IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5456-d272771.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Future of Ex-Ante LCA? Lessons Learned and Practical Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Buyle

    (Energy and Materials in Infrastructure and Buildings (EMIB), University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium
    Unit Sustainable Materials Management, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), 2400 Mol, Belgium)

  • Amaryllis Audenaert

    (Energy and Materials in Infrastructure and Buildings (EMIB), University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Pieter Billen

    (Biochemical Green Engineering & Materials (BioGEM), University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Katrien Boonen

    (Unit Sustainable Materials Management, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), 2400 Mol, Belgium)

  • Steven Van Passel

    (Department of Engineering Management, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

Abstract

Every decision-oriented life cycle assessment (LCAs) entails, at least to some extent, a future-oriented feature. However, apart from the ex-ante LCAs, the majority of LCA studies are retrospective in nature and do not explicitly account for possible future effects. In this review a generic theoretical framework is proposed as a guideline for ex-ante LCA. This framework includes the entire technology life cycle, from the early design phase up to continuous improvements of mature technologies, including their market penetration. The compatibility with commonly applied system models yields an additional aspect of the framework. Practical methods and procedures are categorised, based on how they incorporate future-oriented features in LCA. The results indicate that most of the ex-ante LCAs focus on emerging technologies that have already gone through some research cycles within narrowly defined system boundaries. There is a lack of attention given to technologies that are at a very early development stage, when all options are still open and can be explored at a low cost. It is also acknowledged that technological learning impacts the financial and environmental performance of mature production systems. Once technologies are entering the market, shifts in market composition can lead to substantial changes in environmental performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Buyle & Amaryllis Audenaert & Pieter Billen & Katrien Boonen & Steven Van Passel, 2019. "The Future of Ex-Ante LCA? Lessons Learned and Practical Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-24, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5456-:d:272771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5456/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5456/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atse Louwen & Wilfried G. J. H. M. van Sark & André P. C. Faaij & Ruud E. I. Schropp, 2016. "Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Fortes, Patrícia & Alvarenga, António & Seixas, Júlia & Rodrigues, Sofia, 2015. "Long-term energy scenarios: Bridging the gap between socio-economic storylines and energy modeling," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 161-178.
    3. Bergesen, Joseph D. & Suh, Sangwon, 2016. "A framework for technological learning in the supply chain: A case study on CdTe photovoltaics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 721-728.
    4. Menten, Fabio & Tchung-Ming, Stéphane & Lorne, Daphné & Bouvart, Frédérique, 2015. "Lessons from the use of a long-term energy model for consequential life cycle assessment: The BTL case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 942-960.
    5. Sheetal Gavankar & Sangwon Suh & Arturo A. Keller, 2015. "The Role of Scale and Technology Maturity in Life Cycle Assessment of Emerging Technologies: A Case Study on Carbon Nanotubes," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(1), pages 51-60, February.
    6. Rickard Arvidsson & Sverker Molander, 2017. "Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Epitaxial Graphene Production at Different Manufacturing Scales and Maturity," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(5), pages 1153-1164, October.
    7. de Wit, Marc & Junginger, Martin & Faaij, André, 2013. "Learning in dedicated wood production systems: Past trends, future outlook and implications for bioenergy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 417-432.
    8. Frank M. Bass, 2004. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12_supple), pages 1825-1832, December.
    9. Tooraj Jamasb, 2007. "Technical Change Theory and Learning Curves: Patterns of Progress in Electricity Generation Technologies," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 51-72.
    10. Ferioli, F. & Schoots, K. & van der Zwaan, B.C.C., 2009. "Use and limitations of learning curves for energy technology policy: A component-learning hypothesis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2525-2535, July.
    11. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    12. Bauer, Christian & Hofer, Johannes & Althaus, Hans-Jörg & Del Duce, Andrea & Simons, Andrew, 2015. "The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 871-883.
    13. Ester Van der Voet & Lauran Van Oers & Miranda Verboon & Koen Kuipers, 2019. "Environmental Implications of Future Demand Scenarios for Metals: Methodology and Application to the Case of Seven Major Metals," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(1), pages 141-155, February.
    14. Charles Breton & Pierre Blanchet & Ben Amor & Robert Beauregard & Wen-Shao Chang, 2018. "Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    15. García-Gusano, Diego & Garraín, Daniel & Dufour, Javier, 2017. "Prospective life cycle assessment of the Spanish electricity production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 21-34.
    16. Marloes Caduff & Mark A.J. Huijbregts & Annette Koehler & Hans-Jörg Althaus & Stefanie Hellweg, 2014. "Scaling Relationships in Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 393-406, May.
    17. Frank M. Bass, 2004. "Comments on "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables The Bass Model"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12_supple), pages 1833-1840, December.
    18. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    19. Pehnt, Martin, 2006. "Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-71.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philippe Nimmegeers & Alexej Parchomenko & Paul De Meulenaere & Dagmar R. D’hooge & Paul H. M. Van Steenberge & Helmut Rechberger & Pieter Billen, 2021. "Extending Multilevel Statistical Entropy Analysis towards Plastic Recyclability Prediction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Nils Thonemann & Anna Schulte & Daniel Maga, 2020. "How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Maria Leonor Carvalho & Giulio Mela & Andrea Temporelli & Elisabetta Brivio & Pierpaolo Girardi, 2022. "Sodium-Ion Batteries with Ti 1 Al 1 TiC 1.85 MXene as Negative Electrode: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Critical Resource Use Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Maes, Ben & Sacchi, Romain & Steubing, Bernhard & Pizzol, Massimo & Audenaert, Amaryllis & Craeye, Bart & Buyle, Matthias, 2023. "Prospective consequential life cycle assessment: Identifying the future marginal suppliers using integrated assessment models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Julian Grenz & Moritz Ostermann & Karoline Käsewieter & Felipe Cerdas & Thorsten Marten & Christoph Herrmann & Thomas Tröster, 2023. "Integrating Prospective LCA in the Development of Automotive Components," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Denise Ott & Shashank Goyal & Rosmarie Reuss & Herwig O. Gutzeit & Jens Liebscher & Jens Dautz & Margo Degieter & Hans Steur & Emanuele Zannini, 2023. "LCA as decision support tool in the food and feed sector: evidence from R&D case studies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 129-141, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nils Thonemann & Anna Schulte & Daniel Maga, 2020. "How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Thomassen, Gwenny & Van Passel, Steven & Dewulf, Jo, 2020. "A review on learning effects in prospective technology assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Mitchell K. van der Hulst & Mark A. J. Huijbregts & Niels van Loon & Mirjam Theelen & Lucinda Kootstra & Joseph D. Bergesen & Mara Hauck, 2020. "A systematic approach to assess the environmental impact of emerging technologies: A case study for the GHG footprint of CIGS solar photovoltaic laminate," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(6), pages 1234-1249, December.
    4. Steffi Weyand & Kotaro Kawajiri & Claudiu Mortan & Liselotte Schebek, 2023. "Scheme for generating upscaling scenarios of emerging functional materials based energy technologies in prospective LCA (UpFunMatLCA)," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 676-692, June.
    5. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    6. Ad van den Oord & Arjen van Witteloostuijn, 2018. "A multi-level model of emerging technology: An empirical study of the evolution of biotechnology from 1976 to 2003," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.
    7. Strupeit, Lars, 2017. "An innovation system perspective on the drivers of soft cost reduction for photovoltaic deployment: The case of Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 273-286.
    8. Carlos de Castro & Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, 2020. "Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-43, June.
    9. Hernandez-Negron, Christian G. & Baker, Erin & Goldstein, Anna P., 2023. "A hypothesis for experience curves of related technologies with an application to wind energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    10. Mauleón, Ignacio, 2016. "Photovoltaic learning rate estimation: Issues and implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 507-524.
    11. Shayegh, Soheil & Sanchez, Daniel L. & Caldeira, Ken, 2017. "Evaluating relative benefits of different types of R&D for clean energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 532-538.
    12. Odam, Neil & de Vries, Frans P., 2020. "Innovation modelling and multi-factor learning in wind energy technology," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Arias-Gaviria, Jessica & Carvajal-Quintero, Sandra Ximena & Arango-Aramburo, Santiago, 2019. "Understanding dynamics and policy for renewable energy diffusion in Colombia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1111-1119.
    14. Santos, Andreia & Carvalho, Ana & Barbosa-Póvoa, Ana Paula & Marques, Alexandra & Amorim, Pedro, 2019. "Assessment and optimization of sustainable forest wood supply chains – A systematic literature review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 112-135.
    15. Grafström, Jonas & Poudineh, Rahmat, 2021. "A review of problems associated with learning curves for solar and wind power technologies," Ratio Working Papers 347, The Ratio Institute.
    16. Karali, Nihan & Park, Won Young & McNeil, Michael, 2017. "Modeling technological change and its impact on energy savings in the U.S. iron and steel sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 447-458.
    17. Santhakumar, Srinivasan & Meerman, Hans & Faaij, André, 2021. "Improving the analytical framework for quantifying technological progress in energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    18. Bergesen, Joseph D. & Suh, Sangwon, 2016. "A framework for technological learning in the supply chain: A case study on CdTe photovoltaics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 721-728.
    19. Castrejon-Campos, Omar & Aye, Lu & Hui, Felix Kin Peng, 2022. "Effects of learning curve models on onshore wind and solar PV cost developments in the USA," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    20. Cambier, Adrien & Chardy, Matthieu & Figueiredo, Rosa & Ouorou, Adam & Poss, Michael, 2022. "Optimizing subscriber migrations for a telecommunication operator in uncertain context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(1), pages 308-321.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5456-:d:272771. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.