1 / 25

Chapter 11: Environmental Impacts

Chapter 11: Environmental Impacts. Lecture 2: Life Cycle Analysis of Bio-based Composites. Learning Objectives. Introduce life cycle assessment Provide some life cycle data for bio-based building materials Compare with steel & concrete Compare composites vs. solid

garson
Download Presentation

Chapter 11: Environmental Impacts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 11:Environmental Impacts Lecture 2: Life Cycle Analysis of Bio-based Composites

  2. Learning Objectives • Introduce life cycle assessment • Provide some life cycle data for bio-based building materials • Compare with steel & concrete • Compare composites vs. solid • Put building materials in whole-house context

  3. What is LCA? • Life Cycle Analysis • AKA • Cradle-to-grave • Cradle-to-gate • Cradle-to-cradle • Well-to-wheel • The investigation and valuation of the environmental impacts of a given product over its lifecycle

  4. A Life Cycle Illustration

  5. Life Cycle Analysis Goal and Scope Definition Interpretation Inventory Analysis Impact Assessment

  6. CORRIM • Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials • Conduct LCA for building materials • All data in this presentation are from CORRIM • www.corrim.org

  7. Membership in CORRIM Research Institutions and Voting Board Members University of Washington Oregon State University University of Minnesota University of Idaho FORINTEK, Canada Virginia Tech North Carolina State University Purdue University University of Maine Penn State University State University of New York APA, The Engineered Wood Association Western Wood Products Association Composite Panel Association Research Foundation Washington State University Louisiana State University Mississippi State University

  8. Motivation • The environmental consequences forest management, product manufacturing, and construction are poorly understood • Need life-cycle data regarding wood and bio-based products http://www.ussi.ca/residential_steel.html This website claims that steel is ‘green’ because it doesn’t require cutting trees. Is it that simple?

  9. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis - for Wood Building Materials Forest Management (Regeneration) (Transportation) EMISSIONS Raw Material Acquisition(Harvest) EFFLUENTS (Transportation) MATERIALS SOLIDWASTES Product Manufacturing (Transportation) ENERGY OTHERRELEASES Building Construction WATER (Transportation) Use/Maintenance PRODUCTS (Transportation) COPRODUCTS Recycle/Waste Management (Transportation)

  10. System Boundaries Forest Resources: NW and SE(25-100+ years) Harvesting( < 1 Year) logs NW and SE Processing( < 1 Year) lumber SE and NW (green and dry) plywood NW and SE OSB SE Glulam, LVL, I-Joists Construction( < 1 Year) wood and steel Minneapolis (cold) wood and concrete Atlanta (warm) Use and Maintenance(40 – 100+ years) Disposal(< 1 Year) “Cradle” “Gate to Gate” “Grave”

  11. An Example of Life-Cycle Inventory Results 1.0 MSF 3/8-in. Basis Plywood Production

  12. 731% 454% 2% Bio-based Products are Green • Bio-based materials use less energy • Much less fossil-fuel energy than steel or concrete Floors: GWP per component

  13. Bio-based Products use Biomass Energy

  14. Composites vs. Solid? • More manufacturing energy • More efficient in other ways • More carbon storage More resin Some resin feedstock

  15. Composites are Efficient • Solid wood uses 105% more fiber • Composite I-joists (EWP) are engineered • More efficient use of fiber

  16. Bio-based Products Store Carbon • Many wood-based materials store more carbon than is released during their production • Composites store more carbon • Denser and contain resin

  17. New Scope - LCI of Whole Houses • Compare houses framed with wood versus concrete/steel • Houses are identical otherwise • Puts difference among materials in proper context

  18. Minneapolis Example – Wood vs. Steel Full Basement 2062 sq.ft. 2 Story

  19. AtlantaExample: Wood vs. Concrete 2153 sq.ft. 1 story On-Slab

  20. Summary - Minneapolis Building

  21. Summary - Atlanta Building

  22. Other Studies – Same Results • 1992 New Zealand study • Wood office blg 55% of energy/70% carbon versus concrete • Steel wall 4x energy of wood wall • 1992, 1993 Cdn studies • Wood 1/3 energy and CO2 versus steel and concrete • Wood consistently lower emissions and less energy

  23. Interpretation:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Redesign the house use less fossil-intensive products (bio-based is good!) reduce energy use (both active and passive) improve durability to increase useful life Improve the product greater use of biofuel engineered products for greater raw materials efficiency increase process efficiencies, especially in drying pollution control improvements increase product durability Reduce, reuse, and recycle demolition wastes

  24. Review Questions • Diagram the life cycle of a bio-based composite • Name an environment-related advantage and disadvantage of that product • How could the environmental impact of that product be reduced?

  25. The details: Corrim: WWW.CORRIM.ORGAthena: WWW.athenaSMI.caLMS: http://LMS.cfr.washington.eduUSLCI database: www.nrel.gov/lci

More Related