Document Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

Department of Environmental Engineering, Graduate Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In this study a pseudo comprehensive carbon footprint model for fossil fuel power plants is presented. Parameters which their effects are considered in this study include: plant type, fuel type, fuel transmission type, internal consumption of the plant, degradation, site ambient condition, transmission and distribution losses. Investigating internal consumption, degradation and site ambient condition effect on carbon footprint assessment of fossil fuel power plant is the specific feature of the proposed model. To evaluate the model, a sensitivity analysis is performed under different scenarios covering all possible choices for investigated parameters. The results show that carbon footprint of fossil fuel electrical energy that is produced, transmitted and distributed, varies from 321 g CO2 eq/kWh to 980 g CO2 equivalent /kWh. Carbon footprint of combined cycle with natural gas as main fuel is the minimum carbon footprint. Other factors can also cause indicative variation. Fuel type causes a variation of 28%. Ambient condition may change the result up to 13%. Transmission makes the carbon footprint larger by 4%. Internal consumption and degradation influence the result by 2 and 2.5%, respectively. Therefore, to minimize the carbon footprint of fossil fuel electricity, it is recommended to construct natural gas ignited combined cycles in low lands where the temperature is low and relative humidity is high. And the internal consumption is as least as possible and the maintenance and overhaul is as regular as possible.

Graphical Abstract

Highlights

  • The effect investigation of different parameters in carbon footprint calculation
  • Appling one-factor-at-a-time model for sensitivity analyses
  • Proposing five groups scenarios for sensitivity model

Keywords

Main Subjects

Abbaspour, M.; Monavari, M.; Karbassi, A.R.; Kargari, N., (2011). Nuclear power and its role in CO2 emissions from the electricity generation sector in Iran. Energy Sources; Part A, 34(1): 43-52 (10 pages).

Alavipour, F.S.; Karimi, S.; Balist, J.; Khakian A.H., (2016). A geographic information system for gas power plant location using analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy logic. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 2(2): 197-207 (11 pages)

Atilgan, B.; Azapagic, A., (2016). An integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Turkey. Energy Policy. 93: 163-186 (4 pages).

Bonamente, E.; Pelliccia, L.; Merico, M.; Rinaldi, S.; Petrozzi, A., (2015). The multifunctional environmental energy tower: Carbon footprint and land use analysis of an integrated renewable Energy plant. Sustainability, 7: 13564-13584 (21 pages).

Brizmohun, R.; Ramjeawon, T.; Azapagic, A., (2015). Life cycle assessment of electricity generation on Mauritius. J. Cleaner Prod., 106: 565-575 (11 pages).

Cheng, K.; Genxing, P.; Smith, P.; Luo, T.; Li, L.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Xiaojun, H.; Ming, Y., (2011). Carbon footprint of China’s crop production—An estimation using agro-statistics data over 1993–2007. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 142; 231-237 (7 pages).

Gan, Y.; Liang, C.; Wang, X.; McConkey, B., (2011).  Lowering carbon footprint of durum wheat by diversifying cropping systems. Field Crops Research. 122:199–206 (8 pages).

Georgakellos, A.D., (2012). Climate change external cost appraisal of electricity generation systems from a life cycle perspective: the case of Greece. J. Cleaner Prod., 32: 124-140 (16 pages)

Hong; L.; Pei Dong; Z.; Chunyu; H.; Gang; W.; 2007. Evaluating the effects of embodied energy in international trade on ecological footprint in China. Ecol. Econ., 62; 136-148 (13 pages).

IPCC; 2014. Climate Change: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. United Kingdom and NewYork; NY; USA.

IPCC; 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IGES, Japan.

ISO; (2013). Greenhouse gases -- Carbon footprint of products -- Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. International Organization for Standardisation; Geneva, Switzerland.

Johnson, E., (2008). Disagreement over carbon footprints; A comparison of electric and LPG forklifts. Energy Policy. 36: 1569–1573 (5 pages).

Johnson; E., (2012). Carbon footprints of heating oil and LPG heating systems; Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 35: 11–22 (12 pages).

Kehlhofer, R.; Hannemann, F.; Stirnimann, F.; Rukes, B., (2009). Gas and steam turbine power plants. 3rd ed. PennWell; Oklahama.

Kim, H.; Holme, P., (2015). Network Theory Integrated Life Cycle Assessment for an Electric Power System. Sustainability, 7: 10961-10975 (15 pages)

 Li, F., (2014). A Cost Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction Strategies for New Plants in Michigan's Electric Power Sector. Dissertations. Michigan; Michigan Technology University.

Niccolucci, V.; Galli, A.;  Kitzes, J.; Pulselli, R.M., (2008). Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines.  Agriculture and Ecosystems. 128: 162-166 (5 pages).

Olkkonen, V.; Syri, S., (2016). Spatial and temporal variations of marginal electricity generation: the case of the Finnish; Nordic; and European energy systems up to 2030. J. Cleaner Prod., 126: 515-525 (11 pages).

Ozcan, M., (2016). Estimation of Turkey’s GHG emissions from electricity generation by fuel types. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 53; 832-840 (8 pages).

Rashidi, Z.; Karbassi, AR.; Ataei, A.; Ifaei, P.; Samiee-Zafarghandi, R., (2012). Power plant design using gas produced by waste leachate treatment plant. Int. J. Environ. Res.,  6 (4): 875-882 (7 pages).

Raj, R.; Ghandehariun, S.; Kumar, A.; Linwei, M., (2016). A well to wire life cycle assessment of Canadian shale gas for electricity generation in China. Energy., 111: 642-653 (12 pages)

Raymond, R.; Tan, R.; Ballacillo, J.; Aviso; K.; Culaba, A., (2009). Fuzzy multiple-objective approach to the optimization of bioenergy system footprints Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 8 7: 1162–1170 (8 pages).

Saltelli, A.;  Rotto,  M.; Andres, T., (2008). Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons; England.

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 (6 pages)

Silva, D.; Delai, I.; Montes, M.; Ometto; A., (2014). Life cycle assessment of the sugarcane bagasse electricity generation in Brazil. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 32: 532–547 (16 pages).

Szabo, G.; Fazekas,  I.; Szabo, S.; Buda,; T.; Paládi, M.; Kisari,  K.; Kerényi, A., (2014). The Carbon Footprint of A Biogas Power Plant. Environ. Eng. Manage. J., 1: 11-13 (2 pages).

Tokunaga, K.; Konan, D.E., (2014). Home grown or imported? Biofuels life cycle GHG emissions in electricity generation and transportation. Appl. Energy . 125: 123–131 (9 pages).

Treyer, K.; Bauer, C., (2016). The environmental footprint of UAE’s electricity sector: combining life cycle assessment and scenario modeling. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 55; 1234-1247 (14 pages).

Turconi, R.; Boldrin, A.; Astrup, T., (2013). Life cycle assessment of electricity generation technologies: overview; comparability and limitations. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 28: 555-565 (11 pages).

Weber, C. L.; Clavin,  C., (2012). Life cycle carbon footprint of shale gas; review of evidence and implications. Environ. Sci. Technol.,  46: 5688−5695 (8 pages).

Weldemichael, Y.; Assefa, G.; (2016). Assessing the energy production and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions mitigation potential of biomass resources for Alberta. J. Cleaner Prod., 112: 4257-4264 (8 pages).

 

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:

Dalir, F. ; Shafiepour Motlagh, M.; Ashrafi, K., (2016). Sensitivity analysis of parameters affecting carbon footprint of fossil fuel power plants based on life cycle assessment scenarios. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 3 (1): 75-88.


Letters to Editor


GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

CAPTCHA Image