Carbon intensity of electricity: a systematic methodological and quantitative review
電力の炭素原単位：体系的な方法論および定量的レビュー (AI 翻訳)
Camilla Citterio, Nicolò Golinucci, Lorenzo Rinaldi, Matteo Vincenzo Rocco
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
電力の炭素原単位（排出係数）は気候政策や企業のサステナビリティ報告に不可欠だが、データソース間の不一致が課題。本研究はEcoinventやEXIOBASE等多様なデータベースを体系的に比較し、技術・国別の排出係数を調和。直接排出では中程度の一致が見られるが、ライフサイクル全体では大きなばらつきが確認された。分析結果に基づき、透明性の高い選択基準を提示。
English
This systematic review compares electricity emission factors from multiple authoritative sources (Ecoinvent, EXIOBASE, IEA, etc.) for the EU and US. It finds moderate agreement on direct operational emissions but significant variation in full life-cycle carbon intensity. The paper provides selection criteria for transparent carbon accounting, highlighting the need for critical sourcing of emission data to ensure credibility in climate reporting.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJや有報におけるスコープ2排出量算定の信頼性が求められており、排出係数の選択基準を明確にする本レビューは実務に直結する。特に、複数のデータソース間のばらつきを可視化した点は、国内の炭素会計実務においても有用。
In the global GX context
This review is crucial for global carbon accounting standards (GHG Protocol, ISSB, CSRD) as it systematically reveals inconsistencies in electricity emission factors across widely used databases. It provides actionable guidance for practitioners to choose context-appropriate factors, enhancing the credibility of Scope 2 and Scope 3 disclosures.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Useful for researchers in carbon accounting and LCA comparing emission factor databases across different modeling paradigms.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams can use the selection criteria to choose appropriate emission factors for Scope 2 and Scope 3 reporting.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators should note the discrepancies and consider promoting standardization of emission factors.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract The carbon footprint of electricity is a critical metric for climate policy and corporate sustainability reporting, yet its quantification is hampered by a lack of methodological consensus and a fragmented evidence base. This fragmentation reflects a central debate in industrial ecology regarding the consistency and comparability of life-cycle-based emission factors across different modelling paradigms. This study addresses this gap by performing a systematic, quantitative comparison of electricity emission factors from a wide range of authoritative sources, including process-LCA databases (Ecoinvent), environmentally extended input–output tables (EXIOBASE, EMERGING, EORA, GLORIA, GTAP), primary agency data (IEA), and others. We harmonize technology taxonomies and GHG characterization factors to compare technology-level and national-level emission factors for the EU and the US. Our findings indicate that, for technology-specific emission factors, there is a moderate level of agreement regarding direct operational emissions (direct carbon intensity). However, we observe substantial and systematic variation when it comes to full life-cycle carbon intensity. These discrepancies propagate to national-level estimates, where a country’s calculated carbon intensity can significantly vary, solely based on the data source chosen. This paper provides a useful reference to deconstruct and understand such divergences. We operationalize these findings into a set of practical selection criteria that enable analysts and decision-makers to make transparent and context-appropriate choices. We conclude that a more transparent and critical approach to sourcing emission data is fundamental to the credibility of carbon accounting and the broader energy transition.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1007/s44498-026-00148-3first seen 2026-07-26 05:30:46
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。