Environmental Impact Comparison of Geothermal Alternatives for Conventional Boiler Replacement

Carlos Lorente Rubio, Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz, Juan Carlos Sáenz-Diez Muro, Eduardo Martínez-Cámara (), Agostino Bruzzone and Julio Blanco-Fernández
Additional contact information
Carlos Lorente Rubio: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, Spain
Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz: Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez, Ciudad Juárez 32315, Mexico
Juan Carlos Sáenz-Diez Muro: Department of Electrical Engineering, University of La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, Spain
Eduardo Martínez-Cámara: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, Spain
Agostino Bruzzone: DIME (Department of Mechanical, Energy, Management and Transport Engineering), University of Genoa, Via Opera Pia, 15, 16145 Genova, Italy
Julio Blanco-Fernández: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, 26004 Logroño, Spain

Energies, 2022, vol. 15, issue 21, 1-15

Abstract: In the transition towards a sustainable world with a “green horizon” (something that is also of great importance to the policy of energy self-sufficiency in housing and self-consumption), geothermal energy is seen as quite a feasible alternative for single-family homes. This article focuses on a comparison between the environmental impact and life cycle analysis of three alternatives and provides a base case for the replacement of a conventional type of boiler with a geothermal one for a typical house located in a Mediterranean climate. The first alternative (A) consists of a horizontal catchment system through a field of geothermal probes. The second alternative (B) is a shallow water catchment system, open type, with the return of water to a nearby river. The third option studied (C) is also a shallow water catchment system but with the water, return injected into a well downstream to the underground water flow. The study shows that alternatives A and B have the least environmental impact in most of the categories studied. The total amortization periods for the three alternatives and the base case differ by almost two years, with alternative A taking 6.99 years and alternative C costing 8.82 years.

Keywords: life cycle assessment; environmental impact assessment; sustainable buildings; energy strategy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/21/8163/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/21/8163/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:21:p:8163-:d:960495

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().