Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

An evaluation of the environmental burdens of present and alternative

materials used for electricity transmission
G. Blacketta, E. Savoryc,, N. Toya, G.A.R. Parkea, M. Clarkb, B. Rabjohnsb
a
School of Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
b
Asset Stewardship, National Grid, John Forrest House, Kelvin Avenue Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7ST, UK
c
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 5B9
Received 17 January 2003; received in revised form 18 July 2006; accepted 1 August 2006

Abstract

This paper describes research using life cycle analysis assessment techniques to determine the environmental impacts associated with
the use of present and possible alternative materials utilised in all aspects of high voltage electricity transmission. The study focuses on
the National Grid system in England and Wales, where the majority of high voltage electricity is transmitted through steel and
aluminium conductors supported above the ground by mild steel lattice type towers. A major aspect of the study is to address the effects
of different corrosive environments to which the tower materials are exposed: namely rural, industrial and coastal locations.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Conductors; Transmission towers; Electricity transmission; Life cycle analysis; Overhead line

1. Introduction necessary transmission equipment impose environmental

The National Grid is responsible for the transmission of
electricity across England and Wales. This typically is
achieved through the use of 400 mm2 steel/aluminium
cross-section conductors supported above the ground by
50 m high transmission towers, similar to Fig. 1 [1]. With
an increasing company-wide environmental awareness,
along with recent compliance to ISO 14001 [2], National
Grid is continually striving towards a more environmen-
tally sound method of electricity transmission.
To enable high voltage electricity transmission to take
place, many different materials are required. For example,
National Grid are currently operating some 7500 route
kilometres of overhead line throughout England and
Wales, which alone represents a considerable volume of
steel and aluminium. In addition, if the transmission towers
and insulators are also considered, it can be seen that a
signicant quantity of materials is being processed. The
materials and manufacturing processes used to produce the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 2111x88256;
fax: +1 519 661 3020.
E-mail address: esavory@eng.uwo.ca (E. Savory).
impacts.
A detailed appreciation and understanding of the main
environmental burdens can be obtained by undertaking a
life cycle assessment (LCA) on the integral parts of the
towers, conductors and insulators. In addition to the
consideration of those materials and processes currently
used, there are potential alternatives that may impose fewer
environmental burdens than their traditional counterparts.
By evaluating these associated burdens in relation to
electricity transmission, National Grid will possess a more
in-depth knowledge of their own products and have an
opportunity to rationally consider alternative materials or
processes.
1.1. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
LCA is becoming an increasingly popular tool for
environmental management. Rather than focusing purely
on waste produced or emissions created at the manufactur-
ing stage of a product, LCA goes much further in
determining all the environmental burdens created through
the entire life cycle of a product. LCA evaluates the
environmental burdens of a product from the extraction of

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.08.032
 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338
CONDUCTORS
CROSSARM
INSULATOR
Tower Height 50-60m
Fig. 1. Standard 400 kV Tower used on the National Grid System (ACSR:
Aluminium conductor, steel reinforced).
its raw materials right the way through to its disposal or
recycling. It involves cradle-to-grave analysis of production
systems and provides comprehensive evaluations of all
upstream and downstream energy inputs and environmen-
tal emissions. It should be noted, however, that LCA can
be costly and time consuming and so its use as an analysis
technique in both the public and private sector is limited.
LCA differs from other environmental analysis tools
primarily in the way in which the boundary between
systems and environment is drawn. More familiar tools
like Environmental Impact Assessment concentrate on a
process or a specic site [3]. A considerable amount of
research has been undertaken in the last few years to
develop LCA methodology. There are three main foci for
this work: the Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC) [4], various EU-funded projects, and
the International Standards Organisation (ISO). Since the
late 1980s, SETAC has been organising LCA conferences
and workshops. Its booklet Guidelines for Life-Cycle
Assessment: A Code of Practice [5] provide guidelines on
the general use of LCA, whereas ISO more recently
introduced a series of documents aimed at providing
general principles for conducting, reviewing, presenting,
and using LCA [69].
Although LCA may offer the benets outlined above, it
also has some drawbacks. It is a relatively complex tool and,
because of the technical content, can have high initial costs.
These costs can be considered in terms of the time and effort
that is required to perform a LCA. Time and effort both
equate to monetary units within any company and, therefore,
a nancial input is required. Since data quality also
introduces uncertainties in LCAs [10,11], various tagging
systems have been suggested for signalling data quality, and
database formats put forward to standardise data collection
and facilitate compilation of common data sets [10].
1327
LCA has been used in many industrial applications,
particularly where steel is concerned. The steel industry is
gaining valuable experience with LCA to reduce the
environmental impact and also energy usage [12]. The
recycling of galvanised steel has also been addressed [13] in
an attempt to determine the most environmentally sound
option between the recycling and landll of zinc. As well as
looking at one material, LCA can also be used to draw
comparisons between different materials used for the same
application. There have been numerous studies performed
in an attempt to evaluate which materials impose fewer
burdens for a given application [1416]. Amato [13] drew
the conclusion that the comparative LCA of steel and
concrete-framed ofce buildings showed very little differ-
ence in the burdens, whereas Johnsson [14] undertook a
comparative LCA on wood, vinyl and linoleum oor
coverings and concluded that wood clearly created the least
impacts.
1.2. Aims and objectives
This study is concerned with a reduction in the
environmental impacts of towers, conductors and insula-
tors, focusing on a detailed LCA, which can be used to
inuence and support any decisions made in relation to the
re-design of these components. This may involve changing
their appearance or size and, in doing so, may require the
use of alternative materials which could effectively decrease
the environmental burdens imposed.
The study also encompasses the geographical locations
of transmission towers. Three classes of geographical
environment are used within the transmission industry, as
follows:
 Non-polluted (rural).
 Polluted (industrial).
 Coastal.
Due to the different corrosive characteristics, each envir-
onment will have different effects on the lifetime of towers
and lines over the service life and, hence, the environmental
burdens created.
2. The LCA approach
To assist in the LCA, a computer software package
(TEAM, 1997) was used [17]. The software allows the user
to input all the major stages of a products life cycle, and,
using a comprehensive database, simulates the associated
outputs and environmental burdens. For the individual
case studies regarding conductors, towers and insulators,
the system boundary will encompass the life cycle of the
product from extraction of raw materials through to its use
in the eld.
The functional unit of all of the case studies was relative
to the standard National Grid expected lifetime, which is
85 years for a transmission tower. The functional units for
1328 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338

the tower were in terms of the masses of galvanised steel
and anodised aluminium required to construct a tower for
the 85-year period. In terms of corrosion, the masses of
material will differ depending upon the location of the
tower and the material used. For example, it is likely that
for a coastal environment anodised aluminium may last the
full 85-year period, whereas a non-anodised aluminium
may require the replacement of individual sections. Both
the conductors and insulators have a functional unit which
is also relative to their lifetimes. The conductors functional
unit was the material required for one conductor, 10 km in
length, to operate for the National Grid standard of 40
years. The functional unit for the insulator was the input
required for one insulator string also to operate effectively
for 40 years.
2.1. Towers
The transmission towers used for this specic study were
lattice type L2 towers [1]. These towers are currently
constructed from galvanised mild steel, which is subse-
quently painted, approximately every 12 years, throughout
its 85-year lifetime. The study aimed to determine and
compare the environmental burdens associated with both
steel and aluminium towers, along with the geographical
location. For the case of the steel tower the optimum paint
scenario was also investigated. For example, whilst
painting towers in a corrosive environment may be
desirable, the impacts associated with the paint may make
this undesirable in less corrosive environments.
3. Transmission tower life cycle analysis
The tower study takes painting into account, as well as
geographic location. There are signicant initial data to
analyse in order to calculate the inputs for the different
geographic scenarios.
3.1. Volumes of materials
In order to undertake the analysis, it was necessary to
derive the mass of steel or aluminium required for a tower.
3.1.1. Steel towers
Table 1 shows the surface area, mass and volume of mild
steel required for the standard L2 tower, that meets
National Grids standard design cases for dead load, wind,
ice and broken wire loads, whilst Table 2 shows the
assessed life of a tower for the three different environments
in the non-painted state. These gures were produced from
a National Grid survey of 479 towers inspected over a four-
year period [18,19]. For the non-painted towers, corrosion
signicantly reduces the lifetimes such that, in a non-
polluted environment, double the original amount of steel
would be required to full a functional unit of 85 years.
When exposed to the polluted and coastal environments,
three times the original volume of steel would be required
to meet the functional unit. Table 3 shows the painting
intervals that would be required for the towers to meet the
85-year lifetime, again highlighting the vulnerability of the
towers in a coastal environment.

2.2. Conductors 3.1.2. Aluminium towers

To allow for the efcient distribution of high voltage
electricity, conductors with a cross-sectional area of
400 mm2 are used. The LCA was used to determine and
compare the environmental burdens for two 10 km lengths
of line composed of the following materials:
 6101 grade aluminium (magnesiumsilicon alloy).
 Pure (99%) aluminium over galvanised steel wires.
Details of the aluminium towers are shown in
Tables 46. Table 4 shows the surface area, mass and
volume of aluminium expected for an equivalent L2 tower.
These gures are based upon the calculated materials used
Table 1
Tower volume, mass and surface area for a steel tower [18,20]
Body Cross-arms Total

Surface area m2 429 73 502

The second type of conductor uses an insulating compound Mass (ton) 15 2.65 17.65
to separate the two dissimilar metals; this compound was Volume m3 1.948 0.34 2.29
also included within the LCA. As with the towers, the
effect of using recyclable materials was also addressed.

Table 2
2.3. Insulators Expected life of non-painted steel towers [1820]

To prevent the transmission tower becoming electrically Environment Max life (years) Total
live, large insulator strings are used to connect the Before serious To 50% or more
conductor to the tower. The insulator sections are made corrosion serious corrosion
from either glass or porcelain materials as well as
incorporating the use of galvanised mild steel components. Non-polluted 29 16 45
Polluted 20 15 35
The LCA determined and compared the environmental Coastal 17 13 30
burdens associated with both types of insulator.
 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338 1329

Table 3 Table 6 are sufciently accurate for the purpose of this

Painting interval required for steel towers to meet 85-year lifetime study.
Environment Painting interval Expected life
3.2. Transmission tower life cycle
Non-polluted 15 85
Polluted 12 85
Coastal 9 85
The main processes to be considered for the steel towers
life cycle are shown in Fig. 2 and those for the aluminium
tower in Fig. 3.

Table 4
Volume, mass and surface area for an aluminium tower 3.2.1. Steel tower
The standard L2 lattice tower comprises three main
Body Cross-arms Total materials: mild steel, zinc, and modied vinyl paint. The
mass of steel required is 17.65 ton per tower and the type
Surface area m2 556 95 651
Mass (ton) 9 1.5 10.5 of steel used is termed hot rolled steel. Within the
Volume m3 3.3 0.6 3.9 TEAM database there is an inventory of the inputs and
outputs related to producing this material in the hot rolled
state. The TEAM software uses data for steel originating
from South America, Australia and Canada. The mass of
Table 5
Average UK corrosion rates for aluminium [20]
zinc required to galvanise an L2 tower is 1.05 ton. The
TEAM software uses data for zinc production that
Environment Surface corrosion (mm=year originates from Australia and the USA. There is a
signicant energy utilisation relating to the galvanising
Non-polluted 0
Industrial 2.6 process. Data obtained from the UK Galvanisers
Coastal 7.3 Association (National Grids current steel galvanising
contractor) quote a value of 1480 MJ of natural gas
for every ton of zinc used [21]. The paint is a modied
Table 6 vinyl type, of which 400 kg are required initially and
Expected life for aluminium tower then a further 150 kg for every maintenance coat over the
towers 85-year lifetime. The data for the paint are
Environment Painting interval Expected life
documented in the BUWAL Environmental Series 232-
Non-polluted 85 report [22].
Polluted 85
Coastal 85

Energy
for an aluminium cross-arm designed by the authors for Extract raw materials Transport
National Grid which can be applied to the whole tower. It
can be seen that, whilst the volume and surface area are
greater than those of its steel counterpart, the mass is less. Process steel
This is due to a difference in material properties, with Zinc
aluminium having one-third of the stiffness and density of
steel. Despite the lower stiffness of aluminium when Hot roll
compared to steel, the tower does not require three times
the volume of aluminium. This is due to the extrusion
process, which allows almost tailor-made, efcient, Form angles
aluminium sections to be formed, as opposed to the
standard steel angle sections.
Table 5 shows the average aluminium corrosion rates for Galvanise
the UK based upon calculations presented by Doyle and
Wright [20]. This information was used to predict lifetimes
for aluminium towers which are not painted, as shown in Erect on site
Table 6. These lifetimes are only predictions based upon
the methodology given in [20], which provides an average
corrosion rate for pure aluminium and does not take into
Paint
account the alloying elements (e.g. magnesium and silicon)
or anodising. Although it is likely that these elements will
cause a very small reduction in the lifetimes, the results in Fig. 2. Life cycle for a steel tower.
1330 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338

3.2.2. Aluminium tower corrosion. Based on information obtained from Finishing.-

The raw material for aluminium is bauxite, which is Com (metal nishing information service) [24], the
extracted from mines and processed into aluminium electricity required to anodise 1 m2 is approximately
oxide. The TEAM software uses aluminium data relat- 5 MJ. For an L2 tower this equates to 3260 MJ of
ing to bauxite originating from Europe, Jamaica, Surinam, electricity.
Australia and Guinea. An electrolytic process is then
used to convert aluminium oxide into the aluminium ingot 3.3. Results of the LCA simulation for towers
for rolling, extrusion or casting. The aluminium must then
be extruded and this consumes many more times the Having simulated the life cycles of both steel and
amount of energy required for the equivalent steel aluminium towers using the TEAM software the following
manufacturing process. The European Aluminium Asso- results were obtained.
ciation (EAA) states that 2110 kWh of electricity plus
129 kg of gas are needed to extrude 1000 kg of general
3.3.1. Steel related impacts
sections, rods, etc., of homogenised, age hardened alumi-
The environmental impacts calculated for the steel tower
nium [23]. For an L2 tower this equates to 80,000 MJ of
are shown in Table 7 with the main constituents shown in
electricity and 3910 MJ of natural gas. As well as extrusion,
Table 8. The addition of vinyl paint to the system does not
there is also the anodising of the aluminium to consider.
make a vast difference to the overall burdens imposed. The
This process uses an electric current to form an aluminium
only burden associated with painting which actually
oxide surface that is approximately 25 mm in-depth. The
increases by a large amount is water eutrophication, for
anodised surface provides an increased resistance to
which the addition of paint causes a 39% increase, with
50% of this value being attributable to chemical oxygen
Energy
demands (CODs).
Extract bauxite Transport

Extract
Smelt Magnesium Table 8
Main constituents for steel tower impacts

Extract Impact type Main constituents

Add alloying elements Silicon
Electricity usage Aluminium production
Air acidication Sulphurous oxides 70%, nitrous oxides 20%,
Extrude hydrogen chloride 10%
Aquatic eco-toxicity Chromium 91%, cadmium 4%, arsenic 4%
Depletion of non- Iron and zinc
renewable resources
Anodise Greenhouse effect Carbon dioxide 83%, methane 10%, nitrous
oxide 4%, carbon tetra-uoride 3%
Ozone layer depletion Halon
Eutrophication Nitrous oxides 70%, ammonia, nitrates,
Erect on site nitrogenous matter 4%
Human toxicity Arsenic 50%, lead 28%, mercury 19%,
cadmium 3%
Fig. 3. Life cycle for an aluminium tower.

Table 7
Environmental impacts of a steel tower in both painted and unpainted state

Impact type Unit Value

Unpainted Painted

Electricity usage MJ 104,325 117,593

Air acidication Grammes equivalent of H 6910 7440
Aquatic eco-toxicity 1  103 m3 402.7 411
Depletion of non-renewable resources Vol. fraction of reserve 3:5  109 3:51  109
Greenhouse effect Grammes equivalent of CO2 1:7  107 1:9  107
Ozone layer depletion Grammes equivalent of CFC-11 13 13.387
Eutrophication Grammes equivalent of PO4 14,087 15,343
Eutrophication (water) Grammes equivalent of PO4 304 496
Human toxicity Grammes 1,130,035 1,137,363
 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338 1331

3.3.2. Aluminium related impacts 3.4. Recycled towers

Table 9 shows the environmental impacts calculated for
the aluminium tower, whilst the main constituents of these It is highly unlikely that any towers would be con-
are highlighted in Table 10. structed from new steel or aluminium, as this would
be extremely inefcient. Instead, the towers would be
Table 9 made from a high concentration of recycled material.
Environmental impacts of an aluminium tower A comparison of the burdens imposed by each tower
Impact type Unit Value
for the non-recycled state, 80% recycled state and 100%
recycled state is given in Figs. 46. The gures also
Electricity usage MJ 1,586,000 show a comparison of the burdens imposed by the
Air acidication Grammes equivalent of H 27,563 non-painted steel towers throughout the 85-year lifetime.
Aquatic eco-toxicity 1  103 m3 415
There are three non-painted scenarios, all relating to
Depletion of non- Vol. fraction of reserve 1:8  109
renewable resources
the data in Table 2. Non-painted (1) represents the burdens
Greenhouse effect Grammes equivalent of CO2 3:7  108 imposed for a non-painted tower which needs no replace-
Ozone layer depletion Grammes equivalent of 87 ment steel throughout its 85-year lifetime. Non-painted (2)
CFC-11 represents the burdens for a non-painted steel tower in
Eutrophication Grammes equivalent of PO4 437,790 a non-polluted environment. Due to the mild corrosion
Eutrophication (water) Grammes equivalent of PO4 619
effects, the entire tower would need to be replaced once
Human toxicity Grammes 1,084,782
during the 85-year lifetime. Non-painted (3) represents
the burdens for a non-painted steel tower in a coastal
or industrial environment and for this scenario the
Table 10
Main constituents for aluminium tower impacts
tower would need to be replaced twice during the 85-year
lifetime.
Impact type Main constituents

Electricity usage Aluminium production

3.5. Discussion of tower results
Air acidication Sulphurous oxides 82%, nitrous oxides 16%,
hydrogen chloride 4% It can be seen for both the steel and aluminium
Aquatic eco-toxicity Cadmium 60%, chromium 38%, arsenic 2% congurations that the primary production stage creates
Depletion of non- Bauxite, oil, natural gas, uranium and the vast majority of environmental burdens. The material
renewable resources magnesium
Greenhouse effect Carbon dioxide 74%, carbon tetra-uoride
for which this is most evident is aluminium. The smelting
16%, methane 10% process required to dissolve alumina into aluminium
Ozone layer depletion Halon is particularly energy intensive. Because the alumina is
Eutrophication Nitrous oxides 96%, ammonia, nitrates, smelted electrolytically, the primary energy requirement
nitrogenous matter 4% is from electricity. To produce enough aluminium for a
Human toxicity NO2 58%, SO2 38%, barium 3%, arsenic 1%,
lead 1%
single tower, approximately 1.25 million MJ are required at
the production stage alone. A further 18,500 MJ are then

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For Steel

and Aluminium Towers
120

100
Aluminium
% Difference

80
Painted
60 steel

40 Non
painted (1)
20
Non
0 painted (2)
Electricity

Air Acidification

Aquatic ecotoxicity

Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Greenhouse effect

Human Toxitity

Non
painted (3)
resources

Impacts

Fig. 4. Comparison of burdens for steel and aluminium towers.

1332 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For 80%

Recycled Steel and Aluminium Towers
120
100

% Difference
Aluminium
80
60 Painted
steel
40
20 Non
painted (1)
0
Non
Electricity

Air Acidification

Aquatic ecotoxicity

Human Toxitity
Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Greenhouse effect
painted (2)

resources
Non
painted (3)

Impacts

Fig. 5. Comparison of burdens for 80% recycled steel and aluminium towers.

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For 100%

Recycled Steel and Aluminium Towers
120
100
Aluminium
% Difference

80
60 Painted
steel
40
Non
20 painted (1)

0 Non
painted (2)
Electricity

Air Acidification

Aquatic ecotoxicity

Greenhouse effect

Human Toxitity
Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Non
resources

painted (3)

Impacts

Fig. 6. Comparison of burdens for 100% recycled steel and aluminium towers.

required for the extrusion and anodising processes. The Bauxite, the ore from which aluminium is extracted, is
burdens associated with this electricity production are the main non-renewable resource to be depleted. Although
dependent on the source used to generate the power. For a large amount of bauxite is required for a tower, only
example, if the aluminium were produced in a country that 1:6  109 volume fraction of the earths bauxite reserves is
uses hydroelectricity then the burdens would be far less required. It is for this reason that aluminium is regarded as
than for aluminium produced by one employing more the most abundant metal in the earths crust.
traditional fossil fuel methods of electricity generation. The The steel tower also creates the majority of its burdens in
origin of aluminium data used by the TEAM software is the initial production stage. However, the sintering process
global and, therefore, the aluminium production is of iron ore is by no means as energy intensive as it is for
averaged over many countries. This leads to an average aluminium and most of the environmental burdens of steel
spread of the environmental burdens produced during towers are far less than for aluminium. The only area where
electricity generation. steel burdens outweigh those of aluminium is in the
 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338
depletion of non-renewable resources. For one steel tower,
over 17.5 ton of steel and 1 ton of zinc are required. This
equates to a volume fraction of 3:2  109 of the earths
current reserves, double the volume fraction for alumi-
nium.
Looking at Figs. 46, it is obvious that when the recycled
aluminium and steel are both considered, the scenario is
changed completely. As the percentage use of recycled
materials is increased the burdens drop signicantly for
virtually all categories. This is most noticeable for
aluminium with the main reason being that the large
amount of electricity required for the smelting process is
displaced. It appears that steel also experiences a large
reduction of burdens for most categories except that of
electricity generation. The results show that when the tower
uses 80% recycled materials, painted steel imposes fewer
burdens than aluminium. However, when using 100%
recycled materials, aluminium imposes fewer burdens than
painted steel.
For the steel tower, there are also corrosion and paint/
coating related burdens to take into consideration. As
already shown, the expected life for non-painted steel
towers varies according to its environment but is not
expected to reach the functional unit lifetime of 85 years in
any exposure. This means that for non-polluted environ-
ments the burdens will be double those shown in Table 7
and for both industrial and coastal environments the
burdens will be triple those shown in Table 1. The outcome
of this can be seen in Figs. 35. The painting of towers does
not introduce a relatively large number of environmental
impacts over the 85-year lifetime. If the towers were not
painted they would be more likely to corrode and thus
require replacement sections. The impacts associated with
the replacement of steel sections are far more signicant
than those relating to the paint. This is quite a signicant
nding as it very easily demonstrates that the burdens
created by the painting system are many times lower than
the potential burdens that would be produced, from
replacement steel alone, had the paint not been applied.
4. Conductor life cycle analysis
The conductors, as already stated, are composed of
either:
 aluminium alloy for Rubus conguration or;
 aluminium and galvanised steel for Zebra ACSR
(Aluminium Conductor Steel Reinforced).
The life cycles of both these materials have been discussed
in the towers section.
4.1. Rubus aluminium alloy
Pure aluminium alone would not possess the required
stiffness to effectively operate across the span between two
towers. Therefore, the Rubus conductor consists of
1333
aluminium alloyed with 0.5% magnesium and 0.5% silicon
to increase its stiffness. The addition of these alloying
elements decreases the corrosion resistance of the material
and, therefore, the aluminium must be anodised.
The Rubus consists of 61 3.5 mm diameter strands of
6101 grade aluminium alloy and, for every 10 km of cable,
this results in 15,690 kg of aluminium, 79 kg of magnesium,
and 79 kg of silicon. As the total surface area per strand is
110 m2 , the energy required to anodise the entire cable is
33,537 MJ. To extrude the alloy (in the same manner as for
the tower), the process requires 120,381 MJ of electricity,
plus 5886 MJ of natural gas.
4.2. Zebra ACSR conductor
The Zebra conductor uses 99% pure aluminium strands
to conduct the electricity, and galvanised mild steel strands
to offer reinforcement (as pure aluminium has a relatively
low stiffness). The scarcity of alloying elements in the
aluminium means that there is no requirement for
anodising, unlike the Rubus.
The Zebra consists of 54 3.2 mm diameter strands of
aluminium. For 10 km of cable, this equates to 11,518 kg of
aluminium and requires some 87,490 MJ of electricity plus
4276 MJ of natural gas. The conductor also uses 4369 kg of
mild steel and 422 kg of zinc. To galvanise the seven
strands of mild steel, 622 MJ of natural gas are required. In
order to separate the two dissimilar metals and, thereby
prevent galvanic corrosion, 50 kg of mineral oil are
required for the 10 km distance.
4.3. Results of the LCA simulation for conductors
Having simulated the life cycles of both steel and
aluminium conductors using the TEAM software, the
following results were obtained.
4.3.1. Rubus related impacts
Table 11 shows the environmental impacts calculated for
the Rubus conductor. Because the Rubus conductor is
constructed of virtually the same material as the aluminium
tower (Table 9) and follows virtually the same life cycle, the
results follow a similar pattern. It can be seen that the only
signicant differences are the magnitudes for each burden.
4.3.2. Zebra related impacts
Table 12 shows the environmental impacts calculated for
the Zebra conductor. The Zebra conductor is constructed
of approximately two-thirds pure aluminium and one-third
galvanised steel, and so a combination of aluminium and
steel burdens are present. The burdens created by the
aluminium strands are very similar to those created by the
aluminium tower and, likewise, for the steel strands and
steel tower. However, the allocations of burdens are not
distributed in the ratio two-thirds aluminium and one-third
steel. The high electricity utilisation is mainly attributable
to the initial aluminium smelting process, with only 4.5%
1334 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338

being related to the steel strands. In fact aluminium towards the depletion of non-renewable resources through
contributes a majority of the burdens for the Zebra to 99% towards greenhouse effects.
conductor, ranging from the lowest contribution of 60%
4.4. Recycled conductors

Table 11 A comparison of the burdens imposed by each con-

Environmental impacts of a Rubus conductor ductor for the non-recycled state, 80% recycled state and
100% recycled state is given in Figs. 79. Both types of
Impact type Unit Value
conductors impose high burdens in the non-recycled state
Electricity usage MJ 2,221,464 due to the aluminium smelting process. As would be
Air acidication Grammes equivalent of H 41,188 expected, this leaves the all-aluminium alloy conductor
Aquatic eco-toxicity 1  103 m3 1033 imposing far higher burdens than the ACSR for every
Depletion of non- Vol. fraction of reserve 2:2  109 category. When recycled materials are used the impacts
renewable resources
drop considerably (by up to 80%), and the ACSR performs
Greenhouse effect Grammes equivalent of CO2 5:5  108
Ozone layer depletion Grammes equivalent of 131
better than the alloy conductor in many of the categories.
CFC-11 The all-alloy conductor still uses the highest amount of
Eutrophication Grammes equivalent of PO4 50,823 electricity but this is mainly due to the high requirement
Eutrophication (water) Grammes equivalent of PO4 1051 during the anodising process.
Human toxicity Grammes 1,620,975
5. Insulator life cycle analysis

Table 12 The insulators used for electricity transmission in

Environmental impacts of a Zebra conductor conjunction with the L2 transmission tower are either
Impact type Unit Value
porcelain or glass based. The principle design remains
similar for each material, with the aim being to suspend the
Electricity usage MJ 1,570,000 conductor whilst insulating it from the tower. The manner
Air acidication Grammes equivalent of H 29,095 in which this is achieved is to use insulating units (porcelain
Aquatic eco-toxicity 1  103 m3 950
or glasslike plates) which are attached together by
Depletion of non- Vol. fraction of reserve 2:55  109
renewable resources
galvanised mild steel pins to produce an insulator string.
Greenhouse effect Grammes equivalent of CO2 4:11  108 The L2 tower uses a string which comprises 13 such units.
Ozone layer depletion Grammes equivalent of 98
CFC-11 5.1. Glass insulator
Eutrophication Grammes equivalent of PO4 35,383
Eutrophication (water) Grammes equivalent of PO4 833
The glass insulator uses a clear toughened glass material
Human toxicity Grammes 1,376,874
for the insulating unit and galvanised mild steel components

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For The

RUBUS and ZEBRA Conductors
120

100
% Difference

80

60 RUBUS
ZEBRA
40

20

0
Electricity

Air Acidification

Aquatic ecotoxicity

Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Greenhouse effect

Human Toxitity
resources

Impacts

Fig. 7. Comparison of impacts for ACSR and all alloy conductors.

 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338 1335

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For The 80%

Recyled RUBUS and ZEBRA Conductors
120
100

% Difference
80
RUBUS
60
ZEBRA
40
20
0 Electricity

Air Acidification

Aquatic ecotoxicity

Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Greenhouse effect

Human Toxitity
resources

Impacts

Fig. 8. Comparison of impacts for 80% recycled ACSR and all alloy conductors.

