Alexis Laurent

Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

PurposeLife cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC).MethodsExisting LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders.Results and recommendationsRecommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development.Discussion, conclusions, and outlookThe level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.

Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems - Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives

The continuously increasing solid waste generation worldwide calls for management strategies that integrate concerns for environmental sustainability. By quantifying environmental impacts of systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool, which can contribute to answer that call. But how, where and to which extent has it been applied to solid waste management systems (SWMSs) until now, and which lessons can be learnt from the findings of these LCA applications? To address these questions, we performed a critical review of 222 published LCA studies of SWMS. We first analysed the geographic distribution and found that the published studies have primarily been concentrated in Europe with little application in developing countries. In terms of technological coverage, they have largely overlooked application of LCA to waste prevention activities and to relevant waste types apart from household waste, e.g. construction and demolition waste. Waste management practitioners are thus encouraged to abridge these gaps in future applications of LCA. In addition to this contextual analysis, we also evaluated the findings of selected studies of good quality and found that there is little agreement in the conclusions among them. The strong dependence of each SWMS on local conditions, such as waste composition or energy system, prevents a meaningful generalisation of the LCA results as we find it in the waste hierarchy. We therefore recommend stakeholders in solid waste management to regard LCA as a tool, which, by its ability of capturing the local specific conditions in the modelling of environmental impacts and benefits of a SWMS, allows identifying critical problems and proposing improvement options adapted to the local specificities.

Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems Part II: Methodological guidance for a better practice

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used in waste management to identify strategies that prevent or minimise negative impacts on ecosystems, human health or natural resources. However, the quality of the provided support to decision- and policy-makers is strongly dependent on a proper conduct of the LCA. How has LCA been applied until now? Are there any inconsistencies in the past practice? To answer these questions, we draw on a critical review of 222 published LCA studies of solid waste management systems. We analyse the past practice against the ISO standard requirements and the ILCD Handbook guidelines for each major step within the goal definition, scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation phases of the methodology. Results show that malpractices exist in several aspects of the LCA with large differences across studies. Examples are a frequent neglect of the goal definition, a frequent lack of transparency and precision in the definition of the scope of the study, e.g. an unclear delimitation of the system boundaries, a truncated impact coverage, difficulties in capturing influential local specificities such as representative waste compositions into the inventory, and a frequent lack of essential sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Many of these aspects are important for the reliability of the results. For each of them, we therefore provide detailed recommendations to practitioners of waste management LCAs.

Analysis of current research addressing complementary use of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials: have lessons been learned from previous experience with chemicals?

While it is generally agreed that successful strategies to address the health and environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials (NM) should consider the well-established frameworks for conducting life-cycle assessment (LCA) and risk assessment (RA), scientific research, and specific guidance on how to practically apply these methods are still very much under development. This paper evaluates how research efforts have applied LCA and RA together for NM, particularly reflecting on previous experiences with applying these methods to chemicals. Through a literature review and a separate analysis of research focused on applying LCA and RA together for NM, it appears that current research efforts have taken into account some key “lessons learned” from previous experience with chemicals while many key challenges remain for practically applying these methods to NM. We identified two main approaches for using these methods together for NM: “LC-based RA” (traditional RA applied in a life-cycle perspective) and “RA-complemented LCA” (conventional LCA supplemented by RA in specific life-cycle steps). Hence, the latter is the only identified approach which genuinely combines LC- and RA-based methods for NM-risk research efforts to date as the former is rather a continuation of normal RA according to standard assessment procedures (e.g., REACH). Both these approaches along with recommendations for using LCA and RA together for NM are similar to those made previously for chemicals, and thus, there does not appear to be much progress made specific for NM. We have identified one issue in particular that may be specific for NM when applying LCA and RA at this time: the need to establish proper dose metrics within both methods.

IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe 2008 and ILCD’s recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment: a case study-based comparison

PurposeThe European Commission has launched a recommended set of characterization models and factors for application in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). However, it is not known how this recommended practice, referred to as the ILCD 2009, performs relative to some of the most frequently used alternative LCIA methodologies. Here, we compare the ILCD 2009 with IMPACT 2002+ and ReCiPe 2008, focusing on characterization at midpoint based on a case study comparing four window design options for use in a residential building.MethodsRanking of the four window options was done for each impact category within each methodology. To allow comparison across the methodologies both in terms of total impact scores and contribution patterns for individual substances, impact scores were converted into common metrics for each impact category.Results and discussionApart from toxic impacts on human health and ecosystems, all studied methodologies consistently identify the same window option as having the lowest and the highest environmental impact. This is mainly because few processes, associated with production of heat, dominate the total impacts, and there is a large difference in demand for heat between the compared options. Despite this general agreement in ranking, differences in impact scores are above 3 orders of magnitude for human health impacts from ionizing radiation and ecosystem impacts from land use, and they lie between 1 and 3 orders of magnitude for metal depletion and for toxicity-related impact categories. The differences are somewhat smaller (within 1 order of magnitude) for the impact categories respiratory inorganics and photochemical ozone formation, and are within a factor of 3 for the remaining impact categories. The differences in impact scores in our case study are brought about by the differences in underlying characterization models and/or substance coverage, depending on the impact category.ConclusionsIn spite of substantial differences in impact scores for the individual impact categories, we find that the studied LCIA methods point to the same conclusion with respect to identifying the alternative with the lowest environmental burden and ascribe this to the fact that few processes are driving the main environmental impacts, and there is large difference in demand for output from these processes between the compared options. Even though the overall conclusions remain the same for our case study, the choice of the ILCD’s recommended practice over the existing alternatives does matter for the impact categories ionizing radiation and land use and all toxicity-related impact categories.

Environmental impacts of electricity generation at global, regional and national scales in 1980–2011: what can we learn for future energy planning?

The generation of electricity has been known to cause important damages to ecosystems and human health. The recognition of the global challenges posed by climate change and energy security has guided several countries to change their electricity policies over the past decades. However, have such changes entailed reduced or increased environmental impacts? Are there any identifiable patterns that could serve for steering future energy planning? To address these questions, we applied life cycle assessment to quantify a whole spectrum of environmental impacts caused by electricity generation in 199 countries for the period 1980–2011, with national differentiation of energy sources and, wherever possible, technology efficiencies. The results show that (i) environmental impact burden-shifting has occurred in the past for several countries as a result of national policies, (ii) all environmental impacts have globally increased since 1980 but with faster increase rates over the last decade, and (iii) important variations exist in the impact trends across countries and across impact categories. Our findings therefore demonstrate the need for integrating quantitative assessments of all relevant environmental impacts associated with foreseen energy systems when identifying the most sustainable energy pathways. We provide recommendations on the use of life cycle assessment for such purposes with a strong focus on application at the country level so that it can directly support national energy policy-making.

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?

PurposeBuilding on the rhetoric question “quo vadis?” (literally “Where are you going?”), this article critically investigates the state of the art of normalisation and weighting approaches within life cycle assessment. It aims at identifying purposes, current practises, pros and cons, as well as research gaps in normalisation and weighting. Based on this information, the article wants to provide guidance to developers and practitioners. The underlying work was conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Cross-Cutting issues in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).MethodsThe empirical work consisted in (i) an online survey to investigate the perception of the LCA community regarding the scientific quality and current practice concerning normalisation and weighting; (ii) a classification followed by systematic expert-based assessment of existing methods for normalisation and weighting according to a set of five criteria: scientific robustness, documentation, coverage, uncertainty and complexity.Results and discussionThe survey results showed that normalised results and weighting scores are perceived as relevant for decision-making, but further development is needed to improve uncertainty and robustness. The classification and systematic assessment of methods allowed for the identification of specific advantages and limitations.ConclusionsBased on the results, recommendations are provided to practitioners that desire to apply normalisation and weighting as well as to developers of the underlying methods.

Ecodesign of organic photovoltaic modules from Danish and Chinese perspectives

The life cycle of a solar park made using organic photovoltaic (OPV) technology is assessed here. The modules have been fabricated in a pilot scale plant and they have been installed together with other components to evaluate the balance of system, in a solar park located in Denmark. Three possible waste management practices have been contemplated for the end of life of the solar park: recycling, incineration or the average local mix. The assessment of the environmental impacts of such a system reveals that silver used in the electrodes is overall the largest source of impacts, such as chemical pollution and metal depletion. The establishment of resource recovery systems for the end-of-life management of the OPV modules is therefore crucial to reduce overall environmental impacts. Liability on the manufacturers or on the operators should be implemented. The electricity produced from OPV solar parks yields similar footprints to other traditional energy technologies; e.g. coal and natural gas. However, when the efficiency of the OPV modules is increased from 1% to 5% they are comparable to other mature PV technologies already on the market. The effects of outsourcing or exporting the production of the OPV modules from Denmark to China have additionally been studied to determine the most advantageous configuration. The stakeholders should aim at anchoring the manufacturing of solar parks in countries with stringent emission standards and/or high technology efficiencies, e.g. Denmark, and at deploying them in countries with high solar radiation to maximise the environmental benefits of the PV technology.

Mapping and characterization of LCA networks

PurposeThe aims of this study were to provide an up-to-date overview of global, regional and local networks supporting life cycle thinking and to characterize them according to their structure and activities.MethodsFollowing a tentative life cycle assessment (LCA) network definition, a mapping was performed based on (1) a literature search, (2) a web search and (3) an inquiry to stakeholders distributed via the two largest LCA fora. Networks were characterized based on responses from a survey.Results and discussionWe identified 100 networks, of which 29 fulfilled all six criteria composing our tentative network definition (the remaining fulfilled four to five criteria). The networks are mainly located in Europe and the USA, whilst Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia are less covered regions. The survey results (from 25 network responses) indicate that LCA networks appear to be primarily small- to medium-sized (<100 members) and to include a large proportion of academia and industries, including small- and medium-sized enterprises, with much less involvement of authorities and non-governmental organisations. Their major activities relate to knowledge sharing and communication, support of case studies, and development of life cycle inventories and impact assessment methods. Networks in developing economies have different structures and activities than networks in developed economies and, for instance, more frequently have members from non-governmental organisations. Globally, an increasing trend in the formation of LCA networks over time is observed, which tends to correlate with the number of LCA scientific publications over the same time period. Continental distributions of networks also show a correlation with the number of LCA publications from the same region.ConclusionsThe provided list of LCA networks is currently the most comprehensive, publicly available mapping. We believe that the results of this mapping can serve as a basis for deciding where priorities should be set to increase the dissemination and development of LCA worldwide. In this aim, we also advocate the creation of an online, regularly updated database of LCA networks supplemented by an online platform that could facilitate network communication and knowledge sharing.

Power generation from chemically cleaned coals: do environmental benefits of firing cleaner coal outweigh environmental burden of cleaning?

Power generation from high-ash coals is a niche technology for power generation, but coal cleaning is deemed necessary to avoid problems associated with low combustion efficiencies and to minimize environmental burdens associated with emissions of pollutants originating from ash. Here, chemical beneficiation of coals using acid and alkali–acid leaching procedures is evaluated as a potential coal cleaning technology employing life cycle assessment (LCA). Taking into account the environmental benefits from firing cleaner coal in pulverized coal power plants and the environmental burden of the cleaning itself, it is demonstrated that for a wide range of cleaning procedures and types of coal, chemical cleaning generally performs worse than combustion of the raw coals and physical cleaning using dense medium separation. These findings apply for many relevant impact categories, including climate change. Chemical cleaning can be optimized with regard to electricity, heat and methanol use for the hydrothermal washing step, and could have environmental impact comparable to that of physical cleaning if the overall resource intensiveness of chemical cleaning is reduced by a factor 5 to 10, depending on the impact category. The largest potential of the technology is observed for high-ash lignites, with initial ash content above 30%, for which the environmental benefits from firing cleaner coal can outweigh the environmental burden of cleaning for some impact categories. Overall, we recommend to policy makers that coal cleaning using acid or alkali–acid leaching procedures should not be considered for direct implementation as a coal beneficiation technology. We encourage further research on chemical cleaning and its optimization, however, as chemical cleaning has advantages that might make it attractive for cleaning of difficult to treat coals when compared to the less efficient option of physical cleaning.