Tomas Rydberg

Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future†

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Whereas LCA developed from merely energy analysis to a comprehensive environmental burden analysis in the 1970s, full-fledged life cycle impact assessment and life cycle costing models were introduced in the 1980s and 1990 s, and social-LCA and particularly consequential LCA gained ground in the first decade of the 21st century. Many of the more recent developments were initiated to broaden traditional environmental LCA to a more comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA). Recently, a framework for LCSA was suggested linking life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related models, knowledge gaps, and defining research programs to fill these gaps. LCA is evolving into LCSA, which is a transdisciplinary integration framework of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specific sustainability question. Structuring, selecting, and making the plethora of disciplinary models practically available in relation to different types of life cycle sustainability questions is the main challenge.

Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment

System boundaries in life cycle assessments (LCA) must be specified in several dimensions: boundaries between the technological system and nature, delimitations of the geographical area and time horizon considered, boundaries between production and production of capital goods and boundaries between the life cycle of the product studied and related life cycles of other products. Principles for choice of system boundaries are discussed, especially concerning the last dimension. Three methods for defining the contents of the analysed system in this respect are described: process tree, technological whole system and socio-economic whole system. The methods are described in the applications multi-output processes and cascade recycling, and examples are discussed. It is concluded that system boundaries must be relevant in relation to the purpose of an LCA, that processes outside the process tree in many cases have more influence on the result than details within the process tree, and that the different methods need to be further compared in practice and evaluated with respect to both relevance, feasibility and uncertainty.

Life cycle assessment: A comparison of three methods for impact analysis and evaluation

For the evaluation of data resulting from the inventory stage of a life cycle assessment, two sets of environmental indices based on Swedish data have been calculated according to the ‘ecological scarcity method’ and the ‘environmental theme method’. These are compared with indices from the method for ‘environmental priority strategies in product design’. The relative importance of CO2, SO2 and NOx in the three evaluation methods, expressed as index ratios CO2:SO2:NOx′ was calculated to be 1:200:250, 1:220:350 and 1:150:6100, respectively. Additional index comparisons are presented. Differences in the results from the three methods depend on effects considered, how the algorithms are constructed, and background data. The discussion focuses on similarities and differences in mathematical expressions and on the evaluation of certain substances.

Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook

PurposeThis discussion article aims to highlight two problematic aspects in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: its guidance to the choice between attributional and consequential modeling and to the choice between average and marginal data as input to the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis.MethodsWe analyze the ILCD guidance by comparing different statements in the handbook with each other and with previous research in this area.Results and discussionWe find that the ILCD handbook is internally inconsistent when it comes to recommendations on how to choose between attributional and consequential modeling. We also find that the handbook is inconsistent with much of previous research in this matter, and also in the recommendations on how to choose between average and marginal data in the LCI.ConclusionsBecause of the inconsistencies in the ILCD handbook, we recommend that the handbook be revised.

Cleaner products in the Nordic countries based on the life cycle assessment approach: The Swedish product ecology project and the Nordic project for sustainable product development

Abstract Experiences from the implementation of the approach of ‘cleaner products’ or ‘environmentally sound product development’ in general, and from the use in this process of computer tools for life cycle assessments in particular, are covered in this paper. The work has been done within The Swedish Product Ecology Project, and its joint Nordic continuation Sustainable Product Development. The projects aim at integrating environmental optimization in product design and product development by developing user-friendly computer tools for calculating the total environmental impact of products from cradle to grave. The Product Ecology Project started in 1992 and finished in 1994. The Nordic Sustainable Product Development Project will be reported in 1995.

Pollution prevention through product substitution: Experiences from the halocarbon phase-out in Sweden☆

Abstract Sweden has been the pioneer in deciding on general and total phase-out of the use of halocarbons. In response to ozone depletion, phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons was scheduled in 1988 to be complete in 1994. It was decided in 1991 that the toxic solvents methylene chloride, trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene should be phased out by 1996, but perchloroethylene for use in dry cleaning was excluded. The use of ozone-depleting substances, with respect to their ozone-depleting potential, decreased by 75% between 1986 and 1991. The use of toxic solvents, with respect to mass, decreased by 60% during the same period. The decreases shown are partly due to substitution but for the solvents in particular loss reduction has, to date, been more important. It is shown, however, that feasible substitutes are available in almost every application. Some companies have been able to combine the conversion with good business. Obviously, legislation is one driving force in the process. Other possible forces, and some aspects of the influence of authorities, industry and non-governmental organizations in the process, are discussed.

Emissions of Additives from Plastics in the Societal Material Stock: A Case Study for Sweden

Estimating the size of the problems related to release, fate, exposure and effects from the human use of chemical substances in materials and consumer products is daunting. More than 100,000 chemical substances are in commercial use and a reasonable description of their existence in, and release from, plastic polymers, glues, paints, fibres, lubricants etc. comprise a big challenge. Here we report the initial results from a generic emission model that has been developed and applied to estimate emissions of a set of organic chemicals from products. The scope of the study was to estimate emissions from products containing plastic materials during their average lifetime within the geographical boundaries of Sweden. The results show that approximately 2% of the plastic additives are emitted annually. Plasticisers, flame retardants, organic pigments and stabilisers are the use categories of additives that are emitted in the largest quantities. Until now, the method has only been used to estimate emissions of additives from plastic materials, but it is believed to also be applicable to other materials.

Life Cycle Assessment of Additives: Methodology and Data

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful tool to assess impacts of cradle-to-grave chains of products/services. In the Riskcycle framework, the focus is on additives. Additives are usually minor constituents of products, but depending on their specific properties they can be important in the total scope of impacts of such products. In the LCA literature, additives are hardly visible. Most case studies of products containing additives do not mention them. The reasons for this are unclear, but are at least partly due to the fact that information on additives is not included in standard LCA databases. This is true for both life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) databases. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether or not additives indeed are important contributors to environmental impacts over the life cycle.

Additives and Other Hazardous Compounds in Electronic Products and Their Waste

The demand for electronic equipment in society is increasing not only as a result of higher living standards around the world but also due to fashion. Many electronic articles are today disposed of before the end of their technical lifetime since they have become outdated. Each year, electronic products are sold for a value of more than

Are Chemicals in Products Good or Bad for the Society? – An Economic Perspective

1 trillion. In electronic equipment, there are various compounds that are hazardous to both the environment and human health, such as various metals and organic compounds. These compounds may be emitted from the products during its life cycle. The end-of-life phase has been identified as problematic with respect to emissions of these potentially hazardous additives. The risk caused by the end-of-life treatment of electronic and electric waste can be minimized if treated under controlled condition. If the treatment is under uncontrolled conditions, as in the informal e-waste system in Asia and Africa, there is a large risk that negative effects will occur with regard to human health and the environment.