Search

This study contrasts two different approaches to inform European‐scale decision‐making to mitigate the environmental impacts of the end‐of‐life tires (ELT) management system. The first analysis is a traditional life cycle assessment (LCA) that compares the environmental performances of the 12 main available European end‐of‐life (EOL) technologies in ELT processing while restricting the boundaries to the EOL stage. The second analysis has a broader scope, addressing the optimization of the ELT distribution within the 12 considered pathways to minimize the environmental impacts of the total tire use in Europe under present capacity and constraints. The results of the traditional LCA show that, except for landfill, all the tested EOL routes present environmental benefits. Material recovery pathways bring the most environmental credits, whereas civil engineering pathways are the least promising. The LCA results that emerged from the optimization of ELT management technologies yield two optimal technological mixes that maximize the quantity of ELT recycled in molded objects production: such results represent a hypothetical case with no constraints. When considering constraints, that is, limitations on maximum quantities of ELT that can undergo retreading, pyrolysis, or recycling in synthetic turfs, in molded objects and in production, the number of optimal technology mixes increases to five. The type of technologies favored depends on the minimized impact categories (climate change, fossil and nuclear energy use, human health, and ecosystem quality). A comparison between constrained and unconstrained scenarios shows that achieving the best environmental performances is conditional to the accessibility of the EOL technologies as well as their individual environmental impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmentally extended input–output analyses (EEIOA) are two techniques commonly used to assess environmental impacts of an activity/product. Their strengths and weaknesses are complementary, and they are thus regularly combined to obtain hybrid LCAs. A number of approaches in hybrid LCA exist, which leads to different results. One of the differences is the method used to ensure that mixed LCA and EEIOA data do not overlap, which is referred to as correction for double counting. This aspect of hybrid LCA is often ignored in reports of hybrid assessments and no comprehensive study has been carried out on it. This article strives to list, compare, and analyze the different existing methods for the correction of double counting. We first harmonize the definitions of the existing correction methods and express them in a common notation, before introducing a streamlined variant. We then compare their respective assumptions and limitations. We discuss the loss of specific information regarding the studied activity/product and the loss of coherent financial representation caused by some of the correction methods. This analysis clarifies which techniques are most applicable to different tasks, from hybridizing individual LCA processes to integrating complete databases. We finally conclude by giving recommendations for future hybrid analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New technologies such as 3D printing, also known as rapid manufacturing or additive manufacturing, are promising technologies to support the aeronautics sector moving toward its ambitious environmental goals. An eco-efficiency method combining life cycle costs and life cycle environmental assessment is developed to support eco-design initiatives in the aeronautics industry that accounts for specific reduction targets. Eco-efficiency results are computed through a normalization procedure and a target-driven trade-off and displayed as an XY diagram. Applied to an aircraft doorstop manufacturing, results show that 3D printing has clear benefits both in terms of costs and environmental impacts compared to conventional machining. Nevertheless, 3D printing equipment costs are still high, and a sensitivity analysis shows that, for lower productivity levels, the optimal scenario relies on the chosen trade-off between environmental impacts and costs reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Europe, low energy buildings become common for new constructions and life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used to assess their environmental performance. The overall objective of this study is to investigate known challenges related to buildings LCA such as biogenic carbon accounting and dynamic and prospective aspects, and to discuss how they affect LCA results for low energy buildings and what developments are still needed. Three single family houses built respectively with timber frame, concrete blocks cavity wall, and cast concrete are used as a case study, focusing on the global warming impact category. When biogenic carbon is addressed, the timber house is the less impacting choice, whether it is landfilled or burned at the end-of-life. The cavity wall house is the second most favourable option, and the cast concrete house is the worst one. In the case of landfilling for the timber house, the biogenic carbon balance is not neutral and worth to be considered. When a dynamic approach and specific prospective scenarios are considered, the ranking between houses stays the same, but the gaps between options vary e.g. the gap between the landfilled timber house and the cast concrete house vary from 40 % to 60 % when optimistic changes in the electricity mix are considered. Dynamic LCA allows for a more consistent analysis of emissions flows and global warming impacts over time. Prospective LCA could provide more relevant LCA results but increases uncertainty and could be used as sensitivity analysis for long life span buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper aims to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with spray dried soluble coffee over its entire life cycle and compare it with drip filter coffee and capsule espresso coffee. It particularly aims to identify critical environmental issues and responsibilities along the whole life cycle chain of spray dried coffee. This life cycle assessment (LCA) specifically uses foreground data obtained directly from coffee manufacturers and suppliers. Aside from energy consumption and greenhouse gases emissions, water footprint is also studied in detail, including regionalization of water impacts based on the ecological scarcity method 2006. Other impact categories are screened using the IMPACT 2002+ impact assessment method. The overall LCA results for a 1dl cup of spray dried soluble coffee amounts approximately to 1MJ of primary non-renewable energy consumption, to emissions of 0.07kg of CO2-eq, and between 3 and 10l of non-turbined water use, depending on whether or not the coffee cultivation is irrigated and wet treated. When considering turbined water, use can be up to 400l of water per cup. Pouch – and to a lesser extent metal can packaging alternatives – show lower environmental burdens than glass or sticks. On average, about one half of the environmental footprint occurs at a life cycle stage under the control of the coffee producer or its suppliers (i.e., during cultivation, treatment, processing, packaging up to distribution, along with advertising) and the other half at a stage controlled by the user (shopping, appliances manufacturing, use and waste disposal). Key environmental parameters of spray dried soluble coffee are the amount of extra water boiled and the efficiency of cup cleaning during use phase, whether the coffee is irrigated or not, as well as the type and amount of fertilizer used in the coffee field. The packaging contributes to 10% of the overall life cycle impacts. Compared to other coffee alternatives, spray dried soluble coffee uses less energy and has a lower environmental footprint than capsule espresso coffee or drip filter coffee, the latter having the highest environmental impacts on a per cup basis. This study shows that a broad LCA approach is needed to help industry to minimize the environmental burdens directly related to their products. Including all processes of the entire system is necessary i) to get a comprehensive environmental footprint of the product system with respect to sustainable production and consumption, ii) to share stakeholders responsibility along the entire product life cycle, and iii) to avoid problem shifting between different life cycle stages. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]