Skip to main content
Data in Brief logoLink to Data in Brief
. 2019 Nov 7;27:104771. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2019.104771

Data on the environmental impacts of the Hellisheiði geothermal plant and on the carbon intensity of geothermal energy and other energy technologies

Andrea Paulillo 1,, Alberto Striolo 1, Paola Lettieri 1
PMCID: PMC6861675  PMID: 31763417

Abstract

This data article is related to the research article “The environmental impacts and the carbon intensity of geothermal energy: A case study on the Hellisheiði plant”. The article reports numerical values of the results of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study, which are reported only graphically and in an aggregated form in the main article. Data include normalised impacts, unaggregated environmental impacts of each life-cycle phase and activity in the foreground system, and results of Monte Carlo simulations. The article also includes data on the carbon intensity of other geothermal studies and alternative energy technologies, which were used for comparison in the associated research article.

Keywords: Life cycle assessment, Carbon intensity, Environmental impacts, Geothermal energy


Specifications Table

Subject Environmental Engineering
Specific subject area Life Cycle Assessment and geothermal energy
Type of data Table
How data were acquired Data extracted from Gabi software and obtained from literature.
Data format Raw (i.e. unaggregated) and processed (aggregated).
Parameters for data collection Data for the Hellisheiði geothermal plant was generated by Gabi software; carbon intensities obtained from reliable literature sources.
Description of data collection Material flows and life cycle inventory data for the Hellisheiði geothermal plant were collated from literature and LCA databases. Carbon intensities of geothermal energy and other energy technologies were obtained from literature.
Data source location Iceland for the Hellisheiði geothermal plant, and worldwide for carbon intensities of geothermal energy and other energy technologies.
Data accessibility With the article
Related research article Paulillo, A. Striolo, P. Lettieri, The environmental impacts and the carbon intensity of geothermal energy: A case study on the Hellisheiði plant, Environ. Int. (2019)
Value of the Data
  • Numerical values of the environmental impacts of the geothermal Hellisheiði plant and of the carbon intensity of geothermal energy and other energy technologies can be used for comparative purposes by other life-cycle studies.

  • Data is primarily of use to Life Cycle Assessment practitioners

  • Data provide the complete and unaggregated environmental impacts of each life-cycle phase and activity of the Hellisheiði plant.

1. Data

This article reports the complete, raw (unaggregated) and aggregated, life-cycle environmental impacts associated with the Hellisheiði geothermal plant in a double flash configuration, which are reported only in part and in graphical form in Paulillo et al. [1]. The study is based on the comprehensive life-cycle inventory developed by Karlsdóttir et al. [2]. Table 1 report the normalised environmental impacts per person in Europe calculated according to the ILCD (International reference Life Cycle Data system) method [3]. Table 2, Table 3, Table 4a, Table 4b, Table 5a, Table 5b, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8a, Table 8b, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15 report the contributions of materials and activities in the background system to each life-cycle phase and activity in the foreground system (the product system is reported in Ref. [1]). The environmental impacts reported in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4a, Table 4b, Table 5a, Table 5b, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8a, Table 8b, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, Table 15 refer to a functional unit of 303 MJ electric and 133 MJ thermal, which correspond to the output from 1 s of operation of the plant.

Table 1.

Normalised impacts of the hellisheiði ellisheidi geothermal plant.

Category Unit Normalisation factors [3,15] Normalised impacts
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 4.73E+01 2.75E-05
Climate change kg CO2 9.22E+03 1.84E-04
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 8.74E+03 8.91E-04
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.48E+00 8.63E-05
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 1.69E+01 2.40E-05
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 1.76E+02 2.27E-05
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 3.69E-05 2.69E-03
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 5.33E-04 3.41E-04
Land use kg C deficit eq. N/A
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq. 2.16E-02 6.64E-07
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 3.80E+00 6.65E-05
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 3.17E+01 3.86E-05
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 8.14E+01 1.42E-05
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 1.01E-01 8.36E-05
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 2.16E+05 9.61E-06

Table 2.

Environmental impacts of the four main life cycle phases of the Hellisheiði geothermal plant.

Category Unit Construction Operation Maintenance End of life Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 1.09E-03 0.00E+00 1.90E-04 1.65E-05 1.30E-03
Climate change kg CO2 1.40E-01 1.53E+00 2.25E-02 2.45E-03 1.70E + 00
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 3.57E+00 0.00E+00 6.56E-01 3.57E+00 7.79E + 00
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.05E-04 0.00E+00 2.27E-05 3.26E-07 1.28E-04
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 3.29E-04 0.00E+00 6.85E-05 7.41E-06 4.05E-04
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 3.25E-03 0.00E+00 6.80E-04 6.68E-05 4.00E-03
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 8.16E-08 0.00E+00 1.74E-08 1.29E-10 9.92E-08
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 1.51E-07 0.00E+00 2.91E-08 2.27E-09 1.82E-07
Land use kg C deficit eq. 2.34E-01 0.00E+00 4.38E-02 1.61E-02 2.93E-01
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 1.18E-08 0.00E+00 2.21E-09 3.74E-10 1.43E-08
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 2.12E-04 0.00E+00 3.70E-05 3.70E-06 2.53E-04
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 9.87E-04 2.23E-05 1.97E-04 1.85E-05 1.22E-03
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 1.04E-03 0.00E+00 1.03E-04 1.07E-05 1.15E-03
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 7.60E-06 0.00E+00 7.76E-07 6.34E-08 8.44E-06
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 1.80E+00 0.00E+00 2.51E-01 2.36E-02 2.08E + 00

Table 3.

Environmental impacts of the construction phase.

Category Unit Wells Cogeneration plant Collection pipelines Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 6.19E-04 3.38E-04 1.37E-04 1.09E-03
Climate change kg CO2 6.83E-02 4.99E-02 2.23E-02 1.40E-01
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 1.64E+00 1.31E+00 6.17E-01 3.57E + 00
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 5.36E-05 3.61E-05 1.50E-05 1.05E-04
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 2.46E-04 5.88E-05 2.42E-05 3.29E-04
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 2.41E-03 5.71E-04 2.70E-04 3.25E-03
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 4.43E-08 2.09E-08 1.64E-08 8.16E-08
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 7.25E-08 5.40E-08 2.42E-08 1.51E-07
Land use kg C deficit eq. 1.35E-01 6.87E-02 2.98E-02 2.34E-01
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 7.47E-09 3.10E-09 1.18E-09 1.18E-08
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 1.17E-04 6.53E-05 3.01E-05 2.12E-04
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 6.81E-04 2.12E-04 9.43E-05 9.87E-04
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 5.48E-04 3.65E-04 1.25E-04 1.04E-03
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 2.13E-06 4.50E-06 9.68E-07 7.60E-06
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 6.91E-01 7.49E-01 3.64E-01 1.80E + 00

Table 4a.

Environmental impacts of construction of the geothermal wells.

Category Unit Diesel Steel Cement Water Aluminium Bentonite Lignosulfunite Drilling waste disposal Waste water treatment
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 4.06E-04 1.72E-04 1.17E-05 3.10E-06 1.03E-05 1.75E-06 9.16E-07 3.20E-06 7.62E-06
Climate change kg CO2 2.84E-02 3.08E-02 4.96E-03 4.86E-04 1.53E-03 1.99E-04 9.02E-05 4.12E-04 9.05E-04
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 1.65E-02 1.19E+00 7.03E-03 7.00E-03 1.72E-02 2.44E-03 1.71E-03 3.73E-01 1.70E-02
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 6.03E-07 2.74E-05 4.30E-07 3.49E-07 5.14E-07 4.34E-08 4.82E-08 2.26E-05 1.51E-06
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 1.79E-04 3.20E-05 3.07E-06 4.98E-07 1.42E-06 4.84E-07 1.86E-07 1.09E-06 2.76E-05
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 1.96E-03 3.45E-04 3.58E-05 5.98E-06 1.44E-05 5.95E-06 1.90E-06 1.20E-05 2.12E-05
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 1.65E-10 3.45E-08 6.12E-11 2.19E-10 3.21E-10 1.07E-11 9.13E-12 8.80E-09 2.26E-10
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 9.50E-10 4.71E-08 4.06E-10 3.07E-10 3.68E-10 5.56E-11 6.33E-11 1.92E-08 3.95E-09
Land use kg C deficit eq. 7.01E-02 3.84E-02 2.45E-03 6.04E-04 8.89E-04 5.63E-03 6.11E-04 9.45E-03 5.70E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 5.20E-09 1.78E-09 1.55E-10 4.63E-11 4.35E-11 2.73E-11 1.00E-11 1.15E-10 4.65E-11
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 6.34E-05 4.88E-05 8.79E-07 4.17E-07 1.61E-06 1.85E-07 1.41E-07 3.59E-07 6.38E-07
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 5.13E-04 1.42E-04 8.84E-06 1.51E-06 4.37E-06 1.47E-06 5.44E-07 3.47E-06 3.00E-06
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 2.00E-05 2.32E-04 1.22E-05 2.59E-04 1.01E-05 1.16E-06 1.21E-06 2.36E-06 7.60E-06
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 1.45E-07 1.68E-06 3.59E-08 5.03E-08 2.30E-08 1.97E-08 8.69E-08 4.27E-08 2.95E-08
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 1.03E-01 4.66E-01 2.39E-02 2.30E-02 4.67E-02 2.48E-03 2.38E-03 4.79E-03 1.41E-02

Table 4b.

Environmental Impacts Of Construction Of The Geothermal Wells Cont'd

Category Unit Othersa Total
Excavation Perlite Silica sand Stainless steel Concrete
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 1.13E-06 7.12E-08 7.17E-07 3.40E-08 1.03E-06 6.19E-04
Climate change kg CO2 1.09E-04 4.75E-06 8.95E-05 5.11E-06 2.80E-04 6.83E-02
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 2.13E-04 2.36E-05 4.21E-04 1.25E-04 9.70E-04 1.64E + 00
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 7.49E-09 1.06E-09 2.11E-08 1.98E-09 3.60E-08 5.36E-05
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 4.83E-07 1.81E-08 1.32E-07 5.56E-09 2.75E-07 2.46E-04
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 5.29E-06 2.12E-07 1.44E-06 5.98E-08 3.07E-06 2.41E-03
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 5.26E-12 3.68E-13 3.94E-12 3.99E-12 7.69E-12 4.43E-08
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 8.62E-12 9.01E-13 1.78E-11 3.70E-12 4.29E-11 7.25E-08
Land use kg C deficit eq. 2.59E-04 -3.80E-05 3.88E-04 8.60E-06 6.26E-04 1.35E-01
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 1.92E-11 6.10E-13 6.91E-12 2.45E-13 1.64E-11 7.47E-09
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 1.43E-07 6.21E-09 6.85E-08 1.39E-08 1.17E-07 1.17E-04
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 1.46E-06 5.39E-08 4.14E-07 1.89E-08 8.34E-07 6.81E-04
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 1.56E-07 2.23E-08 6.60E-07 2.89E-08 1.31E-06 5.48E-04
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 8.28E-10 3.89E-09 3.20E-09 7.12E-10 7.86E-09 2.13E-06
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 5.43E-04 8.14E-05 1.98E-03 1.23E-04 2.02E-03 6.91E-01
a

Others refer to the charts in the associated research article [1] where these activities were aggregated.

Table 5a.

Environmental impacts of construction of the cogeneration plant.

Category Unit Copper Asphalt Reinforcing steel Aluminium Stainless steel Concrete Steel Glass fibre reinforced plastic Lubricating oil Titanium
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 7.45E-05 1.15E-05 8.39E-05 1.12E-05 3.35E-05 2.83E-05 2.87E-05 2.77E-05 2.33E-06 2.63E-05
Climate change kg CO2 7.23E-04 1.38E-03 1.59E-02 1.71E-03 5.04E-03 7.67E-03 4.99E-03 6.16E-03 3.10E-04 4.65E-03
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 5.88E-01 5.06E-03 2.79E-01 1.87E-02 1.23E-01 2.66E-02 2.12E-01 1.74E-02 2.23E-03 3.71E-02
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.47E-05 3.80E-07 9.46E-06 5.82E-07 1.95E-06 9.88E-07 4.82E-06 5.75E-07 9.81E-08 2.33E-06
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 5.97E-06 1.49E-06 1.55E-05 1.57E-06 5.49E-06 7.54E-06 5.39E-06 8.48E-06 3.16E-07 4.39E-06
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 4.50E-05 1.56E-05 1.67E-04 1.59E-05 5.89E-05 8.42E-05 5.80E-05 4.64E-05 3.37E-06 4.55E-05
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 9.36E-10 5.18E-11 8.88E-09 3.38E-10 3.94E-09 2.11E-10 5.96E-09 2.32E-10 1.61E-11 2.44E-10
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 2.79E-08 2.24E-10 1.04E-08 4.03E-10 3.65E-09 1.18E-09 8.64E-09 3.04E-10 9.27E-11 1.02E-09
Land use kg C deficit eq. 2.78E-03 5.00E-03 1.77E-02 1.00E-03 8.47E-03 1.72E-02 6.49E-03 1.82E-03 1.94E-03 4.46E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 4.13E-11 2.76E-10 9.33E-10 5.16E-11 2.41E-10 4.51E-10 2.78E-10 1.13E-10 1.41E-10 4.71E-10
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 6.40E-06 1.14E-06 2.07E-05 1.81E-06 1.37E-05 3.22E-06 8.34E-06 2.57E-06 2.91E-07 5.97E-06
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 1.27E-05 5.82E-06 7.74E-05 4.92E-06 1.86E-05 2.29E-05 2.31E-05 1.55E-05 5.88E-06 1.53E-05
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 8.86E-06 6.01E-06 1.02E-04 1.20E-05 2.85E-05 3.58E-05 2.79E-05 7.51E-05 2.66E-06 5.55E-05
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 1.34E-06 1.61E-08 4.69E-07 2.45E-08 7.03E-07 2.15E-07 3.06E-07 4.75E-08 5.38E-08 1.31E-06
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 2.04E-02 3.93E-02 1.71E-01 5.23E-02 1.22E-01 5.55E-02 7.21E-02 3.55E-02 7.97E-03 1.66E-01

Table 5b.

Environmental Impacts Of Construction Of The Cogeneration Plant Cont'd

Category Unit Othersa

Excavation Mineral wool Polyethylene PVC Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 4.41E-06 3.87E-06 1.21E-06 7.28E-07 3.38E-04
Climate change kg CO2 4.26E-04 4.17E-04 2.90E-04 2.01E-04 4.99E-02
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 8.32E-04 2.55E-03 5.86E-04 8.47E-04 1.31E + 00
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 2.93E-08 1.46E-07 5.48E-09 7.50E-09 3.61E-05
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 1.89E-06 3.80E-07 2.10E-07 1.92E-07 5.88E-05
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 2.07E-05 6.32E-06 2.29E-06 1.98E-06 5.71E-04
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 2.05E-11 2.05E-11 9.50E-12 1.27E-11 2.09E-08
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 3.37E-11 9.78E-11 7.22E-12 2.92E-11 5.40E-08
Land use kg C deficit eq. 1.01E-03 7.26E-04 4.45E-05 5.68E-05 6.87E-02
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 7.48E-11 2.48E-11 2.08E-12 2.59E-12 3.10E-09
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 5.58E-07 4.80E-07 7.20E-08 4.20E-08 6.53E-05
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 5.70E-06 1.87E-06 1.33E-06 1.00E-06 2.12E-04
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 6.09E-07 2.30E-06 7.88E-07 7.36E-06 3.65E-04
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 3.24E-09 7.77E-09 1.03E-09 1.37E-09 4.50E-06
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 2.12E-03 4.62E-03 1.50E-04 1.68E-04 7.49E-01
a

Others refer to the charts in the associated research article [1] where these activities were aggregated.

Table 6.

Environmental impacts of construction of the collection pipelines.

Category Unit Aluminium Excavation Steel Mineral wool Concrete Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 2.95E-05 3.81E-06 7.36E-05 2.01E-05 9.65E-06 1.37E-04
Climate change kg CO2 4.39E-03 3.68E-04 1.28E-02 2.17E-03 2.62E-03 2.23E-02
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 4.92E-02 7.19E-04 5.45E-01 1.32E-02 9.10E-03 6.17E-01
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.47E-06 2.53E-08 1.24E-05 7.61E-07 3.38E-07 1.50E-05
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 4.06E-06 1.63E-06 1.39E-05 1.98E-06 2.58E-06 2.42E-05
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 4.12E-05 1.79E-05 1.49E-04 3.28E-05 2.88E-05 2.70E-04
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 9.18E-10 1.77E-11 1.53E-08 1.06E-10 7.21E-11 1.64E-08
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 1.05E-09 2.91E-11 2.22E-08 5.08E-10 4.02E-10 2.42E-08
Land use kg C deficit eq. 2.54E-03 8.75E-04 1.67E-02 3.78E-03 5.87E-03 2.98E-02
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 1.24E-10 6.46E-11 7.13E-10 1.29E-10 1.54E-10 1.18E-09
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 4.61E-06 4.82E-07 2.14E-05 2.49E-06 1.10E-06 3.01E-05
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 1.25E-05 4.92E-06 5.94E-05 9.68E-06 7.81E-06 9.43E-05
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 2.89E-05 5.26E-07 7.15E-05 1.19E-05 1.22E-05 1.25E-04
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 6.58E-08 2.80E-09 7.85E-07 4.04E-08 7.37E-08 9.68E-07
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 1.34E-01 1.83E-03 1.85E-01 2.40E-02 1.90E-02 3.64E-01

Table 7.

Environmental impacts of the maintenance phase.

Category Unit Make-up wells Additional collection pipelines Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 1.53E-04 3.42E-05 1.87E-04
Climate change kg CO2 1.66E-02 5.59E-03 2.22E-02
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 4.04E-01 1.54E-01 5.58E-01
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.29E-05 3.75E-06 1.67E-05
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 5.53E-05 6.02E-06 6.13E-05
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 6.05E-04 6.74E-05 6.72E-04
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 1.11E-08 4.10E-09 1.52E-08
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 1.72E-08 6.05E-09 2.33E-08
Land use kg C deficit eq. 3.26E-02 7.44E-03 4.00E-02
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 1.87E-09 2.96E-10 2.17E-09
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 2.92E-05 7.53E-06 3.67E-05
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 1.72E-04 2.35E-05 1.95E-04
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 6.93E-05 3.13E-05 1.01E-04
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 5.17E-07 2.42E-07 7.58E-07
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 1.55E-01 9.09E-02 2.46E-01

Table 8a.

Environmental impacts of construction of the make-up wells.

Category Unit Diesel Steel Cement Water Aluminium Bentonite Lignosulfunite Drilling waste disposal Waste water treatment
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 1.04E-04 4.37E-05 2.91E-06 7.44E-08 4.36E-07 2.29E-07 8.00E-07 8.00E-07 1.90E-06
Climate change kg CO2 7.24E-03 7.84E-03 1.24E-03 8.86E-06 4.98E-05 2.25E-05 1.03E-04 1.03E-04 2.26E-04
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 4.22E-03 3.03E-01 1.76E-03 3.03E-04 6.11E-04 4.27E-04 9.33E-02 9.33E-02 4.25E-03
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.54E-07 6.99E-06 1.07E-07 1.65E-09 1.09E-08 1.21E-08 5.65E-06 5.65E-06 3.76E-07
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 4.57E-05 8.17E-06 7.66E-07 2.73E-08 1.21E-07 4.64E-08 2.73E-07 2.73E-07 6.89E-06
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 5.00E-04 8.79E-05 8.94E-06 3.01E-07 1.49E-06 4.75E-07 3.00E-06 3.00E-06 5.29E-06
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 4.23E-11 8.81E-09 1.53E-11 6.01E-13 2.68E-12 2.28E-12 2.20E-09 2.20E-09 5.64E-11
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 2.43E-10 1.20E-08 1.01E-10 1.33E-11 1.39E-11 1.58E-11 4.81E-09 4.81E-09 9.87E-10
Land use kg C deficit eq. 1.79E-02 9.79E-03 6.12E-04 7.37E-05 1.41E-03 1.53E-04 2.36E-03 2.36E-03 1.42E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 1.33E-09 4.55E-10 3.86E-11 1.74E-12 6.81E-12 2.51E-12 2.88E-11 2.88E-11 1.16E-11
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 1.62E-05 1.25E-05 2.20E-07 2.07E-08 4.63E-08 3.53E-08 8.97E-08 8.97E-08 1.59E-07
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 1.31E-04 3.62E-05 2.21E-06 8.30E-08 3.66E-07 1.36E-07 8.66E-07 8.66E-07 7.50E-07
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 5.10E-06 5.94E-05 3.04E-06 4.53E-08 2.90E-07 3.01E-07 5.91E-07 5.91E-07 1.90E-06
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 3.70E-08 4.29E-07 8.97E-09 3.04E-10 4.91E-09 2.17E-08 1.07E-08 1.07E-08 7.38E-09
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 2.64E-02 1.19E-01 5.96E-03 1.19E-04 6.20E-04 5.96E-04 1.20E-03 1.20E-03 3.52E-03

Table 8b.

Environmental Impacts Of Construction Of The Make-Up Wells Cont'd.

Category Unit Excavation Perlite Silica sand Stainless steel Concrete Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 2.82E-07 1.78E-08 1.79E-07 8.48E-09 2.57E-07 1.56E-04
Climate change kg CO2 2.73E-05 1.19E-06 2.24E-05 1.28E-06 6.99E-05 1.70E-02
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 5.32E-05 5.90E-06 1.05E-04 3.13E-05 2.42E-04 5.02E-01
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.87E-09 2.66E-10 5.28E-09 4.95E-10 9.00E-09 1.90E-05
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 1.21E-07 4.53E-09 3.30E-08 1.39E-09 6.87E-08 6.25E-05
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 1.32E-06 5.30E-08 3.59E-07 1.49E-08 7.67E-07 6.13E-04
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 1.31E-12 9.20E-14 9.83E-13 9.97E-13 1.92E-12 1.33E-08
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 2.15E-12 2.25E-13 4.44E-12 9.25E-13 1.07E-11 2.30E-08
Land use kg C deficit eq. 6.48E-05 -9.50E-06 9.70E-05 2.15E-06 1.56E-04 3.64E-02
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 4.78E-12 1.52E-13 1.73E-12 6.11E-14 4.11E-12 1.92E-09
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 3.57E-08 1.55E-09 1.71E-08 3.47E-09 2.94E-08 2.95E-05
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 3.64E-07 1.35E-08 1.04E-07 4.72E-09 2.08E-07 1.73E-04
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 3.89E-08 5.57E-09 1.65E-07 7.23E-09 3.26E-07 7.18E-05
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 2.07E-10 9.72E-10 7.99E-10 1.78E-10 1.96E-09 5.35E-07
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 1.36E-04 2.03E-05 4.94E-04 3.08E-05 5.06E-04 1.60E-01

Table 9.

Environmental impacts of construction of the additional collection pipelines for the make-up wells.

Category Unit Aluminium Excavation Steel Mineral wool Concrete Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 7.38E-06 9.51E-07 1.84E-05 5.02E-06 2.41E-06 3.42E-05
Climate change kg CO2 1.10E-03 9.21E-05 3.20E-03 5.42E-04 6.55E-04 5.59E-03
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 1.23E-02 1.80E-04 1.36E-01 3.31E-03 2.27E-03 1.54E-01
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 3.68E-07 6.32E-09 3.10E-06 1.90E-07 8.44E-08 3.75E-06
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 1.01E-06 4.07E-07 3.46E-06 4.94E-07 6.44E-07 6.02E-06
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 1.03E-05 4.46E-06 3.72E-05 8.21E-06 7.19E-06 6.74E-05
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 2.29E-10 4.43E-12 3.82E-09 2.66E-11 1.80E-11 4.10E-09
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 2.64E-10 7.27E-12 5.55E-09 1.27E-10 1.01E-10 6.05E-09
Land use kg C deficit eq. 6.36E-04 2.19E-04 4.17E-03 9.44E-04 1.47E-03 7.44E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 3.11E-11 1.62E-11 1.78E-10 3.23E-11 3.85E-11 2.96E-10
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 1.15E-06 1.20E-07 5.36E-06 6.22E-07 2.75E-07 7.53E-06
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 3.13E-06 1.23E-06 1.48E-05 2.42E-06 1.95E-06 2.35E-05
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 7.21E-06 1.31E-07 1.79E-05 2.98E-06 3.06E-06 3.13E-05
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 1.64E-08 6.99E-10 1.96E-07 1.01E-08 1.84E-08 2.42E-07
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 3.34E-02 4.58E-04 4.63E-02 5.99E-03 4.74E-03 9.09E-02

Table 10.

Environmental impacts of the end-of-life phase.

Category Unit Wells CHP plant Collection pipelines Make-up wells Additional collection pipelines Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 1.14E-06 1.08E-05 3.43E-06 2.89E-07 8.58E-07 1.65E-05
Climate change kg CO2 2.86E-04 1.59E-03 4.07E-04 7.26E-05 1.02E-04 2.45E-03
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 6.77E-03 3.50E+00 4.86E-02 1.69E-03 1.22E-02 3.57E + 00
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 3.53E-08 1.91E-07 7.28E-08 8.97E-09 1.82E-08 3.26E-07
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 3.39E-07 5.44E-06 1.23E-06 8.57E-08 3.10E-07 7.41E-06
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 3.83E-06 4.50E-05 1.36E-05 9.71E-07 3.41E-06 6.68E-05
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 8.81E-12 7.80E-11 3.19E-11 2.23E-12 7.97E-12 1.29E-10
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 8.79E-11 1.49E-09 5.37E-10 2.21E-11 1.35E-10 2.27E-09
Land use kg C deficit eq. 1.03E-03 9.09E-03 4.56E-03 2.59E-04 1.14E-03 1.61E-02
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 2.07E-11 2.41E-10 8.63E-11 5.23E-12 2.15E-11 3.74E-10
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 1.65E-07 2.43E-06 8.48E-07 4.15E-08 2.12E-07 3.70E-06
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 1.02E-06 1.24E-05 3.79E-06 2.58E-07 9.48E-07 1.85E-05
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 1.51E-06 6.15E-06 2.16E-06 3.83E-07 5.39E-07 1.07E-05
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 7.25E-09 3.61E-08 1.46E-08 1.84E-09 3.64E-09 6.34E-08
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 2.22E-03 1.41E-02 5.37E-03 5.63E-04 1.34E-03 2.36E-02

Table 11.

Environmental impacts of dismantling and closure of the geothermal wells.

