Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments. In the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning. The recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question “What is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?” The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard. After 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users’ potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensus-based methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.

/pdf/the-wulca-consensus-characterization-model-for-water-mah1rimhbl.pdf

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

A common sustainability issue, arising in production systems, is the efficient use of resources for providing goods or services. With the increased interest in a hydrogen (H2) economy, the life-cycle environmental performance of H2 production has special significance for assisting in identifying opportunities to improve environmental performance and to guide challenging decisions and select between technology paths. Life cycle impact assessment methods are rapidly evolving to analyze multiple environmental impacts of the production of products or processes. This study marks the first step in developing process-based streamlined life cycle analysis (LCA) of several H2 production pathways combining life cycle impacts at the midpoint (17 problem-oriented) and endpoint (3 damage-oriented) levels using the state-of-the-art impact assessment method ReCiPe 2016. Steam reforming of natural gas, coal gasification, water electrolysis via proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEM), solid oxide electrolyzer cell (SOEC), biomass gasification and reforming, and dark fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass were analyzed. An innovative aspect is developed in this study is an analysis of water consumption associated with H2 production pathways by life-cycle stage to provide a better understanding of the life cycle water-related impacts on human health and natural environment. For water-related scope, Water scarcity footprint (WSF) quantified using Available WAter REmaining (AWARE) method was applied as a stand-alone indicator. The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each production pathway, identify the drivers of environmental impact, quantify midpoint environmental impact and its influence on the endpoint environmental performance. The findings of this study could serve as a useful theoretical reference and practical basis to decision-makers of potential environmental impacts of H2 production systems.

Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies

Bioenergy systems are expected to expand over the coming decades due to their potential to address energy security and environmental pollution challenges. Nevertheless, any renewable energy project can only survive if approved environmentally superior to its conventional counterparts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized and validated methodology to evaluate and quantify the environmental impacts of bioenergy systems. However, due to its methodological scope, the LCA method measures only the environmental consequences of the target products of energy systems. The LCA approach can neither allocate the environmental impacts at the component level nor measure the environmental impacts of intermediate products. These challenges can be substantially resolved by systematically integrating the LCA approach with the thermodynamically-rooted exergy, offering a powerful environmental sustainability assessment tool known as “exergoenvironmental analysis“. Due to the unique methodological and conceptual characteristics of exergoenvironmental analysis in revealing the possibilities and trends for improvement, it has recently received increasing attention to mitigate the environmental impacts of bioenergy systems. Therefore, this review is aimed to thoroughly summarize and critically discuss the evaluation of sustainability aspects of bioenergy systems based on exergoenvironmental analysis. The pros and cons of using exergoenvironmental analysis in bioenergy research are also outlined to identify possible future directions for the field. Overall, exergoenvironmental analysis can offer more detailed information on the environmental consequences of each flow and component of bioenergy production plants, thereby diagnosing the breakthrough points for additional environmental improvements.

Exergoenvironmental analysis of bioenergy systems: A comprehensive review

Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals

Mining operations are vital to sustaining our modern way of life and are often located in areas that have limited water supplies or are at an increased risk of the effects of climate change. However, few studies have considered the interactions between the mining industry and water resources on a global scale. These interactions are often complex and site specific, and so an understanding of the local water contexts of individual mining projects is required before associated risks can be adequately assessed. Here, we address this important issue by providing the first quantitative assessment of the contextual water risks facing the global base metal mining industry, focusing on the location of known copper, lead, zinc and nickel resources. The relative exposure of copper, lead-zinc and nickel resources to water risks were assessed by considering a variety of spatial water indices, with each providing a different perspective of contextual water risks. Provincial data was considered for water criticality (CRIT), supply risk (SR), vulnerability to supply restrictions (VSR) and the environmental implications (EI) of water use. Additionally, watershed or sub-basin scale data for blue water scarcity (BWS), the water stress index (WSI), the available water remaining (AWaRe), basin internal evaporation recycling (BIER) ratios and the water depletion index (WDI) were also considered, as these have particular relevance for life cycle assessment and water footprint studies. All of the indices indicate that global copper resources are more exposed to water risks than lead-zinc or nickel resources, in part due to the large copper endowment of countries such as Chile and Peru that experience high water criticality, stress and scarcity. Copper resources are located in regions where water consumption is more likely to contribute to long-term decreases in water availability and also where evaporation is less likely to re-precipitate in the same drainage basin to cause surface-runoff or groundwater recharge. The global resource datasets were also assessed against regional Koppen-Geiger climate classifications for the observed period 1951–2000 and changes to 2100 using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 emission scenarios. The results indicate that regions containing copper resources are also more exposed to likely changes in climate than those containing lead-zinc or nickel resources. Overall, regions containing 27–32% (473–574 Mt Cu) of copper, 17–29% (139–241 Mt Pb + Zn) of lead-zinc and 6–13% (19–39 Mt Ni) of nickel resources may have a major climate re-classification as a result of anthropogenic climate change. A further 15–23% (262–412 Mt) of copper, 23–32% (195–270 Mt) of lead-zinc and 29–32% (84–94 Mt) of nickel are exposed to regional precipitation or temperature sub-classification changes. These climate changes are likely to alter the water balance, water quality and infrastructure risks at mining and mineral processing operations. Effective management of long-term changes to mine site water and climate risks requires the further adoption of anticipatory risk management strategies.

The exposure of global base metal resources to water criticality, scarcity and climate change

Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”

Water scarcity footprint of hydropower based on a seasonal approach - Global assessment with sensitivities of model assumptions tested on specific cases.

Kurt Buxmann

Papers

Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”

Water scarcity footprint of hydropower based on a seasonal approach - Global assessment with sensitivities of model assumptions tested on specific cases.