IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v63y2013icp283-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How methodological issues affect the energy indicator results for different electricity generation technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Modahl, Ingunn Saur
  • Raadal, Hanne Lerche
  • Gagnon, Luc
  • Bakken, Tor Haakon

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to improve the basis for the comparison of energy products. The paper will discuss important methodological issues with regard to various energy indicators and it will, by means of a few selected energy indicators, show examples of results for hydropower, wind power and electricity from biomass, gas and coal. Lastly it will suggest methods to achieve results which are more consistent when comparing electricity production technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Modahl, Ingunn Saur & Raadal, Hanne Lerche & Gagnon, Luc & Bakken, Tor Haakon, 2013. "How methodological issues affect the energy indicator results for different electricity generation technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 283-299.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:63:y:2013:i:c:p:283-299
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009294
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.005?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. Iribarren, Diego & Petrakopoulou, Fontina & Dufour, Javier, 2013. "Environmental and thermodynamic evaluation of CO2 capture, transport and storage with and without enhanced resource recovery," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 477-485.
    2. Lenzen, Manfred & Munksgaard, Jesper, 2002. "Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines—review and applications," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 339-362.
    3. Voorspools, Kris R. & Brouwers, Els A. & D'haeseleer, William D., 2000. "Energy content and indirect greenhouse gas emissions embedded in [`]emission-free' power plants: results for the Low Countries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 307-330, November.
    4. Lucas, Alexandre & Alexandra Silva, Carla & Costa Neto, Rui, 2012. "Life cycle analysis of energy supply infrastructure for conventional and electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 537-547.
    5. Gagnon, Luc & Belanger, Camille & Uchiyama, Yohji, 2002. "Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: The status of research in year 2001," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(14), pages 1267-1278, November.
    6. Crawford, R.H., 2009. "Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2653-2660, December.
    7. Gagnon, Luc, 2008. "Civilisation and energy payback," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 3317-3322, September.
    8. Schleisner, L, 2000. "Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 279-288.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arvesen, Anders & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2015. "More caution is needed when using life cycle assessment to determine energy return on investment (EROI)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-6.
    2. Victor Court, 2019. "An Estimation of Different Minimum Exergy Return Ratios Required for Society," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 1-13, September.
    3. King, Carey W., 2014. "Matrix method for comparing system and individual energy return ratios when considering an energy transition," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 254-265.
    4. Ionica Oncioiu & Anca Gabriela Petrescu & Eugenia Grecu & Marius Petrescu, 2017. "Optimizing the Renewable Energy Potential: Myth or Future Trend in Romania," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Zhong-Hua Tian & Ze-Liang Yang, 2016. "Scenarios of Carbon Emissions from the Power Sector in Guangdong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-14, August.
    6. Graham Palmer, 2017. "Energetic Implications of a Post-industrial Information Economy: The Case Study of Australia," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 1-9, June.
    7. Carey W. King, 2016. "Information Theory to Assess Relations Between Energy and Structure of the U.S. Economy Over Time," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 1-33, December.
    8. Carey W. King & John P. Maxwell & Alyssa Donovan, 2015. "Comparing World Economic and Net Energy Metrics, Part 2: Total Economy Expenditure Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-22, November.
    9. Victor Court & Fizaine Floriane, 2023. "EROI Minimum et Croissance Economique," Working Papers hal-04087776, HAL.
    10. Carey W. King & John P. Maxwell & Alyssa Donovan, 2015. "Comparing World Economic and Net Energy Metrics, Part 1: Single Technology and Commodity Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-26, November.
    11. Ola Eriksson, 2017. "Nuclear Power and Resource Efficiency—A Proposal for a Revised Primary Energy Factor," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-10, June.

    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. Raadal, Hanne Lerche & Gagnon, Luc & Modahl, Ingunn Saur & Hanssen, Ole Jørgen, 2011. "Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(7), pages 3417-3422, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Evans, Annette & Strezov, Vladimir & Evans, Tim J., 2009. "Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 1082-1088, June.
    4. Arvesen, Anders & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2012. "Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind power: A review of present knowledge and research needs," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5994-6006.
    5. 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.
    6. Khan, Faisal I. & Hawboldt, Kelly & Iqbal, M.T., 2005. "Life Cycle Analysis of wind–fuel cell integrated system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 157-177.
    7. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Niklas Andersen & Ola Eriksson & Karl Hillman & Marita Wallhagen, 2016. "Wind Turbines’ End-of-Life: Quantification and Characterisation of Future Waste Materials on a National Level," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    9. Marimuthu, C. & Kirubakaran, V., 2013. "Carbon pay back period for solar and wind energy project installed in India: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 80-90.
    10. Kabir, Md Ruhul & Rooke, Braden & Dassanayake, G.D. Malinga & Fleck, Brian A., 2012. "Comparative life cycle energy, emission, and economic analysis of 100 kW nameplate wind power generation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 133-141.
    11. Tariq Muneer & Rory Dowell, 2022. "Potential for renewable energy–assisted harvesting of potatoes in Scotland [Energy supply, its demands and security issues for developed and emerging economies]," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 17, pages 469-481.
    12. Savino, Matteo M. & Manzini, Riccardo & Della Selva, Vincenzo & Accorsi, Riccardo, 2017. "A new model for environmental and economic evaluation of renewable energy systems: The case of wind turbines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 739-752.
    13. Song, Cuihong & Gardner, Kevin H. & Klein, Sharon J.W. & Souza, Simone Pereira & Mo, Weiwei, 2018. "Cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions from dams in the United States of America," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 945-956.
    14. Feng, Kuishuang & Hubacek, Klaus & Siu, Yim Ling & Li, Xin, 2014. "The energy and water nexus in Chinese electricity production: A hybrid life cycle analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 342-355.
    15. Enevoldsen, Peter, 2016. "Onshore wind energy in Northern European forests: Reviewing the risks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1251-1262.
    16. Lombardi, Lidia & Mendecka, Barbara & Carnevale, Ennio & Stanek, Wojciech, 2018. "Environmental impacts of electricity production of micro wind turbines with vertical axis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(PB), pages 553-564.
    17. Amponsah, Nana Yaw & Troldborg, Mads & Kington, Bethany & Aalders, Inge & Hough, Rupert Lloyd, 2014. "Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources: A review of lifecycle considerations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 461-475.
    18. Mendecka, Barbara & Lombardi, Lidia, 2019. "Life cycle environmental impacts of wind energy technologies: A review of simplified models and harmonization of the results," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 462-480.
    19. Yang, Q. & Chen, G.Q. & Liao, S. & Zhao, Y.H. & Peng, H.W. & Chen, H.P., 2013. "Environmental sustainability of wind power: An emergy analysis of a Chinese wind farm," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 229-239.
    20. C. Oliveira Henriques & S. Sousa, 2023. "A Review on Economic Input-Output Analysis in the Environmental Assessment of Electricity Generation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-26, March.

    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:enepol:v:63:y:2013:i:c:p:283-299. 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/locate/enpol .

    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.