Evaluating the monetary values of greenhouse gases emissions in life cycle impact assessment

Dong, Yan; Hauschild, Michael Zwicky; Sørup, Hjalte Jomo Danielsen; Rousselet, Rémi; Fantke, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.205

Cited by 44 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The qualitative comparison was based on criteria deemed significant (see Section 2.1 for the specific criteria). They were adopted from review and discussion papers like [3,20,21], but were also based on environmental economic foundations [6,23].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two more recent reviews focused on the monetization of the impact category climate change [21] and monetization in LCA in the building sector [22]. Durão et al [22] state that only mid-point monetization is compatible with EPDs, because they provide monetary factors that are compatible with the required CML-midpoint categories that must be included in an EPD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Durão et al [22] state that only mid-point monetization is compatible with EPDs, because they provide monetary factors that are compatible with the required CML-midpoint categories that must be included in an EPD. Dong et al [21] identified that the emission values for global warming have similar values but still there is a spread of one to two orders of magnitude for the monetary valuation of CO 2 . They identify which damages and endpoints are integrated into the damage assessment, which was also done in this review but for more impact categories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different LCA methods based on monetization of environmental impacts are available. Therefore, relevant monetization methods, namely Ecovalue12, Stepwise2006, LIME3, Ecotax, EVR, EPS, the Environmental Prices Handbook, Trucost and the MMG-Method were compared quantitatively and qualitatively, yielding results for 18 impact categories. Monetary factors for the same impact category range mostly between two orders of magnitude for the assessed methods, with some exceptions (e.g., mineral resources with five orders of magnitude). Among the qualitative criteria, per capita income, and thus the geographical reference, has the biggest influence on the obtained monetary factors. When the monetization methods were applied to the domestic yearly environmental damages of an average EU citizen, their monetary values ranged between 7941.13 €/capita (Ecotax) and 224.06 €/capita (LIME3). The prioritization of impact categories varies: Stepwise and Ecovalue assign over 50% of the per capita damages to climate change, while EPS and LIME3 assign around 50% to mineral and fossil resource use. Choices regarding the geographical reference, the Areas of Protection included, cost perspectives and the approach to discounting strongly affect the magnitude of the monetary factors. Therefore, practitioners should choose monetization methods with care and potentially apply varying methods to assess the robustness of their results.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, to draw any conclusion, it is required to know the relative importance of resource scarcity, human health, and eco-toxicity in the system. For the same reason, it is not possible to assess the damage of greenhouse gases in one damage-based single indicator [37]. In damage-based systems there are two solutions to resolve the problem (however, not introduced in ReCiPe 2016): (1) Adding a step for monetization of the damage [37,38] and (2) adding a subjective panel weighting system, e.g., the panel weighting system of the ReCiPe 2008 or the Eco-indicator 99 system [39].…”

Section: A Comparison Of the Ecological Burden And The Ecological Benmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the same reason, it is not possible to assess the damage of greenhouse gases in one damage-based single indicator [37]. In damage-based systems there are two solutions to resolve the problem (however, not introduced in ReCiPe 2016): (1) Adding a step for monetization of the damage [37,38] and (2) adding a subjective panel weighting system, e.g., the panel weighting system of the ReCiPe 2008 or the Eco-indicator 99 system [39]. In 2019 the panel-based weighting system of ReCiPe 2008 was re-introduced in ReCiPe 2016 to allow for single score results, applying 6 global normalization + weighting sets.…”

Section: A Comparison Of the Ecological Burden And The Ecological Benmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Hydrogen in the Ecological Benefits of Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel Production and Use: An LCA Benchmark

Olindo

Vogtländer

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Desulphurization of oil-based fuels is common practice to mitigate the ecological burden to ecosystems and human health of SOx emissions. In many countries, fuels for vehicles are restricted to 10 ppm sulphur. For marine fuels, low sulphur contents are under discussion. The environmental impact of desulphurization processes is, however, quite high: (1) The main current source for industrial hydrogen is Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), with a rather high level of CO2 emissions, (2) the hydrotreating process, especially below 150 ppm, needs a lot of energy. These two issues lead to three research questions: (a) What is the overall net ecological benefit of the current desulphurization practice? (b) At which sulfphur ppm level in the fuel is the additional ecological burden of desulphurization higher than the additional ecological benefit of less SOx pollution from combustion? (c) To what extent can cleaner hydrogen processes improve the ecological benefit of diesel desulphurization? In this paper we use LCA to analyze the processes of hydrotreatment, the recovery of sulphur via amine treating of H2S, and three processes of hydrogen production: SMR without Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), SMR with 53% and 90% CCS, and water electrolysis with two types of renewable energy. The prevention-based eco-costs system is used for the overall comparison of the ecological burden and the ecological benefit. The ReCiPe system was applied as well but appeared not suitable for such a comparison (other damage-based indicators cannot be applied either). The overall conclusion is that (1) the overall net ecological benefit of hydrogen-based Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel is dependent of local conditions, but is remarkably high, (2) desulphurization below 10 ppm is beneficial for big cities, and (3) cleaner production of hydrogen reduces eco-cost by a factor 1.8–3.4.

show abstract

Sustainability assessment of demolition based on quantitative external costs

Li,

Ueda

2024

Structural Concrete

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid urbanization brings us challenges, but it is meant to bring us well‐being. The short lifetime of buildings and urban renewal policies have led to the demand for demolition. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the benefits of implementing an advanced demolition system and to fill the sustainability assessment gap in the demolition sector. This approach will help reduce obstacles to conducting sustainable demolition. To achieve this goal, an assessment system based on external costs was built, which mainly focused on the costs of damage due to global warming and environmental pollution. A case study employing two advanced demolition systems was used to show how the assessment works and the effects of demolition. According to the assessment results, the total external damage for the two advanced demolition systems is 37.6% and 19.6% of that of the conventional demolition method. Excellent waste management causes damage due to global warming in only 9.4% of conventional demolition projects, but noise impacts are still a crucial issue in the demolition field, as they contribute to 74.4% of the total damage. Based on the case study results, the benefits of sustainable demolition and the future of demolition are revealed. Further development should be sought for future demolition through new design theory or new technology.

show abstract

Evaluating the monetary values of greenhouse gases emissions in life cycle impact assessment

Cited by 44 publications

References 49 publications

Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review

Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review

The Role of Hydrogen in the Ecological Benefits of Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel Production and Use: An LCA Benchmark

Sustainability assessment of demolition based on quantitative external costs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About