Life Cycle Analysis

Life-cycle analysis (LCA) is a method in which the

energy and raw material consumption, different types
of emissions and other important factors related to a
specific product are being measured, analyzed and
summoned over the products entire life cycle from an
environmental point of view.
Life-Cycle Analysis attempts to measure the cradle to
grave impact on the ecosystem.
LCAs started in the early 1970s, initially to investigate the
energy requirements for different processes.
Emissions and raw materials were added later.
LCA is considered to be the most comprehensive approach
to assessing environmental impact.
 History of LCA
Developed in the late 1960s/early 1970s
Evolved from eco-profiles to current 4 basic,
interdependent stages of an LCA:
Goal and Scope
Inventory Analysis
Impact Assessment
Interpretation
Commonly Used
LCA Metrics
International/U.S. sources identified
and defined key metrics, addressing:
Energy Demand

Global Warming

Ozone Depletion

Water Footprint

Eco and Human Toxicity Assessment

Land Use
 LCA Method(s)
LCA can be used as a tool to evaluate the
environmental aspects of a project or
activity
The development of this tool emerged from
the recognition that the products and
services a company provides will also have
their environmental impacts
Nowadays, ISO 14040-14043 is considered
to be the LCA standard.
 Use of LCA in Policy

Principle Standards elaborated in ISO/TC207/SC5

ISO 14040:1997

ISO 14041:1998

ISO 14042:2000

ISO 14043:2000
 LCA Steps
Generally, a LCA consists of four main activities:
1. Goal definition (ISO 14040):
The basis and scope of the evaluation are defined
2. Inventory Analysis (ISO 14041):
Create a process tree in which all processes from raw
material extraction through waste water treatment are
mapped out and connected and mass and energy
balances are closed (all emissions and consumptions
are accounted for).
3.Impact Assessment (ISO 14042):
Emissions and consumptions are translated into
environmental effects. The environmental effects are
grouped and weighted.
4.Improvement Assessment/Interpretation (ISO
14043): Areas for improvement are identified.
 What Doesnt LCA Do?
Does NOT measure product performance

Does NOT address compliance with environmental laws

Does NOT include bricks and mortar of capital equipment

Does NOT include analysis on support personnel needs

Does NOT normally measure building space conditioning

Does NOT include minor inputs

Does NOT provide information about employee direct impacts

Is NOT a risk assessment analysis

Does NOT define specific course of action to take

LCA Step 1 - Goal Definition and Scope

It is important to establish beforehand what purpose

the model is to serve, what one wishes to study, what
depth and degree of accuracy are required, and what
will ultimately become the decision criteria.
In addition, the system boundaries - for both time and
place - should be determined.

Thus, pay special attention to:

Basis for evaluation (what and why)
Temporal boundaries (time scale)
Spatial boundaries (geographic)
 Function & Functional Unit
Function Example
Service provided by a system Wooden Pencil vs.
What it does! Mechanical Pencil
Functional Unit Function = Writing
Gives the function a number Functional Unit = 1 meter of
value writing
Allows comparison between
products
Reference point
 LCA Step 2 - Inventory Analysis
This means that the inputs and outputs of all life-
cycle processes have to be determined in terms of
material and energy.
Start with making a process tree or a flow-chart
classifying the events in a products life-cycle which
are to be considered in the LCA, plus their
interrelations.
Next, start collecting the relevant data for each event:
the emissions from each process and the resources
(back to raw materials) used.
Establish (correct) material and energy balance(s) for
each process stage and event.
 Single Stage Flow Diagram
The following diagram shows inputs and outputs to
be quantified in a single stage or unit operation
Process Materials, Reagents,
Solvents & Catalysts (including
reuse & recycle from another stage)
Energy

Product Material
Inputs (including
reuse & recycle from Reuse/Recycle
another stage) Single Stage or Unit
Operation
Primary Product

Useful Co-product
Fugitive &
Untreated
Waste Waste
Reuse/Recycle
 Product Life Cycle

M, E M, E M, E M, E M, E M, E

Ra w Material Ma terial Ma nufacture Use & Re tirement Treatment

Acquisition Processing & Assembly Service & Recovery Disposal

W W W W W W

reuse
rema nufacture

clo sed-loop recycle open-loop

re cycle

M, E = Material and Energy inputs to process and distribution

W = Waste (gas, liquid, or solid) output from product, process, or
distribution

Material flow of product component

Example: Simplified Process Tree for a Coffee
Machines Life-Cycle

coffee poly-
paper aluminium sheet steel glass
bean styrene

roasting filter pro- injection stamping

extrusion forming
duction moulding forming

assembly
+ transport

packaging
electricity

use
water

disposal of disposal in
filters + coffee municipal
in org. waste waste
 Example: Coffee Machine Life-Cycle Inventory
7.3 kg 1 kg 0.1 kg 0.3 kg 0.4 kg
coffee paper poly- aluminium sheet steel glas
bean styrene

roasting filter pro- injection extrusion stamping forming

duction moulding forming

assembly
+ transport

packaging 375 kWh

electricity

use
water

disposal of disposal in
filters + coffee municipal
in org. waste waste
White boxes are not
included in
assessment/inventory
 Problems with Inventory Analysis

The inventory phase usually takes a great deal of

time and effort and mistakes are easily made.

There exists published data on impacts of different

materials such as plastics, aluminum, steel, paper,
etc.
However, the data is often inconsistent and not
directly applicable due to different goals and
scope.
It is expected that both the quantity and quality
of data will improve in the future.

Mass and energy balances are not correct and

challenge laws of thermodynamics. Results are
generalized improperly.
 LCA Step 3 - Impact Assessment
The impact assessment focuses on characterizing the type and
severity of environmental impact more specifically.
Material/impact Environmental effect

depletion of biotic resources

copper
CO2
depletion of abiotic resources
CFC Weighting of effect?
SO2 greenhouse effect
NOx
phosphorous ozone layer depletion
volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) acidification
heavy metals
PCB
eutrophication
pesticides There are different
styrene
(summer) smog ways to assess and
(example) weigh the
human toxicity
environmental effects.
eco-toxicity

odour
 Plastic versus Paper Bag Classification
Class ification / Characteris atio n

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Paper bag
50% LDPE bag
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

effect
green hous e depletion pesticid es
ozon e layer acid ificatio n heav y metals carcinog ens winter s mo g
s ummer s mo g
eutroph ication

The paper bag causes more winter smog and acidification, but
scores better on the other environmental effects.
The classification does not reveal which is the better bag. What
is missing is the mutual weighting of the effects.
 LCA Step 4 - Improvement Assessment/Interpretation
The final step in Life-Cycle Analysis is to identify
areas for improvement.
Consult the original goal definition for the
purpose of the analysis and the target group.
Life-cycle areas / processes / events with large
impacts (i.e., high numerical values) are clearly
the most obvious candidates
However, what are the resources required and risk
involved?
Good areas of improvement are those where large
improvements can be made with minimal (corporate)
resource expenditure and low risk.
 Variants of LCA approach

Cradle to Gate: Partial LCA. cover only

the manufacture to factory gate, use
and disposal phase of product omitted
Cradle to Cradle : Where the end of life
disposal step for the product is
recycling process {glass bottle made
from collected glass bottles}
Weightings /
Valuation
Problems with LCA
Parameters : Defining scope for e.g. in paper
production deciding on the amount of
electricity used to operate the saw to cut trees
Comparison of Data
Combination of issues
Disposal and decomposition
Assignable cause
 Environmental Impact
Several methods exists, but it is still a
controversial issue and no singular widely
accepted method exists.

