| 1. |
- Brandao, Miguel, et al.
(författare)
-
RED, PEF, and EPD: Conflicting rules for determining the carbon footprint of biofuels give unclear signals to fuel producers and customers
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Climate. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2624-9553. ; 4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Biofuel producers and other commodity suppliers are increasingly affected by conflicting rules for life cycle assessment (LCA). They may get multiple requests for LCAs to be used in various contexts, which require the application of different methodological approaches that vary in scope, system boundaries, data demand, and more. This results in increased cost and competence requirements for producers, as well as confusion among other actors including their customers. Differences in methodologies might also lead to various outcomes, conclusions and conflicting guidance regarding which fuels to prioritize or develop. We have analyzed the actual differences when applying three different frameworks: the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU framework for Product Environmental Footprints (PEF), and the framework of Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), which have different modeling requirements. We analyzed the methods from a conceptual point of view and also applied the methods to estimate the carbon footprint on a wide range of biofuel production pathways: (i) ethanol from corn, (ii) fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) from rapeseed oil, (iii) biogas from food waste, (iv) hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) from rapeseed oil, and (v) HVO from used cooking oil. Results obtained for a specific fuel could differ substantially depending on the framework applied and the assumptions and interpretations made when applying the different frameworks. Particularly, the results are very sensitive to the modeling of waste management when biofuel is produced from waste. Our results indicate a much higher climate impact for, e.g., biogas and HVO produced from used cooking oil when assessed with the PEF framework compared to the other frameworks. This is because PEF assigns at least part of the production of primary materials and energy to the use of recycled material and recovered energy. Developing Category Rules for biofuels for PEF and EPD ought to help clarifying remaining ambiguities.
|
|
| 2. |
- Poulikidou, Sofia, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Impacts on fuel producers and customers of conflicting rules for life cycle assessment
- 2022
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a tool for estimating the environmental performance of a product or service in a holistic and systematic manner is increasing. Fuel producers may need to apply different methodological frameworks to be used in different contexts; internally for product development activities as well as externally for communication with customers or authorities. Different LCA frameworks may vary in scope, system boundaries (i.e. life cycle stages to be considered) or modelling requirements (such as data demands but also more detailed methodological features). They may also vary in terms of information they can provide in relation to the environmental performance of the product. Those variations could lead to conflicting outcomes and conclusions and may also increase complexity for the LCA practitioner leading to high competence and resource requirements. Within the research project: Impacts on fuel producers and customers of conflicting rules for LCA , the requirements of different LCA frameworks and their implications to fuel producers are investigated. Focus has been given on three specific frameworks that are identified as relevant or potentially relevant for fuel producers, namely: the recast of the EU Renewable Energy Directive (referred to here as RED II), the EU framework for Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), and the framework of Environmental Product Declaration (EPD). The aim of the project is to increase understanding on the different LCA frameworks available and identify whether the multitude of such frameworks gives conflicting recommendations for environmental improvements and fuel choices. The three LCA frameworks listed above were applied in case studies. To illustrate the potential differences that the different frameworks may lead to, a variation of production pathways and feedstocks were selected including first generation as well as advanced biofuels. Based on the results obtained it can be concluded that applying all three frameworks is not a straightforward task. The methods contain fundamental differences and are at different levels of development, maturity, and adoption. In certain situations, they can lead to diverging conclusions as a result of different quantitative outcomes for a specific production pathway, thus influencing decision making processes in different directions. Understanding those differences and underlying assumptions is important for understanding the variations in outcome. The result for a specific fuel could differ substantially depending on the framework applied and the assumptions and interpretations made when applying this framework. Certain methodological parameters were identified to have a greater impact on the results than others: • The three frameworks diverge in the methods applied for modelling waste management, which can be very important for the results when the biofuel is produced from waste. • The frameworks diverge in what approaches are allowed for modelling processes with multiple products. This can be very important for the results when the fuel is co-produced with other products. • The frameworks also diverge in how the electricity supply is modelled. This is not very important for the results in most of our case studies, because the production of these biofuels does not require a lot of electricity. The study confirms that applying a framework like EPD or PEF in addition to RED II would require significant supplementary efforts. Not only because of different rules which were often contradicting or difficult to interpret but also because of additional data and reporting requirements. The need for expertise and resources is increasing for fuel producers to be able to provide EPD and PEF compliant assessments. To enhance the development and harmonization of LCA approaches this project stresses the need for product specific rules (in the form of Product Environmental Category Rules (PEFCR) and Product Category Rules (PCR)) for renewable fuels. Future versions of all three studied frameworks should be clearer on how specific methodological choices are to be applied (e.g., when it comes to allocation and multifunctional processes) as well as when it comes to model electricity supply. RED for example shall be clearer on how to define the electricity region while EPD guidelines on how to define the electricity market. Although it is not realistic to aim for a single unified LCA framework, the biofuel PCR and PEFCR can be developed with RED in mind. Some aspects of the PEF methodology can perhaps also be integrated into RED III that is currently under development. This would enhance the broader adoption of the frameworks among fuel producers. Finally, the involvement and engagement of the industry, and fuel producers themselves is very important. Industry initiatives are essential for the development of biofuel PCR and PEFCR while the general development of the three frameworks can also be influenced. In this study, we also investigated the relationship between the LCA frameworks and schemes for chain of custody certification (CoCC), in particular schemes for mass balance certifications (MBC) to investigate to what extent these schemes complement or overlap with LCA. The purpose of MBC schemes and LCA are different, in the sense that the first aim at verifying the sources and sustainability of total amounts of raw materials used by tracking them throughout the value chain, while the second at quantifying specific environmental impact. The system boundaries are similar, since both cover the entire value chain, but may be applied differently depending on the detailed frameworks applied and choices made in applying the MBC schemes. By identifying and clearly illustrating the variations among the studied frameworks the study enhances application, development, and harmonization of LCA, in a broader perspective, informs LCA practitioners but also decision makers and provides insights on how the identified challenges can be addressed.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ekvall, Tomas, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Modelling material recycling in life cycle assessment: how sensitive are results to the available methods?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Handbook of the Circular Economy. - : Edward Elgar Publishing. - 9781788972727 ; , s. 116-136
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In open-loop recycling, material is recycled from one product into another. Life cycle assessment quantifies the environmental impacts of a single product. This requires understanding to what extent the primary production, the recycling, and the waste management activities belong to or affect the two product systems involved: the product that provides the material for recycling or the product produced from recycled material. The challenge is to identify how much each of the products contribute to the environmental benefit of recycling, i.e., to the avoided primary production and waste management. We describe and review many of the available methods for modelling material recycling and conclude that results can be very sensitive to the method adopted. More research is required to decide what method is the most accurate. There is also a trade-off between feasibility and accurate representation of the consequences of recycling. This implies that different methods can be applicable depending on the importance of the material recycling.
|
|
| 4. |
- Soimakallio, Sampo, et al.
(författare)
-
Attributional life cycle assessment : is a land-use baseline necessary?
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. - : Springer Nature. - 0948-3349 .- 1614-7502. ; 20:10, s. 1364-1375
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper aims to clarify the application of a land-use baseline in attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA) for product systems involving land use, through consideration of the fundamental purpose of ALCA. Currently, there is no clear view in the literature whether a baseline should be used when accounting for environmentally relevant physical flows related to land use. An extensive search of literature was carried out using the key terms 'attributional life cycle assessment' and 'attributional LCA' in the Google Scholar web search engine. Approximately 700 publications were reviewed and summarised according to their type and scope, relevance of land use, key statements and references given for ALCA, and arguments for and against using a baseline in ALCA. Based on the literature review and supplementary literature references, a critical discussion on the use of a baseline and determination of the most appropriate land-use baseline in ALCA is provided. A few studies clearly argued that only absolute (observable) flows without a baseline are to be inventoried in ALCA, while the majority of the studies did not make any clear statement for or against. On the other hand, a land-use baseline was explicitly applied or proposed in a minority of the studies only, despite the fact that we classified land use as highly relevant for the majority of the studies reviewed. Furthermore, the LCA guidelines reviewed give contradictory recommendations. The most cited studies for the definition of ALCA provide general rules for selecting processes based on observable flows but do not argue that observable flows necessarily describe the environmentally relevant physical flows. We conclude that a baseline is required to separate the studied parts of the technosphere from natural processes and to describe the impact of land use on ecosystem quality, such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity. The most coherent baseline for human-induced land-use in ALCA is natural regeneration. As the natural-regeneration baseline has typically been excluded, may vary bio-geographically and temporally, and is subject to uncertainties, case studies applying it should be performed so that implications can be studied and evaluated. This is particularly important for agricultural and forestry systems, such as food, feed, fibre, timber and biofuels.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
