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

被引:8
|
作者
Fiaschi, Daniele [1 ]
Manfrida, Giampaolo [1 ]
Mendecka, Barbara [2 ]
Tosti, Lorenzo [3 ]
Parisi, Maria Laura [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florence, Dept Ind Engn DIEF, I-50135 Florence, Italy
[2] Univ Tuscia, Dept Econ Engn Soc & Business Org DEIM, I-01100 Viterbo, Italy
[3] Univ Florence, Ctr Colloid & Surface Sci CSGI, I-50135 Florence, Italy
[4] Univ Siena, Dept Biotechnol Chem & Pharm DBCF, I-53100 Siena, Italy
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
allocation; combined heat and power (CHP); geothermal energy; exergy; life cycle assessment (LCA); primary energy savings (PESs); LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES; ELECTRICITY;
D O I
10.3390/su13084527
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
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 degrees 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.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Advanced ORC architecture for geothermal combined heat and power generation
    Eyerer, Sebastian
    Dawo, Fabian
    Wieland, Christoph
    Spliethoff, Hartmut
    ENERGY, 2020, 205
  • [32] Assessing the Concept of the Final Stage of Construction and Sequence of Completion of Combined Heat and Power Plants.
    Tilgner, Helmut
    Energietechnik, 1979, 29 (03): : 87 - 91
  • [33] Briefing: Combined heat and power plants - a reality?
    Shevloff, Damian
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-ENERGY, 2013, 166 (01) : 3 - 4
  • [34] Combined heat and power plants in a deregulated market
    Malko, Jacek
    Pupka, Józef
    Euroheat and Power/Fernwarme International, 28 (04): : 10 - 12
  • [35] OPTIMIZATION OF COMBINED HEAT AND POWER-PLANTS
    LAMBERT, M
    BRENNSTOFF-WARME-KRAFT, 1984, 36 (7-8): : 307 - 309
  • [36] Evaluating Combined Heat and Power Plants.
    Alefeld, G.
    Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 1988, 40 (06): : 231 - 236
  • [37] Biomass and biogas as an energy source in geothermal hybrid power plants
    Polak, Renata
    Krzykowski, Andrzej
    Dziki, Dariusz
    Rudy, Stanislaw
    PRZEMYSL CHEMICZNY, 2014, 93 (10): : 1773 - 1776
  • [38] BECCS with combined heat and power: assessing the energy penalty (vol 108, 103248, 2021)
    Gustafsson, Kare
    Sadegh-Vaziri, Ramiar
    Gronkvist, Stefan
    Levihn, Fabian
    Sundberg, Cecilia
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL, 2021, 112
  • [39] Performance assessment of new energy-saving schemes for combined heat and power plants
    Wu, Ying
    Chen, Xiaoping
    Dai, Ying
    Liu, Daoyin
    Ma, Jiliang
    Xie, Weiyi
    Chen, Haijun
    Wang, Lei
    Zhu, Yuezhao
    Bi, Xiaotao
    ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT, 2021, 247
  • [40] Comparison of combined heat and power generation
    Rohrer, Anton
    International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 1996, 8 (04): : 319 - 328