1 / 21

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETE May 2009

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETE May 2009. CONCRETE VALUE CHAIN IS FACING A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO POSITION ITSELF AS THE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION. Description. Implications. Importance of Sustainability. Obama administration showing determination on environmental policy

lenci
Download Presentation

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETE May 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CONCRETEMay 2009

  2. CONCRETE VALUE CHAIN IS FACING A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO POSITION ITSELF AS THE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION Description Implications Importance of Sustainability • Obama administration showing determination on environmental policy • It is an important aspect of the stimulus package • New regulation expected at different levels • Topic of high relevance for the general public • Sustainability is not a fad, but rather a necessary part in all aspects of life Perception • Negative perception of cement industry is the #1 challenge • High total emissions make cement a problem • Concrete value chain is of significant value to society • Irreplaceable in many applications Adequate Arguments • Looking only at production emissions may be shortsighted • Lifecycle assessments are key for sustainability • Benefits of concrete far outweigh initial construction emissions

  3. FOCUS OF THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE ON ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF CONCRETEIn applications that have competing materials and represent most of the volume USA Cement Consumption(1) Cement Alternatives % Consumption Comments Non Construction No Alternative 15.5% • Applications ranging from oil wells to dams are not suited for other construction materials Utilities Water & Waste Public Works Partial Substitution 59.2% • Some elements of the construction can be done with other materials (i.e. building envelop) • But slabs among others can only be made from concrete Bridges Public Bldgs Commercial Residential Possible Substitution 25.3% • It is possible to make construction entirely of competing materials Streets & Hwys • PCA 2007 Data

  4. AGENDA • Concrete Pavements • Concrete Wall Systems • Next Steps

  5. 9.5” Asphalt Superpave 0.75-1.5” Frict. Course 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP 10” AggregateBase Course 12” Limerock Base Course (LBR = 100) 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 4” ATPB non-structural 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 1” Asph. Struc. Layer 14” AggregateSubbase Course 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) 1” Asphalt Interlayer 6” Cement TreatedBase Course 6” AggregateBase Course Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade PAVEMENT DESIGNS VARY SIGNIFICANTLY DEPENDING ON ROAD USE AND SOIL CONDITIONS AMONG OTHER THINGS Examples of Concrete Designs Examples of Asphalt Designs 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 4” Asphalt TreatedBase Course Subgrade Research efforts could focus on most common design types

  6. Asphalt Concrete HISTORICALLY ASPHALT HAD THE INITIAL COST ADVANTAGEEven with recent asphalt prices decline, difference has narrowed Asphalt mix prices have increased 96% since 2000(1) Concrete Initial cost gap has decreased, but still remains high 22% Asphalt Mix Price M $ 31% CAGR 8.5% Bitumen Price CAGR 8.8% U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm Asphalt design: 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade, 12” Limerock Base Course, 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP, 0.75-1.5” Frict. Course Concrete design: 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade, 1” Asph. Structural Layer, 4” ATPB non-structural, 12.0” PCCJointed w/ Dowels Initial costs for 10 miles, 2 lanes & Shoulders 2004: Asphalt = $62.33 / ton, Concrete = $76.05 / CY 2009: Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY

  7. ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN New design procedure based on advanced models & actual field data collected across the US Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) Description Process Validation • A new mechanistic design procedure based on most advanced pavement performance models • Comprehensive methodology that incorporates layer thicknesses, material properties, climate, and traffic loadings • It uses mechanistic-empirical numerical models to analyze traffic, climate, materials, and proposed structure to estimate accumulated damage of the analysis period • Provides predicted performance of a given structure during analysis period • AASHTO 93 only provides thickness (no performance) • Concrete Criteria = cracking, faulting, IRI, cumulative damage, and load transfer • Adopted by AASHTO in 2007 as the Interim Pavement Design Guide • Most states are currently in the process of calibrating and validating the design procedure with actual field performance data • Improves accuracy of performance prediction for each pavement type • Provides “true” performance of each pavement type

  8. 0.75-1.5” Frict. Course 12.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 10.0” PCC Jointed w/ Dowels 5.5” Asphalt Ty-SP 12” Limerock Base Course (LBR = 100) 1.5” Asph. Struc. Layer 4” ATPB non-structural 12” Limerock Stabilized Base (LBR=70) 1” Asph. Struc. Layer 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) 12” Type-B Stabilized Subgrade (LBR=40) Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade MEPDG ALLOWS FOR DESIGN OPTIMIZATIONMaking Concrete’s Initial Cost More Attractive FDOT Concrete Design Optimized Concrete Asphalt Design Initial Cost Diff. Asphalt vs. Concrete % Cost Difference Initial cost gap is significantly reduced when using MEPDG Initial costs for 10 miles, 2 lanes & Shoulders. Costs include Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY

  9. Concrete MOREOVER, CONCRETE DELIVERS SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS THROUGHOUT THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE ASSET Nominal Expenditures by Pavement Type for 10 Miles Total Cost Net Present Value Concrete Rehab: Patch & diamond grind at years 30 and 45 Asphalt Rehab: 4” AC Overlay in years 14 & 28 2” Mill / 4” AC Overlay in year 42 M $ 54% M $ year Asphalt is 54% more expensive than Concrete throughout the life cycle of the road • Design – Asphalt: 6.5” AC (inc 1.5” PFC) / 12” Limerock (LBR=100) / 12” Limerock (LBR=40); Concrete: 10” JPCP / 1.5” AC / 12” Limerock (LBR=70) • Initial costs - Pavement, base, and subgrade stabilization materials and labor (Asphalt = $85.00 / ton, Concrete = $94.62 / CY) • Rehabilitation - Concrete activities based on MEPDG, Asphalt Activities based on standard FDOT Standards • Current year costs are inflated at 4% • Rehab costs also include other Incidental Costs (striping, mob, etc) - Assumed to be 40% of Material Costs and Traffic Control - 5% of material cost, Engineering & Inspection - 5% of material cost Asphalt

  10. UP TO THIS POINT, ALL COMPARISONS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH THE SAME INFLATION RATESHowever, asphalt prices are much more volatile Inflation Rates since Jan 1960 Month-to-Month Change in PPI since Jan 1960 Max Asphalt Change = 39.4% Max Concrete Change = 5.1% Asphalt CAGR = 5.9% Cement CAGR = 4.1% Conc. Product CAGR = 4.0% Assuming this inflation difference, asphalt’s lifecycle disadvantage to concrete can effectively double Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm Paving Asphalt Series ID = wpu13940113 Cement Series ID = wdu13220131 and wpu13220161 Concrete Products Series ID = wpu133

  11. Budget allocated for new construction Budget required for rehabilitation Lane Miles 8,316 5,849 9,425 SINCE CONCRETE ROADS REQUIRE LESS MAINTENANCE, STATES WOULD HAVE MORE FUNDING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Impact of Pavement Choice on State System • Assume a constant $1.0 B budget per year for 50 years with no inflation (Total Cumulative Budget = $50 B) • All funds are initially used for new construction • When rehabilitation is required, funds are first used for rehabilitation and the remainder for new construction • Consider three pavement choices • Asphalt • Concrete with traditional design • Concrete with MEPDG • Take Florida’s materials and construction cost • After 50 years, Pavement choice has a great impact on number of Lane Miles constructed in the system Cumulative 50 year Expenditure Breakdown % Rehab savings Rehab savings 42.3% 37.1% Traditional Concrete: Initial Life = 40 years Asphalt: initial Life = 14 year MEPDG Concrete: initial Life = 30 year Concrete & Asphalt Inflation = 4.0% Asphalt Maintenance every 10 yrs Budget at year 50

  12. ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING, ASPHALT HAS LESS EMBODIED CO2 COMPARED TO CONCRETE IN INITIAL CONSTRUCTION26% advantage over JPCP and 50% over CRCP for traditional concrete design, while 7% and 31% respectively with MEPDG Concrete Asphalt MT CO2 / Mile Road MT CO2 / Mile Road Traditional Traditional 1,301 MEPDG MEPDG 1,063 (1) Bitumen Transportation Inherent Energy Aggregates (Paving) Installation Aggregates CRCP Installation JPCP Sensitivity • Inherent Energy: potential energy from reprocessing bitumen into fuels • Note: Pavement designs are 12” CRCP/JPCP over 6” Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10”Aggregate base & 14” Aggregate sub base • Source: CEMEX USA production data; Portland Cement Association, DOE CO2 emission report; et al

  13. BUT USE OF CONCRETE REDUCES CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OVER THE LIFE OF THE ROAD Total (MT/mile) Lifecycle construction carbon emissions by pavement type 2,692 Asphalt Traditional 53% Traditional Concrete MT CO2 / Mile Road MEPDG Concrete 69% MEPDG 1,063 1,758 1,597 Over the life of the road, Asphalt produces significantly more CO2 emissions than Concrete • Source: FHWA TA T5080.3 Price Adjustment Contract Provisions (FHWA 1980)Concrete rehabilitation activity assumed to use same fuel as original asphalt pavement placement (highest placement value) • Note: 12” JPCP over 6” Granular Base vs. 9.5” Asphalt over 10”Aggregate base & 14” Aggregate sub base, Asphalt overlay on concrete road at year 50

  14. PER-MILE CO2 SAVINGS FROM CONCRETE GREATLY REDUCES ANNUAL EMISSIONS OVER A ROAD’S LIFE Annual Emissions Comparison Annual Savings per Mile MMT CO2 MT CO2/mi 1.6 34.7 -5.2 Traditional Paving MEPDG Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High Administration, Fuel Consumption by Transportation Mode, Edwards, M. Highway User’s perspective on innovative contracting/quality in highway construction Savings with Asphalt inherent energy

  15. CONCRETE PAVEMENTS DELIVER SUBSTANTIAL CO2 SAVINGS Initial construction disadvantage is quickly offset Concrete Paving Annual CO2 Savings vs. Asphalt Traditional Concrete MEPDG Concrete MT CO2/mile 3,100 2,909 Year Year Source: U.S. Department of Energy – Annual Energy Report

  16. AGENDA • Concrete Pavements • Concrete Wall Systems • Next Steps

  17. CONCRETE WALL SYSTEMS IMPROVE A BUILDING’S SHELL PERFORMANCE Source of Energy Loss (1) % 19% 22% 31% Air Infiltration 35% 65% (2) 22% (2) 50% (2) Walls 14% • Concrete Wall Systems: • Reduce Air Infiltration • Temper thermal Benefit • Continuous Insulation Floors & Below Grd. 14% Ceiling/Roof 13% Ceiling 13% Doors & Windows 20% Doors & Windows 20% Air Infiltration Savings Thermal Mass Savings 2x4 Wood Energy Profile ICF Energy Profile CMU Energy Profile Tilt-up Energy Profile Insulation Savings An improved building envelop drastically reduces a home’s CO2 emissions (1) Energy Efficient Builders Association – Guide to Construction; National Insulation Contractors Association (2) Portland Cement Association – Technical Brief on Benefits of Concrete Wall Systems

  18. ENERGY EFFICIENCY ADVANTAGE COULD TRANSLATE INTO SIGNIFICANT CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION Potential Annual CO2 Emissions Reduction Annual Emissions Comparison 2.5 % Reduction % CO2 Emissions 1.8% 0.7% MMT CO2 Residential Commercial Transportation Industry Land Use Changes Agricultural Others Performance benefits of Concrete Wall Systems could potentially reduce U.S. emissions by 2.5%, eliminating 123 MMT of CO2 annually EPA Sector Performance Report – 2008 Assumes PCA-stated energy performance results for applications benefiting from the use of high-performance exterior envelopes

  19. THE DRASTIC REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS MORE THAN OFFSETS INITIAL EMBODIED ENERGY ICF Annual CO2 Savings vs. Wood CMU Annual CO2 Savings vs. Wood MT CO2 102 4” ICF vs 2x4 Wood 62 58 40 CMU vs 2x4 Wood 4” ICF vs 2x6 Wood CMU vs 2x6 Wood 4” ICF vs 2x6 Wood Year Year Source: U.S. Department of Energy – Annual Energy Report

  20. AGENDA • Concrete Pavements • Concrete Wall Systems • Next Steps

  21. WE BELIEVE THE INDUSTRY HAS THE RIGHT ARGUMENTS BUT THIRD PARTY CREDIBLE VALIDATION IS NEEDEDObjective is to corroborate industry is reaching the correct conclusions and provide unbiased confirmation to support communication efforts Segment Studies Timeframe Comments • Initial construction & rehabilitation embodied energy and CO2 emissions comparison • Includes materials, freight, construction and traffic emissions • Fuel efficiency • Cars fuel consumption difference • Semi-truck mpg efficiency (similar to Athena report) Mainline Paving Short Medium • Mostly data gathering and calculations • Relatively short period of time • High impact potential • Lengthy study due to extensive field research • Embodied energy comparison (ICF/CMU vs. Wood) • Quantifying concrete wall energy efficiency vs. non-concrete alternatives. Potential sources: • Reduced Air Infiltration • Benefits of Thermal Mass • Benefits of Continuous Insulation Medium Short • Low impact on decision making • Potentially the greatest source for environmental benefits of concrete Wall Systems Methodology • Process for Economic and Environmental lifecycle assessment Short • Relatively quick academic exercise • Key component for new legislation

More Related