4.7 Article

Electricity generation technologies: Comparison of materials use, energy return on investment, jobs creation and CO2 emissions reduction

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 144-157

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.033

关键词

Electricity technology comparison; Net electricity; Electricity generation supply chain; Electricity generation jobs; Electricity generation greenhouse gas emissions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shifting to a low-carbon electricity future requires up-to-date information on the energetic, environmental and socio-economic performance of technologies. Here, we present a novel comprehensive bottom-up process chain framework that is applied to 19 electricity generation technologies, consistently incorporating 12 life-cycle phases from extraction to decommissioning. For each life-cycle phase of each technology the following 4 key metrics were assessed: material consumption, energy return ratios, job requirements and greenhouse gas emissions. We also calculate a novel global electricity to grid average for these metrics and present a metric variability analysis by altering transport distance, load factors, efficiency, and fuel density per technology. This work quantitatively supports model-to-policy frameworks that drive technology selection and investment based on energetic-economic viability, job creation and carbon emission reduction of technologies. The results suggest energetic-economic infeasibility of electricity generation networks with substantial shares of: i) liquefied natural gas transport, ii) long distance transport based hard and brown coal and pipeline natural gas, and iii) low-load factor solar-photovoltaic, concentrated solar power, onshore and offshore wind. Direct sector jobs can be expected to double in renewable-majority scenarios. All combustion-powered technologies without natural (bio-mass) or artificial carbon capture (fossil fuels) are not compatible with a low carbon electricity generation future.

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