The integration of energy scenarios into LCA: LCM2017 Conference Workshop, Luxembourg, September 5, 2017

  • Laurent Vandepaer
  • Thomas GibonEmail author


The Life Cycle Management Conference, held in Luxembourg from the 3rd to the 6th of September 2017, was the opportunity for LCA practitioners to sit and discuss the integration of external models in prospective LCA models. The workshop organizers feel that as a growing LCA subdiscipline, prospective LCA lacks a shared foundation in terms of methods, data, best practices, and software solutions.

For practitioners, this workshop was organized as a first step to introduce their research, identify overlaps, pinpoint further needs, and discuss the near future of prospective LCA. The focus was placed on the use of energy scenarios in prospective LCA due to the important role of energy in the environmental profile of many products. For this reason, most of the examples are related to energy system models and energy scenarios. However, this approach is applicable to any sector likely to face changes in the future, such as transportation, agriculture, or mining.

The first half of the...



The authors thank the organizers of the LCM2017 conference, specifically Enrico Benetto and Mélanie Guiton, for the support in arranging the workshop. We also extend our thanks to Chris Mutel for constructive comments on an early version of the text.

Funding information

Laurent Vandepaer is grateful for the financial support of the Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis at the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), of Wallonie-Bruxelles International (WBI) through the WBI-World Excellence Scholarship, and of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through the Discovery Grants Program. This research was supported by the Swiss Competence Centers for Energy Research (SCCER) “Heat and Electricity Storage” (HaE) and “Supply of Electricity” (SoE), funded by the Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI).


  1. Arvesen A, Luderer G, Pehl M, Bodirsky BL, Hertwich EG (2018) Deriving life cycle assessment coefficients for application in integrated assessment modelling. Environ Model Softw 99:111–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvidsson R, Tillman A-M, Sandén BA et al (2017) Environmental assessment of emerging. Recommendations for Prospective LCA. J Ind Ecol, Technologies. Google Scholar
  3. Astudillo MF, Treyer K, Bauer C, Pineau PO, Amor MB (2017a) Life cycle inventories of electricity supply through the lens of data quality: exploring challenges and opportunities. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(3):374–386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Astudillo MF, Vaillancourt K, Pineau P-O, Amor B (2017b) Integrating energy system models in life cycle management. In: Benetto E, Gericke K (eds) Designing sustainable technologies, products and policies: from science to innovation. Springer, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  5. Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Levasseur A, Margni M, Blanc I (2016) Implementing a dynamic life cycle assessment methodology with a case study on domestic hot water production. J Ind Ecol 21:1128–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergesen JD, Heath GA, Gibon T, Suh S (2014) Thin-film photovoltaic power generation offers decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing environmental co-benefits in the long term. Environ Sci Technol 48(16):9834–9843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cucurachi S, Suh S (2017) Cause-effect analysis for sustainable development policy. Environ Rev 25(3):358–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dandres T, Gaudreault C, Tirado-Seco P, Samson R (2011) Assessing non-marginal variations with consequential LCA: application to European energy sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(6):3121–3132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission (2016) EU reference. Scenario 2016Google Scholar
  10. Gavankar S, Suh S, Keller AA (2015) The role of scale and technology maturity in life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: a case study on carbon nanotubes. J Ind Ecol 19(1):51–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibon T, Wood R, Arvesen A, Bergesen JD, Suh S, Hertwich EG (2015) A methodology for integrated, multiregional life cycle assessment scenarios under large-scale technological change. Environ Sci Technol 49(18):11218–11226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath GA, Mann MK (2012) Background and reflections on the life cycle assessment harmonization project. J Ind Ecol 16:S8–S11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hertwich EG, Gibon T, Bouman EA, Arvesen A, Suh S, Heath GA, Bergesen JD, Ramirez A, Vega MI, Shi L (2015) Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(20):6277–6282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Igos E, Rugani B, Rege S, Benetto E, Drouet L, Zachary DS (2015) Combination of equilibrium models and hybrid life cycle-input–output analysis to predict the environmental impacts of energy policy scenarios. Appl Energy 145:234–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krakowski V, Assoumou E, Mazauric V, Maïzi N (2016) Feasible path toward 40-100% renewable energy shares for power supply in France by 2050: a prospective analysis. Appl Energy 171:501–522. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuczenski B, Marvuglia A, Ingwersen WW, et al Product system model description and revision. in PrepGoogle Scholar
  17. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3169–3174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Rege S, Jury C (2013) Modelling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: critical review and proposed framework for biogas production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:768–781. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Menten F, Tchung-Ming S, Lorne D, Bouvart F (2015) Lessons from the use of a long-term energy model for consequential life cycle assessment: the BTL case. Renew Sust Energ Rev 43:942–960. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mutel CL, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2012) GIS-based regionalized life cycle assessment: how big is small enough? Methodology and case study of electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 46(2):1096–1103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oberschelp C, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2017) Reduction of site-specific electricity generation particulate matter impacts in China. In: Life Cycle Management Conference 2017. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  22. Pauliuk S, Arvesen A, Stadler K, Hertwich EG (2017) Industrial ecology in integrated assessment models. Nat Clim Chang 7(1):13–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pauliuk S, Majeau-Bettez G, Mutel CL, Steubing B, Stadler K (2015) Lifting industrial ecology modeling to a new level of quality and transparency: a call for more transparent publications and a collaborative open source software framework. J Ind Ecol 19(6):937–949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pehl M, Arvesen A, Humpenöder F, Popp A, Hertwich EG, Luderer G (2017) Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat Energy 2(12):939–945. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poganietz W-R (2017) Predicting energy futures? Scenarios and their assessment. In: Winter School on Energy Scenarios. Kurhaus TrifelsGoogle Scholar
  26. Sacchi R (2017) LCI methodology and databases. A trade-based method for modelling supply markets in consequential LCA exemplified with Portland cement and bananas. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
  27. Tiruta-Barna L, Pigné Y, Navarrete Gutiérrez T, Benetto E (2015) Framework and computational tool for the consideration of time dependency in life cycle inventory: proof of concept. J Clean Prod 116:198–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vandepaer L, Treyer K, Mutel CL et al (2017) Marginal electricity supply mixes and their integration in version 3.4 of the ecoinvent database: results and sensitivity to key parameters. doi:
  29. Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Hellweg S, Henderson A, Jolliet O, Laurent A, Liao X, Lindner JP, Maia de Souza D, Michelsen O, Patouillard L, Pfister S, Posthuma L, Prado V, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Sala S, Ugaya C, Vieira M, Fantke P (2017) LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. J Clean Prod 161:957–967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verones F, Hellweg S, Azevedo LB et al (2016) LC-impact version 0.5: a spatially differentiated life cycle impact assessment approachGoogle Scholar
  31. Wender BA, Foley RW, Prado-Lopez V, Ravikumar D, Eisenberg DA, Hottle TA, Sadowski J, Flanagan WP, Fisher A, Laurin L, Bates ME, Linkov I, Seager TP, Fraser MP, Guston DH (2014) Illustrating anticipatory life cycle assessment for emerging photovoltaic technologies. Environ Sci Technol 48(18):10531–10538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wikipedia (2016) Perfect competition. Wikipedia Google Scholar
  33. Yang Y, Heijungs R (2017) On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
  34. Zamagni A (2013) Identification of the affected processes: challenges and open questions. In: Blanc I (ed) EcoSD annual workshop-consequential LCA Mines ParisTech Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Research Laboratory on Sustainable Engineering and Ecodesign (LIRIDE), Civil Engineering DepartmentUniversité de SherbrookeQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Laboratory for Energy Systems AnalysisPaul Scherrer InstituteVilligen PSISwitzerland
  3. 3.Luxembourg Institute of Science and TechnologyEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations