterioration of the environment is one of the
threats to the human race. Advancement in life and increased production of goods to
meet the growing needs of people has lead to the environmental deterioration, which
is one of the threats to human race.
Recently with the increased awareness of environmental degradation among
the people has led the producers as well as consumers towards achieving
environmental sustainability. Today the producer is aligned towards producing more
environment friendly products and the consumer is more interested in products that
bear a green label. With this awareness more tools are being introduced that study
the impact of various products on the environment, one such tool is Life Cycle
Assessment.
2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a process to evaluate the environmental
burdens associated with a product, process or activity by identifying and quantifying
energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment, and to assess the
impact of those energy and material used and released to the environment (SETAC,
1993). Therefore, Life Cycle Assessment can help the industries to identify change
to operations, including product design, which can lead to both environmental
benefits and cost savings.
1.2
Problem Statement
Nowadays, companies face great challenges to maintain its competitiveness
in the global marketplace. The green product design capabilities become very critical
for companies to stay competitive globally. In the EU green directives, RoHS and
WEEE are specific regulations developed for specific purposes of environmental
concerns. Because of the strict environmental regulations and directives and the
short lifespan of consumer products, companies need IT-based tools or methods to
effectively and efficiently support Research & Development during the stages of
product conceptual designs. Therefore, companies keep putting afford in Research &
Development to design new eco-products in order to reduce environmental impact
such as carcinogens, radiations and etc.
1.3
Objective of the Study
The aim of the study is implement the Life Cycle Assessment knowledge into
an existing product and attempts to evaluate the environmental burdens associated
with a product, process, use and disposal or recycle by:
1.
To identify and evaluating the types of impacts being considered such as
carcinogens, radiation, land use and fossil fuels which related to the
human health, ecosystem, and resources.
3 2.
To develop and analyse alternatives by design improvement in order to
reduce the environmental impacts.
3.
To compare all alternatives and select the optimum alternative which
will bring the greatest environmental benefit.
1.4
Scope of the Study
Scope of the study covers the entire life cycle of the product encompassing
raw material selection, processing, manufacturing, transportation, use, recycling and
disposal. This study concentrates on the material selections, energy emission and
waste emission released within the life cycle of selection material for produce
automotive part which contributes to the impact of resource and energy consumption.
Therefore, this paper focuses on selected product from “cradle to grave” according to
LCA perspective. The product will be select according to the largest contribution of
resource and energy impact among the automotive parts.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool to evaluate the impacts associated
with all stages of a product’s lifecycle from “cradle to grave” on both downstream
and upstream. The basis of an LCA study is an inventory of all the inputs and
outputs of industrial processes that occur during the life cycle of a product. This
includes the production phase and the life cycle processes including the distribution,
use and final disposal of the selected product. In each phase the LCA inventories
define the inputs and outputs, after that assesses their impacts. Once the inventory
has been completed, the impacts in a LCA will be considered. This phase of the
LCA is called the impact assessment. After both inventory and impact have been
done, the interpretation assessment will be started. LCAs can be very large scale
studies by quantifying the level of inputs and outputs. Besides that, the facilities and
equipment have traditionally been neglected in life cycle assessments, because they
often make up less than 5% of all process inputs and outputs (Boustead and Hancock,
1979).
4 1.5
Significance of the Study
An LCA will help designers select the product or process that bring least
environment impact during the design stage.
This information also can be
implementing into other factors, such as performance and cost data to select a
product or process. LCA data identifies the shift of environmental impacts from one
life cycle stage to another. If an LCA was not carry out, the shift might not be
recognized and properly excluded this shift in the analysis because it is outside of the
typical scope or focus of product selection process.
The ability to track and record shifts in environmental impacts can help
designers, decision makers and managers fully characterize the environmental tradeoffs associated with product or process alternatives. LCA also allows the automotive
manufacturers to identify an effective ways of designing and manufacturing the
products themselves. To overcome the rapidly changing requirements on solid waste,
persistent toxic chemicals, emissions and effluent discharges, manufacturers can
implement LCA to help them be a step ahead’s in these issues. In addition, life cycle
strategies for pollution prevention and minimizing energy costs are beginning to
reveal economic benefits in term of more efficient production, improved product
quality and minimization of the environmental risks.
1.6
Thesis Structure
This project report consists of five chapters, as summarized below:
•
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 1 gives a brief introduction to the study. It includes the
background of the project, problem statement, objective, scope and
significant of the study.
5 •
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Chapter 2 discusses on several topics related to this study. Topics
reviewed include the life cycle assessment in detail, including the
historical background, methodology of LCA, principles of LCA,
limitation of LCA, uses and application of LCA.
•
Chapter 3 Methodology
Chapter 3 breaks down the LCA methodology into details, explains
major categories that are been used to evaluate environmental impacts,
explains the assumptions that been made in this project and discuss
the life cycle assessment boundary.
•
Chapter 4 Results and Discussions
Chapter 4 develops the process-by-product input-output life cycle
assessment methodology. Life cycle assessment software (SimaPro 7)
being use to evaluate the environmental impacts and compare among
current design and several alternatives. Results of evaluation and
comparison will be discussed.
•
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 5 is the last chapter of the report which actually a summary of
the study. It consists of the recommendations for future work and
conclusions from this LCA study.
1.7
Summary
This chapter has given a general introduction about the life cycle assessment
study. At the beginning of the study, the background of the project was being
discussed.
It followed by the problem statement that facing by current
manufacturing companies.
The objectives and scope of the study have been
6 addressed. The significant of the study was discussed. Lastly, the thesis structure of
the entire report was explained.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Overview
In this chapter, the details of Life Cycle Assessment will be discussed. It
included the history of LCA, methodology of LCA, principles of LCA, key features
of LCA, limitation of LCA and uses and application of LCA.
2.2
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Life Cycle Assessment is a framework and methodology for the identification
of environmentally friendly products or processes. It is characterized by the analysis
of cumulative environmental impacts over extended system boundaries.
While
conventional
either
environmental
assessment
techniques
focus
only
on
manufacturing processes or end-of life disposal or reuse, LCA considers the life
cycle of a system or the entire chain of events and activities that are necessary to
support the product or process (SETAC, 1991; ISO 14040, 1997).
Life cycle assessment is often called as a “cradle-to-grave” approach for
assessing industrial systems. “Cradle-to-grave” begins with the gathering of raw
materials from the earth to create the product and ends at the point when all materials
are returned to the earth. LCA evaluates all stages of a product’s life from the
8 perspective that they are interdependent, meaning that one operation leads to the next.
LCA enables the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from
all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more
traditional analyses (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate
product disposal, etc.). By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle,
LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or
process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product
and process selection (SETAC, 1991).
The term “life cycle” refers to the major activities in the course of the product’s
life-span begins from its manufacture, use, and maintenance, to its final disposal,
including the raw material acquisition required to manufacture the product.
Therefore, the life cycle Framework is a system for assessing the full environmental,
economic, and social consequences of design.
Life Cycle Assessment requirements have also been included in legislation.
The European Community (EC) Ecolabelling Regulation (1992) requires that the
whole Life Cycle be considered when setting labelling criteria. Provision for Life
Cycle Assessment is also included in the EC Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive (1994), which states that “Life Cycle Assessments should be completed as
soon as possible to justify a clear hierarchy between reusable, recyclable and
recoverable packaging”. Practically, this will have to be carried out on a case-bycase basis. As it is develop further, it is likely that Life Cycle Assessment will find
many additional applications (McDougall et al., 2001).
2.2.1
History of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
The earliest forerunners of LCA were the Resource and Environmental
Profile Analyses (REPAs) of the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, a series of
LCA studies were conducted mainly focused on calculating energy requirements and
mostly for the private sector. The Coca Cola Company funded a study to compare
9 resource consumption and environmental releases associated with beverage
containers. There was a typical example of A REPA study of different beverage
packaging systems which works by Hunt et al. (1984).
Interest continued through
the 1980s, with studies by Lundholm and Sundstrom (1985) successfully used LCA
for decision-making. As the term REPA suggests, these early studies emphasize raw
material demands, energy inputs, and waste generation flows; attempts on more
sophisticated analysis through environmental impact classifications would come later
in the evolution of LCA methodology.
Modern LCA methodology is rooted in the development of standards through
the 1990s. The society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC, 1991)
published “A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessment”, the first attempt at
an international LCA standard.
It explicitly outlined the components of
contemporary LCA: goal definition, inventory assessment, impact assessment and
improvement analysis.
By extending LCA beyond the mere quantification of
material and energy flows, SETAC paved the way for the use of LCA as a
comprehensive decision support tool. Similar developments took place sometime
later in North Europe, particularly in the Scandinavia.
In 1995, detailed LCA
protocols were specified in the “Nordic Guidelines on Life Cycle Assessments”
(Nordic Council of Ministers, 1995).
In the late 1990s, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)
releases the ISO 14040 series on LCA as an adjunct to the ISO 14000 Environmental
Management Standards. The series includes standards for goal and scope definition
and inventory assessment (ISO 14041, 1998), impact assessment (ISO 14042, 2000a)
and interpretation (ISO 14043, 2000b) as well as general introductory framework
(ISO 14040, 1997). The ISO 14040 series actually bears a strong resemblance to the
original SETAC frameworks; Azapagic’s review (1999) gives a comparison between
the LCA standards.
However, because of ISO’s dominant position in the
development of international standards, the ISO 14040 series may eventually
supercede the SETAC guidelines among LCA practitioners.
10 Therefore, an LCA can show the major environmental problems of a material,
product or process (Boustead, 1995). The act of doing the assessment also builds
awareness about environmental impacts and focuses improvement efforts
appropriately. This has led companies such as AT&T and Volvo to develop internal
LCA tools for their product lines (Graedel, 2003), government agencies such as the
EPA to provide generic guidelines for conducting LCAs (EPA, 1993). In fact, many
proponents and users of LCA information suggest that the main role of LCAs should
be to guide internal decision making rather than as a consumer marketing or
information tool (Pesso, 1993; Huybrechts et al., 1996).
2.2.2
Incorporation in Design Processes
The incorporation of environmental issues as a design objective is limited in
practice by the availability of environmental impact indicators appropriate for
making quantitative tradeoffs (Ferraro, Ghersa, and Sznaider, 2003).
In contrast,
designers have easy access to managerial cost accounting data that provide them with
unit costs for the raw materials, utilities, and waste treatment services that might be
part of their design. So the designers can compare the economic performance of
alternative designs and to optimize their product performance by resolving tradeoffs
in the direction that maximizes profitability. If LCA indicators are available to
calculate the environmental impacts for raw materials, utilities, waste treatment
services, and environmental releases, then the designers could also compare
alternative designs and resolve tradeoffs in the direction that minimizes potential
environmental impacts (Mackenzie, 1991).
Superior design alternatives can be
identifying by using a combination of economic and environmental objectives
(Raadschelders et al., 2003).
As we know that, process design and decision-making are challenging
activities that involve trade-offs of conflicting objectives which can be analyzed by
considering the full life cycle of a process or a product. A cleaner and greener
process is the one that is cost optimal, technically feasible, and environmentally
11 friendly (Sikdar and Halwagi, 2001). To obtain these results, LCA requires various
tools and techniques in a systematic methodology so that the result is reproducible.
This methodology is simple and applicable at the early design stage and is more
robust against uncertainty in the data (Azapagic, 1999).
2.2.3
Theoretical Advantage of LCA Incorporation Design
Finnveden et al. (2003) have been mention that the most important of all,
LCA will establish a link between the environmental impacts, operation, and
economics of a process; it offers an expanded environmental perspective, and
considering the impacts from extraction of raw material until the end product use and
disposal. These effects will relates to mass and energy flows into, out of, and within
a process by using LCA. According to the ISO 14040 series standards, the LCA
should assess the potential environmental issues and aspects associated with a
product or service by compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs;
evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and
outputs; and interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases in relation to
the objectives of the study (Johnson, 2003). By considering these, the LCA has the
potential to focus both process feasibility and environmental concerns along with
other attributes. So that employing the LCA within a process design and decisionmaking system will yield an optimal design and a best management alternative.
According to ISO 14041, “A product system is a collection of unit processes
connected by flows of intermediate products which perform one or more defined
functions. The essential property of a product system is characterized by its function,
and cannot be defined solely in terms of the final products”. The terms “economic
process” or “economic activity” have been used as synonyms alongside 'unit process'
to refer to any kind of process producing an economically valuable material,
component or product, or providing an economically valuable service such as
transport or waste management (Fiksel, 1996).
12 LCA takes as its starting point the function fulfilled by a product system. In
principle, it encompasses all the environmental impacts of resource use, land use, and
emissions associated with all the processes required by this product system to fulfil
this function - from resource extraction, through materials production and processing
and use of the product during fulfilment of its function, to waste processing of the
discarded product (Klopffer and Rippen, 1992).
In 1994, ISO established a technical committee charged with standardizing a
number of environmental management tools, including LCA. At the same time, It
have been published some topic of LCA in various international standards journals.
These ISO guides are important in providing an international reference with respect
to principles, framework and terminology for conducting and reporting LCA studies.
In order to implement the LCA methodology, some additions to the ISO Standards
have been necessary. On some points, it was also necessary to deviate from these
standards, but only when the rationale for doing so was particularly significant.
2.3
Methodology of LCA
The terms ‘method’ and ‘methodology’ are often used to indicate what
essentially the method is. A method is a structured way to achieve a certain goal: to
measure the toxicity of a compound, for example, or to construct a bridge. A method
consists of rules, recipes, formulas, descriptions, and so on.
The LCA methodology has four components: goal and scope definition, life
cycle inventory (LCI), impact assessment, and interpretation assessment. A full life
cycle assessment includes each of the four components (SETAC, 1993) shown in
Figure 2.1.
13 Goal & Scope
Life Cycle
Inventory (LCI)
Interpretation
Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA)
Figure 2.1: The main stages in an LCA study according to ISO 14040
(ISO 14040, 1997)
2.3.1
Goal and Scope Definition
Defining the goal of the study includes stating the intended application of the
study, the reasons for carrying it out and to whom the results are intended to be
communicated. LCA is an iterative process and some choices may have to be made
at a later stage in the study, they are however still seen as part of the goal and scope
definition.
The goal and scope definition shall include (Bauman and Tillman, 1999):
•
Functional unit, which will be used as a reference unit for all data.
•
System boundaries, e.g. which processes to include in the analyzed
system.
•
Types of impacts being considered and thus choice of for which
parameters data will be collected in the inventory analysis.
•
Level of detail in the study and thus the data requirements.
•
Whether or not to perform a critical review and if so of what type.
14 2.3.2
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
Inventory analysis is the second stage of the LCA and here a system is built
according to the requirement specified in the goal and scope definition. A life cycle
inventory is a process of quantifying energy and raw material requirements,
atmospheric emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, and other releases for
the entire life cycle of a product, process, or activity. The data used may come from
a variety of sources, including direct measurements, theoretical material and energy
balances, and statistics from databases and publications.
A framework for performing an inventory analysis and assessing the quality
of the data used and the results have been define to the following four steps of a life
cycle inventory (Environmental Protection Agency, 1993; Environmental Protection
Agency, 1995):
•
Construction of a flow model according to the system boundaries
o The flow model is usually documented as a flow chart
showing the activities included in the analyzed system and the
product flows between these activities.
•
Conduct an LCI data collection plan to ensure that the quality and
accuracy of data meet the expectations of the decision-makers.
o Define data quality goals
o Identifying data sources and types
o Identifying data quality indicators
o Developing a data collection worksheet and checklist
•
Data Collection for all activities in the product system
o These data should include inputs and outputs of all activities,
e.g.:
•
ƒ
Raw materials, including energy carriers
ƒ
Products
ƒ
Solid waste and emissions to air, ground and water
Calculation of environmental loads of the system in relation to the
functional unit.
15 2.3.3
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
Life cycle inventories do not by themselves characterize the environmental
performance of a product, process or service. Overall quantities of a wastes and
emissions, and raw material and energy requirements must be considered in
conjunction with the potency of their effects on the environment. Once the inputs
and outputs of a system have been quantified by the LCI, Impact Assessment (IA)
can be performed. The key steps of a Life Cycle Impact Assessment list as below:
a) Selection and Definition of Impact Categories
Identifying relevant environmental impact categories (e.g., global
warming, acidification, terrestrial toxicity)
b) Classification
Assigning LCI results to the impact categories (e.g., classifying
carbon dioxide emissions to global warming)
c) Characterization
Modelling LCI impacts within impact categories using science-based
conversion factors (e.g., modelling the potential impact of carbon
dioxide and methane on global warming)
d) Normalization
Expressing potential impacts in ways that can be compared (e.g.
comparing the global warming impact of carbon dioxide and methane
for the two options)
e) Grouping
Sorting or ranking the indicators (e.g. sorting the indicators by
location: local, regional, and global)
f) Weighting
Emphasizing the most important potential impacts
g) Evaluating and Reporting LCIA Results
Gaining a better understanding of the reliability of the LCIA results
ISO developed a standard for conducting an impact assessment entitled ISO
14042, Life Cycle Impact Assessment (ISO 14042, 2000a), which states that the first
16 three steps – impact category selection, classification, and characterization – are
mandatory steps for an LCIA.
Step 1: Select and Define Impact Categories
In this stage is to select the impact categories that will be considered as part
of the overall LCA. Impacts are defined as the consequences that could be caused by
the input and output streams of a system on human health, plants, and animals, or the
future availability of natural resources. Typically, LCIAs focus on the potential
impacts to three main categories: human health, ecological health, and resource
depletion. Figure 2.2 shows some of the more commonly used impact categories.
Step 2: Classification
The purpose of classification is to organize and possibly combine the LCI
results into impact categories. For LCI items that contribute to only one impact
category, the procedure is a straightforward assignment.
For LCI items that
contribute to two or more different impact categories, a rule must be established for
classification. There are two ways of assigning LCI results to multiple impact
categories (ISO 14042, 2000a):
a) Partition a representative portion of the LCI results to the impact
categories to which they contribute. This is typically allowed in cases
when the effects are dependent on each other.
b) Assign all LCI results to all impact categories to which they
contribute. This is typically allowed when the effects are independent
of each other.
Step 3: Characterization
Impact characterization factors are uses science-based conversion factors to
convert and combine the LCI results into representative indicators of impacts to
human and ecological health. Characterization factors also are commonly referred to
as equivalency factors. Characterization provides a way to directly compare the LCI
results within each impact category. In other words, characterization factors translate
different inventory inputs into directly comparable impact indicators.
17 Impact indicators are typically characterized using the following equation:
Inventory Data × Characterization Factor = Impact Indicators
By using this equation, different quantities of chemicals can be put on an
equal stage to determine the amount of impact each one has on same emissions field.
Step 4: Normalization
Normalization is an LCIA tool used to express impact indicator data in a way
that can be compared among impact categories. By using a selected reference value,
the indicator results can be normalizes.
There are numerous methods of selecting a reference value, including:
•
The total emissions or resource use for a given area that may be global,
regional or local
•
The total emissions or resource use for a given area on a per capita
basis
•
The ratio of one alternative to another (i.e., the baseline)
•
The highest value among all options
Note that the choice of an appropriate reference value may influence by the
goal and scope of the LCA. Besides that, normalized data can only be compared
within an impact category.
Step 5: Grouping
In order to better facilitate the interpretation of the results into specific areas
of concern, by grouping assigns impact categories into one or more sets. Typically,
grouping involves sorting or ranking indicators. The following are two possible
ways to group LCIA data (ISO 14042, 2000a):
•
Sort indicators by characteristics such as emissions (e.g., air and water
emissions) or location (e.g., local, regional, or global).
•
Sort indicators by a ranking system, such as high, low, or medium
priority. Ranking is based on value choices.
18 Step 6: Weighting
The weighting step of an LCIA assigns weights or relative values to the
different impact categories based on their perceived importance or relevance.
Weighting is important because the impact categories should also reflect study goals
and stakeholder values. Because weighting is not a scientific process, it is vital that
the weighting methodology is clearly explained and documented.
Although weighting is widely used in LCAs, the weighting stage is the least
developed of the impact assessment steps and also is the one most likely to be
challenged for integrity. In general, weighting includes the following activities:
•
Identifying the underlying values of stakeholders
•
Determining weights to place on impacts
•
Applying weights to impact indicators
Step 7: Evaluate and Document the LCIA result
Now that the impact potential for each selected category has been calculated,
the accuracy of the results must be verified. The accuracy must be sufficient to
support the purposes for performing the LCA as defined in the goal and scope. When
documenting the results of the life cycle impact assessment, thoroughly describe the
methodology used in the analysis; define the systems analyzed and the boundaries
that were set, and all assumptions made in performing the inventory analysis.
The LCIA, like all other assessment tools, has inherent limitations. Although
the LCIA process follows a systematic procedure, there are many underlying
assumptions and simplifications, as well subjective value choices.
Depending on the LCIA methodology selected, and/or the inventory data on
which it is based, some of the key limitations may include:
•
Lack of spatial resolution
•
Lack of temporal resolution
•
Inventory speciation
•
Threshold and non-threshold impact
19 The selection of more complex or site-specific impact models can help reduce
the limitations of the impact assessment’s accuracy. It is important to document
these limitations and to include a comprehensive description of the LCIA
methodology, as well as a discussion of the underlying assumptions, value choices,
and known uncertainties in the impact models with the numerical results of the LCIA
to be used in interpreting the results of the LCA.
Even though some methodologies for impact assessment already been
published but there have methodology which is still in the developmental stage
(Owens, 2002). The few life cycle assessment that have been performed in recent
years have generated much interest in the scientific community.
Conceptual
guidelines for IA have been published by SETAC, EPA, and the Canadian Standard
Association (Kasai, 1999). It should be noted that there is still no impact assessment
methodology which is widely accepted.
2.3.4
Life Cycle Interpretation
Life cycle interpretation is a systematic technique to identify, quantify, check,
and evaluate information from the results of the LCI and the LCIA, and
communicate them effectively. Life cycle interpretation is the last phase of the LCA
process.
ISO has defined the following two objectives of life cycle interpretation:
i) Analyze results, reach conclusions, explain limitations, and provide
recommendations based on the findings of the preceding phases of the
LCA, and to report the results of the life cycle interpretation in a
transparent manner.
ii) Provide
a
readily
understandable,
complete,
and
consistent
presentation of the results of an LCA study, in accordance with the
goal and scope of the study. (ISO 14043, 2000b)
20 Figure 2.2 shows the relationship within the ISO standard, the steps to
conducting a life cycle interpretation are (ISO 14043, 2000b),
i) Identification of the significant issues based on LCI and LCIA
ii) Evaluation which considers completeness, sensitivity and consistency
checks
iii) Conclusions, recommendations and reporting
Figure 2.2: Relationship of Interpretation Step with other Phases of LCA
(ISO 14043, 2000b)
Step 1: Identify Significant Issues
The first step of the life cycle interpretation phase involves reviewing
information from the first three phases of the LCA process in order to identify the
data elements that contribute most to the results of both the LCI and LCIA for each
product, process, or service, otherwise known as “significant issues.”
The results of this effort are used to evaluate the completeness, sensitivity,
and consistency of the LCA study (Step 2). The identification of significant issues
guides the evaluation step. Because of the extensive amount of data collected, it is
21 only feasible within reasonable time and resources to assess the data elements that
contribute significantly to the outcome of the results.
Before determining which parts of the LCI and LCIA have the greatest
influence on the results for each alternative, the previous phases of the LCA should
be reviewed in a comprehensive manner (e.g., study goals, ground rules, impact
category weights, results, external involvement, etc.).
Review the information collected and the presentations of results developed
to determine if the goal and scope of the LCA study have been met. If they have, the
significance of the results can then be determined.
Step 2: Evaluate the Completeness, Sensitivity, and Consistency of the Data
The evaluation step of the interpretation phase establishes the confidence in
and reliability of the results of the LCA. This is accomplished by completing the
following tasks to ensure that products/processes are fairly compared:
i) Completeness Check - examining the completeness of the study.
ii) Sensitivity Check - assessing the sensitivity of the significant data
elements that influence the results most greatly.
iii) Consistency Check - evaluating the consistency used to set system
boundaries, collect data, make assumptions, and allocate data to
impact categories for each alternative.
Step 3: Draw Conclusions and Recommendations
The objective of this step is to interpret the results of the life cycle impact
assessment (not the LCI) to determine which product/process has the overall least
impact to human health and the environment, and/or to one or more specific areas of
concern as defined by the goal and scope of the study.
Depending upon the scope of the LCA, the results of the impact assessment
will return either a list of un-normalized and un-weighted impact indicators for each
impact category for the alternatives, or it will return a single grouped, normalized,
22 and weighted score for each alternative, or something in between, e.g., normalized
but not weighted.
In the case where a score is calculated, the recommendation may be to accept
the product/process with the lowest score. Or, it could be to investigate the reasons
how the process could be modified to lower the score. However, do not forget the
underlying assumptions that went into the analysis.
A few words of caution should be noted. It is important to draw conclusions
and provide recommendations based only on the facts. Understanding and
communicating the uncertainties and limitations in the results is equally as important
as the final recommendations. In some instances, it may not be clear which product
or process is better because of the underlying uncertainties and limitations in the
methods used to conduct the LCA or the availability of good data, time, or resources.
In this situation, the results of the LCA are still valuable. They can be used to help
inform decision-makers about the human health and environmental pros and cons,
understanding the significant impacts of each, where they are occurring (locally,
regionally, or globally), and the relative magnitude of each type of impact in
comparison to each of the proposed alternatives included in the study.
2.4
Principles of LCA
LCA can be characterized by the following principle:
•
Life Cycle Perspective: LCA is unique in considering the whole
physical life cycle of a product (or service) system, from raw material
extraction, over energy and material production, manufacturing, use
and end of life operations.
Through such a perspective burden
shifting between life cycle stages or individual processes can be
identified and avoided.
•
Comprehensiveness: LCA ideally includes all environmental aspects,
such as raw material extraction, ecologic systems integrity, and
23 human health considerations.
By including all aspects into one
common assessment, trade-offs can be identified.
•
Transparency:
Due to the inherent complexity in LCA system
assessments, transparency is an important guiding principle in
executing LCA studies, in order to ensure a proper interpretation of
the results.
•
Flexibility: This standard provides overall principles and guidelines
for LCA. The methodology allows specific LCA studies sufficient
flexibility in applying this standard while maintaining a common
methodological framework.
•
Iterative nature: LCA consists of phases: Goal and Scope Definition,
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA),
and Life Cycle Interpretation. This standard defines LCA as iterative
in nature, where the individual phases of an LCA use results of the
preceding phases and requires the standard user to constantly observe
the given goal and scope of the study. The iterative approach within
and between the phases of LCA is important, because it contributes to
the comprehensiveness and consistency of the study and the reported
results.
•
Environmental Focus: LCA studies the environmental aspects of a
product system. Typically economic and social aspects are outside
the study. At the same time LCA provides a systems perspective, so
that other analytical tools may refer to LCA studies for a more
complete environmental assessment than is provided by a site or
individual emission perspective.
•
Science Based: The LCA methodology and LCA studies should be
science based. While the state of scientific knowledge constantly
changes, LCA studies are a snapshot of a given state of knowledge at
a certain time.
•
Relative Nature: LCA’s relate environmental aspects to a product
system. All findings are measured and expressed in environmental
aspect per references unit. In addition, LCA relates a product’s life
cycle impact assessment aspects to reference substances, such as
24 GHG equivalents, which are expressed in equivalent units of carbon
dioxide (CO2).
•
Potential Environmental Impacts:
LCA studies only potential
environmental impacts. Due to the relative expression of impacts to a
reference unit, the integration of environmental releases over space
and time, the inherent uncertainly in modelling environmental impacts,
and the fact that some possible impacts are clearly future impacts, all
impacts are potential in nature.
2.5
The Product Life Cycle
The life cycle of a generic industrial product was defined by SETAC (1991)
as being composed of the following stages;
a) Raw Material Acquisition
Includes all the activities and processes required to obtain material
and energy resources from the earth, such as the extraction of crude
oil. Besides, transportation of the raw materials from one destination
to another destination is also considered part of this stage.
b) Processing and Manufacturing
Include all the activities and processes required to transform resources
into the desired product. In practice this stage is often composed of a
series of substages with intermediate products being formed along the
processing chain.
c) Transportation and Distribution
Include all the activities of transport, storage and distribution that
allow the product to arrive at the customer.
d) Use, Maintenance, Repair
Include the entire phase of product use, including the utilization of the
finished product over it service life.
e) Recycle
Follows the phase of product use and includes all the recycling
options. In open loop recycling, products are recycled into different
25 products. In closed loop recycling, products are recycled again and
again into the same product.
f) Waste Management
Concerns about the non-recyclable fraction of the product and consists
of the management of final waste disposal.
The interaction of these stages with each other and with the external
environment is shown in Figure 2.3. The combined stages constitute the entire
“cradle to grave” system.
Figure 2.3: Stages in the Life Cycle of a Product (SETAC, 1991)
However, it is possible to conduct partial life cycles which in some cases may
be sufficient for the analysis demanded by the study objectives (Todd, 1996). There
are three variants of partial LCAs:
i) Cradle to Gate – Analysis of the portion of life cycle upstream from
the gate.
ii) Gate to Grave – Analysis of the portion of life cycle downstream
from the gate.
26 iii) Gate to Gate – Analysis of the portion of life cycle between two
gates.
2.6
Key Features of LCA and LCA Methodology
LCA is a holistic framework that is distinguished by the following features:
a) Macrosystem or “cradle-to-grave” perspective LCA analyzes environmental interactions throughout the chain of
activities supporting a given process or product technology. b) Multi-criterion perspective LCA analyzes different pathways by which environmental damage is
done. This approach gives a balanced scrutiny of both immediate or
local impacts (e.g., human toxicity, smog formation) as well as longterm or global concerns (e.g., global warming, depletion of nonrenewable resources).
c) Functional unit perspective
Comparison and analysis of alternative technological systems is based
on equivalency of service delivered. For example, instead of
comparing the environmental impacts of 1 litre of gasoline with 1 litre
of diesel, environmental assessment is normalized with respect to the
final service delivered. A more appropriate basis is 1 km of travel by
gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles of equivalent size.
Some major key-features of the LCA methodology are summarized (ISO
14040, 1997):
•
LCA studies should systematically and adequately address the
environmental aspects of product systems, from raw material
acquisition to final disposal.
•
The depth of detail and time frame of an LCA study may vary to a
large extent, depending on the definition of goal and scope.
27 •
The scope, assumptions, description of data quality, methodologies
and output of LCA studies should be transparent. LCA studies should
discuss and document the data sources, and be clearly and
appropriately communicated.
•
Provisions should be made, depending on the intended application of
the LCA study, to respect confidential and proprietary matters.
•
LCA methodology should be amenable to the inclusion of new
scientific findings and improvements in state-of-the art technology.
•
Specific requirements are applied to LCA studies which are used to
make comparative assertions that are disclosed to the public.
•
There is no scientific basis for reducing LCA results to a single
overall score or number, since trade-offs and complexities exist for
the systems analyzed at different stages of their life cycles.
•
There is no single method for conducting LCA studies. Organizations
should have flexibility to implement LCA practically as established in
this International Standard, based upon the specific application and
the requirements of the user.
2.7
Limitation of LCA
Even LCA approach is widely used in several areas. But there are still have
some limitation of LCA that need to be mention in advance, the details shows as
below:
•
The most important limitation is that any results of LCAs are subject
to interpretation as values and priorities differ according to the values
of the audience using the results.
•
A second big problem is the availability and quality of data. The
nature of the system-wide analysis in LCA requires the aggregation of
inputs (i.e. mass, energy) and outputs (i.e. emissions) over a variety of
individual sites, transportation routes, as well as over the whole
lifespan of a product or service. One possible path seems to be a
28 collaborative attitude within sectors and countries and the creation of
public databases.
•
LCA studies typically do not address economic and social aspects. So
it should be clearly understood that LCA is only one of several
environmental management tools and might not always be the most
appropriate one in all situations. Decisions for action in a company
typically involve other factors such as risks, benefits, costs, which
include technical, economic, and social aspects, which are not
addressed by LCA.
•
A careful and balanced view is recommended and additional aspects
have to be taken into consideration before making decisions and
judgments. In particular, a more comprehensive assessment including
economic and social considerations may be necessary to support
decision-making.
•
Lastly, the results of LCA studies are often hard to interpret because
LCA results contain a number of different environmental flows. The
implementation of a LCA study takes too much time to be useful for
designers (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000).
2.8
Uses and Application of LCA
LCA is one of many environmental management tools which designed as a
decision-making tool for designers, regulatory agencies, and business organizations.
It is used to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and process and also
identifies a section within a product or process's life cycle where the greatest
reduction in resource requirements and emissions can be achieved (Berkhout and
Howes, 1997).
According to a survey of organizations actively involved in life-cycle studies,
the most important goal of life-cycle studies is to minimize the magnitude of
pollution (Allen and Shonnard, 2002).
Other goals include conserving non-
29 renewable resources, including energy; ensuring that every effort is being made to
conserve ecological systems; developing alternatives to maximize the recycling and
reuse of materials; and applying the most appropriate pollution prevention or
abatement techniques. As discussed in this section, life-cycle studies have been
applied in many ways such as developing, improving, and comparing products
(Abrassart and Cortijo, 1999).
2.8.1
Product Comparison
The most widely used function of life-cycle studies is for the purpose of
comparing products or services. From literature research, we can find many of this
type of comparison study (Wulf-Peter Schmidt and Frank Butt, 2006; Finkbeiner et
al., 2006). Also, this kind of study has received a great deal of attention. These
studies are often sponsored by organizations that have a high interest in the results of
the studies, most often for decision making purposes. And because of the open-ended
nature of life-cycle studies, there is always room for criticism of the assumptions that
were made regarding the data that were gathered, and the uncertainty that occurred in
the course of the study. Life-cycle studies have generated a great deal of controversy
and debate. They have also created scepticism over the value of life-cycle studies.
This has diverted attention away from some of the less controversial applications,
such as studies conducted in order to improve products (Allen and Shonnard, 2002).
2.8.2
Strategic Planning
One of the important functions life-cycle studies is to provide guidance in
long-term strategic planning concerning trends in product design and materials
(Mildenberger and Khare, 2000).
By their nature, life-cycle studies include
environmental impacts whose costs are external to business (e.g., acid rain formation)
as well as internal (e.g., the cost of waste generation). Assessing these external costs
30 is a key to strategic environmental planning, as regulations tend to internalize what
are currently external costs of doing business.
2.8.3
Public Sector Uses
Life-cycle studies have been heavily used in the public sector since 15years
ago (Vigon, 1994).
Policymakers report that the most important uses of life-cycle
studies are:
a) Helping to develop long-term policies regarding overall material use,
improving resource conservation, and reduction of the environmental
impacts and risks posed by materials and processes throughout the
product life cycle. b) Evaluating resource effects associated with source reduction and
alternative waste management techniques. c) Providing information to the public about the resource characteristics
of products or materials (Ryding, 1994). Some of the most visible applications of life-cycle studies are environmental
or eco-labelling initiatives (Jensen and European Environment Agency, 1998).
Besides environmental labelling programs, public sector uses of life-cycle studies in
making decisions and developing regulations (EPA, 1993). 2.8.4
Product Design and Improvement
Manufacturers also state that the most important uses of life-cycle studies are:
•
To identify processes, ingredients, and system that was major
contributors to environmental impacts (Burgess and Brennan, 2001).
•
To compare different options within a particular process with the
objective of minimizing environmental impacts.
31 Manufacturers have more potential for influencing the environmental impacts
of products than any other "owners" of life-cycle stages. This is because they can
exert some influence over the environmental characteristics of the supplies they use
because manufacturing processes account for a large portion of the wastes generated
in any of the industrial manufacturers. Also the manufacturers determine to some
extent the use and disposal impacts of the products they make.
2.8.5
Choosing Suppliers
Manufacturers have potential to influence the environmental characteristics
of the supplier companies. For example, using a life-cycle approach, Scott Paper
Company found that the issues of major concern were not in the life-cycle stages
directly controlled by the company, but rather by the supplier chain (Curran, 1996).
After making this discovery, Scott required pulp suppliers to provide LCA
information about their processes such as emissions, energy uses, manufacturing
processes, and forestry practices. Following an impact assessment method, they
found that there was considerable variation in performance among suppliers. As a
result of this excise, Scott changed about 10% of its pulp supply base.
Scott
publicized their efforts and its products were seen as environmentally preferable by
consumers and environmental advocacy groups.
2.8.6
Improving Existing Products
Life cycle assessments have been various uses to identify critical areas in
which the environmental performance of a product can be improved (Guo. et al.,
2002).
32 One life-cycle study was conducted during designing stage, for the purpose to
improve the environmental performance of the Mercedes Car Group products,
especially new S-Class model. The Design for Environment approach is based on
the International Standards for LCA (e.g. ISO14020, ISO14021, ISO14040, ISO 1401
and etc.). A LCA software GaBi 4.0 have been use as the supporting software to
analysis all the data such as material production, supplied energy, manufacturing
processes and transport data. The result for this study shown that new S-Class have
save an 85 Giga joules reduction in overall energy demand compared to the
preceding model, it also equal to the energy content of approximately 2,500 litres of
fuel. Besides that, emissions of the carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas have been
reduced by 7% with a 14% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions compared to the
previous S-Class. The total weight of components made by renewable raw materials
were increase up to 73% when compare to the previous S-Class. Therefore, as long
as the LCA and DfE concept have been “built” into the product, the impact of
environmental bring by Mercedes S-Class Car will be in a decreasing trend.
(Finkbeiner. et al., 2006)
In yet, another case study have been conducted by Wulf-Peter Schmidt and
Frank Butt (2006) from Ford Werke GmbH in Germany, to evaluate the Product
Sustainability Index (PSI) of Ford S-Max and Ford Galaxy by considered Life Cycle
Environmental and Cost aspects (Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing).
Since 2002, the engineers of the Vehicle Integration department within the product
development organization were start to tracking the PSI performance of above 2
products.
The method of evaluate PSI score have been translated in an easy
spreadsheet tool, therefore the need for incremental time or additional data is reduced
to the minimum level and it make PSI to be adopted as an existing decision-making
process. End of 2005, LCA and LCC verifications have been done by an internal
expert by using commercial software. The calculation performance by using the
simplified spreadsheet tool only have less than 2% are insignificant while compare
the calculation performance by using an expert LCA tool. Therefore, it proved that
Ford of Europe found a way to make life cycle tools applicable with a minimum need
for resources, without additional bureaucracy but with high accuracy. So it will be
use as an important tool during the product development process in Ford of Europe.
33 2.8.7
Using Life Cycle Concepts in Early Product Design Phase
Increasingly, environmental aspects are included with a core group of design
criteria among the traditionally dominant design boundaries: performance, cost,
cultural requirements, and legal requirements. Life-cycle studies can be used to
assess environmental performance (EPA, 1993; Khan, F.I., Sadiq, R., and Husain, T.,
2002).
As we have mentioned in earlier chapters, optimizing environmental
performance from the beginning of the design process has the possibility of the
largest gains, but it is a moving target as markets, technologies, and scientific
understanding of impacts change. However, as stated earlier, roughly 80% of the
environmental costs of a product are determined at the design phase, and
modifications made to the product at later stages may have only modest effects
(Allen and Shonnard, 2002). Thus, it is in the early design phase that life-cycle
studies for improving the environmental performance of a product are most useful.
So, LCA is useful in evaluation of product design options.
2.9
Standardisation of LCA (ISO Series)
“Standards are documented agreements containing technical specifications or
other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of
characteristics, to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for
their purpose.” (ISO 14040, 1997)
A Standardisation of the LCA methods has conducted by the International
Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).
ISO is a non-governmental, worldwide
federation of national standards bodies from some 130 countries, one from each
country, which was established in 1947. The standards on LCA are a part of the ISO
14000 series, which is a series of international, voluntary environmental standards
developed under ISO Technical Committee 2007. Published documents and ongoing
work address the following areas (ISO 14040, 1997):
34 •
Environmental management systems
•
Environmental
auditing
and
other
related
environmental
investigations
•
Environmental performance evaluation
•
Environmental labelling
•
Life Cycle Assessment
•
Environmental aspects in product standards
•
Terms and definitions
The ISO 14040 series on Life Cycle Assessment are listed as below:
•
ISO 14040 Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Principles and Framework (ISO 14040, 1997)
•
ISO 14041 Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis (ISO 14041, 1998)
•
ISO 14042 Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (ISO 14042, 2000a)
•
ISO 14043 Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Life Cycle Interpretation (ISO 14043, 2000b)
2.10
Summary
LCA is useful in guiding from design choices to policy frameworks. LCA
allows the user to take an overview at the situation rather than focusing narrowly on
a narrow range of issues. LCA is useful for assessing the impact of human activities.
By assessing these impacts over a life cycle, from raw material acquisition to
manufacture, use, and final disposal will help decision makers fully understood the
effect of the impacts. The main contribution of LCA is provides systems perspective
to engineering, design and policy analysis. LCA can provide an objective means of
comparing the environmental impacts of products, processes, services, and policies
as well as giving the priority to highlight areas for improvement.
35 The period that can bring most effectively and economically resolved to
environmental concerns are identified LCA concepts early in product or process
development stage. Life cycle studies also can be used as tools to aid in decision
making.
Life cycle assessments of products can help to identify areas for
environmental improvement. Life cycle assessments can also help identify processes,
components, ingredients, and system that are major contributors to environmental
impacts, and they can used to compare options for minimizing environmental
impacts.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Overview
According to ISO 14040 frameworks, the LCA methods are used to evaluate
the environmental performance of processes and products from “cradle to grave” by
according to the four importance phases of an LCA. The four importance phases are
Goal and Scope Definition, Life Cycle Inventory, Life Cycle Impact Assessment and
Life Cycle Interpretation.
The objective of this project is to implement the Life Cycle Assessment
knowledge into an existing product for design improvement and attempts to evaluate
the environmental burdens associated with a product, process and use by:
•
To identify and evaluating the types of impacts being considered such
as carcinogens, radiation, land use and fossil fuels which related to the
human health, ecosystem, and resources.
•
To develop and analyse alternatives by design improvement in order
to reduce the environmental impacts.
•
To compare all alternatives and select the optimum alternative which
will bring the greatest environmental benefit.
The assessment should consider all the activities related to the manufacture of
a product or operation of a process; this includes activities such as processing of raw
37 materials, manufacturing, transportation and distribution, use/reuse, recycling and
final disposal.
3.2
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
Inventory analysis is the second stage of the LCA and here a system is built
to define all aspects of the materials and manufacturing process. A commercial
software call SimaPro 7.1 will be using for doing the analysis of this project. All
steps in the manufacturing process are evaluated, besides individual processes and
sub-systems (such as energy supply or transport, etc.) also need to be evaluated to
determine the emissions released to the environment. The environmental profile of
manufacturing processes, use of product, recycling and disposal have been collected
from various sources, the following Life Cycle Stages were being considered:
a) Manufacturing Stage
Aluminium casting processes, Metal stamping process, Plastic
moulding processes, Spray painting processes and etc.
b) Use stage
The environmental impact of the product has been analyzed
considering a 5 years.
c) Recycling / Waste management stage
Disposal to landfill and energy recovery through 100% waste
incineration of product were calculated.
Recycling and reuse
scenarios also will be calculated.
3.3
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
Once the inventory has been completed, the impact assessment will aims at
describing the impacts of the environmental loads quantified in the inventory
analysis.
aggregate.
Based on the inventory information, a fewer parameters need to be
38 a) Classification
All the inventory parameters need to be classifying according to the
type of environmental impact they contribute to. For the emissions
are grouped into a number of impact categories. One substance can
occur in several different impact categories.
b) Characterisation
Characterisation is mainly a quantitative process in which the relative
contributions to each impact category are assessed. It also should be
based on a scientific analysis of the cause-effect chain in the systems.
c) Weighting
Weighting means aggregation of characterisation results across impact
categories.
Eco-indicator 99 method will be chosen for evaluating the impacts of the
product. In the Eco-indicator 99 method characterisation and weighting that are
performed at damage category level will be discuss. Besides, the discussion will
focus on three damage categories which consist by different impact categories. The
damage categories and impact categories indicators that linked to them are listed in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Damage and impact categories in the Eco-indicator method in SimaPro
Damage Category Impact Category
Carcinogens
Respiratory Organics
Respiratory Inorganics
Human Health
Climate Change
Radiation
Ozone Layer
Ecotoxicity
Ecosystem Quality Acidification / Eutrophication
Land Use
Minerals
Resources
Fossil Fuels
39 3.4
Life Cycle Interpretation
Interpretation is the final phase of LCA.
All significant environmental
impacts (e.g. fossil fuels, ecotoxicity and respiratory inorganics) are made for each
material or process as are comparisons between alternatives causes of action. The
alternative that provides some improvements over other alternatives is selected.
Improvement is defines as compliance with saving of energy required while
increasing performance and quality in term of lesser production of emissions.
3.5
Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made:
•
All calculations have been made by weight of product.
•
All products will have the product life of 5 years.
3.6
Life Cycle Assessment Boundary
Product system contributions to environmental effects can occur at every
point of the life cycle of the product, right through from the extraction of the original
materials and energy resources, the transformation of these into useable
manufacturing inputs, the manufacturing process itself, the transport and distribution
of intermediate and end products, and the use and final disposal. Thus, we choose to
include all stages in the life cycle from ‘cradle to grave’ and even attempted to
estimate construction energy for the main transport and processing equipment.
40 3.7
Summary
LCA study will be carryout to fulfil the objective that has been made.
SimaPro 7.1 will be used to analysis the selected product. Two assumptions have
been made for carryout this project.
Besides that the aspects of materials and
manufacturing processes are been defined in life cycle inventory stage. Other than
that, Eco-indicator 99 has been choose for evaluating the impacts of the product and
the results will be discuss in Chapter 4.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1
Overview
In this project, a case study has been carryout for implement life cycle
assessment method on an existing product by using SimaPro 7. The product that
been choose is Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater. The life cycle inventory and
life cycle impact assessment will discuss the environmental impacts of current design
and 3 suggestion alternatives. At the end of the chapter, life cycle interpretation will
discuss about the results in detail.
4.2
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater Case Study (Life Cycle
Inventory)
In this section, the materials and manufacturing processes data will input into
SimaPro 7. All the processes and materials are calculated by weight.
4.2.1
Introduction of Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater is a product that designed to keep
warm of the user’s leg especially office workers who always sit on their personal
workplace while doing their job. This product is new in the market and only sells at
42 Japan.
The Figure 4.1 shows the external appearance of the microcomputer
controlled foot heater.
Figure 4.1: Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater
The external dimension of this product is 40cm x 30cm x 3cm and weight is
about 1.6kg, so it does not interrupt feet area and is thin, light, easy to carry and store.
Besides that, this product has double safe designed for extreme caution by
incorporating a temperature fuse in the main body and a current fuse in the power
code to ensure absolute peace of mind. The temperature can be control with 3-stepswitching; low, middle or high. Lastly the used of electricity per hour is only
0.06kW/h. So the electricity consumption is very low for this product.
In this case study, we will look forward to the objective of this project which
mention in the methodology section. In order to study the environmental impact of
this product, we analyse the current design and also developed 3 alternatives for the
design improvement. All 3 alternatives were developed according to environmental
friendly product design guidelines. The design aspects that selected in this guideline
include (Tamura, H., Tokumou, T., and Sakuma, O., 2001):
•
Design of long-life product
•
Selection of material and parts
•
Recycling and disposal design
All the material / assemblies, process, disposal scenario, disassembles and
reuse data were collected for modelling the above alternatives. The differences
between current design and 3 alternatives will discuss further on in this chapter.
Therefore, the result of impact assessment will discuss at Chapter 5. So at the end of
43 this project, we will choose the optimum alternative which will bring the greatest
environmental benefit.
4.2.2
Product Stages
In this section, we will discuss about the product assembly, product life cycle,
product disposal scenario, product disassembly and product reuse stage. Each stages
consists of different elements, such as material / assemblies, processes, waste /
disposal scenario, additional life cycle, waste scenario, disassemblies, reuse and etc.
Current design and alternative 1 can be group together as 1 category, because
all the parts are manufacture by using 0% recycled raw material. The different of
current design and alternative 1 is the recycle / disposal scenarios of the product. In
alternative 2 and 3, 100% recycled raw material have been used to produces some of
the parts which are Heater plate, Heatsink and Top case. Besides that, the solder
used to mounting PCB surface also change from lead containing solder to lead free
solder. The Table 4.1 shows the differences between each alternative:
Table 4.1: Comparison Table of Current Design and Alternative 1, 2, and 3
Current Design
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Raw Material
0% Recycled
0% Recycled
100% Recycled 100% Recycled
Manufacturing (Aluminium)
Processes
Stage
Lead-containing Solder Lead-containing Solder Lead-free Solder Lead-free Solder
(PCB)
Disposal
100%
45%
72%
38%
Product End
Recycle
55%
22%
22%
of Life Stage
Reuse
6%
40%
4.2.2.1.Product Stage (Assembly)
In this stage, we will look at the parts that need for assemble a microcomputer
controlled foot heater. It consists of 13 types of part and usages which are listed as
the Table 4.2:
44 Table 4.2: List of part for Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Parts
Base
Control Panel
Gasket
Heater Plate
Heatsink
Isolator
PC Name Plate
Quantity
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number
8
9
10
11
12
13
Parts
PCB
Power Cord
Rubber Foot
Side Ring
Thermal Fuse
Top Case
Quantity
1
1
4
1
2
1
Others than the lists of table, the explosion view of this product is shown as
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.2: Explosion view of Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater
In order to assembly this product; it may used 0.035kWh to assemble it. This
is the electricity used for assembly this product.
45 4.2.2.2.Data for Current Design and Alternative 1
The Table 4.3 at below showed the materials / processes and the amount of
usage for producing each parts of this product. In current design, all parts will
dispose after the product reach end of life.
However, alternative 1 will consider
about the environmental impacts so a few parts will be choose for recycle and the
others will still go to disposal. Those parts that been choose for recycle are Base,
Control Panel, Heatsink and Top Case. Therefore, alternative 1 will let the product
have 55% of parts take to recycle and 45% of part directly go to disposal.
46 Table 4.3: Data for Current Design and Alternative 1
Part Name
Materials / Processes
Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, ABS
Base
Injection moulding
Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, ABS
Control Panel
Injection moulding
NBR I
Gasket
Injection moulding PVC I
Steel I
Nickel I
Heater Plate
Aluminium 0% Recycled
Metal product manufacturing
Aluminium 0% Recycled
Heatsink
Cold impact extrusion, aluminium
Polycarbonate
Isolator
Glass fibre I
Injection moulding
Polycarbonate
PC Name Plate
Extrusion I
Resistor
Capacitor
Diode
Integrated circuit, IC, memory type
Printed Circuit Board Integrated circuit, IC, logic type
(PCB)
Light emitting diode, LED
Transistor
Electronic componenet
Printed wiring board, surface mount, lead-containing surface
Mounting, surface mounting technology, lead-containing solder
Copper
Polystyrene
Power Cord
Electronic componenet
Injection moulding
Polyurethane
Rubber Foot
Thermoforming
Polyethylene Terephthalate, PET
Side Ring
Polypropylen, PP
Injection moulding
Thermal Fuse
Electronic componenet
Aluminium 0% Recycled
Top Case
Selective coating, aluminium sheet
Aluminium product manufacturing
Amount Unit
388.0 g
385.7 g
13.0 g
13.1 g
2.0 g
2.0 g
14.2 g
57.0 g
57.0 g
128.2 g
6.8 g
6.8 g
233.8 g
100.2 g
332.0 g
2.0 g
2.0 g
0.8 g
3.0 g
1.2 g
11.6 g
4.0 g
0.9 g
0.1 g
12.0 g
80 cm2
30 cm2
24.0 g
76.8 g
1.0 g
77.3 g
1.3 g
1.3 g
68.4 g
45.6 g
113.3 g
0.9 g
627.7 g
2340 mm2
487.0 g
Name of Database
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
IDEMAT 2001
IDEMAT 2001
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
ETH-ESU 96 system processes
ETH-ESU 96 system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
4.2.2.3.Data for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
In alternative 2, it has changed in 2 situations. First is focus on the material
selection, the aluminium with 100% recycled been choose to replace the aluminium
with 0% recycled in order to produce heatsink, heater plate and top case. Other than
the replacement material for aluminium, the solder used to surface mount on PCB
also changed from lead-containing to lead-free. Second situation is focus on PCB
improvement. A concept, named electronic data log (EDL) was introduced enabling
47 realisation of design for reuse (Klausner, M., Grimm, W., and Hendrickson, C.,
1998). EDL system is a technology that allows memory type integrated circuit (IC)
to record the activities of the PCB. By implement this EDL system includes the
functionality as below;
•
Counting the number of starts and stops of the product
•
Storing the runtime of each individual use cycle as well as the
accumulated runtime
•
Recording and compiling sensor information, such as the heater
temperature and the power consumption in each individual use cycle
•
Classifying and evaluating the record data
So when the product being collects back from the market, this product can
put on a jig for analyze and retrieve the recorded data. It will help the manufacturer
to know the condition of the PCB either the components on the PCB still in good
condition and able to be reuse or the components on the PCB already reach it end of
life.
Besides that, the information of usage will help the manufacturer to improve
the quality of the product. Therefore, EDL system will help to reduce the reject and
scrap of the PCB while manufacturing it. At the same time, it helps to increase the
percentage of reuse the PCB into new product in close loop recycles. Therefore,
alternative 2 will reduced the environmental impacts by material selection and PCB
improvement. So alternative 2 will let the product have 22% recycle, 6% reuse and
72% disposal.
In alternative 3, the improvement that make in alternative 2 will be followed
but with additional improvement which will reuse back the top case and heatsink that
manufacture by using 100% recycled aluminium.
Even both of the parts are
manufacture by recycled aluminium, but it still can be reuse to produce a new
microcomputer controlled foot heater if both parts still in good conditions. The only
processes that need to add in this alternative are the process of recoating the top case
in order to make it look as a new part. So alternative 3 will let the product have 22%
recycle, 40% reuse and 38% disposal. Table 4.4 shows the materials / processes and
the amount of usage of alternative 2 and alternative 3 for producing each parts of this
product.
48 Table 4.4: Data for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
Part Name
Materials / Processes
Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, ABS
Base
Injection moulding
Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, ABS
Control Panel
Injection moulding
NBR I
Gasket
Injection moulding PVC I
Steel I
Nickel I
Heater Plate
Aluminium 100% Recycled
(Recycle)
Metal product manufacturing
Aluminium 100% Recycled
Heatsink
Cold impact extrusion, aluminium
(Recycle)
Polycarbonate
Glass fibre I
Isolator
Injection moulding
Polycarbonate
PC Name Plate
Extrusion I
Resistor
Capacitor
Diode
Printed Circuit Integrated circuit, IC, memory type
Integrated circuit, IC, logic type
Board
Light emitting diode, LED
(PCB)
Transistor
(Reusable)
Electronic componenet
Printed wiring board, surface mount, lead-free surface
Mounting, surface mounting technology, lead-free solder
Copper
Polystyrene
Power Cord
Electronic componenet
Injection moulding
Polyurethane
Rubber Foot
Thermoforming
Polyethylene Terephthalate, PET
Polypropylen, PP
Side Ring
Injection moulding
Thermal Fuse Electronic componenet
Aluminium 100% Recycled
Top Case
Selective coating, aluminium sheet
(Recycle)
Aluminium product manufacturing
4.2.3
Amount Unit
388.0 g
385.7 g
13.0 g
13.1 g
2.0 g
2.0 g
14.2 g
57.0 g
57.0 g
128.2 g
6.8 g
6.8 g
233.8 g
100.2 g
332.0 g
2.0 g
2.0 g
0.8 g
3.0 g
1.2 g
11.6 g
4.0 g
0.9 g
0.1 g
12.0 g
80 cm2
30 cm2
24.0 g
76.8 g
1.0 g
77.3 g
1.3 g
1.3 g
68.4 g
45.6 g
113.3 g
0.9 g
627.7 g
2340 mm2
487.0 g
Name of Database
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
IDEMAT 2001
IDEMAT 2001
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
IDEMAT 2001
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
ETH-ESU 96 system processes
ETH-ESU 96 system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Ecoinvent system processes
Product Stage (Life Cycle)
In this stage, the current design and each alternative have been separate into
different analysis.
In each analysis, the electric consumption that used by this
product over its life cycle will be considered. Besides that, the waste and disposal
49 scenario also will be considered. Table 4.5 shows the differences between each
analysis.
Table 4.5: Product Life Cycle Analysis
Current Design
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Assembly
Assembly Name
Amount Unit
Foot Heater
1p
Foot Heater (Alternative 1)
1p
Foot Heater (Alternative 2)
1p
Foot Heater (Alternative 3)
1p
Processes
Waste / Disposal Scenario
Process Name
Amount Unit
Electricity Nuclear BWR
312 kWh FH Disposal (Full Disposal)
Electricity Nuclear BWR
312 kWh FH Disposal (Alternative 1)
Electricity Nuclear BWR
312 kWh FH Disposal (Alternative 2)
Electricity Nuclear BWR
312 kWh FH Disposal (Alternative 3)
From the table we can notice that, the assembly have been defining into 4
analyses which already explain in the previous stage. For the processes that will be
calculated in this stage is the electricity usage. Due to this product will be use at
Japan and we know that Japan are using Nuclear electricity (type BWR) to supply
their nation used. As we mention at the beginning of this chapter, we know that this
product hourly electricity consumption is only 0.06kWh and the product life cycle
that been considered is 52 weeks per year for 5 years. Besides, the product will be
used for 8 hours per day and 5 days per week. Therefore, the amount of electricity
used in this project is 312kWh for the whole life cycle of this product. Lastly, we
notice that each analysis having different waste / disposal scenario. The detail of
each waste / disposal scenario will be explained further on.
4.2.4
Product Stage (Disposal Scenario)
In disposal scenario stage, the percentage for waste scenarios and
disassemblies will be set according to the parts weight. For example, total weight for
heatsink and top case are 0.634kg and the total weight of this product is 1.86kg.
Therefore, the total percentage of top case and heatsink in total weight is 34%. So
when both of these parts select for recycle it will help disassemblies to claim 34%
from the overall. Further information will be show in Table 4.6 and Table 4.7.
50 Table 4.6: Product Disposal Scenario Analysis
FH Disposal (Full Disposal)
FH Disposal (Alternative 1)
FH Disposal (Alternative 2)
FH Disposal (Alternative 3)
Assembly
Assembly Name
Amount Unit
Foot Heater
1p
Foot Heater (Alternative 1)
1p
Foot Heater (Alternative 2)
1p
Foot Heater (Alternative 3)
1p
Waste Scenarios
Waste Scenario Name
Percentage
Municipal waste NL B250
100%
Municipal waste NL B250
45%
Municipal waste NL B250
72%
Municipal waste NL B250
38%
Disassemblies
Disassemblies Name
Percentage
FH Disassembly (Alternative 1)
55%
FH Disassembly (Alternative 2)
28%
FH Disassembly (Alternative 3)
62%
Table 4.7: Parts Disposal Scenario Analysis
Assembly
Processes
Waste Scenarios
Reuse
Assembly Name
Amount Unit Processes Name
Amount Unit Waste Scenario Name
Percentage Reuse Name
Percentage
Base
Base
1p
- Recycling only B250 avoided
100%
Control Panel Control Panel
1p
- Recycling only B250 avoided
100%
Heatsink
1p
- Recycling only B250 avoided
100%
Heatsink
Heatsink (Recycle)
1p
Heatsink (Reusable)
100%
PCB
PCB (Reusable)
1p
PCB (Reusable)
100%
Top Case
1 p Degreasing with alkaline
2340 mm2 Recycling only B250 avoided
100%
Top Case
Top Case (Recycle)
1 p Degreasing with alkaline
2340 mm2
Top Case (Reusable)
100%
4.2.5
Product Stage (Disassemblies)
In disassemblies’ stage, those parts that need to recycle or reuse will need to
clarify into percentage and for other parts will choose to be disposal as municipal
waste. Besides that, the processes for disassemble a product will use 0.035kWh
which the electricity was generate from coal. The details as shown in Table 4.8:
Table 4.8: Disassemblies Scenario
Assembly
Processes
Assembly Name Amount Unit Process Name
Amount Unit
FH Disassemble Foot Heater
(Alternative 1) (Alternative 1)
1p
Electricity from coal B250
0.035 kWh
FH Disassemble Foot Heater
(Alternative 2) (Alternative 2)
1p
Electricity from coal B250
0.035 kWh
FH Disassemble Foot Heater
(Alternative 3) (Alternative 3)
1p
Electricity from coal B250
0.035 kWh
Sub-assemblies
Disposal Scenarios
Sub-assembly
Percentage
Base (Recycle)
100%
Control Panel (Recycle)
100%
Heatsink (Recycle)
100%
Top Case (Recycle)
100%
Base (Recycle)
100%
Control Panel (Recycle)
100%
PCB (Reuse)
100%
Base (Recycle)
100%
Control Panel (Recycle)
100%
Heatsink (Reuse)
100%
PCB (Reuse)
100%
Top Case (Reuse)
100%
Remainding Waste Scenarios
Waste Treatment
Percentage
Municipal waste NL B250
100%
Municipal waste NL B250
100%
Municipal waste NL B250
100%
51 4.2.6
Product Stage (Reuse)
In reuse stage, there are only 3 parts will be reuse for manufacture new
product. The heatsink (recycle) and top case (recycle) were manufacture by using
100% recycled aluminium therefore it was not suitable for recycle again. So in
alternative 3, both of these parts being choose for reuse again, but the top case need
to go through a degreasing process to remove the coating on it. For the PCB (reuse)
it was design for reusable with implement the EDL systems into it. So the PCB will
be able to reuse to manufacture new product. The details as shown in Table 4.9:
Table 4.9: Reuse Scenario
Heatsink (Reuse)
PCB (Reuse)
Top Case (Reuse)
4.3
Assembly
Assembly Name
Amount Unit
Heatsink (Recycle)
1p
PCB (Reusable)
1p
Top Case (Recycle)
1p
Processes
Process Name
Amount
Electricity from coal B250 0.025
Degreasing with alkaline
2340
Unit
kWh
mm2
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater Case Study (Life Cycle Impact
Assessment)
In this section, the results of the characterisation and weighting in the life
cycle impact assessment are presented and discussed. The results are all presented in
column graphs. Tables with the life cycle impact assessment results are presented at
the end of the appendix. Each of the alternatives will be presented and discussed
separately and then compared. All the results are calculated with Eco-indicator 99
method.
52 4.3.1
Current Design, 100% Disposal
Current design is the present waste management practice that been used by
the manufacturer, where the waste is 100% disposal after the product reach end of
life. Figure 4.3 shows the results of characterisation in current design in a product
life cycle of 5 years.
Figure 4.3: Characterisation results of Current Design for product with 5 years life
cycle
In Figure 4.3 the impact categories are shown on the x-axis and the product
usages in percentage on the y-axis.
The product usages are the product itself,
electricity usage during the product cycle, and product disposal scenario. The impact
for manufacturing the product is at high score level which are score in 8 out of 11
impact categories. The other 3 impact categories were score by the electricity usage
during the product cycle. Lastly, the decision for 100% disposal was only at very
small percentage in the overall impact score.
Figure 4.4 shows weight results of current design. The seriousness of the
results for the various environmental impact categories presented in Figure 4.3 has
been assessed to make them comparable.
The unit “Pt” on the y-axis is the
percentage of the inventory score, which will explain the inventory score of each
impact categories.
53 Figure 4.4: Weight results of Current Design for product with 5 years life cycle
According to Figure 4.4, respiratory inorganics, land use, and fossil fuels
cause the most serious environmental impacts in current design, for 5 years life cycle.
Land use here means the damage of either conversion of land or occupation of land.
The score for land use was high is because of the nuclear electricity generation plants
occupy a large area for build the plant and the plant will also bring environmental
impact to the society. The fossil fuels and respiratory inorganics also have high
environmental impact score and the most of the score is due to the process for
manufacture a microcomputer controlled foot heater.
Figure 4.5 shows single score result of current design. All the environmental
impacts been categories into three groups which are foot heater, electricity nuclear
BWR and FH disposal (full disposal). The detail information can be referring to the
Figure 4.5 at below.
54 Figure 4.5: Single score results of Current Design for product with 5 years life cycle
According to the Figure 4.5, most of the environmental impacts are due to
manufacture the foot heater itself with score as 2.51Pt and it followed by the
electricity usage as 2.04Pt. The impacts for disposal this product was only bring
0.02Pt to the environment. Therefore, the current design that applies by the company
will get the total impact for manufacture product itself, electricity usage and disposal
scenario as 4.57Pt when whole product is going to dispose after reach end of life.
4.3.2
Alternative 1, Recycling and disposal design
In order to reduce the environmental impact, Alternative 1 was proposed in
this project by followed the environmental friendly product design guideline which
was focus on recycling and disposal design. The recycling and disposal design were
focus on which parts should be recycle and which parts should be dispose after the
product reach end of life. So the selection of materials was very important in the
design. A recyclable material will allow manufacturer to recycle it for making other
product. For example, ABS parts like base and control panel will be able to recycle
after reach end of life. Besides, parts like top case and heatsink that make by
aluminium also allow being recycled. However, unrecyclable parts like gasket,
isolator, side ring and etc. were not able to recycle. It may due to the material was
55 not recyclable or the material was mix from a few types of raw material therefore it
also cannot be recycle. Therefore, in Figure 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 will discuss the result
after improve on recycling and disposal design.
Figure 4.6: Characterisation results of Alternative 1 for product with 5 years life
cycle
According Figure 4.6, the result shows that the environmental impacts score
are in positive and negative value. The positive score is point to the impacts score of
current design and electricity usage which have been discuss on the current design
part. So the negative value is point to the impacts score that can be reduce if
alternative 1 is implement by the manufacturer.
From the figure 4.6, it clearly
shows that the impact of respiratory organics can be reducing as 21%, impact of
fossil fuels can be reducing up to 11% and other impact like minerals, acidification,
respiratory inorganics and etc also will be reduces in 10% or below.
From Figure 4.7 at below, it can be seen that the major environmental
impacts caused by alternative 1 during the product life cycle are the same as the
current design. The differences of the environmental impacts that caused by fossil
fuels and respiratory inorganics are reduced up to 13% as 0.12Pt and 6.7% as 0.06Pt.
But there is only a little reduction on other impacts. Besides, the impacts caused by
land use is only reduced in very little amount which not even 0.1% of the overall
impacts of land use.
56 Figure 4.7: Weight results of Alternative 1 for product with 5 years life cycle
Figure 4.8: Single score results of Alternative 1 for product with 5 years life cycle
In Figure 4.8 environmental impact score of alternative 1 have the same value
which are 2.51Pt from the product itself and 2.04Pt from electricity usage. But the
environmental impact score will bring 0.215Pt reduction to the overall impact score
if alternative 1 being implement. Therefore, when alternative 1 is applies by the
company which consist of 55% recyclable parts and 45% unrecyclable parts, the
environmental impact score will be reduced up to 5% in total score of current design.
57 4.3.3
Alternative 2, PCB improvement and Material selection
In alternative 1, material selection has been implementing for choosing the
recyclable material to manufacture some of the parts like Top Case, heatsink and etc.
But in alternative 2, the material selection is focus to the recycled material that used
to manufacture top case and heatsink. Besides that, the improvement on PCB design
also will be considered in this alternative which is implement electronic data log
(EDL) system to the PCB. The detail of EDL system has been discussed on previous
chapter. Besides the changes at above, the ABS plastic parts like Base and control
will be taken to recycle after the product reach end of life. Therefore, in Figure 4.9,
4.10 and 4.11 will discuss the results after improvement on PCB and select recycled
aluminium to manufacture top case and heatsink.
Figure 4.9: Characterisation results of Alternative 2 for product with 5 years life
cycle
According to the Figure 4.9, the result shows that alternative 2 will able to
reduce more environmental impacts than alternative 1.
This alternative has let
impact categories like carcinogen reduced 19% and ecotoxicity reduced 16%. These
two impacts was not been reducing in alternative 1.
58 Figure 4.10: Weight results of Alternative 2 for product with 5 years life cycle
In Figure 4.10, the impact category land use still has the height weight score
to the environmental and the impact of it was not able to be reducing if this
alternative is implementing. Secondly is follow by fossil fuels impact, but fossil
fuels was able to reduce the impact as 13% if alternative 2 been implement. Then
the impact follow by the cause of respiratory inorganics, this impact was reducing as
6.7%.
The reduction of impact category carcinogens was as 25% of the total
carcinogens impacts.
Figure 4.11: Single score results of Alternative 2 for product with 5 years life cycle
59 From the Figure 4.11, the result shows that the environmental impacts score
of the product that implement alternative 2 is lesser than the impacts score of
alternative 1 which only has 2.01Pt. But the environmental impacts score that bring
by electricity are remain the same as 2.04Pt. Lastly, the potential reduction of
environmental impacts score is 0.305Pt if alternative 2 being implement to the
product.
4.3.4
Alternative 3, Design for reuse
In alternative 3, the design for reuse is being implemented based on the
improvement on alternative 2.
Therefore parts like top case and heatsink that
manufacture by recycled aluminium will be consider for reuse to making new
product in alternative 3. Besides that, PCB also will remain the design that proposed
in alternative 2 in order to be reusing it after product being collected back from the
customer. Others than the above parts, base and control panel that manufacture by
ABS plastic will take to recycle after product being collected back. Therefore, in
Figure 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14 will discuss about the results after implemented design for
reuse concepts.
Figure 4.12: Characterisation results of Alternative 3 for product with 5 years life
cycle
60 According to the Figure 4.12, the result shows that the environmental impacts
have greater reduction compare to previous alternative. The impacts have getting
about 20% more reduction compare to alternative 2. For example, impact category
carcinogen was reduced 19% in alternative 2 but it can be reduced up to 46% in
alternative 3. These can be seen in others impact categories too.
Figure 4.13: Weight results of Alternative 3 for product with 5 years life cycle
According to Figure 4.13, the weight results of alternative 3 were not big
different compare to weight results of alternative 2. The only different are impact
categories ecotoxicity and land use will get a little reduction when alternative 3 is
implementing.
Figure 4.14: Single score results of Alternative 3 for product with 5 years life cycle
61 From Figure 4.14, the result shows that by implementing alternative 3, the
process and material that used to manufacture foot heater will generate 2.01Pt
environmental impacts score and electricity usage during the product life cycle is
2.04Pt.
But implementing alternative 3 will get 0.785Pt reduction on the
environmental impacts score of the product. So the total environmental impacts
score after alternative 3 being implementing is 3.26Pt.
4.3.5
Comparison of the current design and three alternatives
The comparison on weight results of each impact assessment for current
design and all alternatives are shown in Figure 4.15.
Figure 4.15: Comparison on weight results of current design and all alternatives
According to Figure 4.15 the environmental impact of current design and all
alternatives is in reducing trend. The impact is mainly land use and fossil fuels. As
noted before current design has higher impact, therefore implementing of alternatives
will help to reduce the impact of the environment. The product was only generated a
very small amount impact of respiratory organics and ozone layer. So these two
categories can be avoided.
On the other hand, the other impacts of propose
alternatives have been reduced compare to the impact of current design. But the
62 impact category radiation was only reduced 0.002Pt in each entire alternatives that
being proposed. Other than impact category radiation, the impact of land use also
just has a small reduction which is 0.03Pt when alternative 3 being implementing.
The large reduction can be seen at the impact of respiratory inorganics and fossil
fuels. These two impacts have direct link to the raw material manufacturing process.
Therefore, by implementing design of reuse at alternative 3 will help to reduce both
impacts in large reduction.
In Figure 4.16, the comparison on weight results of current design and all
alternatives has grouped the impacts into three categories there are human health,
ecosystem quality and resources.
Figure 4.16: Comparison on weight results of current design and all alternatives in
human health, ecosystem quality and resources
Referring to Figure 4.16, the result shows that current design having the
highest impacts scores to human health and the following impact are ecosystem
quality and resources. When alternative 3 being implement, the human health impact
score is reduced from 1.86Pt to 1.22Pt, the ecosystem quality impact score is reduced
from 1.48Pt to 1.37Pt and the resources impact score is reduced from 1.22Pt to
0.675Pt. These showing that, implementing of alternative 3 bring greater benefit to
the human health and resources. But it just brings a little reduction to the ecosystem
quality.
63 Figure 4.17 shows the single score results of current design and all
alternatives, the results will be discussed at below.
Figure 4.17: Comparison on single score results of current design and all alternatives
From the Figure 4.17, the result shows that Alternative 3 will bring the
greatest environmental benefits to the society. By implementing alternative 3, most
of the impacts will have significant reduction especially impacts of fossil fuels and
respiratory in organics.
4.4
Microcomputer Controlled Foot Heater Case Study (Life Cycle
Interpretation)
A lot of factors affect the results of this study but some are more critical than
others. The results are affected by assumptions made in the inventory such as
assumptions about the selection of materials and processes, quality of the inventory
data available and selection of waste / disposal scenarios. In this section the results
of the study will be summarised and also the factors that affect them the most.
The most important impact category in all the weight results were land use,
fossil fuels and respiratory inorganics during the product life cycle.
64 Land use effect is mainly caused by conversion of land or occupation of land.
In this project, the land use effect mostly is cause by the electricity nuclear BWR. It
may due to the nuclear electricity plants occupy a large scale of land. During the
construction of nuclear power plants will destroy natural habitat for animals and
plants or contaminate local land with toxic. Besides that, the storage of radioactive
waste may preclude any future reuse of these contaminated lands.
Fossil fuels effect is mainly caused by the energy that used to produce the raw
material of this product such as Aluminium, ABS plastic and Lead.
Respiratory inorganics effect is mainly caused by emissions of dust and
nitrogen oxides to air. This effect has direct link to the fossil fuels effect. It may due
to the emission of dust and nitrogen oxides to air were connected to the exhaust
either from machines or vehicles. In order to let the machines or vehicles to operate,
the fossil fuels will be needed.
The use of design improvement by using LCA can make a significant
contribution to conserving natural resources, reducing energy consumption and
minimizing the generation of wastes. Therefore, three alternatives with different
aspects have been introduced in this project.
The recycling or disposal design alternative (Alternative 1) was only able to
reduced the impacts of fossil fuels and respiratory inorganics in a significant amount.
The reducing of other impacts was not that effective when alternative 1 being
implement. It is because the parts that causes most environmental impact was not
being improve in this alternative which is PCB. But the improvement on PCB will
be introduced at alternative 2.
In alternative 2, PCB improvement and selection of materials have being
considered. In this alternative, EDL system will be implementing to the PCB design
and using 100% recycled aluminium to produce top case and heatsink. Therefore,
the total impacts for manufacture this product was reducing from 2.51Pt to 2.01Pt.
65 Besides that, the potential reduction of environmental impacts also increases from
0.215Pt to 0.305Pt.
The design for reuse alternative (Alternative 3) was a further improvement
from alternative 2. In this alternative 3, not only the EDL system being implement to
the PCB design and 100% recycled aluminium being used to produces top case and
heatsink. The base and control panel that make by ABS plastic also will take to
recycle. Besides that, the PCB, top case and heatsink will be reuse to manufacture
the same product after it being collected back when the product reach end of life. By
implementing alternative 3, the total environmental impacts score will be reduced to
3.26Pt.
4.5
Summary
Three analyses were developed based on the three improvement alternatives,
namely, Alternative 1 – Recycling and disposal design, Alternative 2 – PCB
improvement and material selection, and Alternative 3 – Design for reuse. Impacts
measures were obtained through analyzing the analyses results. After comparing the
impacts measures, Alternative 3 – Design for reuse was determined to be the best
alternative that will bring greatest environmental benefit among the three. Therefore,
the design improvement was developed based on Alternative 3 as a guide to
implement the suggested improvements.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Conclusions
The aim of the study was to use a life cycle assessment approach to determine
whether which design improvement alternative will bring greater benefit on reducing
the environmental burdens. Several important observations can now be made:
1) Recycling of ABS plastic parts and aluminium parts of case study’s
product can significantly reduce the fossil fuels and respiratory
inorganics effect across the life cycle.
2) Carcinogens effect can be reduced by implement Electronic Data Log
(EDL) system to the PCB design and using lead free soldering on the
PCB.
3) 100% Recycled aluminium was able to reduce the usage of fossil fuels
so that respiratory inorganics effect also will be reduced.
4) The decision of reuse the parts that reach end of life will able to
reduce the environmental impacts was identified.
5) Alternative 3 is the optimum alternative that will bring greatest
environmental benefits to the society.
67 5.2
Recommendations
Through out this project report, we systematically discussed life cycle
assessment methodology and applications. We also discussed the integration of life
cycle assessment with design for the environment. There are many opportunities to
enable us to incorporate process design with environmental considerations as part of
the design objective rather than taking them as constraints. There is still much room
for improvement in order to reach this goal. Therefore, a few recommendations are
made:
1) Focus should be put on decreasing the impact of the electricity usage
through out the life cycle especially impact of land use, as it is much
more than the impact of manufacture the product.
2) The size of the PCB should be reducing for saving the usage of
electricity, components and soldering lead.
3) Others parts like power cord and heater plate can be consider for reuse
after the product reach end of life.
4) More case studies are needed for use in consumer products
development.
68 REFERENCES
Abrassart, C. and Cortijo, P., (1999). From Life Cycle Analysis to Environmental
Design. Ocl-Oleagineux Corps Gras Lipides, 6(5): pp. 406-411.
Allen, D.T. and Shonnard D.R., Green engineering: environmentally conscious
design of chemical processes. 2002, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
PTR, pp. 552.
Azapagic, A. (1999). Life Cycle Assessment and its Application to Process Selection,
Design and Optimization. Chemical Engineering Journal 73: pp. 1 – 21.
Baumann H. and Tillman A-M (1999), "The Hitchhiker's guide to LCA"
Environmental System Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology,
Göteborg, Sweden
Boustead, I., (1995), Life-cycle assessment: An overview. Fuel and Energy Abstracts,
36(6): pp. 474.
Boustead, Ian, and Hancock G.F., (1979). Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis.
New York: Wiley.
Berkhout, F. and R. Howes, (1997). The adoption of life-cycle approaches by
industry: patterns and impacts.
20(2): pp. 71-94.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
69 Burgess, A.A. and Brennan, D.J., (2001). Desulfurisation of gas oil: A case study in
environmental and economic assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production,
2001. 9(5): pp. 465-472.
Curran, M.A., (1996). Environmental life-cycle assessment. New York :: McGrawHill,.
Environmental Protection Agency, (1993). Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory
Guidelines and Principles. EPA/600/R-92/245. Office of Research and
Development. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Environmental Protection Agency, (1995). Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of
Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. EPA/530/R-95/010. Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, DC. USA.
EPA (1993), Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual – Environmental Requirements
and The Product System.
Ferraro, D.O., C.M. Ghersa, and G.A. Sznaider, (2003).
Evaluation of
environmental impact indicators using fuzzy logic to assess the mixed
cropping systems of the Inland Pampa. Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment. 96(1-3): pp. 1-18.
Finkbeiner, M., Hoffmann, R., Ruhland, K., Liebhart, D. and Stark, B., (2006),
“Application of Life Cycle Assessment for the Environmental Certificate of
the Mercedes-Benz S-Class”, Int J LCA 11 (4) pp. 240 – 246
Finnveden, G., Nilsson, M., Johansson, J., Persson, A., Moberg, A., Carlsson, T.,
(2003). Strategic environmental assessment methodologies-applications
within the energy sector. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 23(1):
pp. 91-123.
70 Fiksel, J.R., (1996). Design for environment: creating eco-efficient products and
processes / Joseph Fiksel, editor, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Goedkoop M., Spriensma R. (2000), The Eco Indicator 99: A damage oriented
nd
method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology report, 2 Edition,
Pre Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, 17 April, 2000
Graedel, T.E., (2003). Industrial Ecology. 2nd, ed. B.R. Allenby. c2003, Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Guo, X.Y., Xiao, S.W., Xiao, X., Li, Q.H., Yamamoto, R., (2002). LCA case study
for lead and zinc production by an imperial smelting process in China - A
brief presentation. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 7(5): pp.
276-276.
Hunt, R. G., Franklin, W. E., Welch, R. O., Cross, J. A. and Woodall, A. E. (1974).
Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Container
lternatives. EPA/530/SW-91c, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Washington, D.C.
Huybrechts, D., Berloznik, R., Wouters, G., Marion, J-Y., Valenduc, G., Vendramin,
P., (1996).
The role of ecobalances in environmental decision-making.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 4(2): pp. 111-119.
ISO 14040 (1997). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles
and Framework. ISO/FDIS.
ISO 14041 (1998). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Goal and
Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. ISO/FDIS.
ISO 14042 (2000a). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Life
Cycle Impact Assessment. ISO/FDIS.
71 ISO 14043 (2000b). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Life
Cycle Interpretation. ISO/FDIS.
Jensen, A.A. and European Environment Agency (1998). Life cycle assessment
(LCA): A guide to approaches, experiences and information sources.
Copenhagen, Denmark Luxembourg Lanham, MD: European Environment
Agency; Office for Official publications of the European Communities
Johnson, E., (2003). Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment Operational Guide to the
ISO
Standards:
Jeroen
B.
Guinee,
Kluwer
Academic,
Hardback
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2003. 23(1): pp. 129-130.
Kasai, J., (1999). Life Cycle Assessment, Evaluation Method for Sustainable
Development. JSAE Review, 1999. 20(3): pp. 387-394.
Khan, F.I., Sadiq, R., and Husain, T., (2002). GreenPro-I: A Risk-based Life Cycle
Assessment and Decision-making Methodology for Process Plant Design.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 2002. 17(8): pp. 669-692.
Klausner, M., Grimm, W., and Hendrickson, C. (1998). Reuse of electric motors of
consumer products: Design and analysis of electronic data log, Jour. of
Industrial Ecology, Vol. 2, 1998, pp. 89-102
Klopffer, W. and Rippen, G., (1992). Life Cycle Analysis and Ecological Balance:
Methodical Approaches to Assessment of Environmental Aspects of Products.
Environment International, 1992. 18(1): pp. 55-61.
Lundholm, M. P. and Sundstrom, G. (1985). Resource and Environmental Impact of
Tetra Brik Carton and Refillable and Non-Refillable Glass Bottles. Tetra Brik
Aseptic Environmental Profile, AB Tetra Pak, Malmo, Sweden.
Mackenzie, D., (1991). Green design: design for the environment, Louise Moss,
Julia Engelhardt. 1991., [London]: L. King.
72 McDougall, F. R., White, P. R., Franke, M. and Hindle, P. (2001). Integrated Solid
nd
Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory (2 Edition). Blackwell Science
Inc., USA. pp.1.
Mildenberger, U. and A. Khare, (2000). Planning for an Environment-friendly Car.
Technovation, 2000. 20(4): pp. 205-214.
Nordic Council of Ministers (1995). Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment.
Copenhagen.
Owens, J.W., (2002). Chemical Toxicity Indicators for Human Health: Case Study
for Classification of Chronic Noncancer Chemical Hazards in Life-Cycle
Assessment.
207-
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2002. 21(1): pp.
225.
Pesso, C., (1993). Life cycle methods and applications: issues and perspectives.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 1993. 1(3-4): pp. 139-142.
Raadschelders, E., Hettelingh, J.P., Van der Voet, E., Udo de Haes, H.A., (2003).
Side effects of categorized environmental measures and their implications for
impact analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 2003. 6(2): pp. 167-174.
Ryding, S., (1994). International Experiences of Envionmentally Sound Product
Development Based on Life-Cycle Assessment. 1994: Stockholm.
SETAC, (1991). A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessments. Society for
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Washington, D.C.
SETAC, (1993). Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A 'Code of Practice', Society
for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels.
Sikdar S.K. and El-Halwagi M.M., (2001). Process Design Tools for the
Environment, 1962- 2001, New York; London: Taylor & Francis.
73 Tamura, H., Tokumou, T., and Sakuma, O., (2001). “Green” Design. Yokogawa
Technical Report English Edition, No.31, Japan.
Todd, J. A. (1996). Streamlining. In: Curran, M. A., ed. Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Vigon, B.W., (1994). Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles.
1994, Boca Raton: London: Lewis. xvii, pp. 113.
Wulf-Peter Schmidt and Frank Butt (2006), “Life Cycle Tools within Ford of
Europe's Product Sustainability Index – Case Study Ford S-Max & Ford
Galaxy”, Int J LCA 11 (5), pp. 315 – 322 (2006)
74 APPENDIX A
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Current Design
Title
: Characterisation results of Current Design for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Characterisation
Impact category
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
PAF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
MJ surplus
MJ surplus
9.72E-06
3.89E-08
3.59E-05
9.81E-06
1.60E-05
7.93E-08
1.31E+01
8.52E-01
1.68E+01
7.76E+00
4.35E+01
8.45E-06
3.15E-08
3.04E-05
7.18E-06
2.61E-07
4.20E-09
1.17E+01
6.87E-01
8.81E-01
7.53E+00
3.82E+01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
1.26E-06
6.76E-09
5.32E-06
2.21E-06
1.58E-05
7.51E-08
1.18E+00
1.57E-01
1.59E+01
2.22E-01
5.25E+00
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
1.71E-08
5.58E-10
1.65E-07
4.28E-07
0.00E+00
3.81E-11
1.72E-01
8.27E-03
0.00E+00
3.54E-09
8.83E-02
Title
: Weight results of Current Design for product with 5 years life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Weighting
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.57E+00
2.53E-01
1.01E-03
9.36E-01
2.55E-01
4.17E-01
2.07E-03
1.02E-01
6.65E-02
1.31E+00
1.85E-01
1.04E+00
2.51E+00
2.20E-01
8.21E-04
7.93E-01
1.87E-01
6.79E-03
1.09E-04
9.13E-02
5.36E-02
6.87E-02
1.79E-01
9.09E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
2.00E-02
4.46E-04
1.45E-05
4.28E-03
1.11E-02
0.00E+00
9.92E-07
1.34E-03
6.45E-04
0.00E+00
8.43E-11
2.10E-03
75 Title
: Single score results of Current Design for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Single Score
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.57E+00
2.53E-01
1.01E-03
9.36E-01
2.55E-01
4.17E-01
2.07E-03
1.02E-01
6.65E-02
1.31E+00
1.85E-01
1.04E+00
2.51E+00
2.20E-01
8.21E-04
7.93E-01
1.87E-01
6.79E-03
1.09E-04
9.13E-02
5.36E-02
6.87E-02
1.79E-01
9.09E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
2.00E-02
4.46E-04
1.45E-05
4.28E-03
1.11E-02
0.00E+00
9.92E-07
1.34E-03
6.45E-04
0.00E+00
8.43E-11
2.10E-03
76 APPENDIX B
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Alternative 1
Title
: Characterisation results of Alternative 1 for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Characterisation
Impact category
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
PAF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
MJ surplus
MJ surplus
9.55E-06
3.00E-08
3.35E-05
8.93E-06
1.60E-05
7.79E-08
1.27E+01
7.94E-01
1.68E+01
7.11E+00
3.84E+01
8.45E-06
3.15E-08
3.04E-05
7.18E-06
2.61E-07
4.20E-09
1.17E+01
6.87E-01
8.81E-01
7.53E+00
3.82E+01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
1.26E-06
6.76E-09
5.32E-06
2.21E-06
1.58E-05
7.51E-08
1.18E+00
1.57E-01
1.59E+01
2.22E-01
5.25E+00
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-1.58E-07
-8.32E-09
-2.25E-06
-4.57E-07
6.83E-11
-1.36E-09
-2.08E-01
-5.06E-02
1.09E-04
-6.46E-01
-5.00E+00
Title
: Weight results of Alternative 1 for product with 5 years life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Weighting
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.33E+00
2.49E-01
7.81E-04
8.73E-01
2.32E-01
4.17E-01
2.03E-03
9.89E-02
6.19E-02
1.31E+00
1.69E-01
9.14E-01
2.51E+00
2.20E-01
8.21E-04
7.93E-01
1.87E-01
6.79E-03
1.09E-04
9.13E-02
5.36E-02
6.87E-02
1.79E-01
9.09E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-2.15E-01
-4.11E-03
-2.17E-04
-5.85E-02
-1.19E-02
1.78E-06
-3.55E-05
-1.62E-03
-3.95E-03
8.50E-06
-1.54E-02
-1.19E-01
77 Title
: Single score results of Alternative 1 for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Single Score
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.33E+00
2.49E-01
7.81E-04
8.73E-01
2.32E-01
4.17E-01
2.03E-03
9.89E-02
6.19E-02
1.31E+00
1.69E-01
9.14E-01
2.51E+00
2.20E-01
8.21E-04
7.93E-01
1.87E-01
6.79E-03
1.09E-04
9.13E-02
5.36E-02
6.87E-02
1.79E-01
9.09E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-2.15E-01
-4.11E-03
-2.17E-04
-5.85E-02
-1.19E-02
1.78E-06
-3.55E-05
-1.62E-03
-3.95E-03
8.50E-06
-1.54E-02
-1.19E-01
78 APPENDIX C
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Alternative 2
Title
: Characterisation results of Alternative 2 for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Characterisation
Impact category
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
PAF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
MJ surplus
MJ surplus
9.55E-06
3.00E-08
3.35E-05
8.93E-06
1.60E-05
7.79E-08
1.27E+01
7.94E-01
1.68E+01
7.11E+00
3.84E+01
8.45E-06
3.15E-08
3.04E-05
7.18E-06
2.61E-07
4.20E-09
1.17E+01
6.87E-01
8.81E-01
7.53E+00
3.82E+01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
1.26E-06
6.76E-09
5.32E-06
2.21E-06
1.58E-05
7.51E-08
1.18E+00
1.57E-01
1.59E+01
2.22E-01
5.25E+00
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-1.58E-07
-8.32E-09
-2.25E-06
-4.57E-07
6.83E-11
-1.36E-09
-2.08E-01
-5.06E-02
1.09E-04
-6.46E-01
-5.00E+00
Title
: Weight results of Alternative 2 for product with 5 years life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Weighting
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.33E+00
2.49E-01
7.81E-04
8.73E-01
2.32E-01
4.17E-01
2.03E-03
9.89E-02
6.19E-02
1.31E+00
1.69E-01
9.14E-01
2.51E+00
2.20E-01
8.21E-04
7.93E-01
1.87E-01
6.79E-03
1.09E-04
9.13E-02
5.36E-02
6.87E-02
1.79E-01
9.09E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-2.15E-01
-4.11E-03
-2.17E-04
-5.85E-02
-1.19E-02
1.78E-06
-3.55E-05
-1.62E-03
-3.95E-03
8.50E-06
-1.54E-02
-1.19E-01
79 Title
: Single score results of Alternative 2 for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Single Score
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.33E+00
2.49E-01
7.81E-04
8.73E-01
2.32E-01
4.17E-01
2.03E-03
9.89E-02
6.19E-02
1.31E+00
1.69E-01
9.14E-01
2.51E+00
2.20E-01
8.21E-04
7.93E-01
1.87E-01
6.79E-03
1.09E-04
9.13E-02
5.36E-02
6.87E-02
1.79E-01
9.09E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-2.15E-01
-4.11E-03
-2.17E-04
-5.85E-02
-1.19E-02
1.78E-06
-3.55E-05
-1.62E-03
-3.95E-03
8.50E-06
-1.54E-02
-1.19E-01
80 APPENDIX D
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Alternative 3
Title
: Characterisation results of Alternative 3 for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Characterisation
Impact category
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
DALY
PAF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
PDF*m2yr
MJ surplus
MJ surplus
4.09E-06
2.40E-08
2.11E-05
5.65E-06
1.59E-05
7.77E-08
6.15E+00
5.28E-01
1.64E+01
4.11E+00
2.43E+01
6.32E-06
2.91E-08
2.37E-05
5.59E-06
2.21E-07
3.87E-09
9.50E+00
5.88E-01
8.27E-01
5.47E+00
3.19E+01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
1.26E-06
6.76E-09
5.32E-06
2.21E-06
1.58E-05
7.51E-08
1.18E+00
1.57E-01
1.59E+01
2.22E-01
5.25E+00
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-3.49E-06
-1.19E-08
-7.90E-06
-2.14E-06
-1.21E-07
-1.31E-09
-4.54E+00
-2.17E-01
-4.11E-01
-1.58E+00
-1.29E+01
Title
: Weight results of Alternative 3 for product with 5 years life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Weighting
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
3.26E+00
1.06E-01
6.24E-04
5.50E-01
1.47E-01
4.13E-01
2.02E-03
4.79E-02
4.12E-02
1.28E+00
9.78E-02
5.77E-01
2.01E+00
1.65E-01
7.59E-04
6.17E-01
1.46E-01
5.76E-03
1.01E-04
7.41E-02
4.59E-02
6.45E-02
1.30E-01
7.60E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-7.85E-01
-9.08E-02
-3.10E-04
-2.06E-01
-5.58E-02
-3.15E-03
-3.40E-05
-3.54E-02
-1.70E-02
-3.20E-02
-3.76E-02
-3.07E-01
81 Title
: Single score results of Alternative 3 for product with 5 years
life cycle
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Single Score
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
3.26E+00
1.06E-01
6.24E-04
5.50E-01
1.47E-01
4.13E-01
2.02E-03
4.79E-02
4.12E-02
1.28E+00
9.78E-02
5.77E-01
2.01E+00
1.65E-01
7.59E-04
6.17E-01
1.46E-01
5.76E-03
1.01E-04
7.41E-02
4.59E-02
6.45E-02
1.30E-01
7.60E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
2.04E+00
3.27E-02
1.76E-04
1.39E-01
5.74E-02
4.10E-01
1.96E-03
9.21E-03
1.23E-02
1.24E+00
5.29E-03
1.25E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
-7.85E-01
-9.08E-02
-3.10E-04
-2.06E-01
-5.58E-02
-3.15E-03
-3.40E-05
-3.54E-02
-1.70E-02
-3.20E-02
-3.76E-02
-3.07E-01
82 APPENDIX D
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Data for Comparison of
Current Design and All Alternatives
Title
: Comparison on weight results of current design and all alternatives
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Weighting per impacts
Impact category
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.57E+00
2.53E-01
1.01E-03
9.36E-01
2.55E-01
4.17E-01
2.07E-03
1.02E-01
6.65E-02
1.31E+00
1.85E-01
1.04E+00
4.33E+00
2.49E-01
7.81E-04
8.73E-01
2.32E-01
4.17E-01
2.03E-03
9.89E-02
6.19E-02
1.31E+00
1.69E-01
9.14E-01
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Title
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
3.74E+00
1.59E-01
8.13E-04
6.75E-01
1.87E-01
4.15E-01
2.04E-03
6.95E-02
5.15E-02
1.29E+00
1.20E-01
7.65E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
3.26E+00
1.06E-01
6.24E-04
5.50E-01
1.47E-01
4.13E-01
2.02E-03
4.79E-02
4.12E-02
1.28E+00
9.78E-02
5.77E-01
: Comparison on weight results of current design and all alternatives
in human health, ecosystem quality and resources
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Weighting
Damage category
Total
Human Health
Ecosystem Quality
Resources
Unit FH Life Recycle
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.57E+00
1.86E+00
1.48E+00
1.22E+00
FH Life Recycle FH Life Recycle FH Life Recycle
(Alternative 1) (Alternative 2) (Alternative 3)
4.33E+00
3.74E+00
3.26E+00
1.77E+00
1.44E+00
1.22E+00
1.47E+00
1.42E+00
1.37E+00
1.08E+00
8.86E-01
6.75E-01
83 Title
: Comparison on single score results of current design and all
alternatives
Method
: Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.06 / Europe EI 99 H/A
Indicator
: Single Score
Impact category
Total
Carcinogens
Resp. organics
Resp. inorganics
Climate change
Radiation
Ozone layer
Ecotoxicity
Acidification/ Eutrophication
Land use
Minerals
Fossil fuels
Unit
Total
Foot Heater
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
Pt
4.57E+00
2.53E-01
1.01E-03
9.36E-01
2.55E-01
4.17E-01
2.07E-03
1.02E-01
6.65E-02
1.31E+00
1.85E-01
1.04E+00
4.33E+00
2.49E-01
7.81E-04
8.73E-01
2.32E-01
4.17E-01
2.03E-03
9.89E-02
6.19E-02
1.31E+00
1.69E-01
9.14E-01
Electricity
nuclear
BWR other
UCPTE S
3.74E+00
1.59E-01
8.13E-04
6.75E-01
1.87E-01
4.15E-01
2.04E-03
6.95E-02
5.15E-02
1.29E+00
1.20E-01
7.65E-01
FH Disposal
(Full Disposal)
3.26E+00
1.06E-01
6.24E-04
5.50E-01
1.47E-01
4.13E-01
2.02E-03
4.79E-02
4.12E-02
1.28E+00
9.78E-02
5.77E-01