Christin Liptow

A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study of Polyethylene Based on Sugarcane and Crude Oil

A potential strategy for tackling the negative environmental impact of conventional plastics is to produce them from renewable resources. However, such a strategy needs to be assessed quantitatively, by life cycle assessment (LCA) for example. This screening LCA is intended to identify key aspects that influence the environmental impact of sugarcane low‐density polyethylene (LDPE) and compare these results against fossil‐based LDPE. The study showed that the major contributors to the environmental impact of sugarcane LDPE are ethanol production, polymerization, and long‐distance sea transport. The comparison between sugarcane‐ and oil‐based plastics showed that the sugarcane alternative consumes more total energy, although the major share is renewable. Moreover, for their potential impacts on acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation, no significant difference between the two materials exists. However, with regard to global warming potential (GWP), the contribution of land use change (LUC) is decisive. Although the range of LUC emissions is uncertain, in the worst case they more than double the GWP of sugarcane LDPE and make it comparable to that of fossil‐based LDPE. LUC emissions can thus be significant for sugarcane LDPE, although there is need for a consistent LUC assessment method. In addition, to investigate the influence of methodological choices, this study performed attributional and consequential assessments in parallel. No major differences in key contributors were found for these two assessment perspectives.

Ethylene based on woody biomass-what are environmental key issues of a possible future Swedish production on industrial scale

PurposeIn order to reduce its environmental impact, the chemical industry no longer produces base chemicals such as ethylene, solely from fossil, but also from biomass-based feedstocks. However, a biomass option suitable for one region might not be as suitable for another region due to, e.g., long transport and the related environmental. Therefore, local biomass alternatives and the environmental impact related to the production of chemicals from these alternatives need to be investigated. This study assesses the environmental impact of producing ethylene from Swedish wood ethanol.MethodsThe study was conducted following the methodology of life cycle assessment. The life cycle was assessed using a cradle-to-gate perspective for the production of 50,000 tonnes ethylene/year for the impact categories global warming, acidification (ACP), photochemical ozone creation, and eutrophication (EP).Results and discussionThe production of enzymes used during the life cycle had a significant effect on all investigated impacts. However, reduced consumption of enzyme product, which could possibly be realized considering the rapid development of enzymes, lowered the overall environmental impact of the ethylene. Another approach could be to use alternative hydrolyzing agents. However, little information on their environmental impact is available. An additional key contributor, with regard to ACP, EP, and POCP, was the ethanol production. Therefore, further improvements with regard to the process’ design may have beneficial effects on its environmental impact.ConclusionsThe study assessed the environmental impact of wood ethylene and pointed to several directions for improvements, such as improved enzyme production and reduced consumption of enzyme products. Moreover, the analysis showed that further investigations into other process options and increase of ethylene production from biomass are worth continued research.

Accounting for effects of carbon flows in LCA of biomass-based products—exploration and evaluation of a selection of existing methods

PurposeLife cycle assessment (LCA) has become one of the most widespread environmental assessment tools during the last two decades. However, there are still impacts that are not yet fully integrated, including climate impacts of land use. This study contributes to the development process by testing a selection of recently proposed climate impacts assessment methods, some more focused on the impact of land use and others more focused on a product’s carbon life cycle.MethodsSeveral assessment methods have been proposed in recent years, with their development still being in progress. Of these methods, we selected three methods that are more focused on the product’s carbon life cycle, and two methods more focused on the impact of land use. We applied the methods to an LCA study comparing biomass-based polyethylene (PE) packaging via different production routes in order to identify their methodological and practical challenges.Results and discussionWe found that including the impact of land use and carbon cycles had a profound effect on the results for global warming impact potential. It changed the ranking among the different routes for PE production, sometimes making biomass-based PE worse than the fossil alternative. Especially, the methods accounting for long time lags between carbon emissions and uptake in forestry punished the wood-based routes. Moreover, the variation in the results was considerable, showing that although assessment methods for climate impact can be applied to biomass-based products, their outcomes are not yet robust.ConclusionsWe recommend efforts to harmonize and reconcile different approaches for the assessment of climate impact of biomass-based products with regard to (1) how they consider time, (2) their applicability to both short and long rotation crops and (3) harmonization of concepts and terms used by the methods. We further recommend that all value laden methodological choices that are built into the methods, such as the choice of reference states/points, are made explicit and that the outcomes of different modelling choices are tested.