Green Energy Choices, full slide pack
•
2 likes•352 views
This report of the International Resource Panel presents a comprehensive assessment of environmental benefits, costs and risks associated with different technologies for electricity production, including photovoltaics, wind power, hydropower, geothermal energy, and fossil power with CO2 capture and storage.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Green Energy Choices, full slide pack
Similar to Green Energy Choices, full slide pack (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Green Energy Choices, full slide pack
- 1. Lead authors: Edgar Hertwich, Thomas Gibon, Sangwon Suh, Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Joe Bergesen
- 2. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Content 1. Background 2. Results 3. Technology summary 4. Main findings 2 ©chungking/Shutterstock
- 5. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production IPCC: A near‐complete shift to low‐carbon energy sources is required for any stabilization target 2.6°C 2.2°C 1.9°C 1.6°C Important electricity increases in almost all IPCC scenarios resulting from wide implementation of low‐carbon technologies Source: IPCC AR5 (2014) 5
- 6. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Challenge • Electricity currently accounts for 25% of GHG emissions • Massive investments in new energy technologies are required to achieve a stabilization of CO2 concentrations • Low‐carbon technologies may have unforeseen consequences on the ecosystems, human health or resources • Informed decisions are required in selecting the right mix of low‐ carbon technologies Would the chosen low‐carbon technologies be optimal for achieving 2°C objective? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050 GtCO2 Technologies CCS 13% Power generation efficiency and fuel switching 1% End‐use fuel switching 10% End‐use fuel and electricity efficiency 38% Nuclear 8% 2DS Baseline emissions 56 Gt BLUE Map emissions 14 Gt Source: IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2015 (2015) 6
- 7. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production What are environmental, health and resource use implications of a massive expansion of low‐carbon electricity? 7 350 000 wind turbines would be required to provide 12% electricity in 2050. An offshore wind turbine with this capacity uses 1200 tons of steel. How much pollution results from these wind turbines? 350 000 wind turbines would be required to provide 12% electricity in 2050. An offshore wind turbine with this capacity uses 1200 tons of steel. How much pollution results from these wind turbines? 3.2 million premature deaths in 2010 from outdoor air pollution caused by particulate matter from combustion. Do power plants with CCS produce less particulate emissions than power plants without CCS? 3.2 million premature deaths in 2010 from outdoor air pollution caused by particulate matter from combustion. Do power plants with CCS produce less particulate emissions than power plants without CCS? A typical photovoltaic power plant produces 0.3 kWh per m2 per day. It requires copper for cables, aluminum for frames, and energy‐intensive manufacturing of semiconductors. Do PV panels have high material implications? A typical photovoltaic power plant produces 0.3 kWh per m2 per day. It requires copper for cables, aluminum for frames, and energy‐intensive manufacturing of semiconductors. Do PV panels have high material implications? ©visual_k/Freeiłqges©Richie Chan/Shutterstock © Ranglen/Shutterstock
- 8. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production 8 • Coal and gas with and without CO2 capture and storage (CCS), • Photovoltaic power, • Concentrated solar power, • Hydropower, • Geothermal, • Wind power. Nine electricity technologies • Damage on ecosystems • ecotoxicity, • eutrophication, • acidification… • Damage on human health • particulate matter, • human toxicity… • Resource use • iron, copper, aluminium, cement, • energy, water and land Impact categories • Extraction of raw materials, • Fuel supply chain, • Production of power plants, • Transportation • Operation, • Maintenance, • Decommissioning. Life cycle perspective Assessment Approach and Method
- 9. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Supporting: Assessment Approach and Method • Life cycle inventories only from reviewed data • Data collection by a panel of 20 independent experts • Harmonized and coordinated Scientific data • Baseline • Business‐as‐usual • Continuous investments in fossil technologies • No CCS • BLUE Map • Renewable deployment • Phasing out of fossil fuel plants without CCS Scenarios • Vintage capital modelling 2010‐2050 • The total impact on a given year is the sum of the impacts from the plants • built, • in operation, • repowered, • decommissioned • …that exact year Time series
- 11. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Human Health Impacts (DALY*/TWh) 16 32 25 28 26 29 87 97 410 290 420 310 320 240 310 260 110 10 22 25 15 4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Trough Tower CdTeground CdTeroof CIGSground CIGSroof Poly-Siground Poly-Siroof SupercriticalwithCCS SupercriticalwithoutCCS ExistingcoalwithCCS ExistingcoalwithoutCCS IGCCwithCCS IGCCwithoutCCS NaturalgaswithCCS NaturalgaswithoutCCS Reservoir1 Reservoir2 Offshoreconventional,GBfoundation Offshoreconventional,steelfoundation Onshoreconventional Binary(Wairakei) Concentrated solar power Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydro Wind Geothermal human toxicity/ RER/ (H) ionising radiation/ RER/ (H) ozone depletion/ GLO/ (H) particulate matter formation/ RER/ (H) photochemical oxidant formation/ RER/ (H) 11 *DALY = «Disability Adjusted Life Years»
- 12. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Pollution of Ecosystems (species‐year/TWh) 4 13 2.7 3.1 7.3 7.8 15 16 68 44 71 46 57 42 57 44 7,7 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Trough Tower CdTeground CdTeroof CIGSground CIGSroof Poly-Siground Poly-Siroof SupercriticalwithCCS SupercriticalwithoutCCS ExistingcoalwithCCS ExistingcoalwithoutCCS IGCCwithCCS IGCCwithoutCCS NaturalgaswithCCS NaturalgaswithoutCCS Reservoir1 Reservoir2 Offshoreconventional,GBfoundation Offshoreconventional,steelfoundation Onshoreconventional Binary(Wairakei) Concentrated solar power Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydro Wind Geothermal freshwater ecotoxicity/ RER/ (H) freshwater eutrophication/ RER/ (H) marine ecotoxicity/ RER/ (H) terrestrial acidification/ RER/ (H) terrestrial ecotoxicity/ RER/ (H) 12
- 13. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Land Occupation (m2a/MWh) 13 19 11 0.5 11 0.5 12 3 26 19 28 20 23 17 0.2 0.2 12 84 0.3 0.3 0.3 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Trough Tower CdTeground CdTeroof CIGSground CIGSroof Poly-Siground Poly-Siroof SupercriticalwithCCS SupercriticalwithoutCCS ExistingcoalwithCCS ExistingcoalwithoutCCS IGCCwithCCS IGCCwithoutCCS NaturalgaswithCCS NaturalgaswithoutCCS Reservoir(Pascua2.2) Reservoir(Baker2) Offshoreconventional,GBfoundation Offshoreconventional,steelfoundation Onshoreconventional Binary(Wairakei) Concentrated solar power Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydro Wind Geothermal 13
- 14. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Mineral Resources (kg/MWh) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Trough Tower CdTeground CdTeroof CIGSground CIGSroof Poly-Siground Poly-Siroof SupercriticalwithCCS SupercriticalwithoutCCS ExistingcoalwithCCS ExistingcoalwithoutCCS IGCCwithCCS IGCCwithoutCCS NaturalgaswithCCS NaturalgaswithoutCCS Reservoir(Pascua2.2) Reservoir(Baker2) Offshoreconventional,GBfoundation Offshoreconventional,steelfoundation Onshoreconventional Binary(Wairakei) Concentrated solar power Photovoltaics Coal Natural gas Hydropower Wind power Geothermal Non-renewableenergy(MJ/kWh) Aluminium Copper Iron Cement Non-renewable energy 14
- 17. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Low‐impact projects: • Good wind conditions and grid connections reduce challenge of matching supply and demand • Siting and operational measures can limit bird and bat collision fatalities • Recycling of wind turbines can reduce pollution impacts Wind power 17 ©Jeff Adkins
- 18. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Photovoltaics •Low carbon (==) Climate •Low particulate matter emissions (+=) •Low human toxicity (if proper recycling, =‐) Human health •Low eutrophication and ecotoxicity (+‐) Ecosystem health •High metal use (balance of system, module, +=) •High direct land use for ground‐based systems (++) Resources Key (##) First symbol (+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreement Second symbol (+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence ©ElenaElisseeva/Shutterstock 18
- 19. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Low‐impact projects: • Using clean energy for manufacturing of PV panels can substantially reduce impacts • Recycling of PV panels can preserve critical metals and contain toxic metals • Significant potential for roof‐mounted PV panels Photovoltaics 19 ©ElenaElisseeva/Shutterstock
- 20. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Concentrating solar power • Low GHG emissions (==) Climate Change • Low particular matter exposure (+=) • Low human toxicity (=‐) Human Health • Potential toxicity of heat transfer fluids (+=) • Low ecotoxicity and eutrophication (+‐) Ecosystems • High water consumption, unless air cooled (++) • High land use (++) • High cement use (power tower, +‐) Resources Key (##) First symbol (+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreement Second symbol (+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence 20 ©Ethan Miller/Getty Images
- 21. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Low‐impact projects: • Uses heat storage to produce electricity in the evening and night, thereby avoiding backup power • Siting avoiding sensitive habitat • Good management of heat transfer cycle Concentrating solar power 21 ©Ethan Miller/Getty Images
- 22. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Hydropower •Low fossil carbon (++) •High biogenic carbon from tropical dams (==) Climate •Low air pollution impacts (=‐) •Population displacement (+‐) Human health •Riparian habitat change (++) Ecosystem health •Water use (evaporation, +‐) •High land use for reservoirs (+=) •High cement use (tower only, +‐) Resources Key (##) First symbol (+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreement Second symbol (+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence 22
- 23. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Low‐impact projects: • Environmental stream flow and other mitigating measures can reduce ecological impact • Ensure high power density to limit biogenic methane emissions Hydropower 23
- 24. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Geothermal power •Low carbon (==) Climate •Low particulate matter (+=) •Low human toxicity (=‐) Human health •Concern about heat transfer fluid (+=) •Low eutrophication and ecotoxicity (+‐) Ecosystem health •High water use (maintenance, ++) •High land use (++) •High cement use (tower only, +‐) Resources Key (##) First symbol (+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreement Second symbol (+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence 24 ©istockphoto.com
- 26. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Coal and natural gas power, with CO2 capture and storage • Low GHG (++) • Substantial fugitive methane emissions (==) • Concern about CO2 leakage (‐=) Climate • Solvent related emissions (==) • High particulate matter (==) • High human toxicity (=‐) Human health • High eutrophication (mining, ++) • Ecotoxicity (+=) Ecosystem health • Increased fossil fuel consumption (++) • Limited CO2 storage (++) Resources Key (##) First symbol (+) high agreement among studies (=) moderate agreement (‐) low agreement Second symbol (+) robust evidence (many studies) (=) medium evidence (‐) limited evidence 26 ©Reuters
- 27. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production Low‐impact projects: • Significant potential to reduce emissions in fuel production and transport • Geologic factors important for pollution level of fuels • Sourcing fuels from low‐ polluting sites is important Coal and natural gas power, with CO2 capture and storage 27 ©Reuters
- 31. Green Energy Choices The Benefits, Risks and Trade‐offs of Low‐Carbon Technologies for Electricity Production From the life cycle perspective, the GHG emissions of electricity produced from renewable sources are less than 6% of those generated by coal or 10% by natural gas. Using solar, wind, hydro and geothermal power instead of fossil fuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution impacts on human health and ecosystems. Impacts are reduced by a factor of 3‐10. Human health impacts from renewable energy electricity production are only 10‐30% of those from the state‐of‐the‐art fossil fuel power. Natural‐gas combined cycle plants, wind power, and roof‐mounted solar power systems have low land use requirements, while coal fired power plants and ground‐mounted solar power require larger areas of land. Site‐specific environmental impacts, such as the ecological impacts of coalmines, hydropower dams and wind turbine installations, vary greatly, depending on the significance of the species and habitats affected and may be mitigated or offset by proper site selection and planning. CO2 capture and storage can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50‐75%, at the expense of increasing other types of pollution by 5‐80%. 31
- 32. For more information please visit: www.unep.org/resourcepanel