Leseprobe_Berichte_363

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3. Generic process routes of materials for three selected products The next step is to make decisions concerning upstream data sources. For production of raw materials and energy there are multiple data sources available, such as global averages, regional averages, country averages and in some cases supplier specifi c data. Supplier specifi c data should be used to the extent possible as that will provide the most representative result for the product. For raw materials contributing with small carbon footprints, average data is however adequate. The carbon footprint presented in this paper is based on upstream data ac-cording to Table 1. The calculation method and allocation principles used to determine the carbon footprint infl uence the results. The choice of upstream data will affect the total result for the whole system (in this case cradle-to-gate). The allocation principles applied will only impact the result per product, not the total result. Material that leave the system boundaries as scrap, and not as products, does not carry a carbon footprint. It means that the carbon footprint of such scrap must be allocated back to products that are sold. This allocation is done equally to all sold product as a so-called virtual yield. Table 1. Upstream data sources for main materials, energy and consumables Sourced slabs Primary ingots Alloying elements Externally recycled material Electricity Liquefi ed petroleum gas Transports Consumables Supplier specifi c data Supplier specifi c data Global industry average data Supplier specifi c and internal data Supplier specifi c data Global industry average data Average data for different transport modes Global industry average data 3 Results The product carbon footprint results are shown in Figure 4. It is clear that the majority of the carbon footprint is generated in the primary aluminium production. Alloying elements are primarily manganese and silicon, and their contribution is quite small in comparison. The contribution from inbound transports is hardly noticeable. Gränges’ share of the total carbon footprint is also small in comparison, however it is clear that products 1 and 2 have a larger contribution compared to material 3. The reason is that material 3 uses a sourced slab as core material and there is thus no casting done internally at Gränges for this core material. DVS <strong>363</strong> 3
Figure 4. Carbon footprint calculation results Figure 5 illustrates the detailed breakdown of the carbon footprint from Gränges’ operations. It shows clearly the dominating infl uence of re-melting and casting compared to other processes. Hot rolling, cold rolling and heat treatments require quite signifi cant amounts of energy but as electricity from low-carbon sources is used, the additional carbon footprint contribution is still very small. Common processes have a signifi cant infl uence on the carbon footprint and especially so when sourced slabs are used. Figure 5. Carbon footprint calculation results from Gränges’ operations 4 DVS <strong>363</strong>
Page 1 and 2: 2021 DVS-BERICHTE 1 st Digital Inte
Page 3 and 4: Heat Exchanger material Global capa
Page 5 and 6: Bibliographic information published
Page 7 and 8: Table of contents Preface Opening P
Page 10 and 11: Carbon footprint study of aluminium
Page 14 and 15: 4 Discussion and conclusions The fo
Page 16 and 17: Literature [1] Chen D, Nan L, Yurye
Page 18 and 19: Due to technological limitations of
Page 20 and 21: In comparison to continuous CAB fur
Page 22 and 23: Data Portal allows the operator to
Page 24: Project Study of Gel Formation in E

Leseprobe_Berichte_363

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?