| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Anselm, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Bannlys alla politiska beslut som ger mer klimatutsläpp
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Dagens Nyheter.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Torftig valdebatt. Dagspolitiken klarar inte att hantera ödesfrågan om klimatet, vilket oroar oss. Vi föreslår därför ett ”utsläppsmoratorium”: inga beslut får tas som ökar utsläppen av växthusgaser. Principen måste kopplas till mål om exempelvis förnybar energi och grön infrastruktur, skriver 23 forskare och debattörer.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
A framework for energy use indicators and their reporting in life cycle assessment
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Integrated environmental assessment and management. - : Wiley. - 1551-3777 .- 1551-3793. ; 12:3, s. 429-436
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Energy use is a common impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA). Many different energy use indicators are used in LCA studies, accounting for energy use in different ways. Often, however, the choice behind which energy use indicator is applied is poorly described and motivated. To contribute to a more purposeful selection of energy use indicators and to ensure consistent and transparent reporting of energy use in LCA, a general framework for energy use indicator construction and reporting in LCA studies will be presented in this article. The framework differentiates between 1) renewable and nonrenewable energies, 2) primary and secondary energies, and 3) energy intended for energy purposes versus energy intended for material purposes. This framework is described both graphically and mathematically. Furthermore, the framework is illustrated through application to a number of energy use indicators that are frequently used in LCA studies: cumulative energy demand (CED), nonrenewable cumulative energy demand (NRCED), fossil energy use (FEU), primary fossil energy use (PFEU), and secondary energy use (SEU). To illustrate how the application of different energy use indicators may lead to different results, cradle-to-gate energy use of the bionanomaterial cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) is assessed using 5 different indicators and showing a factor of 3 differences between the highest and lowest results. The relevance of different energy use indicators to different actors and contexts will be discussed, and further developments of the framework are then suggested.
|
|
| 6. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Palm Oil
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Palm Oil: Nutrition, Uses and Impacts. - : Nova Science Publishers, Inc.. - 9781612099217 ; , s. 159-186
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Palm oil is used for cooking in Southeast Asia and Africa and as a food additive in a number of processed foods world-wide. The production of palm oil is increasing, and it is of special interest from a nutritional point of view due to its high energy content and its significant content of micronutrients. In addition, palm oil is increasingly used to produce various biofuels. Due to large production volumes and diverse applications of palm oil, it is highly interesting and important to study the environmental impacts of its production. This chapter discusses how the environmental impacts of palm oil can be assessed, focusing on the life cycle environmental impacts of palm oil in comparison to similar products. A brief overview of life cycle assessment as a method is given, and results are presented together with suggestions for environmental improvements of palm oil cultivation and production. It is shown that the magnitude of the environmental impacts connected to palm oil in relation to other products is heavily affected by the choice of environmental indicators, which in LCA studies consist of both an environmental impact category and a so-called functional unit. Regarding impact categories, the global warming and acidification potentials of palm oil are lower than those of rapeseed oil per kg oil. The water footprint of palm oil and rapeseed oil are about the same on a mass basis, but for the two land use indicators soil erosion and heavy metal accumulation, rapeseed oil has a lower impact than palm oil. Specific interest is given to the life cycle energy use of palm oil in response to the unclear and diverse definitions of this impact category in different studies. It is concluded that there is a need to carefully define the energy use impact category when reporting on palm oil or similar products, and also to differentiate between different kinds of energy sources. If instead of mass the micronutrient content is applied as functional unit, palm oil still has lower global warming potential and acidification than rapeseed oil when compared on the basis of vitamin E content. However, if β-carotene content is used as functional unit, rapeseed oil is not relevant for comparison due to its negligible content of β-carotene. For that case, palm oil is therefore instead compared to tomatoes on a β-carotene basis, since tomatoes are rich in β-carotene. The tomatoes were shown to perform better then palm oil regarding global warming potential on a β-carotene basis. The effects of time and scale on the environmental impacts of palm oil, which includes changes in technical performance and electricity sources, are also discussed in this chapter. It is shown that combustion of the methane formed from the palm oil mill effluent can significantly reduce the global warming potential.
|
|
| 7. |
- Arvidsson, Rickard, 1984, et al.
(författare)
-
Energy use and climate change improvements of Li/S batteries based on life cycle assessment
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Power Sources. - : Elsevier BV. - 0378-7753. ; 383, s. 87-92
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We present a life cycle assessment (LCA) study of a lithium/sulfur (Li/S) cell regarding its energy use (in electricity equivalents, kWhel) and climate change (in kg carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2 eq) with the aim of identifying improvement potentials. Possible improvements are illustrated by departing from a base case of Li/S battery design, electricity from coal power, and heat from natural gas. In the base case, energy use is calculated at 580 kWhel kWh−1 and climate change impact at 230 kg CO2 eq kWh−1 of storage capacity. The main contribution to energy use comes from the LiTFSI electrolyte salt production and the main contribution to climate change is electricity use during the cell production stage. By (i) reducing cell production electricity requirement, (ii) sourcing electricity and heat from renewable sources, (iii) improving the specific energy of the Li/S cell, and (iv) switching to carbon black for the cathode, energy use and climate change impact can be reduced by 54 and 93%, respectively. For climate change, our best-case result of 17 kg CO2 eq kWh−1 is of similar magnitude as the best-case literature results for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). The lithium metal requirement of Li/S batteries and LIBs are also of similar magnitude.
|
|
| 8. |
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
- 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.
|
|
