Marco Raugei

From Life Cycle Assessment to Life Cycle Management

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely accepted methodology to support decision‐making processes in which one compares alternatives, and that helps prevent shifting of environmental burdens along the value chain or among impact categories. According to regulation in the European Union (EU), the movement of waste needs to be reduced and, if unavoidable, the environmental gain from a specific waste treatment option requiring transport must be larger than the losses arising from transport. The EU explicitly recommends the use of LCA or life cycle thinking for the formulation of new waste management plans. In the last two revisions of the Industrial Waste Management Programme of Catalonia (PROGRIC), the use of a life cycle thinking approach to waste policy was mandated. In this article we explain the process developed to arrive at practical life cycle management (LCM) from what started as an LCA project. LCM principles we have labeled the “3/3” principle or the “good enough is best” principle were found to be essential to obtain simplified models that are easy to understand for legislators and industries, useful in waste management regulation, and, ultimately, feasible. In this article, we present the four models of options for the management of waste solvent to be addressed under Catalan industrial waste management regulation. All involved actors concluded that the models are sufficiently robust, are easy to apply, and accomplish the aim of limiting the transport of waste outside Catalonia, according to the principles of proximity and sufficiency.

Introducing a new method for calculating the environmental credits of end-of-life material recovery in attributional LCA

PurposeThis paper aims to provide an alternative method for calculating the environmental credits associated with material recycling in life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management systems. The method proposed here is more consistent with the general attributional approach in LCA than the hitherto common practice of simply assuming a 1:1 substitution of primary material production.MethodsThe formula proposed for estimating the environmental credit is applicable for the recovered materials that are reintroduced into the market (outputs of the recycling facilities), after all process losses in the various stages of the waste management system have been accounted for. It considers the displacement of materials by using the mix of virgin and recycled materials for each individual material that is used in the market for the production of goods. Moreover, it also considers the changes in the inherent properties of the materials undergoing a recycling process (‘downcycling’), by introducing a quality (Q) factor, affecting the proportion of virgin material that is accounted for.Results and discussionExample applications of the proposed formula to a number of different materials (aluminium, steel, paper and cardboard and plastics) illustrate the range of possible results obtained. The environmental credit calculated using the proposed formula can be interpreted as an indication of the remaining margin for improvement, since it depends on the existing mix of virgin and recycled materials already on the market and on the potential of the recycled material to actually replace the primary one on a functional basis. We also discuss the possible use of a material’s Q factor to estimate the maximum allowable % of recycled material in a product consistent with the quality demands of selected applications.Conclusions and recommendationsWe have introduced here a consistent and unified formula for the evaluation of the credits associated with material recovery of all waste materials in waste management systems (paper, glass, plastics, metals, etc.). Such a formula requires the knowledge of the current average market consumption mixes of primary and secondary materials (or the application-specific average mixes when the final application of the recovered materials is known) and of suitable Q factors for the material(s) that are recycled. As the latter are often not readily available, more research is called for to arrive at a ready-to-use Q factor database.

Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators.

Bradley Ridoutt,*,† Peter Fantke,‡ Stephan Pfister, Jane Bare, Anne-Marie Boulay, Francesco Cherubini, Rolf Frischknecht, Michael Hauschild,‡ Stefanie Hellweg, Andrew Henderson, Olivier Jolliet, Annie Levasseur, Manuele Margni, Thomas McKone, Ottar Michelsen, Llorenc Mila i Canals, Girija Page, Rana Pant, Marco Raugei, Serenella Sala, Erwan Saouter, Francesca Verones, and Thomas Wiedmann †Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Clayton, Victoria 3169, Australia ‡Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Department for Management Engineering, Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland United States Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Technology Division, Systems Analysis Branch, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States CIRAIG, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Montreal, Canada Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway treeze Ltd., Uster, Switzerland University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, Houston, Texas 77030, United States University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and School of Public Health, Berkeley, California 94720, United States Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Division for Finance and Property, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Division for Technology, Industry and Economics, 15 Rue de Milan, 75009 Paris, France University of Western Sydney, School of Science and Health, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, Ispra, I-21027, Italy Oxford Brookes University, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Oxford OX33 1HX, United Kingdom UNSW Australia, Sustainability Assessment Program, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of Solar PV: An Attempt at Reconciliation [Point of View]

Examines the importance of energy return on investment (EROI) as a useful metric for assessing long-term viability of energy-dependent systems. Here, focuses on the methods, applications, and analyses for determining EROI for solar power and solar energy technologies.

Area of concern : a new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics

PurposeAs a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to life cycle assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications.MethodsThe task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be based on LCA methodology, underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the area of protection paradigm and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44.Results and discussionIn parallel to area of protection, we introduce area of concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward areas of protection, footprint metrics address areas of concern. The critical difference is that areas of concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, areas of concern are stand-alone and not necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The area of concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation and the selection of relevant indicators.ConclusionsThe universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA.

Potential Cd emissions from end-of-life CdTe PV

PurposeCadmium telluride photovoltaics (CdTe PV) have grown considerably in the last few years and are now a mainstream energy technology. Concern has been voiced regarding the potential impact caused by the dispersal of the Cd contained in the modules after they are decommissioned. This study presents a new comprehensive analysis of the end-of-life of CdTe PV and reports on the associated Cd emissions to air and water.MethodsThree end-of-life scenarios were considered for CdTe PV. In the first one, 100% of the modules are collected and sent to recycling; in the other two, 85% of the modules are recycled, and the rest are assumed to be either treated as normal municipal solid waste or pre-selected and sent to landfills. All input and output data for module decommissioning and recycling were based on the information directly provided by the world-leading CdTe PV manufacturer (First Solar). The inventory modelling was performed with the GaBi life cycle analysis software package in conjunction with the Ecoinvent v.2 database.Results and discussionIn all scenarios, end-of-life Cd emissions from CdTe PV were found to be relatively low, for instance when compared to those from NiCd batteries, when expressed per kilogram of Cd content.ConclusionsThe on-going growth of CdTe PV is unlikely to produce a worrisome increase in the overall Cd emissions to the environment; principally thanks to the expected stringent control of the related Cd-containing waste flows.

Editorial: Indicators of Energy Use in Urban Systems

From 1998 onwards the Biennial International Workshop “Advances in Energy Studies” (BIWAES) has gathered a community of scientists, industry and business energy experts, administrators and policy-makers, social and environmental stakeholders, converging in different locations of the world to present and discuss advances, innovations and visions in energy and energy-related environmental and socioeconomic issues and models. Renowned energy experts and ecologists have discussed the importance of energy in our society and ecosystems and the ways to better analyze and model their complex relationships. This interdisciplinary effort stems from the awareness that scientific and technological achievements, economic processes, art and creativity, policy-making and governance, information networks, even religions and worldwide social movements, may all contribute to different extents to appropriate resource and environmental management and fruition, and promote access to development means, better quality of life and environmental protection. This series of Advances in Energy Studies Workshops aims at sharpening scientific focus and building a critical level of collaborative networking among scientists that deal with energy issues. The work toward this goal has been gaining momentum in recent years, as societal attention once again is shifting toward policy debates concerning the sustainable use of energy and resources and their relationship to the economies of the world.

Cadmium Flows and Emissions: CdTe PV Friend or Foe?

CdTe PV has been growing exponentially since its recent introduction to the market, and already accounts for almost 5% of the global PV sector. In order to estimate the potential impact that this technology may end up having on the global cadmium flows, the author has drafted three scenarios for this technology up to 2050, considering potential market growth and technological improvements. On the Cd demand side, a future large-scale deployment of CdTe PV was found to be potentially beneficial, since it would entail sequestering a non-negligible fraction of the Cd that will be mined as a by-product of Zn. On the emission side, potential global Cd emissions to air from CdTe PV in 2050 are expected to remain over four orders of magnitude lower than current documented Cd emissions to air in the EU-27.

Key Projections on Future PV Performance, Market Penetration and Costs, with Special Reference to CdTe and Other Thin Film Technologies

The authors have drafted three alternative scenarios for the technological improvement and market penetration of photovoltaics in the next four decades, based on the preliminary results of the EU FP6 Integrated Project NEEDS, Research Stream 1a. The long-term diffusion of PV is foreseen to depend on the achievable module efficiencies and on the maturity of the different technologies in terms of their manufacturing costs, energy pay-back times, additional BOS costs, and even raw material reserves. Last but not least, the co-evolution of a suitable energy storage network (e.g. hydrogen) is also foreseen to be a mandatory requirement. Cumulative installed capacity worldwide is projected to reach 9,000 GWp in 2050 in the most optimistic scenario, which is reduced to 2,400 GWp in the intermediate scenario. In the third “pessimistic” scenario the current economic incentives are not assumed to be sustained long enough to allow PV to become competitive with bulk electricity, resulting in a stunted market growth (500 GWp in 2050). The resulting predictions in terms of costs range from 0.50 to 1.50 €/Wp in 2050, respectively corresponding to 2 - 8 €-cents per kWh in Southern Europe and 4 - 14 €-cents per kWh in Northern Europe. Within the framework of these three general scenarios, special attention is then put to the role that is likely to be played by thin film technologies, namely amorphous Si, CdTe and CIS/CIGS. These technologies are expected to collectively reach a market share of approximately 45% by as early as 2025 in all but the most pessimistic scenario, wherein the same goal is put off until 2050. Marked increases in module efficiencies and material and energy consumption are also expected, to varying degrees depending on the assumptions made in the three scenarios.