benefits ofbenefits of 3r - iges · 1. what is “life cycle assessment (lca)” 2. benefits of 3r:...
TRANSCRIPT
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: [email protected]@mtec.or.th
[email protected]@ku.ac.th