Incorporating Environmental Impacts in Strategic Redesign of an Engineered System

Large engineered systems do not often live out their life cycles as originally planned. Traditional design methods do not address redesign issues that arise during long term operation of these systems. The problem of how to consider the environmental impacts of stranded assets is especially problematic, particularly during system operational changes. This paper presents a method for analysis of a dynamically changing system that includes consideration of both economic and environmental impacts. A case study of an electrical power system illustrates the approach. Using a 100 yr time period and using several decision rules (e.g., keep all plants operating until planned retirement age or retire all plants 10% early), the aggregated results were derived. The best sequence of decision or decision rule can now be determined by the highest multiattribute utility score. The best decision sequence is one that immediately retires and decommissions all fossil fueled electrical power plants, although early retirement without immediate decommissioning produces inferior utility values. There is little gained in utility when extending operational life of the plants, and as the 100 yr period moves forward, all solutions collapse on the final system configuration. The results provide several insights that were gained through the ability to forecast the environmental impact caused by changes within the life cycle phases of a system, such as early retirement or operational life extension of facilities.

[1]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[2]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Constrained optimization for green engineering decision-making. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Mohammad Shahidehpour,et al.  The IEEE Reliability Test System-1996. A report prepared by the Reliability Test System Task Force of the Application of Probability Methods Subcommittee , 1999 .

[4]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis , 2001 .

[5]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[6]  Thomas E. Graedel,et al.  Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment , 1998 .

[7]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  Life cycle analysis: A critique , 1995 .

[8]  P. Gu,et al.  Systematic Life Cycle Design for Sustainable Product Development , 2003 .

[9]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Discounting and the Environment Lca Methodology with Case Study 8 Lca Methodology with Case Study Should Current Impacts Be Weighted Differently than Impacts Harming Future Generations? , 2022 .

[10]  Geoffrey A. Moore,et al.  Crossing the Chasm , 1991 .

[11]  Probability Subcommittee,et al.  IEEE Reliability Test System , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems.

[12]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides , 2003 .

[13]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Electricity and Conflict: Advantages of a Distributed System , 2002 .

[14]  Mary Ann Curran,et al.  Environmental life-cycle assessment , 1996 .

[15]  Horst-Christian Langowski,et al.  Life cycle assessment study on resilient floor coverings , 1997 .

[16]  T. Graedel.  Industrial Ecology , 1995 .

[17]  Bert Bras,et al.  Improving Life Cycle Assessment by Including Spatial, Dynamic and Place-Based Modeling , 2003 .

[18]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  The computational structure of life cycle assessment , 2002 .