IITB Autumn 2020

CL665
End-Semester Examination
Solution
Multiple Choice Questions (1 mark for correct answer, 0 mark for wrong answer)

1. If you are using water obtained from rainwater harvesting, which category will it come under?

Blue water

2. ReCiPe impact assessment method considers three different cultural perspectives, namely,
heirarchist, egalitarian and individualist. Which of the following options represents the correct time
horizon considered by each of the perspectives?

Heirarchist=100 years, egalitarian=500 years and individualist = 20 years

3. Photosynthesis is an ecosystem service that is provided by nature. Which of the following categories
does it belong to?

Supporting service

4. What is the default time horizon used for the calculation of global warming potential?

100 years

5. Everything else remaining the same, increasing population will:

Decrease biocapacity

6. Which type of discount rate is preferred in order to encourage large scale investment in green
technologies to fight climate change?

Lower

7. Which of the following represents the desirable sequence of activities for managing waste (arranged
as more desirable to less desirable)

Reduce, reuse, recycle

8. Carbon footprint calculation of a particular product involves calculation of GHG emissions due to
diesel production that is used for transportation. In which scope will GHG emissions related to diesel
production be considered?

Scope 3

9. In the I=PAT equation, what does “A” stand for?

Affluence
IITB Autumn 2020

10. Increased modularity is proposed as a strategy in product design to promote circular economy (CE)
adoption. How does it help in promoting CE? Select all that apply.

It makes replacement of parts easier

It simplifies recycling of components

11. Electronic advertisement boards with LED displays are becoming more and more common these
days. Compare conventional (printed) advertisement boards (typically using flex) and electronic
advertisement boards from a sustainability perspective. Discuss in terms of the economic, social and
environmental dimensions. (6 marks)

Solution:
The discussion should be considering the three dimensions of sustainability. In the table below, I
have listed some positives and negatives for each of the options along each dimension.

Printed (Conventional) Electronic

Economic - Low capital cost - High capital cost

- High operating cost - Low operating cost
- Short lifetime requiring frequent re- - Long lifetime and can be used for
placements multiple advertisements

Environmental - Energy consumption during opera-
tion is very low (only lighting during
the nights): Low carbon footprint dur-
ing operation
- Use of inks and dyes while printing:
Possibility of emissions of harmful
chemicals to the atmosphere
- Disposal may again lead to emission
of harmful chemicals. Higher replace-
ment frequency means higher possi-
bility of such emissions
Social -Generates employment to unskilled
labor
- Maintenance is easier.
- Cost of such a display will be small.
Therefore, it might be easier for the
smaller industries to advertise their
products on these boards (electronic
boards may be too costly).
- Energy consumption during the op-
eration stage is high due the use of
on-board electronics and the LEDs:
Possibility of high carbon footprint
- Use of harmful chemicals for the
production of electronics required for
the display
- Avoids frequent replacement of
boards, leading to reduced overall
quantity of waste
- The display is more attractive and
catches attention more easily. There-
fore, leads to better advertisement of
the product.
- The display can be changed any-
time and hence could be used for dis-
playing emergency messages. For
example, on highways to notify acci-
dents, diversions etc., or on city cen-
ters for weather advisories.
- The bright display can cause dis-
traction to drivers and therefore may
cause accidents
IITB Autumn 2020

Grading policy: Two marks for discussing each dimension, one for highlighting the positives and one
for identifying some of the drawbacks.

12. Life cycle assessment of a bag of potato chips that we get in the shop is to be performed (including
the chips inside the bag). Draw a detailed product system for the same. If necessary, use multiple
pages to show the product system, and clearly show the connections between different pages. (8
marks)

Solution:

The product system is shown the figure:

Grading policy: 2 marks for capturing potato farming side with some detail. 2 marks for capturing
plastic bag manufacturing side with some detail. 2 marks for showing the post manufacturing phase
(use, disposal etc.) phase. 2 marks for showing the energy inputs at multiple points (diesel, electricity
etc.). If the details are missing, marks will be deducted.
IITB Autumn 2020

13. The system to manufacture a particular product consists of two connected unit processes as shown
in the figure here. Unit process 1 produces an intermediate, which is used by Unit process 2 to
produce the final product. Note that unit process 1 has one co-product, while unit process 2 has two
co-products. Consider all the raw materials and energy to be elementary flows, and all outputs
(except products and co-products) as emissions. All co-products are useful.

Given this information and values in the picture, answer the following questions:

A. Write the technology matrix (A) and the environmental intervention matrix (B) (6 marks)
B. Calculate the impacts for the production of 7 kg of final product (functional unit of 7 kg of final
product). The calculation can be done without using the matrix approach if you feel that is more
convenient. (8 marks)

I recommend that you re-draw the problem in your answer sheet first before starting to solve the
problem. This will avoid looking into mobile screen repeatedly. (Total: 14 marks)

Solution:

There are two unit processes. So, the number of columns will be two.

The product flows include:

• Intermediate product
• Co-product 1
• Final product
• Co-product 2
• Co-product 3

The elementary flows include:

• Raw material 1
• Raw material 2
• Energy
• N2O
IITB Autumn 2020

• CO2

This information can be used to construct the A and B matrices as follows:

𝑈𝑃1 𝑈𝑃2
𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 10 −10
𝐶𝑜 − 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 1 4 0
𝑨=
𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 0 7
𝐶𝑜 − 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 2 0 3
[ 𝐶𝑜 − 𝑝𝑟𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡 3 0 2 ]

𝑈𝑃1 𝑈𝑃2
𝑅𝑎𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 1 −20 0
𝑅𝑎𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 2 0 −5
𝑩=
𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 −100 −50
𝑁2𝑂 2 1
[ 𝐶𝑂2 4 2 ]

The calculation of the final impacts requires careful calculation due to the production of multiple co-
products at each of the two unit processes. The problem therefore is mainly about impact allocation.

Since the price or energy related information is not given in the problem, the only allocation possible
is mass based allocation. Therefore, we will us mass based allocation.

For a consideration of multiple unit processes, the allocation per mass has to be made for all upstream
unit processes. The allocation per mass requires that all inputs and all outputs are partitioned
according to the mass ratio of the co-products formed.
Allocation usually starts with the process that exhibits the final product as output (unit process 2 in this
case). The production of this unit process amounts to 12 kg overall, with the following constituents: 7
kg of the final product (58.33%), 3 kg of the co-product 2 (25%) and 2 kg of the co-product 3 (16.66%).

All inputs (here: energy, raw materials and intermediate products) and outputs (here: CO2 and waste)
are distributed (‘allocated’) according to the mass ratio of the product output. The following loads are
therefore allocated to 7 kg of the final product in process 2:

Unit process 2 allocation:

Energy for main product = 50 x 0.5833 = 29.16 MJ

Energy for co-product 2 = 50 x 0.25 = 12.5 MJ
Energy for co-product 3 = 50 x 0.1666 = 8.33 MJ

Similarly, other calculations and done and the numbers are summarized in the following table:

Main product Co-product 2.1 Co-product 2.2

Energy (MJ) 29.16 12.5 8.33
Raw material 2 (kg) 2.916 1.25 0.833
N2O (kg) 0.5833 0.25 0.1666
CO2 (kg) 1.166 0.5 0.3332
IITB Autumn 2020

Since Unit process 2 requires input from unit process 1, the impacts associated with unit process 1
must also be considered. Unit process 1 also has multiple products. It produces 10 kg of the desired
intermediate and 4 kg of a co-product. Therefore, the mass-based allocation factor of the desired
intermediate is 10/14=0.714, and the allocation factor for the co-product is 4/14=0.286. Using the
strategy explained above for unit process 2, the impact table after allocation is given as follows:

Intermediate product Co-product 1

Raw material 1 (kg) 15.28 5.72
Energy (MJ) 71.4 28.6
N2O (kg) 1.428 0.572
CO2 (kg) 2.856 1.144

The trick in this question though is not to add the impact obtained above in the table for process 1
directly to those for process 2. Note that as per the impact allocation for the main product in unit
process 2, only 58.33% of the impacts were considered for the main product while the others were
allocated to the co-products. Extending the same logic, the intermediate product must also be
allocated. Thus, only 58.33% of the intermediate product, i.e. 5.833 kg is required for the production
of the main product. Remaining 4.167 kg of intermediate that is transferred from unit process 1 to unit
process 2 is allocated to the co-products. As a result, the impacts of unit process 1 must accordingly
be scaled down while adding to those for unit process 2.

The following table shows the numbers:

Intermediate Intermediate product to be al-

product located to main product
Raw material 1 (kg) 15.28 8.913
Energy (MJ) 71.4 41.64
N2O (kg) 1.428 0.833
CO2 (kg) 2.856 1.666

The second column of the first table and the third column of the third table can now be summed to
give the total impact for 3 kg of main product.
Main product (7 kg functional unit)
Raw material 1 (kg) 8.913
Raw material 2 (kg) 0.833
Energy (MJ) 70.8
N2O (kg) 2.01
CO2 (kg) 4.022

Grading policy: 3 marks for correct technology matrix. 3 marks for correct environmental
intervention matrix. 4 marks for doing mass allocation for unit process 2. 4 marks for doing correct
mass allocation for unit process 1.

14. My family of three individuals uses 100 kg atta (wheat flour) annually. Calculate my ecological
footprint (in global hectares) due to wheat consumption. The following data are provided to you: 1 kg
of wheat gives 0.85 kg of atta. The average yield of wheat in India is 1500 kg/ha. The average yield
of wheat globally is 2700 kg/ha. The Equivalence factors (in global hectares per hectare) for cropland
is 2.51. (6 marks)

Solution:
IITB Autumn 2020

The total footprint calculation requires us to know the total quantity of wheat required, the national
yield, the yield factor, and the equivalence factor.

Total wheat required (kg) = 100/0.85 = 117.64 kg

Yield factor is the ratio of the national yield and the world average yield.
Therefore, yield factor = 1500/2700 = 0.555

Ecological footprint due to wheat = (117.64/1500) * 0.555 * 2.51 = 0.1092 gha

However, this is the ecological footprint of my family. I had asked for my footprint, which is going to
be lower. Assuming that all three members consume the same quantity of atta, my ecological foot-
print due to atta = 0.1092/3 = 0.0364 gha

Grading policy: 6 marks if your answer is correct. 4 marks if your total footprint number is correct
(0.0928 gha) but you have not done final allocation which divides the total impact into three parts. 2
marks if no allocation done, the answer is wrong but the method is correct. Zero marks if your
method also wrong (this case includes using a wrong form of the equation, ignoring yield factor, not
using equivalence factors etc.)

15. The total water footprint (direct and indirect) of a typical IITB student was calculated to be 358 m3 per
student per day. Is this water footprint sustainable? Explain the approach/calculations you will need
to do to make an assessment about the sustainability of this footprint number. Note that you are not
expected to do any calculations. Instead, explain how you will find answer to the question. (6 marks)

Solution:

The following important points constitute the answer and need to be discussed as part of the answer

• The water footprint number by itself is not sufficient to conclude if it is sustainable or not.
This is because the water footprint number only conveys the direct and indirect water used
by an individual (a student in this case). It does not consider the availability of water to sup-
port this level of consumption. All of you will agree that “sustainable” water consumption in a
region like Rajasthan would be much lower than a region like Kerala due to the natural avail-
ability of water. Therefore, in order to assess the sustainability of this water footprint, we
need to compare it with the water availability. (2 marks for explaining this)

The challenge is that the water footprint mentioned includes direct and indirect water footprint.
Therefore, the sustainability calculation needs to be done at the local level as well as
regional/global level.

The following steps will need to be performed:

• Determine the direct and indirect water footprint number from the total number of 358 m 3.
The direct water footprint is about 350 liters, and the rest is indirect. Determine the green
and blue water component out of this number.
• Out of the direct water footprint (350 liters), determine the blue water component (water used
from aquafers). Then we need to determine the total average capacity of the lakes and other
sources that provide water to Mumbai city. Such data are often published (during monsoon
season, you would often see reports that the lakes are 90% full and so on). We will also
need to determine the water table in the Mumbai region. Now we assume that each citizen of
the watershed that Mumbai belongs to consumes the same amount of blue water. That will
give us the total blue water requirement for the Mumbai watershed. If this water requirement
IITB Autumn 2020

is higher than the total water availability, then the direct blue water consumption is unsus-
tainable. If the consumption is lower than total availability, then the consumption is sustaina-
ble.
• A majority of the water footprint though comes from the indirect water consumption. Here
again, the basic approach will remain the same. For example, one of the major components
of the indirect water footprint is food. Let us take the example of vegetables. We would need
to know specifically the location from which the vegetables are procured. Then we will need
to do the water balance calculation that we did for direct consumption. This is going to be
extremely complicated since vegetables being grown in that region will be one of the several
products. Moreover, the total land on which a specific vegetable is grown is going to be sup-
porting multiple products and those products would be used by multiple people. Therefore, a
complex allocation will be required. However, conceptually, it will have to be based on the
water supply and demand matching.

Grading policy: 2 marks for explaining the first point. 1 mark for mentioning the need to separate
direct and indirect water footprint. 2 marks for explaining the water demand and supply matching
concept (either for direct or indirect). 1 mark for mentioning the role of location where the indirect wa-
ter was consumed in performing the analysis for indirect water footprint.