Kosfeld Fenna Thesis - Flipbook - Page 125
Impact Assessment and Interpretation
Material 1
Material 2
Material Extraction Assessment and Interpretation:
When we compare Material 1 and Material 2, the
contrast in their ecological footprints is stark. Material 2, in particular, stands out with a signi昀椀cantly higher footprint than Material 1. This disparity
is not to be overlooked.
Material 1 has only two primary sources from an
industrial market: Corn Starch and Water. The rest
of the sourced material comes from waste residues, collected, and local produce. Corn Starch is
the main component and hence forms a majority
of material extraction, creating room for improvement to change the amount and ratio of needed
starch. The assumption for Material 1 is to use as
much waste and collected materials as possible to
reduce the environmental impact. As of that stage,
the Urine collection is local and non-industrial.
Understanding the scope and impact of collected
human Urine in urban areas would be interesting.
That is not considered in this assessment, though.
Material 2 consists of a variety of high-emitting
ingredients that, in sum, lead to a greater impact.
The extraction of Uranium contributes signi昀椀cantly
to global warming and water pollution due to high
energy consumption in production and high risk of
nitrogen run-off.
For this assessment, rosin is used to showcase the
potential impact of using Colofonia. Nevertheless,
these are different materials, and their impact can
be assumed to be varied.
Rosin, a byproduct of forestry, is extracted from
Pine trees. However, this extraction process is not
without its environmental consequences. It can
contribute to deforestation, soil depletion, and
degradation, potentially leading to nutrient run-off
and reduced water quality. Soil erosion, a possible
outcome, can further degrade soil fertility and
impair downstream aquatic ecosystems, resulting
in adverse environmental impacts. Additionally,
the extraction processes often require signi昀椀cant
energy inputs, leading to increased CO2 emissions.
Conclusion for Material Extraction :
As the main function of the material is a sustainable fertiliser with a cradle-to-cradle life
cycle, Material 1 is the better choice for continuing research. The use of locally sourced
urine can bring
•
•
•
•
•
local availability
minimal energy
low cost
waste reduction
supports climate-resilient
agricultural practices, nutrient
cycling
then use of synthetic urea and colofonia.
Conclusion for Transport
The table above shows how much transport
contributes to the material environmental
impact. Besides material extraction, this is a
major aspect that needs improvement.
As the only transport involved in both material processes is the transport of one person
( producer ) to the waste site for collection
- to farm for pyrolisis and back to the city, it
creates the most emissions.
It needs to be considered that for one transport cycle, equal to 28km, one can get much
more biochar material than needed for only 1
kg of produced material. These numbers are
not accounted for in this assessment, but in
the bigger picture, the emissions per kilogram
of material production would decrease signi昀椀cantly as less travel/transport is needed.
Improving environmental impact
Conclusion for Prodution
Material 1 also presents itself as less harmful.
That is because Material 2 needs slightly more
energy than Material 1. Both productions use
low-energy equipment for a short amount of
time, which results in a proportionally very
small impact.
The energy consumption is proportionally
low due to cutting off energy usage for drying
and baking raw materials. This production is
assumed to happen in warm and sunny countries such as Spain, where natural sunlight
can be used as an energy source.
Material Strategy :
• Change proportion/ratio of cornstarch
in recipe
• Supplychain Optimization
• Change Type of Starch that is more
locally available
• Increase amount of urine to decrease
consumption of water
Renewable Energy Use:
• Use of solar powered equipment
Energy Ef昀椀ciency - Renewable Energy Use
• Change location of production to
reduce transport emissions - local production and collection of residues
• switch from medium sized car, petrol,
one person, to an electric bike - speci昀椀c vehicle needed for heavy load
transport but only for about 2.2 km.
With elctric freight bike it can be
managable and reduce the emissions
of transport by - the only constrain it
would be time and energy-consuming
125
for worker
