0 votes
108 views
Hi everybody,

we are using the EF database 2.0 for the LIFE TTGG project (www.lifettgg.eu), and we have noticed some inconsistencies between the impact generated from the processes listed below and the impact of the same processes reported in the official EF node.

1) Tap water, at use, technology mix, per kg water;

2) water, decarbonised, at plant, technology mix, per kg water

I did not investigate in the node the possible reasons, but the result are different.

I have also noticed some problems related to all the process that uses the end of life fluxes:

1) hazardous waste (unspecified)

2) Hazardous waste (unspec.)

that in the processes:

- Representative sparkling wine, consumption mix, grape production, wine making, packaging, distribution, End- of- Life, 0.75 l of packaged wine

and

- Representative still wine, consumption mix, grape production, wine making, packaging, distribution, End- of- Life, 0.75 l of packaged wine

are reported in input adding to the impact of all the processes that share the same fluxes, also the impact generated by wine production.

Thank you,
in openLCA by (170 points)
edited by

1 Answer

0 votes
by (1.3k points)
We are using the database for something similar (https://www.geoenvi.eu/), but we haven't noticed so relevant problems. Have you followed the guide provided by OpenLCA for process linking? The problem affects all impact categories?
by (170 points)
Hi, Thank you for your answer,
Regarding water for CC there are some differences, and if you use a great amount of water in the process, the final results are different compared to other software.
For the processes that use hazardous waste, I didn't notice the indication to not use auto-link command. Without using it the result is correct. Thank you!
Nevertheless, I still believe that the representative wine products, having the end-of-life processes in input, present a modelling error.
by (1.3k points)
Regarding water use, I am thinking that could be related to the regionalization of the flows: EF and OLCA use different regionalization approach in the ILCD structure, but I don't know if this can influence the results. Are the compared results coming from the same EF revision?
...