Decentralized or centralized production : impacts to the environment, industry, and the economy

Since product take-back is mandated in Europe, and has effects for producers worldwide including the U.S., designing efficient forward and reverse supply chain networks is becoming essential for business viability. Centralizing production facilities may reduce costs but perhaps not environmental impacts. Decentralizing a supply chain may reduce transportation environmental impacts but increase capital costs. Facility location strategies of centralization or decentralization are tested for companies with supply chains that both take back and manufacture products. Decentralized and centralized production systems have different effects on the environment, industry and the economy. Decentralized production systems cluster suppliers within the geographical market region that the system serves. Centralized production systems have many suppliers spread out that meet all market demand. The point of this research is to help further the understanding of company decision-makers about impacts to the environment and costs when choosing a decentralized or centralized supply chain organizational strategy. This research explores; what degree of centralization for a supply chain makes the most financial and environmental sense for siting facilities; and which factories are in the best location to handle the financial and environmental impacts of particular processing steps needed for product manufacture. This research considered two examples of facility location for supply chains when products are taken back; the theoretical case involved shoe resoling and a real world case study considered the location of operations for a company that reclaims multiple products for use as material inputs. For the theoretical example a centralized strategy to facility location was optimal: whereas for the case study a decentralized strategy to facility location was best. In conclusion, it is not possible to say that a centralized or decentralized strategy to facility location is in general best for a company that takes back products. Each company’s specific concerns, needs, and supply chain details will determine which degree of centralization creates the optimal strategy for siting their facilities.

CHARACTERIZING AND IMPROVING PRODUCTION OF FERMENTABLE SUGARS AND CO-PRODUCTS FROM A FOREST PRODUCT INDUSTRY WASTEWATER STREAM

Hardboard processing wastewater was evaluated as a feedstock in a bio refinery co-located with the hardboard facility for the production of fuel grade ethanol. A thorough characterization was conducted on the wastewater and the composition changes of which during the process in the bio refinery were tracked. It was determined that the wastewater had a low solid content (1.4%), and hemicellulose was the main component in the solid, accounting for up to 70%. Acid pretreatment alone can hydrolyze the majority of the hemicellulose as well as oligomers, and over 50% of the monomer sugars generated were xylose. The percentage of lignin remained in the liquid increased after acid pretreatment. The characterization results showed that hardboard processing wastewater is a feasible feedstock for the production of ethanol. The optimum conditions to hydrolyze hemicellulose into fermentable sugars were evaluated with a two-stage experiment, which includes acid pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. The experimental data were fitted into second order regression models and Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was employed. The results of the experiment showed that for this type of feedstock enzymatic hydrolysis is not that necessary. In order to reach a comparatively high total sugar concentration (over 45g/l) and low furfural concentration (less than 0.5g/l), the optimum conditions were reached when acid concentration was between 1.41 to 1.81%, and reaction time was 48 to 76 minutes. The two products produced from the bio refinery were compared with traditional products, petroleum gasoline and traditional potassium acetate, in the perspective of sustainability, with greenhouse gas (GHG) emission as an indicator. Three allocation methods, system expansion, mass allocation and market value allocation methods were employed in this assessment. It was determined that the life cycle GHG emissions of ethanol were -27.1, 20.8 and 16 g CO2 eq/MJ, respectively, in the three allocation methods, whereas that of petroleum gasoline is 90 g CO2 eq/MJ. The life cycle GHG emissions of potassium acetate in mass allocation and market value allocation method were 555.7 and 716.0 g CO2 eq/kg, whereas that of traditional potassium acetate is 1020 g CO2/kg.