Evaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydroelectricity Generation Systems

Abstract

This study evaluated the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from different hydroelectricity generation systems by first performing a comprehensive review of the hydroelectricity generation system life cycle assessment (LCA) studies and then subsequent computation of statistical metrics to quantify the life cycle GHG emissions (expressed in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour, gCO 2 e/kWh). A categorization index (with unique category codes, formatted as "facility type-electric power generation capacity") was developed and used in this study to evaluate the life cycle GHG emissions from the reviewed hydroelectricity generation systems. The unique category codes were labeled by integrating the names of the two hydro power sub-classifications, i.e., the facility type (impoundment (I), diversion (D), pumped storage (PS), miscellaneous hydropower works (MHPW)) and the electric power generation capacity (micro (µ), small (S), large (L)). The characterized hydroelectricity generation systems were statistically evaluated to determine the reduction in corresponding life cycle GHG emissions. , and MHPW-S (N = 1) hydroelectricity generation systems are 21.05 gCO 2 e/kWh, 40.63 gCO 2 e/kWh, 47.82 gCO 2 e/kWh, 27.18 gCO 2 e/kWh, 3.45 gCO 2 e/kWh, 256.63 gCO 2 e/kWh, 19.73 gCO 2 e/kWh, and 2.78 gCO 2 e/kWh, respectively. D-L hydroelectricity generation systems produced the minimum life cycle GHGs (considering the hydroelectricity generation system categories with a representation of at least two cases).

Managing the Water-Energy Nexus within a Climate Change Context—Lessons from the Experience of Cuenca, Ecuador

“…The Cuenca metropolitan area is the third largest city in Ecuador with a total area of 3665.32 km 2 [22] and a total population of 505,585 in 2010. However, the urban centre amidst this large cantonal area was a mere 66.71 km 2 in 2010 [20].…”

“…The methodological approach proposed in this paper is potentially particularly useful for local governments world-wide which face a scarcity of financial resources and technical expertise. Other studies have focused on the interrelationship between the water and energy sectors at the urban level and in particular on the technologies and interventions that have the potential to improve the sustainable management of scarce natural resources [16][17][18]22,23]. Firstly, a major gap identified in these studies is the lack of integration of the various approaches taken to study the dynamics of multiple water-energy interlinkages.…”

“…Furthermore, expert interviews with representatives of the municipality highlighted steady urban sprawl with predominant low-rise buildings. The interviews and secondary sources also lead to the assumption that the average household size will remain at about 3.85 [8,20,22,25]. Similarly, the study also developed a forecast until 2030 regarding the water metabolic cycle of urban Cuenca using the following indicators for the variable of water flow: potable water produced (in m 3 /year), total water consumed (in m 3 /year), residential water consumed (indicator 1.2 in m 3 /year).…”

Can Hydropower Still Be Considered a Clean Energy Source? Compelling Evidence from a Middle-Sized Hydropower Station in China

“…Hanafi and Riman assessed the life cycle of a mini hydropower plant in Simalungun, Indonesia, with results showing that both carcinogenic marine and freshwater aquatic eco-toxicity are the highest environmental effects generated from the construction of such hydropower plants [17]. Kadiyala et al evaluated the life cycle GHGs emissions from different hydroelectricity generation systems [18]. Pascale et al assessed the life cycle of a community hydropower system in rural Thailand; the results suggested that small-scale hydropower was more environmentally friendly than diesel generators and grid connection alternatives, considering mostly economic and social factors.…”

Integration of Seawater Pumped-Storage in the Energy System of the Island of São Miguel (Azores)

“…PHES systems typically operate with low-cost off-peak or excess electricity to pump water from a lower to an upper reservoir (either natural or artificial) in order to use the stored potential energy of the water for electricity generation upon system demand [5]. These systems are characterized by round-trip efficiency in the range of 70-80%, while figures reaching 87% are also reported in the literature [6].…”