The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 1502–1513 | Cite as

LCA of electricity networks: a review

  • Alessia Gargiulo
  • Pierpaolo Girardi
  • Andrea Temporelli
LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to realize a review of studies dealing with life cycle assessment of electric grids or their components, in order to put in evidence methodological aspects to be considered with particular attention or requiring further deepening in future researches. After a preliminary bibliographic screening, the review analyses 16 scientific articles.

Methods

The review considers 16 studies which are all based on a life cycle perspective and pays particular attention on some methodological issues such as: functional unit definition, selection of the impact categories, energy mix taken into consideration in order to quantify the environmental impact associated with grid losses, and end of life of grid components. The review considers, also, the analysed studies’ compliance to ISO 14040 recommendations.

Results and discussion

All the 16 studies have a good degree of compliance with ISO 14040. Concerning impact categories selection, the review showed a wide set of impacts taken into consideration: some categories are frequently utilized while others are present only in few studies. The analysis puts in evidence that recycling is a crucial aspect, determining a sensible reduction of impacts, which in some cases can compensate for the total impact of the end-of-life stage. Energy losses have a great influence on the overall impact. Neglecting losses in the valuation of networks or resistive components may be too simplifying, if not even misleading. Selecting a suitable functional unit is not an easy task.

Conclusions

Beyond the specific outcomes, the analysis puts in evidence two general research needs. First, the definition of functional unit: some authors use a very specific functional unit which allows a correct description of the service provided by an electricity network while others use a functional unit allowing easier comparison with other studies. Second, considering the loss relevance and the infrastructure lifespan, an appropriate evaluation of the electricity mix is crucial.

Keywords

Electricity network Energy losses Grid components Impact categories LCA Review 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been financed by the Research Fund for the Italian Electrical System decree of Italian Economic Development Ministry November 9th 2012 and following.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This work has been financed by the Research Fund for the Italian Electrical System decree of Italian Economic Development Ministry November 9th 2012 and following.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Audard G, Peuportier B, Schalbart P, Lafragette A (2015) Methodologies for the life cycle assessment. Inspire-Grid – Deliverable 4.2. www.inspire-grid.eu. Accessed October 2016
  2. Arvesen A, Hauan IB, Bolsoy BM, Hertwich EG (2015) Life cycle assessment of transport of electricity via different voltage levels: a case study for Nord-Trondelag county in Norway. Appl Energ 157:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berti R, Bonomelli M, Fedeli G (2008) LCA Comparativa di passanti MT per trasformatori di distribuzione MT/BT. Rapporto Ricerca di Sistema RSE 08002080. RSE SpA, Milano. http://www.rse-web.it/documenti/documento/1908. Accessed September 2015
  4. Berti R, de Nigris M (2009) LCA comparative di diverse tipologie di conduttori aerei MT. Rapporto Ricerca di Sistema Cesi Ricerca 08004878, Milano. http://www.rse-web.it/documenti/documento/1904. Accessed September 2015
  5. Blackett G, Savor E, Toy N, Parke GAR, Clark M, Rabjohns B (2008) An evaluation of the environmental burdens of present and alternative materials used for electricity transmission. Build Environ 43(7):1326–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bumby S, Druzhinina E, Feraldi R, Werthmann D, Geyer R, Sahl J (2010) Life cycle assessment of overhead and underground primary power distribution. Environ Sci Technol 44(14):5587–5593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidsson S, Höök M, Wall G (2012) A review of life cycle assessments on wind energy systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:729–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Nigris M, Berti R (2008) Applicazione della metodologia LCA a passanti AT. Rapporto Ricerca di Sistema RSE 08002079. RSE SpA, Milano. http://doc.rse-web.it/doc/doc-sfoglia/08002079-1902/08002079-1902.html. Accessed September 2015
  9. EC-JRC (2011) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—recommendations for life Cycle impact assessment in the European context. First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  10. ENTSO-E (2012) Ten year network development plan 2014. European Network of Transmission System Operators for ElectricityGoogle Scholar
  11. ENTSO-E (2014) Ten year network development plan 2014. European Network of Transmission System Operators for ElectricityGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia R, Marques P, Freire F (2014) Life-cycle assessment of electricity in Portugal. Appl Energ 134:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hrólfsdóttir HB, Ingólfsdóttir GM, Pálsson M, Valsdóttir IL, Guðmundsson I, Bjarnason Þ, Guðjónsdóttir GM, Bjarnadóttir HJ (2014) Life cycle assessment of the high voltage OHL transmission system in Iceland. C3-211 CIGRÉ General Session, Paris 2014Google Scholar
  14. Harrison GP, Karamanlis S, Ochoa LF (2010) Life cycle assessment of the transmission network in Great Britain. Energ Policy 38(7):3622–3631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones CI, McManus MC (2010) Life-cycle assessment of 11 kV electrical overhead lines and underground cables. Applied Energy. J Clean Prod 18(14):1464–1477Google Scholar
  18. Jorge RS, Hawkins TR, Hertwich EG (2012a) Life cycle assessment of electricity transmission and distribution—part 1: power lines and cables. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(1):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorge RS, Hawkins TR, Hertwich EG (2012b) Life cycle assessment of electricity transmission and distribution—part 2: transformer and substation equipment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(2):184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jorge RS, Hertwich EG (2013) Environmental evaluation of power transmission in Norway. Appl Energ 101:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jorge RS, Hertwich EG (2014) Grid infrastructure for renewable power in Europe: the environmental cost. Energy 69:760–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kieffel Y, Spinosa A, Laruelle E, Stumpf K (2014) Life cycle assessment and end-of-life management of GIS and AIS. C3-203, CIGRÉ General Session, Paris 2014Google Scholar
  23. Ó Luain C et al. (2004) Life cycle assessment for overhead lines. Cigré TB; WG B2-15, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Turconi R, Simonsen CG, Byriel IP, Astrup T (2013) Life cycle assessment of the Danish electricity distribution network. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(1):100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang A, Beroual A, Mehiri T, Tremouille G (2012) Life cycle assessment on a 765 kV AC transmission system. C3-208, CIGRÉ General Session, Paris 2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Development and Energy Sources DepartmentRSE—Ricerca sul Sistema EnergeticoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations