Green Energy Choices, full slide pack
-
Upload
edgar-hertwich -
Category
Technology
-
view
233 -
download
1
Transcript of Green Energy Choices, full slide pack
Lead authors:Edgar Hertwich, Thomas Gibon, Sangwon Suh, Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Joe Bergesen
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Content
1. Background2. Results3. Technology summary4. Main findings
2
©chungking/Shutterstock
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Background
3
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Low‐Carbon Electricity and COP21
Source : http://unsdsn.org/wp‐content/uploads/2015/03/Key‐Elements‐for‐Success‐at‐COP21.pdf
4
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
IPCC: A near‐complete shift to low‐carbon energy sources is required for any stabilization target
2.6°C 2.2°C 1.9°C 1.6°C
Important electricity increases in almost all IPCC scenarios resulting from wide implementation of low‐carbon technologies
Source: IPCC AR5 (2014)
5
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Challenge
• Electricity currently accounts for 25% of GHG emissions
• Massive investments in new energy technologies are required to achieve a stabilization of CO2concentrations
• Low‐carbon technologies may have unforeseen consequences on the ecosystems, human health or resources
• Informed decisions are required in selecting the right mix of low‐carbon technologies Would the chosen low‐carbon
technologies be optimal forachieving 2°C objective?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
GtCO2
Technologies
CCS 13%Power generation efficiency and fuel switching 1%End‐use fuel switching 10%End‐use fuel and electricity efficiency 38%Nuclear 8%2DS
Baseline emissions 56 Gt
BLUE Map emissions 14 Gt
Source: IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2015 (2015)
6
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
What are environmental, health and resource use implications of a massive expansion of low‐carbon
electricity?
7
350 000 wind turbines would be required to provide 12%
electricity in 2050. An offshore wind turbine
with this capacity uses 1200 tons of steel.
How much pollution results from these wind turbines?
350 000 wind turbines would be required to provide 12%
electricity in 2050. An offshore wind turbine
with this capacity uses 1200 tons of steel.
How much pollution results from these wind turbines?
3.2 million premature deaths in 2010 from outdoor
air pollution caused by particulate matter from
combustion.
Do power plants with CCS produce less particulate emissions than power plants without CCS?
3.2 million premature deaths in 2010 from outdoor
air pollution caused by particulate matter from
combustion.
Do power plants with CCS produce less particulate emissions than power plants without CCS?
A typical photovoltaic power plant produces 0.3 kWh per
m2 per day. It requires copper for cables, aluminum for frames, and
energy‐intensive manufacturing of semiconductors.
Do PV panels have high material implications?
A typical photovoltaic power plant produces 0.3 kWh per
m2 per day. It requires copper for cables, aluminum for frames, and
energy‐intensive manufacturing of semiconductors.
Do PV panels have high material implications?
©visual_k/Freeiłqges©Richie Chan/Shutterstock © Ranglen/Shutterstock
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production8
• Coal and gas with and without CO2 capture and storage (CCS),
• Photovoltaic power, • Concentrated solar power,
• Hydropower, • Geothermal,• Wind power.
Nine electricitytechnologies
• Damage on ecosystems• ecotoxicity,• eutrophication,• acidification…
• Damage on human health• particulate matter,• human toxicity…
• Resource use• iron, copper, aluminium, cement,
• energy, water and land
Impactcategories
• Extraction of rawmaterials,
• Fuel supply chain,• Production of powerplants,
• Transportation• Operation,• Maintenance,• Decommissioning.
Life cycleperspective
Assessment Approach and Method
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Supporting: Assessment Approach and Method
• Life cycle inventories onlyfrom reviewed data
• Data collection by a panel of 20 independentexperts
• Harmonized and coordinated
Scientific data
• Baseline• Business‐as‐usual• Continuousinvestments in fossil technologies
• No CCS• BLUE Map• Renewable deployment• Phasing out of fossil fuel plants without CCS
Scenarios
• Vintage capital modelling2010‐2050
• The total impact on a given year is the sum ofthe impacts from theplants• built,• in operation,• repowered,• decommissioned
• …that exact year
Time series
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Results
10
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Human Health Impacts(DALY*/TWh)
16
32 25 28 26 29
87 97
410
290
420
310 32
0
240
310
260
110
10 22 25 15 4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Trou
gh
Tow
er
CdT
e gr
ound
CdT
e ro
of
CIG
S g
roun
d
CIG
S ro
of
Pol
y-S
i gro
und
Pol
y-S
i roo
f
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
CC
S
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
out C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ith C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ithou
t CC
S
IGC
C w
ith C
CS
IGC
C w
ithou
t CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
out C
CS
Res
ervo
ir 1
Res
ervo
ir 2
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, G
B fo
unda
tion
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, st
eel f
ound
atio
n
Ons
hore
con
vent
iona
l
Bin
ary
(Wai
rake
i)
Concentrated solar power Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydro Wind Geothermal
human toxicity/ RER/ (H) ionising radiation/ RER/ (H) ozone depletion/ GLO/ (H) particulate matter formation/ RER/ (H) photochemical oxidant formation/ RER/ (H)
11
*DALY = «Disability Adjusted Life Years»
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Pollution of Ecosystems(species‐year/TWh)
4
13
2.7
3.1 7.
3
7.8
15 16
68
44
71
46
57
42
57
44
7,7
0.6 1.5
1.6
1.0
0.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Trou
gh
Tow
er
CdT
e gr
ound
CdT
e ro
of
CIG
S g
roun
d
CIG
S ro
of
Pol
y-S
i gro
und
Pol
y-S
i roo
f
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
CC
S
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
out C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ith C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ithou
t CC
S
IGC
C w
ith C
CS
IGC
C w
ithou
t CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
out C
CS
Res
ervo
ir 1
Res
ervo
ir 2
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, G
B fo
unda
tion
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, st
eel f
ound
atio
n
Ons
hore
con
vent
iona
l
Bin
ary
(Wai
rake
i)
Concentrated solar power Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydro Wind Geothermal
freshwater ecotoxicity/ RER/ (H) freshwater eutrophication/ RER/ (H) marine ecotoxicity/ RER/ (H) terrestrial acidification/ RER/ (H) terrestrial ecotoxicity/ RER/ (H)
12
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Land Occupation (m2a/MWh)
13
19
11
0.5
11
0.5
12
3
26
19
28
2023
17
0.2 0.2
12
84
0.3 0.3 0.3 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Trou
gh
Tow
er
CdT
e gr
ound
CdT
e ro
of
CIG
S g
roun
d
CIG
S ro
of
Pol
y-S
i gro
und
Pol
y-S
i roo
f
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
CC
S
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
out C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ith C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ithou
t CC
S
IGC
C w
ith C
CS
IGC
C w
ithou
t CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
out C
CS
Res
ervo
ir (P
ascu
a 2.
2)
Res
ervo
ir (B
aker
2)
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, G
B fo
unda
tion
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, st
eel f
ound
atio
n
Ons
hore
con
vent
iona
l
Bin
ary
(Wai
rake
i)
Concentrated solar power Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydro Wind Geothermal
13
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Mineral Resources(kg/MWh)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Trou
gh
Tow
er
CdT
e gr
ound
CdT
e ro
of
CIG
S g
roun
d
CIG
S ro
of
Pol
y-S
i gro
und
Pol
y-S
i roo
f
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
CC
S
Sup
ercr
itica
l with
out C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ith C
CS
Exi
stin
g co
al w
ithou
t CC
S
IGC
C w
ith C
CS
IGC
C w
ithou
t CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
CC
S
Nat
ural
gas
with
out C
CS
Res
ervo
ir (P
ascu
a 2.
2)
Res
ervo
ir (B
aker
2)
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, G
B fo
unda
tion
Offs
hore
con
vent
iona
l, st
eel f
ound
atio
n
Ons
hore
con
vent
iona
l
Bin
ary
(Wai
rake
i)
Concentratedsolar power
Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydropower Wind power Geothermal
Non
-ren
ewab
le e
nerg
y (M
J/kW
h)
Aluminium Copper Iron Cement Non-renewable energy
14
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Technology Summary
15
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Wind power
•Very low GHG emissions (++)
Climate change
•Reduced exposure to particulate matter(++)•Reduced human toxicity (‐‐)
Human Health
•Collision fatalities of birds and bats (+=)•Reduced ecotoxicity and eutrophication (=‐)
Ecosystems
• Increased consumption of bulk metals ( +=)• Low water use (==)• Low direct land use (==)
Resources
Key (##)First symbol(+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreementSecond symbol(+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence
16
©Jeff Adkins
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Low‐impact projects:• Good wind conditions and
grid connections reducechallenge of matchingsupply and demand
• Siting and operationalmeasures can limit bird andbat collision fatalities
• Recycling of wind turbinescan reduce pollutionimpacts
Wind power
17
©Jeff Adkins
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Photovoltaics
• Low carbon (==)
Climate
• Low particulate matter emissions (+=)• Low human toxicity (if proper recycling, =‐)
Human health
• Low eutrophication and ecotoxicity (+‐)
Ecosystem health
•High metal use (balance of system, module, +=)
•High direct land use for ground‐based systems (++)
Resources
Key (##)First symbol(+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreementSecond symbol(+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence
©ElenaElisseeva/Shutterstock
18
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Low‐impact projects:• Using clean energy for
manufacturing of PVpanels can substantiallyreduce impacts
• Recycling of PV panelscan preserve criticalmetals and contain toxicmetals
• Significant potential forroof‐mounted PV panels
Photovoltaics
19
©ElenaElisseeva/Shutterstock
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Concentrating solar power
• Low GHG emissions (==)
Climate Change
• Low particular matter exposure (+=)• Low human toxicity (=‐)
Human Health
• Potential toxicity of heat transfer fluids (+=)• Low ecotoxicity and eutrophication (+‐)
Ecosystems
• High water consumption, unless air cooled (++)• High land use (++)• High cement use (power tower, +‐)
Resources
Key (##)First symbol(+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreementSecond symbol(+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence
20
©Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Low‐impact projects:• Uses heat storage to
produce electricity in theevening and night, therebyavoiding backup power
• Siting avoiding sensitivehabitat
• Good management of heattransfer cycle
Concentrating solar power
21
©Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Hydropower
• Low fossil carbon (++)•High biogenic carbon from tropical dams (==)
Climate
• Low air pollution impacts (=‐)• Population displacement (+‐)
Human health
•Riparian habitat change (++)
Ecosystem health
•Water use (evaporation, +‐)•High land use for reservoirs (+=)•High cement use (tower only, +‐)
Resources
Key (##)First symbol(+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreementSecond symbol(+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence
22
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Low‐impact projects:• Environmental streamflow and other mitigatingmeasures can reduceecological impact
• Ensure high powerdensity to limit biogenicmethane emissions
Hydropower
23
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Geothermal power
• Low carbon (==)
Climate
• Low particulate matter (+=)• Low human toxicity (=‐)
Human health
•Concern about heat transfer fluid (+=)• Low eutrophication and ecotoxicity (+‐)
Ecosystem health
•High water use (maintenance, ++)•High land use (++)•High cement use (tower only, +‐)
Resources
Key (##)First symbol(+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreementSecond symbol(+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence
24
©istockphoto.com
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Geothermal power
Low‐impact projects: • Treatment and reinjection of geofluids
• Mitigation of site‐specific impacts
25
©istockphoto.com
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Coal and natural gas power, with CO2 capture and storage
• Low GHG (++)• Substantial fugitive methane emissions (==)• Concern about CO2 leakage (‐=)
Climate
• Solvent related emissions (==)• High particulate matter (==)• High human toxicity (=‐)
Human health
• High eutrophication (mining, ++)• Ecotoxicity (+=)
Ecosystem health
• Increased fossil fuel consumption (++)• Limited CO2 storage (++)
Resources
Key (##)First symbol(+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreementSecond symbol(+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence
26
©Reuters
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Low‐impact projects:• Significant potential toreduce emissions in fuelproduction and transport
• Geologic factorsimportant for pollutionlevel of fuels
• Sourcing fuels from low‐polluting sites isimportant
Coal and natural gas power, with CO2 capture and storage
27
©Reuters
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Main findings
28
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Impacts from electricity generation under IEA Blue Map vs business as usual scenarios
29
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
Comparison of technologies and impacts
30
Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production
From the life cycle perspective, the GHG emissions of electricity produced from renewablesources are less than 6% of those generated by coal or 10% by natural gas.
Using solar, wind, hydro and geothermal power instead of fossil fuels reduces greenhouse gasemissions and other pollution impacts on human health and ecosystems. Impacts are reducedby a factor of 3‐10.
Human health impacts from renewable energy electricity production are only 10‐30% of thosefrom the state‐of‐the‐art fossil fuel power.
Natural‐gas combined cycle plants, wind power, and roof‐mounted solar power systems havelow land use requirements, while coal fired power plants and ground‐mounted solar powerrequire larger areas of land.
Site‐specific environmental impacts, such as the ecological impacts of coalmines, hydropowerdams and wind turbine installations, vary greatly, depending on the significance of the speciesand habitats affected and may be mitigated or offset by proper site selection and planning.
CO2 capture and storage can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50‐75%, at the expense ofincreasing other types of pollution by 5‐80%.
31
For more information please visit:www.unep.org/resourcepanel