SPR Slides - LCA - 5.14.2014

MINNESOTA SUSTAINABILITY PRACTITIONERS ROUNDTABLE

May 14, 2014

Agenda

11:30 Introductions and lunch 11:40 Welcome from Eliza Clark, Andersen

Corporation 11:50 LCA Overview, Dr. Tim Smith, NorthStar

Initiative for Sustainable Enterprise 12:30 Group discussion on LCA facilitated by Jill

Kolling, Paydirt 1:20 Upcoming events; group announcements 1:30 Optional tour 2:00 Adjourn

Mission

¨  To advance sustainable practices within large organizations in Minnesota.

Objectives

¨  Facilitate candid dialogue centered on advanced sustainability topics

¨  Provide a forum for sharing resources and best practices

¨  Identify opportunities for new solutions or collaborations

¨  Build connections between sustainability practitioners

Format and Boundaries

¨  Quarterly event for sharing success stories and facilitating large group discussions in a confidential setting

¨  Invite-only ¨  One representative per organization; additional

participants dependent on topic ¨  Members should have decision making ability for

sustainability and an enterprise focus ¨  Charter members may preclude competitors from

joining ¨  Members are expected to attend and actively

participate, or send a substitute when needed

2014 Roundtable Dates

¨  February 12 - Target ¨  May 14 – Science Museum of Minnesota ¨  September 17 – U of MN Landscape Arboretum ¨  November 12 - KPMG

Andersen – Science Museum Partnership

¨  Kitty Andersen Youth Science Center (KAYSC): empowering youth to change the world through science

¨  Engages over 100 youth annually in grades 7-12 in out-of-school-time science programming

¨  In 1996, several Andersen Related Foundations made a combined endowment contribution to KAYSC in Kitty Andersen’s honor to support general operating funds.

Source: http://www.smm.org/kaysc/supporters

•  75% of participants are from low-income families

•  60% are girls •  90% are

youth of color

Science House: ¨ Resource Center for Educators, where Minnesota's science teachers gain access to the best in hands-on classroom science materials

¨ Designed to operate as a zero-emissions building (ZEB)

¨ Since energy monitoring began in February 2004, Science House has been producing more energy than it uses on an annual basis

¨ Andersen Corporation contributed windows, doors and Fibrex™ material for the exterior deck and interior ceiling

Source: http://www.smm.org/sciencehouse/about

Andersen - Science Museum Partnership

Raw Material Extrac.on Intermediate Material Manufacture

Use

Recycling

End of Life

Finished Product Manufacture

Transporta.on & logis.cs/retail

Andersen’s Lifecycle Approach 9

Andersen’s LCA Experience

¨  Conducted two LCAs in 2010: ¨  Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung

¨  100 Series

¨  Recently purchased GaBi LCA software

¨  Participating in the development of the Product Category Rule (PCR) for windows

¨  Once PCR is approved, we will have the ability to publish Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)

Renewal by Andersen Double-Hung

environment.umn.edu/nise

Introduc)on to Life Cycle Assessment Timothy M. Smith Director & Associate Professor NorthStar Ini.a.ve (NiSE) Bioproducts & Biosystems Eng. 612-‐624-‐2648 [email protected]

WHICH IS MORE SUSTAINABLE?

•  most commonly made from co;on (fossil-‐fuel-‐intensive)

•  co;on growers use more than 10 percent of the world's pes)cides and nearly 25 percent of the world's insec)cides

•  most are woven outside the U.S. where labor is less costly

•  Increased fossil fuels in transporta)on

•  %#*&!, forgot it again…

•  made of polyethylene, a petroleum-‐based resource

•  consumes 40% less energy to produce than paper.

•  generates 80% less solid waste than paper bags

•  can take 1,000 years to decompose

•  fewer than 5% of plas)c bags are recycled

•  60 to 80 percent of ocean debris is plas)c -‐ poisoning or strangling marine life

•  made from a renewable resource (trees)

•  hold twice the contents of most plas)c bags

•  takes about a month to decompose

•  21% of paper bags are currently recycled

WHAT IS GREEN?

IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PRIUS

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: Quantification of Impacts

LCA BASICS: WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT


energy

cardboard

metal


energy

cardboard

metal

Air emissions

Solid Waste

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Ecosystem health

Human health

Resource depletion

Social health

Oth. releases

Products Coproducts

Emissions Effluents Solid wastes

Mat’ls Energy Water

Raw Material Acquisition

(Transportation)

Manufacturing (Transportation)

Use/Reuse/Maintenance (Transportation)

Recycle/Waste Management (Transportation)

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS – STEPS IN THE PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

INVENTORY ANALYSIS

IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT

Extend product life Reduce energy consumption Evaluate substitute materials Improve process efficiencies Improve distribution Improve collection efficiencies Enhance use/durability Improve waste management

INITIATION

Purpose and scope

System boundaries

Data categories

Review process

PAPER CLIP

PAPER CLIP LCA RESULTS

IMPACT CHARACTERIZATION

PAPER CLIP GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL

US ECONOMY-‐WIDE WEIGHTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

X X X X X X X

Source: Suh 2011; economymap.org

X X

Input/Output

Ideal

Process

Bo;om Up Hybrid Top Down Hybrid

LCA METHODOLOGIES

OUTSIDE-IN HOTSPOT APPROACH: An Adaptation of Top Down Hybrid

Identify Hotspots: EE-IO

Compare Indicators: Parameterized P- LCA

Sce

nario

1

Sce

nario

2

GEMI SUPPLY CHAIN SUSTAINABILITY TOOL

Objec.ve: A simple, scalable, open and interac.ve tool for procurement and supply chain managers to: 1) guide priori.es; 2) measure performance of sourcing strategies. Func.onality: 1. Iden.fy CO2 and water use “hotspots” of procurement/sourcing poraolios. 2. Quan.fy “hotspot” reduc.on of alterna.ve environmental acribute scenarios. 3. Simulate procurement strategies to compare environmental performance vis-‐à-‐vis economic costs/benefits.

Impact'Category' Source' Virgin&fiber&

produc/on&Power&genera/on&

and&supply&Paper&and&

paperboard&mills&Paperboard&container&

manufacturing& End&of&Life&

Global'Warming'Poten7al'

EIO:LCA1' **& 42%& 32%& 5%& *&PE'Americas'and'Five'Winds'Interna7onal.'(2009).'Life%Cycle%Assessment%of%U.S.%Industry7Average%Corrugated%Product.' A46%& **& 54%& 17%& 22%&

Ross,'S.,'&'Evans,'D.'(2002).'Use'of'Life'Cycle'Assessment'in'Environmental'Management.'Environmental%Management,'29,'132:142.' 4%***& 83%&

Water'Deple7on'

EIO:LCA2' **& 30%& 37%& 0.43%& *&Kirwan,'M.'J.'(2013).'Handbook%of%Paper%and%Paperboard%Packaging%Technology'(2nd'Edi7on'ed.).'Chichester,'West'Sussex,'United'Kingdom:'Wiley:Blackwell.' **& **& Blue&water& Blue&water& Blue&

water&

Hotspots: the life cycle stages and inputs that have CO2 and H2O impacts larger than 10% of the life cycle impacts

1.  Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, global warming potential. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl

2.  Carnegie Mellon University. (2002). Results for paperboard container manufacturing, water withdrawals. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment - Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl

* Not included in the EIO-LCA system boundary ** Not found in the source *** Net impacts offset by carbon sequestration in virgin fiber production

Sustainable Supply Chain Data Summary– Containerboard Packaging

Baseline Assumptions: U.S. and European average industrial practices

Hotspot system boundary

Raw&material&extrac/on& Transporta/on& Manufacturing& Distribu/on& Retail& Use& End&of&Life&

Life&Cycle&Stage& Parameter& Dataset& Unit&Baseline&Inventory&Amount&

Source&Corrugated'Board' Paperboard'

Forest'Produc7on'

(70%'from'SE,'30%'from'PNW)'

Diesel' US:'Diesel,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment2' m3/m3'so^wood'

2.57e:3'

USCLCI'2012;'Kramer'2009'

Gasoline' US:'Gasoline,'combusted'in'equipment2' 2.26e:5'

Seedlings' US:'Seedlings,'at'greenhouse2' pcs/m3'so^wood' 5.27'

Nitrogen' US:'Nitrogen'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2'

kg/m3'so^wood'

4.99e:1'

Phosphorus' US:'Phosphorous'fer7lizer,'produc7on'mix,'at'plant2' 8.58e:2'

Lubricants' US:'Dummy_Lubricants,'unspecified,'at'plant2' 3.69e:2'

Carbon'Dioxide' Carbon'dioxide'[Renewable'resources]2' 9.42e2'

Transport' Transport,'combina7on'truck,'avg.'fuel'mix' Kgkm/m3'so^wood' 1.2e5'

Manufacturing:'Container:board'Conver7ng'plant'

Kra^liner'

Manufacturing'Containerboard'Mill' Kg/kg'nsp'

4.76e:1' 7.22e:1'PE'2009;'EPA'2012'

Testliner' 2.56e:1' 3.89e:1'Wellenstoff' 1.32e:1' 0'

Semi:Chemical' 2.45e:1' 0'

LPG' US:'liquefied'petroleum'gas,'combusted'in'industrial'boiler3' m3/kg'nsp' 1.17e:6'

PE'2009'

Natural'Gas' RNA:'Natural'gas,'combusted'in'industrial'equipment3' 2.87e:2'Water' RER:'Tap'water,'at'user1.5'

kg/kg'nsp'

3.12e:1'Starch' US:'Starch'(polyglucose)4' 1.18e:2'

Adhesives' US:'Polyvinyl'alcohol'(from'vinyl'acetate)'(PVAL)4' 7.94e:4'Ink' RER:'Prin7ng'colour,'offset,'47.5%'solvent,'at'plant1' 8.47e:4'

Borax' US:'Sodium'borates,'at'plant1' 3.11e:4'Sodium'Carbonate' US:'Soda,'powder,'at'plant3' 7.86e:4'

Coa7ngs' RER:'Coa7ng'powder,'at'plant1' 7.05e:4'

Wax' US:'Wax/Paraffins'at'refinery4' 4.74e:3'Electricity'(purchased)' US:'electricity,'medium'voltage,'at'grid1'

MJ/kg'nsp'

4.24e:1'

Diesel' GLO:'diesel,'burned'in'building'machine1' 3.63e:2'

Heavy'fuel'oil' RER:'Heavy'fuel'oil,'burned'in'industrial'furnace,'1'MW,'non:modula7ng1' 4.63e:1'

Light'Fuel'Oil' RER:'heat,'light'fuel'oil,'at'industrial'furnace'1'MW1' 2.81e:1'

Landfill' CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22.9%'water,'to'sanitary'landfill1'

kg/kg'nsp'

3.73e:3'

Incinera7on' CH:'disposal,'municipal'solid'waste,'22%'water,'to'municipal'incinera7on1' 6.23e:5'

Hazardous'Waste'Incinera7on'

CH:'disposal,'hazardous'waste,'25%'water,'to'hazardous'waste'incinera7on1' 1.55e:6'

Baseline assumptions: 65% virgin (kraft and semi-chemical fluting), 35% recycled (testliner and wellenstoff),

1: EcoInvent 1.5: Modified EcoInvent (accounts for US electricity production)

2: USLCI 3: USLCI/PE

4: PE nsp = net saleable product (including folded box and glue)

DOCUMENTATION: Hotspots, Baselines, Scenarios

COMPARING REDUCTION SCENARIOS

2.  Provide quan.ta.ve “hotspot” reduc.on indices for environmental acribute scenarios -‐ connec.ng market signals to like cycle assessment-‐based informa.on;

Results of “hotspot” reduction potential by attribute scenarios for cereal and fruit juice categories (UMN 2013)

Recycled'Paperboard'(Primary)'

100%'Plastic'

Cereal'Bag'(no'box)''

100%'Bioenergy'(thermal)'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

30%'

35%'

0%'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

Grain'Farming'Manufacturing'

Packaging'

Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots'

30%'!'Electrical'EfJiciency'

30%'!'Thermal''EfJiciency'

Recycled'Paperboard'(primary)'

40%'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Recycled'Cardboard'(secondary)'

30%'!'Thermal'EfJiciency'

Best'Scenario'~39%'reduction'

Worst'Scenario'~7%'addition'

End'of'Life'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Baseline''(no'environmental'

attributes'implemented)'

65%'of'total'impact'

Total'GHG'Hotspot'Reduction'Potential''for'Wheat'Cereal'and'Orange'Juice:''Best'Scenario'vs.'Worst'Scenario'

~21%'reduction'

30%'

45%'

50%'

55%'

60%'

65%'

Orange'Farming'

Retail'(Refrigeration)'

Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice'


70%'

75%'

80%'

85%'

90%'

100%'Wind'electricity'

Organic'

5%'Refrigerant'Leakage'

Worst'Scenario'~12%'reduction'


Precision'Farming'

30%'!'energy'efJiciency'(electricity)'



~56%'reduction'


Organic'

Cumu

lative'%'reduction'in'total'

hotsp

ot'im

pact'contribution

'Cumu

lative'%'addition

'in'total''

hotsp

ot'im

pact'contribution

'

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

30%#

35%#

0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

Grain#Farming#Manufacturing#Packaging#

Cumu

lative#%#reduction#in#total#

hotsp

ot#impact#contribution

#

Life#Cycle#Stage#Hotspots#

40%#

End#of#Life#

Baseline##(no#environmental#

attributes#implemented)#

Cumu

lative#%#addition

#in#total##

hotsp


#

65%#of#total#impact#

Total#GHG#Hotspot#Reduction#Potential##for#Wheat#Cereal#and#Orange#Juice:##Best#Scenario#vs.#Worst#Scenario#

30%#

45%#

50%#

55%#

60%#

65%#

Orange#Farming#Retail#(Refrigeration)#

Wheat#Cereal# Orange#Juice#


70%#

75%#

80%#

85%#

90%#

100%#Wind#electricity#

Organic#

Best#Scenario#~91%#reduction#30%#!#

energy#efViciency#(electricity)#

5%#Refrigerant#Leakage#GHG

Scenario Analysis

(Cereal & Fruit Juice)

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

30%#

35%#

0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#



40%#

End#of#Life#





30%#

45%#

50%#

55%#

60%#

65%#




70%#

75%#

80%#

85%#

90%#


Organic#

5%#Refrigerant#Leakage#

Worst#Scenario#~12%#reduction#

Best#Scenario#~91%#reduction#

Precision#Farming#

30%#!#energy#efViciency#(electricity)#


Cumu


hotsp


#Cumu

lative#%#addition

#in#total##

hotsp


#

GHG Scenario Analysis


5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#

30%#

35%#

0%#

5%#

10%#

15%#

20%#

25%#



40%#

End#of#Life#





30%#

45%#

50%#

55%#

60%#

65%#




70%#

75%#

80%#

85%#

90%#


Organic#


Worst#Scenario#~12%#reduction#

Best#Scenario#~91%#reduction#

Precision#Farming#

30%#!#energy#efViciency#(electricity)#



~56%#reduction#

Cumu


hotsp


#Cumu

lative#%#addition

#in#total##

hotsp


#



100%$Bioenergy$(thermal)$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

30%$

35%$

0%$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

Grain$Farming$Manufacturing$

Packaging$

Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$

30%$!$Electrical$EfFiciency$

30%$!$Thermal$$EfFiciency$

Recycled$Paperboard$(primary)$

40%$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Recycled$Cardboard$(secondary)$ Best$Scenario$

~39%$reduction$

End$of$Life$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Baseline$$(no$environmental$

attributes$implemented)$

65%$of$total$impact$

Total$GHG$Hotspot$Reduction$Potential$$for$Wheat$Cereal$and$Orange$Juice:$$Best$Scenario$vs.$Worst$Scenario$

30%$

45%$

50%$

55%$

60%$

65%$

Orange$Farming$

Retail$(Refrigeration)$

Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$


70%$

75%$

80%$

85%$

90%$

100%$Wind$electricity$

Organic$

5%$Refrigerant$Leakage$

Worst$Scenario$~12%$reduction$

Best$Scenario$~91%$reduction$

Precision$Farming$

30%$!$energy$efFiciency$(electricity)$



~56%$reduction$


Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$

hotspot$impact$contribution$

Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$




100%$Plastic$

Cereal$Bag$(no$box)$$

100%$Bioenergy$(thermal)$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

30%$

35%$

0%$

5%$

10%$

15%$

20%$

25%$

Grain$Farming$Manufacturing$

Packaging$

Life$Cycle$Stage$Hotspots$

30%$!$Electrical$EfHiciency$

30%$!$Thermal$$EfHiciency$

Recycled$Paperboard$(primary)$

40%$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Recycled$Cardboard$(secondary)$

30%$!$Thermal$EfHiciency$


Worst$Scenario$~7%$addition$

End$of$Life$

PLA$cereal$bag$

Baseline$$(no$environmental$

attributes$implemented)$


Total$GHG$Hotspot$Reduction$Potential$$for$Wheat$Cereal$and$Orange$Juice:$$Best$Scenario$vs.$Worst$Scenario$

30%$

45%$

50%$

55%$

60%$

65%$

Orange$Farming$

Retail$(Refrigeration)$

Wheat$Cereal$ Orange$Juice$


70%$

75%$

80%$

85%$

90%$


Organic$


Worst$Scenario$~12%$reduction$


Precision$Farming$

30%$!$energy$efHiciency$(electricity)$



~56%$reduction$


Organic$

Cumulative$%$reduction$in$total$


Cumulative$%$addition$in$total$$




Recycled'Paperboard'(Primary)'

100%'Plastic'

Cereal'Bag'(no'box)''

100%'Bioenergy'(thermal)'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

30%'

35%'

0%'

5%'

10%'

15%'

20%'

25%'

Grain'Farming'Manufacturing'

Packaging'

Life'Cycle'Stage'Hotspots'

30%'!'Electrical'EfJiciency'

30%'!'Thermal''EfJiciency'

Recycled'Paperboard'(primary)'

40%'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Recycled'Cardboard'(secondary)'

30%'!'Thermal'EfJiciency'


Worst'Scenario'~7%'addition'

End'of'Life'

PLA'cereal'bag'

Baseline''(no'environmental'

attributes'implemented)'


Total'GHG'Hotspot'Reduction'Potential''for'Wheat'Cereal'and'Orange'Juice:''Best'Scenario'vs.'Worst'Scenario'

~21%'reduction'

30%'

45%'

50%'

55%'

60%'

65%'

Orange'Farming'

Retail'(Refrigeration)'

Wheat'Cereal' Orange'Juice'


70%'

75%'

80%'

85%'

90%'


Organic'


Worst'Scenario'~12%'reduction'


Precision'Farming'

30%'!'energy'efJiciency'(electricity)'



~56%'reduction'


Organic'

Cumulative'%'reduction'in'total'

hotspot'impact'contribution'

Cumulative'%'addition'in'total''

hotspot'impact'contribution'



ASSESS ECONOMIC COSTS OF REDUCTIONS

3.  Allow managers to quickly simulate procurement scenarios to compare environmental performance vis-‐à-‐vis economic costs/benefits.

Illustrative example; simulation results will be dependent upon scenario reduction estimates

and user-specified information (price/kg, volume purchased, alternative spending strategies, etc.)

Jones&et&al&(2008).&Consumer4Oriented&Life&Cycle&Assessment&of&Food,&Goods,&and&Services&

Variability)Within)a)Sector)Subs3tutability)

between)Sector)Spend)

• •

Switching from all-pork to a 50/50 pork/chicken sourced sausage: • Estimated CO2e reduction of 350-850 gCO2e /$(2007) • @ $100,000 spend: 35,000-85,000 kgCO2e; ≈ 7-17 cars/year • @ 6.5% price/kg discount: Switch saves ≈ $.13/kgCO2e reduction.

PROCUREMENT PORTFOLIO DECISION PROBLEMS

•  Given a targeted CO2 reduc.on target, what alloca.on of purchases minimizes total costs?

•  Given a targeted budget (increase/decrease), what alloca.on of purchases maximizes total CO2 reduc.ons?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

•  LCA isn’t perfect – Costly, sensi.ve to data assump.ons and boundary condi.ons, etc.

•  LCA doesn’t solve problems – Omen surfaces more ques.ons than answers –  Informa.on provided is uncertain

•  LCA is necessary if decision requires a quan.fica.on of impacts across process stages.

•  LCA is an approach not an absolute truth

THANK YOU! Contact Info: Dr. Timothy Smith – [email protected]

SPR Slides - LCA - 5.14.2014

Business

Transcript of SPR Slides - LCA - 5.14.2014