SÖDERTÄLJE, SVERIGE 2020
An investigation into
Epiroc’s Scope 3 emissions
En undersökning av Epirocs Scope 3-utsläpp
Daniel Bertilsson Sandy Yousef
SKOLAN FÖR INDUSTRIELL TEKNIK OCH MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONEN FÖR HÅLLBAR PRODUKTIONSUTVECKLING
An investigation into Epiroc’s Scope 3 emissions
av
Daniel Bertilsson Sandy Yousef
Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:384 KTH Industriell teknik och management
Hållbar produktionsutveckling Kvarnbergagatan 12, 151 81 Södertälje
Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:384 En undersökning av Epirocs Scope 3-utsläpp
Daniel Bertilsson Sandy Yousef
Godkänt
2020-06-15 Examinator KTH
Mark W. Lange Handledare KTH
Mark W. Lange
Uppdragsgivare
Epiroc Rock Drill AB
Företagskontakt/handledare
Joakim von Bothmer
Sammanfattning
En undersökning genomfördes för att hjälpa Epiroc att redovisa utsläpp från Scope 3 som till stor del kommer från leverantörstillverkning. Resultatet skulle levereras i form av utsläppsfaktorer som beskriver koldioxidutsläpp per vikt av ett material. Undersökningen skulle vara representativ för de nuvarande globala tillverkningsförhållandena och ta hänsyn till nyckelregionens procentuella andel av tillverkningen jämfört med den globala hastigheten per material.
Baserat på en förstudie av befintliga forskningsdokument, hade de utsläppsfaktorerna som hittats en noggrannhet över 80% vilket uppfylldes genom att inkludera global tillverkningsgrad.
Nyckelord
GHG, utsläpp, Epiroc, produktion, tillverkning
TRITA-ITM-EX 2020:384
An investigation into Epiroc’s Scope 3 emissions
Daniel Bertilsson Sandy Yousef
Approved
2020-06-15 Examiner KTH
Mark W. Lange Supervisor KTH
Mark W. Lange
Commissioner
Epiroc Rock Drill AB Contact person at company
Joakim von Bothmer
Abstract
An investigation was conducted to help Epiroc account for Scope 3 emissions which largely come from supplier manufacturing. The result was to be delivered in form of emission factors which describe carbon dioxide emissions per weight of a material. The investigation was to be representative of current global manufacturing conditions and consider key region’s percentage of manufacturing compared to the global rate, per material.
Based on a pre-study of existing research papers, the data that was obtained to represent the emission factors of materials used in Epiroc’s SED machines had an accuracy above 80%, which was fulfilled by including global manufacturing rate.
Keywords
GHG, emissions, Epiroc, production, manufacturing
Contents
1 Problem description ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.1.1 Definition of CO₂ and equivalents ... 1
1.2 Objective ... 2
1.3 Scope ... 3
1.4 Delimitations ... 3
2 Methods and theory ... 5
2.1 Materials studied ... 5
2.2 Emission factors ... 5
2.3 Validation methods ... 6
2.4 Averaging emissions factors ... 6
2.5 Uncertainties in data... 7
3 Planning and Research ... 9
3.1 Current state ... 9
3.2 Identify key regions of production ... 11
3.3 Transportation constant and calculation ... 11
3.4 New material posts ... 12
3.5 Production methods of crude steel ... 12
3.6 Production methods of stainless steel ... 13
3.7 Production methods for aluminum ... 13
3.8 Production method for plastics ... 14
3.9 Production method for oils ... 14
3.9.1 Lubrication ... 15
3.9.2 Hydraulic fluid ... 15
3.9.3 Diesel oil (motor oil) ... 15
3.9.4 Diesel fuel ... 15
3.10 Production method for electronic components ... 16
3.11 Production method for rubber ... 16
4 Results and Discussion ... 19
4.1 Methods to reduce GHG emissions in manufacturing... 19
4.1.1 Steel ... 19
4.1.2 Aluminum ... 20
4.2 Results of researched posts. ... 20
5 Conclusion ... 23
6 Further Work ... 25
6.1 Additional emissions from part manufacturing ... 25
6.2 Additional emissions for transportation ... 26
6.3 Concluding comments ... 26
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1 – A map over the sources of emissions in the different Scopes. The focus of this project was the Scope 3 emissions caused by Supplier manufacturing. Illustration: Elina Larsson... 1 Figure 2 – This figure shows trend of increased carbon dioxide [parts per million] in the high atmosphere and was included to show the need for conscientious production. At time of writing, the current concentration of CO₂ is 416 ppm (2). ... 2 Figure 3 - Old values of Epiroc's GHG calculation tool. Short explanations of each post are attached to each value with notes about what the post means or problems
encountered during a pre-study. ... 10 Table 1 - This table shows both local emission factors for key regions and the part of global manufacturing that region had. ... 13 Figure 4 - These are the resulting values of researched posts. ... 21
Acronyms
BOF Basic Oxygen Furnace. A method of manufacturing raw iron and steel products. This could be considered the “dirtier” method.
EAF Electric Arc Furnace. A method of manufacturing raw iron and steel products. This could be considered the “cleaner” method, given that the production region uses energy generated from sustainable sources.
GHG Green House Gases. Gases which act as a barrier in Earth’s atmosphere, trapping heat which would otherwise escape into space.
GWP Global Warming Potential. A measure of warming a specific gas in the Earth’s atmosphere has relative to carbon dioxide.
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.” The IPCC has 195 member countries.
ISSF International Stainless-Steel Forum. The ISSF has 180 members in 50 countries and represents ~80% of global stainless-steel production.
SED Surface Excavation Drilling. Epiroc.
Glossary of Terms
Emission factor (aka carbon intensity, CO₂ coefficient, emission intensity)
A factor which describes how many kilograms of CO₂ (equivalent where applicable) is released per kilogram of specific material produced.
Primary Materials
Pure virgin materials manufactured “from the mine”
Secondary Materials
A mix of virgin and recycled materials, more accurately representing the world’s production.
Scopes (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Scope 1 is direct emission (in this case Epiroc’s assembly emissions). Scope 2 is indirect emissions from generation of purchased energy (Epiroc’s electricity
purchasing). Scope 3 is indirect emissions that occur in the value chain, both upstream and downstream. This project finds Scope 3 emissions.
Post
In this context, a post is either a material, or class of materials studied. For reference to the text, steel, rubber, and oils are posts.
1
1 Problem description
In the following chapter, an introduction to Epiroc’s SED department and the definition of CO₂ coefficients are made, followed by the objective and the scope of this project.
1.1 Background
As knowledge about the environment and humans’ impact on Earth expands, companies are forced to recognize their own environmental footprint when manufacturing their products. A large part of the current improvements in transparency come from customers demanding an inventory of GHG emissions during a product’s lifecycle.
Epiroc is a company with a large market share in both above ground and underground excavation and mining equipment. A growing aspect in their manufacturing process is being conscious about both their own and their suppliers’ emissions during a product’s life cycle.
Currently, their Surface and Exploration Drilling (SED) department produce vehicles which run entirely on diesel. Epiroc has a complete accounting for emissions from when the produced parts are sent for assembly, to the end of life of the machines. The life cycle of an SED machine can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – A map over the sources of emissions in the different Scopes. The focus of this project was the Scope 3 emissions caused by Supplier manufacturing. Illustration: Elina Larsson.
Epiroc wanted a better accounting for GHG emissions (specifically carbon dioxide and equivalents) from stages beyond their control, namely their suppliers’ manufacturing of virgin materials and parts. Epiroc was inquiring if their already existing CO₂ emission factors (unit CO₂/unit material) are adequate in representing existing virgin part
manufacturing, from a global perspective. This study was commissioned to evaluate the current state of Epiroc’s GHG emission data. Additionally, emission activities were identified and defined to provide a transparent base for future GHG research done by Epiroc.
1.1.1 Definition of CO₂ and equivalents
Carbon dioxide is a gas which only exists (naturally) in Earth’s atmosphere in low concentrations. Since the first Industrial Revolution, its concentration in the high atmosphere has nearly doubled from 280 ppm (1) to 416 (2) at time of writing. Now,
2
carbon dioxide has been identified quite infamously as the head contributor of climate change and global warming.
Figure 2 – This figure shows trend of increased carbon dioxide [parts per million] in the high atmosphere and was included to show the need for conscientious production. At time of writing, the current
concentration of CO₂ is 416 ppm (2).
This continuous rise in CO₂ shown in Figure 2 represents the need for manufacturing companies to recognize and address GHG emissions and to mitigate the problem with more responsible purchasing. Shown is the monthly CO₂ content in the air in red, and the rolling mean in black. The accelerating rate of increase of CO₂ is unsustainable and will leading to a runaway heating effect which will surely be catastrophic for all life on earth.
Carbon dioxide equivalents (hereafter CO₂-eq) are a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, PFC’s and HFC’s) based upon their global warming potential (GWP).
1.2 Objective
• Find updated CO₂ coefficients for materials and components in Epiroc’s SED machines. These coefficients were to include the method of energy creation from the production of the raw materials used.
• The emission factors were to represent a real-world accounting of material recycling and power generation.
• The accuracy of the emission factors was required to be above 80%.
3
1.3 Scope
• The constants were based on numbers in the suppliers manufacturing chains.
This included subsidiary suppliers.
• The CO₂ coefficients were the materials used in Epiroc’s SED machines, including steel, plastics, electronics, etc.
• The coefficients were based on existing research and no firsthand experimentation or measuring was done.
• These coefficients were general material values, not a specific part or assembly.
• Internal data from assembly to end of life emissions (1st and 2nd scope) exist and were therefore excluded.
1.4 Delimitations
• No consideration of usage was taken.
• No regard to maintenance was included in the calculations for emission factors.
• A calculation of spare parts emissions was not included in the emission factors.
• Copper was excluded as it was only present in traces and was included in the emission factor for electronics.
• Because of a large uncertainty in how much paint was used (surface area, layers, painting efficiency), emission factors for paint and coloring were excluded.
• Packaging was not included in any emissions factors.
• Built infrastructure was not included in any emission data. The scope was limited to existing plants.
4
5
2 Methods and theory
This chapter will better explain the starting point of the project and what was done to obtain accurate emission factors. The emission factors in question are for materials which were present in all SED machines. The emission factors were to better represent the company’s manufacturing chain and account for production in various regions in the world.
With a study reliant on secondary and tertiary data, much time was spent on validating selected valued and motivating their inclusion. Some materials are produced worldwide with uncontrolled manufacturing conditions. Where relevant and later substantiated, some materials required global study to account for the various conditions the materials were produced. Other posts, however, contributed to only a small fraction of the total Scope 3 GHG release for SED machines.
Retrospectively, the methods of finding information were rudimentary as the primary focus was put on both finding sources and validating them.
2.1 Materials studied
Epiroc had an older version of a GHG calculation tool which was deemed inaccurate as the source for the data could not be found or validated. The following list made up the materials used to calculate the GHG release of SED machines.
1. Steel 2. Aluminum 3. Hydraulic hoses 4. Plastic
5. Oil 6. Diesel
7. Miscellaneous
2.2 Emission factors
An emission factor in this instance refers to a constant which describes a certain material’s GHG emissions either per weight, volume or per item produced. Emission factors are used to calculate total emissions in a part or system where the weights of a material are known and yield a total GHG emission which can then be disclosed to Epiroc’s customers, for example. The company’s motivation for this accounting was to be transparent with their environmental impact. A secondary aspect of the accounting was to be able to purchase parts from suppliers who offer lower environmental impact.
The emission factors could be expressed in either CO₂ or CO₂-eq, something which depended on available data. For the materials chosen in the study, even some basic data was sparse. With such a complex series of systems and no expectation on what the result would be, effort had to be made to validate data. Regular CO₂ values were easier to find accurate (constant among sources) data for, but CO₂-eq include other gases. These other gases are what contributed to a higher emission factor as they are weighted for the gases GWP.
6
Emissions factors should, theoretically, scale linearly with weight. Some sources would use kg CO₂/kg of material and others would use ton CO₂/kg, for example. Other units presented CO₂ per liter or even per item, in one case.
2.3 Validation methods
As mentioned, solely secondary or tertiary data was used. On-the-fly, holistic validation of secondary or tertiary sources were critical when attesting a source’s credibility.
According to the IPCC when accounting carbon emissions, comprehensive guidelines (3) should be followed. The IPCC assessment criteria name important aspects of sources when validating them:
• Technological representativeness.
• Geographical representativeness.
• Temporal representativeness.
• Completeness.
• Reliability.
In short, the guidelines encourage data to be taken with reservations for data’s uses. This meant that many sources were needed per post to accurately depict the production situation. With many different sources to describe one post, inaccuracies could stack or compound and question the authenticity of the resulting emission factor. While
conducting research, the common sources of inaccuracy were identified to be:
• Not all data sources contained all the required values or from the same time frame. As methods or technology changes, so could the emission factors.
• Not one source contained everything required for a post. Because of this, no posts are necessarily factual but represent the data publicly available and the conditions for Epiroc’s production.
• Present-day data was prioritized, as were comprehensive studies or data from official intergovernmental agencies or associations. Data was collected to
represent the current conditions most accurately within the scope of the project.
With real-world production, recycling is often used to reduce the need for primary material. Therefore, the emission factors include recycling to some degree. Most posts represent secondary manufacturing, not primary.
2.4 Averaging emissions factors
For some regions, one country’s production may have been representative for the entire region, so assumptions were made. Examples of which could be Chinese steel for Asia, US steel for North America, etc. Each region had a weighted average depending on:
1. Percentage of global production for that material.
2. GHG release for production method(s) of that material.
3. Energy sources for those regions.
Some additional emissions for the posts could be, for example:
1. Additional emissions from reworking raw materials to finished parts.
2. Transportation emissions between manufacturing processes.
7
To get the final average for a post of materials, an overall average was taken across the materials in the post. This was done regarding what values the materials in the post typically have, as well as the distribution of emissions across the post. This way, Epiroc could use one emissions factor to express emissions accurately, regardless of which specific material is being accounted for.
2.5 Uncertainties in data
Rounding errors may have given way to inaccuracies when using region
representativeness. This project compiled data which gives an accuracy of +80% for representation of global production representation. 80% was an accuracy goal to strive for.
8
9
3 Planning and Research
This section will explain the current state of Epiroc’s emission factors, the specific research conducted and explain how emissions factors were averaged.
The emission factors for raw materials are based on a continent’s or region’s percentage production from a global perspective and include the background data for energy
production and method of production for that raw material. Some regard to primary and secondary materials was considered. The emission factors were based on real-world production material production which considered recycling. The emission factors, therefore, represented secondary production.
Additional manufacturing emission factors (per material) were then applied for a total emission factor per post, which was the objective of this project.
3.1 Current state
The current state, or the state of the GHG calculation tool, was found to reference values specified in (SWE)“Indikatorer för bedömning av miljöpåverkan” (4). Those values were created to represent Sweden’s CO₂-eq emission factors. Those factors were also decided to be valid for all the European Union as the same trend of energy creation and production methods were followed. It was assumed that the values have kept their integrity and have not changed too much, still being representative of EU manufacturing.
The following figure 3 shows the values previously used to calculate GHG emissions.
Shown is the post, its value and what it represented in the machine.
10
Figure 3 - Old values of Epiroc's GHG calculation tool. Short explanations of each post are attached to each value with notes about what the post means or problems encountered during a pre-study.
11
3.2 Identify key regions of production
For the most used materials, it was more important to find values for each region. For lesser used materials, precision was not as important as accurate values were. For steel, values for region and production rate were necessary to accurately depict global conditions.
The key regions of study were:
• The European Union (EU-28)
• North America
• South America
• Africa
• The Middle East
• Asia
• Australia
It would later be shown that the regions of Africa and The Middle East contributed little, if any, to Epiroc’s supply chain.
3.3 Transportation constant and calculation
A certain number of transportation steps are always required for a part to take shape.
Raw materials generally follow the same steps:
• Mining or recycling
• Transportation
o This would be the transportation of freshly mined or recycled material to a facility to separate the usable material from other unusable minerals or materials.
• Refining
• Transportation
o This would be the transportation step which moves refined, raw material to a separate facility which can rework the raw material into usable parts.
• Part manufacturing
• Transportation
o This transportation step is already accounted for in Epiroc’s GHG accounting (see Figure 1).
• Assembly
For this type of calculations, there are three unknowns: distance, weight, and method.
Any universal transportation factor was concluded to be inaccurate (lower than 80%
accuracy) and too reliant on primary data.
Epiroc already had procured values of emissions for Scopes 1 and 2 and were therefore excluded. Other components used in the Surface Excavation line use components which can be manufactured with fewer transportation steps. To find out or calculate a
transportation constant for all production, specific case studies would need to be carried out at the facilities of current Epiroc suppliers.
12
3.4 New material posts
After evaluating the list of materials, it was decided the list should be expanded and broken up differently. The biggest difference was the breakout of miscellaneous materials into individual posts. After discussions with Epiroc, some posts were expanded and/or broken out. The new post and included materials are listed below:
1. Steel
2. Stainless steel 3. Aluminum 4. Plastics
a. Thermoplastics used by SED:
i. ABS - (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) ii. PE - (Polypropylene)
iii. PMMA - (Polymethacrylate)
iv. PEMD - (Polyethylene Medium Density) b. Thermosets used by SED:
i. PUR – (Polyurethane) 5. Oils
i. Lubrication ii. Hydraulic fluids iii. Diesel oil (motor oil) iv. Diesel fuel
6. Electronics
a. A general value of electronics per weight was to be studied. Included was a value which represents electronics that could be found in the control cabin and on the machine.
7. Rubber
a. Rubber used for hydraulic hoses, excluding reinforcement in form of steel or plastic
b. Tires were included but must be added to GHG release in a per case basis.
3.5 Production methods of crude steel
Steel made up ~90% or more of the total weight of SED machines. Generally, the steps of steel (and iron) production are the same throughout the world and are not the focus of this study. In short, limestone and iron ore are brought together with coked
(pulverized) coal in a blast furnace to make iron.
For steel, either: molten iron is separated from the slag (in the process previously described) and mixed with recycled steel scrap into a Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF); or recycled steel scrap is mixed with solid limestone, pig iron and carbon and heated in an Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) which uses electricity and a graphite electrode to heat up these components to create liquid steel and slag.
For both BOF and EAF, the slag is poured off and the steel is then continuously casted into the desired shape. This raw material’s emissions represent the emission factor for steel.
13
Key region Local emission factor [kg CO₂/kg] (5)
Manufacturing share [Region/Total manufacturing] (6)
EU-28 1.7 0.159794641
North America 1.74 0.064174555
South America 1.08 0.064174555
Asia 2.15 0.717471523
Australia 2.2 0.003315685
Table 1 - This table shows both local emission factors for key regions and the part of global manufacturing that region had.
As previously mentioned, there was no direct purchasing from either Africa or The Middle East. The remaining global representation excluding Africa and Middle east was
~97% which was above the required 80% representation.
For the remaining five regions, the emission factor of a region was weighted with its manufacturing share and all the regions weighted emissions factors were summed, for a total of 1.96 kg CO₂/kg. This emission factor represents value for finished rolled sheets or billets.
3.6 Production methods of stainless steel
In addition to steel, stainless steel was also present in the machines. The production was largely the same as steel but with the addition of different base materials. These base materials (~18% Cr, ~8% Ni, etc.) give way to an additional source of emission. Also, as the chemical composition is slightly different, it is possible that some stainless steel requires extra steps to ensure the quality of the finished product.
It was logical that the emission factor was therefore higher than regular steel. How high depends on the emissions from the other base materials.
According to the ISSF, which represents 80% of the world’s stainless-steel production, the emission factor was 2.91 kg CO₂/kg (7). This included data for recycled material used, type of furnace and electricity generation for the furnaces.
3.7 Production methods for aluminum
The raw material to produce aluminum is bauxite. Bauxite contains 30-60% aluminum hydroxide (Al2O3) and is mainly (about 90%) mined from tropical areas. Bauxite is mined mostly with open-pit mining. It is then transported to an alumina refinery. Most bauxite is refined to virgin alumina through the Bayer process. The alumina is then smelted into virgin aluminum with the Hall-Héroult process using either a single
Söderberg electrode or several pre-baked carbon blocks, used to reduce aluminum oxide to aluminum.
The production of primary aluminum requires high amounts of electricity. Depending on the region and how electricity is generated there, there can be a large difference in
emission factors.
The global average of primary aluminum emissions is 18 kg CO₂-eq/kg (8). A value for primary materials was not the objective of the investigation, so global recycling had to be
14
incorporated. With a global recycling rate of 30% (9), the emissions for secondary aluminum is 12.6 kg CO₂-eq/kg. Given that the global values can vary from 7.0 kg CO₂- eq/kg all the way up to 20 kg CO₂-eq/kg (China, half of all global production here) 12.6 kg CO₂-eq/kg was representative of the global aluminum production.
Worthy to mention for aluminum manufacturing was the creation of PFC’s
(perflourinated compounds) during the Hall-Héroult electrolytic process. These have high GWP’s and are in the order of 103-104 times more impactful than carbon dioxide.
3.8 Production method for plastics
The emission factors for plastics used by Epiroc are limited to a handful of materials.
With no regard to packaging, only stronger industrial plastics were disclosed and included in the scope of the study. The plastics included were ABS, PE, PMMA, PEMD and PUR. PUR was the only example of a thermoset and all other plastics were
thermoplastics.
The production of plastics starts with crude oil. Crude oil is distilled into many different usable substances, often through heating the crude oil and allowing for the different substances to evaporate. The different liquids settle into collector trays which catch only the specific density of refined oil, called fractions. Some examples of fractions are kerosene, diesel, gasoline, and lubrication oils.
Depending on the plastic, specific monomers are polymerized to create the chemical buildup and mechanical properties desired. ABS, for instance, is composed of styrene, acrylonitrile, and polybutadiene.
Half of the global plastic production is produced in Asia with about 30% of world production in China alone (10). Europe and North America make another ~20% each resulting in just under 90% representativeness between those three regions.
Epiroc’s original “Indikatorer för bedömning av miljöpåverkan” gave nine of the more common industrial-use plastics an emission factor of 4.7 kg CO₂/kg. An investigation into the specific plastics used by Epiroc did not result in emission factors per plastic, nor emission factor per region.
The concluded emission factor was therefore the same as stated in the original source, 4.7 kg CO₂/kg. This emission factor, however, included plastics which are known to have higher emission factors such as nylon. The concluded emission factor is an overestimate of the plastics used in SED machines, but not misrepresentative in industrial-use plastics.
3.9 Production method for oils
This class includes substances in the category heavy distillates of crude oil. Many of the oils chosen for SED machines were chosen at a case-by-case basis, as oil requirements vary with the local temperatures change with the climates they were used. Therefore, no exact oils could be identified. Additionally, the emission factors for these subcategories were expressed in kg CO₂/liter as volume is easier to measure than weight for liquids.
15 Inclusions in this post:
• Lubrication
• Hydraulic fluids
• Diesel oil (motor oil)
• Diesel fuel 3.9.1 Lubrication
Lubrications are refined from crude oil in the same way fuels and other oils are. Crude oil is extracted from the earth either on land or in the sea. While refining crude oil, the extracted substance is a mixture of many usable fuels and oils. The crude oil is then distilled into usable fractures.
The lubrications substances have a documented standard emission factor from the IPCC.
That emission factor has been 0.2 kg CO₂/liter (11) since 2006, and their emission factor release AR4.
3.9.2 Hydraulic fluid
Hydraulic oil is a non-compressive liquid used to transmit power. In this category were different types of hydraulic fluids, each with different manufacturing methods. The type of hydraulic fluid dictates the GHG’s released. As with lubricants, the hydraulic fluid is subject to change with different climates. The values found touched mainly on hydraulic fluids based mostly on mineral oil. With the +80% accuracy requirement for posts, hydraulic fluid had to be excluded because no credible sources could be found. It is not realistic that hydraulic fluid, by itself, would change the value of all oils too drastically.
Hydraulic fluid received the same value as the rest of the oils, when added into its hydraulic loop in any SED machine.
3.9.3 Diesel oil (motor oil)
It was assumed light fuel oils were used. Natural fuel oils are manufactured similarly to other crude oil products, already mentioned. The only source found of any specific values for fuel oil was stated to be 2.95 kg CO₂/liter (12).
3.9.4 Diesel fuel
Diesel fuel is one if the common distillates of crude oil. Diesel fuel was used mostly for testing purposes in varying quantities, but 500 liter is delivered upon purchase of SED machines.
The original Swedish environmental report gave diesel a value of 2.7 kg CO₂-eq/liter.
Included in that value was the other GHG’s released because of the production of this substance. A control of this value determined it to be accurate, with non-equivalent values ranging from 2.67-2.68 kg CO₂/liter from illegitimate sources which did not pass validation. So, the original source of 2.7 kg CO₂-eq/liter is accurate.
To sum up, lubrications had a standard value of 0.2, diesel oil had a value of 2.96 and diesel fuel had a value of 2.7. A reasonable value to give to the Oils post was therefore 2.85.
16
3.10 Production method for electronic components
In this instance, electronic components were classified as parts with numerous different materials and which make up active, passive, or electromechanical inputs and/or outputs.
Put simply, computer components, monitors, sensors, actuators, etc.
The production method of electronic components varies greatly depending on the part, depending on the necessary complexity or tolerances allowed for the component. Some components require few, readily available materials, while others require many materials.
The production time for some components can be relatively short, while others can take months (computer processors, particularly).
The level of refinery required, as well as the time which goes into manufacturing finished, deliverable parts leads to a high emission factor. The fact that electronic components have a low density (compare to solid raw material) because of plastic or small size, leads to an inflated emission factor.
Transparency and reliable data were a challenge for this emission factor. The best choice was to find an existing factor which is representative of the components in the control cabin. Included in the source for the original Swedish environmental report was a value for “Electronics”. Three things were included in the factor and already represented finished products. Included was a representation of office electronics: a laptop computer, a keyboard and optical mouse.
Inside the control cabin, it could be assumed arbitrarily that the equivalent of a laptop was mounted, as well as a keyboard and mouse. This represented all the computers, monitors, keypads, joysticks, etc. in the control cabin. Within Epiroc’s source for their original calculations was a constant for specifically this type of equipment. The emission factor was 54 kg CO₂-eq/kg. As electronic components were assumed to not have additional emissions beyond transportation.
3.11 Production method for rubber
Included in the rubber category was as assumption that all hydraulic hoses were pure rubber. Also included in this category were engine mounts and similar use cases. For some machines, rubber tires are delivered instead of continuous tracks. Thusly, this category included both natural and synthetic rubbers.
No specific types of rubber were given, so multiple synthetic rubbers were studied. For the sake of simplicity and good representation, common synthetic rubbers were studied.
EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) rubber is common in tubing for phosphate ester hydraulic fluids while synthetic rubber resists petroleum derived hydraulic fluids.
Other common rubbers include SBR (styrene butatiene rubber), PBR (polybutadiene) and latex.
Using the Korean LCI database and the original Swedish environmental report, an average for all rubbers could be produced. The LCI database named natural rubber and three synthetic rubbers: PBR, SBR and EPDM. The Swedish report used only two inclusions, EPDM and natural latex. The average emission factor for the LCI database was 2.02 kg CO₂/kg (13) and the emission factor from the Swedish source was 2.6 kg
17
CO₂-eq/kg. The concluded value for Rubbers was 2.31 kg CO₂/kg, when averaging the two sources.
Another use for rubber in SED machines was as an option which could exchange the continuous track for rubber tires. In that case, an emission factor of 87.2 kg CO₂/tire (14) bust be added.
18
19
4 Results and Discussion
At this point in the study, the problem has been defined and an appropriate investigation had been conducted. Emissions factors were found for the posts and their values
represent global industries. There is uncertainty in the results but that was expected because of the state of information needed and the assumptions made. The following chapter will present investigation uncertainties, the finished emission factors, and discuss the results.
Some materials were better represented with more reliable data. Materials like rubbers and oils were only superficially addressed, with no accurate analysis given regarding which specific fluids or types of rubbers were used because of their relatively low presence in SED machines. Also, because the choice of fluid changes in which environments in which the machines will be used changes, no one fluid could be searched in depth. The following points bring up some sources for inaccuracies in the data:
• Very hard to find values for CO₂-eq for materials, let alone all regions. This meant that CO₂ values had to suffice in most cases as a “lowest common denominator” of sorts.
• A lot of the data had to be simplified and idealized, data having been chosen just for its intrinsic value to this study.
• Some material data was chosen from many different sources. Methods of evaluation of environmental impact was most likely different between sources.
• Energy values per material and region were assumed correct. No comprehensive comparison was carried out.
• Individual data entries for each region was considered accurate, with the 80%
used for only global representation calculations.
4.1 Methods to reduce GHG emissions in manufacturing
While the objective of this thesis project was to find Scope 3 emission factors of production for SED machines, the study of production methods around the globe gave valuable insights. Namely, one of the most important conclusions for a difference in GHG pollutants in different regions was the local energy production. One of the largest and most common examples of this is primary and secondary aluminum manufacturing.
The span of GHG release ranged from 7.0 kg CO₂-eq/kg to 20 kg CO₂-eq/kg just based on energy generation (EU vs China, respectively).
Some large improvements could be made to metal manufacturing by transitioning to either cleaner energy production, modern manufacturing methods, or a combination of the two. Examples of improvements to various posts are shown below:
4.1.1 Steel
• Purchase materials from plants using electricity generated from sustainable, renewable sources.
• Move to EAF production. Without the need of a BOF, many pollutants could be avoided.
20 4.1.2 Aluminum
• Increase the recycling rate. Aluminum retains its value after raw material production. Material properties return after reworking recycled material.
Recycling aluminum requires ~5% of the total energy than for virgin material production (8).
• Reduce electricity consumption and/or increase efficiency.
• Reduce anode effects that produce PFC’s. PFC’s have a significantly higher warming affect compared to carbon dioxide. A reduction of PFC’s would reduce carbon dioxide equivalents significantly.
4.2 Results of researched posts.
Resulting emission factors are expressed in units which are realistic for the material used.
Steel, for example, is expressed in tons while electronics is expressed in kilograms.
Because the emission factors scale linearly, it was hardly important which unit is used.
The responsibility of the unit was therefore left for the user of the factors.
21
Figure 4 - These are the resulting values of researched posts.
The value for aluminum could be slightly overestimated because energy savings by using recycled aluminum was not taken away from the energy consumption for primary aluminum.
The value for the Oils post does not scale linearly as the other posts do because the emission factor is expressed per liter of fluid used. Also, it was worthy to note that tires had a fixed emissions value depending on how many (new) tires are used.
22
23
5 Conclusion
The final part of this investigation is to state the conclusions which are supported by the methods, research and results.
The only project requirement was for the resulting emission factors to be at least 80%
accurate. This was done with global manufacturing rates and was proven to have been fulfilled. The conducted study broadened the manufacturing locations to include the world’s regions for material posts which make up a large contribution of total weight to SED machines.
No new total emission calculation could be done as new posts meant different distributions of the machine’s weight as the original values did. A new inventory of weights is expected to be conducted after delivery of the new emission factors.
While these values do represent raw material production and finished parts to some degree, additional data for transportation and part manufacturing were not publicly available and would need to be measured directly, or in a comprehensive study.
24
25
6 Further Work
Not all Scope 3 emissions could be directly addressed within the scope of the
investigation. This chapter will address the Scope 3 emissions which were not included because of either low presence in SED machines or required first hand data collection.
Spare parts for a typical machine’s lifespan were not included as no data regarding extra parts was provided. Additional emissions from creation of spare parts could be
accounted for with either statistical multipliers of commonly replaced parts or by additional weights of replaced parts.
Missing from the calculations are, for example, specific oils. Accounting for used oils would better show actual emissions. Also missing from the results were materials like cotton, glass, and chemicals.
Additional emissions beyond what was approached in this study would require
commissioned case studies which examine the actual processes which occur at Epiroc’s suppliers. Included in this would be both additional emissions from part manufacturing and the study of a transportation constant for emissions caused by moving material between manufacturing processes.
Ecoinvent is a tool commonly used and seems to be comprehensive in the emission factors available. That company has a large database which is actively updated with original data and seems to be the standard for use in industrial settings. If no further studies by Epiroc are commissioned, it is suggested that licenses to this service could prove useful for calculating the missing data. Ecoinvent did not sponsor this study in any way.
6.1 Additional emissions from part manufacturing
Because Epiroc does not refine raw material into usable parts on site, part manufacturing fell into Scope 3 emissions. Finding out these additional emissions was beyond the scope of what could be achieved in this project.
To accurately gauge the additional emissions which arise from part manufacturing, an on- site case study would be required to accurately measure both which processes are carried out and which emissions are subsequently released because of the processes.
An on-site study should involve the following steps:
• A presentation of the local energy usage and the local source of energy production to accurately represent emissions for usable energy generation.
• Find out which processes are used and how much energy is required per activity.
• Measure to see if there are any emissions cause by the activity itself (chemical reactions, pollutants released into the environment).
• Create average emission factors per component class (screws, beams, drill bits, hydraulic components to name a few) would be able to express many parts into fewer additional posts per material.
26
6.2 Additional emissions for transportation
Transportation emissions could not be calculated because of complexity and because a standard factor for all methods of transportation would most likely not lie in the +80%
reliability of data. No one emission factor for transportation would accurately account for real world emissions so it as concluded that these emissions be calculated separately.
To account for transportation emissions, emission factors per method of transport (ship, road, rail, among others) should first be averaged or be addressed individually. An accounting of where both raw and recycled materials are sourced should also be researched and included.
Following, emissions per transport step should be determined which depends on method, weight, and distance.
All this would result in an additional emission factor which would likely change readily.
Each transport step would then be summed into one value, added to the post of each material.
The easiest method of accounting for these steps is asking each subsequent supplier to produce their own accounting of transportations to make the production of materials for Epiroc’s use more transparent.
6.3 Concluding comments
In general, these emission factors could change with updated technology or when production of Epiroc’s parts shifts to another world region. If large changes to
production are carried out, it is recommended the results of this study be evaluated and potentially updated.
i
Bibliography
1. Eggleton T. A Short Introduction to Climate Change: Cambridge University Press;
2013.
2. Global Monitoring Laboratory. Earth System Research Laboratories. [Online].; 2020 [cited 2020 June 1. Available from: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.
3. Greenhouse Gas Protocol. ghgprotocol.org. [Online].; 2011 [cited 2020 June 11.
Available from: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Product-Life- Cycle-Accounting-Reporting-Standard_041613.pdf.
4. Zackrisson M. Indikatorer för bedömning av miljöpåverkan. Mölndal: Swerea IVF;
2014. Report No.: 1404-191X.
5. Hasanbeigi A, Arens M, Cardenas JCR, Price L, Triolo R. Comparison of carbon dioxide emissions intensity of steel production in China, Germany, Mexico, and the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2016 October; 113: p. 127- 139.
6. worldsteel Association. worldsteel.org. [Online].; 2020 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from: https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:391fbe61-488d-46d1-b611-
c9a43224f9b8/2019%2520global%2520crude%2520steel%2520production.pdf.
7. International Stainless Steel Forum. worldstainless.org. [Online].; 2019 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from: https://www.worldstainless.org/files/issf/non-image- files/PDF/ISSF_Stainless_Steel_and_CO2.pdf.
8. European Aluminium. Environmental Profile Report 2018. [Online].; 2018 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from: https://www.european-aluminium.eu/resource- hub/environmental-profile-report-2018/.
9. International Aluminium Institute. Global Aluminium Recycling. [Online].; 2009 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from: http://www.world-
aluminium.org/media/filer_public/2013/01/15/fl0000181.pdf.
1 0.
PlasticsEurope. PlasticsEurope. [Online].; 2019 [cited 2020 June 03. Available from:
https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_v ersion_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf.
1 1.
Olivier JGJ. IPCC Guidlines for NAtional Greenhouse Gas Inventories. [Online].;
2006 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from: https://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_5_Ch5_Non_Energy_Products.
pdf.
1 2.
Ministry for the Environment. Ministry for the Environment. [Online].; 2015 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from:
https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/voluntary- ghg-reporting-summary-tables-emissions-factors-2015.pdf.
ii 1
3.
Environmental Declaration Office. Raw Materials and Energy. [Online].; 2015 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from: http://www.epd.or.kr/eng/lci/lciCo200.do.
1 4.
Pecnik G, Miller S. Center For Remanufacturing & Reuse. [Online].; 2008 [cited 2020 June 11. Available from: http://www.remanufacturing.org.uk/pdf/story/1p158.pdf.
