This paper demonstrates a comparison of product recovery methods, by carbon footprint calculation, for repaired products with remanufactured products and the environmental impact that they have when they reach their end-of-life (EOL). Growing concerns of climate change and government legislation have changed the way in which consumers can dispose of used or broken products. Items can no longer be sent to landfill and it is now the responsibility of the producers to dispose of products in a more sustainable manner and take into consideration all stages of the products life cycle. A standardised method for calculating carbon footprints has been used and a carbon footprint carried out for each product recovery method. Specific data was collected, from a manufacturing company in England’s North West region, about the processes involved during each recovery method and have identified that repairing has a lower carbon footprint than remanufacturing. However, repairing only extends the existing life cycle of a product, whereas remanufacturing can be carried out up to three times, and provides the product with a new life cycle. Therefore, remanufacturing is seen as the most preferable method of product recovery in terms of carbon emissions and sustainable waste disposal.
A Comparison of Carbon Footprint Calculations for End of Life Product Recovery Methods Using PAS 2050
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Appleby, MR, Buckley, AB, Lambert, CG, & Rennie, AEW. "A Comparison of Carbon Footprint Calculations for End of Life Product Recovery Methods Using PAS 2050." Proceedings of the ASME 2010 10th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis. ASME 2010 10th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, Volume 4. Istanbul, Turkey. July 12–14, 2010. pp. 705-713. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/ESDA2010-24726
Download citation file: