Jérôme Payet | EPFL Graph Search

À propos de ce résultat

Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.

New resource assessment characterization factors for rare earth elements: applied in NdFeB permanent magnet case study

Jérôme Payet

Purpose Rare earth elements (REEs) are among the most critical raw materials with a high supply risk. Despite their criticality, REEs are not covered by any resource Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Methods. The main purpose of the current study is to tackle the issue of missing characterization factors (CFs) for REEs in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).MethodsThe development of resource depletion characterization factors for REEs in this study are based on two widely used resource assessment methods, Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) and ReCiPe. ADP is based on the use-to-stock ratio, while ReCiPe focuses on the additional cost that society has to pay as a result of extraction. To develop the CFs, a wide range of data is gathered from USGS archives and specific mining reports for 11 large deposits worldwide. Results and discussion The characterization factors for 15 REEs, following the ADP and ReCiPe, are provided in this article. A comparison of the developed CFs with other resources confirms their compatibility. All REE CFs, except ADP for dysprosium (among the 25% highest CFs), are placed among the highest 50 to 75% available CFs for both methods. The significant difference between the results, whether including REE CFs or not, highlights the possible misinterpretation of LCA results. Conclusions The results reveal that REEs have a relatively high resource impact; therefore, they should be included in the assessment of resources. In addition, applicability of the provided CFs is checked in a NdFeB permanent magnets case study, and some recommendations are provided for the practice. The proposed CFs can be used for both the further update of methods and readily implementation in main LCA software, such as Simapro and GaBi, to address the resource depletion of REEs.

2019

Assessing the life cycle costs and environmental performance of lightweight materials in automobile applications

Christian Ludwig, Jan-Anders Månson, Véronique Michaud, Jérôme Payet, Robert Andrew Witik

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and manufacturing focused life cycle costing are used to evaluate the potential advantages of composites in automotive applications. The life cycle costs and environmental performance of several suitable lightweight polymer composites are quantified and compared against magnesium and steel for a representative component. The results indicate that weight reduction will not always lead to improved environmental performance. Materials offering high weight savings such as carbon fibres and magnesium have been shown to give limited or negative environmental benefits over their life cycles due to increased environmental burdens associated with their production. Lower performance materials such as sheet moulding compounds were found to perform better from a life cycle perspective despite not being recycled. Lighter weight vehicle components were found to be always more costly; however their use did lead to reduced costs for the consumer through lower fuel consumption. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2011

USEtox-the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment

Jérôme Payet

Background, aim and scope In 2005, a comprehensive comparison of life cycle impact assessment toxicity characterisation models was initiated by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)-Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative, directly involving the model developers of CalTOX, IMPACT 2002, USES-LCA, BETR, EDIP, WATSON and EcoSense. In this paper, we describe this model comparison process and its results-in particular the scientific consensus model developed by the model developers. The main objectives of this effort were (1) to identify specific sources of differences between the models' results and structure, (2) to detect the indispensable model components and (3) to build a scientific consensus model from them, representing recommended practice.

2008