LC‐IMPACT: A regionalized life cycle damage assessment method

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a lively field of research, and data and models are continuously improved in terms of impact pathways covered, reliability, and spatial detail. However, many of these advancements are scattered throughout the scientific literature, making it difficult for practitioners to apply the new models. Here, we present the LC‐IMPACT method that provides characterization factors at the damage level for 11 impact categories related to three areas of protection (human health, ecosystem quality, natural resources). Human health damage is quantified as disability adjusted life years, damage to ecosystem quality as global species extinction equivalents (based on potentially disappeared fraction of species), and damage to mineral resources as kilogram of extra ore extracted. Seven of the impact categories include spatial differentiation at various levels of spatial scale. The influence of value choices related to the time horizon and the level of scientific evidence of the impacts considered is quantified with four distinct sets of characterization factors. We demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method with an illustrative life cycle assessment example of different fuel options in Europe (petrol or biofuel). Differences between generic and regionalized impacts vary up to two orders of magnitude for some of the selected impact categories, highlighting the importance of spatial detail in LCIA. This article met the requirements for a gold – gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Area of Concern: A new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint indicators

Purpose As a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications. Methods The task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the Area of Protection paradigm, and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44. Results In parallel to Area of Protection, we introduce Area of Concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward Areas of Protection, footprint metrics address Areas of Concern. The critical difference is that Areas of Concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, Areas of Concern are stand-alone and not necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The Area of Concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation, and the selection of relevant indicators. Conclusions The universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA

Towards a general framework for including noise impacts in LCA

Industrial Ecolog

Critical analysis of life cycle impact assessment methods addressing consequences of freshwater use on ecosystems and recommendations for future method development

International audienceAnthropic water uses can affect aquatic and terres- trial ecosystems through various pathways. To address these impacts in life cycle assessment, an array of impact assessment methods can be applied. The currently well-known re- view of methods carried out by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s WULCAworking group (Kounina et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):707–721, 2013) recommends that practitioners simultaneously apply all indicators to evaluate dam- age on ecosystem quality and to cautiously sum up the score into a single metric^. This call for caution is attributed to the fact that methods reviewed cover different ecosystem targets. Their characterisation factors and units also vary. However, the review lacks a detailed analysis of compatibilities and coherence between methods that identifies inconsistencies to be overcome to further method harmonisation. This is precisely the aim of this study. MethodsLes usages humains de l'eau peuvent affecter les écosystèmes aquatiques et terrestres par diverses voies d’impacts. Pour les évaluer dans le cadre d’une approche « cycle de vie », un schéma reliant les causes aux effets peut être construit. Le groupe de travail WULCA, issu de la SETAC Life Cycle initiative, (Kounina et al Int J recommande que les praticiens appliquent simultanément tous les indicateurs permettant d’évaluer les dommages sur la qualité des écosystèmes et éventuellement de les synthétiser en les sommant dans une métrique unique. Cet appel à la prudence est relatif au fait que les méthodes examinées couvrent différentes cibles de l'écosystème et que leurs facteurs de caractérisation et les unités varient également. Toutefois, aucune analyse détaillée des compatibilités et de la cohérence entre ces méthodes et leurs indicateurs ne permettent d'identifier les incohérences à surmonter pour pouvoir les harmoniser. Ceci est précisément le but de cette étude

Integrated and dynamic energy modelling of a regional system: a cost-optimized approach in the deep decarbonisation of the Province of Trento (Italy)

Since the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the European Union has fought against climate change adopting European, national and regional policies to decarbonise the economy. Moreover, the Paris Agreement (2015) calls 2050 solutions between -80% and -100% of greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990. Regions have an important role in curbing CO2 emissions, and tailor-made strategies considering local energy demands, savings potentials and renewables must be elaborated factoring in the social and economic context. An “optimized smart energy system” approach is proposed, considering: (I) integration of electricity, thermal and transport sectors, (II) hourly variability of productions and demands, (III) coupling the EnergyPLAN software, to develop integrated and dynamic scenarios, with a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm, to identify solutions optimized both in terms of CO2 emissions and costs, including decision variables for all the three energy sectors simultaneously. The methodology is tested at the regional scale for the Province of Trento (Italy) analyzing a total of 30,000 scenarios. Compared to the Baseline 2016, it is identified: (I) the strategic role of sector coupling among large hydroelectric production and electrification of thermal and transport demands (heat pumps, electric mobility), (II) slight increases in total annual cost, +14% for a -90% of CO2 emissions in 205