Category Unit Aluminium disposal Steel disposal Concrete (not reinforced) disposal Cement for closure Gravel for closure Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 9.29E-09 7.01E-08 2.98E-07 4.89E-07 2.77E-07 1.14E-06
Climate change kg CO2 1.41E-06 8.24E-06 3.55E-05 2.05E-04 3.59E-05 2.86E-04
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 1.43E-04 4.85E-03 1.21E-03 3.06E-04 2.60E-04 6.77E-03
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 2.47E-10 1.19E-09 6.61E-09 1.84E-08 8.89E-09 3.53E-08
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 2.91E-09 2.35E-08 1.09E-07 1.28E-07 7.56E-08 3.39E-07
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 3.20E-08 2.58E-07 1.20E-06 1.49E-06 8.49E-07 3.83E-06
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 1.52E-13 1.13E-12 2.41E-12 2.62E-12 2.50E-12 8.81E-12
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 3.77E-12 3.48E-12 5.33E-11 1.73E-11 1.00E-11 8.79E-11
Land use kg C deficit eq. 1.09E-05 1.92E-04 2.95E-04 1.05E-04 4.25E-04 1.03E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 2.69E-13 2.27E-12 6.97E-12 6.51E-12 4.69E-12 2.07E-11
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 1.65E-09 7.76E-09 8.27E-08 3.75E-08 3.51E-08 1.65E-07
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 1.00E-08 7.39E-08 3.32E-07 3.69E-07 2.36E-07 1.02E-06
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 6.96E-09 4.91E-08 1.82E-07 5.15E-07 7.56E-07 1.51E-06
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 6.61E-11 3.57E-10 1.22E-09 1.58E-09 4.03E-09 7.25E-09
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 1.36E-05 9.85E-05 4.78E-04 1.03E-03 6.08E-04 2.22E-03

Table 12.

Environmental impacts of end-of-life of the cogeneration plant.

Category Unit Aluminium disposal Copper disposal Concrete (not reinforced) disposal Mineral wool disposal Asphalt disposal Reinforcing steel disposal Polyethylene disposal PVC disposal Inert waste disposal Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 2.49E-08 1.01E-08 7.14E-06 1.50E-08 5.43E-07 2.92E-06 3.98E-08 8.73E-08 8.88E-09 1.08E-05
Climate change kg CO2 3.78E-06 1.54E-06 8.50E-04 1.51E-06 8.88E-05 2.86E-04 2.43E-04 1.10E-04 1.14E-06 1.59E-03
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 3.85E-04 3.44E+00 2.91E-02 4.77E-06 2.85E-03 3.36E-03 1.56E-02 2.26E-03 2.63E-04 3.50E + 00
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 6.62E-10 2.70E-10 1.58E-07 1.84E-10 1.00E-08 1.65E-08 4.70E-10 4.22E-09 2.91E-10 1.91E-07
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 7.80E-09 3.16E-09 2.61E-06 4.98E-09 1.40E-06 1.24E-06 1.03E-07 6.61E-08 2.95E-09 5.44E-06
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 8.57E-08 3.47E-08 2.88E-05 5.46E-08 1.89E-06 1.36E-05 1.89E-07 2.26E-07 3.23E-08 4.50E-05
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 4.09E-13 1.65E-13 5.77E-11 5.98E-14 4.43E-12 8.98E-12 1.63E-12 4.38E-12 2.51E-13 7.80E-11
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 1.01E-11 5.41E-11 1.28E-09 1.90E-13 1.92E-11 2.11E-11 7.07E-11 1.98E-11 1.21E-11 1.49E-09
Land use kg C deficit eq. 2.91E-05 1.18E-05 7.08E-03 5.30E-05 8.08E-04 1.04E-03 1.50E-05 3.89E-05 1.22E-05 9.09E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 7.20E-13 2.93E-13 1.67E-10 5.12E-13 1.50E-11 5.27E-11 4.94E-13 3.46E-12 2.53E-13 2.41E-10
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 4.43E-09 1.80E-09 1.98E-06 1.72E-09 6.62E-08 3.62E-07 2.09E-09 1.09E-08 1.05E-09 2.43E-06
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 2.69E-08 1.09E-08 7.96E-06 1.58E-08 5.55E-07 3.75E-06 4.88E-08 6.29E-08 9.22E-09 1.24E-05
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 1.87E-08 7.58E-09 4.35E-06 1.11E-08 4.09E-07 4.35E-07 2.47E-08 8.84E-07 6.80E-09 6.15E-06
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 1.77E-10 7.21E-11 2.91E-08 4.59E-11 2.27E-09 3.32E-09 9.99E-11 9.76E-10 4.84E-11 3.61E-08
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 3.65E-05 1.48E-05 1.14E-02 1.81E-05 8.15E-04 1.53E-03 2.54E-05 2.61E-04 1.48E-05 1.41E-02

Table 13.

Environmental impacts of end-of-life of the collection pipelines.

Category Unit Aluminium disposal Steel disposal Concrete disposal Mineral wool disposal Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 2.66E-08 5.32E-07 2.79E-06 8.48E-08 3.43E-06
Climate change kg CO2 4.03E-06 6.26E-05 3.32E-04 8.55E-06 4.07E-04
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 4.10E-04 3.68E-02 1.14E-02 2.70E-05 4.86E-02
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 7.05E-10 9.05E-09 6.20E-08 1.04E-09 7.28E-08
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 8.31E-09 1.78E-07 1.02E-06 2.82E-08 1.23E-06
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 9.14E-08 1.95E-06 1.13E-05 3.08E-07 1.36E-05
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 4.36E-13 8.55E-12 2.26E-11 3.39E-13 3.19E-11
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 1.08E-11 2.64E-11 4.99E-10 1.07E-12 5.37E-10
Land use kg C deficit eq. 3.10E-05 1.46E-03 2.77E-03 3.00E-04 4.56E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 7.68E-13 1.73E-11 6.53E-11 2.89E-12 8.63E-11
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 4.71E-09 5.89E-08 7.75E-07 9.68E-09 8.48E-07
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 2.87E-08 5.61E-07 3.11E-06 8.96E-08 3.79E-06
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 1.99E-08 3.73E-07 1.70E-06 6.29E-08 2.16E-06
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 1.89E-10 2.71E-09 1.14E-08 2.60E-10 1.46E-08
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 3.89E-05 7.48E-04 4.48E-03 1.02E-04 5.37E-03

Table 14.

Environmental impacts of closure of the make-up wells.

Category Unit Aluminium disposal Steel disposal Concrete (not reinforced) disposal Cement Gravel Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 2.32E-09 1.75E-08 7.44E-08 1.24E-07 7.05E-08 2.19E-06
Climate change kg CO2 3.52E-07 2.06E-06 8.86E-06 5.22E-05 9.14E-06 2.99E-04
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 3.58E-05 1.21E-03 3.03E-04 7.80E-05 6.62E-05 5.94E-03
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 6.16E-11 2.98E-10 1.65E-09 4.69E-09 2.27E-09 3.85E-07
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 7.27E-10 5.86E-09 2.73E-08 3.26E-08 1.92E-08 6.98E-06
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 7.99E-09 6.43E-08 3.01E-07 3.81E-07 2.17E-07 6.26E-06
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 3.81E-14 2.81E-13 6.01E-13 6.67E-13 6.39E-13 5.86E-11
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 9.42E-13 8.69E-13 1.33E-11 4.41E-12 2.54E-12 1.01E-09
Land use kg C deficit eq. 2.71E-06 4.80E-05 7.37E-05 2.67E-05 1.08E-04 1.68E-03
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 6.72E-14 5.68E-13 1.74E-12 1.66E-12 1.20E-12 1.68E-11
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 4.12E-10 1.94E-09 2.07E-08 9.55E-09 8.93E-09 2.01E-07
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 2.51E-09 1.85E-08 8.30E-08 9.40E-08 6.00E-08 1.01E-06
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 1.74E-09 1.23E-08 4.53E-08 1.31E-07 1.92E-07 2.28E-06
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 1.65E-11 8.91E-11 3.04E-10 4.01E-10 1.03E-09 9.22E-09
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 3.40E-06 2.46E-05 1.19E-04 2.61E-04 1.55E-04 4.08E-03

Table 15.

Environmental impacts of end-of-life of the additional collection pipelines for the make-up wells.

Category Unit Aluminium disposal Steel disposal Concrete disposal Mineral wool disposal Total
Acidification mole of H+ eq. 6.64E-09 1.33E-07 6.97E-07 2.12E-08 2.89E-07
Climate change kg CO2 1.01E-06 1.56E-05 8.31E-05 2.14E-06 7.26E-05
Ecotoxicity - freshwater CTUe 1.03E-04 9.21E-03 2.85E-03 6.75E-06 1.69E-03
Eutrophication - freshwater kg P eq. 1.76E-10 2.26E-09 1.55E-08 2.60E-10 8.97E-09
Eutrophication - marine kg N eq. 2.08E-09 4.45E-08 2.56E-07 7.04E-09 8.57E-08
Eutrophication - terrestrial mole of N Eq. 2.28E-08 4.89E-07 2.82E-06 7.71E-08 9.71E-07
Human toxicity - cancer effects CTUh 1.09E-13 2.14E-12 5.64E-12 8.47E-14 2.23E-12
Human toxicity - non-cancer effects CTUh 2.69E-12 6.60E-12 1.25E-10 2.68E-13 2.21E-11
Land use kg C deficit eq. 7.75E-06 3.64E-04 6.91E-04 7.50E-05 2.59E-04
Ozone depletion, kg CFC-11 eq. 1.92E-13 4.31E-12 1.63E-11 7.23E-13 5.23E-12
Particulate matter kg PM2.5 eq. 1.18E-09 1.47E-08 1.94E-07 2.42E-09 4.15E-08
Photochemical ozone formation kg NMVOC eq. 7.17E-09 1.40E-07 7.78E-07 2.24E-08 2.58E-07
Resource depletion - water m3 eq. 4.97E-09 9.32E-08 4.25E-07 1.57E-08 3.83E-07
Resource depletion - others kg Sb eq. 4.72E-11 6.77E-10 2.85E-09 6.49E-11 1.84E-09
Ionising radiations Bq U235 air-equiv. 9.73E-06 1.87E-04 1.12E-03 2.55E-05 5.63E-04

This article also reports carbon intensities of geothermal energy and other energy technologies. Table 16 report the carbon intensities of Hellisheiði according to different configurations (i.e. single and double flash, and electricity-only production and co-generation of electricity and heat). Table 17, Table 18 report the carbon intensities of geothermal plants estimated by other LCA studies [[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]] and of alternative energy technologies as reported by the IPCC [14]. The carbon intensity is defined as the life-cycle emission of greenhouse gases expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (i.e. in terms of their potential to contribute to global warming) per kWh of electricity produced.

Table 16.

Results of Monte Carlo simulations for single (Sf) and double (df) flash Configurations, and for combined heat and power (chp), according to energy, exergy or price-based allocation, and power only Configurations.

10% 25% Median 75% 90%
Single flash CHP Energy 12.89 15.53 18.40 21.48 24.34
Exergy 13.26 15.98 18.93 22.10 25.05
Price 18.49 22.28 26.39 30.82 34.93
Power only 18.84 22.51 26.82 31.13 35.44
Double flash CHP Energy 10.97 13.23 15.76 18.39 21.01
Exergy 11.47 13.83 16.48 19.22 21.97
Price 16.46 19.84 23.64 27.58 31.52
Power only 16.63 19.90 23.73 27.71 31.27

Table 17.

Carbon intensity of other geothermal energy plants.

Technology Source gCO2 eq.
Dry steam Buonocore et al., 2015 248
Single Flash Bravi and Basosi, 2014 776
Double flash Hondo, 2005 15
Double flash Atilgan and Azapagic, 2016 63
Double flash Marchand et al., 2015 47
Binary Martin Gamboa et al., 2015 2
Binary Frick et al., 2010 52
Binary Lacirignola and Blanc, 2013 37
Binary Pratiwi et al., 2018 25
Binary Rule et al., 2009 5.6

Notes:1 Scenario A1, 2 Base case (Scenario 6), 3 Scenario S2.

Table 18.

Carbon Intensity Of Selected Energy Sources From Ipcc [14].

Min Median Max
Coal (PC) 740 820 910
Gas (combined cycle) 410 490 650
Geothermal 6 38 79
Hydropower 1 24 2200
Nuclear 3.7 12 110
Solar (PV) 18 48 180
Wind (onshore) 7 11 56

2. Experimental design, materials, and methods

The environmental impacts of Hellisheiði were generated with Gabi sustainability software, version 8, using the life-cycle inventory developed by Karlsdóttir et al. [2] for the foreground system and the Ecoinvent database version 3.4 [16] for all background activities; the ILCD impact method [17] enhanced with the radiological impact category for ionising radiations developed by Paulillo [15] was used to translate the inventory into environmental impacts. Numerical values of impacts generated by the LCA software have been only slightly amended to improve readability and clarity.

Monte Carlo simulations were performed for single- and double-flash configurations and for the case of electricity-only production and co-generation of heat and power. The Monte Carlo simulations were performed in Gabi with a number of iterations equal to 10,000.

The data on carbon intensities of geothermal energy and other energy technologies were collated from literature and are reported unchanged here.

Acknowledgment

This work is part of the S4CE collaborative project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 764810.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  • 1.Paulillo A., Striolo A., Lettieri P. The environmental impacts and the carbon intensity of geothermal energy: a case study on the Hellisheiði plant. Environ. Int. 2019;133(Part B):105226. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Karlsdóttir M.R., Pálsson Ó.P., Pálsson H., Maya-Drysdale L. Life cycle inventory of a flash geothermal combined heat and power plant located in Iceland. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015;20:503–519. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Benini L., Mancini L., Sala S., Schau E., Manfredi S., Pant R. 2014. Normalisation Method and Data for Environmental Footprints. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Buonocore E., Vanoli L., Carotenuto A., Ulgiati S. Integrating life cycle assessment and emergy synthesis for the evaluation of a dry steam geothermal power plant in Italy. Energy. 2015;86:476–487. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bravi M., Basosi R. Environmental impact of electricity from selected geothermal power plants in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2014;66:301–308. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hondo H. Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy. 2005;30:2042–2056. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Atilgan B., Azapagic A. Renewable electricity in Turkey: life cycle environmental impacts. Renew. Energy. 2016;89:649–657. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Marchand M., Blanc I., Marquand A., Beylot A., Bezelgues-Courtade S., Traineau H. Life Cycle Assessment of high temperature geothermal energy systems. Proc. World Geotherm. Congr. 2015;2015 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Martín-Gamboa M., Iribarren D., Dufour J. On the environmental suitability of high- and low-enthalpy geothermal systems. Geothermics. 2015;53:27–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Frick S., Kaltschmitt M., Schröder G. Life cycle assessment of geothermal binary power plants using enhanced low-temperature reservoirs. Energy. 2010;35:2281–2294. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lacirignola M., Blanc I. Environmental analysis of practical design options for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) through life-cycle assessment. Renew. Energy. 2013;50:901–914. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pratiwi A., Ravier G., Genter A. Life-cycle climate-change impact assessment of enhanced geothermal system plants in the Upper Rhine Valley. Geothermics. 2018;75:26–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rule B.M., Worth Z.J., Boyle C.A. Comparison of life cycle carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation technologies in New Zealand. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009;43:6406–6413. doi: 10.1021/es900125e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schlömer S., Bruckner T., Fulton L., Hertwich E., McKinnon A., Perczyk D., Roy T.J., Schaeffer R., Sims R., Smith P., Wiser R. 2014. Annex III: Technology-specific Cost and Performance Parameters.http://report.mitigation2014.org/report/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-ii.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Paulillo A. University College London; 2018. Operationalising the Use of Life Cycle Assessment to Nuclear Waste Management. PhD Thesis. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wernet G., Bauer C., Steubing B., Reinhard J., Moreno-Ruiz E., Weidema B. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016;21:1218–1230. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.JRC . 2012. Characterisation Factors of the ILCD Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: Database and Supporting Information. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Data in Brief are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES