4.6 Article

Variability in greenhouse gas footprints of the global wind farm fleet

期刊

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 272-282

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13325

关键词

greenhouse gas footprint; life-cycle industrial ecology; spatio-temporal variability; technological variability; wind turbine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By combining technological parameters, life-cycle inventory data, and meteorological information, we quantified the greenhouse gas footprint of wind farms globally. Our results indicate a median GHG footprint of 10 g CO(2)eq/kWh for global wind electricity, with a range of 4 to 56 g CO(2)eq/kWh.
While technological characteristics largely determine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the construction of a wind farm and meteorological circumstances the actual electricity production, a thorough analysis to quantify the GHG footprint variability (in g CO(2)eq/kWh electricity produced) between wind farms is still lacking at the global scale. Here, we quantified the GHG footprint of 26,821 wind farms located across the globe, combining turbine-specific technological parameters, life-cycle inventory data, and location- and temporal-specific meteorological information. These wind farms represent 79% of the 651 global wind (GW) capacity installed in 2019. Our results indicate a median GHG footprint for global wind electricity of 10 g CO(2)eq/kWh, ranging from 4 to 56 g CO(2)eq/kWh (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles). Differences in the GHG footprint of wind farms are mainly explained by spatial variability in wind speed, followed by whether the wind farm is located onshore or offshore, the turbine diameter, and the number of turbines in a wind farm. We also provided a metamodel based on these four predictors for users to be able to easily obtain a first indication of GHG footprints of new wind farms considered. Our results can be used to compare the GHG footprint of wind farms to one another and to other sources of electricity in a location-specific manner.

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