Conduct a literature-based comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of an energy-related technology by critically analyzing published peer-reviewed LCA studies. You should compare the environmental

Assignment Overview

Learning Outcomes

• Critically analyze and synthesize published LCA literature for energy technologies
• Compare environmental performance across technology variants using LCA methodology
• Evaluate methodological approaches and limitations in published LCA studies
• Identify key factors influencing environmental performance of energy technologies
• Communicate complex technical findings in academic article format

Assignment Task

Conduct a literature-based comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of an energy-related technology by critically analyzing published peer-reviewed LCA studies.

You should compare the environmental performance of 2–3 variants or scenarios of your chosen technology.

For example:

• Energy storage: Li-ion vs. Sodium-ion batteries; Flow Batteries
• Solar PV: Monocrystalline vs. Thin film
• Wind energy: Onshore vs. Offshore turbines
• Hydrogen production: Grey vs. Blue vs. Green hydrogen
• Electrolysers: Alkaline vs. PEM vs. Solid oxide
• Waste to energy: Incineration vs. Anaerobic digestion vs. Gasification

Note:
You may choose other energy-related technologies outside these categories, provided there are clear variants to compare.

Brief of Assessment Requirements

Aim: Conduct a literature-based comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA) of an energy-related technology by critically analysing peer-reviewed LCA studies and comparing the environmental performance of 2–3 variants or scenarios of that technology (e.g., Li-ion vs. sodium-ion batteries, monocrystalline vs. thin-film PV, grey vs. blue vs. green hydrogen).

Core learning outcomes to demonstrate

• Critically analyse and synthesise published LCA literature for energy technologies.
• Compare environmental performance across technology variants using LCA methodology.
• Evaluate methodological approaches and limitations in published LCA studies.
• Identify key factors influencing environmental performance.
• Communicate complex technical findings in academic article format.

Required tasks

• Select a technology with clear variants.
• Perform a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed LCA studies.
• Harmonise and compare results (functional unit, system boundaries, impact categories).
• Assess methodological differences, uncertainties and limitations.
• Present findings in an academic article style (abstract, intro, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references).

How the Academic Mentor Guided the Student 

Below is a condensed walkthrough of how an academic mentor guided the student through the assessment, with a brief explanation of what was done in each section.

1. Topic selection & scoping (mentor role)

• Mentor actions: Reviewed proposed topics; ensured variants were comparable and literature exists. Helped narrow scope and set a feasible project scale.
• Student task: Choose technology and 2–3 variants; draft a short justification and proposed functional unit.
• Outcome: Clear research question and scope (e.g., “Compare cradle-to-grave GWP of Li-ion vs. sodium-ion batteries per 1 kWh stored”).

2. Literature search & screening

• Mentor actions: Recommended databases, search terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a PRISMA-style screening approach.
• Student task: Run searches, screen titles/abstracts, select peer-reviewed LCA studies.
• Outcome: A curated dataset of relevant studies with reasons for inclusion/exclusion.

3. Data extraction & harmonisation

• Mentor actions: Provided a data-extraction template (study metadata, system boundaries, functional unit, inventory data, impact categories, allocation methods).
• Student task: Populate template; convert results to common functional unit and harmonise impact categories where possible.
• Outcome: Comparable dataset ready for side-by-side analysis.

4. Methodological alignment & critical appraisal

• Mentor actions: Taught how to identify methodological differences (e.g., system boundary, end-of-life assumptions, allocation rules, data vintage) and their effects on outcomes.
• Student task: Document methodological choices per study and assess how they bias comparisons.
• Outcome: A methodological critique that framed interpretation of numeric comparisons.

5. Comparative analysis (results)

• Mentor actions: Suggested appropriate ways to present results (tables, normalized impact bars, sensitivity analyses) and interpret uncertainty.
• Student task: Produce harmonised comparison plots/tables, run simple sensitivity checks (e.g., lifetime, recycling rate), and highlight dominant life-cycle stages.
• Outcome: Clear comparative results showing which variant performs better under the harmonised assumptions and why.

6. Discussion — limitations & implications

• Mentor actions: Coached on structuring the discussion: reconcile contradictory literature, acknowledge limitations, and propose research/policy implications.
• Student task: Explain how methodological choices influenced results; propose recommendations (design, policy, data gaps).
• Outcome: Balanced discussion that links technical findings to broader sustainability implications.

7. Academic write-up & presentation

• Mentor actions: Reviewed draft sections, gave feedback on clarity, academic tone, referencing, and figure/table design; helped refine abstract and conclusion.
• Student task: Finalise manuscript: Abstract, Introduction (objectives), Methods (search + harmonisation), Results, Discussion, Conclusions, References.
• Outcome: A cohesive academic-style report ready for submission.

Final Outcome & Learning Objectives Achieved

What was achieved

• A literature-based comparative LCA that harmonised and compared 2–3 technology variants, with results presented in clear tables/figures.
• A methodological critique that identified key drivers (e.g., material production, lifetime, efficiency, recycling rates) and assessed how study design choices affect conclusions.
• Sensitivity/uncertainty analysis showing robustness of comparative claims.
• Clear, academically structured communication of complex technical findings.

Learning objectives covered

• Critical synthesis of published LCA literature 
• Rigorous cross-variant comparison using LCA principles 
• Evaluation of methodological approaches and limitations 
• Identification of key factors influencing environmental performance 
• Communication in academic article format