Environmental Life Cycle AssessmentEnvironmental Life ... · PDF file1 Environmental Life Cycle AssessmentEnvironmental Life Cycle Assessment – Principles, challenges and application

1

Environmental Life Cycle AssessmentEnvironmental Life Cycle Assessment – Principles, challenges and application

Shaping and Transformation in the Engineering of Polysaccharides (STEP)Polysaccharides (STEP)

Ecole des Mines de Paris / Cemef,Sophia Antipolis, France, 28 September 2010

Dr. Martin Patel

1

Copernicus InstituteDepartment of Science, Technology & SocietyUtrecht University, [email protected]

2

2

3

3

4

Outline

1. What is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)?2. Why LCA?3 What is the difference between LCA and3. What is the difference between LCA and

Green Chemistry principles?4. How to prepare an LCA?5. What are critical issues in LCA?

4

5

1.) What is Life Cycle Assessment?• Assessment of Environmental impacts• of Products/Processes or Services• throughout the Life Cycle: resource extraction,

manufacturing, product use, waste managementg, p , g

5

6

1.) What is Life Cycle Assessment?• Assessment of Environmental impacts• of Products/Processes or Services• throughout the Life Cycle: resource extraction,

manufacturing, product use, waste managementg, p , g

Typical types of use:Compare new product with conventional productCompare design alternatives

6

Compare design alternatives

7

2.) Why LCA?

Objectives

• Understand: Overview of environmental impacts by process stepimpacts by process step

• Reduce: Identify possibilities for reducing environmental impacts (industrial process, R&D)

• Communicate: Towards clients and

7

Communicate: Towards clients and stakeholders

8

EU-27 production of bulk materials in 2004 (920 Mt in total)

Aluminum

1%Plastics

6% Bricks & Tiles21%

Wood10%

Paper & board11%

CementGlass

4%

8

Cement25%

Crude steel22%

4%

9

Non-renewable energy

Energy for producing bulk materials

Non renewable energy use (NREU),

cradle-to-factory gate, GJ/t

Cement 3 - 6Steel

*) Examples: HDPE: 77 LDPE: 78 LLDPE: 73 PP: 73

PET: 81

Steel - Primary 20 - 25 - Secondary 7 - 8.5 Paper/board 10 - 20 Plastics*) <70 - >85 Glass 6 - 8Al i i

9Sources: various; for plastics: PlasticsEurope, see http://lca.plasticseurope.org/main2.htm

PET: 81 PS: 86 PVC: 56 PA: 120 - 140

Aluminium - Primary 180 - Secondary 25

10

OECD, Total

Energy use by the industrial sector

400

500

600

700

equi

vale

nts

(Mto

e)

Fossil fuels - Processenergy and Feedstocks

Primary energyequivalents*)s

0

100

200

300

Chem & Iron & steel Paper pulp Non metallic Non ferrous All othersMill

ion

tonn

es o

f oil

Feed

stoc

kP

roce

ssen

ergy

10

Chem. &pchem.

Iron & steel Paper, pulp,printing

Non-metallicminerals

Non-ferrousmetals

All others

*) Including primary energy equivalents of electricity; assumed efficiency of power generation: 35%Source: Energy Balances of OECD Countries 2006, IEA/OECD, Paris, 2008

11

“Bioplastics are becoming a burden for the environment”

“Bioplastik wird zur Belastung für die Umwelt”

• “So far, we are skeptical or even negative towards bioplastics.”

Kireev, M. in “Welt am Sonntag”, 12. Oktober 2008 http://www.welt.de/wams_print/article2564545/Bioplastik-wird-zur-Belastung-fuer-die-Umwelt.html

Wolfgang Beier, German Federal Ministry of the Environment (Umweltbundesamt):

• “Nobody has so far presented an LCA which complies with all requirements and standards.”

• “Claims according to which bioplastics offer CO2 savings are biased.”

• Other aspects mentioned:

11

- Land requirements- Experience made with PHB, by BASF, Siemens and partners- CO2 savings only possible if green power is used- Waste management

12

3.) What is the difference between LCA and Green Chemistry principles?

12

13

Green Chemistry principles

Prevent WastesPrevent WastesRenewable materialsOmit derivatization stepsDegradable chemical productsUse safe synthetic methodsCatalytic reagentsCatalytic reagentsTemperature, pressure ambientIn-process monitoringVery few auxiliary substancesE-factor [and atom economy]Low toxicity of chemical products

13

Low toxicity of chemical productsYes, it is safe.Anastas, P.T. and Warner, J.C.: Green Chemistry – Theory and Practice, 2000

Poliakoff, M. and Licence, P.: Green Chemistry. Nature, 2007

Sheldon et al., 2007

14

Green Chemistry principlesPrevent WastesRenewable materialsOmit derivatization stepsDegradable chemical productsUse safe synthetic methodsCatalytic reagentsTemperature, pressure ambientIn-process monitoringVery few auxiliary substancesE-factor [and atom economy]Low toxicity of chemical productsYes, it is safe.

Limited data Extensive data

14

availability availability

Early R&D stage Commercial plant

Sugiyama, Ph.D. thesis, ETHZ (2007) Anastas (2000)

15

Green Chemistry principlesPrevent WastesRenewable materialsOmit derivatization stepsDegradable chemical productsUse safe synthetic methodsCatalytic reagentsTemperature, pressure ambientIn-process monitoringVery few auxiliary substancesE-factor [and atom economy]Low toxicity of chemical productsYes, it is safe.

Limited data Extensive data

15

availability availability

Early R&D stage Commercial plant

Sugiyama, Ph.D. thesis, ETHZ (2007) Anastas (2000)

16

Green Chemistry principlesPrevent WastesRenewable materialsOmit derivatization steps

LCAEnvironmental Life Cycle Assessment

• Provides quantitative Degradable chemical productsUse safe synthetic methodsCatalytic reagentsTemperature, pressure ambientIn-process monitoringVery few auxiliary substancesE-factor [and atom economy]Low toxicity of chemical productsYes, it is safe.

qenvironmental indicators

• Based on flowsheet and considers all stages of process chain

Limited data Extensive data

16

availability availability

Early R&D stage Commercial plant

Sugiyama, Ph.D. thesis, ETHZ (2007) Anastas (2000)

17

Green Chemistry principlesPrevent WastesRenewable materialsOmit derivatization steps

LCAEnvironmental Life Cycle Assessment

• Provides quantitative Degradable chemical productsUse safe synthetic methodsCatalytic reagentsTemperature, pressure ambientIn-process monitoringVery few auxiliary substancesE-factor [and atom economy]Low toxicity of chemical productsYes, it is safe.

qenvironmental indicators

• Based on flowsheet and considers all stages of process chain

Limited data Extensive data

17

availability availability

Early R&D stage Commercial plant

Sugiyama, Ph.D. thesis, ETHZ (2007) Anastas (2000) ISO standards

18

Emiss.

System boundaries

Naturalresources Emiss.

ProductPost-consumer

t

ProcessingMining/ Extraction

Use WasteM'mt

waste

Land Emiss.

Emiss.Process waste

Agriculture,Forestry Landfill

Sewage Treatment

18

Cradle-to-Factory Gate

Cradle-to-Grave

Treatment

19

Green Chemistry principles LCAEnvironmental Life Cycle Assessment

19

Henrikke Baumann, Anne-Marie Tillman, The Hitch Hikers Guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2004, 543 pages

Paul T. Anastas, John C. Warner, Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, 2000, 135 pages

20

4.) How to prepare an LCA?

20

21

Steps of an LCA (1/2)* Functional unit* System boundaries

Goal & scopedefinition

Life cycle assessment framework

Direct applications

Product development& innovationStrategic planning

New: * ISO 14040 (Principles & Framework)

Inventoryanalysis

Impact

Interpretationg p g

Public policy makingOther

21

( p )* ISO 14044 (Requirements & Guidelines)

Old:ISO 14040, 14041, 14042 and 14043

Impact assessment

“Inventory table”

22

How to conduct an inventory analysis and an impact assessment?

1. Make a flowsheet

2. Determine the mass flows of all compounds (massbalance)

3. For commodity products (e.g., PE): Extract fromdatabases impact per tonne product, e.g. CO2/t.

4. For unknown/new products or process steps (e.g.,nanoparticle production): Investigate data.

22

5. Multiply each mass flow (from 2) with impact per tonneproduct (from 4 and 5)

Inventory table

23

Steps of an LCA (2/2)

Goal & scopedefinition

Life cycle assessment framework

Direct applications

Product development& innovationStrategic planning

Inventoryanalysis

Impact

Interpretationg p g

Public policy makingOther

23

Impact assessment

Envir./health impact

24

From Environmental intervention toEnvironmental/health impact

CO2

NOx

SO2

(Enhanced) greenhouse gas effect

Summer smog

Acidification

Emissions Impact category

ParticulateMatter (PM)

CO

NMVOC

Acidification

Human toxicity

Ecotoxicity

Eutrophication

24

CH4

N2OStratospheric ozone depletion

Winter smog

Source: E. Nieuwlaar, Lecture “Analyse Energie en Materiaal-ketens”, course “Chemie en Duurzame Ontwikkeling (CDO)”, Utrecht University

Characterization factors

25

Characterization factors for climate change

Compounds contributing to ClimateChange (100 year time period):

CO CO / CO– CO2 : 1.0 kg CO2 equivalents/kg CO2

– N2O : 296 kg CO2 equivalents/kg N2O– CH4 : 25 kg CO2 equivalents/kg CH4

– etc

25

etc.

26

1. Climate change (CC)2. Ozone depletion (OD)

Environmental Impact Categories (ReCiPe method)Damage to1. Human health (HH)ev

el2. Ozone depletion (OD)3. Terrestrial acidification (TA)4. Freshwater eutrophication (FE)5. Marine eutrophication (ME)6. Human toxicity (HT)7. Photochemical oxidant formation (POF)8 Particulate matter formation (PMF)po

int l

evel

1. Human health (HH)2. Ecosystem diversity (ED)3. Resource availability (RD)

End

poin

t le

8. Particulate matter formation (PMF)9. Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET)10. Freshwater ecotoxicity (FET)11. Marine ecotoxicity (MET)12. Ionising radiation (IR)13. Agricultural land occupation (ALO)14 Urban land occupation (ULO)

Mid

26

14. Urban land occupation (ULO)15. Natural land transformation (NLT)16. Water depletion (WD)17. Mineral resource depletion (MRD)18. Fossil fuel depletion (FD)Goedkoop, Heijungs, Huijbregts, De Schryver, Struijs, van Zelm: ReCiPe method, 2009

Environmental Science & Technology, No. 3, 2006, pp. 641-648Environmental Science & Technology, No. 3, 2006, pp. 641-648Environmental Science & Technology, No. 3, 2006, pp. 641-648

27

Experience from LCA studiesC t ib ti f t t ll i i t- Contribution of steps to overall envir. impact

Production of bulk materials often dominantAssembly often minorFor products using energy during use phase: Use phase often dominates, otherwiseproduction usually dominates Transportation: often small contribution

27

The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA, p. 278 (extended: waste)

Waste management: usually rather small contribution

28

http://lca.plasticseurope.org/main2.htm

28

29

Discussion and interpretation of the results

Di i

CO2

NOx

SO2

Emissie Impact category Conventio-neel

Nieuw

20 kg CO2/f.e. 10 kg CO2/f.e.

40 eenh./f.e. 20 eenh. /f.e.

Discussion:• For how many impact

categories is new product/process better?

• By how much (in %)?• Is this a lot or little in view of

th t i ti ?

Climate change.

Photochem. smog2

stof

CO

NMVOC

20 eenh./f.e. 20 eenh./f.e.

20 eenh./ f.e. 30 eenh./ f.e.

20 eenh./f.e. 40 eenh./f.e.

20 eenh./f.e. 60 eenh./f.e

the uncertainties?

Further questions:• What to conclude in the case

of a mixed overall picture?• Is a 50% reduction for one

impact category as meaningful

Acidification

Human toxicity

Ecotoxicity

Eutrophication

29

CH4

N2O20 eenh./f.e. 5 eenh./f.e.

20 eenh./f.e. 20 eenh./f.e.

impact category as meaningful as a 50% reduction for another?

Normalisation

Eutrophication

Ozone depletion

Winter smog

30

Normalisation (LCA)

• = Optional step in an LCA

• Main aim: Better understand the relative importanceof a value (or a Δ) for a given impact category

• Approach: Divide result by reference value, e.g.- total emissions or resource use for a given region - per capita emissions or resource use for a givenregion

30

31

Data for normalization

31Sleeswijk et al.: Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Science of the Total Environment, 2008

32

Environmental impact categories (CML)Cradle-to-factory gate, 1 tonne fibre (cotton = 100)

300%

200%

250%

CottonPETPPLenzing Viscose AsiaLenzing Viscose AustriaLenzing ModalTencel AustriaTencel Austria 2012

50%

100%

150%

32

abiotic depletion

ozone layer depletion

human toxicity

fresh water aquatic ecotox.

terrestrial ecotoxicity

photochemical oxidant formation

acidification

eutrophication0%

33

120Global warming

Single-score result (I) - Equally weighted, Cotton = 100 1 tonne fibre, cradle-to-factory gate

s, e

qual

wei

ghtin

gon

, Cot

ton

=100

)

60

80

100

Global warmingAbiotic depletionOzone layer depletionHuman toxicityFresh water ecotoxicityTerrestrial ecotoxicityPhotochemical oxidationAcidificationEutrophicationLand use

Sing

le s

core

poi

nts

(no

norm

alis

atio

0

20

40Water use

33Lenzing Viscose Asia

Cotton (US&CN)

PET fibre (W

.EU)

PP fibre (W

.EU)

Tencel, Austria

Lenzing Modal

Lenzing Viscose Austria

Tencel, Austria

2012-20

34

100

Single-score result (II)Equally weighted, normalised to World 20001 tonne fibre, from cradle to factory gate, Cotton = 100

ual w

eigh

ting

poin

tso

Wor

ld 2

000)

70

80

90

100

Global warmingAbiotic depletionOzone layer depletionHuman toxicityFresh water ecotoxicityTerrestrial ecotoxicityPhotochemical oxidationAcidification

gle-

scor

e re

sult,

equ

(firs

t nor

mal

ised

to

5

1050

60

Eutrophication

34Cotto

n (US&CN)

Lenzing Viscose Asia

PET fibre (W

.EU)

PP fibre (W

.EU)

Tencel, Austria

Lenzing Modal

Lenzing Viscose Austria

Tencel, Austria

2012

Sing

0

5

35

100

Single-score result (III)NOGEPA weighting factors (normalised to world)1 tonne fibre, cradle-to-factory gate, Cotton = 100

Weighting factors (NOGEPA)Weighting factors (NOGEPA)

e-sc

ore

poin

tsd

to W

orld

200

0)

70

80

90Global warmingAbiotic depletionOzone layer depletionHuman toxicityFresh water ecotoxicityTerrestrial ecotoxicityPhotochemical oxidationAcidificationE t hi ti

5Ozone layer depletion

5Terrestrial ecotoxicity

6Fresh water ecotoxicity

16Human toxicity

8Abiotic depletion*

32Climate Change

Weighting factors (NOGEPA)

5Ozone layer depletion

5Terrestrial ecotoxicity

6Fresh water ecotoxicity

16Human toxicity

8Abiotic depletion*

32Climate Change

Weighting factors (NOGEPA)

NO

GEP

A Si

ngle

(Firs

t nor

mal

ised

10

2060

70 Eutrophication

Source: Huppes et al (2003), except for abiotic depletion (marked with *), which is not excluded by Huppes et al. and is determined based on own

99Total

13Eutrophication

6Acidification

8Photochemical oxidation

y

99Total

13Eutrophication

6Acidification

8Photochemical oxidation

y

35

Cotton (U

S&CN)

PET fibre (W

.EU)

Lenzing Viscose Asia

PP fibre (W

.EU)

Tencel, Austria

Lenzing Modal

Lenzing Viscose Austria

Tencel, Austria

20120

estimation.

36

Klicken Sie, um das Titelformat zu bearbeiten

BASF

High eco efficiencyed)

0.4

In the ecoefficiency portfolio, the environmental impact is plotted against the costs

• Klicken Sie, um die Formate des Vorlagentextes zu bearbeiten– Zweite Ebene

High eco-efficiency

ct (n

orm

aliz

e 0.4

Solution

Electro-chemical

Benefit: 1000 The electrochemicindigo variant is th– Zweite Ebene

• Dritte Ebene– Vierte Ebene

» Fünfte Ebene

viro

n. im

pac 1.0

Plants

GranulesBiotechno-logical

jeans dyed with indigo

gmost eco-efficientone

36

Low eco-efficiencyEnv

1.60.41.6 1.0

Total costs (normalized)

37

5.) What are critical issues in LCA?

37

38

Critical issues in LCAs - GeneralWeighting ( single score)

ISO: Weighting […] shall not be used in LCA studies intended to be used in

  Phase    Problem 

  Goal  and Scope  Definition 

  Functional unit defini tion   Boundary selection 

  Social and economic impacts  

A S

urve

y of

nt

erna

tiona

l Jou

rnal

( single score) LCA studies intended to be used in comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public.

  Alternative scenario considerations  

  Li fe  Cycle  Inventory analysis   Allocation   Negligible contribution ('cutoff cri teria') 

  Local technical uniqueness 

  Impact category and methodology selection 

  Spatial variation  Dun

can,

S.,

Bra

s, B

., 20

08a,

“As

in L

ife C

ycle

Ass

essm

ent”,

Inm

ent 1

3(4)

: 290

-300

38

  Li fe  Cycle  Impact Assessment    Local environmental  uniqueness    Dynamics of the  environment 

  Time horizons  

  All  phases    Data availability and quality  Rea

p J.

, Rom

an, F

., U

nres

olve

d P

robl

emof

Life

Cyc

le A

sses

s

39

What is allocation?1 tonne chemical A

Process

1 tonne chemical A

0.2 tonnes chemical B

50 GJ power

16 GJ fuels

150 GJ fuelspRelevant options

a) Partitioning:• Mass• Economic value

39

b) System expansion:• Credits for chemical B and for power

Economic value• Energy content (calorific value)

40

Critical issues in LCAs for Bio-based products

• Allocation

• Valuation of embedded bio-based carbon

• Default datasets for bio-based feedstocks• Default datasets for bio-based feedstocks

• Land use efficiency

• Soil carbon

• Land use change (e.g. LUC in PAS 2050; ILUC)

40

• Other

41

How can you check whether/ensure that an LCA leads to robust results?Check• Suitable functional unit• Allocation (judgment; test & present alternative approaches)• System boundaries

- C2F vs. C2G- Carbon storage in products - Factor in land use- Clean distinction between Technology perspective and Company perspective

41

p y p p- etc.

• Environmental impact categories • Availability and quality of LCA data

42

What this presentation aimed to answer

1. What is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), also in comparison to Green Chemistry principles?

2. Why do LCA?y

3. How does it roughly work?

4. What are critical issues in LCA?

5 Would it make sense to conduct an LCA

42

5. Would it make sense to conduct an LCA in your project?