1 / 60

Design and Services for the Future

Hållbar utväckling = Lönsam utväckling? Symposium om Faktor 10 Loka Brunn 25.11.2005. Design and Services for the Future. Michael Lettenmeier Managing Director D-mat Ltd. Michael.Lettenmeier@iki.fi. From Germany to Finland 1988 D-mat Ltd. Consulting, training, research, projects

avi
Download Presentation

Design and Services for the Future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hållbar utväckling = Lönsam utväckling? Symposium om Faktor 10 Loka Brunn 25.11.2005 Design and Services for the Future Michael Lettenmeier Managing Director D-mat Ltd. Michael.Lettenmeier@iki.fi

  2. From Germany to Finland 1988 D-mat Ltd. Consulting, training, research, projects Factor 10, MIPS, resource productivity Companies, authorities, colleges and schools, NGOs Rubbish! – Handbook for waste counselling (fi) 1994 MIPS – the new arithmethics of nature (fi) 2000 Factor X - Entering markets eco-efficient 2000-2002 Eco-efficiency - Business as Future (fi) 2002 Eco-efficient 2002 -fair FIN-MIPS Transport 2003-2005 Der ökologische Rucksack (de) 2004 Michael.Lettenmeier@iki.fi

  3. Design and Services for the Future • Hållbar utväckling: Need for Factor 10 • MIPS: Tool for Factor 10 • MI: Dematerializing our products • S: Sustainable product-service-systems • Examples of products and companies

  4. More benefit out of less material and energy More welfare with less environmental damage Unsustainable level of natural resource consumption Carrying capacity of nature exceeded already Total material consumption steadily growing Consumption distributed unequally increasing poverty problems increasing social problems around the world Resource productivity: more from less Source: Wuppertal Institute

  5. Finland consuming ... • Material consumption • non-renewable materials: + 2,5 % / a • renewable materials: + 0,6 % / a • TMR top class: 500 000 000 tn / a = 100 tn / cap. / a = 300 shopping bags / cap. / week Source: Thule Institute, Univ. Oulu

  6. ... not alone • Industrialized countries (20 % of world population) consuming • 86 % of all aluminium • 81 % of all paper • 80 % of all iron and steel • 76 % of all wood materials ca. 4/5 of all natural resources

  7. Which future? Developing countries Industrialized countries B = Consumption p. cap. in developing countries as in industrialized countries now A = Present situation C = Same as B, incl. growing population D = Halfing global resource consumption, doubling global welfare =>resource productivity!

  8. Targets in discussion (up to 2050): • Factor 4: doubling global welfare and halfing material flows • Factor 10: decreasing material flows of industrialized countries to 1/10, maintaining at least present welfare => resource productivity!

  9. Resource productivity works already

  10. You cannot improve what you cannot measure • 60 million companies globally producing 6 million different products and offering 60 million different services which all are constantly changing • 6 billion consumers in 200 countries using these products and services Resource productivity requires handable measures

  11. MIPS – indicator of resource productivity material input life-cycle-wide natural resource consumption of the commodity MI _____ S material inputperservice unit • service unit • life-cycle-wide benefit produced by the commodity

  12. Material input (MI) = life-cycle-wide natural resource consumption of the commodity expressed in mass units (e.g. kg) = commodity’s own mass+ the ecological rucksack (materials that are not visible in the product, but are used somewhere in its life cycle)

  13. holtistic, though rough indicator  hard to make illustrative indicators out of individual environmental problems Avoiding harmful substances is not enough  material flows are threatening the environment Material flows indicate environmental pressure

  14. From environmental protection to resource productivity Traditional approach Preventative approach Waste Waste water Air emissions Chemicals Nature protection Resource input Production and consumption From cleaning at the end of pipe to efficient resource use

  15. MI of products: examples

  16. Examples of MI-factors

  17. Examples of MI-factors for electricity

  18. Examples of MI-factors for goods transport

  19. Examples of MI-factors for person transport

  20. Company level: decreasingMI Faxtor X -example: Finn Karelia Virke Oy 50/50 polyester/cotton -blouse (weight 231 g) • Material inputs: • raw materials 69,5 % (4,18 kg) • packages 6,2 % (0,37 kg) • electricity consumption 3,3 % (0,2 kg) • other energy consumption 7,7 % (0,46 kg) • transports 13,4 % (0,8 kg) MI total: 6,01 kg  ecological rucksack: 5,78 kg • Changing cotton to viscose: MI 6,01 kg  3,54 kg (factor 1,7)

  21. Comparison of rucksacks (blouse 231 g) • 1. 50/50 polyester/viscose 3,3,kg • 2. 50/50 polyester/cotton 5,78 kg • 3. 100% cotton 8,14 kg • 4. 100% wool 44,26 kg Huom. Finn Karelia Virke Oy:n kaikki tuotteet ovat sekotteita

  22. The blouse in use • use and maintanance by consumer: power consumption! • 50 times washing • PES/CO +40 C 981 kWh • MI per 1 blouse 4,02 kg • 50 times washing + drying • PES/CO +40 C 1647 kWh • MI per 1 blouse 6,75 kg • 100% cotton +60 C 3484 kWh • MI per 1 blouse 14,28 kg

  23. Service-unit (S): more out of less • S = benefit provided by a product • quantified, unit defined case by case (e.g. using times, years of use, ton-km) • target: increasing number of service-units = more use / longer life / more functions of product  growing S  smaller MIPS  growing resource productivity MI ___ S

  24. How to increase the service-unit (S) ? • Increasing longevity • durability • repairability • maintainability • upgrading • resusability • etc.

  25. Factor X Finland - case Primalco • MIPS-comparision of packaging systems for wines: Reuse vrs. one-way for wine bottles Bottling french wine in Finland vrs. bottling in France • Comparison of packaging systems: • Wine transport France - Finland (bottles on trailer vrs. wine in tank) • Bottling in France vrs. bottling in Finland • Transport up to the Alko retail store

  26. Case Primalco: - packaging of french wine - solid resources kg / wine bottle

  27. Products are only service-delivering machines Example: Cooling chamber integrated in the kitchen wall • uses cold outside air in the winter • has CFC-free insulation material • uses 50-80 % less energy compared to a conventional refrigerator • cooling system is separated from the cooling chamber  can be exchanged • long lasting (e.g. lifetime of a house)  material efficiency is increased by a factor 7 compared to a conventional refrigerator Source: Wuppertal Institute

  28. From thinking in products to thinking in services • What the consumer needs is the service the product is providing • no fridge, but cold food and drinks • no lawn mawer, but short grass • no car, but getting to another place • no washing machine, but clean clothes • no book or magazine, but the content  Replace products by the use of libraries, car-sharing, laundries etc.

  29. How to increase the service-unit (S) ? 2. Business from products to services • Selling office space use instead of the building (YIT) • Selling good room-air quality instead of air-conditioning devices (Ender GmbH) • Selling flexible mobility instead of cars (City Car Club) • Selling office furnishing service instead of furniture (ISKU) • Selling communication solutions instead of devices (Sonera) => Combining the benefit of customer, company and environment

  30. Factor X – Entering Markets Eco-efficient • Factor X –project 2000-2002 • 15 companies, 10 consultants • 1 case (product or service) per company • MIPS-concept • Eco-efficient 2002 –fair • 3 days • 100 exhibitors • 5000 visitors • 10 conference events • Lendable poster exhibition • 65 posters

  31. Factor X Finland - Case studies Mitron Oy information panel for public transport ISKU office furniture unit incl. packaging Virke Oy women blouse Finton Oy balcony system Primalco packaging system for wine KESKO lemonade NOKIA mobile phone SLU (soccer) soccer match FIN - D SLU (basket-ball) training of a champions’ league team SLU (ice-hockey) one year’s activities of a junior team Orienteering World Championship 2001 in Tampere HUS hip operation Sonera e-work YIT - Rapido facility management VR - Group person-km by rail Paperipalvelu Oy folder Zaza table

  32. old display fluorescent tube regulating card power card glass control unit LDC-module mechanical and electrical parts new display led regulating card power card glass control unit LDC-module mechanical and electrical parts Factor X Finland - case Mitron Information display

  33. fluorescent tube display: cover 1,65 kg (ZnFe) MI=14,85 kg back cover 0,3 kg (Al) MI=18,3 kg plastic parts 0,22 kg (Ps) MI=1,54 kg fluor. tube, inverter,... MI=35 kg MI=>70 kg Led - display: cover 0,96 kg (ZnFe) MI=8,64 kg back cover 0,15 kg (Al) MI=9,15 kg resin (Harz??) 0,38 kg (Ps) MI=5,2 kg rubber, plastic parts, … MI=10 kg MI=>33 kg Factor X Finland - case MITRONMI comparison of replacable parts

  34. fluor. tube diplay vrs. led-display • life span  2 a vrs. 11 a • functionality • energy consumption - 60 % • nearly endless circumstances (IP 68) • considerably thinner construction • light regulation • phosforescence characteristics Factor X Finland - case Mitrondevelopment of the service unit  Factor 6

  35. Case MitronBenefits of eco-intelligent design • money savings through resource saving • marketing benefits, new markets • increasing consumer interest • increasing credibility among the employees • possibility for increasing empoyment • realizing environmental targets without legal constraints and without inevitable increase of costs

  36. MIPS calculation for 2 buildings of Helsinki University Abiotic resources, kg/m2/a Paula Sinivuori Helsinki University

  37. Abiotic MIPS-figures, kg/m2/a Heat consumption Earth excavation Power consumption Technical equipment

  38. Sensitivity analysis: Factor 4 buidling feasible Change in abiotic resource consumption • useful life 100 a => 200 a: –31% • recycled instead of virgin metals: –20% • longer renovation circles: –10% • lower power and heat consumption: –5% • average power to wind power: –25% Total potential for improvement: Factor 4

  39. Lindström ltd. – MIPS of drying hands MIPS = solid resource consumption / 1 times of drying hands Calculation includes: • Roll towel lasting 100 washing times • 1 paper towel / drying once (incl. packaging and waste disposal) • Hot air dryer 2110 W, drying 30 seconds Helsinki University 2003

  40. Alternative options for waste policy in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area(Ville Salo, Univ. Helsinki, Env. Economics) Present sit. Prevention Recycling A Recycling B MB plant Incinerator Municipal wate in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area: resource cosumption over the life-cycle for different options, tons / a

  41. 11th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference June 6-8, 2005, Helsinki, Finland Dematerialising the Management of Municipal Services Water Supply, Delivery and Wastewater Treatment Energy Supply Adeline Maijala – Helsinki University of Technology (TKK) Tarja Teppo – Helsinki University of Technology (TKK) Michael Lettenmeier – D-mat ltd. Elina Virtanen – Helsinki University of Technology (TKK) Salla Hänninen – Helsinki University of Technology (TKK)

  42. Results

  43. Improvements in resource consumption • Same technology, optimisation: • Less digging (change dimensions and material) => factor 1,1-1,3 • Less virgin material (reuse ground, ground material represents 70% of the material input) => factor ? • Locate under green areas => factor 1,2-1,3 • Use the existing network more efficiently => factor ? • Change of technology: • No-dig => factor 7-13 • Change of system • No network => factor 2 – 3,5 (Reckerzügl for sewage systems) • Combination of rain water and bottled water => factor ? • Dry toilets => ca. factor 2,5 (Reckerzügl)

  44. No-Dig technology

  45. Material intensity of the energy from Kymijärvi power plant in Lahti Original plant MI hard coal MI transport Incl. gasification unit Abiotic resource consumption per kWh of energy produced (power and heat): Original plant: 1,83 kg/kWhIncl. gasification unit: 1,53 kg/kWh ( –16% ) Average Finland: 0,5 kg/kWh* Average EU 15: 1,8 kg/kWh** * Vihermaa 2005 ** Hacker 2003

  46. Scenario: coal from Poland Decreasing MI-factor of hard coal: 5,1 kg/kg => 2,2 kg/kg Shorter railway transportat: 4000 km => 500 km Longer shop transport: 200 km => 800 km Change in process (not quantified): increasing need for desulphurication and limestone

  47. Scenario: coal from Poland Original plant Incl. gasification Polish Coal Influence of gasification: Factor 1,2 ( –16%) Influence of Poland coal: Factor 3,9 ( –74%) Influence of Polish coal on gasification option: Factor 3,3 ( –69%)

  48. Examples of Factor X project

  49. Factor X Finland - experiences: MIPS - potential for application Comparisons of eco-efficiency Product development • understandable principle • sufficiently quick tool for situations requiring selection Business development • increasing the benefits of customer and environment • product-related services (product + additional service) • utilisation-related services (product owned by producer) • business focus from products to services

More Related