Board # 155 : Building Life Cycle Assessment Skills with

Paper ID #18905

Building Life Cycle Assessment Skills with GREET and SimaPro to EngageStudents in Analyzing the Sustainability of Biofuel Alternatives

Dr. Bradley A. Striebig, James Madison University

Dr. Striebig is a founding faculty member and first full professor in the Department of Engineering atJames Madison University. Dr. Striebig came to the JMU School of from Gonzaga University wherehe developed the WATER program in cooperation with other faculty members. Dr. Striebig is also theformer Head of the Environmental Technology Group at Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory. Inaddition to Dr’ Striebig’s engineering work, he is also a published freelance photographer who has workswith local and international NGOs. Dr. Striebig was the founding editor of the Journal of Engineering forSustainable Development and an assistant editor for the Journal of Green Building.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

2017 ASEE Annual Conference

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

Building Life Cycle Assessment skills with GREET and SimaPro to engage students in

analyzing the sustainability of biofuel alternatives

Sustainability is important in manufacturing, construction, planning and design. The concepts of sustainability have been pigeon-holed into graduate level courses in Industrial Ecology or Green Engineering.1,2,4,14,16,18 This course focuses on the engineering applications of sustainability science, environmental impact analysis, and applications of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) models. Students in civil, environmental, general, industrial, and mechanical engineering will benefit from learning how to apply multi-parameter indicators related to sustainable design. The course discussed herein assumes the students come to the course with a basic understanding of chemistry, physics and math common to most engineering disciplines. Engineering students take two sustainable engineering courses focused on understanding of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of design and technology by exploring the relationships between industrial and ecological systems.17,18,19 This paper focuses on the second part of the two-course sustainability sequence that is a problem-based course based on quantifiable life cycle analysis using multi-parameter sustainability tools, including footprint analysis, GREET LCA software and Sima Pro LCA software. The expected outcomes associated with the course, which address ABET student outcome criteria a, c, e, h, i, j, and k that are listed in Table 1. The topics covered in the course are mapped to the expected course outcomes in Figure 1. This paper discusses the implementation of a semester-long deep-learning project designed for students to engage with and compare GREET and SimaPro LCA platforms for analyzing the environmental impacts associated with biofuel production from ethanol and miscanthus. The instructors’ hypothesis was that the LCA framework helps students evaluate and interpret alternative energy options. Furthermore, two different LCA software packages were utilized. GREET was chosen to help students identify and build simple pathways and develop a relationship between CO2 equivalence as a single parameter indicator of sustainability for different renewable energy sources. The Sima Pro LCA software was chosen to introduce student to modern professional tools for more complex multi-parameter sustainability factors. The Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy in Transportation (GREET) model has become the standard in performing life cycle analyses of transportation fuels.20,21,22 The GREET model focuses on energy options and is idea for introducing students to the goal and scope, system boundaries, pathways and process analysis required for Life Cycle Assessment. The GREET output provides a greenhouse gas indicators and other pollutants, but does not cover the comprehensive environment and health impacts that are associated with other LCA packages and databases.3,6



Table 1: Expected course outcomes and associate ABET criteria. Expected Course Outcomes

Upon successful completion of this course, the student will be able to: ABET

Outcomes

1. Prepare and solve mass balance problems related to the impact of industrial processes.

a

2. Identify criteria and strategies for evaluating social considerations in sustainable development.

e

3. Describe the relationships between local, regional, and global impacts and economic factors.

j

4. Develop frameworks for conceptualizing complex, open system problems, and the inter-relationship of environmental, energy, economic, health, technological, and cultural forces.

h

5. Employ sustainability tool, such as life cycle assessment, when conducting system analysis.

k

6. Model total material cycles when developing products and processes. c

7. Use professional-grade engineering software to perform basic life-cycle assessments.

i

The USE EPA and ISO standard 14043 recommend three key steps to interpreting the results of an LCA: 1. Identification of the significant issues based on the LCA 2. Evaluations that considers completeness, sensitivity, and consistency checks. 3. Conclusions, recommendations and reporting. Due to the large quantities of data that have to be collected and processed for any LCA, computer software are usually used to perform most LCAs. Many institutions and companies have developed their own software using data specific to their needs and concerns. There are however commercially available software that utilize comprehensive databases of materials, energy and emissions inventories as well as multiple impact assessment methods. Some software are used to simply model the Inventory Analysis phase of the LCA while others are useful for more complete LCAs that include Impact Assessment and Interpretation of results. Table 2 shows examples of some currently available LCA software and their developers. Table 2: Some currently available LCA software Tool Website Developers ECO-it http://www.pre-sustainability.com PRé Consultants eiolca.net http://www.eiolca.net Carnegie Mellon University

Green Design Institute GaBi http://www.gabi-software.com PE-International GREET http://greet.es.anl.gov Argonne National Laboratory SimaPro http://www.pre-sustainability.com PRé Consultants Umberto http://www.ifu.com/software/umberto-e/ ifu Hamburg GmbH



SimaPro is the world's leading life cycle assessment (LCA) software employed by businesses, consultants and research institutes in more than 80 countries.9,10 SimaPro is a comprehensive LCA package that utilizes the EcoInvent database. This software was introduced to students in their second deep-learning exercise and allowed students to develop a SimaPro based LCA and evaluate and interpret the multiparameter outputs from the LCA.5,7 This paper will include the deep-learning assessments assigned to the students, examples of student work, a summary of student perceptions of the course and placed-based project and a mixed-methods assessment of the course. Students were introduced to engineering concepts in energy development and use and Life Cycle Analysis and through traditional course lectures and textbook readings in Engineering Applications in Sustainable Design and Development (by Striebig, Ogundipe and Papadakis, 2015). Students were assigned online tutorials in GREET and SimaPro in order to become familiar with the software. The course met three days per week. The course topics listed in Figure 1 were typically covered in the first two lecture periods of the week, with the third meeting of the week being reserved for in-class project work. Additional weeks were allocated for exams and project presentation at the end of the semester. Readings and short homework problems were assigned for each topic. Online tutorials were the primary method of teaching the GREET and SimaPro software, with question and answer sessions to start each of the two lecture periods and instructor and peer assistance available during the weekly work period. The GREET project course score contributed to 40% of the course grade, the final SimaPro project course score comprised 50%, and homework contributed the final 10% of the course grade. The GREET project was broken into eleven significant intermediate project steps and the SimaPro project broken into seven intermediate project steps. On average, each project part was completed over a course of six weeks. Typically students were allowed to peer-review each other’s work on a weekly basis.



Prepareandsolvemassbalanceproblemsrelatedtotheimpactofindustrialprocesses

Iden6fyandstrategiesforevalua6ngsocialconsidera6onsinsustainabledevelopment.

Describetherela6onshipsbetweenlocal,regional,andglobalimpactsandeconomicfactors.

Developframeworksforconceptualizingcomplex,opensystemproblems,andtheinter-rela6onshipofenvironmental,energy,economic,health,technological,andculturalforces.

Employsustainabilitytool,suchaslifecycleassessment,whenconduc6ngsystemanalysis.

Modeltotalmaterialcycleswhendevelopingproductsandprocesses.

Useprofessional-gradeengineeringsoDwaretoperformbasiclife-cycleassessments.

Introduc6ontoLifeCycleThinking(Ch7)

LifeCycleAnalysisFramework(Ch10)

Deconstruc6onandcri6queofLifeCycleAnalysis(Ch8)

IndustrialEcology(Ch9)

GREET(Supplemental)

EnergyandSustainability(Ch8)

Priori6za6oninSustainableDesign

SimaProModeling(Supplemental)

Limita6onofLCAs(Ch10)

SustainabilityIndicators(Supplemental)

SystemsAnalysisandSustainableManagementStrategies(Ch12)

TopicSequence AssociatedABETOutcome

Figure 1: Course topics and relation to the expected student outcomes. Two short-term projects were created to assess student learning and their ability to apply the LCA software programs to energy engineering problems. Students to demonstrate the ability to achieve the following outcomes associated with the LCA based assessments:

• Identify criteria and strategies for evaluating social considerations in sustainable development.

• Describe the relationships among local, regional, and global impacts and economic factors.

