Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building

PurposeThis paper uses a dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) approach and illustrates the potential importance of the method using a simplified case study of an institutional building. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have consistently found that energy consumption in the use phase of a building is dominant in most environmental impact categories. Due to the long life span of buildings and potential for changes in usage patterns over time, a shift toward DLCA has been suggested.MethodsWe define DLCA as an approach to LCA which explicitly incorporates dynamic process modeling in the context of temporal and spatial variations in the surrounding industrial and environmental systems. A simplified mathematical model is used to incorporate dynamic information from the case study building, temporally explicit sources of life cycle inventory data and temporally explicit life cycle impact assessment characterization factors, where available. The DLCA model was evaluated for the historical and projected future environmental impacts of an existing institutional building, with additional scenario development for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of future impacts.Results and discussionResults showed that overall life cycle impacts varied greatly in some categories when compared to static LCA results, generated from the temporal perspective of either the building's initial construction or its recent renovation. From the initial construction perspective, impacts in categories related to criteria air pollutants were reduced by more than 50 % when compared to a static LCA, even though nonrenewable energy use increased by 15 %. Pollution controls were a major reason for these reductions. In the future scenario analysis, the baseline DLCA scenario showed a decrease in all impact categories compared with the static LCA. The outer bounds of the sensitivity analysis varied from slightly higher to strongly lower than the static results, indicating the general robustness of the decline across the scenarios.ConclusionsThese findings support the use of dynamic modeling in life cycle assessment to increase the relevance of results. In some cases, decision making related to building design and operations may be affected by considering the interaction of temporally explicit information in multiple steps of the LCA. The DLCA results suggest that in some cases, changes during a building's lifetime can influence the LCA results to a greater degree than the material and construction phases. Adapting LCA to a more dynamic approach may increase the usefulness of the method in assessing the performance of buildings and other complex systems in the built environment.

[1]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Evaluation of Long-Term Impacts in LCA , 2004 .

[2]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database , 2005 .

[3]  John J. Reap,et al.  A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[4]  S. Levine,et al.  A Dynamic Model for Determining the Temporal Distribution of Environmental Burden , 2007 .

[5]  Jean-Paul Hettelingh,et al.  Country-dependent Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator (14 pp) , 2006 .

[6]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  Incorporating time-corrected life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle regulations. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Haley Jones,et al.  A system dynamics approach in LCA to account for temporal effects—a consequential energy LCI of car body-in-whites , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[8]  Mark A J Huijbregts,et al.  Spatial- and time-explicit human damage modeling of ozone depleting substances in life cycle impact assessment. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Regionalized life cycle assessment: computational methodology and application to inventory databases. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  Gregory A. Keoleian,et al.  Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications , 2003 .

[11]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Three Strategies to Overcome the Limitations of Life‐Cycle Assessment , 2004 .

[12]  A. Horvath,et al.  Life-Cycle Assessment of Office Buildings in Europe and the United States , 2006 .

[13]  Sharon Nizich,et al.  NATIONAL AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION TRENDS, 1900-1992.. , 1993 .

[14]  M. Margni,et al.  Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis , 2004 .

[16]  A. Horvath,et al.  Assessing regional intake fractions in North America. , 2009, The Science of the total environment.

[17]  R. Ries,et al.  A characterization model with spatial and temporal resolution for life cycle impact assessment of photochemical precursors in the United States , 2009 .

[18]  Martin Pehnt,et al.  Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies , 2006 .

[19]  Paulina Jaramillo,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment and Grid Electricity , 2010 .

[20]  G. Norris.  Impact Characterization in the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts , 2002 .

[21]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0 , 2011 .

[22]  Scott Duncan,et al.  A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[23]  Brenda Chang,et al.  Accounting for time-dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  Melissa M. Bilec,et al.  Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[25]  G. Norris,et al.  TRACI the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts , 2002 .

[26]  Shabbir H. Gheewala,et al.  Environmental life cycle assessment of a commercial office building in Thailand , 2008 .

[27]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[28]  Bert Bras,et al.  Improving Life Cycle Assessment by Including Spatial, Dynamic and Place-Based Modeling , 2003 .

[29]  Robert Ries,et al.  Uncertainty in Environmental Assessment for the Built Environment , 2003 .

[30]  Pei Zhai,et al.  Dynamic hybrid life cycle assessment of energy and carbon of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[31]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Part I: A General Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment , 1998 .

[32]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories , 2001 .

[33]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  The computational structure of life cycle assessment , 2002 .

[34]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Discounting and the Environment Lca Methodology with Case Study 8 Lca Methodology with Case Study Should Current Impacts Be Weighted Differently than Impacts Harming Future Generations? , 2022 .

[35]  Randolph Kirchain,et al.  Life‐Cycle Assessment and Temporal Distributions of Emissions: Developing a Fleet‐Based Analysis , 2000 .

[36]  Jun Bi,et al.  Life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an office building in China , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[37]  Ed Ayres,et al.  The Next Efficiency Revolution: Creating a Sustainable Materials Economy , 1991 .

[38]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.