Exergy

Energy 32 (2007) 21672186
Dynamic exergy analysis for capacity expansion of regional

power-generation systems: Case study of far West Texas
Humberto R. Becerra-Lopez
a,
, Peter Golding
b
a
Center for Environmental Resource Management, The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W. University Av., El Paso, TX 79968-0684, USA
b
College of Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA
Received 4 May 2006
Abstract
The global electricity supply from non-hydro renewables, mainly wind and solar, is currently growing at a high rate, and it is expected
that this trend persists. In the near-to-medium term, the power produced by breakthrough fossil fuel technologies might also grow
intensively. These expansion patterns can be optimized in a regional context, which translates into a multidimensional problem. As part
of the solution, a procedure to determine maximum allowable growth rates for alternative power-generation technologies is developed
and exemplied in this paper. The model applies a dynamic exergy analysis based on the cumulative exergy-consumption concept,
expanded to include emissions abatement. A Gompertz sigmoid growth is assumed and constrained by both exergetic self-sustenance and
regional energy resource availability. Far West Texas is the selected study region. The deployment of alternative technologies (wind
turbines, photovoltaics, hybrid solar thermal parabolic troughs, and solid oxide fuel cells) to meet the regional power demand is
projected assuming backup capacity by a conventional technology (natural gas combined cycle). The results show that during the next
decades the new capacity demand may largely be met by deploying alternative technologies, with a cost in primary resources that can be
minimized through a proper allowance for exergy reinvestment.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Exergy; Dynamic exergy analysis; Resource use; Depletion; Regional energy planning; Power-generation planning; Renewable-energy sources
1. Introduction
1.1. Power generation: exergetically self-sustained
expansion
To accomplish the sustainability of regional power-
generation systems is a multifaceted complex process that
requires implementing long-term plans. Some of the
variables that make such planning particularly difcult
include rapidly changing demographics, environmental
impacts, nite resources, and advances in production
technologies. The challenge is to harness the local renew-
able resources and to employ the fossil fuel stock more
efciently. Once a new technology is introduced into a
region, it should be optimally deployed. Expanding
optimally the capacity of a regional power-generation
system constitutes a planning task where multiple dimen-
sions converge. As part of this assignment, the physical
dimension needs to be constrained.
The problem of physically constraining the deployment
of an alternative power-generation technology (hereafter,
alternative technology) is solved and exemplied in
this paper, using a dynamic exergy analysis approach
to determine maximum allowable growth rates. The
expansion is limited by the resource requirement
of each technology to increase its capacity and the
fulllment of the electrical demand. An exergetic self-
sustenance condition is thus dened where a fraction
of the output power is allowed for reinvestment. The
developed model makes use of the cumulative exergy-
consumption (CExC) concept expanded to include
emissions abatement. A Gompertz sigmoid (S-shaped)
growth model is assumed and constrained by both
exergetic self-sustenance and regional availability of energy
resources.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
0360-5442/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.04.009
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 915 747 8036.

E-mail address: hbecerra@miners.utep.edu (H.R. Becerra-Lopez).
1.2. Analytical background
First and second law thermodynamics can be used to
analyze any energy system, independent of scale, from
microdevices to very large systems. Based on the rst law,
energy analysis has been the conventional procedure to
evaluate energy conversion alternatives [1]. Exergy analy-
sis, based on the second law, is a thermodynamic break-
through step that technically improves energy analysis [2].
It allows not only a quantitative but also a qualitative
consideration of the sources of irreversibility in an energy
conversion process. Irreversibility implies exergy destruc-
tion and, by extension, potential to harm the environment
[3]. In the macroscale, exergy analysis applicability is
magnied in such way that it skips from an independent
design mechanism to what could be dened as an essential
tool in energy and policy making activities [4]. When
economic variables are introduced, exergy analysis turns
into thermoeconomics, a relatively recent discipline, that is
usually applied to the improvement of processes [5].
Determining a full cost of electricity that internalizes
externalities is a matter of study that has been the object of
major funded projects [6]. The term externalities applies
to costs (negative externalities, e.g. global warming) or
benets (positive externalities, e.g. community develop-
ment) associated with economic activity, that are not
reected in the market price. The inclusion of externalities
within a cost balance might signicantly impact the
economy of the electrical service. According to studies
developed for Europe, the United States, and some other
world regions, negative externalities are estimated to
increase the monetary cost of electricity production from
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Nomenclature
abatex specic exergy for emissions abatement, MJ/kg
AbatEx exergy for emissions abatement, MWh or MJ
AH annual hours (8760 h/yr)
b Gompertz growth rate constant, yr
1
c
0
ln (P
Inst,max
/P
Inst,0
)
ced specic cumulative energy demand, MWh/ton
CED cumulative energy demand, MWh
CExC cumulative exergy consumption, MWh
CexPA cumulative exergy for power and abatement,
MWh
CF capacity factor
CF
H
capacity factor, hybrid
CF
S
capacity factor, solar
d
1,k
saving factor for CExC
d
2,k
saving factor for AbatEx
E energy, MWh
f
R
exergy reinvestment factor
HSTPT hybrid solar thermal parabolic trough(s)
I solar irradiance, W/m
2
m mass, kg
m
Gas
mass of gas, kg
m
Mat
mass of material, kg
m
SMat
mass of source material, kg
NGCC natural gas combined cycle
P power or capacity, MW
e
PL plant life, yr
PV photovoltaic(s)
r renewable-to-total electric work output ratio
RM reserve margin
SOFC solid oxide fuel cell(s)
t time, yr
t
N
innite time, yr
t
c
construction time, yr
W
Elec
electric work, MWh
e
WT wind turbine(s)
x specic chemical exergy, MJ/kg, MWh/ton
y
Gen
fraction of CExPA
Const
for electric generation
Greek symbols
a exergy/energy ratio
l recycling fraction
Z energy (rst-law) efciency
Z
BOS
balance-of-system efciency
Z
PD
production-to-delivery efciency
Z
SE
solar-to-electric efciency
Z
X
mean exergy efciency
Subscripts
Av available
Const construction
Dec decommissioning or decommissioned
DecAv decommissioned available
DemExp demand expansion
e electric
i-Mat i-material
i-SMat i-source material
Inst installed
j fuel type
k technology type
max maximum
NewDem new demand
NGCC natural gas combined cycle
NRen non-renewable
Op operation
p pollutant gas type
PL plant life, yr
Prim primary resources
Ren renewable
t time, yr
H.R. Becerra-Lopez, P. Golding / Energy 32 (2007) 21672186 2168
gas by 3060%, and from coal or oil by 100200% [79].
However, an accurate economic valuation of externalities is
intrinsically difcult, due to methodological differences,
assumptions, and site specications [10], and implementa-
tion of this approach is often contentious [11]. A second
option exists where, instead of accounting for externalities,
the costs of avoiding the initiating insult (proxy methods)
are measured [12], e.g., the costs of abating emissions, such
as capture and sequestration of CO
2
, instead of the costs
caused externally by the environmental impact of the
pollutant release.
The search for a production cost scale supported by
physical roots has given rise to the concepts of embodied
energy and embodied exergy, identied respectively as
cumulative energy consumption
1
[13], and CExC [14]. Both
parameters represent a physical cost and are intended to
function as life-cycle values for goods and services. The
advantage of using the exergetic parameter is that it takes
into account not only fuel ows, but also non-fuel material
ows, resulting in a more ecologically acceptable procedure
[15]. Certainly, as discussed by Valero [16], the use of CExC
for costing allocation may signify accuracy loss due to lack
of data which is justiable when precision is not the
ultimate objective (e.g. in assessment of technologies or
technological forecast). Since the calculation of CExC
depends directly on processes and locations, future
renement of the computed values is to be expected.
Through this study, CExC is applied as a thermody-
namic-environmental gure of merit. It enables technolo-
gies to be graded according to the consumption of exergy,
from cradle to grave. For uncombined streams CExC is
additive and independent of time, so it conveniently
supports the dynamic modeling of an exergy-consuming
system integrated by multiple technologies. The methodol-
ogy incorporates CExC to determine the physically
allowable maximums for the capacity growth rate of each
technology and to explore optimum system conditions that
minimize the depletion of primary resources.
Although the specic internal energy conversion pro-
cesses are not analyzed in the study, the applicability of
CExC for this purpose deserves additional comment. In
particular, it has been argued that CExC, a parameter
affected by non-physical factors, may be decient for
physically optimizing technologies supported by sequential
processes (e.g. condensation, evaporation, etc.), because
the thermodynamic limits (e.g. lower bound for energy
supply or upper bound for work production) would not be
precisely determined through it [17]. However, the necessity
of considering externalities for assessing technologies on a
life-cycle basis makes the problem multidimensional and
the optimum potentially different. With this perspective,
CExC is an advantageous concept to optimize devices and
systems [18]. As discussed by Sciubba [19], optimality can
be satised through the performance as specied by design
data and abiding by all constraints, and displaying the
most desirable behavior under a certain set of operative
conditions.
The ability of exergy analysis to translate resource ows,
residuals, and irreversibilities into common units has
promoted its incorporation into the life-cycle assessment
(LCA) methodology, leading to the so-called life-cycle
exergy analysis (LCEA). LCA was introduced to evaluate
the life-cycle environmental impact of goods and services,
while LCEA, based on the LCA framework, has been
proposed as a design tool that focuses on the sustainability
of the system [20]. In LCEA all the exergy used in the
production chain is determined (similar to CExC calcula-
tion), and the net amount computed to dene an exergetic
accountability. A method parallel to LCEA, but denomi-
nated exergetic LCA, has been demonstrated to quantify
depletion of natural resources and to assess the efciency
of use of resources [21]. The extended energy accounting
(EEA) approach is another promising methodology arising
as an attempt to integrate a formally complete costing
theory based indifferently on an exergetic metric or on a
monetary metric (op. cit. [19]). EEA expands CExC to
internalize non-energetic factors by converting externalities
into equivalent exergetic content.
1.3. The approach
The methodology develops the dynamic exergy analysis of
a regional power-generation system expanded to include
multiple alternative technologies. Hypothetically, each
technology expands according to the Gompertz growth
model. The analysis utilizes the CExC concept since only
exergetic ows are considered, and as a proxy method, it
considers the abatement of emissions instead of internalizing
externalities. To build the model a condition of exergetic
self-sustenance for construction of plants is dened. This
assures the sustainability of the expansion process, avoiding
the creation of net energy sinks. Once an initial primary
exergy investment proceeds to launch a technology, the
exergy input required for its subsequent expansion becomes
limited by its own electricity production. Since a fraction of
this output is allowed to be reinvested, maximum growth
rates become determinable for each technology. The exergy
reinvestment represents a main independent variable that
conditions the primary resource consumption through a
tradeoff between construction of plants (the heaviest factor
in the LCA of renewable-energy technologies), and satisfac-
tion of new demand for electrical service. This in turn
determines the extent of dependence on conventional
technologies. Since the exergy reinvestment can be opti-
mized, an opportunity for net reduction in the consumption
of primary resources is feasible. As a regulated allowance,
the exergy reinvestment may also be applied to delimit or
promote the deployment of specic technologies.
It is assumed that the expansion of regional demand for
electricity can be provided by alternative technologies with
backup production from natural gas combined-cycle
(NGCC) plants. The alternative technologies considered
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
Cumulative energy demand (CED) in this paper.
are: wind turbines (WT), hybrid solar thermal parabolic
troughs (HSTPT, also named solar electric generation
stations), photovoltaic (PV) conversion, and solid oxide
fuel cells (SOFC). These technologies have been preselected
to demonstrate the methodology. Further, they correspond
with the availability of renewable resources in the study
region as well as with a manifest condition of commercial
viability and policy support [2224]. The period of
projection extends 40 yr, which permits the simulation of
the retirement of both the power plants currently serving
the region and the alternative power plants started at the
beginning of the period of study.
1.4. Case study: the service region
The system that generates and delivers electricity to the
Upper Rio Grande region located in far west Texas, US,
has been selected as the case study. As dened by the Texas
Comptroller of Public Accounts, the Upper Rio Grande
region consists of the El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff
Davis, Presidio, and Brewster counties. The region benets
from substantive fossil fuel reserves and extensive avail-
ability of high-grade solar and wind energy resources.
Presently, wind power generation represents the most
outstanding application of renewables in the region, with
a total installed capacity above 66 MW
e
; incidentally, the
electricity is mainly purchased by retailers and sold to out-
of-region consumers [25]. An experimental full-scale PV
power plant is currently under development.
2. Methodology
2.1. System
Consider a regional power-generation system in expan-
sion for any given combination of technologies as
schematized in Fig. 1. The analysis of this system is made
with the following assumptions:
2.1.1. System and exergy interactions
The system boundary includes all production-chain
processes, from cradle to grave, including construction,
emissions abatement, decommissioning, and recycling
phases. This implies that production of materials and
equipment, associated exergy input, and related emis-
sions may occur within or outside the geographical
region.
The exergy input required for construction, decommis-
sioning, and recycling is completely provided by primary
resources, and for operation by renewable resources or a
mix of primary-renewable resources.
The waste exergy contained in efuents (e.g. pollutant
emissions) remains within the system boundaries.
The system exchanges exergy continuously with a pure
exergy pool. This exergy pool is associated with a
national account of exergetic resources (electricity, fuels,
and non-fuel materials), with inputs, outputs, and
changes in storage. It is dened in the physical
dimension, so no direct functional correlation is
established with economic values.
2.1.2. Exergy consumption and saving
CExC and exergy for abatement of emissions are
physical costs. Therefore, even though both materials
and equipment required along the production chain
were produced mostly outside the service region (e.g.
PV modules, WT, etc.), the inherent physical cost is
considered absolutely linked to the region.
The former statements also imply that exergy savings
introduced by using a sustainable technology could be
attached to the national exergy pool, but the region and
the system would then be direct recipients of this credit.
The function of such exergetic credit would be applied
only to determine a physical limit below which the
expansion of a technology can be managed.
2.1.3. Electrical service and technologies
The power-generation system serves a delimited geo-
graphical region with an expanding electrical consump-
tion market.
The preexisting capacity originates from plants placed
both within and outside the region but the new capacity
is totally located within the region.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. Exergy ow in a power-generation system.
The electricity generated by the system feeds the region
via a national interconnected grid.
Since only utility-scale grid connected power plants are
considered here as alternatives to expand the capacity,
PV systems integrated to buildings are not accounted
for. The corresponding roof area is thus not added when
determining the solar energy potential.
2.2. Cumulative exergy consumption
CExC is an aggregative concept that adds up the exergy
of all natural resources consumed upstream in a produc-
tion process. It takes into account the chemical exergy
of both fuels and non-fuel raw materials extracted from
the environment. Consequently, CExC becomes a good
indicator of natural resource depletion.
The calculation of CExC for any system involves its
whole life cycle, from cradle to grave, separated for
convenience into the phases of construction, operation,
and decommissioning:
CExC
Lifecycle
CExC
Const
CExC
Op
CExC
Dec
. (1)
CExC for power plant construction consists of the
cumulative exergy input allocated to the consumption of
fuels and the chemical exergy input tied to the use of non-
fuel materials needed to build the plant. A simplied
calculation of the cumulative exergy for fuels can be based
on cumulative energy demand (CED) data for construction
as well as on a weighted sum of the exergy/energy content
ratios a [26]. The exergy input from non-fuel materials
can be obtained from the product of the source material
mass (m
i-SMat
) and its respective specic chemical exergy
(x
i-SMat
). Then, CExC per unit of capacity in construction
for a particular technology (k) is calculated as
CExC
P
_ _
Const;k
a
CED
P
_ _
Const;k
i
x
iSMat
m
iSMat
P
_ _
Const;k
. 2
CED can be gathered from LCA studies, while values for a
have been taken as follows: coal 1.09, natural gas 1.04, oil
1.07, and nuclear fuel 1.0 [27,28]. The weighted sum for a is
1.06 calculated according to the primary consumption
distribution in the US (2004 data [29]): coal 23.9%, natural
gas 24.5%, oil 42.8%, and nuclear 8.8%. A selection of
main source materials has been considered; respective
values of specic chemical exergy are presented in Table 1.
Source material quantities required for each alternative are
included in Appendix A.
For operation, CExC is predominantly determined by
fuel consumption. The chemical exergy input due to the
materials used is so low that it can be reasonably neglected.
Thus, in this phase CExC becomes zero for pure
renewable-energy systems. Based on these arguments, the
exergy input for operation per unit electric work output
can be calculated simply as a function of the exergy/energy
ratio of the fuel to be consumed (a
j
), the efciency of
the production-to-delivery process (Z
PD
), the energy
efciency (Z
k
), and the renewable-to-total electric work
output ratio (r):
CExC
W
Elec
_ _
Op;k
a
j
Z
P2D
Z
k
1 r. (3)
The estimated value for Z
PD
of natural gas is 83% [31].
For Z
k
the following values are used: NGCC 49% [32],
HSTPT 26% (gas to electric, assumed), and SOFC 67%
[33]. The ratio r is 0 for fossil fuel power plants and 1 for
systems converting only renewable energy. Considering
that for HSTPT technology W
Elec
P
Inst
AHCF
H
is the
total electric output and W
Elec,Ren
P
Inst
AHCF
S
is its
renewable part, where CF
H
and CF
S
stand for the annual
capacity factors for the modes hybrid and solar, respec-
tively, and AH means annual hours (8760), then r is
determined as
r
W
Elec;Ren
W
Elec
CF
S
CF
H
. (4)
For an HSTPT power plant, P
Inst
is the nominal rating
at 100% turbine capacity. A turbine installed in a solar
thermal power plant is usually designed to be run at higher
capacities when inlet steam ows are higher than the
nominal rating, so the solar eld is sized to produce full
power during less than peak conditions. This permits the
achievement of full power over a broader range of weather
conditions registering period-specic capacity factors high-
er than one [34]. The ratio r for HSTPT plants could also
be estimated from annual data for the total electricity
output, and the solar electricity output converted from the
exergy input (incoming solar radiation) 0.95IA
col
[35].
The decommissioning phase involves exergy consump-
tion for plant dismantling and materials recycling. The
exergy (or energy) saved from the recycling activity allows
a net balance that may even result in a net gain, although in
some cases this might become in relative terms, non-
signicant. As for example, the net energy saving from
decommissioning and recycling of a gas-red combined-
cycle plant has been estimated as 0.01% with respect to the
life-cycle energy use [36]. However, in the case of renew-
able-energy systems, where essentially most of the exergy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Specic chemical exergy of source materials
Source material Specic chemical exergy
a
MJ/kg MWh/ton
Iron ore 0.42 0.12
Bauxite 1.10 0.31
Limestone 0.03 0.01
Gravel (rock) 0.32 0.09
Sand 0.03 0.01
Quartz 0.03 0.01
a
[30].
consumption is loaded to the construction phase, recycling
would have an important weight on the life-cycle exergy
balance. Decommissioning and recycling is per se an
assessment factor to consider, but unfortunately, published
information detailing the energy consumption incurred
during this phase is not available for all the technologies.
Because of that, and for simplicity, in this work the net
balance of the cumulative exergy for decommissioning and
recycling will be based exclusively on the materials
recycling, and applied as an exergy saving factor d
1,k
with
respect to CExC for construction. The methodology used
to determine d
1,k
and the corresponding values for the
selected technologies are presented in Appendix C.
According to the preceding considerations, the life-cycle
CExC per unit energy output will be estimated as
CExC
W
Elec
_ _
Lifecycle;k
CExC
P
_ _
Const;k
1 d
1;k
AHPL
k
CF
k
_ _
_ _
CExC
W
Elec
_ _
Op;k
, 5
where AH means annual hours, PL is the plant life in years,
and CF is the capacity factor.
2.3. Cumulative exergy for emissions abatement
Power plant construction and operation are activities
that produce intensive emission of pollutant gases. Thus,
an exergy analysis should include not only the exergy
consumed for construction, operation, and decommission-
ing of the system, but also the exergetic cost associated with
either negative externalities or the avoidance of the initial
insult to the environment. Negative externalities can be
assessed through: (1) the estimation of ecosystem dete-
rioration (ecological and human damage) measured as the
exergy lost to the environment in terms of the waste exergy
emission rate [37]; (2) the correlation of exergetic costs with
the economic costs caused by the environmental impact;
and (3) the application of a pollution potential (an entropic
function) as a measure of the ideal thermodynamic expense
to restore the environment to its pristine condition [38].
The avoidance of the initial insult to the environment is an
alternative approach that establishes for each technology
an exergetic cost to abate emissions.
As internalizing externalities are characterized by an
intrinsically high level of uncertainty, the abatement of
emissions has been preferred in this study. The imposition
of an exergetic cost to abate emissions links efciencies
with environmental impacts. This assures an impartial
treatment of technologies. This is the case even when no
real abatement is implemented, since possible imbalances in
the assessments are avoided, such as those that could be
developed if measures like trading with pollution commod-
ities [39], or green taxes were applied [40].
The addition of abatement exergy to the system
accounting requires that the pollutant emissions be traced
back to the generation source in each phase of the entire
life cycle [41], resulting in an obligated expansion of CExC.
These phases are supported by an energy supply chain that
entails pollutant gas emissions in all the energy input
streams (extraction and processing of non-fuel and fuel
materials, manufacturing of plant equipment, transporta-
tion, and materials decommissioning and recycling).
AbatEx, as dened by Wang et al. (op. cit. [26]), is the
amount of exergy required to abate or prevent the output
of emissions to the environment, or to manage a more
environmental-friendly disposal. Dewulf et al. [42] have
proposed the use of the term cumulative exergy for
abatement (CExA) in the expansion of CExC, specically
for construction (CExCA, cumulative exergy for construc-
tion and abatement). In this work, the term AbatEx will be
used. The main greenhouse and acidic gas emissions from
construction and operation of power plants are CO
2
, SO
2
,
NO
X
, CH
4
, and N
2
O. Values of specic AbatEx (abatex, in
MJ/kg, shown in Table 2) for CO
2
, SO
2
, and NO
X
have
been provided by Cornelissen [43], based on available
technologies; for CH
4
, and N
2
O, abatex can be estimated
proportional to the respective global warming potential
(op. cit. [26]). Unit waste emissions for NGCC, WT, PV,
HSTPT, and SOFC during these phases are presented in
Appendix B.
The system exergy segment for emissions abatement (see
Fig. 1) is thus disaggregated into the portions of construc-
tion, operation, and decommissioning and recycling; and
correspondingly expressed through unit values for AbatEx.
For construction, AbatEx per unit of capacity in construc-
tion is a function of the pollutant gas emitted by
construction and the specic exergy required for their
abatement:
AbatEx
P
_ _
Const;k
p
m
Gas;p
P
_ _
Const;k
abatex
p
_ _
. (6)
For operation, AbatEx is determined per unit of electric
energy output, requiring information about the pollutant
gas emitted during the operative phase:
AbatEx
W
Elec
_ _
Op;k
p
m
Gas;p
W
Elec
_ _
Op;k
abatex
p
_ _
. (7)
As for exergy consumption, decommissioning and
recycling also has an effect in reducing waste gas emissions
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Specic abatement exergy for gas emissions
Gas abatex Characteristic
MJ/kg MWh/ton
CO
2
5.86
a
1.63 Greenhouse gas
SO
2
57.00
a
15.83 Acidic
NO
X
16.00
a
4.44 Acidic
CH
4
34.34
b
9.54 Greenhouse gas
N
2
O 201.23
b
55.90 Greenhouse gas
a
[26,43].
b
Estimated proportional to the 100-yr GWP.
and causes a lower gure for AbatEx. This exergy saving
will be dened through the factor d
2,k
in the calculation
of the life-cycle value for AbatEx. The methodology
used and corresponding values for d
2,k
are presented in
Appendix C.
AbatEx per unit of electric work output for the life cycle
is then obtained as
AbatEx
W
Elec
_ _
Lifecycle;k
AbatEx
P
_ _
Const;k
1 d
2;k
AHPL
k
CF
k
_ _
_ _
AbatEx
W
Elec
_ _
Op;k
. 8
2.4. Cumulative exergy for power and abatement
The addition of CExC and AbatEx can be dened as the
cumulative exergy for power and abatement (CExPA):
CExPA CExC AbatEx: (9)
The parameter CExPA characterizes the technologies in
each one of the phases of the system life cycle, so unit
values of CExPA for construction, operation, and life cycle
can be determined by directly adding the corresponding
values for CExC and AbatEx. Also, the unit value of
CExPA for the decommissioning phase assuming net
exergy saving from recycling can be estimated as
CExPA
P
_ _
Dec;k
d
1;k
CExC
P
_ _
Const;k
d
2;k
AbatEx
P
_ _
Const;k
_ _
. 10
CExPA is a parameter that can be applied to dene a
cumulative exergy intensity ratio CExPA/W
Elec
; that is, the
total consumption of exergy from primary resources that a
system demands to generate an electric energy unit without
environmental impact.
2.5. Dynamic analysis
2.5.1. Annual consumption of cumulative exergy
The year-to-year CExPA value for each alternative k can
be accounted for in terms of the exergy amounts charged to
construction, operation, and decommissioning as
CExPA
k;t
CExPA
Const;k;t
CExPA
Op;k;t
CExPA
Dec;k;t
. 11
CExPA for construction as a function of time is given by
CExPA
Const;k;t
P
Const;k;t
CExPA
P
_ _
Const;k
, (12)
where P
Const,k,t
is the capacity in construction at the year t.
The electric work output at the year t is calculated as
W
Elec,k,t
P
Inst,k,t
AHCF
k
, where P
Inst,k,t
is the installed
capacity at the year t; so CExPA for operation as a
function of time is given as
CExPA
Op;k;t
W
Elec;k;t
CExPA
W
Elec
_ _
Op;k
. (13)
CExPA for decommissioning and recycling as a function of
time is 0 for tpPL, while for t4PL it is calculated as
CExPA
Dec;k;t
P
Const;k;tPL
k
CExPA
P
_ _
Dec;k
. (14)
CExPA can be totalized for a long-term horizon as
CExPA
k
CExPA
k;t
(15)
and the total energy delivered to the grid as
W
Elec

k
W
Elec;k;t
. (16)
2.5.2. Gompertz growth model
Mathur et al. [44] have determined maximum growth
rates in developing power-generation capacity in India
through dynamic energy analysis. Although the exercise is
valuable in that it provides reference points for a maximum
allowable expansion, it is implicitly limited to the hypoth-
esis of short periods with intensive market penetration.
A more austere evaluation of such maximums can be
achieved through self-limiting growth models like for
example, the logistic growth model applied to the devel-
opment of Dutch wind power as presented by Wolsink [45].
In this study, the Gompertz growth model has been
preferred because its prediction pattern is smoother
than the logistic model [46]. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the
Gompertz model generates a sigmoid growth curve with a
deection point occurring before the half of the asymptotic
value.
According to the Gompertz model, the growth rate of
the installed capacity (nameplate) can be hypothesized as
dP
Inst
dt
P
Inst
a b ln P
Inst
. (17)
P
Inst
is the normalized term of the installed capacity as a
function of time given by P
Inst
t P
Inst
t=P
Inst;0
; a and b
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. A characteristic Gompertz curve.
are constants. The general solution for this differential
equation can be expressed as
P
Inst
t P
Inst;0
e
a=b
e
ce
bt
. (18)
The boundary conditions are taken as: P
Inst
(t) P
Inst,0
for
t t
c
where t
c
is the construction time, and P
Inst
(t)
P
Inst,max
for t t
N
where t
N
is innite time. Applying the
rst boundary condition it is found that
c a=be
bt
c
(19)
and the second boundary condition leads to
a=b lnP
Inst;max
=P
Inst;0
c
0
. (20)
The installed capacity, determined at any time as the
commissioned (started) capacity less the decommissioned
(retired) capacity, is then expressed as
P
Inst
t P
Inst;max
e
c
0
e
bttc
, (21)
where b is named the Gompertz growth rate constant.
Another dynamic variable to be evaluated is the capacity
in construction during the time interval over which it has
effect. At time t+t
c
, the installed capacity is
P
Inst
t t
c
P
Inst;max
e
c
0
e
bt
. (22)
Thus, considering that P
Const
(t) P
Inst
(t+t
c
)P
Inst
(t), it
can be established that
P
Const
t P
Inst;max
e
c
0
e
bt
e
c
0
e
bttc
. (23)
2.5.3. Exergy reinvestment
Regional sustainability in power supply requires an
extensive harnessing of local sources of renewable energy
as well as the adoption of cleaner fossil fuel technologies.
A parallel provision to the introduction of these alternative
technologies is to determine how fast they can be deployed
following a sustainability pattern. Finding this upper
bound is a precondition for any subsequent optimization
task and a key aspect to deal with the power demand
growth.
The problem can be framed to make the capacity
expansion exclusively dependent on the production of the
system. That is, the installation of alternative plants to
cover the demand for new capacity requires an initial
investment of exergy that, as an assumption, would be
provided exclusively by fossil fuels. Once these plants start
their operative phase, a production margin would be
allocated as exergetic reinvestment for the construction of
more plants. Linking in this way electricity output with
exergy input (for construction) makes the system expand-
able over its own performance and more environmentally
sustainable in its growth. Such a stage can be denominated
as exergetic self-sustenance for capacity expansion. The
supply of fossil fuels required to support the operation of
some of the plants (HSTPT or SOFC in this study) may
also represent a constraint. However, this constraint would
not be applicable to the growth rate since fossil fuels might
be regionally obtained or even imported. The maximum
capacity for these technologies might be established to
minimize the consumption of non-renewable resources or
arbitrarily dened as a planning strategy. Similarly, the
availability of renewable resources does not limit the
growth rate of renewable power plants, but does limit their
nal capacity.
As described by Mathur et al. (op. cit. [44]), two
scenarios are possible to link capacity expansion with
energy input. The rst one assumes independence of each
technology for the energetic linkage outputinput making
the expansion individually self-sustained. This case would
imply that a technology can freely grow up to a limit
determined by its own production. Surpassing this point
leads to the creation of an energy sink, or in other words,
to an extended prevalence of the investment phase.
Evidently, a technology could develop higher maximum
growth rates if it were not restricted to deliver a certain net
contribution. However, maximum individual growth rates
do not necessarily lead to the best performance of the
whole system, since as an extreme the power delivered for
consumption would be zero. The second scenario considers
that each technology contributes to a total energy pool,
and retains a credit, the so-called reinvestment factor,
which denes its maximum expansion opportunity.
Though in this case lower individual growth rates can be
anticipated, due to the limitation preimposed by such
factor, its introduction does allow planners to dispose
of a control variable for promotion or suppression of a
particular technology assigning differentiated factors.
A reinvestment factor can be explicitly selected or
implicitly introduced (e.g. when a market penetration
target is established). The second scenario corresponds
with the rst scenario when the reinvestment factor for all
the technologies has a value equal to one. A more detailed
comparison between the two cases is an optimization task
that goes beyond the scope of the analysis. In this work, the
second scenario is assumed, maintaining the reinvestment
factor constant for all the technologies, but in contrast to
Mathurs work, here it is developed in exergetic terms.
Fig. 3 illustrates the process for exergy reinvestment.
The region served by the system is integrated across all the
energy-use sectors including the electrical sector itself. The
power delivered to the grid contributes to the national pool
of energy resources (electricity and fuels). If exergy is
considered instead of energy, non-fuel materials can also be
added and an exergy pool is formed. The exergy pool via
the grid receives the total amount of electricity W
Elec
from
the system and returns it back to the region. The term
f
R
W
Elec
is the portion of electricity delivered that is
accredited as the maximum allowable exergy that can be
applied for reinvestment in construction of new plants.
Here f
R
is a fraction denominated (as referred to above) as
the reinvestment factor. The exergy pool supplies to the
system the stream CExPA
Const
through fuels and non-fuel
materials. Part of the fuel stream, a fraction y
Gen
, is
intermediately converted to electricity at a mean exergy
efciency Z
X
of the conventional electrical generation mix.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The electricity required by construction is then calculated
as y
Gen
Z
X
CExPA
Const
.
The accredited exergy to be reinvested does not account
for replacing all the exergy kinds merged in CExPA
Const
. It
only substitutes the input electricity that otherwise would
be supplied by conventional technologies: a unit MWh of
reinvested electricity from alternative technologies dis-
places a unit MWh of electricity from conventional
technologies. Therefore, the construction of new plants
for exergetic self-sustenance can be constrained as
f
R
W
Elec
Xy
Gen
Z
X
CExPA
Const
. (24)
The right term in Eq. (24) is the electricity input required
for construction which in the limit cannot be greater than
the electrical exergy that is reinvested.
Characteristic values for y
Gen
can be reasonably
approximated from ratios for construction CED-electrical
per CED-total: WT 30% and PV 7090% (op. cit. [44]);
and an additional fraction used for emissions abatement
(CO
2
capture basis): 813% [47]. For HSTPT and SOFC,
no specic data have been found, but preliminary numbers
can be estimated from a weighted sum using average
electrical energy intensities for materials production
(reported values in the US are, for example, 24% for iron
and 79% for aluminum [48]). An additional percentage is
also required for mining, forming, nishing, and construc-
tion works. Accordingly, predetermined values for y
Gen
have been established as: WT 50%, PV 80%, HSTPT 50%,
and SOFC 50%.
Overall exergy efciencies of power plants are commonly
very similar and in some cases equal to energy efciencies
[49,50]. Because of this, Z
X
is taken equal to the US average
generation efciency (conventional fuels): 35% [51].
2.5.4. Capacity expansion
The exergetic self-sustenance criterion reduces substan-
tially the consumption of fossil fuels for construction, after
technology is launched, but even in the case of renewables
the dependence on them is not fully eliminated. This is
because an amount of chemical exergy is directly required,
e.g., via fuels for shaft work production and through the
non-fuel materials necessary for buildings and equipment,
and it cannot be replaced by the electrical exergy to be
reinvested. On an individual life-cycle balance, however,
renewable power plants turn into net positive producers of
exergy, surpassing during operation the exergetic invest-
ment received from fossil fuels. If the consumption of fossil
fuels to expand capacity exceeds the limit for exergetic self-
sustenance, then a new stage of investment would proceed.
This extra investment could be justied in the case that a
higher rate of expansion is required, but then the capacity
expansion would not be exergetically self-sustained. The
capacity expansion starts with an initial investment of
exergy from primary resources. It in turn remains as an
independent variable whose best value could be determin-
able by optimization.
In general, the capacity expansion of a power-generation
system is limited by the precondition of an allowed exergy
amount for reinvestment. At any time, the exergy that is
being consumed by the expansion process has to be inferior
to such allowance. In the limit a maximum growth can
then be determined, that for the purpose of this study
corresponds only to the alternative technologies. In order
to determine this limit, Eq. (24) can be rewritten for each
technology as a function of time:
f
R
P
Inst;k;t
AHCF
k
Xy
Gen;k
Z
X
P
Const;k;t
CExPA
P
_ _
Const;k
.
(25)
Substituting Eqs. (21) and (23) in Eq. (25), we nd that
this constraint is satised at all times if b b
max
, where
b
max
(yr
1
) is the value of b that produces equality in
Eq. (25) at t t
c
(yr). Then, an expression for b
max
is
derived as follows:
b
max

1
t
c
ln 1
1
c
0
ln
f
R
AHCF
k
y
Gen;k
Z
X
CExPA=P
Const;k
1
_ _ _ _
,
26
b
max
is the maximum value that b, the Gompertz growth
rate constant, can hold under the criterion of exergetic self-
sustenance.
The capacity expansion of the backup technology depends
on the capacity growth of the alternative technologies.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fuels and non-fuel materials for
construction
X
Elec
W
Electricity to be reinvested in capacity expansion (construction):
Elec R
W f
Electricity for demand service
Const X Gen
CExPA
y
Electricity for
construction
Const
CExPA
Electrical
generation
mix
Power
generation
system
Exergy
pool
Exergy for operation
Fig. 3. Exergy reinvestment for capacity expansion in a regional power-generation system.
This is determined as follows. The expansion of the electrical
energy demand (E
DemExp
) has to be covered by the
expansion of the available electrical energy (E
Av
), which is
equal to the net energy delivered to the grid minus the
energy (exergy) accredited for reinvestment. E
Av
is generated
from new energy sources, both non-renewable (subscript
NRen) and renewable (subscript Ren). For cumulative
values counted since the start of the planning period to year
t, the following equality is established:
E
DemExp;t
E
Av;t
E
NRen
E
Ren
Av;t
. (27)
The non-renewable energy is provided by NGCC as
backup technology and the alternative energy is provided by
the combination of technologies k (for k6NGCC). The
demand expansion originates from two components: the
new demand resulting from the consumption market growth
and the loss of available capacity caused by the retirement of
plants. The decommissioned capacity should be replaced at
a ratio one-to-one, but the new demand has to be covered
with a reserve margin (RM) arbitrarily dened. If power is
considered instead of energy and designating the subscripts
New Dem for new demand and Dec Av for decommis-
sioned available, Eq. (27) transforms into
1 RMP
NewDem;t
P
DecAv;t

k
P
Av;k;t
P
Av;NGCC;t
(28)
for k6 NGCC. The terms P
Av,k
and P
Av,NGCC
will be named
alternative capacity and backup capacity, respectively.
The decommissioned available capacity (the power
output not delivered to the grid) is equal to the installed
capacity to be decommissioned (subscript Dec) multiplied
by the respective capacity factor. Subsequently, introdu-
cing a constant exergy reinvestment factor f
R
(common for
all the technologies), Eq. (28) can be solved to nd the
backup capacity required from NGCC power plants:
P
Av;NGCC;t
1 RMP
NewDem;t

k
P
Dec;k;t
CF
k
1 f
R
k
P
Inst;k;t
CF
k
, 29
where k6NGCC for the last term. This available energy
corresponds to a net value after deducting the consumption
required for expansion of the NGCC capacity. A resultant
exergy reinvestment factor for NGCC technology might be
calculated on this basis.
3. Parameters
3.1. Technology data
A summary of parameters for the power-generation
technologies considered in this study is presented in Table
3. Values for construction time, plant life, and capacity
factor are considered typical; except for the SOFC system
data which is assumed due to the novelty of the technology.
Efciencies were estimated for regional conditions as
indicated. CED values were collected from LCA studies
and related information.
3.2. Energy source potentials
The availability of indigenous energy sources in the
Upper Rio Grande region of far West Texas, both non-
renewable and renewable, practically encompasses fossil
fuels, solar energy, and wind energy.
Although absence of local primary resource deposits
does not represent an absolute restrictive factor to expand
the capacity of a fossil fuel power-generation system,
having direct accessibility to them can become a de facto
advantage. In the region, oil and natural gas are found
throughout the western Permian basin, with vast proved
reserves for Railroad Commission (RRC) District 8 (2003
data [55,56]); being around 240 million cubic meters for oil,
and close to 100 million tons (metric) for natural gas.
NGCC power generation has been considered in this work
as the unique option to supply backup capacity. This
condition presupposes innite reserves of natural gas.
However, it is convenient to be aware of the real potential
that indigenous natural gas reserves may present for
regional supply. With this in mind, a useful rough
calculation can be made for illustrative purposes. Assum-
ing for NGCC power plants a fuel input of around
138 kg/MWh
e
, a maximum access of 10% to the RRC
District 8 reserves (2003, without counting future discov-
eries), a capacity factor of 80%, and an installed capacity
of 1000 MW
e
(500 MW
e
is the NGCC capacity installed
at present in the region), a 10-yr availability horizon for
regional self-supply is determinable.
Estimations for the renewable-energy potential of the
Upper Rio Grande region are presented in Table 4. This
potential depends directly on suitable sites for power plant
placement, whose precise determination is complex because
multiple factors are involved. Factors include resource
provision, electrical grid proximity, environmental restric-
tions, economic competition for land with other industries,
and public acceptance. Nevertheless, an overall assessment
can be made as explained next. The Upper Rio Grande
region has an area of 56,208 km
2
. Most of the land is
privately owned, 4% is state property (managed by the
University of Texas System) [62], and a small fraction is
federal property (categorized for mining) [63]. Assuming
limited opportunities for new leasing, total registered land
vacancies are low and xed: 10% for state lands and 20%
for private lands. Since solar power plants do not allow
mixed land use, they could be restricted to siting primarily
on state lands. The state-land potential area for renewable
power plants is then reduced to 0.4% of the regional area;
allocating 0.2% for solar power plants (0.1% PV and 0.1%
HSTPT). In contrast, as wind energy farms offer favorable
conditions for mixed land use, including grazing and
agriculture, ample possibilities exist to be located in both
areas, but mostly on private lands. Consequently, the
potential area in this case could be taken as 20% of the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
total windy area in the region. The potential for power
output is presented as a total average value in MW
e
, which
is based on annual average data for solar radiation and
wind power densities. It should not be confused with the
installed (nameplate) capacity, which affected by a
corresponding capacity factor would be equal to the
average power output. Alternatively, the potential for
actual energy production per year could be reasonably
obtained through multiplying the power output potential
by 8760 h/yr. For HSTPT technology the power output
potential is limited by the maximum solar potential since
the natural gas input is not constrained.
3.3. Potential expansion for SOFC technology
SOFC technologies are expected to have an important
role in the forthcoming years as small-scale stations and, if
scaling-up is successful, also as large power plants [64]. In
this study, natural gas has been chosen as the input fuel for
SOFC power plants, and as discussed in the preceding
section, its supply would not be considered limiting. The
SOFC capacity, in rst instance, would thus be able to
grow freely on this dimensional front. However, following
a sustainability frame with enhanced support toward the
expansion of renewable power technologies, the contribu-
tion scenario of SOFC can be assumed complementary
more than competitive. The incorporation of SOFC
technology in the analysis is intended to show its evolution
as a new alternative substitute of conventional technolo-
gies. As this evolution is also hypothesized by Gompertz
growth and the power output potential has not been
constrained by fuel input, a predened ceiling for the
reachable capacity is required. This limit has been imposed
as 100 MW
e
for a unique scenario of low share (less than
5% over the total potential for renewables). Undoubtedly,
a higher potential of SOFC technology could be consid-
ered, but this would depend ultimately on the exergetic
sustainability of the power-generation system.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Maximum average growth rate for alternative capacity
Fig. 4 shows a scenario of Gompertz growth with
exergetic self-sustenance for the available capacity of
each alternative technology. The growth patterns were
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Assumed and calculated parameters for power plants at utility scale
Parameter Units Natural gas
combined cycle
Wind turbine PV
(polycrystalline,
at plate)
Hybrid solar
thermal
parabolic trough
Solid oxide fuel
cell
NGCC WT PV HSTPT SOFC
Construction time, t
c
yr 2 1 1 1 1
Plant life, PL yr 30 25 30 30 25
Capacity factor, CF (annual) 80% 25% 24% 37% (hybrid) 95%
28% (solar)
CED (construction) MWh/MW
e
1250
a
1825
b
7441
c
4862
d
2450
e
Cumulative exergy of fuel
consumption (const.)
f
MWh/MW
e
1327 1937 7897 5160 2600
Chemical exergy of materials (const.)
f
MWh/MW
e
30 66 54 48 37
CExC
f
4Construction MWh/MW
e
1357 2003 7951 5208 2637
4Operation MWh/MWh
e
2.568 0.000 0.000 1.205 1.811
4Life cycle MWh/MWh
e
2.572 0.030 0.089 1.251 1.821
AbatEx
f
e
925 980 3091 2765 1274
4Operation MWh/MWh
e
0.745 0.000 0.000 0.326 0.295
4Life cycle MWh/MWh
e
0.748 0.013 0.042 0.348 0.299
CExPA
f
e
2282 2983 11,041 7973 3911
4Operation MWh/MWh
e
3.313 0.000 0.000 1.530 2.106
4Life cycle MWh/MWh
e
3.320 0.043 0.131 1.599 2.120
a
CED for construction is assumed 90% of CED for construction and decommissioning [32].
b
Estimated [52].
c
[53]. Embodied energy for module, BOS and frame: 0.576 MWh
Prim
/m
2
. Peak power rating is calculated as I
Peak
(0.001 MW/m
2
) Z
SE
(0.118) Z
BOS
(0.8) Packing factor (0.82) 7.741 10
5
MW
e
/m
2
; see Table 4 for efciencies.
d
Base data [52]. Includes natural gas boiler: steam generation 500,000 lb
m
/h (for 50 MW of electric output) and 93 ton/MW of weight. Includes natural
gas pipeline: 18
00
, API, Sch. 40, 300 km.
e
Base data [54]. Includes natural pipeline: 18
00
, API, Sch. 40, 300 km.
f
Calculated.
generated at maximum values of the Gompertz growth rate
constant, i.e., b
max
using Eq. (26). The initial installed
capacities were assumed as WT 5 MW
e
, PV 5.2 MW
e
,
HSTPT 3.4 MW
e
, and SOFC 1.3 MW
e
. The capacity
factors correspond to the values provided in Table 3.
A reinvestment factor of 20% was also applied. In this
way, each technology is started with a at 1 MW
e
of
available power, facilitating a straight comparison. Values
used for the average exergy efciency of the electrical
generation mix and y
Gen
are those established in Section
2.5.3, while for (CExPA/P)
const
correspond to the referred
in Table 3. Results for b
max
(yr
1
) are WT 0.11, PV 0.02,
HSTPT 0.06, and SOFC 0.33. The ensuing growth appears
notably higher for SOFC, WT, and HSTPT, when
contrasted with the path followed by the PV option. This
denotes clearly that PV technology holds a more limited
ability for fast deployment under conditions of exergetic
self-sustenance, which can be reasonably attributed to the
high consumption of primary resources involved in the
manufacture of modules. Each curve exhibits two growth
phases passing from an increasing rate to a decreasing rate.
The change in the trend of growth occurs when the
acceleration of the capacity given by the derivative of the
growth rate (see Eq. (17)) equals zero. Graphically, this
corresponds to the inection point of the curve observable
on a normal-scale plot. Since Fig. 4 was plotted on a log
scale, the points where the trend changes have been marked
for prompt identication. As observed, the technologies
that reach a trend change within the considered time
horizon are SOCF, WT, and HSTPT. According to the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Renewable and hybrid energy potential for the Upper Rio Grande region
Total Units
Photovoltaics
Solar radiation
a
(average, horizontal at plate) 5.75 kWh/m
2
day
Land area for plants 56 km
2
Collectors area
b
(2 m
2
land area/m
2
collector area) 28 km
2
Conversion efciency
c
, solar-to-electric 11.8%
System efciency
d
, packing (82%) and balance of system (80%) 66%
Maximum potential for power output (solar, average) 521 MW
e
Hybrid solar thermal parabolic trough
Solar radiation
a
(average, tracked, NS 1 horizontal axis) 6 7 kWh/m
2
day
Land area for plants 22 34 56 km
2
Collectors area
b
(2.8 m
2
land area/m
2
collector area) 8 12 20 km
2
Conversion efciency
c
, solar to electric 13% 14%
Maximum potential for power output (solar, average) 277 492 769 MW
e
Maximum potential for power output (hybrid
e
, average) 1248 MW
e
Wind
Wind power class 3 4 5 6
Area exposed to wind
f
450 1800 1800 900 4950 km
2
Land area for plants 90 360 360 180 990 km
2
Wind power density
f
350 450 550 650 W
e
/m
2
Average power output density
g
0.37 0.48 0.58 0.69 MW
e
/km
2
Maximum potential for power output (average) 33 172 210 124 539 MW
e
a
United States Solar Atlas [57].
b
[58].
c
Conversion efciencies are found as a function of the solar radiation [59].
d
[60].
e
Calculated assuming energy input from natural gas as 25% upon total energy input to plant. Collector efciency and intermediate heat losses were not
considered.
f
Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States [61].
g
Assumptions: efciency 25%, losses 25%, turbine hub height 50 m, rotor diameter 30 m, and 8 turbines per km
2
.
Fig. 4. Maximum capacity growth with exergetic self-sustenance for
alternative power-generation technologies in the Upper Rio Grande
region.
model, at these points the crowding of power plants would
start showing strong negative effects over each technology,
reverting its deployment trend from accelerated to
decelerated.
The calculation of b
max
is data intensive (for CExPA)
and burdened with assumptions (i.e. initial capacities, f
R
and y
Gen
), so a substantive level of uncertainty could be
expected. However, because the aim of this work is
procedural and prospective, attempting the identication
of tendencies rather than the provision of best estimations
for the condence intervals of the results, a sensitivity
analysis is applicable. As an example, the sensitivity of b
max
in terms of initial installed capacity and the exergy
reinvestment factor is shown in Fig. 5 for the wind turbine
farms option. In general, it is observed that b
max
rises with
the initial installed capacity, increasing more quickly when
the initial installed capacity is below 20 MW
e
, and less
quickly at higher values of the initial installed capacity.
The Gompertz growth rate constant is corresponding
with an average growth rate, which is more convenient for
planning purposes. As an example, Fig. 6 shows the
equivalence between the constant and the average annual
growth rate (in percentage) for capacity expansion of WT
(assuming regional conditions and 1 MW
e
of initial
installed capacity). It is evident that the average annual
growth rate increases more slightly for increasing values of
the constant, changing from a numerical ratio of more than
tenfold (in the low values) to almost one when approaching
to the limit of exergetic self-sustenance. Surpassing this
limit, either specied by b
max
or given as a maximum
average growth rate, causes an exergy input for construc-
tion of plants beyond the exergy allowance stipulated for
reinvestment.
4.2. Electrical demand growth and capacity expansion
Fig. 7 shows the projected growth for the electrical
demand in the study region, as well as two hypothetical
scenarios for the expansion of the capacity in terms of
available power at 15% and 20% of exergy reinvestment.
The electrical demand growth has been curve-tted and
projected from historic consumption data and the antici-
pated decommissioning of units. The initial installed
capacities have been arbitrarily chosen as 50 MW
e
for
WT, 30 MW
e
for HSTPT, 20 MW
e
for PV, and 0.1 MW
e
for SOFC. These capacities denote feasible stand-alone
plant sizes; the SOFC capacity corresponds to current data
of precommercial units for distributed generation (op. cit.
[64]). The NGCC technology remains as the backup
technology, so it supplies the lacking capacity (at 15%
reserve margin). In both scenarios, it is clearly observed
how the requirement for backup capacity from NGCC
power plants is reduced during the rst three decades at
around 100 MW
e
for 15% of exergy reinvestment, and at
an insignicant level for 20% of exergy reinvestment.
Thereafter, for a continued tendency in the electrical
demand expansion, the NGCC share becomes rapidly
growing while the alternative share turns into rapidly
decreasing. Since a curve plotted for the total alternative
capacity (the alternative curve) is obtained from the
addition of individual Gompertz functions (see the scenario
shown in Fig. 4), this is also generated as a sigmoid
curve and its resultant pattern is considered as character-
istic for the combination region technologies. For
both scenarios the alternative curves show an initial
increasing growth rate followed by a decreasing growth
rate, with no close approximation to the asymptote
(total potential for alternative available capacity, i.e.,
2047 MW
e
). The change in the growth trend is given by
the inection points at years 15 and 12 (for 15% and 20%
of exergy reinvestment, respectively). At these points, the
capacity growth rate (the slope of the curve) hits a
maximum and the acceleration of the expansion becomes
zero. After years 16 and 18 in each case, the expansion of
the demand starts being higher than the expansion of the
alternative capacity.
Under the same conditions, the annual exergy balance of
the whole system was determined as shown in Fig. 8. The
balance was calculated year-upon-year as the difference
between total electric work production and total entering
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 5. Sensitivity of the maximum Gompertz growth rate constant for
wind turbine farms on initial installed capacity and exergy reinvestment at
regional conditions.
Fig. 6. Average annual growth rate compared with the Gompertz growth
rate constant for wind turbines at regional conditions.
cumulative exergy (CExPA). This difference corresponds to
the net exergy that is being lost from both exergy
destruction (irreversibilities) occurring within the subsys-
tems, and exergy waste carried by the exhaust emissions
(eventually isolated or removed). In the rst scenario
(15% of exergy reinvestment), the system expansion
is totally non-sustained and no net exergy is produced in
any year. For the second scenario (20% of exergy
reinvestment), more net exergy is produced than that
invested in construction of new plants from years
9 to 32, and within this period an exergetic payback is
achieved. During the fourth decade and for both scenarios
the system shows a sharply increasing negative difference,
caused by the rapidly growing share of NGCC power
plants.
The ratio of total values for CExPA and the electrical
exergy output on a long-term basis can be used as a
measure to determine the effectiveness of the system in
reducing the associated primary resource depletion, since it
is strongly dependent on the exergy reinvestment factor.
This case is illustrated by Fig. 9, where the CExPA/W
Elec
ratio was evaluated over a 40-yr period as a function of the
exergy reinvestment factor. Although in this example
the reinvestment factor has been assumed common for all
the technologies, an optimum value could be readily
determined for each particular technology. As can be
observed, the opportunity of achieving a substantial
reduction in the depletion of primary resources becomes
apparent if a proper exergetic reinvestment factor is
established. However, it should be remarked that despite
this potential reduction in primary resource depletion is
accredited to the regional system, it would not necessarily
occur over the local resources.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 7. Scenarios of maximum Gompertz growth with exergetic self-sustenance for the capacity supplied by alternative technologies and the backup
capacity required from natural gas combined-cycle power plants in the Upper Rio Grande region.
Fig. 8. Exergy balance scenarios for meeting the new capacity demand in the Upper Rio Grande region.
Fig. 9. 40-yr cumulative exergy consumption per electric work output for
the regional power-generation system as a function of the exergy
reinvestment factor.
5. Conclusions
Many regions throughout the world can begin to meet
their future demand for power supply by intense harnessing
of local renewable resources and a more efcient use of
fossil fuels. The alternative technologies adopted for this
purpose should be optimally deployed, which constitutes a
planning problem where multiple dimensions converge. As
part of the solution, a dynamic exergy analysis to
determine maximum allowable growth rates for alternative
power-generation technologies has been developed and
applied to the expansion of a regional system. The analysis
is based on the concept of CExC expanded to include
abatement of emissions, the hypothesis that capacity grows
according to the Gompertz model, and the criterion of
exergetic self-sustenance.
The resultant methodology was applied to study the
capacity expansion of the main system that delivers
electricity to the Upper Rio Grande region in far West
Texas through alternative technologies. The selected
renewable-energy technologies were WT, PV conversion,
and HSTPT. The chosen breakthrough fossil fuel technol-
ogy was SOFC, with a predened ceiling share. Also, it was
considered that backup capacity would be provided by
conventional NGCC technology. The projections extend
over 40 yr in order to account for the decommissioning of
both the power plants currently serving the region and the
alternative capacity started at the beginning of the period
of study.
The results obtained for diverse scenarios of projection
allow the formulation of the following conclusions:
The new demand for power supply in the region can be
satised largely through local wind and solar resources,
while the requirement of backup capacity from conven-
tional technologies is marginal. Because the study
assumed minimal occupation of land for development
of new plants, this assertion applies only for next four
decades. If more land area is considered, the projections
for power supply from the renewable sources would be
augmented proportionally.
Each single alternative power-generation technology
exhibits a maximum allowable average growth rate for
exergetic self-sustenance at a given rate of exergy
reinvestment. This is particularly important to avoid
the creation of energy sinks when renewable-energy
technologies are deployed intensively. WT and HSTPT
technologies can be deployed at high growth rates. In
contrast, the PV technology is found to be strongly
constrained in reaching a major fast expansion.
Although SOFC technology appears as the alternative
with the fastest allowable expansion, it is important to
remember that it remains additionally constrained by
the consumption of fuel in the operative phase.
The deployment of multiple technologies can be
accomplished with a minimum consumption of exergy
if a proper allocation (factor) for exergy reinvestment is
effectively implemented. This is observable in the results
obtained for the ratio given by the consumption of
primary resources per electrical work output. For exergy
reinvestment factors ranging from 5% to 20% and
considering a time horizon of 40 yr, the ratio was
calculated as about from 2.5 to 1.0, respectively. Factor
values above 20% do not lessen the ratio.
It is expected that this study provides a useful approach
for both researchers and utility planners, who are engaged
in the developing of sustainable energy systems.
Appendix A. Source material requirements for power plant
construction
Source material quantities required for construction of
NGCC, WT, PV, HSTPT, and SOFC power plants are
presented in Table A1. These values are given per unit of
capacity in construction (per MW
e
, nominal or peak).
Appendix B. Emissions from construction and operation of
power plants
Waste gas emissions for NGCC, WT, PV, HSTPT, and
SOFC power plants during the phases of construction and
operation are presented in Table B1. These values are given
respectively per unit of capacity in construction (per MW
e
,
nominal or peak) and per electric work output.
Appendix C. Exergy saving factors from plant
decommissioning and recycling
C.1. Assumptions
Owing to the volume handled and limited recycling
opportunity, only steel (including cast iron) and aluminum
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table A1
Source material requirements for power plant construction
i-Source material Units NGCC WT PV HSTPT SOFC
Iron ore ton/MW
e
184.7
a
180.7
b
208.1
b
366.5
c
227.2
d
Bauxite ton/MW
e
2.0
a
0.3
b
75.7
b
0.7
c
10.1
e
Limestone ton/MW
e
18.3
a
105.7
f
11.8
g
11.8
h
18.3
i
Gravel (rock) ton/MW
e
80.2
a
463.3
f
51.7
g
51.7
h
80.2
i
Sand ton/MW
e
50.9
a
293.8
f
32.8
g
32.8
h
50.9
i
Quartz ton/MW
e
125.0
j
a
Estimated [32].
b
Estimated [52].
c
Estimated [52]. Added steel for boiler (3.2 ton/MW) and pipeline
(93 ton/MW).
d
Estimated [68]. Added steel for pipeline (93 ton/MW).
e
Estimated [68].
f
Estimated [65].
g
Estimated [66].
h
Assumed similar to the PV power plant requirement.
i
Assumed similar to the NGCC requirement.
j
[67].
have been considered. Concrete and other materials would
be disposed in a landll site after plant dismantling. The
recycling rates, detailed below, have been taken as 40% for
steel and iron, and 90% for aluminum. These values are
assumed constant and utilized for all the technologies alike.
As a note, the exergy output attributed to plant disman-
tling and the associated transportation works have not
been estimated in this study.
The model developed has assumed implicitly that the
materials supplied for construction of plants have been
processed from primary sources (ores). This assumption
denes a precondition of worst case for the exergy
consumption during this phase, and consequently repre-
sents a constraint for the expansion of the capacity. Once
the useful life of the plant is reached, it is decommissioned
and the collected materials are assumed to be either
disposed or reclaimed as post-consumer scrap for recycling.
The scrap constitutes a valuable secondary source for
material production due to the lower requirement of exergy
input than needed by primary sources.
Recycling is carried out at a given material efciency
denominated recycling rate. In this study, the recycling rate
denotes the mass percentage of scrap that is transformed
again into useful material. The recycled scrap displaces the
production of primary material and produces an exergy
saving. As a remark, this exergy saving is assumed to have
direct effect over the national exergy pool, thus discarding
the exergy corresponding to net exports of scrap [71].
The recycling rate can be based on two indicators:
(1) a reclamation rate; or (2) the percentage of recycled
content. The rst term denes how often a product is
actually recycled after the end of its useful life, while the
second is a measure of how much recycled material is
contained in a nished product [72].
C.1.1. Steel and iron
Since historical US statistics for steel recycling show
a net positive balance for scrap exports, it is assumed
that this trend remains [73]. The recycling indicator should
thus discount scrap exports. In this study, a suitable
indicator that has been preferred is the national post-
consumer recycled content (calculated as post-consumer
recycled scrap per production unit of liquid metal). Even
though this indicator penalizes the rate due to its
dependence on the consumption growth, it denes a
minimum percentage of scrap that is effectively recycled
within the nation. For 2003, the US post-consumer total
recycled content of liquid steel through Basic Oxygen
Furnace and Electric Arc Furnace was of 23.0% and
58.6% respectively (op. cit. [72]), averaging a recycling rate
level approaching 40%.
C.1.2. Aluminum
In the case of aluminum the scrap is rarely exported.
This is because the US aluminum recycling industry is
growing while primary aluminum production is being
relocated overseas where low-economic-cost electricity is
available. Practically all the demand for primary and
intermediate materials, as bauxite and alumina, is supplied
through imports. Hence, it can be reasonably assumed that
most of the aluminum scrap originated from plant
decommissioning would be nationally recycled. An indus-
trial segment recycling rate (or reclamation rate) in this
case is thus justiable. It is estimated that for construction
the aluminum recycling rate is presently at about 85% [74];
this application will assume 90%.
C.1.3. Energy consumption and gas emissions
Data for the specic cumulative energy demand (ced, in
MWh/ton) as well as gas emissions for materials produc-
tion of both new and with recycling are shown in Table C1.
l
1
stands for the recycling rates with l
Aluminum
90% and
l
Steel
40%.
C.1.4. Materials input for construction
The material required for construction is concordant
with and precedes the source materials calculation given in
Appendix A, according to the following material/source-
material ratios: iron-ore/steel 1.485, iron-ore/iron-cast
1.470, and bauxite/aluminum 10. For each k-technology
and i-material, the materials input (m) per unit capacity-in-
construction is then calculated as shown in Table C2.
C.2. Calculation of the saving factor upon CExC for
construction, d
1,k
The factor d
1,k
credits to CExC for construction an exergy
saving allocation to be paid back when plants become
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table B1
Emissions from construction and operation of power plants
Gas Units NGCC WT PV HSTPT SOFC
Construction
CO
2
ton/MW
e
462.5
a
558.5
b
1826.4
c
1591.6
d
734.0
e
CH
4
ton/MW
e
0.0 1.3
b
3.5
c
4.3
d
2.0
e
N
2
O ton/MW
e
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SO
2
ton/MW
e
10.5
a
2.2
b
4.6
c
6.0
d
3.3
f
NO
X
ton/MW
e
1.9
a
1.7
b
5.4
c
8.1
d
2.0
f
Operation
CO
2
g/kWh
e
437.8
a
0.0 0.0 199.9
g
181.2
h
CH
4
mg/kWh
e
2820.0
a
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N
2
O mg/kWh
e
0.6
a
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SO
2
mg/kWh
e
274.1
a
0.0 0.0 5.9
g
0.9
h
NO
X
mg/kWh
e
560.9
a
0.0 0.0 227.5
g
1.5
h
a
Estimated [32].
b
[52].
c
Derived from [52] as emissions base sharing and from [53] for CO
2
eq
emissions.
d
Base data [52]. Added emissions due to steel required for boiler
(3.2 ton/MW) and pipeline (93 ton/MW). Emissions data from material
production: [65,68].
e
[68].
f
[54].
g
[69,70].
h
[7].
decommissioned and materials recycled. It is calculated as
d
1;k

CExC
Saved
CExC
_ _
Const;k
. (C.1)
Recycling produces a net saving of CExC from two
contributors: savings in cumulative exergy associated to fossil
fuels consumption and savings in the chemical exergy not
expended. Then, CExC saved per unit capacity-in-construc-
tion can be calculated as
CExC
Saved
P
_ _
Const;k
i
m
iMat
P
_ _
Const;k
a ced
Saved;iMat
l
iMat
x
iMat
, C:2
where the weighted sum of exergy/energy content ratio a is
1.06 for the US electrical mix as determined in Section 2.2.
The specic cumulative energy demand saved (ced
Saved,i-Mat
)
is calculated as
ced
Saved;iMat
ced
iMat
100% new material
ced
iMat
with l
i
recycling. C:3
Data for ced
i-Mat
both new and with recycling are presented
in Appendix C.1.3.
The specic chemical exergy (x) for each material in
MWh/ton is calculated from Table 1 and the source-
material/material ratios as: steel 0.1733, iron (cast) 0.1751,
and aluminum 3.0556. CExC per unit of capacity in
construction both with input of new materials and saved by
use of recycled materials are shown in Table C3. The saving
factor d
1,k
is nally found as shown in Table C4.
C.3. Calculation of the saving factor upon AbatEx for
construction, d
2,k
Recycling also produces a saving upon the exergy
consumption (AbatEx) required for the abatement of
emissions generated by the processes involved in the
production of primary materials. The factor d
2,k
credits
to AbatEx for construction an exergy saving allocation to
be paid back when plants become decommissioned and
materials recycled. It is calculated as
d
2;k

AbatEx
Saved
AbatEx
_ _
Const;k
. (C.4)
AbatEx saved per unit capacity-in-construction can be
calculated for each technology in terms of the material
input requirement, the avoided emissions from recycling
and the specic exergy for abatement (abatex) of each
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table C1
Energy consumption and gas emissions for production of new materials
and materials with recycling
i-Material New (100%) With l recycling
MWh
Prim
/ton kg-CO
2
/ton l MWh
Prim
/ton kg-CO
2
/ton
Steel 8.30
a
3000.0
a
40% 5.60
a
1700.0
a
Iron 8.30
b
3114.0
b
40% 5.60
b
1700.0
b
Aluminum 245.00
c
18,800.0
c
90% 10.76
d
6700.0
d
a
[75].
b
Values are assumed the same as for steel.
c
[75]. The highest value was chosen assuming that new material is
produced in plants with low efciency processes.
d
Derived [75].
Table C2
Materials input for construction of power plants
i-Material NGCC (ton/MW
e
) WT (ton/MW
e
) PV (ton/MW
e
) HSTPT (ton/MW
e
) SOFC (ton/MW
e
)
Steel 124.00 121.67 140.16 246.81 153.00
Iron 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aluminum 0.20 0.03 7.57 0.07 0.30
Table C3
Cumulative exergy consumption for power plant construction with input of new materials and materials with recycling
i-Material NGCC (MWh/MW
e
) WT (MWh/MW
e
) PV (MWh/MW
e
) HSTPT (MWh/MW
e
) SOFC (MWh/MW
e
)
CExC 1357 2003 7951 5208 2637
CExC, saved
Steel 364 357 411 724 449
Iron 1 0 0 0 0
Aluminum 50 7 1902 17 75
Total 415 364 2313 741 524
Table C4
Saving factor upon CExC for construction, d
1,k
Factor NGCC WT PV HSTPT SOFC
d
1, k
31% 18% 29% 14% 20%
pollutant gas as
AbatEx
Saved
P
_ _
Const;k
p
m
iMat
P
_ _
Const;k
m
gas;p
m
iMat
_ _
New
m
gas;p
m
iMat
_ _
w=Rec
_ _
abatex
p
. C:5
In order to calculate the avoided gas emissions through the
use of recycled materials, emissions reduction will be
assumed in direct proportion to CO
2
emissions reduction
as shown in Table C5; see Table C1 for data of CO
2
emissions. Calculations for saved AbatEx are presented in
Table C6. The saving factor upon AbatEx for construction
d
2,k
is shown in Table C7.
References
[1] Mortimer ND. Energy analysis of renewable energy sources. Energy
Policy 1991;19(4):37485.
[2] Lior N. Thoughts about future power generation systems and the role
of exergy analysis in their development. Energy Convers Manage
2002;43(912):118798.
[3] Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergy as the conuence of energy, environ-
ment and sustainable development. Exergy, Int J 2001;1(1):313.
[4] Dincer I. The role of exergy in energy policy making. Energy Policy
2002;30(2):13749.
[5] El-Sayed YM. The thermoeconomics of energy conversions. Am-
sterdam, Boston: Elsevier; 2003.
[6] Krewitt W. External costs of energydo the answers match the
questions?: looking back at 10 years of ExternE. Energy Policy
2002;30(10):83948.
[7] Roth IF, Ambs LL. Incorporating externalities into a full cost
approach to electric power generation life-cycle costing. Energy
2004;29(1215):212544.
[8] European Commission. New research reveals the real costs of
electricity in Europe. Brussels, 2001. See also /http://ec.europa.eu/
research/press/2001/pr2007en.htmlS.
[9] Rafaj P, Kypreos S. Internalisation of external cost in the power
generation sector: analysis with global multi-regional MARKAL
model. Energy Policy 2007;35(2):82843.
[10] Schleisner L. Comparison of methodologies for externality assess-
ment. Energy Policy 2000;28(15):112736.
[11] Owen AD. Renewable energy: externality costs as market barriers.
Energy Policy 2006;34(5):63242.
[12] Frangopoulos CA, Caralis YC. A method for taking into account
environmental impacts in the economic evaluation of energy systems.
Energy Convers Manage 1997;38(1517):175163.
[13] Schaefer H. Cumulative energy consumption of productsmethods
of determinationsproblems of evaluation. Brensstoff-Warme-Kraft
1982;34:33744.
[14] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal,
chemical and metallurgical processes. New York/Berlin: Springer
Verlag/Hemisphere Publ. Corp.; 1988.
[15] Ayres RU, Ayres LW, Martina s K. Exergy, waste accounting, and
life-cycle analysis. Energy 1998;23(5):35563.
[16] Valero A. Exergy accounting: capabilities and drawbacks. Energy
2006;31(1):16480.
[17] Sieniutycz S, Kubiak M. Dynamical energy limits in traditional and
work-driven operations. II. Systems with heat and mass transfer. Int J
Heat Mass Transfer 2002;45(26):522138.
[18] Szargut J, Stanek W. Thermo-ecological optimization of a solar
collector. Energy 2007;32(4):58490.
[19] Sciubba E. Beyond thermoeconomics? The concept of extended
exergy accounting and its application to the analysis and design of
thermal systems. Exergy, Int J 2001;1(2):6884.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table C6
AbatEx saved in power plants construction from input of recycled materials (steel and iron 40%, aluminum 90%)
NGCC (MWh/MW
e
) WT (MWh/MW
e
) PV (MWh/MW
e
) HSTPT (MWh/MW
e
) SOFC (MWh/MW
e
)
New w/Rec New w/Rec New w/Rec New w/Rec New w/Rec
CO
2
752.9 267.3 909.0 258.0 2973.0 445.7 2590.7 523.7 1194.8 329.7
CH
4
0.0 4.9 12.6 4.8 33.6 6.1 41.4 9.7 18.6 6.0
N
2
O 1.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.7 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.7 0.3
SO
2
166.1 12.8 34.2 12.5 73.0 16.0 94.7 25.4 52.2 15.8
NO
X
4.3 2.4 23.6 2.3 10.0 3.0 36.9 4.8 6.5 3.0
Total 924.9 287.6 980.0 277.8 3091.4 471.1 2765.2 563.9 1273.8 354.7
Table C7
Saving factor upon AbatEx for construction, d
2,k
Factor NGCC WT PV HSTPT SOFC
d
2,k
31% 28% 15% 20% 28%
Table C5
Gas emissions from production of new materials and materials with recycling (steel and iron 40%, aluminum 90%)
kg-CO
2
/ton kg-CH
4
/ton kg-N
2
O/ton kg-SO
2
/ton kg-NO
X
/ton
New w/Rec New w/Rec New w/Rec New w/Rec New w/Rec
Steel 3000.0 1700.0 9.5 5.4 0.1 0.0 15.0 8.5 10.0 5.7
Iron 3114.0 1700.0 23.2 12.7 0.1 0.0 8.9 4.9 8.9 4.9
Aluminum 18,800.0 6700.0 13.0 4.6 0.1 0.0 21.0 7.5 13.0 4.6
[20] Wall G. Conditions and tools in the design of energy conversion and
management systems of a sustainable society. Energy Convers
Manage 2002;43(912):123548.
[21] Cornelissen RL, Hirs GG. The value of the exergetic life cycle
assessment besides the LCA. Energy Convers Manage 2002;43(912):
141724.
[22] US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Renewable energy 2000: issues and trends, report DOE/EIA-
0628(2000). Washington, DC: US DOE EIA, Ofce of Coal, Nuclear,
Electric and Alternate Fuels; 2001. See also /http://www.eia.doe.gov/
cneaf/solar.renewables/rea_issues/rea_issues_sum.htmlS.
[23] US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Fuel cells show value for key industries, Policy facts 08/2002.
Pittsburgh, PA: US DOE, Ofce of Fossil Energy, NETL, Strategic
Center for Natural Gas; 2002. See also /http://www.netl.doe.gov/
publications/factsheets/policy/Policy013.pdfS.
Annual energy outlook 2005, with projections to 2025, DOE/EIA-
0383. Washington, DC: US DOE, EIA, Ofce of Integrated Analysis
and Forecasting; 2005. See also /http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/S.
[25] American Wind Energy Association. Wind energy project data base,
Washington, DC; 2006. See also /http://www.awea.org/projects/
texas.htmlS.
[26] Wang W, Zmeureanu R, Rivard H. Applying multi-objective genetic
algorithms in green building design optimization. Build Environ
2005;40(11):151225.
[27] Ayres RU, Ayres LW, Warr BW. Exergy, power and work in the US
economy, 19001998. Energy 2003;28(3):21973.
[28] Nakienovi N, Gilli PV, Kurz R. Regional and global exergy and
energy efciencies. Energy 1996;21(3):22337.
Ofcial energy statistics from the US Government, Washington, DC,
2005. See also /http://www.eia.doe.govS.
[30] Finnveden G, O
stlund P. Exergies of natural resources in life-cycle

assessment and other applications. Energy 1997;22(9):92331.
[31] Hekkert MP, Hendriks FHJF, Faaij APC, Neelis ML. Natural gas as
an alternative to crude oil in automotive fuel chains well-to-wheel
analysis and transition strategy development. Energy Policy
2005;33(5):57994.
[32] Spath PL, Mahn MK. Life cycle assessment of a natural gas
combined-cycle power generation system, NREL/TP-570-27715,
Golden, CO, 2000. See also /http://www.doe.gov/bridgeS.
[33] Douvartzides S, Coutelieris F, Tsiakaras P. Exergy analysis of a solid
oxide fuel cell power plant fed by either ethanol or methane. J Power
Sources 2004;131(12):22430.
[34] California Energy Commission. Solar thermal parabolic trough
electric power plants for electric utilities in California. PIER Final
Project Report CEC-500-2005-175, Sacramento, CA, 2005. See also
/http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/reports_500.htmlS.
[35] Singh N, Kaushik SC, Misra RD. Exergetic analysis of a solar
thermal power system. Renew Energy 2000;19(12):13543.
[36] Kannan R, Leong KC, Osman R, Ho HK, Tso CP. Gas red
combined cycle plant in Singapore: energy use, GWP and costa life
cycle approach. Energy Convers Manage 2005;46(1314):214557.
[37] Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H. Integrating industrial ecology
principles into a set of environmental sustainability indicators
for technology assessment. Resour, Conserv Recycling 2005;43(4):
41932.
[38] Seager TP, Theis TL. Exergetic pollution potential: estimating
the revocability of chemical pollution. Exergy, Int J 2002;2(4):
27382.
[39] Parry IWH. Are emissions permits regressive? J Environ Econ
Manage 2004;47(2):36487.
[40] Babiker MH, Metcalf GE, Reilly J. Tax distortions and global
climate policy. J Environ Econ Manage 2003;46(2):26987.
[41] Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H, Mulder J, van den Berg MMD, van
der Kooi HJ, de Swaan Arons J. Illustrations towards quantifying the
sustainability of technology. Green Chem 2000;2:10814.
[42] Dewulf J, Langenhove HV, Dirckx J. Exergy analysis in the
assessment of the sustainability of waste gas treatment systems. Sci
Tot Environ 2001;273(13):4152.
[43] Cornelissen RL. Thermodynamics and sustainable development: the
use of exergy analysis and the reduction of irreversibility, PhD thesis.
The Netherlands: Laboratory of Thermal Engineering, University of
Twente, Enschede, 1997.
[44] Mathur J, Bansal NK, Wagner HJ. Dynamic energy analysis to assess
maximum growth rates in developing power generation capacity: case
study of India. Energy Policy 2004;32(2):2817.
[45] Wolsink M. Dutch wind power policy: stagnating implementation of
renewables. Energy Policy 1996;24(12):107988.
[46] Carrillo M, Gonza lez JM. A new approach to modeling sigmoidal
curves. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2002;69(3):23341.
[47] Davison J, Freund P, Smith A. Putting carbon back into the ground.
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme 2001. See also /http://
www.ieagreen.org.uk/putcback.pdfS.
[48] US Department of Energy. Prole of total energy use for US
industry. Washington, DC: US DOE, Ofce of Energy Efciency and
Renewable Energy; 2004 See also /http://www.eere.energy.gov/
industry/energy_systems/pdfs/total_energy_prole.pdfS.
[49] Rosen MA. Energy- and exergy-based comparison of coal-red and
nuclear steam power plants. Exergy, Int J 2001;1(3):18092.
[50] Tonon S, Brown MT, Luchi F, Mirandola A, Stoppato A, Ulgiati S.
An integrated assessment of energy conversion processes by means of
thermodynamic, economic and environmental parameters. Energy
2006;31(1):14963.
[51] Sampo S, Ilkka S, Sanna S. GHG emission development in the EU
and assessment of the triptych approach applicability for the EU
internal burden sharing. Research report extended summary PRO3/
P54/04, Finland, 2005. See also /http://www.ktm./les/15634/
Triptyykki_engl.pdfS.
[52] Pehnt M. Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy
technologies. Renew Energy 2006;31(1):5571.
[53] Fthenakis VM, Kim HC. Life cycle analysis of photovoltaic systems.
PV EH&S Research Center Brookhaven National Laboratory, NY,
USA DOE Solar Program Review Meeting, Denver, CO, 2005
[Conference Paper]. See also /http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/thin_lm/
docs/fthenakis_bnl_lca_doe_nov_05nal.pdfS.
[54] Karakoussis V, Brandon NP, Leach M, Vorst RVD. The environ-
mental impact of manufacturing planar and tubular solid oxide fuel
cells. J Power Sources 2001;101(1):1026.
US crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids reserves 2003
Annual report, Table 6, Crude oil proved reserves, reserves changes,
and production, Washington, DC, 2003. See also /http://www.eia.
doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_
reserves/cr.htmlS.
[56] US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. US
crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids reserves, 2003 Annual
report, Table 8, Dry natural gas proved reserves, reserves changes,
and production, Washington, DC, 2003. See also /http://www.eia.
doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_
reserves/cr.htmlS.
[57] US Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
United States Solar Atlas. See also /http://mapserve2.nrel.gov/
website/L48NEWPVWATTS/viewer.htmS.
[58] Trieb F, Langnib O, Klaib H. Solar electricity generationa
comparative view of technologies, costs and environmental impact.
Sol Energy 1997;59(13):8999.
[59] Quaschning V. Technical and economical system comparison of
photovoltaic and concentrating solar thermal power systems depend-
ing on annual global irradiation. Sol Energy 2004;77(2):1718.
[60] Nawaz I, Tiwari GN. Embodied energy analysis of photovoltaic (PV)
system based on macro- and micro-level. Energy Policy 2006;34(17):
314452.
[61] US Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Wind energy resource atlas of the United States, Table 1-1, Classes of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
wind power density at 10 m and 50 m(a), DOE/CH 10093-4, 1986. See
also /http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/chp1.htmlS.
[62] The University of Texas System. University Lands. See also /http://
www.utlands.utsystem.edu/S.
[63] US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). Public lands, on-shore federal and indian minerals in
lands of the US map responsibilities of BLMlower 48 states,
Washington, DC, 2006. See also /http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/
minerals_l48.pdfS.
[64] Siemens Power Generation, Science and Technology Center, Fuel Cells
Division. Pittsburgh, PA, 2006. See also /http://powergeneration.
siemens.com/en/index.cfmS.
[65] Schleisner L. Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related
externalities. Renew Energy 2000;20(3):27988.
[66] Kannan R, Leong KC, Osman R, Ho HK, Tso CP. Life cycle
assessment study of solar PV systems: an example of a 2.7 kWp
distributed solar PV system in Singapore. Sol Energy 2006;80(5):
55563.
[67] Kato K, Murata A, Sakuta K. An evaluation on the life cycle of
photovoltaic energy system considering production energy of off-
grade silicon. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 1997;47(14):95100.
[68] Khan FI, Hawboldt K, Iqbal MT. Life cycle analysis of windfuel
cell integrated system. Renew Energy 2005;30(2):15777.
[69] Norton B, Eames PC, Lo SNG. Full-energy-chain analysis of
greenhouse gas emissions for solar thermal electric power generation
systems. Renew Energy 1998;15(14):1316.
[70] US Environmental Protection Agency. EPAUS electric power
plants database. Solar Electric Generating Stations (SEGS) 2000,
Washington, DC, 2000. See also /http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/
egrid/S.
[71] Michaelis P, Jackson T, Clift R. Exergy analysis of the life cycle of
steel. Energy 1998;23(3):21320.
[72] Steel Recycling Institute. The inherent recycled content of todays steel,
Fact Sheet, Pittsburgh, PA, 2005. See also /www.recycle-steel.orgS.
[73] US Geological Survey. Mineral commodity summaries, Washington,
DC, 2006. See also /http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/
2006/mcs2006.pdfS.
[74] Alcoa. 2002 Sustainability Report, Economic, environmental, social.
Pittsburgh, PA, 2002. See also /www.alcoa.comS.
[75] Krauter S, Ru ther R. Considerations for the calculation of green-
house gas reduction by photovoltaic solar energy. Renew Energy
2004;29(3):34555.
ARTICLE IN PRESS

Exergy

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Exergy

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Energy 32 (2007) 21672186

Dynamic exergy analysis for capacity expansion of regional

Corresponding author. Fax: +1 915 747 8036.

stlund P. Exergies of natural resources in life-cycle

Anda mungkin juga menyukai