Climatic Change

, Volume 112, Issue 3–4, pp 601–632 | Cite as

Historical and potential future contributions of power technologies to global warming

Article

Abstract

Using the mathematical formalism of the Brazilian Proposal to the IPCC, we analyse eight power technologies with regard to their past and potential future contributions to global warming. Taking into account detailed bottom-up technology characteristics we define the mitigation potential of each technology in terms of avoided temperature increase by comparing a “coal-only” reference scenario and an alternative low-carbon scenario. Future mitigation potentials are mainly determined by the magnitude of installed capacity and the temporal deployment profile. A general conclusion is that early technology deployment matters, at least within a period of 50–100 years. Our results conclusively show that avoided temperature increase is a better proxy for comparing technologies with regard to their impact on climate change, and that numerous short-term comparisons based on annual or even cumulative emissions may be misleading. Thus, our results support and extend the policy relevance of the Brazilian Proposal in the sense that not only comparisons between countries, but also comparisons between technologies could be undertaken on the basis of avoided temperature increase rather than on the basis of annual emissions as is practiced today.

References

  1. Alcamo J, van Vuuren D, Ringler C, Cramer W, Masui T, Alder J, Schulze K (2005) Changes in nature’s balance sheet: model-based estimates of future worldwide ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 10, online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art19/.
  2. Ármannsson H, Fridriksson T, Kristjánsson BR (2005) CO2 emissions from geothermal power plants and natural geothermal activity in Iceland. Geothermics 34:286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badcock J, Lenzen M (2010) Subsidies for electricity-generating technologies: a review. Energy Policy 38:5038–5047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000) Life cycle impact assessment workshop summary. Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifice and benefits. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake EM (2006) U. S. capacity factors: leveled off at last. Nucl News 49:26–31Google Scholar
  6. Blodgett L, Slack K (2009) Geothermal 101: basics of geothermal energy production and use. USA, Geothermal Energy Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Brakmann G, Aringhoff R, Geyer M, Teske S (2005) Concentrated solar power. Internet site www.solarpaces.org/Library/CSP_Documents/Concentrated-Solar-Thermal-Power-Plants-2005.pdf, Birmingham, UK, European Solar Thermal Industry Association.
  8. Damen K, van Troost M, Faaij A, Turkenburg W (2007) A comparison of electricity and hydrogen production systems with CO2 capture and storage–Part B: Chain analysis of promising CCS options. Progr Energ Combust Sci 33:580–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darmstadter J (1971) Energy in the world economy. John Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  10. Davison J (2007) Performance and costs of power plants with capture and storage of CO2. Energy 32:1163–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Den Elzen M (2002) Responsibility for past and future global warming. Clim Chang 54:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Den Elzen M, Berk M, Shaeffer M, Olivier J, Hendriks C, Metz B (1999) The Brazilian Proposal and other options for international burden sharing: an evaluation of methodological and policy aspects using the FAIR model. RIVM report No. 728001011, Bilthoven, Netherlands, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment.Google Scholar
  13. DiPippo R (2008a) Binary cycle power plants. Geothermal power plants, 2nd edn. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp 157–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiPippo R (2008b) Worldwide state of geothermal power plant development as of May 2007. Geothermal power plants, 2nd edn. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp 413–432Google Scholar
  15. DLR (2005) European Concentrated Solar Thermal Road-Mapping. ECOSTAR SES6-CT-2003-502578, Köln, Germany, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V.Google Scholar
  16. Dos Santos MA, Rosa LP, Sikar B, Sikar E, Dos Santos EO (2006) Gross greenhouse gas fluxes from hydro-power reservoir compared to thermo-power plants. Energy Policy 34:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edmonds JA, Clarke J, Dooley J, Kim SH, Smith SJ (2004) Modeling greenhouse gas energy technology responses to climate change. Energy 29:1529–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EIA (2008a) Electricity. International Energy Outlook. Washington D. C., USA, Energy Information Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html.
  19. EIA (2008b) Mid-term prospects for nuclear electricity generation in China, India and the United States. International Energy Outlook. Washington D. C., USA, Energy Information Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/negen.html.
  20. Eichhammer W, Morin G, Lerchenmüller H, Stein W, Szewczuk S (2005) Assessment of the World Bank / GEF strategy for the market development of Concentrating Solar Power. World Bank Global Environment Facility, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Energy Information Administration (2008) International Energy Statistics. Internet site http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/, Washington D. C., USA, U. S. Department of Energy.
  22. Enting IG (1998) Attribution of GHG emissions, concentration and radiative forcing. Paper No 38, CSIRO.Google Scholar
  23. EPIA (2008) Global market outlook for photovoltaics until 2012. European Photovoltaic Industry Association, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. Etemad B, Bairoch P, Luciani J, Toutain J-C (1991) World energy production 1800–1985. Libraire Droz, GenèveGoogle Scholar
  25. Etheridge DM, Steele LP, Francey RJ, Langenfelds RL (2002) Historical CH4 records since about 1000 A. D. from ice core data. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U. S. A., Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  26. Federative Republic of Brazil (1997) Proposed elements of a protocol to the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change, presented by Brazil in response to the Berlin Mandate. Document FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC. 1/Add. 3, Internet site http://www.mct.gov.br/clima/ingles/quioto/propbra.htm, Brasília, Brazil.
  27. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C (2005) Balancing Act - a triple bottom line account of the Australian economy. Internet site http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au, Canberra, ACT, Australia, CSIRO Resource Futures and The University of Sydney.
  29. Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2007) Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric and nuclear power: a life-cycle study. Energy Policy 35:2549–2557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fthenakis V, Mason JE, Zweibel K (2009) The technical, geographical, and economic feasibility for solar energy to supply the energy needs of the US. Energy Policy 37:387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gawell K, Greenberg G (2007) Update on world geothermal development. 2007 Interim Report http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports/GEA%20World%20Update%202007.pdf, Washington, DC, USA, Geothermal Energy Association.
  32. Graßl H, Kokott J, Kulessa M, Luther J, Nuscheler F, Sauerborn R, Schnellnhuber H-J, Schubert R, Schulze E-D (2004) World in transition—towards sustainable energy systems. WBGU—Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. GWEC (2008) Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  34. Haq Z (2003) Biomass for electricity generation. Internet site http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass/pdf/biomass.pdf, Washington D. C., USA, U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
  35. Heijungs R, Goedkoop MJ, Struijs J, Effting S, Sevenster M, Huppes G (2003) Towards a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Internet site http://www.pre.nl/download/Recipe%20phase1%20final.pdf, Amersfoort, Netherlands, PRé Consultants.
  36. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) Decision-analytic framework for impact assessment, Part 2: Midpoints, endpoints and criteria for method development. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 6:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoffmann W (2006) PV solar electricity industry: market growth and perspective. Sol Energ Mater Sol Cell 90:3285–3311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Höhne N (2002) Comparing indicators for contribution to climate change. Köln, Germany, ECOFYS energy & environment.Google Scholar
  39. Hoogwijk MM, Van Vuuren D, De Vries BJM, Turkenburg WC (2007) Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the USA, results for wind energy. Energy 32:1381–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Houghton RA (2008) Carbon flux to the atmosphere from land-use changes: 1850–2005. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U. S. A., Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  41. IAEA (2008) Energy, electricity and nuclear power estimates for the period up to 2030. Reference Data Series No. 1, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  42. IEA (2006) CO2 capture and storage. IEA Energy Technology Essentials, Paris, France, OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  43. IEA (2007) Biomass for power generation and CHP. IEA Energy Technology Essentials, Paris, France, OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  44. IEA (2008a) Energy technology perspectives. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  45. IEA (2008b) Key world energy statistics. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. IEA (2008c) World Energy Outlook 2008. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  47. IEA-PVPS (2008) Trends in photovoltaic applications. Report IEA-PVPS T1-17, Paris, France, International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  48. IEA Wind (2001) Long-term research and development needs for wind energy for the time frame 2000 to 2020. Boulder, USA, International Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for Co-operation in the R&D of Wind Turbine Systems.Google Scholar
  49. IHA, IEA-HA, ICOLD, CHA (2000) Hydropower and the world’s energy future. Compton, UK, Paris, France, and Ottawa, Canada, International Hydropower Association, IEA Hydropower Agreement, International Commission on Large Dams, and Canadian Hydropower Association.Google Scholar
  50. IPCC (2005) Technical Summary. Special Report Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Geneva, Switzerland, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  51. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. JEC (2008) Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context—Description and detailed energy and GHG balance of individual pathways. Version 3. 0, WTT App 2 v30 181108, Ispra, Italy, Joint Research Centre, European Council for Automotive R&D, concawe.Google Scholar
  53. Jones PD, Parker DE, Osborn TJ, Briffa KR (2009) Global and hemispheric temperature anomalies—land and marine instrumental records. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U. S. A., Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  54. Keeling RF, Piper SC, Bollenbacher AF, Walker JS (2008) Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U. S. A., Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  55. Krewitt W (2002) External cost of energy—do the answers match the questions? Looking back at 10 years of ExternE. Energy Policy 30:839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lenzen M (1999) Greenhouse gas analysis of solar-thermal electricity generation. Sol Energ 65:353–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lenzen M (2001) A generalised input-output multiplier calculus for Australia. Econ Syst Res 13:65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lenzen M (2006) Uncertainty of end-point impact measures: implications for decision-making. International Journal of Life-Cycle Assessment 11:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lenzen M (2008a) Double-counting in life-cycle calculations. J Ind Ecol 12:583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lenzen M (2008b) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: a review. Energ Convers Manag 49:2178–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lenzen M, Munksgaard J (2002) Energy and CO2 analyses of wind turbines—review and applications. Renew Energy 26:339–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lenzen M, Wachsmann U (2004) Wind energy converters in Brazil and Germany: an example for geographical variability in LCA. Appl Energ 77:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lenzen M, Dey C, Hardy C, Bilek M (2006) Life-cycle energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy in Australia. Report to the Prime Minister’s Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER), Internet site http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf, Sydney, Australia, ISA, University of Sydney.
  64. Lim E, Rumble E, Ramachandran G (2006) Review and comparison of recent studies for Australian electricity generation planning. Letter Report to the Prime Minister’s Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER), Palo Alto, USA, EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute.Google Scholar
  65. Lima IBT, Ramos FM, Bambace LAW, Rosa RR (2008) Methane emissions from large dams as renewable energy resources: a developing nation perspective. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 13:1573–1596Google Scholar
  66. Liu L-Q, Wang Z-X (2008) The development and application practice of wind-solar energy hybrid generation systems in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, in press.Google Scholar
  67. Lucena AFP, Szklo A, Schaeffer R, Souza RR, Borba BSMC, Costa IVL, Pereira A Jr, Cunha SHF (2009) The vulnerability of renewable energy to climate change in Brazil. Energy Policy 37:879–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2008) Global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U. S. A., Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  69. Meier PJ, Wilson PPH, Kulcinski GL, Denholm PL (2005) US electric industry response to carbon constraint: a life-cycle assessment of supply side altermatives. Energy Policy 33:1099–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Meira LG (2009) Personal communication, 30 March.Google Scholar
  71. Meira LG, Miguez JDG (2000) Note on the time-dependent relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and climate change. Technical Note, Internet site http://www.mct.gov.br/clima/ingles/quioto/propbra.htm, Brasília, Brazil, Ministry of Science and Technology.
  72. MIT (2006) The future of geothermal energy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, BostonGoogle Scholar
  73. MNP (2008) HYDE—history database of the global environment Bilthoven. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  74. Muylaert de Araújo MS, Pires de Campos C, Rosa LP (2007) GHG historical contribution by sectors, sustainable development and equity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11:988–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nakićenović N, Swart R (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Geneva, Switzerland, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  76. National Research Council (2011) Climate stabilization targets: emissions, concentrations, and impacts over decades to millennia. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  77. Neftel A, Friedli H, Moor E, Lötscher H, Oeschger H, Siegenthaler U, Stauffer B (1994) Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U. S. A., Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  78. Odeh NA, Cockerill TT (2008) Life cycle GHG assessment of fossil fuel power plants with carbon capture and storage. Energy Policy 36:367–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. OECD NEA, IAEA (1999) Environmental activities in uranium mining and milling. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  80. OECD NEA, IAEA (2008) Uranium 2007: resources, production and demand. NEA No. 6345, Paris, France, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  81. Oliver T (2008) Clean fossil-fuelled power generation. Energy Policy 36:4310–4316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Østergaard PA (2008) Geographic aggregation and wind power output variance in Denmark. Energy 33:1453–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Oswald J, Raine M, Ashraf-Ball H (2008) Will British weather provide reliable electricity? Energy Policy 36:3212–3225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Paish O (2002) Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 6:537–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energy 31:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pehnt M, Henkel J (2009) Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and storage from lignite power plants. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pehnt M, Oeser M, Swider DJ (2008) Consequential environmental system analysis of expected offshore wind electricity production in Germany. Energy 33:747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as a feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. US Department of Energy, US Department of Agriculture, Oak RidgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Raugei M, Frankl P (2009) Life cycle impacts and costs of photovoltaic systems: current state of art and future outlooks. Energy 34:392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Resch G, Held A, Faber T, Panzer C, Toro F, Haas R (2008) Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy 36:4048–4056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Riahi K, Barreto L, Rao S, Rubin ES (2005) Towards fossil-based electricity systems with integrated CO2 capture: Implications of an illustrative long-term technology policy. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 921–929Google Scholar
  92. Rosa LP, Schaeffer R (1995) Global warming potentials—the case of emissions from dams. Energy Policy 23:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rosa LP, Ribeiro SK, Muylaert MS, de Campos CP (2004) Comments on the Brazilian Proposal and contributions to global temperature increase with different climate responses—CO2 emissions due to fossil fuels, CO2 emissions due to land use changes. Energy Policy 32:1499–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Roth H, Brückl O, Held A (2005) Windenergiebedingte CO2-Emissionen konventioneller Kraftwerke. lfE-Schriftenreihe Heft 50, München, Germany, Lehrstuhl für Energiewirtschaft und Anwendungstechnik.Google Scholar
  95. Rubin ES, Chen C, Rao AB (2007) Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 35:4444–4454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sanner B, Bussmann W (2003) Current status, prospects and economic framework of geothermal power production in Germany. Geothermics 32:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sathaye J, Lucon O, Rahman A (2011) Renewable energy in the context of sustainable development. In: IPCC (ed.) Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report.
  98. Schott AG (2005) Memorandum on solar thermal power plant technology. Schott AG, MainzGoogle Scholar
  99. Sims REH, Taylor M, Saddler J, Mabee W (2008) From 1st- to 2nd-generation biofuel technologies. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  100. Millennium S (2009) The parabolic trough power plants Andasol 1 to 3. Solar Millennium AG, ErlangenGoogle Scholar
  101. Sovacool BK (2008) Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a critical survey. Energy Policy 36:2950–2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Steele LP, Krummel PB, Langenfelds RL (2003) Atmospheric CH4 concentrations from sites in the CSIRO Atmospheric Research GASLAB air sampling network (October 2002 version). Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn. , U. S. A. , Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  103. Stefánsson V (2002) Investment cost for geothermal power plants. Geothermics 31:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stern DI, Kaufmann RK (1998) Annual estimates of global anthropogenic methane emissions: 1860–1994. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn. , U. S. A. , Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  105. Storm van Leeuwen JW, Smith P (2005) Nuclear power—the energy balance. Internet site http://www.stormsmith.nl/, Chaam, Netherlands.
  106. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Mueller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. UNDP (2000) World energy assessmemt. United Nations Development Programme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  108. UNDP (2004) World Energy Assessmemt: 2004 Update. United Nations Development Programme, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  109. UNFCCC (2009a) Parameters for tuning a simple carbon cycle model. Internet site http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/carbon.html, Bonn, Germany, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  110. UNFCCC (2009b) Parameters for tuning a simple climate model (plus aerosol forcing). Internet site http://unfccc.int/resource/brazil/climate.html, Bonn, Germany, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  111. Van Aardenne JA, Dentener FJ, Olivier JGJ, Klein Goldewijk CGM, Lelieveld J (2001) A high resolution dataset of historical anthropogenic trace gas emissions for the period 1890–1990. Global Biogeochem Cycles 15:909–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. van der Zwaan B, Rabl A (2004) The learning potential of photovoltaics: implications for energy policy. Energy Policy 32:1545–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Viebahn P, Nitsch J, Fischedick M, Esken A, Schüwer D, Supersberger N, Zuberbühler U, Edenhofer O (2007) Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, and ecological aspects in Germany. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Weisser D (2007) A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 32:1543–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. WWEA (2008) World Wind Energy Report. Internet site www.wwindea.org, Bonn, Germany, World Wind Energy Association.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISA, School of Physics A28The University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Energy Planning Program, COPPEFederal University of Rio de Janeiro, Centro de TecnologaRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations