380
V. Arnold
distance, the advantage of reusable bottle turns into a disadvantage (UBA 1995).
Emissions from the transportation of resources, components and the products themselves may be totally higher than the environmental effect of the production. For
example, the environmental effect of using recycled aggregate for the production of
concrete must be calculated for each specific situation. As a part of a project (named
“RC-WE-Modul”) of the research group Construction recycling at the Brandenburg
University of Technology, was calculated that for this specific location of a demolition place, recycling plant, gravel plant, concrete plant and construction site it makes
sense to use recycled aggregate for the production of concrete only by choosing recycling plant located at a distance of 80 km or less from the concrete plant. In this case,
CO 2 emissions will be lower than using primary materials (RC-WE-Modul 2018).
However there are other environmental effects, such as reducing construction waste,
saving natural resources, energy resources and natural territories.
It is also very important to consider what type of transport is used, its tonnage and
type of fuel. For example, when examining different types of transport for passengers,
it turns out that airplanes, on average, most of all emit (CO 2 /person)/km into the
atmosphere (Transportation in the CO 2 comparison 2014). But there are some special
aspects. Such a calculation should be considered depending on the distance. For
example, an increase in demand and in the technical efficiency of aircraft have led to
the fact that, over the long distances, CO 2 emissions from an aircraft per passenger
are less than the traveling the same distance by car (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung 2016).
Often there are errors in the calculation of the LCA due to unaccounted resources
for a particular phenomenon. For example, if we compare the movement on a bicycle
and a car, then a bicycle is often considered a priori a more environmentally friendly
transport since it does not require any type of fuel and does not produce any emissions.
However, in such cases, it is necessary to take into account not only such obvious
resource flows. Consider two people moving from point A to point B on these two
types of transport, for a distance 100 km. A person in a car will cross it without
stopping by a country road in about an hour and will use in average 7 L of gasoline.
An ordinary person on a standard bike will cover this distance with an average speed
of 17 km/h and stops for snacks and lunch in about 8 h. After such a trip, the cyclist
needs to take a shower, wash his clothes and have a rest. In addition, he will spend
on this distance about 2900 kcal (excluding passive consumption), which he needs
to fill with products (Sports Nutrition 2009), each of which has their own ecological
rucksack, energy consumption, and environmental impacts. This is in contrast to
the man on the car, which saved almost 7 h of time and other related resources. In
addition, he can take on board another 3–4 people and a load with a slight increase in
fuel consumption, unlike a cyclist. The conclusion is that a bike is effective only for
relatively short distances and in congested urban areas, such as cities and metropolitan
areas.
V. Arnold
distance, the advantage of reusable bottle turns into a disadvantage (UBA 1995).
Emissions from the transportation of resources, components and the products themselves may be totally higher than the environmental effect of the production. For
example, the environmental effect of using recycled aggregate for the production of
concrete must be calculated for each specific situation. As a part of a project (named
“RC-WE-Modul”) of the research group Construction recycling at the Brandenburg
University of Technology, was calculated that for this specific location of a demolition place, recycling plant, gravel plant, concrete plant and construction site it makes
sense to use recycled aggregate for the production of concrete only by choosing recycling plant located at a distance of 80 km or less from the concrete plant. In this case,
CO 2 emissions will be lower than using primary materials (RC-WE-Modul 2018).
However there are other environmental effects, such as reducing construction waste,
saving natural resources, energy resources and natural territories.
It is also very important to consider what type of transport is used, its tonnage and
type of fuel. For example, when examining different types of transport for passengers,
it turns out that airplanes, on average, most of all emit (CO 2 /person)/km into the
atmosphere (Transportation in the CO 2 comparison 2014). But there are some special
aspects. Such a calculation should be considered depending on the distance. For
example, an increase in demand and in the technical efficiency of aircraft have led to
the fact that, over the long distances, CO 2 emissions from an aircraft per passenger
are less than the traveling the same distance by car (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung 2016).
Often there are errors in the calculation of the LCA due to unaccounted resources
for a particular phenomenon. For example, if we compare the movement on a bicycle
and a car, then a bicycle is often considered a priori a more environmentally friendly
transport since it does not require any type of fuel and does not produce any emissions.
However, in such cases, it is necessary to take into account not only such obvious
resource flows. Consider two people moving from point A to point B on these two
types of transport, for a distance 100 km. A person in a car will cross it without
stopping by a country road in about an hour and will use in average 7 L of gasoline.
An ordinary person on a standard bike will cover this distance with an average speed
of 17 km/h and stops for snacks and lunch in about 8 h. After such a trip, the cyclist
needs to take a shower, wash his clothes and have a rest. In addition, he will spend
on this distance about 2900 kcal (excluding passive consumption), which he needs
to fill with products (Sports Nutrition 2009), each of which has their own ecological
rucksack, energy consumption, and environmental impacts. This is in contrast to
the man on the car, which saved almost 7 h of time and other related resources. In
addition, he can take on board another 3–4 people and a load with a slight increase in
fuel consumption, unlike a cyclist. The conclusion is that a bike is effective only for
relatively short distances and in congested urban areas, such as cities and metropolitan
areas.