Allocation in LCA of wood-based products experiences of cost action E9: Part II. Examples

Goal and Background: The treatment of allocation in the descriptive LCA of wood-based products has been discussed for a long time and different solutions have been presented. In general, it is accepted that the influence of different allocation procedures on the results of LCA of wood-based products can be very significant. This paper is a result of the Cost Action E9 ‘Life cycle assessment of forestry and forest products' and represents the experience of involved Cost E9 delegates. Objective: Wood is a renewable material that can be used for wood products and energy production. Consistent methodological procedures are needed in order to correctly address the twofold nature of wood as a material and fuel, the multi-functional wood processing generating large quantities of co-products, and reuse or recycling of paper and wood. Ten different processes in LCAs of wood-based products are identified, where allocation questions can occur: forestry, sawmill, wood industry, pulp and paper industry, particle board industry, recycling of paper, recycling of wood-based boards, recycling of waste wood, combined heat and power production, landfill. Methodology: Following ISO 14 041 a step-wise procedure for system boundary setting and allocation are outlined. As a first priority allocation should be avoided by system expansion, thus adding additional functions to the functional unit. Alternatively, the avoided-burden approach can be followed by subtracting substituted functions of wood that are additionally provided. If allocation cannot be avoided, some allocations methods from case studies are described. Conclusions: The following conclusions for allocation in LCA of wood-based products are given. 1) Avoid allocation by expansion of system boundaries by combining material and energy aspects of wood, meaning a combination of LCA of wood products and of energy from wood with a functional unit for products and energy. 2) Substitute energy from wood with conventional energy in the LCA of wood products to get the functional unit of the wood product only, but identify the criteria for the substituted energy. 3) Substitution of wooden products with non-wooden products in LCA of bioenergy is not advisable, because the substitution criteria can be too complex. 4) If avoiding allocation is not possible, the reasons should be documented. 5) Different allocation procedures must be analysed and documented. In many cases, it seems necessary to make a sensitivity analysis of different allocation options for different environmental effects. It can also be useful to get the acceptance of the chosen allocation procedure by external experts. 6) Different allocation factors, e.g. mass or economic value, are allowed within the same LCA. 7) For allocation of forestry processes it is necessary to describe the main function of the forest where the raw material is taken out. In some cases different types or functions of forests must be considered and described. 8) Regarding the experiences from the examples, the following most practical allocation for some specific processes are identified: forestry: mass or volume; sawmill: mass or volume and proceeds; wood industry: mass and proceed

Allocation in lca of wood-based products experiences of cost action E9 part i. methodology

Goal and Background: The treatment of allocation in the descriptive LCA of wood-based products has been discussed for a long time and different solutions have been presented. In general, it is accepted that the influence of different allocation procedures on the results of LCA of wood-based products can be very significant. This paper is a result of the Cost Action E9 'Life cycle assessment of forestry and forest products' and represents the experience of involved Cost E9 delegates. Objective: Wood is a renewable material that can be used for wood products and energy production. Consistent methodological procedures are needed in order to correctly address the twofold nature of wood as a material and fuel, the multi-functional wood processing generating large quantities of co-products, and reuse or recycling of paper and wood. Ten different processes in LCAs of wood-based products are identified, where allocation questions can occur: forestry, sawmill, wood industry, pulp and paper industry, particle board industry, recycling of paper, recycling of wood-based boards, recycling of waste wood, combined heat and power production, landfill. Methodology: Following ISO 14 041 a step-wise procedure for system boundary setting and allocation are outlined. As a first priority allocation should be avoided by system expansion, thus adding additional functions to the functional unit. Alternatively, the avoided-burden approach can be followed by subtracting substituted functions of wood that are additionally provided. If allocation cannot be avoided, some allocations methods from case studies are described. Conclusions: The following conclusions for allocation in LCA of wood-based products are given. 1) Avoid allocation by expansion of system boundaries by combining material and energy aspects of wood, meaning a combination of LCA of wood products and of energy from wood with a functional unit for products and energy. 2) Substitute energy from wood with conventional energy in the LCA of wood products to get the func-tional unit of the wood product only, but identify the criteria for the substituted energy. 3) Substitution of wooden products with non-wooden products in LCA of bioenergy is not advis able, because the substitution criteria can be too complex. 4) If avoiding allocation is not possible, the reasons should be documented. 5) Different allocation procedures must be analysed and documented. In many cases, it seems necessary to make a sensitivity analysis of different allocation options for different environmental effects. It can also be useful to get the acceptance of the chosen allocation procedure by external experts. 6) Different allocation factors, e.g. mass or economic value, are allowed within the same LCA. 7) For allocation of forestry processes it is necessary to describe the main function of the forest where the raw material is taken out. In some cases different types or functions of forests must be considered and described. 8) Regarding the experiences from the examples, the following most practical allocation for some specific processes are identified: forestry: mass or volume; sawmill: mass or volume and proceeds; wood industry: mass and proceed

Reaching 10% renewable transportation fuels in 2020 by electric-vehicles in Styria/Austria

Electric-vehicles have the potential for a significant substitution of diesel and gasoline vehicles, and contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) and particulate matter emissions. According to the European Renewable Energy Directive, the share of renewable transportation fuels should be 10% in 2020. In the project “Styrian e-mobility in 2020” the potential for reaching the target of 10% renewable fuels in 2020 has been determined by analysing different implementation scenarios. Based on a life cycle analysis, GHG and particulate matter emissions from transport services have been calculated and their potential reductions in emissions by the introduction of electric vehicles by 2020 have been determined. Reaching the European target of 10% renewable fuels in the passenger car sector by 2020 is possible with 30,700 electric-vehicles (5% of passenger cars) if the share of the additional electricity is above 50% from renewable energy and the same amount of transportation biofuel of 7% used as today

Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach to Estimate the Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Bioenergy

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to quantify the environmental impacts of products or services. It includes all processes, from cradle-to-grave, along the supply chain of the product or service. When analysing the global warming impact of energy systems, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (particularly CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O) are of primary concern. To determine the comparative GHG impacts of bioenergy, the bioenergy system being analysed should be compared with a reference energy system, e.g. a fossil energy system. A reference energy system should be chosen that is realistically likely to be displaced by the bioenergy system. If this reference system is not certain, then one option is to use as the reference energy system the average fossil energy for that region. Another option is to make a conservative evaluation by comparing the bioenergy system with the best available fossil energy technology. Alternatively, a non-fossil option may be selected as the relevant reference energy system. Depending on the context of the study, this might be another renewable option or nuclear power. The scope of the analysis (system boundary) should include all processes along the value chain with significant GHG emissions, including, where relevant, upstream processes of extraction or biomass production, and end-of-life processes. The system boundary should be defined so that the bioenergy and reference fossil systems provide equivalent products and services. If it is not possible to achieve this through expansion of the system boundary then the GHGs can be allocated amongst energy and non-energy co-products of the bioenergy system (such as biodiesel and rapeseed cake, from processing of rapeseed oil), based on their share of physical (for example energy) or financial contributions. Changes in carbon stocks in biomass, soil, and landfill can cause GHG emissions (or removals). These can be very important and should be included in the analysis. In general, LCA is not concerned with the time at which the environmental impacts occur. However, in some cases bioenergy systems cause short-term GHG emissions due to the accelerated oxidation of carbon stocks through combustion as compared to natural decay. While this can affect short-term GHG targets, over a long-term perspective sustainable bioenergy causes less GHG emissions than comparable fossil energy systems. Use of agricultural residues may affect GHG emissions through either changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) or land use changes that occur indirectly, in order to provide the equivalent services that the residues were providing. Exploitation leading to soil productivity losses may require compensating fertilisation (causing GHG emissions) to maintain yield levels and can also cause cropland expansion elsewhere to compensate for yield losses if these occur. The type of technology, scale of plant, and co-products in both the bioenergy and reference energy system can influence the GHG mitigation benefits of the bioenergy system. Since small changes in methodological assumptions and input parameters can have large effects on the estimated environmental impacts, the bioenergy and reference systems should be described and assumptions listed in a transparent manner

Modelling and assessment of algae cultivation for large scale biofuel production – sustainability and aspects of up-scaling of algae biorefineries

Microalgae are currently considered to be highly attractive as a raw material for production of bioenergy and biomaterials in the future BioEconomy. However, a number of successful developments are still necessary before algae can reach commercial applications. These include the development of commercial production technologies, efficient energy, nutrients and water use, maintenance of stabile production conditions at commercial scale, and cost-competitiveness. The European project “FUEL4ME - Future European League 4 Microalgal Energy” - is driven by the urgent need of transforming the current energy system into a sustainable one, which pursues the European and global energy goals reducing GHG emissions, finding alternatives to fossil fuels and fostering the renewable energies. Microalgae are one of the most attractive sources of liquid transportation biofuels (e.g. biodiesel, hydrotreated vegetable oils (HVO)), since they can produce energy-rich molecules. FUEL4ME is developing and demonstrating an integrated and sustainable process for continuous biofuel production from microalgae, and making the algae-based biofuels (HVO) competitive alternatives to fossil fuels and to contribute to a future BioEconomy. The big challenge for the future large scale and commercial production of algae for transportation biofuels within a BioEconomy is the up-scaling from demo size to commercial size. Therefore a modelling “Algae_Upscale 1.0” of the FUEL4ME process is done for specific parameters (technical, economic, environmental), which are most relevant for the up-scaling of the process; furthermore the modelling results in a framework for a sustainable future commercial HVO production from microalgae. This modelling approach includes the methodologies of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). Different cases with a production size of 100 kt/a HVO and coproducing PUFA are modelled, as the future commercial algae biofuel production needs huge volumes to receive significance on the energy market. The modelling is used to identify obstacles for an efficient process and helps to guide the development of the FUEL4ME process in the desired direction.</p

Life-cycle Based Environmental Effects of 1.3 Mio. Electric Vehicles on the Road in 35 Countries - Facts & Figures from the IEA Technology Collaboration Program on Hybrid & Electric Vehicles

There is an international consensus that the environmental effect of electric vehicles can only be assessed with life cycle assessment (LCA) including production, operation and end of life treatment. A group of international experts working since 2011 on the LCA of Electric Vehicles in the Technical Collaboration Program on “Hybrid and Electric Vehicles of the International Energy Agency (IEA), estimated the environmental effects of the current worldwide electric vehicle fleet of about 1.3 million in 35 countries. The environmental effects assessed for electric vehicles are greenhouse gas emissions, acidification, ozone formation, particle matter emissions and primary energy consumption, which were compared to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles

An international dialogue about electric vehicle deployment to bring energy and greenhouse gas benefits through 2030 on a well-to-wheels basis

In this paper, we aim to assess the potential influence of increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) on a well-to-wheel (WTW) basis in the four countries with highest passenger car sales (Germany, the United States, China, and Japan), and Norway which represents a highly renewable energy market on greenhouse gas emissions. To characterize these emissions, we define critical parameters regarding fleet composition, activity, efficiency and fuel production in each country. Overall, with today’s technology at a national average level, on a per km driven basis, battery electric vehicles emit fewer greenhouse gases than conventional vehicles in all countries. Though vehicle energy consumption is similar in all countries, electricity production energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions per kWh electricity vary considerably, with Norway and China representing the low and high emitting endpoints, respectively. As electricity generation decarbonizes, EVs have the potential to be lower greenhouse-gas emitting than gasoline vehicles in all countries considered. The complexity of EV analysis across international boundaries, time periods, and environmental media complicates communication of EV benefits to stakeholders. Analysts must continue to address and clearly communicate the influence of EV and electricity production technology advancement into the future on EV impacts on all environmental media (air, water, land)

Estimated Environmental Effects of the Worldwide Electric Vehicle Fleet: A Life Cycle Assessment in Task 19 of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (HEV)

Electric vehicles have the potential to substitute for conventional vehicles to contribute to the sustainable development of the transportation sector worldwide, for example through the reduction of greenhouse gas and particle emissions. There is international consensus that the improvement of the environmental sustainability by electric vehicles can only be analysed on the basis of life cycle assessment (LCA) including the production, operation and the end of life treatment of these vehicles. Based on the LCA activities in the 18 member countries, the Task 19 “Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles - From Raw Material Resources to Waste Management of Vehicles with an Electric Drivetrain” of International Energy Agency (IEA) Implementing Agreement on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (IA-HEV) analysed the LCA based environmental effects of the worldwide electric vehicle fleet in 2014 of about 700,000 Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV). By the end of 2015 it is expected that about 1 million modern vehicles with an electric drive train are on the road worldwide. In the LCA of these vehicles using the different national framework conditions, the environmental effects are estimated by assessing the possible ranges of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O), acidification (NOx, SO2), ozone formation (NOx, CO, NMVOC, CH4) and particle matter (PM) emissions in comparison to conventional ICE vehicles (released in 2014). The results show that the environmental effects strongly depend on the national framework condition, i.e., national mix of electricity generation. In some countries a significant reduction of these LCA based emissions of up to 80%, compared to conventional ICE vehicles, is reached due to a high share of renewable electricity. So there is evidence that under appropriate framework conditions, electric vehicles contribute to a sustainable transportation sector today, and can play a substantial role in the future with the expected increasing renewable electricity generation

Water Issues and Electric Vehicles - Key Aspects and Examples in Life Cycle Assessment

There is international consensus that the improvement of the sustainability of electric vehicles can only be analyzed on the basis of life cycle assessment (LCA), which includes the production, operation, and the end-of-life treatment of the vehicles and the fuel cycle, and in comparison to conventional vehicles. In recent years the focus in environmental assessments of electric vehicles was on GHG emissions and primary energy consumption, but now it is recognized that also water issues become relevant in LCA. Therefore the Task 30 “Environmental Effects of EVs” (2016 – 2020) in the International Energy Agency (IEA) focuses on water issues in LCA covering methodology, data requirements, case studies, to identify the main water issues in LCA of EVs and ICE, the hot spots on water issues of EVs, PHEVs and ICEs and to develop communication strategies of LCA results to stakeholders. The main findings addressed are 1) main drivers, 2) water inventory, 3) most relevant water issues for LCA of EV and ICE, 4) Water footprint, 5) Water issues in electricity production, 6) Water issues in value chain of EVs and ICE, 7) Research questions on water issues & EVs and possible activities of IEA HEV Task 3