ik kim and tak hur konkuk university, korea an attempt to measuring green productivity 2 nd apo...
TRANSCRIPT
Ik Kim and Tak Hur
Konkuk University, Korea
An Attempt to MeasuringGreen Productivity
2nd APO World Conference on Green Productivity 9-11 December 2002. Edsa Shangri-la, Manila, Philippines
Eco-efficiency
recognized as “one of the primary way in which business can contribute to the concept of sustainable development”.
Countries or companies engaging in the eco-efficiency revolution will become stronger in international competitiveness.
This recognition led to the development of Green Productivity (GP) program of the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) in 1996.
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
Measurement of GP is important in order to
evaluate the GP performance of a company or product.
Needs for GP Indicators which analyze both
environmental and economic aspects in an integrated
fashion.
Green Productivity (GP)
A strategy for enhancing productivity and environmental
performance for overall socio-economic development
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
The measurement framework of GP is discussed.
GP Indicators ;
GP Portfolio
A case study of polystyrene(PS) production system of a Korean company is provided to illustrate the applicability of the GP indicators.
In this study
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
GP Index
GP Ratio
Productivity;
- Conventional Concept; the ratio of output to input
- Recently; the efficiency with which outputs are produced
GP is in line with Eco-efficiency !!!
- Total productivity = Total output / Total input
- Partial productivity = Total output / Partial input
GP = Productivity / Environmental Impacts
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
What to measure?How to measure?
- global level - national level - sectoral level - company level - factory level - each product level - material level - process level
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. ConclusionsGP Measurement
• production rate
- total no. of products/time
- total mass of products/time
• mass of products/mass of raw materials
• price/cost
• profit/cost
• total sales/year
• total profit/year
• return of investment/year
Productivity at product level
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
Green (denominator)
• environmental impact (ex) ecoindicator,…
• LC(CO2)• LC(energy)• LC(water consumption)• total material consumption• total material intensity• total energy consumption• total energy intensity• land use• ecological footprint
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
SP : Selling Price LCC : Life Cycle Cost EI : Environmental Impact.
- The economic value created from the input of life cycle cost divided by environmental impact
GP Index = Productivity/Environmental Impact
=SP($) / LCC($)
EI
- To measure and compare the level of GP for a product or service with currently competing equivalent products or services
GP Index
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
GP Ratio
- GP ratio is not defined as the ratio of the GP indices of the existing and new systems.
- GP ratio is designed for internal managerial decision- making, considering both costs or profits over time and environmental impacts.
- If GP is larger than one, a new system is better than the existing one from the perspective of GP.
cur
curcur
alt
altalt
EIPCSP
EIPCSP
RatioGP/
/
alt
cur
altcur
curalt
EI
EI
PCSP
PCSP
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
Green Productivity Portfolio;
The ratio of environmental impact between the current
and alternative is plotted against the ratio of the
productivity between the current and alternative.
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
altcur
curalt
PCSP
PCSPRatio of Productivity =
alt
cur
EI
EIRatio of Env. Impact =
GP Portfolio
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
Ratio of Productivity
Rat
io o
fE
nv.
Im
pact
1.0
1.0
I
III
II
IV; Current Process
E
P
I
II
III
IV
: Environmental Performance
: Productivity
; E (good), P(good)
; E (good), P(poor)
; E(poor), P (poor)
; E(poor), P(good)
1. Life Cycle Assessment
2. Total Cost Assessment
3. GP Indicators
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
III. Case Study
1. Life Cycle Assessment
Goal of this study understand the environmental aspects of the PS production
in company A and identify the improvement opportunities. assist decision-making between the improvement
alternatives.
Scope of this study System boundaries
- from crude oil extraction to PS resin production Functional unit (Reference flow)
- 1ton of PS product
1.1 Goal and Scope Definition
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
1.2 Life Cycle Inventory Analysis
Polymerization unit
Storage&packaging unit
Pelletization unit
Devolation unit
Coal
Gas
Etc.
Wood
Water
Crude oil
PW
CN
CA
Stm
Elec
PE
WWT
SM
Pap
System boundary
PS
Co-product
Raw Material Extraction toGate Gate to Gate Gate to User to Disposal
•SM(Styrene monomer), Elec(Electricity), Stm(Steam), PW(Process water), CA(Compressed air), CN(Compressed nitrogen), PE(Polyethylene), Pap(Paper)
waste
water emission
air emission
Preparing for data collection
Data collection boundary
Unit process - raw material unit - polymerization unit - devolation unit - pelletization unit - storage & packaging
Drawing up process tree
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA)IV. Conclusions
1.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment
according to the framework of ISO 14042 in order to identify
significant environmental issues.
LCIA methodology
- involves eight impact categories defined in the scope
definition.
- use the methodology developed from the Korean national
LCA project.
• normalization reference
• weighting factor
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA)IV. Conclusions
1.4 LCA results and Discussion
Substanceraw
materialpolymer-ization
divolation pelletizingstorage&package
total(kg)
CO2 3.15E+03 1.32E+01 3.54E+01 1.13E+01 4.18E+01 3.25E+03NOx 6.84E+00 3.01E-02 7.77E-02 2.66E-02 7.73E-02 7.05E+00SOx 8.55E+00 5.70E-02 1.40E-01 4.78E-02 8.06E-02 8.88E+00CH4 8.01E-01 8.99E-03 2.57E-02 9.07E-03 1.81E-02 8.63E-01COD 1.43E-02 2.62E-05 7.50E-05 2.65E-05 1.74E-03 1.62E-02N-tot 5.32E-03 2.14E-08 3.91E-08 2.90E-09 2.52E-06 5.32E-03
SS 1.61E-02 7.00E-08 1.41E-07 1.84E-09 0.00E+00 1.61E-02ash 6.50E+00 1.95E-01 5.56E-01 1.96E-01 2.78E-01 7.73E+00
sludge 1.35E+00 4.45E-04 1.08E-03 3.40E-04 2.67E-03 1.35E+00
Airemission
Wateremission
Waste
CO2 96.87% 0.41% 1.09% 0.35% 1.29% 100.00%NOx 97.00% 0.43% 1.10% 0.38% 1.10% 100.00%SOx 96.34% 0.64% 1.58% 0.54% 0.91% 100.00%CH4 92.83% 1.04% 2.98% 1.05% 2.10% 100.00%COD 88.44% 0.16% 0.46% 0.16% 10.77% 100.00%N-tot 99.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 100.00%
SS 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%ash 84.14% 2.52% 7.20% 2.54% 3.60% 100.00%
sludge 99.67% 0.03% 0.08% 0.03% 0.20% 100.00%
Airemission
Wateremission
Waste
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA) IV. Conclusions
LCI results (unit process)
For most emissions, the contribution of raw materials are much greater than the contributions of other unit process.
Ranking of each unit process
Substanceraw
materialpolymerization
unitdivolation
unitpelletizing
unit
storage&package
unitCO2 A E E E ENOx A E E E ESOx A E E E ECH4 A E D E ECOD A E E E CN-tot A E E E E
SS A E E E Eash A D D D D
sludge A E E E E
Wateremission
Waste
Airemission
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA)IV. Conclusions
Ranking Criteria ▪ A : contribution >50% ▪ B : 25% < contribution < 50% ▪ C : 10% < contribution < 25% ▪ D : 2.5%< contribution < 10% ▪ E : contribution < 2.5%
Characterized value
Normalization reference
Normalized value
Weighting factor
Weighted value
RD 2.32E+04 1.87E+04 1.24E+00 2.42E-01 3.00E-01
GW 2.52E+06 5.66E+06 4.45E-01 2.11E-01 9.39E-02
OD 4.54E-02 8.26E+01 5.50E-04 1.72E-01 9.45E-05
AC 8.86E+03 5.64E+04 1.57E-01 6.40E-02 1.01E-02
EU 7.01E-02 8.90E+03 7.88E-02 6.00E-02 4.73E-03
POC 5.71E+02 7.37E+03 7.75E-02 4.70E-02 3.64E-03
HT 1.09E+04 6.64E+05 1.64E-02 1.05E-01 1.72E-03
ET 4.54E+03 7.49E+04 6.06E-02 9.90E-02 6.00E-03
Total 4.20E-01
Resource depletion and global warming were the two dominant impact categories.
LCIA results
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA) IV. Conclusions
99.4 97.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
raw material polymerization divolation pelletizing storage&package
Con
trib
utio
n(%
)
RD GW
The unit process of the raw material production was identified as the biggest source for resource depletion and global warming.
LCIA results(by unit process)
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA) IV. Conclusions
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA) IV. Conclusions
The LCA Study
Reduce the environmental impacts associated with the
raw materials(SM)
Alternative 1Selection of the raw materials with the lowest environmental impact
Alternative 2Reduction of the amount of the raw materials by using a new agitation process (Baffle equipment)
Alternative 3 Alternative 1 + Alternative 2
Baffle equipment is a mixing system which is expected
to enhance the mixing efficiency by minimizing the dead
volume in the reactor.
Alternative 2
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA) IV. Conclusions
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA) IV. Conclusions
0.9
0.95
1
current alternative
Production yield(Product/Raw Material)
Production yield(Product/Raw Material)
100
110
120
current alternativekwh
Electricity requiredElectricity required
Alternative 2
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (LCA) IV. Conclusions
3.80E-01
4.00E-01
4.20E-01
4.40E-01
Current Alt1 Alt2 Alt3
Eco-indicator ValuesEco-indicator Values
Cost type and categories
Cost type Cost category
Conventional costCapital equipment cost, material purchasing cost, labor cost, utilities cost, energy cost
Hidden cost Waste management cost, regulatory compliance cost, maintenance cost
Contingent cost Remediation cost, property damage cost, personal injury cost, etc.
Image cost Relationship with staff, workers and suppliers etc.
Conventional and hidden costs (Types I and II) were addressed throughout the entire life cycle of a product.
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA)IV. Conclusions
2. Total Cost Assessment2.1. Life Cycle Costing(LCC)
Cost type Cost category Cost factor(%)
Unit cost ($/ton)
Total cost (ton)
Life cycle cost($)
Capital Cost
Conventional costFactory construction
Process change
Sub-total
Operating Cost
Conventional cost
Purchasing cost
SM 100
Chemical 100
Storage cost
Energy
electricity 100 unit:kWh
LNG 100
Steam 100
Naphtha 100
Utility
CW 100
DW 100
FW 100
IA 100
N2 100
Production Labor
Hidden cost
Waste management
Waste water 100
Waste treatment 100
Regulatory compliance
Compensation 23allocated to
PSBase fee 23
Maintenance cost 23
Sub-total 7.49E+02
Total 749
Life Cycle Cost of PS 1 ton
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA) IV. Conclusions
TCA was conducted to assess if a new baffle process (Alternative 2) is better than the existing process from the economic perspective.
Financial calculation - The present costs incorporate the concept of decreasing monetary value over lifetime of the new baffle process. - Use the compound interest table to calculate the present cost of an annuity over ten years. (5% of interest rate : 7.72 of conversion factor)
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA)IV. Conclusions2.2. Total Cost Assessment
Cost type Cost category Current Alternative 2Capital Cost
Conventional costFactory construction
Process change
Sub-total
Operating Cost
Conventional cost
Purchasing costSM
Chemical
Storage cost
Energy
electricity
LNG
Steam
Naphtha
Utility
CW
DW
FW
IA
N2
Production Labor
Hidden cost
Waste management
Waste water
Waste treatment
Regulatory compliance
Compensation
Base fee
Maintenance cost
Sub-total 7.49E+02 7.44E+02
Sub-total(10yr) 5,780 5,750
Total 5,780 5,750
Present Costs
30USD/PS 1ton
Net present value
“Recommend to implement
baffle process”
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA)IV. Conclusions
The introduction of a new baffle equipment (alternative 2) is
expected to increase the profit by 21% over 10 years.
However, TCA results only consider the costs but do not
consider the environmental aspects, even if both direct and
indirect environmental costs are considered.
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA)IV. Conclusions
TCA Results
3.1. GP Index
This index value can be used to estimate the GP of a product
and compare it with other competing equivalent products.
SP/LCC
EI
($890/$749)
4.20E-01GP Index = = = 2.83
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA)IV. Conclusions
3. GP Indicators
Since GP ratio is larger than one, a new system is better than the existing one from the perspective of GP. GP ratio can be applied to select one alternative out of a list of contenders in order to improve GP of the existing systems.
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA)IV. Conclusions3.2. GP Ratio
alt
cur
altcur
curalt
EI
EI
PCSP
PCSP RatioGP
Env. Impact
Ratio
Productivity
RatioGP Ratio
Alternative 1 1.039 1.000 1.039
Alternative 2 1.024 1.005 1.030
Alternative 3 1.066 1.005 1.070
3.3 GP Portfolio
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case Study (TCA)IV. Conclusions
Ratio of Productivity
Rat
io o
fE
nv.
Im
pact
1.0
III
II
IV
I-1I-2
1.01.006
1.020
1.040
: Current system
: Alt 1 (SM change)
: Alt 2 (Baffle Equipment)
: Alt 2’ (after 10yrs)
: Alt 3 (Alt 1 + Alt 2)
: Alt 3’ (after 10yrs)
1.005
1.066
IV. Conclusions
The measurement framework of GP was discussed.
- GP Indicators (GP Index & GP Ratio) and GP Portfolio analyze both the environmental and economic factors in an integrated fashion.
The LCA results show that the environmental impacts of the PS production are improved through the reduction of the amount of the raw materials.
The TCA results show that the solution to the environmental
problem is not costly but beneficial.
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions
GP index can be used for the measurement of GP and GP ratio
can be used for its improvement.
GP Portfolio makes it easy to see the effect of alternatives from
both environmental and economic perspectives.
Effort to develop, apply and promote GP or Eco-efficiency will
encourage business to become more competitive, more innovative
and more environmentally responsible as well as contribute much
toward the sustainability of our society.
I. IntroductionII. Green Productivity IndicatorIII. Case StudyIV. Conclusions