Page 158 - Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future

144 Biofuels for a More Sustainable Future

Table 5.5 Sustainability indicators for the assessment of large-scale biomass power and
its alternatives—cont’d

Sustainability
Issue Indicator Unit
Large accident Fatalities due to large No. of
risk accidents fatalities/
PWh
Energy security Amount of imported toe/kWh
fossil fuel potentially
avoided
Diversity of fuel supply Score (0–1)
mix
Fuel storage capabilities GJ/m 3
(energy density)
Nuclear Use of nonenriched Score (0–3)
proliferation uranium in a reactor
capable of online
refueling; use of
reprocessing;
requirement for
enriched uranium
Intergenerational Use of abiotic resources kg Sb eq./
equity (elements) kWh
Use of abiotic resources MJ/kWh
(fossil fuels)
3
Volume of radioactive m /TWh
waste to be stored
3
m /TWh
Volume of liquid CO 2
to be stored
a
1,4-Dichlorobenzene.
b
Disability-adjusted life years.
(Based on Stamford, L., Azapagic, A., 2014. Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios
to 2070. Energy Sustain. Dev. 23, 194–211.)
on cost data from approximately 2013, since which the industry has seen
extreme cost reduction for wind and solar PV. For instance, the last two
“contract-for-difference” auctions in the UK energy market have suggested
total costs as low as £50/MWh for solar PV and £57.50/MWh for offshore
wind (DECC, 2015; BEIS, 2017). Against these costs, the estimate presented
here for biomass (£77/MWh) is less competitive, although biomass combus-
tion does retain the ability to quickly ramp output up and down, which is
not possible with wind or PV.
The issue before highlights a common problem in LCSA: rapidly devel-
oping technologies require regularly updated LCA, LCC, and SLCA