Abstract

In life cycle assessment (LCA), performing Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) using fully dependent sampling typically involves repeated inversion of a technology matrix for a sufficiently large number of times. As the dimension of technology matrices for life cycle inventory (LCI) databases grows, MCS using fully dependent sampling is becoming a computational challenge. In our previous work, we pre-calculated the distribution functions of the entire LCI flows in the ecoinvent ver. 3.1 database to help reduce the computation time of running fully dependent sampling by individual LCA practitioners. However, it remains as a question whether the additional errors due to the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values are large enough to alter the conclusion of a comparative study, and, if so, what is the odds of such cases. In this study, we empirically tested the probability of altering the conclusion of a comparative LCA due to the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values. We sampled 10,000 random pairs of elementary flows of ecoinvent LCIs (ai and bi) and ran MCSs (1) using pre-calculated uncertainty values and (2) using fully dependent sampling. We analyzed the distribution of the differences between ai and bi (i.e., ai−bi) of each run, and quantified the probability of reversing (e.g., ai > bi became ai < bi) or moderating the conclusion (e.g., ai > bi became ai ≈ bi). In order to better replicate the situation under a comparative LCA setting, we also sampled 10,000 random pairs of elementary flows from the processes that produce electricity, and repeated the same procedure. The results show that no LCIs derived using pre-calculated uncertainty values constitute large enough differences from those using fully dependent sampling to reverse the conclusion. However, in 5.3% of the cases, the conclusion from one approach is moderated under the other approach or vice versa. When elementary flow pairs are sampled only from the electricity-producing processes, the probability of moderating the conclusions increases to 10.5%, while that of reversing the conclusions remains nil. As the number of unit processes in LCI databases increases, running full MCSs in a PC-environment will continue to be a challenge, which may lead some LCA practitioners to avoid uncertainty analysis altogether. Our results indicate that pre-calculated distributions for LCIs can be used as a proxy for comparative LCA studies in the absence of adequate computational resources for full MCS. Depending on the goal and scope of the study, LCA practitioners should consider using pre-calculated distributions if the benefits of doing so outweighs the associated risks of altering the conclusion.

Highlights

  • Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to evaluate the environmental performance of a product [1,2]

  • 10,000 pairs of elementary flows of life cycle inventory (LCI), ai and bi were randomly selected from ecoinvent v3.1, and we simulated 1,000 times of each pair of elementary flows for both partially independent sampling (PIS) and fully dependent sampling (FDS) approaches

  • We evaluated the probability for an LCA practitioner to make an erroneous conclusion due to the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values or PIS instead of FDS in a comparative LCA setting

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool to evaluate the environmental performance of a product [1,2]. Noshadravan et al and Gregory et al performed MCS to compare two pavement designs using the distributions of expected LCA results [28,29]. These studies considered parameter uncertainty using a fully dependent sampling approach. Imbeault-Tetreault et al performed MCS for an LCA case study with nearly 900 unit processes using fully dependent sampling and compared two scenarios around the use of Global Position System (GPS) [21]. Henriksson et al conducted 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations with fully dependent sampling for a comparative LCA of Asian aquaculture products [30]. Existing MCS packages in professional LCA software tools including SimaPro and OpenLCA can sample parameters from foreground processes and from the underlying life cycle inventory (LCI) databases [32,33]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.