4.7 Article

Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 88, 期 3, 页码 496-506

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.024

关键词

life-cycle assessment; life-cycle inventory; input-output analysis; hybrid analysis; embodied energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The life-cycle inventory analysis step of a life-cycle assessment (LCA) may currently suffer from several limitations, mainly concerned with the use of incomplete and unreliable data sources and methods of assessment. Many past LCA studies have used traditional inventory analysis methods, namely process analysis and input-output analysis. More recently, hybrid inventory analysis methods have been developed, combining these two traditional methods in an attempt to minimise their limitations. In light of recent improvements, these hybrid methods need to be compared and validated, as these too have been considered to have several limitations. This paper evaluates a recently developed hybrid inventory analysis method which aims to improve the limitations of previous methods. It was found that the truncation associated with process analysis can be up to 87%, reflecting the considerable shortcomings in the quantity of process data currently available. Capital inputs were found to account for up to 22% of the total inputs to a particular product. These findings suggest that current best-practice methods are sufficiently accurate for most typical applications, but this is heavily dependant upon data quality and availability. The use of input-output data assists in improving the system boundary completeness of life-cycle inventories. However, the use of input-output analysis alone does not always provide an accurate model for replacing process data. Further improvements in the quantity of process data currently available are needed to increase the reliability of life-cycle inventories. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据