1. 1 Emissions and Energy in the Asphalt Paving Industry Chris Robinette January 18, 2010 National Asphalt Pavement Association

2. 2 ?Question? What are the considerations for HMA carbon footprint?

3. 3 Life Cycle Assessment  Crude oil extraction and refining  Aggregate extraction and processing  Transportation of raw materials  Plant production  Transportation of finished product  Placement

4. 4 ?Question? Why is our carbon footprint important?

5. 5 Environmental Awareness

6. 6 ?Question? How is HMA carbon footprint information being used?

7. 7 Instances of Use  Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)  Residential customer purchase of carbon offset  Promotion of alternative technologies  Warm mix asphalt for Sacramento Regional Transit Authority  RAP in HMA for various agencies  Hot in-place recycling on SR 542 (Washington)  Promotion of Green activities  Marvin M Black Award - AGC

8. 8 Information Sources NCHRP 214 Colas Group PaLATEAthenaContractor Data 19802003 20062009 Energy Consumption, Btu XXXXX Emissions Generation, CO 2eq XXXX Conservation of Resources, ton X

9. 9 Upstream – To Produce One Ton of Material*  Asphalt Binder  600,000 to 4,200,000-Btu  280 to 675-lb CO 2eq  Aggregate  15,000 to 52,000-Btu  3 to 20-lb CO 2eq *Values based on multiple references

10. 10  Haul distance  Method of transportation  Truck – 155-ton-miles/gallon – 25-tons/truck  Rail – 436-ton-miles/gallon – 143-tons/car  Barge – 576-ton-miles/gallon – 1,500-tons/boat  Type of fuel consumed  Diesel  ~139,000-Btu/gallon  ~22.6-lbs CO 2eq /gallon  Gasoline  ~124,000-Btu/gallon  ~20.0-lbs CO 2eq /gallon Transportation of Raw Materials and Finished Product

11. 11 Plant CO 2 Emissions, lb/ton *Based on EPA AP-42 Emission Factors for a drum mix hot plant

12. 12  Equipment composition  Type of equipment engines  Productivity  Fuel used Placement

13. 13 ?Question? What is the benefit to using RAP?

14. 14 RAP in HMA – Emissions & Energy Analysis* Material / ProcessRecycled Material Content, % Recycled Asphalt Binder Content, % Emissions, Approx. CO 2eq /ton Energy, Approx. Btu/ton Conventional HMA00104.89533,333 RAP 15498.59501,778 15597.76495,544 25494.39480,741 25593.01470,352 *percent savings in comparison to conventional alternative

15. 15 RAP in HMA – Natural Resource Analysis* Material / ProcessRecycled Material Content, % Recycled Asphalt Binder Content, % Asphalt, ton/ton Agg, ton/ton Conventional HMA00-- RAP 15411.515.1 15514.415.0 25419.225.3 25524.025.1 *percent savings in comparison to conventional alternative

16. 16 ?Question? What about warm mix and asphalt shingles?

17. 17 Shingles & WMA – Emissions & Energy Analysis* Material / ProcessRecycled Material Content, % Recycled Asphalt Binder Content, % Emissions, Approx. CO 2eq /ton Energy, Approx. Btu/ton Conventional HMA00104.89533,333 Post Industrial Asphalt Shingles** 5.018.098.94493,724 5.023.097.29481,256 Post Consumer Asphalt Shingles** 5.032.095.09464,633 5.040.092.89448,009 Warm Mix Asphalt--102.90510,977 *percent savings in comparison to conventional alternative **Effective contribution of asphalt binder from asphalt shingles will influence savings

18. 18 Shingles & WMA – Natural Resource Analysis* Material / ProcessRecycled Material Content, % Recycled Asphalt Binder Content, % Asphalt, ton/ton Agg, ton/ton Conventional HMA00-- Post Industrial Asphalt Shingles** 5.018.017.34.3 5.023.023.14.0 Post Consumer Asphalt Shingles** 5.032.030.83.6 5.040.038.53.2 Warm Mix Asphalt--0.0 *percent savings in comparison to conventional alternative **Effective contribution of asphalt binder from asphalt shingles will influence savings

19. 19 ?Question? Are there other considerations?

20. 20 Life Cycle Assessment Format Reconstruction M&F CS Salvage IC 0 71114192328323740 IC = Initial CostCS = Crack SealM&F = Mill & Fill CS

21. 21 Expected Service Life Representative Range Representative Value HMA12 – 1814 Fog Seal1 – 32 Crack Sealing2 – 54 Slurry Seal3 – 75 Chip Seal3 – 106

22. 22 Life Cycle Assessment  Similar approach to previously presented  Considerations  Estimated life  Price of rehabilitation/maintenance  Discount rate  Analysis period  Salvage value – end of life  Additional savings seen in LCA

23. 23 ?Question? Are there other opportunities?

24. 24 Operation Estimated Emissions Generation, lbs CO 2eq /yd 2 -in

25. 25 Operation Estimated Energy Consumption, Btu/yd 2 -in

26. 26 Material Stabilization  AASHTO 93’ Design Guide  Representative layer coefficients  Untreated aggregate base – 0.14  Recycled aggregate base – 0.16  Emulsion stabilized aggregate base – 0.22  Cement stabilized aggregate base – 0.22  Cement stabilized subgrade – 0.16  Lime stabilized subgrade – 0.15  Design equivalent pavement structures  Low volume facility  ~1,000,000-ESALs

27. 27 HMA 5.0-in Conv. AB 11.0-in Subgrade Rec. AB 9.5-in Subgrade Emul. Stab AB 7.0-in Subgrade Cement Stab Subgrade 9.5-in Subgrade Lime Stab Subgrade 10.0-in Subgrade Cement Stab AB 7.0-in Subgrade HMA 5.0-in Stabilization – Environmental Analysis Energy, % Savings (measured in Btu/yd 2 ) -12.35.5-7.92.112.6 Emissions, % Savings (measured in CO 2eq /yd 2 ) -6.8-0.2-33.91.86.2

28. 28 HMA 5.0-in Conv. AB 11.0-in Subgrade Rec. AB 9.5-in Subgrade Emul. Stab AB 7.0-in Subgrade Cement Stab Subgrade 9.5-in Subgrade Lime Stab Subgrade 10.0-in Subgrade Cement Stab AB 7.0-in Subgrade HMA 5.0-in Stabilization – Natural Resource Analysis Asphalt Binder, % Savings (measured in ton/yd 2 ) -0.0-52.80.0 Aggregate, % Savings (measured in ton/yd 2 ) -9.325.824.968.4

29. 29 Summary  Emissions is dependent upon fuel source  Benefits of RAP are up stream of the hot plant  Warm mix asphalt reduces greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption  There are other opportunities to be Green  Why is this information important?  Painting the construction industry Green

30. ?Question? What does 2,800 represent? 30

31. What Produces More CO 2 ? 31 vs

32. US Cattle (Beef & Dairy)  104,000,000-head of cattle in US (2007)  145,615,000-tons of CO 2eq emitted annually 32 University of Missouri - Columbia & US EPA

33. Tale of the Tape 33 vs 145,615,000-tons CO 2eq /year 28,875,000-tons CO 2eq /year Assumes no RAP Difference of 116,740,000-tons CO 2eq /year

34. 34 What Can We Do to Reduce Global Warming?

35. 35 Questions