Page 294 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

A Comparison of Life Cycle Assessment Studies 285

qualitative estimate. Severity represents a combination of problem magnitude,
likelihood of occurrence, and chances of detecting the error should it occur. For
instance, spatial variations can lead to multiple order of magnitude differences in
characterization factors for commonly used impact categories such as acidificat-
ion. Solution adequacy integrates capacity to address the discussed problem and
difficulty of using available solutions.’’ (Reap et al. 2008b).
McKone et al. (2011) indicated that in developing and applying LCA to assess
the environmental sustainability of transportation fuels, LCA practitioners com-
monly address the climate forcing, other pollutant emissions and impacts, water-
resource impacts, land-use changes, nutrient needs, human and ecological health
impacts, and other external costs. McKone and co-worker suggested that LCA
practitioners may also consider social impacts and economic factors for more
accurate sustainability assessment of transportation fuel.

5 Conclusion

The most critical issue for the development of biofuel support policies includes
environmental and social sustainability of biofuel production and use. The LCA
methodology is most acceptable tool for the estimation of the impact of biofuel
chains, even in quantitative terms, which ultimately reflects the sustainability of
biofuels. Conducting LCA of bioenergy production systems is challenging task
because it attempts to combine disparate quantities in ways that require considerable
explanation and interpretation as well requires large amounts of practical infor-
mation. The biofuel LCA studies must have cradle-to-grave approach and function
unit should be unit energy utilization as conversion efficiency varies greatly.

References

Addiscott TM (2005) Nitrate, agriculture and the environment. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire,
UK, pp 66–67
Adler PR, Grosso SJD, Parton WJ (2007) Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for
bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 17(3):675–691
Arvidsson R, Persson S, Froling M, Svanstromb M (2011) Life cycle assessment of hydrotreated
vegetable oil from rape, oil palm and Jatropha. J Cleaner Prod 19:129–137
Askham C (2012) REACH and LCA—methodological approaches and challenges. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 17:43–57
Ayres RU (1995) Life cycle analysis: a critique. Resour Conserv Recycl 14:199–223
Azapagic A, Clift R (1999) Allocation of environmental burdens in co-product systems: product-
related burdens. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(6):357–369
Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess
7:64–72
Chandrashekar LA, Mahesh NS, Gowda B, Hall W (2012) Life cycle assessment of biodiesel
production from pongamia oil in rural Karnataka. Agric Eng Int: CIGR J 14(3):67–77