EDUPACK ECO AUDIT

The CES EduPack Eco Audit Tool – A White Paper

Mike Ashby a,b, Patrick Coulter b, Nick Ball b, and Charlie Bream b

a. Engineering Department, Cambridge University, UK

b. Granta Design, 300 Rustat House, 62 Clifton Rd, Cambridge, CB1 7EG UK

Feb 2009 – Version 1.3

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd.

Abstract
The CES EduPack Eco Audit Tool enables the first part of a 2-part strategy for selecting materials for eco-aware
product design. The second part of the strategy is implemented in the CES Selector, described elsewhere (1, 2, 3). This
white paper gives the background, describes the 2-part strategy and explains the operation of the Eco Audit Tool, which
draws on the same database of material and process properties as CES Selector, ensuring consistency. The use of the
tool is illustrated with case studies.

Figure 1. The material life-cycle: material creation, product manufacture, product use and a number of
options for product disposal at end of life. Transport is involved between the stages.

1 MFA, 18/02/2009
 Resource and energy inputs can be monitored in a
1. Introduction straightforward and reasonably precise way. The
emissions rely more heavily on sophisticated monitoring
All human activity has some impact on the environment equipment – few are known to better than 10%.
in which we live. The environment has some capacity to Assessments of impacts depend on values for the
cope with this, so that a certain level of impact can be marginal effect of each emission on each impact
absorbed without lasting damage. But it is clear that category; many of these have much greater
current human activities exceed this threshold with uncertainties. Moreover, a full LCA is time-consuming,
increasing frequency, diminishing the quality of the expensive, and requires much detail, and it cannot cope
world in which we now live and threatening the well with the problem that 80% of the environmental burden
being of future generations. Part, at least, of this impact of a product is determined in the early stages of design
derives from the manufacture, use and disposal of when many decisions are still fluid. LCA is a product
products, and products, without exception, are made assessment tool, not a design tool.
from materials.

The materials consumption in the United States now

exceeds 10 tonnes per person per year. The average
level of global consumption is about 8 times smaller
than this but is growing twice as fast. The materials and
the energy needed to make and shape them are drawn
from natural resources: ore bodies, mineral deposits,
fossil hydrocarbons. The earth’s resources are not
infinite, but until recently, they have seemed so: the
demands made on them by manufacture throughout the
18th, 19th and early 20th century appeared infinitesimal,
the rate of new discoveries always outpacing the rate of
consumption. This perception has now changed:
warning flags are flying, danger signals flashing.

To develop tools to analyze the problem and respond to

it, we must first examine the materials life cycle and Figure 2. Typical LCA output showing three
consider how to apply life cycle analysis. The materials categories: resource consumption, emission
life cycle is sketched in Figure 1. Ore and feedstock are inventory, and impact assessment (data in part
mined and processed to yield materials. These are from reference (4)).
manufactured into products that are used and at the end
of life, discarded, recycled or (less commonly) And there is a further difficulty: what is a designer
refurbished and reused. Energy and materials are supposed to do with these numbers? The designer,
consumed in each phase of life, generating waste heat seeking to cope with the many interdependent decisions
and solid, liquid, and gaseous emissions. that any design involves, inevitably finds it hard to
know how best to use data of this type. How are CO2
2. Life cycle analysis and its difficulties and SOx productions to be balanced against resource
depletion, energy consumption, global warming
potential, or human toxicity?
The environmental impact caused by a product is
assessed by environmental life cycle assessment (LCA).
This perception has led to efforts to condense the eco
information about a material production into a single
Life cycle assessment techniques, now documented in
measure or indicator, normalizing and weighting each
standards (ISO 14040, 1997, 1998), analyze the eco
source of stress to give the designer a simple, numeric
impact of products once they are in service. They have
ranking. The use of a single-valued indicator is
acquired a degree of rigor, and now deliver essential
criticized by some on the grounds that there is no
data documenting the way materials influence the flows
agreement on normalization or weighting factors and
of energy and emissions of Figure 1. It is standard
that the method is opaque since the indicator value has
practice to process these data to assess their
no simple physical significance.
contributions to a number of known environmental
impacts: ozone depletion, global warming, acidification
On one point, however, there is a degree of international
of soil and water, human toxicity, and more (nine
agreement: a commitment to a progressive reduction in
categories in all), giving output that looks like Figure 2.
carbon emissions, generally interpreted as meaning
CO2. At the national level the focus is more on reducing
Despite the formalism that attaches to LCA methods,
energy consumption, but since this and CO2 production
the results are subject to considerable uncertainty.
are closely related, reducing one generally reduces the

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 2 MFA, 18/02/2009

other. Thus there is certain logic in basing design
decisions on energy consumption or CO2 generation;
they carry more conviction than the use of a more
obscure indicator, as evidenced by the now-standard
reporting of both energy efficiency and the CO2
emissions of cars, and the energy rating and ranking of
appliances. We shall follow this route.

