4.6 Review

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility-Scale Wind Power

期刊

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 S136-S154

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x

关键词

greenhouse gas emissions; industrial ecology; life cycle assessment; meta-analysis; renewable energy; wind energy

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic review and harmonization of life cycle assessment (LCA) literature of utility-scale wind power systems was performed to determine the causes of and, where possible, reduce variability in estimates of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Screening of approximately 240 LCAs of onshore and offshore systems yielded 72 references meeting minimum thresholds for quality, transparency, and relevance. Of those, 49 references provided 126 estimates of life cycle GHG emissions. Published estimates ranged from 1.7 to 81 grams CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO2-eq/kWh), with median and interquartile range (IQR) both at 12 g CO2-eq/kWh. After adjusting the published estimates to use consistent gross system boundaries and values for several important system parameters, the total range was reduced by 47% to 3.0 to 45 g CO2-eq/kWh and the IQR was reduced by 14% to 10 g CO2-eq/kWh, while the median remained relatively constant (11 g CO2-eq/kWh). Harmonization of capacity factor resulted in the largest reduction in variability in life cycle GHG emission estimates. This study concludes that the large number of previously published life cycle GHG emission estimates of wind power systems and their tight distribution suggest that new process-based LCAs of similar wind turbine technologies are unlikely to differ greatly. However, additional consequential LCAs would enhance the understanding of true life cycle GHG emissions of wind power (e.g., changes to other generators operations when wind electricity is added to the grid), although even those are unlikely to fundamentally change the comparison of wind to other electricity generation sources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据