1. Integration of techno-economic and life cycle assessment: Defining and applying integration types for chemical technology development
- Author
-
Peter Styring, Reinhard Schomäcker, Johannes Wunderlich, Katy Armstrong, and Georg A. Buchner
- Subjects
Computer science ,020209 energy ,Strategy and Management ,02 engineering and technology ,660 Chemische Verfahrenstechnik ,Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering ,Consistency (database systems) ,Resource (project management) ,life cycle assessment ,Integration Type ,0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering ,Life-cycle assessment ,0505 law ,General Environmental Science ,SIMPLE (military communications protocol) ,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment ,05 social sciences ,Building and Construction ,sustainability ,Maturity (finance) ,Preference ,Core (game theory) ,chemical technology ,Risk analysis (engineering) ,050501 criminology ,ddc:660 - Abstract
Both an environmental and an economic assessment are needed to judge the potential of sustainable chemical technologies. However, decision-makers may be challenged by conflicting conclusions. The integration of life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic assessment (TEA) can enhance decision-making, as integrated assessments provide more information than a simple reporting of separate TEA and LCA results. The analysis of integration approaches reveals a lack of consistency in terms of defining criteria and methodological aspects for integration. A gap remains where guidance for practitioners is needed on how to select a suitable integration type for their different purposes. To fill this gap, we conclude that a one-size-fits-all solution of integration cannot adequately serve all purposes along the technology development phases. Therefore, a framework to guide through integration in three distinct parts is proposed. In Part I, a four-phase approach for every integrated assessment to link the results from TEA and LCA is defined. Part II develops three integration types classified by their core characteristics: qualitative discussion-based (Type A), quantitative combined indicator-based (Type B), and quantitative preference-based (Type C). Finally, in Part III, a step-by-step method to select the appropriate integration type according to the assessment purpose, while considering restrictions imposed by technology maturity and resource availability is introduced. Thus, the framework is a basis for increasing the number of integrated assessments by guiding practitioners towards tailored studies.
- Published
- 2020