4.7 Article

Carbon dioxide emissions from geothermal power plants

Journal

RENEWABLE ENERGY
Volume 175, Issue -, Pages 990-1000

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.021

Keywords

CO2 emissions; Geothermal electricity production; Computer modelling; Ohaaki

Funding

  1. Contact Energy Limited

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Geothermal energy is considered a clean and green energy source, but it does produce CO2 emissions. A study of the Ohaaki geothermal project in New Zealand shows that although extra CO2 is emitted during operation, after the project is shut down, CO2 emissions are reduced below natural levels and over a 300-year period, there is no extra CO2 emitted as a result of the power plant operation.
Geothermal is commonly considered to be a clean, green energy source but it does produce some greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2. The amount of CO2 is usually measured as an emission intensity of kg of CO2 emitted per MWh of electricity produced. However, the quantity that is measured for the calculation of emission intensity is the waste CO2 in the separated steam that feeds the power plant. In terms of total CO2 emissions this is only part of the picture as there is a natural outflow of CO2 into the atmosphere at most geothermal systems and this natural outflow is affected by the operation of a power plant. The correct measure of CO2 emissions is the extra CO2 output resulting from the operation of the power plant. Here we discuss a computer modelling study of the Ohaaki (New Zealand) geothermal project and show that during the lifetime of the project extra CO2 is emitted but after the project is shut down the emission of CO2 is reduced below its natural level and viewed over a long time period (300 years) there is no extra CO2 emitted as a result of the operation of the Ohaaki power plant. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available