Life Cycle Assessment

1
Life Cycle Assessment
2

• Apple's Environmental Technologies Department is
  an integral part of Apple's product teams,
  providing input that guides product teams toward
  more
• environmentally-friendly product design.
• The Department performs industry-leading work in
• reducing the amount of toxic substances in its
  products,
• increasing the energy efficiency of its
  products,
• and lowering the amount of greenhouse gases
  emitted by its products.
• In support of this latter effort, the
  Environmental Technologies Department seeks
• an engineer to support its life cycle analysis
  (LCA) initiative.
• 20 November 2008, Jean L. Lee, Ph.D.,
  Environmental Technologies Department, Apple Inc.

3
The BIG picture
Needs Wants
Services
Source of Materials Energy Water Land
Sink for Wastes Emissions
Products
Production
Anthroposphere
Ecosphere
Industrial production and consumption systems use
the environment as source of resources and sink
for wastes and emissions
4
Note The following case study is for teaching
purposes only
Question Which beverage container has the lowest
environmental impact?
5
Material choice for beverage containers
Processes causing environmental impacts
Material production
Container manufacturing
Use distribution
Recycling or disposal
Environmental impact indicator Primary energy
requirements
Aluminum PET Glass
Primary energy requirements for material production (MJ/kg) 211.5 82.7 12.0
Primary energy requirements for container forming (MJ/kg) 10.4 15.5 2.9
Density(kg/m3) 2,700 1,370 2,460
6
Material choice for beverage containers
Materials can not be compared on a mass basis.
Definition of Functional Unit Containing 1 liter
of beverage
Beverage container Content Mass Mass/content
12 fl. oz. aluminum can 0.473 liter 19 gram 0.0402 kg/liter
20 fl. oz. PET bottle 0.591 liter 26 gram 0.0440 kg/liter
25.4 fl. oz. glass bottle 0.750 liter 325 gram 0.4333 kg/liter

• Reference flows
• 40.2 gram of aluminum cans
• 44.0 gram of PET bottles
• 433.3 gram of glass bottles

7
Material choice for beverage containers
How much energy is required to produce the
beverage containers?
Beverage container Material production (MJ/liter) Container forming (MJ/liter) Total (MJ/liter)
Aluminum 211.5 0.0402 8.5 10.4 0.0402 0.4 8.9
PET 82.7 0.0440 3.6 15.5 0.0440 0.7 4.3
Glass 12.0 0.4333 5.3 2.9 0.433 1.3 6.6
How much energy is required to transport the
beverage containers?
Beverage container Mass (g/liter) Transportation distance (km) Transportation energy Transportation energy
Beverage container Mass (g/liter) Transportation distance (km) (MJ/tonne-km) (MJ/liter)
Aluminum 40.2 500 2.5 0.05
PET 44.0 500 2.5 0.05
Glass 433.3 500 2.5 0.54
8
Material choice for beverage containers
How much energy is saved through beverage
container recycling?
Beverage container Collection rate Metal yield Material recycling rate Energy requirements (MJ/kg) Energy requirements (MJ/kg) Energy savings (MJ/liter)
Beverage container Collection rate Metal yield Material recycling rate Primary production Secondary production Energy savings (MJ/liter)
Aluminum 0.52 0.95 0.49 211.5 25.8 3.6
Energy yield Energy recovery rate Feedstock Energy (MJ/kg)
PET 0.20 0.80 0.16 39.8 0.3
Glass yield Material recycling rate Energy requirements (MJ/kg) Energy requirements (MJ/kg)
Glass yield Material recycling rate Primary production Secondary production
Glass 0.23 1.0 0.23 12.0 7.2 0.5
9
Material choice for beverage containers
Results
Beverage container Material production Container manufacturing Use distribution 1) Container recycling 2) Total energy
Aluminum 8.5 0.4 0.1 -3.6 5.4
PET 3.6 0.7 0.1 -0.3 4.1
Glass 5.3 1.3 0.5 -0.5 6.6

