IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4527-d538933.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants

Author

Listed:
  • Daniele Fiaschi

    (Department of Industrial Engineering (DIEF), University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)

  • Giampaolo Manfrida

    (Department of Industrial Engineering (DIEF), University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)

  • Barbara Mendecka

    (Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization (DEIM), University of Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Lorenzo Tosti

    (Center for Colloid and Surface Science (CSGI), University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy)

  • Maria Laura Parisi

    (Center for Colloid and Surface Science (CSGI), University of Florence, 50135 Florence, Italy
    Department of Biotechnology, Chemistry and Pharmacy (DBCF), University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy)

Abstract

In this paper, we assess using two alternative allocation schemes, namely exergy and primary energy saving (PES) to compare products generated in different combined heat and power (CHP) geothermal systems. In particular, the adequacy and feasibility of the schemes recommended for allocation are demonstrated by their application to three relevant and significantly different case studies of geothermal CHPs, i.e., (1) Chiusdino in Italy, (2) Altheim in Austria, and (3) Hellisheidi in Iceland. The results showed that, given the generally low temperature level of the cogenerated heat (80–100 °C, usually exploited in district heating), the use of exergy allocation largely marginalizes the importance of the heat byproduct, thus, becoming almost equivalent to electricity for the Chiusdino and Hellisheidi power plants. Therefore, the PES scheme is found to be the more appropriate allocation scheme. Additionally, the exergy scheme is mandatory for allocating power plants’ environmental impacts at a component level in CHP systems. The main drawback of the PES scheme is its country dependency due to the different fuels used, but reasonable and representative values can be achieved based on average EU heat and power generation efficiencies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4527-:d:538933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Frangopoulos, Christos A., 2012. "A method to determine the power to heat ratio, the cogenerated electricity and the primary energy savings of cogeneration systems after the European Directive," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 52-61.
    3. Morris, David R. & Szargut, Jan, 1986. "Standard chemical exergy of some elements and compounds on the planet earth," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 11(8), pages 733-755.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Turconi, Roberto & Boldrin, Alessio & Astrup, Thomas, 2013. "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 555-565.
    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.
    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. Martin Nwodo & Chimay J. Anumba, 2021. "Exergy-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Buildings: Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Lilli Maar & Stefan Seifermann, 2023. "Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Deep Geothermal Heat Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    11. Eyerer, S. & Schifflechner, C. & Hofbauer, S. & Bauer, W. & Wieland, C. & Spliethoff, H., 2020. "Combined heat and power from hydrothermal geothermal resources in Germany: An assessment of the potential," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Martínez González, Aldemar & Lesme Jaén, René & Silva Lora, Electo Eduardo, 2020. "Thermodynamic assessment of the integrated gasification-power plant operating in the sawmill industry: An energy and exergy analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(P1), pages 1151-1163.
    13. 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.
    14. Dawo, Fabian & Fleischmann, Jonas & Kaufmann, Florian & Schifflechner, Christopher & Eyerer, Sebastian & Wieland, Christoph & Spliethoff, Hartmut, 2021. "R1224yd(Z), R1233zd(E) and R1336mzz(Z) as replacements for R245fa: Experimental performance, interaction with lubricants and environmental impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    15. Asdrubali, Francesco & Baldinelli, Giorgio & D’Alessandro, Francesco & Scrucca, Flavio, 2015. "Life cycle assessment of electricity production from renewable energies: Review and results harmonization," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1113-1122.
    16. Zheng, Shuxian & Zhou, Xuanru & Tan, Zhanglu & Liu, Chan & Hu, Han & Yuan, Hui & Peng, Shengnan & Cai, Xiaomei, 2023. "Assessment of the global energy transition: Based on trade embodied energy analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    17. Buonocore, Elvira & Vanoli, Laura & Carotenuto, Alberto & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2015. "Integrating life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis for the evaluation of a dry steam geothermal power plant in Italy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 476-487.
    18. Amponsah, Nana Yaw & Troldborg, Mads & Kington, Bethany & Aalders, Inge & Hough, Rupert Lloyd, 2014. "Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources: A review of lifecycle considerations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 461-475.
    19. 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.
    20. Zhang, Ruirui & Wang, Guiling & Shen, Xiaoxu & Wang, Jinfeng & Tan, Xianfeng & Feng, Shoutao & Hong, Jinglan, 2020. "Is geothermal heating environmentally superior than coal fired heating in China?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4527-:d:538933. 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.