The Experts below are selected from a list of 65550 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Christian Cristofari - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
building integrated solar thermal system with without Phase change material life cycle assessment based on recipe usetox and ecological footprint
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Chr Lamnatou, Fabrice Motte, Gilles Notton, Daniel Chemisana, Christian CristofariAbstract:Abstract The present study assesses the environmental profile of a building-integrated solar thermal system that has been developed and tested in France. The investigation is based on life-cycle assessment according to ReCiPe, USEtox and Ecological footprint. Two configurations (for the solar collector) have been examined: 1) Without Phase change material (using only rock wool as insulation) and 2) With Phase change material (myristic acid) and rock wool. The main goal is the evaluation of the effect of the Phase change material on the environmental profile of the solar thermal system. Both cases (with/without Phase change material) have been studied based on the Mediterranean climatic conditions of Ajaccio (France). The results, according to ReCiPe midpoint (with characterization) demonstrate that the tubes (copper), the aluminium components (absorber, casing, gutter) and the Phase change material are responsible for the highest impacts in terms of the material Manufacturing Phase of the collectors. With respect to ReCiPe/endpoint/single-score life-cycle results (scenarios: with/without PCM; with/without recycling; including the gutter), the values vary from 0.014 to 0.020 Pts/kWh. The configuration with Phase change material presents 0.003 Pts/kWh higher impact (in comparison to the option without Phase change material). Recycling offers an impact reduction of 0.003 Pts/kWh (for both configurations with/without Phase change material). In addition, results according to USEtox (in terms of human toxicity and ecotoxicity) and Ecological footprint (with respect to the impact categories of carbon dioxide, nuclear and land occupation) are presented and discussed.
-
concentrating photovoltaic thermal system with thermal and electricity storage co2 eq emissions and multiple environmental indicators
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Chr Lamnatou, Daniel Chemisana, Christian Cristofari, Brice Lecoeuvre, Jeanlouis CanalettiAbstract:Abstract The present article examines the environmental profile of a concentrating photovoltaic/thermal system with thermal and electricity storage. The system has been developed and experimentally tested at the University of Corsica, in France, and it combines non-concentrating photovoltaic modules with concentrating solar thermal. The study is based on life-cycle assessment according to global warming potential, cumulative energy demand, ReCiPe, Ecological footprint and USEtox. The results (Phase of material Manufacturing; scenario «without recycling») demonstrate that based on global warming potential, cumulative energy demand, most of the midpoint categories of ReCiPe, ReCiPe endpoint single-score, ReCiPe endpoint with characterization, Ecological footprint single-score (category of Carbon dioxide) and USEtox (category of Human toxicity/cancer), the aluminium support structure shows higher impact in comparison to the other components/materials of the system. Furthermore, the material Manufacturing Phase (scenario «without recycling») reveals that, in certain cases, the photovoltaic cells and the copper-based components present high impacts. More analytically, according to ReCiPe endpoint with characterization (scenario «without recycling»), the aluminium-based components (support structure; receiver) present the highest DALY (disability-adjusted life years) and (species.yr) with total values of 0.015 DALY and 4.9 × 10 −5 (species.yr). Regarding USEtox Ecotoxicity, the Noryl (for the pumps) shows an impact of 62.5 CTU e that is considerably higher in comparison to the other components/materials of the system. The effect of recycling (metals; glass; plastics) has been examined and the results show that, by adopting recycling, energy payback time is reduced from 1.6 to 0.6 years and ReCiPe payback time is reduced from 17 to 8.4 years.
Luisa F Cabeza - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluation of the environmental impact of experimental cubicles using life cycle assessment a highlight on the Manufacturing Phase
Applied Energy, 2012Co-Authors: Karim Menoufi, Albert Castell, Lidia Navarro, Gabriel Perez, Dieter Boer, Luisa F CabezaAbstract:Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been conducted for seven experimental cubicles located in Puigverd de Lleida (Spain). The objective of this experimental set-up is to test different constructive solutions in order to point out the most sustainable solution with lower energy demand during the operational Phase. Therefore, different building, insulation and Phase Change Materials (PCMs) have been tested under controlled temperature conditions to examine the thermal performance of the whole system. Although some of these materials are able to reduce the energy demand and consequently the environmental impact during the operational Phase, they still have high embodied energy that can cause high environmental impact during the Manufacturing Phase. Therefore the LCA study in this paper focuses on assessing the impact of the embodied energy needed during the Manufacturing and disposal Phase by highlighting and comparing the effect of using different building materials, insulating materials, and Phase change materials.
-
stabilized rammed earth incorporating pcm optimization and improvement of thermal properties and life cycle assessment
Energy Procedia, 2012Co-Authors: Susana Serrano, Dieter Boer, Camila Barreneche, Lidia Rincon, Luisa F CabezaAbstract:Abstract In this paper PCM is added to three types of stabilized rammed. Mechanical and thermal characterization is carried out. To do so, the compressive strength is optimized and the final compositions obtained are used to formulate the materials which will be thermally characterized. The optimization process is done with a design of experiments (DoE) and a variance analysis (ANOVA). Finally, LCA is used to evaluate the environmental impact during the Manufacturing Phase, due to the addition of stabilizers and PCM in the rammed earth.
Paola Lettieri - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
life cycle assessment of a polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell system for passenger vehicles
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017Co-Authors: Sara Evangelisti, Carla Tagliaferri, Dan J L Brett, Paola LettieriAbstract:In moving towards a more sustainable society, hydrogen fueled polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology is seen as a great opportunity to reduce the environmental impact of the transport sector. However, decision makers have the challenge of understanding the real environmental consequences of producing fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) compared to alternative green cars, such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs). and more conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). In this work, we presented a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) of a FCV focused on its Manufacturing Phase and compared with the production of a BEV and an ICEV. For the Manufacturing Phase, the FCV inventories started from the catalyst layer to the glider, including the hydrogen tank. A sensitivity analysis on some of the key components of the fuel cell stack and the FC system (such as balance-of-plant and hydrogen tank) was carried out to account for different assumptions on materials and inventory models. The production process of the fuel cell vehicle showed a higher environmental impact compared to the production of the other two vehicles power sources. This is mainly due to the hydrogen tank and the fuel cell stack. However, by combining the results of the sensitivity analysis for each component - a best-case scenario showed that there is the potential for a 25% reduction in the climate change impact category for the FCV compared to a baseline FCV scenario. Reducing the environmental impact associated with the manufacture of fuel cell vehicles represents an important challenge. The entire life cycle has also been considered and the Manufacturing, use and disposal of FCV, electric vehicle and conventional diesel vehicle were compared. Overall, the ICEV showed the highest GWP and this was mainly due to the use Phase and the fossil carbon emissions associated to the use of diesel.
-
Life cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid vehicles: A cradle-to-grave systems engineering approach
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2016Co-Authors: Carla Tagliaferri, Silvia Evangelisti, Federica Acconcia, Paul Ekins, Teresa Domenech, Diego Barletta, Paola LettieriAbstract:Electric mobility is playing an important and growing role in the context of sustainable transport sector development. This study presents the life cycle assessment of an electric car based on the technology of Lithium-ion battery (BEV) for Europe and compares it to an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV). According to a cradle-to-grave approach, Manufacturing, use and disposal Phases of both vehicles have been included in the assessment in order to identify the hot spots of the entire life cycles. For electric vehicles two Manufacturing inventories have been analysed and different vehicle disposal pathways have also been considered. Furthermore, the environmental performances of hybrid vehicles have been analysed based on the life cycle models of the BEV and ICEV. The results of the hot spot analysis showed that the BEV Manufacturing Phase determined the highest environmental burdens mainly in the toxicity categories as a result of the use of metals in the battery pack. However, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the BEV use Phase were shown to be half than those recorded for the ICEV use Phase. The trend of the results has also been investigated for future energy mixes: the electricity and diesel mixes for the year 2050 have been considered for the modelling of the use Phase of BEV and ICEV.
Chr Lamnatou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
building integrated solar thermal system with without Phase change material life cycle assessment based on recipe usetox and ecological footprint
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Chr Lamnatou, Fabrice Motte, Gilles Notton, Daniel Chemisana, Christian CristofariAbstract:Abstract The present study assesses the environmental profile of a building-integrated solar thermal system that has been developed and tested in France. The investigation is based on life-cycle assessment according to ReCiPe, USEtox and Ecological footprint. Two configurations (for the solar collector) have been examined: 1) Without Phase change material (using only rock wool as insulation) and 2) With Phase change material (myristic acid) and rock wool. The main goal is the evaluation of the effect of the Phase change material on the environmental profile of the solar thermal system. Both cases (with/without Phase change material) have been studied based on the Mediterranean climatic conditions of Ajaccio (France). The results, according to ReCiPe midpoint (with characterization) demonstrate that the tubes (copper), the aluminium components (absorber, casing, gutter) and the Phase change material are responsible for the highest impacts in terms of the material Manufacturing Phase of the collectors. With respect to ReCiPe/endpoint/single-score life-cycle results (scenarios: with/without PCM; with/without recycling; including the gutter), the values vary from 0.014 to 0.020 Pts/kWh. The configuration with Phase change material presents 0.003 Pts/kWh higher impact (in comparison to the option without Phase change material). Recycling offers an impact reduction of 0.003 Pts/kWh (for both configurations with/without Phase change material). In addition, results according to USEtox (in terms of human toxicity and ecotoxicity) and Ecological footprint (with respect to the impact categories of carbon dioxide, nuclear and land occupation) are presented and discussed.
-
concentrating photovoltaic thermal system with thermal and electricity storage co2 eq emissions and multiple environmental indicators
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Chr Lamnatou, Daniel Chemisana, Christian Cristofari, Brice Lecoeuvre, Jeanlouis CanalettiAbstract:Abstract The present article examines the environmental profile of a concentrating photovoltaic/thermal system with thermal and electricity storage. The system has been developed and experimentally tested at the University of Corsica, in France, and it combines non-concentrating photovoltaic modules with concentrating solar thermal. The study is based on life-cycle assessment according to global warming potential, cumulative energy demand, ReCiPe, Ecological footprint and USEtox. The results (Phase of material Manufacturing; scenario «without recycling») demonstrate that based on global warming potential, cumulative energy demand, most of the midpoint categories of ReCiPe, ReCiPe endpoint single-score, ReCiPe endpoint with characterization, Ecological footprint single-score (category of Carbon dioxide) and USEtox (category of Human toxicity/cancer), the aluminium support structure shows higher impact in comparison to the other components/materials of the system. Furthermore, the material Manufacturing Phase (scenario «without recycling») reveals that, in certain cases, the photovoltaic cells and the copper-based components present high impacts. More analytically, according to ReCiPe endpoint with characterization (scenario «without recycling»), the aluminium-based components (support structure; receiver) present the highest DALY (disability-adjusted life years) and (species.yr) with total values of 0.015 DALY and 4.9 × 10 −5 (species.yr). Regarding USEtox Ecotoxicity, the Noryl (for the pumps) shows an impact of 62.5 CTU e that is considerably higher in comparison to the other components/materials of the system. The effect of recycling (metals; glass; plastics) has been examined and the results show that, by adopting recycling, energy payback time is reduced from 1.6 to 0.6 years and ReCiPe payback time is reduced from 17 to 8.4 years.
Randolph Kirchain - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Manufacturing focused emissions reductions in footwear production
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013Co-Authors: Lynette Cheah, Natalia Duque Ciceri, Elsa Olivetti, Seiko Matsumura, Dai Forterre, Richard Roth, Randolph KirchainAbstract:Abstract What is the burden upon your feet? With sales of running and jogging shoes in the world averaging a nontrivial 25 billion shoes per year, or 34 million per day, the impact of the footwear industry represents a significant portion of the apparel sector's environmental burden. A single shoe can contain 65 discrete parts that require 360 processing steps for assembly. While brand name companies dictate product design and material specifications, the actual Manufacturing of footwear is typically contracted to manufacturers based in emerging economies. Using life cycle assessment methodology in accordance with the ISO 14040/14044 standards, this effort quantifies the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, often referred to as a carbon footprint, of a pair of running shoes. Furthermore, mitigation strategies are proposed focusing on high leverage aspects of the life cycle. Using this approach, it is estimated that the carbon footprint of a typical pair of running shoes made of synthetic materials is 14 ± 2.7 kg CO 2 -equivalent. The vast majority of this impact is incurred during the materials processing and Manufacturing stages, which make up around 29% and 68% of the total impact, respectively. Other similar studies in the apparel industry have reported carbon footprints of running shoes ranging between 18 and 41 kg CO 2 -equivalent/pair ( PUMA, 2008 ; Timberland, 2009 ). For consumer products not requiring electricity during use, the intensity of emissions in the Manufacturing Phase is atypical; most commonly, materials make up the biggest percentage of impact. This distinction highlights the importance of identifying mitigation strategies within the Manufacturing process, and the need to evaluate the emissions reduction efficacy of each potential strategy. By suggesting a few of the causes of Manufacturing dominance in the global warming potential assessment of this product, this study hypothesizes the characteristics of a product that could lead to high Manufacturing impact. Some of these characteristics include the source of energy in Manufacturing and the form of Manufacturing, in other words the complexity of processes used and the area over which these process are performed (particularly when a product involves numerous parts and light materials). Thereby, the work provides an example when relying solely on the bill of materials information for product greenhouse gas emissions assessment may underestimate life cycle burden and ignore potentially high impact mitigation strategies.
-
Manufacturing focused emissions reductions in footwear production
2012Co-Authors: Lynette Cheah, Natalia Duque Ciceri, Elsa Olivetti, Seiko Matsumura, Dai Forterre, Richard Roth, Randolph KirchainAbstract:What is the burden upon your feet? With sales of running and jogging shoes in the world averaging a nontrivial 25 billion shoes per year, or 34 million per day, the impact of the footwear industry represents a significant portion of the apparel sector’s environmental burden. This study analyzed the carbon footprint of a familiar consumer product, a pair of running shoes. A single shoe can contain 65 discrete parts that require 360 processing steps for assembly. While brand name companies dictate product design and material specifications, the actual Manufacturing of footwear is typically contracted to manufacturers based in emerging economies. Using life cycle assessment methodology, this effort quantified the global warming potential burden of a pair of shoes and mitigation strategies were proposed focusing on high leverage aspects of the life cycle. Using this approach, it was estimated that the carbon footprint of a typical pair of running shoes made of synthetic materials is 14 ± 2.7 kg CO2‐equivalent. The vast majority of this impact is incurred during the materials processing and Manufacturing stages, which make up around 29% and 68% of the total impact, respectively. By comparison, a person emits the equivalent amount of carbon by using a 100‐watt light bulb for a week. For consumer products not requiring electricity during use, the intensity of emissions in the Manufacturing Phase is atypical; most commonly, materials make up the biggest percentage of impact. This distinction highlighted the importance of identifying mitigation strategies within the Manufacturing process, and the need to evaluate the emissions reduction efficacy of each potential strategy. By postulating the causes of Manufacturing dominance in the global warming potential assessment of this product, this study described the characteristics of a product that would lead to high Manufacturing impact. Thereby, the work explored how relying solely on the bill of materials information for product life cycle assessment may underestimate life cycle burden and ignore potentially high impact mitigation strategies.
