| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ekvall, Tomas, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Incentives for recycling and incineration in LCA: Polymers in Product Environmental Footprints
- 2021
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- For material recycling to occur, waste material from a product life cycle must be made available for recycling and then used in the production of a new product. When recycling is beneficial for the environment, the LCA results should give incentives to collection for recycling and also to the use of recycled material in new products. However, most established methods for modelling recycling in LCA risk giving little or even wrong incentives. Many methods, such as the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF) in a Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), assign some of the environmental benefits of recycling to the product that uses recycled materials. This means that the incentive to send used products for recycling will be lower. If energy recovery also provides an environmental benefit, because the energy recovered substitutes energy supplied with a greater environmental impact, the LCA results may indicate that the waste should instead be sent to incineration – even when recycling is the environmentally preferable option for the society. This study aims to increase the knowledge on the extent to which PEF results, and LCA results in general, risk giving incorrect incentives for energy recovery from plastic waste. Our calculations focus on the climate impact of the recycling and incineration of LDPE waste generated in Sweden. Since this is a pilot study, we use easily available input data only. We estimate the net climate benefit through simple substitution, where recycled material is assumed to replace virgin material and where energy recovered from LDPE waste is assumed to replace average Swedish district heat and electricity. We then apply the CFF to find whether a PEF would give the same indications. Our results show no risk of a PEF or LCA giving incorrect climate incentives for incineration of fossil LDPE. However, an LCA can wrongly indicate that renewable LDPE should be incinerated rather than recycled. Our results indicate this can happen in a PEF when the heat and electricity substituted by incineration has 40-200% more climate impact than the Swedish average district heat and electricity. Our study also aims to increase knowledge about the extent to which correct incentives can be obtained through a more thorough analysis of incineration with energy recovery – specifically, through: 1. a deeper understanding of Factor B, which in the CFF can be used to assign part of the burdens and benefits of energy recovery to the energy instead of the product investigated, but which in the PEF guidelines by default is set to 0, or 2. a broader systems perspective that accounts for the effects of energy recovery on waste imports and thus waste management in other countries. We estimate Factor B based on the observation that waste incineration can be described as a process with multiple jointly determining functions. Waste treatment and energy recovery both contribute to driving investments in incineration. This, in turn, defines the volume of waste incinerated, the quantity of energy recovered, and the quantity of energy substituted. We propose that expected revenues from gate fees and energy are an appropriate basis for calculating Factor B. Up-to-date estimates of the expected revenues in the relevant region should ideally be used for the calculations. Lacking such data,we suggest the value B=0.6 can be used in the CFF when modelling waste incineration in Sweden. Our PEF calculations with Factor B=0.6 indicate such a PEF will identify the environmentally best option for plastic waste management in almost all cases. However, this is at least in part luck: Factor B will vary over time and between locations, and other parts of the CFF varies between materials. To account for the broader systems perspective, we develop two scenarios based on different assumptions on whether change in Swedish waste imports affects the incineration or landfilling in other European countries. The scenarios bring a large uncertainty into the results. This uncertainty is real in the sense that it is difficult to know how a change in Swedish waste imports in the end will affect waste management in other countries. The uncertainty still makes it difficult to draw conclusions on whether renewable LDPE should be recycled or incinerated. Our suggestions for Factor B and European scenarios both make the CFF more balanced and consistent: it now recognizes that not only recycling but alsoenergy recovery depends on more than the flow of waste from the life cycle investigated. However, neither Factor B nor the broader systems perspective amends the fact that LCA tends to focus on one product at a time. This might not be enough to guide a development that requires coordinated or concerted actions between actors in different life cycles – such as increased recycling or energy recovery. Assessing decisions in one product life cycle at a time might in this context be compared to independently assessing the action of clapping one hand. This will most probably not result in an applaud. Besides a more thorough assessment of energy recovery, we also discuss the option to give correct incentives for recycling from LCA by assigning the full environmental benefit of recycling to the product that generates waste for recycling but also to the product where the recycled material is used. We find that this 100/100 approach can give negative LCA results for products produced from recycled material and recycled to a high degree after recycling, because the benefits of recycling are counted twice. The LCA results would indicate that you save material resources by producing and recycling such products without ever using them. The 100/100 approach also lacks additivity, does not model foreseeable consequences, and does not assign a well-defined environmental value to the recovered secondary material. To guide concerted actions, like recycling or energy recovery, it seems systems analysis should ideally assess the necessary actions in combination. Many situations require the environmental impacts to be estimated for a specific product or a specific action. In some cases, however, the LCA results can be calculated and presented with, for example, the following introduction: “When the material is sent to recycling, you will, together with the recycler and the actor using the recycled material, jointly achieve this net environmental benefit: …” Such joint assessment of supply and demand for secondary materials means the allocation problem is avoided. It is also consistent with the recommendation in the old SETAC “Code of Practice” to assess life cycles with recycling by studying the inputs and outputs from the total linked system.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ekvall, Tomas, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Modelling incineration for more accurate comparisons to recycling in PEF and LCA
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Waste Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0956-053X .- 1879-2456. ; 136, s. 153-161
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When recycling is beneficial for the environment, results from a life cycle assessment (LCA) should give incentives to collection for recycling and also to the use of recycled material in new products. Many approaches for modeling recycling in LCA assign part of the environmental benefits of recycling to the product where the recycled material is used. For example, the Circular Footprint Formula in the framework for Product Environmental Footprints (PEF) assigns less than 45% of the benefits of recycling to a polymer product sent to recycling. Our calculations indicate that this creates an incorrect climate incentive for incineration of renewable LDPE, when the recovered energy substitutes energy sources with 100–300% more climate impact than the Swedish average district heat and electricity. The risk of incorrect incentives can be reduced through allocating part of the net benefits of energy recovery to the life cycle where the energy is used; we propose this part can be 60% for Sweden, but probably less in countries without a district-heating network. Alternatively, the LCA can include the alternative treatment of waste that is displaced at the incinerator by waste from the investigated product. These solutions both make the LCA more balanced and consistent. The allocation factor 0.6 at incineration almost eliminates the risk of incorrect incentives in a PEF of renewable polymers. However, the focus of LCA on one product at a time might still make it insufficient to guide recycling, which requires concerted actions between actors in different life cycles.
|
|
| 4. |
- Leach, Susannah, 1983, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparable endemic coronavirus nucleoprotein-specific antibodies in mild and severe Covid-19 patients
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Virology. - : Wiley. - 0146-6615 .- 1096-9071. ; 93:9, s. 5614-5617
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The severity of disease of Covid-19 is highly variable, ranging from asymptomatic to critical respiratory disease and death. Potential cross-reactive immune responses between SARS-CoV-2 and endemic coronavirus (eCoV) may hypothetically contribute to this variability. We herein studied if eCoV nucleoprotein (N)-specific antibodies in the sera of patients with mild or severe Covid-19 are associated with Covid-19 severity. There were comparable levels of eCoV N-specific antibodies early and during the first month of infection in Covid-19 patients with mild and severe symptoms, and healthy SARS-CoV-2-negative subjects. These results warrant further studies to investigate the potential role of eCoV-specific antibodies in immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
|
|
| 5. |
- Magnusson, Johan, 1976, et al.
(författare)
-
Rhizomatic Strategizing in Digital Transformation: A Clinical Field Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: HICSS Conference Proceedings.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Most organizations today are involved in transformation initiatives; this has led to a burgeoning interest in the phenomenon of digital transformation strategy. Here, we present the findings of a clinical field study of a large Swedish municipality that has been involved in an ambitious digital transformation program since 2017. Despite explicitly not having a formal strategy, the organization utilizes a pseudo-formalized and emergent strategy-as-practice for digital transformation that involves a set of key traits that have emerged over the years. We show how these traits have emerged and theorize on how the process can be understood as rhizomatic strategizing. The strategy emerges over time through a series of de- and reterritorializations, expanding through amalgamating new concepts into a strategy-as-practice for digital transformation.
|
|
| 6. |
- Odolinski, Kristofer, 1984-, et al.
(författare)
-
Att följa upp och utvärdera järnvägsunderhåll : Delrapport inom projektet Metod för jämförelsestudier av järnvägsunderhåll
- 2023
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Med start 2025 avser Trafikverket förändra formerna för upphandling av basunderhåll i tre geografiska områden. Förändringarna innebär att en större mängd planering och produktionsledning sker i Trafikverkets regi. Syftet är att utveckla den egna beställarförmågan och att stärka leverantörsmarknaden.VTI har fått Trafikverkets uppdrag att föreslå metoder för att kunna följa upp konsekvenserna av den förändrade organisationen. I rapporten redovisas uppdragets första del med fokus på konsekvenserna av ett förändrat ansvar för basunderhåll av Södra Malmbanan. Syftet med delstudien är att identifiera den information som krävs och de metoder som kommer att användas för att fördjupa förståelsen av hur den nya ansvarsfördelningen förändrar kostnader och förutsättningarna för trafik jämfört med dagens förfarande. Förutom att skapa goda förutsättningar att utvärdera de förändringar som genomförs kommer detta arbete också att kunna ge stöd för övergången till nya verksamhetsupplägg i de ytterligare två områden som står på tur att förändras, Ostkustbanan (2026) och Mälarbanan (2027). Information har inhämtats från personal inom Trafikverket och från aktörer på leverantörsmarknaden, samt via analyser av dokumentationen av underhållsverksamheten liksom en genomgång av relevant litteratur.De betydande förändringar av verksamheten som förestår kan få konsekvenser i flera avseenden. För att kunna följa upp och jämföra kostnader och andra utfall i hela landet krävs uppgifter från samtliga kontraktsområden med avseende på verksamhetens kostnader, omfattning (antal kilometer bana, installationer av växlar och konstbyggnader), trafik, väder etcetera. Tack vare att Trafikverket sedan länge byggt upp databaser som innehåller den aktuella informationen är en viktig del av det fortsatta arbetet att etablera ett smidigt tillvägagångssätt för att årligen kunna komplettera informationen och göra nya observationer av förändringar som kan ha inträffat. Ett antal frågeställningar föreslås som kan besvaras med stöd av en analys av det föreslagna materialet. Svaret på dessa frågor gör det möjligt att stärka förståelsen av den verksamhet som bedrivs och att ta fram kunskap som kan omsättas i praktiken.
|
|
