Environmental Life Cycle

Assessment
CEE 12-714 / EPP 19-714

Lecture 19: Hybrid LCA

March 28, 2018
Administrivia
• HW5 due Thursday, March 29 (midnight)
 Regular office hours this week
• SimaPro server upgraded
 Any faster?

2
 Administrivia
3
Average scores
• HW4 returned (fully) HW1: 81.7%
 Q1: 19.9/24 HW2: 88.7%
 Q2: 6.0/7 HW3: 91.3%
HW4: 83.4%
 Q3: 10.5/11
 Q4: 15.5/19
 Overall: 52.5 (median)/61
 Carefully review grader feedback

3
Administrivia
• Next project deliverable due April 16
 Preliminary results
 Draft report
 20 project points
 Required progress meeting with me
 Request via email, see Canvas announcement
 Presentations will be given on April 30 and
May 2, timeslots by lottery
 Final reports due May 9th

4
Course trajectory
1. Introductions 10. Uncertainty
2. Life cycle thinking 11. Input-output LCA
3. Quantitative methods and 12. Process-matrix LCA
life cycle cost analysis
13. Hybrid LCA
4. ISO LCA framework
14. Impact assessment
5. Critical review
15. Structural path analysis
6. LCA data sources
16. End-of-life with WARM
7. Life cycle inventory
17. Professional responsibility
8. SimaPro
18. Carbon footprinting
9. Handling multifunction
19. LCA for big decisions
systems
20. Project presentations

5
Today
• Types of hybrid LCA
• Case study: Online retailing
• Case study: Book publishing

6
 ISO 14040: Figure 1

Phases of an LCA

• Goal and scope

definition

• Inventory

• Impact assessment

• Interpretation

7
Hybrid LCA

8
Types of LCA
• Process Based LCA
 Detailed flows of processes, bottom up analyses, data
and time intensive
• Input-output based LCA
 More aggregated analysis, top-down, generally fast.
Screening tool

• Hybrid LCA (combination of two)

9
So … PLCA or IO-LCA?
• Gone through both types of LCA now
 So, which to use?
 Sometimes use one or the other?
 Which is good for what application?

• Recall, always should go back to goal and scope!

• What is goal of study?
 Scoping assessment? Regulation?
 Public reporting of results or not?
• Generally, advantages and disadvantages of both
methods

10
 Advantages of Each Method
Conventional LCA IO-LCA
 Detailed process-specific  Economy-wide, comprehensive
analyses assessments (all direct and
 Specific product indirect environmental effects
comparisons included)
 Process improvements/  Sensitivity analyses/scenario
weak point analyses planning
 Future product  Publicly available data,
development reproducible results
assessments  Future product development
assessments
 Information on every commodity
in the economy
11
 Disadvantages of Each Method
Conventional LCA
 System boundary
setting subjective
 Tend to be time
intensive and costly
 New process design
difficult
 Use of proprietary data
 Cannot be replicated if
confidential data are
used
 Uncertainty in data
IO-LCA
 Some product assessments
contain aggregate data
 Process assessments difficult
 Difficulty in linking dollar values to
physical units
 Economic and environmental data
may reflect past practices
 Imports treated as U.S. products
 Difficult to apply to an open
economy (with substantial non-
comparable imports)
 Non-U.S. data availability a
problem
 Uncertainty in data 12
Goals of Hybrid LCA Models
• Incorporate advantages of both models, reduce
disadvantages
• Include detailed, process-level data, as well as
economy-wide effects
• Provide environmental and economic
information about every major product and
process in economy
• Quantify widest range of environmental data

13
Types of Hybrid Models
• Tiered
• IO based
• Integrated

• First two options are good enough…

• ISO 14040 is silent
• Biggest challenge? Maintaining units across
your model components

14
Types of Hybrid Models: Tiered
• Specific process data used to model key
components of product system
 Ex. direct and downstream effects like use phase and
end of life
 Used for stages where IO is inadequate
• Input-output analysis used for remaining
components
 IO matrix and coefficients generally not modified
• Yellow Pages example
• Watch and account for any overlap
15
 Integration of IO-LCA Data into PLCA
Process
EIO-LCA models
commodity

C11 Cn
C1

Cn

commodity

system
boundary

16
Types of Hybrid Models: IO Based
• IO based: disaggregate sectors in IO model
based on process data
 Steel versus plastic fuel tanks for vehicles (Joshi,
2000)
 Power generation and supply sector
 Generation (fossil vs. nonfossil, or further to coal, gas, wind)
 Transmission
 Distribution
 Oil and gas extraction sector Will resultant
 Oil extraction model give
 Gas extraction better results?

17
Integration of PLCA Data into IO-LCA
EIO-LCA
process results Cj commodity

Cj1 Cj2

product
commodity

18
User Adjustments
• Many adjustments possible due to known
aggregation or emissions problems
 “Process” models including EIO and process data
 Disaggregating individual EIO sectors where
aggregation is a problem
 Integrated hybrid approaches

• Generally, starting with IO is always a good idea

(why?)

19
Using process data to modify IO
model
• Say you find process data that allows you to
break Process 1 into subsectors 1a and 1b with
discrete emission patterns
1: Energy 2: Manuf

Value in
$billions

20
 Using process data to modify IO
model

• Review: How would you generate the A matrix?

0.029 0.211 0.15

𝐴 = 0.019 0.053 0.1
0.19 0.211 0.05

21
 Using process data to modify IO model
• Original emissions of waste:
 50 g per $billion for sector 1
 5 g per $billion for sector 2
50 0
𝑅𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 =
0 5
• Total amount of waste from sector 1 to be
allocated to 1a and 1b?
 Original requirements table showed $1,000 billion of
output from sector 1
50 𝑔
∗ $1,000 𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 50,000 𝑔 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒, 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
$𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛

See spreadsheet example for matrix manipulation and R matrix allocation 22

Using process data to modify IO model
• Say new process data shows
 20% of emissions are from fuel extraction (1a)
 80% from electricity (1b):

50,000𝑔𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡 1 = 10,000𝑔𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟1𝑎 + 40,000𝑔𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 1𝑏

• Calculate new emission coefficients by
normalizing total emissions by new sectoral
outputs:

23
 Using process data to modify IO
model
50 0
𝑅𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 =
0 5

10,000
0 0
$525 19 0 0
𝑅𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 40,000 = 0 84 0
0 0 0 0 5
$475
0 0 5

See spreadsheet example for matrix manipulation 24

Using process data to modify IO
model
• Complete process data not required
 Even limited process data and assumptions on how to adjust other
values can lead to relevant hybrid models
• Electricity sector disaggregation example:
 You have emission profiles but not economic activity data for
generation, transmission, and distribution
 Assume that purchases of services are equal (i.e., divide by 3)
 Or assume proportional to outputs of disaggregated sectors
• Unlikely such assumptions would be significant to final
results
 SENSITIVITY analysis to confirm

25
Reminder: Source of such “mix” data

US LCI draws
from EPA and
EIA data
sources.
Can tailor
models to
specific
conditions of
interest (region,
time, forecasting,
scenario
analysis) 26
Production Recipe: 2002 US Electricity
X tkm, Rail
Transport

0.5 kWh, coal

Y ton, Coal
Mining
0.20 kWh,
nuclear 1 kWh, US
W tkm,
mix
Pipeline
Transport 0.17 kWh,
gas

0.11 kWh,
other
Z, Oil and Gas
Extraction
0.02 kWh,
Petrol
27
Production Recipe: 2016 PA Electricity
X tkm, Rail
Transport
0.29 kWh,
coal
Y ton, Coal
Mining
0.38 kWh,
nuclear 1 kWh, PA
W tkm,
mix
Pipeline
Transport 0.28 kWh,
gas

0.05 kWh,
other
Z, Oil and Gas
Extraction
0.001 kWh,
Petrol
28
In-Class Exercise: Quick Hybrid LCA
of Electricity Generation in PA, 2016
• Power plant-only & supply chain wide CO2
emissions/kWh using:
 2002 National EIO-LCA results ($1M of power generation results)
 Assume $0.072/kWh
 Natural gas: 1.1 lbs CO2/kWh (0.5 kg/kWh)
 Coal: 2.2 lbs CO2/kWh (1 kg/kWh)
 2002 National and 2016 PA Grid Mixes (EIA, 2017):

US (2002) PA (2016)
Coal 50% 29%
Nuclear 20% 38%
Nat Gas 17% 28%
Petrol 2% 0.1%
Other/renew 11% 5% 29
Things to Do / Think About
• Price assumption ($ per kWh) (given) ?
• Adjustments needed?
• Assumptions?
• If you could have more data, what would it be?
 But only use what is given
• Estimate power plant-only and supply chain
wide CO2 emissions/kWh
 ~15 minutes
 Focus on what your method would be
 Don’t necessarily need a final answer

30
31
32
 One quick way: Weighted averages

Grid Mix Percentages Adj Factors for

US PA EIO-LCA (PA/US)
Emiss Factors (kg CO2/kWh)
coal 50.0% 29.0% 0.58 1
nuclear 20.0% 38.0% 1.90 0
gas 17.0% 28.0% 1.65 0.5
petroleum 2.0% 0.1% 0.05
other 11.0% 5.0% 0.45 0
Total 100.0% 100.1%

Using given emission factors, calculate weighted average

emission factors:
US-2002: 0.585 kg CO2/kWh
PA-2016: 0.43 kg CO2/kWh
→0.43/0.585 = 0.74 reduction factor
33
More rigorous approach: 2002 total rate

$0.072
How much electricity? =$1 million/ 𝑘𝑊ℎ
=13,900,000 kWh
𝑥 𝑘𝑔 9370 𝑚𝑡 𝐶𝑂2 1000 𝑘𝑔 0.675 𝑘𝑔 1.4 𝑙𝑏
= ∗ = 𝑜𝑟
𝑘𝑊ℎ 13,900,000 kWh 𝑚𝑡 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑘𝑊ℎ
34
More rigorous approach: 2002 power
plant only rate

𝑥 𝑘𝑔 8690 𝑚𝑡 𝐶𝑂2 1000 𝑘𝑔 0.626 𝑘𝑔

• = ∗ =
𝑘𝑊ℎ 13,900,000 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑚𝑡 𝑘𝑊ℎ
• How to adjust Oil and gas extraction?
• Coal mining? 35
 See lec18-hybrid-
elec-example.xls
More rigorous approach in Canvas
• Apply appropriate adjustment factors to each
row you can
Grid Mix Percentages Adj Factors for Coal mining and rail
US PA EIO-LCA (PA/US) transport
coal 50.0% 29.0% 0.58
nuclear 20.0% 38.0% 1.90 O&G extraction and
gas 17.0% 28.0% 1.65 pipeline transport
petroleum 2.0% 0.1% 0.05
other 11.0% 5.0% 0.45 Petroleum refineries
Total 100.0% 100.1%
Overall reduction factor = 0.43/0.585 = 0.74 Power generation

Total Combustion CO2 only

Original kg CO2e / kWh US 0.675 0.626
-24.8% -26.3%
Hybrid PA kg CO2e/kWh 0.507 0.461 36
Validation: PA vs US
• What are actual electricity sector CO2
emissions/kWh?
 What are emissions factors by generation type?
 What are “actual” $/kWh in EIO-LCA?
• E-GRID (2005) says (combustion only)
 US avg CO2 is 1.32 lbs/kWh (0.6 kg/kWh)
 PA avg is 1.244 lbs/kWh (0.565 kg/kWh)
 Difference of about -5.5% (see XLS example: –2.8%)
 Note: our estimates include upstream

37
Was this a Hybrid Model?

39
Types of Hybrid Models: Integrated
• Integrated: detailed tech matrix linking $/flow
and other units/flow (mass, energy, etc.)
• Also known as a mixed unit input-output model
 See examples in textbook folder for Ch. 9 (Pb Mixed
Unit IO 12 x 12.xls and Cd_PIO-18Sector-update.xls)
 Highly complex and time consuming analysis, well
beyond the scope of this class

40
Hybrid Models of LCA
• Putting the best of PLCA and IO-LCA together
• A few obvious high level alternatives for hybrid models:
 Using IO-LCA model to guide boundary and scope of process
models
 Disaggregating or augmenting IO model
 Using IO-LCA for some processes, products and supply chain
elements (where sector aggregation is not a major issue), with
process models for remainder
 There are more/other ways, including more “rules” but we save
those for later

41
Hybrid LCA in EIOLCA.net
• Advanced Material for Chapter 9 – Section 5 –
Hybrid EIO-LCA Models
• Quick way to modify “recipe” or direct
requirements
• Textbook example: making a hybrid car, shift $
from engines to batteries
• Other ideas?
 Non leather shoes

42
Economic and
Environmental
Implications of Online
Retailing
Source: “Environmental and Economic Effects of E-Commerce: A Case Study of
Book Publishing and Retail Logistics”, H. Scott Matthews, Chris T. Hendrickson,
and Denise L. Soh, Transportation Research Record, 2001.
E-Commerce Retail Quarterly Volume
($B)
• In 2001, e-tail was ~1.1% of total retail
• 2008, 3.6%
• 2015, 7.5%

Source: forrester.com 2009

44
Describe the Systems
• Traditional Retail
• E-tail

45
Traditional Retail Logistics System
• Factory to warehouse
to warehouse to
retailer
• Last leg of trip by
private vehicle

46
Single Facility Sales
• LL Bean, Lands End
– catalogue sales
• Amazon (original),
MusicOutpost – web-
based sales from a
single facility

47
Comparison of freight modes

48
Assumptions and
Data Needed to
Model E-Commerce
for LCA?

49
Book Publishing Case Study
• Traditional System:
 Logistics: printer → warehouse → warehouse →
retailer → home, all by truck/car
 Unsold returns – roughly 35% for bestsellers

• E-commerce System:
 Logistics: printer → warehouse → distribution center →
home, by air and truck
 No unsold returns

50
Comparative Analysis

• Traditional: • E-Commerce:
 truck transport (1000 mi)*  air transport (500 mi)*
 warehousing*  truck transport (500 mi)*
 production of returns*  warehousing*
 reverse travel of returns*
 private automobile
transport

* EIO-LCA Sector Use

51
Comparative Costs
Traditional E-
Commerce
w/o Returns or Auto 700 992

w/ Returns but w/o Auto 1,300 992

w/o Returns but w/ Auto 1,170 992

w Returns and Auto 1,780 992

($ 1000s for $ 1 M or 290,000 books)

52
Comparative Costs
Traditional E-
Commerce
w/o Returns or Auto 700 992

w/ Returns but w/o Auto 1,300 992

w/o Returns but w/ Auto 1,170 992

w Returns and Auto 1,780 992

($ 1000s for $ 1 M or 290,000 books)

53
Why are E-Commerce Costs Lower?
• Higher transportation costs for e-Commerce,
but:
 Avoids returns of unsold copies
 Lower retail transactions costs
 Lower (private) automobile cost
• Result is cost advantage for e-Commerce

54
 Energy *Conv. Air RCRA CO2 Equiv.
(TJ) Pollutants Hazardous (mT)
(mT) Waste (mT)

Trucking (with returns) 5.3 8.9 9.1 354

Traditional

Production 9.45 8.1 23 612

Retailing

Packaging 1.2 1.1 3.5 84

Passenger Trips 9.7 42 0 611
Pass. Fuel Prod. 7 1.7 30 337
Total 33 62 66 2000
Trucking 1.2 2 2 80
E-Commerce

Air 7 3 9 440
Retailing

Production 7 6 17 453
Packaging 4 3 11 254
Delivery Trips 11 18.5 19 736
Pass. Fuel Prod. 0 0 0 0
Total 30 33 58 1963
% Difference 9 47 12 2

55
 Summary Impacts (per-book basis)

Traditional E-
Commerce
Energy (MJ) 115 105
Conventional Air (kg) 0.2 0.1
Hazardous Waste 0.2 0.2
(kg)
Greenhouse Gas (kg) 7 7

56
Sensitivity Analysis
• ‘Traditional’ becomes better if:
 Local distance to bookstore < 3 miles
 Air transport of books > 700 miles
 Orders not shipped together
• E-commerce better if:
 Switch from Air transport
 Multiple origin sites
 Greater density of sales.

57
Harry Potter Case
• 250,000 books shipped on release date by
Amazon.com
 9,000 trucks and 100 airplanes
• 2.5 lb. book, 0.7 lb. packaging (3.2 lbs.)
 Bookstores got 10 per box
• Shopping trips for books avg. 11 miles
 Marginal effects

58
This is Research….
59
Some Analysis Issues

• What are E-commerce future scenarios?

 How has it changed since this analysis (published in
2001)?
• What will happen with local manufacturing
technology?
 Shift overseas?
• What will be impact of new business models for
controlling inventory (warehousing),
manufacturing and shipping?

60
Analysis Boundary Issues
• Buildings
 decrease in retail or warehouse space?
• Shopping
 will individuals substitute other travel for reduced
shopping travel?
• Computers and smart phones
 what fraction of personal computer burdens should be
allocated to E-commerce?
 what fraction of electronic ordering burden should be
allocated to smart phones?

61
EIO-LCA Spreadsheet Models
• See Books_TRR.xls on Canvas
• Other Hybrid Model on website (lead, cadmium)

• These give methodology for using EIO models,

but also good LCA modeling practices in general
 List of assumptions (add references/urls)
 Model components well delineated (logistics costs,
shipping legs, return costs, private auto)
 Total effects ($1 million of books), functional unit
effects (per book)
 Scenario comparison

62
Summary

• Both IO and PLCA have strengths and

weaknesses
• Together they can help to alleviate each other’s
weaknesses
• Can be put together in several ways
 IO data in a PLCA
 PLCA data in expanded IO

63
 Next
• Life Cycle Impact
Assessment
• HW due Thursday,
March 29 (midnight)

64
Questions?

65