4.5 Article

Greenhouse impact due to the use of combustible fuels: Life cycle viewpoint and relative radiative forcing commitment

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 458-469

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9145-z

关键词

greenhouse impact; emission analysis; radiative forcing; energy sources; fuels

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [11964]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extensive information on the greenhouse impacts of various human actions is important in developing effective climate change mitigation strategies. The greenhouse impacts of combustible fuels consist not only of combustion emissions but also of emissions from the fuel production chain and possible effects on the ecosystem carbon storages. It is important to be able to assess the combined, total effect of these different emissions and to express the results in a comprehensive way. In this study, a new concept called relative radiative forcing commitment (RRFC) is presented and applied to depict the greenhouse impact of some combustible fuels currently used in Finland. RRFC is a ratio that accounts for the energy absorbed in the Earth system due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (production and combustion of fuel) compared to the energy released in the combustion of fuel. RRFC can also be expressed as a function of time in order to give a dynamic cumulative picture on the caused effect. Varying time horizons can be studied separately, as is the case when studying the effects of different climate policies on varying time scales. The RRFC for coal for 100 years is about 170, which means that in 100 years 170 times more energy is absorbed in the atmosphere due to the emissions of coal combustion activity than is released in combustion itself. RRFC values of the other studied fuel production chains varied from about 30 (forest residues fuel) to 190 (peat fuel) for the 100-year study period. The length of the studied time horizon had an impact on the RRFC values and, to some extent, on the relative positions of various fuels.

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