« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Annex 2: Literature Reviews of Greenhouse Gas and Energy Balance Studies
Source:
Bakkane, K. K. (1994) "Life Cycle Data for Norwegian Oil and Gas" Tapir Publishers, The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Oslo, Norway.
Summary:
This is a standard data book for life cycle assessment which contains very extensive basic life cycle data on resources, emissions and wastes, for the Norwegian offshore oil and gas industry, including all main stages from exploration, production and transportation of oil and gas from offshore platforms to onshore terminals in Norway and the European Union.
Coverage:
The data book provides a considerable amount of information on the production of oil and gas from Norwegian offshore fields. Primary energy inputs and CO2, CH4, N 2O emissions, as well as other natural resource inputs, gaseous emissions, discharges to air, etc., are either documented or can be calculated from the data available. The main data refer to operations in 1991 but predictions for 2000 are also presented.
Transparency:
This source is very transparent since not only are substantial details given for the basic information used in calculations and methods of calculation but also many important assumptions are explained.
Relevance:
Although this source is specifically relevant to Norway, the data it contains can be used to simulate oil and gas production of the North Sea, thereby providing relevant information for the supply of these particular energy sources for Scotland
Source:
Beer, T., Grant, T., Morgan, G., Lapszewicz, J., Anyon, P., Edwards, J., Nelson, P., Wilson, H., and Williams, D. (2001) "Comparison of Transport Fuels: Life Cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles" by, CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Australia.
Summary:
This report presents results for the production and utilisation of current and possible future road transport fuels
Coverage:
The research report examines low sulphur diesel, ultra low sulphur diesel, Fisher-Tropsch diesel, biodiesel (from different biomass feedstocks), compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, low sulphur diesohol, premium unleaded petrol, ethanol (from different biomass feedstocks), petrohol, and hydrogen from natural gas. Estimates of primary energy inputs and greenhouse emissions, as well as other emissions to air, are presented for each fuel.
Transparency:
Although the report provides extensive results for each fuel, the details of the information from which results are derived are not provided. Additionally, there is only partial explanation of the key parameters, essential assumptions and methods of calculation. Flow charts are illustrated but all calculations are performed using the Sima Pro software tool. Hence, the report has limited transparency.
Relevance:
The report is specifically relevant to Australia but some results, such as the production of bioethanol from tallow, could be used for strictly indicative purposes in the absence of suitable alternative sources. However, the results cannot be modified because the parameters, assumptions and methods of calculation are not accessible. Additionally, only primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emissions but not separate CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions are provided by the report.
Source:
Börjesson, P., and Berglund, M. (2006) "Environmental Systems Analysis of Biogas Systems - Part I: Fuel-Cycle Emissions" Biomass and Bioenergy.
Summary:
The journal paper reports on the life cycle assessment of the production of biogas from a range of biomass wastes.
Coverage:
The paper examines the production of biogas from ley crops, straw, sugar beet tops and leaves, liquid manure, food industry waste and municipal solid waste. Energy inputs are broken down into electricity and heat inputs. Estimates of total primary energy inputs are provided. CO2 and CH4 emissions are recorded but there is no separate evaluation of N 2O emissions which appear to be aggregated into NOx emissions.
Transparency:
The paper presents very extensive results but not the details of the calculations and key assumptions which are probably contained in original research reports (in Swedish). The paper itself is not sufficiently transparent.
Relevance:
The paper refers to Swedish conditions and technologies for the production of biogas. In the absence of suitable alternative sources, results could be used for strictly indicative purposes. However, total greenhouse gas emissions cannot be calculated from the paper due to the lack of separate information on N 2O emissions.
Source:
Chamberland, A., and Levesque, S. (1996) "Hydroelectricity: an Option to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Thermal Power Plants" Energy Conversion and Management, v. 37, p. 885 - 890, 1996.
Summary:
This journal paper reports research involving the sampling of CO2 and CH4 emissions from hydro-electric reservoirs in the northern Quebec area of Canada. This provides essential basic data on these important greenhouse gas emissions associated with whole river hydro power.
Coverage:
The paper does not attempt to determine total greenhouse gas emissions from the construction and operation of whole river hydro power schemes but it does provide important data on direct CO2 and CH4 emissions which are needed to undertake a complete assessment.
Transparency:
The paper is transparent and it explores a range of relevant issues.
Relevance:
Assuming that the data obtained for hydro-electric reservoirs in Canada are typical, then the results of this paper could be used to supplement the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from whole river hydro power in Scotland. However, the fact that extremely low temperatures in winter might reduce the rate of biomass degradation in such reservoirs may suggest that the data cannot be easily translated into other regions.
Source:
CONCAWE (2003) "Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context" CONCAWE, EUCAR and Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Summary:
This research report presents the results of a very extensive study of total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with a wide range of automotive fuels and powertrains relevant to Europe Union in 2010 and beyond. A revised and updated version of the report was prepared in 2005.
Coverage:
The report addresses conventional gasoline and diesel, compressed natural gas, alternative road transport fuels, consisting of bioethanol, biodiesel, Fisher-Tropsch diesel and dimethyl ester derived from a variety of biomass feedstocks, and hydrogen derived from fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy sources, used for road transport in the European Union. Whilst primary energy inputs are evaluated, an unusual definition is used which includes solar energy input for fuels derived from biomass feedstocks. Total CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions are calculated. The final results consist of energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions "per kilometre" travelled by a standard vehicle, consisting of a typical European compact size 5-seater sedan car driving on a standard drive cycle. The effects of improvements in engine design are taken into account and various scenarios are examined.
Transparency:
Results are presented in a detailed format in appendices. However, these are not sufficiently transparent to determine the key parameters, basic assumptions and methods of calculation adopted. Apparently, these details are contained in Excel spreadsheets which provided the results for the report. The report adopts particularly high estimates of N 2O emissions from soils used for cultivating biomass feedstocks. This is based on work at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra in Italy. It appears that these estimates have been revised in the latest calculations.
Relevance:
Whilst the scope of the report is the European Union, results could be of general relevance to Scotland, especially for conventional gasoline, diesel and compressed natural gas. However, since the parameters, assumptions and methods of calculation are not accessible, it seems unlikely that results for road transport fuels derived from biomass feedstock can be readily modified to reflect Scottish circumstances. Both the definition of primary energy and the reliability of estimates of N 2O emissions from soil would also have to be addressed in order to use these results.
Source:
Environment Agency (2005) "Decarbonising the United Kingdom: Low Carbon Economy, Biomass Environmental Assessment Tool ( BEAT)" Science Report SCO 30244/SR, Environment Agency, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Summary:
This research report describes the features of the Biomass Environmental Assessment Tool ( BEAT) which contains Excel spreadsheets for calculating the primary energy inputs and CO2, CH4, N 2O and total greenhouse gas emissions associated with a very extensive range of biomass energy technologies which might be implemented in the United Kingdom in the near-term future. There is also a Manual which accompanies BEAT.
Coverage:
BEAT currently covers 82 different combinations of biomass energy technologies. The biomass feedstocks consists of forestry residues (United Kingdom and imported) short rotation coppice (two harvesting methods), miscanthus, straw, cereal milling residues, chipboard and medium density fibreboard wastes, municipal solid waste, glycerine (from recycled vegetable oil and oilseed rape), palm kernel expeller and olive cake (imported). Intermediate products include wood chips and wood pellets. Conversion technologies include combustion, gasification and pyrolysis for heat only, electricity only and combined heat and power generation. Co-firing with a variety of biomass feedstocks in existing coal-fired power stations is addressed. Liquid biofuels are evaluated in relation to conventional processing for biodiesel production from recycled vegetable oil and oilseed rape, and bioethanol production from sugar beet and wheat grain. BEAT includes estimates of N 2O emissions from soils, based on work by the Joint Research Centre at Ispra for the CONCAWE study, but does not take into account CO2 emissions from soils or carbon storage in soils. Default values incorporated into BEAT are intended to reflect average circumstances in the England and Wales.
Transparency:
The Excel spreadsheets are transparent since they record all the data used to derive results, the sources of such data, the assumptions adopted and the methods of calculations. Any gaps in the data are clearly indicated. Results are presented in terms of average values and estimated errors. Given the specification of key parameters, such as plant size and efficiency, transport distances, etc., and the accessibility of the methods of calculations, especially concerning fertiliser application rates and crop yields, BEAT can be easily used or adapted to evaluate results for a reasonable range of different circumstances. However, BEAT is wholly-owned by the Environment Agency for internal use. Neither BEAT nor its manual are publicly-available.
Relevance:
The default values incorporated into BEAT are intended to reflect average conditions in England and Wales. However, for some biomass energy technologies, especially those which use forestry residues as a feedstock, the results of BEAT derived using standard default data could be used directly for Scotland. By establishing appropriate values of key parameters and basic data to reflect Scottish conditions, relevant results could be derived from BEAT for all the other biomass energy technologies.
