Advertisement

Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of coal seam gas-based electricity generation

  • Jingmin Hong
  • Zhaohe Yu
  • Xing Fu
  • Jinglan HongEmail author
LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

A large portion of coal seam gas is directly wasted and emitted to the environment, especially China, which is the world’s largest global warming gas emitter and energy consumer. Such emissions place heavy pressure on the Chinese government to achieve its global carbon reduction goals. This study quantified the economic and environmental impacts of coal seam gas-based power generation in China through a cost-combined life cycle assessment to systematically quantify the emission, impact, and mitigation measures caused by coal seam gas release in China.

Methods

Cost-coupled life cycle assessment analysis was conducted with SimaPro 8.4 in accordance with ISO 14040 series standards. Specifically, life cycle assessment was conducted with the IMPACTWorld+ method, and internal (e.g., raw materials, energy, labor, maintenance, infrastructure, and taxes) and external costs (e.g., land eco-remediation cost, human health economic burden, and environmental emission cost) were used to quantify the life cycle cost.

Results and discussion

Approximately 11.8 kg of CH4 and 19.8 kg of CO2 were emitted per ton of coal mining in China in 2015. The direct global warming emission of coal seam gas at the national level accounted for 12% of the national carbon emission in 2015 in China. Coal seam gas-based electricity generation significantly reduced environmental impacts in the key categories of fossil depletion, non-carcinogens, global warming, and respiratory inorganics because of the substitution of coal power. Approximately $ 0.04/kWh of cost benefit was achieved due to the profit from concomitant coal during coal seam gas production.

Conclusions

A win-win situation from economic and environmental perspectives was observed in electricity and freshwater consumption, pollutant emission cost, and human health economic burden. Effective measures to reduce the overall economic and environmental burdens from national coal seam gas-based power generation include alleviation of atmospheric carbon dioxide and dinitrogen oxide emissions, improvement of coal seam gas-based electricity generation and utilization efficiency, intensification of national coal seam gas utilization, and reduction of electricity and freshwater consumption.

Keywords

Coal seam gas Electricity Extra economic burden Life cycle costing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFF0206702; 2017YFF0211605), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71671105), Major Basic Research Projects of the Shandong Natural Science Foundation, China (ZR2018ZC2362), and The Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University, China (2018JC049).

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1599_MOESM1_ESM.docx (270 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 270 kb)

References

  1. Aguirre-Villegas HA, Milani FX, Kraatz S, Reinemann DJ (2012) Life cycle impact assessment and allocation methods development for cheese and whey processing. T ASABE 55:613–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bulle C, Margni M, Humbert S, Boulay A (2013) Integrating water footprint and life cycle assessment frameworks: IMPACT World+. In: WULCA meeting. Glasgow, the UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen W, Zhang F, Hong J, Shi W, Feng S, Tan X, Geng Y (2016) Life cycle toxicity assessment on deep-brine well drilling. J Clean Prod 112:326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. China air quality online monitoring and analysis platform (n.d.). Available from: https://www.aqistudy.cn/
  5. China’s national development and reform commission (2011) Guidelines for the compilation of provincial greenhouse gas inventoriesGoogle Scholar
  6. Citi Global Markets (2011) Coal seam gas and greenhouse emissions-comparing the life cycle emissions for CSG/LNG vs. coal. In: In: Institute for Sustainable Futures. Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark T, Hynes R, Mariotti P (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions study of Australian CSG to LNG. APPEA and WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd technical reportsGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook PJ (2013) Life cycle of coal seam gas projects: technologies and potential impacts. Report for the New South Wales office of the chief scientist and engineerGoogle Scholar
  9. CPGC (2013) The central people’s government of the people’s republic of China. The opinion on further accelerating the extraction and utilization of coal seam gasGoogle Scholar
  10. Cui X, Hong J, Gao M (2012) Environmental impact assessment of three coal-based electricity generation scenarios in China. Energy 45:952–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin PM (2008) Coal mine methane project development: global update. In: US Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardisty PE, Clark TS, Hynes RG (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation: a comparative analysis of Australian energy sources. Energies 5:872–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong J, Zhang F, Xu C, Xu X, Li X (2015) Evaluation of life cycle inventory at macro level: a case study of mechanical coke production in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:751–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hong J, Yu Z, Shi W, Hong J, Qi C, Ye L (2017) Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of lead refining in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huijbregts M, Steinmann Z, Elshout P, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Ziip M, Hollander A, Zelm R (2016) ReCiPe: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: CharacterizationGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 14040 (2006) International Standard. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 14044 (2006) International Standard. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson JX, McMillan CA, Keoleian GA (2013) Evaluation of life cycle assessment recycling allocation methods. J Ind Ecol 17:700–711Google Scholar
  19. Li X, Yang Y, Xu X, Xu C, Hong J (2016) Air pollution from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons generated by human activities and their health effects in China. J Clean Prod 112:1360–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu Z, Guan D, Wei W, Davis S, Ciais P, Bai J, Peng S, Zhang Q, Hubacek K, Marland G, Andres R, Crawford-Brown D, Lin J, Zhao H, Hong C, Boden T, Feng K, Peters G, Xi F, Liu J, Li Y, Zhao Y, Zeng N, He K (2015) Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China. Nature 524:335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackay D (2001) Multimedia environmental models: the fugacity approach. In: Lewis, 2nd edn. Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  22. Mah CM, Fujiwara T, Ho CS (2018) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing toward eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 172:3415–3427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mungcharoen T (2013) Approach on life cycle costing (LCC) and its benefits. Green Public Procurement and Eco-labeling, Phuket, Thailand. Available from: http://thai-german-cooperation.info/download/201305_ecolabel_1530_thamron grut_LCC.pdf
  24. NBSC (2016) National bureau of statistics of China. China statistical yearbookGoogle Scholar
  25. NEAC (2006) National Energy Administration of China. The development and utilization of the coal seam gas in “11th Five-years plan” in ChinaGoogle Scholar
  26. NEAC (2016) National Energy Administration of China. Average utilization hours of power generation equipment (≥6000 kW) in 2015Google Scholar
  27. NEAC (2017) National Energy Administration of China. 14th inter-ministerial coordination group meeting on coal seam gas pollution prevention and controlGoogle Scholar
  28. Olivier J, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M, Pmeters J (2017) Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2016 report. In: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, European Commission Joint Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  29. Qi C, Wang Q, Ma X, Ye L, Yang D, Hong J (2018) Inventory, environmental impact, and economic burden of GHG emission at the city level: case study of Jinan, China. J Clean Prod 192:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SACMS (2015) State Administration of Coal Mine Safety. Data on coal mining gas grade identification in ChinaGoogle Scholar
  31. Stanford University News (2008) Carbon dioxide emissions linked to human mortality. Available from: https://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-co-010908.html
  32. Trigaux D, Wijnants L, De Troyer F, Allacker K (2017) Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of road infrastructure in residential neighborhoods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:938–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. World Health Organization (2002) The world health report: reducing risks and promoting healthy lifeGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang Y, Sun M, Hong J, Han X, He J, Shi W, Li X (2016) Environmental footprint of aluminum production in China. J Clean Prod 133:1242–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jingmin Hong
    • 1
  • Zhaohe Yu
    • 1
  • Xing Fu
    • 1
  • Jinglan Hong
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementLiaoning Shihua UniversityFushunChina
  2. 2.Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of Environmental Science and EngineeringShandong UniversityQingdaoPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Shandong University Climate Change and Health Center, Public Health SchoolShandong UniversityJinanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations