Abstract
Purpose
This paper considers the variabilities that exist in the exploitation of a complex industrial system. Our scenario-based LCA model ensures the reliability of results in situations where the system life cycle is very uncertain, where there is substantial lack of data, and/or where time and resources available are limited. It is also an effective tool to generate exploitation recommendations for clients.
Methods
Existing quantitative uncertainty methods in LCA require a huge amount of accurate data. These data are rarely available in simplified and upstream LCA for complex industrial systems. A scenario-based approach is the best compromise between acceptable quality of results and resources required. However, such methods have not yet been proposed to improve the environmental knowledge of the system in the case of exploitation scenarios. The method proposed here considers a limited number of scenarios (three or four) that are defined using the Stanford Research Institute matrix. Using results from past projects, relevant parts of the system are listed, and expert knowledge and parameters are associated with these parts and quantified. A classical LCA process then provides the results for the different scenarios.
Results and discussion
The method was applied to an Alstom Grid AC/DC conversion substation for the primary aluminum industry. A previous study had limited scope, as the life cycle was poorly understood. Relevant parts were, thus, clearly identified as follows: spare parts program, transport failures, preventive and corrective maintenance, updates and revampings, lifetime modulation, and end-of-life. Four scenarios were considered as follows: best case, worst case, baseline (expected future), and a highly different alternative. Results show the pertinence of considering several exploitation scenarios when the life cycle is not predictable, as the environmental impacts may vary widely from one case to another. A sensitivity analysis also shows that some relevant parts such as updates and revampings will need to be carefully considered in futures studies.
Conclusions
The consideration of three exploitation scenarios (best case, baseline, and worst case) appears to be extremely pertinent when considering simplified LCA of industrial systems with high uncertainties and limited time and resources. This model is also very useful to generate good practice and recommendations towards clients, thus initiating a dialog centered on eco-design and continuous improvement.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bishop P, Hines A, Collins T (2007) The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9:5–25
Blanchard BS, Fabrycky WJ (2011) Systems engineering and analysis, Fifth Edition. ed, Prentice Hall International series in industrial and systems engineering. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA
Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739
Ciroth A (2003) Uncertainty Calculation for LCI Data: Reasons for, against, and an Efficient and Flexible Approach for Doing it, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quality of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data. Karlsruhe, Germany
Cluzel F, Yannou B, Leroy Y, Millet D (2012) Proposition for an adapted management process to evolve from an unsupervised life cycle assessment of complex industrial systems towards an eco-designing organization. Concurrent Eng-Res A 20:111–126
Dewulf W (2003) A proactive approach to eco-design: framework and tools (PhD Thesis). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
European Telecommunications Standards Institute (2011) ETSI TS 103 199 V1.1.1 (2011–11) - Environmental Engineering (EE); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of ICT equipment, networks and services; General methodology and common requirements (ETSI Technical Specification). European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Sophia Antipolis, France
Finnveden G, Ekvall T (1998) Life-cycle assessment as a decision-support tool—the case of recycling versus incineration of paper. Resour Conserv Recy 24:235–256
Fukushima Y, Hirao M (2002) A structured framework and language for scenario-based life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:317–329
Hawken P, Ogilvy JA, Schwartz P (1982) Seven Tomorrows. Bantam Dell Pub Group
Höjer M, Ahlroth S, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E, Nilsson M, Palm V (2008) Scenarios in selected tools for environmental systems analysis. J Clean Prod 16:1958–1970
Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA - Part I: a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:273–280
Huijbregts MAJ, Norris G, Bretz R, Ciroth A, Maurice B, Bahr B, Weidema B, Beaufort ASH (2001) Framework for modeling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:127–132
Hur T, Lee J, Ryu J, Kwon E (2005) Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system. J Environ Manage 75:229–237
International Organization for Standardization (2011) ISO 14006:2011 - Environmental management systems - Guidelines for incorporating ecodesign (ISO Standard), Environmental management
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006a) ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006b) ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework
Lane J, Lant P (2012) Including N2O in ozone depletion models for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:252–257
Leroy Y, Froelich D (2010) Qualitative and quantitative approaches dealing with uncertainty in life cycle assessment (LCA) of complex systems: towards a selective integration of uncertainty according to LCA objectives. Int J Design Eng 3:151–171
Liu G, Müller DB (2012) Addressing sustainability in the aluminum industry: a critical review of life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 35:108–117
Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11:161–179
Millet D, Bistagnino L, Lanzavecchia C, Camous R, Poldma T (2007) Does the potential of the use of LCA match the design team needs? J Clean Prod 15:335–346
Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi H, Collado-Ruiz D (2011) Tool for the environmental assessment of cranes based on parameterization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:392–400
Pesonen H-L, Ekvall T, Fleischer G, Huppes G, Jahn C, Klos ZS, Rebitzer G, Sonnemann GW, Tintinelli A, Weidema BP, Wenzel H (2000) Framework for scenario development in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:21–30
Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008a) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment - Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:290–300
Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008b) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment - Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388
Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002) How LCA studies deal with uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:47–52
Schmidt J, Thrane M (2009) Life cycle assessment of aluminum production in new Alcoa smelter in Greenland
Spielmann M, Scholz R, Tietje O, de Haan P (2004) Scenario modeling in prospective LCA of transport systems. Application of formative scenario analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:325–335
Tietje O (2005) Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. Eur J Oper Res 162:418–432
Wack P (1985) Scenarios: shooting the rapids. Harvard Bus Rev 63:139–150
Weckenmann A, Schwan A (2001) Environmental life cycle assessment with support of fuzzy-sets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:13–18
Weidema BP, Ekvall T, Pesonen H-L, Rebitzer G, Sonnemann GW, Spielmann M (2004) Scenarios in life cycle assessment. SETAC, Pensacola, USA
Zamagni A, Buttol P, Porta PL, Buonamici R, Masoni P, Guinée J, Ekvall T (2008) CALCAS WP5-D7: Critical review of current research needs and limitations related to ISO-LCA practice - Annex 2 - Reports of the topics and approaches analyzed (No. CALCAS WP5-D7 Annex 2), CALCAS (Co-ordination Action for innovation in Life-Cycle Analysis for Sustainability)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Frankie Rico-Sanz for his contributions to the applicative steps of this work. We also gratefully thank Joël Devautour and François Puchar from Alstom Grid to their full support in this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Berlan Rodriguez Perez
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cluzel, F., Yannou, B., Millet, D. et al. Exploitation scenarios in industrial system LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 231–245 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0631-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0631-z