Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 21 No. 2 (2021)
Julio - Diciembre

ARTICULOS DE INVESTIGACION

Análisis de sostenibilidad del ciclo de vida de la expansión de energía en Brasil

https://doi.org/10.19053/1900771X.v21.n2.2021.14272

Published 2022-05-21

  • João Gabriel Lassio
    • ,
  • Denise Matos
    • ,
  • David Castelo Branco
    • ,
  • Alessandra Magrini

João Gabriel Lassio
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, The Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering, Energy Planning Program, Brazil

Denise Matos
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, The Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering, Energy Planning Program, Brazil

David Castelo Branco
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, The Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering, Energy Planning Program, Brazil

Alessandra Magrini
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, The Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering, Energy Planning Program, Brazil

Abstract

The sustainable development paradigm has been encouraging the current worldwide transition from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources and a more balanced approach to the social-environmental concerns against economic hegemony, which implies changes in how decision-makers design the future electricity system. In this context, this paper explores the integration of the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) with a Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM)
method, named Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Exploiting Ranks (SMARTER), in order to analyze and compare the sustainability performance of the current electricity mix with different future scenarios in Brazil, reported by The Brazilian Ten-Year Energy Expansion Plan 2027. This analysis considers nine criteria distributed into environmental, social,
and economic dimensions of sustainability obtained from different sources, such as literature, the Ecoinvent 3.5 database, and calculated by ReCiPe 2016 and USEtox 2 methods. According to the results, the current electricity mix presents the best social and economic performance, and its environmental performance will enhance in the future, mainly due to the expansion of some renewable energy sources. Concerning the future scenarios investigated, the results indicate that those with greater participation from these energy sources are associated with the best sustainability performance. However, it is
worth pointing out that these results do not represent the most suitable Brazilian electricity mix path. Besides the criteria
considered in this paper, it is influenced by other factors, such as technical, geographical, and national policy. Furthermore, assuming different suppositions and system boundaries for energy sources and technologies might significantly vary our findings.

Keywords

Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, Energy Planning, Power Generation, Sustainability

PDF

Author Biography

João Gabriel Lassio

Ph.D. candidate

Energy Planning Program

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Research fellow

Energy Transition and Sustainability Department of the Brazilian Electric Energy Research Center

(CEPEL), Brazil

M.Sc. in Sustainable Development and Transport

École Nationale de Ponts et Chaussées, France

Civil Engineering

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Denise Matos

Ph.D. candidate

Energy Planning Program

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Researcher

Energy Transition and Sustainability Department of the Brazilian Electric Energy Research Center

(CEPEL), Brazil

M.Sc. in Population Studies and Social Research

National School of Statistical Sciences, Brazil

Geography

State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

David Castelo Branco

Ph.D. in Energy Planning

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Assistant Professors of the Energy Planning Program

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

M.Sc. in Energy Planning

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Mechanical Engineering

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Alessandra Magrini

Ph.D. in Business Administration

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

M.Sc. in Energy Planning

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Chemical Engineering

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

References

  1. A. Maxim, "Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, vol. 65, pp. 284–297, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.059
  2. Brazil, "The Ten-Year Energy Expansion Plan 2030," Brasília, 2020.
  3. J. G. Lassio, A. Magrini, and D. Castelo Branco, "Life cycle-based sustainability indicators for electricity generation: A systematic review and a proposal for assessments in Brazil," J. Clean. Prod., vol. 311, p. 127568, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127568
  4. W. Edwards and F. H. Barron, "Smarts and smarter: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement," Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 60, no. 3, 1994, doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1087
  5. Brazil, "The Ten-Year Energy Expansion Plan 2027," Brasília, 2018.
  6. A. Laurent, N. Espinosa, and M. Z. Hauschild, “LCA of Energy Systems,” in Life Cycle Assessment, M. Hauschild, R. Rosenbaum, and S. Olsen, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 633–668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_26
  7. S. Hong, C. J. A. Bradshaw, and B. W. Brook, "Evaluating options for sustainable energy mixes in South Korea using scenario analysis," Energy, vol. 52, pp. 237–244, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.010
  8. E. Santoyo-Castelazo and A. Azapagic, "Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects," J. Clean. Prod., vol. 80, pp. 119–138, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.061
  9. S. J. W. Klein and S. Whalley, "Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, vol. 79, pp. 127–149, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.007
  10. M. Z. Akber, M. J. Thaheem, and H. Arshad, "Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Pakistan: Policy regime for a sustainable energy mix," Energy Policy, vol. 111, no. September, pp. 111–126, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.022
  11. O. C. Filho, N. L. S. Junior, and G. Luedmann, “A Avaliação de Ciclo de Vida como ferramenta para a formulação de políticas públicas no Brasil,” Brasília, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/bitstream/11058/6685/1/td_2205.pdf.
  12. C. G. Souza, R. G. Barbastefano, and R. C. Teixeira, "Life cycle assessment research in Brazil: characteristics, interdiciplinarity, and applications," Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 266–276, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1150-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1150-5
  13. W. Kloepffer, "Life cycle sustainability assessment of products," Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 89–95, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1065/lca2008.02.376.
  14. J. Guinée, "Life cycle sustainability assessment: What is it and what are its challenges?," in Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology, R. Clift and A. Druckman, Eds. Springer, Cham, 2016, pp. 45–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_3
  15. W. Kloepffer, "Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95)," 2008, doi: 10.1065/lca2008.02.376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376
  16. J. Elkington, "Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of sustainability," New Soc. Publ., 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025539
  17. ISO, "ISO 14040: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework," International Organization for Standardization. International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
  18. UNEP, "Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020," 2020.
  19. D. Hunkeler, K. Lichtenvort, and G. Rebitzer, Environmental Life Cycle Costing. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420054736
  20. J. B. Guinée et al., “Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, doi: 10.1021/es101316v. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v
  21. P. P. Kalbar and D. Das, "Advancing life cycle sustainability assessment using multiple criteria decision making," in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Decision-Making, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818355-7.00010-5
  22. I. Khan, "Sustainability challenges for the south Asia growth quadrangle: A regional electricity generation sustainability assessment," J. Clean. Prod., vol. 243, p. 118639, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118639
  23. M. Ram, A. Aghahosseini, and C. Breyer, "Job creation during the global energy transition towards 100% renewable power system by 2050," Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 151, p. 119682, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.008
  24. M. Tolmasquim, Renewable energy: hydro, biomass, wind, solar, ocean. Río de Janeiro, 2016.
  25. K. Mongird et al., "Energy storage technology and cost characterization report," 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2172/1573487
  26. M. Tolmasquim, Thermoeletric energy: natural gas, biomass, coal, and nuclear. Río de Janeiro, 2016.
  27. O. Schmidt, S. Melchior, A. Hawkes, and I. Staffell, "Projecting the Future Levelized Cost of Electricity Storage Technologies," Joule, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 81–100, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.12.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.12.008
  28. G. Wernet, C. Bauer, B. Steubing, J. Reinhard, E. Moreno-Ruiz, and B. Weidema, "The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology," Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
  29. M. A. J. Huijbregts et al., "ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level," Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 138–147, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y
  30. R. K. Rosenbaum et al., "USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment," Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 532–546, Nov. 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.