LCA based Environmental System Analysis Learning outcomes Understand

LCA based Environmental System Analysis

Learning outcomes • Understand what LCA is and its use and limitations as a system analysis tool • Learn how to choose and define a functional unit • Understand what a product system is • Learn how to model a product system with co-production • Learn how to model global system change related to product system change (identifying marginal technology affected) 2

CONTENT 1 What is LCA – use and limitations 2 Scoping the LCA 3 Assignment one 4 Modelling the system – consequential modelling 5 Assignment two 6 Case studies 3

What is LCA – use and limitations http: //www. biologyreference. com/La-Ma/Life-Cycles. html The concept ”Life Cycle”; point of departure in biology § Growing of cotton § Harvesting § Spinning § Weaving/knitting § Bleaching, dyeing, washing and treatment § Cutting and sewing § Use (& reuse) § Disposal (& recycling) Raw material extraction Processing Production Use Disposal These are ‘processes’ or ‘activities’ 4

What is LCA – use and limitations http: //www. biologyreference. com/La-Ma/Life-Cycles. html The concept ”Life Cycle”; point of departure in biology § Growing of cotton § Harvesting § Spinning § Weaving/knitting § Bleaching, dyeing, washing and treatment § Cutting and sewing § Use (& reuse) § Disposal (& recycling) Raw material extraction Processing Production Use Disposal These are ‘processes’ or ‘activities’ 5

What is LCA – use and limitations Life Cycle Assessment (definition) “LCA is a compilation of the inputs and outputs and evaluation of potential environmental impacts of a product throughout its life cycle” (ISO 14040, 2008) LCA is a way of structuring/organizing the relevant parts of the life cycle It is a tool to assess performance and to improve (product- & system-) design LCA is not a cure-all for our environmental problems LCA is not an “exact” science with provable axioms/theories 6

What is LCA – use and limitations The phases of an LCA (ISO 14040) Focus in this lecture: 7

What is LCA – use and limitations A variety of system analysis tools Abbr. SEA LCA Type Strategic Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment Life Cycle Assessment MFA Mass Flow Analysis EIA Level of analysis Plan/policy (local-regional) Project (local) Product/service (local to global) Substance (local to global) Sustainability dimensions Environment / Social / Economy Environment / (Social) / (Economy) Environment Hereto comes: MIPS, SFA, various foot-printing methods, LCC, CBA, RA… 8

What is LCA – use and limitations Strengths of LCA for doing system analysis § LCA enables assessing full system environmental consequences of a change in technology-system (i. e. introduction of a collection and recycling scheme, incineration-system with and without energy recovery, etc). § LCA is relevant for assessing different waste management options by comparing treatment of equal volumes § LCA is relevant for assessing waste management options in combination with waste prevention option by comparing treatment of equal origins (i. e. waste treatment of waste from one average household, or from one specific city). § Consequential LCA is tailored to identify marginal impact on background system. 9

What is LCA – use and limitations Weaknesses of LCA for doing system analysis § Traditional LCA system modelling and data input reflect recent past, and may therefore be better equipped for assessing systems meeting current needs rather than future needs. This needs to be mitigated by adequate use of scenario development and future-studies § Traditionally, LCA impact assessment do not take spatial aspects of emissions into consideration, assuming a linear relationship between emission and potential impact, which rarely is the case. Amendments to this includes use of EIA and risk assessment 10

What is LCA – use and limitations Weaknesses of LCA for doing system analysis § Traditionally, LCA assume linear relationship e. g. between recycling rate and related emissions which may lead to wrong conclusions. Identification of emissions related to marginal collection rate can mitigate this § Current mainstream LCA-tools do not include non-environmental impacts (social & economic) 11

CONTENT 1 What is LCA – use and limitations 2 Scoping the LCA 3 Assignment one 4 Modelling the system – consequential modelling 5 Assignment two 6 12

Scoping the LCA Functional Unit (FU) Functional Unit Bridges Function to the Lifce Cycle Inventory (LCI) results – examples. .

Scoping the LCA Functional Unit (FU) LCA = relative approach = need common basis for comparison = functional unit: “Quantified function (product/service) to be used as reference unit for the LCA (ISO 14044)” production of steel bar supply of cal with milk (≠ production liter milk) painting m 2 of wall (≠ production liter paint) treatment of municipal waste Sources: Bundesarchiv; Joyful spherical creature 14

Scoping the LCA Functional Unit (FU) • measure of the outputs from processes in a given product system required to fulfill the function expressed by the functional unit (ISO 14044) • • production of 1 ton steel bar supply of 100 cal with milk (≠ production 1 liter milk) painting 1 m 2 of wall (≠ production 1 liter paint) treatment of 1 ton municipal waste Sources: Bundesarchiv; Joyful spherical creature 15

Scoping the LCA Function, Functional unit, Reference flow Functional Unit (FU) Reference flow (FU) WHAT should the product do? HOW MUCH of FUNCTION should be provided? HOW MUCH of PRODUCT is needed to provide the function? 16

Scoping the LCA Example: Correct choice of FU and RF (ISO 14040) § Function of drying hands, compare paper towel vs. air-dryer system § FU = identical number of pairs of hands dried for both systems. § RF = e. g. the average mass of paper or the average volume of hot air required for one pair of hand-dry, respectively. 17

Scoping the LCA Example: Incorrect choice of FU Comparison of two farming methods (organic vs. conventional): impacts from cultivating one hectare with wheat are compared. Misleading FU: yields will often differ between different farming methods. Correct FU: quality differences of wheat may additionally need to be considered; specify the amount of products to be compared, not the area cropped. (ILCD, Annex D) 18

Scoping the LCA Example: Incorrect choice of RF Chassis of television set: plastic type A vs. metal M vs. bio-based material B. FU = 1 tv set. Material impacts compared for RF= 1 kg of each material. Misleading RF weight of material required to construct the chassis differs between three materials. Correct RF reflect the quantity applied in producing the chassis of same technical quality (e. g. , mech. stability, durability…) Rarely appropriate to compare materials on an equal weight basis. (ILCD, Annex D) 19

Scoping the LCA Example: Incorrect choice of FU and RF Refillable milk bottles of material A vs. one-way beverage cartons of material B. LCA performed for one bottle and one beverage carton. Misleading FU and RF bottle is reused, carton not. Correct FU: ”Packaging 1000 litres of fresh milk in 1 l containers that may serve for distribution and storage of the milk in the chain from dairy to the private household”. Correct RF: e. g. 1000 beverage cartons and 40 bottles. (ILCD, Annex D) 20

CONTENT 1 What is LCA – use and limitations 2 Scoping the LCA 3 Assignment one 4 Modelling the system – consequential modelling 5 Assignment two 6 21

Assignment one Scoping the LCA (system analysis) Work in group is preferable § Prior to lecture identify product or intervention to be investigated. Cases could be bottle recycling system design options (see example project) or a product, e. g. a ‘personal’ drinking water container: § Document the definition of the functional unit for your case study. Specify Function, Functional Unit (FU), and Reference Flow (RF) for your case study product(s). Specify who is the target audience for the study, the decision maker, and the decision to be supported. § You document: function, functional unit, reference flow, target audience, decision maker, decision to be supported, your personal reflections on these choices. § You demonstrate: critical thinking skills about functionality of products and products comparability (if relevant), critical thinking skills regarding goal and scope definition of a LCA study. 22

CONTENT 1 What is LCA – use and limitations 2 Scoping the LCA 3 Assignment one 4 Modelling the system – consequential modelling 5 Assignment two 6 23

Modelling the system Phase one: Scoping “Phases” (ref. to the method, e. g. inventory) VS “Stages” (ref. to the case study, e. g. disposal, extraction, use) 24 24

Modelling the system What is LCI about? Identifying consequences in economy/product systems of our choices By modelling this, we can answer questions: § The impacts of different energy supply options, e. g. is biofuels good? § The impacts of different waste management options e. g. : - Is recycling good and under which conditions? - Are bioplastics preferable over conventional plastics? - Should plastic be biodegradable? - Is it good to incinerate plastic waste? - Etc § Etc. , on food, ecolabelling, policies, etc. 25

