Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sustainability assessment and challenges related
to non existing products
Catharina Hohenthal, VTT
Hannele Lehtinen, Pöyry
SUNPAP Workshop 5.10.2011
Sustainability objectives the SUNPAP project
1. Define the framework and indicators for assessing sustainability
of nanotechnology applications in paper industry.
2. Guide and support the focus of the project to a sustainable
direction.
3. Demonstrate sustainability aspects (environmental, social, and
economic) of the developed processes and value added paper
products.
The sustainability assessment is an iterative process, thus the
methodology develops during the project
2
Three dimensions of sustainability
3
Social
Environmental Economic
The sustainability assessment in SUNPAP consist of two phases;
1. Initial screening of nano-enhanced new products
and
2. Environmental, social and economic assessment
of new products.
The fact that the studied products do not yet exist sets its own challenges for
the assessment.
4
Main target of SUNPAP project:
Development and up-scaling of novel processes for the
energy efficient production of nanomaterials, namely
NFC, in pilot scale.
Screening phase indicator: Carbon Footprint
5
Carbon footprint of a product
= Amount of green house gases produced
along product’s life cycle
Base on life-cycle assessment
Carbon footprint screening
Amount of green house gases produced
along product’s life cycle
• Carbon footprint calculation procedure is based on life cycle
thinking and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology.
• Includes fossil greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2 and CH4).
• Results are reported as carbon dioxide equivalents.
7
Greenhouse gas Global Warming Potential CO2eq.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 25
Nitrous oxide (N20) 298
Internationally agreed
Carbon footprint
• Includes fossil greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2 and CH4).
• Results are reported as carbon dioxide equivalents.
• Can be calculated for products or companies.
• Comprises all stages of the life cycle i.e. from cradle to grave
• For B-to-B use can represent cradle-to-gate emissions
• Not included is the compensation of emissions (carbon offsetting)
Carbon footprint calculations take into account the entire life
cycle of magazines
NFC
production
Pulp
manufacturing
Chemicals
Production of NFC
Forestry
Electricity
11
Challenge: Figures based on estimates given by researchers both on
lab scale numbers and possible best case scenarios
When e.g coating components are replaced with NFC the
manufacturing of NFC is included in the life cycle of board
and compared to the reference case
Challenge: non existing product – assumptions needed
12
NFC
production
NFC
application
e.g Board Raw
material
production
13
100 %
95 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Reference case Board with NFC in coating
Change in carbon footprint of SBS board, kg CO2eq./ ton
Transports
NFC production
Harvesting
Energy purchased by boardmill
Chemicals and fillers
Board mill
14
100%
88%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reference board 380 gsm Board with NFC 345 gsm
Change in Carbon footprint of 100m2 board
Economic analysis
Screening phase concentrated on
• Production costs of NFC production
• Profitability of NFC applications
Economic assessment for new products will include analysis of
• Production costs, on more detailed level
• Gross value added
• Investments
Production costs of NFC production
NFC production costs
Variable costs
•Fibre
•Chemicals and other
raw materials
•Energy
Fixed costs
•Personnel
•Maintenance and
operational materials
•General overhead
Investment costs
Challenge:
Only variable costs
are known (on
laboratory scale)
NFC
production
Pulp
manufacturing
Chemicals
Electricity
Production of NFC – variable costs
Variable costs of NFC production, EUR/ton
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Case 1 Case 1
dream
Case 2 Case 2
dream
Case 3 Case 3
dream
Case 4 Case 4
dream
Energy
Chemicals and other raw
materials
Fibre
Profitability of NFC applications
Challenge:
• Too many open questions on NFC production and application
→NFC price could not be calculated
→Price of nano-enhanced product could not be estimated
• Price of material replaced by NFC and NFC manufacturing costs
are compared
NFC
production
NFC
application
Raw
material
production
Example case of NFC application: SBS board
Price of replaced material vs. NFC manufacturing costs
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
Replaced coating components NFC
Purchasing
price / 1 ton of
SBS board
Fixed, based on
certain assumptions
Variable, based on
laboratory tests
Manufacturing
costs / 1 ton of
SBS board
Conclusions
• Only carbon footprint was calculated -> energy consumption is one of the
obstacles of paper industry
• According to the environmental screening results of different NFC
preparations, case I and case 4 at lab scale are not feasible due to the
high amount of chemicals vs. energy used. Focus on amount of chemicals
and water use and naturally the energy consumption is of high importance.
• The preliminary screening results indicate that the NFC applications are
environmentally feasible at least according to these theoretical case
studies
21
Conclusions
• Variable costs of different NFC production methods were analysed in the
economic screening. Some of the methods had remarkably high chemical
or energy costs
• Manufacturing costs of NFC were compared to the purchasing price of the
materials replaced by NFC in the applications. In one case the NFC
manufacturing costs exceeded the purchasing price
• Deeper economic analysis will be made in the final sustainability
assessment for new products
• Rough qualitative analysis for social sustainability was made in the
screening phase. More extensive analysis will be implemented in the final
sustainability assessment for new products
• M4 conducts experiments to study exposure of workers during the
production and application of NFC. These results will be included
22
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION!
Acknowledgment
• The research leading to these results received funding from the
European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under
Grant Agreement No 228802.
