IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i10d10.1007_s10668-023-03694-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From private to social cost-benefit analysis: life cycle environmental impact cost internalization in cement production fuel switching

Author

Listed:
  • Vahakn Kabakian

    (Technologies University of Bath)

  • Marcelle McManus

    (Technologies University of Bath)

Abstract

Cement production is linked to heavy environmental load with exigences for reduction and substitution of raw materials and energy demands/sources. Recently, with the potential commercial discovery of natural gas (NG) reserves in Lebanon, discussions on the viability of fuel-switching, from petcoke (kiln processes) and heavy fuel oil (HFO) (reciprocating engines) to NG in the cement sector emerged. To that aim three alternative scenarios (SCx) were suggested: shifting petcoke to NG in kiln processes (SC1); shifting reciprocating engines from HFO to NG (SC2); shifting kiln processes and reciprocating engines to NG (SC3). An economic analysis indicated that SC2 is the only viable option. This paper presents a new combination of life cycle impact assessment (LCA) and monetization to quantify environmental impacts for the decision-making processes, within the Lebanese context. The LCA was conducted using primary data and SimaPro v8.5.2.0. The functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of cement. IPCC 2013 GWP 100a V1.03, Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) V1.10 ReCiPe 2016 E v1.02 impact assessment and Stepwise2006 (V1.05.3) monetary valuation methods were used. Results indicated that all scenarios lead to a reduced carbon footprint: 0.016 kgCO2eq., 0.0008 kgCO2eq. and 0.0168 kgCO2eq. for SC1, SC2 and SC3, respectively, from the baseline 1.0327 kgCO2eq.. The baseline CED was 5.06 MJ, and 4.5 MJ, 4.91 MJ and 4.35 MJ for SC1, SC2, and SC3, respectively. SC3 had the lowest environmental burden, followed by SC1 and SC2. Damage assessment results indicated that all alternative scenarios reduce environmental damage, while SC3 brought the highest benefit followed by SC1 and SC2, respectively. Monetization results/ FU indicated a cost burden of 25.54 US¢, 24,64 US¢, 25.5 US¢ and 24.6 US¢ for baseline, SC1, SC2 and SC3, respectively. Finally, the best fit option, after internalizing the environmental cost, shifted from SC2 to SC3 indicating the merits of combining LCA and monetization into decision-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Vahakn Kabakian & Marcelle McManus, 2024. "From private to social cost-benefit analysis: life cycle environmental impact cost internalization in cement production fuel switching," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(10), pages 25527-25548, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03694-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03694-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03694-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03694-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sheikh Moniruzzaman Moni & Roksana Mahmud & Karen High & Michael Carbajales‐Dale, 2020. "Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: A review," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(1), pages 52-63, February.
    2. Harajli, H. & Kabakian, V. & El-Baba, J. & Diab, A. & Nassab, C., 2020. "Commercial-scale hybrid solar photovoltaic - diesel systems in select Arab countries with weak grids: An integrated appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Stephan, André & Stephan, Laurent, 2014. "Reducing the total life cycle energy demand of recent residential buildings in Lebanon," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 618-637.
    4. Adler, Nicole & Volta, Nicola, 2016. "Accounting for externalities and disposability: A directional economic environmental distance function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 314-327.
    5. Weidema, Bo Pedersen, 2009. "Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1591-1598, April.
    6. Kabakian, V. & McManus, M.C. & Harajli, H., 2015. "Attributional life cycle assessment of mounted 1.8kWp monocrystalline photovoltaic system with batteries and comparison with fossil energy production system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 428-437.
    7. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    8. Bergstrom, Soren, 1993. "Value standards in sub-sustainable development. On limits of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, February.
    9. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2010. "Externality or sustainability economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2047-2052, September.
    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. Harajli, H. & Kabakian, V. & El-Baba, J. & Diab, A. & Nassab, C., 2020. "Commercial-scale hybrid solar photovoltaic - diesel systems in select Arab countries with weak grids: An integrated appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    2. San Miguel, Guillermo, 2024. "External environmental costs of electricity generation using a life cycle approach: A case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(PD).
    3. Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı & Elçin Filiz Taş, 2023. "Single Score Environmental Performances of Roof Coverings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Jakub Jan Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2023. "External Environmental Costs of Solid Biomass Production against the Legal and Political Background in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-27, May.
    5. Myriam Mansour & Hassan Harajli & Henri El Zakhem & Rima Manneh, 2024. "Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of a photovoltaic–diesel hybrid system: the case of an industrial facility," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17353-17381, July.
    6. Anni Orola & Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Ville Uusitalo & Stig Irving Olsen, 2022. "Assessing WELBY Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach through Cobalt Mining Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    7. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Nadia Belmonte & Carlo Luetto & Stefano Staulo & Paola Rizzi & Marcello Baricco, 2017. "Case Studies of Energy Storage with Fuel Cells and Batteries for Stationary and Mobile Applications," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "The Economics of Sustainable Development," DEOS Working Papers 2005, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    10. Kledja Canaj & Andi Mehmeti & Julio Berbel, 2021. "The Economics of Fruit and Vegetable Production Irrigated with Reclaimed Water Incorporating the Hidden Costs of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-13, September.
    11. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. Ghodeswar, Archana & Oliver, Matthew E., 2022. "Trading one waste for another? Unintended consequences of fly ash reuse in the Indian electric power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    13. Ahlroth, Sofia, 2014. "The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 34-41.
    14. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    15. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    16. Anna Furberg & Rickard Arvidsson & Sverker Molander, 2022. "A practice‐based framework for defining functional units in comparative life cycle assessments of materials," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 718-730, June.
    17. Mianqiang Xue & Bin-Le Lin & Kiyotaka Tsunemi & Kimitaka Minami & Tetsuya Nanba & Tohru Kawamoto, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Nitrogen Circular Economy-Based NO x Treatment Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-15, July.
    18. Stefan Gunnarsson & Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Lina Göransson & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson, 2020. "Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-Level Sustainability in Egg and Chicken Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, April.
    19. Cátia da Silva & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa & Ana Carvalho, 2022. "Towards sustainable development: Green supply chain design and planning using monetization methods," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1369-1394, May.
    20. Koppelaar, R.H.E.M., 2017. "Solar-PV energy payback and net energy: Meta-assessment of study quality, reproducibility, and results harmonization," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1241-1255.

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03694-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.