LCA and decision making: when and how to use consequential LCA; 62nd LCA forum,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zürich, 9 September 2016

The 62nd life cycle assessment (LCA) forum was held on 9 September 2016 to discuss the state of research and application with regard to consequential life cycle assessment. This conference report presents the highlights of the LCA forum. The state of the art of consequential LCA was presented from different viewpoints. It was pointed out that consequential LCA is more than marginal mixes and avoided burdens and involves causal modelling. It was also said that social responsibility calls for consequential LCA. Currently, different models are used to support decision making. It was suggested to make use of the variety of models to check the conclusiveness of their results and thus the reliability of the LCAs. Current and future implementations of consequential LCI models in background databases and linking algorithms were presented. Several speakers presented consequential LCA case studies covering the sectors energy, transport, housing and mining. Some of the LCA models used in the case studies are complemented with general and partial computable equilibrium models and agent-based models and use environmentally extended input-output data or process-based LCA data. Some of the presentations focused on elements such as constrained production, marginal market mixes and technologies or recycling and system expansion. In three parallel workshops, the needs, contents and methodology, and implementation of consequential LCA approaches were discussed. The participants seemed to generally agree on the basic goal that LCA should be able to reflect the consequences of decisions. The inquiry among the participants showed that the demand for consequential LCA studies is hardly existent. The appropriate implementation of consequential modelling in LCA databases and on the appropriate model to be used in consequential LCA case studies was debated. It revealed a need for further and extensive discussions to be able to reach (minimum) consensus.     

Regionalization in LCA: current status in concepts,software and databases—69th LCA forum,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zurich, 13 September, 2018

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment -     

What causes more LCA research—subjective values,objective problems,or scientific traditions?

Purpose

This paper aims to verify whether life cycle assessment (LCA) research can be mainly treated as a kind of pro-environmental behavior due to public environment concerns, or academic and research activities based on scientific traditions.

Methods

This paper uses the international comparisons method for modeling and SPSS 16.0 for data processing. The data in this study were obtained from the Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme and the Web of Science by the Institute for Scientific Information.

Results and discussion

Our empirical study shows that the two main factors influencing the outputs per capita of the research articles in LCA in a particular country are the value of Environmental Performance Index, which represents the overall environmental quality, as well as the outputs per capita of the research articles in environmental science and technology. The results of statistical analysis show two J-type curves: with the change of the independent variables, the dependent variable changes in the same direction, but at a rate that is first slow, then fast.

Conclusions

LCA research results from scientific traditions and can only develop based on fundamental research in environmental science and technology. Further, LCA research is a pro-environmental behavior due to actual and objective effects rather than subjective motives as more research on LCA can accompany, even in some degree may lead to better overall environmental qualities. However, although environmental concerns are likely to affect the number of LCA studies as an implicit variable, this has not been empirically confirmed in our optimization model.

     

49th Discussion forum on LCA—sustainable consumption patterns—September 18, 2012, Zurich, Switzerland

There are different ways and strategies to reduce the environmental impacts caused today. One starting point for reducing the environmental impacts of today is the private consumption. Finally, all goods and services provided in a country contribute to fulfil the needs and demands of consumers. Several national and international initiatives therefore aim for a considerable reduction of the environmental impacts of consumption patterns. The 49th LCA Discussion Forum analysed the present consumption patterns of households and their consequent environmental impacts. Based on this, potentials for a reduction of the environmental impacts were identified and discussed. In this context, the possible applications, advantages and drawbacks of the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology were analysed. National and international speakers provided qualified insights on the topic. The 49th Discussion Forum concentrated on different aspects of sustainable consumption patterns. The focus lay on private households and the environmental impacts caused by their consumption patterns. In the first session, the idea of the “2000-Watt society” was introduced as an example of a concept of a “sustainable lifestyle”. Another way of analysing the total impacts is the consumption perspective introduced in a second presentation. Based on an analysis of environmental impacts due to final demand of Swiss households, different measures for a reduction of environmental impacts were proposed and analysed. The second session examined similar activities in Germany. The short presentations covered the communication of LCA results. The third session focused on web-based eco-calculators. In the last session, two scientific inputs were given on the modelling of household consumption patterns and on the impact of rebound effects on the environmental impact of private consumption. The most important consumption domains are nutrition, mobility and energy use in households. Apart from different modelling approaches and boundary conditions, the majority of the presentations showed that today’s consumption patterns in Switzerland and Germany are far away from a sustainable level. Considerable reduction measures are needed in order to reach this goal. Eco-calculators and similar tools provide an effective way to raise customer awareness. In general, it is very important to communicate LCA results in a simple, clear and transparent way.     

When Do Allocations and Constructs Respect Material,Energy, Financial,and Production Balances in LCA and EEIO?

Conservation of mass and energy are essential to physical accounting, just as price and market balances are essential to economic accounting. These principles guide data collection and inventory compilation in industrial ecology. The resulting balanced surveys, however, can rarely be used directly for life cycle assessment (LCA) or environmentally extended input‐output (EEIO) analysis; some modeling is necessary to recast coproductions by multifunctional activities as monofunctional unit processes (a.k.a. Leontief production functions or technical “recipes”). This modeling is done with allocations in LCA and constructs in input‐output. In this article, we ask how these models respect or perturb the balances of the original inventory. Which allocations or constructs, applied to what type of data set, have the potential to simultaneously respect its multiple physical, financial, and market balances? Our analysis builds upon the recent harmonization of allocations and constructs and the ongoing development of multilayered supply and use inventory tables. We derive the necessary and sufficient conditions for balanced models, investigate the role of data aggregation, and clarify these models' relation to system expansion. We find that none of the modeling families in LCA and EEIO are balanced in general, but special data characteristics can allow for the respect of multiple balances. An analysis of these special cases allows for clear guidance for data compilation and methods integration.     

LCA of energetic biomass utilization: actual projects and new developments—April 23, 2012, Berne, Switzerland

Introduction

In the last years, the use of biomass for energy purposes has been seen as a promising option to reduce the use of nonrenewable energy sources and the emissions of fossil carbon. However, LCA studies have shown that the energetic use of biomass also causes impacts on climate change and, furthermore, that different environmental issues arise, such as land use and agricultural emissions. While biomass is renewable, it is not an unlimited resource. Its use, to whatever purpose, must therefore be well studied to promote the most efficient option with the least environmental impacts. The 47th LCA Discussion Forum gathered several national and international speakers who provided a broad and qualified view on the topic.

Summary of the topics presented in DF 47

Several aspects of energetic biomass use from a range of projects financed by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) were presented in this Discussion Forum. The first session focused on important aspects of the agricultural biogas production like the use of high energy crops or catch crops as well as the influence of plant size on the environmental performance of biogas. In the second session, other possibilities of biomass treatment like direct combustion, composting, and incineration with municipal waste were presented. Topic of the first afternoon session was the update and harmonization of biomass inventories and the resulting new assessment of biofuels. The short presentations investigated some further aspects of the LCA of bioenergy like the assessment of spatial variation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from bioenergy production in a country, the importance of indirect land use change emissions on the overall results, the assessment of alternative technologies to direct spreading of digestate or the updates of the car operation datasets in ecoinvent.

Conclusions

One main outcome of this Discussion Forum is that bioenergy is not environmentally friendly per se. In many cases, energetic use of biomass allows a reduction of GHG and fossil energy use. However, there is often a tradeoff with other environmental impacts linked to agricultural production like eutrophication or ecotoxicity. Methodological challenges still exist, like the assessment of direct and indirect land use change emissions and their attribution to the bioenergy production, or the influence of heavy metal flows on the bioenergy assessment. Another challenge is the implementation of a life cycle approach in certification or legislation schemes, as shown by the example of the Renewable Energy Directive of the European Union.     

How can LCA include prospective elements to assess emerging technologies and system transitions? The 76th LCA Discussion Forum on Life Cycle Assessment, 19 November 2020

This paper summarizes the 76th LCA Discussion Forum end its main findings. Main issues when addressing emerging technologies identified were: the lack of primary data, the need for (shared) future background scenarios and (guidlines for) a common methodology. The following recommendations have been derived by the organizers: 1) Specific foreground inventories are always tailor-made, but consistency can be improved through lists of mandatory considerations. 2) Continue sharing (future) technology data and proxy processes, that can be readily replicated to new studies and assist in developing inventories. 3) Streamline and unify the process of including scenarios for background systems. New approaches may provide first important solutions to efficiently include consistent future scenarios in prospective LCA.

     

Similarities,Differences and Synergisms Between HERA and LCA—An Analysis at Three Levels

Linkages between Human and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) and Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be analyzed at three levels: the basic equations to describe environmental behavior and dose-response relationships of chemicals; the overall model structure of these tools; and the applications of the tools. At level 1 few differences exist: both tools use essentially the same fate and effect models, including their coefficients and data. At level 2 distinctive differences emerge: regional or life-cycle perspective, emission pulses or fluxes, scope of chemicals and types of impacts, use of characterization factors, spatial and temporal detail, aggregation of effects, and the functional unit as basis of the assessment. Although the two tools typically differ in all these aspects, only the functional unit issue renders the tools fundamentally different, expressing itself also in some main characteristics of the modeling structure. This impedes full integration, which is underpinned in mathematical terms. At level 3 the aims of the tools are complementary: quantified risk estimates of chemicals for HERA versus quantified product assessment for LCA. Here, beneficial synergism is possible between the two tools, as illustrated by some cases. These also illustrate that where full integration is suggested, in practice this is not achieved, thus in fact supporting the conclusions.     

Recycle,Bury, or Burn Wood Waste Biomass?: LCA Answer Depends on Carbon Accounting,Emissions Controls,Displaced Fuels,and Impact Costs

This study extends existing life cycle assessment (LCA) literature by assessing seven environmental burdens and an overall monetized environmental score for eight recycle, bury, or burn options to manage clean wood wastes generated at construction and demolition activity sites. The study assesses direct environmental impacts along with substitution effects from displacing fossil fuels and managed forest wood sourcing activities. Follow‐on effects on forest carbon stocks, land use, and fuel markets are not assessed. Sensitivity analysis addresses landfill carbon storage and biodegradation rates, atmospheric emissions controls, displaced fuel types, and two alternative carbon accounting methods commonly used for waste management LCAs. Base‐case carbon accounting considers emissions and uptakes of all biogenic and fossil carbon compounds, including biogenic carbon dioxide. Base‐case results show that recycling options (recycling into reconstituted wood products or into wood pulp for papermaking) rank better than all burning or burying options for overall monetized score as well as for climate impacts, except that wood substitution for coal in industrial boilers is slightly better than recycling for the climate. Wood substitution for natural gas boiler fuel has the highest environmental impacts. Sensitivity analysis shows the overall monetized score rankings for recycling options to be robust except for the carbon accounting method, for which all options are highly sensitive. Under one of the alternative methods, wood substitution for coal boiler fuel and landfill options with high methane capture efficiency are the best for the overall score; recycling options are next to the worst. Under the other accounting alternative, wood substitution for coal and waste‐to‐energy are the best, followed by recycling options.     

LCA in architectural design—a parametric approach

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has not been widely applied in the building design process because it is perceived to be complex and time-consuming. There is a high demand for simplified approaches that architects can use without detailed knowledge of LCA. This paper presents a parametric LCA approach, which allows architects to efficiently reduce the environmental impact of building designs.

Methods

First, the requirements for design-integrated LCA are analyzed. Then, assumptions to simplify the required data input are made and a parametric model is established. The model parametrizes all input, including building geometry, materials, and boundary conditions, and calculates the LCA in real time. The parametric approach possesses the advantage that input parameters can be adjusted easily and quickly. The architect has two options to improve the design: either through manually changing geometry, building materials, and building services, or through the use of an optimization solver. The parametric model was implemented in a parametric design software and applied using two cases: (a) the design of a new multi-residential building, and (b) retrofitting of a single-family house.

Results and discussion

We have successfully demonstrated the capability of the approach to find a solution with minimum environmental impact for both examples. In the first example, the parametric method is used to manually compare geometric design variants. The LCA is calculated based on assumptions for materials and building services. In the second example, evolutionary algorithms are employed to find the optimum combination of insulation material, heating system, and windows for retrofitting. We find that there is not one optimum insulation thickness, but many optima, depending on the individual boundary conditions and the chosen environmental indicator.

Conclusions

By incorporating a simplified LCA into the design process, the additional effort of performing LCA is minimized. The parametric approach allows the architect to focus on his main task of designing the building and finally makes LCA practically useful for design optimization. In the future, further performance analysis capabilities such as life cycle costing can also be integrated.

     

乳腺癌ConA、LCA、PSA免疫组化研究

运用ＡＢＣ法研究５０例乳腺癌三种凝集素受体（Ｌｅｃｔｉｎ－Ｒ）的表达,并以乳腺纤维瘤和乳腺小叶增生症各１０例作为对照。结果表明：该三种凝集素受体在乳腺良、恶性病变中的表达率无显著性差异。ＣＯｎＡ－Ｒ在乳腺癌以胞浆型定位为主,在纤维腺瘤则以胞膜型多见（Ｐ＜０．０５）。ＬＣＡ－Ｒ和ＰＳＡ－Ｒ在乳腺三种病变中均以胞浆型为主。ＣｏｎＡ－Ｒ与乳腺癌分化程度具良好的相关性;ＬＣＡ－Ｒ与乳腺癌瘤体大小有关。该三种凝集素受体与ＥＲ、ＰＲ及ＣＥＡ的表达未显示密切的关联。     

Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison

Purpose

The analysis of uncertainty in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies has been a topic for more than 10 years, and many commercial LCA programs now feature a sampling approach called Monte Carlo analysis. Yet, a full Monte Carlo analysis of a large LCA system, for instance containing the 4,000 unit processes of ecoinvent v2.2, is rarely carried out by LCA practitioners. One reason for this is computation time. An alternative faster than Monte Carlo method is analytical error propagation by means of a Taylor series expansion; however, this approach suffers from being explained in the literature in conflicting ways, hampering implementation in most software packages for LCA. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two different approaches from a theoretical and practical perspective.

Methods

In this paper, we compare the analytical and sampling approaches in terms of their theoretical background and their mathematical formulation. Using three case studies—one stylized, one real-sized, and one input–output (IO)-based—we approach these techniques from a practical perspective and compare them in terms of speed and results.

Results

Depending on the precise question, a sampling or an analytical approach provides more useful information. Whenever they provide the same indicators, an analytical approach is much faster but less reliable when the uncertainties are large.

Conclusions

For a good analysis, analytical and sampling approaches are equally important, and we recommend practitioners to use both whenever available, and we recommend software suppliers to implement both.     

Normalization in LCA: how to ensure consistency?

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment -     

6th SETAC-Europe Meeting: LCA — Selected Papers

A study of industry’s use of LCA has been performed as a special analysis of the Business Environmental Barometer (B.E.B.). The B.E.B. is an international questionnaire survey on industry’s environmental management practices (LCA included), repeated every two years. The first round in 1993 included the Nordic countries. The 1997 round will include eight European countries. This analysis intends to describe industry’s LCA use as such (e.g. active industrial sectors, applications, changes over time) and differences between companies working with LCA and those not working with LCA. The survey indicates that industry is in the process of internalising LCA knowledge, although most companies are still in the learning phase. LCA companies have more developed environmental management systems than non-LCA companies. A company’s LCA use seems to be a competitor-driven activity, judging from LCA distribution among industrial sectors.     

Environmental benchmarks for buildings: needs,challenges and solutions—71st LCA forum,Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,Zürich, 18 June 2019

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - The 71st LCA forum was held on 18 June 2019 in Zurich, Switzerland, to discuss the current status and future plans of environmental benchmarking...     

Obsolescence in LCA–methodological challenges and solution approaches

Purpose

Obsolescence, as premature end of use, increases the overall number of products produced and consumed, and thereby can increase the environmental impact. Measures to decrease the effects of obsolescence by altering the product or service design have the potential to increase use time (defined as the realized active service life) of devices, but can themselves have (environmental) drawbacks, for example, because the amount of material required for production increases. As such, paying special attention to methodological choices when assessing such measures and strategies using life cycle assessment (LCA) needs is crucial.

Methods

Open questions and key aspects of obsolescence, including the analysis of its effects and preventative measures, are discussed against the backdrop of the principles and framework for LCA given in ISO 14040/44, which includes guidance on how to define a useful functional unit and reference flow in the context of real-life use time.

Results and discussion

The open and foundational requirements of ISO 14040/14044 already form an excellent basis for analysis of the phenomenon obsolescence and its environmental impact in product comparisons. However, any analysis presumes clear definition of the goal and scope phase with special attention paid to aspects relevant to obsolescence: the target product and user group needs to be placed into context with the analysed “anti-obsolescence” measures. The reference flow needs to reflect a realized use time (and not solely a technical lifetime when not relevant for the product under study). System boundaries and types of data need to be chosen also in context of the anti-obsolescence measure to include, for example, the production of spare parts to reflect repairable design and/or manufacturer-specific yields to reflect high-quality manufacturing.

Conclusions

Understanding the relevant obsolescence conditions for the product system under study and how these may differ across the market segment or user types is crucial for a fair and useful comparison and the evaluation of anti-obsolescence measures.

     

Improving odour assessment in LCA—the odour footprint

Purpose

Odour is an important aspect of systems for human and agricultural waste management and many technologies are developed with the sole purpose of reducing odour. Compared with greenhouse gas assessment and the assessment of toxicity, odour assessment has received little attention in the life cycle assessment (LCA) community. This article aims to redress this.

Methods

Firstly, a framework for the assessment of odour impacts in LCA was developed considering the classical LCA framework of emissions, midpoint and endpoint indicators. This suggested that an odour footprint midpoint indicator was worth striving for. An approach to calculating an areal indicator we call “odour footprint”, which considers the odour detection threshold, the diffusion rate and the kinetics of degradation of odourants, was implemented in MATLAB. We demonstrated the use of the characterisation factors we calculated in a case study based on odour removal technology applied to a pig barn.

Results and discussion

We produced a list of 33 linear characterisation factors based on hydrogen sulphide equivalents, analogous to the linear carbon dioxide equivalency factors in use in carbon footprinting, or the dichlorobenzene equivalency factors developed for assessment of toxic impacts in LCA. Like the latter, this odour footprint method does not take local populations and exposure pathway analysis into account—its intent is not to assess regulatory compliance or detailed design. The case study showed that despite the need for materials and energy, large factor reductions in odour footprint and eutrophication potential were achieved at the cost of a smaller factor increase in greenhouse emissions.

Conclusions

The odour footprint method is proposed as an improvement on the established midpoint method for odour assessment in LCA. Unlike it, the method presented here considers the persistence of odourants. Over time, we hope to increase the number of characterised odourants, enabling analysts to perform simple site-generic LCA on systems with odourant emissions.