电力生产技术的生命周期可持续性评估:结构化回顾和未来研究展望

IF 7.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS
A. Al-Kuwari , M. Kucukvar , N.C. Onat , H. Al-Yafei , T. Al-Ansari
{"title":"电力生产技术的生命周期可持续性评估:结构化回顾和未来研究展望","authors":"A. Al-Kuwari ,&nbsp;M. Kucukvar ,&nbsp;N.C. Onat ,&nbsp;H. Al-Yafei ,&nbsp;T. Al-Ansari","doi":"10.1016/j.esr.2025.101939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper presents a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) studies on emerging electricity production technologies conducted between 2014 and 2023. A systematic review was conducted using the Scopus database for the period between 2014 and 2023 and an initial 1658 documents were screened, with 448 meeting the inclusion criteria based on empirical LCSA of electricity production alternatives. The review highlights that while solar energy is the most frequently analyzed (30 % of studies), emerging technologies such as hydrogen and liquefied natural gas remain significantly underrepresented. Although LCSA is intended to incorporate environmental, economic, and social dimensions, approximately 80 % of the studies focused solely on environmental impacts, with minimal integration of socioeconomic analysis or explicit alignment with global frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (only 2 % made such connections). Many studies also lacked a system-wide perspective, focusing narrowly on individual technologies and failing to explore trade-offs or synergies across electricity systems. Most assessments (over 80 %) relied on process-based life cycle models, with limited application of hybrid methods that combine process-based and multiregional input-output analysis to capture broader carbon and resource footprints. In terms of decision-making support, only 36 % of the reviewed studies employed traditional tools like sensitivity analysis or simulation, while the use of advanced methods such as optimization, artificial intelligence, and machine learning remains limited. This review synthesizes current practices, identifies methodological and thematic gaps, and proposes a more integrated framework for evaluating system-level sustainability impacts. It also offers practical insights for aligning electricity system planning with long-term sustainability goals, particularly SDG 7, by incorporating a broader range of technologies and data-driven analytical approaches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11546,"journal":{"name":"Energy Strategy Reviews","volume":"62 ","pages":"Article 101939"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity production technologies: a structured review and future research perspectives\",\"authors\":\"A. Al-Kuwari ,&nbsp;M. Kucukvar ,&nbsp;N.C. Onat ,&nbsp;H. Al-Yafei ,&nbsp;T. Al-Ansari\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esr.2025.101939\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This paper presents a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) studies on emerging electricity production technologies conducted between 2014 and 2023. A systematic review was conducted using the Scopus database for the period between 2014 and 2023 and an initial 1658 documents were screened, with 448 meeting the inclusion criteria based on empirical LCSA of electricity production alternatives. The review highlights that while solar energy is the most frequently analyzed (30 % of studies), emerging technologies such as hydrogen and liquefied natural gas remain significantly underrepresented. Although LCSA is intended to incorporate environmental, economic, and social dimensions, approximately 80 % of the studies focused solely on environmental impacts, with minimal integration of socioeconomic analysis or explicit alignment with global frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (only 2 % made such connections). Many studies also lacked a system-wide perspective, focusing narrowly on individual technologies and failing to explore trade-offs or synergies across electricity systems. Most assessments (over 80 %) relied on process-based life cycle models, with limited application of hybrid methods that combine process-based and multiregional input-output analysis to capture broader carbon and resource footprints. In terms of decision-making support, only 36 % of the reviewed studies employed traditional tools like sensitivity analysis or simulation, while the use of advanced methods such as optimization, artificial intelligence, and machine learning remains limited. This review synthesizes current practices, identifies methodological and thematic gaps, and proposes a more integrated framework for evaluating system-level sustainability impacts. It also offers practical insights for aligning electricity system planning with long-term sustainability goals, particularly SDG 7, by incorporating a broader range of technologies and data-driven analytical approaches.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Strategy Reviews\",\"volume\":\"62 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101939\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Strategy Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X25003025\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Strategy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X25003025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对2014年至2023年间对新兴电力生产技术进行的生命周期可持续性评估(LCSA)研究进行了全面和最新的系统回顾。利用Scopus数据库对2014年至2023年期间的文献进行了系统评价,筛选了1658份文献,其中448份符合基于电力生产替代方案的经验LCSA的纳入标准。该综述强调,虽然太阳能是最常被分析的能源(占研究的30%),但氢和液化天然气等新兴技术的代表性仍然明显不足。尽管LCSA旨在将环境、经济和社会维度结合起来,但大约80%的研究只关注环境影响,很少整合社会经济分析或明确与联合国可持续发展目标等全球框架保持一致(只有2%的研究与此类联系)。许多研究也缺乏全系统的视角,狭隘地关注个别技术,未能探索电力系统之间的权衡或协同作用。大多数评估(超过80%)依赖于基于过程的生命周期模型,结合基于过程和多区域投入产出分析的混合方法的应用有限,以捕获更广泛的碳和资源足迹。在决策支持方面,只有36%的研究采用了敏感性分析或模拟等传统工具,而优化、人工智能和机器学习等先进方法的使用仍然有限。本次审查综合了目前的做法,确定了方法和专题差距,并提出了一个评价系统级可持续性影响的更综合的框架。它还通过采用更广泛的技术和数据驱动的分析方法,为使电力系统规划与长期可持续发展目标(特别是可持续发展目标7)保持一致提供了实际见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity production technologies: a structured review and future research perspectives
This paper presents a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) studies on emerging electricity production technologies conducted between 2014 and 2023. A systematic review was conducted using the Scopus database for the period between 2014 and 2023 and an initial 1658 documents were screened, with 448 meeting the inclusion criteria based on empirical LCSA of electricity production alternatives. The review highlights that while solar energy is the most frequently analyzed (30 % of studies), emerging technologies such as hydrogen and liquefied natural gas remain significantly underrepresented. Although LCSA is intended to incorporate environmental, economic, and social dimensions, approximately 80 % of the studies focused solely on environmental impacts, with minimal integration of socioeconomic analysis or explicit alignment with global frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (only 2 % made such connections). Many studies also lacked a system-wide perspective, focusing narrowly on individual technologies and failing to explore trade-offs or synergies across electricity systems. Most assessments (over 80 %) relied on process-based life cycle models, with limited application of hybrid methods that combine process-based and multiregional input-output analysis to capture broader carbon and resource footprints. In terms of decision-making support, only 36 % of the reviewed studies employed traditional tools like sensitivity analysis or simulation, while the use of advanced methods such as optimization, artificial intelligence, and machine learning remains limited. This review synthesizes current practices, identifies methodological and thematic gaps, and proposes a more integrated framework for evaluating system-level sustainability impacts. It also offers practical insights for aligning electricity system planning with long-term sustainability goals, particularly SDG 7, by incorporating a broader range of technologies and data-driven analytical approaches.
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
Energy Strategy Reviews
Energy Strategy Reviews Energy-Energy (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
4.90%
发文量
167
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy Strategy Reviews is a gold open access journal that provides authoritative content on strategic decision-making and vision-sharing related to society''s energy needs. Energy Strategy Reviews publishes: • Analyses • Methodologies • Case Studies • Reviews And by invitation: • Report Reviews • Viewpoints
×
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