Life cycle assessment of innovative technology for energy production from automotive shredder residue.

Automotive Shredder Residue (ASR) is a problematic waste material remaining after shredding and recovery processes of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs). Its heterogeneous grain size and composition make difficult its recovery or disposal. Although ASR accounts for approximately 20% to 25% of the weight of an ELV, the European Union (EU)'s ELV Directive (2000/53/EC) requires that by 2015 a minimum 95% of the weight of an ELV must be reused or recovered, including a 10% weight energy recovery. The quantity of ASR is relevant: Approximately 2.4 million tons are generated in the EU each year and most of it is sent to landfills. This article describes a life cycle model of the "TEKNE-Fluff" process designed to make beneficial use of ASR that is based on the results of an experimental pilot plant for pyro-gasification, combustion, cogeneration, and emissions treatment of ASR. The goal of the research was the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to identify the environmental hot spots of the "TEKNE system" and use scenario analysis to check solutions to improve its environmental profile, supporting the design and industrialization process. The LCA was conducted based on data modeled from the experimental campaign. Moreover, different scenarios on shares of electricity and thermal energy produced by the cogeneration system and alternative treatment processes for the waste produced by the technology were compared. Despite the limitation of the research (results based on scaling up experimental data by modeling), impact assessment results are promising and sufficiently robust, as shown by Monte Carlo analysis. The TEKNE technology may become an interesting solution for the problem of ASR management: Besides representing an alternative to landfill disposal, the energy produced could avoid significant impacts on fossil resources depletion (a plant of 40,000 tons/y capacity could produce ∼ 147,000 GJ/yr, covering the annual need of ∼ 13,500 households).

Combining life cycle assessment and qualitative risk assessment: the case study of alumina nanofluid production.

In this paper the authors propose a framework for combining life cycle assessment (LCA) and Risk Assessment (RA) to support the sustainability assessment of emerging technologies. This proposal includes four steps of analysis: technological system definition; data collection; risk evaluation and impacts quantification; results interpretation. This scheme has been applied to a case study of nanofluid alumina production in two different pilot lines, "single-stage" and "two-stage". The study has been developed in the NanoHex project (enhanced nano-fluid heat exchange). Goals of the study were analyzing the hotspots and highlighting possible trade-off between the results of LCA, which identifies the processes having the best environmental performance, and the results of RA, which identifies the scenarios having the highest risk for workers. Indeed, due to lack of data about exposure limits, exposure-dose relationships and toxicity of alumina nanopowders (NPs) and nanofluids (NF), the workplace exposure has been evaluated by means of qualitative risk assessment, using Stoffenmanager Nano. Though having different aims, LCA and RA have a complementary role in the description of impacts of products/substances/technologies. Their combined use can overcome limits of each of them and allows a wider vision of the problems to better support the decision making process.

A method for improving reliability and relevance of LCA reviews: the case of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of tap and bottled water.

The purpose of this study is to propose a method for harmonising Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) literature studies on the same product or on different products fulfilling the same function for a reliable and meaningful comparison of their life-cycle environmental impacts. The method is divided in six main steps which aim to rationalize and quicken the efforts needed to carry out the comparison. The steps include: 1) a clear definition of the goal and scope of the review; 2) critical review of the references; 3) identification of significant parameters that have to be harmonised; 4) harmonisation of the parameters; 5) statistical analysis to support the comparison; 6) results and discussion. This approach was then applied to the comparative analysis of the published LCA studies on tap and bottled water production, focussing on Global Warming Potential (GWP) results, with the aim to identify the environmental preferable alternative. A statistical analysis with Wilcoxon's test confirmed that the difference between harmonised GWP values of tap and bottled water was significant. The results obtained from the comparison of the harmonised mean GWP results showed that tap water always has the best environmental performance, even in case of high energy-consuming technologies for drinking water treatments. The strength of the method is that it enables both performing a deep analysis of the LCA literature and obtaining more consistent comparisons across the published LCAs. For these reasons, it can be a valuable tool which provides useful information for both practitioners and decision makers. Finally, its application to the case study allowed both to supply a description of systems variability and to evaluate the importance of several key parameters for tap and bottled water production. The comparative review of LCA studies, with the inclusion of a statistical decision test, can validate and strengthen the final statements of the comparison.

Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Whereas LCA developed from merely energy analysis to a comprehensive environmental burden analysis in the 1970s, full-fledged life cycle impact assessment and life cycle costing models were introduced in the 1980s and 1990 s, and social-LCA and particularly consequential LCA gained ground in the first decade of the 21st century. Many of the more recent developments were initiated to broaden traditional environmental LCA to a more comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA). Recently, a framework for LCSA was suggested linking life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related models, knowledge gaps, and defining research programs to fill these gaps. LCA is evolving into LCSA, which is a transdisciplinary integration framework of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specific sustainability question. Structuring, selecting, and making the plethora of disciplinary models practically available in relation to different types of life cycle sustainability questions is the main challenge.