LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND CABLES

689
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
OF UNDERGROUND CABLES
WORKING GROUP
B1.36
MAY 2017

Members
A. Laurens, Convenor FR J. Hyde, Secretary GB
R. Atwell GB A. Magri CH
B. Poisson FR A. Farkas SE
G. Donoso ES R. Benato IT
D. Martelli IT R. Santos Jorge NO
Corresponding Members
C. Damanesco Peixoto BR S. Cherukupalli CA
A. Makovoz US Z. Yonghua CN
O. Benhong CN M. Soga JP
WG B1.36
Copyright © 2017
“All rights to this Technical Brochure are retained by CIGRE. It is strictly prohibited to reproduce or provide this publication in
any form or by any means to any third party. Only CIGRE Collective Members companies are allowed to store their copy on
their internal intranet or other company network provided access is restricted to their own employees. No part of this
publication may be reproduced or utilized without permission from CIGRE”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent
permitted by law”.
WG XX.XXpany network provided access is restricted to their own employees. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or utilized without permission from CIGRE”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF
UNDERGROUND CABLES
ISBN : 978-2-85873-392-7

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND CABLES
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The actual context of the energy transition is leading to the increase of renewable energy, but as a
consequence, to larger investments on electricity transmission systems. While knowledge and research
about environmental consequences of systems for power generation is abundant, data and available
studies on environmental impacts for power transmission systems are somehow limited.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool for the systematic evaluation of the environmental aspects of a
product or service system through all stages of its life cycle. LCA provides an adequate instrument for
environmental decision support. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), a world-wide
federation of national standards bodies, has standardised this framework within the series ISO 14040
on LCA. The main phases of an LCA are:
- Goal and Scope
- Inventory Analysis
- Impact Assessment
- Interpretation
By carrying out LCA of underground cables, grid system operators and cable manufacturers can evaluate
and quantify the impacts of the cables during the different phases of their life cycle. They are able to
identify the phases whose impacts are prevalent. Consequently, they can launch R&D programs to
improve environmental performance of cables. Moreover, grid system operators can integrate eco-
design criteria in purchase specifications to select contractors or cable manufacturers.
LCA is commonly used to orientate decision makers (political, companies, competent authorities...). LCA
studies of underground cable can be used to:
- improve one given technology (for instance by identifying ways to reduce losses during
operation phase);
- compare different solutions or system (for instance underground cable versus over headline);
- perform a study on the impact of new marine renewable energy, taking into account the
connection to the electricity transmission system;
- perform a broader study on the benefits/impacts of energy transition, taking into account the
indirect effects on the electricity transmission system. Indeed, the energy transition involves
more and more renewable energies and in order to give maximum value to these new power
sources, the network needs some improvements and developments.
- …
However, LCA cannot be considered as an exhaustive tool to evaluate the environmental impact of a
product. In terms of underground cables, other inputs are needed to evaluate the local environmental
impact, such as: local impact on flora and fauna, electromagnetic fields, acceptability of the project,
planning permission… Besides, other factors such as technical and economical relevance of one solution
will be taken into account before making a decision. LCA is one tool among others to enlighten decision
makers (Political, companies, competent authorities…).
Working group B1.36 was set up in 2012 in order to address the issue and challenge of the life cycle
assessment of underground high voltage cable systems.
The terms of reference were the following:
- To analyse the methodology and existing tools and to ascertain their range of application for High
Voltage Underground Cable Systems.

4
- To develop methodologies, as appropriate for Life Cycle Assessment of Underground High Voltage
Cable Systems and also possibly appropriate to MV Cable Systems.
- To provide a picture of the interaction of an underground High Voltage cable system with the
environment.
- To provide engineers and decision makers with information which identifies opportunities for reducing
the global Environmental Impact of Underground High Voltage Systems.
The goal of this technical brochure is to guide anyone who wishes to perform life cycle assessment of
underground cables. To that end, the present technical brochure addresses the following topics:
 In the Second Chapter, the main features and interests of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
method are described. Hence, the principles of the method are discussed (standards, guidelines,
historical approach), as well as the various tools that enable one to implement it in practice
(databases and software). This part also includes a critical analysis of the use of LCA and an
overview of the limits of the method.
 The Third Chapter is a detailed summary of the complete State of the Art that is included in the
appendices of the report. The section summarizes available literature on LCA studies for
underground power cable systems. For each LCA, the selected methodology is detailed
(functional unit, chosen software, characterisation method) and the associated results are
presented.
 The Fourth Chapter proposes a complete methodology to achieve an LCA in the case of
underground cable, from the definition of the scope of the study, to the choice of characterisation
methods or the data collection.
 The Fifth Chapter presents the case study of an LCA that has been carried out for a specific
cable. This case study has been achieved as part of the methodology expressed by the WG B1.36.
The considered system is defined, its boundaries are chosen and characterisation methods
recommended by ILCD (International Reference Life Cycle Data System) and by infrastructure
managers are selected.
 A full Glossary of all terms used in this Technical Brochure is contained in the Glossary Section
The working group B1.36 would like to sincerely thank Gildas Mevel and Thomas Sainzelle who
significantly contributed to the success of this work.

5
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 3
1. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSEMENT............................................................................................................. 9
1.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: PRINCIPLES AND HISTORICAL APPROACH.................................................................. 9
1.1.1 LCA – Definition......................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1.2 LCA – Historical approach ....................................................................................................................................10
1.2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ....................................................................................13
1.2.1 LCA – Standards .....................................................................................................................................................13
1.2.2 LCA – Guidelines.....................................................................................................................................................14
1.3 THE INTERESTS OF LCA FOR A COMPANY E.G A GRID SYSTEM OPERATOR...................................................15
1.3.1 Why would a company use LCA?........................................................................................................................15
1.3.2 Why cable manufacturers and grid system operators use LCA to reduce the environmental impacts of
underground lines?.....................................................................................................................................................................18
1.4 TOOLS TO PERFORM LCA: DATABASES AND SOFTWARE ....................................................................................18
1.4.1 Databases and software: presentation..............................................................................................................18
1.4.2 Examples of LCA databases.................................................................................................................................19
1.4.3 The leading LCA software.....................................................................................................................................20
1.4.4 A specific LCA software for power transmission systems................................................................................21
1.5 LIMITS TO THE USE OF LCA ...........................................................................................................................................21
1.5.1 Limits inherent to the method.................................................................................................................................21
1.5.2 Limits associated to the use of LCA in a company ...........................................................................................22
1.6 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................................................22
2. LCA: STATE OF THE ART...............................................................................................................25
2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................25
2.2 LCA STUDIES ON OVERHEAD/UNDERGROUND POWER LINES: COMPARISONS AND SPECIFIC CASES .25
2.3 LCA STUDIES ON MATERIALS FOR CABLES................................................................................................................27
2.4 LCA STUDIES FOR ECO-DESIGN...................................................................................................................................28
2.5 LCA FOR SPECIFIC TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS................................................................28
2.6 LCA APPROACH APPLIED TO END-OF-LIFE PHASES................................................................................................30
2.7 LCA CONCERNING ELECTRIC EQUIPMENTS AND POWER SYSTEMS .................................................................31
2.8 DEVELOPMENTS................................................................................................................................................................32
3. METHODOLOGY TO PERFORM A LCA.....................................................................................33
3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................33
3.2 SCOPE DEFINITION..........................................................................................................................................................33
3.2.1 Goals of the LCA.....................................................................................................................................................33
3.2.2 Functional unit...........................................................................................................................................................34
3.2.3 Reference flow.........................................................................................................................................................34
3.2.4 System boundaries..................................................................................................................................................34
3.2.5 Characterisation methods......................................................................................................................................37
3.3 DATA COLLECTION..........................................................................................................................................................38
3.3.1 Data type and sources...........................................................................................................................................38
3.3.2 Data quality requirements.....................................................................................................................................38
3.3.3 Units............................................................................................................................................................................39
3.3.4 Key parameters.......................................................................................................................................................39
3.3.5 Cut-off criteria .........................................................................................................................................................39
3.3.6 Allocation rules.........................................................................................................................................................40
3.3.7 Nomenclature for the Resource Use and Emissions Profile .............................................................................40

6
3.3.8 LCI scenarios.............................................................................................................................................................40
3.4 LIFE CYCLE INTERPRETATION.........................................................................................................................................42
3.4.1 Assessment of the robustness of the model........................................................................................................42
3.4.2 Identification of the sensitive points.....................................................................................................................43
3.4.3 Estimation of uncertainty (optional) .....................................................................................................................43
3.5 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................43
4. CASE STUDY: LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF A 90 KV-LINE...................................................47
4.1 ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................................................................47
4.2 GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................................47
4.2.1 Aims of the present study ......................................................................................................................................47
4.2.2 Presentation of the study.......................................................................................................................................48
4.2.3 Data collection .........................................................................................................................................................56
4.3 RESULTS OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................................................................59
4.3.1 Energy consumption.................................................................................................................................................59
4.3.2 Greenhouse effect...................................................................................................................................................60
4.3.3 Acidification..............................................................................................................................................................61
4.3.4 Exhaustion of mineral resources ...........................................................................................................................61
4.3.5 Waste ........................................................................................................................................................................63
4.4 ENERGY MIX: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................64
4.4.1 Results for the indicator of consumed energy ...................................................................................................65
4.4.2 Results for the climate change indicator.............................................................................................................66
4.4.3 Results for the acidification indicator..................................................................................................................67
4.4.4 Exhaustion of mineral resources ...........................................................................................................................68
4.4.5 Waste ........................................................................................................................................................................69
4.4.6 Conclusion of the sensitivity analysis ...................................................................................................................70
4.5 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................................................71
4.6 PROSPECTS........................................................................................................................................................................71
4.6.1 Possible improvements and uses for the model ................................................................................................71
4.6.2 Collection of data related to the installation phase........................................................................................71
4.6.3 Impact assessment of XLPE recycling...................................................................................................................72
4.6.4 Cable retention in the ground...............................................................................................................................72
4.7 GENERAL SYNTHESIS.......................................................................................................................................................73
4.7.1 Main conclusions of the case study ......................................................................................................................73
Indicators...................................................................................................................................................................................73
4.7.2 Limits of the study....................................................................................................................................................73
4.7.3 Working prospects..................................................................................................................................................73
5. CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LCA OF UNDERGROUND SYSTEMS............76
B.1. BIBLIOGRAPHY – STATE OF THE ART..........................................................................................................................82
B.2. BIBLIOGRAPHY – METHODOLOGY TO PERFORM LCA..........................................................................................83
B.3. BIBLIOGRAPHY – CASE STUDY.....................................................................................................................................84
C.1. BENCHMARK FOR LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF POWER CABLE SYSTEMS.......................................................86
C.2. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DATA COLLECTION................................................................................................................86
C.3. CASE STUDY......................................................................................................................................................................86
C.4. STATE OF THE ART_LIST OF STUDIES 04-2015 ........................................................................................................86
Figures and Illustrations
Figure 1: Principles and steps of the LCA
Figure 2: LCA History – main events

7
Figure 3: The places of LCA databases and LCA software in the global LCA process
Figure 4: Functional Unit in the case of end-of-life phases
Figure 5: life cycle of the underground cable
Figure 6: detailed schema of the life cycle of the underground link
Figure 7: Characterisation factors and associated impacts
Figure 8: components of an XLPE cable. © rte
Figure 9: cross-section of a 225kv-underground line under the road. © rte
Figure 10: water-tree. © rte
Figure 11: energy consumption in the different phases of the lifespan, considering six different
sources of production.
Figure 12: contribution to climate change during the lifespan of the line.
Figure 13: contribution to acidification, for the different phases of the lifespan of the cable.
Figure 14: contribution to the exhaustion of mineral resources during the whole lifespan of the cable
Figure 15: contribution of different materials to the indicator of exhaustion of mineral resources.
Figure 16: contribution of the lifespan to waste production
Figure 17: effect of a change in the electricity mix on the indicator of grey energy (%).
Figure 18: effect of a change in the energy mix on the indicator of grey energy (kWh)
Figure 19: effect of a change in the electricity mix on the indicator of climate change (%)
Figure 20: effect of a change in the electricity mix on the acidification indicator (%)
Figure 21: effect of a change in the electricity mix on the indicator of exhaustion of mineral
resources (%)
Figure 22: effect of a change in the electricity mix on the waste indicator (%)
Tables
Table 1: contents of a LCA study (purposes, phases and use)
Table 2: The goals of a LCA
Table 3: Standard units for the considered data
Table 4: considered data for the corrective maintenance
Table 5: Goals of the case study

8

9
1. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSEMENT
In this section, we aim to describe the main features and interests of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
method, in terms of characterisation of environmental impacts. Hence, we will particularly discuss the
principles and specifics of the method as well as the various tools that enable one to implement it in
practice. We expect that such an approach would be a fruitful solution to minimise the environmental
impact of underground cables.
1.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: PRINCIPLES AND HISTORICAL APPROACH
1.1.1 LCA – Definition
LCA has been defined in line with the ISO standard 14040 i.e. to carry out a multi-criteria evaluation of
the potential impacts of a system (goods or services) on the environment. It involves all activities related
to a goods or services, from the extraction of raw materials, which are necessary for the manufacturing
phase, to the disposal of the waste which is produced. This method implies the achievement of a balance
sheet for the consumptions of energy, natural resources, and for the emissions of polluting substances
in the environment (air, water, soil) of the considered system. These material and energy flows are then
incorporated into models to get quantified information on the environmental impacts with the help of
specific indicators. This method is the baseline of eco-design and gathers four important phases:
Phase one : Goal and scope definition.
An LCA always starts with an explicit statement of the goal and scope of the study, which sets out the
context of the study and explains how and to whom the results are to be communicated. This step
includes the definition of the functional unit, which defines what is precisely being studied, quantifies
the service delivered by the system, and provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be
related. Furthermore, the functional unit is an important basis that enables alternative goods, or
services, to be compared to the considered system. This definition of functional unit is accompanied by
the choice of reference flows, a system description (with assumptions and limitations associated to the
study), a definition of the system boundaries and the selection of the characterisation methodology
(selected impacts).
Phase two : Life Cycle Inventory (LCI).
The purpose of such a step is to achieve an accurate inventory of the different material and energy
flows for each phase of the life cycle of the system. This requires an analysis of the supply chain
processes and analyses of measurements that are achieved to quantify the running of the system. This
data is typically collected through survey questionnaires or internally. This step is crucial as it guarantees
the relevance of the LCA and improving the quality of data collection is often seen as a considerable
step to improving the results of a LCA. For example, data related to manufacturing phases are not that
easy to collect, as an important number of producers are reluctant to give full account of the materials
they use during their production processes.
Phase three : Impact assessment.
This phase of LCA aims at evaluating the significance of potential environmental impacts based on the
LCI flow results. Consequently, impact categories (contribution to global warming, depletion of natural
resources, etc.), category indicators (Cumulative Energy Demand, Global Warming Potential, etc.) and
characterisation models (that evaluate the indicators thanks to input values) must be chosen.
Phase four : Interpretation.
Life Cycle Interpretation is a systematic technique to identify, quantify, check, and evaluate information
from the results of the life cycle inventory and the LCA assessment. The outcome of the interpretation
phase is a set of conclusions and recommendations for the study. This is accomplished by identifying
the data elements that contribute significantly to each impact category, evaluating the sensitivity of

10
these significant data elements and drawing conclusions and recommendations based on a clear
understanding of how the LCA was conducted and the results were developed. Moreover, sensitivity
analyses enable one to check the relevance of the model but, they can also serve various purposes such
as targeting and prioritising the collection of data in order to improve the accuracy of the results (the
more sensitive for an input parameter the results are, the more this parameter has to be known
accurately), identifying margins and evaluating its potential effects (by comparing options which give
different input values for the model), etc. Eventually, in the cases where the results of a comparative
LCA are to be externally communicated, it is necessary to contact experts to achieve a critical review of
the entire LCA, as it guarantees better accuracy and robustness to final results.
Figure 1: Principles and steps of the LCA (example for washing powder – application to
underground cable is presented in figure 5 and 6)
1.1.2 LCA – Historical approach
Civil society’s awareness towards environmental issues has been gathering momentum for 40 years. In
the 70’s, the focus was to produce and to encourage technical progress. But after the first oil crisis,
people faced up to the risks of shortages, and decided to “produce with less energy”. The idea that
human beings could threaten their own environment with their activities emerged, and so did the vision
of the environment as a legacy that should be transmitted to future generations. This has been
reinforced in the 1980’s as a result of several industrial disasters (Seveso, Bhopal, Chernobyl) with a
priority granted to a “safe production”. Later, in the 90’s, an accent was put on the need to produce
quality goods (reflecting the fact that people didn’t want to waste energy which jeopardised the planet
for low-quality productions). Eventually, as thoughts and debates around the principles of a “sustainable
development”, a concept that was born in 1980, became prevalent, it engendered fallout on production
processes in the beginning of the 21th century, and producing sustainably started to be seen as a
priority.
To some extent, historically, the evolution of LCA followed these social changes and its increased
awareness goes together with the emergence of sustainable development.
1960 – 1970: The earliest history: the emergence of a new environmental approach.
The emergence of the idea that every product or process had an environmental impact gave birth to
life cycle approach in Northern Europe in the 60’s. At the same time in Switzerland, EMPA (Swiss Federal
Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology) carried out for the first time environmental studies,
concerning the water pollution by detergents, the emissions of gases in the air and packaging litter. In
the USA, H.E.Teasley.Jr, who was managing the packaging department of a major company of the food
industry, was the first, in 1969, to conceive an analytical scheme that would become LCA. At that time,
the Company was wondering whether its bottles should be made of disposable plastic or of glass to

11
engender the lowest environmental impact. As a result, the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a
research organisation located in Kansas City, Missouri, launched environmental life cycle studies, which
were called : “resource and environmental profile analysis” (REPA), a term used since 1970, and
replaced by LCA in 1990. The conclusion of the study, which took into account manufacturing costs,
energy resources, water and air pollution or impacts on biodiversity was that plastic bottles were more
eco-friendly, as the amount of fuel that was needed to bring glass bottles to bottling lines was
particularly significant. The REPA study showed that the bad reputation of plastic bottles was based
upon a misunderstanding and encouraged the company to switch to plastic bottles from glass bottles.
MRI was also asked by an executive agency of the US government, called “the President’s Council on
Environmental Quality”, to do a series of REPA’s concerning the recycling of various materials to reduce
the emissions of solid waste.
1970 – 1980: The successful years of REPA.
From 1970 to 1974, the modern concept of REPA/LCA took shape. Although all projects at that time
were done for private clients, a series of publications that explained the meaning of REPA did appear in
1972. In Germany, around 1970, the growing amount of packaging litter gave rise to new analyses of
waste management. One possible solution at that time seemed to be the development of
“biodegradable” polymers (at the time, they were photo-degradable). Since the technical feasibility and
the usefulness of degradable polymers were questioned, a study was led by the Federal Ministry of
Education and Science (BMBW), in Bonn. The research program, developed in US by W.E.Franklin and
al. from the Midwest Research Institute, aimed at analysing the benefits of plastic packaging,
considering ecological and economic aspects. The studied examples were liquids packaging (using
traditional materials like glass and steel) and materials that had been developed more recently (PE bags
and bottles, PVC). Quantification required the determination of cumulative values from the steps of
production, distribution and waste removal. This is basically the “cradle to grave” approach that
characterizes the future LCA.
In 1980, the BUS (Bundesamt für Umweltschutz- Swiss federal office for environment protection)
published the first REPA database. It included a set of official eco-data related to widespread packaging
materials, and directives which helped at evaluating the total impacts of these materials on landfill
resources.
1980 – 1990: The safety priority: the disinterest for REPA.
The 1980’s were a long period of low public interest in REPA. Public care and environmental activity
largely focused on hazardous and toxic waste, as the traumas of the Chernobyl, Bhopal and Seveso
disasters were prevalent. Consequently, at that time the priority was given to the achievement of safety
regulations and to the need to avoid impacts from industrial failures or carelessness.
1990 – 2010: A reawakening of environmental consciousness: structuring and standardization of LCA.
In 1990, the potential role of REPA on environmental policies was debated in an international forum
convened by The Conservation Foundation in Washington, D.C. In France, one of the first environmental
impact assessment was carried out in the early 90’s by the steel industry. The work was first conducted
by the Ecole des Mines de Paris, then pursued by Ecobilan (company founded in 1990), and focused on
two products: an 85 cL-tin can and a 33 cL-beverage can (the two of them were taken out of their
packaging). The analysis took into account all phases of the life cycle: the production of cast steel,
transportation, over-packing and recycling of boxes after use. The surprise result came from the
unexpectedly high impact of the aluminium lid used for the easy opening of beverages: even though it
only represents 13% of the weight of the box, 82% of COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) and 53 % of
emissions of dust in the air are assigned to this lid.
While teams of scientists were working in different countries to evaluate environmental impacts of
products, incentives were taken to harmonise the methods. The SETAC (Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry) had been created in 1979 by US industrials, to serve as a non-profit
professional society to develop and promote tools to assess the environmental impacts of a technique
or activity. The first workshop convened by the SETAC, for open debate and discussions on REPA, led
to the adoption of the term “LCA” (Life Cycle Assessment)” to designate the REPA concept. In 1991,
after holding its ninth Workshop, SETAC published a report (A technical framework for Life Cycle

12
Assessment) which defines the first LCA method. The different steps of LCA as defined by SETAC were
then:
- Inventory (Life Cycle Inventory)
- Life Cycle impact Assessment
- Life Cycle improvement Assessment
Later, in 1993, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) tasked a small group of SETAC
LCA experts to make a recommendation regarding the need to standardise LCA. By 1997, the ISO 14040
standard for Life Cycle Assessment – Principle and framework, was complete.
Standardisation was all the more needed as in the 90’s, environmental issues took an international
dimension. The second Earth Summit, in Rio, in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 revealed a
worldwide growing awareness of the need to reduce the environmental impacts of economic activities.
Since 1992, the importance of the integration of environmental aspects in economic policies has been
integrated into the global framework of the sustainable development. The Johannesburg conference, in
2002, confirmed this by defining the environment as one of the three pillars of sustainable development
(the other two pillars are social and economic). Moreover, as a result of the Cancun Conference in 2010,
incentives related to climate change have spread around the world. In particular, the European Union
has retained its commitment to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 20%, from 1990 to 2020.
The impact on LCA studies was the development of research to identify simplified LCA methods
(simplified LCA, Simplified and Qualitative Life Cycle Assessment, Ecobilan…), which are cheaper and
less complex than global LCA. With these methods, for example, it is possible to focus on the most
significant phases of the life cycle or to limit the inventory step. Such methods enable companies to
identify their energy and raw materials flows and to develop policies to reduce costs and environmental
impacts of their products. In 2010, Integrated Product Policy (IPP) was launched and it aims at taking
actions (substance bans, environmental labelling, product design guidelines…) where limiting
environmental degradation is the most effective.
2010-2015: LCA as a tool for public information and eco-design
In France, the Grenelle Environment Forum, in 2007 led to the adoption of a law which explains that
“producers must declare sincere, objective and complete environmental information, concerning the
global characteristics of the product and its packaging and must offer eco-friendly products at affordable
price. Moreover, environmental regulation stipulates that the consumer must be progressively informed
on what products and packaging represent in terms of CO2 eq, consumption of natural resources and
impacts on natural environments, considering their entire life cycle’’. Regulations like this tended to
emerge in various European countries and trials are made all over Europe, with the support of the
European Commission, to develop “environmental labelling”. The idea associated with this concept is to
print on packaging quantitative indicators of the environmental impacts they generate, to guarantee
information transparency in this field and establish a new criteria consumers will be able to rely on.
Consumers will be able to take into account environmental impacts of the products on the same terms
as the quality of the products, their taste, their brand, etc. Nonetheless, these indicators will inform
producers the impacts their goods will have and this is important in enabling them to make
improvements. Likewise, producers will be able to identify environmental impacts of their competitors
and will know how to make a difference. In this environmental competition, LCA approaches appear as
particularly efficient and relevant tools for environmental labelling.
What is clearly underlying this approach is the development of eco-design i.e. installing in the minds of
policymakers and producers a more systematic consideration for environmental criteria, while designing
or manufacturing a product or a service. Once again, a life cycle approach, such as LCA, seems to be
necessary for an efficient eco-design.
Hence, for example, Total Group launched in 2009 a program called “Total Ecosolutions” to develop
innovative products and services and reduce their environmental impacts. LCA is at the very heart of
the approach of Total Group.
The following figure recapitulates the different phases of LCA history.

13
Figure 2: LCA History – main events
1.2 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
1.2.1 LCA – Standards
ISO (International Organisation for Standardization) 14040 and ISO 14044 are now the leading
standards for LCA.
 ISO 14040:2006 describes the principles and framework for life cycle assessment (LCA). It
includes: definition of the goal and scope of the LCA, the life cycle inventory analysis (LCI)
phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, the life cycle interpretation phase,
reporting and critical review of the LCA, limitations of the LCA, the relationship between the
LCA phases, and conditions for use of values and optional elements. It covers life cycle
assessment (LCA) studies and life cycle inventory (LCI) studies. It does not describe the LCA
technique in detail, nor does it specify methodologies for the individual phases of the LCA. The
intended application of LCA or LCI results is considered during definition of the goal and scope,
but the application itself is outside the scope of this International Standard.
 ISO 14044:2006 specifies requirements and provides guidelines for all the phases of life cycle
assessment (LCA). It covers life cycle assessment (LCA) studies and life cycle inventory (LCI)
studies.
Communication on environmental impacts is also an essential step of LCA. That is why the ISO 14020
series has been created, including:
 ISO 14020 (Environmental labelling, General Principles).
 ISO 14024 (Type I Label), which is a multi-attribute label developed by third parties.

14
 ISO 14021 (Type II self-declaration), which concern claims from producer without any
verification.
 ISO 14025 (Type III environmental declaration), which concern communication of the
environmental impact of products, based on life-cycle assessment.
It is possible to rely on data that has already been collected (primary data) or on information that can
be found in databases (secondary data).
The selection of data is fundamental for the final quality of the study, as it is stressed by the norm ISO
14040. If the considered data is not relevant enough, it will be very hard to achieve a study with good
quality solutions. That is what is meant by the concept of data representativeness. There are different
potential databases holders: public authorities (European Commission, Ministries...), a commercial
organization (technical centre, consultant) or a professional federation.
1.2.2 LCA – Guidelines
An LCA approach requires the application of a precise methodology and specific guidelines have been
created to help those who decide to study a practical case of LCA. In this section the different available
guidelines are presented and compared. The interest of such a comparison is to enable companies to
target a method that is adapted to its context and to its particular expectations.
 ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006): This is the basic guide to achieve a LCA. It efficiently describes the
different steps of LCA, but it may be not be accurate enough. Consequently, robustness and
reproducibility are weak with this method.
 Ecological Footprint (2009): This represents the amount of biologically productive land and
sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to assimilate
associated waste. Consequently, it is a very publicised and understandable method.
Nonetheless, there are some drawbacks for this method: the considered model is quite
simplified; what is consumed must be quantified; it is based on the hypothesis that most of our
consumptions require production potential of lands and in terms of CO2 emission; it does not
differentiate between nuclear power and consumption of fossil fuels. Robustness and
reproducibility are weak with this method.
 ILCD Handbook (2010), International Reference Life Cycle Data System: This is a very robust
LCA method which is internationally recognised. It offers a frame to achieve critical reviews; it
is a guide to carry out LCA on a specific range of products. Besides, it takes into account the
concept of decision-context, which distinguish several scenarios depending on the impact that
decisions (political, technical…) taken following the study can have on the background system.
However, using it is long and complex. The methodology is specific and it is hard to deviate
from it. As it must be applied with rigor, its flexibility is low.
 PEF (European Commission, 2013), Product Environmental Footprint: This method
takes on a large variety of environmental impacts, for a given system. It offers detailed and
accurate technical directions and it is very helpful to determine methodological expectancies for
a selected range of products. It derives from ILCD. The PEF method is operational, concise, and
accessible. Even though it is less complete than ILCD, it may become a reference to achieve
LCA in the future.
 BP X30-323 (AFNOR, 2008): This French method is dealing with environmental impact
evaluation and it is supervised by Government and NGO’s. It is limited to convenience goods,
but gives useful information to perform LCA for a specific type of products.

15
 PEP (Product Environmental Profile, PEP Association, 2008): This is a Type III
environmental product declaration program, dedicated to Electric, Electronic and Heating and
Cooling equipment which was created on the initiative of a consortium. It provides Product
Category Rules (PCR) to carry out LCA and to communicate transparently the LCA results
through Environmental Product Declaration. It can be used for underground high-voltage
cables. It takes into account issues linked to manufacturing, distribution, installation, use and
end of life of the products.
In the case of a grid system operator, there is a need to establish a quality and operational methodology.
The two following solutions are preferred:
 PEF: it is a general and quite complete method that has been developed by independent LCA
experts (designated by the European Commission).
 PEP: It is the only guide that particularly focuses on electrical issues.
Concerning LCA activities which are related to electrical and electronic industry, other documents can
be helpful:
 IEC 62430 (2009). This is a standard for eco-friendly design of electrical and electronic
products. It specifies requirements and procedures to take environmental aspects into account
for the design and development of electrical and electronic products.
 Product Category Rules (PCR) of the PEP Ecopassport program. This is a part of the “
PEP Ecopassport “program, which describes the rules enabling the LCA to be properly carried
out and the results published with verifiable and comparable information and not misleading as
far as only environmental aspects of the products are concerned. For cables and accessories,
the PCR of the PEP Ecopassport program are completed by Product Specific Rules (PSR). This
specification covers the functional unit definition as well as the use, installation and end of life
phases. It provides methodological precisions to PEP writers concerning power energy,
communication, data, control and command wires and and optical telecom accessories.
1.3 THE INTERESTS OF LCA FOR A COMPANY E.G A GRID SYSTEM OPERATOR
1.3.1 Why would a company use LCA?
For a company, there are many reasons to use LCA approach namely:
 Improve its knowledge on the environmental aspects related to its products;
 Develop product with reduced environmental impact;
 Care for profitability;
 Desire to satisfy the shareholders;
 Improve the internal and external vision of the company (in a context of emergence of the
idea of social and environmental responsibility);
 Respect of the social claim for a more sustainable development;
 Avoid complaints about pollutions engendered by a product that hasn’t been eco-designed;
 Look for quality of products and processes;
 Answer to the increasing costs of non-renewable raw materials.
The following begins by summarising the contents of a LCA study (purposes, phases and use) in a
company.
Table 1 contents of a LCA study (purposes, phases and use)

16
Aims of LCA Studied phases of LCA Expected uses of LCA
-Development of a strategy
linked to the products of the
company.
-Benchmarking to identify
possible improvements at
production sites.
-Comparison between
different products which have
the same function.
-Ecodesign.
-Environmental statements
concerning goods and services.
-Regulation elaboration.
-Preparation of material
dedicated to technical
lobbying.
-Materials choice.
-Improvements in production
technology.
-Optimization of the use of the
products.
-Optimization of end of life
phase, choice of appropriate
recycling or value sectors.
-Focus on logistics to improve
choices related to the
transportation of
intermediary goods.
Internal use
-Tool to help R&D programs.
-reflection linked to the
products of the company.
-Benchmarking.
-Ecodesign.
External use
-Preparation of the contents of
selected company websites
or brochures.
-Preparation of
Environmental Product
Declarations (EPD).
The above rationale is at the foundation of the internal organisation of a company which considers LCA
and the operational phase corresponds to the middle column. In the paragraphs below we give more
details about the different motives that can stimulate a company to carry out Life Cycle Assessments.
 A need for environmental information: knowing environmental strengths and
weaknesses of a company/a service/a product.
Steering a company requires a range of indicators, amongst which are environmental issues that enable
executives to obtain a better understanding of the position of the company. Environmental assessment
of products, sites or services provide decision-makers with new indicators that give them more
readability. As it guarantees a global approach, Life Cycle Assessment broadens the horizons of those
who decide to use it and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of their product, activity or service,
taking into account the whole life cycle. With this tool, companies benefit from new innovation prospects
and are able to anticipate with less stress the future economic, socio-environmental and regulatory
evolutions.
 Evaluating, anticipating and innovating.
 Determining a level of environmental performance.
Life Cycle Assessment is a quantitative, global and multi-criteria approach to evaluate a level of
environmental performance or vulnerability for products thanks to a range of indicators, considering the
entire lifespan of the product. These environmental indicators can be followed on the dashboards of
managers and integrated into the technical specifications of developers in order to develop more
competitive products, from an environmental point of view.
 Anticipating the future environmental regulation.
The implementation of LCA is a unique way for companies to face up to the evolutions of environmental
regulation. First of all, because of extended producer responsibility, companies can be held responsible
for the end of life of their goods and must anticipate the need to dispose of them. This extended
responsibility has already been set up with the packaging of household waste, tyres, out of order
vehicles, electric and electronic facilities and textiles and it is spreading to other products (furniture,
waste from care activities with infectious risks, gas bottles...). The setting of an environmental
monitoring is nowadays regarded as profitable and even essential in order to anticipate early enough
the evolutions of environmental and energetic regulation.
 Anticipating the evolutions of costs of raw materials and energy.

17
Life Cycle Assessment is a solution to understand the dependence of an activity on fossil energies and
raw materials which are under the threat of shortage. Although LCA does not provide cost related
information, anticipating the future increase in the costs of raw materials and energy is fundamental in
order to keep to a minimum the level the industrial cost prices and to thus conserve sufficient profit
margins.
 Anticipating changes in consumers’ behaviour.
Environmental issues are one of the items at the centre of concerns for citizens, which are also
consumers. Because their attitude towards the environment is increasingly sensitive, consumers may
be ready to change their behaviour and the way they consume and buy products. Because the market
share associated with these consumers is increasingly significant, companies cannot ignore these
customers. Consequently, they should not reject the means that could help them to deliver the preferred
goods to the consumers.
 Anticipating customers ‘demand (private individuals, companies, communities).
The emergence of environmental management systems (EMS) has resulted in important evolutions on
work practices and management organisation in companies. Consequently, companies adopt a life-cycle
approach and consult subcontractors and providers. With such an approach, companies must include
all those who are implied on the life cycle of the product to guarantee a better result for environment
preservation.
 Innovating to hold markets and take up new ones.
Setting up a Life Cycle Assessment approach is a meaningful innovation opportunity. Actually LCA causes
us to think about the service that is associated with the product and not only about the product itself.
Hence, the company can go beyond technical or economical limits. LCA is a tool for eco-design and
helps the companies to anticipate market evolutions and to conquest emerging markets.
 Environmental declaration
An environmental declaration aims at transmitting to the customers quality, transparent, clear and
trustworthy environmental information.
 Giving an answer to the expectations of the customers - Preparing
environmental declaration for large consumption products.
As stated earlier, customers may seek products which give answers to environmental questions. A
company must communicate how it takes the environment into account and with transparency, as far
as possible, provide customers with data and hard evidence of their commitment and performances.
Moreover, with the development of environmental labelling through the european ErP (Energy related
Products), labelling directives, or the international EPD (Environmental Product Declaration) system –
in accordance with ISO 14025- consumers can be informed on environmental performances of products
thanks to several indicators, to be evaluated considering the whole lifespan of the product.
 Forestalling competitors in the environmental field.
Because of the new expectations of customers, the environment tends to become a competitive tool
that must be considered in order not to see competitors, who are better prepared, capturing new
markets linked with sustainable development.

18
1.3.2 Why cable manufacturers and grid system operators use LCA to reduce the
environmental impacts of underground lines?
As part of its environmental policy, a grid system operator can be eager to reduce the environmental
impacts of its underground lines. Thus, grid system operators are willing to pursue internally the
introduction of an eco-design approach based on the achievement of Life Cycle Analyses. One of the
most important stakes for national grid operators is the value of the rate of electricity losses. Actually,
there are two important damaging consequences of such a phenomenon:
 Economical consequences: consumers may pay extra costs because of lost electricity.
 Environmental consequences: more energy must be produced in order to compensate the
losses. Consequently, there is an extra consumption of raw materials, natural resources...
By carrying out LCA of underground cables, grid system operators and cable manufacturers can evaluate
and quantify the impacts of the cables during the different phases of their life cycle. They are able to
identify the phases whose impacts are prevalent. Consequently, they can launch R&D programs to
improve environmental performance of cables. Moreover, grid system operators can integrate eco-
design criteria in purchase specifications to select contractors or cable manufacturers.
We can illustrate the interest of an LCA approach to improve environmental performances of
underground cables by describing the sources of potential improvements for every step of the life cycle
from the extraction of raw material to the disposal or recycling of the cable.
 Extraction and refining phases: raw materials, the necessary amount of energy for their
extraction and processing and emissions generated by industrial processes implicated in the
extraction process and transport to the manufacturing site
 Production phase: secondary materials, such as wire rod and plastic granules, terminations,
junctions, necessary amount of energy for their processing and emissions generated by
industrial processes and transport to the manufacturing site. NB: Most of the time extraction
and production are consolidated in one single phase, as LCA Database provide information
consolidated for the two phase, which are not always possible to separate.
 Transportation phase: Consumption of the implied means of transport from the
manufacturing place to the installation site of the cable and the drums used for cable
transportation.
 Installation phase: Civil engineering, civil works and cable system installation: laying,
assembling, (impacts on flora and agricultural environment), evacuation of waste to landfill,
installation of trenches containing cables, used fill, necessary materials and processes to build
them (joint pits, terminations,..), electrical and fuel consumption of installation equipment and
consumables (chemicals used in the construction site, materials used to hold the trench...).
 Operation phase: Electricity losses and maintenance operations (especially corrective
maintenance).
 End of life phase: It is particularly difficult to take into account the dismantling of a cable
system because of the long life time of underground cables. Indeed, it is not easy to anticipate
how the cable will be managed at the end of its life, 40, 50 years, sometimes even more, from
now. And yet, it may be a particularly important phase, e.g. in the case of fluid filled cables,
whose environmental impact is significant (leakages…).
1.4 TOOLS TO PERFORM LCA: DATABASES AND SOFTWARE
1.4.1 Databases and software: presentation
Carrying out a LCA implies the use of particular tools. Concerning data collection, it is impossible to start
from scratch every time, considering the amount of time and work needed to collect such data.

19
Consequently, different databases are developed for LCA. They gather input and output material and
energy flows for a considered system or process. This data has been collected from different sources
(industrials, experts...).
There are two different kinds of databases:
 General databases: they regroup general information on input and output flows, linked to
the life cycles of a large range of products and they can be used in a large variety of activities.
 Specific databases: they only focus on a particular field (electricity, electronics,
agriculture...).
Consequently, the choice of the most appropriate database, for a given system, is fundamental in a
LCA. Most of the time it is necessary to combine the use of several databases.
Moreover, in order to model the lifespan of the considered system and to assess, thanks to inventory
data and calculation methods, environmental impacts, software packages are needed. They generally
take into account five types of indicators: impacts on air, water, natural resources, soils and human
beings.
The differences between existing software products are due to functions, ergonomics (ease of use and
learning), flexibility (the software is able to support changes in specifications) and mainly the associated
databases (as a software is accompanied by a limited number of databases). The selection of a particular
LCA software package depends on the studied goods or product, the skills of the team that is going to
carry out the study and the different applications.
Figure 3: The places of LCA databases and LCA software in the global LCA process
1.4.2 Examples of LCA databases
Three of the most important databases that can be used in the particular field of power
transmission are the following:
 Database a v3.1: This database is managed by a center located in Switzerland known as Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. It gathers information from the most prestigious Swiss
universities, laboratories and institutes. One of its purposes is to establish international and
transparent data for LCA. With over 10,000 LCI datasets in the areas of energy supply,
agriculture, transport, biofuels and biomaterials, bulk and specialty chemicals, construction
materials, packaging materials, basic and precious metals, metals processing, ICT and
electronics, dairy, wood, and waste treatment, Database a v3 has become one of the most

20
comprehensive international LCI databases. The database is used by 1500 customers in more
than 40 countries. This database is integrated or importable in the most important LCA software.
 Database b 2014: The database offers over 8 000 Life Cycle Inventory datasets based on
primary data collection thanks to a global work with companies, associations and public bodies.
Database b span most industries including: agriculture, electronics & ICT, energy & utilities…
Moreover, every year, in December, all contents in the databases are fully updated, providing
the most current Life Cycle Inventory data and impact methodologies. Eventually, the company
managing this database’s broad range of sector expertise is able to create a customized dataset
to suit specific needs with a unique data-on-demand service.
 Database c v5.2.1 database: One of the most obvious interests of this database is that it
gives the opportunity to use a specific database for Electrical and Energy engineering (400
modules), even though it also benefits from a more general database, including database d. It
is also used by cable manufacturers (as there is specific data related to the manufacturing
processes of underground cables).
 Database d: this database provides Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data from front-running EU-
level business associations and other sources for key materials, energy carriers, transport, and
waste management. The focus is to freely provide background data that are required in a high
percentage of LCAs in a European market context. Coherence and quality are facilitated through
compliance with the entry-level requirements of the Life Cycle Data Network (LCDN), as well as
through endorsement by the organizations that provide the data.
NB: some of the databases cannot be differentiated from the software they are commercialized
with. Besides, the reader must be advised that this list is not exhaustive and other databases
exist.
1.4.3 The leading LCA software
 Software a: The most famous and referenced LCA software. It is a widely used tool in industry,
teaching and research. It contains numerous impact evaluation methods such as CML-IA, EDIP
2003, ILCD 2011, ReCiPe, IPCC 2013, USEtox and Water footprint, methods which can be
combined. It offers a wide choice of databases and a particularly complete functional offer.
Important differences from the previous version include the introduction of regionalized water
footprint methods and the implementation of the database a v3. Nonetheless, first steps are
not easy and using the software is quite complex when used for the first time.
 Software b: A general quality database (Software b database 2014) is available with the
software and updated every year. The software contains numerous impact evaluation methods
and is highly referenced in the market. Two different interfaces can be used: one for experts
and another one for non-experts. The functional offer is particularly complete, modelling is
rigorous and mistakes are limited (warnings indicate a lack of coherence in the modelling).
Moreover, it can be used with a dedicated tool to design sustainable products and processes
and to give a web access to reports (which can be useful in the case of an occasional use).
Nevertheless, it is particularly expensive and, by default, database a is not included in the
software.
 Software c: This is a powerful and flexible tool to calculate and improve the environmental
performance of products. It allows the LCA practitioner to build and use large databases. Its
simulations mode allows the use of a pre-parameterized database for non-experts and the easy
making of LCA and Eco-design studies. The version 5.2 reinforces the database search facilities,

21
facilitates the use and accelerates the modelling. This is a saving of time and a guarantee for
the traceability of LCA. The database associated with the software is less complete than those
which are available in the market. By default, database a is not available with the software. The
main default of such software is that functionalities that enable the interpretation of the results
are not directly included in the software (they are available in a separate Excel file that can be
provided by the provider).
 Software d: A wide range of databases is available with the software and the last version of
database a is included. It permits sensitivity analyses (as all parameters can be modified). The
functional offer is particularly complete. In the new version, there is a significant number of
minor improvements: export input/output inventories have changed and user manual and online
help have been updated. However, first steps are not easy, as using the software is quite
complex at first. The software has mostly been designed for LCA experts who would be eager
to go beyond LCA and carry out detailed Life-Cost Analyses.
NB: the reader is advised that the information above is up to date at the moment of the elaboration of
the technical brochure, but might be subject to evolution. Indeed, these software packages are often
upgraded.
1.4.4 A specific LCA software for power transmission systems
Software e offers a specific database for electronics and electricity sectors and has been created thanks
to data related to cable manufacturing. With this software, some of the data is updated every year.
Moreover, the software doesn’t need installation or maintenance, as it is hosted by servers. It is also
possible to create an Excel file that can be filled by LCA non-experts to import data on systems that are
to be analysed. The simplicity and ergonomics of the software correspond to a conscious choice that
aims at increasing the accessibility of the software.
A detailed benchmark of LCA software and databases is presented in the Appendix C.1
“Benchmark for Life Cycle Analyses of Power Cable Systems”
1.5 LIMITS TO THE USE OF LCA
There are, of course, limitations with the use of LCA. Some of them are intrinsic issues and others
appear while considering using LCA in an organisation. They are presented in this section.
1.5.1 Limits inherent to the method
High sensitivity to initial hypotheses: as models and indicators depend on the considered functional unit
and on the chosen material and energy flows, initial hypotheses must be particularly relevant to the
organisation in order to guarantee accurate results. Resources must be committed to ensure of the
quality of these hypotheses.
Lack of replication: LCA are not easy to replicate as they can be carried out according to many different
guidelines. Some of them don’t give enough methodological details.
Possible misinterpretation or generalisation: LCA gives quantitative results and offers a real freedom of
interpretation. That’s why it is necessary to be particularly careful and to keep in mind that results are
given for a defined functional unit.
LCA doesn’t cover incidents: The only exception is the operation phase (LCA takes into account an
average damage rate depending on LCA practitioner choice.).

22
LCA doesn’t take into account the temporal nature of emissions: this is one of the most significant limit
of LCA: the considered impact of a substance that is emitted periodically and in small quantities is the
same as for an instantaneous emission of the same quantity of substance.
The hardships of data collection: As databases are often incomplete or very hard to sustain and because
there is a wide range of data providers, data collection is often very difficult.
Qualitative environmental aspects are not taken into account: this concerns the presence of a particular
landscape, geographic position...
This approach may seem complex and expensive: a company must engage and commit financial and
human resources to achieve a LCA.
These different obstacles must be clearly mentioned while the LCA is being processed and they can be
overcome when LCA is supplemented with an environmental impact assessment study or with an
evaluation of chemical hazards.
1.5.2 Limits associated to the use of LCA in a company
In addition to these limits, there are constraints, in a company, that must be taken into account in order
to achieve LCA with relevance.
The need to define goals and resources: As LCA is a relatively recent method in companies and involves
persons who may be geographically distant, with different kinds of professions (engineers, marketing
manager...), goals to reach and associated resources must be defined with accuracy (will it be necessary
to communicate on the actions of the company? To give precise figures? To make meaningful
comparisons between products? To achieve a simplified LCA? Etc...).
The need for communication and training: many workers from different services and from different
hierarchical levels will be consulted during data collection. Targeted communication and significant
training efforts will guarantee the buy-in from the different stakeholders.
The need for leadership: As LCA is a new approach, the designation of a team to replicate the procedure
in the company and to link the different teams results with the original project goals is vital.
Data collection and choice of indicators or collection methods: Data monitoring must be improved to
facilitate data collection and companies must chose, among different indicators, those which are the
most relevant with respect to their purposes.
Understanding and communication of the results: environmental communication will have to be clear,
transparent and trustworthy. ISO 14063 and ISO 14020 are standards which are really helpful for
companies that are willing to carry out a successful communication of the results.
1.6 CONCLUSION
As human behaviour towards environmental issues has considerably evolved with the years and the
growing awareness of a human “responsibility” on the future of the planet, tools that aim at assessing
environmental impacts have spread and have been improved over the years. To some extent, the
concept of Life Cycle Assessment is a tough a transition between two different historical periods. It is
quite idealistic to be eager to cool, in 2015, for a given system every coming or going flow, every
material, every waste when it is known that in the 1970’s and the 1980’s, mass production and progress
were enhanced and went beyond many environmental considerations. Nevertheless, the development
of such a methodology, with precise standards and guidelines and high-level technological tools
(software and databases), reveal that companies are increasingly interested in getting a better
understanding of environmental consequences of their activities and productions. Society tends to be
more and more intransigent with those who ignore environmental issues.. Consequently, industrial
demand exists in the field of LCA and the challenge that must be taken up by software and database

23
designers is to face up to the growing need for flexibility and accuracy in the available data and
calculation methods. Finally, it is important to realise that a LCA approach will be more successful in a
company, if it is accompanied by strategic choices (such as the establishment of an environmental
management system) and a high level of conviction of those who will be in charge of its implementation
and development.

24

25
2. LCA: STATE OF THE ART
This chapter presents the publications related to LCA of power cable systems that could be identified at
the time of the elaboration of the technical brochure.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
LCA has been widely applied to the study of environmental impacts of energy systems. With regards
to the electricity sector, the studies have mainly focused on impacts arising from power generation,
but an increasing number of reports are addressing impacts related to systems for power transmission
and distribution. This section summarizes available literature on LCA studies for underground power
cable systems.
In order to give references about the life cycle assessments which specifically concern power cable
systems, this document regroups short descriptions of the most important LCA that have been carried
out in this field. For each LCA, the selected methodology is detailed (functional unit, chosen software,
characterization method) and the associated results are presented. Consequently, such a document
aims at giving tools to achieve new LCA on power cable systems. To facilitate the choice of previous
references, past LCA are classified into six specific groups:
1) LCA studies on overhead/underground lines: comparisons and specific cases.
2) LCA studies on materials for cables.
3) LCA studies for eco-design.
4) LCA for specific transmission and distribution networks.
5) LCA approach applied to end-of-life phases.
6) LCA concerning electric equipment and power systems.
For each one of these groups, you can refer to the appendix C.4, which is an Excel table called “State
of the Art_List of studies”. It is very helpful to find the explanations and details (LCA parameters, goals
and results) about all the studies that are related to the group.
2.2 LCA STUDIES ON OVERHEAD/UNDERGROUND POWER LINES: COMPARISONS
AND SPECIFIC CASES
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment in the field of electricity transmission: overhead line versus
underground cable » (R&D department, EDF, December 2008).
This study aimed at carrying out an environmental balance by using four indicators (related to resource
consumption on the one hand and to effluents and waste production on the other hand) and thereby
comparing electricity transmission by overhead lines with electricity transmission by underground
cables, in order to have a selection criteria available which are not only linked to visual impact and
economic aspects to help select the most appropriate solution for power transmission. The considered
functional unit is a kilowatt-hour of electricity in a rural area for a 30 km-section whose lifespan is 45
years.
This study pointed out that, in both cases, exploitation phase has the most relevant environmental
impact as a result of electricity losses. The study also showed that the underground cable Alu 800 offers
a better balance than the overhead line Aster 366 for the whole set of indicators that were taken into
account. This is even true for the depletion of natural resources, because of electricity losses. This
conclusion is due to the fact that, for thermal reasons, the underground cable has been oversized, and
this oversizing reduces electricity losses. To reach the environmental performance of the cable Alu 800
(according to the selected indicators), the overhead line should have its core diameter increased.

26
Life cycle assessment of 11 kV electrical overhead lines and underground cables, (Jones and McManus,
2010)
In this study, a life-cycle Assessment of the environmental impacts of five different 11 kV electrical
distribution systems used for high voltage distribution is presented. The functional unit was one kWh of
electricity transmitted through one km of a 11 kV-cable installed in a rural environment. The method
used was process LCA using ReCiPe 2008 and results were obtained for both the midpoint and endpoint
perspectives. The study comprised the following component types: three overhead lines with copper
conductors and two underground cables using aluminum conductors.
The following processes were included namely;
 production,
 installation,
 maintenance,
 power losses,
 End-of-life.
Power losses were modeled as a function of line/cable loading conditions. Conductor electrical losses
were calculated as a function of load factors, current and resistance. For land cables, the end-of-life
scenario assumed that these were left buried underground. Results in the study are provided separately
for cradle to pre-disposal, power losses and end-of-life. The cradle-to-pre-disposal phase adopted a
recycled content (cut-off) approach and the justification is that this approach better reflects the impacts
to produce the product system and thus emissions that are released in the present rather than
incorporating future benefits into a single result. From the results obtained for the impact categories,
significant environmental issues are selected with help of Endpoint indicators and these are further
analysed (water depletion and marine ecotoxicity were excluded).
Concerning cables, the impacts that have been included in the comparisons were those due to
production and total lifetime operational impacts. The life-cycle results revealed there to be three key
issues: the impacts of climate change, fossil fuel depletion, and particulate matter formation (PMF). The
former two were of particular significance. The associated impacts, which are those associated with the
materials, were generally determined to be insignificant. The exception was for underground cables at
low operating loads. Under these conditions PMF was more significant as a result of the high impacts of
the cables. Further analysis revealed that these impacts could be mitigated with an end of life material
recovery program. At present the underground cables are not recovered, but if they were the recycling
benefits would give rise to a notable improvement in PMF.
For the other impact categories operational conductor losses (underground cables and overhead lines)
were the dominant cause of impacts. In summary it was concluded that to minimise the life-cycle
impacts of 11 kV systems (overhead lines and underground cables), the lowest conductor resistance
should be selected.
Overhead lines – land/sea cables (Jorge et al. 2012)
The environmental impacts from overhead lines and land/sea cables were studied by Jorge et al. 2012.
With regards to land cables, two types were modeled: 150 kV oil land cable and HVDC. Life cycle
inventory data was obtained from the Danish national transmission system operator for electricity and
natural gas: Energinet.dk. The processes described and included for land cables were: materials
requirements for cable and cable trace, materials and energy requirements for installation and
maintenance, and end-of-life treatment for each material type. The functional unit was one km of cable
operating during the lifetime, which was assumed to be 40 years. The method used was process-based
life cycle assessment, with database a v2.2 as a background dataset and ReCiPe 2008 mid-point
hierarchist perspective v1.0 as the impact assessment method. Under the assumption of European
power mix, it was found that power losses dominate the cable impacts in all categories contributing
with up to 96% to climate change (an exception was the category of metal depletion, for which the
production of metal parts was the most relevant process). The study concluded that after power losses,
the impacts mainly arise from the production of materials for the cable (such as lead and copper) and
used bitumen sealant (in particular asphalt). With the assumption used for recycling (modelled as
suggested by database a), it was found that recycling of cable materials does not always compensate
for the other impacts generated at the end-of-life.

27
Life cycle assessment of an offshore grid interconnecting wind farms and customers across the North
Sea (Anders Arvesen, Rasmus Nikolai Nes, Daniel Huertas-Hernando, Edgar G. Hertwich, 2014)
This recent study compares two considered scenarios related to the development of an offshore grid in
the North Sea scenario one and scenario two. Both scenarios assume fast technological development
and imply a large-scale deployment of offshore wind power, of which a significant share comes from
areas far from shore. The scenarios differ in that scenario two assumes a higher level of trans-national
coordination for the development of an offshore grid. Scenario one also involves a largescale
development of a North Sea grid, but the more radial grid layout offers less opportunity for interregional
trade and offshore wind electricity. Further, scenario two is produced under more lenient assumptions
about operating modes of thermal power stations: While scenario two assumes no minimum production
rate bound, scenario one does not permit production rates lower than 20% of nominal capacity. Finally,
complete phase-out of nuclear power is assumed in scenario two but not in scenario one. On the whole,
scenario two assumptions give more favorable conditions for phasing-out carbon-emitting generation
sources by large-scale deployment of offshore wind energy. Scenario two is the most pro-offshore wind
scenario and the scenario with the most interconnected North Sea transmission network considered in
Huertas-Hernando et al. (2011). The grid components studied are array cables, export cables, offshore
substation foundations and electrical equipment for offshore and onshore substations and the functional
unit is the transmission of one kWh of electricity. Power losses are not taken into account. The model
used in this study is a hybrid LCA which incorporates inventories from the process-LCA database a and
the database e. ReCiPe characterization factors (Hegger and Hischier 2010) are applied. Such a study
fills a gap in the literature by investigating the environmental effects of a proposed HVDC transmission
network in the North Sea, considering a range of impact categories. Besides giving impact potentials
per unit of electricity transmitted, the results illuminate differences among impact categories with
respect to which components lead to environmental pressures and identifies the activities where the
pressures occur. The comparative scenario assessment provides tentative insights into the potential
environmental benefits of following relatively more ambitious development pathways for North Sea grid
and wind power systems. The study concludes that the combination of life cycle and optimization
perspectives in integrated LCA and energy planning (Riahi et al.2012; Huertas-Hernando et al. 2011;
Fripp 2012) could be useful in identifying trade-offs or prospects for co-maximization of different types
of environmental and economic benefits.
2.3 LCA STUDIES ON MATERIALS FOR CABLES
LCA study of the replacement of conductors Aster 851 by low-expansion conductors ACSS 883 on a
400 kV-section (conducted by the R&D department of EDF, February 2010).
The purpose is to carry out a comparative Life Cycle Assessment of two solutions to increase the
electricity transmission capacity on a 400 kV-corridor: replacing the existing conductors by low-
expansion conductors (ACSS type) or constructing a new overhead/underground transmission line.
Studied impact indicators were: greenhouse effect, depletion of non-energetic resources, primary
energy, acidification, eutrophication (which is the ecosystem's response to the addition of artificial or
natural substances, to an aquatic system), toxicity indicators (terrestrial, aquatic and for human health).
However, these toxicity indicators showed up to be unreliable (lack of convergence of the results
according to the different calculation methods) and were not selected in the conclusions of the study.
The considered functional unit is the transmission of a kilowatt-hour of electricity in a 91 km-section
whose lifespan is 50 years. In order to compare two solutions with equivalent functionality, ACSS has
been compared to a doubling of the conductor lines Aster 851. Thanks to this study, it brought forward
that, in the two cases, exploitation phase has the most relevant environmental impact as a result of
electricity losses. The conclusions of the comparative LCA of the two considered solutions for the 400
kV-section to increase its power transfer capacity it showed that doubling the overhead line (Aster 851
mm²) has a better balance sheet than replacing the initial conductor by ACSS 883 mm², according to
every selected indicator, except for the indicator « depletion of non-energetic resources ». Actually, the
doubling of the line reduces electricity losses by half due to electricity transportation, whose
consumption is the prevalent contributor to studied impact indicators. Aside from the indicator
« depletion of the non-energetic resources », linked to the consumption of materials of construction,

28
impact indicators are massively calculated from atmospheric emissions and consequently, they are
particularly influenced by energy consumptions.
Whole-life costs and environmental assessment of high voltage power cable systems – ELECTRA (Gary
Stevens et al, February 2013).
This study compared from an economic and environmental point of view conventional XLPE cable system
with a new type of high operating temperature thermoplastic cable system, that do not require cross-
linking. A LCA was integrated to a model of the cable, which was achieved thanks to a specific software.
The cable model has been developed to be applied to any power cable system and its deployment in
any circumstances. The model included environmental impacts and parallel economic and risks impacts.
The functional unit was one km of a three-phase HVAC cable (400kV), which carries a load of 35% of
continuous rating. The new cable reduces the process energy required during manufacture and enables
the recycling of the cable, further reducing its carbon footprint.
2.4 LCA STUDIES FOR ECO-DESIGN
Eco-design of power transmissions systems – Wenlu WANG phD Thesis, 2011
The purpose of this study is to analyse, through a selected example, the transmission systems’
environmental impacts, locate the major environmental burden sources of transmission systems and to
select and/or develop methodologies to reduce its environmental impacts in order to offer eco-design
solutions. The considered system was a 765 kV AC aerial transmission link in Venezuela. The functional
unit is the transmission of 800 MW of hydroelectricity over 760 km, during its service life (assumed to
be equal to 60 years). In the study, the manufacturing part takes into account raw materials, but not
the manufacturing processes of components. Transport to the installation location is considered, except
for the transport of concrete for fixing the towers. The hardware is not taken into account. The LCA
was conducted using software a 7.1, with EDIP/UMI methodology.
The LCA results concerning the total transmission system indicate that the operational phase gives the
most environmental impacts on most of indicators, e.g. regarding Global Warming Potential the
operational phase accounts for 55.9%, regarding Ozone Depletion Potential it accounts for 75.8%,
regarding Acidification it is 41.7%, etc. The operational phase of total transmission system is mainly
composed by SF6 emissions of circuit breakers, energy losses in substations and energy losses in
transmission lines. After investigation it revealed that the energy losses in transmission lines are the
significant environmental impacts in the operational phase, which is roughly ten times of that of energy
losses in substations, and 3.5 times of that of circuit breakers’ SF6 emissions’ on a Global Warming
impact basis. Through the LCA, we understand that energy losses in transmission lines, power
transformers and SF6 emissions of circuit breakers are the major sources of environmental impacts in
transmission systems. Of course, the material-based environmental impacts cannot be ignored. Hence,
if we are willing to consider ways to decrease transmission systems’ environmental impacts, focus should
be put on the methods of reducing energy losses of conductors and power transformers and decreasing
the SF6 emissions of circuit breakers. Minimising materials used in equipment are always in favour for
the reduction of environmental impact.
2.5 LCA FOR SPECIFIC TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS
Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of overhead versus underground primary power distribution in Southern
California (Bumby et al. 2010)
The environmental impacts from overhead and underground medium voltage power distribution systems
operating in Southern California were obtained by (Bumby et al. 2010). The method used was process-
based LCA with CML 2001 as impact assessment method. Processes included were: production of
materials, processing (e.g., wire drawing and cable extrusion), installation, maintenance and
decommissioning. The results indicated that the underground system had higher environmental impacts
than the overhead alternative in all indicators and for all parameters, mostly because of the higher
material intensity. Cable production was found to be the most polluting process for both systems in all
indicators. The study included a sensitivity analysis of the most uncertain and potentially relevant
parameters, e.g., assumed lifetime for cable underground infrastructure, recycling rates, failure

29
frequency. The study suggested that an important strategy for reduction of impacts from cables would
be to extend the lifetime of the underground systems. Nonetheless, in this study, electricity losses due
to the use-phase are not taken into account. As all other studies showed that electricity losses caused
the most significant environmental impact, this is a serious limit for the interpretation of the results
(that must be restricted specifically to production and maintenance phases essentially.
Environmental evaluation of power transmission in the UK in terms of embodied energy and CO2 per
kWh transmitted (Harrison, Maclean et al. 2010).
The life cycle environmental impacts in terms of embodied energy and CO2 per kWh transmitted from
the UK transmission network were described by Harrison and colleagues (Harrison, Maclean et al. 2010).
The study is not a full LCA, but rather a life cycle inventory (LCI), since it only focuses on CO2 and does
not include other impact categories, e.g., acidification, toxicity, etc. The following life cycle stages were
taken into account: materials and manufacturing, installation and assembly, operations and
maintenance (including power losses and SF6 losses), decommissioning and disposal. Transmission
components included were: overhead lines, underground cables, substations and transformers. Power
losses were modeled by assuming a static generation mix. SF6 losses in gas insulated substations were
included. The study confirmed that power losses are the main contributor to embodied CO2 and energy
and discussed the possibility of using regulatory incentive mechanisms that could contribute to carbon
savings from losses. Further, it concluded that emissions related to operations and maintenance account
for 96% of total CO2 eq. Transmission losses alone accounts for 85% of total CO2 eq., while SF6
emissions featuring around 12%.
Environmental evaluation of power transmission in Norway (Raquel S. Jorge, Edgar G. Hertwich, 2013)
A study on the environmental impacts of the Norwegian electricity transmission system (i.e., Sentralnett)
is presented here. The functional unit was one kWh of electricity delivered from the transmission grid
to the main distribution grid. The scope was the product system consisting of power lines and cables
(land and sea), transformers and substations installed in the Norwegian transmission network by 2009.
Sea cables between Norway and abroad were also included. The method used was process-LCA with
ReCiPe 2008, midpoint-oriented, as impact assessment method. LCA was conducted using an LCA
software tool developed by researchers at the Industrial Ecology Programme at NTNU. The results show
that for each kW h of electricity transmitted in Norway, climate change impacts are of 1.3–1.5 g CO2
eq., assuming a Norwegian electricity mix. Half of these emissions are associated with power losses,
and the other half with infrastructure processes such as materials production, installation, maintenance,
and end-of-life. The results also show that after the losses, the infrastructure processes for overhead
lines and transformers, and the emissions of SF6 from Gas Insulated equipment are the most relevant
contributors for total climate impacts. A sensitivity analysis was done with regards to the electricity mix
used to model power losses, so in addition to the Norwegian mix, results were obtained for Nordic and
European mixes. The results show that the contribution of power losses to the total climate change
scores increases to 84% and 94%, by replacing the Norwegian mix by the Nordic mix and the European
mix, respectively.
Environmental evaluation of power transmission in Portugal (Garcia et al. 2014)
A study from 2014 on the electrical system in Portugal (Garcia et al., 2014) used LCA to assess the life
cycle impacts from electricity generation and supply in the country from 2003 to 2012. The study
concluded that transmission and distribution grid added 5-14% to impacts (infrastructure < 5%, losses
< nine %).
The environmental impacts associated with the transmission grid upgrading required for the integration
of renewable energy sources (RES) in Europe up to 2020 were estimated using an LCA model in (Jorge
et al. 2014). The study used data from the Ten Year Network Development Plan 2012 (ENTSO-E 2012),
which proves an estimation of the additional power lines and other electrical infrastructure required to
increase the RES capacity in Europe from 320 GW in 2010 to 536 GW in 2020, in accordance with the
202020 goals. The 202020 energy goals are to have a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to
1990 levels, 20% of the energy, on the basis of consumption, coming from renewables and a 20%
increase in energy efficiency. The scope of the LCA study was the product system consisting of
overhead lines, land/sea cables and substation equipment required for the transmission grid upgrade,
which was also the functional unit. The method used was process-LCA with ReCiPe 2008 midpoint-
oriented as impact assessment method. The study concluded that the grid extension projects correspond

30
to a total climate change impact of 10.7 Mton CO2 eq. As for material requirements in terms of metals,
these were estimated at 11.2 Mton Fe eq. Further, due to the integration of RES, it was concluded that
electricity transmission in Europe in 2020 will be more material intensive, requiring about ten % more
metal inputs per kWh than today. The life cycle inventories for the electrical equipment were based on
(Jorge et al. 2012).
Environmental evaluation of power transmission in Denmark (Turconi et al. 2014)
The Danish electricity distribution network was evaluated from a life cycle perspective by (Turconi et
al., 2014). The study provides life cycle inventory data for electricity distribution networks and an LCA
of the Danish transmission and distribution networks. The functional unit was the delivery of one kWh
of electricity in Denmark and the study was conducted using software b 4.4. The focus was put on
power distribution and the related impacts were compared to the ones from power generation and
transmission. The study referred to the system in the year 2010. Components included were power lines
(50, 10, 0.4 kV), transformers (50/10 and 10/0.4 kV) and relevant auxiliary infrastructure (e.g., cable
ditches, poles, and substations). Two types of 50 kV power lines (underground and overhead) and
0.4 kV (copper and aluminium) were modelled. The study concluded that transmission and distribution
accounts for impacts, which mainly arise from power losses. Further, it concludes that impacts from
electricity distribution were larger than those from transmission because of higher losses and higher
complexity and material consumption. Also, infrastructure provided important contributions to the
impact categories of metal depletion and freshwater eutrophication, with copper and aluminium for
manufacturing of the cables and associated recycling being identified as the most important processes.
It was found that underground 50-kV lines had larger impacts than overhead lines, and 0.4-kV
aluminium lines had lower impacts than comparable copper lines.
2.6 LCA APPROACH APPLIED TO END-OF-LIFE PHASES
Life Cycle Assessment of Cable Recycling. Part I: PlasTEP Compared to State of the Art (Mats
ZACKRISSON, 2012)
Recycling production cable waste - environmental and economic aspects (Mats ZACKRISSON, 2013)
We chose here to put together two documents that refer to the recycling of cables. They correspond to
the same considered study, with different levels of analysis. What is developed here summarises the
contents of the two documents.
The study states that currently the main driver for recycling cable wastes is the high value of the
conducting metals, while the plastic with its lower value is often neglected. New improved cable plastic
recycling methods could, as a result, provide both economic and environmental incentives to cable
users/owners for moving up the “cable plastic waste ladder”. The improvement potential for the
European cable industry, as a whole, is roughly estimated to avoidance of 31 000 tonnes of CO2 eq
annually, if these new techniques were to be applied to the five % plastic waste stream from cable
production. Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of the waste management of the cable scrap is
suggested and explained here as a method to analyse the pros and cons of different cable scrap
recycling options available. Economic and environmental data about different recycling processes and
other relevant processes and materials are given. The cable owner could use this data and method to
assess the way they deal with cable plastic waste today and compare it with available alternatives and
thus illuminate the improved potential for recycling cable plastic waste.
As end-of-life phases are only parts of a classic LCA, the author proposes a way to understand how in
the case of cables waste management can be a real functional unit. The product or service under
investigation is not the cable, but rather the waste management of the cable, where the waste material
is the input and the produced recycled material is the output. In such a perspective the study could be
compared to a cradle-to-gate LCA for a commodity from virgin origin.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND CABLES

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND CABLES

Similar to LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND CABLES (20)

More from Power System Operation

More from Power System Operation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF UNDERGROUND CABLES