Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Is climate change-centrism an optimal policy making strategy to set

national electricity mixes?
Ian Vázquez-Rowe a,b, Janet L. Reyna c, Samy García-Torres a, Ramzy Kahhat a,⇑
a
Peruvian LCA Network, Department of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 1801 Avenida Universitaria, San Miguel, Lima 32, Peru
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Santiago de Compsostela, Rúa Lope Gómez de Marzoa s/n, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
c
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering, College Avenue Commons, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

 The impact of climate-centric policies on other environmental impacts is uncertain.

 Analysis of changing electricity grids of Peru and Spain in the period 1989–2013.
 Life Cycle Assessment was the selected sustainability method to conduct the study.
 Policies targeting GHG reductions also reduce air pollution and toxicity.
 Resource usage, especially water, does not show the same trends as GHG emissions.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to combat the threat of climate change, countries have begun to implement policies which
Received 22 April 2015 restrict GHG emissions in the electricity sector. However, the development of national electricity mixes
Received in revised form 12 August 2015 should also be sensitive to resource availability, geo-political forces, human health impacts, and social
Accepted 27 August 2015
equity concerns. Policy focused on GHG goals could potentially lead to adverse consequences in other
Available online 9 September 2015
areas. To explore the impact of ‘‘climate-centric” policy making on long-term electricity mix changes,
we develop two cases for Peru and Spain analyzing their changing electricity grids in the period
Keywords:
1989–2013. We perform a Life Cycle Assessment of annual electricity production to catalogue the
Electricity production
GHG emissions
improvements in GHG emissions relative to other environmental impacts. We conclude that policies tar-
Life Cycle Assessment geting GHG reductions might have the co-benefit of also reducing air pollution and toxicity at the
Peru expense of other important environmental performance indicators such as water depletion. Moreover,
Spain as of 2013, both countries generate approximately equal GHG emissions per kWh, and relatively low
emission rates of other pollutants compared to nations of similar development levels. Although
climate-centric policy can lead to some positive environmental outcomes in certain areas, energy
policy-making should be holistic and include other aspects of sustainability and vulnerability.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction include environmental degradation, negative social impacts,

