Energy Systems Analysis: Measuring the Impact of Energy Technologies, Summaries of Mathematics

Download Energy Systems Analysis: Measuring the Impact of Energy Technologies and more Summaries Mathematics in PDF only on Docsity! Energy Systems Analysis Investigators A.J. Simon, GCEP Energy Systems Analyst; Rebecca Hunt, GCEP Software Engineer; Clare Swan, GCEP Information Technology Administrator; Weston Hermann, GCEP Assessment Analyst; Jodie Prud’homme, Adam Simpson, Graduate Researchers, Stanford University Introduction The goal of Energy Systems Analysis is to develop a methodology for measuring the impact of technologies from an energy- and materials-usage standpoint. The Energy Systems Analysis team supports the goals of GCEP building a technical portfolio and assessing the impact of research by developing software models that allow quantitative comparisons of energy technologies. As part of the GCEP Central Assessment effort, the activities of the analysis team allows GCEP to better understand where opportunities exist to reduce the emissions or increase the efficiency of energy systems and devices. This year, the focus of the analysis group has shifted its emphasis towards supporting the GCEP Portfolio selection process and energy network analysis. Although the methodology has become more "top-down" than it has been in the past, the underlying principles of the work remain the same. The Analysis group builds models of mass and energy flow through existing and ies. The technologies under study encompass the same range of subjects that GCEP is investigating: harvest, storage, distribution, conversion and use of energy. The models are designed to encompass varying levels of technical detail. Each model tracks the inputs and outputs as well as intermediate states for the material and energy streams used by a device. Such models can pinpoint the most efficient and least efficient steps of device operation, and provide the researcher with an in-depth understanding of the technological challenges faced by engineers and scientists. This work will help GCEP locate promising research opportunities for low-emissions, high- efficiency energy technologies and identify barriers to the large-scale application of these new technologies. Background The term "Energy Systems Analysis" at GCEP is used to describe modeling efforts aimed at: 1. quantifying the performance of individual devices and 2. characterizing the interactions between various devices. The tools, process, and results from the Systems Analysis work towards these goals is described in the next section. Analysis of energy systems is taking place at numerous organizations across the globe. In these groups, energy systems analysis work may focus on different goals than those of GCEP. These goals may include: tracking the fate of resources as they are processed through the energy economy; determining the economic feasibility of various energy use scenarios; predicting the economic outcomes of energy policies; finding the causes of, and solutions to, technological, market or policy failure. The GCEP Assessment team focuses on the first option in the list above, tracking the fate of resources as they are processed through the energy economy. Other “Energy Analysis” systems are being developed at numerous organizations elsewhere: public and private; governmental, corporate and academic. For a more detailed list of these systems, please see the 2005 GCEP Technical Report.! Results The Energy Systems Analysis team has continued to refine its software toolbox and to extend the set of energy conversions it can analyze. This year, a major effort in energy flowchart mapping has been initiated. This effort requires new tools. Software Tools The Analysis Team has taken advantage of commercially available and open source software to facilitate the development of thermodynamic system models. Each software package has been selected based on its ease of use and development, its ability to provide the technical components required, and its reasonable cost. There is not a single tool that provides all of the features required for successful energy system analysis, therefore several packages are required. The following list describes the main tools used by the Analysis Team and how they are being adapted for thermodynamic analysis. 1. Matlab (from The Mathworks) has been chosen as the programming language of choice for the Systems Analysis Group’. Matlab is an extremely flexible programming environment with a wide array of computational tools readily available for adaptation to energy system simulation. All of the models and tools described in the next section are written in MATLAB. 2. Python has been investigated as a secondary programming language. Python shares many of the advantages of Matlab in that it is a modern scripting language which facilitates quick program development in a flexible development environment. Python is free and entirely open-source, and has many extensions available which replicate the more advanced mathematical and graphical features of Matlab. An interface for Cantera (below) is available for Python. 3. Cantera (Open Source) is a chemical kinetics and thermodynamics data package that is being developed at Caltech and is released under an open source license.* The Analysis Group is using Cantera for chemical equilibrium calculations and kinetics information. The Systems Analysis Team has worked with the developer of the Cantera code base to expand the Pure Component chemical calculations by writing a Carbon Dioxide module and submitting a Heptane module. Additionally, the team has worked to enhance the functionality of the MATLAB interface. 