EPA Victoria and City West Water · The detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) represents a key...
Transcript of EPA Victoria and City West Water · The detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) represents a key...
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report Black
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
May 2010
Arup
Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165
This report takes into account the
particular instructions and requirements
of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be
relied upon by any third party and no
responsibility is undertaken to any third
party Arup
Level 17 1 Nicholson Street, Melbourne VIC 3000
Tel +61 3 9668 5500 Fax +61 3 9663 1546 www.arup.com
Job number 206853-00
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Document Verification
Page 1 of 1
Job title LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers
Job number
206853-00
Document title Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report File reference
Document ref
Revision Date Filename Clothes Washing LCA 206853-00 - Final Report, vToC.docx
Draft 1 07/04/10 Description First draft
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Melanie Koerner Rob Turk Rob Turk
Signature
Draft 2 23/04/10 Filename Clothes Washing LCA 206853-00 - Draft Final Report, V0.2.docx
Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Melanie Koerner James Selth Rob Turk
Signature
Issue 24/05/10 Filename Clothes Washing LCA 206853-00 - Final Report_Issue.docx
Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name Melanie Koerner James Selth Rob Turk
Signature
Filename
Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Name
Signature
Issue Document Verification with Document
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Contents
Page
Executive summary i
Glossary iv
1 Introduction 1
2 Project context 3
3 Life cycle assessment approach 4
4 Goal and scope 5
4.1 Overview 5
4.2 Goal of the study 5
4.3 Scope of the study 6
5 Life cycle inventory analysis 11
5.1 Overview 11
5.2 Data collection procedures 11
5.3 Databases 13
5.4 Validation of data 14
5.5 Allocation and credit principles and procedures 14
6 Life cycle impact assessment 16
6.1 Impact assessment models 16
6.2 Impact categories 16
6.3 Definition of categories 16
7 Results and interpretation 20
7.1 Base case 20
7.2 Scenario analysis 44
7.3 Machine replacement 78
8 Conclusions and recommendations 79
8.1 Summary of results and significant issues 79
8.2 Recommendations for LCA model improvement 82
9 References 83
Tables
Table 1 Definition of Base Case Table 2 Clothes Washing LCA Scenarios Table 3 Energy Consumption for Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Table 4 Water use impact category definition Table 5 Energy consumption impact category definition Table 6 Global warming impact category definition Table 7 Eutrophication impact category definition Table 8 Non renewable resource depletion impact category definition Table 9 Land use impact category definition
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 10 Water use impacts Table 11 Energy use impacts Table 12 Global warming impacts Table 13 Eutrophication impacts Table 14 Fossil fuels depletion impacts Table 15 Minerals depletion impacts Table 16 Land use impacts Table 17 Sensitivity to Analysis Options Table 18 Impact of future machines and current market leader Table 19 Machine Parameters for Top Loader/Front Loader Scenario Table 20 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario Table 21 Impact of varying energy rating for top loading machines Table 22 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario Table 23 Impact of varying energy rating for front loading machines Table 24 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario Table 25 Impact of varying WELS rating for top loading machines Table 26 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario Table 27 Impact of varying WELS rating for front loading machines Table 28 Impact of varying hotwater system type for 20°C wash temperature Table 29 Impact of varying hotwater system type for 60°C wash temperature Table 30 Washing machine temperature relationships Table 31 Impact of varying detergent type Table 32 Impact of fabric softener use Table 33 Impact of drying Table 34 Detergent overfill relationships Table 35 Washing machine loading Table 36 Impact of greywater reuse for irrigation Table 37 Impact of disposal of washing machine at end of life Table 38 Life cycle impacts comparison between machines Table 39 Recommendations for additional data collection Table 40 Machine Parameters for Top Loader/Front Loader Scenario Table 41 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario Table 42 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario Table 43 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario Table 44 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario Table 45 Comparison to results from Bole 2006 Table 46 Comparison with Australian Consumer's Association study Table 47 Uncertainty Analysis Table 48 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Water Use (L H2O) Table 49 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Energy Use (kJ eq) Table 50 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Global Warming (kg CO2 eq) Table 51 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Eutrophication (kg PO4 eq) Table 52 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Fossil Fuels Depletion (kJ Surplus) Table 53 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Minerals Depletion (kJ Surplus) Table 54 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Land Use (m
2)
Figures
Figure 1 Four phases of a LCA Figure 2 Process flow diagram Grey boxes represent different phases while boxes represent unit
processes. Figure 3 Water use impact base case Figure 4 Water use impact base case with drying Figure 5 Energy use impact base case Figure 6 Energy use impact base case with drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 7 Global warming impact base case Figure 8 Global warming impact base case with drying Figure 9 Eutrophication base case Figure 10 Eutrophication base case with drying Figure 11 Fossil fuels depletion impact base case Figure 12 Fossil fuels depletion impact base case with drying Figure 13 Minerals depletion impact base case Figure 14 Minerals depletion impact with drying Figure 15 Land use impact base case Figure 16 Land use impact base case with drying Figure 17 Impacts of future machines and current market leader (% Difference from base case) Figure 18 Impact of varying loading type Figure 19 Impact of varying energy rating for top loading machines (% Difference from base case) Figure 20 Impact of varying energy rating for front loading machines (% Difference from base case) Figure 21: WELS Rating comparison of washing machine size Figure 22 Impact of varying WELS rating for top loading machines (% Difference from base case) Figure 23 Impact of varying WELS rating for front loading machines (% Difference from base case) Figure 24 Impact of varying hot water system type for 20°C wash temperature
(% Difference from base case) Figure 25 Impact of varying hot water system type for 60°C wash temperature
(% Difference from base case) Figure 26 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Water Use Figure 27 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Energy Use Figure 28 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Global Warming Potential Figure 29 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Eutrophication Potential Figure 30 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Fossil Fuels Depletion Figure 31 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Minerals Depletion Figure 32 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Land Use Figure 33 Detergent type impact scenarios Figure 34: Fabric softener impact scenario Figure 35 Drying impact scenario Figure 36 Relationship between machine loading and water use Figure 37 Relationship between machine loading and energy use Figure 38 Relationship between machine loading and global warming potential Figure 39 Relationship between machine loading and eutrophication potential Figure 40 Relationship between machine loading and fossil fuels depletion Figure 41 Relationship between machine loading and minerals depletion Figure 42 Relationship between machine loading and land use Figure 43 Grey water scenario analysis Figure 44: The impact of disposal scenarios Figure 45 Impact of varying loading type (Constant Wash Size) Figure 46 Impact of varying energy rating for top loading machines (Constant Wash Size) Figure 47 Impact of varying energy rating for front loading machines Figure 48 Impact of varying WELS rating for top loading machines (Constant Wash Size) Figure 49 Impact of varying WELS rating for front loading machines (Constant Wash Size)
Appendices
Appendix A
Sensitivity Analysis for Option 2
Appendix B
Uncertainty Analysis
Appendix C
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Arup Issue 24 May 2010
CWW and EPA Sustainability Covenant
Appendix D
CWW LCA Process Flow Maps
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page i Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Executive summary
The third Sustainability Covenant between Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria and City
West Water (CWW), known as the EPA Sustainability Covenant (the Covenant), was signed in
2009. The Covenant defines three programs which aim to achieve resource efficiencies and reduce
operational ecological impacts.
Through Program 1 – Sustainable Clothes Washing, EPA Victoria and CWW committed to
partnering to develop and implement a sustainability program that enhances the resource efficiency
and reduces environmental impacts associated with domestic clothes washing. The washing of
clothes by domestic washing machines is a focus of the Covenant due to its range of environmental
impacts. Program 1 is divided into three phases, two development phases (Phase 1 – Conceptual
Design and Phase 2 – Detailed Design) and an implementation phase (Phase 3 - Implementation).
The detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) represents a key deliverable of Phase 2 and this report,
LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water’s Residential Customers: Life Cycle
Assessment – Final Technical Report provides the EPA Victoria and CWW with quantified
information on the environmental impacts of clothes washing to inform a business decision
regarding the value of future machine technologies and engaging households in a behaviour change
program, centred on the clothes washing process.
The LCA separated the clothes washing process into three phases; upstream, use and downstream.
The upstream phase involves those processes relating to the production and delivery of key
products involved in the washing process. The use phase, as defined in this study involves the
regular use of products and equipment by households to wash and dry their clothes, it involves all
the resources consumed during the process including amongst others, water, detergent and energy.
The downstream phase relates to the disposal and treatment of all the materials and chemicals
produced during the process including the machines, detergents and waste water. Within each
phase are a series of individual ‗unit processes‘ (the smallest element considered in the life cycle
inventory analysis for which input and output data are quantified) and can be seen in Figure 2.
Process flows produced by CWW and EPA Victoria for washing machine manufacture, detergent
manufacture, wastewater treatment and water supply are included in Appendix D.
A key determinant in relation to the decision to proceed with implementation of the behaviour
change program or recommend investment in new technologies is the proportion of environmental
impacts that occur during the use phase, as it is this phase that CWW will be most able to influence
through such a program.
The LCA was undertaken by determining the overall and percentage contribution of each phase and
unit process to the relevant environmental impact category. The environmental impact categories
assessed for the LCA were:
• water use;
• energy consumption;
• Global warming (IPCC, 100 years);
• eutrophication
• non renewable resource depletion, including fossil fuel use and minerals; and
• land use.
The assessment was initially undertaken for the most common domestic clothes washing scenario
within the CWW region. All results related to the lifecycle impacts required to produce 1 kg of clean
dry clothes (the functional unit of the study). A range of realistic scenarios that varied from this base
case were then modelled to determine the change in contribution to each impact category.
The LCA determined that the use phase of the washing process has the largest proportion of
environmental impacts due to the frequency of operation of the machines and utilisation of the
detergents. The use phase contributes to impacts across:
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page ii Arup Issue 24 May 2010
• water use (92% of the life cycle impact);
• energy use (60% of the life cycle impact);
• global warming potential (73% of the life cycle impact); and
• fossil fuel depletion (62% of the life cycle impact).
Of the 92% life cycle impact, 91% is attributable to the washing machine water consumption, which
represents a significant opportunity area for CWW in forming a behaviour change program. In
regards to global warming, 30% of impacts are associated with the mechanical energy of the
washing machine and 25% with standby power. There is potential to reduce the contribution to
global warming by influencing household behaviour regarding standby power. It is also noted that
for energy use, 32% of impacts are associated with the upstream manufacture of detergent.
The LCA determined that the addition of a dryer, either electric or condenser, to the base case
scenario lead to increases in the environmental impact categories of energy use, global warming
potential and fossil fuel depletion land use. Rationalising the use of dryers with the CWW region
presents an opportunity to reduce a number of environmental impacts.
The investigation of future washing machine technologies (outlined in Box 1 and Box 2) highlighted
that they can reduce the environmental impacts of the washing process, particularly in respect to
eutrophication, land use and water use, although it is important to realise that in some
circumstances, impacts can also be higher than current market leading technologies. The
environmental impacts of new technologies should be considered in equilibrium, ensuring impact
savings tradeoffs are well considered.
The scenario analysis assessed changes to the base case environmental impacts through alteration
of individual unit processes.
In relation to washing machines the LCA indicated that the water consumption impacts for front
loading and top loading machines are consistent with the star rating. This is because the use phase
water use impacts dominate the lifecycle such that a better water rating results in reduced water
consumption as expected.
For energy use, impacts are more closely linked to machine size than energy rating. This is
because the majority of impacts are related to detergent manufacture, which is based on the
manufacturers‘ recommendations per wash. In contrast, a change in energy star rating affects the
thermal and mechanical energy requirements of the machine only.
The LCA indicates that the lowest impacts are associated with cold washing and that an increase of
a relatively minor 10 C can lead to a disproportional increase in environmental impacts. If a
household determines there is a need to wash at elevated temperatures than the off peak electric
and 3 star gas storage perform worse across all impact categories, with solar gas split system
having the lowest environmental impacts across a range of categories.
With regard to loading, the LCA determined that environmental impacts increase exponentially as
washing machine loading decreases, such that very small loads have a disproportionately high
impact on the environment.
For detergent, the ‗generic‘ brand provided the highest contribution across all categories when
compared to the base case of concentrated top loader powder and the alternative scenarios of top
loader liquid and an eco-powder brand. This result stemmed from the reduce level of concentration
of certain chemicals in the generic brand, requiring high volumes to obtain the same level of
cleaning. The LCA also demonstrated that the impact of overfilling detergent by even 1% led to
increased impacts across every impact category and is a potential key message for households.
The addition of fabric softener to the clothes washing process was shown to increase all
environmental impacts.
The LCA model found that use of a normal household grey water system can have positive
environmental impacts through the reduction in water use and the decreased potential for
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page iii Arup Issue 24 May 2010
eutrophication. However it did not address other negative environmental impacts which may be
associated with the use of grey water.
It is important to note when considering the results that the availability of data relating to certain
domestic clothes washing LCA processes within Australia was in some cases, very limited.
Specifically, the accuracy of the LCA could be improved with sourcing further data on washing
machine and dryer manufacture, emerging technologies and detergent and fabric softener
manufacture. In order to further the project‘s aims of considering sustainable solutions and reducing
environmental impacts associated with domestic clothes washing, assumptions draw from this
limited information will be supported with a confidence level based on working with limited data.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page iv Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Glossary
Allocation Partitioning the input or output flows of a unit process to the product of
interest.
By-Products
An incidental product derived from a manufacturing process or chemical
reaction, and not the primary product or service being produced. A by-
product can be useful and marketable, or may have negative ecological
consequences.
Category Endpoint Attribute or aspect of natural environment, human health, or resources,
identifying an environmental issue giving cause for concern.
Characterisation
Characterisation is the second step of an impact assessment and
characterises the magnitude of the potential impacts of each inventory flow
to the corresponding environmental impact.
Characterisation Factor Factor derived from a characterisation model which is applied to convert the
assigned LCI results to the common unit of the category indicator.
Classification Classification is the first step of an impact assessment. It is the process of
assigning inventory outputs to specific environmental impact categories.
Condenser Dryer Condenser dryers extract water from the clothes and condense the water on
an air-cooled heat exchanger.
Cut-off Criteria
Specification of the amount of material or energy flow, or the level of
environmental significance associated with unit processes or product
system to be excluded from a study.
Data Quality Characteristics of data that relate to their ability to satisfy stated
requirements.
Detergent Overfilling The use of additional detergent in excess of the manufacturers
recommended dose.
Downstream Phase
The downstream phase relates to the disposal and treatment of all the
materials and chemicals produced during the process including the
machines, detergents and waste water.
EcoInvent
A Swiss-developed database that contains international industrial life cycle
inventory data on energy supply, resource extraction, material supply,
chemicals, metals, agriculture, waste management services, and transport
services.
Electric Tumble Dryer Electric tumble dryers (or evaporative dryers) heat the clothes within using
an electric resistance element. These dryer types do not consume water.
Environmental Aspect An element of an organization's activities, products or services that can
interact with the environment.
Environmental Loadings Releases of pollutants to the environment such as atmospheric and
waterborne emissions and solid waste.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page v Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Environmental Mechanism
A system of physical, chemical and biological processes for a given impact
category, linking the life cycle inventory analysis results to category
indicators and to category endpoints.
Eutrophication
The increase of excess nutrients into a water body or system, leading to
excessive plant growth. This can cause a reduction in the level of oxygen
available within the water body and cause the death of water organisms.
Evaluation
An element within the life cycle interpretation phase intended to establish
confidence in the results of the life cycle assessment. Evaluation includes a
completeness check, a sensitivity check, a consistency check, and any
other validation that may be required according to the goal and scope
definition of the study.
Fugitive Emission An unintended environmental release.
Functional Unit
The measure of the function of the studied system providing a reference to
which the inputs and outputs can be related. It is the unit of comparison
that assures that the products being compared provide an equivalent level
of function or service.
Fuzzy Logic
The technology by which washing machines sense the contents within the
machine and apply the correct amount of water and / or detergent required
to clean the load.
Impact Assessment
The assessment of the environmental consequences of energy and natural
resource depletion and waste releases associated with an actual or
proposed action.
Impact Categories Classifications of human health and environmental effects caused by a
product throughout its life cycle.
Impact Indicators Impact indicators measure the potential for an impact to occur rather than
directly quantifying the actual impact.
Input
A product, material or energy flow that enters a unit process.
NB: Products and materials include raw materials, intermediate products
and co-products.
Interpretation
The evaluation of the results of the inventory analysis and impact
assessment to reduce environmental releases and resource use with a
clear understanding of the uncertainty and the assumptions used to
generate the results.
Intermediate Flow A product, material or energy flow occurring between unit processes of the
product system being studied.
Intermediate Product An output from a unit process that is input to other unit processes that
require further transformation within the system.
Life Cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material
acquisition or generation from natural resources, to final disposal.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) The compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs and the potential
environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.
Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA)
A phase of life cycle assessment aimed at understanding and evaluating the
magnitude and significance of the potential environmental impacts for a
product system throughout the life cycle of the product.
Life Cycle Inventory Analysis
(LCI)
A phase of life cycle assessment involving the compilation and
quantification of inputs and outputs for a product throughout its life cycle.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page vi Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Lower Heating Value (LHV)
Also known as net heating value, LHV is the amount of energy available
from the combustion of a fuel without recovering energy associated with
water condensing vapour produced in the combustion process.
MEPS
Minimum energy and performance standards. MEPS establish standards
for energy performance that products must meet or exceed before they can
be sold to consumers. MEPS is based on a six star energy efficiency rating
system which enables households to compare the energy efficiency of
domestic appliances.
Monte Carlo Analysis A method of statistical analysis which allows the level of confidence in each
indicator result to be calculated. Refer to Appendix B for more details.
Output
A product, material or energy flow that leaves a unit process.
NB: Products and materials include raw materials, intermediate products,
co-products and releases.
Pedigree Matrix A tool used to determine an appropriate standard deviation to allow for
certainty in a calculation. Refer to Appendix E for more details.
Process Energy
The energy input required for operating the process or equipment within a
unit process excluding energy inputs for the production and delivery of
energy itself.
Product Flow Products entering or leaving a product system.
Product System
A collection of unit processes with elementary and product flows which
perform one or more defined functions, and which model the life cycle of a
product.
Reason Washing Machine
An innovative future washing machine that utilises fuzzy logic and design
features to reduce the environmental impact of washing clothes. Features
include a water ballast tank for machine balance, new detergent, use of
room temperature water and fuzzy logic sensors for water and detergent
quantities. (see Box 1 for more details)
Reference Flow A measure of the outputs from processes in a given product system
required to fulfil the function expressed by the functional unit.
Releases Emissions to air and discharges to water and soil.
Scope 1 Emissions Greenhouse gas emissions generated as a direct result of an activity
undertaken by a corporation.
Scope 2 Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions generated by a second organization in the
process of producing energy (electricity, heat or steam) for the use of the
primary corporation.
Scope 3 Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions (other than scope 2 emissions) arising from
activities such as air travel and waste disposal generated in the wider
economy as a consequence of a corporation‘s activities.
Sensitivity Analysis A systematic evaluation process for describing the effect that variations in
inputs have on an output.
SimaPro A software based tool to collect, analyse and monitor the environmental
performance of products and services.
System Boundary A set of criteria specifying which unit processes are part of a product
system.
System Flow Diagram A depiction of the inputs and outputs of a system and how they are
connected.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page vii Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Unit Process The smallest element considered in the life cycle inventory analysis for
which input and output data are quantified (see Figure 2).
Upstream Phase Involves those processes relating to the production and delivery of a
washing machine; from manufacture through to eventual sale.
Use Phase
The regular use of the machine by households to wash and dry clothes
involving all the resources consumed during the process including water,
detergent and energy.
Water Extraction Index
Water Extraction Index is the ratio of the mass of water remaining in the
clothes following completion of the wash cycle compared to the dry mass of
the clothes expressed as a percentage.
Waterless Washing Machine
An innovative future washing machine that utilises nylon bead (instead of
water and detergent) to attract dirt and remove stains from clothing during
the washing process. (see Box 2 for more details)
WELS Water Efficiency and Labelling Scheme. The WELS Scheme labels a range
of products for water efficiency based on a 6 star system.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 1 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
1 Introduction
City West Water (CWW) is one of three retail water businesses in metropolitan Melbourne
owned by the Victorian Government. It provides drinking water, sewerage, trade waste and
recycled water services to approximately 310,000 residential and 34,000 non-residential
(industrial and commercial) customers in Melbourne‘s Central Business District and inner
and western suburbs.