Climate change constitutes a major threat to the stability and
existence of both anthropogenic and ecological systems, and nec-
essarily, countries have shaped a wide range of policies focused
on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1,2]. Beyond GHG
emissions, however, there are many other significant goals that
should not be ignored in energy decision-making. Foremost of
these is human health and safety concerns, such as exposure to
pollutants during energy production [3]. Other important concerns
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ramzy.kahhat@pucp.pe (R. Kahhat).
energy security, and economic stability. Laurent and colleagues
discuss the limitations of carbon footprint as an indicator for
decision-making since decreasing GHG emissions could lead to
negative consequences in other important areas such as impacts
related to toxic emissions [4]. On the other hand, reductions in
GHG emissions have been shown to have environmental
co-benefits [5,6], such as reducing ocean acidification [7], and
may even increase energy security [8]. A central question to be
explored in this article is whether these ‘‘climate-centric” policy
decisions in the energy sector lead to adverse outcomes in other
realms, or whether there are substantial co-benefits.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.121
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116
GHG emissions are closely linked to the production and use of
energy, and changing primary sources of energy will be critical to
the decarbonization of modern economies [9]. Energy consump-
tion worldwide is a leading driver of climate change through heavy
reliance on fossil fuels. The energy sector contributed over 31 mil-
lion tonnes of CO2 in 2011 alone, with 18% of total world energy
being used to produce electricity [10]. Therefore, electricity decar-
bonization has been cited as being a major key to stabilizing GHG
emissions [11,12]. As part of this, most countries will need exten-
sive modifications to their existing electricity mixes. Multiple stud-
ies have explored decarbonization of the electricity sector as a
potential path toward climate change mitigation with varying
conclusions on the feasibility and cost. Studies in California and
Germany show that electricity decarbonization will have to occur
if policy goals of 80% reduction below 1990 GHG emission levels
are to be met [10,13,14]. From an energy return on investment
(EROI) standpoint, renewable energy sources fall much lower than
traditional petroleum-based sources. For example, corn ethanol
hovers around an EROI of 1:1 or potentially even negative (indicat-
ing energy loss from using this source) [15]. EROI is a fundamental
metric for evaluating the feasibility of renewable energy sources,
as sources with lower EROI consume a higher percentage of energy
in the production phase. Investing in these sources could mean
potentially increasing GHG emissions or other negative environ-
mental impacts above alternate source scenarios, especially given
that energy policy decisions have far-reaching and long-term
impacts. A minimum EROI of 3:1 for sustainable development
has even been suggested [16]. Some policies have already began
to subsidize renewable technologies, such as wind and solar
power, which show higher mean EROI values than other renewable
sources of energy [15,17]. Nevertheless, countries such as New
Zealand, which plan to expand their electricity system by 100%
in 2050 using renewables exclusively, plan a reduction in EROI of
nearly 45% [18].
National electricity mixes obtain unique characteristics in
response to resource availability, geo-political conditions, and
long-term resiliency of the supply within each country-context.
The specific definition of energy security has many interpretations
[19], but generally it can be thought of as retaining or quickly
restoring essential system functionality during perturbations such
as disruptions in primary energy supply. As part of this, previous
studies have stressed the importance of system diversity, both in
origin and type of supply [12,20,21]. Japan presents an interesting
case study of energy system resiliency, given its extreme scarcity of
natural resources and dependence on foreign imports [22]. This has
led to a high reliance on nuclear power as well as government
incentives to invest in solar power [23]. Across the world, concerns
have been raised about the long-term availability of petroleum
supply [24], and there is speculation as to whether oil production
has ‘‘peaked” [25]. These supply concerns have also led countries
to diversify electricity production beyond conventional fossil fuel
sources. Much of the world’s oil supply comes from regions that
are politically unstable, creating vulnerability for countries that
use petroleum from these areas as the majority of their supply.
Diversifying countries of origin is one strategy for mitigating the
impact of prospective political disruptions to oil supply. Becoming
self-sufficient in energy production is an alternate route toward
energy stability [26].
The primary goal of this study is to analyze the evolution of
national electricity mixes in response to resource availability,
renewable energy goals, and other political considerations, with
the secondary goal of cataloguing improvements (or digressions)
in GHG emissions compared to other environmental impacts, such
as human respiratory impacts, typically ignored in policy-making.
We do this via two case studies with differing levels of resource
abundance, commitment to renewable energy, as well as unique
109
energy resiliency strategies. We study the changes in electricity
mixes of Spain and Peru between 1989 and 2013 in order to quan-
tify mix sensitivity to policy and market pressures as well as to
look at the environmental consequences of mix changes from a
life-cycle perspective. While previous studies have included
time-series environmental analyses of electricity production, most
lack a holistic perspective by focusing on a limited number of envi-
ronmental dimensions. A series of studies by Greening et al. in the
late 1990s analyzed long-term electricity mix trends with a focus
on the carbon-intensity of the manufacturing sector [27].
Additionally, Steenhof & Fulton [28] investigate the drivers of elec-
tricity mix change in the provinces of the People’s Republic of
China, lining up changes with political and economic conditions,
with a focus on developing future scenarios. There are multiple
reasons that our chosen case studies provide a unique prospective
to climate policy and electricity mix change. Peru and Spain, in
many ways are stark contrasts, providing diverse examples of
system complexity, timing of economic development, resource
availability, energy independence, and Kyoto compliance stipula-
tions. The two countries also have distinct energy development
goals and policies which reflect their unique circumstances.
Altogether, this allows us to cover an important knowledge gap
when it comes to understanding the evolution of electricity pro-
duction in these two countries from an environmental perspective,
as well as draw extrapolate recommendations for a wide-range of
countries under varying conditions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Methodology and scope
A life cycle perspective was selected in this study to monitor the
inter-annual change in the environmental profile of the electricity
sector at a national level. Therefore, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), an
internationally standardized environmental assessment methodol-
ogy was selected to study the changes in the environmental perfor-
mance of the electricity grids in Peru and Spain [29,30]. The
functional unit (FU), which is the mathematical quantification of
the service delivered by the production system [29], was fixed as
1 kWh produced in one year of operation based on the electricity
mix of the specific year under analysis.
The system boundaries for both case studies include the pro-
duction and delivery of high voltage electricity to the grid, includ-
ing the extraction of fuels and raw materials, the processing and
transportation of these fuels/materials, the operation of power
plants and wind/solar farms, the construction/decommissioning
of power plants and supporting infrastructure, and waste disposal.
In addition, it is important to recognize that the energy production
technologies and fuels varied considerably in the analyzed period,
so some technologies have been newly implemented through time
while others have been phased out.
2.2. Selection of case studies
Peru and Spain were selected as case studies based on criteria
which make them sufficiently distinct for a comparative environ-
mental and policy assessment. First, Peru and Spain have had sim-
ilar economic growth patterns, but occurring nearly two decades
apart (see Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Material – SM). For
instance, Spain’s economic expansion and corresponding demand
for electricity occurred in two stages, first during the 1980s when
it entered the European Union, and second in the period 1996–
2008, ending with the World Financial Crisis (WFC) which plunged
Spain into a deep recession that is still on-going. Peru experienced
a similar economic expansion at the turn of the millennia, and the
110 I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116
hydroelectric power system was insufficient to meet the growing
electricity demand. Secondly, while Spain depends on foreign
countries for over 70% of its energy supply, Peru has an energy grid
with a low dependence on external energy sources [31,32].
Although Spain has mitigated its divestment in fossil fuel electric-
ity production through strong investments in the renewable
energy sector, its performance in other energy-intensive sectors,
such as transport, still depends heavily on petroleum-sources.
Finally, Spain, as a developed country, has been obliged to comply
with the Kyoto Protocol since the mid-1990s, whereas Peru, an
emerging nation, still has a flexible roadmap in terms of GHG emis-
sions mitigation [31].
2.3. Data collection
Primary data regarding the composition of the electricity mix in
Spain were obtained from the annual report published by the
Ministry of Industry1 and Red Eléctrica Española (Fig. 1) [33,34]. In
the case of Peru, the data were retrieved from the Ministry of Energy
and Mining and from the US Energy Information Administration
[35,36]. In both cases, the electricity mix was analyzed between
1989 and 2013. This time period was selected based on the fact that
it was the longest timeframe for which the two nations had a com-
parable high level of data quality and availability. In addition, for the
case of Peru, the production of electricity in thermal plants did not
specify the source fuel in the national statistics (see Fig. 1). Hence,
the proportion of electricity production from natural gas, coal and
diesel was estimated based on the installed power across the coun-
try. Regardless, natural gas is by far the main driver of thermal elec-
tricity in the entire nation. Finally, it should be noted that the energy
mix for France and Portugal were also modelled due to the import-
export exchanges between Spain and these neighboring countries
[34].
2.4. Life cycle Inventory
The overall electricity production for both nations is depicted in
Fig. 2 for the period analyzed. In addition, the main energy and
material inputs in terms of variable energy sources are shown in
Table S1 in the SM, referred to the selected FU. Moreover,
Table S2 in the SM refers to the specific unit processes used from
the ecoinventÒ database to model the different energy sources.
Medium voltage electricity used in the electric system was mod-
elled as proposed by Dones and colleagues by adding the following
processes: transformation from high voltage, direct SF6 emissions
to air and electricity losses due to transportation [37]. Background
data were used mainly from ecoinvent 3.01 [38].
2.5. Life cycle impact assessment
This research intentionally includes multiple environmental
indicators beyond climate change in order to offer an integrated
perspective on the changing environmental impacts of electricity
mixes, and thus utilized ReCiPe, an assessment method which sup-
ported this goal. ReCiPe was the chosen assessment method based
on the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC) cri-
teria to assess best practices in individual impact categories in
terms of characterization modelling [39]. While its overall scoring
was not significantly higher than other assessment methods, it
presented a solid rating throughout impact categories, as well as
a comprehensive inclusion of major environmental dimensions
through the use of three damage categories: human health (HH),
1
It should be noted that the Ministry of Industry in Spain has changed name
several times since the beginning of the time period assessed in this study. Its current
name translates to ‘‘Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism”.
ecosystems (Ec) and resources (Re). Both midpoint and endpoint
impact categories were used and the hierachist perspective was
used for both [40]. The selection of the hierarchist method was
used to provide weighted single score environmental values for
each year of assessment, thereby identifying their overall environ-
mental profile. Moreover, this perspective considers the main pol-
icy approaches linked to time horizons (e.g. 100-year horizon for
climate change – CC), which appears to be suitable for the purpose
of the current study. Therefore, it is based on consensus, and is
foreseen in many environmental standards, such as ISO 14040. A
list of all impact categories included in the assessment can be
viewed in Table S3 of the SM.
2.6. Assumptions and limitations
The individual electricity mixes per nation for each year of the
assessment were obtained from governmental agencies. However,
it was not possible to obtain this level of resolution for the changes
in electricity-production technology throughout the period ana-
lyzed. Therefore, technological improvement and improvements
in efficiency were not accounted for in this study, a limitation that
is further deliberated in the discussion section. In fact, all the elec-
tricity production technology is referred to those provided by the
ecoinventÒ datasets, and is thus more reflective of current produc-
tion technologies. This limitation is expected to be the main source
of uncertainty in the study and may affect different energy sources
in a heterogeneous manner. For instance, this issue could affect
results for photovoltaics, a sector that has seen an important tech-
nological race in the past few years.
Beyond the limitations linked to not accounting for technologi-
cal improvements in the analyzed period, we are aware of numer-
ous additional sources of random and epistemic uncertainties that
may skew to some extent the accurateness of the results presented
in this study. For instance, the uncertainties underlying the LCA
assessment method (i.e., ReCiPe), as well as those linked to the
quality and depth of the inventory should all be considered. How-
ever, given the policy-making orientation of this study, we focus in
this dissertation on offering alternative scenarios for decarbonizing
the electricity sector in these two nations based on the current and
future energy potentials observed as a way to push forward policy
formulation. Nevertheless, we do acknowledge that delving further
into the uncertainties of the gathered data would constitute valu-
able future research as a stimulus to improve the sustainability of
the electricity sector and promote continuous evaluation and
improvement of the methods proposed.
3. Results
3.1. Comparative electricity mix changes
Electricity production for Spain has gained complexity
throughout the timeframe analyzed, responding to the demands
of an expanding economy through most of the period. In the
1980s Spain met marginal energy demand through the construc-
tion of nuclear power stations, to complement an essentially
coal-based sector; the 1990s were characterized by stronger
European Union (EU) limitations on the use of lignite and hard coal,
prompting a rapid increase in the use of natural gas. This strategy
was structured based on the necessity of providing a quick
response to increases in electricity demand, while maintaining
energy security despite external dependence [41]. Consequently,
throughout the period 1996–2006, Spain consistently decreased
the use of coal, maintained production in the nuclear sector,
and increased thermal power through natural gas as the main
carrier. However, EU and national policy-making on renewable
 I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116 111

320000 7000

6000

kWh per capita

240000
5000

4000

GWh
160000
3000

2000
80000
1000

0 0

Peru Spain Peru (per capita use) Spain (per capita use)

Fig. 1. Annual electricity production per country and per capita use (1989–2013).

Spain
50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Coal Oil and Natural Gas Hydropower Nuclear

Photovoltaic Wind power Other

Peru
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Fig. 2. Relative contribution of different energy sources to annual electricity production in Spain and Peru (1989–2013).

energy, energy independence and GHG emissions mitigation, in
combination with the vast availability of land in Spain, fostered a
large-scale expansion of certain renewable energies, namely wind
power and, to a lesser extent, photovoltaics, in the past decade
[42].
Peru in the late 1980s was a nation with low household income
and electricity use per capita nearly 10 times lower than in Spain,
although climatic differences via increased heating/cooling loads
partially account for the gap [35]. Internal violence and economic
fragility in the region contributed to a period of stunted economic
growth until the late 1990s. During this time, electricity demand
was mostly met through the extensive hydropower system that
had been developed throughout the 20th century [43]. In 2001,
Peru entered a period of strong economic growth, resembling, in
certain aspects, the economic growth of Spain in the 1980s and
1990s, with an expanding domestic market, growing population
and a boom in the construction sector. These circumstances, which
are still applicable as of today, have led to an electricity grid that is
currently supplying 300% of the levels in 1990 and 200% of those in
2000. Interestingly, the same energy carrier, i.e., natural gas, has
been the energy source used in the Peruvian context to supply
increasing energy demand, to the point that by 2013 natural gas
was supplying 47% of the total electricity consumed in the nation
[44].
112 I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116
3.2. Environmental profile of the Spanish electricity sector (1989–
2013)
Despite the substantial shift in the portfolio of the electricity
mix during the 1990s, the environmental impacts linked to the
production of 1 kWh remained fairly constant until 2005 (Fig. 3),
with main variations attributable to changes in contribution from
the different energy sources. The reductions in environmental
impacts linked to a lower reliance on coal were off-set by an
increase in production from natural gas. However, starting in
2006 a steady and intense reduction in most environmental
impacts began which can be linked to multiple factors. First, the
increase in wind power to comprise close to 20% of total electricity
production (from 0% in 1996) has contributed to a substantial
reduction in GHG emissions, water use and all the impacts linked
to air pollution, such as photochemical oxidant formation (POF)
and particulate matter formation (PMF). Secondly, a series of poli-
cies at a European and national level have restricted the type and
quality of coal that can be used in power plants, especially in terms
of sulfur content, which has significantly reduced emissions linked
to POF and PMF. The steady growth of other renewable sources,
mainly photovoltaics, has created a solid network of decarbonized
energy sources that also contribute modestly to a lower aggregate
environmental impact. Finally, it should be noted that the World
Financial Crisis (WFC), which hit Spain considerably in the period
2008–2014, also allowed shifts in energy production sources to
be more noticeable thanks to dwindling electricity demand
[33,34]. The combination of these factors lead to a reduction of
the environmental profile from 53.4 mPt in 2005 to 33.9 mPt in
2013 (a 37% decrease), which is most noticeable in impact cate-
gories such as terrestrial acidification ( 43%) or PMF ( 42%), while
climate change ( 39%) figures in a mid-range. Conversely, as dis-
cussed in more detail in the discussion, the use of resources, espe-
cially water (+66%) and metals (+59%), does not display this
decreasing trend (see Fig. 4).
From a global environmental perspective, the combination of
stagnant electricity demand, as well as the higher presence of
renewables in the grid, has managed to actually reduce the overall
environmental impacts of electricity generation. For instance, in
2013, 55.2 millions t of CO2 eq. were avoided with respect to
2007, despite the fact that overall electricity consumption was
approximately 275.000 GWh in both years. While the scope of this
study was limited up to 2013, the evolution of the electricity grid
in 2014 suggests that avoided emissions would be even higher in
the latter period [34].
3.3. Environmental profile of the Peruvian electricity sector (1989–
2013)
Peruvian electricity production in the 1990s was characterized
by an extremely low normalized environmental impact per kWh
produced. For example, in years of heavy rainfall, such as 1994 or
2001, in which hydropower accounted for over 85% of the total
electricity produced, the single score endpoint impacts were 13.2
and 15.8 mPt per 1 kWh produced, respectively. However, around
the turn of the millennia, in line with strong economic growth,
the environmental profile of the electricity mix started to increase
rapidly until a value of 39.7 mPt was reached in 2013, mainly due
to a higher use of fossil fuels (i.e., natural gas), which have higher
impacts in terms of resource use (except water) and emissions in
terms of climate change (CC), POF or PMF. For instance, GHG emis-
sions per kWh were up to 331 g CO2 eq. by 2013 compared to 183 g
CO2 eq. in 1989, whereas the water depletion (WD) impact cate-
gory decreased from 0.023 m3 in 1989 to 0.016 m3 in 2013.
When evaluating the total impacts of the electricity production
sector in Peru, the shifts in the environmental profile imply that
GHG emissions suffered a fivefold increase in the period analyzed,
which translates into 11.9 million t of additional CO2 eq. emissions
per year. Most of the remaining impact categories, except for WD,
also experience an increasing trend during the time period ana-
lyzed. However, only the depletion of fossil fuels has an increase
comparable to that of CC.
4. Discussion
This comparative study presents two distinct approaches taken
by nations with different overall political, economic and energy
characteristics. Peru, an emerging economy with an abundant
hydropower potential and domestic natural gas reserves, virtually
unexploited new-generation renewable resources (i.e., solar and
wind power), and no binding international commitments on GHG
emissions mitigation, has elected to use fossil fuels to support
growing domestic demand of electricity. Overall, this current sce-
nario results in increasing environmental consequences in a wide
range of impact categories, although still somewhat mitigated by
the carbon-free hydropower sector. On the other hand, Spain, a
developed country with compulsory GHG emission commitments
in international treaties, and with primary energy deficit and inse-
curity, has lowered its overall electricity environmental profile in
the past decade through the diversification of its energy matrix
and primary energy importations.
The advancement of Spain toward a more environmentally
sustainable electricity mix has been achieved through numerous
policies in the late-1980s and mid-1990s. These policies expanded
the sources, reduced energy insecurity and, ultimately, complied
with current Kyoto and EU GHG emission thresholds [45].
Nevertheless, these substantial changes in the way Spain meets
electricity demand have taken several decades to materialize and
have been accompanied by higher electricity tariffs and customer
prices [33]. Despite the strong improvement in the environmental
profile of electricity generation in Spain, there are still important
questions on future production scenarios. A potential period of
renewed economic expansion as well as recent policies limiting
the subsidies that should be injected into the renewable energy
sector are just some of the variables that create uncertainty in
the future improvement of the environmental performance of
Spanish electricity production [42].
In contrast to the long-term Spanish energy plan, Peruvian
energy governance has been highly dependent on changing politi-
cal views and interests, rather than on a long term national strat-
egy [46]. This is visible in Fig. 5, where a comparison between
the two countries is provided based on the sustainability of the
marginal increase in electricity production/demand. While Spain
has managed to reduce the carbon emissions of additional electric-
ity production into the grid in the past decade, Peru has met
increased demand through the proliferation of fossil fuels. In addi-
tion, Peruvian public policies have tended to emphasize, in a dis-
jointed manner aspects related to energy equity, security, and
profitability rather than environmental performance. Nevertheless,
in 2010 the Peruvian government voluntarily signed onto the
Copenhagen Accord in order to commit to take action in three
specific issues of Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol: zero deforestation
by 2021, one third of total energy arriving from renewable sources
in 2020 and to lower GHG emissions from solid waste [47]. While
only one of these commitments is directly related to the energy
sector, this portfolio coincides with national legislation that
intends to set the general structure to ‘‘satisfy the national [energy]
demand in a trustful, regular, continuous and efficient manner,
promoting sustainable development” [48]. However, bearing in
mind that renewable energy currently represents approximately
25–28% of the energy matrix, reaching one third of total energy
 I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116 113

Endpoint Score (mpt)

Fig. 3. ReCiPe endpoint single score results per damage category and nation for annual electricity production (1989–2013). Data referred to the functional unit: 1 kWh.

(a) Climate Change (CC)

1.8E+08 700

1.6E+08 600
1.4E+08
500
1.2E+08

g CO2 eq
400
t CO2 eq

1.0E+08
300
8.0E+07
6.0E+07 200

4.0E+07 100
2.0E+07
0
1989
1990

1996

1998

2001

2003

2005

2007
2008
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995

1997

1999

2002

2009

2011
2000

2004

2006

2010

2012
2013
0.0E+00
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Peru (total impact) Spain (total impact) Peru (per FU) Spain (per FU)

(b) Water Depleon (WD)

1.0E+04 0.03

0.03
1.0E+03
0.02
m3
hm3

1.0E+02 0.02

0.01

1.0E+01
0.01

0.00
1.0E+00
1990
1989

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

2008
2007

2009
2010
2011
2012
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2013

Peru (total impact) Spain (total impact) Peru (per FU) Spain (per FU)

Fig. 4. Comparative environmental impacts between countries for selected impact categories (1989–2013): (a) climate change; (b) water depletion. Data referred to the
functional unit: 1 kWh.

arriving from renewables (including hydropower) does not appear
as a very ambitious target [49].
In addition, the Peruvian case also underlines the importance of
social consensus in defining a sustainable energy matrix [50]. For
instance, the development of Peru’s hydropower potential has
been weakened, in a similar way to mining, by an increasing social
concern on the environmental and socio-cultural impacts associ-
ated with hydropower construction and operation such as the dis-
placement of people, difficulties in river navigation, and alteration
of traditional customs [51]. Interestingly, the increase of natural
gas-fired power plants has not shown comparable level of social
opposition.
Despite the distinct development paths and generation profiles
of Peru and Spain’s respective electricity grids, both systems have a
relatively low environmental impact per unit of electricity
produced. The GHG emissions in the final years of the time period
analyzed for both nations is better than in other countries with
similar income or human development profiles. In the case of
Spain, CO2 eq. emissions per FU were found to be considerably
lower than those for Portugal (611 g CO2 eq.) or Italy (634 g CO2
eq.), which demonstrates essentially a higher level of decarboniza-
tion in the sector. The Peruvian electricity mix, on the other hand,
shows a better environmental profile than that of Mexico (571 g
CO2 eq. per kWh), which is mainly attributable to the high
fossil-dependence in Mexico [52]. Paradoxically, the Energy
Sustainability Index (ESI) developed by the World Energy Council
ranks the environmental sustainability (one of the three assessed
dimensions leading to ESI) of the Peruvian energy sector 43rd
globally, while Spain sits slightly higher at 23rd, but still behind
countries that have higher GHG emissions per unit of electricity
produced, such as Portugal or Brazil [53]. This raises the question
of whether the index is sufficient to understand the state of
114
1000
500
0
1989-2013 1989-1995 1996-2003
Δ g CO2 eq./ΔkWh
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
Spain Peru
250
200
150
Δ g CO2 eq./Δ $ GDP
100
50
0
1989-2013 1989-1995 1996-2003
-50
-100
-150
-200
Fig. 5. Average change in environmental impact per (a) additional unit of electric
energy produced (i.e., 1 kWh) and (b) additional monetary unit in terms of GDP, in
different time frames for climate change. Please note that in this case, 1 kWh of
increase in production is not equivalent to the production of 1 kWh, which is the FU
in the current study.
environmental sustainability within a nation and motivate advanc-
ing energy efficiency measures and the implementation of best
practices, or whether a life-cycle quantitative perspective would
actually provide the index with a more holistic picture of the envi-
ronmental sustainability of energy in each country and informa-
tion on which environmental consequences are the most severe.
Although a climate change-oriented approach offers many ben-
efits, it may be fair to state that it could be myopic for disregarding
other important environmental dimensions. To address this, our
LCA demonstrates that climate-centrism is also useful in lowering
the impacts of other dimensions; mainly those related to air qual-
ity and toxicity (see Fig. S2 in the SM). In contrast, other impact
categories, mainly linked to land use or resources other than fossil
fuels (i.e. water and metals), have shown slight increases under
climate-centric policy.
Water, a resource that is usually underrepresented in many LCA
studies [54], is one of the major concerns for international energy
authorities or observers, such as the WEC, the International Energy
Association (IEA) or the World Bank [55–57]. In the case of Latin
America, for instance, the IEA forecasts a fivefold increase in energy
consumption in the region, which would translate into three times
as much water needed, increasing pressure on water resources
[55,56]. In addition, most countries worldwide are expected to suf-
fer the consequences from changes in rainfall patterns, adding to
water insecurity through prolonged droughts, reduced potential
of water transport and desalination plants and increased average
temperatures, which implies an augmentation in the amount of
energy needed to meet energy demand for cooling.
Reliance upon water for electricity generation in hydroelectric
or steam-turbine systems introduces an inherent vulnerability to
water scarcity. While water is an essential resource in most energy
generation processes, wind power and photovoltaics present min-
imal impacts in terms of the energy–water conundrum. Although
wind and solar irradiation are bound to suffer the consequences
I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116
of CC, these changes are expected to be minor as compared to
water scarcity and insecurity. This situation suggests that countries
such as Peru (important risks have also been identified in Brazil, Sri
2004-2013
Lanka or China), in a similar way to the infrastructure developed by
Spain in the past decade (and recently implemented by other
nations, such as Germany or the United States), should benefit
from available land space to develop an electricity production
infrastructure based on diversification, as well as on low-carbon
and low-water use in order to maintain its high energy security fig-
ures [58].
Furthermore, Spain’s wind power potential is yet to be fully
developed, although over 23.000 MW is currently in use across
the country (REE, 2014). Despite Peru’s lack of investment in wind
power, its total potential is estimated in 22.000 MW, which could
potentially meet the majority of the current electricity demand
in the nation [35].
Current hydropower installations in Peru already account for an
important source of electricity generation, which may constitute to
a certain extent a barrier, together with the abundance of natural
gas yet to be exploited, in the definition of new energy sources
2004-2013 for which technology and in situ qualified labor are still lacking.
However, according to the Stern Review [59], Peru’s climate is clas-
sified as one of the most vulnerable across the globe, an issue that
could affect the energy security that the hydropower sector had
provided for decades, based on forecasts for more erratic and dwin-
dling rainfall. Furthermore, besides climatic vulnerability, strategic
vulnerability of gas supply from the Amazon remains an unat-
tended issue, since the existence of one single pipeline toward
the populated and productive areas of the country implies elevated
risks in terms of energy security [60].
Regardless of the specific level of advancement in different
nations, society as a whole is currently facing a transition in its
energy matrix. While reducing reliance on fossil fuels is desirable
for many countries, there are still technological, economic, and
social barriers to overcome. A clear example has been the expan-
sion of biofuels in many nations, which were initially expected to
translate into GHG emission savings, but subsequent research
proved through time that the indirect land use changes of these
new systems were actually worsening GHG emissions and causing
food-scarcity issue in most cases [61–64]. The implications on all
dimensions of energy and electricity-related shifts, which have
only been discussed marginally in this article, should be analyzed
in depth to evaluate the risks in terms of energy equity and
increasing electricity rates. For instance, a recent Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change report showed that global atmo-
spheric carbon dioxide emissions experienced a major increase in
2013, forecasting a rapid growth to the 450 ppm threshold by
2030 [65,66]. This result intensifies the pressure on society to
lower its carbon emissions. In fact, practically all nations of the
world have committed by signing the Lima Call for Climate Action
in late 2014 to mitigate their GHG emissions through intended
nationally determined contributions (iNCDs) which will be pre-
sented at the COP21 in Paris. The intended future enforcement of
these iNCDs is expected to become an important milestone in the
battle against global warming, by engaging a wide majority of
nations in examining the most appropriate opportunities to gener-
ate changes in human society that may trigger high GHG emissions
mitigation potential [67]. However, future applications of geo-
engineering2 or climate engineering are stimulating academic and
policy discussions, a situation that could trigger what is known as
‘‘carbon lock-in”, reducing the relative importance of the balance
of carbon emissions [68].
2
Geo-engineering was defined by the United Kingdom Royal Society in 2009 as the
‘‘deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract
anthropogenic climate change” [69,70].
 I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116
5. Conclusions
This study concludes that climate-centric policy-making for
national electricity mixes can lead to substantial environmental
co-benefits, but it is not sufficient on its own to ensure environ-
mental or social sustainability. In the cases of Peru and Spain,
decreases in GHG emissions from the electricity sector corre-
sponded to positive improvements in toxicity, fossil fuel use, and
air quality. However, several indicators in this study actually
increased in response to declining GHG emissions; of particular
concern are water resources, because of the strong
co-dependence of energy and water systems (i.e. the water-
energy nexus). For Latin America in particular, this could also
introduce vulnerability into the energy supply as climate change
could lead to reduced water availability, exacerbating water
demand issues for energy production. This study indicates that
Peru could mitigate some of this water availability vulnerability
by further exploiting the available wind and solar generation
potential.
Beyond Peru and Spain, countries incorporating climate change
mitigation targets into policy should be cognizant of other environ-
mental and social impacts from electricity production and seek to
develop policies that balance a wide array of human health and
equity concerns. Although GHG targets are vitally important to
mitigating potentially devastating climate change impacts on
human and environmental health, these must be appropriately
weighed against other impacts, and a nuanced understanding of
local resources and constraints must be incorporated for each con-
text. For the most recent years, Peru and Spain both have relatively
low GHG emissions per unit of generation compared to other coun-
tries of similar development levels, so there is potential to apply
some of the ‘‘lessons learned” on energy stability and
de-carbonization to other nation’s contexts. Moving forward, find-
ing more effective ways to communicate these complexities and
trade-offs in energy technology beyond a single environmental
objective will become an imperative area of research to support
this level of informed decision-making.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank M.S. Pedro Villanueva-Rey, M.S.
Yago Lorenzo-Toja, M.S.E. Andrew Fraser, and Óscar Ysla for
valuable scientific exchange, as well as SwissContact for valuable
scientific support. Dr. Ian Vázquez-Rowe would like to thank the
Galician Government for financial support (I2C postdoctoral stu-
dent grants program). This material is based upon work supported
by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
under Grant No. DGE-1311230. Any opinion, findings, and conclu-
sions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.
08.121.
References
[1] Foidart F, Oliver-Solá J, Gasol C, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J. How important are
current energy mix choices on future sustainability? Case study: Belgium and
Spain—projections towards 2020–2030. Energy Policy 2010;38(9):5028–37.
[2] IEA, I. E. A. Energy balances of OECD countries; 1960–2005.
[3] Treyer K, Bauer C, Simons A. Human health impacts in the life cycle of future
European electricity generation. Energy Policy 2014;74(S1):S31–44.
115
[4] Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ. Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator
of environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46(7):4100–8.
[5] Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K, Paul A, Toman M, Bloyd C. Ancillary benefits
of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation
policies in the electricity sector. J Environ Econ Manage 2003;45(3):650–73.
[6] Rockström J, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Hoff H, Rost S, Gerten D. Future water
availability for global food production: the potential of green water for
increasing resilience to global change. Water Resour Res 2009;45(7).
[7] Schnoor JL. Ocean acidification: the other problem with CO2. Environ Sci
Technol 2014;48(18):10529–30.
[8] Grubb M, Neuhoff K. Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions
trading scheme: policy overview. Clim Policy 2006;6(1):7–30.
[9] Fursch M, Hagspiel S, Jägemann C, Nagl S, Lindenberger D, Tröster Eckehard.
The role of grid extensions in a cost-efficient transformation of the European
electricity system until 2050. Appl Energy 2013;104:642–52.
[10] IEA. International Energy Agency. I. E. A. Annual Report; 2013.
[11] Williams JH, DeBenedictis A, Ghanadan R, Mahone A, Moore J, Morrow WR,
et al. The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: the
pivotal role of electricity. Science 2012;335(6064):53–9.
[12] Gouveia JP, Dias L, Martins I, Seixas J. Effects of renewables penetration on the
security of Portuguese electricity supply. Appl Energy 2014;123:438–47.
[13] Nagl S, Fürsch M, Paulus M, Richter J, Trüby J, Lindenberger D. Energy policy
scenarios to reach challenging climate protection targets in the German
electricity sector until 2050. Utilities Policy 2011;19(3):185–92.
[14] Lechtenböhmer S, Samadi S. Blown by the wind. Replacing nuclear power in
German electricity generation. Environ Sci Policy 2013;25:234–41.
[15] Gupta AK, Hall CA. A review of the past and current state of EROI data.
Sustainability 2011;3(10):1796–809.
[16] Hall CA, Balogh S, Murphy DJ. What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable
society must have? Energies 2009;2(1):25–47.
[17] Saidur R, Ahamed J, Masjuki H. Energy, exergy and economic analysis of
industrial boilers. Energy Policy 2010;38(5):2188–97.
[18] Walmsley MRW, Walmsley TG, Atkins MJ, Kamp PJJ, Neale JR. Minimising
carbon emissions and energy expended for electricity generation in New
Zealand through to 2050. Appl Energy 2014;135:656–65.
[19] Jansen JC, Seebregts AJ. Long-term energy services security: what is it and how
can it be measured and valued? Energy Policy 2010;38(4):1654–64.
[20] Stirling A. Diversity and ignorance in electricity supply investment: addressing
the solution rather than the problem. Energy Policy 1994;22(3):195–216.
[21] Cerovac T, Cosic B, Pukšec T, Duic N. Wind energy integration into future
energy systems based on conventional plants – the case study of Croatia. Appl
Energy 2014;135:643–55.
[22] Zhang WJ, Lin Y. On the principle of design of resilient systems–application to
enterprise information systems. Enterprise Inform Syst 2010;4(2):99–110.
[23] Takase K, Suzuki T. The Japanese energy sector: current situation, and future
paths. Energy Policy 2011;39(11):6731–44.
[24] Aleklett K, Höök M, Jakobsson K, Lardelli M, Snowden S, Söderbergh B. The
peak of the oil age–analyzing the world oil production reference scenario in
world energy outlook 2008. Energy Policy 2010;38(3):1398–414.
[25] Hughes L, Rudolph J. Future world oil production: growth, plateau, or peak?
Curr Opin Environ Sust 2011;3(4):225–34.
[26] Fant C, Schlosser A, Strzepek K. The impact of climate change on wind and
solar resources in southern Africa. Appl Energy 2015. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.042.
[27] Greening L, Greene DL, Difiglio C. Energy efficiency and consumption—the
rebound effect—a survey. Energy Policy 2000;28(6):389–401.
[28] Steenhof PA, Fulton W. Scenario development in China’s electricity sector.
Technol Forecast Soc Chang 2007;74(6):779–97.
[29] ISO. ISO 14040 – environmental management – life cycle assessment –
principles and framework. Geneva, CH: International Organization for
Standardization; 2006.
[30] ISO. ISO 14044 – environmental management – life cycle assessment –
requirements and guidelines. Geneva, CH: International Organization for
Standardization; 2006.
[31] Wieland P. From Kyoto to Quito: reassessing oil moratorium as an effective
climate change policy from a property-based approach. Ky J Equine Agric & Nat
Resour L 2011;4:93.
[32] EUROSTAT. European Commission; 2014. <epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu>.
[33] MINETUR. Minsitry of Energy, Industry and Tourism. The reform of the Spanish
power system: towards financial stability and regulatory certainty; 2014.
<www.thespanisheconomy.com>.
[34] REE. Red Eléctrica Española; 2014. <www.ree.esg> [in Spanish].
[35] MINEM. Ministerio de Energía y Minas, P., Ministerio de Energía y Minas,
Balance Nacional de Energía; 2014 [in Spanish].
[36] EIA. US Energy Information Administration. Country data for Peru; 2014.
<http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=PE>.
[37] Dones R, Bauer C, Bolliger R, Burger B, Heck T, Röder A, Scherrer P, Faist M,
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Tuchschmid M. Life Cycle Inventories of Energy
Systems: Results for Current Systems in Switzerland and other UCTE countries.
ecoinvent Report No. 5. ecoinvent 2007. ecoinvent Centre. Swiss Centre for Life
Cycle Inventories; 2007. <www.ecoinvent.ch>.
[38] ecoinventÒ Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2014. <www.ecoinvent.
ch>.
[39] Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, et al.
Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle
impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2013;18(3):683–97.
116 I. Vázquez-Rowe et al. / Applied Energy 159 (2015) 108–116
[40] Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R.
ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises
harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; 2009.
[41] Costantini V, Gracceva F, Markandya A, Vicini G. Security of energy supply:
comparing scenarios from a European perspective. Energy Policy 2007;35
(1):210–26.
[42] Rojas A, Mañueco P. The reform of the Spanish electricity system. Spanish Econ
Financ Out 2014;3(2).
[43] ESMAP. Energy sector management assistance program. Peru: Opportunities and
Challenges of Small Hydropower Development; 2011 [Formal report 340/11].
[44] Dammert A, Gallardo J, García R. Reformas estructurales en el sector eléctrico
peruano; 2005 [in Spanish].
[45] ICCG. International Center for Climate Governance. The state of compliance in
the kyoto protocol. ICCG Reflection No. 12/2012; 2012.
[46] Gamboa C, Cueto V. Hace dos décadas el Perú, D., MARCO REGULATORIO DE
LAS INVERSIONES Y CONSTRUCCIÓN DE HIDROELÉCTRICAS EN EL PERÚ. EL
OTRO PERITAJE 2013, 19; 2013 [in Spanish].
[47] UNFCCC, 2010. United nations framework convention on climate change.
Report of the conference of the parties on its fifteenth session, held in
copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 [30 March
2010).
[48] Perú, G.d. Política Nacional Energética del Perú, para el período 2010–2040;
2010 [in Spanish].
[49] CEPLAN. Centro Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico. Proyecciones de la
Matriz Energética al Largo Plazo. Documento de Trabajo #12; 2011, ISBN: 978-
612-46106-4-6 [in Spanish].
[50] Wilbanks TJ, Kates RW. Beyond adapting to climate change: embedding
adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Ann Assoc Am Geogr
2010;100(4):719–28.
[51] Kumar A, Schei T, Ahenkorah A, Cáceres Rodríguez R, Devernay JM, Freitas M,
et al. Hydropower. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K,
Matschoss P, Kadner S, et al., editors. IPCC special report on renewable energy
sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York (NY, USA): Cambridge University Press.
[52] Santoyo-Castelazo E, Gujba H, Azapagic A. Life cycle assessment of electricity
generation in Mexico. Energy 2011;36(3):1488–99.
[53] WEC. World Energy Council. Sustainability index; 2014. <http://
www.worldenergy.org/data/sustainability-index/>.
[54] Berger M, Finkbeiner M. Water footprinting: how to address water use in life
cycle assessment? Sustainability 2010;2(4):919–44.
[55] WEC. World Energy Council. Regional energy integration in Latin America and
the Caribbean. Executive Summary; 2008.
[56] IEA. International Energy Agency. Annual report; 2012.
[57] Rodríguez DJ, Delgado A, DeLaquil P, Sohns A. Thristy energy. Water papers.
Washington, DC, USA: World Bank; June 2013.
[58] Sovacool BK, Mukherjee I. Conceptualizing and measuring energy security: a
synthesized approach. Energy 2011;36:5343–55.
[59] Stern Review. The economics of climate change; 2014. <http://
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/
sternreview_index.htm>.
[60] MINEM. Ministerio de Energía y Minas; 2014. <www.minem.pe> [in Spanish].
[61] Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, et al. Use
of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions
from land-use change. Science 2008;319(5867):1238–40.
[62] Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM. Effects of US
maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating
market-mediated responses. Bioscience 2010;60(3):223–31.
[63] Michel H. Editorial: the nonsense of biofuels. Angew Chem Int Ed 2012;51
(11):2516–8.
[64] Vázquez-Rowe I, Marvuglia A, Rege S, Benetto E. Applying consequential LCA
to support energy policy: land use change effects of bioenergy production. Sci
Total Environ 2014;472:78–89.
[65] Le Quere C, Peters GP, Andres RJ, Andrew R, Boden TA, Ciais P, et al. Global
carbon budget 2013. Earth Syst Sci Data 2014;6(1):235–63.
[66] Global Carbon Project. An annual update of the global carbon budget and
trends; 2014. <www.globalcarbonproject.org>.
[67] Lima Call for Climate Action; 2014. <https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/lima_
dec_2014/application/pdf/auv_cop20_lima_call_for_climate_action.pdf>.
[68] Cairns RC. Climate geoengineering: issues of path-dependence and socio-
technical lock-in. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev: Clim Change 2014;5(5):649–61.
[69] Geoengineering the Climate. Science, governance and uncertainty. London:
Royal Society; 2009.
[70] Keith D. Geoengineering the climate: history and prospects. Annu Rev Energy
Env 2000;25:245–84.