Life Cycle Assessment: How Suppliers Can Meet Conscious Consumer Demands

Only what is “Good for the Planet” is “Good for me”: The Conscious Consumer

“I experienced dry skin because of chemicals in my dishwashing soap. The discomfort made me switch to soapnut”, a friend explained as I was researching what made consumers choose consciously made products. My friend is part of a growing tribe of people who take health/sustainability/social justice matters into their hands and resort to making their own house cleaning, body care, food products, etc., themselves. Such endeavours have occasionally grown to provide these products at a small scale, either locally or to niche mostly urban groups, for example through farmers markets or through boutique and pop up stores both online and offline. They are the modern avatar of the home or cottage industry with the supply chain and financial accoutrements of the formal sector and the marketing savvy of the digital age. The credibility of the manufacturer (often self referenced as ‘artisan’) is typically established through direct contact/relationship or word of mouth and maintained through having simple products with limits to scale in terms of production and sales capacity and a highly responsive feedback loop.  Because such enterprises usually involve intense efforts and levels of commitment that are not aligned with the global scale and fast pace of many, although growing in popularity, they are far from the norm.

On the other end of the spectrum are products whose standards we take for granted. Often these are mandated by law or industry norms and concern quality and manufacturing processes including conditions under which it is handled and supplied and the absence of known “contaminants”. Producers or suppliers may additionally bolster product sales with claims of convenience, accessibility and cost and with alluding to “desirability” or “goodness”. But who defines and who measures these? And where do these criteria fit with the emerging demands of the conscious consumer for “good for me, good for people, good for planet”? 

While the individual consumer’s search for responsible products may have been initiated by any variety of personal concerns and motivations (often expressed as interrelated) there is also a groundswell in the same direction by civil society organisations and media. Where information on companies violating human rights and environmental laws may have once been the sole concern of activists or NGOs, their relevance to common people and their consumption habits is being recognised and highlighted. Rather than follow from individual motivations these are guided by a motivation best expressed by Wendell Berry in Native Hill, “We have lived by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the world…  We have been wrong. We must change our lives, so that it will be possible to live by the contrary assumption that what is good for the world will be good for us. And that requires that we make the effort to know the world and to learn what is good for it. We must learn to cooperate in its processes, and to yield to its limits.”  Consumers, at an individual level, have begun to eschew brands that do not meet perceived ethical norms (with celebrities and influencers ceasing to endorse them). At a collective level they have begun to participate in movements such as climate strikes, in person and through digital campaigns which push governments and suppliers to be responsible for the sourcing, manufacturing, use and disposal of products. They push for the creation of new standards and new ways to hold producers accountable.

It is in this larger arena that national and international supplier platforms, online brands as well as those with physical stores, can perform a democratising function by scaling up the establishment of a new ethic for business. They bring desirable but optional standards closer to being non negotiable starting grounds. It is often the supplier platform which is the keeper of the consumers trust, from whom transparency and accountability is demanded and which stands to lose credibility when ethical norms are breached. This is beyond the traditional logistical role of connecting demand to supply. The platform can prove its integrity by investing in processes of product and producer verification. Often for small scale producers who may not have the financial capacity to undergo expensive quality testing and certification it is the supplier platform that can provide this “service”. On the other side this service breaks down the complexity of the modern product and production process and gives consumers the necessary information to make informed choices between these products/producers based on various criteria.

Life Cycle Assessment: Building Supplier and Producer Responsibility

The Better India (TBI) is an online social impact platform. One of its initiatives is its one-stop-shop that connects consumers with eco-sensitive and socially just products. Since the majority of today’s production processes involve multiple stages across diverse locations with numerous exchanges between “hands” involved, suppliers like The Better India who do not source nor sell their products locally and perhaps even the producers themselves who make these products but do not source their raw material locally may easily be unaware of all the impacts of their products. However, in an age of information technology, this is no longer a good excuse and it is precisely the effort to verify the products and producers that engender trust in suppliers and brands like TBI. TBI  approached us at cBalance to help them identify house cleaning products by small scale producers that are made from “natural” and “eco-friendly” ingredients, “non-toxic” and “safe” for both users and the planet. They were keen to educate themselves and break down the elements that make up these commonly used terms.  They also wanted to ensure a process that would allow them to impartially assess and choose the best options as well as to support production needs for producers who do not have the means to address these standards. The products ranged from floor cleaners to laundry detergents and from toilet cleaners to dishwashing detergents and multipurpose cleaners.

We supported TBI by conducting a life cycle assessment (LCA) of each product. ‘The term “life cycle” refers to the major activities in the course of the product’s life-span from its manufacture, use, and maintenance, to its final disposal. It is a “cradle-to-grave” approach which encompasses all activities right from the gathering of raw materials from the earth to create the product and ends at the point when all materials are returned to the earth’[i]. The process involves compiling a list of relevant material and energy inputs besides environmental emissions during a products life cycle and assessing the environmental impacts associated with these inputs and emissions. Life cycle assessment stages are illustrated in the diagram below (image 1).

Image 1: LCA stages (source: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ftchong/290N W10/EPAonLCA2006.pdf)

For TBI’s purposes we also added non-ecological impact categories including social impact (contribution to local livelihoods), ethical sourcing (source of raw material), product effectiveness (eg. grease removal efficiency, stain removal efficiency, etc), product pricing and supply scale potential as part of the overall assessment. The categories would be combined into a ‘Household Cleaner Supplier Scorecard’ which would aid the TBI team in objectively and thoughtfully narrowing down on suppliers.

In order to be able to make appropriate assessments and comparisons cBalance  developed appropriate data collection methods including supplier questionnaires, disclosure sheets, site visits and procuring product samples ( for external lab tests) . We also conducted research on the hazardous impacts of product components on human and ecosystem health. All product information was analysed using a uniquely developed ‘Excel- based LCA tool’. These LCA calculations were later combined with calculations of non-ecological aspects to develop the ‘Household cleaner supplier scorecard’ for product comparison.

—————————————————————————————————————-

Project details , processes and outputs can be found here: https://cbalance.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CB_TBI_LCA_Housecleaners_v0.3.pdf

—————————————————————————————————————-

The scorecard revealed that while few supplier products had negligible ecological impact, a few of them had an unexpectedly high ecological impact. This enabled the TBI team to recognise a dearth of knowledge on negative impacts of product components among some suppliers. They recognised the need for capacity building of producers through providing handholding support to overcome product shortcomings. Additionally, TBI also worked towards ensuring reusable and refillable product packaging; an endeavour that demands consumer responsibility to return bottles for recycling and purchase refill packages to minimize life-cycle impact.

Way forward: Creating common ground

Amidst fears of “greenwashing” it is the shift in perspective away from blaming and shaming that is highlighting the way forward for consumers, producers and the market in general. TBI used the LCA not only to evaluate products and choose between suppliers  but also to identify areas for improvement for itself and producers. As other producers and suppliers similarly pick up and assume responsibilities as TBI did, they are offering essential elements of trust that have long been missed in the exploitative global economy.

Another shift is in creative collaborations and making way for new language and shared standards of what is acceptable or not in production processes, and for engaging in transparent and verifiable practices. Typically LCA softwares are expensive, but an excel based LCA tool such as cBalance developed makes such efforts more affordable. For TBI it served not just as an evaluation tool but as a product enhancement tool, indicating aspects that need to be altered to minimize negative impact. In a different collaboration, such as with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises it holds the potential to enable many more suppliers and even producers to be part of creating and upholding standards. The LCA tool can also be used to facilitate conversation among stakeholders, the results when presented in varying forms can serve different functions including to educate consumers. Indeed, even when the tools themselves are not necessary, such as in the contexts that we began this article with, the clarity that such frameworks bring to the table can spur many more creative possibilities. Given the times we are living in, the interconnectedness of our market systems and the social and ecological systems they depend on cannot be denied. Ensuring responsible products is therefore a responsibility that can only get lighter, easier, cheaper with more people to shoulder it.

Reference:(i) Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC), & Curran, M. A. (2006). Life-cycle assessment: principles and practice. http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ftchong/290N-W10/EPAonLCA2006.pdf

Co-author: Neesha Noronha, Editor: Vivek Gilani

The Building Economy and Carbon Footprinting: Stepping Forward to Protect our Common Home.

“What is ‘enough’ in construction and even in life in general? What are we looking at in terms of impact when we construct a massive glass building in the middle of tropical cities like Pune or Mumbai or Bangalore? Are we just constructing something that gives us a panoramic view of the city and serves no other function? Isn’t this similar to spending crores on making an oven and then spending crores more to refrigerate it?” 

These are the questions Mr. Nilesh Vohra, a young builder of Kanchan Developers, Pune was asking himself after a conference on ‘Defaulting Green’ in Kerala a few years ago. Nilesh is part of the Green Buildings Committee of the Pune chapter of a nationally recognised builders association in India and met inspiring green building consultants and developers through this forum. These are his initial manoeuvres into responsible construction practices. 

Nileshs’ questions draw attention to the need for constructing buildings that are not solely driven by social notions of a ‘premium’ building (in this case, glass buildings), but also consider the social, economic and environmental implications of designing such buildings, which when not considered are detrimental to society and the environment as a whole.

Why should the building economy consider moving towards green building construction, immediately? [footnote-(fn1)] In an era of human-induced climate crisis (fn2), we need to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, since estimates state that an increase in temperatures beyond 1.5°C will accelerate the climate crisis, resulting in increased unpredictable and uncontrollable occurrence of disasters such as floods, droughts, biodiversity loss, cyclones, etc. These episodes impact vulnerable sections of society in-equitably; not only are those from economically poorer backgrounds impacted first, but women, children, the elderly and sick are also vulnerable. Everyone, irrespective of who we are, will bear the consequences of climate  collapse. The damage to buildings and other property, goes without saying, too. In order to avoid such damage, climate scientists caution towards reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45% before 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2075. The role of the building economy in contributing to GHG emissions and its potential to mitigate it are stated in the image (UNEP, 2012).

If constructing a ‘safe’ building is a non-negotiable value , considering the implications of the building economy on the environment, can green buildings be an option or are they a necessity?

According to India Brand Equity Foundation (2018), the number of Indians living in urban areas will increase from 434 million in 2015 to about 600 million by 2031, increasing the demand for residential and commercial buildings, both. Recognising the projected increase in construction activities, there seems to be ample opportunity to move towards responsible green building construction. Easy to say “Construct green buildings.” but how do we go about constructing these? What are the steps we have to take to implement these ideas in reality? How do we encourage and support the likes of Nilesh Vohra in making these a priority, amidst all the other logistical and bureaucratic challenges of building in these times? Based on our experience with carbon footprinting and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders contributing towards building construction, we offer some perspective that can facilitate the move forward. 

Carbon Footprinting: A means towards responsible construction

What is carbon footprinting and how is it useful? Carbon footprinting is a measurable, verifiable and comparable instrument that entails measuring the carbon emissions during different operations and activities, in this case, building activities. This supports identifying alternatives to reduce emissions and where these would be most effective, thereby minimizing the negative impacts of construction on the environment. By quantifying carbon reduction efforts in building construction, meaningful and comparable information can be shared with building sector counterparts as well as potential buyers creating a base of evidence and commitment towards responsible construction. Carbon footprinting of building projects is a means for builders to begin demonstrating care for the larger world we belong to.

Just as one would not simply measure blood sugar levels of a diabetic without the intent to reduce them, responsible building, therefore, does not end with measuring the carbon footprint of a project. Incorporating actionable steps to mitigate emissions that are avoidable is the most important part. 

The cBalance Carbon Footprint Experience

We supported carbon footprinting of the Royal Orange County Residential Housing Project as well as for two townships of Lohegaon and Zandewadi in Pune, respectively. Besides this, internal capacity building and skill development for the Orange County Foundation team was conducted to equip them with skills for calculating the carbon footprint of their construction projects. [Links to detailed reports of the three projects mentioned, are given in a box below. An overview of learnings from engagement with carbon footprint projects is provided at the end of this section, too.]

In the case of Orange County, a comparison was made between their previous projects and the Royal Orange County (ROC) Residential Housing Project which incorporated low carbon efforts such as eco-friendly architectural design buildings, renewable energy, waste management, wastewater management and low-carbon embodied construction and building materials. The calculation of the carbon footprint of the construction phase by the Orange County team revealed 15% lower emissions for the ROC construction compared to their previous projects.  It should also be noted that Orange County incorporates sustainable principles in its construction projects by default and comparing the life cycle carbon footprint (fn3) of the ROC with other builder projects in Pune would probably demonstrate a much larger difference in emissions. 

In the case of Lohegaon and Zandewadi townships in Pune, Maharashtra, we were asked to conduct carbon footprinting at the request of VK:e environmental, an architecture consultant. The project builders were required to submit a carbon footprint projection report including measures they would undertake to mitigate emissions to the State Environment Committee (SEC), Maharashtra prior to the start of the project. At the time, there wasn’t a standardized protocol available for township carbon footprinting (currently a GHG Protocol for Cities is widely used), so CB used multiple protocols to ensure quality measurements. This was undertaken considering that multiple iterations of footprinting using different protocols would lead to similar conclusions which would strengthen belief in the mitigation recommendations that would be suggested.

Following were the findings after conducting life-cycle carbon footprints of the two townships:

Recommendations were conveyed to enable the builders to incorporate low carbon measures during the building process. Few of the recommendations that were suggested include: 1. Using natural afforestation methods rather than conventionally used plantation-forestry methods to compensate for the carbon absorption capacity that would be lost due to irreversible damage caused to the land on which the construction would occur. This recommendation suggested planting native trees and using the Miyawaki method of afforestation. 2. Reducing energy consumption by integrating passive design techniques such as the use of thermal mass to reduce heat gain, insulating materials or cavity walls, appropriate shading strategies for fenestration, low-U glazing, low-E films, and heat-reflective paints. 3. Inclusion of structure and radiant cooling systems within all floor and ceiling slabs to mitigate solar heat gain through rooftops and walls. 4. Designing flats in a manner that enables integration of natural refrigerant-based split ACs should the flat owners choose to install an AC.

Illustrations of Passive cooling strategies.

In comparing the projects; Orange  County through implementation of low carbon measures actually demonstrated mitigation gains, whereas in the case of the two townships only the potential mitigation gains were revealed. Thus, while we participated in SEC hearings to encourage the SEC to approve the carbon footprint report and clear the township projects only if the builders take steps that align with the recommendations made, this was the extent of our influence. It still remains the purview of the SEC and other industry boards/ government authorities to compel builders to implement actionable steps towards reduction, compared to BAU construction.

Way forward

If the potential for environmental safeguarding during construction is no longer in question, then other factors must influence the decision to do so. What would make it accessible and worthwhile for builders to carry out these activities? According to Nilesh two critical obstacles for builders are the lack of investment in the sector and the lack of demand from end-users. For both, carbon footprinting presents itself as a step towards addressing these gaps. 

An open disclosure tool, similar to other online tools, requires users to merely submit relevant data, which is then automatically processed to display the final results. Such a tool would enable multiple builders to present their carbon footprint calculations which would essentially create a feedback loop that shows where buildings can undertake at least the well-known measures to control carbon emissions such as using local materials, ensuring energy reduction during the operations phase, conservation etc. A life cycle carbon footprint additionally shows not only the savings at the time of construction but also the potential future energy and emissions savings (during occupation). Last, but definitely not least, it also shows where sustainable solutions pay back over time even those that may initially cost more. With such data it is possible to show investors and government and regulatory bodies from the local municipal level right up to the national and international levels, that such benefits can and should be tied to decision making and evidence-based policy making that favours and rewards responsible construction. 

CBalance can create an affordable, sensitive and user-friendly tool and would invite industry associations such as the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) to collaborate in this to encourage an increasing number of builders to voluntarily engage in carbon footprinting. This, along with recommendations based on the marginal abatement cost curve, can give builders a range of emissions mitigation opportunities from the least cost option to the highest cost. Additionally, our experience with building in-house capacity for carbon footprinting itself with the Orange County team showed that this too was not difficult. Thus, we recommend using a standard protocol for measurement and coupling in-house capacity building and engagement with consultants who are experienced in the field, to provide appropriate mitigation measures.  

At this stage, it is in the collective hands of the builders to push for responsible construction processes at a larger scale, benefitting both, the building economy and the planet as a whole. If they have the vision and will to do so, carbon footprinting and cost-efficient sustainable alternatives like passive design techniques can easily replace ecologically destructive and expensive practices like air-conditioned glass buildings. Builders like Orange County have found ways to translate the wide variety of benefits it holds for residents and the wider community. Ultimately, raising the level of demand for responsible construction from multiple quarters can make shared responsibility and accountability a grounding and enlivening force for the building economy rather than an unwanted burden to be passed off or signed off on at the first opportunity. It will take many more Orange Countys and many more young builders like Nilesh to tip the scales and make sustainable the default. Whether you’re a builder, business person, government official, concerned consumer or citizen, at this juncture in time with climate chaos knocking at the doors of each one, which way you choose to step or what you choose to put your weight behind may change the course of not just your life but the nation and the planet too.   

Footnotes (fn)

(1) A green building incorporates design techniques, materials and technologies that minimize its overall impacts on the environment and human health. This is achieved by better siting, design, material selection, construction, maintenance, removal, and possible reuse. Main outcomes are minimum site disruption, reduced fossil fuel use, lower water consumption, and fewer pollutants used and released during construction, occupation and disposal of the building. (UNESCAP, 2012)

(2)With ecological emergencies occurring the world over cBalance is choosing to use language that urges immediate action by all of society to address our individual and collective roles in the trauma of climate change.(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment)

(3) The life cycle carbon footprint includes emissions from the anticipated occupation of the building as well as emissions during construction. 

References

https://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/inventory/unep223.pdf

https://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/CC-2009-CARE_Human_Implications.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air

https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/climate-change-and-cities-what-we-need-do

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/3.%20Green-Buildings.pdf

https://s3.amazonaws.com/legacy.usgbc.org/usgbc/docs/Archive/General/Docs19073.pdf

https://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/inventory/unep207.pdf

Telephonic conversation with Nilesh Vohra (Kanchan Developers); May 19, 2020.

Contributors:

Neesha Noronha, Vivek Gilani, Dhrumit Parikh

Illustrations:

Aliullah Shaikh

IPL 2010 Season Carbon Footprint Control Project

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt. Ltd was contracted by the IPL Management upon the recommendation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to calculate the IPL’s annual carbon footprint (i.e. an inventory of the total greenhouse gas emissions – GHGs – that contribute to climate change, resulting from direct and indirect resource consumption through DLF IPL 2010’s annual operations).

The total carbon footprint of DLF IPL 2010 was estimated to be 42,264 tons CO2e. DLF IPL 2010’s Carbon Footprint can be thought of as requiring 169,055 trees to ‘neutralise’ its impact on climate change over a period of 20 years. This equates to approximately 2,818 trees per match.

The following activities comprise its carbon Footprint, in order of decreasing magnitude: travel and logistics (18,073 tons CO2e – 42.8%), stadium construction (9,932 tons CO2e – 23.5%), luxury hotel accommodation (9,927 tons CO2e – 23.5%) , food, beverage, and waste (1,201 tons CO2e – 2.8%) and electricity (996 tons CO2e – 2.4%). These results are displayed in the chart below:

Relative stakeholder contributions to the DLF IPL 2010 Carbon Footprint are: IPL/IMG Operations (9,861 tons CO2e – 23%), state association operations (12,861 tons CO2e – 30%), franchise operations (5,243 tons CO2e – 12%), spectator activities (14,300 tons CO2e – 35%). The following chart displays the results:

A majority of the carbon footprint of DLF IPL 2010 is the consequence of activities related to its contractors, while only 23% of the footprint is a direct consequence of direct IPL/IMG managed operations. It is imperative that footprint mitigation strategies account for this aspect of footprint distribution.

Spectators are the most significant stakeholders in terms of contribution to total carbon footprint. Private vehicular travel is the single largest contributing factor – responsible for 6,517 tons CO2e (45%) of the stadium spectator carbon footprint. It is imperative to address this disproportionately heavy reliance on private transport consumed for spectator travel when addressing the overall IPL carbon footprint.

TV viewership-related carbon footprint for DLF IPL 2010 was 358,039 tons CO2e and far outweighed the contributions of any other stakeholder or activity considered within the IPL carbon footprint boundary. This component of carbon footprint, and its root cause–large quantity of consumption of electricity through TV sets–needs to be addressed with greater emphasis on its analysis and mitigation through innovative strategies and interventions in future editions of the IPL.

The impact of stadium construction, one of the primary activities contributing significantly to the IPL footprint, needs to be mitigated by intervening and exploiting opportunities to infuse low-carbon and green architecture and construction practices as the cornerstone of future stadium construction activities at proposed stadiums that are intended for use by the IPL.

Best practice examples for a majority of stakeholder functions within the IPL have been identified and quantified and their initial feasibility assessed. Best practice benchmark replication across the IPL must be pursued as a potent and actionable strategy for optimizing the carbon footprint of the IPL prior to any resource and capital-intensive carbon footprint minimisation strategies.

All interventions must be accompanied by effective communication to all internal and external stakeholders. They must also be in consonance with a well thought-out greening strategy that aims not just at a carbon neutral IPL but sets itself the loftier target of an IPL that is a net carbon sink (an indicative road map is presented in Appendix H of the original report).

Best practice incentivisation through formal programs and its incorporation into contractual negotiations processes with all vendors, contractors and other relevant stakeholders is ascertained to be the most feasible ‘first step’ on the pathway to drastically reducing the carbon footprint of IPL in the forthcoming seasons. Central IPL support and nurturing of competitive franchise behavior through formal recognition of the ‘lowest carbon footprint’ or ‘greenest’ franchise is one illustrative example that may be expanded to envelop all aspects of IPL operations in future editions.

The carbon footprint determined as part of this project phase does not account for the entire life-cycle of the resources consumed and their comprehensive impact on Climate Change and ecology. Accounting for resource acquisition, processing, and disposal impacts could magnify the current extent manifold. A life-cycle analysis (LCA) of all primary resources consumed is essential to ascertain a more comprehensive carbon footprint that tends towards the true climate change impact of IPL. It is recommended that IPL 2011 be assessed on a LCA basis and that preparatory work for an LCA study be commissioned as part of the next phase of the project. The activity boundaries are outlined in the following table:

It is recommended that the IPL commission ECE to commence a comprehensive carbon footprint minimization analysis as part of a long-term ‘greening program’ (in fulfillment of its MOU with the UNEP’s Sports and Environment Unit) to identify means and alternatives for optimising and minimising its resource intensiveness.

Prior to minimising and offsetting the impact of future IPLs, it is recommended that the IPL commit to neutralise the impact of, as minimum, the four knock-out phase matches of DLF IPL 2010 (estimated to be 3,148 tons). While multiple options for offsetting are available in the conventional Carbon Offset market, the alternatives that result in equitable distribution of benefits to the grassroots stakeholder communities who are imperative to the project’s implementation are preferred as a more potent agent of social and environmental transformation.

The original report can be read here.

Recycle Guru: Carbon Savings Achieved by Recycling

Recycle Guru is an online platform helping citizens recycle their waste by enabling the informal recycling sector. It promotes the more sustainable use of resources to make communities healthier and cleaner and seeks to instill greater dignity in the recycling profession as well as into the perception of citizens who rely upon their services. Recycle Guru initiates the recycling process by collecting paper, plastic, metal, and glass wastes from households in Bangalore.

The motive of this project was to create a tool to estimate the Energy and GHG Emissions (or Carbon Footprint) conservation benefits of recycling versus the business-as-usual option for municipal waste management in India: landfilling. Achieved Energy saving is contextualized in terms of equivalent hour of usage of CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps), ceiling fans, laptop, washing machine, LCD TV, and the equivalent carbon sequestration capacity of trees.

Paper

Paper waste is categorized into following categories: paper sheets, newspaper inserts, newsprint, cardboard, and magazines. The Recycle Guru team observed the percentile contribution of each waste type as the following:

Paper sheets – 95%

Newspaper Inserts – 5%

Cardboard – 60%

Magazines – 40%

Life cycle emission (implies manufacturing from Virgin material, 0% recycled material) of each subcategory mentioned above is as follows:

Using the first order decay method, the emissions from disposal is estimated to be 1.725 kg CO2e/kg of waste. The total emissions saved from recycling is calculated by subtracting the life cycle emissions of the recycled material from the life cycle emissions of the virgin material and then adding the landfilling emissions. The results are displayed in the following table:

Plastic

Plastic waste consists of the following three categories: high value plastic (high density polyethylene), PET bottles (polyethylene terephthalate), low value plastic (low density polyethylene). The life cycle emissions from manufacturing for each subcategory are displayed in the table below.

Since Degradable Organic Carbon in plastic is almost negligible, methane generation from its disposal in landfills is considered to be Zero. To calculate the avoided emissions from recycling, the same formula as that for paper was used. The results are displayed in the following table:

Metal

Metal waste only contains one category comprising both aluminum and steel. As per the pattern observed so far, percentile contribution of aluminum and steel in metal waste is found to be 75% and 25%, respectively. The life cycle emissions (implies manufacturing from Virgin material, 0% recycled material) of each subcategory mentioned above is as follows:

Since degradable organic carbon in metal is almost negligible, methane generation from its disposal in landfills is considered to be zero. Emission savings for each category is estimated using the same equation as paper and plastic with the results displayed below.

Glass

Glass waste is categorized into the following categories: beer bottles (brand: Kingfisher), container glass, and generic glass. As observed so far by Recycle Guru team, there were many instances when beer bottles were counted in pieces instead of kilogram. Hence, carbon saving from beer bottles is estimated based on number of pieces taken for recycling. Kingfisher beer bottles (made up of glass) mostly come in 650ml and 330ml. These two
major categories are considered in modeling the carbon saving from piece of each type. Life cycle emission (implies manufacturing from virgin material, 0% recycled material) of each subcategory mentioned above is as follows:

Since degradable organic carbon in metal is almost negligible, methane generation from its disposal in landfills is considered to be zero. Emission savings for each category is estimated using the same equation as paper, plastic, and metal and the results are displayed in the following two tables.

As discussed above, the energy saving achieved is expressed in terms of following contexts: CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps), ceiling fans, laptop, washing machine, LCD TV, and the equivalent carbon sequestration capacity of trees. Electricity emission factor (including AT&T Loss) for Bengaluru city is 1.27 kgCO2e/kwh generated. The following table displays the results:

To find about the assumptions taken and the equations used, the original report can be read here.

ENGINEER 2010 Annual Tech Fest Carbon Footprint Calculation

Eliminate Carbon Emissions (ECE) Pvt. Ltd was contracted by the ‘ENGINEER 2010’ CORE to calculate their Carbon Footprint Calculation (i.e. an inventory of the total Greenhouse Gas Emissions that contribute to Climate Change), resulting from direct and indirect resource consumption through the annual technical fest’s operations. The subsequent report encompassed the first phase–‘Realise’– of the three-phase project comprising of Carbon Footprint Calculation (‘Realise’), Carbon Footprint Minimisation
(‘Minimise’) and Carbon Footprint Neutralisation (‘Neutralise’). This blog post discusses the findings of this report.

Project Goals and Scope:

The goals of the ‘Realise’ phase of the project were, to determine for ENGINEER 2010 the total resource consumption inventory, total carbon footprint, activity-differentiated annual carbon footprint, stakeholder-differentiated annual carbon footprint, and contextualization of total carbon footprint and carbon emissions intensity of stakeholder operations. The analysis of those aspects of operation would form a benchmark for assessing the impact of future members, and the aggregate and dissected carbon footprints were to be communicated in easily understandable terms. The results of this research were intended to serve as a diagnostic tool to help mitigate future carbon emissions.

Boundaries were defined in consultation with ENGINEER Management and involved two key-decision making areas, activities to be included and stakeholders to be considered. See previous blog post for discussion of protocols followed. More attention is paid to activities that are defined as ‘Key Source Categories, which are defined as those whose collective contribution account for 95% of the total footprint (when added incrementally in order of decreasing contribution). Activity boundaries categorized as Scope 1, 2, and 3 can be found in Table 1 on page 8 of the original report. Stakeholder boundaries were determined through consultation with the Client, and the results are displayed in the table below:

The following table presents the extent of LCA incorporated into the Emission Factors selected for the Carbon Footprint calculation.

Methodology:

Activity data was collected through periodic meetings with ENGINEER CORE representatives. Questionnaires were used to define relevant stakeholder groups and activities as well as to create an “activity vs. stakeholder mapping.” Electricity, water, and fuel consumption data was obtained from the previous year’s data to begin developing a pre-event estimate. To collect visitor travel activity data, detailed quantitative audience research was conducted to measure emissions, with a sample size of 10% of the expected audience being selected at random to answer a questionnaire.

Activities included within the footprint boundary were further differentiated into multiple activity sub-types. The results are displayed in table 4 on page 13 of the original report. Activity data was then multiplied by the appropriate GHG Emissions Factors developed for India, displayed in Appendix B of the same report.

Results:

The following table presents the extrapolated aggregated resource consumption inventory for ENGINEER 2010.

The total Carbon Footprint of ENGINEER 2010 for the activities presented in the first table and the stakeholders in the second is estimated to be 29.3 tons of CO2e. The following table and figure present the contributions to this total footprint differentiated across all activity groups.

As demonstrated here, travel and logistics was the largest contributor (11.2 tons CO2e–38.4%), and electricity was the second largest (9.6 tons CO2e–32.8%). Food, beverage, and waste was a distant third (4.4 tons CO2e–14.9%).

The following table and figure present the stakeholder contributions to the Carbon Footprint of all activities included within the footprint boundary.

The largest contribution is from activities related to the ENGINEER CORE (9.7 tons CO2e–33.0%).

For discussion of assumptions, data gaps, and limitations, read the original report.

Conclusion:

The Carbon Footprint estimate of 29.3 tons CO2e to serve a participant and visitor base of 4,233 persons leads to a per-participant served Carbon Footprint of approximately 6.9 kg CO2e. It must be noted, however, that the carbon efficiency of the participant stakeholder group is very high due to their use of mass transit systems and low reliance on private vehicular transport to the event. Moreover, guest accommodation was handled using in-house facilities. The elimination of luxury hotel accommodations had a drastic impact on the Carbon Footprint, as the arrangement allows for energy efficiency control and monitoring within the event premises that leads to much greater efficiency than is seen in the luxury hospitality industry in India.

In order to optimize resource and energy consumption, a few measures were recommended in the original report: Indoor temperatures can be raised by two degrees Celsius, lights can be switched off two hours per week, and home composting systems can be used for the disposal of biodegradable waste.

The original report can be read here.

IIM(A)’s CHAOS 2010 Annual Cultural Festival’s Carbon Footprint Calculation

This blog post summarizes the carbon footprint calculation (i.e. an inventory of the total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) that contribute to Climate Change resulting from direct and indirect resource consumption through event activities) of the IIM(A)’s CHAOS 2010 annual cultural festival, which was contracted to Eliminate Carbon Emissions Pvt. Ltd by the festival’s Organizing Committee.

Goals:

The project goals were to determine, with the great degree of accuracy possible, the following for CHAOS 2010:

1. Total Resource Consumption Inventory
2. Total Carbon Footprint
3. Resource consumption activity-differentiated Carbon Footprint
4. Stakeholder-differentiated Carbon Footprint
5. Per-participant Average Carbon Footprint

Boundaries for the Carbon Footprint Calculation process were defined in consultation with CHAOS 2010 Management. Defining boundaries involved two key-decision making areas: activities to be included (i.e. defining a comprehensive yet manageable set of resources who’s consumption was to be inventoried) and stakeholders to be considered as part of the organization’s footprint (i.e. defining which sets of peoples/groups/functions are to be included within the footprint boundary).

Scope:

Since Carbon Footprint Reporting for events in India is not mandated by either the Indian Government or the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), and CHAOS 2010’s initiative to address its Climate Change Impacts is purely voluntary, there was no set of pre-established guidelines for boundary definition to be followed. Thus, the globally accepted methodologies for National GHG Emissions Reporting (adopted by India as part of the Kyoto Protocol) laid down by the IPCC (Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change) as part of the 2006 Guidelines were used for guidance wherever appropriate. However, given the unique nature of this event, the overall methodology reflected a confluence of standard protocols and event-appropriate approaches which provide an accurate estimate of the Climate Change impact of a unique cultural and live-entertainment event, which CHAOS represents.

Activity Boundaries:

1. Contributing Directly to Carbon Footprint: Cooking Fuel Consumption, Vehicular Fuel Consumption (these are activities where an individual or business has direct control over the amount of activity and the emission coefficient through technological choices)
2. Contributing Indirectly to Carbon Footprint (Primary Importance): Electricity Consumption, Water Consumption (these are activities where an individual or business has direct control over the amount of activity but not the emission coefficient through technological choices)
3. Contributing Indirectly to Carbon Footprint (Secondary Importance): Transportation (Rail, Road, and Air Travel), Food & Beverage comprising of Meat, Seafood, Dairy, Rice, Alcoholic and Bottled Water/Soft Drink Beverage Consumption, Waste Generation, Plastic, Paper and Other Consumables (these are activities where an individual or business can be considered to not have direct control over the amount of activity nor the emission coefficient through technological choices)

Stakeholder Boundaries:

1. CHAOS 2010 Organization
2. Event Performers
3. Event Participants

Life-cycle Boundaries:

Methodology

The research methodology followed for the project centered around the idea of dissecting the event operations and disaggregating the consumption of resources to understand the consumption patterns ‘ground-up’. While this approach was more time-consuming, as opposed to tracking all activities through a ‘centralized’ approach, it helped construct a detailed footprint-map that would be invaluable as an analysis tool to identify stakeholder contributions to overall footprint. This data was then refined and scrutinized for inaccuracies when data appeared to be erroneous.

Results

The total carbon footprint of CHAOS 2010 for the activities and stakeholders presented previously is estimated to be 29.7 tons of CO2e.

Table 4 presents the contributions to the total carbon footprint differentiated by scope. Items identified as ‘not known’ represent data that was unavailable for analysis due to constraints encountered by data gathering personnel, and underlined quantities represent activities where consumption was estimated based on an assumed per-participant consumption quantity.

Figure 7 displays the percentage of overall GHG emissions per activity. Auto-rickshaw and flights were the two largest contributors at 29% and 21%, respectively.

Table 5 displays the GHG emissions per stakeholder. The participants, at 50%, were by far the largest contributors.

Figure 2 displays the same results in a pie chart.

Conclusions

Preemptively, Participant Travel and Waste Generation Footprints may be mitigated in future events through:

• provision of mass-transit based systems, such as fuel-efficient or alternative fuel (CNG) buses, to transport participants from pre-determined nodal locations in the surrounding areas of IIM(A) to the event.
• waste management principles centered around waste segregation, organic waste composting, and waste recycling must be adopted in conjunction with the rigorous participant awareness effort to ensure minimal waste is sent to landfills as an outcome of CHAOS.

Finally, based on the above analysis presented earlier, it is recommended that IIM(A) offset a significant percentage of the footprint of CHAOS 2010 (29.7 tons of CO2e) through ‘domestic’ action. It is recommended that IIM(A) review its monthly electricity consumption and set a achievable ‘percentage-reduction’ target for the first quarter during the new Academic Year beginning in mid-2010 to ‘offset’ at least 50% of the 19,192 units (i.e. 10,000 units).

Analysis of Consumption and Footprint of Meluha the Fern, an Ecotel Hotel

We continue our blog with another post on the hotel industry, this time discussing Mumbai’s 5 star hotel Meluha the Fern, which commissioned cBalance to provide an analysis of its ecological footprint and consumption for the years of 2011-12. Meluha the Fern is a business hotel located in a hot and humid climatic zone (see our last blog post for more information on the different climatic zones) with 141 rooms. Laundry and waste water treatment (aerobic) is off-site, and the average room tafiff is Rs. 6400.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory:

As is evident from the graph, the vast majority of emissions come from electricity generation (84.45%). Laundry is the second largest source (3.88%), followed by PNG (3.48%, dairy (2.49%, and meat (2.27%).

The total footprint of the hotel was 4224.47 tCO2e, with 0.12 tCO2e per overnight stay, 0.34 tC02e per square meter, and 29.9 tCO2e per room per year.

Compared to its peers, Meluha the Fern is in the top 2 percentile for overall energy efficiency, top 4 percentile for hotels in the Hot & Humid climatic zone, top 9 percentile for all 5 star hotels, and top 2 percentile for all business hotels.

Results:

The total CO2e for the reporting period was 1263 tCO2e, with 919.34 tCO2e from guestrooms and 343.23 tCO2e from meetings. The carbon footprint per occupied room on a daily basis was 27.2 kgCO2e and 94.0 kgCO2e per area of meeting space.

The carbon footprint of fuel usage overwhelmingly came from PNG (69%), followed by LPG (18%) and diesel (13%). The cost was even more lopsided, with 96% from PNG and 2% each from LPG and diesel.

Carbon emissions was not the only performance indicator we analyzed, however; water consumption was also evaluated. 29069 kiloliters of water was used by Meluha the Fern (resulting in associated emissions of 16.1 tCO2e). Most of it came by tanker (56%), and domestic water (48%), flushing (25%), and the cooling towers (23%) were responsible for nearly all of its use.

cBalance also analyzed Meluha the Fern’s food waste, which totaled at 112.78 tonnes (resulting in 2.9 tCO2e emissions), 90% of which went to the piggeries, with the remaining 10% being composted.

Laundry is another significant contributor to Meluha the Fern’s ecological footprint. There were 639.96 tons of laundry with an associated emissions of 163.83 tCO2e (260 kgCO2e per ton). The tent card, however, helped save 2% of laundry, meaning 1460 kWh of electricity, 480 KL of water, 700 I of furnace oil, and 4.4 tCO2e GHG emissions per year.

The following table and graph illustrate Meluha the Fern’s solid waste management:

Most of the avoided emissions were from metals (44% and paper 42%).

Meluha the Fern has also achieved large savings from its water practices. The campus area is 1046 square meters, while the rainwater capture area is 3130.55 square meters. 7% of capture rainwater is reused (360 KL per year), and 93% of captured rainwater is recharged into the ground (4782 KL per year).

Energy savings result from Meluha the Fern’s choices of lighting equipment, as is shown by the following data:

Meluha the Fern also uses more sustainable forms of indoor cooling, with 10 split AC units (16 tonnes) and 50% of tonnage rated as 3 star equipment or above.

There are other areas as well where Meluha the Fern is able to save energy. 24% of the total pumping capacity comes from VFD pumps. Measures are taken to reduce refrigeration, 6% of the BUA is naturally lit, all of the windows are double-glazed, and all of the water pipes are insulated. 29% of the BUA is covered by BMS (building management systems), and the occupancy controlled area is 49% of the low traffic BUA area.

Some other notable sustainability measures included induction stoves for buffet counters, three self-cooking centers from Rational, a four bin method of trash segregation (at the source), no straws, paper napkins, or coasters, and glass bottles provided for water rather than bottled water (which aren’t filled unless asked for). Lastly, email usage is mandated and recycled paper is used for all stationary.

Other positives were that the data collection in housekeeping and engineering departments was excellent, and all staff members were very knowledgeable about sustainability initiatives within their departments.

Areas for improvement:

There were no sustainability initiatives involving guests, and the percentage of social development activities was very less (less than 1% of total man hours). There were not any norms for the use of organic food, either.

The original report can be read here:

The Carbon Emissions and Energy Use of the Indian Hotel Industry

We continue our weekly blog with another post on hospitality, this time, an analysis of the hotel industry in general in India. In 2011, USAID and the Indian government’s Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) commissioned a study by cBalance to understand the energy consumption of hotels in India, analyzing their carbon emissions, energy intensity, and efficiency and mitigation opportunities. The project’s goal, specifically, was to collect energy data for a robust set of hotels and hospitals distributed across all known climatic zones and recognized service-class categories in India to provide adequate data for the development of a statistical benchmarking system for buildings within service class categories of the above sectors based on their normalized energy performance index.

Project Scope:

Data set

Energy data collection was based on the following data groups:

Group 1: Business metrics

1. Service class type and size / service capacity
2. Area – Campus area, Built-up area, Carpet area, Common area, other use areas – conference area, restaurants etc.
3. Overnight occupancy (customers, patients)
4. Total occupancy
5. Employee strength

Group 2: Energy use

1. Purchased electricity
2. Captive power generation and associated fuel consumption
3. Fuel consumption for steam/water heating
4. Fuel consumption for cooking/catering
5. Other fuel consumption
6. Air Conditioning – installed capacity under all AC technology types
7. Lighting Load – installed capacity under all lighting technology types
8. Water pumping load – installed capacity under all lighting technology types
9. Other plug loads – Equipment, computers etc.
10. Sub-metered electricity consumption for AC, lighting, water pumping, plug load equipment, office equipment, electric geysers, kitchen equipment, laundry equipment, swimming pool, elevators, ETP/STP.
11. Renewable energy generation – solar PV, solar thermal water heating, waste to energy etc.
12. Water and Hot Water consumption.

For this project, 131 hotels across the country in various cities and climatic zones and of various services grades were surveyed . The results are displayed in the following table and map:

More hotels lie in the warm and humid zone than any other (40), followed by composite (38), temperate (27), cold (25), and hot and dry (17):

Energy consumption can vary significantly with respect to geographic location, and the following graph displays the results of our data collection:

Warm & humid regions consume the most amount of energy per square meter. This is because the high humidity reduces the performance of HVAC systems, requiring more energy to be consumed for cooling. Cold regions, on the other hand, have the lowest emissions because their air conditioning requirements are lower. This illustrates how significant air conditioning is as a portion of a hotel’s total energy consumption.

Energy efficiency also varies a great deal with respect to the service grade of the hotel, as is shown in the next graph:

It may seem counter-intuitive that 4 star hotels have higher emissions per square meter, but this is because they don’t use their space as efficiently as the five star hotels nor have invested in newer and greener technologies. Per overnight stay, 5 star hotels have the highest emissions due to the comfort and amenities they provide their customers with.

The following graphs break down the emissions of each service category per climatic zone. The data used below has also been normalized for whether the hotel does laundry in-house or outsources it, as this contributes a significant portion of the energy usage.

Potential for saving:

We calculated the amount of CO2e emissions that could be saved if all 5 star and 4 star hotels in each climatic zone improved their energy efficiency to that of the top 25% (75th percentile) of their peers:

As described in the above table, when measured from the built-up area (BUA), 5 star hotels can achieve a savings of 600 to 5000 tonnes of CO2e per year depending on the region, or 400-5000 tonnes of CO2e when calculating by overnight stay. For 4 star hotels, there is a potential savings of 650 to 1600 tonnes of CO2e and 190-530 tonnes when calculated by BUA and overnight stay, respectively. The largest potential for savings is in 5 stars hotels in warm and humid regions.

Further analysis of data, such as open and enclosed space use and technology interventions, has helped us document best practices in the industry and enabled us to create best practice guidelines for others to follow.

Climate Miles understands the unique requirements and challenges of the hotel industry to provide a high degree of comfort to their customers while keeping its footprint low. We work with clients across India through data driven methods to help them realize their carbon footprints relative to their peers with similar amenities. We also help them become more efficient through a wide array of process optimization and technology interventions with minimum disruption, which not only results in emission reduction but also increases bottom lines through cost savings. Our approach towards greening is to develop property specific or hotel chain specific MAC curves which will guide customers to prioritize their green investment opportunities.

MACC analysis is used for developing greening-roadmaps that transform the operations of institutions and corporations to set them on a low-carbon pathway. This is achieved by empowering them with information related to the ‘low-hanging fruit’ alternatives that must be pursued before embarking upon token or capital-intensive programs to reduce the Climate Change impacts of operational activities. The goal is to demonstrate the inherent alignment between economically prudent and environmentally imperative alternatives and debunk the myth that environmental responsibility reduces profits. If you would like your hotel to become more energy efficient or would like us to help you develop a energy efficiency or sustainability roadmap, please contact Vivek Gilani (Founder/Director of cBalance Solutions Hub) at vivek@cbalance.in

The original study can be read here.

Royal Orange County Case Study

Carbon Emission Factors Database License, Carbon ERP Integration and Carbon Footprinting of Royal Orange County Project for Orange County Foundation

The Orange County Foundation is a group of individuals who have experience in eco-friendly architecture and civil construction, and focus on sustainable urban development. The foundation has developed a self-sufficient green housing project at Pashan, Pune, the first of its kind, and is developing another green housing project ‘Royal Orange County’ at Rahatani Pune.

The Royal Orange County (ROC) Project involves eight multistoried buildings, consisting a total of 353 residential flats. The ROC has adopted a number of sustainable and environment-friendly options such as eco-friendly architectural design buildings, renewable energy, waste management, wastewater management and low-carbon embodied construction and building materials.

Project Objective

Life-cycle process mapping of the ROC construction to develop a toolkit for carbon ERP integration into their system.

Internal capacity building and skill development for the Orange County Foundation team to calculate the carbon footprint of their construction projects.

License of authenticated database for India specific emission factors related to construction and building materials, electricity & energy, mobility, AFLOU, waste, and wastewater to map environmental performance and sustainability impact of Orange County Foundation’s projects.

Carbon Footprinting of the design and construction phase of the ROC project.

cBalance’s Role

Annual Enterprise-Use License for cBalance Carbon Emission Factor Database (CEFD) – cBalance authorized yearly subscription of the CEFD tool to the Orange County Foundation to map the carbon footprint of projects using India-specific emission factors of construction & building materials, energy, mobility, AFLOU, waste and wastewater.

Training to Orange County Foundation Team for Assessment of Carbon Footprint – cBalance team provided 16 hours extensive training to the Orange County Foundation team on the topic of carbon footprinting, life-cycle of a construction project and introduction to common carbon metrics for building operations. In addition, cBalance provided training on the CEFD tool and instructed how the CEFD can be helpful to choose sustainable and low-carbon activity or material alternatives.

Life-cycle Process Mapping and Toolkit Development for Carbon Footprint – The cBalance team visited the construction site and project office of the ROC. Through a site audit and interviews with project officers, cBalance mapped the activities related to the design and construction phase of the ROC. Thereafter, cBalance developed a toolkit, that integrated into their existing system, for mapping the life-cycle carbon footprint of the ROC and future projects.

Carbon Footprinting of Royal Orange County Residential Housing Project – The cBalance team collected data from the ROC on deforestation, electricity, fuels, and construction & building materials consumption of the construction phase of the ROC and calculated the construction phase carbon footprint using India-specific GHG emission factors. Finally, the cBalance team presented the carbon footprint analysis to the board of the Orange County Foundation.

Results

Subscription to the CEFD and in-person training empowered Orange County Foundation team:

– to calculate the carbon footprint of their projects using India-specific GHG emission factors

– to assess life-cycle environmental performance and sustainable impact of their projects

– to choose sustainable alternatives over conventional construction and building material

– to compare environmental performances of two different construction projects

– to create a baseline and frame future strategies to reduce the carbon footprint

The Orange County Foundation team calculated the carbon footprint of the ROC construction phase and successfully achieved a 15% reduction in GHG emissions compared with previous projects.

SAI Life Case Study

SAI Life Sciences: An overview of the Energy Audit

Established in 1999, and utilizing its core group of experts, SAI Life Sciences has been identified to be one of the pioneers in drug manufacturing, development and discovery, solely for Pharma innovators. cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd (India) was contacted by them to conduct a complete thermal and electrical energy audit, which was carried over a period of 10-days from the 19^th of January 2015 to the 28^th of January 2015, in Karnataka.

SAI Life was aiming to achieve the objectives of a ‘green industry’ by conserving their natural resources and reducing their environmental impact from the various operations undertaken by them. In order to achieve this, the energy and related cost conservation potential based on technological interventions, architectural interventions and operational process changes needed to be determined. A comparative analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed alternatives on a life cycle cost basis, needed establishing. All of the above, along with determining the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential, in order to reduce SAI Life Sciences’ carbon footprint was undertaken by cBalance Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

The above curve is identified to be a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) for GHG emissions, which is often used as an important component of an institutionalized Sustainability Strategy. It helps in identifying the most cost-effective means of mitigating climate change impact, through several technological interventions and modifications in management practices. The MACC Curve helps in improving the planning of capital expenditure on Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation, Waste Reduction and Management projects, among many others, in a financially sustainable manner, while attaining the desired environmental and socio-economic sustainability benefits. Accumulating the economic benefits from the no-regret options and then stepping into the more challenging interventions is how this is generally done, thereby reducing the financial risk and ensuring longevity of the environmental program on the whole. The costs and benefits are calculated on the basis of real values of the financial parameters and resource conservation benefits of options reflecting the enhancement in technological alternatives.

When calculated for SAI Life, the analysis included the Baseline Performance Management (different power consumption patterns), Compressed Air System, Thermo-pack System, HVAC-Refrigeration System (cooling systems), Boilers and Steam System and other loads (including UPS, Scrubbers and Vacuum ejection system).

After this in-depth analysis it was found that the total current annual electrical energy consumption was approximately 57.6 Lakh kWh/year. In addition to electricity, the Plant was identified to consume 3045 metric tonnes of Coal and Biomass Briquettes for thermal energy and 102,251 liters of diesel annually for power generation. It was also identified that the electricity related emissions were considered to be the most significant supplier to the energy related GHG emissions, contributing 61% of the total emissions. Thus, a method allowing for the mitigation of electricity consumption, in order to prevent climate change on a large scale was suggested to be of a higher priority in comparison to the thermal energy conservation. The HVAC-Refrigeration system was identified to be one of the most critical components of energy consumption, thereby accounting for approximately 33.6% of the total load, followed by the Compressor and Cooling Tower Load. These three sources were identified to cumulatively contribute to approximately 84% of the total energy demand of the plant.

Here is the “MACC for GHG emissions” in table form. We recommend project A to be implemented by SAI Life management first as it offers the highest GHG emission reduction with significant annual savings and low capital cost. Project A is followed by a prioritized list of projects based on these criteria.

Project A: Steam Leakage

Capital Cost: INR 2,31,591, Annual Savings: INR 7,24,994 , Payback period: 0 years, MAC (Carbon not discounted) : -5084.88

Steam Leakage across the Plant was investigated through visual observation and complimented with the use of a Thermal Imaging Camera. Various locations were identified, wherein active steam was found leaking and four spots were identified as steam leakage hotspots upon which the steal leakage reduction strategy should be focused. It is recommended that regular surveillance and an adequate maintenance program is made for the   identification of leaks on pipelines, flanges and joints. Once identified, prompt mitigation strategies should be undertaken in order to harness the low-hanging-fruit energy saving opportunity.

Project B: Condensate Recovery

Capital Cost: 0, Annual Savings: INR 1,41,369, Payback period: 0 years, MAC (Carbon not discounted) : -4863.87

Condensate Recovery from the Steam Distribution System was found to be startlingly low, with only 1,000 liters out of 25,000 TPD being recovered as condensate. This implies an exceptionally low rate of recovery (4%) further implying the rest of the condensate to be drained. Based on observations and experiential learning, it is understood that aiming to achieve a 40% condensate recovery would help in yielding an annual energy savings of approximately 330 GJ per year, eventually saving INR 1.41 Lakhs per year.

Project C: Boiler Radiation Loss Reduction

Capital Cost: 0, Annual Savings: INR 6,47,963 , Payback period: 0.35 years, MAC (Carbon not discounted) : -5084.88

In order to prevent the radiation loss, primary fuel saving opportunities available to the plant include the installation of a solar thermal system, for Boiler Feed Water pre-heating, which is identified to reduce the annual fossil fuel consumption by about 37.7%. A Waste Heat Recovery system could also be installed in order to harness the available energy, reducing the fossil fuel consumption by approximately 30%. Using these technologies would help reducing the annual electricity consumption by 4.2%, yielding energy cost savings of about 12.9% of the current annual energy bill.

The above three projects are examples of the different recommendations that are made in order to reduce the GHG emissions of SAI Life’s operational activities. Once these recommendations are put into place, SAI Life Sciences can achieve the following positive impacts on the environment and its operational costs:

1. Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2,907 metric tonnes of CO2 per year (equivalent to planting approximately 11,628 trees every year)
2. Conserve 15.3 lakh units of electricity every year (enough to power 1,279 average Indian homes per year)
3. Reduce its operational cost by INR 1.42 Crore every year
4. The capital cost for implementing all the proposed projects is approximately INR 1.42 Crore
5. The payback period for these investments is a very feasible 1.24 years.

cBalance provided a detailed report, which included an in-depth assessment as a part of the energy audit and conservation strategy. The final project report can be found at http://cbalance.in/case-studies/ under the name of SAI Life Sciences.