The Emissions Conundrum

I recently received a letter from a reader seeking a comprehensive list of all green manufacturing initiatives. Manufacturers I encounter at tradeshows and events often ask me, “Is there a definitive guidebook or a check list?” They say that they want to make sure that they’re doing everything they can, and that what they’re already doing really is green. One cannot be faulted for wanting a black-and-white, pure, This-is-everything-and-always-green testament.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

I first encountered the conundrum when researching green lubricants and cleaners. So I entered the labyrinth of dizzying debate. Which is greener, a biobased lubricant that can be sewered, or one that can’t be drain-disposed but can be made into biodiesel? Which is greener, a cleaner that is biobased and biodegradable but was grown using hazardous fertilizers and insecticides, or a cleaner that contains chlorinated solvents but that recirculates in a closed-loop system and is not discarded at all?

It’s a little uncomfortable admitting that green comes in shades of gray.

Many excellent certifications and standards exist. ISO 14001 environmental management and ISO 50001 energy management system standards provide a very comprehensive reference for operations, as do Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) certification for green buildings and Energy Star® and Green Seal for products. But the issue of whether a product or process is green from start to finish still is a bit elusive, especially when it comes to tracking emissions.

Emissions

The article “No-, low-emissions lift trucks clear the air” (p. 32) highlights the ecofriendly aspects of no- and low-emissions lift trucks, including electric-powered ones. That the electric lift trucks do not emit noxious gases or any emissions in the plant is indisputable. But the nagging question remains unanswered: What about the emissions generated in the production of the electricity that the lift trucks consume? One article contributor commented, “Aren’t you just moving the emissions upstream?”

The emissions associated with the electricity generated at a power plant used to power an electric lift truck are lower than the emissions generated directly in a plant by a combustion-engine lift truck.

It must be conceded that a true emissions calculation must include the source of the energy and how it is generated, including everything that contributes emissions. As the commenter stated, “Nuclear power emissions are far lower than coal, but the emissions needed to mine and refine the nuclear material must still be accounted for.”

Renewable Energy Lessens Emissions

Part of the solution to resolving the emissions quandary is preventing emissions from drifting upstream by the sourcing of clean, renewable energy. Lift trucks powered by electricity generated by wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels will have lower emissions than those powered by fossil-fuel power plants.

Sourcing renewable energy helped Philips Lightolier reduce its overall emissions. The manufacturer installed a utility-scale wind turbine on its property. The energy it generates offsets 70 percent of the plant’s electricity, which would have had to be generated from the area’s coal-fired power plant (see “Lighting manufacturer reaches for net-zero energy with wind power,” p. 18).

However, even though solar and wind energy do not produce any emissions once they are installed, some emissions are produced in the mining, processing, and transportation of the raw materials; in the manufacture of the systems; and the transport of the products to their sites and their installation.

Over the lifespan of those renewable energy systems, those emissions are minimal, but not nonexistent.

The other part of the solution must be recognizing that almost every activity and energy source generates emissions at some point. The best you can do is to evaluate each application, taking everything into consideration, and strive to reduce your environmental impact as much as possible.