b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper

Environmental analysis of geothermal heat pump

and LPG greenhouse heating systems*
Giovanni Russo 1, Alexandros S. Anifantis*, Giuseppe Verdiani 1,
Giacomo Scarascia Mugnozza 1
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science (DISAAT), University of Bari Aldo Moro, Via G. Amendola,
165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy

article info

The use of low-impact energy sources for greenhouse cultivations is growing quickly due to

Article history:

environmental demands, constrained by the increased price of fossil energy sources,

Received 2 May 2013

market demand for low cost greenhouse production, and need for air pollution reduction.

Received in revised form

This paper demonstrates via environmental analysis the efficiency of a Photovoltaic-

30 May 2014

Geothermal Heat Pump integrated system (PV-GHP) as a greenhouse heating system,

Accepted 1 August 2014

compared to a conventional hot air generator using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG-HG). The

Published online 29 August 2014

tests were carried out in twin experimental greenhouses in the Mediterranean area
(Valenzano-Italy). In order to evaluate the environmental performance of a heat pump

Keywords:

system with electricity supplied from the national grid, a scenario (GHP Geothermal Heat

Greenhouse heating systems

Pump) was realised. The microclimatic conditions in the two greenhouses, the thermal

Life cycle assessment

energy produced, and the electricity consumption were analysed. Furthermore, in order to

Energy payback time

evaluate the long-term environmental impact, an environmental analysis was conducted

Emissions payback time

using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, carried out according to standard UNI EN
ISO 14040. The interpretation of the results using method CML2001 (Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden, Netherlands) showed that neither system is more advantageous
from an environmental point of view and that the GHP scenario has the higher environmental burdens. Limiting the analysis to the emissions responsible for the greenhouse
effect, the plant with the geothermal heat pump and photovoltaic panels reduces carbon
emissions by 50%. In order to assess the sustainability of the geothermal heat pump plant,
the estimated payback-time for energy and for carbon emissions were 1 year and 2.25
years, respectively.
2014 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The contribution to the execution of this article was equally divided by the Authors.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 080 5442955, 39 080 5442977; fax: 39 080 5442955.
E-mail address: a.s.anifantis@agr.uniba.it (A.S. Anifantis).
1
Tel./fax: 39 080 5442955.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.08.002
1537-5110/ 2014 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

12

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

Nomenclature
LCA
LPG
FU
GHP
PV-GHP

life cycle assessment

liquefied petroleum gas
functional unit of LCA analysis
geothermal heat pump system
photovoltaic-geothermal heat pump integrated
system
LPG-HG hot air generator supplied by liquefied petroleum
gas system
abiotic resources depletion e element (kg Sb Eq.)
ADPel.
ADPfo. abiotic resources depletion e fossil (MJ)
AP
acidification potential (kg SO2 Eq.)
EP
eutrophication potential (kg Phos. Eq.)
GWP
global warming potential (kg CO2 Eq.)
ODP
reduction of the ozone layer (R11 Eq.)
POCP
formation of photochemical oxidants (kg Eth. Eq.)
PED
primary energy demand (MJ)
COP
coefficient of performance of heat pump (e)
L
electric power supplied to the heat pump (kW)
heat power extracted from the underground soil
Q1
(kW)
heat power supplied by the heat pump to the
Q2
greenhouse heating system (kW)
total heating power requirement of the
Qh
greenhouse (kW)
U
total heat transfer coefficient of greenhouse
(W m2 K1)

1.

Introduction

Recently, the relationship between agriculture and the environment has changed radically. Most of the change has been
caused by use of energy and synthetic materials (fertilisers,
agrochemicals, plastics) in agro-processes (Bozzini, Pizzichini,
& Leone, 2011; Johnson, Franzluebbers, Weyers, & Reicosky,
2007) and by increasing agro-industry incentives for ecological innovations, sustainable food production, and growing
customer demand.
In Italy, agricultural activity is associated with 60% of water
consumption, 25% of particulate air pollution (Campiotti,
Viola, & Scoccianti, 2011), 10% of greenhouse gas emissions
(APAT, 2004), 1.8% of energy consumption (Campiotti et al.,
2011), and 0.3% of the special waste production (ISPRA,
2011). Greenhouse cultivations, although involving a limited
portion of land (in Italy, about 42,000 ha, 3% of the total utilised agricultural area), have adverse effects on the landscape
and environmental matrices (Picuno, Tortora, & Capobianco,
2011; Russo, Scarascia Mugnozza, & De Lucia Zeller, 2008;
Scarascia Mugnozza, Pascuzzi, Anifantis, & Verdiani, 2011),
and contribute to the environmental load of the Italian agroindustrial sector. Worldwide, the area of greenhouse production is rapidly expanding and they can be defined as factories
for the plant production. Greenhouses protect crops from
adverse meteorological conditions, improve productivity and

Ac
DT
b
tsolar
S0
Af
li
li
qc
EPT
PEDinn
PEDref
Ey
EMPT,i
EMinn,i
EMref,i
EMS,i

covering area of the greenhouse (m2)

temperature difference between the greenhouse
air and external air (K)
evaporation coefficient (e)
transmissivity of the covering layer material (e)
solar radiation outside the greenhouse (W m2)
greenhouse floor area (m2)
depth (m)
thermal conductivity of ground lithology
(W m1 K1)
linear power extraction (W m1)
energy payback time (y)
global energy requirement of innovative
technology (MJ FU1)
global energy requirement of reference technology
(MJ FU1)
net yearly primary energy savings due to the
innovative technology (MJ y1)
emission payback time (y)
global emission of the generic pollutant i for
innovative plant (kgi)
global emission of the generic pollutant i for
reference plant (kgi)
net yearly emission savings of the generic
pollutant i (kgi y1)

quality of crops, and ensure the presence of floricultural and

vegetable products throughout the year to meet the demands
of consumers and the needs of trading organisations. To
ensure the microclimate conditions in greenhouses in the
winter are suitable to satisfy the demands of the growing cycles, it is often necessary to use auxiliary power for proper
control of the indoor air temperature. The wide use of fossil
fuels (diesel, fuel oil, liquid petroleum gas (LPG)) for heating
greenhouses strongly influences the costs and the environmental sustainability of horticultural and ornamental pro rner, Bakker, & Heuvelimk,
duction in protected areas (Ko
2004; Russo, Buttol, & Tarantini, 2008; Scarascia Mugnozza &
Anifantis, 2009; Teuhrl, Haberl, Erb, & Lindentha, 2013). In
Italy, 30% of the greenhouse growing area is equipped with
heating systems, and energy consumption of the greenhouses
sector is equal to 0.5 MTOE (Campiotti et al., 2011; Notarnicola,
2011).
Hot air generators, often using diesel fuel, are the most
common heating systems for greenhouses in southern Italy.
Recently, these systems have been converted for operation
with LPG or agro-forestry biomasses, but there are disadvantages associated with the use of non-renewable fuels
and with regard to emissions (Loeffler & Anderson, 2014).
The high diffusion of hot air generators is motivated by their
low installation cost and reduced size compared to boiler
and hot water pipe systems. It is estimated, therefore, that
heating greenhouses powered by fossil fuels or biomass

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

creates emissions of about 1.3 Mt CO2 year1 (Campiotti,

Bibbiani, Dondi, & Viola, 2010), or 0.6% of total Italian CO2
emissions.
For these reasons and in order to improve environmental
sustainability, it is appropriate to modernise and upgrade the
greenhouse heating plants by using renewable energy for
heat production and improving the facilities and the energy
saving (Abdel-Ghany, Istigami, Goto, & Kozai, 2006; Arbel,
Barak, & Shklyar, 2003; Cohen & Fuchs, 1999; Fabrizio, 2012;
Vadiee & Martin, 2012; Zhang, Gauthier, De Halleux,
Dansereau, & Gosselin, 1996). From a study by the Council
of European Energy Regulators (CEER), it appears that the
incentive policies for renewable sources in different EU
countries have binding targets with regard to the reduction of
emissions, but the manner in which these objectives are
achieved is left largely to the discretion of each country,
which can decide on renewable energy incentives and their
level or whether to invest in measures that promote conservation or energy efficiency (CEER, 2013). In Italy until 2000, in
order to reduce air pollution, the energy policies encouraged
farmers to replace conventional fuels (diesel) with fuels with
lower pollutant emissions like LPG and compressed natural
gas; at present, plants that use renewable energy sources are
encouraged through tax breaks of up to 65% of their investment cost. These choices will both increase the environmental sustainability of greenhouse cultivation (Kadowaki,
Yano, Ishizu, Tanaka, & Noda, 2012; Matarazzo &
Clasadonte, 2011; Scarascia Mugnozza et al., 2011; Scarascia
Mugnozza & Anifantis, 2009; Vox, Schettini, Lisi Cervone, &
Anifantis, 2008) and ensure optimal microclimatic conditions for greenhouse crops growth (Ozgener & Hepbasli,
2005).
The European Directive 2009/28/CE includes, among the
renewable energy sources, geothermal low enthalpy resources that can be used by the direct use of geothermal
fluids or through systems based on heat pumps and boreholes as heat exchangers. The heat pumps generally are
powered by electricity. The ratio between the thermal energy
produced and the electricity consumed by a heat pump
measures its energy efficiency, which is expressed by the
coefficient of performance (COP). The main advantages of
geothermal heat pumps are the following: low operating
costs, reliable operation, low need for maintenance
(Colangelo, Romano, De Risi, Starace, & Laforgia, 2012), and
the absence of direct emissions of greenhouse gases (Benli,
2013; Lund, Freeston, & Boyd, 2005). The use of renewable
energy sources like solar or wind to generate the electricity
needed to power heat pumps can further reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases.
A greenhouse climate control system with a geothermal
heat pump consists of three components: heat exchange
system with the subsoil, heat pump thermal generator, and
heating distribution system within the greenhouse. The heat
exchange in geothermal probes with closed circuit occurs by
means of a fluid (water or water and propylene glycol) that
exchanges heat with the subsoil through the thickness of the
pipe (Cui, Li, Man, & Fang, 2011). The underground heat exchange is more versatile and environmentally friendly when
using geothermal vertical closed probes (Benli, 2013) because
the device does not generate mass flow but only thermal

13

exchange. The underground heat exchange is influenced by

physical and structural characteristics of the ground, such as
thermal conductivity, geothermal gradient, and water content
(Florides et al., 2011).
The use of geothermal heat pumps can find a useful
application in agriculture and, in particular, greenhouse
heating (Dickson & Fanelli, 2004), which does not require very
high temperatures of the heat transfer fluid. Many authors
have carried out experimental studies and commercial applications designed to evaluate the potential of geothermal
heat pumps for greenhouse cultivation, and the early results
were encouraging in terms of energy consumption, environmental burdens, and economic and agronomic aspects (Benli,
2013; Benli & Durmus, 2009; Ozgener, 2010; Scarascia
Mugnozza, Pascuzzi, Anifantis, & Verdiani, 2012). Other authors have investigated the possibility of using geothermal
heat pumps for agricultural uses such as greenhouses or
drying of products, and the possibility of heat exchange with
the subsurface through open or closed circuits, both vertical
and horizontal (Adaro, Galimberti, Lema, Fasulo, & Barral,
1999; Chai, Ma, & Ni, 2012; Fujii & Ohyama, 2009; Sethi &
Sharma, 2008). In the context of these studies, heat pumps
combined with vertical closed probes allow adequate microclimatic conditions to be achieved inside the experimental
greenhouses, and their functioning is characterised by COP
values between 3 and 4 (Benli, 2013; Scarascia Mugnozza et al.,
2011).
It is still necessary to compare the impact on the entire
lifecycle of the heating plants powered with renewable energy
or low emission fuels (Cellura, Di Gangi, Longo, & Orioli, 2012;
Desideri, Proietti, Zepparelli, Sdringola, & Bini, 2012; Udo de
Haes & Heijungs, 2007) in order to provide a scientific basis
regarding the environmental load produced by this equipment and to verify the efficacy of policies to support renewable energies. The use of cleaner energy sources to meet all or
some of the energy needs of a production cycle reduces the
carbon footprint of greenhouse cultivations. In fact, plants
using renewable energy sources are often presented as clean
sources, not considering the environmental impacts related to
their manufacture and installation. The production of
renewable plants entails a consumption of energy and raw
materials as well as the release of pollutants (Ardente, Beccali,
Cellura, & Lo Brano, 2004).
The objective of this paper is an environmental analysis, by
means of life cycle assessment (LCA), of two different heating
systems for a greenhouse: a pilot plant photovoltaicgeothermal heat pump integrated system (PV-GHP) and a
conventional hot air generator supplied by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG-HG). In this comparison, two technologies
currently encouraged by Italian policies for the reduction of
greenhouse gases emissions are evaluated to establish which
of the two is more environmentally friendly. Experimental
tests and the subsequent comparison of microclimatic conditions and environmental performance were realised. A
technological scenario (GHP) was also examined by assuming
that electricity is not provided by solar panels but by the
Italian national grid. In order to verify the effectiveness of the
use of renewable energy sources, payback times of energy and
CO2 Eq. emissions were calculated (Beccali, Cellura, Iudicello,
& Mistretta, 2012).

14

2.

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

Materials and methods

Two different greenhouse heating systems, PV-GHP and LPGHG, were installed and powered up in the winter of 2012 to
provide heat to two small twin greenhouses (Fig. 1) located on
the experimental farm at the Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences Department of the University of Bari in southern
Italy (41 02 0 0000 N latitude, 16 53 0 0000 E longitude).

2.1.
Methodologies to assess the energy performance
and microclimatic conditions
The two experimental greenhouses were built with the
following geometrical and structural characteristics: tunnel
form using galvanised steel frame with a tubular section; ridge
height of 3.5 m; covering plastic film made of ethylene vinyl
acetate (EVA) with a thickness of 200 mm; surface area of 48 m2;
orientation EasteWest (Fig. 1). All the factors that influence
the thermal exchanges (soil radiation, external air temperatures, wind velocity, geometry and orientation of the greenhouses, covering material, and soil moisture) were therefore
identical for both greenhouses during the tests performed.
The distance of 12 m between the greenhouses avoids mutual
shading. Also there were no objects or vegetation in close
proximity are absent that might obstruct solar irradiation.
The difference between the two greenhouses is the heating
systems, which differ in the energy source used and the
thermal distribution inside the greenhouses: hot water distribution through plastic pipes for the PV-GHP plant and a hot
air generator for the LPG-HG plant (Fig. 3). The total heating
power requirement of the greenhouse (Qh) has been used for
size the two thermal plants. With this value, the heat pump
and its two circuits of heat exchange with the subsoil and
greenhouse have been sized, as has the hot air generator. Qh
was calculated by means of the following equation of the
energy balance of greenhouse (Bakker, Bot, Challa, & Van de
Braak, 1995):
Qh UAc DT  1  btsolar S0 Af

(1)

where U is the total heat transfer coefficient considering heat

transfer through the cover material by conduction, convection, radiation; and air infiltration, Ac is the covering area of
the greenhouse, DT is the temperature difference between the
greenhouse and external air, b is an evaporation coefficient,
tsolar is the transmissivity of the cover, S0 is the solar radiation
outside the greenhouse and Af is the greenhouse floor area.
For the experimental greenhouses, the maximum required
heating capacity is determined according to Equation (1)
(Qh z 7 kW) by the cover area (Ac 48 m2), the thermal
properties (U 12 W m2 K1) and thickness (200 mm) of the
cover material, and the difference between the desired
greenhouse air temperature and the design outside air temperature (DT 12  C), calculated as the mean value over
twenty years of the minimum air temperatures at the greenhouse construction site.
The hot air generator determines the indoor air circulation
and higher convective heat exchanges with respect to the heat
distribution, using plastic pipes placed in the ground with hot
water circulation produced by the heat pump system.
Although the two thermal plants are different, the choice of
the two systems is motivated by the need to compare hot air
generators, widely spread in Italy for greenhouses heating,
with an innovative heat geothermal pump heating system.
The comparison of the two plants is realised to assess the best
environmental compatibility and to compare two different
ways of promoting and diffusing cleaner energy in the
greenhouse sector. To obtain the same microclimatic conditions inside the two experimental greenhouses, the two
heating systems were automatically controlled by thermostats with a set point temperature of 10  C.
The PV-GHP consists of the following components: photovoltaic panels made of monocrystalline silicon with a total
power of 1620 Wp installed near the two greenhouses at a 30
inclination with respect to a horizontal plane; connection of
the photovoltaic panels to the electric grid (300 m); closed
geothermal vertical probe circuit in high resistance crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) 120 m deep, made of two distinct
branches of pipe in the shape of a U with an outer diameter

Fig. 1 e Experimental greenhouses.

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

15

of 32 mm and thickness of 2.9 mm; and a heat pump (Model

RAA-EF, Riello company).
The output of the geothermal heat pump is connected with
a thermally insulated tank (heat storage) with capacity of 1 m3
(Fig. 2), in which the thermal exchange occurs with the water
that feeds the system to distribute the heat in the experimental greenhouse, which was made of polyethylene pipes
25 mm in diameter. The manufacturer of the heat pump certifies that the COP is equal to 4.7. This value is calculated from
the inlet and outlet temperatures of the machine under test
conditions in the laboratory. Under these operating conditions, the manufacturer certifies that the heat pump produces
an output of 7.0 kW thermal, absorbing 1.5 kW of electricity. In
the case of actual operation, we must consider energy losses
due to heat accumulation and the release in the greenhouse.
The experimental data collected in the tests gave average
values of the COP equal to 3.9. Both the thermal probe in the
ground and the greenhouse pipe heating system were
designed by the authors.
The vertical geothermal probe has been sized in accordance with the German standard VDI 4640 on the basis of the
specific heat extraction by ground. The knowledge of the
geological and stratigraphic characteristics of the ground and
of geothermal probe typologies made it possible to calculate
the site-specific power extraction from the known ground
properties. For the experimental site, this value is equal to
55 W m1 of the probe pipe. This value was determined on the
basis of the stratigraphy of the site (ISPRA, 2004) and the
values of thermal conductivity, chosen according to the types
of sub-soil present: compact and fissured limestone,

calcarenites, and clay surface (ENEL, 2012). The ground thermal conductivities, necessary to calculate the thermal resistances of each layer, were calculated during the drilling test
and are reported in Table 1. The ground primarily comprises
limestone and large clay layers and crevices.
The geothermal probe was designed based on data with
respect to the thermodynamic equilibrium between the probe
and the ground and the sustainability and reliability of energy
production in the long term (Rybach, 2010). In fact, the rate of
heat extraction from the subsoil must not exceed the natural
dynamics of the thermal conduction of the ground that surround the probe, and the extraction of heat should not result
in changes in the thermal characteristics of the soil in the long
term. The geothermal probe has been placed inside a specially
realised drilling, and the heat transfer circulating fluid was
water. Climatic conditions in the Apulia region and the altitude of the site (130 m asl) do not create a risk of freezing of the
fluid. The exclusion of other heat transfer antifreeze fluids,
such as ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, avoids possible
contamination that can cause aquatic toxicity if the probe was
broken, flammability, and chemical compatibility with the
materials of the system. The refrigerant fluid circulating inside the circuit of the heat pump is R410a.
The electricity demand of the heat pump is covered on an
annual timescale by photovoltaic panels (area 12 m2) connected to the Italian electricity distribution network, which
serves as a reservoir with infinite capacity of energy storage
and which avoids the installation of batteries.
The conventional heating system comprises a hot air
generator with a power of 7 kW (company Tecnoclima model
DGP20) powered by LPG. For the total consumption of LPG, a
net calorific value equal to 46.2 MJ kg1 was assumed.
Aubergine (Solanum melongena L.) was grown in the two
greenhouses. The experimental tests were carried out from
November 2011eMarch 2012. For climate parameters, measurements of the air temperature and relative humidity inside
the greenhouse, and the air temperature and solar radiation
outside were measured. The outside and inside air temperatures of the two experimental greenhouses were measured by
means of ventilated Pt100 probes. The temperature data,
relative humidity, and solar radiation detected were collected
by means of two data loggers, CR10X Campbell and Campbell
CR1000 Wireless, set with a sampling time of 10 s and a data
storage time lag of 15 min; the SIEMENS model Qheat probe
measured the thermal energy produced by the heat pump; a
digital multimeter measured heat pump electricity consumption; and a Pt100 probe measured the temperature for
each hydraulic circuit (flow and return of geothermal probe
temperature, inlet and outlet heat pump temperature, input
and output greenhouse heating water temperature). The energy performance of the hot air generator was monitored by
analysis of the daily consumption of LPG; its energy efficiency
was considered 100% because the hot air generator is located
inside the experimental greenhouse.
Based on the temperature data of water circuits, the heat
pump COP was calculated by means of the following
expression:

Fig. 2 e Heat pump and heat storage tank used for

experimental tests.

COP

Q2
T2

Q2  Q1 T2  T1

(2)

16

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

Fig. 3 e Schematic diagrams of the GHP, PV-GHP, and LPG-HG thermal plants. 1 Heat pump, 2 hot water tank, 3 greenhouse,
4 hot water pipe, 5 electric grid, 6 geothermal probe, 7 connection to electric grid, 8 inverter, 9 solar PV panels, 10 hot air
generator, 11 LPG tank, 12 LPG pipes.

where Q1 is heat power extracted from the underground soil,

Q2 is heat power supplied by the heat pump to the greenhouse
heating system, T2 is the water return temperature of the
greenhouse circuit, and T1 is the water return temperature of
the subsoil circuit. For the tested plants, without incentives,
the initial investment cost of the PV-GHP pilot plant is about
seven times greater than in the LPG-HG plant (375 vs. 53 V m2
of greenhouse), with an incidence of 80% of the drilling cost.
The benefits for farmers, for the use of PV-GHP plant, include
the suppression of the operating costs for heating and direct
emissions of carbon dioxide.

2.2.
Methodology for the analysis and comparison of the
environmental performance of the tested heating systems
The environmental performance of the two heating systems,
PV-GHP and LPG-HG, was evaluated and compared using the
environmental LCA analysis standardised by ISO 14040/
44:2006. The LCA analysis was carried out based on the technical characteristics of the plants (secondary data) and
experimental data on the gathered flows of matter and energy
(primary data). This analysis is at present the most appropriate instrument for assessing the sustainability of the

Table 1 e Thermal conductivity (li) and linear power extraction (qc) of different ground lithology in function of depth (li).
Depth
From
m

To
m

0
1
6
8
14
20
25
40
42
50
54
83
96
97
105
107

1
6
8
14
20
25
40
42
50
54
83
96
97
105
107
120

li (m)

li (W m1 K1)

qc (W m1)

Ground lithology

1
5
2
6
6
5
15
2
8
4
29
13
1
8
2
13

0.7
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.8
2.2
5.0
7.0
2.2

15
55
50
55
50
55
65
55
50
55
50
65
50
60
70
50

Ground
Earthy limestone
Claystone
Earthy limestone
Claystone
Earthy limestone
Compact limestone
Earthy limestone
Claystone
Earthy limestone
Claystone
Compact limestone
Claystone
Fissured claystone, water
Claystone and water flow
Claystone

17

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

heating plants because it highlights environmental loads due

to the fuel production phase and those related to production,
installation, and disposal of the plant components. The
structures and covering materials of greenhouses and crop
cycle have been neglected because the analysis is focused
exclusively on the production of thermal energy for
greenhouses.

different (the LPG-HG plant consumes more than 18% more

energy than the PV-GHP plant), the comparison corresponds
to possible actual operating conditions in southern Italy,
where hot air generator systems could be replaced with
geothermal heat pumps with hot water pipes for heat distribution in greenhouses.

2.2.3.
2.2.1.

Aim

In order to orient policies to encourage renewable energy

sources use in the Italian greenhouse sector, the LCA analysis
aimed to identify the technical choice with less environmental impact. The LCA analysis has been applied to the
thermal energy produced by the two heating systems, PV-GHP
and LPG-HG. For the LCA of the thermal energy produced by
the geothermal heat pump, an operational scenario was
applied according to the electricity supplied by the heat pump.
The GHP scenario takes into account the electricity as entirely
supplied by the national grid, according to the Italian energy
mix. The benefits of the geothermal pump for the PV-GHP
plant and the scenario GHP have been assessed. The systems both were compared with the LPG-HG plant.

2.2.2.

Functional unit

Installations for the production of thermal energy obtained

from fossil and/or renewable energy sources have been the
subject of numerous environmental studies that have
compared the environmental burden associated with thermal
energy production (Pehnt, 2006; Turconi, Boldrin, & Astrup,
2013). The unit of LCA analysis in this case was the kW or
thermal MJ produced by the systems. The LCA studies applied
to the greenhouses sector were often aimed at determining
the environmental load of agricultural products (Cellura,
Longo, & Mistretta, 2012b; Cellura, Ardente, & Longo, 2012;
~ oz, Anto
 n, & Rieradevalla, 2011) using,
Martnez-Blanco, Mun
as a functional unit, the mass of the obtained products in the
greenhouse although the largest contribution to the overall
environmental load of greenhouse cultivation using heating
 n,
systems is due to the use of fossil fuels for heating (Anto
2004; Russo, Buttol, et al., 2008; Teuhrl et al., 2013).
In this study, the reference unit for the environmental
assessment has been 1 MJ of thermal energy supplied by the
two systems in the 2011e2012 winter season between
November 1, 2011 and March 30, 2012 to maintain in the two
greenhouses an internal air temperature equal to 10  C. This is
equivalent to asserting that the functional unit is the unit of
thermal energy necessary to carry out a cultivation with an
inside greenhouse air temperature of 10  C with a specific
thermal plant and heat distribution system.
This value was obtained for LPG-HG and PV-GHP and the
GHP scenario by the ratio of the overall environmental indices
due to heating plant and the thermal energy supplied to the
two experimental greenhouses. This value is different for the
two greenhouses because the thermal plants have different
modalities of heat distribution in greenhouses and use
different fuels (Table 2). The authors have chosen this course
because the functional unit represents the average thermal
energy supplied by the two thermal plants during the heating
period, that maintains the same thermal regime in the two
greenhouses. Although the thermal energies delivered are

System boundaries

In the context of the LCA study, all the constructive components of the heating plants were taken into account, which
represent the boundaries of the analysed system. The materials for the construction of greenhouses and agronomic
management of crops were not taken into account because
this study evaluated only the heating systems of the two
greenhouses.
For HG-LPG, the following items were considered: boiler,
LPG production, LPG transport for a distance of 80 km, tank for
LPG storage and relative transport, and the end of life of plant
components. The lifetime assumed for this plant is 20 years,
according to Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI)'s 2067/6
directive.
For PV-GHP, the following items related to installation,
operation, transport, and disposal were considered: drilling
and disposal of excavated earth, bentonite slurry used for
cementing of drilling, photovoltaic modules and related supporting structures, electrical equipment (inverter, transformer, cables, control panels), heat pump with R410a
refrigerant fluid, geothermal probe (PEX, crosslinked polyethylene, pipes), galvanised steel boiler for hot water storage,
PE-HD (High Density Polyethylene) pipes for heating in
greenhouse, electricity produced by the solar panels used by
the system during the test, and recovery/disposal of the elements of the system in accordance with lifetime.
The PV-GHP plant refers to electricity supplied entirely by
solar panels also connected to the electrical grid for net
metering of electricity. The surface of the panels assigned to
the plant was 4.5 m2, the surface strictly necessary to meet, on
an annual scale, the electricity demand for the plant
(945 kWh 3402 MJ).
For the GHP scenario, all the above items were considered
except PV modules and the electrical components, such as the
inverter.
The lifetime of the heat pump, photovoltaic panels, and
electrical and structural components was assumed to be 20
years, while the lifetime of the borehole drilling and cementitious coating was assumed to be 50 years (Chiavetta, Tinti, &
Bonoli, 2011; Rawlings, 1999). For both plants, testing and
maintenance operations (washing of the panels) were
excluded from the analysis.

Table 2 e Thermal energy production and energy

requirements of PV-GHP and LPG-HG plants in the
periods of November 1, 2011 and March 31, 2012.
Thermal plant

Thermal energy
production

Input requirements

GHP-PV (and GHP

scenario)
LPG-HG

13,150.8 MJ

3402 MJ (electricity)

15,503.9 MJ

335.6 kg (LPG mass)

18

2.2.4.

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

Impact categories

The method of evaluation of environmental burdens was

CML2001 (CML, 2006). The impact categories analysed were
the following: depletion of abiotic resources (ADPel.); depletion
of fossil resources (ADPfo.); acidification (AP); eutrophication
(EP); global warming potential (GWP); reduction of the ozone
layer in the troposphere (ODP); and formation of photochemical smog (POCP). In addition, the primary energy demand by means of the primary energy demand (PED) index
was considered.

2.2.5.

Inventory

Data on the use of materials coming from technosphere and

the physical components of heating systems used in the tests
were found in the technical documentation of systems or
components, from bibliographic sources, by the process of
GABI6 software and in the Ecoinvent database. For HG-LPG,
the air emissions due to the combustion of LPG have been
acquired by the process of thermal energy from LPG.
The drilling and the use of R410a refrigerant for the heat
pump have been the subject of specific evaluations. For the
excavation of the geothermal well, data collected during the
drilling phase have been acquired. In particular, the density of
the excavated material was assumed to equal 2000 kg m3
with a water content of 71%. The excavated material was
distributed on the surrounding agricultural areas, so transport
and disposal in landfills were not taken into account.
The production of the refrigerant gas R410a was assumed
equal to R134a. Concerning the environmental load of emissions of R410a, an emission factor of 2100 kgCO2 eq: was
assumed, with an ozone depletion rating of zero (Wang,
Amrane, & Johnson, 2012). The emissions of the refrigerant
gas were evaluated for the production phase and neglected for
the use phase due to lack of data.

2.3.
Evaluation of energy payback time and emissions
payback time
In order to evaluate the efficiency of innovative plants that use
renewable energy sources such as solar and geothermal energy, the EPT (energy payback time) and EMPT (emissions
payback time) were calculated (Beccali et al., 2012; Streicher,
Heidemann, & Muller-Steinhagen, 2004). The EPT is the
period (y) in which the system has to be in operation to save
the amount of primary energy that has been spent for production, maintenance, and disposal of the plant. In other
words, the EPT can be defined as the necessary time of use, for
a plant, to save as much energy (valued as primary) as that
consumed during all the lifecycle phases of the system itself,
except for the use phase:
EPT PEDinn  PEDref


Ey

where PEDinn (MJ) is the global energy requirement of innovative technology; PEDref (MJ) is the global energy requirement
of reference technology. Ey is the net yearly PE savings due to
the use of the innovative system (MJ y1). PED index is
expressed in terms of MJ FU1 (functional unit) of primary
energy. The emission payback time (EMPT,i) is defined as the
time during which the cumulative emissions avoided, due to

the application of the innovative plant, are equal to those

released during the lifecycle of the plant itself:
EMPT;i EMinn;i  EMref;i


EMS;i

where EMinn,i is the global emission of the generic pollutant i

related to each lifecycle phase of the innovative system except
for the use phase (kgi); EMref,i is the global emission of the
generic pollutant i related to each lifecycle phase of the
reference system except for the use phase (kgi); and EMS,i is
the net yearly emission savings of the generic pollutant i due
the use of the innovative system (kgi y1) (Beccali et al., 2012).
In the present study, for the calculation of the two indices,
EPT and EMPT, the PV-GHP plant has been defined as innovative, and the LPG-HG plant as conventional; although the EMPT
can be calculated for all the main air pollutants, it has been
restricted to greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 Eq.). These two
indices indicate the number of years of operation of the system to offset the energy used (as primary) or the emissions
generated by production, installation, and maintenance. This
estimates the number of years in which an innovative technology produces a benefit with respect to its lifetime.

3.

Results and discussion

3.1.
Microclimate conditions in experimental
greenhouses
During the tests, the two heating systems under comparison
maintained similar nighttime microclimate conditions inside
the two experimental greenhouses with a set point of 10  C as
the minimum indoor air temperature for the two plants. The
trend of external and internal temperatures recorded on eight
consecutive days is representative of the winter season within
the Mediterranean climate, as shown in Fig. 4.
From the experimental data, it can be observed that the
two plants had similar temperatures during the day for the
whole period. We point out minimal differences due to heat
loss from the opening of the doors of the greenhouses in the
middle of the day in order to perform operations on agricultural crops as well as for ventilation. During the night phase, it
is observed that the two plants are switched on and off a
different number of times due to the different thermal inertia
of the air (greater number of starts for the LPG-HG plant) and
water (lower number of starts for PV-GHP plant). Both plants
have maintained the minimum air temperature at 10  C during the night.

3.2.

Energy performance of the heating plant

During the experimental tests carried out in the period between November 2011 and March 2012, the geothermal heat
pump produced an average of 87.1 MJ day1 of thermal energy
with an average consumption of 22.5 MJ day1 of electricity.
During the entire duration of the test, the heat pump produced a total of 13,150.8 MJ of thermal energy and consumed
3402 MJ of electricity; therefore providing an average coefficient of performance (COP) equal to 3.9 (see Table 2, Fig. 5).
A summary of the monthly consumption of electricity, COP,

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

19

Fig. 4 e Indoor air temperatures of the two experimental greenhouses and outdoor air temperatures Text between the
periods of January 14, 2012 and January 23, 2012.

and thermal energy produced by the heat pump is shown in

Fig. 5. The COP values vary daily from 3.6 to 4 in the colder and
milder nights, respectively, because the performance of the
heat pump increases with a decrease in the thermal source
temperature differences. It is noted that these values are
comparable with those recorded and published by other authors (Benli, 2013; Chai et al., 2012).
The electricity produced annually by the photovoltaic
panels is 8013.6 MJ and satisfies the energy requirements of
the heat pump in the winter when it is used as a heating

system. The electricity produced by photovoltaic panels during the testing period amounted to 2124 MJ and was therefore
insufficient to cover the needs of the system (3402 MJ), due to
the reduced solar radiation that characterises the winter
months.
For this reason, the electricity produced by solar panels and
used to supply the heat pump must be stored, both seasonally
and daily. In general, this can be done with accumulators or
with a connection to the national electricity grid, which exchanges energy with the plant according to the functioning of

Fig. 5 e Monthly consumption of electricity and geothermal energy absorbed by heat pump, thermal energy produced by
LPG and coefficient of performance of heat pump (secondary axes).

20

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

the photovoltaic panels. The system used in the experimental

tests is fed with this second solution. Therefore, in an environmental analysis of LCA, the connection to the national
electricity grid at a distance of about 300 m, was considered as
forming part of the system, as done by other authors (Cellura,
Longo, & Mistretta, 2012a).
The LPG consumption for the plant LPG-HG during the tests
was 335.6 kg, equal to about 670 L of liquid fuel (Table 2). The
thermal energy produced was 15,504 MJ (Table 2). This value is
higher than the thermal energy supplied from the PV-GHP as a
result of the inside movement of air caused by the hot air
generator, which increases heat loss by convection and thus
increases the energy requirements of a greenhouse heated
with this kind of plant. The size of this increase for the test
period was approximately 18%. A summary of the monthly
consumption of LPG used by the hot air generator is shown in
Fig. 5.

3.3.
Environmental performance of the two greenhouses
heating systems and GHP scenario
The environmental indices, expressed as absolute values, are
relative to the production of thermal energy LPG-HG, PV-GHP
plants and scenario GHP, as reported in Table 3. The environmental indices, related to the components of the plant PVGHP and scenario GHP and expressed in percentages, are
shown in Tables 4 and 5.
From the results of LCA analysis, it is observed that the
primary energy demand for PV-GHP plant is about half that of
the LPG-HG plant and about one-fifth of that for the GHP
scenario. This is due to the geothermal and solar renewable
energies used.
The GHP scenario has the greatest environmental load for
the environmental indices of ADPfo, AP, GWP, and POCP, and
intermediate values in reference to the two plants for the
other indices; therefore this scenario has highest environmental burdens in comparison with the other two plants.
For the indices ADPfo., AP, GWP, POCP, this is due to the
environmental burden due to the use of the electricity mix,
because in Italy, the electricity is produced primarily by
thermal power plants supplied with fossil fuels, with high
amounts of atmospheric emissions (Table 4).

Table 3 e Absolute values of environmental impact

indexes and primary energy demand of the plants and
scenario for functional unit (1 MJ of thermal energy).
Environmental indices

ADPel. (mg Sb Eq.)

ADPfo. (MJ)
AP (g SO2 Eq.)
EP (kg Phos. Eq.)
GWP (kg CO2 Eq.)
ODP (ng R11 Eq.)
POCP (mg Eth. Eq.)
Primary energy demand
PED (MJ)

Heating plants

Scenario

Table 4 e Relative contributions (%) of the components to

environmental indexes of the GHP plant (GHP scenario).
Environmental
indices

Heat
pump

Drilling

Electricity
Italian grid mix

Other

ADPel. (kg Sb Eq.)

