Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.EIA (Energy Information Administration), Annual energy outlook, Tables A8 and A16, 2012, see
2.GREET1_2012, “Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions and energy in transportation (GREET) model”, see,, last accessed 7/2031/2012.
3. K. K. Bloomfield, J. N. Moore, and R. M. Neilson, Jr., “ Geothermal energy reduces greenhouse gases,” Clim. Change Res. GRC Bulletin, 7779 (2003).
4. R. DiPippo, Geothermal Power Plants: Principles, Applications, Case Studies, and Environmental Impact, 2nd ed. (Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, 2008).
5. J. L. Sullivan, C. Clark, J. Han, C. Harto, and M. Q. Wang, “ Cumulative energy, emissions and water consumption for geothermal power production,” J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 5, 023127 (2013).
6. R. Bertani and I. Thain, Geothermal power generating plant CO2 emission survey, Review 1.0, International Geothermal Association, 2001. See (last accessed November 30, 2012).
7. B. M. Rule, Z. J. Worth, and C. A. Boyle, “ Comparison of life cycle carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation technologies in New Zealand,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 64066413 (2009).
8.CEPA, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air resources board, reported emissions data, see (last accessed May 13, 2013).
9.EIA-923, Department of energy, the energy information administration (EIA), EIA-923 monthly time series file, sources EIA-923 and EIA-860, 2010. See (last accessed June 25, 2012).
10.GEA, Geothermal energy association. See (last accessed April 15, 2012).
11.ISO International Standard, Environmental management, life cycle assessment, principles and framework, ISO/FDIS 14040, 1997.
12.ISO International Standard, Environmental management, life cycle assessment, goal and scope definition and inventory analysis, ISO 14041, 1998.
13.ISO International Standard, Environmental management, life cycle assessment, life cycle impact assessment, ISO 14042, 2000.
14.GREET2_2012, Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions and energy in transportation (GREET) model, see (last accessed July 31, 2012).
15. J. L. Sullivan, C. E. Clark, J. Han, and M. Wang, Life-cycle analysis results of geothermal systems in comparison to other power systems, ANL/ESD/10-5, 2010.
16. J. L. Sullivan, C. E. Clark, L. Yuan, J. Han, and M. Wang, Life-cycle analysis results of geothermal systems in comparison to other power systems, part II, ANL/ESD/11–12, 2011.
17.CEC, California Energy Commission, Annual generation-plant unit php or source files, see (last accessed May 13, 2013).
18.CEPA, Air resources board, Staff Report: Initial statement of reasons for rulemaking; Public Hearing to consider revisions to the regulation for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the California global warming solutions act of 2006 (Assembly bill 32), 2010, p. 178, see (last accessed December 2, 2012).
19. Y. Lechon, C. de la Rua, and R. Saez, “ Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity production by solar thermal plants in Spain,” Trans. ASME, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 130, 02101210210127 (2008).
20. P. Viebahn, S. Kronshage, F. Trieb, and Y. Lechon, Final report on technical data, costs, and life cycle inventories of solar thermal power plant, new energy externalities developments for sustainability, see (last accessed February 12, 2008).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



A life cycle analysis (LCA) is presented for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fossil energy use associated with geothermal electricity production with a special focus on operational GHG emissions from hydrothermal flash and dry steam plants. The analysis includes results for both the plant and fuel cycle components of the total life cycle. The impact of recent changes to California's GHG reporting protocol for GHG emissions are discussed by comparing emission rate metrics derived from post and pre revision data sets. These metrics are running capacity weighted average GHG emission rates (g/kWh) and emission rate cumulative distribution functions. To complete our life cycle analysis, plant cycle results were extracted from our previous work and added to fuel cycle results. The resulting life cycle fossil energy and greenhouse gas emissions values are compared among a range of fossil, nuclear, and renewable power technologies, including geothermal.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd