Embed
Email

LCA_metrics

Document Sample
LCA_metrics
Shared by: HC111111105030
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
0
posted:
11/11/2011
language:
English
pages:
16
Life-Cycle Analysis/Assessment

-

Weighted Singular Metrics









Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Module Objective



Having read this, you should know the following:

1. Pros and cons for single LCA units/metrics/scores

2. Background and philosophy of the Eco-Points,

Environmental Priority System, and Eco-Indicator

methods

3. How to apply the Eco-Indicator 99 indicator









Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

A Single Figure for Environmental Impact



• A single figure is often needed or preferred for

comparison purposes



• Several methods exists, but it is still a controversial

issue and no singular widely accepted method exists



• ISO 14040 prohibits use of a single score for

comparison with competitors products

– It emphasizes openness and reproducibility of LCA results









Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Sample Single Score Metrics



• A number of attempts have been made in the

international community to reach agreement on a

single LCA metric.



• Three well-documented and used single score methods

are:

– The Eco-Points method

– The Environmental Priority System

– The Eco-Indicator (95 & 99)





• We will discuss these because they are based on very

different fundamental principles and philosophy



Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Eco-Points Method



• The eco-points method was developed in Switzerland and is

based on the use of national government policy objectives.

• Environmental impacts are evaluated directly and there is

no classification step.

• The evaluation principle is the distance to target principle,

or the difference between the total impact in a specific area

and the target value.

– The target values in the original Ecopunkten method were derived from

target values of the Swiss government.

– A Dutch variant has been developed on the basis of the Dutch policy

objectives.

• The use of policy objectives is controversial given that a

policy does not express the true seriousness of a problem.

– Various political, economic, and social considerations also play a role when

formulating these objectives.

Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

The Eco-Points Evaluation Method



• A low number of eco-points is preferred.



Impacts Normalization Evaluation Result

In: 1 / target value current / target value

energy





Out: 1 / target value current / target value

CO2 Eco-

1 / target value current / target value points

SO2

1 / target value current / target value

lead

CFC 1 / target value current / target value

waste 1 / target value current / target value



Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Eco-Points Method (cont.)



• The Eco-Points methods has been accepted as a useful

instrument, even though objections can be raised against

using politically established target levels.

– The lack of a classification step is also regarded as a disadvantage - only

a very limited number of impacts can be evaluated.





• Eco-points method was/is widely used in Switzerland and

Germany.

– It is also used in Norway, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands.

– Since 1993, it has been included in the SimaPro software.





• The Eco-Points method is notsi much an environmental

indicator as an indicator “in conformity with policy”



Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

The Environmental Priority System (EPS)



• The EPS system was used first for Volvo in Sweden.

• It is not based on governmental policy, but on

estimated financial consequences of environmental

problems.

• It attempts to translate environmental impact into a

sort of social expenditure.

– The first step is to establish the damage caused to a number of

“safeguard objects” - objects that a community considers valuable.

– The next step is to identify how much the community is prepared to

pay for these things, i.e., the social costs of the safeguard objects are

established.

– The resulting costs are added up to a single figure.

• The EPS system includes neither classification or

normalization.

Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

The EPS Evaluation Method









Impacts Safeguard objects Evaluation Result

In: stocks

oil future costs for

zinc extraction

production



value in

Out: health direct losses

ECU

CO2

SO2 biodiversity willingness to

lead pay



CFC aesthetics



Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

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 te 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.

Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Eco-Indicator 95



• The evaluation method for calculating the Eco-Indicator 95

strongly focuses on the effects 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)

– deterioriation 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)





Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

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

NO Acidification

x

P Eutrophication









Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Weighting Factors Used in Eco-Indicator 95



• Setting equivalents for these damage levels is a subjective

choice.

– The current choice (see below) came about after consultation with various

experts and a comparison with other systems.



Env i ro nmental Wei g hti ng Cri teri o n

effect facto r

Greenhouse effect 2.5 0.1C 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 children’s blood, reduced life expectancy and

learning performance in an unknown number of people

Waterborne heavy metals 5 Cadmium content in rivers, ultimately also impacts on people

(see airborne)

Carcinogenic substances 10 Probability of 1 fatality per year per million people









Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

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.

Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Eco-Indicator 99 Evaluation Method



Three spheres are considered:

• Techno-sphere

• Eco-sphere See: http://www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/

• Value-sphere









Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory

Eco-Indicator 99



• More info on Eco-Indicator 99 can be found at Pre-

Consultants web site www.pre.nl



• Eco-Indicator Tables can be found in the “Eco-

Indicator 99 - Manual for Designers”

– http://www.pre.nl/download/EI99_Manual.pdf





• Eco-Indicator 99 scores are also included in the Eco-It

and Simapro LCA software









Georgia Institute of Technology

Copyright 2006, Dr. Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Systems Realization Laboratory


Related docs
Other docs by HC111111105030
rows
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
E98418
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Network LIANIA FFY12USDAApprovedMaterials
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
EndangeredButterfly
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Dodbiba
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Tchr_center_materials
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
22083 20Specs
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
EU_booklist_041510
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
LifeCyclesTranscript
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!