Soy vs.

Petro Polyols A Life-Cycle Comparison

James W. Pollack Omni Tech International, Ltd.
Abstract A life cycle project was undertaken to compare the environmental impacts of two soy polyol materials with a conventional petroleum-based polyol. A polyol is a primary ingredient in the manufacture of polyurethane foam products for a variety of applications. This modeling was conducted using the BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability) software developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This paper describes how the data was gathered, processed and interpreted. Project Objectives The 2002 Farm Bill contains a provision mandating federal agencies to establish a preferred procurement action program for the purchase and use of biobased products. In support of that mandate, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is charged with issuing criteria that would qualify products for such preference. USDA has also proposed that environmental and health benefits information for biobased products be developed, and the BEES analytical tool has been identified for that purpose. To assess the feasibility of the USDA proposal, Omni Tech International, Ltd., a consultant to the United Soybean Board (USB), recommended a pilot life-cycle project using the BEES model to compare the respective environmental impact life cycles of soy- and petro-based polyols. This assessment was also of interest since it would be an opportunity to view the impact of an updated soybean agriculture life-cycle inventory (LCI) developed under the sponsorship of USDA/NIST in early 2003. This recommendation was approved by USB, and the project commenced with the help of soybean checkoff funding. Sources of Information The BEES modeling program measures environmental performance using the environmental life-cycle-assessment (LCA) approach specified in the ISO 14040 series of standards. All stages in the life cycle of a product area are analyzed: raw material acquisition, manufacture, transportation, use and end of life. Figure 1 shows a block flow diagram of the BEES process. To conduct a life-cycle assessment on a biobased product, NIST adapted the original BEES software for building materials to accept metrics normally associated with agricultural-based products. This model is called BEES Please for USDA and can be found at: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees_USDA.html.

GPEC Presentation

OTI

BEES Study Periods for Measuring Building Product Environmental and Economic Performance
FACILITY LIFE CYCLE
50 Years

ECONOMIC STUDY PERIOD

Site Selection and Preparation Construction and Outfitting Operation and Use Renovation or Demolition

50-Year-Use Stage Product Manufacture ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PERIOD Raw Materials Acquisition

Rev. 01/04

Figure 1 The first step of this modeling process involved the development of life-cycle inventory information for the two soy polyols and the petro polyol. The mass balances for each stage of the polyol life cycles came from the following sources: Life-cycle stage Soybean agriculture Soybean crushing to produce soybean oil Soybean oil conversion to soy polyols (SoyOyl GC-5N & P-38) Petroleum to petro polyol (all stages) Source NIST Biobased Advisory Group Biodiesel report NREL (*) Urethane Soy Systems Corp., Volga, SD Eco-profiles of European plastics industry, Report 9: Polyurethane precursors (second edition), I. Boustead, Sept. 1997 http://www.apme.org

(*) National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Golden, CO Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for use in a Urban Bus, May 1998 NREL/SR-58024089 UC Category 1503, www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs/lifecycle_pdf.html

The soy life cycle mass balances for each phase were combined into a single LCI representing the life cycle of the two soy polyols. The two soy polyols used in this study (GC-5N and P-38) differ by the amount of cross-linker content and hydroxyl sites, with GC-5N being higher in both categories. The petro polyol LCI was developed from the above report. For each product, LCI produced over 400 material and energy flows including the environmental inputs of water, energy, land resources and outputs such as emissions to the air, water effluent, and solid and liquid waste. These outputs were then put through the agriculture-modified BEES impact model to develop a weighted scoring system for 12 environmental impacts. These 2

impacts are based on a two-step process developed by the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). In this process, each environmental output flow (also known as an environmental aspect) is classified as contributing to a specific impact. The second step involves weighting each inventory flows contribution to its corresponding environmental impact. Collectively, these two steps produce an environmental impact index, or score, as depicted in Figure 2. Specifically, the BEES model uses a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency TRACI (Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts) assessment method for calculating impact scores from flows. For more information on TRACI, go to: http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/std/sab/iam_traci.htm.
GPEC Presentation

Deriving the BEES Overall Performance Score

Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Global Warming Acid Rain Eutrophication Resource Depletion Indoor Air Quality Solid Waste Smog Ozone Depletion Ecological Toxicity Human Toxicity

OTI

Environmental Performance Score Overall Score

First Cost Future Costs

Economic Performance Score

12

Rev. 01/04

Figure 2 The 12 environmental impacts used in the BEES model and some of their respective input parameters include: Global warming potential CO2, CH4, N2O Acidification potential SOx, NOx, HF, HCl, NH3 Eutrophication potential PO4, NH4, nitrogenous matter Fossil fuel depletion coal, oil and natural gas usage Habitat alteration virgin land area consumed Criteria air pollutants SOx, NOx and particulates Human health - carcinogens Smog NOx equivalents Ozone depletion - ODCs Ecological toxicity aquatic and soil toxics, e.g., heavy metals Water intake consumptive water use Indoor air quality volatiles released within 72 hours 3

Findings The environmental performance of the two soy polyols compared to the petro polyol is shown in Figure 3. With all environmental impacts being given equal weighting, the observed environmental impact scores for the two soy polyols showed only about one-quarter the level of those for the petro polyol. The most significant differences in impact scoring were noted for: Global warming Smog formation Eutrophication Ecological toxicity Fossil fuel depletion

Figure 3 The difference in global warming potential is due to the CO2 being taken up (sequestered) during the soybean agriculture phase. Excerpts from the soy and petro polyol LCI spreadsheets (Figure 4) show over 2 kg of CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere per kg of soy polyol produced. In contrast, the LCI shows over 3.5 kg of CO2 added to the atmosphere per kg of petro polyol produced. The smog formation potential for soy polyol is favorable by a factor of 4X due to fewer NOx equivalents and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being emitted. The eutrophication impact is favorable by over 7X. The updated soybean agriculture LCI does not add N and P from soil erosion because the LCI model assumes erosion could occur even if soybeans were not being grown on this land area. The LCI does include the N and P impact linked to fertilizer. The ecological toxicity is more favorable by 4X due to a lesser quantity of chemicals released to the environment.

The difference in fossil fuel depletion is primarily due to the petro polyol being dependent on natural gas liquids as their starting raw materials. The soy polyols did show a less favorable environmental score for water intake since water primarily in the form of steam is used in the soybean crushing phase. The scores for the other environmental impacts were essentially equal. Even though it is not one of the 12 environmental impacts, the difference in the LCI Fuel Energy totals was significant, with soy polyol representing 11.58 MJ/kg while the petro polyol represented 61.54 MJ/kg. In this context, total fuel energy represents the fuel value of the materials extracted from the earth plus the energy needed to process them into final product, so the lower energy value (MJ/kg) favors the soy polyol material. Discussion These comparative life-cycle results illustrate the positive environmental aspects and impacts of utilizing a biobased material in place of a petroleum feedstock. While each product LCI provides an overall product mass balance of inputs and outputs, it is the BEES impact model that converts all the environmental outputs into weighted measurements for each impact. The availability of a peer-reviewed LCI database for soybean agriculture will now aid the product developer who is considering a soy-based feedstock and wishes to conduct a life-cycle assessment on downstream commercial products. The availability of these two soy polyol LCIs will specifically support those developers working on urethane foam products. It is also recognized that the composition and manufacturing of future soy polyols will evolve over time as part of a continual improvement process, but these changes are not expected to significantly change the overall environmental impact profile when compared to a petroleumbased feedstock. If, however, significant changes in composition and/or processing become known, it is recommended that life-cycle modeling of this key feedstock be rerun and publicized.