ADPfo. (MJ)
AP (kg SO2 Eq.)
EP (kg Phos. Eq.)
GWP (kg CO2 Eq.)
ODP (kg R11 Eq.)
POCP (kg Eth. Eq.)

98.54
8.78
42.08
70.16
10.17
96.87
36.07

0.83
8.92
10.99
24.69
16.84
3.09
16.85

0.62
81.95
46.85
5.14
72.86
0.04
46.88

0.00
0.36
0.09
0.01
0.12
0.00
0.19

Primary energy demand

PED (MJ)
8.96

8.08

82.68

0.28

For the EP index, drilling (25%) and heat pump (70%) cause
the greater environmental burden due to the spreading of
excavated material and the heat pump production,
respectively.
For the ODP index, the heat pump is primarily responsible
for the environmental burden; in particular, for the emissions
generated within the production of the gas R410a (Table 4). A
similar incidence of the components on the overall environmental load of the GHP plant has also been reported by Sanera
et al. (2010).
For indices ADPel., AP, EP, ODP, and POCP, the LPG-HG plant
appears to be the one with the lowest environmental burden
(Table 3). For all indices, the environmental loads are primarily caused by combustion and the production of LPG. For
indices ADPfo. and GWP, the plant PV-GHP appears to have a
lower environmental load (Table 3). The non-use of fossil fuels
justifies these results. For the GWP index in particular, the
environmental load is about half of that generated by the
plant LPG-HG. In contrast, for indices ADPel, EP, and ODP, the
PV-GHP plant has greater environmental loads (Table 3).
For the index ADPel., this is due to the complexity of the
plant which also includes the photovoltaic panels; for EP
index, to heat pump and drilling; for the ODP index this is
attributable to the emissions generated for the production of
R410a gas used for the heat pump (Table 5). From the results of
the PV-GHP plant, it is observed that the contribution of the
drilling is significant for indices ADPfo., AP, EP, GWP and POCP
(Table 5). Similar results were obtained from LCA studies on
the low-enthalpy geothermal systems, although it has been

Table 5 e Relative contributions (%) of the components to

environmental indexes of the PV-GHP plant.

LPG-HG

PV-GHP

GHP

Environmental
indices

0.022
1.213
0.150
0.016
0.087
0.001
21.115

3.572
0.470
0.479
0.554
0.063
64.473
39.280

3.056
2.308
0.841
0.552
0.217
63.702
67.120

ADPel. (kg Sb Eq.)

ADPfo. (MJ)
AP (kg SO2 Eq.)
EP (kg Phos. Eq.)
GWP (kg CO2 Eq.)
ODP (kg R11 Eq.)
POCP (kg Eth. Eq.)

1.223

0.622

3.148

Heat Drilling Electricity from Other

pump
PV and PV panel
84.31
43.08
73.80
69.95
34.88
95.71
61.64

0.71
43.78
19.28
24.61
57.70
3.06
28.80

14.98
11.40
6.77
5.43
7.00
1.23
9.23

0.00
1.74
0.15
0.01
0.43
0.00
0.33

Primary energy demand

PED (MJ)
45.33

40.90

12.36

1.42

21

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

adopted using a lifetime of 80 years for drilling (Chiavetta

et al., 2011). The contribution of the heat pump production is
significant for all environmental indices (7e15%) (Table 5). The
contribution of the photovoltaic installation, wiring and
electrical devices is significant for all indices with exception of
the EP and ODP indices (Table 5). For indices ADPel., AP, EP,
ODP, and POCP, the situation is the opposite. For AP index, the
emissions of the PV-GHP plant are greater than the LPG-HG
plant, as verified by other authors (Michopoulosa,
Zachariadisb, & Kyriakisa, 2013).
From the overall comparison between the two systems of
LPG-HG and PV-GHP, it is not possible to express a judgement about which should uniquely be preferred by incentive policies. From the point of view of reducing emissions
of CO2 into the atmosphere and use of fossil resources, the
PV-GHP system is definitely more beneficial than the LPGHG plant.
Since the heat pump is an irreplaceable component of the
PV-GHP plant, further progress can be achieved in reducing
the environmental burden of the drilling and the electrical
components. The positioning of the geothermal probes can be
realised in the construction phase, using the excavations of
foundations of the greenhouses, underground rainwater
storage tanks or wells previously excavated to irrigate the
cultivations.
The realisation of drilling in the construction phase and the
design of their length through simulation models of thermal
exchanges in the subsoil should lead to a reduction in installation costs (Chiasson, 1999; Colangelo, Congedo, & Starace,
chal, 2011). Also, by increasing the size
2005; Gerber & Mare
and power of PV-GHP plants, the environmental impact of the
heat pump is reduced as compared to drilling (Cho & Choi,
2014).
In addition, the use of the heat pump in the spring/autumn
months for the cooling of greenhouses will also result in a
lower impact of the heat pump and drilling on the overall
environmental load. Finally, the connection to the national
grid may be neglected because the greenhouses are usually
grid connected for other equipment operation. The use of heat
pumps supplied by the national grid, GHP scenario, has the
greatest environmental burdens as compared with the other
systems.

3.4.

Evaluation of Ept and EMpt indices

Table 6 shows the values of primary energy and CO2 Eq.

emissions allocated between the stage: productioninstallation, use, and end of life. For the PV-GHP plant, the
maintenance of the heat pump has been considered, while for
the maintenance of the photovoltaic system, the replacement

of the inverter has been considered, but the cleaning of the

panels has been neglected.
The calculation of the two indices, EPT and EMPT, of the PVGHP plant, has been realised taking as reference technology
the LPG-HG plant and the results were: EMPT was equal to
about 1 y and EMPTCO2 was equal to about 2.25 y. For a similar
system with a geothermal heat pump supported by thermal
panels, and with LPG reference technology, an EPT value of
about 1e2 years has been recorded (Bakirci & Yuksel, 2011;
Hawlader, Chou, & Ullah, 2001).

4.

Conclusion

The goal of this research was to verify the effectiveness of

Italian policies in support of energy sources with a lower
environmental impact in support of agricultural production in
greenhouses.
To this end, data were collected on energy consumption of
two heating systems that are both incentivised in Italy in
recent years. The first plant is a hot air generator powered by
LPG, which is a technology widely used in Southern Italy for
heating greenhouses because it is made by modifying the
previous plants powered with diesel. The second plant is a
heat pump with geothermal probes and a photovoltaic system
for its electrical supply that does not use fossil fuels.
Energy analysis of the two greenhouse heating systems
showed that both plants are capable of ensuring thermal
conditions suitable for cultivation in greenhouses in the
winter period within the Mediterranean area.
Although the results of LCA analysis do not allow for an
unequivocal environmental assessment for the two plants, if
one seeks to limit the carbon footprint of the production
within the greenhouse, the PV-GHP is preferable. Use of the
PV-GHP for cooling, as well as drilling planned at the design
stage, could make it more favourable to the environment. The
GHP scenario, which includes the use of electricity by the
Italian electricity grid, has the greatest environmental burden
and therefore should be avoided as a possible choice. The
evaluation of EPT and EMPT within the PV-GHP plant was performed, taking as reference technology the LPG-HG plant. The
results were EMPT equal to about 1 y and EMPTCO2 was equal to
about 2.25 y. Although this is a significant result, it should be
noted that for other environmental indices, the environmental burden is lower for the LPG-HG plant.
As well as for buildings, incentive policies should also
support the modalities of distribution of heat in the greenhouse (the hot air generators use 18% more energy) and energy saving systems (thermal screens, double plastic layers,
and so on) and not solely energy sources.

