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: | , , , , |
Other Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1196265 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527 |
id |
ftunivsiena:oai:usiena-air.unisi.it:11365/1196265 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivsiena:oai:usiena-air.unisi.it:11365/1196265 2024-06-23T07:54:02+00:00 A comparison of different approaches for assessing energy outputs of combined heat and power geothermal plants Fiaschi D. Manfrida G. Mendecka B. Tosti L. Parisi M. L. Fiaschi, D. Manfrida, G. Mendecka, B. Tosti, L. Parisi, M. L. 2021 ELETTRONICO https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1196265 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527 eng eng info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/wos/WOS:000645347600001 volume:13 issue:8 numberofpages:13 journal:SUSTAINABILITY info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/818242 https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1196265 doi:10.3390/su13084527 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/scopus/2-s2.0-85104984603 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess Allocation Combined heat and power (CHP) Exergy Geothermal energy Life cycle assessment (LCA) Primary energy savings (PESs) info:eu-repo/semantics/article 2021 ftunivsiena https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 2024-06-04T14:10:52Z 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. Article in Journal/Newspaper Iceland Università degli Studi di Siena: USiena air Sustainability 13 8 4527 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Università degli Studi di Siena: USiena air |
op_collection_id |
ftunivsiena |
language |
English |
topic |
Allocation Combined heat and power (CHP) Exergy Geothermal energy Life cycle assessment (LCA) Primary energy savings (PESs) |
spellingShingle |
Allocation Combined heat and power (CHP) Exergy Geothermal energy Life cycle assessment (LCA) Primary energy savings (PESs) Fiaschi D. Manfrida G. Mendecka B. Tosti L. Parisi M. L. A comparison of different approaches for assessing energy outputs of combined heat and power geothermal plants |
topic_facet |
Allocation Combined heat and power (CHP) Exergy Geothermal energy 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. |
author2 |
Fiaschi, D. Manfrida, G. Mendecka, B. Tosti, L. Parisi, M. L. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Fiaschi D. Manfrida G. Mendecka B. Tosti L. Parisi M. L. |
author_facet |
Fiaschi D. Manfrida G. Mendecka B. Tosti L. Parisi M. L. |
author_sort |
Fiaschi D. |
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 |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1196265 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527 |
genre |
Iceland |
genre_facet |
Iceland |
op_relation |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/wos/WOS:000645347600001 volume:13 issue:8 numberofpages:13 journal:SUSTAINABILITY info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/818242 https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1196265 doi:10.3390/su13084527 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/scopus/2-s2.0-85104984603 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527 |
op_rights |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084527 |
container_title |
Sustainability |
container_volume |
13 |
container_issue |
8 |
container_start_page |
4527 |
_version_ |
1802645983363858432 |