Improving the nuclear energy sustainability by decreasing its environmental footprint. Guidelines from life cycle assessment simulations

2016 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. 234-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ch. Poinssot ◽  
S. Bourg ◽  
B. Boullis
Author(s):  
Serenella Sala ◽  
Andrea Martino Amadei ◽  
Antoine Beylot ◽  
Fulvio Ardente

Abstract Purpose Life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are increasingly considered pivotal concept and method for supporting sustainable transitions. LCA plays a relevant role in decision support, for the ambition of a holistic coverage of environmental dimensions and for the identification of hotspots, possible trade-offs, and burden shifting among life cycle stages or impact categories. These features are also relevant when the decision support is needed in policy domain. With a focus on EU policies, the present study explores the evolution and implementation of life cycle concepts and approaches over three decades. Methods Adopting an historical perspective, a review of current European Union (EU) legal acts and communications explicitly mentioning LCT, LCA, life cycle costing (LCC), and environmental footprint (the European Product and Organisation Environmental Footprint PEF/OEF) is performed, considering the timeframe from 1990 to 2020. The documents are categorised by year and according to their types (e.g. regulations, directives, communications) and based on the covered sectors (e.g. waste, energy, buildings). Documents for which life cycle concepts and approaches had a crucial role are identified, and a shortlist of these legal acts and communications is derived. Results and discussion Over the years, LCT and life cycle approaches have been increasingly mentioned in policy. From the Ecolabel Regulation of 1992, to the Green Deal in 2019, life cycle considerations are of particular interest in the EU. The present work analysed a total of 159 policies and 167 communications. While in some sectors (e.g. products, vehicles, and waste) life cycle concepts and approaches have been adopted with higher levels of prescriptiveness, implementation in other sectors (e.g. food and agriculture) is only at a preliminary stage. Moreover, life cycle (especially LCT) is frequently addressed and cited only as a general concept and in a rather generic manner. Additionally, more stringent and rigorous methods (LCA, PEF/OEF) are commonly cited only in view of future policy developments, even if a more mature interest in lifecycle is evident in recent policies. Conclusion The EU has been a frontrunner in the implementation of LCT/LCA in policies. However, despite a growing trend in this implementation, the development of new stringent and mandatory requirements related to life cycle is still relatively limited. In fact, there are still issues to be solved in the interface between science and policy making (such as verification and market surveillance) to ensure a wider implementation of LCT and LCA.


BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. e013302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott McAlister ◽  
Yanjun Ou ◽  
Elise Neff ◽  
Karen Hapgood ◽  
David Story ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 188 ◽  
pp. 01020
Author(s):  
Andreas Loukopoulos ◽  
Christos Katsiropoulos ◽  
Spiros Pantelakis

In the present work, Life Cycle analysis (LCA) and Life cycle costing (LCC) models were developed in order to quantify the environmental footprint and cost and thus compare different manufacturing scenarios associated with the production of aeronautical structural components. To validate the models developed, they were implemented for the case of a helicopter's canopy processed by two techniques commonly used in aeronautics, namely the autoclave and the Resin Transfer moulding (RTM). The canopy was assumed to be made of a carbon fiber reinforced thermosetting material. Using the models developed the expected environmental and cost benefits by involving the RTM technique have been quantified.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Brett Duane ◽  
Alexandra Lyne ◽  
Theresa Faulkner ◽  
Jonathan D. Windram ◽  
Andrew N. Redington ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Webinars have recently replaced in-person medical conferences, including paediatric cardiology conferences, given the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: With increasing environmental concerns, we analysed the differences between the environmental footprint of a paediatric cardiology webinar with a hypothetical conference. Travel data was collected, with assumptions made on the amount of computer use, internet use and accordingly the overall use of electricity for both forms of conference. Life Cycle Assessment methodology was used (OpenLCA and Ecovinvent v 3.7). Results: We showed that the theoretical environmental impact of a virtual conference is significantly less (4 tons CO2 equivalent) than the traditional international face-to-face conference (192 tons CO2 equivalent). The life cycle assessment methodology showed that resource use for a face-to-face conference lasting 2.5 days for 1374 attendees is equivalent to 400 times what an average person would use in one year, the climate change and photochemical ozone formation approximately 250 times and the eutrophication terrestrial equivalent to 225 times. However, using carbon equivalent emissions to measure environmental harm from flying is an under estimate of the potential damage, when one considers the additional production of airplane contrails. Notwithstanding this, there is a 98% reduction in climate change impact when meetings are held virtually. Conclusions: While the virtual conference may never completely replace the traditional in-person paediatric cardiology conference, due to networking benefits, the significant theoretical benefits to the environment highlighted in this study, warrants consideration for the virtual conference taking a more common place in sustainable academia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document