| 1. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Using industrial default values for prospective modeling of new materials production – the case of photon upconversion materials for solar modules
- 2021
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Several approaches to upscaling of materials production processes in the context of prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) have been proposed. Often, such approaches are bottom-up, departing from laboratory-scale descriptions of production processes and from that creating a model of future large-scale production. While such approaches make use of the material-specific knowledge available at the time of the assessment, they often neglect emergent aspects that may be present at factory level. An alternative, more top-down approach is to use industrial default values, i.e. average or typical values of inputs and outputs reflecting materials production today. Since production facilities normally do not change drastically over at least 10 years, such values might be relevant in prospective LCAs, at least given modest time horizons. Such default values can also be modified based on assumptions about future changes, such as increased energy recovery or novel solvent recovery processes. We applied previously derived industrial default values for fine chemical production when modeling the production of two materials with potential use in photon upconversion applications: lead sulfide (PbS) and lead selenide (PbSe) nanoparticles. Photon upconversion means that two low-energy photons are converted into one higher-energy photon utilizable by a solar module. While we used some material-specific values, such as synthesis-specific yields, most auxiliary input and output values (e.g. solvents, inert gas, heat, electricity and emissions) instead represent factory-scale values for current fine chemical production. Considering the availability of both best- and worst-case default values, it was possible to derive ranges for the likely future environmental impacts of the two materials. We conclude that the approach is feasible, but the availability of more up-to-date industrial default values would make it even more relevant in prospective LCAs.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hermansson, Frida, 1988, et al.
(författare)
-
Prospective screening life cycle assessment of a sodium-ion hybrid supercapacitor
- 2024
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Hybrid supercapacitors combine batteries' energy density with capacitors' power density. They can extend the lifetime of an electrical vehicle battery by reducing the number and depth of the charge/discharge cycles and by enhancing the battery’s power capacity. Traditionally, hybrid supercapacitors contain lithium, a geochemically scarce metal. To mitigate a future lithium shortage, measures could be taken to substitute lithium with more abundant materials. One option is sodium-ion hybrid supercapacitors. In this report, we assess the climate and mineral resource scarcity impacts of manufacturing a sodium hybrid supercapacitor by means of life cycle assessment. The goal is to identify hotspots to aid researchers, developers, and potential manufacturers in making environmentally benign design choices. The considered sodium-ion hybrid supercapacitor is not yet produced at large scale but only in laboratories. To address this, we scale up the production process to an industrial scale using frameworks available in the literature. Results show that the activated carbon electrode is responsible for most of the environmental impact due to the use of nitric acid in processing the activated carbon. If nitric acid could be replaced, recycled, or reduced, this would lower the environmental impact considerably. Additionally, we provide guidance on how to scale up the mass of the sodium-ion hybrid supercapacitor to meet the requirement of a vehicle. This upscaling also means that the results can be used in screening assessments by vehicle developers interested in how the sodium-ion hybrid supercapacitor could influence the environmental impact of their vehicle.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nordelöf, Anders, 1975, et al.
(författare)
-
A research agenda for life cycle assessment of electromobility
- 2019
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This is a pre-study, financed by the Swedish Energy Agency, with the aim of presenting a research agenda for life cycle assessment (LCA) of electromobility. Electric vehicles are often portrayed as potential remedies for numerous environmental problems, most notably global warming. At the same time, LCA studies already conducted have shown that electric vehicles can also worsen some environmental problems through increased use of abiotic resources and emissions of toxicity substances. Whether electric vehicles truly do reduce global warming impacts also depends on the production technology for the electricity. This type of ambiguous result calls for a systematic assessment of the environmental and resource performance of electromobility, such as by LCA. Considering the many overlapping issues related to LCA and electromobility, it can be thought of as a nexus, involving different technologies (batteries, fuel cells, electronics, electric motors, different vehicles, etc.) and different environmental issues (resource use, criticality thereof, energy-related emissions, etc.). In order to investigate which parts of this nexus are most interesting to study further, information was obtained from three sources: (1) workshops with relevant industry stakeholders, (2) interviews with researchers in the field, and (3) a literature study of key documents in the area of LCA of electromobility. The result is formulated into a research agenda for LCA of electromobility, which consists of ten research questions. Seven of these regard electromobility technologies important to study (e.g. future battery chemistries and electric aviation), whereas three regard methodological issues (e.g. impact assessment of abiotic resources). Two near-term research projects have been formulated, for which funding applications will be submitted during 2019, and together they cover a majority of the research questions.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wickerts, Sanna, 1992, et al.
(författare)
-
Energy storage with less metal scarcity? Prospective life cycle assessment of lithium-sulfur batteries with a focus on mineral resources.
- 2021
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In order to reduce the global dependency on fossil fuels by adopting renewable energy technologies and advancing electromobility, batteries are a key technology. Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are currently the dominant rechargeable battery technology, mainly due to their high energy density. However, most LIBs contain a number of geochemically scarce metals, e.g.cobalt, lithium and nickel. The production of LIBs is furthermore associated with considerable environmental impacts. Battery researchers and companies therefore try to develop the next generation batteries (NGBs) with the same or even higher energy densities than LIBs, while requiring less of scarce metals and causing lower environmental impacts. One promising NGB technology is the lithium-sulfur (Li-S) battery, with a potential to significantly improve energy density as compared to current state-of-the-art LIBs. Although Li-S batteries still face a number of scientific and technical challenges, they have a significant advantage over LIBs from a resource point of view: the cells do not require any scarce metals besides lithium. Using prospective life cycle assessment, we will assess the life-cycle environmental impacts of Li-S batteries and compare them to those of LIBs, both modeled at large-scale production. In order to investigate the effect of using less scarce metals on resource impacts, the mineral resource impact category will be given extra attention. We will therefore include a range of mineral resource impact assessment methods, e.g. the abiotic depletion indicator, the surplus ore indicator, and the recently developed crustal scarcity indicator, which takes an explicit long-term perspective on elemental resources in the Earth’s crust. The overall aim is thus to compare the prospective life-cycle impacts of this particular NGB to those of LIBs, with a focus on mineral resources.
|
|
| 5. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Can carbon nanomaterials help avoiding resource scarcity?
- 2015
-
Ingår i: International Society of Industrial Ecology’s biennial conference, 7-10 July 2015, University of Surry, England.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The pressure on resource extraction is increasing due to a continued growth of world population and affluence. In particular, scarcity may become a pressing problem for several metals in the coming decades (Ljunggren Söderman et al. 2014). Carbon nanomaterials, such as fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, graphene and nanocellulose, have been suggested as a potential remedy for this. They have gained high interest in recent years, owing to their unique properties, which potentially could make them viable substitutes for a range of scarce and critical metals. However, carbon nanomaterials also require raw materials in order to be produced. Having carbon as main constituent, carbon nanomaterials require carbon feedstock of either renewable or fossil origin. Although carbon is an abundant element, not all chemical forms of carbon can be used directly for carbon nanomaterial production. The first aim of this study is to list potential raw materials for the carbon nanomaterials fullerenes, carbon nanotubes, graphene and nanocellulose. Second, raw material reserves available for future potential production rates of carbon nanomaterials are assessed. This analysis is done using prospective material flow analysis (MFA), which is a forward-looking type of MFA in contrast to the more traditional MFA that typically considers current material flows. Third, we outline which scarce materials that may be replaced by carbon nanomaterials in these applications. With this method, resource benefits from substitution and resource constraints of carbon nanomaterials can be assessed, both in the short and long term. Preliminary results show that the carbon nanomaterials investigated have the potential to replace a number of scarce materials. For example, graphene could replace indium and tin in transparent screens (Segal 2009). There may also be short term resource constraints for carbon nanomaterials. For example, graphene is currently suggested to be produced from graphite for some applications, and graphite has been listed as a critical material. We also discuss risks of competition over carbon feedstock (fossil and biomass) between current uses of carbon feedstock (e.g. plastics and wood) and carbon nanomaterials.
|
|
| 6. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Energy and resource use assessment of graphene as a substitute for indium tin oxide in transparent electrodes
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cleaner Production. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-6526. ; 132, s. 289-297
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- One of the most promising applications of graphene is as material in transparent electrodes in applications such as liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and solar cells. In this study, we assess life cycle resource requirements of producing an electrode area of graphene by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and compare to the production of indium tin oxide (ITO). The resources considered are energy and scarce metals. The results show that graphene layers can have lower life cycle energy use than ITO layers, with 3–10 times reduction for our best case scenario. Regarding use of scarce metals, the use of indium in ITO production is more problematic than the use of copper in graphene production, although the latter may constitute a resource constraint in the very long run. The substitution of ITO by graphene thus seems favorable from a resource point of view. Higher order effects may outweigh or enhance the energy use benefit. For example, cheaper, graphene-based electrodes may spur increased production of LCDs, leading to increased absolute energy use, or spur the development of new energy technologies, such as solar cells and fuel cells. The latter could potentially lead to larger absolute reductions in resource use if these new technologies will replace fossil-based energy systems.
|
|
| 7. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Energy use indicators in energy and life cycle assessments of biofuels: review and recommendations
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cleaner Production. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-6526 .- 1879-1786. ; 31, s. 54-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this study we investigate how indicators for energy use are applied in a set of life cycle assessment (LCA) and energy analysis case studies of biofuels. We found five inherently different types of indicators to describe energy use: (1) fossil energy, (2) secondary energy, (3) cumulative energy demand, (4) net energy balance, and (5) total extracted energy. It was also found that the examined reports and articles, the choice of energy use indicator was seldom motivated or discussed in relation to other energy use indicators. In order to investigate the differences between these indicators, they were applied to a case. The life cycle energy use of palm oil methyl ester was calculated and reported using these five different indicators for energy use, giving considerably different output results. This is in itself not unexpected, but indicates the importance of clearly identifying, describing and motivating the choice of energy use indicator. The indicators can all be useful in specific situations, depending on the goal and scope of the individual study, but the choice of indicators need to be better reported and motivated than what is generally done today.
|
|
| 8. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
How do we know the energy use when producing biomaterials or biofuels?
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of ECO-TECH 2012.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- How much fossil energy that is used in the production of biomaterials or biofuels (e.g. fuel used in harvesting) is a parameter of obvious interest when optimizing the production systems. To use more fossil fuels in the production of a biofuel than what will be available as the biofuel product is obviously a bad idea. With increasing interest in biomaterials and biofuels, a shift from a sole focus on fossil energy will be necessary. Optimized use of energy over the whole life cycle is one important parameter to ensure sustainability. However, to report and interpret values on life cycle energy use is not as straight forward as what might immediately be perceived. The impact category ‘energy use’ is frequently used but is generally not applied in a transparent and consistent way between different studies. Considering the increased focus on biofuels, it is important to inform companies and policy-makers about the energy use of biofuels in relevant and transparent ways with well-defined indicators. The present situation in how energy use indicators are applied was studied in a set of LCA studies of biofuels. It was found that the choice of indicator was seldom motivated or discussed in the examined reports and articles, and five inherently different energy use indicators were observed: (1) fossil energy, (2) secondary energy, (3) cumulative energy demand (primary energy), (4) net energy balance, and (5) total extracted energy. As a test, we applied these five energy use indicators to the same cradle-to-gate production system and they give considerably different output numbers of energy use. This in itself is not unexpected, but indicates the importance of clearly identifying, describing and motivating the choice of energy use indicator. Direct comparisons between different energy use results could lead to misinformed policy decisions.
|
|
| 9. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
How much energy is used when producing biofuels?
- 2012
-
Ingår i: World Bioenergy 2012, Jönköping, Sweden.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Considering the increased focus on biofuels, it is important to inform companies and policy-makers about the energy use for production of biofuels in relevant and transparent ways, using well-defined indicators. The amount of fossil energy used in the production of a biofuel (e.g. diesel fuel used in harvesting) is a parameter of obvious interest when comparing different biofuels or when optimizing the production systems. With increasing worldwide production of different biofuels, a shift in focus from fossil energy to the entire energy use will also be necessary. In that context, not only reducing the use of fossil fuels in biofuel production, but also optimizing the use of all energy sources over the whole life cycle becomes an important to ensure the sustainability of biofuels. However, to report and interpret values on life cycle energy use is not straight forward due to methodological difficulties. The impact category ‘energy use’ is frequently used in life cycle assessment (LCA). But the term ‘energy use’ is generally not applied in a transparent and consistent way between different LCA studies of biofuels. It is often unclear whether the total energy use, or only fossil energy, has been considered, and whether primary or secondary energy has been considered. In addition, it is often difficult to tell if and how the energy content of the fuel or the biomass source was included in the energy use. This study presents and discusses the current situation in terms of energy use indicators are applied in LCA studies on biofuels. It was found that the choice of indicator was seldom motivated or discussed in the examined reports and articles, and five inherently different energy use indicators were observed: (1) fossil energy, (2) secondary energy, (3) cumulative energy demand (primary energy), (4) net energy balance, and (5) total extracted energy. As an illustration, we applied these five energy use indicators to the same cradle-to-gate production system (production of palm oil methyl ester), resulting in considerably different output numbers of energy use. This in itself is not unexpected, but indicates the importance of clearly identifying, describing and motivating the choice of energy use indicator. All five indicators can be useful in specific situations, depending on the goal and scope of the individual study, but the choice of indicator needs to be better reported and motivated than what is generally done today. Above all, it is important to avoid direct comparisons between different energy use results calculated using different indicators, since this could lead to misinformed policy decisions.
|
|
| 10. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards transparent and relevant use of energy use indicators in LCA studies of biofuels
- 2012
-
Ingår i: 6th SETAC World Congress / SETAC Europe 22nd Annual Meeting in Berlin.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The use of energy has led to resource crises during the history of mankind, such as the deforestation of the Mediterranean during antiquity, and of Great Britain before the 19th century, and the oil crisis in the 20th century and continuing. Considering this, the frequent use of the impact category ‘energy use’ in the environmental assessment tool life cycle assessment (LCA) is not surprising. However, in a previous study, some of the authors noted that the term ‘energy use’ was not applied in a transparent and consistent way in LCA studies of biofuels. In this work we investigate how energy use indicators are applied in a set of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of biofuels. In the examined reports and articles, the choice of indicator was seldom motivated or discussed and we observed five inherently different energy use indicators: (1) fossil energy, (2) secondary energy, (3) cumulative energy demand, (4) net energy balance, and (5) total extracted energy. These five energy use indicators were applied to the same cradle-to-gate production system of palm oil methyl ester (PME), giving considerably different output results. This is in itself not unexpected, but indicates the importance of clearly identifying, describing and motivating the choice of energy use indicator. All five indicators can all be useful in specific situations, depending on the goal and scope of the individual study, but the choice of indicators need to be better reported and motivated than what is generally done today. Authors of LCA studies should first define the purpose of their energy use indicator (fossil scarcity, energy scarcity, energy efficiency, cost/benefit comparison) and may then make a motivated choice of the energy use indicator.
|
|
