Environmental life cycle assessment of heating systems in the UK: Comparative assessment of hybrid heat pumps vs. condensing gas boilers

Residential space heating is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and hence a priority sector to decarbonise in the transition to Net Zero target by 2050 in the UK. To assess environmental impacts of a current heating system and potential alternatives in the UK, this study conducted a comparative LCA of a condensing gas boiler and a hybrid heating pump for a common type of UK's existing houses (a semi-detached house). The functional unit of this study is defined as delivering space heating for the whole lifetime (20 years) of heating system. The results suggest that the hybrid heat pump potentially saves 30% of GHG emissions as compared to the condensing gas boiler in the core scenarios (4.5E + 04 kg CO2-eq/FU vs 6.4 E + 04 kg CO2-eq/FU respectively). The hybrid heat pump also shows 13% to 48% emission reduction as compared to the condensing gas boiler in terrestrial acidification, photochemical oxidant formation, particulate matter formation and fossil depletion. However, the hybrid heat pump emits 3 to 6 times more emissions in terms of human toxicity, water depletion and metal depletion than the condensing gas boiler. The production phase contributes around 50% of the impact for metal depletion and human toxicity in both core scenarios, while the use phase dominates in other selected impact categories. The combustion of natural gas and the electricity production are the major causes for the dominance of the use phase for all selected impact categories excepting metal depletion and human toxicity. The sensitivity scenarios support the robustness of the results. Further work is needed to understand the role hybrid heat pumps can play in the residential sector decarbonisation under different scenarios of residential uptake, household behaviour and wider UK energy system decarbonisation

Intra- and inter-year variability of agricultural carbon footprints – A case study on field-grown tomatoes

The performance of agricultural systems and their environmental impacts can vary considerably within a single crop supply chain, due to differences in farming practices, soil properties, and yearly climatic conditions. In this paper, we characterised the variability of carbon footprints of open-field tomato production by analysing a comprehensive farm dataset gathered over 4 years. We also assessed the importance of the different drivers of variability as compared to model uncertainties. The primary data used in this study were collected from 189 farms from the Extremadura region in Spain and Portugal over a period of four years, from 2012 to 2015. We modelled the carbon footprint of these farms using the Cool Farm Tool model developed by Hillier et al. (2011) and conducted statistical analysis on the results to understand the relative importance of inter-year and intra-year variability. We performed sensitivity analysis to understand how sensitive the results were to variability in the farmers' input parameters and to the uncertainty in model parameters. This was done by varying all factors one-at-a-time, and then by running a Monte Carlo simulation where all uncertainties were propagated simultaneously. Results clearly show significant inter-year and intra-year variability in carbon footprints of tomato production within the study region. We observed approximately 20% variation for each annual carbon footprint (intra-year variability), resulting in an overall 28% coefficient of variation in the aggregated footprint across the different years. The carbon footprint of the whole tomato supply, calculated with the 4-year dataset, showed a weighted geometric mean of 51 kg CO2-eq/t and a weighted GSD of 1.32, meaning a 95% confidence interval of 29–89 kg CO2-eq/t. Results also show that small farms were characterised by a larger variability than larger ones. This highlights the need to weight farm results by production volumes if the objective is to obtain a carbon footprint for the total production in a given region. The carbon footprint was found to be mainly sensitive to variability in farm practices, notably extent of pump irrigation and choice and amount of fertiliser used, with model uncertainties influencing the results to a relatively smaller extent. Further work is needed to extend these findings to other crops, regions and impact categories

Regionalized Strategies for Food Loss and Waste Management in Spain under a Life Cycle Thinking Approach

Food loss and waste (FLW) has become a central concern in the social and political debate. Simultaneously, using FLW as a bioenergy source could significantly contribute to closing the carbon cycle by reintroducing energy into the food supply chain. This study aims to identify best strategies for FLW management in each of the 17 regions in Spain, through the application of a Life Cycle Assessment. To this end, an evaluation of the environmental performance over time between 2015 and 2040 of five different FLW management scenarios implemented in a framework of (i) compliance and (ii) non-compliance with the targets of the Paris Agreement was performed. Results revealed savings in the consumption of abiotic resources in those regions in which thermal treatment has a strong presence, although their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a scenario of compliance with climate change targets are higher. In contrast, scenarios that include anaerobic digestion and, to a lesser extent those applying aerobic composting, present lower impacts, including climate change, suggesting improvements of 20–60% in non-compliance and 20–80% in compliance with Paris Agreement targets, compared to the current scenarios

Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) have emerged as key tools for building and assessing long term climate mitigation scenarios. Due to their central role in the recent IPCC assessments, and international climate policy analyses more generally, and the high uncertainties related to future projections, IAMs have been critically assessed by scholars from different fields receiving various critiques ranging from adequacy of their methods to how their results are used and communicated. Although IAMs are conceptually diverse and evolved in very different directions, they tend to be criticised under the umbrella of 'IAMs'. Here we first briefly summarise the IAM landscape and how models differ from each other. We then proceed to discuss six prominent critiques emerging from the recent literature, reflect and respond to them in the light of IAM diversity and ongoing work and suggest ways forward. The six critiques relate to (a) representation of heterogeneous actors in the models, (b) modelling of technology diffusion and dynamics, (c) representation of capital markets, (d) energy-economy feedbacks, (e) policy scenarios, and (f) interpretation and use of model results

Regionalized strategies for food loss and waste management in Spain under a Life Cycle thinking approach

Food loss and waste (FLW) has become a central concern in the social and political debate. Simultaneously, using FLW as a bioenergy source could significantly contribute to closing the carbon cycle by reintroducing energy into the food supply chain. This study aims to identify best strategies for FLW management in each of the 17 regions in Spain, through the application of a Life Cycle Assessment. To this end, an evaluation of the environmental performance over time between 2015 and 2040 of five di erent FLW management scenarios implemented in a framework of (i) compliance and (ii) non-compliance with the targets of the Paris Agreement was performed. Results revealed savings in the consumption of abiotic resources in those regions in which thermal treatment has a strong presence, although their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a scenario of compliance with climate change targets are higher. In contrast, scenarios that include anaerobic digestion and, to a lesser extent those applying aerobic composting, present lower impacts, including climate change, suggesting improvements of 20-60% in non-compliance and 20-80% in compliance with Paris Agreement targets, compared to the current scenarios.This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Competitiveness, grant number CERES-PROCON Project CTM2016-76176 (AEI/FEDER, UE) and KAIROS-BIOCIR Project PID2019-104925RB (AEO/FEDER, UE)

Sustainability of bioenergy – Mapping the risks & benefits to inform future bioenergy systems

Bioenergy is widely included in energy strategies for its GHG mitigation potential. Bioenergy technologies will likely have to be deployed at scale to meet decarbonisation targets, and consequently biomass will have to be increasingly grown/mobilised. Sustainability risks associated with bioenergy may intensify with increasing deployment and where feedstocks are sourced through international trade. This research applies the Bioeconomy Sustainability Indicator Model (BSIM) to map and analyse the performance of bioenergy across 126 sustainability issues, evaluating 16 bioenergy case studies that reflect the breadth of biomass resources, technologies, energy vectors and bio-products. The research finds common trends in sustainability performance across projects that can inform bioenergy policy and decision making. Potential sustainability benefits are identified for People (jobs, skills, income, energy access); for Development (economy, energy, land utilisation); for Natural Systems (soil, heavy metals), and; for Climate Change (emissions, fuels). Also, consistent trends of sustainability risks where focus is required to ensure the viability of bioenergy projects, including for infrastructure, feedstock mobilisation, techno-economics and carbon stocks. Emission mitigation may be a primary objective for bioenergy, this research finds bioenergy projects can provide potential benefits far beyond emissions - there is an argument for supporting projects based on the ecosystem services and/or economic stimulation they may deliver. Also given the broad dynamics and characteristics of bioenergy projects, a rigid approach of assessing sustainability may be incompatible. Awarding ‘credit’ across a broader range of sustainability indicators in addition to requiring minimum performances in key areas, may be more effective at ensuring bioenergy sustainability