Abiotic resource depletion potentials (ADPs) for elements revisited—updating ultimate reserve estimates and introducing time series for production data

Purpose In 1995, the original method for assessing the impact category abiotic resource depletion using abiotic depletion potentials (ADPs) was published. The ADP of a resource was defined as the ratio of the annual production and the square of the ultimate (crustal content based) reserve for the resource divided by the same ratio for a reference resource (antimony (Sb)). In 2002, ADPs were updated based on the most recent USGS annual production data. In addition, the impact category was sub-divided into two categories, using two sets of ADPs: the ADP for fossil fuels and the ADP for elements; in this article, we focus on the ADP for elements. Since then, ADP values have not been updated anymore despite the availability of updates of annual production data and also updates of crustal content data that constitute the basis of the ultimate reserves. Moreover, it was known that the coverage of elements by ADPs was incomplete. These three aspects together can affect relative ranking of abiotic resources based on the ADP. Furthermore, dealing with annually changing production data might have to be revisited by proposing new calculation procedures. Finally, category totals to calculate normalized indicator results have to be updated as well, because incomplete coverage of elements can lead to biased results. Methods We used updated reserve estimates and time series of production data from authoritative sources to calculate ADPs for different years. We also explored the use of several variations: moving averages and cumulative production data. We analyzed the patterns in ADP over time and the contribution by different elements in the category total. Furthermore, two case studies are carried out applying two different normalization reference areas (the EU 27 as normalization reference area and the world) for 2010. Results and discussion We present the results of the data updates and improved coverage. On top of this, new calculation procedures are proposed for ADPs, dealing with the annually changing production data. The case studies show that the improvements of data and calculation procedures will change the normalized indicator results of many case studies considerably, making ADP less sensitive for fluctuating production data in the future. Conclusions The update of ultimate reserve and production data and the revision of calculation procedures of ADPs and category totals have resulted in an improved, up-to-date, and more complete set of ADPs and a category total that better reflects the total resource depletion magnitude than before. An ADP based on the cumulative production overall years is most in line with the intent of the original ADP method. We further recommend to only use category totals based on production data for the same year as is used for the other (emission-based) impact categories.

[1]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Bias in normalization: Causes, consequences, detection and remedies , 2007 .

[2]  Zoubeir Lafhaj,et al.  New resource assessment characterization factors for rare earth elements: applied in NdFeB permanent magnet case study , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[3]  Eric Johnson.  Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2003 .

[4]  John Harte,et al.  Consider a Spherical Cow: A course in environmental problem solving , 1985 .

[5]  Frank Wigglesworth Clarke,et al.  The composition of the Earth's crust , 1924 .

[6]  Markus Berger,et al.  Abiotic resource depletion in LCA—background and update of the anthropogenic stock extended abiotic depletion potential (AADP) model , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[7]  Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.  The Abiotic Depletion Potential: Background, Updates, and Future , 2016 .

[8]  G. Ionescu.  Differences Between LCA for Analysis and LCA for Policy: A Case Study on the Consequences of Allocation Choices in Bio-Energy Policies , 2016 .

[9]  Thomas P. Seager,et al.  Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[10]  Rana Pant,et al.  Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[11]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[12]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[13]  T. Brady,et al.  Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—defining the path forward , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  LCA normalisation factors for the Netherlands, Western Europe and the World , 2001 .

[15]  R. C. Weast.  CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics , 1973 .

[16]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Commission Recommendation on the use ofcommon methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performanceof products and organisations , 2013 .

[17]  R. Rudnick,et al.  Composition of the Continental Crust , 2014 .

[18]  William M. White,et al.  4.13 - Composition of the Oceanic Crust , 2014 .

[19]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment , 1995 .

[20]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.