Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance
One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economi...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2022transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes - Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER, 2018, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:307 ; year:2022 ; day:1 ; month:02 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV056475845 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV056475845 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626043404.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220205s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV056475845 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 150 |a 300 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 77.52 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Garcia-Teruel, Anna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022transfer abstract | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. | ||
| 520 | |a One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Life cycle assessment |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a O&M |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Vessels |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Offshore wind |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Environmental impact |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rinaldi, Giovanni |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Thies, Philipp R. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Johanning, Lars |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jeffrey, Henry |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER |t Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes |d 2018 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV001651005 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:307 |g year:2022 |g day:1 |g month:02 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 77.52 |j Differentielle Psychologie |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 307 |j 2022 |b 1 |c 0201 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
a g t agt |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
garciateruelannarinaldigiovannithiesphil:2022----:ieylassmnofotnofhrwnfrsnvlainf |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2022transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
77.52 |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica (DE-627)ELV056475845 (ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 300 VZ 77.52 bkl Garcia-Teruel, Anna verfasserin aut Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact Elsevier Rinaldi, Giovanni oth Thies, Philipp R. oth Johanning, Lars oth Jeffrey, Henry oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes 2018 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001651005 volume:307 year:2022 day:1 month:02 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 77.52 Differentielle Psychologie VZ AR 307 2022 1 0201 0 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica (DE-627)ELV056475845 (ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 300 VZ 77.52 bkl Garcia-Teruel, Anna verfasserin aut Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact Elsevier Rinaldi, Giovanni oth Thies, Philipp R. oth Johanning, Lars oth Jeffrey, Henry oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes 2018 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001651005 volume:307 year:2022 day:1 month:02 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 77.52 Differentielle Psychologie VZ AR 307 2022 1 0201 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica (DE-627)ELV056475845 (ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 300 VZ 77.52 bkl Garcia-Teruel, Anna verfasserin aut Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact Elsevier Rinaldi, Giovanni oth Thies, Philipp R. oth Johanning, Lars oth Jeffrey, Henry oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes 2018 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001651005 volume:307 year:2022 day:1 month:02 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 77.52 Differentielle Psychologie VZ AR 307 2022 1 0201 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica (DE-627)ELV056475845 (ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 300 VZ 77.52 bkl Garcia-Teruel, Anna verfasserin aut Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact Elsevier Rinaldi, Giovanni oth Thies, Philipp R. oth Johanning, Lars oth Jeffrey, Henry oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes 2018 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001651005 volume:307 year:2022 day:1 month:02 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 77.52 Differentielle Psychologie VZ AR 307 2022 1 0201 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica (DE-627)ELV056475845 (ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 300 VZ 77.52 bkl Garcia-Teruel, Anna verfasserin aut Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact Elsevier Rinaldi, Giovanni oth Thies, Philipp R. oth Johanning, Lars oth Jeffrey, Henry oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes 2018 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV001651005 volume:307 year:2022 day:1 month:02 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 77.52 Differentielle Psychologie VZ AR 307 2022 1 0201 0 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:307 year:2022 day:1 month:02 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:307 year:2022 day:1 month:02 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Differentielle Psychologie |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Life cycle assessment O&M Vessels Offshore wind Environmental impact |
| dewey-raw |
150 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna @@aut@@ Rinaldi, Giovanni @@oth@@ Thies, Philipp R. @@oth@@ Johanning, Lars @@oth@@ Jeffrey, Henry @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV001651005 |
| dewey-sort |
3150 |
| id |
ELV056475845 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV056475845</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626043404.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220205s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV056475845</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">77.52</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Garcia-Teruel, Anna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">O&M</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Vessels</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Offshore wind</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Environmental impact</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rinaldi, Giovanni</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thies, Philipp R.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Johanning, Lars</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jeffrey, Henry</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes</subfield><subfield code="d">2018</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV001651005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:307</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">day:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">77.52</subfield><subfield code="j">Differentielle Psychologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">307</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="b">1</subfield><subfield code="c">0201</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna |
| spellingShingle |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna ddc 150 bkl 77.52 Elsevier Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance |
| authorStr |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV001651005 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
150 - Psychology 300 - Social sciences |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
150 300 VZ 77.52 bkl Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 150 bkl 77.52 Elsevier Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 150 bkl 77.52 Elsevier Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact |
| topic_browse |
ddc 150 bkl 77.52 Elsevier Life cycle assessment Elsevier O&M Elsevier Vessels Elsevier Offshore wind Elsevier Environmental impact |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
g r gr p r t pr prt l j lj h j hj |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV001651005 |
| dewey-tens |
150 - Psychology 300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV001651005 |
| title |
Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV056475845 (ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0 |
| title_full |
Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance |
| author_sort |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna |
| journal |
Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes |
| journalStr |
Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology 300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2022 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna |
| container_volume |
307 |
| class |
150 300 VZ 77.52 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Garcia-Teruel, Anna |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 |
| dewey-full |
150 300 |
| title_sort |
life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: an evaluation of operation and maintenance |
| title_auth |
Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance |
| abstract |
One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. |
| abstractGer |
One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| title_short |
Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Rinaldi, Giovanni Thies, Philipp R. Johanning, Lars Jeffrey, Henry |
| author2Str |
Rinaldi, Giovanni Thies, Philipp R. Johanning, Lars Jeffrey, Henry |
| ppnlink |
ELV001651005 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T20:29:58.502Z |
| _version_ |
1803862984363081728 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV056475845</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626043404.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220205s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001641.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV056475845</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0306-2619(21)01352-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">77.52</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Garcia-Teruel, Anna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment of floating offshore wind farms: An evaluation of operation and maintenance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">One of the key objectives for renewable energy technologies is to reduce the environmental impact of energy generation. Floating offshore wind technologies have been developed in recent years to exploit the wind energy resource available at deep waters where bottom-fixed technologies are not economical. However, few studies exist that analyse the environmental impact of such technologies. Particularly, offshore activities such as those required for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are not represented in detail in previous studies. The present study addresses these gaps by performing a Life Cycle Assessment using an advanced O&M model to quantify the environmental impact of a floating offshore wind farm. Different O&M philosophies – assuming towing to shore for major operations vs. performing all operations on site – and their impact are evaluated and discussed for two case studies inspired by real pilot park deployments. The results show mean Global Warming Potential (GWP) values between 25.6 and 45.2 gCO2 eq/kWh depending on the assumed O&M strategy and vessels, with the contribution of the O&M phase to GWP ranging from 21 to 49%, and of O&M vessels from 6 to 40%. Assuming O&M strategies to be the same for fixed and floating offshore wind could result in a 20.4% underestimate of GWP, whereas the vessel choice resulted in up to 34.8% difference in the estimated GWP. An environmental impact perspective provides key insights on the choice of different designs, operation strategies and asset management, and thus should be used in the decision-making process.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">O&M</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Vessels</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Offshore wind</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Environmental impact</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rinaldi, Giovanni</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thies, Philipp R.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Johanning, Lars</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jeffrey, Henry</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Costello, Thomas H. ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Risky business: Psychopathy, framing effects, and financial outcomes</subfield><subfield code="d">2018</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV001651005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:307</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">day:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118067</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">77.52</subfield><subfield code="j">Differentielle Psychologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">307</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="b">1</subfield><subfield code="c">0201</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400504 |