Advertisement

Systematic disaggregation: a hybrid LCI computation algorithm enhancing interpretation phase in LCA

  • Guillaume BourgaultEmail author
  • Pascal Lesage
  • Réjean Samson
LCI METHODOLOGY AND DATABASES

Abstract

Purpose

Before the advent of large databases, practitioners often lacked data for calculating life cycle inventories, but the actual computation was a straightforward task. Now that databases represent supply chains including feedback loops and several thousand unit processes and emissions, more formalized calculation methods are necessary. Two methods are widely used: sequential method and matrix inversion. They both exhibit different advantages and drawbacks. The present paper proposes a hybrid algorithm combining the advantages of both methods while minimizing their inconveniences.

Methods

Sequential algorithm requires a form of cutoff criteria, as the supply chains are of infinite length in the presence of feedback loops. The proposed implementation allows the detailing of individual paths until their upstream contribution falls below a user-defined disaggregation criteria, while also allowing the total impact scores of all paths to be stored and considered. The output is then structured to facilitate consultation and re-aggregation, enhancing the work of practitioners in the interpretation phase of LCA. The algorithm is a variation on structural path analysis and accumulative structural path analysis. It is computationally efficient and uses a reporting threshold criterion based on multiple impact categories.

Results

Although the algorithm leads to a more voluminous inventory than matrix inversion, it produces detailed, useful information on the particular instances of processes responsible for the impacts. An average laptop can compute the results within seconds. This algorithm has the potential to improve the interpretation phase of LCA. More specifically, selective replacement of values (characterization factors, input from technosphere, or emission intensities) in parts of the process tree can be applied without affecting the rest of the system.

Conclusions

LCA software would benefit from the inclusion of the algorithm presented in this paper. It produces additional information on the structure of the supply chain and the impacts of its constituents, which would be available for a more in-depth interpretation by practitioners. Its potential for understanding the propagation of uncertainty and acceleration of Monte Carlo assessment should also be investigated.

Keywords

Disaggregation Interpretation phase LCI algorithm Matrix computation Structural path analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the industrial partners in the International Chair in Life Cycle Assessment (a research unit of CIRAIG): ArcelorMittal, Bell Canada, Cascades, Eco Entreprises Québec, RECYC-QUÉBEC, Groupe EDF, Gaz de France, Hydro-Québec, Johnson & Johnson, Mouvement des caisses Desjardins, Rio Tinto Alcan, RONA, SAQ, Total, and Veolia Environment.

References

  1. Bellekom S, Potting J et al (2006) Feasibility of applying site-dependent impact assessment of acidification in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourgault G, Lesage P et al (2009) Enhancing LCA interpretation with an algorithm preserving total disaggregation. In: SETAC Europe: 19th Annual Meeting, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  3. Defourny J, Thorbecke E (1984) Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework. Econ J 94(373):111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (2007) ecoinvent report No.1., pp 1–77Google Scholar
  5. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  6. Lenzen M (2002) A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments: some Australian results. J Clean Prod 10(6):545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mutel CL, Hellweg S (2009) Regionalized life cycle assessment: computational methodology and application to inventory databases. ES&T 43(15):5797–5803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Norris G (2002) Life cycle emission distributions within the economy: Implications for life cycle impact assessment. Risk Anal 22(5):919–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peters GP (2007) Efficient algorithms for life cycle assessment, input–output analysis, and Monte-Carlo analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):373–380Google Scholar
  10. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2006) Structural analysis of international trade: environmental impacts of Norway. Econ Sys Res 18(2):155–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Suh S (2004) Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological–economic model. Ecol Econ 48(4):451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Suh S, Heijungs R (2007) Power series expansion and structural analysis for life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):381–390Google Scholar
  13. Suh S, Huppes G (2002) Missing inventory estimation tool using extended input–output analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(3):134–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Treloar GJ (1997) Extracting embodied energy paths from input–output tables: towards an input–output-based hybrid energy analysis method. Econ Sys Res 9(4):375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Udo de Haes H, Jolliet O et al (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2004) The greenhouse gas protocol. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, pp 1–116Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillaume Bourgault
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pascal Lesage
    • 1
  • Réjean Samson
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRAIG, Chemical Engineering DepartmentÉcole Polytechnique de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations