Environmental indicators for communication of life cycle impact assessment results and their applications

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is performed to quantitatively evaluate all environmental impacts from products, systems, processes and services. However, LCIA does not always provide valuable information for choosing among alternatives with different specifications, functionalities and lifetimes. The objectives of this study are (1) to propose environmental indicators to evaluate environmental efficiency and value qualitatively and quantitatively on the basis of analogies to financial and economic indicators, and (2) to present the application of the indicators. Incremental evaluation using a reference is employed to obtain the environmental indicators. The environmental efficiency indicators are conceptually based on the ratios of reduced environmental burdens returned to environmental burdens required: environmental return on investment, environmental payback period and environmental internal rate of return. The environmental value indicator is the sum of all reduced and required environmental burdens: i.e., environmental net present value. All the environmental indicators can be used to compare and rank the environmental efficiencies or values of alternatives. The environmental efficiency indicators can be applied to a new environmental labeling. The concept of eco-efficiency labeling is developed by combining the environmental efficiency indicators with financial indicators. A case study is performed to illustrate the necessity and importance of the environmental indicators. These environmental indicators can help easily communicate LCIA results in the field of environmental management.     

Life cycle energy impacts of automotive liftgate inner

This paper compares the life cycle energy use of a cast-aluminum, rear liftgate inner and a conventional, stamped steel liftgate inner used in a minivan. Using the best available aggregate life cycle inventory data and a simple spreadsheet-level analysis, energy comparisons were made at both the single-vehicle and vehicle-fleet levels. Since the product manufacture and use are distributed over long periods of time that, in a fleet, are not simple linear combinations of single product life cycles. Thus, it is all the products in use over a period of time, rather than a single product, that are more appropriate for the life cycle analysis. Using a set of consistent data, analyses also examine sensitivity to the level of analysis and the assumptions to determine the most favorable materials with respect to life cycle energy benefits.As expected, life cycle energy impacts of aluminum are lower than steel at a single-vehicle level – energy savings are determined to be 1.8 GJ/vehicle. Most energy savings occur at the vehicle operation phase due to improved fuel economy from lightweighting. The energy benefits are realized only very close to the average vehicle life of 14 years. With the incremental growth of the vehicle fleet, it takes longer – about 21 years – for aluminum to achieve life cycle equivalence with steel. The number of years aluminum needs to achieve equivalence with steel was found to be quite sensitive to aluminum manufacturing energy and fuel economy. As the steel industry races to compete with other materials for automotive lightweighting, a systems approach, instead of part-to-part comparison, is more appropriate in the determination of viability of aluminum substitution from an energy perspective.     

Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration

The significance of technical data, as well as the significance of system boundary choices, when modelling the environmental impact from recycling and incineration of waste paper has been studied by a life cycle assessment focusing on global warming potentials. The consequence of choosing a specific set of data for the reprocessing technology, the virgin paper manufacturing technology and the incineration technology, as well as the importance of the recycling rate was studied. Furthermore, the system was expanded to include forestry and to include fossil fuel energy substitution from saved biomass, in order to study the importance of the system boundary choices. For recycling, the choice of virgin paper manufacturing data is most important, but the results show that also the impacts from the reprocessing technologies fluctuate greatly. For the overall results the choice of the technology data is of importance when comparing recycling including virgin paper substitution with incineration including energy substitution. Combining an environmentally high or low performing recycling technology with an environmentally high or low performing incineration technology can give quite different results. The modelling showed that recycling of paper, from a life cycle point of view, is environmentally equal or better than incineration with energy recovery only when the recycling technology is at a high environmental performance level. However, the modelling also showed that expanding the system to include substitution of fossil fuel energy by production of energy from the saved biomass associated with recycling will give a completely different result. In this case recycling is always more beneficial than incineration, thus increased recycling is desirable. Expanding the system to include forestry was shown to have a minor effect on the results. As assessments are often performed with a set choice of data and a set recycling rate, it is questionable how useful the results from this kind of LCA are for a policy maker. The high significance of the system boundary choices stresses the importance of scientific discussion on how to best address system analysis of recycling, for paper and other recyclable materials.     

Priority screening of toxic chemicals and industry sectors in the U.S. toxics release inventory: a comparison of the life cycle impact-based and risk-based assessment tools developed by U.S. EPA

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and Risk Assessment (RA) employ different approaches to evaluate toxic impact potential for their own general applications. LCIA is often used to evaluate toxicity potentials for corporate environmental management and RA is often used to evaluate a risk score for environmental policy in government. This study evaluates the cancer, non-cancer, and ecotoxicity potentials and risk scores of chemicals and industry sectors in the United States on the basis of the LCIA- and RA-based tools developed by U.S. EPA, and compares the priority screening of toxic chemicals and industry sectors identified with each method to examine whether the LCIA- and RA-based results lead to the same prioritization schemes. The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) is applied as an LCIA-based screening approach with a focus on air and water emissions, and the Risk-Screening Environmental Indicator (RSEI) is applied in equivalent fashion as an RA-based screening approach. The U.S. Toxic Release Inventory is used as the dataset for this analysis, because of its general applicability to a comprehensive list of chemical substances and industry sectors. Overall, the TRACI and RSEI results do not agree with each other in part due to the unavailability of characterization factors and toxic scores for select substances, but primarily because of their different evaluation approaches. Therefore, TRACI and RSEI should be used together both to support a more comprehensive and robust approach to screening of chemicals for environmental management and policy and to highlight substances that are found to be of concern from both perspectives.     

Life cycle assessment of a pulverized coal power plant with post-combustion capture, transport and storage of CO2

In this study the methodology of life cycle assessment has been used to assess the environmental impacts of three pulverized coal fired electricity supply chains with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS) on a cradle to grave basis. The chain with CCS comprises post-combustion CO₂ capture with monoethanolamine, compression, transport by pipeline and storage in a geological reservoir. The two reference chains represent sub-critical and state-of-the-art ultra supercritical pulverized coal fired electricity generation. For the three chains we have constructed a detailed greenhouse gas (GHG) balance, and disclosed environmental trade-offs and co-benefits due to CO₂ capture, transport and storage. Results show that, due to CCS, the GHG emissions per kWh are reduced substantially to 243 g/kWh. This is a reduction of 78 and 71% compared to the sub-critical and state-of-the-art power plant, respectively. The removal of CO₂ is partially offset by increased GHG emissions in up- and downstream processes, to a small extent (0.7 g/kWh) caused by the CCS infrastructure. An environmental co-benefit is expected following from the deeper reduction of hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride emissions. Most notable environmental trade-offs are the increase in human toxicity, ozone layer depletion and fresh water ecotoxicity potential for which the CCS chain is outperformed by both other chains. The state-of-the-art power plant without CCS also shows a better score for the eutrophication, acidification and photochemical oxidation potential despite the deeper reduction of SO_x and NO_x in the CCS power plant. These reductions are offset by increased emissions in the life cycle due to the energy penalty and a factor five increase in NH₃ emissions.     

Towards greening a university campus: The case of the University of Maribor, Slovenia

The environmental performance of the University of Maribor (Engineering Campus) has been assessed on a life cycle basis. The following activities have been considered in the study: the use and operation of lecture theatres (construction and maintenance, heating, lighting and water consumption) and day-to-day consumption of sundries (paper and plastic bottles). The results indicate that the heating and construction of buildings are the ‘hot spots’ in the system, for most environmental impacts. Different waste management options for the plastic and paper, including recycling, incineration and landfill, have also been compared for environmental impacts and economic costs. The option combining 70% recycling, 29% incineration and 1% landfill has been found to be most economically and environmentally sustainable.     

Environmental impact minimization of a total wastewater treatment network system from a life cycle perspective

Synthesis of distributed wastewater treatment plants (WTPs) has focused on cost reduction, but never on the reduction of environmental impacts. A mathematical optimization model was developed in this study to synthesize existing distributed and terminal WTPs into an environmentally friendly total wastewater treatment network system (TWTNS) from a life cycle perspective. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed to evaluate the environmental impacts of principal contributors in a TWTNS. The LCA results were integrated into the objective function of the model. The mass balances were formulated from the superstructure model, and the constraints were formulated to reflect real wastewater treatment situations in industrial plants. A case study validated the model and demonstrated the effect of the objective function on the configuration and environmental performance of a TWTNS. This model can be used to minimize environmental impacts of a TWTNS in retrofitting existing WTPs in line with cleaner production and sustainable development.     

An approach for analysing the potential for material efficiency improvement

Material efficiency improvement saves energy and reduces the consumption of primary resources and reduces the volume of waste. In this article an approach for analysing the potential for material efficiency improvement is proposed and discussed. In this approach the product functions performed by the materials and various improvement measures are taken into account. The potential for material saving and associated energy saving is assessed and evaluated economically. In this paper the approach is tested in an analysis of the potential for material efficiency improvement with respect to plastic packaging in the Netherlands. The technical reduction potential is found to be 34 ± 7% (157 ± 30 ktonne virgin plastics). Realization of this potential would improve the energy efficiency of the lifecycle of plastic packaging by 31% (10 PJ in 1988). From our study we conclude that our approach can indeed be used to investigate the potential for material efficiency improvement. However, a reliable technical and particularly an economical assessment of reduction measures cannot be made until more detailed data become available.     

Integration of the recycling processes to the life cycle analysis of construction products

The life cycle analysis of a product enables one to assess its environmental quality. A simple, transparent method taking into account the processes of recycling in the life cycle is developed here. It permits dealing with all types of open loops of all sectors. The principles on which the proposed method is grounded are discussed.     

LCA: A decision support tool for environmental assessment of MSW management systems

Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be successfully applied to municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems to identify the overall environmental burdens and to assess the potential environmental impacts. In this study, two methods used for current MSW management in Phuket, a province of Thailand, landfilling (without energy recovery) and incineration (with energy recovery), are compared from both energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission points of view. The comparisons are based on a direct activity consideration and also a life cycle perspective. In both cases as well as for both parameters considered, incineration was found to be superior to landfilling. However, the performance of incineration was much better when a life cycle perspective was used. Also, landfilling reversed to be superior to incineration when methane recovery and electricity production were introduced. This study reveals that a complete picture of the environmental performance of MSW management systems is provided by using a life cycle perspective.     

A Multi-Years Analysis of the Energy Balance,Green Gas Emissions,and Production Costs of First and Second Generation Bioethanol

Contemporary reports on the energy and environmental benefits of bioethanol have suggested that the cellulosic ethanol is significantly more efficient. To understand the development potential of energy crops in Taiwan, the present study has assessed the resources and cost inputs for the planning, harvesting, transporting, and storing procedures of the first generation energy crops during 2007–2010 with the perspective of LCA. In addition, a field investigation focusing on rice straw, the largest agricultural waste in Taiwan, has been conducted since 2010 to obtain fundamental data.This study further analyzes the first and second-generation feedstocks from the perspective of LCA based on field investigated data. Taiwan has not yet established an ethanol plant; therefore, this study established production data by simulating the production efficiency of an economical scale using parameters obtained through production trials, and proposed an evaluation model for the energy input, GHG, and production costs of bioethanol in Taiwan. The results of this study were cross-compared with foreign literature to explore the development potential of bioethanol in Taiwan. The results indicate that based on the current cellulosic ethanol technology in Taiwan, regarding the energy balance, GHG, and production costs, is less efficient than that of the first generation bioethanol.     

Multi-objective optimization of waste and resource management in industrial networks – Part I: Model description

This article presents a general multi-objective mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) optimization model aimed at providing decision support for waste and resources management in industrial networks. The MILP model combines material flow analysis, process models of waste treatments and other industrial processes, life cycle assessment, and mathematical optimization techniques within a unified framework. The optimization is based on a simplified representation of industrial networks that makes use of linear process models to describe the flows of mass and energy. Waste-specific characteristics, e.g. heating value or heavy metal contamination, are considered explicitly along with potential technologies or process configurations. The systems perspective, including both provision of waste treatment and industrial production, enables constraints imposed upon the systems, e.g. available treatment capacities, to be explicitly considered in the model. The model output is a set of alternative system configurations in terms of distribution of waste and resources that optimize environmental and economic performance. The MILP also enables quantification of the improvement potential compared to a given reference state. Trade-offs between conflicting objectives are identified through the generation of a set of Pareto-efficient solutions. This information supports the decision making process by revealing the quantified performance of the efficient trade-offs without relying on weighting being expressed prior to the analysis. Key features of the modeling approach are illustrated in a hypothetical case. The optimization model described in this article is applied in a subsequent paper (Part II) to assess and optimize the thermal treatment of sewage sludge in a region in Switzerland.     

国外生命周期影响评价中酸化模型的方法概述

生命周期影响评价是生命周期评价的重要组成部分,而其中的特征化过程是实现定量评价的关键步骤。酸化（Acidification）是生命周期影响评价（LCIA）中最为普遍的影响类型之一,指由酸性气体排放引起生态环境破坏以及人体健康的损害。欧洲、北美、日本等发达国家都建立了自己的生命周期影响评价体系,本文分析了这些地区存在的酸化模型方法,对建立中国的生命周期评价数据库具有重要的意义。     

Energy analysis and the coupling of man and estuaries

New concepts and insights concerning human and natural systems in the coastal zone are emerging from recent energy analysis and synthesis studies. By using new concepts for measuring the quality of energy, one can express the work of ecosystems and human economies in equivalent terms. From energy models and new energy quality evaluations, one can learn what kinds of coastal systems maximize power, are competitive, economically vital, and likely to have a survival advantage.Energy analysis and synthesis is aided by energy circuit diagrams. Models of the coastal zone that emphasize the change in external driving functions related to world energy sources provide insights and some predictive abilities that are not found in economic studies, since money flows alone do not evaluate external driving energies.This paper suggests four procedures for coastal planning: 1) calculation of investment ratio in units of equal quality to determine which projects are economic in a broad sense, 2) development of energy signatures for coastal ecosystems, 3) determination of which interface ecosystems develop the best energy flows, and 4) development of regional models that include the main features of human and natural ecosystems.     

Automobile recycling in the United States: Energy impacts and waste generation

Changes in the trends in the material composition of domestic and imported automobiles and the increasing cost of landfilling the non-recyclable portion of automobiles (automobile shredder residue or ASR) pose questions about the future of automobile recycling in the United States. In response to these challenges, new and innovative approaches to automobile recycling are being developed. This paper presents the findings of a recent study to examine the impacts of these changes on the life cycle energy consumption of automobiles and on the quantity of waste that must be disposed of. Given the recycle status quo, trends in material composition and the viability of recycling the non-metallic components of the typical automobile are of secondary importance when compared to the energy consumed during the life of the automobile. The energy savings resulting from small changes in the fuel efficiency of a vehicle overshadow potential energy losses associated with the adoption of new and possibly non-recyclable materials. Under status quo conditions, the life cycle energy consumed by the typical automobile is projected to decrease from 599 million Btus in 1992 to 565 million Btus in 2000. Energy consumed during the manufacture of the typical car will increase from about 120 to 140 million Btus between 1992 and 2000, while energy used during vehicle operation will decrease from 520 to 480 million Btus. This study projects that energy saved at the recycle step will increase from 41 million Btus in 1992 to 55 million Btus in 2000. This study also investigated the energy impacts of several potential changes to the recycle status quo, including the adoption of technologies to retrieve the heat value of ASR by incineration and the recycle of some or all thermoplastics in the typical automobile. The study estimates that under optimistic conditions —i.e., the recycling of all thermoplastics and the incineration with heat recovery of all remaining ASR —about 8 million Btus could be saved per automobile —i.e., an increase from about 55 to 63 million Btus. In the more realistic scenario —i.e., the recycling of easy-to-remove thermoplastic components (bumper covers and dash-boards) —the potential energy savings are about 1 million Btus per vehicle. It is estimated that the annual quantity of ASR in the United States could be reduced from about 5 billion pounds to as little as 1 billion pounds of ash if all ASR is incinerated. Alternatively, ASR quantity could be reduced to about 4 billion pounds if all thermoplastics in automobiles are recycled. However, in the case of recycling only thermoplastic bumper covers and dashboards, the quantity of ASR would be reduced by only 0.2 billion pounds. A significant reduction or increase in the size of the ASR waste stream will not in itself have a large impact on the solid waste stream in the United States.     

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: The Functional Unit in the Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Degreasing Processes in the Metal-Processing Industry

1 and C₂ hydrocarbons (trichloroethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, dichloromethane). Measures aiming at the reduction of toxic emissions and ozone depletion potential (ODP) may possibly lead to a shift of environmental impacts towards higher energy consumption, emission of waste water, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) with photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP). The present article concerns itself with a life cycle assessment of the three main degreasing processes in order to compare their integral environmental impacts with one another. This is supplemented by presenting the methodology of the life cycle inventory life cycle inventory analysis (LCI). Generally, the applicability of the established LCI method can be shown quite clearly. However, some difficulties arise, especially at the stage of the goal definition, as the use of the process and the functional unit cannot be pinned down as easily and neatly as for most other products. The definition of the use of the process and the functional unit is not as straightforward as for most products. Among the potential functional units identified are the mass of removed impurities, cleaning time, cleaning work, percentage of purity, throughput of parts, loads, mass or surface and virtual coefficients. The mass of removed impurities turned out to be the most suitable parameter for measuring the technical performance of degreasing processes. The article discusses background, purpose, scope, system boundaries, target group, process tree and representativeness of the present study.     

Global Warming Impact of Electricity Generation from Beef Cattle Manure: A Life Cycle Assessment Study

We compare calculated greenhouse gas emissions for a North American beef feedlot operation, which includes biogas production by anaerobic digestion with subsequent electricity generation (the AD case), to the emissions for a “business as usual” case, which includes both a feedlot and an equivalent amount of grid-generated electricity. Anaerobic digestion, biogas production and electricity production are the major sources of differences in emissions. Fertilizer production, crop production, manure collection and spreading, as well as the associated transport stages are also considered within the LCA system boundaries; impacts on life cycle emissions from these sources are lower. Running a feedlot and producing electricity using typical grid power plants produces 3,845 kg CO_2?eq/MWh while running a feedlot, which generates biogas to produce electricity, produces 2,965 kg CO_2?eq/MWh. This savings of 880 kg CO_2?eq/MWh arises because the net power generation in the AD case emits about 90% less life cycle GHG emissions compared to grid-average electricity. The high overall emission levels arise due to emissions associated with enteric fermentation in beef cattle as the main source of GHG emissions in both the “business as usual” and the AD cases. It contributed 57% of total emissions for the feedlot /biogas /electricity system and 44% of total emissions for the feedlot /grid electricity system.