Hello,
I carried out an LCA analysis to assess embodied carbon and GWP of some tram stops.
As result, the embodied carbon is always greater than GWP (e.g. 1919 kgCO2eq/m2 vs 1115 kgCO2eq/m2).
I am wondering why this happens. Do you have any suggestion?
Is it related to the fact that the GWP considers the entire life, whereas the embodied carbon not?
Thank you very much.
Hi Luca,
There are several potential explanations for the discrepancies you’re seeing. To help us understand the situation better, could you clarify:
Please note that while the Carbon Heroes benchmarks are generally activated, slight variations in calculation methodologies between tools often result in differences.
Also, remember that embodied carbon typically covers a broad range of life-cycle stages but excludes operational carbon. This exclusion could significantly impact your overall results.
To investigate this further, would you mind sending us the project name via private message? We’d be happy to take a closer look.
Hello Steven,
actually I am comparing the GWP results with the embodied carbon declared in the Carbon Heroes benchmark.
The operational carbon is very low because the tram stop has only lighting.
How can I share the project privately?
Thank you!
Hi Luca,
The community solution we use has a function to send a private message if you click on my profile picture.
Additionally, you can also share the entityId here, which is the unique project identifier that I will be able to access (but others won’t be able to).
Steven
Thank you!
This is the ID: 67bf2240155697370192763a
Hi Luca,
The difference between the benchmarks and the projects comes large from a single resource:
In the benchmarks, it is calculating the A1-A3 emissions, whereas in your project it only calculates A4 emissions.
Have you perhaps edited the group after its creation? This can in rare cases lead to emissions not registering correctly. I would re-add this assembly and review if the results generate correctly.
Steven
thank you, Steven.
I made a mistake with the construction.
I reload the resource you highlight. However, the embodied carbon is still higher than the GWP.
It seems also that the only phases that differs between embodied carbon and GWP are B6 and B7. For this reason, I expected embodied carbon to be less than the GWP value. But this is not (see image about “deposito” model).
Hi Luca,
For an accurate comparison, benchmark your results against the GWP-Fossil category, not the total GWP. Global data handling practices, like those in TRACI and CML, often exclude biogenic carbon benefits from total GWP emissions. Our internal benchmark currently follows this approach, though this may evolve.
When comparing your GWP-Fossil result (955) to our benchmark (926), the figures are already quite close. Excluding A5 emissions, which our benchmark omits, further narrows the gap. Minor methodological differences between your calculations and our benchmark account for the remaining variance.
It’s important to note that a universal benchmark compatible with all calculation tools is impractical due to inherent variations in tool requirements and methodologies.
Our internal benchmarks are updated annually, but they’re intended as indicators of project performance, not exact matches to your calculations. For precise industry comparisons, you could consider utilizing established industry-specific benchmarks.
Hope this helps!
