Multifactor configurations of coal power technology in China substantially differ in life-cycle environmental impacts

被引:4
|
作者
Li, Junjie [1 ,2 ]
Yan, Yulong [1 ]
Wang, Yirong [1 ]
Wang, Jia [1 ]
Cao, Zimeng [1 ]
Hu, Kexin [1 ]
Li, Menggang [3 ,4 ]
Lu, Xi [5 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Beijing Jiaotong Univ, Engn Res Ctr Clean & Low carbon Technol Intelligen, Sch Environm, Minist Educ, Beijing 100044, Peoples R China
[2] Beijing Jiaotong Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Beijing 100044, Peoples R China
[3] Beijing Jiaotong Univ, Natl Acad Econ Secur, Beijing 100044, Peoples R China
[4] Beijing Jiaotong Univ, Beijing Lab Natl Econ Secur Early Warning Engn, Beijing 100044, Peoples R China
[5] Tsinghua Univ, Sch Environm, State Key Joint Lab Environm Simulat & Pollut Cont, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China
[6] Tsinghua Univ, Inst Carbon Neutral, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China
[7] Tsinghua Univ, Beijing Lab Environm Frontier Technol, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金; 中国博士后科学基金;
关键词
Electrical energy; Operating parameter; Boiler type; Cooling approach; Turbine mode; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; ELECTRICITY-GENERATION; CARBON EMISSIONS; ENERGY USE; WATER; CONSUMPTION; CAPTURE; SYSTEM; PLANT;
D O I
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168132
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The expansion of coal power in China has led to a coexistence of multiple technologies, whereas differences in environmental impacts of each other remain hitherto unclear. This gap is largely a result of the difficulty of fully covering the factors that significantly affect environmental performances and the lack of fine data inventory. The limitation welcomes an approach that can go well beyond characterizing coal power technology with a single factor. To this end, we surveyed the information data for all coal power units in China to couple four factors (viz. operating parameter, boiler type, cooling approach, and turbine mode) into 22 types of multifactor technology configurations, as well as the first-hand operating data of nearly half of all coal power units in China to compile an elaborate data inventory that each configuration includes 88 input and output data. These fine data were modeled by the life cycle assessment method of CML 2016 to quantify twelve environmental impact categories. The results show substantial differences in environmental impacts exist for different technology configurations. High operating parameters gain environmental friendliness but the diversification of boiler type and cooling approach to improve the applicability of coal quality and water resources increases environmental impacts. The insignificant impact of the turbine mode is owning to the exergy allocation that eliminates the quality gap in electrical and thermal energy. The technology-level differences are aggregated into the provincial level by various configuration structures, which show markedly spatial heterogeneity varying by impact categories. This implies a great potential for structural adjustment and an overall improvement requires cleaner production beyond that, focused on the coal power generation process and its upstream coal supply process. Our modeling shows a majority of results with an uncertainty of lower than 10 %, which is robust for the proposal of policy suggestions.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Evaluating the environmental impacts of the water-energy-food nexus with a life-cycle approachY
    Li, Pei-Chiun
    Ma, Hwong-wen
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2020, 157
  • [42] Life-cycle energy efficiency and environmental impacts of bioethanol production from sweet potato
    Wang, Mingxin
    Shi, Yu
    Xia, Xunfeng
    Li, Dinglong
    Chen, Qun
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2013, 133 : 285 - 292
  • [43] Potential Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts of the COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test
    Ji, Ling
    Wang, Yongyang
    Xie, Yulei
    Xu, Ming
    Cai, Yanpeng
    Fu, Shengnan
    Ma, Liang
    Su, Xin
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 56 (18) : 13398 - 13407
  • [44] Environmental and financial impacts of perioperative paracetamol use: a multicentre international life-cycle assessment
    Davies, Jessica F.
    McAlister, Scott
    Eckelman, Matthew J.
    McGain, Forbes
    Seglenieks, Richard
    Gutman, Elena N.
    Groome, Jonathan
    Palipane, Natasha
    Latoff, Katherine
    Nielsen, Dominic
    Sherman, Jodi D.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2024, 133 (06) : 1439 - 1448
  • [45] A comparative analysis of the life cycle environmental emissions from wind and coal power: Evidence from China
    Li, Hui
    Jiang, Hong-Dian
    Dong, Kang-Yin
    Wei, Yi-Ming
    Liao, Hua
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 248
  • [46] Integrating Hazard-Induced Damage and Environmental Impacts in Building Life-Cycle Assessments
    Welsh-Huggins, S. J.
    Liel, A. B.
    LIFE-CYCLE OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS: DESIGN, ASSESSMENT, MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT, 2015, : 574 - 581
  • [47] Life-cycle comparison of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption for coal and shale gas fired power generation in China
    Chang, Yuan
    Huang, Runze
    Ries, Robert J.
    Masanet, Eric
    ENERGY, 2015, 86 : 335 - 343
  • [48] The Life-Cycle Environmental Impact of Recycling of Restaurant Food Waste in Lanzhou, China
    Zhang, Zilong
    Han, Wenyan
    Chen, Xingpeng
    Yang, Na
    Lu, Chenyu
    Wang, Yueju
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2019, 9 (17):
  • [49] The life-cycle energy and environmental emissions of a typical offshore wind farm in China
    Yang, Juhua
    Chang, Yuan
    Zhang, Lixiao
    Hao, Yan
    Yan, Qin
    Wang, Changbo
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 180 : 316 - 324
  • [50] Life-cycle consequences of internalising socio-environmental externalities of power generation
    Garcia-Gusano, Diego
    Robert Istrate, I.
    Iribarren, Diego
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 612 : 386 - 391