energies

Article
Life Cycle Assessment of a Gas Turbine Installation
Yulia Mozzhegorova *, Galina Ilinykh and Vladimir Korotaev

Environmental Protection Department, Perm National Research Polytechnic University, 614000 Perm, Russia;
galina.perm.59@yandex.ru (G.I.); korotaev@pstu.ru (V.K.)
* Correspondence: juliagubaha@mail.ru

Abstract: Gas turbine installations (GTIs) are widely used to generate electrical and thermal energy,
mainly by burning gaseous fuels. With the development of hydrogen energy technology, a current
area of particular interest is the use of GTIs to burn hydrogen. In order to assess the prospects of
using GTIs in this way, it is necessary to understand the carbon emissions of gas turbines within
the larger context of the entire hydrogen life cycle and its carbon footprint. The article provides an
overview of results from previously published studies on life cycle assessment (LCA) of complex
technical devices associated with the production and consumption of fuel and energy, which are most
similar to GTIs when it comes to the complexity of LCA. The subject of analysis was a set of GTIs
located in Russia with a capacity of 16 MW. An assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per
MWh of electricity produced showed that at different stages of the GTI life cycle, the total carbon
footprint was 198.1–604.3 kg CO2 -eq., of which more than 99% came from GTI operation. Greenhouse
gas emissions from the production and end-of-life management stages are significantly lower for
GTIs compared to those for other complex technical devices used to generate electricity. This is an
indicator of the strong prospects for the future use of GTIs.

Keywords: complex technical devices; gas turbine installation; carbon footprint; life cycle assessment

1. Introduction
Nowadays, the use of clean, reliable, and relatively inexpensive energy sources is
Citation: Mozzhegorova, Y.; Ilinykh, essential, given the urgency of the climate agenda. Additionally, the development of
G.; Korotaev, V. Life Cycle Assessment industrial production technologies and the development of new energy sources in Russia
of a Gas Turbine Installation. Energies means that research in fields related to strengthening renewable resources in the energy
2024, 17, 345. https://doi.org/ sector and optimizing power plant operating modes has become increasingly important in
10.3390/en17020345 order to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel efficiency. Hydrogen energy
Academic Editors: Andrea Aquino
is a field that has sparked particular interest and where there have been ongoing research
and Flavio Scrucca
projects and recent developments. It is noteworthy that hydrogen is a fuel that does not
produce greenhouse gases when burned, and it can be produced from inexhaustible energy
Received: 23 November 2023 sources (e.g., water and solar energy). Other factors that heighten the significance of
Revised: 29 December 2023 hydrogen as a fuel are the limited availability of hydrocarbon energy sources, the negative
Accepted: 4 January 2024
environmental impact of traditional fuels, and the unsatisfactory efficiency of “green”
Published: 10 January 2024
energy. Unfortunately, most of the hydrogen currently produced belongs to the “grey”
energy category—its production is accompanied by significant consumption of electricity
derived from fossil fuels (e.g., steam methane reforming and coal gasification), and it leads
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
to further CO2 emissions [1].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Hydrogen is a promising energy resource for industrial decarbonization and can be
This article is an open access article used for transport and energy, both in energy carriers, such as fuel cells, internal combustion
distributed under the terms and engines, or gas turbines, and in hydrogen power plants. However, in order to effectively
conditions of the Creative Commons and sustainably utilize hydrogen, it is necessary to reliably determine its carbon footprint
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// over its entire life cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to final use, taking into account
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the consumption of basic resources, materials, and energy (electricity, heat, water, etc.). By
4.0/).

Energies 2024, 17, 345. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17020345 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 345 2 of 24

applying the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, adapted to the specificities of each
case, a solution can be found to address this problem.
Gas turbine power plants (GTPPs) are currently one of the most promising additional
resources to support the use of hydrogen. In electricity production, the main advantage of
combining hydrogen with gas turbines is that it leads to significantly lower greenhouse
gas emissions. The most popular gas turbines are those found in low-power gas turbine
installations (from 2.5 to 25 MW) and which are made by converting aero-derivative gas
turbine engines (GTEs). Gas turbines are more energy-efficient, compact, and lightweight
compared to other sources of power at various types of power plants, making them a
promising option to be implemented in power generation, industry, and transport [2].
The most common application of gas turbines in the power industry is to fuel electric
generators. These are used as part of simple cycle gas turbine (SCGT) power plants and
combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) condensing power plants. They are also used in
combined heat and power plants, which produce both electrical and thermal energy [3]. A
gas turbine installation can be set up at a place of business as a main, secondary, or backup
source of electricity. The main advantages of gas turbine installations include lower costs to
produce heat and electricity, significantly reduced electrical and thermal energy loss thanks
to closer proximity to the consumers, autonomous operation, short construction time, and
lower fuel consumption.
Most of the existing gas turbine installations can operate as-is on a fuel mixture
(hydrogen-containing fuel) with a hydrogen content of up to 20%. This makes it possible to
increase gas use efficiency by 20–25% and reduce fuel consumption by up to 35% while
at the same time reducing NOx emissions by a factor of 4 and emissions of CO2 and CO
by a factor of 1.5 [4,5]. According to serial manufacturers of gas turbines, such as GE Gas
Power, Baker Hughes, Siemens Energy, Mitsubishi Power, Ansaldo Energia, and Kawasaki
Heavy Industries, gas turbines can indeed operate on fuel gas mixtures with an H2 content
of up to 20% [6]. Ansaldo Energia is carrying out a series of projects on existing GTIs
to modify the combustion chamber and partially replace a number of required materials
in order to use fuel with up to 40% hydrogen. New GTIs are equipped with two-zone
low-emission combustion chambers (LECC), which allow the combustion of gas mixtures
with a hydrogen content of 50% [7]. General Electric produces gas turbines (LM2500 with
an output of 22 MW, based on CF6-6) that can operate on fuels with a hydrogen content
of up to 85% [8]. In 2020, Siemens Energy tested gas turbines capable of running on up to
100% hydrogen (SGT-A35, 35 MW capacity) [9].
Compared to solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), gas turbines today have tremendous poten-
tial for electricity generation. SOFCs are limited in their output power (up to 100 kW) [10].
Furthermore, they have high fuel quality requirements, a shorter service life, and a fuel
cell startup time, which is much longer than that of a GTI [11]. They also have a high cost
per kW of energy produced—$1875 (SOFC with a power of 5 kW) and $1215 (SOFC with a
power of 10 kW), for example [12].
When assessing the carbon footprint of fuel used in power plants, the life cycle chains
of both the fuel itself and the power plants need to be taken into account. The carbon
footprint of the fuel itself (especially fossil and hydrogen fuels) is often substantially larger
than the contribution of the equipment (gas turbines, combined cycle power plants, etc.)
to GHG emissions per unit of energy obtained or unit of work performed. However,
an assessment of the carbon footprint of any installation is necessary to understand each
aspect’s contribution to the total greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to compare alternative
energy installations with each other and with installations that do not use fuels for energy
production (e.g., solar panels and wind turbines).
Due to the fact that many studies have been devoted to the assessment of GHG
emissions from fuel combustion in power plants, this study is instead focused on the life
cycle stages associated with the receipt of materials, the production of components for
gas turbine installations and their recycling and disposal after the component reaches its
end of life.
Energies 2024, 17, 345 3 of 24

In most studies dealing with LCAs of GTIs and which consider GTIs as part of carbon-
capture storage power plants (CCSPPs) [13–19], the equipment is divided into 4–8 materials.
Material processing technologies in the production of equipment components are not taken
into account, and neither is the transportation of materials (parts) and structures or the
maintenance and repair of equipment during the operational stage.
It is quite difficult to assess the carbon footprint of GTIs due to several factors, in-
cluding the use of a large number of materials for production, multi-stage processing
technology, and long-term development of GTI components. A gas turbine installation
is a complex technical device, so it is extremely difficult to carry out an LCA at all life
cycle stages; one must, therefore, introduce limitations and assumptions. Nonetheless, it is
necessary to identify which stages (processes, materials, resources, etc.) should be included
in or omitted from the LCA.
This can be achieved by analyzing the LCA results of other complex technical devices.
Complex technical devices were selected for the LCA as analogs to GTIs. These were
structurally similar installations (turbines), along with fuel-using and “fuel-free” instal-
lations for electricity generation. To date, a number of studies have been published on
LCAs of the following technically complex equipment: wind turbines [13,20–28], electric
vehicles [29,30], buses [13], power plants [31], aircraft [13,32,33], aircraft engines [34], gas
turbines and combined cycle power plants [13–19]. Wind turbines are similar to GTIs,
using turbines and rotors to generate energy. Electric vehicles convert energy via an electric
motor, which is as complex in design as a GTI. Power plants generate energy using fuel
cells and, like GTIs, are examples of fuel-consuming installations (including those using
hydrogen). Aircraft engines have the same design as the land-based gas turbine engines
included in GTIs. Combined cycle power plants were considered due to the fact that they
incorporate gas turbine units.
The study analyzed accepted system boundaries, functional units, and other aspects
of life cycle assessment. The features of the selected stages and resources used in assessing
the life cycle of complex technical devices were evaluated, as was the amount of material
used for production and construction. An analysis of the categories considered was carried
out to assess the environmental impact of complex technical devices, taking into account
the selected calculation methods, software, and information sources.
With the results of the analyses, an approach to assess the life cycle of a gas turbine
installation was established, and an environmental impact analysis was completed based
on the carbon footprint of GTIs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. General Principles of LCA
LCA is a methodological framework for analyzing and evaluating the environmental
impacts associated with a product’s life cycle, including raw material extraction, manufac-
turing, distribution, transportation, and end-of-life disposal. General requirements for life
cycle assessment are contained in ISO 14040-2022 “Environmental management–Life cycle
assessment–Principles and framework” [35]. An LCA study consists of four stages: goal
and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation.
At the inventory analysis stage, the data collected on the quantities of resources
consumed (e.g., metals and electricity) are first converted into elementary flows. At the
impact assessment stage, the elementary flows are converted into environmental impact
indicators. This means that the contribution of individual substances to a particular
impact is taken into account. Further data for the LCA can be taken from primary data
obtained by direct measurement (inventory data of the main processes—quantities of fuels
and materials) or by calculations based on direct measurement and from secondary data
obtained by any means other than primary data (e.g., data on electricity consumed in the
production of a material).
The inventory analysis was carried out using open data published in scientific articles,
books, electronic resources, and the electronic database Ecoinvent 3.8 (Ecoinvent Associa-
 by any means other than primary data (e.g., data on electricity consumed in the produc-
tion of a material).
Energies 2024, 17, 345 The inventory analysis was carried out using open data published in scientific 4arti- of 24
cles, books, electronic resources, and the electronic database Ecoinvent 3.8 (Ecoinvent As-
sociation, Zürich, Switzerland). The LCA was performed using OpenLCA 1.10.3 software
tion,
for Zürich,
the LCA of Switzerland).
products and The LCA was(GreenDelta
materials performed using
GmbH,OpenLCA 1.10.3 software
Berlin, Germany). This for the
study
LCA of products
focused solely on and materials
life cycle GHG(GreenDelta
emissions. GmbH, Berlin, Germany). This study focused
solely on life cycle GHG emissions.
2.2. Functional Unit
2.2. Functional Unit
The functional unit for energy-generating equipment or engines, including those that
The functional unit for energy-generating equipment or engines, including those that
consume fuel, is a unit of energy produced, and in the case of electricity production, heat
consume fuel, is a unit of energy produced, and in the case of electricity production, heat
production (kWh, MW) [13–18,20–28,31] or work performed, this can be a kilometer of car
production (kWh, MW) [13–18,20–28,31] or work performed, this can be a kilometer of car
travel [29,30], or a passenger kilometer (PKM) of air travel, for example [32,33].
travel [29,30], or a passenger kilometer (PKM) of air travel, for example [32,33].
To estimate the carbon footprint of fuel-consuming equipment, the carbon emissions
To estimate the carbon footprint of fuel-consuming equipment, the carbon emissions of
of the fuel are often taken into account. As a functional unit for fuel, mass values are
the fuel are often taken into account.3 As a functional unit for fuel, mass values are used—kg
used—kg CO2-eq./t, kg CO 2-eq./m , or taking the heat of the fuel combustion into ac-
CO2 -eq./t, kg CO2 -eq./m3 , or taking the heat of the fuel combustion into account—kg
count—kg CO2-eq./MJ.
CO2 -eq./MJ.
When assessing the carbon footprint of complex technical devices, the following
When assessing the carbon footprint of complex technical devices, the following functional
functional units are among those used: for wind turbines—CO2-eq./kW [20,25], kg CO2-
units are among those used: for wind turbines—CO2 -eq./kW [20,25], kg CO2 -eq./kW [23],
eq./kW [23], t CO2-eq./MW [24], for power generating plants and combined cycle power
t CO2 -eq./MW [24], for power generating plants and combined cycle power plants—kg CO2 -
plants—kg CO2-eq./kW·h
eq./kW·h [15,16], [15,16],
g CO2 -eq./kW g COkg
·h [17], 2-eq./kW·h [17], kg CO2-eq./GW [14], for cars—g
CO2 -eq./GW [14], for cars—g CO2 -eq./km [29,30].
CO 2-eq./km [29,30]. Based on an analysis of the current scientific literature, g CO2-
Based on an analysis of the current scientific literature, g CO2 -eq./kW·h was taken as the
eq./kW·h
functionalwas
unittaken as the the
for assessing functional unit for of
carbon footprint assessing the carbon
a land-based footprint
gas turbine of a land-
installation used
based gas turbine installation
for electricity generation. used for electricity generation.

2.3.
2.3. Limitations
Limitationsof ofLCA
LCA
The
The definition
definition of of system
system boundaries
boundaries plays
plays an
an important
important role
role in
in the
theLCA
LCAprocess
process since
since
incorrectly
incorrectly chosen
chosen system
systemboundaries
boundariescancansignificantly
significantlyaffect
affectthe
theresults
resultsof ofthe
theassessment.
assessment.
Traditionally,
Traditionally, LCALCAstarts
startswith
withthe
theextraction
extractionofofraw
rawmaterials
materialsand
andends
endswithwith the
the disposal
disposal of
of
thethe components.
components. Within
Within thethe considered
considered system
system boundaries,
boundaries, thethe
mainmain production
production pro-
process
cess cansubdivided
can be be subdivided into into additional
additional processes
processes basedbased onlevel
on the the level of detail.
of detail.
The
The life
life cycles
cyclesof offuels
fuelsand
andfuel-consuming
fuel-consumingequipment
equipmentintersect
intersectat atthe
thestage
stageof
ofequip-
equip-
ment operation
ment operation in in the
the form
form ofof energy
energy received
received oror work
work performed,
performed,which whichtogether
togethercon-
con-
tribute to
tribute to the
the carbon
carbon footprint
footprint (Figure
(Figure 1).
1).

Figure
Figure 1.
1. The
Thelife
lifecycle
cycleof
offuel/energy
fuel/energyand
andfuel-consuming
fuel-consumingdevices.
devices.

In
In the
thecase
caseofof
electricity generation,
electricity generation, for for
example, research
example, [18] has
research [18]shown that 410
has shown g
that
CO
4102-eq./kWh is associated
g CO2 -eq./kWh with thewith
is associated life cycle of the
the life fuelof(natural
cycle the fuelgas), and 1.1
(natural g CO
gas), 2-
and
eq./kWh
1.1 g CO2is-eq./kWh
linked with the life
is linked cycle
with the of
lifethe combustion
cycle plant (gas
of the combustion turbine
plant (gas power
turbineplant).
power
For technically
plant). complexcomplex
For technically equipment, such as such
equipment, windasturbines and solar
wind turbines andpanels,
solar the carbon
panels, the
carbon footprint of the electricity they generate is only determined by the life cycle of the
equipment itself since the energy sources (sun or wind) do not have a carbon footprint.
When assessing the life cycle of a gas turbine installation, the life cycle of the fuel (hydrogen)
is not taken into account.
Energies 2024, 17, 345 5 of 24

When performing an LCA of a technically complex piece of equipment such as a gas

turbine, the following stages must be considered:
- The production stage, which includes the processes of obtaining structural materials,
processing said materials, production of components, assembly and installation, and
production of operating materials and spare parts;
- The stage of producing fuel and electrical energy;
- The operational stage, which includes the use of the device in the field, as well as
maintenance and repair procedures (e.g., replacement of failed components);
- The disposal stage, with processes including decomposition, processing (recycling),
and disposal of materials at the end of their useful life.
Examples of the coverage of individual stages and processes of technically complex
equipment in LCA studies are shown in Table S1 (Please see the Supplementary Materials
for Table S1).
Analyzing the LCA studies of technically complex equipment has made it possible to
identify the parameters to be considered at each stage of the life cycle.
An LCA of wind turbines compared to other technically complex equipment is con-
sidered in more detail. At the production stage of wind turbines, the materials used
are divided according to the main elements produced: nacelles, rotors, blades, or tower
and mooring systems for offshore wind turbines [13,20–24,27]. With regard to material
processing, the following methods are considered: injection molding for composite ma-
terials in the manufacture of rotors, rolling (steel or aluminum), welding, and copper
wire drawing [13]. According to research [25], when a category such as steel is chosen
for the LCA in the SimaPro program, the steel production processes take into account the
extraction and production of raw materials according to the type of steel (low alloy, chrome,
etc.). The foundation, electronics, substation, and electrical cabling were considered as
auxiliary structures [13,22–29]. Other resources included lubricating oil [21–23,27], paints,
varnishes [13,23,25], adhesives, sealants [23,25], and zinc coating [13].
At the installation and assembly stage, researchers considered land acquisition, site and
access road preparation, and fuel consumption of the construction equipment [13,23,25,26].
The structures were transported from the production site to the building site by sea and
road [20–26]. The operation phase of the wind turbines involved the following: repair
of the turbine in case of failure, as well as maintenance, including the replacement of
oils in the gearbox, generator, and cooling system; replacement of the brake system; and
lubrication of mechanical parts [20,22,23,25–27]. Disposal at the end of the life cycle
included recycling up to 81% of recyclable materials (metals—98%, polymers—90%, and
electronics—50%) [23,25,26] and incinerating or disposing of non-recyclable components
(concrete, composites, oils, paints, etc.).
The LCA of electric vehicles considered three main components: the vehicle frame,
the electric axle drive, and the battery system. Other resources used in the production
of an electric vehicle included textiles [30], as well as paints and coatings for the body of
the vehicle [29]. Shipping and freight were used to transport materials and parts to the
manufacturing plant [29]. During the operation phase of electric vehicles, maintenance
was considered, including tire and brake pad replacement. The main stages in the end-of-
life phase were vehicle dismantling, crushing, sorting, waste treatment, and recycling of
materials [30].
When assessing the life cycle of electric motors for electric vehicles [13], rolling (for
steel or aluminum), copper wire drawing, and nickel plating were considered as ma-
terial processing methods during production. Electronics were considered as auxiliary
structures [13].
The LCA studies of passenger aircraft [14,32,33] considered the production of five ma-
terials (excluding engine materials). The processing of these materials was only discussed
in one of the studies [13], and it included the injection molding of composites. In the case
of aircraft production, heat and water supply were among the resources considered [13].
Air and road transport was used to deliver materials, parts, and structures to the manufac-
Energies 2024, 17, 345 6 of 24

turing plant [29]. Due to a lack of data in the Ecoinvent database [13], titanium and nickel
were replaced by copper scrap at the end of the aircraft life cycle since all three metals are
classified as first-row transition metals. At the end of the aircraft’s life, composites (carbon
fiber-reinforced plastics) were represented in the model by a stream of mixed plastic waste.
The LCA of a bus, based on data from the Ecoinvent database [13], considered 13 types
of materials as they underwent various processes: steel rolling, glass tempering, and copper
wire drawing. The production building for bus assembly was considered an auxiliary
structure. Other resources included heat supply, diesel, lubricating oil, acids, and paint
(alkyd). The production and disposal stages of the power plants used to operate the bus
included the components and materials needed for the production of batteries and the
maintenance, repair, and replacement of failed components throughout the life cycle [31].
When assessing the life cycle of gas turbine installations and power plants, 4–8 materials
were taken into account [13,14], as is processing, including sheet steel rolling, steel met-
alworking, welding, injection molding for polymers, and construction work [13]. The
foundation and industrial buildings were used as auxiliary structures [13,14]. Other re-
sources involved in the production of the gas turbine installations were heat supply, water,
organic chemicals, etc. [13,14]. Materials, parts, and structures were transported to the
production site by car [13] and by truck [14]. In one case [14], the main material flows
during the operational phase of a gas turbine power plant (GTPP) were associated with the
operation of the plant itself (fuel combustion) and its maintenance (oil, spare parts, etc.).
Decommissioning of the GTPP included dismantling and waste management (incineration
and disposal) [14].
It was found that most of the existing studies and databases used between 2 and
15 materials to assess the life cycle of technically complex equipment, while only a few
studies took into account the material treatment processes (e.g., metalworking, injection
molding, and welding). The main auxiliary structure for the production of technically
complex equipment was the foundation, while the other main resources were heat supply,
water, and lubricating oil. Electricity consumption in the production process was considered
in almost all studies. The transport of materials, parts, and structures for the production
and installation of technically complex equipment was mainly carried out by freight. Most
studies considered land acquisition for the installation and assembly of the equipment,
while a few studies considered site preparation. During the operation phase of technically
complex equipment, the main consideration was the replacement of oils and consumables
(e.g., spare parts, lubricants, tires, and brake pads). End-of-life waste management for
technically complex equipment was mainly considered in terms of recycling and disposal.
By analyzing research on the LCA of gas turbine installations and combined cycle gas
turbine plants, it was possible to identify the stages and resources that were included in or
omitted from the LCA. In most cases, the LCA of a gas turbine installation considers the
stages from extraction of raw materials to disposal of the installation. It takes into account
the production of structural materials (mainly metals) according to their class (low alloy
steel, stainless steel, etc.), as well as energy consumption and waste management at the
end of operation. The LCA of a gas turbine rarely takes into account the technologies for
processing structural materials (metalworking, casting, rolling, etc.), the construction of the
foundation during assembly and installation, the transport of materials (structures), or the
maintenance. Repairs are also excluded from the LCA of gas turbines. The same is true
for scientific and technical research and development in the production of materials, parts,
components, and more.
Figure 2 shows the life cycle of a gas turbine installation and outlines the LCA bound-
ary used in this study.
 Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 25

Energies 2024, 17, 345 7 of 24

Figure 2 shows the life cycle of a gas turbine installation and outlines the LCA bound-
ary used in this study.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Gas
Gas turbine
turbineinstallation
installationlife
lifecycle
cyclediagram.
diagram.

In assessing
assessingthethelife cycle
life cycleof aofgas turbine
a gas installation,
turbine the authors
installation, considered
the authors the fol- the
considered
lowing processes:
following extraction
processes: of resources,
extraction production
of resources, of structural
production materials (steel,
of structural alumi-
materials (steel,
num, nickel,nickel,
aluminum, and titanium), technologies
and titanium), for processing
technologies the materials,
for processing energy consump-
the materials, energy con-
tion, production
sumption, of the of
production gasthe
turbine unit (GTU),
gas turbine assembly
unit (GTU), and installation
assembly of the GTI,
and installation op-GTI,
of the
eration of GTIs on different types of fuel (natural gas, hydrogen-containing
operation of GTIs on different types of fuel (natural gas, hydrogen-containing fuel, fuel, or hy- or
drogen), and recycling of GTI components. The transportation phases,
hydrogen), and recycling of GTI components. The transportation phases, maintenance, and maintenance, and
repair of
repair of the
the gas
gas turbine
turbineinstallation
installationwere
werenotnotincluded
included in in
thethe
LCA.LCA.
In addition, technically complex equipment is characterized
In addition, technically complex equipment is characterized by abylong period
a long (up (up
period to to
several decades) of research and development (R&D), which is also
several decades) of research and development (R&D), which is also associated with high associated with high
resource consumption
resource consumption and and environmental
environmentalimpact.impact.R&D R&Dcan canlead
leadtotoimproved
improved productiv-
productivity,
ity, which increases profits and creates an advantage in identifying
which increases profits and creates an advantage in identifying competitors. For competitors. For ex-
example,
ample, it took 25 years to develop and invent a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and
it took 25 years to develop and invent a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and 10 years
10 years to develop lithium-ion batteries [36]. In practice, however, this phase of research
to develop lithium-ion batteries [36]. In practice, however, this phase of research and
and development is almost never assessed as part of an LCA. The R&D phase is very im-
development is almost never assessed as part of an LCA. The R&D phase is very important
portant because its implementation requires the use of large amounts of resources (elec-
because its implementation requires the use of large amounts of resources (electricity, water,
tricity, water, and heat), as well as labor, time, and more, with corresponding greenhouse
and heat), as well as labor, time, and more, with corresponding greenhouse gas emissions.
gas emissions. R&D is not considered in this study due to the insufficiency of open data
R&D is not considered in this study due to the insufficiency of open data on production
on production processes in the gas turbine life cycle stages.
processes in the gas turbine life cycle stages.
2.4. Level of Detail in the Material Data
2.4. Level of Detail in the Material Data
Complex technical devices consist of numerous materials (more than 30), including
Complex technical devices consist of numerous materials (more than 30), including
various alloys and composites. For example, about 35 different types of materials were
various alloys and composites. For example, about 35 different types of materials were
used to produce the Vestas V110-2.0 MW wind generator [37], and more than 40 materials
used
were to produce
needed the Vestas
to produce the V110-2.0
Mitsubishi MW windelectric
i-MiEV generator [37],
vehicle and more than 40 materials
[29].
were A needed to produce the Mitsubishi i-MiEV
large number of materials are also used in the productionelectric vehicle [29].
of gas turbine equip-
A large number of materials are also used in the
ment. The production of a GTE (PS-90A) gas turbine engine [38], which production of gasisturbine
used as equipment.
part of
The production of a GTE (PS-90A) gas turbine engine [38],
a land-based gas turbine installation, involves more than 50 different materials which is used asand
partalloys,
of a land-
based gas turbine installation, involves more than 50 different materials
which are selected for use in a GTI component based on specific temperatures and condi- and alloys, which
are
tions for their use. However, because of the large amount of labor and time involved, it is for
selected for use in a GTI component based on specific temperatures and conditions
their
almostuse. However,
impossible to because
assess theoflife
thecycle
largeofamount of labor
a gas turbine and timeoninvolved,
installation the basis itofishow
almost
impossible
much of each material is used. Therefore, as shown above, up to 15 types of materials are of
to assess the life cycle of a gas turbine installation on the basis of how much
each
used material
in practice is to
used. Therefore,
assess as shown
the life cycle above, complex
of technically up to 15 equipment.
types of materials are used in
practice to assess the life cycle of technically complex equipment.
Even when assessing the construction or production life cycle of the same type of
Even when
technically complex assessing
equipmentthe (e.g.,
construction or production
wind turbines), differentlife cycleconsider
studies of the same type of
different
technically
amounts of complex
materials equipment
(see Table S2). (e.g., wind turbines), different studies consider different
amountsWhen ofassessing
materialsthe (see Table S2).
manufacturing phase of wind turbines (whether offshore or on-
shore), 5–15 assessing
When materials are theidentified.
manufacturingThese are mainly
phase of metals (iron, steel,
wind turbines cast iron,offshore
(whether alumi- or
num and copper
onshore), alloys, zinc,
5–15 materials arerare earth metals,
identified. These etc.),
arenon-metallic
mainly metals materials
(iron,such as cast
steel, poly-iron,
mers (e.g., high-density
aluminum polyethylene
and copper alloys, zinc, rareand earth
polypropylene),
metals, etc.),composites
non-metallic(e.g., materials
glass and car-
such as
bon fiber),(e.g.,
polymers concrete, and epoxy
high-density resin [13,20–28].
polyethylene and polypropylene), composites (e.g., glass and
carbon Various
fiber),materials
concrete,are and used
epoxyto make
resinvarious parts of wind turbine components. Steel
[13,20–28].
is used in the manufacture of several components,
Various materials are used to make various parts including
of windthe tower,
turbine nacelle, rotors,
components. Steel is
and foundation [20–24,27,28]. Concrete and steel are important
used in the manufacture of several components, including the tower, nacelle, materials for the founda-
rotors, and
tion and are[20–24,27,28].
foundation used in different typesand
Concrete of turbines dependingmaterials
steel are important on the location, the specific and
for the foundation
are used in different types of turbines depending on the location, the specific requirements
of the manufacturer, or the foundation conditions at each site. Aluminum is used to
produce strong yet lightweight turbine components. Copper is mainly used in generator
stator and rotor coil windings, high-voltage power cable conductors, transformer coils, and
earthing [28]. Zinc is used as a protective coating against corrosion when wind turbines are
Energies 2024, 17, 345 8 of 24

exposed to harsh climatic and mechanical influences [13]. Boron and rare earth elements
(e.g., dysprosium and neodymium) are required for turbine structures that use permanent
magnets [39]. Epoxy resin composites, combined with glass or carbon fiber, account for
8–12% of the weight of a turbine and 2–6% of the weight of the equipment. Polymers are
another key material used in turbines, generally making up 20% [40].
The breakdown of an electric vehicle requires the use of 14 materials, including metals,
polymers, textiles, and rubber. By weight, the main material used in the airframe of an
electric vehicle is steel, while the main materials used in the body and the lithium-ion
battery are nickel, cobalt, and manganese [30]. Lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles
use a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte conductor. The cathode consists mainly of
nickel (73%), cobalt (14%), lithium (11%), and aluminum (2%). The anode is usually
made entirely of graphite. The electrolyte conductor consists of lithium salts (lithium
hexafluorophosphate and LiPF6) in an organic solvent [41].
When assessing aircraft production, approximately five materials are used [13,32,33],
generally including steel, aluminum, titanium, nickel, and composites. A list of materials
used in long-haul aircraft (>4000 km), as determined by the year of manufacture, is given in
the study [42]. The approximate material content for passenger aircraft is 60% aluminum,
25% composites, and 12% steel, with the remainder made up of nickel and titanium.
When assessing the production stage of electric motors, electric power plants, and
aircraft engines, 5–10 materials are used, consisting mainly of metals (iron, steel, cast iron,
aluminum and copper alloys, nickel, titanium, etc.), composites (e.g., fiberglass), polymers,
graphite and lithium titanate (LTO).
In modern aircraft engines, such as those manufactured by General Electric, the main
materials are nickel alloys (46%), titanium alloys (25%), steel (16%), aluminum alloys (8%),
and composites (4%). Titanium and composite materials make it possible to reduce the
weight of engines, which leads to increased fuel efficiency [34].
There is currently little data on consumables used in the manufacture of gas turbines,
combined cycle power plants, and power stations. When assessing the production stage of
these types of technically complex equipment, 2–15 materials are used, including metals
(iron, steel, aluminum and copper alloys, nickel, zinc, cobalt, chromium, etc.), non-metallic
materials, such as polymers (e.g., HDPE), and concrete.
According to the Ecoinvent database, 5–8 materials (steel, copper, and aluminum
alloys, concrete, polypropylene, etc.) are generally taken into account when evaluating the
production of gas turbine units [13]. To assess the life cycle of a combined cycle power plant,
only steel and cement are considered [17] since they are the main consumables during
the construction phase and the main factors in the budget. In order to carry out the LCA
of a mini thermal power plant with gas piston engines, the following components and
their materials are considered for research purposes [19]: an engine (steel, cast iron, and
aluminum), a generator (steel and copper) and a tank (steel).
An analysis of the studies conducted to assess the production and construction phases
of technically complex equipment showed that 2–15 different materials were taken into
account. These consisted mainly of metals and their alloys and non-metallic materials,
including polymers, composites, and concrete (in the case of wind turbines). Therefore,
technically complex equipment can be analyzed in terms of which materials generate the
most greenhouse gas emissions during the production process. On average, 4–5 materials
are identified when assessing the production phase of a gas turbine unit; usually, these are
metals, such as steel, aluminum, titanium, and nickel.

2.5. Environmental Impact Assessment Categories

The LCA of technically complex equipment was carried out in various studies accord-
ing to a range of environmental impact categories (see Table S3).
Based on the reviewed studies related to this topic, the number of categories assessed
varied from 2 to 18, and it generally included global warming potential, greenhouse gas
emissions, total energy demand, ozone depletion, ecotoxicity, depletion of fossil resources,
Energies 2024, 17, 345 9 of 24

and eutrophication. The software products SimaPro [14,22–25,30,32,33] and OpenLCA [15,16]
were most often used to calculate the environmental impact of technically complex equipment,
whereas the authors’ approaches based on the well-known methods (ReCiPe 2008 [22] and Eco-
Indicator 99 [33]) were very rarely used for calculations. Data from equipment manufacturers
and databases (mainly Ecoinvent) were also used as sources of information for the calculations;
only a handful of studies used the results of the authors’ own research [15,16,32].
Calculations of the environmental impact of wind turbines [20,22–26] were carried
out using SimaPro software (different versions), with information from the Ecoinvent
database as well as data from wind turbine manufacturers and from publications by other
researchers. The main categories assessed were global warming potential, total energy
demand, and ozone depletion.
To assess the environmental impact of electric vehicles [29,30], the main category
considered was global warming potential, with supporting information from manufacturers
and various databases (Ecoinvent 3.6, BRUSA, 2019; European Energy Agency, 2016).
The environmental impact assessment of power plants [31] considered two impact
categories: CO2 emissions and energy costs. The developed methodology was used for
the calculations, and information was also taken from the Ecoinvent v.3, GREET, and
ELPICA databases.
The environmental impact of an aircraft [32,33] was assessed based on several cat-
egories, including global warming potential, greenhouse gas emissions, fuel consump-
tion, and minerals. The Eco-Indicator 99 method, as well as versions 7.1.8 and 8 of the
software program SimaPro, were used for the assessment [33], with further informa-
tion drawn from manufacturers’ data, scientific publications, and the Ecoinvent v.2 and
Ecoinvent 3.1 databases.
The number of categories used ranged from 2 to 11 when it came to assessing the
impact of gas turbines and combined cycle units [14–19], with greenhouse gas emissions
being the most commonly selected category. Applicable software included OpenLCA
versions 1.9–1.11 and SimaPro 5.1. Sources of information included the Ecoinvent database,
manufacturers’ data, the authors’ own research, and other scientific publications.
To assess the environmental impact of gas turbines, GHG emissions were chosen as
the main category because they have the greatest impact at all stages of the life cycle, and
they depend on numerous factors, including the source of electricity, the type of production
resources, and their consumption.

2.6. The GTI Considered

The subject of the study is the GTU-16P, which was created based on a gas generator
from the PS-90A high-power aircraft engine and the GTU-12P gas turbine unit, which were
both developed by Aviadvigatel JSC, Perm, Russia [43].
The GTU-16P has been produced in series by UEC-Perm Motors JSC (Perm, Russia)
since 1999 and is used as a part of the Ural series gas pumping units during the recon-
struction of existing gas pumping units and as a drive for the AC electric generators of the
GTPP-16PA gas turbine power plants. Since 2021, all new GTU-16Ps have been equipped
with a single-module low-emission combustion chamber (LECC), which reduces emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) [44].
Among the industrial energy companies that use the GTU-16P are PJSC Gazprom,
OJSC NK Rosneft, PJSC T Plus (Russia), and the Botas Petroleum Pipeline Corporation
(Turkey) [45]. As of 1 June 2023, a total of 404 gas turbine installations with a capacity of
16 MW are in operation at industrial sites, and their overall operating time has reached
13 million hours. The GTU-16P primarily uses natural gas as fuel. A gas turbine installa-
tion can be fueled by a mixture of natural gas and hydrogen-containing fuel (up to 20%
hydrogen) without any need to change the design of the combustion chamber [46]. In
order to operate a gas turbine power plant in the future using hydrogen fuel, it is necessary
to make a number of technological improvements, such as modernizing the combustion
chamber, changing the size of the fuel line, changing the fuel line system by replacing
 Energies 2024, 17, 345 10 of 24

flanged connections with welded ones, installing safety sensors and leak detectors, and
modernizing the gas turbine control system [47,48]. Possible types of fuel for use in gas
turbine units (natural gas, hydrogen-containing fuel, and hydrogen) must be taken into
account when assessing the carbon footprint of the operation phase.
The GTU-16P gas turbine unit is located in the power block of the turbo container. It is
a complex setup, which is comprised of the following components:
- PS-90GP-2 gas turbine engine on a sub-engine frame (Figure 3), consisting of a gas
generator (compressor, combustion chamber, and high-pressure turbine) and a power
turbine [43]. It also features:
- a transmission with casings;
- an input device;
- noise-heat-insulating casing;
- an output device;
- a fuel unit cabinet;
- pipeline and electrical communications.
The main technical characteristics of the GTU-16P are presented in Table 1 [49].

Table 1. Main technical characteristics of a GTU-16P gas turbine installation.

Options Designation Value

Power turbine shaft power (performance) MW 16.0
Efficiency of the power turbine shaft % 35.2
Total efficiency % 84.7
Gas temperature in front of the gas generator turbine ◦C 1196
Exhaust gas consumption kg/s 54.7
Gas temperature behind the gas generator turbine ◦C 805
Temperature of gases behind the power turbine ◦C 540
Fuel consumption kg/h 3350
Overall dimensions (L × W × H) mm 8250 × 3200 × 3200
Weight (dry) kg 5150
Full installation resources thous. h 100
Gas generator life before major overhaul thous. h 25
Power turbine service life before major overhaul thous. h 50

The components considered when assessing the life cycle of a gas turbine installation
rgies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW are a gas turbine engine (GTE); a gas turbine unit (GTU), including a GTE with a sub-engine 11 of
frame; and a gas turbine installation (GTI), including GTUs with foundations, gas turbine
power plant (GTPP) consists of GTI and auxiliary equipment (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Elements
Figure of of
3. Elements thethegas
gasturbine LCA.
turbine LCA.

3. Results
Carbon Footprint Assessment of the GTI
In accordance with the methodology described above, an assessment was made
determine the carbon footprint of the GTI during its production and use in Russia. T
boundaries of the system were defined by the production of structural materials (e.g., m
Energies 2024, 17, 345 11 of 24

3. Results
Carbon Footprint Assessment of the GTI
In accordance with the methodology described above, an assessment was made to
determine the carbon footprint of the GTI during its production and use in Russia. The
boundaries of the system were defined by the production of structural materials (e.g.,
material processing, production of the gas turbine unit, production and installation of
the foundations for the gas turbine unit, and disposal at the GTU’s end of the life). GTI
operation, transportation of materials, and the use of other resources (e.g., raw materials)
were not considered because these stages were not included in the objectives of the study.
The life cycle inventory of the GTU included the collection of both quantitative and
qualitative data on the main flows of structural materials. In determining the material
consumption for the GTU-16P, based on the PS-90GP-2 aircraft engine, the material content
of the CF6 aircraft engine (General Electric, Boston, MA, USA) was used as an analog [50].
The sub-engine frame and other elements of the gas turbine unit were assumed to be made
of structural steel. The materials used to make the GTU-16P and the manufacturing pro-
cesses for these materials are shown in Table 2. The main materials used in the production
of GTUs are steel (51%)—structural and stainless steel—and nickel alloys, which make up
a relatively high percentage (about 30%) and are used in the combustor as well as in the
turbines (Figure 4).

Table 2. Inventory analysis of gas turbine unit production.

Name Value per 1 GTU Calculation or Reference

Production of construction materials
Structural alloy steel, kg 2150
Stainless steel (chromium), kg 480
Titanium alloys, kg 750 Calculations based on [13,50]
Nickel alloys, kg 1530
Aluminum alloys, kg 240
Material processing
Structural steel casting, kg * 2150
Metalworking, average for the production of structural steel products 2150
Rolled stainless steel, kg 480
Metalworking, medium for the production of steel products ** 480 Calculations based on [43]
Metalworking, average for the production of titanium alloy products ** 750
Metalworking, average for the production of products from nickel alloys ** 1530
Aluminum casting, kg * 240
* Includes mold making, alloy melting, casting, dewaxing, cutting, grinding, straightening, machining.
** Metalworking technology for titanium and nickel alloys is adopted for steel (chromium) due to the similar
product production technologies and melting temperatures.

At the production and installation stages of the foundation for a gas turbine unit,
researchers considered the costs of materials, land acquisition (including the transfer of
land to another category), and site preparation, taking into account the energy resources
needed for implementation, such as electricity, heat supply, and fuel for the construction
equipment (Table 3). The data for the inventory analysis during the production and
installation stages for the foundation were taken from information about a similar case (a
10 MW gas turbine unit) available in the Ecoinvent 3.8 database [13].
The gas turbine installation operation stage is associated with the production and use
of fuel in the GTI (Table 4). Three fuel options were considered: natural gas, hydrogen-
containing fuel (a natural gas and hydrogen mixture), and hydrogen. Fuel production is
associated with the extraction of raw materials and the consumption of resources (e.g.,
electricity, water, and fuel). The carbon footprint of natural gas consumption was assessed
based on fuel consumption per MW of energy produced in the GTI [49] and on the carbon
footprint of natural gas production [13]. The carbon footprint of natural gas combustion
 Energies 2024, 17, 345 12 of 24

in GTUs was calculated based on the composition and consumption of fuel per MWh [51]
of energy produced [50]. The carbon footprint of hydrogen consumption was calculated
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25
based on the hydrogen consumption per MWh of energy produced [52] and on the carbon
footprint of hydrogen produced by water electrolysis technology with renewable energy
sources [53]. Hydrogen-containing fuel is a mixture of 80% methane and 20% hydrogen.
Thus,
Aluminum casting, thekgdata
* needed to calculate the carbon 240 footprint of hydrogen-containing fuel was
used relative
* Includes to dataalloy
mold making, on melting,
natural casting,
gas anddewaxing,
hydrogen production.
cutting, grinding,Data for the inventory
straightening, machin-
analysis
ing. of fuel production
** Metalworking were
technology for takenand
titanium from the alloys
nickel Ecoinvent 3.8 database.
is adopted Information
for steel (chromium) dueon
to fuel consumption
the similar for these calculations
product production technologieswas
and taken
meltingfrom Table 1.
temperatures.

Figure
Figure 4. Distribution
4. Distribution of of materials
materials used
used in in
thethe production
production of of
gasgas turbine
turbine units
units (%(%
byby weight).
weight).
Table 3. Inventory analysis during the production and installation of foundations for gas turbine
At the production and installation stages of the foundation for a gas turbine unit,
units.
researchers considered the costs of materials, land acquisition (including the transfer of
land to another category),Name
and site preparation, taking into account
Valuethe
perenergy resources
1 GTU [13]
needed for implementation, such
Concrete, m 3as electricity, heat supply, and fuel for the
50.0 construction
equipment (Table 3). The data
Copper for thekginventory analysis during the production
(cathode), 5000 and instal-
lation stages for the foundation
Low-pressure were taken
polyethylene, kg from information about a15,000 similar case (a 10
MW gas turbine unit)Reinforcing
availablesteel, kg Ecoinvent 3.8 database [13].
in the 47,500
Diesel fuel (for operation of construction equipment), MJ 759,000
Electricity, kW 46,900for gas turbine
Table 3. Inventory analysis during the production and installation of foundations
units. Heat supply, MJ 721,050
Land allocation (industrial zone), m2 /year 15,000
2
Conversion
Name of land of undetermined purpose, m Value per 1000
1 GTU [13]
Transfer of land to an industrial zone, m2 1000
Concrete, m 3 50.0
Copper (cathode), kg 5000
Table 4. Inventory analysis
Low-pressure polyethylene, kg during the operation stage of a gas turbine installation.
15,000
Reinforcing steel, kg 47,500
Name Value per 1 GTI per MWh Calculation or References
Diesel fuel (for operation of construction equipment), MJ 759,000
In the case of natural gas combustion
Electricity, kW 46,900
Natural gas consumption, kg CO Heat
2-eq. supply, MJ 60.6 [13,49]
721,050
Calculation based on natural gas
Land
CO2-eq. from natural allocation (industrial
gas combustion, kg zone), m /year
2 543.4 15,000
composition [49,51]
Conversion of land of undetermined purpose, m2 1000
In the case of hydrogen combustion
Transfer of land to an industrial zone, m2 1000
Hydrogen consumption, kg CO2-eq. 197.7 [52,53]
CO2-eq. from hydrogen combustion, kg 0 -
The gas turbine installation operation stage is associated with the production and use
of fuel in the GTI (Table 4). Three fuel options were considered: natural gas, hydrogen-
containing
The fuel
waste(a management
natural gas and hydrogen
phase mixture),
at the end of theand
life hydrogen. Fuel production
of a GTI involves is
dismantling,
associated with
sorting, and the extraction
recycling of raw materials
the construction materialsand the5).
(Table consumption of resources
Approximately (e.g.,
80% of materials
electricity, water, and fuel). The carbon footprint of natural gas consumption was assessed
based on fuel consumption per MW of energy produced in the GTI [49] and on the carbon
footprint of natural gas production [13]. The carbon footprint of natural gas combustion
in GTUs was calculated based on the composition and consumption of fuel per MWh [51]
of energy produced [50]. The carbon footprint of hydrogen consumption was calculated
Energies 2024, 17, 345 13 of 24

used in the manufacture of gas turbine units can be recycled in accordance with the
manufacturers’ recommendations. The calculations are based on data confirming that the
materials generated at the end of a gas turbine unit’s service life are indeed waste.

Table 5. Inventory list for end-of-life management of a gas turbine installation.

Name Value per 1 GTI Calculation or References

End-of-life gas turbine unit
Steel waste (steel scrap), kg 2630
Titanium waste (titanium scrap), kg * 750
Calculation based on [13,50]
Nickel waste (nickel scrap), kg * 1530
Aluminum waste (aluminum scrap), kg 240
End-of-life foundation
Reinforced concrete waste, kg 167,500
Copper waste (copper scrap), kg 5000 [13]
Low-pressure polyethylene waste, kg 15,000
* Due to the lack of information in the database for the carbon footprint of titanium and nickel at the end of
the life of a gas turbine unit, data for copper scraps were used since all three metals are considered first-row
transition metals.

The results obtained present the carbon footprint of the GTI life cycle stages (without
taking the operation stage into account) and the carbon footprint of operating a GTI using
various types of fuel.
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25
Figure 5 shows the carbon footprint of the life cycle stages of a gas turbine installation
(excluding the operation stage).

Figure
Figure5.5.The
Thecarbon
carbonfootprint
footprintofofthe
thelife
lifecycle
cyclestages
stagesofofaagas
gasturbine
turbineinstallation
installation(excluding
(excludingthe
the
operation
operationstage).
stage).

Basedon
Based onthe
thedata
dataobtained
obtainedregarding
regardingthe thecarbon
carbonfootprint
footprint(per
(perMWh
MWhofofelectricity
electricity
produced)of
produced) ofthe
theGTI
GTIlife
lifecycle
cyclestages
stages(excluding
(excludingthetheoperation
operationstage),
stage),ititwas
wasdetermined
determined
thatthe
that themain
maincontribution
contribution came
came fromfrom manufacturing
manufacturing andand installing
installing the foundation
the foundation for
for the
the gas turbine unit. This number includes the carbon footprint of materials
gas turbine unit. This number includes the carbon footprint of materials production (0.110 production
(0.110
kg CO2kg CO2 -eq./MWh)
-eq./MWh) and thatand that of energy
of energy resource
resource consumption
consumption (0.080(0.080
kg CO kg CO2 -eq./MWh).
2-eq./MWh). The
The carbon
carbon footprint
footprint of the
of the overall
overall construction
construction of of
thethe GTIwas
GTI was0.108
0.108kg
kgCOCO22-eq/MWh,
-eq/MWh,withwith
the majority
the majority ofofemissions
emissions coming
coming from the processing
from of materials
the processing (0.066 kg(0.066
of materials CO2 -eq/MWh).
kg CO2-
eq/MWh). Recycling the gas turbine unit and the foundation for the GTI left the smallest
carbon footprint—0.008 kg CO2-eq/MWh. The largest carbon footprint among the pro-
cesses, resources, and other work considered was 0.153 kg CO2-eq/MWh from the produc-
tion of materials, which represented half of the total emissions from the GTI life cycle
stages (excluding the operation stage).
 Energies 2024, 17, 345 14 of 24

Recycling the gas turbine unit and the foundation for the GTI left the smallest carbon
footprint—0.008 kg CO2 -eq/MWh. The largest carbon footprint among the processes, re-
sources, and other work considered was 0.153 kg CO2 -eq/MWh from the production of
materials, which represented half of the total emissions from the GTI life cycle stages (exclud-
ing the operation stage).
For comparison, the carbon footprint of the 10 MW GTI [13] was 0.374 kg CO2 -eq/MWh,
and it included the production of the gas turbine unit (only steel was considered) as well as
the production of the GTU foundation, but it excluded the processing of materials during the
production and disposal stages of the GTI.
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 25
Figure 6 shows the carbon footprint from operating a gas turbine installation using
various types of fuel.

Figure 6. Carbon
Figure footprint
6. Carbon from
footprint operating
from a gas
operating turbine
a gas installation
turbine using
installation various
using types
various of of
types fuel.
fuel.

Based
Based on on
thethe
datadata obtained
obtained regarding
regarding the carbon
the carbon footprint
footprint (per MW (perofMW of electricity
electricity pro-
produced)
duced) at the at the operation
operation stage of stage
a gas ofturbine
a gas turbine installation,
installation, it was determined
it was determined that thethat larg-the
estlargest
carboncarbon footprint
footprint was leftwas left production
by the by the production
and use and use ofgas
of natural natural
in thegas
GTIin(608 thekgGTI
(608 kg
CO2-eq./MWh). CO -eq./MWh). When using hydrogen-containing fuel
2 When using hydrogen-containing fuel (with 20% H2 and 80% natural (with 20% H 2 and 80%
gas)
in natural gas)consumption
a GTI, fuel in a GTI, fuel and
consumption and CO
CO2 emissions are2 emissions
reduced byare 20%reduced by 20%
compared compared
to those of
to those
natural gasofduring
natural gas during The
combustion. combustion. The largest
largest carbon carbon
footprint footprint
in fuel in fuelwas
production production
found
to was
be forfound to be obtained
hydrogen for hydrogen obtained
through waterthrough water
electrolysis (198electrolysis
CO2-eq./MWh);(198 CO 2 -eq./MWh);
however, the
however, the use of hydrogen in a gas turbine installation does not
use of hydrogen in a gas turbine installation does not generate CO2 emissions. Hydrogen generate CO 2 emissions.
Hydrogen
content in thecontent in the fuel
fuel mixture can mixture
be up tocan 20%be in
up atoGTI
20%without
in a GTIrequiring
without requiring
any design any
changes. Thus, to increase the percentage of hydrogen in the fuel mixture to more than to
design changes. Thus, to increase the percentage of hydrogen in the fuel mixture
more
20%, it isthan 20%, ittoisfirst
necessary necessary
complete to first
a setcomplete a set of modifications
of modifications in order to alter inthe
order to alter the
combustion
combustion chamber and partially replace several
chamber and partially replace several materials used in GTIs. materials used in GTIs.
Based on the results obtained from the carbon footprint analysis of the GTI life cycle
Based on the results obtained from the carbon footprint analysis of the GTI life cycle
stages, it was determined that the largest carbon footprint per MWh of energy produced
stages, it was determined that the largest carbon footprint per MWh of energy produced
(more than 99% of the total carbon footprint) came from the operation stage of the GTI.
(more than 99% of the total carbon footprint) came from the operation stage of the GTI.
Hence, to reduce the carbon footprint, it is important to know the amount of CO2 emissions
Hence, to reduce the carbon footprint, it is important to know the amount of CO 2 emis-
generated during the production and use of fuel in a GTI. Moreover, determining the
sions generated during the production and use of fuel in a GTI. Moreover, determining
carbon footprint of the production and disposal stages of a GTI is crucial for comparing
the carbon footprint of the production and disposal stages of a GTI is crucial for compar-
alternative energy installations with each other and with installations that do not use fuel
ing alternative energy installations with each other and with installations that do not use
for energy production (e.g., wind turbines).
fuel for energy production (e.g., wind turbines).
The carbon footprint of a gas turbine installation is highly dependent on that of the
individual materials. The carbon footprint of producing basic metals depends on numer-
ous factors, including the technology and production method (e.g., blast furnace or elec-
tric arc furnace for steel), the raw materials (virgin or recycled), the electricity source (ther-
mal, nuclear, renewable, etc.), and the alloy type. Table 6 shows the total emissions of the
main metals used to produce technically complex equipment. The carbon footprint values
Energies 2024, 17, 345 15 of 24

The carbon footprint of a gas turbine installation is highly dependent on that of the
individual materials. The carbon footprint of producing basic metals depends on numerous
factors, including the technology and production method (e.g., blast furnace or electric
arc furnace for steel), the raw materials (virgin or recycled), the electricity source (thermal,
nuclear, renewable, etc.), and the alloy type. Table 6 shows the total emissions of the main
metals used to produce technically complex equipment. The carbon footprint values of the
metals used for the calculations (taken from the Ecoinvent 3.8 database) are between the
minimum and maximum values shown in Table 6.

Table 6. The carbon footprint of producing basic metals.

Carbon Footprint, t CO2 -eq./t Metal

Metal Average Value Using
(Alloy) Accepted Based on Production Method/Type Based on Energy
Values Source Recycled
Global Russia Materials
1.9 (coal) [59]
2.32 (BF-BOF) 1.4 (renewable
1.89 energy sources and
(structural steel) 1.4–1.85 0.67 (EAF)
Steel 1.4 [55] 1.65 (DRI-EAF) [56]/ natural gas) [59,60] 0.4 [59]
5.07 [54,55]
(stainless steel) 6.15 (stainless steel) [57] 0.76 (renewable
1.8–5.5 (stainless steel) [58] energy sources and
hydrogen) [59,60]
16.5 (coal)
12.5 4.28 (alumina electrolysis) [64] 7.5 (natural gas)
Aluminum 5.51 [61,62] 4.0 [63] 0.6 [62]
0.01 (inert anode technology) [61] 2.4 (hydroelectric
power station) [61]
16.9 (titanium 6–4 alloy) [66] 3.2 (titanium
Titanium 46.06 18.5 6–4 alloy) [66]
[57,65] no data 35.6 (Kroll process) [67] no data
55.0 (6Al-4V alloy) [68] 7.8 [69]
7.2 (class 1 16.0 (coal)
sulphide ore) [73] 14.0 (grid mix)
16.67 13.0 27.5 (class 1 laterite ore) [74] 7.0 (hydroelectric 1.6 (Inconel 718
Nickel [70,71] 8.1 [72] alloy) [66]
45.0 (class 2 power station)
laterite ore) [75]
8.5 (Inconel 718 alloy) [66] 6.0 (natural gas) [76]

BF-BOF—Blast furnace and basic oxygen furnaces. EAF—electric arc furnace. DRI-EAF—production in an electric
arc furnace based on direct reduced iron (DRI).

The global contribution of the metallurgical sector to overall greenhouse gas emissions
is about 9% [77].
Steel is one of the main metals used to produce a land-based GTI. According to the
International Energy Agency (IEA), the carbon footprint of steel is 1.4 tons of CO2 -eq./t,
whereas according to the World Steel Association (WSA), it is 1.85 tons of CO2 -eq./t [54,55].
The intensity of CO2 emissions from steel production is influenced by the given country’s
industrial structure, technology, fuel choice, emissions factor, steel plant capacity utilization,
and materials (e.g., the availability of steel scrap) [77]. Each ton of scrap used to make
steel eliminates 1.5 tons of potential CO2 emissions and allows the world to forgo the
consumption of 1.4 tons of iron ore, 740 kg of coal, and 120 kg of limestone [78]. When steel
is produced from recycled materials, the CO2 emissions are 0.4 CO2 -eq./t [56].
To produce steel, there are two main technological chains: blast furnace (BF) steel-
making, which is based on the process of reducing iron ore in a blast furnace (BF),
followed by the combustion of carbon from pig iron in a basic oxygen furnace (BOF);
and electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking, in which steel is remelted, either with scrap
or with direct reduced iron (DRI). According to the WSA, BF-BOF uses 13.8% scrap
with emissions of 2.32 t CO2 -eq./t, while EAF uses 105% of steel scrap with emissions
of 0.67 t CO2 -eq./t. [56]. China is the world’s largest steel producer, with a higher amount
of CO2 emissions per ton of steel compared to other countries. This is because almost all
steel in China is produced in blast furnaces. Steel production in Europe is less polluting
because 40% of it is produced in electric arc furnaces [79].
Energies 2024, 17, 345 16 of 24

CO2 emissions are influenced by the source of electricity, and this is the case for
steel produced using electricity. According to the updated IEA report “Net Zero by 2050:
A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector”, the share of energy from renewable sources
(e.g., solar, wind, and hydro power engineering) is expected to increase from its current
level of about 10% to reach over 60% by 2030. The share of fossil fuels will hopefully be
reduced from 80% to about 20% [80]. As of now, coal still provides about 75% of the steel
sector’s energy and raw material needs, which is comparable to its share in the last decade.
Another aim, according to the Net Zero Emissions (NZE) Scenario, is to reduce the share of
emissions-intensive blast furnaces used in steel production by approximately 10% by 2030
through the phase-out of existing plants [54].
The aluminum industry is responsible for more than 1% of global anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions [81]. Over the past decade, the overall global direct emissions
intensity of aluminum production has declined moderately (by an average of 2% per year).
However, the NZE Scenario anticipates that this decline will accelerate significantly to reach
4% per year by 2030 thanks to reductions in alumina refining and decreases in primary
and secondary aluminum production [81]. According to the International Aluminum
Institute (IAI), the global average carbon footprint of primary aluminum production is
12.5 t CO2 -eq./t, whereas it is only 0.6 t CO2 -eq./t when using recycled materials. [59].
The energy cost of aluminum remelting is only 5% of the total energy costs of primary
aluminum production [82].
Currently, almost all primary aluminum smelting processes use carbon anodes, which
release CO2 during the electrolysis process. The use of inert anodes and increased scrap pro-
duction could help replace existing emissions-intensive industries. By 2030, inert anodes are
expected to be used in about 7% of primary aluminum production [81]. A division of TÜV
AUSTRIA Standards & Compliance conducted an independent verification of greenhouse
gas emissions in the aluminum production process at RUSAL’s Krasnoyarsk aluminum
plant in Russia and confirmed that aluminum produced using inert anode technology and
hydroelectric power has specific emissions measured at 0.01 t CO2 -eq./t [83].
Non-renewable energy sources (e.g., coal and natural gas) are used to produce 68% of
the world’s primary aluminum [84]. Since 2010, the share of coal in the aluminum industry
has increased, and the share of hydropower has also decreased, mainly due to the growing
significance of aluminum in China, where more than 80% of production is coal-fired. In
Europe, North America, and South America, more than 80% of aluminum production is
hydroelectric. By 2030, the emissions intensity of the entire power generation infrastructure
will hopefully be reduced by around 60% compared to today’s levels through the use of
renewable energy sources. China has announced that, as part of its plan to synergize efforts
toward mitigating pollution and reducing carbon emissions, the production of recycled
aluminum will reach 11.5 million tons by 2025 and that the share of renewable energy
sources used in the aluminum industry will increase by more than 30% by 2030 [81].
The carbon footprint of titanium production ranges from 1.0 to 36.0 t CO2 -eq. depend-
ing on several factors, such as primary raw materials, production technology, and electricity
sources [57,65]. Up to 2.8 t CO2 -eq. per ton can be saved by using natural rutile rather than
upgrading ilmenite via smelting and chemical processes to produce high-quality titanium
raw materials, such as titanium dioxide slag and synthetic rutile [69].
An LCA conducted by EarthShift Global found that recycled titanium powders pro-
duced by IperionX using its proprietary technology at the company’s demonstration plant
(Virginia, USA) could potentially have a carbon footprint of only 7.8 t CO2 -eq./t [69]. That
would be more than 90% lower than traditional titanium powders produced by plasma at-
omization and 80% lower than powders with a titanium ingot obtained by the Kroll process
(35.58 t CO2 -eq./t) [67]. However, using only recycled titanium alloys for the manufacture
of new parts for GTI components is not possible due to a decrease in the metal’s strength
properties and its corresponding inability to withstand certain temperatures.
According to data from the Nickel Institute, the global average carbon footprint of class
1 nickel is 13.0 t CO2 -eq./t of the finished product [70,71]. China is responsible for about 31%
Energies 2024, 17, 345 17 of 24

of global nickel production [70], with coal serving as its main energy source. According to
research [76], nickel produced using mixed energy sources (grid mix) emits 14.0 t CO2 -eq./t,
hydropower emits 7.0 t CO2 -eq./t, and natural gas energy emits 6.0 t CO2 -eq./t. The main
producer of nickel in Russia is Norilsk Nickel, which has one of the highest shares of
renewable energy use (hydropower plant) at 47% in 2021 [72].
Nickel and its alloys, including corrosion-resistant and high-temperature alloys (which
are used in the combustion chamber, the high-pressure turbine, and the power turbine
of a GTI), are almost 100% recyclable and can be recycled indefinitely without losing any
of their quality. Nickel keeps most of its original value, with high-grade scrap typically
retaining at least 95% of the primary metal value. Recycling nickel requires only about
20% of the energy required to extract and process the primary form of the metal [82]. For
example, the estimated carbon footprint of 1 ton of the primary nickel alloy Inconel 718 is
8.507 t CO2 -eq./t, whereas the greenhouse gas emissions reduction observed with recycled
Inconel 718 nickel alloy is 6.940 t CO2 -eq. /t [66].
Thus, the carbon footprint of individual materials used in the production of a GTI
can affect its final carbon footprint. The total carbon emission values of metal production
are also influenced by country-specific fuel conversions, CO2 emission factors from the
country’s electrical grid, and reasons related to auxiliary materials. Depending on the
source of electricity production, the carbon footprint of producing 1 kWh of electricity
may differ. Here are some examples: coal—820 g CO2 -eq., natural gas—490 g CO2 -eq.,
biomass—230 g CO2 -eq., solar energy—41–48 g CO2 -eq., hydropower—24.0 g CO2 -eq.,
nuclear energy—12.0 g CO2 -eq., wind energy (offshore)—12.0 g CO2 -eq., wind energy
(onshore)—11.0 g CO2 -eq. [85].
When assessing the life cycle of technically complex equipment, the amount and type
of primary energy consumed in the production of electrical energy is of great importance.
The extent of energy generation capacities in different countries and in different regions
within the same country can vary significantly and depends on several factors, including
climatic and geographical conditions, the availability of hydrocarbon fuels and natural
resources, and the level of technological development [31].
Currently, it is difficult to assess the carbon footprint of electricity generation in Russia
due to a lack of uniform and widely accepted regional coefficients for electricity generation.
When calculating emissions factors for the energy system, emissions of all types of energy
production (thermal, nuclear, hydroelectric, renewable, etc.) are averaged and “evenly
distributed” among all consumers. Specifics of electricity production are not taken into
account, and no adjustment is made for the import or export of electricity within the
boundaries of a given territory (region).
It is clear that the carbon footprint of the electricity used to produce materials has
a large impact, which in turn affects the carbon footprint of the GTI itself. The use of
renewable electricity to produce metals (e.g., green steel) will lead to a much lower carbon
footprint than there is today, given the use of fossil fuel energy.

4. Discussion
In order to compare the results obtained in assessing the carbon footprint of a gas
turbine installation when excluding fuel consumption versus when including fuel con-
sumption, it was necessary to use research results for other technically complex electricity-
generating plants–in this case, a wind turbine, a fuel cell and a gas turbine installation
(see Table 7).
Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions over the life cycle of wind energy systems
allowed the authors to determine the carbon footprint values, which ranged from 3.0
to 45 kg CO2 -eq./MWh–the average value was 11.0 kg CO2 -eq./MWh [23,25,86–91]. The
main carbon footprint (87.2%) came from the stage of producing materials and components
for the wind turbine [20].
Energies 2024, 17, 345 18 of 24

Table 7. The carbon footprint of technically complex electricity-generating plants.

Carbon Footprint Carbon Footprint

Object (without Fuel Combustion) (Fuel Combustion Included)
(kg CO2 -eq./MWh) (kg CO2 -eq./MWh)
Wind turbine 3.0–45.0 [23,25,86–91] -
176–372 * [93]
Fuel cell 30 [92]
410–530 [94]
47.0–54.3 ** [17]
353–575 (natural gas) [95]
0.374 [13]
Gas turbine installation 402–500 (natural gas) [18]
0.98–4.72 [17]
481–757 (light fuel oil)
629 (heavy fuel oil) [95]
198 (hydrogen)
Gas turbine installation
0.308 523 (hydrogen-containing fuel)
(authors’ own research)
604 (natural gas)
* Without taking the production stage into account. ** Taking into account hydrogen fuel production and electricity
production.

Research [93] has been carried out to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions of a 1-kW
polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) without taking the production stage into
account. In the case of a PEMFC fed with hydrogen from natural gas reforming, the GHG
emissions total was 372 kg CO2 -eq/MWh, and for the PEMFC fed with hydrogen from a
photovoltaic-water electrolyzer, the GHG emissions total was 176 kg CO2 -eq/MWh.
The carbon footprint of solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) depends on how powerful they are.
Building a “typical” 1-kW SOFC battery results in emissions of 410–530 kg CO2 -eq./MWh
and requires 7.1–9.9 GJ of primary energy, 60% of which is spent on sintering cells. Other
research [94] determined that the carbon intensity of electricity production from an average
SOFC is approximately 355 kg CO2 -eq./MWh, and accounting for the construction of chim-
neys and an exhaust gas purification system, it increases to 391 kg CO2 -eq./MWh. The carbon
footprint of SOFC production is 3–25% [96]. For a 1 MW SOFC, the GHG emissions at the
production stage are about 30 kg CO2 -eq. /MWh [92], which is equal to 29% of the total
greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 71% of CO2 emissions come from the operation
stage of the SOFC.
During the production stage, the carbon footprint of a gas turbine installation was
47.0–54.3 g CO2 -eq./kWh. This took into account the stages of production and storage of
hydrogen fuel, as well as electricity production via wind energy. At the same time, the
carbon footprint during the construction stage of a gas turbine installation, taking the pro-
duction of steel and concrete into account, amounted to 0.98–4.72 g CO2 -eq./kWh [17]. The
overall carbon footprint of gas turbine installations, taking emissions from fuel combustion
into account, increased significantly–emissions were at 353–575 t CO2 -eq./GW when using
natural gas, at 481–757 t CO2 -eq./GW when using diesel fuel, and at 629 t CO2 -eq./GW
when using fuel oil [95].
Upon comparing the gas turbine and the fuel cell in terms of their carbon footprint
at the production stages, it can be said that the GHG emissions for the fuel cell are higher
(about 20% of total emissions) than for the gas turbine (less than 1% of total emissions).
This may be due to the fact that gas turbines have a fairly long operating period (about
20 years) and can produce higher electrical power. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions
per 1 MWh are very low compared to the emissions from fuel cells, which have a shorter
service life (10 years maximum) and generate less output power.
Based on the authors’ own research, it can be said that the carbon footprint at the
stages of the GTI life cycle is relatively comparable to the carbon footprint of other complex
technical devices. The results indicate that the carbon footprint value of the gas turbine
installation is lower with greater consideration of input parameters, which supports the idea
Energies 2024, 17, 345 19 of 24

that using GTIs for electricity production is an effective strategy to help reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.

5. Conclusions
Hydrogen is a promising energy resource for industrial decarbonization and can
be used for energy and transportation in energy carriers, such as fuel cells, combustion
engines, gas turbines, and hydrogen power plants. Gas turbines are widely used to generate
electrical and thermal energy. Nowadays, there is a great deal of interest surrounding the
use of GTIs to burn hydrogen as part of the development of hydrogen energy. To assess the
prospects of this trend towards GTIs, it is necessary to understand the carbon footprint of
GTIs as part of the overall carbon footprint of the hydrogen life cycle as a whole.
The assessment of greenhouse gas emissions (per MWh of electricity produced) at
different stages of the GTI life cycle made it clear that the largest carbon footprint (more
than 99% of the total) comes from the GTI operation stage. Of the four GTI fuels under
consideration, it was determined that the largest carbon footprint was left by the production
and use of natural gas in the GTI (608 kg CO2 -eq./MWh). The largest carbon footprint
in terms of fuel production was found to be caused by hydrogen obtained through water
electrolysis (198 CO2 -eq./MWh); it should be noted, however, that the use of hydrogen in a
gas turbine installation does not generate CO2 emissions. The hydrogen content of the fuel
mixture in a GTI can be up to 20% without requiring any design changes. Thus, to reduce
the carbon footprint of GTIs, it is essential to know the amount of CO2 emissions generated
during the production and use of fuel in a GTI.
Moreover, determining the carbon footprint of the production and disposal stages of
GTIs is necessary in order to compare alternative energy installations with each other and
with installations that do not use fuel for energy production. Data obtained regarding the
carbon footprint (per MWh of electricity produced) of the GTI life cycle stages (excluding
the operation stage) indicated that the main contribution came from the manufacturing and
installation of the foundation for the gas turbine units, which consisted of the combined
carbon footprint of materials production (0.110 kg CO2 -eq./MWh) and energy resource
consumption (0.080 kg CO2 -eq./MWh). The carbon footprint of the GTI production stage
was 0.108 kg CO2 -eq/MWh, with the majority of the emissions coming from material
processing (0.066 kg CO2 -eq/MWh). Recycling the gas turbine unit and the foundation for
the GTI had the smallest carbon footprint of 0.008 kg CO2 -eq/MWh. The largest carbon
footprint among the considered processes, resources, and other work was the production
of materials (0.153 kg CO2 -eq/MWh), which represented half of the total emissions from
the life cycle stages of the GTI (excluding the operation stage).
After comparing the gas turbine and the fuel cell in terms of their carbon footprint
at the production stages, it can be said that the GHG emissions of the fuel cell are higher
(about 20% of total emissions) than those of the gas turbine (less than 1% of total emissions).
This may be due to the fact that the gas turbine has a fairly long operating period (about
20 years) and can produce higher electrical power. Consequently, greenhouse gas emissions
per 1 MWh are much lower compared to the emissions from fuel cells, which have a shorter
service life (10 years maximum) and generate less output power. Thus, the construction of
a GTI and its further use for the production of electricity has the smallest carbon footprint
compared to other complex technical devices.
The reliability of the carbon footprint assessment results for GTIs in Russia is, in most
cases, directly tied to the quality of the initial data, so the absence or low quality of open
data on production processes at the stages of the GTI life cycle has a significant effect on
the results. To try and solve these issues, it is necessary to create a clear methodology for
assessing the carbon footprint at all stages of the GTI life cycle, taking into account the
specifics of the technologies used (e.g., processes of obtaining and converting materials, use
of resources, and auxiliary production processes). For the sake of calculating greenhouse
gas emissions, it is also important to develop a methodology and information database
with verified data on relevant materials, energy sources, and technologies.
Energies 2024, 17, 345 20 of 24

Supplementary Materials: The following supplementary information can be downloaded at

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en17020345/s1, Table S1: Stages and resources taken into
account when assessing the life cycle of technically complex devices; Table S2: Materials used for
the production/construction of technically complex devices; Table S3: Impact categories used when
assessing technically complex devices.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.M. and V.K.; methodology, Y.M. and G.I.; validation,
Y.M. and G.I; investigation, Y.M.; resources, V.K.; data curation, Y.M. and G.I.; writing—original
draft preparation, Y.M. and G.I.; writing—review and editing, V.K.; visualization, Y.M. and G.I.;
supervision, Y.M.; project administration, V.K.; funding acquisition, V.K. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research was carried out with the financial support of the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education of the Russian Federation (project No. FSNM-2023-0004 “Hydrogen energy. Materi-
als and technology for storing, transporting and using hydrogen and hydrogen-containing mixtures”).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sosna, M.K.; Maslennikova, M.V.; Kryuchkov, M.V.; Pustovalov, M.V. «Green» and/or «Blue» Hydrogen. Neftegazokhimiia. Oil
Gas Chem. 2020, 3–4, 21–23. Available online: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/zelenyy-i-ili-goluboy-vodorod (accessed on 2
September 2023).
2. Buslik, L.N. Gas Turbine Units for Energy and Gas Transportation. Device and Systems; IPP Contrast: Kharkov, Ukraine, 2013; 152p.
3. Grigoriev, A.A. Theory, Calculation and Design of Gas Turbine Engines for Ground Use; PNRPU: Perm, Russia, 2012; 65p.
4. Aksyutin, O.E.; Ishkov, A.G.; Khloptsov, V.G.; Kazaryan, V.A.; Stolyarevsky, A.Y. The Concept of Large-Scale Development of
Innovative Systems for the Production and Distribution of Methane-Hydrogen Fuel as an Effective Alternative Energy Source.
Available online: https://ccortes.ru/st_docs/klumpur2012.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2023).
5. Balakin, A.M.; Badamshin, A.R.; Matveev, Y.V.; Laptev, M.A.; Barskov, V.V. Features of Operation of a Gas Turbine Unit Using a
Mixture of Hydrogen and Natural Gas. Available online: https://eaf.etu.ru/assets/files/eaf21/papers/53-57.pdf (accessed on 2
September 2023).
6. Griebel, P. Hydrogen in Gas Turbine Combustion Systems: Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the TOTeM 45 «Gas
Turbines for Future Energy Systems», Cardiff, UK, 3–4 September 2018.
7. Semenov, S.V.; Nikhamkin, M.S.; Plotnikov, A.I. Review of research and development on gas turbine power plants using hydrogen
fuel. Aviat. Engines 2022, 3, 73–85. [CrossRef]
8. Hydrogen Fueled Gas Turbine. GE Gas Power. Available online: https://www.ge.com/gas-power/future-of-energy/hydrogen-
fueled-gas-turbines (accessed on 6 January 2023).
9. Bohan, K.; Klapdor, E.V.; Prade, B.; Haeggmark, A.; Bulat, G.; Prasad, N.; Welch, M.; Adamsson, P.; Johnke, T. Hydrogen
Power with Siemens Gas Turbines: Reliable Carbon-Free Power with Flexibility; Siemens. Siemens Gas and Power: Munich, Ger-
many, 2020; 22p. Available online: https://www.infrastructureasia.org/-/media/Articles-for-ASIA-Panel/Siemens-Energy---
Hydrogen-Power-with-Siemens-Gas-Turbines.pdf?la=en&hash=1B91FADA342293EFB56CDBE312083FE1B64DA111 (accessed
on 14 September 2023).
10. Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Available online: https://fuelcellsworks.com/knowledge/technologies/sofc/ (accessed on 6
December 2023).
11. Advantages and Disadvantages to Fuel Cells. Techetch. Available online: https://techetch.com/blog/advantages-and-
disadvantages-to-fuel-cells/ (accessed on 6 October 2023).
12. Battelle Memorial Institute. Manufacturing Cost Analysis of PEM Fuel Cell Systems for 5- and 10-kW Backup Power Applications; U.S.
Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; 124p. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/
manufacturing-cost-analysis-pem-fuel-cell-systems-5-and-10-kw-backup-power#:~:text=At%20the%20largest%20annual%20
production,potential%20for%20further%20cost%20reductions (accessed on 6 October 2023).
13. Ecoinvent Database, version 3.8; Ecoinvent: Zurich, Switzerland, 2021.
14. Caldeira-Pires, A.; Da Silva Ribeiro, R. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of a gas turbine power plant. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Congress of Mechanical Engineering, São Paulo, Brazil, 10–14 November 2003.
15. Annisa, R.; Jiwandono, K.; Marteda, G.; Sinisuka, N.I. Life cycle Assessment of natural gas combined cycle steam power
generation systems in Indonesia: Case Study on Gresik power plant. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 753, 012039.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 345 21 of 24

16. The International EPD®System; EPD Southeast Asia. Electricity from Grati Power Generation and O&M Service Unit Combined-Cycle
Power Plant; Environmental Product Declaration; The International EPD®System: Stockholm, Sweden; EPD Southeast Asia:
Jakarta Barat, Indonesia, 2022; 15p. Available online: https://api.environdec.com/api/v1/EPDLibrary/Files/9b6a4ab2-6404-48
ea-cf46-08daa1eb7336/Data (accessed on 10 October 2023).
17. Song, G.; Zhao, Q.; Shao, B.; Zhao, H.; Wang, H.; Tan, W. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and NOx Emissions of
Power-to-H2-to-Power Technology Integrated with Hydrogen-Fueled Gas Turbine. Energies 2023, 16, 977. [CrossRef]
18. The International EPD®System. Rizziconi Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine Plant; Environmental Product Declaration; The International
EPD®System: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019; 16p. Available online: https://www.axpo.com/content/dam/axpo19/ch/files-ch/
private/engagement/nature---environment/1912_Axpo_Umweltdeklaration_Rizziconi_2019_EN.pdf (accessed on 2 October
2023).
19. Sosnina, E.N.; Masleeva, O.V.; Kryukov, E.V.; Erdili, N.I. Environmental life cycle assessment of mini-CHP with different types of
engines. Izv. TulGU. Tech. Sci. 2021, 4, 206–214.
20. Ferraz de Paula, L.; Carmo, B.S. Environmental Impact Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment for a Deep Water Floating Offshore
Wind Turbine on the Brazilian Continental Shelf. Wind 2022, 2, 495–512. [CrossRef]
21. Martin, E. The Wind Turbine: Energy. Available online: http://www.designlife-cycle.com/wind-turbines (accessed on 11 October
2023).
22. Haapala, K.R.; Prempreeda, P. Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines. Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 2014, 3, 170–185.
[CrossRef]
23. Alsaleh, A.; Sattler, M. Comprehensive life cycle assessment of large wind turbines in the US. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019,
21, 887–903. [CrossRef]
24. Farina, A.; Anctil, A. Material consumption and environmental impact of wind turbines in the USA and globally. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2022, 176, 105938. [CrossRef]
25. Gomaa, M.R.; Rezk, H.; Mustafa, R.J.; Al-Dhaifallah, M. Evaluating the Environmental Impacts and Energy Performance of a
Wind Farm System Utilizing the Life-Cycle Assessment Method: A Practical Case Study. Energies 2019, 12, 3263. [CrossRef]
26. Younes, N.; Bina, S.M.; Rahmani, K. Life Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment of a Wind Turbine Installed in
Northeast of Iran. Int. J. Energy Policy Manag. 2018, 3, 8–15.
27. Sikand, S. Life Cycle Assessment of Wind Turbines: Waste and Emissions. Available online: http://www.designlife-cycle.com/
wind-turbines (accessed on 11 October 2022).
28. Carrara, S.; Alves Dias, P.; Plazzotta, B.; Pavel, C. Raw Materials Demand for Wind and Solar PV Technologies in the Transition towards
a Decarbonised Energy System; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020; 70p.
29. Kukreja, B. Life Cycle Analysis of Electric Vehicles. Quantifying the Impact; UBC Sustainability Scholar: Vancouver, BC, Canada,
2018; 17p. Available online: https://www.readkong.com/page/life-cycle-analysis-of-electric-vehicles-7883081 (accessed on 1
October 2023).
30. Koroma, M.S.; Philippot, M.; Cardellini, G.; Hosen, M.S.; Coosemans, T.; Messagie, M. Life cycle assessment of battery electric
vehicles: Implications of future electricity mix and different battery end-of-life management. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 831, 154859.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Kozlov, A.V.; Porsin, A.V.; Dobrovolsky, Y.A.; Kashin, A.M.; Terenchenko, A.S.; Gorin, M.A.; Tikhonov, A.N.; Milov, K.V. Life cycle
assessment of power plants based on a battery, hydrogen fuel cells, and internal combustion engine for city buses in the Moscow
region. Russ. J. Appl. Chem. 2021, 94, 784–805. [CrossRef]
32. Jemioło, W. Life Cycle Assessment of Current and Future Passenger Air Transport in Switzerland. Master’s Thesis, Technology
Assessment Group, Laboratory for Energy System Analysis Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Villigen, Switzerland, 2015.
33. Kolios, A.; Howe, S.; Asproulis, N.; Salonitis, K. Environmental impact assessment of the manufacturing of a commercial aircraft.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Manufacturing Research (ICMR2013), Advances in Manufacturing
Technology XXVII, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK, 19–20 September 2013.
34. Okura, T. Materials for Aircraft Engines; ASEN 5063 Aircraft Propulsion Final Report; 2015; 14p. Available online:
https://www.colorado.edu/faculty/kantha/sites/default/files/attached-files/73549-116619_-_takehiro_okura_-_dec_
17_2015_1027_am_-_asen_5063_2015_final_report_okura.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2023).
35. ISO 14040-2022; Environmental Management–Life Cycle Assessment–Principles and Framework. International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
36. Gross, R.; Hanna, R.; Gambhir, A.; Heptonstall, P.; Speirs, J. How long does innovation and commercialisation in the energy
sectors take? Historical case studies of the timescale from invention to widespread commercialisation in energy supply and end
use technology. Energy Policy 2018, 123, 682–699. [CrossRef]
37. Razdan, P.; Garrett, P. Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Production from an Onshore V110-2.0 MW Wind Plant; Vestas Wind Systems
A/S: Aarhus, Denmark, 2015. Available online: https://www.vestas.de/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sustainability/
reports-and-ratings/lcas/LCAV11020MW181215.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2023).
38. Inozemtsev, A.A.; Konyaev, E.A.; Medvedev, V.V.; Neradko, A.V.; Ryassov, A.E. Aviation Engine PS-90A; Fizmatlit: Moscow,
Russia, 2007; 320p.
39. Rabe, W.; Kostka, G.; Stegen, S.K. China’s supply of critical raw materials: Risks for Europe’s solar and wind industries? Energy
Policy 2017, 101, 692–699. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 345 22 of 24

40. Razdan, P.; Garrett, P. Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Production from an Onshore V136-3.45 MW Wind Plant; Vestas Wind Systems
A/S: Aarhus, Denmark, 2017. Available online: https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sustainability/
reports-and-ratings/lcas/V1363%2045MW_Mk3a_ISO_LCA_Final_31072017.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf (accessed on 9 Septem-
ber 2023).
41. Younesi, R.; Veith, G.M.; Johansson, P.; Edström, K.; Vegge, T. Lithium salts for advanced lithium batteries: Li–metal, Li–O2 , and
Li–S. Energy Environ. Sci. 2015, 8, 1905–1922. [CrossRef]
42. Cox, B.; Jemiolo, W.; Mutel, C. Life cycle assessment of air transportation and the Swiss commercial air transport fleet. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 58, 1–13. [CrossRef]
43. Inozemtsev, A.A.; Nikhamkin, M.A.; Sandratsky, V.L. Fundamentals of the Design of Aircraft Engines and Power Plants; Mashinostroe-
nie: Moscow, Russia, 2008.
44. Snitko, M.A.; Morozov, P.M. GTU-16PM with MEKS Entered into Operation. Turbines Diesels 2021, July–August, 34–36. Available
online: http://www.turbine-diesel.ru/sites/default/files/n4-2021/Aviadvigatel.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2023).
45. United Engine Company. Gas Turbine Installation GTU-16P. Available online: https://www.uecrus.com/products-and-services/
products/gazoperekachivayushchie-ustanovki/gazoturbinnaya-ustanovka-gtu-16p4323/ (accessed on 12 September 2023).
46. Burov, V.D.; Rybakov, B.A.; Savitenko, M.A. Combustion of hydrogen-containing gases in gas turbine plants. Turbines Diesels 2021,
March–April, 18–24.
47. Simon, N. Retrofitting Gas Turbine Facilities for Hydrogen Blending; ICF International Inc.: Reston, VA, USA, 2022. Available online:
https://www.icf.com/insights/energy/retrofitting-gas-turbines-hydrogen-blending (accessed on 20 September 2023).
48. Cecere, D.; Giacomazzi, E.; Di Nardo, A.; Calchetti, G. Gas Turbine Combustion Technologies for Hydrogen Blends. Energies 2023,
16, 6829. [CrossRef]
49. Korzh, V.V. Gas Turbine Units; USTU: Ukhta, Russia, 2010; 180p.
50. Schafrik, R.E.; Ward, D.D.; Groh, J.R. Application of Alloy 718 in GE Aircraft Engines: Past, Present and Next Five Years. In
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Superalloys and Various Derivatives, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 17–20 June 2001;
pp. 1–11.
51. Faramawy, S.; Zaki, T.; Sakr, A.A.-E. Natural gas origin, composition, and processing: A review. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 34,
34–54. [CrossRef]
52. LM2500 Aeroderivative Gas Turbine. Available online: https://www.ge.com/gas-power/products/gas-turbines/lm2500
(accessed on 12 December 2023).
53. Lim, D.; Kim, A.; Cheon, S.; Byun, M.; Lim, H. Life cycle techno-economic and carbon footprint analysis of H2 production via
NH3 decomposition: A Case study for the Republic of Korea. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 250, 114881. [CrossRef]
54. International Energy Agency. Available online: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/industry/steel (accessed on 25
September 2023).
55. World Steel Association. Climate Change and the Production of Iron and Steel. Available online: https://worldsteel.org/
publications/policy-papers/climate-change-and-the-production-of-iron-and-steel/ (accessed on 25 September 2023).
56. World Steel Association. Sustainability Indicators 2023 Report. Available online: https://worldsteel.org/steel-topics/
sustainability/sustainability-indicators/ (accessed on 25 September 2023).
57. Carbon Neutral? Markatur. Available online: https://www.markatur.no/artikler/carbon-neutral (accessed on 25 September 2023).
58. Wei, W.; Samuelsson, P.; Pär, J.; Rutger, G.; Björn, G. Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of High-Carbon
Ferrochrome Production. Miner. Met. Mater. Soc. 2023, 75, 1206–1220. [CrossRef]
59. Suer, J.; Ahrenhold, F.; Traverso, M. Carbon Footprint and Energy Transformation Analysis of Steel Produced via a Direct
Reduction Plant with an Integrated Electric Melting Unit. J. Sustain. Metall 2022, 8, 1532–1545. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Erneuerbare Energien in Deutschland. Geschäftsstelle der Arbeitsgruppe Erneuerbare Energien-Statistik (AGEE-Stat) am
Umweltbundesamt, 2018. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/erneuerbare-energien-in-
deutschland-2018 (accessed on 28 September 2023).
61. Shadrikov, D. On the Way to Carbon Neutrality with Aluminum ALLOW. 2022. Available online: https://www.ncpack.ru/
images/analitika/shadrikov.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2023).
62. Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Aluminium Sector. International Aluminum Institute. Available online: https://international-
aluminium.org/statistics/greenhouse-gas-emissions-aluminium-sector/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
63. ALLOW. Available online: https://allow.rusal.ru/allow/construction/ (accessed on 30 September 2023).
64. Lapteva, A.V.; Lisenko, V.G.; Chesnokov, Y.N. Carbon footprint of aluminum production when obtaining alumina using the
Bayer process. In Proceedings of the XIV International Scientific and Practical Conference, Sistema Upravleniya Ekologicheskoi
Bezopasnostyu, UrFU, Ekaterinburg, Russia, 20–21 May 2020; pp. 264–268.
65. Klausner, J.F. Innovating the Future of Titanium Production at the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Project
Agency-Energy. Washington, 2015. Available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/titanium.org/resource/resmgr/titaniumUSA201
5/tues_and_wednesday_papers/KlausnerJamesTiUSA2015.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2023).
66. ELG HANIEL GROUP. Sustainability Report. 2015. Available online: https://www.elgmetals.com/site/assets/files/2025/elg_
cr_report_2015_online.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2023).
67. Lyons, R.; Newell, A.; Ghadimi, P.; Papakostas, N. Environmental impacts of conventional and additive manufacturing for the
production of Ti-6Al-4V knee implant: A life cycle approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 112, 787–801. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 345 23 of 24

68. Rajemi, M.; Mativenga, P.; Syed, J. Energy and carbon footprint analysis for machining titanium Ti-6Al-4V Alloy. J. Mach. Eng.
2009, 9, 103–112.
69. IperionX’s Recycled Titanium Is a Low Carbon Champion. Stockhead. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/
janemorganmanagement_iperionxs-recycled-titanium-is-a-low-carbon-activity-7057122618222555136-YMIL (accessed on 4 Octo-
ber 2023).
70. Nickel Institute. Life Cycle Data. Executive Summary. 2023. Available online: https://nickelinstitute.org/media/fbmdel4y/
lifecycledata-summary-updatejan2023.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2023).
71. Conte, N. The Carbon Emissions of Producing Energy Transition Metals: Charted. 2022. Available online: https:
//elements.visualcapitalist.com/the-carbon-emissions-of-producing-energy-transition-metals-charted/#:~:text=Along%
20with%20this,%20producing%20high,per%20kilogram%20of%20nickel%20content (accessed on 1 October 2023).
72. Norilsk Nickel Climate Change Strategy. Nornickel. Available online: https://nornickel.com/sustainability/climate-change/
strategy/ (accessed on 1 October 2023).
73. Mistry, M.; Gediga, J.; Boonzaier, S. Life cycle assessment of nickel product. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1559–1572. [CrossRef]
74. Norgate, T.; Jahanshahi, S. Assessing the energy and greenhouse gas footprints of nickel laterite processing. Miner. Eng. 2011, 24,
698–707. [CrossRef]
75. Nickel Institute. Ferronickel Life Cycle Data. 2020. Available online: https://nickelinstitute.org/media/8d9bf11555fd1ac/202112
-lca-ferronickel.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2023).
76. Wei, W.; Samuelsson, P.B.; Tilliander, A.; Gyllenram, R.; Jönsson, P.G. Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of
Nickel Products. Energies 2020, 13, 5664. [CrossRef]
77. Ovchinnikov, K.N. The carbon footprint of the metallurgical industry and a review of promising solutions for its decarbonization
in China, the USA and Germany. Nedropolzovanie XXI Vek 2022, November, 97–107.
78. World Steel Association. Raw Materials. Available online: https://worldsteel.org/steel-topics/raw-materials/ (accessed on 4
October 2023).
79. What Is the Carbon Footprint of Steel? Sustainable Ships. Available online: https://www.sustainable-ships.org/stories/2022
/carbon-footprint-steel (accessed on 11 October 2023).
80. Valckx, N.; Stuermer, M.; Seneviratne, D.; Ananthakrishnan, P. Metal Demand from Energy Transition May Top Current Global
Supply. International Monetary Fund. Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2021/12/08/metals-demand-
from-energy-transition-may-top-current-global-supply (accessed on 11 October 2023).
81. International Aluminum Institute. Aluminum. Available online: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/industry/aluminium
(accessed on 11 October 2023).
82. Yurkov, A.L.; Kuroshev, I.S.; Dobrokhotova, M.V. Aluminum Production. Available online: https://anoire.center/wp-content/
uploads/2022/08/aluminum.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2023).
83. RUSAL Confirms an Unprecedentedly Low Carbon Footprint for ALLOW INERTA Aluminium. Available online:
https://rusal.ru/en/press-center/press-releases/rusal-confirms-an-unprecedentedly-low-carbon-footprint-for-allow-inerta-
aluminium/#:~:text=A%20branch%20of%20T%C3%9CV%20Austria,metal%20(Scope%201%20and%202) (accessed on 15
October 2023).
84. Gazprombank Investments. How Does EN+ Group Work and How Effective Is It? Available online: https://gazprombank.
investments/blog/reviews/en-group (accessed on 14 October 2023).
85. World Nuclear Association. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Electricity. Available online: https://www.world-nuclear.
org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity.aspx (accessed on 14
October 2023).
86. Raadal, H.L.; Vold, B.I.; Myhr, A.; Nygaard, T.A. GHG emissions and energy performance of offshore wind power. Renew. Energy
2014, 66, 314–324. [CrossRef]
87. Wang, Y.; Sun, T. Life cycle assessment of CO2 emissions from wind power plants: Methodology and case studies. Renew. Energy
2012, 43, 30–36. [CrossRef]
88. Kadiyala, A.; Raghava, K.; Huque, Z. Characterization of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from wind electricity generation
systems. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2017, 8, 55–64. [CrossRef]
89. Dolan, S.L.; Heath, G.A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility-scale wind power. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, 136–154. [CrossRef]
90. Weinzettel, J.; Reenaas, M.; Solli, C.; Hertwich, E.G. Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine. Renew. Energy 2009,
34, 742–747. [CrossRef]
91. Wagner, H.-J.; Baack, C.; Eickelkamp, T.; Epe, A.; Lohmann, J.; Troy, S. Life cycle assessment of the offshore wind farm alpha
ventus. Energy 2011, 36, 2459–2464. [CrossRef]
92. Al-Khori, K.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G.; Boulfrad, S.; Koç, M. Life Cycle Assessment for Integration of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells into Gas
Processing Operations. Energies 2021, 14, 4668. [CrossRef]
93. Kim, R.H.; Baek, C.; Kim, E.; Jeong, Y.; Cho, S. Potential global warming impact of 1 kW polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell
system for residential buildings on operation phase. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2023, 73, 376–386. [CrossRef]
94. Staffell, I.; Ingram, A.; Kendall, K. Energy and carbon payback times for solid oxide fuel cell based domestic CHP. Int. J. Hydrog.
Energy 2012, 37, 2509–2523. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 345 24 of 24

95. European Investment Bank. Methodologies for the Assessment of Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Emission Variations; EIB Project
Carbon Footprint; European Investment Bank: Luxembourg, 2022; 62p. Available online: https://www.dirittobancario.it/wp-
content/uploads/2022/03/EIB-Project-Carbon-footprint-methodologies-2022.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2023).
96. Cánovas, A.; Zah, R.; Gassó, S. Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Residential Heating Systems, Focused on Solid Oxide Fuel
Cells. In Sustainability in Energy and Buildings, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference in Sustainability in Energy and Buildings
(SEB‘12), Stockholm, Sweden, 3–5 September 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 659–668.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.