Gerald Rebitzer

Framework for scenario development in LCA

This article is based on the work of the SETAC-Europe LCA Working Group ‘Scenario Development in LCA’, which has started its work in April 1998. The goal of the Working Group is to focus on the use of scenarios in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This article presents the results of the first phase of the Working Group. The previous definitions of scenarios include three common basic elements: the definition of alternative future circumstances, the path from the present to the future, and the inclusion of uncertainty in the concept. We define a scenario in LCA as “a description of a possible future situation relevant for specific LCA applications, based on specific assumptions about the future, and (when relevant) also including the presentation of the development from the present to the future.’On the basis of the scenario definition we distinguish between two basic approaches for scenario development in LCA studies: What-if scenarios and Cornerstone scenarios. What-if scenarios are used to gain operational information and to compare two or more alternatives in a well-known situation with a short time horizon where the researcher is familiar with the decision problem and can set defined hypothesis on the basis of existing data. The Cornerstone scenario approach offers strategic information for long term planning, new ways of seeing the world, and also guidelines in the field of study. Results of a study using the Cornerstone scenario approach often serve as a basis for further, more specific research where the scenarios can be defined according to What-if scenarios.The frames of the scenarios are defined in the first phase of LCA, the goal and scope definition. Scenario development does, however, influence all of the following phases of LCA. The frames of the scenarios form the basis for modelling product systems and environmental impacts associated with products and services, which are not exactly known due to lacking information on parts of the life cycle.

LCA’s theory and practice: like ebony and ivory living in perfect harmony?

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is recognized as a trustworthy, scientific while understandable approach to address the environmental sustainability of human activities. It is applied for multiple uses in internal and external information supply and for decision support. However, LCA application in practice must fulfill three basic criteria: (1) It must be reliable in order to ensure the credibility of information and results generated, (2) it must fit into existing information routines and practices in business to ensure applicability, and (3) it must provide quantitative and relevant information to inform decision makers. Over the last two decades, LCA methodology and related data have become a suitable and professional

A semi-quantitative method for the impact assessment of emissions within a simplified life cycle assessment

Intention, Goal and Scope: Dealing with data gaps, data asymmetries, and inconsistencies in life cycle inventories (LCI) is a general prohlem in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. An approach to deal with these difficulties is the simplification of LCA. A methodology that lowers the requirements for data quality (accuracy) for process emissions within a simplified LCA is introduced in this article. Background: Simplification is essential for applying LCA in the context of design for environment (DfE). The tool euroMat is a comprehensive DfE software tool that is based on a specific, simplified LCA approach, the Iterative Screening LCA (IS-LCA). Within the scope of the IS-LCA, there is a quantitative assessment of energy-related processes, as well as a semi-quantitative assessment of non-energy related emissions which supplement each other. Objectives: The semi-quantitative assessment, which is in the focus of this article, aims at lowering the requirements for the quality of non-energy related emissions data through combined use of qualitative and quantitative inventory data. Methods: Potential environmental impacts are assessed based on ABC-categories for qualities (harmfulness) of emissions and XYZ-categories for quantities of emitted substances. Employing statistical methods assignment rules for the ABC/XYZ-categories were derived from literature data and databases on emissions to air, water, and soil. Statistical tests as well as a DfE case study (comparing the materials aluminum and carbon fiber reinforced epoxy for a lightweight container to be used in an aerospace application) were conducted in order to evaluate the level of confidence and practicality of the proposed, simplified impact assessment. Results: Statistical and technical consistency checks show that the method bears a high level of confidence. Results obtained by the simplified assessment correlate to those of a detailed quantitative LCA. Conclusions: Therefore, the application of the ABC/XYZ-categories (together with the cumulative energy demand) can be considered a practical and consistent approach for determining the environmental significance of products when only incomplete emission data is available. Future Prospects: The statistical base of the method is expanded continuously since it is an integral part of the DfE software tool euroMat, which is currently being further developed. That should foster the application of the method. Outside DfE, the method should also be capable of facilitating simplified LCAs in general.

euroMat ‘97 - Tool for Environmental Life Cycle Design and Life Cycle Costing

Common design approaches use a bottom-up methodology for materials selection as well as environmental checklists. In euroMat ‘97 a top-down materials selection approach is operationalized, in such a way that it enables the designer to find the best materials (combinations) for a product. An integrative life cycle approach is used instead of environmental checklists. Principles, methods, and examples for the implementation of the top-down, iterative, interactive, and integrative (t3i) materials selection are presented.

Life Cycle Management in Industry—Supporting Business with Life Cycle Based Assessments

Sustainability is becoming more and more a strategic growth driver for numerous companies. In this context transparency on the environmental strengths and weaknesses of products and processes and related opportunities and risks is crucial. Accordingly, the assessment of sustainability aspects is gaining importance for companies and their customers along the value chain. Life cycle-based methodologies as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) but also other assessment systems are used in decision-making processes, product development and marketing activities. Many companies have a public corporate sustainability policy backed up with commitments in the form of quantitative targets. LCA methodology may be used as a tool supporting the identification of ‘hot spots’ in the value chain and measuring progress towards sustainability targets. In practice, however, common issues and challenges stand in the way of a full deployment of LCA methods in industry. It is important for companies to find common ground on how to implement these approaches, which data and impact assessments to be used and how results should be interpreted. ISO rules give a good basis for that work, though it is not sufficient for several questions. For exchanging experiences, updating or adopting methods, and generating data the International Sustainability Practitioners Network (ISPN) was created in 2012. The ISPN is an exchange forum for LCA methodology in the context of industry and comprises sustainability experts from a range of different industry sectors. To share experiences from the different activities, examples of good practices of this cross-sectoral initiative and to discuss opportunities for improving sustainability assessments within the companies are introduced. This article highlights challenges and solutions in terms of data availability and uncertainty, streamlining and using standardization processes as well as communication of results with non-LCA-experts.

Methode euroMat ’98

Die Basis fur euroMat ’98 bildet das sog. Top-down-Modell (s. Abb. 3.1-1), dessen Grundidee es ist, fur ein Anforderungsprofil aus der Gesamtheit der moglichen Materialkombinationen und dementsprechend aus der Gesamtheit moglicher Verfahren (Herstellungs-, Fertigungs- und Recyclingverfahren; in Abb. 3.1-1 unter Technik zusammengefast) potentiell geeignete Materialien und Verfahren zu identifizieren. Die dabei ermittelten Kennzahlen bzw. das Ranking sowie die in den Bereichen Umwelt, Arbeitsumwelt und Kosten ermittelten Kenngrosen dienen der integrierenden Gesamtbewertung der einzelnen Materialien. Dabei werden alle uber den gesamten Lebensweg (von der Rohstoffgewinnung bis zur Entsorgung) prinzipiell in Frage kommenden Herstellungs-, Fertigungs- und Recyclingverfahren berucksichtigt. Mit Hilfe dieser Gesamtbewertung werden Empfehlungen fur die primar geeigneten bzw. zu entwickelnden (Verbund-)Materialien an die F&E-Experten bzw. die Entscheidungstrager des beauftragenden Unternehmens weitergeleitet.