Advertisement

Adaptation of the ascendency theory to industrial systems

  • Monica CarvalhoEmail author
  • Luis M. Serra
Technical Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Growth and development of ecosystems are subject to restrictions. Besides exergy, other properties, such as ascendency, have been described as goal functions that can inform about the health of ecosystems and synthesize information about the energy and matter flows in relation to an ideal theoretical state. Ascendency is an index that quantifies both the growth and the degree of organization in an ecosystem, in which several subsystems interact with mass and energy flows. Ascendency is quantified in terms of mass and energy exchanges among different subsystems constituting an ecosystem. Its value increases when the activity of the ecosystem increases (amount of mass and energy exchanges increase) and when the ecosystem evolves to a higher complexity of its structure (level of integration of the subsystems). Exergy provides information about the quality of energy and is therefore very appropriate for evaluating the thermodynamic efficiency of energy conversion processes. Growing concerns about energy efficiency have stimulated the development of techniques for the analysis, design, and diagnosis of complex energy systems based on the second law of thermodynamics. In this context, the set of methodologies called thermoeconomics was created, aimed at cost allocation (economic, thermodynamic, or environmental) and optimization of thermal systems based on thermodynamic concepts of system operation, which very often use exergy. Thermoeconomic analysis provides information on the interaction among the different components of energy systems and how energy resources are distributed throughout the internal mass and energy flows of the system. Herein the formulation of ascendency was adapted to industrial systems using exergy flows as the quantity of interest, employing the productive structure obtained from thermoeconomic analysis techniques to describe the production process of the system. Ascendency was then applied to a set of simple thermodynamic power systems based on the Rankine cycle to study the connection between energy (thermodynamic) efficiency and the “growth” and “development” of the power system. Four configurations with different interconnection levels between the equipment were studied, maintaining the final product of the power systems (net power) and the energy efficiency of the entire cycle constant, for comparison purposes. Moreover, different turbine efficiencies were also analyzed, maintaining a fixed system structure and constant net power produced, to obtain comparable results. It was verified that in the case of steam power plants based on the Rankine cycle, an increase in system complexity, maintaining the total plant production constant, increases ascendency as well as its potential for energy efficiency improvement. When different cases with the same interconnection level between equipment (same system structure), same net power production and different efficiencies are compared, the configuration with the highest ascendency value also presents a better potential for optimization.

Keywords

Ascendency Thermodynamics Exergy Thermoeconomics Rankine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been developed in the framework of research project ENE2017-87711-R, partially funded by the Spanish Government (Energy Program), the Government of Aragon (Ref: T55-17R), Spain, and the EU Social Fund (FEDER Program 2014-2020 “Building Europe from Aragon”). Thanks are extended to the National Council for the Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico—CNPq) of Brazil for productivity Grant No. 307394/2018-2.

References

  1. 1.
    Ayres RU, Ayres LW, Martinás K (1998) Exergy, waste accounting, and life-cycle analysis. Energy 23(5):355–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(97)00076-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tribus M, Evans RB (1962) A contribution to the theory of thermoeconomics. UCLA Report. Nº 62-63Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaggioli R (1983) Second law analysis for process and energy engineering. In: Efficiency and costing, ACS symposium series, vol 235, pp 3–50Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsatsaronis G, Winhold M (1985) Exergoeconomic analysis and evaluation of energy-conversion plants. Energy 10:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frangopoulos CA (1987) Thermo-economic functional analysis and optimization. Energy 12(7):563–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lozano MA, Valero A (1993) Theory of exergetic cost. Energy 9(18):939–960.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(93)90006-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    von Spakovsky MR, Evans RB (1993) Engineering functional analysis part I. ASME J Energy Resour Technol 115:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M (1996) Thermal design and optimization. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Sayed YM (2003) The thermoeconomics of energy conversions. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G (2006) SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 31:1257–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Banerjee A, Rakshit N, Ray S (2018) Structural dynamic models. In: Fath BD (ed) Encyclopedia of ecology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ulanowicz R (1999) Ecology, the ascendent perspective. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen SN (2008) Ascendency—what causes…?—and—what follows? Lecture on ascendency, power and emergy as properties of ecosystems, given during the environmental management of ecosystems graduate course at the University of Coimbra, Portugal. http://www1.ci.uc.pt/imar/ecomod/snnascendency.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2019
  14. 14.
    Serra LM, Lozano MA, Ramos J, Ensinas AV, Nebra SA (2009) Polygeneration and efficient use of natural resources. Energy 34(5):575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carvalho M, Romero A, Shields G, Millar DL (2014) Optimal synthesis of energy supply systems for remote open pit mines. Appl Therm Eng 64(1–2):315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Romero A, Carvalho M, Millar DL (2016) Optimal design and control of wind-diesel hybrid energy systems for remote arctic mines. J Energy Res Technol 138(6):062004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silva JAM, Ávila Filho S, Carvalho M (2017) Assessment of energy and exergy efficiencies in steam generators. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39(8):3217–3226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pina EA, Palacios-Bereche R, Chavez-Rodriguez MF, Ensinas AV, Modesto M, Nebra SA (2017) Reduction of process steam demand and water-usage through heat integration in sugar and ethanol production from sugarcane—evaluation of different plant configurations. Energy 138:1263–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pina EA, Lozano MA, Serra LM (2018) Allocation of economic costs in trigeneration systems at variable load conditions including renewable energy sources and thermal energy storage. Energy 151:633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pina EA, Lozano MA, Serra LM (2017) Optimal operation and marginal costs in simple trigeneration systems including thermal energy storage. Energy 135:788–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Delgado D, Carvalho M, Junior LMC, Abrahão R, Chacartegui R (2018) Photovoltaic solar energy in the economic optimisation of energy supply and conversion. IET Renew Power Gener 12(11):1263–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cavalcante EJC, Carvalho M, Ochoa AAV (2019) Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental comparisons of diesel-biodiesel blends in a stationary engine at variable loads. Energy Convers Manag 183:450–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nascimento DP, Menezes VL, Chacartegui R, Carvalho M (2019) Energy analysis of products and processes in a sanitary landfill. IET Renew Power Gener 13(7):1063–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang JL, Xu ZM (2007) The ascendency formula and its application in economic systems: take Gansu Province as a case study. Acta Ecol Sin 27:4785–4792Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bodini A (2012) Building a systemic environmental monitoring and indicators for sustainability: what has the ecological network approach to offer? Ecol Indic 15(1):140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kharrazi A, Rovenskaya E, Fath BD, Yarime M, Kraines S (2013) Quantifying the sustainability of economic resource networks: an ecological information-based approach. Ecol Econ 90:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huang J, Ulanowicz RE (2014) Ecological network analysis for economic systems: growth and development and implications for sustainable development. PLoS ONE 9(6):e100923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fath BD (2015) Quantifying economic and ecological sustainability. Ocean Coastal Manag 108:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Layton A, Bras B, Weissburg M (2015) Ecological robustness as a design principle for sustainable industrial systems. In: ASME 2015 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference 2016 Jan 19. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital CollectionGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Panyam V, Huang H, Davis K, Layton A (2019) Bio-inspired design for robust power grid networks. Appl Energy 251:113349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Panyam V, Huang H, Davis K, Layton A (2019) An ecosystem perspective for the design of sustainable power systems. Procedia CIRP 1(80):269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Layton A, Reap J, Bras B, Weissburg M (2012) Correlation between thermodynamic efficiency and ecological cyclicity for thermodynamic power cycles. PLoS ONE 7(12):e51841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reap J, Layton A (2017) Lessons from living systems for the development of sustainable industrial resource networks. J Energy Chall Mech 4(1):1–10Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Panyam V, Dave T, Layton A (2018) Understanding ecological efficiency and robustness for network design using thermodynamic power cycles. In: ASME 2018 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference 2018 Nov 2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital CollectionGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Angelini R (2008) Bases for the application of information theory to ecosystems, with emphasis on ascendency. Acta Sci Biol Sci 24:275–283Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164(3877):596–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Müller F (1997) State-of-the-art in ecosystem theory. Ecol Model 100(1):135–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nielsen SN, Ulanowicz RE (2000) On the consistency between thermodynamical and network approaches to ecosystems. Ecol Model 132(1):23–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00302-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Salomonsen J (1992) Examination of properties of exergy, power and ascendency along a eutrophication gradient. Ecol Model 62(1–3):171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Müller F, Leupelt M (eds) (2012) Eco targets, goal functions, and orientors. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    JΦrgensen SE (1999) State-of-the-art of ecological modelling with emphasis on development of structural dynamic models. Ecol Model 120(1):75–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(99)00093-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brown MT, Mcclanahan TR (1996) Emergy analysis perspectives of thailand and mekong river dam proposals. Ecol Model 91:105–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jørgensen SE, Ulanowicz R (2009) Network calculations and ascendency based on eco-exergy. Ecol Model 220(16):1893–1896.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ulanowicz R (1999) Life alter Newton: an ecological metaphysic. Bio Systems 50:127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Skyrms B (1980) A pragmatic investigation of the necessity of laws. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 205Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Boltzmann L (1872) Und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung respektive den Sätzen über das Wärmegleichgewicht. Wiener Berichte 76:373Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tribus M, Mcirvine EC (1971) Energy and information. Sci Am 225(3):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ulanowicz RE (1980) An hypothesis on the development of natural communities. J Theor Biol 85:223–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(80)90019-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brinck K, Jensen HJ (2017) The evolution of ecosystem ascendency in a complex systems based model. J Theor Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.06.010 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ulanowicz R (2004) On the nature of ecodynamics. Ecol Complex 4(1):341–354.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2004.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Salthe SN (2012) Frameworking ascendency increase (a review of R. E. Ulanowicz, A Third Window: Natural Life Beyond Newton and Darwin. Templeton Foundation Press, 2009). Axiomathes 22(2):223–230.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-011-9176-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bosworth KW, Ulanowicz RE (1991) The possible role of ascendency in neural networks. In: American mathematical society, southeastern sectional meeting, 1991, Tampa, pp 122–123Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moran MJ, Shapiro HN (2006) Fundamentals of engineering thermodynamics, 7th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dincer I, Rosen MA (2012) Exergy: energy, environment and sustainable development. Newnes, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dincer I, Midilli A, Kucuk H (eds) (2014) Progress in exergy, energy, and the environment. Springer, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04681-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kotas TJ (2013) The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sonntag RE et al (2003) Fundamentals of thermodynamics. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dewulf J (2016) Exergy-based indicators: how to integrate exergy into policy, law and practice. In: Think exergy not energy–a science Europe workshopGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lozano MA, Valero A, Serra L (1996) Local optimization of energy systems. In: ASME Book G01022, pp 241–250Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Valero A, Serra L, Uche J (2006) Fundamentals of exergy cost accounting and thermoeconomics. Part I: theory. J Energy Resour Technol 128(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Serra L, Torres C (2009) Structural theory of thermoeconomics. In: Frangopoulos CA (ed) Exergy, energy system analysis and optimization-volume II: thermoeconomic analysis modeling, simulation and optimization in energy systems, vol 2. EOLSS Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Torres C (2009) Symbolic thermoeconomic analysis of energy systems. In: Frangopoulos CA (ed) Exergy, energy system analysis and optimization-volume II: thermoeconomic analysis modeling, simulation and optimization in energy systems, vol 2. EOLSS Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Engineering Equation Solver (2017) F-chart software. http://www.fchart.com/ees/. Accessed 2 Jan 2018
  64. 64.
    Patten BC (1995) Network integration of ecological extremal principles: exergy, emergy, power, ascendency, and indirect effects. Ecol Model 79(1–3):75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Renewable Energy EngineeringFederal University of ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
  2. 2.Group of Thermal Engineering and Energy Systems (GITSE), Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversidad de ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations