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
收藏
页码：237 / 246
页数：10
相关论文
共 50 条
[21]   Life cycle optimization for sustainable design and operations of hydrocarbon biorefinery via fast pyrolysis, hydrotreating and hydrocracking [J].
Gebreslassie, Berhane H. ;
Slivinsky, Maxim ;
Wang, Belinda ;
You, Fengqi .
COMPUTERS & CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, 2013, 50 :71-91
[22]  
Goedkoop M, 2000, MANUAL DESIGNERS 174
[23]   Environmental assessment of energy production based on long term commercial willow plantations in Sweden [J].
Gonzalez-Garcia, Sara ;
Mola-Yudego, Blas ;
Dimitriou, Ioannis ;
Aronsson, Par ;
Murphy, Richard .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2012, 421 :210-219
[24]  
Guinee J., 2001, Life cycle assessment-an operational guide to the ISO standards
[25]   Comparative life cycle assessment of eight alternatives for hydrogen production from renewable and fossil feedstock [J].
Hajjaji, Noureddine ;
Pons, Marie-Noelle ;
Renaudin, Viviane ;
Houas, Ammar .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2013, 44 :177-189
[26]   IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology [J].
Jolliet, O ;
Margni, M ;
Charles, R ;
Humbert, S ;
Payet, J ;
Rebitzer, G ;
Rosenbaum, R .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2003, 8 (06) :324-330
[27]   Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications [J].
Knoeri, Christof ;
Sanye-Mengual, Esther ;
Althaus, Hans-Joerg .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2013, 18 (05) :909-918
[28]   Design and implementation of carbon cap and dividend policies [J].
Kunkel, Catherine M. ;
Kammen, Daniel M. .
ENERGY POLICY, 2011, 39 (01) :477-486
[29]   The influence of negative emission technologies and technology policies on the optimal climate mitigation portfolio [J].
Lemoine, Derek M. ;
Fuss, Sabine ;
Szolgayova, Jana ;
Obersteiner, Michael ;
Kammen, Daniel M. .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2012, 113 (02) :141-162
[30]   Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine [J].
Martinez, E. ;
Sanz, F. ;
Pellegrini, S. ;
Jimenez, E. ;
Blanco, J. .
RENEWABLE ENERGY, 2009, 34 (03) :667-673
12345