Lca Slides

Energy Resources, Economics and Sustainability
Lecture 33
Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Pratham Arora
Hydro and Renewable Energy Department
1
What is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)?
“Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the

potential environmental impacts of a product system
throughout its life cycle”* *ISO 14040:2006
➢ Process split into life cycle stages and LCA phases

• Stages are portions of the product life cycle and
phases are the portions of the LCA process
➢ Data collected on inputs and outputs of the system
➢ Associated environmental and resource impacts of those
inputs and outputs
Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC
2
Phases Versus Stages Stages
Sections of product life cycle
Phases
Extraction and upstream production
Portions of LCA procedure
Transport
Manufacture
Goal and Scope Transport
Use
Transport
Inventory Disposal/recycling
Interpretation
Analysis
Note: This is a general diagram
of stages, and some products
or processes may have more
Impact or less stages than those
shown here
Assessment
Source: ISO 14040:2006
3
Principles of LCA
➢ Guidance for product, process, or constructed element selection
➢ Entire life cycle environmental burden between stages and processes
➢ Relative to a functional unit:
▪ Functional unit is a quantified amount of function obtained from the product or
process:
❖ Light bulb functional unit might be 1,000,000 lumen-hours of light
❖ Bus functional unit might be 10,000 passenger-kilometers traveled
➢ Only environmental considerations addressed
▪ Economic, social, and other aspects could be considered
with other tools
➢ Iterative process where each phase uses results of other phases
▪ For example: goal and scope can and should be updated
during analysis of other stages
4
LCA Science
➢ Comprehensiveness
▪ Attempt to cover all attributes or aspects of natural environment, human
health and resources
▪ Therefore, include a wide range of potential environmental impacts in LCA
studies
▪ Coverage of every conceivable impact not possible
➢ No scientific basis for generating a single overall score
▪ Must report individual impact scores
➢ Priority of scientific approach to characterize impacts:
▪ First: Natural science
▪ Next: Social or economic science or International
convention
▪ Last: Value choices (opinion, preferences)
5
Why Do An LCA?
▪ Identify opportunities to improve environmental
performance
▪ Inform decision-makers
▪ Select relevant indicators of environmental performance
▪ Marketing e.g. ecolabel

6
ISO 14040 Background
▪ LCA Principles and Framework
“Details the requirements for conducting an LCA”*
Also covers Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) only study
▪ Developed first by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) in 1996.
• Updated to second edition in 2006
▪ Guiding document for basic Life Cycle Assessment procedures
❖ More detailed procedures and examples in:
*ISO 14040:2006
✓ ISO 14044 – Requirements and guidelines
✓ ISO/TR 14047 – Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO
14044 to impact assessment situations
✓ ISO/TS 14071 – Critical review process and reviewer
competencies: Additional requirements and guidelines to
ISO 14044:2006
✓ ISO/TS 14048 – Data documentation format
7
Scope of ISO 14040
ISO 14040 contains general information on:
a. Goal and scope of LCA
b. LCI phase Phases of an LCA
c. LCIA phase
d. Interpretation phase
e. Reporting and critical review
f. Limitations
g. Relationship between phases
h. Conditions for use of value choices and optional elements
Normative references: Need to use 14044 to apply 14040
8
1. Goal and Scope
2. Life Cycle Phases

Inventory (LCI) of
LCA
an LCA
Phases 3. Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA)
4. Interpretation
Image Sources: Target: wikia.nocookie.net Data: dreamstime.com Earth: business2community.com 9
Goal: Goal statement is the Scope: Scope provides background information, details
first component of an LCA methodological choices, and lays out report format
and guides much of the Scope includes:
subsequent analysis •
•
Product system
Functions of systems
Phase 1:
Goal must state:
▪ Intended use
• Functional unit Goal
• System boundary
▪ Reasons for study
• Allocation procedures and
▪ Audience •
▪ Whether comparative and
Impact categories, assessment
method and interpretation type
Scope
disclosed to public • Data requirements
• Assumptions
• Limitations
• Initial data quality requirements
• Type of critical review, if any
• Type and format of report
10
Phases 2: Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Phase
Data collection
• As much input and output data as possible is collected
• Can be presented in report or kept private, such as if confidentiality agreements warrant
• Useful for other researchers that could use that data
Phases 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Phase

Conversion of inventory data into environmental impact potentials
• Impact categories, indication, and characterization models are
chosen
• Data are grouped based on potential to cause certain
environmental impacts (classification)
• Input and output quantities converted to potential impacts
based on characterization factors (characterization)
• Optional steps: Normalization, grouping, weighting
11
➢ Continually ongoing during assessment to help guide
other phases
➢ Discussion of inventory analysis and impact assessment
results in LCA study
▪ In an LCI study, only inventory needs to be discussed
Phase 4:
➢ Can be modeled as conclusions and recommendations to Interpretation
the decision maker
➢ Should be consistent with and based on goal and scope
of the study
➢ Should reflect the various uncertainties inherent in LCA
including:
▪ LCA is based on a relative approach using a functional
unit
▪ Impacts are “potential”
12
Limitations of LCA
• “Not a complete assessment of all environmental issues”*
because only those identified in the goal and scope are
considered
• LCI can rarely, if ever, include every single process and
capture every single input and output due to system
boundaries, data gaps, cut-off criteria, etc.
• LCI data collected contains uncertainty
• Characterization models are far from perfect
• Sensitivity and other uncertainty analyses are not fully
developed
*ISO 14040:2006
13
Critical Review
▪ Necessary component for comparative studies disclosed to
the public
▪ Verifies process and consistency with principles
• Not an endorsement
• Does not verify or validate goals
▪ Can improve credibility of study
▪ Critical review process defined in goal and scope!
▪ External independent chairperson and at least two other
members
14
➢ Systematic procedure for environmental assessment through
product or process life cycle
➢ Functional unit basis for comparisons differs from many other
environmental management techniques
Summary
➢ Amenable to data confidentiality needs and proprietary matters Features
➢ Open to update based on new science and developing
techniques
of
➢ Not overly restrictive an LCA
➢ Impacts identified are all expressed as POTENTIAL
➢ LCIA converts LCI results to environmental issues based on
characterization factors
➢ Systematic approach to identify, check, evaluate and present
information based on goal and scope
➢ Iterative process with continual interpretation
➢ May link to other environmental management techniques
15
Goal Goal and Scope
➢ First component of an LCA following
the requirements of ISO 14044
▪ Goal must state: Inventory
Interpretation
▪ Intended use Analysis
▪ Reasons for study
▪ Audience Impact
▪ Whether comparative and Assessment
disclosed to public
➢ Helps form the basis for:
▪ Scope definition
▪ Methodologies used
▪ Presentation of results
Not reviewable in the critical review
16
Goal Statement Example ▪ Introduction
▪ Reason for carrying
The goal was to generate a quantitative environmental profile of the out
management system for all of the used oil generated in California.
▪ Intended use
The results of the LCA, when combined with a closely integrated
economic assessment performed by the economic contractor, will ▪ Intended audience
provide sufficiently broad information to be used by CalRecycle to ▪ Public, comparative
fulfill its duties pursuant to Section 48651.5 (b) (1) (D), namely, to
provide suggestions to the Legislature regarding possible policy
changes to promote increased collection and responsible
management of used oil. The intended audience of the study is
CalRecycle, all industries involved in and affected by the
management of used oil generated in California, and the public at
large. The results of this study are intended to be used in
comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public.
17
Goal
Statement
Guides
Analysis
18
Function House Students
➢ What the product(s) or process(es) is designed to do
➢ Often intuitive
▪ However, function must be stated to make it
unambiguous
➢ Important to help define the system and functional unit
Generate Light Transport People
Source: Dorm: dci-engineers.com