Three well documented and used methods

are:
The Eco-Points method
The Environmental Priority System
The Eco-Indicator
 The Eco-Indicator (95 and 99)
The Eco-Indicator 95 was developed in a joint project
carried out by companies, research institutes and the
Dutch government.
The aim was to develop an easy to use tool for product
designers and the main outcome was a list of 100
indicators for most significant materials and
processes.
By using these indicators a designer can easily make
combinations and carry out his/her own LCA. No outside
expert or software are needed.
Indicators have been drawn up for all life-cycle phases
the production of materials such as steel, aluminum, thermo-plastics,
paper, glass
production processes, such as injection molding, rolling, turning, welding
transport by road, rail, and sea
energy generating processes
waste processing processes, such as incineration, dumping, recycling.
The most recent revised version is called Eco-Indicator 99.
 Eco-Indicator 95
The evaluation method for calculating the Eco-Indicator
95 strongly focuses on the impacts of emissions on the
ecosystem.
For the valuation, the distance to target principle is used,
but the targets are based on scientific data on
environmental damage and not on policy statements.
The targets values are related to three types of
environmental damage:
deterioration of ecosystems (a target level has been chosen
at which only 5% ecosystem degradation will still occur
over several decades)
deterioration of human health (this refers in particular to
winter and summer smog and the acceptable level set is that
smog periods should hardly ever occur again)
human deaths (the level chosen as acceptable is 1 fatality per
million inhabitants per year)
 Eco-Indicator 95 Evaluation Method
Normalization is performed, but excluded in
this figure for the sake of simplification.
Impact Effect Damage Valuation Result
Ozone layer depl.
CFC
Pb Heavy metals
Cd Carcinogenics Fatalities
PAH Summer smog
Dust Health Subjective
Winter smog damage Eco-indicator
VOC impairment value
DDT Pesticides assessment
CO2 Ecosystem
Greenhouse effect impairment
SO2
NOx Acidification
P Eutrophication
 Weighting Factors Used in Eco-Indicator 95

Setting equivalents for these damage

levels is a subjective choice.
The current choice (Table) came about
after consultation with various experts
and a comparison with other systems.
Environmental Weighting Criterion
effect factor
Greenhouse effect 2.5 0.1C rise every 10 years, 5% ecosystem degradation
Ozone layer depletion 100 Probability of 1 fatality per year per million inhabitants
Acidification 10 5% ecosystem degradation
Eutrophication 5 Rivers and lakes, degradation of an unknown number of
aquatic ecosystems (5% degradation)
Summer smog 2.5 Occurrence of smog periods, health complaints, particularly
amongst asthma patients and the elderly, prevention of
agricultural damage
Winter smog 5 Occurrence of smog periods, health complaints, particularly
amongst asthma patients and the elderly
Pesticides 25 5% ecosystem degradation
Airborne heavy metals 5 Lead content in childrens blood, reduced life expectancy and
learning performance in an unknown number of people
 Some Comments
The preceding table reveals that
High priority must be given to limiting substances causing
ozone layer damage and the use of pesticides. The latter is
becoming a very serious problem in The Netherlands in
particular.
Furthermore, a great deal of consideration must be given to the
diffusion of acidifying and carcinogenic substances.
A number of effects that are generally regarded as
environmental problems have not been included:
Toxic substances that are only a problem in the workplace.
Exhaustion (depletion) of raw materials.
Waste.
As a result of these differences the Eco-indicator can be
seen as an indicator of emissions.
Raw materials depletion and the use of space by waste
must be evaluated separately at present.
 Outline of Presentation

Short discussion of life cycle assessment (LCA)

Purpose of LCAs conducted

System descriptions
Biomass Integrated biomass gasification combined cycle (IGCC)
Average coal
Coal/biomass co-firing/
Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)

Comparative Results
Energy
Greenhouse gases
Other air emissions
Resource consumption
 System Concept in Life Cycle Assessment

waste materials Waste

emissions
emissions disposal
Extraction
process energy net emissions
energy
non-
renewable energy
raw materials emissions energy
energy emissions

Intermediate Intermediate Process

Process feedstock Process feedstock of
final product
Interest

Intermediate
energy feedstock energy
non- emissions
renewable
materials emissions energy Extraction
raw materials
Process process
emissions

Life cycle system boundary

 Three Components of LCA

INVENTORY
Mass and energy balances >> air, water, and solid waste emissions,
energy and resource consumption

IMPROVEMENT
Reduce environmental burden through process design changes,
material substitution, recycle, etc.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Characterize environmental effects
Less-is-better
Stressor categories: climate change gases, carcinogens, resource
depletion, ozone precursors
Weighting factors: e.g., methane = 21 * CO2
Valuation: Assign values to each effect to achieve an overall
environmental score or set of scores
 Purpose of Studies

Biomass LCA was conducted to answer common questions:

What are the net CO2 emissions?
What is the net energy production?
Which substances are emitted at the highest rate?
What parts of the system are responsible for the greatest impacts?
What should biomass R&D focus on?

Coal and natural gas LCAs the foundation for quantifying the benefits of
biomass power.

Direct-fired biomass system describes current biomass power industry.

Cofiring LCA examined near-term option for biomass utilization.

Each assessment conducted separately - common systems not excluded.

 Systems Examined

Biomass IGCC Indirectly-heated gasification

Dedicated hybrid poplar feedstock
Zero carbon sequestration in base case

Average coal Pulverized coal / steam cycle

Illinois #6 coal - moderate sulfur, bituminous
Surface mining

Biomass / coal 15% cofiring by heat input

cofiring Biomass residue (urban, mostly) into PC boiler
0.9 percentage point efficiency derating
Credit taken for avoided operations including
decomposition (i.e., no biomass growth)

Direct-fired biomass Biomass residue

Avoided emissions credit as with cofiring

Natural gas Combined cycle

Upstream natural gas losses = 1.4% of gross
 Life Cycle Energy Balance

30

net energy ratio

25
external energy ratio

20

15

10

0
Dedicated Average Coal/biomass Direct-fired NGCC
biomass PC coal cofiring biomass
IGCC residue
 Energy Balance Oddities

Key question: why are the energy

results so poor for the fossil systems?

Answer: Upstream Energy Consumption is High

% of non-feedstock energy related to:

Non-feedstock
energy Flue-gas Transportation Natural gas
(kJ/kWh) cleanup production or
coal mining
Biomass IGCC 231 0% 16% N/A
Direct biomass 125 0% 49% N/A
Coal 702 35% 32% 25%
Natural gas 1,718 0.5% N/A 98.3%
 Carbon Cycle (GHG Emissions)

Example flows:
Biomass energy crop - photosynthesis, carbon sequestration in soil
Biomass residue - avoided decomposition emissions
Coal - coal mine methane, coal mine waste
Natural gas- fugitive emissions, leaks
General - incomplete combustion, upstream fossil fuel
consumption

Key question: On a life cycle basis, what are the net

greenhouse gas emissions of these systems?
 Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1200

1000
GWP (g CO2-equivalent / kWh)

800

600

400

200
Direct-fired
biomass
residue
0
Dedicated Average Coal/biomass NGCC
biomass PC coal Cofiring
-200
IGCC

-400

-600
 Other Air Emissions
15

5
CH4

Particulates SOx NOx CO NMHCs

-5

-15

Average PC coal
15% Coal / biomass cofiring
Direct biomass residue
Dedicated biomass IGCC
NGCC
-41 g/kWh

Biomass IGCC also emits isoprene at 21 g/kWh

 Resource Consumption

500

450

400 Average PC coal

15% cofiring
350
Direct-fired residue biomass
300 Dedicated biomass IGCC
NGCC
g/kWh

250

200

150

100

50

-
Coal Limestone Oil Natural Gas