Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257130744
CITATIONS READS
5 71
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
MEDEAS Project: Modeling the renewable energy transition in Europe. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Alicia Valero on 07 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Ecological Modelling 255 (2013) 2128
Ecological Modelling
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Exergoecology and in particular, thermoeconomic analysis is used to understand the process of cost
Received 11 October 2012 formation and to improve the design and the operation of extensive energy consumption systems such
Received in revised form 16 January 2013 as power and chemical plants. This paper shows the capabilities for using the thermoeconomic analysis
Accepted 18 January 2013
in environmental systems, and demonstrates that it could become a useful tool for identifying the ways
for improving the energy resources cost and the efciency of a macroeconomic system such as the US
Keywords:
food production chain. The environmental impact associated with each process in the food production
Exergoecology
chain can be quantied through a thermoeconomic approach as a cost function, which represents the
Thermoeconomics
Second Law
required natural resources to obtain a nal product. In the example provided, several simulations such
Food production chain as the impact of the change of meat diet basis for a vegetarian diet, and reusing the residual biomass are
Ecological modelling analyzed.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
0304-3800/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.01.021
22 C. Torres et al. / Ecological Modelling 255 (2013) 2128
given system are classied into fuel and product. Fuel (F) refers to represented by the fuel-product table (see Table 1) which describes
the resources that the component uses to achieve its purpose, and how the production processes are related.
product (P) corresponds to the ows related to that purpose. Let us consider a system formed by, say n processes. Let Pi denote
The physical structure of a system (where all physical ows the exergy of the process i production, which is used in part to meet
appear), needs to be converted into a productive structure the intermediate requirement as input resources of other processes
and in part to meet the nal demand of the system. If Eij denotes the
Table 1 exergy of process i uses as resource for process j, and Ei0 denotes
Generic fuel-product table. the nal demand produced in process i, the following expression is
formed:
F0 F1 ... Fn
On the other hand, the input resources of each process i, say Fi , is in The external resources: Fe (E01 , . . ., E0n )
part coming from external resources, say E0i and in part from the The efciency of each process i = Pi /Fi or equivalently the unit
production of other processes, then we have the condition: consumption of each process ki = 1/i
The distribution ratios dened as yij = Eij /Pi
n
Fi = E0i + Eji , i = 1, . . . , n (2)
j
According to this model the production of each process is obtained
as:
Second Law states that the difference between fuel and product is
a positive value and equal to the irreversibility (I), accounting for P = t P|Fe , whereP| (KD FP)1 (10)
the losses appearing in the process: Fi Pi = Ii 0. Furthermore, the
unit exergy consumption is dened as the ratio between fuel and The term KD is a diagonal matrix whose elements are ki , and FP
product: ki = Fi /Pi 1 is a matrix whose elements are the distribution ratios yij . The total
The fuel and product equations (1) and (2) could be written in production is calculated as:
terms of exergy costs as:
PT = t Fe P|y0 (11)
n
+
CP,i = Ei0 Eij , i = 1, . . . , n where t y0 (y10 , . . . , yn0 ) is a vector that contains the distribution
ratios associated with the environment.
j
(3) The cost of producing each process is given by:
n
+
CF,i = E0i Eji , i = 1, . . . , n
CP = t P |Fe , whereP | (UD FP)1 (12)
j
Eqs. (10) and (12) can be used to obtain the following relation-
where Eij denotes the exergy costs of the ow Eij , and CP,i and CF,i
ship (13) between the production costs and the irreversibilities of
are the cost of product and fuel of process i respectively.
the system processes:
The Exergy Cost Theory, denes three propositions in order to
determine the production exergy cost: CP = P + t P |I (13)
P1. If there is unknown how much exergy has been needed to which means that the physical production cost of a product is equal
produce the resource ows, then the costing analysis will refer to its exergy plus the sum of all irreversibilities generated to produce
to consumed resources into the boundary limits. Therefore: the it. In this way, we link the physical production cost of any system
cost of the external resources is known and equal to its exergy: with the irreversibilities occurred in its production process, and
this is why production costs are denoted as exergy costs in Ther-
E0i = E0i (4) moeconomics. The coefcients pij of the matrix P | represents the
P2. Cost is a conservative property: the exergy cost of fuel is equal portion of exergy destroyed in the i-th process to obtain the product
to the exergy cost of product, it means, exergy cost is a conservative of process j-th.
property. It should be stated that the resulting costs of products depend on
the way in which the external resources of the considered system
CP,i = CF,i (5) are assessed. If these are evaluated in exergy terms, as it is proposed
P3. Exergy efciency is used as allocation property: the exergy here, products will be valued in exergy cost terms as expressed
cost of the ows produced in a component is proportional to their in Eq. (13). However, if external resources are valued in cumula-
exergy, therefore: tive exergy terms, i.e. accounting for the exergy required to obtain
those external resources, then the associated costs (exergoecolog-
Eij = cP,i Eij (6) ical costs) of products will be dened as the amount of resources
(of a renewable and non-renewable nature) required to obtain the
where cP,i is the exergy cost per unit of production.
given product. In the same way, if external resources are assessed
in monetary terms, using the price of natural gas, oil, coal, electric-
The previous equations could be combined in the way of the fol-
ity, etc., the methodology still allocates costs in proportion to the
lowing equation:
exergy of ows, as expressed in Eq. (12), but the obtained costs of
n products are given in monetary terms, relative to the initial price
CP,i = E0i + cP,i Eji (7) given to the external resources.
j=1 The other representation, called PF or demand driven, allows
for the expressing of resources and their costs as a function of:
The exergy cost of the products CP,i can be thus determined by
solving the set of linear equations given by:
The production demand Ps (E10 , . . ., En0 )
n
Eji The efciency of each process i Pi /Fi
CP,i CP,i = E0i (8) The junction ratios, represented by the matrix PF, whose ele-
Pj
j=1 ments are dened as qij Eij /Fj
or in an equivalent way, for the unit exergy cost, cP,i :
The resources used in each process are obtained as:
n
Eji E
cP,i cP,j = 0i (9) F = |FPs where |F (HD PF)1 (14)
Pi Pi
j=1
where HD KD 1 is a diagonal matrix (nn), containing the ef-
Symbolic exergoeconomics provides two different representa- ciency i of each process.
tions of the productive model: Through the FP or resources driven The cost per production unit can be obtained as:
representation, the production and the cost of each process in the
system is a function of: cP = t |Fq0 (15)
C. Torres et al. / Ecological Modelling 255 (2013) 2128 25
Table 2 Table 3
Dened processes for food chain in the USA. Fuel-product table for the USA food chain (GJ).
Following the diagram of 1, the food chain system could be Similar expressions can be used to compute the unitary production
decomposed into ve basic processes, described in Table 2 and rep- cost.
resented graphicly by means of the productive diagram of Fig. 2(a). The denition of fossil or non-renewable production cost is
equivalent to the concept of the exergy rate of investment (ExROI)
4.1. The food production chain. Reference case study (Font de Mora et al., 2012) which is dened as the amount of prod-
uct obtained per unit of non-renewable resources used.
The thermoeconomic model of the food chain of Fig. 2(a) is rep- P 1
resented by the fuel-product table (Table 3). From this table it is ExROI = = nrs (21)
CPnrs cP
possible to obtain the production cost of each process. In this exam-
ple it is interesting to separate the cost associated with fossil fuels In Table 4, the unit consumption of each process is shown. The
and that with biomass energy. Fossil fuels are required in all pro- ratio of the total fossil fuel required per calorie consumed is approx-
nrs = 9.70), a clear indicator of the high inefciency
imately 10:1 (cP,5
cesses of food production: draining, irrigation, chemical products,
of the current food production chain. Also note that the production
of meat (process 3) requires 2.5 times more fossil energy resources
1
This simple example is taken for illustrating the details of the method, but the
(11.06 vs. 4.49) than that of vegetal production (process 4). By far,
authors are aware that most of the results could have been obtained without any the most inefcient process (identied by ) is the production of
inated matrix analysis. meat.
26 C. Torres et al. / Ecological Modelling 255 (2013) 2128
Fig. 2. Exergy and cost productive diagrams of the food chain in the USA: (a) productive diagram and (b) cost diagram.
C. Torres et al. / Ecological Modelling 255 (2013) 2128 27
Table 5
In these simulations, fossil fuel is distinguished from biomass
Production costs due to fossil fuel, recycling 10% biomass.
resources. Fossil fuels have an explicit cost: they have a market
Process cPnrs (GJ/GJ) CPnrs (GJ) price, an environmental impact, externality costs, etc. Biomass
1 0 0.00 resources are a different case, since biomass energy is provided
2 0.08 5.00 by the sun which is free. Nevertheless, the solar energy provided
3 10.15 19.29 to biomass is proportional to the harvest area. Furthermore in this
4 4.45 13.79
5 9.19 33.08
model the energy consumed per person is considered, therefore
a reduction of biomass resources implies a reduction of required
Total 33.50
harvest area, i.e. more people could be fed by the same land are.
Hence, the reduction of biomass requirements per person is also a
key consideration in sustainable development.
4.3. Process efciency impact
5. Conclusions
In this scenario it is assumed that the efciency of each single
process is increased by 10% without modifying the nal demand
This paper shows the capabilities of exergoecology, and in par-
and the system structure (junction ratios). Eq. (18) is used for this
ticular of thermoeconomics for the analysis of ecological systems.
purpose, with i = 0.1. The impact in resources consumption is
The main objective of this methodology is the analysis of the cost
broken down into the fraction coming from biomass and from fossil
formation process in energy systems. The environmental impact
fuels (see Table 6).
associated to each process can be quantied as a cost function in
Eq. (22) is used to compute the fuel impact of each efciency
terms of natural resources consumption. Starting with a Sankey
simulation.The cost of fuel is evaluated for the simulated scenario
diagram, it is shown and quantied in terms of exergy cost that
and the production corresponds to the reference case study.
an animal-based diet requires more energy, land and other natu-
FTi = cF,i i Pi0 (22) ral resources than a plant-based diet. In fact, the production and
processing of meat (and other animal-derived products) has the
Note that improving the efciency of the last link of the food largest impact on energy use, water use and land disturbance of
production chain has an important impact on the fossil fuel con- humans diet. Consuming less meat and supplying the required
sumption. However, in only improving the efciency of the rst energy demand with a richer vegetable diet, provides an important
stages the impact is restricted to solely a reduction in the amount fossil fuel saving and allows for the feeding of more people.
of biomass needed. An important conclusion can be thus drawn: Other aspects of Thermoeconomics such as the principle of
in order to improve the energy efciency of the food chain, major non-equivalence of irreversibilities (Kotas, 1985) are also illus-
efforts must be focused on the last production stages. trated in the above example, and is indicative of the importance
of reducing and recycling wastes whilst improving the efciency of
4.4. A change in the food diet the nal stages of the productive food chain. An improvement in
food processing, from a sustainability perspective could be accom-
The last scenario analyzes what would happen if less meat and plished by buying locally grown and seasonal products, reducing
more vegetables are eaten. As aforementioned, the production of the fossil fuel consumption associated with transportation, pro-
food derived from animals requires much more resources than that vided that the production processes are equally or more efcient.
originating from plants. In the reference model a person consumes The methodology presented here is simple but powerful, and
62% of vegetables and 38% of food derived from animals. What combines economic InputOutput analysis with the Second Law of
would happen if meat consumption was reduced by 10%, yet still Thermodynamics. The latter is currently being applied to a com-
maintaining the nal demand of energy per person at 3.6 GJ/year? prehensive analysis of the European food chain.
To simulate this scenario the junction ratios q35 = 0.38 0.318 The search of a sustainable food system will generate benets in
and q45 = 0.62 0.682 whilst rest of parameters are kept constant. numerous areas: health, biodiversity, ecological restoration, energy
Eq. (18) can be used to compute the resources consumption impact saving or economic justice. None of these benets alone may out-
for this simulation as: weigh the apparent short term gains of the current destructive
system. However, the sum of these benets will construct a more
FT = cP,3 q35 + cP,4 q45 F5 (23) sustainable society and should help to avoid the trap of increasing
production and entropy generation at the expense of an increas-
Eq. (23), using the unit production cost associated with fossil fuels
ingly degraded Earth.
and biomass, implies a saving of 10.74 GJ (13.42 %) of biomass
resources, and 2.04 GJ (5.73 %) of fossil fuels.
On the other hand, if we would reduce the energy demand per References
person by 10%, the associated saving would be equal to 3.49 GJ
Agudelo, A., Valero, A., Torres, C., 2012]. Allocation of waste cost in thermoeconomic
(9.84%) of fossil fuels and 7.33 GJ (9.16 %) of biomass, which could analysis. Energy 45, 634643.
be computed using the expression: Ayres, R., Ayres, L., 1996]. Industrial Ecology. Towards Closing the Material Cycle.
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham U.K.
FT = cP,5 E50 Baral, A., Bakshi, B.R., 2010]. Emergy analysis using US economic inputoutput
models with applications to life cycles of gasoline and corn ethanol. Ecological
Modelling 221, 18071818.
Barney, G.O., 1980]. The Global 2000 Report to the President of the US. Entering the
Table 6 21st Century. The Summary Report, vol. 1. Pergamon Press, New York.
Impact of resources consumption with a 10% increase on the process efciency. Cornelissen, R.L., 1997. Thermodynamics and sustainable development. The use of
exergy analysis and the reduction of irreversibility. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Process FTnrs (GJ) FTrs (GJ) FTnrs (GJ)
Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. Available at: http://doc.utwente.nl/32030
1 0.000 0.00% 6.000 7.50% 6.000 5.19% Deumling, D., Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, Ch., 2003. Eating up the earth: how
2 0.627 1.77% 7.881 9.85% 8.507 7.37% sustainable food systems shrink our ecological footprint Agriculture Footprint
3 0.060 0.17% 0.216 0.27% 0.276 0.24% Brief, Redening Progress. Available at: http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/
agron515/eatearth.pdf
4 0.254 0.71% 0.094 0.12% 0.347 0.30%
Finnveden, G., Ostland, P., 1997]. Exergies of natural resources in life-cycle assess-
5 2.514 7.08% 5.808 7.26% 8.322 7.21%
ment and other applications. Energy 22, 923931.
28 C. Torres et al. / Ecological Modelling 255 (2013) 2128
Font de Mora, E., Torres, C., Valero, A., 2012]. Assessment of biodiesel energy Torres, C., Perez, E., Valero, A., 2007. TAESS: Thermoeconomic Analysis of Energy
sustainability using the exergy return on investment concept. Energy 45, System Software. Available at: http://www.exergoecology.com/taess (Accessed,
474480. Feb. 2013).
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971]. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard Valero, A., Valero, Al., 2010]. Exergoecology: a thermodynamic approach for
University Press, Cambridge, MA. accounting the Earths mineral capital. The case of bauxitealuminium and
Hau, J., Bakshi, B., 2004]. Expanding exergy analysis to account for ecosystem prod- limestonelime chains. Energy 35, 229238.
ucts and services environ. Science and Technology 38, 37683777. Valero, A., 1998]. Thermoeconomics as a conceptual basis for energy-ecological anal-
Jorgensen, S., Svirezhev, Y., 2004]. Towards a Thermodynamic Theory for Ecological ysis. In: Ulgiati, S., et al. (Eds.), Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in
Systems. Elsevier, U.K. Ecology and Economy. , pp. 415444.
Jorgensen, S., 2006]. In: Tiezzi, E. (Ed.), Eco-Exergy as Sustainability. WIT Press, U.K. Valero, A., 2006]. Exergy Accounting: Capabilities and Drawbacks. Energy 31,
Kotas, T.J., 1985]. The exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis. Butterworths, U.K. 164180.
Lozano, M.A., Valero, A., 1993]. Theory of exergetic cost. Energy 18 (9), 939960. Valero, A., Lozano, M.A., Muoz, M., 1986]. A general theory of exergy saving. Part I:
Miller, R.E., Blair, P.D., 2009]. InputOutput Analysis. Fundations and Extensions, on the exergetic cost. In: Gaggioli, R.A. (Ed.), In: ASME. AES, vol. 2-3. Computer-
2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, U.K. Aided Engineering and Energy Systems. Second Law Analysis and Modelling.
Odum, H.T., 1995]. Environmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision ASME Book No. H0341C, vol. 3, pp. 18.
Making. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY. Valero, A., Lozano, M.A., Serra, L., Tsatsaronis, G., Pisa, J., Frangopoulos, C.A., von
Riley, M., 2005. Eating green: How should we eat to best protect the environment. Spakovsy, M.R., 1994]. CGAM problem: denition and conventional solution.
Available at: http://www.heia.com.au/images/2005Conference/conf05Riley.pdf Energy 19, 279286.
Svirezhev, Y., 2000]. Thermodynamics and ecology. Ecological Modelling 132, Valero, A., et al., 2004]. On the thermoeconomic approach to the diagnosis
1122. of energy system malfunctions. Part 1: the TADEUS problem. Energy 29,
Torres, C., 2009]. Symbolic thermoeconomic analysis of energy systems. In: Fran- 18751887.
gopoulos, C.A. (Ed.), In: Exergy, Energy System Analysis and Optimization, vol. Valero, A., Uche, J., Valero, A., Martnez, A., 2009]. Physical hydronomics: application
2. Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, pp. 6182. of the exergy analysis to the assessment of environmental costs of water bodies.
Torres, C., Valero, A., Serra, L., Royo, J., 2002]. Structural theory and thermoeconomic The case of the inland basins of Catalonia. Energy 34, 21012107.
diagnosis: Part I. On malfunction and dysfunction analysis. Energy Conversion von Weizsacker, E., Lovins, A., Lovins, L., 1997. Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving
and Management 43, 15031518. Resource Use. The New Report to the Club of Rome. Earthscan Ltd.