An approach to prospective consequential life cycle assessment and net energy analysis of distributed electricity generation

Increasing distributed renewable electricity generation is one of a number of technology pathways available to policy makers to meet environmental and other sustainability goals. Determining the efficacy of such a pathway for a national electricity system implies evaluating whole system change in future scenarios. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and net energy analysis (NEA) are two methodologies suitable for prospective and consequential analysis of energy performance and associated impacts. This paper discusses the benefits and limitations of prospective and consequential LCA and NEA analysis of distributed generation. It concludes that a combined LCA and NEA approach is a valuable tool for decision makers if a number of recommendations are addressed. Static and dynamic temporal allocation are both needed for a fair comparison of distributed renewables with thermal power stations to account for their different impact profiles over time. The trade-offs between comprehensiveness and uncertainty in consequential analysis should be acknowledged, with system boundary expansion and system simulation models limited to those clearly justified by the research goal. The results of this approach are explorative, rather than for accounting purposes; this interpretive remit, and the assumptions in scenarios and system models on which results are contingent, must be clear to end users.

[1]  Vasilis Fthenakis,et al.  The Energy and Environmental Performance of Ground-Mounted Photovoltaic Systems—A Timely Update , 2016 .

[2]  G. Heath,et al.  Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generated from Conventionally Produced Natural Gas , 2014 .

[3]  J. M. Earles,et al.  Consequential life cycle assessment: a review , 2011 .

[4]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey , 2008 .

[5]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Framework for scenario development in LCA , 2000 .

[6]  Sanna Syri,et al.  Heat pumps versus combined heat and power production as CO2 reduction measures in Finland , 2013 .

[7]  Gerald Leach,et al.  Net energy analysis — is it any use? , 1975 .

[8]  Geoffrey P. Hammond,et al.  The prospects for coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage: A UK perspective , 2014 .

[9]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  Wind Power as a Case Study , 2012 .

[10]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  More caution is needed when using life cycle assessment to determine energy return on investment (EROI) , 2015 .

[11]  Damian Flynn,et al.  Emissions from cycling of thermal power plants in electricity systems with high penetration of wind power: Life cycle assessment for Ireland , 2014 .

[12]  Chris Jones,et al.  Analysing Stakeholder-Informed Scenarios of High PV Deployment for a Low-Carbon Electricity Grid in the UK: A Consequential LCA Approach , 2014 .

[13]  Kaspar Knorr,et al.  Benefits of photovoltaic power in supplying national electricity demand , 2013 .

[14]  T. Ekvall Cleaner production tools: LCA and beyond , 2002 .

[15]  M. Karlström,et al.  Positive and negative feedback in consequential life-cycle assessment , 2007 .

[16]  N. Shah,et al.  The greenhouse gas emissions performance of cellulosic ethanol supply chains in Europe , 2009, Biotechnology for biofuels.

[17]  G. Heath,et al.  Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation , 2012 .

[18]  B. Rugani,et al.  Combination of equilibrium models and hybrid life cycle-input–output analysis to predict the environmental impacts of energy policy scenarios , 2015 .

[19]  Antonio Colmenar-Santos,et al.  Distributed generation: The definitive boost for renewable energy in Spain , 2013 .

[20]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Cumulative energy demand in LCA: the energy harvested approach , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[21]  G. Heath,et al.  Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility‐Scale Wind Power , 2012 .

[22]  Vasilis Fthenakis,et al.  Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’ – Making clear of quite some confusion” , 2013 .

[23]  Cutler J. Cleveland,et al.  Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S. , 1992 .

[24]  J. Kiviluoma,et al.  The complexity and challenges of determining GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from grid electricity consumption and conservation in LCA (life cycle assessment) – A methodological review , 2011 .

[25]  F. Creutzig,et al.  Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers , 2014 .

[26]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[27]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey , 2014 .

[28]  S. Suh,et al.  On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[29]  Seungdo Kim,et al.  Can the Predictions of Consequential Life Cycle Assessment Be Tested in the Real World? Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation...” , 2014 .

[30]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Methodological review of UK and international low carbon scenarios , 2010 .

[31]  A. Hawkes Estimating marginal CO2 emissions rates for national electricity systems , 2010 .

[32]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production , 2008 .

[33]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis , 2004 .

[34]  Marco Raugei,et al.  A comprehensive assessment of the energy performance of the full range of electricity generation technologies deployed in the United Kingdom , 2016 .

[35]  Martin Pehnt,et al.  Consequential environmental system analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in Germany , 2008 .

[36]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Lights and shadows in consequential LCA , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[37]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Einstein’ssons for energy accounting in LCA , 1998 .

[38]  J. Hertin,et al.  Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as ‘learning machines’ , 2002 .

[39]  Sally M. Benson,et al.  Can we afford storage? A dynamic net energy analysis of renewable electricity generation supported by energy storage , 2014 .

[40]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  The critical review of life cycle assessment studies according to ISO 14040 and 14044 , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[41]  Jacinto F. Fabiosa,et al.  Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change , 2008, Science.

[42]  Vasilis Fthenakis,et al.  Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of Solar PV: An Attempt at Reconciliation [Point of View] , 2015, Proc. IEEE.

[43]  R. Herendeen,et al.  Gasohol: Does It or Doesn't It Produce Positive Net Energy? , 1979, Science.