4.7 Article

Influence of climate change externalities on the sustainability-oriented prioritisation of prospective energy scenarios

期刊

ENERGY
卷 196, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117179

关键词

Climate change; Data envelopment analysis; Electricity; Energy systems modelling; Externalities; Life cycle assessment

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness [ENE2015-74607-JIN AEI/FEDER/UE]
  2. FCT/MCTES [UID/AMB/50017/2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The implementation of externalities in energy policies is a potential measure for sustainability-oriented energy planning. Furthermore, decisions on energy policies and plans should be based on the analysis of a number of potential energy scenarios, considering the evolution of key techno-economic and life-cycle sustainability indicators. The joint interpretation of these multiple criteria should drive the choice of appropriate decisions for energy planning. Within this context, this work proposes -for the first time-the combined use of Life Cycle Assessment, externalities calculation, Energy Systems Modelling and dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis to prioritise prospective energy scenarios. For demonstration and illustrative purposes, the application of this methodological framework to the case study of electricity production in Spain leads to quantitatively discriminate between 15 prospective energy scenarios by taking into account the life-cycle profile of the transformation path of the power generation system with time horizon 2050. When compared to the application of the framework without implementation of external costs, the internalisation of climate change externalities is found to affect the ranking of energy scenarios but still showing the rejection of those scenarios based on the lifetime extension of coal power plants, as well as the preference for those scenarios leading to a high penetration of renewable technologies. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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