Life Cycle Assessment, also known as \"Cradle-to-grave Analysis\" is a technique
ID: 105633 • Letter: L
Question
Life Cycle Assessment, also known as "Cradle-to-grave Analysis" is a technique used in pollution prevention. It accounts for all inputs and outputs in the various steps of a product's life, from raw material extraction to final disposal. For a given product, this technique can be used to identify the types and magnitudes of environmental impacts that the product has, including making and using it. Using this concept, provide a detailed discussion to show how the environment is impacted by "The Automobile".Explanation / Answer
Life-cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life-cycle analysis, eco-balance, and cradle-to-grave analysis) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance. We examine the possibilities for a “greener” car that would use less material and fuel, be less polluting, and would have a well-managed end-of-life. Light-duty vehicles are fundamental to our economy and will continue to be for the indefinite future. Any redesign to make these vehicles greener requires consumer reception. Consumer desires for large, powerful vehicles have been the major stumbling block in achieving a “green car”. The other major barrier is inherent contradictions among social goals such as fuel economy, safety, low emissions of pollutants, and low emissions of greenhouse gases, which has led to conflicting regulations such as emissions regulations blocking sales of direct injection diesels in California, which would save fuel. In evaluating fuel/vehicle options with the potential to improve the greenness of cars we find no option dominates the others on all dimensions.
Our global society is dependent on road transport, and development trends project substantial growth in road transport over the coming decades. Among available transport alternatives, electric vehicles (EVs) have reemerged as a strong candidate. The European Union (EU) and the United States, among others, have provided incentives, plans, and strategies, at different levels of ambition, for the introduction of EVs. EVs offer advantages in terms of powertrain efficiency, maintenance requirements, and zero tailpipe emissions, the last of which contributes to reducing urban air pollution relative to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. This has led to a general perception of EVs as an environmentally benign technology. The reality is more complex, requiring a more complete account of impacts throughout the vehicle's life cycle. Consistent comparisons between emerging technologies such as EVs and their conventional counterparts are necessary to support policy development, sound research, and investment decisions. Our inventory was compiled as a technical requirement and a stressor intensity matrix. The requirement matrix was built in a triangular-zed hierarchical manner, following Nakamura and colleagues. Material and processing requirements were tracked in matrices for each vehicle component with columns representing subcomponents and rows representing production requirements based on original source data. A second matrix was then developed for each component to associate production requirements based on original source data to the closest matching Eco-invent v2.2 processes. Vehicle and battery lifetimes are assumed to be 150,000 km driven, which is well aligned with typical lifetime assumptions used by the automotive industry. Battery treatment consists of dismantling and a cryogenic shattering process. The impacts associated with material recovery and disposal processes are allocated to the vehicle life cycle. Usually the use phase is responsible for the majority of the GWP impact, either directly through fuel combustion or indirectly during electricity production. The TAP impacts caused by the production phase of the EVs and ICEVs are similar, but their underlying causes differ. On the other hand, more than 70% of the production phase TAP of the ICEV is caused by the production of platinum-group metals for the exhaust catalyst. It should be noted that there is significant variability between the LCIs of primary platinum-group metals. The acidifying emissions reported for Russian and South African production processes differ by more than an order of magnitude. Our study uses a European consumption mix of these two sources and secondary platinum-group metals. As more than 70% of the life cycle TAP is caused by sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the sulfur intensity of the use phase fuel largely determines the relative performances of the different transportation technologies in terms of TAP. Because of its share of hard coal and lignite combustion, the use of average European electricity for EV transportation does not lead to significant improvements relative to ICEVs. Significant benefits may only be expected for EVs using electricity sources with sulfur intensities comparable to or lower than that of natural gas. The photochemical oxidation formation potential (POFP), or smog formation potential, is one of the environmental impact categories for which EVs perform best, with European and natural gas electricity mixes allowing for reductions of 22% to 33% relative to ICEVs. For all scenarios, releases of nitrogen oxides are the predominant cause of impact. These are mostly caused by combustion activities, but also from blasting in mining activities. Although EVs are an important technological breakthrough with substantial potential environmental benefits, these cannot be harnessed everywhere and in every condition. It clearly indicates that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion. At best, with such electricity mixes, local pollution reductions may be achieved. The production, use, and end of life of these two technologies were inventoried in a manner ensuring an appropriate comparison. The production phase of EVs proved substantially more environmentally intensive. Nonetheless, substantial overall improvements in regard to GWP, TAP, and other impacts may be achieved by EVs powered with appropriate energy sources relative to comparable ICEVs. However, it is counterproductive to promote EVs in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal, and lignite combustion. The electrification of transportation should be accompanied by a sharpened policy focus with regard to life cycle management, and thus counter potential setbacks in terms of water pollution and toxicity. EVs are poised to link the personal transportation sector together with the electricity, the electronic, and the metal industry sectors in an unprecedented way. Therefore the developments of these sectors must be jointly and consistently addressed in order for EVs to contribute positively to pollution mitigation efforts. The good news is that LDV have made progress toward sustainability but the bad news is that much work remains. There are limited options to make vehicles much greener without giving up the attributes that consumers demand. No option is inherently sustainable; however, some options have the potential to be more sustainable than others. Greener vehicles are likely to be more expensive over their lifetime, which negatively impacts the economic aspect of sustainability. In addition to expense, many of the vehicles would run into difficulties in satisfying society’s desires for vehicles that are safe, are nonpolluting, have a range of 600 km, have adequate interior space, and have immense power.
A car’s engine produces several different types of gasses and particles are emitted that can have detrimental effects on the environment. Of particular concern to the environment are carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas; hydrocarbons -- any of more than a dozen volatile organic compounds, some of which are known carcinogens; nitrogen oxides; sulfur oxides; and particulate matter, tiny particles of solids, such as metal and soot. Other emissions that affect human health and create smog include ozone and carbon monoxide. Vehicle emissions can affect the environment in several ways. Cars emit greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, which contribute to global warming. Some air pollutants and particulate matter from cars can be deposited on soil and surface waters where they enter the food chain; these substances can affect the reproductive, respiratory, immune and neurological systems of animals. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are major contributors to acid rain, which changes the pH of waterways and soils and can harm the organisms that rely on these resources. Substances that contribute to ozone depletion usually have high concentrations of chlorine or bromine atoms and include chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, haloes, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. Vehicle emissions contain few chlorine- or bromine-heavy substances, and therefore have little effect on ozone depletion. Even though they are not good for human health, hydrocarbons are recognized by the EPA as having no ozone depletion potential. Vehicles contain many different fluids, including motor oil, antifreeze, gasoline, air-conditioning refrigerants, and brake, transmission, hydraulic and windshield-wiper fluids. In most cases, these fluids are toxic to humans and animals, and can pollute waterways if they leak from a vehicle or are disposed of incorrectly. Many vehicle fluids are exposed to heat and oxygen while an engine is running, and undergo chemical changes. These fluids also pick up heavy metals from engine wear and tear, making them even more toxic to the environment.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.