Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences

Purpose

Identification of environmentally preferable alternatives in a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) can be challenging in the presence of multiple incommensurate indicators. To make the problem more manageable, some LCA practitioners apply external normalization to find those indicators that contribute the most to their respective environmental impact categories. However, in some cases, these results can be entirely driven by the normalization reference, rather than the comparative performance of the alternatives. This study evaluates the influence of normalization methods on interpretation of comparative LCA to facilitate the use of LCA in decision-driven applications and inform LCA practitioners of latent systematic biases. An alternative method based on significance of mutual differences is proposed instead.

Methods

This paper performs a systematic evaluation of external normalization and describes an alternative called the overlap area approach for the purpose of identifying relevant issues in a comparative LCA. The overlap area approach utilizes the probability distributions of characterized results to assess significant differences. This study evaluates the effects in three LCIA methods, through application of four comparative studies. For each application, we call attention to the category indicators highlighted by each interpretation approach.

Results and discussion

External normalization in the three LCIA methods suffers from a systematic bias that emphasizes the same impact categories regardless of the application. Consequently, comparative LCA studies that employ external normalization to guide a selection may result in recommendations dominated entirely by the normalization reference and insensitive to data uncertainty. Conversely, evaluation of mutual differences via the overlap area calls attention to the impact categories with the most significant differences between alternatives. The overlap area approach does not show a systematic bias across LCA applications because it does not depend on external references and it is sensitive to changes in uncertainty. Thus, decisions based on the overlap area approach will draw attention to tradeoffs between alternatives, highlight the role of stakeholder weights, and generate assessments that are responsive to uncertainty.

Conclusions

The solution to the issues of external normalization in comparative LCAs proposed in this study call for an entirely different algorithm capable of evaluating mutual differences and integrating uncertainty in the results.

     

Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation

Background, aim, and scope

Many studies evaluate the results of applying different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to the same life cycle inventory (LCI) data and demonstrate that the assessment results would be different with different LICA methods used. Although the importance of uncertainty is recognized, most studies focus on individual stages of LCA, such as LCI and normalization and weighting stages of LCIA. However, an important question has not been answered in previous studies: Which part of the LCA processes will lead to the primary uncertainty? The understanding of the uncertainty contributions of each of the LCA components will facilitate the improvement of the credibility of LCA.

Methodology

A methodology is proposed to systematically analyze the uncertainties involved in the entire procedure of LCA. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to analyze the uncertainties associated with LCI, LCIA, and the normalization and weighting processes. Five LCIA methods are considered in this study, i.e., Eco-indicator 99, EDIP, EPS, IMPACT 2002+, and LIME. The uncertainty of the environmental performance for individual impact categories (e.g., global warming, ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human health) is also calculated and compared. The LCA of municipal solid waste management strategies in Taiwan is used as a case study to illustrate the proposed methodology.

Results

The primary uncertainty source in the case study is the LCI stage under a given LCIA method. In comparison with various LCIA methods, EDIP has the highest uncertainty and Eco-indicator 99 the lowest uncertainty. Setting aside the uncertainty caused by LCI, the weighting step has higher uncertainty than the normalization step when Eco-indicator 99 is used. Comparing the uncertainty of various impact categories, the lowest is global warming, followed by eutrophication. Ecotoxicity, human health, and photochemical smog have higher uncertainty.

Discussion

In this case study of municipal waste management, it is confirmed that different LCIA methods would generate different assessment results. In other words, selection of LCIA methods is an important source of uncertainty. In this study, the impacts of human health, ecotoxicity, and photochemical smog can vary a lot when the uncertainties of LCI and LCIA procedures are considered. For the purpose of reducing the errors of impact estimation because of geographic differences, it is important to determine whether and which modifications of assessment of impact categories based on local conditions are necessary.

Conclusions

This study develops a methodology of systematically evaluating the uncertainties involved in the entire LCA procedure to identify the contributions of different assessment stages to the overall uncertainty. Which modifications of the assessment of impact categories are needed can be determined based on the comparison of uncertainty of impact categories.

Recommendations and perspectives

Such an assessment of the system uncertainty of LCA will facilitate the improvement of LCA. If the main source of uncertainty is the LCI stage, the researchers should focus on the data quality of the LCI data. If the primary source of uncertainty is the LCIA stage, direct application of LCIA to non-LCIA software developing nations should be avoided.     

An AHP-weighted aggregated data quality indicator (AWADQI) approach for estimating embodied energy of building materials

Purpose

Aggregated data quality indicator (ADQI) method has been used to estimate probability distributions of the input data in a life cycle assessment (LCA) to compensate for insufficient data in a statistical analysis. In a traditional ADQI, a multicriteria evaluation process, the impacts of various quality indicators under investigation are often equally weighted or unweighted despite the fact that some of them may weight more than the others on contributing to the overall data uncertainty. An unweighted ADQI (UWADQI) approach, though simple, may lead to incorrect conclusions. This paper aims to develop a weighted ADQI to overcome the deficiency of the unweighted ADQI to make it more reliable for LCA uncertainty analysis.

Method

To improve the UWADQI approach, an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is introduced in this research for estimating weighting factors in the ADQI aggregation process. An AHP??s pairwise comparison function is used to determine the weighting of each data quality indicator. Three common building materials of concrete, steel, and glass were chosen to validate the presented method.

Results and discussion

Using the published results from the statistical method as the benchmarks, it was found that the proposed AHP-weighted ADQI (AWADQI) method lead to better estimated probabilistic values of embodied energy intensity than the traditional UWADQI approach for the three building materials.

Conclusions and recommendations

In conclusion, using AHP to incorporate weighing factors into an ADQI process can improve the uncertainty estimate of embodied energy of building materials, and consequently, the method can improve the reliability of a building LCA.     

Accounting for overfishing in life cycle assessment: new impact categories for biotic resource use

Purpose

Overfishing is a relevant issue to include in all life cycle assessments (LCAs) involving wild caught fish, as overfishing of fish stocks clearly targets the LCA safeguard objects of natural resources and natural ecosystems. Yet no robust method for assessing overfishing has been available. We propose lost potential yield (LPY) as a midpoint impact category to quantify overfishing, comparing the outcome of current with target fisheries management. This category primarily reflects the impact on biotic resource availability, but also serves as a proxy for ecosystem impacts within each stock.

Methods

LPY represents average lost catches owing to ongoing overfishing, assessed by simplified biomass projections covering different fishing mortality scenarios. It is based on the maximum sustainable yield concept and complemented by two alternative methods, overfishing though fishing mortality (OF) and overfishedness of biomass (OB), that are less data-demanding.

Results and discussion

Characterization factors are provided for 31 European commercial fish stocks in 2010, representing 74 % of European and 7 % of global landings. However, large spatial and temporal variations were observed, requiring novel approaches for the LCA practitioner. The methodology is considered compliant with the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) standard in most relevant aspects, although harmonization through normalization and endpoint characterization is only briefly discussed.

Conclusions

Seafood LCAs including any of the three approaches can be a powerful communicative tool for the food industry, seafood certification programmes, and for fisheries management.     

Comment on the editorial note by Baitz et XXI aliis

Background

The editor of this journal has been waiting for such a contribution of the life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners and users for years, since the last debate of this kind dates back to beginning of the new century. It is remembered as the “Two planets debate” and coincided with the emergence of life cycle management, i.e. the use of life-cycle based methods in industry.

The “Two planets”

This is a metaphor coined at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Europe case studies symposium 2000 and designates the fact that many academic LCA developers and the LCA practitioners seem to live in different spheres. The editorial note by Baitz et al. shows that this seems to be true still today. It is argued that the practitioners do not frequently enough participate in the working groups organized by SETAC, the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative and other international organizations and therefore cannot bring in the practical experience they have acquired in performing “real-life” LCA studies. The new LCIA methods, for instance, are often not accepted by the LCA practitioners and commissioners, since essential aspects were not recognised during method development.

Tentative proposal for a solution

The solution of the problems pointed out in Baitz et al. cannot be to hinder the inhabitants of the academic planet in inventing ingenious new methods for reasons of academic freedom. It is proposed that new methods developed should be tested by practitioners in real-life LCA studies. Data asymmetries in comparative (i.e. most) LCA studies using more demanding methods may shift problems from LCIA to the LCI databases. With regard to the financing of such studies, it should be remembered that practitioners do their living by performing LCAs and other studies and have to calculate a full overhead in addition to the pure working costs.     

Use of LCA as a development tool within early research: challenges and issues across different sectors

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to highlight the challenges that face the use of life cycle assessment (LCA) for the development of emerging technologies. LCA has great potential for driving the development of products and processes with improved environmental credentials when used at the early research stage, not only to compare novel processing with existing commercial alternatives but to help identify environmental hotspots. Its use in this way does however provide methodological and practical difficulties, often exacerbated by the speed of analysis required to enable development decisions to be made. Awareness and understanding of the difficulties in such cases is vital for all involved with the development cycle.

Methods

This paper employs three case studies across the diverse sectors of nanotechnology, lignocellulosic ethanol (biofuel), and novel food processes demonstrating both the synergy of issues across different sectors and highlighting the challenges when applying LCA for early research. Whilst several researchers have previously highlighted some of the issues with use of LCA techniques at an early stage, most have focused on a specific product, process development, or sector. The use of the three case studies here is specifically designed to highlight conclusively that such issues are prevalent to use of LCA in early research irrespective of the technology being assessed.

Results and discussion

The four focus areas for the paper are system boundaries, scaling issues, data availability, and uncertainty. Whilst some of the issues identified will be familiar to all LCA practitioners as problems shared with standard LCAs, their importance and difficulty is compounded by factors distinct to novel processes as emerging technology is often associated with unknown future applications, unknown industrial scales, and wider data gaps that contribute to the level of LCA uncertainty. These issues, in addition with others that are distinct to novel applications, such as the challenges of comparing laboratory scale data with well-established commercial processing, are exacerbated by the requirement for rapid analysis to enable development decisions to be made.

Conclusions

Based on the challenges and issues highlighted via illustration through the three case studies, it is clear that whilst transparency of information is paramount for standard LCAs, the sensitivities, complexities, and uncertainties surrounding LCAs for early research are critical. Full reporting and understanding of these must be established prior to utilising such data as part of the development cycle.     

Parameterized tool for site specific LCAs of wind energy converters

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to provide a parameterized LCA tool that allows performing site specific life cycle assessments for different wind energy converter types by varying a limited number of relevant parameters. Hereby, it addresses the limited transferability of WEC LCA results to other sites as well as the increasing demand for such data.

Methods

Basis of the work was an extensive primary data collection at the respective production facilities and other relevant stakeholders like site assessment, service etc. Most of the required data was available at first hand and was completed with data from literature and LCA databases. Based on this data, a complex parameterized material flow model has been built and different product variants have been pre-defined within the model, including relevant production processes and upstream. The pre-definition of these product variants allows reducing the minimum number of parameters that need to be configured for site specific LCAs from a total of over 330 to just nine parameters.

Results and conclusions

In the future, choosing the right type of technology for specific sites will become more important; especially in the face of increasing land use conflicts and increasing competition between renewable energy technologies. Site and technology specific LCAs prove to be a valuable tool for this assessment. Tools like the presented significantly reduce the effort required for performing these LCAs. Additionally, they can be used for various other purposes like environmental assessments of different repowering scenarios and eco design.     

Uncertainty in environmentally conscious decision making: beer or wine?

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is being used increasingly in decision support situations. In actual cases, the sources of uncertainty are easily hidden in the complexity. Methods for taking uncertainty into account are recommended by LCA guidelines, but actual application remains rare. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the sources of uncertainty in a practical simple selection case wherein a customer makes a decision between beer and wine in a restaurant, considering the selected criteria and the given information. The uncertainty in LCA results is connected to the broader scope of decision analysis.

Methods

Life cycle inventories were collected for beer and wine production from existing literature. The functional unit was chosen to be one serving of alcohol: beer or wine. For illustrative purposes, only the global warming potential indicator was included in the LCA through carbon footprint (CF). Probabilistic uncertainty analysis was applied to the CF system using Monte Carlo simulation. Water footprint was also roughly considered. In addition, three non-environmental indicators were included in the decision: weight control, price, and taste. The comparison between the two products was constructed as a multiple-criteria decision analytical problem.

Results and discussion

The results indicated that beer had, on average, a higher CF value than wine did. However, the difference was not significant, and within the uncertainty range, also the opposite conclusion was possible. The ratio of wine to beer CF was dominated by the uncertainty in the N₂O emissions of wine production. When all of the decision criteria were included, the level of uncertainty prevented robust overall conclusions about preference for beer or wine. However, depending on the utility differences assigned to subjective indicators, there existed also cases wherein decisions could be made at a 10?% risk level regardless of high overall uncertainty.

Conclusions

In many cases, the uncertainties of LCA are dwarfed by the overall uncertainty of the decision situation. However, as shown by our example, in many cases, reasonable decisions can be made in spite of high uncertainties. The uncertainties of single LCA indicators should be considered in relation to the decision-making problem, which depends on the uncertainty of LCA indicators but also significantly on the weighting of the indicators and the related uncertainty. Successful decision making depends on both the magnitude of uncertainty and the differences in expected utility value between alternatives. More attention should be paid to uncertainty analysis considering the weighting factors.     

LCA of petroleum-based lubricants: state of art and inclusion of additives

Purpose

While the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to lubricants can be considered fully operational for general purposes outside the lubricants industry, where Life Cycle Inventories (LCIs) of mineral and synthetic base oils can be used interchangeably and where additives can be excluded, this is not the case for research and development purposes within the industry. Previous LCAs of base oils are not sufficiently detailed and comprehensive for R&D purposes, and there are no LCAs of lube additives and fully formulated lubricants. The aim of this paper is to integrate and expand previous LCAs of base oils and to investigate on the contribution of lube additives to the environmental impacts of a fully formulated lubricant.

Materials and methods

This study considers three base oils (mineral, poly-alpha-olefins (PAO) and hydrocracked) and a set of lubricating additives typically used in fully formulated engine oil. The LCA model is based on both industry and literature data.

Results and discussion

Trends in the lubricants industry towards more sophisticated base oils correspond to remarkably higher environmental impacts per kilogram of product but lead to reduced impacts per kilometre. The contribution of additives to the life cycle impacts of commercial lube oil was found to be remarkably high for some impact categories (nearly 35?% for global warming).

Conclusions

As base oil is concerned, this study made the point on data availability and provided a contribution in order to integrate and expand previous LCAs of mineral base oil and PAO. On the side of additives, the main conclusion is that in modern lubricants, the contribution of additives in terms of environmental impact can be remarkably high and, therefore, they should not be excluded.     

System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA

Background, aim, and scope

When dealing with system delimitation in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), two methodologies are typically referred to: consequential LCA and attributional LCA. The consequential approach uses marginal data and avoids co-product allocation by system expansion. The attributional approach uses average or supplier-specific data and treats co-product allocation by applying allocation factors. Agricultural LCAs typically regard local production as affected and they only include the interventions related to the harvested area. However, as changes in demand and production may affect foreign production, yields and the displacement of other crops in regions where the agricultural area is constrained, there is a need for incorporating the actual affected processes in agricultural consequential LCA. This paper presents a framework for defining system boundaries in consequential agricultural LCA. The framework is applied to an illustrative case study; LCA of increased demand for wheat in Denmark. The aim of the LCA screening is to facilitate the application of the proposed methodology. A secondary aim of the LCA screening is to illustrate that there are different ways to meet increased demand for agricultural products and that the environmental impact from these different ways vary significantly.

Materials and methods

The proposed framework mainly builds on the work of Ekvall T, Weidema BP (Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):pp. 161–171, 2004), agricultural statistics (FAOSTAT, FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2006), http://apps.fao.org/ (accessed June)), and agricultural outlook (FAPRI, US and world agricultural outlook, Food and Agriculture Research Institute, Iowa, 2006a). The framework and accompanying guidelines concern the suppliers affected, the achievement of increased production (area or yield), and the substitutions between crops. The framework, which is presented as a decision tree, proposes four possible systems that may be affected as a result of the increased demand of a certain crop in a certain area.

Results

The core of the proposed methodology is a decision tree, which guides the identification of affected processes in consequential agricultural LCA. The application of the methodology is illustrated with a case study presenting an LCA screening of wheat in Denmark. Different scenarios of how increased demand for wheat can be met show significant differences in emission levels as well as land use.

Discussion

The great differences in potential environmental impacts of the analysed results underpin the importance of system delimitation. The consequential approach is appointed as providing a more complete and accurate but also less precise result, while the attributional approach provides a more precise result but with inherent blind spots, i.e. a less accurate result.

Conclusions

The main features of the proposed framework and case study are: (1) an identification of significant sensitivity on results of system delimitation, and (2) a formalised way of identifying blind spots in attributional agricultural LCAs.

Recommendations and perspectives

It is recommended to include considerations on the basis of the framework presented in agricultural LCAs if relevant. This may be done either by full quantification or as qualitative identification of the most likely ways the agricultural product system will respond on changed demand. Hereby, it will be possible to make reservations to the conclusions drawn on the basis of an attributional LCA.     

A new approach for a modular valuation of LCAs

Goal Scope and Background

Qualitative valuation methods carefully try to avoid an aggregation across impact categories. However, such an aggregation often helps in obtaining a clear result for the valuation (which product scores better?). This article presents a new valuation method that uses an iterative approach. The application is demonstrated by the help of a case study for electric motors in trains.

Methods / Main Features

The approach combines two existing, unique valuation methods described earlier in literature, which both are of a rather non-aggregating nature, in line with ISO requirements, and were designed to be performed by LCA experts. The method is implemented in a computer software. Besides constants used within the method, the software needs as input solely indicator values from the Impact Assessment.

Results and Discussion

The iterative nature of these methods itself, and especially the combination of these methods, helps in achieving a valuation result for the LCA with not more subjective and aggregating elements than necessary. Subjective elements are clearly separated from others. The algorithm seems highly sensitive to changes in impact categories regarded as important ones. The implementation in software greatly eases the application of the method by transferring routine work from LCA experts to a machine. It ensures a reproducible result and prevents erroneous steps in a rather complicated valuation procedure. It further helps in hiding the complexity of the method from the user.

Conclusion

The approach of combining valuation methods in LCAs seems a fruitful one, and shows benefits when implemented in computer software, in terms of usability, and in terms of a more reproducible application. Care has to be taken to make sure users know what they do when performing an automated valuation procedure.

Outlook

We see three ways for extending the approach, namely: (i) become part of a toolbox of different valuation procedures; (ii) explicitly cope with uncertainty, and (iii) include different values for normalisation, in different regions worldwide. The software will be made available also in a stand alone version.

     

Impact of normalisation,elicitation technique and background information on panel weighting results in life cycle assessment

Purpose

Weighting in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a much-debated topic. Various tools have been used for weighting in LCA, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) being one of the most common. However, it has not been thoroughly assessed how weight elicitation techniques of MCDA with different scales (interval and ratio) along with external and internal normalisation affect weighting and subsequent results. The aim of this survey is to compare different techniques in an illustrative example in the building sector.

Methods

A panel of Nordic LCA experts accomplished six weighting exercises. The different weight elicitation techniques are SWING which is based on the interval scale; Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is based on the ratio scale. Information on the case study was provided for the panellists, along with characterised or normalised impact assessment scores. However, in the first weighting exercise, the panellists were not provided with any scores or background information, but they had to complete the weighting at a more general level. With the weights provided by the panel, the environmental impacts of three alternative house types were aggregated. The calculations were based on three well-grounded aggregation rules, which are commonly used in the field of LCA or decision analysis.

Results and discussion

In the illustrative construction example, the different aggregation rules had the biggest impact on the results. The results were different in the six calculation methods: when externally normalised scores were applied, house type A was superior in most of the calculations, but when internal normalisation was accomplished, house type C was superior. By using equal weights, similar results were obtained. None of the panellists intuitively considered A as the superior house type, but in some of the calculations, this was indeed the case. Furthermore, the results refer to the fact that the panellists completed the weighting on the basis of their general knowledge, without taking the features of different weight elicitation techniques into account.

Conclusions

External normalisation provides information on a magnitude of impacts, and in some cases, external normalisation may be a more influential factor than weighting. Based on the results, it cannot be stated which different weight elicitation technique is the most suitable for LCA. However, the method should be selected based on the aims and purpose of the study. Moreover, the elicitation questions should be explained with care to experts so that they interpret the questions as intended.     

Analyzing uncertainty in a comparative life cycle assessment of hand drying systems

Purpose

The goal of this study is to evaluate and compare the environmental impact (with a focus on global warming potential) of five hand drying systems: hands-under (HU) dryers, high-speed hands-under (HSHU) dryers, high-speed hands-in (HSHI) dryers, cotton roll towels, and paper towels. Another objective is to incorporate uncertainty into this comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) as a means of understanding the statistical robustness of the difference between the environmental impacts of the hand drying systems.

Methods

We conducted a life cycle assessment in accordance with the ISO 14040/14044 standards using data primarily from publicly available reports. As part of the study, we performed a parameter uncertainty analysis for multiple scenarios to evaluate the impact of uncertainty in input data on the relative performance of products. In addition, we conducted a probabilistic scenario analysis of key drying system parameters in order to understand the implications of changing assumptions on the outcomes of the analyses.

Results and discussion

The scope of the analyses enabled us to draw robust conclusions about the relative environmental performance of the products. We can say with a high degree of confidence that the high-speed dryers have a lower impact than paper towels and cotton roll towels. Differentiating the performance of the hand dryers requires being more specific about framing assumptions. Under certain conditions, the HSHI dryer is expected to have a lower impact than the HU and HSHU dryers. However, under other conditions, one cannot say that the HSHI dryer is clearly better than the other dryers. We cannot differentiate the performance between the HU dryer, cotton roll towels, and paper towels.

Conclusions

This work demonstrates the importance of going beyond traditional uncertainty analyses for comparative LCAs that are used for assertions of relative product environmental impact. Indeed, we found instances where the conclusions changed as a result of using the probabilistic scenario analysis. We outline important elements that should be included in future guidance on uncertainty analyses in comparative LCAs, including conducting parameter and scenario uncertainty analyses together and then using the outcomes to guide selection of parameters and/or choices to analyze further.     

A review of life cycle assessments on wind energy systems

Purpose

Several life cycle assessments (LCAs) of wind energy published in recent years are reviewed to identify methodological differences and underlying assumptions.

Methods

A full comparative analysis of 12 studies were undertaken (ten peer-reviewed papers, one conference paper, and one industry report) regarding six fundamental factors (methods used, energy use accounting, quantification of energy production, energy performance and primary energy, natural resources, and recycling). Each factor is discussed in detail to highlight strengths and shortcomings of various approaches.

Results

Several potential issues are found concerning the way LCA methods are used for assessing energy performance and environmental impact of wind energy, as well as dealing with natural resource use and depletion. The potential to evaluate natural resource use and depletion impacts from wind energy appears to be poorly exploited or elaborated on in the reviewed studies. Estimations of energy performance and environmental impacts are critically analyzed and found to differ significantly.

Conclusions and recommendations

A continued discussion and development of LCA methodology for wind energy and other energy resources are encouraged. Efforts should be made to standardize methods and calculations. Inconsistent use of terminology and concepts among the analyzed studies are found and should be remedied. Different methods are generally used and the results are presented in diverse ways, making it difficult to compare studies with each other, but also with other renewable energy sources.     

Life cycle assessment in green chemistry: overview of key parameters and methodological concerns

Purpose

Several articles within the area of green chemistry often promote new techniques or products as ‘green’ or ‘more environmentally benign’ than their conventional counterpart although these articles often do not quantitatively assess the environmental performance. In order to do this, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a valuable methodology. However, on the planning stage, a full-scale LCA is considered to be too time consuming and complicated. Two reasons for this have been recognised, the method is too comprehensive and it is hard to find inventory data. In this review, key parameters are presented with the purpose to reduce the time-consuming steps in LCA.

Methods

In this review, several LCAs of so-called ‘green chemicals’ are analysed and key parameters and methodological concerns are identified. Further, some conclusions on the environmental performance of chemicals were drawn.

Results and discussion

For fossil-based platform chemicals several LCAs exists but for chemicals produced with industrial biotechnology or from renewable resources the number of LCAs is limited, with the exception of biofuels, for which a large number of studies are made. In the review, a significant difference in the environmental performance of bulk and fine chemicals was identified. The environmental performance of bulk chemicals are closely connected to the production of the raw material and thereby different land use aspects. Here, a lot can be learnt from biofuel LCAs. In many of the reviewed articles focusing on bulk chemicals a comparison regarding fossil and renewable raw material was done. In most of the comparisons the renewable alternative turned out to be more environmentally preferable, especially for the impact on GWP and energy use. However, some environmental concerns were identified as important to include to assess overall environmental concern, for example eutrophication and the use of land.

Conclusions

To assess the environmental performance of green chemicals, quantitative methods are needed. For this purpose, both simple metrics and more comprehensive methods have been developed, one recognised method being LCA. However, this method is often too time consuming to be valuable in the process planning stage. This is partly due to a lack of available inventory data, but also because the method itself is too comprehensive. Here, key parameters for the environmental performance and methodological concerns were described to facilitate a faster and simpler use of LCA of green chemicals in the future.     

International Molybdenum Association (IMOA) life cycle assessment program and perspectives on the LCA harmonization effort

Purpose

In 2001, the International Molybdenum Association (IMOA) initiated their life cycle assessment (LCA) program performing cradle-to-gate life cycle inventories (LCIs) of three molybdenum metallurgical products, followed by LCIs of eight molybdenum chemicals and an update to the metallurgical LCIs. From 2012 to 2014, IMOA participated in a multi-metal industry initiative to harmonize the methodological approach to metal-related LCAs. This paper describes some of IMOA’s conclusions formed from its program and, coupled with its involvement in the multi-metal initiative, provides some lessons learned.

Methods

For this paper, IMOA evaluated the benefits of its LCI program, including its ability to communicate effectively with member companies and stakeholders on the development, use, and application of life cycle data. Likewise, IMOA developed the competence to recognize and provide input on potentially inappropriate use of LCA. IMOA performed a literature review to highlight some of the scientific research using the molybdenum LCI data. IMOA also reviewed the metal industry’s guidance document to provide its perspective on it, including similarities, differences, and substantiation of elements of the four topic areas.

Results and discussion

The metal industry’s guidance document identified four topic areas as essential for alignment with respect to metal-related LCAs: (1) system boundaries, (2) coproduct modelling, (3) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and (4) metals recycling modelling. IMOA is largely in agreement with the approaches described in the document. The paper provides examples of how these have been applied to LCAs on Mo-bearing products as well as examples of how some LCA work can benefit from the guidance document.

Conclusions

Having taken part in the harmonization effort, IMOA is poised to educate its member companies and stakeholders about some of the challenging issues encountered in LCA and will continue to lead through active industry participation. IMOA supplies its LCI data via a formal request process which enables open dialogue with stakeholders and LCA practitioners while providing IMOA with insights into how its products fit into the broader lifecycle context and facilitating stakeholders’ awareness of LCA and metals.

     

Marlo’s windows: why it is a mistake to ignore hazard resistance in LCA

Purpose

Hazard-resistant materials for homes promise environmental benefits, such as avoided waste and materials for repairs, which can be overlooked by scoping in life-cycle assessment (LCA) approaches. Our motivation for pursuing this research was to see how incorporating these avoided losses in the LCA could impact choices between hazard-resistant and traditional materials.

Methods

Two choices common in home construction were analyzed using an LCA process that incorporates catastrophe modeling to consider avoided losses made possible with hazard-resistant materials. These findings were compared to those based on a similar LCA that did not consider these avoided losses. The choices considered were standard windows vs. windows with impact-resistant glass and standard windows with no opening protection vs. standard windows with impact-resistant storm panels.

Results and discussion

For the window comparisons, the standard products were environmentally preferable when avoided losses from storm events were not considered in the LCA. However, when avoided losses were considered, the hazard-resistant products were environmentally preferable. Considering avoided losses in LCAs, as illustrated by the window choices, can change which product appears to be the environmentally preferable option. Further, as home service life increases, the environmental net benefit of the hazard-resistant product increases.

Conclusions

Our results show the value of an LCA approach which allows more complete scopings of comparisons between hazard-resistant materials and their traditional counterparts. This approach will help translate the impacts of hazard-resistant products into the more familiar language used to talk about “green” products, enabling more informed decisions by product manufacturers, those who develop building certification systems and codes, researchers, and other building industry stakeholders.     

Weighting in LCA Based on Ecotaxes - Development of a Mid-point Method and Experiences from Case Studies

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015

Goal, Scope and Background

The weighting phase in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is and has always been a controversial issue, partly because this element requires the incorporation of social, political and ethical values. Despite the controversies, weighting is widely used in practise. In this paper we will present an approach for monetisation of environmental impacts which is based on the consistent use of ecotaxes and fees in Sweden as a basis for the economic values. The idea behind this approach is that taxes and fees are expressions of the values society places on resource uses and emissions. An underlying assumption for this is that the decisions taken by policy-makers are reflecting societal values thus reflecting a positive view of representative democracy.

Methods

In the method a number of different ecotaxes are used. In many cases they can directly be used as valuation weighting factors, an example is the CO2-tax that can be used as a valuation of CO2-emissions. In some cases, a calculation has to be made in order to derive a weighting factor. An example of this is the tax on nitrogen fertilisers which can be recalculated to an emission of nitrogen which can be used as a weighting factor for nitrogen emissions. The valuation weighting factors can be connected to characterisation methods in the normal LCA practise. We have often used the Ecotax method in parallel to other weighting methods such as the Ecoindicator and EPS methods and the results are compared.

Results and Discussion

A new set of weighting factors has been developed which has been used in case studies. It is interesting to note that the Ecotax method is able to identify different environmental problems as the most important ones in different case studies. In some cases, the Ecotax method has identified some interventions as the most important ones which lack weighting factors in other weighting methods. The midpoint-endpoint debate in the LCA literature has often centred on different types of uncertainties. Sometimes it is claimed that an advantage with having an endpoint approach is that the weighting would be easier and less uncertain. Here we are however suggesting a mid-point weighting method that we claim are no less uncertain than other often used weighting methods based on a damage assessment. This paper can therefore be seen as a discussion paper also in the midpoint-endpoint debate.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The Ecotax method is ready to use. It should be further updated and developed as taxes are changed and new characterisation methods are developed. The method is not only relevant for LCA but also for other environmental systems analysis. The Ecotax method has also been used as a valuation method for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and within the context of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).