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For The 100%

Recyled RUBUS and ZEBRA Conductors
120
100
% Difference

80 RUBUS
60 ZEBRA

40
20
0
Electricity

Air Acidification

Aquatic ecotoxicity

Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Greenhouse effect

Human Toxitity
resources

Impacts

Fig. 9. Comparison of impacts for 100% recycled ACSR and all alloy conductors.

to connect each unit to form a string. Fig. 10 shows the 5.1.1. Glass insulator results
manufacturing processes for the glass insulator and Using both the TEAM software and information
Table 13 shows the relative masses of materials for each obtained from the BUWAL 250/1 report [25], the environ-
string. The manufacture of glass is relatively straightfor- mental burdens for the glass insulator were calculated and
ward (in comparison to porcelain), with the main stages are shown in Table 14.
being; the mixing of ingredients; melting of the glass;
forming and heat treating of the disc; and attachment of 5.2. Porcelain insulator
the metal ttings. The raw materials used to produce the
glass are typically silica, limestone, dolomite, feldspar, soda The porcelain insulator uses a very similar design to that
ash and sodium sulphate. of glass, with 13 units making up a string. Fig. 11 shows the
1336 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338

Silica Table 15
Blending of raw materials Steel
Limestone Zinc Mass of materials used for a porcelain insulator
Feldspar
Dolomite Material Mass per unit (kg) Mass per string (kg)
Melting of glass
Porcelain 5.67 73.7
Mild steel 3.74 48.6
Forming and heat Steel fittings manufacture Zinc 0.11 1.87
treating

Attachment of metal
fittings Table 16
Environmental impacts of a porcelain insulator
Fig. 10. Flowchart of manufacturing stages for glass insulator.
Impact type Unit Value

Electricity usage MJ 347.29

Air acidication Grammes equivalent of H 26.29
Table 13 Aquatic eco-toxicity 1  103 m3 1.14
Mass of materials used for a glass insulator Depletion of non- Vol. fraction of reserve 1  1011
renewable resources
Material Mass per unit (kg) Mass per string (kg) Greenhouse effect Grammes equivalent of CO2 254,139
Ozone layer depletion Grammes equivalent of 0.04
White glass 6.8 88.5 CFC-11
Mild steel 3.74 48.6 Eutrophication Grammes equivalent of PO4 67
Zinc 0.11 1.87 Eutrophication (water) Grammes equivalent of PO4 0.89
Human toxicity Grammes 3,396.91

Table 14 manufacturing processes for the porcelain insulator and

Environmental impacts of glass insulator Table 15 shows the relative masses of materials for each
Impact type Unit Value string.

Electricity usage MJ 309.49 5.2.1. Porcelain insulator results

Air acidication Grammes equivalent of H 20.95 Unlike glass, the manufacturing route for porcelain is
Aquatic eco-toxicity 1  103 m3 1.11
quite complex and also more energy intensive. Using both
Depletion of non- Vol. fraction of reserve 1  1013
renewable resources the TEAM software and information obtained from the
Greenhouse effect Grammes equivalent of CO2 93,233 BUWAL 224 report [26], the environmental burdens for
Ozone layer depletion Grammes equivalent of 0.04 the porcelain insulator were calculated and are shown in
CFC-11 Table 16.
Eutrophication Grammes equivalent of PO4 44.15
Eutrophication (water) Grammes equivalent of PO4 0.85
Human toxicity Grammes 3,184.24
5.3. Discussion of insulator results

Fig. 12 shows the comparison of environmental impacts

for both types of insulator whilst Fig. 13 shows a
comparison of each insulator without including the steel
ttings. It is evident from Fig. 12 that the production of a
50% clay
Blending of raw materials
25% feldspar sufcient mass of porcelain to produce an insulator string
25% quartz creates, by far, more impacts than those for its glass
equivalent, even though a greater mass of glass is required.
Dehydration and forming
Steel One possible reason for the relatively low level of burdens
Zinc of glass is the input of scrap glass to the system, which can
Glazing and sanding
be up to 60%. For this particular application a value of
50% was taken, thus reducing the burdens by a signicant
amount. Another reason for the large difference is due to
Firing Steel fittings manufacture porcelains more complex manufacturing route. The ve
stages of manufacture make this particular material far
more energy intensive. However, it can be seen in Fig. 13
Finishing that the large difference in burdens between glass and
porcelain is overshadowed by the burdens created by the
Fig. 11. Flowchart of manufacturing stages for porcelain insulator. production of galvanised mild steel. The burdens created
 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338 1337

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For Glass and

Porcelain Insulators With Steel Components
120
100

% Difference
80
60 Porcelain
40 Glass
20
0
Electricity

Air Acidification

Aquatic ecotoxicity

Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Greenhouse effect

Human Toxitity
resources
Impacts

Fig. 12. Comparison of burdens for glass and porcelain insulators.

Graph Showing Percentage Difference Of Impacts For Glass and

Porcelain Insulators Without Steel Components
120
100
% Difference

80 Porcelain
Glass
60
40
20
0
Electricity

Air Acidification

Human Toxitity
Aquatic ecotoxicity

Dep of non rewewable

Ozone Depletion

Eutrophication

Eutrophication (water)

Greenhouse effect
resources

Impacts

Fig. 13. Comparison of burdens for glass and porcelain insulators without steel components.

by producing this material have already been discussed in true of those conductors (such as the Zebra ACSR) that
relation to the steel tower. are composed of both materials.
 The environmental burdens of a painted steel tower are
6. Conclusions less than those of unpainted steel, even for less polluted
environments.
The present LCA of transmission line systems has led to  The insulators contribute relatively little to the overall
a number of conclusions. environmental burdens of the transmission system. Both
glass and porcelain impose very few burdens and,
 The environmental burdens of steel and aluminium interestingly, contribute less than the steel ttings
towers are very similar, with the latter becoming required for the insulator string. The results show that
increasingly more attractive as a greater proportion of glass creates fewer burdens than porcelain but the
recycled material is used in their production. This is also difference becomes less signicant when the steel ttings
1338 G. Blackett et al. / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 13261338
are taken into account. This relatively small difference
means that factors such as cost, visual appearance and
technical ability may inuence the decision making
process more than the environmental impacts when
choosing between the two materials.
It should be noted that the present study does not directly
deal with the disposal of materials because, in the case of
towers and conductors, the majority of materials are
recycled when the product reaches the end of its life.
However, for the insulators, there may be a requirement
for more work to be done in this area.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) for the provision
of funding for this investigation and related ongoing work,
under the Engineering Doctorate (EngD) programme.
Thanks are also extended to J. Ferguson, formerly of
NGC, and S. Cowell of the University of Surrey for their
help in data collection and technical support.
References
[1] Lomas C. Transmission tower developments in the UK. Engineering
Structures 1993;15(4):27788.
[2] British Standards. EN ISO 14001: environmental management
systemspecication with guidance for use. London, 1996.
[3] Hodgson S, Cowell SJ, Clift R. A managers introduction to product
design and the environment. London: The Environment Council; 1997.
[4] SETAC-Europe. Life-cycle assessment. Brussels: SETAC-Europe; 1992.
[5] Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jenson AA,
et al. Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a code of practice.
Brussels and Pensacola: SETAC; 1993.
[6] British Standards. EN ISO 14040: environmental management. Life
cycle assessment. Principles and framework. London, 1997.
[7] British Standards. EN ISO 14041: environmental management. Life
cycle assessment. Goal and scope denition and inventory analysis.
London, 1998.
[8] British Standards. EN ISO 14042: environmental management. Life
cycle management. Life cycle impact assessment. London, 2000.
[9] British Standards. EN ISO 14043: environmental management. Life
cycle assessment. Life cycle interpretation. London, 2000.
[10] Fava J, Jenson AA, Lindfors L, Pomper S, De Smet B, Warren J.
Life-cycle assessment data quality: a conceptual framework. Pensa-
cola: SETAC and SETAC Foundation; 1994.
[11] Hemming C. Directory of life-cycle inventory data sources. Brussels:
SPOLD; 1995.
[12] Viklund-White C. The use of LCA for the environmental evaluation
of the recycling of galvanised steel. ISIJ international 2000;40(3):
2929.
[13] Amato A, Eaton JA. Comparative life-cycle assessment of steel and
concrete framed ofce buildings. In: Second international conference
buildings and the environment, Paris, 1997, pp. 133140.
[14] Jonsson A, Tillman A, Svensson T. Life cycle assessment of ooring
materials. Building and Environment 1997;32(3):24555.
[15] Weir G, Muneer T. Energy and environmental impact analysis of
double-glazed windows. Energy Conservation Management 1988;
39(3/4):243356.
[16] National Grid Company Plc, Civil Engineering Centre, Life cycle
costs for tower steelwork maintenance. Preliminary Study, Guildford,
1995.
[17] TEAMTools for Environmental Management, Version 2, Ecobi-
lan, Paris, 1997.
[18] National Grid Company Plc, Civil Engineering Centre, Life cycle
costs for tower steelwork maintenance. Second Study, Guildford,
1996.
[19] British Standards. EN ISO 5493: code of practice for protective
coating of iron and steel structures against corrosion. London,
1977.
[20] Doyle DP, Wright TE. Rapid methods for determining atmospheric
corrosivity and corrosion resistance. Kingston, Ontario, Canada:
Aluminium Company of Canada Ltd, Research Centre; 1981.
[21] Personal communication with Galvanisers Association Ltd, Eng-
land, May 2001.
[22] BUWAL Environmental Series No. 232. Comparing ecological
assessment of painting material in construction, vol. 2. Berne: Swiss
Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape; 1998.
[23] European Aluminium Association. Environmental prole report for
the European aluminium industry, EAA, Brussels, April 2000.
[24] Personal communication with Finishing.com, Inc, NJ, USA, May
2001.
[25] BUWAL Environmental Series No. 250/1. Life cycle inventories for
packaging, vol. 1. Berne: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests
and Landscape; 1998.
[26] BUWAL Environmental Series No. 224. Life cycle inventories for
recyclable packaging. Berne: Swiss Agency for the Environment,
Forests and Landscape; 1994.