From the POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH (PIK)
Different low carbon technologies from wind or solar energy to fossil carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) differ greatly when it comes to indirect greenhouse gas emissions in their life cycle. This is the result of a comprehensive new study conducted by an international team of scientists that is now published in the journal Nature Energy. Unlike what some critics argue, the researchers not only found that wind and solar energy belong to the more favorable when it comes to life-cycle emissions. They also show that a full decarbonization of the global power sector by scaling up these technologies would induce only modest indirect greenhouse gas emissions – and hence not impede the transformation towards a climate-friendly power system.
“Both fossil and non-fossil power technologies still come with a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions within their life cycle – on the one hand because it needs energy to construct and operate them, on the other hand because of methane emissions, e.g. from coal and gas production,” explains lead author Michaja Pehl. “However, we found there are substantial differences across technologies regarding their greenhouse gas balance. Electricity production from biomass, coal, gas and hydropower for instance induces much higher indirect greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear electricity, or wind and solar-based power supply.”
With their study the researchers provide an innovative and comprehensive global analysis of embodied energy use and indirect greenhouse gas emissions – from all relevant power sector technologies. For the first time, their study combines the strengths of simulations based on integrated energy-economy-climate models that estimate cost-optimal long-term strategies to meet climate targets with life cycle assessment approaches. So far, these research branches have operated separately. Exploring the life cycle emissions of future low-carbon supply systems and the implications for technology choices, they found that fossil power plants equipped with CCS will still account for life-cycle emissions of around 100 grams of CO2-equivalents per kWh of electricity produced, ten times more than the around 10 grams of CO2-equivalents for wind and solar power they project for 2050 in a climate protection scenario in which power production is almost completely decarbonized.
Wind and solar provide a much better greenhouse gas emissions balance than fossil-based technologies
“There is no such thing as truly clean coal. Conventional coal power currently comes with around 1000 grams of CO2-equivalents per kWh. Capturing CO2 from coal plants can reduce emissions per kWh by around 90 percent, but substantial life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions remain,” says Gunnar Luderer, energy system analyst from PIK and project leader. “To keep global warming below 2°C, however, virtually carbon free electricity is necessary. This makes it increasingly implausible that coal power will play a major role in the future, even if equipped with CO2 scrubbers.”
“When it comes to life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, wind and solar energy provide a much better greenhouse gas balance than fossil-based low carbon technologies, because they do not require additional energy for the production and transport of fuels, and the technologies themselves can be produced to a large extend with decarbonized electricity,” states Edgar Hertwich, an industrial ecologist from Yale University who co-authored the study. Due to technological innovation, less and less energy will be needed to produce wind turbines and solar photovoltaic systems.
“Some critics have argued renewable energies could come with high hidden greenhouse gas emissions that would negate their benefits to the climate. Our study now shows that the opposite is true,” concludes Luderer. “During the transition to clean power supply, the additional life-cycle emissions for building up wind and solar capacities are much smaller than the remaining emissions from existing fossil power plants before they can finally be decommissioned. The faster the low-carbon transformation of power supply is accomplished, the lower is the overall remaining carbon burden for the climate.”
###
Article: Michaja Pehl, Anders Arvesen, Florian Humpenöder, Alexander Popp, Edgar Hertwich, Gunnar Luderer (2017): Understanding Future Emissions from Low-Carbon Power Systems by Integration of Lice Cycle Assessment and Integrated Energy Modelling. Nature Energy. [DOI: 10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0032-9
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What they “forget” is that you need 100% (fossil) backup for each MW capacity they have in wind and solar.
“Classic” power is mostly in huge units 500-1500 MW, no matter if that is coal, gas, hydro or nuclear.
If one of these units unexpectly shuts down, you need, as a rule of tumb, some 10% backup and in case that there is second in maintenance at the same time, some 10% help from the neighbors by interconnections.
The situation in Germany, source of the above study, is that they had already 130% capacity in classic power, of which 20% nuclear. 10% is already closed and in a few years the other 10% will be closed too.
They also have 110% nameplate capacity in wind and solar. Problem for the latter is that this is really 110% at some moments and less than 10% at other moments and everything in between. In the first case they dump their surplus at the neighbors. For regulation they mainly use the coal (and gas) units and a little pumped hydro.
Except for hydro, you have to attribute 90% of the backup, whatever that be (batteries, power to gas, gasturbines,..) to the installed wind and solar power. Not only for the installation, but for the real CO2 emissions during use when there is no wind and sun…
For an overview of the momentary power generation mix in Germany, see:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm
and choose “Alle Quellen” (all sources)
This week there was/is a lot of wind power, hardly any sun. Then compare the situation now with that of week (“woche”) 3 at the beginning of this year…
You are absolutely right, Ferdinand. The real situation in Germany is even worse. Look here for the actual status of the Energiewende: https://www.prognos.com/presse/news/detailansicht/1464/37548049abaa5ae3d11a9c556792ba13/
Co2 emissions flat since years despite a whopping 70 GW installation of RE since 2008 and only a minor reduction of nuclear in 2011, which they use as an excuse. Prices have soared some 30%. Neighbours as Poland & Czech Rep. are complaining and now building energy walls against against german excess windpoer. Costs for regulating the grid have risen from 30 million Euro to 1 billion Euro in 8 years.
Calculating the need of windmills in a 100% decarbonised Germany with the current power consumption leaves you with approx. 1 million winmills. That means a windmill every 600 m, no matter where you are, forest, land, streets, cities. This relates to a yearly capex (no operation costs) of about 0.5 trllion Euro.
The PIK is right, it is feasible. The questions remaining: Who wants it and who is aware of the consequences?
“Ferdinand Engelbeen December 8, 2017 at 3:36 pm”
Wrong! There is *ALWAYS* backup wind and sunshine, isn’t that right Griff? Griff? Griff….?!
Take the area needed per tower or panel.
Scale those up to “full decarbonization of the global power** sector.”
Equals big belly laugh.
[ **Note the word ‘power’, not electricity. ]
Being harvesters of diffuse energy at Earth’s surface, wind and solar are land hogs.
Nuclear, oil, gas, and coal are more energy dense. Any one or combination of these does less environmental damage.
The folks from Potsdam have mush for brains.
“The folks from Potsdam have mush for brains.” Not true! Creating and maintaining an elaborate fiction takes a great deal of intelligence. Less intelligent people can’t deal with that much cognitive dissonance, and go back to thinking about how they are going to make ends meet and the next time they are going to have sex. Intelligent people have the ability to concern themselves with how the rest of the world should be, in addition to thinking about making a living and having sex.
The true brilliance of the human mind lies in pattern recognition, but that is also the source of its greatest danger. With very little information, we can discern patterns that allow us to make remarkably productive decisions, but sometimes we see patterns that aren’t really there. When this happens, we will often choose those patterns over the available evidence. The more intelligent we are, the more capable we are at defending our incorrect patterns, and convincing ourselves that we are right.
Consequently, very smart people can completely disagree about the very same thing, and make extremely persuasive arguments for their side. Wisdom, on the other hand, recognizes that both sides are defending patterns derived from incomplete information and are certainly both incorrect.
And here is where the skeptic is born.
“compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050.”
The three most important factors is LCA are location, location, location. Few places have the idea wind or solar resources to match nuclear which can be built anyplace.
‘They also show that a full decarbonization of the global power sector by scaling up these technologies would induce only modest indirect greenhouse gas emissions – and hence not impede the transformation towards a climate-friendly power system.’
How much GHG will be emitted clearing Africa and South America to provide enough land for all this wind/solar?
Africa has the Congo River. It can generate more power than Europe needs. Cost reputed to be 1 cent per kWh.
The claimed emissions from the life cycle of hydro power are laughable. Higher then wind power?? When one reads that claim, the rest of the paper is suspect.
Fall storm takes out power companies $200mm smart meter system.
https://bangordailynews.com/2017/12/08/news/state/october-storm-took-out-cmps-200-million-smart-meter-network/
On that note, my 2 granddaughters (5 and 3 yo) got to see and play in snow for the first time in their lives…in San Antonio! They loved it!
“Fall storm takes out power companies $200mm smart meter system.”
That’s too bad. My local rural electric co-op has such a system; it is quite worthwhile.
How is it worth while?
“To keep global warming below 2°C, however, virtually carbon free electricity is necessary.”
There is absolutely no problem with implementing a completely carbon-free electricity system. All you need to do is convince people that a standard of living equal to that of their nineteenth century ancestors is what they really want, plus a few other minor restrictions, such as being allocated a 2 a.m. slot in which to cook dinner and wash clothes. Oh, and baths/showers once a week, but this time you might be allocated a 4 a.m. slot.
There is no limit to what social engineering can achieve if we really put our minds to it.
Roger
You can also use the living examples of North Korea, camel-powered eastern Mauritania and the San people of the western Kalahari Desert. I would include the Old Order Amish but the Elders are permitting them to use cell phones on the basis that they do not involve wires, which are verboten. We can have a nuke-free zero carbon world with an ever-advancing civilisation provided we redefine ‘advancing’ as ‘retreating forwards’.
Crispin Somewhere on this small world,
permitting them to use cell phones on the basis that they do not involve wires
How do they reload the batteries of their cell phones without wires?
Why does anybody care about co2 since the warming model does not correlate to co2 concentration?
“..the additional life-cycle emissions for building up wind and solar capacities are much smaller than the remaining emissions from existing fossil power plants before they can finally be decommissioned.”
I’ll accept their best estimates at arriving at that outcome from their calculations. However they’ve seem to have missed an important part of the equation here and that’s comparing like with like. Thermal is despatchable and they haven’t calculated the life cycle emissions of say the Tesla Big Battery to make a ceratin amount of the Hornsdale wind farm electricity output despatchable 24/7 all year round. Give us those comparisons with the batteries, pumped hydro or even molten salt storage and then let’s see how well the renewables stack up. Without that some would say there’s a pea and thimble trick going on here.
You know my communal firefighting services tender is the cheapest by far folks and never mind the fireys won’t be on duty when the wind doesn’t blow or blows too hard or the sun doesn’t shine. Look at the savings.
Yes let’s look at those whole of lifetime savings shall we?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-14/south-australian-government-refusing-to-say-generators-cost/9150508
Sorry, but with that simple statement they lose ALL credibility. R&D is always speculative and positive results can never be counted on.
Fusion power is the perfect example. The big breakthrough that will make it work economically is always just a few more years away. The problem is the story has been repeated for 40 years.
“decarbonized electricity” has nothing to do with the main source of indirect greenhouse gas production across the lifecycle of a wind power installation. That main source by a LOT is concrete. Roughly 400 pounds of CO2 per cubic yard of concrete if my math is right.
Unless they are proposing to start making both roads and towers out of wood again?
Expanding on that, a mile of maintenance road paved 9 feet wide (rounded down to make the math easier) and 6″ thick requires 880 cubic yards of concrete and has a useful life of about 25 years. That works out to an annualized CO2 budget of 7.04 tons per year per mile of road alone.
A 300′ tall onshore wind tower requires about 1500 cubic yards of concrete – about 650 for the tower itself and another 850 for the footer. Again, using a useful life of about 25 years, that works out to a shade under 12 tons of CO2 per tower per year just due to the concrete. Obviously, an offshore tower would require even more concrete.
A 300′ tower would typically have a nameplate capacity in the 1.5 MW range. Even ignoring the difference between nameplate and realized capacity (and ignoring the maintenance roads completely), that works out to about 8 tons of CO2 per MW. If I remember correctly, natural gas comes in at a bit over half a ton of CO2 per MW and even coal is only a bit over a ton per MW.