Advertisement

Comparative life cycle assessment of electric motors with different efficiency classes: a deep dive into the trade-offs between the life cycle stages in ecodesign context

  • Johannes Auer
  • Anna Meincke
LCA FOR MACHINES
  • 312 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Current ecodesign instruments usually focus on improving single life cycle stages, like the energy efficiency classes for motors put on the European market, which focus on the use stage. Resulting trade-offs between the life cycle stages are however often not integrated properly, like for instance trade-offs between manufacturing stage and use stage. The goal of this study was to evaluate the trade-offs between the additional efforts of producing energy-efficient motors (achieved, e.g., via different materials for certain components) and the advantages gained from the improved efficiency in operation.

Methods

For this case study, a life cycle assessment methodology according to ISO 14040/44 was applied for the whole life cycle (cradle to grave) of three electric motors, each from a different efficiency class, and one serving as baseline. The motors under study have the following specifications in common: asynchronous technology, 110 kW nominal power, cast iron series, and 4-poles. To evaluate the use stage, two different operational profiles were studied for 20 years’ service life.

Results and discussion

The results clearly indicated the dominance of the use stage in the motors’ life cycles and that an increase in efficiency pays off environmentally within the first month of operation in the applied load-time profiles. The dominating environmental impact categories, like ionizing radiation and global warming potential, relate to the consumption of electricity. The study results indicated also that the increase of the analyzed motors’ efficiency encompasses trade-offs between the stages materials, manufacturing, and end-of-life versus the use stage in regard to toxicity and (metal) resource depletion aspects, i.e., a burden shifting between energy-related impacts and the toxicity- and resource depletion-related impacts.

Conclusions

In the analyzed study set-ups, including the modeled energy generation scenarios for Europe in 2050, an environmental break-even is achieved in less than a month in all impact categories except for human toxicity. Thus, the further improvement of energy efficiency of drive systems is and will stay a central ecodesign lever. However, toxicity and resource depletion trade-offs should be considered carefully within decision support and decision-making, and further research on related characterization models is necessary. Further, it is concluded that the load-time profile as well as the motors’ service life have a high influence, and therefore, designing drive systems in context with the application seems to be an important approach to facilitate ecodesign.

Keywords

Ecodesign Electric motors Energy efficiency Life cycle assessment 

References

  1. Agora Energiewende (2016) Ritter D, Heinemann C, Rausch L, Emele L, Graichen P, Kleiner MM, Buck M: Energy transition in the power sector in Europe: state of affairs in 2015. Review of the Developments and Outlook for 2016, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Alatalo M, Tidblad Lundmark S, Arfa Grunditz E (2011) Electric Machine Design for Traction applications considering recycling aspects—review and new solution. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Ieee Industrial Electronics Society pp. 1836–1841. IEEE, Piscataway, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Auer J, Weis B (2014) New standard on ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, power electronics & their driven applications: introducing the extended product approach and product category rules for motor systems, Session 2.14.: impacts from legislation, lecture 2.14.1. In: CARE Innovation 2014 Conference, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CLC TC2 WG2 (2015) Environmental aspects of electric motors, 2nd working group draft, tbpGoogle Scholar
  6. COM (2008) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament—establishment of the working plan for 2009-2011 under the Ecodesign Directive, /* COM/2008/0660 final */Google Scholar
  7. COM 2010 (2010) Communication from the Commission: EUROPE 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/targets/index_en.htm. Accessed on 12.12.15
  8. COP21 (2016) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, taking the Paris Agreement forward, reflections note by the president of the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties and the incoming president of the twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties, 6 May 2016, http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php, accessed on 12.06.2016
  9. Cowley J, McGowan-Jackson R (2015) Kennecott copper environmental profile, life cycle assessment. Kennecott Utah Copper CorporationGoogle Scholar
  10. de Almeida AT, Falkner H, Fong J (2014) EuP lot 30: electric motors—task 4: technical analysis existing products, final, ENER/C3/413-2010Google Scholar
  11. de Almeida AT, Ferreira FJTE, Fong J, Fonseca P (2008) EUP Lot 11 Motors - Final Report to the European Commission, Institute of Systems & Robotics, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering-University of CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (2011a) Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. EC (2011b) A resource-efficient Europe - Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. EC (2015b) European Commission/press release/closing the loop: commission adopts ambitious new circular economy package to boost competitiveness, create jobs and generate sustainable growth, IP-15-6203, 02.12.2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6203_en.htm. Accessed 15 June 2016
  15. EC (2015c) M/543 Commission Implementing Decision C(2015)9096 of 17.12.2015 on a standardisation request to the European standardisation organisations as regards ecodesign requirements on material efficiency aspects for energy-related products in support of the implementation of Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. European Commission, DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. EC (2016) European Commission: environmental footprint pilot guidance document—guidance for the implementation of the EU product environmental footprint (PEF) during the environmental footprint (EF) pilot phase, version 52, February 2016Google Scholar
  17. EC (2014) European Commission, DG energy, energy efficient products, electric motors, https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-products/electric-motors. Accessed 27 June 2016
  18. EC (2015a) European Commission: 2020 climate & energy package http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020/index_en.htm. Accessed on 12.12.15
  19. EN 50598-1 (2015) Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, power electronics & their driven applications—part 1: general requirements for setting energy efficiency standards for power driven equipment using the extended product approach (EPA), and semi analytic model (SAM)Google Scholar
  20. EN 50598-2 (2015) Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, power electronics & their driven applications—part 2: energy efficiency indicators for power drive systems and motor startersGoogle Scholar
  21. EN 50598-3 (2015) Ecodesign for power drive systems, motor starters, power electronics and their driven applications—part 3: quantitative eco design approach through life cycle assessment including product category rules and the content of environmental declarationsGoogle Scholar
  22. EU 2009 (2009) Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products, OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p 10–35Google Scholar
  23. EU 2014 (2014) Commission Regulation (EU) No 4/2014 of 6 January 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 640/2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for electric motors, OJ L 2, 7.1.2014, p 1–2Google Scholar
  24. EU CI (2015) European Copper Institute: The environmental profile of copper products—a cradle to gate life-cycle-assessment for copper tube, sheet and wire produced in Europe, www.copper-life-cycle.org, accessed on 22.10.2015
  25. GaBi (2016) Thinkstep: GaBi Databases, https://www.thinkstep.com/software/gabi-lca/gabi-databases, accessed on 23.03.2016
  26. Herrmann C, Gama M, Helman D (2012) Calculating the carbon footprint of electronic products with life cycle assessment, PE International, Leinfelden - EchterdingenGoogle Scholar
  27. Huijbregts MA (2001) Uncertainty and variability in environmental life cycle assessment, PhD thesis, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Huijbregts MA, Lundi S, McKone TE, van de Meent D (2003) Geographical scenario uncertainty in generic fate and exposure factors of toxic pollutants for life-cycle impact assessment. Chemosphere 51:501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huijbregts MA, Thissen U, Jager T, van de Meent D, Ragas AM (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part II: assessing parameter uncertainty and human variability in the calculation of toxicity potentials. Chemosphere 41:575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IEC 60034–-30-1 (2014) IEC 60034-30-1:2014, Rotating electrical machines—part 30-1: efficiency classes of line operated AC motors (IE code)Google Scholar
  31. IEC/TR62635 (2012) IEC/TR 62635, Guidelines for end of life information provision from manufacturers and recyclers, and for recyclability rate calculation of electrical and electronic equipmentGoogle Scholar
  32. ILCD (2010) ILCD handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance, EUR 24708 EN – 2010, http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC48157/ilcd_handbook-general_guide_for_lca-detailed_guidance_12march2010_isbn_fin.pdf , accessed on 05.11.2015
  33. ILCD (2011) ILCD handbook: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context, EUR 24571 EN – 2011, http://eplca.Jjrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/ILCD-Recommendation-of-methods-for-LCIA-def.pdf, accessed on 05.11.2015
  34. ISO 14040 (2006) ISO 14040:2006, Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  35. ISO 14044 (2006) ISO 14044: 2006, Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  36. Karlsson B, Järrhed J-O (2000) Recycling of electrical motors by automatic disassembly. Meas Sci Technol 11:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kasper AC, Gabriel AP, de Oliviera, ELB, de Freitas Juchneski NC, Veit HM (2015) Electronic waste recycling. In: Veit HM, Moura Bernardes A (eds) Electronic waste, topics in mining, metallurgy and materials engineering. doi:  10.1007/978-3-319-15714-6_9
  38. Laurent A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Nomalisation, chapter 14. In: Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (eds) Life cycle impact assessment, LCA compendium—the complete world of Life cycle assessment. doi:  10.1007/978-94-017-9744-3_14
  39. Lemmens J, Deprez D (2012) Electric motors. In: Sumper A, Baggini A (eds) Electrical energy efficiency: technologies and applications, first edition, chapter 7, WileyGoogle Scholar
  40. MEERP (2015) Methodology for the ecodesign of energy-related products. http://www.meerp.eu/. Accessed on 15.12.2016
  41. Pennington D (1999) Letters to the editor, comment and reply, comment: Uncertainty in LCIA of toxic releases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):62–64Google Scholar
  42. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Swirsky Gold L, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) UEStox—the UNEP-SETC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider L, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2015) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA—background and update of the anthropogenic stock extended abiotic depletion potential (AADP) model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:709–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Süß F (2007) Hauptumweltkriterium im Lebenszyklus eines Schützes. Master thesis, HAW Amberg-Weiden (in German)Google Scholar
  45. SWD (2012) Establishment of the Working Plan 2012-2014 under the Ecodesign Directive. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  46. VDMA (2010) Strommix in der EU27: Entwicklung der Stromerzeugung in Europa. Expertenausblick, VDMA Power Systems, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  47. VHK (2005) Van Holsteijn en Kemna BV: methodology study eco-design of energy-using products, MEEUP Methodology Report, final, 28.11.2005Google Scholar
  48. Volz G (2010) Ratgeber Elektrische Motoren in Industrie und Gewerbe: Energieeffizienz und Ökodesign-Richtlinie, Deutsche Energie-Argentur GmbH (dena)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Environment, Health & Safety, Process Industries & Drives DivisionSiemens AGNurembergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Management Engineering, Division for Quantitative Sustainability AssessmentTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Environmental and Climate Affairs, Sustainabilitythyssenkrupp Steel Europe AGDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations