technologies competing to provide a given level of demand for energy services. The
solution of the optimisation problem provides potentially useful results, such as
capacity additions, activity levels or material and emissions flows for each technology. TIMES models use simplifying assumptions, such as perfect competition.
Perfectly competitive markets maximise the total surplus, which is an indicator of
social welfare [15]. Thus, although real situations deviate from perfectly competitive markets, the solutions can be used as a benchmark. Deviations from perfect
competition conditions can be studied through specific constraints such as
pre-defined market-shares or myopic foresight [13, 15, 18]. In contrast with
general-equilibrium models, TIMES models assume partial equilibrium, which
means that sectors outside the system’s boundary are assumed not to be affected by
changes in the system. For instance, prices of imports and exports outside the
boundaries of the system are exogenously defined and not determined by the model.
1.2 Advantages of Integrating ESOM and LCA
The advantages can be seen as an improvement in data quality aspects [19, 20].
TIMES models tend to have a relatively limited scope for assessing environmental
burden, often only tracking primary pollutants from operating energy-related
infrastructure [7, 18]. Most of them ignore up-stream emissions associated with
imports [8] or consumption of resources linked to energy use, such as freshwater (of
importance for the growing literature on the so-called water-energy nexus [21, 22]).
Moreover, they lack the detailed impact assessment methodologies used in LCM.
The absence of a comprehensive environmental assessment can result in burden
shifting and fail to identify potential co-benefits of environmental policies. Life
cycle thinking has been instrumental in addressing burden-shifting in the energy
sector [23]. For example, it was through LCA studies that the environmental impact
of biofuels was better understood [23].
TIMES models are also extremely useful for advanced life cycle studies, both for
consequential and attributional approaches. TIMES explicitly model the future
changes in the energy system, one of the major limitations of LCA [22]. The
integration improves the temporal and technological representativeness, completeness and precision of inventories. TIMES also integrates economic considerations,
which are fundamental in decision-making [19].
1.3 Literature Review
The integration challenges identified in this book chapter stem from our efforts
linking the North American TIMES Energy Model (NATEM) with life cycle
inventories (LCIs) [24, 25] and reading of associated literature. The existing
approaches to address these challenges are based on a literature review. To identify
Integrating Energy System Models in Life Cycle Management
251
solution of the optimisation problem provides potentially useful results, such as
capacity additions, activity levels or material and emissions flows for each technology. TIMES models use simplifying assumptions, such as perfect competition.
Perfectly competitive markets maximise the total surplus, which is an indicator of
social welfare [15]. Thus, although real situations deviate from perfectly competitive markets, the solutions can be used as a benchmark. Deviations from perfect
competition conditions can be studied through specific constraints such as
pre-defined market-shares or myopic foresight [13, 15, 18]. In contrast with
general-equilibrium models, TIMES models assume partial equilibrium, which
means that sectors outside the system’s boundary are assumed not to be affected by
changes in the system. For instance, prices of imports and exports outside the
boundaries of the system are exogenously defined and not determined by the model.
1.2 Advantages of Integrating ESOM and LCA
The advantages can be seen as an improvement in data quality aspects [19, 20].
TIMES models tend to have a relatively limited scope for assessing environmental
burden, often only tracking primary pollutants from operating energy-related
infrastructure [7, 18]. Most of them ignore up-stream emissions associated with
imports [8] or consumption of resources linked to energy use, such as freshwater (of
importance for the growing literature on the so-called water-energy nexus [21, 22]).
Moreover, they lack the detailed impact assessment methodologies used in LCM.
The absence of a comprehensive environmental assessment can result in burden
shifting and fail to identify potential co-benefits of environmental policies. Life
cycle thinking has been instrumental in addressing burden-shifting in the energy
sector [23]. For example, it was through LCA studies that the environmental impact
of biofuels was better understood [23].
TIMES models are also extremely useful for advanced life cycle studies, both for
consequential and attributional approaches. TIMES explicitly model the future
changes in the energy system, one of the major limitations of LCA [22]. The
integration improves the temporal and technological representativeness, completeness and precision of inventories. TIMES also integrates economic considerations,
which are fundamental in decision-making [19].
1.3 Literature Review
The integration challenges identified in this book chapter stem from our efforts
linking the North American TIMES Energy Model (NATEM) with life cycle
inventories (LCIs) [24, 25] and reading of associated literature. The existing
approaches to address these challenges are based on a literature review. To identify
Integrating Energy System Models in Life Cycle Management
251