Environmental Life Cycle Costing Research Articles

Environmental Life Cycle Criteria for Propellant Selection Decision-Making

A system of previously undefined environmental life cycle cost elements were developed for use in the propellant selection processes for spacecraft launch propulsion systems, with input from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Swedish Space Corporation, and stakeholders in industry and academia. These environmental life cycle cost elements were incorporated into a life cycle cost analysis of toxic propellant (hydrazine) versus green (High Performance Green Propellant) through a modified cost benefit analysis. Environmental cost element line items within the life cycle were identified as costs or benefits (cost reductions or avoided costs). A case study was also implemented to further illustrate these findings, resulting in a real-world 66% reduction in Phase E (operational) mission cost for High Performance Green Propellant (HPGP) compared with hydrazine. Based on the analysis, the largest environmental cost drivers were facility operations and maintenance, end of life disposal, and transportation, with the major costs being associated with health and human safety protection.

Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice

1 IntroductionSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry(SETAC) has published a code of practice for environmentallife-cycle costing (LCC), which provides a framework forevaluating decisions with consistent, but flexible systemsboundaries as a component of product sustainabilityassessments (Swarr et al. 2011). The code of practicebuilds on an earlier monograph that summarized 3 years ofeffort by the SETAC-Europe Working Group on Life-Cycle Costing (Hunkeler et al.2008).Thecodeofpracticeis grounded in a conceptual framework for life-cyclesustainability assessment (LCSA) of products that usesdistinct analyses for each of the three pillars of sustainability,environment, economy, and social equity.LCSA ¼ LCAþ LCCþ SLCA ð1ÞLife-cycle assessment (LCA) is the only pillar that has beenstandardized to date (ISO 2006a, b). UNEP (2009)haspublished guidelines for social LCAs and is currentlydeveloping methodological sheets for impact subcategories.The code of practice reviews historical development of life-cycle methods, outlines the technical requirements and guide-lines for LCC, and illustrates various methodological choiceswith a detailed case study. The objective of the code of practiceis to provide readers with a solid understanding of how to applyLCC in parallel with LCA to stimulate additional case studiesand peer-reviewed research to further refine the methodology.The ultimate goal is to build consensus for an internationalstandard that parallels the ISO 14040 standard for LCA.2 DiscussionLCC predates LCA, and distinct and different conceptualfoundations and methodological approaches can betraced to its developmental roots in systems engineering(Blanchard 1978). There has been limited integration ofthese methods, although the value of LCC for sustainabilityassessmentshasbeenrecognized(Norris2001;Hunkelerand

A Life-Cycle Approach to Characterising Environmental and Economic Impacts of Multifunctional Land-Use Systems: An Integrated Assessment in the UK

An integrated environmental and economic assessment of land use for food, energy and timber in the UK has been performed using environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and economic Life Cycle Costing (LCC), to explore complementary sustainability aspects of alternative land uses. The environmental assessment includes impacts on climate change, ecosystem services and biodiversity, all of which include soil carbon emissions. The systems explored include all processes from cradle to farm ‘gate’. The crops assessed were wheat and oilseed rape (under both organic and conventional farming systems), Scots Pine, and willow and Miscanthus. Food crops, particularly conventional food crops, are shown to have the highest climate-changing emissions per ha, whereas energy and forestry crops show negative net emissions. To a lesser extent, the same situation applies to impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity, with carbon storage in biomass playing a larger role than carbon in soils. The energy and forestry crops in this study show an overall beneficial environmental impact, in particular due to soil carbon sequestration, making these land uses the lowest contributors to climate change. Combining this with the non-renewable CO2 emissions displaced will mean that energy crops have an even lower impact. Economically, conventional food crops present the highest costs per ha, followed by organic food crops, energy and forestry crops. Integrating the results from LCA and LCC shows that the climate impacts per monetary unit of all land uses are dominated by soil management and, in the case of food production, also by fertilisation. Taxes or incentives such as “carbon charging” will encourage changes in practice in these areas to improve the sustainability of land management, mainly by building up Soil Organic Carbon (SOC).

Environmental and economic analysis of a water network system using LCA and LCC

AbstractWater network synthesis has been used to conserve water resources and reduce costs. The objective of this study was to verify the higher eco‐efficiency of a water network system (WNS), and to identify principal contributors to environmental burdens and economic costs using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). The WNS was compared to the conventional water system (CWS). LCA and LCC results showed that the total environmental burdens and life cycle cost of the WNS were lower than those of the CWS. The consumptions of industrial and ionized water were principal contributors to the environmental and economic burdens. The third principal contributor to the environmental burdens was electricity consumption, but that to the economic costs was piping cost. These principal contributors can be employed to obtain the simple and practical mathematical optimization models synthesizing the most environmentally friendly, economical, or sustainable WNSs. © 2007 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 2007

Establishing the Economic and Environmental Life-Cycle Costs of Marine Systems: A Case Study From the Recreational Craft Sector

This paper presents a robust methodology for the investigation of economic and environmental costs within a marine system. It describes the methods used to establish system life-cycle costs, and compares them with their environmental effects to establish the cost-benefit of reducing environmental hazards (Landamore et al. 2006: Life Cycle and Cost Benefit Analysis of Selected Technologies for Sustainable Inland Boating, Newcastle University, January). The case study is a small inland charter boat, operating on the Norfolk Broads, with varying options for powering, hull material, and graywater (GW) treatment. The principles described in this paper can be used to guide the efficient, cost-effective design of any system along sustainable principles. Environmental life-cycle analysis is performed, and the economic cost of each alternative is established. The results presented in the paper show that the majority of systems are cost effective for reducing environmental impact. In addition, a number of systems can be implemented without extra cost, though it is demonstrated that the high cost of the most environmentally effective technologies makes them an inefficient use of resources.

Integrated Assessment of Environmental and Economic Performance of Chemical Products Using Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach

With the increasing public consciousness on environmental issues, chemical products and process designs require simultaneous satisfaction and compromise of environmental and economical requirements. To fulfill the two conflicting while complementary objectives, a systematic approach for life cycle design of a chemical product is proposed in this article. Multiattribute decision-making is adopted in a trade-off consideration of both technical economical evaluation and environmental impacts assessment using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. On the basis of an evaluation of the relative importance of the criteria multicriteria decision making is performed. In this study, an AHP model is used to derive single a criteria score by analyzing the environmental impact and life cycle cost of a product, respectively. And a fluctuant weight analysis is put forth to calculate the integrated index of the product to enable products to be ranked or selected intuitionally and conveniently. The proposed AHP model has been applied to a case study, a comparative study on chamber cleaning with NF 3 and C 2F 6. The results show that the proposed AHP model is capable of providing a rational and relevant evaluation.

Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green roofs

This paper describes the life cycle environmental cost characteristics of intensive and extensive green roofs versus conventional roofs. A life cycle inventory and environmental impact assessment is used to document and analyze the similarities and differences in the environmental impacts of the fabrication, transportation, installation, operation, maintenance, and disposal of all three roof systems. This is important because there are additional resources committed to green roofs from which environmentally relevant benefits, such as reduced electrical energy use for building cooling, are derived. The extensive green roof design for the case study presented here is from an actual 1115m2 (12,000ft2) green roof project on a retail store in Pittsburgh, PA, USA. The case study includes a conventional ballasted roof, an extensive, or shallow growing medium green roof, and an intensive, or deep growing medium green roof. For the life cycle inventory and the material use, both the types of material used and the transportation distances to the site are with respect to this project.The study found that, for the Pittsburgh, PA climate, the energy use reduction that is realized because of the lower thermal conductivity of the roof due to the green roof growing medium is the critical factor in determining the relative magnitude of the environmental impact of the alternatives compared here. Although the energy use reduction is not very large in relation to the overall building energy use, it is significant for environmental impact over the life cycle of the building.

DANTES: a demonstration project for sustainable development

PurposeTo present the EU project DANTES (Demonstrate and Assess New Tools for Environmental Sustainability), conducted by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB, ABB, Stora Enso and Chalmers University of Technology. One of the project's goals is to assess and demonstrate tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and life cycle costing (LCC).Design/methodology/approachDifferent strategies for eco‐efficiency evaluation based on existing tools as well as case study results are demonstrated through the project's web site (see www.dantes.info) and through several information campaigns during the project period. The paper presents an overview of environmental assessment tools and strategies for using these tools and methods.FindingsProvides information on the use of sustainability tools and methods, indicating the problems that can be addressed by the application of the tool as well as how and who can use the tool. The results from the project were translated into strategies for eco‐efficiency evaluation based on existing tools.Practical implicationsImplementation of the strategies demonstrated in the project reduces costs by increasing the performance of products, processes and services, as well as the drive and awareness of companies' personnel in environmental issues. It also promotes good practices.Originality/valueThis paper describes the DANTES project, which is aimed at educating industries on how to use sustainability tools to address environmental problems. It offers practical help to different departments within companies.

Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC)

This paper examines some possibilities and limitations of linking economic information to an life cycle assessment, LCA, when studying municipal waste management systems. A terminology and methodology for economic assessment of municipal waste management systems is proposed and tested through a case study. The methodology consists of a financial LCC, life cycle costing, (which is used in parallel with an LCA) and an environmental LCC (functioning as a consecutive, weighting tool). In the case study, the financial LCC covers all the costs incurred by the extended waste management system, as though the LCA system was a single economic actor. The environmental LCC uses three different weighting methods to monetarise environmental effects such as emissions and resource use. As both LCCs use the same unit of account, they can easily be added together to a welfare economic tool. This step-by-step aggregation leads to a transparent, reproducible analysis method. A conclusion is that the methodology facilitates the analysis, but that problems remain as municipal waste management often diverge from existing economic systems.

Environmental Life Cycle Costs in the Australian Food Packaging Supply Chain

There is increasing evidence that external and internal pressures are being placed upon companies to acknowledge, characterise and analyse environmental issues, impacts and costs. It has been argued that companies will increasingly be faced with responsibilities extending outside the factory gate to point of sale and beyond. Companies will need to adopt a life cycle perspective into the decision making framework, to support managements' decisions regarding the environmental impacts and costs of activities and products. The aim of this thesis is to explore the environmental impacts and environmental costs recognition and management within companies in the Australian food packaging supply chain. A grounded theory approach is used to develop propositions from the findings that can be tested in further research. A qualitative case study approach is undertaken using face-to-face interviews with Environmental Managers of twenty-seven companies that operate within the Australian food packaging supply chain.

A proposed tool to integrate environmental and economical assessments of products

An attempt has been made to interpret the outcomes of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in terms of environmental costs. This attempt ensures the environmental accountability of the products while LCA ensures their eco-friendly nature. Keeping this as an objective, a Life Cycle Environmental Cost Analysis (LCECA) model was developed. This new tool incorporates costing into the LCA practice. This model prescribes a life cycle environmental cost model to estimate and correlate the effects of these costs in all the life cycle stages of the product. The newly developed categories of eco-costs are: costs of effluent treatment/control/disposal, environmental management systems, eco-taxes, rehabilitation, energy and savings of recycling and reuse strategies. The mathematical model of LCECA determines quantitative expressions between the total cost of products and the various eco-costs. The eco-costs of the alternatives are compared with the computational LCECA model. This method enables the environmental as well as the economic assessment of products, which leads to cost-effective, eco-friendly design of products.

Environmental life cycle costs in the Australian food packaging supply chain

There is increasing evidence that external and internal pressures are being placed upon companies to acknowledge, characterise and analyse environmental issues, impacts and costs. It has been argued that companies will increasingly be faced with responsibilities extending outside the factory gate to point of sale and beyond. Companies will need to adopt a life cycle perspective into the decision making framework, to support managements' decisions regarding the environmental impacts and costs of activities and products. The aim of this thesis is to explore the environmental impacts and environmental costs recognition and management within companies in the Australian food packaging supply chain. A grounded theory approach is used to develop propositions from the findings that can be tested in further research. A qualitative case study approach is undertaken using face-to-face interviews with Environmental Managers of twenty-seven companies that operate within the Australian food packaging supply chain.

Environmental life cycle cost analysis of products

The objective of this life cycle environmental cost analysis (LCECA) model is to include eco‐costs into the total cost of the products. Eco‐costs are both the direct and indirect costs of the environmental impacts caused by the product in its entire life cycle. Subsequently, this LCECA model identifies the feasible alternatives for cost‐effective, eco‐friendly parts/products. This attempts to incorporate costing into the life cycle assessment (LCA) practice. Ultimately, it aims to reduce the total cost with the help of green or eco‐friendly alternatives in all the stages of the life cycle of any product. The new category of eco‐costs of the cost breakdown structure includes eight eco‐costs, namely cost of effluent/waste treatment, cost of effluent/waste control, cost of waste disposal, cost of implementation of environmental management systems, costs of eco‐taxes, costs of rehabilitation (in case of environmental accidents), cost savings of renewable energy utilization, and cost savings of recycling and reuse strategies. Development of a suitable cost model and the identification of the feasible alternatives are performed simultaneously. Various checklists based on multiple environmental criteria will be used to ensure the eco‐friendly nature of the alternatives. On the basis of the calculated environmental impact indices (EII), priorities will be made for the selection of suitable alternatives. The mathematical model of LCECA aims to define the relationships between the total cost of products and the various eco‐costs concerned with the life cycle of the products, and determine quantitative expressions between the above‐said costs. A computational LCECA model has been developed to compare the eco‐costs of the alternatives. This model will include a break‐even analysis to evaluate the alternatives, and sensitivity analysis and risk analysis modules. This model aims at a cost‐effective, eco‐friendly product as an end result. This LCECA model will be compatible with the existing LCA software tools.