Table 4 Quality criteria and DQR values of electricity ELCD datasets

Electricity grid mix (EU27)

ELCD

TeR

1

Modelled as the EU27 technology mix. Each Member State modelled with the own technology mix

1.17

GR

1

Modelled according the most updated EU27 country mix

TiR

1

Ref. year 2009, data from 2006-2010

C

1

100% of impact categories and 95% of reference flows covered

P

2

Sources from national statistics and IEA, relevant flows measured. Elementary flows are quantified

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included, exergetic and market value allocation

Ecoinvent

TeR

1

Modelled as the EU technology mix. Each country modelled with the own technology mix

1.92

GR

2

EU27 are included except Baltic countries. Norway, Switzerland and countries of former state of Yugoslavia are included

TiR

2

Ref. year 2004, data from average production in 2000. Reference period 2000-2002, some references from ‘90s

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

2

References from authoritative sources, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation only in wastes

GEMIS

TeR

1

Modelled as the EU27 technology mix

1.92

GR

1

Modelled according the most updated EU27 country mix (2010)

TiR

2

Ref. year 2010, main data from 2010, some from 2003

C

2

75% of impact categories and 90% of reference flows covered

P

3

Sources are relevant, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation applied but not defined

E3

TeR

3

Modelled as the technology mix, but obsolete (1999)

3.17

GR

4

Electricity mix from 1999 (EU-15)

TiR

2

Ref. year 1999, data from JEC (2007)

C

4

Less than 50% impact categories, 90% flows covered

P

3

Sources are relevant, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation applied but not defined (assumed as GEMIS)

Electricity from hard coal (DE)

ELCD

TeR

1

Both electricity and CHP plants considered, use of technology mix

1.50

GR

2

Domestic production and imports considered, but slightly differences in shares of each country with the reference

TiR

2

Ref. year 2009, data from 2006-2010. Some emission data from ‘90s

C

1

100% of impact categories and 96% of reference flows covered

P

2

References from relevant literature and authoritative sources. Some emission data from outdated and no German conditions studies

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included, exergetic and market value allocation

Ecoinvent

TeR

2

Modelled as an average plant in EU, in German conditions. Infrastructure based in 2 units from ‘80s

2.00

GR

3

Import countries fulfilled, but the share differs to the value in 2000

TiR

2

Ref. year 1993-2000, data from 1991-2004 (mainly from ‘90s)

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

2

Emission from calculated data from power plants (internal document)

M

2

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included but info about treatment of outputs, energy content allocation included (only in hard coal coke)

GEMIS

TeR

3

Modelled as a single plant in Germany

2.50

GR

3

Import countries are the same as the reference, but no share of domestic vs imported hard coal

TiR

2

Ref. year 2005, data from 2001-2009

C

2

75% of impact categories and 90% of reference flows covered

P

2

Sources are authoritative sources, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation applied but not defined

E3

TeR

3

Modelled as a single plant in Germany

3.67

GR

4

Consideration of EU mix of hard coal in 2009 (very different from the German coal imports in 2005)

TiR

3

Ref. year 2005, data from 2001-2009 (plants and mining) and from ‘90s (statistical data)

C

4

Less than 50% impact categories, 90% flows covered

P

3

Sources are relevant, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

5

Cradle-to-gate, EoL not included, allocation not defined (assumed as GEMIS)

Electricity from lignite (DE)

ELCD

TeR

1

Both electricity and CHP plants considered, use of technology mix

1.33

GR

1

Domestic production (only 0.02% imported) and most updated data

TiR

2

Ref. year 2009, data from 2006-2010. Some emission data from ‘90s

C

1

100% of impact categories and 96% of reference flows covered

P

2

References from relevant literature and authoritative sources. Some emission data from outdated and no German conditions studies

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included, exergetic and market value allocation

Ecoinvent

TeR

2

Modelled as an average plant in EU, in German conditions. Infrastructure based in 2 units from ‘80s

1.92

GR

2

Average EU conditions (RER) in lignite mining and power plant

TiR

2

Ref. year 1993-2000 (technology) and 1980-1992 (plants), data from 1991-2004 (mainly from ‘90s)

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

2

Emission from calculated data from power plants (internal document)

M

2

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included but info about treatment of outputs, energy content allocation included

GEMIS

TeR

3

Modelled as single plants in Germany (only one of coal)

2.75

GR

2

Domestic production of lignite, plants sited in Germany

TiR

3

Ref. year 2010, data from 2001-2009

C

2

75% of impact categories and 90% of reference flows covered

P

3

Data comes from Oko Institute reports, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation applied but not defined

E3

TeR

3

Modelled as singles plants in Germany

3.42

GR

2

Domestic production of lignite, plants sited in Germany

TiR

3

Ref. year 2010, data from GEMIS and Ecoinvent (Lausitz plant); Ref. year 1994, data from 1992 (rest of plants)

C

4

Less than 50% impact categories, 90% flows covered

P

4

Sources are relevant (not authoritative sources), but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

4

Cradle-to-gate, EoL not included, allocation not defined (assumed as GEMIS)

Electricity from natural gas (GB)

ELCD

TeR

1

Both electricity and CHP plants considered, use of technology mix

1.50

GR

2

Domestic production and imports considered, but slightly differences in shares of each country with the reference

TiR

2

Ref. year 2009, data from 2006-2010. Some emission data from ‘90s

C

1

100% of impact categories and 96% of reference flows covered

P

2

References from relevant literature and authoritative sources. Some emission data from outdated studies

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included, exergetic and market value allocation

Ecoinvent

TeR

2

Modelled as an average plant in EU, based in a German CHP plant

2.17

GR

4

Only domestic origin, when imports represent 40-50% of raw material in 2009

TiR

2

Ref. year ‘90s, data from ‘90s (statistical reports)

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

2

Emission from calculated data from power plants (internal document) and authoritative sources (IEA)

M

2

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, energy content allocation included in CHPs

GEMIS

TeR

3

Modelled as a single plant

3.33

GR

4

No info of plant location. Roughly 80% of country suppliers are considered. Important increase of Qatar imports not considered (2009-2011)

TiR

4

Ref. year 2010, data from 1994-2003. Data cannot be checked

C

2

75% of impact categories and 90% of reference flows covered

P

4

Data comes from Oko Institute reports, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation applied but not defined

Electricity from nuclear (FR)

ELCD

TeR

1

Modelled as the French technology mix

1.83

GR

2

Some activities of milling and reprocessing refers to US data

TiR

3

Some references are 20 years older than the ref. year (2009)

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

2

Relevant flows measured, other flows taken from literature

M

2

Cradle-to-grave, EoL of intermediate activities is missing

Ecoinvent

TeR

2

Some data extrapolated from Swiss power plants

1.67

GR

2

Infrastructure data from Swiss plants, only 1 uranium supplier

TiR

2

Ref. year 2002, relevant data are more updated than ELCD

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

2

Relevant flows measured, other flows taken from literature

M

1

EoL and allocation also for sub-processes

GEMIS

TeR

2

Referred to French representative plants but not as a mix

3.08

GR

4

Only the modeling of enrichment is correct

TiR

2

(depending on plant) literature comes from 5-15 years before

C

2

75% of impact categories, 90% of flows covered

P

4

Literature data and auto-estimated data

M

4

EoL not modeled, not including infrastructures.

E3

TeR

4

Considering a process scale instead of real plant

4.00

GR

4

Only the modeling of enrichment is correct

TiR

3

Reference year 2000, data from 1994-99

C

4

Less than 50% impact categories, 90% flows covered

P

4

Literature data and auto-estimated data

M

5

Cradle to gate system, EoL and infrastructure lacking

Electricity from hydro power (EU27)

ELCD

TeR

1

Modelled as the EU27 technology mix (run-of-river, storage and pump storage)

1.33

GR

1

Modelled according the EU27 mix

TiR

1

Ref. year 2009, data from 2005-2010

C

1

94% of impact categories and 96% of reference flows covered

P

2

Data of technology issue from authoritative sources, and data of energy consumption and emissions from specific countries

M

2

Cradle-to-grave, EoL of some parts included, allocation not applied

Ecoinvent

TeR

3

Technologies from Swiss and Austrian plants (reservoir and run-of-river) which represent the 5^th and 6^th countries in the ranking of electricity generation in EU

2.50

GR

3

Modelled as Swiss conditions, extrapolated to the average RER

TiR

3

Ref. year 1945-2000, data from 1960-2004

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

3

Technology comes from relevant sources and emissions are extrapolated (main reference is an internal document)

M

2

Cradle to gate system, possibility of EoL is included (in case of dismantling), no info about allocation

GEMIS

TeR

4

Modelled as a generic dam plant

3.67

GR

5

No definition of countries, defined as a ‘generic’ dataset. Several non-European countries are included

TiR

4

Ref. year 2000, data from ‘90s, which collected data from previous years

C

2

75% of impact categories, 90% of flows covered

P

4

Data comes from Oko Institute reports, but no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation might be appropriate but not defined

Electricity from wind power (RER)

ELCD

TeR

1

Modelled the onshore and offshore wind technologies available at the commercial level in Europe

1.17

GR

1

Modelled for RER. Most relevant data related to manufacturing from a EU company which operates in DK, DE, IT, ES, GB, SW, NO (2011)

TiR

1

Ref. year 2008-2011, data from these years

C

1

94% of impact categories and 96% of reference flows covered

P

2

Data from manufacturing companies based on measure controls and literature (authoritative sources)

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included (recycling, energy recovery, landfilling), allocation not applicable (but allocation by energy and mass used in background system)

Ecoinvent

TeR

2

Modelled the onshore and offshore technology mix, but sizes of turbines and capacities are lower than referenced

2.00

GR

3

Dataset represent an average RER but countries are not well represented

TiR

1

Ref. year 2000-2002, data from 1999 and 2001

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

4

Data from manufacturing companies but not possible to check them

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included (recycling, incineration), allocation not applicable

GEMIS

TeR

4

Modelled a generic wind farm (10 turbines/1 MW). Not possible to identify the technologies

3.67

GR

5

A generic dataset cannot be GR for the European context

TiR

4

Ref. year 2000, data from 1992-1993

C

2

75% of impact categories, 90% of flows covered

P

4

Data from manufacturing companies but not possible to check them

M

3

Cradle-to-gate, EoL not included, allocation considered but no info

E3

TeR

3

Modelled two plants: onshore in Germany, and offshore in Denmark

3.17

GR

3

Only 2 countries and the installed EU capacity of wind power is not well represented

TiR

1

Ref. year 2004, data from 2002-2006

C

4

Less than 50% impact categories, 90% flows covered

P

3

Info from real plants in DE and DK, technical descriptions are included, but emission factors are not detailed

M

5

Cradle-to-gate system, lack of info about EoL and allocation

Electricity from biomass (DE)

ELCD

TeR

1

Modelled as a technology mix (both electricity and CHP plants)

1.33

GR

1

Domestic production considered (Germany)

TiR

2

Ref. year 2009, some data older than 2005

C

1

100% of impact categories and 96% of reference flows covered

P

2

Elementary flows from relevant literature (national statistics and official publications), but some of them come from outdated

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included, exergetic and market value allocation

GEMIS

TeR

3

Modelled by a generic type of plant

2.33

GR

1

Domestic production considered (Germany)

TiR

2

Ref. year 2010, data from 1989-2005

C

2

75% of impact categories, 90% of flows covered

P

3

Main data from Oko reports, no info about emission factors or direct emissions

M

3

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not included, allocation applied but not defined

E3

TeR

3

Modelled by a generic type of plant

3.00

GR

1

Domestic production considered (Germany)

TiR

2

Ref. year 2001, data from 1998-2007

C

4

Less than 50% impact categories, 90% flows covered

P

3

References come from GEMIS

M

5

Cradle-to-gate, EoL not included, allocation not defined but assumed as GEMIS

Electricity from photovoltaic (DE)

ELCD

TeR

1

Modelled as a technology mix of different PV technologies

1.17

GR

1

Modelled according a regional specific production in Germany

TiR

1

Ref. year 2009, data from 2005-2009

C

1

94% of impact categories and 95% of reference flows covered

P

1

Data direct from production plants

M

2

Cradle-to-grave, EoL not considered, market allocation applied

Ecoinvent

TeR

2

Modelled as a technology mix based on worldwide average production

1.33

GR

2

Modelled considering production processes in US and Europe, but German production. Some correction factors for adapting data to Swiss and German context

TiR

1

Ref. year 2007, data from 2002-2007

C

1

100% of impact categories and 100% of reference flows covered

P

1

Data mainly from production plants or literature (and personal communications)

M

1

Cradle-to-grave, EoL included, economic allocation considered

GEMIS

TeR

3

Modelled as two types of PV technologies (mono and multi-crystalline)

2.84

GR

1

Modelled as Europe and US markets. German plants considered

TiR

4

Ref. year 2010, data from 1995-2004

C

2

75% of impact categories, 90% of flows covered

P

3

Data mainly from literature but not possible to check the used data

M

3

Cradle-to-gate, EoL not included, allocation applied but not defined

E3

TeR

4

Modelled as one type of technology (multi-crystalline)

4.33

GR

5

Generic power plant, no clear info about its location

TiR

4

Ref. year 1992, data from 1995 and 2002 but not possible to check

C

4

Less than 50% impact categories, 90% flows covered

P

4

Not possible to check references, no info about elementary flows

M

5

Not clear the system boundaries and allocation due to lack of info