Life-Cycle Assessment for Mitigating the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Retail Products

Arpad Horvath Associate Professor

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley

Eric Masanet

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

August 9, 2007

Entire presentation is copyright of UC Berkeley

n f A Muffl-.Dlsdptlnary Rest! uh and Educational Partnership Bof'wrcn Industry, Gorc,nnrent., 1tnd Academia

Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing

Since 1993

http://cgdm.berkeley.edu

• Multidisciplinary campus group integrating engineering, policy, public health, and business in green engineering, management, and pollution prevention

• Strategic areas: » Civil infrastructure systems » Electronics industry » Servicizing products

• 9 faculty from Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Haas School of Business, Energy and Resources Group, School of Public Health

• 10 current Ph.D. students • 28 alumni

Outline of Presentation

• Our proposed ARB project

• “Carbon footprint” research

• The role of the consumers

• Approach and methods

• Example

• Research challenges

Our Research Proposal to ARB

• “Retail Climate Change Mitigation: Life-cycle Emission and Energy Efficiency Labels and Standards”

» Partners: A. Horvath (UCB), E. Masanet (LBNL), S. Matthews and C. Hendrickson (Carnegie Mellon University)

• Assess opportunities for reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the life-cycle of retail products and services that Californians consume that occur both inside and outside of California. » ~ 2/3 is due to product manufacture, but use and end of life stages are also

significant. • Create a life-cycle assessment (LCA) model for California. • Estimate the life-cycle GHG emissions of 20-30 key retail products consumed by

Californians. • Analyze the potential GHG emissions reductions achievable through the adoption of life-

cycle GHG emissions policies for labels and standards for retail products in California over the next five years.

tte G

IU "ted s h!S

apam 6ermt1 n 1

·'taiin

fmm•t

Q tifornf

Olint1 , e xi <:□

India

LA Colllln

uss·t1

0 o.s 1.0 1.5 2.0

Exciting Times in California

• AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act » by 2020, return GHG emissions to 1990

levels (and boost annual GSP by $60B and create 17,000 jobs)

» By 2050, drop 80% below 1990 levels

• Increasing consumption

• Increasing population

• Major market of U.S. carbon offset demand

The Economist, 4/29/04

W'here smog com es from Call.iforniai s. g r~n ho~e~g.as ,emissfon:s by en d•use· s·ecbor, 2004, %

Otiher 83--------=--~

S0111rce: Calif.omia Enef9~' Cttmmb~lM

.Ag rk 1,1 ltJ,ue and fo res ry8.J

.Indlll8tria l 20.5

Elei;tri c: po,wer 22.2

~ Milli (l,n1 t ,(l,Jl 11-i!~ M W llqi.fr~lcnl ml~~ i>m

Something to work 0111

Worild greenhouse-gas emis;sion;5, by ;5,,ector }001), %

Transport 1.3.5-----.

Waste 3.6--------.• A.gri C1Jlture 13.5-------a

Deforestation 18.2 -------J Source! World Resources mst:iltute

Eleotridty & heat

24.5

Oth er 22-~

'----I11 dustiry H.8

GHG Reduction Potential

The Economist, 5/31/07The Economist, 6/21/07

View of the Economy: Input-Output Model

Input to sectors Intermediate output O

Final demand F

Total output X

Output from sectors 1 2 3 n 1 X 11 X 12 X 13 X 1n

X 21 X 22 X 23 X 2n

X 31 X 32 X 33 X 3n

X n1 X n2 X n3 X nn

O 1 F 1 X 1

2 O 2 F 2 X 2

3 O 3 F 3 X 3

n O n F n X n

Intermediate input I I1 I2 I3 In

Value added V V 1 V 2 V3 V n G D P Total input X X 1 X 2 X3 X n

å Xij + Fi = Xi; Xi = Xj; using Dij = Xij / Xj

å (Dij*Xj) + Fi = Xi

in vector/matrix notation: D*X + F = X => F = [I - D]*X For more: www.eiolca.net

or X = [I - D]-1*F

Role of the Consumer

• Up to 80% of the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) "footprint" of the average U.S. consumer is attributable to the purchase, use, and disposal of retail products (Matthews, 1999, Carnegie Mellon U.)

• Consumer is guessing, at best » SUV v. compact car

» Incandescent v. compact fluorescent

» but paper v. plastic cups? bags? The Economist, 5/31/07

• Someone is picking “the right answer” for the consumer » e.g., “green” electricity

Not much dean :stuff World total pri ma ene~gy .supp y fue- s. ai e, 2004 . '%

C□~l--------. 25.2

Gas-----20.9 So111rce-.: !EA

Rene-,.iab Les 13.1

, .,. ,

~

~ ... ~

' ~ ...

Nuclear 6.5

, ~

~

'

Othe-(}_:,

' ' ' ' ' ' ' Hydlro 2.Z ' ' '

1 lli,mos, 1lJ,._

' ' ' '

Tide­~-- O.Oal¼

Wind O.ll64-

II

Geo herm1t1l 0.,1·

Fiiring up Elecl:iri dty production fl)! source, % of tot at 2004.

- Cool and ail

• Ga~

Germalily

U nitted States.

De11mark

Japan

Britain

France So111rce-.: JEA

!Nud.e.31

- H~ro

• Renewables and other

o 20 40 60 eo 100

Need Life-cycle Thinking!

• We don’t always account for all environmental impacts

The Economist, 5/31/07 The Economist, 5/24/07

BERKELEY INSTITUTE

OF THE ENVIRONMENT

tfous,fng

sumr'llar;, or green neuse gases (tons 00,2 e(.1/Vt )

You 'il'orld Ava U .S. Ave,

Tran :sport:at lon 19 3 ig

H'm, •ing 15 .3 15

food 6 2 a Good~ 4 1 4

SeTvlces j 1 ~

Summary 'l9 1.0 49

Vou m it 5 . 1 ·tiim i. ·t h wosrld a,v ra,g

■ D, n,ct ■ •~dlr,,ct

(_ Food L, Good O summ rv

' "' scenar ios

1) Sea what contributes th!! rn ost to your ,am i ssioncs

2) T v ,ee1uc1ng vour ari:;wen , to n1e g101>.a1 averaoe

.3) Ask yo ur s.el f wh ich c-ha.nges. vou can m ake

4 ) C:oom1 IL to malo n g the di :;i.n e!;: you cat,

5) Offs.et the emls.s10ns. you 1:an ' t c:hat1ge hete :

Climllle Ce, r •

N~LiY Ert.;r Y

Ban., evllle Ef

TerT-:tp ~-• -~

c rban CiYJn~P"

Nore; otner catrnlat:or~ do not e!.Uma te all gre en hau!.e g~,c~ ,i11d m,ir olgn1f1c~ ntly u ndcrestlm,itc your total

ctt ate I mpac:

Summary af .t.n1111 I <lreenhou!le aase~

U.S. ve. World Avf!,

You

ID.D 20,0

m ric t 1rn11 or CO

o.a '10 ,0

r ycu

51) ,CJ

■ T r n~port.it lon HoustniJ Foo

□ Go-:> ds Servi ces

Life-cycle Environmental Assessment of Products and Services (LEAPS)

• www.consumerfootprint.org • Chris Jones,

cmjones@berkeley.edu

Applications

• Retailers: Carbon Neutral Shopping – point of sale,online, cards

• Consumers: Voluntary CarbonOffsets

• Manufacturers: Baseline Product-level Emissions Data

Changing outputs CO2 1elliliS$io11s. by sector, for th e IEA l ll :1r, %

Frei.ght 101!)

Trnv11:l &O

Se-rvkes ---,_ ,60

Hlome1Tioldts 40

20 Mt1 m.1ih!ct.uri11g

0 1973 19198

*US, Jla !NIil, Aus rnUa, G · rrnan:,' han , [tal:,', S.OLI : [ 6A IBrRa1 ,,, Flinl.i 11<ll, Dtilm 11k, Norwa!,', S.Woo ,

CO2 emissions toones per person latest~,

(l

UnitlldStates Si'1g~1pore Cz:e,~ Repu!:rlic Israe Russia, Japa11

SovrtJh Korea Polam:l S01!1~ Africa

0119 Kong

u11gairy l'-1alaysfa

llimezuelo (mile

l'-,exko Arg:erati111a

~ liaila11d

Tmikey e CMn,a, Egypt

llrazll

Colombia ~ l"ern

• Indone$ia, Ind1a

C Pihl Llppline-s

Somte: \li'(l1t(I Li.111~

4

Emissions per unit of GDP

S 12 Hi• 20

0.7

o.6

0.3

0.2 0.3

0.4 o.4

0.3

nie wi0rld(s bf ggest companies !Revenues. 2002, $.bil

G!ilnera l 1 1oto:rs (DSi'i}

E~:.ocin !Mobil (USA}

IRoyal lilutd1fSltoell ( eilierlainds/Brt~),

IBP ~ll!rtt.a l11 )

f ord r-totor {USJt.}

lla · mlerClhrysle:r (M11m~ny)

foyota Mot.or {Jap.rn)

1il!Subishit (Jaji)i!m)

0 50, 100 150 ,oo 250

' Ye.i r ,e11dim91 ,).!11uary 31st 2-1)113 Yeear ,eradirn~ Jrlia1rd 1 :l.l st 2·00:l.

Opportunities to Influence Private Consumers

The Economist, 10/07/04

• Tesco (UK)

• Wal-Mart

The Economist, 9/11/03• Home Depot The Economist, 5/08/03

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$-

-

Annual Expenditures for Typical US Household

I I I I

Transportatiion Housing Food Goods

Consumer Expend itures Survey, 2004. 1U.S. Dept. of Labor S tatistics

f-----

f-----

f-----

I

Services

Courtesy of Chris Jones, BIE, UC Berkeley

Phones, not beer II OUS4!hold Sl)@ildl mg iil OECID OOUiltriesil, l~@l- 100

Co:n muili :,i ons I - - lth

Edt.tcatlo W -~ T, ct.lficil)i andlg;ai Recreti t io•rn j rncl ◊l.ll lture

- Tra1nspo1t

- R ita r, rttJ! a11d ho~l,s, Alcohol, tobacco­a11d ma rcotics.

- 1-f◊l.!!S olJ eqrtdpme t. - C~oth1i1y f!1 J ·root.we:,ir

Food

-------~-------90 94 9;8 2000 ~ Exdudes H1111gaty, r'lr.J'f, S.lO'ra kia,

Sv,d erta 11 (!I .~ r~r:11 T 1.1 rkey h ,elecommu:ni catroms i!l!lu.i~ment a rad serv.Jc.es, amcl postal seMces

S[):urce.: CU{li}, ~NA ,d:rtal!!ase

Changing Consumption Patterns

The Economist, 10/09/03

--Summa ry of GHG Em issions for Typ ical U.S. Household

Metr ic tons of CO2 equiva lent gases

20 1 1 &::=-:::::ii-~ub~lk~_ti;irniiii::~f---------------------------7 airl ines

Auto services

Auto manufacturin

15 +---

> ·5 tT (b

N 10 0 u 11) C 0 +-'

6

0

Gasoline

Transportation

electric it water & sewage

Financing

Construction

Natural gas

Housing

rea s lcohol & tobacco

Dairy

Snack food

Fruit & veg.

Eating out entertainment.

Household equip.

Meat Clothing

Food Goods

56% Indirect Direct

50 -.-.-----.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Total

1vm healthcare

Services

--

Source: LEAPS; Courtesy of Chris Jones, BIE, UC Berkeley

LCA Framework

Inputs Outputs

Raw Materials Acquisition

Manufacturing

Use/Reuse/Maintenance

Recycle/Waste Management

Atmospheric Emissions

Waterborne Wastes Raw Materials

Solid Wastes

Energy Coproducts

Other Releases

System Boundary

A concept and methodology to evaluate the environmental effects of a product or activity holistically, by analyzing the whole life cycle of a particular product, process, or activity (U.S. EPA, 1993).

LCA Methodology – ISO 14040

LCA – Life-Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040)

Goal and scope

definition Direct applications:

* Product development * Product/process improvement

Inventory analysis

Interpretation * Strategic planning * Policy making * Marketing * Other

Impact assessment

Source: U.S. EPA, 1993

~

,--'~~~~~ ~-~~--~: ----

Structure of a Process-based LCA Model

process

processprocess

process

process

process

process

process process

process

process process

process

process

sub-system1

process

process process

process

process

processprocess

sub-system2

IIIT''.USIDrA ..

,;so. r..::I. CD, CO. · vac~ p..- ,.,,1o1.,1

S;ioo ;)tJd !J•ilY I mining

• D991n9 •·$cre-ernng • lo.ociirig • W;,,;hirig

... " .. ~ul'Clff Hol:otol fal rg, iiY-Jl Chi!nl)Q' W,uf,;,r «r.s,OA.. "fi'i' nt.«htLTfl:fl

S _m.d ;-.n~ 9'l1" p,aw<1iling • Crushing • 5crt1t'nin..3 • Grinding

W _tet

Sa.11d

Oup..i,

Gr-awel ~cvding - --

-- ... ---- --- ---- -.------- ... ·--- ' I

PorUand cemem

Untl'I

Arfaltlves

Iron o:icide pigmen'ts (op anal)•

W.,:s,t, 1;0 n ,J11<~

l)l'QC1,1r · m nt Crushed concrete

1,/r('fllljW,,1 ..t. 15,0. NO . CO. CO., ~OC.,,. !hlfloo'.!J l.-,,) ,i

•Cot n product on

l'lantlng •· Spra11ng • C ulthl•l!nl] ~r<'l!st ing • .F-t.-r11ll1ong

'

•CJas-tlng

C1tirt1119

• Spli ling ·• Blii$Ling

curing

Alr'irn~a'l!i 1so., MO. . ca . von, *

p.i,rt11:utal115t

connmc.tlolil

St ackin g. of prec<15t «1ru2r1il te

'Storage

Con.str,ucdon

• P,,,tiu •rJ:I irrohz.er 11 nofr -------------------------------------------7--------------------, .&. Air <>ml<'>U\,

'. Qp•rt~111,.,~1

,\1t em~OM- A• l!fT"l~Cfl'.5'

(5(:) .. ND C.0, C:O . . ~ (IO., NO. lO, C ti .• oli11 emm.: •::.rn

l!O .. NO., to, CO,, .A. '.'OC,. ~ ,ltullo~I ; \/0(~ P,,,tO::IIMbl , VO(!-, _j .

- --~-1_1.,,_._. -i~-in_g __ -~-~ .. __ s_.1_~_--_"_' _'_;.,_g_· _.H .. ___ T_111_1-_. _. --- :zr;o ._ __ H_yd_·,..-0-~y-$1- ·s __ •

Watet"

"-11 e-t!~Q:15 l~O. NO., (0, (0,, .A., YOCs. P•ol<.ul le) ;

Dl51illa1ion

Glycerin

I I I I I

t_ __ _

Demoli.tim1

11..andfi ll debr,s

Process Flow of Cement Concrete

AIA, “Environmental Resource Guide,” John Wiley & Sons, 1997

Economic Input-Output Analysis

• Developed by Wassily Leontief • Nobel Prize in 1973

• “General interdependency” model: quantifies the interrelationships among sectors of an economic system

• Identifies the direct and indirect economic inputs

• Can be extended to environmental and energy analysis

I .

I I

Conferences

Electricity

Economic I-O Analysis Visualization Engine Steel

$20,000 Car:

$2500 $2000 $1200 $800 . . . $10

Other Plastics Parts

$2500 Engine:

$300 $200 $150 . . . $10

Steel Aluminum

EIO-LCA Implementation

• Use the appr. 491 x 491 input-output matrix of the U.S. economy • 1992, 1997, soon 2002

• Augment with sector-level environmental impact coefficient matrices (R) [effect/$ output from sector]

• Environmental impact calculation:

E = RX = R[I - D]-1F

• Available free at www.eiolca.net

...

Economic Input-Output Analysis-based LCA Model

Model Input

Demand for Good or Service (F)

Economic Input-Output Matrix (491 x 491 Sector)

Example of Model Output Economic Energy Iron Ore NOx

Total (1992$) TJ kg kg Motor Vehicles x e Steel

Environmental Matrix

(discharge or resource/

$ sector output)

X = F + DX

Dij = Xij/ Xj

X = [I - D]-1 F

X = [I+D+D2+D3+…]F

E=R X=R[I - D]-1 F

1000

800

600

400

200

0 10 years .20 years 30 years

period of analysis

40 years

□ Coc l

■ Natu r-a l Gas

□ Photovoltaics

□ Hydroelectri c

ii Win cl Farm

Comparison of Electricity Generation Technologies

Pacca, S., Horvath, A., “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building and Operating Electric Power Plants in the Upper Colorado River Basin.” Env.Sci.Techn., 36(14), 2002, pp. 3194-3200

Approach and Methods (I)

1) Development of a California-specific LCA model for evaluation of goods and services

2) Assessment of average life-cycle energy use and GHG emissions for 20-30 key retail products

3) Estimation of lowest achievable life-cycle GHG emissions by product

4) Scenario analysis of technical potential for GHG emissions reductions via product life-cycle GHG emissions standards and/or labels

Approach and Methods (II)

1) Development of a California-specific LCA model for evaluation of goods and services

– Production-phase energy use and GHG emissions: • California EIO-LCA

» In-state versus out-of-state emissions » California economic sector-specific data

• California consumer spending data – Use-phase energy use and GHG emissions:

• California stock modeling • Typical operating energy use data • California-specific grid mix (base and peak loads)

– Disposal-phase GHG emissions: • California waste disposal and recycling data

California EIO-LCA Model

• Based on national EIO-LCA approach • Includes interstate and international

commerce » Weber and Matthews 2007 study: U.S. produced 22% of eCO2 in

2005, but U.S. consumption accounted for 25-26%.

• Energy and environmental data from CA • Preliminary model developed in 2005

» Annual GHG emissions arising from CA consumption of: – Semiconductors in personal computers – Pharmaceuticals

Approach and Methods (III)

2) Assessment of average life-cycle energy use and GHG emissions for 20-30 key retail products

– Annual energy use and GHG emissions occurring both inside and outside of California

– Selection based on major emitters and ARB input

3) Estimation of lowest achievable life-cycle GHG emissions by product

– Based on best available technologies and practices at each life-cycle stage • Production: sector-level improvement potential analyses (worldwide) • Use: best-in-class energy efficiency (e.g., ENERGY STAR products) • Disposal: optimal waste treatment strategies (e.g., recycling, composting)

– “Low carbon” versions represent minimum life-cycle GHG emissions achievable through California product standards and/or labels

Food

Textiles.Apparel

Lumber.Furniture

Paper

Printing

Chemicals

Petroleum

Rubber,Plastics

Stone,Clay,Glass

Prim Metals

Fab Metals

Ind Mach

Electronics

Transp Equip

Instruments

Misc.

0 200 400 600

GWh per Year

□Technical

■ Econom ic

800 1,000

Food

l 1b r,Fumitu

Petroleum

Rul:Jl:Jer, Plastic.s

Storne,Clay,Glac..s

Pnm Metal:s

F !J IM l1:1fG

r11d Mach

Tran~p Equ ip

0 2 40 60 8 (1

Mth per Year

□Te nical ■ Economic

100 ·120 140

California Industrial Energy Efficiency Improvement Potential

Industrial Achievable Savings Potential by Industry, 2005 Electricity Natural Gas

Base Use, 2005

Base Use,

= 32,850 GWh

2005 = 3,600 Mth

Source: KEMA (2006) California Industrial Existing Construction Energy Efficiency Potential Study

Approach and Methods (IV)

4) Scenario analysis of technical potential for GHG emissions reductions via product standards and/or labels

– Five year analysis period – Specific to 20-30 retail product analyzed – Naturally occurring reductions based on product-specific analysis:

• Stock turnover • Current energy efficiency and GHG reduction trends

– Remaining technical potential estimated for: • “Low carbon” product standards (mandatory) • “Low carbon” product labels (voluntary)

» ENERGY STAR elasticity as proxy • Green purchasing programs

Illustrative Example: California PCs

Estimated California Installed Base of PCs, 2005

Market Total PCs Desktop PCs

Notebook PCsw/ CRT

Monitor w/ Flat Panel

Display

Residential 12,250,500 5,720,700 3,505,800 3,024,000

Commercial 6,718,600 3,189,000 1,862,100 1,667,500

Total 18,969,100 8,909,700 5,367,900 4,691,500

Source: Masanet, E., and A. Horvath (2006). “An Analysis of Measures for Reducing the Life-Cycle Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of California’s Personal Computers.” University of California Energy Institute Technical Report, Berkeley, California.

Annual Life-Cycle GHG Emissions of California’s Installed Base of PCs

Estimated Life-Cycle GHG Emissions, 2005

Life-Cycle GHG Emissions (106 Mg CO2e)

TotalPhase

Inside CA Outside CA

Production 0.2 3.2 3.4

Use 1.9 1.9

End of Life -0.01 -0.13 -0.14

Total 2.1 3.1 5.2

• Total is equivalent to the annual GHG emissions of 1.16 million automobiles (4,500 kg CO2e per car per year) or 1.3% of California’s net GHG emissions in 2004

Source: Derived from (1) Masanet, E., L. Price, S. de la Rue du Can, R. Brown, and E. Worrell (2005). Optimization of Product Life Cycles to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emi ssions in California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-110; and (2) Masanet, E., and A. Horvath (2006). An Analysis of Measures for Reducing the Life-Cycle Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of California’s Personal Computers. University of California Energy Institute Technical Report, Berkeley, California.

GHG Emission Reduction Potential Analysis of Select Policy Measures, 2005

Life-Cycle Phase Measure*

Approximate Incremental Life-Cycle GHG Emission Reduction (%)**

Production Improve manufacturing energy efficiency 6%

Reduce PFC emissions from semiconductor manufacture 3%

100% power management 8%

Use Purchase ENERGY STAR v3.0 compliant PCs 1%

Turn PC off during periods of non-use 2%

End of Life Upgrade to extend PC life by 50% 7%

Maximize recycling of PC control units 1%

Total 28%

* Measures are applied in a cascading fashion

** % reduction with respect to 2005 California PC life-cycle GHG emissions of 5.9*106 Mg CO2e

Source: Derived from (1) Masanet, E., L. Price, S. de la Rue du Can, R. Brown, and E. Worrell (2005). Optimization of Product Life Cycles to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emi ssions in California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-110; and (2) Masanet, E., and A. Horvath (2006). An Analysis of Measures for Reducing the Life-Cycle Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of California’s Personal Computers. University of California Energy Institute Technical Report, Berkeley, California.

Translation to “Low Carbon PC” Standard/Label

• Minimization of production-phase energy use and GHG emissions • Energy efficient supply chains (best practice, top quartile, etc.)

• Example: clean room HVAC efficiency can often be improved by 30% to 60% • Reduced PFC emissions during semiconductor manufacture • Reporting of embedded energy use and GHG emissions • Minimum recycled content

ENERGY STAR© • Designed for ease of upgrading

• Minimization of use-phase energy use and GHG emissions • Best in class energy efficiency (e.g., ENERGY STAR certified) • High efficiency power supplies, minimal standby losses • Flat panel displays versus CRT monitors • Power management enabled • IEEE 1621 compliant (ease of power management standard)

• Minimization of disposal-phase energy use and GHG emissions • Guaranteed take-back and recycling with full end of life fate reporting • In-state recycling of materials • Designed for recycling and ease of dismantling • Reduction/elimination of toxic constituents (RoHS, EPEAT, and beyond)

□

Iii

□

Technical Potential for GHG Emissions Reduction

Projected Cumulative Life-Cycle GHG Emissions of California PCs (2005-2012)

Technical potential for GHG emissions reductions:

Total = 11.3 106 Mg CO2e

In state = 8.2 106 Mg CO2e

Out of state = 3.1 106 Mg CO2e

Baseline Scenario Low Carbon/Best Practice Scenario 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cum

ulat

ive

(200

5-20

12)

GH

G E

mis

sion

s (1

0^6

Mg

CO

2e)

In state emissions

Out of state emissions

Total emissions

Source: Masanet, E., and A. Horvath (2006). “An Analysis of Measures for Reducing the Life-Cycle Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of California’s Personal Computers.” University of California Energy Institute Technical Report, Berkeley, California.

Research Challenges

• Uncertainty • Large number of consumer products

» Need to pick 20-30 » Significance and magnitude

• Dynamically changing supply chains • Functional unit • Design changes • Updates over time

Contact Information:

Arpad Horvath Associate Professor

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley

horvath@ce.berkeley.edu Tel.: 510-642-7300

Eric Masanet

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

ermasanet@lbl.gov Tel.: 510-486-6794