Suppr超能文献

用生命周期评价法拓宽温室气体核算范围:在一个废物管理业务单元中的应用。

Broadening GHG accounting with LCA: application to a waste management business unit.

机构信息

CIRAIG, Department of Chemical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal, PO Box 6079, Montréal, Quebec, H3C 3A7, Canada.

出版信息

Waste Manag Res. 2009 Nov;27(9):885-93. doi: 10.1177/0734242X09352505. Epub 2009 Oct 23.

Abstract

In an effort to obtain the most accurate climate change impact assessment, greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting is evolving to include life-cycle thinking. This study (1) identifies similarities and key differences between GHG accounting and life-cycle assessment (LCA), (2) compares them on a consistent basis through a case study on a waste management business unit. First, GHG accounting is performed. According to the GHG Protocol, annual emissions are categorized into three scopes: direct GHG emissions (scope 1), indirect emissions related to electricity, heat and steam production (scope 2) and other indirect emissions (scope 3). The LCA is then structured into a comparable framework: each LCA process is disaggregated into these three scopes, the annual operating activities are assessed, and the environmental impacts are determined using the IMPACT2002+ method. By comparing these two approaches it is concluded that both LCA and GHG accounting provide similar climate change impact results as the same major GHG contributors are determined for scope 1 emissions. The emissions from scope 2 appear negligible whereas emissions from scope 3 cannot be neglected since they contribute to around 10% of the climate change impact of the waste management business unit. This statement is strengthened by the fact that scope 3 generates 75% of the resource use damage and 30% of the ecosystem quality damage categories. The study also shows that LCA can help in setting up the framework for a annual GHG accounting by determining the major climate change contributors.

摘要

为了获得最准确的气候变化影响评估,温室气体(GHG)核算正在发展为纳入生命周期思维。本研究(1)确定了温室气体核算和生命周期评估(LCA)之间的相似之处和关键差异,(2)通过对一个废物管理业务单元的案例研究,在一致的基础上对它们进行了比较。首先,进行温室气体核算。根据温室气体议定书,每年的排放量分为三个范围:直接温室气体排放(范围 1)、与电力、热力和蒸汽生产相关的间接排放(范围 2)和其他间接排放(范围 3)。然后,将生命周期评估构建为一个可比框架:将每个生命周期评估过程分解为这三个范围,评估年度运营活动,并使用 IMPACT2002+方法确定环境影响。通过比较这两种方法,得出结论认为,LCA 和 GHG 核算都提供了类似的气候变化影响结果,因为确定了范围 1 排放的相同主要温室气体贡献者。范围 2 的排放似乎可以忽略不计,而范围 3 的排放则不能忽视,因为它们对废物管理业务单元的气候变化影响贡献约为 10%。这一说法得到了以下事实的加强:范围 3 产生了 75%的资源使用破坏和 30%的生态系统质量破坏类别。该研究还表明,LCA 可以通过确定主要的气候变化贡献者,帮助建立年度 GHG 核算框架。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验