Life cycle assessment of lightweight and end-of-life scenarios for generic compact class passenger vehicles

Goal, Scope and Background  The automotive industry has a long history in improving the environmental performance of vehicles - fuel economy and emission improvements, introduction of recycled and renewable materials, etc. The European Union also aims at improving the environmental performance of products by reducing, in particular, waste resulting from End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) for example. The European Commission estimates that ELVs contribute to approximately 1 % of the total waste in Europe [9]. Other European Union strategies are considering more life cycle aspects, as well as other impacts including resource or climate change. This article is summarizing the results of a European Commission funded project (LIRECAR) that aims at identifying the environmental impacts and relevance for combinations of recycling / recovery and lightweight vehicle design options over the whole life cycle of a vehicle - i.e. manufacturing, use and recycling/recovery. Three, independent and scientific LCA experts reviewed the study according to ISO 14040. From the beginning, representatives of all Life Cycle Stakeholders have been involved (European materials & supplier associations, an environmental Non-Governmental Organization, recycler’s association). Model and System Definition  The study compared 3 sets of theoretical vehicle weight scenarios: 1000 kg reference (material range of today’s end-of-life, mid-sized vehicles produced in the early 1990’s) and 2 lightweight scenarios for 100 kg and 250 kg less weight based on reference functions (in terms of comfort, safety, etc.) and a vehicle concept. The scenarios are represented by their material range of a broad range of lightweight strategies of most European car manufacturers. In parallel, three End-of-Life (EOL) scenarios are considered: EOL today and two theoretical extreme scenarios (100% recycling, respectively, 100% recovery of shredder residue fractions that are disposed of today). The technical and economical feasibility of the studied scenarios is not taken into consideration (e.g. 100% recycling is not possible). Results and Discussion  Significant differences between the various, studied weight scenarios were determined in several scenarios for the environmental categories of global warming, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidant creation (summer smog), abiotic resource depletion, and hazardous waste. However, these improvement potentials can be only realized under well defined conditions (e.g. material compositions, specific fuel reduction values and EOL credits) based on case-by-case assessments for improvements over the course of the life cycle. Looking at the studied scenarios, the relative contribution of the EOL phase represents 5% or less of the total life cycle impact for most selected impact categories and scenarios. The EOL technology variations studied do not impact significantly the considered environmental impacts. Exceptions include total waste, as long as stockpile goods (overburden, tailings and ore/coal processing residues) and EOL credits are considered. Conclusions and Recommendations  LIRECAR focuses only on lightweight/recycling, questions whereas other measures (changes in safety or comfort standards, propulsion improvements for CO₂, user behavior) are beyond the scope of the study. The conclusions are also not necessarily transferable to other vehicle concepts. However, for the question of end-of-life options, it can be concluded that LIRECAR cannot support any general recommendation and/or mandatory actions to improve recycling if lightweight is affected. Also, looking at each vehicle, no justification could be found for the general assumption that lightweight and recycling greatly influence the affected environmental dimension (Global Warming Potential or resource depletion and waste, respectively). LIRECAR showed that this general assumption is not true under all analyzed circumstances and not as significant as suggested. Further discussions and product development targets shall not focus on generic targets that define the approach/technology concerned with how to achieve environmental improvement (weight reduction [kg], recycling quota [%]), but on overall life cycle improvement). To enable this case-by-case assessment, exchanges of necessary information with suppliers are especially relevant.     

Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling

Purpose

The nature of end-of-life (EoL) processes is highly uncertain for constructions built today. This uncertainty is often neglected in life cycle assessments (LCAs) of construction materials. This paper tests how EoL assumptions influence LCA comparisons of two alternative roof construction elements: glue-laminated wooden beams and steel frames. The assumptions tested include the type of technology and the use of attributional or consequential modelling approaches.

Methods

The study covers impact categories often considered in the construction industry: total and non-renewable primary energy demand, water depletion, global warming, eutrophication and photo-chemical oxidant creation. The following elements of the EoL processes are tested: energy source used in demolition, fuel type used for transportation to the disposal site, means of disposal and method for handling allocation problems of the EoL modelling. Two assumptions regarding technology development are tested: no development from today’s technologies and that today’s low-impact technologies have become representative for the average future technologies. For allocating environmental impacts of the waste handling to by-products (heat or recycled material), an attributional cut-off approach is compared with a consequential substitution approach. A scenario excluding all EoL processes is also considered.

Results and discussion

In all comparable scenarios, glulam beams have clear environmental benefits compared to steel frames, except for in a scenario in which steel frames are recycled and today’s average steel production is substituted, in which impacts are similar. The choice of methodological approach (attributional, consequential or fully disregarding EoL processes) does not seem to influence the relative performance of the compared construction elements. In absolute terms, four factors are shown to be critical for the results: whether EoL phases are considered at all, whether recycling or incineration is assumed in the disposal of glulam beams, whether a consequential or attributional approach is used in modelling the disposal processes and whether today’s average technology or a low-impact technology is assumed for the substituted technology.

Conclusions

The results suggest that EoL assumptions can be highly important for LCA comparisons of construction materials, particularly in absolute terms. Therefore, we recommend that EoL uncertainties are taken into consideration in any LCA of long-lived products. For the studied product type, LCA practitioners should particularly consider EoL assumptions regarding the means of disposal, the expected technology development of disposal processes and any substituted technology and the choice between attributional and consequential approaches.     

Life cycle assessment standards

The newly emerging LCA standards provide an opportunity to review and improve upon the current LCA methodology. As more industrial practitioners enter the arena, the opportunity arises to not only demand environmental improvement from industrial service and product providers but also to fill LCA data gaps. A framework is suggested for improvement in the current LCA framework that focuses on the business relationships of the industrial practitioner. The framework seeks to promote environmental improvement from industrial sectors through the identification of state-of-the-art technologies used throughout a life cycle. Basing LCAs on the best performers in an industry will create a market for a high level of environmental performance, disperse the responsibility of inventory data gathering, and improve upon the advancements already anticipated through the widespread application of LCA.     

Life cycle assessment of osmotic microbial fuel cells for simultaneous wastewater treatment and resource recovery

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - An osmotic microbial fuel cell (OsMFC) is derived from the integration of a forward osmosis (FO) membrane into a conventional microbial fuel...     

Life cycle assessment of tractors

This study was intended to evaluate the environmental impact, and potential improvements for a typical tractor model (LT360D) of LG Machinery Co., Ltd. The life cycle of this study includes all stages from raw material acquisition up to final disposal. The eco-indicator 95 method was employed to perform an impact assessment. The result of this study is expected to represent the environmental feature of typical diesel vehicles at each life cycle stage. This study is a starting point of building life cycle inventories for typical off-road diesel tractors. With this result, environmental weak points of the tractor have been defined, and major improvement strategies have been set up to develop the ‘Green Tractor’.     

Life cycle impact assessment sophistication

On November 29 – 30, 1998 in Brussels, an international workshop was held to discuss Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Sophistication. Approximately 50 LCA experts attended the workshop from North America, Europe, and Asia. Prominent practitioners and researchers were invited to present a critical review of the associated factors, including the current limitations of available impact assessment methodologies and a comparison of the alternatives in the context of uncertainty. Each set of presentations, organised into three sessions, was followed by a discussion session to encourage international discourse with a view to improving the understanding of these crucial issues. The discussions were focused around small working groups of LCA practitioners and researchers, selected to include a balance of representatives from industry, government and academia. This workshop provided the first opportunity for International experts to address the issues related to LCIA Sophistication in an open format. Among the topics addressed were: 1) the inclusion or exclusion of backgrounds and thresholds in LCIA, 2) the necessity and practicality regarding the sophistication of the uncertainty analysis, 3) the implications of allowing impact categories to be assessed at “midpoint” vs. at “endpoint” level, 4) the difficulty of assessing and capturing the comprehensiveness of the environmental health impact category, 5) the implications of cultural/philosophical views, 6) the meaning of terms like science-based and environmental relevance in the coming ISO LCIA standard, 7) the dichotomy of striving for consistency while allowing the incorporation of state-of-the-art research, 8) the role of various types of uncertainty analysis, and 9) the role of supporting environmental analyses (e.g., risk assessments). Many of these topics addressed the need for increased sophistication in LCIA, but recognised the conflict this might have in terms of the comprehensiveness and holistic character of LCA, and LCIA in particular. The participants concluded that the exchange of ideas in this format was extremely valuable and would like to plan successive International workshops on related themes.     

Life cycle assessment of zircon sand

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - To support the needs of downstream users of zircon sand and other industry stakeholders, the Zircon Industry Association (ZIA) conducted an...     

Life cycle assessment of nickel products

Purpose

To support the data requirements of stakeholders, the Nickel Institute (NI) conducted a global life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) to show, with indicators, the potential environmental impacts of the production of nickel and ferronickel from mine to refinery gate. A metal industry wide agreed approach on by-products and allocation was applied.

Methods

Nine companies, comprising 19 operations, contributed data, representing 52 % of global nickel metal production and 40 % of global ferronickel production. All relevant pyro- and hydrometallurgical production routes were considered, across most major nickel-producing regions. Data from Russia, the biggest nickel-producing nation, was included; the Chinese industry did not participate. 2011 was chosen as reference year for data collection. The LCIA applied allocation of impacts of by-products using both economic and mass allocations. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to further understand the relevance and impact of the different allocation approaches.

Results and discussion

The primary extraction and refining steps are the main contributors to primary energy demand (PED) and global warming potential (GWP), contributing 60 and 70 % to the PED for the production of 1 kg class I nickel and 1 kg nickel in ferronickel, respectively, and over 55 % of the GWP for both nickel products. The PED for 1 kg class 1 nickel was calculated to be 147 MJ, whilst the PED for 1 kg nickel in ferronickel was calculated to be three times higher at 485 MJ. The main factors influencing energy demand in the metallurgical processes are ore grade and ore mineralogy. Sulphidic ore is less energy intensive to process than oxidic ore. Eighty-six percent of the production volume from class 1 nickel producers, in this study, is from sulphidic ore. All ferronickel was produced from oxidic ore. The LCIA results, including a sensitivity analysis of the impact of producers with higher and lower PED, reflect the influence of the production route on energy demand and on environmental impact categories.

Conclusions

Conformant to relevant ISO standards, and backed-up with a technical and critical review, this LCIA quantifies the environmental impacts associated with the production of the main nickel products. With this study, a sound background dataset for downstream users of nickel has been provided. The Nickel Institute aims to update their data in the coming years to reflect upon changes in technology, energy efficiency, and raw material input.

     

Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides

Pesticides are biologically active substances that are directly released to the environment during the use phase of their life cycle. Pesticides are widely used and play an important role in the production of vital goods such as food, feedstuffs and cotton. The Discussion Forum 19 focused on the impact assessment of pesticides applied in agriculture. The discussion forum started with three talks about new approaches to estimate pesticide emissions and to assess their fate in the environment. The following short presentations illustrated the application of some of these methods in case studies and highlighted the problem of data availability. The last two presentations provided insight into risk assessment models used for pesticide registration from a company perspective and from the viewpoint of the authorities.     

Life cycle sustainability assessment of products

Background Aims and Scope  

Sustainability was adopted by UNEP in Rio de Janeiro (1992) as the main political goal for the future development of humankind. It should also be the ultimate aim of product development. According to the well known interpretation of the original definition given in the Brundtland report, sustainability comprises three components: environment, economy and social aspects. These components or “pillars” of sustainability have to be properly assessed and balanced if a new product is to be designed or an existing one is to be improved.     

Life cycle assessment of advertising folders

Purpose

Pulp and paper manufacturing constitutes one of the largest industry segments in term of water and energy usage and total discharges to the environment. More than many other industries, however, this industry plays a key role in sustainable development because its most important raw material, wood fiber, is renewable Dias and Houtman (Environ Prog 23(4):347?C357, 2004). Actually, even if the communication is dominated by electronic media, paper-based communication has a role to play due to its unique practical and aesthetic qualities. This research aims to assess the environmental impact of advertising folders produced with different papers and distributed by a system of Italian consumers?? cooperatives in order to indicate the possible options of improvement and to assess the CO_{2 (eq)} emitted during the entire life cycle.

Methods

Life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed from cradle-to-grave considering paper production, transport from paper mill to printing site, printing, distribution, and disposal. Data for the study were directly collected from specific companies and completed on the basis of literature information. The analysis was conducted using the SimaPro 7.1.5 software and IMPACT 2002+ method to assess all its environmental impact and damage categories.

Results and discussion

LCA analysis indicates that the higher environmental impact is mainly due to paper production and printing processes. The main operations which generate the major impact in the paper production stage are related to the direct or indirect fossil energy use, the production of additives for bleaching operations, and the collection and selection of waste paper. Printing causes relevant impacts for the electricity and ink production and for the aluminum plates used in the offset printing. Moreover, the use of paper with low quantity of additives and small amount of primary fibers causes a reduction of the environmental load of 13.94?%. The major global warming potential value was found for advertising folders made with little amount of mechanical pulp which slightly contributes to the absorption of CO₂.

Conclusions

The analysis pointed out the relevance of the paper production phase and of the printing step within the advertising folders life cycle and allowed to detect the other critical stages of the life cycle. Paper composition greatly affects the environmental impact of the advertising folders?? life cycle.     

Life cycle assessment of ferro niobium

Purpose

Ferro niobium (FeNb) is a metallic alloy whose industrial use has been increasing steadily in the last decades. This work aims to systematize the available information on FeNb production, provide its inventory data and generate its first technologically representative publicly available life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).

Methods

The production of 1 kg of FeNb from pyrochlore in the baseline year 2017 was modelled following a cradle-to-gate approach. Primary information on mass, energy and water flows was collected when possible from the Brazilian leading FeNb supplier, CBMM (80% of the world market). The CML method (CML-IA 4.7) was applied for the impact assessment including global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), abiotic depletion potential (fossil and elemental) (ADP_fossil and ADP_elemental) and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP).

Results and discussion

The first stage of pyrochlore processing (pyrochlore ore extraction, mechanical processing and flotation) and the last stage (aluminothermic reaction) bear the highest impact in all analyzed CML impact categories. The primary aluminium consumption has the most important contribution in five out of seven impact categories (50% in ADP_fossil, 55% in AP, 35% in EP, 57% in GWP and 40% in POCP). In this sense, the industry should promote a higher share of secondary aluminium in the production process. Also, the impact from electricity consumption and processing chemicals showed to be relevant.

Conclusions

This work is the first LCIA on ferro niobium to be published with representative, high-quality data. A dataset was produced in order to enable ferro niobium to be incorporated to future LCIA-modelling.

     

Life cycle assessment of pharmaceutical packaging

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Packaging can be a critical aspect in the environmental performance of pharmaceutical products; however, few life cycle assessment studies were...     

Life cycle assessment of aquafeed ingredients

Purpose

This study performs an exploratory comparative evaluation of various animal and vegetable protein and lipid sources, used as feed in the aquaculture industry. The ingredients studied include fishmeal (FM) and fish oil (FO) from fisheries by-products, meal and fat by-products from poultry slaughter, FM and FO from Peruvian anchovy capture, and soybean meal and oil. The boundaries studied include the production or capture, the ingredient processing unit and the transport to the unit that processes the ingredients into aquafeeds in Portugal.

Methods

The LCA impact assessment method is the CML-IA baseline V3.04/EU25 and the results were obtained for the characterisation step. Some of the inventory data were collected from a Portuguese company (Savinor) that processes both by-products from local fisheries and by-products from poultry production. Savinor provided data specifically associated with the ingredients’ production. Obtained data were complemented with literature data from: fish capture and poultry production. Inventory data for the production of ingredients from Peruvian anchovy and soybeans were retrieved from literature. It was assumed that the transport of the ingredients produced from Peruvian anchovy, between Lima and Rotterdam, is made in a transoceanic vessel, and it is considered a transport by truck between Rotterdam and Ovar, for soybean ingredients and FM/FO produced from Peruvian anchovy.

Results and discussion

This paper shows that poultry meal and poultry fat from poultry slaughter by-products have the larger contribution to all environmental impact categories evaluated, being the production of poultry the life cycle stage that contributes most to the overall categories. On the other hand, FM and FO from Peruvian anchovy were the ingredients with a lower contribution to all impact categories, except for abiotic depletion category, for FM from Peruvian anchovy, and abiotic depletion, abiotic depletion (fossil fuels) and ozone layer depletion for FO from Peruvian anchovy. For these categories, soybean meal and oil had lower impacts, respectively. The ingredients were compared by classes (protein and lipid sources).

Conclusions

A general conclusion is that soybean meal and oil and FM/FO from Peruvian anchovy appear to be very interesting options for aquafeeds from an LCA perspective. However, some limitations identified for this study, as, for instance, that it does not account for the environmental benefits associated with the use of the mentioned by-products, that would otherwise be considered wastes (i.e. by-products from the fish canning sector and poultry slaughter) shall be evaluated in future studies.