IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v48y2012i1p96-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050

Author

Listed:
  • Alderson, Helen
  • Cranston, Gemma R.
  • Hammond, Geoffrey P.

Abstract

Electricity generation contributes a large proportion of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the United Kingdom (UK), due to the predominant use of fossil fuel (coal and natural gas) combustion for this purpose. A range of future UK energy scenarios has been employed to determine their resulting environmental and carbon footprints. Methodologies have been established to calculate these footprints for the UK electricity supply industry on both a historic timescale and in accordance with the three selected scenarios. The latter scenarios, developed by the UK SUPERGEN Consortium on ‘Highly Distributed Power Systems’ (HDPS), were characterised as ‘Business As Usual’ (BAU), ‘Low Carbon’ (LC) and ‘Deep Green’ (DG) futures, and yielded possible electricity demands out to 2050. It was found that the environmental footprint of the current power network is 41 million (M) global hectares (gha). If future trends follow a ‘Business As Usual’ scenario, then this footprint is observed to fall to about 25 Mgha in 2050. The LC scenario implies an extensive penetration of micro-generators in the home to satisfy heat and power demands. However, these energy requirements are minimised by way of improved insulation of the building fabric and other demand reduction measures. In contrast, the DG scenario presupposes a network where centralised renewable energy technologies – mainly large-scale onshore and offshore wind turbines - have an important role in the power generation. However, both the LC and DG scenarios were found to lead to footprints of less than 4 Mgha by 2050. These latter two scenarios were found to give rise to quite similar trajectories over the period 2010–2050. They are therefore more likely to reflect an effective transition pathway in terms of meeting the 2050 UK CO2 reduction targets associated with decarbonisation of its power network. However, this appears unlikely to be achieved by 2030–2040 as advocated by the UK Government's advisory Committee on Climate Change in order to meet overall national carbon reduction targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Alderson, Helen & Cranston, Gemma R. & Hammond, Geoffrey P., 2012. "Carbon and environmental footprinting of low carbon UK electricity futures to 2050," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 96-107.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:48:y:2012:i:1:p:96-107
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544212002915
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geoffrey Hammond, 2007. "Time to give due weight to the 'carbon footprint' issue," Nature, Nature, vol. 445(7125), pages 256-256, January.
    2. I. Elders & G. Ault & S. Galloway & J. McDonald & J. Köhler, 2006. "Electricity Network Scenarios for Great Britain in 2050," Working Papers EPRG 0513, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    3. Elders, I. & Ault, G. & Galloway, S. & McDonald, J. & Köhler, J. & Leach, M. & Lampaditou , E., 2006. "Electricity Network Scenarios for Great Britain in 2050," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0609, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    4. Hammond, G.P. & Akwe, S.S. Ondo & Williams, S., 2011. "Techno-economic appraisal of fossil-fuelled power generation systems with carbon dioxide capture and storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 975-984.
    5. Allen, S.R. & Hammond, G.P. & McManus, M.C., 2008. "Prospects for and barriers to domestic micro-generation: A United Kingdom perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 85(6), pages 528-544, June.
    6. Cranston, G.R. & Hammond, G.P., 2010. "North and south: Regional footprints on the transition pathway towards a low carbon, global economy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(9), pages 2945-2951, September.
    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. Dedinec, Aleksandar & Taseska-Gjorgievska, Verica & Markovska, Natasa & Obradovic Grncarovska, Teodora & Duic, Neven & Pop-Jordanov, Jordan & Taleski, Rubin, 2016. "Towards post-2020 climate change regime: Analyses of various mitigation scenarios and contributions for Macedonia," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 124-137.
    2. Daniels, Laura & Coker, Phil & Potter, Ben, 2016. "Embodied carbon dioxide of network assets in a decarbonised electricity grid," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 142-154.
    3. Vuarnoz, Didier & Jusselme, Thomas, 2018. "Temporal variations in the primary energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of electricity provided by the Swiss grid," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 573-582.
    4. Koo, Choongwan & Kim, Hyunjoong & Hong, Taehoon, 2014. "Framework for the analysis of the low-carbon scenario 2020 to achieve the national carbon Emissions reduction target: Focused on educational facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 356-367.
    5. Khoshgoftar Manesh, M.H. & Rezazadeh, A. & Kabiri, S., 2020. "A feasibility study on the potential, economic, and environmental advantages of biogas production from poultry manure in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 87-106.
    6. Miller, Lindsay & Carriveau, Rupp, 2017. "Balancing the carbon and water footprints of the Ontario energy mix," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 562-568.
    7. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & Seth, Shashank M., 2013. "Carbon and environmental footprinting of global biofuel production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 547-559.
    8. Lin, Boqiang & Li, Zheng, 2020. "Is more use of electricity leading to less carbon emission growth? An analysis with a panel threshold model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    9. Radonjič, Gregor & Tompa, Saša, 2018. "Carbon footprint calculation in telecommunications companies – The importance and relevance of scope 3 greenhouse gases emissions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 361-375.
    10. Byers, Edward A. & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Serrenho, André C., 2015. "A framework for the exergy analysis of future transport pathways: Application for the United Kingdom transport system 2010–2050," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 849-862.
    11. Hammond, Geoff & O'Grady, Áine, 2013. "The Implications of Upstream Emissions from the Power Sector," Realising Transition Pathways 44209, University of Bath, Realising Transition Pathways.
    12. Jean-Nicolas Louis & Stéphane Allard & Freideriki Kotrotsou & Vincent Debusschere, 2020. "A multi-objective approach to the prospective development of the European power system by 2050," Post-Print hal-02376337, HAL.
    13. Guzović, Zvonimir & Duic, Neven & Piacentino, Antonio & Markovska, Natasa & Mathiesen, Brian Vad & Lund, Henrik, 2022. "Recent advances in methods, policies and technologies at sustainable energy systems development," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    14. Hassan, Syed Tauseef & Batool, Bushra & Wang, Ping & Zhu, Bangzhu & Sadiq, Muhammad, 2023. "Impact of economic complexity index, globalization, and nuclear energy consumption on ecological footprint: First insights in OECD context," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).
    15. Wang, Ning & Ren, Yixin & Zhu, Tao & Meng, Fanxin & Wen, Zongguo & Liu, Gengyuan, 2018. "Life cycle carbon emission modelling of coal-fired power: Chinese case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 841-852.
    16. Taesik Yun & Younggook Kim & Jang-yeop Kim, 2017. "Feasibility Study of the Post-2020 Commitment to the Power Generation Sector in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & Howard, Hayley R. & Jones, Craig I., 2013. "The energy and environmental implications of UK more electric transition pathways: A whole systems perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 103-116.
    18. Louis, Jean-Nicolas & Allard, Stéphane & Kotrotsou, Freideriki & Debusschere, Vincent, 2020. "A multi-objective approach to the prospective development of the European power system by 2050," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. Markovska, Natasa & Duić, Neven & Mathiesen, Brian Vad & Guzović, Zvonimir & Piacentino, Antonio & Schlör, Holger & Lund, Henrik, 2016. "Addressing the main challenges of energy security in the twenty-first century – Contributions of the conferences on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P3), pages 1504-1512.
    20. Anne de Bortoli & Yacine Baouch & Mustapha Masdan, 2022. "BIM can help decarbonize the construction sector: life cycle evidence from Pavement Management Systems," Papers 2210.12307, arXiv.org.
    21. Govindan, Kannan, 2023. "Pathways to low carbon energy transition through multi criteria assessment of offshore wind energy barriers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    22. Hoggett, Richard, 2014. "Technology scale and supply chains in a secure, affordable and low carbon energy transition," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 296-306.

    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. Hammond, Geoffrey P. & Howard, Hayley R. & Jones, Craig I., 2013. "The energy and environmental implications of UK more electric transition pathways: A whole systems perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 103-116.
    2. Li, Y.P. & Huang, G.H. & Chen, X., 2011. "Planning regional energy system in association with greenhouse gas mitigation under uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 599-611, March.
    3. P. Hammond, Geoffrey & O' Grady, Áine, 2017. "The life cycle greenhouse gas implications of a UK gas supply transformation on a future low carbon electricity sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 937-949.
    4. Abu-Bakar, Siti Hawa & Muhammad-Sukki, Firdaus & Ramirez-Iniguez, Roberto & Mallick, Tapas Kumar & McLennan, Campbell & Munir, Abu Bakar & Mohd Yasin, Siti Hajar & Abdul Rahim, Ruzairi, 2013. "Is Renewable Heat Incentive the future?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 365-378.
    5. Olateju, Babatunde & Kumar, Amit, 2013. "Techno-economic assessment of hydrogen production from underground coal gasification (UCG) in Western Canada with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for upgrading bitumen from oil sands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 428-440.
    6. Mikalsen, R. & Wang, Y.D. & Roskilly, A.P., 2009. "A comparison of Miller and Otto cycle natural gas engines for small scale CHP applications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(6), pages 922-927, June.
    7. Hanak, Dawid P. & Powell, Dante & Manovic, Vasilije, 2017. "Techno-economic analysis of oxy-combustion coal-fired power plant with cryogenic oxygen storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 193-203.
    8. Zhihua Zhang, 2015. "Techno-Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities Coupled to Coal-Fired Power Plants," Energy & Environment, , vol. 26(6-7), pages 1069-1080, November.
    9. Peng, Benhong & Zhao, Yinyin & Elahi, Ehsan & Wan, Anxia, 2023. "Can third-party market cooperation solve the dilemma of emissions reduction? A case study of energy investment project conflict analysis in the context of carbon neutrality," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    10. Chaudry, Modassar & Abeysekera, Muditha & Hosseini, Seyed Hamid Reza & Jenkins, Nick & Wu, Jianzhong, 2015. "Uncertainties in decarbonising heat in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 623-640.
    11. Carapellucci, Roberto & Giordano, Lorena & Vaccarelli, Maura, 2017. "Application of an amine-based CO2 capture system in retrofitting combined gas-steam power plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 808-826.
    12. Toka, Agorasti & Iakovou, Eleftherios & Vlachos, Dimitrios & Tsolakis, Naoum & Grigoriadou, Anastasia-Loukia, 2014. "Managing the diffusion of biomass in the residential energy sector: An illustrative real-world case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 56-69.
    13. Chen, Yizhong & He, Li & Li, Jing, 2017. "Stochastic dominant-subordinate-interactive scheduling optimization for interconnected microgrids with considering wind-photovoltaic-based distributed generations under uncertainty," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 581-598.
    14. Khalilpour, Rajab, 2014. "Multi-level investment planning and scheduling under electricity and carbon market dynamics: Retrofit of a power plant with PCC (post-combustion carbon capture) processes," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 172-186.
    15. Kleijn, René & van der Voet, Ester & Kramer, Gert Jan & van Oers, Lauran & van der Giesen, Coen, 2011. "Metal requirements of low-carbon power generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 5640-5648.
    16. Emejeamara, F.C. & Tomlin, A.S. & Millward-Hopkins, J.T., 2015. "Urban wind: Characterisation of useful gust and energy capture," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 162-172.
    17. Nemet, Gregory F. & Baker, Erin & Jenni, Karen E., 2013. "Modeling the future costs of carbon capture using experts' elicited probabilities under policy scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 218-228.
    18. Battisti, L. & Benini, E. & Brighenti, A. & Dell’Anna, S. & Raciti Castelli, M., 2018. "Small wind turbine effectiveness in the urban environment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 102-113.
    19. Sebastiano Cupertino, 2013. "Cost-benefit analysis of carbon dioxide capture and storage considering the impact of two different climate change mitigation regimes," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 73-89.
    20. Chen, Wei-Hsin & Hou, Yu-Lin & Hung, Chen-I., 2012. "A study of influence of acoustic excitation on carbon dioxide capture by a droplet," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 311-321.

    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:eee:energy:v:48:y:2012:i:1:p:96-107. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.