Life cycle assessment of ocean energy technologies

Abstract

Purpose Oceans offer a vast amount of renewable energy. Tidal and wave energy devices are currently the most advanced conduits of ocean energy. To date, only a few life cycle assessments for ocean energy have been carried out for ocean energy. This study analyses ocean energy devices, including all technologies currently being proposed, in order to gain a better understanding of their environmental impacts and explore how they can contribute to a more sustainable energy supply. Methods The study followed the methodology of life cycle assessment including all life cycle steps from cradle to grave. The various types of device were assessed, on the basis of a functional unit of 1 kWh of electricity delivered to the grid. The impact categories investigated were based on the ILCD recommendations. The life cycle models were set up using detailed technical information on the components and structure of around 180 ocean energy devices from an in-house database.Results and discussion The design of ocean energy devices still varies considerably, and their weight ranges from 190 to 1270 t, depending on device type. Environmental impacts are closely linked to material inputs and are caused mainly by mooring and foundations and structural components, while impacts from assembly, installation and use are insignificant for all device types. Total greenhouse gas emissions of ocean energy devices range from about 15 to 105 g CO 2 -eq. kWh −1 . Average global warming potential for all device types is 53 ± 29 g CO 2 -eq. kWh −1 . The results of this study are comparable with those of other studies and confirm that the environmental impacts of ocean energy devices are comparable with those of other renewable technologies and can contribute to a more sustainable energy supply. Conclusions Ocean energy devices are still at an early stage of development compared with other renewable energy technologies. Their environmental impacts can be further reduced by technology improvements already being pursued by developers (e.g. increased efficiency and reliability). Future life cycle assessment studies should assess whole ocean energy arrays or ocean energy farms.

Life Cycle Assessment of a Buoy-Rope-Drum Wave Energy Converter

“…These studies compare wave energy favorably against current renewable energy sources such as wind (8-12 gCO 2 /kWh), solar PV (~30 gCO 2 /kWh) and nuclear (~70 gCO 2 /kWh) [16]. As per these studies, the WEC environmental impacts are closely linked to material inputs and are caused mainly by structural components and mooring foundations; while impacts from assembly, installation and use are insignificant for all device types [8,13,18]. Possible improvement to reduce WECs' entire life cycle environmental impact, especially energy and carbon intensity, can be achieved by using more environmentally sustainable materials for the structural components, utilizing more fuel-efficient transportation, as well as reducing the shipping associated with maintenance [8,13].…”

“…The reported total greenhouse gas emissions of ocean energy devices range from about 15 to 105 gCO 2-eq /kWh. Average global warming potential for all device types is 53 ± 29 gCO 2-eq /kWh [18].…”

“…The reported total greenhouse gas emissions of ocean energy devices range from about 15 to 105 gCO 2-eq /kWh. Average global warming potential for all device types is 53 ± 29 gCO 2-eq /kWh [18].These pioneering in-depth LCA studies indicate that wave energy conversion have the advantage and potential to become a promising contributor to achieve reduction of energy and carbon intensities Energies 2018, 11, 2432 3 of 15…”

Prospective Analysis of Life-Cycle Indicators through Endogenous Integration into a National Power Generation Model

“…Then, Data acquisition is required to quantify the input and output flows associated with the power generation technologies listed in Table 1. Inventory data for the new technologies, i.e., those potentially participating in the electricity production mix according to the optimisation of each scenario, are based on specific literature: coal thermal power plants with/without capture [37][38][39], NGCC with/without capture [40,41], nuclear fission (III and IV generation) [42,43], nuclear fusion [44], cogeneration [45], hydropower dam and run-of-river plants [46], wind farms [47,48], tidal power [49], wave power [50], photovoltaics (open-ground and rooftop systems) [51], concentrated solar power plant with/without storage [52,53], geothermal (binary cycle) power plants [54], bioresource technology (biomass integrated gasification combined cycle, biogas and waste-to-energy plants) [55][56][57], PEMFC [58], and SOFC [59]. Finally, data for both existing technologies and background processes are retrieved from the ecoinvent database [60].…”

Comparative LCA of technology improvement opportunities for a 1.5-MW wind turbine in the context of an onshore wind farm

“…These environmental impacts have to be quantified in order to examine the potential for improvement to the processes and to compare the effects of energy production (Fokaides et al 2014;Igliński et al 2016;Lieberei and Gheewala 2017). In recent years, there has been rapid growth in wind power use partly due to its perceived importance for sustainable development (Lund 2007;Weinzettel et al 2009;Singh and Parida 2013;Glassbrook et al 2014;Panagiotidou et al 2016;Uihlein 2016). According to Lantz et al (2012) and Allaei and Andreopoulos (2014), wind energy technology has steadily improved and costs have decreased.…”