A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants
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 demo...
Published in: | Sustainability |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 |
id |
ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/13/8/4527/ |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/13/8/4527/ 2023-08-20T04:07:28+02:00 A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants Daniele Fiaschi Giampaolo Manfrida Barbara Mendecka Lorenzo Tosti Maria Laura Parisi agris 2021-04-19 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 EN eng Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Energy Sustainability https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Sustainability; Volume 13; Issue 8; Pages: 4527 allocation combined heat and power (CHP) geothermal energy exergy life cycle assessment (LCA) primary energy savings (PESs) Text 2021 ftmdpi https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 2023-08-01T01:32:07Z 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. Text Iceland MDPI Open Access Publishing Sustainability 13 8 4527 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
MDPI Open Access Publishing |
op_collection_id |
ftmdpi |
language |
English |
topic |
allocation combined heat and power (CHP) geothermal energy exergy life cycle assessment (LCA) primary energy savings (PESs) |
spellingShingle |
allocation combined heat and power (CHP) geothermal energy exergy life cycle assessment (LCA) primary energy savings (PESs) Daniele Fiaschi Giampaolo Manfrida Barbara Mendecka Lorenzo Tosti Maria Laura Parisi A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants |
topic_facet |
allocation combined heat and power (CHP) geothermal energy exergy life cycle assessment (LCA) primary energy savings (PESs) |
description |
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. |
format |
Text |
author |
Daniele Fiaschi Giampaolo Manfrida Barbara Mendecka Lorenzo Tosti Maria Laura Parisi |
author_facet |
Daniele Fiaschi Giampaolo Manfrida Barbara Mendecka Lorenzo Tosti Maria Laura Parisi |
author_sort |
Daniele Fiaschi |
title |
A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants |
title_short |
A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants |
title_full |
A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants |
title_fullStr |
A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants |
title_full_unstemmed |
A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants |
title_sort |
comparison of different approaches for assessing energy outputs of combined heat and power geothermal plants |
publisher |
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 |
op_coverage |
agris |
genre |
Iceland |
genre_facet |
Iceland |
op_source |
Sustainability; Volume 13; Issue 8; Pages: 4527 |
op_relation |
Energy Sustainability https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 |
op_rights |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 |
container_title |
Sustainability |
container_volume |
13 |
container_issue |
8 |
container_start_page |
4527 |
_version_ |
1774719127774035968 |