| 摘要: | 隨著全球氣候變遷和環境保護意識的提升，企業日益關注其產品對環境的影響。碳足跡與物質流成本分析作為評估產品生命周期環境影響的重要工具，已成為企業可持續發展的重要考量之一。本研究旨在以A廠鑽石碟製程為例，探討該製程在碳足跡和物質流成本方面的表現，以期提供企業制定環境保護策略的參考和啟示。結果顯示，鑽石碟碳足跡為12.68 kgCO2e/pc，以製造階段之61.5%貢獻最高，原料取得階段為38.5%次之。其中，QC3（脫蠟硬銲過程）是主要碳排放來源，排放量為5.44 kgCO2e/pc，主要由於該階段需大量電力和高溫維持。QC1（鑽石篩選過程）則以4.33 kgCO2e/pc次之，主要來自於金屬台金的切割和手工加工過程。QC4（鑽石銳利度平整化過程）的碳排放為1.51 kgCO2e/pc，主要源於研磨過程的能源消耗。物質流成本分析顯示，正產品占55%，負產品占45%。QC3的正產品成本為29.8百萬元，而負產品成本達22.2百萬元，兩者差距不大，反映出該階段大量使用輔助材料和化學品，廢液處理費用較高。QC2的正產品成本為13.0百萬元，負產品成本為7.4百萬元，表明篩選過程中存在一定的廢料處理空間。QC4的正產品成本為35.6百萬元，負產品成本僅為7.5百萬元，顯示出研磨修整階段的資源利用效率較高。基於上述分析，提出的改善方向包括，在QC3階段優化輔助材料和化學品的使用，採用更高效的技術和設備以減少浪費和能資源消耗；在QC4階段提高研磨設備的效率和使用方式，降低能源消耗。此外，QC1階段建議供應商優化材料使用和製造方法，或尋找碳排放較低的供應商，以進一步降低整體碳足跡。;With global climate change and growing environmental awareness, industries are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of their products. As key tools for evaluating the environmental impact of a product′s life cycle, carbon footprint and material flow cost analysis have become crucial considerations for sustainable development. This study aims to examine the carbon footprint and material flow cost performance of the diamond disc manufacturing process at Factory A, providing insights and references for companies in formulating environmental protection strategies. The results show that the carbon footprint of the diamond disc is 12.68 kgCO2e/pc, with the manufacturing stage contributing the most at 61.5%, followed by the raw material acquisition stage at 38.5%. Among these, QC3 (dewaxing and hard soldering process) is the primary source of carbon emissions, with a discharge of 5.44 kgCO2e/pc, mainly due to the high electricity usage and prolonged high-temperature maintenance required in this stage. QC1 (the process of diamond sorting) follows with 4.33 kgCO2e/pc, primarily from the cutting and manual processing of the metal base. QC4 (the process of diamond sharpening and flattening) has a carbon emission of 1.51 kgCO2e/pc, mainly due to energy consumption during the grinding process. Material flow cost analysis reveals that 55% of the products are positive outputs, while 45% are negative outputs. The positive product cost for QC3 is 29.8 million NTD, whereas the negative product cost is 22.2 million NTD, indicating slight difference. This reflects the extensive use of auxiliary materials and chemicals in this stage, leading to high costs for waste liquid treatment. Positive product cost of QC2 is 13.0 million NTD, with a negative product cost of 7.4 million NTD, suggesting some room for waste treatment optimization in the screening process. QC4 shows a positive product cost of 35.6 million NTD and a negative product cost of only 7.5 million NTD, indicating high resource utilization efficiency during the grinding and trimming stage. Based on the above analysis, the proposed directions improvement include optimizing the use of auxiliary materials and chemicals in QC3, adopting more efficient technologies and equipment to reduce waste and energy consumption; enhancing the efficiency and usage of grinding equipment in QC4 to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, for QC1, it is recommended that suppliers optimize material usage and manufacturing methods or seek suppliers with lower carbon emissions to further reduce the overall carbon footprint. |
