| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Carlson, Raul, 1961, et al.
(author)
-
LCI Data Modelling and a Database Design
- 1998
-
In: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ; 3:2, s. 106-113
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A large scale operative data format for transparent storage, administration and retrieval of environmental Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data has been implemented by applying data modelling and database design.Key concepts in the design are ‘activity’ and flow’: An activity is a technical system, such as a process or a transport, or an aggregate of different processes or transports. A flow is any matter entering or leaving an activity, such as natural resources, energywarc, raw material, emission, waste or products.Any numerical data set on an activity can he thoroughly described by supplying meta data. Meta data fields are prepared for a wide set of commonly known LCA-data aspects, such as descriptions of data acquisition methods, system boundary conditions and relevant dates.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ciroth, Andreas, et al.
(author)
-
Life cycle costing
- 2015
-
In: Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based Products: Methods and Case Studies. - Chichester, UK : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. - 9781118933916 ; , s. 215-228
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Life cycle costing (LCC) is applied as an assessment tool to estimate the entire cost of typically large-scale assets, for example, buildings and infrastructure objects with a considerably long serviceable life. LCC needs to consider and accumulate all types of cost, and since these occur at different times they are typically discounted to a common point in time. Environmental LCC is a specific type of LCC, which was designed to be aligned with the ISO 14040 standard for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and shares some key components with Environmental LCA to allow a consistent combination of both in one assessment. Societal LCC is another type of LCC, which includes externalities and attempts to provide a holistic assessment, thereby covering both economic and environmental aspects. For renewables, aspects such as feed-in tariffs and subsidies need to be considered in an LCC model. A case study for a combined heat and power plant is used to illustrate the application of Environmental LCC.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Isacs, Lina, et al.
(author)
-
Choosing a monetary value of greenhouse gases in assessment tools
- 2016
-
In: Journal of Cleaner Production. - : Elsevier. - 0959-6526 .- 1879-1786.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- There is a societal need for using monetary estimates of social impacts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in different assessment tools, such as cost-benefit analysis and life-cycle assessment. A number of estimates are available in the literature. Since these differ by several orders of magnitude, there is ambiguity and confusion about which to use. This review aims to give some guidance on this issue. The variation in carbon value estimates depends on several uncertain aspects – which will remain uncertain – including climate sensitivity, assumptions about future emissions, and decision makers' ethical standpoints. Hence, there is no single correct monetary value for CO2: it will depend on the ethical standpoint of the user. Due to this, estimates of social costs of CO2 emissions cannot be used for calculating an optimal emission level, although they can inform such assessments. It is suggested that marginal abatement cost values are used for emissions capped by binding targets in short-term assessments, and that social cost of carbon values should be used for all other emissions. Benchmark principles for choosing a monetary carbon value are suggested along with associated estimates. Depending on the choices made with regard to ethical standpoints and assumptions about future emissions and climate sensitivity, estimates can be significantly higher than the ones typically used in assessment tools today. The estimates need continuous updating, and there is need for better understanding and communication around the limitations and uncertainties involved.
|
|
| 6. |
- Ponrouch, A., et al.
(author)
-
Non-Aqueous Electrolytes for Sodium-Ion Batteries
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Materials Chemistry. - : Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). - 1364-5501 .- 0959-9428 .- 2050-7488 .- 2050-7496. ; 3:1, s. 22-42
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The first review of the various electrolytes currently used and developed for sodium-ion batteries (SIBs), both in terms of materials and concepts, is presented. In contrast to the Li-ion battery (LIB), which is a mature technology for which a more or less unanimously accepted "standard electrolyte" exists: 1 M LiPF6 in EC/DMC, the electrolyte of choice for SIBs has not yet fully conformed to a standard. This is true for both materials: salts, solvents, or additives, and concept, using the main track of organic solvents or aiming for other concepts. SIB research currently prospers, benefitting from using know-how gained from 30 years of LIB R&D. Here the currently employed electrolytes are emphasized and their effects on practical SIB performance are outlined, scrutinizing the rationale for specific choices made, salts, solvents, additives, concentrations, etc. for each specific cell set-up and usage conditions.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Steen, Bengt, 1944, et al.
(author)
-
A selection of safeguard subjects and state indicators for sustainability assessments
- 2016
-
In: International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1614-7502 .- 0948-3349. ; 21:6, s. 861-874
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The purpose of this work is to identify and selectsafeguard subjects and state indicators that are suitable for sustainability assessment in product and production development, using an interpretation of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development. The purpose is also to investigate how indicators selected in this way differ from other selections in the literature.We use a top-down approach, which starts withreviewing the Brundtland definition of sustainability and identifying the corresponding human basic needs to be satisfied. For each basic need, we identify relevant satisfiers, and for each satisfier, a number of safeguard subjects. The safeguard subjects represent critical resources for making satisfiers available.For each safeguard subject, a number of state indicators(=endpoint category indicators) are selected that are relevant for describing impacts from product life cycles on the safeguard subject.Ecosystem services, access to water, and abiotic resources are identified as environmental safeguard subjects. Technology for transports, environment, textiles,housing, food, information, and energy, together withincome, are identified as economical safeguard subjects.Human health, land availability, peace, social security,continuity, knowledge, jobs/occupation, and culture are identified as social safeguard subjects. In comparison with the other selections of safeguard subjects in literature, our safeguard subjects are structured differently and delimited in scope, but there are also many similarities. The best agreement is on environmental issues, but we classify human health as a social issue. For social issues, we identify fewer safeguard subjects and state indicators than recommendations from UNEP/SETAC. For economic issues, we diverse from current LCC and approach UNECE measures of sustainability.Identification and selection of safeguard subjects and state indicators benefit from a clear definition of sustainability, needs to be satisfied, and satisfiers. The interpretation of the sustainability concept has a large influence on which safeguard subjects that are included and which indicators that are needed to describe their state. Capacity building is an important sustainability indicator, which should be developedfurther for use in life cycle sustainability assessment. The topdown approach offers a good arena for a further research and discussions on how to structure and focus LCSA. Our results shall be seen as one example of which safeguard subject that may be identified with the top-down approach presented here.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
