6I03 LCA Project Report

Sustainable Manufacturing Processes
LCA Report
Wood vs. Concrete Utility Poles
Name: Linnan Zhuang
Student Number: 400045309
Mac ID: zhuangl

Introduction
Across north America there’s an estimate of over 100 million wood utility poles in
service[1]. Most of these wood utility poles are treated with preservatives, such as
chromate copper arsenate(CCA), creosote, pentachlorophenol(penta)[2]. Among those
wood utility poles, about 62 per cent are treated with penta[2]. But the problem is that
after years of service, these chemicals seep into the ground which poses great threat
and detriment to the ground and environment. Therefore, the environmental impact
posed by wood utility pole is worthy of attention so that recommendation and
suggestion relative to the production process can be made to refine the process and
reduce the environmental damage. Also, alternatives to material used in
manufacturing utility poles can be considered. Those alternatives to wood poles
include spun-cast concrete poles, steel poles, etc. A comparison of different materials
used in making utility poles is conducive to looking at the efficiency and
environmental consequence of each production process.
This study compares wood utility pole and concrete utility pole. By looking at each
pole’s manufacturing process, life cycle inventory is obtained. And with the results of
air emission and waste product of each process, environmental impact can be
assessed.
This report contains such sections:
1. Goals
2. Scope
1) Product Definition
2) Choice of Alternatives
3) Description of Product
4) Geographical Scope
5) Technological Scope
6) Handling of By-Products/Co-Products
7) Environmental Parameters
8) Sources of Data
3. LCI (Wood Utility Pole)
4. LCI (Concrete Utility Pole)
5. Life Cycle Assessment and Interpretation
6. Conclusions and Recommendation

Goals
The general goal of this study is to learn the life cycle of these two kinds of utility
poles. It includes gleaning necessary information and data of the process steps such as
the kinds of material needed in each step, how much energy is needed, what the
environmental impacts it has. Also, the goal is to learn the inputs and outputs of each
step and compare the two kinds of poles using life cycle analysis. And with the
comparison of the two products, an overall understanding of how the process goes is
obtained. Therefore, ways to better the life cycle can be proposed, such as how to
refine the use of material in each step, reduce energy consumption, minimize the
environmental impact, etc.
Scope
My project is based on industry averages. The products in the project are both
standard in the industry which follows the standard procedure of manufacturing. This
study is not intended for public use, nor can be used to assess present products in the
industry.
1) Product Definition
In this study, I compared 1000 wood utility poles with 1000 concrete utility poles. The
function is to hold overhead wire, cable, etc. The functional unit is one class 4 45-foot
wood pole. For the concrete counterpart, it’s one class 2 45-foot concrete pole. The
comparison is based on equivalent function provided by each utility pole.
2) Choice Alternative
Further study could include utility pole made of other material such as steel.
3) Description of Product/Process Systems
Cradle-to-gate analysis is applied in this study. For the wood utility pole, the
production process considered starts from a seedling and ends with a
preservative-treated wood pole product. It includes seedling, site preparation, planting
and growth; log harvesting; debarking; drying; wood transportation; preservative
production; preservative transportation and wood treatment. A flow chart outlining the
whole process as well as the system boundary will be given later.
As for concrete utility pole, the manufacturing process starts from cement production
and ends with a concrete pole. The production process includes cement production,
cement transportation, concrete production, concrete curing, steel(rebar) production
and pole manufacture. A flow chart will be given later.
4) Geographical Scope
The data of the wood is gleaned mainly from NREL online database based on trees
grown in southeastern region of America. Data is based on numbers in a SE case
study in one academic publication.
In terms of concrete utility pole, the cement production data is drawn from NREL

database (Portland Cement). The concrete production part of data is drawn from a
report released by PCA (Portland Cement Association). The data is based on the
industry averages of America’s cement plants.
5) Technological Scope
Average technology is considered in the analysis which represents the average
operations in this industry.
6) Handling of By-products/Co-products
For the wood utility pole part, the co-product is ammonia. The by-products of lower
value include: formaldehyde, tree bark, solid waste, etc.
The co-products of the concrete utility pole include: aluminum, ammonia, zinc, etc.
The by-products include: mercury, sulfate, sulfide, particulates, solid wastes.
Handling of these products is not included in this study.
7) Environmental Parameters
In this study, I chose three parameters: GWP, AP and EI to assess the environmental
impact of each product.
8) Sources of Data
The data is mainly collected from academic publications and NREL database.
LCI(wood utility pole)
General Description
Cradle-to-gate analysis is applied here, which ends when the product is finished at the
manufacturing plant. A wood utility pole’s life cycle generally includes tree growth,
log processing, preservative production and wood treatment. Below is the flow chart
of the process.

Seedling, Site
Preparation, Planting
and Tree Growth
Log Harvesting
Debarking(Peeling)
Drying
Wood Transportation
Preservative
Production
Preservative
Transportaion
Wood Treatment
Trees
Barky logs
Debarked logs
Seedlings
Dried logs
Transported logs
Preservative
Transported
Preservative
Wood Utility Poles
Poles in service
Used Poles
Landfilling,recycling
Fossil fuel
Electricity
Water
Transportation
Diesel
Lubricants
Fertilizer
Emissions to air
Solid wastes
Liquid wastes
The solid box in the flow chart indicates the system boundary of this life cycle
analysis. All the reference flows coming out of and going to a process are considered
as economic flows. And reference flows that come from the environment and go to the
environment are considered as environmental flows.
Description of each step
1. Seedling, Site preparation, Planting and Tree Growth
The inputs of this step includes water, fertilizer, electricity, gasoline, etc. Average
level of management intensity is applied, and a planting density of 726 trees per acre
is applied. When this step is done, trees are considered ready to be harvested. Thus,
the output is a tree.
2. Log harvesting
This step comprises of several sub-steps: felling, skidding, processing, loading and

transportation to mill. The inputs are diesel and lubricants with the major output barky
log with an array of air emissions: ammonia, CO2, CO, methane, SO2 and so on.
3. Debarking
All the barky logs are then transported to a mill where they’re peeled. The output is
debarked wood and bark with the input being diesel and electricity.
4. Drying
In this step, kiln drying is applied and data is based on that technology. The debarked
poles are fed into the kiln powered by electricity and combustion of diesel and
Hogfuel-Biomass. It outputs dry wood with volatile organic compounds.
5. Preservative Production
Pentachlorophenol(penta) is chosen as the preservative in the process. The production
of penta needs bituminous coal, diesel, electricity, water and necessary chemical
reactants such as chlorine, phenol. It outputs penta with a series of air emissions and
chemical substances such as lead, mercury.
6. Transportation of wood and preservative
There are different modes of truck transportation. Here combination truck powered by
diesel is applied. Burning diesel produces ammonia, CO2, CO, methane, SO2,
particulates and so on.
7. Wood Treatment
In this process, penta is applied to wood poles. So the inputs are debarked wood,
penta and other necessary fuel sources including diesel, electricity, natural gas, etc.
The output is penta-treated wood pole. This is the last step of the life cycle analysis
since my study is a cradle-to-gate one.
LCI (concrete utility pole)
General description
The production process of a concrete utility pole consists of cement production,
cement transportation, aggregate transportation, concrete production, concrete curing,
steel(rebar) production and pole manufacture. Cradle-to-gate analysis is applied here,
which ends when the product is finished at the manufacturing plant. Below is the flow
chart of the production process of a concrete utility pole.

Cement Production
Steel Production
Raw Materials
Raw Materials
Cement
Steel
Cement
Transportation
Concrete Production
Transported Cement
Concrete Curing
Concrete
Pole Manufacture
Cured Concrete
Concrete Utility Poles
Poles in service
Recycling
Aggregate Transport
Aggregate
Fossil Fuel
Electricity
Diesel Fuel
Natural Gas
Air Emission
Solid Waste
The solid box in the flow chart indicates the system boundary of this life cycle
analysis. All the reference flows coming out of and going to a process are considered
as economic flows. And reference flows that come from the environment and go to the
environment are considered as environmental flows.
Description of each process
1. Cement production
Data of this process is gleaned based on Portland cement’s cement in NREL database.
The inputs are limestone, clay, sand, shale, fly ash, water, etc. The process is powered
by electricity, natural gas, gasoline, etc. It outputs cement with a wide array of
by-products and co-products including air emissions such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen
chloride, etc. (there’re simply too many products in this step, so the detailed
information is outlined in the appendix)
2. Cement transportation

The transportation is assumed to be by road powered by diesel fuel, the average
round-trip distance for cement is 100 km [13]. Burning diesel fuel results in air
emissions such as CO2, CO, CH4, particulates.
3. Aggregate transportation
Aggregate includes coarse and fine aggregates. The production of aggregates is not
included in this LCA. The transportation is assumed to be by road powered by diesel
fuel, the average round-trip distance for aggregates is 50 km[13]. Burning diesel fuel
results in air emissions such as CO2, CO, CH4, particulates.
4. Concrete production
Raw materials for concrete include cement, aggregates, water. The mix design data is
drawn from an academic literature. To make 1 cubic meter of concrete, 335 kg of
cement, 141 kg of water, 1200 kg of coarse aggregate and 710 kg of fine aggregate is
needed[13]. The process is powered by diesel fuel, electricity and natural gas which
outputs CO2, CO, CH4, SO2, VOC and particulates.
5. Concrete curing
This process is fueled by natural gas and diesel fuel with outputs of CO2, CO, NOx,
SO2 and VOC.
6. Steel production
The last process of concrete utility pole is casting, and spun-casting is considered in
this study. In spun-casting, concrete is put into a mold with reinforced steel. Thus,
steel, more precisely steel wire is needed for the final product. The steel (rebar)
production data is drawn from a literature in which American and Canadian steel
products’ LCI is detailed. The part of data is based on the average level of combined
Canadian mills which is a representative of domestic estimates. The raw material for
steel wire consists of lime, limestone, iron ore, prompt scrap, obsolete scrap, coal. The
energy inputs are electricity, natural gas, diesel fuel, coke, bunker oil, etc. Solid
wastes such as slag, BOF dust are produced in this process as well as inevitable air
emissions of CO2, CO, NOx, SOx and VOC.
7. Pole manufacture
As described in last process, spun-casting technique is considered. Concrete is first
injected into a spin mold with steel reinforcement. Then concrete is spun-cast by
centrifugal force. A concrete pole is manufactured after this. Due to the scarcity of the
data in this process, “0” is put in the environmental matrix. Further study can be done
in terms of collecting data of energy input and environmental output.
Life Cycle Assessment and Interpretation
This study considers three environmental parameters: Global Warming Potential
(GWP), Acidification Potential (AP), Energy Intensity (EI). The results given in the

tables are the mass of relevant substances obtained in the analysis (the whole life
cycle inventory will be given in the appendix). The comparison is done between 1000
wood poles and 1000 concrete poles.
1. GWP
GWP assesses the radiative impacts of greenhouse gases on a global scale, and it’s
expressed as the equivalent amount of CO2 which would have the same effect on the
global atmosphere:
kg CO2 eq.=(kg of gas)×(GWP)
And for different time period, GWP factor is different. Here I choose 100-year GWP
factor to do the calculation(the data is from course lecture).
The analysis of these two kinds of utility poles yields a result of GHG which is shown
in the table below:
Table 1: GWP Comparison of wood pole and concrete pole
Wood pole Concrete pole 100-year GWP
CO2/kg 40806.99 297361.126 1
CH4/kg 11.19 4.592 21
CO2 eq./kg 41041.98 297457.558 Non-applicable
As we can conclude from the table above, compared to a wood utility pole, a concrete
utility pole causes approximately 7 times more GHG (measured by equivalent mass of
CO2).
2. AP
This indicator measures a certain gas’s ability to release hydrogen ions to the
atmosphere compared to SO2. It’s measured in SO2 eq.
kg SO2 eq.=(kg of gas)×(AP)
According to course lecture, different compounds have different APs.
Table 2: AP of relevant compounds
Compound Acidification Potential
SO2 1
NOx 0.7
HCl 0.88
HF 1.6
The analysis obtains a result of gases of certain acidification potential:
Table 3: AP Comparison of wood pole and concrete pole
Wood pole Concrete pole
SO2/kg 3.784724 539.5176

NOx/kg 456.26 599.65
HCl/kg 0.000652 15.566914
SO2 eq./kg 323.1673 972.9715
As we can see from the table above, compared to a wood utility pole, a concrete
utility pole causes approximately 3 times more Acid Rain Potential(measured by
equivalent mass of SO2).
3. EI
This parameter is expressed as the ratio of energy inputs in order to manufacture
desired products. The detailed information is given in the table below.
Table 4: Energy Intensity Comparison of wood pole and concrete pole
Energy source Wood pole Concrete pole
Electricity/kWh 41278.5 101064.4
Gasoline/L 151.6 305248
Diesel/L 64890 6472360.2
Hogfuel Biomass/kg 140976 None
Natural Gas/m3
2890.95 16525.1
Residual Fuel Oil/L 8962.6 21789086
As shown by the table above, compared to a wood utility pole, a concrete pole
demands much more energy inputs.
Sensitivity Analysis
In the part of wood utility pole, wood poles’ transportation distance can be considered
as a sensitive factor. So distance is doubled here to calculate how sensitive the
environmental parameters are to wood poles’ transportation. The comparison of
results is shown in table 5.
In addition, the second part hasn’t taken consideration of aggregate production
process. So in this part, the process of aggregate production is considered as a
sensitive factor to see its contribution to the environmental impact as well as needed
energy inputs. The comparison is show in the table 5.
Table5: Sensitivity analysis
Wood pole Concrete pole
Base case
Transportation
distance×2
Base case Alternate case*
CO2/kg 40806.99 40938.69 297361.126 6533434.7
CH4/kg 11.19 11.19 4.592 1372.152
SO2/kg 3.784724 3.784724 539.5176 10112.4376
NOx/kg 456.26 457.51 599.65 57641.646
HCl/kg 0.000652 0.001304 15.566914 15.566914
*Note: Alternate case means that aggregate production process is considered in the

new sensitivity analysis calculation
As shown in the table, the gas emissions are not sensitive to transportation distance
due to the fact that small amount of gases are emitted in the process of transportation.
However, the difference of aggregate production process is significant. Based on my
data, in order to make 1 cubic meter of concrete, 1200 kg of coarse aggregate and 710
kg of fine aggregate is needed. And to make such aggregates, a great amount of gases
are emitted to the atmosphere causing more damage.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Conclusion
Based on the life cycle inventory of two kinds of utility pole and the aforementioned
comparison of environmental impacts(GWP, AP, EI), we can see that concrete utility
pole poses much more threat to the environment than wood utility pole does. This
analysis is even based on a scarcity of data of concrete pole manufacture process, so
this LCI is more conservative than it’s supposed to be. Nonetheless, manufacturing a
concrete utility pole causes approximately 7 times more GHG, 3 times Acid Rain
Potential than its counterpart, wood utility pole. And the energy inputs of a wood pole
are much more than a concrete pole, as well.
Recommendation
The production of both utility poles should endeavor to reduce the use of fossil fuel,
thereby reducing the gas emission which is a main contributor to global warming and
acidification. More use of renewable sources can be an alternative, such as the use of
biomass. Electricity produced by clean energy such as wind needs to be considered, as
well. The sourcing of raw materials is also a choice. By choosing to obtain necessary
raw materials close to point of processing and manufacturing, the energy input can be
greatly reduced. From manufacturing’s point of view, all utilities should seek to find a
way of lean manufacturing, which means reducing unnecessary wastage, improving
production efficiency, etc.
References:
[1] Brooks, Kenneth. "Pressure-Treated Wooden Utility Poles and Our Environment."
North American Wood Pole Coalition. Web.
[2] Bolin, Christopher A., and Stephen T. Smith. "Life Cycle Assessment of
Pentachlorophenol-treated Wooden Utility Poles with Comparisons to Steel and
Concrete Utility Poles." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15.5 (2011):
2475-486. Web.
[3] NREL. Felling, feller buncher, >200HP, NE-NC. LCI Database. Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Web.
[4] NREL. Skidding, grapple skidder, >140HP. LCI Database. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Web.
[5] NREL. Delimbing, slide boom delimber. LCI Database. Golden, CO: National

[6] NREL. Loader operation, large, NE-NC. LCI Database. Golden, CO: National
[7] NREL. Transport, combination truck, short-haul, diesel powered, Southeast. LCI
Database. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Web.
[8] NREL. Debarking, at plywood plant, US SE. LCI Database. Golden, CO: National
[9] NREL. Dry rough lumber, at kiln, US SE. LCI Database. Golden, CO: National
[10] NREL. Poles, softwood, PCP treated. LCI Database. Golden, CO: National
[11] Johnson, Leonard R., Bruce Lippke, John D. Marshall, and Jeffrey Comnick.
"Forest Resources-Pacific Northwest and Southeast." CORRIM: Phase I Final Report
Module A. Web.
[12] AquAeTer, Inc. Conclusions and Summary Environmental Life Cycle Assessment
of Utility Poles. Web.
[13] Nisbet, Michael A., Medgar L. Marceau, and Martha G. VanGeem.
"Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete." Web.
[14] NREL. Portland cement, at plant. LCI Database. Golden, CO: National
[15] The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. "Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Inventory:
Canadian and US Steel Production By Mill Type." (2002). Web.
[16] Ergon Energy Co, Ltd. "Specification for the Manufacture of Concrete Poles."
Web.
[17] Morgan, P. D. "Reinforced Concrete Poles For Overhead Lines. " Report of The
British Electrical And Allied Industries Research Association (1932): 423-30. Web.
[18] Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). "Prestressed Concrete Poles". Web.

Appendix:
LCI(Wood utility pole)
Technology Matrix
Environmental Matrix

 
 
 
  
 
 
2
potassium(kg)
Electricity(kWh)
Gasoline(L)
Nitrogen(kg)
Phosphorous(kg)
Water(L)
Fuel(L)
Diesel(L)
Lubricants(kg)
aldehydes(kg)
ammonia kg
CO kg
CO kg
dust SPM kg
formaldehyde kg
methane kg
N  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
2
2
X
2
X
O kg
NO kg
non methane VOC kg
NO kg
organic substances kg
particulates PM10 kg
particulates unspecified kg
SO kg
SO kg
VOC kg
Bark kg
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hogfuel Biomass kg
Bituminous Coal kg
Chlorine kg
Phenol kg
Natural Gas m^3
Residual fuel oil L
HCl kg
Lead kg
Mercury kg
Hydrocarbons kg
Solid waste kg
wood waste kg

































































































 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


4.54E 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.56E 02 0 5.01473 0.0364 4.63 0 0 32.3
6.54E 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22
1.48E 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.51E 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.13 0 0 0.581 170 0 0 1.70E 4
4.50E 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1.8736 0.33849 1.98E 4 78.7323 0.36678 13.37584 2.
 
     
  
 
 
    
 
        5
0 0.0291 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2.8849E 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5.41598E 4 0 0 0 1.83E 5 0.000667 0
0 0.130909 0 0 6.3E 4 0.00148 0.053973 0
0 16.4 0 0 0.2 0.962808 35.11197 0
0 0.000359251 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.004136832 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.01066867 0 0 0 7.63E 6 0.0002783 0
0 0.003973536


 


0 0 0 9.97E 7 3.6359E 5 0
0 0.001295482 0 0 0 0.000498 0.018161 0
0 0.06422976 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.2830464 0 0 1.90E 3 0.005887 0.214689 0
0 0.000196772 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.019622736 0 0 3.90E 4 0.000329 0.011998 0
0 0.001254658 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0.003293136 0 0 0 1.57E
 


 5 0.000573 0
0 0.07429968 0 0 8.90E 4 0 0 0
0 5.47E 5 0 9.63E 4 2.30E 5 2.92E 4 0.010649 0.13
0 0 41.99837 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0.436 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0.125 0 0 0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 








    


 
  













0 0 0 0 7.7 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 3.19
0 0 0 0 13.61 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 9.90E 7 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3.40E 11 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1.0E 6 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0.000283 0.010321 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87.9
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
(continued matrix)
(Note, some revision has been done to the environmental items in the matrix, hence
the blank space in the middle which couldn’t seem to be deleted)

Inverse Matrix
1 1 0.003191 0.003191 0 0 0.004123 1.566585
0 1 0.003191 0.003191 0 0 0.004123 1.566585
0 0 0.003191 0.003191 0 0 0.004123 1.566585
0 0 0 1 0 0 1.292105 491
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002632 1
0 0 0 0 2631.579 0.095969 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0.095969 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
 










 










Demand Matrix
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
658.5302
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
(Note：1000 wood utility poles are approximately 658.5302 m3
, a volume unit is used
in the calculation in consistent with the production process)
Scaling Matrix
1031.643
1031.643
1031.643
323338.3
658.5302
658.5302
658.5302
658.5302
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Environmental Flow Inventory
The inventory of substances that go to the environment is listed below:
aldehydes(kg) 0.297618

ammonia(kg) 1.010271
CO(kg) 171.9838
CO2(kg) 40806.99
dust(SPM)(kg) 0.370619
formaldehyde(kg) 4.267735
CH4(kg) 11.19453
N2O(kg) 4.123872
NO2(kg) 13.62413
non methane VOC(kg) 66.2622
NOX(kg) 438.51
organic substances(kg) 0.202998
particulates(PM10)(kg) 28.61824
particulates(unspecified)(kg) 1.294359
SO2(kg) 3.784724
SOX(kg) 77.23686
VOC(kg) 404.2601
Bark(kg) 43327.34
HCl(kg) 0.000652
Lead(kg) 2.24E-08
Mercury(kg) 0.000659
Hydrocarbons(kg) 6.982744
Solid waste(kg) 45438.58
LCI(Concrete utility pole)
Technology Matrix
Cement(kg) 1 335 0 0 0 0 0
TransportedCement(kg*km) 0 33500 0 33500 0 0 0
TransportedAggregate(kg*km) 0 0 95500 95500 0 0 0
Concrete(m ^ 3) 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
CuredConcrete(m ^ 3) 0
Steel(kg)
ConcreteUtilityPoles(item)
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 0 0 1 0 0.716
0 0 0 0 0 1000 94
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental Matrix

B
Cement
production
Cement
Transport
Aggregate
transport
Concrete
prodcution
Concrete
curing
Steel
production
Pole
manufacture
Aluminium(kg)
8.60E-07 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ammonia(kg) 4.76E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ammonium,ion 9.48E-07 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO2(kg) 3.74E-01 2.42 6.88 14.2 3.84 589.739 0
CO2(fossil)(kg) 5.53E-01 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO(kg) 1.10E-03 0.022 0.063 0.004 0.001 2.798 0
Chloride(kg) 7.27E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
DOC(Dissolved Organic
Carbon)(kg)
1.38E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dioxins(kg) 9.98E-11 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCl(kg) 6.49E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury(kg) 6.24E-08 0 0 0 0 0 0
Methane(kg) 3.95E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrate compounds(kg) 5.90E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrogen oxides(kg) 2.50E-03 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oils(kg) 7.52E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOx(kg) 0.00E+00 0.022 0.063 0.014 0.004 1.387 0
CH4(kg) 0.00E+00 0.001 0.002 0 0 0.026 0
Particulates(kg) 2.65E-03 0.003 0.009 0.101 0 0.154 0
Phenols(kg) 2.20E-08 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phosphorous(kg) 5.51E-09 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfate(kg) 6.16E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfide(kg) 6.61E-08 0 0 0 0 0 0
SO2(kg) 1.66E-03 0.004 0.011 0.083 0.015 0.643 0
Suspended solids(kg) 2.34E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOC(kg) 5.02E-05 0.004 0.011 0.0003 0.0001 0.41 0
Zinc(kg) 3.31E-08 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diesel fuel(GJ) 0.00E+00 -0.034 -0.097 -0.191 -3.33E-05 -0.18145 0
Bituminous coal(kg) -1.07E-01 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clay(kg) -5.97E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bottom ash(kg) -1.01E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cement bags(kg) -6.80E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chains(kg) -2.01E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cement kiln dust(kg) -4.70E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Explosives(kg) -2.95E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
Filter bags(kg) -1.92E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fly ash(kg) -1.35E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Foundry sand(kg) -3.82E-03 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grinding aids(kg) -3.60E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grinding media(kg) -1.40E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
Middle distillates(kg) -1.07E-06 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oil and grease(kg) -1.30E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
Petroleum coke(kg) -2.23E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Refractory material(kg) -6.47E-04 0 0 0 0 0 0
Slag -1.98E-02 0 0 0 0 95.551 0
Waste -1.46E-02 0 0 0 0 23.819 0
Electricity(kWh) -1.44E-01 0 0 -3.8892 0 -678.08417 0
Gasoline(L) -1.33E-04 0 0 0 0 -3246.98 0
Gypsum -6.15E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Iron ore -1.35E-02 0 0 0 0 -130.32 0
Limestone 1.37E+00 0 0 0 0 -5.833 0
Liquefied petroleum gas(L) -1.43E-05 0 0 0 0 0 0
Natural gas(m3) -5.57E-03 -1.098 -0.88 -146.519 0
Raw material(kg) -2.64E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residual fuel oil(L) -4.42E-05 0 0 0 0 -231798.67 0
Sand(kg) -4.05E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shale(kg) -5.22E-02 0 0 0 0 0 0
Slate(kg) -1.13E-03 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water(kg) -8.40E-01 0 0 -141 0 0 0
lime(kg) 0 0 0 0 0 -52.66 0
prompt scrap(kg) 0 0 0 0 0 -370.676 0
obsolete scrap(kg) 0 0 0 0 0 -581.901 0
scrap prompt and
obsolete(kg)
0 0 0 0 0 -1172.703 0
coal(kg) 0 0 0 0 0 -57.424 0
chemical heat(MJ) 0 0 0 0 0 -51.174 0
energy from raw
materials(kg)
0 0 0 0 0 -10471.214 0

(Note: Data of pole manufacture hasn’t been found, so “0” is put in each item)
Inverse Matrix
1 0.01 0 335 335 0 239.86
0 2.99E 5 0 1 1 0 0.716
0 0 1.05E 5 1 1 0 0.716
0 0 0 1 1 0 0.716
0 0 0 0 1 0 0.716
0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.094
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Demand Matrix
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scaling Matrix
239860
716
716
716
716
94
1000
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental Flow Inventory
Likewise, the substances that go to the environment is listed below:
Aluminium(kg) 0.2062796
Ammonia(kg) 1.1417336
Ammonium,ion 0.2273873
CO2(kg) 164718.55

CO2(fossil)(kg) 132642.58
CO(kg) 591.298
Chloride(kg) 174.37822
DOC(Dissolved
Organic Carbon)(kg)
3.310068
Dioxins(kg) 2.39E-05
HCl(kg) 15.566914
Mercury(kg) 0.0149673
Methane(kg) 9.47447
Nitrate compounds(kg) 1.415174
Nitrogen oxides(kg) 599.65
Oils(kg) 1.8037472
NOx(kg) 204.126
CH4(kg) 4.592
Particulates(kg) 731.013
Phenols(kg) 0.0052769
Phosphorous(kg) 0.0013216
Sulfate(kg) 147.75376
Sulfide(kg) 0.0158547
SO2(kg) 539.5176
Suspended solids(kg) 56.12724
VOC(kg) 61.607372
Zinc(kg) 0.0079394

6I03 LCA Project Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to 6I03 LCA Project Report

Similar to 6I03 LCA Project Report (20)

6I03 LCA Project Report