IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i14p8826-d866269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Mono- vs. Bivalent Operation of a Crucible Melting Furnace

Author

Listed:
  • Maximilian Schutzbach

    (Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production (EEP), University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
    Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Steffen Kiemel

    (Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Robert Miehe

    (Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Ekrem Köse

    (Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production (EEP), University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
    Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Alexander Mages

    (Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production (EEP), University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
    Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Alexander Sauer

    (Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production (EEP), University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
    Fraunhofer-Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

The benefits of energy flexibility measures have not yet been conclusively assessed from an ecological, economic, and social perspective. Until now, analysis has focused on the influence of changes in the energy system and the ecological and economic benefits of these. Therefore, the objective of this study was to perform a life cycle sustainability assessment of energy flexibility measures on the use case of a bivalent crucible melting furnace in comparison with a monovalent one for aluminum light metal die casting. The system boundary was based on a cradle-to-gate approach in Germany and includes the production of the necessary process technologies and energy infrastructure and the utilization phase of the crucible melting furnaces in non-ferrous metallurgy. The LCSA is performed for different economic and environmental scenarios over a 25-year lifetime to account for potential adjustments in the energy system and volatile energy prices. In summary, it can be said that over the entire service life, no complete ecological, economic, and social advantage of energy flexibility measures through a bivalent system can be demonstrated. Only a temporarily better life cycle sustainability performance of the bivalent furnace can be shown. All results must be considered with the caveat that the bivalent crucible melting furnace has not yet been investigated in actual operation and the calculations of the utilization phase are based on the monovalent crucible melting furnace. To further sharpen the results, more research is needed and the use of actual data for bivalent operation.

Suggested Citation

  • Maximilian Schutzbach & Steffen Kiemel & Robert Miehe & Ekrem Köse & Alexander Mages & Alexander Sauer, 2022. "Comparative Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Mono- vs. Bivalent Operation of a Crucible Melting Furnace," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8826-:d:866269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8826/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8826/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthias Finkbeiner & Erwin M. Schau & Annekatrin Lehmann & Marzia Traverso, 2010. "Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(10), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Sherif, Yosef S & Kolarik, William J, 1981. "Life cycle costing: Concept and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 287-296.
    3. Robert Miehe & Lorena Buckreus & Steffen Kiemel & Alexander Sauer & Thomas Bauernhansl, 2021. "A Conceptual Framework for Biointelligent Production—Calling for Systemic Life Cycle Thinking in Cellular Units," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Knaut, Andreas & Tode, Christian & Lindenberger, Dietmar & Malischek, Raimund & Paulus, Simon & Wagner, Johannes, 2016. "The reference forecast of the German energy transition—An outlook on electricity markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 477-491.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Maria Ferrari & Lucrezia Volpi & Martina Pini & Cristina Siligardi & Fernando Enrique García-Muiña & Davide Settembre-Blundo, 2019. "Building a Sustainability Benchmarking Framework of Ceramic Tiles Based on Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-30, January.
    2. Kristina Henzler & Stephanie D. Maier & Michael Jäger & Rafael Horn, 2020. "SDG-Based Sustainability Assessment Methodology for Innovations in the Field of Urban Surfaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-32, June.
    3. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    4. Oana Țugulea, 2017. "City Brand Personality—Relations with Dimensions and Dimensions Inter-Relations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Cristina López & Rocío Ruíz-Benítez & Carmen Vargas-Machuca, 2019. "On the Environmental and Social Sustainability of Technological Innovations in Urban Bus Transport: The EU Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Mauro Sciarelli & Mario Tani & Giovanni Landi & Ornella Papaluca, 2019. "The Impact of Social Responsibility Disclosure on Corporate Financial Health: Evidences from Some Italian Public Companies," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(3), pages 109-122, March.
    7. Jakob Peter & Johannes Wagner, 2018. "Optimal Allocation of Variable Renewable Energy Considering Contributions to Security of Supply," EWI Working Papers 2018-2, Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universitaet zu Koeln (EWI).
    8. Julian Gaus & Sven Wehking & Andreas H. Glas & Michael Eßig, 2022. "Economic Sustainability by Using Life Cycle Cost Information in the Buying Center: Insights from the Public Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-28, February.
    9. Diana Carolina Gámez-García & José Manuel Gómez-Soberón & Ramón Corral-Higuera & Héctor Saldaña-Márquez & María Consolación Gómez-Soberón & Susana Paola Arredondo-Rea, 2018. "A Cradle to Handover Life Cycle Assessment of External Walls: Choice of Materials and Prognosis of Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    10. Vladimír Hönig & Petr Prochazka & Michal Obergruber & Luboš Smutka & Viera Kučerová, 2019. "Economic and Technological Analysis of Commercial LNG Production in the EU," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Man Yu & Anthony Halog, 2015. "Solar Photovoltaic Development in Australia—A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-35, January.
    12. Serenella Sala & Rana Pant & Michael Hauschild & David Pennington, 2012. "Research Needs and Challenges from Science to Decision Support. Lesson Learnt from the Development of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact As," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-14, June.
    13. Sulaima, Mohamad Fani & Dahlan, Nofri Yenita & Yasin, Zuhaila Mat & Rosli, Marlinda Mohd & Omar, Zulkiflee & Hassan, Mohammad Yusri, 2019. "A review of electricity pricing in peninsular Malaysia: Empirical investigation about the appropriateness of Enhanced Time of Use (ETOU) electricity tariff," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 348-367.
    14. Henke, S. & Theuvsen, L., . "Social Life Cycle Assessment: Eine sozioökonomische Analyse der Biogasproduktion," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49.
    15. Thies, Christian & Kieckhäfer, Karsten & Spengler, Thomas S. & Sodhi, Manbir S., 2019. "Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(1), pages 1-21.
    16. Mona Ghafouri‐Azar & Sara Diamond & Jeremy Bowes & Ehsan Gholamalizadeh, 2023. "The sustainable transport planning index: A tool for the sustainable implementation of public transportation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 2656-2677, August.
    17. Jaume Freire-Gonz lez & Ignasi Puig-Ventosa, 2015. "Energy Efficiency Policies and the Jevons Paradox," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 5(1), pages 69-79.
    18. Stella Stoycheva & Alex Zabeo & Lisa Pizzol & Danail Hristozov, 2022. "Socio-Economic Life Cycle-Based Framework for Safe and Sustainable Design of Engineered Nanomaterials and Nano-Enabled Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, May.
    19. Rafael Horn & Hanaa Dahy & Johannes Gantner & Olga Speck & Philip Leistner, 2018. "Bio-Inspired Sustainability Assessment for Building Product Development—Concept and Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Giuseppe Ioppolo & Stefano Cucurachi & Roberta Salomone & Giuseppe Saija & Lei Shi, 2016. "Sustainable Local Development and Environmental Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8826-:d:866269. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.