9.1 Life cycle assessment  (Page 10/18)

Simapro

SimaPro was developed by PRé Consultants in the Netherlands. It is a process-based tool for analyzing products and systems for their energy usage and environmental impacts over their life cycle. It contains a number of databases for simulating processes, performing inventories, assembling products and systems, analyzing results, and assessing life cycle impacts, and features modules for performing uncertainty and sensitivity analyses.

Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (traci)

TRACI is a tool for performing life cycle impact analyses developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It uses inventory data as input information to perform a “mid-point” impact analysis using categories such as those shown in Table Common Impact Categories and Their References . A mid-point analysis assesses impact based upon results at a common point in the risk chain, for example, global warming potential, because subsequent end-point impact assessments require several assumptions and value choices that often differ from case to case. The values for the various impact categories given in Table Common Impact Categories and Their References are mid-point references.

Economic input output life cycle assessment (eio-lca)

EIO-LCA ( (External Link) ) takes a different approach to the development of a life cycle assessment. In comparison with the somewhat complicated “bottom-up” approach described above, EIO-LCA uses a more aggregated, matrix-based approach in which the economy is composed of several hundred “sectors,” each linked to the other through a series of factors. EIO was first developed in the 1950s by Wassily Leontief (1905-1999) who was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics for his work. EIO has proven to be a very useful tool for national and regional economic planning. The developers of EIO-LCA then linked the main economic model to a series of environmental impacts. EIO-LCA uses economic measures to perturb the system; for example, if a factory seeks to increase its output by ten percent, then the aggregated inputs across the economy will have to increase by ten percent. Of course some of the inputs from some sectors will increase very little if at all, while others will bear the major brunt of the increase in output by increasing input. In EIO-LCA, part of the new outputs will be increased contaminant loads to the environment.

EIO-LCA has several advantages in comparison with the “bottom-up” approach. There is no need to be concerned with defining system boundaries, i.e. the “boundary” is the entire economy of the United States (or a sub-region), which includes all material and energy inputs and outputs. The data used in EIO-LCA are, for the most part, already collected by the federal government thereby obviating the tedium of the inventory stage. Finally, software models are readily available to carry out the analysis. While a “bottom-up” LCA may take months or even years to complete, EIO-LCA typically takes a few hours.

Of course, at this level of aggregation much information is lost, especially on how the system actually functions. For example, the “energy” sector of the economy includes electricity generated, but doesn’t distinguish among nuclear, fossil, or renewable sources. And if one is concerned with the functional reasons for a particular result, EIO-LCA will be of limited use. Often the “bottom-up” and EIO-LCA approaches are combined (a “hybrid” approach).

Conclusions

The life cycle approach is a useful way to come to an understanding of the material and energy needed to make a product or deliver a service, see where wastes are generated, and estimate the subsequent impacts that these wastes may have on the environment. It is a good way to improve a product chain, articulate tradeoffs, and make comparisons among alternative processes and products. In these contexts LCA facilitates decision making by managers, designers, and other stakeholders. Most importantly, LCA is a way of framing policy options in a comprehensive and systematic way.

Review questions

References

Bohlmann, G. M. (2004). Biodegradable packaging life cycle assessment. Environmental Progress, 23(4), 49-78. doi: 10.1002/ep.10053

Frosch, R.&Gallopoulos, N. (1989). Strategies for Manufacturing. Scientific American , 261(3), 144-152.

Landis, A. E. (2007). Environmental and Economic Impacts of Biobased Production . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Patel, M., Crank, M., Dornburg, V., Hermann, B., Roes, L., Huesling, B., et al. (2006, September). Medium and long term opportunities and risks of the biotechnological production of bulk chemicals from renewable resources – The potential of white biotechnology: The BREW Project . Utrecht University, Netherlands: European Commission’s GROWTH Programme (DG Research).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Life cycle assessment: Principles and practice . (EPA Publication No. EPA/600/R-06/060). Systems Analysis Branch, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. (External Link) .

Vink, E. T. H., Rábagno, K.R., Glassner, D.A.,&Gruber, P.R. (2003). Applications of life cycle assessment to NatureWorks polylactide (PLA) production. Polymer Degradation and Stability 80(3), 403-419. doi: 10.1016/S0141-3910(02)00372-5