Large engineered systems do not often live out their life cycles as originally planned. Traditional design methods do not address redesign issues that arise during long term operation of these systems. The problem of how to consider the environmental impacts of stranded assets is especially problematic, particularly during system operational changes. This paper presents a method for analysis of a dynamically changing system that includes consideration of both economic and environmental impacts. A case study of an electrical power system illustrates the approach. Using a 100yr time period and using several decision rules (e.g., keep all plants operating until planned retirement age or retire all plants 10% early), the aggregated results were derived. The best sequence of decision or decision rule can now be determined by the highest multiattribute utility score. The best decision sequence is one that immediately retires and decommissions all fossil fueled electrical power plants, although early retirement without immediate decommissioning produces inferior utility values. There is little gained in utility when extending operational life of the plants, and as the 100yr period moves forward, all solutions collapse on the final system configuration. The results provide several insights that were gained through the ability to forecast the environmental impact caused by changes within the life cycle phases of a system, such as early retirement or operational life extension of facilities.

1.
Graedel
,
T. E.
, and
Allenby
,
B. R.
, 1995,
Industrial Ecology
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
.
2.
Curran
,
M. A.
, 1996,
Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
3.
Graedel
,
T. E.
, 1998,
Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
.
4.
Guinee
,
J. B.
, 2002,
Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards
,
Kluwer Academic
,
Dordrecht
.
5.
EPA
, 2005, “
Supplemental Proposal for the Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule)
,”
Fed. Regist.
0097-6326,
69
, pp.
32684
32772
.
6.
Gunther
,
A.
, and
Langowski
,
H.-C.
, 1997, “
Life Cycle Assessment Study on Resilient Floor Coverings
,”
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
0948-3349,
2
, pp.
73
80
.
7.
Heijungs
,
R.
, and
Suh
,
S.
, 2002,
The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment
,
Kluwer Academic
,
Dordrecht
, Vol.
11
.
8.
Moore
,
G. A.
, 1991,
Crossing the Chasm
,
Harper
,
New York
.
9.
Sepulveda
,
J. A.
,
Souder
,
W. E.
, and
Gottfried
,
B. S.
, 1984,
Engineering Economics
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
10.
Ayres
,
R. U.
, 1995, “
Life Cycle Analysis: A Critique
,”
Resources, Conservation, & Recycling
,
14
, pp.
199
223
.
11.
Reap
,
J.
,
Bras
,
B.
,
Newcomb
,
P. J.
, and
Carmichael
,
C.
, 2003, “
Improving Life Cycle Assessment by Including Spatial, Dynamic and Place-Based Modeling
,” presented at
ASME 2003 Design Engineering Technical Conferences
,
Chicago, IL
.
12.
Lu
,
B.
, and
Gu
,
P.
, 2003, “
Systematic Life Cycle Design for Sustainable Product Development
,” presented at
ASME 2003 Design Engineering Technical Conferences
,
Chicago, IL
.
13.
Clemen
,
R. T.
, and
Reilly
,
T.
, 2001,
Making Hard Decisions
,
Duxbury Thomson Learning
,
Pacific Grove, CA
.
14.
Scheraga
,
J. D.
, and
Sussman
,
F. G.
, 1998, “
Discounting and Environmental Management
,” in
International Yearbook for Environmental and Resource Economics 1998/1999
,
H.
Folmer
and
T.
Tietenberg
, eds.,
Edward Elgar
,
Northampton, MA:
, pp.
1
32
.
15.
Hellweg
,
S.
,
Hofstetter
,
T.
, and
Hungerbuhler
,
K.
, 2003, “
Discounting and the Environment—Should Current Impacts be Weighted Differently Than Impacts Harming Future Generations?
,”
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
0948-3349,
8
, pp.
8
18
.
16.
Keeney
,
R. L.
, and
Raiffa
,
H.
, 1976,
Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs
,
Cambridge University Press
,
New York
.
17.
US-Canada Power System Outage Task Force
, 2004, “
Final Report of the Aug. 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations
,” US Department of Energy and Canadian Department of Natural Resources, Washington, DC, Mar. 31.
18.
Goett
,
A.
, and
Farmer
,
R.
, 2003, “
Prospects for Distributed Electricity Generation
,” Congressional Budget Office, available online: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4552&type=1http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4552&type=1
19.
Zerriffi
,
H.
,
Dowlatabadi
,
H.
, and
Strachan
,
N.
, 2002, “
Electricity and Conflict: Advantages of a Distributed System
,”
Electr. J.
1040-6190,
15
, pp.
55
65
.
20.
Strachan
,
N.
, and
Dowlatabadi
,
H.
, 2001, “
Distributed Generation and Path Dependency
,” presented at
Fifth International Conference on Technology and Policy Innovation
,
The Hague, The Netherlands
.
21.
Reliability Test System Task Force
, 1979, “
IEEE Reliability Test System
,”
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst.
0018-9510,
98
, pp.
2047
2054
.
22.
Reliability Test System Task Force
, 1996, “
The IEEE Reliability Test System-1996
,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
0885-8950,
14
, pp.
1010
1020
.
23.
Thurston
,
D.
, and
Srinivasan
,
S.
, 2003, “
Constrained Optimization for Green Engineering Decision Making
,”
Environ. Sci. Technol.
0013-936X,
37
, pp.
5389
5397
.
24.
Pace, 2000, “
Power Scorecard
,” Pace Energy Project, available online: http://www.powerscorecard.org/http://www.powerscorecard.org/
25.
Swanson
,
S.
,
Bourgeois
,
M.
,
Lampi
,
M.
,
Williams
,
J.
, and
Zalcman
,
F.
, 2000, “
Power Scorecard Methodology
,” Pace Energy Project, Pace University School of Law Center for Environmental Legal Studies, available online: http://www.powerscorecard.org/documents/ps_method.htm.http://www.powerscorecard.org/documents/ps_method.htm.
26.
Thurston
,
D. L.
, 2001, “
Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
1050-0472,
123
, pp.
176
182
.
You do not currently have access to this content.