Life Cycle Assessment of the Open Rack 3, Steel vs. CLT models.pdf

1、Deborah Andrews,London South Bank UniversityKarl Rabe,WoodendataCenterCarbon Life Cycle Assessment comparing Rack 3,Steel vs.CLT modelsOpen Rack V3:We tried to compareORV2 SteelORV3 CLTVolume in L25126Weight in kg 199116Own Estimated301 KG CO2e-32.5 KG CO2e!ORV3:Meta/RittalORV3:WDC Both CAD Files fr

2、eely available OCP and Grabcad Clean up the models,to get a close and fair comparison Remove Airflow and Trolley parts.WDC initial work OCP Prague Materials Assumed impact!What WoodenDataCenter Does:Optimised Digital Infrastructure Scope 1-3 Key focus on reducing embedded carbon(Scope3)Reduce Steel

3、and Concrete,replace with bio-based solutionsFuture Building Assessment teaser.but firstEOS 180 MW DCWooden rack 24HULife Cycle Stages A.Embodied carbon materials,manufacture variablesSteel-10%virgin/typical recycled content Plywood composite Soft wood pineHard wood oak Hybrid ply base⊤pine upri

4、ghtsHybrid ply base⊤oak uprightsB.End-of-life options 1st life 6 yrs.+2nd life 6 yrs.variablesrecycling/downcyclinglandfilllife extension-reuselife extension-remanufactureCarbon Assessment:A+B=life cycleResults benefits of recycling/life extension Results comparing impact of steel&wood racksResu

5、lts steel&wood racks-different life cyclesResults carbon assessment-wooden racks have lower impact than steelUSA market 1,000,000 new racks/yrhighest impact:2 lives-1 rack landfill/1 new replacementvirgin steel vs wood hybrid+recycled steel using wood hybrid saves 342,000 tonnes/yrlowest impact:1 li

6、fe extended/reuse virgin steel vs wood hybrid+recycled steel using wood hybrid saves 170,000 tonnes/yrLeast to most comprehensive/accurate assessment methodsCarbon footprint operational energy only Cradle to GateCarbon Footprint over life cycle operational and