Lca assessment task

1,793 views
1,663 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,793
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
53
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Lca assessment task

  1. 1. Life-Cycle Analysis/Assessment Life-Cycle Analysis/Assessment (LCA) (LCA) Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Life Cycle Analysis Life Cycle Analysis • Life-cycle analysis (LCA) is a method in which the energy and raw material consumption, different types of emissions and other important factors related to a specific product are being measured, analyzed and summoned over the products entire life cycle from an environmental point of view. – Life-Cycle Analysis attempts to measure the “cradle to grave” impact on the ecosystem. • LCAs started in the early 1970s, initially to investigate the energy requirements for different processes. • Emissions and raw materials were added later. • LCAs are considered to be the most comprehensive approach to assessing environmental impact. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 1
  2. 2. LCA Method(s) LCA Method(s) • Initially, numerous variants of LCA “methods” were developed/investigated, but today there is consensus that there is only one basic method with a large number of variants • The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), an international platform for toxicologists, published a Code of Practice, a widely accepted series of guidelines and definitions. • Nowadays, IS0 14040-14043 is considered to be the LCA standard. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA Steps LCA Steps Generally, a LCA consists of four main activities: 1. Goal definition (ISO 14040): – The basis and scope of the evaluation are defined. 2. Inventory Analysis (ISO 14041): – Create a process tree in which all processes from raw material extraction through waste water treatment are mapped out and connected and mass and energy balances are closed (all emissions and consumptions are accounted for). 3. Impact Assessment (ISO 14042): – Emissions and consumptions are translated into environmental effects. The are environmental effects are grouped and weighted. 4. Improvement Assessment/Interpretation (ISO 14043): – Areas for improvement are identified. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 2
  3. 3. LCA Step 1 --Goal Definition and Scope LCA Step 1 Goal Definition and Scope • It is important to establish beforehand what purpose the model is to serve, what one wishes to study, what depth and degree of accuracy are required, and what will ultimately become the decision criteria. • In addition, the system boundaries - for both time and place - should be determined. Thus, pay special attention to: • Basis for evaluation (what and why) • Temporal boundaries (time scale) • Spatial boundaries (geographic) Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA Step 2 --Inventory Analysis LCA Step 2 Inventory Analysis • This means that the inputs and outputs of all life-cycle processes have to be determined in terms of material and energy. • Start with making a process tree or a flow-chart classifying the events in a product’s life-cycle which are to be considered in the LCA, plus their interrelations. • Next, start collecting the relevant data for each event: the emissions from each process and the resources (back to raw materials) used. • Establish (correct) material and energy balance(s) for each process stage and event. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 3
  4. 4. Single Stage Flow Diagram Single Stage Flow Diagram • The following diagram contains inputs and outputs to be quantified in a single stage or unit operation – see EPA Life-Cycle Design Guidance Manual, EPA Report no. EPA/600/R-92/226, page 104 Process Materials, Reagents, Solvents & Catalysts (including reuse & recycle from another stage) Energy Product Material Inputs (including reuse & recycle from Reuse/Recycle another stage) Single Stage or Unit Operation Primary Product Useful Co-product Fugitive & Untreated Waste Waste Reuse/Recycle Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Example: Simplified Process Tree for a Coffee Example: Simplified Process Tree for a Coffee Machine’s Life-Cycle Machine’s Life-Cycle coffee poly- paper aluminium sheet steel glas bean styrene roasting filter pro- injection stamping extrusion forming duction moulding forming assembly + transport packaging electricity use water disposal of disposal in filters + coffee municipal in org. waste waste Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 4
  5. 5. Example: Coffee Machine Life-Cycle Inventory Example: Coffee Machine Life-Cycle Inventory 7.3 kg 1 kg 0.1 kg 0.3 kg 0.4 kg coffee poly- bean paper styrene aluminium sheet steel glas filter pro- injection stamping roasting extrusion forming duction moulding forming assembly + transport 375 kWh packaging electricity use water disposal of disposal in filters + coffee municipal White boxes are not in org. waste waste included in assessment/inventory Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Problems with Inventory Analysis Problems with Inventory Analysis • The inventory phase usually takes a great deal of time and effort and mistakes are easily made. • There exists published data on impacts of different materials such as plastics, aluminum, steel, paper, etc. – However, the data is often inconsistent and not directly applicable due to different goals and scope. – It is expected that both the quantity and quality of data will improve in the future. • Mass and energy balances are not correct and defy laws of thermodynamics. • Results are generalized improperly. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 5
  6. 6. LCA Step 3 --Impact Assessment LCA Step 3 Impact Assessment • The impact assessment focuses on characterizing the type and severity of environmental impact more specifically. Material/impact Environmental effect depletion of biotic resources copper depletion of abiotic CO2 resources CFC greenhouse effect Weighting of effect? SO2 NOx ozone layer depletion phosphorous acidification volatile organic compounds eutrophication (VOCs) heavy metals (summer) smog PCB human toxicity There are different pesticides styrene eco-toxicity ways to assess and odour weigh the (example) environmental effects. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Plastic versus Paper Bag Classification Plastic versus Paper Bag Classification Classification / Characterisation 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Paper bag 50% LDPE bag 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% effect greenhouse depletion pesticides ozone layer acidification heavy metals carcinogens winter smog summer smog eutrophication • The paper bag causes more winter smog and acidification, but scores better on the other environmental effects. • The classification does not reveal which is the better bag. What is missing is the mutual weighting of the effects. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 6
  7. 7. LCA Step 4 --Improvement Assessment/Interpretation LCA Step 4 Improvement Assessment/Interpretation • The final step in Life-Cycle Analysis is to identify areas for improvement. • Consult the original goal definition for the purpose of the analysis and the target group. • Life-cycle areas/processes/events with large impacts (i.e., high numerical values) are clearly the most obvious candidates • However, what are the resources required and risk involved? – Good areas of improvement are those where large improvements can be made with minimal (corporate) resource expenditure and low risk. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Weightings Weightings Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 7
  8. 8. A Single Figure for Environmental Impact A Single Figure for Environmental Impact • A single figure is needed for comparison purposes • Several methods exists, but it is still a controversial issue and no singular widely accepted method exists. • Three well-documened and used methods are: – The Eco-Points method – The Environmental Priority System – The Eco-Indicator Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Eco-Points Method Eco-Points Method • The eco-points method was developed in Switzerland and is based on the use of national government policy objectives. • Environmental impacts are evaluated directly and there is no classification step. • The evaluation principle is the distance to target principle, or the difference between the total impact in a specific area and the target value. – The target values in the original Ecopunkten method were derived from target values of the Swiss government. – A Dutch variant has been developed on the basis of the Dutch policy objectives. • The use of policy objectives is controversial given that a policy does not express the true seriousness of a problem. – Various political, economic, and social considerations also play a role when formulating these objectives. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 8
  9. 9. The Eco-Points Evaluation Method The Eco-Points Evaluation Method • A low number of eco-points is preferred. Impacts Normalization Evaluation Result In: 1 / target value current / target value energy Out: 1 / target value current / target value CO2 Eco- 1 / target value current / target value points SO2 1 / target value current / target value lead CFC 1 / target value current / target value waste 1 / target value current / target value Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Eco-Points Method (cont.) Eco-Points Method (cont.) • The Eco-Points methods has been accepted as a useful instrument, even though objections can be raised against using politically established target levels. – The lack of a classification step is also regarded as a disadvantage - only a very limited number of impacts can be evaluated. • Eco-points method was/is widely used in Switzerland and Germany. – It is also used in Norway, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. – Since 1993, it has been included in the SimaPro software. • The Eco-Points method is notsi much an environmental indicator as an indicator “in conformity with policy” Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 9
  10. 10. The Environmental Priority System (EPS) The Environmental Priority System (EPS) • The EPS system was used first for Volvo in Sweden. • It is not based on governmental policy, but on estimated financial consequences of environmental problems. • It attempts to translate environmental impact into a sort of social expenditure. – The first step is to establish the damage caused to a number of “safeguard objects” - objects that a community considers valuable. – The next step is to identify how much the community is prepared to pay for these things, i.e., the social costs of the safeguard objects are established. – The resulting costs are added up to a single figure. • The EPS system includes neither classification or normalization. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory The EPS Evaluation Method The EPS Evaluation Method Impacts Safeguard objects Evaluation Result In: stocks oil future costs for zinc extraction production value in Out: health direct losses ECU CO2 SO2 biodiversity willingness to lead pay CFC aesthetics Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 10
  11. 11. The Eco-Indicator (95 and 99) The Eco-Indicator (95 and 99) • The Eco-Indicator 95 was developed in a joint project carried out by companies, research institutes and the Dutch government. • The aim was to develop an easy to use tool for product designers and the main outcome was a list of 100 indicators for te most significant materials and processes. – By using these indicators a designer can easily make combinations and carry out his/her own LCA. No outside expert or software are needed. • Indicators have been drawn up for all life-cycle phases – the production of materials such as steel, aluminum, thermo-plastics, paper, glass – production processes, such as injection molding, rolling, turning, welding – transport by road, rail, and sea – energy generating processes – waste processing processes, such as incineration, dumping, recycling. • The most recent revised version is called Eco-Indicator 99. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Eco-Indicator 95 Eco-Indicator 95 • The evaluation method for calculating the Eco-Indicator 95 strongly focuses on the effects of emissions on the ecosystem. • For the valuation, the distance to target principle is used, but the targets are based on scientific data on environmental damage and not on policy statements. • The targets values are related to three types of environmental damage: – deterioration of ecosystems (a target level has been chosen at which “only” 5% ecosystem degradation will still occur over several decades) – deterioriation of human health (this refers in particular to winter and summer smog and the acceptable level set is that smog periods should hardly ever occur again) – human deaths (the level chosen as acceptable is 1 fatality per million inhabitants per year) Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 11
  12. 12. Eco-Indicator 95 Evaluation Method Eco-Indicator 95 Evaluation Method • Normalization is performed, but excluded in this figure for the sake of simplification. Impact Effect Damage Valuation Result Ozone layer depl. CFC Pb Heavy metals Cd Carcinogenics Fatalities PAH Summer smog Dust Health Subjective Winter smog damage Eco-indicator VOC impairment value DDT Pesticides assessment CO2 Ecosystem Greenhouse effect impairment SO2 NOx Acidification P Eutrophication Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Weighting Factors Used in Eco-Indicator 95 Weighting Factors Used in Eco-Indicator 95 • Setting equivalents for these damage levels is a subjective choice. – The current choice (see below) came about after consultation with various experts and a comparison with other systems. Env i ro nmental Wei g hti ng Cri teri o n effect facto r Greenhouse effect 2.5 0.1°C rise every 10 years, 5% ecosystem degradation Ozone layer depletion 100 Probability of 1 fatality per year per million inhabitants Acidification 10 5% ecosystem degradation Eutrophication 5 Rivers and lakes, degradation of an unknown number of aquatic ecosystems (5% degradation) Summer smog 2.5 Occurrence of smog periods, health complaints, particularly amongst asthma patients and the elderly, prevention of agricultural damage Winter smog 5 Occurrence of smog periods, health complaints, particularly amongst asthma patients and the elderly Pesticides 25 5% ecosystem degradation Airborne heavy metals 5 Lead content in children’s blood, reduced life expectancy and learning performance in an unknown number of people Waterborne heavy metals 5 Cadmium content in rivers, ultimately also impacts on people (see airborne) Carcinogenic substances 10 Probability of 1 fatality per year per million people Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 12
  13. 13. Some Comments Some Comments • The preceding table reveals that – High priority must be given to limiting substances causing ozone layer damage and the use of pesticides. The latter is becoming a very serious problem in The Netherlands in particular. – Furthermore, a great deal of consideration must be given to the diffusion of acidifying and carcinogenic substances. • A number of effects that are generally regarded as environmental problems have not been included: – Toxic substances that are only a problem in the workplace. – Exhaustion (depletion) of raw materials. – Waste. • As a result of these differences the Eco-indicator can be seen as an indicator of emissions. • Raw materials depletion and the use of space by waste must be evaluated separately at present. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Eco-Indicator 99 Evaluation Method Eco-Indicator 99 Evaluation Method Three spheres are considered: • Techno-sphere • Eco-sphere See: http://www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/ • Value-sphere Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 13
  14. 14. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA use LCA use LCAs are used: • in the design process to determine which of several designs may leave a smaller “footprint on the environment”, or • after the fact to identify environmentally preferred products in government procurement or eco-labeling programs. • Also, the study of reference or benchmark LCAs provides insight into the main causes of the environmental impact of a certain kind of product and design priorities and product design guidelines can be established based on the LCA data. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 14
  15. 15. Some Problems Some Problems • Life Cycle Analyses have problems and are difficult to use: – What is the functional unit (e.g., of a toy)? – What if your process does not match the unit process in the LCA database? – Impact categorization is difficult (global warming, eutrophication, etc.) – No national/worldwide accounting or standardized systems • You have to do one LCA for every product in your company Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Recognized Problems with LCA Recognized Problems with LCA • The major disadvantage of quantitative LCAs is their complexity and effort required • Designers and manufacturing engineers find it almost impossible to practically work with LCAs because of – the consistent lack of solid data about all aspects of a products life cycle, – the nearly infinite amount of decisions to make and data to deal with, – the lack of standardization resulting in numerous conversions and interpretations, – the lack of a standard evaluation scheme caused by and resulting in different views on what is environmentally correct, – the approach is currently only suitable for design analysis / evaluation rather than design synthesis. LCAs are "static" and only deal with a snapshot of material and energy inputs and outputs in a dynamic system. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 15
  16. 16. Future Directions According to Future Directions According to US Office of Techology Assessment US Office of Techology Assessment In general: In general: •• Less information will probably be required. Less information will probably be required. •• LCAs will have to be streamlined to focus on aafew critical dimensions of LCAs will have to be streamlined to focus on few critical dimensions of aaproduct's environmental impact, rather than all dimensions. product's environmental impact, rather than all dimensions. Difference in usage: – For designers, the inventory does not need to be exhaustive to be useful. – For eco-labeling, the inventory should be rigorous, easily verifiable and periodically updated. Even so, at best, the inventory will clarify environmental tradeoffs, rather than provide definite conclusions. Software tools are becoming available, but underlying databases differ. Software tools are becoming available, but underlying databases differ. For example, consider different opinions about "green" in the US and Europe. For example, consider different opinions about "green" in the US and Europe. Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory Closing Remarks Closing Remarks • It is not the product, but the life-cycle of the product that determines its environmental impact. • Even if the life-cycle is mapped out, there still exist many uncertainties as to the environmental impact of the processes involved. There is still an immense lack of reliable data. – Also consider uncertainties caused by customer behavior and (unknown) future process technologies. • Knowledge about environmental systems is often highly uncertain. • The LCA is generally a compromise between practicality and completeness Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory LCA - 16

×