• Develop frameworks for conceptualizing complex, open system problems, and the inter-relationship of environmental, energy, economic, health, technological, and cultural forces. Understand the role of Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) in Industrial Ecology and Sustainability

• Employ sustainability tool, such as life cycle assessment, when conducting system analysis.

• Model total material cycles when developing products and processes. • Use professional-grade engineering software to perform basic life-cycle assessments. • Describe the components and steps utilized in GREET (project 1) and SimaPro (project

2).



A scenario to complete a comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Palm Oil Derived Biofuel to Miscanthus Based Ethanol Production was developed to assess the outcomes listed above. Students had previously completed an analysis of miscanthus based ethanol production using an online tutorial and example provided by Argonne National Laboratories.21 Additional information about biofuel production processes and palm oil production was provided through online course modules.8,11,12,13,15 The following problems statement was provided: Assessment Scenario Based upon you experience with conducting a commodity based LCA on miscanthus, your US based company supervisor has directed you to conduct a comparative LCA for miscanthus-based ethanol-enhanced fuel or palm-oil derived biofuel in your company’s fleet vehicles they will lease in the next 10 years. The worldwide demand for palm oil has been growing over the past few decades at a rate of 7.1% per annum.15 The versatility of palm oil in various applications has made it one of the top seventeen oils and fats sources in the world. Is does not only assist in meeting the demands of edible oil worldwide, but is also used extensively for oleo-chemicals and biofuel production.13 Most importantly palm oil is expected to be a promising alternative fuel to slow down the depletion rat of non-renewable fossil fuels. Biodiesel is an alternative to fossil diesel and is produced from vegetable oils.8,12 The conversion process is a fairly simple chemical reaction which splits the glycerine out of the oil to form an ester. Biodiesel is produced from adding methanol or ethanol to the oil with an additional catalyst that produces a methyl or ethyl ester. Malaysian palm oil, converted into a methyl ester (PME). Malaysia along with Indonesia are the main sources of palm oil currently being used, and are very similar in the GHG emissions. Students were required to submit eight responses to the following questions:

1. Describe the goal and scope of your study 2. Provide a detailed schematic that illustrates the pathway of material, energy and waste

flows considered in your study 3. Specify the functional units to be utilized in your analysis and comparison 4. Print the GREET detailed process pathway for your model 5. Conduct a GREET based analysis and provide a table that shows the emissions for palm

oil based biofuel and miscanthus based ethanol. Include VOC, CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, CH4 and CO2(eq).

6. Provide a graphical illustration of the associated emissions for each fuel type 7. Describe the social consideration, environmental considerations, and economic

considerations and limitations of the GREET model. 8. Make a recommendation based upon you analysis for your company to utilize either

ethanol-enhanced fuel or palm-oil derived biofuel in your company’s fleet vehicles they will lease in the next 10 years.



Assessment Methods The rubric shown below in Table 3 was used to evaluate each submission. Representative student submissions are shown in Figures 2 to 6. Table 3: Grading rubric for biofuel analysis by GREET and SimaPro LCA models

Deliverables Points per category

5 4 3 2 1

1 Goal & Scope Clear, concise and accurate

Parts of 5 and 3

General interpretation is acceptable and mostly accurate

Parts of 3 and 1 Missing

2 Process Schematic

Clear, concise and accurate

Parts of 5 and 3



3 Functional unit definition


Parts of 5 and 3



4 GREET/SimaPro Pathway


Parts of 5 and 3



5 GREET/SimaPro results


Parts of 5 and 3



6 Graphical presentation of data


Parts of 5 and 3



7 Sustainability Discussion


Parts of 5 and 3



8 Recommend- ations


Parts of 5 and 3



9 Submission On time submitted as assigned

Parts of 5 and 3

Submission time is within 12 hours of due date


10 Overall Effort

Excellent effort and commitment to the tasks

Parts of 5 and 3

Moderate effort representative of appropriate time on task


Discussion of student responses to the GREET based assessment Students submitted written responses to eight assessment questions listed above. Representative student work is shown in the following examples. Students were required to develop a framework and sketch a material flow analysis pathway for the production of the biofuels, as shown in Figure 2. The representative work shows the illustrates the type of assessment utilized



to meet Objective 1: Prepare and solve mass balance problems related to the impact of industrial processes.

ENGR 412 Stainback

Page 5 of 11

Figure 2.2. Palm Oil Derived Biofuel Production

3. Specify the functional units to be utilized in your analysis and comparison.

The general functional unit is “mg of emissions per MJ of product,” where one ton of each primary resource (miscanthus and palm fresh fruit bunches) is used in each respective GREET model. An example of a specific functional unit for each biofuel is shown as follows:

mg of CO2 (eq) per MJ of palm oil derived biofuel

mg of CO2 (eq) per MJ of miscanthus based ethanol

These functional units are used in the following comparative table (Table 5.1) and figures (Figure 6.1 and 6.2).

Figure 2: Schematic of the pathway production for palm oil derived biofuel. Students were required to utilize GREET and SimaPro to conduct the analysis. The GREET-based model is illustrated in Figure 3 and the SimaPro-based model is illustrated in Figure 4. The GREET model was a simpler model to construct and enter into the software program, since there were fewer design choices in developing the GREET model. The GREET and SimaPro model pathways illustrate the ability of student’s to demonstrate the successful completion of Objective 4: Develop frameworks for conceptualizing complex, open system problems, and the inter-relationship of environmental, energy, economic, health, technological, and cultural forces. The SimaPro model pathway is slightly more complex and allows more user modifications. The SimaPro pathway also includes illustrative material and energy flow information. Students could identify the differences between the two approaches and grasp the information each model conveyed to the user. The GREET model illustrates the basic processes included in the LCA, whereas the SimaPro model includes the processes and process, energy inputs, energy flows and other selected information in the flow diagram. The SimaPro model pathways illustrate the ability of student’s to demonstrate the successful completion of Objective 5: Employ sustainability tool, such as life cycle assessment, when conducting system analysis; and Objective 7: Use professional-grade engineering software to perform basic life-cycle assessments.



ENGR 412 Stainback

Page 7 of 11

The second detailed process pathway (Figure 4.2) is for palm oil derived biofuel production. This pathway is displayed in the same format as the first, and the same note for interpreting the figure can be applied.

Figure 4.2. GREET Pathway for Palm Oil Derived Biofuel Production

5. Conduct a GREET based analysis and provide a table that shows the emissions for palm oil based biofuel and miscanthus based ethanol. Include VOC, CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, CH4 and CO2 (eq).

The results of the GREET analysis performed on the two pathways shown previously (Figures 4.1 and 4.2) are displayed in the following table (Table 5.1). The emission type is shown in the left column and the numerical results are displayed in the middle and right columns.

Figure 3: Student’s GREET model pathway for converting palm oil to biofuel Both models allowed students to estimate specific airborne emissions associated with the production from cradle to gate of various air pollutants as illustrated in Figure 5. The cradle to gate analysis was chosen instead of cradle to grave analysis, since use of the biofuel may vary after leaving the “gate” of the production facility. The Students are also able to see that there are substantial differences between for estimated emissions between the two widely accepted professional LCA software models. In additional to enabling estimates of specific emissions, SimaPro compiles and estimates other impact factor categories as illustrated in Figure 6. The capabilities and differences between the LCA software models were then evaluated and discussed as a part of the student’s assigned work (see Figure 7.) The SimaPro model pathways illustrate the ability of student’s to demonstrate the successful completion of Objective 6: Model total material cycles when developing products and processes; and Objective 7: Use professional-grade engineering software to perform basic life-cycle assessments.



ENGR 412 Stainback

Page 7 of 13

Figure 4.2. Process Pathway for Palm Oil Derived Biofuel (1.3% cut-off)

Figure 4: Student’s SimaPro model pathway for converting palm oil to biofuel

Figure 5: Juxtaposition of welltouse emissions comparisons from the earlier GREET study

(left) and this SimaPro LCA (right) color schemes are switched for the two graphs

Interpretation By comparing the results of the earlier GREET LCA and this SimaPro assessment, the importance of weighing is clear. To explain, the graphical displays of the raw emissions to air from each biofuel is less telling than the weighted comparisons generated with SimaPro (e.g. Figure 4). As a result, the SimaPro comparison results are appropriate to use for identifying the environmentally favorable biofuel because it is more informative and comprehensive than the GREET impact assessment results. In short, the impact assessment results presented in this study highlight how B100 is identified as less environmentally safe because, primarily, of its immense impacts in the category of respiratory inorganics, as a result of dust, sulphur and nitrogen oxides to air. Although the SimaPro results are deemed more conclusive than those from the GREET study, the end implication is the same: the miscanthusbased ethanol option is environmentally favorable over the palm oil biodiesel option. There are two major takeaways from the impact assessment results provided in the tabular and graphical representations in the previous two sections:

1. The primary adverse impact of the E85 ethanol blend comes from its contribution to land occupation, in comparison the B100 option. Because of its weight in this comparison, the total environmental impact of the ethanol blend is lower than that of the palm oil biodiesel; however, if land occupation was given a larger weight factor, then the results of the study could show E85 to possess the larger net environmental impact.

2. The leading negative impact category of the B100 biodiesel fuel option is respiratory inorganics, which is far greater than the impacts from E85 in this category. As a result of this impact category, primarily, the total environmental impact of B100 exceeds that of E85. However, if the weighting of the study was conducted differently (i.e. respiratory inorganics were less of a factor in this company decision), then the environmental implications could reflect B100 as the more desireable option.

In addition to the environmental impact assessment results, the supplemental extrapolation of social and economic impacts indicates the favorability of the E85 ethanol blend. This is largely a

10

Figure 5: Student’s graphical representation of GREET estimated emissions (on the left) from Miscanthus (red) and Palm-Oil (blue) derived biofuels and SimaPro estimated emissions (on the right) from Miscanthus (blue) and Palm-Oil (red) derived biofuels.



Table 1: E85 and B100 gas emissions comparisons, where the higher value in each emission

category is bolded

The emissions shown in Table 1, among hundreds of other emission indicators, are compiled in SimaPro for the life cycle comparison of E85 and B100 fuel production to produce the subsequent single score graphic (Figure 4). Further discussion of these impact assessment results is provided in the Broader Impacts section that follows. The single score assessment populates a single bar with fifteen impact categories for each biofuel; the five most prominent of these categories are labeled, as seen below:

Figure 4: Single score impact assessment for E85 (left) and B100 (right) fuel production

7

Figure 6: Student’s graphical representation of multiparamter SimaPro impact factors from Miscanthus (left) and Palm-Oil (right) derived biofuels. Discussion of course outcomes The majority of students (~80%) were able to identify that Miscanthus based ethanol produced lower greenhouse gas emissions and overall lower single score impact factor that palm oil. Students could also identify the social impact factors were not included in the model output and yet have a significant impact on choices associated with biofuel production. An example student recommendation is shown in Figure 7. The recommendations were assessed for the student’s ability to demonstrate Objective 2: Identify criteria and strategies for evaluating social considerations in sustainable development; and Objective 3: Describe the relationships between local, regional, and global impacts and economic factors.

ENGR 412 Stainback

Page 13 of 13

9. Present an interpretation (or discussion) of your SimaPro results.

The results of this analysis performed in SimaPro can be seen in tabular form in the fifth deliverable and graphically in the sixth. To summarize the data previously presented, the total value of the human health, ecosystem quality, and resources damage assessments are shown in Figure 9.1. As can be seen, palm oil derived biofuel yields a greater negative impact for each of the said pillars of sustainability. These quantitative results accompanied by the qualitative assessment presented in the seventh deliverable show that miscanthus based ethanol should be preferred over palm oil derived biofuel production in terms of environmental, societal, and economic sustainability. A recommendation based off of these results will be provided in the tenth and final deliverable.

Figure 9.1. Total Values of Human Health, Ecosystem Quality, and Resources Damage Assessment

10. Make a recommendation based upon your analysis for your company to utilize either ethanol-enhanced fuel or palm-oil derived biofuel in your company’s fleet vehicles they will lease in the next 10 years.

For the next 10 years, current methods of production of both biofuels are likely to occur (especially production methods for palm oil derived biofuel with increasing pressure from the RSPO). However, this recommendation is based off of the current available data, production methods, and the effects of production methods on the society, environment, and economy.

In sum, palm oil derived biofuel yields higher negative impacts on human health, ecosystem quality, and resources (largely due to deforestation and the transportation of raw materials and product) compared to miscanthus based ethanol. Thus, it is recommended that the company use miscanthus based ethanol for the fleet vehicles in the coming 10 years. It is also recommended that this study be repeated at the conclusion of the next decade, as the current practices and associated data is likely to change.

Pillar Unit

Palm oil derived biofuel, production

MY, at pump/US

Ethanol, from miscanthus, at pump/USA U

Human Health DALY 4.15635E-06 1.23024E-06Ecosystem Quality PDF*m2yr 3.534225553 1.905332605Resources MJ surplus 0.961632765 0.639096564

Figure 7: Student’s final scenario recommendation for choosing a low impact biofuel for fleet vehicle use based upon GREET and SimaPro pathway models.



Course outcomes were achieved by the students using both the GREET and SimaPro software. Eighty-four percent of students were able to utilize the GREET model and seventy-nine percent were able to successfully utilize the SimaPro model to develop frameworks for conceptualizing complex, open system problems, and the inter-relationship of environmental, energy, economic, health, technological, and cultural forces. Eighty-eight percent of students were able to utilize the GREET model and seventy-nine percent were able to successfully utilize the SimaPro model to demonstrate the ability to perm a life cycle assessment of biofuel production systems. Ninety-two percent of students were able to successfully utilize the GREET and SimaPro model to demonstrate the ability to use modern LCA software tools. Table 4: Measured student outcomes associated with the biofuel LCA analysis. Expected Course Outcomes Upon successful completion of this course, the student will be able to:

Students meeting GREET related outcomes

Students meeting SimaPro related outcomes

Students meeting course related outcomes

1. Prepare and solve mass balance problems related to the impact of industrial processes.

86%

2. Identify criteria and strategies for evaluating social considerations in sustainable development.

71%

3. Describe the relationships between local, regional, and global impacts and economic factors.

84% 79% 83%

4. Develop frameworks for conceptualizing complex, open system problems, and the inter-relationship of environmental, energy, economic, health, technological, and cultural forces.

88% 79% 83%

5. Employ sustainability tool, such as life cycle assessment, when conducting system analysis.

92% 92% 83%

6. Use professional-grade engineering software to perform basic life-cycle assessments.

92% 92% 92%

The software-based course made extensive use of the Canvas Course Management System to provide supplemental reading assignments and tutorials for the both the GREET and SimaPro models. All students visited the site at least 150 times. As shown in Figure 8, student participation in the tutorials and timely submission of assignments was strongly correlated with their course grade. Student’s receiving the high marks in the course (>85%) visited the course management site more than 250 time. It appears that the tutorials were a helpful method for introducing the software, with the majority of time spent in class providing the engineering background and context to the ISO 14040 LCA process and context, with additional time for instructor and peer support available every third class meeting.



Figure 8: Correlation of student participation in electronically available tutorials and supplementary information with overall course grade. Written student feedback from anonymous student surveys, shown in Figure 9, generally indicated that the case study scenario based approach was well received. Although the evidence illustrated for all student “best liked” comments was somewhat mixed, as is the case for most student rating instruments. Some students appreciate the simple GREET LCA tool for decisions making. The course was a required senior level course, and several students had difficulty connecting the broad utility of LCA software to “real-world” engineering decision-making. Subsequent class offerings have made it a priority to reinforce the value of LCA tools in engineering decision-making and sustainability reporting.



% Agree 61.90%

The evaluations (exams, performance tests, etc.) were appropriate for the way the course was conducted.

Comment[No Response]

This course has given me a better understanding of engineering.


This course has given me a better understanding of what engineers do.


This course has broadened my interests in engineering.


The classroom environment was conducive to learning.


What did you like best about the course?

StudentsCourse material

Use of LCA's

The use of software to show how different things affect the environment.

Learning different softwares was interesting and useful

Didnt

The use of professional softare

I enjoyed the GREET modeling.

GREET

Nothing

Literally nothing. I despised going to class

Learning about the softwares

Clear understanding of the equations and lessons

The interesting topics

Learning how to use LCA tools like GREET and SimaPro

Learning about issues with GHG and global warming

What did you like least about the course?

StudentsWorking on software in class

Class was not necessarily linked to HW

The structure of the class was very confusing and seemed to switch each week without notice

The course

Individual Report ENGR412 SUSTAINABILITY II (Bradley Striebig)

This course has given me a better understanding of engineering.


This course has given me a better understanding of what engineers do.


This course has broadened my interests in engineering.


The classroom environment was conducive to learning.


What did you like best about the course?

StudentsI thought the lectures were well organized and fun to learn about the quantifiable impacts of sustainability.

Provided recent examples

I liked the examinations. They are more applicable to real life than a 2 hour test.

I really liked the video on Butan. I think that a lot of me peers above and below have been hammered with sustainabilityall our lives and it can seem like a mute concept. I think that if we were able to get a different perspective in short videosor documentaries such as the 11th hour or cowspiracy we would really benefit a lot.

Learning about different case studies/real life applications

n/a

Well-prepared, enthusiastic instructor

What did you like least about the course?

StudentsSpending to much time on Greet and SimaPro.

at times felt repetitive

I would rather have the class twice a week for a longer period than three times a week.

for a majority of the course it feels like the same sustainability mantra I have heard all my life. Sometimes the classadds perspective and different views but most of the time it feels like complicated unusable/believable information insociety

Although we were given adequate resources to figure it out, I disliked the software exercises

hard to stay interested in material

The incompatibility of some software with certain computers made it difficult to work on some of the assignments.

What suggestions do you have for improving this course?

StudentsSimpler assignments and tutorials on the LCA softwares.

n/a

I think that really hitting us with the deep views and making us reflect more on big ideas and showing us other peoplethat are thinking of these big ideas would be good. I think that facilitating deep discussion between students in the

Individual Report ENGR412 SUSTAINABILITY II (Bradley Striebig)

Figure 9: Unedited student comments related to the use of the SimaPro and GREET based case study assessments utilized in the course. Limitations of LCA software Life Cycle Assessment is a useful tools for evaluating the comprehensive impacts from the manufacture, use and disposal of products. LCA techniques rely on compiled databases of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental impacts, evaluating potential impacts associated with process waste, and providing a simplified scale for interpreting modeling results. The results of an LCA can illustrate comparative differences in environmental and health impacts, such as whether product A or B has a greater likely impact upon climate change, as shown in the previous examples. There are however significant limitations to LCA results that must be recognized and interpreted by the user. Comprehensive LCAs require large amounts of resources and time. Accurate data collection is central to a reliable assessment and the value of an LCA is only as good as the data used. LCAs are usually performed with truncated boundaries to limit the amount of extraneous data implying a compromise for practicality. While LCAs offer insights into the environmental



performance of products, they do not provide information on cost effectiveness, product efficiency or any social considerations. LCAs produce good global scale impact results though assessments of local and contextual impacts are still challenging. In general LCAs are considered to be decision support tools that are used in addition to other points of consideration. The simplified LCA modeling results are suitable for relative comparisons of environmental and health impacts, but they due not indicate actual measurable response or the risk levels associated with the environmental and health risks. For quantifiable estimations of environmental impacts, chemical fate and transport environmental models should be used, and detailed risk analysis procedures are required to quantify risk and exposure to specific emissions or scenarios. Summary The use of GREET and SimaPro LCA software was facilitate through online tutorials and in-class contextual information in the sustainability themed course. In class observations showed that both the software packages proved to be more difficult to interface with than students are typically accustomed. Extending the software tutorials to analyzing other potentially renewable fuels added capabilities and a knowledge base related to energy development and related sustainability impacts that were able to meet the course objectives. Most students (~80%) surpassed expectations for analytical capabilities. A few students (~15%) far exceeded project expectations. A few students (~10%) did not take the time to learn the software and had to repeat the course at a later time. Current iterations of the class have adopted an update SimaPro Version 8 for implementation in the course. This version includes expanded tutorials and additional supplemental information available for the user. Other software packages, such as Gabi, have been investigated and are being considered for use in future versions of the course. Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment, Engaged learning, sustainability, indicator, environmental impacts, industrial ecology

References

1. Allenby, B. et al. Teaching Sustainable Engineering. 2007. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 11(1)8-10.

2. Azapagic, A. et al. How much do engineering students know about sustainable

development? The findings of an international survey and possible implications for the engineering curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education. 2005. 30(1)1-19.

3. Brinkman, N., Wang, M.Q., Weber T., Darlington, T., 2005, Well-to-Wheels Analysis of

Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems — A North American Study of Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Criteria Pollutant Emissions, http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/pu blications.html, May.

4. Crittenden, J.C. J. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2002, 4(1)6-7.



5. De Gelder, C., Oele, M., Cleij, V., Moore, M., Durksz, S., Haringsma, A., Wannee, T. 2012.

SimaPro installation manual 1.12. PRé Consultants. the Netherlands. 6. Dunn, J.B. 2014. Biofuel Life Cycle Analysis with the GREETTM Model. U.S. Department

of Energy Biomass 2014: Growing the future bioeconomy. July 29 – 30, 2014. Washington Convention Center. Washington D.C.

7. Fontes, J. 2016. Product Social Impact Assessment: Roundtable for product social metrics.

PRé Consultants. the Netherlands. 8. Frank, E. Wang, M., Han, J., Elgowainy, A., Palou-Rivera, I. 2011. Life Cycle Analysis of

Algae-base fuels with the GREET model. APEC Workshop on the Resource Potential of Algae for Sustainable Production of Biofuels in the Asia Pacific Region. September 12. San Francisco, CA.

9. Goedkoop, M., De Schryver, A., Oele, M. 2007. SimaPro 7.1 Tutorial. PRé Consultants. the

Netherlands. 10. Goedkoop, M., A., Oele, M., Vieira, M., Leijting, J., Ponsioen, T., Meijer, E. 2016. SimaPro

8.0 Tutorial. Verison 5.3. PRé Consultants. the Netherlands. 11. Hansen, S.B., Padfield, R., Syayuti, K., Ever, S., Zakariah, Z., Masture, S. 2015. Trends in

global palm oil sustainability research. Journal of Cleaner Production. 100(2015):140-149. 12. Hitchcock, G., Lane, B. 2008. LCA of Road Transport Biofuels. Sustainable Transport

Solutions. Sumerset, UK. 13. Lim, C.I., Biswas, W., Samyudia, Y. 2015. Review of existing sustainability assessment

methods for Malaysian palm oil production. 12th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP (2015):13-18.

14. Powers, S.E., DeWater, J.E., Venczel, M.Z. 2001. Teaching Life-Cycle Perspectives:

Sustainable Transportation Fuels Unit for High-School and Undergraduate Engineering Students. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. 137(2): 55-63.

15. Rettenmaier, N. 2011. LCA of biodiesel from Jatropha, oil palm, and soybean.

EUROCLIMA Workshop. Campinas, Brazil. November 30, 2011. 16. Striebig, B., Ogundipe, A., and Morton, S. 2014. Lessons in implementing sustainability

courses into the engineering curriculum. 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 15-18th, 2014, Indianapolis, IN.

17. Striebig, B., A. Ogundipe and M. Papadakis. 2016. Engineering Applications in Sustainable

Design and Development: 1st Edition. Cengage Publishing. Boston, MA. 746p.



18. Striebig, B. 2016. Applying US EPA sustainability criteria to capstone design. Engineering

for Sustainability. ASEE SE Section Annual Conference, March 13-15, 2016. Tuscaloosa, AL.

19. Striebig, B. and Morton, S. 2016. A Sustainability Indicators Based Curriculum.

Engineering for Sustainability. ASEE SE Section Annual Conference, March 13-15, 2016. Tuscaloosa, AL.

20. Wang, M.Q., 2001, Development and Use of GREET 1.6 Fuel-Cycle Model for

Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies, ANL/ESD/TM-163, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, IL. SAE International.

21. Wang, M.Q., Wu, Y., Elgowainy, A., 2007, User Manual and Technical Issues of GREET,

Version 1.7, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, IL. SAE International.

22. Wu, Y., Wang, M.Q., Sharer, P.B., Rousseau, A. 2006. Wells-to-Wheels results of energy

use, greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollutant emissions of selected vehicle/fuel systems. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, IL. SAE International. 2006-01-0377.

Documents

Board # 155 : Building Life Cycle Assessment Skills with