IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i18p13943-d1243621.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Impact Assessment of Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant for Heat and Electricity Production

Author

Listed:
  • María Dolores Mainar-Toledo

    (Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption (CIRCE), Avenida Ranillas Edificio Dinamiza, 3D, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Maryori Díaz-Ramírez

    (Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption (CIRCE), Avenida Ranillas Edificio Dinamiza, 3D, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
    CIRCE Institute, Fundación CIRCE, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Snorri J. Egilsson

    (Reykjavik Energy, Bæjarháls 1, 110 Reykjavik, Iceland)

  • Claudio Zuffi

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Florence, 50139 Florence, Italy)

  • Giampaolo Manfrida

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Florence, 50139 Florence, Italy)

  • Héctor Leiva

    (Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption (CIRCE), Avenida Ranillas Edificio Dinamiza, 3D, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain)

Abstract

This work is focused on presenting the main results and discussions concerning the environmental benefits of reducing the non-condensable gases emitted from the Nesjavellir geothermal power plant. The primary objective of this study is to conduct a life cycle evaluation to analyse the overall environmental benefit effects of producing 1 kWh of electricity and 1 kWh of thermal energy in the geothermal power plant at Nesjavellir, which is located in Iceland. The assessment is performed both before and after implementing an abatement system designed to reduce CO 2 and H 2 S gases. The production of geothermal energy is increasing every year and, therefore, it is crucial to identify and quantify the key environmental factors of producing this type of energy and improvements for the future energy transition of the energy generation sector. Firstly, the results show that the environmental impact of electricity production is higher compared to heat production. More in detail, the emissions due to the nature of the geothermal fluid and the construction phase represent the most relevant environmental load for both electricity and heat production for nearly all the 18 environmental impact indicators studied. Furthermore, considering the abatement system for the non-condensable gas emissions, reductions of 78% and 60% in global warming potential is achieved for a production of 1 kWh of electricity and 1 kWh of thermal energy. In terms of external environmental costs, the implementation of an abatement system results in a reduction exceeding 95% for both electricity and thermal energy production per kilowatt-hour. The outcomes obtained from both the baseline scenario and the application of the abatement system undeniably prove that the latter results in a substantial decrease in the overall environmental impacts linked to the generation of 1 kWh of electricity and 1 kWh of heat, encompassing a notable reduction in external environmental costs (externalities).

Suggested Citation

  • María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri J. Egilsson & Claudio Zuffi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Héctor Leiva, 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Plant for Heat and Electricity Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:18:p:13943-:d:1243621
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/18/13943/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/18/13943/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vitantonio Colucci & Giampaolo Manfrida & Barbara Mendecka & Lorenzo Talluri & Claudio Zuffi, 2021. "LCA and Exergo-Environmental Evaluation of a Combined Heat and Power Double-Flash Geothermal Power Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Frick, Stephanie & Kaltschmitt, Martin & Schröder, Gerd, 2010. "Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2281-2294.
    3. Gkousis, Spiros & Welkenhuysen, Kris & Compernolle, Tine, 2022. "Deep geothermal energy extraction, a review on environmental hotspots with focus on geo-technical site conditions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. María Blecua-de-Pedro & Maryori C. Díaz-Ramírez, 2021. "Assessment of Potential Barriers to the Implementation of an Innovative AB-FB Energy Storage System under a Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Cunha, R.P. & Bourne-Webb, P.J., 2022. "A critical review on the current knowledge of geothermal energy piles to sustainably climatize buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri Jokull & Claudio Zuffi & María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Giampaolo Manfrida, 2023. "Environmental Assessment of Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant based on Exergy Allocation Factors for Heat and Electricity Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Maryori C. Díaz-Ramírez & Victor J. Ferreira & Tatiana García-Armingol & Ana M. López-Sabirón & Germán Ferreira, 2020. "Battery Manufacturing Resource Assessment to Minimise Component Production Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    8. Maryori C. Díaz-Ramírez & Víctor J. Ferreira & Tatiana García-Armingol & Ana María López-Sabirón & Germán Ferreira, 2020. "Environmental Assessment of Electrochemical Energy Storage Device Manufacturing to Identify Drivers for Attaining Goals of Sustainable Materials 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Olabi, A.G. & Abdelkareem, Mohammad Ali, 2022. "Renewable energy and climate change," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    10. Varvara S. Orfanidou & Nikolaos P. Rachaniotis & Giannis T. Tsoulfas & Gregory P. Chondrokoukis, 2023. "Life Cycle Costing Implementation in Green Public Procurement: A Case Study from the Greek Public Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, February.
    11. Atlason, R.S. & Unnthorsson, R., 2013. "Hot water production improves the energy return on investment of geothermal power plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 273-280.
    12. Mélanie Douziech & Lorenzo Tosti & Nicola Ferrara & Maria Laura Parisi & Paula Pérez-López & Guillaume Ravier, 2021. "Applying Harmonised Geothermal Life Cycle Assessment Guidelines to the Rittershoffen Geothermal Heat Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-14, June.
    13. Xueliang Yuan & Leping Chen & Xuerou Sheng & Mengyue Liu & Yue Xu & Yuzhou Tang & Qingsong Wang & Qiao Ma & Jian Zuo, 2021. "Life Cycle Cost of Electricity Production: A Comparative Study of Coal-Fired, Biomass, and Wind Power in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    14. Gunnarsdottir, I. & Davidsdottir, B. & Worrell, E. & Sigurgeirsdottir, S., 2022. "Indicators for sustainable energy development: An Icelandic case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    15. Maria Vicidomini & Diana D’Agostino, 2022. "Geothermal Source Exploitation for Energy Saving and Environmental Energy Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-5, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maryori Díaz-Ramírez & Snorri Jokull & Claudio Zuffi & María Dolores Mainar-Toledo & Giampaolo Manfrida, 2023. "Environmental Assessment of Hellisheidi Geothermal Power Plant based on Exergy Allocation Factors for Heat and Electricity Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Lilli Maar & Stefan Seifermann, 2023. "Assessing the Environmental Sustainability of Deep Geothermal Heat Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    3. Gkousis, Spiros & Thomassen, Gwenny & Welkenhuysen, Kris & Compernolle, Tine, 2022. "Dynamic life cycle assessment of geothermal heat production from medium enthalpy hydrothermal resources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    4. María Blecua-de-Pedro & Maryori C. Díaz-Ramírez, 2021. "Assessment of Potential Barriers to the Implementation of an Innovative AB-FB Energy Storage System under a Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Maria Milousi & Athanasios Pappas & Andreas P. Vouros & Giouli Mihalakakou & Manolis Souliotis & Spiros Papaefthimiou, 2022. "Evaluating the Technical and Environmental Capabilities of Geothermal Systems through Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-30, August.
    6. Gkousis, Spiros & Welkenhuysen, Kris & Compernolle, Tine, 2022. "Deep geothermal energy extraction, a review on environmental hotspots with focus on geo-technical site conditions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    7. Menberg, Kathrin & Heberle, Florian & Uhrmann, Hannah & Bott, Christoph & Grünäugl, Sebastian & Brüggemann, Dieter & Bayer, Peter, 2023. "Environmental impact of cogeneration in binary geothermal plants," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    8. Daniele Fiaschi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Barbara Mendecka & Lorenzo Tosti & Maria Laura Parisi, 2021. "A Comparison of Different Approaches for Assessing Energy Outputs of Combined Heat and Power Geothermal Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Solano-Olivares, K. & Santoyo, E. & Santoyo-Castelazo, E., 2024. "Integrated sustainability assessment framework for geothermal energy technologies: A literature review and a new proposal of sustainability indicators for Mexico," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    10. Kar, Sumi & Basu, Kajla & Sarkar, Biswajit, 2023. "Advertisement policy for dual-channel within emissions-controlled flexible production system," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    11. Luigi Fortuna & Arturo Buscarino, 2022. "Sustainable Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-7, December.
    12. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas & Altmann, Jörn, 2014. "A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies," IZA Discussion Papers 8145, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Mahsa Dehghan Manshadi & Milad Mousavi & M. Soltani & Amir Mosavi & Levente Kovacs, 2022. "Deep Learning for Modeling an Offshore Hybrid Wind–Wave Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Kumarasamy Palanimuthu & Ganesh Mayilsamy & Ameerkhan Abdul Basheer & Seong-Ryong Lee & Dongran Song & Young Hoon Joo, 2022. "A Review of Recent Aerodynamic Power Extraction Challenges in Coordinated Pitch, Yaw, and Torque Control of Large-Scale Wind Turbine Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-27, November.
    15. Hanson, James L. & Onnen, Michael T. & Yeşiller, Nazlı & Kopp, Kevin B., 2022. "Heat energy potential of municipal solid waste landfills: Review of heat generation and assessment of vertical extraction systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    16. Pashchenko, Dmitry, 2023. "Hydrogen-rich gas as a fuel for the gas turbines: A pathway to lower CO2 emission," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    17. Kamal, Md. Mustafa & Saini, R.P., 2023. "Performance investigations of hybrid hydrokinetic turbine rotor with different system and operating parameters," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    18. Lohse, Christiane, 2018. "Environmental impact by hydrogeothermal energy generation in low-enthalpy regions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(PB), pages 509-519.
    19. A. G. Olabi & Khaled Obaideen & Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem & Maryam Nooman AlMallahi & Nabila Shehata & Abdul Hai Alami & Ayman Mdallal & Asma Ali Murah Hassan & Enas Taha Sayed, 2023. "Wind Energy Contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals: Case Study on London Array," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, March.
    20. Zhaoyang Kong & Xiucheng Dong & Bo Xu & Rui Li & Qiang Yin & Cuifang Song, 2015. "EROI Analysis for Direct Coal Liquefaction without and with CCS: The Case of the Shenhua DCL Project in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:18:p:13943-:d:1243621. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.