Life Cycle Assessment of transport systems

Life Cycle Assessment of transport systems Annik Magerholm Fet, Ottar Michelsen Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway Keywords: Transportation, LCA, Weighting methods. ABSTRACT Information about the environmental performance of transport systems is believed to become increasingly important in the future. This paper shows how the environmental performance of different transport chains can be compared against each other by a set of environmental impact categories. By the use of different weighting models, slight variations in performance are observed. INTRODUCTION This paper presents the results from the Norwegian project “Environmental Performance of Transportation - A Comparative Study” [1], a co-operation between the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Ålesund College. It is partly based on the pre-project “Life cycle Evaluation of ship transportation - Development of methodology and testing” [2]. The goal is to establish models and guidelines for the documentation and comparison of environmental performance of different transport chains. METHODS The working method has followed the LCA-methodology: 1. Goal and scope definition; hereunder system description and identification of relevant environmental impact categories for the transport sector. 2. Inventory analysis; hereunder a systematisation of data-collecting algorithms in accordance with the system structure. 3. Impact assessment; hereunder characterisation and valuation according to six different valuation methods. 4. Interpretation and comparison of environmental profiles of the transport chains. It is put effort to simplification of the method and to establish a set of environmental impact categories for the transport sector. System description A transport chain is defined as the combination of different transport systems that enables transportation from A to B. Each system is a combination of sub-systems. This paper presents the results from transport of frozen fish from Ålesund to Paris [3]. Two transport chains (A and B) are evaluated, see Fig. 1. However, the project also study paper and passenger transport [4][ 5].

Chain B

Road transport

Chain A

Waterborne transport

Road transport

Waterborne transport

Termo Trailer HFR/Norfrig

Harbours in Oslo and Kiel

Terminal in Ijmuiden

Harbours in Ålesund, Måløy and Ijmuiden

Road Ålesund - Oslo, Kiel - Paris

M/V Kronprins Harald (or M/V Prinsesse Ragnhild)

Termo Trailer HFR/Norfrig

RoRo-ship M/V Nordjarl

Road Ijmuiden - Paris

Fig. 1: Transport chain, transport systems and their sub-systems Impact categories Environmental impact categories are defined slightly different by different organisations. Impact categories proposed by OECD [6], ISO [7], LCANET [8], UN [9] and the Norwegian government [10] are grouped mainly in two groups; ecological and human impacts, and resource use. The impact categories in this study are mainly based upon the OECD and the ones identified by the Norwegian government, see Table I.

Function of transport chain and functional unit When comparing transport chains it is necessary to reflect that the distance travelled differs between alternative routes. This can be a significant contributor to the difference in environmental performance. Environmental performance should therefore not be expressed per km. The functional units for transport chains are per ton goods or per passenger per route between A and B. INVENTORY PRINCIPLES AND RESULTS The principles for describing the transport chain and collecting data for the systems and sub-systems are: 1. Describe the function of the transport chain. 2. Describe the transport chain and its combination of transport systems between point A and B. 3. Describe the transport system; the means and the infrastructure, route, distances, time etc. 4. Decide level of operational profile; based on average figures or detailed description of machinery load. 5. Describe the operational parameters for each transport sub-system, capacity and exploited capacity, e.g. for a vehicle - average parameters are satisfactory, for a ship – separate between sailing and idle, for a terminal/harbour - goods treatment and energy consumption, energy requiring activities needed to handle the goods, percentage of passengers or treated goods per year. The amounts of substances contributing to the impact categories are calculated by a set of formulas [11][1]. Exhaust emission factors for ships are based on Lloyd’s [12], emission factors for trailers are based on Norwegian statistical data[13], distance-calculations, fuel consumption, time-data, capacity etc. are based on netinformation and personal communication.. The leaching rate of TBT is based on figures from IMO [14]. For a ferry (multi-purpose vessel) the emissions are allocated to one trailer by dividing on the ferry-capacity and multiplying with the share of the capacity that the trailer occupies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The inventory results are characterised and normalised, see Table I. As a simplification the different impact categories are normalised against total Norwegian emissions or consumption [15]. Fig. 2 shows the characterised and normalised results of the inventory of transport chain A and B. It shows that Chain A has a lower impact than chain B within each impact category except for toxic contamination (TBT). Table I: Characterisation and normalisation values [1] . Impact category

