Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:35:22.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Environmental Assessment of Micro/Nano Production in a Life Cycle Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Stig Olsen
Affiliation:
[email protected], Technical University of Denmark, Department of manufacturing engineering and management, Produktionstorvet 424, Lyngby, N/A, DK-2800, Denmark, +4545254668
Michael Søgaard Jørgensen
Affiliation:
[email protected], Technical University of Denmark, Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

The concept of life cycle assessment (LCA) is build upon the object of assessment, namely the functional unit, i.e. all impacts etc. are related to a specific service or function in the society. In a LCA context, the assessment of emerging technologies like Nanotechnology is challenging due to a number of knowledge gaps. It may not be known exactly what is the function (or functional unit) or what the technology may substitute and production may still be at an experimental level, raising questions about technology or materials choice.

For prospective LCA studies methodologies like “consequential LCA” may be useful because future changes are taken into account. However, it still does not suffice for emerging technologies. In a recent “Green Technology Foresight” project a methodology was developed based on five elements: Life-cycle thinking, systems approach, a broad dialogue based understanding of the environment, precaution as a principle and finally, prevention as preferred strategy. When assessing emerging technologies three levels should be considered. First order effects are connected directly to production, use and disposal. Second order are effects from interaction with other parts of the economy from more intelligent design and management of processes, products, services, product chains etc. and the effect on the stocks of products. An example could be dematerialisation. Rebound effects may be considered as third order effects, like when efficiency gains stimulate new demands, which balances or overcompensates the savings.

In the Micro/Nano Production area a range of new possibilities arise both within applications, production technology and materials. The Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management at The Technical University of Denmark has staked on a joint effort in manufacturing engineering and environmental assessment for eco efficiency improvement. A review of knowledge and studies on environmental assessments in the micro/nano technology area is performed and will be used to further detail the general framework for assessment outlined above to be more specific for micro/nano production.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Berkhout, F, Hertin, J. Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies on Environmental Sustainability: Speculations and Evidence. 2001. Report to the OECD. Brighton: Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T. Finnveden, G. Towards a users guide to scenarios - a report on scenario types and scenario techniques. 2005. Environmental strategies research fms, Department of Urban studies, Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm Sweden. TRITA-INFRA-FMS 2005:3, version 1.1 november 2005. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Bras-Klapwijk, B. Adjusting Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Use in Public Policy Discourse. 1998. Delft University of Technology. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009. COM(2005) 243 final. 2005. Ref Type: GenericGoogle Scholar
Ekvall, T. Andræ, A. S. G. (2005) Attributional and Consequential Environmental Assessment of the Shift to Lead-Free Solders. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.Google Scholar
Ekvall, T. Weidema, B.P. (2004) LCA Methodology System Boundaries and Input Data in Consequential Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9, 161171.Google Scholar
ETC-GROUP. Nanos Troubled Waters: Latest toxic warning shows nanoparticles cause brain damage in aquatic species and highlights need for a moratorium on the release of new nanomaterials. 2004. www.etcgroup.org. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Haum, R., Petschow, U., Steinfeldt, M. Von Gleich, A. Nanotechnology and Regulation within the framework of the Precautionary Principle. 2004. Institute for Ecological Economy Research(IOEW), www.ioew.de. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, M.S., Andersen, M. M., Hansen, A., Wenzel, H., Pedersen, T.T., Jørgensen, U., Falch, M., Rasmussen, B., Olsen, S.I. Willum, O. Green Technology Foresight about Environmentally Friendly Products and Materials. Challenges from Nanotechnology, Biotechnology and ICT. 2005. Danish Environmental protection Agency Environmental Project No. XXX, 2005. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, S.M. Lave, L.B. (2003) Life Cycle Economic and Environmental Implications of Using Nanocomposites in Automobiles. Environmental Science and Technology 37, 3458 3466.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S.M., Lave, L.B. Matthews, H.S. (2005) Life Cycle Benefits of Using Nanotechnology To Stabilize PlatinumGroup Metal Particles in Automotive Catalysts. Environmental Science and Technology 39, 13841392.Google Scholar
Masciangioli, T. Nanotechnology for the Environment. Presentation at National Center for Environmental Research (NCER). 2002. US EPA 11 March 2002 www.environmentalfutures.org/nanotech.htm. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
NANO-FORUM. Benefits, Risks, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of NANOTECHNOLOGY. 2004. 4th Nanoforum Report. June, 2004. www.nanoforum.org. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE. The National Nanotechnology Initiative, Strategic plan. 2004. http://www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2004.pdf. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Plepys, A. The environmental impacts of electronics. Going beyond the walls of semiconductor fabs. Electronics and the Environment, 2004.Conference Record.2004 IEEE International Symposium on, 159165. 2004. IEEE. Ref Type: GenericGoogle Scholar
Robichaud, C.O., Tanzil, D., Weilenmann, U. Wiesner, M.R. (2005) Relative Risk Analysis of Several Manufactured Nanomaterials: An Insurance Industry Context. Environmental Science and Technology. Google Scholar
ROYAL SOCIETY AND ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING. NanoScience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. 2004. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Sarasua, J.R. Pouyet, J. (1997) Recycling effects on microstructure and mechanical behaviour of PEEK short carbon-fibre composites. JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE 37, 533536.Google Scholar
Schischke, K. Griese, H. Is small green? Life Cycle Aspects of Technology Trends in Microelectronicss and Microsystems. 2004. http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA2004/papers/Schischke_K_paper.pdf. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar
Steinfeldt, M., Petschow, U., Haum, R. Von Gleich, A. Nanotechnology and Sustainability. Discussion Paper of the IÖW 65/04. 2004. Institute for Ecological Economy Research(IOEW), www.ioew.de. Ref Type: ReportGoogle Scholar