Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 735–747 | Cite as

A comparison of major petroleum life cycle models

Original Paper
  • 224 Downloads

Abstract

Many organizations have attempted to develop an accurate well-to-pump life cycle model of petroleum products in order to inform decision makers of the consequences of its use. Our paper studies five of these models, demonstrating the differences in their predictions and attempting to evaluate their data quality. Carbon dioxide well-to-pump emissions for gasoline showed a variation of 35 %, and other pollutants such as ammonia and particulate matter varied up to 100 %. Differences in allocation do not appear to explain differences in predictions. Effects of these deviations on well-to-wheels passenger vehicle and truck transportation life cycle models may be minimal for effects such as global warming potential (6 % spread), but for respiratory effects of criteria pollutants (41 % spread) and other impact categories, they can be significant. A data quality assessment of the models’ documentation revealed real differences between models in temporal and geographic representativeness, completeness, as well as transparency. Stakeholders may need to consider carefully the tradeoffs inherent when selecting a model to conduct life cycle assessments for systems that make heavy use of petroleum products.

Keywords

Life cycle assessment Petroleum refining Data quality Transportation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by an appointment for Donald Vineyard to the Postdoctoral Research Program at the US Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an Interagency Agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Supplementary material

10098_2016_1260_MOESM1_ESM.docx (146 kb)
Online Resource 1 (DOCX 145 kb).

References

  1. Argonne (2014) GREET life-cycle model. Cent Transp Res https://greet.es.anl.gov/greet/documentation.html Google Scholar
  2. Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow PL (1991) How clean is clean? Paper presented at the world clean energy conference, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandão M, Heath G, Cooper J (2012) What can meta-analyses tell us about the reliability of life cycle assessment for decision support? J Ind Ecol 16:S3–S7. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00477.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt AR, Sun Y, Vafi K (2015) Uncertainty in regional-average petroleum ghg intensities: countering information gaps with targeted data gathering. Environ Sci Technol 49:679–686. doi: 10.1021/es505376t CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bredeson L, Quiceno-Gonzalez R, Riera-Palou X, Harrison A (2010) Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity with allocation into products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:817–826. doi: 10.1007/s11367-010-0204-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai H, Han J, Forman G, Divita V, Elgowainy A, Wang M (2013) Analysis of petroleum refining energy efficiency of U.S. refineries. Transportation Technology R & D Center Argonne National Laboratory. ArgonneGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorini G, Kapelan Z, Azapagic A (2011) Managing uncertainty in multiple-criteria decision making related to sustainability assessment. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:133. doi: 10.1007/s10098-010-0291-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edelen A, Ingwersen W (2016) Guidance on data quality assessment for life cycle inventory. Report from the National Risk Management Research Laboratory USEPA, Washington, DC. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=321834 Google Scholar
  10. Elgowainy A, Han J, Cai H, Wang M, Forman GS, DiVita VB (2014) Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission intensity of petroleum products at U.S. Refineries. Environ Sci Technol 48:7612–7624. doi: 10.1021/es5010347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Energetics Incorporated (2007) Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Petroleum Refining Industry. U.S. Department of Energy. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/petroleum_refining/pdfs/profile.pdf
  12. Finkbeiner M, Inaba A, Tan R, Christiansen K, Klüppel H-J (2006) The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forman GS, Divita VB, Han J, Cai H, Elgowainy A, Wang M (2014) U.S. refinery efficiency: impacts analysis and implications for fuel carbon policy implementation. Environ Sci Technol 48:7625–7633. doi: 10.1021/es501035a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin Associates (2011) Revised final appendices cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory of nine plastic resins and four polyurethane precursors. Eastern Res GroupGoogle Scholar
  15. GreenDelta (2015) OpenLCA 1.4.1. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins TR, Ingwersen W, Sengupta D, Xue X, Smith RL (2012) Estimating impacts across the life cycle of corn ethanol and gasoline. In: International symposium on sustainable systems and technology, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Houghton JT et al (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basisGoogle Scholar
  18. Hsu DD (2011) Life cycle assessment of gasoline and diesel produced via fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing. NREL, Technical report, Golden, CO, March 2011. http://www.osti.gov/bridge
  19. Hsu DD, Inman D, Heath GA, Wolfrum EJ, Mann MK, Aden A (2010) Life cycle environmental impacts of selected U.S. ethanol production and use pathways in 2022. Environ Sci Technol 44:5289–5297. doi: 10.1021/es100186h CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ICF Consulting (2003) Estimation of underground storage tank leakage. Prepared for EPA under contract Contract #68-C-0-164, WA#2-11. LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingwersen W (2015) Test of US federal life cycle inventory data interoperability. J Clean Prod 101:118–121. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Council on Clean Transportation (2011) An introduction to petroleum refining and the production of ultra low sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel. The International Council on Clean Transportation. http://www.theicct.org/introduction-petroleum-refining-and-production-ultra-low-sulfur-gasoline-and-diesel-fuel
  23. Jungbluth N (2007) Erdöl. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller SA, Theis TL (2006) Comparison of life cycle inventory databases. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):133–147Google Scholar
  25. National Energy Technology Laboratory (2008) Development of baseline data and analysis of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels. National Energy Technology Laboratory United States Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  26. Palou-Rivera I, Han J, Wang M (2011) Updated estimation of energy efficiencies of U.S. petroleum refineries. Argonne National Laboratory https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-petroleum
  27. Plevin RJ (2009) Modeling corn ethanol and climate. J Ind Ecol 13:495–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00138.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rivera J, Sutherland J (2015) A design of experiments (DOE) approach to data uncertainty in LCA: application to nanotechnology evaluation. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:1585. doi: 10.1007/s10098-014-0890-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sengupta D, Hawkins TR, Smith RL (2015) Using national inventories for estimating environmental impacts of products from industrial sectors: a case study of ethanol and gasoline. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(5):597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suh S, Leighton M, Tomar S, Chen C (2013) Interoperability between ecoinvent ver. 3 and US LCI database: a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0592-2 Google Scholar
  31. Takano A, Winter S, Hughes M, Linkosalmi L (2014) Comparison of life cycle assessment databases: a case study on building assessment. Build Environ 79:20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. United Nations Environment Programme (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: a basis for greener processes and products: ‘Shonan Guidance principles’Google Scholar
  33. United States Department of Agriculture (2016) Federal LCA commons. http://www.lcacommons.gov/catalog
  34. United States Energy Information Administration (2011) Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 2009Google Scholar
  35. United States Energy Information Administration (2012) Annual energy review 2011Google Scholar
  36. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) National emissions inventory booklet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002neibooklet.pdf
  37. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Technical support document for the 2004 effluent guidelines program plan. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  38. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Complete_Report.pdf
  39. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emission factors compiled by Eastern Research Group for incorporation in GREET. Argonne National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2015a) AP 42 vol 1, 5th ednGoogle Scholar
  41. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2015b) Renewable fuel standard program: standards for 2014Google Scholar
  42. United States Federal Highway Administration (2007) Moving 12-month total vehicle miles traveledGoogle Scholar
  43. United States Federal Highway Administration (2013) Freight facts and figures 2013. federal highway administration. http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/13factsfigures/pdfs/fff2013_highres.pdf
  44. Weber CL (2012) Uncertainty and variability in product carbon footprinting. J Ind Ecol 16:203–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00407.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weidema B et al. (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. The Ecoinvent Centre,St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  46. Winkler J, Bilitewski B (2007) Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models for solid waste management. Waste Manag 27:1021–1031. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Life Cycle Assessment Research Center, National Risk Management Research LaboratoryUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations