Life-cycle assessment of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine: CML method

  • Eduardo Martínez
  • Félix Sanz
  • Stefano Pellegrini
  • Emilio Jiménez
  • Julio Blanco
LCA CASE STUDY • DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

Renewable energy sources nowadays constitute an increasingly important issue in our society, basically because of the need for alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels that are free of CO2 emissions and pollution and also because of other problems such as the diminution of the reserves of these fossil fuels, their increasing prices and the economic dependence of non-producers countries on those that produce fossil fuels. One of the renewable energy sources that has experienced a bigger growth over the last years is wind power, with the introduction of new wind farms all over the world and the new advances in wind power technology. Wind power produces electrical energy from the kinetic energy of the wind without producing any pollution or emissions during the conversion process. Although wind power does not produce pollution or emissions during operation, it should be considered that there is an environmental impact due to the manufacturing process of the wind turbine and the disposal process at the end of the wind turbine life cycle, and this environmental impact should be quantified in order to compare the effects of the production of energy and to analyse the possibilities of improvement of the process from that point of view. Thus, the aim of this study is to analyse the environmental impact of wind energy technology, considering the whole life cycle of the wind power system, by means of the application of the ISO 14040 standard [ISO (1998) ISO 14040. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standard Organization, Geneva, Switzerland], which allows quantification of the overall impact of a wind turbine and each of its component parts using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study.

Materials and methods

The procedures, details, and results obtained are based on the application of the existing international standards of LCA. In addition, environmental details and indications of materials and energy consumption provided by the various companies related to the production of the component parts are certified by the application of the environmental management system ISO 14001 [ISO (2004) ISO 14001 Environmental management systems—requirements with guidance for use. International Standard Organization, Geneva, Switzerland]. A wind turbine is analysed during all the phases of its life cycle, from cradle to grave, by applying this methodology, taking into account all the processes related to the wind turbine: the production of its main components (through the incorporation of cut-off criteria), the transport to the wind farm, the subsequent installation, the start-up, the maintenance and the final dismantling and stripping down into waste materials and their treatment. The study has been developed in accordance with the ISO 14044 standard [ISO (2006) ISO 14044: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organization, Geneva, Switzerland] currently in force.

Results

The application of LCA, according to the corresponding international standards, has made it possible to determine and quantify the environmental impact associated with a wind turbine. On the basis of this data, the final environmental effect of the wind turbine after a lifespan of 20 years and its subsequent decommissioning have been studied. The environmental advantages of the generation of electricity using wind energy, that is, the reduction in emissions and contamination due to the use of a clean energy source, have also been evaluated.

Discussion

This study concludes that the environmental pollution resulting from all the phases of the wind turbine (manufacture, start-up, use, and dismantling) during the whole of its lifetime is recovered in less than 1 year.

Conclusions

From the developed LCA model, the important levels of contamination of certain materials can be obtained, for instance, the prepreg (a composite made by a mixture of epoxy resin and fibreglass). Furthermore, it has been concluded that it is possible to reduce the environmental effects of manufacturing and recycling processes of wind turbines and their components.

Recommendations and perspectives

In order to achieve this goal in a fast and effective way, it is essential to enlist the cooperation of the different manufacturers.

Keywords

CML method Copper Discussion article Electricity Energy production LCA case study Wind energy farms Wind turbine 

