Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment comparison between two switchgear designs: Eliminating SF6 gas under European legislation

IF 9.8 1区 社会学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Sara M. Pinto , Joana R. Gouveia , J. Atilano , Rafaela C. Gonçalves , Luís Tovar , Pedro Cruz Lima , Filipe Rocha , Rafael Leite , L. Oliveira
{"title":"Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment comparison between two switchgear designs: Eliminating SF6 gas under European legislation","authors":"Sara M. Pinto ,&nbsp;Joana R. Gouveia ,&nbsp;J. Atilano ,&nbsp;Rafaela C. Gonçalves ,&nbsp;Luís Tovar ,&nbsp;Pedro Cruz Lima ,&nbsp;Filipe Rocha ,&nbsp;Rafael Leite ,&nbsp;L. Oliveira","doi":"10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Due to recent changes in European regulations and pressure to reduce emissions in the energy sector, secondary distribution boards have been going through structural and functional modifications by manufacturers to reduce and even eliminate the use of sulphur hexafluoride (SF<sub>6</sub>). This inert gas has a high global warming potential and is commonly used in this equipment for insulation. The present study was carried out to compare the environmental performance of two switchgear models from a cradle-to-gate and use perspective. The new design (neoGEN model), which does not use SF<sub>6</sub>, was compared with the previous model (FluoFix). The environmental performance of these models was compared through life cycle assessment methodology, using ReCiPe 2016 at the midpoint and endpoint level, analysing all categories included in this method. The assessment focused on the production stages located in Portugal but also included the transport to the final customer and the use stage (the release of SF<sub>6</sub>). The results of the production stage show that the FluoFix model has 5 % more environmental impacts than neoGEN due to the copper and stainless steel used in the structure at an endpoint level. On a midpoint level, the results show some gains in the analysed categories, displaying a higher reduction in global warming potential (19 %) and stratospheric ozone depletion (64 %) categories. Finally, the assessment of the use stage considered scenarios in which the equipment would have a potential leakage between 7 % and 22 % (best case scenario) and between 15,7 % and 41 % (worst case scenario). This analysis demonstrated that in a scenario where leakages are minimal, the use of neoGEN shows a 74 % reduction in the global warming potential category. For future work, designers should focus on finding new materials that can replace or reduce copper and steel in the switchgear structure to reduce the environmental impact of this equipment and avoid the use of SF<sub>6</sub> gas.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":309,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","volume":"112 ","pages":"Article 107791"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925524003780","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to recent changes in European regulations and pressure to reduce emissions in the energy sector, secondary distribution boards have been going through structural and functional modifications by manufacturers to reduce and even eliminate the use of sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). This inert gas has a high global warming potential and is commonly used in this equipment for insulation. The present study was carried out to compare the environmental performance of two switchgear models from a cradle-to-gate and use perspective. The new design (neoGEN model), which does not use SF6, was compared with the previous model (FluoFix). The environmental performance of these models was compared through life cycle assessment methodology, using ReCiPe 2016 at the midpoint and endpoint level, analysing all categories included in this method. The assessment focused on the production stages located in Portugal but also included the transport to the final customer and the use stage (the release of SF6). The results of the production stage show that the FluoFix model has 5 % more environmental impacts than neoGEN due to the copper and stainless steel used in the structure at an endpoint level. On a midpoint level, the results show some gains in the analysed categories, displaying a higher reduction in global warming potential (19 %) and stratospheric ozone depletion (64 %) categories. Finally, the assessment of the use stage considered scenarios in which the equipment would have a potential leakage between 7 % and 22 % (best case scenario) and between 15,7 % and 41 % (worst case scenario). This analysis demonstrated that in a scenario where leakages are minimal, the use of neoGEN shows a 74 % reduction in the global warming potential category. For future work, designers should focus on finding new materials that can replace or reduce copper and steel in the switchgear structure to reduce the environmental impact of this equipment and avoid the use of SF6 gas.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
10.10%
发文量
200
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Impact Assessment Review is an interdisciplinary journal that serves a global audience of practitioners, policymakers, and academics involved in assessing the environmental impact of policies, projects, processes, and products. The journal focuses on innovative theory and practice in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Papers are expected to present innovative ideas, be topical, and coherent. The journal emphasizes concepts, methods, techniques, approaches, and systems related to EIA theory and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信