Life cycle assessment of a community hydroelectric power system in rural Thailand

Pascale, Andrew; Urmee, Tania; Moore, A.

doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.04.023

Cited by 77 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several studies [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] that evaluated the life cycle environmental impacts of using hydro energy for electricity generation. One has to define the system boundary conditions (that includes details on the activities or processes to be considered in the analysis) and a functional unit of measure (that enables quantification of the net environmental impacts from carrying out an activity or a process as defined within the LCA system boundary conditions) when performing a LCA.…”

Section: Review Of Hydro Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies [7,11,13,16,17] adopted the system boundaries to include the raw material extraction, material processing, component manufacturing process, transportation, assembly and installation, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life process (decommissioning, recycling/reuse, and final disposal) activities. Gallagher et al [21] excluded the end-of-life process activity and considered the remaining activities listed within the system boundaries defined by other studies [7,11,13,16,17]. Ribeiro and Silva [10] considered the construction site operations, emissions from reservoir flooding, and worker transportation activities within their system boundaries in addition to those associated with other studies [7,11,13,16,17].…”

Section: Review Of Hydro Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gallagher et al [21] excluded the end-of-life process activity and considered the remaining activities listed within the system boundaries defined by other studies [7,11,13,16,17]. Ribeiro and Silva [10] considered the construction site operations, emissions from reservoir flooding, and worker transportation activities within their system boundaries in addition to those associated with other studies [7,11,13,16,17]. Gagnon and van de Vate [4] performed the LCA of hydroelectricity generation systems with system boundaries that considered all the activities related to construction, the preparation of flooded land (biomass decay in the flooded lands), and the use of thermal backup power.…”

Section: Review Of Hydro Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] analyzed the LCA of hydroelectricity generation systems. The use of hydroelectricity generation systems across the world is being encouraged considering that water is a free and an abundant renewable energy resource.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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).

show abstract

Section: Review Of Hydro Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Of Hydro Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Of Hydro Lca Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…LCA has been reported to be a suitable methodology to evaluate environmental performance of energy systems [13][14][15][16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybridizing concentrated solar power (CSP) with biogas and biomethane as an alternative to natural gas: Analysis of environmental performance using LCA

Miguel

Corona

2014

Renewable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants typically incorporate one or various auxiliary boilers operating in parallel to the solar field to facilitate start up operations, provide system stability, avoid freezing of heat transfer fluid (HTF) and increase generation capacity. The environmental performance of these plants is highly influenced by the energy input and the type of auxiliary fuel, which in most cases is natural gas (NG). Replacing the NG with biogas or biomethane (BM) in commercial CSP installations is being considered as a means to produce electricity that is fully renewable and free from fossil inputs. Despite their renewable nature, the use of these biofuels also generates environmental impacts that need to be adequately identified and quantified. This paper investigates the environmental performance of a commercial wet-cooled parabolic trough 50 MWe CSP plant in Spain operating according to two strategies: solar-only, with minimum technically viable energy non-solar contribution; and hybrid operation, where 12 % of the electricity derives from auxiliary fuels (as permitted by Spanish legislation). The analysis was based on standard Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO 14040-14040). The technical viability and the environmental profile of operating the CSP plant with different auxiliary fuels was evaluated, including: NG; biogas from an adjacent plant; and BM withdrawn from the gas network. The effect of using different substrates (biowaste, sewage sludge, grass and a mix of biowaste with animal manure) for the production of the biofuels was also investigated. The results showed that NG is responsible for most of the environmental damage associated with the operation of the plant in hybrid mode. Replacing NG with biogas resulted in a significant improvement of the environmental performance of the installation, primarily due to reduced impact in the following categories: natural land transformation, depletion of fossil resources, and climate change. However, despite the renewable nature of the biofuels, other environmental categories like human toxicity, eutrophication, acidification and marine ecotoxicity scored higher when using biogas and BM.

show abstract

Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of a run‐of‐the‐river type hydroelectricity power plant in Turkey

Bor

Üçtuğ

2021

Env Prog and Sustain Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental and economic life cycle assessment of a real-life run-of-the-river type hydroelectricity power plant in Turkey has been performed by considering the following stages: raw material acquisition, construction (including waste management), and transportation. CCaLC2 software and CML2001 methodology were used to calculate six different environmental impacts, whereas the economic impact was chosen as the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Functional unit was 1 MWh of electricity generated. The environmental impacts were found to be on average 95% lower than those of the Turkish grid, and the LCOE was calculated as $58.4/MWh. This outcome is understandable considering the high share of fossil fuels, especially low-quality lignite, in Turkish electricity grid. The results were compared to those of a similar study conducted abroad and all the impacts were found to have the same order of magnitude, proving that this study is methodologically consistent with the literature. The main conclusion is that hydroelectricity produced by run-of-the-river type plants in Turkey is environmentally friendly and economically viable compared to grid electricity. This is the first study in Turkey on the life cycle impact analysis of hydroelectricity and one of the few studies that consider economic and environmental factors simultaneously.environmental impact analysis, hydroelectricity power plant, levelized cost of electricity, life cycle assessment, run-of-the-river

show abstract

Life cycle assessment of a community hydroelectric power system in rural Thailand

Cited by 77 publications

References 6 publications

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

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

Hybridizing concentrated solar power (CSP) with biogas and biomethane as an alternative to natural gas: Analysis of environmental performance using LCA

Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of a run‐of‐the‐river type hydroelectricity power plant in Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About