Ecodesign of a Jerry Can - Term Paper Example

JERRY CAN ECODESIGN By Student’s name Course code and name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission Introduction Design and manufacture of products in the traditional era majorly focused on the functionality rather than the eventualities in terms of environmental effects or burden that the items would bring forth. Over years, manufacturing has been associated closely with global warming and respective climate change. The manufacturing fraternity has been able to come up with mitigation measures that seek to eliminate the burden that products of various manufacturing processes pose to the environment. To this effect ecodesign has been reinvented to bring a whole new meaning other than environmental bias. Ecodesign is defined by ISO 14006 as the integration of environmental aspects into the product’s life cycle with an aim of reducing the environmental impacts that it may pose. The European Commission further defines ecodesign as a design that takes into account all environmental impacts that a product might pose to the environment right from the earliest stage of design in order to avoid uncoordinated production planning (Prendeville, et al., 2013). Figure 1: Ecodesign product modelling (Wimmer, et al., 2004). CES Edu Pack Eco-Audit Tool Wimmer et al. (2004), point out that the process of coming up with an ecodesign begins from the inception stage during which a product has to be improved in order to obtain optimum standards against the set rules and regulations. The modelling process involves three steps which have to be put into consideration within the conventional methods of production. As such, the first step is biased to heuristic principles as a way of influencing the people to consider taking upo different alternatives that may work for them. The second step requires qualitative description of a product in order to establish whether it is conforming to the health and safety standards. Finally, the last step involves a quantitative modelling step during which the environmental parameters are quantified in order to come up with final deductions of the environmental effects of a given product. In a white paper published by Ashby et al. (2012), CES EduPack Eco Audit Tool is a two part strategy that takes into account all the steps enlisted above for generation of designs that put into consideration the environmental burden that they pose. The importance of this tool on PolarTank is that the two-part strategy used in selecting materials does not involve extraneous research activities thus arriving at a conclusive design is fast and effcient. This tool also contains a large database of materials whose properties have been documented in depth as a way of benefitting the users. The approach that this tool utilises is excellent on the basis of concepts that are utilised and steps that are adhered to by the whole eco-audit process (Ashby, et al., 2012). Steps To Consider in Ecodesign Figure 2: Typical approach used in obtaining an ecodesign (Ashby, et al., 2012). The figure (2) above shows a typical approach used in order to obtain an ecodesign. The procedure involves ensuring that the bill of materials are known from the design itself while ensuring that the transport requirements of the final product is put into consideration. The duty cycle of the product together with its disposal details are also considered in the inception stage as eventual data shall entirely depend on the initial stage. Initial data is then processed by the Eco-audit Tool to give a feedback by analysing data that is stored within the database. The energy and carbon intensity of the transportantion mode is given as feedback depending on the type of material being investigated for purposes of production (Ashby, et al., 2012). While declaring the material and manufacture methodologies come as the first step, the primary concern of this step is to give a feedback by recalling database values depending on the material type intended for use. The appraisal process is based on the entered data which obviously includes mass of the material meant for manufacture together with the processes involved. The next step involves dealing with the end of life which in other terms is the disposal mechanism. This is majorly given such options as landfill, combustion for energy production/ recovery, reuse, re-engineering and recycling. A product definitely has to undergo one of the above procedures thus the lifecycle has to be determined from the first go in order to come up with practical conclusions. The next phase after this involves transport during which the product has to be transported to the end user. In order for the product to reach the end user, there are various modes of transport which may include delivery trucks, air transport and other modes. These too contribute to the carbon footprint which is the major concern for any successful eco-design. The final step involves report generation where a summary chart can equally be produced to aid in quick analysis of the output. Components of CES Edupack Eco-Audit Tool CES Edupack eco-audit tool encapsulates ISO 14006:2011 requirements within its design with life cycle engineering in mind. The requirements of ISO 14006:2011 requires PolarTank management to adhere to health and safety legislations through a basic approach that is altogether contained within the capabilities of CES Edupack eco-audit tool. This shall lead to improved organisational image and enhanced employee motivation and eventual economic benefits to the company (Ashby, et al., 2012). Ashby et al. (2012) further indicate the need for a report after the analysis is carried out. This report shall consist of step 1 data which is a general overview of the product under design together with the energies that er drawn from the data base. Once the energy levels required for production are retrieved, is also important to consider carbon footprint for the whole process given that the transportation truck shall obe engage in carbon/ other emmissions production. The recyclability of the material is also considered for reporting purposes so as to ensure that the material being utilised is in accordance to the ecodesign requirements. A conclusion can be made by comparing two materials in order to give a final decision on what can be used to achieve the ecodesign objectives (Ashby, et al., 2012). Eco-audit of a HDP/ 316L Jerry Can This section give a list of assumptions put into consideration when coming up with an eco-audit for a 316L, 20 liter jerry can being designed as a replacement for high density plastic for trailers operating within the USA market. The company seeks to deliver up to 200 units with a 25% discount on returned units as a recycling scheme. The jerry can being designed is shown in a solidwork rendering in figure 3 below. Figure 3: Solidwork rendering of jerry can design. Further assumptions are that the jerry can dimensions are 45x15x35cm making it a total of 23,625cm3. The total surface area of this product shall be 5,550cm2 for purposes of calculating the weight of the materials. A 15% wastage margin due to folding/ moulding patterns shall be put into consideration. The total weight of 2mm 316L material to be used on the jerry can shall be 10.24kg based on a density of 8.027 g/cm³ (United Perfomance Metals, 2014). Considering the strength of plastic and utilising a material that is 4mm thick, then the weight shall be 2.43kg based on a density of 0.95g/cm3 (United States Plastic Corp., 2014). Since the goods will be couried via sea freight from shanghai, China to San Francisco California USA the distance is set at 9917km. Further road transport is required from San Francisco to Springfield, Ohio whose distance is 3334km (Scholastic Inc. , 2014). The summary results obtained for HDP which is likely to last for a period of 2 years is as shown below in graph 1 and 2. Graph 1: A summary of energy usage on life cycle of HDP jerry can. Graph 2: A summary of CO2 footprint on entire life cycle of HDP jerry can. Further results obtained indicate the following for 316L jerry can. Graph 3: A summary of energy usage on all life phases of 316L jerry can. Graph 3: A summary of CO2 footprint of 316L jerry can. Conclusion The conclusion for the whole of this exercise is to continue using HDP material for jerry cans. From the carbon foot print alone, it is observed that onlhy 12.1kg of carbon dioxide were produced while 71.5kg are produced for 316L stainless steel. During the matrerial production phase alone, 316L staonless steel produces 64.1kg of carbon dioxide which is way above that of HDP which is a meagre 6.75kg. On the other side, considering energy usage, 268MJ are utilised for the production of HDP while 1130MJ are utilised for production of a 316L jerry can thereby disqualifying it as an ecodesign. List of References Ashby, M., Coulter, P., Ball, N. & Bream, C., 2012. The CES EduPack Eco Audit Tool — A White Paper. Granta Teaching Resources, Volume 2.1, pp. Pp. 1-24. Prendeville, S. et al., 2013. Envisioning Ecodesign: Definitions, Case Studies and Best Practice, Wales: European Network of Ecodesign Centres. Scholastic Inc. , 2014. Global Distances. [Online] Available at: http://go.grolier.com/atlas?op=gd&tn=/atlas/globaldist.html [Accessed 13 December 2014]. United Perfomance Metals, 2014. 316 / 316L Stainless Steel Sheet & Coil Physical Properties. [Online] Available at: http://www.upmet.com/products/stainless-steel/316316l/physical [Accessed 13 December 2014]. United States Plastic Corp., 2014. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Sheeting. [Online] Available at: http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=23869 [Accessed 13 December 2014]. Wimmer, W., Züst, R. & Lee, K.-M., 2004. ECODESIGN Implementation: A Systematic Guidance on Integrating Environmental Considerations into Product Development. AH Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. Appendix 1 HDP Eco Audit Report Product Name Product Product Life (years) 2 Energy and CO2 Footprint Summary: Energy Details... CO2 Details... Phase Energy (MJ) Energy (%) CO2 (kg) CO2 (%) Material 197 73.3 6.75 55.7 Manufacture 59.3 22.1 4.49 37.0 Transport 10.7 4.0 0.763 6.3 Use 0 0.0 0 0.0 Disposal 1.7 0.6 0.119 1.0 Total (for first life) 268 100 12.1 100 End of life potential -130 -4.46 Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary Energy Analysis Energy (MJ)/year Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 2 year product life): 133 Detailed breakdown of individual life phases Material: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Material Recycled content* (%) Part mass (kg) Qty. Total mass processed** (kg) Energy (MJ) % HDP Can PE-HD (high molecular weight) Virgin (0%) 2.4 1 2.4 2e+02 100.0 Total 1 2.4 2e+02 100 *Typical: Includes 'recycle fraction in current supply' **Where applicable, includes material mass removed by secondary processes Manufacture: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Process % Removed Amount processed Energy (MJ) % HDP Can Polymer molding - 2.4 kg 53 88.8 HDP Can Cutting and trimming - 0 kg 0 0.0 Final touches Painting - 0.56 m^2 6.7 11.2 Total 59 100 Transport: Energy and CO2 Summary Breakdown by transport stage Total product mass = 2.4 kg Stage name Transport type Distance (km) Energy (MJ) % Seafreight Sea freight 9.9e+03 3.9 35.9 Road transport 14 tonne truck 3.3e+03 6.9 64.1 Total 1.3e+04 11 100 Breakdown by components Component Component mass (kg) Energy (MJ) % HDP Can 2.4 11 100.0 Total 2.4 11 100 Use: Energy and CO2 Summary Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode Energy (MJ) % Static 0 Mobile 0 Total 0 100 Disposal: Energy and CO2 Summary Component End of life option % recovered Energy (MJ) % HDP Can Recycle 100.0 1.7 100.0 Total 1.7 100 EoL potential: Component End of life option % recovered Energy (MJ) % HDP Can Recycle 100.0 -1.3e+02 100.0 Total -1.3e+02 100 Notes: Energy and CO2 Summary Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary CO2 Footprint Analysis CO2 (kg)/year Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 2 year product life): 6.06 Detailed breakdown of individual life phases Material: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Material Recycled content* (%) Part mass (kg) Qty. Total mass processed** (kg) CO2 footprint (kg) % HDP Can PE-HD (high molecular weight) Virgin (0%) 2.4 1 2.4 6.7 100.0 Total 1 2.4 6.7 100 *Typical: Includes 'recycle fraction in current supply' **Where applicable, includes material mass removed by secondary processes Manufacture: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Process % Removed Amount processed CO2 footprint (kg) % HDP Can Polymer molding - 2.4 kg 3.9 87.9 HDP Can Cutting and trimming - 0 kg 0 0.0 Final touches Painting - 0.56 m^2 0.54 12.1 Total 4.5 100 Transport: Energy and CO2 Summary Breakdown by transport stage Total product mass = 2.4 kg Stage name Transport type Distance (km) CO2 footprint (kg) % Seafreight Sea freight 9.9e+03 0.27 35.9 Road transport 14 tonne truck 3.3e+03 0.49 64.1 Total 1.3e+04 0.76 100 Breakdown by components Component Component mass (kg) CO2 footprint (kg) % HDP Can 2.4 0.76 100.0 Total 2.4 0.76 100 Use: Energy and CO2 Summary Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode CO2 footprint (kg) % Static 0 Mobile 0 Total 0 100 Disposal: Energy and CO2 Summary Component End of life option % recovered CO2 footprint (kg) % HDP Can Recycle 100.0 0.12 100.0 Total 0.12 100 EoL potential: Component End of life option % recovered CO2 footprint (kg) % HDP Can Recycle 100.0 -4.5 100.0 Total -4.5 100 Notes: Energy and CO2 Summary Appendix 2 316L Eco Audit Report Product Name Product Product Life (years) 2 Energy and CO2 Footprint Summary: Energy Details... CO2 Details... Phase Energy (MJ) Energy (%) CO2 (kg) CO2 (%) Material 1.03e+03 91.0 64.1 89.6 Manufacture 49 4.3 3.72 5.2 Transport 45.3 4.0 3.21 4.5 Use 0 0.0 0 0.0 Disposal 7.17 0.6 0.502 0.7 Total (for first life) 1.13e+03 100 71.5 100 End of life potential -824 -47.8 Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary Energy Analysis Energy (MJ)/year Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 2 year product life): 563 Detailed breakdown of individual life phases Material: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Material Recycled content* (%) Part mass (kg) Qty. Total mass processed** (kg) Energy (MJ) % 316L Can Stainless steel, austenitic, AISI 316L, wrought Virgin (0%) 10 1 10 1e+03 100.0 Total 1 10 1e+03 100 *Typical: Includes 'recycle fraction in current supply' **Where applicable, includes material mass removed by secondary processes Manufacture: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Process % Removed Amount processed Energy (MJ) % 316L Can Extrusion, foil rolling - 10 kg 42 86.4 316L Can Cutting and trimming - 0 kg 0 0.0 Final touches Painting - 0.56 m^2 6.7 13.6 Total 49 100 Transport: Energy and CO2 Summary Breakdown by transport stage Total product mass = 10 kg Stage name Transport type Distance (km) Energy (MJ) % Seafreight Sea freight 9.9e+03 16 35.9 Road transport 14 tonne truck 3.3e+03 29 64.1 Total 1.3e+04 45 100 Breakdown by components Component Component mass (kg) Energy (MJ) % 316L Can 10 45 100.0 Total 10 45 100 Use: Energy and CO2 Summary Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode Energy (MJ) % Static 0 Mobile 0 Total 0 100 Disposal: Energy and CO2 Summary Component End of life option % recovered Energy (MJ) % 316L Can Recycle 100.0 7.2 100.0 Total 7.2 100 EoL potential: Component End of life option % recovered Energy (MJ) % 316L Can Recycle 100.0 -8.2e+02 100.0 Total -8.2e+02 100 Notes: Energy and CO2 Summary Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary CO2 Footprint Analysis CO2 (kg)/year Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 2 year product life): 35.8 Detailed breakdown of individual life phases Material: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Material Recycled content* (%) Part mass (kg) Qty. Total mass processed** (kg) CO2 footprint (kg) % 316L Can Stainless steel, austenitic, AISI 316L, wrought Virgin (0%) 10 1 10 64 100.0 Total 1 10 64 100 *Typical: Includes 'recycle fraction in current supply' **Where applicable, includes material mass removed by secondary processes Manufacture: Energy and CO2 Summary Component Process % Removed Amount processed CO2 footprint (kg) % 316L Can Extrusion, foil rolling - 10 kg 3.2 85.4 316L Can Cutting and trimming - 0 kg 0 0.0 Final touches Painting - 0.56 m^2 0.54 14.6 Total 3.7 100 Transport: Energy and CO2 Summary Breakdown by transport stage Total product mass = 10 kg Stage name Transport type Distance (km) CO2 footprint (kg) % Seafreight Sea freight 9.9e+03 1.2 35.9 Road transport 14 tonne truck 3.3e+03 2.1 64.1 Total 1.3e+04 3.2 100 Breakdown by components Component Component mass (kg) CO2 footprint (kg) % 316L Can 10 3.2 100.0 Total 10 3.2 100 Use: Energy and CO2 Summary Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode CO2 footprint (kg) % Static 0 Mobile 0 Total 0 100 Disposal: Energy and CO2 Summary Component End of life option % recovered CO2 footprint (kg) % 316L Can Recycle 100.0 0.5 100.0 Total 0.5 100 EoL potential: Component End of life option % recovered CO2 footprint (kg) % 316L Can Recycle 100.0 -48 100.0 Total -48 100 Notes: Energy and CO2 Summary Read More