Waste-to-Polymer Composite Material for Paver Products
This Case Study was developed by the Project Frame Case Studies Working Group with the intention to advance the practice of forward-looking emissions impact assessment and the Impact Measurement & Management field by showcasing different approaches and tools.
Summary
|
Solution Group |
Sustainable Building Materials |
|
Solution Type |
Waste-Derived Paving Products |
|
Solution Sector |
Construction & Demolition |
|
Solution Impact Type |
Avoidance |
|
Solution Pathway Type |
Direct - Product |
|
Investment Stage |
Seed |
|
Incumbent Market |
Ready-Mix Concrete |
|
Sales Unit |
Per Paver Tile |
|
Potential Impact Geography |
India |
|
Potential Impact Market Capture |
10% |
|
Annual Potential Impact in 2050 |
0.3 MMT CO2e |
|
Cumulative Potential Impact 2024 - 2050 |
2.5 MMT CO2e |
|
Annual Planned Impact in 2030 |
61.5 MT CO2e |
|
Cumulative Planned Impact 2024 - 2030 |
282 MT CO2e |
The concrete industry is one of the largest industrial sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily due to cement production, which alone accounts for about 7–8% of global CO2 emissions. Most of these emissions come from two sources: the calcination process, where limestone (CaCO2 ) is heated and releases CO2, and the high energy demand for heating kilns, often powered by fossil fuels. The high volume of concrete produced worldwide results in a significant carbon footprint, positioning it as a critical sector in efforts to reduce global emissions.
This solution converts a variety of low-value waste materials, including single-use plastics, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, and industrial by-products, into high-performance composite building materials. These materials, including pavers, tiles, blocks, and roofing elements, are designed to replace traditional concrete building materials. The technology achieves a closed-loop system, reducing waste disposal, conserving natural resources, and generating low-emission products that actively contribute to climate impact reduction. Local partners, including construction firms, municipal bodies, and waste management companies, use the turnkey recycling units to source waste and produce composite building materials directly. The process is simple and efficient, allowing partners to generate building materials with minimal energy, water, and resource consumption. End users, such as developers and municipalities, install these materials in public infrastructure projects, low-cost housing, and green building initiatives, benefiting from modular, easy-to-install designs that also reduce on-site labor and construction time.
This case study looks at the GHG emissions impact as well as several co-benefits and risks of harm.
Challenges
There are a range of uncertainties associated with this waste-to-composite polymer building material case study. Uncertainties can arise when using assumptions and averages based on historical performance due to limited availability of past data expectations of future changes to those assumptions and averages (this is especially true for early-stage ventures).
A significant challenge encountered was integrating circularity into the assessment, underscoring the necessity for further methodological development in the unit impact assessment of circular economy solutions. While circularity is acknowledged as an impact mechanism, it was excluded from the scope of this assessment. Notably, the company asserts that incorporating the closed-loop recycling nature of the product into the assessment would lead to net-negative emissions; however, a conservative approach was adopted pending further methodological advancements.
Finally, the Human Thriving Assessment is in its nascent stages. It served as a valuable learning experience for the Case Studies Working Group, initiating contemplation on potential co-benefits and risk frameworks, particularly for early-stage ventures. Nevertheless, substantial work is required to establish benchmarks and/or criteria for measurement, to assess and compare community and population impacts of prospective investments, to quantify avoided losses, and to evaluate trade-offs with decarbonization efforts.
This Case Study was developed by the Project Frame Case Studies Working Group with the intention to advance the practice of forward-looking emissions impact assessment and the Impact Measurement & Management field by showcasing different approaches and tools. Project Frame invites investors to share their own examples and provide feedback to help us improve our case study format and impact assessment guidance by reaching out to impact@primecoalition.org.
Project Frame is not a regulatory body, nor should its content be considered financial advice. Methodology guidance produced by Project Frame represents our contributors’ consensus and no one singular entity. Our work is intended for readers to review and use their best judgement to accelerate GHG mitigation with transparency and accountability.
2024-25 Case Studies Working Group
Prime Coalition, Climate Collective, Saltech Design Lab, EF Polymer, Ashwatta, Boston Consulting Group, ClimatePoint, Center for Social Value Enhancement Studies, Energy Environment Investment, GenZero, Green Artha, iRoller, Mandalay VC, Undivided Ventures, Upaya Social Ventures, Wollemi, Omnivore VC, and SeedFuture.