IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v86y2015icp335-343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life-cycle comparison of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption for coal and shale gas fired power generation in China

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Yuan
  • Huang, Runze
  • Ries, Robert J.
  • Masanet, Eric

Abstract

China has the world's largest shale gas reserves, which might enable it to pursue a new pathway for electricity generation. This study employed hybrid LCI (life cycle inventory) models to quantify the ETW (extraction-to-wire) GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and water consumption per kWh of coal- and shale gas-fired electricity in China. Results suggest that a coal-to-shale gas shift and upgrading coal-fired power generation technologies could provide pathways to less GHG and water intensive power in China. Compared to different coal-fired generation technologies, the ETW GHG emissions intensity of gas-fired CC (combined cycle) technology is 530 g CO2e/kWh, which is 38–45% less than China's present coal-fired electricity. Gas-fired CT (combustion turbine) technology has the lowest ETW water consumption intensity at 960 g/kWh, which is 34–60% lower than China's present coal-fired electricity. The GHG-water tradeoff of the two gas-fired power generation technologies suggests that gas-fired power generation technologies should be selected based on regional-specific water resource availabilities and electricity demand fluctuations in China. However, the low price of coal-fired electricity, high cost of shale gas production, insufficient pipeline infrastructures, and multiple consumers of shale gas resources may serve as barriers to a coal-to-shale gas shift in China's power sector in the near term.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang, Yuan & Huang, Runze & Ries, Robert J. & Masanet, Eric, 2015. "Life-cycle comparison of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption for coal and shale gas fired power generation in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 335-343.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:86:y:2015:i:c:p:335-343
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544215004880
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.034?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. Chang, Yuan & Ries, Robert J. & Wang, Yaowu, 2011. "The quantification of the embodied impacts of construction projects on energy, environment, and society based on I-O LCA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6321-6330, October.
    2. Yu, Fanxian & Chen, Jining & Sun, Fu & Zeng, Siyu & Wang, Can, 2011. "Trend of technology innovation in China's coal-fired electricity industry under resource and environmental constraints," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1586-1599, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Jeff Tollefson, 2013. "China slow to tap shale-gas bonanza," Nature, Nature, vol. 494(7437), pages 294-294, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Jenner, Steffen & Lamadrid, Alberto J., 2013. "Shale gas vs. coal: Policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 442-453.
    7. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Guo, Haixiang & Ding, Liping, 2014. "Carbon emission coefficient measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-300.
    8. Hong Yang & Roger J. Flower & Julian R. Thompson, 2013. "Shale gas: Pollution fears in China," Nature, Nature, vol. 499(7457), pages 154-154, July.
    9. Global Energy Assessment Writing Team,, 2012. "Global Energy Assessment," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521182935, November.
    10. Tom Wigley, 2011. "Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 601-608, October.
    11. Wang, Jianliang & Feng, Lianyong & Zhao, Lin & Snowden, Simon, 2013. "China's natural gas: Resources, production and its impacts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 690-698.
    12. Zhu, Zhi-Shuang & Liao, Hua & Cao, Huai-Shu & Wang, Lu & Wei, Yi-Ming & Yan, Jinyue, 2014. "The differences of carbon intensity reduction rate across 89 countries in recent three decades," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 808-815.
    13. Global Energy Assessment Writing Team,, 2012. "Global Energy Assessment," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107005198, November.
    14. Huo, Hong & He, Kebin & Wang, Michael & Yao, Zhiliang, 2012. "Vehicle technologies, fuel-economy policies, and fuel-consumption rates of Chinese vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 30-36.
    15. Chang, Yuan & Huang, Runze & Ries, Robert J. & Masanet, Eric, 2014. "Shale-to-well energy use and air pollutant emissions of shale gas production in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 147-157.
    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. Zhang, Yueling & Li, Junjie & Yang, Xiaoxiao, 2021. "Comprehensive competitiveness assessment of four coal-to-liquid routes and conventional oil refining route in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    2. Wang, Jianliang & Mohr, Steve & Feng, Lianyong & Liu, Huihui & Tverberg, Gail E., 2016. "Analysis of resource potential for China’s unconventional gas and forecast for its long-term production growth," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 389-401.
    3. Li, Junjie & Cheng, Wanjing, 2020. "Comparison of life-cycle energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic costs of coal to ethanol and bioethanol," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Wang, Jianliang & Feng, Lianyong & Steve, Mohr & Tang, Xu & Gail, Tverberg E. & Mikael, Höök, 2015. "China's unconventional oil: A review of its resources and outlook for long-term production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 31-42.
    6. Xiangsheng Dou, 2017. "Low Carbon Technology Innovation, Carbon Emissions Trading and Relevant Policy Support for China s Low Carbon Economy Development," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 7(2), pages 172-184.
    7. Tilmann Rave, 2013. "Innovationsindikatoren zum globalen Klimaschutz – FuE-Ausgaben und Patente," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 66(15), pages 34-41, August.
    8. Daniel Moran & Richard Wood, 2014. "Convergence Between The Eora, Wiod, Exiobase, And Openeu'S Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 245-261, September.
    9. Lykke E. Andersen & Luis Carlos Jemio, 2016. "Decentralization and poverty reduction in Bolivia: Challenges and opportunities," Development Research Working Paper Series 01/2016, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
    10. Inglesi-Lotz, Roula, 2017. "Social rate of return to R&D on various energy technologies: Where should we invest more? A study of G7 countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 521-525.
    11. Tom Mikunda & Tom Kober & Heleen de Coninck & Morgan Bazilian & Hilke R�sler & Bob van der Zwaan, 2014. "Designing policy for deployment of CCS in industry," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 665-676, September.
    12. Zhi-Fu Mi & Yi-Ming Wei & Chen-Qi He & Hua-Nan Li & Xiao-Chen Yuan & Hua Liao, 2017. "Regional efforts to mitigate climate change in China: a multi-criteria assessment approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 45-66, January.
    13. Jun Nakatani & Tamon Maruyama & Kosuke Fukuchi & Yuichi Moriguchi, 2015. "A Practical Approach to Screening Potential Environmental Hotspots of Different Impact Categories in Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, August.
    14. Fichter, Tobias & Soria, Rafael & Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto & Lucena, Andre F.P., 2017. "Assessing the potential role of concentrated solar power (CSP) for the northeast power system of Brazil using a detailed power system model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 695-715.
    15. Selosse, Sandrine & Ricci, Olivia & Maïzi, Nadia, 2013. "Fukushima's impact on the European power sector: The key role of CCS technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 305-312.
    16. Kamjoo, Azadeh & Maheri, Alireza & Putrus, Ghanim A., 2014. "Chance constrained programming using non-Gaussian joint distribution function in design of standalone hybrid renewable energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 677-688.
    17. Mokri, Alaeddine & Aal Ali, Mona & Emziane, Mahieddine, 2013. "Solar energy in the United Arab Emirates: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 340-375.
    18. Perrihan Al-Riffai & Julian Blohmke & Clemens Breisinger & Manfred Wiebelt, 2015. "Harnessing the Sun and Wind for Economic Development? An Economy-Wide Assessment for Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-27, June.
    19. Kim, Yeong Jae & Wilson, Charlie, 2019. "Analysing energy innovation portfolios from a systemic perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    20. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.

    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:energy:v:86:y:2015:i:c:p:335-343. 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.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.