The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1524–1532 | Cite as

Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of a US industrial symbiosis




The industrial ecosystem identified in and around the Campbell Industrial Park in Honolulu County, Hawai’i involves 11 facilities exchanging water, materials, and energy across an industrial cluster. This paper highlights the advantages of this arrangement using life cycle assessment to determine the energy and environmental costs and benefits of the existing pattern of exchanges.


A consequential approach was used to evaluate each material substitution for four environmental impact categories: primary energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, acidification, and eutrophication. Each material exchange included avoided production and reduced use of virgin materials, any necessary pre-processing or transportation of local by-products, and avoided treatment or disposal of these by-products.

Results and discussion

All exchanges exhibited positive net savings across all environmental impact categories, with the exceptions of waste oil and tire-derived fuel burned as substitutes for coal. The greatest savings occur as a result of sharing steam between a combined cycle fuel oil-fired cogeneration plant and a nearby refinery. In total, the environmental savings realized by this industrial cluster are significant, equivalent to 25 % of the state’s policy goal for reducing the industrial component of GHG emissions over the next decade. The role of policy in supporting material and energy exchanges is also discussed as the central cluster of two power plants and two refineries share steam and water in part under regulatory requirements.


The results show environmental benefits of the sharing of by-product resources accrued on a life cycle basis, while for the local context, the reduction of imported fuels and materials helps to reduce the external dependency of Oahu’s remote island economy. The environmental benefits of materials exchanges are often ignored in energy policy, though, as in this case, they can represent considerable savings.


By-product exchange Environmental co-benefits Hawaii Industrial ecology Industrial symbiosis Life cycle assessment 


  1. Baas LW, Boons FA (2004) An industrial ecology project in practice: exploring the boundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems. J Clean Prod 12(8–10):1073–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13(5):687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boughton B, Horvath A (2004) Environmental assessment of used oil management methods. Environ Sci Technol 38(2):353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen YC, Liu TY, Yen JH, Li YH, Chiu CM, Lai YY, Wu TC (2011) Environmental synergies of Kaohsiung ESTP in Taiwan. Sustain Environ Res 21(3):203–208Google Scholar
  5. Chertow MR, Lombardi DR (2005) Quantifying economic and environmental benefits of co-located firms. Environ Sci Technol 39(17):6535–6541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chertow M, Miyata Y (2011) Assessing collective firm behavior: comparing industrial symbiosis with possible alternatives for individual companies in Oahu, HI. Bus Strat Environ 20(4):266–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Côté R, Cohen-Rosenthal E (1998) Designing eco-industrial parks: a synthesis of some experiences. J Clean Prod 6:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckelman MJ, Chertow MR (2009a) Quantifying life cycle environmental benefits from the reuse of industrial materials in Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 43(7):2550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckelman MJ, Chertow MR (2009b) Using material flow analysis to illuminate long-term waste management solutions in Oahu, HI, USA. J Ind Ecol 13(5):758–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckelman MJ, Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB (2008) Spatial assessment of net mercury emissions from the use of fluorescent bulbs. Environ Sci Technol 42(22):8564–8570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ecoinvent (2010) Ecoinvent database for life cycle analysis of emissions and materials, data vers. 2.2. Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, Dubendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekvall T, Weidema B (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiksel J (2003) Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environ Sci Technol 37(23):5330–5339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobsen NB (2006) Industrial symbiosis in Kalundborg, Denmark—a quantitative assessment of economic and environmental aspects. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):239–255Google Scholar
  15. Lin T-C, Lee C-Y, Liao W-T, Mi H-H, Chang S-S, Chang J-E, Chao C-C (2012) CO2 emissions from a steel mill and a petro-chemical industry. Aerosol Air Qual Res 12(6):1409–1420Google Scholar
  16. Maruyama N, Eckelman MJ (2009) Long-term trends of electric efficiencies in electricity generation in developing countries. Energy Policy 37(5):1678–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mattila T, Lehtoranta S, Sokka L, Melanen M, Nissinen A (2012) Methodological aspects of applying life cycle assessment to industrial symbioses. J Ind Ecol 16(1):51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. NETL (2007) Coal Power Plant Database. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Accessed 1 May 2013
  19. NREL (2012) U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Accessed 1 May 2013
  20. Shi H, Chertow M, Song Y (2010) Developing country experience with eco-industrial parks: a case study of the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area in China. J Clean Prod 18(3):191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siler-Evans K, Azevedo IL, Morgan MG (2012) Marginal emissions factors for the U.S. electricity system. Environ Sci Technol 46(9):4742–4748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sokka L, Lehtoranta S, Nissinen A, Melanen M (2011) Analyzing the environmental benefits of industrial symbiosis. J Ind Ecol 15(1):137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sousa J, Way G, Carlson D (2001) Cost benefit analysis and energy consumption of scrap tire management options. Beneficial Use of Recycled Materials in Transportation Applications. Air & Waste Management AssociationGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomassen M, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tian J, Guo Q, Chen Y, Li X, Shi H, Chen L (2013) Study on industrial metabolism of carbon in a Chinese fine chemical industrial park. Environ Sci Technol 47(2):1048–0156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. US EIA (2012) Electric power annual. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. US EPA (2009) AP-42, compilation of air pollutant emissions factors, 5th edn, revised, volume 1: Stationary and Point Sources. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. US EPA (2012) Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) 2012 v1.0. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. van Beers D, Corder G, Bossilkov A, van Berkel R (2007) Industrial symbiosis in the Australian minerals industry—the cases of Kwinana and Gladstone. J Ind Ecol 11(1):55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Berkel R, Fujita T, Hashimoto S, Fujii M (2009) Quantitative assessment of urban and industrial symbiosis in Kawasaki, Japan. Environ Sci Technol 43(5):1271–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weber C, Jaramillo P, Marriott J, Samaras C (2010) Life cycle assessment and grid electricity: what do we know and what can we know? Environ Sci Technol 44(6):1895–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Industrial EcologyYale School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations