A comparison of repaired, remanufactured and new compressors used in Western Australian small- and medium-sized enterprises in terms of global warming

Repaired compressors are compared with remanufactured and new compressors in terms of economic andenvironmental benefits. A detailed life cycle assessment has been carried out for compressors under threemanufacturing strategies: repaired, remanufactured and new equipment. The life cycle assessment of the globalwarming potential of repaired compressors varies from 4.38 to 119 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e),depending on the type of components replaced. While greenhouse gas emissions from the remanufacturedcompressors (110 to 168 kg CO2-e) are relatively higher than those from the repaired ones (4.4 to 119 kg CO2-e), anew compressor has been found to produce a larger amount of greenhouse gas emissions (1,590 kg CO2-e)compared to both repaired and remanufactured compressors. Repairing failed compressors has been found to offerend users both dollar and carbon savings in contrast to remanufactured and new compressors. The research alsofound that extended lifetime is more important than the manufacturing processes in terms of greenhouse gasemissions. Since a remanufactured compressor offers a longer life than a repaired compressor, the replacement ofthe latter with the former can avoid 33% to 66% of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with a newcompressor production with a lifetime of 15 to 25 years

Reducing the environmental impact of trials: a comparison of the carbon footprint of the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 clinical trials

BACKGROUND: All sectors of the economy, including the health research sector, must reduce their carbon emissions. The UK National Institute for Health Research has recently prepared guidelines on how to minimize the carbon footprint of research. We compare the carbon emissions from two international clinical trials in order to identify where emissions reductions can be made. METHODS: We conducted a carbon audit of two clinical trials (the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 trials), quantifying the carbon dioxide emissions produced over a one-year audit period. Carbon emissions arising from the coordination centre, freight delivery, trial-related travel and commuting were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The total emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents during the one-year audit period were 181.3 tonnes for CRASH-1 and 108.2 tonnes for CRASH-2. In total, CRASH-1 emitted 924.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents compared with 508.5 tonnes for CRASH-2. The CRASH-1 trial recruited 10,008 patients over 5.1 years, corresponding to 92 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The CRASH-2 trial recruited 20,211 patients over 4.7 years, corresponding to 25 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The largest contributor to emissions in CRASH-1 was freight delivery of trial materials (86.0 tonnes, 48% of total emissions), whereas the largest contributor in CRASH-2 was energy use by the trial coordination centre (54.6 tonnes, 30% of total emissions). CONCLUSIONS: Faster patient recruitment in the CRASH-2 trial largely accounted for its greatly increased carbon efficiency in terms of emissions per randomized patient. Lighter trial materials and web-based data entry also contributed to the overall lower carbon emissions in CRASH-2 as compared to CRASH-1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CRASH-1: ISRCTN74459797CRASH-2: ISRCTN86750102