Issuu

Life cycle and value chain performance of natural resources production and use Anna Korre Professor of Environmental Engineering, Co-Director Energy Futures Lab

minerals, Energy and Environmental Engineering Research Group Department of Earth Science and Engineering Royal School of Mines Prince Consort Road London, SW7 2BP a.korre@imperial.ac.uk

Getting here …

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellow 1993-95

Page 2

Professor of Environmental Engineering (2015), Energy Futures Lab co-Director (2018)

Sustainable natural resources production and use



the local challenges and risks global effects at operation and value chain level

The climate emergency and associated transition Page 3

Minerals

Energy

Environment (air, water, land)

Life cycle assessment : principles and applications

Page 4

Outline  Life Cycle thinking and concepts  Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)  Framework  Methodology  Examples

Page 5

Life Cycle thinking Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) seeks to identify possible improvements to goods and services in the form of lower environmental impacts and reduced use of resources across all life cycle stages. The key aim of Life Cycle Thinking is to avoid burden shifting from one life cycle stage to another, from one geographic area to another and from one environmental medium to another.

Page 6 European Union, 2010

Life Cycle thinking Taking a life cycle perspective requires a policy developer, environmental manager or product designer to look beyond their own knowledge and in-house data. It requires cooperation up and down the supply chain. At the same time, it also provides an opportunity to use the knowledge that has been gathered to gain significant economic advantages. 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an analytical tool for the systematic evaluation of the environmental aspects of a product or service system through all stages of its life cycle.

Case study – materials in products: Wind turbines

Page 7

As a wind turbine itself emits no CO2 while in use, the only carbon dioxide created is in the manufacture of the materials and the maintenance and disposal stages. Emissions may be further reduced through the use of recycled materials.

Life Cycle Thinking TIMELINE 1963: Early studies known as Resource and Environmental Profile Analyses (REPA). 1969: First comparative multi- criteria environmental study for Coca Cola - became basis for the current method for life cycle studies. 1991: The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) develops the Impact Assessment method for LCA. 1992: First European scheme on Ecolabels, established by the European Commission; World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) founded by industry to address sustainability. 1995: SETAC develops Code of Practice for Life Cycle Assessment; first Life Cycle Assessment on a car – VW Golf. 1996: International Organization for Standardization (ISO) launches first standards on Life Cycle Assessment. 2001: European Commission releases Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy (IPP) building on Life Cycle Thinking. 2002: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) / SETAC Life Cycle Initiative launched. Page 8

Life Cycle Thinking TIMELINE 2003: European Commission Communication on Integrated Product Policy 2005: European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment established at the European Commission; EU Thematic Strategies on the prevention and recycling of waste and the sustainable use of natural resources published. 2006: First version of the Commission’s European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD) goes online. 2007: Start of development of International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. 2008: European Commission launches Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan. First public specification for carbon footprinting published (British PAS2050). 2009: ISO initiates development of first international standard for product carbon footprinting; the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) start drafting a Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol Product / Supply Chain Standard and life cycle based Scope 3 Corporate Standard. Page 9

Life Cycle Assessment definition

Life Cycle Assessment is an objective process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment, and to evaluate and implement opportunities to affect environmental improvements. (SETAC, 1990) Page 10

Key objectives of LCA 

Identify and quantify the environmental loads involved; e.g. the energy and raw materials consumed, the emissions and wastes generated  System-wide examination  Multi-media approach (air, water, solid waste)



Evaluate the potential environmental impacts of these loads



Assess the options available for reducing these environmental impacts  Identify trade-offs among alternatives  Identify opportunities to improve systems



Support environmental decision making

Page 11

Life Cycle and related standards BS EN ISO 14040:2006

Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Principles and framework

BS EN ISO 14044:2006

Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines

PD ISO/TR 14047:2012

Environmental management. Life cycle impact assessment. Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to impact assessment situations

DD ISO/TS 14048:2002

Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Data documentation format.

PD ISO/TR 14049:2012

Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis

Page 12

Life Cycle and related standards ISO/TR 14062:

Eco Design - organisation, planning, tools and the design development scheme for the integration of environmental aspects into the product design and development process.

ISO 14063:

Environmental Communication – guidance on general principles, policy, strategy and activities relating to both internal and external environmental communication

PAS2050:2008

Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services

Page 13

Why LCA is important 

Need an integrated tool to avoid problem shifting to 

other life cycle stages



other substances



other environmental compartments



other countries



the future Think for 5 minutes:

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF A EUROPEAN CAR TIRE What should the analysis include?

Why LCA is important 

Need an integrated too to avoid problem shifting to 

other life cycle stages



other substances



other environmental compartments



other countries



the future

Prè Consultants B.V. on behalf of BLIC, 2001

THE BIRTH OF A TYRE

Page 16

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSEMENT OF AN AVERAGE EUROPEAN PASSENGER CAR TIRE

Page 17

Why LCA is important 

Need a method to 

structure the large amount of complex data



facilitate comparisons across product alternatives



enable benchmarking weight

30 g

540 g

182 g

Hg content

0 mg

2 mg

Think for 5 minutes:

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF A LIGHT BULB What should the analysis include?

Infographic by Jill Fehrenbacher

LCA phases

Page 19

LCA phases 

Goal and Scope Definition Goal definition  



Page 20

identify the decision context, intended application (product development and improvement, strategic planning, public decision making, marketing, other, identify the audience.

LCA phases 

Goal and Scope Definition Scope definition 

Describe the system to be studied, the functions of the system, the functional basis for comparison and the required level of detail.

The functional unit is a measure of the function of the studied system and it provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be related.

Comparison on the basis of an equivalent function (1,000 liters of milk packed in glass, plastic bottles or packed in carton, instead of 1 glass bottle versus 1 carton)

Page 21

LCA phases 

Goal and Scope Definition Scope definition also defines

Page 22



the life stages to be covered,



the impacts to be investigated,



the impact assessment methods to be applied,



the interpretation methods to be used,



the assumptions made about data and method issues,



value choices, limitations, data quality requirements,



type of critical review and



format of the report required. © Imperial College London

LCA phases

Page 23

LCA phases 

Inventory Analysis is the LCA phase involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs for a given product system throughout its life cycle. Steps: – preparing for data collection – data compilation

(both described in ISO 14041)

– calculation procedures – allocation and recycling

Page 24

(both described in ISO 14042)

LCA phases 

Impact Assessment, the effects of the resource use and emissions generated are grouped and quantified into a limited number of impact categories (e.g. climate change, acidification, human toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity) which may then be weighted for importance.

Page 25

LCA phases 

Interpretation, the results are reported in the most informative way possible. The need and opportunities to reduce the impact of the product(s) or service(s) on the environment are systematically evaluated. This phase includes completeness, sensitivity and consistency checks and addresses the uncertainty and accuracy of the results. Conclusions are drawn, highlighting any limitations, and recommendations are derived.

Page 26

Think for 10 minutes: You are acting as a consultant for IMPERIAL COLLEGE

IDENTIFY a PRODUCT, PROCESS or ACTIVITY that is used/carried out at the College. Define the goal and scope of the LCA that you propose the College should undertake to improve its environmental performance?

Page 27

LCA, where do we start? Phase 1: Goal and Scope definition

Page 28

LCA, where do we start? Phase 1: Goal and Scope definition

Middle Peak Quarry (SK280-545)

Page 29

Phase 1: Goal and Scope definition Conceptualisation The functional unit is a quantified description of the performance of the product system, which is used as a reference unit. A reference flow is a quantified amount of product(s), including product parts, necessary for a specific product system to deliver the performance described by the functional unit.

Page 30

Environmental Interventions and Economic flows

Page 31

Product system

Inputs

Outputs Nuclear power plant

Unit processes

Page 32

Phase 2: Life Cycle Inventory Analysis Calculation procedures  

relate process data to the functional unit (matrix algebra) allocation of multiple processes (multiple outputs, multiple inputs, re-use and recycling) Inputs?

Page 33

Conventional coal power plant

Outputs?

Phase 2: Life Cycle Inventory Analysis Calculation procedures  

relate process data to the functional unit (matrix algebra) allocation of multiple processes (multiple outputs, multiple inputs, re-use and recycling) Coal Water Air Limestone ….



Page 34

Conventional coal power plant

Electricity Heat Steam Fly ash CO2 Gypsum PM …..

aggregation over all unit processes in the inventory table © Imperial College London

Phase 2: Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

What are the environmental effects of differect emissions?

Page 35

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment 

Selection and definition of impact categories, indicators and models



Classification



Characterisation



Normalisation



Aggregation and / or weighting

Page 36

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Baseline categories:  Depletion of abiotic resources  Impact of land use  Climate change  Human toxicity  Ecotoxicity freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity marine aquatic ecotoxicity terrestrial ecotoxicity  Photo-oxidant formation  Acidification  Eutrophication

Page 37

Guinee JB(ed.) 2001.Life Cycle Assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Simple conversion and aggregation: IndicatorResultcat =

åCharFactcat,subs ´ InventoryResultsubs

subs

climate change 89 kg CO2-eq

GWP (1 and 28) infrared radiative forcing

IPCC climate model

GWP values and lifetimes from IPCC AR5 (2014)

Page 38

5 and 3 kg

CO2, CH4, …

GWP time horizon 20 years

100 years

Lifetime

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4)

12.4 12.4

Fossil methane

Nitrous oxide (N2O)

264

265

121

Carbon tetrafluoride (CF4)

4,880

6,630

50,000

Imperial College London 1,1-Difluoroethane©(HFC-152a)

506

138

1.5

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The indicator concept according to ISO 14042

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Example impact categories, characterisation models, factors and units Impact category

Indicator

Characterisation model

Characterisation factor

Equivalency unit

Abiotic depletion

Ultimate reserve/ annual use

Guinee & Heijungs 95

Abiotic depletion potential

kg Sb eq.

Climate change

Infrared radiative forcing

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Global warming potential

kg CO2 eq.

Stratospheric ozone depletion

Stratospheric ozone breakdown

World Meteorological Organization model

Stratospheric ozone layer depletion potential

kg CFC-11eq.

Human toxicity

Predicted daily intake, Accepted daily intake

EUSES, California Toxicology Model

Human toxicity potential

kg 1,4-DCB eq.

EUSES, California Toxicology Model

AETP, TETP, etc.

kg 1,4-DCB eq.

Ecological toxicity

PEC, PNEC

Photo-oxidant smog formation

Tropospheric ozone production

UN-ECE trajectory model

Photo-oxidant chemical potential

kg C2H6 eq.

Acidification

Deposition/ critical load

Regional Acidification Information & Simulation

Acidification potential

kg SO2 eq.

. ..

Page 40

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Page 41

Impact category

Incandescent lamp

Fluorescent lamp

Climate change

120000 kg CO2-eq.

40000 kg CO2-eq.

Ecotoxicity

320 kg DCB-eq.

440 kg DCB-eq.

Acidification

45 kg SO2-eq.

21 kg SO2-eq.

Depletion of resources

0.8 kg antimony-eq.

0.3 kg antimony-eq.

etc

… © Imperial College London

Results still … difficult to understand, •

difference in scale

•

difference in units

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Normalisation relates the results to a reference value, for example, total world impacts in 2002. Result is often referred to as the normalised environmental profile. NormalizedIndicatorResultcat =

Page 42

IndicatorResultcat ReferenceValuecat

Impact category

Incandescent lamp

Fluorescent lamp

Climate change

1.2´10-11 yr

4´10-12 yr

Ecotoxicity

1.6´10-10 yr

2.2´10-10 yr

Acidification

9´10-11 yr

4.2´10-11 yr

Depletion of resources

24´10-12 yr

9´10-13 yr

etc

…

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment Even after normalisation, there is no clear answer  

aggregation of (normalised) impact category results into a single index subjective weighting factors increase the priority given to impact categories we think are important, and decrease the priority given to those we think are unimportant

Example of the results of weighting

Page 43

Weighed index

Incandescent lamp

Fluorescent lamp

Weighted index

8.5´10-10 yr

1.4´10-10 yr

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Page 44

Mandatory and Optional elements of LCIA according to ISO 14042

Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment

UNEP, 2003

IMPACT2002+, Udo de Haes, et al., CML

Page 45

Phase 4: Interpretation Conclusions, recommendations, analysis 

All relate to the goal and scope of the research



Interpretation should be based on an evaluation of data



Quality and sensitivity analysis



Should include review by independent experts

Page 46

LCA of paper vs. polyethylene (LDPE) bag Eco-indicator 99 methodology endpoint approach

Example of characterisation step for a small inventory table. Emissions are multiplied by the corresponding weighting factor before they being summed per class. The results are the effect scores. Emission

Quantity (kg)

Greenhouse

Ozone layer depletion

Human toxicity

Acidification

CO2

1.792

0.000670

x 0.012

NOx

0.001091

x 0.78

x 0.7

SO2

0.000987

x 1.2

1.792

0.00204

0.0017

Effect scores: Page 47

LCA of paper vs. polyethylene (LDPE) bag The interpretation of these scores may be less confusing than interpretation of a substance list, but is by no means without problems. If all the scores for one product are higher than those for another, it is easy enough to conclude which is the more environmentally friendly. But if one has a higher score for acidification, while the other has a higher score for the greenhouse effect it becomes difficult to justify such a conclusion. Interpretation depends on two factors:  The relative size of the effect compared to the size of the other effects. In this example it is important to see whether the ecotoxicity score of 100% refers to a very high or an extremely low effect level. This is normalisation  The relative importance attached to the various environmental effects. This is evaluation. Page 48

LCA of paper vs. polyethylene (LDPE) bag In order to gain a better understanding of the relative size of an effect, a normalisation step is required. Each effect calculated for the life cycle of a product is benchmarked against the known total effect for this class. For example, the Eco-indicator method normalises with effects caused by the average European during a year.

Normalisation enables you to see the relative contribution from the material production to each already existing effect. Normalization considerably improves our insight into the results. However, no final judgment can be made as not all effects are considered to be of equal importance. Page 49

LCA of paper vs. polyethylene (LDPE) bag In the evaluation phase the normalised effect scores are multiplied by a weighting factor representing the relative importance of the effect.

The length of the columns actually represents the seriousness of the effects. This makes it possible to add the columns to calculate a final result. Page 50

LCA of aggregates Phase 1: Scope of study Product systems and system boundaries 

the land won primary aggregates system including 

the hard rock primary aggregates system;



the sand and gravel primary aggregates system;



the marine aggregates system;



the recycled aggregates system; and



the product distribution system.

Page 51

LCA of aggregates Phase 1: Scope of study Declared Unit As the scope of the study does not extend to different uses or comparison of different aggregates in a particular use, the current study is based not on function but on a Declared Unit (ISO21930:2007). 



Page 52

Declared unit: a unit mass of aggregate produced (one tonne of material). The LCA indicator results reported in this study are allocated per tonne of aggregate (declared unit) and per tonne of individual product size/type.

Korre A. and Durucan S., 2010 Life Cycle Assessment of Aggregates. EVA025 –Final Report: Aggregates Industry Life Cycle Assessment Model: Modelling Tools and Case Studies (http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/eva025-miro-life-cycleassessment-aggregates-final-report)

LCA of aggregates Phase 1: Scope of study

Page 53

LCA of aggregates Phase 2: Inventory analysis

Page 55

LCA of aggregates Phase 2: Inventory analysis

Page 56

LCA of aggregates Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment GWP indicator scores for a crushed rock aggregate site per tonne of aggregate produced

Page 57

LCA of aggregates Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment GWP indicator scores for a land won sand and gravel site per tonne of aggregate produced.

Page 58

LCA of aggregates Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment GWP indicator scores for a marine sand and gravel operation per tonne of aggregate produced

Page 59

LCA of aggregates Phase 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment GWP indicator scores for a recycled sand and gravel per tonne of aggregate produced.

Page 60

How can we establish multiple product LCA impacts?

Page 61

Crushed rock aggregates system example: Range of impact assessment results

Impact Category Units Global Warming kg CO2 eq Eutrophication kg PO4 eq Acidification kg SO2 eq Photo-oxidant formation kg ethylene eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq. Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq. Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq. Ozone layer depletion kg R11 eq.

Product category A Product category B Subbase, capping layers, crusher 28 mm, 20 mm, 14 mm, 10 mm runs, agricultural lime, scalping, 8040 mm, 150 mm, 125 mm, 40 mm, dust 6mm, dust 3mm 0.51-1.35

2.43-4.14

3.05X10-4-5.65X10-4

8.24X10-4-1.31X10-3

3.28X10-3-8.41X10-3

1.39X10-2-2.38X10-2

2.89X10-4-6.27X10-4

8.95X10-4-1.51X10-3

0.22-0.35

0.44-0.63

4.35X10-3-7.26X10-3

7.23X10-3-1.14X10-2

74.79-141.46

1.81x103-3.20x103

1.94X10-3-3.26X10-3

3.31X10-3-5.26X10-3

4.32X10-8-1.68X10-7

3.24X10-7-5.76X10-7

Recycled aggregates system example: Range of impact assessment results Impact Category Units Global Warming kg CO2 eq Eutrophication kg PO4 eq Acidification kg SO2 eq Photo-oxidant formation kg ethylene eq Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq. Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq. Terrestrial Ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq. Ozone layer depletion kg R11 eq. Page 63

Impact range 0.5581 – 5.7384 0.0042 – 0.0056 0.0389 – 0.0674 0.0056 – 0.0072 0.6606– 1.0356 0.0622 – 0.0700 969.9210 – 1221.2508 0.0275 – 0.0311 1.04x10-7 – 8.58x10-7

LCA of aggregates Phase 4: Interpretation The most significant findings of this study were that 



Page 64

Primary and recycled aggregates GWP life cycle emissions are comparable, except for marine aggregates that have significantly higher impacts. Impacts quoted as averages for the whole primary or recycled aggregates site (per tonne of aggregate produced) are not representative of the impacts associated with the individual products and should not be used to assess individual product eco-profiles.

Life Cycle Analysis Allocation In many process more than one product is produced. In such cases it is necessary to divide the environmental impacts from the process between the products.

Allocation is the appropriate distribution of responsibility for resource consumption, emissions and wastes from processes.

Product 1

SYSTEM

Product 2

Raw materials Waste Page 65

Emissions

Allocation Guidelines l

Page 66

The following methods for either performing or avoiding allocation: 1.

avoid allocation by using substitution methods,

avoid allocation by expanding the function studied to include the co-product,

perform allocation by economic value/ energy content/ mass.

Allocation by Economic Value EI = indirect environmental impact

$ ×' !" = %

Economic Proportion

Environmental Impact the unallocated flow

the quantitative share of flows to be associated with each unit of product

divides the unit parameter of the co-product j, wj (e.g., mass per unit), for the chosen allocation method by the product of the number of units (m) and the unit parameters for all n co-products (with the sum indexed by k).

Page 67

Allocation Example Emissions ( 12 kg CO2) Heat (70 MJ)

Electricity (30 MJ)

Coal ( 100 MJ)

What is the carbon footprint of electricity?

Page 68

Example: Coal power station

Allocation Example

80 MJ of heat required as input, results to 4kg CO2 emission

Emissions (12 kg CO2)

Raw materials (10 kg CO2)

Heat (70 MJ) Coal (100 MJ)

Product

Electricity (30 MJ)

In this scenario, the system incudes the customer of the heat in what is known as reference system

Page 69

Waste

Example: Coal power station – Reference system

Allocation Example Emissions ( 0.5kg CO2)

Emissions (12 kg CO2)

Raw materials (10 kg CO2) + gas for 10 MJ of heat

Heat (70 MJ) Product

Coal (100 MJ) Electricity (30 MJ)

Page 70

Waste

Example: Coal power station – Expanded system boundary

Allocation Example - Environmental Burdens CO2 footprint (kg)

Page 71

Output

Power station alone

Heat (70 MJ) + Electricity (30 MJ)

Reference system

12 + 4 + 10 = 26

Electricity (30 MJ) + Product + Heat

Expanded system

12 + 0.5 + 10 = 22.5

Electricity (30 MJ) + Product

Allocation Example The net effect of effect of expanding the system boundary, and comparing with a reference system is allocation by substitution. The power station produced 70 MJ of heat, which displaced 70 MJ of heat from natural gas used in the factory. In this example the CO2 footprint produced in the factory by burning gas used is 3.5/70 = 0.05 kg CO2 per MJ. The CO2 footprint of the electricity produced = 12 – CO2 saved by displacing 70 MJ of gas = 12 – (0.05 * 70) = 8.5 kg Remember: Allocation by substitution gives a credit equal to the environmental burden saved by displacing some other product in the market (equal to the burden associated with displaced product). Page 72

Tutorial- Biodiesel The tutorial utilises the EWF nexus philosophy and LCA methodology to evaluate biofuel production: Negative environmental consequences of fossil fuels and the concern about petroleum supplies has driven the exploration of biofuels for use in transportation.

For biofuel to be considered as a viable alternative, it should provide a net energy gain, be economically competitive, minimise environmental degradation and have no impact on food supplies.

It is necessary to determine whether the alternative fuels provide benefits over the fossil fuels they displace. To do so there needs to be thorough accounting of the direct and indirect inputs and outputs for the full production of fuels and their life cycle.

Page 73

Types of Biofuel “Conventional” (or first generation) biofuels: l

Biodiesel from rapeseed (RME), soybeans (SME), sunflowers, coconuts, and recycled cooking oils,

Pure plant oil (sometime called straight vegetable oil, SVO) from rapeseed,

Bioethanol (E100, E85, E10, ethyl tetrabutyl ether or ETBE).

“Advanced” (or second generation) biofuels:

Page 74

Bioethanol (E100, E85,E10,ETBE) from lignocellulosic biomass,

Fischer-Tropsch diesel from lignocellulosic materials,

Dimethyl ether (DME) from lignocellulosic materials.

Biodiesel Lifecycle l

Biofuel production requires energy to grow crops and convert them into biofuels. The lifecycle energy inputs include the energy used to grow the seed planted to produce the crop, powering farming machinery and buildings, producing fertilizers and pesticides.

Co-product Page 75

Biodiesel wider implications l

Must consider the competition for land between food crops and energy crops,

How important are the co-products in the LCA results of biodiesel?

In addition it is important to consider the wide ranging environmental impact: l l

l l

Page 76

large scale chemical and nutrient loading into surface and ground water, competing water use from multiple sources (urban development, power, food), the result is damage to aquatic systems and depletion of water reserves, atmospheric emissions from the variety of processes leading up to biodiesel production. © Imperial College London

LCA resources and networks European Platform on LCA http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu. The site includes links to the ILCD Handbook, ILCD Data Network, life cycle related policy activities, the LCA Resources Directory and ELCD database: UNEP / SETAC Life Cycle Initiative http://lcinitiative.unep.fr. Danish LCA Centre http://www.lca-center.dk German Network on LCI Data : http://www.lci-network.de Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society and National LCA database http://www.alcas.asn.au/ American Center for LCA; US EPA Life Cycle Assessment Research; NREL US LCI database http://www.lcacenter.org http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/lcaccess/index.html http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/ Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (JEMAI) and National LCA database http://www.jemai.or.jp/ english/index.cfm; China National Institute for Standardisation (CNIS) and National LCA database: http://www.sac.gov.cn/templet/english/ShowArticle.jsp?id=2789 Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (IBICT) and National LCA database http://www.ibict.br Thai National Metals and Materials Technology Centre and National LCA database http://www.mtec.or.th/th/index.asp Malaysian National LCA database project : http://www.lcamalaysia.com/

LCA resources and networks Journals International Journal of LCA http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/lca/startseite Journal of Industrial Ecology : http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118902538/home Journal of Cleaner Production http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30440/description#description Additional references Durucan, S. Korre, A. and Munoz-Melendez, G., ‘Mining Life Cycle modelling: A cradle to gate approach to environmental management in the minerals industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Volume 14, 2006, pp. 1057-1070. Nie Z. Life Cycle Modelling of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage in Energy Production. PhD thesis, Imperial College London; 2009. Korre, A., Nie, Z.G., Durucan, S., 2010. Life cycle modelling of fossil fuel power generation with post-combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4: 289-300. Nie, Z., Korre, A. and Durucan, S., 2011. Life cycle modelling and comparative assessment of the environmental impacts of oxy-fuel and post-combustion CO2 capture, transport and injection processes. Energy Procedia, 4: 2510-2517. A. Korre, Z. Nie and S. Durucan, 2012, Life cycle assessment of the natural gas supply chain and power generation options with CO2 capture and storage: Assessment of Qatar natural gas production, LNG transport and power generation in the UK, Sustainable Technologies, Systems and Policies, CCS Workshop, Texas A&M University, Qatar, April 2012, 11p. Nie Z, Korre A, Durucan S, 2013, Full Chain Analysis and Comparison of Gas-Fired Power Plants with CO2 Capture and Storage with Clean Coal Alternatives, Energy Procedia, Vol:37, ISSN:1876-6102, Pages:2840-2847 Postnote 383, Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation. UK Houses of Parliament, The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; 2011. (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricitygeneration.pdf)

Further reading 



Al-Ansari, T., Korre, A., Nie, Z. and Shah, N. 2015. Development of a life cycle assessment tool for the assessment of food production systems within the energy, water and food nexus. Sustainable Production and Consumption. Al-Ansari, T., Korre, A., Shah, N.,"Integrated modelling of the energy, water and food nexus to enhance the environmental performance of food production systems" Huizenga, D. (Ed.) (9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014).



Al-Ansari, T., Korre, A., Nie, Z., Shah, N., "Development of a life cycle assessment model for the analysis of the energy, water and food nexus" Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 33, (2014), 1039-1044.



Page 79

Brander, M. and Wylie, C. 2011, The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment, Greenhouse gas measurement and management, 1, 161-166. Larson, E. D. 2006, A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector. energy for sustainable development, 10, 109-126. Stephenson, A., Dennis, J. & Scott, S. 2008, Improving the sustainability of the production of biodiesel from oilseed rape in the UK. Process safety and environmental protection, 86, 427-440.

Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Assessment Framework (ISO14040) Phase 1

Phase 4

Goal and Scope definition Direct applications

Phase 2 Inventory Analysis

Interpretation

• • • •

Product development Strategic planning Policy making Marketing

Phase 3 Impact Assessment

Page 80

Approaches for life cycle inventory analysis Published emission factors Equipment manufacturer emission factors Engineering calculations* Process simulation or other computer modelling Emissions monitoring over a range of conditions and deriving emission factors Periodic or continuous monitoring of emissions or parameters for calculating emissions

Improved accuracy Additional data requirements Higher cost

*: Engineering calculations are based on basic chemical or physical principles of a process, considering operational parameters. © Imperial College London

Page 81

The automotive Li-ion battery value chain

Page 82

The battery market Electric mobility

Energy storage

2018

2020

Consumer electronics

Battery demand in GWh

3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

2025

2030

Demand for batteries is set to increase 9-fold by 2030 primarily driven by electric mobility World Economic Forum; McKinsey ID 1103218 © Imperial College London

Page 83

Battery value chain

The life and death of a battery

R. Schmuch, R. Wagner, G. Hörpel, T. Placke and M. Winter, Nature Energy, 2018, 3, 267–278.

Page 84

Battery types in the automotive sector NCA

LMO

NMC 9.5.5

NMC 811

NMC 622

NMC 111

100% 21%

Demand share

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

40%

38%

25%

30% 8% 8% 33%

2017

23%

32%

35%

2% 1%

26%

24%

1% 14%

2020

2025

2030

37%

The N MC family of chemistries d ominate in the near-term Europe McKinsey ID 1039856

Page 85

Assessing the life cycle environmental performance – issues addressed LIB production  Impact of Chinese dominance  Environmental implications of high Ni cathodes and Si-including anodes LIB utilisation in EVs  Arbitrarily defined battery lifetime in LCA studies  Most focus on LIB production costs, less in Total Cost of Ownership LIB recycling  Representation of full EoL treatment chain missing  Focus on cell level, neglecting materials recovery from the pack © Imperial College London

Page 86

Process system boundaries

Page 87

Li-ion battery production system Mixing

Sheet rolling - Al Sheet rolling - Cu Mixing

4% 4%

Cathode Production Anode Production Separator Production Electrolyte Production

32% 60%

Battery Pack

Calcination

Battery Cells Production

Co-precipitation

Container Production Packaging Production

Battery Cells

Packaging

BMS

Cooling System

Cooling System Production BMS Production

Cradle-to-gate system for the production of a 253 kg battery pack, accounting for raw material extraction, processing, component manufacturing and battery pack assembly. E. Kallitsis, A. Korre, G. Kelsall, M. Kupfersberger and Z. Nie, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 254, 120067. © Imperial College London

Page 88

Model setup Inventory modelling in GaBi

Page 89

Producing a battery in China 280

GWP (kg CO2-eq kWh-1)

240 200

40%

160 120 80 40 0

BC G Ma jea u-B ettez Amara koon et Dai et al. Ellingsen et al. Kim et al. (2016) South et al. (2011) al. (2013) (2019) (2014) South Korea Korea/Norway Eur ope United States United States South Korea/Norway

Hao et al. (2017) China

Yu et al. (2018) China

Xiong et al. (2019) China

Qia o et al. (2019) China

BS L China

The carbon footprint of producing a battery pack in China is 40% higher than in South Korea E. Kallitsis, A. Korre, G. Kelsall, M. Kupfersberger and Z. Nie, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 254, 120067. © Imperial College London

Page 90

Impact of SiGr anodes Impact of Production

Functional Unit Battery Capacity pack / kWh

Baseline Scenario GWP100 kg CO 2-eq FDP kg oil-eq ODP kg CFC-11-eq POFP kg NMVOC kg PM10-eq PMFP TAP100 kg SO2-eq FEP kg P-eq kg N-eq MEP FETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq METPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq TETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq HTPinf MDP kg Fe-eq

6980 1660 1.75 10-4 31.8 29.8 83 9 2.35 481.0 457.0 3 18600 3970

262.4 62.4 6.58 10-6 1.20 1.12 3.1 0.34 8.83 10-2 18.1 17.2 0.129 699.2 149.2

NMC333-SiGr kg CO 2-eq GWP100 kg oil-eq FDP ODP kg CFC-11-eq POFP kg NMVOC PMFP kg PM10-eq kg SO2-eq TAP100 FEP kg P-eq MEP kg N-eq FETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq METPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq TETPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq HTPinf kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg Fe-eq MDP

7350 1740 2.03 10-4 33.2 31.8 91.0 9.18 2.50 515 485 3.48 18800 4330

179.7 42.5 4.96 10-6 0.81 0.78 2.2 0.22 6.11 10-2 12.6 11.9 8.51 10-2 459.7 105.9

Contribution Analysis

0% Primary aluminium production Mang anese s ulphate p ro ductio n MDP Electronics grade silicon Oth er processes Electricity for cell man ufactu ring

20%

40%

Secon dary aluminium produ ction Cobalt s ulfate produ ction Printed wiring b oard production Heat for co-precipitation

60%

80%

•

Introducing silicon in the anode primarily increases the ODP by 16% and TAP100 by 10% with the remaining impact categories increasing by less than 10%

•

The 54% increase in the battery’s capacity causes significant reductions of 29% to 34% across all impact categories on a kWh basis

100%

Copper production Nickel s ulfate produ ction Electronic compon en t produ ction Electricity for calcinatio n

E. Kallitsis, A. Korre, G. Kelsall, M. Kupfersberger and Z. Nie, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 254, 120067.

Page 91

Impact of Ni-rich cathodes Impact of Production

Functional Unit Battery Capacity pack / kWh

Contribution Analysis

NMC333-SiGr GWP100 FDP ODP POFP PMFP TAP100 FEP MEP FETPinf METPinf TETPinf HTPinf MDP

kg CO 2-eq kg oil-eq kg CFC-11-eq kg NMVOC kg PM10-eq kg SO2-eq kg P-eq kg N-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg Fe-eq

7350 1740 2.03 10-4 33.2 31.8 91.0 9.18 2.50 515 485 3.48 18800 4330

179.7 42.5 4.96 10-6 0.81 0.78 2.2 0.22 6.11 10-2 12.6 11.9 8.51 10-2 459.7 105.9

7400 1760 2.08 10-4 35.6 37.5 119 9.50 2.52 545 513 3.61 19400 4150

160.2 38.1 4.5 10-6 0.77 0.81 2.6 0.21 5.45 10-2 11.8 11.1 7.81 10-2 419.9 89.8

NMC622-SiGr GWP100 FDP ODP POFP PMFP TAP100 FEP MEP FETPinf METPinf TETPinf HTPinf MDP

kg CO 2-eq kg oil-eq kg CFC-11-eq kg NMVOC kg PM10-eq kg SO2-eq kg P-eq kg N-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg 1,4-DCB-eq kg Fe-eq

Primary aluminium production Mang anese s ulphate p ro ductio n MDP Electronics grade silicon Oth er processes Electricity for cell man ufactu ring

20%

0% 20% Secon dary aluminium produ ction Cobalt s ulfate produ ction Printed wiring b oard production Heat for co-precipitation

40%

60%

80%

•

Doubling the nickel content of the cathode primarily increases the PMFP by 18% and TAP100 by 30% with the remaining impact categories increasing by less than 7%

•

The 13% increase in the battery’s capacity causes reductions of ~10% across all impact categories, except from PMFP and TAP100

100%

40% 60% 80% 100% Copper production Nickel s ulfate produ ction Electronic compon en t produ ction Electricity for calcinatio n

E. Kallitsis, A. Korre, G. Kelsall, M. Kupfersberger and Z. Nie, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 254, 120067.

Page 92

Reducing the GHG intensity of battery manufacturing “Manufacturing NMC batteries on the Giga-scale consumes 30 to 50 kWh of energy per kWh cells produced” Kallitsis, E., 2022. On the energy use of battery Gigafactories. Journal of Cleaner Production, p.132573.

Kallitsis, E., Lander, L., Edge, J., Bravo Diaz, L., Brown, A., Kelsall, G., Offer, G. and Korre, A., 2022. Safe and sustainable lithium-ion batteries.

Page 93

Li-ion battery use in Electric Vehicles

Model development

L. Lander*, E. Kallitsis*, A. Hales, J. S. Edge, A. Korre and G. Offer, Applied Energy, 2021, 289, 116737. © Imperial College London

Page 94

Battery lifetime Battery capacity (kWh)

Air cooling Surface cooling Tab cooling Immersion cooling

26 24 22

EoL

20 18 16

500

1000

1500

2000

TMS

Tmax (0C)

FECs

Dkm (km)

Air

1,307

174,646

Tab

1,781

238,007

Surface

2,233

298,428

Immersion 25

2,257

301,686

2500

Full Equivalent Cycles (FECs) L. Lander*, E. Kallitsis*, A. Hales, J. S. Edge, A. Korre and G. Offer, Applied Energy, 2021, 289, 116737.

Page 95

Life cycle cost and carbon footprint 0.15

0.25 Battery Electricity

Vehicle Maintenance

Battery Vehicle

Electricity Maintenance

0.2

LCC ($ km-1)

GWP (kg CO2-eq km-1)

0.12 0.09 0.06

0.15 0.1

0.03

0.05

led led led led oo oo oo oo c c c c r e b n Ai io Ta fac ers Sur m Im

led led led led oo oo oo oo c c c c r e Ai ion Ta b fac ers Sur m Im

GWP and LCC reduced by a quarter through more efficient TMS L. Lander*, E. Kallitsis*, A. Hales, J. S. Edge, A. Korre and G. Offer, Applied Energy, 2021, 289, 116737. © Imperial College London

Page 96

Li-ion battery recycling EoL recycling product system Battery cell treatment

Collection & Sorting

Dismantling

Discharging

Hydrometallurgical treatment Al

Packaging, TMS & BMS

Shredding and sorting

Al scrap preparation

Melting & casting

Steel scrap preparation

Melting & casting

Electrolytic refining

• Compile a LCA model for EoL treatment of automotive battery packs, from collection to materials recovery

Page 97

EoL modelling approach Battery production

EoL recycling

Use in EVs

Recovered materials displace primary materials Recovered material Avoided material

Al Primary Al ingot

Cu Primary Cu

Steel Low-alloyed steel

CoSO4

NiSO4

MnSO4

LiOH

Al 17.3%

Cu 10.1%

Waste 48%

Steel 11.4%

Page 98

Environmental burden of battery recycling

Kallitsis, E., Korre, A. and Kelsall, G.H., 2022. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, p.133636. © Imperial College London

Page 99

Environmental benefit of battery recycling

Kallitsis, E., Korre, A. and Kelsall, G.H., 2022. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, p.133636. © Imperial College London

Page 100

Geographic specificity

Hydrometallurgical recycling results in 31% decrease on production footprint in China; net reduction for Europe 17% Kallitsis, E., Korre, A. and Kelsall, G.H., 2022. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, p.133636. © Imperial College London

Page 101

Some takeaways Battery production in China comes at a high environmental cost e.g. 40 % higher GWP than South Korea/Europe. Novel electrode chemistries come with an environmental benefit due to improved energy densities. Improvements in energy density, upscaling and decarbonisation of the supply chain consist the key factors reducing the GHG intensity of battery production. Implementing efficient thermal management reduces life cycle cost and carbon footprint of EVs by a quarter due to improved lifetimes. Recovering materials from battery packs mitigates the production footprint by more than 35% across 11 out of 13 impact categories considered. © Imperial College London

Page 102

Value chain and Life Cycle Assessment

Wu, Z., Wang, M., Zheng, J., Sun, X., Zhao, M. and Wang, X., 2018. Life cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction potential of battery electric vehicle. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, pp.462-470. 



Using lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles shifts the burden upstream and downstream of the value chain. Environmental impact categories beyond GHGs become very relevant. © Imperial College London

Page 103

Li-production life cycle analysis

1. Brine is pumped to the surface via an extensive network of wells under the crust of the Salar. 2. Subsequently, brines from individual wells are blended via a very large network of surface pipes and poured into a sequence of large and shallow open-air evaporation ponds

3. At the first brine ponds, potassium chloride is precipitated after approximately 6 to 9 months of evaporation. Then transported by truck to another site. 4. A further period of evaporation (approximately 4-5 months) in a second set of ponds produces lithium concentrations of approximately 6%. © Imperial College London

5. After each set of evaporation pools, solutions are reinjected in the Salar.

Page 104