IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v17y2013i3p396-406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment of End‐of‐Life Management Options for Construction and Demolition Debris

Author

Listed:
  • Alberta Carpenter
  • Jenna R. Jambeck
  • Kevin Gardner
  • Keith Weitz

Abstract

A life cycle assessment (LCA) of various end‐of‐life management options for construction and demolition (C&D) debris was conducted using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool. A comparative LCA evaluated seven different management scenarios using the annual production of C&D debris in New Hampshire as the functional unit. Each scenario encompassed C&D debris transport, processing, separation, and recycling, as well as varying end‐of‐life management options for the C&D debris (e.g., combustion to generate electricity versus landfilling for the wood debris stream and recycling versus landfilling for the nonwood debris stream) and different bases for the electricity generation offsets (e.g., the northeastern U.S. power grid versus coal‐fired power generation). A sensitivity analysis was also conducted by varying the energy content of the C&D wood debris and by examining the impact of basing the energy offsets on electricity generated from various fossil fuels. The results include impacts for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, criteria air pollutants, ancillary solid waste production, and organic and inorganic constituents in water emissions. Scenarios with nonwood C&D debris recycling coupled with combustion of C&D wood debris to generate electricity had lower impacts than other scenarios. The nonwood C&D debris recycling scenarios where C&D wood debris was landfilled resulted in less overall impact than the scenarios where all C&D debris was landfilled. The lowest impact scenario included nonwood C&D debris recycling with local combustion of the C&D wood debris to generate electricity, providing a net gain in energy production of more than 7 trillion British thermal units (BTU) per year and a 130,000 tons per year reduction in GHG emissions. The sensitivity analysis revealed that for energy consumption, the model is sensitive to the energy content of the C&D wood debris but insensitive to the basis for the energy offset, and the opposite is true for GHG emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberta Carpenter & Jenna R. Jambeck & Kevin Gardner & Keith Weitz, 2013. "Life Cycle Assessment of End‐of‐Life Management Options for Construction and Demolition Debris," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 17(3), pages 396-406, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:17:y:2013:i:3:p:396-406
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00568.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00568.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00568.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Esa, Mohd Reza & Halog, Anthony & Rigamonti, Lucia, 2017. "Strategies for minimizing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 219-229.
    2. Yunpeng Zhao & Dimitrios Goulias & Luca Tefa & Marco Bassani, 2021. "Life Cycle Economic and Environmental Impacts of CDW Recycled Aggregates in Roadway Construction and Rehabilitation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Christian Dierks & Tabea Hagedorn & Alessio Campitelli & Winfried Bulach & Vanessa Zeller, 2021. "Are LCA Studies on Bulk Mineral Waste Management Suitable for Decision Support? A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, April.
    4. Väntsi, Olli & Kärki, Timo, 2015. "Environmental assessment of recycled mineral wool and polypropylene utilized in wood polymer composites," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 38-48.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:17:y:2013:i:3:p:396-406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.