LCA Process (review) Where R ERP is the “Environmentally Responsible Product Rating” Define...

LCA Process (review)

Where RERP is the “Environmentally Responsible Product Rating”

Define Scope

Manufacture RERP

Inventory Analysis

Improvement Analysis

Impact Analysis

Feedback

Life Cycle InterpretationInterpretation is the phase in which the results of the study and all choicesand assumptions made during its course are evaluated in terms of soundness and robustness, and overall conclusions are drawn and recommendations made.

ISO14044 distinguishes between three different elements:

• Identification of significant issues based on LCI and LCIA results

• Completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks

• Conclusions, limitation and recommendations

One of the main aims of InterpretationInterpretation is to check the results of Inventory Analysis and Impact assessment against the Goal and Scope Definition of the study.

Improvement Analysis Improvement Analysis (Interpretation)(Interpretation)

• Significant inventory data such as energy, emissions, waste, etc.

• Significant impact categories such as resource use, climate change, toxicity, etc.

• Significant contribution from life cycle stages such as individual unit processes or whole process groups (e.g. use phase)

Identification of significant issues based on LCI and LCIA results

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Materials production

Vehiclemanufacturing

Vehicle use (incl.upstream fuel)

Vehicle disposal

10.3 % 4.3 % 85.3 % 0.1 %

Typical life cycle GHG emissions of an ICE passenger car

• Completeness check makes sure that nothing important or relevant has been left out (e.g. through cut-off, data gaps or missing impact category). Relevance of missing elements with respect to goal and scope of study needs to be discussed

• Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis studies the effect of variations in process data, boundary, allocation and modeling choices and other variables. The objective is to assess the reliability and robustness of the LCI and CLIA results.

• Consistency check determines whether the assumptions, methods, models and data are consistent with goal and scope of the LCA study and with each other. Examples are consistency in - data quality along a product life cycle or between different product systems - regional and temporal aspects - allocation rules and system boundaries - impact assessment

Completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks

• Conclusions are based on the significant findings and their robustness.

• Limitations are based the completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks.

• Recommendations are based on the conclusions and their limitations.

Conclusions, limitation and recommendations

ISO 14044 also provides guidelines on

• how to report on LCA studies

• how to conduct a critical review of an LCA study

Critical reviews by external experts or panels on interested parties are especially important if the LCA study is intended to be used for a comparative assertion intended to be disclosed to the public.

Case study: Disposable versus reusable diapersCase study: Disposable versus reusable diapers

Background:Background:

• When Proctor & Gamble (P&G) launched Pampers disposable diapers in the 1960s, it was considered to be the product breakthrough of the decade.

• By the early 1990s, Pampers contributed over 18% to the company’s annual revenues.

• It also became a symbol of the ‘throw-away’ society and was targeted by NGOs.

• To deflect criticism, P&G commissioned Arthur D. Little to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment of both types of diapers to settle the debate.

The Life Cycle Assessment:The Life Cycle Assessment:

Arthur D. Little researchers started by defining a functional unit and the resulting reference flows. They made the following simplifying assumption

• The number of daily diaper changes is the same for both types of diapers.

Based on the reference flows life cycle inventories for both product systems were calculated. The following assumption was made:

• 90% of all reusable diapers are laundered at home.

Source: World Resources Institute, 1994

Pulp and paper

Absorbent gel

LDPE film PP fabric

Tapes, elastics,

adhesives

Raw cotton

Cotton fabric

Disposable diaper

Reusable diaper

Diaperuse

Diaperuse

Diaperlaundry

Diaper landfill

Diaper landfill


43%

27%

7%23%

Other materials


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Rawmaterials

(lbs)

Energy(10,000Btu)

Water(10gal)

Emissions to Air

(lbs/10)

Waste watereffluents(lbs/100)

Processwaste (lbs)

Post-consumer

waste (lbs)

Disposable

Reusable

Functional unit: Weekly diaper needsFunctional unit: Weekly diaper needs



This graph compares data from two different sources: Allen et al. (1992) which report data from a Franklin Associates Study (1992) and the World Resources Institute (WRI, 1994) which reports data from the Arthur D. Little study (1990):

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Energy(million Btu)

Water (1000 gal)

Enissions toair (lbs)

Emission towater (lbs)

Solid waste(cubic feet/

lbs)

ALLEN DATA Disposable

WRI DATA Disposable

ALLEN DATA Reusable (10/90)

WRI DATA Reusable (10/90)


The results from Allen et al. are mostly higher than those from the WRI, up to a factor of 6.

The differences between disposable and reusable diapers are smaller in the Allen et al. results compared to the WRI results.

However, the general direction of the results are identical:

Reusable diapers consume more energy and more water

consume less raw materials

generate more emissions to air and water

generate less waste

Summary:

• Many environmental choices are about trade-offs between different types of burdens

• Without impact assessment these burdens are very difficult to compare

• Without common methodology LCA results are very difficult to reproduce

• LCA results without comprehensive documentation are not very useful

• LCA methodology has come a long way since the early 1990s


Life Cycle Assessment ofDisposable and Reusable Nappies in the UK

Commissioner:

LCA practitioner: Environmental Resources Management(Simon Aumônier, Michael Collins)

(UK’s EPA)

Goal: Compile life cycle inventory and compare potential environmental impacts of production, use and disposalof reusable and disposable nappies

Scope: Temporal coverage: 2001-2002Allocation: Physical relationship, economic for retail energy useCut-off: Capital equipment and human labor excluded


Functional unit: The use of nappies during the first 2.5 years of a child’s life, in the UK, for the period 2001-2002

CML 2000 mid-point indicatorsCML 2000 mid-point indicators• global warming• ozone depletion• photo-oxidant formation• depletion of abiotic resources• eutrophication• acidification• human, aquatic and terrestrial toxicity

Impact categories:

Reference flows: • 4.16 disposable nappies of 44.6g daily over 2.5 years• 47.5 reusable nappies

Process flow diagram disposable nappies

Process flow diagram home laundered reusable nappies

Process flow diagram commercially laundered reusable nappies


Disposable Home laundered reusable

Commercially laundered reusable

Abiotic resource depletion (kg Sb eq) 4.82 4.09 5.76

Acidification (kg SO2 eq) 3.78 3.13 3.05

Eutrophication (kg PO4 eq) 0.338 0.334 0.275

Global warming (GWP100) (kg CO2 eq) 626 559 762

Ozone layer depletion (ODP) (kg CFC-11 eq) 0.000261 0.00004 0.00008

Photochemical oxidation (kg C2H2) 0.174 0.048 0.049

Human toxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq) 49.4 132 123

Fresh water aquatic ecotox. (kg 1,4-DB eq) 7.01 11.4 11.6

Terrestrial. ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq) 1.92 1.53 2.7


0

5E-11

1E-10

1.5E-10

2E-10

2.5E-10

3E-10

3.5E-10

4E-10

ADP AP EP GWP ODP POCP HTP FAETP TETP

Disposable

Reusable,homelaundering

Reusable,commerciallaundry

Normalization factor: Total estimated impact of Western Europe in 1995


Sensitivity Analysis

Number of changes

Excreta as putrescible waste

Omitted materials

Equivalent COD and BOD emissions

Percentage of tumble drying

Average age of washing machines

Number of reusable nappies


Conclusions

There is no significant difference between any of the environmental impacts of the disposable, home use reusable and commercial laundry systems that were assessed.

Main sources of environmental impact:

Disposables:

Reusables:

Raw material production and conversion of nappy components

Fuels and electricity used in washing and drying

Main opportunities for improvement:

Disposables:

Reusables:

Mass reduction and improved materials manufacturing

Increase energy efficiency of washing and drying

Waste management: No substantial contribution to total impact

Who are the users?

What are the uses?

LCA:• Goal & Scope• Life Cycle Inventory• Impact Assessment• Interpretation

The Use of Life Cycle AssessmentsThe Use of Life Cycle Assessments

The Users of Life Cycle AssessmentsThe Users of Life Cycle Assessments• Companies: Especially in Scandinavian countries, Japan, Holland, Germany, Switzerland (e.g. Volvo, Electrolux, Honda, Toyota, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Corus, Arcelor, Alcan, etc.) Through in-house experts, LCA consultancies or universities.

• NGOs: Mostly commissioned to external LCA consultancies or universities.

• Trade associations: Especially for material commodities (e.g. plastics, steel, aluminum, concrete, etc.) Through the experts of their member companies, LCA consultancies or universities.

• Government agencies: Especially in Scandinavian countries, Japan, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, EU Through in-house experts, LCA consultancies or universities.

• Business analysts: Typically analyze externally created LCA information on businesses and sectors.

The Uses of Life Cycle AssessmentsThe Uses of Life Cycle Assessments

• NGOs: To create scientific foundations of campaigns or investigate claims by industry.

• Companies: Originally intended for external use, e.g. marketing. However, currently mainly for internal use due to bad initial experiences of external uses. Currently mainly retrospective and for learning proposes, instead of prospective use for decision making purposes. Currently, decisions based on LCA results are more operational than strategic.

• Trade associations: Trade associations of material commodities producers more frequently use LCA for external purposes (e.g. marketing, as lobbying tool in the policy process).

• Government agencies: To analyze and design environmental policies and regulations (especially by the EPAs of European countries). EUs Integrated Product Policy recommends LCA.

• Business analysts: To analyze and rate individual companies and industry sectors.

Internal vs. external use of Life Cycle AssessmentsInternal vs. external use of Life Cycle Assessments

Most companies currently use LCA for internal purposes.

Internal uses are:

• Hotspot analysis of existing or planed products

• Compare existing products with products under development

• Product/process design (short-term, operational)

• Product/process development (long-term, strategic)

As LCA methodology matures, so do the number and frequency of external uses .

External uses are:

• Marketing, especially final product comparisons (credibility and complexity issues)

• Lobbying, especially commodity comparisons

• Providing information and education to customers and other stakeholders

• Eco-labeling (also called environmental product declarations – EPDs)

LCA Process (review) Where R ERP is the “Environmentally Responsible Product Rating” Define...

Documents

Transcript of LCA Process (review) Where R ERP is the “Environmentally Responsible Product Rating” Define...