001.docx DOI: 10.3303/CET2189013 Paper Received: 19 June 2021; Revised: 19 October 2021; Accepted: 6 November 2021 Please cite this article as: Chanaphoo J., Yuttitham M., Vanitchung S., Hanpattanakit P., 2021, Greenhouse Gas Emission from Energy Consumption in Dyeing Factory at Samut Prakan Province, Thailand, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 89, 73-78 DOI:10.3303/CET2189013 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 89, 2021 A publication of The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering Online at www.cetjournal.it Guest Editors: Jeng Shiun Lim, Nor Alafiza Yunus, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš Copyright © 2021, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. ISBN 978-88-95608-87-7; ISSN 2283-9216 Greenhouse Gas Emission from Energy Consumption in Dyeing Factory at Samut Prakan Province, Thailand Jiraphong Chanaphooa, Monthira Yuttithamb, Supika Vanitchunga, Phongthep Hanpattanakita,* a Department of Environment, Faculty of Environment Culture and Ecotourism, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand, 10110 b Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand, 73170 phongthep@g.swu.ac.th The textile industry is identified as one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases (GHG) worldwide. It has been reported to generate the highest GHG emission per unit of material. Since, the growing demand for textile products, global textile production has increased rapidly in recent years. Considering the existing studies have limited GHG emissions from energy consumption in the dyeing process. This study aims to estimate GHG emission in the dyeing factory at Samut Prakan province, Thailand, from 2017 to 2019. These were calculated based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The result showed that the textile production in the dyeing factory during 2017, 2018, and 2019 were 2,040.52, 3,389.62, 3,741.68 t. The GHG emission from the production process were 10,541.84 ±1 05.45, 12,320.31 ± 121.65, 12,545.53 ± 121.87 t CO2 eq. The greatest GHG emissions were produced from natural gas utilization (70 % of the total GHG emissions), followed by electricity, fuel oil, gasoline, LPG, and diesel oil. GHG emission flow from the production process found that the supporting processes section was the processes with the largest GHG emissions, accounting for 75 %, followed by finishing, dyeing, and preparation. GHG emissions per production found that GHG emissions per yard reduced from 4.93 ± 1.76, 3.63 ± 0.31, 2.68 ± 0.31 kg CO2 eq/kg of production for 2017 to 2019, because energy type was moved from fuel oil to natural gas. 1. Introduction The global warming crisis has become a keyword for many countries worldwide, which is a phenomenon that the average temperature of the earth’s surface and oceans tends to increase more than in the past, since the industrial revolution. Scientific evidence is believed to be caused by an increase in the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (DEQP, 2020). The amount of each GHGS in the atmosphere, it was found that CO2 was the largest, accounting for 76 %, which was mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, about 65 %, from the forest and land use, about 11 %, followed by 16 % of CH4, 6 % of N2O, 2 % of fluorocarbon groups, and 2 % of NF3 (IPCC, 2014). According to major GHG emission in tourism activity was energy consumption of gasoline and diesel in transport sector (Promjittiphong et al., 2018). The CO2 emission of tourist transportation was depending on type of vehicle, number of tourist and distance (Hanpattanakit et al., 2018). Excessive accumulation of GHGS in the atmosphere can cause sudden changes in the global temperature. It is a phenomenon that causes global warming. It leads to regional or global climate change (Niveta et al., 2015), of 97 % of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening right now, primarily driven by human activity (Public Health Institute and Center for Climate Change and Health, 2016). From the study of scientists, it was found that the change in global average temperature was related to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This relationship has now been proven to be true because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, since the industrials revolution (DEQP, 2020). Today’s environmental change’s most obvious and apparent impacts include more frequent occurrences of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, droughts, floods, heavy rainfall events, and the extinction of living things (Niveta et al., 2015). 73 In recent years, China has been the world’s number one in GHGS production. Due to economic growth and opening up more countries (Chen and Fu, 2011). It surpasses the United States, which has long been the world’s largest GHGS producer. In 2019, the country with the most GHGS emissions in the world was China. Total emissions of GHGS were 10,541 M t CO2 eq, followed by United States, EU28, India, Russia, and Japan were 5,335, 3,412, 2,342, 1,766, and 1,279 M t CO2 eq. In Thailand, total GHGS emissions of 271 M t CO2eq (Tiseo, 2021) were close to the average amount of GHGS emissions per population (Global Carbon Project, 2015). Currently, global economic growth and population growth have mainly been driven by increasing GHGS emissions, especially the burning of fossil fuels in the industry sector and various processes related to the production of industrial products (Niveta et al., 2015). One sector is the textile sector, which is still in demand for people worldwide. Emission of the textile industry has been identified as one of the largest producers of GHGS globally. It has been reported to have the highest GHG emissions per unit of product. According to estimates, the textile sector emits about 1.7 B t CO2 eq/y and is an important factor that causes global warming (Loetscher et al., 2017). The textile industry’ GHGs emissions account for 10 % of total global emissions. It remains the second-largest industrial polluter after the oil industry (Conca, 2015). Thailand’s GHG emissions from energy utilization tend to increase after the economic downturn in 1998 from 145.5 M t CO2 eq increased to 263.4 M t CO2 eq in 2018, or 3 %/y. This corresponds to the country’s energy consumption that has increased by an average of 3.7 %/y (THA DEDE, 2018). GHG emissions from energy utilization in 2019, if separated by sector, the industrial sector had a portion of GHG emissions, accounting for 28 % of the country’s total GHG emissions. GHG emissions from the industrial sector that uses the highest energy utilization were steel and metal, textile, electronics, and automobiles. The primary fuels that generate GHG emissions were petroleum products, natural gas, and coal/lignite. In 2019, petroleum products had the highest share of GHG emissions, followed by natural gas, and coal/lignite accounted for 39, 33, and 28 %. Energy consumption in the textile industry in Thailand tends to increase every year. In 2017, it was found that the energy consumption was 959 k toe, this is divided into 56 % of electricity, 25 % of coal, 10 % of petroleum products, 8 % of natural gas, and 1 % of renewable energy (THA DEDE, 2019). The literature review found that there are several studies the greenhouse gas emission in textile industry in many countries because of major source of GHG emission in the human activity. Few studies have been conducted to investigate the GHG emissions of the Thailand’s textile industry. These were the limitation of lacking updated data, and consider limited energy sources. The study of greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption in the dyeing factory at Samut Prakan province, Thailand, was of great importance for an estimate of GHG emissions from the dyeing factory, which is midstream industry with the most GHG emissions (Huang et al, 2016). Research studies on this subject are still quite limited due to the complex production process and need for detailed information in the dyeing factory to calculate bottom-up GHG emissions levels at each step of the dyeing process. This study aims to estimate GHG emission in the dyeing factory at Samut Prakan province, Thailand. 2. Methodology 2.1 The definition of GHG emissions This study calculated GHG emissions in the dyeing factory, which referred to the guideline of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol – A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Ranganathan et al., 2004). GHG emissions were divided into 2 types: direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) and indirect GHG emissions (Scope 2, Scope 3). Direct GHG emissions (Scope 1) are caused by energy sources owned or controlled by the factory. For example, the emissions were produced from energy combustion in boilers, machines, and vehicles. Second, indirect GHG emissions (Scope2) were GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the factory but Scope 3 was factory’s activities but occur from energy sources not owned or controlled by the factory, which this scope excludes in the study. 