Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia

Concrete is the second most used material after water and the production of cement is responsible for 5–8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The development of low-carbon concretes is pursued worldwide to help the construction industry make its contribution to decarbonising the built environment and achieving carbon reduction targets agreed under the Paris Climate Agreement. However, there is uncertainty around the actual amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be avoided by employing alternative types of concrete. This study quantifies the carbon footprint intensities of Australian cement and concrete production, including ordinary Portland cement, standard ordinary Portland cement concrete, blended cement-based concrete and geopolymer concrete production. For the first time, an input-output based hybrid life-cycle assessment method is used for these products. The main goal of this paper is therefore to make a methodological comparison between process-based and hybrid life cycle assessment using the Australian cement and concrete production as a case study. A comparison with published results from process-based life-cycle inventories as well as a decomposition of results into product categories is provided. The hybrid life cycle assessment resulted in higher greenhouse gas emissions for ordinary Portland cement and all types of concrete due to the methodology incorporating an economy-wide system boundary, which includes the emissions from upstream processes. For geopolymer concrete in particular, the results were also dependent on the method applied for allocating greenhouse gas emissions from fly ash and slag. The findings from this study are likely to inform the development of strategies and policies aimed at greenhouse gas reduction in the cement and concrete industries.

[1]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments: some Australian results , 2002 .

[2]  W. Leontief Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach , 1970 .

[3]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  T. Fishman,et al.  Global Patterns and Trends for Non‐Metallic Minerals used for Construction , 2017 .

[5]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Hybrid input–output life cycle assessment of warm mix asphalt mixtures , 2015 .

[6]  Carlos Rodríguez,et al.  Environmental impacts, life cycle assessment and potential improvement measures for cement production: a literature review , 2016 .

[7]  Leenard Baas,et al.  Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I: utilizing life-cycle assessment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement industry , 2015 .

[8]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Hybrid life-cycle assessment of algal biofuel production. , 2015, Bioresource technology.

[9]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  Changbum R. Ahn,et al.  Life-Cycle Assessment of Concrete Dam Construction: Comparison of Environmental Impact of Rock-Filled and Conventional Concrete , 2013 .

[11]  P. Van den Heede,et al.  Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’ concretes: Literature review and theoretical calculations , 2012 .

[12]  K. Panuwatwanich,et al.  Variations in embodied energy and carbon emission intensities of construction materials , 2014 .

[13]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Compiling and using input-output frameworks through collaborative virtual laboratories. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[14]  Zhihong Wang,et al.  Environmental impact analysis of blast furnace slag applied to ordinary Portland cement production , 2016 .

[15]  G. Corder,et al.  Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement , 2011 .

[16]  Jeung-Hwan Doh,et al.  Assessment of the embodied carbon in precast concrete wall panels using a hybrid life cycle assessment approach in Malaysia , 2014 .

[17]  J. Sanjayan,et al.  Green house gas emissions due to concrete manufacture , 2007 .

[18]  Phillip Visintin,et al.  Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional concretes , 2017 .

[19]  R. Crawford Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[20]  Matthias Fawer,et al.  Life cycle inventories for the production of sodium silicates , 1999 .

[21]  John L. Wilson,et al.  Green Buildings in Australia: Drivers and Barriers , 2006 .

[22]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Errors in Conventional and Input‐Output—based Life—Cycle Inventories , 2000 .

[23]  Jeung-Hwan Doh,et al.  Concrete slab comparison and embodied energy optimisation for alternate design and construction techniques , 2015 .

[24]  Troy R. Hawkins,et al.  Effects of Using Heterogeneous Prices on the Allocation of Impacts from Electricity Use: A Mixed‐Unit Input‐Output Approach , 2017 .

[25]  Daniel Garraín,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of applying CO2 post-combustion capture to the Spanish cement production , 2015 .

[26]  Tao Gao,et al.  A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards , 2014 .

[27]  Sarel Lavy,et al.  Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper , 2012 .

[28]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Embodied energy in buildings : wood versus concrete - reply to Börjesson and Gustavsson , 2002 .

[29]  N. Roussel,et al.  An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends , 2011 .

[30]  Enda Crossin,et al.  The greenhouse gas implications of using ground granulated blast furnace slag as a cement substitute , 2015 .

[31]  H. S. Matthews,et al.  THE ROLE OF INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS FOR THE SCREENING OF CORPORATE CARBON FOOTPRINTS , 2009 .

[32]  T. Wiedmann EDITORIAL: CARBON FOOTPRINT AND INPUT–OUTPUT ANALYSIS – AN INTRODUCTION , 2009 .

[33]  F. Collins,et al.  Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete , 2013 .

[34]  Timothy F. Smith,et al.  The Australian Experience , 2011 .

[35]  Justin Kitzes,et al.  An Introduction to Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis , 2013 .

[36]  Dieuwertje Schrijvers,et al.  Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[37]  Fred Andrews-Phaedonos Specification and use of geopolymer concrete , 2014 .

[38]  Anja Buchwald,et al.  Life-cycle analysis of geopolymers , 2009 .

[39]  Enda Crossin,et al.  Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of concrete blends , 2012 .

[40]  G. Habert,et al.  Life cycle assessment (LCA) of alkali-activated cements and concretes , 2015 .

[41]  Thomas Wiedmann,et al.  An input–output virtual laboratory in practice – survey of uptake, usage and applications of the first operational IELab , 2017 .

[42]  Suping Cui,et al.  The LCA of portland cement production in China , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[43]  Paul Wolfram,et al.  Carbon footprint scenarios for renewable electricity in Australia , 2016 .

[44]  Richard Wood,et al.  The sustainability practitioner's guide to input-output analysis , 2010 .

[45]  Peter D. Blair,et al.  Input-Output Analysis , 2021 .

[46]  P. G. Taylor,et al.  Construction sector views on low carbon building materials , 2016 .

[47]  Agnès Jullien,et al.  LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete , 2010 .

[48]  Jun Guan,et al.  Quantification of building embodied energy in China using an input–output-based hybrid LCA model , 2016 .

[49]  Dieuwertje Schrijvers,et al.  Critical review of guidelines against a systematic framework with regard to consistency on allocation procedures for recycling in LCA , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[50]  Liu Cao,et al.  Quantifying CO2 emissions from China’s cement industry , 2015 .

[51]  Hans-Jörg Althaus,et al.  The ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodological Framework (7 pp) , 2005 .

[52]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Methods for Life Cycle Inventory of a product , 2005 .

[53]  Robert Ries,et al.  The embodied air pollutant emissions and water footprints of buildings in China: a quantification using disaggregated input–output life cycle inventory model , 2016 .

[54]  Xiaocun Zhang,et al.  Hybrid input-output analysis for life-cycle energy consumption and carbon emissions of China’s building sector , 2016 .

[55]  Detlef Heinz,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Geopolymer Concrete – What is the Environmental Benefit , 2009 .

[56]  Xiangyu Wang,et al.  The contribution of ISO 14067 to the evolution of global greenhouse gas standards—A review , 2015 .

[57]  Claudia P. Ostertag,et al.  Impact of Singapore's importers on life-cycle assessment of concrete , 2016 .

[58]  Shinichiro Nakamura,et al.  Input–Output and Hybrid LCA , 2016 .

[59]  Ralph Horne,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, Practice and Prospects , 2009 .

[60]  Hon Loong Lam,et al.  Review on life cycle inventory: methods, examples and applications , 2016 .

[61]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Life-cycle inventory analysis of concrete production: A critical review , 2014 .