Integrating environmental and economic life cycle analysis in product development: a material selection case study
- 1.3k Downloads
Achieving sustainability by rethinking products, services and strategies is an enormous challenge currently laid upon the economic sector, in which materials selection plays a critical role. In this context, the present work describes an environmental and economic life cycle analysis of a structural product, comparing two possible material alternatives. The product chosen is a storage tank, presently manufactured in stainless steel (SST) or in a glass fibre reinforced polymer composite (CST). The overall goal of the study is to identify environmental and economic strong and weak points related to the life cycle of the two material alternatives. The consequential win–win or trade-off situations will be identified via a life cycle assessment/life cycle costing (LCA/LCC) integrated model.
The LCA/LCC integrated model used consists in applying the LCA methodology to the product system, incorporating, in parallel, its results into the LCC study, namely those of the life cycle inventory and the life cycle impact assessment.
Results and discussion
In both the SST and CST systems, the most significant life cycle phase is the raw materials production, in which the most significant environmental burdens correspond to the Fossil fuels and Respiratory inorganics categories. The LCA/LCC integrated analysis shows that the CST has globally a preferable environmental and economic profile, as its impacts are lower than those of the SST in all life cycle stages. Both the internal and external costs are lower, the former resulting mainly from the composite material being significantly less expensive than stainless steel. This therefore represents a full win–win situation. As a consequence, the study clearly indicates that using a thermoset composite material to manufacture storage tanks is environmentally and economically desirable. However, it was also evident that the environmental performance of the CST could be improved by altering its end-of-life stage.
The results of the present work provide enlightening insights into the synergies between the environmental and the economic performance of a structural product made with alternative materials. Furthermore, they provide conclusive evidence to support the integration of environmental and economic life cycle analysis in the product development processes of a manufacturing company or, in some cases, even in its procurement practices.
KeywordsComposite materials Externalities Life cycle assessment Life cycle costing Life cycle thinking Product development Stainless steel Storage tank
- Ashby MF (2011) Materials selection in mechanical design, 4th ed. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
- Ashby MF, Jones DRH (1996) Engineering materials 1: an introduction to their properties and applications, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
- Bhardwaj V (2001) Tech brief–National Drinking Water Clearinghouse—Reservoirs, towers, and tanks drinking water storage facilities. Morgantown, National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (West Virginia University)Google Scholar
- BUWAL 250 database 1996. Swiss Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Ciroth A, Huppes G, Klöpffer W et al (2008) Environmental life cycle costing, 1st edn. CRC Press, Publishing House Taylor and Francis, SETAC Press, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
- Ecoinvent database 2007. The Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Environment Agency 2011. Report on 2010 EU emissions trading system emissions data. Report-GEHO1111BVEC-E-E, UKGoogle Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle assessment. Methodology report, 3rd edn. PRé consultants B. V, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
- IDEMAT 2001 inventory data of materials (2001) Faculty of design. Engineering and production. Delft University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006) ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. ISO 14000 International Standards CompendiumGoogle Scholar
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006) ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. ISO 14000 International Standards CompendiumGoogle Scholar
- Kicherer A, Schaltegger S, Tschochohei H, Pozo BF (2007) Eco-efficiency: combining life cycle assessment and life cycle costs via normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:537–543Google Scholar
- MATLAB 7.10 (2010) Software package MATLAB. The MathWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
- Mazumdar SK (2002) Composites manufacturing: materials, product, and process engineering. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Norris GA (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:118–120Google Scholar
- Nunes JP, Bernardo CA, Marques AT (2003) Materiais Compósitos. In: Fortes MA, Ferreira PJ (eds) Materiais 2000. IST Press, Lisboa, pp 175–189Google Scholar
- Point Carbon (2011) Volume of carbon traded in 2011 grew 19 %, bucking downturn. http://www.pointcarbon.com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1714530. Accessed 4 May 2012
- SimaPro 7.3 (2011). PRé consultants B.V., The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Swarr T, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W et al (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice, 1st edn. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Brundtland Report, Our Common FutureGoogle Scholar
- Watkiss P, Holland M (2000) Benefits table database: estimates of the marginal external costs of air pollution in Europe. BeTa Version E1.02a. Created for European Commission DG Environment by NetcenGoogle Scholar
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2010) Vision 2050, The new agenda for businessGoogle Scholar