Environmental Impact Comparison of Geothermal Alternatives for Conventional Boiler Replacement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Alternative A: A horizontal catchment system consisting of polyethylene collectors generally buried about 1 m deep along a surface normally equivalent to between 1.5 and 3 times the single-family home to be heated for a single-family house of 150 m2.
- Alternatives B and C: Shallow catchment systems. In these types of systems, the water available in the subsoil is used directly, provided that the permeability of the soil is sufficiently high. For an installation of around 203, a water flow of 6 m3/h is needed.
- The return of the heat pump can be performed in two different ways, which result in two different facilities:
- ▪
- Alternative B: A shallow catchment system with a return to the river: the return of water is made to a nearby river.
- ▪
- Alternative C: A shallow catchment system with a return to the well: the return of water is directed to the subsoil through a downstream injection well.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Purpose and Scope
2.2. Functional Unit
2.3. System Limits
2.4. Assumptions
- The energy consumption for the air conditioning of the house at a temperature of 22 °C would be 35,218.8 kWh. This information was obtained from the government of Spain through the LIDER-CALENDER-HULC program.
- The interior installation of the house was not modified, apart from the installation of the geothermal catchment and replacement of the conventional boiler with a geothermal one.
- All the necessary materials to make the installation were placed on location without having to consider the displacement of materials to the work site.
- For waste material, transport to the estimated landfill was assumed at a distance of 20 km.
- For alternatives, B and C, the existence of a water table was assumed with a minimum supply of 6 m3/h at a depth of 20 m.
- For alternative C (the shallow catchment system with return to the river) the existence of a drainage system at 20 m from the house was assumed.
2.5. Characteristics of the Reference Building
2.6. Inventory
2.6.1. Alternative A: Horizontal Catchment System
- Phase 1: excavation of collector trenches. In this phase, the trenches were excavated where the horizontal collectors of the geothermal catchment system were buried. This stage differs from phase 1 of the base case in that the collectors are buried horizontally rather than vertically so that the volume of earth to be moved is much greater.
- Phase 2: probe placement. The second phase of the installation consisted of introducing the geothermal probes responsible for the transmission of energy between the ground and the boiler.
- Phase 3: filling of trench collectors. The third part of the installation consisted of filling the trenches with the soil previously removed from them.
- Phase 4: filling of probes. This phase consisted of filling the probes with the heat transfer fluid that would exchange the energy with the ground. This phase is similar to that of the base case but uses a smaller amount of fluid.
- Phase 5: boiler replacement. This phase was common for each of the three alternatives studied and common to the base case studied since the installation of the boiler to be used did not vary, only the catchment system.
- Phase 6: boiler probe connection. Similar to the previous phase, this was common for each of the three installation alternatives and the same as the base case since the connections made between the boiler and the probes were the same in each of the three alternatives.
2.6.2. Alternative B: Shallow Catchment System with Return to River
- Phase 1: excavation of the catchment well. The first phase of option B involved the excavation of the catchment well. This phase was similar to Phase 1 of the base case, but with much less depth of excavation, since only a 20 m depth was necessary to penetrate the assumed water table.
- Phase 2: tubing of the catchment well. The second phase of this option B was to pipe the catchment well for proper operation.
- Phase 3: placing the pump and the catchment probe. During this identical phase for alternatives B and C, the catchment system was placed. This system consisted of a submerged stainless-steel pump coupled with a PVC suction hose with spiral hard PVC reinforcement.
- Phase 4: excavation of the drainage channel. In the present phase, which differed from alternative C, the installation of the drainage channel for the catchment system of option B was conducted. This drainage channel was assumed to be 20 m long. A trench with a depth of 1 m and a width of 0.4 m was made.
- Phase 5: placement of the drain probes. During this stage, the drainpipe in the pick-up system of option B was placed.
- Phase 6: replacement of the boiler.
- Phase 7: boiler probe connection.
2.6.3. Alternative C: Shallow Catchment System with Return to Well
- Phase 1: excavation of the catchment and drainage wells. This phase is similar to that of the previous section, but with the provision that two similar wells were made instead of just one. The first of these wells were used as a catchment well, and the second as a drainage well.
- Phase 2: tubing of the catchment and drainage wells. This phase is similar to the previous section but with twice the materials and labour since two similar wells had to be tubed instead of one.
- Phase 3: placing the pump and the catchment probe.
- Phase 4: placement of the drainage probe.
- Phase 5: boiler replacement.
- Phase 6: boiler probe connection.
3. Results
- A comparative analysis of the environmental impact by phase.
- A comparison of the total impact between the alternatives and the base case.
- Amortization time analysis for each alternative.
3.1. Results of the Environmental Impact Analysis for Each of the Three Alternatives
Results of the Environmental Impact Analysis for Each Alternative
3.2. Comparison of the Environmental Impact of the Three Alternatives with the Base Case
3.3. Comparison of the Amortization Time of the Environmental Impact of the Three Alternatives with the Base Case
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dincer, I. Renewable energy and sustainable development: A crucial review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2000, 4, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engstroem, S. Renewable energy resources: Wind energy from a Swedish viewpoint. Ambio 1975, 4, 75–79. [Google Scholar]
- Griffin, O. The ocean as a renewable source of energy. J. Eng. Ind. 1975, 97, 897–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esen, M.; Yuksel, T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build. 2013, 65, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şener, M.F.; Baba, A. Geochemical and hydrogeochemical characteristics and evolution of Kozaklı geothermal fluids, Central Anatolia, Turkey. Geothermics 2019, 80, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, M.; Sircar, A.; Shaikh, N.; Patel, K.; Thakar, V.; Sharma, D.; Sarkar, P.; Vaidya, D. Groundwater analysis of Dholera geothermal field, Gujarat, India for suitable applications. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apergis, N.; Payne, J.E. Renewable energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 656–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purnomo, B.J.; Pichler, T. Geothermal systems on the island of Bali, Indonesia. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2015, 304, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greco, A.; Gundabattini, E.; Solomon, D.G.; Singh Rassiah, R.; Masselli, C. A Review on Geothermal Renewable Energy Systems for Eco-Friendly Air-Conditioning. Energies 2022, 15, 5519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.C. Classification of geothermal resources by exergy. Geothermics 2001, 30, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chudy, K. Mine Water as Geothermal Resource in Nowa Ruda Region (SW Poland). Water 2022, 14, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kutzner, S.; Heberle, F.; Brüggemann, D. Thermo-Economic Analysis of Near-Surface Geothermal Energy Considering Heat and Cold Supply within a Low-Temperature District Heating Network. Processes 2022, 10, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milousi, M.; Pappas, A.; Vouros, A.P.; Mihalakakou, G.; Souliotis, M.; Papaefthimiou, S. Evaluating the Technical and Environmental Capabilities of Geothermal Systems through Life Cycle Assessment. Energies 2022, 15, 5673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novelli, A.; D’alonzo, V.; Pezzutto, S.; Poggio, R.A.E.; Casasso, A.; Zambelli, P. A spatially-explicit economic and financial assessment of closed-loop ground-source geothermal heat pumps: A case study for the residential buildings of valle d’aosta region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solla, M.; Blázquez, C.S.; Nieto, I.M.; Rodríguez, J.L.; Maté-González, M.Á. GPR Application on Geothermal Studies: The Case Study of the Thermal Baths of San Xusto (Pontevedra, Spain). Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blázquez, C.S.; Borge-Diez, D.; Nieto, I.M.; Maté-González, M.Á.; Martín, A.F.; González-Aguilera, D. Geothermal Heat Pumps for Slurry Cooling and Farm Heating: Impact and Carbon Footprint Reduction in Pig Farms. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyriakarakos, G.; Ntavou, E.; Manolakos, D. Investigation of the use of low temperature geothermal organic rankine cycle engine in an autonomous polygeneration microgrid. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haslinger, E.; Turewicz, V.; Hammer, A.; Götzl, G. Assessment of Deep and Shallow Geothermal Resources and Measurement of Waste Heat Potentials from Industrial Processes for Supplying Renewable Heat for Industry and Urban Quarters. Processes 2022, 10, 1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mun, H.S.; Dilawar, M.A.; Rathnayake, D.; Chung, I.B.; Kim, C.D.; Ryu, S.B.; Park, K.W.; Lee, S.R.; Yang, C.J. Effect of a geothermal heat pump in cooling mode on the housing environment and swine productivity traits. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Lu, X.; Zhang, W.; Liu, J.; Yue, W.; Ma, F. Investigation of a Novel Deep Borehole Heat Exchanger for Building Heating and Cooling with Particular Reference to Heat Extraction and Storage. Processes 2022, 10, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, M. 10 Years of geothermal energy utilization. Wasser Abfall 2011, 13, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renewable Energy Programme. Renewable Energy Plan (2011–2020)—Plan de Energías Renovables (2011–2020); IDEA (Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía): Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Al-helal, I.; Alsadon, A.; Marey, S.; Ibrahim, A.; Shady, M.; Abdel-Ghany, A. Geothermal Energy Potential for Cooling/Heating Greenhouses in Hot Arid Regions. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miranda, M.M.; Raymond, J.; Willis-Richards, J.; Dezayes, C. Are engineered geothermal energy systems a viable solution for arctic off-grid communities? A techno-economic study. Water 2021, 13, 3526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vokurka, M.; Kunz, A. Case Study of Using the Geothermal Potential of Mine Water for Central District Heating—The Rožná Deposit, Czech Republic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rüther, J.; Lederer, S.; Peth, C.; Sass, I. Mechanical evaluation of sintered macroporous high-density polyethylene filter elements for shallow geothermal application. J. Porous Media 2016, 19, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Sipio, E.; Bertermann, D. Factors influencing the thermal efficiency of horizontal ground heat exchangers. Energies 2017, 10, 1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Di Sipio, E.; Bertermann, D. Soil thermal behavior in different moisture condition: An overview of ITER project from laboratory to field test monitoring. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, J.-H.; Nam, Y.; Kim, H.-C. Performance and feasibility study of a Standing Column Well (SCW) system using a deep geothermal well. Energies 2016, 9, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lijó, L.; González-García, S.; Lovarelli, D.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G.; Bacenetti, J. Life cycle assessment of renewable energy production from biomass. In Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Systems and Sustainable Energy Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 81–98. [Google Scholar]
- Pehnt, M. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew. Energy 2006, 31, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Üçtuğ, F.G.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of small-scale hybrid energy systems: Coupling solar photovoltaics and lithium-ion batteries. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 643, 1579–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiavetta, C.; Tinti, F.; Bonoli, A. Comparative life cycle assessment of renewable energy systems for heating and cooling. Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanbury, O.; Vasquez, V. Life cycle analysis of geothermal energy for power and transportation: A stochastic approach. Renew. Energy 2018, 115, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, J.; Clark, C.; Han, J.; Wang, M. Life Cycle Analysis of Geothermal Systems in Comparison to Other Power Systems; ANL/ESD/10-5; Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Vasquez, V.R.; Hanbury, O. Life cycle analysis of geothermal energy extraction. In Proceedings of the 2011 AIChE Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 16–21 October 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lacirignola, M.; Meany, B.H.; Padey, P.; Blanc, I. A simplified model for the estimation of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of enhanced geothermal systems. Geotherm. Energy 2014, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Russo, G.; Anifantis, A.S.; Verdiani, G.; Mugnozza, G.S. Environmental analysis of geothermal heat pump and LPG greenhouse heating systems. Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 127, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todoran, T.P.; Balan, M.C. Long term behavior of a geothermal heat pump with oversized horizontal collector. Energy Build. 2016, 133, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio, C.-L.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Martínez-Cámara, E.; Latorre-Biel, J.I.; Jiménez-Macías, E.; Blanco-Fernández, J. Replacement of electric resistive space heating by a geothermal heat pump in a residential application–Environmental amortisation. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 37, 100567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maione, A.; Massarotti, N.; Santagata, R.; Vanoli, L. Environmental assessment of a heating, cooling and electric energy grid from a geothermal source in Southern Italy. J. Clean Prod. 2022, 375, 134198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, A.D.; Harcouet-Menou, V.; Laenen, B.; Caia, V.; Facco, L.; Guglielmetti, L.; Olivieri, N.; Rocco, E.; Strazza, C.; Vela, S.; et al. Study on ‘Geothermal Plants’ and Applications’ Emissions: Overview and Analysis; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
INPUT | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 | PHASE 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuel (Backhoe loader 3500 kg) | 320 L | - | 256 L | - | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE |
Operator | 192 h | 6.4 h | 307 h | 3 h | ||
Displacement of material | 1480 m3 | - | 1480 m3 | - | ||
PEHD Tube | - | 920 m | - | - | ||
Screws and fixing | - | 14.88 kg | - | - | ||
Propylene glycol | - | - | - | 67.28 L | ||
Water | - | - | - | 130.6 L | ||
Transport to work site | - | 20 km | - | 20 km | ||
WASTE | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 | PHASE 6 |
Pallets | - | 50 kg | - | - | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE |
Screws and fixing | - | 0.124 kg | - | - | ||
Plastic tanks | - | - | - | 25 L | ||
Transport to landfill | - | 20 km | 20 km | 20 km |
INPUT | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 | PHASE 6 | PHASE 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuel (Backhoe loader 3500 kg and drilling equipment) | 346 L | - | - | 80 L | 80 L | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE |
Fuel (Tow truck 5200 kg) | - | 64 l | - | - | - | ||
Operators | 16 h | 29 h | 4 h | 16 h | 18 h | ||
Displacement of materials | - | - | - | 8 m3 12,800 kg | 8 m3 12,800 kg | ||
Carbon steel tube 6in e = 1097 mm | - | 20 m | - | - | - | ||
Screws and fixing | - | 5 kg | 8 kg | - | 5 kg | ||
Suction and pressure hose PVC with hard PVC | - | - | 30 m | - | 25 m | ||
Pump 6000 L/h 750 W stainless steel | - | - | 13.4 kg | - | - | ||
Transport to work site | - | 20 km | 20 km | - | 20 km | ||
WASTE | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 | PHASE 6 | PHASE 7 |
Pallets | - | 100 kg | - | - | - | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE |
Screws and fixing | - | 5 kg | - | - | - | ||
Packaging | - | - | 4 kg | - | 3 kg | ||
Transport to landfill | - | 20 km | - | - | 20 km |
INPUT | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 | PHASE 6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuel (Backhoe loader 3500 kg and drilling equipment) | 692 L | - | - | - | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE |
Fuel (Tow truck 5200 kg) | - | 128 L | - | - | ||
Operators | 32 h | 58 h | 4 h | 8 h | ||
Carbon steel tube 6in e = 1097 mm | - | 40 m | - | - | ||
Screws and fixing | - | 10 kg | 8 kg | 8 kg | ||
Suction and pressure hose PVC with hard PVC | - | - | 30 m | 30 m | ||
Pump 6000 L/h 750 W stainless steel | - | - | 13.4 kg | - | ||
Transport to work site | - | 20 km | 20 km | 20 km | ||
WASTE | PHASE 1 | PHASE 2 | PHASE 3 | PHASE 4 | PHASE 5 | PHASE 6 |
Pallets | - | 200 kg | - | - | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE | SAME DATA AS IN THE BASE CASE |
Screws and fixing | - | 10 kg | - | - | ||
Packaging | - | - | 4 kg | 3 kg | ||
Transport to landfill | - | 20 km | - | 20 km |
Category | Units | Trench Excavation | Installation of Probes | Filling the Trench | Filling of Probes | Boiler Replacement | Connecting Probes to the Boiler | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AD | kg Sb eq | 1.22 × 10−2 | 2.10 × 10−3 | 1.83 × 10−4 | 6.29 × 10−4 | 1.15 × 10−1 | 3.00 × 10−2 | 1.60 × 10−1 |
AD-FF | MJ | 7.39 × 10+4 | 8.13 × 10+4 | 4.01 × 10+3 | 3.76 × 10+3 | 4.12 × 10+4 | 1.11 × 10+4 | 2.15 × 10+5 |
GWP | kg CO2 eq | 4.67 × 10+3 | 2.37 × 10+3 | 2.69 × 10+2 | 1.53 × 10+2 | 4.09 × 10+3 | 6.26 × 10+2 | 1.22 × 10+4 |
ODP | kg CFC-11 eq | 8.60 × 10−4 | 2.05 × 10−5 | 4.65 × 10−5 | 5.77 × 10−6 | 3.66 × 10−4 | 2.45 × 10−4 | 1.54 × 10−3 |
HT | kg 1,4-DB eq | 1.48 × 10+3 | 1.25 × 10+3 | 6.75 × 10+1 | 7.15 × 10+1 | 3.46 × 10+4 | 2.64 × 10+3 | 4.01 × 10+4 |
FWAE | kg 1,4-DB eq | 3.80 × 10+2 | 2.87 × 10+2 | 2.73 × 10+1 | 3.59 × 10+1 | 8.51 × 10+3 | 5.92 × 10+2 | 9.83 × 10+3 |
MAE | kg 1,4-DB eq | 1.36 × 10+6 | 6.23 × 10+5 | 6.26 × 10+4 | 1.38 × 10+5 | 3.04 × 10+7 | 1.84 × 10+6 | 3.44 × 10+7 |
TE | kg 1,4-DB eq | 6.37 × 10+0 | 1.64 × 10+0 | 2.89 × 10−1 | 2.00 × 10−1 | 4.60 × 10+1 | 3.71 × 10+0 | 5.82 × 10+1 |
PO | kg C2H4 eq | 7.40 × 10−1 | 7.37 × 10−1 | 5.71 × 10−2 | 4.19 × 10−2 | 1.79 × 10+0 | 3.89 × 10−1 | 3.75 × 10+0 |
AC | kg SO2 eq | 1.29 × 10+1 | 8.20 × 10+0 | 1.97 × 10+0 | 6.15 × 10−1 | 3.24 × 10+1 | 5.07 × 10+0 | 6.12 × 10+1 |
EU | kg PO4--- eq | 2.73 × 10+0 | 8.35 × 10−1 | 5.19 × 10−1 | 1.95 × 10−1 | 1.24 × 10+1 | 3.01 × 10+0 | 1.96 × 10+1 |
Category | Drilling of Well | Well Tubing | Installation of Pump and Probes | Filling of the Drainage Trench | Installation of Drainage Probes | Boiler Replacement | Connecting Probes to the Boiler | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AD | 1.65 × 10−5 | 2.01 × 10−2 | 2.39 × 10−2 | 2.03 × 10−4 | 2.07 × 10−4 | 1.15 × 10−1 | 3.00 × 10−2 | 1.90 × 10−1 |
AD-FF | 1.00 × 10+2 | 1.77 × 10+4 | 3.64 × 10+3 | 1.23 × 10+3 | 1.68 × 10+3 | 4.12 × 10+4 | 1.11 × 10+4 | 7.67 × 10+4 |
GWP | 6.32 × 10+0 | 1.70 × 10+3 | 3.16 × 10+2 | 7.78 × 10+1 | 9.73 × 10+1 | 4.09 × 10+3 | 6.26 × 10+2 | 6.91 × 10+3 |
ODP | 1.16 × 10−6 | 1.03 × 10−4 | 2.45 × 10−5 | 1.43 × 10−5 | 1.46 × 10−5 | 3.66 × 10−4 | 2.45 × 10−4 | 7.69 × 10−4 |
HT | 2.00 × 10+0 | 6.19 × 10+3 | 9.48 × 10+2 | 2.46 × 10+1 | 2.77 × 10+1 | 3.46 × 10+4 | 2.64 × 10+3 | 4.45 × 10+4 |
FWAE | 5.14 × 10−1 | 2.37 × 10+3 | 3.64 × 10+2 | 6.33 × 10+0 | 8.47 × 10+0 | 8.51 × 10+3 | 5.92 × 10+2 | 1.19 × 10+4 |
MAE | 1.84 × 10+3 | 4.32 × 10+6 | 1.44 × 10+6 | 2.27 × 10+4 | 3.40 × 10+4 | 3.04 × 10+7 | 1.84 × 10+6 | 3.81 × 10+7 |
TE | 8.63 × 10−3 | 3.04 × 10+1 | 2.10 × 10+0 | 1.06 × 10−1 | 1.72 × 10−1 | 4.60 × 10+1 | 3.71 × 10+0 | 8.25 × 10+1 |
PO | 1.00 × 10−3 | 8.37 × 10−1 | 1.45 × 10−1 | 1.23 × 10−2 | 1.55 × 10−2 | 1.79 × 10+0 | 3.89 × 10−1 | 3.19 × 10+0 |
AC | 1.75 × 10−2 | 8.11 × 10+0 | 2.54 × 10+0 | 2.15 × 10−1 | 2.72 × 10−1 | 3.24 × 10+1 | 5.07 × 10+0 | 4.86 × 10+1 |
EU | 3.70 × 10−3 | 5.20 × 10+0 | 1.10 × 10+0 | 4.56 × 10−2 | 5.52 × 10−2 | 1.24 × 10+1 | 3.01 × 10+0 | 2.18 × 10+1 |
Category | Drilling of Wells | Wells Tubing | Installation of Pump and Probes | Installation of Drainage Probes | Boiler Replacement | Connecting Probes to the Boiler | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AD | 3.31 × 10−5 | 4.01 × 10−2 | 2.39 × 10−2 | 3.94 × 10−6 | 1.15 × 10−1 | 3.00 × 10−2 | 2.09 × 10−1 |
AD-FF | 2.00 × 10+2 | 3.54 × 10+4 | 3.64 × 10+3 | 4.51 × 10+2 | 4.12 × 10+4 | 1.11 × 10+4 | 9.21 × 10+4 |
GWP | 1.26 × 10+1 | 3.39 × 10+3 | 3.16 × 10+2 | 1.95 × 10+1 | 4.09 × 10+3 | 6.26 × 10+2 | 8.46 × 10+3 |
ODP | 2.33 × 10−6 | 2.06 × 10−4 | 2.45 × 10−5 | 2.60 × 10−7 | 3.66 × 10−4 | 2.45 × 10−4 | 8.44 × 10−4 |
HT | 3.99 × 10+0 | 1.24 × 10+4 | 9.48 × 10+2 | 3.13 × 10+0 | 3.46 × 10+4 | 2.64 × 10+3 | 5.06 × 10+4 |
FWAE | 1.03 × 10+0 | 4.74 × 10+3 | 3.64 × 10+2 | 2.14 × 10+0 | 8.51 × 10+3 | 5.92 × 10+2 | 1.42 × 10+4 |
MAE | 3.68 × 10+3 | 8.63 × 10+6 | 1.44 × 10+6 | 1.14 × 10+4 | 3.04 × 10+7 | 1.84 × 10+6 | 4.23 × 10+7 |
TE | 1.73 × 10−2 | 6.08 × 10+1 | 2.10 × 10+0 | 6.58 × 10−2 | 4.60 × 10+1 | 3.71 × 10+0 | 1.13 × 10+2 |
PO | 2.00 × 10−3 | 1.67 × 10+0 | 1.45 × 10−1 | 3.18 × 10−3 | 1.79 × 10+0 | 3.89 × 10−1 | 4.00 × 10+0 |
AC | 3.50 × 10−2 | 1.62 × 10+1 | 2.54 × 10+0 | 5.62 × 10−2 | 3.24 × 10+1 | 5.07 × 10+0 | 5.63 × 10+1 |
EU | 7.40 × 10−3 | 1.04 × 10+1 | 1.10 × 10+0 | 9.68 × 10−3 | 1.24 × 10+1 | 3.01 × 10+0 | 2.69 × 10+1 |
Category | Case Base | Alternative A | Alternative B | Alternative C | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impact | Decrease/ Increase | Decrease/ Increase | Decrease/ Increase | ||||
AD | 1.74 × 10−1 | 1.60 × 10−1 | −8.05% | 1.90 × 10−1 | 9.20% | 2.09 × 10−1 | 20.11% |
AD-FF | 6.83 × 10+5 | 2.15 × 10+5 | −68.52% | 7.67 × 10+4 | −88.77% | 9.21 × 10+4 | −86.52% |
GWP | 6.38 × 10+4 | 1.22 × 10+4 | −80.88% | 6.91 × 10+3 | −89.17% | 8.46 × 10+3 | −86.74% |
ODP | 7.16 × 10−3 | 1.54 × 10−3 | −78.49% | 7.69 × 10−4 | −89.26% | 8.44 × 10−4 | −88.21% |
HT | 4.61 × 10+4 | 4.01 × 10+4 | −13.02% | 4.45 × 10+4 | −3.47% | 5.06 × 10+4 | 9.76% |
FWAE | 1.28 × 10+4 | 9.83 × 10+3 | −23.20% | 1.19 × 10+4 | −7.03% | 1.42 × 10+4 | 10.94% |
MAE | 4.39 × 10+7 | 3.44 × 10+7 | −21.64% | 3.81 × 10+7 | −13.21% | 4.23 × 10+7 | −3.64% |
TE | 1.07 × 10+2 | 5.82 × 10+1 | −45.61% | 8.25 × 10+1 | −22.90% | 1.13 × 10+2 | 5.61% |
PO | 1.02 × 10+1 | 3.75 × 10+0 | −63.24% | 3.19 × 10+0 | −68.73% | 4.00 × 10+0 | −60.78% |
AC | 2.07 × 10+2 | 6.12 × 10+1 | −70.43% | 4.86 × 10+1 | −76.52% | 5.63 × 10+1 | −72.80% |
EU | 5.28 × 10+1 | 1.96 × 10+1 | −62.88% | 2.18 × 10+1 | −58.71% | 2.69 × 10+1 | −49.05% |
Category | 35,218.8 kWh/year | Case Base | Alternative A | Alternative B | Alternative C | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Years | Years | Decrease/ Increase | Years | Decrease/ Increase | Years | Decrease/ Increase | ||
AD | 2.62 × 10−2 | 6.67 | 6.12 | −8.25% | 7.24 | 8.55% | 7.99 | 19.79% |
AD-FF | 1.34 × 10+5 | 5.08 | 1.61 | −68.31% | 0.57 | −88.72% | 0.69 | −86.48% |
GWP | 1.30 × 10+4 | 4.90 | 0.94 | −80.88% | 0.53 | −89.14% | 0.65 | −86.71% |
ODP | 1.66 × 10−3 | 4.32 | 0.93 | −78.47% | 0.46 | −89.28% | 0.51 | −88.24% |
HT | 5.74 × 10+3 | 8.03 | 6.99 | −12.95% | 7.75 | −3.49% | 8.82 | 9.84% |
FWAE | 1.01 × 10+4 | 1.27 | 0.97 | −23.31% | 1.17 | −7.87% | 1.41 | 11.02% |
MAE | 2.31 × 10+7 | 1.90 | 1.49 | −21.58% | 1.65 | −13.16% | 1.83 | −3.68% |
TE | 1.26 × 10+2 | 0.85 | 0.46 | −45.52% | 0.66 | −22.76% | 0.89 | 5.42% |
PO | 3.86 × 10+0 | 2.64 | 0.97 | −63.14% | 0.83 | −68.71% | 1.04 | −60.61% |
AC | 1.01 × 10+2 | 2.04 | 0.61 | −70.34% | 0.48 | −76.42% | 0.56 | −72.70% |
EU | 2.14 × 10+1 | 2.46 | 0.92 | −62.68% | 1.02 | −58.54% | 1.26 | −48.78% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lorente Rubio, C.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Sáenz-Diez Muro, J.C.; Martínez-Cámara, E.; Bruzzone, A.; Blanco-Fernández, J. Environmental Impact Comparison of Geothermal Alternatives for Conventional Boiler Replacement. Energies 2022, 15, 8163. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15218163
Lorente Rubio C, García-Alcaraz JL, Sáenz-Diez Muro JC, Martínez-Cámara E, Bruzzone A, Blanco-Fernández J. Environmental Impact Comparison of Geothermal Alternatives for Conventional Boiler Replacement. Energies. 2022; 15(21):8163. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15218163
Chicago/Turabian StyleLorente Rubio, Carlos, Jorge Luis García-Alcaraz, Juan Carlos Sáenz-Diez Muro, Eduardo Martínez-Cámara, Agostino Bruzzone, and Julio Blanco-Fernández. 2022. "Environmental Impact Comparison of Geothermal Alternatives for Conventional Boiler Replacement" Energies 15, no. 21: 8163. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15218163