These published results show that life cycle GHG emissions from technologies powered by renewable and nuclear resources are, in general, significantly less than from those powered by fossil fuel resources--typically by a factor of 10 or more. Only the very highest estimates for biopower overlap with the range of a fossil-fueled technology, and the central tendencies of all renewable technologies are between 400 and 1,000 g CO2eq/kWh lower than their fossil-fueled counterparts without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). For fossil-fueled technologies, post-combustion CCS can bring total life cycle GHG emissions within the upper 25th percentile of estimates for nuclear and several renewable technologies. Biopower with CCS can display negative GHG emissions (without considering the impacts of land use change).
Harmonization of GHG Estimates
NREL adjusted the published GHG emission estimates from these select studies to a consistent set of methods and technology-specific assumptions using a new meta-analytical procedure called “harmonization,” which was developed by NREL researchers. Harmonization ensures that key drivers of variability are more consistent:
- System boundary assumptions and impact assessment method (e.g., global warming potentials of assessed GHG emissions)
- Technological performance factors such as thermal efficiency and capacity factor, primary energy resource characteristics such as solar resource and fuel heating value, and assumed system design characteristics and operating lifetime.
Figure 2 compares published (un-harmonized) results to harmonized life cycle GHG emissions for solar (crystalline silicon and thin film PV, as well as CSP), wind, nuclear, and coal technologies. (Results for natural gas-fired electricity generation technologies is in progress for publication. Check NREL's LCA Harmonization website for results once published.)
Figure 2. Comparison of published and harmonized estimates of life cycle GHG emissions for select electricity generation technologies on which methodological harmonization was performed. Source: Publications found on www.nrel.gov/harmonization
Next Page: Why harmonization helps
Thanks Mr. Heath, interesting
Thanks Mr. Heath, interesting article. And we definitely need good standards to make better comparisons, informing good policies.
I wonder about the boundaries of LCA then? How should we consider side-effects of the technology used, if they can be consistently attributed to that technology? Waste is a prime example, yet different wastes have different side-effects needing different strategies & resources to contain their risk...
One example is waste not usually considered is heat produced by the generator, in some cases, for which cooling water must be continuously used. The heated water has predictable side-effects with consistent downstream effects. How does this affect emissions, for example as methane is produced through anaerobic oxidation in heated water helping algae proliferation?
Another question for decommissioning: I may be wrong, but I am not aware of a single recent nuclear facility that has been completely decommissioned successfully. How does LCA assign GHG emissions to an essentially unknown process (but known to be able to take decades - 90 years for Oldbury Nuclear Power Station near Thornbury, South Gloucester). And since the nuclear waste issue is all but resolved, how does the LCA account today for the vast & continual efforts society has to undertake in the future to ensure (for hundreds to thousands of years?) it is not adversely affected?
Thanks for shedding light on these issues.
If some one needs expert view
If some one needs expert view concerning blogging and site-building afterward i recommend him/her to go to see this web site, Keep
up the good job.