Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Environmental impact analysis of power generation from biomass and wind T

farms in different locations
Cheng-kang Gaoa,b, ,1, Hong-ming Naa,b,1, Kai-hui Songc, Noel Dyerc, Fan Tiana,b,
⁎

Qing-jiang Xua,b, Yu-hong Xinga,b

a
SEP Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110819, China
b
School of Metallurgy, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110819, China
c
Department of Geographical Science, University of Maryland, College Park 20747, MD, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Accelerated urbanization in China has increased electricity demand. Recently, environmentally-friendly re-
Life cycle assessment (LCA) newable energy resources have become more popular for generating power. Energy consumption and en-
Biomass power generation vironmental impacts vary depending on the types of renewable energy, while the impacts of such variations are
Wind farm rarely studied in the existing literature. This study used a life-cycle perspective to analyze energy consumption
Environmental impact analysis
and environmental impacts of wind farms and compared the results to a biomass power plant. The environ-
Different locations
mental impacts of wind power plants were further analyzed on a site by site basis, using locations in desert (G),
Energy payback time
steppe (S), and woodland (W) landscapes. The results showed that the G site had the lowest global warming
potential of wind power plants at 51.547 gCO2-eq/kWh, about 60% that of the S site and 80% that of W. The
global warming potential of the G site was also about 25% of the biomass power plant. Additionally, the G site
had a solid waste potential of 25.248 g-eq/kWh, which is only 10% compared to the biomass plant. The results
also indicated energy payback times for the G, S, and W wind farms to be 0.67, 2.40, and 1.42 years, respec-
tively. The G site also had an acidification potential of 6.836 gSO2-eq/kWh, which was equivalent to 45% of the
S site and 30% that of W. Consequently, wind farms located in the desert have the least environmental impact,
followed by those located in the steppe and woodland. Accounting for energy payback time and environmental
impacts, this study suggests that wind power plants should be built in desert areas when possible.

1. Introduction
Due to high levels of energy consumption and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, traditional power plants have long been major con-
tributors to climate change and acid rain [1]. However, increased de-
mands for ecological and environmental protection have led to addi-
tional research in developing energy that is clean, low-carbon, and
renewable [2]. The installed energy capacity total for China in 2017
was 1.78 TW, which was a 7.6% increase over 2016. Although thermal
power plants accounted for 62.25% of the capacity in 2017, this pro-
portion has since declined. The Chinese government has recently begun
to encourage the research and development of cleaner and renewable
energy sources. The total installed capacity of renewable energy power
generation was 0.67 TW in 2017, accounting for 37.75% of the total,
which was a 13.82% increase from 2016. The installed capacities of
wind, hydro, nuclear, and solar power generation were 0.16 TW,
0.34 TW, 0.04 TW, and 0.13 TW for 2017, representing increases of
11.0%, 2.7%, 6.5%, and 70.6% over 2016, respectively [3]. These in-
creases indicate that power generation from renewable energy has
broad development prospects in China.
Accelerated environmental deterioration in China has led to an in-
creased focus on assessing the environmental impacts of increased en-
ergy consumption. Life cycle assessments (LCA) have become a popular
tool to assess the exploitation of resources and the related environ-
mental impacts associated with a particular product's life-cycle. The
LCA has gained global recognition through The International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), which has led to numerous
systematic analyses and improvements to methodologies [4]. Currently,

Abbreviations: GHGs, Greenhouse gases; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; GW, Global warming; PO, Photochemical ozone; AC, Acidification;
HH, Health hazards; SD, Smoke and dust; EU, Eutrophication; SW, Solid waste
⁎
Corresponding author at: SEP Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110819, China.
E-mail address: gaock@smm.neu.edu.cn (C.-k. Gao).
1
Contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.018
Received 6 February 2018; Received in revised form 6 December 2018; Accepted 9 December 2018
Available online 20 December 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Nomenclature F Pollutions emissions per ton of raw materials consumed in

Eq. (3)
M Raw material consumption in Eq. (1) EI Environmental impact potential in Eq. (4)
E Energy consumption in Eq. (2) IF Influence factor of discharged pollutant in Eq. (4)
EP Energy consumption per ton of raw materials consumed in EPT Energy payback time in Eq. (5)
Eq. (2) EG Annual energy generated by the system in Eq. (5)
P Pollutions emissions in Eq. (3)

environmental impact analyses using LCA are being performed in a

wide variety of industries including steel manufacturing [5,6], biodiesel
Purpose and scope

Summary report
production [7,8], power systems [9–11], cement [12], milk production
[13,14], renewable energy [15], and ethanol production [16]. En-
vironmental impact assessments can provide measures of environ- Inventory analysis
mental performance as well as development suggestions for businesses,
individuals, public administrators, and policymakers [4].
There has been an extensive amount of research employing LCA to
Impact assessment
analyze the environmental impacts of power plants. Regarding tradi-
tional power plants, Lombardi et al. [9] used LCA to highlight increased
Fig. 1. Technical framework of LCA.
CO2 emissions during the operational phase compared to the con-
struction and maintenance phases of power plants. LCA has also been
used as a tool to analyze the CO2 emissions of power generation from 2. Theoretical methods
renewable sources such as wind [17,18], nuclear [19], solar [20],
biomass [21,22], hydroelectric [23], hydro [24], and geothermal 2.1. LCA
technologies [25]. Varun et al. [26] reviewed LCA studies on renewable
energy for electricity generation systems and concluded that the CO2 LCA is used to evaluate environmental factors and potential impacts
emissions from wind energy, solar photovoltaic, biomass, solar thermal, of products throughout the entire life of the product (from ‘cradle’ to
and hydro systems were 9.7–123.7, 53.4–250, 35.0–178.0, 13.6–202.0 ‘tomb’), including access to raw materials, processing and production,
and 3.7–237.0 g-CO2, respectively. These emissions were all lower than use phase, and end-of-life treatment. LCA represents a revolution of
traditional coal-, gas-, or oil-fired systems. Raadal et al. [24] presented perspective in responsible and sustainable production, from terminal
a comprehensive overview of life-cycle GHG emissions from wind and treatment to systematic management [2,4]. The technical framework of
hydro power generation and discussed the main reasons causing the LCA is divided into four parts, as shown in Fig. 1.
considerable variation (0.2–152 gCO2-eq/kWh) in the existing litera- The purpose and scope of LCA require a definition of research in-
ture. The life-cycle CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants calculated tents and a determination of the research system boundary. The life-
using LCA range from 21.08 to 33.07 t-CO2/GWh, and are comparable cycle of a product includes material acquisition, processing, manu-
with renewable energy [19]. Sastre et al. [27] used LCA to evaluate the facturing, transportation, use, and elimination (Fig. 2). Furthermore,
energy yield and effect on global warming from generating electricity consideration should be given to economic efficiency and environ-
from Spanish wheat straw and showed that the CO2 emissions from mental protection, where eliminated, removed, or renovated products
straw biomass combustion are less than natural gas. Extensive appli- should be recycled as raw materials [25].
cations of LCA have also been employed in analyzing air pollutants and Inventory analysis is the process of quantifying the inputs and
other ecological effects. Bayer et al. [25] reviewed life-cycle pollutants outputs of a system for evaluation by the equivalent coefficient. Impact
including not only CO2, but also other emissions associated with geo- assessment is the process of evaluating potential environmental
thermal power generation such as H2S and SO2. Silva et al. [28] iden-
tified the effects of burning sugarcane on the photochemical ozone,
human toxicity levels, and nutrient enrichment. Recent research has
combined LCA with uncertainty analysis and explored renewable en-
ergy systems. Wiedmann et al. [17] used a hybrid LCA and life-cycle
inventories to examine indirect GHG emissions from various technolo-
gies in wind power generation.
This study builds on the current literature by investigating the en-
ergy consumption and environmental impacts of wind and biomass
power plants using LCA. Furthermore, this study will determine loca-
tions in China for wind farms that have the least adverse environmental
impacts. Through the determination of the system boundaries and de-
velopment of input-output inventories, the individual components of
wind and biomass power generation will be analyzed from a life-cycle
perspective. The environmental indicators will illustrate effects to
global warming (GW), photochemical ozone (PO), acidification (AC),
health hazards (HH), smoke and dust (SD), eutrophication (EU), and
solid waste (SW). Using these parameters, a life-cycle evaluation of the
energy payback time combined with the impacts on the environment
from wind power plants in different locations will also be presented.

Fig. 2. Model of products’ life-cycle. NOTES: 1-Direct recovery; 2-Parts re-

manufacturing; 3-Reprocessing of recycled materials; 4-Raw material recycling.

308
C.-k. Gao et al.
impacts, consisting of three essential elements: the types, classification,
and characterization of environmental impacts. Types of environmental
impacts include effects on resource consumption, human health, and
ecology [2,4]. Referring to the key environmental impacts defined by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), American En-
vironmental Toxicology & Chemistry Society, and Chinese Academy of
Sciences Eco-Environment Research Centre, seven types of environ-
mental impacts were selected for the LCA analysis of wind and biomass
power generation: GW, PO, AC, HH, SD, EU, and SW.
The following is a brief description of the seven types of environ-
mental impacts. (1) Global warming (GW): Excessive emissions of GHGs
(such as CO2 and CH4) can lead to global warming effects, resulting in
the sea-level rise. Global warming not only endangers the balance of
natural ecosystems but also threatens the survival of human beings. (2)
Photochemical ozone (PO): Photochemical reactions of chemicals (such
as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons) with sunlight produces ozone,
aldehyde, and ketone, resulting in adverse effects on human health,
animal survival rates, and plant growth. (3) Acidification (AC): The
combustion of fossil fuels produces sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides,
which are the precursors of acid rain. Acid rain can harm the habitats of
animals and plants as well as corrode buildings. (4) Health hazards
(HH): Pollutants (such as CO, NOX, SO2) produced during industrial
processes endanger human health. (5) Smoke and dust (SD): Smoke and
Fig. 3. Research boundary of wind power generation.
309
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317
dust are produced through the combustion of fuel in industrial pro-
duction, causing soil pollution and damage to the human respiratory
tract. (6) Eutrophication (EU): Eutrophication is a pollution phenom-
enon caused by excessive nutrient contents such as nitrogen and
phosphorus in water bodies, which can destroy aquatic biodiversity. (7)
Solid wastes (SW): Solid waste produced in industrial production can
pollute the water, air, and soil.
2.2. Computing methods
2.2.1. Raw material consumption (M)
Raw materials such as cement, iron, and steel are used to produce
various products. The total consumption of raw materials is calculated
as follows:
Mj = n ×mj = n mjk
k=1 (1)
In Eq. (1), Mj is the total consumption of raw material j, t; n is the
number of generating sets; mj is consumption of raw material j per
generator set, t; mjk is consumption of raw material j for unit k from
generator set, t.
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

2.2.2. Energy consumption (E) 3. Environmental impact analysis of biomass and wind power
The total energy consumption is calculated as follows: plant

E=n×e=n EPj × Mj Environmental impact analyses were performed and compared

j=1 (2) using LCA for wind farms and biomass power plants.

In Eq. (2), E is the total energy consumption, kJ; EP is energy con-

sumption per generator set, kJ; ef j is energy consumption per ton of raw
materials j, kJ/t.
2.2.3. Pollution emissions (P)
Pollution emissions are calculated based on the total consumption of
raw materials and corresponding emission factors, as follows:
3.1. Environmental impact analysis of a typical wind farm
The Guazhou Bridge Bay wind farm (wind farm G) in Jiuquan (lo-
cated in Gansu Province, China) will be used as a case study to evaluate
the environmental impacts of wind farms. This plant is located in the
western region of China in the area of the Gobi Desert, which is a flat
terrain with relatively light traffic.

Pi = Fij × Mij 3.1.1. Research boundary of wind farm

j=1 (3) The research boundary of the wind power generation system in-
cludes two components, as seen in Fig. 3. The first is the life-cycle of the
In Eq. (3), Pi is the amount of discharged pollutant i, kg; Fij is the power plant, composed of four phases: manufacturing, transportation
number of discharged pollutants i per ton of raw materials j, kg/t. and construction, operations and maintenance, and final disposal. The
second is the electricity life-cycle, including power generation and
2.2.4. Environmental impacts (EI) electricity usage.
Environmental impacts are calculated based on pollution emissions,
as follows: 3.1.2. Environmental impact assessment of wind farm
3.1.2.1. Manufacturing phase. The main equipment on wind farms
EIt = IFi × Pi consists of wind turbines, turbine foundations (including blades,
i=1 (4) tower, cabin, and foundation), box-type transformers, and auxiliary
equipment, such as electricity transmission lines and step-up
In Eq. (4), EIt is the type of environmental impact t, including global substations. The raw materials used are mainly copper, iron, steel,
warming, photochemical ozone synthesis, acidification, health hazards, cement, silicon, fiberglass, and resin. Table 1 outlines the amount of
smoke and dust, eutrophication and solid waste, kg; IFi is the influen- raw material required and the total amount of pollutant emissions
cing factor of discharged pollutant i, kg/kg. caused by each raw material in the manufacturing phase.

2.2.5. Energy payback time (EPT) 3.1.2.2. Transportation and construction phase. The Dongfang FD77B/
Energy payback time is the ratio of primary energy consumption to 61.5 and Jinfeng GW82-1500/70 wind turbines in use at wind farm G
annual energy generated by the system [29,30]. EBT is the time re- were manufactured by the Dongfang Turbine Company Ltd. of Deyang
quired that the system must operate to recover the energy invested for City, Sichuan, China and the Jinfeng Science & Technology Company
its manufacturing [30]. Its formula is, Ltd. of Wulumuqi, Xinjiang, China, respectively. The factories are
located 1863.8 km and 1011.6 km away from wind farm G,
E
EPT =
(5) respectively. Provided that transportation is 70% by truck and 30%
EG
by train, the total energy consumption and emission inventory of the
In Eq. (5), EPT is energy payback time, year; EG is annual energy entire transportation process can be calculated as shown in Table 2.
generated by the system, kWh/year. The total wind farm area is 55,850 m2 (about 5.585 hm2). The

Table 1
Energy consumption and emission inventory on the manufacturing phase of G wind farm.
Copper Steel Cement Silicon Glass fiber Resin Aluminum Total

3 3 4 4 2 3 2 1
Demand (t; m ) 3.99 × 10 3.04 × 10 7.67 × 10 1.06 × 10 2.73 × 10 3.31 × 10 4.89 × 10 /
Energy consumption (GJ) 5.53 × 105 8.90 × 105 2.96 × 105 2.27 × 101 1.40 × 104 1.07 × 104 1.04 × 104 1.77 × 106
CO (kg) 0 0 0 5.89 × 104 2.64 × 103 8.73 × 102 0 6.24 × 104
CO2 (kg) 4.36 × 107 6.84 × 107 5.09 × 107 2.17 × 106 1.84 × 106 3.01 × 104 7.53 × 105 1.68 × 108
SO2 (kg) 1.27 × 105 8.77 × 104 1.90 × 104 1.47 × 104 1.50 × 104 2.08 × 102 0 2.64 × 105
NOX (kg) 1.10 × 105 0 1.14 × 105 4.45 × 103 3.36 × 104 3.41 × 102 0 2.63 × 105
Dust (kg) 0 6.74 × 104 1.54 × 104 0 1.36 × 104 0 0 9.64 × 104
CH4 (kg) 0 0 0 2.36 × 101 0 2.35 × 103 1.66 × 103 4.03 × 103
NH+4 (kg) 0 7.60 × 102 0 0 0 0 0 7.60 × 102
Phenol (kg) 0 1.52 × 101 0 0 0 0 0 1.52 × 101
COD (kg) 0 7.63 × 103 0 0 0 0 0 7.63 × 103
Suspended matter (kg) 0 1.26 × 104 0 0 0 1.64 × 103 0 1.42 × 104
Slag (kg) 0 1.30 × 107 0 0 0 0 0 1.30 × 107
Dust (kg) 0 2.77 × 106 0 6.99 × 103 0 0 0 2.77 × 106
Mixed industrial solid Waste (kg) 0 1.00 × 106 0 7.05 × 104 0 2.56 × 104 0 1.10 × 106

NOTES: 1. Wind farm G features 100 FD77B-1500 kW turbines (wheel height: 61.5 m; cut-in wind speed: 3 m/s; cut-out wind speed: 20 m/s) produced by the
Dongfang Electric Corporation and the Dongfang Turbine Company Ltd. and 34 GW82-1500 kW turbines (wheel height: 70 m; cut-in wind speed: 3 m/s; cut-out wind
speed: 22 m/s) produced by the Xinjiang Jinfeng Science and Technology Company Ltd.
2. The cement to gravel ratio of concrete is 1:4.
3. The box-type transformer uses an oil-immersed type of self-cooled step-up transformer.

310
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Table 2
Energy consumption and emissions inventory of transport phase.
Type Combustion quality (t) Energy consumption (GJ) CO (kg) CO2 (kg) NOX (kg) N2O (kg) CH4 (kg)

2 4 1 3 1
Gasoline 8.32 × 10 3.83 × 10 7.07 × 10 1.04 × 10 6.53 × 10 4.70 8.30 × 10−1
Diesel 9.61 × 101 4.09 × 103 7.70 × 10−1 1.13 × 101 5.40 × 10 −1 1.00 × 10−2 1.92
Total / 4.24 × 104 7.15 × 101 1.05 × 103 6.58 × 101 4.71 2.75

NOTES: 1. The fuel consumption for trucks and trains is 0.0267 kg/(t km) and 0.0072 kg/(t km), respectively.
2. The two types of wind turbines weigh approximately 200 t and 210 t, respectively.

destruction of trees from farm construction resulted in reduced ab-
sorption of CO2 and SO2, totaling approximately 250 kg/hm2 d and
175 kg/hm2 d, for each respective farm. Consequentially, CO2 and SO2
emissions increased by 12.20 kg/104 kWh and 8.54 kg/104 kWh for
each farm, based on an average generating capacity of 4.177 × 108
kWh/year.
3.1.2.3. Operations and maintenance phase. The runtime cycle of wind
farm G is 20 years with a maintenance cycle of 1 year. The drivers of
energy consumption and environmental impacts during the operations
and maintenance phase mainly stem from part replacement. However,
energy consumption and pollutant emissions are challenging to
determine for this phase. Thus, it is assumed that energy
consumption and pollutant emissions represent 15% of the initial
production process for the entire operations and maintenance phase
[30].
3.1.2.4. Final disposal phase. The raw materials of wind farms are
primarily steel and fiberglass. In general, 98% of the blades, 90% of
the cabin, and 90% of the tower can be recycled or reused. Thus, it can
be assumed that the energy consumption and pollutant emissions from
the scrapping and recycling stage represent 10% of the counterparts in
the production phase [31].
Based on the emissions inventory and emission factors (see
Appendix A), the environmental impacts of wind farm G are shown in
Table 3. Specifically, seven types of environmental impacts were se-
lected: GW, PO, AC, HH, SD, EU, and SW, based on the research of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
The potential values of GW, PO, AC, HH, SD, EU and SW are 51.57
gCO2-eq/kWh, 6.84 gSO2-eq/kWh, 2.46 × 10−4 gC2H4-eq/kWh, 6.84
gSO2-eq/kWh, 0.01 g/kWh, 25.25 g/kWh, and 0.47 gNO3--eq/kWh,
respectively. GW, AC, SW, and HH are dominant environmental im-
pacts induced from the wind farm. Manufacturing is the main phase
that impacts GW (33.50 gCO2-eq/kWh) and SW (20.20 g/kWh).
However, the transportation and construction phases also have great
environmental implications with respect to AC (6.78 SO2-eq/kWh) and
HH (6.79 CO-eq/kWh). The reason why the transportation and con-
struction phases induce dominant environmental impacts is that trees
are destroyed during land development, leading to increases in net CO2
and SO2 from the wind farm.
The average generating capacity of wind farm G is 418 GWh/year,
equivalent to 1504 TJ. The total generating capacity will be 8350 GWh,
provided that the operating period of wind farm G is 20 years. The total
energy consumption of the entire life-cycle is 2.26 × 1012 kJ, or
270.53 kJ/kWh (this is equivalent to 92.33 kgce/10 4 kWh, where kgce
is the kilogram of standard coal equivalent, and 1 kgce = 29,307.6 kJ).
This results in an energy payback time of 0.67 years for this wind farm.
We get energy free of cost in the remaining 19.33 years.
3.2. Environmental impact analysis of biomass power generation
Electricity generated from biomass is mainly powered by the direct
combustion and gasification of forestry and agricultural residues,
burning of garbage, and burning of landfill gas.
The biomass power generation system was analyzed with an in-
stalled capacity of 25 MW and an annual power generation time of
6000 h, resulting in an efficiency of 26%. In this analysis, the straw
consumption is 1.4 kg/kWh with an acquisition radius of approximately
20 km and a power plant lifetime of 30 years [32].
3.2.1. Research boundary of biomass power generation
The life-cycle of a direct biomass combustion power generation
system is composed of four stages, with simplifications and hypotheses
made as follows [20,21,26–28]:
(1) Preparation stage. This stage includes two parts: the first is the
exploitation of fossil energy, which provides the required coal, oil,
and electricity; the other is the manufacturing of power plant
equipment. In order to simplify the calculation, all of the electricity
used in the preparation stage comes from coal, and the loss of
materials during the construction phase is calculated based on na-
tional averages. Energy consumption was not calculated due to the
negligible effect on the whole system.
(2) Biomass acquisition stage. This stage is also composed of two sub-
systems. One is crop planting, which includes spreading manure or
applying fertilizer, and harvesting; the other is straw bundling.
Given that straw is considered as agricultural waste, it is excluded
in the calculation of energy consumption and pollutant emissions
from the straw planting and harvesting phase.
(3) Transportation stage. Straw is transported to the power plants by
diesel tractor.
(4) Power generation stage. Power plant scrapping and waste disposal
are not included in the power generation system due to negligible

Table 3
Environmental impact potential of G wind farm.
Type Unit Manufacturing phase Transport and construction phase Operation and maintenance phase Final disposal phase Total

1
GW gCO2-eq/kWh 3.35 × 10 9.71 5.03 3.35 5.16 × 101
AC gSO2-eq/kWh 4.00 × 10−2 6.79 1.00 × 10−2 0 6.84
PO gC2H4-eq/kWh 2.27 × 10−4 1.52 × 10−5 2.47 × 10−6 1.64 × 10−6 2.46 × 10−4
HH gSO2-eq/kWh 4.00 × 10−2 6.79 6.00 × 10−2 0 6.84
SD g/kWh 1.00 × 10−2 0 0 7.47 × 10−4 1.00 × 10−2
SW g/kWh 2.02 × 101 1.00 × 10−2 3.02 2.02 2.53 × 101
EU gNO3--eq/kWh 3.70 × 10−1 1.57 × 10−5 6.00 × 10−2 4.00 × 10−2 4.70 × 10−1

311
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Fig. 4. Research boundary of biomass power generation.

