MINNESOTA SUSTAINABILITY
PRACTITIONERS ROUNDTABLE
May 14, 2014
Agenda
11:30 Introductions and lunch
11:40 Welcome from Eliza Clark, Andersen
Corporation
11:50 LCA Overview, Dr. Tim Smit...
Mission
¨  To advance sustainable practices within large
organizations in Minnesota.
Objectives
¨  Facilitate candid dialogue centered
on advanced sustainability topics
¨  Provide a forum for sharing
resou...
Format and Boundaries
¨  Quarterly event for sharing success stories and
facilitating large group discussions in a confid...
2014 Roundtable Dates
¨  February 12 - Target
¨  May 14 – Science Museum of Minnesota
¨  September 17 – U of MN Landsca...
Andersen – Science Museum Partnership
¨  Kitty Andersen Youth Science Center (KAYSC):
empowering youth to change the worl...
Science House:
¨ Resource Center for Educators, where Minnesota's science teachers gain
access to the best in hands-on cl...
Raw	
  Material	
  Extrac.on	
   Intermediate	
  Material	
  
Manufacture	
  
Use	
  
Recycling	
  
End	
  of	
  
Life	
  ...
Andersen’s LCA Experience
¨  Conducted two LCAs in 2010:
¨  Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung
¨  100 Series
¨  Recently ...
environment.umn.edu/nise
Introduc)on	
  to	
  Life	
  Cycle	
  
Assessment	
  
	
  
Timothy	
  M.	
  Smith	
  
Director	
 ...
WHICH IS MORE SUSTAINABLE?
•  most	
  commonly	
  made	
  
from	
  co;on	
  (fossil-­‐fuel-­‐
intensive)	
  
•  co;on	
  g...
WHAT IS GREEN?
IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PRIUS
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: Quantification of Impacts
LCA BASICS:
WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT
LCA BASICS:
WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT
energy	
  
cardboard	
  
metal	
  
LCA BASICS:
WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT
energy	
  
cardboard	
  
metal	
  
Air	
  
emissions	
  
Solid	
  
Waste	
  
IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem
health
Human health
Resource
depletion
Social health
Oth. releases
Products
Coproducts
Emissio...
PAPER CLIP
PAPER CLIP LCA RESULTS
IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION
PAPER CLIP GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
US	
  ECONOMY-­‐WIDE	
  WEIGHTED	
  ENVIRONMENTAL	
  
IMPACTS	
  
X XXX X X X
Source: Suh 2011; economymap.org
X X
Input/Output	
  
Ideal	
  
Process	
  
Bo;om	
  Up	
  Hybrid	
   Top	
  Down	
  Hybrid	
  	
  
LCA METHODOLOGIES
OUTSIDE-IN HOTSPOT APPROACH:
An Adaptation of Top Down Hybrid
Identify Hotspots: EE-IO
Compare Indicators:
Parameterized P...
GEMI SUPPLY CHAIN
SUSTAINABILITY TOOL
Objec.ve:	
  A	
  simple,	
  scalable,	
  open	
  
and	
  interac.ve	
  tool	
  for	...
Impact'
Category'
Source'
Virgin&fiber&
produc/on&
Power&genera/on&
and&supply&
Paper&and&
paperboard&mills&
Paperboard&con...
COMPARING REDUCTION SCENARIOS
2.  Provide	
  quan.ta.ve	
  
“hotspot”	
  reduc.on	
  
indices	
  for	
  environmental	
  
...
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
30%#
35%#
0%#
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
Grain#
Farming#
Manufacturing#
Packaging#
Cumulative#%#reduc...
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
30%#
35%#
0%#
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
Grain#
Farming#
Manufacturing#
Packaging#
Life#Cycle#Stage#H...
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
30%#
35%#
0%#
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
Grain#
Farming#
Manufacturing#
Packaging#
Life#Cycle#Stage#H...
100%$
Bioenergy$
(thermal)$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$
25%$
30%$
35%$
0%$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$
25%$
Grain$
Farming$
Manufacturing$
P...
100%$
Plastic$
Cereal$Bag$
(no$box)$$
100%$
Bioenergy$
(thermal)$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$
25%$
30%$
35%$
0%$
5%$
10%$
15%$
20%$...
Recycled'
Paperboard'
(Primary)'
100%'
Plastic'
Cereal'Bag'
(no'box)''
100%'
Bioenergy'
(thermal)'
5%'
10%'
15%'
20%'
25%'...
ASSESS ECONOMIC COSTS OF REDUCTIONS
3.  Allow	
  managers	
  to	
  
quickly	
  simulate	
  
procurement	
  
scenarios	
  t...
PROCUREMENT PORTFOLIO DECISION
PROBLEMS
•  Given	
  a	
  targeted	
  CO2	
  reduc.on	
  target,	
  what	
  
alloca.on	
  o...
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
•  LCA	
  isn’t	
  perfect	
  	
  
– Costly,	
  sensi.ve	
  to	
  data	
  assump.ons	
  and	
  
bounda...
THANK YOU!
Contact Info:
Dr. Timothy Smith – timsmith@umn.edu
SPR Slides - LCA - 5.14.2014
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

SPR Slides - LCA - 5.14.2014

201
-1

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
201
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SPR Slides - LCA - 5.14.2014

  1. 1. MINNESOTA SUSTAINABILITY PRACTITIONERS ROUNDTABLE May 14, 2014
  2. 2. Agenda 11:30 Introductions and lunch 11:40 Welcome from Eliza Clark, Andersen Corporation 11:50 LCA Overview, Dr. Tim Smith, NorthStar Initiative for Sustainable Enterprise 12:30 Group discussion on LCA facilitated by Jill Kolling, Paydirt 1:20 Upcoming events; group announcements 1:30 Optional tour 2:00 Adjourn
  3. 3. Mission ¨  To advance sustainable practices within large organizations in Minnesota.
  4. 4. Objectives ¨  Facilitate candid dialogue centered on advanced sustainability topics ¨  Provide a forum for sharing resources and best practices ¨  Identify opportunities for new solutions or collaborations ¨  Build connections between sustainability practitioners
  5. 5. Format and Boundaries ¨  Quarterly event for sharing success stories and facilitating large group discussions in a confidential setting ¨  Invite-only ¨  One representative per organization; additional participants dependent on topic ¨  Members should have decision making ability for sustainability and an enterprise focus ¨  Charter members may preclude competitors from joining ¨  Members are expected to attend and actively participate, or send a substitute when needed
  6. 6. 2014 Roundtable Dates ¨  February 12 - Target ¨  May 14 – Science Museum of Minnesota ¨  September 17 – U of MN Landscape Arboretum ¨  November 12 - KPMG
  7. 7. Andersen – Science Museum Partnership ¨  Kitty Andersen Youth Science Center (KAYSC): empowering youth to change the world through science ¨  Engages over 100 youth annually in grades 7-12 in out-of-school-time science programming ¨  In 1996, several Andersen Related Foundations made a combined endowment contribution to KAYSC in Kitty Andersen’s honor to support general operating funds. Source: http://www.smm.org/kaysc/supporters •  75% of participants are from low- income families •  60% are girls •  90% are youth of color
  8. 8. Science House: ¨ Resource Center for Educators, where Minnesota's science teachers gain access to the best in hands-on classroom science materials ¨ Designed to operate as a zero-emissions building (ZEB) ¨ Since energy monitoring began in February 2004, Science House has been producing more energy than it uses on an annual basis ¨ Andersen Corporation contributed windows, doors and Fibrex™ material for the exterior deck and interior ceiling Source: http://www.smm.org/sciencehouse/about Andersen - Science Museum Partnership
  9. 9. Raw  Material  Extrac.on   Intermediate  Material   Manufacture   Use   Recycling   End  of   Life   Finished  Product   Manufacture   Transporta.on  &   logis.cs/retail   Andersen’s Lifecycle Approach 9
  10. 10. Andersen’s LCA Experience ¨  Conducted two LCAs in 2010: ¨  Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung ¨  100 Series ¨  Recently purchased GaBi LCA software ¨  Participating in the development of the Product Category Rule (PCR) for windows ¨  Once PCR is approved, we will have the ability to publish Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung
  11. 11. environment.umn.edu/nise Introduc)on  to  Life  Cycle   Assessment     Timothy  M.  Smith   Director  &  Associate  Professor   NorthStar  Ini.a.ve  (NiSE)   Bioproducts  &  Biosystems  Eng.   612-­‐624-­‐2648   .msmith@umn.edu  
  12. 12. WHICH IS MORE SUSTAINABLE? •  most  commonly  made   from  co;on  (fossil-­‐fuel-­‐ intensive)   •  co;on  growers  use  more   than  10  percent  of  the   world's  pes)cides  and   nearly  25  percent  of  the   world's  insec)cides   •  most  are  woven  outside   the  U.S.  where  labor  is   less  costly   •  Increased  fossil  fuels  in   transporta)on   •  %#*&!,  forgot  it  again…   •  made  of  polyethylene,  a   petroleum-­‐based  resource     •  consumes  40%  less  energy  to   produce  than  paper.   •  generates  80%  less  solid   waste  than  paper  bags     •  can  take  1,000  years  to   decompose   •  fewer  than  5%  of  plas)c   bags  are  recycled   •  60  to  80  percent  of  ocean   debris  is  plas)c  -­‐  poisoning   or  strangling  marine  life   •  made  from  a  renewable   resource  (trees)   •  hold  twice  the  contents  of   most  plas)c  bags   •  takes  about  a  month  to   decompose   •   21%  of  paper  bags  are   currently  recycled  
  13. 13. WHAT IS GREEN?
  14. 14. IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PRIUS
  15. 15. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: Quantification of Impacts
  16. 16. LCA BASICS: WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT
  17. 17. LCA BASICS: WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT energy   cardboard   metal  
  18. 18. LCA BASICS: WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT energy   cardboard   metal   Air   emissions   Solid   Waste  
  19. 19. IMPACT ASSESSMENT Ecosystem health Human health Resource depletion Social health Oth. releases Products Coproducts Emissions Effluents Solid wastes Mat’ls Energy Water Raw Material Acquisition (Transportation) Manufacturing (Transportation) Use/Reuse/Maintenance (Transportation) Recycle/Waste Management (Transportation) LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS – STEPS IN THE PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS INVENTORY ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT Extend product life Reduce energy consumption Evaluate substitute materials Improve process efficiencies Improve distribution Improve collection efficiencies Enhance use/durability Improve waste management INITIATION Purpose and scope System boundaries Data categories Review process
  20. 20. PAPER CLIP
  21. 21. PAPER CLIP LCA RESULTS
  22. 22. IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION
  23. 23. PAPER CLIP GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
  24. 24. US  ECONOMY-­‐WIDE  WEIGHTED  ENVIRONMENTAL   IMPACTS   X XXX X X X Source: Suh 2011; economymap.org X X
  25. 25. Input/Output   Ideal   Process   Bo;om  Up  Hybrid   Top  Down  Hybrid     LCA METHODOLOGIES
  26. 26. OUTSIDE-IN HOTSPOT APPROACH: An Adaptation of Top Down Hybrid Identify Hotspots: EE-IO Compare Indicators: Parameterized P- LCA Scenario1Scenario2
  27. 27. GEMI SUPPLY CHAIN SUSTAINABILITY TOOL Objec.ve:  A  simple,  scalable,  open   and  interac.ve  tool  for   procurement  and  supply  chain   managers  to:  1)  guide  priori.es;  2)   measure  performance  of  sourcing   strategies.     Func.onality:     1. Iden.fy  CO2  and  water  use   “hotspots”  of  procurement/ sourcing  poraolios.   2. Quan.fy  “hotspot”  reduc.on  of   alterna.ve  environmental   acribute  scenarios.   3. Simulate  procurement  strategies   to  compare  environmental   performance  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  economic   costs/benefits.    
  28. 28. Impact' Category' Source' Virgin&fiber& produc/on& Power&genera/on& and&supply& Paper&and& paperboard&mills& Paperboard&container& manufacturing& End&of&Life& Global' Warming' Poten7al' EIO:LCA1' **& 42%& 32%& 5%& *& PE'Americas'and'Five'Winds'Interna7onal.'(2009).'Life%Cycle%Assessment%of%U.S.% Industry7Average%Corrugated%Product.' A46%& **& 54%& 17%& 22%& Ross,'S.,'&'Evans,'D.'(2002).'Use'of'Life'Cycle'Assessment'in'Environmental' Management.'Environmental%Management,'29,'132:142.' 4%***& 83%& Water' Deple7on' EIO:LCA2' **& 30%& 37%& 0.43%& *& Kirwan,'M.'J.'(2013).'Handbook%of%Paper%and%Paperboard%Packaging%Technology' (2nd'Edi7on'ed.).'Chichester,'West'Sussex,'United'Kingdom:'Wiley:Blackwell.' **& **& Blue&water& Blue&water& Blue& water& Hotspots: the life cycle stages and inputs that have CO2 and H2O impacts larger than 10% of the life cycle impacts 1.  Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, global warming potential. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl 2.  Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, water withdrawals. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl * Not included in the EIO-LCA system boundary ** Not found in the source *** Net impacts offset by carbon sequestration in virgin fiber production Sustainable Supply Chain Data Summary– Containerboard Packaging Baseline Assumptions: U.S. and European average industrial practices Hotspot system boundary Raw&material& extrac/on& Transporta/on& Manufacturing& Distribu/on& Retail& Use& End&of&Life& Life&Cycle&Stage& Parameter& Dataset& Unit& Baseline&Inventory&Amount& Source&Corrugated' Board' Paperboard' Forest' Produc7on' (70%'from'SE,' 30%'from'PNW)' Diesel' US:'Diesel,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment2' m3/m3' so^wood' 2.57e:3' USCLCI'2012;' Kramer'2009' Gasoline' US:'Gasoline,'combusted'in'equipment2' 2.26e:5' Seedlings' US:'Seedlings,'at'greenhouse2' pcs/m3' so^wood' 5.27' Nitrogen' US:'Nitrogen'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2' kg/m3' so^wood' 4.99e:1' Phosphorus' US:'Phosphorous'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2' 8.58e:2' Lubricants' US:'Dummy_Lubricants,'unspecified,'at'plant2' 3.69e:2' Carbon'Dioxide' Carbon'dioxide'[Renewable'resources]2' 9.42e2' Transport' Transport,'combina7on'truck,'avg.'fuel'mix' Kgkm/m3' so^wood' 1.2e5' Manufacturing:' Container:board' Conver7ng'plant' Kra^liner' Manufacturing'Containerboard'Mill' Kg/kg'nsp' 4.76e:1' 7.22e:1' PE'2009;' EPA'2012' Testliner' 2.56e:1' 3.89e:1' Wellenstoff' 1.32e:1' 0' Semi:Chemical' 2.45e:1' 0' LPG' US:'liquefied'petroleum'gas,'combusted'in'industrial' boiler3' m3/kg'nsp' 1.17e:6' PE'2009' Natural'Gas' RNA:'Natural'gas,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment3' 2.87e:2' Water' RER:'Tap'water,'at'user1.5' kg/kg'nsp' 3.12e:1' Starch' US:'Starch'(polyglucose)4' 1.18e:2' Adhesives' US:'Polyvinyl'alcohol'(from'vinyl'acetate)'(PVAL)4' 7.94e:4' Ink' RER:'Prin7ng'colour,'offset,'47.5%'solvent,'at'plant1' 8.47e:4' Borax' US:'Sodium'borates,'at'plant1' 3.11e:4' Sodium'Carbonate' US:'Soda,'powder,'at'plant3' 7.86e:4' Coa7ngs' RER:'Coa7ng'powder,'at'plant1' 7.05e:4' Wax' US:'Wax/Paraffins'at'refinery4' 4.74e:3' Electricity' (purchased)' US:'electricity,'medium'voltage,'at'grid1' MJ/kg'nsp' 4.24e:1' Diesel' GLO:'diesel,'burned'in'building'machine1' 3.63e:2' Heavy'fuel'oil' RER:'Heavy'fuel'oil,'burned'in'industrial'furnace,'1'MW,' non:modula7ng1' 4.63e:1' Light'Fuel'Oil' RER:'heat,'light'fuel'oil,'at'industrial'furnace'1'MW1' 2.81e:1' Landfill' CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22.9%'water,'to' sanitary'landfill1' kg/kg'nsp' 3.73e:3' Incinera7on' CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22%'water,'to' municipal'incinera7on1' 6.23e:5' Hazardous'Waste' Incinera7on' CH:'disposal,'hazardous'waste,'25%'water,'to' hazardous'waste'incinera7on1' 1.55e:6' Baseline assumptions: 65% virgin (kraft and semi-chemical fluting), 35% recycled (testliner and wellenstoff), 1: EcoInvent 1.5: Modified EcoInvent (accounts for US electricity production) 2: USLCI 3: USLCI/PE 4: PE nsp = net saleable product (including folded box and glue) DOCUMENTATION: Hotspots, Baselines, Scenarios
  29. 29. COMPARING REDUCTION SCENARIOS 2.  Provide  quan.ta.ve   “hotspot”  reduc.on   indices  for  environmental   acribute  scenarios  -­‐   connec.ng  market  signals   to  like  cycle  assessment-­‐ based  informa.on;     Results of “hotspot” reduction potential by attribute scenarios for cereal and fruit juice categories (UMN 2013) Recycled' Paperboard' (Primary)' 100%' Plastic' Cereal'Bag' (no'box)'' 100%' Bioenergy' (thermal)' 5%' 10%' 15%' 20%' 25%' 30%' 35%' 0%' 5%' 10%' 15%' 20%' 25%' Grain' Farming' Manufacturing' Packaging' Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots' 30%'!' Electrical' EfJiciency' 30%'!' Thermal'' EfJiciency' Recycled' Paperboard' (primary)' 40%' PLA' cereal' bag' Recycled' Cardboard' (secondary)' 30%'!' Thermal' EfJiciency' Best'Scenario' ~39%'reduction' Worst'Scenario' ~7%'addition' End'of'Life' PLA' cereal' bag' Baseline'' (no'environmental' attributes'implemented)' 65%'of'total' impact' Total'GHG'Hotspot'Reduction'Potential' 'for'Wheat'Cereal'and'Orange'Juice:'' Best'Scenario'vs.'Worst'Scenario' ~21%' reduction' 30%' 45%' 50%' 55%' 60%' 65%' Orange'Farming' Retail' (Refrigeration)' Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice' 69%'of'total' impact' 70%' 75%' 80%' 85%' 90%' 100%'Wind' electricity' Organic' 5%' Refrigerant' Leakage' Worst'Scenario' ~12%'reduction' Best'Scenario' ~91%'reduction' Precision' Farming' 30%'!' energy' efJiciency' (electricity)' 5%' Refrigerant' Leakage' 50%'Wind' electricity' ~56%' reduction' 100%'Wind' electricity' Organic' Cumulative'%'reduction'in'total' hotspot'impact'contribution' Cumulative'%'addition'in'total'' hotspot'impact'contribution'
  30. 30. 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# 30%# 35%# 0%# 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# Grain# Farming# Manufacturing# Packaging# Cumulative#%#reduction#in#total# hotspot#impact#contribution# Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots# 40%# End#of#Life# Baseline## (no#environmental# attributes#implemented)# Cumulative#%#addition#in#total## hotspot#impact#contribution# 65%#of#total# impact# 30%# 45%# 50%# 55%# 60%# 65%# Orange#Farming# Retail# (Refrigeration)# Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice# 69%#of#total# impact# 70%# 75%# 80%# 85%# 90%# 100%#Wind# electricity# Organic# Best#Scenario# ~91%#reduction#30%#!# energy# efViciency# (electricity)# 5%# Refrigerant# Leakage# GHG   Scenario   Analysis   (Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  
  31. 31. 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# 30%# 35%# 0%# 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# Grain# Farming# Manufacturing# Packaging# Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots# 40%# End#of#Life# Baseline## (no#environmental# attributes#implemented)# 65%#of#total# impact# 30%# 45%# 50%# 55%# 60%# 65%# Orange#Farming# Retail# (Refrigeration)# Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice# 69%#of#total# impact# 70%# 75%# 80%# 85%# 90%# 100%#Wind# electricity# Organic# 5%# Refrigerant# Leakage# Worst#Scenario# ~12%#reduction# Best#Scenario# ~91%#reduction# Precision# Farming# 30%#!# energy# efViciency# (electricity)# 5%# Refrigerant# Leakage# Cumulative#%#reduction#in#total# hotspot#impact#contribution# Cumulative#%#addition#in#total## hotspot#impact#contribution# GHG   Scenario   Analysis   (Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  
  32. 32. 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# 30%# 35%# 0%# 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# Grain# Farming# Manufacturing# Packaging# Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots# 40%# End#of#Life# Baseline## (no#environmental# attributes#implemented)# 65%#of#total# impact# 30%# 45%# 50%# 55%# 60%# 65%# Orange#Farming# Retail# (Refrigeration)# Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice# 69%#of#total# impact# 70%# 75%# 80%# 85%# 90%# 100%#Wind# electricity# Organic# 5%# Refrigerant# Leakage# Worst#Scenario# ~12%#reduction# Best#Scenario# ~91%#reduction# Precision# Farming# 30%#!# energy# efViciency# (electricity)# 5%# Refrigerant# Leakage# 50%#Wind# electricity# ~56%# reduction# Cumulative#%#reduction#in#total# hotspot#impact#contribution# Cumulative#%#addition#in#total## hotspot#impact#contribution# GHG   Scenario   Analysis   (Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  
  33. 33. 100%$ Bioenergy$ (thermal)$ 5%$ 10%$ 15%$ 20%$ 25%$ 30%$ 35%$ 0%$ 5%$ 10%$ 15%$ 20%$ 25%$ Grain$ Farming$ Manufacturing$ Packaging$ Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$ 30%$!$ Electrical$ EfFiciency$ 30%$!$ Thermal$$ EfFiciency$ Recycled$ Paperboard$ (primary)$ 40%$ PLA$ cereal$ bag$ Recycled$ Cardboard$ (secondary)$ Best$Scenario$ ~39%$reduction$ End$of$Life$ PLA$ cereal$ bag$ Baseline$$ (no$environmental$ attributes$implemented)$ 65%$of$total$ impact$ 30%$ 45%$ 50%$ 55%$ 60%$ 65%$ Orange$Farming$ Retail$ (Refrigeration)$ Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$ 69%$of$total$ impact$ 70%$ 75%$ 80%$ 85%$ 90%$ 100%$Wind$ electricity$ Organic$ 5%$ Refrigerant$ Leakage$ Worst$Scenario$ ~12%$reduction$ Best$Scenario$ ~91%$reduction$ Precision$ Farming$ 30%$!$ energy$ efFiciency$ (electricity)$ 5%$ Refrigerant$ Leakage$ 50%$Wind$ electricity$ ~56%$ reduction$ 100%$Wind$ electricity$ Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$ hotspot$impact$contribution$ Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$ hotspot$impact$contribution$ GHG   Scenario   Analysis   (Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  
  34. 34. 100%$ Plastic$ Cereal$Bag$ (no$box)$$ 100%$ Bioenergy$ (thermal)$ 5%$ 10%$ 15%$ 20%$ 25%$ 30%$ 35%$ 0%$ 5%$ 10%$ 15%$ 20%$ 25%$ Grain$ Farming$ Manufacturing$ Packaging$ Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$ 30%$!$ Electrical$ EfHiciency$ 30%$!$ Thermal$$ EfHiciency$ Recycled$ Paperboard$ (primary)$ 40%$ PLA$ cereal$ bag$ Recycled$ Cardboard$ (secondary)$ 30%$!$ Thermal$ EfHiciency$ Best$Scenario$ ~39%$reduction$ Worst$Scenario$ ~7%$addition$ End$of$Life$ PLA$ cereal$ bag$ Baseline$$ (no$environmental$ attributes$implemented)$ 65%$of$total$ impact$ 30%$ 45%$ 50%$ 55%$ 60%$ 65%$ Orange$Farming$ Retail$ (Refrigeration)$ Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$ 69%$of$total$ impact$ 70%$ 75%$ 80%$ 85%$ 90%$ 100%$Wind$ electricity$ Organic$ 5%$ Refrigerant$ Leakage$ Worst$Scenario$ ~12%$reduction$ Best$Scenario$ ~91%$reduction$ Precision$ Farming$ 30%$!$ energy$ efHiciency$ (electricity)$ 5%$ Refrigerant$ Leakage$ 50%$Wind$ electricity$ ~56%$ reduction$ 100%$Wind$ electricity$ Organic$ Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$ hotspot$impact$contribution$ Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$ hotspot$impact$contribution$ GHG   Scenario   Analysis   (Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  
  35. 35. Recycled' Paperboard' (Primary)' 100%' Plastic' Cereal'Bag' (no'box)'' 100%' Bioenergy' (thermal)' 5%' 10%' 15%' 20%' 25%' 30%' 35%' 0%' 5%' 10%' 15%' 20%' 25%' Grain' Farming' Manufacturing' Packaging' Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots' 30%'!' Electrical' EfJiciency' 30%'!' Thermal'' EfJiciency' Recycled' Paperboard' (primary)' 40%' PLA' cereal' bag' Recycled' Cardboard' (secondary)' 30%'!' Thermal' EfJiciency' Best'Scenario' ~39%'reduction' Worst'Scenario' ~7%'addition' End'of'Life' PLA' cereal' bag' Baseline'' (no'environmental' attributes'implemented)' 65%'of'total' impact' ~21%' reduction' 30%' 45%' 50%' 55%' 60%' 65%' Orange'Farming' Retail' (Refrigeration)' Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice' 69%'of'total' impact' 70%' 75%' 80%' 85%' 90%' 100%'Wind' electricity' Organic' 5%' Refrigerant' Leakage' Worst'Scenario' ~12%'reduction' Best'Scenario' ~91%'reduction' Precision' Farming' 30%'!' energy' efJiciency' (electricity)' 5%' Refrigerant' Leakage' 50%'Wind' electricity' ~56%' reduction' 100%'Wind' electricity' Organic' Cumulative'%'reduction'in'total' hotspot'impact'contribution' Cumulative'%'addition'in'total'' hotspot'impact'contribution' GHG   Scenario   Analysis   (Cereal  &  Fruit  Juice)  
  36. 36. ASSESS ECONOMIC COSTS OF REDUCTIONS 3.  Allow  managers  to   quickly  simulate   procurement   scenarios  to  compare   environmental   performance  vis-­‐à-­‐vis   economic  costs/ benefits.   Illustrative example; simulation results will be dependent upon scenario reduction estimates and user-specified information (price/kg, volume purchased, alternative spending strategies, etc.) Jones&et&al&(2008).&Consumer4Oriented&Life&Cycle&Assessment&of&Food,&Goods,&and&Services& Variability) Within)a) Sector) Subs3tutability) between) Sector)Spend) • • Switching from all-pork to a 50/50 pork/chicken sourced sausage: • Estimated CO2e reduction of 350-850 gCO2e /$(2007) • @ $100,000 spend: 35,000-85,000 kgCO2e; ≈ 7-17 cars/year • @ 6.5% price/kg discount: Switch saves ≈ $.13/kgCO2e reduction.
  37. 37. PROCUREMENT PORTFOLIO DECISION PROBLEMS •  Given  a  targeted  CO2  reduc.on  target,  what   alloca.on  of  purchases  minimizes  total  costs?     •  Given  a  targeted  budget  (increase/decrease),   what  alloca.on  of  purchases  maximizes  total   CO2  reduc.ons?  
  38. 38. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS •  LCA  isn’t  perfect     – Costly,  sensi.ve  to  data  assump.ons  and   boundary  condi.ons,  etc.   •  LCA  doesn’t  solve  problems   – Omen  surfaces  more  ques.ons  than  answers   – Informa.on  provided  is  uncertain   •  LCA  is  necessary  if  decision  requires  a   quan.fica.on  of  impacts  across  process   stages.   •  LCA  is  an  approach  not  an  absolute  truth  
  39. 39. THANK YOU! Contact Info: Dr. Timothy Smith – timsmith@umn.edu
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×