Approach and application of life cycle screening in early phases of process design: case study of supercritical water gasification

Process design can be influenced most in the early phases. Here, screening methods play a major role, as they reduce the complexity of a system studied by making a pre-selection from a set of alternatives available. The remaining alternatives can be analyzed in more detail in the subsequent design process, which increases design efficiency. The present paper focuses on a multi-stage screening approach for use in the early process development phase in particular. This approach is based on the use of non-compensatory decision support methods that are transferred to life cycle assessment. It may be divided into a first stage, in which the decision matrix used is developed on the basis of decision analysis principles, and a second stage, in which the decision matrix developed is further processed using non-compensatory decision support methods. An example of such a method is the pareto-dominance analysis applied here. The approach proposed is validated by application to the process of biomass gasification in supercritical water, which is being developed at the moment. Here, screening is performed to identify those life cycles, the potential environmental impacts of which contribute most to the total impacts. Attributes are selected in line with the requirement of a simple, but still sufficient modeling of these environmental impacts. By pareto-dominance analysis, emissions from the gasification of sewage sludge, the pre-chain of natural gas production, and from the construction of the supercritical gasification plant are identified to dominate over the remaining life cycles studied. Apart from the predominating alternatives, it is of particular importance to know the dominated alternatives. Due to their small shares in the result, no or only a small expenditure is needed to identify improvement potentials of these alternatives.

[1]  Liselotte Schebek,et al.  Using Life‐Cycle Assessment in Process Design , 2003 .

[2]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[3]  Liselotte Schebek,et al.  Economic analysis of sewage sludge gasification in supercritical water for hydrogen production. , 2008 .

[4]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[5]  Liselotte Schebek,et al.  Exergetic efficiency and options for improving sewage sludge gasification in supercritical water , 2007 .

[6]  Arthur B. VanGundy,et al.  Techniques of structured problem solving , 1981 .

[7]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data , 1998 .

[8]  Sven Lundie Ökobilanzierung und Entscheidungstheorie : praxisorientierte Produktbewertung auf der Basis gesellschaftlicher Werthaltungen , 1999 .

[9]  J. D. Ryan Handbook of Systems Analysis — Craft Issues and Procedural Choices , 1988 .

[10]  Patrick Rousseaux,et al.  An LCA of alternative wastewater sludge treatment scenarios , 2002 .

[11]  S. Lundie,et al.  Life‐Cycle Assessment of Biosolids Processing Options , 2001 .

[12]  C. Hwang Multiple Objective Decision Making - Methods and Applications: A State-of-the-Art Survey , 1979 .

[13]  A. Kruse Hydrothermal biomass gasification , 2009 .

[14]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multicriteria Optimization , 2005 .

[15]  Patrick Rousseaux,et al.  Aid for aggregating the impacts in Life Cycle assessment , 2003 .

[16]  Anja Buchwald,et al.  Sustainable design of geopolymers. Evaluation of raw materials by the integration of economic and environmental aspects in the early phases of material development , 2007 .

[17]  Anna Björklund,et al.  Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca , 2002 .

[18]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Multiple attribute decision making : an introduction , 1995 .

[19]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[20]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Implications of choices and interpretation in LCA for multi-criteria process design: de-inked pulp capacity and cogeneration at a paper mill case study , 2009 .

[21]  Alan Pearman,et al.  Models and Methods in Multiple Criteria Decision Making , 1991 .

[22]  Jeroen B. Guinee,et al.  Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards , 2002 .

[23]  A. Hospido,et al.  Environmental Evaluation of Different Treatment Processes for Sludge from Urban Wastewater Treatments: Anaerobic Digestion versus Thermal Processes (10 pp) , 2005 .

[24]  Frederic Marias,et al.  Gasification of aqueous biomass in supercritical water: A thermodynamic equilibrium analysis , 2010 .

[25]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Towards an ‘ideal’ approach for concept generation , 2003 .

[26]  Konrad Hungerbühler,et al.  Demonstrating multi-objective screening of chemical batch process alternatives during early design phases , 2010 .

[27]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators☆ , 1996 .

[28]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making - Methods and Applications , 1992, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[29]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Life cycle Assessment and its Application to Process Selection, Design and Optimisation , 1999 .

[30]  K. Hungerbuhler,et al.  Integrated Process Development: The Key to Future Production of Chemicals , 1997, CHIMIA.

[31]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Application of stochastic multiattribute analysis to assessment of single walled carbon nanotube synthesis processes. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.