03‐03‐2017

ISO 14040 Terminology

Elementary flow
•Material or energy 1) entering the system that has been
drawn from the environment without previous human
transformation, or 2) leaving the system that is released
Week‐6 Material into the environment without subsequent human
transformation
Intermediary flow
Product, material or energy flow occurring between unit
Life CycleAnalysis processes of the productsystem
MOOC Course Reference flow
Measure of the outputs from processes in a given product
system required to fulfil the function expressed by the
functional unit

ISO 14040 Terminology ISO 14040 Terminology

Term Example
Life cycle inventory (LCI) Impact category Climate change
•Phase of LCA involving the compilation and quantification
of inputs and outputs for a product throughout its life cycle LCI results Amount of a greenhouse gas
(GHG) per functional unit
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
•Phase of LCA aimed at understanding and valuating the Category indicator Infrared radiative forcing (W/m2)
magnitude and significance of the potential environmental Characterisation model Baseline model of 100 years of the
impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the IPCC
product Characterisation factor Global warming potential for each
Interprétation GHG (kg CO2 eq./kg gas)
•Phase of LCA in which the findings of either the LCI or Category indicator kg CO2 eq. per functional unit
LCIA, or both, are evaluated in relation to the defined goal result
and scope in order to reach conclusions and
recommendations Category endpoints Human health, ecosystems

2 5

ISO 14040 Terminology ISO 14040 Terminology

Product system LCI result

•Collection of unit processes with elementary and product
flows, performing one or more defined functions, and which
models the life cycle of a product
Unit process
•Smallest element considered in the life cycle inventory
analysis for which input and output data are quantified
Outcome of a life cycle inventory analysis that catalogues the
flows crossing the system boundary (= elementary flow) Provides
the starting point for life cycle impact assessment
Ex: kg CO2 /functionalunit
Impact category
Class representing environmental issues of concern to which
life cycle inventory analysis results may be assigned
Each category has its own environmental mechanism
Ex: Global warming

3 6

1

ISO 14040 Terminology
Environmental mechanism
System of physical, chemical and biological processes for a
given impact category, linking the life cycle inventory analysis
results to category indicators and to category endpoints
Impact categoryindicator
Quantifiable representation of animpact category
Its goal is to reflect all the extractions or emissions assigned to an
impact category
Ex: Infrared radiative forcing (W/m2)
7 10
ISO 14040 Terminology
Characterisation model
Reflects the environmental mechanism by describing the
relationship between the LCI result and the category indicator,
and in some cases the category endpoints
Used to calculate the characterisation factors
Characterisation factor
Factor derived from a characterization model which is applied to
convert an assigned life cycle inventory analysis result to the
common unit of the category indicator
The common unit allows calculation of the category indicator
result
Ex: kg CO2 eq./ kg GHGemitted
ISO 14040 Terminology
Category endpoint
Attribute or aspect of natural environment, human
health, or resources, identifying an environmental issue
giving cause forconcern
Ex: Human health, ecosystems (coral reefs, forets, crops)
03‐03‐2017
ISO 14040 Terminology
Sensitivity analysis
Systematic procedures for estimating the effects of the
choices made regarding methods and data on the outcome
of a study
Uncertainty analysis
Systematic procedure to quantify the uncertainty introduced
in the results of a life cycle inventory analysis due to the
cumulative effects of model imprecision, input uncertainty
and data variability
Critical review
Process intended to ensure consistency between a life
cycle assessment and the principles and requirements of
the International Standards on life cycle assessment
Further Readings
ISO 14 040 (2006) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework,
International Organization for Standardization, 28 p.
ISO 14 044 (2006) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines,
International Organization for Standardization, 54 p.
H Baumann, A‐M Tillman (2004) The hitchhiker's guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment
methodology and application, Studentlitteratur, 543 p.
O Jolliet, M Saadé, P Cretaz, S Shaked (2010) Analyse du cycle de vie, Comprendre et réaliser un écobilan, 2ème éd.,
Presses Polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 302 p.
ILCD Handbook, http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/projects#d
De Beaufort‐Langeveld, A.S.H. et al. (eds.) (2003) Code of Life‐Cycle Inventory Practice, Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), SETAC Press, 136 p.
Udo de Haes, H.A. et al. (eds) (2002) Life‐Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving Towards Best Practice, Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), SETAC Press, 249 p.
Margni, M. et al. (2008) Guidance on how to move from current practice to recommended practice in Life Cycle
Impact Assessment, UNEP‐SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
Rebitzer, G. et al. (2004) Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and
applications, Environment International 30, pp.701‐720
Pennington, D.W. et al. (2004) Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment practice, Environment
International 30, pp. 721‐739
N Wrisberg, H A Udo de Haes (Eds.) (2002) Analytical Tools for Environmental Design and Management in a Systems
Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 275 p.
Key points for a goodLCA
2
 03‐03‐2017

Key points for a goodLCA Key points for a goodLCA

Screening approach 2. Data quality

LCA in two steps
Validity of the study depends on the quality of the data
• First screening level LCA, to get order of magnitude used
results
• Geographical, temporal andtechnological coverage
• Second detailed LCA, to refined results and most
1. Goal &scope 2. Inventory • Uncertainty
important contributors
Sources:
1b. Goal of the study • Primary: specific
Very clearly define the « What », « What for » and « For
• Secondary: generic
who »

13 16

Key points for a goodLCA Key points for a goodLCA

1c. Function & functional unit

Function of thesystem
• Starting point in defining the system boundaries 2b. Multifunctional processes
• Comparison on the basis of the same function
(secondary function?) There are several approaches to treat multifunctional
processes, the results are often strongly influenced by
1. Goal &scope Functional unit (FU) 2. Inventory the approach choses

• Quantification of the function of the system (never a Test robustnessof conclucions by applying other
ratio!!), inventory is related toFU approach(es)
• Reference flows: amount of product pour provide
FU, different for the compared systems
• Key parameters: links between FU and reference
flows  optimization

14 17

Key points for a goodLCA Key points for a goodLCA

1d. System boundaries

All processes needed to provide the function
The impact evaluation is always done according to the
• Rule 1: Compared systems must provide the same goal and scope
function
3. Impact Only use re‐known and « peer‐reviewed » methods;
1. Goal &scope • Rule 2: Included processes are those which must consider the fate and effect of emissions
contribute more than a fixed percentage (mass, assessment
energy or environmental relevance cut‐offcriteria) Test robustness of conclusions by using other method(s)
• Rule 3: Indentical stages/processes between
compared systems can be excluded ONLY IF this
does not affect functionalequivalence

15 18

3
 03‐03‐2017

Key points for a goodLCA What is LCA?

• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that assessesa
product/process’s impacts:
Analyse contributions at different levels: • Environmentally
• Socially
• At each phaseof the LCA: inventory, impact
evaluation • Economically

• At each life cycle stage, concentrating on main

contributors and those with the high potential for • There are multiple approaches to LCA:
4. Interpretation reduction
• Cradle‐to‐Grave
• At the substance level • Cradle‐to‐Gate
• Cradle‐to‐Cradle
Do sensitivity analyses to test robustnessof conclusions
• Gate‐to‐Gate
• scenarios, uncertainty • Well‐to‐Wheel

19

So, Let’s Summarize : What is LCA? What is LCA?

• LCA is a way of structuring/organizing the • LCA is a technique to assess the environmental
aspects and potential impacts associated with a
relevant parts of the life cycle product, process, or service,by:
• Compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and
• It is a tool to track performance and perhaps environmental releases
to improve product design • Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with
identified inputs and releases
• LCA is not a cure-all for our environmental • Interpreting the results to help decision‐makers make a more informed
problems decision

• LCA is not an “exact” science with provable

axioms/theories

Dongara
• Dongara is a waste to energy plant that processes residential
MSW as a feedstock to manufacture a pelletized fuel product
• Located in Vaughan
LCA of EnerPax+ from Cradleto • Processes MSW from the Greater Toronto Area and the Regions of
York, Durham and Peel
Gate‐ an example • Processes approximately 75,000 tons of MSW per year

4
 03‐03‐2017

EnerPax+ Assumptions & Limitations

• EnerPax+ is the fuel product produced atDongara
• General Assumptions:
• Used as a substitute for fossil fuels • Facility assumed to bea black box
 Only inputs and outputs considered
• Assumed 75,000 tonnes of MSW annually processed at Dongara
• Contains an energy output of 10,000Btu/lb • Assumed waste was strictly coming from the Region of York
• Average distances traveled by a collection truck from curb‐side to plant
• Utilizes approximately 60% of the incoming waste inproducing 41.4 km
the pellet • Collection truck capacity of 18tonnes

• Coal Production Scenario:

– Cradle to gate analysis (only the production of medium grade hard coal
briquettes)

• Incineration Scenario:
• Total MSW sent to incineration
• Distance traveled in transportation is identical to that in EnerPax+ LCA

Goal Definition & Scope MSW Breakdown

• The goal of this study is to assess theenvironmental impacts of
EnerPax+ in comparison to medium gradecoal
• Compared to medium grade coal since EnerPax+ has similar energy MSW Assumed Rejected EnerPax+
content Organics 20.25% ‐ 20.25%
Plastic film 25.07% 18.60% 6.47%
• The analysis was performed fromCradle‐to‐Gate
Paper andCardboard 19.52% ‐ 19.52%
• Combustion properties and information of EnerPax+ were
unavailable to perform a Cradle‐to‐Grave analysis Wood 13.77% ‐ 13.77%
Hard Plastic 8.50% 8.50% ‐
• The chosen function for the analysis is providing energy through Glass 4.03% 4.03% ‐
combustion Metal 4.24% 4.24% ‐
• Therefore a functional unit of 992 Giga Btu was selected to
compare both EnerPax+ and medium gradecoal PVC 1.00% 1% ‐
o (Based on the total input of 75,000 tonnes of MSW) Non‐combustibles 3.63% 3.63% ‐

Process Flow & BoundaryLayer Assumptions: Breakdown ofMSW

Organic Waste Metals

 Fruits
 Vegetables Metals 100%  Aluminum

Food waste 30%  Meat andfish

 Rice
Paper & Cardboard
 Bread
 Wast
 Jute Paper 50%
e
Textiles 6%  Cotton Paper
 Kenaf
 Corrugate
Cardboard 50%
Rubber 3%  Syntheticrubber d Board

Yardwaste 61%  Grass

5
 03‐03‐2017

RejectedWaste LCA Scenario for Coal

MSW Percent Rejection Disposal Mehtod
Plastic film ~74.19% Landfill
Hard Plastic 100% Landfill
Glass 100% Landfill
Metal 100% Recycling
PVC 100% Landfill
Non‐combustibles 100% Landfill

LCA Scenario for Incineration

Results
• LCA of EnerPax+ atDongara
• LCA scenario for coal
• LCA scenario forincineration

LCA of EnerPax+ Environmental ImpactAssessment

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%
Total EnerPax
40.00%
Total M S W

30.00% Total Incineration

Total Coal
20.00%
Dongara Impact

10.00%

0.00%

6
 03‐03‐2017

Environmental Impact ofDongara Environmental Impact

Assessment: Summary
Impact onClimate Change Impact on Urban land occupation • EnerPax+ has less impact on environment than coal for most
of the impactcategories
140000000 900000 • EnerPax+ has a better impact on environmentthan
120000000
800000 incineration
700000 • Most sensitive impact categories are ClimateChange,
Marine Eco‐toxicity, Marine Eutrophication, Ionizing
100000000 TotalEnerPax TotalEnerPax
600000
Total M S W Total M S W
80000000
Total Incineration
500000 TotalIncineration Radiation and TerrestrialEco‐toxicity
60000000
Total Coal 400000
Total Coal

Dongara Impact
• Major contributors to environmental impacts include
electricity usage, disposal of plastics, organic waste and
Dongara Impact
300000
40000000
200000 metals
20000000 100000

0 0

Environmental Impact ofDongara Conclusion and Recommendations

• According to the results EnerPax+ is a environmentally
Impact on Marine Ecotoxicity Impact on MarineEutrophication positive substitute to medium grade coal
– Possible alternate treatment of MSW instead of incineration
• Possible room for improvement in reduction of
200000
2000000

environmental impact
180000
1800000

160000
1600000

140000
– According to the results reduction of energy usage is
recommended
1400000 TotalEnerPax TotalEnerPax

Total M S W 120000 Total M S W

1200000
TotalIncineration
100000
TotalIncineration • Energy audit may be beneficial in locating inefficiencies in
1000000
Total Coal Total Coal
production process
800000
Dongara Impact 80000 Dongara Impact
– Leachate generated due to landfilling of rejected plastics
600000 60000
• Dongara may want to consider collection and recycling of plastics
40000
– Implementation of renewable energy sources (ex. Solar
400000

200000 20000
Panels) to supplement required energy isrecommended
0 0

Environmental Impact ofDongara

Impact on Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Impact on IonisingRadiation

30000

Environmental Release of Chemicals and

9000000

25000 8000000

20000
TotalEnerPax
7000000

6000000
TotalEnerPax
its Fate and Transport
Total M S W
Total M S W
TotalIncineration 5000000 TotalIncineration
15000
Total Coal
Total Coal
4000000
Dongara Impact
Dongara Impact
10000 3000000

2000000
5000
1000000

0 0

7
 03‐03‐2017

Environmental releases Gasoline spill

• A material, at the end of its useful life cycle or as

a consequence of its production or use, is
released into the environment
• Will its release pose significant environmental or
human health risks?
• Will the chemical degrade in the environment or
will it persist?

Example of Fate and TransportProblems

Contaminant leaking from a discharge site of radioactive waste

Persistence of chemicals
• Once the basic physical and chemical properties are defined, a
series of properties that influence the persistence of chemicals
in the environment are estimated.
• These include estimates of the rates at which chemicals will
react in the atmosphere, the rates of reaction in aqueous
environments, and the rates at which the compounds will be
metabolized by organisms
• If environmental concentrations can be estimated based on
release rates and environmental fate and persistence
properties, human exposures to the chemicals can be
estimated
• These chemical and physical properties can be used to
evaluate a variety of metrics related to environmental impacts;
some of the most commonly evaluated environmental metrics
are persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity

8
 03‐03‐2017

Using property estimates to evaluate

environmental partitioning, persistence,and
measures of exposure
• The problems associated with estimating
environmental exposures arecomplex
• Consider the relatively simple example of calculating
exposure through drinking contaminated surface water
• Assume that a chemical is released to a river upstream
of the intake to a public drinking water treatment plant

To evaluate the exposure we would need to

determine:
• What fraction of the chemical was adsorbed by
river sediments
• What fraction of the chemical wasvolatilized to
the atmosphere
• What fraction of the chemical was taken up by
living organisms
• What fraction of the chemical was biodegraded or
was lost through otherreactions
• What fraction of the chemical was removed by the
treatment processes in the public watersystem

9
 03‐03‐2017

Direct Use of Properties toCategorize Classifying fuel molecules

the Environmental Risks ofChemicals
• Chemical and physical properties can be used to
estimate environmental footprints
• Another approach is to use the values of
properties to directly categorize the
environmental risks of chemicals and to classify
the persistence and bioaccumulation of
chemicals

Green, Sustainable Materials –part 1

For each of these categories, a score might be given. For example,
persistence might be scored 1 through 4 for the four levels of
biodegradation listed in Table. Bioaccumulation might be given a score
of 1 through 3 based on the three categories of bioconcentration
factor. Similar scores could be developed for toxicity. These indices or
scores could then be combined, for example, by adding the scores, to
arrive at a compositeindex.

10
 03‐03‐2017

Introduction
• Almost every engineering design involves the use of
materials
• If an engineering design is to be as sustainable as
possible, the materials that are involved in the
embodiment of the design should have light
environmental and natural resource use footprints
• Determining the magnitude of a material’sfootprint
is not straightforward, however
• In this lecture, a three‐pronged approach to
characterizing the footprint of materials willbe
described

• A material must first be extracted and purified

(refined), and the overall impact of this extraction
and refining is the first component of the footprint
• Once the material enters the production system, it
can be reused and recycled, reducing the need for
extraction processes. The extent to which various
materials are reused and recycled, and the energy
and other resources used in processing the materials,
is a second component of the footprint
• Finally, if a material is not reused or recycled but
escapes into the environment, its environmentalfate,
persistence, human health impact, and ecological
impact are a third component of the footprint

Environmental and Natural Response use

Footprints of Materials Extraction andRefining Example: Supplies and use ofelements
• One of the simplest approaches for characterizing the Calculate the ratio of the abundance of materials
footprints associated with the extraction and production
of a material is to assess the material’s overall scarcity in the Earth’s crust (tons) to the annual use of the
• Simply stated, if a material is scarce, it is likely to be materials (tons/yr). Assume an approximatemass
energy‐intensive to obtain and refine it, and the ability to for the crust of 2 * 1019 metric tons. This mass is
meet large‐scale demand will belimited
• Elements vary widely in their natural abundance based on a 40 km thickness for continental crust
• The most common elements on a mass basis are, in and a 3 km thickness for oceanic crust, with an
descending order, O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, and K average density of 3g/cm3 (3 tons/m3).
• All of these elements are present at greater than 1%
abundance in the Earth’s crust, and all are present in
widely used commodity materials
• In contrast, some widely used elements (Ag, Sn, Sb) are
present at the ppm level or lower, on average, in the crust

11
 03‐03‐2017

Economically extractable supplies and use of

materials
Calculate the ratio of the economically extractable materials in
the Earth’s crust (reserves) to the annual use of the materials
(tons/yr). The quantities of reserves identified in this exercise
are derived from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2010)

Solution:
Say for Iron:
Ratio of Abundance to Use (yr)
= (230,000,000,000/1,200,000,000) = 191 yrs

• This presents the scenario if all the material present in the crust
can be extracted
• Notall material can be extracted, concentration too low to be
extracted cost‐effectively
• There is a relationship between the total crustal abundance and
identified and economically extractable deposits (reserves)
• On average, only 1 in 107 to 109 tons of an element in the Earth’s
crust is an economically viable reserve of thematerial

Extractable supplies and useof

materials
• Although the total amount of material available in
the Earth’s crust is sufficient to support current
rates of extraction indefinitely(Example‐1)
• The second example shows that the total amount
of crustal material that is present in high enough
concentrations to be economically recoverable is
much lower than the total amount available
• This is because energy and other resources
required to mine and purify the material for use

12
 03‐03‐2017

Sherwood relationships
• An approximate relationship between the concentration at
which a material is found in a raw material and the cost to
refine the material
• This concept—that the cost of a material is largely determined
by the cost of extracting and purifying the raw material—is
sometimes referred to as the Sherwood relationship
• The relationship between prices and dilution in ores—the
Sherwood relationship—is technology‐dependent
• As technologies continue to become more efficient, costs
associated with material extraction can bereduced
• A certain amount of entropy must be overcome to purify a
material, and that imposes a minimum energy burden that
must be overcome

Sherwood Relationship Economically recoverable reserves: McElvey diagram

• The amount of various elements in the earth’s crustthat
are present in high enough concentrations to be
recoverable are limited
• The cost of material are defined primarily not by physical
laws (overcoming entropy) but by the technologies that
are used, which continue toevolve
• The amount of material that can be economically
recovered, referred to as reserves (defined in multiple
ways)

Energy burdens of materialrecovery

13

• Reserves that are known and their extent
demonstrated, can be recovered at cost lower than
current prices, are referred as economically recoverable
reserves
• Demonstrated reserves that could be cost‐effectively
recovered, through either moderate improvements in
technology or increases in price, are referred to as
marginal reserves
• Demonstrated reserves that are unlikely to be
recoverable at any foreseeable price are referred to as
subeconomic
• Demonstrated reserves can also lead to inferencesthat
similar geological formations may contain similar
reserves. These are referred to as inferred reserves,
which can be economic, marginal, orsubeconomic
Resources‐summary
• Multiple elements are present together in minerals (e.g., Cu ores
typically contain As, Se, and Te; Pt ores typically contain Ir, Os, Pa, Rh
and Ru
• The elements with the highest demand or highest price tends to
drive the extraction of these ores
• For example, mining of Zn produces Cd as a by‐product, making it
available at a price and a quantity that might not be possible if it
were not associated withZn
Green, Sustainable Materials –part 2
03‐03‐2017
Tracking material flow inengineered
systems
• Materials have a life cycle. They are extracted from the
lithosphere or biosphere, processed into commodity
materials, then products, then used and possibly reused,
then eventually disposed of or leaked into the
environment
• The number of times that a material is reused or recycled
before it is released into the environment can have a
significant impact onits environmental footprint
• In addition, different types of uses, for the same material,
can lead to very different types of impacts
• Characterizing the flows and emissions of materials in
manufacturing and use requires data on material and
mineral flows entering the economy, and information on
the wastes, emissions, and recycling structures
Example material flow analysis:Lead
• Pb is a neurotoxin, and Pb exposure is associated
with developmental delays
• Historically, some of the principal uses of lead have
been as an octane enhancer in gasoline, in
batteries, and in paint
• The material flows of Pb in the United States in
1970 and in the mid‐1990s are shown in next slide
• As shown in the left‐hand portion of the diagram,
flows of Pb come from both extraction of
geological resources (virgin materials) andrecycled
material
14
 03‐03‐2017

• Additional flow types can beincorporated

• Global use of iron as a case study: separates iron
flows during production of products into
production, fabrication/manufacturing, use, and
waste management
• There are flows between these stages of materials
processing, for example, as “home” scrap within
production operations is reprocessed
• Flows of crude ore from the lithosphere (virgin ore)
can be compared to various types of recycling;
losses to the environment can be compared to total
use and stocks.

• In 1970 the fraction of recycled material was 36% (450 tons

recycled/1250 tons total usage), while in the mid‐1990s the
fraction had increased to 65% (910 tons recycled/1400 tons Global material balance for iron: Material flow
total usage) information, of the type shown in Figure 4‐7,
• The Pb is incorporated into a variety of products; some typically comes from multiple sources, andmaterial
products, when used as designed (such as lead paint applied
outdoors or lead additives in gasoline), result in the release of balances can be used to assess the consistency of
Pb into the environment (dissipative uses) the information. At the most macroscopic level, the
• Other products, when used as designed (lead acid batteries), basic material balance equation, in out
can be effectively recovered and recycled at the end of the
product’s life (nondissipative uses). accumulation, can be translated into crude ore in
• Figure shows that the fraction of dissipative uses decreased flows to repositories stockaccumulation.
significantly from 1970 until the mid‐1990s in part because of Determine whether the flows in Figure 4‐7 satisfy a
the phaseout of many lead‐based paints and lead additives in material balance.
gasoline
• Use of Pb in batteries increased significantly from 1970 through
the mid‐1990s, as the demand for starting‐lighting‐ignition
batteries in vehicles increased

Figure 4‐8A Flows of iron in the United States 2000

15
 03‐03‐2017

Figure 4‐8B Flows of iron in China 2000

Allen and Behmanesh(1994)

• This very focused analysis, (Table 4‐3) which was initially
performed in 1994 (Allen and Behmanesh, 1994), led to the
conclusion that many opportunities existed for recovering
materials fromwastes
• Limitations to analysis: The analysis focused only on hazardous
wastes, where legal liability concerns may limit the desire to
recycle
• The identification of “recyclable” streams was simplistic. It ignored
issues related to economies of scale (i.e., processing geographically
dispersed, heterogeneous waste streams may be more expensive
than extracting a relatively homogeneous ore from a single mine)
• Nevertheless, the analysis indicated that resources are not
effectively recovered from many waste streams

Global import/export of iron UNEP Study

• Understanding the sourcing of materials, and the geopolitical
issues associated with source regions, will become increasingly
important as global demands on resourcesincrease
• The world’s leading exporter of iron is Brazil, and the leading
importer (for both total imports and net imports [imports‐
exports]) is the UnitedStates
• Countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United
Kingdom are both importers of iron as a raw material and
exporters of iron in manufacturedgoods
• Global trade in commodity materials leads to some countries
becoming net importers, while others are net exporters,
depending on the material. For example, while China is a net
importer of iron, it is a dominant producer and exporter of rare
earth metals.
• Combinations of materials scarcity, potential energy savings, and
geopolitical factors may lead to increased rates of recycling and
reuse for many materials.
• The United Nations has assembled more recent, global data on metals
recycling
(http://www.unep.org/publications/contents/pub_details_search.asp?ID
=6197)
• Its analysis continues to conclude that global recycling rates can continue
to be improved. Metals like Pb (along with Fe, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, and
many precious metals) have postconsumer recycling rates that exceed
50% globally, but many other metals (e.g., rare earth elements) have
postconsumer recycling rates of less than 1% (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2011)
• One of the primary barriers to using wastes as raw materials is a lack of
critical information on waste streams. While a large number of data
sources are available on waste streams, they lack critical information
that is needed to assess whether the waste streams might be reused
• Data on the composition of wastes, their location, and co‐contaminants
are rarely available yet are critical to evaluating the potential use of
wastes as raw materials

16
 03‐03‐2017

Problem: Energy savings due torecycling

Aluminum is extensively recycled, in part because of the energy savings
associated with reprocessing recycled aluminum into aluminum stock, as
compared to the processing of bauxite into aluminum. The table below shows
the differences in fuel and electricity inputs required for primary aluminum
(from bauxite) and aluminum recycled from automotive scrap (U.S. Life Cycle
Inventory data available at www.nrel.gov/lci). Using current prices for the fuels
and electricity, calculate the differences in energy costs, per pound of
aluminum. How does this compare to the market price of aluminum?

Material flow summary

• Material flow tracking can identify overall availability of
materials and potential opportunities for material reuse
or recycling
• One way to view these flows is as an opportunity to
change the designs of industrial systems so that they
more closely resemble highly networked, mass‐
conserving, natural ecosystems, an industrial ecology
• The data necessary to perform detailed material tracking
are just beginning to emerge in a consistent framework
• For many analyses, we need to assemble the necessary
data on material use and flows on a case‐specific basis
• As material scarcity becomes an important issue, these
types of analyses will become increasingly valuable

Summary
• Almost every engineering design involves the use of materials,
and these materials have environmentalfootprints
• This week’s lecture summarizes the methods for
characterizing the footprints associated with extraction,
processing, and environmental releases of materials, but
these assessments can lead to very different characterizations
of materials
• Is the material scarce? Can it be recycled? Doenvironmental
releases have significant impacts?
• There are no universally accepted methods for combining
these characterizations of whether a material is sustainable.
Multiple methods are used.
• Engineers will need to consider materials in the context of
particular designs, recognizing that the choice of the most
sustainable materials will be application‐specific

17