Advertisement

Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1053–1068 | Cite as

Environmental impact assessment of the Egyptian cement industry based on a life-cycle assessment approach: a comparative study between Egyptian and Swiss plants

  • Ahmed AbdelMonteleb M. Ali
  • Abdelazim M. Negm
  • Mahmoud F. Bady
  • Mona G. E. Ibrahim
  • Masaaki Suzuki
Original Paper

Abstract

Egypt in 2015 announced the alteration of the fuels used in cement plants without the least regard to minimizing the environmental burden (EB) excesses. This study conducts a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of Egyptian cement-manufacturing unit, which is considered as the first one on LCA cement analysis to be conducted in Egypt. This study investigates the LCA of the cement industry in Egypt compared to the Swiss industry, using two methodologies. The first one has been done on-site, surveying the most common types of cement used in the construction industry in Egypt. Meanwhile, SimaPro software has been used to assess the environmental impacts, and three different cement plants were selected for this study: an Egyptian cement plant (ECP) which uses electricity, natural gas, and diesel as energy sources; a Swiss cement plant (SCP) which depends mainly on electricity, natural gas, and coal; and an Egyptian hypothetical plant (EHP) in which electricity and coal are assumed to be the main energy feeds, and comparisons of different strategies including midpoint and endpoint methods are outlined. Regarding the midpoint method, ETP recorded higher respiratory inorganics, aquatic acidification, global warming, and nonrenewable energy impacts than ECP, because of using coal, while for SCP, global warming and respiratory inorganics achieved the highest adverse impacts compared to ECP and EHP—due to the different manufacturing technology used. With regard to the endpoint method, the peak possibility of human health deterioration has been recorded due to the use of coal as fuel. This possibility was reduced by 46 % in the case of SCP as a result of the technology applied, which interestingly represents a reasonable reduction in terms of technological application.

Keywords

Fuel type Life-cycle assessment Egyptian cement industry Environmental impact assessment SimaPro software 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to thank the Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) for providing the financial support (Ph.D. scholarship) for this research, as well as the Egypt–Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST) for offering the facility and tools needed to conduct this work. Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Ms. Anneke Haringsma who is responsible forSimaPro V8.1 and for purchasing the PhD license, and Ms. Linda Wegelin who is responsible for providing the Ecoinvent database for academically free access. Ultimately, the first author wishes to thank Eng. Ahmed Farghaly for his valuable support that helped in completing this research paper.

References

  1. Ali AAMM (2014a) Effect of Fuel Type on the life cycle of Egyptian cement industry: environmental impact assessment approach. The Asian Conference on Sustainability, Energy & the Environment. Japan, pp 637–651Google Scholar
  2. Ali AAMM, Negm AM, Bady MF, Ibrahim MGE (2014) Moving towards an Egyptian national life cycle inventory database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1551–1558. doi: 10.1007/s11367-014-0760-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali AAMM, Negm AM, Bady MF, Ibrahim MGE (2015) Environmental life cycle assessment of a residential building in Egypt: a Case Study. Procedia Technol 19:349–356. doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2015.02.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Fthenakis V (2013) Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy Build 64:73–89. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.04.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Askar EY, Sc M (2010) The cement industry in Egypt: Challenges and innovative Cleaner Production solutions. Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25–29, 1–34Google Scholar
  6. Bengoa X, Margni M (2002) IMPACT 2002+: User GuideGoogle Scholar
  7. Benhelal E, Zahedi G, Shamsaei E, Bahadori A (2013) Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. J Clean Prod 51:142–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blankendaal T, Schuur P, Voordijk H (2014) Reducing the environmental impact of concrete and asphalt: a scenario approach. J Clean Prod 66:27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown D, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2014) An overview of air emission intensities and environmental performance of grey cement manufacturing in Canada. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:1119–1131. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0714-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CPCB (2010). Pollution control law, series: PCI 2/02/2010, The environment (Protection) rules, 986; www.cpcb.nic.in/newItem_19_PollutionControlLaw.pdf. Accessed 06 Dec 2015
  11. Dakwale VA, Ralegaonkar RV, Mandavgane S (2011) Improving environmental performance of building through increased energy efficiency: a review. Sustain Cities Soc 4:8–11Google Scholar
  12. ECOINVENT (2015) Ecoinvent-center. Ecoinvent database v3.2; Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: 2010. www.ecoinvent.org/database/. Accessed 03 Nov 2014
  13. Egyptian Industrial Development Authority (EIDA) (2015a), website: http://www.ida.gov.eg/Arabic/Pages/IndustralMaps.aspx. Accessed 14 May 2014
  14. EPA (2011) United States Environmental Protection Agency. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  15. Feiz R, Ammenberg J, Baas L et al (2014) Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I: utilizing life-cycle assessment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement industry. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.083 Google Scholar
  16. Fiksel J, Bakshi BR, Baral A et al (2011) Comparative life cycle assessment of beneficial applications for scrap tires. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:19–35. doi: 10.1007/s10098-010-0289-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. García-Gusano D, Cabal H, Lechón Y (2015a) Long-term behaviour of CO2 emissions from cement production in Spain: scenario analysis using an energy optimisation model. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.027 Google Scholar
  18. García-Gusano D, Herrera I, Garraín D et al (2015b) Life cycle assessment of the Spanish cement industry: implementation of environmental-friendly solutions. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:59–73. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0757-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, et al (2009) Report I: Characterisation. ReCiPe A life cycle impact Assess method which comprises Harmon Category Indicators midpoint endpoint Level 132Google Scholar
  20. ISO (2006a) International Standard ISO 14040: Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Principles and Framework. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO (2006b) International Standard ISO 14044: Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang X, Hong C, Zheng Y et al (2015) To what extent can China’s near-term air pollution control policy protect air quality and human health ? A case study of the Pearl River Delta region. Environ Res Lett 10:104006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kantardgi I, Purvis MRI, Cherviakov L, Khudoshina M (2006) Approaches to the modelling of energy utilisation in product life cycles. Clean Technol Environ Policy 8:77–84. doi: 10.1007/s10098-006-0041-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li C, Nie Z, Cui S et al (2014) The life cycle inventory study of cement manufacture in China. J Clean Prod 72:204–211. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu Z, Zhang Q, Streets DG (2011) Sulfur dioxide and primary carbonaceous aerosol emissions in China and India 1996–2010:9839–9864. doi: 10.5194/acp-11-9839-2011 Google Scholar
  26. Ma D, Hu S, Zhu B, Jin Y (2011) Carbon substance flow analysis and CO2 emission scenario analysis for China. Clean Technol Environ Policy. doi: 10.1007/s10098-012-0452-y Google Scholar
  27. Margallo M, Aldaco R, Irabien Á (2014) Environmental management of bottom ash from municipal solid waste incineration based on a life cycle assessment approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:1319–1328. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0761-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mikulčić H, von Berg E, Vujanović M et al (2013a) Numerical analysis of cement calciner fuel efficiency and pollutant emissions. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15:489–499. doi: 10.1007/s10098-013-0607-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mikulčić H, Vujanović M, Duić N (2013b) Reducing the CO2 emissions in Croatian cement industry. Appl Energy 101:41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mittal ML, Sharma C, Singh R (2014) Decadal emission estimates of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitric oxide emissions from coal burning in electric power generation plants in India. Environ Monit Assess 186:6857–6866. doi: 10.1007/s10661-014-3894-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parker J, Cropper P, Shao L (2011) Using building simulation to evaluate low carbon refurbishment options for airport buildings. In: 12th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association, 14-16 Nov. Sydney, pp 554–561Google Scholar
  32. PRe Consultants (2015) Simapro Database Manual—Methods library. pp 3–48Google Scholar
  33. PSR (2015) Physician for social responsibility. http://www.psr.org/. Accessed 01 Dec 2015
  34. Qin X, Mohan T, El-Halwagi M et al (2006) Switchgrass as an alternate feedstock for power generation: an integrated environmental, energy and economic life-cycle assessment. Clean Technol Environ Policy 8:233–249. doi: 10.1007/s10098-006-0065-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramesh, R. Prakash, and K. K. Shukla (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Builduing 42:1592–1600Google Scholar
  36. Reddy MS, Venkataraman C (2002) Inventory of aerosol and sulphur dioxide emissions from India: I F Fossil fuel combustion. 36:677–697Google Scholar
  37. Sedláková A, Vilčeková S, Krídlová Burdová E (2015) Analysis of material solutions for design of construction details of foundation, wall and floor for energy and environmental impacts. Clean Technol Environ Policy. doi: 10.1007/s10098-015-0956-3 Google Scholar
  38. Senior CL, Tyree CA, Meeks ND et al (2015) Selenium Partitioning and Removal Across a Wet FGD Scrubber at a Coal-Fired Power Plant. Environ Sci Technol. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03722 Google Scholar
  39. Sogut MZ, Oktay Z, Hepbasil A (2009) Energetic and exergetic assessment of a trass mill process in a cement plant. Energy Convers Manag 50:2316–2323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UNEP (2011) United Nations Enviornment Programme: Reducing mercury emissions from coal combustion in the energy sector of the Russian Federation Prepared by: Scientific Research Institute for atmospheric air protection (SRI Atmosphere, JSC), Saint-Petersburg, Russia 16 November, 2011Google Scholar
  41. Villar A, Arribas JJ, Parrondo J (2012) Waste-to-energy technologies in continuous process industries. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14:29–39. doi: 10.1007/s10098-011-0385-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang S, Zhang Q, Martin RV et al (2015) Satellite measurements oversee China’s sulfur dioxide emission reductions from coal-fired power plants. Environ Res Lett 10:114015. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. WHO (2003) Health aspects of air pollution with particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide Report on a WHO Working Group; http://www.who.int/en/. Accessed 08 Dec 2015
  44. Zhang Y, Cao S-X, Shao S et al (2010) Aspen Plus-based simulation of a cement calciner and optimization analysis of air pollutants emission. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:459–468. doi: 10.1007/s10098-010-0328-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed AbdelMonteleb M. Ali
    • 1
  • Abdelazim M. Negm
    • 1
  • Mahmoud F. Bady
    • 1
  • Mona G. E. Ibrahim
    • 1
  • Masaaki Suzuki
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Engineering Department Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST) AlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations