1

electronic supplementary material

simplified lca

The environmental impact of container pipeline transport compared to road transport. Case study in the Antwerp Harbor region and some general extrapolations

Johan Braet

Received: 8 June 2010 / Accepted: 27 July 2011

© Springer-Verlag 2011

J. Braet (*)

University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics, Department of Environment and Technology Management, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium

e-mail:

(*) Corresponding author:

Johan Braet

Tel.: ++32 3 220 42 02

Fax: ++32 3 220 49 01

e-mail:

Table S1 List of assumptions organized per topic

General assumptions
1 / For the construction of both concepts I assumed a temporary concrete plant will be needed and I suppose that a similar environmental impact will result for the construction of this plant for both concepts.
2 / The details of the transportation (i.e., aboveground up- and unloading and pre-and post transport) are assumed to be equal for both concepts.
3 / The machinery used for the construction of the road and the UCM concept are assumed to be equal for both alternatives and offset against each other, except for those machines only needed for the construction of the pipeline concept (drilling bore)
4 / The electrical wiring is neglected in both cases.
5 / Transport needed for recycling and disposal of used materials is not included in the model.
6 / Excavated ground is transported to the same place for both concepts (about 5 km to the port and 100 km over the sea).
Assumptions Pipeline concept
1 / Operations on materials are usually neglected.
2 / Tubes require little or no maintenance (Delbaere 2009; BIG 2010)
3 / Lighting does not require replacement during the comparison period
4 / When calculating the needed power to drive the chain of wagons it is assumed that the motors do not have to supply energy to overcome the potential energy resulting for the height differences along the trajectory. Because of the proposed loop, I assume that the result potential energy will be zero. Descents offset the upward moves.
Assumptions Road concept
1 / The comparing road concept equivalent is assumed to be approximately 18 km long. As two waterways need to be crossed on this trajectory, two bridges or tunnels must be built. In the calculations, I ignored the extra supplies for the construction of these bridges and tunnels for the construction of the road. I assumed that for the road concept there are no special construction requirements. Furthermore, I assumed that this road is also a dedicated infrastructure and that only lorries will use this road.
2 / For the gravel used in the road foundations, I assume that this material has an environmental impact comparable to non-reinforced concrete.
3 / The finishing layer on the right bank is reinforced concrete. I assume that this material does not require any maintenance over the comparison period. On the left bank and the hard shoulder, an asphalt layer is used. This material does need maintenance.
4 / Since there are overlaps between the roadway, sewerage and hard shoulder, the excavated soil is slightly overestimated.
5 / The road concept has 4 lanes (2 in each direction) and is only used for freight transport.
6 / Normally, additional reinforcement blocks are needed to ensure rigidity of the road. This is not taken into account in the calculation.
7 / The asphalt is assumed to be a mixture of gravel, sand and bitumen. For bitumen, which is not included as a separate material in ECOLIZER, I assumed a comparable environmental impact as other organic chemicals
Assumptions ECOPOINTS and ECOLIZER
1 / In the latest version of ECOLIZER, compared to previous versions, a number of values are no longer available. In some cases (such as the dumping of concrete), I use the values from the previous versions to take the environmental impact of these processes into account.
2 / For the ECOPOINTS for freight transport, I assumed a linear relationship between the ECOPOINTS and the weight (total weight rather than net of the lorry) and a linear relationship between the ECOPOINTS and the number of km driven. This assumption has led to the breakup of the ECOPOINTS for transport by lorry to the ECOPOINTS to estimate a total weight without an empty return trip.

Table S2 List of used ECOPOINTS

Material / Process / item / ECOPOINTS / Ref. Unita
Steel / Production / Primary unalloyed (convertor) / 165 / mPt/kg
Production / Primary low alloyed (convertor) / 231 / mPt/kg
Production / Secondary unalloyed (convertor) / 61 / mPt/kg
Production / Secondary low alloyed (convertor) / 195 / mPt/kg
Operations / Milling / 337 / mPt/kg
Operations / Hot rolling / 27 / mPt/kg
Operations / Plate rolling / 35 / mPt/kg
Operations / Section rolling / 20 / mPt/kg
Operations / Arc welding / 15 / mPt/m
Operations / Galvanizing / 671 / mPt/m²
Recycling / -155 / mPt/kg
Disposal / Landfill (EU scenario) / 26 / mPt/kg
Copper / Production / Copper / 774 / mPt/kg
Operations / Continuous fiber forming / 209 / mPt/kg
Recycling / -698 / mPt/kg
Concrete / Production / Plates and foundation / 11 110 / mPt/m³
Production / Concrete (most used) / 16 759 / mPt/m³
Production / Concrete (not reinforced) / 3.9 / mPt/kg
Production / Cement (Portland) / 49 / mPt/kg
Recycling / Gravel replacement / -0.67 / mPt/kg
Rubber (synthetic) / Production / EPDM / 355 / mPt/kg
Production / Polybutadieen / 444 / mPt/kg
Disposal / Landfill (EU scenario) / 50 / mPt/kg
Recycling / nvt / mPt/kg
PE / Production / HDPE / 277 / mPt/kg
Recycling / -260 / mPt/kg
Polypropylene (PP) / Production / PP / 276 / mPt/kg
Disposal / Landfill (EU scenario) / 36 / mPt/kg
Recycling / -251 / mPt/kg
Glass / Production / Flat glass (coated) / 82 / mPt/kg
Recycling / -24 / mPt/kg
Minerals / Production / Sand / 0.6 / mPt/kg
Production / Gravel / 0.6 / mPt/kg
Recycling / -0.598 / mPt/kg
Organic / Production / Organic chemicals / 249 / mPt/kg
Iron / Production / Cast iron / 173 / mPt/kg
Recycling / -97 / mPt/kg
Disposal / Landfill (EU scenario) / 26 / mPt/kg
Aluminum / Production / Primary alloy AlMg3 / 439 / mPt/kg
Recycling / -309 / mPt/kg
Transport national / Production / Freight rail / 3.9 / mPt/ (tonne km)
Production / Freight ship / 4.7 / mPt/ (tonne km)
Production / Lorry >32t; EUR4 / 12 / mPt/ (tonne km)
Electricity / Production / high voltage Belgium / 28 / mPt/kWh
Production / high voltage Europe UCPTE / 44 / mPt/kWh
Production / low voltage Belgium / 31 / mPt/kWh
Production / low voltage Europe UCPTE / 51 / mPt/kWh
Production / Nuclear power / 1.2 / mPt/kWh
Production / Wind energy / 1.2 / mPt/kWh
Production / Coal / 89 / mPt/kWh
Production / Natural gas / NA* / mPt/kWh

The ref. Unit gives the unit of ECOPOINTS according to the basic unit of the primary parameter; e.g., for 1 kg of sand 0.6 millipoints (or mPt) are attributed.

*Not available in Ecolizer 2.0