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

Jamez

03 Nov 2025 • 3 min read

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