Naar een dynamisch rekenmodel voor berekening van het broeikaseffect van diervoeder : uitgebreide samenvatting

Het Productschap Diervoeder (PDV) wil een dynamisch rekenmodel ontwikkelen voor het berekenen van de carbon footprint van diervoeders en wil dit model uiteindelijk beschikbaar stellen aan de diervoedersector. Doel van het model is tweeledig: Allereerst identificeert het model de verschillende emissiebronnen in de keten en geeft het informatie over de hoogte van de carbon footprint van diervoeders. De verkregen informatie is vervolgens het vertrekpunt voor het identificeren van verbeteropties in de keten

Framework for carbon emission evaluation of road maintenance

In the United Kingdom, carbon emissions associated with business activities have shifted from matters of policy to sources of legal responsibilities under the Climate Change Act of 2008. A flexible and easy-to-use technique is needed so that businesses can assess their carbon emissions in response to regulations on the environmental impact of construction activities. The aim of this study was to develop a methodology that could offer businesses a carbon life-cycle assessment tool to identify emissions hot spots across the value chain and inform a carbon-reduction hierarchy. The approach employed was based on methodology described in the publicly available specification (PAS2050) protocol. The objective was to identify locations where the largest production of emissions occurred and provide for the biggest potential reduction within routine highway maintenance processes. The methodology framework allows businesses to make informed decisions in carbon terms through the identification and prioritization of areas of potential reduction of emissions

Allocation methods in the life cycle assessment of food

Elintarvikkeiden tuotannon ja kulutuksen aikaiset ympäristövaikutukset ovat tiedettävästi merkittävät, mistä syystä on tärkeää että niiden vaikutuksia selvitetään ja niistä viestitään. Elinkaariarviointi on sovelias menetelmä määritettäessä tuotteiden, kuten elintarvikkeiden ympäristövaikutuksia. Sitä käytetään muun muassa poliittisen päätöksenteon pohjalla, yritysten strategisessa suunnittelussa ja viestittäessä tuotteiden ympäristövaikutuksista. Elinkaariarviointia käytetään nykyään aktiivisesti: esimerkiksi Suomessa on laskettu ja viestitty viimeisen vuoden aikana muutamien elintarvikkeiden hiilijalanjäljet, jotka perustuvat elinkaariarviointiin. Elinkaariarvioinnin metodologiaa on kehitetty viimeisinä vuosikymmeninä, mutta kaikista metodologian vaiheiden yksityiskohdista ei ole päästy yhteisymmärrykseen. Merkittävä metodologinen haaste on allokointitilanne, missä tulee määrittää kuinka tuotejärjestelmässä syntyvät syötteet ja tuotokset, kuten kasvihuonekaasupäästöt, jaetaan tarkasteltavalle tuotteelle ja tuotejärjestelmässä samanaikaisesti tuotetuille rinnakkaistuotteille. Esimerkiksi jos elinkaariarvioinnissa tarkasteltava tuote on maito, tulee määrittää kuinka maitokarjatilalla muodostuvat syötteet ja tuotokset jaetaan tilalla tuotettavan naudanlihan ja raakamaidon välillä, ja edelleen raakamaitoa prosessoitaessa tulee määrittää kuinka meijerin syötteet ja tuotokset jaetaan maidon ja muiden tehtaassa syntyvien maitoperäisten tuotteiden välillä. Tutkielma tarkastelee allokointiongelmaa elintarvikkeiden elinkaariarvioinneissa, sekä esittää ja vertailee eri allokointimenettelyjen ja -ohjeiden heikkouksia ja vahvuuksia kirjallisuuskatsauksessa ja suomalaiselle kasvatetulle kirjolohelle tehdyssä case-tarkastelussa. Tutkielmassa selvitettiin, että allokointimenettelyn valinta vaikuttaa merkittävästi tuotteelle laskettuihin ympäristövaikutuksiin. Laskettiin esimerkiksi, että kirjolohifileen tuotannon ilmastovaikutukset ja rehevöittävät päästöt vesiin voivat jopa puolittua tai kaksinkertaistua riippuen valitusta allokointimenettelystä. Eri allokointimenettelyjä tunnistettiin useita, joihin lukeutuvat tavat välttää allokointitilanne ja ratkaista se jotain allokointiperustetta käyttäen, eli jakamalla tuotejärjestelmässä syötteet ja tuotokset esimerkiksi tuotteiden hintojen perusteella. Elintarvikkeiden elinkaariarviointien yhdenmukaistamisen edistämiseksi ja subjektiivisten valintojen vähentämiseksi pidettiin tärkeänä, että allokointimenettelyjen valintaa ohjataan. Tarkasteltujen nykyisten elinkaariarviointiohjeiden allokointisuosituksien ei kuitenkaan nähty tukevan yhdenmukaisia allokointimenettelyjä, sillä ohjeet tarjoavat toisistaan poikkeavia suosituksia. Ne eivät ole myöskään kovin tarkkoja allokointiohjeissaan mahdollistaen lopulta lähes minkä tahansa allokointimenettelyn. Yksityiskohtaisemmille ohjeille vaikuttaisikin olevan tarvetta, mikä tarkoittaa, että allokointimenettelyjen soveltuvuudesta eri elintarvikkeiden allokointitilanteissa on syytä keskustella ja sopia. Lisäksi epävarmuuksien vallitessa viestinnässä tulisi olla varovainen ja ympäristövaikutusten tarkkojen arvojen viestimisen sijasta tulisi harkita karkeampaa tapaa ilmaista tulokset, kuten esittämällä eri allokointimenettelyillä saatujen tuloksien vaihteluvälit.The environmental impacts of food production and consumption are substantial, and therefore, it’s important that their impacts are investigated and communicated. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is one promising method to assess the environmental impacts of products, like food products. It’s a process to assess products' environmental impacts through their life-cycle, and it’s used, for example, in policy making, companies’ strategic decision making and when communicating products’ environmental impacts. LCA is used actively nowadays, for example, over the past year few Finnish food companies have decided to calculate and communicate their products’ carbon footprints using LCA. LCA methodology has clearly developed during the past decades. However, there isn’t a shared view on all of the methodological issues. In fact, one essential methodological challenge is allocation situation. In allocation situation all inputs and outputs, such as, green house gas emissions produced in the product system are to be distributed between the studied product and its co-products. For instance, when the studied product is milk it should be determined how the inputs and outputs produced in the dairy cattle farm are to be divided between the farm’s products: beef and raw milk. Furthermore, in the dairy factory it needs to be decided how the inputs and outputs are to be divided between the further processed milk and other dairy products produced in the factory. The aim of the thesis is to investigate the allocation situations in the LCAs of food, as well as, to present, compare and find weaknesses and strengths of different ways of handling allocation situations and ways of guiding them. This is done in a literature study and in a LCA case-study made for Finnish farmed rainbow trout. It was calculated that the choice of how to handle the allocation situation has a major impact on the environmental impacts directed to the product under investigation. For example, climate change impacts and eutrophication of water bodies caused by production of a trout fillet can halve or double depending on the choice of the allocation method. Several different allocation methods were indentified, including ways to avoid allocation and ways to allocate the inputs and outputs, for instance, on the basis of the products' prices. To improve the harmonization of food LCAs and to reduce subjectivity it is important that there is guidance when choosing the allocation method. However, the existing LCA guides investigated don’t give enough support for the allocation situations. They provide divergent instructions and recommendations; they aren’t very specific in the allocation instructions and they allow choosing almost any allocation method, and therefore there is clear need for more specific instructions. Thus, it is evident that there is need to discuss and agree on the suitability of allocation methods to be used in LCAs of different food products. Also, because of the existing uncertainty one should be really careful when communicating exact environmental impacts, instead, one should consider presenting environmental impacts in a more coarse scale, for example, by presenting the scale of the results when using different allocation methods

A performance evaluation of mainstream timber framed and traditional masonry housing in the UK

Within the UK traditional masonry construction techniques are struggling to deliver the quantity and ecological quality of housing required by an ever increasing UK population. This research employs a case study review of a mainstream mixed timber frame and masonry housing development - Green Street, in order to explore the ecological viability of timber prefabrication as an alternative to the established masonry construction methods currently employed in the majority of British housing. Four houses of each construction type in the Green Street development were outfitted with a number of environmental monitoring sensors for continuous monitoring. In addition the study incorporates fabric testing in the form of air permeability testing, Co-heating analysis, thermography, and a life cycle analysis. Building Use Survey, project management and design team interviews and an industry questionnaire form the final part of the evaluation protocol. The study revealed that heating the timber dwellings ultimately required less energy per degree difference between inside and outside temperatures. During the summer the timber housing displays a greater diurnal temperature swing, while on average the temperature remains consistently lower than the masonry housing. The masonry housing was found to be both more air tight and exhibiting a lower heat loss coefficient, despite that, the performance gap between design and reality for space heating is less in the timber prefabricated housing. The life cycle analysis revealed that the timber walls have a lower impact on climate change. BUS methodology results found that construction type had little to no impact on occupants. The design team review highlighted the need for a greater level of prefabrication in timber housing to increase precision and work around a serious skills shortage. An industry questionnaire suggested that timber construction in the UK can often suffer from poor construction practice, predicated by a gap in specialized knowledge. The research concludes that in this instance, the timber prefabrication technique produced dwellings that perform ecologically on par with their masonry counterparts. In answering the research question, the evidence suggests that at this stage the technique would be better employed on a case by case basis and supported by specialists in timber fabrication, rather than implemented as a blanket alternative for existing masonry construction. Already a number of insights from this research have filtered into industry practice and will continue to better inform both industrial and academic partners in their decisions regarding the use of timber prefabrication in mainstream UK housing

A performance evaluation of mainstream timber framed and traditional masonry housing in the UK

Within the UK traditional masonry construction techniques are struggling to deliver the quantity and ecological quality of housing required by an ever increasing UK population. This research employs a case study review of a mainstream mixed timber frame and masonry housing development - Green Street, in order to explore the ecological viability of timber prefabrication as an alternative to the established masonry construction methods currently employed in the majority of British housing. Four houses of each construction type in the Green Street development were outfitted with a number of environmental monitoring sensors for continuous monitoring. In addition the study incorporates fabric testing in the form of air permeability testing, Co-heating analysis, thermography, and a life cycle analysis. Building Use Survey, project management and design team interviews and an industry questionnaire form the final part of the evaluation protocol. The study revealed that heating the timber dwellings ultimately required less energy per degree difference between inside and outside temperatures. During the summer the timber housing displays a greater diurnal temperature swing, while on average the temperature remains consistently lower than the masonry housing. The masonry housing was found to be both more air tight and exhibiting a lower heat loss coefficient, despite that, the performance gap between design and reality for space heating is less in the timber prefabricated housing. The life cycle analysis revealed that the timber walls have a lower impact on climate change. BUS methodology results found that construction type had little to no impact on occupants. The design team review highlighted the need for a greater level of prefabrication in timber housing to increase precision and work around a serious skills shortage. An industry questionnaire suggested that timber construction in the UK can often suffer from poor construction practice, predicated by a gap in specialized knowledge. The research concludes that in this instance, the timber prefabrication technique produced dwellings that perform ecologically on par with their masonry counterparts. In answering the research question, the evidence suggests that at this stage the technique would be better employed on a case by case basis and supported by specialists in timber fabrication, rather than implemented as a blanket alternative for existing masonry construction. Already a number of insights from this research have filtered into industry practice and will continue to better inform both industrial and academic partners in their decisions regarding the use of timber prefabrication in mainstream UK housing