Eco Audit White Paper. - Granta Design
Eco Audit White Paper. - Granta Design Eco Audit White Paper. - Granta Design
ecycle energy and recycle fraction in currentsupply for each material and replaced theenergy and CO 2 profiles for virgin materials(the default) with values for materials madewith this fraction of recycled content.Finally it created a bar chart and summary ofenergy or CO 2 according to user choice and areport detailing the results of each step of thecalculation. The bar charts are shown inFigure 10. Table 2 shows the summary.PhaseTable 2. PET bottle, energy, andcarbon summary, 100 units.Energy(MJ)Figure 10. The energy and the carbon footprint bar-charts generatedby the Eco Audit Tool for the bottles.Energy(%)CO 2(kg)CO 2(%)Material 344 68 9.6 48Manufacture 36 7 3.2 16Transport 48 10 3.4 17Use 74. 15 3.7 19Total 503 100 19.9 100What do we learn from these outputs? Thegreatest contributions to energy consumptionand CO 2 generation derive from production ofthe polymers used to make the bottle. (Thecarbon footprint of manufacture, transport,and use is proportionally larger than theirenergy burden, because of the inefficienciesof the energy conversions they involve). Thesecond largest is the short, two-day,refrigeration energy. The seeminglyextravagant part of the life cycle—that oftransporting water, 1 kg per bottle, 550 kmfrom the French Alps to the diner’s table inLondon—in fact contributes 10% of the totalenergy and 17% of the total carbon. If genuineconcern is felt about the eco impact of drinkingwater which has been transported overhundreds of miles, then (short of giving it up) itis the bottle that is the primary target. Could itbe made thinner, using less PET? (Suchbottles are 30% lighter today than they were15 years ago). Is there a polymer that is lessenergy intensive than PET? Could the bottlesbe made reusable (and of sufficientlyattractive design that people would wish toreuse them)? Could recycling of the bottles bemade easier? These are design questions, thefocus of the lower part of Figure 5. Methodsfor approaching them are detailed inreferences (1) and (2).The CES EduPack Eco Audit Tool 10 © 2012, Granta Design
An overall reassessment of the eco impact ofthe bottles should, of course, explore ways ofreducing energy and carbon in all four phasesof life, seeking the most efficient moldingmethods, the least energy intensive transportmode (32 tonne truck, barge), and minimizingthe refrigeration time.Electric jug kettleFigure 11 shows a typical kettle. The bill ofmaterials is listed in Table 3. The kettle ismanufactured in South East Asia andtransported to Europe by air freight, a distanceof 11,000 km, then distributed by 24 tonnetruck over a further 250 km. The power ratingis 2 kW, and the volume 1.7 liters.Table 3. Jug kettle, bill of materials. Life: 3 years.Component Material ProcessKettle bodyHeatingelementCasing,heatingelementCablesheath,1 meterCable core,1 meterPlug bodyPlug pinsPackaging,paddingPackaging,boxPolypropylene(PP)NickelchromiumalloysStainlesssteelNaturalRubber (NR)CopperPhenolicBrassRigid polymerfoam, MDPolymermoldingForging,rollingForging,rollingPolymermoldingForging,rollingPolymermoldingForging,rollingPolymermoldingMass(kg)0.860.0260.090.060.0150.0370.030.015Cardboard Construction 0.125Despite only using it for 9 minutes per day, theelectric power (or, rather, the oil equivalent ofthe electric power, since conversionefficiencies are included in the calculation)accounts for 95% of the total. Improving ecoperformance here has to focus on this useenergy—even a large change, 50% reduction,say, in any of the others makes insignificantdifference. So thermal efficiency must be thetarget. Heat is lost through the kettle wall—selecting a polymer with lower thermalconductivity, or using a double wall withinsulation in the gap, could help here—itwould increase the embodied energy of thematerial column, but even doubling this leavesit small. A full vacuum insulation would be theultimate answer—the water not used when thekettle is boiled would then remain close toboiling point for long enough to be useful thenext time hot water is needed. The energyextravagance of air-freight makes only 3% ofthe total. Using sea freight instead increasesthe distance to 17,000 km, but reduces thetransport energy per kettle to 2.8 MJ, a mere1% of the total.Table 4. The energy analysis of the jug kettle.Phase Life energy (MJ) Energy (%)Material 107 2.8Manufacture 6.9 0.18Transport 115 3.0Use 3583 93.9Total 3813 100The kettle boils 1 liter of water in 3 minutes. Itis used, on average, 3 times per day over alife of 3 years.The bar chart in Figure 12 shows the energybreakdown delivered by the tool. Table 4shows the summary.Here, too, one phase of life consumes farmore energy than all the others put together.Figure 11. A 2 kW jug kettle.The CES EduPack Eco Audit Tool 11 © 2012, Granta Design
- Page 2 and 3: Contents1. Introduction ...........
- Page 4 and 5: Figure 2.Despite the formalism that
- Page 6 and 7: 60% or more of the energy—often m
- Page 8 and 9: combustion, not an option for steel
- Page 10 and 11: Figure 8. The 1 st -life energy and
- Page 14 and 15: Figure 12. The energy and carbon ba
- Page 16 and 17: A portable space heaterThe space he
- Page 18 and 19: 6. Summary and conclusionsEco aware
- Page 20 and 21: Eco Audit ReportProduct NameBottled
- Page 22 and 23: Use:Energy and CO2 SummaryStatic mo
- Page 24: Dead weight (100 litres of water) 1
An overall reassessment of the eco impact ofthe bottles should, of course, explore ways ofreducing energy and carbon in all four phasesof life, seeking the most efficient moldingmethods, the least energy intensive transportmode (32 tonne truck, barge), and minimizingthe refrigeration time.Electric jug kettleFigure 11 shows a typical kettle. The bill ofmaterials is listed in Table 3. The kettle ismanufactured in South East Asia andtransported to Europe by air freight, a distanceof 11,000 km, then distributed by 24 tonnetruck over a further 250 km. The power ratingis 2 kW, and the volume 1.7 liters.Table 3. Jug kettle, bill of materials. Life: 3 years.Component Material ProcessKettle bodyHeatingelementCasing,heatingelementCablesheath,1 meterCable core,1 meterPlug bodyPlug pinsPackaging,paddingPackaging,boxPolypropylene(PP)NickelchromiumalloysStainlesssteelNaturalRubber (NR)CopperPhenolicBrassRigid polymerfoam, MDPolymermoldingForging,rollingForging,rollingPolymermoldingForging,rollingPolymermoldingForging,rollingPolymermoldingMass(kg)0.860.0260.090.060.0150.0370.030.015Cardboard Construction 0.125Despite only using it for 9 minutes per day, theelectric power (or, rather, the oil equivalent ofthe electric power, since conversionefficiencies are included in the calculation)accounts for 95% of the total. Improving ecoperformance here has to focus on this useenergy—even a large change, 50% reduction,say, in any of the others makes insignificantdifference. So thermal efficiency must be thetarget. Heat is lost through the kettle wall—selecting a polymer with lower thermalconductivity, or using a double wall withinsulation in the gap, could help here—itwould increase the embodied energy of thematerial column, but even doubling this leavesit small. A full vacuum insulation would be theultimate answer—the water not used when thekettle is boiled would then remain close toboiling point for long enough to be useful thenext time hot water is needed. The energyextravagance of air-freight makes only 3% ofthe total. Using sea freight instead increasesthe distance to 17,000 km, but reduces thetransport energy per kettle to 2.8 MJ, a mere1% of the total.Table 4. The energy analysis of the jug kettle.Phase Life energy (MJ) Energy (%)Material 107 2.8Manufacture 6.9 0.18Transport 115 3.0Use 3583 93.9Total 3813 100The kettle boils 1 liter of water in 3 minutes. Itis used, on average, 3 times per day over alife of 3 years.The bar chart in Figure 12 shows the energybreakdown delivered by the tool. Table 4shows the summary.Here, too, one phase of life consumes farmore energy than all the others put together.Figure 11. A 2 kW jug kettle.The CES EduPack <strong>Eco</strong> <strong>Audit</strong> Tool 11 © 2012, <strong>Granta</strong> <strong>Design</strong>
Change language