Comparison of life cycle performance of distributed energy system and conventional energy system for district heating and cooling in China

Abstract

The distributed energy system has achieved significant attention in respect of its application for single-building cooling and heating. Researching on the life cycle environmental impact of distributed energy systems (DES) is of great significance to encourage and guide the development of DES in China. However, the environmental performance of distributed energy systems in a building cooling and heating has not yet been carefully analyzed. In this study, based on the standards of ISO14040-2006 and ISO14044-2006, a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a DES was conducted to quantify its environmental impact and a conventional energy system (CES) was used as the benchmark. GaBi 8 software was used for the LCA. And the Centre of Environmental Science (CML) method and Eco-indicator 99 (EI 99) method were used for environmental impact assessment of midpoint and endpoint levels respectively. The results indicated that the DES showed a better life-cycle performance in the usage phase compared to the CES. The life-cycle performance of the DES was better than that of the CES both at the midpoint and endpoint levels in view of the whole lifespan. It is because the CES to DES indicator ratios for acidification potential, eutrophication potential, and global warming potential are 1.5, 1.5, and 1.6, respectively at the midpoint level. And about the two types of impact indicators of ecosystem quality and human health at the endpoint level, the CES and DES ratios of the other indicators are greater than 1 excepting the carcinogenicity and ozone depletion indicators. The human health threat for the DES was mainly caused by energy consumption during the usage phase. A sensitivity analysis showed that the climate change and inhalable inorganic matter varied by 1.3% and 6.1% as the electricity increased by 10%. When the natural gas increased by 10%, the climate change and inhalable inorganic matter increased by 6.3% and 3.4%, respectively. The human health threat and environmental damage caused by the DES could be significantly reduced by the optimization of natural gas and electricity consumption.

Keywords

life-cycle assessment / distributed energy system / conventional energy system / building cooling and heating / environmental impact

References

[1] TuberC2017 Annual report on China building energy efficiency [M], 2018, Beijing, China Architecture & Building Press(in Chinese)

[2] WangJ, YangY, MaoT, et al.. Life cycle assessment (LCA) optimization of solar-assisted hybrid CCHP system [J]. Applied Energy, 2015, 146: 38-52

[3] SommaM D, YanB, BiancoN, et al.. Multi-objective design optimization of distributed energy systems through cost and exergy assessments [J]. Applied Energy, 2017, 204: 1299-1316

[4] JingY, BaiH, WangJ, et al.. Life cycle assessment of a solar combined cooling heating and power system in different operation strategies [J]. Applied Energy, 2012, 92: 843-853

[5] Al-SulaimanF A, HamdullahpurF, DincerI. Performance assessment of a novel system using parabolic trough solar collectors for combined cooling, heating, and power production [J]. Renewable Energy, 2012, 48: 161-172

[6] RadF M, FungA S, LeongW H. Feasibility of combined solar thermal and ground source heat pump systems in cold climate, Canada [J]. Energy and Buildings, 2013, 61: 224-232

[7] LiuT, LiuQ, LeiJ, et al.. Solar-clean fuel distributed energy system with solar thermochemistry and chemical recuperation [J]. Applied Energy, 2018, 225: 380-391

[8] FaniM, SadreddinA. Solar assisted CCHP system, energetic, economic and environmental analysis, case study: Educational office buildings [J]. Energy and Buildings, 2017, 136: 100-109

[9] LiuT, LiuQ, DaX, et al.. Performance investigation of a new distributed energy system integrated a solar thermochemical process with chemical recuperation [J]. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017, 119: 387-395

[10] YilmazF. Thermodynamic performance evaluation of a novel solar energy based multigeneration system [J]. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2018, 143: 429-437

[11] ZogouO, StamatelosA. Optimization of thermal performance of a building with ground source heat pump system [J]. Energy Conversion and Management, 2007, 48(11): 2853-2863

[12] WangE, FungA S, QiC, et al.. Performance prediction of a hybrid solar ground-source heat pump system [J]. Energy and Buildings, 2012, 47: 600-611

[13] OzgenerO, HepbasliA. A review on the energy and exergy analysis of solar assisted heat pump systems [J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2007, 11(3): 482-496

[14] OzgenerO, HepbasliA. Modeling and performance evaluation of ground source (geothermal) heat pump systems [J]. Energy and Buildings, 2007, 39(1): 66-75

[15] KjellssonE, HellströmG, PerersB. Optimization of systems with the combination of ground-source heat pump and solar collectors in dwellings [J]. Energy, 2010, 35(6): 2667-2673

[16] CHAPUIS S, BERNIER M. Seasonal storage of solar energy in borehole heat exchangers [C]//11th Int. IBPSA Conf. Glasgow, Scotland, 2009J: 599–606. http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2009/BS09_0599_606.pdf.

[17] OzgenerO. Use of solar assisted geothermal heat pump and small wind turbine systems for heating agricultural and residential buildings [J]. Energy, 2010, 35(1): 262-268

[18] YuanJ, XiaoZ, ZhangC, et al.. A control strategy for distributed energy system considering the state of thermal energy storage [J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2020, 63: 102492

[19] ThibodeauC, BatailleA, SiéM. Building rehabilitation life cycle assessment methodology-state of the art [J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2019, 103408-422

[20] JingY, BaiH, WangJ. Multi-objective optimization design and operation strategy analysis of BCHP system based on life cycle assessment [J]. Energy, 2012, 37(1): 405-416

[21] ZhangD, EvangelistiS, LettieriP, et al.. Optimal design of CHP-based microgrids: Multiobjective optimisation and life cycle assessment [J]. Energy, 2015, 85: 181-193

[22] AnastaselosD, OxizidisS, ManoudisA, et al.. Environmental performance of energy systems of residential buildings: Toward sustainable communities [J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2016, 20: 96-108

[23] OregiX, HernandezP, HernandezR. Analysis of life-cycle boundaries for environmental and economic assessment of building energy refurbishment projects [J]. Energy and Buildings, 2017, 136: 12-25

[24] MoslehiS, ReddyT A. An LCA methodology to assess location-specific environmental externalities of integrated energy systems [J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2019, 46: 101425

[25] AlbertíJ, RaigosaJ, RaugeiM, et al.. Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal system in Spain, eco-design alternatives and derived climate change scenarios at Spanish and Chinese national levels [J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2019, 47101467

[26] HajareA, ElwakilE. Integration of life cycle cost analysis and energy simulation for building energy-efficient strategies assessment [J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2020, 61102293

[27] BrusseauM L. Sustainable development and other solutions to pollution and global change [M]. Environmental and Pollution Science, 2019, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 585-603

[28] ISO14040. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework [S]. 2006.

[29] ISO14044. Environmental management-life cycle assessments-requirements and guidelines [S]. 2006.

[30] Think stepGaBi 8 software and databases [M], 2018, Germany, Leinfelden-Echterdingen

[31] YuS, TaoJProduct life cycle design and evaluation [M], 2012, Beijing, Science Press(in Chinese)

[32] GuineeJ B. Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2002, 7(5): 311-313

[33] PohlJ, HiltyL M, FinkbeinerM. How LCA contributes to the environmental assessment of higher order effects of ICT application: A review of different approaches [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 219: 698-712

[34] GOEDKOOP M, SPRIENSMA R. The ecoindicator-99, a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment; reportmethodology, amersfoort, pré consultants [R]. Vrom Zoetermeer, 2000.

[35] HofstetterP. Perspective in life cycle impact assessment: A structured approach to combine of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere [J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2000, 5(1): 58

[36] LiuX, YuanZ. Life cycle environmental performance of by-product coke production in China [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, 112: 1292-1301

[37] AlejandreE M, van BodegomP M, GuinéeJ B. Towards an optimal coverage of ecosystem services in LCA [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 231714-722

[38] LUAN Zhong-quan. Environmental attributes assessment of product green design and its application based on the eco-indicator 99 [J]. Light Industry Machinery, 2004(2): 8–11. (in Chinese)

[39] FinnvedenG, HauschildM Z, EkvallT, et al.. Recent developments in life cycle assessment [J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, 91(1): 1-21

[40] HUISMAN J. The QWERTY/EE concept, quantifying recyclability and eco-efficiency for end-of-life treatment of consumer electronic products [M]//Design Engineering & Production. 2003. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27346227.