Considering Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Power System Expansion Planning for Europe and North Africa Using Multi-Objective Optimization

Tobias Junne, Karl-Kiên Cao, Kim Kira Miskiw, Heidi Hottenroth and Tobias Naegler
Additional contact information
Tobias Junne: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Department of Energy Systems Analysis, Institute of Networked Energy Systems, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
Karl-Kiên Cao: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Department of Energy Systems Analysis, Institute of Networked Energy Systems, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
Kim Kira Miskiw: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Department of Energy Systems Analysis, Institute of Networked Energy Systems, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
Heidi Hottenroth: Institute for Industrial Ecology (INEC), Pforzheim University, 75175 Pforzheim, Germany
Tobias Naegler: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Department of Energy Systems Analysis, Institute of Networked Energy Systems, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany

Energies, 2021, vol. 14, issue 5, 1-26

Abstract: We integrate life cycle indicators for various technologies of an energy system model with high spatiotemporal detail and a focus on Europe and North Africa. Using multi-objective optimization, we calculate a pareto front that allows us to assess the trade-offs between system costs and life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of future power systems. Furthermore, we perform environmental ex-post assessments of selected solutions using a broad set of life cycle impact categories. In a system with the least life cycle GHG emissions, the costs would increase by ~63%, thereby reducing life cycle GHG emissions by ~82% compared to the cost-optimal solution. Power systems mitigating a substantial part of life cycle GHG emissions with small increases in system costs show a trend towards a deployment of wind onshore, electricity grid and a decline in photovoltaic plants and Li-ion storage. Further reductions are achieved by the deployment of concentrated solar power, wind offshore and nuclear power but lead to considerably higher costs compared to the cost-optimal solution. Power systems that mitigate life cycle GHG emissions also perform better for most impact categories but have higher ionizing radiation, water use and increased fossil fuel demand driven by nuclear power. This study shows that it is crucial to consider upstream GHG emissions in future assessments, as they represent an inheritable part of total emissions in ambitious energy scenarios that, so far, mainly aim to reduce direct CO 2 emissions.

Keywords: energy system modeling; life cycle assessment; multi-objective optimization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/5/1301/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/5/1301/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:5:p:1301-:d:506948

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().