The need, then, is for a product-assessment strategy that

addresses current concerns and combines acceptable
cost burden with sufficient precision to guide decision- Figure 3. Breakdown of energy into
making. It should be flexible enough to accommodate that associated with each life-phase.
future refinement and simple enough to allow rapid
“What-if” exploration of alternatives. To achieve this it manufacture, transport, and product use and disposal.
is necessary to strip-off much of the detail, multiple Product disposal can take many different forms, some
targeting, and complexity that makes standard LCA carrying an energy penalty, some allowing energy
methods so cumbersome. recycling or recovery. When this distinction is made, it
is frequently found that one of phases of Figure 1
dominates the picture. Figure 4 presents the evidence.
3. Our approach The upper row shows an approximate energy
breakdown for three classes of energy-using products: a
The approach developed here has three components. civil aircraft, a family car and an appliance: for all three
the use-phase consumes more energy than the sum of all
1. Adopt simple measures of environmental stress. the others. The lower row shows products that require
Section 2 points to the use of energy or CO2 footprint as energy during the use-phase of life, but not as
logical choices for measuring environmental stress, intensively as those of the upper row. For these, the
rather than combined indicators. If we wanted to pick embodied energies of the materials of which they are
just one of these, energy has the merit that it is the made often dominate the picture. Two conclusions can
easiest to monitor, can be measured with relative be drawn. The first: one phase frequently dominates,
precision and, with appropriate precautions, can when accounting for 60% or more of the energy – often much
needed be used as a proxy for CO2. more. If large energy savings are to be achieved, it is the
dominant phase that becomes the first target since it is
2. Distinguish the phases of life. Figure 3 suggests the here that a given fractional reduction makes the biggest
breakdown, assigning a fraction of the total life-energy contribution. The second: when differences are as great
demands of a product to material creation, product as those of Figure 4, great precision is not necessary –

Figure 4. Approximate values for the energy consumed at each phase of Figure 1 for a
range of products (data from refs. (5) and (6)). The disposal phase is not shown because
there are many alternatives for each product.

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 3 MFA, 18/02/2009

 Figure 5. Rational approaches to the eco design of products start with an analysis of the phase of life to be
targeted. Its results guide redesign and materials selection to minimize environmental impact. The disposal
phase, shown here as part of the overall strategy, is not included in the current version of the tool.

modest changes to the input data leave the ranking

unchanged. It is the nature of people who measure 4. The Eco Audit Tool
things to wish to do so with precision, and precise data
must be the ultimate goal. But it is possible to move Figure 6 shows the structure of the tool.
forward without it: precise judgments can be drawn
from imprecise data.

3. Base the subsequent action on the energy or carbon

breakdown. Figure 5 suggests how the strategy can be
implemented. If material production is the dominant
phase, then minimizing the mass of material used and
choosing materials with low embodied energy are
logical ways forward. If manufacture is an important
energy-using phase of life, reducing processing energies
becomes the prime target. If transport makes a large
contribution, then seeking a more efficient transport
mode or reducing distance becomes the first priority.
When the use-phase dominates the strategy is that of
minimizing mass (if the product is part of a system that
moves), or increasing thermal efficiency (if a thermal or
thermo-mechanical system) or reducing electrical losses
(if an electro-mechanical system). In general the best
material choice to minimize one phase will not be the
one that minimizes the others, requiring trade-off
methods to guide the choice. A full description of these
and other methods for materials selection can be found
in reference (2).
Figure 6. The Energy Audit Tool. The model
Implementation requires tools. Two sets are needed, one combines user-defined inputs with data drawn
to perform the eco audit sketched in the upper part of from databases of embodied energy of materials,
Figure 5, the other to enable the analysis and selection processing energies, and transport type to create
sketched in the lower part. The purpose of this white the energy breakdown. The same tool can be used
paper is to describe the first: the Eco Audit Tool.
for an assessment of CO2 footprint.

The inputs are of two types. The first are drawn from a
user-entered bill of materials, process choice, transport

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 4 MFA, 18/02/2009

requirements and duty cycle (the details of the energy Step 3, the use phase requires a little explanation. There
and intensity of use). Data for embodied energies and are two different classes of contribution.
process energies are drawn from a database of material
properties; those for the energy and carbon intensity of Some products are (normally) static but require energy
transport and the energy sources associated with use are to function: electrically powered household or industrial
drawn from look-up tables. The outputs are the energy products like hairdryers, electric kettles, refrigerators,
or carbon footprint of each phase of life, presented as power tools, and space heaters are examples. Even
bar charts and in tabular form. apparently non-powered products, like household
furnishings or unheated buildings, still consume some
The tool in detail. The tool is opened from the “Tools” energy in cleaning, lighting, and maintenance. The first
menu of the CES EduPack software toolbar by clicking class of contribution, then, relates to the power
on “Eco Audit”. Figure 7 (overleaf) is a schematic of consumed by, or on behalf of, the product itself.
the user interface that shows the user actions and the
consequences. There are four steps, labelled 1, 2, 3, and The second class is associated with transport. Products
4. Actions and inputs are shown in red. that form part of a transport system add to its mass and
so augment its energy consumption and CO2 burden.
Step 1, material and manufacture allows entry of the
mass, the material and primary shaping process for each The user-defined inputs of step 3 enable the analysis of
component. The component name is entered in the first both. Ticking the “static mode” box opens an input
box. The material is chosen from the pull-down menu of window. The primary sources of energy are taken to be
box 2, opening the database of materials properties1. fossil fuels (oil, gas). The energy consumption and CO2
Selecting a material from the tree-like hierarchy of burden depend on a number of efficiency factors. When
materials causes the tool to retrieve and store its energy is converted from one form to another, some
embodied energy and CO2 footprint per kg. The primary energy may be lost. When fossil fuel or electricity are
shaping process is chosen from the pull-down menu of converted into heat, there are no losses - the efficiency
box 3, which lists the processes relevant for the chosen is 100%. But when energy in the form of fossil fuel is
material; the tool again retrieves energy and carbon converted to electrical energy the conversion efficiency
footprint per kg. The last box allows the component is, on average2, about 33%. The direct conversion of
weight to be entered in kg. On completing a row-entry a primary energy to mechanical power depends on the
new row appears for the next component. input: for electricity it is between 85 and 90%; for fossil
fuel it is, at best, 40%. Selecting an energy conversion
On a first appraisal of the product it is frequently mode causes the tool to retrieve the efficiency and
sufficient to enter data for the components with the multiply it by the power and the duty cycle – the usage
greatest mass, accounting for perhaps 95% of the total. over the product life – calculated from the life in years
The residue is included by adding an entry for “residual times the days per year times the hours per day.
components” giving it the mass required to bring the
total to 100% and selecting a proxy material and Products that are part of a transport system carry an
process: “polycarbonate” and “molding” are good additional energy and CO2 penalty by contributing to its
choices because their energies and CO2 lie in the mid weight. The mobile mode part of step 3 gives a pull-
range of those for commodity materials. down menu to select the fuel and mobility type. On
entering the usage and daily distance the tool calculates
The tool multiplies the energy and CO2 per kg of each the necessary energy.
component by its mass and totals them. In its present
form the data for materials are comprehensive. Those Step 4, the final step, allows the user to select energy or
for processes are rudimentary. CO2 as the measure, displaying a bar chart and table.
Clicking “report” completes the calculation. There is
Step 2, transport allows for transportation of the one further option: the database contains data for both
product from manufacturing site to point of sale. The virgin and recycled material, and values for the typical
tool allows multi-stage transport (e.g., shipping then recycled fraction in current supply. Selecting “Include
delivery by truck). To use it, the stage is given a name, a recycle fraction” causes the tool to calculate energies
transport type is selected from the pull-down “transport and carbon values for materials containing the typical
type” menu and a distance is entered in km or miles. recycle faction, in place of those for virgin materials.
The tool retrieves the energy / tonne.km and the CO2 /
tonne.km for the chosen transport type from a look-up The look-up tables used by the tool are listed in
table and multiplies them by the product weight and the Appendix 1. Appendix 2 shows example tabular output.
distance travelled, finally summing the stages.

2
Modern dual-cycle power stations achieve an efficiency
1
One of the CES EduPack Materials databases, depending on around 40%, but averaged over all stations, some of them old,
which was chosen when the software was opened. the efficiency is less.

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 5 MFA, 18/02/2009

 Figure 7. The Eco Audit Tool

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 6 MFA, 18/02/2009

5. Case studies Table 1: The inputs

An eco audit is a fast initial assessment. It identifies the

phases of life – material, manufacture, transport and use Product name: PET bottle, bill of materials.
– that carry the highest demand for energy or create the
greatest burden of emissions. It points the finger, so to Life: 1 year.
speak, identifying where the greatest gains might be Step 1: Materials and manufacture: 100 units
made. Often, one phase of life is, in eco terms,
overwhelmingly dominant, accounting for 60% or more Component Material Process Mass
of the energy and carbon totals. This difference is so name (kg)
large that the imprecision in the data and the Bottle, 100 units PET Molded 4
ambiguities in the modeling, are not an issue; the
dominance remains even when the most extreme values Cap, 100 units PP Molded 0.1
are used. It then makes sense to focus first on this Dead weight (100 Water 100
dominant phase, since it is here that the potential liters of water)
innovative material choice to reduce energy and carbon
are greatest. As we shall see later, material substitution
Step 2: Transport
has more complex aspects – there are trade-offs to be
considered – but for now we focus on the simple audit. Stage name Transport Distance (km)
type
This section outlines case studies that bring out the
strengths and weaknesses of the Eco Audit Tool. Its use Transport of filled 14 tonne truck 550
is best illustrated by a case study of extreme simplicity – bottles
that of a PET drink bottle – since this allows the inputs
and outputs to be shown in detail. The case studies that Step 3: Use phase: static mode – refrigerationi
follow it are presented in less detail.
Energy input Power Usage Usage
Bottled water. One brand of bottled water is sold in 1 and output rating (hr / day) (days /
liter PET bottles with polypropylene caps (similar to (kw) year)
that in Figure 8). A bottle weighs 40 grams; the cap 1 Electric to 0.12 24 2
gram. Bottles and caps are molded, filled, transported mechanical
550km from Evian in the French Alps to London,
England, by 14 tonne truck, refrigerated for 2 days
requiring 1 m3 of refrigerated space at 4oC and then Step 4: Energy selected.
sold. Table 1 shows the data entered in the Audit Tool.
i
The energy requirements for refrigeration, based on A-rated
appliances are 10.5 MJ/m3.day for refrigeration at 4o C and
13.5 MJ/m3.day for freezing at -5o C. The use energy is chosen
to give the value for refrigeration.

the values. It created the (geometric) mean of the range,

storing the values shown below:

Material and primary Embodied CO2

manufacturing process energy footprint
(MJ/kg) (kg/kg)
PET, material 84 2.3
Figure 8. A 1 litre PET water bottle.
The calculation is for 100 units. PP, material 95 2.7
Polymer molding 6.8 0.53
What has the tool done? For step 1 it retrieved from the
database the energies and CO2 profiles of the materials It then multiplied these by the mass of each material,
and the processes3. What it found there are ranges for summing the results to give total energy and carbon.

For step 2 it retrieved the energy and CO2 profile of the

3
Data are drawn from the CES EduPack Level 2 or 3 selected transport mode from a look-up table (see
database, according to choice. Appendix A), finding:

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 7 MFA, 18/02/2009

 Transport type Energy CO2 footprint generation derive from production of the polymers used
(MJ / tonne.km) (kg CO2 / to make the bottle. (The carbon footprint of
tonne.km) manufacture, transport, and use is proportionally larger
14 tonne truck 0.87 0.062 than their energy burden, because of the inefficiencies
of the energy conversions they involve). The second
It then multiplies these by the total weight of the largest is the short, 2-day, refrigeration energy. The
product and the distance traveled. If more than one seemingly extravagant part of the life cycle – that of
transport stage is entered, the tool sums them, storing transporting water, 1 kg per bottle, 550 km from the
the sum. For step 3 the tool retrieves an efficiency factor French Alps to the diner’s table in London – in fact
for the chosen energy conversion mode (here electric to contributes 10% of the total energy and 17% of the total
mechanical because the refrigeration unit is a carbon. If genuine concern is felt about the eco impact
mechanical pump driven by an electric motor), finding of drinking Evian water, then (short of giving it up) it is
in its look-up table: the bottle that is the primary target. Could it be made
thinner, using less PET? (Such bottles are 30% lighter
today than they were 15 years ago). Is there a polymer
Energy input and output Efficiency factor relative to oil that is less energy intensive than PET? Could the bottles
Electric to mechanical 0.28 be made reusable (and of sufficiently attractive design
that people would wish to reuse them)? Could recycling
The tool uses this and the user-entered values for power of the bottles be made easier? These are design
and usage to calculate the energy and CO2 profile of the questions, the focus of the lower part of Figure 5.
use phase. For the final step 4 the tool retrieved (if Methods for approaching them are detailed in references
asked to do so) the recycle energy and recycle fraction (1) and (2).
in current supply for each material and replaced the
energy and CO2 profiles for virgin materials (the An overall reassessment of the eco impact of the bottles
default) with values for materials made with this should, of course, explore ways of reducing energy and
fraction of recycled content. carbon in all four phases of life, seeking the most
efficient molding methods, the least energy intensive
Finally it created a bar chart and summary of energy or transport mode (32 tonne truck, barge), and minimizing
CO2 according to user-choice and a report detailing the the refrigeration time.
results of each step of the calculation. The bar charts are
shown in Figure 9. Table 2 shows the summary. Electric jug kettle. Figure 10 shows a typical kettle. The
bill of materials is listed in Table 3. The kettle is
What do we learn from these outputs? The greatest manufactured in South East Asia and transported to
contributions to energy consumption and CO2 Europe by air freight, a distance of 11,000 km, then

Table 2: PET bottle, energy and carbon summary, 100 units.

Phase Energy (MJ) Energy (%) CO2 (kg) CO2 (%)

Material 344 68 9.6 48
Manufacture 36 7 3.2 16
Transport 48 10 3.4 17
Use 74. 15 3.7 19
Total 503 100 19.9 100

Energy CO2
(MJ/100 units) (kg/100 units)

Figure 9. The energy and the carbon footprint bar-charts generated by the audit tool for the bottles.

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 8 MFA, 18/02/2009

distributed by 24 tonne truck over a further 250 km. The
power rating is 2 kW, and the volume 1.7 liters. The
kettle boils 1 liter of water in 3 minutes. It is used, on
average, 3 times per day over a life of 3 years.

Figure 11. The energy bar-chart generated by the Eco

Audit Tool for the jug kettle.
Figure 10. A 2 kW jug kettle
with insulation in the gap, could help here – it would
increase the embodied energy of the material column,
Table 3: Jug kettle, bill of materials. Life: 3 years. but even doubling this leaves it small. A full vacuum
insulation would be the ultimate answer – the water not
Component Material Process Mass (kg) used when the kettle is boiled would then remain close
Polypropylene Polymer to boiling point for long enough to be useful the next
Kettle body 0.86
(PP) molding time hot water is needed. The energy extravagance of
Nickel- air-freight makes only 3% of the total. Using sea freight
Heating Forging, instead increase the distance to 17,000 km, but reduces
chromium 0.026
element rolling the transport energy per kettle to 2.8 MJ, a mere 1% of
alloys
Casing,
the total.
Forging,
heating Stainless steel 0.09
rolling
element Table 4: the energy analysis of the jug kettle.
Cable
Natural Polymer
sheath, 1 0.06 Phase Life energy (MJ) Energy (%)
Rubber (NR) molding
meter
Material 107 2.8
Cable core, Forging,
Copper 0.015 Manufacture 6.9 0.18
1 meter rolling
Polymer Transport 115 3.0
Plug body Phenolic 0.037
molding Use 3583 93.9
Forging, Total 3813 100
Plug pins Brass 0.03
rolling
Packaging, Rigid polymer Polymer
0.015
padding foam, MD molding Family car – using the Eco audit tool to compare
Packaging,
Cardboard Construction 0.125
material embodied energy with use energy. In this
box example, we use the Eco Audit Tool to compare
material embodied energy with use energy. Table 5 lists
The bar chart in Figure 11 shows the energy breakdown one automaker’s summary of the material content of a
delivered by the tool. Table 4 shows the summary. mid-sized family car (Figure 12). There is enough
information here to allow a rough comparison of
Here, too, one phase of life consumes far more energy embodied energy with use energy using the Eco Audit
than all the others put together. Despite only using it for Tool. We ignore manufacture and transport, focusing
9 minutes per day, the electric power (or, rather, the oil only on material and use. Material proxies for the vague
equivalent of the electric power, since conversion material descriptions are given in brackets and
efficiencies are included in the calculation) accounts for italicized.
95% of the total. Improving eco performance here has to
focus on this use energy – even a large change, 50% A plausible use-phase scenario is that of a product life
reduction, say, in any of the others makes insignificant of 10 years, driving 25,000 km (15,000 miles) per year,
difference. So thermal efficiency must be the target. using gasoline power.
Heat is lost through the kettle wall – selecting a polymer
with lower thermal conductivity, or using a double wall

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 9 MFA, 18/02/2009

 Auto bumpers – using the Eco audit tool to explore
substitution. The bumpers of a car are heavy; making
them lighter can save fuel. Here we explore the
replacement of a steel bumper with one of equal
performance made from aluminum (Figure 14). The
steel bumper weighs 14 kg; the aluminum substitute
weighs 10, a reduction in weight of 28%. But the
embodied energy of aluminum is much higher than that
of steel. Is there a net saving?

Figure 12. A mid size family car weighing 1800 kg

Table 5: Material content of an 1800 kg family car

Material content Mass (kg)

Steel (Low alloy steel) 850
Aluminum (Cast aluminum alloy) 438
Thermoplastic polymers (PU, PVC) 148
Thermosetting polymers (Polyester) 93
Elastomers (Butyl rubber) 40 Figure 14. An automobile bumper
Glass (Borosilicate glass) 40
The bar charts on the left of Figure 15 (overleaf)
Other metals (Copper) 61
compare the material and use energy, assuming the use
Textiles (Polyester) 47 of virgin material and that the bumper is mounted on a
gasoline-powered family car with a life “mileage” of
The bar chart of Figure 13 shows the comparison, 250,000 km (150,000 miles). The substitution results in
plotting the data in the table below the figure (energies a large increase in material energy and a drop in use
converted to GJ). The input data are of the most energy. The two left-hand columns of table 6 below list
approximate nature, but it would take very large the totals: the aluminum substitute wins (it has a lower
discrepancies to change the conclusion: the energy total) but not by much – the break-even comes at about
consumed in the use phase (here 84%) greatly exceeds 200,000 km. And it costs more.
that embodied in the materials of the vehicle.
Table 6: Material energies and use energies for steel
and aluminum bumpers

Virgin material With recycle content

Energy Fraction Energy Fraction
Steel
(MJ) (%) (MJ) (%)
Material: steel 446 6 314 4
(14 kg)
Use: 250,000 km 7210 94 7210 96
Total 7691 100 7567 100
Aluminum

Figure 13. Eco Audit Tool output for the car Material: 2088 29 1063 17
aluminum (10 kg)
detailed in table 5, comparing embodied energy and
use energy based on a life-distance of 250,000 km. Use: 250,000 km 5150 71 5150 83
Total 7275 100 6250 100

Phase Energy (GJ) Energy (%) But this is not quite fair. A product like this would, if
possible, incorporate recycled as well as virgin material.
Material 162 16
Clicking the box for “Include recycle fraction” in the
Use 884 84 tool recalculates the material energies using the recycle
Total 1046 100

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 10 MFA, 18/02/2009

 Steel bumper Steel bumper
Weight 14 kg Weight 14 kg
Virgin material With recycle content

Aluminum bumper Aluminum bumper

Weight 10 kg Weight 10 kg
Virgin material With recycle content

Figure 15. The comparison of the energy audits of a steel and an aluminum fender for a family car. The
comparison on the left assumes virgin material; that on the right assumes a typical recycle fraction content.

content in current supply with the recycle energy for This is a product that uses energy during its life in two
this fraction4. The right hand pair of bar charts and distinct ways. First there is the electricity and LPG
columns of the table present the new picture. The required to make it function. Second, there is the energy
aluminum bumper loses about half of its embodied penalty that arises because it increases the weight of the
energy. The steel bumper loses a little too, but not as vehicle that carries it by 7 kg. What does the overall
much. The energy saving at a life of 250,000 km is energy and CO2 life profile of the heater look like?
considerably larger, and the break-even (found by
running the tool for progressively shorter mileage until
the total energy for aluminum and steel become equal)
is below 100,000 km.

A portable space heater. The space heater in Figure 16

is carried as equipment on a light goods vehicle used for
railway repair work. A bill of materials for the space
heater is shown in table 7 (overleaf). It burns 0.66 kg of
LPG per hour, delivering an output of 9.3 kW (32,000
BTU). The air flow is driven by a 38 W electric fan. The
heater weighs 7 kg. The (approximate) bill of principal
materials is listed in the table. The product is
Figure 16. A space heater powered by liquid
manufactured in South Korea, and shipped to the US by
propane gas (LPG)
sea freight (10,000 km) then carried by 32 tonne truck
for a further 600 km to the point of sale. It is anticipated
that the vehicle carrying it will travel, on average, 420 The tool, at present, allows only one type of static-use
km per week, over a 3-year life, and that the heater itself energy. The power consumed by burning LPG for heat
will be used for 2 hours per day for 20 days per year. (9.3 kW) far outweighs that used to drive the small
electric fan-motor (38 W), so we neglect this second
contribution. It is less obvious how this static-use
energy, drawn for only 40 hours per year, compares
4
Caution is needed here: the recycle fraction of aluminum in with the extra fuel-energy consumed by the vehicle
current supply is 55%, but not all alloy grades can accept as because of the product weight – remembering that, as
much recycled material as this. part of the equipment, it is lugged over 22,000 km per
year. The Eco Audit Tool can resolve this question.

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 11 MFA, 18/02/2009

 Table 7: Space heater, bill of materials. Life: 3 years. Energy flows and pay back time of a wind turbine.
Wind energy is attractive for several reasons. It is
Mass renewable, not dependent on fuel supplies from
Component Material Process diminishing resources in possibly unfriendly countries,
(kg)
Low carbon Forging, does not pose a threat in the hands of hostile nations,
Heater casing 5.4 and is distributed and thus difficult to disrupt. But is it
steel rolling
energy efficient? It costs energy to build a wind turbine
Low carbon Forging,
Fan 0.25 – how long does it take for the turbine to pay it back?
steel rolling
Air flow enclosure Forging,
Stainless steel 0.4
(heat shield) rolling
Motor, rotor and Forging,
Iron 0.13
stator rolling
Motor, wiring: Forging,
Copper 0.08
conductors rolling
Motor, wiring: Polymer
Polyethylene 0.08
insulation molding
Connecting hose, 2 Natural Polymer
0.35
meter Rubber (NR) molding
Forging,
Hose connector Brass 0.09
rolling
Proxy Proxy –
Other components material - polymer 0.22 Figure 18. A wind turbine
polycarbonate molding

Figure 17 shows the summary bar-chart. The use energy The bill of materials for a 2 MW land-based turbine is
(as with most energy-using products) outweighs all listed in table 9 (overleaf). Information is drawn from a
other contributions, accounting for 94% of the total. The Vestas Wind Systems5 study, from the Technical
detailed report (Appendix 2) gives a breakdown of each Specification of Nordex Energy6, and from Vestas’
contribution to each phase of life. One of eight tables it report7scaling their data according to weight. Some
contains is reproduced below – it is a summary of the energy is consumed during the turbine’s life (expected
relative contributions of the two types of energy to be 25 years), mostly in transport associated with
consumption during use. The consumption of energy as maintenance. This was estimated from information on
LPG greatly exceeds that of transport, despite the inspection and service visits in the Vestas report and
relatively short time over which it is used. estimates of distances travelled (entered under “Static”
use mode as 200 hp used for 2 hours 3 days per year).

The net energy demands of each phase of life are

summarized in table 10 and Figure 19. The turbine is
rated at 2 MW but it produces this power only when the
wind conditions are right. In a “best case” scenario the
turbine runs at an average capacity factor8 of 50%
giving an annual energy output of 8.5 x 106 kWhr / year.

5
Elsam Engineering A/S, (2004) “Life Cycle Assessment of
Offshore and Onshore Sited Wind Farms”, October. This lists
Figure 17. The energy breakdown for the space the quantities of significant materials and the weight of each
heater. The use phase dominates. subsystem. The nacelle consists of smaller parts – some are
difficult to assess due to limited information in the report.
6
Table 8. Relative contributions of static / mobile modes Nordex N90 Technical Description, Nordex Energy (2004)
7
Vestas (2005) “Life cycle assessment of offshore and
Mode Energy (MJ) Energy (%) onshore sited wind turbines” Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Alsvij
Static 4.5 x 103 87.4 21, 8900 Randus, Denmark (www.vestas.com)
2 8
Mobile 6.4 x 10 12.6 Capacity factor = fraction of peak power delivered, on
3 average, over a year. A study of Danish turbines in
Total 5.1 x 10 100 favorable sites found a capacity factor of 54%.

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 12 MFA, 18/02/2009

 Table 9. Approximate bill of materials for on-shore wind turbine

Component Component Material Process Mass (kg)

Tower Structure Low carbon steel Forging, rolling 164,000
(165 tonnes) Cathodic protection Zinc Casting 203
Gears Stainless steel Forging, rolling 19,000
Generator, core Iron (low C steel) Forging, rolling 9,000
Generator, conductors Copper Forging, rolling 1,000
Nacelle Transformer, core Iron Forging, rolling 6,000
(61 tonnes) Transformer, conductors Copper Forging, rolling 2,000
Transformer, conductors Aluminum Forging, rolling 1,700
Cover GFRP Composite forming 4,000
Main shaft Cast iron Casting 12,000
Other forged components Stainless steel Forging, rolling 3000
Other cast components Cast iron Casting 4,000
Blades CFRP Composite forming 24,500
Rotor Iron components Cast iron Casting 2,000
(34 tonnes) Spinner GFRP Composite forming 3,000
Spinner Cast iron Casting 2,200
Foundations Pile and platform Concrete Construction 805,000
(832 tonnes) Steel Low carbon steel Forging, rolling 27,000
Conductors Copper Forging, rolling 254
Transmission Conductors Aluminum Forging, rolling 72
Insulation Polyethylene Polymer extrusion 1,380

Table 10: The energy analysis for the construction and time of 15 months and a lifetime energy production that
maintenance of the turbine is 20 times that required to build the turbine.

Construction Construction Construction

Phase energy energy CO2
(MJ) (kWhr) (kg)
Material 1.8 x 107 4.9 x 106 1.3 x 106
6 5
Manufacture 1.0 x 10 2.8 x 10 9.6 x 104
Transport 2.5 x 105 7.0 x 104 1.6 x 104
Use 2.3 x 105 6.3 x 104 1.9 x 104
(maintenance)
Total 1.9 x 107 5.3 x 106 1.4 x 106

The energy payback time is then the ratio of the total

energy invested in the turbine (including maintenance) Figure 19. The energy breakdown for the building
and the expected average yearly energy production: and maintenance of the wind turbine, calculated
using the Eco Audit Tool.
5.3 x 10 6 kWhr
Pay back time = The Vestas LCA for this turbine (a much more detailed
8.5 x 10 6 kWhr / yr study of which only some of the inputs are published)
arrives at the payback time of 8 months. A recent study
= 0.63 years = 7.5 months at the University of Wisconsin-Madison9 finds that wind
farms have a high “energy payback” (ratio of energy
The total energy generated by the turbine over a 25 year produced compared to energy expended in construction
life is about 2.1 x 108 kWhr, roughly 40 times that
required to build and service it. A “worst case” scenario
with a capacity factor of 25 % gives an energy payback 9
Wind Energy Weekly, Vol. 18, Number 851, June 1999

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 13 MFA, 18/02/2009

and operation), larger than that of either coal or nuclear Granta plans to develop the tool further and welcomes
power generation. In the study, three Midwestern wind ideas, criticisms and comments from users10.
farms were found to generate between 17 and 39 times
more energy than is required for their construction and
operation, while coal fired power stations generate on References
average 11 and nuclear plants 16 times as much. Thus
although the construction of wind turbines is energy- (1) Ashby, M.F. Shercliff, H. and Cebon, D. (2007)
intensive, the energy payback from them is great “Materials: engineering, science, processing and
design”, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford UK, Chapter
The construction of the wind turbine carries a carbon 20.
footprint. Running the Eco Audit Tool for carbon gives
the output in the last column of table 10 above: a total (2) Ashby, M.F. (2005) “Materials Selection in
output of 1,400 tonnes of CO2. But the energy produced Mechanical Design”, 3rd edition, Butterworth-
by the turbine is carbon-free. The life-output of 2.1 x Heinemann, Oxford, UK , Chapter 16.
108 kWhr, if generated from fossil fuels, would have
emitted 42,000 tonnes of CO2. Thus wind turbines offer (4) Boustead Model 4 (1999), Boustead Consulting,
power with a much reduced carbon footprint. The Black Cottage, West Grinstead, Horsham, West Sussex,
problem is not energy pay back, but with the small RH13 7BD, Tel: +44 1403 864 561, Fax: +44 1403 865
power output per unit. Even at an optimistic capacity 284, (www.boustead-consulting.co.uk)
factor of 50%, about 1000 2MW wind turbines are
needed to replace the power output of just one (3) Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, (2009)
conventional coal-fired power station. (www.grantadesign.com), CES EduPack User Guide

(5) Bey, N. (2000) “The Oil Point Method: a tool for

6. Summary and conclusions indicative environmental evaluation in material and
process selection” PhD thesis, Department of
Eco aware product design has many aspects, one of Manufacturing Engineering, IPT Technical University
which is the choice of materials. Materials are energy of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
intensive, with high embodied energies and associated
carbon footprints. Seeking to use low-energy materials (6) Allwood, J.M., Laursen, S.E., de Rodriguez, C.M.
might appear to be one way forward, but this can be and Bocken, N.M.P. (2006) “Well dressed? The present
misleading. Material choice impacts manufacturing, it and future sustainability of clothing and textiles in the
influences the weight of the product and its thermal and United Kingdom”, University of Cambridge, Institute
electrical characteristics and thus the energy it for Manufacturing, Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1RX,
consumes during use, and it influences the potential for UK ISBN 1-902546-52-0.
recycling or energy recovery at the end of life. It is full-
life energy that we seek to minimize.

Doing so requires a two-part strategy outlined in this

White Paper. The first part is an eco audit: a quick,
approximate assessment of the distribution of energy
demand and carbon emission over life. This provides
inputs to guide the second part: that of material
selection to minimize the energy and carbon over the
full life, balancing the influences of the choice over
each phase of life. This White Paper describes an Eco
Audit Tool that enables the first part. It is fast and easy
to use, and although approximate, it delivers
information with sufficient precision to enable the
second part of the strategy to be performed, drawing on
the same databases (available with the CES EduPack).
The use of the tool is illustrated with diverse case
studies.

The present Eco Audit Tool is designed for educational

use, and lacks some of the features that a full
commercial tool requires. But these features come at a
penalty of complexity and difficulty of use; simplicity,
in teaching, is itself a valuable feature.
10
Comments can be sent on-line by using the “Feature
request” option in the CES EduPack software toolbar.

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 14 MFA, 18/02/2009

Appendix 1: the look-up tables used by the Eco Audit Tool

Table A1. Energy and CO2 for transport

Transport type Energy Carbon emission

(MJ / tonne.km) (kg CO2 / tonne.km)
Sea freight 0.160 0.0152
River / canal freight 0.265 0.0188
Rail freight 0.307 0.0218
32 tonne truck 0.460 0.0326
14 tonne truck 0.850 0.0603
Light goods vehicle 1.360 0.0965
Air freight - long haul 8.300 0.5533
Air freight - short haul 15.000 1.0000
Helicopter - Eurocopter AS 350 55.000 3.3000

Table A2. Efficiency factors for energy conversion during use phase

Input and output type Energy efficiency CO2 conversion

(kg/MJ)
Electric to thermal 0.32 0.0460
Electric to mechanical 0.28 0.0460
Fossil fuel to thermal 0.90 0.0710
Fossil fuel to mechanical 0.35 0.0710

Table A3. Mobile mode energy and CO2 penalties for weight

Fuel and vehicle type Energy Carbon emission

(MJ / tonne.km) (kg CO2 / tonne.km)
Diesel - ocean shipping 0.160 0.0152
Diesel - coastal shipping 0.27 0.0192
Diesel - rail 0.31 0.0220
Diesel - heavy goods vehicle 0.90 0.0639
Diesel - light goods vehicle 1.36 0.0965
Gasoline - family car 2.06 0.1400
Diesel - family car 1.60 0.1100
LPG - family car 3.87 0.1800
Gasoline - hybrid family car 1.12 0.0730
Electric - family car 0.48 0.0320
Gasoline - super sports and SUV 4.76 0.3100
Kerosene - long haul aircraft 8.30 0.5533
Kerosene - short haul aircraft 15.00 1.0000
Kerosene - helicopter (Eurocopter 50.00 3.3000
AS 350)

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 15 MFA, 18/02/2009

Appendix 2. The Eco audit report
The Eco Audit Tool delivers a 2-part report. The first part presents the bar chart of energy or CO2 together with a
summary table; the main text showed a number of examples of these. The second part is a more detailed breakdown of
input data and energy and CO2 output. An example of the second part is shown below: it is that for the space heater case
study in the text.

Eco Audit Report

Detailed Breakdown of Individual Life Phases

Material

Analysis includes recycle fraction? No

Primary
Component Material Production Mass (kg) Energy (MJ)
Energy (MJ/kg)
Casing Low carbon steel 31.9 5.40 172.0
Fan Low carbon steel 31.9 0.25 7.9
Heat shield Stainless steel 81.1 0.40 32.4
Motor, rotor and stator Low carbon steel 31.9 0.13 4.1
Motor, conductors Copper 70.9 0.08 5.7
Electrical insulation Polyethylene (PE) 80.8 0.05 4.0
Electrical components (switch etc) Phenolics 90.3 0.03 2.7
Connecting hose Natural Rubber (NR) 65.9 0.35 23.1
Hose connector Brass 72.1 0.09 6.5
Residual components Polycarbonate (PC) 110.4 0.22 24.3
Total 7.0 283

Manufacture

Processing
Component Process Mass (kg) Energy (MJ)
Energy (MJ/kg)
Casing Forging, rolling 2.39 5.40 12.9
Fan Forging, rolling 2.39 0.25 0.59
Heat shield Forging, rolling 3.35 0.40 1.34
Motor, rotor and stator Forging, rolling 2.39 0.13 0.31
Motor, conductors Forging, rolling 1.97 0.08 0.16
Electrical insulation Polymer extrusion 2.54 0.05 0.13
Electrical components (switch etc) Polymer molding 12.76 0.03 0.38
Connecting hose Polymer molding 7.50 0.35 2.65
Hose connector Forging, rolling 2.30 0.09 0.21
Residual components Polymer molding 10.69 0.22 2.35
Total 7.0 21

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 16 MFA, 18/02/2009

Transport

Breakdown by transport stage. Total product mass = 7kg

Transport
Stage Name Transport Type Energy Distance (km) Energy (MJ)
(MJ/tonne.km)
Shipping Sea freight 0.12 10000. 8.40
Distribution 32 tonne truck 0.46 600. 1.93
Total 10600 10

Breakdown by components. Total transport distance = 1.1 e+04 km

Component Mass (kg) Energy (MJ)

Casing 5.40 7.970
Fan 0.25 0.369
Heat shield 0.40 0.590
Motor, rotor and stator 0.13 0.192
Motor, conductors 0.08 0.118
Electrical insulation 0.05 0.074
Electrical components (switch etc) 0.03 0.044
Connecting hose 0.35 0.517
Hose connector 0.09 0.133
Residual components 0.22 0.325
Total 7.0 10

Use

Static mode

Energy Input and Output Type Fossil fuel to thermal

Energy Conversion Efficiency 0.9
CO2 Emission (kg/MJ) 0.07
Power Rating (kW) 9.3
Usage (hours per day) 2
Usage (days per year) 20
Product Life (years) 3
Total Life Usage (hours) 120

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 17 MFA, 18/02/2009

Mobile mode

Fuel and Mobility type Diesel - light goods vehicle

Energy Consumption (MJ/tonne.km) 1.4
CO2 Emission (kg/MJ) 0.1
Product Mass (kg) 7
Distance (km per day) 60
Usage (days per year) 365
Product Life (years) 3
Total Life Distance (km) 65700

Relative contributions of static and mobile modes

Mode Energy (MJ) Energy (%)

Static 4464.0 87.4
Mobile 643.8 12.6
Total 5108 100

Breakdown of mobile mode by components

Component Mass (kg) Energy (MJ)

Casing 5.40 496.7

Fan 0.25 23.0

Heat shield 0.40 36.8

Motor, rotor and stator 0.13 12.0

Motor, conductors 0.08 7.3

Electrical insulation 0.05 4.6

Electrical components (switch etc) 0.03 2.8

Connecting hose 0.35 32.2

Hose connector 0.09 8.3

Residual components 0.22 20.2

Total 7.00 643.9

Notes:

A field for user-entered notes about the audit.

© 2009 Granta Design Ltd. 18 MFA, 18/02/2009