FAIL (the browser should render some flash content, not this).
Caricamento immagini....

ENERGY WASTED

ENERGY WASTED:PRATI ARMATI don't waste energy. The energy wasted with tratitional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher. Energy and Exergy Life Cycle Assessment of different anti-erosion systems.  Research&Conclusion at Politecnico of Milano.

ENERGY WASTED:PRATI ARMATI don’t waste energy.
The energy wasted with tratitional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher. Energy and Exergy Life Cycle Assessment of different anti-erosion systems.
Research&Conclusion at Politecnico of Milano.

KYOTO PROTOCOL and PRATI ARMATI.

KYOTO PROTOCOL and PRATI ARMATI.

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI don’t waste energy.

The energy wasted with traditional technologies

is from 10 to 100 times higher.

 

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don't waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher. Research&Conclusion at Politecnico of Milano.

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher. Research&Conclusion at Politecnico of Milano.

 Energy and Exergy Life Cycle Assessment of different anti-erosion systems. Research&Conclusion at Politecnico of Milano http://www.polimi.it/en/english-version/

1
Energy and Exergy Life Cycle Assessment of different anti-erosion systems
Autori: M. Rocco1, F. Taranto1, E. Colombo1
1 Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, via Lambruschini 4, 21056, Milan, Italy
Corresponding author: Matteo Rocco, e-mail: matteo.rocco@mail.polimi.it

Abstract

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher than PRATI ARMATI® technology.  Anti-erosion systems are useful in order to reduce sediment accumulation in water outflows and contrast soil losses due to desertification. The choice of technology to apply cannot disregard on environmental impacts, as well on economical restriction. In this paper we evaluate the envi-ronmental impact of four different techniques to remediate soil erosion: geo-nets, bio-mats, geo-cells, deep rooting plants (DRP). Environmental impact is expressed in terms of Natural re-source consumption (Cumulative Energy and Exergy Demand indicators), and ghg and pollutant emissions. The slope considered for the definition of a unit product is located in the Umbrian town of Fabro (TR). Results have been assessed using LCA framework, relying on Ecoinvent database. Results show that DRP system is less impacting of one order of magnitude compared to the other solutions. Moreover CExD shows to be a more comprehensive tool for environmen-tal resource depletion, as it accounts for more information than CED, both in quantity and quali-ty.

Introduction: the slope erosion issue

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher than PRATI ARMATI® technology.  There are many agent of soil erosion according to literature, mainly represented by weather events, such as wind and rainfall. Other causes of soil erosion are due natural activity, like microorganism and human presence. According to lit-erature, the main agent of erosion in Italy is the rain (water erosion) (Van der Knijff and others 1999).

The impact of a falling raindrop creates a small crater in the soil, ejecting soil particles. Once the rate of rain fall is faster than the rate of infiltration into the soil, a water flow, called surface runoff, occurs and carries the ejected soil particles down the slope (Mainguet 1991). The higher is the ki-netic energy content of the flow, the higher will be the erosion rate.

The maxi-mum erosion occurs in correspondence of mean values of rainfall (700-1000 mm /year). Mediterranean regions are the most susceptible to soil erosion due to the alternation of long periods of drought with periods of heavy rainfall on steep slopes and fragile soils.

The soil surface protection and the need of maintenance are covered in recent law1.

In short time scale, eroded particles deposit in waterways and in drain systems along the highway bringing them to obstruction. It is therefore extremely im-portant to limit and contrast the erosion process.

The most commonly used model for predicting soil loss from erosion is the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), which estimates the average annual soil loss in tons/(ha∙y) (Norman 1962). In particular, the most effective known method for erosion prevention is to increase vegetative cover on the land, which helps prevent both wind and water erosion.
1 European Standard, New Technical Standards for Construction (DM January 14, 2008), Law Under 109/94 (Merloni Law) and its Implementing Regulation (D.PR. 554/1999)
2
1. Common and innovative anti slope erosion techniques

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher than PRATI ARMATI® technology.  In this paper we have accounted for technologies and materials most commonly used for the construction of anti-erosive remediation techniques along slopes, roads, highways and railways. Particularly, their amount has been considered relatively to our functional unit: the reference area is a slope placed beside the A1 highway near the city of Fabro (TR), Italy. The length of the slope is 65 m, his average steep is 18°. The difference in height (D) instead is 20,1 m.

The to-tal surface covered by the anti-erosion intervention is approximately one hec-tare (10000 m2). All technologies are supported by various materials required for their installation on this functional unit. Traditional technologies are repre-sented by geo-nets (1), bio-mats (2) and geo-cells (3).

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher than PRATI ARMATI® technology.  Finally, the innovative technology of deep rooting plants (DRP, 4) is presented, which can replace the traditionally used solutions given the great effect, on short term, that the deep rooting system have on soil attachment and their fast developing of vege-tal layers. Although both traditional and innovative technologies gives approxi-mately the same results in term of erosion remediation effectiveness, the pro-duction processes of traditional systems differ widely respect to the DRP. More-over, bio-mats, geo-cells and geo-nets differs each other by the kind of material they are made of.

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher than PRATI ARMATI® technology.  Life cycle of traditional systems was modeled in two main phases: installation and hydroseeding. The installation phase consists in the production and transport of all required materials, the preparation of the site and the installation of the system. The hydroseeding phase is used to protect the installed struc-tures on soil and to create favorable conditions for vegetation growth on the short term. Materials and site preparation for technologies 1, 2 and 3 needs:
 The fertile soil, which has to be extracted from field and brought on site. In every traditional solution it is considered having a thickness of 10 cm;
 An adequate amount of geo-nets, geo-cells or bio-mats, depending on the considered solution;
 Steel stakes to peg the geotextiles on the surface.

The function of the vegetal soil is to mechanically support the plant and provide a reservoir of nutrients that is required for the life of vegetables. The hydro-seeding is a planting process which utilizes usually slurry of seeds, fertilizers and natural glue sprayed over prepared ground.

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher than PRATI ARMATI® technology.  In the system boundary of the analysis are then included the supply chains related to the cultivation of seeds, the production of cellulose, fertilizers and tap water and the production of the energy amount, in diesel equivalent, to sustain hydro-seed spraying. For the hydro-seeding phase, common to all four solutions, the materials considered are shown in Table 4. Excepting from cellulose and water which have been re-trievable locally, all other data that are not mentioned here are contained in (Vanone and Summa 2012).

On the other hand, DPR system life cycle could be modeled only by the hy-droseeding phase. In this case, topsoil is not necessary as the suited conditions 3 for plant growth are assured by the easiness of these varieties take root on most soil lithotype (Vanone and Summa 2012).

ENERGY WASTED: PRATI ARMATI® don’t waste energy. The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher than PRATI ARMATI® technology.  Dismantling of all these technologies is not complied in normative and maintain-ing is often unnecessary, therefore we only regard for installation and hy-droseeding phases.

 

 

 

  1. Politecnico di Milano: Versione italiana

    www.polimi.it/

    Test di Architettura 2014/2015  Un team di studenti del Politecnico ha vinto il premio Mimprendo  PoliMyTube il canale youtube del Politecnico di Milano.

    4,7

    57 recensioni Google · Scrivi una recensione

    Piazza Leonardo Da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milano
    02 2399 2008

    Servizi online

    Questa funzionalità permette di mantenere attiva la sessione di 

    Mip

    Tutta l’offerta formativa del MIP Politecnico di Milano, School of 

    Design

    Campus Bovisa.

    DEIB

    Lista alfabetica – Webmail – How to reach us – Intranet e Servizi – 

    Corsi

    Altri corsi – Docenti – Scuole – Stage e tirocini – Dottorato – 

    Residenze

    Milano – Como – Altre residenze – Altre iniziative –

— Claudio Zarotti

One Response to “ENERGY WASTED”

  • ENERGY WASTED:PRATI ARMATI don’t waste energy.

    The energy wasted with traditional technologies is from 10 to 100 times higher. Energy and Exergy Life Cycle Assessment of different anti-erosion systems.

    Research&Conclusion at Politecnico of Milano.