XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1025
and 2.6 kg CO2 eq. per ton of material. Which increases as
the material is processed further. Increase more strongly for
the mobile plant. Going up to 3.1 kg CO2 eq.
For a few of the impact categories, diesel is the highest
contributor to their values, ranging from 58–79% of the
overall impact, with GWP ranging between 65–79% of the
total impact. Highlighting the effort of electrification of the
mobile fleet, both crusher and yellow machinery. From the
stationary process, the proportion of the impact from diesel
is gradually reduced as the use of fossil fuel is replaced with
electricity from the local grid. Accumulating more energy
and impact within the product group but redistributing the
proportion of impact from different sources. This would,
of course, have a different impact depending on the geo-
graphical location of the quarry and the local electrical mix.
The impact from the six different product groups ranges
from 2.5 to 3.1 kg CO2 eq., which falls within the 26–45%
percentile of the published EPD from EPD International,
seen in Figure 5. Compared to standard reference values, it
is performing well as for general averages, there is 5 kg CO2
eq. per ton on average for EU (UEPG 2023) and 3.5 kg
CO2 eq. per ton for Sweden (SBMI 2019) for an average
site. However, a single KPI for a large market does not pro-
vide a relevant metric for comparison as the product groups
differ significantly. Within the first 10 percentile, which sits
at 1.5 kg CO2 eq., most product groups represent prod-
ucts that have only been blasted or roughly sorted, such
as 0/200 or 0/300. On the other spectrum of higher than
90 percentiles, or above 6 kg CO2 eq. there are product
groups containing marine aggregates, washed products and
fine aggregates with additives such as salt or cement-treated
material. There are also several EPDs that group either
multiple quarries into different performance values based
on defined product groups or a single quarry that groups
together multiple product groups into a single performance
value, making it difficult to get an accurate comparison on
an overall scale.
Working with a digital solution for creating EPD
streamlines the effort for the user as well as supports the
verification process afterwards. The use of industry-specific
EPD tools can enable many smaller producers to adjust
to new demands and regulations rapidly. It will also min-
imise risks for larger producers evaluating if they should
start working actively in reducing their environmental
impacts. Manufacturers can also benefit from the increased
simulation-driven development that it will bring with it as
producers get more familiar with process simulation tools
and become more familiar with their advantages and limi-
tations. From the interviews done with the producers after
the development of a demonstrator, the following state-
ment was made by one of the interviewees:
“Innovation takes time. In order to reach that level,
what would I do without the tool? Detailed use of this
can be beneficial. Use it to verify things, simulate and
follow up. Incremental improvement will not happen
by itself.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Normalized [-]
Figure 5. Visual representation of EPDs for aggregates
GWP
[kg
C02
eq.]
and 2.6 kg CO2 eq. per ton of material. Which increases as
the material is processed further. Increase more strongly for
the mobile plant. Going up to 3.1 kg CO2 eq.
For a few of the impact categories, diesel is the highest
contributor to their values, ranging from 58–79% of the
overall impact, with GWP ranging between 65–79% of the
total impact. Highlighting the effort of electrification of the
mobile fleet, both crusher and yellow machinery. From the
stationary process, the proportion of the impact from diesel
is gradually reduced as the use of fossil fuel is replaced with
electricity from the local grid. Accumulating more energy
and impact within the product group but redistributing the
proportion of impact from different sources. This would,
of course, have a different impact depending on the geo-
graphical location of the quarry and the local electrical mix.
The impact from the six different product groups ranges
from 2.5 to 3.1 kg CO2 eq., which falls within the 26–45%
percentile of the published EPD from EPD International,
seen in Figure 5. Compared to standard reference values, it
is performing well as for general averages, there is 5 kg CO2
eq. per ton on average for EU (UEPG 2023) and 3.5 kg
CO2 eq. per ton for Sweden (SBMI 2019) for an average
site. However, a single KPI for a large market does not pro-
vide a relevant metric for comparison as the product groups
differ significantly. Within the first 10 percentile, which sits
at 1.5 kg CO2 eq., most product groups represent prod-
ucts that have only been blasted or roughly sorted, such
as 0/200 or 0/300. On the other spectrum of higher than
90 percentiles, or above 6 kg CO2 eq. there are product
groups containing marine aggregates, washed products and
fine aggregates with additives such as salt or cement-treated
material. There are also several EPDs that group either
multiple quarries into different performance values based
on defined product groups or a single quarry that groups
together multiple product groups into a single performance
value, making it difficult to get an accurate comparison on
an overall scale.
Working with a digital solution for creating EPD
streamlines the effort for the user as well as supports the
verification process afterwards. The use of industry-specific
EPD tools can enable many smaller producers to adjust
to new demands and regulations rapidly. It will also min-
imise risks for larger producers evaluating if they should
start working actively in reducing their environmental
impacts. Manufacturers can also benefit from the increased
simulation-driven development that it will bring with it as
producers get more familiar with process simulation tools
and become more familiar with their advantages and limi-
tations. From the interviews done with the producers after
the development of a demonstrator, the following state-
ment was made by one of the interviewees:
“Innovation takes time. In order to reach that level,
what would I do without the tool? Detailed use of this
can be beneficial. Use it to verify things, simulate and
follow up. Incremental improvement will not happen
by itself.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Normalized [-]
Figure 5. Visual representation of EPDs for aggregates
GWP
[kg
C02
eq.]