Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Life cycle assessment of wind turbines in Pınarbaşı-Kayseri

Nesrin Demir a, *, Akif Taşkın b
a
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey
b
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey

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

Article history: In this paper, environmental effects of three medium scale (330 kW, 500 kW, 810 kW) and two large
Received 7 January 2013 scale (2050 kW, 3020 kW) wind turbines with the hub heights of 50 m, 80 m and 100 m installed in
Received in revised form Pınarbaşı-Kayseri are compared using life cycle assessment methodology. Manufacturing and utilization
12 April 2013
of wind turbines, decommissioning and recycling steps are considered for this study. GaBi4 life cycle
Accepted 13 April 2013
Available online 23 April 2013
assessment software is utilized for analysis. Selected wind turbines are compared in terms of environ-
mental impacts, embodied energies and energy payback times. The results show that environmental
impacts are low for the turbines with high hub heights due to increase in electricity production of those
Keywords:
Global Warming Potential
turbines. Wind turbine with rated power of 2050 kW at 100 m hub height is the ideal option to install in
Life cycle assessment Pınarbaşı-Kayseri among the selected wind turbines with respect to the energy, environmental aspects
Renewable energy and energy payback time.
Wind turbine Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction decade. As stated in the Turkish Electrical Energy (2011), Turkey’s

Nowadays, increased energy costs, forecast of depleting non-
renewable energy sources and environmental problems such as
climate change, global warming and greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions compel the world to use the renewable energy sources. These
conditions constrain the governments to take some legal, eco-
nomic, environmental and social precautions (Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, 2008). One of these precautions is to use
renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels to produce elec-
tricity. Using renewable energy sources for power generation offers
not only environmental benefits, but also economic advantages.
Turkey is not a self-contained country in the energy field and a
variety of energy sources are supplied from other countries, leading
economic problems (e.g. fiscal deficit). Energy cost has the biggest
share in the fiscal deficit of Turkey. In order to reduce the increased
fiscal deficit rate, Turkey’s new energy policies have been switched
to use of nuclear energy and renewable energy sources to produce
electricity. According to the Electricity Energy Market and Supply
Security Strategy Paper (2009), one of the Turkey’s 2023 objec-
tives is to supply the 30% of the energy demands by renewable
energy sources and attaining the 20.000 MW operating wind en-
ergy capacities. Because of the higher wind potential of Turkey,
wind energy investments are intensified in the country in the last
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 352 2076666x32107; fax: þ90 352 4375784.
E-mail address: nkayatas@erciyes.edu.tr (N. Demir).
installed wind power capacity was 18.9 MW (0.1% of total installed
power) at the end of 2002 and it reached 1965 MW (3.6% of total
installed power) at the end of 2012.
Renewable energy sources such as wind, sun, hydropower,
geothermal etc. are accepted as clean energy sources. In fact, they
are not totally clean energy sources for power generation due to
arising negative environmental effects during manufacturing, uti-
lization and recycling stages. Among the production electricity
from renewable energy sources, electricity production using wind
has been developing significantly since the last decade. Wind tur-
bines are used to convert wind energy into useful electrical work by
using a generator. At the present time higher technology and high
capacity wind turbines are being designed. There are many studies
on the estimation of wind energy potential and wind energy
generation using electrical power conversion. Table 1 shows the
summary of the studies on the determination of wind energy
potential and wind energy conversion systems.
Wind turbines have lower environmental impacts through uti-
lization stage; they produce emissions at significant levels during
manufacturing, decommissioning and recycling stages. These
environmental effects have to be evaluated for comparing with
other electricity production methods and material selection pro-
cesses. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, a cradle to grave
analysis to investigate environmental impacts of a system and/or
a product, is used in this study. According to the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO 14040 and ISO 14044,
LCA is defined as analyzing and evaluation of the inputs, outputs

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.016
254 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263

Nomenclature Abbreviations
AP Acidification Potential
an regression constant CML The Center of Environmental Science of Leiden
Cf capacity factor University
Ep produced electricity over a year (kWh/year) E East
Ept energy payback time EP Eutrophication Potential
Egenerated annual energy produced by a wind turbine (kWh/year) FAETP Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential
Eprimary total primary energy (kWh) GHG Greenhouse Gas
ER rated power (kW) GWP Global Warming Potential
v wind speed at the desired height (m/s) HTP Human Toxicity Potential
v0 measured wind speed at the anemometer height (m/s) ISO International Organization for Standardization
vci cut-in speed (m/s) LCA Life Cycle Assessment
vco cut-out speed (m/s) LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
vR rated speed (m/s) LCI Life Cycle Inventory
Pi(v) power produced at the desired speed of v (kW) N North
z desired height (m) ODP Ozone Depletion Potential
z0 anemometer height (m) POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
zs surface roughness factor TETP Terrestrial Ecotoxicity potential

and the potential environmental impacts of a system during its
lifetime (ISO, 2006a, 2006b). Table 2 depicts the studies on LCA of
renewable energy systems.
Development in the wind energy technology and designing
higher rated power wind turbines bring about the need to inves-
tigate the environmental impacts of this technology. Turbine
dimension affects the environmental impacts (Crawford, 2009;
Kabir et al., 2012; Tremeac and Meunier, 2009). As the turbine size
increases with the power of wind turbine due to the quantity of
materials, the environmental impacts rise. But impact results per
kWh change with the generated electricity by wind turbine. Most of
the studies on LCA of wind turbines deal with the stages from raw
material extraction to end-of-life and generally impacts mainly
arise from the manufacturing stage due to the input material and
energy quantities (Ardente et al., 2008; Guezuraga et al., 2012;
Hassing and Varming, 2001; Martinez et al., 2009a, 2009b; Raadal
et al., 2011; Wang and Sun, 2012). Manufacturing stage comprises
installation, transportation, assembly processes, environmental
impacts of this stage are greater than in the operation, maintenance
and end-of-life stages. End-of-life stage is one of the important
parts of LCA because recycling rate of the materials changes envi-
ronmental impacts, so this stage is significantly considered in LCA
studies (Arvesen and Hertwich, 2012; Guezuraga et al., 2012; Kabir
et al., 2012; Lenzen and Munksgaard, 2002; Martinez et al., 2009a,
2009b; Schleisner, 2000; Weinzettel et al., 2009).
The objective of this study is to investigate the environmental
impacts of the wind turbines for Pınarbaşı performing the LCA
methodology. Therefore, three medium scale (330 kW, 500 kW,
810 kW) and two large scale (2050 kW, 3020 kW) wind turbines with
three different hub heights (50 m, 80 m and 100 m) are selected.
Wind potential of the considered region is determined. GaBi4 life
cycle assessment software is used for the analysis. Manufacturing of
wind turbine components, utilization of wind turbines, decom-
missioning and recycling steps are considered within the scope of
this study. Wind turbines are compared according to generated
electricity, energy payback times and environmental impacts.

Table 1
The studies on determinations of wind energy potential and wind energy conversion systems.

Ref. Wind energy potential Wind energy conversion system Methodology/software Major findings

1 Four different locations e Homer software Average Wind Speeds:

in Ethiopia for three locations: 4 m/s
for one location: less than 3 m/s
2 Izmir Institute of Technology, Generated Electricity: WindPRO and WAsP Mean Wind Speeds:
Turkey 600 kW wind turbine: 100.3 GWh/yr softwares at 10 m mast height: 7.03 m/s
1500 kW wind turbine: 122.4 GWh/yr at 30 m mast height: 8.14 m/s
3 Rafha, Saudi Arabia Generated Electricity: Homer and RetScreen Mean Wind Speeds:
600 kW wind turbine: 805 MWh/yr softwares Minimum: 2.5 m/s
1000 kW wind turbine: 1332 MWh/yr Maximum: 4.9 m/s
1500 kW wind turbine: 1905 MWh/yr
4 Eastern Mediterranean coast e WAsP software Mean Wind Speeds for reasonable regions:
of Turkey. Minimum: 2.6 m/s
Maximum: 4.0 m/s
5 Coast of Mediterranean Sea Generated Electricity: WAsP software Mean Wind Speeds Range:
in Egypt. 1000 kW wind turbine: 2718 MWh/yr 5e6 m/s.
6 Kayseri and its counties, e Fortran computer code Maximum Mean Wind Speed:
Turkey. 3.66 m/s in Pınarbaşı
7 Central Anatolian, Turkey Generated Electricity: Fortran computer code Mean Wind Speeds for reasonable regions:
150 kW wind turbine: 120 MWh/yr Minimum: 2.46 m/s
in Pınarbaşı. Maximum: 4.6 m/s

References to the table: (1) (Bekele and Palm, 2009); (2) (Ozerdem and Turkeli, 2005); (3) (Rehman et al., 2007); (4) (Sahin et al., 2005); (5) (Shata and Hanitsch, 2006); (6)
(Genç and Gökçek, 2009); (7) (Gökçek and Genç, 2009).
 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263 255

Table 2
The studies on LCA of renewable energy systems.

Ref. Studied system LCA software Major findings

1 Wind solar thermal small hydro N/A Global Warming (gCO2/kWh):

photovoltaics Wind: 9.7e123.7
Solar thermal: 13.6e202
Small hydro: 3.7e237
Photovoltaics: 53.4e250
2 Wind solar thermal geothermal Umberto GWP (gCO2/kWh) AP (mgSO2/kWh) EP (kg Phosphate/kWh)
energy photovoltaics Wind 9e11 50e61 2.7e4
Solar thermal 14 98 10
Geothermal 41 190 24.8
Photovoltaics 104 528 44
3 Wind photovoltaics hydroelectric N/A Global Warming (kgCO2/GJ):
power station Wind: 1.69
Photovoltaics: 29
Hydroelectric power station: 1.27
4 Wind hydropower run-of-river N/A Global Warming (gCO2-eq/kWh):
hydropower Wind: 4.6e55.4
Hydropower: 0.2e152
Run-of-river Hydropower: 0.3e13
5 Wind photovoltaics hydropower N/A Global Warming (gCO2-eq/kWh):
Wind: 10
Photovoltaics: 100e180
Hydropower: 5
6 Wind fuel cell electrolyzer complete N/A Global Warming (gCO2-eq/kWh):
integrated system Wind: 3.71e10.05
Fuel Cell: 19.89
Electrolyzer: 11.14
Complete integrated system: 34.75e41.08
7 Hydrogen production using GaBi4 GWP (kgCO2eq/kgH2) AP (mgSO2eq/kgH2) EP (kg Phosphate-eq/kgH2)
thermochemical water splitting cycles 5 step CueCl cycle 12.3 7.66E-02 3.18E-03
4 step CueCl cycle 15.8 9.90E-02 4.04E-03
3 step CueCl cycle 15.9 9.95E-02 4.08E-03

References to the table: (1) (Varun et al., 2009); (2) (Pehnt, 2006); (3) (Goralczyk, 2003); (4) (Raadal et al., 2011), (5) (Guezuraga et al., 2012), (6) (Khan et al., 2005), (7) (Ozbilen
et al., 2012).

2. Methods
2.1. Life cycle assessments of wind turbines
2.1.1. Goal and scope definition
The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the po-
tential environmental impacts of five different rated power wind
turbines installed in Pınarbaşı and effects of different hub heights
with a view to showing the energy and material inputs-outputs and
environmental effects of wind turbines. Existing LCA studies on the
environmental effects of wind turbines do not adequately model the
effects of wind patterns on energy generation using wind turbines.
To improve on the methodology, we calculated the wind potential of
the selected area by using long term wind data and used it to predict
electricity generation. Only a few studies (Crawford, 2009;
Guezuraga et al., 2012; Tremeac and Meunier, 2009; Wang and Sun,
2012) have simultaneously compared wind turbines with differing
size characteristics. Therefore, we have analyzed 15 wind turbine
systems with varying sizes to improve the understanding of the
environmental impacts associated with wind turbines.
LCA of the selected wind turbines are considered to contain the
whole lifespan of the selected wind turbines such as raw material
extraction to recycling. A typical wind turbine consists of a foun-
dation, a tower, a nacelle, a rotor and some other components. The
relations between these components of wind turbine are shown in
Fig. 1. The lifespan is assumed to be 20 years for the selected wind
turbines. Gearboxes of the wind turbines are supposed to be
replaced once during the operation and maintenance stage. In or-
der to create the LCA model and evaluate the LCAs of the considered
wind turbines, GaBi4 software tool (2006) and its current inventory
database are used. By using GaBi4 software, sub processes and
plans are modeled and they are linked to each other in appropriate
order to create the overall GaBi4 model of the wind turbines then
the balances are created to obtain the desired results. LCAs of the
selected wind turbines are modeled by using this software and all
the relevant inputs such as energy, material, and distance data
entered to the program and consumed resources, environmental
effects and energy input-outputs are obtained by balancing the
results. Created GaBi4 model for this study is given in Fig. 2 and
LCAs of all the turbines are performed according to this model.
2.1.2. Functional unit
Functional unit is a reference value used for comparing the
evaluated results of selected wind turbines with each other. All the
environmental impacts are normalized and compared according to
this value. Functional unit of the present LCA is 1 kWh electricity
delivered to the grid by a wind turbine.
2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis (LCI)
In this study, firstly wind potential of considered area and
electricity generation of selected wind turbines are investigated.
2.2.1. Wind potential of considered area and electricity generation
by selected wind turbines
Total energy output of a wind turbine mainly depends on the
wind characteristics of the turbine installed region and turbine
characteristics. In order to obtain higher efficiency from a wind
turbine, it must be installed in a suitable wind potential area. In this
study, the wind turbines are assumed to be installed in Pınarbaşı-
Kayseri. Pınarbaşı is located at 38 430 Latitude (N), 36 240 Longi-
tude (E) and 1500 m altitude. Genç and Gökçek (2009) analyzed
256 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263
Fig. 1. The flowchart of the wind turbines.
wind characteristics and wind potential of Kayseri and its counties
between the years of 2000 and 2006. The results of their study
showed that Pınarbaşı had considerable wind potential compared
to other considered locations. Furthermore, Gökçek and Genç
(2009) determined the wind characteristics of seven different re-
gions, where Pınarbaşı, Nig de, Nevşehir, Tomarza, Kırıkkale,
Kırşehir and Develi, in Central Turkey to produce electricity
through wind turbines in these regions. They concluded that
wind potential of Pınarbaşı was more favorable than the others. In
their other studies, Genç et al. (2012a, 2012b) investigated wind
power potential and hydrogen production potential using wind-
electrolyze system in Pınarbaşı for the selected wind turbines and
Fig. 2. GaBi4 model of a wind turbine.
they concluded that Pınarbaşı was the acceptable region to produce
electricity and hydrogen by wind power.
In this study, as in the studies of Genç et al. (2009, 2012a, 2012b),
new wind turbines in Pınarbaşı are considered and the comparison
of environmental impacts is performed using the medium scale
wind turbines (named as Turbine-1 (330 kW), Turbine-2 (500 kW),
Turbine-3 (810 kW)) and large scale wind turbines (named as
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) and Turbine-5 (3020 kW)) for different hub
height cases of 50 m, 80 m and 100 m. Lifespans of the selected wind
turbines are assumed as 20 years. In order to calculate the total
electricity generation of selected wind turbines over the 20 years
period, wind potential of Pınarbaşı-Kayseri is determined. The re-
cords of wind speed data, which is measured by the Turkish State
Meteorological Service between the years of 2000 and 2011 by using
an anemometer 10 m above the ground, are used to calculate the
electricity generation by selected wind turbines. At this meteoro-
logical station, wind data is measured for hourly for 365 days of the
year, so 8760 (24 h  365 days) wind speed data is noted for one
year. Mean values of these wind speed data, between the years of
2000 and 2011, are calculated by using a computer program. Wind
data are extrapolated to different hub heights. In order to obtain
wind speeds at the heights of 50 m, 80 m, and 100 m, the log law is
used (Genç, 2010). This equation is given as follows;


Inðz=zs Þ
v ¼ vo (1)
Inðz0 =zs Þ
In this equation v is defined as the wind speed calculated at the
height of z, v0 is defined as the measured wind speed at the
anemometer height z0 and zs is expressed as surface roughness
factor that depends on land use category. z is selected as 50 m, 80 m
and 100 m for 3 cases of different hub heights, z0 is taken 10 m which
is the anemometer height above the ground and zs is selected as 0.15
 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263 257

(Genç, 2010) according to the land characteristics of the selected Turbines

3500
area. Measured mean wind speeds at the anemometer height of 10 m 330 kW
and calculated mean wind speeds for the height of 10 m, 50 m, 80 m 500 kW
and 100 m between the years of 2000 and 2011 are shown in Fig. 3. In 810 kW
3000
2050 kW
order to calculate the electricity production of a wind turbine, power
3020 kW
curve must be considered as well as wind speed data. Power curves
show the relation between wind speed and output power produced 2500
by a wind turbine. Fig. 4 shows the power curves of selected wind
turbines. In order to obtain the output power generated by a wind

Power [kW]
2000
turbine at any speed between the cut-in and cut-out wind speeds, an
equation is derived by applying the curve fitting method to power
curves and this equation is expressed as Eq. (2). 1500
8
>
> 0; v < vci
>
> 
>
> n n1 þ . þ a v þ a ;
< an v þ an1 v vci  v < vR
> 1000
1 0
Pi ðvÞ ¼ PR ; vR  v < vco or
>
>  
>
> an vn þ an1 vn1 þ . þ a1 v þ a0 ; vci  v < vco 500
>
>
>
:
0; v  vco
(2) 0
5 10 15 20 25
In this equation an, an  1, and a0 are expressed as regression Wind speed [m/s]
constants, vci is defined as cut-in speed, vco is defined as cut-out Fig. 4. Power curves of selected wind turbines.
speed, vR is defined as rated speed, PR is defined as rated power
and Pi(v) is defined as power produced at the desired speed of v. (Ep) to the rated power (ER) of a wind turbine and can be calculated
Total amount of power (Ep) produced over a time interval can be by using following equation:
calculated by summing the output energies for considered hourly
considered wind turbines, GaBi4. This equation is given as follows;
Ep
X
n Cf ¼ (4)
ER
Ep ¼ Pi ðvÞt (3)
t¼1

2.2.2. Characteristics of the selected wind turbine systems

where n is defined as the hours in the considered time interval and
In this analysis, inventory data of foundation and main me-
this value is selected as 8760 for this study, t is expressed as 1 h
chanical parts of tower, nacelle and rotor are primarily compiled
time period. Total actual powers generated by selected wind tur-
from the manufacturers and also inventory information of electrical
bines for the hub heights of 50 m, 80 m and 100 m over a year are
and electronic parts, transportation, energy inputs, maintenance and
calculated and turbine characteristics of the selected wind turbines
end of life scenario are compiled primarily from the assumptions and
for different hub heights are shown in Table 3. Cf is the capacity
previous studies of LCAs of wind turbines (Martinez, 2009a, 2009b;
factor and this factor is used to determine the efficiency of a wind
Guezuraga, 2012; Crawford, 2009; Vestas, 2006). Medium and large
turbine. Cf is the ratio of total amount of annual produced power
scale wind turbines (Turbine-1 (330 kW), Turbine-2 (500 kW),
Turbine-3 (810 kW), Turbine-4 (2050 kW) and Turbine-5 (3020 kW))
7
at 50 m, 80 m, 100 m hub heights are considered, so 15 different
scenarios are obtained to examine the LCAs of these wind turbine
6 systems. Each system consists of manufacturing, transport, site
erection, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and recycling
stages. Percentage input material quantities are shown in Table 4.
5
Table 3
Mean wind speed [m/s]

Turbine characteristics of the selected wind turbines for different hub heights.

4 Rated power Turbine-1 Turbine-2 Turbine-3 Turbine-4 Turbine-5

(kW)
330 500 810 2050 3020
a
3 Actual power 4.71E þ 05 6.93E þ 05 1.18E þ 06 2.75E þ 06 2.73E þ 06
(kWh)/year 6.08E þ 05b 9.03E þ 05 1.51E þ 06 3.56E þ 06 3.56E þ 06
7.46E þ 05c 1.01E þ 06 1.67E þ 06 3.96E þ 06 3.99E þ 06
Hub heights
Cf 0.163 0.158 0.166 0.153 0.103
2 10 m 0.210 0.206 0.213 0.198 0.135
50 m 0.235 0.230 0.236 0.221 0.151
80 m
Rotor 33 48 53 82 82
100 m
1 diameter (m)
Swept area (m2) 876 1560 2198 5281 5281
Cut-in 3 3 2 2 2
speed (m/s)
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Cut-out 25 25 25 25 25
speed (m/s)
Years Rated wind 13 12 13 13 17
speed (m/s)
Fig. 3. Annual mean wind speeds of considered area at 10 m, 50 m, 80 m and 100 m
between the years of 2000e2011. a, b and c are the 50 m, 80 m and 100 m hub heights of the turbines, respectively.
258 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263

Table 4
Percentages of input material quantities of foundation, tower, nacelle, rotor and other components.

Components Materials Turbine-1 Turbine-2 Turbine-3 Turbine-4 Turbine-5

Hub height (m) Hub height (m) Hub height (m) Hub height (m) Hub height (m)

50 80 100 50 80 100 50 80 100 50 80 100 50 80 100

Foundation Concrete 78.27 76.57 75.74 76.17 75.34 74.86 76.85 75.57 74.88 75.50 74.48 72.12 69.34 67.49 65.99
Steel 2.20 2.62 3.03 2.27 2.81 2.91 2.36 2.59 2.94 2.48 2.52 2.78 3.27 3.32 4.17
Iron 1.42 2.18 2.65 1.99 2.28 2.49 1.58 2.06 2.06 1.15 1.47 2.39 1.89 2.29 2.65
Tower Steel 13.33 13.33 13.15 13.26 12.99 13.47 11.82 12.49 12.65 10.97 11.56 12.93 12.89 13.82 14.41
Aluminum 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.52 0.63 0.76
Plastic 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.23
Copper 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.23
Paint 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.22
Nacelle Steel 3.03 2.75 2.65 3.75 3.53 3.43 3.92 3.95 4.10 3.93 3.78 3.64 5.50 5.45 5.61
Copper 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.31
Aluminum 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.17
Iron ea e e e e e e e e 0.92 0.89 0.88 1.03 1.04 1.07
Epoxy/Resin e e e e e e e e e 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.26 0.27 0.28
Fiberglass e e e e e e e e e 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.22 0.23
Rotor Steel 0.95 0.80 0.69 0.88 0.82 0.77 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.95 0.87 0.79 0.89 0.82 0.79
Fiberglass 0.54 0.46 0.40 0.59 0.54 0.52 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.94 0.85 0.78 0.89 0.81 0.78
Epoxy/Resin 0.43 0.36 0.32 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.34 1.40 1.27 1.16 1.23 1.13 1.09
Other Aluminum 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09
Components Copper 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21
Plastic 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.12
Steel 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.30 0.35 0.37 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.35 0.37 0.43 0.43 0.47 0.58
a
In medium scale wind turbines, iron, epoxy/resin and fiberglass didn’t use in nacelle.

Nacelle is assumed to be composed of only steel, copper and
aluminum for medium scale wind turbines, but for large scale wind
turbines nacelle is composed of steel, copper, aluminum, iron, epoxy/
resin and fiberglass. Other components of the wind turbines are
assumed to be composed of the same materials.
2.2.3. Manufacturing and assembly of wind turbine components
Foundation: Foundation is composed of concrete, steel and iron.
Fuel consumption is considered for the foundation construction
stage.
Tower: Tower is made of steel, aluminum, copper and plastic.
Nacelle: Nacelle is the combination of the bedplate, frame, nacelle
cover, generator, main shaft and gearbox.
Rotor: Rotor is the combination of blades, hub, nose cone and
bolts.
Cables: Cables are considered only for internal connection and
connection to the grid.
2.3. Wind turbine installation on site
Transportation of all components and crane operations are
considered. Transport types, distances and crane capacities are
varied due to different rated powers of selected wind turbines and
different suppliers of these wind turbines.
 All metals used in the wind turbines are recycled 90%, and 10%
loss is land filled.
 Recycling process is performed 250 km away from the wind
turbine site.
 Recycled materials are used as raw materials to produce a new
wind turbine.
 Concrete, plastics and other materials are land filled 150 km
away from the site.
2.6. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
The potential environmental effects of the examined products
are evaluated at the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) step. In
order to calculate the potential impacts, impact categories and
impact assessment methods must be defined in the goal and scope
definition stage. Impact categories should be selected according to
the aims of the work. There are different impact assessment
methods, these methods principally based on the problem oriented
(mid-point) and damage oriented (end point) impact categories. In
this study, The Center of Environmental Science of Leiden Univer-
sity (CML) method, which is problem oriented method (mid-point),
is chosen and potential environmental impact categories are
selected according to the aim of this study.
2.7. Energy payback time and embodied energy

2.4. Operation and maintenance Energy payback time (Ept) defines the time required for gaining
the consumed energy. This value is the ratio of consumed primary
During the operation stage, gearbox of the wind turbines is energy during the whole life of a wind turbine to the annual energy
assumed to be replaced once. For the maintenance, distances and produced by a wind turbine (Guezuraga, 2012) and calculated by
used materials are considered and the turbines are assumed to be using following equation:
inspected twice a year.
Eprimary
Ept ¼ (5)
2.5. End of life scenario Egenerated

Dismantling and recycling scenarios are performed according to where Eprimary is defined as the total primary energy and Egenerated is
the past studies (Guezuraga et al., 2012; Weinzettel et al., 2009; defined as the annual produced electricity by a wind turbine.
Ardente et al., 2008; Kabir et al., 2012) and some assumptions are Embodied energy represents the total amount of energy consumed
given as follows: by a wind turbine during the whole lifetime. The value of embodied
 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263 259

energy is affected by some factors such as capacity of the wind
turbine, the materials used, manufacturing techniques and the site
installed. All of the consumed energy, embodied energies of
selected wind turbines and main parts of these wind turbines are
calculated by using GaBi4 software tool.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Environmental impacts
An explanation of the theory used to derive impact categories
can be found elsewhere (Ozbilen, 2012b; Martinez, 2009b; GaBi,
2009). Contribution analyses of the impact assessment results
based on wind turbine components for each hub height are
included in Tables 5e7.
3.1.1. Acidification Potential (AP)
The lowest AP is observed as 5.779E-05 kg SO2-Equiv/kWh for
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the highest AP is
observed as 1.267E-04 kg SO2-Equiv/kWh for Turbine-1 (330 kW)
at 50 m hub height. Foundation and tower have the largest amount
of AP value as 35.27 and 26.96%/kWh at Turbine-1 (330 kW) at
100 m hub height, respectively. Nacelle and rotor have the largest
amount of AP value as 47.08 and 13.13%/kWh at Turbine-4
(2050 kW) at 50 m hub height, respectively. The reason for hav-
ing a high AP value is because of the usage of iron and steel ma-
terials. In medium scale wind turbines, iron is not used in nacelle.
So foundation has maximum AP value because of the steel usage. In
large scale wind turbines, iron is used in nacelle so maximum AP
value is obtained in nacelle.
3.1.2. Eutrophication Potential (EP)
The minimum EP is obtained as 5.392E-06 kg Phosphate-Equiv/
kWh for Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the
maximum EP is observed as 1.269E-05 kg Phosphate-Equiv/kWh
for Turbine-1 (330 kW) at 50 m hub height. Foundation and
tower have the largest amount of EP value as 41.58 and 22.67%/
kWh at Turbine-1 (330 kW) at 100 m hub height, respectively.
Nacelle and rotor have the largest amount of EP value as 37.14 and
17.80%/kWh at Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 50 m hub height,
respectively.
3.1.3. Global Warming Potential (GWP)
The lowest GWP is obtained as 1.627E-02 kg CO2-Equiv/kWh for
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the highest GWP is
observed as 4.036E-02 kg CO2-Equiv/kWh for Turbine-1 (330 kW)
at 50 m hub height. Foundation and tower have the largest amount
of GWP value as 50.54 and 26.24%/kWh at Turbine-1 (330 kW) at
100 m hub height, respectively. Nacelle and rotor have the largest
amount of GWP value as 28.90 and 14.31%/kWh at Turbine-4
(2050 kW) at 50 m hub height, respectively. CO2 is the most
contributing emission to GWP. GWP can be reduced on a large scale
by changing the production processes of steel and concrete or
changing the used amounts of steel and concrete or using alter-
native materials.
3.1.4. Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP)
The minimum FAETP is obtained as 3.625E-05 kg DCB-Equiv/
kWh for Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the
maximum FAETP is observed as 7.179E-05 kg DCB-Equiv/kWh for
Turbine-1 (330 kW) at 50 m hub height. Foundation and tower have

Table 5
Percentage per kWh of the impact categories of foundation, tower, nacelle, rotor and other components of wind turbines at 50 m hub heights.

Impact Categories Wind turbine parts Turbine-1 (330 kW) Turbine-2 (500 kW) Turbine-3 (810 kW) Turbine-4 (2050 kW) Turbine-5 (3020 kW)

AP Foundation 30.91 29.06 31.16 20.64 19.60

Tower 23.43 23.47 22.26 12.64 20.16
Nacelle 29.57 33.89 34.52 47.08 43.37
Rotor 9.00 8.49 7.56 13.13 11.10
Other components 7.09 5.09 4.50 6.51 5.77
EP Foundation 37.06 34.84 36.53 25.78 24.73
Tower 19.99 19.65 17.94 12.80 16.49
Nacelle 26.63 30.89 32.53 36.97 37.14
Rotor 12.28 11.46 10.17 20.35 17.80
Other components 4.04 3.16 2.83 4.10 3.83
GWP Foundation 46.64 45.01 47.19 35.47 33.13
Tower 24.21 24.34 22.76 17.18 22.10
Nacelle 17.10 20.09 20.57 28.90 28.84
Rotor 8.17 7.71 6.83 14.31 12.11
Other components 3.88 2.85 2.65 4.14 3.81
FAETP Foundation 23.54 22.32 22.55 13.84 12.10
Tower 29.30 29.84 30.28 18.74 26.63
Nacelle 32.24 36.26 37.47 53.93 47.61
Rotor 5.92 5.21 4.45 5.70 4.57
Other components 9.00 6.37 5.25 7.80 9.09
HTP Foundation 29.10 27.01 27.59 16.67 14.45
Tower 25.58 26.54 26.84 16.60 25.84
Nacelle 33.60 37.57 38.04 57.09 49.25
Rotor 3.47 3.15 2.74 3.57 2.88
Other components 8.25 5.74 4.78 6.07 7.58
POCP Foundation 28.70 27.29 29.48 21.04 19.60
Tower 32.12 31.88 30.38 21.77 26.63
Nacelle 20.35 23.49 24.62 34.04 32.88
Rotor 14.71 14.34 12.84 20.98 17.19
Other components 4.12 3.00 2.69 4.18 3.69
TETP Foundation 59.58 56.48 58.12 39.36 36.26
Tower 13.06 14.07 13.53 9.28 14.91
Nacelle 18.70 21.95 21.95 38.03 36.53
Rotor 5.85 5.46 4.67 10.65 9.29
Other components 2.82 2.04 1.74 2.68 3.00
260 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263

Table 6
Percentage per kWh of the impact categories of foundation, tower, nacelle, rotor and other components of wind turbines at 80 m hub heights.

Impact Categories Wind turbine parts Turbine-1 (330 kW) Turbine-2 (500 kW) Turbine-3 (810 kW) Turbine-4 (2050 kW) Turbine-5 (3020 kW)

AP Foundation 33.39 30.15 31.28 20.93 20.36

Tower 25.58 24.30 23.53 17.69 22.35
Nacelle 26.77 32.70 33.57 43.92 41.49
Rotor 7.92 8.01 7.26 12.01 10.36
Other components 6.34 4.84 4.36 5.45 5.45
EP Foundation 39.65 36.02 36.53 26.76 25.59
Tower 21.54 20.18 19.08 14.73 17.94
Nacelle 24.20 29.73 31.80 35.90 36.02
Rotor 10.86 10.83 9.81 19.20 16.75
Other components 3.74 3.23 2.78 3.42 3.71
GWP Foundation 48.97 45.81 47.08 36.19 33.91
Tower 25.45 25.26 23.76 19.27 23.81
Nacelle 15.20 19.11 20.05 27.50 27.58
Rotor 7.00 7.16 6.55 13.19 11.16
Other components 3.38 2.67 2.56 3.85 3.55
FAETP Foundation 25.18 22.32 21.89 14.63 12.29
Tower 32.55 33.30 33.66 20.17 30.51
Nacelle 29.05 33.80 35.36 52.35 44.57
Rotor 5.23 4.76 4.16 5.47 4.22
Other components 7.99 5.83 4.92 7.38 8.41
HTP Foundation 30.87 27.18 26.94 17.17 14.53
Tower 28.45 29.22 29.73 17.69 29.96
Nacelle 30.30 35.39 36.22 54.18 45.87
Rotor 3.07 2.91 2.58 3.35 2.65
Other components 7.32 5.31 4.52 7.61 6.99
POCP Foundation 31.03 28.49 29.59 21.54 20.37
Tower 34.21 32.58 31.56 24.10 28.70
Nacelle 18.35 22.62 23.98 32.06 31.65
Rotor 12.77 13.47 12.28 18.91 15.84
Other components 3.64 2.84 2.59 3.54 3.44
TETP Foundation 61.12 57.08 57.66 40.40 36.41
Tower 14.65 14.94 14.71 10.34 17.19
Nacelle 16.66 20.96 21.48 36.74 34.89
Rotor 5.10 5.10 4.52 10.05 8.69
Other components 2.48 1.92 1.69 2.47 2.82

the largest amount of FAETP value as 26.30 and 35.24%/kWh at
Turbine-1 (330 kW) at 100 m hub height, respectively. Nacelle
and rotor have the largest amount of FAETP value as 53.93 and
5.70%/kWh at Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 50 m hub height, respec-
tively. Copper usage increases the value of FAETP, so the high value
of FAETP is obtained at the tower.
3.1.5. Human Toxicity Potential (HTP)
The lowest HTP is obtained as 1.046E-03 kg DCB-Equiv/kWh for
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the highest HTP is
observed as 2.045E-03 kg DCB-Equiv/kWh for Turbine-5 (3020 kW)
at 50 m hub height. Foundation and tower have the greatest
amount of HTP value as 32.32 and 30.24%/kWh at Turbine-1
(330 kW) at 100 m hub height, respectively. Nacelle and rotor
have the largest amount of HTP value as 57.09 and 3.57%/kWh at
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 50 m hub height, respectively. Heavy
metals are the main contributing substances to HTP. Electronics and
aluminum increase the amount of heavy metals.
3.1.6. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)
The minimum POCP is obtained as 5.971E-06 kg Ethene-Equiv/
kWh for Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the
maximum POCP is observed as 1.382E-05 kg Ethene-Equiv/kWh for
Turbine-1 (330 kW) at 50 m hub height. Foundation and tower have
the largest amount of POCP value as 32.75 and 35.52%/kWh at
Turbine-1 (330 kW) at 100 m hub height, respectively. Nacelle
and rotor have the largest amount of POCP value as 34.04 and
20.98%/kWh at Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 50 m hub height, respec-
tively. Steel and aluminum raise the amount of POCP so tower has
the maximum POCP for all turbines.
3.1.7. Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP)
The lowest TETP is obtained as 2.116E-05 kg DCB-Equiv/kWh for
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the highest TETP is
observed as 4.815E-05 kg DCB-Equiv/kWh for Turbine-1 (330 kW)
at 50 m hub height. Foundation and tower have the largest amount
of TETP value as 62.24 at Turbine-1 (330 kW) at 100 m hub height
and 19.14%/kWh at Turbine-5 (3020 kW) at 100 m hub height,
respectively. Nacelle and rotor have the largest amount of TETP
value as 38.03 and 10.65%/kWh at Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 50 m
hub height, respectively. Steel usage increases the amount of TETP.
A comparison of the total impacts based on hub height and size
is included in Table 8. The total impacts of the foundation, tower,
nacelle, rotor and other components can be seen in this table. As the
power of wind turbines and hub heights are increased, the quan-
tities of the materials used in wind turbine components are raised.
The increasing ratio of the used materials and power obtained from
wind turbines are not same. The environmental impacts increased
in the medium scale wind turbines (Turbine-1 (330 kW), Turbine-2
(500 kW), Turbine-3 (810 kW)) with the rising amount of materials.
The emission values are taken into account per kWh and due to the
rising of electricity production of wind turbines, the environmental
impacts decreased for medium scale wind turbines. But in large
scale wind turbines (Turbine-4 (2050 kW) and Turbine-5
(3020 kW)) environmental impacts increased by rising of wind
turbine capacity due to the different ratio of electricity production
and used materials. Compared results of Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at
100 m hub height with 2000 kW rated power offshore wind turbine
(Weinzettel et al., 2009) are given as follows:
While AP, EP, GWP, HTP, FAETP, TETP values of this study are
5.799E-05 kg SO2/kWh, 5.392E-06 kg Phosphate/kWh, 1.627E-02 kg
 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263 261

Table 7
Percentage per kWh of the impact categories of foundation, tower, nacelle, rotor and other components of wind turbines at 100 m hub heights.

Impact Categories Wind turbine parts Turbine-1 (330 kW) Turbine-2 (500 kW) Turbine-3 (810 kW) Turbine-4 (2050 kW) Turbine-5 (3020 kW)

AP Foundation 35.27 31.21 31.49 22.30 20.45

Tower 26.96 25.40 24.40 17.62 23.90
Nacelle 24.99 31.52 32.93 42.82 40.57
Rotor 7.05 7.77 6.96 11.45 9.87
Other components 5.73 4.10 4.22 5.80 5.22
EP Foundation 41.58 37.31 36.63 28.09 25.69
Tower 22.67 21.16 19.74 15.48 18.82
Nacelle 22.53 29.18 31.42 35.33 35.74
Rotor 9.72 10.57 9.45 18.30 16.11
Other components 3.50 1.78 2.76 2.81 3.64
GWP Foundation 50.54 46.25 47.00 37.81 33.99
Tower 26.24 26.04 24.46 19.39 24.54
Nacelle 14.09 18.34 19.81 26.74 27.37
Rotor 6.13 6.77 6.26 12.40 10.68
Other components 3.00 2.60 2.47 3.67 3.41
FAETP Foundation 26.30 22.80 21.87 17.03 12.26
Tower 35.24 34.98 34.99 13.24 32.54
Nacelle 26.68 32.24 34.41 55.99 43.15
Rotor 4.65 4.58 3.99 5.78 4.02
Other components 7.13 5.41 4.73 7.95 8.03
HTP Foundation 32.32 27.59 26.83 18.48 14.15
Tower 30.24 31.05 31.06 18.14 33.39
Nacelle 28.11 33.66 35.28 53.69 43.45
Rotor 2.74 2.79 2.48 3.29 2.47
Other components 6.58 4.91 4.35 6.39 6.54
POCP Foundation 32.75 29.41 29.85 21.90 20.39
Tower 35.52 33.61 32.30 23.71 30.01
Nacelle 17.19 21.70 23.65 30.77 31.31
Rotor 11.26 12.87 11.69 17.49 15.00
Other components 3.28 2.40 2.50 3.57 3.28
TETP Foundation 62.24 57.64 57.13 42.81 35.80
Tower 15.72 15.75 15.70 7.97 19.14
Nacelle 15.33 19.99 21.11 36.78 34.06
Rotor 4.51 4.88 4.36 9.91 8.30
Other components 2.21 1.74 1.64 2.53 2.70

CO2/kWh, 1.046E-03 kg DCB/kWh, 3.625E-05 kg DCB/kWh, 5.971E-
06 kg DCB/kWh, the results of Weinzettel et al. are 7.56E-05 kg SO2/
kWh, 1.01E-05 kg Phosphate/kWh, 1.37E-02 kg CO2/kWh, 5.40E-
02 kg DCB/kWh, 1.08E-02 kg DCB/kWh, 1.73E-04 kg DCB/kWh,
respectively. From these results, it can be seen that the emission
results of this study are acceptable.
In addition to these results, CO2 Emissions per kWh of different
energy conversion systems are given in Table 9. This table compares
the minimum and maximum CO2 emissions per kWh with other
electricity generation technologies (Varun et al., 2009; Wang and
Sun, 2012). As can be seen from this table, emissions of CO2 from
renewable energy sources are significantly lower than the fossil

Table 8
Environmental impacts per kWh of the medium and large scale wind turbines for different hub heights.

Impact category (unit) Hub height (m) Medium scale wind turbines Large scale wind turbines

Turbine-1 (330 kW) Turbine-2 (500 kW) Turbine-3 (810 kW) Turbine-4 (2050 kW) Turbine-5 (3020 kW)

AP (kg SO2) 50 1.267E-04 1.252E-04 8.463E-05 7.167E-05 1.041E-04

80 1.116E-04 1.019E-04 6.888E-05 6.004E-05 8.545E-05
100 1.023E-04 9.409E-05 6.476E-05 5.779E-05 8.002E-05
EP (kg Phosphate) 50 1.269E-05 1.247E-05 8.560E-06 6.767E-06 9.526E-06
80 1.112E-05 1.012E-05 6.938E-06 5.577E-06 7.757E-06
100 1.013E-05 9.290E-06 6.489E-06 5.392E-06 7.193E-06
GWP (kg CO2) 50 4.036E-02 3.896E-02 2.657E-02 1.954E-02 2.861E-02
80 3.646E-02 3.201E-02 2.166E-02 1.663E-02 2.377E-02
100 3.396E-02 2.997E-02 2.041E-02 1.627E-02 2.229E-02
FAETP (kg DCB) 50 7.179E-05 7.052E-05 5.045E-05 4.189E-05 7.137E-05
80 6.355E-05 5.882E-05 4.186E-05 3.740E-05 5.922E-05
100 5.899E-05 5.560E-05 3.998E-05 3.625E-05 5.639E-05
HTP (kg DCB) 50 2.019E-03 2.011E-03 1.430E-03 1.224E-03 2.045E-03
80 1.790E-03 1.675E-03 1.179E-03 1.087E-03 1.702E-03
100 1.659E-03 1.227E-03 1.120E-03 1.046E-03 1.626E-03
POCP (kg Ethene) 50 1.382E-05 1.361E-05 9.090E-06 7.164E-06 1.092E-05
80 1.233E-05 1.112E-05 7.432E-06 6.112E-06 9.077E-06
100 1.140E-05 1.035E-05 7.031E-06 5.971E-06 8.550E-06
TETP (kg DCB) 50 4.815E-05 4.623E-05 3.237E-05 2.621E-05 3.741E-05
80 4.282E-05 3.795E-05 2.616E-05 2.217E-05 3.063E-05
100 3.948E-05 3.535E-05 2.439E-05 2.116E-05 2.863E-05
262 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263

Table 9 The percentage embodied energy distribution of Turbine-4

CO2 emissions per kWh of different energy conversion systems (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height components are presented in
(Varun et al., 2009; Wang and Sun, 2012).
Fig. 6. Total embodied energy proportion of the foundation, tower,
Conversion systems Kg-CO2/kWh nacelle, rotor and other components are 29, 25, 27, 15 and 4%,
Wind (This study) 0.0151e0.0383 respectively. Other components comprise cables, transformer sta-
Wind 0.0097e0.1237 tion, transportation, and operation and maintenance.
Solar photovoltaic 0.0534e0.25
Solar thermal 0.0236e0.202
Hydro 0.0037e0.237 4. Conclusion
Coal fired 0.9753
Oil fired 0.7421 This study compares five different rated power wind turbines at
Gas fired 0.6076
three different hub heights according to generated electricity, en-
Nuclear 0.0242
ergy payback times and environmental impacts. For this purpose,
15 different scenarios are analyzed using LCA. Results of this study
show that CO2 emissions vary from 0.0151 to 0.0383 kg per kWh.
fuel energy sources. Comparing the results of this study with the These results indicate that wind turbine systems generate less CO2
other wind energy conversion systems, CO2 emissions from the emissions than the fossil fuel electricity generation technologies.
selected wind turbines of this study are acceptable. Environmental impacts can also be reduced by using alternative
materials, developing the manufacturing technologies, recycling
3.2. Energy payback time and embodied energy rates of materials, and by reducing the transportation distances.
Moreover, installing the wind turbines in optimum wind speed
Fig. 5 shows the change in energy payback time by hub height. regions, increase power output of the turbine, which will lead
As shown in the figure, energy payback time of the turbines de- reduction in environmental impacts. Environmental impacts are
creases with the increase of hub height. Energy payback times vary lower for the turbines with high hub heights due to increase in
from 14.6 to 35.6 months for the selected wind turbines. The electricity production of those turbines.
minimum energy payback time is obtained as 14.6 months with In conclusion, the environmental emissions can be reduced on a
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height and the maximum en- large scale by using alternative materials at wind turbine compo-
ergy payback time is obtained as 35.6 months with Turbine-1 nents. Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height is the best alter-
(330 kW) at 50 m hub height. This means that Turbine-4 at native among the selected wind turbines with respect to
100 m hub height must operate 14.6 months to compensate for the environmental aspects and energy payback times. The results of
consumed energy and it is the most reasonable one to install in this study can be used for wind turbine manufacturers, investors,
Pınarbaşı-Kayseri. state institutions and researchers.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by Scientific Research Projects Unit of

Erciyes University under the contract no: FBY-11-3577.

References

Ardente, F., Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Lo Brano, V., 2008. Energy performances and life
cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 12, 200e217.
Arvesen, A., Hertwich, E.G., 2012. Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of
wind power: a review of present knowledge and research needs. Renew. Sust.
Energy Rev. 6, 5994e6006.
Bekele, G., Palm, B., 2009. Wind energy potential assessment at four typical loca-
tions in Ethiopia. Appl. Energy 86 (3), 388e396.
Crawford, R.H., 2009. Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind
turbines and the effect of size on energy yield. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 13,
2653e2660.
Electricity Energy Market and Supply Security Strategy Paper, 2009. Republic of
Fig. 5. Variations of energy payback time with three different hub heights of five wind Turkey Prime Ministry Undersecretariat of State Planning Organization Secre-
turbines. tariat of the Higher Board of Planning, pp. 1e14.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, July 2008. 20% Wind Energy by 2030
Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Energy Supply. U.S. Department
of Energy.
GaBi 4 Manual, 2006. PE International, PE Europe GmbH.
4% GaBi Education, 2009. Handbook for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). PE International.
15% Genç, M.S., 2010. Economic analysis of large-scale wind energy conversion systems
29%
foundation in central Anatolian Turkey. In: Eguchi, K. (Ed.), Clean Energy Systems and
tower Experiences. Intech Sciyo Publishing Inc., Croatia, pp. 131e154.
Genç, M.S., Gokçek, M., 2009. Evaluation of wind characteristics and energy potential
nacelle in Kayseri, Turkey. J. Energ. Eng. 135, 33e43.
rotor Genç, M.S., Çelik, M., Karasu, I., 2012a. A review on wind energy and wind-hydrogen
production in Turkey: a case study of hydrogen production via electrolysis
other components
system supplied by wind energy conversion system in Central Anatolian Turkey.
Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16, 6631e6646.
27% Genç, G., Çelik, M., Genç, M.S., 2012b. Cost analysis of wind-electrolyzer-fuel cell
system for energy demand in Pınarbası-Kayseri. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37,
25% 12158e12166.
Gokçek, M., Genç, M.S., 2009. Evaluation of electricity generation and energy cost of
Fig. 6. The percentage embodied energy distribution of wind turbine components for wind energy conversion systems (WECs) in Central Turkey. Appl. Energy 86,
Turbine-4 (2050 kW) at 100 m hub height. 2731e2739.
 N. Demir, A. Taşkın / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 253e263
Góralczyk, M., 2003. Life-cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector. Appl.
Energy 75, 205e211.
Guezuraga, B., Zauner, R., Polz, W., 2012. Life cycle assessment of two different
2 MW class wind turbines. Renew. Energy 37, 37e44.
Hassing, H., Varming, S., 2001. Life cycle assessment for wind turbines. In: 2001
European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006a. Environmental
Management-life Cycle Assessment-principles and Framework. ISO 14040.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006b. Environmental
Management-life Cycle Assessment-requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044.
Kabir, M.R., Rooke, B., Malinga Dassanayake, G.G., Fleck, B.A., 2012. Comparative life
cycle energy, emission, and economic analysis of 100 kW nameplate wind
power generation. Renew. Energy 37, 133e141.
Khan, F.I., Hawboldt, K., Iqbal, M.T., 2005. Life cycle analysis of wind-fuel cell integrated
system. Renew. Energy 30, 157e177.
Lenzen, M., Munksgaard, J., 2002. Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind
turbines-review and applications. Renew. Energy 26, 339e362.
Martinez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jimenez, E., Blanco, J., 2009a. Life cycle assessment
of a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renew. Energy 34, 667e673.
Martinez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jimenez, E., Blanco, J., 2009b. Life-cycle assessment
of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine: CML method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14,
52e63.
Ozbilen, A., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2012. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production
via thermochemical water splitting using multi-step CueCl cycles. J. Clean Prod.
33, 202e216.
Ozerdem, B., Turkeli, H.M., 2005. Wind energy potential estimation and micro-
sitting on Izmir Institute of Technology Campus, Turkey. Renew. Energy 30,
1623e1633.
263
Pehnt, M., 2006. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies.
Renew. Energy 31, 55e71.
Raadal, H.L., Gagnon, L., Modahl, I.S., Hanssen, O.J., 2011. Life cycle greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power. Renew. Sust.
Energy Rev. 15, 3417e3422.
Rehman, S., El-Amin, I.M., Ahmad, F., Shaahid, S.M., Al-Shehri, A.M., Bakhashwain, J.M.,
2007. Wind power resource assessment for Rafha, Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sust.
Energy Rev. 11, 937e950.
Sahin, B., Bilgili, M., Akilli, H., 2005. The wind power potential of the eastern
Mediterranean region of Turkey. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 93, 171e183.
Schleisner, L., 2000. Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities.
Renew. Energy 20, 279e288.
Shata, A.S.A., Hanitsch, R., 2006. Evaluation of wind energy potential and electricity
generation on the coast of Mediterranean Sea in Egypt. Renew. Energy 31,
1183e1202.
Tremeac, B., Meunier, F., 2009. Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 MW wind
turbines. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 13, 2104e2110.
Turkish Electrical Energy, 2011. 10-Year Generation Capacity Projection Report,
pp. 84e85.
Varun, Bhat, I.K., Prakash, R., 2009. LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation
systems e a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 13, 1067e1073.
Vestas, 2006. Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore Sited Wind Power
Plants Based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW Turbines. Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Alsvej
21, 8900 Randers, Denmark.
Wang, Y., Sun, T., 2012. Life cycle assessment of CO2 emissions from wind power
plants: methodology and case studies. Renew. Energy 43, 30e36.
Weinzettel, J., Reenaas, M., Solli, C., Hertwich, E.G., 2009. Life cycle assessment of a
floating offshore wind turbine. Renew. Energy 34, 742e747.