Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

A paperless AMS : comparing economic and environmental impacts of paper use by AMS staff to that of the… Lerch, Josef Jimmy; MacPhail, Liam; Patel, Viral 2011-10-08

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Lerch_J_et_al_SEEDS_2011.pdf [ 742.75kB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108366.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108366-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108366-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108366-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108366-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108366-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108366-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report A Paperless AMS Comparing Economic and Environmental Impacts of Paper Use by AMS Staff to that of the Alternative: A Transition to iPads Josef Jimmy Lerch Liam MacPhail Viral Patel University of British Columbia CHBE 484 10/8/2011 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.    CHBE 484 : Green Engineering/ UBC Seeds project A paperless AMS Comparing Economic and Environmental impacts of paper use by AMS staff to that of the alternative: a transition to IPADs 10/8/2011  Viral Patel Liam MacPhail Josef Jimmy Lerch Introduction  The development of touch-pads, with Apple’s groundbreaking iPad at their forefront, has brought a new question to the attention of classrooms, offices, and boardrooms worldwide: paper or electronics?  The AMS student union at UBC is asking this question as well. There are approximately sixty full time employees at the UBC AMS. These employs currently operate six desktop-sized Phaser 6200 printers and 2 larger printers, a Work Centre 5740, and a Work Centre 5755, to print an average of 24 boxes of paper per year. Each of these boxes contains 5000 sheets of paper, so the total sheets of paper printed annually by the AMS staff averages to about 120,000 sheets. Hundreds of cheques are also processed annually. Since the AMS office is planning to switch to an online banking system, it would be possible to additionally reduce the paper consumption of the student union by purchasing a touch-pad/ tablet for every employee. This feasibility study uses the iPad as the basis for tablet comparison to paper. There are several other tablets on the market that compete with the iPad in point of cost and performance. However, the company producing the iPad, Apple, has won numerous EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) awards for some of its products, and is recognized by renowned NGO’s, such as Greenpeace, for its corporate environmental consciousness (Greenpeace 2007). Thus, if tablets are to replace paper, the iPad is a competing consideration. The primary aspects of sustainability that will be considered are the economic and the environmental impacts of paper compared to iPads. Social considerations during the use phase of these products will not be considered, though there is likely to be some “old-school” opposition to switching to tablets. However, the move towards sustainability requires some lifestyle changes, and changing to tablets from paper is certainly not a very demanding change.  Scope and Limitations The UBC SEEDS office; Liska Richer from the UBC Sustainability office; Justin Ritchie, AMS Sustainability Coordinator; Elin Tayyar, VP Finance of the student union; and Paul Teehan, a PhD student at UBC, provided some conditions upon which this study was based. In the scenario of iPads replacing paper, the 6 Phaser 6200 printers are removed from the SUB (Student Union Building) offices. The two larger printers are kept, and it is assumed that 1/3 of the paper that is currently printed will still be printed after iPads are issued (Tayyar 2011). In other words, a switch to iPads is estimated to reduce paper consumption by 16 boxes, or 80,000 sheets. This paper is purchased from a Vancouver-based paper distribution company called White Paper Co. The paper used is virgin paper, called Polar Plus 20lb, 92 bright, and it is produced by Asia Pulp and Paper in Indonesia. The environmental impact of transporting either the iPads or the paper to UBC is not considered in this analysis, since neither the variable origin of the iPad components, nor the assembly location for the iPads, was available. However, it should be noted that the iPads can be assumed to last at least 5 years under normal use (see iPad cost section). Without packaging and components, the iPad weighs 613 grams and sixty iPads thus weigh 36.78 kg. Alternatively, these iPads would displace approximately 363 kg of paper each year (sample calculations available in Appendix B). Considering that the paper is coming all the way from Indonesia, the transportation emissions for paper are likely to be higher than for iPads. The iPads have a high capital cost, but cost very little after they have been purchased. The paper, on the other hand, has higher annual cost. In order to fairly compare the paper to the iPads, a 10 year time interval was selected due to the estimated 5 year lifespan of one unit, along with a cheap replacement plan that gives an additional 5 years (the iPad cost section explains this further).  Economic Analysis of Paper  To find the printing cost for the 16 boxes of paper that the iPads would replace, the sum of the paper cost, and the printer and toner cost were taken into account. All of these calculated values are shown in Appendix A, Table A1, and sample calculations for the derivation of the costs appear in Appendix B. The base cost of each box of paper is $36.95. Including HST, the annual cost of 16 boxes of paper is $662.14. The rental and toner cost of every Phaser 6200 is $100 per month, this giving an annual cost of $7,200 for printing. Thus, the total annual cost of printing 16 boxes of paper is $7862.14. To find the present value of the paper cost for a 10 year period, it was assumed that the cost of the paper, as well as the operating cost of the printers, was constant.  Furthermore, an effective interest rate of 5 % was assumed. This is a reasonable assumption, since statistical inflation rates over the last 10 years in Canada show an average value of 1.66%, and current five year prime interest rates are about 3% (Bank of Canada 2010). The printing cost, in present day dollars, which the iPads would displace over the next 10 years, is $60,709.39.  Economic Analysis of iPads  Table A2 in Appendix A shows the values involved in calculating the cost of iPads. The first aspect of cost which was considered involved calculating the product use time period. The battery of an iPad 1 or iPad 2 is, on average, supposed to retain at least 80% of its original 10 hour battery life for 1000 full charge/discharge cycles (Apple, 2011). An assumption that the iPads would be used for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, was made, in order to take into consideration the fact that staff may want to take the iPads home. This is conservative assumption. The employees probably will not be working on their iPads for 8 hours of every work day, so iPad life will really be longer than estimated. An 8 hour work day for approximately 50 weeks out of the year yields a 5 year use of an iPad before it fails to retain 80% of its original charge. The next aspect which was investigated was a battery replacement plan by Apple. After the iPad fails to retain 80% of its charge, it is eligible for battery replacement by Apple for a fee of $120 per iPad, even if it is not under warranty (Apple, 2011). As long as there are no major defects other than a failed battery, Apple will allow owners to purchase the replacement (Apple, 2011). All data from the iPad will have to be recovered before it is sent to Apple, as Apple will send a new or refurbished iPad back instead of replacing the battery only (Apple, 2011). The old iPad will be disposed of and recycled in an environmentally friendly manner, according to Apple. Apple is renowned for being an environmentally friendly citizen of the world. The iPad has a mercury free display, arsenic free glass, and is completely free of brominated flame retardants such as polyvinyl chloride (Apple, 2010). Due to the fact that a battery replacement of $120/iPad yields a new iPad, a 10 year time frame was considered to compare with paper use. The 10 year capital cost of the iPad 1 and 2 , in present day dollars, are $574.59 and $686.59, respectively, per iPad. This cost includes one battery replacement, shipping for the replaced iPad, and taxes. Table 1 below shows the total cost of iPads. Currently, Apple has not made any discount offers to support this project. However, if discounts can be negotiated, the cost of switching to iPads will obviously be lower than these reported values.     Table 1: iPad Cost            *Note: The environmental impacts of paper use compared to implementing tablet use within the AMS were compared using the environmental impact category method.  Environmental Impact of Paper Use  The environmental impacts of using paper in the AMS were determined by conducting a literature review of previous life cycle assessments prepared for paper manufacture. For the global warming impact category (kg CO2 equiv.), two assessments were compared to give a range of the predicted impact. Other impact categories were found from a North American LCA of the pulp and paper industry and include acidification, ozone depletion, particulate matter and eutrophication.  As mentioned earlier, the paper currently used in the AMS building is produced from Asia Pulp & Paper in Indonesia. The AMS estimates a usage of 120,000 sheets (544.3 kg) of paper annually. However, it is assumed that 40,000 sheets of paper will still be used if the iPads are implemented in the AMS. For this reason, an annual basis of 80,000 sheets of paper will be used in this comparison. The paper parameters consist of a paper grade of uncoated free sheet, a format of 8.5” by 11” and a weight of 4.54 g/sheet.  