Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETE May 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETE May 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETE May 2009

2 - 2 - CONCRETE VALUE CHAIN IS FACING A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO POSITION ITSELF AS THE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION Obama administration showing determination on environmental policy It is an important aspect of the stimulus package New regulation expected at different levels Topic of high relevance for the general public Importance of Sustainability Implications Negative perception of cement industry is the #1 challenge -High total emissions make cement a problem Perception Looking only at production emissions may be shortsighted Lifecycle assessments are key for sustainability Adequate Arguments Sustainability is not a fad, but rather a necessary part in all aspects of life Concrete value chain is of significant value to society Irreplaceable in many applications Benefits of concrete far outweigh initial construction emissions Description

3 - 3 - FOCUS OF THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE ON ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF CONCRETE In applications that have competing materials and represent most of the volume USA Cement Consumption (1) Commercial Residential Public Bldgs Bridges Streets & Hwys Water & Waste Utilities Public Works Non Construction (1)PCA 2007 Data Cement Alternatives Possible Substitution Partial Substitution No Alternative Comments It is possible to make construction entirely of competing materials Some elements of the construction can be done with other materials (i.e. building envelop) But slabs among others can only be made from concrete Applications ranging from oil wells to dams are not suited for other construction materials 25.3% 59.2% 15.5% % Consumption

4 - 4 - AGENDA Concrete Pavements Concrete Wall Systems Next Steps

5 - 5 - PAVEMENT DESIGNS VARY SIGNIFICANTLY DEPENDING ON ROAD USE AND SOIL CONDITIONS AMONG OTHER THINGS Research efforts could focus on most common design types 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels Subgrade 6” Aggregate Base Course Subgrade 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 4” Asphalt Treated Base Course Subgrade 9.5” Asphalt Superpave 10” Aggregate Base Course 14” Aggregate Subbase Course 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels Subgrade 6” Cement Treated Base Course 1” Asphalt Interlayer Examples of Concrete Designs Subgrade 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP 12” Limerock Base Course (LBR = 100) ” Frict. Course 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) Examples of Asphalt Designs 1” Asph. Struc. Layer 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 4” ATPB non-structural 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) Subgrade

6 - 6 - HISTORICALLY ASPHALT HAD THE INITIAL COST ADVANTAGE Even with recent asphalt prices decline, difference has narrowed Asphalt mix prices have increased 96% since 2000 (1) CAGR 8.5% Asphalt Mix Price Concrete Initial cost gap has decreased, but still remains high CAGR 8.8% Bitumen Price 31% 22% Concrete Asphalt M $ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Asphalt design: 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade, 12” Limerock Base Course, 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP, ” Frict. Course Concrete design: 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade, 1” Asph. Structural Layer, 4” ATPB non-structural, 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels Initial costs for 10 miles, 2 lanes & Shoulders 2004: Asphalt = $62.33 / ton, Concrete = $76.05 / CY 2009: Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY

7 - 7 - ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN New design procedure based on advanced models & actual field data collected across the US Process  Provides predicted performance of a given structure during analysis period  AASHTO 93 only provides thickness (no performance)  Concrete Criteria = cracking, faulting, IRI, cumulative damage, and load transfer Description  A new mechanistic design procedure based on most advanced pavement performance models  Comprehensive methodology that incorporates layer thicknesses, material properties, climate, and traffic loadings  It uses mechanistic-empirical numerical models to analyze traffic, climate, materials, and proposed structure to estimate accumulated damage of the analysis period Validation  Adopted by AASHTO in 2007 as the Interim Pavement Design Guide  Most states are currently in the process of calibrating and validating the design procedure with actual field performance data  Improves accuracy of performance prediction for each pavement type  Provides “true” performance of each pavement type Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG)

8 - 8 - FDOT Concrete Design MEPDG ALLOWS FOR DESIGN OPTIMIZATION Making Concrete’s Initial Cost More Attractive Initial Cost Diff. Asphalt vs. Concrete Initial cost gap is significantly reduced when using MEPDG Asphalt Design Subgrade 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP 12” Limerock Base Course (LBR = 100) ” Frict. Course 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) Optimized Concrete 1” Asph. Struc. Layer 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 4” ATPB non-structural 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) Subgrade 1.5” Asph. Struc. Layer 10.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 12” Limerock Stabilized Base (LBR=70) Subgrade Initial costs for 10 miles, 2 lanes & Shoulders. Costs include Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY % Cost Difference

9 - 9 - Concrete Rehab: Patch & diamond grind at years 30 and 45 Asphalt Rehab: 4” AC Overlay in years 14 & 28 2” Mill / 4” AC Overlay in year 42 Design – Asphalt: 6.5” AC (inc 1.5” PFC) / 12” Limerock (LBR=100) / 12” Limerock (LBR=40); Concrete: 10” JPCP / 1.5” AC / 12” Limerock (LBR=70) Initial costs - Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor (Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY) Rehabilitation - Concrete activities based on MEPDG, Asphalt Activities based on standard FDOT Standards Current year costs are inflated at 4% Rehab costs also include other Incidental Costs (striping, mob, etc) - Assumed to be 40% of Material Costs and Traffic Control - 5% of material cost, Engineering & Inspection - 5% of material cost Nominal Expenditures by Pavement Type for 10 MilesTotal Cost Net Present Value Concrete Asphalt MOREOVER, CONCRETE DELIVERS SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS THROUGHOUT THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE ASSET M $ Asphalt is 54% more expensive than Concrete throughout the life cycle of the road year 54%

10 Month-to-Month Change in PPI since Jan 1960Inflation Rates since Jan 1960 UP TO THIS POINT, ALL COMPARISONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH THE SAME INFLATION RATES However, asphalt prices are much more volatile Asphalt CAGR = 5.9% Cement CAGR = 4.1% Conc. Product CAGR = 4.0% Asphalt CAGR = 5.9% Cement CAGR = 4.1% Conc. Product CAGR = 4.0% Max Asphalt Change = 39.4% Max Concrete Change = 5.1% Max Asphalt Change = 39.4% Max Concrete Change = 5.1% Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Paving Asphalt Series ID = wpu Cement Series ID = wdu and wpu Concrete Products Series ID = wpu133 Assuming this inflation difference, asphalt’s lifecycle disadvantage to concrete can effectively double

11 SINCE CONCRETE ROADS REQUIRE LESS MAINTENANCE, STATES WOULD HAVE MORE FUNDING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Assume a constant $1.0 B budget per year for 50 years with no inflation (Total Cumulative Budget = $50 B) -All funds are initially used for new construction -When rehabilitation is required, funds are first used for rehabilitation and the remainder for new construction Consider three pavement choices -Asphalt -Concrete with traditional design -Concrete with MEPDG Take Florida’s materials and construction cost After 50 years, Pavement choice has a great impact on number of Lane Miles constructed in the system Traditional Concrete: Initial Life = 40 years Asphalt: initial Life = 14 year MEPDG Concrete: initial Life = 30 year Concrete & Asphalt Inflation = 4.0% Impact of Pavement Choice on State System Rehab savings % Rehab savings 42.3%37.1% Budget required for rehabilitation Budget allocated for new construction Cumulative 50 year Expenditure Breakdown Budget at year 50 8,316Lane Miles5,8499,425 Asphalt Maintenance every 10 yrs

12 ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING, ASPHALT HAS LESS EMBODIED CO 2 COMPARED TO CONCRETE IN INITIAL CONSTRUCTION 26% advantage over JPCP and 50% over CRCP for traditional concrete design, while 7% and 31% respectively with MEPDG ConcreteAsphalt Aggregates Installation CRCP Aggregates (Paving) Bitumen Transportation Installation MT CO 2 / Mile Road Inherent Energy (1)Inherent Energy: potential energy from reprocessing bitumen into fuels Note: Pavement designs are 12” CRCP/JPCP over 6” Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10”Aggregate base & 14” Aggregate sub base Source: CEMEX USA production data; Portland Cement Association, DOE CO2 emission report; et al (1) JPCP MEPDG Traditional MEPDG Traditional 1,063 1,301 Sensitivity

13 BUT USE OF CONCRETE REDUCES CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OVER THE LIFE OF THE ROAD Lifecycle construction carbon emissions by pavement type Total (MT/mile) Source: FHWA TA T Price Adjustment Contract Provisions (FHWA 1980) Concrete rehabilitation activity assumed to use same fuel as original asphalt pavement placement (highest placement value) Note: 12” JPCP over 6” Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10”Aggregate base & 14” Aggregate sub base, Asphalt overlay on concrete road at year 50 2,692 1,758 Over the life of the road, Asphalt produces significantly more CO2 emissions than Concrete MT CO 2 / Mile Road 53% MEPDG 1,063 Traditional 69% 1,597 Asphalt Traditional Concrete MEPDG Concrete

14 PER-MILE CO 2 SAVINGS FROM CONCRETE GREATLY REDUCES ANNUAL EMISSIONS OVER A ROAD’S LIFE Source:U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High Administration, Fuel Consumption by Transportation Mode, Edwards, M. Highway User’s perspective on innovative contracting/quality in highway construction Annual Savings per Mile Annual Emissions Comparison MT CO2/mi MMT CO2 MEPDG Savings with Asphalt inherent energy Traditional Paving 1.6

15 CONCRETE PAVEMENTS DELIVER SUBSTANTIAL CO 2 SAVINGS Initial construction disadvantage is quickly offset Concrete Paving Annual CO 2 Savings vs. Asphalt Year Source:U.S. Department of Energy – Annual Energy Report MT CO2/mile Traditional ConcreteMEPDG Concrete 2,909 3,100 Year

16 AGENDA Concrete Pavements Concrete Wall Systems Next Steps

17 CONCRETE WALL SYSTEMS IMPROVE A BUILDING’S SHELL PERFORMANCE (1) Energy Efficient Builders Association – Guide to Construction; National Insulation Contractors Association (2) Portland Cement Association – Technical Brief on Benefits of Concrete Wall Systems Doors & Windows 20% Ceiling/Roof 13% Source of Energy Loss (1) An improved building envelop drastically reduces a home’s CO 2 emissions Air Infiltration Savings Thermal Mass Savings Insulation Savings ICF Energy Profile Air Infiltration 35% Walls 14% 2x4 Wood Energy Profile Floors & Below Grd. 14% Ceiling 13% Doors & Windows 20% Concrete Wall Systems: Reduce Air Infiltration Temper thermal Benefit Continuous Insulation % 65% (2) 50% (2) 22% (2) 31% CMU Energy Profile 22% Tilt-up Energy Profile 19%

18 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVANTAGE COULD TRANSLATE INTO SIGNIFICANT CO 2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION % CO 2 Emissions Potential Annual CO 2 Emissions Reduction 2.5 % Reduction Performance benefits of Concrete Wall Systems could potentially reduce U.S. emissions by 2.5%, eliminating 123 MMT of CO 2 annually Annual Emissions Comparison EPA Sector Performance Report – 2008 Assumes PCA-stated energy performance results for applications benefiting from the use of high-performance exterior envelopes Residential Commercial Others MMT CO 2 Agricultural Land Use Changes Industry Transportation 1.8% 0.7%

19 THE DRASTIC REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS MORE THAN OFFSETS INITIAL EMBODIED ENERGY ICF Annual CO 2 Savings vs. Wood Year Source:U.S. Department of Energy – Annual Energy Report MT CO2 4” ICF vs 2x6 Wood 4” ICF vs 2x4 Wood CMU vs 2x6 Wood CMU vs 2x4 Wood CMU Annual CO 2 Savings vs. Wood Year

20 AGENDA Concrete Pavements Concrete Wall Systems Next Steps

21 WE BELIEVE THE INDUSTRY HAS THE RIGHT ARGUMENTS BUT THIRD PARTY CREDIBLE VALIDATION IS NEEDED Objective is to corroborate industry is reaching the correct conclusions and provide unbiased confirmation to support communication efforts Initial construction & rehabilitation embodied energy and CO2 emissions comparison -Includes materials, freight, construction and traffic emissions Fuel efficiency -Cars fuel consumption difference -Semi-truck mpg efficiency (similar to Athena report) Embodied energy comparison (ICF/CMU vs. Wood) Quantifying concrete wall energy efficiency vs. non-concrete alternatives. Potential sources: -Reduced Air Infiltration -Benefits of Thermal Mass -Benefits of Continuous Insulation Mainline Paving Wall Systems SegmentStudiesTimeframe Short Medium Short Comments Mostly data gathering and calculations Relatively short period of time High impact potential Lengthy study due to extensive field research Low impact on decision making Potentially the greatest source for environmental benefits of concrete Process for Economic and Environmental lifecycle assessment Methodology Short Relatively quick academic exercise Key component for new legislation

22 BACKUPS

23 CARBON EMISSIONS FROM CEMENT PRODUCTION OFTEN CAST A NEGATIVE LIGHT ON CONCRETE Representing 1.6% out of 6,595 MMT of CO2 for the USA Concrete Facts: After water, concrete is the most widely consumed substance on earth (2) Of the structurally engineered materials, concrete is the most versatile material -Irreplaceable strength -Design flexibility to both horizontal and vertical applications U.S. CO 2 Sources in MMT of CO 2 Equivalent 2005 (1)Production of Chemicals, Lubricants, Paraffin Wax & Bitumen (2)World Business Council on Sustainable Development Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1)

24 USING MEPDG, ASPHALT’S CO 2 ADVANTAGE IS DRASTICALLY REDUCED 7% advantage over JPCP and 31% over CRCP ConcreteAsphalt Aggregates Installation HMA Base Addtl Steel Aggregates (Paving) Bitumen Transportation Installation MT CO 2 / Mile Road Inherent Energy (1)Inherent Energy: potential energy from reprocessing bitumen into fuels Note: Mix designs are 10” CRCP/JPCP over 1” HMA Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10 Aggregate Base & 14” Aggregate Sub Base Source: CEMEX USA production data; Portland Cement Association, DOE CO2 emission report; et al (1)

25 PAVEMENT ASSUMPTIONS ConcreteAsphaltCarbon Calculations 9.5” Asphalt over 10” Aggregate Base and 14” Aggregate Sub base Bitumen production emissions based on emissions to refine one barrel of crude oil as reported by the U.S. Department of Energy – Energy Information Administration Bitumen Transportation emissions based on emission to heat and transport Bitumen to Asphalt Plant Aggregates emissions (Bases & Pavement) based on mining, sorting, site movement and transportation to construction site and Asphalt Plant as measured by national average of CEMEX Operations Asphalt plant emissions based on energy to move materials on site, heat and produce asphalt and delivery to the job site as measured by national average of CEMEX Operations Installation emissions based on Athena Institute’s A life cycle perspective on concrete and asphalt roadways 1 kWh =.0007 tons CO2 1 Gal. Diese l=.003 tons CO2 1 Gal. Gasoline =.009 tons CO2 1 ton steel = 1.24 tons CO2 12” Concrete over 6” Granular Base Cement emissions based on average of U.S. range as reported by Portland Cement Association ( ) =.795 tons CO2/Ton Cement Aggregate emissions include emissions from mining, sorting, site movement and transportation to construction site and concrete batch plant as measure by national average of CEMEX Operations Batching emissions include emissions from site movement of materials, mixing and delivery to the job site as measured by national average of CEMEX Operations Steel emissions based on tons of steel per mile of CRCP and 70.2 tons of steel per mile of JPCP Installation emissions based on Athena Institute’s: A life cycle perspective on concrete and asphalt roadways

26 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS CO 2 emissions variation per 1” thickness of pavement Tons CO2/ Inch Pavement Emissions per 1” thickness Note: 12” Concrete over 6” Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 24” Granular Base, Asphalt overlay on concrete road at year 50

27 USING MEPDG, LIFECYCLE EMISSIONS SAVINGS ARE FAR BETTER FOR CONCRETE THAN ASPHALT Lifecycle construction carbon emissions by pavement type Total (MT/mile) Asphalt Concrete Source: FHWA TA T Price Adjustment Contract Provisions (FHWA 1980) Concrete rehabilitation activity assumed to use same fuel as original asphalt pavement placement (highest placement value) Note: 10” JPCP over 1” HMA Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10” Aggregate Base and 14” Aggregate Sub Base, Asphalt overlay on concrete road at year 50 2,692 1,567 Over the life of the road, Asphalt produces 72% more CO2 emissions than Concrete MT CO 2 / Mile Road 72%

28 JPCP IS PREDOMINANT CONCRETE PAVEMENT TYPE Though CRCP is also used Jointed designs (JPCP) are the predominant concrete pavement used in the US Though other states use CRCP, Texas is the only state to use it as their primary concrete pavement Use Primarily JPCP Use Primarily CRCP No Concrete Use both JPCP & CRCP

29 MEPDG ENHANCES THE CO 2 SAVINGS FROM CONCRETE OVER A ROAD’S LIFE Source:U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High Administration, Fuel Consumption by Transportation Mode, Edwards, M. Highway User’s perspective on innovative contracting/quality in highway construction Annual Savings per Mile Annual Emissions Comparison MT CO2/mi MMT CO2

30 TRUCK EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS AASHTO: 46,837 miles of interstate in the U.S., Concrete Pavement = 50 Year Service Life 34.8 B Gallons Diesel used in trucks in 2005; 3.7 MMT CO2 Savings for concrete paving Bureau of Transportation Statistics: 2,319,535 miles of paved roads 46,036 miles interstate highway (2%) 112,467 miles are part of the national highway system (4.8%) 92% of highways are asphalt (replaced every 7.5 years) (.92 * 112,467) = 103,470 miles asphalt road

31 FUEL SAVINGS CALCULATIONS U.S. EPA: 2778g CO2/Gal Diesel 2778g = 6.12 lbs 1 MT = 2204 lbs ((34.8 Billions Gal. Diesel) * (6.12 lbs. CO2)/2204) * (3.85% Savings) = 3.7 MMT Annual CO2 Reduction 5.46 MT CO2/Vehicle/Year 3.7 MMT / 5.46 MT = 681,870 vehicles

32 Concrete Rehab: Patch &diamond grind at years 30 and 45 Asphalt Rehab: 4” AC Overlay in years 10 & 20 2” Mill / 4” AC Overlay in year 30, 40, and 50 Design – Asphalt: 6.5” AC (inc 1.5” PFC) / 12” Limerock (LBR=100) / 12” Limerock (LBR=40); Concrete: 10” JPCP / 1.5” AC / 12” Limerock (LBR=70) Initial costs - Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor (Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY) Rehabilitation - Concrete activities based on MEPDG, Asphalt Activities based on 2003 FDOT Pavement management records for interstates. Current year costs are inflated at 4% Rehab costs also include other Incidental Costs (striping, mob, etc) - Assumed to be 40% of Material Costs and Traffic Control - 5% of material cost, Engineering & Inspection - 5% of material cost Nominal Expenditures by Pavement Type for 10 MilesTotal Cost Net Present Value Concrete Asphalt BASED ON FDOT 2003 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT RECORDS, ASPHALT REHABILITATION SCHEDULES CLOSER TO 10 YRS M $ Using FDOT History, Asphalt’s Cost of Ownership is 95% more than Concrete 95% year

33 RECENT DATA SHOWS AVERAGE ASPHALT INTERSTATE LAST 10 YEARS BEFORE NEEDING RESURFACING Source 2003 Florida DOT Data FDOT Pavement management records InterstateAsphalt Miles Weighted Average Life I I I I Statewide Weighted Average Life of Resurfacing (Interstate System) Years Backup

34 Rehab savings AFTER 50 YEARS, ASPHALT SCENARIO ABSORBS ALL FUNDS IN REPAIR WORK New construction would have to come from additional funds % 65.2% Budget Breakdown at Year % Rehab savings Traditional Concrete: Initial Life = 40 years Asphalt: initial Life = 14 year MEPDG Concrete: initial Life = 30 year Budget required for rehabilitation Budget allocated for new construction 8,316Lane Miles5,8499,424 Backup

35 Rehab savings USING FDOT 2003 DATA SHOWING REHABILITATION CYCLES OF 10 YRS, AND HISTORICAL 5.9% ASPHALT INFLATION RATE % Assume a constant $1.0 B budget per year for 50 years with no inflation (Total Cumulative Budget = $50 B) -All funds are initially used for new construction -When rehabilitation is required, funds are first used for rehabilitation and the remainder for new construction Consider three pavement choices -Asphalt with inflation adjusted to 5.9% -Concrete with traditional design -Concrete with MEPDG Take Florida’s materials and construction cost After 50 years, Pavement choice has a great impact on number of Lane Miles constructed in the system Rehab savings 70.2%65.0% Traditional Concrete: Initial Life = 40 years Asphalt: initial Life = 10 year MEPDG Concrete: initial Life = 30 year Concrete & Asphalt Inflation = 4.0% Budget required for rehabilitation Budget allocated for new construction Impact of Pavement Choice on State System Cumulative 50 year Expenditure Breakdown 8,316Lane Miles2,9319,425 Backup

36 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVANTAGE IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS U.S. DOE – Greenhouse Gas Emissions – 2007, Pub.12/08 Total U.S. CO 2 Emissions Industry Transportation Commercial Residential Emissions by Source Heating & Cooling Lighting Water Heating Refrigeration Others ICF Effect Potential Reduction Land Use Changes Agricultural Other CMU Effect Back-Up

37 THE DRASTIC REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS MORE THAN OFFSETS INITIAL EMBODIED ENERGY ICF Annual CO 2 Savings vs. Wood Year Source:U.S. Department of Energy – Annual Energy Report MT CO2 4” ICF vs 2x6 Wood 4” ICF vs 2x4 Wood CMU vs 2x6 Wood CMU vs 2x4 Wood CMU Annual CO 2 Savings vs. Wood Year

38 LIFETIME CO 2 REDUCTIONS ARE MUCH GREATER THAN MATERIAL EMBODIED CO 2 U.S. DOE – Greenhouse Gas Emissions – 2007 EPA –Sector Performance Report U.S. DOE – National Renewable Energy Lab CO 2 Emissions CO 2 Profile SF Home Embodied CO 2 (Material) Energy Use CO 2 (30 years) 115 MT CO MT CO MT CO 2 Unrealized CO 2 Sequestration Sequestration Details

39 CONCRETE WALLS WOULD FUTHER REDUCE CO 2 EMISSIONS BY INCREASING SEQUESTRATION BY 25% 1MT CO 2 absorbed annually by one acre of mature forest (1)U.S. Forest Service (2)National Association of Home Builders; 2007 levels of new home construction 3.6 MT CO yrs. 30 MT CO yrs. Effects on Forest Reduces the ability of the forest to sequester carbon by 26.4 MT/Acre (30 yrs.) (1) Building an ICF home requires 25% less lumber One acre provides enough lumber to build two wood-framed homes (1) To build 776K homes annually, 388K acres of forest has to be logged reducing sequestration by 10.2 MMT of CO 2 (1,2) over the life of the homes Harvesting one acre of mature forest A concrete home’s energy savings combined with the use of fewer forest products results in a drastic reduction of CO 2 over the life of a home Assumptions

40 FOREST HARVESTING DATA University of MN : Depending on discount rate, harvesting a replanted forest takes place every 9 to 97 years; average is 22.5 years Clawson, Marion, “Decision Making in Timber Production, Harvest, and Marketing,” Research Paper R-4, Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1977, p. 13, Table 1. Cited in Tom Tietenberg, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 3rd ed., New York: HarperCollins, 1992, p. 280.

41 *** UNUSED SLIDES ***

42 CONCRETE ROADS QUICKLY GAIN THE CO2 EMISSIONS ADVANTAGE Lifecycle construction carbon emissions by pavement type MT CO 2 / Mile Road Concrete’s long-term benefits create a truly, sustainable pavement Source: FHWA TA T Price Adjustment Contract Provisions (FHWA 1980) Notes: 12” JPCP over 6”Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10”Aggregate base & 14” Aggregate sub base, 2” Asphalt overlay every 7.5 years. Concrete rehabilitation activity assumed to use same fuel as original asphalt pavement placement (highest placement value) CO2 Breakeven after 4.5 yrs of fuel savings

43 HISTORICALLY ASPHALT HAD THE INITIAL COST ADVANTAGE Concrete has been % more than asphalt depending on design specifics 2004 Florida Data Subgrade 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP 12” Limerock Base Course (LBR = 100) ” Frict. Course 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) M $ Concrete Asphalt As a result, Asphalt was considered to be the right choice 1” Asph. Structural Layer 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 4” ATPB non-structural 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) Subgrade FDOT Asphalt Design FDOT Concrete Design Pavement Costs (10 Miles) 31% 1.Initial costs for 10 miles, 2 lanes & Shoulders. Costs include Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor Asphalt = $62.33 / ton (FDOT 2004 Price Trends Annual Average), Concrete = $76.05 / CY (Regional Average Range is $71.60 – $76.05) 2.LBR = Limerock Bearing Ratio (a measure of strength on a scale from 0 to 100 (strongest))

44 ALSO, SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN FUEL CONSUMPTION OCCURS IN SEMI-TRUCKS RUNNING ON CONCRETE SURFACES Athena Report US Vehicle Fuel Consumption (B gals/yr) (1) Conclusions Truck & Busses 9.3 M Trucks & busses M Passenger Vehicles 0.8% to 6.9% reduction in heavy truck fuel consumption Assuming an average reduction of 3.85%, concrete would have lower annual CO2 emissions by 3.7 MMT on interstate & highway system Conducted by National Research Council of Canada (NRC, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) & Cement Association of Canada Hypothesis Heavy vehicles cause greater deflection on asphalt than on concrete. This increased deflection absorbs part of the vehicles rolling energy and increases fuel usage Three Phase study: 3 types of trucks (Semi-trailer, Straight, B-train) 3 Loads (empty, half,& full) 3 Speeds (100, 75, 60 km/h) All 4 Seasons Asphalt & Concrete test sections in Ontario & Québec Passenger Vehicles Concrete roads provide annual CO2 emissions savings of 3.7 MMT (1) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High Administration, Fuel Consumption by Transportation Mode, 34.8 B Gallons Diesel used by trucks on highways, interstates and toll-roads in 2005 MMT CO 2 /yr

45 LIFETIME CO 2 REDUCTIONS ARE MUCH GREATER THAN MATERIAL EMBODIED CO 2 CO 2 Emissions CO 2 Profile SF Home Embodied CO 2 (Material) Energy Use CO 2 (30 years) Carbon Efficiency The carbon “break even” is less than 1.7 years Total ICF energy savings are greater than the embodied energy of 48.5 wood homes The lifetime emissions reduction is equivalent to the annual emissions of 18.7 automobiles 102 MT CO MT CO MT CO 2 Including Sequestration Source: U.S. DOE – Greenhouse Gas Emissions – 2007 EPA –Sector Performance Report U.S. DOE – National Renewable Energy Lab

46 FURTHER RESEARCH AND VALIDATION NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED TO STRENGTHEN CONCRETE’S ARGUMENTS Initial construction and rehabilitation embodied energy and CO2 emissions comparison Traffic emissions during rehabilitation work Fuel efficiency -Semi-truck mpg efficiency (similar to Athena report) -Cars fuel consumption difference Embodied energy comparison (ICF/CMU vs. Wood) Quantifying concrete wall energy efficiency vs. non-concrete alternatives. Potential sources: -Reduced Air Infiltration -Benefits of Thermal Mass -Benefits of Continuous Insulation Mainline Paving Wall Systems SegmentStudyExisting Studies Scandinavian study, Athena Report (Canada) No study on traffic emissions during construction; cited in academic paper Canadian Cement Association sponsored truck fuel efficiency report CA group rumored to be conducting research on automobile fuel efficiency Athena Institute (Canada) has a Life Cycle Analysis tool comparing embodied energy of limited building materials PCA sponsored studies on concrete wall performance


Download ppt "ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETE May 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google