IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0209474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values change the conclusions of comparative life cycle assessments? – An empirical analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yuwei Qin
  • Sangwon Suh

Abstract

In life cycle assessment (LCA), performing Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) using fully dependent sampling typically involves repeated inversion of a technology matrix for a sufficiently large number of times. As the dimension of technology matrices for life cycle inventory (LCI) databases grows, MCS using fully dependent sampling is becoming a computational challenge. In our previous work, we pre-calculated the distribution functions of the entire LCI flows in the ecoinvent ver. 3.1 database to help reduce the computation time of running fully dependent sampling by individual LCA practitioners. However, it remains as a question whether the additional errors due to the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values are large enough to alter the conclusion of a comparative study, and, if so, what is the odds of such cases. In this study, we empirically tested the probability of altering the conclusion of a comparative LCA due to the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values. We sampled 10,000 random pairs of elementary flows of ecoinvent LCIs (ai and bi) and ran MCSs (1) using pre-calculated uncertainty values and (2) using fully dependent sampling. We analyzed the distribution of the differences between ai and bi (i.e., ai−bi) of each run, and quantified the probability of reversing (e.g., ai > bi became ai bi became ai ≈ bi). In order to better replicate the situation under a comparative LCA setting, we also sampled 10,000 random pairs of elementary flows from the processes that produce electricity, and repeated the same procedure. The results show that no LCIs derived using pre-calculated uncertainty values constitute large enough differences from those using fully dependent sampling to reverse the conclusion. However, in 5.3% of the cases, the conclusion from one approach is moderated under the other approach or vice versa. When elementary flow pairs are sampled only from the electricity-producing processes, the probability of moderating the conclusions increases to 10.5%, while that of reversing the conclusions remains nil. As the number of unit processes in LCI databases increases, running full MCSs in a PC-environment will continue to be a challenge, which may lead some LCA practitioners to avoid uncertainty analysis altogether. Our results indicate that pre-calculated distributions for LCIs can be used as a proxy for comparative LCA studies in the absence of adequate computational resources for full MCS. Depending on the goal and scope of the study, LCA practitioners should consider using pre-calculated distributions if the benefits of doing so outweighs the associated risks of altering the conclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuwei Qin & Sangwon Suh, 2018. "Does the use of pre-calculated uncertainty values change the conclusions of comparative life cycle assessments? – An empirical analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0209474
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209474
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209474&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0209474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0209474. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.