A life cycle assessment initiated by the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) was completed to evaluate the  iPad 1 iPad 2 Capital Cost (tax included) /iPad $419 $519 Battery Replacement (tax excluded)/iPad $120 $120 Present day dollars for Battery Replacement (Incl. HST) $105.31 $105.31 Capital cost for first 60 iPads $28,156.80 $34,876.80 Total (Incl. HST) and 5% effective interest for 60 iPads over 10 years $34,475.16 $41,195.16 environmental impact of producing a ream of office paper in North America. This LCA was carried out by the National Council of Air and Stream Improvement Incorporated, an independent non-profit research institute. Data was collected from 72 mills located throughout the US and Canada for the year 2006-2007. This is the most comprehensive study conducted for North American paper production. The system boundaries of this particular study included raw materials and energy consumption for fibre procurement, pulp and paper manufacture, and end of life fate.  The waste management was determined based on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stating that 71.8% of office paper is recycled, 5.2% is burned for energy, and 23% is sent to the landfill. Transportation was also included in the analysis. The values estimated for all impact categories can be compared to those found for the iPad. The global warming potential values from this report provide an appropriate lower bound for this impact category (FPAC, 2007).  In order to get a more conservative estimate of the global warming potential impact, a second life cycle assessment was reviewed. This was completed because the paper used in the AMS is manufactured in Indonesia. Harvesting a wood chip supply in Indonesia for a  pulp mill is different than harvesting in North America. Clear cut logging of tropical rainforests occurs, often without replanting of trees, resulting in the destruction of valuable carbon sinks. When logging occurs, peat lands are disrupted, thus releasing stored methane into the atmosphere and contributing heavily to greenhouse gas emissions.  In addition, dirtier energy sources (fossil fuels) are used to power the mills. It can also be expected that air emission regulations are less strict in developing countries compared to North America.  Consideration of these factors was included in an LCA of paper production from the company, Asia Pulp and Paper, in 2006, conducted by the Rain Forest Action Network and Japan Tropical Forest Action Network. The estimates found in this report can provide an appropriate upper bound for the global warming potential impact (RAN & JATAN, 2010) Global Warming Potential Table 2 below shows the upper and lower bound of the estimated global warming potential (units of tonnes of CO2 equivalent) annually and over the chosen 10 year time span. It can be seen that the North American estimate is much lower than the estimate found from the LCA of paper production in Indonesia. This can be explained by reasons mentioned above. Both of these bounds were included to give a range of the possible impact. Depending on the literary source, and on where the wood for paper production was harvested, there is massive variability in the magnitude of global warming impact. Table 2: Lower and Upper Bounds for Global Warming Potential estimates for paper manufacture Impact Category Unit North American Estimate (per 80,000 sheets) North American Estimate (over 10 years) Indonesian Estimate (per 80,000 sheets) Indonesian Estimate (over 10 years) GWP tonnes CO2 equiv. 0.68 6.80 6.75 67.5   Additional Impact Categories Table 3 displays values for the other four impact categories including acidification, particulate matter, ozone depletion and eutrophication. Because these numbers were taken from the LCA done for paper production in North America, they give a conservative estimate when making a case for iPad implementation. Table 3: Impact categories and their emissions for paper use over 10 years Impact Category Unit Paper (over 10 years) Acidification kg SO2 eq. 73.3 Particulate Matter kg PM eq. 10.9 Ozone Depletion mg CFC-11 eq. 416 Eutrophication kg N eq. 12.4   Effect of Toner The toner considered for this analysis was assumed to be that used by common Xerographic processes. An LCA was found for toner used in Xerographic processes ( (Ahmadi et al, 2003)). This LCA only considered the actual toner used to produce a marking on paper, and did not consider the plastic housing for particular toners. The boundaries of the LCA include the processes necessary to manufacture the raw materials for the toner production (Ahmadi et al, 2003). Both recycled and solid waste fates at the end of the toner’s life were considered in the analysis as well. Transportation at all stages of production was accounted for (Ahmadi et al, 2003). The environmental impact categories which were used from this toner analysis include emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and particulate matter. The basis of the toner LCA was 1 metric ton of toner produced. A challenge in the analysis of the toner used by the AMS was to calculate how much toner was used. The “mass of toner”  used as the basis for the toner LCA only considers the mass of the final marking material on the printed document. To calculate the mass of toner used by the AMS, a blank piece of letter sized paper was weighed to be 4.4731g. The paper was then printed on with 80% coverage; the final mass was recorded as 4.6297g. Coverage of 80% yielded a toner mass of 0.1566g. It was assumed that the coverage on average for printed paper was 12%. The mass required for 12% coverage was calculated to be 0.02349g/sheet of paper. For an annual printing demand of 80,000 sheets per year, the mass of toner used was calculated to be 1.88 kg/year. Over a 10 year time frame the mass of toner produced is 18.8kg. This was used to calculate the environmental impact potentials which are shown in Table 4. Appendix B shows the calculations for how these values were derived.  Table 4: Environmental Impact Potentials for 18.8 kg of toner Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 equiv.) Acidification (kg SO2 equiv.) Particulate Matter (kg PM equiv.) 300.1 2.44 0.96   As seen in Table 5 the environmental impact of the toner is not very significant. However, it is important to note that the LCA source used did not consider the impact of the raw material extraction for the materials used to make the toner, only the processing of the raw material as inputs to the toner production process. Thus the actual lifecycle impact of the toner is likely larger than reported.     Environmental Impact of iPad Use  The environmental impact of implementing iPads in the AMS is based on the 60 iPads requested for use by the AMS staff and another 60 which will be required after 5 years of use when replacement is necessary.  The basis is therefore 120 iPads for the 10 year time frame.  The same five impact categories that were used to assess the environmental impact of the paper are used for the iPad. Again, a lower and upper bound will be looked at for the global warming potential category to express the variability in expected emissions. Paul Teehan, a graduate student at UBC, was able to help with this part of the analysis. The estimated values for the five impact categories (including the lower bound for GWP) were found by Paul, who completed a tear down analysis of an iPad 1 and inputted the weights of each component into MeeUP, an LCA database tool, to find the environmental impact of each material. These could then be summed and converted to the effective impact category (Teehan 2011). The impact of an iPad 2 can be assumed to be equal or less than the iPad 1, since the iPad 2 weighs less than the iPad 1. The GWP found by Paul’s teardown analysis for the iPad 1 was compared to an estimate in an environmental report released by Apple (Apple, 2010). All of these predicted impacts can be seen below in Tables 5.             Table 5: Environmental impact of iPad implementation over 10 years Impact  Category Unit iPad (120 tablets) Global Warming  Potential tonnes CO2 eq. Lower Bound 4.68 Upper Bound 15.6 Acidification kg SO2 eq. 42.5 Particulate Matter kg PM eq. 4.8 Ozone Depletion mg CFC-11 eq. negligible Eutrophication kg N eq. negligible   Overall Environmental Impact Normalization and Comparison  Table 6 displays the completed comparison between paper and toner versus iPad use over ten years. It is observed that implementing iPads in the AMS would lessen the environmental impact of continuing to use paper as the determined values are lower in every category. Although the outcome is evident, the dimensionless score and weighting factor method was used nonetheless to determine a normalized comparison. The results of this ranking method can be seen in Table 7. The average weighting factors were determined from a class poll conducted during a Green Engineering Lecture.  For sample calculations, refer to Appendix B.  Table 6: Completed environmental impact analysis and weighting factors   Table 7: Dimensionless score results  Paper + Toner iPads Using Lower Bound 10 3.7 Using Upper Bound 10 2.6   Energy When considering the energy use of the printers vs. the iPads, it can be assumed that the emissions from energy use are negligible, since the source of power for product use originates from hydroelectric power dams. However, the energy use will present an associated cost of power. This is not to say that hydroelectric dams have no environmental impact. Rather, the environmental impact is associated with the construction of the dam and has a constant effect on the environment. Measured power demand for charging an iPad was 10W for a charge time of 3.5 hours. The energy use per charge is found as 0.035 kw•hr (Kilowatt-hour). The 120 iPads that are predicted to be used over a 10 year period will require 1000 charge/discharge cycles per iPad. This implies that the total energy use for the iPads will be 4200kw•hr. The current cost per kw•hr is $0.07 per kw•hr (BC Hydro, 2011). Assuming that electricity cost will be constant over Impact  Category Weighting  Factor (%) Unit Paper + Toner over ten years (80,000 sheets a year) iPad (120 tablets) Global Warming  Potential 25.6 tonnes CO2 eq. Lower Bound 7.1 Upper Bound 67.8 Lower Bound 4.68 Upper Bound 15.6 Acidification 14.4 kg SO2 eq. 75.7 42.5 Particulate Matter 30.6 kg PM eq. 11.8 4.8 Ozone Depletion 16.1 mg CFC-11 eq. 416.0 negligible Eutrophication 13.3 kg N eq. 12.4 negligible the next 10 years, and neglecting interest rate (since the cost is minimal anyway), the energy for the iPads was calculated to be $294. The 6 Xerox Phaser 6200 printers in the AMS, which use approximately the same amount of electricity as an HP 1505n printer, are predicted to use about 60kw/year/printer (Hewlett Packard, 2007). For the 6 printers, the total energy use over 10 years is estimated to be 3600 kw•hr. Then the cost of supplying energy to the printers is $252. This is a reduction of $42 over 10 years, compared to using iPads; an insignificant cost difference, when considering the overall $19,514 estimated cost difference between iPads and paper. Table 8 shows the comparative energy cost over 10 years, as well as the total cost comparison. The environmental impacts of the energy use associated with production are not included in this section of the analysis, as they are accounted for in the environmental impact section.  Table 8: Product energy costs and Total cost comparison between iPad use and Paper use.  iPads Printing Energy cost $294 $252 Total cost $41,489.16 $60,961.39   Considerations and Recommendations - The paper is produced in Indonesia and the data used for its LCA assumes North American paper production. This is a very conservative estimate for the paper case and represents a much better case for the paper than what is actually expected.  - The global warming potential for the paper case, when considering land use, is likely to be closer to the upper bound of 67.8 tonnes CO2e over 10 years. The upper bound for the IPad’s CO2e emissions was reported at 15.6 tonnes CO2e, which is about one quarter of the upper bound of the paper production CO2e emissions. This suggests that the IPad case is likely to be far cleaner than the paper case in terms of global warming potential.  - There is uncertainty in all of the LCAs used, which is unavoidable. Data for the iPad could be out by a factor of 2 or more in some categories. In this case, the environmental impact of the iPad compared to the paper case will be approximately equal. (this is the best possible case for the paper).  - Economically, the iPad presents a better case than the paper does, using the costs given by the AMS and using a conservative effective interest rate. The economic analysis is the most accurate aspect of the comparison of iPads to paper, since this section is based on fewer assumptions than the environmental impact section. The present day cost of switching to iPad 2’s is about $41,195. However, this replaces a paper and printing cost of $60,709. The payback period of the switch to Ipad 2’s is approximately 6.2 years.  -  It is assumed that over 10 years, the iPads will provide enough functionality to serve the basic needs of the AMS staff. The purchase of the battery replacement plan does not necessarily need to happen right away when the battery charge drops below 80%. The iPads will still be very functional with an 8 hour battery life. This also decreases the cost of the iPads.  References Ahmadi et al. "Life-Cycle inventory of toner produced for Xerographic processes." Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003: 573-582.  Apple. Apple Support. April 7, 2011. (accessed March 5, 2011).  —. iPad. April 7, 2011. (accessed March 12, 2011). Apple. "Ipad 1: Environmental Report." 2010.  Bank of Canada. "Rates and Statistics: Inflation Calculator." Bank of Canada. 2010. (accessed April 7, 2011).  BC Hydro. Electricity Rates. April 7, 2011. (accessed March 2, 2011).  Bi, Dr. Xiaotao. Green Engineering and Industrial Applications. Vancouver, 2004.  Forest Products Association of Canada. "Printing and Writing Papers Life Cycle Assessment." 2007.  GreenPeace. Apple. December 10, 2010. (accessed February 21, 2011). Greenpeace. Tasty news from Apple! May 2, 2007. (accessed April 7, 2011).  Hewlett Packard. HP and the Environment. November 2007. .pdf (accessed March 5, 2011).  HowStuffWorks, Inc. How much does 20-pound bond paper weigh? 1998-2011. (accessed March 25, 2011).  Rainforest Action Network & Japan Tropical Forest Action Network. "Asia Pulp and Paper's Hidden Emissions: Calculating the Real Carbon Footprint of APP's Paper." 2010.  Tayyar, Elin : AMS VP Finance, interview by Josef J. Lerch, Liam Macphail and Viral Patel. Information from SEEDS project meeting with AMS staff and UBC sustainamility coordinators (February 2011).  Teehan, Paul. "Ipad 1 teardown analysis." Vancouver, 2011.        