The objectives of the analysis reported in this paper are to evaluate the environmental impacts of the electricity produced in a 17MW solar thermal plant with central tower technology and a 50MW solar thermal plant with parabolic trough technology, to identify the opportunities to improve the systems in order to reduce their environmental impacts, and to evaluate the environmental impact resulting from compliance with the solar thermal power objectives in Spain. The methodology chosen is the life cycle assessment (LCA), described in the international standard series ISO 14040-43. The functional unit has been defined as the production of 1kWh of electricity. Energy use needed to construct, operate, and dismantle the power plants is estimated. These results are used to calculate the “energy payback time” of these technologies. Results were around 1yr for both power plants. Environmental impacts analyzed include the global warming impacts along the whole life cycle of the power plants, which were around 200gkWh generated. Finally, the environmental impacts associated with the compliance of the solar thermal power objectives in Spain were computed. Those figures were then used to estimate the avoided environmental impacts including the potential CO2 emission savings that could be accomplished by these promotion policies. These savings amounted for 634kt of CO2 equiv./yr.

1.
Weinrebe
,
G.
,
Böhnke
,
M.
, and
Trieb
,
F.
, 1998, “
Life Cycle Assessment of an 80MW SEGs Plant and a 30MW Phoebus Power Tower
,”
Solar Engineering ASME
.
2.
Viebahn
,
P.
, SOKRATES-Projekt, Solarthermische Kraftwerkestechnologies für den Schutz des Erdkimas, A. P.2.2.
3.
Viebahn
,
P.
, 2004 “
INDITEP, Integration of DSG Technology for Electricity Production, WP 4.3, Impact Assessment, Life Cycle Assessment of Construction Materials, Energy Demand and emissions of DSG
,” Final Report.
5.
NEEDS Project Stream 1a, 2006, “
Progress Report Including Screening LCA and Screening Cost Assessment for Current Solar Thermal Power Plant Technologies
,” Internal Technical Paper No. 12.2.
7.
Pre Consultants website http://www.pre.nlhttp://www.pre.nl
9.
Pehnt
,
M.
, 2005, “
Dynamic Life Cycle assessment (LCA) of Renewable Energy Technologies
,” Renewable Energy.
11.
Alsema
,
E. A.
,
Frankl
,
P.
, and
Kato
,
K.
, 1998, “
Energy Pay-Back Time of PV Energy Systems: Present Status and Future Prospects
,”
Second World Conference on PV Solar Energy Conversion
, Vienna.
12.
Mason1
,
J. M.
,
Fthenakis
,
V. M.
,
Hansen
,
T.
, and
Kim
,
H. C.
2006 “
Energy Pay-Back and Life Cycle CO2 Emissions of the BOS in an Optimized 3.5MW PV Installation
,”
Prog. Photovoltaics
1062-7995,
14
, PP.
179
190
.
13.
Uchiyama
,
Y.
, 1995, “
Energy Technology Life Cycle Analysis That Takes CO2 Emission Reduction Into Consideration
,” CRIEPI.
14.
Kreith
,
F.
,
Norton
,
P.
, and
Brown
,
D.
, 1990, “
A Comparison of CO2 Emissions From Fossil and Solar Power Plants in the United States
,”
Energy
0360-5442,
15
, pp.
1181
1198
.
15.
Vant-Hull
,
L. L.
, 1991, “
Solar Thermal Electricity: An Environmental Benign and Viable Alternative
,”
Proceedings of the World Clean Energy Conference
, Geneva, Nov. 4–7.
16.
Norton
,
B.
,
Eames
,
P. S.
, and
Lo
,
N. G.
, 1998, “
Full-Energy-Chain Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Solar Thermal Electric Power Generation Systems
,”
Renewable Energy
0960-1481
15
, pp.
131
136
.
17.
ETSU
, 1997, “
Renewables for Power Generation: Towards a Better Environment
,” ETSU, Report to the IEA Renewable Energy Working Party.
You do not currently have access to this content.