A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparison of three management options for waste papers: Bioethanol production, recycling and incineration with energy recovery

The body of life cycle assessment (LCA) literature is vast and has grown over the last decade at a dauntingly rapid rate. Many LCAs have been published on the same or very similar technologies or products, in some cases leading to hundreds of publications. One result is the impression among decision makers that LCAs are inconclusive, owing to perceived and real variability in published estimates of life cycle impacts. Despite the extensive available literature and policy need formore conclusive assessments, only modest attempts have been made to synthesize previous research. A significant challenge to doing so are differences in characteristics of the considered technologies and inconsistencies in methodological choices (e.g., system boundaries, coproduct allocation, and impact assessment methods) among the studies that hamper easy comparisons and related decision support. An emerging trend is meta-analysis of a set of results from LCAs, which has the potential to clarify the impacts of a particular technology, process, product, or material and produce more robust and policy-relevant results. Meta-analysis in this context is defined here as an analysis of a set of published LCA results to estimate a single or multiple impacts for a single technology or a technology category, either in a statisticalmore » sense (e.g., following the practice in the biomedical sciences) or by quantitative adjustment of the underlying studies to make them more methodologically consistent. One example of the latter approach was published in Science by Farrell and colleagues (2006) clarifying the net energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of ethanol, in which adjustments included the addition of coproduct credit, the addition and subtraction of processes within the system boundary, and a reconciliation of differences in the definition of net energy metrics. Such adjustments therefore provide an even playing field on which all studies can be considered and at the same time specify the conditions of the playing field itself. Understanding the conditions under which a meta-analysis was conducted is important for proper interpretation of both the magnitude and variability in results. This special supplemental issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology includes 12 high-quality metaanalyses and critical reviews of LCAs that advance understanding of the life cycle environmental impacts of different technologies, processes, products, and materials. Also published are three contributions on methodology and related discussions of the role of meta-analysis in LCA. The goal of this special supplemental issue is to contribute to the state of the science in LCA beyond the core practice of producing independent studies on specific products or technologies by highlighting the ability of meta-analysis of LCAs to advance understanding in areas of extensive existing literature. The inspiration for the issue came from a series of meta-analyses of life cycle GHG emissions from electricity generation technologies based on research from the LCA Harmonization Project of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, which also provided financial support for this special supplemental issue. (See the editorial from this special supplemental issue [Lifset 2012], which introduces this supplemental issue and discusses the origins, funding, peer review, and other aspects.) The first article on reporting considerations for meta-analyses/critical reviews for LCA is from Heath and Mann (2012), who describe the methods used and experience gained in NREL's LCA Harmonization Project, which produced six of the studies in this special supplemental issue. Their harmonization approach adapts key features of systematic review to identify and screen published LCAs followed by a meta-analytical procedure to adjust published estimates to ones based on a consistent set of methods and assumptions to allow interstudy comparisons and conclusions to be made. In a second study on methods, Zumsteg and colleagues (2012) propose a checklist for a standardized technique to assist in conducting and reporting systematic reviews of LCAs, including meta-analysis, that is based on a framework used in evidence-based medicine. Widespread use of such a checklist would facilitate planning successful reviews, improve the ability to identify systematic reviews in literature searches, ease the ability to update content in future reviews, and allow more transparency of methods to ease peer review and more appropriately generalize findings. Finally, Zamagni and colleagues (2012) propose an approach, inspired by a meta-analysis, for categorizing main methodological topics, reconciling diverging methodological developments, and identifying future research directions in LCA. Their procedure involves the carrying out of a literature review on articles selected according to predefined criteria.« less

Feeding a growing, increasingly affluent population while limiting environmental pressures of food production is a central challenge for society. Understanding the location and magnitude of food production is key to addressing this challenge because pressures vary substantially across food production types. Applying data and models from life cycle assessment with the methodologies for mapping cumulative environmental impacts of human activities (hereafter cumulative impact mapping) provides a powerful approach to spatially map the cumulative environmental pressure of food production in a way that is consistent and comprehensive across food types. However, these methodologies have yet to be combined. By synthesizing life cycle assessment and cumulative impact mapping methodologies, we provide guidance for comprehensively and cumulatively mapping the environmental pressures (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, spatial occupancy, and freshwater use) associated with food production systems. This spatial approach enables quantification of current and potential future environmental pressures, which is needed for decision makers to create more sustainable food policies and practices.

Waste paper recycling decision system based on material flow analysis and life cycle assessment: A case study of waste paper recycling from China

Livestock production is indicated to be one of the major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), around the globe, and the reduction of these emissions is an important goal. GHG emissions as well as other environmental impacts of two pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) farming systems, one using conventional diets (CNV) and the other using low-protein diets supplemented with crystalline amino acids (LOW), were therefore evaluated by comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) focusing on manure management and by cradle-to-farm gate LCA. The functional unit was defined as one marketed pig. For the comparative LCA of manure management, the CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management of CNV were set as a baseline, and the system boundary of LOW included the CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management, and changes in the GHG emissions from feed production including amino acid manufacturing, feed transport, and the materials and energy consumed in manure management. For the cradle-to-farm gate LCA of pig farming, the evaluated system included the processes of feed production including amino acid manufacturing for LOW, feed transport, animal housing including the biological activity of the animal, and manure management. The results of the comparative LCA showed that the GHG emissions from manure management of LOW were 20% less than those of CNV, and the GHG reduction rate of LOW compared to CNV was even greater in the case of a stricter target of effluent nitrogen content. The results of cradle-to-farm gate LCA showed that LOW had lower GHG emissions, acidification potential, eutrophication potential and overall environmental impact, and slightly larger energy consumption, than CNV. The sensitivity analysis showed that LOW still had less GHG emissions than CNV, even in the least preferable case assuming a 40% lower reduction rate of nitrogen excretion.

Biosolid Management Options in Cassava Starch Industries of Thailand: Present Practice and Future Possibilities

AXUM, a graphing program for IBM compatible computers: From TrimTrix, Inc., 444 NE Ravenna Blvd., Suite 210, Seattle, WA 98115. Price: $495.00

Understanding the greenhouse gas emissions from China’s wastewater treatment plants: Based on life cycle assessment coupled with statistical data

Life cycle assessment of various alternative management strategies in the swine industry was performed to evaluate their impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, cumulative energy use, and cumulative water use. The management strategies included the use of immunocastration (IC), production without ractopamine (NoRAC), production without antimicrobials used for either growth promotion (NoAGP) or disease prevention (NoPREV), production of entire males (boars) (EM), and use of gestation pens (PENS). A common baseline scenario representing standard management practices in the swine industry was created against which all alternative management practices were compared pairwise. The study scope was from cradle-to-farm gate with a functional unit of 1 kg live weight at the farm gate. The baseline and each alternative management scenario was simulated in Pig Production Environmental Footprint Calculator (PPEC) model by varying key variables to populate life cycle inventory inputs for SimaPro V7.3 (Pre' Consultant, the Netherlands), a life cycle assessment modeling program. Increase in GHG emissions, energy use, and water use were observed for NoAGP (1.56, 1.75, and 1.03%, respectively), NoPREV (17.32, 18.40, and 15.58%, respectively), and NoRAC (6.52, 4.87, and 7.52%, respectively) scenarios. For EM scenario, GHG emissions and energy use increased by 2.09 and 3.75%, respectively but water use decreased by 2.29%. Lower GHG emissions, energy use, and water use were observed for PENS (0.97, 1.50, and 0.97%, respectively) and IC (2.39, 2.57, and 2.96%, respectively) scenarios. These changes in the impact categories were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for all scenarios except for changes to GHG emissions for EM and changes to water consumption for PENS and NoAGP. However, the uncertainty analysis showed that the tails of distribution for baseline and alternative management scenario pair overlapped. The impact of management practices on sustainability metrics resulted from differences in pig performance parameters, manure production, feed consumption, etc. between various management practices and the baseline scenario. Due to uncertainties in input parameters, the results should be interpreted as general trends which specifically highlight trade-offs that may result from shifts in production practices. The study identified some of the hot spots in pig production and can be useful in determining best management practices to make swine production more environmentally sustainable.

Chapter 19 - Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bioethanol Produced From Different Food Crops: Economic and Environmental Impacts

Increases in soil sequestered carbon under conservation agriculture cropping decrease the estimated greenhouse gas emissions of wetland rice using life cycle assessment

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada – Evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment

Electric vehicles (EVs) are promoted due to their potential for reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA) between different technologies should account for variation in the scenarios under which vehicles are operated in order to facilitate decision-making regarding the adoption and promotion of EVs. In this study, we compare life-cycle GHG emissions, in terms of CO2eq, of EVs and conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV) over a wide range of use-phase scenarios in the USA, aiming to identify the vehicles with lower GHG emissions and the key uncertainties regarding this impact. An LCA model is used to propagate the uncertainty in the use phase into the greenhouse gas emissions of different powertrains available today for compact and midsize vehicles in the US market. Monte Carlo simulation is used to explore the parameter space and gather statistics about GHG emissions of those powertrains. Spearman’s partial rank correlation coefficient is used to assess the level of contribution of each input parameter to the variance of GHG intensity. Within the scenario space under study, battery electric vehicles are more likely to have the lowest GHG emissions when compared with other powertrains. The main drivers of variation in the GHG impact are driver aggressiveness (for all vehicles), charging location (for EVs), and fuel economy (for ICEVs). The probabilistic approach developed and applied in this study enables an understanding of the overall variation in GHG footprint for different technologies currently available in the US market and can be used for a comparative assessment. Results identify the main drivers of variation and shed light on scenarios under which the adoption of current EVs can be environmentally beneficial from a GHG emissions standpoint.

Quantification of embodied energy and carbon footprint of pervious concrete pavements through a methodical lifecycle assessment framework

Evaluation of organic waste diversion alternatives for greenhouse gas reduction

Efforts to divert organics away from landfills are viewed by many as an important measure to significantly reduce the climate change impacts of municipal solid waste management. However, the actual greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of organics diversion from landfills have yet to be thoroughly evaluated and whether such a diversion provides significant environmental benefits in terms of GHG impacts must be answered. This study, using California-specific information, aimed to analyse the GHG impacts of organics diversion through a life-cycle assessment (LCA). This LCA considered all aspects of organics management including transportation, materials handling, GHG emissions, landfill gas capture/utilization, energy impacts, and carbon sequestration. The LCA study evaluated overall GHG impacts of landfilling, and alternative management options such as composting and anaerobic digestion for diverted organic waste. The LCA analysis resulted in net GHG reductions of 0.093, 0.048, 0.065 and 0.073 tonnes carbon equivalent per tonne organic waste for landfilling, windrow composting, aerated static pile composting, and anaerobic digestion, respectively. This study confirms that all three options for organics management result in net reductions of GHG emissions, but it also shows that organics landfilling, when well-managed, generates greater GHG reductions. The LCA provides scientific insight with regards to the environmental impacts of organics management options, which should be considered in decision and policy-making. The study also highlights the importance of how site and case-specific conditions influence project outcomes when considering organic waste management options.