A special thank you to the following individuals for their help with this project: Liska Richer Paul Teehan Elin Tayyar Justin Ritchie Dr. Xiaotao Bi Winter, 2011 CHBE 484 class            APPENDIX A Raw Data and Given Parameters                       Table A1: Annual paper use                                                Current # of boxes of paper used 24 # of boxes of paper displaced using ipads 16 # of sheets per box 5000 Mass per 500 sheets(lb) 5.00 lb Annual mass paper displaced (kg): 362.9 kg 10 year paper displacement (kg): 3628.7 kg Cost per box of paper ($) $36.95 Cost per box of paper incl. HST ($) $41.38 Annual displaced paper cost ($) $662.14 Rental and toner cost per small printer ($/month) $100.00 # of small printers to be displaced 6 Annual printer & toner displacement cost ($) $7,200.00 Total annual cost printing displacement($) $7,862.14 Assumed effective interest rate 0.05 Present value of 10 year printing displacement ($) $60,709.39 Table A2: iPad requirements                                                # of executive AMS employees: 60 Ipads per exec. employee 1 # of ipads to purchase initially 60 Cost of Ipad 2 ($) $519.00 Cost of Ipad 2 (incl. HST) ($) $581.28 Initial Cost of Ipad 1 ($) $419.00 Cost of Ipad 1 (incl. HST) ($) $469.28 Ipad replacement cost (once battery life expired) ($) $120.00 Ipad replacem.cost (incl. HST) ($) $134.40 Battery life (# of full charge/disch. cycles) 1000 Running time/ full charge(hrs) 10 Ipad running time over battery life (hrs) 10000 Use during working day (hrs) 8 # of working days/week (days) 5 # of working weeks/year 50 Annual use per ipad (hrs/year) 2000 Battery life of ipad (years) 5.0 Assumed effective interest rate 0.05 Present value of battery replacement in 5 years ($) $105.31 10 year capital cost of ipad 2 ($) $686.59 10 year capital cost of ipad 1 ($) $574.59 10 year cost to have 60 ipad 2s ($) $41,195.16 10 year cost to have 60 ipad 1s ($) $34,475.16  Table A3: Weighting factors from CHBE 484 class GWP Smog Formation Acidification PM10/ Respiratory & Health imact Eutrophication 35 10 10 35 10 30 10 10 40 10 30 15 15 30 10 30 20 10 30 10 25 20 15 25 15 20 15 20 25 20 15 10 25 30 20 25 25 15 30 5 20 20 10 30 20 Average weighting factors (%) 25.6 16.1 14.4 30.6 13.3                                               ECO-DESIGN OF ENERGY-USING PRODUCTS  EuP EcoReport:  RESULTS Assessment of Environmental Impact  Table  A4. Life Cycle Impact (per unit) of Products   Nr Life cycle Impact per product: Date Author   0 Products 0 vhk      Life Cycle phases -->   PRODUCTION DISTRI- USE END-OF-LIFE* TOTAL     Resources Use and Emissions   Material Manuf. Total BUTION   Disposal Recycl. Total      Materials unit   1 Bulk Plastics g     81     73 8 81 0   2 TecPlastics g     0     0 0 0 0   3 Ferro g     2     0 2 2 0   4 Non-ferro g     138     7 131 138 0   5 Coating g     0     0 0 0 0   6 Electronics g     242     139 103 242 0   7 Misc. g     189     9 179 189 0     Total weight g     651     228 423 651 0                      see note!     Other Resources & Waste             debet credit   8 Total Energy (GER) MJ 240 31 271 65 117 19 20 -1 452   9 of which, electricity (in primary MJ) MJ 93 3 96 0 116 0 12 -12 200   10 Water (process) ltr 85 2 87 0 1 0 11 -11 77   11 Water (cooling) ltr 27 9 36 0 0 0 2 -2 34   12 Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 306 35 342 58 136 129 35 95 631   13 Waste, hazardous/ incinerated g 66 1 66 1 3 175 13 162 233      Emissions (Air)   14 Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 kg CO2 eq. 26 2 28 6 5 1 1 0 39   15 Ozone Depletion, emissions mg R-11 eq. negligible   16 Acidification, emissions g SO2 eq. 54 11 65 265 30 3 9 -7 354   17 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) g 0 1 1 382 0 0 0 0 384   18 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-Teq 5 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 7   19 Heavy Metals mg  Ni eq. 6 0 6 3 2 5 2 4 14  PAHs mg  Ni eq. 40 1 40 0 1 0 1 -1 40   20 Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g 8 3 11 4 1 24 0 24 40      Emissions (Water)   21 Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 44 0 44 0 1 2 7 -5 40   22 Eutrophication g N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0   23 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-Teq negligible                                            *=Note: Recycling credits only relate to recycling of plastics and electronics (excl. LCD/CRT). Recycling credits for metals and other fractions are already taken into account in the production phase.    Legal notice  This document does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission. It was drafted to the best of ability within budget restrictions. VHK and the European Commission do not assume any liability for any material or immaterial damage from using this document or information contained therein.  Copyright ©Van Holsteijn en Kemna BV 2005. Distribution rights European Commission 2005. Duplication allowed if source, draft version and legal notice are mentioned.                        APPENDIX B Sample Calculations    


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items