Lbl Cec Presentation 2005 03 16


Published on

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Lbl Cec Presentation 2005 03 16

    1. 1. <ul><li>OPTIMIZATION OF PRODUCT LIFE CYCLES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN CALIFORNIA </li></ul>March 16 th , 2005 Eric Masanet, Lynn Price Stephane de la Rue du Can, Rich Brown Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Ernst Worrell Ecofys
    2. 2. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory <ul><li>U.S. Department of Energy research laboratory </li></ul><ul><li>Managed by the University of California </li></ul><ul><li>~4000 employees </li></ul><ul><li>10 Nobel Laureates </li></ul>Energy Analysis Department Environmental Energy Technologies Division                                                                                                           
    3. 3. Project Background <ul><li>California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Exploratory Grant Program </li></ul><ul><li>Program goal: “to support the early development of promising, new scientific concepts with the potential to impact the way we understand and/or address energy-related environmental issues” </li></ul><ul><li>Grant awarded to LBNL for “Optimization of Product Life Cycles to Reduce GHG Emissions” in 2003 </li></ul>
    4. 4. Product Life-Cycle Optimization Raw Materials Acquisition Product Manufacture Product Use End-of-Life Product Life-Cycle Stages Airborne and Waterborne Emissions Raw Materials Energy Inputs Outputs Solid Waste Useable Product Product Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA)
    5. 5. Project Objectives <ul><li>Identify 50 products manufactured in California and estimate the associated life-cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of these products </li></ul><ul><li>Select two products (cement/concrete and personal computers) for detailed LCA case studies to identify opportunities for life-cycle GHG emissions reductions in California </li></ul><ul><li>Identify potential policy options available to California for reducing the life-cycle GHG emissions of the two case study products </li></ul>
    6. 6. Fifty Product Selection Sources: 2001 U.S. Economic Census, 2004 California Manufacturers Directory * Direct consumers of energy during product use ** Indirect consumers of energy during product use Airplane* Bicycle Car* 8% 17,536 Transportation equipment manufacturing 336 Deodorant OTC drug Paint Soap 8% 18,115 Chemical manufacturing 325 Beef** Bread Canned vegetables Cheese** Milk** 9% 19,490 Food manufacturing 311 Cellular phone* Cordless phone* Personal computer* Printed circuit board* Scanner* Semiconductor chip* Tape storage drive* 31% 68,054 Computer and electronic product manufacturing 334 219,584 Manufacturing (sector total) 31-33 Products Selected % Total California 2001 Value Added ($10 6 ) Description NAICS Code
    7. 7. Fifty Product Selection Sources: 2001 U.S. Economic Census, 2004 California Manufacturers Directory * Direct consumers of energy during product use ** Indirect consumers of energy during product use Plastic bag Plastic bottle Plastic cup Tire 3% 7,057 Plastics and rubber products manufacturing 326 Asphalt Gasoline Motor oil 4% 9,021 Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 324 Air conditioner* Commercial refrigerator* Semiconductor process machine* Water pump* 4% 9,752 Machinery manufacturing 333 Home blood pressure monitor* Golf club 6% 12,659 Miscellaneous manufacturing 339 Aluminum can Bolt/nut/screw Metal window** 7% 15,555 Fabricated metal product manufacturing 332 219,584 Manufacturing (sector total) 31-33 Products Selected % Total California 2001 Value Added ($10 6 ) Description NAICS Code
    8. 8. Fifty Product Selection Sources: 2001 U.S. Economic Census, 2004 California Manufacturers Directory * Direct consumers of energy during product use ** Indirect consumers of energy during product use Newspaper N/A 31,125 Publishing industries 511 Carpet <1% 927 Textile product mills 314 Pallet 1% 2,254 Wood product manufacturing 321 Cardboard box Recording paper Shoe box 2% 3,665 Paper manufacturing 322 Gas stove/range* Microwave oven* 2% 4,147 Electrical equipment, appliance, and components 335 Wooden table 2% 4,337 Furniture and related product manufacturing 337 Hydraulic cement Ready-mix concrete 2% 4,748 Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 327 Dress 3% 5,847 Apparel manufacturing 315 Flyer/coupon book 3% 6,174 Printing and related support activities 323 Soft drink** Wine 3% 6,986 Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing 312 219,584 Manufacturing (sector total) 31-33 Products Selected % Total California 2001 Value Added ($10 6 ) Description NAICS Code
    9. 9. Process-Based LCA Source:
    10. 10. Economic Input-Output LCA (EIO-LCA)
    11. 11. Fifty Product LCA Methodology Raw Materials Acquisition Product Manufacture Product Use End-of-Life Energy Inputs Outputs GHG Emissions Product Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) LBNL APPROACH: EIO-LCA Published energy consumption data Process-based LCA data
    12. 12. Fifty Product LCA Results Screening of Fifty Products: kg CO 2 e/unit
    13. 13. Fifty Product LCA Results: Manufacturing Screening of Fifty Products: kg CO 2 e/unit
    14. 14. Fifty Product LCA Results: Use Screening of Fifty Products: kg CO 2 e/unit
    15. 15. Fifty Product LCA Results: Disposal Less than 0.1 Screening of Fifty Products: kg CO 2 e/unit
    16. 16. 50 Product LCA Discussion <ul><li>Results are based on average U.S. sector data </li></ul><ul><li>Latest EIO-LCA input-output tables are from 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>End-of-life analysis does not include materials recycling </li></ul><ul><li>Not possible to determine California-specific GHG emissions </li></ul><ul><li>Products cannot be directly compared due to varying functional units </li></ul>Limitations: <ul><li>Useful for Pareto analysis of largest GHG contributors </li></ul><ul><li>Can be coupled with annual production volumes to estimate a GHG “footprint” for California industry </li></ul><ul><li>Provides indication of the role of California-based businesses in global GHG emissions and opportunities for green design and manufacturing improvements </li></ul>Insights:
    17. 17. Fifty Product LCA Results Selected for case studies Screening of Fifty Products: kg CO 2 e/unit
    18. 18. Case study goals <ul><li>Perform a detailed LCA on two important California-manufactured products </li></ul><ul><li>Identify potential GHG mitigation measures at each stage of the product life cycle </li></ul><ul><li>Quantify the potential annual GHG reductions possible in California for each identified measure </li></ul><ul><li>Identify policy options in California for implementing the identified measures </li></ul>
    19. 19. Personal Computers (PCs) Manufacturing Use End-of-Life <ul><li>169 million PCs were manufactured globally in 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>California’s role in global PC manufacturing: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Computer assembly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Semiconductor chips </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Electronic components </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>California’s “hi tech” sector employs over 700,000 people </li></ul><ul><li>An estimated 16 million PCs are currently installed in California homes and businesses, more than any other US state </li></ul><ul><li>An estimated 10,000 PCs become obsolete in California every day </li></ul>Courtesy of Apple
    20. 20. PC Life-Cycle GHG Emissions <ul><li>Production energy is 2.7% of 2001 primary energy consumed by California’s industrial sector </li></ul><ul><li>Use energy is 1.7% of 2001 primary electrical energy consumed by California’s residential and commercial sectors </li></ul><ul><li>Total estimated life-cycle GHG emissions are 1.5% of California’s 1999 gross GHG emissions </li></ul>Estimated Life-Cycle Emissions 1.61 5.90 93.7 Total 0.001 0.004 0.05 End-of-Life 0.47 1.72 39.4 Use 1.14 4.18 54.3 Manufacturing MtC/yr MtCO 2 /yr PJ/yr Life-Cycle Phase Estimated California GHG Emissions Primary Energy
    21. 21. PC Case Study: Manufacturing GHG emissions Primary data source: Williams (2003) 48.60 21.01 4.18 669.35 277.60 54.30 Total for PC control unit 36.09 15.69 3.96 474.95 199.15 51.20 Subtotal 4.67 0.83 0.41 78.51 14.03 6.96 Final PC assembly 3.72 1.00 0.27 57.02 15.40 4.13 PCBs 7.35 3.67 0.87 0 0 0 GHG adjustment 20.35 10.18 2.40 339.45 169.70 40.10 Semiconductors Manufacturing processes 8.19 4.43 0.21 114.60 63.15 2.73 Subtotal 4.44 2.15 0.16 52.70 25.59 1.93 Specialized materials 3.75 2.28 0.05 61.90 37.56 0.80 Silicon wafers Specialized materials 4.32 0.89 0.01 79.30 15.10 0.30 Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.53 0.50 0.05 Gold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.06 0.006 Silver 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.002 Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.04 0.00 Tin 0.86 0.34 0.01 12.30 4.84 0.09 Epoxy 0.24 0.09 0.00 3.33 1.30 0.02 Plastics 0.61[1] 0.17 0.00 12.15 3.30 0.01 Aluminum 0.56 0.06 0.00 9.96 1.07 0.00 Copper 2.01 0.23 0.00 34.30 3.85 0.04 Steel Int’l U.S. CA Int’l U.S. CA Bulk materials GHG emissions (MtCO 2 e/yr) Primary energy consumption (PJ/yr)
    22. 22. PC Case Study: Use GHG emissions <ul><li>A 75:25 ratio is assumed for the ratio of CRT monitors to LCDs in California homes and businesses </li></ul><ul><li>Electricity consumption is calculated using the unit energy consumption (UEC) approach based on residential and office PC usage patterns </li></ul><ul><li>Electricity consumption is converted to GHG emissions using a California-specific emission factor developed by LBNL </li></ul>Estimated Emissions 0.47 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.05 0.19 0.04 GHG (MtC/yr) 1.71 0.06 0.02 0.60 0.19 0.68 0.16 GHG (MtCO 2 /yr) 39.4 1.35 0.49 13.90 4.48 15.60 3.61 Primary energy (PJ/yr) 1,600,000 1,600,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 # of devices Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Total LCD CRT Monitor PC Control Unit Parameter
    23. 23. PC Case study: End-of-life GHG emissions Estimated Emissions <ul><li>An obsolescence rate of 3.6 million PCs per year is assumed (10,000/day) </li></ul><ul><li>All CRT monitors and LCDs are assumed to be recycled per California’s Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>A PC control unit recycling rate of 8% is assumed </li></ul>1.06 3.87 44 Total (0.09) (0.35) (6) Recycling 0.79 2.89 32 Demanufacturing 0.36 1.33 18 Landfilling GHG Emissions (ktC/yr) GHG Emissions (ktCO 2 /yr) Primary Energy (TJ/yr) End-of-Life Process
    24. 24. PC Case study: Measures identified Summary of Potential Measures and GHG Reductions * % reduction in relation to California PC life-cycle GHG emissions of 5.90 MtCO 2 e/yr. 0.3% 0.018 Upgrade PCs to extend their useful life 2% 0.10 Maximize the energy efficiency of PCs 3% 0.16 Increase control unit power management utilization 8% 0.48 Switch from CRTs to LCDs 8% 0.47 Maximize PC power management utilization Use 12% 0.72 Improve clean room energy efficiency % Reduction* MtCO 2 e/yr Potential Life-Cycle GHG Emission Reduction in California Measure Life-Cycle Stage 0.01% 0.0005 Maximize PC control unit recycling End-of-Life 4% 0.26 Reduce PFC emissions of semiconductor manufacture Manufacturing
    25. 25. Policy opportunities for California <ul><li>Increased clean room energy efficiency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvements to air handling systems, chillers, recirculation fans, and process controls can lead to energy savings of 30-60% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Common barriers to implementation include compressed production cycles, inertia, and lack of awareness of benefits of energy efficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continue to promote energy efficiency progress through increased R&D, energy efficiency targets, and incentives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reduction of PFC emissions from semiconductor manufacture </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. EPA’s voluntary PFC Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry aims to reduce U.S. PFC emissions from semiconductor manufacturing to 10% less than 1995 levels by 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>A high level of industry participation is critical to success </li></ul><ul><li>Policy opportunities depend on level of participation by California facilities </li></ul>
    26. 26. Policy opportunities for California <ul><li>Power management awareness campaigns </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only an estimated 25% of PC control units and 75% of PC displays utilize power management features </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PCs left on overnight are also a major consumer of energy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Awareness campaigns targeting California commercial PC users (75% of electricity consumed by California PCs) could be particularly effective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotion of facility “switch off” campaigns </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Adoption and promotion of green procurement policies for PCs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Large institutional buyers could give preferential buying status for: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Certification to the most stringent Energy Star standard </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IEEE 1621 (power management usability) compliance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Eco-label certification (TCO 99, Blue Angel, EU Eco Flower) to ensure green design (recyclability, upgradeability, etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>LCDs instead of CRTs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Manufacturers with established “take-back” systems </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>US EPA Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool ( </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Policy opportunities for California <ul><li>Increase PC control unit recycling in California </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only CRT monitors, notebooks, and LCDs are currently included in California’s landmark Electronics Waste Recycling Act of 2003, which aims to establish a viable e-waste recycling infrastructure in California </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The inclusion of PC control units should be considered </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Institutional policies… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Encouragement of PC reuse (“down cycling”) and upgrading within large organizations </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. Cement/Concrete <ul><li>Manufacturing </li></ul><ul><li>Use </li></ul><ul><li>Highway road construction leads to higher CO 2 emissions than asphalt roads, but some studies show reduced resistance and increased fuel savings for heavy trucks </li></ul><ul><li>Insulated concrete houses have a higher thermal mass which may lead to increased fuel savings over the lifetime of the house </li></ul><ul><li>End-of-Life </li></ul><ul><li>Energy consumed for demolition, transport, and grinding (in cases where concrete is recycled) </li></ul>11,187 Clinker $2.8 billion 16,000 80,000 Concrete $0.8 billion 2,000 11,166 Cement Value of Shipments Employees Production (1000 short tons)
    29. 29. Concrete Life-Cycle GHG Emissions Estimated Life-Cycle Emissions 3.1 11.4 Total 0.005 0.018 End-of-Life 0.0 0.0 Use 2.8 0.3 3.1 10.4 1.0 11.4 Cement Concrete Total Manufacturing MtC/yr MtCO 2 /yr Product Life-Cycle Phase Estimated California GHG Emissions
    30. 30. <ul><li>Increased energy efficiency improvement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical potential of ~20% in California based on replacing current equipment with best practice technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use of alternative or waste-derived fuels </li></ul><ul><ul><li>90% of energy use is from fuels (mostly coal); 10% electricity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tires, rubber, paper waste, waste oils, waste wood, paper sludge, sewage sludge, plastics and spent solvents can replace fossil fuels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assume 20% replacement of fossil fuels by waste fuels is possible in California kilns </li></ul></ul>Concrete Case Study: Manufacturing Measures
    31. 31. Concrete Case Study: Manufacturing Measures <ul><li>Blended Cement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fly ash from coal-fired power stations, blast furnace slag from iron production, or other materials are inter-ground with clinker </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduces both fuel-related and process-related emissions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commonly used in most countries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limestone or Addition to Portland Cement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Uses ground limestone to replace clinker </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CemStar © Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Uses steel slag to replace clinker </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Concrete Case Study: Use Measures <ul><ul><li>Highway Road Construction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Some studies show that concrete roads result in reduced resistance and increased fuel savings for heavy trucks </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Insulated Concrete Houses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Have higher thermal mass </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>May lead to increased fuel savings over lifetime of the house </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reductions depend strongly on the climate </li></ul></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Concrete Case Study: End-of-Life Measures <ul><li>Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Typically, concrete is landfilled, ground and used as roadbed, or recycled as aggregate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allowed for use in California </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>City of San Francisco recently approved the use of RCA for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and street bases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CalTrans and other agencies are still reviewing the use of RCA </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Concrete Case study: Measures identified Summary of Potential Measures and GHG Reductions * % reduction in relation to California cement/concrete life-cycle GHG emissions of 11.40 MtCO 2 e/yr. Potential Life-Cycle GHG Emission Reduction in California Measure Life-Cycle Stage 0.03 0.004 Increase concrete recycling End-of-Life 0.4 0.04 Fuel efficiency heavy trucks Use 0.1 0.007 CemStar  (steel slags) in Portland cement 3.8 0.44 Add limestone to Portland cement 4.8 0.55 Use blended cement 5.4 0.62 Use waste fuels in cement manufacture 6.0 0.68 Improve energy efficiency in cement manufacture Manufacturing % MtCO 2 e/yr
    35. 35. Policy options for California <ul><li>Increased energy efficiency improvements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish energy-efficiency targets or goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Common practice in many countries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Government provides incentives and support in exchange for achievement of targets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development and use of BEST-Cement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>User-friendly Excel tool to benchmark plants to best practice </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identifies energy-efficiency technologies and measures for an individual plant </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Provides energy savings, emissions reductions, costs, and payback times </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Based on similar BEST-Steel and BEST-Winery tools developed by LBNL </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>29 sectors signed; many met or exceeded targets </li></ul><ul><li>Agreements 22.3% savings over 10-year period </li></ul><ul><li>2x business-as-usual </li></ul>Long-Term Agreements in The Netherlands
    36. 36. Policy options for California <ul><li>Procurement and product specifications for changes in cement composition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Blended cements (fly-ash, blast furnace slag, or other materials) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Change specifications to allow for non-Portland cement (many agencies and constructors mandate Portland cement) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>City of Berkeley Resolution directing procurement of blended cement for City buildings and other construction (12/2002) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limestone addition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PCA has proposed to change ASTM standard to allow 5% ground limestone in Portland cement (European standards allow 6-35% limestone) </li></ul></ul></ul>Crews put in a new foundation, made of 50 percent fly ash, at Wurster Hall. Arleen Ng photo
    37. 37. Policy options for California <ul><li>Use of alternative or waste-derived fuels </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research and development of information to overcome public concerns about hazardous air pollutants from waste-derived fuels such as tires, rubber, paper waste, waste oils, waste wood, paper sludge, sewage sludge, plastics and spent solvents </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Increased recycling of concrete </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Promote the use of recycled concrete as aggregate </li></ul></ul>
    38. 38. Conclusions <ul><li>Systematic, life-cycle optimization approach to identifying GHG emissions and policy options provides a broader perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation options for the two case studies have a technical potential savings of nearly 4 MtCO 2 /yr, or about 1% of California’s 1999 net GHG emissions of 398 MtCO 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Such potential savings represent economic waste, energy losses, and pollution – all of which are important to reduce in order to maintain California’s position as both an economic and environmental global leader </li></ul>
    39. 39. Future research: general issues <ul><li>Improved data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data on actual manufacturing output by product for California </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Updated data for EIO-LCA database (after 1997) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>California state input-output analyses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Updated data on California GHG emissions (after 1999) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alternate metrics for comparison of products </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Economic: per price or value added </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total CA annual production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Typical per capita consumption </li></ul></ul>
    40. 40. Future research: general issues <ul><li>Evaluation of more products </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Only two products evaluated in detail in this project. Other interesting products include water pumps, semiconductor equipment, asphalt paving mixtures, tires, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Include materials recycling “credits” </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation of costs and savings associated with implementation of suggested GHG mitigation options </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can serve as inputs for the regional economic model being developed by Berck, Roland-Holst, et al. </li></ul></ul>
    41. 41. Future research: PCs <ul><ul><li>Improved data and information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Information on what PC components are manufactured in California and at what annual volumes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Better data on the use characteristics of California’s PC stock (CRTs vs. LCDs, total number installed, usage patterns, etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Updated LCA data on PCs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment of the saturation level of the proposed GHG mitigation measures in California </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forecasting studies to determine the most robust GHG mitigation measures in California considering expanding use, rapidly evolving technology, and shift to overseas manufacturing </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. Future research: cement/concrete <ul><ul><li>Improved data and information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>California-specific emissions factors for waste-derived fuels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Information on use of cement and concrete in pavement and housing construction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fuel efficiency of concrete versus asphalt roads in California, especially for heavy trucks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Further assessment of the use-phase savings (or increases) related to concrete house construction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study of construction and demolition waste streams in California to better understand flows of concrete and identify opportunities to recycle concrete </li></ul></ul>