Benefits of 3R:Benefits of 3R:from a Life Cycle Perspectivey p

(Life Cycle Analysis and Statistics for Recycling: Indicators of Evaluating 3R Program)Indicators of Evaluating 3R Program)

A P f D Th t (RUT) M hAssoc.Prof.Dr. Thumrongrut (RUT) Mungcharoen

ERIA, 3R Working Group Member, g pDirector, CT and EcoDesign Research Unit, Kasetsart University (KU)

Expert, National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC)

TOPICS

1. What is “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)”

2. Benefits of 3R: from a LCA PerspectiveCase Studies onCase Studies on

1. Reduce/ Replace with Bio-based materials

2. Containers/ Packaging Materials reuse/recycling

3. Material Recycling3 ate a ecyc g

4. MSW-Construction & demolition waste recycling

5 Used Tires recycling5. Used Tires recycling

LCA & Carbon Footprint label in Thailand

3. Conclusion

Estimated Deaths attributed to Climate Change in Estimated Deaths attributed to Climate Change in the year 2000* (baseline 1961-1990: WHO)

3

Steps toward Sustainability for Industry Steps toward Sustainability for Industry (Low Carbon Economy)(Low Carbon Economy)( y)( y)

(CSR)Low Carbon Economy

Competitive advantage

“LCA/ Eco-design”(product-based)

Improved image

Competitive advantage

“CP”

Extend 3R from process-based to lif l d t/

Gade and Mortensen, 2003Ref: Environmental News No 68, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2003.

Resource savings

CP(process-based)

life cycle product/ service-based

UNEP Eco-Strategies Wheel: 3R for the whole LC0

• New Concept Development •Dematerialisation

•Shared use of the product •Integration of functions

7 Optimization of end-of-life system

R f d t

1Selection of low-impact materials• •Non-hazardous materials

•Functional optimization of product (components)•Reuse of product

•Remanufacturing/refurbishing •Recycling of materials

•Clean incineration•Non-hazardous materials •Non-exhaustable materials •Low energy content materials •Recycled materials •Recyclable materials

6 Optimization of initial life-time• •Reliability and durability

2 Reduction of material

•Reduction in weight Red ction in (transport) ol me

y y•Easy maintenance and repair

•Modular product structure •Classic design •User taking care of product

+- +-Eco-Point

•Reduction in (transport) volume

3 Optimization of production techniques

5

Reduction of the environmental i t i th t •

•Alternative production techniques •Fewer production processes •Low/clean energy consumption •Low generation of waste •Few/clean production consumables

4 Efficient distribution system• •Less/clean packaging

impact in the user stage •Low energy consumption

•Clean energy source •Few consumables needed during use •Clean consumables during use pLess/clean packaging

•Efficient transport mode

•Efficient logistics

g•No energy/auxiliary material use

Existing product

Priorities for the new product

Different products have impacts at different life-cycle stagesat different life-cycle stages

Ref.: World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Benefit of the Life Cycle Approach-3RWhy complete life cycle has to be considered …??

to avoid the shifting of... to avoid the shifting of burdens among life cycle phases

250 GJ180 GJ

Use phase better!

F li ti iti For recycling activities, we add more env. burdens.

Secondary Al vs. Virgin Al, Alternative use of Used tires

End-of-life 10 GJ10 GJ

Materials and production

100 GJ70 GJ

worse? Alternative use of Used tires,etc.

Which is better? with or w/o recycling different

Burden of a car(light-weight

construction with l i i l

Burden of a car(conventional

concept)

w/o recycling, different recycling methods, on the

LC perspective.

aluminium, polymer-compounds ..)

Source: Marc Wolf from Joint Research Center

Life Cycle Impact AssessmentLife Cycle Impact Assessment

Characterization Normalization Grouping Weighting

Optional

Def. impact category Classification

Mandatory

Inventory itemInput-output

p g g g

Impact category

category

CFC Ozone layer depletion

Human toxicityCd

Pb

Cont. to OD

Cont. to Human tox. Human health

Ecotoxicity

Global warming

Pb

Dust

VOC

Cont to Ecotoxicity

Cont. to GWEcosystem Single index

Photo. oxidant

Acidification

VOC

CO2

SO2

Cont. to PO

Cont. to Acidification

Ecosystem g

Eutrophication

Resource consumption

NOx

P

Cont. to EU

Cont. to RC

Resource

ISO14044Land use

Oil

LandCont. to Land use

TOPICS

1. What is “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)”

2. Benefits of 3R: from a LCA PerspectiveCase Studies onCase Studies on

1. Reduce/ Replace with Bio-based materials

2. Containers/ Packaging Materials reuse/recycling

3. Material Recycling3 ate a ecyc g

4. MSW-Construction & demolition waste recycling

5 Used Tires recycling5. Used Tires recycling

LCA & Carbon Footprint label in Thailand

3. Conclusion

Case 1: Reduce/ ReplaceLCA for material reductionLCA for material reductionExpanded polystyrene (EPS) is used in many industrial applications, such as containers, shock absorbers. This materials have environmental problems the

2 mm2 mm

This materials have environmental problems, the pollution and resource consumption that occur during the production of these materials

11 mm

2 mm11 mm

36 mm

150 mm

80 mm

36 mm

52 mm

Original EPS for inserts protective layers Redesign EPS

52 mm 4 mm4 mm44 mm

Ref. Reginald B.H.Tan (2005)

LCA for material reduction

Climate changeEutrophication

Ecotoxicity Fossil Fuels

Figure: Normalized results of EPS and EPS redesign (EPS*)

Case 1: Reduce/ReplacePackaging from fossil Bio-degradable packaging

Plastic bag: replace PE with “PLA + Tapioca Starch”

Garbage bag/ Shopping bag/ etc.

Degradable within 3 months

12

Palm diesel: GHG Emissions according to german, british and EU methodology

138140

Fossil Fuel

EU

Sustainable bio-fuel(EU criteria)

70

8380

100

120

140io

ns

[kg

/GJ] Land use change (worst case)

D

UK

Diesel Biodieselusing LCA to calculate

GHGs emission ofEU Sustainable47

3226

56

36 41

0

20

40

60

CO

2 E

mis

s GHGs emission of Biodiesel (from oil

palm) vs Diesel (fossil)

EU Sustainable Bio-fuel criteria:35% lower than

fossil fuel0

Fossil

Fue

l

South

east

Asia

Indo

nesia

Mala

ysia*

Typica

l

Default

Typica

l*

Default

*

Land use change Exploration

Biofuel System Fossil fuel system (reference system) Biodieselก Diesel from Fossil fuel

P d i t iProducer CountryLand use change

Production of biomass

Exploration

Crude oil extraction

60

Producing countries

Transport of biomass

Conversion process

Transport of crude oil

Crude oil distillation, cracking, refining

30

45

60

CO2

eq./

MJ

Transport of converted / processed biomass

Admixture

g g

Transport of refined mineral oil fuel

Admixture storage

0

15

AVG. Thailand AVG.Canada*

g

C lti ti L d h T t ti F l d ti Admixture Admixture storage

Use phase Use phase

Cultivation Land use change Transportation Fuel production

LC GHGs emission(comparing Thai-Canada)

Case 2:Case 2:Reuse + RecycleReuse + Recycle

Container/ Packaging

2.1 Container (PET vs. Glass with 3R)

Results: LC Energy consumption, gases emission

For 1 liter container

25% reuse60% recycle

container, weight of

PET = 0.03 kg, 80% reuse

16% recycleGlass = 0.66 kg

Env. impact of glass > PET

Summary: GLASS II shows the highest reduction of gross energy

glass PET

Source: Michela Vellini, Michela savioli (2008)

y g g gyand air emission (CO2, SOx, NOx) comparing to the base case.

2.2 LCA of 4 beer packaging options(glass bottle/ PET bottle/ aluminum can/ steel can)(glass bottle/ PET bottle/ aluminum can/ steel can)

Scope: Beer production (raw mat.+ brewery), Production of primary packaging, Production of 2nd and tertiary packaging (PE films & cardboard), Filling, T t ti P k i d f lifTransportation, Packaging end-of-life

Results:• For GWP & AP (& energy/ water), steel cans are the best primary packaging option, PET & Al are quite close to steel and glass is the worst

Ref.: Sidel, RDC-Environment, 2008

q g• The slight advantage of Al cans is by its favorable recycling rate. Recycling Al saves considerable energy, and the recycling rate for Al in UK (44%) is better than PET (20%)

2.2 (cont.) LCA of 4 beer packaging options(glass bottle/ PET bottle/ aluminum can/ steel can)

Main Conclusions:1. Primary packaging production and beer production are the highest impact phases2 The recycling rate is a very important parameter especially for Al cans

(glass bottle/ PET bottle/ aluminum can/ steel can)

2. The recycling rate is a very important parameter, especially for Al cans

Glass

Aluminium00

L

PET

Aluminium

Steelg C

O2e/

10

g

Ref.: Sidel, RDC-Environment, 2008Recycle rate

2.2 (cont.) LCA of 4 beer packaging options(glass bottle/ PET bottle/ aluminum can/ steel can)(glass bottle/ PET bottle/ aluminum can/ steel can)

Main Conclusions:3. PET becomes preferable for the indicator “climate change” if the

bottle weight can be reduced to or below 20g.Bottles weight

PETSteel can

e/1

00

L

PET Steel

g C

O2e

g/bottle

Ref.: Sidel, RDC-Environment, 2008

Sensitivity on bottle weight (focus on PET bottles vs. steel cans)

Case 3:Virgin vs. Recycling materials

Recycled product lifecycle Virgin product lifecycleEmission avoided by materials recovery

Using LCA to compare:Waste Auxiliary

materialsMining/Extraction

Collection & T tT t

Emission avoided by materials recovery

- AluminiumRecovered materials

Reprocessing

materials

EnergyRaw materials

Processing

Collection & transport

Transport Transport

TransportTransport

- IronReprocessing

Recycled material/product

Virgin material/product

g

- Glass Use

- Plastics Waste management

CombustionRecycling

Landfill

Figure : System boundary of the recycled and virgin material/product

GHG emissions:Aluminium and iron recycling

2 1E+01

1.4E+01

2.1E+01

mat

eria

ls

0.0E+00

7.0E+00

2 eq

./kg

m

-1.4E+01

-7.0E+00

kg C

O2

SimaPro 7.0(RER)

JEMAI Pro GaBi 4.0 SimaPro 7.0(RER)

Al IronVergin material Recycling material Recycling material*

Figure: GHG emissions for Al and iron reclycingNote: * GHG emission from recycling materials process only

CML baseline 2000 method

GHG i i Gl liGHG emissions: Glass recycling1.6E+00

8.0E-01

g gl

ass

8 0 0

0.0E+00

CO2

eq./

k

-1.6E+00

-8.0E-01

kg C

SimaPro 7.0(RER)

SimaPro 7.0(B250)

SimaPro 7.0(FAL)

JEMAI Pro

Figure: GHG emissions for glass

Virgin glass Recycling glass Recycling glass*

Note: * GHG emission from recycling materials process onlyCML baseline 2000 method

GHG emissions: Plastic recyclingPlastic recycling

3 0E+00

1.5E+00

3.0E+00

asti

c

0.0E+00

eq./

kg P

l

-1.5E+00

kg C

O2

-3.0E+00PE PET PP PS PVC

Vergin material Recycling material Recycling material*

P i & S d Al i Primary & Secondary Aluminum (GHG and other impacts)

Characterization Impact Primary Al Secondary AlCharacterization Impact Primary Al Secondary AlGlobal warming (kg CO2 eq) 13.4 2.87

Acidification (kg SOx eq) 0.0633 0.0119

Eutrophication (kg PO eq) 0 000304 6 16E 05Eutrophication (kg PO4 eq) 0.000304 6.16E-05

Land Use (m3) 0.000299 5.77E-05

Resource Depletion (1/R, kg) 0.000143 3.35E-05

E U (MJ) 196 45 3Energy Use (MJ) 196 45.3

Case 4:Case 4:Plastic Wastes

andConstruction & Demolition wasteConstruction & Demolition waste

4.1 Plastic Waste (Recycling vs. EoP)(Pl ti f M i i l lid t t i 48%PE 17%PP 15%PS 10%PVC 5%PET d 5% th )

Results: LC Energy consumption, GHG emission ( =0 for Landfill…. base case)(Plastic from Municipal solid waste contains 48%PE, 17%PP, 15%PS, 10%PVC, 5%PET and 5% others)

200

ste)

100

plas

tics

was

100

0

CO

2 Eq

./kg

PyrolysisIncineration with heat recovery

Recycling non-separation

50

ptio

nst

e)

-100Recycling

vision/chem.Separation

Recyclingvision/chem.Separation

Recycling non-separation

Incineration withheat recovery

Pyrolysis(kg Recycling

dissolution Separation

Recycling vision/chem Separation

-50

0

rce

cons

ump

g pl

astic

s w

as

-100Recycling Recycling Recycling non- Incineration with Pyrolysis

Res

our

(Pt/

kg

Recycling dissolvent Separation

Recycling vision/chem Separation PyrolysisIncineration with

h tRecycling non-

tiv ision/chem.Separation

vision/chem.Separation

separation heat recoveryheat recoveryseparation

Summary: “Recycling of plastic from municipal solid waste”is the most environmentally and resource sound method

Source: Claus Molgaard (1995), Denmark

4.2 Solid Waste Management & 3R (LCA and GHGs)

Results of LCA study for 188 scenarios Results of LCA study for 188 scenarios Recycling is more favorable (83%) than Landfill and Incineration

Aluminium: LC GHGs Savings Steel: LC GHGs savings

Recycling vs. Incineration

CO2-eq saving from recycling CO2-eq saving from incineration

Recycling vs. Incineration

CO2-eq saving from recycling CO2-eq saving from incineration2 eq 2 eq

Recycling vs. Landfill Recycling vs. Landfill

4.3 3R of Construction and 4.3 3R of Construction and Demolition Waste

“Benefit comparing to Landfill”

Ref.: Craighill and Powell, UK. (1999)

4.4 Recycling of Construction Waste

The main components of construction waste in Thailand: concrete/bricks, wood, gypsum, etc.U k

Concrete,

Thailand generated ~ 1.1 million tons of construction waste per year during 2002-2005

Unknown,26%

,46%

Wood,14%

Gypsum,6%

EPS,2%

Metal1%

Paper/Plastics,

5%

14%

6.0E+01

4.0E+01

conc

rete

)

Material LHV (MJ/kg)

% recycled

Energy saving, %

Steel 8.9 30 60

~28% energy savings

2.0E+01

( M

J/to

n of

Wood 16.9 50 100

0.94 kWh/kg wood waste

Kofoworado & Gheewala (2009)

0.0E+00Recycle aggregate Virgin Aggregate

The avoid energy from mining and processing aggregate

30% of steel waste is recovered and recycled50% of wood waste is used for biomass-fired PP

g

Life Cycle Impact AssessmentLife Cycle Impact Assessment

Characterization Normalization Grouping Weighting

Optional

Def. impact category Classification

Mandatory

Inventory item

p g g g

Impact category

category

CFC Ozone layer depletion

Human toxicityCd

Pb

Cont. to OD

Cont. to Human tox. Human health

Ecotoxicity

Global warming

Pb

Dust

VOC

Cont to Ecotoxicity

Cont. to GWEcosystem Single index

Photo. oxidant

Acidification

VOC

CO2

SO2

Cont. to PO

Cont. to Acidification

Ecosystem g

Eutrophication

Resource consumption

NOx

P

Cont. to EU

Cont. to RC

Resource

ISO14044Land use

Oil

LandCont. to Land use

Case 5. LCA Comparison forE d f TiEnd-use of Tires

Ref.: Corti and Lombardi, 2004

Fuel substitution in Cement Kilns

TOPICS

1. What is “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)”

2. Benefits of 3R: from a LCA PerspectiveCase Studies onCase Studies on

1. Reduce/ Replace with Bio-based materials

2. Containers/ Packaging Materials reuse/recycling

3. Material Recycling3 ate a ecyc g

4. MSW-Construction & demolition waste recycling

5 Used Tires recycling5. Used Tires recycling

LCA & Carbon Footprint label in Thailand

3. Conclusion

Thai Govt. Green Procurement

Thai Govt. (thru Cabinet) endorsed Govt.

Green Procurement Plan on 22 January 2008Green Procurement Plan on 22 January 2008(according to National Plan 10: 2007-2011, Govt. is the

leader on Environmental Products and Services Procurement)leader on Environmental Products and Services Procurement)

TARGET according to the GGP Plan for Govt. Unit (Department level) to purchase “Green Products”(Department level) to purchase Green Products

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011

Item

% of Units 25 50 75 100

% of budgets(for each product purchased)

25 30 40 60( p p )

Govt. is the big buyer with more than 0.2 trillion baht per year

Thai Eco-Products Directory 2009Thai Eco-Products Directory 2009

T t l 452 d t / i C t i (1) E t i l 28Total 452 products/services Categories: (1) Eco-materials 28(2) Eco-components 42 (3) Eco-products 232 (4) Eco-services 145

Eco-products/ Eco-labels in Thailand

• Type 1Green label

(1993) ISO14024231 products (7/09)

• Type 2

231 products (7/09)SCG Eco Value

(2009) ISO1402187 products (7/09)

• Carbon Footprint (subset of Type 3)87 products (7/09)

• OthersCarbon footprint

(2009) ISO/NP1406725 pilot products

Energy label

Organic

CE.N.I-2009.26.5No.5 Energy Saving Label

Carbon reduction label(2009)

p p63 products now

Organic

Green leaf (hotels)

Saving Label (2009)44 products (11/09)(subset of Type 1)

etc. Government greenProcurement criteria

Characterization (Global warming)( g)

Characterization GHGs Inventory data factor

(GWP100)

CO2 1000 kg 1 1000

CH4 10 kg 25 250

N2O 1 kg 320 320

CFC-11 0.5 kg 4000 2000

3570 CO2eq.kgRef: Wenzel, 1997

Global warming impact =(or Carbon Footprint)

Carbon Footprint Calculation

Carbon Footprint LabelLife Cycle Assessment

Japan Korea Thailand

Source: Prof. Dr. Atsushi Inaba,France Switzerland

Thailand Carbon Footprint: 25 Pilot companies/products (Apr. 2009)companies/products (Apr. 2009)

(Technical support by Japanese government under Green Partnership Plan)

Official Launch of the 1st Carbon Footprint Label (21 products from 16 companies) on 25 December 2009products from 16 companies) on 25 December 2009

National Guideline

No. Company Name Products CFP (g)1 Thong Thai Textiles T-shirt 100% cotton 6.20-8.97g

2 Thai Namthip Coca-Cola (325 cc. in can) 258

3 Bangkok Can Manufacturing The TULC cans 330 ml. (for soft drink) 131g g ( )

4 Thai Ceramic Wall Ceramic Tile (Cotto) 5.32 kg/m2

5 CP Intertrade Jasmine rice 100% (Brand RU) 20 kg. 4.80 kg/kgg g g

6 Asia Fiber Public Nylon 6 Textured Yarn 3.89 kg/kg

7 CPF Teriyaki Chicken 110 g 302

8 Charoen Pokphand Foods Fresh Chicken Meat 1 kg 2.90 kg

9 International Pet Food Meat Stick-Dog food 80 g 268

10 President Rice Products Instant Rice noodle Clear Soup 55 g 375

11 Tipco Foods (Thailand) Pineapple juice from concentrate 200 L 583 kg

B Chi M Ri ill J i i 100% 5 k 22 9 k12 Bangsue Chia Meng Ricemill Jasmine rice 100% 5 kg 22.9 kg

13Carpets International

(Thailand)Axminster Carpet (floor) 87.2 kg/m2

(Thailand)

14 Thai Union Manufacturing Green curry with Tuna in can 185 g 521

Carbon Footprint Label & 3Rp

The whole Life Cycle of The whole Life Cycle of this product generates GHGs = 258 g CO2e.GHGs 258 g CO2e.The GHGs generation

will reduce to will reduce to 145 g CO2e if the

packaging is recycled.p g g y

Enhance consumer Enhance consumer awareness on 3R

No. Company Name Products CFP (g)15 SCG P C db d C t l d 1 41 k /k15 SCG Paper Cardboard Carton (recycled paper) 1.41 kg/kg

16 Siam Reconditioning Ind. Reconditioning Copier 1.47 ton

17 Thai Hybrid Plastic (+ Fiber) Pellet 2 26 kg/kg17 Thai Hybrid Plastic (+ Fiber) Pellet 2.26 kg/kg

18 Otani TireTracktor tile No.F-17 12.4 - 24 (R1) size 40.66 kg 163 kg

19 Bitwise (Thailnd) Air Conditioner

20 Eastern Polypack Food Box with Cover 34 g 392

21 Thai Airways InternationalGreen Curry with Chicken + Rice + Fried

vegetableMassaman Curry with Chicken + Rice

1.39 kg

1.36 kgg

22 SIG CombiblocAseptic Carton 125 mm

200 mm250 mm

10.714.116 4250 mm 16.4

23 BetagroChicken Food 203

2049.97 kg10.8 kgg

205g

10.4 kg

Example: GHGs from each LC stages for 1 kg pork meat3R can play an important role to reduce GHGs emission3R can play an important role to reduce GHGs emission

3R opportunitypp y-Reduce grain use (improve

meat exchange rate)-Recycle/utilization of manure biogas etcmanure biogas, etc.

Adapted from the Danish Meat Association, Dalgaard et al, 2007

TOPICS

1. What is “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)”

2. Benefits of 3R: from a LCA PerspectiveCase Studies onCase Studies on

1. Reduce/ Replace with Bio-based materials

2. Material Recycling

3. Containers/ Packaging Materials reuse/recycling3 Co ta e s/ ac ag g ate a s euse/ ecyc g

4. MSW and Construction & demolition waste

5 Used Tires recycling5. Used Tires recycling

LCA & Carbon Footprint label in Thailand

3. Conclusion

“Eco-efficiency” Indicator“Eco-efficiency” Indicator

Performance

Value, Long Life,Aesthetic, Safeness,

ConveniencePerformance Convenience…

CO i iEco- =

ImpactCO2 emission,

Energy Consumption,Land Use, Toxicity,

efficiency

Aggregate impact, Full cost ($) .

“F t ” I di t“F t ” I di t“Factor” Indicator“Factor” Indicator fromLCA

Eco-Efficiency, currentFactor =

Factor 4

Source: Atsushi INABA (AIST, Japan)

Eco-Efficiency, ref

Factor SD

Calculating the eco-efficiency On the micro-level (company):

Eco efficiency =Net sales/ Product /service value

On a macro-level (government):

Eco-efficiency = env. impact/ resource use

Eco-efficiency or = GDP/ welfare env impact/ resource use

On a macro level (government):

Resource productivity env. impact/ resource use

National Level

GDP

Annual External CostCompany Level

Annual External Cost Country

Value added

Annual External Cost C

p y

Product Level

Source: WBCSD, Norihiro Itsubo

Annual External Cost Company

External Cost product

Value added

Definition of Eco-efficiency (Japan)y ( p )

Value Added p

LIMEEco-efficiency p

Value Added p

External Cost p

National LevelNational Level

GDP

Company LevelAnnual External Cost Country

Value added

Company Level

Product LevelAnnual External Cost Company

External Cost

Value added

External Cost product

Source: Norihiro Itsubo (AIST, Japan)

1 LCA can quantify the Benefits of 33RR clearly

LCA: indicator of 3R program

1. LCA can quantify the Benefits of 33RR clearly

2 C16 5

20

2. From CF data throughout LC, one

16.5

15

ma

teri

al

mat

eria

l

can identify the opportunity of 33RR to

10

00

kW

h/t

on o

f W

h/ k

g of

m

pp yreduce CO2 emission

towards “Low 1.10.2

1.1

0

510

0kW

Carbon Economy”GHGs ~10 ~1.28 ~0.7 ~1.06

reduction (kgCO2/kg)

0

Aluminium Steel Glass NewspaperAluminium Steel Glass Paper

( g 2 g)

3. Hybrid LCA (process-based LCA + E i i t t t d l) b

Ref.: WBCSD and WRAP, 2006

Economic input-output model) can be an effective tool for 33RR indicator

Thank you for your kind attention……….Questions?

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Thumrongrut Mungcharoen (RUT)Assoc.Prof.Dr. Thumrongrut Mungcharoen (RUT)ERIA ERIA 33R Research Working GroupR Research Working GroupERIA ERIA 33R Research Working GroupR Research Working Group

Director, Environmental Friendly Technology ProgramDirector, Environmental Friendly Technology ProgramChairperson Energy and Environment ClusterChairperson Energy and Environment ClusterChairperson, Energy and Environment ClusterChairperson, Energy and Environment ClusterNational Science and Technology Development AgencNational Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)y (NSTDA)Tel: (Tel: (662662) ) 564564--6500 6500 ext ext 48534853--48574857 Fax: (Fax: (662662) ) 564564--6500 6500 ext ext 45934593Tel: (Tel: (662662) ) 564564--6500 6500 ext. ext. 48534853--48574857 Fax: (Fax: (662662) ) 564564--6500 6500 ext. ext. 45934593

Director, CT and EcoDirector, CT and Eco--Design Research Unit, Kasetsart University (KU)Design Research Unit, Kasetsart University (KU)Tel: (Tel: (662662) ) 942942--8555 8555 ext.ext.12031203,,1204 1204 Fax: (Fax: (662662) ) 561561--46214621

th @ t thth @ t thEE--mail: mail: thumrong@mtec.or.ththumrong@mtec.or.th

fengtrm@ku.ac.thfengtrm@ku.ac.th