Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Embodied energy and carbon footprint comparison in wind and photovoltaic power plants

  • Original Research
  • Published:
International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work aims to evaluate comparatively the environmental impact of solar photovoltaic and wind power plants. The conceptual design and the initial preliminary design steps in the material selection process were considered. The assessment was made using two different metrics, embodied energy (EE) and carbon footprint (CF). Five different configurations of wind power plants and a set of photovoltaic panels in a power plant were evaluated. In the wind power plants, the generator, the materials, the height, and the tower type were varied. For manufacturing the towers, the following parameters were considered: material, height, and generator power. The photovoltaic power station can provide up to 1.5 MW. The materials selected for embodied energy and carbon footprint assessment followed two criteria: the greatest mass percentage participation and the greatest value of embodied energy and carbon footprint of each material used. For the calculation of distances travelled from suppliers of raw materials and components used in the photovoltaic panels and wind power plants, the considered destination was the city of Viana do Castelo (north of Portugal), one of the regions with tradition in wind power production and installations. The result is favorable to the concrete column, which achieved the best result of EE and CF. The Oebels 1.5 MW tower with an 80-m concrete column showed an EE of 0.0150 kWh/kWh (19.71% a 3.0 MW 120-m concrete column) and a CF of 4.77 gCO2/kWh (21.90% of the Rocha 3.0 MW 120-m concrete column). Comparing the 1.5 MW photovoltaic plant with the concrete column 1.5 MW wind power, the result is favorable to the concrete column. Taking into account that the values of the photovoltaic power plant are EE of 0.0638 kWh/kWh and a CF of 16.21 gCO2/kWh, the concrete column 1.5 MW represents 23.51% of the EE and 29,43% of the CF. This advantage of the concrete towers repeats for the other columns. The results show that the best configuration is the wind power plant with a concrete column. For further studies, a comparison between concrete and truss tower at the same work conditions is suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

References

  1. Lieberei, J., Gheewala, S.H.: Resource depletion assessment of the renewable electricity generation technologies—comparison of the life cycle impact assessment methods with focus on mineral resources. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 185–198 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bouraiou, A., et al.: Experimental evaluation of the performance and degradation of single crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules in the Saharan environment. Energy 132, 22–30 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. APREN.: APREN—Associação de Energias Renováveis. Evolution of the Installed Capacity of the Different Sources of Electricity Generation in Portugal between 2000 and 2016. 2020. [acesso em 14 05 2020] https://www.apren.pt/en/renewable-energies/power

  4. Bento, N., Fontes, M.: The construction of a new technological innovation system in a follower country: Wind energy in Portugal. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 99, 197–210 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Estanqueiro, A.I., Ferreira de Jesus, J.M.: Energia Eólica em Portugal: situação actual & perspectivas de futuro. AIP—Poruguesse Industrial Association, pp. 1–4 (1996) (Available only in Portuguese)

  6. Figueira, T.V.G.: Energia Solar em Portugal—Mapeamento do potencial fotovoltaico com recurso a Sistemas de Informação Geográfica. Run—Repositório Universidade Nova, p. 87 (2020).

  7. IEA.: IEA—renewables information 2019. Comprehensive historical review and current market trends in renewable energy: statistics report. IEA–Paris. [Online], 2019. [Acesso em 18 05 2020]. https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-information-2019

  8. Maia, V.M.J.: Analysis and design of offshore wind tower: parametric study. Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Master Thesis (2009) (Available only in Portuguese)

  9. Kaldellis, J.K., Apostolou, D.: Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart. Renew. Energy 108, 72–84 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Callister, W.D. Jr.: Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 6th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA (2003)

  11. Shackelford, J.F.: Introduction to materials science. Pearson education, 8th edn. USA (2016)

  12. Ljungberg, L.Y.: Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater. Des. 28, 466–479 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ribeiro, I., Peças, P., Henriques, E.: A life cycle framework to support material selection for eco-design: a case study on biodegradable polymers. Mater. Des. 51, 300–308 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Thackara.: In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex Word, vol 1, p 321.MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

  15. De Benedetti, B., et al.: Eco Audit: a renewed simplified procedure to facilitate the environmental informer material choice orienting the further life cycle analysis for Eco designers. Mater. Trans. 51(5), 832–837 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ashby, M.F., et al.: The CES EduPack Eco audit tool—a white paper. GRANTA Teach. Resour. 2(1), 17 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zarandi, M.H.F., et al.: A material selection methodology and expert system for sustainable design. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 57(9), 885–903 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khare, S., et al.: Selection of materials for high temperature latent heat energy storage. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 107, 20–27 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Broeren, M.L.M., et al.: Early-stage sustainability assessment to assist with material selection: a case study for bio-based printer panels. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 30–41 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. GRANTA.: GRANTA material intelligence. CES Selector. [Online] GRANTA, 2021. [Acesso em: 05 12 2018.] https://www.grantadesign.com/

  21. Ashby, M.F., Johnson, K.: Materials and design: the art and science of materials selection in product design, vol 1, 3rd edn, p. 416. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford (2013)

  22. Finnveden, G., et al.: Recent developments in the life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1–21 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. ISO 14040.: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)—Environmental Management (2006)

  24. Cabeza, L.F., et al.: Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 536–542 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dixit, M.K., et al.: Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: a literature review. Energy Build. 42, 1238–1247 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koskela, L.: Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction, p 75. CIFE—Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University. Stanford: s.n., Technical Report #72 (1992)

  27. Treloar, G.J. A comprehensive embodied energy analysis framework. Ph.D. Thesis. Deakin University (1998)

  28. Crowther, P. Design for disassembly to recover embodied energy. 1999, p. 6.

  29. Langston, Y.L., Langston, C.A.: Reliability of building embodied energy modeling: an analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies. Construct. Manag. Econ. 26(2), 147–160 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ding, G.K.C.: The development of a multi-criteria approach for the measurement of sustainable performance for built projects and facilities. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia (2004)

  31. Ashby, M.F., et al.: CES-EduPack for Eco design—a white paper. GRANTA Teach. Resour. 5(1), 23 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Alwan, Z., Jones, P.: The importance of embodied energy in carbon footprint assessment. Struct. Surv. 32(1), 49–60 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rydh, C.J., Sun, M.: Life cycle inventory data for materials grouped according to environmental and material properties. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 1258–1268 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Oebels, K.B., Pacca, S.: Life cycle assessment of an onshore wind farm located at the northeastern coast of Brazil. Renew. Energy 53, 60–70 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rocha, A.B.: A comparative evaluation between towers for tubular steel wind turbines and precast concrete in the Serra do Mel region. Undergraduate Thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (2016) (Available only in Portuguese)

  36. Henriques, J. F.: M. Design of high-height cross-linked wind towers (150 m): Modeling and comparative analysis with self-supporting tubular structures. Master Thesis, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal (2012) (Available only in Portuguese)

  37. Granja, A.V.C.: Study and optimization of a 1 MW photovoltaic plant. Master Thesis, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal (2017) (Available only in Portuguese)

  38. Lopes, R.J.C.: Shading effect on photovoltaic panels. Master Thesis, Instituto Superior de Lisboa, Portugal (2013) (Available only in Portuguese)

  39. ABNT NBR 16990.: Instalações elétricas de arranjos fotovoltaicos—Requisitos de projeto (2019)

  40. Arvesen, A., Hertwich, E.G.: Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind power: a review of present knowledge and research needs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 5994–6006 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. IEA.: IEA—International Energy Agency. Technology Roadmap: Solar photovoltaic energy, p. 45. IEA Publications, Carlet, France (2010)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq/Brazil) and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel CAPES/Brazil) for funding this study.

Funding

CNPq/CAPES Brazil

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electrotechnology Academic Department (DAE), Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Santa Catarina (IFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

    Antonio Augusto Morini

  2. Graduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering (PGMAT), Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

    Dachamir Hotza

  3. Materials Research and Development Center (UIDM), Polytechnic Institute of Viana Do Castelo (IPVC), Viana do Castelo, Portugal

    Manuel J. Ribeiro

Authors
  1. Antonio Augusto Morini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dachamir Hotza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel J. Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Augusto Morini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morini, A.A., Hotza, D. & Ribeiro, M.J. Embodied energy and carbon footprint comparison in wind and photovoltaic power plants. Int J Energy Environ Eng 13, 457–467 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-021-00450-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-021-00450-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation