An LCA study involves a thorough inventory of the energy and materials that are required across the supply chain and value chain of a product, process or service, and calculates the corresponding emissions to the environment.[2] LCA thus assesses cumulative potential environmental impacts. The aim is to document and improve the overall environmental profile of the product[2] by serving as a holistic baseline upon which carbon footprints can be accurately compared.
The LCA method is based on ISO 14040 (2006) and ISO 14044 (2006) standards.[3][4] Widely recognized procedures for conducting LCAs are included in the 14000 series of environmental management standards of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), in particular, in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. ISO 14040 provides the 'principles and framework' of the Standard, while ISO 14044 provides an outline of the 'requirements and guidelines'. Generally, ISO 14040 was written for a managerial audience and ISO 14044 for practitioners.[5] As part of the introductory section of ISO 14040, LCA has been defined as the following:[6]
LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout a product's life cycle (i.e., cradle-to-grave) from raw materials acquisition through production, use and disposal. The general categories of environmental impacts needing consideration include resource use, human health, and ecological consequences.
Criticisms have been leveled against the LCA approach, both in general and with regard to specific cases (e.g., in the consistency of the methodology, the difficulty in performing, the cost in performing, revealing of intellectual property, and the understanding of system boundaries). When the understood methodology of performing an LCA is not followed, it can be completed based on a practitioner's views or the economic and political incentives of the sponsoring entity (an issue plaguing all known data-gathering practices). In turn, an LCA completed by 10 different parties could yield 10 different results. The ISO LCA Standard aims to normalize this; however, the guidelines are not overly restrictive and 10 different answers may still be generated.[5]
Definition, synonyms, goals, and purpose
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is sometimes referred to synonymously as life cycle analysis in the scholarly and agency report literatures.[7][1][8] Also, due to the general nature of an LCA study of examining the life cycle impacts from raw material extraction (cradle) through disposal (grave), it is sometimes referred to as "cradle-to-grave analysis".[6]
As stated by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory of the EPA, "LCA is a technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service, by:
Compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases
Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with identified inputs and releases
Interpreting the results to help you make a more informed decision".[2]
Example life cycle assessment (LCA) stages diagram
Hence, it is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling. The results are used to help decision-makers select products or processes that result in the least impact to the environment by considering an entire product system and avoiding sub-optimization that could occur if only a single process were used.[9]
Therefore, the goal of LCA is to compare the full range of environmental effects assignable to products and services by quantifying all inputs and outputs of material flows and assessing how these material flows affect the environment.[10] This information is used to improve processes, support policy and provide a sound basis for informed decisions.
The term life cycle refers to the notion that a fair, holistic assessment requires the assessment of raw-material production, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal including all intervening transportation steps necessary or caused by the product's existence.[11]
Despite attempts to standardize LCA, results from different LCAs are often contradictory, therefore it is unrealistic to expect these results to be unique and objective. Thus, it should not be considered as such, but rather as a family of methods attempting to quantify results through different points-of-view.[12] Among these methods are two main types: Attributional LCA and Consequential LCA.[13] Attributional LCAs seek to attribute the burdens associated with the production and use of a product, or with a specific service or process, for an identified temporal period.[14] Consequential LCAs seek to identify the environmental consequences of a decision or a proposed change in a system under study, and thus are oriented to the future and require that market and economic implications must be taken into account.[14] In other words, Attributional LCA "attempts to answer 'how are things (i.e. pollutants, resources, and exchanges among processes) flowing within the chosen temporal window?', while Consequential LCA attempts to answer 'how will flows beyond the immediate system change in response to decisions?"[9]
A third type of LCA, termed "social LCA", is also under development and is a distinct approach to that is intended to assess potential social and socio-economic implications and impacts.[15] Social life cycle assessment (SLCA) is a useful tool for companies to identify and assess potential social impacts along the lifecycle of a product or service on various stakeholders (for example: workers, local communities, consumers).[16] SLCA is framed by the UNEP/SETAC’s Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products published in 2009 in Quebec.[17] The tool builds on the ISO 26000:2010 Guidelines for Social Responsibility and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines.[18]
The limitations of LCA to focus solely on the ecological aspects of sustainability, and not the economical or social aspects, distinguishes it from product line analysis (PLA) and similar methods. This limitation was made deliberately to avoid method overload but recognizes these factors should not be ignored when making product decisions.[6]
According to standards in the ISO 14040 and 14044, an LCA is carried out in four distinct phases,[6][19][pageneeded][20][pageneeded] as illustrated in the figure shown at the above right (at opening of the article). The phases are often interdependent, in that the results of one phase will inform how other phases are completed. Therefore, none of the stages should be considered finalized until the entire study is complete.[5]
Goal and scope
An LCA study begins with a goal and scope definition phase, which includes the product function, functional unit, product system and its boundaries, assumptions, data categories, allocation procedures, and review method to be employed in the analysis.[24] The ISO LCA Standard requires a series of parameters to be quantitatively and qualitatively expressed, which are occasionally referred to as study design parameters (SPDs). The two main SPDs for an LCA are the Goal and Scope, both which must be explicitly stated. It is recommended that a study uses the keywords represented in the Standard when documenting these details (e.g., "The goal of the study is...") to make sure there is no confusion and ensure the study is being interpreted for its intended use.[5]
Generally, an LCA study starts with a clear statement of its goal, outlining the study's context and detailing how and to whom the results will be communicated. Per ISO guidelines, the goal must unambiguously state the following items:
The intended application
Reasons for carrying out the study
The audience
Whether the results will be used in a comparative assertion released publicly[5][25]
The goal should also be defined with the commissioner for the study, and it is recommended a detailed description for why the study is being carried out is acquired from the commissioner.[25]
Following the goal, the scope must be defined by outlining the qualitative and quantitative information included in the study. Unlike the goal, which may only include a few sentences, the scope often requires multiple pages.[5] It is set to describe the detail and depth of the study and demonstrate that the goal can be achieved within the stated limitations.[25] Under the ISO LCA Standard guidelines, the scope of the study should outline the following:[26]
Product system, which is a collection of processes (activities that transform inputs to outputs) that are needed to perform a specified function and are within the system boundary of the study. It is representative of all the processes in the life cycle of a product or process.[5][25]
Functional unit, which defines precisely what is being studied, quantifies the service delivered by the system, provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be related, and provides a basis for comparing/analyzing alternative goods or services.[27] The functional unit is a very important component of LCA and needs to be clearly defined.[25] It is used as a basis for selecting one or more product systems that can provide the function. Therefore, the functional unit enables different systems to be treated as functionally equivalent. The defined functional unit should be quantifiable, include units, consider temporal coverage, and not contain product system inputs and outputs (e.g., kg CO2 emissions).[5] Another way to look at it is by considering the following questions:
Reference flow, which is the amount of product or energy that is needed to realize the functional unit.[25][13] Typically, the reference flow is different qualitatively and quantitatively for different products or systems across the same reference flow; however, there are instances where they can be the same.[13]
System boundary, which delimits which processes should be included in the analysis of a product system, including whether the system produces any co-products that must be accounted for by system expansion or allocation.[28] The system boundary should be in accordance with the stated goal of the study.[5]
Assumptions and limitations,[25] which includes any assumptions or decisions made throughout the study that may influence the final results. It is important these are made transmitted as the omittance may result in misinterpretation of the results. Additional assumptions and limitations necessary to accomplish the project are often made throughout the project and should recorded as necessary.[9]
Data quality requirements, which specify the kinds of data that will be included and what restrictions.[29] According to ISO 14044, the following data quality considerations should be documented in the scope:
Temporal coverage
Geographical coverage
Technological coverage
Precision, completeness, and representativeness of the data
Consistency and reproducibility of the methods used in the study
Sources of data
Uncertainty of information and any recognized data gaps[25]
Allocation procedure, which is used to partition the inputs and outputs of a product and is necessary for processes that produce multiple products, or co-products.[25] This is also known as multifunctionality of a product system.[13] ISO 14044 presents a hierarchy of solutions to deal with multifunctionality issues, as the choice of allocation method for co-products can significantly impact results of an LCA.[30] The hierarchy methods are as follows:
Avoid Allocation by Sub-Division - this method attempts to disaggregate the unit process into smaller sub-processes in order to separate the production of the product from the production of the co-product.[13][31]
Avoid Allocation through System Expansion (or substitution) - this method attempts to expand the process of the co-product with the most likely way of providing the secondary function of the determining product (or reference product). In other words, by expanding the system of the co-product in the most likely alternative way of producing the co-product independently (System 2). The impacts resulting from the alternative way of producing the co-product (System 2) are then subtracted from the determining product to isolate the impacts in System 1.[13]
Allocation (or partition) based on Physical Relationship - this method attempts to divide inputs and outputs and allocate them based on physical relationships between the products (e.g., mass, energy-use, etc.).[13][31]
Allocation (or partition) based on Other Relationship (non-physical) - this method attempts to divide inputs and outputs and allocate them based on non-physical relationships (e.g., economic value).[13][31]
Impact assessment, which includes an outline of the impact categories identified under interest for the study, and the selected methodology used to calculate the respective impacts. Specifically, life cycle inventory data is translated into environmental impact scores,[13][31] which might include such categories as human toxicity, smog, global warming, and eutrophication.[29] As part of the scope, only an overview needs to be provided, as the main analysis on the impact categories is discussed in the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) phase of the study.
Documentation of data, which is the explicit documentation of the inputs/outputs (individual flows) used within the study. This is necessary as most analyses do not consider all inputs and outputs of a product system, so this provides the audience with a transparent representation of the selected data. It also provides transparency for why the system boundary, product system, functional unit, etc. was chosen.[31]
Life cycle inventory (LCI)
An example of a life cycle inventory (LCI) diagram
Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis involves creating an inventory of flows from and to nature (ecosphere) for a product system.[32] It is the process of quantifying raw material and energy requirements, atmospheric emissions, land emissions, water emissions, resource uses, and other releases over the life cycle of a product or process.[33] In other words, it is the aggregation of all elementary flows related to each unit process within a product system.
To develop the inventory, it is often recommended to start with a flow model of the technical system using data on inputs and outputs of the product system.[33][34] The flow model is typically illustrated with a flow diagram that includes the activities that are going to be assessed in the relevant supply chain and gives a clear picture of the technical system boundaries.[34] Generally, the more detailed and complex the flow diagram, the more accurate the study and results.[33] The input and output data needed for the construction of the model is collected for all activities within the system boundary, including from the supply chain (referred to as inputs from the technosphere).[34]
According to ISO 14044, an LCI should be documented using the following steps:
Preparation of data collection based on goal and scope
Data collection
Data validation (even if using another work's data)
As referenced in the ISO 14044 standard, the data must be related to the functional unit, as well as the goal and scope. However, since the LCA stages are iterative in nature, the data collection phase may cause the goal or scope to change.[26] Conversely, a change in the goal or scope during the course of the study may cause additional collection of data or removal of previously collected data in the LCI.[35]
The output of an LCI is a compiled inventory of elementary flows from all of the processes in the studied product system(s). The data is typically detailed in charts and requires a structured approach due to its complex nature.[37]
When collecting the data for each process within the system boundary, the ISO LCA standard requires the study to measure or estimate the data in order to quantitatively represent each process in the product system. Ideally, when collecting data, a practitioner should aim to collect data from primary sources (e.g., measuring inputs and outputs of a process on-site or other physical means).[35] Questionnaire are frequently used to collect data on-site and can even be issued to the respective manufacturer or company to complete. Items on the questionnaire to be recorded may include:
Oftentimes, the collection of primary data may be difficult and deemed proprietary or confidential by the owner.[39] An alternative to primary data is secondary data, which is data that comes from LCA databases, literature sources, and other past studies. With secondary sources, it is often you find data that is similar to a process but not exact (e.g., data from a different country, slightly different process, similar but different machine, etc.).[40] As such, it is important to explicitly document the differences in such data. However, secondary data is not always inferior to primary data. For example, referencing another work's data in which the author used very accurate primary data.[35] Along with primary data, secondary data should document the source, reliability, and temporal, geographical, and technological representativeness.
When identifying the inputs and outputs to document for each unit process within the product system of an LCI, a practitioner may come across the instance where a process has multiple input streams or generate multiple output streams. In such case, the practitioner should allocate the flows based on the "Allocation procedure"[33][35][38] outlined in the previous "Goal and scope" section of this article.
The technosphere is more simply defined as the human-made world, and considered by geologists as secondary resources, these resources are in theory 100% recyclable; however, in a practical sense, the primary goal is salvage.[41] For an LCI, these technosphere products (supply chain products) are those that have been produced by humans, including products such as forestry, materials, and energy flows.[42] Typically, they will not have access to data concerning inputs and outputs for previous production processes of the product.[43] The entity undertaking the LCA must then turn to secondary sources if it does not already have that data from its own previous studies. National databases or data sets that come with LCA-practitioner tools, or that can be readily accessed, are the usual sources for that information.[44] Care must then be taken to ensure that the secondary data source properly reflects regional or national conditions.[35]
LCI methods include "process-based LCAs", economic input–output LCA (EIOLCA), and hybrid approaches.[37][35] Process-based LCA is a bottom-up LCI approach the constructs an LCI using knowledge about industrial processes within the life cycle of a product, and the physical flows connecting them.[45] EIOLCA is a top-down approach to LCI and uses information on elementary flows associated with one unit of economic activity across different sectors.[46] This information is typically pulled from government agency national statistics tracking trade and services between sectors.[37] Hybrid LCA is a combination of process-based LCA and EIOLCA.[47]
The quality of LCI data is typically evaluated with the use of a pedigree matrix. Different pedigree matrices are available, but all contain a number of data quality indicators and a set of qualitative criteria per indicator.[48][49][50] There is another hybrid approach integrates the widely used, semi-quantitative approach that uses a pedigree matrix, into a qualitative analysis to better illustrate the quality of LCI data for non-technical audiences, in particular policymakers.[51]
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
Life cycle inventory analysis is followed by a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). This phase of LCA is aimed at evaluating the potential environmental and human health impacts resulting from the elementary flows determined in the LCI. The ISO 14040 and 14044 standards require the following mandatory steps for completing an LCIA:[52][53][54]
Mandatory
Selection of impaction categories, category indicators, and characterization models. The ISO Standard requires that a study selects multiple impacts that encompass "a comprehensive set of environmental issues". The impacts should be relevant to the geographical region of the study and justification for each chosen impact should be discussed.[53] Often times in practice, this is completed by choosing an already existing LCIA method (e.g., TRACI, ReCiPe, AWARE, etc.).[52][55]
Classification of inventory results. In this step, the LCI results are assigned to the chosen impact categories based on their known environmental effects. In practice, this is often completed using LCI databases or LCA software.[52] Common impact categories include Global Warming, Ozone Depletion, Acidification, Human Toxicity, etc.[56]
Characterization, which quantitatively transforms the LCI results within each impact category via "characterization factors" (also referred to as equivalency factors) to create "impact category indicators."[53] In other words, this step is aimed at answering "how much does each result contribute to the impact category?"[52] A main purpose of this step is to convert all classified flows for an impact into common units for comparison. For example, for Global Warming Potential, the unit is generally defined as CO2-equiv or CO2-e (CO2 equivalents) where CO2 is given a value of 1 and all other units are converted respective to their related impact.[53]
In many LCAs, characterization concludes the LCIA analysis, as it is the last compulsory stage according to ISO 14044.[20][pageneeded][53] However, the ISO Standard provides the following optional steps to be taken in addition to the aforementioned mandatory steps:
Optional
Normalization of results. This step aims to answer "Is that a lot?" by expressing the LCIA results in respect to a chosen reference system.[52] A separate reference value is often chosen for each impact category, and the rationale for the step is to provide temporal and spatial perspective and to help validate the LCIA results.[53] Standard references are typical impacts per impact category per: geographical zone, inhabitant of geographical zone (per person), industrial sector, or another product system or baseline reference scenario.[52]
Grouping of LCIA results. This step is accomplished by sorting or ranking the LCIA results (either characterized or normalized depending on the prior steps chosen) into a single group or several groups as defined within the goal and scope.[52][53] However, grouping is subjective and may be inconsistent across studies.
Weighting of impact categories. This step aims to determine the significance of each category and how important it is relative to the others. It allows studies to aggregate impact scores into a single indicator for comparison.[52] Weighting is highly subjective and as it is often decided based on the interested parties' ethics.[53] There are three main categories of weighting methods: the panel method, monetization method, and target method.[56] ISO 14044 generally advises against weighting, stating that "weighting, shall not be used in LCA studies intended to be used in comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public".[20][pageneeded] If a study decides to weight results, then the weighted results should always be reported together with the non-weighted results for transparency.[37]
Life cycle impacts can also be categorized under the several phases of the development, production, use, and disposal of a product. Broadly speaking, these impacts can be divided into first impacts, use impacts, and end of life impacts. First impacts include extraction of raw materials, manufacturing (conversion of raw materials into a product), transportation of the product to a market or site, construction/installation, and the beginning of the use or occupancy.[57][58] Use impacts include physical impacts of operating the product or facility (such as energy, water, etc.), and any maintenance, renovation, or repairs that are required to continue to use the product or facility.[59][60] End of life impacts include demolition and processing of waste or recyclable materials.[61]
Interpretation
Life cycle interpretation is a systematic technique to identify, quantify, check, and evaluate information from the results of the life cycle inventory and/or the life cycle impact assessment. The results from the inventory analysis and impact assessment are summarized during the interpretation phase. The outcome of the interpretation phase is a set of conclusions and recommendations for the study. According to ISO 14043,[19][62] the interpretation should include the following:
Identification of significant issues based on the results of the LCI and LCIA phases of an LCA
Evaluation of the study considering completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks
A key purpose of performing life cycle interpretation is to determine the level of confidence in the final results and communicate them in a fair, complete, and accurate manner. Interpreting the results of an LCA is not as simple as "3 is better than 2, therefore Alternative A is the best choice".[63] Interpretation begins with understanding the accuracy of the results, and ensuring they meet the goal of the study. This is accomplished by identifying the data elements that contribute significantly to each impact category, evaluating the sensitivity of these significant data elements, assessing the completeness and consistency of the study, and drawing conclusions and recommendations based on a clear understanding of how the LCA was conducted and the results were developed.[64][62]
Specifically, as voiced by M.A. Curran, the goal of the LCA interpretation phase is to identify the alternative that has the least cradle-to-grave environmental negative impact on land, sea, and air resources.[65]
LCA uses
LCA was primarily used as a comparison tool, providing informative information on the environmental impacts of a product and comparing it to available alternatives.[66] Its potential applications expanded to include marketing, product design, product development, strategic planning, consumer education, ecolabeling and government policy.[67]
ISO specifies three types of classification in regard to standards and environmental labels:
Type I environmental labelling requires a third-party certification process to verify a products compliance against a set of criteria, according to ISO 14024.
Type II environmental labels are self-declared environmental claims, according to ISO 14021.
Type III environmental declaration, also known as environmental product declaration (EPD), uses LCA as a tool to report the environmental performance of a product, while conforming to the ISO standards 14040 and 14044.[68]
EPDs provide a level of transparency that is being increasingly demanded through policies and standards around the world. They are used in the built environment as a tool for experts in the industry to compose whole building life cycle assessments more easily, as the environmental impact of individual products are known.[69]
Data analysis
A life cycle analysis is only as accurate and valid as is its basis set of data.[70] There are two fundamental types of LCA data–unit process data, and environmental input-output (EIO) data.[71] A unit process data collects data around a single industrial activity and its product(s), including resources used from the environment and other industries, as well as its generated emissions throughout its life cycle.[72] EIO data are based on national economic input-output data.[73]
In 2001, ISO published a technical specification on data documentation, describing the format for life cycle inventory data (ISO 14048).[74] The format includes three areas: process, modeling and validation, and administrative information.[75]
When comparing LCAs, the data used in each LCA should be of equivalent quality, since no just comparison can be done if one product has a much higher availability of accurate and valid data, as compared to another product which has lower availability of such data.[76]
Moreover, time horizon is a sensitive parameter and was shown to introduce inadvertent bias by providing one perspective on the outcome of LCA, when comparing the toxicity potential between petrochemicals and biopolymers for instance.[77] Therefore, conducting sensitivity analysis in LCA are important to determine which parameters considerably impact the results, and can also be used to identify which parameters cause uncertainties.[78]
Data sources used in LCAs are typically large databases.[79] Common data sources include:[80]
Comprehensive Environmental Data Archive (CEDA)[82]
As noted above, the inventory in the LCA usually considers a number of stages including materials extraction, processing and manufacturing, product use, and product disposal.[1][2] When an LCA is done on a product across all stages, the stage with the highest environmental impact can be determined and altered.[83] For example, woolen-garment was evaluated on its environmental impacts during its production, use and end-of-life, and identified the contribution of fossil fuel energy to be dominated by wool processing and GHG emissions to be dominated by wool production.[84] However, the most influential factor was the number of garment wear and length of garment lifetime, indicating that the consumer has the largest influence on this products' overall environmental impact.[84]
Variants
Cradle-to-grave or life cycle assessment
Cradle-to-grave is the full life cycle assessment from resource extraction ('cradle'), to manufacturing, usage, and maintenance, all the way through to its disposal phase ('grave').[85] For example, trees produce paper, which can be recycled into low-energy production cellulose (fiberised paper) insulation, then used as an energy-saving device in the ceiling of a home for 40 years, saving 2,000 times the fossil-fuel energy used in its production. After 40 years the cellulose fibers are replaced and the old fibers are disposed of, possibly incinerated. All inputs and outputs are considered for all the phases of the life cycle.[86]
Cradle-to-gate
Cradle-to-gate is an assessment of a partial product life cycle from resource extraction (cradle) to the factory gate (i.e., before it is transported to the consumer). The use phase and disposal phase of the product are omitted in this case. Cradle-to-gate assessments are sometimes the basis for environmental product declarations (EPD) termed business-to-business EPDs.[citation needed] One of the significant uses of the cradle-to-gate approach compiles the life cycle inventory (LCI) using cradle-to-gate. This allows the LCA to collect all of the impacts leading up to resources being purchased by the facility. They can then add the steps involved in their transport to plant and manufacture process to more easily produce their own cradle-to-gate values for their products.[87]
Cradle-to-cradle is a specific kind of cradle-to-grave assessment, where the end-of-life disposal step for the product is a recycling process. It is a method used to minimize the environmental impact of products by employing sustainable production, operation, and disposal practices and aims to incorporate social responsibility into product development.[88][89] From the recycling process originate new, identical products (e.g., asphalt pavement from discarded asphalt pavement, glass bottles from collected glass bottles), or different products (e.g., glass wool insulation from collected glass bottles).[90]
Allocation of burden for products in open loop production systems presents considerable challenges for LCA. Various methods, such as the avoided burden approach have been proposed to deal with the issues involved.[91]
Gate-to-gate
Gate-to-gate is a partial LCA looking at only one value-added process in the entire production chain. Gate-to-gate modules may also later be linked in their appropriate production chain to form a complete cradle-to-gate evaluation.[92]
Well-to-wheel
Well-to-wheel (WtW) is the specific LCA used for transportfuels and vehicles. The analysis is often broken down into stages entitled "well-to-station", or "well-to-tank", and "station-to-wheel" or "tank-to-wheel", or "plug-to-wheel". The first stage, which incorporates the feedstock or fuel production and processing and fuel delivery or energy transmission, and is called the "upstream" stage, while the stage that deals with vehicle operation itself is sometimes called the "downstream" stage. The well-to-wheel analysis is commonly used to assess total energy consumption, or the energy conversion efficiency and emissions impact of marine vessels, aircraft and motor vehicles, including their carbon footprint, and the fuels used in each of these transport modes.[93][94][95][96] WtW analysis is useful for reflecting the different efficiencies and emissions of energy technologies and fuels at both the upstream and downstream stages, giving a more complete picture of real emissions.[97]
Quantitative values of greenhouse gas emissions calculated with the WTW or with the LCA method can differ, since the LCA is considering more emission sources. For example, while assessing the GHG emissions of a battery electric vehicle in comparison with a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle, the WTW (accounting only the GHG for manufacturing the fuels) concludes that an electric vehicle can save around 50–60% of GHG.[98] On the other hand, using a hybrid LCA-WTW method, concludes that GHG emission savings are 10-13% lower than the WTW results, as the GHG due to the manufacturing and the end of life of the battery are also considered.[99]
Economic input–output life cycle assessment
Economic input–output LCA (EIOLCA) involves use of aggregate sector-level data on how much environmental impact can be attributed to each sector of the economy and how much each sector purchases from other sectors.[100] Such analysis can account for long chains (for example, building an automobile requires energy, but producing energy requires vehicles, and building those vehicles requires energy, etc.), which somewhat alleviates the scoping problem of process LCA; however, EIOLCA relies on sector-level averages that may or may not be representative of the specific subset of the sector relevant to a particular product and therefore is not suitable for evaluating the environmental impacts of products. Additionally, the translation of economic quantities into environmental impacts is not validated.[101]
Ecologically based LCA
While a conventional LCA uses many of the same approaches and strategies as an Eco-LCA, the latter considers a much broader range of ecological impacts. It was designed to provide a guide to wise management of human activities by understanding the direct and indirect impacts on ecological resources and surrounding ecosystems. Developed by Ohio State University Center for resilience, Eco-LCA is a methodology that quantitatively takes into account regulating and supporting services during the life cycle of economic goods and products. In this approach services are categorized in four main groups: supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural services.[102]
Exergy-based LCA
Exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir.[103][104] Wall[105] clearly states the relation between exergy analysis and resource accounting.[106] This intuition confirmed by DeWulf[107] and Sciubba[108] lead to Exergo-economic accounting[109] and to methods specifically dedicated to LCA such as Exergetic material input per unit of service (EMIPS).[110] The concept of material input per unit of service (MIPS) is quantified in terms of the second law of thermodynamics, allowing the calculation of both resource input and service output in exergy terms. This exergetic material input per unit of service (EMIPS) has been elaborated for transport technology. The service not only takes into account the total mass to be transported and the total distance, but also the mass per single transport and the delivery time.[110]
Life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) is an approach in which all energy inputs to a product are accounted for, not only direct energy inputs during manufacture, but also all energy inputs needed to produce components, materials and services needed for the manufacturing process.[111] With LCEA, the total life cycle energy input is established.[112]
It is recognized that much energy is lost in the production of energy commodities themselves, such as nuclear energy, photovoltaic electricity or high-quality petroleum products. Net energy content is the energy content of the product minus energy input used during extraction and conversion, directly or indirectly. A controversial early result of LCEA claimed that manufacturing solar cells requires more energy than can be recovered in using the solar cell.[113] Although these results were true when solar cells were first manufactured, their efficiency increased greatly over the years.[114] Currently, energy payback time of photovoltaic solar panels range from a few months to several years.[115][116] Module recycling could further reduce the energy payback time to around one month.[117] Another new concept that flows from life cycle assessments is energy cannibalism. Energy cannibalism refers to an effect where rapid growth of an entire energy-intensive industry creates a need for energy that uses (or cannibalizes) the energy of existing power plants. Thus, during rapid growth, the industry as a whole produces no energy because new energy is used to fuel the embodied energy of future power plants. Work has been undertaken in the UK to determine the life cycle energy (alongside full LCA) impacts of a number of renewable technologies.[118][119]
If materials are incinerated during the disposal process, the energy released during burning can be harnessed and used for electricity production. This provides a low-impact energy source, especially when compared with coal and natural gas.[120] While incineration produces more greenhouse gas emissions than landfills, the waste plants are well-fitted with regulated pollution control equipment to minimize this negative impact. A study comparing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from landfills (without energy recovery) against incineration (with energy recovery) found incineration to be superior in all cases except for when landfill gas is recovered for electricity production.[121]
Criticism
Energy efficiency is arguably only one consideration in deciding which alternative process to employ, and should not be elevated as the only criterion for determining environmental acceptability.[122] For example, a simple energy analysis does not take into account the renewability of energy flows or the toxicity of waste products.[123] Incorporating "dynamic LCAs", e.g., with regard to renewable energy technologies—which use sensitivity analyses to project future improvements in renewable systems and their share of the power grid—may help mitigate this criticism.[124][125]
In recent years, the literature on life cycle assessment of energy technology has begun to reflect the interactions between the current electrical grid and future energy technology. Some papers have focused on energy life cycle,[126][127][128] while others have focused on carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.[129] The essential critique given by these sources is that when considering energy technology, the growing nature of the power grid must be taken into consideration. If this is not done, a given class energy technology may emit more CO2 over its lifetime than it initially thought it would mitigate, with this most well documented {{Citation needed|reason=Please include a study|date=October 2023}} in wind energy's case.
A problem that arises when using the energy analysis method is that different energy forms—heat, electricity, chemical energy etc.—have inconsistent functional units, different quality, and different values.[130] This is due to the fact that the first law of thermodynamics measures the change in internal energy,[131] whereas the second law measures entropy increase.[132] Approaches such as cost analysis or exergy may be used as the metric for LCA, instead of energy.[133]
LCA dataset creation
There are structured systematic datasets of and for LCAs.
A 2022 dataset provided standardized calculated detailed environmental impacts of >57,000 foodproducts in supermarkets, potentially e.g., informing consumers or policy.[134][135] There also is at least one crowdsourced database for collecting LCA data for food products.[136]
Datasets can also consist of options, activities, or approaches, rather than of products – for example one dataset assesses PET bottle waste management options in Bauru, Brazil.[137] There are also LCA databases about buildings – complex products – which a 2014 study compared.[138]
LCA dataset platforms
There are some initiatives to develop, integrate, populate, standardize, quality control, combine and maintain such datasets or LCAs[139][140] – for example:
The goal of the LCA Digital Commons Project of the U.S. National Agricultural Library is "to develop a database and tool set intended to provide data for use in LCAs of food, biofuels, and a variety of other bioproducts".[141]
The Global LCA Data Access network (GLAD) by the UN's Life Cycle Initiative is a "platform which allows to search, convert and download datasets from different life cycle assessment dataset providers".[142]
The BONSAI project "aims to build a shared resource where the community can contribute to data generation, validation, and management decisions" for "product footprinting" with its first goal being "to produce an open dataset and an open source toolchain capable of supporting LCA calculations".[143] With product footprints they refer to the goal of "reliable, unbiased sustainability information on products".[144]
Dataset optimization
Datasets that are suboptimal in accuracy or have gaps can be, temporarily until the complete data is available or permanently, be patched or optimized by various methods such as mechanisms for "selection of a dataset that represents the missing dataset that leads in most cases to a much better approximation of environmental impacts than a dataset selected by default or by geographical proximity"[145] or machine learning.[146][135]
Integration in systems and systems theory
Life cycle assessments can be integrated as routine processes of systems, as input for modeled future socio-economic pathways, or, more broadly, into a larger context[147] (such as qualitative scenarios).
Life cycle assessments, including as product/technology analyses, can also be integrated in analyses of potentials, barriers and methods to shift or regulate consumption or production.
The life cycle perspective also allows considering losses and lifetimes of rare goods and services in the economy. For example, the usespans of, often scarce, tech-critical metals were found to be short as of 2022.[149] Such data could be combined with conventional life cycle analyses, e.g., to enable life-cycle material/labor cost analyses and long-term economic viability or sustainable design.[150] One study suggests that in LCAs, resource availability is, as of 2013, "evaluated by means of models based on depletion time, surplus energy, etc."[151]
Broadly, various types of life cycle assessments (or commissioning such) could be used in various ways in various types of societal decision-making,[152][147][153] especially because financial markets of the economy typically do not consider life cycle impacts or induced societal problems in the future and present—the "externalities" to the contemporary economy.[154]
Critiques
Life cycle assessment is a powerful tool for analyzing commensurable aspects of quantifiable systems.[citation needed] Not every factor, however, can be reduced to a number and inserted into a model. Rigid system boundaries make accounting for changes in the system difficult.[155] This is sometimes referred to as the boundary critique to systems thinking. The accuracy and availability of data can also contribute to inaccuracy. For instance, data from generic processes may be based on averages, unrepresentative sampling, or outdated results.[156] This is especially the case for the use and end of life phases in the LCA.[157] Additionally, social implications of products are generally lacking in LCAs. Comparative life cycle analysis is often used to determine a better process or product to use. However, because of aspects like differing system boundaries, different statistical information, different product uses, etc., these studies can easily be swayed in favor of one product or process over another in one study and the opposite in another study based on varying parameters and different available data.[158] There are guidelines to help reduce such conflicts in results but the method still provides a lot of room for the researcher to decide what is important, how the product is typically manufactured, and how it is typically used.[159][160]
An in-depth review of 13 LCA studies of wood and paper products[161] found a lack of consistency in the methods and assumptions used to track carbon during the product lifecycle. A wide variety of methods and assumptions were used, leading to different and potentially contrary conclusions—particularly with regard to carbon sequestration and methane generation in landfills and with carbon accounting during forest growth and product use.[162]
Moreover, the fidelity of LCAs can vary substantially as various data may not be incorporated, especially in early versions: for example, LCAs that do not consider regional emission information can under-estimate the life cycle environmental impact.[163]
Industrial ecology (IE) is the study of material and energy flows through industrial systems. The global industrial economy can be modelled as a network of industrial processes that extract resources from the Earth and transform those resources into by-products, products and services which can be bought and sold to meet the needs of humanity. Industrial ecology seeks to quantify the material flows and document the industrial processes that make modern society function. Industrial ecologists are often concerned with the impacts that industrial activities have on the environment, with use of the planet's supply of natural resources, and with problems of waste disposal. Industrial ecology is a young but growing multidisciplinary field of research which combines aspects of engineering, economics, sociology, toxicology and the natural sciences.
Exergy, often referred to as "available energy" or "useful work potential", is a fundamental concept in the field of thermodynamics and engineering. It plays a crucial role in understanding and quantifying the quality of energy within a system and its potential to perform useful work. Exergy analysis has widespread applications in various fields, including energy engineering, environmental science, and industrial processes.
Green building refers to both a structure and the application of processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle: from planning to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition. This requires close cooperation of the contractor, the architects, the engineers, and the client at all project stages. The Green Building practice expands and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort. Green building also refers to saving resources to the maximum extent, including energy saving, land saving, water saving, material saving, etc., during the whole life cycle of the building, protecting the environment and reducing pollution, providing people with healthy, comfortable and efficient use of space, and being in harmony with nature. Buildings that live in harmony; green building technology focuses on low consumption, high efficiency, economy, environmental protection, integration and optimization.’
Embodied energy is the sum of all the energy required to produce any goods or services, considered as if that energy were incorporated or 'embodied' in the product itself. The concept can be useful in determining the effectiveness of energy-producing or energy saving devices, or the "real" replacement cost of a building, and, because energy-inputs usually entail greenhouse gas emissions, in deciding whether a product contributes to or mitigates global warming. One fundamental purpose for measuring this quantity is to compare the amount of energy produced or saved by the product in question to the amount of energy consumed in producing it.
A biorefinery is a refinery that converts biomass to energy and other beneficial byproducts. The International Energy Agency Bioenergy Task 42 defined biorefining as "the sustainable processing of biomass into a spectrum of bio-based products and bioenergy ". As refineries, biorefineries can provide multiple chemicals by fractioning an initial raw material (biomass) into multiple intermediates that can be further converted into value-added products. Each refining phase is also referred to as a "cascading phase". The use of biomass as feedstock can provide a benefit by reducing the impacts on the environment, as lower pollutants emissions and reduction in the emissions of hazard products. In addition, biorefineries are intended to achieve the following goals:
Supply the current fuels and chemical building blocks
Supply new building blocks for the production of novel materials with disruptive characteristics
Creation of new jobs, including rural areas
Valorization of waste
Achieve the ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions
A carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a calculated value or index that makes it possible to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases that an activity, product, company or country adds to the atmosphere. Carbon footprints are usually reported in tonnes of emissions (CO2-equivalent) per unit of comparison. Such units can be for example tonnes CO2-eq per year, per kilogram of protein for consumption, per kilometer travelled, per piece of clothing and so forth. A product's carbon footprint includes the emissions for the entire life cycle. These run from the production along the supply chain to its final consumption and disposal.
Food miles is the distance food is transported from the time of its making until it reaches the consumer. Food miles are one factor used when testing the environmental impact of food, such as the carbon footprint of the food.
Cradle-to-cradle design is a biomimetic approach to the design of products and systems that models human industry on nature's processes, where materials are viewed as nutrients circulating in healthy, safe metabolisms. The term itself is a play on the popular corporate phrase "cradle to grave", implying that the C2C model is sustainable and considerate of life and future generations—from the birth, or "cradle", of one generation to the next generation, versus from birth to death, or "grave", within the same generation.
Material flow analysis (MFA), also referred to as substance flow analysis (SFA), is an analytical method to quantify flows and stocks of materials or substances in a well-defined system. MFA is an important tool to study the bio-physical aspects of human activity on different spatial and temporal scales. It is considered a core method of industrial ecology or anthropogenic, urban, social and industrial metabolism. MFA is used to study material, substance, or product flows across different industrial sectors or within ecosystems. MFA can also be applied to a single industrial installation, for example, for tracking nutrient flows through a waste water treatment plant. When combined with an assessment of the costs associated with material flows this business-oriented application of MFA is called material flow cost accounting. MFA is an important tool to study the circular economy and to devise material flow management. Since the 1990s, the number of publications related to material flow analysis has grown steadily. Peer-reviewed journals that publish MFA-related work include the Journal of Industrial Ecology, Ecological Economics, Environmental Science and Technology, and Resources, Conservation, and Recycling.
Life-cycle engineering (LCE) is a sustainability-oriented engineering methodology that takes into account the comprehensive technical, environmental, and economic impacts of decisions within the product life cycle. Alternatively, it can be defined as "sustainability-oriented product development activities within the scope of one to several product life cycles." LCE requires analysis to quantify sustainability, setting appropriate targets for environmental impact. The application of complementary methodologies and technologies enables engineers to apply LCE to fulfill environmental objectives.
Ecological design or ecodesign is an approach to designing products and services that gives special consideration to the environmental impacts of a product over its entire lifecycle. Sim Van der Ryn and Stuart Cowan define it as "any form of design that minimizes environmentally destructive impacts by integrating itself with living processes." Ecological design can also be defined as the process of integrating environmental considerations into design and development with the aim of reducing environmental impacts of products through their life cycle.
Sustainable packaging is packaging materials and methods that result in improved sustainability. This involves increased use of life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle assessment (LCA) to help guide the use of packaging which reduces the environmental impact and ecological footprint. It includes a look at the whole of the supply chain: from basic function, to marketing, and then through to end of life (LCA) and rebirth. Additionally, an eco-cost to value ratio can be useful The goals are to improve the long term viability and quality of life for humans and the longevity of natural ecosystems. Sustainable packaging must meet the functional and economic needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainability is not necessarily an end state but is a continuing process of improvement.
An economic input-output life-cycle assessment, or EIO-LCA involves the use of aggregate sector-level data to quantify the amount of environmental impact that can be directly attributed to each sector of the economy and how much each sector purchases from other sectors in producing its output. Combining such data sets can enable accounting for long chains, which somewhat alleviates the scoping problem of traditional life-cycle assessments. EIO-LCA analysis traces out the various economic transactions, resource requirements and environmental emissions required for producing a particular product or service.
Eco-costs are the costs of the environmental burden of a product on the basis of prevention of that burden. They are the costs which should be made to reduce the environmental pollution and materials depletion in our world to a level which is in line with the carrying capacity of our earth.
Avoided burden is an allocation approach used in life-cycle assessment (LCA) to assess the environmental impacts of recycled and reused materials, components, products, or buildings. While the approach has been adapted to fit a variety of LCA goals, it generally considers products with recycling or reuse potential and allocates the environmental impacts of their initial production to their final life cycle. The avoided burden method is never explicitly required for LCA under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or European Standards (EN). In fact, these organizations only require that an allocation approach be used to properly address reuse and recycling. In this case, LCA practitioners can choose to utilize the avoided burden method based on the goal and scope of their study.
An Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a Type III environmental declaration that quantifies environmental information about the life cycle of a product. This can enable comparisons between products fulfilling the same function. The methodology to produce an EPD is based on product life cycle assessment (LCA), following the ISO 14040 series of standards.
Sustainable products are products either sustainably sourced, manufactured or processed and provide environmental, social, and economic benefits while protecting public health and the environment throughout their whole life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to the final disposal.
Life cycle thinking is an approach that emphasizes the assessment and minimization of environmental impacts at all stages of a product's life. This concept seeks to avoid shifting environmental burdens from one stage of the product's life to another. It also recognizes the importance of technological innovation in tackling environmental issues.
Environmental systems analysis (ESA) is a systematic and systems based approach for describing human actions impacting on the natural environment to support decisions and actions aimed at perceived current or future environmental problems. Impacts of different types of objects are studied that ranges from projects, programs and policies, to organizations, and products. Environmental systems analysis encompasses a family of environmental assessment tools and methods, including life cycle assessment (LCA), material flow analysis (MFA) and substance flow analysis (SFA), and environmental impact assessment (EIA), among others.
Sangwon Suh is an American industrial ecologist.
References
1 2 3 Ilgin, Mehmet Ali; Gupta, Surendra M. (2010). "Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing and Product Recovery (ECMPRO): A Review of the State of the Art". Journal of Environmental Management. 91 (3): 563–591. Bibcode:2010JEnvM..91..563I. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.037. PMID19853369. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a method used to evaluate the environmental impact of a product through its life cycle encompassing extraction and processing of the raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, use, recycling, and final disposal..
1 2 3 4 5 "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)". EPA.gov. Washington, DC. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL). 6 March 2012. Archived from the original on 6 March 2012. Retrieved 8 December 2019. LCA is a technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service, by: / * Compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases/ * Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with identified inputs and releases / * Interpreting the results to help you make a more informed decision
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Matthews, H. Scott, Chris T. Hendrickson, and Deanna H. Matthews (2014). Life Cycle Assessment: Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter. pp.83–95.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
1 2 3 4 Klopffer, Walter and Birgit Grahl (2014). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. pp.1–2.
↑ Jonker, Gerald; Harmsen, Jan (2012). "Creating Design Solutions". Engineering for Sustainability. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier. pp.61–81, esp. 70. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53846-8.00004-4. ISBN9780444538468. It is very important to first set the goal of the life cycle analysis or assessment. In the conceptual design stage, the goal in general will be identifying the major environmental impacts of the reference process and showing how the new design reduces these impacts
↑ Benoît, Catherine; Mazijn, Bernard. (2013). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment Programme. OCLC1059219275.
↑ Benoît, Catherine; Norris, Gregory A.; Valdivia, Sonia; Ciroth, Andreas; Moberg, Asa; Bos, Ulrike; Prakash, Siddharth; Ugaya, Cassia; Beck, Tabea (February 2010). "The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time!". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 15 (2): 156–163. Bibcode:2010IJLCA..15..156B. doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8. S2CID110017051.
↑ Garrido, Sara Russo (1 January 2017). "Social Life-Cycle Assessment: An Introduction". In Abraham, Martin A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies. Elsevier. pp.253–265. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.10089-2. ISBN978-0-12-804792-7.
1 2 Curran, Mary Ann (2017). "Overview of Goal and Scope Definition in Life Cycle Assessment". Goal and Scope Definition in Life Cycle Assessment. LCA Compendium – the Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. pp.1–62. doi:10.1007/978-94-024-0855-3_1. ISBN978-94-024-0854-6.
↑ Flysjö, Anna; Cederberg, Christel; Henriksson, Maria; Ledgard, Stewart (2011). "How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 16 (5): 420–430. Bibcode:2011IJLCA..16..420F. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0283-9. S2CID110142930.
1 2 3 4 5 Matthews, H. Scott; Hendrickson, Chris T.; Matthews, Deanna H. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment: Quantitative Approaches for Decisions that Matter. pp.174–186.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Matthew, H. Scott; Hendrickson, Chris T.; Matthews, Deanna H. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment: Quantitative Approaches for Decisions that Matter. pp.101–112.
1 2 3 4 Hauschild, Michael Z.; Rosenbaum, Ralph K.; Olsen, Stig Irving (2018). Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. p.171. ISBN978-3-319-56474-6.
1 2 Lee, Kun-Mo; Inaba, Atsushi (2004). Life Cycle Assessment: Best Practices of ISO 14040 Series. Committee on Trade and Investment. pp.12–19.
↑ Righi, Serena; Dal Pozzo, Alessandro; Tugnoli, Alessandro; Raggi, Andrea; Salieri, Beatrice; Hischier, Roland (2020). "The Availability of Suitable Datasets for the LCA Analysis of Chemical Substances". Life Cycle Assessment in the Chemical Product Chain. pp.3–32. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34424-5_1. ISBN978-3-030-34423-8.
↑ Laner, David; Feketitsch, Julia; Rechberger, Helmut; Fellner, Johann (October 2016). "A Novel Approach to Characterize Data Uncertainty in Material Flow Analysis and its Application to Plastics Flows in Austria: Characterization of Uncertainty of MFA Input Data". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 20 (5): 1050–1063. doi:10.1111/jiec.12326. S2CID153851112.
↑ Weidema, Bo P. (September 1998). "Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 3 (5): 259–265. Bibcode:1998IJLCA...3..259W. doi:10.1007/BF02979832. S2CID108821140.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hauschild, Michael Z.; Rosenbaum, Ralph K.; Olsen, Stig Irving (2018). Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Cham Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pp.168–187. ISBN978-3-319-56474-6.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Matthews, H. Scott, Chis T. Hendrickson, & Deanna H. Matthews (2014). Life Cycle Assessment: Quantitative Approaches for Decisions that Matter. pp.373–393.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Pizzol, M.; Christensen, P.; Schmidt, J.; Thomsen, M. (April 2011). "Impacts of 'metals' on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)". Journal of Cleaner Production. 19 (6–7): 646–656. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.05.007.
↑ Wu, You; Su, Daizhong (2020). Review of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Methods and Inventory Databases. Springer. pp.39–55. ISBN978-3-030-39149-2.
1 2 Lee, Kun-Mo; Inaba, Atsushi (2004). Life Cycle Assessment: Best Practices of ISO 14040 Series. Committee on Trade and Investment. pp.41–68.
↑ Rich, Brian D. (2015). Gines, J.; Carraher, E.; Galarze, J. (eds.). Future-Proof Building Materials: A Life Cycle Analysis. Intersections and Adjacencies. Proceedings of the 2015 Building Educators' Society Conference. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah. pp.123–130.[full citation needed]
↑ Milà i Canals, Llorenç; Bauer, Christian; Depestele, Jochen; Dubreuil, Alain; Knuchel, Ruth Freiermuth; Gaillard, Gérard; Michelsen, Ottar; Müller-Wenk, Ruedi; Rydgren, Bernt (2007). "Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA". International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 12 (1): 5–15. doi:10.1065/lca2006.05.250. hdl:1854/LU-3219556. S2CID109031111.
↑ Hauschild, Michael Z.; Rosenbaum; Olsen, Stig Irving (2018). Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Cham, Switzerland: Spring International Publishing. pp.324–334. ISBN978-3-319-56474-6.
↑ Hendrickson, C.T.; Horvath, A.; Joshi, S.; Klausner, M.; Lave, L.B.; McMichael, F.C. (1997). "Comparing two life cycle assessment approaches: A process model vs. Economic input-output-based assessment". Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. ISEE-1997. pp.176–181. doi:10.1109/ISEE.1997.605313. ISBN0-7803-3808-1. S2CID32292583.
↑ Groen, E. A.; Heijungs, R.; Bokkers, E. A. M.; de Boer, I. J. M. (October 2014). Sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. LCA Food 2014: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector. San Francisco: American Centre for Life Cycle Assessment. pp.482–488. ISBN978-0-9882145-7-6.