CWW is committed to sustainability and considers environmental, social and economic
aspects in all its operations. CWW recognises that to achieve this, it needs to invest in a
number of programs and activities designed to promote sustainability within the business, as
well as providing its core services of water, sewerage, trade waste and recycled water in a
sustainable way.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria – has been protecting, caring for and
improving the environment since 1971. EPA Victoria was established as an independent
statutory authority under the Environment Protection Act 1970. The Act defines EPA‘s
powers, duties and functions, and provides a framework for the prevention and control of air,
land and water pollution and industrial noise. The vision of EPA Victoria is "The Victorian
community living sustainably," which to EPA Victoria is a community that knows the impact
of the decisions it makes and the actions it takes on the environment. Sustainability
covenants, such as the one with CWW, work to achieve this vision.
The third Sustainability Covenant between EPA Victoria and City West Water (CWW),
known as the EPA Sustainability Covenant, was signed in 2009. The Covenant defines
three programs which aim to achieve resource efficiencies and reduce operational
ecological impacts.
As part of the Covenant, CWW and EPA Victoria commissioned Arup to conduct a life cycle
assessment (LCA) of clothes washing options for CWW‘s households. The LCA was
undertaken in accordance with ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle
assessment – Principles and framework, and ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management
– Life cycle assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. All results related to the lifecycle
impacts required to produce 1 kg of clean dry clothes; the functional unit for the study.
The purpose of the LCA was to provide CWW and EPA Victoria with quantifiable data on the
environmental impacts of domestic clothes washing based on the functional unit, which
would allow informed decisions relating future machine technologies and household
behavioural change to support an increase in resource efficiency and reduction in the
environmental impact of household clothes washing.
This LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water’s Residential Customers: Life
Cycle Assessment – Final Technical Report (Final Technical Report) is the third report
produced over the course of the project. The preceding reports were LCA of Clothes
Washing Options for City West Water’s Residential Customers: Life Cycle Assessment –
Goal and Scope Report (Goal and Scope Report), and LCA of Clothes Washing Options for
City West Water’s Residential Customers: Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Inventory
Report (Life Cycle Inventory Report).
The Goal and Scope Report defined the EPA Victoria and CWW goals to be achieved by
undertaking the LCA and the performance characteristics of the domestic clothes washing
process to be studied. The Life Cycle Inventory Report specified the data sources, data
collection, validation and allocation processes applied in preparing the life cycle model.
Both reports provided key input for the Final Technical Report.
This Final Technical Report includes:
an overview of the life cycle assessment approach;
a summary of the Goal and Scope Report and Life Cycle Inventory Report; and
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 2 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
the presentation and interpretation of all results from the LCA in accordance with
the requirements of ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle
assessment - Requirements and guidelines.
A fourth report, LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water’s Residential
Customers: Life Cycle Assessment – Communications Report (The Communications
Report) has also been produced. The Communications Report highlights study results of
interest (as nominated by CWW and EPA Victoria), in a form that can be readily adapted for
communication publications.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 3 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
2 Project context
Sustainability covenants are public agreements between EPA Victoria and a company or
group of companies, and are established to explore creative ways to reduce environmental
impacts and increase resource efficiency. Covenants were formed as an alternative
mechanism to the legislative instruments available to the EPA Victoria under the
Environment Protection Act 1970 and provide a means by which a broader set of
environmental objectives can be achieved.
CWW and EPA Victoria have a history of cooperation to achieve environmental outcomes;
the current EPA Sustainability Covenant being the third covenant between the two
organisations. Signed in 2009, it defined three programs of work aimed at increasing
resource use efficiency and reducing the ecological impact of the water industry. This aim
aligns closely with the CWW commitment to sustainability involving the consideration of the
environmental, social and economic aspects of its operations.
Through Program 1 – Sustainable Clothes Washing, EPA Victoria and CWW committed to
partnering to develop and implement a sustainability program that enhances the resource
efficiency and reduces environmental impacts associated with domestic clothes washing.
The washing of clothes by domestic washing machines is a focus of the Covenant due to
the range of associated environmental impacts. With regard to household water
consumption, approximately 15 per cent of household water use is related to clothes
washing. CWW views the need to address water conservation as a critical challenge to be
actively marketed to households to encourage behaviour change (City West Water, 2008).
CWW already operate a range of programs to assist households to reduce their water
consumption, such as the showerhead exchange program, water conservations solutions
program and community support program. Program 1 has the potential to lead to the
creation of an additional program focused on key messages around households during the
clothes washing process.
In addition to water consumption, the domestic washing of clothes contributes to
greenhouse gas emissions and leads to the production of wastewater that reduces the
ability to recycle water without energy intensive processes. The CWW Sustainability Policy
has an objective to achieve significantly more with significantly less and within this to
maximise the sustainable reuse of water (City West Water, 2009).
Program 1 is divided into three phases; two development phases (Phase 1 – Conceptual
Design and Phase 2 – Detailed Design) and an implementation phase (Phase 3 -
Implementation).
The detailed LCA represents a key deliverable of Phase 2 and the Final Technical Report
provides the EPA Victoria and CWW with data and information on the environmental
impacts of clothes washing. The purpose of the LCA was to provide CWW and EPA
Victoria with quantifiable data on the environmental impacts of domestic clothes washing to
consider emerging technologies and inform a decision regarding the business value of
developing a behaviour change program for households.
The decision to develop a new program focused on domestic clothes washing and future
machine technologies during Phase 3 is predicated on a demonstration that the new
program will provide sufficient business value. That is the information provided by CWW to
households during the use phase will be sufficient to provide a demonstrable improvement
in resource efficiency and reduce ecological impacts.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 4 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
3 Life cycle assessment approach
LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental impacts associated with a product or
process. An LCA approach to the measurement of environmental impacts differs from other
environmental management approaches as it focuses on the measurement and calculation
of impacts which are normalised per unit of output i.e. one functional unit.
The normalised functional unit measure in this particular study was agreed to be 1kg of
clean dry clothes as this was deemed to be easily understood in a domestic context.
Arup undertook the study for CWW households in accordance with the relevant international
standards:
ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and
framework (ISO14040); and
ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment - Requirements
and Guidelines (ISO14044).
Reference to these standards is made throughout the report and excerpts from the
standards are provided to introduce key requirements, definitions and concepts.
In accordance with ISO14044:2006, the LCA was undertaken in four phases (Figure 1):
a) goal and scope;
b) inventory analysis;
c) impact assessment; and
d) interpretation.
This Final Technical Report is the key output of the fourth phase in Figure 1; providing an
interpretation of the results generated in the third phase, Impact Assessment. This report
also provides commentary on aspects of the first two phases of the project.
Figure 1 Four phases of a LCA
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 5 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
4 Goal and scope
4.1 Overview
LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water’s Residential Customers: Life Cycle
Assessment – Goal and Scope Report addresses the detailed requirements of ISO14040
and ISO14044 in relation to the goal and scope phase.
The following is a summary of the key points for the purposes of providing context to the
Final Technical Report.
4.2 Goal of the study
The goal of an LCA study shall unambiguously state the intended application, the reasons for
carrying out the study, the intended audience, i.e. to whom the results of the study are intended to
be communicated and whether the results are intended to be used in comparative assertions
intended to be disclosed to the public.
ISO 14044:2006 Section 4.2.2
The goals of this LCA were to:
quantify the level of water consumption associated with washing and drying clothes
across the lifecycle;
quantify the other environmental impacts associated with washing and drying clothes
across the lifecycle, such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and eutrophication;
quantify the environmental benefits of changes in key variables within the life cycle of
clothes washing and drying:
hot water system type;
washing machine type;
washing machine temperature;
washing machine settings;
detergent type;
detergent overfill;
use of fabric softener;
dryer use;
waste water disposal;
washing machine disposal; and
washing machine replacement period .
understand the dependent relationships between each of the key variables;
understand from existing literature the optimum time within the life of a washing
machine at which to replace it from the perspective of minimising the environmental
impact; and
enable CWW to prioritise strategies and actions for communicating the preferred
approaches to clothes washing and drying which enhance the resource efficiency and
reduce environmental impacts as part of Phase 3 of Program 1 of the Covenant.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 6 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
4.3 Scope of the study
The scope of an LCA shall clearly specify the functions (performance characteristics) of the
system being studied. The functional unit shall be consistent with the goal and scope of the study.
One of the primary purposes of a functional unit is to provide a reference to which the input and
output data are normalised (in a mathematical sense). Therefore the functional unit shall be clearly
defined and measurable.
Having chosen the functional unit, the reference flow shall be defined. Comparisons between
systems shall be made on the basis of the same function(s), quantified by the same functional
unit(s) in the form of their reference flows.
If additional functions of any of the systems are not taken into account in the comparison of
functional units, then these omissions shall be explained and documented. As an alternative,
systems associated with the delivery of this function may be added to the boundary of the other
system to make the systems more comparable. In these cases, the processes selected shall be
explained and documented.
ISO 14044:2006 Section 4.2.3.2
4.3.1 Function, functional unit and reference flows
The function, functional unit and reference flows for the purposes of this project are defined
below and more general definitions can be found in the glossary.
Function: Cleaning and drying of clothes
Functional Unit: 1kg of clothes, cleaned and dried
Reference Flows: Washing machine materials (mass)
Water input (mass/volume)
Thermal energy inputs (washing) (energy)
Electrical energy inputs (washing) (energy)
Detergent input (mass/volume)
Detergent packaging (mass/volume)
Fabric softener (mass/volume)
Fabric softener packaging (mass/volume)
Waste water outputs (mass/volume)
Detergent packaging waste outputs (mass/volume)
Fabric softener waste outputs (mass/volume)
End of life washing machine waste (mass/volume)
Dryer materials (mass)
Electrical energy inputs (drying) (energy)
End of life dryer waste (mass/volume)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 7 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
4.3.2 System boundaries
The system boundaries established as part of the LCA are outlined in Figure 2.
This diagram highlights the three phases (upstream, use and downstream) within the
clothes washing process and the individual unit processes within each phase. Unit
processes are the smallest element considered in the life cycle inventory analysis for which
input and output data are quantified.
Each of the three phases defined in this study and illustrated in Figure 2 contain different
unit processes. The upstream phase involves those processes relating to the production
and delivery of a washing machine; from manufacture through to eventual sale. The use
phase involves the regular use of the machine by households to wash and dry clothes,
including all the resources consumed during the process such as water, detergent and
energy. The downstream phase relates to the disposal and treatment of the materials and
chemicals produced during the process including the machines, detergents and waste
water.
Figure 2 Process flow diagram Grey boxes represent different phases while boxes represent unit processes.
3. Downstream1. Upstream
1.3 Washing Machine
Manufacture
1.4 Detergent Manufacture
1.2 Water Supply
1.8 Energy (Electricity)
Supply
1.1 Energy (Hotwater) Supply
• hotwater supply type
2. Use Phase
2.1 Washing
• machine type
• machine temperature
• machine settings
• detergent type
• detergent fi l l ing
• use of fabric softener
• machine replacement period
2.2 Drying
• line/machine type
• machine replacement period
3.1 Wastewater Treatment
3.4 Waste Treatment of
Washing Machine at End of
Life
3.2 Waste Treatment of
Detergent Packaging
1 kg clothes
x kg water
1.5 Detergent Packaging
Manufacture
1.9 Drying Machine
Manufacture
1 kg clean dry clothes
1.6 Fabric Softener
Manufacture
1.7 Fabric Softener
Packaging Manufacture
3.5 Waste Treatment of
Drying Machine at End of
Life
3.3 Waste Treatment of
Fabric Softener Packaging
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 8 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
4.3.3 Cut-off criteria
Cut off criteria provide a series of filters for making a decision on whether to include a
process/material in the study. Decisions are made within a framework based on the
following:
1. mass;
2. energy; and
3. environmental relevance.
The LCA specifies a significance cut off value of 1%. Processes which fall below this value
for all scenarios and for all impact categories include:
detergent packaging manufacture;
fabric softener packaging manufacture;
waste treatment of detergent packaging; and
waste treatment of fabric softener packaging.
All other processes identified in Figure 2 make a contribution of greater than 1% for at least
one impact category and one scenario. Effort was made to address all aspects of the
clothes washing lifecycle, including those processes which fall below the 1% cut off for all
categories. For example, detergent packaging was included in the LCA on request of CWW
and EPA Victoria despite its low contribution to the impacts.
4.3.4 Base case
The base case represents the most common (mode) clothes washing scenario for
households within the CWW region (Table 1). The mode is based on existing data supplied
by CWW, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, previous LCA reports and other publicly
available information.
The washing machine parameters for standard energy consumption, water consumption,
rated capacity and water extraction are representative of the averages (mean) for machines
currently on the market with the predetermined base case properties for energy and water
star ratings.
Table 1 Definition of Base Case
Variable Base Case Value
Base Case
Water Heating System Type 5 star energy rating (MEPS) gas storage water heater.
Washing Machine Type
(WELS/energy star rating)
Top loading washing machine, 3 star WELS, 2 star energy
rating and both hot and cold water connections.
Washing Machine Settings Normal / Default
Washing Machine Lifespan 14 years
Washes per year 213
Washing Machine Temperature Cold (20oC)
Washing Machine Rated Capacity 7.03kg
Washing Machine Load Factor: 50% of rated load
Washing Machine Load: 3.52kg
Washing Machine Standard Test
Energy
1.59 KWh per wash
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 9 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Washing Machine Standard Test
Water Consumption
97.29 L
Water Extraction Index 0.69
Detergent Type Omo top loader powder concentrate.
Detergent Filling 100% detergent dose recommendation.
Use of Fabric Softener No.
Line Drying / Dryer Use Line dry.
Washing Machine Disposal Recycle only machine metals.
Waste Water Disposal Disposal to sewer.
Base Case with Dryer
Line Drying / Dryer Use Electric Dryer.
Dryer Lifespan 20 years.
Cycles per year 52
Dyer Capacity 4.5kg
Dryer Loading 100% of rated load.
Dryer Standard Test Energy 4.84 kWh per cycle.
4.3.5 Scenario analysis
For each of the variables identified within the base case, a number of alternative values
were investigated.
This was done to gauge the level of impact that a selected variable may have on the
environment. Alternative modes of behaviour, choice or equipment which are relevant to
CWW‘s households were considered.
The alternatives are represented in the Table 2.
Table 2 Clothes Washing LCA Scenarios
Variable Alternative Values
Water System Type 3 star energy rating gas instantaneous
5 star energy rating gas instantaneous
Off peak electric single element
Off peak electric dual element
Solar electric split system
Solar electric thermosyphon (high efficiency)
Solar electric thermosyphon (minimum efficiency)
3 star energy rating gas storage
Solar gas split system
Solar preheat with gas instantaneous
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 10 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Variable Alternative Values
Washing Machine Rating - Top
Loaders
Varying Energy Rating
3 star WELS / 1 star energy rating.
3 star WELS / 1.5 star energy rating.
3 star WELS / 2.5 star energy rating.
3 star WELS / 3 star energy rating.
3 star WELS / 3.5 star energy rating.
Varying WELS Rating
1.5 star WELS / 2 star energy rating.
2 star WELS / 2 star energy rating.
2.5 star WELS / 2 star energy rating.
4 star WELS / 2 star energy rating.
Washing Machine Rating – Front
Loaders
Varying Energy Rating
4 star WELS / 2 star energy rating.
4 star WELS / 2.5 star energy rating.
4 star WELS / 4 star energy rating.
4 star WELS / 4.5 star energy rating.
Varying WELS Rating
4.5 star WELS / 3 star energy rating.
Machine Temperature Trend analysis was used across a range of temperatures
(20-95°C).
Detergent Type Top loading liquid concentrate.
Eco powder concentrate.
Generic brand powder concentrate.
Detergent Filling Trend analysis was used across a range of filling capacities
(100-200%).
Use of Fabric Softener Fabric softener used.
Line Drying / Dryer Use Electric dryer.
Condenser dryer.
Washing Machine Disposal Recycling of metals, plastics and concrete.
Machine sent to landfill.
Waste Water Disposal Use of grey water.
Future Machines Reason machine.
Waterless washing machine.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 11 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
5 Life cycle inventory analysis
5.1 Overview
The requirements of ISO14040 and ISO14044 in relation to the inventory analysis phase of
an LCA are addressed in LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water’s
Residential Customers: Life Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Inventory Report.
The following provides a summary of this report.
5.2 Data collection procedures
The qualitative and quantitative data for inclusion in the inventory shall be collected for each unit
process that is included within the system boundary. The collected data, whether measured,
calculated or estimated, are utilised to quantify the inputs and outputs of a unit process.
ISO 14044:2006 section 4.3.2
Between August 2009 and February 2010 data was collected in partnership with CWW and
the EPA Victoria in accordance with Section 4.3.2 of ISO14044:2006.
The following specifies the data sources used in the LCA for each unit process in Figure 2.
5.2.1 Upstream processes
Information for upstream processes (such as energy and water supply, washing machine,
dryer, detergent and fabric softener manufacture) was collected from previous LCA reports,
government databases, and data embedded in the SimaPro databases. Arup, CWW and
EPA Victoria collectively approached business stakeholders and organisations to obtain
useful and relevant reports, research and market analysis to help feed into the LCA.
The unit processes involved in the upstream phases of the life cycle are shown in Figure 2
and explained in more detail below.
Energy (hot water) supply
The supply of thermal energy in the form of hotwater to the washing process from the
household hotwater system. Information on water system energy use was taken directly
from the Australian LCA Database, 2009.
Electricity supply
The supply of grid electricity used during the washing and drying processes. The LCI for the
supply of grid electricity was taken directly from the Australian LCA Database, 2009 LCI for
grid electricity in Victoria.
Water supply
The supply of reticulated water used during the washing process. The process for the
supply of water is taken directly from the Australian LCA Database, 2009 LCI for reticulated
water in Victoria. It includes impacts from water treatment chemicals for supply as well as
energy for both supply of water to the consumer and transportation of water to wastewater
treatment (based on average values for Melbourne). CWW also provided specific data
regarding its own energy consumption for supply of water and sewage services.
Unfortunately this data could not be directly incorporated into the model as the energy
consumption sources were not specified i.e. electricity, gas etc. Never the less, for
completeness this information is provided in Table 3.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 12 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 3 Energy Consumption for Water Supply and Sewage Treatment
Source Data Energy Consumption (GJ/ML)
Water Supplied Sewage Treated Total
Aus LCA Database n/a n/a 0.506
CWW 06/07 0.1979 3.2084 3.4063
CWW 07/08 0.4135 3.3015 3.7150
CWW 08/09 0.0057 0.2231 0.2288
CWW average 0.2057 2.2443 2.45
Washing machine manufacture
Due to lack of supply of information from manufacturers, manufacturing data for each
individual machine model was not obtained and instead machines were split into two main
types (top loading and front loading) with generic values sourced from previous LCA reports
and assigned to each. The difference between the type and quantity of materials used in
washing machine types is mainly due to mechanical differences between the operations of
each machine type resulting from the different orientation of the washing barrel.
Detergent manufacture (including detergent packaging manufacture)
Detergent manufacturing data to inform the unit process calculations is difficult to obtain as
the mix of constituents is often not disclosed by the manufacturer for commercial reasons.
The scarce data available is generally in the form of concentration ranges in a company
Materials Specification Data Sheet (MSDS) or from some independent studies. Some
international data is also available and utilised in this study however Australian detergents
are specially formulated for local conditions and are significantly different compared to other
parts of the world.
Regardless, from the available information it is clear that the specific detergent formulation
for each product varies widely in terms of chemicals and concentrations.
For the purposes of the LCA, the study has utilised the midpoint of these concentration
ranges and the percentage contribution weighted accordingly. Although there is a high
degree of uncertainty in this method, at this stage it is the most robust methodology
regarding the formulation and origins of chemicals.
Fabric softener manufacture (including packet manufacture)
The purpose of adding ‗fabric softeners‘ at the end of the washing process is to soften
clothes by neutralising the very small amounts of residual detergents left in the clothes and
preventing static electricity, especially for fabrics with a high content of synthetic fibres.
Fabric softeners also often include small amounts of fragrance. The esterquat group of
substances contains the main active ingredients of today‘s fabric softeners and are readily
degradable and have low toxicity to aquatic organisms. Esterquat based fabric softeners
were assumed in this LCA.
Both the fabric softener and fabric softener packaging manufacture were included within this
unit process. Data for fabric softeners was taken from MSDSs using the same methodology
adopted for detergents above and subject to the same limitations.
Drying machine manufacture
Drying machine manufacture relates to the manufacture of both electric tumble dryers and
condenser dryers. Due to the relatively small impact (less than 1% cut off value) of machine
manufacture and large degree of similarity of materials and construction processes, drying
machine manufacture is estimated by the same process as for a top loading washing
machine. Front loading machines perform worse than top loaders in terms of upstream
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 13 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
impacts for all impact categories and were therefore not selected to represent the dryer
manufacturing process.
5.2.2 Use phase
The use phase of the project relates to the washing and drying process that is undertaken
by households using their washing machines and tumble dryers or clothes lines. Arup
collected use phase data from previous LCAs, publicly available information on appliance
energy and water ratings and from household use information supplied by City West Water.
Arup made use of work conducted by Alan Pears for the EPA Australian Greenhouse
Calculator on washing machines for this phase of the data collection process.
The unit processes involved in the use phase of the life cycle are depicted in Figure 2 and
explained in more detail below.
Washing
This relates to the washing of clothes by a washing machine.
Drying
The drying of clothes using a tumble electric or condenser dryer.
5.2.3 Downstream processes
Downstream processes involve the treatment of waste water, as well as the treatment and
disposal of the packaging and machinery utilised during the use phase of the project. Data
for this phase was collected from CWW directly, who provided data relevant to their service
area. Additional data sources were also utilised when required, along with SimaPro
databases.
The unit processes involved in the downstream phases of the life cycle are depicted in
Figure 2 and explained in more detail below.
Wastewater disposal
The disposal of wastewater through the Western Treatment Plant in Victoria. The
wastewater treatment is separated into two units processes to reflect the impacts that are
dependent on volume of wastewater and impacts that are dependent on quality of
wastewater (i.e. detergent loading). For the volume dependent impacts, data was taken
from Melbourne Water‘s Annual Environmental Reports for 2006/07and is therefore based
on these annual values.
For the pumping energy associated with transportation of the water to the treatment plant,
values were taken from the Aus LCA Database (see water supply above).
Waste treatment for packaging
The treatment of packaging waste from clothes washing detergent and fabric softener
packaging.
Waste treatment of washing machine/dryer at end of life
The treatment of waste associated with the disposal of a washing machine and dryer.
5.3 Databases
In certain circumstances, where product-specific data was not available for upstream,
downstream and use processes, data was sourced from a number of databases within the
SimaPro software. These databases combine previous LCA information for the production
of a number of common material and energy inputs globally.
Australian LCA database 2009
The Australian LCA database was initially developed as part of a joint project between the
Centre for Design at RMIT and the Co-operative Research Centre for Waste Management
and Pollution Control. Since its initial development, data has been updated and new data
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 14 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
added from work undertaken at the Centre for Design and by other SimaPro users around
Australia.
The database includes information on fuels, electricity, transport, building and packaging
materials, waste management and some data on agricultural production. The database also
includes uncertainty data for energy processes to enable Monte Carlo analysis (See
Appendix B).
Ecoinvent
The Ecoinvent database v2.0 contains international industrial life cycle inventory data on
energy supply, resource extraction, material supply, chemicals, metals, agriculture, waste
management services, and transport services. The Ecoinvent database covers nearly 4000
processes predominantly within Switzerland and Western-Europe.
5.4 Validation of data
A check on data validity shall be conducted during the process of data collection to confirm and
provide evidence that the data quality requirements for the intended application have been fulfilled.
Validation may involve establishing, for example, mass balances, energy balances and/or
comparative analyses of release factors.
ISO 14044:2006 section 4.3.3.2
5.4.1 Data quality assessment
Data inputs into the SimaPro model were cross-checked under Arup‘s quality assurance
protocols. Where possible, uncertainty was assigned to raw data to facilitate the uncertainty
analysis which was carried out as part of the Life Cycle Impact Assessment phase of the
project. In addition, LCA experts from the University of New South Wales ( UNSW) peer
reviewed both the LCA process and the Final Technical Report.
5.5 Allocation and credit principles and procedures
The inputs and outputs shall be allocated to the different products according to clearly stated
procedures that shall be documented and explained together with the allocation procedure.
The sum of the allocated inputs and outputs of a unit process shall be equal to the inputs and
outputs of the unit process before allocation.
Whenever several alternative allocation procedures seem applicable, a sensitivity analysis shall be
conducted to illustrate the consequences of the departure from the selected approach.
ISO 14044:2006 section 4.3.4
Where two or more product outputs exist in any one process, allocation rules must be
assigned to distribute the upstream impacts.
Similarly, where two or more waste products are treated in one waste treatment process,
rules must be assigned to distribute the downstream impacts to the waste. There were no
occurrences of two or more products or waste products being processed or treated during
this study and therefore no allocation issues were indentified in the project.
It is assumed that the recycling of washing machine and dryer materials results in an
avoided need for the production of equivalent material (e.g. steel, aluminium etc. As such
the recycling of machines is assigned a credit for the avoided production).
Credits were used in the following three processes:
recycling of washing machine materials;
recycling of dryer materials; and
use of greywater.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 15 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
For grey water, it is assumed that the use of greywater for irrigation of gardens avoids the
need for the supply of an equivalent amount of irrigation water. As such, grey water usage
is assigned a credit for avoided supply of potable water. Where households would not
otherwise irrigate or where the source of irrigation water is other than mains (eg rainwater,
other sources of greywater) this would represent an overestimation of the benefits of grey
water.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 16 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
6 Life cycle impact assessment
6.1 Impact assessment models
The LCA was modelled in SimaPro 7.1 LCA software. SimaPro stands for "System for
Integrated Environmental Assessment of Products". Its generic setup means that its use has
expanded from product analysis to analysis of processes and services. SimaPro 7.1
provides a tool to collect, analyse and monitor the environmental performance of products
and services. Complex life cycles can be modelled in a systematic and transparent way,
following the ISO 14040 series recommendations.
First released in 1990, SimaPro is used by major industries, consultancies and universities
for 1SO14040 compliant LCA studies with nearly one thousand user licenses sold in 50
countries.
6.2 Impact categories
Using the LCA software modelling program, SimaPro 7.1, the impact assessment modules
were used to report on the following impact categories:
The list of impact assessment categories included:
water use;
energy consumption;
global warming (IPCC, 100 years);
eutrophication;
non renewable resource depletion, including fossil fuel use and minerals; and
land use.
Air acidification and photochemical oxidant were initially included in the range of impact
categories. However the LCI databases adopted for use in this report did not contain a
sufficient level of data on either of these category indicators especially for the Australian
context. The results for air acidification and photochemical oxidant impact categories are
therefore skewed towards disproportionately high impacts for the detergent manufacture
processes which adopt European data. The results for both these impact categories were
therefore considered inaccurate and misleading and were excluded.
6.3 Definition of categories
Each of the impact categories outlined in Section 6.2 are defined in Table 4 to Table 9.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 17 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 4 Water use impact category definition
Water Use Impact Category Definition
General description Total volume of water extracted from natural sources to produce one
kilogram of clean dry clothes, includes water consumed in upstream and
downstream processes (such as at power plants during energy generation,
during detergent manufacture and at the wastewater treatment plant) in
addition to water consumed by the washing machines
LCI results Consumption of water resources including by end-use
Characterisation
model
Not applied (i.e. no consideration of the relative importance of one water
source compared to another or compared to existing quantity of water
reserves)
Category indicator Decrease in the quantity of water reserves
Characterisation
factor
No characterisation factor applied
Category indicator
result
KL H2O consumed from natural sources per functional unit
Category endpoints Water reserves
Environmental
relevance
The depletion of water reserves leads to depletion of local water resources
potentially lowering their availability to other human, aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems.
Table 5 Energy consumption impact category definition
Energy Consumption Impact Category Definition
General description Total energy resources consumed to produce one kilogram of clean dry
clothes, includes energy consumed in upstream and downstream processes
(such as at power plants during energy generation, during detergent
manufacture and at the wastewater treatment plant) in addition to energy
consumed by the washing machines
LCI results End-use of energy for transport, process heat, fuel extraction and delivery,
electricity delivered and electricity lost
Characterisation
model
Not applied (i.e. no consideration of the relative importance of one energy-
end use compared to another or compared to the energy supply available)
Category indicator Decrease in energy available
Characterisation
factor
No characterisation factor
Category indicator
result
MJ LHV required per functional unit
Category endpoints Energy supply networks and the reserves and infrastructure required to meet
demand
Environmental
relevance
The energy demand decreases the amount of energy available for other
useful work. For electricity the energy demand increases the amount of
energy to be supplied to the grid from external sources.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 18 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 6 Global warming impact category definition
Global Warming Impact Category Definition
General description Total global warming potential of the greenhouse gases emitted to produce
one kilogram of clean dry clothes
LCI results Emissions of greenhouse gas per functional unit
Characterisation
model
Baseline model of 100 years of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
Category indicator Infrared radiative forcing (W/m2)
Characterisation
factor
Global warming potential (GWP100) for each greenhouse gas (kg CO2-
equivalents/kg emission)
Category indicator
result
Kilograms of CO2-equivalents per functional unit
Category endpoints Coral reefs, forests, crops, urban settlements
Environmental
relevance
Infrared radiative forcing is a proxy for potential effects on the climate,
depending on the integrated atmospheric heat adsorption caused by
emissions and the distribution over time of the heat absorption
Table 7 Eutrophication impact category definition
Eutrophication Impact Category Definition
General description Total eutrophication potential of nutrients (such as phosphates and nitrates)
released to water bodies to produce one kilogram of clean dry clothes
LCI results Emissions of eutrophying substances into the air, water or soil per functional
unit
Characterisation
model
Based on the stoichiometric calculations of Heijungs (1992) which identify the
equivalence between N and P for both terrestrial and aquatic systems
Category indicator Deposition/N/P equivalents in biomass
Characterisation
factor
Eutrophication potential for each eutrophying emission to the air, water or soil
(in kg PO4-equivalents/kg emission)
Category indicator
result
Kilograms of PO4-equivalents per functional unit
Category endpoints Water bodies
Environmental
relevance
Nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen) enter water bodies, such as lakes,
estuaries and slow-moving streams, causing excessive plant growth and
oxygen depletion.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 19 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 8 Non renewable resource depletion impact category definition
Non Renewable Resource Depletion Impact Category Definition
General description The additional energy required to extract new resources (which are more
difficult to access, extract and process) as a result of depletion of existing
reserves to produce one kilogram of clean dry clothes
LCI results Consumption of minerals, ores and fossil fuel resources which cannot be
renewed in human relevant periods of time per functional unit
Characterisation
model
Eco-indicator 99 method, egalitarian version based on Chapman and
Roberts (1983) assessment procedure for the seriousness of resource
depletion
Category indicator Decrease in the concentration of reserves
Characterisation
factor
Additional energy requirement to extract an equivalent amount of resources
at some time into the future based on the lower resource concentration or
other unfavourable reserve characteristics1
Category indicator
result
MJ surplus energy required per functional unit
Category endpoints Mineral, ore and fossil fuel reserves
Environmental
relevance
The use of minerals, ore and fossil reserves as material and energy sources
leads to depletion of global reserves thereby lowering their availability for
future generations.
Table 9 Land use impact category definition
Land Use Impact Category Definition
General description The amount of land required to produce the inputs necessary per kilogram of
clean dry clothes
LCI results Occupation of land
Characterisation
model
Not applied (i.e. no consideration of the relative importance of one land
occupation type compared to another or compared to existing land reserves)
Category indicator Decrease in quantity of occupiable land reserves
Characterisation
factor
No characterisation factor applied
Category indicator
result
m2 occupiable land used per functional unit
Category endpoints Land reserves
Environmental
relevance
The use occupiable leads to depletion of total occupiable land potentially
reducing availability to other human, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 20 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7 Results and interpretation
This section provides results from the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) for the impact
categories identified in Section 6.2. Section 7.1 analyses the base case with and without
drying to determine which aspects of the life cycle have the largest environmental impacts.
Scenario analysis is then provided in Section 7.2, which explores the impact of changes in
various base case parameters. The aim of the scenario analysis is to determine which
variables have the largest impacts on the clothes washing lifecycle.
7.1 Base case
The following represents the impacts for the base case including line drying as previously
defined in Section 4.3.4. Each impact category includes impacts which occur during the
upstream, use and downstream phases of the process. The impacts are presented in
absolute terms as well as percentage breakdowns in the corresponding tables and pie
charts. The pie charts include:
a breakdown by phase for each scenario (the large pie chart on the left of each figure);
and
a further breakdown of the pie chart by contributing unit processes within each phase
(the three pie chart wedges on the right of each figure).
When interpreting these results, it should be noted that negative impacts are observed
where credits are given for avoided impacts (e.g. recycled steel). For the purposes of visual
representation these have been assigned a zero value within the pie charts.
7.1.1 Water
Results indicate that the lifecycle impacts of clothes washing on water use are
approximately 30.4 L H2O per kg of dry clothes for the base case and 31.9 L H2O per kg of
dry clothes for the base case with electric tumble drying. The contributions of the various
lifecycle phases for the base case are presented in Table 10 and Figure 3. The
contributions of various lifecycle phases for the base case with drying are presented in
Table 10 and Figure 4.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 21 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 10 Water use impacts
Lifecycle Phase
Base Case
(L H2O per kg
Dry Clothes)
Base Case with dryer
(L H2O per kg
Dry Clothes)
UP
ST
RE
AM
Detergent Manufacture 2.49 2.49
Detergent Packaging Manufacture 0.01 0.01
Washing Machine Manufacture 0.04 0.04
Dryer Manufacture n/a 0.38
Total Upstream Phase 2.54 2.91
US
E
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 2 x10-3
2 x10-3
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.10 0.10
Washing Machine Water Consumption 27.68 27.68
Dryer Energy n/a 1.24
Standby Power 0.06 0.06
Total Use Phase 27.9 29.1
DO
WN
ST
RE
AM
Wastewater Treatment 0.01 0.01
Detergent Packaging Disposal 1 x10-3
1 x10-3
Washing Machine Disposal -0.02 -0.02
Dryer Disposal n/a -0.09
Total Downstream Phase -4 x10-3
-0.09
TOTAL 30.4 31.9
*Note that where negative impacts are observed (and credits given for avoided impacts), these have
been assigned a zero value for the purposes of generating the pie charts.
The consumption of water within the use phase is unsurprisingly the main cause of water
consumption. As shown in Figure 3, a substantial 91.1% of the water impact is attributed to
the water consumption of washing machines in the base case with only 8% occurring in the
upstream phase during detergent manufacture. All other processes consume relatively little
water and as such do not impact on the scenario.
The story is similar when an electric tumble dyer is used, with washing machine use phase
consumption accounting for 86.5%, detergent manufacture representing 7.8% and dryer
energy approximately 4%. This result occurs because of the large amounts of electricity
used during the drying process. Electricity generation consumes large amounts of water
particularly at coal fired power plants and any process using a large amount of electricity will
have embodied water use impacts.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 22 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 3 Water use impact base case
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 23 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 4 Water use impact base case with drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 24 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.1.2 Energy use
The results indicate that the lifecycle impacts of clothes washing on energy use are
approximately 2,476 kJ eq per kg of clothes washed for the base case and 12,196 kJ eq for
the base case with electric drying. The contributions of the various lifecycle phases for the
base case are presented in Table 11 and Figure 5. The contributions of various lifecycle
phases for the base case with drying are presented in Table 11 and Figure 6.
Table 11 Energy use impacts
Lifecycle Phase
Base Case
(kJ eq per kg Dry
Clothes)
Base Case with dryer
(kJ eq per kg Dry
Clothes)
UP
ST
RE
AM
Detergent Manufacture 805 805
Detergent Packaging Manufacture 24 24
Washing Machine Manufacture 92 92
Dryer Manufacture n/a 612
Total Upstream Phase 921 1,533
US
E
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 242 242
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 751 751
Washing Machine Water Consumption 41 41
Dryer Energy n/a 9,283
Standby Power 471 471
Total Use Phase 1,506 10,788
DO
WN
ST
RE
AM
Wastewater Treatment 94 94
Detergent Packaging Disposal -5 -5
Washing Machine Disposal -40 -40
Dryer Disposal n/a -174
Total Downstream Phase 49 -125
TOTAL 2,476 12,196
*Note that where negative impacts are observed (and credits given for avoided impacts), these have
been assigned a zero value for the purposes of generating the pie charts.
As demonstrated in Figure 5, detergent manufacture was the most energy intensive process
for the base case scenario, representing 32% of the overall energy used to produce 1 kg of
clean dry clothes. This can be attributed to the fact that the chemicals used in detergents
are produced using large quantities of energy particularly those derived from
petrochemicals. Furthermore, because detergent is used for each and every wash, the
frequency of detergent use is high, meaning detergent manufacture is attributed to each
wash and is not just a one off event. Direct energy in the form of washing machine
mechanical energy and standby power were also significant contributors to energy use
representing 30% and 19% respectively.
Once a dryer is added, the energy use profile changes significantly, increasing by almost
400%. Figure 6 shows that dryer energy represents almost 75% of total energy use during
this scenario. This can be attributed to the energy intensity of dryers. Several activities that
were comparatively energy intensive in the base case without drying scenario, such as
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 25 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
detergent manufacture, washing machine mechanical energy and standby power,
individually represent less than 7% of the total energy use in this scenario.
It should be noted that standby power for dryer use has not been considered in the impact
assessment. Unlike washing machines, standby power for dryers is not included in the
Energy Rating databases. While some machines are likely to consume power in standby
mode, this will vary widely depending on machine type, with some dryers having very few
standby functions which consume power. Due to large range of uncertainty relating to power
use, standby power for dryers was not considered in the impact assessment. Households
should be aware that dryers with functions which operate in standby mode will have a
greater impact than those without.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 26 Arup Draft 1 29 March 2010
Figure 5 Energy use impact base case
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 27 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 6 Energy use impact base case with drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 28 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.1.3 Global warming
The results indicate that the lifecycle impacts of clothes washing on global warming are
approximately 0.21 kg CO2-e per kg of washed clothes for the base case and 1.20 kg CO2-e
for the base case with electric tumble drying. The contributions of the various lifecycle
phases for the base case are presented in Table 12 and Figure 7. The contributions of the
various lifecycle phases for the base case with drying are presented in Table 12 and Figure
8.
Table 12 Global warming impacts
Lifecycle Phase
Base Case
(kg CO2 per kg Dry
Clothes)
Base Case with dryer
(kg CO2 per kg Dry
Clothes)
UP
ST
RE
AM
Detergent Manufacture 0.03 0.03
Detergent Packaging Manufacture 0.001 0.001
Washing Machine Manufacture 0.01 0.01
Dryer Manufacture n/a 0.05
Total Upstream Phase 0.04 0.09
US
E
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 0.01 0.01
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.08 0.08
Washing Machine Water Consumption 4 x 10-3
4 x 10-3
Dryer Energy n/a 1.02
Standby Power 0.05 0.05
Total Use Phase 0.15 1.17
DO
WN
ST
RE
AM
Wastewater Treatment 0.01 0.01
Detergent Packaging Disposal -9 x 10-5
-9 x 10-5
Washing Machine Disposal -3 x 10-3
-3 x 10-3
Dryer Disposal n/a -0.01
Total Downstream Phase -0.01 6 x 10-4
TOTAL 0.21 1.3
*Note that where negative impacts are observed (and credits given for avoided impacts), these have
been assigned a zero value for the purposes of generating the pie charts.
Global warming impacts are different to energy impacts, mainly due to the different
emissions intensity of various energy production sources. With a 39.0% impact, the
mechanical energy phase contributes the greatest amount to global warming due to the
direct energy use and the relative emission intensity of electricity generation in Victoria.
Although detergent manufacture was the greatest source of energy consumption, it is
reduced to 16.4% of global warming impacts as many of the chemicals are manufactured
overseas where electricity generation is less emission intensive or natural gas boilers are
used for energy supply at manufacturing plants. Other energy related phases (such as
standby power and thermal energy) also contribute a relatively large amount to the global
warming impact scenario.
Once a dryer is used, the contributions to global warming change significantly, with dryer
energy contributing close to 80% of all emissions. This is again a result of electricity use.
While washing machines derive some of their power from thermal energy supplied from
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 29 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
water heating (supplied by gas in the base case), dryers rely solely on electricity. Victoria‘s
electricity supply is a high emissions intensity energy source and as such, the use of a dryer
notably increases emissions and the impact on global warming.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 30 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 7 Global warming impact base case
Downstream
Upstream
20%Use
73%
Downstream
7%Use
Washing
Machine
Thermal Energy
7%
Washing
Machine
Mechanical
Energy
39%
Washing
Machine Water
Consumption
2%
Standby Power
25%
Upstream
Detergent
Manufacture
17%
Washing
Machine
Manufacture
3%Detergent
Packaging
Manufacture
1%
Use
Total Lifecycle
Global Warming
Impacts
DownstreamWastewater
Treatment
7%
Upstream
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 31 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 8 Global warming impact base case with drying
Downstream
Use
Total Lifecycle
Global Warming
Impacts
UpstreamBase case with dryer - Global warming impacts
Downstream
1%Upstream
7%
Use
92%
Upstream
Detergent
Manufacture
2.7%Detergent
Packaging
Manufacture
0.1%Washing
Machine
Manufacture
0.5%Dryer
Manufacture
3.7%
Use
Dryer Energy
79.9%Standby Power
4.1%
Washing
Machine
Thermal Energy
1.2%Washing
Machine
Mechanical
Energy
6.5%
Washing
Machine Water
Consumption
0.3%
Downstream
Wastewater
Treatment
1.1%
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 32 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.1.4 Eutrophication potential
The results indicate that the lifecycle impacts of clothes washing on eutrophication potential
are approximately 1.17 g PO4 eq per kg of washed clothes for the base case and
1.3 g PO4 eq for the base case with drying. The contributions of the various lifecycle phases
for the base case are presented in Table 13 and Figure 9. The contributions of the various
lifecycle phases for the base case with electric drying are presented in and Table 13 and
Figure 10.
Table 13 Eutrophication impacts
Lifecycle Phase
Base Case
(g PO4 per kg Dry
Clothes)
Base Case with dryer
(g PO4 per kg Dry
Clothes)
UP
ST
RE
AM
Detergent Manufacture 0.03 0.03
Detergent Packaging Manufacture 1 x 10-3
1 x 10-3
Washing Machine Manufacture 4 x 10-3
4 x 10-3
Dryer Manufacture n/a 0.03
Total Upstream Phase 0.04 0.06
US
E
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 0.02 0.02
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.01 0.01
Washing Machine Water Consumption 1 x 10-3
1 x 10-3
Dryer Energy n/a 0.15
Standby Power 0.01 0.01
Total Use Phase 0.04 0.19
DO
WN
ST
RE
AM
Wastewater Treatment 1.10 1.10
Detergent Packaging Disposal 3 x 10-6
3 x 10-6
Washing Machine Disposal -2 x 10-3
-2 x 10-3
Dryer Disposal n/a -0.01
Total Downstream Phase 1.10 1.09
TOTAL 1.17 1.3
*Note that where negative impacts are observed (and credits given for avoided impacts), these have
been assigned a zero value for the purposes of generating the pie charts.
As illustrated in Figure 9, the treatment of wastewater is the largest contributor to
eutrophication potential for the base case, with a 93.6% impact. This can be attributed to
the phosphorus content of the detergent output from the washing machine.
While some of this phosphorous is removed at Melbourne Water‘s Western Treatment
Plant, the remainder is disposed to Port Phillip Bay. All other stages involved in the washing
machine process impact minimally on this scenario with only some occurring upstream
during detergent manufacture and electricity generation.
Results for the base case with an electric tumble dryer (Figure 10) are similar to those of the
base case. In this scenario, treatment of wastewater is the main contributor to
eutrophication potential, representing 81% of the total impact; however dryer energy also
contributes to over 11%. The contribution to eutrophication by dryer energy results from
electricity consumption for the energy intensive dryer and the wastewater treatment
associated with electricity generation.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 33 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 9 Eutrophication base case
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 34 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 10 Eutrophication base case with drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 35 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.1.5 Fossil fuels depletion
The results indicate that the lifecycle impacts of clothes washing on the depletion of fossil
fuels are approximately 153 kJ of surplus depletion per kg of washed clothes for the base
case and 739 kJ for the base case with drying. The contributions of the various lifecycle
phases for the base case are presented in Table 14 and Figure 11. The contributions of the
various lifecycle phases for the base case with electric drying are presented in Table 14 and
Figure 12.
Table 14 Fossil fuels depletion impacts
Lifecycle Phase
Base Case
(kJ Surplus per kg
Dry Clothes)
Base Case with dryer
(kJ Surplus per kg
Dry Clothes)
UP
ST
RE
AM
Detergent Manufacture 45 45
Detergent Packaging Manufacture 1.9 1.9
Washing Machine Manufacture 7.0 7.0
Dryer Manufacture n/a 45
Total Upstream Phase 54 99
US
E
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 21 21
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 45 45
Washing Machine Water Consumption 2.8 2.8
Dryer Energy n/a 553
Standby Power 28 28
Total Use Phase 96 649
DO
WN
ST
RE
AM
Wastewater Treatment 5.7 5.7
Detergent Packaging Disposal -0.4 -0.4
Washing Machine Disposal -2.8 -2.8
Dryer Disposal n/a -12
Total Downstream Phase 2.4 -9.7
TOTAL 153 739
*Note that where negative impacts are observed (and credits given for avoided impacts), these have
been assigned a zero value for the purposes of generating the pie charts.
Figure 11 illustrates the scenario of fossil fuel resource depletion and energy consumption
although some fossil fuels are given greater weighting to reflect the relative energy intensity
of their extraction. Aside from detergent packaging disposal, all washing machine processes
achieve a notable impact on this scenario. Detergent manufacturing and mechanical energy
achieve the largest impact results with 28.3% and 28.1% respectively.
When the use of a dryer is considered (Figure 12), the fossil fuel depletion impacts increase
considerably. Dryer energy accounts for close to three quarters (73.3%) of the total fossil
fuel depletion impacts, with dryer manufacture, detergent manufacture and washing
machine mechanical energy all representing almost 6% each of the total impacts for this
scenario. Again, the energy intensity of dryers and their reliance on electricity (which is
produced from fossil fuels) explain the results for this scenario.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 36 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 11 Fossil fuels depletion impact base case
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 37 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 12 Fossil fuels depletion impact base case with drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 38 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.1.6 Minerals depletion
The results indicate that the lifecycle impacts of clothes washing on the depletion of
minerals are approximately 10.2 kJ of surplus depletion per kg of washed clothes for the
base case and 33.2 kJ for the base case with electric tumble drying. The contributions of
the various lifecycle phases for the base case are presented in Table 15 and Figure 13.
The contributions of the various lifecycle phases for the base case with drying are presented
in Table 15 and Figure 14.
Table 15 Minerals depletion impacts
Lifecycle Phase
Base Case
(kJ Surplus per kg
Dry Clothes)
Base Case
(kJ Surplus per kg
Dry Clothes)
UP
ST
RE
AM
Detergent Manufacture 7.0 7.0
Detergent Packaging Manufacture 2 x 10-4 2 x 10
-4
Washing Machine Manufacture 3.5 3.5
Dryer Manufacture n/a 24.2
Total Upstream Phase 10.5 34.7
US
E
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 4.E-04 4 x 10-4
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.02 0.02
Washing Machine Water Consumption 1 x 10-3 1 x 10
-3
Dryer Energy n/a 0.2
Standby Power 0.01 0.01
Total Use Phase 0.0 0.3
DO
WN
ST
RE
AM
Wastewater Treatment 0.02 0.02
Detergent Packaging Disposal -1 x 10-5 -1 x 10
-5
Washing Machine Disposal -0.3 -0.3
Dryer Disposal n/a -1.4
Total Downstream Phase -0.3 -1.7
TOTAL 10.2 33.2
*Note that where negative impacts are observed (and credits given for avoided impacts), these have
been assigned a zero value for the purposes of generating the pie charts.
Manufacturing processes provide the greatest impact on the scenario of minerals depletion
as illustrated in Figure 13. Detergent manufacturing contributes a 64.2% impact, with
washing machine manufacturing providing a further 32.3% contribution towards the total
minerals depletion in this scenario. Within these processes, the greatest proportion of
minerals is consumed in the manufacturing of machine parts and detergent chemicals.
Manufacturing processes still dominate when the base case is considered with the use of a
dryer (Figure 14). However the manufacture of the dryer outweighs the detergent and
washing machine contributions, accounting for close to 70% of the mineral depletion. The
dryer manufacture registers higher mineral depletion than the washing machine
manufacture even though the same manufacturing processes have been assumed. This is
because the dryer is used less frequently than the washing machine and so its impacts are
concentrated in fewer cycles over its useful life.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 39 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 13 Minerals depletion impact base case
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 40 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 14 Minerals depletion impact with drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 41 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.1.7 Land use
The results indicate that the lifecycle impacts of land use are minimal, representing only an
approximate 3.9 x 10-3
m2 per kg of washed clothes for the base case and 6.8 x 10
-3 m
2 for
the base case with electric drying. The contributions of the various lifecycle phases for the
base case are presented in Table 16 and Figure 15. The contributions of the various
lifecycle phases for the base case with drying are presented in Table 16 and Figure 16.
Table 16 Land use impacts
Lifecycle Phase
Base Case
(m2 per kg Dry
Clothes)
Base Case with dryer
(m2 per kg Dry
Clothes)
UP
ST
RE
AM
Detergent Manufacture 3.3 x 10-3
3.3 x 10-3
Detergent Packaging Manufacture 1.6 x 10-5
1.6 x 10-5
Washing Machine Manufacture 1.1 x 10-4
1.1 x 10-4
Dryer Manufacture n/a 5.0 x 10-4
Total Upstream Phase 3.5 x 10-3
4.0 x 10-3
US
E
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 3.9 x 10-6
3.9 x 10-6
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 2.0 x 10-4
2.0 x 10-4
Washing Machine Water Consumption 1.1 x 10-5
1.1 x 10-5
Dryer Energy n/a 2.4 x 10-3
Standby Power 1.2 x 10-4
1.2 x 10-4
Total Use Phase 3.4 x 10-4
2.8 x 10-3
DO
WN
ST
RE
AM
Wastewater Treatment 3.0 x 10-5
3.0 x 10-5
Detergent Packaging Disposal 1.2 x 10-5
1.2 x 10-5
Washing Machine Disposal -8.2 x 10-6
-8.2 x 10-6
Dryer Disposal n/a -3.5 x 10-5
Total Downstream Phase 3.4 x 10-5
-1.2 x 10-6
TOTAL 3.9 x 10-3
6.8 x 10-3
*Note that where negative impacts are observed (and credits given for avoided impacts), these have
been assigned a zero value for the purposes of generating the pie charts.
Land use impacts for both the base case and the base case with an electric tumble dryer
are less than a square meter per kg of clean dry clothes. However, when the mass of
clothes washed over an annual period is considered, the land use impact becomes
significant. For example, under the base case, land use impacts without the use of a dryer
equate to approximately 2.9 m2 per year per household. Considering the number of
households in the CWW region collectively, this impact is very large.
Manufacturing processes provide the greatest contribution to land use in the base case, with
detergent manufacturing representing 86.8% of all land use as highlighted in Figure 15.
Detergent manufacturing uses a number of agricultural derived products and as such, its
impact on land use is the most significant during the base case scenario.
Once a dryer is considered (Figure 16) dryer energy contributes moderately (36%) to land
use impacts. This is due to its high reliance on electricity, the production of which causes
some land degradation.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 42 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 15 Land use impact base case
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 43 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 16 Land use impact base case with drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 44 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.2 Scenario analysis
7.2.1 Washing machine selection scenarios
The comparative performance of washing machine types is dependent on a number of
variables including:
energy efficiency (represented by energy rating);
water efficiency (represented by water rating);
loading (front or top);
rated load capacity (size); and
machine loading (dependent on household behaviour when filling the machine).
To investigate the importance of any one of these variables in a scenario analysis, it is
important to hold all other variables constant. However, this sort of analysis is not realistic
as often there may be no actual machines on the market represented by a particular
scenario. For instance, a 7kg machine may only be available under a limited number of
energy star and WELS ratings. Therefore we have attempted to represent actual machines
available on the market, with information on this sourced from the government‘s Water
Efficiency and Labelling (WELS) Rating Scheme (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) and
Energy rating scheme (DEWHA, 2009). Additionally, we have included the comparison of
future washing machine technologies to provide an indication of the environmental benefits
of emerging technology within the machine washing field.
Generally machines with the same energy or WELS star ratings vary widely in terms of size.
Therefore both size and machine loading cannot be simultaneously held constant. To
address this, two possible options were considered:
1. Keep the machine loading constant at 50% capacity (as per the base case) for all
options resulting in variations in kg clothes per wash (with smaller machines
washing less clothes mass than larger machines); and
2. Keep the kg clothes per wash at 3.52kg (the washing machine load as per the base
case) for all options resulting in variations for the machine loading with smaller
machines closer to full capacity than large machines.
Some lifecycle phases are sensitive to changes in percentage capacity and therefore vary
for Option 2, while others are dependent on wash mass and therefore vary for Option 1 as
shown in Table 17 below.
Table 17 Sensitivity to Analysis Options
Phase Option 1 – 50% machine loading Option 2 – 3.52kg machine loading
Small Machine Large Machine Small Machine Large Machine
Detergent
Consumption
Increased
impacts as
concentrated over
smaller wash size
Reduced impact
as dispersed over
larger wash size
No difference No difference
Energy
Consumption
No difference No difference Reduced impact
as less
underfilling
Increased impacts
as excess energy
use due to
underfilling
Water
Consumption
No difference No difference Reduced impact
as less
underfilling
Increased impacts
as excess water
use due to
underfilling
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 45 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Phase Option 1 – 50% machine loading Option 2 – 3.52kg machine loading
Small Machine Large Machine Small Machine Large Machine
Machine
Manufacture
Increased
impacts as
concentrated over
smaller wash size
Reduced impact
as dispersed over
larger wash size
No difference No difference
Wastewater
Treatment
(detergent
loading)
Increased
impacts as
concentrated over
smaller wash size
Reduced impact
as dispersed over
larger wash size
No difference No difference
Wastewater
Treatment
(energy and
greenhouse)
No difference No difference Reduced impact
as less
underfilling
Increased impacts
as excess water
use due to
underfilling sent to
WWTP
For the base case approach of keeping the machine loading constant at 50% (Option 1),
Table 17 highlights that varying the machine size will concentrate the impacts associated
with detergent manufacture, machine manufacture and detergent loading in wastewater, but
keep the use phase energy and water consumption constant.
This outcome is a reflection of the amount of detergent used per wash being constant as
manufacturers‘ recommendations generally do not distinguish between small and large
machines or loads. Therefore for smaller machines, greater amounts of detergent are used
per kg of clothes such that embodied impacts of detergent (which are relatively high across
all impact categories except water use) are larger for smaller machines.
This is significant in the overall results because considerable impacts are related to
detergent manufacture, which is based on the manufacturers‘ recommendations per wash.
For example detergent manufacture accounts for 32% of the overall energy used to produce
1 kg of clean dry clothes.
The consequence of this is that when considering the environmental impacts associated
with the use of washing machines, results from the study indicate that energy use impacts
are more closely linked to machine size than energy rating, as this only affects the thermal
and mechanical energy requirements of the machine. By increasing the machine size a
reduced amount of detergent is used per kg of clean clothes.
To minimise the environmental impacts of clothes washing, consideration of the energy and
water efficiency (MEPS and WELS rating) should occur once the size of the machine has
been optimised to reflect the volume of clothes that require washing per week and the
capacity of the machine required for this volume.
In considering the type of machine and efficiency ratings the study has considered top
loading (base case) and front loader machines (3 star energy rating and 4 star WELS front
loading machines (the most common front loader available on the market)) and future
machines, namely the current market leader in terms of both energy and water star ratings
(front loading 4 star energy rating 4.5 star WELS rating) and the Reason and Waterless
machines.
The results show that the future machines consistently outperform the base case (except for
fossil fuel depletion) and also perform better than front loading machines. The front loader
outperforms the top loader for water use, but performs worse than the top loader across all
categories. This is primarily due to the front loader having, on average, a smaller capacity
than the top loader and, as indicated above, this has a significant bearing on the results. If
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 46 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
the front loader has the same capacity as the top loader it is expected it would have a
reduced environmental impact across the majority of impact categories.
In relation to future machines the current market leader produced the fewest emissions and
the Waterless machine used the least water. Fossil fuels depletion and energy use were
greater than the base case for the Waterless machine due to the embodied impacts in the
nylon beads. The Reason machine achieved less significant environmental savings than
the Waterless machine in areas such as land use, eutrophication and of course water use,
but it consistently outperformed the base case in all impact categories and had the most
consistent savings from a holistic impact perspective.
The following section provides detailed information on these findings, and Appendix A the
sensitivity analysis for the Option 2 scenario outlined in Table 17.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 47 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.2.2 Future Machines
In order to understand the sustainable direction in which domestic clothes washing is
heading, the scenario analysis considered future machines as well as the current market
leader in terms of both energy and water star ratings (front loading 4 star energy rating 4.5
star WELS rating). The future machines nominated were the Waterless machine and the
Reason machine which are yet to be fully commercialised. The assumptions around the
future machines are based on manufacturers‘ claims and have not been verified.
Box 1: Future washing technologies: The Reason machine
The Reason Washing Machine
Andrew Reason, an Architect from the UK has developed a green washing machine that uses the
fuzzy logic system to reduce the impacts of clothes washing on the environment.
Water stored in the ‗balance tank‘ provides the machine‘s stability, enabling the elimination of
concrete, which most conventional washing machines use to balance the machine. This tank also
enables water to warm to room temperature, reducing the energy requirements of water heating
for warm or hot water loads. The creator has also developed special detergents to operate at 15
degrees that are beneficial to the environment and further reduce energy requirements for water
heating.
The fuzzy logic technology senses the exact amount of water, detergent and softener to add to
each load, further enhancing energy and water efficiency along eliminating the potential for
detergent overfilling.
Box 2: Future washing technologies: The Waterless Washing Machine
The Waterless Washing Machine
The Waterless washing machine developed by Xeros Ltd in the UK uses 90% less water than
conventional machines. The technology uses 20kg of nylon beads, which attract dirt and absorb
stains when mixed in the machine with a load of dirty washing.
Xeros' technology uses as little as a cup of water containing the detergent in each wash cycle,
without the need for a rinse or spin cycle. When finished, a grill at the bottom of the machine
opens to collect the chips, which can be re-used many times. The machine minimises water
consumption and through a reduction in the need to heat water, it also saves energy and
detergent.
The technology is planned for commercial release by the end of 2011 and could revolutionise the
way people wash clothes.
The results from investigating future machines are included in Table 18 and Figure 17.
Table 18 Impact of future machines and current market leader
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Use
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
Dep
leti
on
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
Dep
leti
on
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case 30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.18 3.9 x 10-3
Reason 10.0 1,247 0.11 0.4 76.47 5.90 1.5 x 10-3
Waterless 1.5 2,166 0.14 0.1 169.56 4.92 2.7 x 10-4
Current Market
Leader 10.8 1,576 0.11 1.2 94.42 12.82 3.9 x 10
-3
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 48 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 17 Impacts of future machines and current market leader (% Difference from base case)
All emerging technology machines performed better than the base case machine for energy
use, global warming and water use (implying they use less energy, produce fewer emissions
and use less water). The market leader produced the fewest emissions and the Waterless
machine used the least water. The market leader performed worse than the base case
machine for eutrophication and minerals depletion due to detergent impacts. This is
because the market leader is a relatively small machine and so detergent manufacture
impacts are concentrated over a smaller wash size compared to the base case and the
other future machines. Fossil fuels depletion and energy use were greater than the base
case for the Waterless machine due to the embodied impacts in the nylon beads. The
Reason machine achieved less significant environmental savings than the Waterless
machine in areas such as land use, eutrophication and of course water use, but it
consistently outperformed the base case in all impact categories and had the most
consistent savings from a holistic impact perspective.
7.2.3 Varying loading type (top loader and front loader)
Despite having knowledge that emerging technologies significantly reduce environmental
impacts, these machines are not yet commercially available and as such, there is a need to
better understand the machines currently available on the market. The base case (top
loading machine) was compared against front loading machines and emerging technologies
to provide general insight into the environmental impacts of different machine loading types.
The front loading machine is represented by the average of 3 star energy rating and 4 star
WELS front loading machines (the most common front loader available on the market). The
various parameters of these machines are outlined in Table 19 and Figure 18.
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion
Energy Use
Base Case Reason Waterless Current Market Leader
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 49 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 19 Machine Parameters for Top Loader/Front Loader Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Nu
mb
er
of
Ma
ch
ine
s
on
Ma
rke
t
Average Standard
Test Performance
Av
era
ge
Ra
ted
Ca
pa
cit
y
(kg
pe
r w
ash
)
Ca
pa
cit
y
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
TL 2 star 3 star 34 1.59 97.29 7.03 50% 3.52
FL 3 star 4 star 22 0.99 66.23 6.93 50% 3.47
Reason n/a n/a n/a 0.04 9.73 10.00 50% 5.00
Waterless n/a n/a n/a 0.05 2.77 7.03 50% 3.52
Figure 18 Impact of varying loading type
The results show that the emerging technologies consistently outperform the base case
(except for fossil fuel depletion) and also perform better than front loading machines. The
front loader outperforms the top loader for water use which is to be expected given the
higher WELS rating and reduced use phase water consumption of the front loading
machines. However the results for the other impact categories are counterintuitive with the
higher energy rated front loader performing worse than the top loader across all categories.
This is due to two factors. Firstly, the algorithm in the lifecycle model assumes a greater
mechanical energy requirement (for the motor and controls) for front loading machines
compared to top loading machines with the same standard test energy based on previous
research conducted by Alan Pears for the EPA Australian Greenhouse Calculator.
Secondly, the front loader machine is slightly smaller which is of significance for impacts
associated with detergent use. Quantity of detergent used is constant per wash according to
detergent manufacturers‘ recommendations which generally do not distinguish between
small and large machines or loads. Therefore for smaller machines, greater amounts of
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion
Energy Use
Base Case (Top Loader 2*) Front Loader Base Case 3* Reason Waterless
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 50 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
detergent are used per kg of clothes such that embodied impacts of detergent (which are
relatively high across all impact categories except water use) are larger for smaller
machines.
7.2.4 Varying energy rating
Scenario analysis was conducted on top and front loading machines of various energy
ratings, maintaining the same WELS rating as the base case. This section looks at the
impact of varying energy ratings across top loading machines (and emerging technologies)
first and then considers the impacts of varying energy ratings across front loading machines
(and emerging technologies). These two different scenarios are then considered in a
combined commentary on the impacts of varying energy ratings in general.
Box 3: Energy Star Rating
Energy Star Ratings
The energy rating label enables households to compare the energy efficiency of domestic
appliances. It was first introduced in 1986 in NSW and Victoria and is now mandatory in all
states and territories for refrigerators, freezer, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers
and some air-conditioners.
The star rating of an appliance is determined from the energy consumption (CEC) and size /
capacity of the product. These values are measured under Australian Standards which define
test procedures for measuring energy consumption and minimum energy performance criteria.
The base energy consumption defines the "1 star" line for particular products. For clothes
washers, an additional star is awarded when the CEC of the model is reduced by 27%.
Energy consumption is measured on the program recommended for a normally soiled cotton
load at the rated capacity. The minimum wash temperature for energy labelling tests is 35°C.
The WELS rating of a clothes washing machine is then determined using the following
formula:
Where:
Star Rating Index = fractional star rating used to determine the number of stars to appear on the label, rounded down to the nearest half star
CEC = comparative energy consumption (energy that appears on the energy label)
BEC = Base Energy Consumption = 115 × C C = rated load capacity of clothes washer (kg) ERF = energy reduction factor – reduction in CEC for each additional star
(27%) = 0.27
Em =
F = 0.1 WEI = Water Extraction Index (kg water per kg dry clothes)
Eref =
WEIref = 1.03
As is indicated in Box 3, the energy rating takes into account the size of the washing
machine. In theory therefore, a large machine consuming more energy per wash will
receive a similar star rating to a smaller machine using less water per wash. However, this
is not necessarily observed as there are a number of other factors which contribute to the
star rating. Firstly, for clothes washers, the star rating index is influenced by energy
consumption as well as the spin performance of the machine, as it is assumed that some of
the load will be put into a dryer. Secondly, the quoted energy consumption under the test
rating varies depending on the test temperature which can vary from a minimum of 35C up
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 51 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
to 90C depending on the nominated setting recommended for a normally soiled cotton load.
It may be that the machine is actually capable of operating at much lower temperatures.
For our analysis we have used the comparative energy consumption values adjusted using
Alan Pears‘ correlations to determine actual energy consumption from standard energy
consumption and wash temperature. Due to the factors identified above, the actual energy
consumption per unit of clothes washed does therefore not actually correspond particularly
well to the star rating.
In addition a large percentage of lifecycle impacts for energy consumption are derived from
detergent manufacture. Detergent consumption is assumed to be constant irrespective of
washing machine size or type such that smaller machines use a larger quantity of detergent
per kg of clothes. This also affects the results for energy consumptions such that energy,
fossil fuel and global warming results are more affected by machine size than star rating.
Firstly, scenario analysis was conducted for top loading machines (with hot and cold
connections) of various energy ratings, maintaining the same WELS rating (3 star) as the
base case. For some combinations of energy star and WELS rating, there are no machines
currently on the market and therefore not all energy star ratings are represented. These
results were compared against emerging technologies (no energy star ratings) to provide an
indication of the type of environmental impacts which can be reduced in the future through
new machine technology.
The machines considered in this scenario analysis are presented in Table 20.
Table 20 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Nu
mb
er
of
Rate
d
Ma
ch
ine
s o
n M
ark
et
Average Standard
Test Performance
Ave
rag
e R
ate
d
Cap
ac
ity
(kg
pe
r w
ash
)
Cap
ac
ity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
TL 1 star 3 star 2 2.53 113.00 8.50 50% 4.25
TL 1.5 star 3 star 5 2.11 111.80 8.20 50% 4.10
TL 2 star 3 star 34 1.59 97.29 7.03 50% 3.52
TL 2.5 star 3 star 2 0.98 90.50 6.25 50% 3.13
TL 3 star 3 star 1 1.31 104.00 8.00 50% 4.00
TL 3.5 star 3 star 1 0.78 92.00 7.00 50% 3.50
Reason n/a n/a n/a 0.04 9.73 10.00 50% 5.00
Waterless n/a n/a n/a 0.05 2.77 7.03 50% 3.52
Note: The shaded row represents the top loader base case scenario.
The results of this scenario analysis are presented in Table 21 and Figure 19.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 52 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 21 Impact of varying energy rating for top loading machines
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l
Wa
rmin
g
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case (2*
Energy Rating)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
1* Energy
Rating Top
Loader
28.9 2,281 0.20 1.0 140.97 8.429 3.2 x 10-3
1.5* Energy
Rating Top
Loader
29.6 2,300 0.20 1.0 142.24 8.736 3.3 x 10-3
2.5* Energy
Rating Top
Loader
32.0 2,609 0.21 1.3 160.63 11.449 4.3 x 10-3
3* Energy
Rating Top
Loader
28.4 2,242 0.19 1.0 138.44 8.951 3.4 x 10-3
3.5* Energy
Rating Top
Loader
29.0 2,376 0.20 1.2 146.32 10.224 3.8 x 10-3
Reason 10.0 1,247 0.11 0.4 76.47 5.90 1.5 x 10-3
Waterless 1.5 2,166 0.14 0.1 169.56 4.92 2.7 x 10-4
Figure 19 Impact of varying energy rating for top loading machines (% Difference from base case)
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion
Energy Use
Base Case (Top Loader 2*) Top Loader 1* Top Loader 1.5* Top Loader 2.5*
Top Loader 3* Top Loader 3.5* Reason Waterless
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 53 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Front loading machines were also included in the analysis based on the most common
machine rating in the front loader market (3 star energy rating and 4 star WELS rating).
Scenario analysis was conducted for front loading machines (with hot and cold connections)
of various energy ratings, maintaining the same WELS rating (4 star) as the front loading
base case. For some combinations of energy star and WELS rating, there are no machines
currently on the market. Therefore not all energy star ratings are represented. Emerging
technologies have also been considered in this scenario. Despite lacking an energy star
rating, their results provide an indication of the type of environmental impacts which can be
avoided in the future. The machines considered in this scenario analysis are presented in
Table 22.
Table 22 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Nu
mb
er
of
Ra
ted
Ma
ch
ine
s o
n M
ark
et
Average Standard
Test Performance
Av
era
ge
Ra
ted
Ca
pa
cit
y
(kg
pe
r w
ash
)
Ca
pa
cit
y
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water (L
per
wash)
FL 2 star 4 star 5 1.51 58.40 6.80 50% 3.40
FL 2.5 star 4 star 2 1.30 51.00 7.00 50% 3.50
FL 3 star 4 star 22 0.99 66.23 6.93 50% 3.47
FL 3.5 star 4 star 6 0.76 66.17 6.92 50% 3.46
FL 4 star 4 star 10 0.72 75.40 7.45 50% 3.73
FL 4.5 star 4 star 9 0.68 80.11 8.11 50% 4.06
Reason n/a n/a n/a 0.04 9.73 10.00 50% 5.00
Waterless n/a n/a n/a 0.05 2.77 7.03 50% 3.52
Note: The shaded row represents front loader base case scenario
The results of this scenario analysis are presented in Table 23 and Figure 20.
Table 23 Impact of varying energy rating for front loading machines
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Use
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l
Wa
rmin
g
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
Dep
leti
on
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
Dep
leti
on
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case (2*
Energy Rating
Top Loader)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
2* Energy
Rating Front
Loader
21.9 2,532 0.22 1.2 154.15 12.052 3.9 x 10-3
2.5* Energy
Rating Front
Loader
20.0 2,761 0.24 1.2 167.29 12.286 4.0 x 10-3
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 54 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l
Wa
rmin
g
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
Front Loader
(3* Energy
Rating)
17.3 2,588 0.22 1.2 156.42 11.932 3.9 x 10-3
3.5* Energy
Rating Front
Loader
21.9 2,436 0.21 1.2 148.44 12.067 3.9 x 10-3
4* Energy
Rating Front
Loader
22.8 2,336 0.20 1.1 142.78 11.211 3.6 x 10-3
4* Energy
Rating Front
Loader
22.1 2,210 0.19 1.0 135.27 10.300 3.4 x 10-3
Reason 10.0 1,247 0.11 0.4 76.47 5.90 1.5 x 10-3
Waterless 1.5 2,166 0.14 0.1 169.56 4.92 2.7 x 10-4
Figure 20 Impact of varying energy rating for front loading machines (% Difference from base case)
The scenario analysis of both top loading and front loading machines compared against
emerging technologies suggests that environmental impacts are more closely linked to
machine size than energy rating. This is because the majority of the impacts are dependent
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion
Energy Use
Base Case (Top Loader 2*) Front Loader 2* Front Loader 2.5* Front Loader Base Case 3* Front Loader 3.5*
Front Loader 4* Front Loader 4.5* Reason Waterless
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 55 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
on detergent manufacture, as the greatest contributor to energy use. Since detergent use is
set based on the detergent manufacturers‘ recommendations per wash, it is not dependent
on wash size. Therefore smaller washing machines (such as the average 2 star top loading
machine in Figure 19) are responsible for higher impacts as the detergent impacts are
concentrated over a smaller mass of clothes.
The change in energy star rating affects the thermal and mechanical energy requirements
only. For the front loading machines the size of machine is more consistent across star
ratings resulting in impacts which are more closely correlated to star rating.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 56 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.2.5 Varying Water Rating
As with energy ratings, scenario analysis was conducted on top and front loading machines
of various WELS ratings, maintaining the same energy star rating as the base case. This
section looks at the impact of varying WELS ratings across top loading machines (and
emerging technologies) first and then considers the impacts of varying energy ratings
across front loading machines (and emerging technologies). These two different scenarios
are then considered in a combined commentary on the impacts of varying WELS ratings in
general.
Box 4: WELS Rating
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) Scheme
WELS is water efficiency labelling scheme which enables households to compare the water
efficiency of different products. The system is based on a six star metric, where an increased star
rating represents an increased water efficiency. The labels also show a water consumption or
water flow figure.
The WELS Scheme applies to plumbing products such as showers, toilet equipment, white goods,
washing machines and dishwashers. The rating is determined by using a formula derived from the
total water consumption of the machine. Other tests performed include soil removal, water
extraction, severity of wash and rinse performance.
The star rating is calculated to the nearest ½ star and a star rating of less than 1 receives 0 stars.
Clothes washing machines are differentiated by their water consumption. This is calculated based
on testing to AS 2040.2 on the higher claimed total water consumption for warm or cold wash.
The average total water consumption for clothes washers is determined by testing on a program
recommended to wash a normally soiled cotton load, at the rated load capacity of the machine.
The WELS rating of a clothes washing machine is then determined using the following formula:
Where:
Star Rating Index = fractional star rating used to determine the number of stars to appear on the label, rounded down to the nearest half star
BWC = Base Water Consumption = 30 × C C = rated load capacity of clothes washer (kg) WC = Water consumption of the model in litres under test conditions WRF = Water reduction factor per additional star (30%) = 0.3
The WELS rating takes into account the size of the washing machine. That is, a large
machine consuming more water per wash will receive a similar star rating to a smaller
machine using less water per wash as shown in Figure 21.
The impact of this is that increases the WELS rating should result in an increase in direct
water consumption per kg of clothes regardless of the size of the machine. This is observed
in the results for water consumption as direct water consumption in the use phase
constitutes the majority of the lifecycle water consumption.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 57 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 21: WELS Rating comparison of washing machine size
Scenario analysis relating to a variation in WELS rating was firstly conducted for top loading
machines (with hot and cold connections) of various WELS ratings, maintaining the same
energy star rating (3 star) as the base case. For some combinations of energy star and
WELS rating, there are no machines currently on the market and therefore not all WELS
ratings are represented. These results were compared against emerging technologies to
provide an indication of the type of environmental impacts which can be reduced in the
future through new machine technology.
The machines considered in this scenario analysis are presented in Table 24.
Table 24 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario
Note: The shaded row represents top loader base case scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Nu
mb
er
of
Rate
d
Ma
ch
ine
s o
n M
ark
et
Average Standard
Test Performance
Ave
rag
e R
ate
d
Cap
ac
ity
(kg
pe
r w
ash
)
Cap
ac
ity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
TL 2 star 1.5 star 6 1.18 141.83 5.83 50% 2.92
TL 2 star 2 star 5 1.09 96.80 5.20 50% 2.60
TL 2 star 2.5 star 2 1.57 118.50 7.03 50% 3.52
TL 2 star 3 star 34 1.59 97.29 7.03 50% 3.52
TL 2 star 4 star 3 1.75 76.33 6.25 50% 3.13
Reason n/a n/a n/a 0.04 9.73 10.00 50% 5.00
Waterless n/a n/a n/a 0.05 2.77 7.03 50% 3.52
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 58 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
The results of this scenario analysis are presented in Table 25 and Figure 22.
Table 25 Impact of varying WELS rating for top loading machines
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
Top Loader (3*
WELS Rating)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
1.5* WELS
Rating Top
Loader
51.9 3,012 0.25 1.4 189.19 12.284 4.6 x 10-3
2* WELS
Rating Top
Loader
40.8 3,065 0.25 1.6 189.44 13.760 5.1 x 10-3
2.5* WELS
Rating Top
Loader
36.6 2,561 0.21 1.2 159.12 10.231 3.9 x 10-3
4* WELS
Rating Top
Loader
22.4 2,262 0.19 1.1 138.11 9.332 3.5 x 10-3
Reason 10.0 1,247 0.11 0.4 76.47 5.90 1.5 x 10-3
Waterless 1.5 2,166 0.14 0.1 169.56 4.92 2.7 x 10-4
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 59 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 22 Impact of varying WELS rating for top loading machines (% Difference from base case)
Scenario analysis was also conducted for front loading machines (with hot and cold
connections) of various WELS ratings, maintaining the same energy star rating (3 star) as
the base case. For some combinations of energy star and WELS rating, there are no
machines currently on the market and therefore not all WELS ratings are represented.
Front loader results were compared against emerging technologies to provide an indication
of the type of environmental impacts which can be reduced in the future through new
machine technology. The machines considered in this scenario analysis are presented in
Table 26.
Table 26 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Nu
mb
er
of
Rate
d
Ma
ch
ine
s o
n M
ark
et
Average Standard
Test Performance
Ave
rag
e R
ate
d
Cap
ac
ity
(kg
pe
r w
ash
)
Cap
ac
ity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
FL 3 star 4 star 22 0.99 66.23 6.93 50% 3.47
FL 3 star 4.5 star 8 1.03 63.50 7.44 50% 3.72
Reason n/a n/a n/a 0.04 9.73 10.00 50% 5.00
Waterless n/a n/a n/a 0.05 2.77 7.03 50% 3.52
Note: The shaded row represents front loader base case scenario
The results of this scenario analysis are presented in Table 27 and Figure 23.
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion
Energy Use
Base Case (Top Loader 3*) Top Loader 1.5* Top Loader 2* Top Loader 2.5* Top Loader 4* Reason Waterless
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 60 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 27 Impact of varying WELS rating for front loading machines
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
Front Loader
(3* WELS
Rating)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
Base Case
Front Loader
(4* WELS
Rating)
21.6 2,496 0.21 1.2 151.96 11.880 3.9 x 10-3
4.5* WELS
Rating Front
Loader
20.8 2,559 0.22 1.2 155.52 11.882 3.9 x 10-3
Reason 10.0 1,247 0.11 0.4 76.47 5.90 1.5 x 10-3
Waterless 1.5 2,166 0.14 0.1 169.56 4.92 2.7 x 10-4
Figure 23 Impact of varying WELS rating for front loading machines (% Difference from base case)
The impacts for both front loading and top loading machines for water use are consistent
with the star rating. This is because water use impacts during the use phase dominate the
lifecycle such that a better water rating results in reduced water consumption as expected.
The front loading machines also have reduced water consumption compared to the top
loading machines analysed. Emerging technologies generally outperform both top loaders
and front loaders, regardless of their WELS rating.
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion
Energy Use
Base Case (Top Loader 3*) Front Loader (4*) Front Loader (4.5*) Reason Waterless
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 61 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
For other impact categories, impacts do not correlate with the water rating and are more
closely linked to washing machine size than WELS rating.
7.2.6 Water system type
Scenario analysis was undertaken for the base case (20 C wash temperature) using a
number of different hot water system types to provide the thermal energy for the wash cycle.
Since thermal energy is a relatively small contributor to the base case, the analysis was also
repeated at a 60 C wash temperature where the variation in hot water system type would
have more of an effect. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 28, Figure 24.
Table 28 Impact of varying hotwater system type for 20°C wash temperature
Scenario
Impact Category W
ate
r U
se
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
(Gas Storage
5*)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
Gas Inst 3* 30.4 2,482 0.21 1.2 152.60 10.184 3.9 x 10-3
Gas Inst 5* 30.4 2,454 0.21 1.2 150.16 10.184 3.9 x 10-3
Off Peak
Electric Single
Element
30.5 2,935 0.27 1.2 173.72 10.201 4.0 x 10-3
Off Peak
Electric Dual
Element
30.5 2,954 0.27 1.2 174.87 10.202 4.0 x 10-3
Solar Electric
Split System 30.4 2,522 0.22 1.2 149.12 10.190 3.9 x 10
-3
Solar Electric
Thermosyphon
(High
Efficiency)
30.4 2,431 0.21 1.2 143.69 10.188 3.9 x 10-3
Solar Electric
Thermosyphon
(Minimum
Efficiency)
30.4 2,510 0.22 1.2 148.40 10.190 3.9 x 10-3
Gas Storage
3* 30.4 2,542 0.21 1.2 158.36 10.183 3.9 x 10
-3
Solar Gas Split
System 30.4 2,296 0.20 1.2 136.90 10.183 3.9 x 10
-3
Solar Preheat
with Gas
Instantaneous
30.4 2,382 0.20 1.2 144.46 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 62 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 24 Impact of varying hot water system type for 20°C wash temperature
(% Difference from base case)
Since thermal energy phase is a relatively small contributor to the base case (from between
<1% and 10% depending on impact category), the analysis was also repeated at a 60 C
wash temperature. At this temperature, change in hot water system type has a more
profound effect on results as presented in Table 29 and Table 30.
Figure 25 Impact of varying hot water system type for 60°C wash temperature
(% Difference from base case)
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
Globa
l War
ming
Eutro
phicat
ion
Land
use
Wat
er U
se
Fossil F
uels D
epletio
n
Miner
als Dep
letio
n
Energ
y Use
Base Case (Gas Storage 5*)
Gas Inst 3*
Gas Inst 5*
Off Peak Electric Single
Element
Off Peak Electric Dual
Element
Solar Electric Split System
Solar Electric
Thermosyphon (High
Efficiency)Solar Electric
Thermosyphon (Minimum
Efficiency)Gas Storage 3*
Solar Gas Split System
Solar Preheat with Gas
Instantaneous
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
Globa
l War
ming
Eutro
phicat
ion
Land
use
Wat
er U
se
Fossil F
uels D
epletio
n
Miner
als Dep
letio
n
Energ
y Use
Base Case (Gas Storage 5*)
Gas Inst 3*
Gas Inst 5*
Off Peak Electric Single
Element
Off Peak Electric Dual
Element
Solar Electric Split System
Solar Electric
Thermosyphon (High
Efficiency)Solar Electric
Thermosyphon (Minimum
Efficiency)Gas Storage 3*
Solar Gas Split System
Solar Preheat with Gas
Instantaneous
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 63 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 29 Impact of varying hotwater system type for 60°C wash temperature
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l
Wa
rmin
g
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
(Gas Storage
5*)
30.4 4,616 0.36 1.3 325.44 10.196 4.0 x 10-3
Gas Inst 3* 30.5 4,668 0.37 1.3 325.71 10.200 4.0 x 10-3
Gas Inst 5* 30.5 4,437 0.35 1.3 305.56 10.200 4.0 x 10-3
Off Peak
Electric Single
Element
31.2 8,417 0.87 1.3 500.42 10.344 5.5 x 10-3
Off Peak
Electric Dual
Element
31.2 8,577 0.89 1.3 509.93 10.348 5.5 x 10-3
Solar Electric
Split System 30.7 5,003 0.50 1.2 296.94 10.255 4.6 x 10
-3
Solar Electric
Thermosyphon
(High
Efficiency)
30.6 4,249 0.41 1.2 252.03 10.235 4.4 x 10-3
Solar Electric
Thermosyphon
(Minimum
Efficiency)
30.7 4,903 0.49 1.2 290.99 10.253 4.6 x 10-3
Gas Storage
3* 30.4 5,166 0.39 1.3 373.37 10.196 4.0 x 10
-3
Solar Gas Split
System 30.4 3,127 0.27 1.2 195.87 10.196 4.0 x 10
-3
Solar Preheat
with Gas
Instantaneous
30.4 3,845 0.31 1.2 258.41 10.196 4.0 x 10-3
From this analysis it is clear that the importance of selection of hot water system type is
elevated for an increased wash temperature. Of the systems analysed, off peak electric and
3 star gas storage perform worse for all impact categories with the exception of
eutrophication where natural gas production has a greater impact than electricity generation.
The best performing system is the solar gas split system for the majority of impact
categories.
7.2.7 Washing machine temperature scenarios
Relationships were derived for each impact category according to variation in wash
temperature. The relationships are represented by a linear trends line as presented in
Table 30 and Figure 26 to Figure 32.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 64 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 30 Washing machine temperature relationships
Impact Category Relationship
Water Use (L) W = 0.0016T + 30.3
Energy Use (kJ eq) E = 53.50T + 1405
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) GW = 0.0037T + 0.13
Eutrophication Potential EP = 0.003T + 1.11
Fossil Fuels Depletion FF = 4.32T + 66.1
Minerals Depletion M = 0.0003T + 10.177
Figure 26 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Water Use
30.36
30.38
30.4
30.42
30.44
30.46
30.48
30.5
30.52
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wash Temperature (Degrees C)
Wate
r U
se (
L H
2O
per
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 65 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 27 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Energy Use
Figure 28 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Global Warming Potential
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wash Temperature (Degrees C)
En
erg
y U
se (
kJ e
q p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wash Temperature (Degrees C)
Glo
bal
Warm
ing
(kg
CO
2 e
q p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 66 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 29 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Eutrophication Potential
Figure 30 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Fossil Fuels Depletion
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wash Temperature (Degrees C)
Eu
tro
ph
icati
on
(g
PO
4 e
q p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wash Temperature (Degrees C)
Reso
urc
e D
ep
leti
on
(F
ossil
Fu
els
) (k
J s
urp
lus
per
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 67 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 31 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Minerals Depletion
Figure 32 Relationship between Wash Temperature and Land Use
The gradient of the graphs compared to the y axis intercept indicate the relative effect of
wash temperature such that the eutrophication, water use, land use and minerals depletion
are relatively independent of wash temperature, whereas the other impacts show an
approximate 1.5% to 2.5 % increase per degree rise.
Therefore reducing wash temperature by around 10 C can result in a decrease in global
warming impacts of up to 18%, a decrease in energy use of up to 22% and a decrease in
fossil fuel depletion of 28%.
10.18
10.185
10.19
10.195
10.2
10.205
10.21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wash Temperature (Degrees C)
Reso
urc
e D
ep
leti
on
(M
inera
ls)
(kJ s
urp
lus p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
3.80E-03
3.85E-03
3.90E-03
3.95E-03
4.00E-03
4.05E-03
4.10E-03
4.15E-03
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wash Temperature (Degrees C)
Lan
d U
se (
m2 p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 68 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.2.8 Detergent
Scenario analysis was undertaken for different detergent brands. Due to the difficulty in
obtaining detailed detergent ingredients and the lack of lifecycle inventory data for the highly
specialised chemical components, the detergent analysis is highly uncertain.
Notwithstanding, indicative results as generated by the model are presented in Table 31 and
Figure 33.
Table 31 Impact of varying detergent type
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
(Top Loader
Concentrated
Powder)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
Top Loader
Liquid 28.7 2,155 0.19 0.1 134.78 3.424 2.8 x 10
-3
―Eco‖ Powder 29.0 2,159 0.19 0.1 131.25 4.950 6.2 x 10-3
Generic
Powder 35.2 4,040 0.28 0.3 240.12 23.664 1.0 x 10
-2
Figure 33 Detergent type impact scenarios
The ‗generic‘ detergent showed the highest percentage impact across all the categories due
to the reduced concentration and hence higher volumes required. The exception to this was
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels
Depletion
Minerals Depletion Energy Use
Base Case (TL Powd) TL Liq Eco Generic
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 69 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
for eutrophication, where the generic detergent performed better than the top loader powder
for phosphate tests carried out by Choice TM
. Both the top loading liquid and the eco powder
detergents displayed similar impact results, although the eco powder impact percentage
rose an additional 10% within the land use categories.
7.2.9 Fabric softener
Scenario analysis was undertaken for fabric softener use. While the fabric softener data is
subject to the same uncertainties as the detergent scenarios in 7.2.8 above, the results are
more easily interpreted. The results for this analysis can been seen in Table 32 and Figure
34.
Table 32 Impact of fabric softener use
Scenario
Impact Category W
ate
r U
se
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
(No Fabric
Softener)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
With Fabric
Softener at
Recommende
d Dose
31.2 2,924 0.22 1.2 177.05 10.407 6.6 x 10-3
Figure 34: Fabric softener impact scenario
The relative impact of fabric softener use is illustrated in Figure 34. Across all seven
categories the use of fabric softener reveals significantly higher impact percentage results.
The gap between the base case and fabric softener use is greatest for land use due to the
assumption of a palm oil derived fabric softener.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels
Depletion
Minerals Depletion Energy Use
Base Case (No Fabric Softener) With Fabric Softener
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 70 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.2.10 Drying
Scenario analysis was carried out for two types of dryers, the condenser dryer and the
electric tumble dryer.
The difference between electric tumble dryers and condenser dryers
Electric tumble dryers are sometimes referred to as ‗evaporative‘ dryers as they heat the clothes
within using an electric resistance element. These dryer types do not consume water.
Condenser dryers do use water. The water is extracted from the clothes and condensed on an
air-cooled heat exchanger. The warm, dry air from the heat exchanger is then collected or sent to
waste.
The results from the different dryers considered during the LCA are included in Table 33
and Figure 35.
Table 33 Impact of drying
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
Dep
leti
on
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
Dep
leti
on
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
(Line Drying) 30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10
-3
Electric Rotary
Dryer 31.9 12,196 1.27 1.3 738.87 33.228 6.8 x 10
-3
Condenser
Dryer 43.0 12,152 1.26 1.3 736.32 33.227 6.7 x 10
-3
Figure 35 Drying impact scenario
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels
Depletion
Minerals Depletion Energy Use
Base Case (Line Dry) Electric Dryer Condenser Dryer
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 71 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
The use of a dryer increases environmental impacts of the clothes washing process across
all impact categories. The largest increase in environmental impacts is global warming
potential (greater than 500%), while energy use and fossil fuel depletion are also significant
( greater than 350%). Figure 35 illustrates that both electric and condenser dryers have
similar environmental impacts across all categories except for water use, where the
condenser dryer utilises considerably more water resources.
7.2.11 Detergent overfilling
Relationships were derived for each impact category according to the percentage overfill of
detergent compared to the detergent manufacturer‘s recommended dose. While underfilling
is also possible, the impacts of this on the quality of wash are unknown and therefore only
overfilling was investigated. The relationships are represented by linear trend lines as
presented in Table 34.
Table 34 Detergent overfill relationships
Impact Category Relationship
Water Use (L) W = 2.49Dperc_OF+ 27.9
Energy Use (kJ eq) E = 824Dperc_OF+ 1651
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) GW = 0.036Dperc_OF+ 0.171
Eutrophication Potential EP = 1.13Dperc_OF+ 0.042
Fossil Fuels Depletion FF = 46.5Dperc_OF+ 106
Minerals Depletion M = 6.98Dperc_OF+ 3.22
The impact of overfilling by even 1% is therefore considerable across every impact category
due to the significance of the manufacture of detergent chemicals. This represents an
important result, which should be communicated to CWW households. The impacts of
detergent on the lifecycle of household washing can be diminished if residents are careful
with their use of detergent and ensure that they only ever use as much as they need and no
more – even if that means using less than the recommended dose.
Notwithstanding, it is also important to note that many of these impacts (which occur as a
result of detergent manufacture) occur outside of CWWs immediate environment and in
many cases occur overseas. Detergent overfill impacts are reduced in future machines,
where fuzzy logic is used to sense the exact amount of detergent required, or where non
detergent cleaning agents are used (such as in the Waterless washing machine where
nylon beads are used to absorb stains in preference to the use of detergent).
7.2.12 Washing machine loading
Relationships were derived for each impact category according to the percentage loading of
the washing machine with 50% loading representing the base case. The relationships
between loading and impacts are directly inversely proportional as shown in Table 35 such
that the impact of reducing loading is equal in terms of percentage change across the
impact categories. Figure 36 through to Figure 42 illustrate the relationship with each
impact category.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 72 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Table 35 Washing machine loading
Impact Category Relationship
Water Use (L) W = 15.2/WMLperc_cap
Energy Use (kJ eq) E = 1240/WMLperc_cap
Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq) GW = 0.104/WMLperc_cap
Eutrophication Potential EP = 0.587/WMLperc_cap
Fossil Fuels Depletion FF = 76.4/WMLperc_cap
Minerals Depletion M = 5.09/WMLperc_cap
The nature of the inversely proportional relationship means that the impacts increase
exponentially as the washing machine loading decreases such that very small loads will
have a disproportionately high impact. As the washing machine is filled closer to capacity,
the impact becomes less significant.
Figure 36 Relationship between machine loading and water use
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Machine Filled (Compared to Quoted Capacity)
Wate
r U
se (
L H
2O
per
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 73 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 37 Relationship between machine loading and energy use
Figure 38 Relationship between machine loading and global warming potential
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Machine Filled (Compared to Quoted Capacity)
En
erg
y U
se (
kJ e
q p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Machine Filled (Compared to Quoted Capacity)
Glo
bal
Warm
ing
(kg
CO
2 e
q p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 74 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 39 Relationship between machine loading and eutrophication potential
Figure 40 Relationship between machine loading and fossil fuels depletion
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Machine Filled (Compared to Quoted Capacity)
Eu
tro
ph
icati
on
(g
PO
4 e
q p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Reso
urc
e D
ep
leti
on
(F
ossil
Fu
el)
(M
J s
urp
lus p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
% of Machine Filled (Compared to Quoted Capacity)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 75 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Figure 41 Relationship between machine loading and minerals depletion
Figure 42 Relationship between machine loading and land use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Machine Filled (Compared to Quoted Capacity)
Reso
urc
e D
ep
leti
on
(M
inera
ls)
(kJ s
urp
lus p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Machine Filled (Compared to Quoted Capacity)
Lan
d U
se (
m2 p
er
kg
of
dry
clo
thes)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 76 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.2.13 Greywater
The use of a greywater system was analysed during the LCA through modelling of a basic
household greywater system where washing waste water was sent to water the back yard.
The results from this scenario are presented in Table 36 and Figure 43.
Table 36 Impact of greywater reuse for irrigation
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l W
arm
ing
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
(wastewater to
sewer)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
Wastewater to
irrigation 2.9 2,340 0.19 0.1 144.16 10.166 3.8 x 10
-3
Figure 43 Grey water scenario analysis
The use of a grey water system can have significant positive environmental impacts through
the reduction in water use ( approximately 90%) and the decreased potential for
eutrophication ( greater than 90%) compared to the base case. It has a minor impact on
global warming, fossil fuel depletion and energy use, all of which have a slightly reduced
environmental impact compared to the base case. EPA Victoria supports water
conservation methods and believes that greywater can be reused effectively and safely in
domestic situations by following a few simple tips in EPA publication 884.1 Greywater use
around the home.
-100%
-90%
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels
Depletion
Minerals Depletion Energy Use
Base Case (to WTP) Grey Water
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 77 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
7.2.14 Machine disposal
Machine disposal was considered during the scenario analysis with modelling of two
scenarios in addition to the base case. No recycling of machine parts and maximum
recycling of machine parts (all metals, plastics and concrete) were the two scenarios and
the results are presented in Table 37 and Figure 44.
Table 37 Impact of disposal of washing machine at end of life
Scenario
Impact Category
Wa
ter
Us
e
(L)
En
erg
y U
se
(kJ
eq
)
Glo
ba
l
Wa
rmin
g
(kg
CO
2-e
)
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n
(g P
O4-e
)
Fo
ss
il F
ue
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
su
rplu
s)
Min
era
ls
De
ple
tio
n
(kJ
Su
rplu
s)
La
nd
use
(m²)
Base Case
(Recycling
metal
components
only)
30.4 2,476 0.21 1.2 152.56 10.183 3.9 x 10-3
No recycling 30.4 2,516 0.21 1.2 155.40 10.516 3.9 x 10-3
Maximum
recycling 30.4 2,460 0.21 1.2 151.27 10.183 3.9 x 10
-3
Figure 44: The impact of disposal scenarios
The impacts of varying disposal scenarios are displayed in Figure 44.
Recycling is dealt with in the LCA by applying a credit for the avoided production of raw
materials. If no recycling is undertaken then the impacts associated with disposal are also
included in the domestic clothes washing lifecycle.
The results indicate that there is an environmental benefit associated with both recycling
options. This benefit is not as large as may have been expected in comparison with not
-5.0%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion Energy Use
Base Case (Recycle metals only) Recycle metals, plastics and concrete No recycling
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 78 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
recycling as disposal of a washing machine is a one off event. Over the lifecycle of
domestic clothes washing there are other events, such as the use of detergent, operation of
the machine and disposal of wastewater that occur multiple times per week. When
considered in the context of the most common 14 year life of a washing machine (Table 1),
these events represent a significant source of impacts when compared with the one off
disposal.
7.3 Machine replacement
The LCA study did not model when a machine should be replaced. Replacement periods
depend on a number of variables such as the age of the machine and its frequency of use.
A study carried out in America (Bole, 2006) did investigate washing machine replacement
and how to optimise environmental efficiencies through the replacement of a new machine.
The study highlighted that the environmental benefits associated with the replacement of an
old machine with a newer, more efficient machine need to be weighed against the financial
and environmental impacts of purchasing and manufacturing the new machine, as well as
disposing of the old machine.
The study found that there was a ―disconnect between optimal replacement interval from an
environmental perspective and the optimal replacement interval from a financial
perspective‖. The results showed that a short replacement cycle (5 years) was good from an
environmental perspective, but from a financial perspective the optimum replacement was to
replace any machine older than 5 years with a newer machine and retain that machine for
its useful life (20 years).
The results from this LCA also suggest that from an environmental perspective, it makes
sense to replace old machines with newer, more efficient models. Table 38 below highlights
the percentage savings available for different machines in comparison to the base case
machine (negative values represent an additional cost). Even replacement with the market
leading machine (which was selected as a front loading machine with a 4 star energy rating
and 4.5 star WELS rating) can produce significant environmental benefits such as water
savings of approximately 64%.
Table 38 Life cycle impacts comparison between machines
Impact category Base Case Current Market
Leader Reason Waterless
Water Use 0.0% 64.4% 67.0% 95.0%
Energy Use 0.0% 36.3% 49.6% 12.5%
Global Warming 0.0% 46.6% 44.7% 31.6%
Eutrophication 0.0% -5.5% 64.3% 91.4%
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 79 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
8 Conclusions and recommendations
8.1 Summary of results and significant issues
The LCA of Clothes Washing Options separated the clothes washing process into three
phases; upstream, use and downstream. Within each phase are a series of individual ‗unit
processes‘ (Section 5). The key findings of the LCA have been provided by both phase and
unit process for each of the different impact categories of interest to EPA Victoria and
CWW.
Findings are presented for the base case, that is the most common clothes washing
scenario for households within the CWW region and then by different scenarios. All results
relate to the lifecycle impacts required to produce 1 kg of clean dry clothes.
Base case
The LCA determined that the use phase of the washing process has the largest proportion
of environmental impacts due to the frequency of operation of the machines and utilisation
of the detergents. The use phase contributes to impacts across:
• water use (92% of the life cycle impact);
• energy use (60% of the life cycle impact);
• global warming potential (73% of the life cycle impact); and
• fossil fuel depletion (62% of the life cycle impact).
Of the 92% life cycle impact, 91% is attributable to the washing machine water
consumption, which represents a significant opportunity area for CWW in forming a
behaviour change program. In regards to global warming, 39% of impacts are associated
with the mechanical energy of the washing machine and 25% with standby power. There is
real potential to reduce the contribution to global warming by influencing household
behaviour regarding standby power.
The LCA determined that the addition of a dryer to the base case scenario lead to significant
increases (between 70% to 500%) to the environmental impact categories of energy use,
global warming potential, fossil fuel depletion land use. Rationalising the use of dryers with
the CWW region presents an opportunity to considerably reduce a number of environmental
impacts. Advising those households who use dryers to turn them off at the power point will
also provide energy savings.
Scenario analysis
Scenarios analysis was undertaken to better understand the sensitivities of the
environmental impacts to certain parameters within the LCA process. The scenarios were
defined through changes in individual unit processes.
Washing machines
When considering the environmental impacts associated with the use of washing machines,
results from the study suggest that in general, energy use impacts are more closely linked to
machine size than energy rating. This is because the majority of impacts are related to
detergent manufacture, which is based on the manufacturers‘ recommendations per wash.
In contrast, a change in energy star rating affects the thermal and mechanical energy
requirements of the machine only. Additionally, the impacts for both front loading and top
loading machines for the water use are consistent with the star rating.
Another key finding relating to machine use is that the Waterless and Reason machines
performed better than the base case in regard to greenhouse gas emissions and water use,
while the current market leading machine provided the least contribution to global warming
and the Waterless machine the most water efficient.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 80 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Given the importance of machine size on the impact of domestic clothes washing, it is
recommended that households purchase an appropriate size machine when replacing their
washing machine. Machine sizes are often quoted based on the weight of clothes which
they can wash.
Choosing an appropriately sized machine depends on the individual washing needs of
households (e.g. separation of loads, behaviour related requirements to wash frequently
etc). Households should first try to reduce the number of loads per week to the extent
possible and then adopt the following formula to determine what size machine to buy:
Rated capacity= the rated size capacity of the washing machine
Mass of clothes per week = the total weight of all clothes washed during a week
Loads = the number of loads of washing washed per week
%Capacity = how full the washing machine is, expressed as a percentage
Most households only fill their machines to 50% capacity. For the purposes of the use of the
formula, the percentage capacity should be increased, but remain less than 100% to provide
some contingency for larger loads.
Water system type
The LCA results suggest that the importance of selection of hot water system type is
elevated for an increased wash temperature. Of the systems analysed, off peak electric and
3 star gas storage perform worse for all impact categories with the exception of
eutrophication where natural gas production had a greater impact than electricity
generation.
The solar gas split system appeared to be the best performing system for the majority of
impact categories.
Washing machine operations
The findings from the LCA study imply that reducing wash temperature by around 10 C can
result in a decrease in global warming impacts of up to 18%, a decrease in energy use of up
to 22% and a decrease in fossil fuel depletion of 28%.
With regard to loading, the LCA determined that environmental impacts increase
exponentially as washing machine loading decreases, such that very small loads have a
disproportionately high impact on the environment. As the washing machine is filled closer
to capacity, environmental impacts becomes less significant.
Detergent
‗Generic‘ detergent showed the highest percentage impact across all impact categories
within the LCA results due to the reduced concentration of certain chemicals in the
detergent. This means that higher volumes of the generic detergent are required to produce
the same level of cleaning as the other, more concentrated detergents. The exception to
this was for eutrophication, where the generic detergent performed better than the top
loader powder for phosphate tests carried out by Choice.
Results from the LCA study suggested that the impact of overfilling detergent by even 1%
occurred across every impact category. This is due to the large environmental impacts
associated with the manufacture of detergent chemicals and their impact throughout the
lifecycle of the clothes washing process.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 81 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
Fabric softener
Across all seven impact categories within the LCA, the use of fabric softener (compared with
its absence) revealed higher impact percentage results, specifically within land use and
cumulative energy demand demonstrating an increase of approximately 20%.
Grey water
The LCA model found that use of a normal household grey water system can have positive
environmental impacts through the reduction in water use and the decreased potential for
eutrophication. Other studies have found that grey water is having a negative
environmental impact on soil structure and accumulation of contaminates however these
impacts were beyond the scope of the study. Further information regarding grey water
systems can be found within the EPA report 884.1 Greywater use around the home.
Machine disposal
Results from the study confirm that the greatest environmental impacts resulting from
machine disposal (particularly minerals depletion) occur when no components of a washing
machine are recycled. The impact on fossil fuel depletion is minimised through recycling of
metals, plastics and concrete.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 82 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
8.2 Recommendations for LCA model improvement
The availability of data relating to certain domestic clothes washing LCA processes within
Australia was in some cases, very limited. There are several processes for which more
detailed data could improve the accuracy of the model, as set out in. Table 39 Further
discussion on this is contained within the LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West
Water's Residential Customers - Life Cycle Inventory Report.
Table 39 Recommendations for additional data collection
Process Areas for Data Improvement
Upstream
Washing machine manufacture energy consumption during final stage of manufacture
water consumption during final stage of manufacture
waste and emissions during final stage of manufacture
Dryer manufacture general assembly of components and their material
composition and manufacture method
energy and water consumption during final stage of
manufacture
waste and emissions during final stage of manufacture
Detergent and fabric softener
manufacture
exact composition of detergents and fabric softeners
energy consumption during final stage of manufacture
water consumption during final stage of manufacture
waste and emissions during final stage of manufacture
Use
Machine replacement period historical Australian data on trends in replacement periods
of washing machines
Downstream
Waste treatment of washing
machine at end of life
energy consumption during disposal / destruction
% machines recycled in Australia
components recycled
Waste treatment of dryer at end of
life
energy consumption during disposal / destruction
% machines recycled in Australia
components recycled
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers Life Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page 83 Arup Issue 24 May 2010
9 References
ACA (Australian Consumers Association), Life Cycle Analysis of Washing Machines,
October 1992.
Arup, LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers - Goal
and Scope Report, 2009.
Arup, LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential Customers - Life
Cycle Inventory Report, 2009.
Bole, R, Life-Cycle Optimization of Residential Clothes Washer Replacement. Report No.
CSS06-03, Centre for Sustainable Systems, http://css.snre.umich.edu/make
frame.php?content=4_1_NewPubs, April 2006.
BS EN ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment —
Requirements and guidelines, 31 August 2006.
BS EN ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles
and framework, 31 August 2006.
Choice, Laundry detergents: Test results for 45 laundry powder concentrates, May 2007.
City West Water, Environmental Sustainability Plan 2 July 2008 – June 2011, 2008,
City West Water, Sustainability Policy, July 2009.
Commonwealth of Australia, Water Efficiency and Labelling (WELS) Rating Scheme,
http://www.waterrating.gov.au, September 2009.
DEWHA, Energy rating website, www.energyrating.gov.au, September 2009.
EPA, 884.1 Greywater use around the home, http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/
Publications.NSF/2f1c2625731746aa4a256ce90001cbb5/4fb5d827f4615eaaca25746d0004
df7e/$FILE/884.1.pdf, June 2008.
NWC Research, Water Appliance Stock & User Patterns Survey A Research Report for City
West Water, May 2008.
Systain Consulting, Carbon footprint of selected textiles, extract use phase, June 2009.
Appendix A
Sensitivity Analysis for Option 2
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page A1 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
A1 Sensitivity Analysis for Washing Machine Selection
The sensitivity analysis presents the alternative results for the scenario analysis of washing
machine types. The alternative results use a constant wash load for all machines (3.5kg)
with varying machine loading such that the smaller machines are filled closer to capacity
than the larger machines.
A1.1 Varying Loading Type
The base case (top loading machine) was compared against front loading machines. The
various parameters of these two machines are outlined in Table 40.
Table 40 Machine Parameters for Top Loader/Front Loader Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating Number of Machines
on M
arket
Average Standard
Test Performance
Average Rated
Capacity
(kg per wash)
Capacity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
TL 2 star 3 star 34 1.59 97.29 7.03 50% 3.52
FL 3 star 4 star 22 0.99 66.23 6.93 51% 3.52
Figure 45 Impact of varying loading type (Constant Wash Size)
The results are consistent with the main body of the report due to the similar sized
machines.
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil Fuels Depletion
Minerals Depletion Energy Use
Base Case (Top Loader 2*) Front Loader Base Case 3*
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page A2 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
A1.2 Varying Energy Rating
A1.2.1 Top Loading Machines
Scenario analysis was conducted for top loading machines (with hot and cold connections)
of various energy ratings, maintaining the same WELS rating (3 star) as the base case. For
some combinations of energy star and WELS rating, there are no machines currently on the
market and therefore not all energy star ratings are represented. The machines considered
in this scenario analysis are presented in Table 41.
Table 41 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Number of Rated
Machines on Market
Average Standard
Test Performance
Average Rated
Capacity
(kg per wash)
Capacity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
TL 1 star 3 star 2 2.53 113.00 8.50 41% 3.52
TL 1.5 star 3 star 5 2.11 111.80 8.20 43% 3.52
TL 2 star 3 star 34 1.59 97.29 7.03 50% 3.52
TL 2.5 star 3 star 2 0.98 90.50 6.25 56% 3.52
TL 3 star 3 star 1 1.31 104.00 8.00 44% 3.52
TL 3.5 star 3 star 1 0.78 92.00 7.00 50% 3.52
Note: The shaded row represents the top loader base case scenario.
Figure 46 Impact of varying energy rating for top loading machines (Constant Wash Size)
In contrast to the results reported in the main body of the report, it can be seen that the
machines that are smaller than the base case (filled closer to capacity) have fewer impacts
per kg of clothes washing than larger machines. The influence of the energy rating is
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil fuels Minerals Cumulative Energy Demand
Base Case (Top Loader 2*) Top Loader 1* Top Loader 1.5* Top Loader 2.5* Top Loader 3* Top Loader 3.5*
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page A3 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
secondary to this factor which can be seen for the machine (3.5 star) which is a similar size
to the base case. This implies that loading of the machine is the greater determinant of
energy use than star rating.
A1.2.2 Front Loading Machines
Front loading machines were also included in the analysis based on the most common
machine rating in the front loader market (3 star energy rating and 4 star WELS rating).
Scenario analysis was conducted for front loading machines (with hot and cold connections)
of various energy ratings, maintaining the same WELS rating (4 star) as the front loading
base case. For some combinations of energy star and WELS rating, there are no machines
currently on the market. Therefore not all energy star ratings are represented. The
machines considered in this scenario analysis are presented in Table 42.
Table 42 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying Energy Rating Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Number of Rated
Machines on Market
Average Standard
Test Performance
Average Rated
Capacity
(kg per wash)
Capacity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
FL 2 star 4 star 5 1.51 58.40 6.80 52% 3.52
FL 2.5 star 4 star 2 1.30 51.00 7.00 50% 3.52
FL 3 star 4 star 22 0.99 66.23 6.93 51% 3.52
FL 3.5 star 4 star 6 0.76 66.17 6.92 51% 3.52
FL 4 star 4 star 10 0.72 75.40 7.45 47% 3.52
FL 4.5 star 4 star 9 0.68 80.11 8.11 43% 3.52
Note: The shaded row represents front loader base case scenario
Figure 47 Impact of varying energy rating for front loading machines
(Constant Wash Size)
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil fuels Minerals Cumulative Energy Demand
Base Case (Top Loader 2*) Front Loader 2* Front Loader 2.5* Front Loader Base Case 3*
Front Loader 3.5* Front Loader 4* Front Loader 4.5*
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page A4 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
For front loading machines, the machines are all closer in size such that the capacity has a
reduced effect. The results generally follow the results in the main body of the report where
size was kept constant and the energy rating generally dominates the impact. The one
exception this is water use which is generally greater for more energy efficient machines.
A1.3 Varying WELS Rating
A1.3.1 Top Loading Machines
Scenario analysis was conducted for top loading machines (with hot and cold connections)
of various WELS ratings, maintaining the same energy star rating (3 star) as the base case.
For some combinations of energy star and WELS rating, there are no machines currently on
the market and therefore not all WELS ratings are represented. The machines considered in
this scenario analysis are presented in Table 43.
Table 43 Machine Parameters for Top Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Number of Rated
Machines on Market
Average Standard
Test Performance
Average Rated
Capacity
(kg per wash)
Capacity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
TL 2 star 1.5 star 6 1.18 141.83 5.83 60% 3.52
TL 2 star 2 star 5 1.09 96.80 5.20 68% 3.52
TL 2 star 2.5 star 2 1.57 118.50 7.00 50% 3.52
TL 2 star 3 star 34 1.59 97.29 7.03 50% 3.52
TL 2 star 4 star 3 1.75 76.33 6.25 56% 3.52
Note: The shaded row represents top loader base case scenario
Figure 48 Impact of varying WELS rating for top loading machines (Constant Wash Size)
In contrast to the results reported in the main body of the report, it can be seen that the
machines that are smaller than the base case (filled closer to capacity) generally have fewer
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil fuels Minerals Cumulative Energy Demand
Base Case (Top Loader 3*) Top Loader 1.5* Top Loader 2* Top Loader 2.5* Top Loader 4*
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page A5 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
impacts per kg of clothes washing than larger machines. The influence of the water rating
appears to only be dominant for the water use impact category.
A1.3.2 Front Loading Machines
Scenario analysis was also conducted for front loading machines (with hot and cold
connections) of various WELS ratings, maintaining the same energy star rating (3 star) as
the base case. For some combinations of energy star and WELS rating, there are no
machines currently on the market and therefore not all WELS ratings are represented. The
machines considered in this scenario analysis are presented in Table 44.
Table 44 Machine Parameters for Front Loader Varying WELS Rating Scenario
TL/FL
Energy
Star
Rating
WELS
Rating
Number of Rated
Machines on Market
Average Standard
Test Performance
Average Rated
Capacity
(kg per wash)
Capacity
(%)
Wash
Mass
(kg per
wash)
Energy
(kWhr
per
wash)
Water
(L per
wash)
FL 3 star 4 star 22 0.99 66.23 6.93 51% 3.52
FL 3 star 4.5 star 8 1.03 63.50 7.44 47% 3.52
Note: The shaded row represents front loader base case scenario
Figure 49 Impact of varying WELS rating for front loading machines (Constant Wash Size)
For front loading machines, the machines are all closer in size such that the capacity has a
reduced effect. The results generally follow the results in the main body of the report where
size was kept constant and the WELS rating generally dominates the water use impact.
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Global Warming Eutrophication Land use Water Use Fossil fuels Minerals Cumulative Energy Demand
Base Case (Top Loader 3*) Front Loader (4*) Front Loader (4.5*)
Appendix B
Uncertainty Analysis
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B1 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
B1 Uncertainty Analysis
B1.1 Comparison with other LCAs
Data inputs and differences in model assumptions and system boundaries assigned in LCA
studies can lead to vast differences in output results, making comparison of LCA results
across different studies difficult. There have however been a number of LCAs undertaken
which investigate washing machines and washing habits. The proceeding information
seeks to provide a comparison between the existing literature and the results from this
study.
The existing studies used for comparison focus on three main impact categories: energy
use, water use and greenhouse gas emissions. This means that comparison against the
other impact categories considered in this study, such as eutrophication or minerals
depletion, has not been possible.
B1.1.1 Bole, 2006
An American study - Bole (2006) found that the use phase of the clothes washing process
accounted for more than 95% of carbon emissions as well as the vast majority of energy
and water use. A comparison between the results from this study and the Bole study is
shown below in Table 45.
Table 45 Comparison to results from Bole 2006
Energy Use
(MJ)
Water Use
(kL)
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Vic EPA Bole,
2006
Vic EPA Bole,
2006
Vic EPA Bole,
2006 Base Case
w/ dryer
Base Case
w/ dryer
Base Case
w/ dryer
Upstream 9.7 16.1 3.5 26.6 30.5 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.2
Use 15.8 113.1 240.2 292.4 305.0 1,086.2 1.6 12.3 13.5
Downstream 0.5 -1.3 0.0 0.0 -0.9 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.0
Total 25.9 127.8 243.6 318.4 334.4 1,087.3 2.0 13.1 13.7
There are a number of differences in the assumptions and inputs in this study in comparison
to the Bole Study including:
• The useful life of the machine was 20 years compared to 14 years in this study;
• The emissions intensity of electricity was 0.74 kgCO2e/kWh which is significantly
lower than in this study (1.35 kgCO2e/kWh);
• The top loader machine in the Bole study consumed 1.64 kWh per wash,
significantly higher than the base case of this study (0.292 kWh per wash);
• The Bole study did not incorporate standby power or detergent in its estimates;
• Dryer use was assumed for all washes where the user had a dryer (assumed to be
86%);
• The emissions figure is based on a top loading machine washing 391 loads per year
and the functional unit used was a volume based metric (i.e. cubic feet), as opposed
to a weight based metric (i.e. kilograms) which was chosen for this Australian
study;
• The Bole study assumed a much lower recycling rate to this study;
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B2 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
These differences, coupled with the fact that American appliance efficiencies were used,
account for most of the discrepancy between Bole’s results and those achieved during this
study. Discrepancies in upstream impacts are harder to explain. Bole points out that many
of the impacts from the fabrication of components and assembly have not been included in
the study as there was a lack of information from suppliers to the washing machine
manufacturer involved in the study.
B1.1.2 ACA Study
The Australian Consumer’s Association (ACA) published an LCA report in 1992, (ACA,
1992) which investigated the environmental impacts of domestic clothes washing. As part
of this report, they found that the manufacture of a washing machine contributed no more
than between 0.5 and 2% to the total life cycle impact results, no matter which impact
category was analysed. In this study, the impact ranged from between less than 1% for
categories such as water use, up to 5% for greenhouse gas emissions. Table 46 shows a
comparison between this study and the results from the ACA study for a 5kg top loading
machine set on warm wash with a gas storage hot water system.
Table 46 Comparison with Australian Consumer's Association study
Energy Use
(MJ)
Water Use
(kL)
Emissions
(tCO2e)
Vic EPA
Base Case
ACA, 1992 Vic EPA
Base Case ACA, 1992
Vic EPA
Base Case ACA, 1992
Upstream 9.7 31.4 26.6 113.0 0.4 4.5
Use 15.8 31.2 292.4 529.0 1.6 4.0
Downstream 0.5 15.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 3.0
Total 25.9 77.7 318.4 642.0 2.0 11.5
The major differences between this study and the 1992 study from ACA are in the upstream,
use and downstream impacts. The following points give some explanation of the differences
between the studies:
• The increase in water and energy efficiency in top loading washing machines over
the past two decades;
• A change in the composition of detergents and washing agents over the past two
decades;
• The LCAs that had been published at the time were considered to give “relatively
sketchy treatment to the extraction of raw materials”, meaning that conservative
assumptions were made where there was unknown data;
• The ACA study assumed a much lower recycling rate to this study.
The other differences can be attributed primarily to the differences in assumptions such as
machine capacity, loads per year and the efficiency of machines used during the early
1990’s.
B1.1.3 Systain Study
Carbon footprinting undertaken in Germany by Systain Consulting in 2009 provides
emissions results for the washing of different garment types. This study reported carbon
emissions of 3.3kg CO2-e for the use phase of their project which involved the washing of a
garment 55 times and the occasional use of a dryer and iron. Without ironing or drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B3 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
(33.4% of emissions), this equates to 0.18kg CO2-e per kg of washed clothing, which is very
close to the 0.15kg CO2-e per kg estimated by this study’s base case.
The Systain study utilised different system boundary than those selected for this project and
as such, their results are reported differently to those in this study. The findings articulate a
similar pattern by which the carbon footprint is affected by variations in washing temperature
and machine efficiency. It found the energy consumption and thus the carbon footprint to be
reciprocally proportional to load capacity (% full). The study also emphasised the need to fill
washing machines and dryers to capacity each time to reduce global warming emissions.
Another point of interest was the Systain study conclusion that the average efficiency
condenser dryers consumed more energy than average electric dryers and that when a
dryer was used permanently, it made up the largest part of the carbon footprint in the use
phase, producing 6.58kg of CO2-e emissions.
B1.2 Monte Carlo Analysis Methodology
For all raw data collected, uncertainty was estimated using the pedigree matrix to define a
standard deviation and distribution. The Pedigree matrix, originally developed by Weidema,
1996, assesses each data input against six criteria plus a so-called Basic uncertainty factor.
The 95% confidence interval or the squared geometric standard deviation is calculated
using the following formula:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )22
6
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
95
ln(ln(ln(ln(ln(ln(ln(exp b
gg
UUUUUUU
SD
++++++=
=σ
The factors U1 till U6 referring to the scores for:
• Reliability (U1)
• Completeness (U2)
• Temporal Correlation (U3)
• Geographical Correlation (U4)
• Furtherer Technological (U5)
• Sample Size (U6)
The factor Ub refers to the basic uncertainty factor and is emission specific.
The pedigree matrix is presented below.
This process resulted in uncertainty data entered for in excess of 70% of processes and
100% of processes for data collected for the purposes of this LCA. Some upstream
processes adopted from the Ecoinvent and Australian LCA databases do not contain values
for uncertainty.
Uncertainty analysis was then carried out using a Monte Carlo Analysis over 1,000 runs to
approximate the uncertainty level in the data. Uncertainty analysis was undertaken for the
base case and the base case with drying as well as the various components of the lifecycle
to determine which processes contributed the most to the overall uncertainty.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B4 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B5 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
B1.3 Results of Monte Carlo Analysis
B1.3.1 Overall Uncertainty
The results for the base and base case with drying for a 95% confidence level are presented
in Table 47.
Table 47 Uncertainty Analysis
Impact category Unit Mean Standard
Deviation
CV (Coefficient
of Variation)
Base Case
Water Use L H2O 31 4.64 15.0%
Cumulative
Energy Demand kJ eq 2,530 387 15.3%
Global Warming kg CO2 eq 0.211 0.031 14.7%
Eutrophication g PO4 eq 1.19 0.172 14.4%
Fossil fuels kJ surplus 156 24.1 15.5%
Minerals kJ surplus 10.4 2.86 27.4%
Land use m2
3.91E-03 9.57E-04 24.5%
Base Case with Drying
Water Use L H2O 32.7 4.63 14.2%
Cumulative
Energy Demand kJ eq 12,300 1070 8.7%
Global Warming kg CO2 eq 1.28 0.115 9.0%
Eutrophication g PO4 eq 1.38 0.177 12.8%
Fossil fuels kJ surplus 746 65.3 8.8%
Minerals kJ surplus 34.6 9.81 28.4%
Land use m2
6.90E-03 1.12E-03 16.2%
B1.3.2 Contribution of Lifecycle Components to Overall Uncertainty
The different components of the lifecycle’s contribution to the total uncertainty depends on
both:
• the uncertainty of the specific component (represented by the coefficient of
variation); and
• the absolute contribution of that component to the overall impact (% of total).
The combination of these two factors indicates the component’s contribution to the overall
uncertainty. That is, components with inherent high uncertainty will not necessarily have the
greatest contribution to the impact category unless they have a significant impact.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 48 to Table 54.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B6 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Table 48 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Water Use (L H2O)
Lifecycle Component Mean
Standard Deviation
CV (Coefficient of
Variation)
Contribution to
overall uncertainty
(%)
Base
Case
Base
Case
with
Drying
Detergent Manufacture 2.57 0.583 22.7% 11.6% 10.8%
Washing Machine Manufacture 0.0452 0.0145 32.1% 0.3% 0.3%
Stand-by Power 0.0655 0.016 24.4% 0.3% 0.3%
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 0.00204 0.00301 147.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.102 0.0207 20.2% 0.4% 0.4%
Washing Machine Water Consumption 28.1 4.38 15.6% 87.1% 81.2%
Wastewater Treatment 0.0153 0.00315 20.6% 0.1% 0.1%
Washing Machine Disposal -0.021 0.00808 -38.6% 0.2% 0.2%
Dryer Manufacture 0.386 0.129 33.5% n/a 2.4%
Dryer Energy 1.24 0.227 18.3% n/a 4.2%
Dryer Disposal -0.021 0.00815 -38.9% n/a 0.2%
Table 49 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Energy Use (kJ eq)
Lifecycle Component Mean
Standard
Deviation
CV (Coefficient of
Variation)
Contribution to
overall uncertainty
Base
Case
Base
Case
with
Drying
Detergent Manufacture 850 196 23.1% 35.6% 850
Washing Machine Manufacture 94.3 29.6 31.4% 5.4% 94.3
Stand-by Power 486 93.9 19.3% 17.0% 486
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 250 83.5 33.3% 15.1% 250
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 771 111 14.4% 20.1% 771
Washing Machine Water Consumption 42.1 8.02 19.1% 1.5% 42.1
Wastewater Treatment 96.4 16.1 16.7% 2.9% 96.4
Washing Machine Disposal -40.9 14.1 -34.4% 2.5% -40.9
Dryer Manufacture 626 198 31.6% n/a 626
Dryer Energy 9300 1070 11.5% n/a 9300
Dryer Disposal -41.2 14.2 -34.5% n/a -41.2
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B7 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Table 50 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Global Warming (kg CO2 eq)
Lifecycle Component Mean
Standard
Deviation
CV (Coefficient of
Variation)
Contribution to
overall uncertainty
Base
Case
Base
Case
with
Drying
Detergent Manufacture 0.0373 0.00917 24.6% 21.7% 5.7%
Washing Machine Manufacture 0.00639 0.00203 31.8% 4.8% 1.3%
Stand-by Power 0.0535 0.0104 19.4% 24.5% 6.4%
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 0.0153 0.00534 35.0% 12.6% 3.3%
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.0848 0.0123 14.5% 29.0% 7.6%
Washing Machine Water Consumption 0.00393 0.000746 19.0% 1.8% 0.5%
Wastewater Treatment 0.0144 0.00236 16.4% 5.6% 1.5%
Washing Machine Disposal -8.2E-06 3.76E-06 -45.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Dryer Manufacture 0.000511 0.000172 33.7% n/a 0.1%
Dryer Energy 1.02 0.118 11.6% n/a 73.1%
Dryer Disposal -0.00256 0.000916 -35.8% n/a 0.6%
Table 51 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Eutrophication (kg PO4 eq)
Lifecycle Component Mean
Standard
Deviation
CV (Coefficient of
Variation)
Contribution to
overall uncertainty
Base
Case
Base
Case
with
Drying
Detergent Manufacture 0.0336 0.00747 22.2% 4.0% 3.5%
Washing Machine Manufacture 0.00378 0.00122 32.3% 0.7% 0.6%
Stand-by Power 0.00809 0.00163 20.1% 0.9% 0.8%
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 0.016 0.00647 40.6% 3.5% 3.0%
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.0129 0.00197 15.3% 1.1% 0.9%
Washing Machine Water Consumption 0.00149 0.000287 19.3% 0.2% 0.1%
Wastewater Treatment 1.12 0.164 14.7% 89.3% 77.1%
Washing Machine Disposal -0.00189 0.000668 -35.4% 0.4% 0.3%
Dryer Manufacture 0.0273 0.00886 32.5% n/a 4.2%
Dryer Energy 0.155 0.0196 12.7% n/a 9.2%
Dryer Disposal -0.0019 0.000663 -34.8% n/a 0.3%
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B8 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Table 52 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Fossil Fuels Depletion (kJ Surplus)
Lifecycle Component Mean
Standard
Deviation
CV (Coefficient of
Variation)
Contribution to
overall uncertainty
Base
Case
Base
Case
with
Drying
Detergent Manufacture 48 11.2 23.3% 31.7% 9.8%
Washing Machine Manufacture 7.15 2.24 31.4% 6.4% 2.0%
Stand-by Power 29 5.61 19.4% 16.0% 4.9%
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 21.4 7.08 33.1% 20.1% 6.2%
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 45.9 6.62 14.4% 18.8% 5.8%
Washing Machine Water Consumption 2.81 0.533 19.0% 1.5% 0.5%
Wastewater Treatment 5.79 0.967 16.7% 2.7% 0.8%
Washing Machine Disposal -2.86 0.981 -34.3% 2.8% 0.9%
Dryer Manufacture 46.3 14.6 31.5% n/a 12.7%
Dryer Energy 554 63.8 11.5% n/a 55.6%
Dryer Disposal -2.89 0.99 -34.3% n/a 0.9%
Table 53 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Minerals Depletion (kJ Surplus)
Lifecycle Component Mean
Standard
Deviation
CV (Coefficient of
Variation)
Contribution to
overall uncertainty
Base
Case
Base
Case
with
Drying
Detergent Manufacture 7.23 2.53 35.0% 62.1% 18.6%
Washing Machine Manufacture 3.61 1.39 38.4% 34.0% 10.2%
Stand-by Power 0.0129 0.0098 75.7% 0.2% 0.1%
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 0.000416 0.000767 185.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 0.0201 0.0148 74.0% 0.4% 0.1%
Washing Machine Water Consumption 0.00104 0.000546 52.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Wastewater Treatment 0.0162 0.00835 51.5% 0.2% 0.1%
Washing Machine Disposal -0.338 0.123 -36.4% 3.0% 0.9%
Dryer Manufacture 25 9.25 37.1% n/a 68.0%
Dryer Energy 0.234 0.157 67.0% n/a 1.2%
Dryer Disposal -0.339 0.124 -36.6% n/a 0.9%
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B9 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Table 54 Lifecycle Components Uncertainty – Land Use (m2)
Lifecycle Component Mean
Standard
Deviation
CV (Coefficient of
Variation)
Contribution to
overall uncertainty
Base
Case
Base
Case
with
Drying
Detergent Manufacture 3.47E-03 9.49E-04 27.4% 88.3% 58.8%
Washing Machine Manufacture 1.15E-04 4.09E-05 35.5% 3.8% 2.5%
Stand-by Power 1.28E-04 2.86E-05 22.3% 2.6% 1.8%
Washing Machine Thermal Energy 4.04E-06 5.95E-06 147.0% 0.6% 0.4%
Washing Machine Mechanical Energy 2.04E-04 3.85E-05 18.9% 3.6% 2.4%
Washing Machine Water Consumption 1.07E-05 2.22E-06 20.7% 0.2% 0.1%
Wastewater Treatment 3.08E-05 6.64E-06 21.6% 0.6% 0.4%
Washing Machine Disposal -8.19E-06 3.76E-06 -45.9% 0.3% 0.2%
Dryer Manufacture 5.11E-04 1.72E-04 33.7% n/a 10.7%
Dryer Energy 2.44E-03 3.65E-04 14.9% n/a 22.5%
Dryer Disposal -8.4E-06 3.73E-06 -44.5% n/a 0.2%
B1.4 Summary of Results
Where comparisons are able to be made, the results of this LCA are generally consistent
with other LCA studies. Inconsistencies are able to be attributed to different assumptions
and/or system boundaries. The results are highly sensitive to the size of the machine and
wash load which differ across the studies.
The results of the Monte Carlo analysis suggest a large degree of uncertainty across all the
impact categories with minerals depletion and land use the most uncertain. The base case
with drying is less uncertain that without drying as there is less degree of error associated
with the dryer energy which is dominant.
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B10 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Base Case
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B19 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Base Case with Drying
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B28 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Detergent Manufacture
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B37 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Washing Machine Manufacture
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B46 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Stand-by Power
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B55 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Washing Machine Thermal Energy
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B64 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Washing Machine Mechanical
Energy
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B73 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Washing Machine Water
Consumption
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B82 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Wastewater Treatment
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B91 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Washing Machine Disposal
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B100
ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Dryer Manufacture
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B109
ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Dryer Energy
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page B118
ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Detailed Results: Dryer Disposal
Appendix C
CWW and EPA Sustainability Covenant
EPA Sustainability Covenant
This voluntary SUSTAINABILITY COVENANT is a statutory agreement under section 49AA of the Environment Protection Act 1970 (“the Act”) made on the 22nd day of January, 2009.
Between:
Environment Protection Authority (EPA Victoria) of 40 City Road Southbank in the State of Victoria;
-and-
City West Water Limited (City West Water) (ABN – 70 066 902 467) of 247-251 St Albans Road, Sunshine in the State of Victoria;
In which the parties agree to work together to:
• developandimplementasustainabilityprogramthat:
enhances the resource efficiency; and »
reducesenvironmentalimpact »associated with domestic clothes washing.
• assistCityWestWatertocontinueto achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissionsthroughtheimplementationof EPA Victoria’s Carbon Management Principlesandtoshareinformationontheimplementationofgreenhousegasmanagementprograms.
• developastreamlinedlicencethat:
deliversredtapereductionforCityWest »Water;
providesthecommunitywith »transparencyandaccountability;and
supportsCityWestWatertowork »towards delivering a sustainable water business.
City West Water - EPA Sustainability Covenant
EPAVictoriaisoftheopinionthatthisSustainability Covenant is likely to be effective in increasing the resource use efficiency and reducing the ecological impactofthewaterindustry.
EXECUTED as a deed.
THE COMMON SEAL of the ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY is duly affixed by the Chairman on the th day of 2009
MICHAEL JOHN BOURKE
Chairman Environment Protection Authority Victoria
THE COMMON SEAL of CITY WEST WATER LIMITED was affixed to this document in accordancewithitsconstitutioninthepresenceof:
ANNE BARKER Managing Director CityWestWaterLimited
STEPHEN ROBERTSON CompanySecretary CityWestWaterLimited
About This Sustainability CovenantThisSustainabilityCovenant(Covenant)isapublic commitmentbyCityWestWaterandEPAVictoriatoworktogether to achieve resource use efficiencies and to reduce operationalecologicalimpacts.ItrepresentsthenextstepinanongoingrelationshipofworkingtogethertohelptheVictoriancommunitylivesustainably.SomeofthespecificactionsrequiredtoachievethisCovenant’spurposewillrequirefurtherexploration,giventheinnovativenatureoftheprograms.Itisexpectedthattheoptionsinvestigatedandtrialledwillformanimportantcomponentoftheinformationsharedbetweenthe organisations and will contribute to making the Victorian community more sustainable.
Washingofclothesisgenerallyundertakenusing domestic washing machines, detergentsandwater.Thisoperationgivesrisetoarangeofenvironmentalimpactsincluding:
• Depletionofwaterresources-approximately15%ofhouseholdwateruse relates to clothes washing;
• Greenhousegasemissionsassociatedwith use of electricity;
• Dischargeofwastedetergentstothesewerage system - this discharge includes salts, which in combination with salt discharges from industry can reduce the ability to recycle water withoutenergyintensiveprocessessuch as reverse osmosis.
CityWestWaterandEPAVictoriawillpartnertodevelopandimplementasustainabilityprogramthat:
• enhancestheresourceefficiency;and
• reducesenvironmentalimpacts,associated with domestic clothes washing.
Theprogramwillbedevelopedinthreephases:
• Phase1–Conceptualdesign.
Thisphasewillinvolve:
Brainstorming a range of innovative »approachestoimprovetheoverallresource efficiency and reduce theoverallenvironmentalimpactof this lifecycle. This may include consideration of washing machine exchangeprograms,centralisedcleaningservices,productleasingetc;
Preliminary lifecycle assessment of all »identifiedoptions;and
Adoptionofatriplebottomline »frameworkforselectionofapreferredoption.
Strategy and actionsThisCovenantwillfocusonthreeprograms.
Program 1 – Sustainable clothes washing
• Phase2–Detaileddesign.
Thisphasewillinvolve:
Developingadetailedprogram »structure, costings and objectives for thepreferredoption;
A detailed lifecycle assessment »includingacomparisontothecurrentstock of domestic washing machines;
Identificationofadditionalprogram »partners;and
Preparationofabusinesscaseand »implementationplanforapprovalbytheparties.
• Phase3–Implementation.
Thisphasewillonlybeimplementedifthenewprogramisshowntohavesignificantsustainability benefits over and above the existing domestic washing machine stock.
Thetimelineforcompletionofeach phaseis:
• Phase1–3monthsfromthedayonwhich this Covenant is signed.
• Phase2–12monthsfromthedayonwhich this Covenant is signed.
• Phase3–Implementedduringthefinal2yearsofthis3yearCovenant.
The management and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has emerged as an issue of significance for organisations worldwide. A key aim of this Covenant is forCityWestWaterandEPAVictoriatowork together on strategies to address this business and environmental issue. The activities undertaken under this Covenant willbuildtheparties’capacitiestoworkwith their stakeholders and the broader community on greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies.
Under its Environmental Sustainability Plan 2(ESP)CityWestWaterhascommittedto achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions. This Covenant formalises EPA Victoria’ssupportforCityWestWaterinachieving this goal.
The strategy committed to under the ESP and this Covenant is the achievement of zero net greenhouse gas emissions from operationsunderCityWestWater’scontrol.ThiswillbeachievedbyimplementingEPAVictoria’scarbonmanagementprinciplesincluding:
• Measure –CityWestWaterwillcontinuetoprepareanannualinventoryconsistent with the International GreenhouseGasProtocol;
• Set objectives–CityWestWaterwillseek to achieve net zero greenhouse gasemissionsfortheperiodoftheCovenant;
• Avoidance –wherepracticable,CityWestWaterwillavoidindirectanddirectgreenhouse gas emissions associated with its business;
• Reduction–wheregreenhousegasemissionscannotbeavoided,CityWestWaterwillinvestigateandimplementpracticestoenhanceenergyandresource use efficiency;
• Switch–CityWestWaterwillinvestigateopportunitiestoswitchtorenewableenergyforexistingoperations;
• Sequester –OpportunitiestosequestercarbonontheCityWestWaterheadoffice site will be investigated;
• Assess –CityWestWaterwillundertakean assessment of residual greenhouse gas emissions that cannot be avoided; and
• Offset-whereallotheroptionshavebeenexhausted,CityWestWaterwill offset residual greenhouse gas emissions. EPA Victoria’s guidance providedatwww.carbonoffsetguide.com.auwillbeusedbyCityWestWatertoensurecredibilityofpurchasedoffsets.
FurtherdetailsofCityWestWater’snetzerogreenhousegasapproachareoutlinedin its ESP which has been endorsed by EPAVictoriaandtheCityWestWaterCommunity Liaison Committee.
Program 2 – Net zero greenhouse gas emissions
Corporatelicensingisaworld-firstinitiativepioneeredbyEPAVictoria.Thisinitiativeseekstocutredtapeby:
streamliningexistingreportingstructures »toasingleannualperformancestatement; and
creatingopportunitiesforcompaniesto »investinprojectsthatcreatethebiggestenvironmental and economic returns.
Acorporatelicenceretainsandsimplifiesallcompliancerequirementsintoasingle,easier to understand document.
CityWestWaterholdsalicenceforitsAltonaTreatmentPlant.CityWestWaterand EPA Victoria will work together to developastreamlinedlicencethat:
deliversredtapereductionforCityWest »Water;
providesthecommunitywith »transparencyandaccountability;and
supportsCityWestWatertowork »towards delivering a sustainable water business.
Thisprogramwillbeprogressedinthefirstyear of this Covenant.
Program 3 – Corporate licensing
Principles
CityWestWaterandEPAVictoriawillshareinformationtohelpfacilitateCityWestWater’ssustainabilityprograms.
CityWestWaterandEPAVictoriawilljointlyinvestigateoptionstoassistCityWestWatertoachieveitsvisionofbeingatrulysustainable water business.
Reporting
PublicreportingwillbeconductedthroughCityWestWater’sannualSustainabilityReportandinaccordancewithcommitments under the ESP.
Life Span of the Sustainability Covenant
ThisSustainabilityCovenantwilloperateuntil30June2011.
CityWestWaterprovidesdrinkingwater,sewerage, trade waste and recycled waterservicestoapproximately276,000residentialand31,300industrialandcommercial customers in Melbourne’s Central Business District and inner and western suburbs.
CityWestWaterisoneofthethreeretailwatercompaniesservicingmetropolitanMelbourne. It is wholly owned by the VictorianGovernment.CityWestWater’sboundaries contain the local government areas of Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Melbourne (north of the Yarra River),MooneeValley,Wyndham,YarraandpartsofMeltonandHume.
RelativetotheothermetropolitanMelbournewaterretailers,CityWestWaterhasasmallercustomerbaseandgeographicarea (which includes Melbourne’s Central BusinessDistrict),withagreaterproportionof non-residential customers. Many of the non-residential customers are large industrialoperationsinthebrewing,chemical manufacturing, oil refining, textile and automotive manufacturing industries.
CityWestWater’svisionistobeatrulysustainablewaterbusiness.ForCityWestWater,sustainabilitymeansbalancingsocial, environmental and economic responsibilities.Inalocalcontext,thepotentialimpactofclimatechangecouldresult in less water being available from Melbourne’sexistingwatersuppliesasa
About the parties
City West Water
resultoftheimpactsofclimatechange.CityWestWaterrecognisesthatitcannotsolveclimate change itself due to the size and scaleofthisissue.Hence,CityWestWatercommits to constructively working with a rangeofpartnersincludingitsresidential
and commercial customers, EPA Victoria, Sustainability Victoria, DepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment and the local, national and international water industry to reduce the impactofclimatechange.
EPA Victoria is a statutory body that was established under an Act of the Victorian Parliamentinresponsetocommunityconcernaboutpollution.TheEnvironmentProtectionAct1970replacedstatutoryprovisionsscatteredthroughoutmorethan25 existing Acts, bringing together under one umbrella (symbolised by the EPA Victorialogo),controlofpollutiononland,in water and air, and industrial noise. In particular,itputstheresponsibilityforsoundenvironmental management on all Victorians –businesses,communitiesandindividuals–whereitbelongs.Theemphasisisshiftingto market mechanisms, collaboration and co-regulation, rather than just the traditional ‘commandandcontrol’approachtoachieveenvironmentalperformance.
EPA Victoria’s Vision is ‘The Victorian community living sustainably.’ A community livingsustainablyknowstheimpactsofthedecisions it makes and the actions it takes ontheenvironmentand:
• Efficiently uses and renews resources;
• Understands how what is good for the
environment is good for the economy and society;
• Lives in a healthy environment that providescleanair,waterandland;and
• Meets the needs of today without compromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerations to meet their needs.
EPAVictoria’spurposeistoprotect,careforandimproveourenvironment.EPA Victoria’s values are collaboration, innovation,integrityandrespect.EPAVictoria’s objectives are to increase resource efficiency,reduceemissionsimpact,tackleclimatechange,enhanceourreputationandbenefit the economy.
EPAVictoriacontinuestostrivetoimprovetheenvironmentalperformanceofitsownoperationsandactivities,throughtheimplementationofitsEnvironmentManagement System. EPA Victoria is now aiming to go ‘beyond carbon neutral’. To achieve this they will avoid and reduce our energy use and associated greenhouse gasemissionswhereverpossible.
EPA Victoria
In accordance with section 49AC(b) of theAct,thepartieswillensurethatthiscovenantisreadilyaccessibletothepublicandthatitispublishedontheInternet.
In accordance with section 49AC(c) of the Act,thepartiesauthorisethecopyingofalloranypartofthisCovenantbyanypersonwhowishestodoso.Thepartiesalsoauthorisetheusebysuchapersonofanycopiesmadebythatperson.
More Information
City West WaterLockedBag350SunshineVictoria3020Tel:(03)93138422www.citywestwater.com.au
EPA Victoria40 City RdSouthbankGPOBox4395QQ MelbourneVIC3001Ph:0396952722www.epa.vic.gov.au
Contact Information
Appendix D
CWW LCA Process Flow Maps
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page D1 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
LCA map parts 1 and 3, 2 and 4.
Part 1 (washing machine manufacture) & Part 3 (detergent manufacture)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page D2 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Part 2 (wastewater treatment)
EPA Victoria and City West Water LCA of Clothes Washing Options for City West Water's Residential CustomersLife Cycle Assessment - Final Technical Report
J:\206853-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04-02-04_LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION\CLOTHES WASHING LCA 206853-00 - FINAL REPORT_ISSUEV2.DOCX
Page D3 ArupIssue 24 May 2010
Part 4 (water supply)