4. The Aspen Suite (from AspenTech) is an integrated modeling environment which tracks mass and energy flows and has a wide range of property data not available in other face Solar Radiation Extra-solar Redaiee etecton| ggg. pains Fe Facton : Atmospheric | WindLand i 0.016 Wing Energy Conversion Deorpon | 150__ Friction u ny 0.02 Fertizer | soo 2) wauaFuiaicion 0.344 i 0.29 Hyaroelscrity wor8 22 7 aE i Tieton — —_~ i Baleneen Fuid Mining = oo Natural Plant Decay 9.0 Precipitation C 41000 Water Evaporation 44 Preciptate Unprocessed Food 1.95, sen 32) smmcprted << | 08/7 0s 83 Continental Ponte’ oo4 dd 3.5. Forestry Foresty 4.90 0011 Hydrocarbon ‘Solar Radiation romnation 3 0.04 18000. Photosynthesis —— sani 0.0003, 13\_ Sola Electric Tidal Electricity sates Electricty from Coal WY gous Ocean Surtace os ed Coal 2.34 LI " Momentum Transfer Volcanoes i “Fires Mining *°7 curace wove 3 we ane 7 005) Yar retomaton 150 Friction Shore eel cea Oye waves 134 aaa | EE Surface y Tidal Energy ) Uranium Ore Natural Ga Natural Gas ety is 3.7 “Transfer bs Oil and Gas. Processing 0.01 6.32}) Products 110 Uranium Ore Extraction Bes) in 2.74 Methane 196 rise (11024 | A 0.01 Ul Fmt ae | 21 Ratio 5.39 4.07 Electricity t nity from a Crude Oi 2 i Chota Thr Em ions i ‘custtanse Terme Enea joaae ee) We numerous | CSDED 15000 YJ) 160 ZJ i Metal ore. : Uranium 23825 ZJ Nuclear Waste Fission ' man NX.0119 Light Hydrocarbons 0.313 se) nS 0.30 Naphtha = 0.02 Geothermal Exergy __ Geothermal Electricity _/ 0.007 Flow 10000 TW Flow 100 TW. Flow TW 1 TW= 31.54 El/yr Accumulation (7) 10000 YI Accumulation (>) 100073 : Accumulation (>) 1003 Figure 2a : Global exergy flow, accumulation and destruction (continued in Figure 2b). Brown dotted lines represent the boundaries of the system of interest: that under anthropogenic influence between the stratosphere-mesosphere and crust-mantle interfaces. Black dotted lines designate scale changes (see legend at bottom, this page). Exergy flow is generally from left to right. Color codes are provided in the continuation of this figure on the next page. DX Friction 0.05 0.032 Human Mechanical Work Electronics 0.29 Construction Wood Organic Solid Waste 9 wii Appliances 012: [aes ‘iin s Mechanical Work & aN 0.053, 7 0.09 Retigeration = on 0.07 0.04 0.021 | _ Cad air Metabolism 0.14 _AirCoaling Air Mixing Organic Fiber Food Processing 0.73 oO Gell oars 0.95 Processed i) 0.57 —_Ethanol Production 4 44 | é 0.06 _Ventiation olga fo tanens en ‘Air Mbdog od Waste een Biodiesel Production ) Ethane! Conversion 0.08 0.02 Human Body Heat —a 0.13 Pup 0.07 Paper 0.002 {Wem ee. Convection 0.057 / 0.002 Biodiese! 0.005 0.0? Water Heating 0.011 F {__ Hot Water ETI] 0.021 — => conection 0.051 \ Electricity from Solid Biofuel 0.11. \ charcoal Production Pumped Storage Cooking Air Mixing 0.015 o.09) 0.032 Guna, 0.004, 0.003 Gases G6 Electicty | 9 95 0.20) 128 1.15 020" i — ~\\ 0.061 u Methane 04a 0.20\_steam Production Steam Distibuton ——_/ J Liquefaction — ae (“9 0.07 Steam 0.07 008 7 fou {quia netnane 229 | __0.08/ Methane Disbuton J Lt 0524 0.31 Manufacturing F Light Absorption 0.022 ! Pipeline Mechanical Work 0.33 gid: Oe 8 Fluid Friction 30 EJ Methane (080; . f A ighting i 3.52 Long Chain Liquid Fuel | (L (cos Pipelines 0.29 0.045 i TES Road and Rail i Chemical 0.17 Long Chain Liquid Fuet Sx 222 228 F KA Production 0.42 chemicals J | pirrat Propulsive Work Non-metalic Mineral Processing \\ 0.33 Airraft 0.095 = 0.050 0.22 Prastics_/ 27 Fluid Friction ( \L | meta Puriicaton metals t 0.03 Metal ore Metal Oxidation W030 Sey {Ship Proputsive Work 0.001) ts 0.08) Fluid Friction Chemical Exergy <= Gravitational Exergy Flow KEY Nuclear Exergy == Electromagnetic Exergy Kinetic/Work Exergy ‘Thermal Exergy Flow Accumulation (>) 1003 1TW Destruction BX Radiation Absorption “Bx Friction KEY 0.03 TW i Flow AX Chemical Oxidation BX Thermal Mixing | Figure 2b : Global exergy flow, accumulation and destruction (continued from Figure 2a). Brown dotted lines represent the boundaries of the system of interest: that under anthropogenic influence between the stratosphere-mesosphere and crust-mantle interfaces. Black dotted lines designate scale changes (see legend at bottom, this page). Exergy flow is generally from left to right. Net Atmospheric 170 “Accumulation ‘Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide ‘Y 500 ane ere 7S 7 Carbon Dioxide 220 Human Appropriated Plants 137 270 Anthropogenic and Non-plant Fixed Carbon 1980 Prant Respiration ‘and Decay 90 Atmosphere-Ovean Diffusion Coal] 6 86 Hyerocaroon 1 Bea j 42 69 electity 116 8 from Natural Gas Methane lect from Coal | Processing 3 ‘Transport to Ocean 130 Volcanoes ‘41 Methane —= Subourtace “ag carbon Dioxide Ocean Sinking Nena Gas og 73 Long Chain Liquid Fuel Transport ‘Oi and Gar 3000 2 mi 76 Methane Clathrate 100 Sa INeoheia 6 Petroleum t Ocean Sediment : Petleum Consolidation i oS 3.1 Light Hycrecarbons 9.6 Limestone t ‘Gudeol 6.667 Carbonate Rocks Flow Accumulation G1 Pe Flow ——= 100 MeC/s. Accumulation > 1000 Pec rh Fossil Carbon == Carbon Dioxide | KEY = Rock Carbon i 10 MgC/s I MgC/s = 31.54 TeC/yr == Plant Carbon == Ocean Carbon Figure 2c : Global carbon flow and accumulation (continued on Figure 2d). Brown dotted lines represent the boundaries of the system of interest: that under anthropogenic influence between the stratosphere-mesosphere and crust-mantle interfaces. Black dotted lines designate scale changes (see legend at bottom, this page). Carbon flow is generally counter-clockwise. A key to the color codes is provided in the continuation of this figure on the next page.