Source:
Elsayed, M. A., Matthews, R., and Mortimer, N. D. (2003) "Carbon and Energy Balances for a Range of Biofuels Options" Project No. B/B6/00784/REP for the Department of Trade and Industry, Resources Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Summary:
This research report documents the evaluation of baseline total primary energy inputs, and CO2, CH4, N 2O and total greenhouse gas emissions for a range of heat only, electricity only combined heat and power, and transport fuel production systems based on biomass feedstocks available in the United Kingdom.
Coverage:
The report covers 18 biomass energy technologies, consisting of; biodiesel from oilseed rape and recycled vegetable oil, bioethanol from lignocellulosics (straw), sugar beet and wheat, combined heat and power by combustion of wood chip from forestry residues and by gasification of wood chip from short rotation coppice, electricity by combustion of miscanthus, straw and wood chip from forestry residues and short rotation coppice, electricity by gasification of wood chip from forestry residues and short rotation coppice, electricity by pyrolysis of wood chip from forestry residues and short rotation coppice, heat by combustion of wood chip from forestry and woodland residues, and rapeseed oil from oilseed rape. The calculations include estimates of N 2O emissions from soils, based on a German study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research ( IFEU), but do not take into account CO2 emissions from soils or carbon storage in soils.
Transparency:
Results are presented in standard tables, laid out in the form of spreadsheets, which record all the values of key parameters and methods of calculation. Accompanying notes provide details of important assumptions and references indicate the original sources of data. This means of presentation is transparent.
Relevance:
The report provides results which are intended to reflect conditions for biomass energy technologies in the United Kingdom during the 1990's. It is possible the results for certain biomass energy technologies, particularly those using forestry residues, could be used directly to represent conditions in Scotland. Given the transparent nature of the report, it could be used to estimate results of other biomass energy technologies in Scotland provided that suitable key parameters and other data can be established to reflect Scottish conditions.
Source:
Fritsche, U. R. (1997) "Comparing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions and Abatement Costs of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Options from a Life-Cycle Perspective" Öko-Institut, Darmstadt, Germany.
Summary:
This conference paper presents the results of a study of total CO2 emissions associated with the construction and operation of nuclear power plants in Germany.
Coverage:
The results are relevant for nuclear power based on the current Pressurised Water Reactor ( PWR) power stations operating in Germany. The supporting nuclear fuel cycle consists of uranium ore mining and processing, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication. It is not clear from the paper whether reprocessing and subsequent waste management are included in the calculations. CO2 emissions from the construction of all facilities including the nuclear power station are evaluated. It is unclear whether nuclear power station decommissioning is taken into account in the calculations. The paper does not examine the effects of declining uranium ore grade on total CO2 emissions. Although the paper is limited to the estimation of CO2 emissions, the complete study is likely to address all natural resource inputs, including primary energy and, environmental outputs, including CH4, N 2O and total greenhouse gas emissions.
Transparency:
Whilst the paper itself is not transparent, the original study seems likely to be very detailed as it is based on Global Emissions Model for Integrated Systems ( GEMIS). The GEMIS database can be accessed free of charge. However, it is not known whether this specific study on nuclear power is publicly available.
Relevance:
Since this paper and the original study focus on nuclear power in Germany, which is based on the PWR design, subsequent results are not relevant to current nuclear power stations, which are based on the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor ( AGR) design, operating in Scotland. Although estimates of total CO2 emissions could be used indicatively of nuclear power based on previous PWR designs, they would not reflect new PWR designs which are being proposed for the United Kingdom.
Source:
Gagnon, L., Bélanger, C., and Uchiyama, Y. (2002) "Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options: the Status of Research in Year 2001" Energy Policy, Vol. 30, p. 1267 -1287.
Summary:
This journal paper reviews original life cycle assessment studies to discuss the environmental impacts, including total greenhouse gas emissions, of electricity generation options for the North East region of North America.
Coverage:
The paper examines electricity generation from base load systems (natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant, coal-fired power plant, heavy oil-fired power plant biomass-fired power plant, run-of-river hydro power and nuclear power), intermittent systems (solar photovoltaics and wind power) and base/peak load systems (whole river hydro power). The sources of results are other studies which are referenced. Results include total greenhouse gas emissions but CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions are not reported separately. Total primary energy inputs are not considered.
Transparency:
Since the paper relies on reviews of original studies, it is not, in itself, transparent.
Relevance:
The results of this paper are not directly relevant to Scotland but, if accessible and transparent, the original studies, which it references and reviews, might assist with the evaluation of total primary energy inputs, and total CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions for the utilisation of a range of energy technologies, especially run-of-river and whole river hydro power and solar photovoltaics in Scotland. However, it would be necessary to establish whether the original studies cover the estimation of primary energy inputs and CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions adequately.
Source:
Gagnon, L., and Van de Vate, J. (1997) "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydropower" Energy Policy, Vol. 25, p. 7 - 13.
Summary:
This journal paper reports the results of an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting which investigated the total greenhouse gas emissions from the complete life cycle of hydro power.
Coverage:
The paper reviews existing studies on whole river hydro power schemes. It concludes that there are large differences in greenhouse gas emissions from construction and from biomass degradation in reservoirs as a result of site-specific considerations. The paper does not evaluate total primary energy inputs or separate CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions.
Transparency:
As a review, this paper provides a useful summary of results but actual transparency depends on the original studies which are referenced.
Relevance:
The paper is not directly relevant to hydro power in Scotland but the original studies might have sufficient transparency to be modified to reflect Scottish conditions.
Source:
Hinsch, C. (1996) "The Disposal of Wind-Energy Converters and its Influence on Life-Cycle Phases" European Union Wind Energy Conference, Bedford, United Kingdom.
Summary:
This conference paper assesses the energy and materials implications of end-of life wind turbines disposal.
Coverage:
The results of this paper are based on survey data collected during 1994 and 1995 in Germany. The survey data refer to the types and amounts of materials are used in wind turbines. Disposal methods are investigated. The energy and material inputs associated with disposal are evaluated and key parameters are examined. CO2, CH4, N 2O and total greenhouse gas emissions are not calculated.
Transparency:
The data presented in the paper are very specific and lacking in detail. The paper is not completely transparent.
Relevance:
The paper specifically relies on experience in Germany so that it cannot be used directly to reflect circumstances in Scotland. However, some of the data could be used in an appropriate evaluation of the disposal stage in the full assessment of wind power, in combination with other relevant and suitable studies, in Scotland.
Source:
Koroneos, C., Dompros, A., Roumbas, G., and Moussiopoulos, N. (2004) "Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Fuel Production Processes" International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 29, p. 1443 - 1450.
Summary:
This journal paper compares environmental impacts, including total greenhouse gas emissions, of different energy technologies for producing hydrogen.
Coverage:
The paper focuses on the production of hydrogen from natural gas by reformation and compares results with those for the production of hydrogen from electrolysis using electricity from biomass, hydro power, solar photovoltaics, solar thermal power and wind power. Total greenhouse gas emissions are reported but CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions are not separated. Primary energy inputs are not reported.
Transparency:
The paper uses results from other studies by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the United States of America and results available using the Global Emissions Model for Integrated Systems ( GEMIS). Hence, the paper itself is not transparent although the original studies may be.
Relevance:
The results in this paper are not directly relevant to Scotland but the referenced studies on solar photovoltaics, if accessible and transparent, could be used to derive results for application under Scottish conditions.
Source:
Lenzen, M., and Munksgaard, J. (2001) "Energy and CO2 Analyses of Wind Turbines - Review and Applications" Renewable Energy, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 339 - 362.
Summary:
This journal paper reviews results of life cycle assessment studies of wind power. The reviews cover 72 studies which evaluate energy inputs and CO2 emissions associated with the construction of different sizes of wind turbines. The effect of factors such as the country of manufacture, choice of tower material, method of disassembly and post-project use of materials are investigated.
Coverage:
The coverage is limited to energy inputs and CO2 emissions. CH4 and N 2O emissions are not considered.
Transparency:
As a review paper, transparency is limited and depends, primarily, on the original studies which are referenced.
Relevance:
In itself, the paper is not relevant to Scotland. However, it provides references to original studies which might be used, with suitable values for key parameters and in combination with other studies, to derive results for Scottish circumstances.
Source:
Lenzen, M., and Wachsmann U. (2004) "Wind Turbines in Brazil and Germany: an Example of Geographic Variability in Life-Cycle Assessment" Applied Energy, Vol. 77, p. 119 - 130.
Summary:
This journal paper evaluates and compares primary energy inputs and CO2 emissions from wind turbines manufactured and operated in Brazil and Germany.
Coverage:
Results, which are limited to primary energy inputs and CO2 emissions, are provided for onshore, direct connected 500 - 600 kW wind turbines. CH4 and N 2O emissions are not calculated.
Transparency:
Although the paper has limited transparency, complete details are available in the original studies (in German) for the E-40 wind turbine; "Kumulierten Energieaufwand von Windkraftanlagen" by E. Pick, H.-J. Wagner and O. Bunk, Brennstoff-Wärme-Kraft, v. 11/12, p. 52 - 55, 1998; and "Beitrag zum kumulierten Energieaufwand ausgewählter Windenergiekonverter" by E. Pick and H.-J. Wagner, Fachgebiet Ökologisch verträgliche Energiewirtschaft, Univerität GH, Essen, Germany, 1998. Key factors, which include manufacturing assumptions, the wind turbine specification (tower height and foundation mass) and site characteristics (annual average wind speed), are listed and their effects on results are demonstrated clearly
Relevance:
The results of this paper are directly relevant to Brazil and Germany rather than Scotland. However, sufficient data are available which, when combined with other relevant and suitable studies, could be used to derive results for onshore wind power utilisation under Scottish conditions.
Source:
Mortimer, N. D., Cormack, P., Elsayed, M. A., and Horne, R. E. (2003) "Evaluation of the Comparative Energy, Global Warming and Socio-Economic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel" Contract Ref. No. CSA 5982/NF0422 for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Resources Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Summary:
This research report documents the evaluation of baseline total primary energy inputs, and CO2, CH4, N 2O and total greenhouse gas emissions for biodiesel production from oilseed rape in the United Kingdom. Results are compared with those from the production of ultra low sulphur diesel from crude oil.
Coverage:
The report reviews existing life cycle assessment and related studies of the production and use of biodiesel from oilseed rape and their comparison with the production and use of conventional diesel derived from crude oil. The report reflects typical oilseed processing in the United Kingdom which involves solvent extraction. Both conventional and modified production option are considered. In the former, conventional agriculture, the use of fossil fuels for heating and imported grid electricity in processing, and the sale of rape straw, rape meal and glycerine as by-products is assumed. In the latter case, the effect of organic agriculture and rape straw as a heating fuel in processing is explored. Subsequent results represent total primary energy inputs and the total CO2, CH4, N 2O and greenhouse gas emissions for the production of biodiesel from oilseed rape under typical conditions in the United Kingdom. The calculations include estimates of N 2O emissions from soils taken from a German study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research ( IFEU). Results do not take into account CO2 emissions from soils or carbon storage in soils. Average values of results are evaluated with estimates of accuracy signified by error bars. Using existing work, comparative results are generated for ultra low sulphur diesel from crude oil.
Transparency:
Results are presented in standard tables, laid out in the form of spreadsheets, which record all the values of key parameters and methods of calculation. Accompanying notes provide details of important assumptions and references indicate the original sources of data. This means of presentation is transparent.
Relevance:
The report uses values for key parameters and basic data which reflect average conditions in the United Kingdom, especially regarding fertiliser application rates and oilseed rape yields. Due to the transparency of the report, these could be modified to represent production in Scotland provided that values of relevant data could be established. However, it should be noted that some of the main technological and related assumptions incorporated in the report, mainly concerning the means for providing processing heat and the use of joint products, would probably be regarded as out-of-date by current producers and prospective developers.
Source:
Mortimer, N. D., Elsayed, M. A., and Horne, R. E. (2004) "Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Bioethanol Production from Wheat Grain and Sugar Beet" Final Report for British Sugar plc, Resources Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Summary:
This research report presents the results from the evaluation of total primary energy inputs and total CO2, CH4, N 2O and greenhouse gas emissions associated with various options for producing bioethanol from wheat grain and sugar beet by British Sugar plc in England.
Coverage:
The report examines the conventional production of bioethanol from wheat grain and sugar beet using fermentation and distillation. For each biomass feedstock, 4 different production options, relating to the provision of heat and electricity in the processing plant, are investigated. These consist of providing heat from a natural gas-fired boiler and electricity imported from the grid, natural gas-fired combined heat and power using steam and gas turbines, and a straw-fired combined heat and power plant using a steam turbine. The calculations include estimates of N 2O emissions from soils taken from a German study undertaken by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research ( IFEU). Results do not take into account CO2 emissions from soils or carbon storage in soils.
Transparency:
Results are presented in standard tables, laid out in the form of spreadsheets, which record all the values of key parameters and methods of calculation. Accompanying notes provide details of important assumptions and references indicate the original sources of data. This means of presentation is transparent.
Relevance:
The results reflect growing conditions and processing arrangements typical of British Sugar plc (for sugar beet) and its parent group (for wheat grain) in England. However, due to the transparency of the report and provided that suitable data can be obtained for Scotland, calculations could be modified to reflect Scottish conditions.
Source:
Mortimer, N. D., and Elsayed, M. A. (2006) "North East Biofuel Supply Chain Carbon Intensity Assessment" Northeast Bio-fuels Ltd., Teeside, United Kingdom.
Summary:
This research report presents the results from the evaluation of total primary energy inputs and total CO2, CH4, N 2O and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed production of biodiesel from oilseed rape in the North East of England.
Coverage:
The evaluation of results assumes conventional cultivation and harvesting of oilseed rape in the North East of England, local drying and storage, transport to Teeside, solvent extraction for rapeseed oil, esterification, storage, and distribution for sale. In this specific production process, it is assumed that heat is provided by natural gas and electricity is imported from the grid. Two particular options are examined for the use of rape meal as a major by-product of this process; in the first, rape meal is sold as an animal feed and in the second rape meal is sent for co-firing in a coal-fired power station. The variation of oilseed rape yield with the nitrogen fertiliser application rate is explored to determine the optimum value for maximum primary energy and greenhouse gas emissions savings relative to the production of ultra low sulphur diesel from crude oil. The calculations include estimates of N 2O emissions from soils taken from work at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra for the CONCAWE study but do not take into account CO2 emissions from soils or carbon storage in soils.
Transparency:
Results are presented in standard tables, laid out in the form of spreadsheets, which record all the values of key parameters and methods of calculation. Accompanying notes provide details of important assumptions and references indicate the original sources of data. This means of presentation is transparent.
Relevance:
The report uses values for key parameters and basic data which reflect average conditions in the North East of England, especially regarding fertiliser application rates, oilseed rape yields and processing details. In particular, the processing arrangements are specific to the planned arrangements on Teeside. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to modify the calculations used in this report to provide suitable results for Scottish conditions.
Source:
Pehnt, M. (2006) "Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment ( LCA) of Renewable Energy Technologies" Renewable Energy, Vol. 31, pp. 55 - 71.
Summary:
This journal paper summarises and compares the results of life cycle assessment studies, including total primary energy inputs and total CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions, for a range of renewable energy technologies that generate electricity or produce heat.
Coverage:
The paper addresses selected natural resource inputs and environmental impacts for electricity-generating renewable energy technologies, consisting of biogas, biomass (forest wood, short rotation forest and waste wood combustion with steam turbine, forest wood and short rotation forest wood combustion with reciprocating engine, and forest wood and short rotation wood co-combustion), hot dry rock geothermal energy, hydro power (small- and medium-scale), solar thermal power, solar photovoltaics, and wind power (onshore and offshore), and heat-producing renewable energy technologies, consisting of biomass (forest wood, short rotation forest wood and straw heating, and forest wood and short rotation forest wood central heating). Results are derived from a range of life cycle assessment studies, the database of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research ( IFEU) in Heidelburg, Germany, and the Umberto life cycle assessment software package.
Transparency:
This paper summarises results and, hence, it is not transparent. However, it is possible that the original studies on which the paper is based may be transparent.
Relevance:
Since the original studies cited in the paper were produced either in Germany or Switzerland, this suggests that results are relevant to conditions in these two countries. If the original studies are accessible and transparent, then it may be possible to modify them with suitable data to derive results which are relevant to Scotland.
Source:
Punter, G., Rickeard, D., Larivé, J.-F., Edwards, R., Mortimer, N. D., Horne, R. E., Bauen, A., and Woods, J. (2004) "Well-to-Wheel Evaluation for Production of Ethanol from Wheat" Report FWG-P-04-024 by the WTW Sub-Group of the Fuels Working Group, Low Carbon Vehicles Partnership, London, United Kingdom.
Summary:
This research report evaluates the primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emissions associated with various options for the production of bioethanol from wheat grain in the United Kingdom.
Coverage:
The options considered in this research report relate to two essential considerations; the sources of heat and electricity used in bioethanol production and the allocation procedures adopted for distillers' dark gains which are a by-product of bioethanol production. In terms of sources of heat and electricity, 6 models are examined; process heating from a natural gas-fired boiler and electricity imported from the national grid (Model a), combined heat and power based on a natural gas-fired boiler and a steam turbine (Model b1), combined heat and power based on a natural gas turbine with steam generator and a steam turbine (Model b21), combined heat and power based on a natural gas turbine and co-fired steam generator with a steam turbine (Model b22), a straw-fired boiler with a steam turbine (Model c1) and a straw-fired boiler with a steam turbine and condensing turbine (Model c2). The allocation procedures investigated consist of using distillers' dark grains either as an animal feed or as a biomass feedstock for co-firing in coal-fired power stations. In both these instances, allocation is achieved by means of substitution credits. Estimates total primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emissions are derived for all these options. Separate CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions are not recorded. Estimates of N 2O emissions from soils are taken from work by the Joint Research Centre at Ispra quoted in the CONCAWE study. However, no account is taken of CO2 emissions from soils or carbon storage in soils.
