Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

A new model for environmental and economic evaluation of renewable

energy systems: The case of wind turbines
Matteo M. Savino a,, Riccardo Manzini b, Vincenzo Della Selva a, Riccardo Accorsi b
a
University of Sannio, Department of Engineering, Italy
b
Alma Mater Studiorum Universit di Bologna, Department of Industrial Engineering, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

We propose a model to join environmental and economic viability for wind turbines.

Economic viability can be joint to the environmental one through carbon footprint.

Configurations that appears economical viable may have high environmental impacts.

Carbon fibre has lower emissions and shorter pay-back as regards to glass fibre.

Changing the number of wind turbines does may worsen the joint evaluation.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Both scientific community and political institutions frequently stress the crucial role of energy and
Received 6 July 2016 renewable energy systems as a key asset for global sustainable future development. Wind energy is a rel-
Received in revised form 17 November 2016 evant renewable source due to its high conversion performances, achieved particularly by large scale
Accepted 29 November 2016
plants. Nevertheless, the production processes, rather than the installation one, may entail relevant
Available online 10 January 2017
energy consumption, as well as the release of CO2 and other pollutants.
This study develops a model for concurrent environmental and economic viability of wind turbines
Keywords:
under the framework of Life Cycle Assessment. A case study is developed to evaluate a set of different
Renewables
Wind turbines
project alternatives for three types of wind turbines, for which different scenarios are analysed through
Life cycle analysis a dedicated assessment tool. The research highlights the manufacturing phase of wind turbines as crucial
Environmental impact in finding the concurrent economic and environmental feasibility.
Economic analysis 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, renewable energies are gaining more attraction in glo-
bal energy market and in society. In recent years, these energy
sources have become a concrete alternative to reduce the depen-
dence on fossil fuels, giving both environmental and economic ben-
efits [1,2]. Among renewables sources, while big wind power plants
have reached a relative maturity, medium wind turbines (MWTs)
still needs to be investigated, especially under profitability and envi-
ronmental perspective. The recent literature shows a number of
studies about the economic feasibility of MWTs [3]. Yet, a viability
analysis as a stand-alone process may not be adequate for under-
standing the effective viability of this type of renewables.
Thus, to pursue a correct evaluation, the analysis should include
both environmental and economic aspects. This may be especially
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: matteo.savino@unisannio.it (M.M. Savino).
true for small firms, for which offering a solution with low environ-
mental impact that may not be feasible under the economic point
of view could let them incur in financial problems [4].
Furthermore, although renewable energy sources are presented
as clean energy systems, i.e. having zero environmental impact,
this assertion is true only if we do not consider the release of pol-
lutants in manufacturing and logistic processes [47].
The present study is intended to develop a model to join the
environmental and economic evaluation of wind power plants
under the framework of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The model
developed is applied to evaluate a set of different project alterna-
tives for three types of MWT, with a nameplate power of
600 kW. Since the analysis is carried out to evaluate wind turbines
in Italy, the set of geographical factors influencing the results have
been assumed accordingly [3].
The remainder of the paper is as follows. Section 2 presents a
review of the recent literature. Section 3 gives the research objec-
tives and framework, while in Section 4 the LCA analysis for wind
turbines is developed.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.124
0306-2619/ 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
740 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752
Section 5 outlines the evaluation of the economic drivers. Sec-
tion 6 develops the proposed analysis and the case study. Then,
after the discussion of Section 7, Section 8 ends the paper, drawing
the final remarks.
2. Literature review
2.1. Renewable energy systems and wind turbines
Electricity generation produces a relevant amount of green-
house gas (GHG) emissions [810].
Because nowadays the main sources for electricity production
are based on fossil fuels, GHG emission is expected to increase in
the next future. In addition, politic institutions frequently stress
the crucial role of minimizing emissions because it involves many
consequences on ecosystems [2,11]. Therefore, renewable energy
sources are gaining more attraction. Among them, wind power
has experienced a rapid growth worldwide over the last two dec-
ades and it is expected to grow even faster in future [8,12].
With reference to the European Wind Energy Association, in
2012 Italy was the third EU Country in terms of annual installa-
tions with 1273 MW produced [12]. In addition, the improvement
over time of wind turbines manufacturing, and the reduced main-
tenance and operation requirements is pushing towards the devel-
opment of large scale and more efficient machines [13]. The extant
literature shows a relevant interest on this topic by a number of
authors. To cite a few, Ahmed and Cameron [14] presented a
review of wind power technologies, highlighting the trends of
industry and the challenges that these technologies will face. Kat-
sigiannis and Stavrakakis [15] examined a comparative technical
and economic assessment of different wind turbine classes in Aus-
tralia to estimate the best design for wind turbines. Fadai [16]
investigated the feasibility of manufacturing wind turbines in Iran.
To sum up, over the past 2 decades wind energy sector experienced
a huge growth not only in terms of market share, but also in terms
of technological developments [13].
The use of wind turbines (WTs) for electricity generation
achieved its maturity and experienced the greatest growth world-
wide in the 90s. The increasing trend of WT installations was also
connected to significant legal incentives adopted by several coun-
tries. Nowadays, in most of these countries wind power is becom-
ing a concrete competitor of the traditional fossil fuels [3,17].
WTs can be of two different types. The vertical axis wind tur-
bine (VAWT) and the horizontal axis wind turbine (HAVT). The first
ones have fixed blade and are controlled for tilt or yaw, while the
second ones are often armed with control systems for pitch control
[18]. In addition, the variation of wind direction has no negative
effects for VAWTs because they do not need to be oriented against
wind direction [19].
Under economic perspective, Small and Medium WTs need lar-
ger initial investments compared to their size, and they are less
cost-effective compared to large turbine plants due to the fact that
all the components of the system have lower costs [3].
Regarding the economic feasibility, many researches have
worked to provide a reference for the decision making phase. An
early approach for economic and energy evaluation can be the
one of Costanza [20] regarding the embodied energy for good pro-
duction joint with an economic evaluation.
Mohammadi and Mostafaeipour [21] evaluated the economic
profitability of small wind turbines in Iran. Stockton [22] studied
the economic feasibility of a wind power plant in the Hawaiian
Islands, while Li et al. [23] addressed their study to the economic
feasibility of micro-wind turbines for domestic applications in Ire-
land. These results show how these systems look promising if
installed in places with relatively high wind speed (e.g. higher than
6 m/s). On this line, Kabir et al. [8] proposed a comparative life
cycle energy, emission, and economic analysis of wind power gen-
eration in Canada. This comparison was done considering life cycle
energy, environmental and economic aspects.
Another notably work is proposed by Ayodele et al. [24]. These
authors present an economic analysis of wind turbines with differ-
ent powers considering six geographical zone of Nigeria. As regards
to MWTs, other works were related to energy production and car-
bon emissions, like the one of Rankine et al. [25] or sensitivity anal-
ysis in LCA [26,27].
3. Research objectives and framework
3.1. Research questions
Wind farms are usually optimised under economic criteria, in
terms of fast payback periods or high net present values [3]. In this
context, a joint optimisation regarding the economic and environ-
mental impacts of a wind farm still needs to be explored. Instead of
further exploring the Triple Bottom line approach in the field of
wind renewable energy industry [2830], we developed a user-
friendly framework to aid practitioners and potential stakeholders
(e.g. Municipalities) deciding on WTs projects over a life-cycle per-
spective that joins economic and environmental aspects.
This paper provides a comparative analysis between the envi-
ronmental and economic impact of different MWTs. The research
methodology resulted in a framework that may drive companies
in selecting the best technical alternatives by addressing both eco-
nomic and environmental issues.
Based on the literature reviewed, the first research question
(RQ1) investigates the problem on how it is possible to consider
simultaneously both the impact that each turbine may cause to
the environment and its economic viability.
RQ1: Is it possible to conduct a joint evaluation of the economic and
environmental impacts based on LCA
The objective of RQ1 is to understand how the environmental
assessment can be combined with the economic viability of wind
farms. The correct evaluation of more than one alternative can be
hard to achieve if the firm does not have an efficient evaluation
method that includes both environmental and economic aspects.
Then, the problem of comparing different project alternatives is
addressed by the second research question (RQ2).
RQ2: How technical choices may impact on the global evaluation?
Based on the evaluation method developed in the first part of
the work, this portion of research is aimed to understand how dif-
ferent technical choices, like materials and/or plants size, can
impact both under environmental and economic perspective.
3.2. Research framework and methodology
Fig. 1 shows the research methodology adopted in this study.
The research framework uses the LCA analysis to provide informa-
tion about the environmental drivers and the related impact. Then,
the economic analysis is assessed with the Pay Back Period (PBP).
Based on this framework, we may summarize this study with
the following main steps:
Develop the LCA of wind turbines
In this step we identify which are the most relevant environ-
mental criteria concerning the adoption of green practices.
The LCA is aimed to (i) locate those components or sub-
processes responsible of the highest environmental impacts,
(ii) find suitable environmental indicators to quantify the envi-
 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752
ronmental impacts (iii) have useful information in order to
reduce the environmental impacts and to improve plants per-
formances [31, page 202].
Define the joint environmental and economic assessment
The research activity for developing the joint environmental
and economic viability analysis resulted in a model for Environ-
mental and Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) aimed to evalu-
ate the benefits of environmental measures and their economic
impacts. In conducting this phase we were helped by the work
of Ardente et al. [31], regarding a study on the energy perfor-
mances and LCA for an Italian wind farm. In their work, the car-
bon footprint (Cf) is considered as the main environmental
indicator and compared with the economic impact of the WTs
in terms of PBP. This phase of our research resulted in the def-
inition of a Global Impact EIA Matrix that enables the assess-
ment, comparison and benchmarking of a WT project
according to both economic and environmental dimensions.
Explore and assess some improvement scenarios
In this portion of the research we assess different scenarios con-
figuring sustainability measures aimed at reducing the Cf. The
possible environmental improvements come from the analysis
of what has been found in literature [3,31]. From these works,
we took the current practice and research findings in WTs envi-
ronmental improvement, with the aim of identifying possible
hot spots that are more burdensome to the environment.
These scenarios, in terms of technical alternatives, have been
assessed with the EIA matrix.
4. LCA analysis for wind turbines
LCA is defined by Guine et al. [32] as the compilation and eval-
uation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of
Energy
Water
Suppliers & Firms Materials
Activitities
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Environmental Impact
Life Cycle Assessment with
Project Alternative 1
Project Alternative i
Project Alternative n
Alternative Assessment &
Fig. 1. Research framework.
741
a product throughout its life cycle. These authors, include in the
environmental impact the extraction of resources, emissions of dan-
gerous substances and land use as well. Thus, LCA can be intended as
a technique for assessing environmental impacts including emis-
sions into environment and the consumption of resources [2,8].
LCA is a methodology that investigates the environmental impact,
from raw material extraction to dismantling and end-of-life [33]
within the entire life cycle. It provides a basis for the evaluation of
potential improvements of the evaluated system [34]. A number of
authors have used LCA analysis for wind power systems [27,35
38] as an useful tool to appraise impacts such as carbon footprint,
GHG emissions and energy consumption. Basically, LCA can be con-
ducted with three main approaches. The first one is the process-
based LCA (P-LCA), also known as bottom-up approach, the other
is the economic Input Output LCA (IO-LCA), and the latter combines
P-LCA and IO-LCA, also known as hybrid LCA.
P-LCA has been adopted by a number of authors in several stud-
ies [31,39,40]. The main limitation of P-LCA lies mainly in the prob-
lem of boundary definition, that might lead to truncation errors
due to the cut-off in defining the system boundaries [41].
The IO-LCA was introduced to improve the LCA-based frame-
work by reflecting the inter-relationships of various sectors via
the production and consumption of intermediate economic out-
puts [42]. With this method, the monetary transactions coming
from economic sectors are transformed into physical flows (e.g.
carbon emissions). The main assumptions of this method are that
(i) all outputs of a sector are produced with the same intensity of
physical flow [43] and (ii) each industry consumes the outputs of
other industries in fixed ratios to produce its own output [44].
A number of studies have compared the P-LCA and the IO-LCA
approach in different industries [44,45]. Notwithstanding the IO-
LCA approach can effectively capture the environmental impacts
CO 2
Input/Output Generated Energy
Analysis
Waste
SWT Economic Factors
Economic Indicators
Economic Indicators
Global Impact Matrix
Comparison
742 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752
of a specific product, it has a number of limitations [34] which may
result in errors and uncertainties (e.g. sector aggregation, environ-
mental indicator misalignment, neglect of post-consumption
stages, etc.). Some of them regard the estimation of the total
energy requirement for electricity plants [46].
The IO-LCA model is adopted when the technical coefficients
and the coefficients of the environmental impact are known and
fully representative of the observed economic sector ([47]).
Another limitation is that the flow of commodities imported by
the observed system should be negligible. Otherwise, the errors
due to the truncation of the import flows could be more significant
than those generated by cut-off in P-LCA [44, p. 690691]. In this
type of LCA, IO tables combine products and production technolo-
gies that are heterogeneous in terms of input materials and envi-
ronmental impact generation [44]. For this reason the same
authors state that IO analysis is less adequate for industry-
atypical products.
In order to merge the advantages of P-LCA and IO-LCA, several
hybrid approaches have been developed. They include IO based
hybrid analysis and integrated hybrid analysis [9,48].
The choice of the proper method to adopt depends mostly on
the goal and scope, the geographical coverage, and the availability
of data sources. As an example, Lenzen and Treloar [49], used an
integrated IO analysis to estimate the energy embodied in wood
and concrete buildings, exploiting the availability of National
inputoutput tables and energy data.
Although the integrated hybrid LCA generates more accurate
results than the IO hybrid analysis, it requires higher resources
for gathering data. Furthermore, the border selection of P-LCA
and IO-LCA in tiered hybrid analysis is arbitrary and it may result
in double countings since the IO table already includes all the
commodity flows [47].
Hybrid LCA may have the following five types of uncertainty:
data inventory, system cut-off error, sector or product aggregation,
Wind Turbines life cycle
Tower Blades
Nacelle
Foundation
Materials
System boundaries
Wind
Fig. 2. Life cycle boundary of a wind turbine.
and temporal/geographic uncertainty [50]. Data uncertainty occurs
in case of inadequate parameters and data sources. Cut-off and
truncation errors in the hybrid LCA can lead to high level of uncer-
tainty in inventory data [51].
Earlier, Hartmann [52] stated that about 30% of the results of
the GHG-emissions of a wind turbine are calculated with the
Input-Output-Analysis (70% of the results are calculated with Pro-
cess Chain Analysis).
In IO hybrid analysis, input and output sectors are further disag-
gregated whether more detailed sectorial monetary data are avail-
able [44, p. 660]. All types of hybrid analysis need also
commodities and environmental flows of the sector [44].
The iterative nature of hybrid LCA compels the progressive
achievement of more reliable data [42]. Dealing with this method,
past researches have outlined (i) an evident lack of data on interna-
tional commodity flows, (ii) several differences in the compilation
of input-output tables in different Countries, (iii) differences in
industry and commodity classification across different Countries,
treatment of capital and taxes [44]. Differences and incongruences
in the national environmental emission inventories are other
obstacles to face [44, p. 663].
In addition, updated IO databases with environmental exten-
sions are essential for applying IO and hybrid techniques for LCA.
The robustness of the available database is often debated and
enquired. IO data come from national statistics as a part of environ-
mental and economic accounts developed within the statistical
agencies; thus, their accuracy depends on these bodies (Finnveden
et al., 2009). As an example Lenzen and Munksgaard [30] describes
a guide for LCI an hybrid life-cycle assessment for that is applicable
only in any country that produces inputoutput tables and the
results presented in his work are specific to Australian production
structure. The same authors in their work state that the method is
applicable whether the country has detailed input-output data
[30].
Energy
Carbon
CO2
Emission
Manufacturing phase
Energy
Operational phase
Recycling
Decommissiong
phase
Waste
disposal
 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752 743

Table 1 average product; both in a material and in an economic context.

Manufacturing and logistic analysis of WTs. The small differences that do occur are caused by the simplifica-
Component Material Mass [ton] tions made in both methods [53, p. 319].
Enercon Based on these findings, and on the main limitations regarding
Tower Steel 40 the sectorial monetary data and national IO tables needed to per-
Paints 5 form the IO or hybrid LCA, the P-LCA is adopted in this study.
Nacelle Aluminium 7
Steel 20
Blade Fibreglass 1
4.1. Components analysis
Vestas
Tower Steel 30 For this portion of the research we use different sources of pri-
Paints 3 mary and secondary data. In particular, we have primary data for:
Nacelle Aluminium 10
(i) operation and maintenance; (ii) transports; and (iii) disposal.
Steel 11
Blade Fibreglass 1 While for the secondary data, we used the Simapro tool version 8
Turbowinds and the embedded Ecoinvent v2.2 database, properly modified
Tower Steel 40 with primary data, when necessary. For both data we used the
Paints 20 CML 2001 method [11,54] with the list of all materials, their quan-
Nacelle PET 10
Steel 25
tities and the relative rates of use, as well as the values of emis-
Blade Fibreglass 1 sions [2].This phase can be divided into: (i) definition of the
Structure and facilities
objective and preliminary analysis, (ii) inventory analysis, (iii) life-
Component Material weight [ton] Volume [m3] cycle impact assessment, and (iv) interpretation and improvement.
Enercon
Inspired by Tremeac and Meunier [39], a detailed scheme of the
Foundation Concrete: 250 270 considered phases for the LCA study is shown in Fig. 2. The main
Steel: 110 data regarding installation, use and maintenance phases have been
Vestas provided by the suppliers, or they were directly collected from
Foundation Concrete: 254 270
other similar neighbouring wind farms. The first part of the
Steel: 100
Turbowinds research is a detailed analysis of each component of the WT. Then,
Foundation Concrete: 200 270 the specific environmental and economic impacts are assessed. We
Steel: 106 considered the towers of three renowned WT producers (namely
Vestas, Enercon, Turbowinds), which are widely used as the bench-
Transports
mark via extensive literature [55,56]. Table 2 shows the data for
Vehicle type Distance [km] Cost
Fixed [] Variable [/km] each component of the three types of wind turbines.
Enercon
Truck 2000 90 0.95 4.1.1. Tower
Articulated truck 2000 105 1.05 For this component, steel is used for all the WTs analysed in this
B-train truck 2000 120 1.15 study, although the mass (kg) was different for the different types
Vestas of WTs. The material used for the nacelle is aluminium and steel for
Truck 2100 90 0.95
Articulated truck 2100 105 1.05
Vestas and Enercon, while for Turbowind PET and steel is used
B-train truck 2100 120 1.15 [57]. The blade is made of glass fibre for all of the WTs. Information
Turbowinds about the foundations are reported in Table 1.
Truck 1800 90 0.95
Articulated truck 1800 105 1.05
4.1.2. Transport
B-train truck 1800 120 1.15
Decommissioning Transports occurs via trucks having 40 ton capacities. The WT
Wind turbine 30% of the entire system is disposed in landfills components were manufactured in different locations of different
30% is incinerated Countries, requiring transportation to the installation site. We con-
40% can be reused sidered the transportation of each component from the construc-
Fibre glass 100% incinerated
tion site to the installation site.

As regards to WTs, the appraisal of carbon footprint based on IO

4.1.3. Maintenance
and hybrid LCA is quite rare [42]. Based on the extant literature,
The useful life of the turbines is supposed to be 20 years [31,58].
this gap is mainly due to the multiple-country nature of the wind
At the first stage of the operation life cycle, maintenance cycles are
turbines components, as well as of sites of installations. On this
scheduled with weekly inspections. Then, preventive maintenance
line, a survey by Arvesen and Hertwich [34] shows that out of 45
operations can be planned each four weeks. Other maintenance
studies on LCA of wind turbines, 32 of them have been conducted
cycles are scheduled three times per year, while additional/failure
using the P-LCA. This survey reports also that, with exception of
maintenance is provided when requested. In particular, during the
one study, all the studies dealing with MDWT studies have been
average useful life of a wind generator, it is estimated that one
conducted with P-LCA.
blade and the 15% of the generators components will need to be
Arvesen and Hertwich [34] even draw the variation of the emit-
replaced.
ted CO2 eq. with respect to the size of the wind turbines and to the
type of the adopted LCA approach. Focusing on turbines between
0.5 and 1 MW, the authors empirically demonstrate that the Table 2
assessed emissions are roughly the same between P-LCA, IO-LCA Costs values.
and hybrid LCA, and the resulting recommendation is to use the Value Vestas () Turbowinds () Enercon ()
P-LCA with onshore WT [34, p. 6000].
C0 409,720 372,300 372,500
A similar earlier conclusion by Voorspools et al. [53] confirms Cp 229,720 208,200 208,200
that, in case of wind turbines P-LCA and the IO-LCA obtain roughly Ci 178,200 162,000 162,000
the same results [. . .] because a wind turbine appears to be an Ct 2500 2100 2300
744 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752

Table 3
Europe wind resources at 50 m above ground level for five different topographic conditions.

Shelter terrain Open plain At a sea coast Open sea Hills and ridges
2 2 2 2
m/s W/m m/s W/m m/s W/m m/s W/m m/s W/m2
>6.0 >250 >7.5 >500 >8.5 >700 >9.0 >800 >11.5. >1800
5.06.0 150250 6.57.5 300500 7.08.5 400700 8.09.0 600800 10.011.5 12001800
4.55.0 100150 5.56.5 200300 6.07.0 250400 7.08.0 400600 8.510.0 7001200
3.54.5 50100 4.55.5 100200 5.06.0 150250 5.57.0 200400 7.08.5 400700
<3.5 <50 <4.5 <100 <5.0 <150 <5.5 <200 <7.0 <400

Table 4
Inflows and outflows cash and Fj.

Value Vestas Turbowinds Enercon

Rj 510,000 510,000 510,000
Cj 75,000 /year 80,000 /year 90,000 /year
Fj 435,000 430,000 420,000

4.1.4. Decommissioning
A study made by Ortegon et al. [59] examining 72 Life Cycle
Assessments works, highlighted how only 11 of those works
included the decommissioning phase of wind turbine. For this rea-
son a disposal scenario has been hypothesised in our research.
The disposal phase of all components of the system make up 4%
of the total impact of a wind turbine. Nowadays, up to 80% of a
wind turbine can be recycled (if it is made with materials from
the latest generation), and about 20% of the recycled components
Fig. 3. Environmental and Economic Impact Assessment matrix.
can be used [58]. Table 1 reports the manufacturing and logistic
data of the three types of wind turbines [5557] with the possible
recycling scenarios as well. In addition, it was assumed that 30% of
wind energy project (about 7080% of the total cash flows). Thus,
the entire system is disposed in landfills, 30% is incinerated and
its accurate estimation has a critical importance in making the
40% can be reused for other products.
whole analysis effective. Following the approach by Bortolini
Based on the literature review, we may argue that an efficient
et al. [3], C0 can be calculated by the sum of (i) Purchase cost
evaluation model not only should have to encompass the LCA indi-
Cp, (ii) Transportation cost Ct, (iii) Installation cost Ci.
cators, but it should be able to evaluate improvements from eco-
Cp is determined through a market survey considering the loca-
nomical point of view as well. Following this concept, the EIA
tions of several producers worldwide, according to the turbine size
model developed aims to: (i) combine the evaluation the environ-
[3]. This survey shows that the purchasing costs do not have an
mental impacts derived from LCA with the economical impact
evident connection to the plant sizes due to producer peculiarities,
derived from the viability analysis; (ii) position each technical
like producers Country, costs and market policies.
alternative within this combined measurement; (iii) compare dif-
Ct is quantified by assuming that all of the components are
ferent technical alternatives with respect to the combined environ-
shipped from the suppliers to the installation site. Such a cost is
mental/economic evaluation.
evaluated by considering that the total transportation cost is due
to a land transport via an articulated truck. With regards to the
5. Economic drivers land transport by truck, Table 1 reports the average fix and variable
costs for the different types of vehicles.
In conducting this step we used the viability analysis parame- Ci is calculated through the sum of the following main factors
ters as the main economic driver for the model. In this analysis [3]: (i) raw material cost, (ii) workers cost for installation, (iii)
we included transportation, installation and operative costs of Design, engineering and management cost, (iv) surface purchasing
WT, as well as possible economic incentives given by the local laws cost, and (v) grid connection costs. These costs are generally
and regulations. This portion of the research is based on the Net expressed in Euro per the max power of the turbine, expressed in
Present Value (NPV) indicator that allows to define the Pay Back Euro over kW peak (/kWp).
Period (PBP) of the total investment. The initial cash flow of the Then, Ci is found by multiplying the total cost expressed in /
investment (C0) generally has the highest economic impact for a kWp for the maximum power of the turbine. In our case we

Table 5
Values of Fj and NPV.

Turbine Cash flows

F1 F1.6 F2 F2.8 F3 F3.7 F4 F5
Vestas 308,653 301,475 296,782 287,615 285,367 277,639 274,392 263,838
NPV 7173 0 4697 13,864 16,112 23,840 27,087 37,641
Turbowinds 303,846 296,779 292,159 283,135 280,922 273,315 270,118 259,729
NPV 29,946 22,879 18,259 9235 7022 0 3781 14,171
Enercon 294,230 287,387.6 282,914 274,175 272,032 264,665 261,570 251,509
NPV 20,130 13,287 8814 0 2067 9434 1252 22,590
 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752 745

Reuse (40%)
Table 6
Tower Landfill (30%) 9.88 104
Emissions data.
Incineration/IT (30%)
Manufacturing Reuse (40%)
Blade Landfill (30%) 8.5 104
Component Weight [ton] Material CO2eq [kg] Incineration/IT (30%)
Vestas V47 Reuse (40%)
Nacelle 21 Aluminium 6.91 104 Total: 26,100
Steel 1.48 104 Turbowinds
Tower 33 Steel 4.04 104 Nacelle Landfill (30%) 1.47 105
Paint 8.06 103 Incineration/IT (30%)
Blade 1 Fiber glass 9.08 103 Reuse (40%)
Foundation 354 Steel 4.72 105 Tower Landfill (30%) 6.53 104
Concrete 3.07 104 Incineration/IT (30%)
Total: 644,140 Reuse (40%)
Enercon E40 Blade Landfill (30%) 899
Nacelle 27 Aluminium 4.84 104 Incineration/IT (30%)
Steel 2.69 104 Reuse (40%)
Tower 45 Steel 5.38 104 Total: 80,801
Paint 1.34 104
Blade 1 Fiber glass 9.08 103
Foundation 360 Steel 5.19 105
Concrete 3.03 105
Total CO2eq: 700,883
Turbowinds
Nacelle 35 Aluminium 4.24 105
PET 3.24 105
Tower 60 Steel 5.38 105
Paint 5.38 104
Blade 1 Fiber glass 1.89 103
Foundation 406 Steel 1.70 105
Concrete 6.10 105
Total CO2eq: 796,890

Transportation
Distance Payload Ton/ gCO2eq/ton/ N. CO2eq [kg]
[km] [kg] km km trips
Enercon
2000 40,000 80,000 84,42 2 13,507.2
Component CO2eq [kg] Total:
Fig. 4. Global impact for the three WTs.
Nacelle 5.54 103 28,498.2
Tower 9.23 103
consider the value of the 270 /kWp for the Wes30 model [3], page
Blade 221
632, that is multiplied for the current power of each model of wind
Vestas turbine. Table 2 reports these values.
2100 40,000 84,000 84,42 2 14,182.6 The PBP of each WT model is calculated by setting to zero the
Component CO2eq [kg] Total: NPV of the total investment (Eq. (1)) considering the cash outflows
Nacelle 4.87 103 26,994.6 (Cj) and inflows (Rj) for the generic j year j = [1,. . .,n].
Tower 7.66 103 " #
Blade 232 X
n
j
NPV F j 1 i  C0 0 1
Turbowinds j1
1800 40,000 72,000 84,42 2 12,156.4
Component CO2eq [kg] Total: where Fj = RjCj.
Nacelle 6.96 103 31,242.4 Thus, the payback period is the n year in which the (1) equals to
Tower 1.19 103 0, allowing us to write the following Eq. (2)
Blade 226
" #
Disposal Xn
j
Component Disposal scenario CO2eq [kg] F j 1 i C0 2
j1
Enercon
Nacelle Landfill (30%) 4.81 104 The next step consists in evaluating the cash outflows (Cj) and
Incineration/IT (30%)
inflows (Rj) for the generic j year j=[1,. . .,n]. The operative annual
Reuse (40%)
Tower Landfill (30%) 1.53 105 outflow (Cj) is due to the following three relevant drivers: (i) oper-
Incineration/IT (30%) ation and maintenance, (ii) interests paid for financing the invest-
Reuse (40%) ment and (iii) the tax rate. For Cj, we considered the operation and
Blade Landfill (30%) 3.08 103 outflow cost with a value of 15000 , 19,000 and 20,000 for Ves-
Incineration/IT (30%)
Reuse (40%)
tas, Turbowinds and Enercon, respectively, while the earning
Total: 198,020 before tax was assumed equal to 50,000 . Average wind speed
Vestas
(v) and shape factor (k) are given in Table 3 [3].
Nacelle Landfill (30%) 1.23 104 The geographical area where the WTs are installed presents a
Incineration/IT (30%) wind speed in the range of 7.08.5 m/s.
The incoming flows Rj for the generic j-th year can be deter-
mined not only considering the electricity produced in the generic
746 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752

Table 7
Fj and NPV for Vestas V20 and Vestas V25.

Turbine Cash flows ()

F1 F2 F2.7 F3 F4 F5
Vestas V20
Fj 418,269 402,182 391,290 386,713 371,839 357,538
NPV 31,269 15,181 4290 0 15,160 29,461
Vestas V25
Fj 418,269 402,182 391,290,4 386,713 371,839 357,538
NPV 26,769 10,681 0 4786 19,660 33,961

Table 8
CO2eq for the V20 and V25 models.

Manufacturing
Component Weight Material CO2eq [kg]
[ton]
Vestas V20
Nacelle 4 Aluminium 4679.3
Steel 19,634
Tower 6 Steel and Paint 11,667
Blade 1 Glass fibre 6214.5
Foundation 40 Steel and Concrete 126,767
Total
CO2eq = 168,961
Vestas V25
Nacelle 8 Aluminium and 15,061
Polyester
Tower 12 Steel and Paint 11,647
Blade 1 Glass fibre 4997.7 Fig. 5. EIA matrix for V20 and V25 models compared to V47.
Foundation 100 Steel and Concrete 176,089
Total
CO2eq = 207,795
Disposal
was conducted using the EIA model. The approach is based on
the following steps:
Component Disposal scenario CO2eq [kg]
Vestas V20 1. Appraise Cf values, including production and transportation
Nacelle Landfill (0.119%) 2087.5
activities.
Tower Incineration/CH (34.4%) 110,208
Blade 2. Define the economic impact through the PBP.
Total CO2eq = 112295.5 3. Define the joint economic and environmental impact with the
Vestas V25 EIA model.
Nacelle Landfill (21.2%) 68,792
Tower Incineration (23.5%) 86,445 WTs do not produce emissions during the operation stage, but
Blade
they produce harmful emissions during production, transport and
Total CO2eq = 155,237
disposal. The Cf is expressed in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq)
[4]. To define the global impact levels in terms of (Cf) and PBP ,
the EIA matrix in Fig. 3 has been developed. In this matrix, the
j-th year, but also the energy sale price or the incentive price -
WTs are set with respect to their values in term of Cf and the num-
when it exists - for the energy sold to the grid [/kWh]. Based on
ber of years (N) required to return the investment, according to the
this consideration, the Rj value is calculated by considering the
following regions:
electricity produced in a year, equal to 1273 MWh [12], the selling
price of the network and/or the state incentive in Italy equals to
- Intolerable region: characterised by high carbon footprint per
0.40 /kWh. Table 4 reports the values of Rj, Cj and Fj.
unit costs.
Choosing an interest rate i equal to 4% [3], we may appraise the
- Tolerable region: characterised by intermediate carbon footprint
number of years for which the NPV = 0. Table 5 reports the NPV
and high unit costs.
values for five years and the relative values of Fj. In the same
- Acceptable region: having (i) intermediate values of carbon foot-
Table 5 we highlight in red the Fj corresponding to the year in
print and intermediate or very low unit cost or (ii) very low car-
which NPV = 0.
bon footprint and intermediate or high unit costs.
From Table 5, we may see that for Vestas, the investment will
- Optimal region: in which low carbon footprint and unit costs are
pay back the capital within 1.6 years. For Turbowinds, the invest-
present. This region can be considered an ideal one towards the
ment will give back the capital in 3.7 years. For Enercon, the PBP
goal of a concurrent reduction of costs and CO2eq.
equals to 2.8 years.

Based on the results of Raadal et al. [60], we assume as the limit

6. The model developed of the optimal zone the value of 2:5  105 kg of CO2eq produced
during the life cycle of a wind generator.
The joint evaluation of environmental impact resulting from Considering Kim et al. [61], we assume as the limit of the
LCA and the economic impact derived from the viability analysis acceptable area the value of 5  105 kg of CO2eq generated in the
 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752 747

Table 9
NPV and Fj values for the three technical alternatives.

Alternatives Cash flows ()

ALT I F1 F1.2 F2 F3 F4 F5
Fj 418,269 415,001 402,182 386,713 371,839 357,538
NPV 2609 0 13,478 28,946 43,820 58,121
ALT II F1 F1.4 F2 F3 F4 F5
Fj 418,269 411,758 402,182 386,713 371,839 357,538
NPV 5909 0 10,178 25,646 40,520 54,821
ALT III F1 F2 F2.1 F3 F4 F5
Fj 418,269 402,182 400,607 386,713 371,839 357,538
NPV 16,769 681 0 14,786 29,660 4,3961

Table 10
Carbon footprints for the three alternatives.
Table A1
Manufacturing Secondary data for manufacturing phase of Enercon E40.

Component Weight [ton] Material CO2eq [kg] Turbine manufacturing

ALT I Component Material Amount Unit
Nacelle 21 Aluminium 2743.4 4
Tower Steel, chromium steel 18/8, hot rolled 4*10 Ton
Steel 4403.8
GLO|market for| Alloc Def S
Tower 14 Concrete and paint 3870.4 3
Acrylic varnish, without water, in 87,5% 5*10
Blade 0.4 Carbon fibre 696
solution state GLO|market for| Alloc Def S
Foundation 338 Steel and concrete 34,986
Blade Glass Fibre reinforced plastic, polyamide, 1*103 Ton
Total CO2eq = 46,699.6
injection moulded GLO|market for| Alloc Def,
ALT II S
Nacelle 21 Aluminium 3051.5 Nacelle Aluminium alloy, AIMg3 GLO, |market for| 7*103 Ton
Steel 5915.7 Alloc Def S
Tower 33 Steel and paint 9123 Steel,, chromium steel 18/8, hot rolled 2*10 4

Blade 0.4 Carbon fibre 696 GLO|market for| Alloc Def S

Foundation 348 Steel and concrete 36,894 Foundation Pre-cast concrete, min.reinf.,prod. 2.5*105 Ton
Total CO2eq = 55,680.2 mix,concrete type C20/25, w/o consideration
ALT III of casings RER S
Nacelle 8 Aluminium 7856 Steel, chromium steel 18/8 GLO|market for| 1.1*105 Ton
Tower 6 Steel and paint 11,647 Alloc Def S
Blade 0.6 Glass fibre 4998
Foundation 80 Steel and concrete 91,635
Total CO2eq = 116,136 erator of 660 kW is 3  106 kg of CO2eq [31]. The expected lifecycle
Disposal of these wind turbines is set at 20 years [3].
Component Disposal scenario CO2eq [kg]
To define the boundaries relative to the x-axis, some relevant
studies regarding the estimated energy payback time have been
Nacelle Incineration (29.4%) 68,792
Tower 86,445
considered [11,31,61,62]. Based on these considerations, the
Blade boundaries for the x-axis are defined as follows (Fig. 3)
Total CO2eq = 155,237
- N = 3 as the limit value for the optimal region.
- 3 < N < 5 as tolerable region
lifecycle of a photovoltaic plant having the same power. The upper - N > 5 as intolerable region.
limit for the intolerable zone is obtained, considering that the
quantity of the CO2eq produced during the lifecycle of a wind gen-
6.1. Impact assessment of different scenarios

The EIA model is now applied to different technical scenarios to

define the position of the WTs with respect to environmental and
economic drivers.
The section is organized in two sub-sections:

1. Evaluation of environmental impact of the WTs with LCA.

2. Appraisal of the global impact through the EIA matrix .

The three models of WTs analysed are

- Enercon E40 600 kW.

- Vestas V47 660 kW.
- Turbowinds T600 480 kW.

6.1.1. Environmental impact

This portion of the analysis is based on the following
Fig. 6. Global impacts for all the solutions. hypotheses:
748 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752

Table A2 it gives a removal of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from

Secondary data for the disposal phase of Enercon E40. Earths atmosphere.
Disposal
Component Material Disposal Scenario % 6.1.2. Appraisal of the global impact
Tower Steel removed by turning, Municipal solid waste, IT, 30 Fig. 4 gives the combined impact of each WT model based on
primarily roughing, treatment of municipal the PBP values.
conventional GLO| market solid waste, incineration| With this configuration, the model Vestas V47 offers the best
for |Alloc Def, S Alloc Def, S
Waste paint on metal
solution, producing 697,185 kg of CO2eq with a PBP of 1.6 years
GLO|market for| Alloc Def, S over the entire lifecycle. The model Enercon has a Cf of
Nacelle Steel removed by turning, Municipal solid waste, 30 927,401 kg CO2eq with a payback of 3.1 years. The model Tur-
primarily roughing, RoW|Treatment of bowinds, with a CO2eq = 908,330 kg and a PBP = 3.7 years is the
conventional GLO| market municipal waste, landfill|
worst scenario.
for |Alloc Def, S Alloc Def, S
Aluminium scrap, post-
consumer GLO|market for|
6.2. Improvement scenarios
Alloc Def, S
Blade Grass fibre GLO| to generic Reuse 40
market for energy feed| Since Vestas V47 has the shortest payback and it is close to the
Alloc Def, sa acceptable region, we explored the impact of various scenarios rel-
ative to the adoption of different project strategies. The investiga-
- The energy, emissions and environmental impacts inherent in tion addressed the following issues:
the maintenance phase are neglected.
- Fine dust and smogs effect on the blades is negligible. - number of WTs
- The energy lost in the inverter is negligible. - different technical scenarios regarding basic materials of the i)
- The energy, emissions and environmental impact of the cable tower and ii) turbines.
production and circuits is negligible.
- The emissions for cutting, folding and material disposal are 6.2.1. Number of wind turbines
negligible. The following two different solutions were tested in the EIA:

Table 6 gives the results of the total Cf for each turbine deter-
mined with CML 2001 method, considering the global warming
100a characterisation.
From the data of Table 6, we may see that the disposal scenario
has negative carbon dioxide emissions for all the WTs. This issue is
considered the direct opposite of carbon dioxide emission, because
1. The use of six wind turbines of 100 kW
2. The use of three wind turbines of 200 kW
The empirical investigation demonstrate that the PBP increases
because the costs are directly proportional to the number of the
WTs used. In particular, for six V20 models of turbines, the value

Table A3
Air emissions for the manufacturing phase of Enercon E40.

Emissions Total Blade Foundation Nacelle Tower

Total air emissions 700,883 9083 549,300 75,300 67,200
Carbon dioxide 29,508.55 0 29,308.56 0 0
Carbon dioxide. fossil 605,225.09 7989.52 478,600.2 56,828.61 61,700.79
Carbon dioxide. land transformation 665.95 3.26 542.21 48.58 71.89
Carbon monoxide 94.39 0 94.39 0 0
Carbon monoxide. fossil 4169.12 14.47 3155.077 377.52 511.05
Chloroform 0.10 0.000435 0.07 0.01 0.012
Dinitrogen monoxide 5926.93 227.419 4600.96 510.61 587.94
Ethane. 1.1-difluoro-. HFC-152 0.78 0.000295 0.06 0.71 0.013
Ethane. 1.1.1-trichloro-. HCFC-140 0.029 0.000133 0.02 0.004 0.002
Ethane. 1.1.1.2-tetrafluoro-. HFC-134a 151.32 0.51 93.27 41.32 16.21
Ethane. 1.1.2-trichloro-1.2.2-trifluoro-. CFC-113 73.47 0.001759 0.74 72.60 0.11
Ethane. 1.2-dichloro-1.1.2.2-tetrafluoro-. CFC-114 56.22 0.32 45.47 4.57 5.85
Ethane. 2-chloro-1.1.1.2-tetrafluoro-. HCFC-124 7.59 0.000182 0.07 7.50 0.012
Ethane. hexafluoro-. HFC-116 139.11 0.034638 25.01 109.50 4.56
Methane 585.71 3.04 105 585.71 0.002 0.003
Methane. biogenic 461.39 6.42 367.14 36.27 51.55
Methane. bromo-. Halon 1001 1.86 108 9 1011 1.49 108 1.57 109 2.07 109
Methane. bromochlorodifluoro-. Halon 1211 1.38 0.005 1.11 0.12 0.13
Methane. bromotrifluoro-. Halon 1301 5.01 0.021 3.98 0.41 0.59
Methane. chlorodifluoro-. HCFC-22 100.85 0.137 83.71 6.50 10.49
Methane. chlorotrifluoro-. CFC-13 0.53 0 0.53 0 0
Methane. dichloro-. HCC-30 0.03 0.000181 0.02 0.005 0.003
Methane. dichlorodifluoro-. CFC-12 15.28 0.14 9.78 3.68 1.70
Methane. dichlorofluoro-. HCFC-21 0.0003 1.32E06 0 3.03E05 4.4E05
Methane. fossil 39,458.73 837.19 31,409.53 2945.634 4166.36
Methane. monochloro-. R-40 0.08 0 0.064 0.01 0.008
Methane. tetrachloro-. CFC-10 2.239 0.0127 0.74 0.40 1.08
Methane. tetrafluoro-. CFC-14 487.51 0.1205 87.51 383.90 15.96
Methane. trichlorofluoro-. CFC-11 1.31 4.71E05 1.31 0.001 0.001
Methane. trifluoro-. HFC-23 6.13 0.024 4.76 0.55 0.79
Sulfur hexafluoride 14,257.66 4.22 278.86 13,921.16 53.42
 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752 749

Table A4 With this alternative the payback is 1.2 years. The main reason
Air emissions for Enercon E40 disposal.
is that Cp is lower since concrete is less expensive.
Emissions Tower Nacelle Blade
Total air emissions 153,489 48,100 3080 - Alternative II (ALT. II): In this scenario we investigate which
Carbon dioxide. fossil 133,476.51 43,330.97 2606.56 can be the effects in using the carbon fibre and steel foil for
Carbon dioxide. land 108.15 98.64 1.35 the tower. For this alternative, the PBP equals to 1.4 years.
transformation
Carbon monoxide. fossil 2094.84 1199.84 8.75
Chloroform 0.04 0.004 0 - Alternative III (ALT. III): In this case the investigation is focused
Dinitrogen monoxide 1093.63 539.95 118.86 on using the V25 model with the same solutions of ALT I .
Ethane. 1.1-difluoro-. HFC-152a 0.03 0.3 0
Ethane. 1.1.1-trichloro-. HCFC- 0.004 0.0046 5.26 105
Table 9 shows the NPV and PBP results of ALT I, ALT II and ALT
140
Ethane. 1.1.1.2-tetrafluoro-. HFC- 29.10 0.5 0.22 III, while Table 10 reports the Cf values for these three alternatives.
134a The analysis has been made considering for ALT I and ALT II the
Ethane. 1.1.2-trichloro-1.2.2- 0.31 29.23 0 same impact for the transportation and the disposal phase.
trifluoro-. CFC-113
From the EIA matrix, we can see that the best solution is the
Ethane. 1.2-dichloro-1.1.2.2- 9.55 7.38 0.14
tetrafluoro-. CFC-114 Vestas V47 in ALT. I, with the lower Cf = 99,744 CO2eq and a PBP
Ethane. 2-chloro-1.1.1.2- 0.032 3.02 7.53 105 value of 1.2 years. Yet, this solution is not applicable in the current
tetrafluoro-. HCFC-124 practice since concrete is not used any longer. For this reason, we
Ethane. hexafluoro-. HFC-116 8.71 49.22 0.01 conclude that the project choices in ALT II are the best both under
Methane 0.01 0.001 1.24 105
environmental and economic points of view. This solution presents
Methane. biogenic 7433.16 4417.03 2.72
Methane. bromo-. Halon 1001 3.58 109 9.80 109 6.57 109 a CO2eq value of 108,723, with a PBP of 1.4 years. Even if ALT III has
Methane. bromochlorodifluoro-. 0.21 0.21 0.02 a PBP of 2.1 years, we found for this solution a Cf = 256.041 kg,
Halon 1211 which sets this alternative in the acceptable region. Fig. 6 summa-
Methane. bromotrifluoro-. Halon 1.03 0.476 0.008
rizes these results.
1301
Methane. chlorodifluoro-. HCFC- 57.34 61.81 0.13
22
Methane. dichloro-. HCC-30 0.004 0.004 7.59 105 7. Discussion
Methane. dichlorodifluoro-. CFC- 3.023 3.5 0.087
12 Renewable energy sources are often seen as full clean energy
Methane. dichlorofluoro-. HCFC- 0 4.53 105 2.51 105
systems, without considering the possible pollution relative to
21
Methane. fossil 9008.85 4422 338.46
manufacturing and logistic phases.
Methane. monochloro-. R-40 0.012 0.014 0 The present study fronted the MWT viability problem by con-
Methane. tetrachloro-. CFC-10 1.758 0.24 0.001 ceiving a model that involves both environmental and economic
Methane. tetrafluoro-. CFC-14 30.44 172.61 0.04 aspects.
Methane. trichlorofluoro-. CFC-11 0.006 0.001 9.94 105
The analyses conducted in this study show that, albeit some
Methane. trifluoro-. HFC-23 3.14 0.824 0.04
Sulfur hexafluoride 129.82 5507.24 1.67 MWT configurations have a positive viability under economic per-
spective, they may have high environmental impacts in terms of
high carbon footprint. The task to join the environmental and eco-
nomic viability has been pursued trough the EIA model developed,
of NPV is equal to zero in 3 years. In contrast, using three V25 mod- with which we gave an answer to RQ1. In this context, the main
els, the NPV is equal to zero after 2.7 years (Table 7). original contribution of this research is (i) to allow a comparative
The total emissions considering the same transportation costs analysis among different WTs to appraise their global impact in
are equal to 1.717.480 kg of CO2eq for all the six units of the V20 terms of CO2eq and PBP and (ii) to set the position of each project
turbines and 1.116.040 kg for the three units of the V25 turbines choice with respect to its environmental and economic efficiency.
(Table 8). In this regard, from Fig. 4 we may see that, even if the Vestas
The EIA matrix in Fig. 5 shows the position of these two alterna- V47 has a PBP of 1.6 years, it has bad performances in terms of
tives. In this matrix, we may see that these solutions are worse Cf. The unviability of this alternative was highlighted through the
compared to Vestas V47. application of the EIA model, that set it within the intolerable
region.
The strength of the EIA can be seen also from the analysis of the
6.2.2. Analysis of different technical scenarios other scenarios (Fig. 5), in which other three models of wind tur-
This portion of the study aims to appraise how the modification bines have even worst performances with respect to the first one
of some technical aspects may impact on the EIA matrix. analysed.
Since the V47 model has a better position as regards to the The deployment of the model in the second portion of the study
other ones, we investigated some technical alternatives to improve provides an answer to RQ2. Here, three additional alternatives have
the joint viability of this model.: been evaluated with the aim to reach a greener region of the
matrix.
- Alternative I (ALT. I): The main features of this alternative is Answering RQ2 showed that the optimal region can be reached
the adoption of the concrete instead of the steel foil for the by replacing the steel with concrete and the glass fibre with the
tower and replace the glass fibre with carbon fibre. Carbon fibre carbon fibre, as shown in Fig. 6. These two choices set down mainly
allows to have thinner and stiffer blades. Lighter blades require the carbon footprint, while the PBP values remained almost on the
less robust components of tower and turbine , thus saving costs. same values of 1.2 and 1.4 years for the ALT 1 and ALT II,
In addition, the use of carbon fibre allows to have longer blades respectively.
without increasing the turbine weight [63], thus augmenting The EIA model gave in this way the opportunity to point out the
the efficiency of the turbine in the conversion of the wind following relevant issue: Changing the number and the nameplate
energy. power of the WTs does not give any added value both in terms of
750 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752
Fig. A1. LCA diagram for Enercon E40.
economic and environmental viability. In contrast, the use of new
material like carbon fibre can have positive effect on this joint
evaluation.
The developed EIA model is also flexible in terms of boundaries
definition, thus it can be adapted to other renewables contexts by
adapting either the Cf boundaries or the PBP values.
Based on these considerations, the following points can be
made:
- The traditional economic viability based on NPV and PBP can be
joint with the environmental one considering the carbon foot-
print of the WT.
- The number of WTs affects both the economic and environmen-
tal viability.
- A careful selection of different materials for the WT can dramat-
ically improve the environmental viability without affecting the
economic one.
In conclusion, this user-friendly EIA framework is intended to
help practitioners and potential stakeholders on deciding about
wind turbines projects under a life-cycle perspective that joins
technical, economic and environmental aspects.
8. Conclusion
This research was stimulated by a simple but critical paradox:
given that the viability analysis can be critical for the financial suc-
cess of a renewable energy project, how this viability can be joint
with the environmental one and how we can find a compromise
solution between both requirements.
To front this paradox we adopted a matrix approach that com-
bines the carbon footprint of a WT obtained from LCA with the NPV
and PBP economical indices.
The EIA method derived from this research has been developed
with the aim to make firms and/or Municipalities able to evaluate
at the same time both economic and environmental impacts of a
wind farm made with MWT. The model has been applied for three
models of WTs within different set of alternatives to verify the
effectiveness of improvement actions.
The research showed that, to have a correct assessment of
MWTs viability we need a method encompassing both environ-
mental and economic aspects. This may be particularly true for
small suppliers, for which offering a solution having a high
economic impact, though with low environmental impact, might
be fatal for the entire project.
In this study, two main limitations occurred. The first one is
addressed to the borders of the evaluation matrix concerning
the CO2eq and the decommissioning phase of the MWTs. These
values may be fixed with additional data coming from similar
installations to better define the borders of each region of the
matrix.
Secondly, the bottom-up-type process analysis might be
affected by potential truncation errors [10,46] regarding CO2 emis-
sions. Albeit the extant literature recommend P-LCA for WT, fur-
ther investigation may be conducted with a hybrid LCA methods
where bottom-up process analysis and top-down input-output
analysis can be coupled [64].
In this regard, the future research may be addressed towards: (i)
approaches for defining the green area of the matrix in terms of
CO2eq and PBP with dedicated studies, aimed also to better define
the environmental assessment of the decommissioning phase; (ii)
an exploratory study with hybrid LCA for MWTs in which environ-
mental and economic indicators are fed through the same frame-
work [28].
Albeit these limitations, the present research aimed to address
some specific energy management research and practices. By
drawing on LCA and matrix viability approaches, this study gave
us the possibility to offer new insights regarding the problems of
environmental and economic viability for renewables.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank sincerely the Editor in Chief,
Prof. Jinyue Yan, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
and fruitful comments that significantly contribute to improve
and highlight the scientific value of the manuscript.
Appendix A
Tables A1 and A2 report the secondary data from the database
Ecoinvent and the European Life Cycle Database (ELCD) v3.0 for
the Enercon E40. Fig. 1 reports the LCA diagram for the same tur-
bine model.
Table A3 reports the air emissions for the same wind turbine.
The GWP, in terms of kg of CO2 equivalent, is calculated as
follows:
 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752 751

X
GWP GWPT;j xmj [25] Rankine R, Chick JP, Harrison GP. Energy and carbon audit of a rooftop
j
wind turbine. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A J Power Energy 2006;220(7)
:64354.
[26] Martinez E, Sauz F, Pellegrini S, Jimenez E, Blanco J. Life cycle analysis of a
where GWPT,j is the global warming potential of the substance j multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renewable Energy 2009;34:66773.
over a time T expressed in years, and mj is the amount of pollutant [27] Martinez E, Jimenez E, Blanco J, Sauz F. LCA sensitivity analysis of a multi-
megawatt wind turbine. Appl Energy 2010;87:2293303.
j released. The air emissions are derived from the inventory analysis [28] Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C, Bilek M. Integrating sustainable chain management
based on the CML-IA based method. The analysis include the emis- with triple bottom line reporting. Ecol Econ 2005;52:14357.
sions in kg CO2 eq. for all the components. [29] Haas R, Nakicenovic N, Ajanovic A, Faber T, Kranzl L, Mller A, et al. Towards
sustainability of energy systems: a primer on how to apply the concept of
In Table A4 the emissions (kg CO2 eq) for the disposal scenario energy services to identify necessary trends and policies. Energy Policy
are reported. The data are related to the disposal phase. 2008;36(11):401221.
Fig. A1 shows the flux diagram for Enercon E40 both manufac- [30] Lenzen M, Munksgaard J. Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines
review and applications. Renewable Energy 2002;26(3):33962.
ture and disposal scenario are represented. [31] Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Lo Brano V. Energy performances and life cycle
assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2008;12:20017.
References [32] Guine JB, Gorre M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, et al.
Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards.
Part III: scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. ISBN 1-
[1] Ma T, Yang H, Lu L, Peng J. Optimal design of an autonomous solar-wind-
4020-0228-9, Dordrecht, p. 56.
pumped storage power supply system. Appl Energy 2014;160:72836.
[33] Bonou A, Skelton K, Olsen SI. Ecodesign framework for developing wind
[2] Ewertowska Galan-Martn A, Guillen-Gosalbez A, Gavalda J, Jimenez L.
turbines. J Clean Prod 2016;126:643e653.
Assessment of the environmental efficiency of the electricity mix of the top
[34] Arvesen A, Hertwich EG. Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of
European economies via data envelopment analysis. J Clean Prod
wind power: a review of present knowledge and research needs. Renew
2016;116:1322.
Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(8):59946006.
[3] Bortolini M, Gamberi M, Graziani A, Manzini R. Performance and viability
[35] Lenzen M, Wacksmann V. Wind turbines in Brazil and Germany: an example of
analysis on small wind turbines in the European Union. Renewable Energy
geographical variability in life-cycle assessment. Appl Energy
2014;62:62939.
2004;77:11930.
[4] Savino M, Manzini R, Mazza A. Environmental and economic assessment of
[36] Bishop JDK, Amaratunga GAJ. Evaluation of small wind turbines in distributed
fresh fruit supply chain through value chain analysis. A case study in chestnuts
arrangement as sustainable wind energy option for Barbados. Energy Convers
industry. Prod Plan Control 2015;26(1):118.
Manage 2008;49(6):165261.
[5] Goralczyk M. Life cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector. Appl
[37] Peacock AD, Jenkins D, Ahadzi M, Berry A, Turan S. Micro wind turbines in the
Energy 2003;75:20511.
UK domestic sector. Energy Build 2008;40:132433.
[6] Savino MM, Apolloni S. Environmental plant optimization in small sized
[38] Crawford RH. Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind
enterprises through an operative framework. Int J Oper Quantitat Manage
turbines and the effect of size on energy yield. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2007;13(2):95113.
2009;13:265360.
[7] Neubert G, Savino MM, Pedicini C. Simulation approach to optimize production
[39] Tremeac B, Meunier F. Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind turbines.
costs through value stream mapping. Int J Oper Quantitat Manage 2010;16
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:210410.
(1):121.
[40] Varun, Prakash R, Bhat IK. Lifecycle energy and GHG analysis of hydroelectric
[8] Kabir MD, Rooke B, Dassanayake GDM, Fleck BA. Comparative life cycle energy,
power development in India. Int J Green Energy 2010;7:36175.
emission, and economic analysis of 100 kW nameplate wind power generation.
[41] Lenzen M. Errors in conventional and input-outputbased life-cycle
Renewable Energy 2012;37(1, January):13341.
inventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001;4(4).
[9] Wolfram P, Wiedmann T, Diesendorf M. Carbon footprint scenarios for
[42] Ji S, Chen B. Carbon footprint accounting of a typical wind farm in China. Appl
renewable electricity in Australia. J Clean Prod 2016;124:23645.
Energy 2016;180:41623.
[10] Huebner G, Shipworth D, Hamilton I, Chalabi Z, Oreszczyn T. Understanding
[43] Miller RE, Blair PD. Inputoutput analysis: foundations and extensions. 2nd
electricity consumption: a comparative contribution of building factors, socio-
ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
demographics, appliances, behaviours and attitudes. Appl Energy
[44] Suh S, Huppes G. Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod
2016;177:692702.
2005;13:68797.
[11] Uddin MdS, Kumar S. Energy, emissions and environmental impact analysis of
[45] Udo de Haes H, Heijungs R, Suh S, Huppes G. Three strategies to overcome the
wind turbine using life cycle assessment technique. J Clean Prod
limitations of lifecycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 2004;8:1932.
2014;69:15364.
[46] Lenzen M, Dey CJ. Truncation error in embodied energy analyses of basic iron
[12] de Santoli L, Albo A, Garcia DA, Bruschi D, Cumo F. A preliminary energy and
and steel products. Energy 2000;25:57785.
environmental assessment of a micro wind turbine prototype in natural
[47] Li X, Feng K, Ling Y, Hubacek KY. Energy-water nexus of wind power in China:
protected areas. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;8:4256.
the balancing act between CO2 emissions and water consumption. Energy
[13] Kaldellis JK, Zafirakis D. The wind energy (r)evolution: a short review of a long
Policy 2012;45:4408.
history. Renewable Energy 2011;36:1887901.
[48] Lenzen M, Crawford RH. The path exchange method for hybrid LCA. Environ.
[14] Ahmed NA, Cameron M. The challenges and possible solutions of horizontal
Sci. Technol. 2009;43(21):82516.
axis wind turbines as a clean energy solution for the future. Renew Sustain
[49] Lenzen M, Treloar. Energy embodied in the buildings: wood versus concrete.
Energy Rev 2014;38:43960.
Energy Policy 2003;30:24955.
[15] Katsigiannis YA, Stavrakakis GS. Estimation of wind energy production in
[50] Wan Omar WMS, Doha JH, Panuwatwanich K. Variations in embodied energy
various sites in Australia for different turbine classes: a comparative technical
and carbon emission intensities of construction materials. Environ Impact
and economic assessment. Renewable Energy 2014;67:2306.
Assess Rev 2014;49:3148.
[16] Fadai D. The feasibility of manufacturing wind turbines in Iran. Renew Sustain
[51] Lee Chia-Ho, Ma Hwong-Wen. Improving the integrated hybrid LCA in the
Energy Rev 2007;11:53642.
upstream scope 3 emissions inventory analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
[17] Aso R, Cheung WM. Towards greener horizontal-axis wind turbines: analysis
2013;18(1):1723.
of carbon emissions, energy and costs at the early design stage. J Clean Prod
[52] Hartmann D. FENCH-analysis of electricity generationgreenhouse gas
2015;87:26374.
emissions from solar and wind power in Germany. In: Assessment of
[18] Messineo A, Culotta S. Evaluating the performances of small wind turbines: a
greenhouse gas emissions from the full energy chain of solar and wind
case study in the south of Italy. Energy Proc 2012;16:13745.
power and other energy sources, Working material. Vienna (Austria): IAEA;
[19] Gagliano A, Nocera F, Patania F, Capizzi A. Assessment of micro-wind turbines
1996.
performance in the urban environments: an aided methodology through
[53] Voorspools LR, Brouwers EA, Dhaeseleer WD. Energy content and indirect
geographical information systems. Int J Energy Environ Eng 2013;4:43.
greenhouse gas emissions embedded in emission-free power plants: results
[20] Costanza R. Embodied energy and economic valuation. Science 1980;210
for the Low Countries. Appl Energy 2000;67:30730.
(4475):121924.
[54] Atilgan B, Azapagic A. Life cycle environmental impacts of electricity from
[21] Mohammadi K, Mostafaeipour A. Economic feasibility of developing wind
fossil fuels in Turkey. J Clean Prod 2015;106:55564.
turbines in Aligoodarz, Iran. Energy Convers Manage 2013;76:64553.
[55] Marsh G. Wind turbines: how big can they get? Refocus 2005;6(2):228.
[22] Stockton KM. Utility-scale wind on islands: an economic feasibility study of
[56] Sovacool BK, Enevoldsen P. One style to build them all: corporate culture and
Ilio Point, Hawaii. Renewable Energy 2004:94960.
innovation in the offshore wind industry. Energy Policy 2015;86:40215.
[23] Li Z, Boyle F, Reynold A. Domestic application of micro wind turbines in
[57] Bauer L. wind-turbine-models.com, http://en.wind-turbine-models.com;
Ireland: Investigation of their economic viability; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.
20112016 (first access: march 2015).
1016/j.renene.2011.10.001.
[58] Guezuraga B, Zauner R, Polz W. Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW
[24] Ayodele TR, Ogunjuyigbe ASO, Amusan TO. Wind power utilization assessment
class wind turbines. Renewable Energy 2012:3744.
and economic analysis of wind turbines across fifteen locations in the six
[59] Ortegon K, Nies LF, Sutherland JW. Preparing for end of service life of wind
geographical zones of Nigeria. J Clean Prod 2016:3419. http://dx.doi.org/
turbines. J Clean Prod 2013:1919.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.060.
752 M.M. Savino et al. / Applied Energy 189 (2017) 739752

[60] Raadal HL, Vold BI, Myhr A, Nygaard TA. GHG emissions and energy
performance of offshore wind power. Renewable Energy 2014:31424.
[61] Kim H, Cha KV, Fthenakis M, Sinha P, Hur T. Life cycle assessment of cadmium
telluride photovoltaic (CdTe PV) systems. Sol Energy 2014;103:7888. May
2014.
[62] Fthenakis V, Alsema E. Photovoltaics energy payback times, greenhouse gas
emissions and external costs: 2004early 2005 status. Prog. Photovolt: Res.
Appl. 2006;2006(14):27580.
[63] Merugula LA, Khanna V, Bakshi BR. Comparative life cycle assessment:
Reinforcing wind turbine blades with carbon nanofibers. Sustainable
Systems and Technology (ISSST), IEEE International Symposium; 2010.
[64] Lenzen M. Errors in conventional and input-output-based life-cycle
inventories. J Ind Ecol 2000;4:12748.