19
Functional Unit Definition
Functional Unit
“Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit.”*
*ISO 14044
20
Quantity
Functional Unit
➢ Some consider correct determination of functional unit the
highest priority in LCA* Quality
➢ Must be “clearly defined and measurable”**
➢ Especially important in comparative studies to ensure fair Duration
comparison
➢ Value not particularly important
➢ Unit is very important
Functional Unit
➢ Best to set functional unit before collecting data (though not
required)
➢ Can always change it later
➢ Product lifetime should be considered later when applying
functional unit
*Klopffer, W., and Grahl, B. (2014). “Goal and Scope Definition.” Life Cycle Assessment.
**ISO 14044, Components description: Simonen, K. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment. Routledge, New York, NY.
21
Functional Unit
Functional unit defines what quantity of the product’s function is achieved to cause the
environmental impacts identified
• Light bulb functional unit might be 1,000,000 lumen-hours of light
• Bus functional unit might be 10,000 passenger-kilometer
• Dormitory building functional unit might be house 200 students for one year
For 20 Million
lumen-hours
Figure credit: U.S. Department of Energy. “Life Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products.”
22
Functional Unit Example Statement
Situation: Comparing an LED, CFL, and incandescent bulb
Example statement: The function of the compared product

systems is to provide lighting in residential applications. The
functional unit is defined to be twenty million lumen-hours of
light, with a wavelength between 450-600 nm, provided. This
functional unit was chosen because lumen-hours is a
common unit of cumulative illumination measurement,
twenty million lumen-hours represents approximately one
LED lamp’s illumination over its full life-time, and the
wavelength range represents visible light appropriate for
home illumination.
23
Functional Unit Choice not Trivial
Shopping bag comparing paper, plastic, and cloth
▪ Functional unit could be to carry a certain volume or a certain weight of
groceries a certain number of times (i.e. 5 kg of groceries on 10 trips)
Image sources: Plastic: thisoldhouse.com Paper: tumblr.com Cloth: nextshark.com
24
Relating to the functional unit basis
Functional unit = 50,000 passenger-miles traveled
25
Manufacture Use Disposal
1,000 kg steel per car Gaseous emissions: 1,000 kg steel to be
which lasts for 100,000 20 kg CO2 per liter of gas, which recycled per car
km at average occupancy powers car for 28 km w/ 1.5 pass
of 1.5 persons
Brake/tire wear:
• 0.2 kg PM10 per 60000 km
w/ 1.5 passengers
Collect input/output Express

data based on how inputs/outputs in Multiply by value of
much of the function terms of one unit of functional unit
is accomplished function
26
Gaseous emissions:
1000 𝑘𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑘𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 20 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2 1 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2
= 0.0067 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚 ∗ 28 𝑘𝑚∗1.5 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 0.48 1000 𝑘𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑘𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙
100,000 𝑘𝑚∗1.5 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠 1 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚
100,000 𝑘𝑚∗1.5 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠
= 0.0067 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚
Brake/tire wear:
0.2 𝑘𝑔 𝑃𝑀10 𝑘𝑔 𝑃𝑀10
= 2.2 × 10−6
60000 𝑘𝑚∗1.5 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚

27
Gaseous emissions:
𝑘𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2 𝑘𝑔 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙
0.0067 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚 ∗ 50,000 𝑝 ∗ 𝑘𝑚 0.48 ∗ 50,000 𝑝 ∗ 𝑘𝑚 0.0067 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚 ∗ 50,000 𝑝 ∗ 𝑘𝑚
𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚
= = =
𝟑𝟑𝟓 𝒌𝒈 𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒆𝒍 24,000 𝒌𝒈 𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝟑𝟑𝟓 𝒌𝒈 𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒆𝒍
Brake/tire wear:
𝑘𝑔 𝑃𝑀10
2.2 × 10−6 ∗ 50,000 𝑝 ∗ 𝑘𝑚
𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠∗𝑘𝑚
=
0.11 kg PM10

28
Thermo-Electric Power Plant
Function?
Source: https://www.linquip.com/blog/how-does-coal-energy-work/
29
Function: generating
electricity
Inputs? Outputs?
30
Function: generating
electricity
Inputs: coal, water, air,

control chemicals, etc. Outputs: CO2, ash, SOx, PM2.5, etc.
31
Functional unit: what would be a good way to normalize inputs
and outputs?
32
Functional unit: kilowatt hour (kWh) (other scales might work)
Normalized inputs
and outputs:
x kg coal/kWh
y kg CO2/kWh
z kg ash/kWh
33
Functional Unit Bridges Function to the Necessary LCI results
Table below attempts to show this..
Product
Function Functional Unit Example LCI Results
System
1 kWh of
Generating
Power Plant electricity kg CO2 per kWh
electricity
generated
pair of hands NIJ energy per pair of
Hand Dryer Drying hands
dried hands dried
100 lumens light
g Mercury per 100
light Bulb Providing light for 1 hour (100
lumen-hrs
lumen-hrs)
34
Processes
Unit process
“Smallest element considered in the life
cycle inventory analysis for which input,
and output data are quantified.”*
Process
“Set of interrelated or interacting activities
that transforms inputs into outputs.”*
Corn
Seed
Natural gas Water
Ethanol Corn
Electricity Grow
Produce Fertilizer
Stillage Corn Fertilizer
Water Ethanol Tilling Runoff
Enzymes Carbon dioxide
Whole corn
Yeast Corn flour
Electricity Milling
General Unit Process Diagram: Scott et al. 2013 *ISO 14040
35
Product System
“Collection of unit processes with elementary and product flows, performing one or more
defined functions, and which models the life cycle of a product”*
*ISO 14040
Diagram: Geyer, R., Kuczenski, B.,
Henderson, A., Zink, T. (2013). “Life Cycle
Assessment of Used Oil Management in
California.” California Dep. of Resources
Recycling and Recovery.
36
System Boundary
“Set of criteria specifying which unit processes are part of a product system”*
➢ Ideally only materials and energy directly from and to the environment would cross
boundary
▪ Practically inputs and outputs from other systems will cross
➢ Choice of system boundary will affect results
Ideal System Boundary Practical System Boundary
Process A Raw materials Materials to

Raw materials Materials to from envr. Process
Environment
from environment Process B Environment A
Inputs from Outputs to
Process C other systems Process other systems
B
Energy Process D Energy Energy Energy
System Boundary System Boundary
Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC *ISO 14040

37
System Boundary - Corn Ethanol
Inputs
Sunlight
Water Corn Grain Grain
Processing
Inputs to fertilizer,
pesticide, seed, Fertilizer Fertilizer Corn Outputs
ethanol production Production Stover Ethanol
Farming Product. Emissions to air
Farm Out Pesticide Pesticides Processes Processes
Inputs Emissions to water
Infrastructure Production
Infrastr.
Manufacture Emissions to soil
Seed Seeds
Inputs Ethanol Out Production Ethanol
Prod. Equip. Combustion Energy
Equip.
Manufacture
Inputs Diesel
Diesel System Boundary
Production Out
38
“Specification of the amount of material or energy flow or the level
of environmental significance associated with unit processes or
product system to be excluded from a study.”*
➢ Why are they useful?
▪ Reduce omissions of important processes/flows
▪ Reduce data collection waste for inconsequential Cut-off
processes/flows criteria
➢ Can be based on mass, energy, or environmental significance?
▪ Best to avoid mass-only cut-off criteria
➢ Can be based on percentage of a process or percentage in overall
system? If all flows from a process would fall below cut-off,
whole process would be excluded
▪ For example: development of infrastructure and capital
goods are generally excluded
➢ Possible effects of cut-off criteria should be assessed and
described
39
Allocation Product A
“Partitioning the input or output flows of a process or a Process
product system between the product system under study Product B
and one or more other product systems.”*
Main cases:
▪ Co-products
▪ Reuse/recycling
Many choices to deal with partitioning

▪ Best one is to avoid allocation altogether
Must state procedures to use in the scope

Allocation procedures for similar scenarios within study
should be consistent *ISO 14040 Image source: tinleypark.org
40
Allocation Decision Tree (Simonen 2014)
Diagram: Simonen, K. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment. Routledge, New York, NY.
41
Allocation – Co-products
Co-products: more than one product is produced in a single unit
process
➢ How much of the process impacts should be assigned to each
product?
• Mass, volume, energy are common ways to decide based
on physical relationships
➢ No physical relationship between outputs
• Economic value is a common choice
➢ Consider if one is waste or if they are truly co-products
Frequently encountered in following
industries: Chemical, Agricultural,
Mining, Oil refining, Metallurgy
Figure source: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/pdfs/chapter3lca101.pdf
42
Energy systems LCA: Multiple products
unit Emissions 1 kg allocated Emissions 0.2 kg
process process
20 kg product A
20 kg product A 80 kg product B
allocated Emissions 0.8 kg
process
On a mass basis, product A is allocated 20% of the emissions. 80 kg product B
unit allocated Emissions 0.9 kg

Emissions 1 kg
process process
20 kg product A
20 kg product A 80 kg product B $900
$900 $100
allocated Emissions 0.1 kg
process
On an economic basis, product A is allocated 90% of the emissions. 80 kg product B

$100
43
System Expansion to Avoid Allocation
Want to compare System 1
Emissions/Wastes Emissions/Wastes System 1 Emissions/Wastes
Products A and C
Inputs Inputs Inputs
x kg of
Production Production Production Product A
Processes
for A and B
– Processes
for B
= x kg of
Product A By subtraction
Processes
for A and B
= +
y kg
Output by system: Product B
x kg x kg
Product A 1. x kg Product A Product A
y kg Product B y kg Product B 2. z kg Product C y kg Product B
System 2 System 2
Emissions/Wastes Emissions/Wastes Emissions/Wastes
Inputs Inputs Inputs
By addition z kg of
Production Output by system: Production Production Product C
Processes
for C
= z kg of
Product C
1. x kg Product A Processes
for C
+ Processes
for B
= +
y kg
y kg Product B Product B
2. z kg Product C
z kg Product C y kg Product B z kg Product C y kg Product B
Figures adapted from: Klöpffer, W. and Grahl, B. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Wiley, Weinheim, Germany.
44
Inputs
Sunlight
Water Corn Grain Grain
Processing
Inputs to fertilizer,
pesticide, seed, Fertilizer Fertilizer
Corn Outputs
ethanol production Production Ethanol
Farming Stover
Product. Emissions to air
Farm Out Pesticide Pesticides Processes
Inputs Processes Emissions to water
Infrastructure Production
Infrastr.
Manufacture Emissions to soil
Seed Seeds
Inputs Ethanol Out Production Ethanol
Prod. Equip. Energy
Equip. Combustion
Manufacture
Inputs Diesel
Diesel System Boundary
Production Out
Co-products – Corn Grain and Stover

45
➢ Two things happening
▪ Impacts from recycling/reuse process
▪ Impacts avoided from using recycled material rather primary
(similar to subtractive system expansion) Allocation –
➢ Question: Which product takes on these impacts/avoided impacts? Reuse/Recycling
▪ The one being disposed of?
▪ The one being produced?
➢ Examples:
▪ Aluminum recycling
▪ Lube oil re-refining
▪ Tire burning for energy recovery
▪ Consider if properties of product are different than from production

with primary materials
46
Closed Loop Recycling
Recycle oil
into base oil
Lubricating Oil Produce Blend
Crude oil Use oil
base oil additives
Recycle into
MDO
Open Loop Recycling

Marine Diesel Produce
Crude oil Use fuel
Oil (fuel) MDO
Allocation –
Reuse/Recycling
47
➢ Closed loop – relatively simple Allocation Reuse/Recycling
➢ Open loop – more difficult allocation decision
➢ With open loop, less MDO from crude oil needed so can discount impacts, but from where:
▪ End-of-life method: from lube oil life– rewards recyclable products
▪ Recycled content method: from MDO life cycle – reward products made from recycled
materials
▪ Equal parts: half to lube oil, half to MDO
▪ Decide that certain recycling processes go
with one system and others to the other
48
Allocation – Reuse/Recycling – Open Loop
Reward allocated to lubricating oil in this example for lube oil disposal
Figure source: Langfitt, Q., and Haselbach L. (2014). “Assessment of Lube Oil Management and Self-Cleaning Oil
Filer Feasibility in WSF Vessels.” Report for PacTrans.
49
Life Cycle Stages
50
Phases Versus Stages Stages
Sections of product life cycle
Phases
Extraction and upstream production
Portions of LCA procedure
Transport
Manufacture
Goal and Scope Transport
Use
Transport
Inventory Disposal/recycling
Interpretation
Analysis
Note: This is a general diagram
of stages, and some products
or processes may have more
Impact or less stages than those
shown here
Assessment
Source: ISO 14040:2006
51
Life Cycle of a Building
Source (bottom cropped): WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative, PCR for concrete, UN CPC 375, 2013-02-12
52
Most common/applicable to wide range of situations
Life Cycle Split by Stages Analyzed
Source: WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative, PCR for concrete, UN CPC 375, 2013-02-12
53
Life Cycle of a Transportation Fuel
Well-to-Wheel
Well-to-Pump
Pump-to-Wheel
Image Source (without dashed boxes): transportblog.co.nz
54
Functional unit System Boundary
• Per service unit (e.g., mile driven, ton-mi)
• Per unit of output (e.g., million Btu, MJ, gasoline gallon equivalent)
• Per units of resource (e.g., per ton of biomass)
55
Inputs and Outputs throughout Stages
Source: Environmental Protection Agency.

1993. Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory
Guidelines and Principles. EPA/600/R-
92/245. Office of Research and
Development. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
56
Why Split into Stages?
➢ Organize data collection
➢ Organize presentation
➢ Identify weak environmental links in life cycle
➢ Group unit processes to make it easier to identify which
were included
➢ Allow for easier aggregation and disaggregation
▪ For others studying the product with only one or two stages
different
▪ For ability to consider cradle-to-gate instead of cradle-to-grave
only
57
Common Stages (Covered in this Module)
Raw Materials/Upstream Processing
Transportation
Manufacture
Transportation
Use
Transportation
Disposal/Recycling/Reuse
*Other stages, such as construction (execution), could be included
depending on the product/system
58
Material Extraction/Upstream Processing
Material Extraction Some Considerations
Exploration for and removal of raw Equipment

materials from natural systems Fuel use
Land use
Water use
Waste flows
Upstream processing
Transformation of raw
materials into a form useful
for manufacturing
Image sources: phoenixparts.com, blog.tradequip.com, columbiatechnologies.com
59
Manufacture
Some Considerations
Transforming energy and raw/pre-processed materials Energy use (gas, electric, etc.)
into products, and packaging them for distribution
Raw material use
Chemical use and wastes
May include assembly of parts, transportation between
Equipment
facilities, packaging for distribution, and any uses and
Co-products?
emissions from the facility
Image sources: madeintheusa.dreamlandinteractive.com angus-selfstorage.co.uk info.zentech.com
60
Use
How is the product intended to be used?
Some How much will the product typically be used?
Considerations What variations are possible (operating, environmental, etc.)?
How much of the product might be spilled or improperly used?
Image source:
Consumer’s use of the product, including maintenance livestrong.com
➢ Difficult to quantify in some cases since use can vary considerably and
be out of the control of the company producing the product
❖ For example, use impacts from a lawn mower depends on
• Frequency of mowing
• Size of lawn
• Mower life span given treatment by user
• Quality of lubrication and other parts upkeep
➢ Due to uncertainty, may be wise to examine multiple use cases
61
Examples of products with varying levels of use impacts
Ruler
Few or no inputs or outputs during use
New strings Acoustic guitar Old strings

Very infrequent, minor inputs/outputs
Electricity Television
Regular energy input
Electricity
Soap Dishwasher Wastewater
Water A few frequent inputs/outputs
Gasoline Tailpipe emissions

Oil/coolant/brake/washer fluids
Car Oil/coolant leaks
Seals/replacement parts
Many frequent energy and material Tire/brake wear
inputs/outputs
Brake pads, tires Used tires
62
Energy Water Nexus
Disposal/Recycling/Reuse
Getting rid of the product at the end of its life
Some Considerations
Similar issues as use for uncertainty
• For example, disposal of lubricating oil could be done by What disposal options possible?
• Dumping Which most likely?
Is a product offset by disposal?
• Incineration Is there additional transport
• Re-refining involved in this stage?
• Distillation
Due to uncertainty, may be wise to include multiple use cases in
analysis or present sensitivity analyses.
If recycling or reusing, some impacts may be offset in this stage
• Can sometimes result in net environmental benefits for this stage
• Example: -5 kg CO2-eq for GWP means that it was as if 5 kg of CO2
were sequestered (does not mean actual physical sequestration
occurred)
63
Example of Disposal Routes for a Plastic Water Bottle
Refill with tap

water and reuse
Plastic water bottle Labeling, Disposal

production from packaging, Use Throw in trash Options
raw materials distribution
Recycling of plastic
Throw in recycle
and reforming into
bin
water bottles
64
Long term disposal
Materials and products must be moved at multiple points in the life cycle
• After extraction Some Considerations
• After processing and/or manufacture Modes of transport
• To the customer Fuel type
• To the disposal facility Distance
Impacts from various transport methods are generally well studied Weight
• Most databases have these processes Shipped with other products?
• Many studies in the literature
• Often only include energy, regulated emissions, and greenhouse gases
Transport processes can be:
• Considered to be one stage overall
• Considered to be individual stages for each transport process
• Included as part of the stage directly before or after
• Choose one or the other to avoid double counting
65
Common Transport Modes
Image sources: popularmechanics.com blog.uship.com truckstars.com maritime-connector.com jsg.utexas.edu boluo-logistics.com
66
Lecture 37
LCA: Data and impact assessment
Pratham Arora
67
Data is Very Important in LCA
LCA is built around data
Poor/missing data either
• Increases uncertainty and decreases usability of the study
• Goes unnoticed and might bias results
Good data more important for processes with higher impacts

No single database that all LCA analysts use
Data must be sourced and/or collected
• Can take time and money to collect, especially for complex
systems
Sources must be documented and quality should be
considered and discussed
68
Data Quality
One way to determine significance is
sensitivity analysis
Change process data by certain percent and

analyze how much that impacts overall results
• High impact=high sensitivity
Diagram: Simonen, K. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment. Routledge, New York, NY.
69
Primary Data
• Measured or calculated directly from the source
• Example: Measure pollutants in an exhaust stream with gas chromatography
• Example: Read electricity use from a meter at a manufacturing facility
Secondary Data
• Obtained from sources such as databases and literature
• Example: Crude oil production from ecoinvent LCI database
Proxy Data
Data for a product or process that is assumed to be
roughly equivalent to the product or process of interest
Example: Emissions from a school bus assumed to be similar
to city transit bus when no data for school bus is available
70
• Direct measurement of process data
• Communication with companies/agencies Primary data
that have directly measured process data
• Journal articles
• Other papers and reports, such as agency
reports (DOE, EPA, DOT), private company
reports, and theses
• LCI databases Secondary data
• Free software sources such as GREET or
EIO-LCA
• Environmental product declarations
(EPDs)
Estimated
• Estimation data
71
Journals Commonly Including LCA
• International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
• Journal of Industrial Ecology
• Journal of Cleaner Production
• Environmental Science and Technology
• Environmental Impact Assessment Review
• Management of Environmental Quality
72
LCI Databases
Often the most feasible way to locate large amounts of high-quality data for completing
an LCA
LCI databases contain information on inputs and outputs
Usually functions seamlessly with LCA software
Also usually contain extensive documentation describing sources of data, allocation

procedures, system boundaries, etc. used to develop that data
Both free and paid versions available with focuses varying by:
• Geographic region
• Industry
73
Common LCI Databases
• ecoinvent (European focused)

• GaBi (professional and extension databases)
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) US LCI
• Franklin US LCI Library
• USDA National Agricultural Library Digital Commons
• Athena Institute Database
• GREET (Not an LCI database, but a data source often used for LCA)
74
ecoinvent
• Originally based in Switzerland, and then Europe, Version 3
includes many global market chains
• Covers a wide range of sectors with over 11,0000 datasets
• ecoinvent is a not-for-profit association founded
by ETHZ, EPFL, PSI, Empa and ART
• ETHZ (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich)
• EPFL (Swiss École Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne)
• PSI (Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland)
• Empa (research Institute of the ETH Domain)
• ART (Agroscope research in Switzerland)
• Uses ecoSpold data format for compatibility with many LCA
softwares including GaBi, SimaPro, OpenLCA, and others
75
Source: SimaPro software with ecoinvent database
76
Source: SimaPro software with ecoinvent database
77
GaBi Databases
• Produced by Sphera
• Only available with purchase
and use of GaBi
Extension Databases
• Processes and documentation available

to explore before purchasing
• Also include various normalization and
weighting factors
• Professional database includes a range of
2500 products and processes built mostly
on European/global data
• Many focused “extension” databases can
be purchased and used alone or along
with the Professional database
78
79
US LCI
Produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory starting in
2001, with support from other stakeholders such as:
• Athena Institute
• American Plastics Council
• Portland cement association
• U.S. Car Project (Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler)
• U.S. Department of Energy
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• U.S. EPA
• U.S. Green Building Council
• Many others
• Motivation was to provide a free, consistent, US-focused set of
data
Motivation was to provide a free, consistent, US-focused set of data
80
USDA National Agri. Library Digital Commons
• Crop impacts for corn, cotton, oats, peanuts, rice, soybeans, and wheat
• Impacts for various agricultural equipment including balers, combines,
generators, irrigation, pumps, tractors, and more
• Mineral, fertilizer, and pesticide data under development
• Most products and processes include detailed documentation
81
Athena Institute Database
• Focused on the buildings sector with materials such as steel, wood, wallboard,
insulation, shingles, and paint
• Only available within Athena’s Impact Estimator, not for standalone use or use
with another LCA program
• However, some of the data in it is publicly available in the form of LCA and LCI
reports detailing their studies of products
82
GREET
• Greenhouse gas, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation
• Not an LCI database, but instead returns information on some specific emissions
to air and energy
• Not an ideal data source alone due to the limited information
• Can be used as inputs for an LCA or verification of full LCI data from other sources
• Available as a spreadsheet tool or graphic program
83
What is an Environmental Impact Category?
Impact Category
“Class representing environmental issues of concern to which

life cycle inventory analysis results may be assigned”*
More simply:
More simply:
Types of environmental
Types issuesissues
of environmental that could
thatbe caused
could by the inputs
be caused and
by the inputs and outputs of the
outputs of the product or process
product or process being analyzedbeing analyzed
*ISO 14040:2006 Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC
84
Classes of Impact Categories
Human
Ecosystems
Health
Resources
85
Common Emissions Impact Categories Some can be partitioned
• Acidification Potential (AP) further into:
• Ecotoxicity Potential (ETP) • Air
• Eutrophication Potential (EP) (Also: Nutrification) • Water
• Global Warming Potential (GWP) (Also: Climate Change) • Soil
• Human Toxicity Cancer Potential (HTCP) (Also: Human Health Cancer)
• Human Toxicity Non-Cancer Potential (HTNCP) (Also: Human Health
Non-Cancer)
• Human Health Criteria Air Potential (HHCAP) (Also: Human Health
Particulates)
• Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Potential (OPD) (Also: Ozone Layer
Depletion)
• Smog Creation Potential (SCP) (Also: Photochemical Ozone Creation)
86
Other Impact Categories
• Nuisance-related Impacts (odor, sound, etc.) Particularly uncommon
• Indoor Air Quality
• (Ionizing) Radiation Potential
• Ecosystem Damage Potential
• Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential
• Biotic Resource Depletion Potential
• Fossil Fuel Depletion Potential
• Energy Use
• Land Use
• Water Use
• Landfill Use
87
Process of Computing Environmental Impacts
Characterization Classification
Impact category selection Mandatory Category indicator

(Comprehensive set) Elements selection
Characterization model
selection (impact methodology)
88
Example of Process
• Impact category selection:
– GWP, AP, EP, ETP, HTNCP, HTCP, HHCAP, ODP, SCP
• Characterization model selection:
– EF 3.0 (other options include IMPACT 2002+, CML 2001…)
• Category indicator selection:
– kg CO2-eq for GWP, kg SO2-eq for AP, kg N-eq for EP, etc…
• Classification:
– NH3 (Ammonia) → Acidification, Human Health Criteria Air, Eutrophication
• Characterization:
1.88 𝑘𝑔 𝑆𝑂2 −𝑒𝑞
– Acidification: 𝑥 𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 1.88𝑥 𝑘𝑔 𝑆𝑂2 − Repeat for each flow
𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3
𝑒𝑞
0.067 𝑘𝑔 𝑃𝑀2.5 −𝑒𝑞
– Criteria air: 𝑥 𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 =
𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3
0.067𝑥 𝑘𝑔 𝑃𝑀2.5 − 𝑒𝑞
0.12 𝑘𝑔 𝑁−𝑒𝑞
– Eutrophication: 𝑥 𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 0.12𝑥 𝑘𝑔 𝑁 − 𝑒𝑞
𝑘𝑔 𝑁𝐻3
89
1 kg of substance GWP*
Variability of Effects by Various Substances (CO2-eq)
Carbon Dioxide 1
Different substances force different amounts of impacts per unit Carbon Tetrachloride 1400
mass CFC 12 10,900

