IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v134y2014icp469-476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The hourly life cycle carbon footprint of electricity generation in Belgium, bringing a temporal resolution in life cycle assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Messagie, Maarten
  • Mertens, Jan
  • Oliveira, Luis
  • Rangaraju, Surendraprabu
  • Sanfelix, Javier
  • Coosemans, Thierry
  • Van Mierlo, Joeri
  • Macharis, Cathy

Abstract

In the booming research on the environmental footprint of, for example, electrical vehicles, heat pumps and other (smart) electricity consuming appliances, there is a clear need to know the hourly CO2 content of one kWh of electricity. Since the CO2 footprint of electricity can vary every hour; the footprint of for example an electric vehicle is influenced by the time when the vehicle is charged. With the availability of the hourly CO2 content of one kWh, a decision support tool is provided to fully exploit the advantages of a future smart grid. In this paper, the GWP (Global Warming Potential) per kWh for each hour of the year is calculated for Belgium using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. This enables evaluating the influence of the electricity demand on the greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the LCA approach, the CO2 equivalent content does not only reflect activities related to the production of the electricity within a power plant, but includes carbon emissions related to the building of the infrastructure and the fuel supply chain. The considered feedstocks are nuclear combustible, oil, coal, natural gas, biowaste, blast furnace gas, and wood. Furthermore, renewable electricity production technologies like photovoltaic cells, hydro installations and wind turbines are covered by the research. The production of the wind turbines and solar panels is more carbon intensive (expressed per generated kWh of electricity) than the production of other conventional power plants, due to the lower electricity output. The overall average GWP per kWh is 0.184kg CO2eq/kWh. Throughout the 2011 this value ranges from a minimum of 0.102kg CO2eq/kWh to a maximum of 0.262kg CO2eq/kWh depending on the timing.

Suggested Citation

  • Messagie, Maarten & Mertens, Jan & Oliveira, Luis & Rangaraju, Surendraprabu & Sanfelix, Javier & Coosemans, Thierry & Van Mierlo, Joeri & Macharis, Cathy, 2014. "The hourly life cycle carbon footprint of electricity generation in Belgium, bringing a temporal resolution in life cycle assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 469-476.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:134:y:2014:i:c:p:469-476
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914008824
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.071?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jorge, Raquel S. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2013. "Environmental evaluation of power transmission in Norway," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 513-520.
    2. Rubio Rodríguez, M.A. & Feitó Cespón, M. & De Ruyck, J. & Ocaña Guevara, V.S. & Verma, V.K., 2013. "Life cycle modeling of energy matrix scenarios, Belgian power and partial heat mixes as case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 329-337.
    3. Martínez, E. & Jiménez, E. & Blanco, J. & Sanz, F., 2010. "LCA sensitivity analysis of a multi-megawatt wind turbine," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(7), pages 2293-2303, July.
    4. Jirutitijaroen, Panida & Kim, Sujin & Kittithreerapronchai, Oran & Prina, José, 2013. "An optimization model for natural gas supply portfolios of a power generation company," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Millo, Federico & Rolando, Luciano & Fuso, Rocco & Mallamo, Fabio, 2014. "Real CO2 emissions benefits and end user’s operating costs of a plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 563-571.
    6. Tonini, Davide & Astrup, Thomas, 2012. "LCA of biomass-based energy systems: A case study for Denmark," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 234-246.
    7. Ou, Xunmin & Xiaoyu, Yan & Zhang, Xiliang, 2011. "Life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for electricity generation and supply in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 289-297, January.
    8. Yang, Jin & Chen, Bin, 2014. "Global warming impact assessment of a crop residue gasification project—A dynamic LCA perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 269-279.
    9. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    10. Maarten Messagie & Faycal-Siddikou Boureima & Thierry Coosemans & Cathy Macharis & Joeri Van Mierlo, 2014. "A Range-Based Vehicle Life Cycle Assessment Incorporating Variability in the Environmental Assessment of Different Vehicle Technologies and Fuels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-16, March.
    11. Desideri, U. & Zepparelli, F. & Morettini, V. & Garroni, E., 2013. "Comparative analysis of concentrating solar power and photovoltaic technologies: Technical and environmental evaluations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 765-784.
    12. Weisser, Daniel, 2007. "A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1543-1559.
    13. Tokunaga, Kanae & Konan, Denise Eby, 2014. "Home grown or imported? Biofuels life cycle GHG emissions in electricity generation and transportation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 123-131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Garcia, Rita & Marques, Pedro & Freire, Fausto, 2014. "Life-cycle assessment of electricity in Portugal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 563-572.
    2. Nugent, Daniel & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2014. "Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 229-244.
    3. Ramirez, A.D. & Boero, A. & Rivela, B. & Melendres, A.M. & Espinoza, S. & Salas, D.A., 2020. "Life cycle methods to analyze the environmental sustainability of electricity generation in Ecuador: Is decarbonization the right path?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Ortega-Arriaga, P. & Babacan, O. & Nelson, J. & Gambhir, A., 2021. "Grid versus off-grid electricity access options: A review on the economic and environmental impacts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    5. Yuan, Xinmei & Li, Lili & Gou, Huadong & Dong, Tingting, 2015. "Energy and environmental impact of battery electric vehicle range in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 75-84.
    6. Orfanos, Neoptolemos & Mitzelos, Dimitris & Sagani, Angeliki & Dedoussis, Vassilis, 2019. "Life-cycle environmental performance assessment of electricity generation and transmission systems in Greece," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1447-1462.
    7. Østergaard, P.A. & Lund, H. & Thellufsen, J.Z. & Sorknæs, P. & Mathiesen, B.V., 2022. "Review and validation of EnergyPLAN," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Zhang, Ruirui & Wang, Guiling & Shen, Xiaoxu & Wang, Jinfeng & Tan, Xianfeng & Feng, Shoutao & Hong, Jinglan, 2020. "Is geothermal heating environmentally superior than coal fired heating in China?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    10. Yihsuan Wu & Jian Hua, 2022. "Investigating a Retrofit Thermal Power Plant from a Sustainable Environment Perspective—A Fuel Lifecycle Assessment Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-26, April.
    11. Ozcan, Mustafa, 2016. "Estimation of Turkey׳s GHG emissions from electricity generation by fuel types," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 832-840.
    12. Xue-Ting Jiang & Rongrong Li, 2017. "Decoupling and Decomposition Analysis of Carbon Emissions from Electric Output in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Kaldellis, John K. & Zafirakis, D., 2011. "The wind energy (r)evolution: A short review of a long history," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1887-1901.
    14. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    15. Wang, Changbo & Zhang, Lixiao & Chang, Yuan & Pang, Mingyue, 2021. "Energy return on investment (EROI) of biomass conversion systems in China: Meta-analysis focused on system boundary unification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    16. Jenniches, Simon & Worrell, Ernst & Fumagalli, Elena, 2019. "Regional economic and environmental impacts of wind power developments: A case study of a German region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 499-514.
    17. Siqin Xiong & Junping Ji & Xiaoming Ma, 2019. "Comparative Life Cycle Energy and GHG Emission Analysis for BEVs and PhEVs: A Case Study in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, March.
    18. Coilín ÓhAiseadha & Gerré Quinn & Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly & Willie Soon, 2020. "Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-49, September.
    19. Jorge, Raquel S. & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2013. "Environmental evaluation of power transmission in Norway," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 513-520.
    20. Scarlat, Nicolae & Prussi, Matteo & Padella, Monica, 2022. "Quantification of the carbon intensity of electricity produced and used in Europe," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:134:y:2014:i:c:p:469-476. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.