Transparency:
Many of the key parameters and assumptions used in the calculations are documented. However, the details of these calculations are not provided. In particular, the calculation of CH4 and N 2O emissions is not shown as these are aggregated into total greenhouse gas emissions. The research report is not completely transparent although details are contained in supporting Excel spreadsheets.
Relevance:
The research report derives results which are intended to reflect conditions in the United Kingdom. As such the results are not directly applicable to Scotland. However, the research report demonstrates the effect of technological options and allocation procedures on total primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emissions. This is relevant to any subsequent work which might be performed on bioethanol production from wheat grain in Scotland.
Source:
Scheisner, L. (2000) "Life-Cycle Assessment of a Wind Farm and Related Externalities" Renewable Energy, Vol. 20, p. 279 - 288.
Summary:
This journal paper presents the results of life cycle assessment, including the evaluation of total primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emissions for onshore and offshore wind power.
Coverage:
The life cycle assessment reported in this paper examines an onshore wind farm consisting of 18 wind turbines, each with a tower height of 41.5 metres and power rating of 500 kW, and an offshore wind farm consisting of 10 wind turbines, each with a tower height of 40.5 metres and a power rating of 500 kW. The specific sites chosen for this life cycle assessment consist of the Fjaldene onshore wind farm on Jutland, Denmark, and the Tunø Knob offshore wind farm off the east coast of Jutland, Denmark. The life cycle analysis is based on a full materials weight inventory for both wind farms and data from a Danish database of energy and emissions factors per unit weight for materials. The full cycle, consisting of materials production and manufacture, construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and disposal, is considered. The effects of materials recycling after decommissioning are examined. Results include total primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emission but separate CH4 and N 2O emissions are not recorded.
Transparency:
Considerable detail is provided in this paper but it is not complete. Hence, the paper itself is not totally transparent. It is possible that the work on which the original model is based is transparent.
Relevance:
The results specifically refer to onshore and offshore wind power in Denmark. However, it is possible that data provided in the paper could be used, in conjunction with relevant values for key parameters and supporting data, to assist the preparation of results for Scotland.
Source:
Spath, P. L., Mann, M. K., and Kerr, D. R. (1999) "Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Production" Report No. TP-570-25119, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, United States of America.
Summary:
This research report estimates the emissions, resource consumption and energy use of all processes required to operate coal-fired power plants, including any necessary waste disposal and material recycling, in the United States of America.
Coverage:
The report addresses electric power generation from coal extracted by surface or underground mining, transported by road, rail or barge, and combusted in one of three types of power plant; a current operating design of power plant (360 MW net) representing the 1990s average for the United States of America, a new design of power plant (425 MW net) which would meet the New Source Performance Standards in the United States of America, or a highly-advanced power plant design (404 MW net) incorporating a low emissions boiler system. Primary energy consumption, 14 natural resources (including fossil fuels, limestone, iron ore, iron scrap and water), 34 emissions to air (including CO2, CH4 and N 2O), 27 emissions to water and 21 discharges to land are evaluated. Materials and energy flows between processes are recorded by means of Tools for Environmental Analysis and Management ( TEAM) software provided by Ecobalance Inc. Data for the evaluation was obtained from the Data for Environmental Analysis and Management ( DEAM)) software database supplemented with information from other sources.
Transparency:
Considerable information is provided on the key parameters and essential features for coal-fired power generation. However, the complete details are contained in the software used to produce results and, hence, the report itself is not completely transparent.
Relevance:
The report specifically concerns coal-fired electricity generation in the United States of America and, hence, it is not directly relevant to Scotland. However, in the absence of suitable studies and results, it might be possible to adapt the data contained in this report, by means of relevant information, to derive suitable results for Scotland.
Source:
Spath, P. L, and Mann, M. K. (2000) "Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generation System" Report No. TP-570-27715, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, United States of America.
Summary:
This research report estimates the emissions, resource consumption and energy use of all processes required to operate a natural-fired combined cycle power plant in the United States of America.
Coverage:
The report addresses electric power generation from a natural gas combined cycle power plant (507 MW net) consisting of two gas turbines, three pressure heat recovery steam generators and one pre-heat steam turbine. The full life cycle of natural gas combined cycle electric power generation including natural gas production and distribution, pipeline construction and operation, natural gas combustion and NOx reduction, power plant construction and decommissioning is examined. Primary energy consumption, natural resources (including fossil fuels, limestone, iron ore, iron scrap and water), emissions to air (including CO2, CH4 and N 2O) and emissions to water are evaluated. Materials and energy flows between processes are recorded by means of Tools for Environmental Analysis and Management ( TEAM) software provided by Ecobalance Inc. Data for the evaluation was obtained from the Data for Environmental Analysis and Management ( DEAM)) software database supplemented with information from other sources.
Transparency:
Considerable information is provided on the key parameters and essential features for natural gas-fired combined cycle power generation. However, the complete details are contained in the software used to produce results and, hence, the report itself is not completely transparent.
Relevance:
The report specifically concerns natural gas-fired electricity generation in the United States of America and, hence, it is not directly relevant to Scotland. However, in the absence of suitable studies and results, it might be possible to adapt the data contained in this report, by means of relevant information, to derive suitable results for Scotland.
Source:
Storm van Leeuwen, J. W. S., and Smith, P. (2005) "Nuclear Power, the Energy Balance" Rijkuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands.
Summary:
This research report evaluates the total primary energy inputs and CO2 emissions of nuclear power.
Coverage:
The report provides a very thorough investigation of the energy requirements of the complete nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium ore mining, milling and processing, conversion, enrichment, fuel processing, spent fuel reprocessing and waste management, and power station construction, operation and decommissioning. The assumed design is a pressurised water reactor ( PWR) and this affects the details of the supporting nuclear fuel cycle. The effect of varying key parameters, such as the uranium ore grade and type, are investigated. Energy requirements are converted into CO2 emissions. CH4 and N 2O emissions are not calculated.
Transparency:
Considerable details are documented on the calculation of the energy requirements of each part of the nuclear fuel cycle. However, the actual means for converting energy requirements to CO2 emissions are unclear but may involve approximations based on average emission factors for fossil fuels. Values of key parameters and basic data as well as important assumptions are explicit. Uncertainties regarding decommissioning and waste management are apparent.
Relevance:
Since this report focuses on nuclear power based on the PWR design, subsequent results are not relevant to current nuclear power stations, which are based on the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor ( AGR) design, operating in Scotland. Although estimates of total CO2 emissions could be used indicatively of nuclear power based on previous PWR designs, they may not reflect new PWR designs which are being proposed for the United Kingdom.
Source:
Tokimatsu, K. (2000) "Evaluation of CO2 Emissions in the Life Cycle of Tokamak Fusion Power Reactors" Nuclear Fusion, Vol. 40, p. 653 - 659.
Summary:
This journal paper calculates the likely total CO2 emissions arising from future commercial fusion power reactors and compares estimates with results for the generation of electricity from coal, hydro power, nuclear power and solar photovoltaics.
Coverage:
Analysis and comparison are restricted to CO2 emissions in this paper. Primary energy inputs, and CH4 and N 2O emissions are not evaluated. Although the main focus is fusion power, comparisons for existing energy technologies derived from an original study, in Japanese. This may contain relevant data for these technologies, especially solar photovoltaics.
Transparency:
The paper contains some basic data but does not present the details of relevant calculations which may be available, for the comparative energy technologies, in the original study. By itself, the paper is not transparent.
Relevance:
The results of the paper are not directly relevant to Scotland. However, the original study may be sufficiently transparent for use with suitable information and supporting sources to obtain results for the use of certain energy technologies, such as solar photovoltaics, in Scotland. However, it would be necessary to establish whether the original study covers the estimation of primary energy inputs, and CH4 and N 2O emissions adequately.
Source:
Voorspools, K. R., Brouwers, E. A., and D'Haeseleer, W. D. (2000) "Energy Content and Indirect Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Embedded in 'Emission-Free' Plants: Results from the Low Countries" Applied Energy, Vol. 67, p. 207 - 330.
Summary:
This journal paper compares the total primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emissions for the production of electricity from nuclear power, solar photovoltaics and wind power.
Coverage:
The evaluation of nuclear power is based on a 1000 MW pressurised water reactor power station and associated nuclear fuel cycle using data supplied from the engineering office responsible for constructing plants in Belgium. The assessment of wind power uses an average of studies including those from the Danish Energy Centre and data from the European Commission and wind turbine manufacturers. The analysis of solar photovoltaics is based on square, mono-crystalline silicon modules. Results are presented in the form of total primary energy inputs and total greenhouse gas emissions. Total CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions are not separated.
Transparency:
Basic assumptions are explained but essential data and details of calculations are not provided. The paper, in itself, is not transparent.
Relevance:
The results presented in this paper are not relevant to Scotland mainly because they reflect the use of energy technologies in Belgium, Denmark and, probably, the Netherlands. However, if the original study on which the paper is based is accessible and transparent, it might be used, with suitable data and in conjunction with other work, to determine total primary energy inputs and total CO2, CH4 and N 2O emissions for nuclear power, solar photovoltaics and wind power.
« Previous | Contents | Next »