Can distributed generation offer substantial benefits in a Northeastern American context? A case study of small-scale renewable technologies using a life cycle methodology

Renewable distributed electricity generation can play a significant role in meeting today's energy policy goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy security, while adding supply to meet increasing energy demand. However, the exact potential benefits are still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to evaluate the life cycle implications (environmental, economic and energy) of distributed generation (DG) technologies. A complementary objective is to compare the life cycle implications of DG technologies with the centralized electricity production representing the Northeastern American context. Environmental and energy implications are modeled according to the recommendations in the ISO 14040 standard and this, using different indicators: Human Health; Ecosystem Quality; Climate Change; Resources and Non-Renewable Energy Payback Ratio. Distinctly, economic implications are modeled using conventional life cycle costing. DG technologies include two types of grid-connected photovoltaic panels (3Â kWp mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline) and three types of micro-wind turbines (1, 10 and 30Â kW) modeled for average, below average and above average climatic conditions in the province of Quebec (Canada). A sensitivity analysis was also performed using different scenarios of centralized energy systems based on average and marginal (short- and long-term) technology approaches. Results show the following. First, climatic conditions (i.e., geographic location) have a significant effect on the results for the environmental, economic and energy indicators. More specifically, it was shown that the 30Â kW micro-wind turbine is the best technology for above average conditions, while 3Â kWp poly-crystalline photovoltaic panels are preferable for below average conditions. Second, the assessed DG technologies do not show benefits in comparison to the centralized Quebec grid mix (average technology approach). On the other hand, the 30Â kW micro-wind turbine shows a potential benefit as long as the Northeastern American electricity market is considered (i.e., oil and coal centralized technologies are affected for the short- and long-term marginal scenarios, respectively). Photovoltaic panels could also become more competitive if the acquisition cost decreased. In conclusion, DG utilization will represent an improvement over centralized electricity production in a Northeastern American context, with respect to the environmental, energy and economic indicators assessed, and under the appropriate conditions discussed (i.e., geographical locations and affected centralized electricity production scenarios).

[1]  Annette Evans,et al.  Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies , 2009 .

[2]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  A world with CO2 caps , 2008 .

[3]  Varun,et al.  LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems—A review , 2009 .

[4]  R. Kannan,et al.  Life cycle assessment study of solar PV systems: An example of a 2.7 kWp distributed solar PV system in Singapore , 2006 .

[5]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories , 1999 .

[6]  Geoffrey P. Hammond,et al.  Integrated appraisal of micro-generators: methods and applications , 2008 .

[7]  P Balachandra,et al.  Grid-connected versus stand-alone energy systems for decentralized power—A review of literature , 2009 .

[8]  Patrick James,et al.  Urban energy generation: Influence of micro-wind turbine output on electricity consumption in buildings , 2007 .

[9]  David Hunkeler,et al.  Environmental Life Cycle Costing , 2008 .

[10]  Varun,et al.  Life cycle assessment of solar PV based electricity generation systems: A review , 2010 .

[11]  Ravi Prakash,et al.  Energy, economics and environmental impacts of renewable energy systems , 2009 .

[12]  J. Munksgaard,et al.  Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines—review and applications , 2002 .

[13]  Marco Raugei,et al.  Life cycle impacts and costs of photovoltaic systems: Current state of the art and future outlooks , 2009 .

[14]  Brian Vad Mathiesen,et al.  Uncertainties related to the identification of the marginal energy technology in consequential life cycle assessments , 2009 .

[15]  Dirk Gürzenich,et al.  Cumulative energy demand and cumulative emissions of photovoltaics production in Europe , 2004 .

[16]  Roberto Dones,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies: Case Studies for Photovoltaic and Wind Power (11 pp) , 2005 .

[17]  Jyotirmay Mathur,et al.  Cumulative energy demand for selected renewable energy technologies , 1999 .

[18]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a systems perspective , 2012 .

[19]  Nalanie Mithraratne,et al.  Roof-top wind turbines for microgeneration in urban houses in New Zealand , 2009 .

[20]  Francis Meunier,et al.  Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind turbines , 2009 .

[21]  Brian A. Fleck,et al.  Comparative life-cycle assessment of a small wind turbine for residential off-grid use , 2009 .

[22]  Yohji Uchiyama,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001 , 2002 .

[23]  Vasilis Fthenakis,et al.  Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis , 2009 .

[24]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .

[25]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Life-cycle assessment for energy analysis and management , 2007 .

[26]  Philippe Morin,et al.  Economic and environmental assessment on the energetic valorization of organic material for a municipality in Quebec, Canada , 2010 .

[27]  Edris Pouresmaeil,et al.  Distributed energy resources and benefits to the environment , 2010 .

[28]  R. Dufo-López,et al.  Economical and environmental analysis of grid connected photovoltaic systems in Spain , 2006 .