Life cycle assessment (LCA) stands as the pre-eminent tool for estimating environmental effects caused by products and processes from ‘cradle to grave’ or ‘cradle to cradle.’ It exists in multiple forms, claims a growing list of practitioners, and remains a focus of continuing research. Despite its popularity and codification by organizations such as the International Organization for Standards and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, life cycle assessment is a tool in need of improvement. Multiple authors have written about its individual problems, but a unified treatment of the subject is lacking. The following literature survey gathers and explains issues, problems and problematic decisions currently limiting LCA’s goal and scope definition and life cycle inventory phases. The review identifies 15 major problem areas and organizes them by the LCA phases in which each appears. This part of the review focuses on the first 7 of these problems occurring during the goal and scope definition and life cycle inventory phases. It is meant as a concise summary for practitioners interested in methodological limitations which might degrade the accuracy of their assessments. For new researchers, it provides an overview of pertinent problem areas toward which they might wish to direct their research efforts. Multiple problems occur in each of LCA’s four phases and reduce the accuracy of this tool. Considering problem severity and the adequacy of current solutions, six of the 15 discussed problems are of paramount importance. In LCA’s first two phases, functional unit definition, boundary selection, and allocation are critical problems requiring particular attention. Problems encountered during goal and scope definition arise from decisions about inclusion and exclusion while those in inventory analysis involve flows and transformations. Foundational decisions about the basis of comparison (functional unit), bounds of the study, and physical relationships between included processes largely dictate the representativeness and, therefore, the value of an LCA. It is for this reason that problems in functional unit definition, boundary selection, and allocation are the most critical examined in the first part of this review.

A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment

The future availability of rare earth elements (REEs) is of concern due to monopolistic supply conditions, environmentally unsustainable mining practices, and rapid demand growth. We present an evaluation of potential future demand scenarios for REEs with a focus on the issue of comining. Many assumptions were made to simplify the analysis, but the scenarios identify some key variables that could affect future rare earth markets and market behavior. Increased use of wind energy and electric vehicles are key elements of a more sustainable future. However, since present technologies for electric vehicles and wind turbines rely heavily on dysprosium (Dy) and neodymium (Nd), in rare-earth magnets, future adoption of these technologies may result in large and disproportionate increases in the demand for these two elements. For this study, upper and lower bound usage projections for REE in these applications were developed to evaluate the state of future REE supply availability. In the absence of efficient reus...

/pdf/evaluating-rare-earth-element-availability-a-case-with-43v8bfgw3y.pdf

Evaluating rare earth element availability: a case with revolutionary demand from clean technologies

Background, aims, and scopeLife cycle assessment (LCA) stands as the pre-eminent tool for estimating environmental effects caused by products and processes from ‘cradle to grave’ or ‘cradle to cradle.’ It exists in multiple forms, claims a growing list of practitioners and remains a focus of continuing research. Despite its popularity and codification by organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, life cycle assessment is a tool in need of improvement. Multiple authors have written about its individual problems, but a unified treatment of the subject is lacking. The following literature survey gathers and explains issues, problems and problematic decisions currently limiting LCA’s impact assessment and interpretation phases.Main featuresThe review identifies 15 major problem areas and organizes them by the LCA phases in which each appears. This part of the review focuses on the latter eight problems. It is meant as a concise summary for practitioners interested in methodological limitations which might degrade the accuracy of their assessments. For new researchers, it provides an overview of pertinent problem areas toward which they might wish to direct their research efforts. Having identified and discussed LCA’s major problems, closing sections highlight the most critical problems and briefly propose research agendas meant to improve them.Results and discussionMultiple problems occur in each of LCA’s four phases and reduce the accuracy of this tool. Considering problem severity and the adequacy of current solutions, six of the 15 discussed problems are of paramount importance. In LCA’s latter two phases, spatial variation and local environmental uniqueness are critical problems requiring particular attention. Data availability and quality are identified as critical problems affecting all four phases.Conclusions and recommendationsObserving that significant efforts by multiple researchers have not resulted in a single, agreed upon approach for the first three critical problems, development of LCA archetypes for functional unit definition, boundary selection and allocation is proposed. Further development of spatially explicit, dynamic modeling is recommended to ameliorate the problems of spatial variation and local environmental uniqueness. Finally, this paper echoes calls for peer-reviewed, standardized LCA inventory and impact databases, and it suggests the development of model bases. Both of these efforts would help alleviate persistent problems with data availability and quality.

A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment: Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation

Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies

Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review

Although the use of aluminum in cars has been increasing for the past two decades, progress has been limited in developing aluminum auto bodies. In fact, most aluminum substitution has come in the form of castings and forgings in the transmission, wheels, etc. Car manufacturers have developed all-aluminum cars with two competing designs: conventional unibody and the spaceframe. However, aluminum is far from being a material of choice for auto bodies. The substitution of aluminum for steel is partly influenced by regulatory pressures to meet fuel efficiency standards by reducing vehicle weight, and to meet recycling standards. The key obstacles are the high cost of primary aluminum as compared to steel and added fabrication costs of aluminum panels. Both the aluminum and the automotive industries have attempted to make aluminum a cost-effective alternative to steel. This paper analyzes the cost of fabrication and assembly of four different aluminum car body designs, making comparisons with conventional steel designs at current aluminum prices and using current aluminum fabrication technology. It then attempts to determine if aluminum can be an alternative to steel at lower primary aluminum prices, and improved fabrication processes.

Automobile Bodies: Can Aluminum Be an Economical Alternative to Steel?

Summary

Although the product-centered focus of life-cycle assessment has been one of its strengths, this analytical perspective embeds assumptions that may conflict with the realities of environmental problems. This article demonstrates, through a series of mathematical derivations, that all the products in use, rather than a single product, frequently should be the appropriate unit of analysis. Such a “fleet-centered” approach supplies a richer perspective on the comparative emissions burdens generated by alternative products, and it eliminates certain simplifying assumptions imposed upon the analysis by a product-centered approach.



A sample numerical case, examining the comparative emissions of steel-intensive and aluminum-intensive automobiles, is presented to contrast the results of the two approaches. The fleet-centered analysis shows that the “crossover time” (i.e., the time required before the fuel economy benefits of the lighter aluminum vehicle offset the energy intensity of the processes used to manufacture the aluminum in the first place) can be dramatically longer than that predicted by a product-centered life-cycle assessment.



The fleet-centered perspective explicitly introduces the notion of time as a critical element of comparative life-cycle assessments and raises important questions about the role of the analyst in selecting the appropriate time horizon for analysis. Moreover, with the introduction of time as an appropriate dimension to life-cycle assessment, the influences of effects distributed over time can be more naturally and consistently treated.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=1943943

Life‐Cycle Assessment and Temporal Distributions of Emissions: Developing a Fleet‐Based Analysis

Multi-attribute utility analysis (MAUA) has emerged as a powerful tool for materials selection and evaluation. An operations research technique, MAUA has been used in a wide range of engineering areas, of which materials science and engineering is one of the more recent. Utility analysis affords a rational method of materials selection which avoids many of the fundamental logical difficulties of many widely used alternative approaches. However, MAUA has traditionally been used in materials selection problems only, in which there is certainty regarding the attribute levels of the alternatives. For many new technologies this is not the case. Another operations research technique, subjective probability assessment (SPA), can be used to address this issue. SPA makes it possible to measure a probabilistic distribution describing the confidence of the decision maker in the levels of attributes for which there is a high degree of uncertainty. These probability distributions can be used in conjunction with MAUA to provide a consistent framework for making materials selection decisions. Furthermore, the use of these techniques extends beyond the problem of materials selection into the more speculative areas of materials competitiveness and market demand in cases involving new, unproven technologies.

Materials selection and multi-attribute utility analysis

Mmcs for automotive engine applications

A process for increasing the tensile strength of a martensitic alloy of titanium and nickel and for improving the alloy's ability to retain its original properties during use by stabilizing it against progressive elongation when cycled through successive martensitic transformations. The process comprises maintaining the alloy under a tensile stress of between about 30,000 and 100,000 psi while annealing the alloy at a temperature above a first diffusional phase transformation temperature. The first diffusional phase temperature is the first temperature above the martensitic transformation range at which there is a negative slope in the electrical resistivity versus temperature curve for the alloy. The product of this process has a tensile strength of at least about 175,000 psi and a martensitic elongation activity under stress of at least about 2% and will survive over one million martensitic transformation cycles when placed under sufficient stress that the elongation activity is about 2%.

Joel P. Clark

Papers

Automobile Bodies: Can Aluminum Be an Economical Alternative to Steel?

Life‐Cycle Assessment and Temporal Distributions of Emissions: Developing a Fleet‐Based Analysis

Materials selection and multi-attribute utility analysis

Mmcs for automotive engine applications

Annealing of NiTi martensitic memory alloys and product produced thereby