SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING – Unit 3

Fundamentals of Life Cycle Assessment

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 1

 What is Life Cycle Assessment
• LCA started in early 1970s initially to investigate the energy requirements for different
processes

• Emissions and raw materials were added later

• LCAs are considered to be most comprehensive approach for assessing environmental

impact

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 2

 Life Cycle Analysis replaced by
Life Cycle Inventory
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Cradle to grave Analysis
Eco balancing
Material flow analysis

All these terms mean the

same
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 3
Who uses LCA
LCA assists to
• Identify opportunities to improve the environmental
aspects of products at various points in their life cycle;

• Decision making in industry, governmental or non-

governmental organizations (e.g. strategic planning,
priority setting, product and process design or
redesign);

• Selection of relevant indicators of environmental

performance, including measurement techniques; and

• Marketing (e.g., an environmental claim, eco-labeling

scheme or environmental product declarations)
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 4
EPD full form: Environmental Product Declaration
 When use Life Cycle Assessment
An effective LCA allows analysts to:

• Calculate a products environmental impact (Ecological foot

print)

• Identify the positive or negative environmental impact of a

process or product

• Find opportunities for process and product improvement

• Compare and analyse several processes based on their

environmental impacts

• Quantitatively justify a change in a process in a product

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 5

What LCA Measures: Not the Social/Financial only Environmental impact

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 6

 Life Cycle Assessment

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) aims to quantify the

environmental impacts that arise from material inputs
and outputs, such as energy use or air emissions, over a
product’s entire life cycle to assist consumers in making
decisions that will benefit the environment. LCA is
typically a "cradle-to-grave" approach, which begins
with the gathering of raw materials from the earth to
create the product and ends at the point when all
materials are returned to the earth.

The goal of LCA is to:

• Quantify or otherwise characterize all the inputs and

outputs over a product’s life cycle
• Specify the potential environmental impacts of these
material flows
• Consider alternative approaches that change those
impacts for the better
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 7
 Components of Life Cycle Assessment/Methodology
1. Goal & Scope Definition
• The basis and scope of the evaluation are defined
2. Inventory Analysis (LCI)
• Create a process tree in which all processes from raw
material extraction through wastewater treatment
are mapped out and connected and mass and energy
balances are closed (all emissions and consumptions
are accounted for).
3. Impact Assessment (LCIA)
• Emissions and consumptions are translated into
environmental effects. They are environmental
effects are grouped and weighted.
4. Interpretation
• Areas for improvement are identified.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 8

 1. Goal & Scope Definition

The goal of an LCA shall unambiguously state:

◦ the intended application
◦ the reasons for carrying out the study
. comparing alternatives
. identifying pollution prevention opportunities
. identifying resource conservation opportunities
. planning for recycling
◦ the intended audience and comparative assertion for public intended
discourse
. inside company: managers, engineers, purchasing agents
. outside company: suppliers, customers regulators
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 9
 Scope Definition

LCA is also often used to compare two or more options and evaluate if
one is preferable. These LCAs are designed to inform decisions and are
called a comparative assertion. ISO standards require additional
analysis and care when performing LCAs used to make comparative
assertions to help avoid inaccurate or misleading claims. An example of
a comparative LCA in the building industry is “Which structural system
is preferable: steel, concrete, or wood?”

The goal definition sets the context of the LCA study and is the basis of the
scope definition. The scope of an LCA requires the definition of what is included
in and excluded from the analysis and defines the parameters of the study. ISO
standard 14044 has specific requirements as to what must be included in the
scope definition. The following is a summary of the key items that should be
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 10
defined in an LCA scope as adapted from ISO (2006a):
 LCA Scope

1. The product to be studied.

For a manufactured product such as a disposable cup, the unit might be one
cup. However, one could not compare a disposable cup to reusable cup as they
are not functionally equivalent.

The term “functional unit” defines a unit of analysis that includes quantity,
quality, and duration of the product or service provided.

The choice of the functional unit and their reference flows directly steers the
calculations. The reference flow is the amount of product that is needed to
realize the functional unit.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 11

 LCA Scope
• The functional unit of a coffee cup might then be to deliver 200 ml (quantity) of 80°C liquid with
insulation to be able to be held in hand (quality) up to twice in one day for ten years (duration).

• If an LCA study were based upon the assumption that 3,000 paper cups are used over ten years,
the environmental impacts of one paper cup would be multiplied by 3,000 to compare with the
equivalent single ceramic cup (provided one assumes that a ceramic cup can last that long).

• Assuming a 60-W incandescent lamp with 900 lumens and a lifetime of 1,000 hours and a 15-W
CFL lamp with 900 lumens and 8,500 lifetime hours and if the functional unit is 20 million
lumen hours, then we will be comparing approximately 22 incandescent lamps with 3 CFL
lamps.

• As Hauschild (2018) pointed out, a functional unit involves answering the questions “‘what,’ ‘how
much,’ ‘for how long/how many times,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how well’?” For example, a comparison of
outdoor paints may be based on the functional unit: complete coverage (what) of 1 m2 (how
much) primed outdoor wall (what) for 10 years (for how long) in Mauritius (where) in a uniform
color at 99.9% opacity (how well?).
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 12
 LCA Scope

2. The system boundary.

What is excluded from and included in the analysis (which unit processes are
part of the system studied)

3. Methodological choices.
Including assumptions for multifunctionality and impact assessment and
interpretation methods.

4. Level of detail in the study.

Sources of the data, data-quality requirements, and type of critical review (if
any).

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 13

 Life cycle inventory
1. Construction of the flow model of the technical system on the basis of the
unit process according to the system boundaries decided in the goal and
scope definition. A unit process is the “smallest element considered in the
life cycle inventory analysis for which input and output data are quantified”

2. Planning and data collection for all the activities in the product system A
number of sources are needed to collect data for the LCI. We can
distinguish between primary data (on-site measurements, interviews,
questionnaires or surveys, bookkeeping, and so on) and secondary data
(databases, literature, statistics, industry data reports, specifications, and
best engineering judgment).

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 14

 Life cycle inventory
1. Calculation of the amount of resource use and pollutant emission of the
system in relation to the functional unit. An LCI can be complicated by the
fact that many technical processes produce more than one product, and the
environmental load of such processes has to be allocated or partitioned
between its different products. Handling of multifunctional processes is a
methodological challenge in LCA. The assumption of linear technology is an
important restriction of LCI, although it makes the calculations and data
collection feasible (Curran, 2012).

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 15

 Life cycle impact assessment
1. Selection of impact categories as per the scope definition. In practice, this is
typically done by choosing an already existing LCIA method.

Impact category: Acidification potential • LCI result: 500 kg SO2, 100 kg NOx, 10
kg HNO3 per functional unit

2. Classification of elementary flows from the inventory by assigning them to

impact categories according to their ability to contribute by impacting the
chosen indicator. In practice, this is typically done automatically by LCI
databases and LCA software.

Characterization model: TRACI 2.1 (TRACI is the Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts)
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 16
 Life cycle impact assessment
3. Characterization using environmental models for the impact category to
quantify the ability of each of the assigned elementary flows to impact the
indicator of the category. This is typically done automatically by LCA software.

Category indicator: increase in acidity in the environment (moles H+ )

4. Normalization is used to inform about the relative magnitude of each of the

characterized scores for the different impact categories by expressing them
relative to a common set of reference impact. This is an optional step in the ISO
framework

Characterization factor: potential of each compound to cause acid deposition

(such as acid rain) in relation to that of SO2
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 17
 Life cycle impact assessment
5. Grouping and weighting supports comparison across the impact categories.
This is an optional step in the ISO framework.

Category indicator result: kilograms of SO2-equivalent.

Category endpoints: ecosystem effects such as acidic lakes, corrosion to

buildings, and damage to plants

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 18

 Environmental impact pathway from the LCI results (top) to the endpoint
(bottom) via a number of intermediate variables.

The units of characterization

factors for mid-point impact
categories are specific for each
category and LCIA method.
Two approaches can be identified:
expression in absolute form as the
modeled indicator result or
expression in a relative form as
that emission of a reference
substance for the impact
category, which would lead to the
same level of impact Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 19
 LCAs, including information about which emissions and mechanisms
contribute to the specific environmental degradation

• Ozone depletion potential

• Global warming potential
• Acidification potential
• Eutrophication potential
• Photochemical ozone creation
potential
• Eco-toxicity (freshwater,
marine, terrestrial) potential
• Human toxicity potential
• Abiotic depletion potential
• Land use
• Water use Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 20
 Endpoint impact indicators are chosen further down the cause-effect chain
of the environmental mechanism closer to or at the very endpoint of the
chains or the AoP
• Human Health (expressed as DALY (Disability-
Adjusted Life Years)), which is a unit used by the
WHO.
• Ecosystem quality or natural environment –
expressed as m2 /year or m3 /year potentially
disappeared fraction (PDF), which can be
interpreted as the time and area (or volume)
integrated increase in the disappeared fraction of
species in an ecosystem per unit of midpoint
impact indicator increase. It essentially quantifies
the fraction of all species present in an ecosystem
that potentially disappears over a certain area or
volume and during a certain length of time.
• Natural resources and ecosystem services –focus
on the future costs for extraction of the resource
as a consequence of current depletion and these
divide into costs in the form of energy or exergy
use for future extraction (measured in MJ) or
monetary costs (measured in current currency
such as USD or Euro). Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 21
 Interpretation phase of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA):

Definition: Phase of LCA where findings of inventory analysis or impact assessment are evaluated to reach
conclusions and recommendations.
• Steps:
• Identification of major burdens and impacts.
• Identification of "hotspots" in the life cycle.
• Sensitivity analysis.
• Evaluation of LCA findings and final recommendations.
• Evaluation methods required by ISO (2006a) during interpretation:

• Completeness check:
• Evaluating LCA information and data for missing emissions.
• Requires new data and analysis if items are found to be missing.
• Sensitivity check:
• Evaluating analysis sensitivity to changing assumptions or choices.
• Assessing reliability of final results and conclusions.
• May require obtaining better data for key aspects of LCA.
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 22
Interpretation phase of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA):
• Consistency check:
• Evaluating study to ensure internal consistency.
• Ensuring analysis matches established goal and scope.
• Contribution analysis:
• Determines influence of life cycle stages or process groups.
• Compares contribution to total result and examines relevance.
• Identifies inventory data or impact indicator with the biggest influence.

• Uncertainty and variability in LCA:

• Inherent properties of models, data, assumptions, and choices.
• Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis guide conclusions and appraise robustness.
• Huijbregts (1998) classifies uncertainties in LCA.
• Semi quantitative pedigree matrix approach is commonly used for analyzing
uncertainty.
• Monte Carlo simulation is widely used for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.
• LCA software simplifies calculations and approximates probability of outcomes.
• Simulation involves over 10,000 evaluations of the model.
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 23
Iterative Nature of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA):
• LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) is an iterative process rather than a sequential one, as depicted by
arrows in Figure 4.3.
• Each phase of the LCA methodology provides feedback to the previous phases and guides the
next iteration.
• Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses are conducted during the interpretation phase and also
throughout the study, within inventory analysis and impact assessment.
• The purpose of these analyses is to identify key figures, key assumptions, and data associated
with the largest uncertainties.
• The initial iteration of LCA is often a screening that covers the entire life cycle, utilizing easily
accessible data from available databases for inventory analysis.
• Impact assessment results help identify the parts of the product system that contribute the
most to the impacts, potentially requiring refinement of scoping and system boundaries.
• The screening LCA also helps identify influential inventory data or assumptions, which become
the focus of the next iteration for testing and refinement.
• Revised inventory data is used for a new impact assessment, followed by another sensitivity
analysis to identify updated key figures and assumptions.
• The repeated iterations in LCA aim to reduce the uncertainty of the results until it reaches an
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 24
acceptable level based on the study's goal.
 Methodological Choices (LCA):
• The following are critical choices of methodology that determine the outcomes of an LCA study:
(1) Functional unit: Critically checking the functional unit is important. Is it a relevant one? Does it allow fair comparison?
(2) Multifunctionality: In the real world there is hardly any product system that exists in isolation. In order to solve
multifunctionality issues, the ISO 14044 standard presents the following hierarchy of solutions
a. Subdivision of unit process: Divide the multifunctional unit process into smaller units to separate the
production of the main product from the co-product.
b. System expansion: Compare two processes and expand the second process to include an alternative way of
providing the secondary function of the first process.
c. Allocation: If the above methods are not feasible, use allocation to divide inputs and outputs of the
multifunctional process or system between different products or functions. Partition environmental impacts based
on underlying physical relationships or other relationships such as economic values of co-products.

(3) Type of data: Consider the relevance of data representing system reactions for change-oriented studies, while data
representing average system behavior is more relevant for other types of studies. Assess the quality and applicability of
data to interpret and apply LCA results.
(4) Impact assessment method: Understand the limitations of characterization methods used in impact assessment, as
they may vary in development for different environmental problems. Include qualitative assessment for non-quantitative
environmental impacts through life cycle thinking.
(5) Cut-off rules: Determine cut-off rules to address the infinite size of the system, typically based on mass contributions.
Be cautious as materials with small mass may still have significant energy or environmental impacts. Consider the potential
significance of capital goods and infrastructure contributions in certain industry sectors, despite previous assumptions.
(6) Attribution and consequential modelling
(7) Use of input – output and hybrid analysis
Prof. C TinPuttaswamy,
LCA Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 25
LCA and LCA-related software
• SimaPro (2008):
Developed by Pré Consultants in the Netherlands.
Widely used for collecting, analyzing, and monitoring the environmental performance of products and
services.
Follows ISO 14040 series recommendations for life cycle analysis.
Offers an educational version and a free demo on the Pré website.
• Boustead Model 5 (2007):
Developed by Ian Boustead, an experienced life cycle assessment expert.
Tool for life cycle inventory calculations.
Adheres to ISO 14040 series recommendations.
Specifically designed for working with European polymer suppliers.
• TEAM (2008):
Developed by Ecobilan.
Life cycle assessment software.
Allows building and using a large database and modeling systems.
Complies with ISO 14040 series standards.
• GaBi (2008):
Developed by PE International.
Advanced tool for product assessment and compliance with European legislation.
Analyzes cost, environment, social, and technical criteria.
Offers process optimization and a demo version.Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, 26
LCA and LCA-related software

• MEEUP method (2005):

Dutch Methodology for Eco-design of Energy-using Products.
Analyzes energy-using products, mainly appliances.
Follows ISO 14040 series guidelines.
Developed in response to the EU directive on energy-using products.
• GREET (2007):
Developed by Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Greenhouse Gasses, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model.
Calculates energy consumption, emissions, and criteria pollutants for vehicles and fuels.
Provides separate versions for fuel-cycle and vehicle-cycle analysis.
• MIPS (2008):
Stands for Material Input per Service Unit.
Measures environmental impacts of products and services.
Considers the full life cycle from extraction to waste/recycling.
Allows assessment and comparison of environmental implications.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 27

LCA and LCA-related software
• CES Eco (2009):
Developed by Granta Design.
Focuses on materials information management.
Widely used for teaching engineering students about material selection and use.

• Aggregain (2008):
Developed by WRAP.
Free analysis tool for promoting the use of recycled and secondary aggregates.
Specifically targets the construction and road-building industries.
Runs in Microsoft Excel.

• KCL-ECO 3.0:
Developed for the paper-making industry by KCL.
LCA tool designed specifically for this industry.

• EIO-LCA (208) is an abbreviation for Economic Input/Output Life Cycle Assessment.

It was developed by Carnegie Mellon University and focuses on calculating sector emissions using input/output
data for North American Industry Classification Scheme (NAICS) sectors.
EIO-LCA is not intended for product assessment; its main purpose is to evaluate emissions at a sector level.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 28

 Strength and limitations of LCA

• LCA requires simplifications in modeling product systems and environmental impacts, limiting its
comprehensiveness.

• LCA calculates potential environmental impacts, not actual impacts.

• LCA cannot assess specific emissions from a factory leading to pollutant concentrations in nearby rivers.

• LCA models do not consider risks of extreme events like industrial accidents.

• LCA identifies more environmentally friendly product systems but does not determine if they are "good
enough" or environmentally sustainable.

• LCA results should be used alongside other information when making decisions on trade-offs with cost and
performance.

• LCA can be resource and time intensive, with data availability impacting accuracy.

• LCI may not capture every process and input/output due to system boundaries and data gaps.

• LCI data collected contain uncertainty

Prof.and imperfect
C T Puttaswamy, Dept.characterization
of Chem Engg, BMSCE models. 29
 Environmental life cycle costing, Social life cycle assessment, and life cycle
sustainability assessment
Environmental life cycle costing

• LCC (Life Cycle Costing) is a technique that evaluates the costs of a product or system throughout its entire
life cycle.
• It is also known as whole-life costing or total cost of ownership.
• There are three main types of LCC:
• (i) Conventional LCC or financial LCC: The original method, mainly used for decision-making in
acquiring capital equipment and high-investment products. It typically excludes external costs and is
from the perspective of a single actor, often the user.
• (ii) Environmental LCC: Aligned with ISO standards 14040 and 14044 on LCA (Life Cycle Assessment).
It considers the whole life cycle, including all actors in the value chain and takes the perspective of a
functional unit. It covers economic dimensions, identifies hotspots in cost and environmental impacts,
and may include expected internalization of external costs.
• (iii) Societal LCC: Incorporates monetization of externalities, including environmental and social
impacts. Its purpose is to support decision-making on a societal level, including governments and public
authorities. It is still in early stages of development.

• Environmental LCC complements LCA by adding economic aspects to the environmental analysis.

• Rödger et al. (2018) provide a step-by-step

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. ofof
application Chem Engg, BMSCE
environmental LCC. 30
 Environmental life cycle costing, Social life cycle assessment, and life cycle
sustainability assessment
Social life cycle assessment

• S-LCA (Social Life Cycle Assessment) deals with the social and socioeconomic aspects of products,
considering their positive and negative social impacts throughout their entire life cycle, from production to
disposal.
• The methodology for conducting S-LCA is still in its early stages of development.
• S-LCA focuses on assessing different aspects that directly affect stakeholders during the product's life cycle.
• Five main stakeholder categories have been identified for evaluation: workers/employees, local community,
society, consumers, and value-chain actors.
• Each stakeholder category has specific sub-categories for evaluation. For example:
• "Worker" sub-categories include "child labor" and "fair salary."
• "Consumer" sub-categories include "health and safety."
• "Local Community" sub-categories include "cultural heritage" and "local employment."
• "Society" sub-categories include "consumption."
• "Value-chain Actors" sub-categories include "supplier relationships."
• The S-LCA methodology is diverse, with various approaches found in existing literature.
• The most significant progress towards standardization of S-LCA has been the development of the
"Guidelines to S-LCA" under the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (Benoît and Mazijn, 2009).
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 31
 Environmental life cycle costing, Social life cycle assessment, and life cycle
sustainability assessment
life cycle sustainability assessment

• LCSA stands for "Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment.“

• It is a sustainability framework that integrates three methods: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle
Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA).

• LCA is the most mature life cycle-based method among the three.

• The three methods are applied at the product level independently of each other.

• LCSA requires assessing the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) using the
same system boundaries.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 32

The materials life cycle

The material life cycle. Ore and feedstock are mined and processed
to yield a material. This material is manufactured into a product that
is used, and at the end of its life, it is discarded, recycled, or, less
commonly, refurbished and reused. Energy and materials are
consumed in each phase, generating waste heat and solid, liquid,
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 33
and gaseous emissions
Goals boundary and inventory

The principle resource emissions associated with the

life cycle of a washing machine
LCA system boundaries with the flows of resources and
emissions across them. Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 34
 Example global warming potential impact assessment factors

Typical LCA output showing three categories: Resource

consumption, emission inventory, and impact assessment

The steps in calculating an eco-indicator. Difficulty arises in Step 3;

there is no agreement on how to choose the weight factors
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 35
Streamlined LCA
Adopt simple metrics of environmental stress & Distinguish the
phases of life

An example of a streamlined LCA matrix. Breakdown of energy into that associated with each life phase.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 36

 Base the subsequent action on the energy or carbon breakdown

CO2 emissions from aviation fuel are

3.15 grams per gram of fuel, which
gives CO2 emissions from a Boeing
737-400 of 115 g per passenger per
km. At a cruising speed of 780 km per
hour

A typical passenger vehicle emits about

4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year.
This assumes the average gasoline
vehicle on the road today has a fuel
economy of about 22.2 miles per gallon
and drives around 11,500 miles per
year. Every gallon of gasoline burned
creates about 8,887 grams of CO2.

Refrigerators do generate about 4%

of a home’s emissions. That’s 89 kg
CO2/year

Approximate values for the energy consumed at each phase of Figure 3.1for a range of products (data from
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 37
References 5 and 6). The disposal phase is not shown because there are many alternatives for each product.
Base the subsequent action on the energy or carbon breakdown

Rational approaches to the eco-design of products start with an analysis of the phase of life to be targeted.
Its results guide redesign and materials selection to minimize environmental impact. The disposal phase,
shown here as part of the overallProf.
strategy, is not included in the current version of the tool..
C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 38
 Materials life cycle –Case study : 1
Which phase of life would you expect to be the most energy intensive (in the sense of consuming fossil fuel) for the
following products? Pick one and list the resources and emissions you think would be associated with each phase of its
life along the lines of Figure washing machine
■ A toaster ■ A two-car garage ■ A bicycle ■ A motorbike ■ A refrigerator ■ A coffeemaker ■ An LPG-fi red patio heater

Adopt simple metrics of environmental stress & Distinguish the phases of life

Breakdown of energy into that associated with each life phase.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 39
 Materials life cycle – Case study : 2
Identify an appropriate functional unit for each of the products listed below. Think of the basic need the product
provides —it is this that determines use —and list what you would choose, thinking of all from an environmental
standpoint.
■ Product ■ Washing machines ■ Refrigerators ■ Home heating systems ■ Air conditioners ■ Lighting ■ Home
coffeemaker ■ Public transport ■ Handheld hair dryers

1.Washing machines: Functional Unit: One load of laundry Justification: The basic need provided by washing
machines is to clean clothes efficiently. The functional unit for washing machines is typically defined as one
load of laundry, as it represents the standard operation for which a washing machine is used.
2.Refrigerators: Functional Unit: Cooling capacity per year (e.g., kWh/year) Justification: The primary purpose
of a refrigerator is to provide cooling and preserve food. The functional unit for refrigerators can be expressed
in terms of their cooling capacity over a year, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity consumed per
year.
3.Home heating systems: Functional Unit: Heating capacity per unit of energy (e.g., kWh) Justification: Home
heating systems are designed to provide heat to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures. The functional
unit can be defined as the heating capacity of the system per unit of energy consumed, measured in kilowatt-
hours (kWh) of fuel or electricity.
4.Air conditioners: Functional Unit: Cooling capacity per year (e.g., kWh/year) Justification: Air conditioners
are used to cool indoor spaces during hot weather. The functional unit for air conditioners can be expressed
as their cooling capacity over a year, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity consumed per year.
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 40
 Materials life cycle Case study -2
5. Lighting: Functional Unit: Illumination hours or lumen-hours Justification: The basic need of lighting is to
provide illumination. The functional unit for lighting can be defined as the number of hours a light source
illuminates a space or the total lumen-hours (the amount of light emitted) during its operational life.

6. Home coffeemaker: Functional Unit: One brewed coffee Justification: Home coffeemakers are used to
brew coffee. The functional unit for a home coffeemaker can be defined as one brewed coffee, representing
the typical use scenario for this product.

7. Public transport: Functional Unit: Passenger-kilometer Justification: Public transport provides mobility and
transportation services to passengers. The functional unit for public transport can be defined as the
transportation of one passenger over one kilometer, as it represents the core function of this product.
8. Handheld hair dryers: Functional Unit: Drying session (e.g., minutes) Justification: Handheld hair dryers
are used to dry and style hair. The functional unit for a handheld hair dryer can be defined as one drying
session, representing the typical use scenario for this product.

By defining appropriate functional units for each product, it becomes easier to conduct a comparative life
cycle assessment and assess their environmental impact more accurately. Keep in mind that specific
metrics and units may vary depending on the context and goals of the life cycle assessment.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 41

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 3
What is meant by “externalized ” costs and costs the are “internalized” in an environmental context? Now a
moment of introspection: list three internalized costs associated with your lifestyle. Now list three that are
externalized. If your life is so pure that you have fewer than three, list some for the other people you know
In an environmental context, "externalized costs" and "internalized costs" refer to different ways in which the
true costs of certain activities or products are accounted for or distributed.
1.Externalized Costs: Externalized costs are the expenses or negative impacts that result from certain
activities or products but are not directly borne by the individuals or companies engaged in those activities.
Instead, these costs are pushed onto society or the environment. These costs are often not reflected in the
market price of the products or services. As a result, the responsible parties do not fully bear the
consequences of their actions.
Example 1 - Air Pollution: A factory emits harmful pollutants into the air while manufacturing goods. The local
community may suffer from respiratory issues and health problems due to air pollution. The costs associated
with the health impact are externalized because the factory does not fully bear the cost of treating those
affected by pollution.
Example 2 - Deforestation: A logging company clears large sections of forests to harvest timber for profit. The
loss of biodiversity, carbon sequestration capacity, and potential for ecotourism are externalized costs, as
they are not considered in the economic calculations of the logging company.
Example 3 - Plastic Waste: A beverage company produces single-use plastic bottles for its drinks. The costs
associated with the disposal and cleanup of plastic waste that ends up in the ocean or landfills are
externalized because the company doesn't fully account for the environmental harm caused by their
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 42
products.
 Materials life cycle-Case study : 3
Internalized Costs:
Internalized costs are the expenses or negative impacts that are directly accounted for and borne by
individuals, companies, or industries responsible for certain activities or products. These costs are typically
factored into the price of the products or services, making the responsible parties aware of the consequences
of their actions.
Example 1 - Renewable Energy Investment: A company decides to switch to renewable energy sources, such
as solar or wind power, to reduce its carbon footprint. The initial investment in renewable energy
infrastructure represents an internalized cost because the company directly bears the expense to transition to
a more sustainable energy source.

Example 2 - Sustainable Packaging: A food producer opts for eco-friendly and biodegradable packaging
materials for their products, even though these alternatives might be more expensive than conventional
plastic packaging. The higher cost of sustainable packaging represents an internalized cost, as the company
willingly bears it to reduce environmental harm.

Example 3 - Waste Recycling Program: A municipality implements a comprehensive waste recycling

program, incurring additional costs for collection, sorting, and processing recyclable materials. These
expenses represent internalized costs, as the community acknowledges the importance of proper waste
management and allocates resources accordingly.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 43

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 3
Internalized Costs:
Internalized costs are the expenses or negative impacts that are directly accounted for and borne by
individuals, companies, or industries responsible for certain activities or products. These costs are typically
factored into the price of the products or services, making the responsible parties aware of the consequences
of their actions.
Example 1 - Renewable Energy Investment: A company decides to switch to renewable energy sources, such
as solar or wind power, to reduce its carbon footprint. The initial investment in renewable energy
infrastructure represents an internalized cost because the company directly bears the expense to transition to
a more sustainable energy source.

Example 2 - Sustainable Packaging: A food producer opts for eco-friendly and biodegradable packaging
materials for their products, even though these alternatives might be more expensive than conventional
plastic packaging. The higher cost of sustainable packaging represents an internalized cost, as the company
willingly bears it to reduce environmental harm.

Example 3 - Waste Recycling Program: A municipality implements a comprehensive waste recycling

program, incurring additional costs for collection, sorting, and processing recyclable materials. These
expenses represent internalized costs, as the community acknowledges the importance of proper waste
management and allocates resources accordingly.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 44

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 3
Now, for a moment of introspection:

Three Internalized Costs in My Lifestyle:

A. Organic Food Purchases: I choose to buy organic produce, which tends to be more expensive than
conventionally grown food. The higher cost represents an internalized cost that I willingly bear to support
sustainable agricultural practices and reduce exposure to harmful pesticides.

B. Public Transportation: I use public transportation or bike whenever possible to minimize my carbon
footprint. While it might be more convenient to drive a car, I internalize the cost of public transportation by
using it even if it takes more time or effort.

C. Eco-friendly Products: I opt for eco-friendly household and personal care products, which are often more
expensive than conventional alternatives. The higher prices represent internalized costs that I accept to
minimize the environmental impact of my lifestyle.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 45

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 3
Three Externalized Costs in My Lifestyle:

A. Fast Fashion: Occasionally, I purchase clothing items from fast-fashion brands that may not prioritize
ethical labor practices or sustainable materials. The environmental and social impacts of the fashion industry
are externalized costs that I contribute to through my consumption choices.

B. Plastic Packaging: I buy products with excessive plastic packaging because they are more affordable or
convenient. The costs associated with plastic pollution and waste management are externalized because the
full impact is not reflected in the product prices.

C. Energy Consumption: I sometimes forget to turn off electronic devices or lights when they are not in use,
leading to unnecessary energy consumption. The environmental costs of energy generation and its
associated emissions are externalized, as I do not directly bear the consequences of my energy usage.

If my life were more sustainable and generated fewer externalized costs, I might consider reducing my fast-
fashion purchases, being more conscious of plastic packaging choices, and actively working to reduce
energy waste. Additionally, I could encourage those around me to make more sustainable choices, helping
them internalize the costs of their actions as well.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 46

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 4
Pick two of the products listed in Case study -1 and, using your judgment, attempt to fill out the simplified
streamlined LCA matrix below to give an environmentally responsible product rating. Make your own
assumptions (and report them) about where the product was made and thus how far it has to be transported,
and whether it will be recycled. Assign an integer between 0 (highest impact) and 4 (least impact) to each box
and then sum to give an environmental rating, providing a comparison. Try the protocol.

• Material. Is it energy-intensive? Does it create excessive emissions? Is it difficult or impossible to recycle?

Is the material toxic? If the answer to these questions is yes, score 4. If the reverse, score 0. Use the
intermediate integers for other combinations.
• Manufacture. Is the process one that uses much energy? Is it wasteful (meaning cut-offs and rejects are
high)? Does it produce toxic or hazardous waste? Does make use of volatile organic solvents? If yes,
score 4. If no, score 0, etc.
• Transport. Is the product manufactured far from its ultimate market? Is it shipped by air freight? If both yes,
score 4. If no, score 0.
• Use. Does the product use energy during its life? Is the energy derived from fossil fuels? Are any
emissions toxic? Is it possible to provide the use-function in a less energy-intensive way? Scoring as
above.
• Disposal. Will the product be end to land-fill at end of life? Does disposal involve toxic or long-lived
residues? Scoring as above.

What difficulties did you have? Do

Prof. C Tyou feel confident
Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chemthat the results are meaningful?
Engg, BMSCE 47
Materials life cycle-Case study : 4

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 48

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 5
Problem Statement : System A is a multi-output process, which produces 10 kg of product A and 5 kg of
product B per minute. 1 kg of product A is worth 20 USD, 1 kg of B is worth 5 USD. The process emits 120 kg
CO2 per hour. Product B can also be produced using another process, which produces 0.05 kg CO2 per kg of
product B. Calculate the CO2 emissions for two different allocation procedures for product A.

SOLUTION:
To calculate the CO2 emissions for two different allocation procedures for product A, we need to first calculate
the CO2 emissions associated with producing 1 kg of each product using System A.

The total amount of CO2 emitted by System A per minute is: 120 kg CO2/ 60 minutes = 2 kg CO2 per minute

Therefore, the CO2 emissions associated with producing 1 kg of product A are:

2 kg CO2/ (10 kg A) * 1 kg A = 0.2 kg CO2 per kg A

Similarly, the CO2 emissions associated with producing 1 kg of product B using System A are:
2 kg CO2 / (5 kg B) * 1 kg B = 0.4 kg CO2 per kg B

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 49

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 5
The CO2 emissions associated with producing 1 kg of product B using the alternative process are: 0.05 kg
CO2 per kg B

Therefore, total amount of CO2 produced by product B using alternate process are:
(0.05 kg CO2 per kg B)*5kg = 0.25 kg CO2 per minute

[Assumption: 0.05 kg CO2 is produced by 1 kg of B by alternate process in 1 minute.]

There are two ways of determining the CO2 emissions of the system A from products A and B:

1) CO2 emissions allocated based on the REVENUE.

2) CO2 emissions allocated based on the MASS.

CO2 emissions allocated based on REVENUE:

Revenue from 1 kg of product A = 20 USD/kg * 1 kg = 20 USD
Revenue from 1 kg of product B = 5 USD/kg * 1 kg = 5 USD

Total revenue from System A per minute = 20 USD + 5 USD = 25 USD

Proportion of revenue from product A = 20 USD / 25 USD = 0.8
Proportion of revenue from product B = 5 USD / 25 USD = 0.2
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 50
 Materials life cycle-Case study : 5
Using these proportions, we can allocate the total CO2 emissions from System A per minute:

CO2 emissions allocated to product A = 0.8 * 2 kg CO2/min = 1.6 kg CO2/min

CO2 emissions allocated to product B = 0.2 * 2 kg CO2 /min = 0.4 kg CO2/min

CO2 emissions allocated to product B using alternate process = 0.2 * 0.25 kg CO2/min = 0.05 kg CO2/min

Therefore, the CO2 emissions allocated to 1 kg of product A would be: (1.6 kg CO2/min * 60 min/hour)/10 kg =
9.6 kg CO2/hour per kg

CO2 emissions allocated to 1 kg of product B would be: (0.4 kg CO2/min * 60 min/hour)/5 kg = 4.8 kg
CO2/hour

CO2 emissions allocated to product B using alternate process = 0.2 * 0.25 kg CO2/min = 0.05 kg CO2/min

Therefore, the CO2 emissions allocated to 1 kg of product B using alternate process would be: (0.05 kg
CO2/min * 60min/hour)/ 5 kg = 0.1 kg CO2/hour per kg.
Products A B B (Alternate Process)
CO2 emissions per hour 9.6 4.8 0.1
per kg of the product
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 51
Materials life cycle-Case study : 5
CONCLUSION

The process of producing Product B using alternate process is the most the SUSTAINABLE way of
production as least amount of CO2 is generated.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 52

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 5
CO2 emissions allocated based on Mass:

Another way to allocate CO2 emissions is to allocate them based on the mass of each product

Let’s assume that we allocate CO2 emissions based on the proportion of mass produced by each product.

Proportion of mass of product A = 10kg/(10kg+5kg)=0.67

Proportion of mass of product B = 5 kg/ ( 10kg+5kg) = 0.33

Using these proportions , we can allocate the total CO2 emissions from System A per minute: CO2 emissions
allocated to product A = 0.67*2 kg CO2/min = 1.34 kg CO2/min

CO2 emissions allocated to product B = 0.33* 2 kg CO2/min = 0.66 kg CO2/min

CO2 emissions allocated to alternate product B = 0.33* 0.25 kg CO2/min= 0.0825

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 53

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 5
Therefore, the CO2 emissions allocated to 1 kg of product A would be: (1.34 kg CO2/min* 60 min /hour)/ 10
kg= 8.04 kg CO2/hour

CO2 emissions allocated to 1 kg of product B would be : (0.66 kg CO2/min * 60 min/hour)/ 5 kg = 7.92 kg CO2

CO2 emissions allocated to 1kg of alternate product B would be : (0.0825 Kg CO2/min *60 min/hour)/5 kg =
0.99 Kg CO2

Products A B B(Alternate Process)

CO2 emissions per hour 8.04 7.92 0.99
per kg of the product

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 54

 Materials life cycle-Case study : 5
CONCLUSION
The process of producing Product B using alternate process is the most the SUSTAINABLE way of
production as only 0.99 Kg of CO2 is emitted while Product B emits 7.92 Kg of CO2 and Product A emits the
highest CO2 in terms of mass.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 55

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 56
Electricity and Greenhouse Gases
• Electricity generation is responsible for 42.5% of global CO2 emissions. Of this,
73% can be attributed to coal-fired power plants, which emit 950 grams of
CO2 for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they generate, compared with
350 grams for gas-fired power plants.

• For power plants that run on renewable energies, such as hydro, wind, solar PV
and solar thermal, the only CO2 emissions are attributable to their
construction. Accordingly, for every kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, a
solar PV system "emits" between 60 and 150 grams of CO2 (depending on
where the solar panels were manufactured), a wind turbine between 3 and
22 grams, and a hydropower plant 4 grams.

• As for nuclear power plants, even after the future need to dismantle aging
facilities is factored in, CO2 emissions still only represent 6 grams per kilowatt-
hour of electricity generatedProf. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 57
CFL V/s Incandescent light
• In LED bulbs/lights - Several semiconductor compounds are commonly used in production of LEDs: Gallium nitride
(GaN), aluminium gallium nitride (AlGaN), indium gallium nitride (InGaN), aluminium indium gallium phosphide
(AlInGaP), gallium arsenide (GaAs), and aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs)

• Both GaN and AlGaN semiconductors are used to produce light with wavelengths between 240nm-360nm, which
results in UV light

• The increased amount of light and type of light from LEDs has negative effects on human and animal health. In
humans, this leads to disrupted sleep cycles and an array of health problems associated with a lack of sleep.

• LEDs are a significant source of light pollution as they are often used in outdoor displays. These digital displays often
rely on blue LEDs, which are particularly harmful to animal behavior due to their impact on melatonin.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 58

 Plastics
Printed (40-60%)
Circuit Boards
(<8%)

End of Life Thermoset

Batteries
(<5%) WEEE Plastics /
(E-waste) Hazardous
glass (5-10%)

Copper, Wire & Alloys

Aluminium
(15-18%)
(5-10%)

Iron & Steel

Components (15-18%)
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 59
Metal Circularity:
Aluminium (Al): 100,000 tons

Only 7.6% tCO2e when recycling …………

‒ Report on the Environmental Benefits of Recycling: Prepared by: Professor Sue Grimes, Professor John Donaldson, Dr Gabriel Cebrian Gomez Centre for Sustainable
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 60
Production & Resource Efficiency (CSPRE), Imperial College London, October 2006
Metal Circularity:
Copper (Cu): 100,000 tons

Only 30% tCO2e when recycling …………

‒ Report on the Environmental Benefits of Recycling: Prepared by: Professor Sue Grimes, Professor John Donaldson, Dr Gabriel Cebrian Gomez Centre for Sustainable
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 61
Production & Resource Efficiency (CSPRE), Imperial College London, October 2006
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 62
Defining the Functional Unit by LCA type
1. “seating support for one person working at a computer
for one year” vs. “one computer chair”
2. “annual lighting of a work area of 10 m2 with 30 lux” vs.
““bulbs providing 30000nlumen for one “year
3. Ethanol (per ha, per kg or per km?). The ethanol-
production oriented functional unit perspective reflects
the fact that the ethanol supply (arable land or biomass
supply) is constrained, while the traveling-distance
oriented functional unit implies that ethanol fuel supply is
unlimited.*
* Reference: Int J LCA 11(2): 117-121 (2006)
Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 63
 Functional Unit

Environmental impacts per product?

Environmental impacts per cup of coffee
drink? Steel Column/Stone Column:
Environmental impacts per 250 ml of Functional Unit: Environmental
coffee drunk
Impact/kilo load bearing capacity
over 50 yrs or life span.

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 64

Functional Unit

Environmental impact per passenger mile or per

passenger km

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 65

Specifying Reference flows
For the system and the sub-system of interest, the reference flows
include the type and quantity of materials and energy necessary per
functional unit including:
• At the system level, material and energy flows that change for
sub-system alternatives

• At the sub-system level, any solution specific interface materials

(materials used as finishes or in joining, securing, shielding,
piping, conditioning equipment, etc.)

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 66

Specifying Reference flows: data quality
Data quality is judged on:
◦ Temporal correlation
◦ Geographical correlation
◦ Technological correlation
◦ Precision and uncertainty (i.e., reliability of the data
◦ Completeness of the data
◦ Sample size (sometimes included)

Ref.: Weidema, B.P.; Wesnaes, M.S. (1996). Data quality management for life cycle inventories - an example of using data
quality indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production 4(3- 4): 167-174
See also: Quality Assessment for LCA, CML Report #152, http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/quality.pdf

Prof. C T Puttaswamy, Dept. of Chem Engg, BMSCE 67