4.5 Article

Life Cycle Performance of Various Energy Sources Used in the Czech Republic

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 13, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en13215833

关键词

life cycle assessment; electricity generation; environmental performance; environmental impacts

资金

  1. Technology Agency of the Czech Republic [TH03020169]
  2. specific university research (MSMT) [21-SVV/2019]
  3. CTU UCEEB [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000464]
  4. project Innovative and additive manufacturing technology-New technological solutions for 3D printing of metals and composite materials - European Regional Development Fund [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17_049/0008407]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As both the human population and living standards grow, so does the worldwide electricity demand. However, the power sector is also one of the biggest environmental polluters. Therefore, options are currently being sought aimed at reducing environmental impacts, one of the potential tools for which concerns the use of life cycle assessment. This study, therefore, focuses on the most commonly used nonrenewable (black coal, lignite, natural gas and nuclear) and renewable sources (wind, hydro and photovoltaic) in the Czech Republic in terms of their construction, operation, and decommissioning periods. Environmental impacts are assessed via the use of selected impact categories by way of product environmental footprint methodology. The results highlight the potential environmental impacts associated with electricity generation for each of the primary energy sources. Black coal and lignite power plants were found to contribute most to the global warming, resource use, energy carriers and respiratory inorganics categories. On the other hand, the impact on water depletion and resource use, mineral and metals categories were found to be most significantly affected by the production of electricity from photovoltaic power plants. Finally, it is proposed that the results be employed to design scenarios for the future energy mix.

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