IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4622-d1404803.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualtra Geothermal Power Plant: Life Cycle, Exergo-Economic, and Exergo-Environmental Preliminary Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Claudio Zuffi

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

  • Pietro Ungar

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

  • Daniele Fiaschi

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

  • Giampaolo Manfrida

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

  • Fausto Batini

    (MagmaEnergy Italia SrL, 52100 Arezzo, Italy)

Abstract

Qualtra, an innovative 10 MW geothermal power plant proposal, employs a closed-loop design to mitigate emissions, ensuring no direct release into the atmosphere. A thorough assessment utilizing energy and exergy analysis, life cycle assessment (LCA), exergo-economic analysis, and exergo environmental analysis (EevA) was conducted. The LCA results, utilizing the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint methodology, encompass all the spectrum of environmental indicators provided. The technology implemented makes it possible to avoid direct atmospheric emissions from the Qualtra plant, so the environmental impact is mainly due to indirect emissions over the life cycle. The result obtained for the global warming potential indicator is about 6.6 g CO 2 eq/kWh, notably lower compared to other conventional systems. Contribution analysis reveals that the construction phase dominates, accounting for over 90% of the impact for almost all LCA midpoint categories, excluding stratospheric ozone depletion, which is dominated by the impact from the operation and maintenance phase, at about 87%. Endpoint indicators were assessed to estimate the single score value using normalization and weighting at the component level. The resulting single score is then used in an Exergo-Environmental Analysis (EEvA), highlighting the well system as the most impactful contributor, constituting approximately 45% of the total impact. Other substantial contributions to the environmental impact include the condenser (21%), the turbine (17%), and the HEGeo (14%). The exergo-economic analysis assesses cost distribution across major plant components, projecting an electricity cost of about 9.4 c€/kWh.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudio Zuffi & Pietro Ungar & Daniele Fiaschi & Giampaolo Manfrida & Fausto Batini, 2024. "Qualtra Geothermal Power Plant: Life Cycle, Exergo-Economic, and Exergo-Environmental Preliminary Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4622-:d:1404803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4622/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4622/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazzaretto, Andrea & Tsatsaronis, George, 2006. "SPECO: A systematic and general methodology for calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 1257-1289.
    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. Olusegun David Samuel & Peter A. Aigba & Thien Khanh Tran & H. Fayaz & Carlo Pastore & Oguzhan Der & Ali Erçetin & Christopher C. Enweremadu & Ahmad Mustafa, 2023. "Comparison of the Techno-Economic and Environmental Assessment of Hydrodynamic Cavitation and Mechanical Stirring Reactors for the Production of Sustainable Hevea brasiliensis Ethyl Ester," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-27, November.
    2. Seyed Mohammad Seyed Mahmoudi & Ramin Ghiami Sardroud & Mohsen Sadeghi & Marc A. Rosen, 2022. "Integration of Supercritical CO 2 Recompression Brayton Cycle with Organic Rankine/Flash and Kalina Cycles: Thermoeconomic Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-29, July.
    3. Oyekale, Joseph & Petrollese, Mario & Cau, Giorgio, 2020. "Modified auxiliary exergy costing in advanced exergoeconomic analysis applied to a hybrid solar-biomass organic Rankine cycle plant," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    4. Roque Díaz, P. & Benito, Y.R. & Parise, J.A.R., 2010. "Thermoeconomic assessment of a multi-engine, multi-heat-pump CCHP (combined cooling, heating and power generation) system – A case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 3540-3550.
    5. Zhao, Yajing & Wang, Jiangfeng, 2016. "Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of a flash-binary geothermal power system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 159-170.
    6. Moein Shamoushaki & Mehdi Aliehyaei & Farhad Taghizadeh-Hesary, 2021. "Energy, Exergy, Exergoeconomic, and Exergoenvironmental Assessment of Flash-Binary Geothermal Combined Cooling, Heating and Power Cycle," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, July.
    7. Sadi, M. & Arabkoohsar, A., 2019. "Exergoeconomic analysis of a combined solar-waste driven power plant," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 883-893.
    8. Garousi Farshi, L. & Mahmoudi, S.M.S. & Rosen, M.A., 2013. "Exergoeconomic comparison of double effect and combined ejector-double effect absorption refrigeration systems," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 700-711.
    9. Petrakopoulou, Fontina & Tsatsaronis, George & Morosuk, Tatiana & Carassai, Anna, 2012. "Conventional and advanced exergetic analyses applied to a combined cycle power plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 146-152.
    10. Picallo-Perez, Ana & Catrini, Pietro & Piacentino, Antonio & Sala, José-Mª, 2019. "A novel thermoeconomic analysis under dynamic operating conditions for space heating and cooling systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 819-837.
    11. Yue, Ting & Lior, Noam, 2017. "Exergo economic analysis of solar-assisted hybrid power generation systems integrated with thermochemical fuel conversion," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 204-222.
    12. Primabudi, Eko & Morosuk, Tatiana & Tsatsaronis, George, 2019. "Multi-objective optimization of propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant (C3MR) LNG process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 492-504.
    13. Uysal, Cuneyt & Keçebaş, Ali, 2021. "Advanced exergoeconomic analysis with using modified productive structure analysis: An application for a real gas turbine cycle," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    14. Yeqiang Zhang & Biao Lei & Zubair Masaud & Muhammad Imran & Yuting Wu & Jinping Liu & Xiaoding Qin & Hafiz Ali Muhammad, 2020. "Waste Heat Recovery from Diesel Engine Exhaust Using a Single-Screw Expander Organic Rankine Cycle System: Experimental Investigation of Exergy Destruction," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Silveira, Jose Luz & Lamas, Wendell de Queiroz & Tuna, Celso Eduardo & Villela, Iraides Aparecida de Castro & Miro, Laura Siso, 2012. "Ecological efficiency and thermoeconomic analysis of a cogeneration system at a hospital," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2894-2906.
    16. Zare, V. & Mahmoudi, S.M.S. & Yari, M. & Amidpour, M., 2012. "Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of an ammonia–water power/cooling cogeneration cycle," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 271-283.
    17. Coban, Kahraman & Şöhret, Yasin & Colpan, C. Ozgur & Karakoç, T. Hikmet, 2017. "Exergetic and exergoeconomic assessment of a small-scale turbojet fuelled with biodiesel," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(P2), pages 1358-1367.
    18. Aygun, Hakan & Turan, Onder, 2021. "Exergo-economic analysis of off-design a target drone engine for reconnaissance mission flight," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    19. Soltanian, Salman & Kalogirou, Soteris A. & Ranjbari, Meisam & Amiri, Hamid & Mahian, Omid & Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Jafary, Tahereh & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Gupta, Vijai Kumar & Aghaei, Siavash & Pe, 2022. "Exergetic sustainability analysis of municipal solid waste treatment systems: A systematic critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    20. Lee, Young Duk & Ahn, Kook Young & Morosuk, Tatiana & Tsatsaronis, George, 2018. "Exergetic and exergoeconomic evaluation of an SOFC-Engine hybrid power generation system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 810-822.

    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:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4622-:d:1404803. 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.