Advertisement

Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 679–687 | Cite as

A health-based life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) for cement manufacturing: a comparative study of China and Canada

Review

Abstract

Life cycle impact assessment methodology was applied to the cement manufacturing sectors in China and Canada for comparative purposes. Primary air emissions of NO x , SO2, PM, and CO were evaluated in terms of intensity per tonne of Portland cement and in respect of their contribution to winter smog. The Eco-Indicator 99 impact category for respiratory effects on humans caused by inorganic substances was used as surrogate for winter smog. Impact was assessed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and damage, normalization, and weighting factors followed the egalitarian perspective. Results indicate some ambiguity for emission intensities with China outperforming Canada in NO x and SO2 while underperforming in PM and CO. However, in terms of impact to human health, China was more than double that of Canada at 14.2 DALYs per tonne of Portland cement. Highlighted by energy-intensive and trade-exposed industry like cement, environmental performance, and emissions leakage (associated with offshoring production) can have serious ramifications on regional air quality. Modernization and innovation in combination with a strong regulatory framework needs to be implemented in both emerging markets and developed markets to minimize emissions leakage and pollution loading.

Keywords

Portland cement manufacturing Air emissions Energy-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industry Leakage Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) DALYs 

References

  1. Brown D, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2014) An overview of air emissions intensities and environmental performance of grey cement manufacturing in Canada. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(6):1119–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cement Association of Canada (2012) 2012 environmental performance report. Cement Association of Canada, Ottawa-OntarioGoogle Scholar
  3. Cement Association of Canada (2016) 2016 annual report. Cement Association of Canada, Ottawa-OntarioGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen C, Habert G, Bouzidi Y, Jullien A (2010) Environmental impact of cement production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation. J Clean Prod 18(5):478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Economic Commission (2010) Commission decision of December 2009 determining pursuant to directive 2003/87/EC of the European parliament and of the council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. Off J Eur Union L1:10–18Google Scholar
  6. Guo M (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of light-weight eco-composites. Springer Theses. Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17(7):668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. Lei Y, Zhang Q, Nielsen C, He K (2011) An inventory of primary air pollutants and CO2 emissions from cement production in china, 1990–2020. Atmos Environ 45(1):147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. National Pollution Release Inventory (2016). https://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/
  11. PCA (2004) Innovations in Portland cement manufacturing. Portland Cement Association, SkokieGoogle Scholar
  12. PRé (2001) The eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment—methodology report. Amersfoort, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Song P, Mao X, Corsetti G (2015) Adjusting export tax rebates to reduce the environmental impacts of trade: lessons from China. J Environ Manag 161:408–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. WBCSD (2012) Cement sustainability initiative—guidelines for emissions monitoring and reporting in the cement industry (2.0). World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Conches-GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. WHO (2016) WHO global urban ambient air pollution database (update 2016). http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/
  16. Xi Y, Fei T, Gehua W (2013) Incorporating environmental co-benefits into climate policies: a regional study of the cement industry in China. Appl Energy 112:1446–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Xu D, Cui Y, Li H, Yang K, Xu W, Chen Y (2015) On the future of Chinese cement industry. Cem Concr Res 78:2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaKelownaCanada

Personalised recommendations