2.2 GHG emissions calculation Both direct and indirect GHG emissions in this study referred to the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006). Activity data was energy consumption from the factory (Table1). Emissions factors used the country specific from Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (THA TGO, 2020). This unit collected emission factor from several references and combined them in Table 1. The major GHG emissions were carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). All above GHGS were converted into carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq). The formula of GHG emission from stationary and mobile combustions were showed in Eq(1) and Eq(2). 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺,𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ∙ 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺,𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 (1) 74 where; Emissions GHG, fuel represents emissions of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg CO2 eq), Fuel Consumption fuel represents the amount of fuel combusted (unit), and Emission Factor GHG,fuel represents default emission factor of a given GHG by type of fuel (kg gas/unit). 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = �[𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎 ∙ 𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎] 𝑎𝑎 (2) where; Emission represent emissions (kg CO2 eq), Fuela represents fuel consumed (unit), EFa represents emission factor (kg gas/unit), and a represents the type of fuel but in this study, both direct and indirect GHG emissions shall use physical unit multiply with local emission factor in Table 1. Table 1: Activity data and emissions factor Items Data Sources Unit Emissions Factor CO2 CH4 N2O Total (kg CO2/unit) (kg CH4/unit) (kg N2O/unit) (kg CO2 eq/unit) Scope 1 1.1 Stationary Combustion Natural gas for boiler and finishing machine Consumption MJ 5.61E-02 1.00E-06 1.00E-07 0.0562 Fuel oil for boiler Consumption L 3.24E+00 1.25E-04 2.51E-05 3.2455 1.2 Mobile Combustion LPG for forklift Consumption kg 3.11E+00 3.06E-03 9.86E-06 3.1988 Gasoline for forklift Consumption L 2.18E+00 1.04E-03 1.01E-04 2.2373 Diesel for forklift Consumption L 2.70E+00 1.42E-04 1.42E-04 2.7403 Scope 2 Electricity Consumption kWh 0.4954 6.10E-05 1.04E-05 0.4999 3. Result and Discussion 3.1 GHG Emissions Figure 1 shows dyeing fabric production and energy-related GHG emissions from 2017 to 2019. GHG emissions from 2017 to 2019 were increasing, which were emitted 10,541.84 ± 105.45, 12,320.31 ± 121.65, and 12,545.53 ± 121.87 t CO2 eq. The dyeing fabric production was increased from 2017 to 2019, about 2,040.52, 3,389.62, and 3,741.68 t. The major energy consumption in the dyeing factory was natural gas, which emitted approximately 70.62 ± 1.96 %/y of total emission, followed by electricity (22.28 ± 0.75), fuel oil (6.96 ± 2.20). But gasoline, LPG, and diesel oil were amount lower than 1 % Figure 1: GHG emission of energy consumption and dyeing fabric production during 2017 - 2019 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2017 2018 2019 D ye in g fa br ic ( t) G H G e m is si on o f e ne ry c on su m pi tio n (t C O 2 eq ) Year Natural Gas Fuel Oil Gasoline LPG Diesel Oil Electricity Production 75 According to Turkey, the fabric dyeing factory was used heat and electricity energy are the main energy types used in the textile industry extensively. Average energy consumption in 2015 to 2018 consumed 7,314 toe. It reduced 49 % due to the implementation of the energy saving actions by waste heat, flash steam and cooling water recovery, and insulation in dyeing machine (Özer and Güven, 2020) but the difference from China textile industry, which is used coal as the main source in this sector that emitted the highest GHG emission in the textile industry. The current energy-saving measures in China’s textile industry are frequently practiced with speed motor drives, heat recovery from fuel, and hot washing water but have not yet been widely applied (Huang et al., 2016). The production of dyeing fabric showed GHG emissions decreasing per unit of production from 2017 to 2019, which emitted 4.93 ± 1.76, 3.63 ± 0.31, and 2.68 ± 0.31 kg CO2 eq/kg of dyeing fabric production, due to major energy utilization moved from fuel oil to natural gas. Because of policy from government, customer, and company to reduce GHG emission according to UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement. 3.2 GHG emissions flow in dyeing factory The dyeing factory in Samut Prakan province, central Thailand, consisted of 3 main processes such as preparation, dyeing, and finishing, including the supporting process section such as boiler, etc. In Figure 2 shows the GHG emission flow of the dyeing factory in 2019. The total GHG emission in 2019 emitted 12,545.53 t CO2eq, which can divide into fossil energy and electricity. GHG emission flow in the dyeing factory showed supporting process unit was the highest GHG emission approximated 9,415.66 t CO2 eq, accounting for 75 % of total GHG emission (Figure 2). Energy intensity in the textile industry found most energy utilization applied in boiler accounting 70 %, followed by process machine 13 %, and water treatment (DEDE, 2014). The main process showed the highest GHG emission in the finishing process, which emitted 1,653.82 t CO2 eq, followed by dyeing, preparation process, 744.52, 731.53 t CO2 eq. GHG emission flow showed dyeing/finishing fabric GHG emissions. Figure 2: GHG emissions flow in dyeing factory in 2019, Samut Prakan province. 3.3 Mitigation Options The energy-saving for wetting processes, this study recommends energy-efficiency measures and technologies referred to Energy-Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for the Textile Industry (Hansanbeigi, 2010). A Review of Energy Use and Energy Efficiency Technologies for the Textile Industry (Hansanbeigi and Price, 2012). This study focused on wetting processes, namely preparation, dyeing, and finishing process. The result selected and showed especially the highest energy efficiency measures and technologies in the wetting process in Table 2. The preparation process showed a combined initial treatment in wet processing. This process can save up to 80 % for energy use, followed by the use of counter-flow current for washing estimate of 41 – 62 %, and introducing point-of-use water heating in continuous washing machine estimate 50 %. Dyeing processes found that discontinuous dyeing with airflow dyeing machine can save up to 60 % of machine’s fuel use, followed by a selection of hybrid systems estimate 25 – 40 %, reducing the need for re-processing in dyeing estimate 10 – 12 %. Finishing processes showed optimize exhaust humidity can save 20 – 80 % of stenter energy use, followed by introducing mechanical de-watering or contact drying before stenter estimate 13 – 50 %, install heat 76 recovery equipment 30 %, and the use of sensors and control systems in stenter can save 22 % of stenter fuel use. Table 2: Energy-efficiency measures and technologies in wetting processes Measures and Technologies Energy Saving (%) Payback Period (y) References Preparation Process Combine preparatory treatment in wet processing 80 - Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 Use of counter-flow current for washing 41 - 62 - Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 Introducing point-of-use water heating in continuous washing machine 50 - Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 Dyeing Process Discontinuous dyeing with airflow dyeing machine 60 - Hasanbeigi, 2010 Reducing the need for re-processing in dyeing 10 - 12 - Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 Selection of hybrid systems 25 - 40 - Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 Finishing Process Introduce mechanical de-watering or contact drying before stenter 13 - 50 - Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 Optimize exhaust humidity 20 - 80 - Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 Install heat recovery equipment 30 1.5 - 6.6 Hasanbeigi and Price, 2012 The energy management system (ISO 50001) is an approach to implementing systematic improvements in the energy management system. This includes energy efficiency, energy consumption characteristics, and energy consumption. The requirements of this standard apply to the characteristic and energy consumption, includes measurement, documentation, reporting, design, equipment procurement, related processes and personnel, and covers all factors affecting energy performance, which can be monitored and controlled by the factory itself. But it does not define specific performance in terms of energy because it is freely designed to be deployed or integrated with other systems. ISO 50001 is therefore another measure in energy management with an emphasis on the economy (DEDE, 2014). Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for qualification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals (ISO 14064-1) is another approach of the process of quantifying, monitoring, reporting, and verifying emissions and reductions of greenhouse gases of their own factory correctly and appropriately according to academic principles. This increases the ability to effectively manage the greenhouse gas emissions of industrial factory. It also helps to enhance the potential of entrepreneurs and textile businesses to be able to compete with the world market (DIW, 2016). 