|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
LCA Methodology
The Relative Mass-Energy-Economic (RMEE) Method for System Boundary Selection Part 2: Selecting the Boundary Cut-off Parameter (Z RMEE ) and its Relationship to Overall Uncertainty Marlo Raynolds; Roydon Fraser; David Checkel Corresponding author:: Marlo Raynolds, University of Alberta, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 4-9 Mechanical Engineering Building, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G8, Canada; e-mail: raynolds@pembina.org
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca199911.003 - Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a decision analysis tool used to compare alternatives to providing a given product or service. To ensure a fair comparison, LCA must select system boundaries in a consistent manner. The Relative Mass-Energy-Economic (RMEE) (pronounced ‘army’) of system boundary selection is a practical and quantitative method of defining system boundaries. RMEE compares each input to a system with the system’s functional unit on a mass, energy and economic basis. If this ratio of input to functional unit is less than a selected "cut-off" (defined as ‘Z RMEE ’) then the input is excluded from the analysis and all unit pro-cesses upstream of that input are outside the system boundary. Ignoring unit processes outside the system boundary limits the size of the LCA analysis but adds a source of uncertainty for the overall results. The lower the value of the Z cut-off ratio the larger the system boundary is, resulting in a greater number of unit processes. The relationship between the Z RMEE cut-off and the uncertainty introduced to the results of an LCA are explored. The relation-ship between Z RMEE and uncertainty has been derived by analyzing 800 random systems of four different types, with the RMEE method of system boundary selection applied at different Z RMEE values. The uncertainty introduced to the overall results increases as the selected Z RMEE becomes larger. | | Keywords: Comparative assertions; LCA; Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); relative mass-energy-economic (RMEE); RMEE; system boundary selection |
5 LCA (2) 96-104 (2000)
|
|
|
|