IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i3p1192-d317681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance

Author

Listed:
  • Nils Thonemann

    (Department of Sustainability and Resources Management, Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology UMSICHT, 46047 Oberhausen, Germany)

  • Anna Schulte

    (Department of Sustainability and Resources Management, Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology UMSICHT, 46047 Oberhausen, Germany)

  • Daniel Maga

    (Department of Sustainability and Resources Management, Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology UMSICHT, 46047 Oberhausen, Germany)

Abstract

Emerging technologies are expected to contribute to environmental sustainable development. However, throughout the development of novel technologies, it is unknown whether emerging technologies can lead to reduced environmental impacts compared to a potentially displaced mature technology. Additionally, process steps suspected to be environmental hotspots can be improved by process engineers early in the development of the emerging technology. In order to determine the environmental impacts of emerging technologies at an early stage of development, prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) should be performed. However, consistency in prospective LCA methodology is lacking. Therefore, this article develops a framework for a prospective LCA in order to overcome the methodological inconsistencies regarding prospective LCAs. The methodological framework was developed using literature on prospective LCAs of emerging technologies, and therefore, a literature review on prospective LCAs was conducted. We found 44 case studies, four review papers, and 17 papers on methodological guidance. Three main challenges for conducting prospective LCAs are identified: Comparability, data, and uncertainty challenges. The issues in defining the aim, functionality, and system boundaries of the prospective LCAs, as well as problems with specifying LCIA methodologies, comprise the comparability challenge. Data availability, quality, and scaling are issues within the data challenge. Finally, uncertainty exists as an overarching challenge when applying a prospective LCA. These three challenges are especially crucial for the prospective assessment of emerging technologies. However, this review also shows that within the methodological papers and case studies, several approaches exist to tackle these challenges. These approaches were systematically summarized within a framework to give guidance on how to overcome the issues when conducting prospective LCAs of emerging technologies. Accordingly, this framework is useful for LCA practitioners who are analyzing early-stage technologies. Nevertheless, further research is needed to develop appropriate scale-up schemes and to include uncertainty analyses for a more in-depth interpretation of results.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:3:p:1192-:d:317681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1192/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1192/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Sheetal Gavankar & Sarah Anderson & Arturo A. Keller, 2015. "Critical Components of Uncertainty Communication in Life Cycle Assessments of Emerging Technologies," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(3), pages 468-479, June.
    5. Mats Zackrisson & Christina Jönsson & Wilhelm Johannisson & Kristin Fransson & Stefan Posner & Dan Zenkert & Göran Lindbergh, 2019. "Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of a Structural Battery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Steffi Weyand & Carolin Wittich & Liselotte Schebek, 2019. "Environmental Performance of Emerging Photovoltaic Technologies: Assessment of the Status Quo and Future Prospects Based on a Meta-Analysis of Life-Cycle Assessment Studies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-25, November.
    7. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    9. Rickard Arvidsson & Anne‐Marie Tillman & Björn A. Sandén & Matty Janssen & Anders Nordelöf & Duncan Kushnir & Sverker Molander, 2018. "Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Prospective LCA," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1286-1294, December.
    10. Jones, Christopher & Gilbert, Paul & Raugei, Marco & Mander, Sarah & Leccisi, Enrica, 2017. "An approach to prospective consequential life cycle assessment and net energy analysis of distributed electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 350-358.
    11. 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.
    12. Troy, Stefanie & Schreiber, Andrea & Reppert, Thorsten & Gehrke, Hans-Gregor & Finsterbusch, Martin & Uhlenbruck, Sven & Stenzel, Peter, 2016. "Life Cycle Assessment and resource analysis of all-solid-state batteries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 757-767.
    13. 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.
    14. Jennifer M. Zumsteg & Joyce S. Cooper & Michael S. Noon, 2012. "Systematic Review Checklist," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(s1), pages 12-21, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Daylan, B. & Ciliz, N., 2016. "Life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle costing analysis of lignocellulosic bioethanol as an alternative transportation fuel," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 578-587.
    17. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Sara González García & Enrica Imbert & Lucía Lijó & María Teresa Moreira & Almona Tani & Valentina Elena Tartiu & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2019. "Transitioning towards the bio‐economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1135-1153, September.
    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. Rafiaani, Parisa & Kuppens, Tom & Dael, Miet Van & Azadi, Hossein & Lebailly, Philippe & Passel, Steven Van, 2018. "Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: Towards a systemic approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P2), pages 1839-1853.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Aikaterini Anastasopoulou & Robin Keijzer & Bhaskar Patil & Jürgen Lang & Gerard van Rooij & Volker Hessel, 2020. "Environmental impact assessment of plasma‐assisted and conventional ammonia synthesis routes," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(5), pages 1171-1185, October.
    5. Maharjan, Prapti & Hauck, Mara & Kirkels, Arjan & Buettner, Benjamin & de Coninck, Heleen, 2024. "Deriving experience curves: A structured and critical approach applied to PV sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Ricardo J. Bonilla-Alicea & Katherine Fu, 2019. "Systematic Map of the Social Impact Assessment Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-30, July.
    8. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    9. Mélanie Douziech & Romain Besseau & Raphaël Jolivet & Bianka Shoai‐Tehrani & Jean‐Yves Bourmaud & Guillaume Busato & Mathilde Gresset‐Bourgeois & Paula Pérez‐López, 2024. "Life cycle assessment of prospective trajectories: A parametric approach for tailor‐made inventories and its computational implementation," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(1), pages 25-40, February.
    10. Sanna Wickerts & Rickard Arvidsson & Anders Nordelöf & Magdalena Svanström & Patrik Johansson, 2024. "Prospective life cycle assessment of sodium‐ion batteries made from abundant elements," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(1), pages 116-129, February.
    11. Rickard Arvidsson & Anne‐Marie Tillman & Björn A. Sandén & Matty Janssen & Anders Nordelöf & Duncan Kushnir & Sverker Molander, 2018. "Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Prospective LCA," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1286-1294, December.
    12. Alberto Bezama & Carlo Ingrao & Sinéad O’Keeffe & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Resources, Collaborators, and Neighbors: The Three-Pronged Challenge in the Implementation of Bioeconomy Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Deidre Wolff & Svenja Weber & Tobias Graumann & Stefan Zebrowski & Nils Mainusch & Nikolas Dilger & Felipe Cerdas & Sabrina Zellmer, 2023. "An Environmental and Technical Evaluation of Vacuum-Based Thin Film Technologies: Lithium Niobate Coated Cathode Active Material for Use in All-Solid-State Battery Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    15. Farrukh, Clare & Holgado, Maria, 2020. "Integrating sustainable value thinking into technology forecasting: A configurable toolset for early stage technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Antonio Dominguez-Delgado & Helena Domínguez-Torres & Carlos-Antonio Domínguez-Torres, 2020. "Energy and Economic Life Cycle Assessment of Cool Roofs Applied to the Refurbishment of Social Housing in Southern Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-35, July.
    17. Yang Qiu & Patrick Lamers & Vassilis Daioglou & Noah McQueen & Harmen-Sytze Boer & Mathijs Harmsen & Jennifer Wilcox & André Bardow & Sangwon Suh, 2022. "Environmental trade-offs of direct air capture technologies in climate change mitigation toward 2100," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    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. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Sara González García & Enrica Imbert & Lucía Lijó & María Teresa Moreira & Almona Tani & Valentina Elena Tartiu & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2019. "Transitioning towards the bio‐economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1135-1153, September.
    20. D'Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Imbert, Enrica & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "A Socio-economic Indicator for EoL Strategies for Bio-based Products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:12:y:2020:i:3:p:1192-:d:317681. 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.