IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i23p7847-d1290963.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Impact of Electricity Generation Technologies: A Comparison between Conventional, Nuclear, and Renewable Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Giambattista Guidi

    (Energy Technologies and Renewable Energy Sources Department, ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy)

  • Anna Carmela Violante

    (Energy Technologies and Renewable Energy Sources Department, ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy)

  • Simona De Iuliis

    (Energy Technologies and Renewable Energy Sources Department, ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

The transformation of the energy sector, based on the development of low-carbon technologies, is essential to achieve climate neutrality. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a powerful methodology for assessing the environmental impact of energy technologies, which proves to be a useful tool for policy makers. The paper is a review of the main LCA studies of power generation systems performed over the past ten years aiming at comparing the energy technologies to identify those with the lowest impact on the environment, evaluated in terms of gCO 2eq /kWh emissions. Screening criteria were established to include only studies of the highest qualitative significance. The authors decided to assign greater weight to emission values reported in more recent studies. For nuclear and renewable energy technologies, most of the emissions are related to the pre-operational phases. Notably, both nuclear and wind technologies, along with other renewable sources throughout their entire life cycle, exhibit significantly lower and less variable emissions compared with conventional gas- and coal-fired technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Giambattista Guidi & Anna Carmela Violante & Simona De Iuliis, 2023. "Environmental Impact of Electricity Generation Technologies: A Comparison between Conventional, Nuclear, and Renewable Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-33, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:23:p:7847-:d:1290963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/23/7847/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/23/7847/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Menberg, Kathrin & Heberle, Florian & Bott, Christoph & Brüggemann, Dieter & Bayer, Peter, 2021. "Environmental performance of a geothermal power plant using a hydrothermal resource in the Southern German Molasse Basin," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 20-31.
    2. Riccardo Basosi & Roberto Bonciani & Dario Frosali & Giampaolo Manfrida & Maria Laura Parisi & Franco Sansone, 2020. "Life Cycle Analysis of a Geothermal Power Plant: Comparison of the Environmental Performance with Other Renewable Energy Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-29, April.
    3. Lunardi, Marina M. & Moore, Stephen & Alvarez-Gaitan, J.P. & Yan, Chang & Hao, Xiaojing & Corkish, Richard, 2018. "A comparative life cycle assessment of chalcogenide/Si tandem solar modules," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 700-709.
    4. Paul Koltun & Alfred Tsykalo & Vasily Novozhilov, 2018. "Life Cycle Assessment of the New Generation GT-MHR Nuclear Power Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Pomponi, Francesco & Hart, Jim, 2021. "The greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy – Life cycle assessment of a European pressurised reactor," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    6. Nian, Victor & Chou, S.K. & Su, Bin & Bauly, John, 2014. "Life cycle analysis on carbon emissions from power generation – The nuclear energy example," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 68-82.
    7. Mahmud, M. A. Parvez & Huda, Nazmul & Farjana, Shahjadi Hisan & Lang, Candace, 2019. "A strategic impact assessment of hydropower plants in alpine and non-alpine areas of Europe," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 198-214.
    8. Bonou, Alexandra & Laurent, Alexis & Olsen, Stig I., 2016. "Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore wind energy-from theory to application," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 327-337.
    9. Gemma Gasa & Anton Lopez-Roman & Cristina Prieto & Luisa F. Cabeza, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Plant in Tower Configuration with and without Thermal Energy Storage (TES)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Atif Ali & Theodore W. Koch & Timothy A. Volk & Robert W. Malmsheimer & Mark H. Eisenbies & Danielle Kloster & Tristan R. Brown & Nehan Naim & Obste Therasme, 2022. "The Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Production in New York State from Distributed Solar Photovoltaic Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, October.
    11. Hou, Guofu & Sun, Honghang & Jiang, Ziying & Pan, Ziqiang & Wang, Yibo & Zhang, Xiaodan & Zhao, Ying & Yao, Qiang, 2016. "Life cycle assessment of grid-connected photovoltaic power generation from crystalline silicon solar modules in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 882-890.
    12. Markéta Šerešová & Jiří Štefanica & Monika Vitvarová & Kristina Zakuciová & Petr Wolf & Vladimír Kočí, 2020. "Life Cycle Performance of Various Energy Sources Used in the Czech Republic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, November.
    13. Garcia-Teruel, Anna & Rinaldi, Giovanni & Thies, Philipp R. & Johanning, Lars & Jeffrey, Henry, 2022. "Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    14. Lacirignola, Martino & Blanc, Isabelle, 2013. "Environmental analysis of practical design options for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 901-914.
    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. Violeta Motuzienė & Kęstutis Čiuprinskas & Artur Rogoža & Vilūnė Lapinskienė, 2022. "A Review of the Life Cycle Analysis Results for Different Energy Conversion Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Zhang, Xiaoyue & Huang, Guohe & Liu, Lirong & Li, Kailong, 2022. "Development of a stochastic multistage lifecycle programming model for electric power system planning – A case study for the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Wang, Like & Wang, Yuan & Du, Huibin & Zuo, Jian & Yi Man Li, Rita & Zhou, Zhihua & Bi, Fenfen & Garvlehn, McSimon P., 2019. "A comparative life-cycle assessment of hydro-, nuclear and wind power: A China study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 37-45.
    4. Menberg, Kathrin & Heberle, Florian & Uhrmann, Hannah & Bott, Christoph & Grünäugl, Sebastian & Brüggemann, Dieter & Bayer, Peter, 2023. "Environmental impact of cogeneration in binary geothermal plants," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    5. Rahman, Abidur & Farrok, Omar & Haque, Md Mejbaul, 2022. "Environmental impact of renewable energy source based electrical power plants: Solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, tidal, ocean, and osmotic," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    6. Campos-Guzmán, Verónica & García-Cáscales, M. Socorro & Espinosa, Nieves & Urbina, Antonio, 2019. "Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 343-366.
    7. Solano-Olivares, K. & Santoyo, E. & Santoyo-Castelazo, E., 2024. "Integrated sustainability assessment framework for geothermal energy technologies: A literature review and a new proposal of sustainability indicators for Mexico," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    8. Sun, Zhen & You, Xianhui, 2024. "Life cycle carbon footprint accounting of an offshore wind farm in Southeast China—Simplified models and carbon benchmarks for typhoons," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    9. Qi, Xiaoyan & Yao, Xilong & Guo, Pibin & Han, Yunfei & Liu, Lin, 2024. "Applying life cycle assessment to investigate the environmental impacts of a PV–CSP hybrid system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    10. Gao, Chengkang & Zhu, Sulong & An, Nan & Na, Hongming & You, Huan & Gao, Chengbo, 2021. "Comprehensive comparison of multiple renewable power generation methods: A combination analysis of life cycle assessment and ecological footprint," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Mahmud, M.A. Parvez & Huda, Nazmul & Farjana, Shahjadi Hisan & Lang, Candace, 2020. "Life-cycle impact assessment of renewable electricity generation systems in the United States," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1028-1045.
    12. Hosseini, Seyed Mohsen & Kanagaraj, N. & Sadeghi, Shahrbanoo & Yousefi, Hossein, 2022. "Midpoint and endpoint impacts of electricity generation by renewable and nonrenewable technologies: A case study of Alberta, Canada," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 22-39.
    13. Soltani, M. & Moradi Kashkooli, Farshad & Souri, Mohammad & Rafiei, Behnam & Jabarifar, Mohammad & Gharali, Kobra & Nathwani, Jatin S., 2021. "Environmental, economic, and social impacts of geothermal energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    14. Nian, Victor & Liu, Yang & Zhong, Sheng, 2019. "Life cycle cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy under the climatic conditions in Southeast Asia – Setting the bottom-line for deployment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233, pages 1003-1014.
    15. Roger Samsó & Júlia Crespin & Antonio García-Olivares & Jordi Solé, 2023. "Examining the Potential of Marine Renewable Energy: A Net Energy Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-35, May.
    16. Zhu, Rui & Lau, Wing Sze & You, Linlin & Yan, Jinyue & Ratti, Carlo & Chen, Min & Wong, Man Sing & Qin, Zheng, 2024. "Multi-sourced data modelling of spatially heterogenous life-cycle carbon mitigation from installed rooftop photovoltaics: A case study in Singapore," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 362(C).
    17. Vincenzo Muteri & Maurizio Cellura & Domenico Curto & Vincenzo Franzitta & Sonia Longo & Marina Mistretta & Maria Laura Parisi, 2020. "Review on Life Cycle Assessment of Solar Photovoltaic Panels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-38, January.
    18. Gkousis, Spiros & Welkenhuysen, Kris & Compernolle, Tine, 2022. "Deep geothermal energy extraction, a review on environmental hotspots with focus on geo-technical site conditions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    19. Pomponi, Francesco & Hart, Jim, 2021. "The greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy – Life cycle assessment of a European pressurised reactor," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    20. Sigurjónsson, Hafþór Ægir & Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Bogason, Sigurður G., 2021. "A life-cycle analysis of deep enhanced geothermal systems – The case studies of Reykjanes, Iceland and Vendenheim, France," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1076-1086.

    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:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:23:p:7847-:d:1290963. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.