Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of major petroleum life cycle models

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many organizations have attempted to develop an accurate well-to-pump life cycle model of petroleum products in order to inform decision makers of the consequences of its use. Our paper studies five of these models, demonstrating the differences in their predictions and attempting to evaluate their data quality. Carbon dioxide well-to-pump emissions for gasoline showed a variation of 35 %, and other pollutants such as ammonia and particulate matter varied up to 100 %. Differences in allocation do not appear to explain differences in predictions. Effects of these deviations on well-to-wheels passenger vehicle and truck transportation life cycle models may be minimal for effects such as global warming potential (6 % spread), but for respiratory effects of criteria pollutants (41 % spread) and other impact categories, they can be significant. A data quality assessment of the models’ documentation revealed real differences between models in temporal and geographic representativeness, completeness, as well as transparency. Stakeholders may need to consider carefully the tradeoffs inherent when selecting a model to conduct life cycle assessments for systems that make heavy use of petroleum products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argonne (2014) GREET life-cycle model. Cent Transp Res https://greet.es.anl.gov/greet/documentation.html

  • Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:687–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow PL (1991) How clean is clean? Paper presented at the world clean energy conference, Geneva

  • Brandão M, Heath G, Cooper J (2012) What can meta-analyses tell us about the reliability of life cycle assessment for decision support? J Ind Ecol 16:S3–S7. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00477.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt AR, Sun Y, Vafi K (2015) Uncertainty in regional-average petroleum ghg intensities: countering information gaps with targeted data gathering. Environ Sci Technol 49:679–686. doi:10.1021/es505376t

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bredeson L, Quiceno-Gonzalez R, Riera-Palou X, Harrison A (2010) Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity with allocation into products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:817–826. doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0204-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cai H, Han J, Forman G, Divita V, Elgowainy A, Wang M (2013) Analysis of petroleum refining energy efficiency of U.S. refineries. Transportation Technology R & D Center Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne

  • Dorini G, Kapelan Z, Azapagic A (2011) Managing uncertainty in multiple-criteria decision making related to sustainability assessment. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:133. doi:10.1007/s10098-010-0291-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelen A, Ingwersen W (2016) Guidance on data quality assessment for life cycle inventory. Report from the National Risk Management Research Laboratory USEPA, Washington, DC. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=321834

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgowainy A, Han J, Cai H, Wang M, Forman GS, DiVita VB (2014) Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission intensity of petroleum products at U.S. Refineries. Environ Sci Technol 48:7612–7624. doi:10.1021/es5010347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Energetics Incorporated (2007) Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Petroleum Refining Industry. U.S. Department of Energy. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/petroleum_refining/pdfs/profile.pdf

  • Finkbeiner M, Inaba A, Tan R, Christiansen K, Klüppel H-J (2006) The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:80–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman GS, Divita VB, Han J, Cai H, Elgowainy A, Wang M (2014) U.S. refinery efficiency: impacts analysis and implications for fuel carbon policy implementation. Environ Sci Technol 48:7625–7633. doi:10.1021/es501035a

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin Associates (2011) Revised final appendices cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory of nine plastic resins and four polyurethane precursors. Eastern Res Group

  • GreenDelta (2015) OpenLCA 1.4.1. Berlin

  • Hawkins TR, Ingwersen W, Sengupta D, Xue X, Smith RL (2012) Estimating impacts across the life cycle of corn ethanol and gasoline. In: International symposium on sustainable systems and technology, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton JT et al (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis

  • Hsu DD (2011) Life cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel produced via fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing. NREL, Technical report, Golden, CO, March 2011. http://www.osti.gov/bridge

  • Hsu DD, Inman D, Heath GA, Wolfrum EJ, Mann MK, Aden A (2010) Life cycle environmental impacts of selected U.S. ethanol production and use pathways in 2022. Environ Sci Technol 44:5289–5297. doi:10.1021/es100186h

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ICF Consulting (2003) Estimation of underground storage tank leakage. Prepared for EPA under contract Contract #68-C-0-164, WA#2-11. Lexington

  • Ingwersen W (2015) Test of US federal life cycle inventory data interoperability. J Clean Prod 101:118–121. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Council on Clean Transportation (2011) An introduction to petroleum refining and the production of ultra low sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel. The International Council on Clean Transportation. http://www.theicct.org/introduction-petroleum-refining-and-production-ultra-low-sulfur-gasoline-and-diesel-fuel

  • Jungbluth N (2007) Erdöl. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller SA, Theis TL (2006) Comparison of life cycle inventory databases. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):133–147

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Energy Technology Laboratory (2008) Development of baseline data and analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels. National Energy Technology Laboratory United States Department of Energy.

  • Palou-Rivera I, Han J, Wang M (2011) Updated estimation of energy efficiencies of U.S. petroleum refineries. Argonne National Laboratory https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-petroleum

  • Plevin RJ (2009) Modeling corn ethanol and climate. J Ind Ecol 13:495–507. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00138.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera J, Sutherland J (2015) A design of experiments (DOE) approach to data uncertainty in LCA: application to nanotechnology evaluation. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:1585. doi:10.1007/s10098-014-0890-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta D, Hawkins TR, Smith RL (2015) Using national inventories for estimating environmental impacts of products from industrial sectors: a case study of ethanol and gasoline. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(5):597–607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Leighton M, Tomar S, Chen C (2013) Interoperability between ecoinvent ver. 3 and US LCI database: a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0592-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Takano A, Winter S, Hughes M, Linkosalmi L (2014) Comparison of life cycle assessment databases: a case study on building assessment. Build Environ 79:20–30. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: a basis for greener processes and products: ‘Shonan Guidance principles’

  • United States Department of Agriculture (2016) Federal LCA commons. http://www.lcacommons.gov/catalog

  • United States Energy Information Administration (2011) Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 2009

  • United States Energy Information Administration (2012) Annual energy review 2011

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) National emissions inventory booklet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002neibooklet.pdf

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Technical support document for the 2004 effluent guidelines program plan. Environmental Protection Agency

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Complete_Report.pdf

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emission factors compiled by Eastern Research Group for incorporation in GREET. Argonne National Laboratory

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2015a) AP 42 vol 1, 5th edn

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2015b) Renewable fuel standard program: standards for 2014

  • United States Federal Highway Administration (2007) Moving 12-month total vehicle miles traveled

  • United States Federal Highway Administration (2013) Freight facts and figures 2013. federal highway administration. http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/13factsfigures/pdfs/fff2013_highres.pdf

  • Weber CL (2012) Uncertainty and variability in product carbon footprinting. J Ind Ecol 16:203–211. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00407.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B et al. (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. The Ecoinvent Centre,St. Gallen.

  • Winkler J, Bilitewski B (2007) Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models for solid waste management. Waste Manag 27:1021–1031. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by an appointment for Donald Vineyard to the Postdoctoral Research Program at the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an Interagency Agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA

    Donald L. Vineyard

  2. Life Cycle Assessment Research Center, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA

    Donald L. Vineyard & Wesley W. Ingwersen

Authors
  1. Donald L. Vineyard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wesley W. Ingwersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wesley W. Ingwersen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1 (DOCX 145 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vineyard, D.L., Ingwersen, W.W. A comparison of major petroleum life cycle models. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19, 735–747 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1260-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1260-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation