Life Cycle Assessment of the Wavestar

Dalton, Gordon; Madden, David G.; Daly, Maire Clare

doi:10.1109/ever.2014.6844034

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…how much steel might be replaced and the extent to which the structural weight could be reduced. Also, the 'lightweighting' of ocean energy devices Parker et al (2007) b Thomson et al (2011) c Walker and Howell (2011) d Dahlsten (2009) e Douglas et al (2008) does not currently seem possible, for economic reasons. Due to the uncertainties, the results of this scenario cannot be considered robust enough for a solid conclusion; this might be analysed in a further study.…”

Section: Lca Results: Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life cycle assessment of ocean energy technologies

Uihlein

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Oceans offer a vast amount of renewable energy. Tidal and wave energy devices are currently the most advanced conduits of ocean energy. To date, only a few life cycle assessments for ocean energy have been carried out for ocean energy. This study analyses ocean energy devices, including all technologies currently being proposed, in order to gain a better understanding of their environmental impacts and explore how they can contribute to a more sustainable energy supply. Methods The study followed the methodology of life cycle assessment including all life cycle steps from cradle to grave. The various types of device were assessed, on the basis of a functional unit of 1 kWh of electricity delivered to the grid. The impact categories investigated were based on the ILCD recommendations. The life cycle models were set up using detailed technical information on the components and structure of around 180 ocean energy devices from an in-house database.Results and discussion The design of ocean energy devices still varies considerably, and their weight ranges from 190 to 1270 t, depending on device type. Environmental impacts are closely linked to material inputs and are caused mainly by mooring and foundations and structural components, while impacts from assembly, installation and use are insignificant for all device types. Total greenhouse gas emissions of ocean energy devices range from about 15 to 105 g CO 2 -eq. kWh −1 . Average global warming potential for all device types is 53 ± 29 g CO 2 -eq. kWh −1 . The results of this study are comparable with those of other studies and confirm that the environmental impacts of ocean energy devices are comparable with those of other renewable technologies and can contribute to a more sustainable energy supply. Conclusions Ocean energy devices are still at an early stage of development compared with other renewable energy technologies. Their environmental impacts can be further reduced by technology improvements already being pursued by developers (e.g. increased efficiency and reliability). Future life cycle assessment studies should assess whole ocean energy arrays or ocean energy farms.

show abstract

Section: Lca Results: Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As deployment of ocean energy devices has been limited to date, the database provides no information on replacement parts and replacement intervals. Following the example of previous studies (Parker et al 2007;Thomson et al 2011;Dalton et al 2014), we assumed that no parts have to be replaced.…”

Section: Installation and Maintenancementioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of ocean energy technologies

Uihlein

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The energy intensity is calculated by dividing the life cycle embodied energy with total life time energy production; likewise the carbon intensity is calculated by dividing the life cycle embodied carbon with total life time energy production [27]. The energy payback period is an important environmental indicator for renewable energies as it demonstrates the period of time for the renewable power system to produce as much amount of energy as the energy consumption to produce the energy system itself.…”

Section: Embodied Energy and Carbon: Intensities And Paybacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The energy payback period is an important environmental indicator for renewable energies as it demonstrates the period of time for the renewable power system to produce as much amount of energy as the energy consumption to produce the energy system itself. Here the impact assessment method Cumulative Energy Demand [27][28][29] is applied for the calculation of the payback time of the BRD WEC system. The results show that the cumulative energy demand of the BRD WEC is 0.108 MJ eq /MJ electricity , which gives the energy payback time is 26 month.…”

Section: Embodied Energy and Carbon: Intensities And Paybacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The calculated energy intensity of the BRD WEC is 387 kJ/kWh. The carbon payback is another important environmental indicator for renewable energies, which is calculated by dividing the life cycle embodied carbon with annual avoided carbon [27]. Here the annual avoided carbon is calculated by taking the difference of the BRD WEC carbon intensity and carbon intensity of local conventional fossil fueled electricity.…”

Section: Embodied Energy and Carbon: Intensities And Paybacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life Cycle Assessment of a Buoy-Rope-Drum Wave Energy Converter

Zhai

Zhu

2018

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) study for a buoy-rope-drum (BRD) wave energy converter (WEC), so as to understand the environmental performance of the BRD WEC by eco-labeling its life cycle stages and processes. The BRD WEC was developed by a research group at Shandong University (Weihai). The WEC consists of three main functional modules including buoy, generator and mooring modules. The designed rated power capacity is 10 kW. The LCA modeling is based on data collected from actual design, prototype manufacturing, installation and onsite sea test. Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis and life cycle impact analysis (LCIA) were conducted. The analyses show that the most significant environmental impact contributor is identified to be the manufacturing stage of the BRD WEC due to consumption of energy and materials. Potential improvement approaches are proposed in the discussion. The LCI and LCIA assessment results are then benchmarked with results from reported LCA studies of other WECs, tidal energy converters, as well as offshore wind and solar PV systems. This study presents the energy and carbon intensities and paybacks with 387 kJ/kWh, 89 gCO 2 /kWh, 26 months and 23 months respectively. The results show that the energy and carbon intensities of the BRD WEC are slightly larger than, however comparable, in comparison with the referenced WECs, tidal, offshore wind and solar PV systems. A sensitivity analysis was carried out by varying the capacity factor from 20-50%. The energy and carbon intensities could reach as much as 968 kJ/kWh and 222 gCO 2 /kWh respectively while the capacity factor decreasing to 20%. Limitations for this study and scope of future work are discussed in the conclusion.Energies 2018, 11, 2432 2 of 15 to absorb wave energy and convert it to electricity or other forms of energy [4]. Since the beginning of the century, tidal stream technology and wave energy technology development have started to ramp up [5]. Although there no large-scale WEC installation has been reported in the U.S., the U.S. Department of Energy sponsored the Wave Energy Prize in 2015, an 18-month public design-build-test competition to increase the diversity of organizations involved in WEC technology development, while motivating and inspiring existing stakeholders [6]. The UK and Portugal have the vast majority of wave energy deployments in Europe [5]. The Carbon Trust estimates that a contribution of up to 20% of total UK energy generation could be provided by marine energy by 2050 [7,8]. China possesses a total marine area of 4,700,000 km 2 [9]. With annual mean wave power of up to 7.73 kW/m wave front, China has a wave power potential of 128.5 GW, nearly half of the electricity production of China [10,11]. However, the majority of China's wave energies are without any exploitation and thus far, most of the WECs in China are still in concept design or pre-commercial stages. Aiming to stimulate and encourage the marine renewable energy technology research and development, China National Oceanic Admini...

show abstract