Life Cycle and Pollution - Research Proposal Example

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS By: Course: Professor: University: City/State: Date: LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS (LCA) In the twenty-first century, climate change is a significant concern. The increased emissions of the greenhouse gasses have resulted in increased global temperatures. As noted by Sending & Sundberg (2013, p. 1), global temperatures have increased by approximately 0.8 degrees since the early twentieth century. If nothing is done to mitigate the situation, the sea levels are likely to rise shortly, frequent extreme weather conditions as well as an altered way of living. The concept of Life Cycle Assessment helps to appraise the health, social and sustainability effects associated with certain economic activities from the raw material gathering activities to the residual stage, after disposal of the waste products. LCA is the most mutual and extensively used instrument in the ecological organization. A vigilant inspection of energy and resource depletion as well as the ecological burdens related to each pollution avoidance technique helps to get the final disposal option. Therefore, the primary objective of LCA is to trace all the ecological influences through the entire lifecycle of the of product structure from the extraction of the raw material, processing, circulation, reuse, upkeep, surplus, and dumping. This paper gives a detailed LCA for two large transport infrastructure projects in TBL terms. The projects are similar. Their functional equivalence is a movement of 8,000 people every day a distance of 20km of the year ten years. The two projects are the rail project and the new roadway. Are the two projects sustainable? A viable plan must allow basic access and development needs of every person, society or firm in a manner that can promote sustainabile environment and health. It should also limit emissions and wastes with the ability of the earth to absorb them. A sustainable project must also minimize the impact on the land used for its operations. Goal and Scope Definition The issues relating to transportation and environment are somewhat paradoxical because transportation conveys considerable socioeconomic benefits. At the same time, traffic impacts the environmentally friendly system. On one side, conveyance activities promote movement for commuters and merchandise but on the other hand conveyance results to increased environmental, social and economic externalities. The ecological dimension is the governing factor since the other two must develop in agreement with nature. Based on this information, the study aims to explore the impacts of the two transport network projects through comparing the effects they have on the social, environmental and financial aspects. The scope of the study will be direct greenhouse gas discharges, unintended greenhouse gas discharges from electricity energy consumption, family income, land used and gross operating surplus. Inventory Analysis Improvement, the sustainability of the transport projects in Australia, will help to lower the greenhouse emissions and improve the social and economic situations of the Australians (Birrell, 2016, p. 338). The following section provides the inputs and outputs for the two massive projects that will help to clearly view their impact to the environmental, social and financial aspects. 1. Road Project Inputs OPEX CAPEX Steel for construction - 40,000,000 Concrete 200,000 110,000,000 Earth moving - 130,000,000 Asphalt machine - 12,000,000 Electrical equipment 400,000 16,000,000 Vehicles 1,000,000 35,000,000 Transport materials 100,000 12,000,000 Electricity 100,000 3,000,000 Diesel 9,000,000 35,000,000 Chemicals, paint and plastic 1,000,000 15,000,000 Energy consumption 0.180 PJ 0.600 PJ Water use 10 ML 2,500 ML Land use 1,000 ha 1,000 ha Outputs OPEX CAPEX Family income $ 1,500,000 $202,000,000 Gross operating surplus $ 1,500,000 $60,000,000 Employment 20 1,500 Material flow 3,000 t 136,000 t Greenhouse emissions 900 t CO2-e 1,800 t CO2-e Emission to air 400 t 1,100 t 2. Railway project Inputs OPEX CAPEX Steel for construction - 35,000,000 Concrete 200,000 60,000,000 Earth moving - 80,000,000 Tunneling machine - 18,000,000 Electrical equipment 1,000,000 32,000,000 Vehicles 1,000,000 45,000,000 Transport materials 50,000 14,000,000 Electricity 800,000 18,000,000 Diesel 50,000 10,000,000 Chemicals, paint and plastic 1,000,000 25,000,000 Water use 15 ML 1,750 ML Energy consumption 0.050 PJ 0.116 PJ Land use 400 ha 400 ha Outputs OPEX CAPEX Family income $ 7,500,000 $ 275,000,000 Gross operating surplus 500,000 $40,000,000 Employment 70 1,800 Material flow 2,000 t 7,600 t Greenhouse emissions 100 t CO2-e 1,200 t CO2-e Emission to air 20 t 675 t After comparing the two massive projects, it is clear that the road project consumed more energy compared to the railway project. However, in both cases, the CAPEX had the highest amounts of energy consumed. For the event of the two projects, diesel and electricity are the primary sources of energy. The charts below indicate the electricity and diesel consumption expenses of the two projects. The road project spent a lot of money on diesel compared to the railway project. The same project also heavily relied on diesel for energy production compared to the rail project. The highest amount spends on electricity in the rail project was $ 18,000,000, which is far much below the highest amount spent of diesel in the road project. Therefore, the road project spent more on fossils fuels throughout its operations compared to the railway project. On the contrary, the rail project spent less money on fossil fuels. Regarding air pollution, the road project contributed more to air pollution compared to the rail project. Fossil fuels emit more Carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The charts below indicate the carbon monoxide emitted from the two projects. From the graph above, the Road project CAPEX had the highest amounts of carbon IV Oxide emissions to the atmosphere. Therefore, the road project caused more air pollution compared to the railway project. The road project also produced total emissions to the air about the rail project. The economic benefits of the two projects were not the same. For example, the road project employed fewer people and resulted in less family income. On the other hand, the railway project employed more people and had higher family contributions. Therefore, the road project did benefit many families economically. The road project also used more land compared to the railway project and may have resulted in a displacement of more people and destruction of natural vegetation. Consequently, its environmental impacts are higher compared to those caused by the railway project. Impact assessment 1. Green House Gas Emissions The two massive projects have significant greenhouse gas emissions. For the road project, the total amount of energy from electricity and diesel is 0.780 PJ. The power consumption resulted in a total of 2,700 tons of carbon monoxide emissions. Based on the findings by Dey & Lenzen, 2006 (p. 384), this value of energy should translate to of the total greenhouse emissions in Australia. This amount is significant given that this is just a single project. The power consumption from the railway project was 0.166 PJ resulting to a total of 1,300 t CO2-e. This emission translates to . The proportion is significant since it is also from a single project. The total emissions to the air from the Road project (OPEX) were 400t and from the same project (CAPEX) was 1,100t was 1,100t. The total emissions from the railway project (OPEX) were 20t and from (CAPEX) was 675t. The total emissions from the two projects (OPEX) are 420t and from CAPEX is 1,775t. Therefore the greenhouse emissions from the CAPEX is more compared to the emissions from the OPEX. In general, the total emissions to the atmosphere from the two projects is 2195 tons. This amount of air emissions is massive because it is from two projects. The sum of money spent on fuel, concrete, earthmoving machines, vehicles, chemicals and paints and electrical equipment for the two projects is massive. It clearly shows the volume of emissions caused by the two projects. For example, the road project (CAPEX) alone used more than forty-five million dollars on activities contribution to pollution alone. The revenue for the entire project was $ 850,000,000. As a matter of facts, half of the total revenue contributed to the activities that promoted air pollution. From the ISA results, the graph above shows the greenhouse gas emissions. The activities that primarily contributed to the issuance of the greenhouse gasses were the first chemical manufacturing and electricity transmission. The trade also contributed to a significant emission of greenhouse gasses. From the ranked structural paths for the two projects over the entire period of operation, the total proportion of greenhouse gasses caused by the electricity distribution, on selling and activities of the electricity market was 1.61%. On the other hand, basic chemical manufacturing contributed to a total of 1.28% of the greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding greenhouse gasses, the two projects emitted a significant amount to the ambiance. Therefore, they, directly and indirectly, polluted the environment. The supply of the construction material by the entrepreneurs as well as the direct operations contributed to the air pollution 2. Energy Consumption The basic source of energy for the two projects was electricity, fossil-based fuels (the primary foundation of energy) and water. The projects heavily relied on the fossil-based fuels as the major source of power. The chart below represents the fuel consumption by the two projects during their period of operation. The fossil fuels consumed exceeded 210 TJ of energy followed by the energy from electricity. Other sustainable sources of energy such as water, the wind and solar energy were not utilized. From the results presented in the inventory analysis section, the road project (CAPEX), heavily relied on Diesel as the major source of power. On the other hand, the train project (CAPEX) relied on electricity as the major source of power. Therefore, the two projects were not sustainable regarding energy use. 3. Family Income The two projects employed people to carry out their daily operations such as machine operations. They also hired people indirectly through other firms that enabled their services to be a success. The chart below represents the results of the family income from the two projects. The results clearly show that the two projects employed very few workers compared to other companies and sectors. For example, the water company contributed to the majority of the money earned by the families, followed by the wholesale trade. A sector such as the electricity transmission contributed to significant air pollution and yet gave microscopic back to the community. Therefore, it failed to create a major impact on the social welfare of the community. 4. Land Use From the earlier results, in the inventory analysis section, the road project used more land compared to the railway project. The chart below shows the impact on land by the different sectors. It is clear that other areas such as the basic chemical manufacturing and land use had adverse effects on land compared to the constructions activities. The cumbersome and civil engineering services, as well as the development services, had almost the same impact on the area. 5. Gross Operating Surplus For the case of the gross operating surplus, the construction services had more impact compared to the heavy and engineering construction. The wholesale trade resulted in the greatest impact on the gross operating surplus. Interpretation Sustainability has always been the primary goal of any project, business or an economic undertaking. Therefore, it is important to determine the degree to which a project is sustainable. For the case of railway and the road project, this study shall interpret the results, based on the monetary value, to determine if they meet the triple bottom line. 1. Economic measures As noted by Slater & Hall (2011, p. 5) the economic variable deals with the flow of money. Therefore, personal income, employment distribution in the sector and revenue contribution will be the best indicators. From the results of the family income, the distribution of the capital in the industry is not uniform. The basic chemical manufacturing only contributed to approximately $ 2,200,000 household income. On the other hand, the water company added to over $13,000,000 to the family income. The sector that added to the least amount of household income was the electricity transmission sector, with roughly one million dollars contribution to the household income. The gap between the industry that contributed to the highest and the listed amount is enormous. The employment is also not well distributed across the two projects. For example, the road project has only 1520 employees and the railway project has 1870 employees. All the other staff come from the other sectors. The graph below shows the employment distribution of across the sectors. Therefore, the two projects contributed to the economic conditions of the community members indirectly since most of the workers were not employed in the areas directly. The income distribution is also not very good since some industries contribute to a lot of revenue while others give little contributions. Consequently, the earning gap is enormous. For a construction project to be economically viable, it must provide the value of money and improve the economic status of the people in its vicinity. Given that a transport plan is very expensive, for it to be economically viable, it must allow and promote an efficient flow of goods and services and contribute to increased economic output (Nick, 2010, p. 5). From the analysis made on the two projects, the employment impact, though not directly, was significant. 2. Environmental Variable The environmental variable refers to the measure of natural resources and reflects the potential influence to how they vary. In general, it incorporates the air quality, water quality, natural resources, energy consumption and toxic waste. For the case of the road and railway projects, the best indicators to use are the energy consumption and emission of the CO2 into the atmosphere. From the results obtained, it was clear that the primary sources of energy were the fossil fuels and electricity. The fossil fuels significantly contribute to emissions of carbon monoxide into the ambiance. The percentage of the emissions obtained was significant considering the sizes of the projects in the economy of Australia. The electricity generation process also contributes to the production of greenhouse gasses. Therefore, the investments on all the manufacturing process that contributed to the manufacture of carbon were very high. For example, the results showed that the road project (CAPEX) had 50% of the investment invested on projects that contributed to air pollution. Dobbie & Green (2015, p. 5) notes that the set principles for CO2, NO2 and other air pollutants require all the stations to monitor their installed facilities when they affect a population of more than two thousand people. The population directly affected by the two projects was more than two thousand people. Therefore, the two projects must take precautions and evaluate their energy consumption strategies. There are several ecological sources of pwer such as hydro-electric power, geothermal power and wind power that can help to cut down the use of the fossil fuels. The road project had the highest level of diesel consumption. The project invested ten million dollars on diesel consumption which is not sustainable. The project can cut down the cost of diesel consumption and increase its electricity expenditure. Alternatively, it can invest in a renewable power project that would serve the surrounding communities upon completion of the project. 3. Social Measures Social standards refer to the social dimensions of the community affected by the projects. It includes measurement of education, equity and access to social resources as well as social capital. The first expenditures, activities, and consumptions given for the two projects includes exports, employment, family income water use and effects on land as shown in the web chart below. The only variables we can use to determine the social measures of the two projects includes the employment and the family income. From the web chart and the results above, the household income is 0.540 which is above the benchmark proportion of 0.270. The employment levels are at 1.280 which is far much above the reference value of 0.730. Therefore, the two companies have done a lot regarding creating jobs and uplifting the family income. However, the two projects have not done enough to make other social facilities available to the society. For example, the data provided does not indicate whether the establishment of the two projects has done education or health services more accessible to the communities in their areas of operation. Therefore, it is clear that they have not played a greater part in promoting social variables. The web chart results show that the greenhouse emissions is much higher than the benchmark value. Therefore, it is possible to cut down the emissions by establishing a more sustainable source of energy and then promote the access to health or education. They can support mitigation of the harmful special effects of the pollution. Therefore, the projects have not done enough to improve social life of the communities around them. Conclusion The country of Australia is built on an outstanding natural environment. The population of this nation is also highly educated with a diverse and dynamic culture. However, the current infructuous, as well as the methods of establishing them, are not sustainable. They cannot meet the needs of the future generations. The massive railway and road projects in this study are good examples of projects that are not sustainable for the future of Australia. After analyzing the three projects under the triple bottom line (TBL), it is clear that they do not meet the requirements. The two projects have played a significant part in polluting the environment. They highly rely on fossil-based fuels. As a matter of facts, they have not used any source or renewable energy. Despite the fact that they pollute the environment, the two projects have not played a significant part in promoting the social life of the surrounding communities. However, the two projects have played an significant part in promoting economic life of the people. The study, therefore, recommends that the projects take more strict measures to mitigate the air pollution caused by their activities and further promote the social life of the people from the regions of their operations. References Read More