Supporting Information to

“Life Cycle Assessment of Low-Carbon

Electricity Supply Options”

Thomas Gibona,*, Anders Arvesena, Edgar G. Hertwicha,b

aIndustrial Ecology Programme and Department of Energy and Process Engineering,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

bCenter for Industrial Ecology, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale

University, New Haven, CT, USA.

1

Additional results

Coal

Figure S1: Contribution analysis of coal fired power plants: a) subcritical, b) IGCC with CO2

capture and storage (CCS) c) supercritical with CCS. Location: China.

2

Natural gas

Figure S2: Contribution analysis of natural gas fired power plants: a) natural gas combined

cycle without CCS and b) with CCS. Location: China.

3

Hydropower

Figure S3: Contribution analysis of hydropower plants: a) 660 MW b) 360 MW dams.

Location: Chile (Baker 1 and 2). The inventory reflects a Latin American background

economy.

4

Wind power

Figure S4: Contribution analysis of wind power plants: a) onshore, and b) gravity-based

(concrete) and c) steel foundations offshore wind power systems. Turbines are produced and

located in OECD Europe.

5

Concentrated solar power

Figure S5: Contribution analysis of concentrated solar power: a) parabolic trough and b)

central tower plants, under Africa & Middle East conditions (2400 kWh/m2a direct normal

insolation).

6

Photovoltaics

Figure S6: Contributions of different components and life cycle stages to the life cycle impact

of three photovoltaic power systems: a) polycrystalline silicon roof mounted, b) copper-

indium-gallium-selenide (CIGS) ground-mounted, and c) cadmium-telluride (CdTe) roof-

mounted. The solar cells are assumed to be manufactured in China (Si) and the United States

(CIGS, CdTe). Results are for US operation under optimal conditions (2400 kWh/m2a).

7

Nuclear power

Figure S7: Contribution analysis of nuclear power plants: a) boiled and b) pressurized water

reactor power plants in the US and Europe, respectively.

Geothermal power

Figure S8: Contributions of different components and life cycle stages to the life cycle impact

of a geothermal (binary flash) power plant in the OECD Pacific region.

8

Biopower

Figure S9: Contributions of different components and life cycle stages to the life cycle impact

of four biopower systems: a) and c) short rotation wooden coppice (SRWC, without and with

CCS), and b) and d) forest residues (without and with CCS). Global assumptions.

9

Life cycle inventories

Life cycle inventories for solar technologies (photovoltaics and concentrating solar power),

hydropower, wind power, natural gas, coal power, are all adapted from Hertwich et al.

(2015)1. Both nuclear power inventories are adapted from ecoinvent 2.22. The basis for the

biomass inventories is Singh et al. (2014). We utilize inventories of diesel, fertilizer,

chemical and irrigation inputs to woody bioenergy crops, as well as land use and direct field

emissions of CO2, pesticides, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, established by Arvesen,

et al. 3. Here, the basic procedure is as follows 3: First, establish initial inventories based on

survey data for existing bioenergy plantations 4, and other data sources; and then, adapt the

inventories to the multi-regional and prospective THEMIS framework using results from the

spatially explicit land-use model MAgPIE 5, 6. In the inventory data used in present study,

biomass yield per unit area and year vary across regions and years in accordance with results

produced by MAgPIE under the assumption that irrigation is allowed and with no restriction

on the type of lignocellulosic biomass which may be used. In addition to lignocellulosic

biomass from crops, we model forest residue biomass, utilizing inventories from Singh, et al.

7. The operation of biomass power plants to produce electricity is also modelled based on data

from Singh, Guest, Bright and Strømman 7. Across all regions and years, we assume biomass

is supplied by a fifty-fifty split between woody crops and forest residue, as in Arvesen,

Luderer, Pehl, Strømman and Hertwich 3.

References

1. Hertwich, E. G.; Gibon, T.; Bouman, E. A.; Arvesen, A.; Suh, S.; Heath, G. A.; Bergesen, J. D.; Ramirez, A.; Vega, M. I.; Shi, L., Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2015, 112, (20), 6277-6282.2. Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N. Ecoinvent 2; Swiss centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Dübendorf, 2007.3. Arvesen, A.; Luderer, G.; Pehl, M.; Strømman, A. H.; Hertwich, E. G., Approaches and data for combining life cycle assessment and integrated assessment modelling. Environ. Model. Software in preparation.

10

4. Njakou Djomo, S.; Ac, A.; Zenone, T.; De Groote, T.; Bergante, S.; Facciotto, G.; Sixto, H.; Ciria Ciria, P.; Weger, J.; Ceulemans, R., Energy performances of intensive and extensive short rotation cropping systems for woody biomass production in the EU. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015, 41, (0), 845-854.5. Klein, D.; Humpenoder, F.; Bauer, N.; Dietrich, J. P.; Popp, A.; Bodirsky, B. L.; Bonsch, M.; Lotze-Campen, H., The global economic long-term potential of modern biomass in a climate-constrained world. Environmental Research Letters 2014, 9, (7).6. Lotze-Campen, H.; Müller, C.; Bondeau, A.; Rost, S.; Popp, A.; Lucht, W., Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. Agricultural Economics 2008, 39, (3), 325-338.7. Singh, B.; Guest, G.; Bright, R. M.; Strømman, A. H., Life Cycle Assessment of Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicle Transport Based on Forest Biomass. J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 18, (2), 176-186.

11