A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Costing of Lighting Systems for Environmental Design and Construction of Sustainable Roads
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Life Cycle Assessment Approach
2.2. Case Study and Data Collection
- Scenario 1 (S1—HPS): High-pressure sodium lamps (HPS) with ballast powered from the grid.
- Scenario 2 (S2—HA): Halogen lamps powered from the grid.
- Scenario 3 (S3—LG): Light-emitting diode (LED) lamps powered from the grid.
- Scenario 4 (S4—LPH): Light-emitting diode (LED) lamps powered from a standalone photovoltaic system.
3. LCA Model Development
3.1. Goal and Scope Definition
3.1.1. Functional Unit
3.1.2. System Boundaries
3.1.3. Impact Categories and Calculation Methodology
3.2. Scenarios in the Life Cycle Inventory
3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
3.4. Life Cycle Costing (LCC)
- Construction: The initial investment of the project and the cost of the work required to get the lighting system into service.
- Operation: Costs derived from the energy consumption of the installation, which depend on the installed power, the number of operating hours, and the energy costs.
- Maintenance and end of life: Includes (1) preventive maintenance, corresponding to scheduled maintenance operations, regular checks, cleaning of luminaires, replacement of lamps and auxiliary equipment at the end of their useful life cycle; and (2) corrective maintenance, which covers operations to replace lamps and auxiliary equipment that have deteriorated or have inadequate performance during their useful life, due to manufacturing defects, voltage peaks, among others. Replacement of 1% of the installed lamps and 0.5% of the auxiliary equipment was considered for each year of the installation’s operation.
3.5. Eco-Efficiency Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IEA. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2019. Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-status-report-for-buildings-and-construction-2019 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
- IEA. Net Zero by 2050—A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector; IEA: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Birgisdottir, H. Life Cycle Assessment Model for Road Construction and Use of Residues from Waste Incineration, Institute of Environment & Resources; Technical University of Denmark: Kongens Lyngby, Denmark, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Poulikakos, L.D.; Papadaskalopoulou, C.; Hofko, B.; Gschösser, F.; Cannone Falchetto, A.; Bueno, M.; Arraigada, M.; Sousa, J.; Ruiz, R.; Petit, C.; et al. Harvesting the Unexplored Potential of European Waste Materials for Road Construction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 116, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. 2050 Long-Term Strategy. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en (accessed on 14 September 2020).
- European Commission. Green Public Procurement. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm (accessed on 14 September 2020).
- Pamucar, D.; Deveci, M.; Canıtez, F.; Paksoy, T.; Lukovac, V. A Novel Methodology for Prioritizing Zero-Carbon Measures for Sustainable Transport. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1093–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arıoğlu Akan, M.Ö.; Dhavale, D.G.; Sarkis, J. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Industry: An Analysis and Evaluation of a Concrete Supply Chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 1195–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaguera, A.; Carvajal, G.I.; Arias, Y.P.; Albertí, J.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. Technical Feasibility and Life Cycle Assessment of an Industrial Waste as Stabilizing Product for Unpaved Roads, and Influence of Packaging. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 1272–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pamucar, D.; Ecer, F.; Deveci, M. Assessment of Alternative Fuel Vehicles for Sustainable Road Transportation of United States Using Integrated Fuzzy FUCOM and Neutrosophic Fuzzy MARCOS Methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 788, 147763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynn, C.J.; Ghataora, G.S.; Dhir OBE, R.K. Municipal Incinerated Bottom Ash (MIBA) Characteristics and Potential for Use in Road Pavements. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2017, 10, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachdeva, A.; Sharma, U. An Overview of Utilization of E-Waste Plastic in Road Construction. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 72, pp. 101–109. [Google Scholar]
- NRA. Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes—A Practical Guide; NRA: Fairfax, VA, USA, 2008; p. 114. [Google Scholar]
- Tähkämö, L.; Halonen, L. Life Cycle Assessment of Road Lighting Luminaires—Comparison of Light-Emitting Diode and High-Pressure Sodium Technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 93, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donatello, S.; Gama Caldas, M.; Geerken, T.; van Hoof, P.; Moons, H.; Rodriguez Quintero, R.; Traverso, M.; van Tichelen, P.; Wolf, O. Revision of the EU Green Public Procurement Criteria for Street Lighting and Traffic Signals: Preliminary Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017; ISBN 9789279690976. [Google Scholar]
- Cantisani, G.; Di Mascio, P.; Moretti, L. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Lighting Systems and Road Pavements in an Italian Twin-Tube Road Tunnel. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Unal, A.; Ajder, A.; Kaymaz, A.; Akca, H.; Tanrioven, M.; Ayaz, R. Comparison of Road Lighting Luminaires for M2 Road Lighting Class Considering Energy Efficiency. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Advances in Computing, Electronics and Communication—ACEC 2015, Zurich, Switzerland, 10–11 October 2015; pp. 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil-De-Castro, A.; Moreno-Munoz, A.; Larsson, A.; de La Rosa, J.J.G.; Bollen, M.H.J. LED Street Lighting: A Power Quality Comparison among Street Light Technologies. Light. Res. Technol. 2013, 45, 710–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodrigues, C.R.B.S.; Almeida, P.S.; Soares, G.M.; Jorge, J.M.; Pinto, D.P.; Braga, H.A.C. An Experimental Comparison between Different Technologies Arising for Public Lighting: LED Luminaires Replacing High Pressure Sodium Lamps. In Proceedings of the ISIE 2011: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, Gdansk, Poland, 27–30 June 2011; pp. 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoomak, S.; Jettanasen, C.; Ngaopitakkul, A.; Bunjongjit, S.; Leelajindakrairerk, M. Comparative Study of Lighting Quality and Power Quality for LED and HPS Luminaires in a Roadway Lighting System. Energy Build. 2018, 159, 542–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Tichelen, P. Project Report. Lot 19: Domestic Lighting. Study for the European Commission DGTREN Unit D3. 2009, pp. 1–495. Available online: https://www.eceee.org/static/media/uploads/site-2/ecodesign/products/directional-lighting/final-report-domlight.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Zissis, G.; Bertoldi, P.; Serrenho, T.; European Commission; Joint Research Centre. Update on the Status of LED-Lighting World Market since 2018; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; ISBN 9789276272441. [Google Scholar]
- Balazs, L.; Majoros, M.; Csamango, R.; Nadas, J.; Tunyogi, E.; Sandor, T. Energy Saving Potential of Adaptive Street Lighting. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 5th International Conference and Workshop Óbuda on Electrical and Power Engineering (CANDO-EPE), Budapest, Hungary, 21–22 November 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Role of Adaptive Lighting in Street Lighting Applications|IEEE Conference Publication|IEEE Xplore. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9932194 (accessed on 7 March 2023).
- Chiradeja, P.; Yoomak, S.; Ngaopitakkul, A. Economic Analysis of Improving the Energy Efficiency of Nanogrid Solar Road Lighting Using Adaptive Lighting Control. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 202623–202638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, D.; Gitto, S.; Morea, D. Economic Feasibility of Energy Efficiency Improvements in Street Lighting Systems in Rome. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tähkämö, L.; Räsänen, R.S.; Halonen, L. Life Cycle Cost Comparison of High-Pressure Sodium and Light-Emitting Diode Luminaires in Street Lighting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tähkämö, L.; Ylinen, A.; Puolakka, M.; Halonen, L. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Three Renewed Street Lighting Installations in Finland. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2012, 17, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tetri, E.; Bozorg Chenani, S.; Räsänen, R.S.; Baumgartner, H.; Vaaja, M.; Sierla, S.; Tähkämö, L.; Virtanen, J.P.; Kurkela, M.; Ikonen, E.; et al. Tutorial: Road Lighting for Efficient and Safe Traffic Environments. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 2017, 13, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benekohal, R.F.; Gregerson, C.; Medina, J.; Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. LED Street Lighting Evaluation —Phase II: LED Specification and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: Champaign, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Li, S.; Guan, B.; Zhao, G. Cost Effectiveness of New Roadway Lighting Systems. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2015, 2, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moretti, L.; Cantisani, G.; di Mascio, P. Management of Road Tunnels: Construction, Maintenance and Lighting Costs. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2016, 51, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochs, K.S.; Miller, M.E.; Thal, A.E.; Ritschel, J.D. Proposed Methodology for Analysing Infrastructure Investment Decisions Involving Rapidly Evolving Technology: Case Study of LED Streetlights. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 30, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casamayor, J.L.; Su, D.; Ren, Z. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of LED Lighting Products. Light. Res. Technol. 2017, 50, 801–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muthu, M.; Victor, K. Carbon and Energy Pay Back Period for the Solar Street Light Using Life Cycle Assessment. Carbon NY 2015, 8, 1125–1130. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.; Su, D.; Wu, Y. Environmental and Social Life Cycle Assessments of an Industrial LED Lighting Product. Environ. Impact. Assess Rev. 2022, 95, 106804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuenge, J.R.; Hollomon, B.J.; Dillon, H.E.; Snowden-Swan, L.J. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products, Part 3: LED Environmental Testing; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scholand, M.; Dillon, H.E. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products Part 2: LED Manufacturing and Performance; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tähkämö, L.; Bazzana, M.; Zissis, G.; Puolakka, M.; Halonen, L. Life Cycle Assessment of a Fluorescent Lamp Luminaire Used in Industry—A Case Study. Light. Res. Technol. 2014, 46, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul Hadi, S.; al Kaabi, M.R.; al Ali, M.O.; Arafat, H.A. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Streetlight Technologies for Minor Roads in United Arab Emirates. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tähkämö, L.; Bazzana, M.; Ravel, P.; Grannec, F.; Martinsons, C.; Zissis, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Light-Emitting Diode Downlight Luminaire—A Case Study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1009–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, V.J.; Knoche, S.; Verma, J.; Corchero, C. Life Cycle Assessment of a Modular LED Luminaire and Quantified Environmental Benefits of Replaceable Components. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franz, M.; Wenzl, F.P. Critical Review on Life Cycle Inventories and Environmental Assessments of Led-Lamps. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 47, 2017–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ristimäki, M.; Säynäjoki, A.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S. Combining Life Cycle Costing and Life Cycle Assessment for an Analysis of a New Residential District Energy System Design. Energy 2013, 63, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dale, A.T.; Bilec, M.M.; Marriott, J.; Hartley, D.; Jurgens, C.; Zatcoff, E. Preliminary Comparative Life-Cycle Impacts of Streetlight Technology. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2011, 17, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tannous, S.; Manneh, R.; Harajli, H.; el Zakhem, H. Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Traditional Grid-Connected and Solar Stand-Alone Street Light Systems: A Case Study for Rural Areas in Lebanon. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 963–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidovic, M.; Kostic, M. Comparison of Energy Efficiency and Costs Related to Conventional and LED Road Lighting Installations. Energy 2022, 254, 124299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Industry. Royal Decree 1890/2008 of 14 November, Which Approves the Regulation of Energy Efficiency in Outdoor Lighting and Their Complementary Technical Instructions Ea-Ea-07 01 Facilities. 2008. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2008/BOE-A-2008-18634-consolidado.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- EN 13201; Standards for Road Lighting All Parts—European Standards. European Union: Luxembourg, 2015.
- DIAL DIALux. 2023. 11 evo. Available online: https://www.dialux.com (accessed on 15 November 2022).
- Stripple, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Road: A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis; Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI): Linköping, Sweden, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Gschösser, F. Environmental Assessment of Road Constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Schlegel, T.; Puiatti, D.; Ritter, H.-J.; Lesueur, D.; Denayer, C.; Shtiza, A. The Limits of Partial Life Cycle Assessment Studies in Road Construction Practices: A Case Study on the Use of Hydrated Lime in Hot Mix Asphalt. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2016, 48, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hanson, C.S.; Noland, R.B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Construction: An Assessment of Alternative Staging Approaches. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2015, 40, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayele, Y.Z. Impact Assessment of Road Infrastructure: A Holistic Approach. In WIT Transactions on the Built Environment; WITPress: Billerica, MA, USA, 2019; Volume 182, pp. 15–25. [Google Scholar]
- Buonopane, S.G. Strength and Reliability of Steel Frames with Random Properties. J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 134, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mroueh, U.-M.; Eskola, P.; Laine-Ylijoki, J.; Wellman, E.S.A.; Mäkelä, K.; Juvankoski, M.; Ruotoistenmäki, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Road Tielaitos Construction; The Finnish National Road Administration: Helsinki, Finland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- European Committee for Standardization. EN 15804:2012+A2:2019. Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. Available online: https://www.en-standard.eu/bs-en-15804-2012-a2-2019-sustainability-of-construction-works-environmental-product-declarations-core-rules-for-the-product-category-of-construction-products/?msclkid=7d9fea771bb111ddf4188e651fde9864 (accessed on 8 September 2020).
- NIPH. ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level Report I: Characterization; NIPH: Saitama, Tokyo, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- PRé Sustainability ReCiPe—PRé Sustainability. Available online: https://pre-sustainability.com/articles/recipe/ (accessed on 1 November 2022).
- Tu Delft. The Model of the Eco-Costs/Value Ratio (EVR); Tu Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Gluch, P.; Baumann, H. The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: A conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ISO 15686-5:2017; Buildings and Constructed Assets—Service Life Planning—Part 5: Life-Cycle Costing. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/61148.html (accessed on 5 December 2022).
- WBCSD. Eco-Efficient Leadership for Improved Economic and Environmental Performance; World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, K.; Sturm, A. Standardized Eco-Efficiency Indicators-Report 1: Concept Paper; Ellipson AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Villar, Y.; Menéndez, M.; Fernández, Z.; Bernardo, A. Sustainable Earthworks: Optimization with the ICOM Method. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogenberger, C.; Dell’Amico, M.; Fuellerer, G.; Hoefinger, G.; Iori, M.; Novellani, S.; Panicucci, B. Two-Phase Earthwork Optimization Model for Highway Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 05015003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monu, K.; Ransinchung, G.D.; Singh, S. Effect of Long-Term Ageing on Properties of RAP Inclusive WMA Mixes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 206, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debbarma, S.; Ransinchung, G.D.; Singh, S.; Sahdeo, S.K. Utilization of Industrial and Agricultural Wastes for Productions of Sustainable Roller Compacted Concrete Pavement Mixes Containing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregates. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asmatulaev, B.A.; Asmatulaev, R.B.; Abdrasulova, A.S.; Levintov, B.L.; Vitushchenko, M.F.; Stolyarskiiv, O.A. Using Blast-Furnace Slag in Road Construction. Steel Transl. 2007, 37, 722–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Praticò, F.G.; Giunta, M.; Mistretta, M.; Gulotta, T.M. Energy and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Pavement Materials and Technologies for Urban Roads. Sustainability 2020, 12, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Parameter | Metrics (Units) | Requirement |
---|---|---|
Road surface luminance (dry) | Luminance (cd/m2) | 0.30 |
Average luminance, Lav (cd/m2) | 0.30 | |
Overall uniformity, Uo | 0.35 | |
Longitudinal uniformity Ul | 0.40 | |
Disruptive glare | Threshold increment, TI (%) | 15 |
Lighting of the surroundings | Edge illuminance ratio REI | No requirements |
Geometric Parameters (a) | Light Indicators (b) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Distance between columns(m) | 23 | Lm (cd/m2) | 1.15 |
Light point height (m) | 6 | Uo | 0.36 |
Light projection (m) | −0.5 | Ut | 0.62 |
Inclination (°) | 0 | TI (%) | 12 |
Distance between column and carriageway (m) | 0.3 |
Scenario | S1-HPS | S2-HA | S3-LG | S4-LPH |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tension (V) | 100 | 230 | 90 | 24 |
Power (W) | 100 | 500 | 68 | 83 |
Light flux (lm) | 10,700 | 10,250 | 11,200 | 10,160 |
Color (K) | 2000 | 2900 | 3000 | 4000 |
Lifespan (h) | 23,500 | 2000 | 50,000 | 50,000 |
Ballast/Controller | SI | NO | SI | SI |
Life Cycle Phases | Main Assumptions for Road | Main Assumptions for Lighting System |
---|---|---|
Extraction and production of raw materials, fuel, and products | Includes transportation of materials and use of heavy machinery. Reuse of raw materials from construction processes. | Includes the extraction and processing of raw materials for the manufacture of lighting system components. |
Construction | Includes transportation of materials and use of heavy machinery. Reuse of raw materials from construction processes. | The manufacturing process for components is considered. Logistics (packaging and transport) is excluded. |
Operation and maintenance (20 years) * | Road traffic is not considered. Tasks related to winter service (i.e., road salting and snow clearance). Cleaning of roads and sewers is not considered. | Same range of luminescence for all scenarios. Includes the number of bulb replacements. Corrective and preventive maintenance of the lighting system is considered (i.e., regular check-ups, cleaning of luminaires, and replacement of lamps and auxiliary equipment at the end of their useful life). Includes a grid or a standalone photovoltaic system. |
Disposal and end of life | Demolition or dismantling of the road is not included. | Landfill. Recycling (reuse, recycling, and incineration). |
Scenario | Technology/Powered | Power | Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) | Number of Items (Bulbs) * |
---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | HPS/grid | 100 W | 14,851 (from de grid) | 120 |
S2 | HA/grid | 500 W | 65,307 (from the grid) | 630 |
S3 | LED/grid | 68 W | 10,671 (from de grid) | 60 |
S4 | LED/standalone photovoltaic system | 83 W | 10,671 | 60 |
Impact Category * | Unit | Earthwork | Drainage | Pavement | Sidewalk Zones | Systems | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate change | kg CO2 eq | 2.5 × 105 | 3.1 × 104 | 4.9 × 104 | 5.0 × 104 | 3.3 × 105 | 7.1 × 105 |
Ozone depletion | kg CFC-11 eq | 4.1 × 10−2 | 1.9 × 10−3 | 2.3 × 10−2 | 2.7 × 10−3 | 3.8 × 10−2 | 1.1 × 10−1 |
Terrestrial acidification | kg SO2 eq | 1.4 × 103 | 9.1 × 101 | 3.1 × 102 | 1.6 × 102 | 1.7 × 103 | 3.7 × 103 |
Freshwater eutrophication | kg P eq | 3.5 × 101 | 3.4 × 100 | 6.0 × 100 | 6.0 × 100 | 9.6 × 101 | 1.5 × 102 |
Marine eutrophication | kg N eq | 1.7 × 102 | 1.6 × 101 | 4.3 × 101 | 2.6 × 101 | 7.8 × 102 | 1.0 × 103 |
Human toxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 8.4 × 104 | 5.2 × 103 | 1.2 × 104 | 9.8 × 103 | 1.3 × 105 | 2.4 × 105 |
Photochemical oxidant formation | kg NMVOC | 1.7 × 103 | 9.8 × 101 | 3.6 × 102 | 1.4 × 102 | 1.3 × 103 | 3.6 × 103 |
Particulate matter formation | kg PM10 eq | 6.6 × 102 | 3.9 × 101 | 2.0 × 102 | 6.7 × 101 | 5.8 × 102 | 1.6 × 103 |
Terrestrial ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 1.0 × 102 | 1.3 × 101 | 1.3 × 101 | 1.1 × 101 | 2.7 × 101 | 1.7 × 102 |
Freshwater ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 2.3 × 103 | 1.5 × 102 | 3.7 × 102 | 3.1 × 102 | 9.0 × 103 | 1.2 × 104 |
Marine ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 2.7 × 103 | 1.5 × 102 | 3.9 × 102 | 3.2 × 102 | 8.0 × 103 | 1.2 × 104 |
Ionizing radiation | kBq U235 eq | 2.6 × 104 | 1.8 × 103 | 9.6 × 103 | 2.6 × 103 | 1.0 × 105 | 1.4 × 105 |
Agricultural land occupation | m2a | 4.8 × 103 | 2.3 × 103 | 7.4 × 103 | 1.8 × 103 | 1.4 × 104 | 3.0 × 104 |
Urban land occupation | m2a | 1.6 × 104 | 5.3 × 102 | 4.2 × 103 | 5.7 × 102 | 2.2 × 103 | 2.4 × 104 |
Transformation of natural land | m2 | 1.7 × 102 | 1.1 × 101 | 2.2 × 102 | 9.4 × 100 | 4.2 × 101 | 4.5 × 102 |
Water depletion | m3 | 1.9 × 104 | 4.4 × 102 | 3.8 × 102 | 1.4 × 104 | 6.8 × 103 | 4.0 × 104 |
Metal depletion | kg Fe eq | 1.6 × 104 | 1.1 × 103 | 2.2 × 103 | 6.3 × 103 | 3.0 × 104 | 5.6 × 104 |
Fossil depletion | kg oil eq | 8.6 × 104 | 4.8 × 103 | 4.4 × 104 | 8.6 × 103 | 1.1 × 105 | 2.5 × 105 |
Human health | DALY | 5.9 × 10−1 | 5.7 × 10−2 | 1.3 × 10−1 | 9.4 × 10−2 | 3.4 × 10−1 | 5.9 × 10−1 |
Ecosystems | Species.yr | 2.7 × 10−3 | 3.1 × 10−4 | 9.8 × 10−4 | 4.5 × 10−4 | 1.4 × 10−3 | 2.7 × 10−3 |
Resources | USD | 1.5 × 104 | 8.7 × 102 | 7.4 × 103 | 1.9 × 103 | 9.7 × 103 | 1.5 × 104 |
Impact Category * | Unit | S1-HPS | S2-HA | S3-LG | S4-LPH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate change | kg CO2 eq | 1.7 × 105 | 7.1 × 105 | 1.2 × 105 | 1.7 × 105 |
Ozone depletion | kg CFC-11 eq | 2.7 × 10−2 | 1.1 × 10−1 | 2.1 × 10−2 | 6.6 × 10−1 |
Terrestrial acidification | kg SO2 eq | 9.5 × 102 | 3.9 × 103 | 7.2 × 102 | 9.4 × 103 |
Freshwater eutrophication | kg P eq | 5.0 × 101 | 1.8 × 102 | 4.4 × 101 | 1.5 × 102 |
Marine eutrophication | kg N eq | 5.4 × 102 | 2.3 × 103 | 3.9 × 102 | 2.2 × 102 |
Human toxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 7.3 × 104 | 2.5 × 105 | 6.8 × 104 | 2.3 × 105 |
Photochemical oxidant formation | kg NMVOC | 5.2 × 102 | 2.2 × 103 | 3.9 × 102 | 1.3 × 103 |
Particulate matter formation | kg PM10 eq | 3.0 × 102 | 1.2 × 103 | 2.3 × 102 | 2.1 × 103 |
Terrestrial ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 1.3 × 101 | 4.5 × 101 | 1.1 × 101 | 5.4 × 101 |
Freshwater ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 7.1 × 103 | 3.0 × 104 | 5.4 × 103 | 7.6 × 103 |
Marine ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq | 6.3 × 103 | 2.6 × 104 | 4.8 × 103 | 7.2 × 103 |
Ionizing radiation | kBq U235 eq | 8.1 × 104 | 3.5 × 105 | 5.9 × 104 | 1.9 × 104 |
Agricultural land occupation | m2a | 6.3 × 103 | 2.6 × 104 | 4.8 × 103 | 7.6 × 103 |
Urban land occupation | m2a | 1.0 × 103 | 4.0 × 103 | 8.0 × 102 | 1.9 × 103 |
Natural land transformation | m2 | 2.6 × 101 | 1.1 × 102 | 1.9 × 101 | 3.0 × 101 |
Water depletion | m3 | 7.9 × 102 | 3.2 × 103 | 6.8 × 102 | 2.3 × 103 |
Metal depletion | kg Fe eq | 2.1 × 104 | 5.4 × 104 | 1.9 × 104 | 1.4 × 105 |
Fossil depletion | kg oil eq | 5.1 × 104 | 2.2 × 105 | 3.8 × 104 | 4.0 × 104 |
Human health | DALY | 3.7 × 10−1 | 1.5 × 100 | 2.8 × 10−1 | 9.5 × 10−1 |
Ecosystems | Species.yr | 1.5 × 10−3 | 6.3 × 10−3 | 1.1 × 10−3 | 1.6 × 10−3 |
Resources | USD | 1.0 × 104 | 4.0 × 104 | 7.6 × 103 | 1.7 × 104 |
Initial Cost (EUR) | Energy Consumption (EUR) | Preventive Maintenance (EUR) | Corrective Maintenance (EUR) | Total Cost (EUR) | NPV (EUR) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 3775.98 | 50,839.83 | 14,512.74 | 364.35 | 69,492.90 | 14,191.27 |
S2 | 5347.83 | 223,545.93 | 54,260.16 | 216.84 | 283,370.76 | 56,844.19 |
S3 | 8257.98 | 36,531.36 | 13,798.62 | 1596.51 | 60,184.47 | 12,825.92 |
S4 | 32,403.90 | 0.00 | 11,616.09 | 1563.06 | 45,583.05 | 16,430.39 |
Eco-Cost Categories | S1 | S1 | S1 | S1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Human health (EUR) | 294 | 1205 | 225 | 1571 |
Ecosystems (EUR) | 1167 | 4766 | 916 | 5406 |
Resource scarcity (EUR) | 1522 | 5768 | 1195 | 4877 |
Global warming | 1047 | 4452 | 776 | 1034 |
Total eco-cost (EUR) | 4031 | 16,192 | 3111 | 12,889 |
Scenario | Impact Value (Pt) | NPV (EUR) | Eco-Efficiency Index | |
S1 | 16,992.08 | 46,831.19 | 0.36 | |
S2 | 69,642.34 | 187,585.83 | 0.37 | |
S3 | 12,964.96 | 42,325.54 | 0.31 | |
S4 | 33,310.54 | 54,220.29 | 0.61 |
Indicators * | Units | S2-HA | S1-HPS | S3-LG | S4-LPH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate change | kg CO2 eq. | 7.1 × 105 | −76% | −83% | −77% |
Terrestrial acidification | kg SO2 eq. | 3.9 × 103 | −76% | −82% | 138% |
Freshwater eutrophication | kg P eq. | 1.8 × 102 | −73% | −76% | −18% |
Marine eutrophication | kg N eq. | 2.3 × 103 | −77% | −83% | −90% |
Human toxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq. | 2.5 × 105 | −71% | −73% | −9% |
Photochemical oxidant formation | kg NMVOC | 2.2 × 103 | −76% | −82% | −42% |
Particulate matter formation | kg PM10 eq. | 1.2 × 103 | −76% | −81% | 76% |
Terrestrial ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq. | 4.5 × 101 | −70% | −76% | 20% |
Freshwater ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq. | 3.0 × 104 | −76% | −82% | −75% |
Marine ecotoxicity | kg 1,4-DB eq. | 2.6 × 104 | −76% | −81% | −72% |
Ionizing radiation | kg U235 eq. | 3.5 × 105 | −77% | −83% | −94% |
Agricultural land occupation | m2a | 2.6 × 104 | −76% | −82% | −71% |
Urban land occupation | m2a | 4.0 × 103 | −75% | −80% | −54% |
Natural land transformation | m2 | 1.1 × 102 | −76% | −83% | −73% |
Water depletion | m3 | 3.2 × 103 | −75% | −79% | −28% |
Metal depletion | kg Fe eq. | 5.4 × 104 | −62% | −66% | 161% |
Fossil depletion | kg oil eq. | 2.2 × 105 | −77% | −83% | −82% |
LCA | LCC | |
---|---|---|
1, S3-LG | 12.96 kPt (19%) | EUR 42,326 (23%) |
2, S1-HPS | 16.99 kPt (24%) | EUR 46,831 (25%) |
3, S4-LPH | 33.31 kPt (48%) | EUR 54,220 (29%) |
4, S3-HA | 69.64 kPt (100%) | EUR 187,586 (100%) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Picardo, A.; Galván, M.J.; Soltero, V.M.; Peralta, E. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Costing of Lighting Systems for Environmental Design and Construction of Sustainable Roads. Buildings 2023, 13, 983. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040983
Picardo A, Galván MJ, Soltero VM, Peralta E. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Costing of Lighting Systems for Environmental Design and Construction of Sustainable Roads. Buildings. 2023; 13(4):983. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040983
Chicago/Turabian StylePicardo, Alberto, Manuel J. Galván, Víctor M. Soltero, and Estela Peralta. 2023. "A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment and Costing of Lighting Systems for Environmental Design and Construction of Sustainable Roads" Buildings 13, no. 4: 983. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040983