Systematic review compares emission factors for electricity, highlighting discrepancies in data sources and methodologies.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Citterio et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: