CEESA
WP1/WP5: LCA Screening
Thomas Astrup & Karsten H. Jensen
Institut for Miljø & Ressourcer
Danmarks Tekniske Universitet
Screening: Objectives
The main objectives for carrying out the LCA screening
on the initial energy systems (scenarios) are with
respect to environmental aspects:

Evaluation of main differences between the scenarios

Identification of important processes and parameters

Identification of critical methodological issues and
potential uncertainties

Initiation of data collection
Functional unit

LCA screening has been done on the two low
consumption scenarios (wind + biomass)

the scenarios are completely comparable

they both meet the demands of electricity, heat,
and transport

The functional unit is defined as the production and
distribution of these energy services over one year

Impacts associated with system capacities are
distributed over capacity lifetime
Primary energy supply
140
120
Solar thermal
TWh/y
100
Wave power
Photo Voltaics
80
Wind power
60
Biomass
40
20
0
Bio scenario
Wind scenario
Biomass scenario
Renewable electricity production
MW
TWh/y
Onshore wind
Offshore wind
Photo Voltaic
Wave power
3000
3000
1500
882
Hydrogen capacity storage
7.02
11.69
1.5
3
Electrolysis, grid 2
Electrolysis, grid 3
MW-e
TWh/y
0
0
0.15
0.15
Onshore
wind
Offshore
wind
7.02
11.69
Fuel balance (TWh/y)
Biomass
Renewable
H2 etc.
DHP
CHP2
CHP3
Boiler2
Boiler3
PP
0.72
13.46
22.81
1.13
1.63
6.52
0
0
0
0
Elc.lys.s
-12.14
Wind scenario
Renewable electricity production
MW
TWh/y
Onshore wind
Offshore wind
Photo Voltaic
Wave power
3000
12000
1500
882
Hydrogen capacity storage
7.02
46.77
1.5
3
Electrolysis, grid 2
Electrolysis, grid 3
MW-e
TWh
5000
5000
1.5
1.5
Onshore
wind
Offshore
wind
7.02
46.77
Fuel balance (TWh/y)
Biomass
Renewable
H2 etc.
DHP
CHP2
CHP3
0.72
4.50
0.34
0.57
8.22
Boiler2 Boiler3
2.50
1.04
PP
Elc.lys.s
0.02 2.02
2.48
-26.57
Net differences
Biomass for CHP/PP
Biomass used in boilers
Unit Bio scenario Wind scenario Difference in
TWh/y
42.79
6.86
Operation
TWh/y
2.76
2.52
Operation
Offshore wind power
TWh/y
11.69
46.77
Capacity + Operation
Electrolysis capacity
Electrolysis operation
MW-e
TWh/y
0
0
10000
14.43
Capacity
Operation
H2 for CHP
H2 used in boilers
H2 storage
TWh/y
TWh/y
TWh/y
0
0
0.30
8.79
3.52
3.00
Operation
Operation
Capacity
Differences in capacity

Offshore wind power

Elektrolysis

Hydrogen storage

Biomass gasification
Technologies
Biomass for CHP/PP
Biomass used in boilers
Technology applied
SOFC plants using producer gas from
two-staged biomass gasification
Boiler based on wood chips
(grate firing)
Offshore wind power
Offshore wind turbines
Electrolysis capacity
Electrolysis operation
Reversed SOFC plants
H2 for CHP
H2 used in boilers
H2 storage
SOFC plants using H2
Boilers
High pressurized tanks
(glass fiber laminated steel tanks)
Biomass resources
Biomass resource use
400
350
Fiberfraction in
manure not utilized
Fiberfraction in
manure utilized
Primary energy (PJ/y)
300
Energy crops
Manure fiberfraction
250
Waste, combustible
200
Manure biogas
150
100
Wood
50
Straw
0
Wind scenario
Bio scenario
Wind scenario
Bio scenario
Energy crops are assumed to cover differences between scenarios
Data sources

LCA's

Offshore wind power

SOFC and elektrolysis facilities

Biomass plants

Energy crop production (willow)