Compound

Climate change[15] CO2 N2O CH4 SO2 Acidification[15] NOX NH3 Toxic contam.[20] Pb (to air) TBT Cu Local air pollution particles Photo oxidant form. NMVOC Noise Area >55dBA Eutrophication[15] NH3 NOX Energy consump. MJ Land use Area (m2)

Chain A Qi 84 kg 0,24 g 1,5 g 938 g 1286 g 0,022 g (no data) 0,10 g

Chain B Qi 138 kg 0,71 g 4,4 g 867 g 1802 g 0,064 g (no data) 0,034

24 g 36,6 g 10,4 m2 0,022 g 1286 g 930 MJ 0,23 m2

70 g 106 g 94 m2 0,064 g 1802 g 1812 MJ 0,66 m2

Charact. EF(j) i 1 320 25 1,00 0,70 1,88 160 250 2 1 1 1 3,64 1,35 1 1

Contrib. Normalisation Qi⋅EF(j)i

EP(j)

55 598 000 000

EP(j)

237 448 000

EP(j)

8 453 000 344 700 000 24 800 000 36 146 088 884

EP(j)

671 081 500 813 PJ 485 719 000

Valuation techniques are used to compare the relative importance of different environmental impact categories. ISO [7] define weighting as “the process of converting indicator results by using numerical factors based on value choices”. In this study the used methods are the Eco-indicator 99 [15], EPS [17], ExternE [18], valuation according to political goals, to panel procedures, and to the OECD-EST-project [19].

INTERPRETATION Fig. 3 shows the results of the valuation according to political goals and the OECD-recommendations. As the figure shows, Chain A has a better environmental performance than Chain B. The other valuation methods show similar results. This should be of no surprise, see Fig. 2. Weighting is therefore for this case study superfluous to decide which chain that has the best environmental performance. However, there are some differences in which categories that contribute most to the environmental burdens. Whereas acidification (NOX) is the most important category in valuation according to political goals, EST and ExternE, climate change is the single most important category when valuation is done according to panel procedures while fuel consumption when using EPS. If valuation results are used to identify where the most important potentials for improvements are, this is important to notice. The impact categories used in Eco-indicator 99 are rather different from the other methods, so directly comparison is difficult. 0,00000001

Transport chain A Transport chain B

ns

us nd

er

gy

Eu

co

La

pt um

ic ph tro

e

n io

n io at

oi N

En

ir la Lo

ca

se

t)

llu po

id ox o ot

Ph

(d n tio

or tf an

nt co c xi To

us

io at m

in am

ifi id Ac

n

n at

tio ca

an ch e at lim C

io

n

ge

0

Fig. 2: Normalised inventory results for fish transport. 100 % 90 % 80 %

Land use Noise Particles VOC

70 % 60 % 50 % 40 %

NOX CO2

30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Chain A-EST

Chain A-political

Chain B-EST

Chain B-political

Fig. 3:Valuation according to recommendations in the EST project and to political goals. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The project has demonstrated how to compare the environmental performance of transport chains. Only the operational phase are studied since previous studies show that cradle to gate data for fuel contribute less than 10% to the impact caused by the combustion of the fuel during the life time of a transport means, and the building of the subsystems contribute less than 1% to the total environmental burdens [20][21]. Also the

