.

ii Footpririt Assessment

We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one.
Jacques Cousteau
In sustainability assessment, the term footprint refers to the direct and indirect
environmental impact of an activity represented in terms of a single unit. This
approach has been popular owing to its relative simplicity and to focus on impor-
tant environmental challenges such as climate change, freshwater scarcity, and
exceeding planetary biocapacity. In this chapter we will learn about two com-
monly used methods, based on either the carbon footprint or the water footprint.
We will also understand the shortcomings of the footprint approach and the nexus
between multiple footprints.

11.1 Carbon Footprint

Interest in the carbon footprint has been driven by concerns about anthropogenic
climate change due to emission of greenhouse gases and their increasing atmo-
spheric concentration. The global trend of sorne greenhouse gases over the last
few hundred thousand years is summarized in Figure 2.18. In addition to CO2,
other major greenhouse gases (GHGs) include methane, nitrous oxide, and various
chiorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochiorofluorocarbon (HCFC) compounds. Their
trends in recent years are shown in Figure 11.1. Concentrations of CO2 and N2 0
have continually increased, the former mainly due to the use of fossil fuels, while
the latter is mainly from application of artificial nitrogen fertilizers. Oscillations in
these graphs are at the scale of about a year, and are due to seasonal variation. The
concentration of CFCs has started decreasing, thanks to their being banned by the
Montreal Protocol. However, HCFC concentrations continue to increase. Methane
emissions are mainly from cows, rice paddies, and the natural gas infrastructure.
Its concentration also continues to increase, and is beyond roughly three times the
highest concentration in the last several hundred thousand years.
Since the contribution of each GHG to radiative forcing is different, to determine
the overali impact ah GHQ emissions are represented in terms of carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2 eq). The contributions of various QHGs to CO2eq are enabled by
factors such as those summarized in Table 11.1. The global warming potentials
 Table 111 Global warmtng potenttals relative to CO2 [2]
GWP for given time horizon

Comrnon name Chemical formula 20-yr 100-yr •• 500-yr

Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide
Co2

N20 . 289
4II 25
298
:1

153
CFC-11 ÇC13F 6730 4750 ; 1620
Carbon tefrciiioride, Ccl 2700 1400 435:
HCFC-22 CHClF2 5160 1810 549
HFC-134a' CH2FÇF3 3830 1430 435
Sulfur hexafluoride SF6 l6,3O0 22,800 32,600
yori CH3 Ci

330
400
325
Carbon dioxide = Nitrous oxide
Parts per miflion (ppm)

Parts per billion (ppb)

390 (CO2) = (N20)

320
380
315
370
310
360
305
350

340 300

330 295
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

600
1850

500
1800
Parts per tr illion (ppt)

Methane
: (CH4) 400
1750

a 1700 300

- 1650 200

1600 100

- a
1550 o IltI iItL._lItt
1
iilI___!__

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Figure 11.1 Atmospheric concentration of major greenhouse gases [1].

(GWP) in this table show that if we consider a 100-year period then, based on
their mass, methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 , while N2 0 is 298 times
more potent. Their potency changes with time according to how long each gas
lasts in the atmosphere and how it changes. In 2016, in terms of CO2 equivalents,
 11.1 Carbon Footprint 209

the atmosphere contained 489 ppm CO2 eq, an increase of almost 40 percent since
1990. [1] Aggregating GHGs into the single unit of CO2 eq is done using

GWP = mGWP

where GWP is the GWP of thejth GHG and m is its mass. Note that this equation
is equivalent to Equation 10.16.

Example 11.1 A life cycle inventory consists of the foliowing emissions: 20 kg

of CO2, 0.001 kg of CFC-11, 0.5kg of N2 0, and 2 kg of NO2. Determine the GWP
using a 100-year time horizon.

Solution
Using Table 11.1, the GWP of these emissions is

GWP = (20 x 1) + (0.001 x 4750) + (0.5 x 298)

173.8 kg CO2 eq

Note that NO2 does not contribute to global warming and is excluded from this
calculation.

Data about GHQ emissions from various human activities are compiled in public
and private databases. The US Environmental Protection Agency compiles data
about GHG fiows in the USA and the world [3]. The US inventory contains sources
and sinks, and is surnmarized in Figure 11.2. As can be seen in this figure, total
emissions in 2016 were about 6.5 billion tons of CO2 eq, while sequestration was
about 1 billion tons CO2 eq. This indicates an overshoot of about 5.5 billion tons
CO2 eq in 2016 aboye nature's capacity to sequester CO2 in the USA. This quantity
is sequestered by ecosystems in other parts of the world or it accumulates in the
atmosphere.

8000
7000 -
(1) Waste
o 6000 Industrial processes
Agriculture
5000 -
E a) 4000 -
.2 5
= a. 3000 -
a)
(1)0 2000 -
cS.J

1000 -

E o Land use, Iand-use

w change, and forestry
—1000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Year

Figure 11.2 Greenhouse gas emissions and sinks in the USA. Adapted from [3].
210 11 FootprintAssessment

Figure 11 .3 Scope of carbon footprint calculations.

The boundary of carbon footprint calculations is often classified as Scope 1, 2,

or 3. As depicted in Figure 11.3, Scope 1 is a narrow boundary that considers direct
GHG ernissions from only selected processes; Scope 2 includes GHG emissions in
generating the electricity and those caused by the heating that is used in the
processes included in Scope 1; and Scope 3 is the fuil life cycle GHG ernissions.
The overail approach of carbon footprint calculations is the same as that coy-
ered in Chapters 8, 9, and 10, but with only QHG fiows included in the model and
characterization by GWP values like those in Table 11.1. GHG emission factors for
sorne common materials and activities are given in Table 11.2, while carbon foot-
prints of sorne comrnon products are shown in Table 11.3. The carbon footprints of
common food items normalized in different ways are shown in Figure 11.4 [4]. The
carbon footprint of global trade is described in Box 11.1. This demonstrates the
importance of considering GHG ernissions at the life cycle scale (Scope 3), since
otherwise the shifting of emissions to other geographic regions due to global trade
may be overlooked.

Example 11.2 Consider a business that burns 10,000 m3 of natural gas per year;
its annual transportation needs involve driving 50,000 km in vehicles that travel
12 km per liter of gasoline, and its annual electricity consurnption is 100,000
kWh. The business is located in the New England region of the USA. Determine
the Scope 1, 2, and 3 carbon footprints.
Solution
The Scope 1 carbon footprint includes GHG emissions directly from the business.
Using the factors in Tables 11.1 and 11.2, the Scope 1 footprint based on natural
gas and transportation may be calculated as foliows:
 11.1 Carbon Footprint 211

Table 11 2 Greenhous

CO2 factor, CH4 factor, N20 factor,

Item kg/unit kg/unit kglunit Unit.

Bituminous coal 2.563 0.302 0.044 kg

Natural gas 1.922 0.03 6 0004 m
Kerosene 366.9 41.22 ;n77
Motor gasoline 2.32 L.
Diesel 2.697 L
Ethanol 1 Ç1 q

CNG
Emissions due to the generation of electricity for selected US regions

New England 327.8 0.033 0.006 MWh

Northwest 382.5 0.007 0.006 MWh
Rockies 86 1.1 0.01 0.013 MWh
Midwest 822.1 0.009 0.013 MWh
South 614.8 0.01 0.009
California 277.3 0.013 0.003 M

50,000
GWP51 = 10,000 x [(1.922 x 1) + (0.036 x 25) + (0.004 X 298)] + x 2.32
12
= 49,807 kg CO2 eq

The Scope 2 footprint includes the emissions due to electricity and heating, which
for this example are calculated as foliows:
100,000
GWP 2 = GWP i + - x [(327.8 x 1) + (0.033 X 25) + (0.006 X 298)]
1000
= 82,848 kg CO2 eq

For the Scope 3 calculations, we may use a process life cycle assessment (LCA)
or the input-output LCA model. This example uses the latter with the 2002 EIO
(economic input-output) model. The cost of natural gas may be found to be 10.42
cents/m3, gasoline is $0.359 per liter, and electricity is 4.88 cents/kWh. Thus, the
business buys $1042 of natural gas, $1496 of gasoline, and $4880 of electricity.
The total CO2 eq emission intensities for sectors producing a dollar's worth of these
items may be found from environmentally extended input-output tables to be 2.43
kg/$, 2.79 kg/$, and 9.37 kg/$, respectively. Then, the Scope 3 carbon footprint is

GWP 3 GWPs + (2.43 x 1042) ± (2.79 x 1496) + (9.3 7 x 4880)

= 135,280 kg CO2eq
212 11 Footprint Assessment

Table 11.3 Carbon footprint in gCO2eq/kWh of sorne pathways for generating electricity
ifltheUSA.[6

Item C footpriñt

Coal - fluidized bed 1144

Coal - integrated gasification combustion cycle.: 903
Coal - pulverized 'L989
Coal - supercritical 768
Natural gas - natural gas combined cycle 449 9i
Natural gas - natural gas combustion turbine, 588
Nuclear - boiing water reactor 13
Nuclear - hght water reactor
Nuclear - pressurized water reactor.
Wind - offshore and onshore 11 •
Hydropower
Geothermal - enhanced geothermal system
Geothermal - flash steam
Concentrated solar power - dish
Concentrated solar power - tower 33
Concentrated solar power - trough 27
Photovoltaic - monocrystalline Si, ground-mounted 40
Photovoltaic - monocrystalline Si, roóftop 40
Photovoltaic - polycrystalline Si, ground-mounted 69
Photovoltaic - polyciystalline Si, rooftop 46
Biopower - agricultural residues 37
Biopower - animal wastes 40
Biopower - forest residues 34
Biopower - herbaceous crops 50
Biopower - mill wastes 15
Biopower - other wastes 51
Biopower - urban wastes 37
Biopower - woody crops 43
Biopower - coñring 48
Biopower - direct combustion 35
Biopower - gasification 47

Example 11.3 For the problem in Example 10.4, determine the carbon footprint
of 1 kWh electricity.
Solution
From the result for r, the carbon footprint of this system is 0.7 kg CO2eq/kWh,
since among the emissions, only CO2 has a GWP.
 11.1 CarbonFootprint 213

(a)
6
Omnivorous diet
GHG (g CO2 Ceq per kcal)

4 Mediterraneán diet

3 Pescetarian 'diet

2
Vegetarian diet
1

o —.1 _: III
Cereals 1 Sugar~oil Fruit+vegetable Dairy~eggl Fish Livestock
(b) -

350

. 300-
2:
ci) -

250

200
cJ -

o 150-
o -

''III
SE??
ioo-
(9
1 -

(9 50

O
Cereals , Sugar+oil Fruit+vegetable 1 Dairy+egg 1 Fish Livestock
(c)
70 —

c
ci)
o 60
o-
0) 50-
o) -
o-
g 40:
cJ -

o =
o
0)
20
o
1
o 10-

o 1 !NANANANA NANA _NAI 1

C5
cp

dÇ

Figure 11.4 Carbon footprint of food items and diets. Reproduced with permission from [4].
214 11 Footprint Assessment

