What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management

Ekvall, Tomas; Assefa, Getachew; Björklund, Anna; Eriksson, Ola; Finnveden, Göran

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.015

Cited by 335 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of studies are also conducted to examine the scope, limitations, and potentiality of LCA models as a DST and such studies are Barton and Patel (1996), Björklund (2000), Morselli et al (2005), Bilitewski and Winkler (2007), Björklund and Finnveden (2007), Ekvall et al (2007), Cherubini et al (2008 a, b), Liamsanguan and Gheewala (2008), Manfredi andChristensen (2009), Rigamonti et al (2010) and Fruergaard and Astrup (2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis–gasification as an emerging municipal solid waste treatment technology

Zaman

2013

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Waste-to-energy technologies are considered as one of the key waste treatment technologies due to their energy and heat recovery efficiencies from the waste. A number of research studies were accomplished to understand the potential environmental burdens from emerging waste treatment technologies such as pyrolysis-gasification (PG). The aim of this study was to examine the PG of municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment process through a life cycle assessment (LCA) method. The study also includes a comparative LCA model of PG and incineration to identify the potential environmental burdens from the existing (incineration) and emerging (PG) waste treatment technologies. This study focused on ten environmental impact categories under two different scenarios, namely: (a) LCA model of PG and (b) comparative LCA model of PG and incineration. The scenario (a) showed that PG had significant environmental burdens in the aquatic eco-toxicity and the global warming potential impact categories. The comparative scenario (b) of PG and incineration of MSW showed that PG had comparatively lower potential environmental burdens in acidification, eutrophication, and aquatic eco-toxicity. Both LCA models showed that the environmental burdens were mainly caused by the volume of the thermal gas (emissions) produced from these two technologies and the final residue to disposal. Therefore, the results indicate that the efficiency and environmental burdens of the emerging technologies are dependent on the emissions and the production of final residue to the landfill.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis–gasification as an emerging municipal solid waste treatment technology

Zaman

2013

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 'zero burden assumption' was adopted, whereby environmental impacts from upstream life cycle stages prior to the deposition of waste in the landfill cell were not included (Ekvall et al, 2007). Processes included in the assessed system comprise the generation, movement, and collection of leachate at the site and the treatment of collected leachate.…”

Section: Goal and Scope Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating landfill aftercare strategies: A life cycle assessment approach

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study investigates the potential impacts caused by the loss of active environmental control measures during the aftercare period of landfill management. A combined mechanistic solute flow model and life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was used to evaluate the potential impacts of leachate emissions over a 10,000 year time horizon. A continuum of control loss possibilities occurring at different times and for different durations were investigated for four different basic aftercare scenarios, including a typical aftercare scenario involving a low permeability cap and three accelerated aftercare scenarios involving higher initial infiltration rates. Assuming a 'best case' where control is never lost, the largest potential impacts resulted from the typical aftercare scenario. The maximum difference between potential impacts from the 'best case' and the 'worst case', where control fails at the earliest possible point and is never reinstated, was only a fourfold increase. This highlights potential deficiencies in standard life cycle impact assessment practice, which are discussed. Nevertheless, the results show how the influence of active control loss on the potential impacts of landfilling varies considerably depending on the aftercare strategy used and highlight the importance that leachate treatment efficiencies have upon impacts.

show abstract

“…When calculating life cycle-based RE, waste as a resource used as an input in a process is generally not accounted for and is seen as gratuitous (approach also called the "zero burden assumption"; Ekvall, et al [30]). Waste is indirectly accounted for by a decrease in natural resource consumption, but is not taken into account on its own.…”

Section: Definition Of Resource Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Framework for Resource Efficiency Evaluation in Industry: Recommendations for Research and Innovation Projects

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The world is facing a tremendous resource supply challenge. One strategy of regions and nations to address this issue is to encourage research and innovation through funding programs. Most of the time, these programs require that research and innovation projects quantify potential increases in resource efficiency achieved by the projects. However, no consensus exists on how to calculate resource efficiency; therefore, a wide range of approaches is followed. As a result, resource efficiency results are not comparable between projects, and because no rules or guidelines exist to help project developers, the approach followed is not always appropriate. This paper aims to discuss the existing approaches and methods used to evaluate resource efficiency. In this context, resource efficiency is defined as the ratio between the benefits obtained from resources and the impact or amount of resources used. The most challenging step is the determination of this ratio's denominator because a wide range of methods to quantify resource consumption exist and are being used. They can be classified as gate-to-gate or life cycle based methods and can be subdivided into accounting methods and impact assessment methods. Each method considers different aspects of resources; thus, no single method aims to answer the same research questions. Therefore, project developers must make a well informed choice about which method to use. This paper provides recommendations to support this choice, as well as the overall evaluation and the valorization of the resource efficiency ratio in the framework of research and innovation programs.

show abstract

What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management

Cited by 335 publications

References 40 publications

Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis–gasification as an emerging municipal solid waste treatment technology

Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis–gasification as an emerging municipal solid waste treatment technology

Evaluating landfill aftercare strategies: A life cycle assessment approach

Toward a Framework for Resource Efficiency Evaluation in Industry: Recommendations for Research and Innovation Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About