4.8 Review

Prospective life cycle assessment of the Spanish electricity production

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 21-34

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.045

关键词

Prospective LCA; Energy optimisation model; Electricity mix; Softlinldng; Human health; Impacts

资金

  1. EEA/NILS Science and Sustainability programme [006/ABEL-CM-2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a set of prospective LCA studies of electricity production technologies of the Spanish mix from 2014 to 2050. The projection of the power system has been done by using the TIMES-Spain energy model, in which two prospective scenarios have been implemented, a Business as Usual (BaU) and other with a target of 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 with respect to 2005 levels. Accordingly, projections of ten LCA impact categories have been obtained. Concerning the evolution of the electricity mix, the coal power plants retirement by 2020 has been observed in both scenarios. The main differences befall on the natural gas contribution, higher in the BaU scenario than in 80% scenario and connected to the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants usage. In addition, LCA categories selected show overall reductions in the long term reaching from 21% in Ozone Depletion to 85% in Acidification in the BaU scenario, and from 56% in Ecosystems to 87% in Acidification in the 80% scenario. However, Abiotic Depletion potential grows up to 5-times by 2050 due to the metal requirements of the solar photovoltaic technologies, significantly present in the mix. Likewise, the analysis of the endpoint categories (Human Health and Ecosystems) concludes that their evolution is much affected by the presence of the natural gas CHP5 and, furthermore, existing fossil options are the main cause of damage by far. Hence a fossil-renewable transition is needed in terms of sustainability. In summary, it is recommended to use energy systems modelling frameworks to develop comprehensive prospective LCA studies.

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

4.8
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