References

  1. Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Lo Brano V (2008) Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 12(1):200–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banister D, Stead D, Steen P, Åkerman J, Dreborg K, Nijkamp P, Schleicher-Tappeser R (2000) European transport policy and sustainable mobility. Spon, Suffolk, p 255Google Scholar
  3. Bauman H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur AB, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben Amar F, Elamouri M, Dhifaoui R (2008) Energy assessment of the first wind farm section of Sidi Daoud, Tunisia. Renew Energ 33(10):2311–2321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boustead I, Hancock GF (2003) Handbook of industrial energy analysis. In: Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (eds) Implementation of life cycle assessment methods. ecoinvent report no. 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, pp 22–28Google Scholar
  6. Breukers S, Wolsink M (2007) Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: an international comparison. Energ Policy 35(5):2737–2750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carolin Mabel M, Fernandez E (2008) Growth and future trends of wind energy in India. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 12(6):1745–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Celik AN, Muneer T, Clarke P (2007) An investigation into micro wind energy systems for their utilization in urban areas and their life cycle assessment. Proc Automob Div Inst Mech Eng A J Power Energ 221(8):1107–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunliffe AM, Jones N, Williams PT (2003) Pyrolysis of composite plastic waste. Environ Technol 24:653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. del Río P, Unruh G (2007) Overcoming the lock-out of renewable energy technologies in Spain: The cases of wind and solar electricity. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 11(7):1498–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Marco I et al (1997) Recycling of the products obtained in the pyrolysis of fibre-glass polyester SMC. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 69:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas CA, Harrison GP, Chick JP (2008) Life cycle assessment of the Seagen marine current turbine. Proc Automob Div Inst Mech Eng M J Eng Marit Environ 222(1):1–12Google Scholar
  13. Dutra RM, Szklo AS (2008) Incentive policies for promoting wind power production in Brazil: scenarios for the alternative energy sources incentive program (PROINFA) under the new Brazilian electric power sector regulation. Renew Energ 33(1):65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elamouri M, Ben Amar F (2008) Wind energy potential in Tunisia. Renew Energ 33(4):758–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etxeberria M, Vázquez E, Marí A, Barra M (2007) Influence of amount of recycled coarse aggregates and production process on properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Cement Concrete Res 37(5):735–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frischknecht R, Rebitzer G (2005) The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database. J Clean Prod 13(13–14):1337–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T et al (2005) The ecoinvent database: Overview and methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GER (2004) Proyecto de desmantelamiento del parque eólico de Munilla—Lasanta.Google Scholar
  19. Goedkoop M, Oele M, Effting S (2004) SimaPro database manual methods library. PRé Consultants, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Góralczyk M (2003) Life-cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector. Appl Energ 75(3–4):205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Gurzenich D, Mathur J, Bansal NK, Wagner H-J (1999) Cumulative energy demand for selected renewable energy technologies. Int J Life Cycle Asses 4(3):143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. GWEC Global Wind Energy Council (2005) Wind Force 12. A blueprint to achieve 12% of the world’s electricity from wind power by 2020Google Scholar
  24. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, scientific background, vol. 2. Chapman & Hall, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO (1998) ISO 14040. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standard Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO (2004) ISO 14001 Environmental management systems—requirements with guidance for use. International Standard Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO (2006) ISO 14044: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Jäger-Waldau A (2007) Photovoltaics and renewable energies in Europe. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 11(7):1414–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jungbluth N, Bauer C, Dones R, Frischknecht R (2005) Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: case studies for photovoltaic and wind power. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karki R (2007) Renewable energy credit driven wind power growth for system reliability. Electr Pow Syst Res 77(7):797–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khan FI, Hawboldt K, Iqbal MT (2005) Life cycle analysis of wind–fuel cell integrated system. Renew Energ 30(2):157–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lunt D, Zhuang Y, La Brooy S (2002) Life cycle assessment of process options for copper production. Green Processing 2002—Proceedings: International Conference on the Sustainable Processing of Minerals, pp 185–193Google Scholar
  33. Marchenko OV (2008) Modeling of a green certificate market. Renew Energ 33(8):1953–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mila i Canals L, Domenech X, Rieradevall J, Puig R, Fullana P (2002) Use of life cycle assessment in the procedure for the establishment of environmental criteria in the Catalan eco-label of leather. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(1):39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muñoz I, Rieradevall J, Domenech X, Gazulla C (2006) Using LCA to assess eco-design in the automotive sector: case study of a polyolefinic door panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(5):323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norgate TE, Rankin WJ (2000) Life cycle assessment of copper and nickel production. Proceedings of MINPREX 2000. The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  37. Norgate TE, Jahanshahi S, Rankin WJ (2007) Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes. J Clean Prod 15(8–9):838–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papadopoulos AM, Glinou GL, Papachristos D (2008) Developments in the utilisation of wind energy in Greece. Renew Energ 33(1):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energ 31(1):55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perrin D et al (2006) SMC composites waste management as reinforcing fillers in polypropylene by combination of mechanical and chemical recycling processes. J Mater Sci 41(12):3593–3602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pickering SJ (2006) Recycling technologies for thermoset composite materials—current status. Composites A 37:1206–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pimentel D (2003) Food production and energy crisis. In: Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (eds) Implementation of life cycle assessment methods. ecoinvent report no. 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, pp 22–28Google Scholar
  43. Rieradevall J, Domenech X, Fullana P (1997) Application of life cycle assessment to landfilling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(3):141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sailor DJ, Smith M, Hart M (2008) Climate change implications for wind power resources in the Northwest United States. Renew Energ 33:2393–2406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SimaPro 7 (2006) Ecoinvent data base. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  46. Spielmann M, Scholz RW (2005) Life cycle inventories of transport services: background data for freight transport. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Torres A et al (2000) Recycling by pyrolysis of thermoset composites: characteristics of the liquid and gaseous fuels obtained. Fuel 79:897–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Troen I, Petersem EL (1991) European wind atlas. Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, p. 656, ISBN 87-550-1482-8Google Scholar
  49. Tryfonidou R, Wagner H-J (2004) Multi-megawatt wind turbines for offshore use: aspects of life cycle assessment. Int J Global Energy 21(3):255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vallee M, Tersac G, Destais-Orvoen N, Durand G (2004) Chemical tecycling of class A surface quality sheet-molding composites. Ind Eng Chem Res 43(20):6317–6324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wichser C, Klink K (2008) Low wind speed turbines and wind power potential in Minnesota, USA. Renew Energ 33(8):1749–1758Google Scholar
  52. Williams PT, Cunliffe A, Jones N (2005) Recovery of value-added products from the pyrolytic recycling of glass fibre-reinforced composite plastic waste. J Energy Inst 78(2):51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young S, Dubreuil A, Stewart N (2006) Qualitative maps of metal recycling. Draft Report prepared for the International Council on Mining & Metals, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  54. Yuksel I (2008) Global warming and renewable energy sources for sustainable development in Turkey. Renew Energ 33(4):802–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo Martínez
    • 1
  • Félix Sanz
    • 2
  • Stefano Pellegrini
    • 1
  • Emilio Jiménez
    • 3
  • Julio Blanco
    • 2
  1. 1.R&D DepartmentGrupo Eólicas RiojanasLogroñoSpain
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of La RiojaLogroñoSpain
  3. 3.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of La RiojaLogroñoSpain

Personalised recommendations