IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i17p3347-d262363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cradle-to-Grave Multi-Pronged Methodology to Obtain the Carbon Footprint of Electro-Intensive Power Electronic Products

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni Andrés Quintana-Pedraza

    (Grupo de Investigación en Ingeniería y Gestión Ambiental (GIGA), Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad de Antioquia (UdeA), Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín 050010, Colombia)

  • Sara Cristina Vieira-Agudelo

    (Grupo de Investigación en Ingeniería y Gestión Ambiental (GIGA), Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad de Antioquia (UdeA), Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín 050010, Colombia)

  • Nicolás Muñoz-Galeano

    (Grupo en Manejo Eficiente de la Energía (GIMEL), Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica, Universidad de Antioquia (UdeA), Calle 70 No. 52-21, Medellín 050010, Colombia)

Abstract

This paper proposes the application of a cradle-to-grave multi-pronged methodology to obtain a more realistic carbon footprint (CF) estimation of electro-intensive power electronic (EIPE) products. The literature review shows that methodologies for establishing CF have limitations in calculation or are not applied from the conception (cradle) to death (grave) of the product; therefore, this paper provides an extended methodology to overcome some limitations that can be applied in each stage during the life cycle assessment (LCA). The proposed methodology is applied in a cradle-to-grave scenario, being composed of two approaches of LCA: (1) an integrated hybrid approach based on an economic balance and (2) a standard approach based on ISO 14067 and PAS 2050 standards. The methodology is based on a multi-pronged assessment to combine conventional with hybrid techniques. The methodology was applied to a D-STATCOM prototype which contributes to the improvement of the efficiency. Results show that D-STATCOM considerably decreases CF and saves emissions taken place during the usage stage. A comparison was made between Sweden and China to establish the environmental impact of D-STATCOM in electrical networks, showing that saved emissions in the life cycle of D-STATCOM were 5.88 and 391.04 ton CO 2 eq in Sweden and China, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni Andrés Quintana-Pedraza & Sara Cristina Vieira-Agudelo & Nicolás Muñoz-Galeano, 2019. "A Cradle-to-Grave Multi-Pronged Methodology to Obtain the Carbon Footprint of Electro-Intensive Power Electronic Products," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:17:p:3347-:d:262363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/17/3347/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/17/3347/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karni Siraganyan & Amarasinghage Tharindu Dasun Perera & Jean-Louis Scartezzini & Dasaraden Mauree, 2019. "Eco-Sim: A Parametric Tool to Evaluate the Environmental and Economic Feasibility of Decentralized Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Congressional Budget Office, 2013. "Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment," Reports 44223, Congressional Budget Office.
    3. Yulei Xie & Zhenghui Fu & Dehong Xia & Wentao Lu & Guohe Huang & Han Wang, 2019. "Integrated Planning for Regional Electric Power System Management with Risk Measure and Carbon Emission Constraints: A Case Study of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Clemens Mostert & Berit Ostrander & Stefan Bringezu & Tanja Manuela Kneiske, 2018. "Comparing Electrical Energy Storage Technologies Regarding Their Material and Carbon Footprint," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Satish Joshi, 1999. "Product Environmental Life‐Cycle Assessment Using Input‐Output Techniques," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 3(2‐3), pages 95-120, April.
    6. Mengzhu Xiao & Sonja Simon & Thomas Pregger, 2019. "Energy System Transitions in the Eastern Coastal Metropolitan Regions of China—The Role of Regional Policy Plans," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-30, January.
    7. Congressional Budget Office, 2013. "Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment," Reports 44223, Congressional Budget Office.
    8. Shivika Mittal & Jing-Yu Liu & Shinichiro Fujimori & Priyadarshi Ramprasad Shukla, 2018. "An Assessment of Near-to-Mid-Term Economic Impacts and Energy Transitions under “2 °C” and “1.5 °C” Scenarios for India," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Yanjia, Wang & Chandler, William, 2010. "The Chinese nonferrous metals industry--energy use and CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6475-6484, November.
    10. Vasan, Arvind & Sood, Bhanu & Pecht, Michael, 2014. "Carbon footprinting of electronic products," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 636-648.
    11. Thomas Wiedmann, 2009. "Editorial: Carbon Footprint And Input-Output Analysis - An Introduction," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 175-186.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wen-Hsien Tsai, 2020. "Carbon Emission Reduction—Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, and Carbon Offset," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-7, November.
    2. Cristhian E. Medina-Ortega & Martín A. Patiño-Noguera & Javier Revelo-Fuelagán & John E. Candelo-Becerra, 2022. "Programmable Electronic Load Prototype for the Power Quality Analysis of an Experimental Microgrid," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-44, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jerome Dumortier & Amani Elobeid, 2020. "Effects of the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act on U.S. and Global Agricultural Markets," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 20-wp598, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. Baratsas, Stefanos G. & Niziolek, Alexander M. & Onel, Onur & Matthews, Logan R. & Floudas, Christodoulos A. & Hallermann, Detlef R. & Sorescu, Sorin M. & Pistikopoulos, Efstratios N., 2022. "A novel quantitative forecasting framework in energy with applications in designing energy-intelligent tax policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    3. Dumortier, Jerome & Elobeid, Amani, 2021. "Effects of a carbon tax in the United States on agricultural markets and carbon emissions from land-use change," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Anna Grodecka & Karlygash Kuralbayeva, 2014. "The Price vs Quantity debate: climate policy and the role of business cycles," OxCarre Working Papers 137, Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.
    5. Andrea Isella & Davide Manca, 2022. "GHG Emissions by (Petro)Chemical Processes and Decarbonization Priorities—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Kastner, Thomas & Kastner, Michael & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2011. "Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1032-1040, April.
    7. Wang, Zhengchao & Perera, A.T.D., 2020. "Integrated platform to design robust energy internet," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    8. Wang, Can & Zheng, Xinzhu & Cai, Wenjia & Gao, Xue & Berrill, Peter, 2017. "Unexpected water impacts of energy-saving measures in the iron and steel sector: Tradeoffs or synergies?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 1119-1127.
    9. Marques, Alexandra & Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago, 2013. "International trade and the geographical separation between income and enabled carbon emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 162-169.
    10. Ryoji Hasegawa & Shigemi Kagawa & Makiko Tsukui, 2015. "Carbon footprint analysis through constructing a multi-region input–output table: a case study of Japan," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Mi, Zhifu & Zhang, Yunkun & Guan, Dabo & Shan, Yuli & Liu, Zhu & Cong, Ronggang & Yuan, Xiao-Chen & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2016. "Consumption-based emission accounting for Chinese cities," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1073-1081.
    12. Anders S. G. Andrae & Mengjun Xia & Jianli Zhang & Xiaoming Tang, 2016. "Practical Eco-Design and Eco-Innovation of Consumer Electronics—the Case of Mobile Phones," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, February.
    13. Ut-Tha Veenarat, 2023. "Pioneering Eco-Cart: Carbon Reduction Solutions for Thai Online Shoppers," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 18(4), pages 515-536, December.
    14. Els van der Roest & Theo Fens & Martin Bloemendal & Stijn Beernink & Jan Peter van der Hoek & Ad J. M. van Wijk, 2021. "The Impact of System Integration on System Costs of a Neighborhood Energy and Water System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-33, May.
    15. Damien Guilbert & Gianpaolo Vitale, 2019. "Dynamic Emulation of a PEM Electrolyzer by Time Constant Based Exponential Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Cholapat Jongdeepaisal & Seigo Nasu, 2018. "Economic Impact Evaluation of a Biomass Power Plant Using a Technical Coefficient Pre-Adjustment in Hybrid Input-Output Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, March.
    17. Xi Xie & Wenjia Cai & Yongkai Jiang & Weihua Zeng, 2015. "Carbon Footprints and Embodied Carbon Flows Analysis for China’s Eight Regions: A New Perspective for Mitigation Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Nebiyu Kedir & Phuong H. D. Nguyen & Citlaly Pérez & Pedro Ponce & Aminah Robinson Fayek, 2023. "Systematic Literature Review on Fuzzy Hybrid Methods in Photovoltaic Solar Energy: Opportunities, Challenges, and Guidance for Implementation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-38, April.
    19. Sven Teske & Thomas Pregger & Sonja Simon & Tobias Naegler & Johannes Pagenkopf & Özcan Deniz & Bent van den Adel & Kate Dooley & Malte Meinshausen, 2021. "It Is Still Possible to Achieve the Paris Climate Agreement: Regional, Sectoral, and Land-Use Pathways," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-25, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:17:p:3347-:d:262363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.