LCA of concrete and steel building frames

The effects on the external environment of seven concrete and steel building frames representative of present-day building technology in Sweden were analysed using LCA methodology. Objects of the study included frame construction and supplementary materials. Several-storey offices and dwellings were studied. The functional unit was defined as one average m² of floor area during the lifetime of the building. Inventory data were elaborated for concrete and steel production, the building site, service life, demolition and final disposal. Parameters included were raw material use, energy use, emissions to air, emissions to water and waste generation. The inventory results were presented and evaluated as such, in addition to an interpretation by using three quantitative impact assessment methods. Parameters that weighed heavily were use of fossil fuels, CO₂, electricity, SO_x ² NO_x ² alloy materials and waste, depending on what assessment method was used. Over the life cycle, building production from cradle to gate accounted for about the same contribution to total environmental loads as maintenance and replacement of heat losses through external walls during service life, whereas demolition and final disposal accounted for a considerably lower contribution.     

LCA of food products and production systems

This article is a summary of my dissertation in which LCA was applied to food products and production systems. The overall objectives were: (1) to learn more about the feasibility and limitations of LCAs of systems for the production and consumption of foods (food systems); and (2) to generate information on the environmental impact of such systems. Case studies of tomato ketchup and white bread were carried out. The main conclusion is that LCA is very valuable for incorporating environmental aspects in the development of more sustainable food systems. One of the major problems encountered was the great scarcity of environmental data. It was found that there is a need for simplified methods that can be used as a compass to show the direction towards sustainability. Accordingly, the feasibility of combinng the concept of sustainabiliry principles and LCA for product development was examined and discussed. This combination was found to yield a simplified method well suited for screening analysis and product development.     

Incorporating costs in LCA

The goal of LCA is to identify the environmental impacts resulting from a product, process, or activity. While LCA is useful for evaluating environmental attributes, it stops short of providing information that business managers routinely utilize for decision-making — i.e., dollars. Thus, decisions regarding the processes used for manufacturing products and the materials comprising those products can be enhanced by weaving cost and environmental information into the decision-making process. Various approaches have been used during the past decade to supplement environmental information with cost information. One of these tools is environmental accounting, the identification, analysis, reporting, and use of environmental information, including environmental cost data. Environmental cost accounting provides information necessary for identifying the true costs of products and processes and for evaluating opportunities to minimize those costs. As demonstrated through two case studies, many companies are incorporating environmental cost information into their accounting systems to prioritize investments in new technologies and products.     

Eco-efficiency

Goal, Scope and Background The eco-efficiency analysis and portfolio is a powerful decision support tool for various strategic and marketing issues. Since its original academic development, the approach has been refined during the last decade and applied to a multitude of projects. BASF, as possibly the most prominent company using and developing this tool, has applied the eco-efficiency approach to more than 300 projects in the last 7 years. One of the greatest difficulties is to cover both dimensions of eco-efficiency (costs or value added and environmental impact) in a comparable manner. This is particularly a challenge for the eco-efficiency analyses of products. Methods In this publication, an important approach and field of application dealing with product decisions based on the combination of Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is described in detail. Special emphasis is put on the quantitative assessment of the relation of costs and environmental impacts. In conventional LCA an assessment of environmental impact categories is often made by normalization with inhabitant equivalents. This is necessary to be able to compare the different environmental impact categories, because of each different unit. For the proposed eco-efficiency analysis, the costs of products or processes are also normalized with adapted gross domestic product figures. Results and Discussion The ratio between normalized environmental impact categories and normalized costs (R_E,C) is used for the graphical presentation of the results in an eco-efficiency portfolio. For the interpretation of the results of an eco-efficiency analysis, it is important to distinguish ratios R_E,C which are higher than one from ratios lower than one. In the first case, the environmental impact is higher than the cost impact, while the inverse is true in the second case. This is very important for defining which kind of improvement is needed and defining strategic management decisions. The paper shows a statistical evaluation of the R_E,C factor based on the results of different eco-efficiency analyses made by BASF. For industries based on large material flows (e.g. chemicals, steel, metals, agriculture), the R_E,C factor is typically higher than one. Conclusions and Recommendations This contribution shows that LCC and LCA may be combined in a way that they mirror the concept of eco-efficiency. LCAs that do not consider LCC may be of very limited use for company management. For that very reason, corporations should install a data management system that ensures equal information on both sides of the eco-efficiency coin.     

The relative mass-energy-economic (RMEE) method for system boundary selection Part 1: A means to systematically and quantitatively select LCA boundaries

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is being used more and more as a decision making tool to compare alternative systems of providing a given product or service. Each system is theoretically made up of a near infinite number of elements or unit processes to produce the product or service. In practice, time and resources to complete an LCA are limited, hence the need to draw practical boundaries on the systems being analyzed. However, how does the LCA practitioner draw fair boundaries on two or more different systems being compared? In other words, how does one decide which unit processes to include in each system? A consistent quantitative method of selecting boundaries is essential for comparative LCA studies. This paper first outlines the requirements for a system boundary selection methodology and then demonstrates the shortfalls of existing methods. The primary objective is to present the Relative Mass-Energy-Economic (RMEE) method for system boundary selection. This concise, repeatable and quantitative method for selecting system boundaries for LCA is demonstrated on a life-cycle system for ethanol fuel. Unlike many other methods of selecting system boundaries, the RMEE method is practical to use and quantitatively ensures different systems have similar system boundaries to ensure a fair comparison between options. The RMEE method has been designed specifically for LCA studies of energy systems     

Iterative screening LCA in an eco-design tool

A screening and simplified LCA method, is essential necessary to include environmental aspects in the stage of Research and Development (R&D) of products and processes. An interactive, iterative and integrative eco-design tool using the top-down approach in the identification of advanced materials is being developed in a joint project performed by six research institutes. The principles and methods as well as some examples for the validation of the screening LCA as well as its application in eco-design in case studies are presented in this article.     

Proposal of a method for allocation in building-related environmental LCA based on economic parameters

Application and development of the LCA methodology to the context of the building sector makes several building specific considerations necessary, as some key characteristics of products in the building sector differ considerably from those of other industrial sectors. The largest difference is that the service life of a building can stretch over centuries, rather than decades or years as seen for consumer products. The result of the long service life is that it is difficult to obtain accurate data and to make relevant assumptions about future conditions regarding, for example, recycling. These problems have implications on the issue of allocation in the building sector, in the way that several allocation procedures ascribe environmental loads to users of recycled or reused products and materials in the future which are unknown today. The long service life for buildings, building materials and building components, is associated with the introduced concept of a virtual parallel time perspective proposed here, which basically substitutes historical and future processes and values with current data. Further, the production and refining of raw material as a parallel to upgrading of recycled material, normally contains several intermediate products. A suggestion is given for how to determine the comparability of intermediate materials. The suggested method for allocation presented is based on three basic assumptions: (1) If environmental loads are to be allocated to a succeeding product life cycle, the studied actual life cycle has to take responsibility for upgrading of the residual material into secondary resources. (2) Material characteristics and design of products are important factors to estimate the recyclable amount of the material. Therefore, a design factor is suggested using information for inherent material properties combined with information of the product context at the building level. (3) The quality reduction between the materials in two following product life cycles is indicated as the ratio between the market value for the material in the products. The presented method can be a good alternative for handling the problem of open-loop recycling allocation in the context of the building sector if a consensus for the use of the fictive parallel time perspective and the use of the design factor can be established. This as the use of the time perspective and design factor is crucial to be able to deal with the problem of long service lives for buildings and building materials and the specific characteristics of the same building materials and components built into different building contexts.     

LCA in Japan: policy and progress

A summary of the current Japanese activities related to Life Cycle Assessment are presented with a specific comparison of Life Cycle Impact Assessment in relation to European tendencies. Japanese organizations involved in LCA, recent legislation impacting LCA activities and LCA case studies are also tabulated. The LCA priorities of policy makers and industrialists are discussed in comparison and compared to those in the United States. Projects within the Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan and the Man-Earth Project are highlighted including the construction of a public LCI data base and the prediction of 21st century environmental crises.     

Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA

As yet, the application of an uncertainty and variability analysis is not common practice in LCAs. A proper analysis will be facilitated when it is clear which types of uncertainties and variabilities exist in LCAs and which tools are available to deal with them. Therefore, a framework is developed to classify types of uncertainty and variability in LCAs. Uncertainty is divided in (1) parameter uncertainty, (2) model uncertainty, and (3) uncertainty due to choices, while variability covers (4) spatial variability, (5) temporal variability, and (6) variability between objects and sources. A tool to deal with parameter uncertainty and variability between objects and sources in both the inventory and the impact assessment is probabilistic simulation. Uncertainty due to choices can be dealt with in a scenario analysis or reduced by standardisation and peer review. The feasibility of dealing with temporal and spatial variability is limited, implying model uncertainty in LCAs. Other model uncertainties can be reduced partly by more sophisticated modelling, such as the use of non-linear inventory models in the inventory and multi media models in the characterisation phase.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating options in LCA: The emergence of conflicting paradigms for impact assessment and evaluation

LCA aims to help direct decisions in an environmentally sustainable direction. It indicates the environmental effects of choices and evaluates these against this background. Approaches to evaluation in LCA differ substantially, related to the way of modelling environmental effects and to the way these effects are combined into an overall judgement on alternative options. Several approaches are now operational, which are linked to different paradigms in decision making. It is shown that the choice of paradigm is quite decisive on the outcome of the analysis. Also within similar paradigms, different methods now operational may lead to different outcomes. These latter differences may be alleviated more easily than those related to paradigmatic choices, as they are partly a matter of refinement, and they partly result from legitimate differences in subjective priorities. The more basic paradigmatic differences can hardly be bridged. The practical relevancy of the subject is proven by applying different operational methods to one case, showing widely differing outcomes. The paradigm behind evaluating environmental effects is either values based, directly or through policy decisions, or economics based, as individual preferences measured in the monetary terms of willingness-to-pay. Accordingly, the different methods are “policy-oriented” or “monetary”. It may be doubted if the differences between these can be overcome in standardisation.     

Visual data analysis and decision support methods for non-deterministic LCA

Principal components analysis coupled with non-parametric bootstrapping is introduced with an example as a powerful tool to help visualise, analyse and decide on comparative or single non-deterministic LCI/LCIA results. Decision support is provided by adding non-parametric bootstrapping (NPB) to the GA1A plane, which is a special case of principle comments analysis (PCA) built around the Promethée multicriteria decision aid model. In addition to an easy to analyse visual presentation of otherwise complex and cluttered numerical results, PCA with NPB is equally at ease will all data uncertainty formats used to date in LCA.     

Streamlined LCA of soy-based ink printing

This study provides a benchmark of the life cycle environmental impact characteristics associated with a typical soybased ink used for sheetfed lithographic printing. The scope ineluded a streamlined Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Impact Assessment (LCIA). Materials, processes, and life cycle stages that are the same between different printing inks, or were less than one percent by mass of the printing system input materials, were excluded. The LCIA included identification of specific processes in the life cycle of soy-based ink printing that make the greatest contribution to the overall environmental hazard potential in 13 impact categories for the baseline printing system selected. The LCIA approach included both regional scaling for areas that differ in sensitivity to certain impact indicators and normalization against a reference value. Reduction in the use of tall oil rosin and switching from conventional to low or no-till farming appear to be promising opportunities for reducing the environmental hazard potential.     

How to improve adoption of LCA

This article reviews efforts made by the United Nations Environment Programme to assess the progress in life cycle assessment (LCA) implementation worldwide. The effort was approached in two stages. First, research was carried out which included a document search and a survey of LCA practitioners. Secondly, an expert workshop of LCA practitioners was held to review the survey results and to develop recommendations for action. Results highlight that there is significant and growing interest in LCA and that its use is increasing. To foster better LCA adoption, industry, government and other societal groups will have to address barriers due to a lack of: a perceived need for LCA, of expertise or know how, of funding and a lack of data and methodology.     

LCA Software tool for corrugated board

FEFCO, Groupement Ondulé and Kraft Institute have integrated the data from their recently published updated “European Database for Corrugated Board Life Cycle Studies” into a software tool that has been developed especially for the corrugated board industry. The tool links input and output data reported in the Database to average European data for upstream and downstream processes from BUWAL 250 [3]. The tool is intended to support environmental management of companies since it provides a possibility to find opportunities for improvements and to take environment into consideration when designing corrugated board boxes. The entire system of corrugated packaging is the basis for the calculations. It is assumed that the fibres that are used for the production of the corrugated base papers are produced and recycled only within this system. This simplified so-called closedloop approach, which is described in detail in the Database report, avoids the problem of allocating impacts caused by primary fibre production and the final treatment of corrugated packaging that is not recycled between primary and recovered fibre based paper grades. This means that with the software tool it is not possible to make comparisons between the production of primary fibre and recovered fibre based materials as such. The tool enables the user to vary parameters such as transport, box design, logistics and waste management according to his personal circumstances. In this way he can use the tool to introduce parameters for possible alternatives he wants to investigate. The LCA results of these alternative cases can then be compared and analysed at inventory, characterisation, normalisation and weighing level. The user cannot change the basic data nor the methodology.     

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.     

Valuation methods within LCA - Where are the values?

It is generally recognised that the valuation in LCA requires political, ideological and/or ethical values (hence the term). These values, however, are seldom discussed, and this paper may he seen as an early attempt. One result is that not only the valuation weighting factors, but also the choice of valuation methodology and the choice of using a valuation weighting method at all, are influenced by fundamental ethical and ideological valuations. Since there is no societal consensus on these fundamental values, and never will be one in an open democratic society, there is no reason to expect consensus either on valuation weighting factors, or on the valuation method or even on the choice of using a valuation weighting method at all. Another result of the discussion on values is that the ethical and ideological valuations are often made implicitly in the choice of method, data, etc., thus making it difficult to discuss the values and the implications of different standpoints. Although this paper focus on the valuation methods within LCA, it is expected that much of the discussion and the conclusions are of relevance for other environmental management tools, e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment.