IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v5y2012i4p872-897d16870.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Energy Sources

Author

Listed:
  • Paul E. Hardisty

    (Global Director, EcoNomics™ & Sustainability, WorleyParsons/Level 7, 250 St Georges Terrace, Perth 6000, Western Australia, Australia
    Visiting Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London/Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK)

  • Tom S. Clark

    (Principal Consultant (Carbon and Sustainability Consulting) WorleyParsons/Level 7, 250 St Georges Terrace, Perth 6000 Western Australia, Australia)

  • Robert G. Hynes

    (Principal Consultant (Carbon and Sustainability Consulting), WorleyParsons/Level 10, 141 Walker Street, North Sydney 2000, New South Wales, Australia)

Abstract

Electricity generation is one of the major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. Transitioning the World’s energy economy to a lower carbon future will require significant investment in a variety of cleaner technologies, including renewables and nuclear power. In the short term, improving the efficiency of fossil fuel combustion in energy generation can provide an important contribution. Availability of life cycle GHG intensity data will allow decision-makers to move away from overly simplistic assertions about the relative merits of certain fuels, and focus on the complete picture, especially the critical roles of technology selection and application of best practice. This analysis compares the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) intensities per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced for a range of Australian and other energy sources, including coal, conventional liquefied natural gas (LNG), coal seam gas LNG, nuclear and renewables, for the Australian export market. When Australian fossil fuels are exported to China, life cycle greenhouse gas emission intensity in electricity production depends to a significant degree on the technology used in combustion. LNG in general is less GHG intensive than black coal, but the gap is smaller for gas combusted in open cycle gas turbine plant (OCGT) and for LNG derived from coal seam gas (CSG). On average, conventional LNG burned in a conventional OCGT plant is approximately 38% less GHG intensive over its life cycle than black coal burned in a sub-critical plant, per MWh of electricity produced. However, if OCGT LNG combustion is compared to the most efficient new ultra-supercritical coal power, the GHG intensity gap narrows considerably. Coal seam gas LNG is approximately 13–20% more GHG intensive across its life cycle, on a like-for like basis, than conventional LNG. Upstream fugitive emissions from CSG (assuming best practice gas extraction techniques) do not materially alter the life cycle GHG intensity rankings, such is the dominance of end-use combustion, but application of the most recent estimates of the 20-year global warming potential (GWP) increases the contribution of fugitives considerably if best practice fugitives management is not assumed. However, if methane leakage approaches the elevated levels recently reported in some US gas fields (circa 4% of gas production) and assuming a 20-year methane GWP, the GHG intensity of CSG-LNG generation is on a par with sub-critical coal-fired generation. The importance of applying best practice to fugitives management in Australia’s emerging natural gas industry is evident. When exported to China for electricity production, LNG was found to be 22–36 times more GHG intensive than wind and concentrated solar thermal (CST) power and 13–21 times more GHG intensive than nuclear power which, even in the post-Fukushima world, continues to be a key option for global GHG reduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul E. Hardisty & Tom S. Clark & Robert G. Hynes, 2012. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-26, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:5:y:2012:i:4:p:872-897:d:16870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/4/872/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/4/872/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raadal, Hanne Lerche & Gagnon, Luc & Modahl, Ingunn Saur & Hanssen, Ole Jørgen, 2011. "Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(7), pages 3417-3422, September.
    2. Hondo, Hiroki, 2005. "Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 2042-2056.
    3. Weisser, Daniel, 2007. "A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1543-1559.
    4. Tamura, Itaru & Tanaka, Toshihide & Kagajo, Toshimasa & Kuwabara, Shigeru & Yoshioka, Tomoyuki & Nagata, Takahiro & Kurahashi, Kazuhiro & Ishitani, Hisashi, 2001. "Life cycle CO2 analysis of LNG and city gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 301-319, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kumar, Satish & Kwon, Hyouk-Tae & Choi, Kwang-Ho & Lim, Wonsub & Cho, Jae Hyun & Tak, Kyungjae & Moon, Il, 2011. "LNG: An eco-friendly cryogenic fuel for sustainable development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(12), pages 4264-4273.
    2. Briones Hidrovo, Andrei & Uche, Javier & Martínez-Gracia, Amaya, 2017. "Accounting for GHG net reservoir emissions of hydropower in Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 209-221.
    3. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    4. Varun, & Prakash, Ravi & Bhat, I.K., 2012. "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions estimation for small hydropower schemes in India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 498-508.
    5. Raadal, Hanne Lerche & Vold, Bjørn Ivar & Myhr, Anders & Nygaard, Tor Anders, 2014. "GHG emissions and energy performance of offshore wind power," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 314-324.
    6. Nugent, Daniel & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2014. "Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 229-244.
    7. Fangyi Li & Zhaoyang Ye & Xilin Xiao & Dawei Ma, 2019. "Environmental Benefits of Stock Evolution of Coal-Fired Power Generators in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    9. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Guo, Haixiang & Ding, Liping, 2014. "Carbon emission coefficient measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-300.
    10. Ludin, Norasikin Ahmad & Mustafa, Nur Ifthitah & Hanafiah, Marlia M. & Ibrahim, Mohd Adib & Asri Mat Teridi, Mohd & Sepeai, Suhaila & Zaharim, Azami & Sopian, Kamaruzzaman, 2018. "Prospects of life cycle assessment of renewable energy from solar photovoltaic technologies: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 11-28.
    11. Avri Eitan, 2021. "Promoting Renewable Energy to Cope with Climate Change—Policy Discourse in Israel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2940-2953, August.
    13. Jenniches, Simon & Worrell, Ernst & Fumagalli, Elena, 2019. "Regional economic and environmental impacts of wind power developments: A case study of a German region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 499-514.
    14. Mansouri, Noura Y. & Crookes, Roy J. & Korakianitis, Theodosios, 2013. "A projection of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the electricity sector for Saudi Arabia: The case for carbon capture and storage and solar photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 681-695.
    15. Akhil Kadiyala & Raghava Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2016. "Evaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydroelectricity Generation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-14, June.
    16. McCubbin, Donald & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2013. "Quantifying the health and environmental benefits of wind power to natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 429-441.
    17. Menberg, Kathrin & Heberle, Florian & Bott, Christoph & Brüggemann, Dieter & Bayer, Peter, 2021. "Environmental performance of a geothermal power plant using a hydrothermal resource in the Southern German Molasse Basin," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 20-31.
    18. Paul Koltun & Alfred Tsykalo & Vasily Novozhilov, 2018. "Life Cycle Assessment of the New Generation GT-MHR Nuclear Power Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Raadal, Hanne Lerche & Gagnon, Luc & Modahl, Ingunn Saur & Hanssen, Ole Jørgen, 2011. "Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(7), pages 3417-3422, September.
    20. Sarah Wettstein & Karen Muir & Deborah Scharfy & Matthias Stucki, 2017. "The Environmental Mitigation Potential of Photovoltaic-Powered Irrigation in the Production of South African Maize," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, September.

    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:5:y:2012:i:4:p:872-897:d:16870. 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.