Life cycle burden-shifting in energy systems designed to minimize greenhouse gas emissions: Novel analytical method and application to the United States

被引:44
|
作者
Algunaibet, Ibrahim M. [1 ]
Guillen-Gosalbez, Gonzalo [2 ]
机构
[1] Imperial Coll London, Dept Chem Engn, Ctr Proc Syst Engn, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, England
[2] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Dept Chem & Appl Biosci, Inst Chem & Bioengn, Vladimir Prelog Weg 1, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会;
关键词
Climate change; Elasticity; Energy systems modeling; IPAT; Life cycle assessment; STIRPAT; POWER-SYSTEMS; OPTIMIZATION; INTEGRATION; IMPACT; TIMES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.276
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Energy systems are currently designed focusing only on minimizing their cost or, at most, including limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, electricity technologies performing well in global warming potential might not necessarily behave equally well across other sustainability criteria. Hence, policies focused solely on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions could potentially resolve one problem (i.e., climate change) by creating another, thereby leading to burden-shifting. Here, the occurrence and severity of burden-shifting in energy systems design are both investigated through the application of a novel approach integrating multi-objective optimization, life cycle assessment and multivariate regression based on elasticities. Environmental impacts are classified into three categories: no burden-shifting, total burden-shifting and partial burden-shifting, providing for the latter two a measure of their severity. Due to inherent trade-offs in the life cycle performance of technologies, discussed in detail in this work, the Paris Agreement 2 degrees C targets would lead to burden-shifting in the United States (total or partial) in up to eight environmental impacts. On the other hand, stringent carbon emissions reductions in line with the 1.5 degrees C targets can lead to burden-shifting in three environmental impacts. Indeed, in both cases undesirable increases in some damage categories of up to 1.64% for every percentage increase in cost can take place as a result of more stringent limits on greenhouse gas emissions compared to the least cost solution. Overall, this work aims to foster fruitful discussions on how to generate energy within the Earth's ecological capacity by expanding the analysis beyond climate change. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:886 / 901
页数:16
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [21] Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission effects of biodiesel in the United States with induced land use change impacts
    Chen, Rui
    Qin, Zhangcai
    Han, Jeongwoo
    Wang, Michael
    Taheripour, Farzad
    Tyner, Wallace
    O'Connor, Don
    Duffield, James
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 251 : 249 - 258
  • [22] Life Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analysis of a Large-Scale Vertically Integrated Organic Dairy in the United States
    Heller, Martin C.
    Keoleian, Gregory A.
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 45 (05) : 1903 - 1910
  • [23] Greenhouse gas emissions from milk production and consumption in the United States: A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment circa 2008
    Thoma, Greg
    Popp, Jennie
    Nutter, Darin
    Shonnard, David
    Ulrich, Richard
    Matlock, Marty
    Kim, Dae Soo
    Neiderman, Zara
    Kemper, Nathan
    East, Cashion
    Adom, Felix
    INTERNATIONAL DAIRY JOURNAL, 2013, 31 : S3 - S14
  • [24] Green cheese: Partial life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and energy intensity of integrated dairy production and bioenergy systems
    Aguirre-Villegas, H. A.
    Passos-Fonseca, T. H.
    Reinemann, D. J.
    Armentano, L. E.
    Wattiaux, M. A.
    Cabrera, V. E.
    Norman, J. M.
    Larson, R.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2015, 98 (03) : 1571 - 1592
  • [25] Assessing Location and Scale of Urban Nonpotable Water Reuse Systems for Life-Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    Kavvada, Olga
    Horvath, Arpad
    Stokes-Draut, Jennifer R.
    Hendrickson, Thomas P.
    Eisenstein, William A.
    Nelson, Kara L.
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 50 (24) : 13184 - 13194
  • [26] Life Cycle-based Assessment of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Almond Production, Part I: Analytical Framework and Baseline Results
    Kendall, Alissa
    Marvinney, Elias
    Brodt, Sonja
    Zhu, Weiyuan
    JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY, 2015, 19 (06) : 1008 - 1018
  • [27] Description and application of the EAP computer program for calculating life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of household consumption items
    Benders, RMJ
    Wilting, HC
    Kramer, KJ
    Moll, HC
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT AND POLLUTION, 2001, 15 (02) : 171 - 182
  • [28] Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, water and land use for concentrated solar power plants with different energy backup systems
    Klein, Sharon J. W.
    Rubin, Edward S.
    ENERGY POLICY, 2013, 63 : 935 - 950
  • [29] Life-Cycle Energy, Economic, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Diversified Sweet-Potato-Based Cropping Systems in South China
    Tang, Chaochen
    Jiang, Bingzhi
    Ameen, Asif
    Mo, Xueying
    Yang, Yang
    Wang, Zhangying
    AGRONOMY-BASEL, 2022, 12 (10):
  • [30] Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional food production systems, with and without bio-energy options
    Cooper, J. M.
    Butler, G.
    Leifert, C.
    NJAS-WAGENINGEN JOURNAL OF LIFE SCIENCES, 2011, 58 (3-4) : 185 - 192