When the local option is not the lowest-impact option

Local sourcing often seems like the more sustainable choice. Shorter distances should mean fewer transport emissions, at least, that was our initial assumption.

During a recent collaboration with Bambooder Biobased Fibers and Qconcepts, we explored how bamboo fibres could be used in a lower-impact biocomposite watercraft application. To support the design process, we used life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare alternative sourcing, material and manufacturing routes.

Two decisions that initially appeared straightforward changed once we modelled the complete production chain.

Bamboo Composite Part

Bamboo from Uganda or Portugal?

At first sight, sourcing bamboo from Portugal seemed the logical choice. It is relatively close to the Netherlands, resulting in shorter transport distances and simpler logistics.

However, the assessment indicated that bamboo sourced from Uganda could have the lower climate impact. Several factors contributed to this result:

• Uganda’s electricity supply relies substantially on hydropower.

• Transporting large quantities by container vessel can be relatively efficient per tonne-kilometre.

• In our model, transporting a full truck approximately 2,000 kilometres from Portugal to Amsterdam produced more greenhouse-gas emissions than transporting the material approximately 12,000 kilometres from Mombasa to Amsterdam by container vessel.

The result was counterintuitive: despite travelling much farther, the Ugandan sourcing route performed better in the model.

This does not mean that distant sourcing is generally preferable. The outcome depends on factors such as the local energy mix, transport mode, loading efficiency, processing steps and the specific system boundaries used. It does show why distance alone is an unreliable measure of environmental impact.

Comparing resin and manufacturing routes

The second decision concerned the combination of resin system and manufacturing process. We compared two routes:

1. A room-temperature process using a resin with a relatively high greenhouse-gas footprint.

2. A lower-impact resin that required curing at an elevated temperature.

   
   

We initially expected the energy needed for high-temperature curing to dominate the result. It did not.

The room-temperature route required additional consumables, including flow media, and generated more production waste. This waste increased the quantity of the already higher-impact resin needed per finished component. Within the assessed system, this effect was greater than the additional energy required for elevated-temperature curing.

Consequently, the high-temperature manufacturing route performed better overall.

The comparison revealed an important design insight: material waste and disposable process consumables can contribute more to a product’s climate impact than process energy. A process should therefore not be judged solely by its curing temperature or electricity demand.

Modelling the complete chain

As part of the collaboration, we modelled the route from bamboo harvesting in Uganda through fibre and yarn production to the final composite material.

Looking at the complete chain helped identify where the main impacts occurred and prevented individual indicators, such as transport distance or curing temperature, from determining the decision on their own.

The results are specific to the assumptions, datasets, production volumes and system boundaries used in this project. Nevertheless, the exercise demonstrates the value of using LCA early in development, while material and process choices can still be changed.

LCA as a design tool

LCA is sometimes applied only after a product has already been developed, primarily to quantify or communicate its environmental performance. We believe it can provide more value when it is used during the design process.

By comparing alternatives early, development teams can:

• identify unexpected environmental hotspots;

• assess sourcing and manufacturing routes together;

• understand the effects of production waste and consumables;

• avoid decisions based on distance or energy use alone,

• focus development work on changes that can make a meaningful difference.

  
  

Sometimes the best option only becomes visible once the entire chain is considered. That is why Eve Reverse uses LCA as a practical design tool, alongside engineering, testing and process development, to support better-informed material and manufacturing decisions.