Low-Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production ...€¦ · Exampel Wind Power: LCA review Small...
12
Low-Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production: Environmental benefits, risks, and trade-offs Edgar Hertwich Norwegian University of Science & Technology Brussels, 5 June 2013
Transcript of Low-Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production ...€¦ · Exampel Wind Power: LCA review Small...
Low-Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production:
Environmental benefits, risks, and trade-offs
Edgar Hertwich
Norwegian University of Science & Technology
Brussels, 5 June 2013
Issue Massive investments in new energy technologies are required to achieve climate technology objectives Technologies interact – especially supply and demand. Technologies may have unforeseen consequences on the ecosystems, human health or resources Fast decisions are required.
The chosen technologies may not be optimal for achieving their objective.
Objectives • Understand the resource requirements and
potential ecological impacts of low-carbon electricity supply technologies
• Identify potential show-stoppers, pitfalls, opportunities to avoid impacts
• Identify potential co-benefits • “Due diligence”
Resource Panel Study • Experts recruited to cover
– Coal and gas with and w/o CCS – Hydro, wind, geothermal power – Solar power (PV and Concentrating thermal)
• Review, assessment and data provision • Integrated, comparative life cycle modeling and
assessment
Contributors • Photovoltaics
– Joe Bergerson – Shi Lei – Garvin Heath – Patrick O’Donoughue
• Concentrating solar power – Mathieu Saurat – Pallav Purohit – Peter Viebahn – Garvin Heath
• Hydropower – Edgar Hertwich
– Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya – Claudia Peña – Haiying Li – Atle Harby
• Geothermal – Peter Bayer – Ladislaus Rybach
• Fossil fuels and CCS – Andrea Ramírez – Bhavik Bakshi – Takeshi Kuramochi – Joule Bergerson
– Heather McLean – Yu Qian – Evert Bouman – Mike Griffin
• Wind – Anders Arvesen – Wang Zhongying
• Grid – Jan Weinzettel – Edgar Hertwich – Evert Bouman
Example Windpower: LCA review Studies published since 2000 were reviewed and compared in terms of systems analysed, approach, and results. Important variables identified: size, capacity factor, system boundary.
Source: Arvesen, A.; Hertwich, E. G., 2012
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Figure 5.12. Stressor and impact indicator results by 5 wind power system categories and 11 impact categories. Box: range from first to third quartile; Horizontal bar within box: median value; Blue diamond: mean value; Upper and lower fences (whiskers): minimum and maximum values. ‘S’ means small wind turbine (< 100 kW) at onshore site; ‘M’ means medium wind turbine (100 kW - 1 MW) at onshore site; ‘L’ means large wind turbine (> 1 MW) at onshore site; ‘Offs’ means offshore wind power (any wind turbine size); ‘Tot’ denotes total sample. Ns = Number of studies; Ne = Number of estimates. Ne > Ns if more than one estimate was surveyed from one study. In some cases, the total sample size slightly exceeds the sum of the shown sub-sample sizes; this is because estimates for wind farm portfolios were not assigned a specific wind power system type, but were included in the total sample. If Ns < 5, interquartile ranges (boxes) are not shown; If Ne = 1, the one value is shown as a blue diamond. Energy indicator value refers to the energy intensity, i.e. the ratio between total life cycle energy demand and electricity generated over the lifetime. Chemical formulas and abbreviations: GHG = Greenhouse gases; CO2 = Carbon dioxide; CH4 = Methane; CO = Carbon monoxide; NH3 = Ammonia; NMVOC = Non-methane volatile organic compounds; N2O = Nitrous oxide; NOx = Mono-nitrogen oxides; SO2 = Sulfur oxides. Numerical results in tabulated form are available in the supplementary information.
Exampel Wind Power: LCA review
Small plants S (<100kW) have higher energy requirements and GHG emissions than bigger plants; offshore has slightly higher than large onshore. Differences in cases and LCA methods.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Average GHG Onshore: 20 (±10) g CO2e/kWh Offshore: 16 (±10) g CO2e/kWh
Example Wind power: Own Inventory Assessed in Different Region& Times
CN IN EU NA PAC EIT LA AS AME2010 14,5 13,4 9,0 12,1 11,8 11,3 10,4 12,2 12,22030 8,0 7,0 5,0 6,1 5,5 6,0 5,7 6,9 6,22050 5,7 4,8 4,5 5,1 4,6 4,9 4,8 4,8 4,9
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
16,0
Regional comparison: impact of the production of electricity for an onshore conventional windfarm on climate change, in g CO₂ eq./kWh
gCO
2e/k
Wh
China India Latin America
Other Asia
Africa + MidEast
Europe North America
Pacific Economies in
Transition
Example Wind Power: Site-specific ecological impacts
Collision fatalities for birds and bats • Observed fatality rates (IPCC 2011)
– Birds: 1-12 deaths per MW per year
– Bats: 0-53 deaths per MW per year
• Fatality varies – species type, site characteristics,
turbine design, weather, season, …
• Raptors • Bats
– Attracted by wind turbines (birds are not)
– May be susceptible to depressurization injuries (birds are not)
– May be worth ~20 billion dollars annually to North American agriculture (Boyles et al. 2011)
Sources: Boyles et al. 2011, IPCC 2011, Arnett et al. 2008 , Willis et al. 2010
Case Study Wind Power: White-tailed eagles at Smøla
• Smøla wind farm, Norway
– 68 turbines, 150 MW
• Recorded death rate – 7.8 eagles annually on average – > 50% total (detectable) mortality
• But: population size stable
Source: May et al. 2012 [NINA report] Photo: Espen Lie Dahl
Technology Comparison RE: very low GHG; challenge of variable production NG: problems with fugitive emissions CCS: substantial emission reduction especially for coal Feedback of the penetration of clean technologies: lower emissions for the production of clean technologies. Effect on materials, other pollution
categories will be presented in the report.
050
100150200250300350400
2010
2050
2010
2050
2010
2050
2010
2050
2010
2050
2010
2050
2010
2050
CSP PV Hydro Wind Nuclear Coal -CCS
Naturalgas CCS
gCO
2e/k
Wh
Heavy Air Pollution Reductions Emissions per kWh Wind <<Gas<Coal But higher demand for steel, cement and copper. Throughput replaced by stock of materials.
1E-2
1E-1
1E+0
1E+1Climate change
Particulates
Freshwaterecotoxicity
Eutrophication
Al
Cu
Fe
Cement
Onshore wind
Offshore wind
NGCC with CCS
Coal