Modelling the system The three key questions: 1. How do we secure comparability? • Within or between product systems (Determined in scoping) 2. How do we link the data describing the product system? • Marginal supplier – marginal consumers 3. How do we handle co-products? • Substitution (=system expansion) 26

Modelling the system The three key questions: 1) Linking 1. Establish unit processes Easy! 2. Linking unit processes Difficult! Materials geothermal Elec. lignite PP, lignite Elec. Nat. gas PP, nat. gas Elec. , marked Elec. Heat Oil PP, oil Elec. Materials Wind turbines Elec. Wood chips CHP, wood ch. Elec. Heat, marked User Elec. Heat Example: current Ecoinvent data (v 3. 5) from Indonesia (high voltage marked mix). Assuming industrial user with access to CHP heat

Modelling the system The three key questions: 1) Linking 1. Establish unit processes Easy! 2. Linking unit processes Difficult! Materials geothermal lignite PP, lignite Elec. Nat. gas Elec. , marked Elec. PP, nat. gas Elec. Heat Oil PP, oil Materials Wind turbines Wood chips -Elec. CHP, wood Elec ch. Elec. Heat, marked User Elec. Heat Example: current Ecoinvent data (v 3. 5) from Indonesia (high voltage marked mix). Assuming industrial user with access to CHP heat

Modelling the system Typology and conventions – Terminology Activity = process as boxes • • Producing activities, including e. g. transport (reference flow = output) Treatment activities (reference flow = input) Flows as arrows • • Boxes System boundary Arrows Flows in economy = products and materials for treatment Elementary flow = flows to and from the environment Elementary flow (emissions, resources. . . ) Flows in economy (products and materials for treatment) Environmet Economy Activity 29

Modelling the system Typology and conventions – Terminology Processes => Transforming activity 1 Transforming activity 2 transforming activities treatment activities market activities (consumption mixes) Product X Transport Product X (losses) Product X (reference product) Market activity Waste of X (material for Treatment treatment) activity By-product Waste (MFT) 30

Modelling the system Foreground and background system Background: databases you use Foreground: what you model in LCA study 31

Modelling the system Modelling principles – Attributional (a. LCA) vs consequential (c. LCA) Purpose of consequential modelling is decision support: ▪ "what is the consequence of buying this product" ▪ "what is the consequence of choosing A instead of B" ▪ "what is the consequence of implementing new technology" Purpose of attributional modelling: "how has this product been produced" ▪ "analyse the current situation" ▪ "historically tracking mass or energy flows" 32

Modelling the system Modelling principles – Attributional (a. LCA) vs consequential (c. LCA) What information is relevant? ▪ Attributional: Relevant how products have been produced. Focus is on attributing impacts (and not to predict impacts!) ▪ Consequential: Relevant how the product will be produced as a consequence of our choice 33

Modelling the system Difference between a. LCA and c. LCA 1) clca versus alca linking How to link 2) substitution versus allocation Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Demand for product A Market Supplier 3 Supplier 4 Activity Multiple output activity A Determining B B Dependant Supplier 5 Market Supplier 6 B Consumer mix Multiple output from activity Consequential Marginal (actually affected) Substitution Attributional Allocation (current prod. mix) Allocation Multiple output activity A Determining B Dependant 34

Modelling the system Consequential modelling: Market mixes Supplying technologies: Market activity Old 0. 4 Composing a consumption mix Current 0. 3 1 Modern 0. 2 By-product 0. 1 X 35

Consequential modelling: Market mixes Composing a consumption mix: UNCONSTRAINED SUPPLIERS! Marginal, unconstrained suppliers ▪ Modern, competitive suppliers, when the product demand is generally increasing; ▪ Old, uncompetitive suppliers, when the product demand is generally decreasing relative to the replacement rate of capital (ISO, 2000. TECHNICAL REPORT ISO/TR 14049: 2000(E) — Examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. Geneva. [Clause 6. 4]) (Weidema, B. P. , 2003. Market information in life cycle assessment, Environmental Project no. 863. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen). 36

Consequential modelling: Market mixes Case: Increasing market trend Supplying technologies: Market activity 0. 4 0 Old X 0. 3 Current 0 X 0. 2 1 Modern 0. 1 X 0 By-product 1 37

Consequential modelling: Market mixes Case: Sharply decreasing market trend Supplying technologies: Market activity 0. 4 1 Old 0. 3 Current 0 X 0. 2 0 X Modern 0. 1 By-product 0 X 1 38

Consequential modelling: Market mixes Borderline between “modern” and “old” Production volume = capacity requirement ”modern” technology affected Capital replacement rate, e. g. at 30 years lifetime: 3. 33% anually ”old” technology affected Time 39

Consequential modelling: Market mixes Case: Constrained market Supplying technologies: 0. 4 0 Old 0. 3 Current 0 0. 2 0. 5 0 Modern 0. 1 By-product 0 Market activity X X --11 1 Example - Fully constrained market: Soybean oil (purchase induce production of marginal & substitutable oil: pt palm oil) - For partly constrained marked see e. g. : chicken-wing case & other slaughter products 40

Ex. : Electricity mix in ALCA and CLCA a. LCA: Mix at specified time Production volume / Capital Wind + biomass 60% Ngas 30% Coal 10% 60% 30% 10% Time 41

Ex. : Electricity mix in ALCA and CLCA Marginal mix Production volume / Capital Wind + biomass 60% Ngas 30% Coal 10% =1 Change in demand in clca: scaling the most suppliers most likely to be affected =0 =0 Time 42

Modelling the system Average versus marginal suppliers Attributional LCA • average data (average between suppliers) Consequential LCA: • Include only marginal suppliers (marginal affected activities) • Exclude constrained activities (will not respond to a change to in demand) Process A Hydro El. Coal El. Process A Wind El. Hydro El. Coal El. Wind El. 43

Modelling the system What is substitution Product A = A+I-D Product B = D 44

Modelling the system Substitution: Four conceptual cases 1) Combined production: output volumes of the co-products can be independently variedallocate”) by physical causality Joint production: the relative output volume of the co-products is fixed 2) Used product is the determining co-product 3) Used product is the dependant co-product 4) Used product is the determining co-product & there are more than one determining co-productsical based system expansion and correction in use stage (usually: leads to same results as economical allocation) 45

Modelling the system Substitution: Four conceptual cases 1) Combined production: output volumes of the co-products can be independently varied Model (or “allocate”) by physical causality ▪ ▪ Joint production: the relative output volume of the co-products is fixed 2) Used product is the determining co-product Multiple-output activity + intermediate treatment - avoided activity 3) Used product is the dependant co-product Exclude the multiple-output activity and include the marginal supply 4) Used product is the determining co-product & there are more than one determining co-products Economical based system expansion and correction in use stage (usually: leads to same results as economical allocation) 46

CONTENT 1 What is LCA – use and limitations 2 Scoping the LCA 3 Assignment one 4 Modelling the system – consequential modelling 5 Assignment two 6 47

Assignment two System modelling 1. Identify relevant co-products and materials for treatment in the foreground and background system of your product system. 2. For materials for treatment, identify possible downstream by-products 3. Choose one co-product situation you want to model. 4. Characterise the situation: a. b. Combined, or Joint production a. Determining product is linked to in your system b. Dependent product is linked to in your system c. There is more than one determining product 5. Draw a flow chart that illustrates the co-product situation 6. (Apply the model of your case in Sima. Pro) 48

LCA case studies Case study packaging Beverage packaging 49

LCA case studies Case study packaging • A first LCA study on beverage packaging was commissioned by Umweltbundesamt Deutschland in 2000 • Comparing packaging for non alcoholic drinks and wine • Results: • Returnable packaging from PET better than returnable packaging from Glass (specifically in resource depletion, Global Warming Potential and Acidification) • No difference between returnable packaging from glass and one-way composits (Tetra-Pack) • Glass-one way and beverage cans (tin and aluminium) both have disadvantages compared to returnable packaging • Distribution (transport) is one of the important factors 50

LCA case studies Case study packaging • In a follow up, optimised packaging systems for non alcoholic drinks were investigated (UBA, 2002) • Advantage for returnable packaging compared to one-way packaging also with optimised systems and higher input share of PET recycling (input of secondary PET 50%) • Environmental advantage for optimised systems compared to the 2000 study. Reasons: lower packaging weight, technical improvements in process technology 51

LCA case studies Case study packaging Mineral Water Returnable 0, 7 l glass Mineral Water Returnable 1, 5 l PET Mineral Water Non-returnable 1 l glass Mineral Water Non-returnable 1 l compound Mineral Water Returnable 1 l light glass (PU coated) Drinks without CO 2 Returnable 1 l glass Drinks without CO 2 Non-returnable 0, 75 l wide necked glass Refreshment Non-returnable 0, 33 l Aluminium can – 23 % Source: UBA, 2002 52

LCA case studies Case study packaging Source: UBA, 2002 53

LCA case studies Case study packaging aquatic eutrification COD cardboard (pulp!) production glass, ret. , 0. 7 l glass, ret. , 0, 75 l glass, ret. , 1. 0 l glass, non-ret. , 0. 75 l glass, non-ret. , 1. 0 l composite board, non-ret. , 1. 0 l Source: UBA, 2002 54

LCA case studies Case study packaging Source: UBA, 2002 55

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling In this LCA study, a recycling facility for e-waste was analysed. This high-tech plant reaches higher recycling rates (= current situation) than stipulated by law (= minimum requirement). The research question was: what is the environmental benefit when reaching higher recycling rates? 56

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling • Functional unit: 1 t WEEE treated at an state of the art Austrian WEEE recycling company. • System boundaries (processes included in the analysis): • Pre-treatment at the WEEE recycler in Austria • Further treatment and recycling of outputs of pre-treatment • Additional processes to fill basket of benefits Comparison of • Current situation (CS): material flows as measured at the recycling facility • Minimum requirements (MR): current situation adapted to recycle close to legal requirements 57

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling 1 t WEEE Background Additional processes for basket of benefits Foreground Pre-treatment Additional resources Thermal treatment Recycling facilities: Cu, steel, Al, battery, plastics Landfill Secondary resources: Energy, metals, plastics 58

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling 1 t WEEE Pre-treatment 10 kg 990 kg Shredder coarse fraction 415 kg Shredder fine fraction 325 kg 250 kg 27 kg 50 kg Fine fraction 264 kg 12 kg 264 kg CS: 193 kg to thermal treatment 805 kg to recycling 132 kg Coarse fraction 91 kg 144 kg MR: 323 kg to thermal treatment 675 kg to recycling 59

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling 60

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling Per t WEEE between 215 and 275 kg of GHG are avoided. 215 kg CO 2 e 275 kg CO 2 e 61

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling Optimistic 1 Ton CS: left bar MR: right bar 805 kg Conservative 675 kg 661 kg Input in recycling 563 kg 547 kg 515 kg Valuable material content (without energy) 482 kg 439 kg Gained secondary materials (without energy) 62

LCA case studies Case study e-waste recycling • Assumptions on yields and quality have effect but maybe less than expected in this case study • Legal requirements are necessary to ensure recycling, but operators will find optimum recycling rate to achieve win-win situation • Recycling rates are more relevant than recovery quotas for treatment choices • Definition and perception of recycling rates is important • Even with state of the art treatment, material cycle can only partly be closed Details in: Unger N, Beigl P, Höggerl G, Salhofer S (2017) The greenhouse gas benefit of recycling waste electrical and electronic equipment above the legal minimum requirement: An Austrian LCA case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 164: 16351644. doi: http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. jclepro. 2017. 06. 225 63

Project Coordination: European Partners: South-east Asian partners: Local Coordination in Vietnam: Local Coordination in Laos: Green Environment Import-Export Sole Co. , Ltd. 26. 3 Co. Ltd 64