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

Vahakn Kabakian () and Marcelle McManus
Additional contact information
Vahakn Kabakian: Technologies University of Bath
Marcelle McManus: Technologies University of Bath

Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, 2024, vol. 26, issue 10, No 40, 25527-25548

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: Cement; Life cycle assessment; ReCiPe2016; Stepwise2006; Monetization; Decision-making (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03694-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:10:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03694-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10668

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03694-z

Access Statistics for this article

Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development is currently edited by Luc Hens

More articles in Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().