A comparative analysis of six life cycle impact assessment methodologies

• Main Authors: Aquino, Liezzel Pacual, Aviso, Kathleen B., Tan, Raymond Girard R.
• Format: text
• Published: Animo Repository 2006
• Subjects: Environmental impact analysis; Nature—Effect of human beings on; Chemical Engineering
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty_research/12020
• Institution: De La Salle University

Different Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods were used to observe the environmental impacts of five energy systems: gasoline diesel, natural gas, biodiesel and ethanol. The inventory assessment results from the GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) 1.5a model was used. Five different LCIA methods were applied and compared: Critical Volumes, Ecological Footprint, FRED (Framework for Responsible Environmental Decision-Making) EDIP (Environmental Design for Industrial Products) and Chemical Energy. The comparative results showed that for all the impact assessment methods employed, diesel fuel was predicted to be the best fuel due to its lesser environmental impacts while natural gas consistently ranked as the second to worst fuel. Biodiesel was ranked in between the five fuel types. By using the critical volumes and ecological footprint methods, ethanol was predicted to have the highest environmental impact. Meanwhile, EDIP, FRED and Chemical Energy predicted gasoline as the worst fuel. Based from the comparative analysis of LCIA methods, diesel fuel is still the best energy system while gasoline and ethanol appeared as worst fuels. Differences of results from the five LCIA methodologies can be traced back from the different coefficients utilized by each method and the process by which these coefficients were derived. Hence, it is up to data availability and process applicability on which among these LCIA methods should be used for a specific impact assesment.