PHD GT LCA

Life Cycle Assessment of Marine Power Systems onboard
Roll-on/Roll-off Cargo Ships: Framework and Case Studies
Thesis by
Janie Ling Chin
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Sir Joseph Swan Centre for Energy Research

Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne
United Kingdom
6 October 2016
Abstract
A study into the environmental impact of marine power systems was performed in
proximity with the defined research objectives: (i) present an overview on Annex VI
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, cargo ships,
marine power systems and technologies; (ii) review life cycle assessment (LCA)
methodology development; (iii) develop an LCA framework for marine power
systems; (iv) carry out case studies to determine environmental impact, significant
components and critical processes; (v) apply scenario analysis to investigate the
sensitivity of the results to selected parameters; and (vi) compare power systems
under study to verify their environmental benefits. Built upon literature and the
proposed LCA framework, LCA case studies on conventional, retrofit and new-build
power systems were performed using a bottom-up integrated system approach,
where data were gathered and LCA models were created for individual technologies
using GaBi software. Life cycle impact assessment was performed using CML2001,
International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) and Eco-Indicator99 to
estimate the environmental impact of the systems. It was found that disposing metal
scrap of significant components was the principal cause of ecotoxicity potential,
which was the impact category that showed the top two highest indicator results; and
operating diesel engines and auxiliary generators or diesel gensets was mainly
accounted for other impact categories. When compared with the conventional
system, both retrofit and new-build systems consumed less fuels and released less
emissions during operation but involved more materials and energy during other life
cycle phases, leading to a decline in most impact categories to the detriment of a few
burdens. The life cycle of marine power systems must be planned, managed and
monitored appropriately for reduced environmental implications. Further research
should address limitations presented in this study and explore other factors that
might affect the environmental burdens of marine power systems.
i
Dedication
For my late mum, Agnes I T Sia.

I miss you so much from the bottom of my heart.
ii
Acknowledgement
The thought of completing my PhD study had brought a warm glow of gratitude,
excitement, satisfaction and relief to my heart. My first and foremost gratitude was
directed to my husband, Stewart, and my family, in particular my sisters and brothers,
Joyce, Jefferson, Jinny, Jerri, Jasmine and Jameson. Without their love, support and
encouragement, I could never rise to the challenge. I could not express enough
thanks to my main supervisor, Professor Tony Roskilly, for his offer of this golden
chance to pursue my dream, his trust in my capacity and his patience with my style of
being slow but conscientious rather than just ticking all the boxes. I had developed a
lot and understood myself better over the years. I would also like to thank my second
supervisor, Dr Oliver Heidrich, who challenged my ideas and approaches. Research
presented in this thesis was delivered for a European Commission funded FP7
project ‘INOvative Energy MANagement System for Cargo SHIP’ (INOMANS²HIP,
grant agreement no: 266082). Therefore, I was indebted to colleagues who were
involved in the project, including Mr Hans van Vougt, Mr Tom Bradley, Mr Edward
Sciberras, Mr Walter van der Pennen and Mr Alexander Breijs for sharing their
technical knowledge and data. Without their data, the case studies would not be
delivered. Knowing that I would revisit my thesis again and again for the rest of my
life and probably would read it more frequently than anyone else, I would like to
remind myself to remember this moment: if I could complete a part-time PhD study
whilst having full-time employment, every challenge that I am undertaking the
moment when I am reading this or will encounter in the future is achievable.
iii
iv
List of Papers
I Ling-Chin, J., O. Heidrich, and A.P. Roskilly, Life cycle assessment (LCA)
– from analysing methodology development to introducing an LCA
framework for marine photovoltaic (PV) systems. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev, 2016. 59: p. 352-378.
II Ling-Chin, J. and A.P. Roskilly, Investigating a conventional and retrofit
power plant on-board a Roll-on/Roll-off cargo ship from a sustainability
perspective - A life cycle assessment case study. Energy Convers Manag,
2016. 117: p. 305–318.
III Ling-Chin, J. and A.P. Roskilly, Investigating the implications of a new-
build hybrid power system for Roll-on/Roll-off cargo ships from a
sustainability perspective–A life cycle assessment case study. Appl
Energy, 2016. 181: p. 416–434.
IV Ling-Chin, J. and A.P. Roskilly, A comparative life cycle assessment of
marine power systems. Energy Convers Manag. 2016. 127: p. 477–493.
V Ling-Chin, J. and A.P. Roskilly, Life cycle assessment of a conventional
power system on-board a Roll-on/Roll-off cargo ship. Manuscript
submitted to a journal for possible publication.
VI Ling-Chin, J. and A.P. Roskilly, Life cycle assessment (LCA) framework for
marine power systems on-board cargo ships. Manuscript submitted to a
journal for possible publication.
v
vi
Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................. i
Dedication ......................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................... iii
List of Papers.................................................................................................... v
Contents .......................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures.................................................................................................. xi
List of Tables ................................................................................................ xvii
Abbreviation .................................................................................................. xxi
Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................... 1
1.1 Marine Regulation: the International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) ............................................................ 2
1.2 Previous Work on Emissions, Energy Efficiency and Alternative

Solutions ................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Previous Work on Environmental Impact Study ..................................... 8
1.4 Knowledge Gap ................................................................................... 10
1.5 The Fundamental Concept of LCA as a Research Tool ...................... 12
1.6 In Need of an LCA Methodology Review ............................................. 16
1.7 In Need of an LCA Framework for Marine Power Systems ................. 17
1.8 In Need of LCA Case Studies on Marine Power Systems ................... 19
1.9 Research Methodologies ..................................................................... 19
1.10 Summary ............................................................................................. 21
Chapter 2. Overview of Cargo Ships, Marine Power Systems and

Technologies .................................................................................................. 22
2.1 Overview of Cargo Ships ..................................................................... 23
2.2 Marine Power Systems ........................................................................ 30
2.3 Marine Power Technologies ................................................................ 33
vii
2.3.1 Diesel, gas and dual-fuel engines ....................................... 35
2.3.2 Steam and gas turbines ...................................................... 38
2.3.3 Fuel cells ............................................................................. 40
2.3.4 Batteries .............................................................................. 42
2.3.5 Waste heat recovery systems (WHRSs) ............................. 46
2.3.6 Shaft generators and power take-off/power take-in
(PTO/PTI) systems .............................................................. 50
2.3.7 Photovoltaic (PV) systems .................................................. 51
2.3.8 Technologies that harnessing wind energy ......................... 53
2.3.9 Cold-ironing ......................................................................... 55
2.4 Summary .............................................................................................. 56
Chapter 3. Literature Review of Life Cycle Assessment Methodology

Development ................................................................................................... 58
3.1 Methodology used in This Literature Review ....................................... 59
3.2 Findings of Literature Analysis: the Current Research Trend ............... 61

3.2.1 Analysis of review articles (Sample Group A) ..................... 61
3.2.2 Analysis of other literature types (Sample Group B)............ 66
3.2.3 Overall findings.................................................................... 68
3.3 Clarification on Environmental Aspects, Environmental Impact and

Impact Categories ................................................................................ 68
3.4 Clarification on Goal and Scope Definition: Cut-off and System

Boundary .............................................................................................. 71
3.5 Clarification on LCI: Attributional and Consequential Approaches─

What Processes to Include .................................................................. 74
3.6 Clarification on LCI Approaches: What Data Sources and Principles

to be used for Quantity Computation.................................................... 77
3.7 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Water Use . 82
3.8 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Noise ......... 84
3.9 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Working

Environment/Impact Related to Work Environment .............................. 91
3.10 Life Cycle Interpretation: Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis ............. 98
viii
3.11 Research Needs and Areas for Future Development ........................ 108
3.12 Summary ........................................................................................... 109
Chapter 4. Development of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Framework

for Marine Power Systems........................................................................... 110
4.1 End of Life Management .................................................................... 111

4.1.1 Iron and steel scrap recycling ........................................... 118
4.1.2 Stainless steel scrap recycling .......................................... 119
4.1.3 Aluminium scrap recycling ................................................ 119
4.1.4 Copper and brass scrap recycling .................................... 120
4.1.5 Zinc scrap recycling .......................................................... 122
4.1.6 Tin scrap recycling ............................................................ 124
4.1.7 Lead scrap recycling ......................................................... 124
4.1.8 Nickel scrap recycling ....................................................... 125
4.1.9 Other metallic scrap .......................................................... 125
4.2 The LCA Framework for Marine Power Systems in Accordance with
ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 ................................................................ 126
4.2.1 Phase 1: goal and scope definition ................................... 127
4.2.2 Phase 2: LCI ..................................................................... 132
4.2.3 Phase 3: LCIA (mandatory and optional elements) .......... 142
4.2.4 Phase 4: life cycle interpretation ....................................... 149
4.2.5 The developed framework: a simplified version ................ 151
4.3 Summary ........................................................................................... 153
Chapter 5. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Case Studies of Marine Power

Systems......................................................................................................... 155
5.1 Methodology/Research Approach ..................................................... 155
5.2 Case Study 1: Conventional Power System ...................................... 157

5.2.1 Selection and profile of the reference ship ........................ 157
5.2.2 Data sources..................................................................... 158
5.2.3 Goal and scope definition ................................................. 159
5.2.4 LCI results: resource consumption and emissions ............ 166
5.2.5 LCIA results ...................................................................... 169
5.2.6 Life cycle interpretation ..................................................... 177
ix
5.3 Case Study 2: Marine Retrofit Power System .................................... 188
5.3.1 Selection of emerging power technologies ........................ 188
5.3.2 Data sources ..................................................................... 189
5.3.3 Goal and scope definition .................................................. 189
5.3.4 LCI results: resource consumption and emissions ............ 194
5.3.5 LCIA results ....................................................................... 198
5.4 Case Study 3: New-Build All-Electric Power System ......................... 210

5.4.1 Selection of technologies incorporated into the new-build
system ............................................................................... 211
5.4.2 Data sources ..................................................................... 211
5.4.4 LCI results: resources and emissions ................................ 216
5.4.5 LCIA results ....................................................................... 220
5.5 Comparative LCA Study of Conventional, Retrofit and New-Build

Power Systems .................................................................................. 230
5.5.1 Methods ............................................................................ 230
5.5.3 LCI results ......................................................................... 232
5.5.4 LCIA results ....................................................................... 236
5.6 Summary ............................................................................................ 242
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work ............ 245
6.1 Reflections ......................................................................................... 245
6.2 Contribution of the Work .................................................................... 246
6.3 Recommendations for Future Work ................................................... 248
References .................................................................................................... 249
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………...282
x
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Annex VI Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution 3

from Ships.
Figure 1.2: LCA framework as recommended by ISO 14040 [106]. 13
Figure 1.3: How to allocate inputs/outputs between co-products or 14
functions.
Figure 1.4: The structure of the study. 20
Figure 2.1: The focus of Chapter 2. 22
Figure 2.2: Generic structure of some marine vessels (adopted from 24
[213]).
Figure 2.3: Total onboard power vs. deadweight of vessels for each 26
category.
Figure 2.4: Ranges of deadweight (left) and total onboard power (right) 27
for each ship category.
Figure 2.5: Total onboard power versus deadweight of vessels for 29
each type of propulsion system.
Figure 2.6: The application of diesel-electric propulsion among vessels 30
in the database.
Figure 2.7: The energetic transformations and possible power 31
technologies for ship propulsion and services.
Figure 2.8: Future technologies for ship propulsion and auxiliary 34
power.
Figure 2.9: Additional information about diesel engines. 37
Figure 2.10: Additional information about gas engines. 38
Figure 2.11: Additional information about steam turbines. 39
Figure 2.12: Additional information about gas turbines. 40
Figure 2.13: Additional information about fuel cells. 41
Figure 2.14: Additional information about batteries. 43
Figure 2.15: The structure of a lithium-ion battery cell [236]. 44
Figure 2.16: The structure of a sodium-sulphur battery [237]. 45
Figure 2.17: The structure of a flow battery [234]. 46
Figure 2.18: Additional information about WHRSs. 47
Figure 2.19: The simple WHRS with a basic Rankine cycle [61]. 47
Figure 2.20: The single steam pressure WHRS [242]. 48
xi
Figure 2.21: The dual steam pressure WHRS [241]. 50
Figure 2.22: Additional information about shaft generators. 51
Figure 2.23: How solar cells worked. 52
Figure 2.24: Additional information about PV systems. 53
Figure 2.25: A variety of sail types. 53
Figure 2.26: Additional information about technologies that harnessing 55
wind energy.
Figure 2.27: Cold ironing for marine vessels in port [250]. 55
Figure 2.28: Additional information about cold-ironing. 56
Figure 3.2: A mind map illustrating the focus of this LCA review. 60
Figure 3.3: Distribution of literature materials in Sample Group B. 66
Figure 3.4: The concept of environmental aspects and environmental 71
impact as described in ISO 14001 [344] and ISO 14004 [345].
Figure 3.5: Additional dimensions for cut-off and system boundary 72
selection.
Figure 3.6: The 3-question scheme provisionally used for choosing 76
between attributional and consequential LCA, as proposed by
[310].
Figure 3.7: Outline of existing LCI approaches in line with the 78
fundamental principles, data sources and life cycle phases.
Figure 3.8: Water classifications as sources, elementary flows, use 82
and return.
Figure 3.9: Types of uncertainty inherent in LCA. 100
Figure 3.10: The basic concept and difficulty level of some common 107
sensitivity analysis methods.
Figure 4.2: Alloys of iron and carbon. 118
Figure 4.3: Elements recognised by ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 for 127
goal and scope definition.
Figure 4.4: Life cycle of a marine power system. 133
Figure 4.5: Examples of marine power system configurations for cargo 134
ships: diesel-mechanical (top) and diesel-electric designs
(bottom).
Figure 4.6: Mandatory LCIA elements. 142
xii
Figure 4.7: Optional LCIA elements. 144
Figure 4.8: Significant LCI results and relevant indicators, 145
characterisation factors and impact categories if CML2001
methodology was applied in performing LCIA of a marine
power system.
Figure 4.9: Significant LCI results and relevant indicators, 146
characterisation factors and impact categories if ILCD was
applied at midpoint level in performing LCIA of a marine power
system.
Figure 4.10: Significant LCI results and relevant indicators, damage 147
factors and impact categories if Eco-Indicator99 was applied in
performing LCIA of a marine power system.
Figure 4.11: The four interactive steps of life cycle interpretation in 149
accordance with ISO 14044.
Figure 4.12: LCA framework developed in this study and applied in the 152
LCA case studies
Figure 5.2: System boundary of the case study on the conventional 160
power system.
Figure 5.3: Materials consumed in manufacturing the components 166
incorporated into the conventional power system, in kg.
Figure 5.4: Fuel consumption and emissions released, both in kg, 167
during the operation of the marine power system for individual
components including diesel engines (DE1–DE4), auxiliary
generators (AG1 and AG2) and boilers (B1–B4) over 30 years.
Figure 5.5: Resource and energy consumption during dismantling and 168
the end of life of the conventional system.
Figure 5.6: Emissions released from the conventional power system 169
from acquisition of raw materials and energy to end of life
management as per individual technologies, which were
estimated via LCA models developed in GaBi for base case
scenario.
Figure 5.7: Total environmental burdens attributable to the 170
conventional power system, characterised as per impact
categories.
xiii
Figure 5.8: Contribution of individual components towards individual 170
impact categories.
Figure 5.9: Difference in LCIA results due to the variation in the mass 179
of diesel engines when compared to the base case.
Figure 5.10: Difference in LCIA results compared to the base case 180
scenario when stainless steel propellers were substituted for
CuNiAl propellers.
scenario when all-MDO was substituted for fuel mix.
Figure 5.12: Total fuel consumption and emissions of the power 183
system in Case Study 1 after taking into account changes in
fuel consumption quantity by diesel engines and auxiliary
generators separately.
Figure 5.13: Changes in LCIA results due to variation in fuel 184
consumption quantity.
scenario due to various end of life scenarios of diesel engines.
scenario due to various end of life scenarios of all
components.
Figure 5.16: The theoretical retrofit system design. 190
Figure 5.17: Materials used in manufacturing components incorporated 194
into the power system under study, in kg.
during the operation of the power system over 30 years, as per
components including diesel engines (DE1–DE4), auxiliary
generators (AG1 and AG2) and boilers (B1–B4).
Figure 5.19: Resource and energy consumption during dismantling 196
and the end of life.
Figure 5.20: Emissions of the power system from acquisition of raw 197
materials and energy to end of life management as per
individual technologies, which were estimated via LCA models
developed in GaBi for base case scenario.
Figure 5.21: Total environmental burdens attributable to the power 198
system.
xiv
impact categories.
Figure 5.23: Difference in LCIA results when the ‘business as usual 205
scenario’ was compared to the base case of retrofitting
existing power system.
scenario when all-MDO was substituted for fuel mix in Case
Study 2.
Figure 5.25: Total fuel consumption and emissions of the power 207
system in Case Study 2 after taking into account changes in
fuel consumption quantity by diesel engines and auxiliary
generators separately.
Figure 5.26: Changes in LCIA results due to variation in fuel quantity 208
consumed by diesel engines and generators in Case Study 2.
Figure 5.27: Difference in LCIA results due to various end of life 209
management plans for all components.
Figure 5.28: Single-line diagram of the power system under study. 213
Figure 5.29: Materials used in manufacturing components 217
incorporated into new-build system, in kg.
during the operation of the new-build power system, as per
diesel gensets (DG1–DG6) over 30 years.
Figure 5.31: Resource consumption during dismantling and the end of 219
life.
Figure 5.32: Emissions of the all-electric power system from 220
acquisition of raw materials and energy to end of life
management as per individual technologies, which were
estimated via LCA models developed in GaBi for base case
scenario.
Figure 5.33: Total environmental burdens attributable to the new-build 220
power system, characterised for individual impact categories.
impact categories attributable to the new-build all-electric
system.
xv
Figure 5.35: Emissions of the power system, in kg, when different 225
quantities of fuel were burned by diesel gensets.
Figure 5.36: Changes in LCIA results for all impact categories 225
compared to the base case scenario when fuel consumed by
diesel gensets was reduced by 10%, 20% and 30% or
increased by 10%, 20% and 30% respectively.
Figure 5.37: Difference in LCIA results due to changes in the end of 227
life management plans of significant components i.e. diesel
gensets, propellers and shafts, propulsion and thruster motors.
Figure 5.38: Difference in LCIA results due to changes in the end of 229
life management plans of all components.
Figure 5.39: Comparison of power systems: materials consumed 232
during manufacture.
Figure 5.40: Total emissions and fuel consumption of both retrofit and 234
new-build systems compared to the reference system during
the operation phase (in which a scale of 1 indicated no
difference between the system being compared and the
reference system).
Figure 5.41: Materials and fuel consumption of both retrofit and new- 235
build systems when compared to the reference system during
dismantling and the end of life (in which a scale of 1 indicated
no difference between the system being compared and the
reference system).
Figure 5.42: LCIA results of reference, retrofit and new-build systems. 236
Figure 5.43: Changes in LCIA results of the retrofit and new-build 237
systems and the scale of the impact categories when
compared to the conventional system.
Figure 5.44: Contribution of significant components, in %, towards 239
LCIA results of individual impact categories for each power
system.
Figure 6.1: The focus of Chapter 6 245
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Focus, coverage of environmental impact and limitation of 9

existing LCA literature relevant to marine transport.
Table 1.2: Scope of existing LCA frameworks. 18
Table 2.1: Summary of the database, in terms of ship categories, 25
types, propulsion systems and voltages.
Table 2.2: Ranges of deadweight and total onboard power for each 28
propulsion type.
Table 3.1: Topics presented in review articles (Sample Group A) and 62
the levels of discussion.
Table 3.2: Description of common impact categories 69
Table 3.3: Literature coverage on goal and scope definition, system 72
boundary and cut-off.
Table 3.4: Brief description, strengths and limitations of LCI 79
approaches.
Table 3.5: Comparison of existing methodologies for the impact of 88
noise.
Table 3.6: Comparison of literature on the impact of work environment. 95
Table 3.7: The coverage of uncertainty, uncertainty and sensitivity 99
analysis in literature.
Table 4.1: Elementary flows and emissions involved in handling used 114
diesel engines [389].
Table 4.2: Literature on the LCA studies of onshore PV systems. 116
Table 4.3: Storage approach for a selection of scrap types. 117
Table 4.4: Materials, energy and emissions involved in producing 1000 120
kg of aluminium ingots from secondary production, based on
LCI of ingot casting presented in [406] where data for recycling
stages prior to ingot casting were not reported.
Table 4.5: A summary of literature on copper recycling. 121
Table 4.6: Zinc recycling approaches. 123
Table 4.7: Processes and materials used in manufacturing common 134
and emerging components which could be (but not
necessarily) incorporated into a marine power system.
xvii
Table 4.8: Resource consumption, with estimated order of magnitude, 137
at each life cycle phase of a marine power system onboard a
RoRo cargo ship over 30 years in business.
Table 4.9: Emission factors for prime movers supplying main (M) and 139
auxiliary (A) power onboard cargo ships, classified as slow-
speed (SS), medium-speed (MS) and high-speed (HS) diesel
engines, gas (G) and steam (S) turbines, adopted from [30,
417].
Table 4.10: Recycling processes and life cycle inventory data of 140
metallic scrap.
Table 4.11: Environmental issues differentiated as per impact 143
categories in marine context and their readiness for
assessment.
Table 5.1: Background data of individual components used in LCA 161
models for the base case scenario.
Table 5.2: Assumptions made in the study. 162
Table 5.3: The main cause(s) of individual impact categories 172
attributable to diesel engines, auxiliary generators, propellers
and shafts respectively, as assessed by CML2001. The
causes were classified as A: Operation; B: Disposal of metallic
scrap to incineration plants; C: Disposal of metallic scrap to
landfill; and D: Others (specified).
and shafts respectively, as assessed by ILCD. The causes
were classified as A: Operation; B: Disposal of metallic scrap
to incineration plants; C: Disposal of metallic scrap to landfill;
and D: Others (specified).
and shafts respectively, as assessed by Eco-Inidcator99. The
causes were classified as A: Operation; B: Disposal of metallic
scrap to incineration plants; C: Disposal of metallic scrap to
landfill; and D: Others (specified).
xviii
Table 5.6: Details of individual components integrated into the power 191
system under study over 30 years in operation.
Table 5.7: Components incorporated into the new-build power system. 214
Table 5.8: Key LCI and LCIA results of the power systems assessed in 243
the case studies
xix
xx
Abbreviation
A-HS Auxiliary, high-speed

A-MS Auxiliary, medium-speed
AC Alternative current
ANN Artificial neural network
AoPs Areas of protection
BOD Water biological oxygen demand
BOG Boil-off gas
BTL Biomass-to-liquid
C4H8Cl2 1, 4-dichlorobutane
CML2001 Centrum Milieukunde Leiden
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COD Water chemical oxygen demand
CODLAG Combined diesel-electric and gas propulsion
CODOG Combined diesel or gas turbine propulsion
COSAG Combined steam and gas turbine propulsion
CTUe Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems
DALY Disability-adjusted life year
DALYP Disability adjusted life years per affected person
DC Direct current
EAF Electric arc furnace
ECAs Emission Control Areas
EDIP97 Environmental Design of Industrial Products
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index
EPS2000 Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development
EVA Ethylene-vinyl acetate
FloFlo Float-on/Float-off
GES General Energy Software
GHG Greenhouse gas
GTL Gas-to-liquid fuel
HC Hydrocarbon
HCl Hydrochloride acid
H2S Hydrogen sulphide
xxi
HF Hydrofluoric acid
HFO Heavy fuel oil
ILCD International Reference Life Cycle Data System
IMO International Maritime Organisation
IO Input-output
IOT Input-Output Table
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Organisation for Standardization
LBG Liquefied biogas
LB-CH4 Liquefied bio-methane
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory analysis
LCIA Life cycle impact assessment
LIME Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on
Endpoint Modelling
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LWD Lost work days
M-G Main, gas turbine
M-HS Main, high-speed
M-MS Main, medium-speed
M-S Main, steam turbine
M-SS Main, slow-speed
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships
MCFC Molten carbonate fuel cell
MDO Marine diesel oil
MGO Marine gas oil
MSF Multi-stage flash
NH4 Ammonia
NMVOC Non-methane volatile organic compound
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NRLVs Noise-relevant life cycle variations
OCPL-LCA Indoor occupational priority list for LCA
OH Occupational health
xxii
OS Occupational safety
PCB Printed circuit board
PCTC Pure car truck carrier
PDF Potentially Disappeared Fraction
PEMFC Proton exchange membrane fuel cell
PM Particulate matter
PM2.5 Particulate matter 2.5
PM10 Particulate matter 10
PSO Particle Swarm Optimisation
PTO/PTI Power-take-off/power-take-in
PV Photovoltaic
RME Rapeseed methyl ester
RO Residual oil
RoPax RoRo passenger ship
RoRo Roll-on/Roll-off
Rpm Revolutions per minute
SCR Selective catalytic reduction
SEEMP Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
SEI Solid-electrolyte-interphase
SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell
SOx Sulphur oxides
TRACI The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical
and Other Environmental Impacts
UFs Uncertainty factors
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
VFDs Variable frequency drives
VLCC Very large crude carrier
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WE-CF Work environment characterisation factors
WE-DALY Work environment disability-adjusted life year
WHI Workers affected by a particular hazardous item
WHRS Waste heat recovery system
WMD Workers diagnosed suffering certain magnitude of
disability
YLD Years of life lived with disability
xxiii
YLDn Number of years of life lived with disability
YLDP Years of Life lived with a Disability per affected Person
YLL Years of life lost
YLLn Number of years of life lost
YLLP Years of life lost per affected person
xxiv
Chapter 1. Introduction
“The most important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer
the satisfactions of the primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of
the evils and damages by the technology of yesterday.”
Dennis Gabor
Innovations: Scientific, Technological and Social, 1970
Among all modes of transport, marine has appeared to be paramount. In 2000,

cargo shipped by marine transport accounted for 90% of world goods, and the
quantity of goods shipped was projected to treble by 2030 [1]. The quantity of goods
shipped in 2013 reached 9.55 billion tonnes, which was a 60% increase compared to
the 5.98 billion tonnes shipped in 2000 [2], which made the projection plausible.
Further evidence of marine transport as an important mode of conveyance could be
seen in terms of capacity, in which marine transport facilitated more than 50% of
trade outside Europe in 2008 [3] and more than 80% of worldwide trade in 2015 [4].
Accordingly, the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted to the atmosphere by
ships must be considered significant, if not increasingly substantial. In 2000, ocean-
going ships emitted 638–800 Tg of carbon dioxide (CO2) [5] and 52–56 Tg of sulphur
dioxide (SO2) [6, 7] whilst consuming approximately 20 Tg of marine diesel oil (MDO)
[5]. Also, [8] reported that in 2005, marine transport released 651 Tg CO2 equivalent
GHG emissions. By comparing the results from 16 sources that used emission data
between 1993 and 2005, [9] noted that global CO2 emissions released by marine
transport had increased from 453 Tg to 960 Tg. Marine transport in 2012 contributed
2.1–2.2% of global CO2 and CO2 equivalent GHG emissions, which translated to 938
Tg and 961 Tg respectively [10]. However, [11] noted that these figures were likely
underestimated as documenting ship emissions in national inventories was not
required but rather a voluntary act. Underestimating ship emissions seemed to have
existed for some time. [12] claimed that the emissions of SO2 ‘were greater than had
previously been thought’ as the emissions were not in agreement with the inventories
published in Lloyd’s 1995 Register of Ship.
Allowing for the variations in emissions, an important and recurring theme has
emerged: emissions released by marine transport were not insignificant and seemed
to be increasing and, without due care, it could exacerbate climate change. The
seriousness of this issue was also emphasised by [13] who forecasted that taking no
1
action at all, in this matter, could result in an increase of up to 250% in shipping
emissions by 2050, compared to 2007. Concern for this matter provided the
motivation for the research presented in this thesis, “Life cycle assessment of marine
power systems onboard Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo) cargo ships: framework and case
studies”. The following sections describe the motivation and the scope of the study
in detail.
1.1 Marine Regulation: the International Convention for the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
As the agency of the United Nations which focused on shipping safety, security and
pollution prevention, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) had adopted the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) as the
strategy to minimise and furthermore prevent damage on marine environment due to
potential pollutants released during ship operation or accident. In total, six technical
annexes (denoted as I–VI) were established in line with the sources of pollutants,
including oil, noxious liquid substances, chemicals, sewage, garbage and air
pollutants. Amongst all, Annex VI Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from
Ships was most commonly emphasised by maritime stakeholders, such as ship
owners, operators, builders, classification societies, authorities, regulators and
researchers. As detailed in [14], Annex VI covered 18 regulations from application to
fuel oil availability and quality, as presented in Figure 1.1. As clearly stated in
Regulations 13 and 14, a number of thresholds were proposed and enforced (or
would be enforced in the near future) on shipping emissions released by marine
diesel engines installed onboard ships, in particular nitrogen oxides (NO x), sulphur
oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM). In addition, ships travelling in the Emission
Control Areas (ECAs), including Baltic Sea, North Sea, North American and
Caribbean Sea, had been subject to stricter requirements. Ships were obliged to
meet the thresholds by switching to low-sulphur fuels or employing an alternative
technique, as indicated in Regulation 4. In addition, the measure of Energy
Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships and the implementation of the Ship
Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships became mandatory in
2013 [15], which presented a challenge to the maritime industry.
2
Figure 1.1: Annex VI Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships.
3
1.2 Previous Work on Emissions, Energy Efficiency and Alternative
Solutions
Some studies on marine transport had primarily focused on emissions. In the late
1990s, deep sea storage of CO2 released from marine power systems were
investigated. For instance, [16] estimated the environmental impact of CO2 transport
systems whilst [17] proposed a framework to select the options based on legal and
socio-political perspectives. By conducting experiments, [18] showed that SO2 and
NOx emitted from international shipping had a consequential scale of influence on
local, regional and global air quality. By taking account of ship movements, energy
and environmental aspects, [19] applied a model to estimate energy consumption
and emissions released by ships within selected ports. Similarly, [20] claimed that
shipping industries, which released CO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and SO2 in
particular, could have significant impact on the environment. With exhaust samples,
[21] analysed the correlation between sailing modes and emissions. [22] explored
the relationship between CO2 emission and other factors such as ship type, size and
geographic setting. Focussing on SO2 abatement techniques, [23] analysed both
energy and emissions released by marine fuels due to crude oil production,
processing, distribution, consumption and scrubbing. To assist ship owners in
selecting the most suitable abatement technique, [24] developed a generic
methodology. [25] analysed the composition of exhaust released from marine fuel
combustion. [26] analysed to what extent efficient shipping could help reduce global
CO2 emissions. To estimate the contribution of shipping to global CO2 emissions,
[26] assessed global CO2 reduction targets using marginal abatement cost curves
developed for shipping and CO2 abatement techniques. [27] studied emissions, cost
and profit for the design of bulk vessels. To compare the use of marine gas oil
(MGO) and scrubbers, [28] performed a cost-benefit analysis. Based on emission
data collected from ships, [29] characterised PM in relation to particle size, mass,
number of volatility. Also, [30] compared current methods used for estimating energy
and emissions.
For the vast majority of vessels, marine diesel engines were the primary means of
energy conversion and source of harmful emissions. Thus, a number of studies had
focused on the correlation between diesel engine operation and emissions. For
example, [31] explored how the temperature and pressure of charged air would affect
NOx emission whilst [32] attempted to reduce such emission via injection pressure
4
correction. Meanwhile, [33] investigated how engine maintenance would affect NOx
and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. In addition, [34] studied PM emitted by
engines and possible reduction control strategies. [35] investigated the influence of
EEDI on driving future propulsion system design for liquefied natural gas (LNG)
carriers.
Considering that the propulsion and operation of cargo ships were made possible by
power systems, it was believed that research on marine power systems onboard
cargo ships was worth investigating. Marine technologies that were incorporated into
a marine power system could be classified as conventional and innovative. The
former was commercially and commonly applied whilst the latter was researched.
Whilst diesel engines, shaft generators, boilers, economisers, gearboxes, propellers
and bow thrusters represented conventional technologies, power take-off/power take-
in systems (PTO/PTI), lithium-ion batteries, photovoltaic (PV) systems, cold ironing,
flywheels, sails, fuel cells and super capacitors were examples of innovative
technologies.
Alternative emission reduction strategies could be considered from technical,

operational and multifaceted perspectives. Technical strategies included better
vessel designs, more efficient engines and propulsion systems, use of advanced
technologies, emission abatement systems and clean fuels. Based on a holistic
approach, [36] investigated advanced computer-aided techniques for better ship
designs. Recovering waste heat from diesel engine exhaust via the application of
novel cycles had been investigated. For example, [37] designed a combined steam
and organic Rankine cycle deployed by a diesel engine. [38] modelled and
compared cooling systems powered by waste heat absorption and vapour
compression cycles respectively. Although not as widely applied as diesel engines,
alternative prime movers employing various cycles had been reported. In this matter,
[39] discussed the design of combined cycles, including combined gas and steam
turbines, combined gas turbine electric and steam, and heat recovery steam
generators. [40] extended the study by covering the implications of combined cycles,
followed by a comparison of emissions released by gas turbines and diesel engines.
Also, [41] investigated a boil-off gas (BOG) reliquefaction system with cascade cycles
designed for liquefied natural gas carriers. Whilst [42] presented marine power
system designs which employed various types of fuel cells, [13] proposed a marine
5
trigeneration system incorporating diesel generators, solid oxide fuel cell (SOFCs), a
gas turbine and an absorption heat pump. Also, the use of sails to assist ship
propulsion was explored. Using wind tunnel tests and computational analysis, [43]
described the concept and analysed the performance. [44] modelled wind propulsion
technologies including Flettner rotors and towing kites. [45] used sensors to
measure strain and stress of a foremast by experiment. Based on performance and
aerodynamic analysis, [46] proposed cascade hard sails for potential applications in
marine transport. For cold-ironing technologies, [47] investigated the shore-side
design and control aspects, and [48] examined electrical characteristics of the
installation.
Operational strategies improved energy efficiency via effective operation, which

adopted slow steaming and/or optimisation of speeds, schedules, weather routings
and fleet planning. Ship speed had been scrutinised from different angles. For
instance, [49] reviewed speed models and relevant parameters for marine transport.
[50] investigated sailing speed optimisation for ships that transited across ECAs.
Based on real-time operational profiles of two relevant ships, [51] explored the
potential of improving energy efficiency via shorter waiting periods in port. Whilst [50]
focussed on optimisation issues associated with fuel-switching, [52] developed a
model which could be used to determine the optimal sailing route and speed. Based
on operational data taking into account sailing speed, cargo capacity and time spent
in port and at sea, [53] evaluated energy efficiency of feeders.
Multifaceted strategies presented wider scope which considered more than one
factor covering technical, operational, decision-making, economic, environmental and
legislative elements. [54] presented a review which covered technical (including
propeller programming, fuel slide valves, oil consumption and retrofit) and operational
aspects (in terms of business route, ship trim, hull, propeller and engine
performance, slow steaming, speed and fuel consumption). Using a life-cycle energy
management tool which considered configuration designs and operation profiles, [55]
estimated energy efficiency of container ships. [56] analysed the efficiency and
economic performance of a waste heat recovery system (WHRS) that deployed
transcritical Rankine cycle. Whilst [57] developed a model for fuel consumption
prediction using artificial neural network (ANN) to support decision making for energy
efficient operation, [58] proposed a framework to assist ship owners in breaking down
6
barriers to energy efficiency enhancement. In line with economic and environmental
perspectives, [59] scrutinised the implications of speed reduction. To achieve
optimum speed and fuel consumption at minimum cost, [60] proposed an algorithm
for bunker fuel management. [61] reviewed the fundamental principles, technical
designs and economic aspects of WHRS technologies. From technical and
economic perspectives, [62] compared two propulsion options for ferries and RoRo
cargo ships, i.e. a conventional diesel engine and a dual fuel engine employing a
WHRS. [63] studied different optimisation possibilities that considered various
control variables for a diesel engine integrating with a WHRS.
From a legal perspective, [64] assessed alternatives that might comply with future
requirements. [65] investigated the relationship between marine technologies and
legislation. [66] addressed the social-economic benefits of cold ironing. Using
environmental governance mechanisms, [67] focused on the deployment of ‘green’
ship operation by shipping organisations. Besides, decision support tools were
developed in relation to retrofitting a cargo ship in which [68] investigated the
installation of an exhaust gas scrubber and fuel switching whilst [69] studied the
option of connecting shaft generators to frequency converters. Also, [70] presented a
decision-making framework for cleaner transportation which assessed the trade-off in
all potential technologies and fuel sources. Meanwhile, [71] developed a process
modelling framework for electric propulsion systems on-board large bulk carriers
based on a system approach.
To date, the conventional power system design (i.e. diesel-mechanical systems)

remained advantageous for vessels operating at a low speed applying slow steaming
such as tankers, carriers and containers. However, all-electric was perceived as
beneficial if additional cargo capacity was desired by these cargo ships in addition to
RoRo cargo and passenger ships which required improved manoeuvrability and
more electric power to meet high hotel loads [72]. Indeed, electric systems were not
new. They had been researched and applied in cruise ships, as noted by [73, 74].
Literature examples included [72] which discussed design and control concepts,
components, systems and future trends; [75] which presented the terminology and
dependability theory of integrated power systems fundamentally required for electric
propulsion; [76] which focused on challenges and novel trends of electric power
generation schemes; [77] which proposed a control system for economic and
7
environmental operation; [78] which discussed the benefits and challenges of marine
electrical systems and how they were affected by the recent development in power
conversion technologies; and [79] which overviewed the past, present and future of
electric ships.
1.3 Previous Work on Environmental Impact Study

Implementing on-board technologies would also have an impact on the environment
itself, negligible or significant. In this context, the environmental impact such as
climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation,
acidification, eutrophication (nitrification), human toxicity, ecotoxicity, depletion of
abiotic resources and depletion of biotic resources as recognised by the International
Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) [80] might or might not be relevant. According
to [50], shipping was perceived to be environmentally friendly among all
transportation modes, in terms of total energy consumption and emissions. On the
contrary, [81] concluded that shipping had largely escaped from environmental
scrutiny if compared to other transportation modes. One way to verify the claims was
to look at existing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies ‒ a common tool used for
environmental assessment ‒ and the number of such studies which had been applied
to this transport mode. Previously, relevant LCA studies focussed on marine vessels,
structures, fuels, power technologies, emission abatement techniques, waste,
software and framework development, as briefly reported here. To assess transport
modes, [82] developed methodologies that could be applied, followed by [83] where a
screening assessment was performed and [84] in which case studies on transport
chain alternatives were presented. Building on the developed methodologies,
screening assessment and case studies, [85] presented an overview. [86] compared
materials used for constructing the structure of an inland ferry i.e. steel and fibre
composite. Whilst [87] analysed the impact of fossil fuels, [88] investigated the
pathways towards biofuel applications. Focussing on fuel cell technologies and
engines, [89] compared molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) with diesel engines;
[90] compared SOFCs to diesel engines; and [91] compared fuel cells, gas and
diesel engines. In addition, [23] assessed emission abatement techniques whilst [92]
studied waste management options in port. Also, [93] attempted to develop a tool
that could be used during the design phase. The work presented by [94] and [95]
related to one another on software development, as did [96] which used commercial
software. Whilst [97] presented an eco-design demonstrator that incorporating
8
environmental element, [98] covered additional elements such as cost and safety
aspects. How environmental impact was covered in these studies and their
limitations are summarised in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Focus, coverage of environmental impact and limitation of existing LCA
literature relevant to marine transport.
Focus, Literature Limitation
coverage a type b
Emission I [23] Only energy use and GHG emissions were
abatement, assessed per nautical mile of distance travelled
III
Transport, II II [82] Data were not presented; it was reported that most
data were available in SimaPro.
Transport II [83] Not publicly available.
Transport, III [84] The focus was on transport chains including railway,
IV road, aviation and waterborne.
Transport, I [85] Transport chains of cargo vessels and trucks were
IV studied but not fully reported.
Shipping, IV II [86] Data regarding emissions, engines and fuel
combustion were from literature or Ecoinvent
instead of primary data source.
Marine I [87] No account for reference ship, as did real-time data
fuels, III and total fuel consumption by the engine.
Marine I [88] Selective catalytic reduction, infrastructure, real-time
fuels, I operation and fuel consumption differentiation was
not considered.
Auxiliary I [89] No information about the reference ship; only 1
power, IV diesel engine was assessed although 3 units were
installed; reformer required for the MCFCs was not
considered.
Auxiliary I [90] The lifespans of SOFCs and diesel engines were
power, IV not considered; the comparison was made for 1kWh
electricity generated without reporting the total
impact.
Power IV [91] The functional unit was not appropriately defined. It
technology, was not clear if the system was for main or auxiliary
IV power.
Marine I [92] Most data were not country specific and data for
waste, IV cement production plant were limited; all processes
with a contribution less than 0.35% were excluded.
Shipping II [93] Brief and limited to the selected components and
software, II data; neither impact assessment results nor the
computer tool itself was available.
Shipping III [94] The software and operational data e.g. fuel type and
software, I consumption were not available; emissions were
reported as environmental impact.
Shipping I [95] The manufacturing phase was not included in the
software, III scope.
9
Shipping I [96] The software tool was not available; impractical as
software, II the environmental impact or emission reduction of a
technology was required to calculate the index.
Shipping I [97] Neither the demonstrator nor the tool was available;
software, II only very limited data and impact assessment
results were presented.
Shipping I [98] The tool was not available; data and details of
software, II environmental, economic and social assessments
were mostly not reported.
Framework, I [99] Limited to hull and machinery system, diesel oil and
I steel were the only resources under assessment,
and no environmental impact was assessed.
a Coverage of the environmental impact: I No coverage; II Recognition
without any estimate; III Assessment of 1–3 impact categories; and IV
Assessment of more than 3 impact categories
b Literature type: I Journal article; II Report; III Conference
proceeding/paper; and IV Thesis
1.4 Knowledge Gap

As implied by [100], some previous work focussed on emissions without elucidating
environmental issues. The omission was commonly found on literature which was
reported in the first paragraph of Chapter 1.2. A plausible explanation was that CO2
emission had been adopted as a means to measure energy efficiency of marine
power systems as in EEDI [35] whilst other GHG emissions were of lower magnitude
and had less contribution towards climate change. However, estimating GHG
emissions and climate change was not enough as it did not present a full picture of
the impact of marine transport on the natural environment. Climate change only
represented one of the attributes of natural environment from an LCA perspective.
Any unnatural change in the attributes of human health and/or natural resources was
indeed within the scope of environmental issues. Some examples of environmental
issues included (i) ecotoxicity (on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems), acidification,
eutrophication and photochemical ozone formation in respect of natural environment;
(ii) noise, odour, non-ionising radiation, thermal pollution and human toxicity (such as
respiratory, cancer and non-cancer effects) in relation to human health; and (iii)
freshwater consumption, depletion of fossil fuels and mineral resources relevant to
natural resources. Despite being mature and widely implemented, conventional
marine power systems had neither been scrutinised extensively in a single study nor
covered substantially from an LCA perspective. Exploratory research questions
therefore unfolded: What was the estimated environmental impact of a conventional
10
marine power system onboard a cargo ship? What parameters might affect such
impact?
By integrating different technologies, various power system designs would be

possible. Therefore, the environmental impact of each design would be subject to
change, in line with ship types, technology types, number of components and
operational profiles. Different marine power system designs that could be employed
onboard a cargo ship should be compared. Retrofitting existing cargo ships had
been envisaged as a green and competitive route for marine vessels that were built
prior to the enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI. Also, it was worth noting that the
number of global vessels would be dynamic due to demolition of old ships and
construction of new-build ships year by year. For instance, 22.4 million of gross
tonnage was sold for demolition and more than 309.4 million of deadweight tonnage
was ordered in 2014 [4]. Therefore, the opportunity of implementing innovative
power systems onboard new-build ships was unlocked. Some advanced
technologies had been rarely applied to marine transport despite being more
commonly implemented for onshore applications (such as PV systems) and road
transport (such as energy storage); both with a limited but increasing capacity.
Neither had the integration of these emerging technologies in a retrofit/new power
system nor their environmental performance been studied using an integrated
system approach. For a specific research focus, a particular type of cargo ship
should be selected. Altogether, more exploratory research questions were unfolded:
What was the estimated environmental impact of a retrofit or a new-build power
system onboard a cargo ship? Would integrating selected emerging technologies into
an existing or a new-build marine power system add any environmental benefits and
promote sustainability of the chosen ship type?
Concern in this matter had led to a research project funded by the European
Commission where this PhD study was delivered as a part of research dissemination.
As the study was of exploratory nature, it aimed to contribute to the conceptual
understanding of LCA study on marine power systems. To achieve the aim, the
following research objectives were defined:
 overview cargo ships, marine power systems and technologies
 review on LCA methodology development
 overview the end of life phase of relevant technologies and metallic scrap
11
 develop an LCA framework for marine power systems
 estimate environmental impact of selected power systems via LCA case
studies
 identify significant components and critical processes
 investigate the sensitivity of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results to
selected parameters
 compare power systems under study to verify the environmental benefits
of innovative power systems
1.5 The Fundamental Concept of LCA as a Research Tool

Previously, LCA was referred to as a cradle-to-grave assessment. It had been
practising since the early 1970s to assess the environmental impact of a product,
either goods or service, throughout its life cycle [101]. The framework, principles and
basic requirements of handling each LCA phase [102] was introduced by ISO in
1997, aiming to establish a universal technique which could be widely used to
address the potential environmental impact associated with a product. This was
extended in the late 1990s and beyond for the four LCA phases, including goal and
scope definition and life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) [103], LCIA [104] and
interpretation [105]. Then, they were revised and replaced by two shorter but more
succinct documents, ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 [106, 107]. A more detailed
elaboration of the historical development of the Standards was published in [108,
109], in addition to a summary of changes reported by [110].
When an LCA practitioner was interested in a particular product, either goods or
service, and furthermore carried out an LCA study to estimate its potential
environmental impact, the product was referred to as the product system or the
system being studied. According to [111], the “areas the society seeks to protect”
were the areas of protection (AoPs) in an LCA study. ISO 14044 had implicitly
defined human health, natural environment (e.g. ecosystem and biodiversity) and
resources (e.g. abiotic resources) as AoPs. A few commissioners/practitioners had
fully received the definition, for instance [112], but others preferred to adopt different
terminologies and/or extend the scope. To give a few examples, UNEP/SETAC Life
Cycle Initiative [113, 114] recognised human health, resource depletion and
ecosystem quality as the AoPs whilst [111, 115-117] recommended man-made
environment (e.g. monuments and forest plantations) as the fourth AoP. However,
[118] pointed out that man-made environment could not be considered as no
12
scientific consensus had been reached in quantifying any impact on man-made
environment. This study adopted the ISO’s definition.
The LCA framework proposed by ISO is illustrated in Figure 1.2. In brief, the goal of
an LCA study should tell why, for whom and for what. This could be done by clearly
defining the reason to perform the study, the targeted audience, the intended
application, together with a declaration of any plan to use the results in comparative
assertions and disclose them to the public. The scope of the study should
complement the set goal by defining what would be studied, what methodology or
approach would be applied and what requirements should be met in the following
phases. In principle, this included the product system, function, functional unit or
reference flow, system boundary, allocation, assumptions, data quality, impact
categories, LCIA methodologies, limitations, critical review (if any) and report format.
At this stage, whether the LCA study was of gate-to-gate, cradle-to-gate, gate-to-
grave or cradle-to-grave would be determined, as were processes and elementary
flows to include in the study. Mass, energy and environmental relevance were
recommended as the cut-off criteria used to exclude any insignificant inputs, outputs
or unit processes from a study.
Figure 1.2: LCA framework as recommended by ISO 14040 [106].
During LCI, materials, energy flows and products involved throughout the life cycle of
the product system under study were compiled from various data sources as inputs
and outputs. In practice, LCI presented a persistent challenge, i.e. allocation in the
13
cases of multi-functionality (involving two or more functions, co-products or systems)
and recycling. The step-by-step approach from avoiding to applying allocation based
on physical or other relationships was established by ISO 14044, as illustrated in
Figure 1.3. In respect of recycling, ISO 14044 recommended avoiding allocation if
material properties remained unchanged; else, allocating the inputs and outputs
based on (and in the order of) physical properties, economic value or the number of
use.
Figure 1.3: How to allocate inputs/outputs between co-products or functions.
In relation to of LCIA, ISO 14040 and 14044 had established selection, classification
and characterisation together with normalisation, grouping and weighting as
mandatory and optional elements respectively. Each element involved different
technical tasks with some basic requirements:
 Selection. Impact categories, category indicators and characterisation
models that were recognised internationally and related to the product
system under study should be selected. As detailed in ISO 14044, the
impact categories should be (i) named descriptively; (ii) identified with
category indicators, endpoints and LCIs that could be assigned to as well
as relevant characterisation factors and models that could be applied; and
(iii) selected to comprehensively represent the environmental issues
caused by the product system under study. The category indictor of an
impact category must be environmentally relevant, i.e. able to show the
consequences of LCIs on the category endpoint. Based on an identifiable
14
environmental mechanism, the characterisation model should be (i)
technically and scientifically sound where the extent of validity was
reported; (ii) linking the LCIs to the indicator and endpoint of selected
impact categories, and (iii) deriving characterisation factors for relevant
substances to allow for an aggregated impact for each impact category.
During selection, it was required to involve minimal value choice and be
free of double-counting.
 Classification. LCI results were assigned to appropriate impact
categories. Some LCI results would lead to only one single impact
category whilst others could result in more than one impact category. The
latter involved either parallel or serial mechanism.
 Characterisation. For each impact category, a category indicator result
(i.e. LCIA result) was calculated in a common unit. The indicator result
was the aggregated product of the LCI results and the characterisation
factors.
 Normalisation. Category indicator results were compared to a reference.
This could be useful for checking inconsistency, determining the
significance of an indicator result and preparing for the following stages. If
normalisation was applied, the technical tasks must be carried out
diligently, as explicitly pointed out by ISO 14044, “the normalisation of the
indicator results can change the conclusions drawn from the LCIA phase”.
 Grouping. Impact categories were organised based on indicator results
and value choice. Impact categories were (i) descriptively sorted based
on inputs/outputs, spatial dimension from local to global scales, AoPs or
the scientific degree of the model used; and/or (ii) hierarchically,
normatively ranked in the order of certainty or reversibility degrees, or
based on policy priorities.
 Weighting. Indicator results or normalised results were converted to an
aggregated score across impact categories. For all impact categories
under study, weighting factors were derived from value choice and applied
to the indicator results or the normalised results.
Life cycle interpretation involved the identification of significant issues and evaluation
of LCI and LCIA results in terms of consistency, completeness and sensitivity.
Sensitivity of the results was subject to uncertainty and methodological choice; both
15
issues could be dealt with using scenario analysis. Alternatively, uncertainty could
be addressed with additional data collection from further research or other
approaches for uncertainty analysis. It was essential to recognise that the results
could only provide an estimate on the environmental burdens where absolute
accuracy was impossible in any case. Therefore, explaining limitations, making
recommendations and drawing conclusions should be included.
1.6 In Need of an LCA Methodology Review

The following conclusion made by [109] deserved further investigation:
…critiques of the ISO 14040 series has markedly dropped off since
its redrafting and consolidation in 2006. Indeed, some
recommendations are merely repetitions of similar arguments made
previously or remain unsuitable…
The nonexistence of persistent critique, even if it was the case, did not necessarily
indicate acceptance or satisfaction. A possible explanation was that neither new
ideas nor solutions had been proposed whilst the research community had become
tired of the persistent problems. Indeed, some issues associated with the ISO 14040
series had been reported by [111, 112, 119, 120] after the revision, including its
overly flexible nature, the absence of step-by-step guidelines, the unequal level of
detail, the legitimacy of the results as well as the lack of consistency and quality
assurance, to name but a few. If recommendations were repeated, did they not imply
a possibility of unresolved issues? Also, it was unclear which recommendations were
‘unsuitable’ in this context as no elaboration was provided. If the claim (that the
critiques had dropped off after revision) was true, it would be intriguing to find out if
LCA, as the focus of the Standards, had also become mature and free of critiques.
A number of previous LCA reviews were published, which focussed on

 principles, challenges and opportunities [108, 111, 115, 116, 121-130];
 materials [131, 132];
 buildings and construction [133-138];
 food [139];
 transport [140, 141];
 bioenergy [142-149];
 solar energy [150-153];
 wind energy [154-157];
16
 geothermal energy [158]); and
 electricity generation [159-161].
This did not repudiate but intensify the need of a new review because an up-to-date
analysis on LCA methodology development embracing all life cycle phases was still
lacking whilst it was intriguing to find out if LCA had become mature. Prior to this
study, no one had ever attempted to review existing review articles. Also, integrating
concepts/approaches proposed for a particular topic and clearly showing the latest
research development trend were missing. Therefore, an up-to-date analysis on LCA
methodology development covering the four life cycle phases was required for better
understanding.
1.7 In Need of an LCA Framework for Marine Power Systems

It was worth noting that product systems assessed in LCA studies were generally like
chalk and cheese; and even in compliance with ISO Standards with a similar
research focus, each application would be case specific. Therefore, transferring from
theories to applications remained one of the greatest challenges faced by LCA
researchers, in particular to those who were new to the topic. Such a challenge had
inaugurated the development of LCA frameworks for product systems. Previously, a
number of LCA frameworks were proposed, as summarised in Table 1.2. Each
framework had distinct scope such as life cycle phases, specific
inputs/outputs/materials/processes, LCI methodologies, LCIA impact categories and
analysis, life cycle interpretation, social, national and sectoral focus, or combined
with other disciplinary approaches. In this matter, research gaps existed as the
coverage was not all-embracing yet where LCA frameworks for other scope were still
missing. The LCA framework proposed by [99] covered how to estimate emissions of
a sea-going ship attributable to hull and machinery systems. The scope was limited
as it took into account engines and boilers only without addressing the impact of such
emissions on the environment. In addition, component construction was limited to
engines which considered diesel oil and steel only whilst boiler construction was not
covered. As such, it intensified the need for an LCA framework that would focus on
power systems onboard ships, in particular, addressing resource consumption and
environmental impact throughout the life cycle.
17
Table 1.2: Scope of existing LCA frameworks.
Scope Literature
Life cycle phase  Resource supply, demand and use [162]
 Material selection [163]
 Manufacture [164]
LCI for specific  Green water flows [165]
input, output,  Nanomaterials [166]
material or process  Recycling [167]
 Topsoil erosion, transport and deposition [168]
LCI methodology  Database [169]
 Allocation [170]
 Consequential approach [171]
 Input-output based evaluation [172]
 Hybrid approach [173]
 Dynamic approach [174]
 Temporal discounting [175]
LCIA─impact  Resource depletion [176]
category and  Land use [177]
analysis  Traffic noise [178]
 Freshwater resource depletion [179]
 Noise impact [180]
 Indoor environmental quality [181]
 Noise, ecological light pollution and radio-frequency
electromagnetic fields [182]
 Indoor nanoparticle exposure [183]
 Decision analysis [184, 185]
Interpretation  Uncertainty analysis [186]
Social focus  Social LCIA [187]
 Working environment [188]
 Concept [189]
 Methodology [190]
National focus  Malaysia [191]
 Singapore [118]
Sectoral focus  Agriculture [192, 193]
 Tourism [194]
 Food processing i.e. fish products [195]
 Food production chain [196]
 Biofuel [197]
 Electric cars [198, 199]
 Ocean going ships [99]
 Manufacturing [200]
Wider scope  LCA and multi-criteria analysis [201]
 Sustainability assessment [202]
 LCA and urban metabolism [203]
 LCA and land planning [204]
 LCA and data envelopment analysis [205]
 LCA, economic and energy performance [206]
18
1.8 In Need of LCA Case Studies on Marine Power Systems
As explained in Chapter 1.3, knowledge gaps existed as previous LCA studies had
not assessed the environmental performance of marine power systems which
selectively integrated advanced technologies. To recap, research questions were
unfolded in Chapter 1.4: What was the estimated environmental impact of a marine
power system? Would advance technologies add any environmental benefits? One
way to address these questions was to perform LCA case studies on conventional,
retrofit and new-build power systems onboard the chosen ship type, in which the
environmental impact of individual systems was analysed and compared. In relation
to LCA studies, many LCA practitioners claimed that representative data which were
time and space specific were required for a more accurate LCA result. However,
such data were expensive and the process of data collection would be time-
consuming. It was argued that the impact of individual data on the overall result
could be insignificant particularly if the product system study had a massive system
boundary. If the argument was true, time and space specific data would not be
necessary and average data could be used instead. Case studies presented in this
study would verify the appropriateness of using average data to produce reliable
estimates of environmental impact, in addition to the identification of significant
parameters and impact.
1.9 Research Methodologies

The main research methodologies applied in this study steered from background
information and understanding towards research, application and completion. The
background of the topic (which covered marine regulations, previous work,
knowledge gaps, tools and approaches) formed the motivation and scope of the
study. The fundamental understanding was acquired through an overview on cargo
ships, marine power systems and technologies, and followed by literature review on
LCA methodology development, which are presented in Chapters 2 and 3
respectively. As the end of life was important, the study was extended to research
into the current practice of ship dismantling and end of life management of some
technologies and metallic scrap. The understanding of these subjects, altogether,
led to the development of an LCA framework for marine power systems. Both end of
life management and LCA framework are presented in Chapter 4. To expand
existing knowledge, the work was continued with the application of the research, in
which LCA case studies on selected power systems were performed (covering
19
material and energy acquisition, manufacture of components, operation and
maintenance of the systems, dismantling and end of life management). In applying
LCA, background data were collected and standardised from various sources, and
supplemented by commercial database, Ecoinvent, provided background data from
other sources were not available. Real-time operational data provided by the ship
owner were used by the research consortium to simulate optimised operation profiles
on a daily basis. The simulation results were used to estimate the primary data
required for this study including fuel consumption and emission release. Using GaBi
software, LCA models were created to estimate the environmental impact attributable
to individual components. Based on a bottom-up integrated system approach, the
environmental impact estimated for individual components incorporated into a
particular system was summed up to present the total environmental burdens
estimated for individual power systems. For each case study, the results were
analysed to identify significant components and critical processes. The case studies
were supplemented by scenario analysis to investigate the sensitivity of selected
parameters and determine the appropriateness of using average data in assessing
the environmental impact of a massive system. The case studies and analysis
enabled a comparison among power systems under study to determine the system
that was more environmentally friendly─all are presented in Chapter 5. The study
was completed and closed with an overall summary of the work, which is presented
in Chapter 6. Built upon the research methodologies, the overall structure of the
study is illustrated in Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4: The structure of the study.
20
1.10 Summary
Marine transport played a crucial role in modern life. However, emissions released
by marine transport were also significant, and would aggravate environmental issues
rapidly provided no due care was taken immediately.
The business, by its very nature, was complex as it had been constantly affected by
legislative (e.g. Annex VI and EEDI enforced by IMO), economic (e.g. capital
investment of technologies and fuel cost), technical (e.g. choice of technologies and
vessel types) and operational factors (e.g. efficiency, sailing routes and speed). To
address the challenge of complying with stricter regulations, recent research had
extended to cover emissions, energy efficiency, alternative solutions and
environmental studies. Knowledge gaps existed as the environmental impact of
conventional and innovative power systems onboard cargo ships had not been
assessed, neither had the significant causes nor the parameters that affecting such
impact. Annex VI enforced by MARPOL, previous work on emissions, energy
efficiency, alternative solutions and environmental impact study, LCA concept, the
need to review LCA methodology development, develop an LCA framework and
perform LCA case studies on marine power systems, and research approach applied
in the study were explained in this chapter. The literature journey continues in
Chapter 2 to explore cargo ships, power systems and technologies.
21
Chapter 2. Overview of Cargo Ships, Marine Power Systems and
Technologies
“There is not a discovery in science, however revolutionary, however sparkling with
insight that does not arise out of what went before. 'If I have seen further than other
men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants’. ”
Isaac Asimov
Adding a Dimension, 1964
Marine power system designs differed from ship to ship [207] and more than one
system design could be technically employed for most ship types. Prior to assessing
the environmental impact of any marine power system, a basic understanding of
cargo ship types, power systems and technologies was necessary to ensure
comprehensibility of the study, which presented the focus of this chapter as
illustrated in Figure 2.1. The knowledge of innovative technologies was crucial to
support the selection of the power systems under study and interpretation of the
results at a later stage in Chapter 5.
Figure 2.1: The focus of Chapter 2.
The following sub-objectives were set:

 overview cargo ship categories in terms of ship propulsion type, voltage,
total onboard power and deadweight (Chapter 2.1);
 overview marine power systems (Chapter 2.2); and
 discuss a selection of power technologies (Chapter 2.3).
The chapter was closed with a short summary to set the scene for Chapter 3.
22
2.1 Overview of Cargo Ships
Merchant ships, also referred to as civil ships, were of a variety of designs and could
be classified as cargo, industrial, technical and service ships. Cargo ships could be
further distinguished as general, liquid and specialised. Tankers, LNG, liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) and chemical cargo ships exemplified liquid cargo ships.
Reefers, containers, barge-carrying ships, bulk carriers, RoRo and Float-on/Float-off
(FloFlo) were common examples of specialised cargo ships. Whilst cargo ships
transported freights and passengers, industrial ships including trawlers, seiners and
whalers were operated primarily for fishing purpose. Technical and service ships, as
indicated by their names, were respectively in operation for specific purposes.
Floating houses (which functioned as hotels, hospitals or workshops), research ships
and training ships were examples of technical ships. Service ships, such as rescue
ships, fireboats and icebreakers were run respectively for emergency or navigation
against severe weather.
Different cargo ship categories had been proposed by a number of organisations, for
example IMO [208], Eurostat [209] and United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) [210]. By carrying out a comparison, it was evident that
some ships might fall within more than one type and moreover, some ship types
might be appropriate in more than one category. To gain insights into this matter,
data regarding 245 ships covering a wide range of ship types as published in
Significant Ships from 2008 to 2012 [211-215] were collected to build up a database.
As the ships were ordered in that period which were to be delivered in subsequent
years, they presented the latest trend of new-build designs. Data, such as name,
year of build, IMO number, deadweight, speed, model and make of main and
auxiliary engines, total power, type of propellers and thrusters employed onboard the
vessels were initially gathered. In addition, information with respect to voltage of the
power system installed onboard some ships were also available. Although not
exclusive, such data were beneficial enough to offer an idea in this matter. Due to
missing data, some ships were eliminated and consequently, only 191 ships were
included in the database.
Among the ships, the following 4 types of propulsion systems had been employed:
I Diesel engines driving fixed pitch propellers (FPPs) i.e. diesel-mechanical
systems
23
II Diesel engines with reduction gear connected to screw shafts to drive
controllable pitch propellers (CPPs) i.e. mechanical systems with reduction
gear
III Diesel engines driving alternators connected to electric motors i.e. diesel-
electric systems
IV Steam turbines, either with reduction or reverse gear connected to screw
shafts to drive FPPs
These propulsion systems are labelled as I–IV in relevant tables and figures in this
section for brevity and consistency.
Seven categories were defined through data analysis, namely container ships,
tankers, liquefied gas carriers, bulk carriers, passenger and cargo ships, general
cargo (without passenger) ships and support vessels. The generic structure of a few
ship types is illustrated in Figure 2.2. The findings of data analysis are summarised
in Table 2.1.
Figure 2.2: Generic structure of some marine vessels (adopted from [213]).
24
Table 2.1: Summary of the database, in terms of ship categories, types, propulsion
systems and voltages.
Ship Ship types as published in Significant Ships [211- Types of
categories 215] propulsion,
voltage
Container  Container ship I, 450V or
ship  Post Panamax container ship 6600V
II, 450V
Tanker  Oil/chemical carrier  Aframax oil tanker I, 440V,
 Oil/chemical tanker  Aframax oil/chemical 450V or
 Chemical tanker carrier 6600V
 Oil tanker  Suezmax oil tanker II, 440V
 Oil carrier  Suezmax crude oil
 Liquefied gas tanker tanker
 Very large crude carrier
(VLCC)
Liquefied  Liquefied gas carrier  3-fuel liquefied gas I, 445V,
gas carrier  Liquefied gas tanker carrier 450V or
 Dual-fuel liquefied  Diesel-electric LNG 6600V
gas carrier  Regasification tanker II
III, 6600V
IV, 6600V
Bulk carrier  Bulk carrier  Supramax bulk carrier I, 440V,
 Self-unloading bulk  Kamsarmax bulker 450V or
carrier  Kamsarmax bulk carrier 480V
 Self-unloading wood  Post panama bulk II
chip carrier carrier
 Fruit juice carrier  Dunkerque-max bulk
 Ore carrier carrier
 Coal carrier
Passenger  RoRo  Passenger ship I, 440V,
and cargo  RoRo, passenger  RoRo passenger 450V or
ship and vehicle ferry  RoRo passenger ship 600V
 RoRo vehicle carrier (RoPax) II, 400V,
 RoRo cargo ship  Cruise ship 415V, 440V
 Multipurpose RoRo  (Diesel-electric) cruise or 450V
 Multipurpose dry ship III, 6600V
cargo ship, RoRo  Passenger and vehicle
 Heavy-lift ferry
multipurpose RoRo  RoRo cargo/pure car
cargo truck carrier (PCTC)
 RoRo cargo and  Solar power car carrier
passenger ship
General  General cargo  Heavy load carrier I
cargo (no  Dry cargo  Heavy-lift cargo ship II, 450V or
passenger)  Hopper dredger 6600V
ship III, 6600V
Support  Special purpose ship  Offshore construction I
vessel (research) vessel III, 660V or
 Diving support vessel 6600V
25
 Wind turbine vessel  Deepsea intervention
 Subsea construction vessel
vessel  Floating production,
 Drillship storage and offloading
(FPSO) vessel
For each ship category, the relationship between total onboard power and
deadweight is illustrated in Figure 2.3 where the range of deadweight and total
onboard power are shown in Figure 2.4. Table 2.2 also presents the breakdown of
each range as per type of propulsion system. A few key points to note:
 Among 191 vessels, diesel-mechanical systems appeared as the most
common propulsion system employed onboard vessels, followed by
mechanical systems with reduction gear and diesel-electric systems, as
illustrated in Figure 2.5.
 For ships with diesel-mechanical systems, more than 98% of them
employed a FPP.
 Steam turbines with gear reduction connected to screw shafts was only
employed onboard liquefied gas carriers.
 Focussing on vessels operating with diesel-electric systems, the upper
limit of deadweight established was found to be 100000 tonnes.
100000
90000
80000
Total onboard power, kW
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
Deadweight, DWT
Container ships Tankers Liquified gas carriers
Bulk carriers Passenger and cargo ships General cargo (no passenger) ships
Support vessels
Figure 2.3: Total onboard power vs. deadweight of vessels for each category.
26
450000 120000
400000
100000
350000
Total onboard Power, kW

300000 80000
Deadweight
250000
60000
200000
150000 40000
100000
20000
50000
0 0
Ship category Ship category
Figure 2.4: Ranges of deadweight (left) and total onboard power (right) for each ship
category.
27
**
Ship
cargo
carrier
Tanker
Category
Bulk carrier
Liquified gas
General cargo
Container ship
Support vessel
(no passenger)
Passenger and
**
32100– 7147–72863 815–45200 27454– 5202– 3150– 22314–

I
147700 402347 154940 323190 156085
9303–53829 1853–11600 9386–55000 10630 7103–43593 18299–

II
127170
Type of propulsion system

3070– 3200 1441–15000 6150–97730
III
78500
28
82308–
IV
Deadweight (DWT), tonnes
97931
16500– 2984–15725 6072–69000 7800–30760 4050–55740 3140–55080 16608–

I
44080 87440
5100–3516 11810– 3820–4990 11630 3048–15728 17520–

II
67540 76474
12240– 3600 6400– 13300–

III
48000 109200 77000
34660–
IV
42790
Table 2.2: Ranges of deadweight and total onboard power for each propulsion type.
100000
DWT = 100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
Deadweight, DWT
I Diesel mechanical system II Mechanical system with reduction gear

III Diesel-electric system IV Mechanical system with steam turbine
Figure 2.5: Total onboard power versus deadweight of vessels for each type of
propulsion system.
The data also showed that vessels currently operating with diesel-electric systems
included liquefied gas carriers, passenger and cargo ships, general cargo ships with
no passenger and support vessels, as illustrated in Figure 2.6. Bearing the
deadweight of each vessel in mind, the application of diesel-electric propulsion
onboard these vessels showed the following trend:
 Liquefied gas carriers: mainly for those between 75000 and 100000
tonnes.
 Passenger and cargo ships: spread out evenly up to 15000 tonnes.
 General cargo (no passenger) ships: only one application was reported,
below 15000 tonnes.
 Support vessels: evenly applied for those below 80000 tonnes.
29
100000
15000, 97020
90000
DWT=100000
80000
Total onbaord power, kW
70000
60000
50000 78500, 44470

97730, 43650
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
Deadweight, DWT
Liquified gas carriers with diesel-electric system
Passenger and cargo vessels with diesel-electric system
General cargo (no passenger) ships with diesel-electric system
Support vessels with diesel-electric system
Figure 2.6: The application of diesel-electric propulsion among vessels in the

database.
2.2 Marine Power Systems

As shown in Chapter 2.1, marine power systems could be recognised in accordance
with its prime movers and transmission. To date, conventional technologies including
diesel engines, gas and steam turbines were still the primary choice of prime movers
for cargo ships. Nuclear powered systems had been explored and experimented
with a few ships but not commonly commercialised. The connection between prime
movers and propellers distinguished between mechanical and electrical transmission.
According to [216], the transmission of propulsion power was of
(i) direct-mechanical if the prime movers, in particular any low-speed engine,
were connected directly with the propellers;
(ii) mechanical with speed-reduction gear if reduction gearboxes were
employed between the prime movers and the propellers;
(iii) direct-electric if the prime movers were connected by cables to electric
motors that driving the propellers; and
(iv) all-electric (also known as full-electric, integrated electric or integrated full-
electric which was a speed controlled electric drive) if the prime movers
were connected to a switchboard where power electronics were employed
in distributing electricity to the electric motors that driving the propellers.
30
How marine power was supplied was a decisive factor. Depending on the end users,
it was commonly distinguished as main and auxiliary power supplies. The former
enabled ship propulsion and the latter provided electricity for ship services, e.g.
heating, refrigeration, fresh water, lighting, ventilation, pumps, cranes for cargo
handling etc. In terms of energy, the operation of a marine power system involved
chemical, thermal, mechanical and electrical energy conversions from fuel supply to
ship propulsion and services which involved various power technologies as
presented in Figure 2.7. Examples included here were not exhaustive but for
explanatory purposes. Nevertheless, it indicated the massive scope of a marine
power system which involved a broad selection of fuels and technologies applied in
various processes during daily operation. An in-depth understanding of marine
power systems as well as technologies was therefore important to ensure efficiency,
safety and sustainability.
Figure 2.7: The energetic transformations and possible power technologies for ship
propulsion and services.
Examples of power systems which were commonly mentioned in literature included

diesel-mechanical, steam turbine mechanical, nuclear-powered steam turbine
mechanical, gas turbine electric, diesel-electric, full-electric, combined and hybrid
power systems. As the most widely applied design for cargo ships, a mechanical
power system generated power separately from different prime movers for propulsion
31
and hotel loads respectively. A range of marine power technologies had been
employed as the prime movers of mechanical power systems onboard cargo ships,
including diesel, gas and dual-fuel engines, steam and gas turbines as well as
nuclear reactors. Amongst all, diesel engines were most widely applied for most
cargo ships whilst steam turbines were mainly employed onboard LNG carriers.
Applications of other technologies were relatively limited for cargo ships but common
for other ship types. For example, gas turbines were commonly used in combined
power systems for naval ships, nuclear was by and large for warships and
icebreakers, and electric motors were mainly adopted by submarines. Propellers
(and reduction gearboxes, if required) were employed in addition to enable ship
propulsion. Generally speaking, one to four prime movers of the same or different
technologies could be and were usually employed for power generation, separately
or in an integrated system.
A diesel-electric system employed prime movers to run electric generators (also

known as alternators) which connected to electric motors that coupling with the
propellers, and at the same time supplied electricity to auxiliary and hotel loads. The
prime movers [217, 218] would generally consist of 2 to 4 diesel engines of the same
output rate. Gas engines, gas turbines, steam turbines or combined cycle turbines
could be employed as alternative prime movers [219], if required. Mechanically
coupled with the prime movers, the electric generators were connected to a common
bus bar system. During operation, all electric generators fed the bus bar system to
power the electric motors which would consequently turn the propeller shafts directly
or via reduction gearboxes [220]. The rotation speed of the electric motors (and
consequently that of the propellers) was low but with high torque, which was
regulated via frequency and voltage control by transformers and converters [220].
Both diesel engines and electric generators continuously operated at the same
rotation speed [219].
Similar but more advantageous than diesel-electric power systems, all-electric power
systems (also known as full-electric, integrated electric or integrated full-electric)
would generate three-phase electricity based on power demand for optimal
performance in supplying electricity to both propulsion drives and all auxiliary
systems simultaneously [218]. Diesel engines and gas turbines of different
capacities were commonly adopted as the prime mover(s) with the use of power
32
electronics where gearboxes were eliminated. All-electric power systems could
involve alternating current (AC) and/or direct current (DC) distribution. When AC
distribution (which was more common) was considered, an all electric propulsion
consisted of prime movers, synchronous generators, switchgears, transformers,
power electronics converters (i.e. DC/AC, AC/DC and DC/DC), electric motors and
propellers. The prime movers employed for an all-electric power system could be of
various sizes of conventional propulsion technologies, including internal combustion
engines [221], gas turbines [222] or diesel engines combined with gas turbines [223].
The synchronous generators would be coupled with and powered by the prime
movers to generate AC power [221], which was then adjusted by transformers and
converted by converters before being used (i) by the electric motors to drive the
propellers and (ii) for auxiliary and hotel loads. The speeds of the prime movers and
electric motors were strategically and respectively controlled for optimal power output
[222]. In a DC distribution system (which was of growing interest), switchgears and
transformers were removed and rectifiers were used to convert AC power generated
by synchronous generators into DC power, leading to the elimination of multiple
stages of power conversion that were required by AC distribution systems. Electric
podded drives (i.e. azipod, where an electric engine was installed inside a pod) could
be used for better flexibility in propulsion. An all-electric power system was demand-
based as different (and only the necessary) prime movers would be selectively
operated based on dynamic demand for optimal efficiency [218].
A combined power system, for example combined diesel or gas turbine propulsion
(CODOG), combined diesel-electric and gas propulsion (CODLAG) and combined
steam and gas turbine propulsion (COSAG) as encapsulated by [224], employed any
conventional power technologies to supply propulsion power at low and high speeds.
As combined power systems were more commonly applied onboard naval vessels
but not for cargo ships, they were not further discussed.
2.3 Marine Power Technologies

Although marine engines were proven and mature, it was harder to achieve efficiency
improvement and emission reduction [61] via engine technologies alone. For these
purposes, alternative means for future ship propulsion and power supply had been
recently identified and proposed as possible measures to be taken. Examples of
these proposals included [9, 225, 226]. According to [9], 10–30% of CO2 could be
33
individually reduced via the uptake of CPPs, pulling thrusters, reduced waiting
periods in port, and implementation of cold-ironing and WHRSs, in addition to diesel-
electric, all-electric and improved machinery. [226] recognised the emergence of
low-energy, green-fuelled and electric ships, and therefore proposed alternatives that
would be suitable for each. [225] perceived gas turbines, hybrid propulsion,
renewable sources for large ships’ augmentation power, water injection and selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) as well as diesel and dual-fuel engines as technologies to
be implemented in short-to-medium term whilst other alternatives were also
recommended for medium-to-long and long terms. These recommendations were
integrated in terms of ship design, propulsion, machinery and operation as illustrated
in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8: Future technologies for ship propulsion and auxiliary power.
34
Research on innovative advances was still on-going, for example, to adopt fuel cells
and/or batteries for full-load requirement as substitutes for diesel engines or
implement a hybrid system which could offer partial propulsion benefits from fuel
cells, batteries, WHRSs, solar energy, wind energy and/or cold-ironing whenever
available. Existing literature had mainly focussed on one or two particular
technologies, whether conventional or innovative. Due to the lack of a single study
addressing marine power technologies comprehensively from fundamental concept
to state-of-the-art development, a knowledge gap existed, which motivated the
presentation of this overview.
In the following section, the fundamental working principle of marine power

technologies including diesel and gas engines, steam and gas turbines, fuel cells,
batteries, WHRSs, shaft generators, PTO/PTI, wind, solar and cold-ironing was
presented. For each technology, the state-of-the-art development, advantages,
disadvantages, suitable applications and fuel types, and any additional remark were
also illustratively summarised.
2.3.1 Diesel, gas and dual-fuel engines

Engines could be classified in accordance with the method used to ignite fuel,
crankshaft speed, working cycle, the acting combustion gases and fuel types
required for combustion, as below:
 Whilst spark ignition engines applied Otto cycle and relied on a spark plug
to ignite, compression ignition engines worked on Diesel cycle to self-
ignite by compressing the air in the cylinders to high pressure, high
temperature [62, 227].
 Engines were of low-, medium- and high-speed when the crankshaft
speeds, for example, for diesel engines were less than 140 revolutions per
minute (rpm), between 400 and 1000 rpm, or more than 1000 rpm,
respectively. Generally speaking, a low-speed engine would drive a
propeller directly whilst a medium-to-high-speed engine would be
connected to a reduction gearbox to drive the propeller.
 Engines were of 2- or 4-stroke respectively if their pistons were required to
perform a complete power cycle in 2 or 4 piston strokes whilst the
crankshaft completed 1 or 2 complete revolutions [227].
35
 Engines were of single- or double-acting in line with their combustion
gases acting on one or both sides of the pistons.
 Depending on marine fuels required for internal combustion, existing
engine types included diesel, gas and dual-fuel engines.
The working principles of 2- and 4-stroke diesel engines [228] were based on Diesel
cycle as briefly explained here. For a 2-stroke engine, the first stroke was known as
‘compression and power’, in which the piston in each engine cylinder would move
upwards to compress air-fuel mixture whilst air ports were covered up to result in
combustion. In the second stroke i.e. ‘exhaust and intake’, pistons moved
downwards and air ports were opened to enable rapid blow-down. Exhaust was
discharged whilst fresh air and fuel refilled the combustion chamber. In contrast, a 4-
stroke engine involved ‘intake’, ‘compression’, ‘power’ and ‘exhaust’ strokes. During
the ‘intake’ stroke, both inlet and exhaust valves would open for the inflow of fresh air
whilst the pistons were located at the bottom of engine cylinders. The second stroke
took place where pistons moved up and compressed the air. In the next stroke,
atomised fuel was sprayed finely by an injector in each cylinder, self-ignited and
burned whilst pistons moved downwards. During the ‘exhaust’ stroke, the exhaust
valves opened and pistons moved upwards to release exhaust gases. Additional
information about diesel engines in relation to advantages, disadvantages, suitable
applications, fuel types, state-of-the-art development and additional remarks is
shown in Figure 2.9.
36
Figure 2.9: Additional information about diesel engines.
Gas engines [228], which run exclusively on gas, were also known as single gas fuel
engines. Each complete working cycle of a gas engine involved 4 strokes based on
the Otto cycle principle. In brief, the combustion air supplied by the turbocharger
mixed with gas injected by a mechanical valve in each cylinder to form a lean
mixture. The mixture was then compressed and partially pushed into the pre-
combustion chamber to mix with pure gas. The rich mixture was ignited by a spark
plug which successively triggered the combustion of the lean mixture in the cylinder.
Additional information about gas engines is presented in Figure 2.10.
37
Figure 2.10: Additional information about gas engines.
As the state-of-the-art development of gas engines, dual-fuel engines [227] were also
of 4-stroke. They combined Otto and Diesel cycles and operated in gas mode or
liquid-fuelled diesel mode. During gas mode, the engine worked on lean-burn Otto
principle where the air-fuel mixture was compressed and ignited by a pilot fuel i.e. a
small quantity of diesel fuel (i.e. approximately 1–15% of total fuel input) injected into
the combustion chamber. Whilst working on diesel mode, the engine applied Diesel
cycle concept where diesel fuel, i.e. MDO, MGO or heavy fuel oil (HFO), was injected
into the chamber at high pressure to ignite and burn. The pilot fuel was maintained
to ensure reliable pilot ignition when gas mode was resumed. Therefore, dual-fuel
engines could operate with mixtures of gas and diesel fuels at various portions or
100% diesel fuels but not pure gas.
2.3.2 Steam and gas turbines

The use of steam turbines as marine power technologies was in proximity to boilers,
condensers and feeding pumps. The boiler burned BOG to generate high-
temperature, high-pressure steam which entered the steam turbine and expanded.
The potential energy of steam was transformed into mechanical energy to gear the
propeller shaft coupled with the steam turbine [229]. After leaving the steam turbine,
the low-pressure steam condensed in the condenser to form saturated liquid, which
was then compressed in the feeding pump before circulating back to the boiler.
38
Using a vaporiser to generate additional BOG and burning a liquid fuel were 2
possible fuel options for boilers in case BOG was insufficient [207]. Additional
information about steam turbines is illustrated in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11: Additional information about steam turbines.
With different components, gas turbines [224, 228] functioned based on similar
working principles. Typically, a gas turbine had one or more built-in compressors,
combustors/heat exchangers, compressor turbines and power turbines. In a simple
open/close cycle, atmospheric air/the working fluid was compressed by the
compressor and became high-pressured. The high-pressured compressed
air/working fluid was then delivered to the combustor/the high-temperature heat
exchanger so that fuels could be burned in compressed air/working fluid. The hot
air/working fluid from the combustor/high-temperature heat exchanger expanded in
the compressor turbine before it was released to the atmosphere/the low temperature
heat exchanger. The potential energy of the hot air was converted into mechanical
energy to drive the power turbine which was coupled directly with a propeller for
mechanical transmission or an electric motor in the case of electrical transmission. In
some cases, additional components, for example regenerators, intercoolers,
recuperators and reheat combustors, to name but a few, were incorporated into the
simple cycle to form regenerative, intercooling, intercooling recuperated, reheat and
intercooling reheat cycles, respectively. Additional information about gas turbines is
presented in Figure 2.12.
39
Figure 2.12: Additional information about gas turbines.
2.3.3 Fuel cells

Despite the fact that numerous types of fuel cells were available in the market or
undergoing development, as reported by [230, 231], only 3 types of fuel cells were
suitable for marine applications. These included MCFCs and SOFCs for marine
propulsion in small vessels and proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) for
auxiliary power in large vessels [232]. The basic design of a fuel cell consisted of an
electrolyte located between an anode and a cathode. The anode was also known as
a fuel electrode where a hydrogen flow was supplied; likewise, the cathode was also
referred to as an oxidant electrode where an air flow was supplied. Hydrogen and
the air were stored in external storage tanks and supplied to the fuel cell during
operation [225]. Additional information about fuel cells is presented in Figure 2.13.
40
Figure 2.13: Additional information about fuel cells.
The fundamental principles applied to MCFCs, SOFCs and PEMFCs were based on
electrochemical reactions where oxidation and reduction processes took place at the
anode and the cathode of the fuel cells respectively to produce water, heat and
electricity. The latter was generated in all cases following the movement of electrons
along an external circuit connecting the anode and the cathode. Electrochemical
reactions taking place in these fuel cells were briefly explained:
 MCFCs [233]: Acting as electrolyte, the molten carbonate salt conducted
carbonate ions. At the anode, hydrogen molecules reacted with carbonate
ions to produce water, carbon dioxide and electrons. Carbon dioxides
proceeded through molten carbonate whilst electrons travelled along an
external circuit to reach the cathode. At the cathode, oxygen molecules in
the air reacted with carbon dioxides and electrons to result in carbonate
ions, which maintained the quantity of electrolyte in MCFCs.
 SOFCs [231]: At the anode, hydrogen fuel was burned and resulted in
difference in oxygen concentration across the electrolyte, i.e. hard
ceramic. Oxygen molecules at the cathode were attracted to travel
through the electrolyte and reached the anode to react with hydrogen
41
molecules where water, electrons and heat were produced. Electrons
travelled along an external circuit to reach the cathode where oxygen
molecules in the air were reduced to oxygen ions after acquiring these
electrons. The same process repeated.
 PEMFCs [230]: At the anode, hydrogen gas was oxidised to produce
hydrogen ions and electrons. Hydrogen ions proceeded through an acidic
electrolyte whilst electrons travelled along an external circuit to reach the
cathode to react with oxygen molecules. Likewise, water and heat were
produced.
2.3.4 Batteries
The basic structure of batteries comprised one or more electrochemical cells in which
each cell consisted of a negative electrode (i.e. anode), a positive electrode (i.e.
cathode) and a solid, molten or liquid electrolyte [234]. Batteries were constantly in
charging or discharging mode [234]. During discharging mode, oxidation took place
in anode where positive ions (cations) and electrons were released whilst reduction
happened in cathode and resulted in negative ions (anions). Cations and anions
would flow to the opposite electrodes through the electrolyte. Meanwhile, electrons
would travel from the anode to the cathode along an external load to provide the
required power. To charge the batteries, an external power source was supplied.
Two processes involving electrons happened simultaneously, i.e. electrons at the
negative terminal of the power source were injected in the anode whilst electrons at
the cathode were attracted to the positive terminal of the power source. Reduction
and oxidation took place in the anode and the cathode respectively to enable both
electrodes to regain their previous states. As soon as the batteries were fully
charged, their discharging mode resumed. Additional information about batteries is
42
Figure 2.14: Additional information about batteries.
A wide range of batteries had been developed, for examples lead-acid, nickel-
cadmium, sodium-nickel chloride, zinc-air, sodium-air, lithium-air, magnesium-ion,
magnesium-sulphur and lithium-sulphur, to name but a few. High energy density,
long discharging time and consistent voltage drop over time were three
characteristics required by batteries for marine propulsion applications [235].
Lithium-ion, sodium-sulphur and flow cells which showed such characteristics were
anticipated as the potential candidates, and were therefore further discussed here.
 Lithium-ion batteries [234, 236, 237]. The electrolyte of lithium-ion
batteries was commonly a mixture of 2 to 4 lithium-based salt solutions
which was electronically not conductive but capable to transport lithium
ions. To enhance the power density of lithium-ion batteries, the distance
travelled by ions was kept as short as possible, either by placing the
electrolyte in a polymer or absorbing the electrolyte with thin fleece. Inside
lithium-ion batteries, small particles were covered by a surface film known
as solid-electrolyte-interphase (SEI). A binder was used to attach the
particles to a current collector of each electrode, i.e. lithium-metal-oxide
particles (with increased conductivity by graphite) to aluminium foil for the
43
positive electrode and lithium-graphite particles to copper foil for the
negative electrode, as illustrated in Figure 2.15.
Figure 2.15: The structure of a lithium-ion battery cell [236].
During discharging mode, lithium ions travelled from lithium-graphite

particles in the negative electrode, through electrolyte, and entered
lithium-metal-oxide particles next to the positive electrode whilst electrons
also moved from the negative to the positive electrodes via an external
circuit. To avoid permanent damage to lithium-ion batteries, charging
process generally started when the batteries were nearly 80% discharged
where lithium ions took a reverse path and electrons were injected from an
external source.
 Sodium-sulphur batteries [237-239]. In contrary to conventional batteries,
sodium-sulphur batteries operated at high temperatures between 300 oC
and 350 oC. They were made of liquid electrodes (i.e. molten sulphur and
molten sodium as positive and negative electrodes respectively) which
were physically isolated from each other by a solid electrolyte (i.e. beta-
alumina ceramic tube), as illustrated in Figure 2.16.
44
Figure 2.16: The structure of a sodium-sulphur battery [237].
During discharging mode, sodium ions migrated through beta-alumina to

combine with sulphur and form sodium poly-sulphides, i.e. Na2S4.
Meanwhile electrons travelled from the negative to the positive electrodes
along an external circuit. During charging mode, the processes reversed:
electrons were supplied to the negative electrode by an external source
whilst sodium ions released from sodium poly-sulphides resumed their
former form, i.e. sodium. The operating temperature of sodium-sulphur
batteries was maintained by the heat produced throughout the processes
during charging and discharging or by an external heat supply during
stand-by mode.
 Flow batteries, also known as redox batteries [239], flow cells [234],
regenerative fuel cells [240] or redox flow cells [239]. In addition to
generic components such as anodes, cathodes and electrolytes, the basic
structure of flow batteries also included an ion-exchange membrane and
pumps as necessary constituents, as illustrated in Figure 2.17. Inside an
electrochemical cell, the membrane used to separate the anode and the
cathode was permeable to anions (more commonly) and cations.
Externally stored in separate tanks, 2 liquid electrolytes were recirculated
to the cell by pumps through recirculation loops during charging and
discharging mode. To acquire useful power capacity, more than 1 anode
and cathode could be employed in series in a flow battery unit based on
the ‘plate-and-frame’ principle [240]. Flow batteries functioned based on
reversible reduction and oxidation processes taking place at the cathode
and the anode respectively. Zinc-bromine batteries and vanadium redox
45
batteries were two common examples of flow batteries. The electrolytes of
these batteries were zinc bromide liquid and vanadium of different valence
states in a sulphuric acid medium, respectively.
Figure 2.17: The structure of a flow battery [234].
2.3.5 Waste heat recovery systems (WHRSs)

When marine fuel was burnt by a two-stroke diesel engine onboard a sea-going ship,
approximately 50% of the input energy was used for power output whilst the rest was
released as waste heat, i.e. 25% from exhaust (between 250 oC and 500 oC), 16.5%
from air coolers, 5.2% from jacket water coolers and 2.9% from lubricating oil coolers
[61, 241]. Depending on the system configuration, the waste heat, if recovered,
could be used to produce [61]
(i) saturated steam using an evaporator or an exhaust gas boiler (i.e.
economiser) to meet heating demand;
(ii) both saturated and superheated steam which was fed to a compressor,
and/or a turbine (commonly known as turbocharger, power turbine and
turbo-compounding) for electricity generation to enable ship propulsion;
(iii) chilled effect for refrigeration using a refrigerant and an absorbent; and
(iv) fresh water by flashing (due to a sudden pressure drop), cooling and
condensing sea water in a multi-stage flash (MSF) system supply.
46
The first two applications were more common [242], evidencing the potential of
WHRSs for overall energy efficiency improvement and fuel consumption reduction.
Additional information about WHRSs is shown in Figure 2.18.
Figure 2.18: Additional information about WHRSs.
A number of WHRS configurations had been reported, for example:

 A simple WHRS with a basic Rankine cycle [61] for heating purpose, as
Figure 2.19: The simple WHRS with a basic Rankine cycle [61].
47
The simple WHRS based on a Rankine cycle [61] was a typical
application, which composed an evaporator/economiser, a turbine, a
condenser and a feed pump. The working fluid, e.g. water or organic fluid,
was pumped by the feed pump to enter the evaporator where steam was
produced and further heated by waste heat. The high-temperature steam
reached the turbine, expanded and produced power which was then
transferred to the electric generator or shaft propeller. The turbine outlet
was condensed in the condenser and the resulting liquid was pumped
back to the evaporator where the processes repeated.
 A single steam pressure WHRS [242] for electricity generation. A single
steam pressure WHRS consisted of an exhaust gas boiler, a water/steam
drum, a heat exchanger, a turbogenerator, 2 condensers and 4 pumps, as
Figure 2.20: The single steam pressure WHRS [242].
The exhaust gas boiler consisted of economiser, evaporator and

superheater sections which dealt with heated feed water, water at a
temperature close to the saturation point, and saturated steam
respectively. The (preheated) feed water from the feed water tank and the
48
saturated water from the water/steam drum were respectively pumped by
a feed water pump and an economiser circulating pump to enter the heat
exchanger. From there, the heated feed water entered the economiser
section of the boiler, and reached a temperature close to the saturation
point before returning to the water/steam drum. With an evaporator
circulating pump, the almost saturated water left the drum, entered the
evaporation section of the boiler and became saturated. The saturated
water/steam mixture returned to the drum and got separated. The
saturated steam left the drum, went through the superheater section of the
boiler and became superheated before heading to the turbogenerator.
The superheated steam expanded in the turbogenerator to produce power
output. The steam outlet from the turbogenerator was condensed by sea
water in a condenser, and sent back to the tank by a condensate pump.
The surplus quantity of saturated steam generated in the drum, if any, was
condensed by a surplus steam condenser and sent back to the tank. The
processes repeated until the required quantity of electricity was generated.
It was worth noting that the use of engine air cooler for preheating purpose
should not be considered for single pressure WHRS as it could not result
in any significant efficiency improvement, although it did work well for dual
steam pressure WHRS [242].
 A dual steam pressure WHRS [241] for electricity generation, as illustrated
in Figure 2.21 consisted of steam and power turbines, an economiser, a
condenser, a separator, a preheater and a few feed water pumps. Both
steam and power turbines connected to a turbocharger via a speed
reduction gearbox to drive the alternator of the engine. The steam turbine
was of dual-pressure and multi-stage. Similarly, the economiser had low-
and high-pressure evaporators and separators. Engine exhaust gas was
fed to the economiser and the power turbogenerator whilst the jacket
cooling water was employed to preheat the feed water to 85 oC. Some
feed water entered the low-pressure evaporator where saturated steam
was generated, then superheated by the low-pressure superheater before
heading to the steam turbogenerator. The shaft power generated by both
power and steam turbogenerators would drive the alternator via reduction
gearboxes where the generated power was used for propulsion. During
the process, some feed water was further preheated by the scavenge air
49
cooler to reach a temperature of 150–170 oC before being supplied to the
high-pressure evaporator. The resulting high-pressure saturated steam
was then used for ship services. The dual steam pressure WHRS could
run on 4 modes with different electrical power sources: (i) motor mode
powered by the WHRS; (ii) alternator mode by the motor/alternator
system; (iii) booster mode by the WHRS and auxiliary engines; and (iv)
emergency mode (where engines were disengaged) by auxiliary engines.
Figure 2.21: The dual steam pressure WHRS [241].
2.3.6 Shaft generators and power take-off/power take-in (PTO/PTI) systems

Traditionally, a shaft generator functioned as an AC generator to assist ship
propulsion. Electricity was generated when the armature conductors of the shaft
generator were cut by the magnetic field created by the rotation of the propeller shaft
or the crankshaft of the main engine [243]. The shaft generator was mechanically
driven by a main engine directly or via a reduction gearbox to drive the propeller. It
was also known as power take-off (PTO), and its voltage and frequency varied with
the changing speed of the engine in correspondence to sailing profiles [244]. As
power distributed by the main switch board was of constant voltage and frequency,
the presence of a frequency control system (e.g. bi-directional converters) was
essential to maintain the voltage and frequency of PTO at any engine speed. If an
alternative power source (e.g. batteries or auxiliary generators) was employed to
50
supply electricity to the shaft generator, it worked as a motor. It was referred to as
power take-in (PTI) and it would drive the propeller at a reduced speed [243]. During
emergency, when the main engines failed, the shaft generator would be powered by
auxiliary generators to function as a take-me-home device. Additional information
regarding shaft generators is shown in Figure 2.22.
Figure 2.22: Additional information about shaft generators.
2.3.7 Photovoltaic (PV) systems

Solar cells, modules (also referred to as solar panels) and arrays were the
components of a PV system which differed in terms of size and arrangement. As the
basic unit, the solar cell comprised positive and negative semiconductor layers i.e. a
PN junction [245]. Two common types of solar cells were crystalline cells and thin
films which were made of silicon and amorphous silicon respectively [246]. Figure
2.23 illustrated how solar cells generated electricity from sunlight. In brief, the solar
cell absorbed photons from sunlight and as a result, electrons in the negative layer
were released. These electrons were naturally attracted to the positive layer and
their movement across an external circuit would create voltage difference that
resulted in an electric current [245].
51
Figure 2.23: How solar cells worked.
As the structure of solar cells connected in series, modules could be arranged in

series and/or parallel to build up a single or multiple arrays. A number of
arrangements had been designed for existing PV systems [245], including:
 string technology i.e. only one string of parallel panel to one converter;
 centralised technology i.e. strings of parallel panels connected to a
converter;
 multistring technology i.e. strings of parallel panels, each with individual
converter, connected to a common converter; and
 module-integrated converter technology i.e. only one single panel to a
converter.
Additional information about PV systems is presented in Figure 2.24.
52
Figure 2.24: Additional information about PV systems.
2.3.8 Technologies that harnessing wind energy

Being identified as one of the future maritime technologies [225, 226] which could
partially cover loads on the prime movers and consequently reduce fuel
consumption, harnessing wind energy seemed to be coming back into fashion for
ship propulsion. The pertinent technologies included a variety of sails (namely rigid,
dynarigs, telescoping and turbosails), towing kites, and Flettner rotors, as illustrated
in Figure 2.25.
Figure 2.25: A variety of sail types.
The working principle of each sail type was briefly explained as follows:
 A rigid sail, also known as traditional sail or wing, consisted of a piece of
fabric stretching over the mast [43]. When travelling in the same direction,
ships with rigid sails were accelerated by wind. Otherwise, a rigid sail
acted like an airfoil corresponding to airflow. Wind from one side
proceeded along the sail towards the rear, resulting in a higher air
pressure at the rear of the vessel. Due to the pressure difference of the
53
air flow, a lift was created at the other side of the sail, which pulled the
vessel forwards.
 A dynarig [247, 248] consisted of sails which were set to the yard camber
and rigidly attached to a freestanding mast on a square rig. The mast
rotated freely in corresponding to wind direction so that sails could work
effectively to assist ship propulsion.
 A telescoping sail [249] consisted of curvy, hollow, identical, retractable
and automatically-controlled parts which were made of aluminium and
fibre-reinforced plastic. The sail could be expanded or contracted in
accordance with weather and operational conditions, for example,
contracted when the ship was in the port or during bad weather.
 A turbosail [43] consisted of metallic, hollow but perforated cylinders which
rotated when wind passed through. Based on Savonius principle,
turbosails were installed at fixed points. A fan was placed above each
turbosail. Operated by engines, the fan accelerated the airflow and
resulted in increased lift for ship propulsion.
 Directly attached to the bow of the ship, a towing kite [226], also known as
skysail, created a thrust force from wind that assisting ship propulsion.
 A Flettner rotor [43, 44] was a rotating cylinder built on the Magnus effect.
When wind impacted the rotating rotor from one side, it dispersed around
the rotor, resulting in a forward lift and a turbulent wake, i.e. aerodynamic
drag, at the opposite side.
Additional information in relation to the use of wind energy was presented in Figure
2.26. It was important to stress that wind propulsion technologies were still
undergoing development [248] at this stage and their employment would require the
presence of conventional power technologies to guarantee full ship propulsion.
54
Figure 2.26: Additional information about technologies that harnessing wind energy.
2.3.9 Cold-ironing
Cold-ironing, as illustrated in Figure 2.27, was also referred to as shore-side
electricity [250], shore-side power [251], shore connection or on-shore power supply
[252]. Traditionally, when a ship berthed, its auxiliary engine and boilers stayed in
operation to provide hotel services. In contrast, cold-ironing allowed for meeting
hotel loads without any disruption by plugging the ship into local power supply whilst
the auxiliary engines were turned off [252]─a pretty straight-forward working
principle.
Figure 2.27: Cold ironing for marine vessels in port [250].
Nevertheless, the electrical infrastructure development in port and onboard ships

involved not only massive financial investment but also technical barriers. In addition
to the diversity of voltage, frequency and power requirements and inconsistency of
55
connectors and cables used onboard different ship types, the expensive cost of on-
shore electricity in some regions also hindered the uptake of this technology [252].
Recent studies [251, 253] also concluded that the benefits of cold-ironing were
greatly dependent upon the way on-shore electricity was generated: only if
renewable energy sources e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, solar etc. were primarily
employed, would the cold-ironing be promising and advantageous in emission
reduction. Therefore, countries which relied on fossil fuels for power generation
would not be able to take any advantage. Additional information about cold-ironing is
Figure 2.28: Additional information about cold-ironing.
2.4 Summary
An overview on cargo ships, marine power systems and technologies was presented
in this chapter. In short, the prime movers of cargo ships were, to date, primarily
selected from conventional power technologies including engines, turbines and
nuclear power, which were capable to meet full range and peak power demands
independently. At present, focus had been steered towards innovative technologies,
such as fuel cells, batteries, WHRSs, cold-ironing, PV systems and technologies that
harnessing wind energy, which showed the potential to augment auxiliary power
onboard cargo ships. Whilst mechanical systems were most common at present,
intensive interest had been shown on diesel-electric, all-electric and hybrid systems.
56
Particularly in relation to auxiliary power supply, auxiliary generators were required in
the case of mechanical systems whilst alternative sources were employed by hybrid
systems. Neither auxiliary generators nor alternative sources were necessary for
diesel-electric and all-electric power systems. Whilst marine power system designs
differed from ship to ship and more than one system design could be technically
employed for most ship types, diesel engines remained as the conventional practice.
The innovative technologies could not eliminate conventional technologies but only
supplement them by acting as an augmentation to partially cover the power demand,
unless a major breakthrough occurred. The operation of a marine power system
involved energy conversion from chemical to mechanical, thermal and electrical. The
broad selection of fuel types, technologies and the involvement of various energy
types and processes, altogether, increased the complexity of a marine power system.
For safety and sustainability, care was required in proposing advanced power system
design integrated with any innovative technology. It was therefore important to
compare these technologies from an environmental perspective. For this reason,
LCA was selected in this study as a tool to estimate the environmental impact of
selected marine power systems, which is covered in Chapter 5. To enhance
understanding, a review on LCA methodology development is presented in Chapter
3.
57
Chapter 3. Literature Review of Life Cycle Assessment
Methodology Development
“Science, like life, feeds on its own decay. New facts burst old rules; then newly
divined conceptions bind old and new together into a reconciling law. ”
William James
The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, 1910
In addition to LCA concept (as presented in Chapter 1) and an overview on cargo

ships, power systems and technologies (as presented in Chapter 2), an
understanding on LCA methodology development was another prerequisite
knowledge required for the study. The focus of this chapter is illustrated in Figure
3.1. The literature review was crucial for the selection of LCIA methodologies and
impact categories in LCA application at a later stage in Chapter 5.
Methodology approach applied in delivering this analysis is explained in Chapter 3.1.

Covering the four life cycle phases, the following sub-objectives were set:
 scrutinise LCA methodology development to compare and integrate the
proposed concepts or approaches (Chapter 3.2);
 clarify environmental aspects, environmental impact and impact categories
(Chapter 3.3), goal and scope definition (Chapter 3.4) and LCI analysis
(Chapter 3.5);
 discuss LCIA methodologies for impact categories that had recently shown
substantial development (Chapters 3.6–3.8); and
58
 detail methodology development with respect to life cycle interpretation
(Chapter 3.9).
The chapter closes with a short summary to set the scene for Chapter 4.
3.1 Methodology used in This Literature Review

The literature review covered three levels of discussion from recognition to
clarification and extensive discussion, as presented in yellow, orange and black
boxes respectively in Figure 3.2 in the form of a mind map. It was carried out in line
with the core of the LCA framework recommended by ISO 14040 [106] and extended
to the associated components and/or elements. Other types of LCA study based on
exergy, emergy, embodied energy or sustainability concept (see [137, 254-257]) had
been emerging but not included in this analysis, mainly because they were neither
covered by ISO 14040 nor ISO 14044. They were excluded from this analysis so
that the review could direct attention towards conventional LCA only. Literature on
LCA methodology development available on ScienceDirect and Google Scholar was
identified for the analysis. The literature included review articles, research articles,
technical reports, guidelines and conference papers. To uncover research trends
shown in the literature, a threefold analysis (instead of a one-off approach) was
developed in 3 stages. In the first stage, generic terminologies were used to search
for relevant literature. Review articles published in the last decade, 15 in total, were
categorised into Sample Group A and analysed to determine their literature coverage
in terms of topic and level of detail. In the second stage, the remaining literature was
filtered based on the contents presented in their abstracts and conclusions.
Literature on conventional LCA study (95 pieces in total, of which 83% were journal
publications) were selected to form Sample Group B and analysed to reveal the
research trend. Upon completion of this stage, topics requiring clarification or
recently being substantially developed were determined. In the third stage, literature
in Sample Groups A and B was checked. Using specific keywords, additional
literature materials (38 in total which were necessary for complementing an in-depth
discussion) were found. These materials were categorised into Sample Group C and
analysed. Sample Group C was deliberately not added to Sample Group B to avoid
any bias in the research trend. Separate disclosure and a comparison of the topics
covered by both review and other literature types were made possible through this
threefold analysis to determine if they were in agreement. Based on the findings,
research needs in the area of LCA were identified.
59
Figure 3.2: A mind map illustrating the focus of this LCA review.
60
3.2 Findings of Literature Analysis: the Current Research Trend
3.2.1 Analysis of review articles (Sample Group A)
The outcome of analysing 15 review articles [108, 109, 111, 115, 116, 121-130] is
summarised in Table 3.1 where a scale of I–VI was adopted to describe the levels of
discussion (from recognition to extensive and integrated discussion). The articles
showed a research trend in accordance with the life cycle phases. With the
identification of research needs and challenges [108, 129], the focus had steered
from an overarching LCA concept of all-embracing life cycle phases [115, 116, 121,
123, 124] to single phase of LCI [122] and LCIA [111], followed by the sole
engagement with a specific topic, e.g. consequential LCI [125], weighting [127], ISO
Standards [109] and recently researched impact categories [126, 128, 130]. In
relation to LCIA, the scope had become more specific in a similar manner, shifting
from a wide range of common impact categories [116] and characterisation models
[111] to a coverage of a few less developed impact categories [115], followed by
concentration on individual impact categories [126, 128, 130]. Among all, [115]
presented the most comprehensive coverage, although transparency,
documentation, temporal differentiation and sensitivity analysis were barely
recognised whilst ISO Standards, double counting, cut-off, serial and parallel
mechanisms, and dynamic of environment were missed out. Conversely, [122, 126]
showed the most limited scope with an emphasis on LCI and LCIA respectively.
Whilst data availability, source or database and uncertainty were most frequently
recognised, characterisation and relevant methodologies were most intensively
discussed. A continuous coverage was found for most topics with the exception of
process-based and hybrid LCI approaches, selection of impact categories,
characterisation models and factors, and dynamic of environment, which had been
exclusively unattended to since 2010. Meanwhile, some topics which were briefly
mentioned in ISO Standards were not at all or sporadically discussed e.g. serial
and/or parallel mechanisms, recycling, future scenario modelling and grouping.
Other topics which were not included in ISO Standards were brought up e.g. rebound
effect, renewability of resources, dynamic of the environment and consensus building
or harmonisation. In addition, some topics, e.g. transparency, consensus building
and harmonisation, were broadly recognised but not intensively discussed.
Altogether, these findings revealed potential topics for further investigation.
61
Table 3.1: Topics presented in review articles (Sample Group A) and the levels of discussion.
Topic Resource Frequency
(brief
discussion:
in-depth
discussion)
[121]
[116]
[122]
[111]
[123]
[124]
[115]
[108]
[125]
[126]
[109]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
ISO Standards IV II V III II III VI III I 9 (6:3)
Transparency III III I I I III I I 8 (8:0)
Phase I: Goal and scope definition
Goal and scope IV III I IV II III I III I 9 (7:2)
Functional unit IV III I IV III III III I 8 (6:2)
System boundary VI V V I V III III III I III 10 (6:4)
Phase 2: LCI
Allocation I IV III V I III I 7 (5:2)
Multi-functionality IV V I II I 5 (3:2)
Double counting III I V I 4 (3:1)
Recycling III I VI III I III III II II 9 (8:1)
Rebound effect** II VI I 3 (2:1)
Renewability of III III IV 3 (2:1)
resources **
Cut-off I VI I I 4 (3:1)
Attributional vs. IV I IV IV I 5 (2:3)
consequential
62
Data
Availability/ I III III III III IV III I III I IV II 12 (10:2)
source/database
Quality I II II I III IV III IV I I 10 (8:2)
Documentation IV I I I III I 6 (5:1)
LCI approach
Process-based IV V V V 4 (0:4)
Input-Output (IO) IV V V V I 5 (1:5)
based
Hybrid IV IV V V 4 (0:4)
Phase 3: LCIA (mandatory)
Selection of
Impact categories I VI I IV II III 6 (4:2)
Category indicator II I I V II III IV I III 9 (7:2)
Environmental III I V+ I IV+ 5 (3:2)
mechanism+
Characterisation I V V VI III 5 (3:2)
models/factors
Classification I I V III IV I I III 8 (6:2)
Serial mechanism 0
Parallel mechanism 0
Characterisation IV VI III VI VI IV II III I VI IV 11 (4:7)
Methodology IVa IVb IIc VId VIe IVf IVg IVh 8 (1:7)
Midpoint vs. VI IV III IV III III IV III 8 (4:4)

endpoint
Spatial IV III I V IV III I VI III II 10 (6:4)
differentiation
63
Temporal IV III I IV I III II VI I II 10 (7:3)
differentiation
Dynamic of I V 2 (1:1)
environment**
Future scenario V IV I 3 (1:2)
modelling*
Consensus I I III I III III III I III I I 11 (11:0)
building/harmonisatio
n**
Phase 3: LCIA
(optional)
Normalisation IV V III II IV I III I I 9 (6:3)
Grouping IV III V 3 (1:2)
Weighting IV V I IV IV V I VI I I I 11 (5:6)
Phase 4: Interpretation
Uncertainty I IV I III IV IV III III I II I I 12 (9:3)
Sensitivity analysis I I VI I I I 6 (5:1)
Uncertainty analysis I IV VI III I I 6 (4:2)
Frequency 20 19 8 20 29 26 34 22 10 8 15 10 20 15 12
+ Environmental mechanism was shown in the literature
* Implicitly included in ISO
** Not included in ISO
I Recognition; mentioned once or twice throughout the literature
II Brief discussion; presented in a few sentences or a paragraph
III Brief discussion; mentioned dispersedly 3 times or more throughout the literature
IV Extensive discussion; in one stand-alone subsection
V Extensive discussion; combined with other relevant topic(s) in one subsection
VI Extensive discussion; integrated with other relevant topics throughout the literature.
A grey box denoted extensive discussion with a scale of IV, V or VI.
64
a Existing models and corresponding indicators were summarised for climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion,
acidification, aquatic eutrophication, terrestrial eutrophication, human toxicological effects, ecotoxicological effects,
photo-oxidant formation, biotic resources, abiotic resources, land-use impact, ionisation damage and nuisance from
odour and noise including traffic noise.
b The characterisation approaches of Centrum Milieukunde Leiden (CML2001), Eco-Indicator99, Ecoscarcity,
Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP97), Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development
(EPS2000), IMPACT2002+, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on Endpoint Modelling (LIME) and The Tool
for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) in assessing the damage of
corresponding impact categories on 3 AoPs (i.e. human health, natural resources and natural environmental quality)
were compared at midpoint, endpoint, damage and weighting levels.
c Existing models including CML2001, Eco-Indicator99, EDIP97 and TRACI were briefly discussed.
d Current LCIA development assessing abiotic resource depletion, impact of land use, water use, toxicity and indoor air
were presented.
e Existing characterisation models and research needs respectively for global warming, ozone depletion, acidification,
eutrophication, smog formation, land use, water use, human health and ecotoxicity were briefly presented.
f Existing LCA approaches on soil-related impact were briefly discussed.
g Existing LCIA approaches which assessed the impact of freshwater use at midpoint and endpoint levels were evaluated
with established criteria.
h The methodology approach adopted by Exergy, CML2001, Eco-Indicator99, EDIP97, EPS2000, IMPACT2002+ and
ReCiPe for assessing the impact of natural resource depletion at midpoint and endpoint levels were discussed.
65
3.2.2 Analysis of other literature types (Sample Group B)
In addition to ISO Standards, overview, comparison and consensus building,
literature in Sample Group B [101, 106, 107, 110, 114, 117, 118, 170, 177, 178, 180,
258-341] were organised into 23 topics (representing the main focus of each) in
accordance with the life cycle phases, as illustrated in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Distribution of literature materials in Sample Group B.
66
The country of the institution with which the leading contributor was affiliated and the
year of publication were both disclosed. For literature which covered 2–3 main
focuses, they were included under the relevant topics. A slightly different approach
was adopted for those presenting an overview. Instead of breaking down into
subtopics, they were categorised under the umbrella of ‘overview’. Among all, 10
pieces of literature were published before 2000; 12 between 2000 and 2004 and the
rest followed afterwards. Irrespective of literature presenting an overview, the
majority were devoted to one main focus whilst approximately 16% covered 2–3 main
focuses. There were a few points worth-noting. Netherlands, US and Switzerland
were found as the top 3 countries producing approximately one half of the literature
in this sample group. In contrary, LCA appeared to be a comparatively new research
topic in Asia where only 1 publication was from China, Japan, Philippine and
Singapore each. Taking all into account, overview was the most common focus,
followed by LCI approaches and LCIA methodology development for characterisation
factors. The least attended subtopic in this part was not identified as those providing
an overview were not broken down into subtopics. Research advance on LCI had
expanded gradually where new ideas such as water categorisation, consideration of
capital goods, dealing with traffic noise, handling double-counting inherent in the
tiered hybrid approach, and the use of fuzzy numbers, physical Input-Output Tables
(IOT) and non-local data for LCI development were reported. Among all life cycle
phases, the scientific endeavour on LCIA was relatively more prominent in which
44% of literature presented the development of frameworks, impact categories,
indicators, characterisation factors, characterisation models and methods,
classification, spatial and temporal dimensions, normalisation and weighting,
respectively. The development of some characterisation models i.e. ReCiPe,
IMPACT2002+, TRACI, UNEP-SETAC Toxicity Model (USEtox) and USES-LCA
were reported, which was crucial to not only guarantee transparency but also enable
full understanding and appropriate practice among the users. Examples of recently
addressed impact categories included soil quality, land as a resource, traffic noise,
impact of work environment, impact of water use (freshwater ecotoxicity) and impact
of resource scarcity. Research on sensitivity and uncertainty analysis, normalisation
and weighting for LCA studies was slowly but steadily developed particularly in
recent years. In relation to rebound effect, consensus building, serial and parallel
mechanisms relevant to classification, recycling, future scenario modelling and
grouping, the findings were in agreement with those of Sample Group A.
67
3.2.3 Overall findings
From the results, one could interpret that methodology development of each LCA
phase was not evenly balanced. From goal and scope definition to life cycle
interpretation, there was an increase in complexity which came along with
diminishment in methodological advance. As the most straight-forward phase, goal
and scope definition received criticism to the minimal extent compared with the other
LCA phases. Methodologies for LCI were more established than those of LCIA and
life cycle interpretation. Extensive discussion on goal and scope definition as well as
LCI was therefore not the focus of this review but only a few points requiring
clarification to enhance the understanding of existing LCA knowledge. In relation to
LCIA, attention was given on the methodology development of impact categories
being substantially developed recently, including the impact of water use, noise and
working environment. Other impact categories were not covered not only because of
the word constraints, more importantly, they were either hitherto more developed
(e.g. climate change, ozone depletion, particulate matter formation, acidification,
photochemical oxidant formation, human toxicity, ecotoxicity and resource depletion,
in which impact categories applicable to the maritime context are briefly described in
Chapter 4) or were not substantially investigated (e.g. space use, odour, light, non-
ionizing radiation and thermal pollution). Normalisation, grouping and weighting (i.e.
the optional LCIA elements) were excluded from discussion in this chapter due to the
same reasons. In respect of life cycle interpretation, uncertainty analysis was
extensively covered in line with its steady development in recent years, together with
a discussion on sensitivity analysis for potential methodology development in the
context of LCA due to its increasingly important role.
3.3 Clarification on Environmental Aspects, Environmental Impact and

Impact Categories
As previously reported in Chapter 1.5, ISO established ISO14040 and ISO 14044
[106, 107] as the international standards which focussed on LCA. Both
environmental aspects and impact categories were included in the lists of “terms of
definitions” of ISO14040 and ISO 14044, as follows:
 Environmental aspect: element of an organisation’s activities, products or
services that can be interact with the environment
 Impact category: class representing environmental issues of concern to which
life cycle inventory analysis results may be assigned
68
Whilst the definition of environmental impact was missing from the lists of ISO14040
and ISO 14044, environmental aspects were not further elaborated. Impact
categories were covered by these two standards in relation to LCIA during selection,
as explained in Chapter 1.5. To enhance understanding, a general description of
common impact categories is presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Description of common impact categories

Impact Description
categories
Climate change  Any change in the climate over time as a result of
greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity or natural
processes [342]
Ozone layer  Also referred to as ‘stratospheric ozone depletion’ or simply
depletion ‘ozone depletion’
 Ozone was damaged by chlorine and bromine which were
released by chlorofluorocarbons and halons [342]
Eutrophication  An aquatic environment, e.g. a lake or a stream, which
became overly rich in nutrients due to human sewage and
animal waste, and consequently, the environment became
lifeless as aquatic plants used up water and oxygen during
the processes of overgrowth, death and decomposition [342]
Acidification  In the air, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and/or ammonia
reacted with other compounds and turned into sulphuric and
nitric acids, which changed the chemical composition of the
soil and water [342]
Toxicity  The degree of danger posed by a substance to human
beings, animals and/or plants [342]
 Toxicity could be further classified as human toxicity and
ecotoxicity
 It was also common to distinguish the latter as terrestrial,
freshwater and marine aquatic ecotoxicity
Photochemical  Also referred to as ‘respiratory organics effect’ or ‘respiratory
oxidant (organics) for human health’
formation  At high concentration, photochemical oxidants (i.e. the ozone
that appeared in the lower troposphere) could be harmful to
human beings, materials and plants [342]
Ionising  Alpha, beta or gamma radiation could ionise particles such as
radiation ionising atoms within DNA and consequently would result in
biological changes [342]
Desiccation  Environmental problems related to water shortage e.g. lower
water table and change in the natural vegetation [343]
 As a result of water extraction for various purposes (including
industrial and residential use) and water supply from other
areas
Depletion of  Environmental concern on living resources e.g. rainforests
biotic resources and animals [343]
69
Depletion of  Depletion of non-living natural resources e.g. minerals, crude
abiotic oil, water etc. which took place because of excessive
resources extraction and consumption [343]
Land use  Environmental issues concerning the consequences of land
used by human beings for various activities on resources,
biodiversity etc. [343]
Waste heat  Also referred to as ‘thermal pollution’
 Waste heat was generally discharged into atmosphere or
surface waters from power stations and production plants
 It might increase the local temperature of the atmosphere and
aquatic systems (but not on a global scale) [343]
 It was regarded as an impact category although no
characterisation model had been developed yet
Odour  Was classified as airborne and waterborne
 Also referred to as ‘malodorous air’ and ‘malodorous
water’[343]
 When the concentration of an odorous substance was high, it
became unpleasant and consequently resulted in health
issues
 The acceptable level of odour, however, varied among
individuals
Noise  Also referred to as ‘noise nuisance’
 Noise was of universal concern in relation to sound [343]
 Similar to odour, individuals would tolerate sound differently:
some might perceive a particular source of sound as
acceptable or negligible whilst others might be irritated
Casualties  Mainly related to casualties caused by accidents [343]
 It was common that casualties and the impact of exposure to
substances at workplace (also known as the impact of
working environment) were perceived as relevant to one
another
In addition, ISO published ISO 14001 [344] and ISO 14004 [345] which covered
environmental management from an organisational perspective. As recommended
by ISO 14004, LCA was one of the approaches that could be applied to understand
the environmental impact of an organisation “when identifying environmental aspects
and determining their significance”. Environmental impact was defined by ISO 14001
and ISO 14004 as any changes to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial,
wholly or partially resulting from an organisation’s environmental aspects. With
relatively broader scope, environmental aspects and environmental impact were
detailed in ISO 14001 and ISO 14004, as summarised in Figure 3.4.
70
Figure 3.4: The concept of environmental aspects and environmental impact as
described in ISO 14001 [344] and ISO 14004 [345].
3.4 Clarification on Goal and Scope Definition: Cut-off and System Boundary
Goal and scope definition was of unquestionable importance as the primary phase of
an LCA study. As summarised in Table 3.3, these topics had been broadly covered
from recognition, discussion to application. As it was unlikely to know in advance
which data was insignificant and could be excluded, additional dimensions were
distinguished by [115, 123, 279, 309, 321, 334] for cut-off and system boundary
selection, as shown in Figure 3.5.
71
Table 3.3: Literature coverage on goal and scope definition, system boundary and
cut-off.
Topic Coverage level
Goal and I [108-111, 122, 127, 258-262, 265, 270, 272, 279, 280, 295, 298,
scope 302, 305, 314-316, 322, 340]
definition II [116, 124, 129, 309, 326, 329, 332, 333]
III [106, 107, 114, 115, 121, 123, 263, 274, 284, 285, 310, 339]
IV [292, 317]
System I [128, 180, 258, 261, 272, 279, 283, 286, 292, 312, 315, 331, 333,
boundary 337, 338, 341]
II [109-111, 125, 126, 129, 271, 306, 316, 332]
III [101, 106, 107, 114, 115, 121-124, 269, 274, 284, 285, 304, 305,
309, 310, 321, 328, 334, 339, 340]
IV [323, 327]
Cut-off I [109, 121, 124, 125, 260, 281, 290, 291, 312, 339]
II [106, 261, 279, 284]
III [107, 114, 122, 123, 309, 321]
I Recognition where the topic was brought up once or twice
II Brief discussion where the topic was mentioned 3–5 times, discussed
slightly without much detail
III Noticeable discussion where the discussion of the topic was either in a
dedicated section or integrated with other topics throughout the literature
IV Case study
Figure 3.5: Additional dimensions for cut-off and system boundary selection.
Particularly for boundary selection between different systems, a few methods were
reported as follows:
 The contents of the system were defined either using process tree system
[309], technological or social-economic whole system [334]. The process
tree system should only consider processes and transport which were
72
directly involved in the life cycle of the system under study. The
technological whole system would account everything affected by the
choice between comparative systems except economic and social forces,
which were included by the socio-economic whole system.
 Only the ‘main’ life cycle stream was considered [321]. The method did
not allow boundaries to be repeatedly selected, nor did the selection of
similar boundaries for different systems.
 A percentage of the total mass, generally 5–10%, of unit processes in the
system under study was considered as the cut-off ratio to eliminate any
input below the rate. The method did not consider the impact of an input
on its system from an entire life cycle perspective.
 Only readily available inputs were included [321]. The method could result
in a false sense of completeness and bias analysis.
 Alternative cut-off criteria were used by taking weight, energy, toxicity and
price into account in defining the contribution of an input to the system as
negligible, small or large [321]. Issues regarding unrepeatable boundaries
remained unsolved.
 Relative contribution of mass, energy and economics to the functional unit
which allowed similar boundaries to be selected for different studies [122,
321]. Any non-energy-non-combustion related air emission was beyond
the scope of this method.
Selecting appropriate system boundaries generally would require a large quantity of

data which resulted in additional cost and time [123]. Due to its considerable impact
on “the depth and the breath of LCA” [106, 107], goal and scope definition (including
system boundary and cut-off) was a decisive factor to determine the credibility of LCA
results. Without due care, any omission or flaw at this fundamental phase would
result in an absolute divergence due to a sort of snowball effect, leading to
misinterpretation and inappropriate decision.
73
3.5 Clarification on LCI: Attributional and Consequential Approaches─What
Processes to Include
Without much detail, ISO 14040 [106] presented the following remark in its annex:
Two possible different approaches to LCA have developed during the recent
years. These are
a) One which assigns elementary flows and potential environmental impact
to a specific product system typically as an account of the history of the
product, and
b) One which studies the environmental consequences of possible (future)
changes between alternative product systems.
A few terminologies were adopted for these approaches. The former was referred to
as attributional, descriptive, accounting or retrospective LCA whilst the latter was
known as consequential, prospective, change-oriented, decision- or market-based
LCA [112, 115, 340]. Similar to goal and scope definition, attributional and
consequential LCA had been broadly studied, from recognition [123, 128, 291, 309,
341] to brief [263, 283, 338] and noticeable discussions [114, 115, 121, 125, 170,
269, 310, 339, 340]. The core subjects of discussion in this regard were presented
as the following:
(i) The use of average or marginal data. A distinction was presented in
accordance with attributional and consequential approaches, see [114,
121, 125, 269, 274]: attributional LCA used average data (which were
measured, historic or fact-based) to account for inputs and outputs that
were directly involved in production, consumption and disposal of the
product system under study at a specific time and a particular production
level which would deliver a certain quantity of functional unit without
considering market and non-market effects, in which the inputs and
outputs would be generally allocated based on mass, energy content or
economic value. In contrast, consequential LCA used marginal data
(which involved a generic supply-demand chain built upon a decision) to
account for all inputs and outputs that significantly, directly and indirectly
affected by a change in the production of the product system due to the
substitution or use of constrained resources by taking into account both
market and non-market effects (e.g. policies and impact of research and
development), in which allocation was avoided via system expansion.
74
(ii) Deciding between attributional and consequential approaches. According
to [340], the choice could be made by answering some questions, as listed
in the following:
 How was system boundary of the study defined?
 What were the processes to be included?
 What were the causal chains to be used?
 How were questions framed to identify the exact problem to be
tackled?
 What were the derived questions?
 What were the technological options?
 What was the scale of the expected change(s)?
 What was the time frame of the question?
 Could a ceteris paribus assumption be held?
 Was the system under study replacing another system on a small
scale?
 Was the technology used in the new system expected to extend to
other applications on a larger scale?
Considering the equivocal and wearisome nature of this method which
indeed presented an evident shortcoming, one might alternatively consider
a three-question provisional scheme proposed by [310] as illustrated in
Figure 3.6. However, as according to [310], the scheme was immature
and a further in-depth testing would be required as it was merely the first
step towards building a consensus among LCA community. In this matter,
[115, 125, 339] reported that no consensus was reached among LCA
community on the appropriateness of one approach compared to the
other, relevance of the knowledge generated by both approaches and their
practicability.
75
Figure 3.6: The 3-question scheme provisionally used for choosing
between attributional and consequential LCA, as proposed by [310].
(iii) Whether to combine attributional and consequential approaches. Whilst

[340] noted that consequential LCA had always been inconsistently
performed and misinterpreted as ‘the state-of-the-art methodology’, [269]
strongly claimed that both approaches must stand alone where a
combination was not allowed. Dissimilar recommendations were given by
[115, 121, 340], leading to a confusing situation. An emphasis should be
made on the fact that both approaches served different purposes, as
implied by [106] (as mentioned earlier). To reiterate, attributional LCA
aimed to identify environmental burdens throughout the life cycle of a
product system whilst consequential LCA estimated the change in
environmental burdens incurred by a decision made in line with a marginal
change in the production of the system. A clear-cut solution was therefore
incontrovertible to the question of whether to combine attributional and
consequential approaches if one referred to this very fundamental concept
in practice based on the reason(s) of carrying out the LCA study. Such a
simple but decisive approach was appropriate from a pragmatic point of
view in line with the purpose of LCI (i.e. to collect and quantify data). As
clearly pointed out by [340], the difference between both approaches was
the type of processes to be taken into account (i.e. attributional approach
considered processes which would significantly contribute to
environmental burdens; consequential approach accounted for processes
which were affected by decisions) whilst their LCIA modelling principles
76
remained unchanged. In addition, both approaches could be applied one
after the other separately if an LCA study aimed to serve more than one
purpose for different levels of understanding, for instance, to compare the
environmental impact of a product system with an alternative system
before and after implementing some technical improvements using generic
and marginal data. In this case, attributional approaches should be
applied for a comprehensive picture if the LCA practitioners were new to
the topic whilst consequential approached could be adopted if prerequisite
knowledge of the environmental performance of the product system under
study and marginal data which involved supply-demand chains were in
place.
3.6 Clarification on LCI Approaches: What Data Sources and Principles to be

used for Quantity Computation
The purpose of LCI was to calculate and analyse the quantities of inputs and outputs
involved in delivering a specific functional unit of the product system under study
[121], which typically produced a list of substances with identified quantity as the
outcome. Based on data sources and fundamental principles used for computation
involved in LCI compilation, a number of methods were developed, including process
(using process flow diagram and matrix), fuzzy matrix, IO, tiered hybrid, IO based
hybrid and integrated hybrid approaches. These methods were respectively
recognised [263, 267, 283, 321, 327, 328, 333, 341]), briefly [291] or noticeably
discussed [114, 115, 121-123, 170, 271, 274, 284, 285, 290, 291, 306, 307, 309,
310, 312, 313, 330-333, 338, 339] and applied [271, 294, 312].
Figure 3.7 presents an overall idea how these methods could be integrated with one
another in line with the fundamental principles, data sources and life cycle phases
from energy and material acquisition to the end of life. [332] compared these
methods (except fuzzy matrix-based approach) in terms of data requirements,
uncertainty of data source, system boundaries, software tools and requirements,
simplicity, time and labour intensity. Based on [115, 121-123, 271, 274, 290, 291,
294, 305, 306, 309, 310, 312, 313, 330, 332, 333, 338, 339], Table 3.4 briefly
described the methods and extended the comparison to cover strengths and
limitations of each method. The use of structural path analysis in a hybrid LCA [306],
although interesting, was excluded from this comparison because the analysis did
77
not compile LCI but rather preliminarily identify the most important input paths. Along
with the criteria proposed by [121, 332] such as goal and scope, requirements on
accuracy, completeness, time, budget and data availability, the strengths and
limitations of each approach should also be taken into consideration in choosing an
LCI method in practice.
Figure 3.7: Outline of existing LCI approaches in line with the fundamental
principles, data sources and life cycle phases.
78
Table 3.4: Brief description, strengths and limitations of LCI approaches.
Approach Brief description Strengths Limitations
Process  Based on process and  Case-specific and more  Time-consuming and expensive to collect
flow product balance models accurate empirical data or from other sources
diagram where bottom-up process  Most common form of LCI  Underestimate any truncation error occurred
approach analysis was applied approach when capital goods and upstream processes
[115, 122,  Inventory was calculated were cut off
294, 305, with algebra; when  Calculation could be complicated when the
306, 309, required, infinite geometric system involved multi-functionality or
312, 332, progression could be interconnecting inputs between processes
338] applied to simplify the  Subject to use outdated data
calculation
Matrix  Similar to process flow  Powerful  Restricted to single-output processes
based diagram approach where  Was able to solve  Not clear if process balance could deal with
approach simultaneous equations endless regression multi-functionality issue
(simplified were created based on problems associated with  The number of processes to be included was
model) bottom-up process system and support still limited and capital goods were generally
[122, 290, analysis using product advanced analysis, such excluded
338] balance or process as connections with IOT
balance. The equations
were then solved by matrix
Fuzzy  Fuzzy number was  Data uncertainty due to  Could not model correlated uncertainties
matrix integrated into matrix- vagueness could be  Determining fuzzy distributions of the inputs
based based LCI at different modelled at different was complicated
approach possibility levels possibility levels  Limited to inverse-positive matrices only
[291, 333]  Material composition  Computational time was
matrix was derived based considerably short
on resources, materials compared to Monte-Carlo
and products, and data model
from IOT
79
IO based  Matrixes were formed  Easy to perform  Resolution was too coarse for detailed
approach based on top-down  Eliminated the need to studies involving raw material selection,
[115, 121- monetary transactions estimate data for each process redesign and any comparison at the
123, 274, among industry sectors as process regional/ international level
305, 338, published in IOT, which  Took account of capital  Data were old, inconsistent (due to
339] were national data on the goods compilation variation) and of high
supply and consumption of  Transparent because only aggregation level, leading to aggregation
goods and services publicly available data and error
standard calculations were  Could not provide LCIs for the use and end of
used life stages
 Could not correctly reflect the environmental
burdens as process data were not used for
modelling
Tiered  Direct inputs to main  Combined the strengths of  Suffered from double-counting unless
hybrid processes were calculated process and IO based material flow analysis was incorporated
approach with detailed process approaches  Process and IO based approaches could not
[115, 122, analysis whilst upstream  LCI compilation was quick be assessed together systematically
271, 305, flows that were indirectly  Capital goods were
310, 313, connected to the main included
330, 332] processes were estimated  Results were more
via IO based approach comprehensive
80
IO based  Also known as hybrid LCI  Consistent  Issues with process data and IOT remained
hybrid method based on IO data  Higher resolution for the same
approach  To improve process detailed applications  Difficult to model the relationship between life
[122, 271, specificity, IO data on  Avoided double-counting cycle phases of a product
332] industry sectors were
disaggregated and solved
by tiered hybrid approach;
process based approach
was applied for main
processes during use and
end of life phases
Integrated  Detailed information at the  Double-counting was  Complex
hybrid unit process level was fully avoided as tiered hybrid  Time-consuming
analysis incorporated into IO model approach was not applied  Required intensive data
[122, 310, by linking process-based  Consistent and complete
332, 339] system (represented in a for upstream processes
technology matrix by  Interactions between
physical units) and the IO processes and industries
system (in monetary units) were fully modelled
through flows crossing the
border of both systems
 Process and IO based
approaches were
integrated consistently into
one matrix
81
3.7 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Water Use
Water was considered as an abiotic resource at the early stages of LCA
development. Somehow, the perspective evolved to recognise water as an impact
category due to its use and depletion. [111, 115, 116, 124, 128, 130, 268, 299, 322]
were the articles in Sample Groups A and B which, at different levels of detail,
considered water use as an impact category. In brief, [111, 116, 124, 130] did not
give much focus whilst [115] left out some important development. Focussing on LCI
and LCIA phases, [128] fully dedicated to the topic of existing approaches for
freshwater use at the expense of other LCA elements. Research articles were
limited to [268, 322] and a case study was reported by [299]. The investigation
revealed that additional resources, i.e. [179, 346-353] (in which some were
respectively built based on [176, 343, 354-360]) were necessary to present a more
comprehensive scope. Definitions of some terms, e.g. water source, flow, use, return
and depletion, were partially proposed by [179, 268, 346-348, 350] and these were
integrated for water classifications as illustrated in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8: Water classifications as sources, elementary flows, use and return.
82
A few points were worth noting:
 In respect of water quality, 3 proposals were reported, respectively based
on un-usable to excellent quality levels [268], distinction approaches (i.e.
distance-to-target method or water functionality) [179] and quality
indicators [346]. As complexity increased from quality levels, distinction
approaches to quality indicators, the incorporation of any quality indicators
proposed by [346] into impact assessment methodology was not achieved
yet, except thermal factor being assessed by [351].
 Although approaches recommended by [348, 349, 360] were applied by
[299] in a case study to assess the impact of water use, [299] did not point
out that the indicator results from these approaches were not in
agreement. Despite dissimilar result patterns and magnitude orders (as
evidenced by the results reported by [299]), existing methods did not
receive any criticism. This was uncommon compared to the cases of other
impact categories (e.g. acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicity)
generally assessed by different LCIA methods e.g. CML2001, ReCiPe, the
methodologies recommended by the International Reference Life Cycle
Data System (hereafter “ILCD”) etc. What was more, it remained a
challenge to decide which concept to apply among existing methods.
 Although not elaborated here, research developed for other relevant
subject areas (but not directly within LCA context), e.g. virtual water by
[354, 357], surplus energy concept by [176], water indices as recognised
by [128] (e.g. water resource per capita, basic water needs, withdrawal-
and consumption-to-availability, water poverty and groundwater sensitivity
indices) and those for natural resources in LCA context, e.g. eco-factors
applied in Ecological Scarcity by [360] and exergy by [359], had been or
could be applied for LCA methodological development. The supporting
information presented by [128] detailed the findings of scientific
comparison among existing methods, covering completeness, robustness,
relevance to environment, transparency, documentation and
reproducibility, applicability and stakeholder acceptance.
 Data regarding quality requirements, use, availability, demand,
vulnerability, scarcity, conflict, poverty index and future of water, if
available, would be useful for developing and performing LCIA for this
impact category.
83
 Research was required to further develop LCIA methods which could fully
address water quality, temporal and spatial factors─a challenge to the
LCA community.
3.8 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Noise

From cradle to grave, the life cycle of a product system involved an extensive number
of processes. As pointed out by [284], “a process produces a certain amount of
noise”. The impact of noise in LCA context had been conveyed in literature over the
past 2 decades, and possibly earlier, from simply recognising it [115-117, 121, 265,
270, 295, 329] and commenting on its standing [111, 124, 129, 259, 281, 287, 295,
341] to briefly discussing it [267, 284, 339] and fully developing a methodology for its
impact assessment [178, 180, 273, 278, 361-366] (where [361-366] were literature
included in Sample Group C to complement the discussion). Methodologies to
assess the impact of noise were developed rapidly [341] and become available [129];
still, it was neither included in LCI database [267] nor applied in most LCA studies
[281, 287]. By the means of additional tools (e.g. noise emission models, national
databases, surveys, questionnaires and experiments), various concepts covering
physics (e.g. sound energy), mathematics (fuzzy numbers/intervals and variation in
noise level), social science (e.g. disturbance, nuisance and health damage) and
demographics (e.g. population density) were applied selectively in developing these
methodologies. The concept of each methodology was summarised and a
comparison is presented in Table 3.5.
1. Sound energy concept [284] which was also referred to as CML guide
[361]. The method claimed that noise was linearly generated with the
process of manufacturing a product system. Therefore, noise production
(in the square of sound pressure second, Pa2s) could be determined by
taking account of sound energy (in Pa2, derived from sound pressure level
in decibel, dB) and the duration in which noise was generated, together
with hearing threshold and the quantity of required materials or products
produced in a year.
2. Disturbance and equivalent traffic concept [365], also referred to as
Ecobilan method [361]. The method determined the noise thresholds for
day- and night-time in accordance with legislation and measured
disturbance which was expressed as the total number of people disturbed.
Data on population density, existing noise propagation model (based on
84
equivalent traffic concept which assumed that the potential noise impact of
the traffic mode under study and that of a reference mode on the
environment were the same) and mapping were used to measure the
disturbance as per specific transport means.
3. Environmental scarcity factors or Swiss FEDRO method [361], also
referred to as Doka methodology [364]. Although [361, 364] both claimed
that the method was adapted from the earlier work of Muller-Wenk (which
was inaccessible), a variant of methodological concept was reported.
According to [361], the Swiss FEDRO method determined the
environmental scarcity factors by defining actual and critical flows based
on people who were highly annoyed by the noise emission. The former
was the number of highly annoyed people (derived from Swiss EPA
method and the effect curves from Swiss survey) whilst the latter was set
as 20% of Swiss population. According to [364], Doka claimed that a non-
linear relationship would exist between noise emission and its effects on
human health; and therefore, to calculate the damage caused by noise
emission in disability-adjusted life year (DALY) per vehicle-kilometre, noise
emission that was measured in dB could be substituted into a simplified
formula which incorporated regression parameters.
4. Total nuisance caused by a specific process, also known as Nielsen and
Laursen methodology [364] or Danish LCA guide [361]. In this method,
information such as background noise and noise level (both in dB; the
former was set via interviews and the latter was simulation results from
noise emission and propagation models), process duration and the
number of people (based on average population density) exposed to the
noise produced in a process (in which transport was selected for the
study) were required to determine the total noise nuisance caused by the
process (in person-second).
5. Fate-exposure-effect-damage model [366], also known as Swiss EPA
[361] or Muller-Wenk methodology [364]. The method involved the
following analysis via different approaches:
 Fate analysis which determined the average noise level per year,
Leq and the increase in noise level, ΔLeq resulting from increased
vehicle numbers per year by taking account of vehicle types,
85
speeds and gradient of a road and the use of the existing noise
emission model i.e. SAEFL.
 Exposure analysis which extrapolated the number of people
exposed to the increased noise level from the figures estimated by
Kanton’s road noise emission model.
 Effect analysis which determined the relationship between
communication disturbance at day-time (or sleep disturbance at
night-time) and the noise level based on the outcome of social
surveys.
 Damage analysis which estimated health damage due to traffic
noise, in DALY per 1000 vehicle-kilometre, by taking account of
disability weight for communication and sleeping disturbances
(based on responses collected from 41 physicians via
questionnaire).
6. Fuzzy-set approach [362]. After defining the quality of the sound
environment i.e. types of land use (urban, residential or rural), population
densities and noise level intervals in the form of fuzzy numbers, the overall
noise level of a process could be calculated, which was necessary for the
(dimensionless) impact assessment of noise based on nuisance felt by the
population under study. In addition, the fuzzy-set approach could be
incorporated with semantic distance concept to perform pairwise
comparison upon the LCIA results of different impact categories across a
range of scenarios, as demonstrated by [363] in assessing electricity
generation processes.
7. New framework to extend Swiss EPA method to specific vehicles, tires
and situations [178]. The method was built on the earlier work of Muller-
Wenk to calculate the additional noise level resulted from an increased
number of vehicles, where vehicle and tire types (using a noise emission
model, i.e. SonRoad and TUV measurements respectively) as well as time
and space were distinguished. The approach also took into account
population densities and differentiated road classes based on noise effects
upon the population.
8. Self-reported annoyance [278]. The method used existing noise emission
model i.e. IMAGINE to model traffic flows at 2 situations so that the
variation in noise level (known as noise-relevant life cycle variations,
86
NRLVs) could be determined. The number of highly annoyed persons
was estimated by applying polynomial approximation to the dose-response
functions. Based on the increased percentage of annoyance due to
NRLVs, the impact could be estimated as the product of difference in the
percentage of annoyance and the total number of people exposed to
noise.
9. Fate-effect model [180]. After pointing out the common deficiency of
previous methodologies (i.e. failure to focus on the process that producing
noise emissions rather than the situation in which noise took place), [180]
proposed a new methodology which defined the characterisation factors
for noise impact category in LCA context as the product of fate and effect
factors measured in person-Pascal per Watt. Fate factor, in Pascal per
Watt, was determined at the background level as the small increase of
sound pressure due to a marginal change of sound power at a
compartment where directivity and attenuation (in line with a frequency
scale defined by 8 octave bands) were taken into account. Similarly,
effect factor, measured in person, was defined as the small increase in
person-pressure due to a marginal change in sound pressure of an octave
band at a compartment based on the number of people living in that
compartment, the day-night weighting and the A-scale weighting (for the
octave band). [273] complemented the fate-effect model by not only
presenting characterisations factors but also distinguishing the fate model
for noise impact upon the internal occupational and external environments.
87
Table 3.5: Comparison of existing methodologies for the impact of noise.
Concept (unit) Source of Spatial Temporal Type of data required Strengths Limitations
noise differen- differen- for calculation
tiation tiation
Sound energy Process No [361] No [361] Quantity required to Complied with ISO Only considered the
concept (the [284] (although meet the functional 14040 and was aggregation of sound
square of the time of unit and annual applicable to all at midpoint level
Pascal) [284] sound production [284] situations [361]; [111]; less useful and
production simple and straight- not suitable for
was rele- forward calculation comparison [361]
vant [284]
Disturbance and All transport No [361] No [361] Areas affected by The results might be Did not comply with
equivalent traffic modes or noise above used as models to ISO 14040 and the
concept production thresholds; distance assess traffic noise in indicator was very
(Number-of- plants [365] of the source of noise European countries rough [361]; could not
people-hour/ from the ground and with similar differentiate the
passenger- the presence of any population density sources of noise in
kilometre or obstacle between the along the road under the assessment as all
number-of- source and the study [365] were treated as 1
people-hour/ observer [365] single source
goods-
kilometre) [365]
Environmental Road traffic No [361] No [361] Noise measured in Quite practical [364]; Only addressed traffic
scarcity factors [361] decibel [364] allowed for noise
[361] (DALY intermodal
/vehicle- comparison; complied
kilometre) [364] with ISO 14040 [361]
Total nuisance Process Yes No [361] Number of persons Simple [364]; allowed Did not comply with
caused by a when goods [361] and noise level for intermodal ISO 14040; not
specific process were being within/at a distance comparison [361] suitable for inclusion
88
(person-second) from the source; in LCI databases, and
[364] duration and noise overestimated the
level [364] noise effects [361]
Fate-exposure- Traffic [361] Yes Yes [361] Traffic (i.e. average Applicable to different The noise emission
effect-damage [361] number of vehicles countries [364]; model was obsolete
model per type, speed and complied with ISO [364]; might over-
(DALY/1000- road gradient etc.) 14040 where impact estimate noise effects
vehicle- and demographics categories measured [361]; inaccurate due
kilometre) [366] (i.e. population being in DALY could be to simplifications; only
exposed to the noise) compared easily addressed traffic
[366] [361] noise
Fuzzy sets Any process Yes No Quality of site, (i.e. Uncertainty was Sophisticated and
approach (for existing noise level; accounted for by the required expert
(dimensionless) conceptual types of land use fuzzy numbers [363]; judgement for
[362] discussion included rural, urban could be applied to determining variables
using coal and residential; any process of the assessment
mining and population density); [362]
combustion nuisance felt by
processes) individuals and
[362] exposed time [362]
Guidelines for Road traffic No No Noise maps, Potential reference Methodology had not
incorporating [364] demographics data for methodology been developed for
the effects of [364] development in the the impact
noise into LCA future assessment; limited
(DALY) [364] focus on traffic noise
Requirements Traffic [361] Yes Yes ─ Potential reference Methodology was not
for methods for methodology developed for the
used to development impact assessment;
incorporate limited to traffic noise
89
noise into LCA
[361]
New framework Traffic Yes Yes Measurements The results could be Noise from mixed
to extend Swiss of real traffic implemented in LCI sources was not
EPA method situations [178] databases for other considered yet [178];
(dB(A)) [178] LCA study [178] limited to traffic noise
Self-reported Traffic [278] Yes Yes Traffic data (e.g. Results were more Required intensive
annoyance vehicle speed and accurate due to the data, was limited to
(Number of flow) and receiver state-of-the-art noise variation assessment
annoyed data (e.g. emission model; where the impact of
persons) [278] demographics and more intelligible for noise was not
noise exposure) [278] decision making [278] assessed [278]
Fate-effect Processes Yes Yes Sound emission, Noise effects related Characterisation
model (person- [180] weighting factors and to functional unit; factors were not
Pascal/Watt) number of people methodology presented and
[180] living in the focussed on the therefore could not be
compartment [180] process causing the included into existing
noise [180] LCIA models
Fate-effect Processes Yes Yes Directivity of sound; Complement [180], ─
model [273] [273] sound power and provided
sound power level characterisation
[273] factors for future LCA
study; distinguished
fate factors for noise
emissions in internal
and external
environments [273]
90
3.9 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Working
Environment/Impact Related to Work Environment
The impact of working environment on human health had also been recognised since
2 decades ago as an impact category in LCA context. For instance, in the early
1990s, [284] already affirmed that there was no quantitative method developed to
address such impact. Some similar and relevant aspects were briefly set forth by
[108, 115, 117, 124, 265, 287, 326, 327, 339, 341] which adopted different
terminologies such as “accidents”, “working condition”, “working environment”,
“indoor air”, “indoor air pollution”, “indoor and occupational exposure” etc. In brief,
accidents were recognised as an impact category which was less developed with
neither inventory nor characterisation factors being available [287]; related to work
environment (caused by accidents or non-toxic substances) and should be taken into
account comparatively to human toxicity category [117]; indecisive whether the
impact of casualties attributable to accidents should be seen as an individual impact
category because of the absence of standards, and consequently, impact
attributional to work environment was generally out of consideration [124]; and
therefore being omitted due to the difficulty in making prediction and the negligible
effect as perceived [265]. In this matter, [108] indicated that indoor air pollution had
already been included as a special application of LCIA where [115] claimed that
human exposure to indoor chemicals could be significant and LCIA was already
available to assess such impact on internal environment in line with the report of 2
relevant case studies. In terms of indoor and occupational exposure, [339] projected
that it was to be considered as a part of human toxicity impact category despite the
fact that it had been developed as a new impact category. The latter was in
agreement with [341] who highlighted the expeditious LCIA development for indoor
and occupational exposure as a new impact category, which could be exemplified by
[326] and [327].
Despite the recognition of the impact related to work environment, none of the above
mentioned literature defined this impact category, as did [188, 367, 368]. This might
explain the use of a variety of terminologies. However, it was commonly accepted
that emissions were generally released to both internal and external environments,
and any measure to reduce the impact of a product on the external environment
might result in negative effects on the working environment at the expense of human
health [188, 326, 367]. To define, the relevant phrases as presented in the literature
91
were referred. Compared to short and simple phrases adopted by other literature,
[327] presented a more detailed remark, which could be adopted. The impact of
working environment could be defined as the effects on human health as a result of
occupational exposure to biological, physical and/or chemical hazards at working
environment during the life cycle of a product system. A comparison of literature is
presented in Table 3.6, distinguished by sample groups. The concept of existing
methodologies was summarised as follows, in chronological order:
1. Direct-quantitative-and-qualitative approach by [367] where (i) death due
to work related accidents; (ii) workdays lost due to wok related accidents
and diseases; (iii) workdays lost due to illness; (iv) hearing loss; and (v)
allergies, eczemas and similar diseases were identified as quantitative
impact categories estimated based on organisational statistics data,
together with carcinogenic impact and impact on reproduction identified as
qualitative impact categories and estimated based on a semi-quantitative
approach.
2. A method to assess occupational health impact was proposed by [369]
based on DALYs, which took account of the number of morbidity, disability
and mortality cases as well as the severity and duration of the incidents in
terms of years of life lost (YLL) and years of life lived with disability (YLD).
How to calculate DALYs per industry sector was outlined as a five-step
approach: (i) find out how many morbidity, disability and mortality cases
there were; (ii) quantify how long each morbidity/disability case had been
since the incidence; (iii) determine how severe each case was; (iv)
determine what the upstream impact associated with the sector was based
on IO model; and (v) match the data on morbidity, disability and mortality
with IO data.
3. Built on EDIP methodology, a sector-based working environment
assessment was proposed by [368] where a number of impact categories
were identified, including total number of accidents, fatal accidents,
musculoskeletal disorders, central nervous system function disorders,
cancer, hearing damage, skin diseases, airway diseases (allergic and non-
allergic) and psycho-social diseases. A five-step approach was suggested
to calculate the number of injuries and accidents per unit weight of
production: (i) identify sectors which showed substantial rate of injuries
and accidents; (ii) identify the corresponding products produced in these
92
sectors; (iii) aggregate the number of all products; (iv) account for the
work-related damages and injuries for the production activities based on
statistics; and (v) determine the impact of working environment per
functional unit, i.e. by dividing the outcome of (iv) by that of (iii).
4. An impact assessment method for external and working environments was
proposed by [188]. In relation to working environment, 2 impact
categories i.e. occupational health (OH) and occupational safety (OS)
were recommended where lost work days (LWD) was introduced as the
category indicator for both. Data regarding the number of workers (i)
affected by a particular hazardous item (WHI) and (ii) diagnosed suffering
certain magnitude of disability (WMD) were required to estimate LWD for
OH and OS impact categories, taking account of exposure, effect and
damage factors whenever applicable. DALY and potentially affected
fraction (PAF) were adopted to assess the damage caused by the external
environment to human health and ecosystem quality.
5. The methodological framework developed by [370] aimed to assess
human health effects due to indoor and outdoor exposure to pollutants.
The one-box model based on mass conservation and concentration
homogeneity was selected as the default approach compared to the other
4 existing indoor air exposure models i.e. one-box model with mixing
factor, multi-box model, two-zone model and eddy-diffusion model which
were all compatible to USEtox model. The latter was used for assessing
outdoor exposure assessment. In this case, characterisation factors for
human toxic effects were calculated by determining the product of intake
and effect factors.
6. Two methods, i.e. Methods 1 and 2, were proposed by [371] to rank and
identify chemicals to be included in LCA study. Based on USEtox model,
Method 1 took into account the concentration and severity of exposure,
effect factors and the exposed population where the number of exposed
personnel was applied as a weighting factor. Acting as a quality control
tool, Method 2 was based on the risk quotient as applied in occupational
risk assessment, i.e. the ratio of exposure concentration to occupational
exposure limit. Data required for the assessment was collated from
literature, toxicity report and databases. Characterisation factors in terms
93
of DALY were then calculated by determining the sum of cancer and non-
cancer effects.
7. Work environment disability-adjusted life year (WE-DALY) was introduced
by [326] which could be used to calculate the characterisation factors for
the impact on human health attributable to hazardous exposure in working
environment. Using published statistics data for each industry, WE-DALY
estimated the sum of the number of years of life lost (YLLn, representing
the difference between the average lifespan of the workers and the actual
age at death of the deceased worker) and the number of years of life lived
with disability (YLDn, representing the duration of suffering certain injury or
illness due to working environment).
8. Work environment characterisation factors (WE-CF) by [327] was a
continuation of the WE-DALY method by [326] to complement LCIA for the
impact on human health attributable to work environment. WE-CF was
determined as the ratio of WE-DALY to the physical output (e.g. mass and
volume) produced by the industry.
An additional remark was that [188] and [327] had respectively classified existing
approaches in line with chemical use/screening, work process and
sector/compartment model; however, most of the literature were inaccessible (and
therefore not further discussed here), which presented a possible reason why the
impact of working environment had been rarely included in LCA study.
94
Table 3.6: Comparison of literature on the impact of work environment.
Phrase used Proximity Level Highlight of the literature [Resource]
* of
detail**
Accidents; workplace exposure; C II, III Working conditions were recognised as an environmental problem;
working conditions accidents and working conditions were respectively discussed as
process data and an impact category [284].
Accidents; work environment; A, B I Toxic impact of the work environment should be assessed as a part
impact from the work environment of human toxicity impact category whilst non-toxic impact of the
work environment and those caused by accidents should be further
considered as separate impact categories [117].
Accidents D I The impact category of accidents was usually not covered due to
perceived marginal threat and difficulty in making any prediction
[265].
Casualties due to accidents; A I The lack of standards led to (i) indecisive situation if “casualties due
impact in work environment; to accidents” should be considered as an independent category;
chemical exposure at the and (ii) exclusion of “impact in work environment” from further
workplace assessment [124].
Indoor and occupational exposure; B II Indoor and occupational exposure, including injuries (casualties)
injuries related to working related to working environment accidents, was recognised as a new
environment accidents and separate impact category undergoing characterisation model
currently but would become a part of human toxicity in future [339].
Indoor air; indoor chemical A III A short summary was presented in relation to a few selected
exposure; impact to the working literature published between 1998 and 2009 in this context. It was
environment noted that LCIA was available to assess human exposure to indoor
chemicals as 2 relevant case studies were reported [115].
Indoor air pollution D I As an area of concern to many building occupiers, indoor air had
become a special application of LCIA [108].
95
Indoor and occupational exposure D I Rapid development of indoor and occupational exposure was noted
[341].
Accidents D I The development of some impact categories like accidents was
poor as neither inventory data nor characterisation factors were
available [287].
Work-related impact; impact to A IV and The “impact to human health attributable to work-related exposures
human health attributable to work- V to workplace hazards” were expressed in terms of WE-DALY, and
related exposures to workplace calculation was shown in a case study [326].
hazard; occupational health impact
from the work environment
Working conditions D I “Working conditions” was recognised as a social impact category of
a product system [129].
Impact to human health A IV and WE-DALY of an industry was calculated with workplace data. Then,
attributable to the work V WE-DALY was used to determine WE-CF [327].
environment; the work
environment impact category;
impact from the work environment
Additional literature materials, i.e. Sample Group C:
Impact of the work environment; A IV 5 quantitative and 2 qualitative work environment impact categories
work-related accidents were proposed. Data collection, reliability and relevance of these
impact categories were discussed [367].
Occupational health impact; health B IV and A method to assess occupational impact was proposed based on
impact due to hazardous work V DALYs and an example was provided to show how the results of
environments; workplace injuries; the model could be applied [369].
workplace-related illnesses
Working environmental impact; A IV and A method to calculate impact of working environment per functional
Occupational exposure; work- V unit was proposed and its application was presented [368].
related damage; occupational
accidents; occupational diseases
and occupational injuries
96
Impact on the working A IV and A new methodology was developed to assess the total impact on
environment; occupational health V the working and external environments and its applicability was
and safety; occupational health; shown in a case study [188].
occupational safety; occupational
accidents; occupational diseases;
occupational disabilities
Health effects from indoor pollutant C IV and In line with existing model used for assessing outdoor emissions,
emissions and exposure; human- V the one-box exposure model was selected to determine the
health effects from indoor characterisation factors for human toxic effects due to indoor
exposure; occupational exposure exposure [370].
Indoor occupational exposure; C IV and In line with USEtox model, the indoor occupational priority list for
occupational health effects; V LCA (OCPL-LCA, referred to as Method 1) was developed, which
occupational diseases; human- could be used for assessing human-health impact attributable to
health impact from indoor indoor occupational exposure to solvents [371].
exposure
* Proximity to impact of/from/in/to the work environment
A Explicitly, if impact of/from/in/to the work(ing) environment was mentioned
B Implicitly, if work(ing) environment was mentioned
C Loosely, if workplace was mentioned but not directly connected with the impact
D Indistinctively, if neither work environment nor workplace was mentioned
** Level of detail
I Recognition only, without discussion at LCI/LCIA level
II Brief discussion at LCI level
III Brief discussion on LCIA methodology
IV In-depth discussion on LCIA methodology
V Application/case study
97
3.10 Life Cycle Interpretation: Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis
In estimating potential environmental impact, LCA, by its very nature, associated with
uncertainties. Uncertainty was defined as the quantity discrepancy between the real
values and the data used in the study [115] generally obtained from experiments,
calculations, assumptions or estimations. Also, uncertainty could be defined
quantitatively and qualitatively. The former was a measure which determined the
spread of values attributed to a parameter. The latter referred to the lack of precision
in data and methodologies due to incomplete data, lack of transparency,
unrepresentative methods and the choice made [114]. According to [124],
uncertainty was the ‘lack of knowledge’ with respect to true quantity value and model
form, appropriateness of modelling and methodological decision, and therefore, its
effects could be addressed by uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. This was in
agreement with [107, 114] in which uncertainty and sensitivity analysis appeared to
be coupled together. Accordingly, uncertainty analysis was defined as a systematic
technique which quantified the uncertainty in LCI results due to variability and
inaccuracy of data and model whilst sensitivity analysis was defined as a systematic
technique which assessed the effects of methodological choice and data on the
results [106, 107].
To get a grasp of the state-of-the-art methodological development in this context,

literature in Sample Groups A and B were analysed and the findings are presented in
Table 3.7. In contrast to the vast number of literature recognising the inherent
uncertainties in LCA (and the need to address them by performing uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis), the methodological concept in LCA context was not covered
widely. A few publications had attempted to explicitly classify the types of
uncertainty; however, a common drawback was found as each list was limited to a
few uncertainty types among many. Built on [106, 107, 109, 111, 114, 115, 124, 286,
303, 305, 319, 320, 331, 338, 339], all uncertainty types were integrated as illustrated
in Figure 3.9 to present an overarching scope.
98
Table 3.7: The coverage of uncertainty, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in
literature.
Subtopic Resources
1. Uncertainty
 Recognition of [106-109, 111, 114-117, 121-124, 126-129, 178, 180,
uncertainty inherent 259, 261, 264, 265, 267-269, 274, 276, 278, 280, 281,
in LCA a 288, 293, 295, 296, 298, 302, 303, 305, 306, 310, 312,
314, 318-321, 324, 328, 329, 333, 338-341]
 Definition b [114, 115, 124]
 Types c Explicitly: [111, 114, 115, 124, 286, 319, 338, 339]
Implicitly: [106, 107, 109, 303, 305, 320, 331]
 Sources b [115, 122, 305]
 Problems b [124]
2. Uncertainty analysis
 Recognition of (the [106-109, 111, 114-117, 122, 124, 127-129, 180, 259,
need for) uncertainty 265, 272, 275, 281, 283, 293, 295, 298, 303, 306, 309,
analysis a 310, 314, 318, 321, 325, 326, 328, 329, 333, 338-341]
 Definition b [106, 107, 114]
 Methodologies d [115, 124, 295]
 Methodologies [107, 114, 286, 291, 305, 333, 338]
specifically for LCI d
 Methodologies [286, 297, 302, 324]
specifically for LCIA d
 Methodological [286, 291, 297]
concept e
 Application f [286, 297]
3. Sensitivity analysis
 Recognition a [106, 115, 116, 121-124, 127, 180, 261, 265, 290, 295,
305, 310, 319, 320, 329, 333, 338-340]
 Methodological [107, 114, 284, 285, 289]
concept e
 Application f [101, 106, 107, 114, 284, 285, 289]

a Uncertainty (as well as the need for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis)
was recognised if it was only cursorily mentioned.
b Definition, sources or problems commonly associated with uncertainty was
reported when discussion on the corresponding topic was unambiguously
presented.
c The types of uncertainty were explicitly included if they were organised
appropriately; or implicitly presented if one or more uncertainty type was
mentioned unsystematically.
d Methodologies for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis were covered if a
suggestion was made (without detail). In the case of uncertainty analysis,
the suggestion could be general or specific for addressing uncertainty at
LCI/LCIA level.
e A methodological concept was proposed if the fundamental principle was
discussed.
f Application was performed if the methodology was implemented and/or the
results were shown.
99
Figure 3.9: Types of uncertainty inherent in LCA.
As reported by [115, 124, 295], a range of approaches had been proposed for
uncertainty analysis. [363, 372-377] were included in Sample Group C to
complement the analysis. The fundamental concept and application of the statistical,
scientific, social/constructive and graphical approaches of uncertainty analysis in the
context of LCA were discussed:
1. Statistical approach
i. Stochastic modelling, used to propagate uncertainty due to
inaccurate data [377], input and output parameter uncertainty
100
[373] and model uncertainty [295]. Stochastic modelling involved
the use of
(a) a probability distribution for different conditions [374]:
 uniform for less studied and/or more debated
parameters
 normal if the input data were the average values
of the data collected
 lognormal for skewed data limited to positive
values only
 triangular for less studied and/or more debated
parameters
 beta generally for several shapes of distribution
bounded on both positive and negative sides
where no prior knowledge was required
 gamma for model developed from real world
samples
(b) a sampling technique, where the parametric sampling
technique, e.g. bootstrapping as recognised by [115], was
not included in this review as its methodological concept in
LCA context for uncertainty analysis application was not
found. Random and non-parametric sampling included
 Monte Carlo [295, 376, 377]. Within a defined
range, all parameters were varied and selected
randomly by employing a computer. To deal with
inaccurate data, all key input parameters were
specified and applied one by one in the
calculation. To deal with model uncertainty,
characterisation factors were repeatedly
calculated with all possible uncertainties. After an
extensive number of repetitions, the results
formed a probability distribution where the statistic
properties of the distribution were investigated.
Monte Carlo was technically valid and widely
recognised.
101
 Latin Hypercube [373, 376]. This was a special
type of Monte Carlo simulation which segmented
the uncertainty distribution into non-overlapping
intervals (with equal probabilities). From each
interval, a value was randomly chosen and
substituted into an equation to obtain an output
variable. The output variables generated a
distribution with a representative frequency chart.
The complex mathematic model of this sampling
method presented a drawback and hindered its
application.
ii. Non-parametric good-of-fit test, e.g. Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
test and Chi-Square test [286], used to choose the best
hypothesised distribution. The frequency distribution of inventory
data (with multiple parameters collected from industries or via
simulation) and the probability density function of a hypothesised
distribution (normal, lognormal, gamma, beta etc. generated by
Maximum Likelihood Estimation based on the characteristics of
parameters, i.e. mean, standard deviation etc.) were assessed by
K-S and Chi-Square tests. A null hypothesis was set, i.e. both
distributions were in consistency. A critical value was assigned to
K-S and Chi-Square tests to decide if the null hypothesis was true
at the significance level of 0.05. When the results of K-S and Chi-
Square tests were in conflict (very uncommonly), K-S test for a
small sample (with 30 data or less) and Chi-Square test for a
relatively bigger sample should be applied. The lowest values of
results from both tests indicated the best distribution of the
inventory data.
iii. Analytical method [374-376], used to propagate uncertainties due
to input data on the model outputs. The relationship between
input and output variables was evaluated by estimating the
moments, i.e. variance or standard deviation of the distribution
based on Taylor series. Although the analytical method required
less information regarding the distribution and was computationally
102
efficient compared to the sampling method, its application was
practically hindered by the complexity of Taylor series.
iv. Fuzzy number [291, 333], used to propagate epistemic uncertainty
inherent in matrix-based inventories by applying upper and lower
limits to emission and resource flow inventory vectors to create a
number of matrices. For the defined degrees of belief, i.e. -cuts
= 0,…,1, the matrices were solved. The inventory results at all -
cuts were combined to form a fuzzy distribution. The approach
was advantageous as it was more informative and computationally
efficient. It was claimed that a comparison between alternatives of
epistemic uncertainties could be made by ranking the fuzzy
numbers; however, no methodological concept was provided.
v. Bayesian [372], used to estimate model uncertainties which
propagated parameter uncertainties. A probability distribution was
generated by applying stochastic modelling, i.e. a prior distribution
type of uncertainties was selected and Monte Carlo was employed
to calculate the indicator results of an impact category repeatedly.
To measure the importance of each parameter uncertainty, the
correlation coefficient between the input parameter and its output
was calculated. A posterior probability was then formed by
applying Bayesian update procedure. For each parameter, the
ratio of standard deviation to means (known as the coefficient of
variation) could be calculated to determine how much uncertainty
was reduced.
vi. Interval calculation [376]. A 95% confidence interval was
calculated by using standard deviation in the analytical method
and the non-parametric good-of-fit test.
103
2. Scientific approach
i. More research [295], used to reduce model uncertainty. More
scientific research was carried out for better measurements and
more accurate data.
ii. The scale of uncertainties [338], used to manage uncertainties at
LCI level. After performing a hybrid LCI, uncertainties due to data,
cut-off, aggregation, temporal and spatial factors were estimated
to identify ways for improvement by comparing the scale of
uncertainties. Then, data of low relevance were replaced by data
of high quality, followed by estimation and comparison of the
uncertainty scales. The processes were repeated until the results
were sufficiently certain. A critical issue with this approach existed
as detail on estimating uncertainties was not provided.
iii. Scenario comparison [295, 375, 376], used to investigate the
effect of data and model uncertainties on the results via parameter
variation (also known as scenario analysis). All parameters
remained unchanged whilst one specific parameter (or a number
of consistent scenarios of parameter e.g. best, worst and average
cases) was varied. In addition, model uncertainty could also be
dealt with by comparing the characterisation factors calculated
from a few strategically manipulated uncertainty parameter values.
iv. Uncertainty factors (UFs), used to deal with
 unrepresentative input data due to future technology,
temporal and geographical factors [377]. Based on
empirical analysis of technological development, time
series and cross-sectional data on process inputs and
environmental releases, the UFs were estimated and
applied to the unrepresentative input data.
 uncertainties due to parameters and choice [297, 373].
UFs were used to characterise the parameter uncertainty
of input data whilst stochastic modelling (i.e. Monte Carlo
or Latin Hypercube simulation) was applied to quantify and
propagate parameter uncertainty of the output variables
into a particular distribution type. A comparison indicator
could be used to compare the choice between 2 products.
104
 pairwise comparison of alternatives [363]. Based on the
LCIA results for 2 scenarios for an impact category (in the
form of crisp number, probability distribution function or
fuzzy membership function), the preference relationships
between scenarios (i.e. one scenario was preferred,
strongly preferred, not preferred or strongly not preferred
to the other) were evaluated and aggregated. The
aggregated results of the preference relations for each
couple of scenarios were used for the calculation of the
classical entropy measure and an index; and accordingly,
all scenarios under study could be ranked from the worst
to the best or vice versa.
3. Social/constructive approach [375, 377]. Pedigree matrix was applied to
qualitatively deal with uncertainties due to unrepresentative or unavailable
data. This was done by identifying relevant data quality indicators, e.g.
temporal, spatial and future technology correlations, at different levels.
Accordingly, a score was assigned to each level, e.g. for temporal
indicator, levels 1, 2 and 3 represented data age groups 0–3, 4–10 and
11–15 years respectively etc. Expert judgment and/or inputs from
stakeholders were required in defining the pedigree matrix and
furthermore assigning the scores to indicate the level of each indicator
applicable to the case under study.
4. Graphical approach [374]. Some graphic tools including error bars,
histograms, box-and-whisker plots (Tukey boxes), cumulative distribution
functions and graphs of mean outcome versus the number of iteration for
modelling were used to visually show how certain/uncertain the results
were.
In short, scientific approach by more research directly would reduce uncertainties;

scenario comparison and graphical approaches showed the effects of inputs (e.g.
parameters and choice) on the results; stochastic modelling, scale of uncertainties
and UFs dealt with data uncertainties whilst analytical method, fuzzy number,
Bayesian and scale of uncertainties by nature propagated uncertainties to a
combination of variables defined in the functions.
105
Sensitivity analysis also applied mathematics concepts (in addition to scenario
analysis) to investigate the influence of methodological choice such as input data and
assumptions on the results. Compared to ISO 14040 [106] which suggested
sensitivity analysis as one of the reasons for the difference in LCIA results for
alternative products, ISO 14044 [107] had put more emphasis on the use of
sensitivity analysis to (i) check input and output data for significant environmental
burdens and/or further system boundary refinement; (ii) obtain additional information
for the reference choice during normalisation; (iii) assess the consequences of value
choice during weighting; (iv) check for sensitivity and limitations of the study during
interpretation; and (v) include mass, energy and environmental significance criteria in
sensitivity analysis for a comparative study. Among review articles of Sample Group
A as presented in Table 3.1, [109, 115, 121, 123, 124, 128] embraced the role of
sensitivity analysis in LCA studies. Meanwhile, a constantly gradual (but not
sufficiently detailed) development could be observed in the literature of Sample
Group B from a very brief recognition [106, 115, 116, 121-124, 127, 180, 261, 265,
290, 295, 305, 310, 319, 320, 329, 333, 338-340] to a short discussion on the basic
concept covering the use of reliability and validity analysis [284, 285], percentage of
change or the absolute deviation [107], and temporal sensitivity [289] as measures
for sensitivity analysis, possibly supported by the application of qualitative method
(i.e. expert judgement) or quantitative methods including spreadsheet, linear and
non-linear programming [114]. In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed in
some LCA studies [101, 106, 107, 114, 284, 285, 289] but the applied methodology
was not detailed. Sensitivity analysis was not new and had been commonly applied
in other fields, e.g. weather forecast, decision making and risk assessment, to name
but a few. A number of common methodologies were preliminarily but not exclusively
identified partially in accordance with [378, 379] and categorised with a brief
description as illustrated in Figure 3.10, which could be seen as a connecting point
for stimulating research development of sensitivity analysis in the context of LCA.
106
Figure 3.10: The basic concept and difficulty level of some common sensitivity
analysis methods.
107
3.11 Research Needs and Areas for Future Development
Probably in response to a particular remark presented in ISO 14040 [106], there were
‘no generally accepted methodologies for consistently and accurately associating
inventory data with specific potential environmental impact’ (page 16), selecting the
best practice or recommended approach via comparison, harmonisation or
consensus building had become common recently. In respect of this, [296] pointed
out that consensus building was not practical due to the fact that existing methods
under evaluation might have less scientific ground whilst new methodologies were
constantly being developed, which would be excluded from such evaluation. As
advocated by [296], LCA research should focus on meeting the major challenges e.g.
integrating global scale and spatial differentiation. Other unremittent challenges for
future LCA development were identified via this analysis:
 LCI data. Whilst LCI approaches were well developed, unavailable,
missing, out-of-date and unrepresentative data remained a major obstacle
to deliver reliable LCA results. Research into developing robust and
representative inventory was required.
 Classification involving series and parallel mechanisms. Some elementary
flows were attributional to more than one impact categories which were
likely to be assessed in an LCA study. Relevant examples included, first,
SO2 which generally resulted in acidification, human toxicity and aquatic
ecotoxicity [270]; and second, water which resulted in water deprivation
[349] due to consumption and furthermore the depletion of water as a
natural resource [130]. How to appropriately classify such elementary
flows in series and parallel mechanisms should be explored and
developed.
 LCIA methodology. Research on the impact of water use, noise and
working environment was still ongoing and should be further expanded to
cover comprehensive scope and took into account spatial and temporal
dimensions. Other impact categories including space use, odour, non-
ionizing radiation (i.e. electromagnetic waves) and thermal pollution [284,
341] were noted but their characterisation model had not yet developed.
At present, there was no environmental mechanism, indicator,
characterisation factor and model available for these impact categories.
 Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. In relation to uncertainty analysis,
methodology that could be applied to address uncertainties due to
108
incompleteness and inconsistency had not been explored. Also, how to
incorporate existing methodologies for sensitivity analysis, for example
advance statistics, into LCA study should be further studied.
 Any other relevant topics. Other elements which were not explicitly
included in ISO Standards, for example rebound effects, renewability of
resources, dynamic of environment and future scenario modelling, were of
increasing importance from a pragmatic perspective. Indeed, dealing with
rebound effects or renewability as well as modelling dynamic environment
or future scenario were challenging and required extensive research
engagement to overcome its complex nature.
3.12 Summary
A literature review on LCA methodology development embracing all life cycle phases
was reported. The literature was categorised into Sample Groups A, B and C,
comprising 15 review articles published in the last decade, 95 pieces of other
literature types (with 83% journal articles), and 38 additional materials necessary for
complementing an in-depth discussion respectively. A threefold analysis was
performed to scrutinise and compare the literature in these sample groups. The
analysis showed that for Sample Group A, the focus had steered from overarching
LCA of all-embracing life cycle phases to single phase and then sole engagement
with a specific topic. For Sample Group B, 44% reported the scientific endeavour on
LCIA compared to other life cycle phases. Following clarification on environmental
aspects, impact, impact categories, system boundary, cut-off and existing LCI
approaches including attributional, consequential, process based, IO based etc., the
methodology development of impact categories (covering impact of water use, noise
and working environment), uncertainty and sensitivity analysis was discussed.
Classification involved series and parallel mechanisms, LCIA development for space
use, odour, non-ionising radiation and thermal pollution, rebound effects, renewability
of resources, dynamic of environment and future scenario modelling in LCA context
were identified as research needs and areas for future development. The end of life
of ships and metallic scrap and an LCA framework applicable to marine power
systems is reported in Chapter 4, followed by case studies in Chapter 5. Both
Chapters are built around environmental aspects (such as emissions and resources)
and relevant impact categories, in which LCA was applied as an approach to
determine the environmental impact of the marine power systems under study.
109
Chapter 4. Development of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Framework for Marine Power Systems
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense;
it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a
variation of wave pressure.”
Albert Einstein
Paraphrased words as given in Ronald William Clark, Einstein, 1984
LCA was a widely recognised tool used for estimating potential environmental impact
of a product system throughout the defined life cycle phases. In addition to ISO
14040 and 14044, LCA methodologies had been broadly developed, and the
endeavour was still ongoing which had gradually steered from LCI and LCIA
methodologies to less developed impact categories, uncertainty and sensitivity
analysis [380], as reported in Chapter 3. However, LCA applications were case-
specific. Transferring from theories into applications was challenging, in particular if
one had no experience and was not familiar with the subject, i.e. marine power
systems in this study. An LCA framework for marine power systems which set a
step-by-step structure would provide guidance by outlining a standardised approach
on how to apply and what to do at each stage. An understanding on the end of life
management, which was perceived as a significant life cycle phase of marine power
systems, was a prerequisite to the applications in Chapter 5. Both the end of life
management and LCA framework in the marine context were the focus of this
chapter, as illustrated in Figure 4.1.
110
The following sub-objectives were defined:
 understand end of life management plans for ships, power systems and
metallic scrap (Chapter 4.1); and
 provide life cycle phase by phase guidelines which specified information
that was required for relevant applications, and give helpful hints on
resource consumption, processes, emissions and environmental impact
(Chapter 4.2).
The chapter was closed with a short summary to set the scene for Chapter 5.
4.1 End of Life Management

In the context of ship dismantling in Europe, a number of conventions and guidelines
had been in place since 1989, including the Green Paper on Better Ship Dismantling,
Safety and Health in Shipbreaking, The IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling, Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and
Their Disposal, and Technical Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of
the Full and Partial Dismantling of Ships [381-385]. Efforts made throughout the
quarter-century had led to the enforcement of European regulation on ship recycling
i.e. [386] to mandatorily require
 ship owners to (i) document the quantity and location of hazardous
materials in an inventory throughout the life cycle; (ii) ensure that the ship
was to be recycled in an approved recycling yard (which was included in
European List); and (iii) provide a ready-for-recycling certificate and
relevant information to the recycling yard;
 recycling yards to prepare a ship recycling plan prior to hazardous material
removal and clean the ship to ensure it was gas-free for hot work;
 local authorities to assess ship recycling yards located in Europe and
provide recommendations to the European Commission; and
 the European Commission to maintain the European List of approved
recycling facilities.
At present, ships were mainly dismantled in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China,

America and Turkey. In addition to the recycling yards in Aliaga, Turkey, examples of
other ship recycling facilities in Europe included Simont S.p.a. in Italy; Van Heygen
Recycling S.A. in Belgium; Scheepssloperij Nederland B.V. and Gdansk shipyard in
Poland; Fornaes, Jatop and Smedegaarden in Denmark; Bacopoulos and Savvas
111
Pireus in Greece; Undoris JSC in Lithuania; Desguaces de la Arena in Spain and
Aker-Kvaerner in Norway [114].
Beaching, slipway, alongside and drydock [114] were the four approaches practised
at recycling yards. When a ship arrived at the recycling yard, she was
 driven up the beach and chained where oxygen cutting was applied to
reclaim steel and other valuable scrap. The approach was known as
beaching and had been applied by 95% of recycling facilities worldwide.
 tightened by a concrete slipway or on shore where valuable components
were removed by mobile cranes. The approach was known as slipway
and had been applied in Turkey.
 stopped alongside sheltered waters where ship dismantling would begin
from top to bottom i.e. superstructure to engine room and lastly double
bottom. The approach was known as alongside and had been applied in
China.
 directed to a dry dock to be dismantled piece by piece. The approach was
known as drydock and had been applied in the United Kingdom.
Among power technologies discussed in Chapter 2, the following information about

the end of life management plans of diesel engines, batteries and PV systems were
found:
1. Main diesel engines. Existing business dealing with used Sulzer spare
parts, for example Pescar Shipping and Logistics [387] showed that
components of diesel engines could be reconditioned for further use. The
components included the crankshaft, cylinder covers, cylinder liners,
pistons, connecting rods, injectors, safety valves, injector valve bodies and
fuel pumps, to name but a few. Reconditioning would be required prior to
reuse [388] as summarised below in the case of an automotive engine,
which was perceived to be applicable to marine diesel engines:
 straighten, regrind, polish and recondition the crankshaft,
connecting rods and cylinder heads
 bore and hone the cylinder block
 install new piston rings, camshaft, lifters and timing components,
bearings and oil pumps
 rebalance the engine components
112
 inspect the engine components
 assemble the engine and carry out pressure test
 paint the remanufactured engine.
In general, how many times an engine could be reconditioned depended

on the condition of the components and availability of spare parts. An
engine which was in good condition could be remanufactured 2–4 times;
the cylinders could be refitted with cast iron or steel sleeves not more than
2 times and pistons could be reconditioned up to 4 times. [388] claimed
that the remanufactured engine could result in 26–90% less raw material
consumption and 68–83% energy saving as well as reduction in CO2 (73–
87%), CO (48–88%), SO2 (71–84%) and non-methane hydrocarbon (50–
61%). According to [389], materials used for manufacturing a diesel
engine could be refurbished and recycled during engine remanufacturing,
which involved engine disassembly, cleaning, refurbishment and
reassembly. The elementary flows (i.e. materials and energy) and
emissions involved in component refurbishment and material recycling
were reported by [389], as summarised in Table 4.1, indicating that several
components of used engines would be refurbished whilst a small
proportion would be recycled.
113
Table 4.1: Elementary flows and emissions involved in handling used
diesel engines [389].
Elementary flow and emission Component Material
refurbishment recycling
Materials, %*
(i) steel 15.32 5.88
(ii) cast iron 67.69 0.48
(iii) aluminium 3.90 0.8
(iv) alloy 1.23 2.64
Electricity consumption, kWh per engine 71025.88 1837.893 **
Resources, kg
(i) coal 52866.56 3309.95
(ii) crude oil 6123.46 383.58
(iii) natural gas 497.36 31.20
Total emissions, kg
(i) CO 824.05 51.39
(ii) CO2 93418.31 5850.00
(iii) SO2 943.34 58.73
(iv) NOx 360.64 22.94
(v) Methane, CH4 333.11 21.11
(vi) Hydrogen sulphide, H2S 40.38 2.53
(vii) Hydrochloride acid, HCl 22.94 1.44
(viii) Dust 873.60 55.06
(ix) Water biological oxygen 75.25 4.59
demand (BOD)
(x) Water chemical oxygen 86.26 5.51
demand (COD)
(xi) Ammonia, NH4 0.92 0.06
* 100% mass of an engine
** Electricity consumed by a metal melting furnace for recycling
2. Lithium-ion batteries. Recycling and appropriately disposing lithium-ion

batteries was necessary to avoid the formation of corrosive substances
such as hydrofluoric acid and lithium hydroxide on the negative electrodes
as well as fire caused by flammable materials in the batteries. Indeed,
battery recycling was mandatory as required by European Directive
2006/66/EC [390]. The following three recycling methods for lithium-ion
batteries were reported:
 Pyrometallurgical recycling [389, 391-393]. Lithium-ion batteries
were dismantled and burned in a high temperature shaft furnace
with the presence of a slag-forming agent, such as sand,
limestone or slag. During the process, electrolytes, carbon
anodes and plastic were burned whilst valuable materials such as
copper, cobalt, nickel or iron were recovered in the form of alloys.
114
Lithium, aluminium and any other materials presented in the
cathodes could be found in slag. To recover these metals, solvent
extraction and leaching using a leaching agent (such as sulphuric
acid, chloride acid and nitric acid) could be applied but the
processes were not economical.
 Intermediate recycling [392, 393]. Lithium-ion batteries were
pulverised in a hammer mill. The mixture of metals and plastic
was then separated in a shaker table whilst the aqueous stream
from the hammer mill was filtered. The filtrate was then mixed
with soda to form lithium carbonate. The metals and lithium
carbonate could be reused. Similar to pyrometallurgical recycling,
the method was not economical.
 Direct recycling [393]. Lithium-ion battery cells were placed in a
container where CO2 was added and turned into supercritical (by
increasing pressure and temperature of the container). The
supercritical CO2 would extract the electrolyte from the cells. The
electrolyte could be reused after processing. The electrolyte-free
cells were then pulverised and all components were separated
from one another. Re-lithiation (i.e. charging) was required for
cathode materials prior to reuse.
3. PV systems. A number of LCA studies on onshore PV systems were
available, as summarised in Table 4.2. Although not common at present,
it was anticipated that recycling PV systems would be implemented in the
near future, as suggested by [394]. The process involved breaking down
PV systems into individual components where waste was treated and
recycled separately [395].
115
Table 4.2: Literature on the LCA studies of onshore PV systems.
Literature Key points
[150]  A 30-year life cycle of inverters and transformers was
expected.
 For Balance of System (BOS), 526–542 MJ/m2 of
total primary energy was required where 29–31 kg
CO2 equivalent/m2 of GHG emissions were released.
 Primary energy of 1000 MJ and 3000 MJ were
respectively required for materials and processes to
manufacture 1 PV module (Type: KC120). The life
cycle CO2 emission rate was 54.6 g CO2
equivalent/kWhe.
[394]  Real experience of recycling PV systems was not
available.
 Small quantity of panel scrap was treated in
incineration plants or disposed to landfill.
 Recycling silicon cells, aluminium frames, glass and
electronic scrap was expected in future.
[395]  PV modules and BOS were separated; broken down
into individual components to be treated separately.
 First scenario: PV modules and BOS were disposed
to the landfill where disposing plastic waste was most
burdensome whilst environmental impact from BOS
was trivial.
 Second scenario: glass, plastic and metallic scrap
were recycled separately where BOS and
transporting waste by lorry were respectively the
smallest and largest contributors to the total
environmental impact.
 Energy required for the recycling process was 26% of
that of manufacturing process.
[396]  PV systems were landfilled where neither material nor
energy was recovered.
[397]  More than 99% of the environmental impact was from
the production of PV systems.
 Recycling PV modules was not considered as it was
not in practice although LCA data were available.
[398]  Negative contribution due to reusing wafers, glass
and metallic scrap outweighed the environmental
burdens resulted by recycling process itself.
After dismantling, the scrap was categorised and stored appropriately before being
transported to individual recycling or disposal sites, according to [399] as
summarised in Table 4.3.
116
Table 4.3: Storage approach for a selection of scrap types.
Scrap type Storage approach after dismantling
Residue oil and fuels In separate storage tanks
Stainless steel In containers or piles
Steel Segregated into different areas in accordance with
steel grades
Non-ferrous metals such Stored in separate containers, preferably covered up
as copper, brass, lead,
zinc and aluminium
Cables Plastic coating and wires were collected together in
one area and stored separately
Chemicals Acids or alkalis were identified and stored separately
Asbestos Handled by a licensed contractor where removed
asbestos was double-bagged and stored before
delivered to a licensed landfill site
Paint containing triethyl- Removed by blasting before disassembly; Washings
or trimethyl-tin needed to be stored and handled as hazardous waste
Re-useable items Stored in an appropriate place
According to [400], a total emission of 0.047–0.057 kg and 0.011 kg of CO2

equivalent would be released respectively in collecting and sorting 1 kg of scrap.
Waste sorting, as reported by [401-404], started with physical separation where
useful parts were preliminarily distinguished from mixed scrap. Shredding or
fragmenting was then applied in a shredder to break the scrap into smaller pieces
prior to being tumbled in a large drum to eliminate dust. Magnet, air, eddy current,
heavy metal separator, acid, x-ray and thermal methods could be applied in line with
scrap types to meet the following purposes:
 Magnetic separation dissociated ferrous (i.e. iron and steel) from non-
ferrous scrap.
 Air suction retrieved plastic, paper and textiles.
 Eddy current and heavy metal separator recovered non-ferrous metals e.g.
magnesium, aluminium, copper, zinc and lead from waste and shredder
residue.
 Spark, magnetic, chemical and spectroscopic testing differentiated alloys
using magnets, acids or x-ray spectrometers.
 Thermal methods, for instance de-coating, de-tinning and de-zinning,
removed paints, grease, tin, zinc etc.
After categorisation, the scrap was stored and once a sufficient quantity was
accumulated, it was packed, for example being baled, bundled or briquetted before
shipping to recycling plants, smelters, foundries and manufacturers where the scrap
117
was melted (if required) and processed to produce secondary materials or new
products. The following sections described how various types of metallic scrap were
recycled.
4.1.1 Iron and steel scrap recycling

Pig iron, cast iron, wrought iron, mild steel, carbon steel and high carbon steel were
alloys of iron and carbon. Although Tatasteel, which was the only steel producer in
the UK, had claimed that the make-up of these alloys could not be defined precisely,
a rough idea is illustrated in Figure 4.2. At the end of the life cycle of an alloy product
that contained iron, the alloy scrap could be recycled for secondary steel production.
Both basic oxygen furnace (BOF) and electric arc furnace (EAF) were common
smelters applied by steel industry. The former was mainly used for primary steel
production and the latter was more widely used for secondary production [403, 405].
The scrap was mixed with lime (acting as a flux to ease the soldering process) and
loaded in baskets. The furnace anodes were submerged in the scrap. Energy was
applied to melt the scrap and form liquefied steel. During the process, oxygen gas
was constantly supplied so that impurities such as aluminium and silicon could be
oxidised into slag. Additional substances were added to liquefied steel in a ladle for
alloying purpose before being cast into final products. According to [403], 9.1–12.5
GJ of energy was required to produce 1000 kg of secondary steel whilst 82.4–180.7
kg of CO2 would be emitted.
Figure 4.2: Alloys of iron and carbon.
118
4.1.2 Stainless steel scrap recycling
The process of recycling stainless steel with EAF as described by [406, 407] was in
the same manner with that of recycling steel scrap discussed in Chapter 4.1.1. To
keep carbon content below 0.03% and remove impurities, the molten stainless steel
was further processed in an argon-oxygen decarburising furnace prior to adding
alloying substances. It was reported by [408] that on average, (i) 6.8 kW of electricity
was consumed every hour to pre-prepare 1000 kg of scrap, which involved pressing,
shearing, cutting, bundling and crushing; (ii) in the scenario of 100% recycling, 23000
MJ of energy was required for the process of 1000 kg secondary stainless steel
production where 68 MJ and 2200 MJ were respectively used for scrap preparation
and transportation; and (iii) 1016 kg of scrap, i.e. 182 kg of chromium, 80 kg of nickel
and 754 kg of iron, was required to produce 1000 kg secondary stainless steel.
4.1.3 Aluminium scrap recycling

Depending on the quality of aluminium scrap and the desired outcome, numerous
ways could be applied to recycle aluminium scrap, as reported by [402, 405, 409-
411]. According to [410], open-loop recycling was applied for aluminium scrap due to
changes in the inherent properties of aluminium. This was in agreement with [402]
who claimed that ‘diluting’ aluminium scrap with primary aluminium or ‘down-cycling’
aluminium scrap to form aluminium products of lower quality were two common but
economically destructive approaches practised for aluminium recycling. Other
alternatives should be implemented in long term for a better economic value.
Secondary aluminium production included transportation of aluminium scrap from

manufacturing plants and consumers to recycling plants. Whilst aluminium scrap
from manufacturers was re-melted directly for new products, the scrap from other
sources was preheated and treated to remove contaminants, coating and grease
before being melted in a rotary furnace [405]. Filtering, fluxing and floating which
respectively removed alumina, impurities (such as calcium, magnesium and lithium)
and hydrogen were common examples of chemical treatment in practice. The molten
aluminium was then cast as secondary ingots or turned into alloys.
Similar to primary production, ingots from secondary production were used in (i)
shape casting to produce semi-fabricated aluminium components; (ii) extruding to
produce semi-fabricated or finished extruded aluminium components; and/or (iii) hot
119
or cold rolling to produce coils. [409] recommended to assume a secondary
aluminium composition of 35% and 85% respectively for realistic and future
scenarios. The LCIs for ingot casting reported by [409] indicated that primary
production would consume 211 kWh of electricity, 18 kg of fuel and 52 m3 of natural
gas whilst secondary production would require 115 kWh of electricity and 126 m 3 of
natural gas. The LCIs for secondary aluminium ingot production is shown in Table
4.4. In this matter, [405] claimed that energy required for recycling aluminium scrap
would be only 5% of that consumed in primary aluminium production.
Table 4.4: Materials, energy and emissions involved in producing 1000 kg of

aluminium ingots from secondary production, based on LCI of ingot casting
presented in [409] where data for recycling stages prior to ingot casting were not
reported.
Stage Ingot casting
Materials
Metal, kg 1000
Alloy additives, kg 17.4
Grain refiners, kg 2.27
Water, l 3509
Energy
Electricity, kWh 115
Fuel oil, kg 0
Diesel, l 0
Natural gas, m 3 126
End product
Ingots, kg 1000
Emissions
PM, kg
CO2, kg 66
CO, kg 23
SOx, kg 0.001
NOx, kg 0.2
Cl2, kg 0.06
HCl, kg 0.17
Hydrofluoric acid (HF), kg 0.01
Non-methane HCs, kg 0.09
Residue, kg 80
4.1.4 Copper and brass scrap recycling

A closed-loop recycling plan had been practised for copper scrap as implied by [401],
which pointed out that ‘some elements would be reprocessed to their elemental form
(e.g., copper)’. How copper scrap was recycled depended on its chemical
composition, as reported by literature on copper recycling which is summarised in
120
Table 4.5. Whilst pure copper scrap could be used directly, copper scrap with 92–
95% was smelted in an anode furnace and then oxidised by air to remove impurities.
To recycle copper alloy scrap with less than 70% of copper content (including brass
scrap), the scrap was smelted in a blast furnace and oxidised in a converter prior to
electrolysis. If copper content was low, e.g. approximately 3% as in pewter alloy, the
scrap was recycled to its alloy form.
Table 4.5: A summary of literature on copper recycling.

Resource: [407]
Copper Less than 61.3% 92-94% 94% 100%
content 60%
Name Copper Refinery grade Light - Pure
bearing brass copper copper
materials scrap
Sequential Shearing, Being smelted Being cast into anodes Being
recycling magnetic in a blast and refined with reused
approach separation, furnace and electrolysis directly
cleaning and refined via to form
degreasing electrolysis wire bars
Resource: [411]
Copper Less than 30% 75% 95%
content
Smelter type Blast furnaces Converters Anode
furnaces
Materials Copper scrap, iron scrap, Black copper from Converter
limestone, sand and coke blast furnaces copper, copper
raw material
and oil/coal
dust
Sequential The mixture was changed at Black copper was Smelting;
recycling the top of the blast furnace; added to primary removal of
approach air was blown through copper production impurities via
tuyeres; coke was burned for temperature oxidisation by
for smelting process control. blowing air on
Alternatives the bath
include (i)
hydrometallurgical
treatment using
ammonia leaching
to produce copper
powder; or (ii)
solvent extraction
treatment fed to
copper-winning
cells
Outcome Black copper and slag Converter copper Copper
121
[412] and [413] had respectively reported that 4.62–4.95 MJ and 6.3 MJ of energy
would be required to smelt, convert and electro-refine 1 kg of copper scrap. In
relation to emissions, [411] reported that 260 g of particulate matter 10 (PM10), 190 g
of particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), 110 g of lead, 2.3 g of cadmium, 1.4 g of arsenic, 28
g of copper, 0.13 g of nickel, 3.7 g of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and 50 µg 1-
Toxic Equivalent Quantity (TEQ) of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDD) were
released when 1000 kg of secondary copper was produced.
4.1.5 Zinc scrap recycling

Different approaches could be applied to recycle metallic scrap that contained zinc,
as described by [407, 411, 414]. Depending on scrap type and the desired outcome,
zinc recycling approaches could be differentiated as summarised in Table 4.6.
Closed-loop recycling was only applied for metallic scrap from alloys that contained
zinc, e.g. brass and bronze, where the scrap was melted with other metals to
produce the alloys [414]. To recover zinc coat from galvanised steel scrap, leaching
i.e. immersing the scrap in a caustic solution was applied, followed by electrolysis. In
practice, steelmakers preferred to smelt galvanised steel scrap in an EAF to recover
steel instead of zinc. As a result, dust and slurry that containing zinc were commonly
formed in EAFs. To recover zinc from galvanised steel scrap, the scrap could be
heated in a rotary or reverberatory furnace at 364 oC in which zinc was melted and
collected at the bottom of the furnace. Similarly, if it was aimed to recover other
metals in the process in addition to zinc from the scrap, the scrap could be heated in
a basket and placed in a molten salt bath where liquid metal was collected at a
sequence of temperatures.
122
Table 4.6: Zinc recycling approaches.
Scrap type Desired Approach Remark
outcome
Metallic alloy Recycled The scrap was re- Zinc was not
scrap e.g. metallic alloy melted within alloy separated from copper
brass and e.g. recycled group
bronze scrap brass
Galvanised Recycled zinc Leaching and In practice, recycled
steel scrap electrolysis steel in EAF was more
Recycled Direct melting in EAF common and preferred
steel
Dust and slurry Waelz oxide Waelz process Other metals with low
of EAF with 55% zinc resulting in Waelz boiling points, e.g.
content oxide that was fed into lead, cadmium and
primary zinc silver, were also
production recovered
Raw materials Zinc content Thermal zinc refining ─
with 40% zinc of 97.5–98% by fractional distillation
content using retorts
To deal with dust and slurry from EAFs and drosses (referred to as oxidic
substances), Waelz process was recognised as the best available technology. In a
steelmaking plant, metallic scrap containing zinc and lead was mixed with the oxidic
substances and turned into pellets. Together with coke and fluxes, the pellets were
charged to a rotary kiln where air was injected as combustion gas at one end.
Throughout the process, zinc and lead were reduced, vaporised and re-oxidised to
form Waelz oxide (containing 55% zinc and 10% lead), which was then used in
primary zinc and lead production.
To produce zinc with high purity, fractional distillation using retorts could be applied.
Scrap containing zinc was pre-treated, for example, via comminution, sieving,
magnetic separation and de-chlorination. The oxidic substances were mixed with
bituminous coal and the pre-treated scrap before being briquetted, coked in a coking
furnace at 800 oC and charged to retorts, together with a small quantity of pure
metallic materials [411]. By heating the retorts, zinc was reduced from the scrap,
vaporised and condensed. The resulting liquefied zinc was transferred to the foundry
where it was cast into ingots.
According to [412], 13.65 MJ of energy would be required to produce 1 kg of

secondary zinc. [411] reported that without abatement, 340 g of PM10, 255 g of
PM2.5, 65 g of lead, 35 g of cadmium, 0.006 g of mercury, 5.9 g of arsenic, 150g of
123
zinc, 0.0031 g of PCB and 100 µg 1-TEQ of PCDD would be released when 1000 kg
of secondary zinc was produced.
4.1.6 Tin scrap recycling

Literature on tin recycling was limited to [401]. Similar to recycling zinc coat from
galvanised steel scrap, leaching and electrolysis could be applied to recover tin coat
from tinplate scrap (i.e. steel sheet coated with tin). Examples of tin alloys included
solder (2–35% tin and lead), bronze (5–10% tin and copper) and pewter (1–8%
antimony and 0.25–3% copper). The scrap of these alloys was recycled in the alloy
form; therefore closed-loop recycling was applied in practice. LCI for tin recycling
process was not available from literature.
4.1.7 Lead scrap recycling

Literature on lead scrap recycling included [401, 407, 411, 412, 415]. In line with
sources of the scrap, lead scrap could be classified as lead-acid battery scrap
(representing the majority), industrial lead scrap (e.g. skimmings and drosses) and
others (e.g. solder, cables and bearings). Lead-acid battery scrap was first crushed
by a hammer mill into smaller pieces. Physical separation took place in hydro-
separators where small pieces of metals, paste and organic substances found in lead
scrap were washed and separated. This was followed by gravity separation for
impurity removal. Lead compounds were then reduced to lead elements via smelting
at 1200–1260 oC in a blast, rotary, reverberatory or electric arc furnace with/without
desulphurisation. The resulting by-product, i.e. slag, containing 20–40% of lead,
could be further reduced in the furnaces to recover more lead. Alternatively, slag
could be used as materials for cement industry or disposed to landfill as solid waste.
To further enhance the level of purity and remove impurities, raw lead produced from
smelting process could be refined via electrolysis or melting using refining kettles.
Industrial and other lead scrap was generally in small quantity and was commonly
used for the production of alloys or new batteries.
Energy ranging 7–11.2 MJ and 5–11.86 MJ would be required to produce 1 kg of

secondary lead, as reported by [412] and [415] respectively. According to [411],
11800 g of PM10, 8800 g of PM2.5, 5800 g of lead, 15 g of cadmium, 47 g of arsenic,
35 g of zinc, 3.2 g of PCB and 8 µg 1-TEQ of PCDD would be released when 1000kg
of secondary lead was produced without abatement.
124
4.1.8 Nickel scrap recycling
Literature on nickel scrap recycling included [406, 412, 416, 417]. In addition to
being used as catalysts in hydrogenation e.g. production of margarine from vegetable
oils, nickel was primarily used as a constituent of alloys. Intermediate products that
contained nickel included stainless steel, alloy steel, copper- nickel alloys,
superalloys, nickel-plating compounds, nickel-cadmium batteries and nickel-metal-
hydride batteries. These intermediate products were made of primary and secondary
nickel. According to [417], 57% of nickel scrap would be recycled as stainless steel
scrap, 14% as carbon and copper alloy scrap and 21% would be disposed to landfill.
The scrap including swarf (e.g. fine chips or fillings of metal produced by machining
operation during manufacture), if recycled, would be reprocessed as alloys. The
process started by degreasing the scrap before mixing with any virgin material. The
mixture was melted in an induction furnace (i.e. an electric furnace that supplies heat
via induction heating) and then cast under vacuum or with an argon blow to form
solid ingots. Slag and solid waste formed respectively during melting and casting
processes were either refined in an electric furnace or sold to a third party.
Relevant LCI data included 2.17 MJ of energy required for collecting and transporting
1kg of nickel scrap [416]. According to [412], secondary nickel production would
consume only 10% of energy required for primary production i.e. 194 MJ for leaching
or 114 MJ for smelting and refining.
4.1.9 Other metallic scrap

Other alloy scrap, for instance, manganese and magnesium, was generally not
recycled. Possible reasons included (i) technical challenges due to small quantity
e.g. solder, chemical binding and similar thermodynamic behaviour between alloying
metals; and (ii) economic consideration due to the need of investment for the
machines/processes whilst market prices for the scrap were relatively low [407].
Additional data regarding emissions released during some processes were found in
[400], as summarised in the following:
 Secondary production of materials i.e. the conversion of recovered
materials into new products: 0.31–1.26 kg CO2 per 1 kg of corrugated
cardboard, 0.07–0.86 kg CO2 per 1 kg of glass, 0.21–0.53 kg CO2 per 1
kg of high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic, 0.19–0.89 kg CO2 per 1
kg of low density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic, 0.85–1.90 kg CO2 per 1 kg
125
of polystyrene (PS) plastic, 0.02–2.94 kg CO2 per 1 kg of steel and 0.40–
8.37 kg CO2 per 1 kg of aluminium.
 Landfill: 26 kg CO2 equivalent per 1000 kg of materials landfilled in US.
 Combustion: 324–480 kg CO2 equivalent per 1000 kg of materials burned
in combustion.
4.2 The LCA Framework for Marine Power Systems in Accordance with ISO
14040 and ISO 14044
The framework was developed in line with the literature review in Chapters 2–3 and
a number of case studies as presented in Chapter 5. In developing an LCA
framework for marine power systems, the following factors were taken into
consideration:
 Coverage. The framework should comply with the International Standards
on LCA i.e. ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, covering all phases which
presented challenges to LCA practitioners.
 Relevance. Whilst the concept was built on the Standards, the contents
should have a specific focus i.e. marine power systems onboard cargo
ships.
 Originality. The framework should offer something new to advance
existing knowledge.
 Practicality. The framework should provide insights on how to carry out
LCA studies on marine power systems in which relevant guidelines should
be detailed phase by phase and supported by sufficient examples.
The framework laid down a step-by-step guideline in accordance with ISO 14040 and
ISO 14044 on how to conduct a cradle-to-grave LCA study of a marine power
system. For each life cycle phase, the framework would tell where to start, what the
key elements were and what should be done, and supported by illustrative graphics
and examples. For practicality and better understanding, the framework would also
illuminate background information and expected results, as presented in a number of
tables. As LCA studies on marine power systems were case specific and
complicated, the presentation of this framework was by no means exhaustive; still it
could help transfer from theories to practice, in particular to those who had no
prerequisite knowledge about marine power systems, LCA or both.
126
4.2.1 Phase 1: goal and scope definition
“The depth and the breath” of an LCA study was fundamentally delineated by the
elements recognised for goal and scope definition, as illustrated in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Elements recognised by ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 for goal and scope
definition.
In compliance with ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, the goal of an LCA study of the power
system onboard a marine vessel could be defined appropriately by answering four
wh-questions, as follows:
 Why was the study undertaken?
 Who were the targeted audience?
 What did the study apply for?
 Whether the results were used for a comparative study and furthermore
disclosed to the public?
For example, the reason for the study was to estimate the potential environmental
impact from an LCA perspective applied to the power system onboard a marine
vessel (e.g. passenger and cargo ships, container ships, tankers, bulkers, liquefied
gas carriers, support vessels etc.). The targeted audience would include regulators
and agencies (e.g. IMO), ship builders, owners, operators, marine engineers, LCA
researchers and the public. The results would be either/neither used in a
comparative LCA study and/or/nor disclosed to the public.
The study was shaped by scope definition where the key elements were provisionally
outlined, as follows:
 The product system to be studied was the power system of the chosen
vessel, which integrated a range of technologies in accordance with power
127
system design. It was worth noting that a marine vessel, as well as her
power system, was generally designed as requested by the ship owner for
a particular sailing profile, for example short or deep sea shipping,
crossing or within ECAs, receiving regular calls in the same ports or
engaging with tramp trade. Diesel engines, auxiliary generators, gas or
steam turbines, boilers, economisers, shaft generators, gearboxes,
propellers and shafts, thrusters and electric motors were components that
commonly integrated into conventional designs. PTO/PTI, fuel cells,
batteries, WHRS, PV systems, power electronic components such as
converters and variable frequency drives (VFDs), use of sails, cold ironing
and emission abatement systems were examples of emerging
technologies for innovative designs.
 The function of the product system was to supply power required for
propulsion and ship services including hotel loads and cargo handling of a
marine vessel.
 Defining a functional unit was technically challenging as there was neither
unanimity nor a concrete approach. For product systems which were used
for different applications, their functional units would be distinct from each
other. For example, for a diesel engine operated in a power plant, the
functional unit could be total power generated over the lifespan whilst for a
diesel engine used in a truck, the functional unit would be total distance
travelled by the truck. Even if the product systems under study shared a
common function, the functional units, still, would not be the same but
case specific (depending on the goal and the scope of the study). For
instance, aircrafts, road vehicles, trains and ships were used to transport
goods and people. When any aircraft, road vehicle, train or ship was
assessed in an LCA study, the functional unit could be (i) quantity of cargo
shipped; (ii) number of passengers transited; (iii) quantity of cargo and
passengers transported; or (iv) distance travelled by the vehicle. As such,
there was no definite functional unit for an LCA study but it was always
defined based on the goal and the scope of the study. For LCA studies on
marine power systems, it was less advantageous and not ideal to adopt
one kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by the power system or one
tonne of cargos over one kilometre (in short, one tonne kilometre) as the
functional unit. This was because a marine power system would employ
128
numerous technologies and components with diversified lifespans and
power capacity involving mechanical, electrical and/or thermal energy.
Also, the environmental burdens of a marine vessel would vary with vessel
types, power system designs, technologies, fuel types and sailing profiles,
to name a few. The variation could be profound, moderate or trivial, which
required an in-depth investigation prior to drawing any conclusion.
Therefore, the functional unit should be more comprehensive at the
system level, for example, the operation of the power system throughout
specific life cycle phases of a marine vessel in business i.e. 25–35 years.
 In a comparative study, the number of product system required to fulfil the
intended function should be defined as the reference flow. When the
operation of marine power systems over specific duration was defined as
the functional unit, a straight-forward reference flow would be 1 power
system required to fulfil the function over the specific period. In a case
where power generated by the power system or distance travelled by the
vessel was defined as the functional unit (which presented a more
complicated nature for the study), an equal quantity of the power
generated by the systems under study or distance travelled by selected
vessel types throughout the same period of life cycle could be designated
as the reference flow. The conventional designs, i.e. diesel-mechanical
systems for most cargo ship types or steam turbine mechanical systems
for LNG carriers, were likely to be used as the reference case. For the
vessels under study, a straightforward comparison could be made if the
sailing profiles were similar; if not, the subject could be explored to a
greater extent.
 The system boundary of an LCA study should characterise the study by
denoting the life cycle phases and components to be studied. Depending
on the life cycle phases to be covered, the study was either cradle-to-gate,
gate-to-gate, gate-to-grave or cradle-to-grave. Apart from the cradle-to-
grave study, other alternatives might consider one or more phases from
engineering and design approval, resource exploration and processing for
energy and raw materials, manufacture, installation, operation and
maintenance to the end of life of the product system, inclusive of transport
wherever relevant. Configuration of the power system with specific
technologies, component models and quantities was designed and
129
determined by naval architects in line with the request of the ship owners,
taking power demand, availability, space, efficiency, reliability, lifespan and
other technical requirements into account. LCA practitioners would decide
which life cycle phases, components, elementary flows and processes
were beyond the system boundary, and therefore to be cut off based on
the preliminarily established criteria. Exclusion of certain phases (e.g.
engineering and design approval) and components (e.g. auxiliary
machinery, cables, distribution bus and others) that were not in use or
perceived as less significant was common due to time and resource
constraints. To decide when to stop seeking more data and proceed to
LCI and LCIA, cut-off criteria such as data availability, energy, mass,
toxicity, economic and social values that would contribute to fulfilling the
functional unit could be applied.
 As the study would involve various technologies and numerous
components of diversified life spans, subdivision and system expansion
should be exercised to avoid data allocation. In applying subdivision,
inputs and outputs involved in each process and life cycle phase were
gathered for individual components, and added together as the total flows
of the product system i.e. the power system. Throughout the life cycle of
the power system, replacement of components with shorter lifespans
would be necessary to fulfil the functional unit. System expansion should
be applied when additional components were included in the study.
 Making assumptions was unavoidable in an LCA study mainly because of
missing information, incomplete data and uncertain parameters. The
broader the system boundary, the more assumptions the study would
involve. In all cases, assumptions should be explicitly detailed to ensure
transparency of the study and allow for further research as well as
comparison.
 Requirements on data and quality were provisionally set for data sources,
types, spatial and temporal differentiations, technological coverage,
representativeness, reproducibility, completeness, consistency and
uncertainty. Although it was challenging and expensive to acquire reliable
and complete data, still, such good quality was preferable to present a
more reliable outcome.
130
 It was essential to preliminarily define which LCIA methodologies and
impact categories would be applied. The underlying characterisation
models, impact categories, environmental mechanisms and/or category
indicators would vary from one LCIA methodology to another. When one
or more characterisation models and impact categories were applied in an
LCA study, the environmental mechanisms and category indicators were
chosen by default.
 Normalisation, grouping and weighting were optional in an LCA study.
Whether or not they were performed should be determined as a part of
scope definition. Normalisation was the process where indicator results
were compared to a reference, which could be (but not necessarily)
chosen from input or output data in a base case or on a local, territorial or
international scale. Grouping was the process of sorting or ranking impact
categories using a nominal value or a previously established scale.
Weighting was the process to multiply indicator results (normalised or not)
by weighting scores which were predetermined. Weighting results could
be presented as individual scores per impact categories or a single score
aggregated across all impact categories. The indicator result of each
impact category should be reported together with the outcome of grouping
or weighting, if applied.
 Value choice was typically applied in an LCA study based on expert
judgement, experience, technical knowledge and preference due to time
and resource constraints. Value choice was involved in the study in
selecting a power system design, choosing an option where two or more
alternatives were available to fulfil the purpose and meet the required
quality under the same working condition, deciding which characterisation
methodology to apply, whether normalisation, grouping and/or weighting
was performed or not, for example. The outcome of an LCA study was
therefore subject to value choice. To ensure appropriate interpretation,
the study should be transparent in which available options and reasons for
a particular decision were conveyed.
 Exclusion of some particular aspects of the product system under study
(e.g. life cycle phases, processes, transport, resources, emissions, impact
etc.) was common. The decision was made at this early stage mainly
because too much or too little was known. The former would result in a
131
perception that the environmental burdens caused by such aspect was
negligible whilst the latter would lead to an attitude that no additional
information could be acquired due to limited knowledge and resources.
The exclusion implied limitations of the study, which should be reported for
transparency.
 A hypothetical plan on life cycle interpretation should be proposed by
outlining how LCI and LCIA results would be presented and what
assumptions, value choice, limitations and significant issues could be
involved.
 The study could be documented in the form of soft and/or hard copies and
disseminated via various media. For instance, oral presentation or poster
exhibition in a seminar/conference, technical writing in a report or thesis,
and professional publication in a handbook or a journal. During scope
definition, an initial plan on report format and contents was required.
 A critical review was prefered if the study intended to assess two or more
alternatives and make a public assertion. The process was vital to
ascertain consistency throughout the study, including goal and scope
definition, LCI and LCIA, data quality, life cycle interpretation and
documentation.
4.2.2 Phase 2: LCI

Figure 4.4 illustrates the life cycle of a marine power system from engineering design
and approval to the end of life. Both attributional and consequential approaches
were technically applicable, and the choice should be made in line with the defined
reason of the study. The former gathered historic or measured data relevant to life
cycle processes that were directly involved in delivering the functional unit; the latter
accounted for market and non-market marginal data that were significantly affected
by the change in producing the product system. An existing LCI method, including
process based (using process flow diagram with/without matrix application), fuzzy
matrix based, IO based, tiered hybrid, IO based hybrid and integrated hybrid
approaches could be applied, as discussed in Chapter 3, depending on data sources
and the fundamental principles to be applied. As an LCA study of a marine power
system was case specific, the process based approach was recommended for a
cradle-to-grave study, as proposed in this section.
132
Figure 4.4: Life cycle of a marine power system.
Upon selection of the vessel type, technical data such as system design, technology
type and make, power range and lifespan were to be provided by naval architects,
manufacturers and/or the ship owner. Figure 4.5 illustrates 2 examples of marine
power system configurations, i.e. diesel-mechanical and diesel-electric designs in
which diesel engines and gensets were the prime movers respectively. For both
designs, a substitution could be made by employing gas and/or steam turbines as the
prime movers. For all-electric systems, power augmentation could be achieved via
the incorporation of emerging technologies. Background information such as
manufacture, mass breakdown, energy and material consumption, emissions and
wastes involved during the life cycle phases under study was to be gathered from
literature, technical reports, industrial annual reviews, conference proceedings,
textbooks and existing databases e.g. Ecoinvent. Examples are presented in Tables
4.7–4.8.
133
Figure 4.5: Examples of marine power system configurations for cargo ships: diesel-
mechanical (top) and diesel-electric designs (bottom).
Table 4.7: Processes and materials used in manufacturing common and emerging
components which could be (but not necessarily) incorporated into a marine power
system.
Component and Manufacturing process a Material b
function
Main diesel engines 1 Machining and testing of 69.5% cast iron, 21.3%
or diesel gensets engine block, crankshaft, steel, 2.7% aluminium,
supplied power for camshaft and connecting 2.2% carbon and 1–4%
ship propulsion rods chromium and tin
Auxiliary generators 2 Manufacture of other 83.2% cast iron, 15.2%
generated auxiliary components e.g. pistons, steel, 0.2% stainless
power for hotel cylinders, cylinder heads etc. steel, 0.4% aluminium
loads 3 Incorporation of pistons, and 0.9% copper
Shaft generators connecting rods, crankshaft, With cast iron bearing
acted as camshaft; cylinders and plates: 46–55% steel, 7–
asynchronous cylinder heads (in sequence) 12% copper, 35–45%
alternators and into engine block with smart cast iron, 0–2%
assisted ship tooling aluminium, less than 1%
propulsion 4 On-site testing and painting of stainless steel, and 1–
2% plastic or rubber for
insulating materials
Gearboxes enabled 1 Manufacture of components 10% aluminium, 20%
the operation of 2 Connection of input, output cast iron and 70% steel
main engines and and transmission shafts
propellers at 3 Assembly of components
optimum speed 4 Sealing, inspecting and
painting
Propellers and 1 Engineering design 3.84% aluminium,
shafts propelled the 2 Cast mould preparation 32.32% copper, 0.01%
3 Mix of molten raw materials lead, 0.35% manganese,
134
ship during 4 Impurity removal and casting 1.70% nickel, 0.04%
transiting 5 Finishing and assembly of silicon, 61.66% steel and
blades and hub 0.04% zinc
Thrusters and built- 6.75% aluminium,
in motors navigated 59.52% copper, 0.02%
the ship during lead, 3.38% nickel,
manoeuvring 0.08% silicon, 28.60%
steel, 0.08% tin and
0.75% zinc
Electric motors 1 Producing metal sheets 82% steel, 11% copper,
turned propellers laminations and welding 3% cast iron, 1%
and thrusters 2 Machining the stator core, stainless steel, 1%
rotor and housing aluminium and 2% plastic
3 Forming electromagnetic
circuit for the stator and final
assembly
Boilers provided 1 Boiler shell construction from 82.4% steel, 4.2%
auxiliary power for flat plate chromium steel and
heating and hot 2 Welding, inspecting and copper each, 3.2% rock
water supply testing wool, 2.6% aluminium,
Economisers 3 Incorporation of burner, 1.7% corrugate board
recovered exhaust combustion chamber, coils and 0.4% paint
waste heat to and smoke tubes into the
preheat the working boiler shell
fluid of boilers 4 Hydraulic testing and painting
PV systems 1 Silicon production, 74.16% glass, 10.3%
augmented power purification and growth aluminium, 6.55%
supply 2 Solar cell fabrication ethylene-vinyl acetate
including surface preparation, (EVA), 3.48% silicon,
p-n junction formation, 3.60% plastic back
coating and metallisation for sheets, 0.57% of copper,
electrical conductivity 0.08% of silver, 0.14% of
3 Module encapsulation (i.e. tin and 0.035% of lead
soldering and laminating
tempered low iron glass,
EVA, solar cell, EVA and
back sheets in series) prior to
fitting with aluminium frame
and junction box
Lithium-ion battery 1 Lithium carbonate formation 15–30% lithium iron
systems augmented (from lithium rich brine water phosphate cathodes, 10–
power supply and soda crystals), washing, 25% lithium intercalation
drying and mixing with a in graphite anodes, 10–
solvent to be used in a press 20% electrolyte, 3–5%
2 Cathode and anode ethylene or propene
formation from pressing separator, 1–20%
aluminium sheet with lithium aluminium cathode foil,
ink and copper winding 1–30% copper anode foil
respectively and 20–40% steel case
3 Battery system construction
by arranging cathodes,
135
anodes, separators and
electrolytes systematically
Power electronic 1 Electronic component and 6.69% aluminium,
such as inverters, printed circuit board (PCB) 26.34% copper, 46.85%
rectifiers and production, which involved steel, 6.48% inductor,
converters lapping, diffusion, transistor, capacitor and
controlled voltage, photolithography, alloying, diode, 1.20% corrugated
current and/or evaporating, passivation and board, 1.43% polystyrene
frequency of encapsulation and 0.3% polyethylene
electrical energy 2 Electronic component
installation on PCB, soldering
and final assembly
VFDs controlled 1 Diode, capacitor and 50.52% aluminium,
voltage and transistor production, which 10.94% steel, 9.97%
frequency input of involved lapping, diffusion, copper, 2.31% epoxy
electric motors photolithography, alloying, resin, 2.76% glass,
evaporating, passivation, 1.74% butyrolactone,
encapsulation and epoxy 1.04% nylon, 1.07%
filling (whichever relevant) polypropylene, 0.71%
2 Component installation and polyvinylchloride and
soldering 18.95% corrugated board
3 Final assembly
Three-phase 1 Engineering design 44.64% ferrite or
transformers 2 Core cutting, stacking, aluminium, 9.37%
ensured voltage laminating and formation, copper, 0.44% steel,
compatibility followed by winding and 33.02% epoxy resin and
between propulsion/ drying 12.51% plastic
thruster drives and 3 Tank production, accessory
the main assembly and testing
switchboard
Transformers for 9.37% copper, 0.44%
power distribution steel, 33.02% epoxy
ensured voltage resin, 44.64% ferrite and
compatibility 12.51% plastic
between supply and
end use
Transformers for
cold ironing supplied
power from onshore
network
a All processes began with proposing and approving engineering design and
ended with testing, painting and shipping.
b Data were standardised based on inputs from various sources including
industrial consortium members.
136
Table 4.8: Resource consumption, with estimated order of magnitude, at each life
cycle phase of a marine power system onboard a RoRo cargo ship over 30 years in
business.
Life cycle Resources Orders of
phases magnitude*
Manufacture Materials, kg Aluminium 4
Brass 0–2
Carbon 3
Cast iron 5
Copper 4–5
Lead 1
Manganese 2
Nickel 3
Silicon 1–2
Steel 5
Stainless steel 3
Tin 3
Zinc 2
Epoxy resin 0–4
Fleece 0–2
Glass 0–4
Nylon 0–2
Phthalic anhydride 0–2
Plastic 1–3
Polyethylene 2
Polyvinyl fluoride 0–2
Polypropylene 0–2
Polystyrene 0–1
Polyvinylchloride 0–2
Rockwool 2
Energy, MJ Electricity 5
HFO 3
Light fuel oil 5
Natural gas 5
Operation and Fuels, kg HFO 0–7
maintenance MDO 8
Lubricating oil 4
Dismantling Energy, MJ Electricity 5–6
Natural gas 3
Fuels, kg Coal 5
Light fuel oil 4
End of life: oil Energy, kg Diesel 2
waste treatment Light fuel oil 2
and recovery LPG 2
Fuels, MJ Electricity 5–6
Natural gas 5
Materials, kg Hydrogen 1
Propane 1
Sodium hydroxide 2
Sulphuric acid 2
End of life: Energy, kg Coal 3
metallic scrap Coke 3
137
handling, Crude oil 2
recycling and Fuels, MJ Blast furnace gas 4–5
disposal Diesel 5
Electricity 6
HFO 2
Natural gas 4–5
Materials, kg Argon 1–2
Dolomite 2–3
Graphite 2
Lime 3
Nitrogen 3
Oxygen 3
* Based on LCA case studies in Chapter 5
Operational data could be (i) modelled based on energy balance analysis and
optimised using simulation by marine engineers or (ii) estimated based on real-time,
historical measures recorded by the ship operator over a period. Examples of energy
balance analysis and modelling were available, see [418, 419]. Throughout the
lifespan, fuel consumed by diesel engines, generators, gensets, boilers and
incinerators (if any, in kg) could be estimated using the following formula:
𝑃𝑖 𝑥 𝐿𝐹𝑖 𝑥 𝑆𝐹𝐶𝑖 𝑥 𝑡
𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑛 (∑ )
1000
in which
n = total number of trips throughout the lifespan;
i = diesel engines, generators, gensets, boilers or incinerators
𝑃𝑖 = maximum power output, kW;
𝐿𝐹 = load factor i.e. percentage of maximum power output;
𝑆𝐹𝐶 = specific fuel consumption, g/kWh, as presented in Table 4.9;
t = average time required for a voyage, hours.
The average time required for a voyage, t, if unavailable, could be estimated:
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑛𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑, 𝑛𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟
The load factors of prime movers ranged between 75% and 85% at sea [30] and 20%
during manoeuvring or in the port [420]. Emissions, kg, released from burning 1000
kg of MGO, MDO or residual oil (RO) could be estimated as follows:
1000 𝑥 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖
𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖 = ,
𝑆𝐹𝐶𝑖
in which i represented CO2, SO2, NOx, CO, hydrocarbon (HC) or PM, where emission
factors and SFC are presented in Table 4.9. During operation, technologies
138
employed for power supply, fuel types and sailing modes, as in the following, were
factors that affecting emissions released into the environment:
 Common prime mover types: slow-, medium- or high-speed main diesel
engines; medium- or high-speed auxiliary generators, gas and/or steam
turbines;
 Conventional fuel types: MGO, MDO and RO such as HFO; and
 Sailing modes: transiting at sea, manoeuvring or berthing in port.
Table 4.9: Emission factors for prime movers supplying main (M) and auxiliary (A)
power onboard cargo ships, classified as slow-speed (SS), medium-speed (MS) and
high-speed (HS) diesel engines, gas (G) and steam (S) turbines, adopted from [30,
420].
Classifi- Fuel SFC b, Emission factors b, g/kWh
cation type g/kWh CO2 SO2 NOx HC PM
a
M-SS I 185:204 588:647 0.9:1.0 17.0:13.6 0.6:1.8 0.9

II 185:204 588:647 3.7:4.1 17.0:13.6 0.6:1.8 0.9
III 185– 603.6– 10.5:11.6 18.1:14.5 0.6:1.8 1.46–
221:215 620:682 1.5:2.4
M-MS I 203:223 645:710 1.0:1.1 13.2:10.6 0.5:1.5 0.9
II 203:223 645:710 4.1:4.5 13.2:10.6 0.5:1.5 0.9
III 185– 659.3– 11.5:12.7 14.0:11.2 0.5:1.5 1.46–
221:234 677:745 1.5:2.4
M-HS I 203:223 645:710 1.0:1.1 12.0:9.6 0.2:0.6 0.9
II 203:223 645:710 4.1:4.5 12.0:9.6 0.2:0.6 0.9
III 213:234 677:745 11.5:12.7 12.7:10.2 0.2:0.6 2.4
M-G I 290:319 922:1014 1.5:1.6 5.7:2.9 0.1:0.5 0.5
II 290:319 922:1014 5.8:6.4 5.7:2.9 0.1:0.5 0.5
III 305:336 970:1067 16.5:18. 6.1:3.1 0.1:0.5 1.5
1
M-S I 209:319 922:1014 1.5:1.6 2.0:1.6 0.1:0.3 0.9
II 290:319 922:1014 5.8:6.4 2.0:1.6 0.1:0.3 0.9
III 305:336 970:1067 16.5:18.1 2.1:1.7 0.1:0.3 2.4
A-MS I 217 690 1.1 13.9 0.4 0.3
II 185– 661.4– 2.2–4.3 13.9 0.4 0.35–
221 690 0.38:0.3
III 185– 702.6– 12.3 14.7 0.4 1.46–
227 722 1.5:0.8
A-HS I 217 690 1.1 10.9 0.4 0.3
II 217 690 4.3 10.9 0.4 0.3
III 227 722 12.3 11.6 0.4 0.8
a Fuel types: I MGO; II MDO and III RO
b Emission factors: at sea:manoeuvring, if differentiated by sailing modes;
and in a range, if different values were reported
139
The end of life processes of ships and metallic scrap are presented in Chapter 4.1.
How metallic scrap was processed and relevant inventory data including energy
consumption and emissions are summarised in Table 4.10. Data for end of life
treatment of non-metallic scrap was available in Ecoinvent database.
Table 4.10: Recycling processes and life cycle inventory data of metallic scrap.
Scrap Recycling processes Energy and emission data
types involved in handling 1 kg of
each scrap type as
standardised from literature
Iron and The scrap was mixed with lime Energy was provided by
steel (to ease the soldering process) electricity and burning natural
scrap and loaded in baskets [403]. In gas i.e. 1.705 MJ and 0.618
an EAF, anodes were MJ respectively, requiring
submerged and energy was 0.015 kg pig iron and 0.0399
applied to melt the scrap and kg liquid oxygen, which
form liquefied steel. Oxygen released 0.000102 kg SO2,
gas was constantly supplied to 0.00024 kg NOx, 0.105 kg
oxidise impurities such as CO2, 0.0024 CO, 0.0159 kg
aluminium and silicon into slag. PM2.5 and 0.000201 kg PM10
[403, 412].
Stainless In a similar manner to recycling Energy was provided by
steel steel scrap, stainless steel electricity and burning natural
scrap scrap was melted in an EAF. gas i.e. 7.175 MJ and 2.6 MJ
The molten stainless steel was respectively in which the
further processed in an argon- process required 0.063 kg pig
oxygen decarburising furnace iron and 0.167 kg liquid
to remove impurities [406, 407]. oxygen, which released
0.000428 kg SO2, 0.00000827
kg NOx, 0.441 kg CO2, 0.0101
kg CO, 0.0671 kg PM2.5 and
0.000846 kg PM10 [408, 412].
Aluminium Open-loop recycling was Energy provided by electricity
scrap applied in which aluminium and burning natural gas i.e.
scrap was preheated and 0.0953 MJ and 10.223 MJ was
treated to remove required respectively to
contaminants, coating and produce 0.883 kg aluminium
grease before being melted in a ingot, which released 0.00441
rotary furnace. Other common kg SO2, 0.00265 kg NOx, 0.545
chemical treatments in practice kg CO2, 0.000883 kg CO and
included filtering, fluxing and 0.000883 kg PM [409, 411,
floating which removed 421].
alumina, impurities and
hydrogen respectively. The
molten aluminium was then
cast as secondary ingots or
turned into alloys. [402, 410]
Copper Copper scrap with 92–95 % 4.95 MJ of energy provided by
and brass was smelted in an anode burning blast furnace gas was
scrap furnace and then oxidised by air involved, which released
140
blow to remove impurities. To 0.00002 kg SO2, 0.00007 kg
recycle copper alloy scrap with NOx, 0.2 kg CO2, 0.000015
less than 70 % of copper CO, 0.00019 kg PM2.5,
content (including brass scrap), 0.00026 kg PM10 etc. [411-413]
the scrap was smelted in a
blast furnace and oxidised in a
converter prior to electrolysis.
[407, 411]
Zinc scrap Closed-loop recycling was only Energy provided by electricity,
applied for metallic scrap from burning natural gas and coal
alloys that contain zinc, e.g. i.e. 0.733 MJ, 0.335 MJ and
brass and bronze, where the 1.455 MJ was required, which
scrap was melted with other released 0.00367 kg SO2,
metals to produce the alloy 0.00157 kg NOx, 0.0000394 kg
[414]. If it was aimed to recover PM2.5 and 0.00000756 kg PM10
other metals in addition to zinc [411].
from the scrap, the scrap could
be heated in a basket placed in
a molten salt bath where liquid
metal was collected at a
sequence of temperatures. To
recover zinc coat from
galvanised steel scrap,
electrolysis and leaching could
be applied.
Lead Slag containing lead could be 7 MJ of energy provided by
scrap used as materials for cement burning blast furnace gas was
industry or disposed to landfill required, which released
as solid waste [415]. To further 0.00002 kg SO2, 0.00007 kg
remove impurities, raw lead NOx, 0.2 kg CO2, 0.000015 kg
produced from smelting could CO, 0.0079 kg PM2.5, 0.0106
be refined via electrolysis or kg PM10 etc. [411, 412, 415]
melting in refining kettles.
Industrial and other lead scrap,
which were in small quantity,
was generally used in alloy or
new battery production.
Nickel 57 % of nickel scrap was Energy was required by
scrap recycled as stainless steel electricity, heavy fuel, coal and
scrap, 14 % as carbon and natural gas i.e. 1.920 MJ,
copper alloy scrap and 21 % 0.215 MJ, 2.298 MJ and 1.709
was disposed to landfill [417]. If MJ respectively, which
recycled, the scrap would be released 0.0119 kg CO2,
degreased and mixed with 0.000295 kg PM2.5, 0.0000429
virgin material, melted in an kg PM10 etc. [411, 412]
induction furnace and then cast
under vacuum or with argon
blow to form solid ingots.
141
4.2.3 Phase 3: LCIA (mandatory and optional elements)
Aiming to understand and estimate the potential environmental impact of a marine
power system, LCIA should be performed in accordance with ISO 14040 and ISO
14044, which established selection, classification and characterisation as the
mandatory elements, as illustrated in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Mandatory LCIA elements.
The selection element involved the process of choosing impact categories, indicators
and characterisation models that were to be applied in the study. To give a few
examples, existing characterisation models included (i) midpoint-oriented approach
e.g. CML2001 and TRACI; (ii) endpoint-oriented approach e.g. Eco-Indicator99; and
(iii) midpoint-endpoint approach e.g. IMPACT2002+, Stepwise2006, ReCiPe and
ILCD. Examples of common impact categories (not exhaustively) included climate
change, depletion of abiotic resources, ozone layer depletion, eutrophication,
acidification, human toxicity, (freshwater and marine aquatic, terrestrial, freshwater
and marine sediment) ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidant formation, impact of
ionising radiation, depletion of biotic and abiotic resources etc., as previously
reported in Chapter 3, Table 3.2. Some impact categories were applicable to marine
context, as shown in Table 4.11. It was worth noting that each characterisation
model had established its own set of impact categories. Whilst a few impact
categories could be similar from one characterisation model to another, not any two
single characterisation models would be exactly the same. Impact categories that
142
appeared similar could be different, due to the difference in the underlying
mathematic relationships, environmental mechanisms, reference substances,
exposure routes and reference information used for normalisation.
Table 4.11: Environmental issues differentiated as per impact categories in marine

context and their readiness for assessment.
Impact categories Relevance to marine Already
context * included in
existing
methods *
Climate change Yes Yes
Ozone layer depletion The impact was at a minimal Yes
level after the ban on halons
Eutrophication Yes Yes
Acidification Yes Yes
Toxicity Yes Yes
Photochemical oxidant Yes Yes
formation
Ionising radiation Not significant Yes
Desiccation No No
Depletion of biotic resources Yes Yes
Depletion of abiotic resources Yes Yes
Land use Yes Yes
Waste heat. Yes No
Odour Limited to engine rooms and No
engineering decks
Noise Yes No
Casualties Not very common No
* Based on the author’s understanding of the literature review
During classification, the LCI results generated from the previous step were assigned
accordingly to relevant impact categories. For each impact category, the LCI results
were converted into a common unit based on characterisation factors. The process
was referred to as characterisation and the results were known as category indicator
results or indicator results. The mandatory elements were supplemented by 3
optional elements namely normalisation, grouping and weighting, as illustrated in
Figure 4.7, which were only applied in line with goal and scope definition.
143
Figure 4.7: Optional LCIA elements.
The environmental issues had been distinguished as per impact categories and some
of them were readily incorporated into most characterisation models. Therefore,
LCIA could be performed by either applying existing characterisation models or
developing a new model, if necessary. In the former case, characterisation
methodologies for individual impact categories would be chosen by default when a
particular characterisation model was applied using commercial software such as
SimaPro and GaBi. In applying a midpoint-oriented characterisation model, the
product of inputs/outputs (i.e. resources and emissions) and their corresponding
characterisation factors for each impact category was calculated one by one,
summed up and expressed as the category indicator results at endpoint level
with/without value-based aggregation. The latter was a further step of LCIA which
assigned weighting scores to indicator results for a single index. An endpoint-
oriented characterisation model multiplied the mass of an emission and
characterisation factor one by one for all emissions, followed by aggregating the
results to give an impact score at the level (or close to the level) of AoPs. In this
framework, classification of significant materials and emissions attributable to marine
power systems in line with relevant impact categories and indicators are illustrated in
Figures 4.8–4.10, respectively for CML2001, ILCD and Eco-Indicator99
methodologies, which presented the first step towards conducting LCIA for an LCA
study on marine power systems.
144
Figure 4.8: Significant LCI results and relevant indicators, characterisation factors
and impact categories if CML2001 methodology was applied in performing LCIA of a
marine power system.
145
Figure 4.9: Significant LCI results and relevant indicators, characterisation factors
and impact categories if ILCD was applied at midpoint level in performing LCIA of a
marine power system.
146
Figure 4.10: Significant LCI results and relevant indicators, damage factors and
impact categories if Eco-Indicator99 was applied in performing LCIA of a marine
power system.
If a new characterisation model was to be developed, characterisation could be

modelled based on fate, exposure, effect and damage analysis (whichever relevant),
as detailed by [111, 297], using the following formula:
𝑖 𝑖
𝐼𝑖 = ∑𝑥𝑚𝑛 𝐹𝑥𝑚𝑛 𝑃𝑥𝑛 𝑀𝑥𝑚 ,
where i represented an impact category assessed in the study; 𝑀𝑥𝑚 was the quantity
of a substance, x, i.e. resource or emission that was extracted from or released to an
environmental compartment, m, e.g. air, water or soil along an exposure route, n;
𝑖 𝑖
𝐹𝑥𝑚𝑛 denoted the fate and exposure pathways whilst 𝑃𝑥𝑛 showed the potency of the
substance, x.
Fate analysis was used to describe how a particular substance would shift or
distribute in the environment based on mass conversation principles by calculating
the concentration of the substance resulting from resource consumption or emission
147
release in a particular environmental compartment, and determining the marginal
change in resource availability or human intake. Transport, dispersion and
deposition were listed as three stages of pathways to be considered during fate
analysis [281]. A characterisation model included an exposure analysis to calculate
exposure factors, if relevant. In the analysis, the model took into account the intake
and absorption of a substance, in particular chemicals, by human beings via different
exposure routes, i.e. inhalation, food consumption, liquid intake and dermal uptake.
Another terminology, i.e. intake factors which combined fate and exposure factors
[324, 336], could be adopted to directly tell how much the exposure of the population
to an emission would be. Examples of effects included atmospheric temperature,
human health problem, potentially disappeared fraction, ecological toxicity, severe
hereditary etc. [281]. The effect analysis assessed the increase of an effect in terms
of ‘potency’ and/or ‘severity’ in correspondence to the depletion of a resource or
concentration increase of an emission. The potency-based factor estimated the
potential risk or the likelihood of a substance imposing an effect on human beings
and the environment based on an exposure dose-effect response (also referred to as
dose-response relationship [320] or concentration-response relationship [335]). The
dose-response potency-based factor could be further distinguished into linear and
non-linear. The former firstly predicted a no-effect concentration baseline (also
known as low hazardous concentration for impact that was relevant to emission
release), let say x%, and assumed that the response would change linearly at a
concentration below the baseline affecting x% of the population. The latter measured
the marginal change corresponding to every small change in the concentration based
on a non-linear dose-response function. The damage factor, also referred to as the
severity-based factor, was used to qualitatively or quantitatively derive the effect (or
damage) due to resource consumption or emission release based on laboratory data,
as reported by [281]. In relation to emission release, damage factor was calculated
as per disease or incident and could be defined in different units, i.e. years of life lost
per affected person (YLLP) or years of life lived with a disability per affected person
(YLDP) [325]. When the results in YLDP were weighted against a reference, new
outcome in disability adjusted life years per affected person (DALYP) was presented.
148
4.2.4 Phase 4: life cycle interpretation
In accordance with ISO 14040, interpreting LCI and LCIA results during life cycle
interpretation involved four interactive steps as illustrated in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11: The four interactive steps of life cycle interpretation in accordance with
ISO 14044.
As LCA studies indicated neither impact thresholds nor safety margins but only
estimated relevant burdens without explicitly assessing their risks, to what extent the
indicator result of an impact category should be considered as harmless or fatal
remained unclear. Thus, interpretation must be done with reasonable care to avoid
misleading conclusions. In the context of LCA study on marine power systems
(hereafter “LCA study” or “the study” for brevity), the following points were worth
noting:
 Identification of significant issues. In general, marine power systems were
complex and involved a wide range of technologies. The scope of a
cradle-to-grave study was massive due to the number of components and
processes involved. The technical designs (i.e. technologies and
149
components), operational profiles and end of life scenarios were factors
affecting the overall environmental impact of the power systems. Although
the studies were case specific, it was expected that
(i) the operation of marine power systems would be the most
significant life cycle phase and the major source of emissions
whilst the end of life scenarios i.e. recycling of metal scrap could
play a noticeable role in improving the environmental friendliness;
(ii) steel, cast iron, aluminium and copper were likely the most
common metals required for the manufacturing phase whilst
operating the prime movers would be the most significant process;
(iii) SO2, NOx and CO2 (in ascending order with 6–8 orders of
magnitude) were the most significant emissions; and
(iv) acidification, climate change and ecotoxicity were the three most
burdensome impact categories.
The LCIA results varied with methodological options and assumptions
made (within the same orders of magnitude as indicated in Figures 4.8–
4.10).
 Evaluation of completeness, sensitivity and consistency. A close look at
the availability of information and data, reliability of the results and
consistency in assumptions, methods and data quality with the defined
goal and scope would help ensure confidence in the findings.
 Contribution towards the environmental impact. Considering the large
number of components incorporated and processes involved throughout
the full life cycle of a marine power system, a parameter e.g. input/output,
material/component choice, process, scenario etc. might contribute
negligibly, moderately or significantly towards the overall environmentally
burdens. Whether or not the overall results were sensitive with a particular
parameter and uncertainty inherent in the study was a significant issue
should be verified by applying sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in
analysing the quality of data. Existing approaches were based on
(i) graphics (e.g. scatter plots and spider diagrams), scenarios, ratios
(such as sensitivity index), variances, sum of squared errors,
polynomial models etc. for sensitivity analysis; and
(ii) scientific methods (e.g. more research, scenarios, uncertainty
factors and scales), statistics (e.g. intervals, fuzzy numbers,
150
analytical methods and sampling techniques or probability
distributions applied in stochastic modelling), constructive
measure (e.g. pedigree matrices) and graphics (e.g. histograms,
error bars, Tukey boxes etc.) for uncertainty analysis (see
Chapter 3 for detailed discussion).
If commercial software was used for the LCA study, scenario analysis
which addressed both sensitivity and uncertainty was the most suitable
approach due to the massive scope of the study. The outcome would help
verify significant issues which were identified in the previous step.
 Report of conclusions and limitations. After analysing LCI and LCIA
results, identifying significant issues, and evaluating completeness,
sensitivity and consistency of all relevant elements, one should draw
conclusions in line with the defined goal and scope, in particular the
reason of conducting the study. Limitations should be specified to avoid
misleading interpretation and enhance understanding of the audience.
 Recommendation for future work. Factors, parameters and aspects that
might affect the findings but had not been addressed in the study due to
time and resource constraints should be considered and recommended for
future work.
4.2.5 The developed framework: a simplified version

The LCA framework described in Chapters 4.2.1–4.2.4 was developed based on the
understanding of the literature review (as reported in Chapters 2–3) and end of life
management presented in Chapter 4.1. To enhance conciseness, the developed
framework was illustratively simplified as shown in Figure 4.12 for the case of
performing LCIA using commercial software.
151
Figure 4.12: LCA framework developed in this study and applied in the LCA case
studies.
152
4.3 Summary
A number of LCA frameworks covering different scope were available; still, a
customised LCA framework for marine power systems was missing. The need for
such framework was necessitated by the growing concern over shipping emissions,
the proposal of IMO to reduce shipping emissions via efficient energy and advanced
technologies, and the current interest of maritime stakeholders. The end of life
management of ships, relevant components (limited to diesel engines, PV and
battery systems) and metal scrap was reported, followed by the presentation of an
LCA framework for marine power systems. The proposed framework overcame the
limitations of the standard method established by ISO in terms of practicality and
benefits to LCA practitioners. Unlike the standard method, the proposed framework
had a specific focus on marine power systems, as detailed in Chapters 4.2.1–4.2.4.
As such, the main contribution of the proposed framework was to assist LCA
practitioners in assessing the environmental impact of marine power systems by
presenting guidelines, phase by phase, on
 the key elements of goal and scope definition in relevant LCA application;
 manufacture of a range of marine power technologies, materials, energy
and fuel consumption, and recycling processes for LCI;
 classification of significant materials and emissions to relevant impact
categories and indicators if commercial software was applied, and the
concept of fate, exposure, effect and damage analysis if a new
characterisation model was to be developed for LCIA; and
 some key points relevant to life cycle interpretation.
Based on this framework, 3 case studies were performed to assess the
environmental impact of conventional, retrofitting and new-build marine power
systems, as presented in Chapter 5. The proposed framework had practical
implications for future research work in this subject area as it offered a starting point,
in particular to those who did not have prerequisite knowledge about LCA and/or
marine power systems, described relevant elements and requirements phase by
phase, and illuminated background information and expected results by presenting
examples, illustrative graphics and tables. The work was important as it filled the
research gaps by customising the LCA framework established by ISO Standards to fit
the context of marine power systems. LCA studies on marine power systems were
case specific because of the wide range of power system designs, operational
profiles and end of life scenarios in addition to more than one methodological choice
153
available for individual LCA elements. The circumstances led to the limitation of this
proposed framework, in which it could by no means offer a definite solution for all
technical options and methodological choices but a comprehensive idea of selected
approaches. Future work should focus on extending the proposed framework to
cover more technical options of marine power systems with different operational
profiles for various vessel types as well as addressing transportation, spatial and
temporal difference.
154
Chapter 5. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Case Studies of Marine
Power Systems
“I like the scientific spirit─the holding off, the being sure but not too sure, the
willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is against them: this is ultimately
fine─it always keeps the way beyond open─always gives life, thought, affection, the
whole man, a chance to try over again after a mistake ─after a wrong guess.”
Walt Whitman
Walt Whitman's Camden Conversations, 1973
In line with the focus of this chapter, as illustrated in Figure 5.1, methodology applied
in this study is explained in Chapter 5.1, followed by Case Study 1 on a conventional
power system in Chapter 5.2, Case Study 2 on a retrofit power system in Chapter
5.3, Case Study 3 on a new-build power system in Chapter 5.4, and a comparative
study in Chapter 5.5. The chapter closes with a brief summary highlighting the key
findings of the work.
5.1 Methodology/Research Approach

LCA case studies applied in this work involved massive system boundaries. A
bottom-up integrated system approach was adopted in the case studies in
accordance with the developed framework, as illustrated in Chapter 4, Figure 4.12.
After defining goal and scope of the studies, a reference ship was selected and
components integrated into each power system under study were identified. In
total, three power systems i.e. conventional, retrofit and new-build designs were
investigated in Case Studies 1–3. A 30-year lifespan was defined for marine power
155
systems in this study. This was within the lifespan range of marine vessels
presented in the literature i.e. 25 years by [69] and [225], 30 years by [422] and 40
years by [86]. Due to the broad range of innovative technologies, operational profiles
and vessel types, more than one configuration design could be technically applied to
retrofit and new-build systems. The configurations assessed in Case Studies 2 and 3
were proposed by research consortium involved in the project, which represented the
state-of-the-art designs. Data were gathered and standardised from various sources,
as explained in each case study. Based on the data, LCA models for individual
components were created using commercial software i.e. GaBi (Version 6). The
characterisation factors of individual chemicals in correspondence to relevant impact
categories, the associated environmental mechanisms and characterisation models
were readily incorporated into the software.
All data inputted into the LCA models would be assigned to relevant impact
categories for characterisation. In this study, CML2001 might be a preferable choice
of characterisation methodology in the marine context as it differentiated marine,
freshwater and terrestrial ecotoxicity potential and estimated human toxicity potential.
However, ILCD differentiated between marine and freshwater eutrophication and was
more relevant in the European context. Estimates made by using Eco-Indicator99
were diverged from those of CML2001 and ILCD, but worth-noting because of their
endpoint approach. The LCI and LCIA results (i.e. category indicator results) for
individual components were analysed. To estimate the total impact attributable to
each power system, the LCIA results for individual components were summed up, i.e.
a bottom-up approach. The LCIA results were not normalised mainly because (i) by
comparing LCIA results to some reference information, normalisation could change
the conclusions drawn from the LCIA phase, as pointed out by ISO 14044; (ii) there
was no consensus on how to define reference information for any specific industry
[124]; (iii) environmental scales and processes would be ignored if regulatory (or
economic) boundaries were used as the reference information [315]; (iv) existing
reference information could be miscalculated if shipping emissions were previously
underestimated, as reported in Chapter 1; and (v) it was intended to apply the case
study on the conventional system i.e. Case Study 1 as the reference system for the
comparative study. Weighting was not performed to minimise the involvement of
value choice.
156
As it was not transparent how impact assessment methodologies were incorporated
in the software, the most suitable approach to address uncertainty issue in this study
would be scenario analysis, which had been recognised as a method for uncertainty
and sensitivity analysis. The influence of input data on the overall LCIA results were
determined by varying selected parameters one by one whilst keeping other
parameters unchanged. The LCIA results gained from additional scenarios were
analysed prior to drawing conclusions. The results of the case studies were
compared to verify if innovative power systems were more environmental friendly. In
all cases, a review was carried out by Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult.
5.2 Case Study 1: Conventional Power System

The following sub-objectives were set for this case study:
 define goal and scope of the case study;
 estimate resources consumed, emissions released and consequently the
environmental impact caused by the conventional power system under
study throughout its life cycle;
 identify the main causes of significant resources, emissions and impact;
and
 explore the influence, if any, of selected parameters over the estimated
impact via scenario analysis.
The selection and the profile of the reference ship are described in Chapter 5.2.1,
followed by a brief coverage in Chapter 5.2.2 on data gathered for the study. The
four LCA phases are presented in the consecutive sections, i.e. goal and scope
definition in Chapter 5.2.3, LCI results with a focus on resource consumption and
emissions in Chapter 5.2.4, LCIA results in Chapter 5.2.5, and interpretation via
scenario analysis in Chapter 5.2.6.
5.2.1 Selection and profile of the reference ship

An intra-European RoRo cargo ship receiving regular calls in the same ports within
ECAs with regular transients and frequent manoeuvring was selected by the research
consortium involved in the project as the reference ship. The selection was made
mainly because of
(i) data availability, such as details about system design and real-time
operational profile;
157
(ii) the prospect of retrofitting existing RoRo cargo ships to meet stricter
regulations set by IMO;
(iii) the important role of RoRo cargo ships in Europe, as indicated by the
number of orders for new-build ships (as reported in Chapter 1); and
(iv) the business route near coastal areas in which the population would be
relatively more affected by the impact.
The ship, with an overall length of 182.77 metres, a gross tonnage of 21 kilotonnes
and a deadweight tonnage of 12.4 kilotonnes, was ordered in 1997, launched in
March 2004 and constantly operated by 12 crews to travel between Harwich, UK and
Europort, Netherlands which required an auxiliary power of 650 kW in port and 850
kW at sea. Both voyages involved 113.9 and 112.1 nautical miles where the ship
travelled 98.5 and 97.5 nautical miles at sea for 5.46–6.57 hours at a speed between
15 and 17 knots respectively. In a year, she spent 128.59 and 161.42 hours
respectively to enter Harwick and Europort, 128.29 and 161.42 hours on mooring,
2579.95 and 1702.32 hours for waiting as well as 99.96 and 149.36 hours to leave
the ports. In total, 365 return trips were estimated each year resulting in 10950 trips
in 30 years of operation.
5.2.2 Data sources

Primary data gathered for the study included (a) the real-time operational profile
recorded by the ship operator between 1 January and 31 March 2011; and (b)
simulation results detailing the optimised usage profiles, fuel consumption and power
generation (whichever relevant) of individual components on a daily trip basis
generated using General Energy Software (GES) and the Particle Swarm
Optimisation (PSO) method developed in Matlab by research partners. Based on
these data, emissions were estimated using factors proposed by [420] which
differentiated between fuel types, technology components and operational profiles.
Background data for individual components were provided by the ship owner and the
consortium, when available. These included (i) brief descriptions, for example,
manufacturer, manufacturing plant, year of build, model, function, efficiency and life
span; (ii) component diagrams and system design; (iii) physical properties such as
materials, total mass and mass breakdown; (iv) manufacture details, for instance,
processes, (electricity and/or fuel) energy consumed and transport mode used; and
(v) maintenance profiles, i.e. how often a component was maintained.
158
Manufacturing a product from raw materials might involve casting and moulding,
forming, separating, conditioning, assembling and finishing. Details, such as what
processes and materials were involved and exactly how much was required for each,
were generally classified by manufacturers as sensitive information. Information
presented in product manuals and manufacturers’ annual reviews, if any, was
incomplete. Such information was limited or not covered at all in existing peer-
reviewed journal publications, which would have been the most reliable source. The
issue was dealt with by using average data, i.e. data gathered and standardised from
alternative sources including expert judgement from the industrial consortium,
technical reports, textbooks and proceedings in addition to manuals and reviews, as
summarised in Table 4.7 in Chapter 4. Alternative data source i.e. Ecoinvent
Database v2.2 was sought if data were missing or not available.
In relation to the end of life phase, data standardised from literature as reported in
Chapter 4, Table 4.10 were applied for metallic scrap. In relation to treating and
recovering used lubricating oil, data were gathered from [423-426]. Relevant
Ecoinvent datasets were adopted for disposing metallic and non-metallic scrap to
incineration plants and landfill. The input and output data used for developing the
LCA models are shown in Appendix.
5.2.3 Goal and scope definition

The intended application and the reason of this study were closely related to each
other: the former was to estimate the environmental impact of a conventional marine
power system onboard a RoRo cargo ship whilst the latter was to gain insights into
the system under study. The intended audience included not only the funding bodies
but also maritime stakeholders and the public. It was hoped that findings and
conclusions presented in this case study could offer a reference for future LCA
studies on any innovative marine power systems, be it retrofit or new-build design.
Marine power technologies, regardless of conventional or innovative, varied in terms

of function and lifespan: some could provide propulsion or auxiliary power whilst
others would supply both; some could operate for 30 years whilst others would
require a replacement due to a shorter lifespan. Instead of individual technologies,
the power system was chosen as the product system under study as the reference
159
ship could only fully function if the technologies were integrated as a whole system
(to avoid allocation via system expansion). The function of the power system was to
supply energy required for propulsion and operation of a cargo ship. Due to the
diversity in lifespan of individual technologies, neither the number of journey nor
travelling distance was defined as the functional unit. Instead, the functional unit was
the operation of the power system of a RoRo cargo ship over 30 years on regular
routes.
The conventional power system consisted of 4 main diesel engines and 2 shaft
generators connecting 2 gearboxes respectively driving 2 propellers, in addition to 2
bow thrusters run by built-in motors for manoeuvring purpose whilst 2 auxiliary
generators functioned with 2 thermal oil boilers and 2 economisers to meet hotel
loads for services and auxiliary use. These components were defined as the system
boundary of the case study, as illustrated in Figure 5.2, where their background data
are summarised in Table 5.1. Relevant manufacturing processes and mass
breakdown as reported in Chapter 4 were applied for these components.
Figure 5.2: System boundary of the case study on the conventional power system.
160
Table 5.1: Background data of individual components used in LCA models for the
base case scenario.
Component, Function Design or operational Lifespan Unit mass
make, type detail
and number
Main diesel Supply power 5760 kW, 4-stroke, 30 years 78000 kg
engines, for ship medium speed, non-
Sulzer propulsion reversible, 400 mm
8ZA40S, 4 bore, 560 mm stroke,
units 510 rpm engine speed
Auxiliary Generate 1563 kW, 4-stroke, in- 30 years 39400 kg
generators, auxiliary power line, 280 mm bore, 320
MAN B&W for hotel loads mm stroke, 13.3:1
7L28/32H, 2 compression ratio, 750
units rpm engine speed
Shaft Function as 2125 kVA, not in use 30 years 2125 kg
generators, asynchronous
AvK DSG alternators to
88M1-4, 2 assist ship
units propulsion
Gearboxes, Enable 5760 kW at 510 rpm, an 30 years 1415 kg
Renk AD optimum speed output speed of 130 rpm
NDSHL3000, of engines and at a reduction ratio of
2 units propellers 3.923:1
Propellers Propel the ship 4-blade, controllable 30 years Propeller
and shafts, during pitch for ice application 24000 kg;
Lips transiting with outward turning, shaft
4CPS160, 2 overall diameter of 5 m, 35400 kg
units with 105.4 m shaft
Bow Navigate the 1000 kWh each, 30 years 5600 kg
thrusters and ship during transverse, controllable
motors, Lips, manoeuvring pitch, standard design
2 units with propeller diameter
of 1.75 m
Boilers, Meet power 1453 kW each, thermal 20 years 3170 kg
Wiesloch demand for oil boilers burning MDO (estimated)
25V0-13, 2 heating and with an inlet/outlet
(plus 2) units hot water temperature of 160/200
oC
Economisers, Recover When engines run at 75- 15 years 2200 kg

Heatmaster exhaust waste 100% maximum (estimated)
THE3-60, 2 heat continuous rating,
(plus 2) units exhaust gas inlet and
outlet were 206-223 oC
and 340-350 oC
Prior to the enforcement of SOx control in North Sea in November 2007, one of the
diesel engines and an auxiliary generator were in operation which burned MDO (i)
before entering and after leaving a port for approximately 0.5–1 hour; and (ii) during
manoeuvring and docking. When the ship was transiting at sea, the main diesel
161
engine which previously burned MDO in port would switch fuel, and run together with
another diesel engine at a constant speed─both engines burned HFO (with 1%
sulphur). Meanwhile, the auxiliary generator which burned MDO would be shut down
whilst the other auxiliary generator would be run by burning HFO. Exhaust from the
diesel engines was supplied to economisers to produce steam for auxiliary use such
as pre-conditioning HFO and MDO that would be burned by the engines and auxiliary
generators. When the ship was approaching a port, one of the diesel engines and
the auxiliary generator would be shut down; another diesel engine would switch fuel
and the other auxiliary generator would be run─both burned MDO. During
manoeuvring and mooring, bow thrusters were in use or in standby mode. After the
enforcement, only MDO was consumed. Throughout the life cycle, boilers burned
MDO only. Regardless of manoeuvring, mooring or transiting, auxiliary electrical
power and steam service demands were met by running an auxiliary generator and a
boiler. NOx emission was controlled via water injection instead of SCR. The other
two diesel engines and both shaft generators were not in use mainly because of the
relatively low power demand of the reference ship. Whilst most components had a
30-year lifespan, a replacement of boilers and economisers was required after 15–20
years in service. In the absence of data, assumptions were made necessarily, as
Table 5.2: Assumptions made in the study.

Component Assumption
Product The same business routes and the operational profiles were valid
system for 30 years.
Diesel Two diesel engines were not in operation for the whole life cycle.
engines The assumption was made in line with the operational profile
provided by the ship operator, where only 2 diesel engines were in
operation for current business routes. Lubricating oil was changed
for every 1500 operating hours, requiring 189.3 litres per engine.
Auxiliary Manufacture of auxiliary generators was similar to that of diesel
generators engines. For each generator, 94.6 litres of lubricating oil per 1500
operating hours was required.
Shaft Shaft generators were in good condition for reuse after 30 years.
generators
Gearboxes The model was no longer produced and available information was
limited due to organisational changes of the manufacturer. It was
assumed that the casing, gears and shaft ends were respectively
20%, 70% and 10% of the total mass in line with [293] which
reported that gear casings were made of cast iron or welded steel
and the shaft ends were covered by an aluminium, split and non-
contact seal.
162
Boilers It was assumed that Wiesloch 25V0-13 boiler with a capacity of
1453 kW was similar to existing Aalborg marine boilers of the same
type, i.e. Aalborg Mission TFO as Wiesloch was acquired by
Aalborg (known as Alfa Laval Aalborg to date) in 1999 and
marketed under the MISSIONTM brand. The weight of a TFO-015
was 3170 kg with a capacity of 1700 kW [427]. The assumption
was in agreement with GESAB-HTI thermal oil heaters [428] with a
capacity of 1396 kW and a weight of 3800 kg.
Economisers Materials and processes involved in manufacturing economisers
were similar to those of boilers.
End of life The not-in-use components would be reused. With respects to the
management end of life of diesel engines and auxiliary generators, it was
assumed that they were dissembled where components in a
satisfactory condition were refurbished for remanufactured engines
and generators, and the remaining materials were recycled or
disposed to incineration plants or landfill following a reuse-
recycling-incineration-landfill ratio of 3:3:2:2. Scrap from other
components would be recycled, disposed to incineration plants or
landfill, 33.3% each.
Input and output data presented in the Ecoinvent dataset named

‘blast furnace gas, burned in power plant’ and [411] were adjusted
and used for copper recovery in this study.
By assuming that input/output data used for zinc recycling was

40% of those for primary production, data used in this study were
adjusted from [411, 412] and Ecoinvent dataset named ‘smelting,
primary zinc production’.
An existing Ecoinvent dataset named ‘tin, at regional storage’

presented data involved in the processes of mining and
beneficiating tin ore as well as smelting and refining tin. As
recycling tin alloy scrap involves smelting and refining only, it was
assumed that LCI for tin recycling process was 10% of the data
presented in this dataset.
Input and output data used for lead recovery were adjusted from
the data presented by [411, 412, 415] and the Ecoinvent dataset
named ‘blast furnace gas, burned in power plant’.
Data from literature and Ecoinvent dataset named 'ferronickel, 25%

Ni, at plant' were adjusted for nickel recovery process.
A gate-to-grave life cycle was considered for each component, from the acquisition of
energy and raw materials to manufacture, operation, maintenance (if relevant) and
the end of life (i.e. dismantling, recycling and disposal). Engineering design and
approval, as included in Figure 4.12 due to its important role for innovative
development and ship building, was perceived to have minimal environmental
burdens and therefore was not assessed. Installation and testing at shipyard was
163
excluded because no information was available and the environmental impact was
perceived as trivial too when compared to that of the operation phase. For the same
reasons, auxiliaries such as switchboards, cables, piping and fuel oil systems were
also excluded. For individual technologies and components, numerous
manufacturers, models and manufacturing plants had been available worldwide. Due
to time and resource constraints, the locations of manufacturing plants and recycling
sites were not taken into account. Transportation was not considered with the
exception of non-metallic scrap management where existing Ecoinvent datasets were
directly applied. Material loss during manufacture was also beyond the scope. As
average data for conventional technologies were used as background data, neither
technology change in future nor spatial and temporal differentiation was addressed.
Although relevant, impact categories such as thermal pollution and noise disturbance
to marine biodiversity were not assessed as they had not been incorporated into the
software. Altogether, these exclusions formed the limitations of the study.
Value choice was involved not only in selecting the ship type (which was based on
data availability, technical consideration and expert judgement from the consortium)
but also in determining the characterisation models applied in the study. LCIA was
carried out using the midpoint-oriented methodologies i.e. CML2001 and ILCD, and
the endpoint-oriented Eco-Indicator99 methodology. The choice was made in line
with [281] which pointed out that both midpoint and endpoint approaches should be
consistently presented in series or parallel. Using LCA models, LCIA was performed
in which the LCI results were characterised into a range of impact categories. These
impact categories were grouped in line with LCIA methodologies, ranked in terms of
their magnitude from the highest to the lowest, and for brevity and consistency, and
are labelled as I–XXVI as in the following in all relevant figures illustrated in this
chapter:
I CML2001: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, kg 1,4- dichlorobutane
(C4H8Cl2) equivalent
II CML2001: Global Warming Potential, kg CO2 equivalent
III CML2001: Global Warming Potential, excluding Biogenic Carbon, kg CO2
equivalent
IV CML2001: Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, kg C4H8Cl2 equivalent
V CML2001: Human Toxicity Potential, kg C4H8Cl2 equivalent
VI CML2001: Acidification Potential, kg SO2 equivalent
164
VII CML2001: Eutrophication Potential, kg phosphate equivalent
VIII CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil, MJ
IX CML2001: Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential, kg ethene equivalent
X CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential, kg C4H8Cl2 equivalent
XI ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater, USEtox (recommended),
Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems (CTUe)
XII ILCD: IPCC Global Warming, including Biogenic Carbon, kg CO2
equivalent, where IPCC was the acronym for Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
XIII ILCD: IPCC Global Warming, excluding Biogenic Carbon, kg CO2
equivalent
XIV ILCD: Terrestrial Eutrophication, Accumulated Exceedance, mole of
nitrogen equivalent
XV ILCD: Acidification, Accumulated Exceedance, mole of hydrogen ion
equivalent
XVI ILCD: Photochemical Ozone Formation, LOTOS-EUROS Model, ReCiPe,
kg non-methane volatile organic compound (NMVOC)
XVII ILCD: Total Freshwater Consumption, Including Rainwater, Swiss
Ecoscarcity, kg
XVIII ILCD: PM/Respiratory Inorganics, RiskPoll, kg PM2,5 equivalent
XIX ILCD: Marine Eutrophication, EUTREND model, ReCiPe, kg nitrogen
equivalent
XX ILCD: Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral, Reserve based, CML2002,
kg antimony equivalent
XXI Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Acidification/Nitrification, PDF*m2*a
(where PDF was the shortened form of Potentially Disappeared Fraction)
XXII Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity, PDF*m2*a
XXIII Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Minerals, MJ surplus energy
XXIV Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels, MJ surplus energy
XXV Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use, PDF*m2*a
XXVI Eco-Indicator99: Human Health─Respiratory (Inorganic), DALY
Impact categories were analysed based on their magnitude. In addition to indicating

the environmental impact of the product system under study, these indicator results
could be used for comparison and/or validation in future research. In performing life
165
cycle interpretation, significant issues, such as components and processes which
resulted in noticeable environmental burdens, were identified. The results were
checked for completeness and consistency with the defined goal and scope.
Sensitivity analysis was performed via scenario analysis to investigate the influence
of some parameters, including mass, material proportion, alternative component, fuel
type and quantity, and end of life management plan on the indicator results. For this
purpose, additional scenarios were modelled as described in Chapter 5.2.6.
5.2.4 LCI results: resource consumption and emissions

Manufacture of the components employed in the power system consumed a range of
materials, as illustrated in Figure 5.3. In descending order, cast iron, steel, copper
and aluminium were the top four most consumed materials, accounting for 2.85x105,
1.77x105, 4.71x104 and 1.49x104 kg respectively. The processes used up 5.76x105
MJ of heat provided by natural gas boilers, 2.29x105 MJ and 2.52x103 MJ of energy
released by furnaces which burned light and heavy fuel oils respectively, in addition
to 1.40x105 MJ of energy from electricity. Such energy consumption was mainly due
to diesel engines, propellers and shafts, and auxiliary generators, which were held
culpable for 40.7–56.7%, 15.5–21.6% and 10.3–13.1% respectively.
Quantity, kg
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
1.49E+04
1.82E+00
6.86E+03
2.85E+05
1.77E+05
7.34E+03
4.71E+04
1.69E+01
5.10E+02
2.39E+03
5.64E+01
6.30E+03
1.32E+02
7.58E+01
5.11E+01
6.93E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
Aluminium
Zinc
Tin
Carbon
Nickel
Cast iron
Plastic
Polyethylene
Brass
Lead
Silicon
Steel
Stainless steel
Manganese
Copper
Rockwool
Figure 5.3: Materials consumed in manufacturing the components incorporated into

the conventional power system, in kg.
166
Based on the real-time operational profile and simulation results, it was estimated
that 2.93x107 kg of HFO and 2.50x108 kg of MDO would be burned by diesel
engines, generators and boilers over 30 years in service, as illustrated in Figure 5.4.
Consequently, 8.75x108 kg of CO2, 1.75x107 kg of NOx, 6.01x106 kg of SO2, 8.13x105
kg of CO, 7.17x105 kg of HC and 5.49x105 kg of PM were released. Because of
longer hours in operation, diesel engines were the main consumer of fuel, leading to
their standing as the major source of emissions, each accounted for 38–47% of the
total consumption and emissions. During regular maintenance, lubricating oil
contained in diesel engines, auxiliary generators and boilers would be replaced,
which amounted to 4.43x104 kg in total. Resources involved in treating and
recovering used oil included 120–160 kg of light fuel oil, liquefied petroleum and
diesel respectively, which required energy supplied by electricity and natural gas, i.e.
3.08x106 MJ and 2.74x105 MJ respectively.
Fuel consumption,
kg Emissions, kg
1.00E+10 1.00E+10
1.00E+08
1.00E+08
1.00E+06
1.00E+06
1.00E+04
1.00E+04
1.00E+02
1.00E+00 1.00E+02
DE1 DE2 AG1 AG2 B1 B2 B3 B4 Total
HFO 1.3E+07 1.3E+07 0.0E+00 2.5E+06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E+07
MDO 9.9E+07 1.1E+08 2.0E+07 1.7E+07 2.1E+06 3.2E+06 1.1E+06 1.6E+06 2.5E+08
CO 3.3E+05 3.5E+05 5.5E+04 5.4E+04 5.9E+03 8.9E+03 3.0E+03 4.4E+03 8.1E+05
CO2 3.6E+08 3.7E+08 6.3E+07 6.2E+07 5.8E+06 8.7E+06 2.9E+06 4.4E+06 8.7E+08
HC 3.0E+05 3.1E+05 3.6E+04 3.6E+04 7.9E+03 1.2E+04 3.9E+03 5.9E+03 7.2E+05
NOx 7.3E+06 7.4E+06 1.3E+06 1.3E+06 8.9E+04 1.3E+05 4.4E+04 6.6E+04 1.8E+07
SO2 2.8E+06 2.8E+06 3.9E+05 4.7E+05 4.2E+04 6.4E+04 2.1E+04 3.2E+04 6.6E+06
PM 2.1E+05 2.2E+05 5.1E+04 5.6E+04 3.0E+03 4.4E+03 1.5E+03 2.2E+03 5.5E+05
Figure 5.4: Fuel consumption and emissions released, both in kg, during the
operation of the marine power system for individual components including diesel
engines (DE1–DE4), auxiliary generators (AG1 and AG2) and boilers (B1–B4) over
30 years.
167
When the system became obsolete, it would be dismantled. As illustrated in Figure
5.5, electricity and coal were resources most commonly consumed during
dismantling, which accounted for 5 orders of magnitude each, if compared to natural
gas and light fuel. For individual components, parts which were in good condition
would be sold for reuse; metallic scrap would be recycled or disposed to incineration
plants or landfill. 4.19x103 kg of coal anthracite, 5.5x102 kg of coke and 3.23x102 kg
of crude oil were consumed in recycling and disposing metallic scrap, along with
energy from various sources where blast furnace gas, natural gas and electricity
were most highly demanded, ranging between 7.76x104 and 1.41x105 MJ.
Quantity
1.0E+06
1.0E+04
1.0E+02
1.62E+05
1.88E+04
5.15E+05
1.53E+03
4.19E+03
5.50E+02
3.23E+02
7.76E+04
1.83E+03
3.50E+02
1.41E+05
1.72E+02
8.25E+04
1.0E+00
Coal, kg
Natural gas, MJ
Natural gas, MJ
Coke, kg
Coal, MJ
Diesel, MJ
Coal anthracite, kg
Light fuel oil, kg
Electricity, MJ
Electricity, MJ
Crude oil, kg
Heavy fuel oil, MJ

Blast furnace gas, MJ
Dismantling End of life management for metallic scrap
Figure 5.5: Resource and energy consumption during dismantling and the end of life
of the conventional system.
Using LCA models created in GaBi, emissions released throughout the life cycle into
the air and freshwater were characterised as inorganic, organic, long-term, heavy
metals and particles. The analysis showed that 9.01x108 kg of inorganic emissions
to air, 2.35x105 kg of inorganic emissions to freshwater, 7.29x105 kg of organic
emissions to air i.e. volatile organic compounds (VOC), 5.16x105 kg of particles to air
and 1.56x105 kg of long-term emissions to freshwater were emitted. Heavy metals
released to air and freshwater were 9.94x103 kg and 6.21x102 kg respectively. As
illustrated in Figure 5.6, diesel engines were the prime source of emissions in which
they contributed (i) 83.2–91.0 % of inorganic to air, organic and particles to air and
168
freshwater; and (ii) 46.9–49.4 % of heavy metals to air and freshwater, inorganic and
long-term emissions to freshwater. Whilst emissions released by auxiliary generators
were more consistent i.e. 8.4–14.3 % for each emission type, propellers and shafts
were accountable for approximately 30% of heavy metals to air and freshwater,
inorganic and long-term emissions to freshwater.
Resources/
Emissions, kg
Particles to freshwater
Organic emissions to freshwater
Long-term emissions to freshwater
Inorganic emissions to freshwater
Heavy metals to freshwater
Particles to air
Organic emissions to air (VOC group)
Inorganic emissions to air
Heavy metals to air
Resources
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Diesel engines Auxiliary generators Shaft generators Thermal oil boilers

Economisers Gearboxes Propellers and shafts Thrusters and motors
Figure 5.6: Emissions released from the conventional power system from acquisition
of raw materials and energy to end of life management as per individual
technologies, which were estimated via LCA models developed in GaBi for base case
scenario.
5.2.5 LCIA results

LCIA results for impact categories assessed using CML2001, ILCD and Eco-
Indicator99 for base case scenario and the contribution of individual technologies
towards the total results are illustrated in Figures 5.7 and 5.8 respectively.
169
Total LCIA results
3.12E+10
7.14E+09
1.00E+10
8.76E+08 8.76E+08
8.76E+08 8.76E+08
1.07E+08
1.50E+08
1.00E+08 7.48E+07
2.57E+07 2.17E+07
1.99E+07
1.67E+07 1.81E+07
1.37E+06 2.80E+06 4.72E+06
2.28E+06
1.00E+06 8.38E+05
9.16E+05 6.92E+05
1.25E+05 1.09E+05
1.00E+04 7.17E+03
2.12E+03
1.34E+03
1.00E+02
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Figure 5.7: Total environmental burdens attributable to the conventional power

system, characterised as per impact categories.
Contribution of individual technologies

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
XXVI
XXV
XXIV
XXIII
XXII
XXI
XX
Impact categories
XIX
XVIII
XVII
XVI
XV
XIV
XIII
XII
XI
X
IX
VIII
VII
VI
V
IV
III
II
I
Diesel engines Auxiliary generators Shaft generators Thermal oil boilers

Exhaust gas boilers Gearboxes Propellers and shafts Thrusters and motors
Figure 5.8: Contribution of individual components towards individual impact

categories.
170
For CML2001, Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential and Global Warming Potential
showed at least 8 orders of magnitude i.e. 3.12x1010 kg C4H8Cl2 equivalent and
8.76x108 kg CO2 equivalent respectively (labelled as I and II). Other impact
categories such as Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, Human Toxicity
Potential, Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential, Abiotic Depletion of Fossil
(labelled as III–VIII respectively) ranged between 6 and 8 orders of magnitude.
Significant processes for impact categories assessed based on CML2001 are
summarised in Table 5.3. The analysis showed that:
(i) diesel engines resulted in 46.6% of Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential
and 83.2% of Global Warming Potential, mainly due to disposing metallic
scrap to incineration plants at the end of life and operating the engines
over 30 years respectively;
(ii) in addition, diesel engines were the largest contributor of all impact
categories assessed by CML2001 which resulted in more than 77.7% for 7
impact categories and 46–62% for the remaining, where operation and
disposal of metallic scrap were found significant;
(iii) the contribution of auxiliary generators towards all impact categories was
consistently within the range of 12.2–21.8%, with the exception of
Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (35.3%, in which the use of cast iron during
manufacture was the main cause);
(iv) propellers and shafts resulted in approximately 30% of Marine and
Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, mainly because of disposing
metallic scrap of propellers and shafts to incineration plants; and
(v) other impact categories caused by propellers and shafts during resource
acquisition and consumption, storage and dismantling were negligible
compared to the impact caused by diesel engines and auxiliary
generators.
171
Table 5.3: The main cause(s) of individual impact categories attributable to diesel
engines, auxiliary generators, propellers and shafts respectively, as assessed by
CML2001. The causes were classified as A: Operation; B: Disposal of metallic scrap
to incineration plants; C: Disposal of metallic scrap to landfill; and D: Others
(specified).
Impact Diesel engines Auxiliary Propellers and shafts
categories generators
I B B B
II and III A A D (copper recycling) *
IV B B B
V A A B, C, D (nickel
consumption) *
VI A A D (nickel consumption) *
VII A A D (dismantling)
VIII D (crude oil D (crude oil ─
acquisition) acquisition)
IX A A D (nickel consumption) *
X D (chromium D (cast iron C
consumption) consumption)
* less than 3% of the total LCIA results for the product system
When ILCD was applied, Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater showed the highest
magnitude, i.e. 7.14x109 CTUe, followed by IPCC Global Warming i.e. 8.76x108 kg
CO2 equivalent. The indicator results of Terrestrial Eutrophication, Acidification and
Photochemical Ozone Formation were of 7 orders of magnitude. Other impact
categories such as Total Freshwater Consumption, PM/Respiratory Inorganics and
Marine Eutrophication were of lower magnitude by 1–2 orders. The impact was
mainly caused by diesel engines, auxiliary generators, propellers and shafts.
Significant processes that contributed to individual impact categories are summarised
in Table 5.4. It was worth noting that
(i) ILCD did not assess marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential.
(ii) ILCD and CML2001 had adopted different terminologies and modelling
approaches for Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater (labelled as XI and IV
respectively), and therefore both estimates were not of the same order of
magnitude in which ILCD showed a higher magnitude than CML2001 by one
order.
(iii) different trends were shown by ILCD and CML2001 in Ecotoxicity for Aquatic
Freshwater and IPCC Global Warming (labelled as XI–XIII and II–IV
respectively). Unlike CML2001, Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater was
recognised by ILCD as a heavier burden than IPCC Global Warming;
nevertheless, the contribution of individual components towards these impact
172
categories assessed by both ILCD and CML2001 were similar among one
another, as shown in Figure 5.8.
(iv) dissimilar mathematic relations and environmental mechanisms were also
adopted by ILCD and CML2001 for Acidification and Photochemical Ozone
Formation Potential (labelled as XV, XVI, VI and IX respectively), leading to
different measures but of the same order of magnitude.
(v) again, the influence of diesel engines was far-reaching which contributed to
47.6% and 84.0% of all impact categories assessed by ILCD, because of
metallic scrap disposal to incineration plants and the operation phase.
(vi) auxiliary generators contributed 12.2–14.4% to all impact categories with the
exception of Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral (labelled as XX), which
accounted for 21.8%. Operation was the main cause for most impact
categories caused by auxiliary generators.
(vii) propellers and shafts only contributed to three impact categories, namely
Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater, Total Freshwater Consumption and
Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral (labelled as XI, XVII and XX), i.e.
30.6%, 8.6% and 12.9%. The main causes were metallic scrap disposal to
incineration plants, water consumption and copper acquisition respectively.
ILCD. The causes were classified as A: Operation; B: Disposal of metallic scrap to
incineration plants; C: Disposal of metallic scrap to landfill; and D: Others (specified).
XI B B B
XII - XIII A A D (steel and copper
recycling, blast furnace
gas, natural gas, light and
heavy fuels and charcoal) *
XIV A A D (dismantling) *
XV A A D (nickel consumption) *
XVI A A D (nickel consumption) *
XVII D (tap water) D (oil refinery) D (tap water)
XVIII A A D (nickel consumption and
steel recycling) *
XIX A A D (nickel consumption) *
XX D (tin acquisition) D (copper D (copper acquisition)
acquisition)
173
Looking at the impact categories assessed by Eco-Inidcator99, 1.07x108 PDF*m2*a
of Ecosystem Quality─Acidification/Nitrification and 1.99x107 PDF*m2*a of
Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as XXI–XXII) were reported. This was
followed by impact categories relevant to resource consumption, i.e.
Resources─Minerals and Resources─Fossil Fuels, which accounted for 4.72x106
and 1.09x105 MJ surplus energy. Similar to the impact categories assessed by
CML2001 and ILCD, significant processes that resulted in the impact categories
assessed by Eco-Indicator99 were identified, as summarised in Table 5.5. The
analysis showed that
(i) Eco-Inidcator99 did not differentiate terrestrial, freshwater and marine
aquatic ecotoxicity potential but merely assessed such potential in an all-
in-one impact category, namely Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled
as XXII).
(ii) diesel engines appeared, again, as the primary contributor which
accounted for 46.4–93.8% of impact categories assessed by Eco-
Indicator99. However, different significant processes were identified. The
impact categories were in a relationship with operation, disposal of metallic
scrap to incineration plants, acquisition of tin and crude oil, and storage
respectively.
(iii) contribution of auxiliary generators towards impact categories assessed by
Eco-Indicator99 ranged between 14.0% and 19.9%, with the exception of
Resources─Minerals and Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as XXIII
and XXV respectively), which was also caused by operation, disposal of
metallic scrap to incineration plants and the acquisition of copper and
crude oil.
(iv) propellers and shafts resulted in 29.7% of Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity
(labelled as XXII), mainly because of disposing metallic scrap to
incineration plants. A negligible or not at all contribution was made by
propellers and shafts towards other impact categories assessed by Eco-
Inidcator99.
174
Eco-Inidcator99. The causes were classified as A: Operation; B: Disposal of metallic
scrap to incineration plants; C: Disposal of metallic scrap to landfill; and D: Others
(specified).
XXI A A D (nickel consumption) *
XXII B B B
XXIII D (tin acquisition) D (copper D (copper, nickel and tin
acquisition) consumption)
XXIV D (crude oil D (crude oil -
acquisition) acquisition)
XXV D (storage) D (storage) * D (storage and landfill
facility)
XXVI A A -
When all LCIA results were taken into consideration, the findings of significant
components and processes were consistent, as illustrated in Figure 5.8 and
summarised in Tables 5.3–5.5:
i For all impact categories, at least 90.62% of the environmental burdens
were attributable to diesel engines, auxiliary generators, propellers and
shafts, indicating that the contribution of shaft generators, gearboxes,
boilers, economisers, bow thrusters and motors were relatively negligible;
ii Diesel engines were the largest contributor of all impact categories which
resulted in more than 77.7% for 20 impact categories, where operation
and disposal of metallic scrap were found significant;
iii The contribution of auxiliary generators towards all impact categories were
consistently within the range of 12.2–21.8 % (either because of the
operation or the disposal of metallic scrap to incineration plants), except
for CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as X, 35.3%, where
the use of cast iron in manufacture was the main cause), Eco-Inidcator99:
Resources─Minerals and Eco-Inidcator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use
(labelled as XXIII and XXV respectively,1.9–3.2 %, mainly due to the use
of copper during manufacture and space used up for storage respectively);
iv Propellers and shafts resulted in approximately 30% of ecotoxicity
potential i.e. CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity
Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-Inidcator99:
Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII), with the
175
exception of CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as X).
Disposing metallic scrap of propellers and shafts to incineration plants was
the major contributor of the former impact categories;
v The indicator results of other impact categories caused by propellers and
shafts due to resource acquisition and consumption, storage, dismantling,
recycling and landfill, were negligible compared to those of diesel engines
and auxiliary generators; and
vi Throughout the life cycle of a conventional marine power system, critical
processes included the operation of diesel engines and auxiliary
generators, and the end of life of diesel engines, auxiliary generators,
propellers and shafts, in particular disposal of metallic scrap to incineration
plants.
As LCA practitioners were subject to personal preference, value choice was involved
in choosing LCIA methodologies, as previously reported in Chapter 5.2.3. Also, the
LCI and LCIA results presented here were subject to assumptions and limitations
(see Chapter 5.2.3). Varying any assumptions and overcoming any limitations were
likely to increase the magnitude of LCI results (unless a shorter lifespan was defined
or less scrap was handled) and exert an influence on the LCIA results. Considering
the complex nature of marine power systems and the massive scope of the studies,
the influence of these assumptions and limitations could be pronounced, moderate or
minimal. However, no conclusive correlation could be suggested without in-depth
investigation.
As noted in Chapter 4.2.4, no literature had defined risk threshold of each impact
category to any AoPs i.e. human beings, resources and ecosystems. The effect of all
impact categories on human beings, resources and ecosystems would be of varying
significance degrees. It was unclear to what extent a particular impact category
could be considered as harmless, moderate or fatal. Also, it was possible that the
effect of any impact categories with smaller orders of magnitude to a particular area
of protection would be more serious than other impact categories of any higher
orders of magnitude. For instance, Human Toxicity Potential would affect human
beings more if compared to natural resources and ecosystems whilst all types of
ecotoxicity potential would affect ecosystems more. No conclusive remark could be
made before the advance of existing knowledge and establishment of relevant risk
176
threshold for individual impact categories. Nevertheless, the LCIA results estimated
in this study enhanced current understanding on conventional marine power systems
in terms of the estimated magnitude of their environmental impact and identification
of significant components as well as processes.
5.2.6 Life cycle interpretation

As indicated in previous section, significant processes which resulted in most impact
categories were operation and metallic scrap disposal. As LCA could only offer an
estimate of potential environmental impact, as clearly indicated by ISO 14040,
absolute accuracy was not possible in any LCA study. Any changes in the identified
significant processes as well as other parameters might influence the estimated
impact minimally, moderately or greatly, considering the range of technologies and
the number of components integrated into the power system throughout the life cycle.
Parameters such as mass, material proportion, alternative component, fuel type and
quantity, and end of life management were worth investigating. The sensitivity of
individual impact categories to these parameters was investigated via scenario
analysis, in which each parameter was varied in additional scenarios one by one
whilst others were kept unchanged. Parameters and additional scenarios under
study included
1 mass of diesel engines (as the key component) i.e. 78000 kg in base case
scenario, which was
(i) reduced by 10%;
(ii) reduced by 20%;
(iii) reduced by 30%;
(iv) increased by 10%;
(v) increased by 20%; and
(vi) increased by 30%;
2 material proportion of diesel engines, which was altered by substituting
(i) 10% of steel for 10% of cast iron (which was the most commonly
consumed material);
(ii) 20% of steel for 20% of cast iron;
(iii) 10% of aluminium for 10% of cast iron;
(iv) 3% of chromium and 1% of tin for 2% chromium and tin, each;
3 fuel type, in which all-MDO was substituted for fuel mix applied in base
case scenario;
177
4 fuel consumption if
(i) 10% less fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(ii) 20% less fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(iii) 10% more fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(iv) 20% more fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(v) 10% less fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
(vi) 20% less fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
(vii) 10% more fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
(viii) 20% more fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
5 alternative component, where CuNiAl propellers were replaced by
stainless steel propellers;
6 end of life management plans for significant components i.e. diesel
engines, where metallic scrap was
(i) 50% recycled, 30% disposed to incineration plants and 20% sent
to landfill;
(ii) 50% recycled, 20% disposed to incineration plants and 30% sent
to landfill;
(iii) 100% recycled;
(iv) 100% disposed to incineration plants;
(v) 100% disposed to landfill; and
7 end of life management plans for all components, which were similar to 6
(i)–(v).
The LCIA results for each additional scenario were compared to those of base case
scenario.
Mass and material proportion of diesel engines (the largest contributor of all impact
categories)
As illustrated in Figure 5.9, impact categories relevant to ecotoxicity (including
CML2001: Marine Aquatic, Freshwater Aquatic and Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential,
ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Ecotoxicity, labelled as I, IV, X, XI and XXII), resource
consumption/depletion (including CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil, ILCD:
Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral, Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Minerals and
Resources─Fossil Fuels, labelled as VIII, XX and XXIII–XXIV) and land use (i.e. Eco-
Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use, labelled as XXV) were sensitive to the
178
variation in the mass of diesel engines. It was also found that every ±10%
subsequent change in mass could accordingly alter these impact categories by ±2.3–
4.8%. Changes in the LCIA results of other impact categories were not significant.
Impact categories, which were relevant to global warming, acidification,
eutrophication, photochemical ozone creation and human health were nearly not
affected at all whilst human toxicity and freshwater consumption were affected
minimally. Therefore, for diesel engines with the same power capacity, a lighter
model would be more environmentally beneficial as its ecotoxicity potential was less
burdensome in addition to less resource consumption and space occupation.
Change in LCIA
Total LCIA results
results, %
20.0
1.00E+10 15.0
10.0
1.00E+08
5.0
0.0
1.00E+06
-5.0
-10.0
1.00E+04
-15.0
1.00E+02 -20.0
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
III
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Total LCIA results (base scenario) 30% less

20% less 10% less
10% more 20% more
30% more
Figure 5.9: Difference in LCIA results due to the variation in the mass of diesel
engines when compared to the base case.
In investigating the impact of materials on the overall environmental burdens of the

product system, cast iron was reduced in different scenarios to allow for an extra
quantity of 10% of steel, 20% of steel, or 10% of aluminium respectively (equivalent
to 4 orders of magnitude). Compared to base case scenario, LCIA results for these
scenarios declined by 0.6–1.2% in terrestric ecotoxicity potential and altered less
than 0.3% for the remaining impact categories. In relation to chromium and tin
consumption (which were the major cause of terrestric ecotoxicity and mineral
consumption/depletion, i.e. CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD:
Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Minerals,
179
labelled as X, XX and XXIII, and modelled as 2% each in base case scenario), the
LCIA results did not change much for CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential but
declined by 15.7% for ILCD: Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral and 23.2% for
Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Minerals, following the 1% change in the quantity of tin
and chromium being consumed (equivalent to 2 orders of magnitude). No noticeable
change was observed for other impact categories. Thus, consuming extra chromium
by 2 orders of magnitude would have a more distinct effect in impact categories
relevant to resources than consuming 4 orders of magnitude of common materials
such as cast iron, steel and aluminium.
Alternative component─stainless steel propellers

Alternatively, propellers made of 100% stainless steel could be employed, which
consisted of 18–20% chromium, 8–10.5% nickel, 1% silicon, 0.03% sulphur, 0.045%
phosphorous and the remaining was iron [429]. The estimated mass was 12450 kg.
In base case scenario, diesel engines contributed more environmental burdens than
propellers, as illustrated in Figure 5.10. The situation was reversed for some impact
categories when stainless steel propellers were substituted for CuNiAl propellers.
Total LCIA results Contribution of

component, %
1.0E+14 100.0
1.0E+12
80.0
1.0E+10
60.0
1.0E+08
40.0
1.0E+06
20.0
1.0E+04
1.0E+02 0.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
V
XIV
XVI
XIX
XXI
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XV
XVIII
XX
XXIII
XXIV
XXVI
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
LCIA results in alternative scenario using stainless steel propellers

LCIA results in base case
Caused by diesel engines in base case
Caused by propellers in base case
Caused by diesel engines in alternative scenario
Caused by propellers in alternative scenario
Figure 5.10: Difference in LCIA results compared to the base case scenario when
stainless steel propellers were substituted for CuNiAl propellers.
180
It was found that CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity, and Human
Toxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater, Eco-Indicator99:
Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity and Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as I, IV,
V, X, X I, XXII, and XXV) would show an increase ranging between 8 and 13 orders
of magnitude. Such immense increases were mainly dominated by the end of life
phase of stainless steel propellers, in particular disposing metallic scrap to landfill.
Changes in other impact categories were very minimum. Still, CuNiAl propellers
were a better choice than stainless steel propellers from an environmental
perspective. Compared to base case scenario, a reduction of up to 31% could be
achieved if metallic scrap of stainless steel propellers was 100% recycled (although
not happening in current practice). The more metallic scrap was recycled, the more
environmental friendly the product system would be. The impact of other end of life
options i.e. 100% incineration, 50% recycling, 30% incineration and 20% landfill and
50% recycling, 20% incineration and 30% landfill, was more moderate than the base
case scenario. Nevertheless, sending metallic scrap of stainless steel propellers to
landfill was not ideal as its burdens on the environment, particularly ecotoxicity
potential, could be significant.
Fuel type
In the scenario of substituting all-MDO for fuel mix (as modelled in base case
scenario), 8.64x108 kg of CO2, 1.73x107 kg of NOx, 4.83x106 kg of SO2, 8.09x105 kg
of CO, 7.09x105 kg of HC and 5.15x105 kg of PM would be released from burning
2.78x108 kg of MDO over 30 years in service. The additional quantity of MDO i.e.
approximately 11% was consumed to the benefits of HFO elimination and emission
reduction, in particular an up to 20% decline in SO2. Because of the elimination of
HFO, some impact categories including CML2001: Acidification Potential, CML2001:
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential, ILCD: Acidification, ILCD: Total Freshwater
Consumption and ILCD: PM/Respiratory Inorganics (labelled as VI, IX, XV, XVII and
XVIII) as illustrated in Figure 5.11, would be scaled down by 5–12%. Other impact
categories showed an insignificant sign of abating, i.e. mostly less than 2%. The
findings justified the recommendation of MARPOL to adopt clean fuels as one of the
strategies for emission reduction.
181
Total LCIA results Change in LCIA
results, %
1.00E+12 0.0
3.11E+10 -2.0
7.14E+09
1.00E+10
8.65E+08 8.65E+08
8.65E+08 8.65E+08
1.05E+08 -4.0
1.00E+08 1.50E+08 7.38E+07
2.50E+07 1.99E+07 1.78E+07
1.52E+07 2.00E+07 -6.0
2.25E+06 4.72E+06 2.59E+06
1.00E+06 7.44E+05
1.37E+06
8.51E+05 -8.0
1.09E+05 6.82E+05
1.25E+05
1.00E+04 7.17E+03 -10.0
2.02E+03 1.34E+03
1.00E+02 -12.0
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Total LCIA results for all MDO scenario Change in LCIA results, %
all-MDO was substituted for fuel mix.
Fuel quantity
In real-time operation, diesel engines and auxiliary generators might be run without
strictly following the optimal profile (as modelled in the base case scenario) because
of weather conditions, unexpected demand variation and unstructured business
routines. These additional scenarios would be insightful and valuable to marine
stakeholders. In these scenarios, it was assumed that an x% of change in fuel
quantity consumed by individual components would result in the same percentage of
variation in their emissions. Due to changes in the fuel quantity consumed by diesel
engines and auxiliary generators, the quantity of emissions released by the system
differed accordingly, as illustrated in Figure 5.12. The more fuel consumed, the more
emissions were released.
182
Total fuel consumption/emissions, kg
1.00E+10
1.00E+09
1.00E+08
1.00E+07
1.00E+06
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
20% less 10% less 10% more 20% more 20% less 10% less 10% more 20% more
Total in fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned
base case by diesel by diesel by diesel by diesel by by by by
engines engines engines engines generators generators generators generators
HFO 2.93E+07 2.39E+07 2.66E+07 3.20E+07 3.47E+07 2.88E+07 2.90E+07 2.95E+07 2.98E+07
MDO 2.50E+08 2.09E+08 2.30E+08 2.71E+08 2.92E+08 2.43E+08 2.47E+08 2.54E+08 2.58E+08
CO 8.13E+05 6.77E+05 7.45E+05 8.81E+05 9.49E+05 7.91E+05 8.02E+05 8.24E+05 8.35E+05
CO2 8.75E+08 7.29E+08 8.02E+08 9.48E+08 1.02E+09 8.50E+08 8.62E+08 8.87E+08 9.00E+08
HC 7.17E+05 5.94E+05 6.56E+05 7.79E+05 8.41E+05 7.03E+05 7.10E+05 7.25E+05 7.32E+05
NOx 1.75E+07 1.46E+07 1.61E+07 1.90E+07 2.05E+07 1.70E+07 1.73E+07 1.78E+07 1.81E+07
SO2 6.60E+06 5.42E+06 5.97E+06 7.09E+06 7.65E+06 6.20E+06 6.25E+06 6.37E+06 6.42E+06
PM 5.49E+05 4.63E+05 5.06E+05 5.92E+05 6.35E+05 5.56E+05 5.64E+05 5.81E+05 5.89E+05
HFO MDO CO CO2 HC NOx SO2 PM
Figure 5.12: Total fuel consumption and emissions of the power system in Case
Study 1 after taking into account changes in fuel consumption quantity by diesel
engines and auxiliary generators separately.
In addition, changes in the quantity of fuel consumption would influence the LCIA
results of CML2001: Global Warming (including and excluding Biogenic Carbon),
Human Toxicity, Acidification, Eutrophication, Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (labelled as II–III, V–VIII and IX), ILCD:
IPCC Global Warming (including and excluding Biogenic Carbon), Terrestrial
Eutrophication, Acidification, Photochemical Ozone Formation, Total Freshwater
Consumption, PM/Respiratory Inorganics, Marine Eutrophication and Resource
Depletion, Fossil and Mineral (labelled as XII–XX), and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Acidification/Nitrification, Resources─Fossil Fuels and Human
Health─Respiratory (Inorganic) (labelled as XXI, XXIV and XXVI), as illustrated in
Figure 5.13. For every 10% of difference in fuel quantity consumed by diesel engines
and auxiliary generators, the results for these impact categories in additional
scenarios would vary by 3.9–8.5% and 0.3–1.4% respectively, in which the former
was about 6 times the latter.
183
results, %
1.0E+12 20.0
1.0E+11
15.0
1.0E+10
10.0
1.0E+09
5.0
1.0E+08
1.0E+07 0.0
1.0E+06
-5.0
1.0E+05
-10.0
1.0E+04
-15.0
1.0E+03
1.0E+02 -20.0
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
LCIA results (20% more, by diesel engines) LCIA results (10% more, by diesel engines)
LCIA results (20% more, by generators) LCIA results (10% more, by generators)
LCIA results (base) LCIA results (10% less, by generators)
LCIA results (20% less, by generators) LCIA results (10% less, by diesel engines)
LCIA results (20% less, by diesel engines) 20% less fuel burned by diesel engines
10% less fuel burned by diesel engines 10% more fuel burned by diesel engines
20% more fuel burned by diesel engines 20% less fuel burned by generators
10% less fuel burned by generators 10% more fuel burned by generators
20% more fuel burned by generators
Figure 5.13: Changes in LCIA results due to variation in fuel consumption quantity.
In base case scenario, diesel engines burned 91.6% and 82.1% of the total amount
of HFO and MDO respectively whilst auxiliary generators consumed 8.4% of HFO
and 14.7% of MDO. HFO and MDO burned by diesel engines were therefore
approximately 11 and 6 times, respectively, of the quantities consumed by auxiliary
generators. The LCIA results were affected by changes in MDO consumption to a
greater extent if compared to HFO consumption. This was because total MDO
consumption had exceeded total HFO consumption by 2.2x10 8 kg. As expected, the
less fuel consumed, the more environmentally friendly the power system would be.
Impact relevant to ecotoxicity potential, mineral consumption and land use, including
CML2001: Marine Aquatic, Freshwater Aquatic and Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential,
ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater, Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Ecotoxicity, Resources─Minerals and Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use
(labelled as I, IV, X, XI, XXII, XXIII and XXV) was not sensitive to changes in fuel
consumption.
184
End of life management plans for diesel engines
In reality, it was uncertain to what extent metallic scrap would be recycled or
disposed to incineration plants or landfill. They were theoretically modelled in base
scenario for better understanding and further explored in additional scenarios as a
part of sensitivity analysis. Changes in LCIA results due to various end of life
management plans of diesel engines are illustrated in Figure 5.14.
Total LCIA results

Change in LCIA
in
results, %
base scenario
100.0
1.0E+10
80.0
60.0
1.0E+08
40.0
1.0E+06 20.0
0.0
1.0E+04
-20.0
1.0E+02 -40.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
V
XIV
XVI
XIX
XXI
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XV
XVIII
XX
XXIII
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Total LCIA results for base case

Recycling: incineration: landfill - 5:3:2 for diesel engines
Recycling: incineration: landfill - 5:2:3 for diesel engines
100% recycling for diesel engines
100% incineration for diesel engines
100% landfill for diesel engines
Figure 5.14: Difference in LCIA results compared to the base case scenario due to
various end of life scenarios of diesel engines.
For various end of life scenarios of diesel engines, the total LCIA results of four
impact categories, including CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity
Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII respectively) would be affected
significantly whilst CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential and Eco-Indicator99:
Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as X and XXV respectively) were affected
very slightly. When 50% of the metallic scrap from diesel engines was recycled, 30%
was disposed to incineration plants and 20% was sent to landfill, an approximate
increase of 11% was observed in CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic
Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99:
185
Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity. When the rates of incineration and landfill were
reversed, no dramatic change was observed in these impact categories (as well as
others). When metallic scrap of diesel engines was 100% recycled, the LCIA results
of these four impact categories declined by 21.8–22.6%. Changes caused by the
100% landfill scenario were similar to those of the 100% recycling scenario. On the
contrary, these impact categories showed an opposite trend when the metallic scrap
was 100% disposed to incineration plants. The changes in LCIA results included an
increase of 89.3% in CML2001: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, 91.5% in
CML2001: Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential and ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic
Freshwater respectively, and 87.1% in Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Ecotoxicity. The analysis indicated that both recycling and landfill were more
environmentally friendly than incineration. The latter would be a bad end of life
option for diesel engines.
End of life management plans for all components

When the end of life management plans for all components were taken into account,
LCIA results showed similar trends in CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic
Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII respectively). The
trends were in agreement to those reported in the additional scenarios of the end of
life management plans for diesel engines but to a greater extent, as illustrated in
Figure 5.15.
186
Total LCIA results
Change in LCIA
in
results, %
base scenario
350.0
1.0E+10 300.0
250.0
200.0
1.0E+08
150.0
100.0
1.0E+06
50.0
0.0
1.0E+04 -50.0
-100.0
1.0E+02 -150.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
I
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
XXV
III
XV
XX
XXIV
XXVI
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
Impact categories

Recycling: incineration: landfill - 5:3:2 for all components
100% recycling for all components
100% incineration for all components
100% landfill for all components
Figure 5.15: Difference in LCIA results compared to the base case scenario due to
various end of life scenarios of all components.
The scenario of 50% recycling, 30% incineration and 20% landfill would increase
these impact categories by 16.7–25.1% whilst reducing CML2001: Terrestric
Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as X) by approximately 3%. A decline ranging 14.7–
15.8% was shown in these impact categories when 50% of metallic scrap was
recycled, 20% was disposed to incineration plants and 30% was sent to landfill.
Although 100% recycling could cut down these impact categories by up to 97.5%, it
would also increase ILCD: Marine Eutrophication by 31.6%. Meanwhile, 100%
landfill could reduce these four impact categories to the same extent as the scenario
of 100% recycling without any significant increase in ILCD: Marine Eutrophication;
however an increase in CML2001:Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential by 21.6% came
along with this 100% landfill scenario. The fallout of incineration was very large
which would increase these impact categories up to 313.5% if scrap was fully
disposed to incineration plants. The LCIA results showed that the magnitude of
environmental burdens was sensitive to end of life scenarios for some impact
categories, which could be reduced at the expense of magnifying other impact
categories. As reduction in all impact categories would not be possible in reality, it
187
was reasonable to find no improvement and even more an increase in a few impact
categories along with a decline in other impact categories.
Altogether, the scenario analysis showed that the environmental impact of a

conventional power system was less sensitive to material proportion (of diesel
engines for the difference in tin, chromium, cast iron, steel or aluminium ranging 2–4
orders of magnitude), slightly sensitive to mass (of diesel engines); modestly
influenced, in ascending order, by fuel type, fuel quantity and component choice; and
greatly affected by end of life management. Changes made to a choice might result
in no improvement, a decline or an increase in different impact categories. In other
words, a decline in some impact categories by any choice/strategy would come along
with no improvement and even more an increase in other impact categories. As
such, life cycle of a marine power system should be managed appropriately to avoid
aggravating its environmental burdens.
5.3 Case Study 2: Marine Retrofit Power System

To ensure consistency with Case Study 1, the following sub-objectives were set for
this case study:
 define goal and scope of the case study on the retrofit power system;
 estimate resources, emissions and the environmental impact attributable
to the marine retrofit power system;
 identify resource consumption and the causes of the impact; and
 understand the environmental implications of implementing the retrofit
system design and operating the power system over its full life cycle via
scenario analysis.
Retrofit design and integration of additional components into an existing system were
necessary in retrofitting a power system. How emerging technologies were selected
and sources of data are explained in Chapters 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, followed by goal and
scope definition in Chapter 5.3.3, LCI results in Chapter 5.3.4, LCIA results in
Chapter 5.3.5 and life cycle interpretation in Chapter 5.3.6.
5.3.1 Selection of emerging power technologies

The retrofit design was proposed for RoRo cargo ships which employed a
conventional power system with the same configuration as the one onboard the
reference ship, as investigated in Case Study 1. In principle, the retrofit design
188
should be (i) innovative; (ii) within the interest of the industry involved; (iii) making use
of existing components on-board the reference ship; (iv) able to store and use
surplus energy when required; and (v) able to improve operational performance
during manoeuvring and transiting. Recent recommendations on emerging
technologies that were also considered included a hybrid design incorporating
renewable sources e.g. solar as power augmentation for ships [225], energy storage,
slow steaming [430] and cold ironing which was perceived to reduce total emission
by up to 20% [9]. In line with the established criteria, the retrofit design was the
technical outcome of collaboration and discussion among consortium members and
the ship owner involved in the project over 4 years. The retrofit system was
anticipated to consume less fuel and release less harmful emissions.
5.3.2 Data sources

LCA was applied for Case Study 2, covering the existing system for 10 years and the
retrofit design for 20 years in service. The 20-year lifespan was set for the retrofit
system in line with the total lifespan assumed for a marine vessel in Case Study 1,
i.e. 30 years. Data were processed and estimates were made in the same way as in
Case Study 1, including
 gathering and standardising background data for energy, raw materials
and manufacturing processes of components from various sources e.g.
manufacturers, Ecoinvent database and literature;
 using the outcome of Simplex and PSO models under optimum power
system operation which detailed usage profiles, fuel consumption and
power generation of individual components (whichever relevant) on a daily
basis;
 estimating emissions based on factors proposed by [420];
 applying data gathered from literature for recovering metallic scrap and
used lubricating oil; and
 adopting Ecoinvent datasets for recycling non-metallic scrap and disposing
both metallic and non-metallic scrap to incineration plants and landfill.

The reason for conducting this case study was to explore the environmental
implications of redesigning the marine power system on-board a RoRo cargo ship.
Marine stakeholders including ship owners, industry practitioners, researchers,
189
academics and the public were the targeted audience. The results were made
accessible to the public through research dissemination, which could be used as a
reference in future work for comparison or validation. The product system under
study was the power system on-board the reference ship chosen in Case Study 1
which was retrofitted after 10 years in service. Thus, the product system of Case
Study 2 covered both existing and retrofit configurations, for 10 and 20 years in
operation respectively. The designed retrofit system, as illustrated in Figure 5.16,
integrated cold ironing, PV and lithium-ion battery systems, implemented slow
steaming with PTO/PTI (using shaft generators which were not in service on-board
the reference ship), and took advantage of variable frequency drives (VFDs), and
thrusters governed by frequency converters to eliminate stand-by mode and ensure
high starting current.
Figure 5.16: The theoretical retrofit system design.
The function of the product system was to supply main and auxiliary power.
Therefore, the functional unit was the operation of the power system over 30 years
i.e. existing and retrofit systems for 10 and 20 years respectively on-board a RoRo
cargo ship on regular routes. Details of individual components that incorporated into
the existing and retrofit systems (including make, type, characteristics, speed, power,
mass and lifespan) are summarised in Table 5.6. Both systems and all the
components formed the system boundary of the case study. Onshore infrastructure
190
and transformers were required for cold-ironing implementation; however only
transformers on-board the ship were included within the system boundary.
Table 5.6: Details of individual components integrated into the power system under
study over 30 years in operation.
Component, Detail
number a
Diesel engines b, 4 Sulzer 8ZA40S, 4-stroke, in-line, medium speed, 510 rpm,
units non-reversible, 5760 kW, 78000 kg, 30 years each
Auxiliary generators MAN B&W 7L28/32H, 4-stroke, in-line, 750 rpm, 1563 kW,
b, 2 units 39400 kg, 30 years each
Shaft generators b, AvK DSG 88M1-4, 2125 kVA, 2125 kg, 30 years each
2 units
Gearboxes b, 2 Renk AD NDSHL3000, output speed of 130 rpm at a
units reduction ratio of 3.923:1, 510 rpm, 5760 kW, 1415 kg, 30
years each
Propellers and Lips 4CPS160, 4-blade, controllable pitch for ice application
shafts b, 2 units with outward turning, diameter of 5 m with 105.4 m shaft,
24000 kg and 35400 kg respectively, 30 years each
Bow thrusters and Lips CT175H, transverse, controllable pitch, standard design
built-in motors b, 2 with propeller diameter of 1.75 m, 1465-1755 rpm (input),
units 316-379 rpm (output), 50-60 Hz, 1000 kWh, 5900 kg, 30
years each
Thermal oil boilers Wiesloch 25V0-13, thermal oil as working fluid, burn MDO
b, 2 (plus 2) units with an inlet/outlet temperature of 160/200 oC, 1453 kW, 3170
kg (estimated), 20 years each
Economisers , 2 b Heatmaster THE 3-60, exhaust gas inlet and outlet
(plus 2) units temperatures are 206-223 oC and 340-350 oC when engines
run at 75-100% maximum continuous rating, 2200 kg
(estimated), 15 years each
Frequency ABB ACS800-07, standard cabinet-built drive, 500 V, 1000
converters, 2 (plus kW, 1410 kg, 10 years each
2) units
Active front end IngeteamTM LV4F-32-131WA-348+Z, water cooled cabinet,
(AFE) VFDs, 2 480 V, 1774 kVA, 3600 kg, 10 years each
(plus 2) units
PV, single-array, 1 1212 units of Kyocera KD245GX-LPB module, 1994 m2,
system 25452 kg, 30 years and a Schneider Electric GT 250-480
inverter, 300-480 V, 250 kW AC, 2018 kg, 10 years
Lithium-ion battery, Seanergy® LiFePO4 VL 41M Fe 265 Wh/liter, rechargeable,
2 systems 2 MWh, 21900 kg with cabinets (or 16800 kg without
cabinets), 20 years each
Cold ironing, 1 Onboard transformer only - an ABB RESIBLOC® cast-resin
(plus 1) unit dry transformer, 1000 kVA, 3150 kg, 20 years
a The additional number of components used for replacement was included
in brackets. Details for all components, with the exception of the PV
system, were presented as individual components.
b Components of the existing power system, which were the same as those
presented in Case Study 1.
191
The operational profile of the reference ship from 1 January to 31 March 2011 which
was provided by the ship operator and used in Case Study 1 was also adopted for
this case study. Accordingly, the power system operated in the same manner as the
conventional system in Case Study 1 in the first 10 years of its lifespan. To recap,
the operational profile included (i) running two diesel engines continuously at a
constant speed for propulsion purpose, supplying exhaust from the engines to
economisers, running an auxiliary generator and a boiler for auxiliary power demand
when the ship was transiting at sea; and (ii) shutting down all diesel engines, running
an auxiliary generator and a boiler for auxiliary power, and operating bow thrusters
(or in standby mode) when the ship was manoeuvring, mooring or waiting in port.
The retrofit power system was proposed to be installed after the existing ship power
system was operated for 10 years.
Similar to Case Study 1, energy management for the retrofit system was modelled
using Simplex method developed in GES and optimised using PSO method based on
voyage conditions. The optimised operational profile showed that when the ship with
retrofit power system travelled at sea, main power would be delivered by running 2–4
diesel engines and augmented with energy from a PV and lithium-ion battery
systems. Auxiliary load would be (i) partially supplied by shaft generators in PTO
mode when connected to diesel engines; or (ii) fully supplied by auxiliary generators
when shaft generators worked in PTI mode to drive propellers. Thus, at least one of
the auxiliary generators would be run when the retrofit ship was transiting at sea.
During slow steaming, only one propeller would be powered by PTO/PTI. Whilst
manoeuvring, mooring and waiting in port, both diesel engines and auxiliary
generators would not be running. Thrusters would be governed by frequency
converters to operate at variable speeds during manoeuvring and mooring. In port,
cold ironing electricity supply would be used to charge the battery systems and
supply auxiliary power together with one of the boilers for hotel services.
Although Case Study 2 was carried out independently, the scope of Case Study 2
was defined in a similar manner to those of Case Study 1 to ensure consistency and
allow for comparison. The common features included:
 assessing the environmental impact of the power system based on an
integrated system approach;
192
 avoiding allocation via system expansion in which components for any
replacement were included within the system boundary;
 covering the acquisition of energy and raw materials, manufacture, operation
and maintenance, dismantling and the end of life management as the life cycle
phases under study;
 assuming that (i) the environmental impact during engineering design and
installation was insignificant, as did auxiliary equipment such as fuel oil
systems, piping, cables and switchboards; (ii) neither materials nor devices
were lost or defective during manufacture and operation; (iii) chemicals
required for manufacture and end of life treatment were reused; and (iv) at the
end of life, parts and metallic scrap from engines and generators were reused
(30%), recycled (30%) or disposed to incineration plants and landfill sites (20%
each); for other components, 33.3% of the parts and metallic scrap were
recycled, disposed to incineration plants or landfilled respectively;
 applying average data gathered from existing database and literature for most
life cycle phases, and adopting specific data i.e. simulation results based on
the real-time operational profile for the operation phase, in relation to data
requirements;
 involving value choice in choosing the ship type and LCIA methodologies i.e.
CML2001, ILCD and Eco-Indicator99 for the assessment;
 covering 26 impact categories as defined in Case Study 1 (see Chapter 5.2.3)
in which the indicator results were compared based on their magnitude without
normalisation nor weighting;
 having the same limitations which did not consider engineering design and
approval, installation and testing at shipyard, material loss during manufacture,
locations of manufacturing plants and recycling sites, transportation (except
the ones included in existing Ecoinvent database for non-metallic scrap
management), auxiliaries (such as switchboards, cables, piping and fuel oil
systems), technology change in future, spatial and temporal differentiation,
and impact categories that had not been incorporated into the software; and
 applying scenario analysis to investigate sensitivity and uncertainty of the
results for life cycle interpretation.
193
5.3.4 LCI results: resource consumption and emissions
Among a wide variety of materials required for manufacturing components that were
incorporated into the power system under study, aluminium, copper, steel and cast
iron, in ascending order ranging between 2.88x104 kg and 2.85x105 kg, were most
commonly consumed, as illustrated in Figure 5.17.
Quantity, kg
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
2.88E+04
3.79E+02
6.86E+03
3.09E+01
9.64E+02
2.85E+05
1.41E+03
1.89E+05
7.34E+03
5.23E+04
2.59E+01
5.10E+02
2.39E+03
9.52E+02
2.06E+01
6.33E+03
1.32E+02
1.48E+03
1.69E+03
1.69E+02
1.96E+04
1.17E+01
4.17E+02
1.30E+02
1.00E+03
1.02E+02
8.61E+01
1.88E+02
5.79E+01
1.04E+02
7.91E+02
6.44E+00
1.44E+03
5.06E+02
5.86E+02
1.58E+02
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
Lithium hydroxide…
Aluminium
Zinc
Carbon
Carbon black
Ferrite
Tin
Acetone
Graphite
Nickel
Ethylene vinyl acetate
Polyvinylfluoride
Polyvinylchlori
Fleece
Cast iron
Brass
Glass
Plastic
Polyethylene
Lead
Silicon
Nylon
Sulfuric acid
Steel
Stainless steel
Manganese
Hexafluorethane
Rockwool
Iron(II) sulphate heptahydrate

Copper
Silver
Epoxy resin
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Phosphoric acid
Phthalic anhydride
Figure 5.17: Materials used in manufacturing components incorporated into the

power system under study, in kg.
The LCI results showed that diesel engines, propellers and shafts, and VFDs played
a significant role in consuming these four materials. Diesel engines were
accountable for 29.3% of aluminium, 35.2% of steel and 76.2% of cast iron
consumption; propellers and shafts used 73.4% of copper and 38.8% of steel; and
VFDs were responsible for 25.3% of aluminium consumption. In total, manufacture
of all components incorporated into the power system involved 2.68x103 MJ and
2.43x105 MJ of energy due to industrial furnaces burning heavy and light fuel oils
respectively, together with 3.30x105 MJ of energy from electricity and 6.19x105 MJ of
heat from gas boilers. Among all, diesel engines, propellers and shafts, diesel
generators, frequency converters and the PV system contributed significantly towards
total energy consumption. Diesel engines required 53.4%, 46.5% and 48.0% of
energy supplied from burning heavy and light fuel oils in furnaces and natural gas in
boilers respectively, followed by propellers and shafts i.e. 20.3%, 17.7% and 18.3%
respectively, in addition to 13.5%, 11.7% and 12.1% respectively used in
manufacturing diesel generators. Frequency converters and PV systems were the
194
two biggest consumers of electricity, i.e. 37.6% and 19.2% respectively. Besides,
glass and iron sulphate (II) heptahydrate appeared as the largest constituent of non-
metallic materials and chemicals being consumed, i.e. 1.96x104 kg and 1.44x103 kg,
which were almost entirely consumed for the manufacture of PV and battery systems
respectively.
Based on the optimised profile for the vessel, the operation of the marine power
system consumed 2.93x107 kg of HFO and 2.30x108 kg of MDO, which were burned
by diesel engines, auxiliary generators and boilers, and consequently, released
8.20x108 kg of CO2, 1.66x107 kg of NOx, 6.26x106 kg of SO2, 7.58x105 kg of CO,
6.51x105 kg of HC and 4.58x105 kg of PM, as illustrated in Figure 5.18. The analysis
showed that diesel engines were accountable for 91.6% of total HFO consumption,
87.7% of total MDO consumption and more than 87% of total emissions released. It
was mainly because of the running of 2 to 4 diesel engines for ship propulsion when
the ship was transiting at sea.
Fuels, kg Emissions, kg
1.00E+09 1.00E+09
1.00E+08 1.00E+08
1.00E+07 1.00E+07
1.00E+06 1.00E+06
1.00E+05 1.00E+05
1.00E+04 1.00E+04
1.00E+03 1.00E+03
DE 1 DE 2 DE 3 DE 4 AG 1 AG 2 B1 B2 B3 B4 Total
HFO 0.0E+00 1.3E+07 1.3E+07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.5E+06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E+07
MDO 2.9E+07 6.8E+07 7.2E+07 3.2E+07 1.0E+07 1.0E+07 2.1E+06 3.2E+06 1.1E+06 1.6E+06 2.3E+08
CO 8.7E+04 2.4E+05 2.5E+05 9.5E+04 2.8E+04 3.5E+04 5.9E+03 8.9E+03 3.0E+03 4.4E+03 7.6E+05
CO2 9.3E+07 2.6E+08 2.7E+08 1.0E+08 3.2E+07 4.0E+07 5.8E+06 8.7E+06 2.9E+06 4.4E+06 8.2E+08
HC 7.2E+04 2.1E+05 2.2E+05 8.0E+04 1.9E+04 2.3E+04 7.9E+03 1.2E+04 3.9E+03 5.9E+03 6.5E+05
NOx 1.9E+06 5.3E+06 5.5E+06 2.1E+06 6.5E+05 8.1E+05 8.9E+04 1.3E+05 4.4E+04 6.6E+04 1.7E+07
SO2 5.9E+05 2.1E+06 2.2E+06 6.5E+05 2.0E+05 3.3E+05 4.2E+04 6.4E+04 2.1E+04 3.2E+04 6.3E+06
PM 4.8E+04 1.5E+05 1.6E+05 5.3E+04 1.4E+04 2.3E+04 3.0E+03 4.4E+03 1.5E+03 2.2E+03 4.6E+05
operation of the power system over 30 years, as per components including diesel
engines (DE1–DE4), auxiliary generators (AG1 and AG2) and boilers (B1–B4).
Additional resources were consumed during ship maintenance. Based on

information provided by industrial partners, replacing lubricating oil on a regular basis
195
was necessary for optimal performance of the power system, which amounted to
5.06x104 kg. To treat and recover used lubricating oil, 120–170 kg of diesel, light fuel
oil and liquefied petroleum were required, in addition to energy supplied from
electricity and natural gas, i.e. 3.17x106 MJ and 2.82x105 MJ respectively. Similarly,
resources and energy were consumed in dismantling the power system and handling
metallic scrap at the end of life, as illustrated in Figure 5.19. The LCI results showed
that coal was the most widely consumed resource i.e. 2.68x105 kg whilst electricity
was the most popular source of energy i.e. 1.03x106 MJ during dismantling and the
end of life. Resources consumed during the end of life of non-metallic scrap were
included using Ecoinvent datasets, which were found negligible and therefore not
further investigated.
Quantity
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
2.68E+05
3.10E+04
1.03E+06
2.53E+03
6.17E+03
1.63E+03
5.32E+02
8.66E+04
1.84E+03
5.17E+02
1.84E+05
1.72E+02
2.01E+05
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
Coal, kg
Natural gas, MJ
Coal, MJ
Natural gas, MJ
Electricity, MJ
Coal anthracite, kg
Diesel, MJ
Coke, kg
Electricity, MJ
Light fuel oil, kg
Crude oil, kg
Heavy fuel oil, MJ

Figure 5.19: Resource and energy consumption during dismantling and the end of
life.
Throughout the full life cycle, emissions were released into various ecosystems such
as air, freshwater, sea water, agricultural soil and industrial soil, as indicated by the
outcome of LCA models developed using GaBi. The results showed that 6.90x102 kg
of heavy metals and 2.66x105 kg of inorganic emissions were emitted to freshwater
whilst 1.11x104 kg of heavy metals, 4.84x105 kg of particles, 6.69x105 kg of organic
emissions and 8.44x108 kg of inorganic emissions were released to air. By taking the
whole system and all life cycle phases into account, diesel engines were the main
source of emissions (as well as material consumption). Their contribution to
196
particles, organic and inorganic emissions to air was profound, as shown in Figure
5.20.
Resources/
Emissions, kg
Long-term emissions to freshwater
Particles to air
Heavy metals to air
Resources
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Diesel engines Auxiliary generators PTO/PTI systems Thermal oil boilers

Economisers Gearboxes Propellers and shafts Thrusters and motors
Frequency converters VFDs Transformer for cold ironing Battery systems
PV system
Figure 5.20: Emissions of the power system from acquisition of raw materials and
energy to end of life management as per individual technologies, which were
estimated via LCA models developed in GaBi for base case scenario.
For each emission category, the release of PM, HC and CO2 into the atmosphere
during the operation phase appeared as the major sources. CO, NOx and SO2 were
sources of inorganic emissions; however, they were less noticeable as their orders of
magnitude were 2–3 times less than that of CO2. In addition, diesel engines also
resulted in 42.2–43.5% of heavy metal emissions to air (i.e. iron) and long-term,
inorganic as well as heavy metal emissions to freshwater (i.e. aluminium, copper and
iron respectively), as the consequences of disposing metallic scrap to incineration
plants and landfill. Emissions attributable to propellers and shafts were mainly from
metallic scrap disposal, with similar wastes accounting for approximately 27% of the
quantity of these four emission categories, individually. In this context, emissions
attributable to auxiliary generators were more consistent across all categories,
ranging from 7.4% to 12.5%, with evident waste from both operation and metallic
scrap disposal. Emissions to sea water, agricultural and industrial soils ranged 1–3
orders of magnitude, as indicated by the outcome of the models in GaBi. Such
197
magnitude was perceived as relatively negligible when compared with emissions to
freshwater and air, which were greater than 5 orders of magnitude with the exception
of heavy metals. The trend of less emissions to agricultural and industrial soils and
more emissions to freshwater and air was justifiable, considering the length of time
involved during manufacture and operation i.e. a few months versus 30 years.
During operation, emissions from the power system were primarily released to the
air.
5.3.5 LCIA results

Covering raw materials and energy acquisition, manufacture, operation,
maintenance, dismantling and end of life management, the life cycle implications of
the power system for the environment and human beings were characterised into
individual impact categories. Using CML2001, ILCD and Eco-Indicator99, the LCIA
results for most impact categories were greater than 5 orders of magnitude, as
shown in Figure 5.21. The contribution of individual technologies towards each
impact category is illustrated in Figure 5.22 (in which individual impact categories are
labelled as I–XXVI).
3.36E+10
7.72E+09
1.00E+10
8.21E+08 8.21E+08
8.21E+08 8.21E+08
1.01E+08
1.62E+08
Total LCIA results
1.00E+08 7.07E+07
2.46E+07
2.03E+07
2.15E+07
1.57E+07
1.71E+07
1.61E+06 2.85E+06 4.59E+06
2.16E+06
1.00E+06
7.82E+05
8.58E+05 6.63E+05 2.85E+05
1.27E+05
1.00E+04 7.47E+03
1.99E+03
1.37E+03
1.00E+02
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Figure 5.21: Total environmental burdens attributable to the power system.
198
Contribution of individual technologies
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
XXVI
XXV
XXIV
XXIII
XXII
XXI
XX
XIX
Impact categories
XVIII
XVII
XVI
XV
XIV
XIII
XII
XI
X
IX
VIII
VII
VI
V
IV
III
II
I
Diesel engines Auxiliary generators Shaft generators

Thermal oil boilers Exhaust gas boilers Gearboxes
Propellers and shafts Thrusters and motors Freqconverters
Variable frequency drives Transformer for cold ironing Batteries
PV

categories.
Based on a midpoint approach, 3.36x1010 kg C4H8Cl2 equivalent of CML2001: Marine

Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, 1.62x108 kg C4H8Cl2 equivalent of CML2001:
Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, and 7.72x109 CTUe of ILCD: Ecotoxicity for
Aquatic Freshwater (labelled as I, IV and XI respectively) were reported. The LCIA
results estimated by Eco-Indicator99 for Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as
XX) based on an endpoint approach was of lower magnitude, i.e. 2.15x107
PDF*m2*a. Unlike CML2001 and ILCD which showed the highest indicator results on
ecotoxicity potential, Eco-Indicator99 identified Ecosystem
Quality─Acidification/Nitrification (labelled as XXI) as the impact category that
showed the highest indicator results i.e. 1.0x108 PDF*m2*a, The results estimated
using these three characterisation models differed by at least one order of
magnitude. The use of distinct environmental mechanisms and indicators in
199
developing these methodologies was perceived as a plausible explanation for the
difference. In relation to global warming potential assessed by both CML2001 and
ILCD (labelled as II–III and XII–XIII), the estimates were in agreement as the result of
applying the same method developed by IPCC.
The environmental burdens of the power system could be further analysed to identify
significant causes of individual impact categories. At least 83.70% of all impact
categories were attributable to significant components. By analysing the contribution
of individual technologies towards the overall environmental burdens of the power
system, as illustrated in Figure 5.22, the environmental burdens caused by diesel
engines, auxiliary generators, propellers and shafts, as well as other components,
were disproportionate to their mass, i.e. 48.4%, 18.4%, 12.2% and 21% of the total
mass of the power system. For all categories, diesel engines played a pronounced
role in instigating 42.9–92.4% of the environmental burdens. The contribution of
auxiliary generators was observable for most impact categories ranging 7.7–13.4%
with the exception of CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as X,
34.9%), CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil (labelled as VIII, 16.8%), ILCD:
Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral (labelled as XX, 21.8%), Eco-Indicator99:
Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as XXIV, 16.8%), Eco-Indicator99:
Resources─Minerals, (labelled as XXIII, 3.2%) and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Land-Use (labelled as XXV, 1.8%). This was followed by propellers and
shafts which brought approximately 28% of CML2001: Marine and Freshwater
Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-
Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXI respectively). The
following key contributors were identified for individual impact categories:
i. Consuming resources
 cast iron for CML2001: Human Toxicity Potential (labelled as V);
 chromium for stainless steel production for CML2001: Terrestric
Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as X);
 tin and copper for Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Minerals (labelled
as XXIII) and ILCD: Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral
(labelled as XX);
 crude oil for CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil (labelled as
VIII);
200
 resources for Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled
as XXIV); and
 water for ILCD: Total Freshwater Consumption (labelled as XVII).
ii. Storing resources
 Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as XXV).
iii. Operating diesel engines and auxiliary generators
 CML2001: Global Warming (including and excluding Biogenic
Carbon), Human Toxicity, Acidification, Eutrophication and
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (labelled as II–III, V–VII
and IX respectively);
 ILCD: IPCC Global Warming (including and excluding Biogenic
Carbon), Terrestrial Eutrophication, Acidification, Photochemical
Ozone Formation, PM/Respiratory Inorganics and Marine
Eutrophication (labelled as XII–XVI, XVIII–XIX respectively);
 Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Acidification/Nitrification and
Human Health─Respiratory (Inorganic) (labelled as XXI and XXVI
respectively).
iv. Disposing metallic scrap of diesel engines, auxiliary generators, propellers
and shafts to incineration plants
 CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential
(labelled as I and IV respectively);
 ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater (labelled as XI); and
 Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as XXI).
From a life cycle perspective, the analysis showed that despite a large quantity of
resources including energy and materials involved during the acquisition and
manufacturing phases, most environmental burdens of the power system occurred
during operation and the end of life. A correlation between key contributors and the
magnitude of the indicator results for impact categories was observed: when
CML2001, ILCD and Eco-Indicator99 were applied, resource consumption and
storage led to impact categories which were of lower magnitude, operating diesel
engines and auxiliary generators resulted in impact categories which were moderate,
and disposing metallic scrap was the main cause for the impact categories that
showed higher magnitude. As discussed in Case Study 1, the LCI and LCIA results
201
presented here were subject to change provided more data were available to either
avoid the need of making any particular assumption or address any specific limitation
in the current case. Similar to Case Study 1, the influence of assumptions and
limitations presented in the study on the overall LCI and LCIA results might be
negligible, moderate or pronounced; and without in-depth investigation, no
conclusion could be drawn. The influence of individual assumptions and limitations,
should be examined one by one in future study.

To fully understand the environmental implications of the power system under study,
a few additional scenarios were explored in line with issues that had been of special
interest to marine stakeholders from a life cycle perspective. The results of Case
Study 1 showed that the environmental impact of a conventional system was
moderately affected by fuel type, fuel quantity and component choice whilst greatly
affected by the end of life management. The environmental implications of retrofitting
the existing power system consuming different fuel types as well as quantities and
handling metallic scrap with different end of life management plans were explored in
the following scenarios as a part of life cycle interpretation in Case Study 2:
1 no implementation of retrofit design i.e. the system continued to operate in
a ‘business as usual’ scenario;
2 fuel type, in which diesel engines and auxiliary generators only burned
MDO where no HFO was consumed;
3 fuel consumption quantity if
(i) 10% less fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(ii) 20% less fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(iii) 10% more fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(iv) 20% more fuel was burned by diesel engines;
(v) 10% less fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
(vi) 20% less fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
(vii) 10% more fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
(viii) 20% more fuel was burned by auxiliary generators;
4 end of life management plans for all components, where metallic scrap
was
to landfill;
202
to landfill;
(iv) 100% disposed to incineration plants; and
(v) 100% disposed to landfill;
Component choice was not further analysed as CuNiAl propellers (which were
integrated in the base case) were proved to be more environmental friendly than
stainless steel propellers in Case Study 1. Others parameters were not further
addressed due to resource constraints. Results gained from these scenarios were
compared with the base case scenario i.e. LCI and LCIA results presented in
Chapters 5.3.4 and 5.3.5.
Business as usual
The LCIA results as illustrated in Figure 5.22 showed that new components that were
incorporated into the retrofit power system were accountable for less than 8.0% of
individual impact categories, with the exception of CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of
Fossil (15.0%, labelled as VIII) and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels
(15.9%, labelled as XXIV). Without further analysis, it was uncertain whether these
new components had no significant environmental impact at all or they had reduced
the environmental burdens of the power system substantially. The uncertainty was
addressed by examining the significance of the retrofit design (as implemented in the
base case) based on a ‘business as usual’ scenario using an integrated system
approach, which was consistent with the defined goal and scope of the study.
In the ‘business as usual’ scenario, the conventional system was operated for 30
years where no retrofit design was implemented. The ‘business as usual’ scenario
indeed was the base case scenario of Case Study 1. The LCI showed that prior to
the operation phase, 5.16x103 kg of copper, 1.38x104 kg of aluminium, 1.17x105 kg
of steel as well as most non-metallic materials and chemicals would not be
consumed if the retrofit design was not implemented. Consequently, energy supplied
by operating furnaces, boilers and electricity during manufacture could be reduced by
1.51x104 MJ, 4.68x104 MJ and 1.94x105 MJ respectively. Having stated this, an
additional 2.07x107 kg of MDO would be consumed during operation if the power
system continued its operation without implementing retrofit changes, which would
203
release more emissions, i.e. 4.31x104 kg of PM, 5.51x104 kg of CO, 6.61x104 kg of
HC, 4.11x105 kg of SO2, 9.63x105 kg of NOx and 5.48x107 kg of CO2. As 6.36x103
kg less lubricating oil was needed for maintaining components, energy required for
treating and recovering used lubricating oil could be scaled down by 9.07x104 MJ.
From a full life cycle perspective, the LCI showed that the ‘business as usual’
scenario would result in less heavy metals to air, inorganic and long-term emissions
to freshwater by 1.14x103 kg, 3.11x104 kg and 2.15x104 kg respectively at the
expense of releasing more inorganic, organic and particle emissions to air and heavy
metals to freshwater by 5.62x107 kg, 5.93x104 kg, 3.11x104 kg and 2.66x103 kg
respectively.
As illustrated in Figure 5.23, the LCIA results showed that some impact categories, in
particular those relevant to ecotoxicity and resource depletion, were less burdensome
in the ‘business as usual’ scenario. They included CML2001: Marine and Freshwater
Aquatic Ecotoxicity, and Abiotic Depletion of Fossil, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic
Freshwater, Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity and Resources─Fossil
Fuels (labelled as I, IV, VIII, XI, XXII and XXIV). The indicator results for these
impact categories, which were attributable to the base case of retrofitting existing
power system, were much higher than those of the ‘business as usual’ scenario
mainly because of additional metallic scrap being disposed to incineration plants at
the end of life. It was worth noting that other impact categories covering global
warming, human toxicity, acidification, eutrophication etc. could be reduced by 4–7
orders of magnitude if the retrofit changes to the system as proposed in the base
case were implemented. Although a reduction in most impact categories came at the
expense of an increase in other impact categories (i.e. those which were relevant to
ecotoxicity and resource depletion), the environmental benefits of the retrofit system
could not be denied.
204
Difference in LCIA
LCIA results
results, %
1.00E+11 20.0
2.65E+10
7.14E+09
1.00E+10 10.0
8.76E+08 8.76E+08
1.00E+09 0.0
8.76E+08
8.76E+08
1.00E+08 1.27E+08 1.07E+08 -10.0
7.48E+07
2.57E+07
1.67E+07 2.17E+07 1.81E+07 2.00E+07
1.00E+07 -20.0
4.72E+06
1.37E+06 2.80E+06
2.28E+06
1.00E+06 8.38E+05 -30.0
9.16E+05 6.92E+05
1.00E+05 1.25E+05 1.09E+05 -40.0
1.00E+04 7.17E+03 -50.0
2.12E+03
1.00E+03 -60.0
1.34E+03
1.00E+02 -70.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
III
XV
XX
XXIV
XXVI
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
Impact categories
LCIA results for 'business as usual' scenario Difference in LCIA results
Figure 5.23: Difference in LCIA results when the ‘business as usual scenario’ was
compared to the base case of retrofitting existing power system.
Fuel type
Prior to SOx control in North Sea, diesel engines and one of the auxiliary generators
burned HFO when the ship was transiting at sea. Provided only MDO was consumed
by the components throughout the whole lifespan and the retrofit system was
implemented in the eleventh year of service, 2.58x108 kg of MDO would be burned
by engines, generators and boilers. As a result, 8.09x108 kg of CO2, 1.64x107 kg of
NOx, 5.16x106 kg of SO2, 7.54x105 kg of CO, 6.43x105 kg of HC and 4.18x105 kg of
PM would be released from burning 2.58x108 kg of MDO over 30 years in service.
The consumption of 2.93x107 kg of HFO was avoided at the expense of an additional
quantity of MDO i.e. 2.78x107 kg. Nevertheless, a reduction in all emission types
was observed, i.e. 1.3% for CO2, 1.4% for NOx, 17.6% for SO2, 0.5% for CO, 1.3%
for HC and 8.7% for PM. As fewer emissions were released, the environmental
impact attributable to the power system was alleviated across all impact categories
by a minimum of 5.3%, with the exception of Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Minerals
and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as XXIII and XXV
respectively), as illustrated in Figure 5.24.
205
results, %
1.00E+12 0.0
-2.0
3.36E+10
7.72E+09
1.00E+10 8.21E+08 -4.0
8.21E+08 -6.0
1.62E+08 8.21E+08 1.01E+08
1.00E+08 8.21E+08 -8.0
7.07E+07
1.58E+07 2.05E+07 2.15E+07
2.46E+07 1.71E+07 -10.0
2.86E+06 4.74E+06
1.61E+06
1.00E+06 7.82E+05 -12.0
2.16E+06
8.64E+05 6.54E+05
1.29E+05 -14.0
1.27E+05
1.00E+04 7.47E+03 -16.0
2.00E+03 -18.0
1.34E+03
1.00E+02 -20.0
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Total LCIA results for all MDO scenario Change in LCIA results, %
all-MDO was substituted for fuel mix in Case Study 2.
Amongst all impact categories, CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as

X) showed the highest reduction rate i.e. 17.5%. This was followed by CML2001:
Acidification and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential, ILCD: Acidification,
Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral (labelled as VI, IX, XV and XX respectively),
which showed a reduction of 11% approximately. Compared to the all-MDO scenario
in Case Study 1 which demonstrated an up to 11.2% of reduction in a few impact
categories, the environmental benefits across nearly all impact categories offered by
the all-MDO scenario in this case study were more attractive. The difference
between both scenarios was indeed the systems under study, i.e. conventional
system over 30 years in Case Study 1 and conventional system for 10 years and
retrofit system for 20 years in this case study. Therefore, the additional reduction
(when both systems burned MDO only) was the immediate outcome of implementing
the retrofit system. The findings of this scenario supplemented those presented by
the ‘business as usual’ scenario, in which the environmental benefits of implementing
the retrofit system were verified.
206
Fuel consumption quantity
As previously reported, the operational profiles of diesel engines and auxiliary
generators were subject to change due to various factors, which affected the quantity
of fuel consumed by the components throughout their lifespans. In this scenario, the
total fuel consumption and emissions estimated for the additional scenarios are
illustrated in Figure 5.25. For each scenario under study, the estimated emissions
were lower than those of similar scenarios in Case Study 1, as a result of less fuel
consumed by the power system in this case study than that in Case Study 1.
1.00E+09
1.00E+08
1.00E+07
1.00E+06
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
20% less 10% less 10% more 20% more 20% less 10% less 10% more 20% more
fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned fuel burned
Base case
by diesel by diesel by diesel by diesel by by by by
engines engines engines engines generators generators generators generators
HFO 2.93E+07 2.15E+07 2.41E+07 2.95E+07 3.22E+07 1.97E+06 2.22E+06 2.71E+06 2.96E+06
MDO 2.30E+08 1.61E+08 1.81E+08 2.22E+08 2.42E+08 1.62E+07 1.83E+07 2.23E+07 2.43E+07
CO 7.58E+05 6.23E+05 6.91E+05 8.25E+05 8.93E+05 7.45E+05 7.52E+05 7.64E+05 7.70E+05
CO2 8.20E+08 6.75E+08 7.48E+08 8.93E+08 9.65E+08 8.06E+08 8.13E+08 8.27E+08 8.35E+08
HC 6.51E+05 5.35E+05 5.93E+05 7.09E+05 7.67E+05 6.43E+05 6.47E+05 6.56E+05 6.60E+05
NOx 1.66E+07 1.36E+07 1.51E+07 1.81E+07 1.95E+07 1.63E+07 1.64E+07 1.67E+07 1.69E+07
SO2 6.26E+06 5.15E+06 5.70E+06 6.82E+06 7.37E+06 6.15E+06 6.21E+06 6.31E+06 6.37E+06
PM 4.58E+05 3.76E+05 4.17E+05 4.99E+05 5.40E+05 4.50E+05 4.54E+05 4.61E+05 4.65E+05
HFO MDO CO CO2 HC NOx SO2 PM
Figure 5.25: Total fuel consumption and emissions of the power system in Case
Study 2 after taking into account changes in fuel consumption quantity by diesel
engines and auxiliary generators separately.
In the base case scenario of Case Study 2, diesel engines consumed 91.6% of HFO
and 87.7% of MDO whilst auxiliary generators burned 8.4% of HFO and 8.8% of
MDO respectively. As diesel engines were the main consumers of both HFO and
MDO, the analysis showed that every variation of ±10% in fuel consumed by diesel
engines would approximately result in a change of ±8.9% in the total amount of each
emission type. Less than 1% of change in emissions would be triggered by every
variation of ±10% in fuel burned by auxiliary generators. In terms of impact
207
categories, some were under the influence of fuel consumption quantity whilst the
others were slightly or not affected at all, as illustrated in Figure 5.26.

results, %
1.0E+12 20.0
1.0E+11
15.0
1.0E+10
10.0
1.0E+09
5.0
1.0E+08
1.0E+07 0.0
1.0E+06
-5.0
1.0E+05
-10.0
1.0E+04
-15.0
1.0E+03
1.0E+02 -20.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
III
XV
XX
XXIV
XXVI
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
Impact categories
LCIA results (20% more, by diesel engines) LCIA results (10% more, by diesel engines)
LCIA results (20% more, by generators) LCIA results (10% more, by generators)
LCIA results (base case of Case Study 2) LCIA results (10% less, by generators)
LCIA results (20% less, by generators) LCIA results (10% less, by diesel engines)
LCIA results (20% less, by diesel engines) 20% less fuel burned by diesel engines
10% less fuel burned by diesel engines 10% more fuel burned by diesel engines
20% more fuel burned by diesel engines 20% less fuel burned by generators
10% less fuel burned by generators 10% more fuel burned by generators
20% more fuel burned by generators
Figure 5.26: Changes in LCIA results due to variation in fuel quantity consumed by
diesel engines and generators in Case Study 2.
Impact categories which were affected by changes in fuel consumption quantity

included CML2001: Global Warming (including and excluding Biogenic Carbon),
Human Toxicity, Acidification, Eutrophication, Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (labelled as II–III, V–VIII and IX), ILCD:
IPCC Global Warming (including and excluding Biogenic Carbon), Terrestrial
Eutrophication, Acidification, Photochemical Ozone Formation, Total Freshwater
Consumption, PM/Respiratory Inorganics, Marine Eutrophication and Resource
Depletion, Fossil and Mineral (labelled as XII–XX), and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Acidification/Nitrification, Resources─Fossil Fuels and Human
Health─Respiratory (Inorganic) (labelled as XXI, XXIV and XXVI). This was in
agreement with the findings gained from similar scenarios of Case Study 1.
208
However, fuel consumption quantity in Case Study 2 had exerted a slightly stronger
influence over such impact categories if compared to Case Study 1, in which the
LCIA results for these impact categories would vary by 6.7–9.1% and 0.2–1.7% for
every ±10% of fuel consumed by diesel engines and auxiliary generators
respectively.

Disposing metallic scrap to incineration plants was identified as the major cause of
ecotoxicity potential (which was reported as one of the two impact categories with the
highest indicator results) for both base case and ‘business as usual’ scenarios based
on LCIA results shown by CML2001, ILCD and Eco-Indicator99. For the base case
scenario, a reusing-recycling-incineration-landfill ratio of 3:3:2:2 was adopted for the
metallic scrap of engines and generators whilst for other components, 33.3% of
metallic scrap was recycled, disposed to incineration plants or landfilled respectively.
Similar to Case Study 1, sensitivity analysis in this case study was extended to cover
end of life management plans of all components to shed light on the possibility to
alleviate ecotoxicity potential. The LCIA results are illustrated in Figure 5.27.

results, %
350.0
1.0E+10 300.0
250.0
200.0
1.0E+08
150.0
100.0
1.0E+06
50.0
0.0
1.0E+04 -50.0
-100.0
1.0E+02 -150.0
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Figure 5.27: Difference in LCIA results due to various end of life management plans
for all components.
209
CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for
Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as
I, IV, XI and XXII) were sensitive with scrap handling scenarios. The LCIA results for
these impact categories were lower when more scrap was recycled or landfilled i.e.
declining by 15.3–100.0% if the scrap was fully recycled or landfilled. Nevertheless,
the fallout of incineration was very large i.e. increasing up to 305% if scrap was fully
sent to incineration plants. In these scenarios, changes in LCIA results when
compared to the base case scenario as shown by CML2001, ILCD and Eco-
Indicator99 were in agreement. All other impact categories, with the exception of
CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Land-Use (labelled as X and XXV), showed either no response at all or up to
3.3% of difference in their LCIA results. The LCIA results of CML2001: Terrestric
Ecotoxicity Potential indicated a 13% reduction when metallic scrap was 100%
recycled. Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use was slightly more
responsive to the scenarios of 100% recycling and 100% incineration, where a
reduction of 7.6% and an increase of 14.9% of the indicator results were showns.
Such a variation should be taken into account in deciding the end of life management
plan for the power system as it could imply difference in individual impact categories
by 1–6 orders of magnitude. Overall, the findings of end of life management plans for
the power systems assessed in Case Studies 1 and 2 were in agreement.
Sensitivity analysis, which was performed using scenario analysis, indicated that
retrofitting existing power system with emerging marine power technologies could
effectively reduce the magnitude of some impact categories, which would inevitably
come along with an increase in resource depletion. After all, the new components
brought about some environmental impact but such burdens, altogether, were
modest and only accounted for less than 15.8% of the total. The impact category
that showed the top two highest indicator results, i.e. ecotoxicity potential, could be
diminished by recycling or landfilling more scrap instead of disposal to incineration
plants.
5.4 Case Study 3: New-Build All-Electric Power System

Following the studies on conventional and retrofit systems, Case Study 3 aimed to
assess the impact of a new-build all-electric power system designed for RoRo cargo
ships using the same methodology, i.e. LCA based on a bottom-up integrated system
210
approach. Similar to Case Studies 1 and 2, the following sub-objectives were set in
compliance with the four LCA phases recommended by ISO 14040:
 define goal and scope of the case study;
 estimate resources consumed and emissions released throughout the life
cycle;
 perform impact assessment;
 identify impact and the main contributors; and
 interpret results based on scenario analysis to explore the influence of
selected parameters.
The selection of technologies incorporated into the new-build all-electric power

system and data sources were reported in Chapters 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 respectively.
Whilst the goal and scope of the case study was defined in Chapter 5.4.3, LCI and
LCIA results were discussed in Chapters 5.4.4 and 5.4.5 respectively. Relevant
scenario analysis was presented for life cycle interpretation in Chapter 5.4.6.
5.4.1 Selection of technologies incorporated into the new-build system

An innovative all-electric power system was assessed in this case study. In addition
to diesel gensets and additional components such as propulsion motors and power
electronics that were necessary for an all-electric power system, emerging
technologies included in Case Study 2 i.e. PV and battery systems as well as cold
ironing, were also incorporated in this case study. The system was chosen based on
four interconnected criteria i.e. industry’s interest, innovation, technology readiness
and sustainability. The design was perceived to have the potential for commercial
applications, innovative but already ready for implementation with reduced
environmental burdens if compared to a conventional diesel-mechanical
configuration. Similar to Case Study 2, the system was jointly designed by the
consortium involved in the project through technical collaboration.
5.4.2 Data sources

In principle, background data of primary sources (i.e. on-site, first-hand input/output
data recorded by ship owners and operators at real manufacturing plants and end of
life management facilities) and high quality (in particular those reported in journal
articles) were preferable. However, such data were expensive and not readily
available. The requirements on data and their quality were therefore compromised
211
by adopting data from other sources to make the first move to offer insights in this
matter. Expert judgement from industry, although subjective, was valuable in this
case as the recommendations were made based on day-to-day working experience.
The operational profile used in this study was the outcome of an energy management
model created in GES based on Simplex method using real-time operational data of
a RoRo cargo ship which received frequent port calls within ECAs provided by the
ship owner. The approaches applied in Case Studies 1 and 2 in estimating
emissions, treating and recovering used lubricating oil, recycling and disposing
metallic and non-metallic scrap were also adopted in Case Study 3.

The reason of conducting this LCA study was to assess the environmental impact of
a new-build all-electric system proposed for RoRo cargo ships. Its application was to
support research development and provide information to marine stakeholders and
LCA community (i.e. the targeted audience) on selected emerging marine system
design i.e. the all-electric power system─the product system of this case study. The
findings, which were intended to be disseminated to the targeted audience would
provide a reference for a comparative study. The product system of Case Study 3 is
illustrated in Figure 5.28. The system consisted of diesel gensets (acting as prime
movers and auxiliary generators) augmented by PV and battery systems as well as
onboard cold-ironing facility for hotel services in addition to ship propulsion and
manoeuvring via motor driven propellers and thrusters, which were altogether
enabled by power electronics such as transformers, VFDs, AC-AC converters,
inverters and rectifiers. For each component, an appropriate model was proposed as
The function of the product system was to supply power to all consumers onboard a
RoRo cargo ship for 30 years. The operation of the new-build all-electric system
implemented onboard a RoRo cargo ship travelling on regular routes within ECAs
over a lifespan of 30 years was set as the functional unit. Acquiring raw materials
and energy, manufacturing, operating, maintaining, and handling end of life scrap of
all components incorporated into the system were defined as the system boundary.
Replacing some technology components was necessary because of their shorter
lifespans. To avoid allocation, system expansion was applied to include these
additional units as a part of the system boundary.
212
Figure 5.28: Single-line diagram of the power system under study.
213
Table 5.7: Components incorporated into the new-build power system.
Component Details (number, make, speed, power rate, mass and lifespan) *
Diesel  Two units of Wärtsilä W9L32E, 5 MW, 47000 kg, 30 years
gensets  One unit of Wärtsilä W8L32E, 4 MW, 43500 kg, 30 years
 One unit of Wärtsilä W6L32E, 3 MW, 33500 kg, 30 years
 One unit of Wärtsilä W6L26, 2 MW, 17000 kg, 30 years
 One unit of Wärtsilä W6L20, 1 MW, 9300 kg, 30 years
PV systems  Two PV arrays of fixed tilted planes, each consisted of 598
modules manufactured by Kyocera (Type KD245GX-LPB, 245
Wp per module at standard test conditions), 13 modules
arranged in series per string for 46 strings occupying 984 m 2
supplying 147 kW p, 21 kg per module, 30 years
 One inverter per array, made by Schneider Electric GT100-
208, 300–480 V, 100 kW AC, 1.7 m x 1.2 m x 1.9 m, 1361 kg,
10 years
Lithium-ion  Four phosphate graphite lithium-ion battery systems,
battery manufactured by SAFT Speciality Battery Group (referred to as
systems Seanergy® battery system Type LiFePO4 VL 41M Fe 265
Wh/liter), 8 battery racks contributing to 1 MWh per system,
each rack (composed of 14 modules and each module
consisted of 14 cells) was 6 m x 8 m x 12–23 m and 730 kg or
560 kg with or without cabinet, 20 years
 One unit of Sitras® REC rectifier per battery system, 750 V, 0.8
m x 2.2 m x 1.4 m, 850 kg, 10 years
Cold ironing  One unit of RESIBLOC® cast-resin transformer with a power of
1000 kVA produced by ABB, 3150 kg with a dimension of 2.08
m x 1.58 m x 2.20 m (inclusive casing), 20 years
 One unit of SINAMICS G150-42-2EA3 AC/AC converter, 2150
kW, 3.6 m x 2.0 m x 0.6 m, 3070 kg, 20 years
Propellers  Two Wärtsilä controllable pitch propellers 4D1190 with a hub
and motors diameter of 1.19 m, 59400 kg, 30 years
 Two units of brushless, synchronous propulsion motors made
by Hyundai Type HHI/HAN3245-16, 8900 kW, 15–125 rpm, 3
phases, 16 poles, 110000 kg, 30 years
Thrusters  Two units of Wärtsilä CT/FT 175M controllable pitch transverse
and motors thrusters, standard design, 60 Hz, 1170 rpm, 995 kW, 5600 kg,
30 years
 Two units of squirrel cage, induction thruster motors made by
Hyundai Type HHI/HRN7567-6, 1250 kW, 1200 rpm, 3 phases,
6 poles, 630 V, 60 Hz, 75000 kg, 30 years
VFDs  Two units of ABB MEGADIVE LCI drives A1212-211N465
connecting propulsion motors, air-cooled, 9100 kW, 10000
kVA, 7000 kg, 15 years
 Two units of Altivar ATV1200-A1190-4242 medium voltage
VFDs connecting thruster motors, 995 kW, 1190 kVA, 4.06 m x
1.40 m x 2.67 m, 5000 kg, 15 years
Transformers  Two units of 24-pulse transformers connecting propulsion
motors, each unit consisted of two 12-pulse, dry cast resin
transformers made by TRAFOTEK, 6890 kVA, 6600 V, 60 Hz,
3.25 m x 2.56 m x 1.68 m, 10900 kg, 20 years
214
 Two units of 12-pulse, dry transformers connecting thruster
motors, made by TRAFOTEK, 1750 kVA, 6600 V, 60 Hz, 2.63
m x 1.99 m x 1.38 m, 3600 kg, 20 years
 Distribution transformers─2 units of ABB RESIBLOC®
transformers, 400 kVA under no load loss condition, 1.66 m x
1.17 m x 1.71 m, 1580 kg (or 1420 kg without casing); 6 units
of ABB RESIBLOC® transformers, 250 kVA under no load loss
condition, 1.51 m x 1.12 m x 1.66 m and 1220 kg (or 810 kg
without casing), 15 years
* All details, with the exception of the number of components, were
presented for a single unit; models were proposed by the industrial
consortium.
The same method i.e. GES and real-time data from the same reference ship were
used in modelling the operational profile of the all-electric system. Having said that,
the operational profile of the system was different from the systems assessed in
Case Studies 1 and 2. At sea, three or more gensets and at least one propeller
would be run for power generation and ship propulsion. With sufficient radiation
during day time, energy was generated by PV systems. The generated power from
all sources was taken and distributed by a main switchboard via distribution bus bars
to meet power demand of all consumers for propulsion, hotel loads, heating,
ventilation, cooling etc. Surplus energy was stored up by battery systems which
supplemented power supply during peak loads. Thrusters were in operation during
manoeuvring and mooring whilst power demand was met mainly by running two
gensets. The ship was connected to onshore power which supplied electricity for
hotel services, cargo equipment, deck machinery and battery charging when waiting
in port for unloading/loading cargos before the following journey. Electric motors and
power electronics were in use in line with their connecting propellers, thrusters,
gensets, onshore power supply, PV or battery systems. MDO was the only fuel type
burned by gensets.
Similar to Case Studies 1 and 2, it was assumed that (i) the cargo ship would operate
within ECAs with fixed business routes; (ii) without retrofit, the power system would
operate to meet the power demand onboard the cargo ship ranging 1250–9033 kW
over 30 years experiencing no malfunction; (iii) materials used in manufacturing
power electronics such as inverters, rectifiers and converters and their processes
were similar, as were 24-pulse, 12-pulse and distribution transformers; (iv)
components of old diesel gensets could be reused if in good condition, and therefore
the scrap was 30% reused, 30% recycled, 20% disposed to incineration plants and
215
the rest was disposed to landfill (as modelled in the base case); and (v) metallic
scrap of other technology components would be equally recycled, disposed to
incineration plants or landfill.
For consistency, this case study also had limitations as in Case Studies 1 and 2. The
limitations included the exclusion of engineering design and approval, material loss
during manufacture, ancillaries such as the main switchboard, bus bars, circuit
breakers, fuses, wires, fuel oil systems, pipings and an emergency power supply
system from system boundary (although the product system could only function
appropriately and safely in practice with the use of these devices), installation,
transportation, spatially and temporally specific data, and changes in future
technology. The exclusion was necessary due to limited resources, the already
complicated scope (without taking account of ancillaries), and their relatively
negligible impact if compared to the system under study which consisted of
components that were currently included in the system boundary. Other features
which were in common with Case Studies 1 and 2 included (i) value choice (with
respects to the selection of ship type, technologies and characterisation models); (ii)
comparison of impact categories i.e. 26 in total as defined in Chapter 5.2.3 based on
magnitude of the indicator results; (iii) avoidance of normalisation and weighting to
allow for comparative study; (iv) identification of significant components and
processes, check for completeness and consistency; and (v) use of scenario analysis
for sensitivity analysis during life cycle interpretation.
5.4.4 LCI results: resources and emissions

As illustrated in Figure 5.29, a selection of materials ranging 1–5 orders of magnitude
would be required in manufacturing components that were incorporated into the new-
build power system. In descending order, steel, cast iron, copper and aluminium
were estimated as the top four most commonly consumed materials i.e. 4.52x10 5 kg,
1.48x105 kg, 1.11x105 kg and 9.03x104 kg respectively.
216
Quantity, kg
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
9.03E+04
4.34E+03
3.69E+02
2.06E+03
1.48E+05
1.22E+04
4.52E+05
7.65E+03
1.11E+05
2.58E+01
5.10E+02
2.39E+03
9.40E+02
2.03E+01
4.04E+03
1.32E+02
4.37E+04
1.66E+03
3.84E+02
2.02E+04
2.51E+01
5.01E+02
2.78E+02
8.31E+03
1.84E+02
5.12E+02
2.44E+02
3.48E+02
2.09E+02
1.37E+01
3.07E+03
1.08E+03
1.25E+03
3.36E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
Aluminium
Zinc
Tin
Carbon
Ferrite
Carbon black
Graphite
Ethylene vinyl acetate
Polyvinylfluoride
Polyvinylchlori
Acetone
Nickel
Fleece
Cast iron
Plastic
Lead
Glass
Steel
Silicon
Stainless steel
Epoxy resin
Nylon
Polystyrene
Sulfuric acid
Manganese
Hexafluorethane
Copper
Silver
Rockwool
Iron(II) sulphate heptahydrate

Polypropylene
Phosphoric acid
Phthalic anhydride
Lithium hydroxide monohydrate

Figure 5.29: Materials used in manufacturing components incorporated into new-
build system, in kg.
The main constituents of these materials would be used in manufacturing diesel

gensets, propellers and shafts, propulsion motors and the connecting drives as well
as transformers and thruster motors. Significant usage included (i) 16.2%, 27.3%
and 40.0% of steel for propellers and shafts, thruster motors and propulsion motors
respectively; (ii) 92.5% of cast iron for diesel gensets; (iii) 14.9%, 21.8% and 34.6%
of copper for thruster motors, propulsion motors and propellers and shafts
respectively; and (iv) 15.7% and 43.1% of aluminium for the drives and transformers
that connected to propulsion motors. During the processes, 4.15x10 3 MJ, 3.15x105
MJ, 8.86x105 MJ and 2.24x105 MJ of energy would be provided, respectively, by
furnaces which burned heavy and light fuel oils respectively, and boilers which
burned natural gas and electricity directly. Among all, manufacturing propellers and
shafts, thruster motors, diesel gensets and propulsion motors would use up
approximately 13%, 16%, 22% and 24% of the energy provided by furnaces and
boilers, respectively. Meanwhile, approximately 75% of electricity would be required
for manufacturing thruster motors, diesel gensets, propulsion motors and PV
systems, accounting for 12.3%, 16.1%, 18.0% and 27.9% respectively. In terms of
the two largest non-metallic material types being utilised, 70.0% of epoxy resin and
93.4% of glass would be consumed in manufacturing transformers connecting
propulsion drives and PV systems respectively.
217
Without fuel mix, the operation of diesel gensets over 30 years would burn 1.76x10 8
kg of MDO, which in turn released 4.87x105 kg of CO, 5.60x108 kg of CO2, 2.43x105
kg of PM, 3.25x105 kg of HC, 1.13x107 kg of NOX and 3.49x106 kg of SO2, as
Fuel consumption, Emissions, kg

kg
1.00E+10 1.00E+09
1.00E+08 1.00E+08
1.00E+06 1.00E+07
1.00E+04 1.00E+06
1.00E+02 1.00E+05
1.00E+00 1.00E+04
DG 1 DG 2 DG 3 DG 4 DG 5 DG 6 Total
MDO 3.3E+07 3.3E+07 2.8E+07 3.2E+07 3.2E+07 1.9E+07 1.8E+08
CO 9.0E+04 9.0E+04 7.7E+04 8.9E+04 8.9E+04 5.3E+04 4.9E+05
CO2 1.0E+08 1.0E+08 8.8E+07 1.0E+08 1.0E+08 6.1E+07 5.6E+08
HC 6.0E+04 6.0E+04 5.1E+04 5.9E+04 5.9E+04 3.5E+04 3.2E+05
NOx 2.1E+06 2.1E+06 1.8E+06 2.1E+06 2.1E+06 1.2E+06 1.1E+07
SO2 6.5E+05 6.5E+05 5.5E+05 6.3E+05 6.3E+05 3.8E+05 3.5E+06
PM 4.5E+04 4.5E+04 3.8E+04 4.4E+04 4.4E+04 2.6E+04 2.4E+05
operation of the new-build power system, as per diesel gensets (DG1–DG6) over 30
years.
With consultation from industrial consortium members involved in this study, it was
estimated that 9.46x104 kg of lubricating oil would be required in maintaining diesel
gensets, propellers, thrusters and motors regularly over the lifespan for optimum
performance. To treat and recover used lubricating oil, 1.91x10 2 kg of light fuel oil,
2.29x102 kg of liquefied petroleum, 2.54x102 kg of diesel, 4.38x105 MJ of heat
supplied by burning natural gas and 4.92x106 MJ of energy supplied by electricity
would be needed. As illustrated in Figure 5.31, 6.58x105 MJ of electricity and
5.51x105 MJ of heat supplied by burning natural gas were reported as the largest
energy sources to be consumed in dismantling the power system and handling the
scrap.
218
Quantity
1.0E+06
1.0E+04
1.34E+05
1.55E+04
6.58E+05
1.26E+03
8.29E+03
3.16E+03
2.64E+02
1.82E+05
1.84E+03
5.15E+02
4.75E+05
1.72E+02
5.51E+05
1.0E+02
1.0E+00
Coal, kg
Natural gas, MJ
Coal, MJ
Natural gas, MJ
Electricity, MJ
Coal anthracite, kg
Diesel, MJ
Coke, kg
Electricity, MJ
Light fuel oil, kg
Crude oil, kg
Heavy fuel oil, MJ

Figure 5.31: Resource consumption during dismantling and the end of life.
From a life cycle perspective, emissions would be mainly released to air and
freshwater: (i) 1.89x104 kg of heavy metals, 2.51x105 kg of particles, 3.30x105 kg of
organic emissions and 5.76x108 kg of inorganic emissions to air; and (ii) 2.52x102 kg
of organic emissions, 1.14x103 kg of heavy metals, 3.31x103 kg of particles, 3.25x105
kg of Ecoinvent long-term emissions and 5.26x105 kg of inorganic emissions to
freshwater. Contribution of individual technologies towards each emission type is
illustrated in Figure 5.32 based on LCI results estimated using GaBi models. For
emissions released to air, diesel gensets were the primary contributors, accounting
for approximately 99% of particles, organic and inorganic emissions respectively.
Heavy metals released to air due to propulsion and thruster motors were noticeable
(i.e. 29.1% and 19.8% respectively), together with diesel gensets as well as
propellers and shafts (each resulted in approximately 16%). In relation to organic
and particle emissions to freshwater, transformers connecting propulsion motors
were accountable for 70.6–72.6%. A more balanced distribution was observed for
inorganic, heavy metals and ecoinvent long-term emissions to freshwater, in which
the major contributors were propulsion motors (24.7–28.8%), thruster motors (16.9–
19.6%), propellers and shafts (13.8–15.9%) and diesel gensets (13.4–15.6%). Whilst
transformers connecting propulsion drives instigated 6.7–15.5% of such emissions,
other technologies were accounted for 1.0–4.6% each.
219
Emission Types
Particles to freshwater
Organic emissions to freshwater
Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater
Particles to air
Heavy metals to air
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Diesel gensets Propellers and shafts
Propulsion motors VFDs connecting propulsion motors
Transformers connecting propulsion drive Thrusters
Thruster motors VFDs connecting thruster motors
Transformers connecting thruster drive Distribution transformers (400kW)
Distribution transformers (250kW) Battery systems
PV systems (1196 modules) Transformer for cold ironing
Figure 5.32: Emissions of the all-electric power system from acquisition of raw
materials and energy to end of life management as per individual technologies, which
were estimated via LCA models developed in GaBi for base case scenario.
5.4.5 LCIA results

By applying CML2001, ILCD and Eco-Indicator99, the LCIA results for these impact
categories are illustrated in Figure 5.33.
5.92E+10 1.39E+10
1.00E+10
5.61E+08 5.61E+08
5.61E+08
5.61E+08
Total LCIA results
2.91E+08 6.81E+07
1.00E+08
4.81E+07 3.78E+07
1.65E+07 6.71E+06
1.16E+07
1.29E+07
9.84E+06
2.98E+06
1.00E+06 1.47E+06 1.38E+06
4.40E+05 5.68E+05
5.34E+05 4.45E+05
6.98E+04
1.00E+04
5.94E+03
7.41E+02 1.29E+03
1.00E+02
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
III
VI
XI
XV
XX
XXIV
XXVI
XVII
XXII
Impact categories
Figure 5.33: Total environmental burdens attributable to the new-build power

system, characterised for individual impact categories.
220
Similar to Case Studies 1 and 2, the impact categories that showed the highest
indicator results as assessed by these methodologies were not of the same kind i.e.
CML2001: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic
Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Acidification/Nitrification
(labelled as I, XI and XXI respectively). The estimated indicator results for these
impact categories were 5.92x1010 kg C4H8Cl2 equivalent, 1.39x1010 CTUe and
6.81x107 PDF*m2*a respectively. Again, such disparity was mainly because of the
adoption of diverse underlying environmental mechanisms and mathematical
relationships. The orders of magnitude for CML2001: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity
Potential and ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater were in agreement, indicating
3 orders of magnitude more burdensome than that assessed by Eco-Indicator99.
The majority of the impact categories were in the range of 5–8 orders of magnitude
whilst CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential was of 2 orders of magnitude. In
Case Studies 1 and 2, CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil (labelled as VIII) was
less burdensome than CML2001: Eutrophication Potential (labelled as VII), although
both were of the same order of magnitude. However, Case Study 3 showed a
contrary trend. The analysis showed that the magnitude of CML2001: Abiotic
Depletion of Fossil was higher due to the consumption of natural gas and crude oil in
producing epoxy resin liquid, which was required for manufacturing transformers.
The contribution of individual technologies towards all estimated impact categories is
illustrated in Figure 5.34. At least 73.99% of all impact categories (except CML2001:
Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels, labelled as
VIII and XXIV respectively) were attributable to diesel gensets, propellers and shafts,
propulsion and thruster motors.
221
Conctribution of individual technologies
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
XXVI
XXV
XXIV
XXIII
XXII
XXI
XX
Impact categories
XIX
XVIII
XVII
XVI
XV
XIV
XIII
XII
XI
X
IX
VIII
VII
VI
V
IV
III
II
I
Diesel gensets Propellers and shafts

Propulsion motors VFDs connecting propulsion motors
Transformers connecting propulsion drive Thrusters
Thruster motors VFDs connecting thruster motors
Transformers connecting thruster drive Distribution transformers (400kW)
Distribution transformers (250kW) Battery systems
PV systems (1196 modules) Cold ironing

categories attributable to the new-build all-electric system.
Correlations between impact categories and technologies were observed. In total, 14

impact categories were relevant to global warming, acidification, eutrophication,
photochemical ozone creation and PM/respiratory inorganic health issue (labelled as
II–III, VI–VII, IX, XII–XVI, XVIII–XIX, XXI and XXVI respectively). Diesel gensets
were nearly fully accountable for these impact categories i.e. more than 99.0%,
predominantly caused by their operation. The other 12 impact categories covered
ecotoxicity, human toxicity, resource depletion and consumption (labelled as I, IV–V,
VIII, X–XI, XVII, XX and XXII–XXV respectively). Disposing metallic scrap of diesel
gensets to incineration plants was significant, leading to CML2001: Marine and
Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity, and Human Toxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for
I, IV, V, XI and XXII respectively).
Due to tin and chromium consumption during manufacture and fossil consumption
during operation, diesel gensets also contributed remarkably towards CML2001:
222
Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral and
Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as X, XX and XXV, ranging
69.4–71.9%) and approximately 93% of Eco–Indicator99: Resources─Minerals
(labelled as XXIII). A noteworthy effect on these impact categories was resulted by
propellers and shafts, their connecting motors and transformers and/or thruster
motors.
Approximately 62% of the LCIA results for CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and
Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as VIII and XXIV respectively)
were caused by transformers connected to propulsion drives, mostly due to the
production of epoxy resin liquid used in manufacturing the transformers. In relation to
Aquatic Freshwater and Total Freshwater Consumption, and Eco-Indicator99:
Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI, XVII and XXII), contributions
from propellers and shafts, propulsion motors and thruster motors ranged 15.8–
17.3%, 21.8–28.8% and 14.9–19.6% respectively, in which disposing metallic scrap
of these components to incineration plants was the main cause. Other technologies
including VFDs, distribution transformers, battery systems, PV systems and cold
ironing contributed to the environmental burdens to such an extent that they were
relatively negligible when compared to diesel gensets, propellers and shafts,
propulsion and thruster motors, in spite of resources being consumed and the
components being operated over the same period of lifespan.

Throughout the life cycle of the all-electric system, operating diesel gensets and
disposing metallic scrap of diesel gensets, propellers and shafts, propulsion and
thruster motors to incineration plants were identified as the key processes with
serious consequences. Both were significant to such an extent that the former
largely resulted in 14 impact categories (i.e. II–III, VI–VII, IX, XII–XVI, XVIII–XIX, XXI
and XXVI respectively) whilst the latter was conspicuously accountable for impact
categories which were relevant to ecotoxicity i.e. the impact category that showed the
top two highest indicator results as assessed by CML2001, ILCD and Eco-
Indicator99. To further investigate these two factors, the following additional
scenarios were modelled and the LCIA results were compared to those of base case
scenario:
223
1 fuel consumption if fuel consumed by diesel gensets, compared to the
quantity in base case scenario, was
(i) 10% less;
(ii) 20% less;
(iii) 30% less;
(iv) 10% more;
(v) 20% more;
(vi) 30% more;
2 end of life management plans for significant components of Case Study 3
(i.e. diesel gensets, propellers and shafts, propulsion and thruster motors),
if metallic scrap was
to landfill;
to landfill;
(iv) 100% disposed to incineration; and
(v) 100% disposed to landfill; and
3 end of life management plans for all components, similar to 2 (i)–(v).
The influence of other parameters including mass, material proportion, alternative

component and fuel type were not explored due to different reasons: mass and
material proportion were perceived to have less influence on the overall LCIA results,
as demonstrated in Case Study 1; no alternative component was suggested for
individual technologies; and the system was designed to operate by burning MDO
fuel only without fuel mix.
Fuel consumption
Similar to the diesel engines and generators assessed in Case Studies 1 and 2, the
operation of the diesel gensets that were incorporated into the new-build system was
subject to change in practice and might not strictly follow the optimal profile.
Emissions released by the power system when fuel burned by diesel gensets varied
by 10%, 20% and 30% are illustrated in Figure 5.35.
Because diesel gensets were the only components that burned fuel, the magnitude of
emissions was estimated to be directly varied with the change in fuel consumption.
224
1.00E+09

1.00E+08
1.00E+07
1.00E+06
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
30% less 20% less 10% less 10% more 20% more 30% more
Base case
fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel fuel
MDO 1.76E+08 1.23E+08 1.41E+08 1.58E+08 1.94E+08 2.11E+08 2.29E+08
CO 4.87E+05 3.41E+05 3.89E+05 4.38E+05 5.35E+05 5.84E+05 6.33E+05
CO2 5.60E+08 3.92E+08 4.48E+08 5.04E+08 6.16E+08 6.72E+08 7.28E+08
HC 3.25E+05 2.27E+05 2.60E+05 2.92E+05 3.57E+05 3.89E+05 4.22E+05
NOx 1.13E+07 7.89E+06 9.02E+06 1.01E+07 1.24E+07 1.35E+07 1.47E+07
SO2 3.49E+06 2.44E+06 2.79E+06 3.14E+06 3.84E+06 4.19E+06 4.54E+06
PM 2.43E+05 1.70E+05 1.95E+05 2.19E+05 2.68E+05 2.92E+05 3.16E+05
MDO CO CO2 HC NOx SO2 PM
Figure 5.35: Emissions of the power system, in kg, when different quantities of fuel
were burned by diesel gensets.
Following variation in fuel consumption, changes in LCIA results when compared to

base case scenario are illustrated in Figure 5.36.

results, %
1.0E+12 40.0
1.0E+11 30.0
1.0E+10
20.0
1.0E+09
1.0E+08 10.0
1.0E+07 0.0
1.0E+06 -10.0
1.0E+05
-20.0
1.0E+04
1.0E+03 -30.0
1.0E+02 -40.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
III
XV
XX
XXIV
XXVI
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
Impact categories
LCIA results (30% more fuel) LCIA results (20% more fuel) LCIA results (10% more fuel)
LCIA results (base case) LCIA results (10% less fuel) LCIA results (20% less fuel)
LCIA results (30% less fuel) 30% less fuel 20% less fuel
10% less fuel 10% more fuel 20% more fuel
30% more fuel
Figure 5.36: Changes in LCIA results for all impact categories compared to the base
case scenario when fuel consumed by diesel gensets was reduced by 10%, 20% and
30% or increased by 10%, 20% and 30% respectively.
225
Correlations between fuel consumption and impact categories were observed. An
x% of increase (or decrease) in fuel consumption would lead to approximately x% of
such change in the environmental impact categories that were largely caused by
diesel gensets. They included CML2001: Global Warming (including and excluding
Biogenic Carbon), Acidification, Eutrophication and Photochemical Ozone Creation
Potential, ILCD: IPCC Global Warming (including and excluding Biogenic Carbon),
Terrestrial Eutrophication, Acidification, Photochemical Ozone Formation,
PM/Respiratory Inorganics and Marine Eutrophication and Eco-Indicator99:
Ecosystem Quality─Acidification/Nitrification (labelled as II–III, VI–VII, IX, XII–XVI,
XVIII–XIX and XXI). A linear relationship was formed. The more fuel was consumed,
the larger magnitude of these impact categories would be. It was worth noting that
battery systems, PV systems and cold ironing were incorporated to lighten power
loads; without them, more fuel would be consumed. By investigating the scenarios of
burning 10%, 20% and 30% more fuel, the benefits of these emerging technologies
were justified indirectly too.
Variation in LCIA results for impact categories related to fossil fuels was dependent
on the total contribution of diesel gensets towards such impact categories. The
variation ranged 0.95–3.04% for CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and Eco-
Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as VIII and XXIV; 10.14% and 9.54%
respectively caused by diesel gensets in base case scenario) and 7.2–21.6 % for
ILCD: Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral (labelled as XX; 71.9% attributable to
diesel gensents in base case scenario). Thus, the more diesel gensets contributed to
these impact categories, the more profound the change in LCIA results would be due
to variation in fuel consumption quantity.
A unique causal relationship was found between CML2001: Human Toxicity Potential
(labelled as V) and fuel consumption. Although the impact was still a function of fuel
consumption, the ratio of difference in the LCIA result to change in fuel consumption
was not one to one due to the influence of other technologies. For impact categories
relevant to ecotoxicity, mineral and freshwater consumption i.e. CML2001: Marine,
Freshwater Aquatic and Terrestric Ecotoxicity, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic
Freshwater, Total Freshwater Consumption, Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Ecotoxicity and Resources─Minerals (labelled as I, IV, X, XI, XVII and XXII–
XXIII), the influence of changes in fuel consumption was very minimal or had no
226
influence at all. This was in agreement with previous analysis which showed that
operating diesel gensets had insignificant influence on these impact categories.
The analysis indicated that the impact attributional to the power system varied with
fuel consumed by diesel gensets significantly, less noticeably or very minimally,
depending on the overall contribution of diesel gensets towards individual impact
categories.
End of life management plans for significant components

In relation to the end of life phase of components incorporated into the system, the
extent to which they were reused, recycled and disposed to incineration plants or
landfill in reality was uncertain. In base case scenario, a reuse-recycling-incineration-
landfill ratio of 3:3:2:2 was adopted for diesel gensets whilst for other components,
33.3% of metallic scrap was recycled, disposed to incineration plants or landfill
respectively. Considering that theoretical analysis could provide insights into this
complex matter, additional scenarios were modelled with a focus on significant
components i.e. diesel gensets, propellers and shafts, propulsion and thruster
motors. Changes in LCIA results for the additional scenarios are illustrated in Figure
5.37.

results, %
200.0
1.0E+10
150.0
1.0E+08 100.0
50.0
1.0E+06
0.0
1.0E+04
-50.0
1.0E+02 -100.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
III
XV
XX
XXIV
XXVI
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
Impact categories
Recycling: incineration: landfill - 5:3:2 for significant components
Recycling: incineration: landfill - 5:2:3 for significant components
100% recycling for significant components
100% incineration for significant components
100% landfill for significant components
Figure 5.37: Difference in LCIA results due to changes in the end of life management
plans of significant components i.e. diesel gensets, propellers and shafts, propulsion
and thruster motors.
227
It was found that the end of life management scenarios would affect ecotoxicity more
whilst exerting a less significant influence over other impact categories. Similar
trends were observed for CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity
Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII) but not exactly for CML2001:
Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as X). The former impact categories could
be reduced by up to 79% if the scrap was fully recycled or disposed to landfill, but
increased by 130–188% for the case of 100% disposal to incineration plants to the
contrary. An approximate 25% reduction was observed when 50%, 20% and 30% of
the scrap were recycled, disposed to incineration plants and landfilled respectively.
With the same recycling rate but reversed ratios for incineration and landfill, the
difference was imperceptible (as the rate for incineration was close to that in base
case). The trends shown by CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as
X) were dissimilar because in most scenarios, chromium and cast iron consumption
during manufacture had exerted a greater influence over the impact compared to
metallic scrap disposal at the end of life. The situation altered when the scrap was
100% disposed to landfill where a sharp increase in the potential was triggered.

When all components were taken into account, LCIA results for the additional
scenarios showed a similar trend to previous scenarios which considered significant
components only, but to a greater extent. Changes in LCIA results due to variation in
the end of life management plans of all components are illustrated in Figure 5.38.
228
results, %
250.0
1.0E+10 200.0
150.0
1.0E+08 100.0
50.0
1.0E+06
0.0
1.0E+04 -50.0
-100.0
1.0E+02 -150.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
V
XIV
XVI
XIX
XXI
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XVIII
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Figure 5.38: Difference in LCIA results due to changes in the end of life management
plans of all components.
Compared to base case scenario, CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic

Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII) were reduced by 95.4–
99.2% if the scrap was fully recycled or disposed to landfill. The indicator results for
these impact categories could be only reduced by approximately 30% and 3% when
the scrap was 20% and 30% disposed to incineration plants respectively. The
indicator results were further intensified with the quantity of scrap disposed to
incineration plants, in which a 100% disposal to incineration plants would worsen the
impact categories by 164.6–222.7%. An 8% of change in CML2001: Terrestric
Ecotoxicity Potential (labelled as X) was observed when all components were
considered, compared to the scenario which considered end of life management
plans of diesel gensets, propellers and shafts, propulsion and thruster motors only.
The findings proved that disposing scrap to incineration plants had the strongest
influence on CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD:
Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem
Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII) whilst recycling and disposing
scrap to landfill had a moderate effect. Reduction in some environmental burdens
following a course of action (e.g. CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic
229
Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity) would come along with an increase in other burdens
(e.g. CML2001: Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential); and therefore, the end of life phase
needed to be appropriately managed to avoid substantial burdens to the
environment.
5.5 Comparative LCA Study of Conventional, Retrofit and New-Build Power

Systems
Despite growing interest in advanced power systems for possible improved
sustainability, the environmental benefits of integrating innovative technologies into
retrofit and new-build power systems had not yet been compared in a single study.
Without comparison, it was uncertain which power system would be more
environmentally friendly, and therefore a knowledge gap existed. This comparative
study aimed to identify the environmentally friendly power system design by
comparing the advanced power systems to a reference system (i.e. the conventional
system) from an environmental perspective in a comparative LCA study. The sub-
objectives of the study included
 define goal and scope of the comparative study;
 compare LCI results and LCIA results; and
 interpret the results to gain insights into the matter.
5.5.1 Methods
The comparative study was carried out following Case Studies 1, 2 and 3 as
presented in previous sections. Research methodologies i.e. the bottom-up
integrated system approach, primary and secondary data sources, vessel type,
operation profiles, LCA software, characterisation methodologies, and impact
categories involved in estimating the environmental impact of individual power
systems in previous chapters were applied consistently. After defining goal and
scope of the study, LCI and LCIA results were compared and analysed. The
comparison among power systems under study was made based on relative
contribution of significant components towards individual impact categories, as
applied by [431], to verify environmental benefits of the power systems and identify
the system which was more environmentally friendly.
230
The reasons of carrying out this comparative LCA study were to verify the
environmental performance of selected marine power systems when compared to a
reference system (i.e. the conventional system presented in Case Study 1 as
illustrated in Figure 5.2 and detailed in Table 5.1) and identify the power system
which was more environmentally friendly. The targeted audience included, but not
limited to, maritime stakeholders, in particular ship owners, operators, policy makers,
and LCA practitioners. The application was to justify the employment of innovative
power systems as a sustainable approach to mitigate the environmental burdens of
marine transport and furthermore assist maritime stakeholders in their decision
making. Based on the findings, the study intended to present comparative assertions
to the public. The retrofit and new-build systems previously presented in Case
Studies 2 and 3 were the product systems of this comparative study (see Figures
5.17 and 5.29, Tables 5.6 and 5.7). All power systems under study served the same
function i.e. to supply energy required for propulsion and operation of the RoRo
cargo ship. A common functional unit was defined i.e. operation of the power system
for the same RoRo cargo ship travelling on regular routes over 30 years. A common
reference flow across all power systems was defined i.e. one power system required
by the ship for a 30-year service. Uniformity in cargo ship type, function, business
route, lifespan, system boundary, life cycle phases, allocation, assumptions and
limitations was ensured. The impact categories were analysed and grouped in line
with methodologies, and ranked based on their magnitude. The LCIA results for both
systems were compared to the reference system. Neither normalisation nor
weighting was performed. During life cycle interpretation, significant issues, such as
components and processes which resulted in noticeable environmental burdens,
were identified. Mass was adopted as the cut-off criterion for all power systems in
which the analysis focussed on components that contributed at least 5% of the total
mass (hereafter ‘significant components’). Therefore, the significant components in
this comparative study, as listed in the following, were not exactly the same as those
in Case Studies 1–3:
 the reference system: diesel engines, auxiliary generators, propellers and
shafts, which made up 92.66% of the total mass;
 the retrofit system: diesel engines, auxiliary generators, propellers and
shafts and batteries, which summed up to 85.88% of the total mass; and
231
 the new-build system: diesel gensets, propulsion motors, thruster motors,
propellers and shafts, which constituted 74.93% of the total mass.
The results were checked for completeness and consistency with the defined goal
and scope. Critical review was conducted internally by partners involved in the
project.
5.5.3 LCI results

As illustrated in Figure 5.39, materials and energy required during manufacture
increased from the reference system to the retrofit and new-build all-electric systems
as a result of more components being integrated into the latter systems.
Quantity
1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06

Aluminium, kg
Brass, kg
Carbon, kg
Carbon black, kg
Graphite, kg
Cast iron, kg
Ferrite, kg
Steel, kg
Stainless steel, kg
Copper, kg
Lead, kg
Manganese, kg
Nickel, kg
Silicon, kg
Silver, kg
Tin, kg
Zinc, kg
Epoxy resin, kg
Ethylene vinyl acetate, kg
Fleece, kg
Glass, kg
Hexafluorethane, kg
Nylon, kg
Phthalic anhydride, kg
Plastic, kg
Polyethylene, kg
Polyvinylfluoride, kg
Polypropylene, kg
Polystyrene, kg
Polyvinylchloride, kg
Rockwool, kg
Acetone, kg
Iron(II) sulphate heptahydrate, kg
Phosphoric acid, kg
Lithium hydroxide monohydrate, kg
Sulfuric acid, kg
Electricity, MJ
Heavy fuel oil, MJ
Light fuel oil, MJ
Natural gas, MJ
Conventional design Retrofit design New-build design
Figure 5.39: Comparison of power systems: materials consumed during

manufacture.
232
Metallic and non-metallic materials that were consumed by the retrofit and new-build
systems but not the reference system included carbon black, graphite, ferrite, silver,
epoxy resin, ethylene vinyl acetate, fleece, glass, hexafluorethane, nylon, phthalic
anhydride, polyvinylfluoride, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinylchloride, acetone,
iron (II) sulphate heptahydrate, phosphoric acid, lithium hydroxide monohydrate and
sulfuric acid. For other materials illustrated in Figure 5.39, an increase was shown (i)
by the retrofit system by up to 2 orders of magnitude; and (ii) in most materials
consumed by the new-build system with the exception of brass, carbon, cast iron, tin,
polyethylene and rockwool, when compared to the reference system. During
manufacture, the retrofit system consumed 138.3% more electricity and 6.3–8.1%
more heavy fuel oil, light fuel oil and natural gas compared to the reference system.
A different trend was shown by the new-build system i.e. 59.8% more electricity than
the reference system (which was less than the quantity consumed by the retrofit
system) and 45.0–64.9% more heavy fuel oil, light fuel oil and natural gas than the
reference system (which exceeded the quantities consumed by the retrofit system).
Overall, more materials and energy were involved in manufacturing components that
were incorporated into the retrofit and new-build systems when compared to the
reference system, as a result of more components being integrated into the former
systems.
Fuel consumption and emissions involved in the operation phase and their
comparisons to those of the reference system are illustrated in Figure 5.40. A scale
of 1 was shown by HFO as a result of no difference between retrofit and reference
systems (in line with the conditions defined for energy management modelling).
Meanwhile, MDO consumed by the retrofit system was 0.92 times that of the
reference system due to optimised operation as well as the integration of emerging
technologies to augment power supply.
233
1.00E+10 1.20
Compared to reference system

Emissions/fuel, kg
1.00E+09
1.00
1.00E+08
1.00E+07
0.80
1.00E+06
1.00E+05 0.60
1.00E+04
0.40
1.00E+03
1.00E+02
0.20
1.00E+01
1.00E+00 0.00
CO CO2 HC NOx SO2 PM MDO HFO
Conventional system Retrofit system

New-build system Retrofit system compared with conventional system
New-build system compared with conventional system
Figure 5.40: Total emissions and fuel consumption of both retrofit and new-build
systems compared to the reference system during the operation phase (in which a
scale of 1 indicated no difference between the system being compared and the
reference system).
The analysis showed that 8.28% less fuel was consumed by the retrofit system
compared to the reference system which led to emission reduction of 5.2–16.6%. As
such, CO2, NOx, SO2, CO, HC and PM released by the retrofit system were 0.83–
0.95 times those of the reference system, when the quantities were compared
directly. With regard to the new-build system, the least quantity of fuel and emissions
was involved i.e. 29.7% less MDO and 100% elimination of HFO compared to the
reference system, leading to 29.7–55.6% of emission reduction. As a result, CO2,
NOx, SO2, CO, HC and PM released by the new-build system were 0.45–0.70 times
those of the reference system. As a whole system, the new-build system consumed
less fuels and released less emissions compared to the retrofit system during
operation.
Having said that, a different trend was observed during dismantling and the end of
life, as illustrated in Figure 5.41. The analysis showed that the retrofit system
consumed more resources than the reference system. The increase varied from a
small magnitude as shown by HFO (i.e. less than 1%) to a significant level as shown
by coke (i.e. up to 196.8%). Whilst coke and natural gas burned at the end of life
phase of the retrofit system were 2.97 and 2.44 times the quantities required by the
reference system, other resources consumed during dismantling and the end of life
were 1–2 times those required by the reference system. In connection to new-build
234
system, a reduced consumption of coal, light fuel oil and natural gas during
dismantling (i.e. approximately 18%) came along with a slightly higher electricity
demand (i.e. 27.8%) when compared to the reference system. During the end of life
of the new-build system, a higher demand of most resources was observed i.e. 1.47–
6.69 times those consumed by the reference system. Natural gas consumption was
found as the mostly consumed resource i.e. 568.6% increase compared to the
reference system, which came along with a marginal change in coal and HFO
consumption i.e. 0.82 times those of the reference system.
Compared to reference system

1.00E+07 8.00
1.00E+06 7.00
6.00
1.00E+05
Quantity
5.00
1.00E+04
4.00
1.00E+03
3.00
1.00E+02
2.00
1.00E+01 1.00
1.00E+00 0.00
Coal, kg
Natural gas, MJ
Natural gas, MJ
Electricity, MJ
Coal anthracite, kg
Diesel, MJ
Coke, kg
Coal, MJ
Electricity, MJ
Light fuel oil, kg
Crude oil, kg
HFO, MJ
Conventional system Retrofit system

New-build system Retrofit system compared with conventional system
Figure 5.41: Materials and fuel consumption of both retrofit and new-build systems
when compared to the reference system during dismantling and the end of life (in
which a scale of 1 indicated no difference between the system being compared and
the reference system).
The quantity of resources consumed and emissions released by the power systems
was mainly influenced by (i) mass of the components incorporated into the power
systems during manufacture, dismantling and the end of life; and (ii) power demand
and operation profiles of components which were run to meet such demand
(hereafter ‘fuel consumers’) during operation. The total mass of all components
incorporated into the reference, retrofit and new-build systems was 549960 kg,
644420 kg and 915619 kg respectively. Correlations between resource
consumption, emissions, fuel consumers, significant components and life cycle
235
phases were observed: whilst significant components used up most of the resources
during manufacture, dismantling and the end of life, fuel consumers were the primary
cause of resource consumption and emissions during operation.
5.5.4 LCIA results

In relation to LCIA results, as illustrated in Figure 5.42, all impact categories were
found either of the same order or varied by 1 order of magnitude. However, the
difference as per impact categories when compared to the reference system, showed
a broad range from significant reduction of 50.7% to a very pronounced increase of
422.2%, as illustrated in Figure 5.43. Among all impact categories, the two most
pronounced increases were shown by the new-build system i.e. CML2001: Abiotic
Depletion of Fossil and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as VIII
and XXIV), which accounted for 391.3% and 422.2% respectively. The same impact
categories caused by the retrofit system were, to a lesser extent, only 17.7% and
161.9% more burdensome than those attributable to the reference system.
1.0E+12
1.0E+11
Total LCIA results
1.0E+10
1.0E+09
1.0E+08
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
I
XIV
XVI
XIX
XXI
XXV
III
VII
XII
XV
XVIII
XX
XXIII
XXIV
XXVI
VI
XI
XVII
XXII
Impact categories
LCIA results for conventional system

LCIA results for retrofit system integrating emerging technologies
LCIA results for new-build system integrating emerging technologies
Figure 5.42: LCIA results of reference, retrofit and new-build systems.
236
450.0 6.00
Compared to conventional system

400.0
Change in LCIA results, % 350.0
5.00
300.0
4.00
250.0
200.0 3.00
150.0
2.00
100.0
50.0
1.00
0.0
-50.0 0.00
IV
IX
II
VIII
XIII
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XIV
XVI
XVIII
XIX
XXI
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact categories
Changes in LCIA results of the retrofit system when compared to the conventional system
Changes in LCIA results of the new-build system when compared to the conventional system
Retrofit system compared with conventional system
Figure 5.43: Changes in LCIA results of the retrofit and new-build systems and the
scale of the impact categories when compared to the conventional system.
In relation to other impact categories, the retrofit system showed a decline ranging
2.7–6.6% in most impact categories at the expense of an increase of approximately
8% in CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD:
Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII respectively), 1–2% in CML2001:
Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential and ILCD: Resource Depletion, Fossil and Mineral
(labelled as X and XX respectively), and 18% in CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil
(labelled as VIII). As such, the environmental impact attributable to the retrofit
system was 0.93–1.18 times that caused by the reference system, with the exception
of Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as XXIV).
When the new-build system was compared to the reference system, most of the
impact categories showed a reduction, to a greater extent, ranging between 35.7%
and 50.7%, with the exception of 7 impact categories. A slight decline, i.e. 17.1%,
was observed in Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as XXV),
whilst CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil
Fuels (labelled as VIII and XXIV) showed the top two most pronounced increases
among all impact categories. The other four impact categories included CML2001:
Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic
237
Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI
and XXII respectively), which were 90.0–93.9% more burdensome than the indicator
results of the reference system for these impact categories. Therefore, the
environmental impact attributable to the new-build system was 0.49–1.94 times that
caused by the reference system, with the exception of CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of
Fossil and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as VIII and XXIV).
The analysis showed that CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and Eco-Indicator99:
Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as VIII and XXIV) were the two impact categories
significantly affected by the implementation of the retrofit and new-build systems,
although CML: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic
Freshwater and Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Acidification/Nitrification were
the impact categories that showed the highest indicator results. Despite more
materials and energy were consumed during manufacture and the end of life phase,
an overall improvement in environmental performance was achieved, as indicated by
the reduction in the majority of the impact categories, to the detriment of a few impact
categories. Between retrofit and new-build systems, the later showed the potential
for the greatest abatement in most impact categories at the expense of a greater
scale of burdens in one or two impact categories. As such, the new-build all-electric
power system was more environmentally friendly than the retrofit system. The
environmental benefits brought by emerging technologies incorporated into an
existing or a new-build power system as a whole were verified, but the life cycle of
the system must be appropriately managed with due care to avoid shifting the
burdens from one impact category to another whilst alleviating the environmental
burdens at the same time.

In identifying significant issues, the contribution of significant components towards
individual impact categories was analysed. It was found that LCIA results for most
impact categories were largely caused by significant components, as illustrated in
Figure 5.44.
238
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percentage, %
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
II
IV
IX
VIII
XIII
V
XIV
XVI
XIX
XXI
XXV
I
III
VII
XII
XVIII
XXIII
VI
XI
XV
XVII
XX
XXII
XXIV
XXVI
Impact catgories
Reference system Retrofit system New-build system
Figure 5.44: Contribution of significant components, in %, towards LCIA results of

individual impact categories for each power system.
In the reference system, significant components (i.e. diesel engines, auxiliary

generators, propellers and shafts which represented 92.66% of the total mass) were
the primary cause of all impact categories, which resulted in approximately 91% of
I, IV, XI and XXII) and more than 97% for the other impact categories.
The total mass of the retrofit system was 1.17 times that of the reference system.
When emerging technologies were incorporated into the retrofit system, contributions
from significant components (i.e. diesel engines, auxiliary generators, propellers and
shafts and batteries which made up 85.88% of the total mass) remained profound as
they were attributable to approximately 84% of CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil
and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as VIII and XXIV) and 86.33–
98.88% for the remaining impact categories. In comparison with the reference
system, contributions from these components dropped by
 approximately 15% in two particular impact categories i.e. CML2001:
Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and Eco-Indicator99: Resources─Fossil Fuels
(labelled as VIII and XXIV);
 approximately 4% in CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic
Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD: Ecotoxicity for Aquatic Freshwater, Eco-
239
Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Ecotoxicity and Ecosystem Quality─Land-
Use (labelled as I, IV, XI, XXII and XXV); and
 less than 2% for the rest of the impact categories.
The new-build system had a total mass of 1.66 times that of the reference system.
Although most of the impact categories attributable to the new-build system were of a
lesser extent, as reported in Chapter 5.5.4, the influence of significant components
(i.e. diesel gensets, propulsion and thruster motors, propellers and shafts which
made up 74.93% of the total mass) were more prominent for most impact categories,
which indicated an approximately 2% of increase in their contribution when compared
to the reference system. The exception was observed in
 CML2001: Marine and Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ILCD:
Quality─Ecotoxicity (labelled as I, IV, XI and XXII), in which transformers
connecting propulsion drives were accounted for 6.27–6.42% whilst other
components resulted in approximately 14% of these impact categories;
 Eco-Indicator99: Ecosystem Quality─Land-Use (labelled as XXV), in which
PV and batteries systems resulted in approximately 5% each;
 ILCD: Total Freshwater Consumption (labelled as XVII), in which
transformers connecting propulsion drives contributed approximately 10%
whilst VFDs connecting propulsion and thruster motors, batteries and
thruster motors resulted in 2–3% of each impact;
 CML2001: Abiotic Depletion of Fossil and Eco-Indicator99:
Resources─Fossil Fuels (labelled as VIII and XIV), in which transformers
connecting propulsion and thruster drives, and those for distribution
purpose at a power rate of 400kW and 250kW were the main sources i.e.
approximately 63%, 10%, 4% and 7% respectively.
As such, it showed that the influence of significant components

 in both reference and retrofit systems (with a variation of 17.2% in the total
mass) was in close proximity for most impact categories. Components
which constituted less than 5% of the total mass would have a negligible
effect towards most impact categories and a mild consequence on the
240
impact relevant to (i) ecotoxicity potential in both reference and retrofit
systems; and (ii) depletion of fossil for the retrofit system.
 in the new-build system was more dynamic when compared to the
reference system (with a variation of 66.5% in the total mass), in which
significant components had triggered a 2% increase in their contribution
towards most impact categories when compared to the reference system.
Individual components, such as transformers, PV and battery systems
which individually made up less than 5% of the total mass, had exerted a
noticeable pressure on impact categories relevant to depletion of fossil,
ecotoxicity potential, freshwater consumption and land use.
An additional remark was worth-noting. The environmental impact of a power system

was less sensitive to the mass of diesel engines alone (as previously reported in
Chapter 5.2.6); however, the influence of mass on the overall environmental impact
became remarkable when the mass of significant components was all taken into
account (as indicated here).
A closer look was taken at individual components as well as the environmental

impact to compare critical processes of these power systems. The analysis indicated
that the reference, retrofit and new-build systems were in agreement as similar
correlations were shown among critical processes, significance of individual
components, and nature of the impact categories assessed by CML2001, ILCD and
Eco-Indicator99:
 disposing metallic scrap of (i) diesel engines, auxiliary generators,
propellers and shafts for the reference and retrofit systems; and (ii) diesel
gensets, propulsion motors, thruster motors, propellers and shafts for the
new-build system, was the principal contributors of impact categories that
were relevant to ecotoxicity potential, which showed one of the top two
highest indicator results;
 operating (i) diesel engines and auxiliary generators for both reference
and retrofit systems; and (ii) diesel gensets for the new-build system
resulted in impact categories which were more moderate, i.e. impact
categories that were relevant to global warming, acidification,
eutrophication, photochemical ozone creation and PM/respiratory
inorganic health issues; and
241
 consuming resources during the manufacture of (i) diesel engines for both
reference and retrofit systems; and (ii) diesel gensets for the new-build
system, and other less prominent components, i.e. auxiliary generators,
propellers and shafts for the reference and retrofit systems, propellers and
shafts, their connecting motors and transformers and/or thruster motors for
the new-build system, led to impact categories which were of lower
magnitude i.e. those relevant to resource depletion.
Overall, despite a large quantity of resources i.e. energy and materials were
consumed during the acquisition and manufacturing phases, most environmental
burdens of the power system occurred during operation and the end of life phase of
the significant components. Other technologies such as boilers, economisers,
thrusters, VFDs, distribution transformers, battery systems, PV systems and cold
ironing contributed to the environmental burdens to such an extent that they were
relatively negligible when compared to these significant components. The use of
average data in LCA studies with a massive system boundary was appropriate as the
estimated indicator results for all impact categories assessed by CML2001, ILCD and
Eco-Indicator99 and their correlations with key parameters were consistent among all
case studies.
5.6 Summary
LCA case studies on conventional, retrofit and new-build power systems were
presented and supplemented by an LCA comparative study. All cases focused on
the same ship type, business route, lifespan and life cycle phases, in which the same
methodology approach, functional unit, data sources, assumptions, software,
characterisation models and impact categories were applied to ensure consistency
and allow for the comparative study. Resources i.e. materials and energy consumed
throughout the life cycle were estimated. For each case study, LCIA results were
analysed to determine the impact of marine power systems, followed by further
investigation on selected parameters via scenario analysis. The key results of the
case studies were summarised in Table 5.8. It was found that both retrofit and new-
build systems (i) consumed less fuel and produced fewer emissions during the
operation but required larger quantities of materials and energy during the other life
cycle phases; and (ii) showed a decline in most impact categories to the detriment of
a few impact categories. As such, the study verified the benefits of retrofit and new-
242
build systems from an environmental perspective. It was important to point out that
the risk threshold of individual impact categories towards human beings, resources
and ecosystems was still missing, and therefore, it was not clear to what extent the
magnitude of an impact category could be considered as harmless, moderate or fatal.
The findings could be revisited and refined in future work when more (newer and of
higher quality) data were available to minimise the need of making any particular
assumption or address any specific limitation in current cases. How well the
research goals have been met, how the LCA study has reflected back to the
regulations, how to use the results in decision making, contributions of the study and
recommendations for future work are presented in Chapter 6.
Table 5.8: Key LCI and LCIA results of the power systems assessed in the case
studies.
Conventional Retrofit system New-build system
system
Most consumed Cast iron, steel, Cast iron, steel, Steel, cast iron,
materials, in copper and copper and copper and
descending order, aluminium i.e. aluminium i.e. aluminium i.e.
consumed during 2.85x10 ,5 2.85x10 , 5 4.52x105,
manufacture 1.77x10 , 4.71x10 1.89x10 , 5.23x10 1.48x105, 1.11x105
5 4 5 4
and 1.49x104 kg and 2.88x104 kg and 9.03x104 kg

respectively
Total fuel 7
2.93x10 kg of 7
2.93x10 kg of 1.76x108 kg of
consumption HFO and 2.50x10 8 HFO and 2.30x10 8 MDO
during operation kg of MDO kg of MDO
Total emissions 8.75x108 kg of 8.20x108 kg of 5.60x108 kg of
during operation CO2, 1.75x107 kg CO2, 1.66x107 kg CO2, 1.13x107 kg
of NOx, 6.01x10 6 of NOX, 6.26x10 6 of NOX, 3.49x106
kg of SO2, kg of SO2, kg of SO2,
8.13x105 kg of CO, 7.58x105 kg of CO, 4.87x105 kg of CO,
7.17x105 kg of HC 6.51x105 kg of HC 3.25x105 kg of HC,
and 5.49x105 kg of and 4.58x105 kg of and 2.43x105 kg of
PM PM PM
4
Total lubricating oil 4.43x10 kg 5.06x10 kg4 9.46x104 kg
during
maintenance
The top two most Electricity and coal Electricity and coal Electricity and coal
commonly i.e. 5.15x105 MJ i.e. 1.03x106 MJ i.e. 6.58x105 MJ
consumed and 1.62x10 kg5 and 2.68x10 kg 5 and 1.34x105 kg
resources during respectively respectively respectively
dismantling
The top two most Electricity and Natural gas and Natural gas and
commonly natural gas i.e. electricity i.e. electricity i.e.
consumed 5
1.41x10 MJ and 5
2.01x10 MJ and 5.51x105 MJ and
resources during 4
8.25x10 MJ 1.84x10 MJ5 4.75x105 MJ
respectively respectively respectively
243
the end of life
phase
Impact assessed Marine Aquatic Marine Aquatic Marine Aquatic
by CML2001 that Ecotoxicity Ecotoxicity Ecotoxicity
showed the Potential, i.e. Potential, Potential,
highest magnitude 3.12x1010 kg 3.36x1010 kg 5.92x1010 kg
C4H8Cl2 C4H8Cl2 equivalent C4H8Cl2 equivalent
equivalent
Impact assessed Ecotoxicity for Ecotoxicity for Ecotoxicity for
by ILCD that Aquatic Aquatic Aquatic
showed the Freshwater, Freshwater, Freshwater,
highest magnitude 7.14x109 CTUe 7.72x109 CTUe 1.39x1010 CTUe
Impact assessed Ecosystem Ecosystem Ecosystem
by Eco-Indicator99 Quality─ Quality─ Quality─
that showed the Acidification/ Acidification/ Acidification/
highest magnitude Nitrification, Nitrification, Nitrification,
1.07x108 1.01x108 6.81x107
PDF*m2*a PDF*m2*a PDF*m2*a
Significant Diesel engines, Diesel engines, Diesel gensets,
components auxiliary auxiliary propellers and
(which contributed generators, generators, shafts, propulsion
more than 5% of propellers and propellers and motors and
the total mass of shafts; 92.66% of shafts; 85.88% of thruster; 74.93% of
the power system) the total mass the total mass the total mass
Correlations At least 90.62% of At least 83.70% of At least 73.99% of
between significant all impact all impact all impact
components and categories were categories were categories except
impact attributable to attributable to CML2001: Abiotic
significant significant Depletion of Fossil
components components and Eco-
Indicator99:
Resources─Fossil
Fuels were
attributable to
significant
components
Critical processes Operation of diesel Operation of diesel Operation of diesel
engines and engines and gensets, and the
auxiliary auxiliary end of life phase of
generators, and generators, and diesel gensets,
the end of life the end of life propellers and
phase of diesel phase of diesel shafts, propulsion
engines, auxiliary engines, auxiliary and thruster
generators, generators, motors
propellers and propellers and
shafts shafts
244
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work
“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation,
and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
Thomas Huxley
An Introduction to the Study of Zoology: the Crayfish, 1880
The focus of Chapter 6 is illustrated in Figure 6.1, covering reflections (in Chapter
6.1), contribution of the work (in Chapter 6.2) and recommendations for future work
(in Chapter 6.3).
6.1 Reflections
The thesis presented an exploratory study. It aimed to contribute to the conceptual
understanding of LCA study on marine power systems. This was achieved by
overviewing cargo ships, power systems and technologies, reviewing LCA
methodology development, developing LCA framework in the context of marine
power systems and performing LCA case studies as well as a comparative study. In
the case studies, the environmental impact of selected power systems was
estimated, significant component and critical processes were identified and the
sensitivity of the results were investigated. In the comparative study, the
environmental benefits of innovative power systems were verified via comparison
with the conventional system. As such, all the set research goals as listed in
Chapter 1.4 have been fully met.
The retrofit and new-build systems assessed in the study were designed in
accordance with Annex VI which enforced a lower SOx threshold (i.e. Regulation 14)
245
and required alternative solutions (i.e. Regulation 4) for the prevention of air pollution
from ships. Both systems burned MDO (i.e. low-sulphur fuel) and implemented
advanced technologies as alternative solutions to emission reduction. The study
showed that MDO and advanced technologies were effective for reducing not only
emissions but also the environmental impact attributable to marine power systems.
As such, the LCA study provided evidence for maritime stakeholders to adopt such
measures and adhere to the regulations.
In this matter, the findings of the study could assist decision-making among maritime
stakeholders in particular policy makers and ship owners. The stakeholders must
consider alternatives to meet their commercial and legislative goals. From an
organisational perspective, the results of this study could be used to identify
significant environmental aspects (e.g. critical processes and energy consumers) and
furthermore set priorities for management action. Also, bearing the results of this
study in mind, the ship owners could decide which power system design to adopt and
whether to retrofit existing power systems or order advanced systems onboard new-
build ships, for instance. As such, the results in this study could allow for improved
decision making.
6.2 Contribution of the Work

Prior to this study, knowledge gaps existed. It was unclear what environmental
impact would be caused by a marine power system, what parameters would affect
such impact and whether incorporating innovative technologies into marine power
systems would add any environmental benefits. The study presented in this thesis
has contributed to existing knowledge as it bridged the gaps systematically from
exploring background information, understanding literature and researching into the
subject to applying the developed concept. The study made the following significant
contributions:
 The overview on cargo ships, power systems and technologies in Chapter
2 painted an overall picture of the subject, which would be beneficial to
general readers who had no prior knowledge.
 The review of recent LCA methodology development in Chapter 3 made
the ever first attempt to integrate and compare the findings of LCA reviews
and research articles, which uncovered research trends and identified
246
areas for future development. As such the study enhanced research and
development quality and stimulated a better understanding;
 The research into the end of life management of ships, power
technologies and metallic scrap in Chapter 4 advanced existing
knowledge as it presented a holistic view that was applicable to the LCA
studies on marine power systems.
 The LCA framework which was developed in the context of marine power
systems in Chapter 4 offered a starting point in particular for those lacking
prerequisite knowledge regarding LCA of marine power systems. The
framework had practical implications for future research work because all
relevant elements and requirements were described phase by phase,
which were supplemented by background information and expected
results.
 The case studies in Chapter 5 addressed the research questions directly
as they (i) estimated resource consumption and environmental burdens
attributable to the chosen power systems via LCA applications; (ii)
identified significant components and critical processes; (iii) provided
insights into selected parameters using scenario analysis; and (iv)
presented a reference to enable comparison with other power system
designs (that were not assessed in this study) and further validation in
future work. Consistency shown by the estimated indicator results for all
impact categories and their correlations with key parameters in all case
studies verified the appropriateness of using average data in estimating
the environmental impact of a massive product system in an LCA study.
 the comparative study in Chapter 5 complemented the case studies as it
identified the system that was more environmentally friendly, and verified
the environmental benefits of retrofit and new-build systems compared to a
conventional system.
247
6.3 Recommendations for Future Work
To improve LCA applications in the marine context, further research should address
the limitations presented in this study and explore other factors that would affect the
environmental burdens of a marine power system onboard a cargo ship. A number
of research needs have been identified, as follows:
(i) develop characterisation methodology for space use, odour, non-ionizing
radiation and thermal pollution and incorporate impact of noise, thermal
pollution and working environment into commercial software in terms of
LCI and LCIA methodology development
(ii) extend the framework to include more alternative technical options and
methodological choices
(iii) carry out LCA case studies on other power system designs and cargo ship
types
(iv) broaden the scope by performing economic and risk assessments as the
benefits of implementing an advanced system would always come with
financial burdens and risks
In practice, the life cycle (in particular the operation and the end of life) of marine
power systems should be planned, managed and monitored appropriately not only
for energy efficiency but also for reduced implications on the natural environment.
248
References
1. Chapman, L., Transport and climate change: a review. Journal of Transport
Geography, 2007. 15(5): p. 354-367.
2. Review of maritime transport. 2014, United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD): New York and Geneva.
3. Faber, J., et al., Technical support for European action to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from international maritime transport. 2009: Delft.
4. Review of maritime transport, D. Barki and J. Rogers, Editors. 2015, United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD): New York and
Geneva. p. 1-122.
5. Eyring, V., et al., Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping.
Atmospheric Environment, 2010. 44(37): p. 4735-4771.
6. Stern, D.I., Global sulfur emissions from 1850 to 2000. Chemosphere, 2005.
58(2): p. 163-175.
7. Wang, C. and J. Corbett, The costs and benefits of reducing SO2 emissions
from ships in the US West Coastal waters. Transportation Research Part D
2007. 12(8): p. 577-588.
8. McCollum, D.L., G. Gould, and D.L. Greene, Greenhouse gas emissions from
aviation and marine transportation: mitigation potential and policies. 2010,
Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) UC Davis.
9. Miola, A., et al., Regulating air emissions from ships. The State of the Art on
Methodologies, Technologies and Policy Options. Joint Research Centre
Reference Report, Luxembourg, EUR24602EN, ISBN, 2010: p. 978-92.
10. Third IMO GHG study. 2014 [cited 2016 4 February]; Available from:
http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/
Pages/Greenhouse-Gas-Studies-2014.aspx.
11. Winiwarter, W., et al., Quality considerations of European PM emission
inventories. Atmospheric Environment, 2009. 43(25): p. 3819-3828.
12. Colvile, R., et al., Chapter 6 The transport sector as a source of air pollution.
Atmospheric Environment, 2001. 35: p. 1537-1565.
13. Tse, L.K.C., et al., Solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine trigeneration system for
marine applications. J Power Sources, 2011. 196(6): p. 3149-3162.
14. Amendments to the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Revised MARPOL Annex VI), in Annex 13
249
Resolution MEPC.176(58). 2008, International Maritime Organisation (IMO):
UK. p. 1-45.
15. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).
2011 [cited 2012 5 March]; Available from:
http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-
Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx.
16. Golomb, D., Transport systems for ocean disposal of CO2 and their
environmental effects. Energy Convers Manag, 1997. 38, Supplement: p.
S279-S286.
17. Kildow, J., Testing the waters: an analytical framework for testing the political
feasibility of scenario-based proposals for disposing of CO2 in the oceans.
Energy Convers Manag, 1997. 38, Supplement: p. S295-S300.
18. Derwent, R.G., et al., The contribution from shipping emissions to air quality
and acid deposition in Europe. Ambio, 2005. 34(1): p. 54-59.
19. Wang, C., J.J. Corbett, and J. Firestone, Modeling energy use and emissions
from North American shipping: application of the ship traffic, energy, and
environment model. Environ Sci Technol, 2007. 41(9): p. 3226-3232.
20. Matthias, V., et al., The contribution of ship emissions to air pollution in the
North Sea regions. Environmental Pollution, 2010. 158(6): p. 2241-2250.
21. Winnes, H. and E. Fridell, Emissions of NOx and particles from manoeuvring
ships. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2010. 15(4): p. 204-211.
22. Walsh, C. and A. Bows, Size matters: exploring the importance of vessel
characteristics to inform estimates of shipping emissions. Appl Energy, 2012.
98: p. 128-137.
23. Ma, H., et al., Well-to-wake energy and greenhouse gas analysis of SOx
abatement options for the marine industry. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2012.
17(4): p. 301-308.
24. Yang, Z.L., et al., Selection of techniques for reducing shipping NOx and SOx
emissions. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2012. 17(6): p. 478-486.
25. Ushakov, S., et al., Emission characteristics of GTL fuel as an alternative to
conventional marine gas oil. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2013. 18: p. 31-38.
26. Heitmann, N. and S. Peterson, The potential contribution of the shipping
sector to an efficient reduction of global carbon dioxide emissions. Environ Sci
Policy, 2014. 42: p. 56-66.
250
27. Lindstad, H., I. Sandaas, and S. Steen, Assessment of profit, cost, and
emissions for slender bulk vessel designs. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2014. 29:
p. 32-39.
28. Jiang, L., J. Kronbak, and L.P. Christensen, The costs and benefits of sulphur
reduction measures: sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transport Res
D - Tr E, 2014. 28: p. 19-27.
29. Westerlund, J., M. Hallquist, and Å.M. Hallquist, Characterisation of fleet
emissions from ships through multi-individual determination of size-resolved
particle emissions in a coastal area. Atmos Environ, 2015. 112: p. 159-166.
30. Moreno-Gutiérrez, J., et al., Methodologies for estimating shipping emissions
and energy consumption: a comparative analysis of current methods. Energy,
2015. 86: p. 603-616.
31. Uriondo, Z., et al., Effects of charged air temperature and pressure on NOx
emissions of marine medium speed engines. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2011.
16(4): p. 288-295.
32. Vanesa Durán Grados, C., et al., Correcting injection pressure maladjustments
to reduce NOX emissions by marine diesel engines. Transport Res D - Tr E,
2009. 14(1): p. 61-66.
33. Duran, V., Z. Uriondo, and J. Moreno-Gutiérrez, The impact of marine engine
operation and maintenance on emissions. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2012.
17(1): p. 54-60.
34. Di Natale, F. and C. Carotenuto, Particulate matter in marine diesel engines
exhausts: Emissions and control strategies. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2015. 40:
p. 166-191.
35. Attah, E.E. and R. Bucknall, An analysis of the energy efficiency of LNG ships
powering options using the EEDI. Ocean Eng, 2015. 110: p. 62-74.
36. Papanikolaou, A., Holistic ship design optimization. Comput Aided Design,
2010. 42(11): p. 1028-1044.
37. Nielsen, R.F., F. Haglind, and U. Larsen, Design and modeling of an
advanced marine machinery system including waste heat recovery and
removal of sulphur oxides. Energy Convers Manag, 2014. 85: p. 687-693.
38. Cao, T., et al., Performance investigation of engine waste heat powered
absorption cycle cooling system for shipboard applications. Appl Therm Eng,
2015. 90: p. 820-830.
251
39. Haglind, F., A review on the use of gas and steam turbine combined cycles as
prime movers for large ships. Part I: background and design. Energy Convers
Manag, 2008. 49(12): p. 3458-3467.
40. Haglind, F., A review on the use of gas and steam turbine combined cycles as
prime movers for large ships. Part II: previous work and implications. Energy
Convers Manag, 2008. 49(12): p. 3468-3475.
41. Romero Gómez, J., et al., Analysis and efficiency enhancement of a boil-off
gas reliquefaction system with cascade cycle on board LNG carriers. Energy
Convers Manag, 2015. 94: p. 261-274.
42. Welaya, Y., M.M. El Gohary, and N.R. Ammar, A comparison between fuel
cells and other alternatives for marine electric power generation. Int J Nav
Arch Ocean 2011. 3(2): p. 141-149.
43. Izaguirre-Alza, P., et al., EU-CargoXpress: wind propulsion concept. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012. 48(0): p. 1314-1323.
44. Traut, M., et al., Propulsive power contribution of a kite and a Flettner rotor on
selected shipping routes. Appl Energy, 2014. 113: p. 362-372.
45. Majewska, K., et al., Experimental method of strain/stress measurements on
tall sailing ships using Fibre Bragg Grating sensors. Appl Ocean Res, 2014.
47: p. 270-283.
46. Li, Q., et al., A study on the performance of cascade hard sails and sail-
equipped vessels. Ocean Eng, 2015. 98: p. 23-31.
47. Coppola, T., et al., A sustainable electrical interface to mitigate emissions due
to power supply in ports. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2016. 54: p. 816-823.
48. Sciberras, E.A., B. Zahawi, and D.J. Atkinson, Electrical characteristics of cold
ironing energy supply for berthed ships. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2015. 39: p.
31-43.
49. Psaraftis, H.N. and C.A. Kontovas, Speed models for energy-efficient maritime
transportation: a taxonomy and survey. Transport Res C - Emer, 2013. 26: p.
331-351.
50. Fagerholt, K. and H.N. Psaraftis, On two speed optimisation problems for
ships that sail in and out of emission control areas. Transport Res D - Tr E,
2015. 39: p. 56-64.
51. Johnson, H. and L. Styhre, Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping
through decreased time in port. Transport Res A-Pol, 2015. 71: p. 167-178.
252
52. Fagerholt, K., et al., Maritime routing and speed optimization with emission
control areas. Transport Res C - Emer, 2015. 52: p. 57-73.
53. Schøyen, H. and S. Bråthen, Measuring and improving operational energy
efficiency in short sea container shipping. RTBM, 2015. 17: p. 26-35.
54. Armstrong, V.N., Vessel optimisation for low carbon shipping. Ocean Eng,
2013. 73: p. 195-207.
55. Cichowicz, J., G. Theotokatos, and D. Vassalos, Dynamic energy modelling
for ship life-cycle performance assessment. Ocean Eng, 2015. 110, Part B: p.
49-61.
56. Yang, M.-H., Thermal and economic analyses of a compact waste heat
recovering system for the marine diesel engine using transcritical Rankine
cycle. Energy Convers Manag, 2015. 106: p. 1082-1096.
57. Bal Beşikçi, E., et al., An artificial neural network based decision support
system for energy efficient ship operations. Comput Oper Res, 2016. 66: p.
393-401.
58. Jafarzadeh, S. and I.B. Utne, A framework to bridge the energy efficiency gap
in shipping. Energy, 2014. 69: p. 603-612.
59. Psaraftis, H.N. and C.A. Kontovas, Balancing the economic and environmental
performance of maritime transportation. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2010. 15(8):
p. 458-462.
60. Kim, H.-J., et al., An epsilon-optimal algorithm considering greenhouse gas
emissions for the management of a ship’s bunker fuel. Transport Res D - Tr E,
2012. 17(2): p. 97-103.
61. Shu, G., et al., A review of waste heat recovery on two-stroke IC engine
aboard ships. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2013. 19: p. 385-401.
62. Livanos, G.A., G. Theotokatos, and D.-N. Pagonis, Techno-economic
investigation of alternative propulsion plants for ferries and RoRo ships.
Energy Convers Manag, 2014. 79: p. 640-651.
63. Baldi, F., U. Larsen, and C. Gabrielii, Comparison of different procedures for
the optimisation of a combined diesel engine and organic Rankine cycle
system based on ship operational profile. Ocean Eng, 2015. 110, Part B: p.
85-93.
64. Brynolf, S., et al., Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations
through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transport Res
D - Tr E, 2014. 28: p. 6-18.
253
65. Stevens, L., et al., Is new emission legislation stimulating the implementation
of sustainable and energy-efficient maritime technologies? RTBM, 2015.
66. Ballini, F. and R. Bozzo, Air pollution from ships in ports: The socio-economic
benefit of cold-ironing technology. RTBM, 2015. 17: p. 92–98.
67. Lun, Y.H.V., et al., Environmental governance mechanisms in shipping firms
and their environmental performance. Transport Res E - Log, 2015. 78: p. 82-
92.
68. Patricksson, Ø.S., K. Fagerholt, and J.G. Rakke, The fleet renewal problem
with regional emission limitations: case study from Roll-on/Roll-off shipping.
Transport Res C - Emer, 2015. 56: p. 346-358.
69. Schøyen, H. and H. Sow, A decision making tool concerning retrofit of shaft
generator frequency converter. Ocean Eng, 2015. 109: p. 103-112.
70. Ölçer, A. and F. Ballini, The development of a decision making framework for
evaluating the trade-off solutions of cleaner seaborne transportation.
Transport Res D - Tr E, 2015. 37: p. 150-170.
71. Dimopoulos, G.G., et al., A general-purpose process modelling framework for
marine energy systems. Energy Convers Manag, 2014. 86: p. 325-339.
72. Henriksson, T., et al., Electric propulsion – state-of-the-art and trends in
electric power generation, distribution, and propulsion, and their associated
control systems, in 8th ICMES/SNAME New York MetropolitanSection
Symposium, A.A. Kare and J.-F. Hansen, Editors. 2000, The Society of naval
Architects and Marine Engineers: New York.
73. Kanerva, S. and J.-F. Hansen. State of the art in electric propulsion –
viewpoint on redundancy. in Electric Ship Technologies Symposium, 2009.
ESTS 2009. IEEE. 2009. IEEE.
74. McCoy, T.J. Trends in ship electric propulsion. in Power Engineering Society
Summer Meeting, 2002 IEEE. 2002. IEEE.
75. Buja, G., et al. Dependable design assessment of integrated power systems
for all electric ships. in Electrical Systems for Aircraft, Railway and Ship
Propulsion (ESARS), 2010. 2010. IEEE.
76. Prousalidis, J.M., G.J. Tsekouras, and F. Kanellos. New challenges emerged
from the development of more efficient electric energy generation units. in
Electric Ship Technologies Symposium (ESTS), 2011 IEEE. 2011. IEEE.
254
77. Kanellos, F.D., J.M. Prousalidis, and G.J. Tsekouras, Control system for fuel
consumption minimisation – gas emission limitation of full electric propulsion
ship power systems. P I Mech Eng M - J Eng, 2014. 228(1): p. 17-28.
78. Skjong, E., et al., The marine vessel’s electrical power system: from its birth to
present day. Proc IEEE, 2015. 103(12): p. 2410-2424.
79. Dale, S., R. Hebner, and G. Sulligoi, Electric ship technologies. Proc IEEE,
2015. 103(12): p. 2225-2228.
80. Environmental management – Life cycle impact assessment – examples of
application of ISO 14042. 2003, British Standard.
81. Cullinane, K. and R. Bergqvist, Emission control areas and their impact on
maritime transport. Transport Res D - Tr E, 2014. 28: p. 1-5.
82. Fet, A.M. and E. Sørgård, Life cycle evaluation of ship transportation –
development of methodology and testing. Aalesund College (HiA) in
Cooperation with Det Norske Veritas (DNV)(HiA 10/B101/R-98/008/00), 1998:
p. 32.
83. Johnsen, T. and A.M. Fet, Screening life cycle assessment of M/V Color
Festival. 1999, Report.
84. Fet, A.M., O. Michelsen, and T. Johnsen, Environmental performance of
transportation - a comparative study. 2000, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Helge Gravås: Norway. p. 103.
85. Fet, A.M., Environmental reporting in marine transport based on LCA. Proc
IMarEST J Marine Design Oper, 2002: p. 1476-1556.
86. Schmidt, J.H. and J. Watson, Eco Island Ferry: Comparative LCA of island
ferry with carbon fibre composite based and steel based structures. 2014, 2.‐0
LCA consultants.
87. Bengtsson, S., K. Andersson, and E. Fridell, Life cycle assessment of marine
fuels: a comparative study of four fossil fuels for marine propulsion. 2011:
Sweden.
88. Bengtsson, S., E. Fridell, and K. Andersson, Environmental assessment of two
pathways towards the use of biofuels in shipping. Energy Pol, 2012. 44: p.
451-463.
89. Alkaner, S. and P. Zhou, A comparative study on life cycle analysis of molten
carbon fuel cells and diesel engines for marine application. J Power Sources,
2006. 158(1): p. 188-199.
255
90. Strazza, C., et al., Comparative LCA of methanol-fuelled SOFCs as auxiliary
power systems on-board ships. Appl Energy, 2010. 87(5): p. 1670-1678.
91. Strand, K.H. and K.J. Aarskog, Life cycle assessment of fuel cells onboard
ships, in Department of Marine Technology. 2010, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology: Trondheim. p. 1-131.
92. Zuin, S., E. Belac, and B. Marzi, Life cycle assessment of ship-generated
waste management of Luka Koper. Waste Manage, 2009. 29: p. 3036–3046.
93. Jiven, K., et al., LCA-ship, Design tool for energy efficient ships – a life cycle
analysis program for ships. 2004.
94. Kameyama, M., et al. Development of LCA software for ships and LCI analysis
based on actual shipbuilding and operation. in Proc. 6 th Int. Conf. on
Ecobalance. 2005.
95. Kameyama, M., K. Hiraoka, and H. Tauchi, Study on life cycle impact
assessment for ships. NMRI (Japan), 2007.
96. Tincelin, T., et al., A life cycle approach to shipbuilding and ship operation, in
Ship design and operation for environmental sustainability. 2007, The Royal
Institution of Naval Architects: London.
97. Princaud, M., A. Cornier, and D. Froelich, Developing a tool for environmental
impact assessment and eco-design for ships. P I Mech Eng M - J Eng, 2010.
224(M3): p. 207-224.
98. Basurko, O.C. and E. Mesbahi, Methodology for the sustainability assessment
of marine technologies. J Clean Prod, 2014. 68(0): p. 155-164.
99. Chatzinikolaou, S.D. and N.P. Ventikos, Holistic framework for studying ship
air emissions in a life cycle perspective. Ocean Eng, 2015. 110, Part B: p.
113-122.
100. Lister, J., R.T. Poulsen, and S. Ponte, Orchestrating transnational
environmental governance in maritime shipping. Global Environ Chang, 2015.
34: p. 185-195.
101. Life cycle assessment: Inventory guidelines and principles. 1993: Ohio, US.
102. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and
framework. 1997, British Standard.
103. Environmental management – life cycle impact assessment – goal and scope
definition and inventory analysis. 1998, British Standard.
104. Environmental management – life cycle impact assessment – life cycle impact
assessment. 2000, British Standard.
256
105. Environmental management – life cycle impact assessment – life cycle
interpretation. 2000, British Standard.
106. Environmental management – life cycle impact assessment – principles and
framework. 2006, British Standard.
107. Environmental management – life cycle impact assessment – requirements
and guidelines. 2006, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).
108. Bare, J.C., Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs.
Clean Technol Environ Policy, 2010. 12(4): p. 341-351.
109. Pryshlakivsky, J. and C. Searcy, Fifteen years of ISO 14040: a review. J Clean
Prod, 2013. 57: p. 115-123.
110. Finkbeiner, M., et al., The new international standards for life cycle
assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2006. 11(2):
p. 80-85.
111. Bare, J.C. and T.P. Gloria, Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships
and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environ
Sci Technol, 2006. 40(4): p. 1104-1113.
112. ILCD handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment – detailed guidance.
2010: Luxembourg.
113. Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment: making informed choices on
products. 2011.
114. Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases - a basis for
greener processes and products. 2011.
115. Finnveden, G., et al., Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ
Manage, 2009. 91(1): p. 1-21.
116. Pennington, D.W., et al., Life cycle assessment Part 2: current impact
assessment practice. Environ Int, 2004. 30(5): p. 721-739.
117. Udo de Haes, H.A., et al., Best available practice regarding impact categories
and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment/background document
for the second indicators in life cycle impact assessment of SETAC Europe
(WIA-20). Int J Life Cycle Assess 1999. 4: p. 66-74.
118. Chan, Y.T., R.B.H. Tan, and H.H. Khoo, Characterisation framework
development for the SIMPASS (Singapore impact assessment) methodology.
Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2012. 17(1): p. 89-95.
257
119. Curran, M.A., Co-product and input allocation approaches for creating life
cycle inventory data: a literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2007. 12: p.
65-78.
120. A scientific framework for LCA – Deliverable (D15) of work package 2 (WP2)
CALCAS project. 2009, Institute of Environmental Science, Leiden University.
121. Rebitzer, G., et al., Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope
definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int, 2004. 30(5): p.
701-720.
122. Suh, S., et al., System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid
approaches. Environ Sci Technol, 2004. 38(3): p. 657-664.
123. Reap, J., et al., A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment -
Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2008.
13(4): p. 290-300.
124. Reap, J., et al., A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment -
Part 2 impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2008.
13: p. 374–388.
125. Earles, J.M. and A. Halog, Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int J
Life Cycle Assess, 2011. 16(5): p. 445-453.
126. Garrigues, E., et al., Soil quality in life cycle assessment: towards
development of an indicator. Ecol Indic, 2012. 18(0): p. 434-442.
127. Johnsen, F.M. and S. Løkke, Review of criteria for evaluating LCA weighting
methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2013. 18(4): p. 840-849.
128. Kounina, A., et al., Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle
inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013. 18(3): p. 707-
721.
129. Hellweg, S. and L.M. i Canals, Emerging approaches, challenges and
opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science, 2014. 344(6188): p. 1109-
1113.
130. Klinglmair, M., S. Sala, and M. Brandão, Assessing resource depletion in LCA:
a review of methods and methodological issues. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2014.
19(3): p. 580-592.
131. Bolin, C.A. and S.T. Smith, Life cycle assessment of pentachlorophenol-
treated wooden utility poles with comparisons to steel and concrete utility
poles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2011. 15(5): p. 2475-2486.
258
132. Cho, Y.S., et al., LCA application in the optimum design of high rise steel
structures. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2012. 16(5): p. 3146-3153.
133. Lee, K., S. Tae, and S. Shin, Development of a life cycle assessment program
for building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2009.
13(8): p. 1994-2002.
134. Sharma, A., et al., Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev, 2011. 15(1): p. 871-875.
135. Buyle, M., J. Braet, and A. Audenaert, Life cycle assessment in the
construction sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2013. 26(0): p. 379-
388.
136. Zhang, X., L. Shen, and L. Zhang, Life cycle assessment of the air emissions
during building construction process: a case study in Hong Kong. Renew
137. Cabeza, L.F., et al., Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy
analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev, 2014. 29(0): p. 394-416.
138. Islam, H., M. Jollands, and S. Setunge, Life cycle assessment and life cycle
cost implication of residential buildings - A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev,
2015. 42(0): p. 129-140.
139. Chauhan, M.K., et al., Life cycle assessment of sugar industry: a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2011. 15(7): p. 3445-3453.
140. González-García, S., et al., Life cycle assessment of flax shives derived
second generation ethanol fueled automobiles in Spain. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev, 2009. 13(8): p. 1922-1933.
141. Faria, R., et al., Impact of the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle
assessment of electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2013. 24(0): p.
271-287.
142. Luo, L., E. van der Voet, and G. Huppes, Life cycle assessment and life cycle
costing of bioethanol from sugarcane in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev,
2009. 13(6–7): p. 1613-1619.
143. Hou, J., et al., Life cycle assessment of biodiesel from soybean, jatropha and
microalgae in China conditions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2011. 15(9): p.
5081-5091.
259
144. Rehl, T., J. Lansche, and J. Müller, Life cycle assessment of energy
generation from biogas – attributional vs. consequential approach. Renew
145. Wiloso, E.I., R. Heijungs, and G.R. de Snoo, LCA of second generation
bioethanol: A review and some issues to be resolved for good LCA practice.
146. Lopes Silva, D.A., et al., Life cycle assessment of the sugarcane bagasse
electricity generation in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2014. 32(0): p.
532-547.
147. Rocha, M.H., et al., Life cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in Brazilian
conditions: a meta-analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2014. 37(0): p. 435-
459.
148. Morales, M., et al., Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic bioethanol:
environmental impacts and energy balance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev,
2015. 42(0): p. 1349-1361.
149. Tabata, T., et al., Life cycle assessment for co-firing semi-carbonized fuel
manufactured using woody biomass with coal: A case study in the central area
of Wakayama, Japan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2011. 15(6): p. 2772-2778.
150. Sherwani, A.F., J.A. Usmani, and Varun, Life cycle assessment of solar PV
based electricity generation systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev,
2010. 14(1): p. 540-544.
151. Sumper, A., et al., Life-cycle assessment of a photovoltaic system in Catalonia
(Spain). Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2011. 15(8): p. 3888-3896.
152. Peng, J., L. Lu, and H. Yang, Review on life cycle assessment of energy
payback and greenhouse gas emission of solar photovoltaic systems. Renew
153. Parisi, M.L., S. Maranghi, and R. Basosi, The evolution of the dye sensitized
solar cells from Grätzel prototype to up-scaled solar applications: A life cycle
assessment approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2014. 39(0): p. 124-138.
154. Ardente, F., et al., Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an
Italian wind farm. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2008. 12(1): p. 200-217.
155. Tremeac, B. and F. Meunier, Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind
turbines. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2009. 13(8): p. 2104-2110.
260
156. Arvesen, A. and E.G. Hertwich, Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts
of wind power: A review of present knowledge and research needs. Renew
157. Rashedi, A., I. Sridhar, and K.J. Tseng, Life cycle assessment of 50 MW wind
firms and strategies for impact reduction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2013.
21(0): p. 89-101.
158. Bayer, P., et al., Review on life cycle environmental effects of geothermal
power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2013. 26(0): p. 446-463.
159. Varun, I.K. Bhat, and R. Prakash, LCA of renewable energy for electricity
generation systems – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2009. 13(5): p.
1067-1073.
160. Turconi, R., A. Boldrin, and T. Astrup, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
electricity generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations.
161. Asdrubali, F., et al., Life cycle assessment of electricity production from
renewable energies: review and results harmonization. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev, 2015. 42(0): p. 1113-1122.
162. Li, X., et al., An environmental impact assessment framework and index
system for the pre-use phase of buildings based on distance-to-target
approach. Build Environ, 2015. 85: p. 173-181.
163. Ribeiro, I., P. Peças, and E. Henriques, A life cycle framework to support
materials selection for Ecodesign: a case study on biodegradable polymers.
Mater Design, 2013. 51: p. 300-308.
164. Brondi, C. and E. Carpanzano, A modular framework for the LCA-based
simulation of production systems. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol, 2011. 4(3): p.
305-312.
165. Núñez, M., et al., Estimating water consumption of potential natural vegetation
on global dry lands: building an LCA framework for green water flows. Environ
Sci Technolo, 2013. 47(21): p. 12258-12265.
166. Hischier, R., Framework for LCI modelling of releases of manufactured
nanomaterials along their life cycle. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2014. 19(4): p.
838-849.
167. Nakatani, J., Life cycle inventory analysis of recycling: mathematical and
graphical frameworks. Sustainability 2014. 6(9): p. 6158-6169.
261
168. Quinteiro, P., et al., A framework for modelling the transport and deposition of
eroded particles towards water systems in a life cycle inventory. Int J Life
Cycle Assess, 2014. 19(6): p. 1200-1213.
169. Frischknecht, R., et al., The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological
framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2005. 10(1): p. 3-9.
170. Suh, S., et al., Generalised make and use framework for allocation in life cycle
assessment. J Ind Ecol, 2010. 14(2): p. 335-353.
171. Chen, I.C., et al., A graphical representation for consequential life cycle
assessment of future technologies. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J
172. Rugani, B., D. Panasiuk, and E. Benetto, An input-output based framework to
evaluate human labour in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2012.
17(6): p. 795-812.
173. Suh, S. and B.C. Lippiatt, Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases:
a case study on the building for environmental and economic sustainability
(BEES) database. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2012. 17(5): p. 604-612.
174. Collinge, W.O., et al., Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and
application to an institutional building. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2013. 18(3): p.
538-552.
175. Yuan, C., et al., Temporal discounting in life cycle assessment: a critical
review and theoretical framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev, 2015. 51: p.
23-31.
176. Stewart, M. and B.P. Weidema, A Consistent Framework for Assessing the
Impacts from Resource Use-A focus on resource functionality (8 pp). Int J Life
Cycle Assess, 2005. 10(4): p. 240-247.
177. Koellner, T. and R.W. Scholz, Assessment of land use impacts on the natural
environment – Part 1: an analytical framework for pure land occupation and
land use change. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2007. 12(1): p. 16-23.
178. Althaus, H.J., P. De Haan, and R.W. Scholz, Traffic noise in LCA – Part 2:
Analysis of existing methods and proposition of a new framework for
consistent, context-sensitive LCI modeling of road transport noise emission.
179. Bayart, J.-B., et al., A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in
LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2010. 15(5): p. 439-453.
262
180. Cucurachi, S., R. Heijungs, and K. Ohlau, Towards a general framework for
including noise impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2012. 17(4): p. 471-
487.
181. Collinge, W., et al., Indoor environmental quality in a dynamic life cycle
assessment framework for whole buildings: focus on human health chemical
impacts. Build Environ, 2013. 62: p. 182-190.
182. Cucurachi, S., et al., A framework for deciding on the inclusion of emerging
impacts in life cycle impact assessment. J Clean Prod, 2014. 78: p. 152-163.
183. Walser, T., et al., Life-cycle assessment framework for indoor emissions of
synthetic nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res, 2015. 17(6): p. 1-18.
184. Hertwich, E.G. and J.K. Hammitt, A decision-analytic framework for impact
assessment part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2001.
6(1): p. 5-12.
185. Seppälä, J., L. Basson, and G.A. Norris, Decision analysis frameworks for life-
cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol, 2001. 5(4): p. 45-68.
186. Jung, J., N. von der Assen, and A. Bardow, An uncertainty assessment
framework for lca-based environmental process design, in Comput Aided
Chem Eng 2013. p. 937-942.
187. Dreyer, L.C., M.Z. Hauschild, and J. Schierbeck, A framework for social life
cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2006. 11(2): p. 88-97.
188. Kim, I. and T. Hur, Integration of working environment into life cycle
assessment framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2009. 14(4): p. 290-301.
189. Reitinger, C., et al., A conceptual framework for impact assessment within
SLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2011. 16(4): p. 380-388.
190. Ramirez, P.K.S., et al., Subcategory assessment method for social life cycle
assessment. Part 1: methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2014.
19(8): p. 1515-1523.
191. Onn, C.C. and S. Yusoff, The formulation of life cycle impact assessment
framework for Malaysia using Eco-indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2010.
15(9): p. 985-993.
192. Haas, G., F. Wetterich, and U. Geier, Life cycle assessment framework in
agriculture on the farm level. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2000. 5(6): p. 345-348.
193. Popp, J.S., et al., Collecting complex comprehensive farm level data through a
collaborative approach: a framework developed for a life cycle assessment of
fluid milk production in the US. Int Dairy J, 2013. 31(1): p. S15-S20.
263
194. De Camillis, C., A. Raggi, and L. Petti, Life cycle assessment in the framework
of sustainable tourism: a preliminary examination of its effectiveness and
challenges. Progr Ind Ecol, 2010. 7(3): p. 205-218.
195. Fet, A.M., E.M. Schau, and C. Haskins, A framework for environmental
analyses of fish food production systems based on systems engineering
principles. INCOSE, 2010. 13(2): p. 109-118.
196. Heller, M.C., G.A. Keoleian, and W.C. Willett, Toward a life cycle-based, diet-
level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality
assessment: A critical review. Environ Sci Technolo, 2013. 47(22): p. 12632-
12647.
197. Holma, A., et al., Current limits of life cycle assessment framework in
evaluating environmental sustainability - Case of two evolving biofuel
technologies. J Clean Prod, 2013. 54: p. 215-228.
198. Bauer, C., et al., The environmental performance of current and future
passenger vehicles: life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis
framework. Appl Energy, 2014.
199. Egede, P., et al., Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles – a framework to
consider influencing factors. Procedia CIRP, 2015. 29: p. 233-238.
200. Shin, S.-J., et al., Process-oriented life cycle assessment framework for
environmentally conscious manufacturing. J Intell Manuf, 2015: p. 1-19.
201. Rabl, A. and M. Holland, Environmental assessment framework for policy
applications: life cycle assessment, external costs and multi-criteria analysis. J
Environ Plann Manag, 2008. 51(1): p. 81-105.
202. Heijungs, R., G. Huppes, and J.B. Guinée, Life cycle assessment and
sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a
scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stabil,
2010. 95(3): p. 422-428.
203. Goldstein, B., et al., Quantification of urban metabolism through coupling with
the life cycle assessment framework: concept development and case study.
Environ Res Lett, 2013. 8(3).
204. Loiseau, E., et al., Adapting the LCA framework to environmental assessment
in land planning. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2013. 18(8): p. 1533-1548.
205. Avadí, Á., I. Vázquez-Rowe, and P. Fréon, Eco-efficiency assessment of the
Peruvian anchoveta steel and wooden fleets using the LCA+DEA framework.
J Clean Prod, 2014. 70: p. 118-131.
264
206. Liu, Z., T. Qiu, and B. Chen, A LCA based biofuel supply chain analysis
framework. Chin J Chem Eng, 2014. 22(6): p. 669-681.
207. Chang, D., et al., A study on availability and safety of new propulsion systems
for LNG carriers. Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 2008. 93(12): p. 1877–1885.
208. Annex 11 Guidelines for calculation of reference lines for use with the energy
efficiency desing index (EEDI) in Resolution MEPC.215(63), IMO, Editor.
2012.
209. Reference manual on maritime transport statistics. 2012, Eurostat.
210. Review of maritime transport 2012. 2012.
211. in Significant ships of 2008 - A publication of The Royal Institution of Naval
Architects. 2008, Mark J Staunton-Lambert.
216. Buhaug, Ø., et al., Second IMO GHG study 2009. 2009: London, UK p. 220.
217. Koehler, H.W. and A. Werner Oehlers. 95 Years of diesel-electric propulsion
form a makeshift solution to a modern propulsion system. in Norwegian
Society of Chartered Engineers, 2 nd International Diesel electric propulsion
conference, Helsinki, Finland. 1998.
218. Veneri, O., et al. Overview of electric propulsion and generation architectures
for naval applications. in Electrical Systems for Aircraft, Railway and Ship
Propulsion (ESARS), 2012. 2012. IEEE.
219. Balashov, S., Design of marine generators for alternative diesel-electric power
systems. 2011.
220. Narciso Pereira, N., A diagnostic of diesel-electric propulsion for ships. Ship
Science & Technology, 2007. 1(2): p. 27-42.
221. Zahedi, B., L.E. Norum, and K.B. Ludvigsen, Optimized efficiency of all-electric
ships by dc hybrid power systems. J Power Sources, 2014. 255: p. 341-354.
222. Schmitt, K., Modeling and simulation of an all electric ship in random seas.
2010, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
265
223. Apsley, J.M., et al., Propulsion drive models for full electric marine propulsion
systems. Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on, 2009. 45(2): p. 676-
684.
224. Kosowski, K., Ship turbine power plants: Fundamentals of thermodynamical
cycles. 2005: Foundation for the Promotion of Maritime Industry. 280.
225. Carlton, J., J. Aldwinkle, and J. Anderson, Future ship powering options:
exploring alternative methods of ship propulsion, in London: Royal Academy
of Engineering. 2013.
226. Veritas, D.N., Technology outlook 2020. DNV Research & Innovation, Høvik,
2010.
227. Technology characterisation: reciprocating engines. 2008, Energy and
Environmental Analysis: US.
228. Woodyard, D., Chapter one - theory and general principles, in Pounder's
Marine Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines (Ninth Edition). 2009, Butterworth-
Heinemann: Oxford. p. 1-40.
229. Lucke, C.E., Internal combustion engines in marine service. J Franklin Inst,
1921. 192(1): p. 11-45.
230. Sharaf, O.Z. and M.F. Orhan, An overview of fuel cell technology:
fundamentals and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2014. 32: p. 810-
853.
231. Stambouli, A.B. and E. Traversa, Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs): a review of
an environmentally clean and efficient source of energy. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev, 2002. 6(5): p. 433-455.
232. El-Gohary, M.M., Overview of past, present and future marine power plants. J
Mar Sci Appl, 2013. 12(2): p. 219-227.
233. Rosellini, S., G. Schmitt, and P. Fleischmann, Molten carbonate fuel cell: a
novel approach to powering large telecommunications facilities. 2003:
unknown.
234. Baker, J., New technology and possible advances in energy storage. Energy
Pol, 2008. 36(12): p. 4368-4373.
235. Dedes, E.K., D.A. Hudson, and S.R. Turnock, Assessing the potential of
hybrid energy technology to reduce exhaust emissions from global shipping.
Energy Pol, 2012. 40: p. 204-218.
266
236. Doerffel, D. and S.A. Sharkh, Large lithium-ion batteries – a review. IN:
Electric Vehicle Exhibition (EMA 2006), Aschaffenburg (Germany), 2006.
14(2006): p. 15.
237. Zhou, Z., et al., A review of energy storage technologies for marine current
energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2013. 18: p. 390-400.
238. Dell, R.M., Materials development for advanced traction batteries. Mater
Design, 1986. 7(3): p. 124-131.
239. Dell, R.M., Batteries: fifty years of materials development. Solid State Ionics,
2000. 134(1): p. 139-158.
240. Dell, R.M. and D.A.J. Rand, Energy storage – a key technology for global
energy sustainability. J Power Sources, 2001. 100(1): p. 2-17.
241. Schmid, H. Less emissions through waste heat recovery. in Green Ship
Technology Conference, London. 2004.
242. Theotokatos, G. and G.A. Livanos, Modern concepts of ferries propulsion
plant for reducing fuel consumption cost and CO2 emissions, in Low Carbon
Shipping Conference. 2013: London, UK. p. 12.
243. Anish. The green source of power on ship – shaft generator. 2010 [cited 2015
15 January]; Available from:
http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/environment/the-green-source-of-power-
shaft-generator/.
244. McGeorge, H.D., Shaft-driven generators, in Marine Electrical Equipment and
Practice (Second Edition). 1993, Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford. p. 130-136.
245. Salmi, T., et al., Matlab/simulink based modeling of photovoltaic cell. Int J
Energy Res, 2012. 2(2): p. 213-218.
246. Kobougias, I., E. Tatakis, and J. Prousalidis, PV systems installed in marine
vessels: technologies and specifications. Adv Power Electron, 2013. 2013.
247. The Maltese Falcon. 2010 [cited 2015 1 March]; Available from:
http://www.symaltesefalcon.com/design-concepts.php.
248. Rojon, I. and C. Dieperink, Blowin'in the wind? Drivers and barriers for the
uptake of wind propulsion in international shipping. Energy Pol, 2014. 67: p.
394-402.
249. Raunek, K. Top 7 green ship concepts using wind energy. 2013 [cited 2014 2
June]; Available from: http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/marine-
news/headline/top-7-green-ship-concepts-using-wind-energy/.
267
250. De Jonge, E., C. Hugi, and D. Cooper, Service contract on ship emissions:
assignment, abatement and market-based instruments, in Task 2a — Shore-
Side Electricity, Final Report, Entec UK Limited. 2005.
251. Hall, W.J., Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant reduction by installation
of shoreside power. Resour Conserv Recy, 2010. 54(7): p. 462-467.
252. Arduino, G., et al., How to turn an innovative concept into a success? An
application to seaport-related innovation. Research in Transportation
Economics, 2013. 42(1): p. 97-107.
253. Gibbs, D., et al., The role of sea ports in end-to-end maritime transport chain
emissions. Energy Pol, 2014. 64: p. 337-348.
254. Cornelissen, R.L. and G.G. Hirs, The value of the exergetic life cycle
assessment besides the LCA. Energy Convers Manag, 2002. 43(9–12): p.
1417-1424.
255. Li, D. and R. Wang, Hybrid emergy-LCA (HEML) based metabolic evaluation
of urban residential areas: the case of Beijing, China. Ecol Complexity, 2009.
6(4): p. 484-493.
256. Ramesh, T., R. Prakash, and K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of
buildings: an overview. Energy Build, 2010. 42(10): p. 1592-1600.
257. Stamford, L. and A. Azapagic, Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK
electricity scenarios to 2070. Energy Sustain Dev, 2014. 23(0): p. 194-211.
258. 2011 Directory of sustainable life cycle assessment tools. 2011, Portland:
International Society of Sustainability Professionals.
259. Afrinaldi, F. and H.-C. Zhang, A fuzzy logic based aggregation method for life
cycle impact assessment. J Clean Prod, 2014. 67: p. 159-172.
260. Ahlroth, S., et al., Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems
analysis tools–suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod, 2011.
19(2): p. 145-156.
261. Althaus, H.-J., et al., Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods,
R. Hischier and B. Weidema, Editors. 2009.
262. Azapagic, A. and R. Clift, Allocation of environmental burdens in co-product
systems: product-related burdens (part 1). Int J Life Cycle Assess 1999. 4(6):
p. 357-368.
263. Baitz, M., et al., LCA's theory and practice: like ebony and ivory living in
perfect harmony? Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2012.
268
264. Bare, J., TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical
and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ Policy, 2011.
13(5): p. 687-696.
265. Bare, J.C., et al., TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of
chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol, 2008. 6(3-4): p. 49-78.
266. Beloin-Saint-Pierre, D., R. Heijungs, and I. Blanc, The ESPA (enhanced
structural path analysis) method - a solution to an implementation challenge
for dynamic life cycle assessment studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2014. 19: p.
861-871.
267. Bengtsson, J. and N. Howard, A life cycle impact assessment method for use
in Australia - classification, characterisation and research needs. 2010, Edge
Environment Pty Ltd: Australia.
268. Boulay, A.-M., et al., Categorising water for LCA inventory. Int J Life Cycle
Assess, 2011. 16(7): p. 639-651.
269. Brander, M., et al., Consequential and atrributional approaches to LCA: a
guide to policy makers with specific reference to greenhouse gas LCA of
biofuels. 2009. p. 1-14.
270. Chevalier, J. and P. Rousseaux, Classification in LCA: building of a coherent
family of criteria. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 1999. 4(6): p. 352-356.
271. Crawford, R.H., Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. J
Environ Manage, 2008. 88(3): p. 496-506.
272. Crettaz, P., et al., Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment
using ED10s and DALYs: Part 1 – cancer effects. Risk Anal, 2002. 22(5).
273. Cucurachi, S. and R. Heijungs, Characterisation factors for life cycle impact
assessment of sound emissions. Sci Total Environ, 2014. 468: p. 280-291.
274. Curran, M.A., Life Cycle Assessment: principles and practice. 2006. p. 1-80.
275. Dreyer, L.C., A.L. Niemann, and M.Z. Hauschild, Comparison of three different
LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 - Does it matter which
one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2003. 8(4): p. 191-200.
276. Ekvall, T. and G. Finnveden, Allocation in ISO 14041 – a critical review. J
Clean Prod, 2001. 9(3): p. 197-208.
277. Erlandsson, M. and L.-G. Lindfors, On the possibilities to apply the result from
an LCA disclosed to public. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2003. 8(2): p. 65-73.
269
278. Franco, V., D. Garraín, and R. Vidal, Methodological proposals for improved
assessments of the impact of traffic noise upon human health. Int J Life Cycle
Assess, 2010. 15(8): p. 869-882.
279. Frischknecht, R., et al., The environmental relevance of capital goods in life
cycle assessments of products and services. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2007.
12: p. 7-17.
280. Garrigues, E., et al., Development of a soil compaction indicator in life cycle
assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2013. 18(7): p. 1316-1324.
281. Goedkoop, M., et al., ReCiPe 2008 – a life cycle impact assessment method
which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the
endpoint level. 2009: The Nerthelands. p. 126.
282. Guinee, J. and R. Heijungs, A proposal for the classification of toxic
substances within the framework of life cycle assessment of products
Chemosphere, 1993. 26(10): p. 1925-1944.
283. Guinee, J.B., et al., Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ
Sci Technol, 2011. 45(1): p. 90-96.
284. Guinee, J.B., et al., Environmental life cycle assessment of products –
backgrounds, R. Heijungs, Editor. 1992, Centre of Environmental Science:
Leiden.
285. Guinee, J.B., et al., Environmental life cycle assessment of products – guide,
R. Heijungs, Editor. 1992, Centre of Environmental Science: Leiden.
286. Guo, M. and R.J. Murphy, LCA data quality: Sensitivity and uncertainty
analysis. Sci Total Environ, 2012. 435: p. 230-243.
287. Hauschild, M.Z., et al., Identifying best existing practice for characterization
modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2012.
288. Hauschild, M.Z., et al., Building a model based on scientific consensus for life
cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and
parsimony. Environ Sci Technol, 2008. 42(19): p. 7032-7037.
289. Hauschild, M.Z., et al., Spatial differentiation in the characterisation of
photochemical ozone formation – the EDIP2003 methodology. Int J Life Cycle
Assess, 2006. 11: p. 72-80.
290. Heijungs, R. and S. Suh, Reformulation of matrix-based LCI: from product
balance to process balance. J Clean Prod, 2006. 14(1): p. 47-51.
291. Heijungs, R. and R.R. Tan, Rigorous proof of fuzzy error propagation with
matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2010. 15(9): p. 1014-1019.
270
292. Heimersson, S., et al., Including pathogen risk in life cycle assessment of
wastewater management. 2. Quantitative comparison of pathogen risk to other
impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol, 2014. 48 (16): p. 9446–9453.
293. Henderson, A.D., et al., USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative
assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical
properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2011. 16(8): p. 701-709.
294. Hendrickson, C.T., et al., Comparing two life cycle assessment approaches: a
process model- vs. economic input-output-based assessment, in 1997 IEEE
International Symposium on electronics & the environment. 1997, IEEE: San
Francisco, California.
295. Hiejungs, R., et al., Towards a life cycle impact assessment method which
comprises category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. 2003:
The Netherlands.
296. Huijbregts, M., A critical view on scientific consensus building in life cycle
impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2014. 19(3): p. 477-479.
297. Huijbregts, M.A.J., et al., Human-toxicological effect and damage factors of
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals for life cycle impact assessment.
Integr Environ Assess Manag, 2005. 1(3): p. 181-244.
298. Huijbregts, M.A.J., et al., Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle
assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with
the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA.
Chemosphere, 2000. 41(4): p. 541-573.
299. Jeswani, H.K. and A. Azapagic, Water footprint: methodologies and a case
study for assessing the impacts of water use. J Clean Prod, 2011. 19(12): p.
1288-1299.
300. Jolliet, O., et al., Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact
assessment indicators: findings of the scoping phase. Int J Life Cycle Assess,
2014. 19(4): p. 962-967.
301. Koellner, T., et al., Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global
scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2013. 18(6): p. 1203-1215.
302. Koellner, T. and R.W. Scholz, Assessment of land use impacts on the natural
environment – Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species
diversity in central Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2008. 13(1): p. 32-48.
271
303. Laurent, A., et al., Normalisation references for Europe and North America for
application with USEtox (TM) characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess,
2011. 16(8): p. 728-738.
304. Lee, J.J., P. Ocallaghan, and D. Allen, Critical-review of life-cycle analysis and
assessment techniques and their application to commercial activities. Resour
Conserv Recy, 1995. 13(1): p. 37-56.
305. Lenzen, M., Errors in conventional and input-output based life-cycle
inventories J Ind Ecol, 2000. 4(4): p. 127-148.
306. Lenzen, M., A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments:
some Australian results. J Clean Prod, 2002. 10(6): p. 545-572.
307. Lenzen, M., Dealing with double-counting in tiered hybrid life-cycle inventories:
a few comments. J Clean Prod, 2009. 17(15): p. 1382-1384.
308. Levasseur, A., et al., Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its
application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol, 2010.
44(8): p. 3169-3174.
309. Li, T., et al., A system boundary identification method for life cycle
assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2014. 19(3): p. 646-660.
310. Lundie, S., A. Ciroth, and G. Huppes, Inventory methods in LCA: towards
consistency and improvement. 2007.
311. Lundie, S., et al., Australian characterisation factors and normalisation figures
for human toxicity and ecotoxicity. J Clean Prod, 2007. 15(8–9): p. 819-832.
312. Mattila, T.J., S. Pakarinen, and L. Sokka, Quantifying the total environmental
impacts of an industrial symbiosis – a comparison of process-, hybrid and
input-output life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol, 2010. 44: p. 4309-
4314.
313. Nakamura, S., et al., The waste input-output approach to materials flow
analysis - concepts and application to base metals. J Ind Ecol, 2007. 11(4): p.
50-63.
314. Ossés de Eicker, M., et al., The applicability of non-local LCI data for LCA.
Environ Impact Assess Rev, 2010. 30(3): p. 192-199.
315. Owens, J.W., Life cycle impact assessment: the Use in classification and
characterization of subjective judgements. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 1998. 3(1):
p. 43-46.
316. Owens, J.W., Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an
indicator system. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 1999. 4(2): p. 81-86.
272
317. Owsianiak, M., et al., IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe 2008 and ILCD’s
recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact
assessment: a case study-based comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2014.
19(5): p. 1007-1021.
318. Pennington, D., et al., Assessing human health response in life cycle
assessment using ED10s and DALYs: Part 2 – noncancer effects. Risk Anal,
2002. 22(5): p. 947-963.
319. Pizzol, M., et al., Eco-toxicological impact of "metals" on the aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystem: a comparison between eight different methodologies for
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod, 2011. 19(6-7): p. 687-
698.
320. Pizzol, M., et al., Impacts of "metals" on human health: a comparison between
nine different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean
Prod, 2011. 19(6-7): p. 646-656.
321. Raynolds, M., R. Fraser, and D. Checkel, The relative mass-energy-economic
(RMEE) method for system boundary selection. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2000.
5(1): p. 37-46.
322. Ridoutt, B.G. and S. Pfister, A new water footprint calculation method
integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone
weighted indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2013. 18(1): p. 204-207.
323. Rimos, S., A.F.A. Hoadley, and D.J. Brennan, Consequence analysis of
scarcity using impacts from resource substitution. Procedia Engineering, 2012.
49: p. 26-34.
324. Rosenbaum, R.K., et al., USEtox-the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model:
recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater
ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2008.
13(7): p. 532-546.
325. Rosenbaum, R.K., M. Margni, and O. Jolliet, A flexible matrix algebra
framework for the multimedia multipathway modeling of emission to impacts.
Environ Int, 2007. 33(5): p. 624-634.
326. Scanlon, K.A., et al., The work environment disability-adjusted life year for use
with life cycle assessment: a methodological approach. Environ Health, 2013.
12(1): p. 21.
273
327. Scanlon, K.A., et al., An approach to integrating occupational safety and
health into life cycle assessment – development and application of work
environment characterisation factors. J Ind Ecol, 2014.
328. Sleeswijk, A.W., et al., Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA
of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total
Environ, 2008. 390(1): p. 227-240.
329. Stranddorf, H.K., L. Hoffmann, and A. Schmidt, Impact categories,
normalisation and weighting in LCA, D.M.o.t.E.-E.P. Agency, Editor. 2005,
Environmental News: Denmark.
330. Stromman, A.H., Dealing with double-counting in tiered hybrid life-cycle
inventories: a few comments – response. J Clean Prod, 2009. 17(17): p. 1607-
1609.
331. Strømman, A.H., G.P. Peters, and E.G. Hertwich, Approaches to correct for
double counting in tiered hybrid life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod, 2009.
17(2): p. 248-254.
332. Suh, S. and G. Huppes, Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean
Prod, 2005. 13(7): p. 687-697.
333. Tan, R.R., Using fuzzy numbers to propagate uncertainty in matrix-based LCI.
334. Tillman, A.-M., et al., Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment. J
Clean Prod, 1994. 2(1): p. 21-29.
335. Van de Meent, D. and M.A. Huijbregts, Calculating life‐cycle assessment
effect factors from potentially affected fraction‐based ecotoxicological
response functions. Environ Toxicol Chem, 2005. 24(6): p. 1573-1578.
336. Van Zelm, R., M.A.J. Huijbregts, and D. van de Meent, USES - LCA 2.0 - a
global nested multi-media fate, exposure, and effects model. Int J Life Cycle
Assess, 2009. 14(3): p. 282-284.
337. Ventura, A., Classification of chemicals into emission-based impact
categories: a first approach for equiprobable and site-specific conceptual
frames. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2011. 16(2): p. 148-158.
338. Williams, E.D., C.L. Weber, and T.R. Hawkins, Hybrid framework for managing
uncertainty in life cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol, 2009. 13(6): p. 928-944.
339. Zamagni, A., et al., Critical review of the current research needs and
limitations relatecd to ISO-LCA practice. 2008. p. 1-106.
274
340. Zamagni, A., et al., Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle
Assess, 2012. 17(7): p. 904-918.
341. Zamagni, A., et al., Finding life cycle assessment research direction with the
aid of meta‐analysis. J Ind Ecol, 2012. 16(s1): p. S39-S52.
342. Environmental terminology and discovery service (ETDS). [cited 2014 17
December ]; Available from: http://glossary.eea.europa.eu//.
343. Guinée, J.B., Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO
standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2002. 7(5): p. 311-313.
344. Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use.
2015, British Standard.
345. Environmental management system – General guidelines on principles,
systems and support techniques. 2010, British Standard.
346. Owens, J.W., Water resources in life‐cycle impact assessment: considerations
in choosing category indicators. J Ind Ecol, 2001. 5(2): p. 37-54.
347. Koehler, A., Water use in LCA: managing the planet’s freshwater resources.
348. i Canals, L.M., et al., Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I –
inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways.
349. Pfister, S., A. Koehler, and S. Hellweg, Assessing the environmental impacts
of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol, 2009. 43(11): p.
4098-4104.
350. Berger, M. and M. Finkbeiner, Water footprinting: how to address water use in
life cycle assessment? Sustainability, 2010. 2(4): p. 919-944.
351. Verones, F., et al., Characterization factors for thermal pollution in freshwater
aquatic environments. Environ Sci Technol, 2010. 44(24): p. 9364-9369.
352. Zelm, R.v., et al., Implementing groundwater extraction in life cycle impact
assessment: characterization factors based on plant species richness for the
Netherlands. Environ Sci Technol, 2010. 45(2): p. 629-635.
353. Boulay, A.-M., et al., Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA:
modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol, 2011. 45(20):
p. 8948-8957.
354. Allan, J.A., Virtual water: a strategic resource global solutions to regional
deficits. Groundwater, 1998. 36(4): p. 545-546.
275
355. Hauschild, M.Z. and L. Alting, Environmental assessment of products –
volume 2: scientific background. Vol. 2. 1998: Springer.
356. Müller-Wenk, R. and N.S. im Internationalen Kontext, Depletion of abiotic
resources weighted on base of "virtual" impacts of lower grade deposits used
in future. 1998: Institut für Wirtschaft und Ökologie, Universität St. Gallen
(IWÖ-HSG).
357. Hoekstra, A.Y. and P.Q. Hung, Virtual water trade, in A quantification of virtual
water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade. Value of
water research report series. 2002. p. 166.
358. Smakhtin, V.Y., C. Revenga, and P. Döll, Taking into account environmental
water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments. Vol. 2.
2004: IWMI.
359. Bösch, M.E., et al., Applying cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to
the ecoinvent database. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2007. 12(3): p. 181-190.
360. Frischknecht, R., R. Steiner, and N. Jungbluth, Ökobilanzen: methode der
ökologischen knappheit–ökofaktoren 2006 Zürich: öbu, 2008.
361. Althaus, H.-J., P. de Haan, and R.W. Scholz, Traffic noise in LCA – Part 1:
state-of-science and requirement profile for consistent context-sensitive
integration of traffic noise in LCA Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2009. 14(6): p. 560-
570.
362. Benetto, E., C. Dujet, and P. Rousseaux, Fuzzy-sets approach to noise impact
assessment Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2006. 11(4): p. 222-228.
363. Benetto, E., C. Dujet, and P. Rousseaux, Integrating fuzzy multicriteria
analysis and uncertainty evaluation in life cycle assessment. Environ Model
Softw, 2008. 23(12): p. 1461-1467.
364. Garraín, D., et al., The noise impact category in life cycle assessment.
Zaragoza, 2008.
365. Lafleche, V. and F. Sacchetto, Noise assessment in LCA - a methodology
attempt: a case study with various means of transportation on a set trip. Int J
366. Müller-Wenk, R., A method to include in LCA road traffic noise and its health
effects. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2004. 9(2): p. 76-85.
367. Antonsson, A.-B. and H. Carlsson, The basis for a method to integrate work
environment in life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod, 1995. 3(4): p. 215-220.
276
368. Schmidt, A. and C. Bro, The working environment in LCA: a new approach.
2005: Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
369. Hofstetter, P. and G.A. Norris, Why and how should we assess occupational
health impacts in integrated product policy? Environ Sci Technol, 2003.
37(10): p. 2025-2035.
370. Hellweg, S., et al., Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life
cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol, 2009. 43(6): p. 1670-1679.
371. Demou, E., S. Hellweg, and K. Hungerbühler, An occupational chemical
priority list for future life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod, 2011. 19(12): p.
1339-1346.
372. Lo, S.-C., H.-w. Ma, and S.-L. Lo, Quantifying and reducing uncertainty in life
cycle assessment using the Bayesian Monte Carlo method. Sci Total Environ,
2005. 340(1–3): p. 23-33.
373. Huijbregts, M.A.J., Part II: dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty
due to choices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 1998. 3(6): p.
343-351.
374. Lloyd, S.M. and R. Ries, Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing
uncertainty in life‐cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind
Ecol, 2007. 11(1): p. 161-179.
375. Baker, J.W. and M. Lepech. Treatment of uncertainties in life cycle
assessment. in Proc. Int’l Congress Structural Safety and Reliability. 2009.
376. Heijungs, R. and M.A.J. Huijbregts. A review of approaches to treat
uncertainty in LCA. in iEMSs 2004 International Congress:" Complexity and
Integrated Resources Management". International Environmental Modelling
and Software Society, Osnabrueck, Germany. 2004.
377. Huijbregts, M.A.J., et al., Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle
inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2001. 6(3): p. 127-132.
378. Christopher Frey, H. and S.R. Patil, Identification and review of sensitivity
analysis methods. Risk Anal, 2002. 22(3): p. 553-578.
379. Pannell, D.J., Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: theoretical
framework and practical strategies. Agr Econ Res 1997 16: p. 139-152.
380. Ling-Chin, J., O. Heidrich, and A.P. Roskilly, Life cycle assessment (LCA) –
from analysing methodology development to introducing an LCA framework
for marine photovoltaic (PV) systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2016. 59:
p. 352-378.
277
381. Green Paper on better ship dismantling. 2007, Commission of the European
Communities: Brussels.
382. Safety and Health in Shipbreaking – Guidelines for Asian countries and
Turkey, in MESHS/2003/1. 2003, International Labour Organization Bangkok.
383. The IMO Guidelines on ship recycling (Annotated), G.I.a.t.B.A.N. (BAN),
Editor. 2005, International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
384. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal T.U.N.E.P. (UNEP), Editor. 1989, The United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). p. 116.
385. Technical Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of the Full and
Partial Dismantling of Ships, in Basel Convention series/SBC No. 2003/2,
S.o.t.B. Convention, Editor. 2003, The United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP).
386. Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 20 November 2013 on ship recycling and amending Regulation (EC) No
1013/2006 and Directive 2009/16/EC. 2013, Official Journal of the European
Union p. 20.
387. Naik, R.R. Sulzer main engines and spare parts for sale. [cited 20 February
2015]; Available from: http://www.marine-
engines.in/search/label/Sulzer%20used%20and%20reconditioned#axzz3SHq
dDSsL.
388. Smith, V.M. and G.A. Keoleian, The Value of Remanufactured Engines: Life‐
Cycle Environmental and Economic Perspectives. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 2004. 8(1‐2): p. 193-221.
389. Li, T., et al., Environmental emissions and energy consumptions assessment
of a diesel engine from the life cycle perspective. J Clean Prod, 2013. 53: p. 7-
12.
390. Safety data sheet - Saft. 2014, Saft: France.
391. Gaines, L. and P. Nelson, Lithium-ion batteries: examining material demand
and recycling issues. 2010, Minerals, Metals and Materials Society/AIME, 420
Commonwealth Dr., P. O. Box 430 Warrendale PA 15086 USA.
392. Sullivan, J.L. and L. Gaines, A review of battery life-cycle analysis: state of
knowledge and critical needs. 2010, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL).
393. Gaines, L., The future of automotive lithium-ion battery recycling: charting a
sustainable course. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 2014. 1: p. 2-7.
278
394. Jungbluth, N., et al., Life cycle inventories of photovoltaics. ESU-services Ltd.,
Uster, 2012.
395. Zhong, Z.W., B. Song, and P.E. Loh, LCAs of a polycrystalline photovoltaic
module and a wind turbine. Renew Energ, 2011. 36(8): p. 2227-2237.
396. Battisti, R. and A. Corrado, Evaluation of technical improvements of
photovoltaic systems through life cycle assessment methodology. Energy,
2005. 30(7): p. 952-967.
397. Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., et al., Energy, cost and LCA results of PV and hybrid
PV/T solar systems. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and applications,
2005. 13(3): p. 235-250.
398. Schlenker, S., et al. The second life of a 300 kW PV generator manufactured
with recycled wafers from the oldest German PV power plant. in 21st
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference. 2006.
399. Overview of ship recycling in the UK - Guidance. 2007, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK: London.
400. Brogaard, L.K., et al., Evaluation of life cycle inventory data for recycling
systems. Resour Conserv Recy, 2014. 87: p. 30-45.
401. Reck, B.K. and T.E. Graedel, Challenges in metal recycling. Science, 2012.
337(6095): p. 690-695.
402. Gaustad, G., E. Olivetti, and R. Kirchain, Improving aluminum recycling: a
survey of sorting and impurity removal technologies. Resour Conserv Recy,
2012. 58: p. 79-87.
403. Yellishetty, M., et al., Environmental life-cycle comparisons of steel production
and recycling: sustainability issues, problems and prospects. Environ Sci
Policy, 2011. 14(6): p. 650-663.
404. Ness, H., Recycling as an industry. Environ Sci Technol, 1972. 6(8): p. 700-
704.
405. Damgaard, A., A.W. Larsen, and T.H. Christensen, Recycling of metals:
accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste
Manage Res, 2009.
406. Moats, M., et al., Recycling of nickel, cobalt and platinum-group metals, in
Extractive metallurgy of nickel, cobalt and platinum group metals. 2011,
Elsevier.
407. Kaplan, R.S. and H. Ness, Recycling of metals. Conserv Recycling, 1987.
10(1): p. 1-13.
279
408. Johnson, J., et al., The energy benefit of stainless steel recycling. Energy Pol,
2008. 36(1): p. 181-192.
409. Green, J.A.S., Aluminum recycling and processing for energy conservation
and sustainability. 2007: ASM International.
410. Paraskevas, D., et al., Environmental modelling of aluminium recycling: a life
cycle assessment tool for sustainable metal management. J Clean Prod,
2014. 105: p. 357–370.
411. Trozzi, C., et al., EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2013:
technical guidance to prepare national emission inventories. 2013:
Luxembourg.
412. Norgate, T.E., Metal recycling: an assessment using life cycle energy
consumption as a sustainability indicator. Minerals, Editor, 2004.
413. Muchova, L., P. Eder, and A. Villanueva, End-of‐waste criteria for copper and
copper alloy scrap. European Commission, Spain, 2011.
414. Gordon, R.B., et al., The characterization of technological zinc cycles. Resour
Conserv Recy, 2003. 39(2): p. 107-135.
415. Genaidy, A.M., et al., Evidence-based integrated environmental solutions for
secondary lead smelters: pollution prevention and waste minimization
technologies and practices. Sci Total Environ, 2009. 407(10): p. 3239-3268.
416. Eckelman, M.J., Facility-level energy and greenhouse gas life-cycle
assessment of the global nickel industry. Resour Conserv Recy, 2010. 54(4):
p. 256-266.
417. Reck, B.K., et al., Anthropogenic nickel cycle: Insights into use, trade, and
recycling. Environ Sci Technol, 2008. 42(9): p. 3394-3400.
418. van Vugt, H., et al., Energy balance analysis: new models library, used for
innovative ship design. 2013. p. 127.
419. Mermiris, D., et al. Dynamic energy modeling – a new approach to energy
efficiency and cost effectiveness in shipping operations. in Proceedings of
International Conference on Technologies, Operations, Logistics and
Modelling for Low Carbon Shipping, Glasgow, 2011.
420. Cooper, D., Representative emission factors for use in quantification of
emissions from ships associated with ship movements between port in the
European Community. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd
(ENV. C. 1/ETU/2001/0090), 2002.
280
421. Craighill, A.L. and J.C. Powell, Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation
of recycling: a case study. Resour Conserv Recy, 1996. 17(2): p. 75-96.
422. Brosnan, I.G., The diminishing age gap between polar cruisers and their ships:
a new reason to codify the IMO Guidelines for ships operating in polar waters
and make them mandatory? Mar Policy, 2011. 35(2): p. 261-265.
423. Boughton, B. and A. Horvath, Environmental assessment of used oil
management methods. Environ Sci Technol, 2004. 38(2): p. 353-358.
424. Kalnes, T.N., D.R. Shonnard, and A. Schuppel, LCA of a spent lube oil re-
refining process. Comput Aided Chem Eng 2006. 21: p. 713-718.
425. Kanokkantapong, V., et al., Used lubricating oil management options based on
life cycle thinking. Resour Conserv Recy, 2009. 53(5): p. 294-299.
426. Pires, A. and G. Martinho, Life cycle assessment of a waste lubricant oil
management system. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2013. 18(1): p. 102-112.
427. Brand technical comparison, in Euroboilers group - Technical Seminar. 2012,
Garioni Naval.
428. Mersiowsky, I., Eco-profiles and environmental declarations. 2011. p. 1-51.
429. Stainless steel specification and composition table chart. 2000-2015 12
February 2015]; Available from:
http://www.engineersedge.com/stainless_steel.htm.
430. Mansouri, S.A., H. Lee, and O. Aluko, Multi-objective decision support to
enhance environmental sustainability in maritime shipping: a review and future
directions. Transport Res E - Log, 2015. 78: p. 3-18.
431. Martínez, E., et al., Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment
software tools through a wind turbine case study. Renew Energ, 2015. 74: p.
237-246.
281
Appendix
Input and output data used in developing LCA models for individual components are
presented in this section. For brevity, C, R and N are used to denote the
components which were integrated into the conventional, retrofit and new-build
systems respectively.
Manufacturing a diesel engine C, R

Inputs
Flow Quantity Amount Unit
Aluminium [Metals] Mass 2.11E+03 kg
Carbon [Organic intermediate products] Mass 1.72E+03 kg
Cast iron part [Metal parts] Mass 5.42E+04 kg
Chromium [Metals] Mass 1.56E+03 kg
RER: heavy fuel oil, burned in industrial Energy 3.57E+02 MJ
furnace [Heating systems]
RER: light fuel oil, burned in industrial Energy 2.83E+04 MJ
RER: natural gas, burned in boiler Energy 7.46E+04 MJ
[Heating systems]
RER: tap water, at user [Appropriation] Mass 9.75E+05 kg
Steel part [Metal parts] Mass 1.66E+04 kg
Tin (99.92%) [Metals] Mass 1.56E+03 kg
RER: electricity, at grid [Production mix] Energy 1.43E+04 MJ
Outputs
CH: disposal, hazardous waste, 25% Mass 1.91E+03 kg
water [hazardous waste incineration]
CH: disposal, solid waste, 22.9% water Mass 1.07E+04 kg
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
CH: treatment, sewage [Wastewater Volume 9.44E+02 m3
treatment]
Main diesel engine [Metal parts] Mass 7.80E+04 kg
Waste heat [Other emissions to air] Energy 1.43E+04 MJ
A diesel engine in operation (1) C

Inputs
Heavy fuel oil (1.0 wt.% S) [Refinery Mass 1.34E+07 kg
products]
RER: diesel, low-sulphur [Fuels] Mass 9.92E+07 kg
282
Outputs
Carbon dioxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 3.60E+08 kg
air]
Carbon monoxide [Inorganic emissions Mass 3.31E+05 kg
to air]
Dust (PM2,5 - PM10) [Particles to air] Mass 2.13E+05 kg
Energy unspecific [Energy resources] Energy 2.29E+09 MJ
Hydrocarbons [Organic emissions to air Mass 3.04E+05 kg
(VOC group)]
Nitrogen dioxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 7.26E+06 kg
air]
Sulphur dioxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 2.76E+06 kg
air]

Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
Carbon monoxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 3.51E+05 kg
air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
283
Inputs
products]

Outputs
air]
air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
284
A diesel engine in operation (1) R
Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
285
Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
air]
(VOC group)]
air]
286
Sullphur dioxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 2.20E+06 kg
air]

Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
Maintaining a diesel engine C

Inputs
RER: lubricating oil [Organics] Mass 1.50E+04 kg
Outputs
Unspecified oil waste [Hazardous waste] Mass 1.50E+04 kg
Maintaining a diesel engine (1) R

Inputs
287
Outputs

Inputs
Outputs

Inputs
Outputs

Inputs
Outputs
Used lubricating oil treatment of a diesel engine C

Inputs
Diesel [Refinery products] Mass 4.03E+01 kg
Light fuel oil (0.05 wt.% S) [Refinery Mass 3.04E+01 kg
products]
288
Liquefied petroleum gas [LPG, at Mass 3.62E+01 kg
production]
RER: electricity [Production mix] Energy 7.76E+05 MJ
Sulphuric acid [Inorganic intermediate Mass 6.04E+01 kg
products]
Outputs
Sewage sludge (waste water processing) Mass 1.14E+03 kg
[Hazardous waste]
Sludge [Hazardous waste] Mass 4.86E+02 kg
Treated lubricating oil [Waste for Mass 1.34E+04 kg
recovery]
Used lubricating oil treatment of a diesel engine (1) R

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
Sewage sludge (waste water Mass 4.62E+02 kg
processing) [Hazardous waste]
recovery]

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
289
Outputs
recovery]

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
290
recovery]
Recovery of used lubricating oil of a diesel engine after treatment C

Inputs
Hydrogen [Inorganic intermediate Mass 6.99E+00 kg
products]
Propane [Organic intermediate Mass 9.84E+00 kg
products]
RER: natural gas [Fuels] Energy 6.94E+04 MJ
Sodium hydroxide [Inorganic Mass 3.88E+01 kg
intermediate products]
recovery]
Outputs
Arsenic [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.76E-08 kg
Asphalt flux [Organic intermediate Mass 4.54E+03 kg
products]
Base oil from re-refining [Other fuels] Mass 3.23E+03 kg
Cadmium [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.19E-06 kg
air]
to air]
Chromium [Heavy metals to air] Mass 3.78E-08 kg
Electricity from waste to energy Energy 8.10E+04 MJ
[System-dependent]
Expanded clay [Minerals] Mass 8.80E+00 kg
Flux and gas [Operating materials] Mass 3.18E+02 kg
Hazardous waste (unspecified) Mass 1.96E+02 kg
[Hazardous waste]
Hydrogen fluoride [Inorganic emissions Mass 3.51E-03 kg
to air]
Hydrogen sulphide [Inorganic emissions Mass 1.74E-07 kg
to air]
Marine diesel oil [Other fuels] Mass 3.47E+03 kg
Nickel [Heavy metals to air] Mass 5.82E-06 kg
Nitrogen oxides [Inorganic emissions to Mass 5.05E+00 kg
air]
NMVOC (unspecified) [NMVOC Group Mass 4.40E+00 kg
to air]
Production residues (unspecified) Mass 1.74E+02 kg
[Waste for recovery]
291
Sulphur dioxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 8.61E-01 kg
air]
Waste water - untreated [Production Mass 1.96E+02 kg
residues in life cycle]
Recovering used lubricating oil of a diesel engine after treatment (1) R

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
Arsenic [Heavy metals to air] Mass 0.00E+00 kg
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
292
air]
to air]
air]

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
293
to air]
air]
to air]
air]

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
294
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
295
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
NMVOC (unspecified) [NMVOC Group Mass 9.92E-01 kg
to air]
air]
Engine dissembling and component recovering/refurbishing C, R

Inputs
Crude oil [Crude oil, at consumer] Mass 6.12E+03 kg
Electricity [Electric power] Energy 2.56E+05 MJ
Raw hardcoal [Resource] Mass 5.29E+04 kg
RER: natural gas, burned in industrial Energy 4.99E+02 MJ
Outputs
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] Mass 6.32E+02 kg
Aluminium scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 6.32E+02 kg
Ammonium [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 9.18E-01 kg
BOD in waste water [Production Mass 7.52E+01 kg
air]
to air]
Cast iron [Metal parts] Mass 1.63E+04 kg
296
Cast iron scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.63E+04 kg
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Mass 8.63E+01 kg
[Analytical measures to freshwater]
Hydrochloric acid [Waste for recovery] Mass 2.29E+01 kg
Hydrogen sulphide [Inorganic emissions Mass 4.04E+01 kg
to air]
Metallic waste for incineration [Waste for Mass 1.54E+04 kg
disposal]
Metallic waste for landfill [Waste for Mass 1.54E+04 kg
disposal]
Methane [Organic emissions to air (VOC Mass 3.33E+02 kg
group)]
air]
Steel cast part [Metal parts] Mass 4.98E+03 kg
Steel scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 4.98E+03 kg
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a diesel engine - ingot production C, R

Inputs
Alloy components [Metals] Mass 1.17E+01 kg
CH: anionic resin [Organics] Mass 2.23E+00 kg
CH: cationic resin [Organics] Mass 2.23E+00 kg
Sodium chloride (rock salt) [Non Mass 5.02E+00 kg
renewable resources]
Water [Water] Mass 5.37E+02 kg
Outputs
Aluminium ingot (secondary) [Metals] Mass 5.58E+02 kg
air]
Carbon monoxide [Inorganic emissions Mass 5.58E-01 kg
to air]
Dust (PM2,5 - PM10) [Particles to air] Mass 5.58E-01 kg
air]
air]
Waste for disposal (unspecified) [Waste Mass 1.03E+01 kg
for disposal]
297
Recovering cast iron scrap of a diesel engine C, R
Inputs
Hard coal [Resource] Mass 6.90E+02 kg
Outputs
BOD in waste water [Production Mass 9.57E-01 kg
air]
to air]
Cast iron [Metals] Mass 1.63E+04 kg
Hydrochloric acid [Waste for recovery] Mass 3.00E-01 kg
to air]
group)]
air]
air]
Recovering steel scrap of a diesel engine C, R

Inputs
Outputs
298
air]
to air]
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Mass 3.52E-01 kg
to air]
group)]
air]
RER: steel, unalloyed [Benefication] Mass 4.98E+03 kg
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a diesel engine to incineration plant C, R

Inputs
CH: electricity from waste [Incineration] Energy 8.91E+03 MJ
CH: heat from waste [Incineration] Energy 1.29E+04 MJ
CH: waste incineration plant Number of 3.84E-06 pcs.
[Incineration] pieces
CH: process-specific burdens, slag Mass 2.43E+04 kg
compartment [Incineration]
CH: slag compartment [Incineration] Number of 4.33E-05 pcs.
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
Aluminium (+III) [Inorganic emissions to Mass 1.25E+04 kg
freshwater]
to air]
Carbon monoxide, non-fossil [Inorganic Mass 1.36E+00 kg
emissions to air]
Chloride [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 1.01E+01 kg
freshwater]
Chloride [Inorganic emissions to Mass 6.41E+01 kg
freshwater]
Chromium (+VI) [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 1.21E-01 kg
freshwater]
Chromium (+VI) [Heavy metals to Mass 5.27E-04 kg
freshwater]
299
Copper (+II) [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 1.54E+04 kg
freshwater]
Copper (+II) [Heavy metals to Mass 5.33E-01 kg
freshwater]
Incineration of metallic waste [Waste for Mass 1.54E+04 kg
disposal]
Iron [Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater] Mass 3.26E+03 kg
Iron [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 5.24E-02 kg
Methane (biotic) [Organic emissions to Mass 3.89E-02 kg
air (VOC group)]
Methane [Organic emissions to air (VOC Mass 5.93E-02 kg
group)]
Solids [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 4.07E+00 kg
freshwater]
Solids [Particles to freshwater] Mass 1.75E-02 kg
Tin (+IV) [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 1.64E-04 kg
Tin, ion [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 1.02E+01 kg
freshwater]
Waste heat [Other emissions to Energy 1.26E+03 MJ
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a diesel engine to landfill C, R
Inputs
CH: cement, unspecified [Binder] Mass 3.95E+01 kg
CH: disposal, cement [Residual material Mass 9.86E+01 kg
landfill facility]
CH: electricity, at grid [Supply mix] Energy 5.81E+02 MJ
CH: iron (III) chloride, 40% in H2O, at Mass 1.53E-02 kg
plant [Inorganics]
CH: light fuel oil, burned in boiler Energy 3.60E+02 MJ
[Heating systems]
CH: process-specific burdens, waste Mass 1.02E+03 kg
incineration [Incineration]
CH: process-specific burdens, residual Mass 9.86E+01 kg
[Residual material landfill facility]
CH: residual material landfill facility Number of 2.06E-07 pcs.
[Residual material landfill facility] pieces
CH: landfill facility [Landfill facility] Number of 8.54E-06 pcs.
pieces
300
CH: sewer grid [Wastewater treatment] Length 8.54E-06 m
pieces
CH: wastewater treatment plant Number of 2.18E-07 pcs.
[Wastewater treatment] pieces
GLO: chemicals inorganic, at plant Mass 1.24E-03 kg
[Inorganics]
GLO: chemicals organic, at plant Mass 6.21E-02 kg
[Organics]
disposal]
RER: hydrochloric acid, at plant Mass 7.41E-04 kg
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
Aluminium [Particles to air] Mass 6.56E-01 kg
to air]
Chloride [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 7.42E-08 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
Copper (+II) [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 2.18E-06 kg
freshwater]
Copper (+II) [Heavy metals to air] Mass 3.06E+00 kg
freshwater]
Iron [Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater] Mass 2.80E-02 kg
Iron [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.09E+03 kg
Iron [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 5.33E+01 kg
Landfill of metallic waste [Waste for Mass 1.54E+04 kg
disposal]
group)]
Tin (+IV) [Heavy metals to air] Mass 5.98E+01 kg
Tin, ion [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 1.80E-04 kg
freshwater]
301
Manufacturing an auxiliary generator C, R
Inputs
Copper [Metals] Mass 3.62E+02 kg
RER: chromium steel, at plant Mass 8.04E+01 kg
[Benefication]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
Auxiliary generator [Metal parts] Mass 3.94E+04 kg
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Operating an auxiliary generator (1) C

Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
302
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
Operating an auxiliary generator (2) C

Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
Operating an auxiliary generator (1) R

Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
303
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
Operating an auxiliary generator (2) R

Inputs
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
Maintaining an auxiliary generator C

Inputs
Outputs
304
Maintaining an auxiliary generator R
Inputs
Outputs
Maintaining an auxiliary generator R

Inputs
Outputs
Used lubricating oil treatment of an auxiliary generator C
Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]
305
Used lubricating oil treatment of an auxiliary generator R
Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]
Used lubricating oil treatment of an auxiliary generator R
Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]
306
Recovering used lubricating oil of an auxiliary generator after treatment
C
Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]
307

R
Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
308
air]

R
Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
309
air]
to air]
air]
Dissembling an auxiliary generator and recovering/refurbishing

component C
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
Copper scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.09E+02 kg
Hydrochloric acid [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.16E+01 kg
to air]
310
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
Stainless steel [Metal parts] Mass 2.41E+01 kg
Stainless steel scrap [Waste for Mass 2.41E+01 kg
recovery]
air]
Recycling copper scrap of an auxiliary generator C

Inputs
RER: blast furnace gas, burned in Energy 5.37E+02 MJ
power plant [Power plants]
RER: gas power plant, 100MWe [Power Number of 3.65E-09 pcs.
plants] pieces
Outputs
Acenaphthene [NMVOC Group to air] Mass 4.26E-10 kg
Acetaldehyde (Ethanal) [NMVOC Group Mass 4.30E-07 kg
to air]
Acetic acid [NMVOC Group to air] Mass 6.50E-05 kg
Benzene [NMVOC Group to air] Mass 4.97E-07 kg
Benzo{a}pyrene [PAH group to air] Mass 2.84E-10 kg
Butane [NMVOC Group to air] Mass 4.97E-04 kg
air]
to air]
Copper [Heavy metals to air] Mass 3.04E-03 kg
Dust (> PM10) [Particles to air] Mass 2.82E-02 kg
Dust (PM2.5) [Particles to air] Mass 1.02E-01 kg
Ethane [NMVOC Group to air] Mass 7.36E-04 kg
Formaldehyde (methanal) [NMVOC Mass 1.78E-05 kg
Group to air]
Heat, waste [unspecified] Energy 4.08E+02 MJ
311
Hexane (isomers) [NMVOC Group to Mass 4.26E-04 kg
air]
Lead [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.19E-02 kg
group)]
Nitrogen oxides [Inorganic emissions to Mass 3.76E-02 kg
air]
Nitrous oxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 5.37E-04 kg
air]
Pentane (n-pentane) [NMVOC Group to Mass 6.18E-04 kg
air]
Polychlorinated biphenyls [Halogenated Mass 4.01E-04 kg
organic emissions to air]
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins Mass 1.56E-14 kg
[Halogenated organic emissions to air]
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Mass 4.30E-06 kg
(carcinogenic) [PAH group to air]
Propane [NMVOC Group to air] Mass 3.79E-04 kg
Propionic acid (propane acid) [NMVOC Mass 8.59E-06 kg
Group to air]
RER: copper, secondary [Benefication] Mass 1.09E+02 kg
air]
Toluene (methyl benzene) [NMVOC Mass 8.06E-07 kg
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of an auxiliary generator C

Inputs
RER: natural gas, burned in industrial Energy 7.19E-01 MJ
Outputs
air]
to air]
312
to air]
group)]
Nitrogen dioxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 5.28E-01 kg
air]
air]
Recycling cast iron scrap of an auxiliary generator C

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]
313
Recycling aluminium scrap of an auxiliary generator - ingot production C
Inputs
Alloy components [Metals] Mass 8.94E-01 kg
CH: anionic resin [Organics] Mass 1.70E-01 kg
CH: cationic resin [Organics] Mass 1.70E-01 kg
Sodium chloride (rock salt) [Non Mass 3.83E-01 kg
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Waste for disposal (unspecified) [Waste Mass 7.89E-01 kg
for disposal]
Disposing metallic waste of an auxiliary generator to incineration plants

C
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
314
to air]
Carbon monoxide, non-fossil [Inorganic Mass 6.95E-01 kg
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
air (VOC group)]
group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of an auxiliary generator to landfill C

Inputs
CH: cement, unspecified, at plant Mass 2.02E+01 kg
[Binder]
landfill facility]
CH: disposal, paper [Incineration] Mass 3.06E-01 kg
CH: disposal, plastics, mixture Mass 3.06E-01 kg
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
315
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Copper (+II) [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 9.92E-04 kg
Hydrogen chloride [Inorganic emissions Mass 5.40E-01 kg
to air]
disposal]
316
Manufacturing a shaft generator C, R
Inputs
Crude steel [Metals] Mass 1.05E+03 kg
[Benefication]
[Heating systems]
RER: synthetic rubber, at plant Mass 3.19E+01 kg
[polymers]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
shaft generator [Metal parts] Mass 2.13E+03 kg
Operating a shaft generator C

Inputs
Outputs
317
Operating a shaft generator which functions as a PTO/PTI system R
Inputs
Outputs
Operating a shaft generator which functions as a PTO/PTI system R
Inputs
Outputs
Recovering a shaft generator and refurbishing its components C

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
318
to air]
Landfill of plastic waste [Consumer Mass 2.23E+01 kg
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
Plastic (unspecified) [Waste for Mass 9.56E+00 kg
recovery]
Stainless steel [Metal parts] Mass 3.19E+00 kg
recovery]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a shaft generator - ingot production C

Inputs
RER: electricity, at grid [Production mix] Energy 6.08E-01 MJ
Outputs
air]
to air]
319
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a shaft generator C

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
320
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling cast iron scrap of a shaft generator C

Inputs
Argon [Inorganic intermediate products] Mass 2.22E-01 kg
GLO: charcoal, at plant [Fuels] Mass 9.91E+00 kg
Coke, metallurgic [Organic intermediate Mass 3.45E+00 kg
products]
Dolomite [Minerals] Mass 4.86E+00 kg
Graphite [Inorganic intermediate Mass 7.93E-01 kg
products]
Lime finelime (ground) [Minerals] Mass 1.64E+01 kg
Nitrogen liquid [Inorganic intermediate Mass 8.79E+00 kg
products]
Oxygen liquid [Inorganic intermediate Mass 9.93E+00 kg
products]
Pig iron (Fe carrier) [Metals] Mass 3.73E+00 kg
Refractory [Minerals] Mass 4.06E+00 kg
RER: steam, for chemical processes Mass 2.82E+01 kg
[Auxiliary material]
Outputs
air]
321
to air]
air]
Refractory [Hazardous waste] Mass 2.42E+00 kg
Sludge [Waste for disposal] Mass 8.53E-01 kg
Steel works slag [Waste for recovery] Mass 4.09E+01 kg
air]
Recycling stainless steel scrap of a shaft generator C
Inputs
GLO: charcoal, at plant [Fuels] Mass 5.35E-01 kg
Coke, metallurgic [Organic intermediate Mass 1.86E-01 kg
products]
Dolomite [Minerals] Mass 2.62E-01 kg
products]
Lime finelime (ground) [Minerals] Mass 8.82E-01 kg
Nitrogen liquid [Inorganic intermediate Mass 4.74E-01 kg
products]
Oxygen liquid [Inorganic intermediate Mass 5.35E-01 kg
products]
Pig iron (Fe carrier) [Metals] Mass 2.01E-01 kg
Refractory [Minerals] Mass 2.19E-01 kg
recovery]
Water [Water] Mass 2.49E-01 kg
Outputs
air]
322
to air]
air]
Refractory [Hazardous waste] Mass 1.30E-01 kg
Stainless steel (slab) [Metals] Mass 3.14E+00 kg
air]
Recycling steel scrap of a shaft generator C

Inputs
products]
Graphite [Inorganic intermediate Mass 1.01E+00 kg
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
323
to air]
air]
Sludge [Waste for disposal] Mass 1.08E+00 kg
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a shaft generator to incineration plants C
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
324
disposal]
air (VOC group)]
group)]
Solids [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 1.11E-01 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a shaft generator to landfill C
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
325
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Output
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Copper (+II) [Heavy metals to air] Mass 8.33E-02 kg
freshwater]
to air]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a thermal oil boiler C, R

Inputs
CH: brass, at plant [Benefication] Mass 2.69E-01 kg
CH: rock wool, packed, at plant Mass 1.02E+02 kg
[Manufacturing]
RER: electricity, at grid [Supply mix] Energy 6.43E+03 MJ
326
RER: aluminium, primary [Benefication] Mass 8.07E+01 kg
RER: brazing solder, cadmium free, at Mass 3.23E+01 kg
plant [Benefication]
[Benefication]
RER: copper, at regional storage Mass 1.35E+02 kg
[Benefication]
RER: corrugated board, mixed fibre Mass 5.38E+01 kg
[cardboard & corrugated board]
RER: polyethylene, granulate, at plant Mass 7.54E+00 kg
[polymers]
RER: steel, low-alloyed [Benefication] Mass 2.61E+03 kg
Outputs
Thermal oil boiler [Heating] Mass 3.17E+03 kg
Operating a thermal oil boiler (1) C, R

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
327
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
328
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
Dismantling a thermal oil boiler C, R

Inputs
Outputs
Brass scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 8.96E-02 kg
air]
to air]
CH: disposal, packaging paper, 13.7% Mass 3.77E+01 kg
water [Incineration]
water [Landfill facility]
Dust (PM10) [Particles to air] Mass 3.33E-02 kg
disposal]
disposal]
329
group)]
air]
air]
Polyethylene [Waste for recovery] Mass 2.26E+00 kg
Polyethylene (unspecified) [Consumer Mass 5.27E+00 kg
waste]
recovery]
air]
Waste (unspecified) [Waste for disposal] Mass 1.55E+02 kg
Oil waste treatment of a thermal oil boiler C, R

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]
Recovery of used thermal oil after treatment C, R

Inputs
Hydrogen [Inorganic intermediate Mass 8.30E-01 kg
products]
products]
330
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a thermal oil boiler C, R

Inputs
331
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling brass scrap of a thermal oil boiler C, R

Inputs
RER: blast furnace gas, burned in Energy 4.44E-01 MJ
power plant [power plants]
RER: gas power plant, 100MWe [power Number of 3.01E-12 pcs.
plants] pieces
Outputs
Acenaphthene [NMVOC group to air] Mass 3.52E-13 kg
Acetaldehyde (Ethanal) [NMVOC group Mass 3.55E-10 kg
to air]
Acetic acid [NMVOC group to air] Mass 5.37E-08 kg
Benzene [NMVOC group to air] Mass 4.11E-10 kg
Butane [NMVOC group to air] Mass 4.11E-07 kg
Carbon dioxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 8.87E-02 kg
air]
to air]
332
Copper [Metals] Mass 6.27E-02 kg
Ethane [NMVOC group to air] Mass 6.08E-07 kg
group to air]
Heat, waste [unspecified] Energy 3.37E-01 MJ
Hexane (isomers) [NMVOC group to air] Mass 3.52E-07 kg
group)]
air]
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) [Inorganic Mass 4.44E-07 kg
emissions to air]
Pentane (n-pentane) [NMVOC group to Mass 5.10E-07 kg
air]
Propane [NMVOC group to air] Mass 3.13E-07 kg
group to air]
air]
group to air]
Zinc [Metals] Mass 2.69E-02 kg
Recycling copper scrap of a boiler C, R

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
333
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
334
Recycling stainless steel scrap of a boiler C, R
Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
335
Recycling steel scrap of a thermal oil boiler C, R
Inputs
Argon [Inorganic intermediate products] Mass 1.38E+00 kg
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
336
Disposing metallic waste of a thermal oil boiler to incineration plants C, R
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
337
Disposing metallic waste of a thermal oil boiler to landfill C, R
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
Aluminium [Particles to air] Mass 9.76E+02 kg
338
Aluminium (+III) [Inorganic emissions to Mass 4.21E-02 kg
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
to air]
disposal]
339
Manufacturing an exhaust gas boiler C, R
Inputs
CH: brass, at plant [Benefication] Mass 1.87E-01 kg
CH: rock wool, packed, at plant Mass 7.10E+01 kg
[Manufacturing]
RER: alkyd paint, 60% in solvent Mass 9.34E+00 kg
[Manufacturing]
RER: brazing solder, cadmium free, at Mass 2.24E+01 kg
plant [Benefication]
[Benefication]
RER: copper, at regional storage Mass 9.34E+01 kg
[Benefication]
RER: polyethylene, granulate, at plant Mass 5.23E+00 kg
[polymers]

Outputs
Exhaust gas boiler [Heating] Mass 2.20E+03 kg
Operating an exhaust gas boiler C, R

Inputs
Outputs
340
Dismantling an exhaust gas boiler C, R
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
Corrugated board [Materials from Mass 3.74E+01 kg
renewable raw materials]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]

air]
Polyethylene [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.57E+00 kg
Polyethylene (unspecified) [Consumer Mass 3.66E+00 kg
waste]
recovery]
air]
for disposal]
341
Recycling aluminium scrap of an exhaust gas boiler C, R
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling brass scrap of an exhaust gas boiler C, R

Inputs
RER: blast furnace gas, burned in Energy 3.08E-01 MJ
342
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Copper [Metals] Mass 4.35E-02 kg
Group to air]
Heat, waste [unspecified] Energy 2.34E-01 MJ
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
343
air]
Group to air]
Zinc [Metals] Mass 1.87E-02 kg
Recycling copper scrap of an exhaust gas boiler C, R

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
344
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling stainless steel scrap of an exhaust gas boiler C, R

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
air]
345
to air]
air]
air]
Recycling steel scrap of an exhaust gas boiler C, R

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
346
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of an exhaust gas boiler to incineration plants

C, R
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
347
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of an exhaust gas boiler to landfill C, R

Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
348
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
to air]
disposal]
group)]
349
Manufacturing a bow thruster C, R, N
Inputs
Lead [Metals] Mass 1.26E+00 kg
Lubricating oil [Operating materials] Mass 8.80E+00 kg
Manganese [Metals] Mass 4.62E+01 kg
Nickel [Metals] Mass 1.89E+02 kg
Silicon (99%) [Metals] Mass 4.20E+00 kg
Zinc [Metals] Mass 4.20E+01 kg
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
thruster [Assemblies] Mass 5.60E+03 kg
Operating and maintaining a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
Outputs
350
Used lubricating oil treatment of a bow thruster C, R, N
Inputs
Diesel [Refinery products] Mass 7.10E-01 kg
Light fuel oil (0.05 wt.% S) [Refinery Mass 5.35E-01 kg
products]
Liquefied petroleum gas [LPG, at Mass 6.38E-01 kg
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]
Recovering used lubricating oil of a bow thruster after treatment C, R, N

Inputs
Hydrogen [Inorganic intermediate Mass 1.23E-01 kg
products]
Propane [Organic intermediate Mass 1.73E-01 kg
products]
Sodium hydroxide [Inorganic Mass 6.84E-01 kg
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
351
[System-dependent]
Expanded clay [Minerals] Mass 1.55E-01 kg
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]
Dismantling a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
Lead scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 4.20E-01 kg
manganese scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.54E+01 kg
disposal]
disposal]
352
group)]
nickel scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 6.29E+01 kg
air]
air]
silicon waste [Hazardous non organic Mass 1.40E+00 kg
waste for disposal]
air]
Tin scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.40E+00 kg
for disposal]
Zinc scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.40E+01 kg
Recycling aluminium scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
353
Recycling copper scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Dust (PM2.5) [Particles to air] Mass 1.04E+00 kg
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
354
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling lead scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
Lead scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 4.20E-01 kg
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
Lead secondary [Metals] Mass 4.20E-01 kg
group)]
355
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Zinc [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.30E-05 kg
Recycling manganese scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
GLO: manganese concentrate, at Mass 1.61E+01 kg
beneficiation [Benefication]
GLO: non-ferrous metal smelter Number of 1.63E-13 pcs.
[Benefication] pieces
RER: ferromanganese, high-coal, 74.5% Mass 1.98E+01 kg
Mn, at regional storage [Benefication]
Outputs
RER: manganese, at regional storage Mass 2.34E+01 kg
[Benefication]
Recycling nickel scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
Blasting abrasive [Operating materials] Mass 4.34E-03 kg
CH: disposal, nickel smelter slag, 0% Mass 4.58E+01 kg
water [Residual material landfill facility]
CH: limestone, milled, packed, at plant Mass 1.70E+00 kg
[others]
356
GLO: diesel, burned in building machine Energy 6.90E+00 MJ
[Machines]
GLO: non-ferrous metal mine, surface Number of 7.23E-09 pcs.
Occupation, mineral extraction site Area time 5.96E-03 m2*yr
[Hemerobie Ecoinvent]
RER: conveyor belt, at plant [Machines] Length 2.89E-06 m
RER: hard coal, burned in industrial Energy 1.45E+02 MJ
Transformation, from unspecified Area 1.99E-04 m2
Transformation, to mineral extraction Area 1.99E-04 m2
site [Hemerobie Ecoinvent]
Outputs
freshwater]
Antimony [Heavy metals to air] Mass 7.31E-09 kg
Arsenic [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 5.52E-07 kg
Beryllium [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 9.50E-08 kg
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) Mass 3.01E-04 kg
Boron [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 3.66E-07 kg
Cadmium [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 7.72E-08 kg
Calcium (+II) [Inorganic emissions to Mass 1.98E-02 kg
freshwater]
air]
Chromium [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 7.29E-07 kg
Cobalt [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.09E-04 kg
Cobalt [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 2.26E-08 kg
Copper [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 1.54E-06 kg
Dioxins (unspecified) [Halogenated Mass 3.62E-11 kg
357
DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon Mass 1.18E-04 kg
[Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater]
Fluorine [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 3.47E-05 kg
GLO: ferronickel, 25% Ni, at plant Mass 3.62E+01 kg
[Benefication]
Lead [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 4.80E-07 kg
Manganese [Heavy metals to air] Mass 3.47E-05 kg
Manganese [Heavy metals to Mass 7.14E-07 kg
freshwater]
Mercury [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.83E-09 kg
Mercury [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 8.22E-09 kg
Nickel [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 1.23E-06 kg
Nitrogen [Inorganic emissions to Mass 6.58E-04 kg
freshwater]
Selenium [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.83E-09 kg
Sulphate [Inorganic emissions to Mass 6.82E-02 kg
freshwater]
Tin [Heavy metals to air] Mass 5.80E-05 kg
Tin [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 7.13E-07 kg
Total organic carbon, TOC (Ecoinvent) Mass 1.18E-04 kg
Zinc [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 4.31E-06 kg
Recycling silicon scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
CH: disposal, slag from MG silicon Mass 5.18E-03 kg
production, 0% water [Landfill facility]
DE: silica sand, at plant [Additives] Mass 5.59E-01 kg
RER: graphite, at plant [Inorganics] Mass 2.07E-02 kg
RER: hard coal coke, at plant [Fuels] Energy 4.79E+00 MJ
RER: oxygen, liquid, at plant Mass 4.14E-03 kg
[Inorganics]
RER: petroleum coke, at refinery [Fuels] Mass 1.04E-01 kg
RER: silicone plant [Inorganics] Number of 2.07E-12 pcs.
pieces
358
RER: wood chips, mixed, u=120%, at Volume 6.74E-04 m3
forest [Fuels]
waste for disposal]
Outputs
Calcium [Consumer waste] Mass 1.61E-07 kg
air]
to air]
Chlorine [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 1.63E-08 kg
Cyanide (unspecified) [Inorganic Mass 1.42E-06 kg
emissions to air]
to air]
to air]
Iron [Heavy metals to air] Mass 8.03E-07 kg
air]
to air]
NO: MG-silicon, at plant [Benefication] Mass 5.18E-01 kg
Silicon dust [Particles to air] Mass 1.56E-03 kg
air]
Recycling steel scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
359
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Recycling tin scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
CH: disposal, dust, unalloyed EAF steel Mass 6.50E-02 kg
360
CH: gypsum, mineral, at mine [others] Mass 5.69E-03 kg
CH: limestone, at mine [Additives] Mass 1.64E-01 kg
[Machines]
GLO: mine, iron [Benefication] Number of 4.71E-11 pcs.
pieces
GLO: non-ferrous metal mine, Number of 2.55E-14 pcs.
underground [Benefication] pieces
RER: anode, aluminium electrolysis Mass 4.67E-04 kg
[Benefication]
RER: heat, heavy fuel oil, at industrial Energy 2.55E+00 MJ
UCTE: hard coal mix, at regional Mass 1.34E-01 kg
storage [Fuels]
Outputs
air]
RER: tin, at regional storage Mass 1.20E+00 kg
[Benefication]
air]
Recycling zinc scrap of a bow thruster C, R, N

Inputs
CH: disposal, inert waste, 5% water Mass 8.78E-02 kg
[Landfill facility]
CH: treatment, sewage, unpolluted Volume 1.07E-01 m3
[Wastewater treatment]
GLO: diesel, burned in building machine Energy 1.15E-01 MJ
[Machines]
GLO: resource correction, PbZn, Mass 1.09E-01 kg
cadmium, negative [Benefication]
GLO: resource correction, PbZn, Mass 1.09E-01 kg
cadmium, positive [Benefication]
GLO: resource correction, PbZn, indium, Mass 1.81E-03 kg
negative [Benefication]
positive [Benefication]
361
GLO: resource correction, PbZn, zinc, Mass 4.56E-03 kg
products]
Outputs
Fluoride [Inorganic emissions to Mass 8.17E-05 kg
freshwater]
GLO: cadmium sludge, from zinc Mass 2.31E-02 kg
electrolysis, at plant [Benefication]
GLO: leaching residues, indium rich, Mass 2.32E+00 kg
from zinc circuit, at smelter
[Benefication]
GLO: zinc , from Imperial smelting Mass 6.85E+00 kg
furnace [Benefication]
air]
362
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a bow thruster to incineration plants C, R, N

Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
Lead (+II) [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 7.09E-01 kg
freshwater]
Lead (+II) [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 1.29E-05 kg
Manganese (+II) [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 4.48E+00 kg
freshwater]
363
Manganese (+II) [Heavy metals to Mass 2.29E-04 kg
freshwater]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
Nickel (+II) [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 1.96E+00 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Zinc (+II) [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 1.12E-05 kg
Zinc, ion [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 3.77E-01 kg
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a bow thruster to landfill C, R, N

Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
364
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
Lead (+II) [Heavy metals to air] Mass 7.07E-01 kg
freshwater]
group)]
freshwater]
365
Zinc (+II) [Heavy metals to air] Mass 3.04E-01 kg
freshwater]
Manufacturing a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
Manganese [Metals] Mass 2.09E+02 kg
Nickel [Metals] Mass 1.01E+03 kg
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Propeller and shaft [Assemblies] Mass 5.94E+04 kg
366
Operating and maintaining a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N
Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
air]
Lead scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 2.40E+00 kg
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
Nitrous oxide [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 8.90E-03 kg
waste for disposal]
air]
for disposal]
367
Recycling aluminium scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
Carbon monoxide [Inorganic emissions to Mass 6.70E-01 kg
air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
RER: blast furnace gas, burned in power Energy 5.49E+03 MJ
plant [Power plants]
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
368
air]
air]
Group to air]
Hexane (isomers) [NMVOC Group to air] Mass 4.36E-03 kg
group)]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling lead scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
369
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
Lead secondary [Metals] Mass 2.40E+00 kg
group)]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
370
Group to air]
Recycling manganese scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
GLO: manganese concentrate, at Mass 7.27E+01 kg
beneficiation [Benefication]
RER: ferromanganese, high-coal, 74.5% Mass 8.95E+01 kg
Mn, at regional storage [Benefication]
Outputs
RER: manganese, at regional storage Mass 1.06E+02 kg
[Benefication]
Recycling nickel scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
CH: disposal, nickel smelter slag, 0% Mass 2.44E+02 kg
CH: limestone, milled, packed, at plant Mass 9.05E+00 kg
[others]
[Machines]
371
Transformation, to mineral extraction site Area 1.06E-03 m2
Outputs
freshwater]
freshwater]
air]
GLO: ferronickel, 25% Ni, at plant Mass 1.93E+02 kg
[Benefication]
372
Manganese [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 3.81E-06 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
Recycling silicon scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
CH: disposal, slag from MG silicon Mass 2.96E-02 kg
DE: silica sand, at plant [Additives] Mass 3.20E+00 kg
RER: graphite, at plant [Inorganics] Mass 1.18E-01 kg
RER: oxygen, liquid, at plant [Inorganics] Mass 2.37E-02 kg
RER: petroleum coke, at refinery [Fuels] Mass 5.92E-01 kg
pieces
forest [Fuels]
waste for disposal]
Outputs
373
air]
air]
emissions to air]
Hydrogen fluoride [Inorganic emissions to Mass 5.92E-04 kg
air]
to air]
air]
NMVOC (unspecified) [NMVOC Group to Mass 1.14E-04 kg
air]
NO: MG-silicon, at plant [Benefication] Mass 2.96E+00 kg
air]
Recycling steel scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
products]
Graphite [Inorganic intermediate products] Mass 3.89E+01 kg
products]
products]
374
Outputs
air]
air]
Dust (> PM10) [Particles to air] Mass 2.45E+00 kg
Lead [Heavy metals to air] Mass 1.42E+01 kg
air]
air]
Recycling tin scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
CH: limestone, at mine [Additives] Mass 9.40E-01 kg
[Machines]
pieces
375
[Benefication]
UCTE: hard coal mix, at regional storage Mass 7.68E-01 kg
[Fuels]
Outputs
air]
[Benefication]
air]
Recycling zinc scrap of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft C, R, N

Inputs
CH: disposal, inert waste, 5% water Mass 9.31E-01 kg
[Landfill facility]
CH: treatment, sewage, unpolluted Volume 1.13E+00 m3
[Wastewater treatment]
[Machines]
GLO: resource correction, PbZn, Mass 1.15E+00 kg
cadmium, negative [Benefication]
GLO: resource correction, PbZn, Mass 1.15E+00 kg
cadmium, positive [Benefication]
376
products]
Outputs
Fluoride [Inorganic emissions to Mass 8.66E-04 kg
freshwater]
GLO: cadmium sludge, from zinc Mass 2.45E-01 kg
electrolysis, at plant [Benefication]
GLO: leaching residues, indium rich, from Mass 2.47E+01 kg
zinc circuit, at smelter [Benefication]
GLO: zinc , from Imperial smelting furnace Mass 7.27E+01 kg
[Benefication]
air]
air]
377
Disposing metallic waste of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft to incineration

plants C, R, N
Inputs
CH: waste incineration plant [Incineration] Number of 4.95E-06 pcs.
pieces
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
Lead (+II) [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 7.52E+00 kg
freshwater]
Manganese (+II) [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 4.75E+01 kg
freshwater]
378
freshwater]
group)]
Methane (biotic) [Organic emissions to air Mass 5.00E-02 kg
(VOC group)]
Nickel (+II) [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 2.08E+01 kg
Solids [Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater] Mass 5.24E+00 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
Zinc, ion [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 4.00E+00 kg
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a CuNiAl propeller and a shaft to landfill C, R, N

Inputs
CH: cement, unspecified, at plant [Binder] Mass 5.08E+01 kg
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
CH: light fuel oil, burned in boiler [Heating Energy 4.63E+02 MJ
systems]
pieces
379
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
Lead (+II) [Heavy metals to air] Mass 7.50E+00 kg
freshwater]
group)]
380
Tin, ion [Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater] Mass 2.31E-04 kg
Zinc (+II) [Heavy metals to air] Mass 3.22E+00 kg
freshwater]
Manufacturing a stainless steel propeller and a shaft C

Inputs
[Benefication]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Operating a stainless steel propeller and a shaft C

Inputs
Outputs
381
Dismantling a stainless steel propeller and a shaft C
Inputs
Propeller [Assemblies] Mass 1.25E+04 kg
Outputs
air]
air]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
Stainless steel scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 4.15E+03 kg
air]
for disposal]
Recovering stainless steel scrap of a propeller and a shaft C

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
382
Stainless steel scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 4.15E+03 kg
Outputs
air]
air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a stainless steel propeller and a shaft to

incineration plants C
Inputs
pieces
pieces
disposal]
383
Outputs
air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
(VOC group)]
Solids [Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater] Mass 1.10E+00 kg
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a stainless steel propeller and a shaft to

landfill C
Inputs
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
384
systems]
pieces
CH: residual material landfill facility Number of 1.55E+02 pcs.
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
Metallic waste for landfill [Waste for Mass 1.67E-02 kg
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
385
Manufacturing a gearbox C, R
Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Gearbox [Assemblies] Mass 1.42E+03 kg
Operating a gearbox C, R
Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling a gearbox C, R
Inputs
Outputs
386
air]
air]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a gearbox C, R

Inputs
Outputs
air]
air]
air]
387
air]
for disposal]
Recycling cast iron scrap of a gearbox C, R

Inputs
products]
Graphite [Inorganic intermediate products] Mass 3.01E-01 kg
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
air]
air]
388
air]
Recycling steel scrap of a gearbox C, R

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
air]
air]
389
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a gearbox to incineration plants C, R

Inputs
pieces
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
(VOC group)]
Solids [Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater] Mass 1.25E-01 kg
freshwater]
390
Disposing metallic waste of a gearbox to landfill C, R
Inputs
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
systems]
pieces
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
391
Outputs
freshwater]
air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a frequency converter R

Inputs
CH: brass, at plant [Benefication] Mass 9.43E+01 kg
GLO: butyrolactone [Organics] Mass 2.09E+01 kg
GLO: nickel, 99.5%, at plant Mass 8.61E-02 kg
[Benefication]
GLO: printed wiring board mounting Number of 4.37E-05 pcs.
plant [Module] pieces
Paper for corrugated board [Materials Mass 2.27E+02 kg
from renewable raw materials]
Polypropylene compound (PP) [Plastics] Mass 1.28E+01 kg
Polyvinylchloride compound (PVC) Mass 8.49E+00 kg
[Plastics]
RER: copper, primary [Benefication] Mass 1.28E+02 kg
RER: epoxy resin, liquid [monomers] Mass 2.78E+01 kg
RER: glass fibre, at plant [construction] Mass 3.31E+01 kg
RER: gold, at regional storage Mass 8.61E-02 kg
[Benefication]
392
[Heating systems]
RER: nylon 66, at plant [polymers] Mass 6.67E+01 kg
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Frequency converter [Components] Mass 1.41E+03 kg
Operating a frequency converter R

Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling a frequency converter R

Inputs
Outputs
Brass scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 3.14E+01 kg
air]
to air]
393
gold scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 2.87E-02 kg
Landfill of glass/inert waste [Consumer Mass 2.32E+01 kg
waste]
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
nickel scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 2.87E-02 kg
air]
air]
Pieces of broken glass [Waste for Mass 9.93E+00 kg
recovery]
recovery]
polypropylene (PP) [Waste for disposal] Mass 8.97E+00 kg
Polypropylene (PP) [Waste for recovery] Mass 3.84E+00 kg
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) [Waste for Mass 5.94E+00 kg
disposal]
recovery]
Printed wiring board scrap [Waste for Mass 4.37E-05 kg
recovery]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a frequency converter - ingot production R

Inputs
394
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling brass scrap of a frequency converter R

Inputs
Brass scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 3.14E+01 kg
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
395
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling copper scrap of a frequency converter R

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
396
air]
air]
Group to air]
group)]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
397
Recycling nickel scrap of a frequency converter R
Inputs
CH: disposal, nickel smelter slag, 0% Mass 2.09E-02 kg
CH: limestone, milled, packed, at plant Mass 7.73E-04 kg
[others]
GLO: diesel, burned in building machine Energy 3.14E-03 MJ
[Machines]
nickel scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 2.87E-02 kg
RER: hard coal, burned in industrial Energy 6.59E-02 MJ
RER: heavy fuel oil, burned in industrial Energy 6.18E-03 MJ
Transformation, to mineral extraction site Area 9.05E-08 m2
Outputs
freshwater]
freshwater]
398
air]
GLO: ferronickel, 25% Ni, at plant Mass 1.65E-02 kg
[Benefication]
Manganese [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 3.25E-10 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
Waste heat [Other emissions to air] Energy 5.50E-02 MJ
399
Recycling steel scrap of a frequency converter with EAF R
Inputs
products]
Graphite [Inorganic intermediate products] Mass 1.96E-01 kg
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
air]
air]
air]
400
Disposal and treatment of printed wiring boards of a frequency converter
R
Inputs
GLO: manual treatment plant, WEEE Number of 1.75E-14 pcs.
scrap [Recycling] pieces
Printed wiring board scrap [Waste for Mass 4.37E-05 kg
recovery]
Outputs
GLO: disposal, treatment of printed wiring Mass 4.37E-05 kg
boards [Recycling]
Disposing metallic waste of a frequency converter to incineration plants R

Inputs
pieces
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
401
disposal]
group)]
(VOC group)]
Nickel (+II) [Heavy metals to freshwater] Mass 3.54E-01 kg
Solids [Ecoinvent long-term to freshwater] Mass 8.94E-02 kg
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a frequency converter to landfill R

Inputs
CH: cement, unspecified, at plant [Binder] Mass 8.67E-01 kg
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
systems]
pieces
pieces
402
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a variable frequency drive R

Inputs
403
[Plastics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Variable frequency drive [Components] Mass 3.60E+03 kg
Operating a variable frequency drive R

Inputs
Outputs
404
Dismantling a variable frequency drive
Inputs
Outputs
air]
air]
waste]
Landfill of plastic waste [Consumer waste] Mass 8.46E+01 kg
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
recovery]
Plastic (unspecified) [Waste for recovery] Mass 3.63E+01 kg
disposal]
recovery]
air]
405
Recycling aluminium scrap of a variable frequency drive - ingot
production R
Inputs
Outputs
air]
air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a variable frequency drive R
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
406
air]
air]
Group to air]
group)]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
407
Recycling steel scrap of a variable frequency drive with EAF R
Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
408
Disposing metallic waste of a variable frequency drive to incineration
plants R
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
409
Disposing metallic waste of a variable frequency drive to landfill R
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
410
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a photovoltaic system (single-array) R

Inputs
DE: photovoltaic cell factory [production Number of 7.98E-04 pcs.
of components] pieces
Frame, aluminium, powder coated Mass 2.65E+03 kg
[Metal parts]
Glass (Sheet glass) [Minerals] Mass 1.91E+04 kg
Plastic compound (unspecified) Mass 9.26E+02 kg
[Plastics]
RER: ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, Mass 1.69E+03 kg
at plant [polymers]
RER: metallization paste, back side, Mass 1.43E+02 kg
aluminium, at plant [production of
components]
RER: metallization paste, back side, at Mass 9.83E+00 kg
plant [production of components]
411
RER: metallization paste, front side, at Mass 1.47E+01 kg
RER: multi-Si wafer, at plant [production Area 2.11E+03 m2
of components]
RER: water, completely softened, at Mass 2.74E+05 kg
plant [Appropriation]
Silver [Metals] Mass 2.06E+01 kg
Water (cooling water) [Operating Mass 1.99E+03 kg
materials]
Outputs
Aluminium (unspecified) [Consumer Mass 1.54E+00 kg
waste]
CH: disposal, waste, Si waferprod., Mass 5.50E+02 kg
inorg, 9.4% water, to residual material
landfill [Residual material landfill facility]
CH: treatment, PV cell production Volume 4.33E+02 m3
effluent [Wastewater treatment]
to industrial soil]
Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid) Mass 9.67E-03 kg
[Inorganic emissions to industrial soil]
air]
to air]
photovoltaic panel, multi-Si, at plant Mass 2.55E+04 kg
[Assemblies]
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane) Mass 4.94E-01 kg
R 116 (hexafluoroethane) [Halogenated Mass 2.37E-01 kg
Silver [Heavy metals to industrial soil] Mass 1.54E+00 kg
Sodium (+I) [Inorganic emissions to Mass 9.67E-02 kg
industrial soil]
Tin [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.54E+00 kg
412
Operating a photovoltaic system (single-array) R
Inputs
[Assemblies]
Outputs
[Assemblies]
Dismantling a photovoltaic system (single-array) R

Inputs
[Assemblies]
Outputs
air]
to air]
waste]
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
recovery]
413
waste for disposal]
silver [Waste for recovery] Mass 6.85E+00 kg
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a photovoltaic system (single-array) -

ingot production R
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a photovoltaic system (single-array) R

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
414
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
415
Recycling lead scrap of a photovoltaic system (single-array) R
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
416
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling silicon scrap of a photovoltaic system (single-array) R

Inputs
CH: disposal, slag from MG silicon Mass 1.10E+00 kg
RER: graphite, at plant [Inorganics] Mass 4.42E+00 kg
[Inorganics]
RER: petroleum coke, at refinery [Fuels] Mass 2.21E+01 kg
pieces
forest [Fuels]
waste for disposal]
Outputs
air]
to air]
emissions to air]
417
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]
Recycling tin scrap of a photovoltaic system (single-array) R

Inputs
CH: limestone, at mine [Additives] Mass 1.41E+00 kg
[Machines]
pieces
[Benefication]
UCTE: hard coal mix, at regional Mass 1.15E+00 kg
storage [Fuels]
Outputs
air]
418
[Benefication]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a photovoltaic system (single-array) to

incineration plants R
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
freshwater]
group)]
419
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a photovoltaic system (single-array) to

landfill R
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
420
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
freshwater]
group)]
freshwater]
421
Manufacturing an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic system R
Inputs
GLO: capacitor, electrolyte type, > 2cm Mass 2.47E+01 kg
height, at plant [Parts]
GLO: capacitor, film, through-hole Mass 3.29E+01 kg
mounting, at plant [Parts]
GLO: capacitor, Tantalum-, through-hole Mass 2.22E+00 kg
GLO: connector, clamp connection, at Mass 2.29E+01 kg
plant [Parts]
GLO: diode, glass-, through-hole Mass 4.53E+00 kg
GLO: inductor, ring core choke type, at Mass 3.39E+01 kg
plant [Parts]
GLO: integrated circuit, IC, logic type, at Mass 2.70E+00 kg
plant [Parts]
GLO: printed wiring board, through-hole, Area 2.17E+01 m2
at plant [Module]
GLO: resistor, metal film type, through- Mass 4.82E-01 kg
hole mounting, at plant [Parts]
GLO: transistor, wired, small size, Mass 3.67E+00 kg
through-hole mounting, at plant [Parts]
RER: fleece, polyethylene, at plant Mass 5.79E+00 kg
[polymers]
RER: metal working factory [General Number of 8.66E-07 pcs.
manufacturing] pieces
[Heating systems]
RER: polystyrene foam slab, at plant Mass 2.89E+01 kg
[Manufacturing]
RER: polyvinylchloride, at regional Mass 9.65E-01 kg
storage [polymers]
RER: section bar extrusion, aluminium Mass 1.35E+02 kg
[Processing]
RER: sheet rolling, steel [Processing] Mass 9.46E+02 kg
RER: styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, Mass 9.65E-01 kg
SAN, at plant [polymers]
RER: wire drawing, copper [Processing] Mass 5.32E+02 kg
422
Outputs
CH: disposal, packaging cardboard, Mass 2.41E+02 kg
19.6% water [Incineration]
CH: disposal, polyethylene, 0.4% water Mass 2.99E+01 kg
[Incineration]
CH: disposal, polystyrene, 0.2% water Mass 5.79E+00 kg
[Incineration]
GLO: disposal, treatment of printed Mass 1.64E+02 kg
wiring boards [Recycling]
Inverter, 250 kW [Components] Mass 2.02E+03 kg
Operating an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic system R

Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic system R

Inputs
GLO: mechanical treatment plant, Number of 1.08E-07 pcs.
WEEE scrap [Recycling] pieces
Outputs
Bromine [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 3.21E-05 kg
air]
to air]
CH: disposal, polyvinylchloride, 0.2% Mass 2.89E-01 kg
423
electronic scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.35E+02 kg
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
Phosphorus [Inorganic emissions to air] Mass 1.89E-06 kg
Polystyrene (PS) [Waste for recovery] Mass 8.68E+00 kg
Polystyrene (PS, unspecified) Mass 2.03E+01 kg
[Consumer waste]
Polyvinylchloride (PVC, unspecified) Mass 6.75E-01 kg
[Consumer waste]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic

system R
Inputs
424
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic

system R
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
425
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic

system R
Inputs
Charcoal [Materials from renewable raw Mass 3.77E+01 kg
materials]
products]
products]
products]
products]
426
RER: natural gas, high pressure, at Energy 5.84E+02 MJ
consumer [Fuels]
RER: steam, for chemical processes, at Mass 1.07E+02 kg
plant [Auxiliary material]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic

system to incineration plants R
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
427
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of an inverter for a single-array photovoltaic

system to landfill R
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
428
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
429
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing cathodes of a lithium ion battery system R

Inputs
Aluminium foil [Metals] Mass 6.14E+02 kg
CH: water, deionised, at plant Mass 2.54E+02 kg
[Appropriation]
GLO: lithium hydroxide, at plant Mass 2.93E+02 kg
[Inorganics]
Iron sulphate dissolution [Inorganic Mass 7.18E+02 kg
RER: chemical plant, organics Number of 5.06E-07 pcs.
[Organics] pieces
RER: ethylene glycol, at plant [Organics] Mass 9.36E+01 kg
RER: heat, natural gas, at industrial Energy 8.17E+02 MJ
RER: phosphoric acid, industrial grade Mass 2.53E+02 kg
[Inorganics]
Outputs
cathode, lithium ion battery, lithium iron Mass 1.26E+03 kg
phosphate [Intermediate products]
Sewage sludge [Waste for disposal] Mass 1.33E-01 kg
industrial soil]
Manufacturing graphite anodes of a lithium ion battery system R

Inputs
CH: treatment, sewage [Wastewater Volume 1.04E-01 m3
treatment]
[Appropriation]
CN: electricity, at grid [Supply mix] Energy 7.02E+00 MJ
CN: graphite, battery grade, at plant Mass 4.82E+02 kg
[Inorganics]
GLO: Carbon black, at plant [Inorganics] Mass 1.55E+01 kg
[Organics] pieces
430
RER: sheet rolling, copper [Processing] Mass 8.53E+02 kg
RER: sulphuric acid, liquid, at plant Mass 7.88E+01 kg
[Inorganics]
Outputs
CN: Anode, lithium-ion battery, graphite, Mass 9.76E+02 kg
at plant [Parts]
Water vapour [Inorganic emissions to Mass 4.13E+02 kg
air]
Manufacturing separators of a lithium ion battery system R

Inputs
CH: disposal, residues, shredder Mass 1.21E+01 kg
fraction from manual dismantling, in
MSWI [Incineration]
GLO: hexafluorethane, at plant Mass 5.87E+00 kg
[Organics]
RER: acetone, liquid, at plant [Organics] Mass 3.22E+00 kg
[Organics] pieces
[polymers]
RER: phthalic anhydride, at plant Mass 6.52E+01 kg
[Organics]
US: polyvinylfluoride, at plant [Organics] Mass 4.31E+01 kg
Outputs
Acetone (dimethylcetone) [NMVOC Mass 3.22E+00 kg
Group to air]
CN: separator, lithium-ion battery, at Mass 2.24E+02 kg
plant [Parts]
Manufacturing casings of a lithium ion battery system R

Inputs
431
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
steel casing [Valuable substances] Mass 3.72E+03 kg
Manufacturing a lithium ion battery system R

Inputs
Casing [Metal parts] Mass 3.72E+03 kg
at plant [Parts]
CN: lithium hexafluorophosphate, at Mass 8.38E+02 kg
plant [Inorganics]
plant [Parts]
Outputs
Lithium ion battery (Type LiFePO4) Mass 7.23E+03 kg
[Valuable substances]
Operating a lithium ion battery system R

Inputs
Outputs
432
Dismantling and treating a lithium ion battery system R

Inputs
RER: sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, Mass 2.53E+03 kg
production mix, at plant [Inorganics]
Outputs
CH: disposal, carbon SPL, Al elec.lysis, Mass 4.98E+02 kg
0% water, to residual material landfill
CH: disposal, inert waste, 5% water Mass 4.89E+01 kg
[Landfill facility]
CH: disposal, polyvinylfluoride, 0.2% Mass 4.31E+01 kg
freshwater]
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
recovery]
Sulphate [Inorganic emissions to Mass 4.34E+02 kg
freshwater]
air]
433
Recycling aluminium scrap of a lithium ion battery system - ingot
production R
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a lithium ion battery system R
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
434
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a lithium ion battery system with EAF R

Inputs
products]
435
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic scrap of a lithium ion battery system to incineration

plants R
Inputs
436
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
Phosphate [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 5.60E-02 kg
freshwater]
Phosphate [Inorganic emissions to Mass 9.33E-05 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
Sulphate [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 3.58E+00 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
437
Disposing metallic scrap of a lithium ion battery system to landfill R
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
438
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a transformer (used for cold-ironing) R, N

Inputs
GLO: ferrite, at plant [Parts] Mass 1.23E+03 kg
RER: injection moulding [Processing] Mass 1.25E+03 kg
[Heating systems]
RER: polycarbonate, at plant [polymers] Mass 3.44E+02 kg
439
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
GLO: transformer, high voltage use, at Mass 3.15E+03 kg
plant [Parts]
Operating a transformer (used for cold-ironing) R, N

Inputs
plant [Parts]
Outputs
plant [Parts]
Dismantling a transformer (used for cold-ironing) R, N

Inputs
plant [Parts]
Outputs
air]
to air]
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
440
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
air]
441
Recycling copper scrap of a transformer (used for cold-ironing) R, N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
442
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a transformer (used for cold-ironing) R, N

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
443
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a transformer (used for cold-ironing) to

incineration plants R, N
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
444
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a transformer (used for cold-ironing) to

landfill R, N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
445
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
RER: hydrochloric acid, at plant Mass 2.90E+00 kg
[Inorganics]
RER: natural gas, burned in boiler Energy 3.05E-05 MJ
[Heating systems]
Outputs
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a diesel genset (1) N

Inputs
446
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Main diesel genset [Metal parts] Mass 4.70E+04 kg
Operating a diesel genset (1) N

Inputs
Diesel generator [Metal parts] Mass 4.70E+04 kg
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
447
Maintaining a diesel genset (1) N
Inputs
Outputs
Used lubricating oil treatment of a diesel genset (1) N

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
448
Outputs
recovery]
Recovering used lubricating oil after treatment (1) N

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
449
to air]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of diesel genset (1) - ingot production N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recovering cast iron scrap of diesel genset (1) N

Inputs
450
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]
Recovering steel scrap of diesel genset (1) N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
451
to air]
group)]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of diesel genset (1) to incineration plants N

Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
452
air (VOC group)]
group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of diesel genset (1) to landfill N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
453
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
freshwater]

Inputs
454
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
455
Inputs
Outputs

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
456
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]

Inputs
457
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
458
air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
459
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
air (VOC group)]
group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]

Inputs
[Binder]
460
landfill facility]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
461
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
freshwater]

Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
CH: treatment, sewage Volume 4.05E+02 m3
462
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
463
Outputs
recovery]

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
464
to air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]

Inputs
465
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
466
to air]
group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
467
air (VOC group)]
group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
468
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
freshwater]

Inputs
469
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]
470
Inputs
Outputs

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
471
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]

Inputs
472
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
473
air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
474
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
air (VOC group)]
group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]

Inputs
[Binder]
475
landfill facility]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
476
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
freshwater]

Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
477

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
(VOC group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
478
Outputs
recovery]

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
479
air]
to air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]

Inputs
480
Outputs
air]
to air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
481
to air]
group)]
air]
air]

Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
482
disposal]
air (VOC group)]
group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
483
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
freshwater]
Manufacturing a propulsion motor N

Inputs
484
[Plastics]
[Benefication]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Propulsion motor [Metal parts] Mass 1.10E+05 kg
Operating and maintaining a propulsion motor N

Inputs
Outputs
Used lubricating oil treatment of a propulsion motor N

Inputs
products]
production]
485
products]
Outputs
recovery]
Recovering used lubricating oil of a propulsion motor after treatment N

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
486
air]
to air]
air]
Dismantling a propulsion motor N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
Dust (PM10) [Particles to air] Mass 1.21E+00 kg
waste]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
recovery]
air]
487
for disposal]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a propulsion motor - ingot production N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling cast iron scrap of a propulsion motor N

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
488
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
Cast iron [Metals] Mass 5.66E-03 kg
air]
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Mass 3.21E+01 kg
air]
Recycling copper scrap of a propulsion motor N

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
489
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling stainless steel scrap of a propulsion motor N

Inputs
490
products]
products]
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Recycling steel scrap of a propulsion motor with EAF N

Inputs
491
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a propulsion motor to incineration plants N

Inputs
492
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Copper (+II) [Heavy metals to Mass 1.25E+00 kg
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a propulsion motor to landfill N

Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
493
CH: disposal, paper [Incineration] Mass 1.39E+00 kg
CH: disposal, plastics, mixture Mass 1.39E+00 kg
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
494
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a thruster motor N

Inputs
[Plastics]
[Benefication]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Thruster motor [Metal parts] Mass 7.50E+04 kg
495
Operating and maintaining a thruster motor N
Inputs
Outputs
Used lubricating oil treatment of a thruster motor N

Inputs
products]
production]
products]
Outputs
recovery]
Recovering used lubricating oil of a thruster motor after treatment N

Inputs
products]
products]
recovery]
496
Outputs
products]
air]
to air]
[System-dependent]
[Hazardous waste]
to air]
to air]
air]
to air]
air]
Dismantling a thruster motor N

Inputs
Outputs
497
air]
to air]
waste]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
recovery]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a thruster motor - ingot production N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
498
air]
for disposal]
Recycling cast iron scrap of a thruster motor N

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
Cast iron [Metals] Mass 3.86E-03 kg
air]
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Mass 2.19E+01 kg
499
air]
Recycling copper scrap of a thruster motor N

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
500
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling stainless steel scrap of a thruster motor N

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
recovery]
Outputs
air]
to air]
501
air]
air]
Recycling steel scrap of a thruster motor with EAF N

Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
502
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a thruster motor to incineration plants N

Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
503
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a thruster motor to landfill N

Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
504
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a variable frequency drive connecting a propulsion motor

N
Inputs
[Plastics]
505
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Operating a variable frequency drive connecting a propulsion motor N

Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling a variable frequency drive connecting a propulsion motor N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
506
to air]
waste]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
recovery]
disposal]
recovery]
RER: corrugated board, recycling fibre, Mass 1.33E+03 kg
double wall, at plant [cardboard &
corrugated board]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a variable frequency drive connecting a

propulsion motor - ingot production N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
507
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a variable frequency drive connecting a

propulsion motor N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
508
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a variable frequency drive connecting a

propulsion motor with EAF N
Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
509
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a variable frequency drive connecting a

propulsion motor to incineration plants N
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
510
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]

propulsion motor to landfill N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
511
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
512
Manufacturing a variable frequency drive connecting a thruster motor N
Inputs
[Plastics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
Operating a variable frequency drive connecting a thruster motor N

Inputs
Outputs
513
Dismantling a variable frequency drive connecting a thruster motor N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
waste]
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
recovery]
disposal]
recovery]
air]
514
Recycling aluminium scrap of a variable frequency drive connecting a
thruster motor - ingot production N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a variable frequency drive connecting a

thruster motor N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
515
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a variable frequency drive connecting a

thruster motor with EAF N
Inputs
516
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]

thruster motor to incineration plants N
Inputs
517
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]

thruster motor to landfill N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
518
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
519
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196 modules) N

Inputs
DE: photovoltaic cell factory [production Number of 7.87E-04 pcs.
of components] pieces
Frame, aluminium, powder coated Mass 2.62E+03 kg
[Metal parts]
Glass (Sheet glass) [Minerals] Mass 1.88E+04 kg
[Plastics]
RER: ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, Mass 1.66E+03 kg
at plant [polymers]
RER: metallization paste, back side, Mass 1.42E+02 kg
aluminium, at plant [production of
components]
RER: metallization paste, back side, at Mass 9.70E+00 kg
RER: metallization paste, front side, at Mass 1.46E+01 kg
RER: multi-Si wafer, at plant [production Area 2.09E+03 m2
of components]
RER: water, completely softened, at Mass 2.70E+05 kg
plant [Appropriation]
Silver [Metals] Mass 2.03E+01 kg
520
Water (cooling water) [Operating Mass 1.97E+03 kg
materials]
Outputs
Aluminium (unspecified) [Consumer Mass 1.52E+00 kg
waste]
CH: disposal, waste, Si waferprod., Mass 5.43E+02 kg
inorg, 9.4% water, to residual material
landfill [Residual material landfill facility]
CH: treatment, PV cell production Volume 4.28E+02 m3
effluent [Wastewater treatment]
to industrial soil]
Hydrogen fluoride (hydrofluoric acid) Mass 9.54E-03 kg
[Inorganic emissions to industrial soil]
air]
to air]
[Assemblies]
R 114 (dichlorotetrafluoroethane) Mass 4.87E-01 kg
R 116 (hexafluoroethane) [Halogenated Mass 2.33E-01 kg
Silver [Heavy metals to industrial soil] Mass 1.52E+00 kg
Sodium (+I) [Inorganic emissions to Mass 9.54E-02 kg
industrial soil]
Tin [Waste for recovery] Mass 1.52E+00 kg
Operating a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196 modules) N

Inputs
[Assemblies]
Outputs
[Assemblies]
521
Dismantling a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196 modules) N
Inputs
[Assemblies]
Outputs
air]
to air]
waste]
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
recovery]
waste for disposal]
silver [Waste for recovery] Mass 6.76E+00 kg
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196

modules) - ingot production N
Inputs
522
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196

modules) N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
523
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling lead scrap of a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196 modules)

N
Inputs
plants] pieces
524
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
525
Recycling silicon scrap of a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196
modules) N
Inputs
CH: disposal, slag from MG silicon Mass 1.09E+00 kg
RER: graphite, at plant [Inorganics] Mass 4.36E+00 kg
[Inorganics]
RER: petroleum coke, at refinery [Fuels] Mass 2.18E+01 kg
pieces
forest [Fuels]
waste for disposal]
Outputs
air]
to air]
emissions to air]
to air]
to air]
526
air]
to air]
air]
Recycling tin scrap of a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196 modules) N

Inputs
CH: limestone, at mine [Additives] Mass 1.39E+00 kg
[Machines]
pieces
[Benefication]
UCTE: hard coal mix, at regional Mass 1.14E+00 kg
storage [Fuels]
Outputs
air]
[Benefication]
air]
527
Disposing metallic waste of a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196
modules) to incineration plants N
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
freshwater]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
528
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a photovoltaic system (2 arrays, 1196

modules) to landfill N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
529
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
freshwater]
group)]
freshwater]
Manufacturing an inverter for a photovoltaic system with 2 arrays, 1196

modules N
Inputs
plant [Parts]
530
plant [Parts]
plant [Parts]
at plant [Module]
[polymers]
[Heating systems]
[Manufacturing]
RER: polyvinylchloride, at regional Mass 1.30E+00 kg
storage [polymers]
[Processing]
RER: styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, Mass 1.30E+00 kg
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Incineration]
inverter, 100kW [Components] Mass 2.72E+03 kg
531
Operating an inverter for a photovoltaic system with 2 arrays, 1196
modules N
Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling an inverter for a photovoltaic system with 2 arrays, 1196

modules N
Inputs
inverter, 100kW [Components] Mass 2.72E+03 kg
Outputs
air]
to air]
disposal]
532
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
[Consumer waste]
[Consumer waste]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of an inverter for a photovoltaic system with

2 arrays, 1196 modules N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
533
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of an inverter for a photovoltaic system with 2

arrays, 1196 modules N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
534
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of an inverter for a photovoltaic system with 2

arrays, 1196 modules N
Inputs
materials]
products]
products]
products]
products]
consumer [Fuels]
535
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of an inverter for a photovoltaic system with 2

arrays, 1196 modules to incineration plants N
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
536
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of an inverter for a photovoltaic system with 2

arrays, 1196 modules to landfill N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
537
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing cathodes of a 1MW lithium ion battery system N

Inputs
Aluminium foil [Metals] Mass 3.28E+02 kg
538
[Appropriation]
GLO: lithium hydroxide, at plant Mass 1.56E+02 kg
[Inorganics]
Iron sulphate dissolution [Inorganic Mass 3.83E+02 kg
[Organics] pieces
RER: ethylene glycol, at plant [Organics] Mass 9.36E+01 kg
RER: phosphoric acid, industrial grade Mass 1.35E+02 kg
[Inorganics]
Outputs
Sewage sludge [Waste for disposal] Mass 7.11E-02 kg
industrial soil]
Manufacturing graphite anodes of a 1MW lithium ion battery system N

Inputs
CH: treatment, sewage [Wastewater Volume 5.53E-02 m3
treatment]
[Appropriation]
CN: graphite, battery grade, at plant Mass 2.57E+02 kg
[Inorganics]
GLO: Carbon black, at plant [Inorganics] Mass 8.25E+00 kg
[Organics] pieces
RER: sheet rolling, copper [Processing] Mass 4.55E+02 kg
RER: sulphuric acid, liquid, at plant Mass 4.20E+01 kg
[Inorganics]
Outputs
at plant [Parts]
Water vapour [Inorganic emissions to Mass 2.20E+02 kg
air]
539
Manufacturing separators of a 1MW lithium ion battery system N
Inputs
CH: disposal, residues, shredder Mass 6.45E+00 kg
fraction from manual dismantling, in
MSWI [Incineration]
CN: electricity, at grid [Supply mix] Energy 8.60E-01 MJ
GLO: hexafluorethane, at plant Mass 3.13E+00 kg
[Organics]
RER: acetone, liquid, at plant [Organics] Mass 1.72E+00 kg
[Organics] pieces
[polymers]
RER: phthalic anhydride, at plant Mass 3.48E+01 kg
[Organics]
US: polyvinylfluoride, at plant [Organics] Mass 2.30E+01 kg
Outputs
Acetone (dimethylcetone) [NMVOC Mass 1.72E+00 kg
Group to air]
plant [Parts]
Manufacturing casings of a 1MW lithium ion battery system

Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
540
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
steel casing [Valuable substances] Mass 1.99E+03 kg
Manufacturing a 1MW lithium ion battery system N

Inputs
Casing [Metal parts] Mass 1.99E+03 kg
at plant [Parts]
CN: lithium hexafluorophosphate, at Mass 4.47E+02 kg
plant [Inorganics]
plant [Parts]
Outputs
Operating a 1MW lithium ion battery system N

Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling and treating a 1MW lithium ion battery system N

Inputs
[Incineration]
RER: sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, Mass 1.35E+03 kg
production mix, at plant [Inorganics]
541
SE: facilities blister-copper conversion, Number of 1.93E-06 pcs.
secondary copper [Benefication] pieces
Outputs
CH: disposal, polyvinylfluoride, 0.2% Mass 1.25E+02 kg
Chloride [Inorganic emissions to Mass 3.26E-01 kg
freshwater]
Steel scrap [Waste for recovery] Mass 3.26E-02 kg
freshwater]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a 1MW lithium ion battery system - ingot

production N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
542
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a 1MW lithium ion battery system N

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
543
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a 1MW lithium ion battery system with EAF N
Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
544
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic scrap of a 1MW lithium ion battery system to

incineration plants N
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
545
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
Phosphate [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 2.99E-02 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Sulphate [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 1.91E+00 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic scrap of a 1MW lithium ion battery system to landfill

N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
546
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
547
Manufacturing a rectifier N
Inputs
GLO: capacitor, Tantalum-, through-hole Mass 9.35E-01 kg
plant [Parts]
plant [Parts]
plant [Parts]
at plant [Module]
[polymers]
[Heating systems]
[Manufacturing]
RER: polyvinylchloride, at regional Mass 4.06E-01 kg
storage [polymers]
[Processing]
RER: styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, Mass 4.06E-01 kg
548
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Incineration]
Rectifier [Components] Mass 8.50E+02 kg
Operating a rectifier N
Inputs
Outputs
Dismantling a rectifier N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
549
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
[Consumer waste]
[Consumer waste]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a rectifier N

Inputs
550
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a rectifier N

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
551
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a rectifier N

Inputs
materials]
products]
products]
products]
products]
552
consumer [Fuels]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a rectifier to incineration plants N

Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
553
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
Chloride [Inorganic emissions to Mass 9.43E-01 kg
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a rectifier to landfill N

Inputs
CH: cement, unspecified, at plant Mass 5.81E-01 kg
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
554
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
555
group)]
Manufacturing a 24-pulse transformer used together with the drive

connecting a propulsion motor N
Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Incineration]
[Landfill facility]
treatment]
plant [Parts]
Operating a 24-pulse transformer used together with the drive

Inputs
plant [Parts]
556
Outputs
plant [Parts]
Dismantling a 24-pulse transformer used together with the drive

Inputs
plant [Parts]
Outputs
air]
to air]
waste]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a 24-pulse transformer used together with

the drive connecting a propulsion motor N
Inputs
557
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a 24-pulse transformer used together with the

drive connecting a propulsion motor N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
558
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a 24-pulse transformer used together with the

drive connecting a propulsion motor N
Inputs
products]
products]
559
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a 24-pulse transformer used together with

the drive connecting a propulsion motor N
Inputs
pieces
560
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]

the drive connecting a propulsion motor to landfill N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
561
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
562
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a 12-pulse transformer used together with the drive

connecting a thruster motor N
Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Landfill facility]
[Incineration]
treatment]
plant [Parts]
563
Operating a 12-pulse transformer used together with the drive
Inputs
plant [Parts]
Outputs
plant [Parts]
Dismantling a 12-pulse transformer used together with the drive

Inputs
plant [Parts]
Outputs
air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of a 12-pulse transformer used together with

the drive connecting a thruster motor N
Inputs
564
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of a 12-pulse transformer used together with the

drive connecting a thruster motor N
Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
565
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a 12-pulse transformer used together with the

drive connecting a thruster motor N
Inputs
products]
products]
566
Nitrogen liquid [Inorganic intermediate Mass 5.67E-01 kg
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]

the drive connecting a thruster motor to incineration plants N
Inputs
pieces
567
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]

the drive connecting a thruster motor to landfill N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
568
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
569
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a 400kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Landfill facility]
[Incineration]
treatment]
plant [Parts]
Operating a 400kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
plant [Parts]
570
Outputs
plant [Parts]
Dismantling a 400kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
plant [Parts]
Outputs
air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
air]
Recycling copper scrap of a 400kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
571
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of a 400kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
572
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
Disposing metallic waste of a 400kW distribution transformer to

Inputs
573
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of a 400kW distribution transformer to landfill N

Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
574
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
RER: hydrochloric acid, at plant Mass 1.43E+00 kg
[Inorganics]
RER: natural gas, burned in boiler Energy 1.50E-05 MJ
[Heating systems]
Outputs
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
575
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing a 250kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
[Heating systems]
Outputs
[Landfill facility]
[Incineration]
treatment]
plant [Parts]
Operating a 250kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
plant [Parts]
576
Outputs
plant [Parts]
Dismantling a 250kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
plant [Parts]
Outputs
air]
to air]
group)]
air]
air]
recovery]
air]
Recycling copper scrap of a 250kW distribution transformer N

Inputs
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
577
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
air]
Group to air]
578
Recycling steel scrap of a 250kW distribution transformer N
Inputs
products]
products]
products]
products]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
579
Disposing metallic waste of a 250kW distribution transformer to
Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
Cadmium (+II) [Heavy metals to Mass 7.09E-04 kg
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
freshwater]
group)]
freshwater]
freshwater]
Vanadium, ion [Ecoinvent long-term to Mass 5.77E-03 kg
freshwater]
580
Disposing metallic waste of a 250kW distribution transformer to landfill
N
Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
581
Outputs
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
Manufacturing an AC-AC converter N

Inputs
plant [Parts]
plant [Parts]
plant [Parts]
at plant [Module]
582
[polymers]
[Heating systems]
[Manufacturing]
RER: polyvinylchloride, at regional Mass 1.47E+00 kg
storage [polymers]
[Processing]
RER: styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, Mass 1.47E+00 kg
Outputs
AC-AC converter [Components] Mass 3.07E+03 kg
[Incineration]
[Incineration]
Operating an AC-AC converter N

Inputs
Outputs
583
Dismantling an AC-AC converter N
Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
disposal]
disposal]
group)]
air]
air]
584
[Consumer waste]
Polyvinylchloride (PVC, unspecified) Mass 1.03E+00 kg
[Consumer waste]
air]
Recycling aluminium scrap of an AC-AC converter N

Inputs
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
air]
for disposal]
Recycling copper scrap of an AC-AC converter N

Inputs
585
plants] pieces
Outputs
to air]
air]
to air]
Group to air]
air]
group)]
air]
air]
air]
Group to air]
586
air]
Group to air]
Recycling steel scrap of an AC-AC converter N

Inputs
materials]
products]
products]
products]
products]
consumer [Fuels]
Outputs
air]
to air]
air]
587
air]
Disposing metallic waste of an AC-AC converter to incineration plants N

Inputs
pieces
disposal]
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
emissions to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
disposal]
group)]
air (VOC group)]
freshwater]
588
freshwater]
Disposing metallic waste of an AC-AC converter to landfill N

Inputs
[Binder]
landfill facility]
[Incineration]
plant [Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
pieces
pieces
[Inorganics]
[Organics]
disposal]
[Inorganics]
[Heating systems]
589
Outputs
freshwater]
to air]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
freshwater]
to air]
disposal]
group)]
590

PHD GT LCA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD GT LCA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD GT LCA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Assessment of Marine Power Systems onboard

Roll-on/Roll-off Cargo Ships: Framework and Case Studies

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

Sir Joseph Swan Centre for Energy Research

For my late mum, Agnes I T Sia.

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................... iii

Contents .......................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................ xvii

Abbreviation .................................................................................................. xxi

Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................... 1

1.1 Marine Regulation: the International Convention for the Prevention of

1.2 Previous Work on Emissions, Energy Efficiency and Alternative

1.3 Previous Work on Environmental Impact Study ..................................... 8

1.4 Knowledge Gap ................................................................................... 10

1.5 The Fundamental Concept of LCA as a Research Tool ...................... 12

1.6 In Need of an LCA Methodology Review ............................................. 16

1.7 In Need of an LCA Framework for Marine Power Systems ................. 17

1.8 In Need of LCA Case Studies on Marine Power Systems ................... 19

1.9 Research Methodologies ..................................................................... 19

1.10 Summary ............................................................................................. 21

Chapter 2. Overview of Cargo Ships, Marine Power Systems and

2.1 Overview of Cargo Ships ..................................................................... 23

2.2 Marine Power Systems ........................................................................ 30

2.3 Marine Power Technologies ................................................................ 33

2.4 Summary .............................................................................................. 56

Chapter 3. Literature Review of Life Cycle Assessment Methodology

3.1 Methodology used in This Literature Review ....................................... 59

3.2 Findings of Literature Analysis: the Current Research Trend ............... 61

3.3 Clarification on Environmental Aspects, Environmental Impact and

3.4 Clarification on Goal and Scope Definition: Cut-off and System

3.5 Clarification on LCI: Attributional and Consequential Approaches─

3.6 Clarification on LCI Approaches: What Data Sources and Principles

3.7 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Water Use . 82

3.8 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Noise ......... 84

3.9 Recent LCIA Methodological Development: the Impact of Working

3.10 Life Cycle Interpretation: Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis ............. 98

3.12 Summary ........................................................................................... 109

Chapter 4. Development of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Framework

4.1 End of Life Management .................................................................... 111

4.3 Summary ........................................................................................... 153

Chapter 5. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Case Studies of Marine Power

5.1 Methodology/Research Approach ..................................................... 155

5.2 Case Study 1: Conventional Power System ...................................... 157

5.4 Case Study 3: New-Build All-Electric Power System ......................... 210

5.5 Comparative LCA Study of Conventional, Retrofit and New-Build

5.6 Summary ............................................................................................ 242

Chapter 6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work ............ 245

6.1 Reflections ......................................................................................... 245

6.2 Contribution of the Work .................................................................... 246

6.3 Recommendations for Future Work ................................................... 248

References .................................................................................................... 249

Figure 1.1: Annex VI Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution 3

Table 1.1: Focus, coverage of environmental impact and limitation of 9

A-HS Auxiliary, high-speed

Among all modes of transport, marine has appeared to be paramount. In 2000,

1.1 Marine Regulation: the International Convention for the Prevention of

Alternative emission reduction strategies could be considered from technical,

Operational strategies improved energy efficiency via effective operation, which

To date, the conventional power system design (i.e. diesel-mechanical systems)