A method for allocation according to the economic behaviour in the EU-ETS for by-products used in cement industry

LCA OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Abstract

Purpose

The most efficient way to reduce the environmental impact of cement production is to replace Portland cement with alternative cementitious materials. These are most often industrial waste such as blast-furnace slags (GBFS) and coal combustion fly ashes (FA). However, a recent European directive no longer considers these products as waste but as by-products. Therefore, the impact of their production has to be considered. Within this new framework, this study develops an evaluation method of their environmental impacts.

Method

This paper presents pre-existing methods and underlines their limits. Through our evaluation of these methods, it has become clear that the allocation procedure is necessary; however, results depend highly on the chosen allocation procedure. This study presents a new allocation method, based on the fact that both cement and the alternative materials, GBFS and FA, are produced by energy-intensive industries (cement iron and coal) which are all subjected to the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System. In this carbon trading system, it is economically beneficial for industries to reduce their environmental impact, like for when, by example, by-products from one industry are used as alternative ‘green’ material by another industry. Our allocation coefficient is calculated so that the economic gains and losses are the same for all of the industries involved in these exchanges and provides the overall environmental benefit of the exchanges.

Results and discussion

The discussion shows that whilst this method has much in common with other allocation methods, it is more accurate as it allocates the environmental costs fairly over the industries involved and is more robust because of its constant value. One of its limits is that it cannot be used for life cycle inventories; however, we test the possibility of choosing a coefficient from one impact category and applying it to all the others.

Conclusion

Lastly, the technical term of the equation this paper presents could be employed for consequential life cycle assessment, to calculate the most environmental uses by-products could be put to.

Keywords

Allocation By-products Cement EU-ETS LCA Mineral additions 

References

  1. AFNOR, French Normalisation Organisation (2004) NF EN 206-1 Concrete—part I: specification, performance, production and conformity. Department of Standards Malaysia, SelangorGoogle Scholar
  2. Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R (2007) Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build Environ 42:391–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asokan P, Osamani M, Price ADF (2009) Assessing the recycling potential of glass fibre reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites. J Clean Prod 17:821–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:480–487Google Scholar
  5. Babbitt CW, Lindner AS (2008) A life cycle comparison of disposal and beneficial use of coal combustion products in Florida. Part 1: methodology and inventory of materials, energy and emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbosa R, Lapa N, Lopes H, Gulyurtlu I, Mendes B (2011) Stabilization/solidification of fly ashes and concrete production from bottom and circulating ashes produced in a power plant working under mono and co-combustion conditions. Waste Manag 31:2009–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basset-Mens C, van der Werf HMG (2005) Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benetto E, Rousseaux P, Blondin J (2004) Life cycle assessment of coal by-products based electric power production scenarios. Fuel 83:957–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan WWJ, Wu CML (2000) Durability of concrete with high cement replacement. Cem Concr Res 30:865–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang N-B, Wang HB, Huang WL, Lin KS (1999) The assessment of reuse potential for municipal solid waste and refused derived fuel incineration ashes. Resour Conserv Recycl 25:255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen C, Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A, Ventura A (2010) LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: an application to mineral additions in concrete. Res Cons Recycl 54:1231–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen A, Lin W-T, Huang R (2011) Application of rock wool waste in cement-based composites. Mater Design 32:635–642Google Scholar
  13. Damtoft J, Lukasik J, Herfort D, Sorrentino D, Gartner E (2008) Sustainable development and climate change initiatives. Cem Concr Res 38:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ECRA, European Cement Research Academy, [on-line], Carbon Capture Technology: ECRA's approach towards CCS; Communication Bulletin, 2009. Available from http://www.ecra-online.org/fileadmin/redaktion/files/pdf/ECRA_CCS_Communication_Bulletin.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2011
  15. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Escalante-García JI, Magallanes-Rivera RX, Gorokhovsky A (2009) Waste gypsum–blast furnace slag cement in mortars with granulated slag and silica sand as aggregates. Constr Build Mater 23:2851–2855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Union (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council on waste and repealing certain directives. Official journal of the European Union, 22.11.2008, L312: 3–30Google Scholar
  18. European Union (2009) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European parliament and of the council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community. Official Journal of the European Union, 23.04.2009, L 140: 63–87Google Scholar
  19. Ewais EMM, Khalil NM, Amin MS, Ahmed YMZ, Barakat MA (2009) Utilization of aluminum sludge and aluminum slag (dross) for the manufacture of calcium aluminate cement. Ceram Int 35:3381–3388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fava JA (2006) Will the next 10 years be as productive in advancing life cycle approaches as the last 15 years? Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flower DJM, Sanjayan JG (2007) Greenhouse gas emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:282–288Google Scholar
  22. Frıas M, Rodrıguez C (2008) Effect of incorporating ferroalloy industry wastes as complementary cementing materials on the properties of blended cement matrices. Cem Concr Comp 30:212–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frichknecht R (2000) Allocation in life cycle inventory analysis for joint production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedlingstein P, Houghton RA, Marland G, Hackler J, Boden TA, Conway TJ, Canadell JG, Raupach MR, Ciais P, Le Quéré C (2010) Uptake on CO2 emissions. Nat Geosci 3:811–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gartner E (2004) Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cem Concr Res 34:1489–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goedkoop M, Oele M (2004) Simapro database manual. Methods library. Pre consultants BV, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  27. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, vanDuin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  28. Habert G, Roussel N (2009) Study of two concrete mix-design strategies to reach carbon mitigation objectives. Cem Concr Comp 31:397–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Habert G, Billard C, Rossi P, Chen C, Roussel N (2010) Cement production technology improvement compared to factor 4 objectives. Cem Concr Res 40:820–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heijungs R (1994) A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecol Econ 10:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (1998) A special view on the nature of the allocation problem. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and ‘What if’ scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27:997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17:668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework; ISO 14040. International Standardisation OrganisationGoogle Scholar
  35. Karstensen KH (2008) Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns. Chemosphere 70:543–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kawai K, Sugiyama T, Kobayashi K, Sano S (2005) Inventory data and case studies for environmental performance evaluation of concrete structure construction. J Adv Concr Techno 3:435–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kellenberger D, Althaus H-J (2003) Life cycle inventories of building products. Final report Ecoinvent, EMPA Dübendorf, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle InventoriesGoogle Scholar
  38. Kourounis S, Tsivilis S, Tsakiridis PE, Papadimitriou GD, Tsibouki Z (2007) Properties and hydration of blended cements with steelmaking slag. Cem Concr Res 37:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuryatnyk T, Chabannet M, Ambroise J, Pera J (2010) Leaching behaviour of mixtures containing plaster of Paris and calcium sulphoaluminate clinker. Cem Concr Res 40:1149–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee K-M, Park P-J (2005) Estimation of the environmental credit for the recycling of granulated blast furnace slag based on LCA. Res Cons Recycl 44:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lundie S, Ciroth A, Huppes G (2007) Inventory methods in LCA: towards consistency and improvement. Final report. UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  42. Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2008) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osborne GJ (1999) Durability of Portland blast-furnace slag cement concrete. Cem Concr Comp 21:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parrott L (2002) Cement, Concrete and Sustainability. A report on the progress of the UK cement and concrete industry towards sustainability. Technical report, British Cement AssociationGoogle Scholar
  45. Pera J, Amrouz A (1998) Development of highly reactive metakaolin from paper sludge. Adv Ceram Bas Mater 7:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pera J, Boumaza R, Ambroise J (1997) Development of a pozzolanic pigment from red mud. Cem Concr Res 27:1513–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pereira-de-Oliveira LA, Castro-Gomes JP, Santos PMS (2012) The potential pozzolanic activity of glass and red-clay ceramic waste as cement mortars components. Constr Build Mater 31:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part I: goals and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider M, Romer M, Tschudin M, Bolio H (2011) Sustainable cement production—present and future. Cem Concr Res 41:642–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schuurmans A, Rouwette R, Vonk N, Broers JW, Rijnsburger HA, Pietersen HS (2005) LCA of finer sand in concrete. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheng G, Zhai J, Li Q, Li F (2007) Utilization of fly ash coming from a CFBC boiler co-firing coal and petroleum coke in Portland cement. Fuel 86:2625–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shi C, Zheng K (2007) A review on the use of waste glasses in the production of cement and concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:234–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shi C, Meyer C, Behnood A (2008) Utilization of copper slag in cement and concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:1115–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shinzato MC, Hypolito R (2005) Solid waste from aluminum recycling process: characterization and reuse of its economically valuable constituents. Waste Manag 25:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sisomphon K, Franke L (2007) Carbonation rates of concretes containing high volume of pozzolanic materials. Cem Concr Res 37:1647–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teller P, Denis S, Renzoni R, Germain A, Delaisse P, d'Inverno H (2000) Use of LCI for the decision-making of a Belgian cement producer: a common methodology for accounting CO2 emissions related to the cement life cycle. 8th LCA Case Studies Symposium SETAC-EuropeGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tillman A-M, Ekvall T, Baumann H, Rydberg T (1994) Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 2:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toledo Filho RD, Scrivener K, England GL, Ghavami K (2000) Durability of alkali-sensitive sisal and coconut fibres in cement mortar composites. Cem Concr Comp 22:127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turgut P (2007) Cement composites with limestone dust and different grades of wood sawdust. Build Environ 42:3801–3807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. UNSTATS (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions by sector (absolute values). United Nation Statistical Division, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Weidema BP (2001) Avoiding co-product allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xing S, Xu Z, Jun G (2008) Inventory analysis of LCA on steel- and concrete-construction office buildings. Energy Build 40:1188–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yi Z-L, Sun H-H, Wei X-Q, Li C (2009) Iron ore tailings used for the preparation of cementitious material by compound thermal activation. Inter J Min Met Mater 16:355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ziegler F, Hansson PA (2003) Emissions from fuel combustion in Swedish cod fishery. J Clean Prod 11:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IFSTTAR, Materials DepartmentUniversité Paris-EstZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations