IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9019-d869444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Structural Stone, Concrete and Steel Construction Materials

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Kerr

    (Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia)

  • Scott Rayburg

    (Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia)

  • Melissa Neave

    (School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia)

  • John Rodwell

    (Department of Management & Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia)

Abstract

The manufacturing and construction industries have always been large contributors to global CO 2 emissions, largely as a consequence of material choices. Two of the most commonly used building materials are concrete and steel, but both of these industries have been identified as large sources of atmospheric CO 2 . Therefore, reducing the use of these materials and finding alternatives to them that meet the engineering requirements of a design, while also minimizing emissions, is becoming increasingly important. Stone in its natural form is a zero-carbon emission material and has strong physical properties that make it a viable substitute for concrete and steel, across a range of applications. Yet research into the potential use of stone by the construction industry remains rare. The aim of this research is to investigate whether the use of stone as a building product is a feasible alternative in terms of carbon emissions. This study compares data from 11 Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) that provide Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) assessments of their considered product (i.e., types of dimensional stone, concrete, or steel). However, this research also highlights some shortcomings in the EPDs that point to a need for greater legitimate engagement with this tool, and for more consistency between the data being presented in EPDs. Global Warming Potential (GWP) data are compared between products to determine the difference in carbon emissions. The results indicate that GWP values for dimensional structural stone (135 kg.CO 2 /m 3 ) are 45–75% lower than the concrete products considered in this investigation (246–514 kg.CO 2 /m 3 ), and over 99% lower than certain steel products (22,294–29,202 kg.CO 2 /m 3 ). This research indicates that stone is demonstrably better in terms of its GWP, and that a more extensive use of structural stone represents a key opportunity for the construction industry to reduce its CO 2 emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Kerr & Scott Rayburg & Melissa Neave & John Rodwell, 2022. "Comparative Analysis of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Structural Stone, Concrete and Steel Construction Materials," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9019-:d:869444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9019/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9019/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Ruiz Sánchez & Ventura Castillo Ramos & Manuel Sánchez Polo & María Victoria López Ramón & José Rivera Utrilla, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Cement Production with Marble Waste Sludges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Siitonen, Sari & Tuomaala, Mari & Ahtila, Pekka, 2010. "Variables affecting energy efficiency and CO2 emissions in the steel industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2477-2485, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Han-Ming Zhang & Jing Chen & Zhuo-Qun Liu & Jian-Chun Xiao, 2023. "Optimization of Steel Consumption for Prestressed Spatial Arch-Supported Partial Single-Layer Reticulated Shells," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.

    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. Apriani Soepardi & Pratikto Pratikto & Purnomo Budi Santoso & Ishardita Pambudi Tama & Patrik Thollander, 2018. "Linking of Barriers to Energy Efficiency Improvement in Indonesia’s Steel Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Flues, Florens & Rübbelke, Dirk & Vögele, Stefan, 2013. "Energy Efficiency and Industrial Output: The Case of the Iron and Steel Industry," Energy: Resources and Markets 162379, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Lawrence, Akvile & Karlsson, Magnus & Nehler, Therese & Thollander, Patrik, 2019. "Effects of monetary investment, payback time and firm characteristics on electricity saving in energy-intensive industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 499-512.
    4. Sergej Vojtovic & Alina Stundziene & Rima Kontautiene, 2018. "The Impact of Socio-Economic Indicators on Sustainable Consumption of Domestic Electricity in Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Fernández, David & Pozo, Carlos & Folgado, Rubén & Jiménez, Laureano & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2018. "Productivity and energy efficiency assessment of existing industrial gases facilities via data envelopment analysis and the Malmquist index," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 1563-1577.
    6. Monjurul Hasan, A S M & Trianni, Andrea & Shukla, Nagesh & Katic, Mile, 2022. "A novel characterization based framework to incorporate industrial energy management services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    7. Inês de Abreu Ferreira & Manuel de Castro Fraga & Radu Godina & Marta Souto Barreiros & Helena Carvalho, 2019. "A Proposed Index of the Implementation and Maturity of Circular Economy Practices—The Case of the Pulp and Paper Industries of Portugal and Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Haikonen, Turo & Tuomaala, Mari & Holmberg, Henrik & Ahtila, Pekka, 2013. "Evaluating municipal energy efficiency in biorefinery integration," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 260-267.
    9. Milena N. Rajić & Rado M. Maksimović & Pedja Milosavljević & Dragan Pavlović, 2019. "Energy Management System Application for Sustainable Development in Wood Industry Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Giacone, E. & Mancò, S., 2012. "Energy efficiency measurement in industrial processes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 331-345.
    11. Brunke, Jean-Christian & Blesl, Markus, 2014. "A plant-specific bottom-up approach for assessing the cost-effective energy conservation potential and its ability to compensate rising energy-related costs in the German iron and steel industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 431-446.
    12. Maria-Eugenia Sanin & Sylvain Sourisseau, 2019. "Pervasive EUAs free allocation: the case of the steel industry," Documents de recherche 19-06, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    13. Tanaka, Kanako, 2012. "A comparison study of EU and Japan methods to assess CO2 emission reduction and energy saving in the iron and steel industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 578-585.
    14. Olurotimi Oguntola & Steven Simske, 2023. "Continuous Assessment of the Environmental Impact and Economic Viability of Decarbonization Improvements in Cement Production," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, August.
    15. Vera Zipperer & Misato Sato & Karsten Neuhoff, 2017. "Benchmarks for Emissions Trading – General Principles for Emissions Scope," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1712, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Pongrácz, Eva & Fabritius, Timo, 2014. "Bioreducer use in Finnish blast furnace ironmaking – Analysis of CO2 emission reduction potential and mitigation cost," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 82-93.
    17. Ang, B.W. & Xu, X.Y., 2013. "Tracking industrial energy efficiency trends using index decomposition analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1014-1021.
    18. Makridou, Georgia & Andriosopoulos, Kostas & Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2016. "Measuring the efficiency of energy-intensive industries across European countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 573-583.
    19. Abdul Quader, M. & Ahmed, Shamsuddin & Dawal, S.Z. & Nukman, Y., 2016. "Present needs, recent progress and future trends of energy-efficient Ultra-Low Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Steelmaking (ULCOS) program," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 537-549.
    20. Meng, Ming & Niu, Dongxiao & Shang, Wei, 2012. "CO2 emissions and economic development: China's 12th five-year plan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 468-475.

    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:15:p:9019-:d:869444. 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.