Transcript sdfdsfdsf - Georgia Institute of Technology

Life Cycle Analysis
8803 Business and the Environment
Beril Toktay
College of Management
Georgia Institute of Technology
What is a Product Life Cycle?
Product Life Cycle
Raw
materials
mining
Primary
materials
production
Component
manufacture
Supply Chain
Product
assembly &
distribution
Product
use &
maintenance
Product
disposal
Service
The boxes are process groups called life cycle stages (system components).
The arrows are economic material flows (relationships between system components)
Products interact with their
environment in many ways
Use and maintenance
waste and emissions
Materials
Energy
Materials
Energy
Materials
Energy
Materials
Energy
Materials
Energy
Materials
Energy
Product
use and
maintenance
Product
Transport and distribution waste and emissions
Raw
materials
mining
Primary
materials
production
Component
manufacture
Final
product
assembly
disposal
Service
Production waste and emissions
End-of-life
waste and
emissions
Example: Paper Cup vs. Polystyrene Cup
trees
logs
Harvesting
wood chips
Wood
yard
paper cup
Digester,
washing,
bleaching
steam,
chlorine (?)
oil
pulp
Cup
use
Forming
adhesive,
heat
Landfill,
recycling
Service
gas
oil, gas
Drilling
catalyst
ethyl benzene
Refinery
catalyst
styrene
Catalytic
dehydrogenation
PS cup
Polymerization,
blowing
Cup
use
solvent,
Initiator,
Service
blowing agent
(pentane or CO2, used to be CFC)
Landfill,
recycling
History and definition of LCA
Definition of LCA according to ISO 14040:
LCA is a technique […]
compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a product system;
evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs
and outputs;
and interpreting the results of the inventory and
impact phases in relation to the objectives of the study.
• Late 1960s, first Resource and Environmental Profile Analyses (REPAs)
(e.g. in 1969 Coca Cola funds study on beverage containers)
• Early 1970s, first LCAs (Sundström,1973,Sweden, Boustead,1972, UK, Basler &
Hofmann,1974,Switzerland, Hunt et al.,1974 USA)
• 1980s, numerous studies without common methodology with contradicting results
• 1993, SETAC publishes Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’,
(Consoli et al.)
• 1997-2000, ISO publishes Standards 14040-43, defining the different LCA stages
• 1998-2001, ISO publishes Standards and Technical Reports 14047-49
• 2000, UNEP and SETAC create Life Cycle Initiative
Life Cycle Assessment Framework
Goal and scope
definition
(ISO 14040)
Inventory
analysis
(ISO 14041)
Impact
assessment
(ISO 14042)
Interpretation
(ISO 14043)
Direct application:
• product development
and improvement
• Strategic planning
• Public policy making
• Marketing
• Other
Step 1 - Goal and Scope Definition

It is important to establish beforehand what purpose the model
is to serve, what one wishes to study, what depth and degree of
accuracy are required, and what will ultimately become the
decision criteria.

In addition, the system boundaries - for both time and place should be determined.
Thus, pay special attention to:
 Basis for evaluation (what and why)
 Temporal boundaries (time scale)
 Spatial boundaries (geographic)
Goal and Scope Definition
Example for Goal Definition:
The goal of the LCA is to identify options for improving the environmental performance
of the material polyethylene in disposable bread bags. The results of this LCA will be
used for product and process development. The plastic bag manufacturer wants to be
able to analyze the effects of changes in its processes, in terms of technology, inputs,
and products composition, on the total environmental impact. This information, in turn,
can be used to prioritize measures that can be taken to improve the environmental
performance. This LCA does not aim at a public comparative assertion.
The study is conducted by Pro-Duct Consultancy Ltd, a medium-sized private
engineering bureau. The commissioner is Bag-Away, a large producer of plastic
disposable bags. Interested parties are mainly the plastics industry, bakeries and
shops. A steering committee with representatives of the producer, the ministry of
the environment and academia will be formed. Finally, an expert review will be carried
out at NILCAR, the National Institute for LCA Research.
Goal and Scope Definition
Example for Scope Definition:
A simplified LCA is carried out to compare three different end-of-life management
options, namely landfill, recycling and reuse, for structural steel sections in the UK
construction sector. The study and its data therefore intends to be representative of
the current practices and technologies in the UK construction sector.
Initially, the only environmental intervention covered will be the energy requirements
of all processes, since this has shown to be an important environmental indicator for the
construction industry, and the environmental impact of main interest is climate change.
The total size of the study is 8 person-months. A large portion of this time will be
devoted to the studying and modeling of the product system, and the collection of
representative data for the most important processes in production, use and end-of-life
management.
Goal and Scope Definition
Be specific about the unit of analysis!
What are functional units for the comparison of
Various paints?
20m2 of wall covering with a colored surface of 98% opacity and a lifetime of 5 yrs
Paper versus plastic bags in supermarkets?
Comfortable carrying of X kg and Y m3 of groceries
Step 2 - Inventory Analysis

This means that the inputs and outputs of all life-cycle
processes have to be determined in terms of material and
energy.

Start with making a process tree or a flow-chart classifying the
events in a product’s life-cycle which are to be considered in the
LCA, plus their interrelations.

Next, start collecting the relevant data for each event: the
emissions from each process and the resources (back to raw
materials) used.

Establish (correct) material and energy balance(s) for each
process stage and event.
Single Stage Flow Diagram

The following diagram contains inputs and outputs to
be quantified in a single stage or unit operation

see EPA Life-Cycle Design Guidance Manual, EPA Report
no. EPA/600/R-92/226, page 104
Energy
Product Material
Inputs (including
reuse & recycle from
another stage)
Reuse/Recycle
Process Materials, Reagents,
Solvents & Catalysts (including
reuse & recycle from another stage)
Reuse/Recycle
Single Stage or Unit
Operation
Fugitive &
Untreated
Waste
Primary Product
Useful Co-product
Waste
Example: Simplified Process Tree for
a Coffee Machine’s Life-Cycle
coffee
bean
paper
polystyrene
aluminium
sheet st eel
glas
roasting
filter product ion
injection
moulding
ext rusion
stamping
forming
forming
assem bly
+ t ransport
packaging
elect ricity
use
water
disposal of
disposal in
filt ers + coffee municipal
in org. waste
wast e
Example: Simplified Process Tree for
a Coffee Machine’s Life-Cycle
7.3 kg
1 kg
0.1 kg
0.3 kg
0.4 kg
coffee
bean
paper
polystyrene
aluminium
sheet st eel
glas
roasting
filter product ion
inject ion
moulding
ext rusion
stamping
forming
forming
assem bly
+ t ransport
packaging
375 kWh
elect ricit y
use
water
disposal of
filt ers + coffee
in org. waste
disposal in
municipal
wast e
White boxes are not
included in
assessment/inventory
Problems with Inventory Analysis

The inventory phase usually takes a great deal of
time and effort and mistakes are easily made.

Allocation is an issue.

There exists published data on impacts of different
materials (http://www.nrel.gov/lci/, http://www.ecoinvent.ch/,
http://www.globalspine.com/, http://lca-net.com/spold/)



However, the data is often inconsistent and not directly
applicable due to different goals and scope.
It is expected that both the quantity and quality of data will
improve in the future.
Results are generalized improperly.
Step 3 - Impact Assessment

The impact assessment focuses on
characterizing the type and severity of
environmental impact more specifically.
Life Cycle Inventory results
Classification
Impact categories
ISO 14042
mandatory
Characterization
Category indicator results
Normalization
Environmental profile
Weighting
One-dimensional environmental score
ISO 14042
optional
Impact categories
SO2
emissions
Acid
rain
Source
CFC
emissions
Acidified
lake
Dead
fish
Endpoint
Midpoint
Tropospheric
OD
Stratospheric
OD
Loss of
biodiversity
UVB
exposure
Human
health
A category indicator, representing the amount of impact potential, can be located at any
place between the LCI results and the category endpoints. There are currently two main
Impact Assessment methods:
• Problem oriented IA methods stop quantitative modeling before the end of the impact
pathway and link LCI results to so-defined midpoint categories (or environmental
problems), like acidification and ozone depletion.
• Damage oriented IA methods, which model the cause-effect chain up to the endpoints
or environmental damages, link LCI results to endpoint categories.
Impact categories proposed by UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative in 2003
Midpoint categories
(environmental problems)
Endpoint categories
(environmental damages)
Photochemical oxidant formation
Human toxicity
Ozone depletion
Climate change
Acidification
LCI
results
Eutrophication
Ecotoxicity
Human Health
Biotic & abiotic
natural environment
Biotic & abiotic
natural resources
Land use impacts
Species & organism dispersal
Biotic & abiotic
manmade resources
Abiotic resources depletion
Biotic resources depletion
Source: Int J of LCA 9(6) 2004
Classification and characterization - Example
In general:
Example:
Cd, CO2, NOX, SO2, etc.
(kg/functional unit)
LCI results
Impact category
LCI results assigned to
Impact category
Acidification
Acidifying emissions
NOX, SO2, etc.
(kg/functional unit)
Characterization model
Category indicator results
Category endpoint
Proton release
(H+ aq)
- Forests
- Fish populations
- etc.
Source: ISO14042
Classification and characterization – Example
Impact category
LCI results
Characterization model
Category indicator
Characterization factor
Unit of indicator result
Substance
ammonia
hydrogen chloride
hydrogen fluoride
hydrogen sulfide
nitric acid
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
Sulphuric acid
Acidification
Emissions of acidifying substances to the air (in kg)
RAINS10 model, developed by IIASA, describing the fate
and deposition of acidifying substances, adapted to LCA
Deposition/acidification critical load
Acidification potential (AP) for each acidifying emission to
the air (in kg SO2 equivalents/kg emission)
kg SO2 eq
AP (in kg SO2 equivalents/kg emission)
1.88
0.88
1.60
1.88
0.51
0.70
1.07
Source: (Guinée et al., 2002)
1.00
0.65
Plastic versus Paper Bag Classification
Class ificati on / Characteris at ion
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
P aper bag
50%
LDP E bag
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
effect
on
depleti
greenhouse ozone
l ayer


acidi ficat ion
heavy metals carcinogens winter smog s ummer s mog
eut rophication
pes ti ci des
The paper bag causes more winter smog and acidification, but
scores better on the other environmental effects.
The classification does not reveal which is the better bag. What
is missing is the mutual weighting of the effects.
A Single Impact Figure

Goal: Develop a single figure for comparison
purposes
 Several methods exist, but it is still a
controversial issue and no singular widely
accepted method exists.
 Three well-documented and used methods
are:



The Eco-Points method
The Environmental Priority System
The Eco-Indicator
Eco-Points Method


The eco-points method was developed in Switzerland
and is based on the use of national government policy
objectives.
The evaluation principle is the distance to target
principle, or the difference between the total impact in a
specific area and the target value.



The target values in the original Ecopunkten method were
derived from target values of the Swiss government.
There is a Dutch variant.
The use of policy objectives is controversial given that a
policy does not express the true seriousness of a
problem.

Various political, economic, and social considerations also play a
role when formulating these objectives.
The Environmental Priority System



The EPS system was used first for Volvo in Sweden.
It is not based on governmental policy, but on
estimated financial consequences of environmental
problems.
It attempts to translate environmental impact into a
sort of social expenditure.



The first step is to establish the damage caused to a number
of “safeguard objects” - objects that a community considers
valuable.
The next step is to identify how much the community is
prepared to pay for these things, i.e., the social costs of the
safeguard objects are established.
The resulting costs are added up to a single figure.
The Eco-Indicator (95 and 99)



The Eco-Indicator 95 was developed in a joint project carried out by
companies, research institutes and the Dutch government.
Aim: develop an easy-to-use tool for product designers
Outcome: A list of 100 indicators for the most significant materials
and processes.


Indicators have been drawn up for all life-cycle phases






By using these indicators a designer can easily make combinations and
carry out his/her own LCA. No outside expert or software are needed.
the production of materials such as steel, aluminum, thermo-plastics,
paper, glass
production processes, such as injection molding, rolling, turning, welding
transport by road, rail, and sea
energy generating processes
waste processing processes, such as incineration, dumping, recycling.
The most recent revised version is called Eco-Indicator 99.
Life Cycle Assessment Framework
Goal and scope
definition
(ISO 14040)
Inventory
analysis
(ISO 14041)
Impact
assessment
(ISO 14042)
Interpretation
(ISO 14043)
Direct application:
• product development
and improvement
• Strategic planning
• Public policy making
• Marketing
• Other
Case: Disposable versus reusable diapers
Background:
• P&G launched Pampers disposable diapers in the 1960s.
• By the early 1990s, Pampers contributed over 18% to annual revenues.
• Became symbol of the ‘throw-away’ society and was targeted by NGOs.
• P&G commissioned Arthur D. Little in 1990 to conduct an LCA
The Life Cycle Analysis:
Arthur D. Little made the following simplifying assumptions among others:
• The number of daily diaper changes is the same for both types of diapers.
• 90% of all reusable diapers are laundered at home.
Response:
• As a response to the results, Greenpeace commissioned its own LCA.
Case: Disposable versus reusable diapers
Results from Study A
160
140
120
100
Disposable
Reusable
80
60
40
20
0
Raw
materials
(lbs)
Energy
(1000Btu)
Water (gal)
Emissions
to Air
(lbs/100)
Waste
water
effluents
(lbs/100)
Process
waste (lbs)
Functional unit: Weekly diaper needs
Postconsumer
waste (lbs)
Case: Disposable versus reusable diapers
Results from Study B
30
25
20
Disposable
Reusable
15
10
5
0
Raw
materials
(lbs)
Energy
(10,000Btu)
Water
(10gal)
Emissions
to Air
(lbs/10)
Waste water Process
waste (lbs)
effluents
(lbs/100)
Functional unit: Weekly diaper needs
Postconsumer
waste (lbs)
Case: Disposable versus reusable diapers

Which study do you attribute to each
organization?
 What do you think now about disposable vs.
reusable diapers?

The Arthur D. Little study was only one of
many LCAs that were performed to compare
disposable and reusable diapers.
 Their conflicting results due to different
inventory data, model assumptions,
boundary choices and calculation methods
have prevented a generally accepted
conclusion.
Case: Disposable versus reusable diapers
This graph compares from two different sources, Allen et al. (1992) which report data
from a Franklin Associates Study (1992) and the World Resources Institute (WRI, 1994)
which reports data from the Arthur D. Little study (1990):
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
ALLEN DATA Disposable
0.6
WRI DATA Disposable
0.5
ALLEN DATA Reusable (10/90)
0.4
WRI DATA Reusable (10/90)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Energy
(million Btu)
Water
(1000 gal)
Enissions to
air (lbs)
Emission to
water (lbs)
Solid waste
(cubic feet/
lbs)
Case: Disposable versus reusable diapers
 The data from Allen et al. is almost consistently
higher than the data from the WRI, up to a factor of 6.
 The ratios between disposable and reusable diaper
data is consistently smaller in the Allen et al. data
compared to the WRI data.
 However, the general directions of the results are
identical:
 Reusable diapers
 consume more energy and more water
 Consume less raw materials
 Generate more emissions to air and water
 Generate less waste
The Use of LCA
LCA:
• Goal & Scope
• Life Cycle Inventory
• Impact Assessment
• Interpretation
Who are the users?
What are the uses?
Users of LCA
• Companies:
Especially in Scandinavian countries, Japan, Holland, Germany, Switzerland
(e.g. Volvo, Electrolux, Honda, Toyota, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, Corus,
Arcelor, Alcan, etc.)
Through in-house experts, LCA consultancies or universities.
• Trade associations:
Especially for material commodities
(e.g. plastics, steel, aluminum, concrete, etc.)
Through the experts of their member companies, LCA consultancies or universities.
• NGOs:
Mostly commissioned to external LCA consultancies or universities.
• Government agencies:
Especially in Scandinavian countries, Japan, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, EU
Through in-house experts, LCA consultancies or universities.
• Business analysts:
Typically analyze externally created LCA information on business and sectors.
Uses of LCA
• Companies:
Originally intended for external use, e.g. marketing. However, currently mainly for
internal use due to bad initial experiences of external uses.
Currently mainly retrospective and for learning proposes, instead of prospective use
for decision making purposes.
Currently, decisions based on LCA results are more operational than strategic.
• Trade associations:
Trade associations of material commodities producers more frequently use LCA
for external purposes (e.g. marketing, policy process).
• NGOs:
To create scientific foundations of campaigns or investigate claims by industry
• Government agencies:
To analyze and design environmental policies and regulations (especially by the
EPAs of European countries). EUs Integrated Product Policy recommends LCA.
• Business analysts:
To analyze and forecast trends of individual companies and industry sectors.
Internal vs. External Use
Most companies currently use LCA for internal purposes.
Internal uses are:
• Hotspot analysis of existing or planed products
• Compare existing products with products under development
• Product/process design (short-term, operational)
• Product/process development (long-term, strategic)
As LCA methodology matures, so do the number & scope of external uses.
External uses are:
• Marketing, especially final product comparisons (credibility)
• Lobbying, especially commodity comparisons
• Providing information and education to customers and other stakeholders
• Eco-labeling (also called environmental product declarations – EPDs)
Issues with LCA
Complex and a lot of effort is required
 Life Cycle Analyses have problems and are
difficult to use:




What is the functional unit?
What if your process does not match the unit
process in the LCA database?
Impact categorization is difficult
No national/worldwide standardized system
Without common methodology LCA results
are very difficult to reproduce
Need to do LCA for every product in company
Issues with LCA

Designers and manufacturing engineers find it almost
impossible to practically work with LCAs because of





the consistent lack of solid data about all aspects of a
products life cycle,
the nearly infinite amount of decisions to make and data to
deal with,
the lack of standardization resulting in numerous
conversions and interpretations,
the lack of a standard evaluation scheme caused by and
resulting in different views on what is environmentally
correct,
the approach is currently only suitable for design analysis /
evaluation rather than design synthesis. LCAs are "static"
and only deal with a snapshot of material and energy inputs
and outputs in a dynamic system.
Value of LCA
 Many environmental choices are about trade-offs
between different types of burdens
 Without impact assessment these burdens are very
difficult to compare
 LCA methodology has come a long way since the
early 1990s