maintenance of the transport systems will give minimal contribution. These conclusions depend however on the system boundaries. The impact category toxic contamination is difficult to evaluate since local impacts are not included in some of the evaluation models. The use of land-area and the effects of noise exposure were also evaluated. We see from Fig. 2 that land use contribute minimal to the total environmental burden. However, the results show that for chain B which to a great extent is a route through a dens populated areas, noise should not be neglected. The results seam to turn out very similar independent of which of the six valuation methods that are used. So far the project concludes that a simple weighting method is recommended, e.g. the six indicators recommended in the EST project. The preliminary results are interesting information for further research, for decision making in transport companies and for governmental bodies. The transport companies may use such information to report the environmental performance of transport chains and to plan their logistics. For governmental bodies the information can be used for taxation and planning. Databases with environmental performance data for transport chains, not only for single transport means, should also be developed. At last the project results are of great value for further research on how to optimise the economic and environmental performance of transport chains, and for the development of eco-efficiency indicators for transportation. REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Fet, A. M., Michelsen, O., Johnsen, T., Sørgård, E., “Environmental performance of transport –A comparative study.” Norwegian University of Science and Technology – IOT, NTNU, Norway, 2000. Fet, A. M. (HiÅ), Sørgård, E. (DNV): “Life Cycle Evaluation of Ship Transportation – Development of Methodology and Testing”. Report no. 10/B101/R-98/008/00, Ålesund College, 1998. Karlsen, H., “Environmental comparison of alternative transport chains for frozen fish. A case study”. Ålesund College, Technical Report No. 2000-003, Rev. 0, 2000. Johnsen, T., “Environmental comparison of alternative transport chains for paper. A case study”. Det Norske Veritas, Technical Report No. 2000-3295, Rev. 0, 2000. Johnsen, T., “Environmental comparison of alternative transport chains for passengers. A case study”. Det Norske Veritas, Technical Report No. 2000-3296, Rev. 0, 2000. OECD: “OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews”, Environmental Monographs N° 83. OECD/GD893)179 (1993) ISO 14042: “Environmental management – Life Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Impact Assessment”, International Organization for Standardization (2000) Finnveden, G. and Lindfors, L.G., ‘LCANET Theme Report. Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Interpretation’, http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/lcanet/ftheme3.htm (february 1997) WRI, UNEP, UNDP and The World Bank, “World Resources 1998-1999. A Guide to the Global Environment”, Oxford University Press (1998) Norwegian Ministry of the Environment: “Regjeringens miljøvernpolitikk og rikets miljøtilstand”, St.m. nr.8-1999 Fet, A. M. (NTNU), Michelsen, O, (NTNU), Karlsen, H (AaC) “Environmental Performance of Transportation - a Comparative Study”, ENSUS2000, University of Newcastle, UK, Sept.2000. Lloyd’s Reg. of Shipping: “Marine exhaust gas emissions research programme: Steady state operation”, London 1990. Bang, J., et al.: Utslipp fra vegtrafikk i Norge. Dokumentasjon av beregningsmetode, data og resultater. SFT rapport 99:04. Statens forurensningstilsyn, Norway (1999). IMO, “Measures to control potential adverse impacts associated with the use of tributylin compounds in antifouling paints”, MEPC. 46 (30), 1990. http://www.ssb.no/emner/01 Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R. ‘The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (Preliminary Internet version)’, PRé Consultans (October 1999) Steen, B. ‘A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000 – Models and data of the default method’, CPM report 1999:5. Chalmers (1999) ExternE, ‘Externalities of Energy – What is the ExternE Methodology’, (1997) Wiederkehr, P. ‘Environmentally Sustainable Transport – International perspectives. OECD’s EST Project’. ENV/EPOC/PPC/T(99)3/FINAL/REV1 (1999) Johnsen, T. (DNV); Fet, A.M. (HiÅ): “Screening Life Cycle Assessment of M/V Color Festival”. Report no. 10/B101/R-98/009/00, Ålesund College, 1998. Fet, A. M., “Systems Engineering Methods and Environmental Life Cycle Perfromance within Ship Industry”, Doktor Ingeniøravhandling 1997:21, NTNU, ITEV-rapport 1997:1.