4.8 Review

Comparative Assessment of Models and Methods To Calculate Grid Electricity Emissions

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 17, Pages 8937-8953

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05216

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United States-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) on Clean Vehicles - U.S. Department of Energy [DE-PI0000012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to the complexity of power systems, tracking emissions attributable to a specific electrical load is a daunting challenge but essential for many environmental impact studies. Currently, no consensus exists on appropriate methods for quantifying emissions from particular electricity loads. This paper reviews a wide range of the existing methods, detailing their functionality, tractability, and appropriate use. We identified and reviewed 32 methods and models and classified them into two distinct categories: empirical data and relationship models and power system optimization models. To illustrate the impact of method selection, we calculate the CO2 combustion emissions factors associated with electric-vehicle charging using 10 methods at nine charging station locations around the United States. Across the methods, we found an up to 68% difference from the mean CO2 emissions factor for a given charging site among both marginal and average emissions factors and up to a 63% difference from the average across average emissions factors. Our results underscore the importance of method selection and the need for a consensus on approaches appropriate for particular loads and research questions being addressed in order to achieve results that are more consistent across studies and allow for soundly supported policy decisions. The paper addresses this issue by offering a set of recommendations for determining an appropriate model type on the basis of the load characteristics and study objectives.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available