Multi-Criteria Comparison of Energy and Environmental Assessment Approaches for the Example of Cooling Towers

被引:3
作者
Wenzel, Paula M. [1 ]
Radgen, Peter [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Stuttgart, Inst Energy Econ & Rat Energy Use IER, D-70565 Stuttgart, Germany
关键词
environmental assessment; energy efficiency; cooling tower; life cycle assessment; exergy analysis; cooling equipment; MATERIAL FLOW-ANALYSIS; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; IMPACT ASSESSMENT; EXERGY ANALYSIS; SUSTAINABILITY; EFFICIENCY; FOOTPRINT; FRAMEWORK; DESIGN; TOOLS;
D O I
10.3390/asi5050089
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Cooling towers remove economically or technically unusable heat using considerable amounts of electricity and, in many cases, water. Several approaches, which vary in methodology, scope, and level of detail, are used for environmental evaluations of these cooling systems. Although the chosen approach has a significant impact on decisions made at the plant level, no methodology has yet been standardized for selecting the approach that best serves the objectives of the evaluation. Thus, this paper provides comparison criteria for the systematic selection of suitable evaluation methods for cooling towers and classifies how the methods score in this respect. These criteria, such as 'life cycle thinking', 'inventoried physical quantities', 'temporal resolution', 'formalization', and 'data availability', are grouped by overall evaluation objectives such as 'thoroughness', 'scientific soundness', and 'usability'. Subsequently, these criteria were used to compare material flow analysis, energy analysis, environmental network analysis, life cycle inventory, life cycle assessment, environmental footprint methods, emergy analysis, exergy analysis, and the physical optimum method. In conclusion, material flow analysis is best suited for the analysis of cooling towers when impact assessment is not required; otherwise, life cycle assessment meets most of the defined criteria. Moreover, only exergy-based methods allow for the inclusion of volatile ambient conditions.
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 87 条
[41]   Expanding exergy analysis to account for ecosystem products and services [J].
Hau, JL ;
Bakshi, BR .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2004, 38 (13) :3768-3777
[42]  
Heijungs R, 1998, ECO EFFICIEN IND, V1, P175
[43]   Human appropriation of natural capital: A comparison of ecological footprint and water footprint analysis [J].
Hoekstra, A. Y. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 68 (07) :1963-1974
[44]  
Hoekstra A Y, 2011, The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard
[45]   Design of Cooling Towers by the Effectiveness-NTU Method [J].
Jaber, H. ;
Webb, R. L. .
JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 1989, 111 (1-4) :837-843
[46]   Linking substance flow analysis and soil and water assessment tool for nutrient management [J].
Jakrawatana, Napat ;
Ngammuangtueng, Pitak ;
Gheewala, Shabbir H. .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2017, 142 :1158-1168
[47]  
Keichel C., 2017, THESIS TU CLAUSTHAL
[48]   An improved design and rating analyses of counter flow wet cooling towers [J].
Khan, JUR ;
Zubair, SM .
JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 2001, 123 (04) :770-778
[49]   Interaction effects of natural draft dry cooling tower (NDDCT) performance and 4E (energy, exergy, economic and environmental) analysis of steam power plant under different climatic conditions [J].
Kheneslu, Reza Alizadeh ;
Jahangiri, Ali ;
Ameri, Mohammad .
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND ASSESSMENTS, 2020, 37
[50]   Dynamic substance flow analysis: the delaying mechanism of stocks, with the case of PVC in Sweden [J].
Kleijn, R ;
Huele, R ;
van der Voet, E .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2000, 32 (02) :241-254