IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i9p3616-d1130163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Assessment of Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant based on Exergy Allocation Factors for Heat and Electricity Production

Author

Listed:
  • Maryori Díaz-Ramírez

    (Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption (CIRCE), 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
    Instituto Universitario de Investigación CIRCE, Fundación CIRCE, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Snorri Jokull

    (Reykjavik Energy, Bæjarháls 1, 110 Reykjavík, Iceland)

  • Claudio Zuffi

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Florence, 50134 Firenze, Italy)

  • María Dolores Mainar-Toledo

    (Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption (CIRCE), 50018 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Giampaolo Manfrida

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Florence, 50134 Firenze, Italy)

Abstract

The Hellisheidi geothermal power plant, located in Iceland, is a combined heat and power double-flash geothermal plant with an installed capacity of 303.3 MW of electricity and 133 MW of hot water. This study aimed to elucidate the environmental impacts of the electricity and heat production from this double-flash geothermal power plant. In this vein, firstly, the most updated inventory of the plant was generated, and secondly, a life-cycle assessment approach based on the exergy allocation factor was carried out instead of applying the traditionally used allocations in terms of mass and energy. The functional unit was defined as the production of 1 kWh of electricity and 1 kWh of hot water for district heating. The life-cycle stages included the (i) construction, (ii) operation (including abatement operations and maintenance), and (iii) well closure of the geothermal plant. All of the life-cycle stages from construction to dismantling were considered. Finally, the results on the partitioning of the environmental impact to electricity and heat with exergy allocations showed that most of the impact should be charged to electricity, as expected. Furthermore, the distribution of the environmental impacts among the life-cycle stages determined that the construction stage was the most impactful for the electricity and heat production. This result was attributable to the large consumption of steel that was demanded during the construction of the geothermal power plant (geothermal wells, equipment, and buildings). Impacts due to the abatement stage demonstrated that this stage satisfactorily reduced the total impact attributed to the three life-cycle stages of the geothermal power plant.

Suggested Citation

  • Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri Jokull & Claudio Zuffi & María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Giampaolo Manfrida, 2023. "Environmental Assessment of Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant based on Exergy Allocation Factors for Heat and Electricity Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:9:p:3616-:d:1130163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3616/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/9/3616/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vitantonio Colucci & Giampaolo Manfrida & Barbara Mendecka & Lorenzo Talluri & Claudio Zuffi, 2021. "LCA and Exergo-Environmental Evaluation of a Combined Heat and Power Double-Flash Geothermal Power Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Lorenzo Tosti & Nicola Ferrara & Riccardo Basosi & Maria Laura Parisi, 2020. "Complete Data Inventory of a Geothermal Power Plant for Robust Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment Results," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Frick, Stephanie & Kaltschmitt, Martin & Schröder, Gerd, 2010. "Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2281-2294.
    4. Maryori C. Díaz-Ramírez & Victor J. Ferreira & Tatiana García-Armingol & Ana M. López-Sabirón & Germán Ferreira, 2020. "Battery Manufacturing Resource Assessment to Minimise Component Production Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Patricia Royo & Luis Acevedo & Álvaro J. Arnal & Maryori Diaz-Ramírez & Tatiana García-Armingol & Victor J. Ferreira & Germán Ferreira & Ana M. López-Sabirón, 2021. "Decision Support System of Innovative High-Temperature Latent Heat Storage for Waste Heat Recovery in the Energy-Intensive Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Riccardo Basosi & Roberto Bonciani & Dario Frosali & Giampaolo Manfrida & Maria Laura Parisi & Franco Sansone, 2020. "Life Cycle Analysis of a Geothermal Power Plant: Comparison of the Environmental Performance with Other Renewable Energy Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-29, April.
    7. Marta Ros Karlsdottir & Jukka Heinonen & Halldor Palsson & Olafur Petur Palsson, 2020. "High-Temperature Geothermal Utilization in the Context of European Energy Policy—Implications and Limitations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-27, June.
    8. Maria Laura Parisi & Melanie Douziech & Lorenzo Tosti & Paula Pérez-López & Barbara Mendecka & Sergio Ulgiati & Daniele Fiaschi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Isabelle Blanc, 2020. "Definition of LCA Guidelines in the Geothermal Sector to Enhance Result Comparability," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Maria Milousi & Athanasios Pappas & Andreas P. Vouros & Giouli Mihalakakou & Manolis Souliotis & Spiros Papaefthimiou, 2022. "Evaluating the Technical and Environmental Capabilities of Geothermal Systems through Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-30, August.
    10. Mélanie Douziech & Lorenzo Tosti & Nicola Ferrara & Maria Laura Parisi & Paula Pérez-López & Guillaume Ravier, 2021. "Applying Harmonised Geothermal Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines to the Rittershoffen Geothermal Heat Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-14, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paweł Ziółkowski & Marta Drosińska-Komor & Jerzy Głuch & Łukasz Breńkacz, 2023. "Review of Methods for Diagnosing the Degradation Process in Power Units Cooperating with Renewable Energy Sources Using Artificial Intelligence," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-28, August.
    2. María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri J. Egilsson & Claudio Zuffi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Héctor Leiva, 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant for Heat and Electricity Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Wenxiao Chu & Maria Vicidomini & Francesco Calise & Neven Duić & Poul Alberg Østergaard & Qiuwang Wang & Maria da Graça Carvalho, 2023. "Review of Hot Topics in the Sustainable Development of Energy, Water, and Environment Systems Conference in 2022," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-20, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gkousis, Spiros & Welkenhuysen, Kris & Compernolle, Tine, 2022. "Deep geothermal energy extraction, a review on environmental hotspots with focus on geo-technical site conditions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Daniele Fiaschi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Barbara Mendecka & Lorenzo Tosti & Maria Laura Parisi, 2021. "A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.
    3. María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri J. Egilsson & Claudio Zuffi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Héctor Leiva, 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant for Heat and Electricity Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Vaccari, Marco & Pannocchia, Gabriele & Tognotti, Leonardo & Paci, Marco, 2023. "Rigorous simulation of geothermal power plants to evaluate environmental performance of alternative configurations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 471-483.
    5. Vitantonio Colucci & Giampaolo Manfrida & Barbara Mendecka & Lorenzo Talluri & Claudio Zuffi, 2021. "LCA and Exergo-Environmental Evaluation of a Combined Heat and Power Double-Flash Geothermal Power Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    6. Gkousis, Spiros & Thomassen, Gwenny & Welkenhuysen, Kris & Compernolle, Tine, 2022. "Dynamic life cycle assessment of geothermal heat production from medium enthalpy hydrothermal resources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    7. Lilli Maar & Stefan Seifermann, 2023. "Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Deep Geothermal Heat Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Maria Milousi & Athanasios Pappas & Andreas P. Vouros & Giouli Mihalakakou & Manolis Souliotis & Spiros Papaefthimiou, 2022. "Evaluating the Technical and Environmental Capabilities of Geothermal Systems through Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-30, August.
    9. Maria Laura Parisi & Melanie Douziech & Lorenzo Tosti & Paula Pérez-López & Barbara Mendecka & Sergio Ulgiati & Daniele Fiaschi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Isabelle Blanc, 2020. "Definition of LCA Guidelines in the Geothermal Sector to Enhance Result Comparability," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Lorenzo Tosti & Nicola Ferrara & Riccardo Basosi & Maria Laura Parisi, 2020. "Complete Data Inventory of a Geothermal Power Plant for Robust Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment Results," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    11. Sigurjónsson, Hafþór Ægir & Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Bogason, Sigurður G., 2021. "A life-cycle analysis of deep enhanced geothermal systems – The case studies of Reykjanes, Iceland and Vendenheim, France," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1076-1086.
    12. Mahmoud G. Hemeida & Ashraf M. Hemeida & Tomonobu Senjyu & Dina Osheba, 2022. "Renewable Energy Resources Technologies and Life Cycle Assessment: Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-36, December.
    13. Menberg, Kathrin & Heberle, Florian & Bott, Christoph & Brüggemann, Dieter & Bayer, Peter, 2021. "Environmental performance of a geothermal power plant using a hydrothermal resource in the Southern German Molasse Basin," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 20-31.
    14. Violeta Motuzienė & Kęstutis Čiuprinskas & Artur Rogoža & Vilūnė Lapinskienė, 2022. "A Review of the Life Cycle Analysis Results for Different Energy Conversion Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    15. Qin, Zhen & Ji, Chenzhen & Low, Zheng Hua & Tong, Wei & Wu, Chenlong & Duan, Fei, 2022. "Geometry effect of phase change material container on waste heat recovery enhancement," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).
    16. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Maione, A. & Massarotti, N. & Santagata, R. & Ulgiati, S. & Vanoli, L., 2023. "Integrated environmental accounting of a geothermal grid," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    18. Lohse, Christiane, 2018. "Environmental impact by hydrogeothermal energy generation in low-enthalpy regions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(PB), pages 509-519.
    19. Milousi, Maria & Souliotis, Manolis, 2023. "A circular economy approach to residential solar thermal systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 242-252.
    20. Yang, Ruiyue & Hong, Chunyang & Liu, Wei & Wu, Xiaoguang & Wang, Tianyu & Huang, Zhongwei, 2021. "Non-contaminating cryogenic fluid access to high-temperature resources: Liquid nitrogen fracturing in a lab-scale Enhanced Geothermal System," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(P1), pages 125-138.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:9:p:3616-:d:1130163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.