Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment software tools through a wind turbine case study

被引：27

作者：

Martinez, E. ^{[1
]}

Blanco, J. ^{[1
]}

Jimenez, E. ^{[2
]}

Saenz-Diez, J. C. ^{[2
]}

Sanz, F. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ La Rioja, Dept Mech Engn, Edificio Dept, Logrono 26004, La Rioja, Spain

[2] Univ La Rioja, Dept Elect Engn, Edificio Dept, Logrono 26004, La Rioja, Spain

来源：

RENEWABLE ENERGY | 2015年 / 74卷

关键词：

Wind energy; LCA; LCIA; Renewable energy; DIFFERENT LCIA METHODS; HYDROCARBON BIOREFINERY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; SUSTAINABLE DESIGN; ECOINVENT DATABASE; COMPARATIVE LCA; POWER; ELECTRICITY; BIODIESEL; HYDROGEN;

D O I：

10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.004

中图分类号：

X [环境科学、安全科学];

学科分类号：

08 ; 0830 ;

摘要：

This paper seeks to analyse the differences between environmental impact assessment software tools by examining the results that they give when applied to a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Seven different life cycle impact assessment software tools are compared: CML 2001, Eco-indicator 99, Ecopoints 97, EDIP, EPS 2000, IMPACT2002 and TRACI. In Acidification and Eutrophication two groups are found: one includes the results provided by CML, Ecopoints 97, EDIP, EPS and TRACI and the other those of Eco-indicator 99 and Impact2002. In Abiotic Depletion all the results are similar except those of the EPS method, which gives negative figures. Likewise in Ozone Layer Depletion the results provided by Ecopoints 97 differ from the rest. In Human Toxicity and Ecotoxicity markedly different results are obtained by each of the LCIAs studied. In some categories major differences are found between the results provided by the 7 LCIAs examined. Which of the impact assessment software tools currently available in LCA software is chosen is therefore a critical issue. The results provided by the different software tools are not always similar, and this needs to be realised and taken into account when using the resulting data in decision-making processes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：237 / 246

页数：10

共 50 条

[1] Eco-Efficiency of Electric and Electronic Appliances: A Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) [J].

Barba-Gutierrez, Y. ;

Adenso-Diaz, B. ;

Lozano, S. .

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING & ASSESSMENT, 2009, 14 (04) :439-447

[2]

BARE JC, 2003, J IND ECOLOGY, V0006

[3] The influence of impact assessment methods on materials selection for eco-design [J].

Bovea, MD ;

Gallardo, A .

MATERIALS & DESIGN, 2006, 27 (03) :209-215

[4]

Brand G, 1998, BUWAL SCHRIFTENREIHE, V297

[5] Environmental evaluation of dish-Stirling technology for power generation [J].

Bravo, Y. ;

Carvalho, M. ;

Serra, L. M. ;

Monne, C. ;

Alonso, S. ;

Moreno, F. ;

Munoz, M. .

SOLAR ENERGY, 2012, 86 (09) :2811-2825

[6] Comparative evaluation of life cycle impact assessment methods with a South African case study [J].

Brent, AC ;

Hietkamp, S .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2003, 8 (01) :27-38

[7] Modelling of environmental impacts of ship dismantling [J].

Carvalho, I. S. ;

Antao, P. ;

Guedes Soares, C. .

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES, 2011, 6 (1-2) :161-173

[8] Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods [J].

Cavalett, Otavio ;

Chagas, Mateus Ferreira ;

Seabra, Joaquim E. A. ;

Bonomi, Antonio .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2013, 18 (03) :647-658

[9] Global climate impacts of forest bioenergy: what, when and how to measure? [J].

Cherubini, Francesco ;

Bright, Ryan M. ;

Stromman, Anders H. .

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2013, 8 (01)

[10] Infrastructure and automobile shifts: positioning transit to reduce life-cycle environmental impacts for urban sustainability goals [J].

Chester, Mikhail ;

Pincetl, Stephanie ;

Elizabeth, Zoe ;

Eisenstein, William ;

Matute, Juan .

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2013, 8 (01)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →