能源用地的再分析:空间显式观测与文献来源的比较

J. Sturtevant, R.A. McManamay, A. Corry-Roberts, S. Nguyen
{"title":"能源用地的再分析:空间显式观测与文献来源的比较","authors":"J. Sturtevant,&nbsp;R.A. McManamay,&nbsp;A. Corry-Roberts,&nbsp;S. Nguyen","doi":"10.1016/j.cles.2025.100211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Energy production has many life cycles, each requiring expansive infrastructure and a significant spatial footprint in the landscape. As energy systems expand and technologies transition from non-renewable to renewable energy sources, it is imperative to accurately quantify the amount of land needed. Since life cycles of different technologies may require very different conversion of land surfaces, land transformation estimates can provide a standardized measure of the efficiency of an energy technology. Although there is an abundance of existing literature, spatial footprint estimates vary substantially among technologies and life-cycle stages. These varied sources could benefit from a standardized comparison and validation using a comprehensive and consistent ground-truth assessment. The National Water Energy Land Dataset (NWELD) provides comprehensive and spatially explicit mapping of land used for energy technology. Therefore, we present a methodological re-analysis of land used for energy by comparing spatially explicit observations from NWELD to coefficients found in literature for specific fuels and life cycles. Literature was compiled using a systematic methodology, filtered to collect pertinent data values, and summarized. NWELD land requirements were calculated and coupled with U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data to determine the energy production per technology. Our results suggest that the total life cycle of NWELD’s natural gas, oil, nuclear, and coal have higher median land footprints than what is reported in literature, except for biomass. Furthermore, we find that literature resources recycle common data points, which if inaccurate, could lead to error propagation in estimating land used for energy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100252,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Energy Systems","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-analysis of land used for energy: Comparison of spatially explicit observations and literature sources\",\"authors\":\"J. Sturtevant,&nbsp;R.A. McManamay,&nbsp;A. Corry-Roberts,&nbsp;S. Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cles.2025.100211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Energy production has many life cycles, each requiring expansive infrastructure and a significant spatial footprint in the landscape. As energy systems expand and technologies transition from non-renewable to renewable energy sources, it is imperative to accurately quantify the amount of land needed. Since life cycles of different technologies may require very different conversion of land surfaces, land transformation estimates can provide a standardized measure of the efficiency of an energy technology. Although there is an abundance of existing literature, spatial footprint estimates vary substantially among technologies and life-cycle stages. These varied sources could benefit from a standardized comparison and validation using a comprehensive and consistent ground-truth assessment. The National Water Energy Land Dataset (NWELD) provides comprehensive and spatially explicit mapping of land used for energy technology. Therefore, we present a methodological re-analysis of land used for energy by comparing spatially explicit observations from NWELD to coefficients found in literature for specific fuels and life cycles. Literature was compiled using a systematic methodology, filtered to collect pertinent data values, and summarized. NWELD land requirements were calculated and coupled with U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data to determine the energy production per technology. Our results suggest that the total life cycle of NWELD’s natural gas, oil, nuclear, and coal have higher median land footprints than what is reported in literature, except for biomass. Furthermore, we find that literature resources recycle common data points, which if inaccurate, could lead to error propagation in estimating land used for energy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleaner Energy Systems\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100211\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleaner Energy Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772783125000421\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Energy Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772783125000421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

能源生产有许多生命周期,每个周期都需要广泛的基础设施和显著的景观空间足迹。随着能源系统的扩展和技术从不可再生能源向可再生能源的转变,准确量化所需土地的数量势在必行。由于不同技术的生命周期可能需要非常不同的土地表面转换,土地转换估算可以提供一种能源技术效率的标准化度量。尽管已有大量文献,但空间足迹估算在技术和生命周期阶段之间存在很大差异。这些不同的来源可以从使用全面和一致的基础事实评估的标准化比较和验证中受益。国家水能土地数据集(NWELD)提供了用于能源技术的土地的全面和空间明确的映射。因此,我们提出了一种方法,通过比较NWELD的空间明确观测结果与文献中特定燃料和生命周期的系数,对用于能源的土地进行重新分析。文献采用系统的方法编制,过滤收集相关数据值,并进行总结。计算了NWELD对土地的需求,并结合美国能源信息管理局(EIA)的数据,确定了每种技术的能源产量。我们的研究结果表明,除了生物质外,NWELD的天然气、石油、核能和煤炭的总生命周期的土地足迹中位数高于文献报道。此外,我们发现文献资源回收了常见的数据点,如果这些数据不准确,可能导致误差在估计能源用地时传播。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Re-analysis of land used for energy: Comparison of spatially explicit observations and literature sources

Re-analysis of land used for energy: Comparison of spatially explicit observations and literature sources
Energy production has many life cycles, each requiring expansive infrastructure and a significant spatial footprint in the landscape. As energy systems expand and technologies transition from non-renewable to renewable energy sources, it is imperative to accurately quantify the amount of land needed. Since life cycles of different technologies may require very different conversion of land surfaces, land transformation estimates can provide a standardized measure of the efficiency of an energy technology. Although there is an abundance of existing literature, spatial footprint estimates vary substantially among technologies and life-cycle stages. These varied sources could benefit from a standardized comparison and validation using a comprehensive and consistent ground-truth assessment. The National Water Energy Land Dataset (NWELD) provides comprehensive and spatially explicit mapping of land used for energy technology. Therefore, we present a methodological re-analysis of land used for energy by comparing spatially explicit observations from NWELD to coefficients found in literature for specific fuels and life cycles. Literature was compiled using a systematic methodology, filtered to collect pertinent data values, and summarized. NWELD land requirements were calculated and coupled with U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data to determine the energy production per technology. Our results suggest that the total life cycle of NWELD’s natural gas, oil, nuclear, and coal have higher median land footprints than what is reported in literature, except for biomass. Furthermore, we find that literature resources recycle common data points, which if inaccurate, could lead to error propagation in estimating land used for energy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信