Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:16:01.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fuel Cycles of Electricity Generation: A Comparison of Land Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Hyung Chul Kim  and
Vasilis Fthenakis
Hyung Chul Kim
Affiliation:
[email protected], Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Photovoltaic EH&S Research Cener, Bldg 475B, Upton, NY, 11973, United States, 631-344-2723
Vasilis Fthenakis
Affiliation:
[email protected], Columbia University, Center for Life Cycle Analysis, New York, NY, 10027, United States
Get access

Abstract

We investigate the area of land used and/or transformed during conventional (i.e., coal, natural gas and nuclear), and renewable fuel cycles (i.e., photovoltaics, wind, biomass, and geothermal). Both direct and indirect land use/transformation are examined in a life cycle framework. For average US insolation, the photovoltaic fuel cycle disturbs the least amount of land per GWh among renewable options, requiring less area than the coal fuel cycle. Renewable technologies could harvest infinite amount of energy per unit area and eliminates the need for restoring disturbed mine lands. Further investigations would be necessary for secondary and accidental land disturbance by conventional fuel cycles through transport of effluents and emissions to adjacent land.

Keywords

environmentally benignphotovoltaicwaste management
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1041: Symposium R – Life-Cycle Analysis for New Energy Conversion and Storage Systems , 2007 , 1041-R05-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pacala, S. and Socolow, R., Science 305, 968–972 (2004).10.1126/science.1100103Google Scholar
2. Pimentel, D. et al. , Bioscience 52, 1111–1119 (2002).Google Scholar
3. Dones, R. et al. , Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen. Final report ecoinvent 2000. Volume: 6. Swiss Centre for LCI, PSI, 2003.Google Scholar
4.Meridian Corporation, Energy System Emissions and Material Requirements. Alexandria, VA, 1989.Google Scholar
5.DOE, Energy Technology Characterizations Handbook: Environmental Pollution and Control Factors. U. S. Department of Energy, 1983.Google Scholar
6. Robeck, K.E. et al. , Land Use and Energy. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1980. ANL/AA-19.Google Scholar
7. Spitzley, D.V. and Tolle, D.A., J. Ind. Ecol. 8, 11–21 (2004).10.1162/1088198041269481Google Scholar
8.EIA, Annual Energy Review 2006. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0384(2006).Google Scholar
9. Sokka, L., Koskela, S., and Seppälä, J., Life cycle inventory analysis of hard coal based electricity generation. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, 2005.Google Scholar
10.Pipeline Rights-Of-Way (ROW), website of NW Natural. www.nwnatural.com.Google Scholar
11.Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Department of Energy, 2002. DOE/EIS-0250.Google Scholar
12. Mason, J.E. et al. , Prog. Photovoltaics. 14, 179–190 (2006).10.1002/pip.652Google Scholar
13.Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations. Department of Energy/EPRI, 1997. TR-109496.Google Scholar
14. Alsema, E. and Wild-Scholten, M. de. Environmental Impact of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Module Production. in Material Research Society Fall Meeting, Symposium G: Life Cycle Analysis Tools for “Green” Materials and Process Selection. 2005. Boston, MA p. 73–82.Google Scholar
15. Tharakan, P.J. et al. , Biomass Bioenerg. 25, 571–580 (2003).10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00054-0Google Scholar
16. Spitzley, D.V. and Keoleian, G.A., Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessment of Willow Biomass Electricity: A Comparison with Other Renewable and Non-Renewable Sources. Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2005. CSS04-05R.Google Scholar
17. Wickham, J.D. et al. , Landscape Ecol. 22, 179–187 (2007).Google Scholar
18. Barbalace, R.C., Chernobyl Disaster's Agricultural and Environmental Impact. EnvironmentalChemistry.com, 1999. EnvironmentalChemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/chernobyl2.html.Google Scholar