Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Integrating TIMES and life cycle assessment models


Published on

Integrating TIMES and life cycle assessment models

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Integrating TIMES and life cycle assessment models

  1. 1. Integration of TIMES and life cycle assessment (LCA) models Miguel F. Astudillo (U. Sherbrooke) Kathleen Vaillancourt (Esmia Consultants Inc.) Pierre-Olivier Pineau (HEC Montreal) Ben Amor (U. Sherbrooke) ETSAP workshop 2018
  2. 2. Life cycle assessment in a nutshell 2 Advantages of integration: 1. Complete and consistent inventory of emissions. 2. Comprehensive env. Indicators 1. Human health 2. Biodiversity loss 3. Water scarcity … • Inventories materials and energy flows • Impact assessment methods (e.g. GWP) = Environmental indicators Car (LCA) Car (TIMES) Purpose: Quantify the environmental impact of good or service. CC BY e.g. : 1 pkm of large diesel car
  3. 3. Past attempts and problems: - NEEDS project - Menten et al 2015 - Garcia-Gusano et al 2016a - Garcia-Gusano et al 2016b - Volkart et al. 2017 - … • Forthcoming: - Reflex EU project - Store&Go EU project - Reem project 3 Problems: - Incomplete mapping : TIMES models have many process to match manually. - Biased models if LCA data affects the objective function. - Inconsistent datasets: efficiency, emission factors … - Double counting: e.g. energy services for industry, freight transport etc. Astudillo et al. 2018
  4. 4. How to simplify: Focus on the ‘relevant’ changes in the RES Only include Life cycle emissions of the processes that emit most of the GHGe Assumption: operating GHG emissions are correlated with other environmental impacts (Kalbar et al. 2017) In LCA jargon : cut-off criterion 4 TIMES LCA Requires complete mapping
  5. 5. Research question: NATEM (North American TIMES E. Model: TIMES model: NATEM-Quebec GHG from fuel combustion. 2700 + technologies 5 What is the potential life-cycle environmental Impact of a climate change mitigation policy in Quebec ? Baseline: Counterfactual: baseline + GHG constraint
  6. 6. Cut-off : changes in CO2eq emissions 6 cut-off criterion: only include the processes that explain x % of absolute changes in GHG (according to a TIMES model) N º processes affected by GHGe mitigation policy in Quebec 0% = 603 processes 10% = 59 processes A few processes are enough to explain most of the (needed) changes
  7. 7. cut-off effectiveness in different scenarios 7 Similar effectiveness of cut-off in different scenarios
  8. 8. cut-off problem : Are CO2eq emissions a good screening indicator? 8
  9. 9. Non-CO2 intensive ‘relevant’ process 9 Some processes should be included regardless their contribution to GHG. How: Meta-analysis of LCA database. Which: Nuclear, biomass combustion, heat-pumps Ratio of Impact 2002+ endpoint scores to CC scores for key Swiss processes 𝑁𝑜𝑛𝐶𝐶 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝐶 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 ≫ 1
  10. 10. Inconsistent parameters 10 TIMES represent future energy systems, LCI of existing ones. Potentially different emission factors. Harmonisation step: Update LCA databases with parameters from TIMES model
  11. 11. Inconsistent parameters: comparing EF 11 Fuel combustion emission factors (CO2,N2O and CH4) - Canadian inventory of GHG - Ecoinvent v3.4 (reference LCA database). Notable differences in coal and natural gas. For the rest, no need to adapt.
  12. 12. Summary of workflow 12 1) Create baseline and counterfactual scenario in TIMES 2) Identify processes to be included in the LCI: 1) Apply Cut-off: contribution to changes in CO2eq 2) Add non-CO2 “relevant” processes 3) Harmonise parameters 4) Impact assessment
  13. 13. Implementation : reproducible workflows 13 Notebook integrating: - Live code - Documentation (equation, figures, text) Integration tool build in python Results by the end of the year !
  14. 14. Some results: Operation CO2,CH4, N2O vs the rest 14
  15. 15. References • Astudillo, M.F., Vaillancourt, K., Pineau, P.-O., Amor, B., 2017. Can the household sector reduce global warming mitigation costs? sensitivity to key parameters in a TIMES techno-economic energy model. Appl. Energy 205, 486–498. • Astudillo, M.F., Vaillancourt, K., Pineau, P.-O., Amor, B., n.d. Integrating energy system models in life cycle management, in: Benetto, E., Gericke, K. (Eds.), Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. • García-Gusano, D., Garraín, D., Dufour, J., 2016a. Prospective life cycle assessment of the Spanish electricity production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 75, 21–34. • García-Gusano, D., Iribarren, D., Martín-Gamboa, M., Dufour, J., Espegren, K., Lind, A., 2016b. Integration of life-cycle indicators into energy optimisation models: The case study of power generation in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2693–2696. • Menten, F.M., Tchung-ming, S., Lorne, D., Bouvart, F., 2015. Lessons from the use of a long-term energy model for consequential life cycle assessment : the BTL case. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43, 942–960. • Volkart, K., Weidmann, N., Bauer, C., Hirschberg, S., 2017. Multi-criteria decision analysis of energy system transformation pathways: A case study for Switzerland. Energy Policy 106, 155–168. 15
  16. 16. Thanks for listening ! Questions? 16