1. Based on 500 km transportation
2. Based on current recycling rates

10
Material choice for beverage containers
Conclusion
Products create environmental impacts at all
stages of their life cycles? It is important to
consider the entire life cycle of products
11
Material choice for beverage containers
Question How do we know that primary energy
requirements is the right environmental
impact indicator?
Results from a more comprehensive life cycle
assessment
Primary EnergyRequirements (MJ NCV) Global WarmingPotential (kg CO2eq) Terrestrial Eco-toxicity Potential (g DCBeq)
Aluminum 4.66 0.354 1.073
PET 3.94 0.205 0.553
Glass 6.88 0.426 0.430
Conclusion
Products create different types of environmental
impacts? It is important to consider a wide
range of environmental impacts
12
Life cycle assessment aims at quantifying the
environmental impacts acrossall relevant
environmental concerns and all relevant life
cycle stages.
Environmental impact categories
Climate Change Eco-toxicity Photo-chemical Smog Ozone depletion Etc.
Production of materials
Manufacturing of product
Use Distribution
End-of-life management
Total life cycle
Life cycle stages
13
History and definition of Life Cycle Assessment

• Late 1960s, first Resource and Environmental
  Profile Analyses (REPAs) (e.g. in 1969 Coca
  Cola funds study on beverage containers)
• Early 1970s, first LCAs (Sundström,1973,Sweden,
  Boustead,1972, UK, Basler
  Hofmann,1974,Switzerland, Hunt et al.,1974 USA)
• 1980s, numerous studies without common
  methodology with contradicting results
• 1993, SETAC publishes Guidelines for Life-Cycle
  Assessment A Code of Practice, (Consoli et
  al.)
• 1997-2000, ISO publishes Standards 14040-43,
  defining the different LCA stages
• 1998-2001, ISO publishes Standards and Technical
  Reports 14047-49
• 2000, UNEP and SETAC create Life Cycle
  Initiative
• 2006 ISO publishes Standards 14040 14044,
  which update and replace 14040-43

Definition of LCA according to ISO 14040 LCA is
a technique compiling an inventory of
relevant inputs and outputs of a product
systemevaluating the potential environmental
impacts associated with those inputs and
outputsand interpreting the results of the
inventory and impact phases in relation to the
objectives of the study.
14
Life cycle assessment terminology (ISO 140402006)
Elementary flows (e.g. resource extractions)
input flows
Functional unit
Economy-environment system boundary
economic process
economic process
economic process
economic process
Intermediate flow
Intermediate flow
Intermediate flow
Product system
Elementary flows (e.g. emissions to air) output
flows
15
Life Cycle Assessment Framework
Four different phases of LCA are distinguished
Goal and scopedefinition
Interpretation

• Direct application
• product development and improvement
• Strategic planning
• Public policy making
• Marketing
• Other

Inventoryanalysis
Impactassessment
Source ISO 14040
16
Life Cycle Assessment
Goal and scopedefinition
Interpretation
Inventoryanalysis
Impactassessment
17
Goal and Scope Definition Functional unit and
reference flows
Procedure 1. Identify the function of the
product system studied 3. Specify the function in
SI units 4. Determine an appropriate amount of
the function 5. Determine and identify the
alternative systems studied in terms of reference
flows
Previous example Functional Unit Containing 1
liter of beverage Reference flows 40.2 g of alu
cans, 44.0 g of PET bottles, 433.3 g of glass
bottles
What are functional units for the comparison
of Various paints? Paper versus plastic bags in
supermarkets? What are the resulting reference
flows?
20m2 of wall covering with a coloured surface of
98 opacity and a lifetime of 5 years
Comfortable carrying of X kg and Y m3 of
groceries (what about durability?)
18
Inventory analysis
In the inventory analysis the elementary flows of
a product life cycle are quantified. These are
all natural resource inputs and waste emission
outputs of all economic processes within the
system boundaries.
Functional unit (Reference flows)
Process flow diagram
Unit processes
Inventory table for each unit processes
Aggregate inventory table for product system
19
Inventory Analysis Process flow diagram
Definition The process flow diagram is an
illustration of all the unit processes to be
modeled, including their interrelationships,
which are intermediate product flows.
20
Information contained in a process inventory
Unit Process
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
Intermediate flows
Intermediate flows
Materials Energy
Materials Energy
Emissions to air Emissions to water Emissions to
soil
Elementary flows
Biotic resources Abiotic resources
Elementary flows
21
Main challenges of inventory analysis

• Even though the methodology of inventory analysis
  seems relatively
• straightforward, it is in fact complicated by
  two important issues
• Defining boundaries for the system under
  analysis Which processes to include and which
  to exclude (cut-off problem in LCA)
• Allocation of elementary flows if process has
  more than one economic output Which output
  gets which burdens (Allocation problem in LCA)

materials energy
wastes emissions
unit process
product A
product B
22
Allocation
There are 3 types of processes where allocation
is necessary co-production, waste treatment,
recycling and reuse in an open loop. The 3 are
treated on the basis of the same allocation rules.
open loop
closed loop
materials energy
wastes emissions
waste A
waste B
Life Cycle B
Life Cycle A
unit process
materials energy
wastes emissions
unit process
product A
product B
A hierarchy of preferred approaches has been
defined in ISO14044, Section 4.3.4
1. Avoiding allocation by dividing the unit
process 2. Avoiding allocation by system
expansion 3. Allocation on the basis of physical
relationship 4. Allocation on the basis of other
relationship, i.e. economic value
23
Mass-based allocation
Example
allocated process
Emissions 0.2 kg
unit process
Emissions 1 kg
20 kg product A
20 kg product A
80 kg product B
allocated process
Emissions 0.8 kg
80 kg product B
On a mass basis, product A is allocated 20 of
the emissions.
24
Economic allocation
Example
allocated process
Emissions 0.9 kg
unit process
Emissions 1 kg
20 kg product A 900
20 kg product A 900
80 kg product B 100
allocated process
Emissions 0.1 kg
80 kg product B 100
On an economic basis, product A is allocated 90
of the emissions.
25
Goal and scopedefinition
Interpretation
Inventoryanalysis
Impactassessment
26
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Life Cycle Inventories (LCIs) by themselves do
not characterize the environmental performance
of a product system. Impact Assessment (IA)
aims at connecting the emissions and extractions
listed in LCIs on the basis of impact pathways
to their potential environmental damages.
Life Cycle Inventory results
Classification
Impact categories
Characterization
Category indicator results
Normalization
Environmental profile
Valuation
One-dimensional environmental score
27
Elements of LCIA according to ISO 14044
Mandatory elements
Selection of impact categories, category
indicators and characterization models
Classification Assignment of LCI results to
impact categories
Characterization Calculation of category
indicator results
Category indicator results (LCIA profile)
Optional elements Normalization of category
indicator results relative to reference
information Grouping Weighting Data quality
analysis
28
Classification
Impact Categories
LCI
20kg CO2
Climate change
2kg Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion
5g CFC-11
Photochemical oxidant formation
2kg NO2
1kg SO2
Acidification
29
Classification
Characterization
Impact Categories
LCI
Characterization factors
20kg CO2
Climate change
GWP (global warming potential)
2kg Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion
ODP (ozone depletion potential)
5g CFC-11
POCP (photochemical ozone creation potential)
Photochemical oxidant formation
2kg NO2
AP (acidification potential)
1kg SO2
Acidification
Substance Amount (kg) GWP100 (kg CO2 eq/kg) ODP8 (kg CFC-11 eq/kg) POCP (kg ethylene eq/kg) AP (kg SO2 eq/kg)
CO2 20 1
Methane 2 21 0.006
CFC-11 0.005 4000 1
NO2 2 0.028 0.70
SO2 1 1.00
30
Classification
Characterization
Impact Categories
LCI
Characterization factors
20kg CO2
Climate change
GWP
2kg Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion
ODP
5g CFC-11
Photochemical oxidant formation
POCP
2kg NO2
AP
1kg SO2
Acidification
Substance Amount (kg) GWP100 (kg CO2 eq/kg) ODP8 (kg CFC-11 eq/kg) POCP (kg ethylene eq/kg) AP (kg SO2 eq/kg)
CO2 20 1
Methane 2 21 0.006
CFC-11 0.005 4000 1
NO2 2 0.028 0.70
SO2 1 1.00
201 20 kg CO2eq
221 42 kg CO2eq
(20 42 20) kg CO2eq 82 kg CO2eq
0.0054000 20 kg CO2eq
Indicator Result
31
Classification
Characterization
Impact Categories
LCI
Indicator results
Characterization factors
20kg CO2
Climate change
GWP
82kg CO2 eq
2kg Methane
0.005kg CFC-11 eq
Stratospheric ozone depletion
ODP
5g CFC-11
Photochemical oxidant formation
POCP
0.068kg ethylene eq
2kg NO2
AP
2.4kg SO2 eq
1kg SO2
Acidification
Substance Amount (kg) GWP100 (kg CO2 eq/kg) ODP8 (kg CFC-11 eq/kg) POCP (kg ethylene eq/kg) AP (kg SO2 eq/kg)
CO2 20 1
Methane 2 21 0.006
CFC-11 0.005 4000 1
NO2 2 0.028 0.70
SO2 1 1.00
Indicator kg CO2 eq kg CFC-11 eq kg ethylene eq kg SO2 eq
Results 82 0.005 0.068 2.4
32
Impact Assessment The environmental impact pathway
Impact pathways consist of linked environmental
processes, and they express the causalchain of
subsequent effects originating from an emission
or extraction (environmental intervention).
Examples
Increase in effectiveness of communication of
results (generally)
SO2 emissions
Acidrain
Acidifiedlake
Dead fish
Loss ofbiodiversity
Source
Midpoint
Endpoint
CFC emissions
Tropospheric OD
Stratospheric OD
UVBexposure
Humanhealth
Increase in uncertainty for predicting the
environmental impact from the initial
interventions
33
Impact Assessment Impact Categories
According to ISO14044, LCI results are first
classified into impact categories that are
relevant and appropriate for the scope and goal
of the LCA study.
Example
Carbon dioxide
Climate change
Methane
Stratospheric ozone depletion
CFCs
Photochemical oxidant formation
Nitrogen oxides
Sulphur dioxide
Acidification

• A category indicator, representing the amount of
  impact potential, can be located at any place
  between the LCI results and the category
  endpoints. There are currently two main Impact
  Assessment methods
• Problem oriented IA methods stop quantitative
  modeling before the end of the impact pathway
  and link LCI results to so-defined midpoint
  categories (or environmental problems), like
  acidification and ozone depletion.
• Damage oriented IA methods, which model the
  cause-effect chain up to the endpoints or
  environmental damages, link LCI results to
  endpoint categories.

34
Impact AssessmentClassification and
characterization Example 1
Impact category Climate change LCI
results Emissions of greenhouse gases to the air
(in kg) Characterization model the model
developed by the IPCC defining the global
warming potential of different gases Category
indicator Infrared radiative forcing
(W/m2) Characterization factor Global warming
potential for a 100-year time horizon
(GWP100) for each GHG emission to the air
(in kg CO2 equivalents/kg emission) Unit of
indicator result kg (CO2 eq)
Substance GWP100 (in kg CO2 equivalents/kg
emission) Carbon dioxide 1 Methane 21 CFC-11
4000 CFC-13 11700 HCFC-123 93 HCFC-142b 2000 P
erfluoroethane 9200 Perfluoromethane 6500 Sulphu
r hexafluoride 23900
Source (Guinée et al., 2002)
35
Impact AssessmentClassification and
characterization Example 2
Impact category Acidification LCI
results Emissions of acidifying substances to
the air (in kg) Characterization model RAINS10
model, developed by IIASA, describing the fate
and deposition of acidifying substances,
adapted to LCA Category indicator Deposition/acidi
fication critical load Characterization
factor Acidification potential (AP) for each
acidifying emission to the air (in kg SO2
equivalents/kg emission) Unit of indicator
result kg (SO2 eq)
Substance AP (in kg SO2 equivalents/kg
emission) ammonia 1.88 hydrogen
chloride 0.88 hydrogen fluoride 1.60 hydrogen
sulfide 1.88 nitric acid 0.51 Nitrogen
dioxide 0.70 Nitrogen monoxide 1.07 Sulfur
dioxide 1.00 Sulphuric acid 0.65
Source (Guinée et al., 2002)
36
Outlook and future developments for LCA

• Issues to be solved
• Money and time required to do LCAs (especially
  important of SMEs)
• Data availability (public databases, e. g. ELCD
  and U.S. LCI)
• Impact assessment methodology not fully mature
  (especially toxicity indicators)
• Multidimensionality (multi criteria decision
  making)
• Relationship with Environmental Management
  Systems
• Product perspective is not whole system
  perspective (Most important example economic
  relationships)

• Technical developments
• Consequential LCA (to resolve allocation
  issues)
• Hybrid LCA (ProcessI/O LCA) (to resolve cut-off
  issues)
• Modeling economic relationships in and between
  product systems
• Modeling non-linear and dynamic relationships in
  and between product systems
• Modeling spatial aspects of LCI and LCIA

37
Environmental Product Design Example Cell
Phones
38
Material Composition of Cell Phones
Plastics 40-50
Glass and Ceramics 15-20
Ferrous metals 3
Non ferrous metals 22-37
Other 5-10
39
Cell Phone Evolution
40
Cell Phone Components

• Plastic housing and keypad
• Liquid crystal display (LCD)
• Printed wiring board (PWB)
• Connectors

• Active electronic components (e.g. integrated
  circuits)
• Passive electronic components (e.g.
  capacitors and resistors)
• Microphones and speakers

41
Global Cell Phone Market
42
Life Cycle of a Cell Phone
Integrated Product Policy (IPP) Pilot Project
(http//ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/mobile.htm)
43
Environmental Assessments of Cell Phones at Nokia

• Wright 1999 Life cycle energy analysis
• Scope 92-94 (160 gr) and 95-96 (130 gr)
  cell phones, production, use, eol management,
  exclude battery, charger, network infrastructure
• Functional unit Use of the cell phone for 2.5
  years
• Impact categories Primary energy consumption
  (PEC)

• Frey 2002 Environmental footprint analysis
• Scope 92-94 (160 gr) and 95-96 (130 gr)
  cell phones, production, use, eol management,
  exclude battery, charger, network infrastructure
• Functional unit Use of the cell phone for 2.5
  years
• Indicator Total area required to produce
  required resources and assimilate generated wastes

• McLaren Piukkula 2003 Life cycle assessment
  (using GaBi3)
• Scope 2000 cell phone (90 gr), production and
  use, no eol management include battery and
  charger, exclude network infrastructure
• Functional unit Use of the cell phone for 2
  years
• Impact categories Primary energy consumption
  (PEC), global warming potential (GWP), Ozone
  depletion potential (ODP), acidification
  potential (AP), human toxicity potential (HTP),
  photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP)

44
Summary of environmental hotspots of a cell phone

• Life cycle stages Component manufacture, use
  phase, end of life
• Environmental concern energy consumption,
  hazardous wastes emissions
• Use phase Stand-by power consumption of the
  charger
• Component manufacture Energy consumption of
  manufacturing processes
• Components with highest environmental impacts
  PWB, ICs, LCD
• Transportation Airfreight accounts for almost
  all of environmental impacts
• End-of-life Hazardous substances in products
  (e.g. Pb, Cr, Ni, Cu, Sb)
• Beyond the handset Energy consumption of radio
  base station

45
Cell Phone Life Cycle Primary Energy
Requirements (PER)
Life cycle stage PER (in MJ) PER (in of total)
Materials production 1) 25 9
Component manufacture 1) 100 36
Product assembly 1) 25 9
Transportation 25 9
Use 100 36
End-of-life disposal 1) 0 0
Total 275 100
1) 2003 Nokia study gives only 150 MJ for product
manufacture. Breakdown is from an earlier
Nokia study from 1999, as is the end-of-life
assessment.
Perspective 275 MJ is the gross calorific value
of 7.9 liters of gasoline, or 52 km in a
Lincoln Navigator, or 185 km in a Toyota Prius.
46
Options for improving life cycle environmental
performance of cell phones

• Improvement in cell phone design
• Optimizing the in-use life-span of cell phone
• Less energy and problematic chemicals during
  component manufacture
• Change buying, usage and disposal behavior of
  consumers
• Improve eol management of cell phones
• Reduce energy consumption of network
  infrastructure
• Develop environmental assessment methods/tools
• Need for policies to support environmental
  performance improvements

47
Cell phone end-of-life management options
Phonedemand use
End-of-life phone disposal
Primary materialsproduction
Componentsmanufacture
Final phoneassembly
Phone refurbishment
Component reuse
End-of-life phone collection
Inspection sorting
Metalsmarket
Phone recycling
48
Economics of cell phone end-of-life management
Cost
Cost
Cost
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue

Recycling
Component reuse
Refurbishment
49
Handset mass and gold content have been declining
over the past ten years
gr

Gold contains 60 - 80 of the economic value
of the materials (depending on the palladium
content) 65 - 75 of the energy embodied in the
materials
50
Therefore economic and environmental benefitsdue
to gold recycling has been declining as well
MJ