Table 6 e PED and GWP values allocated between the stage: production-installation, use, and end-of-life for LPG-HG plant
(left) and PV-GHP plant (right).
LPG-HG

PED (MJ)

GWP (kg CO2 Eq.)

PV-GHP

PED (MJ)

GWP (kg CO2 Eq.)

Production e installation phase

Use phase
End-of-life phase
Total

3.522$102
1.187
2.186$104
1.223

2.934$103
8.431$102
1.478$105
8.725$102

Production e installation phase

Use phase
End-of-life phase
Total

0.6217
0
5.471$104
0.6222

6.340$102
0
3.940$105
6.344$102

22

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

The use of the PV-GHP plant leads to a significant environmental benefit for the GWP index and consequently reduces the carbon footprint of agricultural cultivations in the
greenhouse although the investment costs are very high for
full-size greenhouses. If energy policies for the promotion of
renewable sources in Italy have the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions as their primary objective, the work highlights
the utility of the use of heat pump systems for greenhouse
heating.

references

Abdel-Ghany, A. M., Istigami, Y., Goto, E., & Kozai, T. (2006). A

method for measuring greenhouse cover temperature using a
thermocouple. Biosystems Engineering, 95-1, 99e109.
Adaro, J. A., Galimberti, P. D., Lema, A. I., Fasulo, A., & Barral, J. R.
(1999). Geothermal contribution to greenhouse heating.
Applied Energy, 64, 241e249.
 n, A. V. (2004). Utilizacion del Analisis del ciclo de vida en la
Anto
evaluacion del impacto ambiental del cultivo bajo invernadero
mediterraneo (Ph.D. thesis). Univ. Politecnica de Catalunya (in
Spanish) www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UPC.
APAT. (2004). Annuario dei dati ambientali. Roma, Italy: APAT e
Servizio Interdipartimentale Informativo Ambientale.
Arbel, A., Barak, M., & Shklyar, A. (2003). Combination of forced
ventilation and fogging systems for cooling greenhouses.
Biosystems Engineering, 84, 45e55.
Ardente, F., Beccali, G., Cellura, M., & Lo Brano, V. (2004). Life cycle
assessment of a solar thermal collector. Renewable Energy, 30,
1031e1054.
Bakirci, K., & Yuksel, B. (2011). Experimental thermal
performance of a solar source heat-pump system for
residential heating in cold climate region. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 31, 1508e1518.
Bakker, J. C., Bot, G. P. A., Challa, H., & Van de Braak, N. J. (1995).
Greenhouse climate control. An integrated approach (279 pp.).
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Press.
Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Iudicello, M., & Mistretta, M. (2012). Life
cycle assessment of Italian citrus-based products. Sensitivity
analysis and improvement scenarios. Journal of Environmental
Management, 91(7), 1415e1428.
Benli, H. (2013). A performance comparison between a horizontal
source and a vertical source heat pump systems for a
greenhouse heating in the mild climate Elazig, Turkey. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 50, 197e206.
Benli, H., & Durmus, A. (2009). Evaluation of ground-source heat
pump combined latent heat storage system performance in
greenhouse heating. Energy and Buildings, 44, 220e228.
Bozzini, A., Pizzichini, M., & Leone, G. P. (2011). Agricoltura
sostenibile ed energie rinnovabili. Ingegneria Ambientale, 3,
45e49.
Campiotti, C., Bibbiani, C., Dondi, F., & Viola, C. (2010). Efficienza
energetica e fonti rinnovabili per l'agricoltura protetta.
Ambiente, Risorse, Salute, 126, 6e12.
Campiotti, C., Viola, C., & Scoccianti, M. (2011). L'efficienza
energetica nel settore agricoltura. Quaderno ENEA.
CEER. (2013). http://www.ceer.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/
CEER_AnnualReport 2013_web.pdf.
Cellura, M., Ardente, F., & Longo, S. (2012). From the LCA of food
products to the environmental assessment of protected crops
districts: a case-study in the south of italy. Journal of
Environmental Management, 93, 194e208.
Cellura, M., Di Gangi, A., Longo, S., & Orioli, A. (2012). Photovoltaic
electricity scenario analysis in urban contests: an Italian case
study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 2041e2052.

Cellura, M., Longo, S., & Mistretta, M. (2012a). LCA applicata alle
 e limiti
tecnologie alimentate da energia solare: peculiarita
metodologici. In Atti del VI Convegno della Rete Italiana LCA su
Dall'analisi del ciclo di vita allimpronta ambientale: Percorsi ed
esperienze a confronto (pp. 15e22). Bari, Italy.
Cellura, M., Longo, S., & Mistretta, M. (2012b). Life cycle
assessment (LCA) of protected crops: an Italian case study.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 28, 56e62.
Chai, L., Ma, C., & Ni, J. Q. (2012). Performance evaluation of
ground source heat pump system for greenhouse heating in
northern China. Biosystems Engineering, 111, 107e117.
Chiasson, A. (1999). Advances in modeling of ground-source heat
pump systems (Master of science theses). Graduate College of
Oklahoma State University.
Chiavetta, C., Tinti, F., & Bonoli, A. (2011). Comparative life cycle
assessment of renewable energy systems for heating and
cooling. Procedia Engineering, 21, 591e597.
Cho, H., & Choi, J. M. (2014). The quantitative evaluation of design
parameter's effects on a ground source heat pump system.
Renewable Energy, 65, 2e6.
CML Rep. 130. (2006). Leiden: Centre of Environmental Science
Leiden University (CML). UNI EN ISO 14040/44: LCA standards.
Cohen, S., & Fuchs, M. (1999). Measuring and predicting
radiometric properties of reflective shade nets and thermal
screens. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 73, 245e255.
Colangelo, G., Congedo, P., & Starace, G. (2005). Horizontal heat
exchangers for GSHP. Efficiency and cost investigation for
three different applications. In ECOS2005 e 18th International
conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and
environmental impact of energy systems. Norway.
Colangelo, G., Romano, D., De Risi, A., Starace, G., & Laforgia, D.
(2012). Un tool in Matlab e Simulink per la simulazione di
pompe di calore geotermiche. La Termotecnica, 4, 63e72.
Cui, P., Li, X., Man, Y., & Fang, Z. (2011). Heat transfer analysis of
pile geothermal heat exchangers with spiral coil. Applied
Energy, 88, 4113e4119.
Desideri, U., Proietti, S., Zepparelli, F., Sdringola, P., & Bini, S.
(2012). Life cycle assessment of a ground-mounted 1778 kWp
photovoltaic plant and comparison with traditional energy
production systems. Applied Energy, 97, 930e943.
Dickson, M., & Fanelli, M. (2004). What is geothermal energy? Pisa,
Italy: Istituto di Geoscienze e Georisorse, CNR.
ENEL. (2012). Guida al Geotermico (in Italian) http://www.enelsi.it/
it-IT/doc/eventi_news/guide_2012/Guida_Geotermico_12.pdf.
European Directive 2009/28/CE on The promotion of the use of
energy from renewable sources.
Fabrizio, E. (2012). Energy reduction measures in agricultural
greenhouses heating: envelope, systems and solar energy
collection. Energy and Buildings, 53, 57e63.
Florides, G. A., Pouloupatis, P. D., Kalogirou, S., Messaritis, V.,
Panayides, I., Zomeni, Z., et al. (2011). The geothermal
characteristics of the ground and the potential of using
ground coupled heat pumps in Cyprus. Energy, 36, 5027e5036.
Fujii, H., & Ohyama, K. (2009). Application of ground source heat
pumps for air conditioning of greenhouses. IEA Heat Pump
Centre Newsletter, 27, 39e42.
chal, F. (2011). Defining optimal configurations
Gerber, L., & Mare
of geothermal systems using process design and process
integration techniques. Applied Thermal Engineering. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.11.033.
Hawlader, M. N. A., Chou, S. K., & Ullah, M. Z. (2001). The
performance of a solar assisted heat pump water heating
system. Applied Thermal Engineering, 21, 1049e1065.
International Standard ISO 14040:44. (2006). Environmental
management, life cycle assessment, principles and framework,
requirements and guidelines.
ISPRA. (2004). Geological map of Italy. http://www.isprambiente.
gov.it/Media/carg/index.html.

b i o s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g 1 2 7 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 e2 3

ISPRA. (2011). Rapporto Rifiuti Speciali. Rapporto dell'Istituto

Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale.
Johnson, J. M., Franzluebbers, A. J., Weyers, S. L., & Reicosky, D. C.
(2007). Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas
emissions. Environmental Pollution, 150(1), 107e124.
Kadowaki, M., Yano, A., Ishizu, F., Tanaka, T., & Noda, S. (2012).
Effects of greenhouse photovoltaic array shading on Welsh
onion growth. Biosystems Engineering, 111, 290e297.
rner, O., Bakker, M. J., & Heuvelink, E. (2004). Daily temperature
Ko
integration: a simulation study to quantify energy
consumption. Biosystems Engineering, 87, 333e343.
Loeffler, D., & Anderson, N. (2014). Emissions tradeoffs associated
with cofiring forest biomass with coal: a case study in
Colorado, USA. Applied Energy, 113, 67e77.
Lund, J. W., Freeston, D. H., & Boyd, T. L. (2005). Direct application
of geothermal energy: 2005 worldwide review. Geothermics, 34,
691e727.
~ oz, P., Anto
 n, A., & Rieradevalla, J.
Martnez-Blanco, J., Mun
(2011). Assessment of tomato Mediterranean production in
open-field and standard multi-tunnel greenhouse, with
compost or mineral fertilizers, from an agricultural and
environmental standpoint. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19,
985e997.
Matarazzo, A., & Clasadonte, M. T. (2011). Analisi economica e
ambientale di un impianto fotovoltaico su serra connesso alla
rete elettrica. In Atti del Convegno: L'efficienza energetica integrata
con cogenerazione di prossimita. Casi studio ed applicazioni al
patrimonio edilizio esistente (pp. 1501e1507). Rimini, Italy.
Michopoulosa, A., Zachariadisb, T., & Kyriakisa, N. (2013).
Operation characteristics and experience of a ground source
heat pump system with a vertical ground heat exchanger.
Energy, 51, 349e357.
Notarnicola, B. (2011). 7th International conference on life cycle
assessment in the agri-food sector (LCA food 2010), 22e24
September 2010, Bari e Italy. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 16(2), 102e105.
Ozgener, O. (2010). Use of solar assisted geothermal heat pump
and small wind turbine systems for heating agricultural and
residential buildings. Energy, 35, 262e268.
Ozgener, O., & Hepbasli, A. (2005). Performance analysis of a solar
assisted ground e source heat pump system for greenhouse
heating: an experimental study. Building and Environment, 40,
1040e1050.
Pehnt, M. (2006). Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of
renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy, 31, 55e71.
Picuno, P., Tortora, A., & Capobianco, R. L. (2011). Analysis of
plasticulture landscapes in Southern Italy through remote
sensing and solid modelling techniques. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 100, 45e56.
Rawlings, R. H. D. (1999). Ground source heat pump: A technology
review. BSRIA (TN 18/99).
Russo, G., Buttol, P., & Tarantini, M. (2008). LCA (life cycle
assessment) of roses and cyclamens in greenhouse
cultivation. Acta Horticulturae, 801, 359e366.
Russo, G., Scarascia Mugnozza, G., & De Lucia Zeller, B. (2008).
Environmental improvements of greenhouse flower
cultivation by means of LCA methodology. Acta Horticulturae,
801, 301e308.

23

Rybach, L. (2010). CO2 emission mitigation by geothermal

development e especially with geothermal heat pumps. In
Proceedings of the world geothermal congress (pp. 1e4). Bali,
Indonesia.
Sanera, D., Juraskea, R., Kubertb, M., Blumc, P., Hellwega, S., &
Bayerd, P. (2010). Is it only CO2 that matters? A life cycle
perspective on shallow geothermal systems. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 1798e1813.
Scarascia Mugnozza, G., & Anifantis, A. (2009). Dal fotovoltaico al
termico. Colture Protette, 6, 40e43.
Scarascia Mugnozza, G., Pascuzzi, S., Anifantis, A., & Verdiani, G.
(2011). Photovoltaic and geothermal integration system for
greenhouse heating: an experimental study. In Proceedings of
the V international scientific symposium farm machinery and
process management in sustainable agriculture (pp. 135e138).
Lublin, Poland.
Scarascia Mugnozza, G., Pascuzzi, S., Anifantis, A., & Verdiani, G.
(2012). Use of low-enthalpy geothermal resources for
greenhouse heating: an experimental study. Acta Scientiarum
Polonorum, Technica Agraria, 11, 13e19.
Sethi, V. P., & Sharma, S. K. (2008). Survey and evaluation of
heating technologies for worldwide agricultural greenhouse
applications. Solar Energy, 82(9), 832e859.
Streicher, E., Heidemann, W., & Muller-Steinhagen, H. (2004).
Energy payback time e a key number for the assessment of
thermal solar systems. In Proceedings of EuroSun2004 (pp. 1e10).
Freiburg, Germany.
Teuhrl, M. C., Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., & Lindentha, T. (2013).
Contrasted greenhouse gas emissions from local versus longrange tomato production. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8.
Turconi, R., Boldrin, A., & Astrup, T. (2013). Life cycle assessment
(LCA) of electricity generation technologies: overview
comparability and limitations. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 28, 555e565.
Udo de Haes, H. A., & Heijungs, R. (2007). Life-cycle assessment
for energy analysis and management. Applied Energy, 84,
817e827.
Vadiee, A., & Martin, V. (2012). Energy management in
horticultural applications through the closed greenhouse
concept, state of the art. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 16, 5087e5100.
VDI e Guideline e VDI 2067/1-6. (1989e1990). Economic efficiency of
building services installations; Energy effort for heat generation;
Economy calculation of heat consuming installations; heat pumps.
VDI e Guideline e VDI 4640. (2000). Thermische Nutzung des
Untergrunds.
Vox, G., Schettini, E., Lisi Cervone, A., & Anifantis, A. (2008). Solar
thermal collectors for greenhouse heating. Acta Horticulturae,
801, 787e794.
Zhang, Y., Gauthier, L., De Halleux, D., Dansereau, B., &
Gosselin, A. (1996). Effect of covering materials on energy
consumption and greenhouse microclimate. Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology, 82, 227e244.
Wang, X., Amrane, K. M., & Johnson, P. (2012). Low global
warming potential (GWP) alternative refrigerants evaluation
program (low-GWP AREP). In International refrigeration and air
conditioning conference at Purdue. July 16e19, 2012.