Loading…

The cradle to gate life-cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials: A comparison of inorganic, organic and hybrid types

Using thermoelectric generators to convert waste heat into electricity is a renewable alternative to fossil energy sources. As thermoelectric materials are the main element of thermoelectric generators, so far numerous studies have attempted to optimize their energy conversion efficiency. However, n...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sustainable energy technologies and assessments 2021-04, Vol.44, p.101073, Article 101073
Main Authors: Soleimani, Zohreh, Zoras, Stamatis, Ceranic, Boris, Shahzad, Sally, Cui, Yuanlong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c300t-b54b52cc4938097589215787a0f2237f3ca84a272a7ffc76bc62200e36f374033
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c300t-b54b52cc4938097589215787a0f2237f3ca84a272a7ffc76bc62200e36f374033
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 101073
container_title Sustainable energy technologies and assessments
container_volume 44
creator Soleimani, Zohreh
Zoras, Stamatis
Ceranic, Boris
Shahzad, Sally
Cui, Yuanlong
description Using thermoelectric generators to convert waste heat into electricity is a renewable alternative to fossil energy sources. As thermoelectric materials are the main element of thermoelectric generators, so far numerous studies have attempted to optimize their energy conversion efficiency. However, no single study to date has examined their life cycle impacts, whilst it is the most important feature of any renewable technology. Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to assess the life cycle impacts of thermoelectric materials at their production stage (cradle to gate) using a life cycle assessment tool called GaBi v.4.4. Thus, the thermoelectric materials were categorized into inorganic, organic, and hybrid types. The five investigated impact categories were resource consumption, emission, waste, primary energy demand, and global warming potential. The results confirmed that the inorganic type caused significantly greater environmental impacts than the other two types. The only inorganic exception was Bi2Te3 that its environmental impact was by far the lowest among all the studied thermoelectric materials. Notably, the inorganic type caused major harm to the environment due to its extremely energy-intensive manufacturing process. However, the core environmental drawback of the organic and hybrid types was driven from their raw materials supply.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101073
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>elsevier_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1016_j_seta_2021_101073</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S2213138821000837</els_id><sourcerecordid>S2213138821000837</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c300t-b54b52cc4938097589215787a0f2237f3ca84a272a7ffc76bc62200e36f374033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9qwzAMh3PYYKXrC-zkB1g62U7idOxSyv5BYZfubBxFbl2SuNhmkLdfQnfeSUL8PiF9WfbAYc2BV0_ndaRk1gIEnweg5E22EILLnMu6vstWMZ4BgMuKFxwW2Xg4EcNg2o5Y8uxoErHOWcpxxGlkYqQYexoS85alE4XeU0eYgkPWT-HgTBef2Zah7y8muOiHOekGH45mcPjI_hpmhpadxia4lqXxQvE-u7UTS6u_usy-314Pu498__X-udvuc5QAKW_KoikFYrGRNWxUWW8EL1WtDFghpLISTV0YoYRR1qKqGqyEACBZWakKkHKZieteDD7GQFZfgutNGDUHPTvTZz0707MzfXU2QS9XiKbLfhwFHdHRgNS6MH2vW-_-w38BRMV3sg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The cradle to gate life-cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials: A comparison of inorganic, organic and hybrid types</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Soleimani, Zohreh ; Zoras, Stamatis ; Ceranic, Boris ; Shahzad, Sally ; Cui, Yuanlong</creator><creatorcontrib>Soleimani, Zohreh ; Zoras, Stamatis ; Ceranic, Boris ; Shahzad, Sally ; Cui, Yuanlong</creatorcontrib><description>Using thermoelectric generators to convert waste heat into electricity is a renewable alternative to fossil energy sources. As thermoelectric materials are the main element of thermoelectric generators, so far numerous studies have attempted to optimize their energy conversion efficiency. However, no single study to date has examined their life cycle impacts, whilst it is the most important feature of any renewable technology. Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to assess the life cycle impacts of thermoelectric materials at their production stage (cradle to gate) using a life cycle assessment tool called GaBi v.4.4. Thus, the thermoelectric materials were categorized into inorganic, organic, and hybrid types. The five investigated impact categories were resource consumption, emission, waste, primary energy demand, and global warming potential. The results confirmed that the inorganic type caused significantly greater environmental impacts than the other two types. The only inorganic exception was Bi2Te3 that its environmental impact was by far the lowest among all the studied thermoelectric materials. Notably, the inorganic type caused major harm to the environment due to its extremely energy-intensive manufacturing process. However, the core environmental drawback of the organic and hybrid types was driven from their raw materials supply.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2213-1388</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.seta.2021.101073</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>CO2 emission ; Life cycle impact assessment ; Primary energy demand ; Renewable energy ; Thermoelectric materials</subject><ispartof>Sustainable energy technologies and assessments, 2021-04, Vol.44, p.101073, Article 101073</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c300t-b54b52cc4938097589215787a0f2237f3ca84a272a7ffc76bc62200e36f374033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c300t-b54b52cc4938097589215787a0f2237f3ca84a272a7ffc76bc62200e36f374033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Soleimani, Zohreh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zoras, Stamatis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceranic, Boris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahzad, Sally</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Yuanlong</creatorcontrib><title>The cradle to gate life-cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials: A comparison of inorganic, organic and hybrid types</title><title>Sustainable energy technologies and assessments</title><description>Using thermoelectric generators to convert waste heat into electricity is a renewable alternative to fossil energy sources. As thermoelectric materials are the main element of thermoelectric generators, so far numerous studies have attempted to optimize their energy conversion efficiency. However, no single study to date has examined their life cycle impacts, whilst it is the most important feature of any renewable technology. Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to assess the life cycle impacts of thermoelectric materials at their production stage (cradle to gate) using a life cycle assessment tool called GaBi v.4.4. Thus, the thermoelectric materials were categorized into inorganic, organic, and hybrid types. The five investigated impact categories were resource consumption, emission, waste, primary energy demand, and global warming potential. The results confirmed that the inorganic type caused significantly greater environmental impacts than the other two types. The only inorganic exception was Bi2Te3 that its environmental impact was by far the lowest among all the studied thermoelectric materials. Notably, the inorganic type caused major harm to the environment due to its extremely energy-intensive manufacturing process. However, the core environmental drawback of the organic and hybrid types was driven from their raw materials supply.</description><subject>CO2 emission</subject><subject>Life cycle impact assessment</subject><subject>Primary energy demand</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><subject>Thermoelectric materials</subject><issn>2213-1388</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM9qwzAMh3PYYKXrC-zkB1g62U7idOxSyv5BYZfubBxFbl2SuNhmkLdfQnfeSUL8PiF9WfbAYc2BV0_ndaRk1gIEnweg5E22EILLnMu6vstWMZ4BgMuKFxwW2Xg4EcNg2o5Y8uxoErHOWcpxxGlkYqQYexoS85alE4XeU0eYgkPWT-HgTBef2Zah7y8muOiHOekGH45mcPjI_hpmhpadxia4lqXxQvE-u7UTS6u_usy-314Pu498__X-udvuc5QAKW_KoikFYrGRNWxUWW8EL1WtDFghpLISTV0YoYRR1qKqGqyEACBZWakKkHKZieteDD7GQFZfgutNGDUHPTvTZz0707MzfXU2QS9XiKbLfhwFHdHRgNS6MH2vW-_-w38BRMV3sg</recordid><startdate>202104</startdate><enddate>202104</enddate><creator>Soleimani, Zohreh</creator><creator>Zoras, Stamatis</creator><creator>Ceranic, Boris</creator><creator>Shahzad, Sally</creator><creator>Cui, Yuanlong</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202104</creationdate><title>The cradle to gate life-cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials: A comparison of inorganic, organic and hybrid types</title><author>Soleimani, Zohreh ; Zoras, Stamatis ; Ceranic, Boris ; Shahzad, Sally ; Cui, Yuanlong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c300t-b54b52cc4938097589215787a0f2237f3ca84a272a7ffc76bc62200e36f374033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>CO2 emission</topic><topic>Life cycle impact assessment</topic><topic>Primary energy demand</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><topic>Thermoelectric materials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Soleimani, Zohreh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zoras, Stamatis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceranic, Boris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahzad, Sally</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Yuanlong</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Sustainable energy technologies and assessments</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Soleimani, Zohreh</au><au>Zoras, Stamatis</au><au>Ceranic, Boris</au><au>Shahzad, Sally</au><au>Cui, Yuanlong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The cradle to gate life-cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials: A comparison of inorganic, organic and hybrid types</atitle><jtitle>Sustainable energy technologies and assessments</jtitle><date>2021-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>44</volume><spage>101073</spage><pages>101073-</pages><artnum>101073</artnum><issn>2213-1388</issn><abstract>Using thermoelectric generators to convert waste heat into electricity is a renewable alternative to fossil energy sources. As thermoelectric materials are the main element of thermoelectric generators, so far numerous studies have attempted to optimize their energy conversion efficiency. However, no single study to date has examined their life cycle impacts, whilst it is the most important feature of any renewable technology. Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to assess the life cycle impacts of thermoelectric materials at their production stage (cradle to gate) using a life cycle assessment tool called GaBi v.4.4. Thus, the thermoelectric materials were categorized into inorganic, organic, and hybrid types. The five investigated impact categories were resource consumption, emission, waste, primary energy demand, and global warming potential. The results confirmed that the inorganic type caused significantly greater environmental impacts than the other two types. The only inorganic exception was Bi2Te3 that its environmental impact was by far the lowest among all the studied thermoelectric materials. Notably, the inorganic type caused major harm to the environment due to its extremely energy-intensive manufacturing process. However, the core environmental drawback of the organic and hybrid types was driven from their raw materials supply.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.seta.2021.101073</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2213-1388
ispartof Sustainable energy technologies and assessments, 2021-04, Vol.44, p.101073, Article 101073
issn 2213-1388
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1016_j_seta_2021_101073
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects CO2 emission
Life cycle impact assessment
Primary energy demand
Renewable energy
Thermoelectric materials
title The cradle to gate life-cycle assessment of thermoelectric materials: A comparison of inorganic, organic and hybrid types
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T00%3A54%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-elsevier_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20cradle%20to%20gate%20life-cycle%20assessment%20of%20thermoelectric%20materials:%20A%20comparison%20of%20inorganic,%20organic%20and%20hybrid%20types&rft.jtitle=Sustainable%20energy%20technologies%20and%20assessments&rft.au=Soleimani,%20Zohreh&rft.date=2021-04&rft.volume=44&rft.spage=101073&rft.pages=101073-&rft.artnum=101073&rft.issn=2213-1388&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101073&rft_dat=%3Celsevier_cross%3ES2213138821000837%3C/elsevier_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c300t-b54b52cc4938097589215787a0f2237f3ca84a272a7ffc76bc62200e36f374033%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true