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

Daniele Fiaschi, Giampaolo Manfrida, Barbara Mendecka, Lorenzo Tosti and Maria Laura Parisi
Additional contact information
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

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 8, 1-13

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.

Keywords: allocation; combined heat and power (CHP); geothermal energy; exergy; life cycle assessment (LCA); primary energy savings (PESs) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4527/ (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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4527-:d:538933

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

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