RNID fire alarm life cycle analysis by FreddieJordanDesign

RNID FIre Alarm Life Cycle Analysis Environmentally Sensitive Design Freddie Jordan 0603918

Contents Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 RNID Fire Alarm & System Boundary...................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA)........................................................................................................................................................................................2-3 Eco-Audit................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Eco 99 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5-6 Conclusion to all analysis undertaken................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Consideration of human needs..............................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Environmental Improvements...........................................................................................................................................................................................................7-8 Final product outline.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8-9 Improved Life Cycle Analysis..................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Marketing..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 References & Appendix at back.

Introduction The following documentation looks to discuss the environmental issues surrounding an RNID fire alarm, model SD3.0/001 that has been manufactured specifically with deaf and hard of hearing people in mind. Throughout the report various LCA techniques will be used and appraised to reason the alarms environmental impact and discuss future developments to reduce this. By considering behavioural, societal and technological changes an improved design will be suggested along with its own LCA to show possible environmental damage reduction. RNID Fire Alarm & System Boundary Before carrying out the SLCA, system boundaries must be introduced. System boundaries aim to discard any negligible inputs into a product that at this stage are not needed to be taken into consideration for life-cycle analysis. In the case of the fire alarm system it is to be assumed that the battery is not used and that the product is run off the mains supply. All components are being considered for the SLCA apart from the hazardous material Americium, within the PCB, this will be discussed later. It will be assumed that the alarm is running off of the mains supply drawing 1.2w when on standby as supposed to the 8.7W it draws when sounding. Figure 1 highlights the SCLA energy boundaries and allows for a clear overview of the energy scenarios that will be used when completing the SLCA. Figure 2 shows the main part of the fire alarm system. A full component list will be included later.

Energy used to exract oil for plastic. Energy used in running tests of machinery.

Energy used to install home wiring.

SLCA Boundary Energy used to manufacture 1 fire alarm.

Energy used to transport fire alarm fromshop to home.

Energy used running product.

Energy used to dispose of product.

Manufacture & Extraction phase

Transport phase

Use phase

Disposal phase

Excess materials.

Maintenance of vechicles.

Change in usage of energy from 1.2W to 8.7W when activated.

Emissions that product may cause.

Figure 1 - SLCA System Boundary

Fire Alarm

Strobe light

Power Junction

RRP - ÂŁ199.99 Supplied by RNID Vibrating Pad Figure 2 -Main parts of RNID Fire Alarm

Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) Taking into consideration the system boundaries below a SLCA has been conducted. Figure 3 indicates the general stages of LCA and figure 4, the basic life-cycle map that will be expanded upon during the analysis

Goal & Scope

Direct Applications : •

Inventory

Interpretation

Impact Assessment

• • • •

Product development & improvement Strategic planning Public policy making Marketing Other

Energy use

Oil Extraction

Electricity

Plastic Production PCB assembly Fire alarm manufacture

Oil

Transport Fire alarm use Lanfill

Figure 3 - Stages of LCA - Taken from Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework ISO 14040:2006

Moulding Process

Recycling

Figure 4 -Basic life-cycle map for RNID Fire alarm

Using the SLCA guidelines that have been supplied, the following analysis has been completed 1) Manufacture and extraction phase. Assumption of 55MJ/kg for all non-electronic parts and 2000MJ for all electronic parts. Product total weight = 1.7806 Kg Weight without electronics = 1.6914 Kg 1.6914 x 55 = 93.027MJ Weight of electronics = 1.7806 - 1.6914 = 0.0892 Kg 0.0892 x 2000 = 178.4MJ Total = 93.027 + 178.4 = 271.4 MJ 2) Transport Phase - Assumption of 15MJ for journey from shop to users home. (1MJ ship, 3MJ Lorry, 10MJ Van) 3) Use Phase - Use time is 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year. Energy per day = 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours = 86400 seconds 86400 x 1.2W = 103680J Over lifetime = 15 x 365 x 103680J = 567648000J = 567.648MJ over 15 years. Power station losses 3 x 568 MJ = 1704 MJ = 1.7 GJ 4) Disposal phase - Assumption 2 MJ/Kg

1.7806 x 2 = 3.5612

Total energy comsumption over 15 years = 1994 MJ

Manufacture & Extraction

Transport

Use (15 Years)

Disposal

271.4MJ 13.6%

15MJ 0.75%

1704MJ 85.5%

3.6MJ 0.18%

Figure 5 - Summary of energy consumption at each stage of life cycle

Energy used over product lifetime Manufacturing & Extraction 13.6% Transport 0.75% Use 85.5% Total - 1994MJ

Disposal 0.18%

271.4MJ 15MJ 1704MJ 3.6MJ

Figure 6 - Graph of energy consumption at each stage of life cycle (SLCA)

To properly ascertain the impact at the manufacturing stage of the life-cycle. The Fire alarm needs to be broken down into key components each with their specific energy use values highlighted. Using Design & Environment (Gertsakis, 01) more specific values of energy have been used to view where the energy at this stage is embodied. In the case of the plug and wire since it was not possible to seperate the TPV from the copper they were weighed together and 75% of the value allocated to the TPV and 25% to the Copper. The results (shown in the appendix, figure 7) use more specifc values of energy to clarify the Streamline analysis ,giving values at the Manufacture and Extraction stage of 271.4MJ and 357.49 MJ respectively. The battery, in both instances has been included in the weight with an embodied energy value of 55MJ/kg. Further Analysis Although negligble in weight (0.28 micrograms), so not included in the SLCA the alarm contains 33kBq of Americium. To produce Americium a large amount of work has been done on its solvent extraction, as it, and other transuranic elements are responsible for much of the long-lived radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel (Wikipedia â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;10). The use of this element in the alarm is necessary for it to function correctly, however causes complications at both the manufacturing and disposal stage. Certain processes would have to be carried out in order for it be disposed of properly which would affect the current 3.6MJ for currently projected. SLCA Conclusion Figures 5 & 6 both indicate the areas in which most energy is used during the lifecycle of the fire alarm. It is clear to see that both the manufacturing and extraction phase along with the use phase are the areas that incur the most energy consumption. The nature of the product means that it is one that needs to be on 24/7, trying to reduce the energy consumption in the use phase is a challenging task that requires analysis of environmental impact between battery and mains supply. A solution could be to reduce the amount of power the product needs to function. Figure 7 (Shown in appendix) looks at trying to obtain a more accurate value for the manufacture and extraction phase. It suggests the value of this stage should be 357.49MJ. This is higher than the SLCA because of the use of different values for the embodied energy within each material. The most probable reason for the increase in value is that the 2000MJ embodied in the PCB has not been changed. If an more accurate value were to be used it would bring the total energy embodied in the part more in line with the suggested total from the SLCA. Should a value of around 1000Mj be assumed for the embodied energy in the PCBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s it would bring the total to 277MJ. The difference is all dependant on the PCB complexity, which in the case of the fire alarm is not overly complicated, meaning lower value may be more suitable. Figure 8, shown in the Appendix gives an overview of some of the products parts. The area in which design can most address an environmental solution is that of the manufacturing and extraction phase. The system uses 4 main parts each connected with wires. The base unit containing the strobe light, the fire alarm, vibrating pad and junction box to connect them all together. Initial thought on how to reduce the amount energy used at the manufacturing and extraction phase would be to reduce the amount of material used. This is to be discussed later. The streamlined Life cycle analysis has offered a quick overview of where the energy problems with the fire alarm are. It uses data that is easy to collect and assumptions for each material which are used to produce insight into possible environmentally damaging designs. Problems with the SLCA are that it is not specific enough in terms of what different materials embody as energy and it does not deal with any identification of toxic material. As well as, like most LCA tools over looks issues such as, species loss and soil degradation. However, consideration is given to emissions which are the cause of the larger environmental problems of global warming, acid rain and photo-chemical smog amongst others.

Eco-Audit In order to clarify the accuracy of the results from the SLCA an Eco-audit has been carried out. Figure 9 shows the results. CO2

Energy used over product lifetime 215.97MJ

13.9Kg

1.19MJ

0.0843Kg

Use 88.1%

1602MJ

115Kg

Disposal 0 %

0.488MJ

0.0293Kg

Manufacturing & Extraction 11.8% Transport 0.1%

Total - 1804MJ

Figure 9 - Graph of energy consumption at each stage of life cycle (Eco-Audit)

When using the Eco-Audit tool assumptions were made according to the various stages of life-cycle. To ensure the results are as accurate as possible the same assumptions were used from the SLCA. The wire was split into 75% TPV and 25% Copper. When choosing the materials in the audit, the type of PP and PS were assumed to be the high impact fire retardant type, aswell as the TPV being of a Shore hardness 40A. All components were thought of as using virgin materials. During the transport phase it was assumed the products route to the UK was from China, on various modes of transport as shown in the appendix and all parts are sent to landfill, with the battery and PCBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s being downcycled. The Eco-Audit, as the extract shows in figure 9 has produced similar results to the SLCA. This indicates that the results are fairly accurate as to the impact the product has on the environment. The Eco-Audit, because of its more accurate choices allows for a more accurate reading as to the energy impact. The choices available for materials allows for specific embodied energy values to be used and a more specific graph of energy consumption to be obtained. As before, in the SLCA, it does not allow for a choice of PCB complexity, this could lead to potential inaccuracy of values at this stage. The further information the Eco-Audit shows allows for insight into other areas of the products environmental impact, for instance its CO2 footprint. Although not necessary during this analysis, it is interesting to see how else the product is affecting the environment. Eco - Indicator 99 The Eco-99 is to be carried out to establish the environmetal impacts of the Fire Alarm and to view the areas of impact in a proirtised order that can be addressed first when re-designing the product. 5 steps need to be undertaken to complete the analysis :1)Establish the purpose of the Eco-indicator calculations. 2)Define the Life-Cycle. 3) Quantify materials and processes. 4) Complete the Eco-99 form. 5) Interpret the results. Purpose. The purpose of using the Eco-99 tool is to establish the areas where it will be possible to undertake design changes for environmental improvement. RNID Fire Alarm Life Cycle Figure 10, shown in the Appendix is a simple process tree for the fire alarm. It shows the route the product takes from extraction through to use and disposal. It aims to highlight the areas that are to be considered during the carrying out of the Eco-99 form. Copper and TPV have been grouped together as both are an extruded material, however in the Eco-99 form thay have been seperated to establish each materials indicator number. There are no other ommitions, this will keep the results in line with the completed SLCA and Eco-Audit.

Quantification of materials and processes The materials have been assumed from the previous Eco-audit analysis that has been carried out and documented. There are no parts that need to be added or replaced during the product lifetime and the frequency of use is to be kept the same as in the previous analysis. 24/7 on standby. Although running at 8.7W when in use, it has been assumed that over the 15 years of the products life there have been no fires, so aside from regular testing this value has never been used meaning 1.2W throughout. The 0.28 micrograms of Americium is also to be considered negligible in this analysis. The main assumptions to be made affect the disposal of the product. Since so many parts are involved, as well as hazardous material it is unlikely a person looking to recycle the product is going to know what to do. Since the owner is also likely to be an elderly person this also needs to be taken into consideration as recycling may be something they are not familiar with. It is to be assumed that the product is to be disposed of via municipal waste because of the vague recycling instructions the product comes with. Overleaf the Eco-99 form has been filled out. Assumptions during the completion of the form are : • TPV has been considered to have a value of 330, the same as PP, as it contains PP & EP. • The PS has been considered as HIPS with a value of 360. • Die cutting has been presumed to have an Eco-indicator value of 20, in reflection of card having a low eco-indictor and the process not being intensive, or one that produces excessive waste. • Thread rolling has been considered to have a value of 18, same as cold roll into sheet, as processes are most similar. With a weight of 0.0115Kg, this is unlikely to affect the overall indictor result dramatically. • Extrusion ofTPV has been considered to be 21. This is reasoned as extrusion is similair to injection moulding in that it forces the plastic through a die. SInce TPV is mostly PP, the value of injection moulding -1 (21) has been chosen. Eco-99 Form

Production Materials Used PP Rubber Steel Copper TPV PS Card Electronics Battery Injection Moulding - 1 Die Cutting Thread Rolling Extruding PCB Manufacture

Weight (Kg) 0.451 0.001 0.0115 0.1794 0.5475 0.0965 0.0455 0.0892 0.358 0.5475 0.0465 0.0115 0.7269 0.0892

Indicator 330 360 86 1400 330 360 96 21 20 18 21 Total

Figure 11 - Eco 99 Production form

Result 149 0.36 0.129 251 181 35 4 11 1 0.027 15 648

Process Amount Electricity (kWh) 1.2Wh /1000x 131400 157.68 (hours in 15 years) Shipping (tkm) 1.78/1000 x 100 0.178 1.78/1000 x 27000 48.06 1.78/1000 x 100 0.178 1.78/1000 x 100 0.178 1.78/1000 x 10 0.0178

Use

Indicator

Result

5203.44

22 1.1 22 34 140 Total

4 53 4 6 2.5 5295.44

Figure 12 - Eco 99 Use form

Material & Processing Municipal Waste, PP, TPV Municipal Waste, PS Municipal Waste, Rubber Municipal Waste, Steel Municipal Waste,Copper Municipal Waste, Card Electronics Battery

Disposal

Amount 1 0.0965 0.001 0.00115 0.1794 0.0455 0.0892 0.358

Indicator -0.13 2 1 -5.9 0.64 Total

Result -0.13 0.193 0.001 -0.007 0.03 0.087

Figure 13- Eco 99 Disposal form

The completed Eco-99 shows the environmental impact of the product at each stage, the transport has been considered in the use phase form, figure 12. Advantages of using this type of analysis are that it includes specific manufacturing techniques, as well as specific disposal methods. Although the results may be somewhat inaccruate due to the indicators for various methods during the use and disposal phase being unobtainable. When viewing figure 14, the percentages match up relatively well with those shown in figures 6 and 9 however, may be slightly different should the values be obtainable.

Unlike the other analysis the Eco-99 considers resource depletion. Within the eco-indicator numbers, calculations have taken place to consider this factor. The units, being in millipoints means direct comparison to SLCA and the Eco-Audit is not possible, however, with the calculations of percentages the similarities can be viewed. The results once again show the two main areas for product innovation as being savings in the manufacturing and use stage. As previously discussed a saving is most likely to occur in the manufacturign stage, due to it being a safety critical product that must function for 24/7.

Energy used over product lifetime Manufacturing & Extraction 10.9%

648

Transport 1.16%

69.5

Use 87.8%

5203

Disposal 0.1 %

Total - 5920.6 mPt

0.087

Figure 14 - Graph of energy consumption at each stage of life cycle (Eco-Audit)

Conclusion of all Analysis To summarise, each analysis has shown similar trends in energy at each stage of the life-cycle. The SLCA, Eco-Audit and Eco-99 each show significant energy use during the usage phase of the product, with the manufacturing stage coming second highest in all cases. Each analysis take into account slightly different aspects of impacts, however have still produced comparable results. The results for this type of product during the manufcaturing stage is high but over the usage phase would be expected to be in-line with other alarms due to each being used 24/7. The reasons for the energy use at each stage have been discussed and reasons set out.From using each tool, the areas for design can now be seen and solutions can begin to be made as to what is best to improve the products environmental performance. Figure 15 (shown in appendix) highlights the results from each phase and the percentage of energy lost through out the product life-cycle is similar in each analysis, each is shown in figures 6, 9 and 14. Consideration of human needs. Self-actualisation Personal growth & fulfilment Esteem needs Achievement, status, responsibility, reputation Beloningness & Love Needs Family, affection, relationships, work group. Safety Needs Protection, security, order, law, limits, stability Biological & Physiological needs Basic life needs, air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep Figure 16- Maslows Hieracrhy of Needs

Perhaps the most important step in to re-designing the product to make it more evironmentally friendly is to ask first of all if the product is actually needed and if so what human need it is meeting. Here Maslows hierarchy has been used and the fire alarm is deemed to be a product people need in life. Maslow argued that “‘deficiency’ needs such as hunger and thirst must be met before ‘growth’ needs such as self-fulfilment”. (Bhamra, ‘07). The fire alarm has been considered a product that meets the safety needs of a person. It offers re-assurance at home that should a fire break out it will alert you. It is a product that is static and has no other function other than to keep people safe, therefore it has not been considered as meeting any other need in the hierarchy. To further analyse the need that the product is meeting it can be judged in terms of what Max-Neef suggests are the nine fundamental needs; Subsistence, Protection, Affection, Understanding, Participation, Leisure, Creation, Identity and Freedom. Max-Neef argues that these needs remain constant across time and culture and only two require material means to satisfy them, Subsistence and Protection (Bhamra, ‘07). The fire alarm falls in both of these categories. It allows for protection of people property and gives re-assurance to the user about their property which maintains their mental and physical health. Max-Neef satisfiers of human needs is shown in the appendix (Figure 17).

Environmental Improvements When looking to improve the environmental performance of the Fire Alarm system, many different scenarios have to be considered. Savings at any stage of the Life Cycle will allow for environmental improvement. The areas in which energy saving can be of the most impact is that of the Manufacturing & Exctraction stage and the Usage stage. Given the nature of the product and having to be in 24/7, a reduction at the usage stage will prove to be the most difficult. The advantages and disadvantages of batteries and mains supply will determine savings at the usage stage unless design can prove to reduce the amount of power needed for function. All of this means that the most likely candidate for savings is during manufacture. The Eco-web below indicates the reason these areas for savings have been highlighted. (taken from design for sustainability, Bhrama â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;07). Areas that also need to be considered are design for dis-assembly, re-use & re-furbishment, safe disposal and degradability. New ways of doing it

End of Life 1 - Very Bad 2 - Bad 3 - Ok 4 - Good 5 - Very Good

5 4 3

Materials selection

2 1 Materials Usage

Optimal Life

Product Use

Distribution

Figure 18-Eco-web showing areas most in need of attention.

Various environmental improvements can be made by considering behavioural, societal and technological changes. Behavioural - Indication of how to recycle the product clearer on packaging. Product can be made with end of life and dis-assembly in mind. Clear indication of the material each part is made from can be given using a simple colour coded key to identify the various materials. Encouragement to buy higher quality battery to ensure functioning time is at its peak. Indication of how to dispose of certain components. Current WEEE & RoHS legislation. WEEE (Waste Electrical and electronic equipment) & RoHS (Restriction of use of hazardous substances) are directive requiring UK companis to recycle electrical equipment and remove certain hazardous materials (WEEE booklet). Societal - Promotion of Current legislative processes WEEE & RoHS, disposal of product. Promotion of recycling. Make the area in which product can be taken to be recycled cleaner. Battery take back schemes. Currently there is a scheme running in the UK and Ireland to get retaliers to accept back old batteries for recycling as part of the waste batteries and accumulators regulations. Promotion of this scheme could lead to a societal change. One of the main issue surrounding the fire alarm involves end of life battery disposal. Delivery of product via postman on a bike!. Schemes to raise awareness of how to dispose of electronics correctly. Technological - Snap Fit parts. Ensure same material is used throught out where possible. The product is basically a PCB with casing. Make allcasing of same material. Look into the possible ways in which the parts can be upscycled. Possible re-manufacture into other forms. Reduction of parts whilst maintaining function. (Dehurst and Boothroyd anaylsis discussed later). Make use of all internal space. This leads to most compact design and no tranportation of air. Rechargable batteries. Use of a fully de-gradable material. However, this is not likely for a fire alarm.

Environmental Improvements Further Analysis To ensure the proposed redesign is more evironmentally friendly a Boothroyd and Dewhurst â&#x20AC;&#x153;Design for Assemblyâ&#x20AC;? technique as well as an SLCA of the design has been undertaken. The Design for dis-assembly looks at the parts of the product and asks 3 pertinant questions :1) During operation, does the part move relative to all other parts already assembled? (Given that the product is a static object, the answer to this question is to be no for all parts..) 2) Must the part be of a different material from all other parts already assembly? 3) Must the part be seperate from all other parts for assembly or dis-assembly? If the answer to any of the questions is no that part becomes a candidate for elimination. The idea behind undertaking this type of analysis is that it will reduce the amount of parts the system needs to have in order to function in the desired manner. This will reduce environmental impact across a variety of different stages of the product life-cycle. With minimal parts the energy used to produce the product as well as the energy embodied in the components will be lower. This will lead to savings at the transport stage as it is lower in weight and at the disposal stage as the reduced part means less processes will have to occur in order for the product to be recycled. All of the stages downstream from manufacturing and extraction will be affected. By viewing the table (Figure 19, shown in the appendix) it can be seen that after consideration has been given to the necessity of each part the total count can be as low as 14. This will have dramatic effect on the downstream stages of transport and disposal. Final Product Outline To fully understand the improvement the current system (figure 20, shown in Appendix)must be understood. The drawing has been done to clarify how each of the parts fit with each other and to make it easier to see where the change has come. Each part has a wire that joins the next, via a junction box. All issues surrounding this design have been shown in the new design at the bottom of the page. Given the nature of the product the proposed final solution is one that still uses PP as its main materials. The solution addresses the wire issue and reduces the wires count from 14m down to just 2m. It removes the junction box, which accounts for 1/3 of the products PCBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and incorporates the function it holds into the base unit. The new system utilises bandpass filtering to determine when the alarm is going off. Instead of relaying a fire to the base unit via the juntion box and wire, the filter (made from a small microphone and simple electronic components (op-amps) ) allows the product to function in the same way, without the wire. With the new system listening for the alarms in the house to sound, it potentially means the complete removal of the fire alarm that is supplied on the specially adapted wire. Since most people will already have standard fire alarm in their house, when buying the system it means it doubles the count. The new system could be incorporated with already existing products. The new system could be run off of 2 9V batteries (1 in the fire alarm and 1 in the base unit) and elimates the need for the power supply. The environmental savings must be weighed up in terms of what is better a 1.2w power supply or the use of 2 9V rechargable batteries. The use of the batteries means replacements will need to be made, however it will mean the 0.365Kg backup battery that the current system has but rarely uses (due to being plugged in) is elimated, meaning a weight saving as well as manufacture saving. All weight savings help the downstream impact to be reduced. Below figure 21 indicates the new system. The change in design allows for more smaller part count, smaller packaging (more can be shipped at once) and through the use of rechargable batteries, energy savings.

Base with Strobe light

Sound filtering allows alarm to be heard

Fire Alarm

Vibrating Pad (2m wire) Figure 21 - Proposed design solution

To back up the proposed sketch, are images below which indicate the feasability of the new system and show exactly what is meant by the filtering system mentionned. The alarm system discussed is my major project and aims to adapt the existing design into one that is better for Hard of hearing people to use. Along the way, I have tried to keep part count to a minimum and the design as simple and compact as possible, leading to an environmental change that can be discussed in this environmental analysis report, as well as looking at the social change that has been explored in the major project surrounding peoples issues with having a specialist products. By noting that the new part count can now potentially be as low as 14, through the use of snap-fit design instead of screws and the discarding of unnecessary parts, as well as the merging of inner plastic sections (figure 17, numbers 28 & 29 with number 24) and the removal of the large battery, with replacement of 2 9v rechargeable ones, the new weight can now be ascertained. The use of 2 rechargable batteries, means a secondary charging product will need to be used alongside the fire alarm. It would be expected that both rechargable batteries if placed in the product at the same time, would last 6 months until they run out. With a lifespan of 5 years each before they no longer hold suffiecient charge. This means new batteries would have to be bought every 5 years, meaning 6 in total over the 15 year period. Figures 22 and 23 show the current PCB as it is now and the design that has been worked upon. Figure 22 only shows 1 of the 3 PCBs used in the product and figure 23, one of the two used in the solution. The particular two have been chosen to be shown to highlight the difference in components and complexity to acheive the same function, thus indicating the saving. Figure 24 shows the product solution indicating how it fits together with component breakdown.

Figure 22 - Current Main PCB

Figure 23 -Re-designed PCB - Less components

6 1 2

3 5

Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10 Weight (Kg) Number

Component

Fire Alarm Top (w/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery Battery Cover (On underside of bottom) Base Top Base PCB (Strobe Light) Battery

0.07 0.01 0.0265 0.025 0.0265 0.0615 0.0712 0.025

9 10 11 12 13 14

11,12,13,14,15 Weight (Kg)

Component

Battery Cover (on underside of base) 0.0265 0.1765 Base Bottom 0.081 Vibrating pad wire (TPV) 0.0269 Vibrating Pad wire (Copper) 0.0540 Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom 0.0410 Box (not pictured)

Figure 24 - Diagram & Table showing how parts fit together & weight ofproduct with minimal parts

Total

0.723

Improved Streamline Life-Cycle Analysis Energy used over product lifetime Manufacturing & Extraction 4.86%

82MJ

Transport 0.19%

3.2MJ

Total - 1687MJ

Use 95%

1602MJ

Disposal 0.03%

0.439MJ

Figure 25 - Eco-Audit results for improved product

The Eco-Audit assessment for the new improved design shows the exptected results for saving at the manufacture and extraction stage. A reduction from 215.97MJ to 82MJ is a 61.9% decrease. For sales of 5,000 alarms this would be a total saving of 669850MJ, a significant difference. For further improvement analysis should be undertaken to try to reduce the energy the product uses. 1602MJ is a high number but this is the total energy used of 15 years, over 1 year this equates to 106.8MJ which in comparison to other products is not so bad, it is already functioning at a fairly acceptable rate. With the new design considered as running from rechargable batteries the energy consumption would be as low as possible, with the push for government schemes to push the recycling of materials. Marketing To finalise marketing suggestions can be made to help identify the various factors surrounding the sale of the new environmentally improved product. Figure 26 shows the most important labels available for use, with description as to why they are best suited. The product, being a specialist one for hard of hearing people via the RNID, is most likey to have a target market of not only the people who require the product, but also government agencies who supply care homes and would fit the product for the person in need. It is thought that a purchaser for an agency may have high concern in buying the correct product and that potentially they could be considered as being in between the Green back greens 5% and Sprouts 34% of people. Meaning that they are on the look out for the product most reliable and well attributed with price being less of an issue. (Extracted from lecture on marketing ‘10). Meaning of each indicator Indication that product can be recycled (not that it has been recycled)

Eco-labels Mobius Loop Deutches Duales

Although not applicablein the UK, is an idication representing recycling targets.

EU energy label

System for notification of energy efficency of white good products.

CE Conformité Européenne

The CE marking certifies that a product has met EU consumer safety, health or environmental Figure 26 - Eco-Indicator meanings

Further to this, government advertising can occur, such as the current “Fire kills” scheme. For the particular re-design a not could be made in there surround recycling when renewing old alarms. Greenwashing is something that should be avoided too, the sin of the hidden trade-ff being most relevent to the fire alarm, as although savings can be made it can also be argued that because of the small amount of hazardous material it contains, it can not be marketed as a fully “green” product.

References Web http://www.canadianarchitect.com/asf/perspectives_sustainibility/measures_of_sustainablity/measures_of_sustainablity_ embodied.htm (Accessed on 10/3/10) Book Bhamra ,‘07 - Design for sustainability : A practical approach. Gower publishing. Gertsakis,’01 - Design & environment : Global guide to designing greener goods. Greenleaf Publishing. EcoIndicator 99 Manual fr designs - The Eco-Indicator 99. Maslin, M, ‘04 - Global warming - A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. McDonough, W, ‘02 - Cradle to cradle : remaking the way we make things. North Point Press. Papanek, V, ‘95 - The Green Imperative - Ecology and Ethics in Design and Architecture - Thames & Hudson WEEE Directive Booklet ‘03 - Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Standards ISO 14040:2006 -LCA Framework - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -Principles and framework ISO 14044:2006 - LCA Requirements - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. ISO 14040:2000 - Environmental Managment, Lifecycle Assessment and Lifecycle Impact Assessment. Computer Software Eco Audit Tool, Cambridge Material Selector 2009 (from CES Selector), Granta Design Limited. Lectures Griffiths - Design for Assembly - Dewhurst & Boothroyd Analysis Harrison ‘10 - Streamlined LCA Harrison ‘10 - Comparing Impacts Harrison ‘10 - Recycling Harrison ‘10 - Toxics Harrison ‘10 - Green Marketing

Appendix Manufactucting phase specific SLCA. Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Main top w/blue button Main bottom Clear outer section Power junction Casing bottom Power junction Casing insert Power junction Casing top Battery cover RNID smoke alarm inner section Blue pull out instruction section Blue Side Button Two rubber feet All screws Battery Vibrating Pad top & bottom Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire (2m) Wire between base & fire alarm (10m) Main PCB Plug w/wire (1m) Wire between base & junction (1m) Fire alarm top Fire alarm bottom Instruction leaflet Spring Alarm plastic amplifier Black inner alarm casing Fire alarm PCB Box & Inner slip case Junction PCB

Material

Weight (Kg)

Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene Rubber Steel Polypropylene TPV Copper TPV Copper TPV Copper TPV Copper Polystyrene Polystyrene Card Steel Polystyrene Polystyrene Card -

0.0615 0.1765 0.0280 0.0225 0.0030 0.0210 0.0265 0.0265 0.0300 0.0015 0.0010 0.0115 0.3580 0.0540 0.081 0.0269 0.117 0.039 0.0712 0.276 0.089 0.0735 0.0245 0.0505 0.0265 0.0045 0.0010 0.0090 0.0105 0.0100 0.0410 0.0080 1.7806 1.6914

Total Total w/out electronincs

Energy Embodied in Energy Embodied in Material (MJ/Kg) Part (MJ)

80.033 80.033 80.033 80.033 80.033 80.033 80.033 80.033 80.033 80.033 75 32 55 80.033 100 125 100 125 2000 100 125 100 125 102.16 102.16 25 32 102.16 102.16 2000 25 2000

4.92 14.13 2.26 18.01 0.24 1.68 2.13 2.13 2.40 0.12 0.075 0.368 19.69 4.32 10.75 3.36 15.7 4.88 142.4 36.75 11.25 9.8 3.06 5.16 2.71 0.11 0.032 0.92 1.073 20 1.025 16 357.49

Figure 7 -Table quantifying results of SLCA

Images showing parts of alarm.

Figure 8 - Images showing various parts of the Fire Alarm

Simple Process tree Polypropylene

Rubber

Steel

Copper & TPV

Polystyrene

Card

Electrical Components

Injection Moulded

Die Cut

Thread Rolled

Extruded

Injection Moulded

Die Cut

PCB Manufacture

Assembly Packaging Transport Batteries Electricity

Use Disposal Recycling

Landfill

Figure 10 -Simplified Process Tree for RNID Fire Alarm

Comparison chart of all analysis results. Type of Analysis SLCA Eco-Audit Eco-99

Manufacturing & Extraction 271.4MJ 215.97MJ 640

Transport

Use

Disposal

Total

15MJ 1.19MJ

1704MJ 1602MJ

3.6MJ 0.488MJ 0.087

1994MJ 1804MJ 5935.5

5295.44 Figure 15- Comparison of all the analysis

Max-Neefâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Satifiers of human needs Fundamental Human Needs

Having (things)

Being (qualities)

Doing (actions)

Interacting (Settings)

Subsistence

physical and mental health

Food, Shelter, Work

Feed, Clothe, Rest, Work

Protection

Care,adaptability, autonomy

Social security, health systems, work

Co-operate, plan, take of, help

Social environment, dwelling

Affection

Respect, sense of humour, generosity, sensuality

Friendships, family, relationships with nature

Share, take care of, make love, express emotions

Privacy, intimate spaces of togetherness

Understanding

Critical capacity, curiousity, intuition

literature, teachers, policies, educational

Analyse, study, meditate, investigate

Schools, familiies, universities, communities

Participation

Receptiveness, dedication, sense of humour

Responsibilites, duties, work, rights

Co-operate, dissent, express opinions

Associates, parties, churches, neighbourhoods

Imagination, tranquility, spontaneity

Games, parties, peace of mind

Day-dream, remember, relax, have fun

Landscapes, intimate spaces, places to be alone.

Creation

Imagination, boldness, inventiveness, curiousity

Abilities, skills, work, techniques

Invent, build, design, work, compose, interpret

Spaces for expression, workshops, audiences

Identity

Sense of belonging, self-esteem, consistency

language, religions, work, customs, values, norms

get to know oneself, grow, commit oneself

Places one belongs to, everyday settings

autonomy, passion, self-esteem, openmindness

equal rights

Dissent, choose, run risks, develop awareness

anywhere

Leisure

Freedom

Living evironment, Social Setting

Figure 17 - Max Neefs needs satisfiers

Dewhurst and Boothroyd Analysis Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Main top w/blue button PP Main bottom PP Clear outer section PP Power junction Casing bottom PP Power junction Casing insert PP Power junction Casing top PP Battery cover PP PP RNID smoke alarm inner section PP Blue pull out instruction section PP Blue Side Button Two rubber feet Rubber All screws Steel Battery PP Vibrating Pad top & bottom Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire (2m) TPV Copper Wire between base & fire alarm (10m)TPV Copper Main PCB Plug w/wire (1m) TPV Copper Wire between base & junction (1m) TPV Copper Fire alarm top PS Fire alarm bottom PS Card Instruction leaflet Spring Steel Alarm plastic amplifier PP PP Black inner alarm casing Fire alarm PCB Box & Inner slip case Card Junction PCB Total Total w/out electronincs

Weight (Kg) Qu 1 Qu 2 Qu 3 Qty

N N

Possible Qty

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 11 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42

1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 14

Reasoning Keep - Alarm needs cover. Keep - Alarm needs base. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Not needed. Keep - Access to battery. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Not needed. Discard - Use 2 x9v Keep - Protection of electronics Keep - link to base unit Keep - link to base unit Discard - Can be wireless Discard - Can be wireless Keep - Needed for function Discard - Use Batteries Discard - Use Batteries Discard - Parts can plug into base. Discard - Strobe can plug into base

Keep - Protection of electronics Keep - Protection of electronics Discard - Print on box Discard - Not needed Keep - Needed to boost sound Keep - Protection of electronics Keep - Needed for function Keep - Protection of product Discard - Integrated into base.

Saving New Possible Weight

Figure 19 - Dewhurst & Boothroyd Analysis

Current SYstem diagram Plug (1m)

Vibrating Pad (2m) Strobe (Base unit)(1m)

Figure 20 - Current System DIagram

Junction box

Fire Alarm (10m)

Saving (kg)

0 0 0.0280 0.0225 0.0030 0.0210 0 0.0265 0.0300 0.0015 0.0010 0.0115 0.3580 0 0 0 0.117 0.039 0 0.276 0.089 0.0735 0.0245 0 0 0.0045 0.0010 0 0 0 0 0.0080 1.0516 0.723

Eco Audit Report Product Name

FIre Alarm Eco Audit

Product Life (years)

Energy and Carbon Footprint Summary:

Energy Details...

CO2 Details... Phase Material Manufacture Transport Use End of life (collection & sorting) Total End of life (potential saving/burden*) Total (including end of life saving/burden)

Energy (MJ) 209 6.97 1.19 1.62e+03 0.488 1.84e+03 0 1.84e+03

Energy (%) 11.4 0.4 0.1 88.1 0.0 100 0.0

CO2 (kg) 13.4 0.558 0.0843 115 0.0293 129 0 129

CO2 (%) 10.4 0.4 0.1 89.1 0.0 100 0.0

*End of life saving/burden corresponds to the replacement of virgin material

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

NOTE: Differences of less than 20% are not usually significant. See notes on precision and data sources.

Page 1 of 19 2 March 2010

Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary

Energy Analysis Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 15 year product life):

Energy (MJ)/year Excluding savings

123

Including potential savings

123

Detailed Breakdown of Individual Life Phases Energy and CO2 Summary

Material: Breakdown by component Component

Main top w/Blue button Main bottom Clear outer section Power junction casing bottom Power junction casing insert Power junction casing top battery cover RNIDsmoke alarm inner section Blue Side button Two Rubber feet All Screws Battery Vibrating Pad top & bottom Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire Main PCB Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Wire between base & junction FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Material PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) TPV (PP+EP(D)M, Shore 40A) Tool steel, AISI A10 (airhardening cold work) Batteries (Ni-Cd rechargeable) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) TPV (PP+EP(D)M, Shore 40A) Fire-refined tough-pitch, h.c. copper, hard (wrought) (UNS C12500) Printed circuit board (PCB) assembly TPV (PP+EP(D)M, Shore 40A) Fire-refined tough-pitch, h.c. copper, hard (wrought) (UNS C12500) TPV (PP+EP(D)M, Shore 40A)

Recycle content

Material Embodied Energy * (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Energy (MJ)

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.062

6.3

3.0

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.18

8.6

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.028

2.9

1.4

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.023

2.3

1.1

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.003

0.31

0.1

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.021

2.2

1.0

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.027

2.7

1.3

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.027

2.7

1.3

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.0015

0.15

0.1

0% (virgin)

1.1e+02

0.001

0.11

0.1

0% (virgin)

0.012

0.44

0.2

0% (virgin)

2e+02

0.36

34.0

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.054

5.5

2.6

0% (virgin)

1.1e+02

0.08

8.6

4.1

0% (virgin)

0.027

1.9

0.9

0% (virgin)

1.3e+02

0.071

9.2

4.4

0% (virgin)

1.1e+02

0.28

14.1

0% (virgin)

0.092

6.5

3.1

0% (virgin)

1.1e+02

0.074

7.9

3.8

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 2 of 19 2 March 2010

Component

Wire between base & junction

Fire Alarm top Fire Alarm Bottom Instruction Leaflet Spring Alarm (Amplifier) Inner Alarm Casing Fire Alarm PCB Box & Inner Slip Case Junction PCB Wire between base and fire alarm

Wire between base and fire alarm

Blue pull out instruction section

Material Fire-refined tough-pitch, h.c. copper, hard (wrought) (UNS C12500) PS (high impact, flame retardant) PS (high impact, flame retardant) Paper (cellulose based) Carbon steel, AISI 1030, tempered at 205째C & H2O quenched PS (high impact, flame retardant) PS (high impact, flame retardant) Printed circuit board (PCB) assembly Paper (cellulose based) Printed circuit board (PCB) assembly TPV (PP+EP(D)M, Shore 40A) Fire-refined tough-pitch, h.c. copper, hard (wrought) (UNS C12500) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB)

Recycle content

Material Embodied Energy * (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Energy (MJ)

0% (virgin)

0.025

1.7

0.8

0% (virgin)

0.051

4.7

2.2

0% (virgin)

0.027

2.4

1.2

0% (virgin)

0.0045

0.14

0.1

0% (virgin)

0.001

0.032

0.0

0% (virgin)

0.009

0.83

0.4

0% (virgin)

0.011

0.97

0.5

0% (virgin)

1.3e+02

0.01

1.3

0.6

0% (virgin)

0.041

1.3

0.6

0% (virgin)

1.3e+02

0.008

0.5

0% (virgin)

1.1e+02

0.12

6.0

0% (virgin)

0.053

3.8

1.8

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.003

0.31

0.1

1.8

2.1e+02

100

Total * Value accounts for specified recycle content

Mass and energy data for material phase Component

Qty.

Embodied Energy, Recycle fraction in Embodied Energy, Part mass (kg) primary production current supply (%) recycling (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) 0.062 1e+02 5.5 43

Main top w/Blue button

Main bottom

0.18

1e+02

5.5

Clear outer section

0.028

1e+02

5.5

Power junction casing bottom

0.023

1e+02

5.5

Power junction casing insert

0.003

1e+02

5.5

Power junction casing top

0.021

1e+02

5.5

battery cover

0.027

1e+02

5.5

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

0.027

1e+02

5.5

Blue Side button

0.0015

1e+02

5.5

Two Rubber feet

0.001

1.1e+02

0.1

All Screws

0.012

Battery

0.36

2e+02

0.1

2e+02

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

0.054

1e+02

5.5

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.08

1.1e+02

0.1

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.027

Main PCB

0.071

1.3e+02

0.1

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

0.28

1.1e+02

0.1

Plug w/wire (Copper)

0.092

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 3 of 19 2 March 2010

Component

Qty.

Embodied Energy, Recycle fraction in Embodied Energy, Part mass (kg) primary production current supply (%) recycling (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) 0.074 1.1e+02 0.1 45

Wire between base & junction

0.025

Fire Alarm top

0.051

2.5

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

2.5

Instruction Leaflet

0.0045

Spring

0.001

8.9

Alarm (Amplifier)

0.009

2.5

Inner Alarm Casing

0.011

2.5

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

1.3e+02

0.1

Box & Inner Slip Case

0.041

Junction PCB

0.008

1.3e+02

0.1

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.12

1.1e+02

0.1

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.053

Blue pull out instruction section

0.003

1e+02

5.5

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 4 of 19 2 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Manufacture: Breakdown by component Process

Processing Energy (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Energy (MJ)

Main top w/Blue button

Polymer molding

8.5

0.062

0.52

7.5

Main bottom

Polymer molding

8.5

0.18

1.5

21.6

Clear outer section

Polymer molding

8.5

0.028

0.24

3.4

Power junction casing bottom

Polymer molding

8.5

0.023

0.19

2.7

Power junction casing insert

Polymer molding

8.5

0.003

0.026

0.4

Power junction casing top

Polymer molding

8.5

0.021

0.18

2.6

battery cover

Polymer molding

8.5

0.027

0.23

3.2

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

Polymer molding

8.5

0.027

0.23

3.2

Blue Side button

Polymer molding

8.5

0.0015

0.013

0.2

Two Rubber feet

Polymer extrusion

2.6

0.001

0.0026

0.0

Forging, rolling

5.8

0.012

0.067

1.0

0.36

0.0

Component

All Screws Battery Vibrating Pad top & bottom

Polymer molding

8.5

0.054

0.46

6.6

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Polymer extrusion

2.6

0.08

0.2

2.9

Forging, rolling

2.1

0.027

0.057

0.8

0.071

0.0

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire Main PCB Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Polymer extrusion

2.6

0.28

0.7

10.1

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Forging, rolling

2.1

0.092

0.2

2.8

Wire between base & junction

Polymer extrusion

2.6

0.074

0.19

2.7

Wire between base & junction

Forging, rolling

2.1

0.025

0.052

0.7

Fire Alarm top

Polymer molding

0.051

0.53

7.6

Fire Alarm Bottom

Polymer molding

0.027

0.28

4.0

Instruction Leaflet

Assembly / Construction

0.5

0.0045

0.0022

0.0

Spring

Forging, rolling

3.1

0.001

0.0031

0.0

Alarm (Amplifier)

Polymer molding

0.009

0.095

1.4

Inner Alarm Casing

Polymer molding

0.011

0.11

1.6

0.01

0.0

0.5

0.041

0.02

0.3

0.008

0.0

Fire Alarm PCB Box & Inner Slip Case

Assembly / Construction

Junction PCB Wire between base and fire alarm

Polymer molding

6.5

0.12

0.76

10.9

Wire between base and fire alarm

Forging, rolling

2.1

0.053

0.11

1.6

0.003

0.0

1.8

100

Blue pull out instruction section Total

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 5 of 19 2 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Transport: Breakdown by transport stage

Total product mass = 1.8 kg

Stage Name

Transport Type

Factory to Port Port to Port

Transport Distance (km) Energy (MJ) Energy (MJ/tonne.km)

32 tonne truck

0.46

1e+02

0.081

6.9 71.5

Sea freight

0.16

3e+03

0.85

Container to depot

32 tonne truck

0.46

1e+02

0.081

6.9

Depot to store

14 tonne truck

0.85

1e+02

0.15

12.7

Store to home

Light goods vehicle

1.4

0.025

2.1

3.3e+03

1.2

100

Total

Breakdown by components

Total transport distance = 3.3e+03 km

Component

Total Mass (kg)

Energy (MJ)

Main top w/Blue button

0.062

0.041

3.5

Main bottom

0.18

0.12

10.0

Clear outer section

0.028

0.019

1.6

Power junction casing bottom

0.023

0.015

1.3

Power junction casing insert

0.003

0.002

0.2

Power junction casing top

0.021

0.014

1.2

battery cover

0.027

0.018

1.5

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

0.027

0.018

1.5

Blue Side button

0.0015

0.001

0.1

Two Rubber feet

0.001

0.00067

0.1

All Screws

0.012

0.0077

0.7

Battery

0.36

0.24

20.2

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

0.054

0.036

3.1

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.08

0.054

4.5

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.027

0.018

1.5

Main PCB

0.071

0.048

4.0

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

0.28

0.18

15.6

Plug w/wire (Copper)

0.092

0.062

5.2

Wire between base & junction

0.074

0.049

4.2

Wire between base & junction

0.025

0.016

1.4

Fire Alarm top

0.051

0.034

2.9

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

0.018

1.5

Instruction Leaflet

0.0045

0.003

0.3

Spring

0.001

0.00067

0.1

Alarm (Amplifier)

0.009

0.006

0.5

Inner Alarm Casing

0.011

0.007

0.6

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

0.0067

0.6

Box & Inner Slip Case

0.041

0.028

2.3

Junction PCB

0.008

0.0054

0.5

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.12

0.079

6.6

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.053

0.036

3.0

Blue pull out instruction section

0.003

0.002

0.2

1.8

1.2

100

Total

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 6 of 19 2 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Use: Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode

Energy (MJ)

Static

1.6e+03

100.0

Mobile

Total

1.6e+03

100

Static Mode Energy Input and Output Type

Fossil fuel to electric

Product Efficiency Use Location Energy Equivalence, source (MJ/MJ) Power Rating (W)

0.35 Europe 1 1.2

Usage (hours per day)

Usage (days per year)

3.7e+02

Product Life (years) Total Life Usage (hours)

15 1.3e+05

Energy and CO2 Summary

End of life (Collection & Sorting): Breakdown by component End of Life Option

Collection & Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Collection & Sorting Energy (MJ)

Main top w/Blue button

Landfill

0.2

0.062

0.012

2.5

Main bottom

Landfill

0.2

0.18

0.035

7.2

Clear outer section

Landfill

0.2

0.028

0.0056

1.1

Power junction casing bottom

Landfill

0.2

0.023

0.0045

0.9

Power junction casing insert

Landfill

0.2

0.003

0.0006

0.1

Power junction casing top

Landfill

0.2

0.021

0.0042

0.9

battery cover

Landfill

0.2

0.027

0.0053

1.1

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

Landfill

0.2

0.027

0.0053

1.1

Blue Side button

Landfill

0.2

0.0015

0.0003

0.1

Two Rubber feet

Landfill

0.2

0.001

0.0002

0.0

All Screws

Landfill

0.2

0.012

0.0023

0.5

Component

Battery

Downcycle

0.5

0.36

0.18

36.7

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

Landfill

0.2

0.054

0.011

2.2

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.2

0.08

0.016

3.3

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.2

0.027

0.0054

1.1

Main PCB

Downcycle

0.5

0.071

0.036

7.3

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Landfill

0.2

0.28

0.055

11.3

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Landfill

0.2

0.092

0.018

3.8

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.2

0.074

0.015

3.0

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.2

0.025

0.0049

1.0

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 7 of 19 2 March 2010

End of Life Option

Collection & Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Collection & Sorting Energy (MJ)

Fire Alarm top

Landfill

0.2

Fire Alarm Bottom

Landfill

0.2

0.051

0.01

2.1

0.027

0.0053

1.1

Instruction Leaflet

Landfill

Spring

Landfill

0.2

0.0045

0.0009

0.2

0.001

0.0002

0.0

Alarm (Amplifier) Inner Alarm Casing

Landfill

0.2

0.009

0.0018

0.4

Landfill

0.2

0.011

0.0021

0.4

Downcycle

0.5

0.01

0.005

1.0

Landfill

0.2

0.041

0.0082

1.7

Downcycle

0.5

0.008

0.004

0.8

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.2

0.12

0.023

4.8

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.2

0.053

0.011

2.2

Blue pull out instruction section

Landfill

0.2

0.003

0.0006

0.1

1.8

0.49

100

Component

Fire Alarm PCB Box & Inner Slip Case Junction PCB

Total

Collection & Sorting parameters for end of life phase Collection Energy (MJ/kg)

0.2

Primary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.3

Secondary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.5

Energy and CO2 Summary

End of life (Potential Savings): Breakdown by component End of Life Option

Potential Energy Saving (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Potential Energy Saving (MJ)

Main top w/Blue button

Landfill

0.062

Main bottom

Landfill

0.18

Clear outer section

Landfill

0.028

Power junction casing bottom

Landfill

0.023

Power junction casing insert

Landfill

0.003

Power junction casing top

Landfill

0.021

battery cover

Landfill

0.027

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

Landfill

0.027

Blue Side button

Landfill

0.0015

Two Rubber feet

Landfill

0.001

All Screws

Landfill

0.012

Component

Battery

Downcycle

0.36

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

Landfill

0.054

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.08

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.027

Main PCB

Downcycle

0.071

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Landfill

0.28

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Landfill

0.092

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.074

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.025

Fire Alarm top

Landfill

0.051

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 8 of 19 2 March 2010

End of Life Option

Potential Energy Saving (MJ/kg)

Fire Alarm Bottom

Landfill

Instruction Leaflet

Landfill

Spring Alarm (Amplifier)

Component

Inner Alarm Casing Fire Alarm PCB

Total Mass (kg)

Potential Energy Saving (MJ)

0.027

0.0045

Landfill

0.001

Landfill

0.009

Landfill

0.011

Downcycle

0.01

Box & Inner Slip Case

Landfill

0.041

Downcycle

0.008

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.12

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.053

Blue pull out instruction section

Landfill

0.003

1.8

Junction PCB

Total

100

Calculation factors for end of life phase Combustion Efficiency (%)

0.3

'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ PHWDOV

0.66

'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.5

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ PHWDOV

0.2

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.4

Comminution factor (MJ/kg)

0.1

Re-Engineer Factor

0.8

Energy data for end of life phase Heat of Combustion (net) (MJ/kg)

Embodied Energy, recycling (MJ/kg)

Embodied Energy, primary production (MJ/kg)

Main top w/Blue button

1e+02

Main bottom

1e+02

Clear outer section

1e+02

Power junction casing bottom

1e+02

Power junction casing insert

1e+02

Power junction casing top

1e+02

battery cover

1e+02

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

1e+02

Blue Side button

1e+02

Two Rubber feet

1.1e+02

All Screws

Battery

2e+02

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

1e+02

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

1.1e+02

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Component

Main PCB

1.3e+02

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

1.1e+02

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Wire between base & junction

1.1e+02

Wire between base & junction

Fire Alarm top

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 9 of 19 2 March 2010

Heat of Combustion (net) (MJ/kg)

Embodied Energy, recycling (MJ/kg)

Embodied Energy, primary production (MJ/kg)

Fire Alarm Bottom

Instruction Leaflet

Spring

8.9

Alarm (Amplifier)

Inner Alarm Casing

Fire Alarm PCB

1.3e+02

Box & Inner Slip Case

Junction PCB

1.3e+02

Wire between base and fire alarm

1.1e+02

Wire between base and fire alarm

Blue pull out instruction section

1e+02

Component

Energy and CO2 Summary

Notes:

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 10 of 19 2 March 2010

Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary

CO2 Footprint Analysis Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 15 year product life):

CO2 (kg)/year Excluding savings

8.62

Including potential savings

8.62

Detailed Breakdown of Individual Life Phases Energy and CO2 Summary

Material: Breakdown by component Component Main top w/Blue button Main bottom Clear outer section Power junction casing bottom Power junction casing insert Power junction casing top battery cover RNIDsmoke alarm inner section Blue Side button Two Rubber feet All Screws Battery Vibrating Pad top & bottom Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire Main PCB Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Wire between base & junction

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Recycle content

Material CO2 Total Footprint * Mass (kg) (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.062

0.24

1.8

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.18

0.68

5.1

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.028

0.11

0.8

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.023

0.087

0.6

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.003

0.012

0.1

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.021

0.081

0.6

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.027

0.1

0.8

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.027

0.1

0.8

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.0015

0.0058

0.0

0% (virgin)

4.2

0.001

0.0042

0.0

0% (virgin)

2.4

0.012

0.028

0.2

0% (virgin)

0.36

7.1

53.0

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.054

0.21

1.5

0% (virgin)

4.2

0.08

0.33

2.5

0% (virgin)

4.5

0.027

0.12

0.9

0% (virgin)

0.071

0.92

6.9

0% (virgin)

4.2

0.28

1.1

8.5

0% (virgin)

4.5

0.092

0.41

3.0

0% (virgin)

4.2

0.074

0.31

2.3

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 11 of 19 2 March 2010

Component

Wire between base & junction

Fire Alarm top Fire Alarm Bottom Instruction Leaflet Spring Alarm (Amplifier) Inner Alarm Casing Fire Alarm PCB Box & Inner Slip Case Junction PCB Wire between base and fire alarm

Wire between base and fire alarm

Blue pull out instruction section

Recycle content

Material CO2 Total Footprint * Mass (kg) (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

0% (virgin)

4.5

0.025

0.11

0.8

0% (virgin)

2.8

0.051

0.14

1.1

0% (virgin)

2.8

0.027

0.075

0.6

0% (virgin)

1.4

0.0045

0.0062

0.0

0% (virgin)

2.5

0.001

0.0025

0.0

0% (virgin)

2.8

0.009

0.026

0.2

0% (virgin)

2.8

0.011

0.03

0.2

0% (virgin)

0.01

0.13

1.0

0% (virgin)

1.4

0.041

0.057

0.4

0% (virgin)

0.008

0.1

0.8

0% (virgin)

4.2

0.12

0.49

3.6

0% (virgin)

4.5

0.053

0.24

1.8

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.003

0.012

0.1

1.8

100

Total * Value accounts for specified recycle content

Mass and CO2 data for material phase Component

Qty.

CO2 Footprint, Recycle fraction in Part mass (kg) primary production current supply (%) (kg/kg) 0.062 3.9 5.5

CO2 Footprint, recycling (kg/kg)

Main top w/Blue button

Main bottom

0.18

3.9

5.5

1.6

Clear outer section

0.028

3.9

5.5

1.6

Power junction casing bottom

0.023

3.9

5.5

1.6

Power junction casing insert

0.003

3.9

5.5

1.6

Power junction casing top

0.021

3.9

5.5

1.6

battery cover

0.027

3.9

5.5

1.6

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

0.027

3.9

5.5

1.6

Blue Side button

0.0015

3.9

5.5

1.6

Two Rubber feet

0.001

4.2

0.1

1.7

All Screws

0.012

2.4

0.67

Battery

0.36

0.1

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

0.054

3.9

5.5

1.6

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.08

4.2

0.1

1.7

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.027

4.5

1.1

Main PCB

0.071

0.1

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

0.28

4.2

0.1

1.7

Plug w/wire (Copper)

0.092

4.5

1.1

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

1.6

Page 12 of 19 2 March 2010

Component

Qty.

CO2 Footprint, Recycle fraction in Part mass (kg) primary production current supply (%) (kg/kg) 0.074 4.2 0.1

CO2 Footprint, recycling (kg/kg)

Wire between base & junction

0.025

4.5

1.1

Fire Alarm top

0.051

2.8

2.5

1.2

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

2.8

2.5

1.2

Instruction Leaflet

0.0045

1.4

0.75

Spring

0.001

2.5

0.69

Alarm (Amplifier)

0.009

2.8

2.5

1.2

Inner Alarm Casing

0.011

2.8

2.5

1.2

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

0.1

Box & Inner Slip Case

0.041

1.4

0.75

Junction PCB

0.008

0.1

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.12

4.2

0.1

1.7

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.053

4.5

1.1

Blue pull out instruction section

0.003

3.9

5.5

1.6

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

1.7

Page 13 of 19 2 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Manufacture: Breakdown by component Process

Processing CO2 (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

Main top w/Blue button

Polymer molding

0.68

0.062

0.042

7.5

Main bottom

Polymer molding

0.68

0.18

0.12

21.6

Clear outer section

Polymer molding

0.68

0.028

0.019

3.4

Power junction casing bottom

Polymer molding

0.68

0.023

0.015

2.7

Power junction casing insert

Polymer molding

0.68

0.003

0.002

0.4

Power junction casing top

Polymer molding

0.68

0.021

0.014

2.6

battery cover

Polymer molding

0.68

0.027

0.018

3.2

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

Polymer molding

0.68

0.027

0.018

3.2

Blue Side button

Polymer molding

0.68

0.0015

0.001

0.2

Two Rubber feet

Polymer extrusion

0.2

0.001

0.0002

0.0

Forging, rolling

0.47

0.012

0.0053

1.0

0.36

0.0

Component

All Screws Battery Vibrating Pad top & bottom

Polymer molding

0.68

0.054

0.037

6.6

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Polymer extrusion

0.2

0.08

0.016

2.9

Forging, rolling

0.17

0.027

0.0046

0.8

0.071

0.0

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire Main PCB Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Polymer extrusion

0.2

0.28

0.056

10.1

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Forging, rolling

0.17

0.092

0.016

2.8

Wire between base & junction

Polymer extrusion

0.2

0.074

0.015

2.7

Wire between base & junction

Forging, rolling

0.17

0.025

0.0042

0.7

Fire Alarm top

Polymer molding

0.84

0.051

0.043

7.6

Fire Alarm Bottom

Polymer molding

0.84

0.027

0.022

4.0

Instruction Leaflet

Assembly / Construction

0.04

0.0045

0.00018

0.0

Spring

Forging, rolling

0.25

0.001

0.00025

0.0

Alarm (Amplifier)

Polymer molding

0.84

0.009

0.0076

1.4

Inner Alarm Casing

Polymer molding

0.84

0.011

0.0088

1.6

0.01

0.0

0.04

0.041

0.0016

0.3

0.008

0.0

Fire Alarm PCB Box & Inner Slip Case

Assembly / Construction

Junction PCB Wire between base and fire alarm

Polymer molding

0.52

0.12

0.061

10.9

Wire between base and fire alarm

Forging, rolling

0.17

0.053

0.009

1.6

0.003

0.0

1.8

0.56

100

Blue pull out instruction section Total

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 14 of 19 2 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Transport: Breakdown by transport stage Stage Name Factory to Port Port to Port

Total product mass = 1.8 kg

Transport Type

Transport Energy (MJ/tonne.km)

CO2 Footprint, source (kg/MJ)

Distance (km)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

32 tonne truck

0.46

0.071

1e+02

0.0058

6.9 71.5

Sea freight

0.16

0.071

3e+03

0.06

Container to depot

32 tonne truck

0.46

0.071

1e+02

0.0058

6.9

Depot to store

14 tonne truck

0.85

0.071

1e+02

0.011

12.7

Store to home

Light goods vehicle

1.4

0.071

0.0018

2.1

3.3e+03

0.084

100

Total

Breakdown by components

Total transport distance = 3.3e+03 km

Component

Total Mass (kg)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

Main top w/Blue button

0.062

0.0029

3.5

Main bottom

0.18

0.0084

10.0

Clear outer section

0.028

0.0013

1.6

Power junction casing bottom

0.023

0.0011

1.3

Power junction casing insert

0.003

0.00014

0.2

Power junction casing top

0.021

0.001

1.2

battery cover

0.027

0.0013

1.5

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

0.027

0.0013

1.5

Blue Side button

0.0015

7.1e-05

0.1

Two Rubber feet

0.001

4.8e-05

0.1

All Screws

0.012

0.00055

0.7

Battery

0.36

0.017

20.2

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

0.054

0.0026

3.1

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.08

0.0038

4.5

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

0.027

0.0013

1.5

Main PCB

0.071

0.0034

4.0

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

0.28

0.013

15.6

Plug w/wire (Copper)

0.092

0.0044

5.2

Wire between base & junction

0.074

0.0035

4.2

Wire between base & junction

0.025

0.0012

1.4

Fire Alarm top

0.051

0.0024

2.9

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

0.0013

1.5

Instruction Leaflet

0.0045

0.00021

0.3

Spring

0.001

4.8e-05

0.1

Alarm (Amplifier)

0.009

0.00043

0.5

Inner Alarm Casing

0.011

0.0005

0.6

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

0.00048

0.6

Box & Inner Slip Case

0.041

0.002

2.3

Junction PCB

0.008

0.00038

0.5

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.12

0.0056

6.6

Wire between base and fire alarm

0.053

0.0025

3.0

Blue pull out instruction section

0.003

0.00014

0.2

1.8

0.084

100

Total FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 15 of 19 2 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Use: Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode

CO2 Footprint (kg)

Static

1.2e+02

100.0

Mobile

Total

1.2e+02

100

Static Mode Energy Input and Output Type

Fossil fuel to electric

Product Efficiency Use Location CO2 Footprint, source (kg/MJ) Power Rating (W)

0.35 Europe 0.071 1.2

Usage (hours per day)

Usage (days per year)

3.7e+02

Product Life (years) Total Life Usage (hours)

15 1.3e+05

Energy and CO2 Summary

End of life (Collection & Sorting): Breakdown by component End of Life Option

Collection & Sorting CO2 (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Collection & Sorting CO2 (kg)

Main top w/Blue button

Landfill

0.012

0.062

0.00074

2.5

Main bottom

Landfill

0.012

0.18

0.0021

7.2

Clear outer section

Landfill

0.012

0.028

0.00034

1.1

Power junction casing bottom

Landfill

0.012

0.023

0.00027

0.9

Power junction casing insert

Landfill

0.012

0.003

3.6e-05

0.1

Power junction casing top

Landfill

0.012

0.021

0.00025

0.9

battery cover

Landfill

0.012

0.027

0.00032

1.1

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

Landfill

0.012

0.027

0.00032

1.1

Blue Side button

Landfill

0.012

0.0015

1.8e-05

0.1

Two Rubber feet

Landfill

0.012

0.001

1.2e-05

0.0

All Screws

Landfill

0.012

0.00014

0.5

Component

Battery

Downcycle

0.03

0.36

0.011

36.7

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

Landfill

0.012

0.054

0.00065

2.2

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.012

0.08

0.00096

3.3

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.012

0.027

0.00032

1.1

Main PCB

Downcycle

0.03

0.071

0.0021

7.3

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Landfill

0.012

0.28

0.0033

11.3

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Landfill

0.012

0.092

0.0011

3.8

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.012

0.074

0.00088

3.0

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.012

0.025

0.00029

1.0

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 16 of 19 2 March 2010

End of Life Option

Collection & Sorting CO2 (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Collection & Sorting CO2 (kg)

Fire Alarm top

Landfill

0.012

0.051

0.00061

2.1

Fire Alarm Bottom

Landfill

0.012

0.027

0.00032

1.1

Instruction Leaflet

Landfill

0.012

0.0045

5.4e-05

0.2

Spring

Landfill

0.012

0.001

1.2e-05

0.0

Alarm (Amplifier)

Landfill

0.012

0.009

0.00011

0.4

Inner Alarm Casing

Landfill

0.012

0.011

0.00013

0.4

Component

Fire Alarm PCB

Downcycle

0.03

0.01

0.0003

1.0

Landfill

0.012

0.041

0.00049

1.7

Downcycle

0.03

0.008

0.00024

0.8

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.012

0.12

0.0014

4.8

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.012

0.053

0.00064

2.2

Blue pull out instruction section

Landfill

0.012

0.003

3.6e-05

0.1

1.8

0.029

100

Box & Inner Slip Case Junction PCB

Total

Collection & Sorting parameters for end of life phase Collection Energy (MJ/kg)

0.2

Primary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.3

Secondary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.5

&2 )DFWRU ÄŽ NJ 0-

0.06

Energy and CO2 Summary

End of life (Potential Savings): Breakdown by component End of Life Option

Potential CO2 Saving (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Potential CO2 Saving (kg)

Main top w/Blue button

Landfill

0.062

Main bottom

Landfill

0.18

Clear outer section

Landfill

0.028

Power junction casing bottom

Landfill

0.023

Power junction casing insert

Landfill

0.003

Power junction casing top

Landfill

0.021

battery cover

Landfill

0.027

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

Landfill

0.027

Blue Side button

Landfill

0.0015

Two Rubber feet

Landfill

0.001

All Screws

Landfill

0.012

Downcycle

0.36

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

Landfill

0.054

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.08

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

Landfill

0.027

Downcycle

0.071

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

Landfill

0.28

Plug w/wire (Copper)

Landfill

0.092

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.074

Wire between base & junction

Landfill

0.025

Component

Battery

Main PCB

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 17 of 19 2 March 2010

End of Life Option

Potential CO2 Saving (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Potential CO2 Saving (kg)

Fire Alarm top

Landfill

0.051

Fire Alarm Bottom

Landfill

0.027

Instruction Leaflet

Landfill

0.0045

Spring

Landfill

0.001

Alarm (Amplifier)

Landfill

0.009

Inner Alarm Casing

Landfill

0.011

Downcycle

0.01

Landfill

0.041

Component

Fire Alarm PCB Box & Inner Slip Case Junction PCB

Downcycle

0.008

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.12

Wire between base and fire alarm

Landfill

0.053

Blue pull out instruction section

Landfill

0.003

1.8

Total

100

Calculation factors for end of life phase 'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ PHWDOV

0.66

'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.5

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ PHWDOV

0.2

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.4

Comminution factor (MJ/kg)

0.1

Re-Engineer Factor

0.8

&2 IDFWRU Į NJ 0-

0.06

CO2 data for end of life phase Combustion CO2 (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint, recycling (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint, primary production (kg/kg)

Main top w/Blue button

2.6

1.6

3.9

Main bottom

2.6

1.6

3.9

Clear outer section

2.6

1.6

3.9

Power junction casing bottom

2.6

1.6

3.9

Power junction casing insert

2.6

1.6

3.9

Power junction casing top

2.6

1.6

3.9

battery cover

2.6

1.6

3.9

RNIDsmoke alarm inner section

2.6

1.6

3.9

Blue Side button

2.6

1.6

3.9

Two Rubber feet

3.1

1.7

4.2

0.67

2.4

Component

All Screws Battery

Vibrating Pad top & bottom

2.6

1.6

3.9

Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire

3.1

1.7

4.2

1.1

4.5

Vibrating Pad Vibrating Pad electronics w/wire Main PCB

Plug w/wire (Plastic)

3.1

1.7

4.2

Plug w/wire (Copper)

1.1

4.5

Wire between base & junction

3.1

1.7

4.2

Wire between base & junction

1.1

4.5

2.8

1.2

2.8

Fire Alarm top

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 18 of 19 2 March 2010

Combustion CO2 (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint, recycling (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint, primary production (kg/kg)

Fire Alarm Bottom

2.8

1.2

2.8

Instruction Leaflet

1.5

0.75

1.4

0.69

2.5

Alarm (Amplifier)

2.8

1.2

2.8

Inner Alarm Casing

2.8

1.2

2.8

1.5

0.75

1.4

Wire between base and fire alarm

3.1

1.7

4.2

Wire between base and fire alarm

1.1

4.5

Blue pull out instruction section

2.6

1.6

3.9

Component

Spring

Fire Alarm PCB Box & Inner Slip Case Junction PCB

Energy and CO2 Summary

Notes:

FIre Alarm Eco Audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 19 of 19 2 March 2010

Eco Audit Report Product Name Product Life (years)

Energy and Carbon Footprint Summary:

Energy Details...

CO2 Details... Phase Material Manufacture Transport Use End of life (collection & sorting) Total End of life (potential saving/burden*) Total (including end of life saving/burden)

Energy (MJ) 77.7 4.36 3.2 1.62e+03 0.439 1.71e+03 -28.4 1.68e+03

Energy (%) 4.5 0.3 0.2 95.0 0.0 100 -1.7

CO2 (kg) 4.26 0.349 0.227 115 0.0263 120 -1.11 119

CO2 (%) 3.5 0.3 0.2 95.9 0.0 100 -0.9

*End of life saving/burden corresponds to the replacement of virgin material

improved audit.prd

NOTE: Differences of less than 20% are not usually significant. See notes on precision and data sources.

Page 1 of 11 10 March 2010

Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary

Energy Analysis Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 15 year product life):

Energy (MJ)/year Excluding savings

114

Including potential savings

112

improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 2 of 11 10 March 2010

Detailed Breakdown of Individual Life Phases Energy and CO2 Summary

Material: Breakdown by component Recycle content

Material Embodied Energy * (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Energy (MJ)

PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) Printed circuit board (PCB) assembly PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) Batteries (Ni-Cd rechargeable) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) Printed circuit board (PCB) assembly PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB) TPV (PP+EP(D)M, Shore 40A) Fire-refined tough-pitch, h.c. copper, hard (wrought) (UNS C12500) Cardboard

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.07

7.2

9.2

0% (virgin)

1.3e+02

0.01

1.3

1.7

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.027

2.7

3.5

0% (virgin)

2e+02

0.05

9.9

12.8

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.053

5.4

7.0

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.062

6.3

8.1

0% (virgin)

1.3e+02

0.071

9.2

11.9

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.18

23.3

0% (virgin)

1.1e+02

0.081

8.7

11.1

0% (virgin)

0.027

1.9

2.5

0% (virgin)

0.041

1.3

1.7

PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB)

0% (virgin)

1e+02

0.054

5.5

7.1

0.72

100

Component

Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery Battery Cover Base Top Base PCB Base Bottom Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper) Box Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Material

Total * Value accounts for specified recycle content

Mass and energy data for material phase Component

Qty.

Embodied Energy, Recycle fraction in Embodied Energy, Part mass (kg) primary production current supply (%) recycling (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) 0.07 1e+02 5.5 43

Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic)

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

1.3e+02

0.1

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

1e+02

5.5

Battery

0.025

2e+02

0.1

2e+02

Battery Cover

0.027

1e+02

5.5

Base Top

0.062

1e+02

5.5

Base PCB

0.071

1.3e+02

0.1

Base Bottom

0.18

1e+02

5.5

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

0.081

1.1e+02

0.1

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

0.027

Box

0.041

0.1

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

0.054

1e+02

5.5

improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 3 of 11 10 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Manufacture: Breakdown by component Process

Processing Energy (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Energy (MJ)

Polymer molding

8.5

0.07

0.6

13.7

0.01

0.0

Polymer molding

8.5

0.027

0.23

5.2

0.05

0.0

Battery Cover

Polymer molding

8.5

0.053

0.45

10.3

Base Top

Polymer molding

8.5

0.062

0.52

12.0

0.071

0.0

Component Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery

Base PCB Base Bottom

Polymer molding

8.5

0.18

1.5

34.5

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Polymer molding

6.5

0.081

0.53

12.0 1.3

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper) Box Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Forging, rolling

2.1

0.027

0.057

Assembly / Construction

0.5

0.041

0.02

0.5

Polymer molding

8.5

0.054

0.46

10.5

0.72

4.4

100

Total

Energy and CO2 Summary

Transport: Breakdown by transport stage

Total product mass = 0.72 kg

Stage Name

Transport Type

Factory to Port Port to Port

Transport Distance (km) Energy (MJ) Energy (MJ/tonne.km)

32 tonne truck

0.46

1e+02

0.033

1.0

Sea freight

0.16

2.7e+04

3.1

97.4

32 tonne truck

0.46

1e+02

0.033

1.0

Depot to Store

14 tonne truck

0.85

0.0061

0.2

Store to Home

Light goods vehicle

1.4

0.01

0.3

2.7e+04

3.2

100

Container to Depo

Total

Breakdown by components

Total transport distance = 2.7e+04 km

Component

Total Mass (kg)

Energy (MJ)

Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic)

0.07

0.31

9.7

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

0.044

1.4

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

0.12

3.7

Battery

0.05

0.22

6.9

Battery Cover

0.053

0.24

7.3

Base Top

0.062

0.27

8.5

Base PCB

0.071

0.32

9.9

Base Bottom

0.18

0.78

24.5

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

0.081

0.36

11.2

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

0.027

0.12

3.7

Box

0.041

0.18

5.7

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

0.054

0.24

7.5

Total

0.72

3.2

100

improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 4 of 11 10 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Use: Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode

Energy (MJ)

Static

1.6e+03

100.0

Mobile

Total

1.6e+03

100

Static Mode Energy Input and Output Type

Fossil fuel to electric

Product Efficiency Use Location

0.35 Europe

Energy Equivalence, source (MJ/MJ)

Power Rating (W)

1.2

Usage (hours per day)

Usage (days per year)

3.7e+02

Product Life (years) Total Life Usage (hours)

15 1.3e+05

Energy and CO2 Summary

End of life (Collection & Sorting): Breakdown by component End of Life Option

Collection & Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Collection & Sorting Energy (MJ)

Recycle

0.7

0.07

0.049

11.2

Downcycle

0.5

0.01

0.005

1.1

Landfill

0.2

0.027

0.0053

1.2

Downcycle

0.5

0.05

0.025

5.7

Battery Cover

Recycle

0.7

0.053

0.037

8.5

Base Top

Recycle

0.7

0.062

0.043

9.8

Base PCB

Component Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery

Downcycle

0.5

0.071

0.036

8.1

Base Bottom

Recycle

0.7

0.18

0.12

28.2

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Recycle

0.7

0.081

0.057

12.9

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

Recycle

0.7

0.027

0.019

4.3

Box

Recycle

0.7

0.041

0.029

6.5

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Landfill

0.2

0.054

0.011

2.5

0.72

0.44

100

Total

Collection & Sorting parameters for end of life phase Collection Energy (MJ/kg)

0.2

Primary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.3

Secondary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.5

End of life (Potential Savings): improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Energy and CO2 Summary

Page 5 of 11 10 March 2010

Breakdown by component End of Life Option

Potential Energy Saving (MJ/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Potential Energy Saving (MJ)

Recycle

-60

0.07

-4.2

14.7

Downcycle

0.01

0.0

Landfill

0.027

0.0

Downcycle

0.05

0.0

Battery Cover

Recycle

-60

0.053

-3.2

11.1

Base Top

Recycle

-60

0.062

-3.7

12.9

Base PCB

Component Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery

Downcycle

0.071

0.0

Base Bottom

Recycle

-60

0.18

-11

37.0

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Recycle

-62

0.081

-5

17.7

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

Recycle

-53

0.027

-1.4

5.0

Box

Recycle

-12

0.041

-0.49

1.7

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Landfill

0.054

0.0

0.72

-28

100

Total

Calculation factors for end of life phase Combustion Efficiency (%)

0.3

'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ PHWDOV

0.66

'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.5

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ PHWDOV

0.2

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.4

Comminution factor (MJ/kg)

0.1

Re-Engineer Factor

0.8

Energy data for end of life phase Heat of Combustion (net) (MJ/kg)

Embodied Energy, recycling (MJ/kg)

Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic)

1e+02

Fire Alarm PCB

1.3e+02

Fire Alarm Bottom

1e+02

Battery

2e+02

Battery Cover

1e+02

Base Top

1e+02

Component

Embodied Energy, primary production (MJ/kg)

Base PCB

1.3e+02

Base Bottom

1e+02

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

1.1e+02

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

Box

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

1e+02

Energy and CO2 Summary

Notes:

improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 6 of 11 10 March 2010

Eco Audit Report Energy and CO2 Summary

CO2 Footprint Analysis Equivalent annual environmental burden (averaged over 15 year product life):

CO2 (kg)/year Excluding savings

Including potential savings

improved audit.prd

7.93

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 7 of 11 10 March 2010

Detailed Breakdown of Individual Life Phases Energy and CO2 Summary

Material: Breakdown by component Component Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery Battery Cover Base Top Base PCB Base Bottom Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper) Box Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Material

Recycle content

Material CO2 Total Footprint * Mass (kg) (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.07

0.27

6.3

0% (virgin)

0.01

0.13

3.0

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.027

0.1

2.4

0% (virgin)

0.05

0.99

23.4

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.053

0.2

4.8

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.062

0.24

5.6

0% (virgin)

0.071

0.92

21.7

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.18

0.68

16.0

0% (virgin)

4.2

0.081

0.34

7.9

0% (virgin)

4.5

0.027

0.12

2.8

0% (virgin)

1.3

0.041

0.053

1.2

PP (copolymer, impact, flame retarded HB)

0% (virgin)

3.9

0.054

0.21

4.9

0.72

4.3

100

Total * Value accounts for specified recycle content

Mass and CO2 data for material phase Component

Qty.

CO2 Footprint, Recycle fraction in Part mass (kg) primary production current supply (%) (kg/kg) 0.07 3.9 5.5

CO2 Footprint, recycling (kg/kg)

Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic)

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

0.1

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

3.9

5.5

1.6

Battery

0.025

0.1

Battery Cover

0.027

3.9

5.5

1.6

Base Top

0.062

3.9

5.5

1.6

Base PCB

0.071

0.1

Base Bottom

0.18

3.9

5.5

1.6

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

0.081

4.2

0.1

1.7

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

0.027

4.5

1.1

Box

0.041

1.3

0.1

0.77

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

0.054

3.9

5.5

1.6

improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

1.6

Page 8 of 11 10 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Manufacture: Breakdown by component Process

Processing CO2 (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

Polymer molding

0.68

0.07

0.048

13.7

0.01

0.0

Polymer molding

0.68

0.027

0.018

5.2

0.05

0.0

Battery Cover

Polymer molding

0.68

0.053

0.036

10.3

Base Top

Polymer molding

0.68

0.062

0.042

12.0

0.071

0.0

Component Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery

Base PCB Base Bottom

Polymer molding

0.68

0.18

0.12

34.5

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Polymer molding

0.52

0.081

0.042

12.0 1.3

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper) Box Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Forging, rolling

0.17

0.027

0.0046

Assembly / Construction

0.04

0.041

0.0016

0.5

Polymer molding

0.68

0.054

0.037

10.5

0.72

0.35

100

Total

Energy and CO2 Summary

Transport: Breakdown by transport stage Stage Name Factory to Port Port to Port

Total product mass = 0.72 kg

Transport Type

Transport Energy (MJ/tonne.km)

CO2 Footprint, source (kg/MJ)

Distance (km)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

32 tonne truck

0.46

0.071

1e+02

0.0024

1.0

Sea freight

0.16

0.071

2.7e+04

0.22

97.4

32 tonne truck

0.46

0.071

1e+02

0.0024

1.0

Depot to Store

14 tonne truck

0.85

0.071

0.00044

0.2

Store to Home

Light goods vehicle

1.4

0.071

0.00072

0.3

2.7e+04

0.23

100

Container to Depo

Total

Breakdown by components

Total transport distance = 2.7e+04 km

Component

Total Mass (kg)

CO2 Footprint (kg)

Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic)

0.07

0.022

9.7

Fire Alarm PCB

0.01

0.0031

1.4

Fire Alarm Bottom

0.027

0.0083

3.7

Battery

0.05

0.016

6.9

Battery Cover

0.053

0.017

7.3

Base Top

0.062

0.019

8.5

Base PCB

0.071

0.022

9.9

Base Bottom

0.18

0.056

24.5

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

0.081

0.026

11.2

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

0.027

0.0085

3.7

Box

0.041

0.013

5.7

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

0.054

0.017

7.5

Total

0.72

0.23

100

improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 9 of 11 10 March 2010

Energy and CO2 Summary

Use: Relative contribution of static and mobile modes Mode

CO2 Footprint (kg)

Static

1.2e+02

100.0

Mobile

Total

1.2e+02

100

Static Mode Energy Input and Output Type Product Efficiency Use Location CO2 Footprint, source (kg/MJ) Power Rating (W)

Fossil fuel to electric 0.35 Europe 0.071 1.2

Usage (hours per day)

Usage (days per year)

3.7e+02

Product Life (years) Total Life Usage (hours)

15 1.3e+05

Energy and CO2 Summary

End of life (Collection & Sorting): Breakdown by component Component Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB

End of Life Option

Collection & Sorting CO2 (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Collection & Sorting CO2 (kg)

Recycle

0.042

0.07

0.0029

11.2

Downcycle

0.03

0.01

0.0003

1.1

Landfill

0.012

0.027

0.00032

1.2

Downcycle

0.03

0.05

0.0015

5.7

Battery Cover

Recycle

0.042

0.053

0.0022

8.5

Base Top

Recycle

0.042

0.062

0.0026

9.8

Base PCB

Fire Alarm Bottom Battery

Downcycle

0.03

0.071

0.0021

8.1

Base Bottom

Recycle

0.042

0.18

0.0074

28.2

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Recycle

0.042

0.081

0.0034

12.9

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

Recycle

0.042

0.027

0.0011

4.3

Box

Recycle

0.042

0.041

0.0017

6.5

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Landfill

0.012

0.054

0.00065

2.5

0.72

0.026

100

Total

Collection & Sorting parameters for end of life phase Collection Energy (MJ/kg)

0.2

Primary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.3

Secondary Sorting Energy (MJ/kg)

0.5

&2 )DFWRU ÄŽ NJ 0-

0.06

Energy and CO2 Summary improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 10 of 11 10 March 2010

End of life (Potential Savings): Breakdown by component Component

End of Life Option

Potential CO2 Saving (kg/kg)

Total Mass (kg)

Potential CO2 Saving (kg)

Recycle

-2.2

0.07

-0.16

14.1

Downcycle

0.01

0.0

Landfill

0.027

0.0

Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery

Downcycle

0.05

0.0

Battery Cover

Recycle

-2.2

0.053

-0.12

10.6

Base Top

Recycle

-2.2

0.062

-0.14

12.3

Base PCB

Downcycle

0.071

0.0

Base Bottom

Recycle

-2.2

0.18

-0.39

35.4

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

Recycle

-2.4

0.081

-0.2

17.6

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

Recycle

-3.3

0.027

-0.09

8.1

Box

Recycle

-0.51

0.041

-0.021

1.9

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

Landfill

0.054

0.0

0.72

-1.1

100

Total

Calculation factors for end of life phase 'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ PHWDOV

0.66

'RZQF\FOH IDFWRU ȕ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.5

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ PHWDOV

0.2

5HF\FOLQJ IDFWRU Ȗ WKHUPRSODVWLFV

0.4

Comminution factor (MJ/kg)

0.1

Re-Engineer Factor

0.8

&2 IDFWRU Į NJ 0-

0.06

CO2 data for end of life phase Combustion CO2 (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint, recycling (kg/kg)

CO2 Footprint, primary production (kg/kg)

2.6

1.6

3.9

2.6

1.6

3.9

Battery Cover

2.6

1.6

3.9

Base Top

2.6

1.6

3.9

Component Fire Alarm Top (W/inner plastic) Fire Alarm PCB Fire Alarm Bottom Battery

Base PCB

Base Bottom

2.6

1.6

3.9

Vibrating Pad Wire (TPV)

3.1

1.7

4.2

1.1

4.5

Box

1.8

0.77

1.3

Vibrating Pad Top & Bottom

2.6

1.6

3.9

Vibrating Pad Wire (Copper)

Energy and CO2 Summary

Notes:

improved audit.prd

Report generated by CES EduPack 2009 (c) Granta Design Ltd.

Page 11 of 11 10 March 2010

RNID Fire Alarm Lifecycle Analysis - Environmentally Sensitive Design Brunel University - Freddie Jordan - 0603918