Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios to 2070

Stamford, Laurence; Azapagic, Adisa

doi:10.1016/j.esd.2014.09.008

Cited by 146 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A rather elaborate assessment method was introduced by Stamford and Azapagic [64] who used 43 indicators grouped into sustainability sections (techno-economic, environmental, social) to assess possible future energy mixes in the UK. They followed up their assessment with a revised method, employing 16 indicators that followed LCA for environmental impacts but own deliberations regarding economic and social impacts to identify the most sustainable energy mix for the UK in 2070 [65]. Similarly, the assessment of primary energy carriers was the focus of the Integrated Sustainability Assessment Framework (ISAF) in which 15 indicators for four sustainability dimensions (adding "technology" to the three conventional ones) were suggested [66].…”

Section: Alternative Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Potential for Its Adoption at an Automotive Company

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of this paper is to guide the next steps of a PhD thesis through a structured review of the state of the art and implementation of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), and to identify challenges and potentials for its adoption at an automotive company. First, the structured literature review was conducted on LCSA to screen the current methodological and practical implementations and to identify the main research needs in the field. Second, a research on the current status of LCSA within the automotive industry was carried out by means of investigation of published sources of 15 Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM). By combining the results of both steps and consulting with decision makers, the challenges and potential for adopting LCSA at an automotive company were identified. The main challenges for adoption of LCSA were found to be: (1) the consistent execution of the three life cycle based assessment methods; (2) the comparatively low maturity of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA); and (3) the adequate presentation and interpretation of results. Next steps towards implementation would be a case study to gather experience on the combined execution of the three life cycle based assessments at an automotive company. Furthermore, it should be determined what the needs of decision makers at an automotive company are regarding the aggregation and interpretation of environmental, social, and economic impacts.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Potential for Its Adoption at an Automotive Company

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stamford and Azapagic [16] UK Shale gas, conventional gas, oil, nuclear, offshore, wind and solar photovoltaics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Performance of Electricity Generation Based on Resources: A Life Cycle Assessment Case Study in Turkey

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of this paper was to determine how to change the environmental performance of electricity generation depending on the resources and their shares, in order to support decision-makers. Additionally, this paper presents an application of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to determine the environmental burdens of electricity generation in Turkey. Electricity generation data in Turkey for the years 2012 and 2023 were used as a case study. The functional unit for electricity generation was 1 kWh. The LCA calculations were carried out using CML-IA (v3.00) data and the results were interpreted with respect to Monte Carlo simulation analysis (with the Monte Carlo function built in SimaPro 8.0.1 software). The results demonstrated that the fossil fuel consumption not only contributes to global warming, but it also has effects on the elemental basis of abiotic depletion due to raw material consumption for plant infrastructure. Additionally, it was observed that the increasing proportion of wind power in the electricity mix would also increase certain life cycle impacts (such as the elemental basis of abiotic depletion, human ecotoxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity) in Turkey's geography compared to increasing the share of other renewable energy sources, such as hydropower, geothermal, as well as solar.

show abstract

“…Instead of a cradle-to-grave approach, they preferred a "cradle-to-consumer" framework, thereby neglecting the decommissioning stage in their calculations. Stamford and Azapagic assessed the life cycle sustainability of different electricity scenarios for the United Kingdom, extending to 2070 [7]. The scenarios included the main technologies relevant to the country, which are nuclear, gas, coal with and without carbon capture and storage, wind, solar photovoltaics and biomass.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Opinion-Based Comparison of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity Generation in Turkey With Selected European Countries

Üçtuğ¹

2017

ANADOLU UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY a - Applied Sciences and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The life cycle environmental impacts of electricity generation in Turkey were compared to those of Denmark, France, and Poland. The reason for selecting these particular countries for benchmarking was the fact that electricity generation in these countries is dominated mostly by a single source, that is wind, nuclear, and coal, respectively. OpenLCA TM software and European Life Cycle Database were used, CML2001 method was employed. The life cycle analysis approach was from cradle to grave. The environmental impact criteria which were studied were acidification, global warming potential, depletion of abiotic resources -elements, depletion of abiotic resources -fossil fuels, eutrophication, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, human toxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, ozone layer depletion, photochemical oxidation, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. In addition to comparing the four countries in terms of these individual impacts, the overall environmental impact scores for all countries were calculated, once with equal weights for all impacts and once with weights which were determined by acquiring the stakeholder opinions via an online questionnaire. In both cases, Poland turned out to have the highest environmental impact due to the high share coal in the electricity mix, and Turkey came second after Poland. Equal-weightanalysis returned Denmark as the country with the cleanest electricity generation infrastructure whereas stakeholder-weightanalysis results showed that it was France who had the lowest environmental impact. This result was attributed to the high weight of global warming potential and France's nuclear-energy-based electricity generation system has a very low global warming potential when compared to other three countries. It was concluded that the prospective addition of nuclear energy, solar energy, and clean coal technologies into Turkey's electricity mix shall reduce the overall environmental impact of electricity generation in Turkey significantly.

show abstract

Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios to 2070

Cited by 146 publications

References 3 publications

Review of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Potential for Its Adoption at an Automotive Company

Review of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Potential for Its Adoption at an Automotive Company

Environmental Performance of Electricity Generation Based on Resources: A Life Cycle Assessment Case Study in Turkey

Stakeholder Opinion-Based Comparison of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Electricity Generation in Turkey With Selected European Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About