↑ Pasqualino, Jorgelina C.; Meneses, Montse; Abella, Montserrat; Castells, Francesc (May 2009). "LCA as a Decision Support Tool for the Environmental Improvement of the Operation of a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant". Environmental Science & Technology. 43 (9): 3300–3307. Bibcode:2009EnST...43.3300P. doi:10.1021/es802056r. PMID19534150.
↑ Huang, Yue; Bird, Roger N.; Heidrich, Oliver (November 2007). "A review of the use of recycled solid waste materials in asphalt pavements". Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 52 (1): 58–73. Bibcode:2007RCR....52...58H. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.02.002.
↑ Liu, Xinyu; Reddi, Krishna; Elgowainy, Amgad; Lohse-Busch, Henning; Wang, Michael; Rustagi, Neha (January 2020). "Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicle". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 45 (1): 972–983. Bibcode:2020IJHE...45..972L. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.192.
↑ Hendrickson, C. T., Lave, L. B., and Matthews, H. S. (2005). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input–Output Approach, Resources for the Future Press ISBN1-933115-24-6.
↑ Singh, S.; Bakshi, B.R. (2009). "Eco-LCA: A tool for quantifying the role of ecological resources in LCA". 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology. pp.1–6. doi:10.1109/ISSST.2009.5156770. ISBN9781424443246. S2CID47497982.
↑ Rosen, Marc A; Dincer, Ibrahim (January 2001). "Exergy as the confluence of energy, environment and sustainable development". Exergy. 1 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1016/S1164-0235(01)00004-8.
↑ Wall, Göran; Gong, Mei (2001). "On exergy and sustainable development—Part 1: Conditions and concepts". Exergy. 1 (3): 128–145. doi:10.1016/S1164-0235(01)00020-6.
↑ Gaudreau, Kyrke (2009). Exergy analysis and resource accounting (MSc). University of Waterloo.
↑ Dewulf, Jo; Van Langenhove, Herman; Muys, Bart; Bruers, Stijn; Bakshi, Bhavik R.; Grubb, Geoffrey F.; Paulus, D. M.; Sciubba, Enrico (April 2008). "Exergy: Its Potential and Limitations in Environmental Science and Technology". Environmental Science & Technology. 42 (7): 2221–2232. Bibcode:2008EnST...42.2221D. doi:10.1021/es071719a. PMID18504947.
↑ Sciubba, Enrico (October 2004). "From Engineering Economics to Extended Exergy Accounting: A Possible Path from Monetary to Resource-Based Costing". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 8 (4): 19–40. Bibcode:2004JInEc...8...19S. doi:10.1162/1088198043630397.
1 2 Dewulf, J.; Van Langenhove, H. (May 2003). "Exergetic material input per unit of service (EMIPS) for the assessment of resource productivity of transport commodities". Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 38 (2): 161–174. Bibcode:2003RCR....38..161D. doi:10.1016/S0921-3449(02)00152-0.
↑ Cabeza, Luisa F.; Rincón, Lídia; Vilariño, Virginia; Pérez, Gabriel; Castell, Albert (January 2014). "Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 29: 394–416. Bibcode:2014RSERv..29..394C. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037.
↑ Richards, Bryce S.; Watt, Muriel E. (January 2005). "Permanently dispelling a myth of photovoltaics via the adoption of a new net energy indicator". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 11: 162–172. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2004.09.015.
↑ Dale, Michael; Benson, Sally M. (2013). "Energy Balance of the Global Photovoltaic (PV) Industry - Is the PV Industry a Net Electricity Producer?". Environmental Science & Technology. 47 (7): 3482–3489. Bibcode:2013EnST...47.3482D. doi:10.1021/es3038824. PMID23441588.
↑ Jyotirmay Mathur; Narendra Kumar Bansal; Hermann-Joseph Wagner (2004). "Dynamic energy analysis to assess maximum growth rates in developing power generation capacity: case study of India". Energy Policy. 32 (2): 281–287. Bibcode:2004EnPol..32..281M. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00290-2.
↑ Takano, Atsushi; Winter, Stefan; Hughes, Mark; Linkosalmi, Lauri (September 2014). "Comparison of life cycle assessment databases: A case study on building assessment". Building and Environment. 79: 20–30. Bibcode:2014BuEnv..79...20T. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.025.
↑ Ciroth, Andreas; Burhan, Salwa (2021). "Life Cycle Inventory Data and Databases". Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. LCA Compendium – the Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. pp.123–147. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62270-1_6. ISBN978-3-030-62269-5.
↑ Meron, Noa; Blass, Vered; Thoma, Greg (April 2020). "Selection of the most appropriate life cycle inventory dataset: new selection proxy methodology and case study application". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 25 (4): 771–783. Bibcode:2020IJLCA..25..771M. doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01721-8. S2CID210844489.
↑ Schneider, Laura; Berger, Markus; Schüler-Hainsch, Eckhard; Knöfel, Sven; Ruhland, Klaus; Mosig, Jörg; Bach, Vanessa; Finkbeiner, Matthias (March 2014). "The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating resource use based on life cycle assessment". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 19 (3): 601–610. Bibcode:2014IJLCA..19..601S. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0666-1. S2CID155001186.
↑ Werner Ulrich (2002). "Boundary Critique". in: The Informed Student Guide to Management Science, ed. by H.G. Daellenbach and Robert L. Flood, London: Thomson Learning, 2002, p. 41f.
↑ Björklund, Anna E. (March 2002). "Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca". The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 7 (2): 64. Bibcode:2002IJLCA...7...64B. doi:10.1007/BF02978849.
↑ Kim, Junbeum; Yalaltdinova, Albina; Sirina, Natalia; Baranovskaya, Natalia (2015). "Integration of life cycle assessment and regional emission information in agricultural systems". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 95 (12): 2544–2553. Bibcode:2015JSFA...95.2544K. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7149. PMID25707850.
Further reading
Crawford, R.H. (2011) Life Cycle Assessment in the Built Environment, London: Taylor and Francis.
Baumann, H. och Tillman, A-M. The hitchhiker's guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. 2004. ISBN91-44-02364-2
Curran, Mary A. "Environmental Life Cycle Assessment", McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, 1996, ISBN978-0-07-015063-8
Ciambrone, D. F. (1997). Environmental Life Cycle Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ISBN1-56670-214-3.
Horne, Ralph., et al. "LCA: Principles, Practice and Prospects". CSIRO Publishing, Victoria, Australia, 2009., ISBN0-643-09452-0
Vallero, Daniel A. and Brasier, Chris (2008), "Sustainable Design: The Science of Sustainability and Green Engineering", John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, ISBN0470130628. 350 pages.
Vigon, B. W. (1994). Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ISBN1-56670-015-9.
Vogtländer, J.G., "A practical guide to LCA for students, designers, and business managers", VSSD, 2010, ISBN978-90-6562-253-2.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
