A Comparison of Different Frameworks for Product Environmental Performance A life-cycle-Based Environmental Assessment of HVO from Used Cooking Oil (UCO) based on EPD, PEF and REDII frameworks
Examensarbete för masterexamen
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Bibliographical item details
|Type: ||Examensarbete för masterexamen|
|Title: ||A Comparison of Different Frameworks for Product Environmental Performance A life-cycle-Based Environmental Assessment of HVO from Used Cooking Oil (UCO) based on EPD, PEF and REDII frameworks|
|Authors: ||Nojpanya, Pavinee|
|Abstract: ||In this project, Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) and the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) framework were assessed and compared through the application on the case study of Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) from Used Cooking Oil (UCO). The case study is part of the Impacts on Fuels Producers and Customers of Conflicting Rules for LCA (ICON) project to gain a deeper understanding on the differences between different environmental frameworks. The assessment was done based on the life cycle of the UCO-based HVO. The applied functional unit was 1 MJ of the studied HVO used by a heavy-duty truck (Euro V). The UCO was assumed to be a mixture of palm oil and rapeseed oil. The impact category that was chosen to be assessed was climate change as it was the only impact category the three frameworks have in common.
The results show that there are differences between the PEF, EPD and REDII frameworks, which led to different results. The highest impact (51.3 g CO2-eq) was obtained when the PEF framework was applied and the REDII frameworks gave the lowest impact (11.9 g CO2 -eq). The results in EPD and REDII shows 70% and 77% respectively lower impact compared to the PEF. The observed differences between the frameworks were the choice of allocation method when secondary material was used, allocation hierarchy for multifunctional processes, the assessed number of elementary flows and impact categories, the CFs, the accounting of biogenic CO2 and the downstream process. The upstream processes gave the highest contribution to the results in PEF, while for the EPD and REDII it was the hydrogen production. In addition, the UCO collected in Sweden was the most environmentally preferred alternative compared to UCO from China. However, the lack of a specific ruleset such as PEF Category Rules (PEFCR) and EPD’s Product Category Rule (PCR) for biofuels may affect the reliability of the results in this case study.|
|Keywords: ||product environmental footprint;environmental product declaration;renewable energy directive;hydrotreated vegetable oil;used cooking oil;circular footprint formula;life cycle assessment|
|Issue Date: ||2021|
|Publisher: ||Chalmers tekniska högskola / Institutionen för teknikens ekonomi och organisation|
|Series/Report no.: ||E2021_060|
|Collection:||Examensarbeten för masterexamen // Master Theses|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.