청정기술 (Clean Technology)

  • 제24권2호
  • /
  • Pages.135-145
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1598-9712(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-0690(eISSN)
한국청정기술학회 (The Korean Society of Clean Technology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

자동차 언더커버의 환경영향 감축 효과 산정방법 적용 및 사례 연구

Application of Calculation Method for Reduction Effect of Environmental Impact and Case Studies of the Vehicle Undercover

  • 윤혜리 (한국생산기술연구원 환경규제대응실) ;
  • 박유성 ((주)에이치아이피) ;
  • 유미진 (한국생산기술연구원 환경규제대응실) ;
  • 배하나 (한국생산기술연구원 환경규제대응실) ;
  • 이한웅 (한국생산기술연구원 환경규제대응실)
  • Yun, Hyeri (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Environmental Regulation Compliance Office) ;
  • Park, Yoosung (H.I.Pathway Co., LTD.) ;
  • Yu, Mi Jin (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Environmental Regulation Compliance Office) ;
  • Bae, Hana (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Environmental Regulation Compliance Office) ;
  • Lee, Hanwoong (Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Environmental Regulation Compliance Office)
  • 투고 : 2018.01.31
  • 심사 : 2018.01.31
  • 발행 : 2018.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

전 세계적으로 온실가스 배출량 저감을 위한 다양한 활동을 하고 있다. 국가별로는 UN에 개별 국가별 계획을 제출하기로 합의했으며, 기후변화와 관련한 제도를 운영하고 있다. 또한 기업들은 자체적으로 온실가스 배출량 산정 방법론 개발을 하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 환경영향 감축 효과를 산정하기 위한 방법론의 사전 연구를 수행하였고, 국제적, 국가별, 기업별로 구분하였다. 환경영향 감축 효과는 자동차 언더커버 제품과 유니소재화 제품에 적용하여 비교, 분석하였다. 제품 환경 발자국 감축 평가 방법에 따라 차이가 크게 나타났으며, 주요 원인으로는 시스템 경계의 차이, 데이터 수집 범위, 기존제품 대체량 설정 기준의 차이이다. 방법론별 결과값에 차이가 발생하기 때문에 이해관계자는 제품 환경발자국 감축 결과에 신뢰하지 못하고 있다. 이에 이해관계자가 쉽게 이해할 수 있는 수준의 제품 환경발자국 산정 방법론을 상세히 공개하도록 해야 한다. 장기적으로는 제품 발자국 평가방법의 표준화로 감축 결과에 대한 비교가 가능하게 할 필요가 있다.

There are various activities for reduction of the greenhouse gasses (GHG) emission around the world. The countries agreed to submit their's individual plans to the United Nations and have operated programs related to the Climate Change, in addition, the enterprises have spontaneously been developed individual calculation methodologies of GHG emission. This paper aims at examining methods for calculating the effect of the reduction of environmental impact, being divided into three categories; international standard, country, enterprise. The reduction effects of environmental impact were compared by applying an existing product of the vehicle undercover and the uni-materialized product and being selected six calculation methods of environmental footprint. There are significant differences according to the evaluation methods of product environmental footprint (PEF) reduction. Main factors of differences are a gap in system boundary, a scope of data collection and the replacement amount standard of existing products. Stakeholders are unreliable in the results of PEF reduction because of the differences in results by each methodology. Therefore, it is necessary to disclose in detail the methodologies of calculating the PEF reduction that relevant people can easily understand, also to enable comparisons of the reduction results by developing the standardization of evaluation methods of PEF in the long term.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Kim, K. D., Ko, H. K., Lee, T. J., and Kim, D. S., "Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Transportation of Local Government by Calculation Methods," J. KOSAE., 27 (4), 405-415 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5572/KOSAE.2011.27.4.405
  2. Deprez, A., Colombier, M., and Spencer, T., "Transparency and the Paris Agreement: Driving Ambitious Action in the New Climate Regime," DDRI SciencesPo Working Paper (2015).
  3. Bolwing S., and Gibbon P., "Counting Carbon in The Marketplace: Part I - Overview Paper," Oecd Global Forum on Trade (2009).
  4. Kim, D. S., Sung, Y. J., Lee, J. W., Kim, S. B., and Park G. S., "Investigation into Methods for reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission in Paper Industry with Development of Greenhouse Gas Inventory," J. Korea TAPPI., 44(2), 49-57 (2012).
  5. Carbon accounting manual, Hewlett-Packard Development Company (2015).
  6. Eggleston, H. S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., and Tanabe, K., "2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories," IGES, Japan (2006).
  7. IEC TR 62726: Guidance on Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from the Baseline for Electrical and Electronic Products and Systems, IEC, Switzerland (2014).
  8. KS TR 62726:2014, "Guidance on Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from the Baseline for Electrical and Electronic Products and Systems," Korea Industrial Standards Commission (2014).
  9. IFC Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accounting Guidance For Climate-Related Projects, IFC Climate Business Department (2013).
  10. Mitsubishi Electric Issues Environmental Report 2016, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (2016).
  11. Hitachi Group Sustainability Report 2013, Hitachi, Ltd., (2013).
  12. Hitachi Sustainability Report 2016, Hitachi, Ltd., (2016).
  13. http://www.tei.or.th/carbonreductionlabel/about-e.html
  14. Carbon Trust - Carbon Reduction Label, International Trade Centre and Carbon Trust Footprinting Company (2011).
  15. https://www.myclimate.org/corporate-clients/climatop-label/
  16. Low-Carbon Product Certification Guidelines, Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (2017).
  17. Environmental Product Declaration, Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (2017).
  18. http://global.canon/en/environment/low-carbon/product.html
  19. Japanese CFP project, Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (2016).
  20. Yoann Le Petit, Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Analysis and Raw Material Availability, Transport & Environment (2017).
  21. Swedish Life Cycle Center, https://www.lifecyclecenter.se/projects/lca-and-vehicles/
  22. Linda Ager-Wick Ellingsen, Anders Hammer Stromman, Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles, NTNU Industrial Ecology 12th Concawe Symposium (2017).
  23. Yun, H. R., Park Y. S., Yu, M. J., Bae, H. N., and Lee, H. W., "Application for Uni-materialization and Life Cycle Assessment of the Vehicle Undercover," Clean Technol., 23(3), 256-269 (2017).