Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling


Both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel power technologies induce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to their embodied energy requirements for construction and operation, and upstream CH4 emissions. Here, we integrate prospective life-cycle assessment with global integrated energy–economy–land-use–climate modelling to explore life-cycle emissions of future low-carbon power supply systems and implications for technology choice. Future per-unit life-cycle emissions differ substantially across technologies. For a climate protection scenario, we project life-cycle emissions from fossil fuel carbon capture and sequestration plants of 78–110 gCO2eq kWh−1, compared with 3.5–12 gCO2eq kWh−1 for nuclear, wind and solar power for 2050. Life-cycle emissions from hydropower and bioenergy are substantial (100 gCO2eq kWh−1), but highly uncertain. We find that cumulative emissions attributable to upscaling low-carbon power other than hydropower are small compared with direct sectoral fossil fuel emissions and the total carbon budget. Fully considering life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions has only modest effects on the scale and structure of power production in cost-optimal mitigation scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Embodied energy use of electricity production as a percentage of lifetime electricity production.
Fig. 2: Specific direct and indirect GHG emissions.
Fig. 3: Total global 2050 emissions.
Fig. 4: Differences between global indirect emissions.
Fig. 5: Impact on optimal technology choice.


  1. Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).

  2. Krey, V., Luderer, G., Clarke, L. & Kriegler, E. Getting from here to there—energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Climatic Change 123, 369–382 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).

  4. Bruckner, T. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).

  5. Hertwich, E. G. et al. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6277–6282 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arvesen, A., Bright, R. M. & Hertwich, E. G. Considering only first-order effects? How simplifications lead to unrealistic technology optimism in climate change mitigation. Energy Policy 39, 7448–7454 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Czyrnek-Delêtre, M. M., Chiodi, A., Murphy, J. D. & Gallachóir, B. P. Ó. Impact of including land-use change emissions from biofuels on meeting GHG emissions reduction targets: the example of Ireland. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 18, 1745–1758 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dale, M. & Benson, S. M. Energy balance of the global photovoltaic (PV) industry—is the PV industry a net electricity producer? Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 3482–3489 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daly, H. E., Scott, K., Strachan, N. & Barrett, J. Indirect CO2 emission implications of energy system pathways: Linking IO and TIMES models for the UK. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 10701–10709 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gibon, T. et al. A methodology for integrated, multiregional life cycle assessment scenarios under large-scale technological change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 11218–11226 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arvesen, A. & Hertwich, E. G. Environmental implications of large-scale adoption of wind power: a scenario-based life cycle assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 045102 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Scott, K., Daly, H., Barrett, J. & Strachan, N. National climate policy implications of mitigating embodied energy system emissions. Climatic Change 136, 325–338 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Portugal-Pereira, J. et al. Overlooked impacts of electricity expansion optimisation modelling: The life cycle side of the story. Energy 115(2), 1424–1435 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Masanet, E. et al. Life-cycle assessment of electric power systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38, 107–136 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Creutzig, F. et al. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 320–327 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sathaye, J. et al. in IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate change Mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).

  17. Luderer, G. et al. Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034033 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Luderer, G. et al. Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6) (Social Science Research Network, 2015).

  19. Arvesen, A., Luderer, G., Pehl, M., Bodirsky, B. L. & Hertwich, E. G. Deriving life cycle assessment coefficients for application in integrated assessment modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 99, 111–125 (2018).

  20. Popp, A. et al. Land-use protection for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1095–1098 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bodirsky, B. L. et al. N2O emissions from the global agricultural nitrogen cycle—current state and future scenarios. Biogeosciences 9, 4169–4197 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H. & Bodirsky, B. Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 451–462 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Life Cycle Inventory Database v.2.2 (Ecoinvent, accessed 29 January 2016);

  24. Azar, C., Johansson, D. J. A. & Mattsson, N. Meeting global temperature targets—the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034004 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Global Mitigation of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030 EPA-430-R-13-011 (EPA, 2013).

  26. Hertwich, E. G. Addressing biogenic greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 9604–9611 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gernaat, D. E. H. J. et al. Understanding the contribution of non-carbon dioxide gases in deep mitigation scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 142–153 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Searchinger, T. et al. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 1238–1240 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wise, M. et al. The Implications of Limiting CO 2 Concentrations for Agriculture, Land Use, Land-use Change Emissions and Bioenergy (US Department of Energy, 2009).

  30. Popp, A. et al. The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 034017 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mäkinen, K. & Khan, S. Policy considerations for greenhouse gas emissions from freshwater reservoirs. Water Altern. 3, 91–105 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  32. The Common Integrated Assessment Model (CIAM) Documentation (ADVANCE wiki, accessed 20 February 2017);

  33. Arvizu, D. et al. in IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).

  34. Iyer, G. et al. Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90(A), 103–118 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Demski, C., Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. Effects of exemplar scenarios on public preferences for energy futures using the my2050 scenario-building tool. Nat. Energy 2, 17027 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. de Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L. & Poortinga, W. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal. 33, 307–317 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lenzen, M. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Convers. Manag. 49, 2178–2199 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pauliuk, S., Arvesen, A., Stadler, K. & Hertwich, E. G. Industrial ecology in integrated assessment models. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 13–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. van Vuuren, D. P., Weyant, J. & de la Chesnaye, F. Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing. Energy Econ. 28, 102–120 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Strefler, J., Luderer, G., Aboumahboub, T. & Kriegler, E. Economic impacts of alternative greenhouse gas emission metrics: a model-based assessment. Climatic Change. 125, 319–331 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Olivier, J. G. J. & den Elzen, M. G. J. Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 85–103 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013 under grant agreement n° 308329 (ADVANCE) and was supported by ENavi, one of the four Kopernikus Projects for the Energy Transition funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



M.P. and G.L. designed the research with input from A.A. and E.H. LCA data were provided by A.A. and E.H. Land-use modelling was performed by F.H. and A.P., and A.A. integrated the results into the LCA framework. M.P. performed the IAM scenario modelling and integration of LCA data. M.P. and G.L. wrote the paper with contributions and edits by all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Michaja Pehl or Gunnar Luderer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Figures, Notes and References

Supplementary Figures 1–8, Supplementary Notes 1–5 and Supplementary References

Supplementary Tables

Supplementary Tables 1–7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pehl, M., Arvesen, A., Humpenöder, F. et al. Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat Energy 2, 939–945 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing