Decision Making and Sustainability in Chemical Process Synthesis

Damjan Krajnc

doi:10.15866/ireman.v1i5.6460

Decision Making and Sustainability in Chemical Process Synthesis

^(*) Corresponding author

DOI's assignment:
the author of the article can submit here a request for assignment of a DOI number to this resource!
Cost of the service: euros 10,00 (for a DOI)

Abstract

In the designing and improving of manufacturing processes, engineers are dealing with complex systems and they are, more or less, using systematic approaches. The sustainability process design searches for the optimal process design, improved in economic, environmental and social terms. Decisions over process selection, design and operation necessarily involve trade-offs between cost, economic potential, operability, safety, environmental impacts etc. Professional engineers are involved in making different kinds of decisions, depending on the criteria used. This paper delineates vision of sustainable development from chemical engineering point of view, focusing on criteria used in decision-making during the chemical process synthesis and optimization. Aggregated criteria are often used in the process optimization without consensus on aggregation technique. Usually, weights of the same criteria in the literature differentiate, because different people have dissimilar visions on sustainability. Paper discusses how these conditions influence the sustainability perception and criteria composition

Keywords

Chemical Process Synthesis; Decision Making; Sustainability Criteria

Full Text:

PDF

References

Clift R. (2000) Forum on Sustainability, Clean Products and Processes 2 (1): 67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100980050052

Venselaar J. (2003) Sustainable Growth and Chemical Engineering. Chem Eng Technol 26: 868-874.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ceat.200310010

Clift R. (2006) Sustainable development and its implications for chemical engineering. Chem Eng Sci 61 (13): 4179-4187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2005.10.017

O’Brien C., 1999. Sustainable production – a new paradigm for a new millennium, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 60–61: 1–7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5273(98)00126-1

Barnicki SD, Siirola JJ (2004) Process synthesis prospective. Comput Chem Eng 28: 441–446.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2003.09.030

Yang YQ, Shi L (2000) Integrating environmental impact minimization into conceptual process design – a process systems engineering review. Comput Chem Eng 24: 1409-1419.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0098-1354(00)00384-7

Das I, Dennis J (1997) A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems. Structural Optimization 14(1): 63–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01197559

Azapagic A (1999) Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design and optimisation. Chemical Engineering Journal 73: 1–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1385-8947(99)00042-x

Deb K (1999) Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: introducing bias among Pareto-optimal solutions, KanGAL Report No. 99002. Kanpur: Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.

ISO, 1997. ISO 14040: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.03.001

Goedkoop M., 1995. The Eco-Indicator 95. Final report. Pré Consultants B.V., Amerstfoort, The Netherlands.

Goedkoop M., Spriensma R., 1999. The eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology report. Pré Consultants B.V., Amerstfoort, The Netherlands.

Steen B., 1999. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Models and data of the default method. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.

Markandya A., Harou P., Bellu L.G., Cistulli V., 2002. Environmental economics for sustainable growth – a handbook for practitioners. Cheltenham, UK7 Edward Elgar Publishing.

Knaus M., Lohr D., O’Regan B., 2006. Valuation of ecological impacts — a regional approach using the ecological footprint concept. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26: 156–169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.010

Folke C, Hammer M, Costanza R, Jansson AM (1994) Investing in natural capital - why, what, and how? In: AM Jansson, M Hammer, C Folke and R Costanza (Eds) Investing in Natural Capital. The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington, USA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1243909

Johansson J., 1999. A monetary valuation weighting method for life cycle assessment based on environmental taxes and fees. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University.

RCEP (1998) Setting environmental standards. 21st Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, The Stationery Office, London.

Wilkins H (2003) The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23: 401–414.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0195-9255(03)00044-1

RCEP (1999) Setting standards. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, The Stationery Office, London.

Lawrence DP (1993) Quantitative versus qualitytive evaluation: a false dichotomy? EIA Review 13(1): 3–11.

Cohon JL (1978) Multiobjective programming and planning. Mathematics in Science and Engineering. Academic Press, New York.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03052158008915787

IChemE – Institution of Chemical Engineers (2002) Sustainable Development Progress Metrics Recommended for use in the Process Industries. Available at: http://www.icheme.org/sustainability/metrics.pdf (15. 10. 2004).

Schwarz J, Belhoff B, Beaver E (2002) Use Sustinability Metrics to Guide Decision-Making. Chem Eng Prog 98(7): 58.

Azapagic A., Perdan S., 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: A general framework. Trans IChemE (Proc Safety Envir Prot) Part B 2000; 78(B4): 243–261.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/095758200530763

Azapagic A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J Clean Prod 12: 639–662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-6526(03)00075-1

GRI – Global Reporting Initiative, 2002a. The Global Reporting Initiative – An Overview. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, USA. Available at www.globalreporting.org (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/springerreference_76043

Krajnc D, Glavic P (2005) How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of sustainability. Ecol Econ 55: 551–563.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.011

GRI – Global Reporting Initiative, 2002b. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002 on Economic, Environmental and Social Performance. Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, USA. Available at www.globalreporting.org (2004).

Saaty TL (1980) Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Krajnc (2006) Methodological approaches to the assessment and improvement of sustainable development in chemical and process industries (in Slovene). Doctoral dissertation, University of Maribor, FKKT.

Sikdar SK (2003) Journey towards sustainable development: A role for chemical engineers. Environ Prog 22 (4): 227–232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.670220409

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

Username
Password
Remember me