Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA

The private sector decision making situations which LCA addresses mustalso eventually take theeconomic consequences of alternative products or product designs into account. However, neither the internal nor external economic aspects of the decisions are within the scope of developed LCA methodology, nor are they properly addressed by existing LCA tools. This traditional separation of life cycle environmental assessment from economic analysis has limited the influence and relevance of LCA for decision-making, and left uncharacterized the important relationships and trade-offs between the economic and life cycle environmental performance of alternative product design decision scenarios. Still standard methods of LCA can and have been tightly, logically, and practically integrated with standard methods for cost accounting, life cycle cost analysis, and scenario-based economic risk modeling. The result is an ability to take both economic and environmental performance — and their tradeoff relationships — into account in product/process design decision making.     

The formulation of life cycle impact assessment framework for Malaysia using Eco-indicator

Background, aim, and scope  

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an emerging supporting tool designed to help practitioner in systematically assessing the environmental performance of selected product’s life cycle. A product’s life cycle includes the extraction of raw materials, production, and usage, and ends with waste treatment or disposal. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) as a part of LCA is a method used to derive the environmental burdens from selected product’s stages. LCIA is structured in classification, characterization, normalization and weighting. Presently most of the LCIA practices use European database to establish the characterization, normalization and weighting value. However, using these values for local LCA practice might not be able to reflect the actual Malaysian’s environmental scenario. The aim of this study is to create a Malaysian version of normalization and weighting value using the pollution database within Malaysia.     

Modeling process and material alternatives in life cycle assessments

Background, Aims and Scope  Although LCA is frequently used in product comparison, many practitioners are interested in identifying and assessing improvements within a life cycle. Thus, the goals of this work are to provide guidelines for scenario formulation for process and material alternatives within a life cycle inventory and to evaluate the usefulness of decision tree and matrix computational structures in the assessment of material and process alternatives. We assume that if the analysis goal is to guide the selection among alternatives towards reduced life cycle environmental impacts, then the analysis should estimate the inventory results in a manner that: (1) reveals the optimal set of processes with respect to minimization of each impact of interest, and (2) minimizes and organizes computational and data collection needs. Methods  A sample industrial system is used to reveal the complexities of scenario formulation for process and material alternatives in an LCI. The system includes 4 processes, each executable in 2 different ways, as well as 1 process able to use 2 different materials interchangeably. We formulate and evaluate scenarios for this system using three different methods and find advantages and disadvantages with each. First, the single branch decision tree method stays true to the typical construction of decision trees such that each branch of the tree represents a single scenario. Next, the process flow decision tree method strays from the typical construction of decision trees by following the process flow of the product system, such that multiple branches are needed to represent a single scenario. In the final method, disaggregating the demand vector, each scenario is represented by separate vectors which are combined into a matrix to allow the simultaneous solution of the inventory problem for all scenarios. Results  For both decision tree and matrix methods, scenario formulation, data collection, and scenario analysis are facilitated in two ways. First, process alternatives that cannot actually be chosen should be modeled as sub-inventories (or as a complete LCI within an LCI). Second, material alternatives (e.g., a choice between structural materials) must be maintained within the analysis to avoid the creation of artificial multi-functional processes. Further, in the same manner that decision trees can be used to estimate ‘expected value’ (the sum of the probability of each scenario multiplied by its ‘value’), we find that expected inventory and impact results can be defined for both decision tree and matrix methods. Discussion  For scenario formulation, naming scenarios in a way that differentiate them from other scenarios is complex and important in the continuing development of LCI data for use in databases or LCA software. In the formulation and assessment of scenarios, decision tree methods offer some level of visual appeal and the potential for using commercially available software/ traditional decision tree solution constructs for estimating expected values (for relatively small or highly aggregated product systems). However, solving decision tree systems requires the use of sequential process scaling which is difficult to formalize with mathematical notation. In contrast, preparation of a demand matrix does not require use of the sequential method to solve the inventory problem but requires careful scenario tracking efforts. Conclusions  Here, we recognize that improvements can be made within a product system. This recognition supports the greater use of LCA in supply chain formation and product research, development, and design. We further conclude that although both decision tree and matrix methods are formulated herein to reveal optimal life cycle scenarios, the use of demand matrices is preferred in the preparation of a formal mathematical construct. Further, for both methods, data collection and assessment are facilitated by the use of sub-inventories (or as a complete LCI within an LCI) for process alternatives and the full consideration of material alternatives to avoid the creation of artificial multi-functional processes. Recommendations and Perspectives  The methods described here are used in the assessment of forest management alternatives and are being further developed to form national commodity models considering technology alternatives, national production mixes and imports, and point-to-point transportation models. ESS-Submission Editor: Thomas Gloria, PhD (t.gloria@fivewinds.com)     

PIQET: the design and development of an online ‘streamlined’ LCA tool for sustainable packaging design decision support

Background, aim and scope  

‘Streamlined’ life cycle assessment (LCA) tools hold out the possibility of providing LCA information quickly and easily in order to support a variety of decision-making environments and situations. The utility of such tools is closely related to the accuracy needs and possibilities, and the particular decisions to be supported. In order to facilitate the provision and application of LCA information in decision making during packaging design, development and utilisation, there is a prima facia case for a ‘streamlined’ LCA tool, provided it meets a set of requirements, including functionality, accuracy, validity, reliability and usability.     

Application dependency of lca methodology: Key variables and their mode of influencing the method

The reason to perform an LCA is essentially to use it in support of a decision. A decision gives rise to a change somewhere in society compared to a scenario in which this decision was not taken. The key requirement for the LCA in any application is therefore, that it shall reflect the environmental change caused by the decision. It is found, that the need to differentiate LCA methodology for the use in different applications is born by a few key characteristics of the decision to be supported. The first key characteristic is the environmental consequence of the decision, i.e. the nature and extent of the environmental change caused by the decision. When modelling the environmental change, its extent in time and space will differ between decision types, thus giving rise to different requirements, primarily for the scoping and inventory phases of the LCA. Furthermore, some decisions will imply trade-offs between different impact categories, while others will not, thus causing different requirements for the impact assessment. The second key characteristic is the social and economic consequence of the decision, the magnitude of which will influence the need for certainty, transparency and documentation. The third characteristic is the context in which the decision is taken, including the decision maker and interested parties, implicitly influencing the impact assessment and weighting.     

Weighting in Practice:Implications for the Use of Life-Cycle Assessment in Decision Making

This article investigates how environmental trade-offs are handled in life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies in some Nordic companies. Through interviews, the use and understanding of weighting methods in decision making was studied. The analysis shows that the decision makers require methods with which to aggregate and help interpret the complex information from life-cycle inventories. They agreed that it was not their own values that should be reflected in such methods, but they were found to have different opinions concerning the value basis that should be used. The analysis also investigates the difficulties arising from using such methods. The decision makers seemed to give a broader meaning to the term weighting, and were more concerned with the comparison between environmental and other aspects than the weighting of different environmental impacts. A conclusion is that decision makers need to be more involved in modeling and interpretation. The role of the analyst should be to interpret the information needs of the decision maker, and help him or her make methodological choices that are consistent with these needs and relevant from his or her point of view. To achieve this, it is important that decision makers do not view LCA as a highly standardized calculation tool, but as a flexible process of collecting, organizing, and interpreting environmental information. Such an approach to LCA increases the chances that the results will be regarded as relevant and useful.     

On the use of weighting in LCA: translating decision makers’ preferences into weights via linear programming

Purpose

The main goal of any life cycle assessment (LCA) study is to identify solutions leading to environmental savings. In conventional LCA studies, practitioners select from some alternatives the one which better matches their preferences. This task is sometimes simplified by ranking these alternatives using an aggregated indicator defined by attaching weights to impacts. We address here the inverse problem. That is, given an alternative, we aim to determine the weights for which that solution becomes optimal.

Methods

We propose a method based on linear programming (LP) that determines, for a given alternative, the ranges within which the weights attached to a set of impact metrics must lie so that when a weighting combination of these impacts is optimized, the alternative can be optimal, while if the weights fall outside this range, it is guaranteed that the solution will be suboptimal. A large weight value implies that the corresponding LCA impact is given more importance, while a low value implies the converse. Furthermore, we provide a rigorous mathematical analysis on the implications of using weighting schemes in LCA, showing that this practice guides decision-making towards the adoption of some specific alternatives (those lying on the convex envelope of the resulting trade-off curve).

Results and discussion

A case study based on the design of hydrogen infrastructures is taken as a test bed to illustrate the capabilities of the approach presented. Given are a set of production and storage technologies available to produce and deliver hydrogen, a final demand, and cost and environmental data. A set of designs, each achieving a unique combination of cost and LCA impact, is considered. For each of them, we calculate the minimum and maximum weight to be given to every LCA impact so that the alternative can be optimal among all the candidate designs. Numerical results show that solutions with lower impact are selected when decision makers are willing to pay larger monetary penalties for the environmental damage caused.

Conclusions

LP can be used in LCA to translate the decision makers’ preferences into weights. This information is rather valuable, particularly when these weights represent economic penalties, as it allows screening and ranking alternatives on the basis of a common economic basis. Our framework is aimed at facilitating decision making in LCA studies and defines a general framework for comparing alternatives that show different performance in a wide variety of impact metrics.     

A hybrid life cycle assessment model for comparison with conventional methodologies in Australia

Background, aim, and scope  

One barrier to the further implementation of LCA as a quantitative decision-support tool is the uncertainty created by the diversity of available analytical approaches. This paper compares conventional (‘process analysis’) and alternative (‘input–output analysis’) approaches to LCA, and presents a hybrid LCA model for Australia that overcomes the methodological limitations of process and input–output analysis and enables a comparison between the results achieved using each method. A case study from the water industry illustrates this comparison.     

Application of the impact pathway analysis in the context of LCA

Current LCA practice is mass oriented, i.e. is focused on the amount of chemicals released, disregarding place and time of release. Life cycle impact assessment aims at evaluating potential impacts, and a variety of weighting schemes is discussed to he used for ranking and aggregation of impacts. To establish a closer link between the quantity of a burden released and a decision making context, we propose to follow a detailed impact pathway analysis to estimate actual impacts for some priority impact categories, and use measured individuals’ preferences for impact valuation. Results from a case study illustrate the relevance of site specific impact assessment in the context of LCA.     

Aid for aggregating the impacts in Life Cycle assessment

Background and Objectives  Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) methods may be employed in a great number of fields. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a specific method among the MCDA Methods. A stage of MCDA methods to be respected in LCA is the comparative evaluation of the environmental impacts. This stage is the most difficult to implement because it is a question of estimating the global environmental impact of the life cycles studied. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary to model the environmental impacts and to apply a Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) method. The problem is to choose the most suitable among the available MCA methods. The objective of this paper is to help the LCA practitioner to make this choice. Methodology  The MCA methods are compared according to their non-compensatory degree, their sensitivity to thresholds, their practicability and their workability. Results and Conclusion  The protocol presented in this paper allows to choose the most appropriate MCA method for a given LCA according to the four previous criteria. This choice will depend on the priorities of the decision maker with concern to the comparison criteria.     

Life cycle assessment of automotive fuels: critical analysis and recommendations on the emissions inventory in the tank to wheels stage

Purpose  

As new alternative automotive fuels are being developed, life cycle assessment (LCA) is being used to assess the sustainability of these new options. A fuel LCA is commonly referred as a “Well To Wheels” analysis and calculates the environmental impacts of producing the fuel (the “Well To Tank” stage) and using it to move a car (the “Tank To Wheels” stage, TTW). The TTW environmental impacts are the main topic of this article.     

Economic allocation: Examples and derived decision tree

Goal, Scope and Background  In the recently published (Dutch) Handbook on LCA, economic allocation is advised as baseline method for most allocation situations in a detailed LCA. Although the Handbook on LCA aimed to provide a ‘cookbook’ with operational guidelines for conducting each step of an LCA, this was not completely achieved for the allocation step. The guidelines for allocation largely remained at the level of principles. This restricted elaboration of economic allocation may hamper application in practice. Therefore, this paper elaborates some examples applying economic allocation. Method  Two concepts are of particular importance when applying economic allocation: functional flow and multi-functional process. The definitions of these concepts are presented and discussed. The basic principle of economic allocation is that having determined the various functional flows of a multi-functional process, all other flows need to be allocated to these functional flows according to their shares in the total proceeds. Proceeds are based on prices and these are not always easy to determine for a process. A summary of possible solutions for different problems when determining prices is given. Results and Discussion  The examples presented focus on co-production and various recycling situations. All examples are hypothetical in order to avoid discussions on the data. The examples show that the prices of the functional flows determine the allocation results. It is of importance to have correct information on the relative prices of the functional flows at stake, especially whether they are negative or positive. Learning from these examples, we establish a decision tree for economic allocation. The decision tree is meant for identifying and handling multi-functionality situations starting from a defined (product) system. This decision tree is with minor adaptations also applicable to other allocation methods and has a more general value than for the economic allocation method only. Conclusions and perspective  The examples have helped us to establish a decision tree for handling the multi-functionality problem by economic allocation. The examples can be broadened to other materials and allocation situations. We would encourage others to provide other examples and experiences as we expect that these will help to further improve and refine the guidelines and decision tree for economic allocation in future.     

Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA)

Purpose

Comparative life-cycle assessments (LCAs) today lack robust methods of interpretation that help decision makers understand and identify tradeoffs in the selection process. Truncating the analysis at characterization is misleading and existing practices for normalization and weighting may unwittingly oversimplify important aspects of a comparison. This paper introduces a novel approach based on a multi-criteria decision analytic method known as stochastic multi-attribute analysis for life-cycle impact assessment (SMAA-LCIA) that uses internal normalization by means of outranking and exploration of feasible weight spaces.

Methods

To contrast different valuation methods, this study performs a comparative LCA of liquid and powder laundry detergents using three approaches to normalization and weighting: (1) characterization with internal normalization and equal weighting, (2) typical valuation consisting of external normalization and weights, and (3) SMAA-LCIA using outranking normalization and stochastic weighting. Characterized results are often represented by LCA software with respect to their relative impacts normalized to 100 %. Typical valuation approaches rely on normalization references, single value weights, and utilizes discrete numbers throughout the calculation process to generate single scores. Alternatively, SMAA-LCIA is capable of exploring high uncertainty in the input parameters, normalizes internally by pair-wise comparisons (outranking) and allows for the stochastic exploration of weights. SMAA-LCIA yields probabilistic, rather than discrete comparisons that reflect uncertainty in the relative performance of alternatives.

Results and discussion

All methods favored liquid over powder detergent. However, each method results in different conclusions regarding the environmental tradeoffs. Graphical outputs at characterization of comparative assessments portray results in a way that is insensitive to magnitude and thus can be easily misinterpreted. Typical valuation generates results that are oversimplified and unintentionally biased towards a few impact categories due to the use of normalization references. Alternatively, SMAA-LCIA avoids the bias introduced by external normalization references, includes uncertainty in the performance of alternatives and weights, and focuses the analysis on identifying the mutual differences most important to the eventual rank ordering.

Conclusions

SMAA-LCIA is particularly appropriate for comparative LCAs because it evaluates mutual differences and weights stochastically. This allows for tradeoff identification and the ability to sample multiple perspectives simultaneously. SMAA-LCIA is a robust tool that can improve understanding of comparative LCA by decision or policy makers.     

Time Horizon and Dominance in Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment

Temporal aspects have traditionally not been recognized adequately in life cycle assessment (LCA). The dynamic LCA model recently proposed offers a significant step forward in the dynamic assessment of global warming impacts. The results obtained with dynamic LCA are highly sensitive to the choice of a time horizon. Therefore, decision making between alternative systems can be critical because conclusions are dependent on the specific time horizon. In this article, we develop a decision‐making methodology based on the concept of time dominance. We introduce instantaneous and cumulative time dominance criteria to the dynamic LCA context and argue why the dominance of an alternative should also imply preference. Our approach allows for the rejection of certain alternatives without the determination of a specific time horizon. The number of decision‐relevant alternatives can thereby be reduced and the decision problem facilitated. We demonstrate our methodology by means of a case study of end‐of‐life alternatives for a wooden chair derived from the original authors of dynamic LCA and discuss the implications and limitations of the approach. The methodology based on time dominance criteria is supplementary to the dynamic LCA model, but does not substitute it. The overall value of this article stretches beyond LCA onto more general assessments of global warming, for example, in policy where the choice of a time horizon is equally significant.     

Multi-criteria Analysis for Technique Assessment:Case Study from Industrial Coating

Environmental policy is oriented toward integrated pollution prevention, taking into consideration all environmental media (air, water, land) and energy consumption. Therefore, methods for assessing environmentally relevant installations are needed which take economic, technical, and especially ecological criteria into account simultaneously. Mass and energy flow models are used for the representation of production processes and form the basis for the inventory phase in life-cycle assessment (LCA). For the interpretation of LCA results and the weighting of the aggregated impact assessment indicators, approaches of multicriterion analysis (MCA) have been proposed. These can analyze ecological aspects as well as economic and technical criteria. Recent developments in LCA focus on decision support for policy makers or decision boards. Appropriate support for investment decisions on environmentally relevant installations, however, is rare.
Based on a case study of the sector called surface coating, an MCA of environmentally relevant installations is described. With the help of a mass and energy flow management system, alternative scenarios, depicting the use of solvent-reduced materials and environmentally friendly techniques, are modeled for the job coater processes in case studies of coating of mobile phones and coating of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) parts destined for the automobile industry. The modeled scenarios are further analyzed by using a multicriterion decision support module. The application of the outranking approach PROMETHEE is illustrated. A further investigation of the derived ranking can be obtained through sensitivity analyses. Moreover, the results derived by PROMETHEE are compared with the outcomes of the multicriterion approaches multiattribute utility theory and analytical hierarchy process.     

Missing inventory estimation tool using extended input-output analysis

Intention, Goal, Scope, Background  Input-Output Analysis (IOA) has recently been introduced to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). In applying IOA to LCA studies, however, it is important to note that there are both advantages and disadvantages. Objectives  This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of adopting IOA in LCA, and introduces the methodology and principles of the Missing Inventory Estimation Tool (MIET) as one of the approaches to combine the strengths of process-specific LCA and IOA. Additionairy, we try to identify a number of possible errors in the use of IOA for LCA purposes, due to confusion between industry output and commodity, consumer’s price and producer’s price. Method  MIET utilises the 1996 US input-output table and various environmental statistics. It is based on an explicit distinction between commodity and industry output. Results and Discussion  MIET is a self-contained, publicly available database which can be applied directly in LCA studies to estimate missing processes. Conclusion  By adopting MILT results in existing, process-based, life-cycle inventory (LCI), LCA practitioners can fully utilise the process-specific information while expanding the system boundary. Recommendations and Outlook  MIET will be continuously updated to reflect both methodological developments and newly available data sources. For supporting information sec http:// wwwJeidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/softwarc/miet.     

Occupational health impacts: offshore crane lifts in life cycle assessment

Background, Aim, and Scope  The identification and assessment of environmental tradeoffs is a strongpoint of life cycle assessment (LCA). A tradeoff made in many product systems is the exchange of potential for occupational accidents with the additional use of energy and materials. Net benefits of safety measures with respect to human health are best illustrated if the consequences avoided and health impacts induced by additional emissions are assessed using commensurable metrics. Our aim is to develop a human health impact indicator for offshore crane lifts. Crane lifts are a major cause of accidents on offshore oil and gas (O & G) rigs, and health impacts from crane lift accidents should be included in comparative LCA of O & G technologies if the alternatives differ in the use of crane lifts. Materials and methods  Accident records for mobile offshore petroleum installations were used to develop an empirical occupational health indicator for crane lifts in LCA. Probabilistic parameters were introduced in the procedure, and results were calculated by Monte Carlo simulation. The disability adjusted life years (DALY) framework was used to classify health outcome. The characterization factor for offshore crane lifts was applied in three comparisons to evaluate the significance of crane lifts to human health impacts from drilling technology. Results  The mean occupational health impact per crane lift was 4.5∙10⁻⁶ DALY, with cumulative percentiles {P _2.5, P ₅₀, P _97.5} = {6.0∙10⁻⁷, 3.1∙10⁻⁶, 1.7∙10⁻⁵}. Analogously, the fatal accident frequency was described by {P _2.5, P ₅₀, P _97.5} = {7.6∙10⁻⁹, 3.9∙10⁻⁸, 2.0∙10⁻⁷}, with mean 5.6∙10⁻⁸ lives lost per crane lift. Discussion  The uncertainty in the results is caused mainly by the random nature of accidents, i.e., variability in accident frequency. Applications of the characterization factor indicate that although crane lifts may not be significant to the overall health impact of the life cycle of drilling fluids, they are important to the occupational safety of employees on offshore drilling rigs and contribute significantly to the life cycle health impact of loading technologies used to transport drilling waste to shore. A comparative LCA of technologies for loading and off-loading drilling wastes shows that a recently developed hydraulic system performs better than the traditional crane lift alternative in terms of human health impacts. Conclusions  With the availability of statistics to assess the risk of single mechanical operations, safety aspects may well be included in LCA. For the case of offshore crane lifts, the uncertainty in the characterization factor compares favorably to what is indicated for other human health impact chains. In further work of quantifying occupational health impacts in DALY using accident statistics, it is advised to see if records of non-recoverable injuries (fatalities and amputation cases) can be used to simplify the damage assessment procedure as recoverable injuries were insignificant to the total burden from crane accidents. Recommendations and perspectives  The characterization factor for crane lifts identifies contributions to life cycle health impact from loading technologies that otherwise would have been overlooked in LCA. While many contest the inclusion of occupational accidents in LCA, our results show that such impacts can be included and that their consideration adds valuable insights.     

Philosophy of science, policy sciences and the basis of decision support with LCA Based on the toxicity controversy in Sweden and the Netherlands

Current LCA implicitly assumes that a single rational truth can be found. Mainstream policy sciences has taken a different starting point when analysing decision making in complex and controversial societal debates for already several decades. In such debates, in general, more than one reasonable conceptualisation or ‘framing’ of the problem is at stake which forms the core of the controversy. This paper analyses the Dutch chlorine debate and the Swedish PVC debate and shows that (three) frames also play a role in toxicity controversies: the risk assessment frame, the strict control frame, and the precautionary frame. The latter frame, adhered to by the environmentalists, seeks to judge substances mainly on their inherent safety. The cases show that this logic may be defended as at least being equally reasonable to the emission-effect calculations that form the core of Risk Assessment and Life-cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). As predicted by policy sciences, this finding implies that the political neutrality of tools like LCIA is questionable. In summary, the approaches and procedures developed for LCA have to be reconciled with key lessons from policy science and philosophy of science, i.e. considering the fact that multiple realities play a key role in many decision making processes. This paper suggests some alternative indicators for toxicity evaluations, and indicates the implications of LCA method development.