The new research, from lead author Michaja Pehl and colleagues, comprehensively measures the lifecycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of different sources of electricity, between now and 2050. What’s more, the indirect energy uses and emissions of each technology will shift over time, due to changing fuel sources, advances in manufacturing and the evolution of global electricity supplies. These lifecycle emissions continue, even if coal or gas plants add CCS, which also may not capture 100% of emissions at the power plant. Significantly, they also come from methane leaks at pipelines, well heads or coal mines. Yet zero-carbon sources of electricity are not the only ones to have a hidden, indirect carbon and energy footprint.įor coal and gas, these lifecycle energy uses and emissions come from extraction machinery and fuel transport. And the centrifuges that separate nuclear fuel also rack up a big electricity bill. Wind turbines and nuclear plants need a lot of steel and concrete. This large “ carbon debt”, and the related debt of energy, must be paid off if they are to cut emissions over their lifetime.įactories churning out solar panels use large amounts of electricity, often sourced from coal-fired power stations in China. Luderer tells Carbon Brief: “The most important finding was that the expansion of wind and solar power…comes with life-cycle emissions that are much smaller than the remaining emissions from existing fossil power plants, before they can finally be decommissioned.” Carbon debtĬritics sometimes argue that nuclear, wind or solar power have a hidden carbon footprint, due to their manufacture and construction. “There was a concern that it is a lot harder than suggested by energy scenario models to achieve climate targets, because of the energy required to produce wind turbines and solar panels and associated emissions,” explains project leader Dr Gunnar Luderer, who is an energy system analyst at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK). This remains true after accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply. It shows that the carbon footprint of solar, wind and nuclear power are many times lower than coal or gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The research, published in Nature Energy, measures the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of a range of sources of electricity out to 2050. In most countries, before Covid-19, less than half of people reported flying at least once a year while more than half of emissions from passenger aviation were linked to the 1% of people who fly most often.Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests. ![]() “Unlike the less wealthy, the thermostat won’t be turned down and the idea of not jetting off on a long-haul flight to find some sun is out of the question. “It is much easier for richer consumers to absorb these increases in costs without changing their behaviour,” said Ambrose. However, those who consume the most are unlikely to have to make such changes. ![]() They also own and use more luxury items and gadgets.Īmbrose said the cost of living crisis was likely to make those on middle to low incomes reduce their carbon consumption by holidaying in the UK, if at all, and by using less fuel. While their homes may be more energy-efficient, high consumers are likely to have more space to heat. In terms of energy demand in the UK, the least wealthy half of the population accounts for less than 20% of final demand, less than the top 5% consumes. ![]() Aimee Ambrose, a professor of energy policy at Sheffield Hallam University and author of the study published in the journal Science Direct, says cutting the carbon footprint of the wealthiest might be the fastest way to reach net zero.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |