basf eco e foraug22 finalpresentation.ppt

7/31/2019 BASF Eco E ForAug22 FINALpresentation.ppt

1/43

Eco-Efficiency Analysis

101: How to Leverage this

Strategic Lifecycle Tool

Bruce UhlmanSenior Sustainability Specialist, BASF


2/43

What we ll learn today

n What is an Eco-Efficiency Analysisn What its used forn What it measuresn Three examples:

n Commercial wall systemsn Cladding systemsn

Concrete formulations


3/43

Eco-confusion

EmbodiedEnergy

Design for the Environment

Green

NaturalRecycled Content

Petroleum based

Bio-based

Compostable

Eco-friendly

EnvironmentalProductDeclarations(EPD)

WaterFootprint


4/43

Changing Course

Eco-EfficiencyDefinition coined in 1992 publication by WBCSD, Changing Course

Based on the concept of creating more goods and services while usingfewer resources and creating less waste and pollution

Delivering more with less


5/43

What is an Eco-Efficiency Analysis?

n Rigorous tool for assessing the relative sustainability ofproducts and processes on scientific, comprehensive,comparative basis

n Holistic assessment of economic and environmentalimpact over various lifecycle stagesn Raw material extractionn Energy productionn Manufacturen Use phasen End-of-life (recycle or disposal)

n Uses a defined customer benefit andspecific system boundary


6/43

What is an Eco-Efficiency Analysis

used for?n Balance economy and ecology (understand trade-offs)n Support strategic decision making

n Evaluate product portfolion Enhance R&D effortsn Enhance customer and stakeholder communication

n Comparison of multiple products or systemsn Economic and environmental advantages and

disadvantages of possible alternatives

n Holistic view of entire lifecycle prior to making a decision orwriting a specification

n Performance in applications i.e. painting 1 m2 of a wall


7/43

Is the Eco-Efficiency Analysis credible?

n Third-party validations/verifications:n Methodology:

nRhineland Technical Surveillance Association (TVRheinland)

n NSF International NSF Protocol P-352, Validation andVerification of Eco-Efficiency Analyses Part A

n Individual studiesn NSF International NSF Protocol P-352, Validation and

Verification of Eco-Efficiency Analyses Part Bn TV, PE International, DEKRA


8/43

What does an Eco-Efficiency Analysis

measure?

n Economic data (Total Cost of Ownership)n Raw material costsn Labor costsn Energy costsn Investment costsn Maintenance costsn Environmental health

and safety programscosts

n Illness and injury costsn Property protection and

warehousing costs

n Waste costsn Training costsn Other costs as

applicable


9/43


measure?

n 11 environmental impacts in 6 categories:Energy Raw Materials

Risk EmissionsToxicity Potential


10/43

Lifecycleenvironmentalimpactareas*

Cumulativeenergy utilizationplus remaining

energy content

Fossil andrenewableresources

Consump(onof

EnergyEmissions

Described bycategories- Air

- Water- Solid

Toxicity

Poten(al

Definition forhazardousmaterials used by

EU law

Maximumpossible hazardused

RiskPoten(al

Risk assessmentapproachBased on

publishedstatistical data

(e.g. insuranceassociations;

government)

Consump(onof

RawMaterials

Materials areweightedaccording to

reserves andglobal

consumption

LandUse

Index calculatedby assessmentcriteria and

impact factors


measure?


11/43


measure?


12/43

n Category weighting:n Societal factors

n Third-party market research andpublic opinion polls to determine the

value society places on reducing oneimpact category relative to others

n Relevance factorsn Unique for each study and based on

statistical data for each regionn Helps put into context the

significance of eachenvironmental impactn Example: what does the emission

(or energy consumption)contribute to total emissions (orenergy consumption) in the

region considered


measure?


13/43

Customerbenefit :

1 functionalunit for.

high eco-efficiency

0.0

1.0

2.00.01.02.0

Costs (normalized)

Envi

ronmentalImpact(normalized)

Alternative AAlternative BAlternative C

low eco-efficiency

The most eco-efficient

product has the lowest

combined environmental

impact and cost. Eco-

efficiency is measured from

the diagonal line.

Alternative B ismost eco-efficient.


measure?


14/43

Example study #1:

commercial wall systems

n Compare different systems forinsulating the exterior wall sampleof a commercial building:n 9-square-meter samplen One 0.6 x 1.2 meter windown R-value 20 ft2*h*F/(BTU*in)n 25-year lifespann

Wall assembly meetsrequirements of National BuildingCode of Canada (NBC) and sprayfoam meets the Canadianstandard for spray polyurethane:

CAN/ULC-S705.1


15/43

Example study #1:


nAlternatives studied:n WALLTITE Eco (Closed-cell spray-applied

polyurethane foam (SPF))

n Expandable polystyrene (EPS)n Mineral fiber boardn Extruded polystyrene (XPS CO2 blowing agent)n Extruded polystyrene (XPS HFC Blend blowing agent)

These alternatives were selected as they represent the most commonly availabletechnologies when selecting commercial building insulation systems; theyrepresent the majority of the market and reflect updates in technologies (e.g.blowing agents).


16/43

Example study #1:

commercial wall systemsBoundary conditions

Transport

Installation

ProductionProduction

Raw materialsacquisition

and transport

Insulation production

Steel &concrete

production

Membrane &

primerproduction

Masonry ties

Use

Buildinguse

Disposal

Disposal via

landfill

Removal ofinsulation

Grey boxes are not considered, since they are the same for all alternatives.


17/43

Example study #1:

commercial wall systemsClosed cell spray foam

Closed cell spray foam

5. Transition / Flashing membrane

4. Architectural masonry(not considered)

3. Masonry tie

1. Concrete block(not considered)

3. Masonry tie

2. Steel structure(not considered)

5. Transition / Flashingmembrane

6. Caulking (not considered)

For insulation alternatives other thanthe closed cell spray foam, the entirewall surface is covered with amembrane, and additional membraneis required around each masonry tie.

Otherwise the systems are identical.


18/43

Example study #1:


Lifecycle costs Table 6: Life cycle costs

For this study, WALLTITE Ecohas a significantly lower lifecycle cost thanthe other competing alternatives.


19/43

Example study #1:


Environmental impacts energy consumption


20/43

Example study #1:


Environmental impacts resource consumption


21/43

Example study #1:


Environmental impacts global warming potential


22/43

Example study #1:


Environmental fingerprint


23/43

Eco-Efficiency portfolio

Insulation of theexterior of 9 m2 wall

surface for acommercial building,with one 0.6 x 1.2 mwindow, an R-value of20 ft2*h*F/(BTU*in)over a period of 25yrs to meetrequirements such as

the National BuildingCode of Canada(CAN/ULC-S705.1)

For this study, WALLTITE Eco is clearly the most eco-efficient alternative.

Example study #1:



24/43

Example study #2: cladding systems

n Comparison between brick, stucco and Senergy EIFS*n Wall designs, maintenance schedules and all costs

supplied by RS Means

n Construction, use and disposal of 3,000-square-foot wallassembly, designed with steel stud framing andexterior-grade gypsum sheathingn Assembly was 30 long by 8-stories high, with

three windows per floor and a 12 span betweensupporting structures

nAll wall sections insulated to level consistent with LEEDEnergy and Atmosphere performance targets

n All claddings used fluid-applied air/water-resistivebarrier,

n Allowed direct comparison betweenmaterials of construction

*Proprietary Channelled Adhesive Design


25/43


n Energy use related to insulation not a factor in this studyn < U-0.077 per NBI Core Performance Guide Climate

Zones 1 6

n R-5 XPS ci + R-13 cavity for brick and stuccon 3 EPS continuous exterior insulation used for EIFS

n 50-year projected service lifen Based on Canadian Standards Association

S478-95 Durability of Buildings

n Modeled using published data** and real-worldobservations

n For disposal phase, all materials assumed to go tolandfill

**Long-term Performance of External Thermal Insulation Systems (ETICS), H. Knzel, H.M.Knzel, K. Sedlbauer, Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, Architectura 5 (1) 2006,

11-24


26/43


Energy consumption

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

EIFS Brick Stucco

MJ/CB

Transport 2

Maintenance

Transport 1

Insulation

Studs, Lintels

Veneer

Misc


27/43


Resource consumption

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

EIFS Brick Stucco

kg/(a*Miot)^1/2/CB

Transport 2

Maintenance

Transport 1

Insulation

Studs, Lintels

Veneer

Misc


28/43


Air

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

EIFS Brick Stucco

Acidification Pot.

Photochemical Ozone

Ozone Depletion Pot.

Global Warming Pot.


29/43


Water

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

EIFS Brick Stucco

Lcritic

alamountwater/CB

Transport 2

Maintenance

Transport 1

Insulation

Studs, Lintels

VeneerMisc


30/43


Senergy EIFS has lowest environmental impact in all 6 categories Key factor is assembly weight:

Brick: 46.0 pounds/ft2 Stucco: 17.8 pounds/ft2 EIFS: 6.2 pounds/ft2


31/43


Lifecycle cost 3,000-sf, 8-story wall


32/43


EIFS is more eco-efficient than brick or stuccoHigh brick lifecycle cost skews normalized data

EIFS compared with brick and stucco


33/43


Rescaled data with brick removedSimilar cost, different eco-footprintEIFS is more eco-efficient than stucco

0.7

1.0

1.3

0.71.01.3

costs (norm.)

environmentalburden(norm.)

EIFs

Brick

Stucco

5% significance

EIFS compared with stucco


34/43


n Material quantities were the main factor influencing eco-profilesn Steel and cement had the heaviest eco-profiles

n Cost differences consistent in the Construction, Use and Disposalphases

n Brick is clearly the most expensive choicen 12 span understates the relative performance of EIFS

n At larger spans, stucco and brick need much more steel than EIFSn Greater framing weight increases cost and environmental footprint

n Impact of weight on building and foundation outside study scopen Weight savings would favor EIFS (lighter alternative)

n Material consumption is directly correlated with environmental burdenn Design professionals concerned with sustainability should factor

weight reduction into their building designs


35/43

Example study #3:

concrete formulations

Concrete Plant

Cement

Aggregate

Quarry

Blast/mineCrushSeparate sizesStore/load/ship

Mine raw materialsHeat in kilnGrind with gypsumStore/load/ship

Cement

Production

Receive raw materialManufacture moleculesBlend ingredientsStore/load/ship

Chemical

Admixture

s

Reduced usage ofpotable water

Water

Separate andprocess

Store/load/ship

Recycled

Materials

Concrete analyses can beconducted on ready mixed, precast,

manufactured concrete products,paving, self-consolidating and

pervious concrete.


36/43

Example study #3:


n Compare reference ready-mix concrete to 4alternative concrete mixtures:n Fly ash 15%n Fly ash 40%n Slag 50%n Green SenseSM proprietary optimized-performance

concrete

n Customer benefit: production and placement ofone cubic yard of concrete


37/43

Example study #3:


n Green Sense optimized-performance concrete:n Supplementary cementitious and

non-cementitious materials, combined withengineered chemical admixtures

n Capitalizes on usable by-products typicallycharacterized as waste

n Strength, durability and operational benefits needed tokeep customers satisfied

n Economic and environmental benefits


38/43

Example study #3:


Environmental fingerprint

The four concrete alternatives are shown tobe progressively more environmentallypreferable in relation to the Reference Mix.

0.00

Energy consumption

Emissions

Toxicity potential

Risk potential

RM consumption

Use of area

Reference Mix

Fly Ash 15%

Fly Ash 40%

Slag 50%

Proprietary Formulation


39/43

Example study #3:



40/43

Example study #3:


0.5

1.0

1.50.5

Costs (normalized)

environ

mentalimpact(normalized)

ReferenceMixFly Ash 15%Fly Ash 40%Slag 50%Proprietary

Formula(on

1.5 1.0

The Green Senseproprietary concrete mixhas the lowest overallenvironmental burden andis the most economical toproduce.


41/43

Example study #3:


n Strategic decisions made based on this studyincluded:n Internet-based Eco-Efficiency manager application

createdn Provide external access to customizable reports

n Marketing to ready-mixed concrete plant owners andoperators, architects, project specifiers, tradeassociations, and both government and non-government organizations


42/43

Example study #3:


n Real-world application of Eco-Efficiency data!n Freedom Tower project in New York City required 38,000

cubic yards of concrete

nUsed Green Sensebased on concrete performanceprovided and environmentalresults from Eco-Efficiency analysis

n Project resulted in savings of*:n Over 30,000 gallons of

fresh watern 8 million kWh of energyn 12,000,000 pounds of

CO2 emissions

n Nearly 750,000 pounds offossil fuel *vs a typical concrete mix formulation


43/43

How can you use an

Eco-Efficiency Analysis?

n Designed to let YOU compareimpact of different products

and systemsn Holistic and science-based datan Results are transparentn Download reports from

NSF.org or construction.basf.us

basf eco e foraug22 finalpresentation.ppt

Documents