BOX 11.1 Dkect Emissions versus Carbon Footprint of Global

Trade

Many businesses arid countries often make claims about reductions in their carbon dicixide
ernissions. Such claims are based on trends like those in Figure 11.5, which show that CO2
emissions in the industrialized countries are constant or decreasing, while those in developin
countries such as China and India are increasing [7]. These trends are based on direct
emissions from each country or region, or production-based accounting. Howeve with
increasing globalization, a lot of the energy-intensive rnariufacturing activities that used to be
based in the developed countries have shifted, mainly to China and sorne other developing
countries. The map in Figure 11.6 shows the flow of carbon dioxide embodied in global trade
(Scope 3 carbon footprint) between countries [8]. This carbon footprint is based on
consurnption-based accounting. It uses a global input—output model to account for direct and
indirect ernissions using the methods described in Section 10.2. The results are quite different
from those based on direct emissions. As can be seen in Figure 11.7, direct or territorial
ernissions, shown as gray bars, have decreased between 1990 and 2011 for many countries
and have even reached the Kyoto Protocol targets shown by circles [9]. However, if we
consider the carbon footprints of each territory, shown as black unes, only Russia and Ukraine
show reduced total ernissions.

1000 million tormes CO2

12

lo -
China

8-

United States
6-

Eutopean Union (EU27)

4-

Russian Federation
2 o --_ —
Japan

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014

Figure 11.5 Direct emission of CO2 from the top five emitting countries and the European Union [7].
 11.2 WaterFootprint 215

Figure 11.6 co2 emissions embodied in trade in Mt COIyr from net exporting countries to net
importing countries. Reproduced with permission from [8].

O Japan
EU 27
O Kyoto target France
Territorial emissions
— Consumption-based Spain
emissions
UK
Italy
Germany
® USA
O Canada
Poland
Russia
Ukraine
—60% —40% —20% 0% 20% 40%
Change 1990-2011

Figure 11.7 Direct (territorial) and total (life cyde or consumption-based) CO2 emissions from selected
territories. [9]

11 .2 Water Footprint

The water footprint approach [10] provides insight into the direct and indirect
dependence of products, processes, and other systems on water. Such insight is
increasingly important, particularly for water-intensive activities in water-stressed
regions of the world. We learned about such regions in Section 2.3. The water
footprint relies on the concept of virtual water, which is the water used to make a
216 11 FootprintAssessment

product or service. Water use is defined as the water in the product and the water
that cannot be used directly for any other purpose. For example, the virtual water
use in thermal power is mainly due to evaporative losses and leaks, and the virtual
water in a beverage is the water contained in it. Water that may be withdrawn and
then returned to the environment in a form in which it can be used directly is not
included in water use or virtual water.
The water footprint is the water used directly and indirectly to make a product
or service. Thus, it is a sum of direct and indirect virtual water fiows. The water
footprint of thermal electricity includes the water used in steps of its life cycle
such as mining and cleaning coal, producing solvents used for scrubbing the flue
gas, manufacturing of equipment, etc. For a geographic region or nation, its water
footprint accounts for the virtual water in imports and exports along with water
use in the region.
Example 11.4 The production of 1 kg of product E withdraws 200 liters of water
from a river, and returns 150 liters at a downstream location. The manufacture
of 1 kg of this product also requires 0.2 kg of A, 5 kg of B, and 1 kg of C. These
resources, A, B, and C, use 100, 10, and 80 liters of water per kilogram, respectively.
Determine the virtual water required formaking 1 kg of E, and its water footprint.

Solution
Since the virtual water includes only the direct water use, the virtual water
requirement of E is VE = 200 — 150 = 50 liters.
The water footprint of E considers both the direct and indirect use. We may
define a boundary that includes the resources A, B, and C needed to make product
E but ignores activities beyond these resources. Then, the water footprint of E may
be calculated as follows:

FW,E = 50 + (0.2 x 100) + (5 x 10) + (1 x 80)

= 200 liters

To account for different sources of water and changes in quality, most water
footprint calculations consider the following three categories of water.
• Blue water. This category includes fresh water available at the surface in rivers,
lakes, and canais, and below the surface as groundwater.
• Green water. This consists of precipitation that falls on land and does not
runoff or recharge the aquifer.
• Gray water. This category focuses on the quality of water. It is the water needed
to dilute pollutants to acceptable leveis.
The water footprint of many common products is shown in Table 11.4.
Determining the quantity of gray water often requires a material balance
calculation with information about the current and desired concentrations of con-
taminants in the water. Let the pollutant loading be P (mass/time), the maximum
 11.2 WaterFootprint 217

Item - Quantity . Waterfootprmt (L)

Apple
Banana 1 (200 g 160
Beef 15415
- - :3R. , ,
'. J
Beer "- 1 glass 250 m j ,. 74
Corn ethánó 1 liter ç 2854
Cheese 1 kg .,: 't i: 3178 c'

Chicken meat 1 kg ' ri •- 4325

Cotton 1 shirt (250 g) 2495
Leather (bovine 1 kg 17,09 3
Pizza 1 pizza 1259
Pork 1 kg 5988
Rice * ' 49L

Gray water
at natural
1 concentration,
Wgy Cnt
Pollution
load, P
Stream at
maximum
concentration,
WgrayCm

Figure 11.8 Pollutant balance for determining gray water.

allowed concentration of contaminant be Cm (mass/volume), and the natural

concentration of this contaminant in the environment be Cnat. Then, the gray
water footprint for this flow may be calculated as
P
Wgray =
Cm — Cnat
From a material balance point of view, this equation describes the pollution load
being combined with a volume of gray water at its natural concentration to result
in a stream with the maximum allowable concentration. This is illustrated in
Figure 11.8.

Example 11.5 The fuel and electricity modules shown in Figure 11.9 are identi-
cal to those in Figure 9.1, except that the fuel production module uses 100 L of
water from a local river, while the electricity production module uses 10 L from
a reservoir. Fuel production results in a wastewater stream of 10 L leaving the
facility with a 10 percent concentration of contaminant by volume. The maximum
allowed contaminant concentration is 5 percent, and the natural concentration is
2 percent. Calculate the water footprint of 1 kWh of electricity.
218 11 Footprint Assessment

Crude oil, 50 L Fuel, 2 L

Pl Fuel, 20 L P2 Electricity, 10 kWh
Water, 100 L Fuel ) Water, 10 L Electricity
production generation

SO2, 2 kg SO2, 0.1 kg

--Waste water,
10 L CO2, 10kg CO2, 1 kg

Figure 11.9 ModulesforExample 11.5.

Solution
The modules for this problem are shown in Figure 11.9. As shown in Example 9.1,
the technology matrix for this example is given in Equation 10.3 as

[20 —21 [Si [fi

[o 10][s2 [f2
To produce 1 kWh of electricity, fi = O and f2 = 1. Therefore, the scaling factors
[0.01
ares=l
[0.1
The water used in the two processes belongs to the blue water category. There
is no use of green water. Gray water is used to dilute the effluent.
The pollutant load in the effluent is given by

PzCeffVeff

= 0.1 x 10

Given that Cmax = 0.05 and Cnat = 0.02, using Equation 11.1,
1
Wgray =
0.05 — 0.02
= 33 L

The intervention matrix for the three water categories may be written as

r0 0 1 Tgreen
r1i
oo o jLs2]=
1 Tblue
[-33 0 Tgray

For 1 kWh of electricity, fi = 0, f2 = 1. Solving the aboye equations results in

[o
r
= —2 . Adding the elements in r provides the water footprint as 2.3 L.
[-0.3
 11.3 Characteristics of Footprint Methods 219

TabIe5~Carbon an water footprinting and requtrements stainabi

assessrffflnethods

Demand for ecosystem services
Supply of ecosystem services
Spatial scales
Temporal interactions
Cross-disciplinary interactions
Multiple fiows
The carbon footprint corsideii the demand for the
carbon sequestration ecosystem service in terms of
CO2 emissions, while the water footprint focuses
mainly on the water provisioning ecosystem services
in terms of the volume of water consumed..
Neither method accounts for the capacity of ecosys-
tems to supply the relevant ecosystern service.
Methods for carbon and water footprinting account
for multiple spatial scales, using thenetworkanaIysis
we covered in Chapter 10.
Neither method considers dynamic effects
Neither method considers the effect on other disci-
plines of decisions to reduce these
Footprint methods aim to provide univariate:
indicators, and therefore do not account for fiows
other than a selected few.

1113 Characteristics of Footprint Methods

Metrics based on carbon and water footprints are popular owing to their simplicity
and ease of interpretation. Let us now consider how well these rnethods satisfy the
requirements for sustainability assessment methods that were summarized in Box
3.3. As described in Table 11.5, footprint rnethods are best used for considering
the demand for sorne ecosystem goods and services and for considering multiple
spatial scales. Advancing these rnethods to satisfy other requirements is part of
ongoing research.
One important shortcoming of footprint rnethods is that they do not take into
account the interaction between different fiows such as GHGs, food, energy, and
water. These fiows are often dependent on each other, as illustrated in Table 11.6
for the water—energy nexus. The top part of this table shows how energy needs
water, while the bottom part shows how water needs energy. Thus, efforts to
reduce water or energy use must consider this nexus to prevent the shifting of
impacts from one type of resource flow to another. The use of univariate metrics
like the carbon and water footprints can miss such interactions. Owing to this
water—energy nexus, efforts to increase the availability of fresh water by treat-
ment methods such as reverse osmosis are likely to increase energy use, just as
efforts to use biofuels are likely to increase water use.
220 11 Footprint Assessment

Energydepends dñwater [11]

Item vvater ..... Un1f)
Coal :.. 16O. L/GJ
Crude oil 1O6O L/GJ
Uranium 90 /GJ
Solar thermal 27Q L/G
Hydroelectric 22,000: L/GJ
Biofuel 70,000 /GJ)
Water depends on Energy [121
Item Ener Unit
Disinfection - 360
Reverse osmosis 2844 :
Desalination 14,400
Bottled water 8,000,000

In addition to the carbon and water footprints, other footprints have also been
developed. The nitrogen footprint quantifies fiows associated with introducing
reactive nitrogen in the environment. The major impacts of these fiows are acid-
ification and eutrophication. The ecological footprint is another approach that
represents multiple fiows and represents them in the common unit of land area.
We will learn about the ecological footprint in Chapter 16.

Key Ideas and Concepts

e Global warming potential • Carbon dioxide equivalents

• Blue water • Green water
• Gray water • Virtual water
• Energy-water nexus • Ecological footprint

11 .4 Review Questions

1. Define the carbon footprint and water footprint.

2. What are Scope 1, 2, and 3 footprint calculations?
3. What is the net overshoot of CO2 emission and sequestration in the USA?
4. What is the meaning of the term "embodied carbon in trade"?
5. What is virtual water? How is it related to the water footprint?
 11.3 Characteristics of Footprint Methods 221

Table 11.7 Greenhouse gas concentration in atrnosphere before 1750 and in 2013 [1311.
:. .. .. .
Pre-1750 Recent ' c
tropospheric troposphenc
Gas concentration concentration Units -

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 280 395.4 ppm

Methane (CH4) 722 1827.5 ppb
Nitrous oxide (N20) 270 325 ppb
Tropospheric ozone (03) 237 337 ppb
CFC-11 (CC13F) Zero 235 ppt
CFC-12 (CCI2F2) Zero 527 ppt
CFC- 113 (CC12 CC1F2) Zero 74. ppt
HCFC-22 (CHCIF2) Zero 220.5 i:
HCFC-141b (CH3CC12F) Zero 22.5 ,ppt
HCFC- 142b (CH3 CC1F2) Zero 22 . ppt
Halon 1211 (CBrC1F2) Zero 4.05 pp
Halon 1301 (CBrF3) Zero 3•3 ppt
HFC-134a (CH2FCF3) Zero 69.5 ppt
Carbon tetrachioride (CC14) Zero 84 ppt
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) Zero 7.59 ppt
Other halocarbons Zero Vanes by substance

Problems

11.1 Calculate the CO2 equivalents for the atmosphere before 1750 and in 2013
using the data in Table 11.7. Use a 100-year time horizon. Identify the
largest contributors to the increase in GWP, and discuss their primary
sources.
11.2 Many universities across the world have committed to becoming carbon
neutral within the next few decades. This is encouraging many efforts to
reduce waste such as the "My Cup" program, where the university provides
a reusable cup to students for hot and coid beverages, and a small
discount when it is used. The carbon footprint of a conventional paper
coffee cup for a selected American campus is determined to be 1.5011 kg
CO2 eq per cup. The reusable cup has a footprint of 3.055 kg CO2 eq. A
campus survey found that during the academic year, a typical student
consumes a hot beverage 255 times. For an appropriate functional unit,
what will be the annual reduction in the campus carbon footprint per
student? Setting up this reusable cup program, providing the cups, and
operating the program costs the university $5 per cup. If the reduced CO2
emissions are worth $30 per ton CO2 eq, is the cost of this program
222 11 Footprint Assessment

justified? (Based on a problem developed by Timothy Becker, Brian Shawd,

Garrett Greco, and Daniel Meeks.)
11.3 An economic input-output model is represented by the foliowing
equations:

0.833x1 — 0.182x2 =fi

—0.667x +0.818x2 =f2

For throughputs of x1 = $200 and x2 = $400, sector 1 uses 50 L rainwater

and 20 L of river water, and emits 100 kg of CO2 and 1 kg of N2 0, while
Sector 2 uses 200 L of lake water and emits 200 kg of CO2. Determine the
carbon and water footprints of a dollar's worth of product from each
sector.
11.4 Why does the GWP of CO2 remain constant over time, that of CH4
decreases, and that of SF6 increases?
11.5 A typical data center, housing servers for cloud computing, consumes
7 MWh of electricity per year. The coinpany plans to develop flve new
data centers, with one each in New England, the Northwest, and the
Midwest, and two in California. Calculate the increase in the company's
carbon footprint due to this expansion. If ah the electricity was obtained
from concentrated solar power with a parabolic trough, what would be the
reduction in the carbon footprint of the new data centers? If ah the
electricity carne from nuclear light water reactors, what would be the
carbon footprint? Discuss the possible side-effects and unintended harm of
the solar and nuclear options.
11.6 The quantity of natural gas (CH4) produced in the USA in 2015 was 28
trillion cubic feet. Net emissions of methane to the environrnent during
this production were 6.4 million rnetric tons. The ernission factors for
bituminous coal and natural gas are 93.3 and 53.07 kg of CO2 per million
Btu.
1. For generating one million Btu of heat from natural gas versus
bituminous coal, calcuhate the difference in CO2 emissions. Ignore the
emissions of methane.
2. Do the same calculation as (1) with emissions of methane included in
equivalents of CO2.
11.7 Electric cars are considered by many to be environmentally friendlier than
cars with a conventional internal combustion engine. An electric sedan
can travel 100 miles using 34 kWh of electricity. A similar gasohine sedan
traveis 100 miles with four gallons of gasoline. Electricity costs
$0.12/kWh, while gasoline costs $2.49 per gallon. Calculate the costs of
the two cars traveling 300 miles. Using data in Tables 11.2 and 11.3,
 References 223

determine the sources of electricity that must be used if the electric car is
to have a smaller carbon footprint than the gasoline car.
11.8 A small town withdraws water from the local river and disinfects it before
delivering it to its residents. Most residents own reverse osmosis water
purification units, which are used for producing drinking water. The town
treats 10,000 L of water per month, of which the residents use 5 percent
for drinking after reverse osmosis. The effluent from the town has an
average biological oxygen demand (BOD) of 10 mg/L. The acceptable BOD
is 1 mg/L, and the natural BOD is 0.1 mg/L.
1. Calculate the direct green, blue, and gray water fiows in this town.
2. The town produces electricity by means of a coal integrated
gasification combustion cycle process. Estimate the water and carbon
footprints of this electricity. You may assume that both disinfection and
reverse osmosis use this electricity.
11.9 A farmer uses 10,000 L of water to produce 100 kg of biomass and 25 kg
of food product. The farming process also uses 2 kg of CH4 as fuel and
emits 15kg of CO2 and 0.5kg of N2 0. The harvested biomass is stored,
during which time sorne of it rots and emits 0.1 kg of CH4 per kilogram of
stored biomass. When the stored biomass is converted into fuel it produces
12.5 kg of CH4 and 11 kg of CO2 per 50 kg of biomass. This conversion
process needs 5 L of water as input. Using this information, prepare
diagrams representing farming, storage, and fuel conversion modules.
Calculate the carbon and water footprints per kilogram of CH4 produced.
11.10 Many utilities have programs to encourage energy-efficient use of
electricity. These include incentives to consumers to use more efficient
light bulbs and home appliances. In the state of California, between July
2015 and June 2016, such programs resulted in a saving of 1651 GWh of
electricity. During this period, the state also implemented various water
conservation programs to address an ongoing drought. The electricity
saved due to the water conservation measures was estimated to be 1830
GWh. Explain how water conservation in households can result in less
electricity use across the state. Consider the direct and indirect effects.

References

[1] J. H. Butier and S. A. Montzka. The NOAA annual greenhouse gas index (AGOI).
www.esrl.noaa.gov/g-rnd/aggi/aggi .html, 2017, accessed November 23,
2018.
[21 P. Forster, y. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, et al. Changes in atmospheric constituents and
in radiative forcing. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, et al., editors, Climate
224 11 Footprint Assessment

Chan ge 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[3] Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and
sinks: 1990-2016. www. epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us
-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990 -2016, 2018, accessed
November 17, 2018.
[4] D. Turnan and M. Clark. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human
health. Nature, 515(7528):518-522, 2014.
[5] US EPA. Emissions factors for greenhouse gas inventories. www. epa. gov/ si tes
/production/files/2018-03/documents/emjssjori-factorsrnar
2018_0 .pdf, April 4, 2014, accessed November 23, 2018.
[6] Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization Project. LCA harmonization. https: / /
openei . org/apps/LCA/. accessed July 9, 2018.
[7] J. G. J. Olivier, G. Janssens-Maenhout, M. Muntean., and J. A. H. W. Peters. Trends
in Global CO2 Einissions: 2014 Report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency, 2014.
[8] S. J. Davis and K. Caldeira. Consurnption-based accounting of CO2 emissions.
Proceedings of the National Acaderny of Sciences, 107(12):5687-5692, 2010.
[9] K. Kanemoto, D. Moran, M. Lenzen, and A. Geschke. International trade undermines
national emission reduction targets: new evidence from air pollution. Global
Environmental Change, 24:52-59, 2014.
[lo] A. Y. Hoekstra, A. K. Chapagain, M. M. Aldaya, and M. M. Mekonnen. The Water
Footprint Assessrnent Manual. Earthscan, 2011.
[11] Water Footprint Network. P. W. Gerbens-Leenes, A. Y. Hoekstra, Th. H. van der Meer.
Water footprint of bioenergy and other primary energy carriers. Report.
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, March 2008.
[12] P. H. Gleick and H. S. Cooley. Energy irnplications of bottled water. Environmental
Research Letters, 4(1):014009, 2009.
[13] T. J. Blasing. Recent greenhouse gas concentrations. http: / ¡dx. doi . org/10
3334/CDIAC/atg. 032, 2014, accessed November 23, 2018.