4. Conclusions The textile industry was an important industry in the world. Since this industry still had in demand of population around the world. The textile industry has been reported that be emitters the second-highest GHG emissions after the oil industry. A study found that the dyeing factory was the highest GHG emissions in the textile industry. This study studied GHG emissions related to energy consumption in dyeing factory and provide the guidelines to mitigation options in dyeing factory as followed. In this study, GHG emissions had been continually increased from 2017 to 2019 in dyeing factory. The main energy related to GHG emission was natural gas, which emitted an estimated 70 percent of total emissions. The second largest GHG emissions were electricity consumption, followed by fuel oil, gasoline, LPG and diesel oil. In the production of dyeing fabric related to GHG emissions in dyeing factory found that production continually increased from 2017 to 2019. The result showed GHG emissions per dyeing fabric were decreasing per unit of production from 2017 to 2019, which emitted 4.93, 3.63, and 2.68 kg CO2 eq/kg of dyeing fabric, since changing energy from fuel oil to natural gas utilization. the main process that emitted highest GHG emissions was the finishing process, followed by dyeing and preparation process. References Chen Y., Fu G.W., 2011, Textiles carbon analysis and calculation, China Text, Lead, 12, 12 – 15. 77 Conca J., 2015, Making Climate Change Fashionable – The Garment Industry Takes On Global Warming accessed 08.02.2021. DEDE, 2014, Successful Industrial Energy Conservation Guide: A Case Study of Textile Industry, Energy Consult Service Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand. DEQP, 2020, Environmental Activities Guide Studying Climate Change, Pafon Nextstep Co., Ltd., Pathum Thani, Thailand. DIW, 2016, Greenhouse gases management for organization manual according to ISO 14064-1 for metal, petrochemical, automotive, paper, and textile, Department of Industrial Works, Bangkok, Thailand. Global Carbon Project, 2015, Global Carbon Budget 2015: Emissions, The Future Earth Media Lab for the Global Carbon Project accessed 03.02.2021. Hanpattanakit P., Pimonsree L., Jamnongchob A., Boonpoke A., 2018, CO2 Emission and Reduction of Tourist Transportation at Kok Mak Island, Thailand, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 63, 37 – 42. Hansanbeigi A., 2010, Energy-Efficiency Improvement Opportunities for the Textile Industry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CA, USA. Hansanbeigi A., Price L., 2012, A review of energy use and energy efficiency technologies for the textile industry, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3648 – 3665. Huang B., Zhao J., Geng Y., Tian Y., Jiang P., 2017, Energy-related GHG emissions of the textile industry in China, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 119(69 – 77). IPCC, 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IGES, Kanagawa, Japan. IPCC, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Loetscher S., Starmanns M., Petrie L., Sommerau C., Kreis B., 2017, Changing fashion: The clothing and textile industry at the brink of radical transformation, WWF Switzerland, Zurich, Switzerland. Niveta J., Arti B., Himanshu P., Navindu G., Dinesh KS., Rajeev K., 2015, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Warming, TERI Press. New Delhi. India. Özer B., Güven B., 2020, Energy efficiency analyses in a Turkish fabric dyeing factory, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 43(7), 852 – 874. Promjittiphong C., Junead J., Hanpattanakit P., 2018, Greenhouse Gas Emission and Mitigation from Sports Tourism in Benja Burapha Cycling Rally, Sa Kaeo, Thailand, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 63, 397 – 402. Public Health Institute, Center for Climate Change and Health, 2016, Climate Change 101: climate science basics accessed 26.01.2021. Ranganathan J., Corbier L., Bhatia P., Schmitz S., Gage P., Oren K., 2004, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. THA EPPO, 2018, The situation of carbon dioxide emission from the energy sector for the year 2018, THA Energy Policy and Planning Office accessed 18.02.2021. THA EPPO, 2019, The situation of carbon dioxide emission from the energy sector for the year 2019, THA Energy Policy and Planning Office accessed 18.02.2021. THA TGO, 2020, Update Emission Factor CFO, THA Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public Organization) assessed 06.03.2021 Tiseo I., 2021, Largest global emitters of carbon dioxide by country 2019, Statista accessed 12.03.2021. 78 013.pdf Greenhouse Gas Emission from Energy Consumption in Dyeing Factory at Samut Prakan Province, Thailand