label eco-efficiency analysis propylene carbonate

bbbb

Eco-Efficiency 125.01.2004

BASF Aktiengesellschaft Product Safety Regulations, Toxicology and Ecology

Validated Eco-EfficiencyAnalysis Methodology

Label

Eco-Efficiency Analysis

Propylene Carbonate

January, 26th, 2004

bbbb



The Label

An eco-efficiency analysis was performed in order to compare the environmental impactsand the costs from all life cycle stages of two copper wire enamel solvents, cresol andpropylene carbonate. Wire coatings, especially those based onpolyester imides, are traditionally produced with cresol as the solvent. Propylene carbonate can also be used as an alternative solvent. The eco-efficiency analysis showed that the environmental impacts between the two solvents are more striking than the differences in the life-cycle costs. Propylene carbonate is the most eco-efficient copper wire enamel solvent.

bbbb



Requirements met

1. Accomplished Eco-Efficiency Analysis according to the methodology certified by TÜV Rheinland/ Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany.

2. Verification of propylene carbonate to be more eco-efficient for the use as a solvent in wire coatings than other alternatives.3. Third party evaluation by Prof. Shonnard, Michigan TechUniversity (USA) (so-called Critical Review according ISO 14040 ff.).

4. Publication of the results via internet on website www.oeea.de, which is referred to on the label.5. Payment of the licence fee for the duration of three years.

bbbb



Certificate

bbbb



EcoEco--efficiency analysisefficiency analysis

ComparisonComparison of alternative of alternative solvents forsolvents for thethe productionproduction of of wire wire

enamelsenamels

Silke Schmidt, GUP/CE Silke Schmidt, GUP/CE Hansjörg Nickel, EHansjörg Nickel, E--CZD/MGCZD/MGDominik Born, EDominik Born, E--CZD/MGCZD/MG

Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, January January 20032003

ValidatedValidated ecoeco--efficiencyefficiency analysis methodanalysis method

Michigan Technological UniversityCritical Rev iewed Eco-Efficiency Analysis by

David R. Shonnard, Prof., Ph.D.Department of Chemical Engineering

Michigan-Technological UniversityHoughton, MI 49931 USA

bbbb



Objectives and planned use of the study

Target groups of the study– BASF Research– Decision-maker BASF – Decision-maker CZD/MG– Customers

Use of the study– Internal strategy finding– Opening up of a new market for

propylene carbonate

Objective of the studyA comparison was carried out between the use of propylene carbonate and cresol as solvents in the coating of wires.

The application properties of propylene carbonate are comparable to those of cresol. All quantitative and qualitative differences will be included if possible.

bbbb



Raw materials production and transportation

propylenecarbonate (PC)

Polyester imide(PEI)

wire enamel

Copper wire

PEI dissolvedin PC/ cresol

Production

System boundaries

Disposal

Disposal of

contaminated wastes

from the coating

Use

Application of the wire enamel

Application of alubricant

bbbb



Coating of the metallically pure copper wire in the coating plant

Copper wireDrawing ofthe wire

Removal of drawingagent residues

Winding wireCoating with lubricant

Wire is passed through coating plant 6-10 times

Application of the enamel;

Stoving; solvent evaporated and supplies energy for stoving;

crosslinking of the enamel

Cooling by air

40% polyester imide (PEI) wire enamel with 60% solvent

Process scheme

solvent

polyester imides

PEI dissolvedin solvent

bbbb



0.7

1.0

1.30.71.01.3

Costs (normalized)

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

(nor

mal

ized

)Propylene carbonate

Cresol

Comparison of alternative solvents for the production of wire enamels

Customer-relatedbenefit:

Production ofsolvents for the manufacture ofwire enamels for the coating of 1,000 m ofwinding wire(∅ 0.71 mm)(winding wire for use in motors)

Loweco-efficiency

Higheco-efficiency

bbbb



Interpretation of the eco-efficiency portfolio

• Propylene carbonate is the most eco-efficient alternative for the coating of wires (distance from the diagonal is a measure for the eco-efficiency).

• The high environmental impact of cresol is due mainly to the high toxicity potential and the high risk potential of the solvent. Energy consumption, materials consumption and emissions only show slight differences between the individual alternatives.

• The costs for the two alternatives are about the same (propylene carbonate 0,588 Euro/CB; cresol 0,6 Euro/CB). The slight difference is due to the amount of solvent naphtha which is a little bit higher when cresol is used and the more expensive disposal of the residues from the cresolic alternative.

bbbb



Total Total costscosts

1.82 1.83

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Propylene carbonate Cresol

Euro

/CB

DisposalCoatingSolvent naphthaCresolPropylenecarbonate

Enamelproduction

Propylene carbonate: 1,30 Euro/kgCresol: 1,50 Euro/kg

bbbb



Ecological fingerprint according to BASF

Least favorablealternative = 1; all others evaluatedrelative to this

0.00

0.50

1.00Energy consumption

Emissions

Toxicity potential

Risk potential

Materialsconsumption

Area required Propylene carbonateCresol

bbbb



Interpretation of the ecological fingerprint

• There are no major differences in energy consumption, materials consumption and emissions between the alternatives considered.

• The different area required by the alternatives is due to the amount of solvent necessary for the customer's benefit.

• The main differences in the ecological fingerprint are obvious from the toxicity and risk potentials; cresol has both a high toxicity potential and a high risk potential.

bbbb



Energy consumption of the alternatives

27.9 27.9

25.1 31.1

60.760.7

119.0 128.5

5.3 8.8

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

125.0

150.0


MJ/

NE

CoatingSolvent naphthaCresolPropylenecarbonateEnamelproduction

bbbb



Comparison of the normalized materials consumption figures

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


kg*a

/CB

SandBauxiteLimestoneIron orePhosphateSulfurRock saltLigniteOilCoalGas

bbbb



Comparison of the global warming potentials (GWP)

The emissions of CO2, CH4, HHC and N2O are weighted according to their greenhouse potential.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


g C

O2

equi

vale

nts/

CB

Coating

Solvent naphtha

Cresol

Propylene carbonate

Enamel production

bbbb



Comparison of the photochemical ozone creation potentials (POCP)

The emissions of CH4 and NM VOCs are weighted according to their impact .

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2


g et

hene

equi

vale

nts/

CB Coating

Solvent naphtha

Cresol

Propylene carbonate

Enamel production

bbbb



Comparison of the acidification potentials (AP)

NOx, SO2, HCl and NH3 emissions are weighted according to their potential.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


g S

O2

equi

vale

nts/

CB

CoatingSolvent naphthaEnamel productionCresolPropylene carbonate

bbbb



Comparison of the ozone depletion potential (ODP)

The emissions of halogenated hydrocarbons are weighted according to their impact.

0.00000

0.00050

0.00100

0.00150

0.00200

0.00250

0.00300


g C

FC e

quiv

alen

ts/C

B

CoatingSolvent naphtha

CresolPropylene carbonate

Enamel production

bbbb



Notes on the air emissions

The energy required for the coating process is the major contributor to global warming and acidification potential, however, these contributions are the same for both solvent alternatives. Since the energy required is independent of the solvent needed, the main differences of the individual potentials are due almost exclusively to the production of the solvents themselves.The high ozone depletion potential of the production of propylene carbonate is caused by the release of a relatively high amount of halogenated hydrocarbons. However, the ODP altogether has no impact on the emissions (cf. page 61; share of the ODP in the relevance of the air emissions: 2%).The production of cresol generally has a high impact on the air emissions considered.

bbbb



Comparison of the normalized water emissions

* Release of a high amount of chloride in the production of the starting material propyleneoxide.

**

** Release of phosphate in the production of the intermediates in cresol production.

0100200300400500600700800900

1000


Crit

ical

wast

ewat

er v

olum

em

³ /C

B CoatingSolvent naphthaEnamel productionCresolPropylene carbonate

** *

bbbb



Comparison of the normalized solid waste generation

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


Was

te/C

B

CoatingSolvent naphthaEnamel productionCresolPropylene carbonate

bbbb



Comparison of the toxicity potentials

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20


Disposal of wastes fromthe coating

Release of solventnaphtha

Release of the solvent in theapplication of the wire enamel

Production of solventnaphtha

Production of the wire enamel

Production of the solvent

T

Xi

bbbb



Comparison of the risk potentials

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2


Hazards to soil and surface watersby spilling or the like

Disposal of operatingsupplies from the coating

Coating of the wires(included: MAK value of the solvent)

Risk in transportation

Shortage of the raw materials required

Occupational accidents in the chemicalindustry

bbbb



0.7

1.0

1.30.71.01.3

Costs (normalized)

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

(nor

mal

ized

)

Propylene carbonate

Cresol

Scenario 1: The risk of a raw material shortage of cresol no longer exists.



Loweco-efficiency

Higheco-efficiency

Light balls in the portfolioshow the base case.

Conclusion:

Even if the risk of cresol shortage is no longer a realistic risk the propylene carbonate is the more eco-efficient alternative.The risk potential has only a slight influence on the result.

Conclusion:

Even if the risk of cresol shortage is no longer a realistic risk the propylene carbonate is the more eco-efficient alternative.The risk potential has only a slight influence on the result.

bbbb



0.7

1.0

1.30.71.01.3

Costs (normalized)

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

(nor

mal

ized

)

Propylene carbonate

Cresol



Loweco-efficiency

Higheco-efficiency


Scenario 2: The solid content of the enamels is increased from 40% to 45% for the enamel containing cresol.

Conclusion:

If less Cresol is needed, the cresol alternative gets a little bit better concening its bad environmental influence. Propylencarbonat is still the most eco-efficient alternative.

Conclusion:

If less Cresol is needed, the cresol alternative gets a little bit better concening its bad environmental influence. Propylencarbonat is still the most eco-efficient alternative.

bbbb



0.7

1.0

1.30.71.01.3

Costs (normalized)

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

(nor

mal

ized

)

Propylene carbonate

Cresol



Loweco-efficiency

Higheco-efficiency


Scenario 3: The solid content of the enamels is increased from 40% to 45% for the enamel containing propylene carbonate.

Conclusion:

If less Propylencarbonat is needed, the alternative gets a little bit better concening its environmental influence. Propylencarbonat is clearly the most eco-efficient alternative.

Conclusion:

If less Propylencarbonat is needed, the alternative gets a little bit better concening its environmental influence. Propylencarbonat is clearly the most eco-efficient alternative.

bbbb



Critical Review

Extract from the summary:

“…Overall, the inventory data for materials utilization and emissions are accurate. No major data inconsistencies with a negative impact on the quality of the study were detected, and the data and methods were presented transparently in the report.

The main conclusion that propylene carbonate is more eco-efficient compared to the cresol as a solvent in this wire coating application is consistent with the goals and assumptions of the study. The results of the study are highly credible. The entire study has been made in accordance with ISO 14040 - 14043. …”

Reviewer:David R. Shonnard, Prof., Ph.D.Department of Chemical EngineeringMichigan-Technological UniversityHoughton, MI 49931 USA

bbbb



Eco-Efficiency ManagerBASF Aktiengesellschaft has developed a so-called Eco-Efficiency Manager, an easy-to-use program which enables customers to calculate eco-efficiency for their own specific situation. The manager is available for customers (see contact).

Comparison of the use of propylene carbonate and cresolas solvents in the coating of wires

T he figures in the blue fields can be changed!

Functional Unit: enamel wire coating of 1000 meters of wire (0,71 mm diameters)

Amount of required coating:Amount of enamel required calculated through the round copper weight:

weight of the round copper w 3,54 kg / meter

percentage of the coating (wet weight) 10%

energy for the coating 1,4 kW h / meter

Alte rnative A: polyester imide in propylene carbonate

Amount of wet film 40%

Alte rnative B: polyester imide in cresol

Amount of wet film 40%

Costs :

propylene carbonate 1,3 €/kg

cresol 1,5 €/kg

solvent naphtha 0,38 €/kg

costs of the PEIs 3 €/kg

0,7

1,0

1,30 ,71,01 ,3

costs (normaliz ed)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

(nor

mal

ized) propylene

carbonate

cresol

Ecological Fingerprint

Risk Potential

Diagrams

Relevance Fac tors

Calcu la ting Factors

Exp lanation

low eco-efficiency

higheco-efficiency

bbbb



Contact

For more information about propylene carbonate and the Eco-Efficiency Manager please contact:

Hansjoerg NickelBASF AktiengesellschaftCZD/MG+49 621 [email protected]

For more information about the eco-efficiency analysis please contact:

Silke SchmidtBASF AktiengesellschaftGU/BK+49 621 [email protected]

label eco-efficiency analysis propylene carbonate

Documents