Application of data quality assessment methods to an LCA of electricity generation

LCA Case Studies
  • 480 Downloads

Abstract

Background, Goal and Scope

For the life cycle assessment (LCA) tool to provide maximum benefit for decision makers, the uncertainty of its results should be reported. Several methods for assessing uncertainty have been developed, but despite recent efforts, there remains disagreement about their merits.

Objectives

The objectives of the study were to review several assessment methods for estimating numerical and qualitative uncertainty of impact scores and recommend an appropriate uncertainty assessment scheme. The methods review has been conducted on the basis of an LCA case study regarding the comparison of the use of either brown or black coals in Australian electricity generation.

Results and Discussion

Each assessment method indicated greater uncertainty in the impact scores calculated for black coal use than for brown coal use. Due to overlap of the uncertainty ranges in calculated impact scores neither of the coals could be regarded environmentally preferred.

Conclusions

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were found to provide useful information about the uncertainty of calculated impact scores for the case study. Methods that combine qualitative and quantitative uncertainty provided no additional benefits, and obscured much of the information gained from using qualitative methods.

Recommendation and Outlook

It is recommended that LCA results should include separate numerical (using Monte-Carlo simulation) and qualitative uncertainty assessments. When the ranges of calculated impact scores for compared options overlap, the normalised difference method is recommended.

Keywords

Australian electricity generation coal data quality data uncertainty life cycle assessment (LCA) 

References

  1. [1]
    International Organisation for Standardisation (1998): ISO 14040 Environmental Management Standard-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and framework (as AS/NZS ISO 14040 from Standards Australia)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002): How LCA Studies Deal with Uncertainty. Int J LCA 7 (1) 47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Huijbregts MAJ (1998): A General Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment. Int J LCA 3 (5) 273–80Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Huijbregts MAJ, Norris GA, Bretz R, Ciroth A, Maurice B, Bahr B von, Weidema BP, Beaufort ASH de (2001): Framework for Modelling Data Uncertainty in Life Cycle Inventories. Int J LCA 6 (3) 127–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    May JR, Brennan DJ (2001): An Life Cycle Assessment Study of Electricity Production in Australia. Paper presented at the 6th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, 23rd to 27th SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Berg NW van den, Huppes G, Lindeijer EW, Ven BL van der, Wrisberg MN (1999): A Framework for Quality Assessment. in Berg NW van den, Huppes G, Lindeijer EW, Ven BL van der, Wrisberg MN: Quality Assessment for LCA. Centre for Environmental Science (CML), Leiden, CML Report 152,-HYPERLINK “http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/publications/quality.pdf”-http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/publications/qualitv.pdf. 2-3, 21, 30Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R (2001): Life Cycle Assessment, An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. 1st ed., Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden, 3, Sections 3.5 and 5.6Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    International Organisation for Standardisation (1999): ISO 14041 Environmental Management Standard-Life Cycle Assessment-Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis (as AS/NZS ISO 14041 from Standards Australia)Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Weidema BP, Wesnass MS (1996): Data quality management for life cycle inventories-An example of using data quality indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production 4 (3-4) 167–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kennedy DJ, Montgomery DC, Quay BH (1996): Data Quality-Stochastic Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Modelling. Int J LCA 1 (4) 199–207Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Finnveden G, Lindfors L-G (1998): Data Quality of Life Cycle Inventory Data-Rules of Thumb. Global LCA Village, Letters to the Editor, http://www.ecomed.de/iournals/lca/letters/finnveden.htmGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lindfors L-G, Christansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen O-J, Rønning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995): Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nord 1995:20Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Rousseaux P, Labouze E, Suh Y-J, Blanc I, Gaveglia V, and Navarro A (2001): An overall Assessment of Life Cycle Inventory Quality: Application to the Production of Polyethylene Bottles. Int J LCA 6 (5) 299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Maurice B, Frischknecht R, Coelho-Schwirtz V and Hungerbühler K (2000): Uncertainty analysis in life cycle inventory. Application to the production of electricity with French coal power plants. Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2) 95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990): Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Wrisberg MN (1997): A semi-quantitative approach for assessing data quality in LCA. Proceedings 7th Annual Meeting of SETAC-Europe, Amsterdam, April 6–10, 1997Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Weidema BP (1998): Multi-User Test of the Data Quality Matrix for Product Life Cycle Inventory. Int J LCA 3 (5) 259–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Meier MA (1997): Eco-efficiency Evaluation of Waste Gas Purification Systems in the Chemical Industry. LCA Documents 2, ecomed publishers, ISBN 3-928379-54-2Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Coulon R, Camobreco V, Teulon H, Besnainou J (1997): Data Quality and Uncertainty in LCI. Int J LCA 2 (3) 178–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Vigon BW, Jensen AA (1995): Life Cycle Assessment: Data Quality and Databases Practitioner Survey. Journal of Cleaner Production 3 (3) 135–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) (2001): LCA of Steel and Electricity Production. ACARP Project C8049, BHP Research, http://www.sustainable technology.com.au/Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Audus H (1996): IEA Greenhouse Gas R & D Programme: Full Fuel Cycle Studies. Energy Conversion and Management 37 (6-8) 837–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    AGA (the Australian Gas Association) (2000): Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas. AGA Research Paper No. 12, MayGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Rogner HH, Khan A (1998): Comparing Energy Options: Progress Report on the Inter-Agency DECADES Project. IAEA Bulletin, Quarterly Journal Of The International Atomic Energy Agency 2–6Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Electricity Supply Association of Australia (1999): Electricity Australia 1999. Electricity Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), 46Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    AGO (Australian Greenhouse Office) (2001): National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1999 with Methodology Supplements: Report of the Australian Greenhouse Gas Office, 19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringMonash UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Clean Power from Lignite, MulgraveAustralia

Personalised recommendations