12,000

We have over 12,000 students, from over 100 countries, within one of the safest campuses in the UK

93%

93% of Lancaster students go into work or further study within six months of graduating

Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A comparison of carbon footprint calculations f...
View graph of relations

« Back

A comparison of carbon footprint calculations for end of life product recovery methods using PAS 2050

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/ProceedingsConference contribution

Published

Publication date07/2010
Host publicationProceedings of the ASME 2010 10th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis: (ESDA 2010)
PublisherASME
Number of pages9
ISBN (Print)978-0-7918-3877-8
Original languageEnglish

Conference

ConferenceASME 2010 10th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis
CountryTurkey
CityIstanbul
Period12/07/1014/07/10

Conference

ConferenceASME 2010 10th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis
CountryTurkey
CityIstanbul
Period12/07/1014/07/10

Abstract

This paper demonstrates a comparison of product recovery methods, by carbon footprint calculation, for repaired products with remanufactured products and the environmental impact that they have when they reach their end-of-life (EOL). Growing concerns of climate change and government legislation have changed the way in which consumers can dispose of used or broken products. Items can no longer be sent to landfill and it is now the responsibility of the producers to dispose of products in a more sustainable manner and take into consideration all stages of the products life cycle. A standardised method for calculating carbon footprints has been used and a carbon footprint carried out for each product recovery method. Specific data was collected, from a manufacturing company in England’s North West region, about the processes involved during each recovery method and have identified that repairing has a lower carbon footprint than remanufacturing. However, repairing only extends the existing life cycle of a product, whereas remanufacturing can be carried out up to three times, and provides the product with a new life cycle. Therefore, remanufacturing is seen as the most preferable method of product recovery in terms of carbon emissions and sustainable waste disposal.