From cumulated energy demand to cumulated raw material demand: the material footprint as a sum parameter in life cycle assessment

Abstract

Background: Global targets for reducing resource use have been set by organizations such as the International Resource Panel and the European Commission. However, these targets exist only at the macro level, e.g., for individual countries. When conducting an environmental analysis at the micro level, resource use is often neglected as an indicator. No sum parameter indicating all abiotic and biotic raw materials has been considered for life cycle assessment, as yet. In fact, life cycle assessment databases even lack some of the specific input flows required to calculate all abiotic and biotic raw materials. In contrast, the cumulative energy demand, an input-based indicator assessing the use of energy resources, is commonly used, particularly when analyzing energy-intensive product systems. Methods: In view of this, we analyze the environmental relevance of the sum parameter abiotic and biotic raw material demand, which we call the material footprint. First, we show how abiotic and biotic raw material demand can be implemented in the Ecoinvent life cycle assessment database. Employing the adapted database, the material footprint is calculated for 12 individual datasets of chosen materials and crops. The results are compared to those of the cumulated energy demand and four selected impact categories: climate change, ozone depletion, acidification, and terrestrial eutrophication. Results: The material footprint is generally high in the case of extracted metals and other materials where extraction is associated with a large amount of overburden. This fact can lead to different conclusions being drawn compared to common impact categories or the cumulative energy demand. However, the results show that both the range between the impacts of the different materials and the trends can be similar. Conclusions: The material footprint is very easy to apply and calculate. It can be implemented in life cycle assessment databases with a few adaptions. Furthermore, an initial comparison with common impact indicators suggests that the material footprint can be used as an input-based indicator to evaluate the environmental burden, without the uncertainty associated with the assessment of emission-based impacts.

Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H2 Production

“…The ESA includes the technological boundaries in order to assess the internal use of energy of the given technology but also tracks the external energy flows which go through the technological boundaries. Moreover, the methodology of ESA can also be used to rationalize the Materials Input (MI) [50] and quantify the material intensity and the correspondent embodied energy that a specific technology requires. The most relevant energy flows of the AM are depicted in Figure 2.…”

The Multiple Benefits of the 2030 EU Energy Efficiency Potential

“…Political consequences are described in [61] (in German) and results and implications from our resource research published in [62]. Global Warming Potential for 100 years (GWP 100a) is estimated using figures from the International Panel on Climate Change [63], Ecocosts by Voigtländer [64] and material footprint [65].…”

Measure or Management?—Resource Use Indicators for Policymakers Based on Microdata by Households

“…This bottom-up model has been successfully tested in several studies ( [18,21,26]) and is compliant with the Material Flow Accounting (MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. It is also compatible with generic databases for lifecycle inventories as well as assessments of output indicators such as carbon footprints (as shown by References [22,23]).…”

“…Its indicator Material Footprint can also be adapted to the currently suggested SDG 12 indicator with the same name. Recent methodological developments make use of improved LCA data [21][22][23][24][25].…”