Current mobile network architecture is facing a big challenge as the traffic demands have been increasing dramatically these years. Explosive mobile data demands are driving a significant growth in energy consumption in mobile networks, as well as the cost and carbon footprints [1]. In 2010, China Mobile Research Institute proposed Cloud Radio Access Network (C-RAN) [2], which has been regarded as one of the most promising architecture to solve the challenge of operators. In C-RAN, the baseband units (BBU) are decoupled from the remote radio units (RRH) and centralized in one or more locations. The feasibility of combination of implementing the very tight radio coordination schemes and sharing baseband processing and cooling system resources proves to be the two main advantages of C-RAN compared to traditional RAN. More importantly, mobile operators can quickly deploy RRHs to expand and make upgrades to their networks. Therefore, the C-RAN has been advocated by both operators and equipment vendors as a means to achieve the significant performance gains required for 5G [3]. However, one of the biggest barriers has shown up in the deployment of C-RAN as the novel architecture imposes very high capacity requirement on the transport network between the RRHs and BBUs, which is been called fronthaul network. With the implementation of 5G wireless system using advanced multi-antenna transmission (MIMO), the capacity requirement would go further up, as well as the power consumption. One solution has been proposed to solve the problem is to have the baseband functions divided, partially staying with RRHs and other functions would be centralized in BBU pool. Different splitting solutions has been proposed in [4] [5] and [6]. In this thesis work, we choose four different splitting solutions to build four CRAN architecture models. Under one specific case scenario with the fixed number of LTE base stations, we calculate the transport capacity requirement for fronthaul and adopt three different fronthaul technology. The power consumption is calculated by adding up the power utilized by RRHs, fronthaul network and baseband processing. By comparing the numerical results, split 1 and 2 shows the best results while split 2 is more practical for dense cell area, since split 1 requires large fronthaul capacity. The fronthaul transport technology can be decided according to different density of base stations. TWDM-PON shows better energy performance as fronthaul network when the capacity requirement is high, compared to EPON. However, for larger number of BSs, mm-Wave fronthaul is a better solution in terms of energy efficiency, fiber saving and flexibility.