A Comparison of the Life-Cycle Impacts of the Concentrating Solar Power with the Product Environmental Footprint and ReCiPe Methods

被引:0
作者
Luu, Le Quyen [1 ]
Cellura, Maurizio [1 ]
Longo, Sonia [1 ]
Guarino, Francesco [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Palermo, Dept Engn, Viale Sci,Edif 9, I-90128 Palermo, Italy
关键词
concentrating solar power; life-cycle assessment; product environmental footprint; ReCiPe; HEAT;
D O I
10.3390/en17174461
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
Concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies have the potential to reduce the carbon emissions in the economy and energy sector. The growing significance of solar energy sources in addressing climate change highlights the necessity for thorough assessments of their environmental impacts. This paper explores two different life-cycle impact assessment methods, ReCiPe and Product Environmental Footprint, using CSP plants with various receiver systems and heat-transfer fluids as a case study. In terms of the overall life-cycle impact, solar towers are shown to have advantages over parabolic troughs. Most of the life-cycle impacts of solar towers are lower than those of parabolic troughs, ranging from 8% to 112%, except for human toxicity and land use impacts. However, there is not much difference between the studied heat-transfer fluids, with the variance of most impacts being less than around 1%. The single-score results indicates that the ReCiPe method assigns significance to human health impacts, while the product environmental footprint method gives equal attention to all aspects. Meanwhile the comparison of components' contributions quantified by the two methods shows the same results for more than half of the impact categories.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2006, Environmental ManagementLife Cycle AssessmentRequirements and Guidelines
  • [2] Beccali M., 2018, IEA Task 53 SHC
  • [3] Bjrn A., 2018, Life Cycle Assessment
  • [4] Cellura M., 2024, P NETW MARK PEOPL S
  • [5] Five decades of evolution of solar photovoltaic thermal (PVT) technology - A critical insight on review articles
    Chandrasekar, M.
    Senthilkumar, T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 322
  • [6] Cordella Sala S., 2024, TAIEX EIR MULT FLAGS
  • [7] EC, 2021, European Commission, Understanding Product Environmental Footprint and Organisation Environmental Footprint Methods
  • [8] EPLCA, Environmental Footprint (EF) Impact Assessment
  • [9] European Commission, 2021, Commission recommendation on the use of the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. Annex I. Prod. Environ. Footprint Method 204-305
  • [10] Life cycle initiative: A joint UNEP/SETAC partnership to advance the life-cycle economy
    Fava, JA
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2002, 7 (04) : 196 - 198