Allocation of carbon dioxide emissions to the by-products of combined heat and power plants: A methodological guidance

Nadja Buchenau , Conrad Hannen , Peter Holzapfel , Matthias Finkbeiner , Jens Hesselbach
{"title":"Allocation of carbon dioxide emissions to the by-products of combined heat and power plants: A methodological guidance","authors":"Nadja Buchenau ,&nbsp;Conrad Hannen ,&nbsp;Peter Holzapfel ,&nbsp;Matthias Finkbeiner ,&nbsp;Jens Hesselbach","doi":"10.1016/j.rset.2023.100069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cogeneration has higher efficiency than separate heat and power generation. Since both are generated in a single process, it is necessary to allocate the emissions to by-products for comparing their environmental performance. Numerous methods exist resulting in very different allocations. There is no consensus regarding the method choice. The main objective of this article is the development and implementation of an evaluation scheme allowing the choice of an appropriate method for specific applications. This scheme consists of nine criteria in the categories “Applicability”, “Environmental relevance”, and “Systematic approach” allowing a rating. The Finnish method performs best for a standard use case resulting in emission factors of 322 g CO<sub>2</sub> / kWh<sub>el</sub> and 192 g CO<sub>2</sub> / kWh<sub>th</sub>. Both are associated with less emissions per unit then the electricity and district heating mix of Germany in 2020 that were 375 g CO<sub>2</sub> / kWh<sub>el</sub> and 270 g CO<sub>2</sub> / kWh<sub>th</sub>. Therefore, cogeneration electricity and heat could contribute to climate protection in the short- to mid-term. The implementation of two sensitivity analyses shows that the location and country-specific emission factors can have a great influence on the results and the contribution to climate protection. Depending on use case and individual importance of certain criteria the Energy, the Exergy or the Greenhouse Gas method can be preferable. Each scored with one point less than the Finnish method. In contrast to existing publications, this study supports decision-makers in transparently selecting an appropriate allocation method when assessing the products of cogeneration by considering different criteria.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101071,"journal":{"name":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667095X23000259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cogeneration has higher efficiency than separate heat and power generation. Since both are generated in a single process, it is necessary to allocate the emissions to by-products for comparing their environmental performance. Numerous methods exist resulting in very different allocations. There is no consensus regarding the method choice. The main objective of this article is the development and implementation of an evaluation scheme allowing the choice of an appropriate method for specific applications. This scheme consists of nine criteria in the categories “Applicability”, “Environmental relevance”, and “Systematic approach” allowing a rating. The Finnish method performs best for a standard use case resulting in emission factors of 322 g CO2 / kWhel and 192 g CO2 / kWhth. Both are associated with less emissions per unit then the electricity and district heating mix of Germany in 2020 that were 375 g CO2 / kWhel and 270 g CO2 / kWhth. Therefore, cogeneration electricity and heat could contribute to climate protection in the short- to mid-term. The implementation of two sensitivity analyses shows that the location and country-specific emission factors can have a great influence on the results and the contribution to climate protection. Depending on use case and individual importance of certain criteria the Energy, the Exergy or the Greenhouse Gas method can be preferable. Each scored with one point less than the Finnish method. In contrast to existing publications, this study supports decision-makers in transparently selecting an appropriate allocation method when assessing the products of cogeneration by considering different criteria.

热电联产厂副产品的二氧化碳排放分配:方法指南
热电联产比热电联产有更高的效率。由于两者都是在一个过程中产生的,因此有必要将排放量分配给副产品,以比较其环境性能。存在许多方法,导致分配非常不同。在方法选择上没有达成共识。本文的主要目标是开发和实施一个评估方案,以便为特定应用选择合适的方法。该方案由“适用性”、“环境相关性”和允许评级的“系统方法”类别中的九个标准组成。芬兰方法在标准使用情况下表现最佳,导致排放因子为322 g CO2/kWhel和192 g CO2/kWh。与2020年德国的电力和区域供暖组合相比,两者的单位排放量都较低,分别为375克二氧化碳/kWhel和270克二氧化碳/kWh。因此,热电联产可以在中短期内为气候保护做出贡献。两个敏感性分析的实施表明,地点和国别排放因素对结果和对气候保护的贡献有很大影响。根据使用情况和某些标准的个人重要性,能源、火用或温室气体方法可能是优选的。每个人的得分都比芬兰队少一分。与现有出版物相比,本研究支持决策者在评估热电联产产品时,通过考虑不同的标准,透明地选择适当的分配方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信