Forum for ecoinvent Version 3

Here you find all boards with the latest posts of the Forum for ecoinvent v3

Written on 23.03.2017 by luciavalsasina see context

Dear Sofia,


Waste Scenarios are a feature introduced by SimaPro (see here), I would therefore recommend you to contact their support directly. In terms of treatment of non-ferrous materials you can consult ecoinvent Activity Overview, which is the list of all activities in the database. There you can find all treatment activities available for different non-ferrous materials. But as said above we are not familiar with waste scenarios and we can not therefore provide any advise in terms of how this would be included in such scenarios. 


Best regards,
Lucia Valsasina, Data Analyst, ecoinvent

Written on 23.03.2017 by karin.treyer see context

Dear Evelin,

Thank you for your interesting question. I guess that you are speaking about ecoinvent IPCC GWP LCIA results, and comparing those to (usually) direct CO2 emissions in other references. As I will point out further below, I don’t agree that ecoinvent numbers are in general specifically higher than those from other sources if the same type of data is compared, and not pears to apples.

Pre-remark: I don’t have the quantitative evaluation of the electricity datasets in ecoinvent split into direct emissions of various greenhouse gases (GHG) and emissions of GHG related to the remaining life cycle. And I don’t have a written comparison of ecoinvent scores with existing references/literature, even if I of course cross-check our values with existing publications before release of a new version. But we are anyway planning to do such an evaluation and publish the results.

So our (as you say) quite obvious reasoning for the IPCC GWP scores in ecoinvent is of course that ecoinvent includes all GHG and not only CO2, plus includes indirect GHG emissions as well. Further, it is very important not to compare pears with apples. Numbers out there can be valid for very different things:

-        Direct CO2 emissions only

-        Direct emissions of some/all GHG

-        Emissions related to a production mix (other than the supply mixes as modelled in the electricity market datasets)

-        Data for different years (changes in key parameters such as efficiency, or change in electricity mix over the years)

-        Including indirect emissions of GHG, but only very selective.

 - As Bernhard Wohner points out, different allocation or also system boundary choices.

I don’t agree that ecoinvent scores for CO2(eq) emissions/kWh are always higher than numbers indicated in different sources – given that we compare the same fruits and not ananas to strawberries. Of course ecoinvent scores are higher than those e.g. given in the IEA report “CO2 emissions from fuel combustion”. That report gives the direct CO2 emissions related to electricity production in all countries. Here, we of course observe the effect of including life cycle data, all greenhouse gases, and electricity imports to a certain country leading to higher CO2eq/kWh numbers in ecoinvent than in the IEA report. The differences are actually in the same order as e.g. can be found in the following report, table “National and European emission factors for consumed electricity” or “standard CO2 emission factors and CO2-equivalent LCA emission factors…” [].

In terms of the scores of individual electricity producing technologies, ecoinvent results for IPCC GWP are in general not particularly high or low, if the results are e.g. roughly compared to the NREL LCA harmonization study as shown on and in the related special issue of the Journal of Industrial Ecology (Meta-Analysis of Life Cycle Assessments)


Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Karin (editor of the electricity sector)

Written on 23.03.2017 by Nachhaltigkeit see context

Do you have any specific numbers to compare? The choice of allocation method for cogeneration is probably the most influental factor for the calculation. The electricity datasets of Ecoinvent are calculated with exergy allocation. Don't know about IEA and GEMIS though

Written on 23.03.2017 by Sofia Svensson see context

Hi everyone,

I have a few questions regarding waste scenarios and waste treatment.

First, if the waste type of a material is classified as undefined, is it still processed by any of the waste treatments if a waste scenario like "Municipal solid waste (waste scenario) {RoW}" is chosen?

Second, after examining the exisiting waste scenarios, there does not seem to be any scenario including a waste treatment for matrials with the waste type "non ferro" - is there a reason why this waste type is excluded? And if I would like to make sure all  materials, including the non ferro materials, are being taken care of by the waste scenario, does anyone have a suggestion on how to do this?

Lastly, if I would like to use a waste treatment for recycling the non ferro materials, does anyone know if that process would be similar to an already existing process, e.g. "Steel and iron (waste treatment) {GLO} recycling of steel and iron".


Thanks in advance,

Best Regards,

Sofia Svensson

Written on 20.03.2017 by E.Kletzer see context

 OK, not always, but in many cases, especially when it comes to electricity mixes. Ecoinvent is always higher than IEA, GEMIS and various other data sources. Even if we consider that EI data include all greenhouse gases you can think of and the complete supply chain - it is still above the others. 

Clients want to know why, and so do we. I always tell it is because the system borders are drawn so widely, so there is a high completeness, considering virtually everything down to tyre wear and road repair in transport processes for example.

Is that true? Is there a general answer, at least to the high electricity mixes?



Written on 13.03.2017 by luciavalsasina see context

Dear Sofia, 


Unfortunately at the moment ecoinvent does not provide infrmation on the production of tungsten. As partner of the SRI project ecoinvent is supporting the collection of life cycle inventory for, amongst others, metals. We therefore hope, in future, to be able to provide information about this product. 


A suggestion is to pose your question on PRé LCA discussion list


Best regards,
Lucia Valsasina, Data Analyst, ecoinvent

Written on 13.03.2017 by luciavalsasina see context

Dear Sebastian, 


A valid ecoinvent licence should grant you access to the latest (paid for) version of the database as well as all previous versions of the database. Please make sure you are using the correct username and password (read more here if this is the first time you log in ecoinvent). If you still have issues accessing the database please send me an email at with your username so that I can check if there are any issues linked to your username. 


Best regards,
Lucia Valsasina, Data Analyst, ecoinvent

Written on 13.03.2017 by luciavalsasina see context

Dear Zeshan Akber, 


version 2 report 5 is an english summary of reports number 6, which are all in German. You can download all version 2 reports in the reports section accessing the database version 2 online.

You can also access version 3 of the database and find in the reports section the following zip folder "ecoinvent 2.2 translated reports_06_Energy", here you will find the translation for selected sections of version 2 reports.


Best regards,
Lucia Valsasina, Data Analyst, ecoinvent

Written on 09.03.2017 by sebastianantonini see context

Dear I am trying to model an MSW sanitary landfill without any pretreatment. I have seen that in another question on the same subject, it is recommended to use the MSWLFV2 excel file ". I have logged in to database 2 but I can not access the files part. Could you help me to get such file? Thank you very much,

Sebastian Antonini


Written on 09.03.2017 by Sofia Svensson see context

Hi everyone,

I am a new user of ecoinvent and performing a partial LCA of a product that includes Co-60, radioactive cobalt. Does someone know how to model this material?

I know that production of regular cobalt exists, but have not found any process that could represent the production of radioactive cobalt. I have searched for other radionuclides, in the hope of using it as a substitute, but without success.

I also have a question regarding tungsten.

In the product, there is a substantial amount of tungsten and I have only found it as a raw material (and as tungsten ore, raw material) in the section of Substances in ecoinvent. As I have understood it, when producing tungsten, tungsten ore is extracted and then converted to tungsten oxide. After even more processing, tungsten as the material used in the product is obtained. By using only the substance to represent the material, it seems like a lot is missing in my inventory. Does anyone have a suggestion on how I can solve this problem?

Thank you in advance,

Sofia Svensson

Written on 08.03.2017 by zeshan304 see context

please help me from where to download following report in english please make sure it should be report No.6 cause i am finding link of only report no. 5 from google scholars or others


Dones R., Bauer C., Bolliger R., Burger B., Faist Emmenegger M., Frischknecht R., Heck T., Jungbluth N. and Röder A. (2007b) Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0, No. 6. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH.Regards


Written on 07.03.2017 by zeshan304 see context

Dear mam thanks for reply

i understand your reply but the point is that same comment can be found for both data set to calculate the input of hard coal power plant

1. Electricity, high voltage {TRE}| electricity production, hard coal | Alloc Def, U

2. Electricity, high voltage {ZA}| electricity production, hard coal | Alloc Def, Uaccording to this

the input should be 1/ (150000*500*1000) = 1.33333E-11 in both case but this is not true in this case as we can found that 

the input for ZA ( south africa ) = 1.33333331036851E-11

while in case of TRE (Texas regional entity) is = 4.12383898016955E-11

but the comment are same as discussed above 

please elaborated how it is ..? and explaint if i have a power plant of 150 MW with annual generation 102.21 GWh and say have a life of 10000 hours what will be input in this case and how this can be scale with 500 MW power plant having life of 150000 hours



Zeshan Akber

MS-Construction Engineering and Management


Written on 06.03.2017 by luciavalsasina see context

Dear Zeshan Akber, 


you can access the undefined UPR (before linlink and allocation) form of the dataset on ecoinvent online (ecoQuery). Searching, for example, for the dataset "electricity production, hard coal, ZA" and clicking on the exchange "hard coal power plant" you will see the mathematical relation and the comment (as the one that appears in SimaPro). 



For this calculation, 4000 load hours per year are assumed. It is assumed that a total of 150'000h is reached during the lifetime. A capacity of 500MW is taken for the calculation.



1/ (150000*500*1000) 


Hence the mathematical relation was calculated as:

1 / (hours (h) * capacity (MW) * conversion factor MW to kWh)


Best regards,
Lucia Valsasina, Data Analyst, ecoinvent

Written on 06.03.2017 by luciavalsasina see context

Dear Schumpp, 


You can see the specifics about the waste specific composition in the general comment for the activity, see the undefined UPR (before linking and allocation) form of the dataset. Access the undefined UPR through ecoinvent online ecoQuery.


You can read more about waste in version 2 reports 13, read more on how to download version 2 reports here. In particular, please refer to report 13 I, page 32 section 4.2.7. 


Best regards,
Lucia Valsasina, Data Analyst, ecoinvent