Evaluation of the environmental impact of the urban energy lifecycle based on lifecycle assessment

Abstract

Energy resources have environmental impact through their entire lifecycle. The evaluation of the environmental impacts of the energy lifecycle can contribute to decision making regarding energy management. In this paper, the lifecycle assessment (LCA) method is introduced to calculate the environmental impact loads of different types of energy resources (including coal, oil, natural gas, and electricity) used in urban regions. The scope of LCA includes the production, transportation, and consumption processes. The pollutant emission inventory is listed, and the environmental impact loads are acquired through the calculation of environmental impact potentials, normalization, and weighted assessment. The evaluation method is applied to Beijing, China, revealing that photochemical oxidant formation and acidification are the primary impact factors in the lifecycle of all energy resources and that the total environmental impact load increased steadily from 132.69 million person equivalents (PE) in 1996 to 208.97 million PE in 2010. Among the energy types, coal contributes most to the environmental impact, while the impacts caused by oil, natural gas, and electricity have been growing. The evaluation of the environmental impact of the urban energy lifecycle is useful for regulating energy structures and reducing pollution, which could help achieve sustainable energetic and environmental development.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

environmental impact / urban energy lifecycle / lifecycle assessment (LCA) / Beijing

References

[1] Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics (2011). Beijing Statistical Yearbook. Beijing, China.

[2] Consoli F (1993). Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice. Brussels: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

[3] Dong C, Huang G H, Cai Y P, Liu Y (2012). An inexact optimization modeling approach for supporting energy systems planning and air pollution mitigation in Beijing city. Energy, 37(1): 673–688

[4] Gasol C M, Gabarrell X, Rigola M, Gonzalez-Garcia S, Rieradevall J (2011). Environmental assessment: (LCA) and spatial modelling (GIS) of energy crop implementation on local scale. Biomass Bioenergy, 35(7): 2975–2985

[5] Guinée J B, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Sleeswijk A W, Suh S, de Haes H A U, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts M A J (2001). Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO Standards. Leiden, Netherlands Parts: Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University.

[6] Guo S, Shao L, Chen H, Li Z, Liu J B, Xu F X, Li J S, Han M Y, Meng J, Chen Z M, Li S C (2012). Inventory and input–output analysis of CO₂ emissions by fossil fuel consumption in Beijing 2007. Ecol Inform, 12: 93–100

[7] Ji X (2011). Ecological accounting and evaluation of urban economy: taking Beijing city as the case. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul, 16(3): 1650–1669

[8] Ji X, Chen G Q (2010). Unified account of gas pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions: Chinese transportation 1978–2004. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul, 15(9): 2710–2722

[9] Jungbluth N, Bauer C, Dones R, Frischknecht R (2005). Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: case study for photovoltaic and wind power. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10(1): 24–34

[10] Kannan R, Leong K C, Osman R, Ho H K (2007). Life cycle energy, emissions and cost inventory of power generation technologies in Singapore. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 11(4): 702–715

[11] Manzini F, Martínez M (1999). Choosing an energy future: the environmental impact of end-use technologies. Energy Policy, 27(7): 401–414

[12] Odeh N A, Cockerill T T (2008). Life cycle analysis of UK coal fired power plants. Energy Convers Manage, 49(2): 212–220

[13] Riva A, D’Angelosante S, Trebeschi C (2006). Natural gas and the environmental results of life cycle assessment. Energy, 31(1): 138–148

[14] Sebastián F, Royo J, Gómez M (2011). Cofiring versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodology. Energy, 36(4): 2029–2037

[15] Shafie S M, Mahlia T M I, Masjuki H H, Rismanchi B (2012). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation from rice husk in Malaysia. Energy Procedia, 14: 499–504

[16] Su M R, Yang Z F, Chen B (2010). Relative urban ecosystem health assessment: a method integrating comprehensive evaluation and detailed analysis. EcoHealth, 7(4): 459–472

[17] Wackernagel M, Yount J D (1998). The ecological footprint: an indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environ Monit Assess, 51(1/2): 511–529

[18] Wang Z H, Yin F C, Zhang Y X, Zhang X (2012). An empirical research on the influencing factors of regional CO₂ emissions: evidence from Beijing city, China. Appl Energy, 100: 277–284

[19] Wu L, Jiang Q, Yang X M (2012). Carbon footprint incorporation into least-cost planning of eco-city schemes: practices in coastal China. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13: 582–589

[20] Yan G, Li L, Chen B (2009). Stress of urban energy consumption on air environment. Front Earth Sci China, 3(3): 337–348

[21] Yang J X, Xu C, Wang R S (2002). The Product Life Cycle Assessment Methods and Application. Beijing: China Meteorological Press (In Chinese)

[22] Yuan B R, Nie Z R, Di X H, Zuo T Y (2006). Life cycle inventories of fossil fuels in China (II): final life cycle inventories. Modern Chemical Industry, 26(4): 59–61 (in Chinese)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg