MFA vs. LCA,特别是作为工业环境管理方法的观点

IF 1.3 Q4 MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Birat
{"title":"MFA vs. LCA,特别是作为工业环境管理方法的观点","authors":"J. Birat","doi":"10.1051/MATTECH/2021004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"MFA was born in the 1980s, independently, in various laboratories around the world. On the one hand, Industry was trying then to put numbers on its circular economy practices, while, on the other, Academia endeavored to construct a metaphor of natural ecology (BioGeoChemical Cycles [BGCC]) or of the metabolism of ecosystems to describe the activities of the anthroposphere, especially its material and the energy flows (and stocks). This article briefly reviews the early efforts of Usinor (now ArcelorMittal) in this area, in the framework of a program called “The Cycle of Iron” and points out what it was trying to achieve: basically, analyze and evaluate a true recycling rate (RR) of steel. MFA turned out to be potentially a more powerful tool than ad hoc models of materials circularity too and Industry left the leadership to academic groups to flesh out the new methodology to confront such difficult questions as the evaluation of a RR. Then the article conducts a kind of methodological and epistemological audit of the present status of MFA, positioning it in the wide framework of descriptions of material flows in space and time, and thus picturing it as a competing methodology to LCA. While the former is macro-scale, synchronic, broadly economy-oriented, the latter is micro-scale, diachronic, product and value chain-oriented, while both “report” to different communities, the Industrial Ecology community and the LCA community respectively, and more. Both schools of thoughts have been attending SAM conferences regularly, where they have been reporting their continuous search for new developments and their search for a better sustainability assessment of materials, products, industrial systems and economic activities of all kinds. The various contributions over the first 12 SAM events are analyzed. Finally, MFA and LCA are compared, feature by feature, in terms of the communities they serve and of their strengths and weaknesses. Unsurprisingly, the conclusion is that they are more complementary than competing with each other.","PeriodicalId":43816,"journal":{"name":"Materiaux & Techniques","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"MFA vs. LCA, particularly as environment management methods in industry: an opinion\",\"authors\":\"J. Birat\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/MATTECH/2021004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"MFA was born in the 1980s, independently, in various laboratories around the world. On the one hand, Industry was trying then to put numbers on its circular economy practices, while, on the other, Academia endeavored to construct a metaphor of natural ecology (BioGeoChemical Cycles [BGCC]) or of the metabolism of ecosystems to describe the activities of the anthroposphere, especially its material and the energy flows (and stocks). This article briefly reviews the early efforts of Usinor (now ArcelorMittal) in this area, in the framework of a program called “The Cycle of Iron” and points out what it was trying to achieve: basically, analyze and evaluate a true recycling rate (RR) of steel. MFA turned out to be potentially a more powerful tool than ad hoc models of materials circularity too and Industry left the leadership to academic groups to flesh out the new methodology to confront such difficult questions as the evaluation of a RR. Then the article conducts a kind of methodological and epistemological audit of the present status of MFA, positioning it in the wide framework of descriptions of material flows in space and time, and thus picturing it as a competing methodology to LCA. While the former is macro-scale, synchronic, broadly economy-oriented, the latter is micro-scale, diachronic, product and value chain-oriented, while both “report” to different communities, the Industrial Ecology community and the LCA community respectively, and more. Both schools of thoughts have been attending SAM conferences regularly, where they have been reporting their continuous search for new developments and their search for a better sustainability assessment of materials, products, industrial systems and economic activities of all kinds. The various contributions over the first 12 SAM events are analyzed. Finally, MFA and LCA are compared, feature by feature, in terms of the communities they serve and of their strengths and weaknesses. Unsurprisingly, the conclusion is that they are more complementary than competing with each other.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43816,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Materiaux & Techniques\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Materiaux & Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/MATTECH/2021004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Materiaux & Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/MATTECH/2021004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

MFA诞生于20世纪80年代,独立于世界各地的各个实验室。一方面,工业界当时试图用数字来说明其循环经济实践,而另一方面,学术界则努力构建自然生态学(生物地球化学循环[BGCC])或生态系统代谢的隐喻,以描述人类圈的活动,特别是其物质和能量流动(和储量)。本文简要回顾了Usinor(现为ArcelorMittal)在这一领域的早期努力,在一个名为“铁的循环”的计划框架下,并指出它试图实现的目标:基本上,分析和评估钢铁的真正回收率(RR)。事实证明,MFA是一种潜在的比材料循环的特别模型更强大的工具,工业界把领导权留给了学术团体,让他们充实新方法,以应对诸如评估RR这样的难题。然后,本文对MFA的现状进行了一种方法论和认识论的审查,将其定位于描述空间和时间物质流动的广泛框架中,从而将其描绘为与LCA竞争的方法论。前者是宏观尺度、共时性、广义经济导向的,后者是微观尺度、历时性、产品和价值链导向的,两者分别“报告”给不同的社区,分别是工业生态社区和LCA社区等等。这两种思想流派都定期参加SAM会议,在那里他们一直在报告他们对新发展的不断探索,以及对材料、产品、工业系统和各种经济活动的更好的可持续性评估的探索。对前12个SAM事件的各种贡献进行了分析。最后,对MFA和LCA所服务的社区及其优缺点进行逐个特征的比较。不出所料,结论是它们是互补的,而不是相互竞争的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
MFA vs. LCA, particularly as environment management methods in industry: an opinion
MFA was born in the 1980s, independently, in various laboratories around the world. On the one hand, Industry was trying then to put numbers on its circular economy practices, while, on the other, Academia endeavored to construct a metaphor of natural ecology (BioGeoChemical Cycles [BGCC]) or of the metabolism of ecosystems to describe the activities of the anthroposphere, especially its material and the energy flows (and stocks). This article briefly reviews the early efforts of Usinor (now ArcelorMittal) in this area, in the framework of a program called “The Cycle of Iron” and points out what it was trying to achieve: basically, analyze and evaluate a true recycling rate (RR) of steel. MFA turned out to be potentially a more powerful tool than ad hoc models of materials circularity too and Industry left the leadership to academic groups to flesh out the new methodology to confront such difficult questions as the evaluation of a RR. Then the article conducts a kind of methodological and epistemological audit of the present status of MFA, positioning it in the wide framework of descriptions of material flows in space and time, and thus picturing it as a competing methodology to LCA. While the former is macro-scale, synchronic, broadly economy-oriented, the latter is micro-scale, diachronic, product and value chain-oriented, while both “report” to different communities, the Industrial Ecology community and the LCA community respectively, and more. Both schools of thoughts have been attending SAM conferences regularly, where they have been reporting their continuous search for new developments and their search for a better sustainability assessment of materials, products, industrial systems and economic activities of all kinds. The various contributions over the first 12 SAM events are analyzed. Finally, MFA and LCA are compared, feature by feature, in terms of the communities they serve and of their strengths and weaknesses. Unsurprisingly, the conclusion is that they are more complementary than competing with each other.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Materiaux & Techniques
Materiaux & Techniques MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Matériaux & Techniques informs you, through high-quality and peer-reviewed research papers on research and progress in the domain of materials: physical-chemical characterization, implementation, resistance of materials in their environment (properties of use, modelling)... The journal concerns all materials, metals and alloys, nanotechnology, plastics, elastomers, composite materials, glass or ceramics. This journal for materials scientists, chemists, physicists, ceramicists, engineers, metallurgists and students provides 6 issues per year plus a special issue. Each issue, in addition to scientific articles on specialized topics, also contains selected technical news (conference announcements, new products etc.).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信