LCA case study. Part 2: environmental footprint and carbon tax of cradle-to-gate for composite and stainless steel I-beams

Purpose

Part 1 of this research investigated environmental footprint for the cradle-to-grave of a linear metre I-beam made from traditional and alternative materials which are stainless steel (316) and glass reinforced plastics (GRP). Results revealed that GRP generally produced less environmental footprint than stainless steel. The main contribution found in the cradle-to-gate caused by raw materials (90 %) and associated transportation (10 %). Certain impact categories of GRP were either equalled or higher than stainless steel I-beam including the climate change impact category. Therefore, part 2 of this research further investigates the ecological and economic hot spots of the cradle-to-gate of GRP I-beam and alternative supply chain scenarios. The potential carbon tax was also estimated under two different situations.

Methods

GRP and stainless steel (316) are used to assess the environmental footprint and the economic impact of 6,098 m I-beams as a production volume in practice. The World ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint methods generated the life cycle inventory, characteristic and single score results for the environmental footprint. The economic impact estimated based on a simple cost calculation associated with the cradle-to-gate including material, production and transportation costs. The ecological and economic hot spots were identified and formed 12 supply chain scenarios.

Results and discussion

Both identified hot spots came from raw materials that used in large quantities, consumed higher electricity and delivered by road and water transportation over long travel distances. The climate change impact category and the potential carbon tax values are improved under the scenarios that use a supplier from countries that generate electricity from less coal-based energy source and involve less transportation in delivering the raw materials.

Conclusions

Win–win and trade-off scenarios were revealed when comparing both impacts. The former scenario reduces material costs, the travel distances and using lower freight rate transportation that consumes less fuel such as shipping. The latter scenarios are often occurred by either attempting to reduce the environmental footprint from using less transportation but the raw material costs are suffered. Manufacturers may select the scenario based on their production constrains. Cradle-to-grave was discussed and shown the benefits in including steel recycling into the assessment which can equate the potential carbon tax of the stainless steel with some GRP I-beam scenarios. Future work can be enhanced by considering other factors in the practice of manufacturing system such as insurance cost and lead time.