Using GaBi 3 to perform life cycle assessment and life cycle engineering

The growing availability of software tools has increased the speed of generating LCA studies. Databases and visual tools for constructing material balance modules greatly facilitate the process of analyzing the environmental aspects of product systems over their life cycle. A robust software tool, containing a large LCI dataset and functions for performing LCIA and sensitivity analysis will allow companies and LCA practitioners to conduct systems analyses efficiently and reliably. This paper discusses how the GaBi 3 software tool can be used to perform LCA and Life Cycle Engineering (LCE), a methodology that combines life cycle economic, environmental, and technology assessment. The paper highlights important attributes of LCA software tools, including high quality, well-documented data, transparency in modeling, and data analysis functionality. An example of a regional power grid mix model is used to illustrate the versatility of GaBi 3.     

Methodology for developing gate-to-gate Life cycle inventory information

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology evaluates holistically the environmental consequences of a product system or activity, by quantifying the energy and materials used, the wastes released to the environment, and assessing the environmental impacts of those energy, materials and wastes. Despite the international focus on environmental impact and LCA, the quality of the underlying life cycle inventory data is at least as, if not more, important than the more qualitative LCA process. This work presents an option to generate gate-to-gate life cycle information of chemical substances, based on a transparent methodology of chemical engineering process design (an ab initio approach). In the broader concept of a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), the information of each gate-to-gate module can be linked accordingly in a production chain, including the extraction of raw materials, transportation, disposal, reuse, etc. to provide a full cradle to gate evaluation. The goal of this article is to explain the methodology rather than to provide a tutorial on the techniques used. This methodology aims to help the LCA practitioner to obtain a fair and transparent estimate of LCI data when the information is not readily available from industry or literature. Results of gate-to-gate life cycle information generated using the cited methodology are presented as a case study. It has been our experience that both LCI and LCA information provide valuable means of understanding the net environmental consequence of any technology. The LCI information from this methodology can be used more directly in exploring engineering and chemistry changes to improve manufacturing processes. The LCA information can be used to set broader policy and to look at more macro improvements for the environment.     

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.     

Irradiating the environment: Radiological impacts in life cycle assessment

One of the main shortcomings of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) when applied to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, is that there is currently no recognised procedure to deal with radionuclide emissions in the Impact Assessment stage. A framework which considers both human and environmental impacts is required and a methodology which is compatible with the other impact assessment approaches in LCA must be developed. It is important that the discussion is not only restricted to concepts, but that a working methodology is developed which can be readily applied by LCA practitioners. A provisional method is available for assessing radiological impacts on human health, but no consideration has been given to potential effects on the environment. A methodology is proposed in this paper which assesses irradiation of the environment using Environmental Increments (EI) as the quality standard. This approach is based on the same principles as for the Ecotoxicity classification group, and it represents a working methodology which can be continuously improved as knowledge in the area increases.     

LiSET: A Framework for Early‐Stage Life Cycle Screening of Emerging Technologies

While life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool often used to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and technologies, the amount of data required to perform such studies make the evaluation of emerging technologies using the conventional LCA approach challenging. The development paradox is such that the inputs from a comprehensive environmental assessment has the greatest effect early in the development phase, and yet the data required to perform such an assessment are generally lacking until it is too late. Previous attempts to formalize strategies for performing streamlined or screening LCAs were made in the late 1990s and early 2000s, mostly to rapidly compare the environmental performance of product design candidates. These strategies lack the transparency and consistency required for the environmental screening of large numbers of early‐development candidates, for which data are even sparser. We propose the Lifecycle Screening of Emerging Technologies method (LiSET). LiSET is an adaptable screening‐to‐LCA method that uses the available data to systematically and transparently evaluate the environmental performance of technologies at low readiness levels. Iterations follow technological development and allow a progression to a full LCA if desired. In early iterations, LiSET presents results in a matrix structure combined with a “traffic light” color grading system. This format inherently communicates the high uncertainty of analysis at this stage and presents numerous environmental aspects assessed. LiSET takes advantage of a decomposition analysis and data not traditionally used in LCAs to gain insight to the life cycle impacts and ensure that the most environmentally sustainable technologies are adopted.     

Analysis of the potential for a comprehensive approach towards LCA and EMS in Japan

Sustainable development can only be achieved if industry adoptsboth product related and organisation related environmental management tools, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS). In Japan, EMS (ISO 14001) is more widely applied than LCA (ISO 14040). Therefore,one means by which Japanese industries could be motivated to adopt and use LCA is to relate LCA-activities to the policies and instruments of ISO 14001. The potential of such a comprehensive approach was analysed by a survey of 270 Japanese enterprises (response rate 45%). The results indicate that 19% of the responding representatives had responsibilities for both LCA and EMS, while the remaining only work in one of both fields. A statement in the company’s/ plant’s Environmental Policy of ISO 14001, stating that LCA is to be used as part of the EMS, was found in 42% of all companies. A surprising number (39%) either already use, or plan to use, LCA and EMS as combinated/integrated tools. A strong argument for the establishment of a comprehensive approach can be seen in the perception of the usefulness of LCA, which was rated significantly higher in companies that acknowledged the complementary potential of LCA and EMS.     

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.     

Application of life cycle assessment in environmental labelling

The present state of worldwide discussions of how to apply LCA in environmental labelling, taking into account the current ISO 14 020 and ISO 14 024 works, is described. There is a consensus to use LCA as a tool for more scientific environmental labelling. The examples presented verify some practical possibilities to realise this approach. As a background to different stages of practical labelling, results from LCA studies are already used in the German “Blue Angel” scheme, e.g. for the definition of the scope in one product category, for the priorisation of specific life cycle phases and criteria, as a basis to establish a scoring system or to emphasise the importance of information on how to use environmentally sound products. Practical examples are presented in detail for hand-drying systems, paper products, milk packages, household equipment, televisions and detergents. Some future perspectives are mentioned. Presentation at “The Second International Conference on EcoBalance - The New Stage of LCA as a Common Language”, Nov. 18, 19 and 20, 1996 Tsukuba, Japan     

Hotspot Scenario Analysis

Increasingly, organizations are working to reduce the environmental footprint of their supply chains. The use of environmentally preferable purchasing criteria is one strategy organizations use to address this goal. However, evaluating the environmental performance of these criteria (e.g., recycled content, biodegradable, renewable, and so on) has remained elusive. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can measure the impact reduction potential of sourcing strategies. However, full process‐based LCAs are time‐consuming and costly across multiple criteria of thousands of products and inputs purchased in an organizational setting. A streamlined “hotspot” methodology is presented using a combination of environmentally extended economic input‐output (EEIO) approaches and extant literature to identify hotspots in which to constrain a parameterized process‐based LCA. A case study of breakfast cereal manufacturing is developed to (1) assess the efficiencies associated with the hotspotting approach and (2) demonstrate its applicability in generating comparable decision signals of environmentally preferable sourcing criteria for procurement and supply‐chain managers along the dimensions of global warming potential and water use.     

A Transparent, Interactive Software Environment for Communicating Life-Cycle Assessment Results: An Application to Residential Windows

Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) can be used to support the selection of environmentally preferable building materials. But the dominance of the usage phase in the life cycle of building materials represents a special challenge for two reasons. First, many aspects of a building material's usage phase can be context specific. Second, the LCA outcome may rest on a building material's service life, a parameter for which there is typically insufficient information for proper determination. For example, in the selection of a window, important usagephase, context-specific factors that could be determinant include lo-cation/climate, heating-system characteristics (efficiency and fuel), and product durability. A prototype software tool, the Life Cycle Explorer, has been developed that enables decision makers to assess the relative importance of literally dozens of such influential parameters in determining the outcomes of LCA evaluations for building components. The software employed by the Life Cycle Explorer permits extensive layering while maintaining ease of browsing, with the intent of accessibility to both the layperson and the expert. An initial application of the tool addressed residential window selection; the design principles of the software are relevant to the communication phase of a wide variety of LCA and industrial-ecologyrelated modeling projects.     

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     

基于在线供应链调查的产品生命周期评价

产品生命周期评价(LCA)中的供应链数据收集非常困难而且效率低下,因而在产品LCA研究中常常近似处理、甚至忽略供应链实际生产过程,严重影响了LCA的数据质量与可信度。开发专门的供应链数据收集工具是解决这一问题的有效途径。介绍了可进行在线供应链调查、建模与计算分析的LCA系统e Footprint,基于该系统提出了在线的LCA工作方法,通过长虹美菱冰箱的应用案例验证了系统与方法的可行性,为提高产品LCA的效率和质量提供了新的解决方案。     

Societal LCA Methodology and Case Study (12 pp)

Background, Aim and Scope Societal assessment is advocated as one of the three pillars in the evaluation of, and movement toward, sustainability. As is the case with the well established LCA, and the emerging LCC, societal life cycle assessment should be developed in such as way as to permit relative product comparisons, rather than absolute analyses. The development of societal life cycle assessment is in its infancy, and important concepts require clarification including the handling of the more than two hundred social indicators. Therefore, any societal life cycle assessment methodology must explain why it is midpoint- or endpoint-based as well as its reasons to be complimentary with, or included within, life cycle assessment. Materials and Methods: A geographically specific midpoint based societal life cycle assessment methodology, which employs labour hours as an intermediate variable in the calculation has been developed and evaluated against an existing LCA comparing two detergents. The methodology is based on using an existing life cycle inventory and, therefore, has identical system boundaries and functional units to LCA. The societal life cycle assessment methodology, much like LCA, passes from inventory, through characterisation factors, to provide an ultimate result. In analogy to economics and cost estimation, societal life cycle assessment combines, into its statistics, both data as well as estimates, some of which are correlated to elements of the LCI. It focuses on the work hours required to meet basic needs.A geographically specific midpoint based societal life cycle assessment methodology, which employs labour hours as an intermediate variable in the calculation has been developed and evaluated against an existing LCA comparing two detergents. The methodology is based on using an existing life cycle inventory and, therefore, has identical system boundaries and functional units to LCA. The societal life cycle assessment methodology, much like LCA, passes from inventory, through characterisation factors, to provide an ultimate result. In analogy to economics and cost estimation, societal life cycle assessment combines, into its statistics, both data as well as estimates, some of which are correlated to elements of the LCI. It focuses on the work hours required to meet basic needs. Results: The societal life cycle assessment of an appended case study indicates that Detergent 2 generates, relative Detergent 1, approximately 20% less employment in Russia, 35% less in France, and approximately five times more in Canada and South Africa, the latter derived from its higher aluminium content. There is essentially no difference in the employment in the use country (Switzerland) nor in Morocco, where some of the waste disposal was assumed to take place. Discussion: Given that housing is more affordable, in terms of shelter units per labour hour, in South Africa, compared to Europe, it is, therefore, of no surprise that Detergent 2 provides a societal benefit in terms of housing. Detergent 2 does, however, result in dematerialization, in that its environmental impact is lower (LCI). Therefore, as less resources are employed and labour required, in extraction, production and transport, the societal benefits in health care, education and necessities, a grouped variable, are lower for Detergent 2. This is despite the employment shift away from Europe and to less 'developed' regions. Conclusions: The assessment of societal impacts involves several hundred specific indicators. Therefore, aggregation is, if not impossible, at least heavily value laden and, therefore, not recommended. The impact of a societal action, derived from a product purchase or otherwise, is also highly local. Given this, societal life cycle assessment, carried through to the midpoints, and based on an existing LCI, has been developed as a methodology. The results, for an existing LCA-detergent case, illustrate that societal life cycle assessment provides a means to investigate how policy and policy makers can be linked to sustainable development. The sensitivity analyses also clarify the decisions in regards to product improvement. Recommendations and Perspectives: The goal of societal life cycle assessment is not to make decisions, but rather to point out tradeoffs to decision- or policy-makers. This case, and the methodology that it is based on, permit such a comparison. Substituting Detergent 2 for Detergent 1 reduces resource use at the expense of an increase in atmospheric and terrestrial emissions. Access to housing is improved, though at the expense of education, health care and necessities. As a recommendation, one would look at the fact that the majority of indicators are superior for Detergent 2 relative to Detergent 1and seek to improve the aqueous emissions in Detergent 2 via a change in the formulation. An energy or fossil fuel substitution at the site of production could also improve the societal benefits in terms of education and health care. While societal life cycle assessment remains in its infancy, a methodology does exist. The field can, therefore, be viewed in a similar way to LCA in the early 1990s, with a need to validate, consolidate and, ultimately, built toward a standard. The contribution is aimed at contributing to such a discussion and therefore proposes that a societal life cycle assessment be LCI-derived, geographically specific, based on mid-points, and use employment as an intermediate variable.     

Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries

Goal, Scope and Background This paper describes the influence of the choice of the functional unit on the results of an environmental assessment of different battery technologies for electric and hybrid vehicles. Battery, hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles are considered as being environmentally friendly. However, the batteries they use are sometimes said to be environmentally unfriendly. At the current state of technology different battery types can be envisaged: lead-acid, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, lithium-ion and sodium-nickel chloride. The environmental impacts described in this paper are based on a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. One of the first critical stages of LCA is the definition of an appropriate and specific functional unit for electric and hybrid vehicle application. Most of the known LCA studies concerning batteries were performed while choosing different functional units, although this choice can influence the final results. An adequate functional unit, allowing to compare battery technologies in their real life vehicle application should be chosen. The results of the LCA are important as they will be used as a decision support for the end-of-life vehicles directive 2000/53/EC (Official Journal of the European Communities L269/24 2000). As a consequence, a thorough analysis is required to define an appropriate functional unit for the assessment of batteries for electric vehicles. This paper discusses this issue and will mainly focus on traction batteries for electric vehicles. Main Features An overview of the different parameters to be considered in the definition of a functional unit to compare battery technologies for battery electric vehicle application is described and discussed. An LCA study is performed for the most relevant potential functional units. SimaPro 6 is used as a software tool and Eco-indicator 99 as an impact assessment method. The influence of the different selected functional units on the results (Eco-indicator Points) is discussed. The environmental impact of the different electric vehicle battery technologies is described. A sensitivity analysis illustrates the robustness of the obtained results. Results and Discussion Five main parameters are considered in each investigated functional unit: an equal depth of discharge is assumed, a relative number of batteries required during the life of the vehicle is calculated, the energy losses in the battery and the additional vehicle consumption due to the battery mass is included and the same lifetime distance target is taken into account. On the basis of the energy content, battery mass, number of cycles and vehicle autonomy three suitable functional units are defined: ‘battery packs with an identical mass’, ‘battery packs with an identical energy content’ and ‘battery packs with an identical one-charge range’. The results show that the differences in the results between these three functional units are small and imply less variation on the results than the other uncertainties inherent to LCA studies. On the other hand, the results obtained using other, less adequate, functional units can be quite different. Conclusions When performing an LCA study, it’s important to choose an appropriate functional unit. Most of the time, this choice is unambiguous. However, sometimes this choice is more complicated when different correlated parameters have to be considered, as it is the case for traction batteries. When using a realistic functional unit, the result is not influenced significantly by the choice of one out of the three suitable functional units. Additionally, the life cycle assessment allowed concluding that three electric vehicle battery technologies have a comparable environmental impact: lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride. Lithium-ion and sodium-nickel chloride have lower environmental impacts than the three previously cited technologies when used in a typical battery electric vehicle application. Recommendations and Perspectives The article describes the need to consider all relevant parameters for the choice of a functional unit for an electric vehicle battery, as this choice can influence the conclusions. A more standardised method to define the functional unit could avoid these differences and could make it possible to compare the results of different traction battery LCA studies more easily.     

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.     

A Practical Method for Quantifying Eco-efficiency Using Eco-design Support Tools

Eco-efficiency at the product level is defined as product value per unit of environmental impact. In this paper we present a method for quantifying the eco-efficiency using quality function deployment (QFD) and life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA). These well-known tools are widely used in the manufacturing industry.
QFD, which is one of the methods used in product development based on consumer preferences, is introduced to calculate the product value. An index of the product value is calculated as the weighted average of improvement rates of quality characteristics. The importance of customer requirements, derived from the QFD matrix, is applied.
Environmental impacts throughout a product life cycle are calculated based on an LCIA method widely used in Japan. By applying the LCIA method of endpoint type, the endpoint damage caused by various life-cycle inventories is calculated. Willingness to pay is applied to integrate it into a single index.
Eco-design support tools, namely, the life-cycle planning (LCP) tool and the life-cycle assessment (LCA) tool, have already been developed. Using these tools, data required for calculation of the eco-efficiency of products can be collected. The product value is calculated based on QFD data stored in the LCP tool and the environmental impact is calculated using the LCA tool.
Case studies of eco-efficiency are adopted and the adequacy of this method is clarified. Several advantages of this method are characterized.     

Life cycle assessment as a tool for improving process performance: A case study on boron products

This paper explores the use of LCA as a tool for process environmental management, thereby moving the focus from product to process oriented analysis. The emphasis is on Improvement Assessment in which the “hot spots” in the system are targeted for maximum environmental improvements. In this context, it is useful to use multiobjective optimisation which renders Valuation unnecessary. The approach is illustrated by the case study of the system processing boron ores to make five different products. The results of Inventory Analysis and Impact Assessment are presented and discussed. In Improvement Assessment, a number of improvement options are identified and evaluated, using system optimisation. It is shown that the site environmental performance can be improved over current operation by an average of 20% over the whole life cycle. Thus the study demonstrates that the optimisation approach to environmental process management may assist in identifying optimal ways to operate a process or plant from “cradle to grave”. This may help the process industries not only to comply with legislation but also provide a framework for taking a more proactive approach to environmental management leading to more sustainable industrial operations and practices.     

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.     

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.     

A comparative Life Cycle assessment of building insulation products made of stone wool,paper wool and flax

Insulation of buildings in order to save heating energy is an important technology for enabling sustainable development. This paper summarises the results of a comparative LCA study according to ISO 14040 standard series of HT stone wool, flax representing crop grown products and paper wool representing recycled products applied for roof insulation. As the three materials have vastly different lifecycles, yet fulfil the same function cycles, the methodology used should be of general interest. Part 1 consists of the project background, goal and scope definition, a detailed life cycle inventory analysis with sensitivity analysis, impact assessment and interpretation. The actual comparison of the results from the life cycle assessments of the three products, in which an attempt is made to answer the question of whether the biological products flax and paper wool are more environmentally preferable than the mineral product stone wool representing more traditional insulation materials, is discussed in Part 2.