Integrating Energy System Models in Life Cycle Management

Abstract

The energy supply chain is the backbone of industrialised societies, but it is also one of the leading causes of global environmental burden. Life cycle management (LCM) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are increasingly being used in combination with energy system optimisation models (ESOM) to better represent the energy sector and its dynamics, and facilitate better decision-making. The integration of ESOM and LCA can enable powerful analyses, but not without difficulties. In this chapter, we review studies linking a well-known bottom-up ESOM (TIMES) with LCA databases and identify the principal challenges and how they have been addressed. One of the main integration challenges is the identification of equivalent processes between life cycle inventories and ESOM databases: the mapping problem. Other concomitant issues such as double counting and parameter consistency have been identified and are also investigated.

Adjustment of the Life Cycle Inventory in Life Cycle Assessment for the Flexible Integration into Energy Systems Analysis

“…Double counting of the emission occurs when the entire life cycle of a technology is modelled in the LCA without adjusting the system boundaries according to the assumptions of the ESA model. While the integration of LCA into ESA is widely practiced [8,21,[44][45][46][47][48] and its benefits in term of accuracy by taking more emissions into consideration are recognised When integrating LCA into ESA several issues need to be considered which are of common interest for the sound integration of the two methodologies. Blanco et al [44] lists the following common issues when combining LCA with ESA.…”

“…While the integration of LCA into ESA is widely practiced [8,21,[44][45][46][47][48] and its benefits in term of accuracy by taking more emissions into consideration are recognised [21,44,47], the integration is not always done very meticulously as double counting of emissions is often not avoided and formalisation is needed [8].…”

“…The dimension of the potential overestimation remains unclear and problematic if the results are to be used in decision making processes. Naegler et al [47] acknowledge the prevalent problem of double counting, and Astudillo et al [8] calls for a solution for the double counting problem and a formalised common language between LCA and ESA to increase the value of the integration. Volkart [21] and Blanco et al [44] address the problem.…”

“…This reflects a production-based perspective. The failure to allocate life cycle emission to the consuming entity is considered to be a drawback in current energy system models [8,9]. One of the consequences of this is the occurrence of carbon leakage, which outsources emissions and the corresponding environmental impact beyond the system boundaries of the assessed energy system.…”

Appending material flows to the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for projecting the physical economy of the United States

“…Recent efforts in resource modeling and industrial ecology research have focused on using material flow analysis (MFA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) models in conjunction with large‐scale ESOMs or IAMs. The overall goal of these efforts is to take advantage of the relative advantages of each model: MFA provides the ability to represent the entire physical economy, not just energy carriers (Hendriks et al., 2010; Liu, Bangs, & Muller, 2011), while LCA can assess environmental impacts associated with both energy‐ and materials‐related processes (Astudillo, Vaillancourt, Pineau, & Amor, 2018; Vandepaer & Gibon, 2018). Both MFA and LCA models tend to reflect current or historical realities where flows of material and energy are already known.…”