BDI Workshop. Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) sinnvoll & konsistent gestalten! 17. Juni 2015, Berlin

Transcription

1 BDI Workshop Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) sinnvoll & konsistent gestalten! 17. Juni 2015, Berlin 1

2 Speaker Dr.-Ing. Constantin Herrmann thinkstep AG

3 Agenda PEF-Pilotprojekte konkret: 1. Beispiel Metallbleche 2. Beispiel Batterien & Akkumulatoren 3

4 1. Example: Sheet metal

5 Who, scope and reasons for participation Metal associations (not only steel, aluminum, lead and copper), companies and consultants under the umbrella of EUROMETAUX Scope: 6 sheet applications of steel, aluminum, lead and copper Metals are fundamentals in LCA Have long history and experience in LCA Many EPDs are publicly available (often following EN15804) Metals are closed loop materials / products (link to circular economy) Taking influence on challenging aspects of PEF (e.g. impact categories, End of Life (EoL) formula, cut off criteria and modelling principles, data quality requirements)

6 Challenges Functional unit Representative product Intermediate or product Setting of life cycle stages (no use, no collection) System boundary (e.g. coating, alloying, when is exactly the entry point of EoL) PEFCR scope (applications, all metal sheets or only screening study) Stability and applicability of ADP, tox, land use etc. Which EoL formula to prioritse Hot spot of details in case of typically aggregated data (mining, smelting, fabrication) Datasets (unit process vs aggregated one) Data quality and data usage Competition (sector inherently and to other sectors / non-metals) Stability and uncertainty of PEF process PEF output / intended output (labeling or not, benchmark or not)

7 Learnings Setting a common basis for material cross comparison (system boundary, methodology, impacts, quality criteria, ) Better understanding and clarification of differences between metals Secure multi-metal harmonized approach Questioning of some impact assessment methods (ADP, toxicity, normalization, ) Strength and limitation of life cycle approach and methodology Ongoing No additional barrier for SMEs through excessive request for primary data Use of explicit mature impacts for EPDs and decision making studies Harmonized EPDs instead of immature single score Source: PE Symposium, PEF Workshop,

8 2. Example: Recharge Source: PE Symposium, PEF Workshop,

9 Reasons for participation Batteries are technology driven products / systems RECHARGE has done some LCA, case specific avoid unjustified category rules avoid non-coordinated initiatives to assess environmental impacts of rechargeable batteries pro-active on: the methodology to calculate environmental impacts of rechargeable batteries the communication on these impacts (labelling?)

10 Reasons for participation Source: PE Symposium, PEF Workshop,

11 Challenges Functional unit The unit of analysis selected for this study is the total electrical energy supplied over service life time per battery system. Representative product (virtual product, represented by 4 applications) Use phase: energy consumption vs. energy loss Complex system Quality and availability of background data Future data provision? Impacts from electronics and mechanics, not from battery production (e.g. tox impact comes from electronics) Influence? Improvement? End of life credits Partly mixed collection of battery technologies; thus material fractions unknown Unbalance of input data vs. credit data (chemical composition vs. metal credit)

12 Learnings Strengths Scope, common functional unit, representative product definition, screening study: the PEFCR is technically feasible It has allowed the clarification and transparency of assumptions in case of lack of data The category rules will create a level playing field for the batteries PEF Weaknesses The OEM integration (charger, cooling) and use phase have a strong impact: no battery PEF without clear specification of the use conditions expected limited comparability between different products The lack of reliable and accurate data (i.e. recycling data) reduces the representativeness of the PEF: same recycling conditions should be applied for comparison Impacts of metals (available metal data NOT dedicated to PEF) are not correctly assessed Ressource depletion to be clarified (also influence of recycling formula) Usetox usage should be avoided for communication Ongoing Quality rules timing for finalization of PEFCR Some Impact Categories might be excluded for communication purposes Benchmark and labelling needs to be thoroughly discussed

13 Summary across Pilots Positive Consortia mainly very pro-active and positive towards PEF pilot Taking influence is guiding star and motivator Flexibility and openness from EC (success is good for all) First PEFCRs show good quality Contact with EN15804 (EPD standard in building sector) takes place Challenges Many requirements, more than expected Very complex and lengthy process(es) Clearly specified goal would streamline the process(es) What does it mean to go for intermediate, b2b or b2c on long term Timelines often too short and not logical procedure Process changes over time, challenge through lack of guaranties (citation of a PEF member) All PEFCRs are equal hierarchy, no harmonising sector rules possible (comparability of building products?)

14 Hauptstraße Leinfelden-Echterdingen Germany Phone: Fax: