4.5 Article

Life-Cycle Assessment of Sector-Coupled National Energy Systems: Environmental Impacts of Electricity, Heat, and Transportation in Germany Till 2050

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENERGY RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.621502

关键词

integrated assessment modeling; burden shifting; energy transition; linear programming; life-cycle assessment; design and operation optimization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

National energy models provide decarbonization strategies, but should consider other environmental impacts. Using life-cycle assessment can help evaluate the overall environmental impacts. Targeting high-emission sectors is crucial for deep decarbonization. Renewable energies and energy storage are key technologies for achieving decarbonization.
National energy models provide decarbonization strategies. Most national energy models focus on costs and greenhouse gas emissions only. However, this focus carries the risk that burdens shift to other environmental impacts. Energy models have therefore been extended by life-cycle assessment (LCA). Furthermore, deep decarbonization is only possible by targeting all high-emission sectors. Thus, we present a holistic national energy model that includes high-emission sectors and LCA. The model provides detailed environmental impacts for electricity, heat, and transport processes in Germany for meeting the climate targets up to 2050. Our results show that renewable energies and storage are key technologies for decarbonized energy systems. Furthermore, sector coupling is crucial and doubles electricity demand. Our LCA shows that environmental impacts shift from operation to infrastructure highlighting the importance of an impact assessment over the full life cycle. Decarbonization leads to many environmental cobenefits; however, it also increases freshwater ecotoxicity and depletion of metal and mineral resources. Thus, holistic planning of decarbonization strategies should also consider other environmental impacts.

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

4.5
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