6/10/2012

Energy, Sustainability, and Life Cycle Assessment  by T. Gutowski, B. Bakshi, D. Sekulic; June 20‐22, Cambridge, MA, USA

Exergo‐Economics 
& 
E
Exergoenvironmental
i t l analysis
l i
Session 6
June 12, 10:45 p.m. – 12:15 p.m.

Lecturer: Professor D.P. Sekulic
Readings (main) :
1. Bakshi, B.R., Gutovski, T.G., and Sekulic, D.P. (2011) Thermodynamics and the Destruction of 
1 Bakshi B R Gutovski T G and Sekulic D P (2011) Thermodynamics and the Destruction of
Resources, Cambridge University Press, 2011, Chapter 15, pp. 377‐401 (G. Tsatsaronis: 
Exergoeconomics and Exergoenvironmental Analysis) 
2. Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., and Moran, M., Thermal Design and Optimization, Chapter 8, pp. 405‐462.

Scope of the Lecture
What is offered in this lecture:

 Making use of the concept of exergy
 Understanding exergy analysis
 Understanding exergo‐economic analysis
 Understanding exergo‐environmental analysis
 Application of exergetic analyses on an example 

D.P. Sekulic 2

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 1
 6/10/2012

Learning Outcomes  

Understand how to calculate exergy flows
 Implement exergy analysis
 Understand how economic and environmental 
impact metrics can be merged with exergy

D.P. Sekulic 3

SEMANTICS
Exergoeconomics is the branch of engineering that combines exergy analysis 
and economic principles (exergy aided cost minimization)
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., and Moran, M., Thermal Design & Optimization, Wiley, N.Y., 1996, p.p. 405‐462.

Exergoeconomics ‐ combines exergy analysis with economic analysis using 

“exergy‐costing principle
Reading: Chapter 15 (“Exergoeconimics and Exergoenvironmental Analysis” by G. Tsatsaronis in: Bakshi, Gutowski and Sekulic, Thermodynamics 
and the destruction of Resources, The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, 2011, pp. pp. 377‐401

“… exergoenvironmental analysis rests on the notion that exergy is […] the 

only rational basis for assigning not only monetary values but also 
environmental impact values to the transport of energy and to the 
inefficiencies within a system.”
“Exergoeconimics and Exergoenvironmental Analysis” by G. Tsatsaronis in: Bakshi, Gutowski and Sekulic, Thermodynamics and the destruction of 
Resources, The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, 2011, p. 394

D.P. Sekulic 4

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 2
 6/10/2012

Synergy of Disciplines

THERMODYNAMICS

ECONOMICS ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

A synergy needed to understand 
y gy
 Inefficiencies in a process
 Associated cost
 Environmental Impact
To reduce an environmental impact – hence achieve better conditions for sustainable 
development multiple disciplines are needed.

D.P. Sekulic 5

Synergy of Disciplines
ENVIRONMENTAL 
SCIENCE

SUSTAINABLE
SOLUTIONS

EXERGO
ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS

EXERGO ECONOMICS
ANALYSIS

EXERGY ANALYSIS

THERMODYNAMICS ECONOMICS
D.P. Sekulic 6

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 3
 6/10/2012

Exergoenvironmental Analysis

THREE STEPS

STEP 1:  EXERGY (IRREVERSIBILITY) ANALYSIS

STEP 2:  LCA OF EACH SYSTEM COMPONENTS & 
INPUT STREAM

STEP 3:  ENVIRONMETAL INPUT FROM STEP 2 
ASSIGNED TO EXERGY  STREAMS FROM STEP 1 
AND EVALUATION PERFORMED

D.P. Sekulic 7

Exergy Balance re‐visited
n j m k l
ECV  To 
t
 ECV  
i1
1 
 Ti
Q

W  
j 1
m in , j e j  
k
m out k ek 
1
, To Sirr



  




Rate of Exergy
Time Rate of Time Rate Time Rate of ExergyTransfer Destruction
Time Rate of Exergy of Exergy by Bulk Flow Exergy Inputs
System's (CV) Transfer by Heat
Exergy Change Transfer or Outputs
by Work

e j( k )  e jph
( k )  e j( k )  e j( k )  e j( k )
ch KE PE

N N
( k )  ( h  ho )  To ( s  so ) j( k ),gas mixture   xl el  R To  xl ln( xl )
e ch ch
e jph
l 1 l 1
2
v
j( k ) 
e KE j ( k )  gz
e PE elCH   R To ln xlenvir For an ‘l’ IG 
2
For More Details: Bejan, Tsatsaronis & Moran, Thermal Design & Optimization, Wiley, 1996

D.P. Sekulic 8

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 4
 6/10/2012

Exergy Balance ‐ Revisited

pair  9.6 105 Pa COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
COMBUSTION PROCESS
Tair  577 C o
pcomb. prod .  9.1 105 Pa
m Air  91 .3 kg / s pCH  12 10 Pa 5
Tcomb. prod .  1247o C
4
AIR :  TCH 4  25o C
Mair=28.65 COMBUSTION
77.48 N2 Heat Loss to  m CH 4  1.64 kg / s PRODUCTS: 
20.59 O2 environment Mair=28.25
16,047 kJ/kmol NATURAL GAS 75.07 N2
0.03 CO2
Methane  13.72 O2
ED, comb. chamber
1.90 H2O (g)
CH4 3.14 CO2
MCH4 = 16.04 8.07 H2O (g)

ECV n T  j m k l
 ECV   1  o Q  W   m in , j e j   m out ,k ek  To Sirr
t i 1 Ti  j 1 k 1

E
ECV m
jj
 ECV  0 Steady state Eair,in   m in , j e j  m Air eair
t j 1
n j m
T   T 
ECH 4 ,in   m in , j e j  m CH 4 eCH 4
EQ,i   1  o Q i  1  o Q  0
i 1 Ti   To  j 1
k l
Ecomb.prod.,out   m in ,k ek  m comb . prod .ecomb . prod .

EW  W  0  k 1

D.P. Sekulic 9

Exergy Balance ‐ Revisited

AIR - IN
j m
EAir,
ph
in   m
 in , j e jph  m Air e Air
ph
 m Air  h  ho   To s  so 
j 1

 kg    kJ   kJ  
EAir,
ph
i  91.3  878  298   2987.32  6.86     40.45MW
 s  
Ai in
 
kg  kgK  
h( s )  h( s )( T , p ); ho ( so )  h( s )( To , po )
EAir,
ch
in  0 EAir, ph ph
in  EAir,in  0  EAir,in  40.45MW
Total
http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/einigewerte_e.html

CH4 - IN
j m
ECH
ph
  m in , j e jph  m CH 4 eCH
ph
 m CH 4  h  ho   To s  so 
4 ,in 4
j 1
j m kgg kgg
ECH
ph
  m in , j e jph  1.64  [-T ( - s o )]  1.64
[ To (s 1 64  298K(-1)(-1.3 0 003178)  0.63
K( 1)( 1 3 - 0.003178) 0 63 MW
4 ,in s s
j 1
kg 831,660 kJ / kmol 1MW
ECH4,
ch
in  831,660kJ / kmol  1.64    85.03MW
s 16.04 kg / kmol 103 kJ / s
http://www.exergoecology.com/excalc

ECH
Total
4 ,in
 ECH
ph
 ECH
ch
4 ,in
 85.66 MW
4 ,in

D.P. Sekulic 10

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 5
 6/10/2012

Exergy Balance ‐ Revisited

COMBUSTION PRODUCTS - OUT

Calculation of the exergy rate of the 
k l combustion products is more involved. 
Ecomb.prod.,out   m in ,k ek  m comb . prod .ecomb . prod . The specific exergy of the combustion 
The specific exergy of the combustion
k 1 products includes both physical end 
chemical components, but these must be 
Given state Physical exergy release determined for mixtures of nitrogen, 
Combustion gas
N2+O2+CO2+H2O(g)
oxygen, carbon dioxide and water (both 
@ 1247o C & 12 bars aggregate states).
Restricted Dead 
State

REVERSIBLE  Combustion gas Ecomb.gas,

PROCESS
Ultimate Dead State
Combustion gas
g release
N2+O2+CO2+H2O(g&l sat.)
@ To=25o C & 1.01 bars
And i*(To,po)=o,i
ph
 comb .gas  h  ho   To s  so 
out  m
N2+O2+CO2+H2O(g)
@ To=25o C & 1.01 bars
Chemical exergy h & s for the mixture is calculated as an 
algebraic sum of enthalpies of the
algebraic sum of enthalpies of the 
components, with the given composition:
Equalization of 
chemical potential 
xN2=0.791, xO2=0.1446, xCO2=0.0314, and
at the restricted  xH2O(g)=0.0297, xH2O(l)=0.051
dead state and at 
the ultimate dead 
state h( s )   hi ( si )  xi
i

Ecomb.gas,
ph
out  101.1MW
D.P. Sekulic 11

Exergy Balance ‐ Revisited

N N
j( k ),gas mixture   xl el
e ch  R To  xl ln( xl )
CH
l 1 l 1

Ecomb.prod,
ch
out  0.37 MW

Ecomb.prod,
Total
out  101.1MW  0.37 MW  101.47 MW

pair  9.6 105 Pa COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

Ecomb.gas, out  101.1MW
ph
COMBUSTION PROCESS
EAir,in  40.45MW
Total
Tair  577 C o
pcomb. prod .  9.1 105 Pa
m Air  91 .3 kg / s p  12 105 Pa Tcomb. prod .  1247o C
CH 4
AIR :  TCH 4  25o C
Mair=28.65 COMBUSTION
77.48 N2 m CH 4  1.64 kg / s Heat Loss to  PRODUCTS: 
20 59 O2
20.59 O environment Mair=28.25
NATURAL GAS 16,047 kJ/kmol 75.07 N2
0.03 CO2
Methane  13.72 O2
1.90 H2O (g)
CH4 3.14 CO2
MCH4 = 16.04 8.07 H2O (g)

ECH
Total
4 ,in
 85.66 MW

ED  40.45  85.66  101.1  25.01MW

D.P. Sekulic 12

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 6
 6/10/2012

Exergy destruction uncovered
The considered combustion is a part of a co‐generation process. A detailed analysis 
of that plant uncovers the following

E
Exergy D t ti
Destruction
Order of  Process Exergy Exergy
concern Destruction  Destruction 5
4
MW percentile 5%
3 7%
1 Combustion 25 64 8%

2
2 Heat exchange 6 16 16% 1
(steam generation) 64%

3 Expansion >3 8
4 Heat Exchange <3 7
(pre‐heating)
5 Compression 2 5

D.P. Sekulic 13

Exergy analysis‐ Generalization 

 Q 
Tl,b To

 f ,1 ef,1
FUEL PRODUCT DESTRUCTION
m ep,1
ef,2 ep,2 E f ,k  Ep,k  ED,k For k‐th stream
 f ,2
m n
FUELS ef,3 ep,3 PRODUCTS E f ,tot  Ep,tot   ED,k  EL,tot For TOTAL
 f ,3
m k 1

ef,4 ep,k
 f ,k
m EXERGY EFFICIENCY

product exergy rate Ep,k ED,k

k    1 
Ef,k  m
 f ,k ef,k fuel exergy rate Ef ,k Ef ,k
Ep,k
p k m
 p,k ep,k
pk EXERGY DESTRUCTION RATIO
EXERGY DESTRUCTION RATIO
exergy destructio n rate ED,k
yk   
total fuel exergy rate Ef ,tot
Exergy concept and metrics offer
 true thermodynamic value of a resource
 real measure of inefficiencies
 performance metrics

D.P. Sekulic 14

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 7
 6/10/2012

Exergy Analysis: Destruction vs. Loss
E1,out System definition is especially 
Boundary 1 E2,in important in exergy analysis…
Boundary 2

Domain 2
T1,wall

Domain 1
Q T0
E1,in T0
E2,out

Ein  Eout  EDestruction  ELoss

Boundary 1 case: 
y
out  T 
Ein  m ein Eout  m ein EDestruction  Friction ELoss   ( Q / A )1  0 dA
in  T1,wall 

Boundary 2 case: 
out  T 
Ein  m ein Eout  m ein EDestruction  Friction & heat transfer ELoss   ( Q / A )1  0 dA  0
in  T0 
D.P. Sekulic 15

Exergy Analysis EXAMPLE: Refrigeration
CONDENSER
ORATOR
EVAPO

COMPRESSOR

TROTTLING VALVE

Tsatsaronis, G., Morosuk, T., and Kelly, S. Advances in Energy 
Studies, 2006, Porto Venere.

Stream
Material of m T p h s e PH
stream [kg/s] [°C] [bar] [kJ/kg] [kJ/kg·K] [kJ/kg]
1 ammonia 0.0454 -15 2.36 1444 5.827 126.3
2 ammonia 0.0454 115 11.67 1716 5.934 366.8
3 ammonia 0.0454 30 11.67 341.6 1.488 296.1
Thermodynamic data calculator 
4 ammonia 0.0454 -15 2.36 341.6 1.557 275.8 http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/nh3_e.html
0*) ammonia 20 1 1536 6.572 0
6=0*) water 2.98 20 1 83.93 0.296 0
7 water 2.98 25 1 104.8 0.367 0.176
8 air 9.94 0 1 273.3 6.776 0.719
9 air 9.94 -5 1 268.3 6.757 1.138
0*) air 20 1 293.4 6.847 0

*reference point for calculating the exergy
D.P. Sekulic 16
value of each material stream

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 8
 6/10/2012

Exergy Analysis:
CD Performance
TV CM
  
ED,CD  E 2  E3  E7  E 6 
CM  E 2  E 1 
ED,CM  W  

ED,TV  E3  E 4

  
ED,EV  E 4  E1  E9  E8 
EV


Ef ,k Ep,k ED,k k yk
Component
[kW] [kW] [kW] [%] [%]
CM 12.340 10.912 1.428 88.43 11.57
CD 3.206 0.525 2.681 16.39 21.73
TV 7.953 7.028 0.925 88.37 7.50
EV 6.778 4.158 2.620 61.35 21.24
Overall 12.340 4.158 7.653 33.70 62.0
system

Ef ,CM  W  m h2  h1   0.0454 (1716  1444 )  12.34kW ED ,CM  W  Ep,CM  12.340  10.912  1.428 kW
Ep ,CM  E2  E1  0.0454 366 .8  126 .3  10.912 kW D.P. Sekulic 17

Exergy Analysis: Grassman Diagram

CD

TV CM

Indicates an exergy
destruction
COMPRESSOR
EV CONDENSER

TROTTLING VALVE

EVAPORATOR

D.P. Sekulic 18

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 9
 6/10/2012

Exergo‐economics Analysis
For each component
Location
Magnitude … of thermodynamic inefficiencies
EXERGOECONOMICS
Causes ((exergy
gy destructions/loss))
Costs

Cost stream associated with   Average cost per 
C j  c jEj [€/s]  cj [€/GJ or $/GJ]
all exergy streams/exergies: unit of exergy

Assumption: Exergy is a rational basis for assigning monetary values to energy 
conversion and inefficiencies 

Capital‐Investment‐Operation 
Z k  Z kCI  Z kOM
& maintenance cost 
COST RATES ASSOC. WITH ALL 
COST RATES ASSOC. WITH ALL  CAPITAL INVESTMENT ETC 
EXIT EXERGY STREAMS
HEAT TRANSFERS COST RATES

Ne Ni
Cost balance  c eEe k  c w ,k Wk q,k Q,k   c iEi k  Zk
  c E  
e i
COST RATES OF GENERATING  COST RATES ASSOC. WITH ALL 
POWER EXIT EXERGY STREAMS 19
D.P. Sekulic

Exergo‐economics Analysis

COST RATES ASSOC. WITH ALL 
COST RATES ASSOC. WITH ALL  CAPITAL INVESTMENT ETC 
EXIT EXERGY STREAMS
HEAT TRANSFERS COST RATES

Ne Ni
Cost balance  c eEe k  c w ,k Wk q,k Q,k   ciEi k  Zk
  c E  
e i
COST RATES OF GENERATING  COST RATES ASSOC. WITH ALL 
POWER EXIT EXERGY STREAMS

Cost balance may be written in terms of cost rates of products’ and fuels’ 
streams (power and omitted for the sake of simplicity):

cP,k Ep,k  cF,k Ef ,k  Z k

D.P. Sekulic 20

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 10
 6/10/2012

Metrics
.
The exergoeconomic evaluation is conducted at the component level

METRICS

 Cost rate associated with exergy destruction  

within the component being considered
C D,k  cD,kED,k

cp,k  c f ,k 1  k Z
 Reative cost difference r    k
c f ,k k CD,k

Z k
 Exergoeconomic factor fk   
Zk  C D,k

D.P. Sekulic 21

Exergo‐economics Analysis
Example: Refrigeration system
Material of c PH
Stream
stream [€/GJ]
1 ammonia 66.69
2 ammonia 66.43 Component Z k C D ,k Z k + C D ,k cF,k c P ,k rk fk
ammonia [€/h] [€/h] [€/h] [€/GJ] [€/GJ] [-] [%]
3 66.30
CM 1.37 0.12 1.49 27.78 66.3 1.387 90.6
4 ammonia 71.35
CD 0.32 0.65 0.97 67.00 580.6 7.666 33.5
W 27.78
TV 0.01 0.22 0.23 66.30 75.3 0.136 3.1
0*) ammonia
EV 1.61 0.71 2.32 75.30 230.4 2.060 69.4
6=0*) water 0
Overall 3.31 0.77 4.08 27.78 230.4 7.294
7 water 580.6 system
8 air 0
9 air 84.73 Evaporator 
Cost effectiveness 
0*) air is by far the 
may be increased 
most important
if one decreases 
the investment 
cost of CM & EV

D.P. Sekulic 22

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 11
 6/10/2012

Exergo‐environmental Analysis
Exergy Analysis Exergoenvironmental Analysis

ED

EF EP

Ein  Eout  EDestruction  ELoss

Single score life cycle impact LCA (LCIA): 
EF  EP  ED Eco‐Indicator 99   http://www.pre.nl

Eco‐indicator 99 :
Damage to human health b j ,k  B j ,k /Ej ,k
Damage to ecosystem quality
Damage to resources
Ej Ej
http://www.pre‐sustainability.com/content/reports
Buhgeister, J., Jeske, U., and Richers, U., Exergoenvironmental analysis…, Life Cycle Management Conference 2011, LCM 2011, Berlin. 
23
D.P. Sekulic

Example: Refrigeration system
Com- Yk B D ,k Yk +B D ,k bF ,k bP ,k rb ,k f b ,k
ponents [mPts/h] [mPts/h] [mPts/h] [mPts/MJ] [mPts/MJ] [-] [%]

CM 10.850 38.556 49.406 7.500 8.758 0.168 22.0

CD 1.146 85.392 86.538 8.848 54.580 5.168 1.3

TV 0.115 29.164 29.279 8.758 9.915 0.132 39.3

EV 56.664 93.528 150.192 9.915 19.950 1.012 37.7

Overall 68.775 264.640 315.415 7.500 19.950 0.624 26.0

system
Environmental impact 

Specific environmental impact  
environmental impact

rate associated with k
Component‐related 

b j ,k  B j ,k /Ej ,k
Single score life cycle impact LCA (LCIA): Eco‐Indicator 99   
http://www.pre.nl
Evaporator is by far with the highest 
environmental impact
D.P. Sekulic 24

MIT‐Professional Education Course, June 
2012 12