environmental impacts. The pollutants produced in each stage of
the power generation system are released directly into the en-
vironment, not recycled nor reused. The research boundary of
biomass power generation is shown in Fig. 4.
3.2.2. Environmental impact assessment of biomass power generation
The emissions inventory for the direct biomass combustion power
generation system is outlined in Table 4.
Similarly, the environmental impact potential of biomass power
generation is analyzed by unitary emission inventory (as shown in
Table 5).
The potential values of GW, PO, AC, HH, SD, EU, and SW are
200.078 gCO2-eq/kWh, 1.080 gSO2-eq/kWh, 0.007 gC2H4-eq/kWh,
107.314 gSO2-eq/kWh, 13.795 g/kWh, 0.242 g/kWh, and 245.817
gNO3--eq/kWh, respectively. Among them, environmental impacts from
biomass power generation are dominated by GW, SW, and HH. The GW,
SW, and HH impacts mainly come from the manufacturing phase, at
111.623 gCO2-eq/kWh, 142.182 g/kWh, and 95.566 CO-eq/kWh, re-
spectively.
There are two types of energy consumption in direct biomass
combustion power generation: biomass and fossil consumption. Table 6
outlines the energy consumption at each stage.
The energy consumption of biomass power generation is
708.020 kgce/104 kWh, in which construction and operation of the
biomass plants contributed 595.560 kgce/104 kWh, accounting for
84.12% of the total.
3.3. Comparative analysis between the wind farm and biomass power
generation
Fig. 5 shows a comparison of the environmental impacts between
wind and biomass power generation.
On the whole, wind farms exert less environmental impact than
biomass power generation. For example, the potentials for global
warming and photochemical ozone synthesis of biomass power gen-
eration are 200.078 CO2-eq/kWh and 0.007 gC2H4-eq/kWh, nearly 4
and 28.5 times those of wind farm G, respectively. The smoke and dust
(SD) potential from biomass power generation is nearly 1500 times that
of wind power. The solid waste potential of biomass power generation
is also higher than that of wind power. However, the potential of AC

Table 4
Emission inventory of biomass direct combustion power generation system (unit: kg/104 kWh).
Type Raw material acquisition phase Transport phase Construction phase Operation phase Total

−1 −1
Smoke and dust 1.59 8.50 × 10 3.83 8.81 × 10 7.15
SO2 6.81 × 10−1 3.72 × 10−1 8.50 0 9.55
CO 4.91 × 10−1 2.91 × 10−1 1.01 0 1.79
NOX 6.81 × 10−1 3.71 × 10−1 1.62 0 1.79
CH4 4.51 × 10−1 2.40 × 10−1 1.70 0 2.39
CO2 3.20 × 102 1.72 × 102 5.45 × 102 3.12 × 102 1.35 × 103
N2O 1.00 × 10−2 6.00 × 10−3 3.80 × 10−2 0 5.50 × 10−2
lead 4.90 × 10−2 1.04 × 10−1 5.60 × 10−2 1.00 × 10−3 2.11 × 10−1
Wastewater 8.31 × 102 4.46 × 102 3.03 × 104 4.42 × 103 3.72 × 104
Fly ash 3.27 1.76 3.07 0 8.10
Waste residue 1.32 × 102 7.07 × 101 1.33 × 103 0 1.54 × 103
Blast furnace slag 0 0 8.76 × 101 8.34 × 104 9.22 × 102
Mud 0 0 0 1.23 × 102 1.23 × 102

312
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Table 5
Environmental impact potential of biomass power generation.
Type Unit Raw material acquisition stage Transport phase Construction stage of power plants Operation stage of power plants Total

1 1 2 1
GW gCO2-eq/kWh 5.53 × 10 2.98 × 10 1.12 × 10 3.12 × 10 2.00 × 102
AC gSO2-eq/kWh 1.16 × 10−1 6.30 × 10−2 9.63 × 10−1 0 1.08
PO gC2H4-eq/kWh 2.00 × 10−3 1.00 × 10−3 4.00 × 10−3 0 7.00 × 10−3
HH gSO2-eq/kWh 1.13 × 101 6.13 9.56 × 101 0 1.07 × 102
SD g/kWh 4.86 × 10−1 2.61 × 10−1 6.90 × 10−1 1.24 × 101 1.38 × 101
SW g/kWh 1.32 × 101 7.07 1.42 × 102 8.34 × 101 2.46 × 102
EU gNO3--eq/kWh 9.20 × 10−2 5.00 × 10−2 2.17 × 10−1 0 2.42 × 10−1

Table 6 6.4 m/s); the Saihan Dam wind farm (S) located in Keshenketengqi,
Energy consumption of biomass power generation (unit:kgce/104 kWh). Inner Mongolia, China (landform: steppe region, annual mean wind
Phase Biomass energy Fossil energy Total
speed: 7.1 m/s); and the aforementioned wind farm G in Jiuquan,
Gansu, China (landform: desert region, annual mean wind speed:
Planting phase 0 1.04 × 102 1.04 × 102 6.6 m/s). The 142 wind turbines used at wind farm S are the V52－
Field collection 0 1.55 1.55 850 kW LT wind turbines, manufactured by Vestas. The 26 wind tur-
Processing and storage 0 4.37 4.37
Transport phase 0 2.95 2.95
bines at W are the G8X - 850 kW, manufactured by Gamesa.
Construction and operation of 5.85 × 102 1.08 × 101 5.96 × 102 Environmental impact analyses of the wind farms with different
power plants geographical locations were completed with the following assumptions
Total 5.85 × 102 1.23 × 102 7.08 × 102 to simplify the analysis [31,33]:

(1) 70% of transportation is by train and 30% is by truck.

and HH of a wind system are about 6.5 times those of biomass system,
indicating a direct bearing on the long-term occupation of land. If
pollutants are not considered from this component, the environmental
impact would be improved significantly.
The energy consumption of the wind farm is 92.331 kgce/MWh
while biomass power generation reaches 708.020 kgce/MWh, in-
dicating that the energy consumption of wind power is much lower
than that of biomass power generation, given an identical generating
capacity.
In summary, considering energy consumption or environmental
impacts per unit of electricity generated, wind power generation is far
superior to biomass power generation. We conjecture that the en-
vironmental impacts and energy consumption of wind farms are related
to their geographical location. Accordingly, a comparative analysis of
energy consumption and environmental impacts of wind farms in dif-
ferent locations were conducted.
4. Environmental impact analysis of wind farms in different
locations
An in-depth analysis of three typical wind farms in different geo-
graphical locations was conducted. The three typical wind farms are
Wanghai Temple wind farm (W) located in Faku County, Shenyang,
Liaoning, China (landform: woodland area, annual mean wind speed:
(2) The operating period of a typical wind farm is 20 years.
(3) The wind farm energy consumption and pollutant emissions from
the entire operating process each represent 15% of the initial pro-
duction phase.
(4) The energy consumption and pollutant emissions from the entire
scrapping and recycling stage each represent 10% of the production
phase.
4.1. Comparative environmental impact of wind farms in different locations
The emissions inventory and environmental impacts were quanti-
fied as shown in annexed tables C and D. The comparative environ-
mental impacts of the G, S, and W wind farms are described in Fig. 6
below.
In general, the environmental impacts of wind farm G, located in the
desert, are less than that of wind farm W in the woodland and wind
farm S in the steppe. For example, the GW of wind farm G is 51.547
gCO2-eq/kWh, 60% that of S and 80% that of W. The AC of G is 6.836 g
SO2-eq/kWh, less than half that of S and 30% that of W. Except for SW,
all other environmental impacts are lower at G than S and W. In other
words, the environmental impact potential of wind farm G located in
the desert is the smallest, followed by S in the steppe region, and finally
W in the woodland, which had the largest environmental impact po-
tential of the three wind farms. Many researchers may not be satisfied

Wind farm Biomasss power generation

EU

SW

SD

HH

PO

AC

GW

250 200 150 100 50 0

Fig. 5. Energy consumption and environmental impacts of wind farm and biomass power generation (units: GW-gCO2-eq/kWh; AC-gSO2-eq/kWh; PO-gC2H4-eq/
kWh; HH-gCO-eq/kWh; SD-g/kWh; SW-g/kWh; EU-gNO3--eq/kWh).

313
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Wind farm W Wind farm S Wnd farm G EU

SW

SD

HH

PO

AC

GW

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Fig. 6. Environmental impacts of wind farms in different locations (units: GW-gCO2/kWh; AC-gSO2/kWh; PO-gC2H4/kWh; HH-gCO/kWh; SD-g/kWh; SW-g/kWh;
EU-gNO3-/kWh).

Wind farm W Wind farm S Wind farm G

Final disposal phase

Operation and maintenance phase

Transport and construction phase

Manufacturing phase

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Fig. 7. Energy consumption of different wind farms (unit: kgce/104kWh).

with this result, as it is widely believed that wind farm S located in the
steppe has the lowest environmental impact. Nevertheless, forests,
which can absorb more CO2 and SO2 than both deserts and grasslands,
are largely destroyed for wind farm construction. Additionally, wind
farm G has the largest area per wind turbine.
4.2. Energy payback time of wind farms in different locations
The energy consumption of different wind farms is discussed in
Fig. 7 below.
The generating capacity of wind farm S is 0.285 TWh/year, with
total energy consumption over the entire life-cycle of 2.469 PJ
(6860 GWh). The energy payback time of wind farm S is 2.41 years,
which implies that we get energy free of cost in the remaining 17.59
years for wind farm S. Similarly, considering the generating capacity
(59.7 GWh/year) and the total energy consumption (0.306 TJ, equiva-
lent to 85.02 GWh), the energy payback time for wind farm W is only
1.42 years.
The energy consumption of wind farms predominantly comes from
the manufacturing phase, accounting for 78–80%. The energy payback
time for wind farm G is extremely short, primarily due to higher wind
speeds in the desert.
5. Conclusions
From the above analyses regarding renewable energy power gen-
eration (wind farm and biomass power generation) and analyses of
wind farms in different locations employing LCA, we conclude the
following:
(1) Compared with biomass power generation, wind power generation
has better performance, fewer environmental impacts, and lower
energy consumption. The energy consumption of wind power gen-
eration and biomass power generation are 92.331 kgce/MWh and
708.020 kgce/MWh, respectively. In situations where the amount
of power generated is the same, the environmental impact potential
of wind power generation is much lower than that of biomass power
generation.
(2) Based on a full consideration of environmental impacts and energy
recovery time, we recommend that wind farms be built in desert
regions that are easily accessible. The energy recovery period of
wind farms G, S, and W is 0.65, 2.40, and 1.42 years, respectively.
The environmental impact potential of wind farm S in the desert is
much lower than that of wind farm G in the grasslands and wind
farm W in the woodlands.
The current study only presents the environmental impact analysis
of two methods of renewable energy power generation - wind and
biomass power generation. Further research is needed for other types of
energy generation, such as analyses including hydroelectric and solar
power generation. Additionally, further analysis and mapping of en-
vironmental impacts between offshore and onshore wind power gen-
eration would provide useful suggestions for policy-makers at the re-
gional level.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank anonymous reviewers and the editor for helping
us to improve this paper. The authors are also grateful to the financial
support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(41871212), Research Project of Northeastern University
(N172504031), and the China Scholarship Council (201606085050).

314
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1
Category of environmental impact and its equivalent factor.
Type of environmental impact Units Pollutants Equivalent factor

GW gCO2/kWh CO2 1
CO 2
CH4 25
N2O 320
NOX 290
AC gSO2/kWh SO2 1
NOX 0.7
PO gC2H4/kWh CO 0.03
CH4 0.007
HH gCO/kWh CO 0.01
SO2 1
NOX 0.65
DS g/kWh 1
SW g/kWh 1
EU gNO3-/kWh COD 0.23
NOX 1.35

Appendix B

See Table B1

Table B1
Energy consumption and emission factors for 1 t of raw material.
Material (/t) Copper Steel Cement Silicon Glass fiber Resin Aluminum

3
Energy consumption electricity/kW h 8706.90 29.27 GJ 83.0 214,550 kJ 14,302 kw h 32.3 × 10 MJ 213 GJ
Standard coal/kg 3656. 24 195.3 /
Atmospheric pollutants CO / / / 556 0.966 2.64 /
CO2 10,909. 29 2250 1070.3 20,510 673 91.07 15,400
SO2 31. 87 2.887 0.3993 139 5.48 0.63 /
NOx 27. 6 / 2.4 42 12.3 1.03 /
Dust / 2.216 0.325 / 4.99 / /
CH4 / / / 0.223 / 7.10 34
Water pollutants NH+4 0.025 / / / / /
Phenol 0.0005 / / / / /
COD 0.251 / / / / /
Suspended matter 0.414 / / / 4.96 /
Solid pollutants Slag 427 / / / / /
Dust 91 / 66 / / /
Mixed industrial Solid waste 33 / 666 / 77.53 /

Appendix C

See Tables C1 and C2

Table C1
Emission inventory of S wind farm (unit: kg/104 kWh).
Category/pollutants Manufacturing phase Transport and construction Operation and maintenance Final disposal phase Total
phase phase

Atmospheric pollutants CO 5.40 × 10−2 5.00 × 10−2 8.08 × 10−3 5.01 × 10−3 1.16 × 10−1
CO2 3.46 × 102 2.21 × 102 5.19 × 101 3.46 × 101 6.53 × 102
SO2 4.71 × 10−1 1.48 × 102 7.13 × 10−2 4.70 × 10−2 1.49 × 102
N2O 0 5.30 × 10−2 0 0 5.30 × 10−2
NOX 5.07 × 10−1 3.90 × 10−2 7.63 × 10−2 0.051 × 10−2 6.70 × 10−1
CH4 5.00 × 10−3 7.05 × 10−4 1.00 × 10−3 1.01 × 10−3 7.12 × 10−3
Dust 2.12 × 10−1 0 3.20 × 10−2 2.10 × 10−2 2.65 × 10−1
Water pollutants NH+4 2.12 × 10−3 0 2.53 × 10−4 1.69 × 10−4 2.08 × 10−3
Phenol 3.34 × 10−5 0 5.00 × 10−6 3.34 × 10−6 4.17 × 10−5
COD 1.70 × 10−2 0 3.21 × 10−3 0.002 × 10−3 2.10 × 10−2
Suspended matter 3.00 × 10−2 0 4.34 × 10−3 0.003 × 10−3 3.71 × 10−2
Solid pollutants Slag 2.88 × 101 0 4.32 2.88 3.59 × 101
Dust 6.14 0 9.21 × 10−1 6.14 × 10−1 7.67
Mixed industrial Solid 2.31 0 3.46 × 10−1 2.31 × 10−1 2.89
waste

315
C.-k. Gao et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317

Table C2
Environmental impact potential of S wind farm.
Type Unit Manufacturing phase Transport and construction phase Operation and maintenance phase Final disposal phase Total

1 1
GW gCO2-eq/kWh 4.93 × 10 2.49 × 10 7.40 4.94 8.65 × 101
AC gSO2-eq/kWh 8.30 × 10−2 1.48 × 101 1.20 × 10−2 8.00 × 10−3 1.49 × 101
PO gC2H4-eq/kWh 1.66 × 10−3 1.50 × 10−3 2.47 × 10−4 1.57 × 10−4 3.56 × 10−3
HH gSO2-eq/kWh 8.00 × 10−2 1.48 × 101 0 2.00 × 10−2 1.49 × 101
SD g/kWh 6.14 × 10−1 0 9.20 × 10−2 6.10 × 10−2 7.67 × 10−1
SW g/kWh 3.11 0 4.66 × 10−1 3.11 × 10−1 3.89
EU gNO3--eq/kWh 6.80 × 10−2 5.00 × 10−3 1.00 × 10−2 7.00 × 10−3 9.10 × 10−2

Appendix D

See Tables D1 and D2

Table D1
Emission inventory of W wind farm (unit: kg/104 kWh).
Category/pollutants Manufacturing phase Transport and construction Operation and maintenance Final disposal phase Total
phase phase

Atmospheric pollutants CO 4.70 × 10−2 1.00 × 10−3 5.00 × 10−3 7.00 × 10−3 5.90 × 10−2
CO2 1.62 × 102 3.42 × 102 1.62 × 101 2.43 × 101 5.44 × 102
SO2 2.21 × 10−1 2.39 × 102 2.23 × 10−2 3.30 × 10−2 2.39 × 102
N2O 1.52 × 10−1 2.00 × 10−3 1.50 × 10−2 2.30 × 10−2 1.92 × 10−1
NOX 1.47 × 10−1 1.00 × 10−3 1.50 × 10−2 2.20 × 10−2 1.84 × 10−1
CH4 2.00 × 10−3 1.50 × 10−4 2.16 × 10−4 3.24 × 10−4 3.00 × 10−3
Dust 1.00 × 10−3 0 1.29 × 10−4 1.94 × 10−4 2.00 × 10−3
Water pollutants NH4+ 2.58 × 10−5 0 2.58 × 10−6 3.88 × 10−6 3.23 × 10−5
Phenol 1.30 × 10−2 0 1.00 × 10−3 2.00 × 10−3 1.60 × 10−2
COD 2.10 × 10−2 0 2.00 × 10−3 3.00 × 10−3 2.70 × 10−2
Suspended matter 2.21 × 101 0 2.21 3.31 2.76 × 101
Solid pollutants Slag 4.71 0 4.71 × 10−1 7.06 × 10−1 5.88
Dust 1.78 0 1.78 × 10−1 2.67 × 10−1 2.22
Mixed industrial Solid 7.56 × 10−1 0 7.60 × 10−2 1.13 × 10−1 9.45 × 10−1
waste

Table D2
Environmental impact potential of W wind farm.
Type Units Manufacturing phase Transport and construction phase Operation and maintenance phase Final disposal phase Total

GW gCO2-eq/kWh 2.53 × 101 3.43 × 101 2.53 3.80 6.59 × 101

AC gSO2-eq/kWh 3.20 × 10−2 2.39 × 101 3.00 × 10−3 5.00 × 10−3 2.40 × 101
PO gC2H4-eq/kWh 1.42 × 10−4 2.09 × 10−6 1.42 × 10−5 2.13 × 10−5 1.79 × 10−4
HH gSO2-eq/kWh 3.00 × 10−2 2.39 × 101 1.00 × 10−2 1.00 × 10−2 2.40 × 101
SD g/kWh 1.78 × 10−1 0 1.80 × 10−2 2.70 × 10−2 2.22 × 10−1
SW g/kWh 5.46 0 5.46 × 10−1 8.19 × 10−1 6.83
EU gNO3--eq/kWh 2.00 × 10−2 1.07 × 10−4 2.00 × 10−3 3.00 × 10−3 2.50 × 10−2

References emissions reduction in power generation. Energy Convers Manag

[1] Turconi R, Boldrin A, Astrup T. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation
technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;28(8):555–65.
[2] Di X, Nie Z, Yuan B, et al. Life cycle inventory for electricity generation in China. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 2007;12(4):217–24.
[3] China Electricity Council (CEC). List of basic statistics of power statistics in; 2017.
〈http://www.cec.org.cn/yaowenkuaidi/2018-06-14/181767.html〉 [Accessed 14
June 2018].
[4] Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, et al. Recent developments in Life Cycle
Assessment. J Environ Manag 2009;91(1):1.
[5] Hao Y, Zheng Z, Li S. et al. A Case Study of LCA for Environmental Protection in
Steel Company. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on digital manu-
facturing & automation; 2012. p. 13–16.
[6] Luo XL, Zou AQ, Quan CG. A study on the carbon emissions calculation model of
iron and steel products based on EIO-LCA. Appl Mech Mater 2015;713–715:2970–4.
[7] Campbell PK, Beer T, Batten D. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from
microalgae in ponds. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(1):50–6.
[8] Heijungs R, Guinée JB. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Cent
Environ Sci 1992:113–22.
[9] Lombardi L. Life cycle assessment comparison of technical solutions for CO
2003;44(1):93–108.
[10] Zarębska J, Dzikuć M. Determining the environmental benefits of life cycle as-
sessment (LCA) on example of the power industry. Sci J Marit Univ Szczec Zesz
2013.
[11] Dzikuć M, Piwowar A. Life Cycle Assessment as an eco-management tool within the
power industry. Pol J Environ Stud 2015;24(6):2381–5.
[12] Ulhasanah N, Goto N. Sustainable cement production of cement industry by MFA,
LCA and MFCA as a preliminary design of eco-city in Indonesia. In: International
Proceedings of Chemical Biological & Environmental; 2012.
[13] Eide MH. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2002;7(2):115–26.
[14] Revéret JP, Couture JM, Parent J. Socioeconomic of milk production in Canada.
Social life cycle assessment. Singapore: Springer; 2015. p. 25–69.
[15] Pehnt M. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies.
Renew Energy 2006;31(1):55–71.
[16] Caffrey KR, Veal MW, Chinn MS. The farm to biorefinery continuum: a techno-
economic and LCA analysis of ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice. Agric
Syst 2014;130(3):55–66.
[17] Wiedmann TO, Suh S, Feng K, et al. Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to
emerging energy technologies–the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci
Technol 2011;45(13):5900.
[18] Arvesen A, Hertwich EG. Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind

316
C.-k. Gao et al.
power: a review of present knowledge and research needs. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2012;16(8):5994–6006.
[19] Nian V, Chou SK, Su B, et al. Life cycle analysis on carbon emissions from power
generation – The nuclear energy example. Appl Energy 2014;118(1):68–82.
[20] Cavallaro F, Ciraolo L. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a Paraboloidal-Dish Solar
Thermal Power Generation System. In: Proceedings of IEEE international sympo-
sium on environment identities and Mediterranean Area; 2006. p. 260-5.
[21] Tahara K, Kojima T, Inaba A, et al. Reduction in CO2 emission by biomass power
generation with sustainable afforestation - evaluation by LCA. J Jpn Inst Energy
1998;77(5):403–9.
[22] Ribeiro FDM, Silva GAD, Bonilla SH, et al. Life-cycle inventory for hydroelectric
generation: a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 2010;18(1):44–54.
[23] Wang C. Greenhouse Gas Emission of Biomass Power Generation in China: System
Boundary and Results Comparison. Taking stock of industrial ecology – ISIE con-
ference; 2015.
[24] Raadal HL, Gagnon L, Modahl IS, et al. Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from the generation of wind and hydro power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15(7):3417–22.
[25] Bayer P, Rybach L, Blum P, et al. Review on life cycle environmental effects of
geothermal power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26(5):446–63.
317
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 307–317
[26] Varun Bhat IK, Prakash RLCA. of renewable energy for electricity generation sys-
tems—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(5):1067–73.
[27] Sastre CM, González-Arechavala Y, Santos AM. Global warming and energy yield
evaluation of Spanish wheat straw electricity generation – a LCA that takes into
account parameter uncertainty and variability. Appl Energy 2015;154(11):900–11.
[28] Silva DAL, Delai I, Montes MLD, et al. Life cycle assessment of the sugarcane ba-
gasse electricity generation in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;32(32):532–47.
[29] Gao CK, Dong JH, Zhu WG, et al. Environmental load analysis of wind turbines
based on life cycle assessment. J Northeast Univ 2012;33(7):1034–7.
[30] Wang Y, Sun T. Life cycle assessment of CO2, emissions from wind power plants:
methodology and case studies. Renew Energy 2012;43:30–6.
[31] Peng J, Lu L, Yang H. Review on life cycle assessment of energy payback and
greenhouse gas emission of solar photovoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;19(1):255–74.
[32] Bhandari KP, Collier JM, Ellingson RJ, et al. Energy payback time (EPBT) and en-
ergy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:133–41.
[33] Lin L, Zhao D, Li L. Environmental impact analysis of biomass power generation
system based on life cycle assessment. Acta Energ Sol Sin 2008.