Affiliation:
1. Bosch Thermotechnology GmbH, Junkersstraße 20, 73249 Wernau (Neckar), Germany
2. Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
3. Department of Energy Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 1458889694, Iran
Abstract
Slowing down replacement cycles to reduce resource depletion and prevent waste generation is a promising path toward a circular economy (CE). However, an obligation to longevity only sometimes makes sense. It could sometimes even backfire if one focuses exclusively on material resource efficiency measures of the production phase and neglects implications on the use phase. The (environmental) lifespan of circular products should, therefore, be optimized, not maximized, considering all life cycle phases. In this paper, a generic method for determining the optimal environmental lifespan (OEL) of energy-using products (EuPs) in a CE is developed, allowing the simultaneous inclusion of various replacement options and lifetime extension processes, like re-manufacturing, in the assessment. A dynamic programming approach is used to minimize the cumulative environmental impact or costs over a specific time horizon, which allows considering an unordered sequence of replacement decisions with various sets of products. The method further accounts for technology improvement as well as efficiency degradation due to usage and a dynamic energy supply over the use phase. To illustrate the application, the OEL of gas heating appliances in Germany is calculated considering newly evolved products and re-manufactured products as replacement options. The case-study results show that with an average heat demand of a dwelling in Germany, the OEL is just 7 years for climate change impacts and 11 years for the aggregated environmental indicator, ReCiPeendpoint(total). If efficiency degradation during use is considered, the OEL for both environmental impact assessment methods even lowers to 1 year. Products are frequently replaced with re-manufactured products to completely restore efficiency at low investment cost, resulting in higher savings potential. This not only implies that an early replacement before the product breaks down is recommended but also that it is essential to maintain the system and, thus, to prevent potential efficiency degradation. The results for cost optimization, as well as currently observed lifespans, vary considerably from this.
Subject
Energy (miscellaneous),Energy Engineering and Power Technology,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Electrical and Electronic Engineering,Control and Optimization,Engineering (miscellaneous),Building and Construction
Reference127 articles.
1. Taking the Circularity to the Next Level: A Special Issue on the Circular Economy;Bocken;J. Ind. Ecol.,2017
2. (2020). A New Circular Economy Action Plan: For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe, European Commission.
3. Product Design in a Circular Economy: Development of a Typology of Key Concepts and Terms;Bakker;J. Ind. Ecol.,2017
4. A circular economy within the planetary boundaries: Towards a resource-based, systemic approach;Desing;Resour. Conserv. Recycl.,2020
5. Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., and Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular Economy: Measuring Innovation in the Product Chain: Policy Report, Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献