Process/product data

Biomass combustion in boilers

Two-staged biomass gasification

H2 storage in pressurized tanks

Gabi processes

Production and disposal of materials
GABI modeling: Biomass scenario
BIOMASS scenario
WIND scenario
GABI modeling: Wind scenario
Modeling approach

Primary energy consumption (materials +
manufacturing)

Long term choice of marginal energy technologies
outside DK extremely uncertain
 Energy consumption/production separated from other
impacts:

an energy balance can be made:
– good indicator
– feedback to scenario modeling in EnergPLAN

Sensitivity analysis for various energy technologies
can be made

Flexibility is maintained wrt. further work
Primary energy:
Total
Energy consumption
3.5
Primary energy (TWh/y
3.0
2.5
Energy for material
production
2.0
Energy for
manufacturing,
disposal
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Biomass scenario
Wind scenario
Extra: 0.3 - 1 % electricity and 0.6 - 5 % heat compared with 100 % RE scenarier
Primary energy: processes
Energy consumption
3.5
Electrolysis capacity,
SOFC cells
Primary energy (TWh/y)
3.0
Electrolysis capacity,
plant
2.5
Wind turbine farm
2.0
Transport of biomass
1.5
H2 storage capacity
1.0
Energy crop production
0.5
Bio gasification plant
0.0
Biomass scenario
Wind scenario
Environmental impacts, Normalised
Slag and ashes
Hazardous waste
Bulky waste
Wind scenario
Photochemical ozone
formation
Biomass scenario
Stratospheric ozone
depletion
Nutrient enrichment
Global warming
Acidification
0
50
100
150
1000 PE
200
250
BIOMASS scenario, Environmental impacts, Normalised
Slag and ashes
Bio gasification plants
Hazardous waste
Bio gasification process
Bulky waste
Bio boiler operation
Photochemical ozone
formation
Energy crop production
Stratospheric ozone
depletion
H2 storage capacity
Nutrient enrichment
SOFC bio operation
Global warming
Wind turbine farms
Acidification
0
50
100
150
1000 PE
200
250
WIND scenario, Environmental impacts, Normalised
Bio gasification plant
Slag and ashes
Bio boiler operation
Hazardous waste
Electrolysis capacity, plant
Bulky waste
Photochemical ozone
formation
Electrolysis capacity,
SOFC cells
Stratospheric ozone
depletion
Energy crop production
Nutrient enrichment
H2 storage capacity
Global warming
SOFC bio operation
Wind turbine farms
Acidification
0
50
100
150
1000 PE
200
250
Toxicity potentials, Normalised
Human toxicity water
Human toxicity soil
Wind scenario
Human toxicity air
Biomass scenario
Ecotoxicity water
chronic
Ecotoxicity water
acute
Ecotoxicity soil
chronic
0
200
400
600
1000 PE
800
1000
BIOMASS scenario, Toxicity potentials, Normalised
Human toxicity water
Bio gasification plants
Human toxicity soil
Bio gasification process
Human toxicity air
Bio boiler operation
Ecotoxicity water
chronic
Energy crop production
Ecotoxicity water
acute
H2 storage capacity
Ecotoxicity soil
chronic
SOFC bio operation
0
200
400
600
1000 PE
800
1000
WIND scenario, Toxicity potentials, Normalised
Electrolysis capacity, plant
Human toxicity water
Electrolysis capacity,
SOFC cells
Human toxicity soil
Energy crop production
Human toxicity air
H2 storage capacity
Ecotoxicity water
chronic
Wind turbine farms
Ecotoxicity water
acute
Bio boiler operation
Ecotoxicity soil
chronic
SOFC H2 operation
0
200
400
600
1000 PE
800
1000
BIOMASS scenario, Resource consumption, Weighted
EDIP 1997, Zinc [kg]
Wind turbine
farm
EDIP 1997, Uranium [kg]
H2 storage
capacity
EDIP 1997, Nickel [kg]
EDIP 1997, Natural gas [kg]
Pesticides
EDIP 1997, Manganese [kg]
EDIP 1997, Lignite [kg]
Cuttings
EDIP 1997, Lead [kg]
Fertilizer K
EDIP 1997, Iron [kg]
EDIP 1997, Hard coal [kg]
Fertilizer N
EDIP 1997, Crude oil [kg]
EDIP 1997, Copper [kg]
Fertilizer P
EDIP 1997, Aluminum [kg]
0
1
2
3
4
1000 PR
5
6
7
8
WIND scenario, Resource consumption, Weighted
EDIP 1997, Zirconium [kg]
Electrolysis
capacity, plants
EDIP 1997, Zinc [kg]
EDIP 1997, Yttrium [kg]
EDIP 1997, Uranium [kg]
Electrolysis
capacity,
SOFC cells
EDIP 1997, Nickel [kg]
EDIP 1997, Natural gas [kg]
EDIP 1997, Manganese [kg]
Energy crop
production
EDIP 1997, Lignite [kg]
EDIP 1997, Lead [kg]
EDIP 1997, Iron [kg]
H2 storage
capacity
EDIP 1997, Hard coal [kg]
EDIP 1997, Crude oil [kg]
EDIP 1997, Copper [kg]
Wind turbine
farms
EDIP 1997, Chromium [kg]
EDIP 1997, Aluminum [kg]
0
500
1000
1500
1000 PR
På 5-6 år har DK brugt sin del af Yttrium for alle fremtidige generationer (!)
WIND scenario, Resource consumption, Weighted, Excl. Yttrium
EDIP 1997, Zirconium [kg]
Wind turbine
farms
EDIP 1997, Zinc [kg]
EDIP 1997, Uranium [kg]
EDIP 1997, Nickel [kg]
H2 storage
capacity
EDIP 1997, Natural gas [kg]
EDIP 1997, Manganese [kg]
Electrolysis
capacity, plants
EDIP 1997, Lignite [kg]
EDIP 1997, Lead [kg]
EDIP 1997, Iron [kg]
Electrolysis
capacity,
SOFC cells
EDIP 1997, Hard coal [kg]
EDIP 1997, Crude oil [kg]
EDIP 1997, Copper [kg]
Energy crop
production
EDIP 1997, Chromium [kg]
EDIP 1997, Aluminum [kg]
0
5
10
15
20
1000 PR
25
30
35
Most important impact categories

Nutrient enrichment

Ecotoxicity

Waste management and disposal

Consumption of scarce resources

Effects related to consumption of energy for material
production and manufacturing?

depending on technologies and fuel

uncertain

Landuse and biodiversity

Energy crops

Offshore wind farms
Important differences
Biomass scenario

Larger:




Nutrient enrichment
Ecotoxicity
Global warming
Acidification
from energy crop production

Larger areas used for energy crop
production: about 20-40 % of
farm land (0-15 % in wind
scenario)
Wind scenario

Larger consumption of scarce
resources:


Yt for SOFC-cells
Pb, Zn, etc. for wind power

More waste: wind power, hydrogen
storage, electrolysis

Higher energy consumption for
material production

Larger costal areas affected by
offshore wind farms
Important processes
Plant capacities (manufacturing/disposal)

Offshore wind farms

Hydrogen storage (?)

Electrolysis facilities

Biomass gasification
Operation

Energy crop production
Main issues I

Time horizons involved

Energy technologies used outside DK

Possible feedback to EnergyPLAN scenarios (fuel
consumption)

Geographical scope of production

Systems for storage and distribution of hydrogen

Size of offshore wind mills

Utilization of energy crops relative to residues, fiber fractions
from manure

Types of energy crops, yields, fertilizing, pesticides, etc.

Transport
Main issues II

Materials based on hydrocarbons (e.g. plastics) - may be
fossile or renewable

Utilization of materials in the future

Disposal and management of waste, and related emissions

System expansion for inclusion of land use aspects (food,
etc.)

Comparability and inclusion of other (new) impacts such as
biodiversity, visual impacts, ...