scholarly journals An Investigation into the Environmental Impact of Product Recovery Methods to Support Sustainable Manufacturing within Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

2012 ◽  
pp. 73-90
Author(s):  
Michaela R. Appleby ◽  
Chris G. Lambert ◽  
Allan E. W. Rennie ◽  
Adam B. Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Sustainable Manufacturing ◽  
Product Recovery ◽  
Waste Hierarchy ◽  
Government Legislation ◽  
Lower Carbon ◽  
Recovery Methods

The effects of climate change and government legislation has changed the way in which manufacturers can dispose of their waste, encouraging SMEs to source alternative disposal methods such as those indicated in the waste hierarchy. It is economically and environmentally beneficial to use product recovery methods to divert waste from landfill. The environmental impact of two product recovery methods, remanufacturing and repairing, has been compared via a carbon footprint calculation for a UK-based SME. The calculation has identified that repairing has a lower carbon footprint than remanufacturing, however this only extends the original life-cycle of the product, whereas remanufacturing provides a new life-cycle and warranty, and therefore seen as the most preferable method of product recovery to support sustainable manufacturing.

scholarly journals An Investigation into the Environmental Impact of Product Recovery Methods to Support Sustainable Manufacturing Within Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Michaela R. Appleby ◽  
Chris G. Lambert ◽  
Allan E. W. Rennie ◽  
Adam B. Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Sustainable Manufacturing ◽  
Product Recovery ◽  
Waste Hierarchy ◽  
Government Legislation ◽  
Lower Carbon ◽  
Recovery Methods

The effects of climate change and government legislation has changed the way in which manufacturers can dispose of their waste, encouraging SMEs to source alternative disposal methods such as those indicated in the waste hierarchy. It is economically and environmentally beneficial to use product recovery methods to divert waste from landfill. The environmental impact of two product recovery methods, remanufacturing and repairing, has been compared via a carbon footprint calculation for a UK-based SME. The calculation has identified that repairing has a lower carbon footprint than remanufacturing, however this only extends the original life-cycle of the product, whereas remanufacturing provides a new life-cycle and warranty, and therefore seen as the most preferable method of product recovery to support sustainable manufacturing.

A Comparison of Carbon Footprint Calculations for End of Life Product Recovery Methods Using PAS 2050

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela R. Appleby ◽  
Adam B. Buckley ◽  
Chris G. Lambert ◽  
Allan E. W. Rennie
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Product Recovery ◽  
Recovery Method ◽  
Specific Data ◽  
Carbon Footprints ◽  
North West ◽  
Government Legislation ◽  
Recovery Methods

This paper demonstrates a comparison of product recovery methods, by carbon footprint calculation, for repaired products with remanufactured products and the environmental impact that they have when they reach their end-of-life (EOL). Growing concerns of climate change and government legislation have changed the way in which consumers can dispose of used or broken products. Items can no longer be sent to landfill and it is now the responsibility of the producers to dispose of products in a more sustainable manner and take into consideration all stages of the products life cycle. A standardised method for calculating carbon footprints has been used and a carbon footprint carried out for each product recovery method. Specific data was collected, from a manufacturing company in England’s North West region, about the processes involved during each recovery method and have identified that repairing has a lower carbon footprint than remanufacturing. However, repairing only extends the existing life cycle of a product, whereas remanufacturing can be carried out up to three times, and provides the product with a new life cycle. Therefore, remanufacturing is seen as the most preferable method of product recovery in terms of carbon emissions and sustainable waste disposal.

Assessment of Life Cycle Emissions of Bio-SPKs for Jet Engines

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kadambari Lokesh ◽  
Atma Prakash ◽  
Vishal Sethi ◽  
Eric Goodger ◽  
Pericles Pilidis
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Life Cycles ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Jet Engines ◽  
Plant Lipid ◽  
Carbon Reduction ◽  
Lower Carbon

Bio-Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK) is one of the most anticipated renewable energy to conventional Jet kerosene (CJK). Bio-SPK is plant lipid which is thermo-chemically converted to kerosene like compositions to serve as “Drop-in” biojet fuel. The environmental impact of Bio-SPK is to be understood to determine its potential as a carbon neutral / negative fuel. Assessment of Life Cycle Emissions of Bio-SPKs (ALCEmB) aims to deliver a quantitative, life cycle centered emissions (LCE) model, reporting the process related-carbon footprint of Bio-SPKs. This study also encompasses the key emission-suppressing feature associated with biofuels, termed as “Biomass Credit”. The Bio-SPKs chosen for this analysis and ranked based on their “Well-to-Wake” emissions are Camelina SPK, Microalgae SPK and Jatropha SPK. The Greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted at each stage of their life cycles have been represented in the form of CO2 equivalents and the LCE of each of the Bio-SPKs were weighed against that of a reference fuel, the CJK. Camelina SPK among the three Bio-SPKs analyzed, was determined to have a relatively lower carbon footprint with a <70% carbon reduction relative to CJK followed by Jatropha SPK and Microalgae SPK respectively. In general, Bio-SPKs were able to reduce their overall LCE by 60–70%, at baseline scenario, relative to its fossil derived counterpart.

Excellent environmental performance of beet sugar production in the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
pp. 161-165
Author(s):  
Bertram de Crom ◽  
Jasper Scholten ◽  
Janjoris van Diepen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Environmental Performance ◽  
Cane Sugar ◽  
Sugar Production ◽  
Beet Sugar ◽  
Glucose Syrup

To get more insight in the environmental performance of the Suiker Unie beet sugar, Blonk Consultants performed a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study on beet sugar, cane sugar and glucose syrup. The system boundaries of the sugar life cycle are set from cradle to regional storage at the Dutch market. For this study 8 different scenarios were evaluated. The first scenario is the actual sugar production at Suiker Unie. Scenario 2 until 7 are different cane sugar scenarios (different countries of origin, surplus electricity production and pre-harvest burning of leaves are considered). Scenario 8 concerns the glucose syrup scenario. An important factor in the environmental impact of 1kg of sugar is the sugar yield per ha. Total sugar yield per ha differs from 9t/ha sugar for sugarcane to 15t/ha sugar for sugar beet (in 2017). Main conclusion is that the production of beet sugar at Suiker Unie has in general a lower impact on climate change, fine particulate matter, land use and water consumption, compared to cane sugar production (in Brazil and India) and glucose syrup. The impact of cane sugar production on climate change and water consumption is highly dependent on the country of origin, especially when land use change is taken into account. The environmental impact of sugar production is highly dependent on the co-production of bioenergy, both for beet and cane sugar.

Life cycle assessment of organic Parmesan Cheese considering the whole dairy supply chain

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Borghesi ◽  
Giuseppe Vignali
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Water Consumption ◽  
Organic Agriculture ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Parmesan Cheese

Agriculture and food manufacturing have a considerable effect on the environment emissions: holdings and farms play an important role about greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. This study aims at evaluating the environmental impact of one of the most important Italian DOP product: organic Parmesan Cheese. Environmental performances of the whole dairy supply chain have been assessed according to the life cycle assessment approach (LCA). In this analysis Parmesan Cheese is made from an organic dairy farm in Emilia Romagna, which uses the milk from three different organic livestock productions. Organic agriculture is different from conventional; the major difference is represented by the avoidance of the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides made in chemical industry process. Organic agriculture uses organic fertilizers to encourage the natural fertility of the soil respecting the environment and the agro-system. In this case, life cycle approach is used to assess the carbon footprint and the water footprint of organic Parmesan Cheese considering the milk and cheese production. The object at this level is investigating the environmental impact considering the situation before some improvement changes. The functional unit is represented by 1 kg of organic Parmesan Cheese; inventory data refer to the situation in year 2017 and system boundaries consider the inputs related to the cattle and dairy farm until the ripening (included). The carbon footprint is investigated using IPCC 2013 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 100a method, developed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and reported in kg of CO2eq. Otherwise, water footprint allows to measure the water consumption and in this work it is assessed using AWARE method (Available Water REmaining).

Investigation of the two-decade environmental impact of large-scale agricultural cultivation and its impact on climate change in the Lajta-Project

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Polgár ◽  
Karolina Horváth ◽  
Imre Mészáros ◽  
Adrienn Horváth ◽  
András Bidló ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Winter Barley ◽  
Cultivated Plants ◽  
Agricultural Activity

&lt;p&gt;Crop production is applied on about half of Hungary&amp;#8217;s land area, which amounts to approximately 4.5 million hectares. The agricultural activity has significant environmental impacts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our work aims the time series investigation of the impacts of large-scale agricultural cultivation&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;on environment and primarily on climate change in&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;the test area by applying environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) method.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The investigated area of Lajta Project can be found in the triangle formed by the settlements Mosonszolnok, J&amp;#225;nossomorja and V&amp;#225;rbalog, in the north-western corner of Hungary, in Gy&amp;#337;r-Moson-Sopron county. The area has intense agri-environment characteristics, almost entirely lacking of grasslands and meadows.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We were looking for the answer to the question &amp;#8220;To what extent does agricultural activity on this area impact the environment and how can it contribute to climate change during a given period?&amp;#8221; The selection of the plants included in the analysis was justified by their significant growing area. We analysed the cultivation data of 5 crops: canola, winter barley, winter wheat, green maize and maize. Material flows of arable crop production technologies were defined in time series by the agricultural parcel register data. These covered the size of the area actually cultivated, the operational processes, records on seeds, fertilizer and pesticide use and harvest data by parcels. The examined environmental inventory database contained also the fuel consumption and lubricating oil usage of machine operations, and the water usage of chemical utilization.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the life cycle modelling of cultivation, we examined 13 years of maize, 20 years of green maize, 20 years of winter barley, 18 years of winter wheat and 15 years of canola data calculated on 1 ha unit using GaBi life cycle analysis software.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In addition, we also calculated by an average cultivation model for all cultivated plants with reference data to 1 ha and 1 year period.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We applied methods and models in our life cycle impact assessment. According to the values of the impact categories, we set up the following increasing environmental ranking of plant cultivation: (1) canola has minimum environmental impacts followed by (2) green maize and (3) maize with slightly higher values, (4) winter barley has 6 times higher values preceded by (5) winter wheat with a slight difference. The previous environmental ranking of the specific cultivated plants&amp;#8217; contribution was also confirmed as regards the overall environmental impact: canola (1.0%) &amp;#8211; green maize (4.9%) &amp;#8211; maize (7.1%) &amp;#8211; winter barley (43.1%) &amp;#8211; winter wheat (44.0%).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Environmental impact category indicator results cumulated to total cultivation periods and total crop growing areas (quantitative approach) display the specific environmental footprints by crops. Increasing environmental ranking of environmental impacts resulted from cultivating the sample area is the following: (1) canola &amp;#8211; (2) maize &amp;#8211; (3) green maize &amp;#8211; (4) winter barley &amp;#8211; (5) winter wheat. The slight difference resulted in the rankings in quantitative approach according to the rankings of territorial approach on the investigated area is due to the diversity of cultivation time factor and the crop-growing parameter of the specific crops.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acknowledgement: Our research was supported by the &amp;#8222;Lajta-Project&amp;#8221;.&lt;/p&gt;

A Study on Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions in End-Life Cycle of Residential Buildings

2013 ◽  
Vol 689 ◽  
pp. 226-229
Author(s):  
Gi Wook Cha ◽  
Won Hwa Hong ◽  
Sung Woo Shin
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Residential Buildings ◽  
Inventory Analysis ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Ipcc Guidelines

In recent years, demolition work in Korea has been rapidly increasing, and accordingly, its environmental impact has become significant, thus requiring quantitative analysis on energy consumption and CO2 emissions generated during demolition work. This study aims to examine energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the end-life cycle of buildings. In this study, inventory analysis was conducted and basic units of energy consumption and CO2 emissions were calculated in accordance with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines published in 1996. Major findings show that 64% of energy consumption and CO2 emissions in buildings’ end-life cycle is generated in the demolition phase, and 36% in the transportation phase.

scholarly journals Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chantelle Rizan ◽  
Mahmood F. Bhutta
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Surgical Instruments ◽  
Financial Cost ◽  
Laparoscopic Instruments ◽  
Single Use ◽  
Hybrid Instruments

Abstract Background Hybrid surgical instruments contain both single-use and reusable components, potentially bringing together advantages from both approaches. The environmental and financial costs of such instruments have not previously been evaluated. Methods We used Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of hybrid laparoscopic clip appliers, scissors, and ports used for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, comparing these with single-use equivalents. We modelled this using SimaPro and ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods to determine 18 midpoint environmental impacts including the carbon footprint, and three aggregated endpoint impacts. We also conducted life cycle cost analysis of products, taking into account unit cost, decontamination, and disposal costs. Results The environmental impact of using hybrid instruments for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was lower than single-use equivalents across 17 midpoint environmental impacts, with mean average reductions of 60%. The carbon footprint of using hybrid versions of all three instruments was around one-quarter of single-use equivalents (1756 g vs 7194 g CO2e per operation) and saved an estimated 1.13 e−5 DALYs (disability adjusted life years, 74% reduction), 2.37 e−8 species.year (loss of local species per year, 76% reduction), and US $ 0.6 in impact on resource depletion (78% reduction). Scenario modelling indicated that environmental performance of hybrid instruments was better even if there was low number of reuses of instruments, decontamination with separate packaging of certain instruments, decontamination using fossil-fuel-rich energy sources, or changing carbon intensity of instrument transportation. Total financial cost of using a combination of hybrid laparoscopic instruments was less than half that of single-use equivalents (GBP £131 vs £282). Conclusion Adoption of hybrid laparoscopic instruments could play an important role in meeting carbon reduction targets for surgery and also save money.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document