Life Cycle Inventory

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) plays a pivotal role in evaluating the environmental impact and associated costs of integrated systems with multiple subsystems, with a primary focus on environmental emissions. As industries increasingly adopt intricate and interconnected infrastructures, comprehending the comprehensive environmental implications becomes crucial. LCA provides a systematic approach to assess the entire life cycle of a system, including its conception, production, operation, and eventual disposal. In the context of integrated systems with multiple subsystems, LCA serves as a powerful tool to analyze the intricate network of environmental emissions. By considering diverse subsystems and their interdependencies, LCA facilitates the identification of significant emission sources, allowing decision-makers to prioritize mitigation efforts and foster sustainability in complex systems.

Scope and goal

Within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of our project, we comprehensively assess greenhouse gas emissions from material extraction through construction. This analysis extends to encompass maintenance scenarios, factoring in optimized subsystem plans. Consequently, we calculate emission values for gases and their associated costs, providing a holistic understanding of the environmental impact throughout the lifecycle of the infrastructure.

boundary

Figure 1 Scope and Boundaries

To perform the life cycle inventory, it is imperative to have the following table, outlining the quantities of CO2, SO2, NOx, and the chosen energy consumptions for our subsystems.

hhhhhhhhhh

 Figure 2 Energy Consumption And Emissions

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted for four distinct design alternatives, and the results are depicted in the figure below:

 

ffffffff

Figure 3 Energy Consumption and Emissions for Different Design Options

Once again, design option 2 outperforms the other alternatives, displaying the most favorable results. Specifically, for CO2 emissions, option 2 records 812,972 kg, significantly lower than the respective figures for design options 3 and 4, which stand at 36,597,245 kg and 36,445,950 kg. This trend is consistent for NOx and SO2 emissions as well, where options 3 and 4 show higher values. Despite lower energy consumption in options 3 and 4, the project’s primary focus on emissions positions option 2 as the preferred choice.

 We also want to consider the costs of the impact on the environment. For this, we define the following unit prices:
 costtt
 The results we obtained are listed below for the four different integrated options:
cost-and-jorge
 Figure 4 Costs Associated with Energy Consumption and Emissions for Different Design Options
 The costs associated with energy consumption and emissions management are detailed above for each option, revealing that design option two has the lowest cost at €0.02271962 compared to other alternatives. The significant differences in results are because the permeable concrete pavement requires a high amount of concrete which scores pretty high in these criteria.