• 1 kg NOx forces only 0.7 times the acidification potential as 1 kg Chloroform 31
SO2 Methane 25
Some emissions have different residence times in the atmosphere Methyl Bromide 5
over which they force impacts Nitrous Oxide 298
• Mostly applied to global warming potential 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 146
Mass Scale “GWP” Scale
*Table of GWP values is a sample of substances using TRACI 2.1 methodology
90
Energy Water
Anthropogenic NexusSources
vs. Natural
Natural sources of environmental impacts exist Anthropogenic
Caused by human activity
• Volcanos emit SO2 (contributes to acidification)
• Respiration of organisms emits CO2
• Forests emit volatile organic compounds (can
contribute to smog formation)
Life cycle assessment is not meant to quantify natural
sources, but rather to guide process and product
production that add additional emissions
• Therefore, only anthropogenic emissions are
included in LCA
Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC Source: Environmental Science and Pollution Research
91
EnergyBreadth
Geographic Water Nexus
of Impacts
Global
• Global warming, ozone depletion, human toxicity
Regional
• Acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, water use
Local
• Acidification, eutrophication, smog, human toxicity
Images: Global: wikipedia.org U.S.: alg.umbc.edu Pin: cdn2.hubspot.net
92
Energy
Impact Water Nexus
Category Indicator
“Quantifiable representation of an impact category”*
Global warming potential
• 25 kg CO2-eq
Acidification potential
• 5.4 kg SO2-eq or 274 moles H+-eq *ISO 14040:2006
Ozone layer depletion
• 4.9 kg CFC-11 eq
Photochemical oxidation (Ex. Smog)

• 1.2 kg C2H4-eq or 10.8 kg O3-eq
93
Types ofEnergy
ImpactWater Nexus
Category Indicators
Midpoint Endpoint
Direct effects Final effects
Ozone Depletion Flow Diagram Objective Interpretable
Emissions Substances are Ozone depleted Reduced Effects on human

of ozone transported to based on ozone allows health, plants,
depleting stratosphere where substance’s increased UVB organisms
substances Cl- and Br- detach reactivity/lifetime penetration buildings, etc.
Example of Midpoint:
• Releases of all
substances equal in
ozone depletion to x kg
CFC-11
Adapted from: Bare, J., Norris, G., Pennington, D., and McKone, T. (2002). “Traci.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(3‐4), 49-78.
94
Energy
Life Cycle WaterAssessment
Impact Nexus
Source: SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library.
95
Energyare
Impacts Water Nexus
“Potential”
Various limitations lead to the necessity to call environmental impacts identified in LCA “potentials”:
• Underlying simplifications *assumptions and
• Underlying assumptions simplifications need to be
reviewed after study
• Lack of resolution:
– Pollutant release of a certain quantity into a small stream may be worse than a large river
– Large release of substance in a short time period would have different impacts than over a long time period
– Release of nitrogen into a phosphorus-limited environment will not contribute significantly to eutrophication
• Phosphorus-limited means there is already an abundance of nitrogen present, but little phosphorus
• Linear models for characterization
• Imperfect characterization factors for other reasons
96
Energy
ImpactWater Nexus
Assessment
Impact category Climate change
LCI results Emissions of greenhouse gases to the air (in kg)
Characterization model the model developed by the IPCC defining the global
warming potential of different gases
Category indicator Infrared radiative forcing (W/m2)
Characterization factor Global warming potential for a 100-year time horizon
(GWP100) for each GHG emission to the air
(in kg CO2 equivalents/kg emission)
Unit of indicator result kg (CO2 eq)
Substance GWP100 (in kg CO2 equivalents/kg emission)
Carbon dioxide 1 Classification and characterization – Example 1
Methane 21
CFC-11 4000
CFC-13 11700
HCFC-123 93
HCFC-142b 2000
Perfluoroethane 9200
Perfluoromethane 6500
Sulphur hexafluoride 23900 Source: (Guinée et al., 2002)
97
Energy
ImpactWater Nexus
Assessment
Impact category Acidification
LCI results Emissions of acidifying substances to the air (in kg)
Characterization model RAINS10 model, developed by IIASA, describing the fate
and deposition of acidifying substances, adapted to LCA
Category indicator Deposition/acidification critical load
Characterization factor Acidification potential (AP) for each acidifying emission to
the air (in kg SO2 equivalents/kg emission)
Unit of indicator result kg (SO2 eq)
Substance AP (in kg SO2 equivalents/kg emission)

Ammonia 1.88 Classification and characterization – Example 2
Hydrogen chloride 0.88
Hydrogen fluoride 1.60
Hydrogen sulfide 1.88
Nitric acid 0.51
Nitrogen dioxide 0.70
Nitrogen monoxide 1.07
Sulfur dioxide 1.00
Sulphuric acid 0.65 Source: (Guinée et al., 2002)
98
Energy Water Nexus
Classification
LCI Impact Categories

20kg CO2 Climate change
2kg Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion
5g CFC-11
2kg NO2 Photochemical oxidant formation
1kg SO2 Acidification
99
Energy Water
Classification Nexus
& Characterization
LCI Impact Categories Characterization factors
20kg CO2 Climate change GWP (global warming potential)
2kg Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion ODP (ozone depletion potential)
5g CFC-11
POCP (photochemical ozone
2kg NO2 Photochemical oxidant formation creation potential)
1kg SO2 Acidification AP (acidification potential)
Amount GWP100 ODP∞ POCP AP
Substance
(kg) (kg CO2 eq/kg) (kg CFC-11 eq/kg) (kg ethylene eq/kg) (kg SO2 eq/kg)
CO2 20 1
Methane 2 21 0.006
CFC-11 0.005 4000 1
NO2 2 0.028 0.70
SO2 1 1.00
100
Energy Water
& Characterization
LCI Impact Categories Characterization factors
20kg CO2 Climate change GWP
2kg Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion ODP
5g CFC-11
2kg NO2 Photochemical oxidant formation POCP
1kg SO2 Acidification AP
Substance
CO2 20 1
Methane 2 21 0.006
CFC-11 0.005 4000 1
NO2 2 0.028 0.70
SO2 1 1.00
20·1 = 20 kg CO2eq
2·21 = 42 kg CO2eq (20 + 42 + 20) kg CO2eq = 82 kg CO2eq
0.005·4000 = 20 kg CO2eq Indicator Result
101
Energy Water
& Characterization
LCI Impact Categories Characterization factors Indicator results
20kg CO2 Climate change GWP 82kg CO2 eq
2kg Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion ODP 0.005kg CFC-11 eq
5g CFC-11
2kg NO2 Photochemical oxidant formation POCP 0.068kg ethylene eq
1kg SO2 Acidification AP 2.4kg SO2 eq
Substance
CO2 20 1
Methane 2 21 0.006
CFC-11 0.005 4000 1
NO2 2 0.028 0.70
SO2 1 1.00
Indicator kg CO2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg ethylene eq kg SO2 eq
Results 82 0.005 0.068 2.4
102
Lecture 38
LCA: Impact categories
Pratham Arora
103
EnergyImpact
Common WaterCategories
Nexus
• Acidification Potential (AP)
• Global Warming/Climate Change Potential
(GWP)
• Smog/Ozone/Photochemical
Oxidants/Creation Potential (SCP) Air
• Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Potential
(ODP)
• Human Health Particulates/Criteria Air
Potential (HHCAP)
• Human Health/Toxicity Cancer/Non-Cancer
Potential (HTP) Air
• Ecotoxicity Potential (ETP) Water
• Eutrophication Potential (EP)
Soil
104
Energy Water
Acidification Nexus(AP)
Potential
Emissions which increase acidity (lower pH) of water and soils
• Most common form of deposition is as acid rain
• Dry and cloud deposition also occur
• Ocean acidification from CO2 not included
Only anthropogenic sources are included, though natural sources

exist too (such as volcanoes)
Scale of impacts:
Source: blog.epa.gov
Regional variations can be important

Commonly reported as:
• kg SO2-eq
• mol H+-eq
Local Regional
105
Energy Water
Acidification Nexus(AP)
Potential
Major sources
Fuel Electricity
Agriculture
combustion Transportation
Main substances* *Ryberg et al. 2014

Others: 1%
Building damage: h2owash.biz
38% 35% 26% Forest: Britannica.com
Power plant: ehow.com
NOx SOx NH3
Midpoint
Increased soil and

water acidity
Possible Endpoints
Organisms Plants Buildings

(esp. forests)
106
GlobalEnergy Water
Warming Nexus(GWP)
Potential
Increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, resulting in
potential increases in global average surface temperature
• Occurs due to the greenhouse effect
• Often called climate change to reflect scope of possible
effects
• CO2 is biggest anthropogenic source, other sources too
Some greenhouse effect necessary, additional forced
by humans is what is counted in LCA Scale of impacts: Source: livescience.com
Biogenic CO2 may or may not be counted

• e.g., biofuels
GWP typically reported as 100-year time scale
Almost universally reported as kg CO2-equivalent
Global
107
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Major sources
Fuel Electricity Industrial

Agriculture
combustion Transportation processes
Main substances*
80% 9% 11%
CO2 CH4 N2O, O3, H2O(g), CFCs, Others
Midpoint
Increased radiative
forcing (trapping heat) Wind and ocean Soil moisture
current changes loss
Possible Endpoints
Sea level Increase in severe Increase in heat-

increase weather frequency related illnesses
Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC CO2 plot: Wikimedia.org Glacier: nrmsc.usgs.gov
108
Energy Ozone
Water Nexus
➢ Molecule composed of three oxygen atoms: Colorless, odorless gas
➢ The focus of two very different impact categories:

▪ Ozone depletion potential – “Good” ozone
▪ Smog creation potential – “Bad” ozone
Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC Ozone molecule: naturallythebest.com Good/bad ozone: epa.gov
109
OzoneEnergy Water
Depletion Nexus (ODP)
Potential
Reduction of ozone concentration in the stratosphere
• This is “good” ozone which filters out UV-B radiation
• Additional UV can cause skin cancer, crop damage, material
damage
• Primarily caused when CFCs and halons lose chlorine and
bromine atoms in reaction with sunlight and catalyzes ozone
decomposition reactions
• Not a major cause of climate change
Ozone depletion less prevalent since Montreal Protocol (1987)
• Required replacement of CFCs with other compounds
Scale of impacts:
• Reduction of 98% in ODP emissions since then
• Still important to consider, especially for sectors
Almost universally reported as kg CFC-11-equivalent
• fromPreviously
Slides adopted cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCCcommon refrigerant Global Source: epa.gov
110
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)
Major sources
Manufacturing Fire Refrigerant

(polymers, aerosols) extinguishers systems
Main substances* Others: 26%
29% 22% 14% 9%

Halon 1301 CFC-11 CFC-12 HCFC-22
Midpoint
Decrease in stratospheric
ozone concentration
Possible Endpoints (Due to increased UV-B radiation)
Skin Crop Materials Marine life

cancer damage damage damage

Ozone hole: Wikipedia.org Ozone chemistry: environmental-chemistry.wikispaces.com
111
SmogEnergy Water
Creation Nexus(SCP)
Potential
Increased formation of ground level ozone
• Also called photo-oxidant formation, ozone creation, etc.
• Formed from reactions of NOx, VOCs, other pollutants, and
sunlight
• Can have effects on human health and vegetation
Effects vary, but LCA does not usually capture, based on:
• Current air composition (i.e., NOx or VOC limited)
• Time of day and year (sunlight)
• Physical characteristics of area and weather patterns
• Exposed populations Scale of impacts:
Commonly expressed as:

• kg O3-equivalent
• kg C2H4-equivalent
• fromkgcem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC
Slides adopted NOx-equivalent Local Source: edmunds.com
112
Smog Creation Potential (SCP)
Major sources
Cars and other Industrial Energy 2005-2009 4th highest

vehicles processes production annual value of
maximum daily 8-hr.
Main substances* Others: 2%
87% 11%
ozone in ppb
NOx VOCs
Midpoint
Increase in ground-level
ozone concentration
Possible Endpoints
Reduced lung Aggravate Vegetation Eye irritation

function/aggravation Asthma damage

*Ryberg et al. 2014 Image source: science.nature.nps.gov
113
Energy WaterPotential
Eutrophication Nexus
Excessive biological activity of organisms due to over-nutrification
• Especially in aquatic systems, often apparent through algal
blooms
• Can lead to oxygen deficiency in water killing aquatic life
• Mostly forced by nitrogen and phosphorus
• Also called nutrification
Organisms need nutrients to grow, but too much
can have undesirable consequences
Local variations can be very important
Commonly reported as: Scale of impacts:
• kg PO43- -equivalent (phosphate) esp. in

• kg P-equivalent (phosphorus) fresh water
• kg NO3—equivalent (nitrate) esp. in salt
• fromkgcem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC
Slides adopted N-equivalent (nitrogen) water and soil Local Source: ecodetail.net.au
114
Eutrophication Potential
Major sources
Agricultural Storm and Septic field Fossil fuel

runoff wastewater seepage Combustion
Main substances Others: 8%
42% 33% 10% 7%

Nitrogen Phosphorus NOx NH3
esp. marine Water esp. freshwater Air
Midpoint
Excessive biological growth,

especially of algae
Possible Endpoints (mostly due to aquatic oxygen depletion)
Death of Loss of
Foul odor
aquatic life biodiversity

Algal bloom: apporpedia.org
115
Energy
Human WaterPotential
Toxicity Nexus
Effects to individual human health that can lead to disease or death Scale of impacts:
• Usually split between carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
• Can either cause or aggravate existing health conditions
• Only considers direct impacts, indirect ones in other impact
categories
• Large scale impacts, not facility specific (occupational) ones Local Regional Global
• Organic chemicals and metals are some of the largest contributors
Much uncertainty in characterization factors
• No true midpoint to consider
• Based on linear models, but toxicity effects are usually non-linear
Characterization commonly done through USEtox factors
Considers fate, exposure, and effect factors
• kg benzene-eq (cancer) or kg toluene-eq (non-cancer)
• Cases (also called Comparative Toxicity Unit – CTU)
Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC Source: NIH Medical Arts and Printing
116
Human Toxicity Potential
Major sources
Energy
Mining Agriculture Manufacturing
production
Some major substances

6%
Dioxins Chromium Arsenic Zinc Benzo(a)pyrene Formaldehyde
Midpoint
General health effects on

humans (no true midpoint)
Possible Endpoints (either causing or aggravating)
Heart Low birth

Asthma Cancer
disease rate
Source: globalhealingcenter.com
117
Energy Water
Ecotoxicity Nexus
Potential
Scale of impacts:
Impacts on whole ecosystems that can decrease production
and/or decrease biodiversity
• More focused on whole system impacts than individual impacts Local
• Sometimes split between aquatic (water) and terrestrial (soil)
• Mostly forced by emissions of metals and organic chemicals
Characterization commonly done through USEtox factors
• Considers fate, exposure, and effect factors
Much uncertainty in characterization factors
• No true midpoint
• Factors based on only a few species, but wider ecosystem
effects more difficult to deduce
• kg 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid (2,4-D) - equivalent
• Potentially affected fraction (PAF) (also called Comparative Toxicity
Unit – CTU)
Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC Source: scienceinthebox.com (P&G website)
118
Ecotoxicity Potential
Major sources
Energy
Mining Agriculture Manufacturing
production
Main substances
Zinc Copper Organic Chemicals
Midpoint
General degradation of
ecosystems (no true midpoint)
Possible Endpoints
Decreased Decreased
populations biodiversity
Source: dosits.org Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC
119
Energy
Human Water
Health Nexus
– Particulates
Health issues related to increased respiration of very small particles
• Small particles released directly and formed through
secondary reactions
• When breathed into lungs may cause respiratory disease and
cancer
• Category also called “criteria air pollutants”, but really only
deals with subset
Health issues more severe for higher risk individuals
• Children, elderly, those with asthma Scale of impacts:
Usually midpoint quantified as:
• kg PM2.5-eq
• kg PM10-eq
Sometimes reported more as endpoint: Local Regional Global
• fromDisability
Slides adopted adjusted life years (DALYs)
cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC Source: epa.gov
120
Human Health – Particulates
Major sources
Fossil fuel Wood Dust from Dust from

combustion burning roads fields
Main substances
44% 43% 8% 5%
PM10 PM2.5 SOx NOx and Others
Midpoint
Increased human exposure to

particulate matter
Possible Endpoints
Heart health Aggravated Decreased

Cancer
effects asthma lung function
Source: bcairquality.ca Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC
121
A Couple More
• Radiation: Regular releases of radioactive material which can have carcinogenetic and hereditary effects
• Abiotic resource depletion: Uses of minerals, ores, etc. based on relative scarcity and overall
consumption
• Fossil fuel depletion: Similar to abiotic resources except based on energy content, not mass
• Biotic resource depletion: Uses of recently living materials based on use rate, formation rate, and
reserves
• Energy demand: Energy required of all stages of life cycle (not energy content)
▪ Embodied energy is a subset of energy demand for only life cycle stages involved in producing the
product
• Water use: Typically, just an inventory of fresh-water use, sometimes
differentiated by quality
• Land use: Alteration to habitats, particularly for threatened and
endangered species
• Nuisance-related (noise, odor, etc.): Reduced quality of life for humans
due to nuisance (rarely included in LCA)
• Indoor air quality: Human health impacts of indoor air pollutants,
especially VOCs (rarely included in LCA)
122
Energy
Phase 4: Water Nexus
Interpretation
• Continually ongoing during assessment to help guide other
phases
• Discussion of inventory analysis and impact assessment
results in LCA study
• In an LCI study, only inventory needs to be discussed
• Can be modeled as conclusions and recommendations to
the decision maker
• Should be consistent with and based on goal and scope of
the study
• Should reflect the various uncertainties inherent in LCA
including:
• LCA is based on a relative approach using a functional unit
• Impacts are “potential”
123
Energy WaterofNexus
Limitations LCA
• “Not a complete assessment of all environmental
issues” because only those identified in the goal and
scope are considered
• LCI can rarely, if ever, include every single process and
capture every single input and output due to system
boundaries, data gaps, cut-off criteria, etc.
• LCI data collected contains uncertainty
• Characterization models are far from perfect
• Sensitivity and other uncertainty analyses are not
fully developed
124
Lecture 39
LCA computational structure
Pratham Arora
125
Thank You
126

Lca Slides

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lca Slides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Resources, Economics and Sustainability

“Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the

➢ Process split into life cycle stages and LCA phases

▪ Select relevant indicators of environmental performance

▪ Marketing e.g. ecolabel

2. Life Cycle Phases

Phases 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Phase

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Source: Dorm: dci-engineers.com

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Example statement: The function of the compared product

Image sources: Plastic: thisoldhouse.com Paper: tumblr.com Cloth: nextshark.com

Functional unit = 50,000 passenger-miles traveled

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Collect input/output Express

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Collect input/output Express

Collect input/output Express

Inputs: coal, water, air,

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

General Unit Process Diagram: Scott et al. 2013 *ISO 14040

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Process A Raw materials Materials to

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC *ISO 14040

Many choices to deal with partitioning

Must state procedures to use in the scope

Figure source: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/lca/pdfs/chapter3lca101.pdf

unit allocated Emissions 0.9 kg

On an economic basis, product A is allocated 90% of the emissions. 80 kg product B

Co-products – Corn Grain and Stover

▪ Consider if properties of product are different than from production

Open Loop Recycling

Life Cycle Split by Stages Analyzed

Source: Environmental Protection Agency.

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Exploration for and removal of raw Equipment

Image sources: phoenixparts.com, blog.tradequip.com, columbiatechnologies.com

Image sources: madeintheusa.dreamlandinteractive.com angus-selfstorage.co.uk info.zentech.com

New strings Acoustic guitar Old strings

Gasoline Tailpipe emissions

Refill with tap

Plastic water bottle Labeling, Disposal

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Image sources: popularmechanics.com blog.uship.com truckstars.com maritime-connector.com jsg.utexas.edu boluo-logistics.com

Good data more important for processes with higher impacts

Change process data by certain percent and

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

LCI databases contain information on inputs and outputs

Usually functions seamlessly with LCA software

Also usually contain extensive documentation describing sources of data, allocation

• ecoinvent (European focused)

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

• Processes and documentation available

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

“Class representing environmental issues of concern to which

*ISO 14040:2006 Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC

Slides adopted from cem.uaf.edu/CESTiCC