#TheExergist
Exergy
In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir, reaching maximum entropy.[1] When the surroundings are the reservoir, exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change as it achieves equilibrium with its environment. Exergy is the energy that is available to be used. After the system and surroundings reach equilibrium, the exergy is zero. Determining exergy was also the first goal of thermodynamics. The term “exergy” was coined in 1956 by Zoran Rant (1904–1972) by using the Greek ex and ergon meaning “from work“[1][3], but the concept was developed by J. Willard Gibbs in 1873.[4]
Energy is neither created nor destroyed during a process. Energy changes from one form to another (see First Law of Thermodynamics). In contrast, exergy is always destroyed when a process is irreversible, for example loss of heat to the environment (see Second Law of Thermodynamics). This destruction is proportional to the entropy increase of the system together with its surroundings (see Entropy production). The destroyed exergy has been called anergy.[2] For an isothermal process, exergy and energy are interchangeable terms, and there is no anergy.
Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320445428_Global_primary_energy_use_associated_with_production_consumption_and_international_trade [accessed Mar 10 2018].
@article{article,
author = {Wu, Xiaofang and Chen, G.Q.},
year = {2017},
month = {12},
pages = {85-94},
title = {Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade},
volume = {111},
journal = {Energy Policy},
doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024}
I have spent a Week Assembling Data available through public API’s so that I can build a model of World Economy based upon Energy Generation and Energy Consumption. Most of all of that has already been done what has not been done is creating a Money that embodies embodied energy as its objective valuation basis, The Value basis of money is subjective and as a subjective phenomenon is also a variable. A Bugbear expressed and repeated in the pages of this Blog more than once.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/renewableseroi-why-money-doesnt-cut-it.html
https://archive.org/details/introductiontotec00tech
discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are
merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them
The problem of analysing political choices against the metric of a Monetary measure is the Money as a Thing is most certainly a Variable and as any good technologist, scientist or metrologist will tell you a unit of measurement has to be clearly defined and fixed.
The dollar. He notes that it is a variable. Why anyone should attempt, on this earth, to use a
variable as a measuring rod is so utterly absurd that he dismisses any serious
consideration of its use in his study of what should be done.
He also considers ‘price’ and ‘value’ and the fine- spun theories of philosophers and
economists who have attempted to surround these terms with the semblance of meaning.
These terms, like the monetary unit, may have had meaning to men in the past but they
mean nothing whatsoever to the modern technologist. The standard of measurement is
not relevant to the things measured; and the measuring rod and the things, measured as if
they were stable, are all variables.
This comparison of different energy solution uses ERIOhttps://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
Abstract
The Energy Returned on Invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind
energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict exergy
concept with no ”primary energy weighting”, updated material databases, and updated technical procedures
make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical
and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the
EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an ”unbuffered” scenario. The results show that nuclear,
hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than
photovoltaics and wind power.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/09/money-does-not-initiate-economic.html
Click the Link Below and please read this book, written by a Physicist, Engineer and sadly now departed all round good egg Prof. Sir David MacKay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay
|
So I can get back to my own number crunching I have made my blogging task easier by leaving what I find pertinent links to the question at the Surplus Energy Economics Blog of Dr Tim Morgan, ( Sorry Tim) Here are the two Blogs and Attachments concerned:
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/121-interpreting-the-post-growth-economy/
-
I enjoy reading and have learned a ton of technical information from the Stop These Things web site.
https://stopthesethings.com/2018/03/04/green-energy-fail-how-ideology-destroyed-australias-once-cheap-reliable-power-supply/For SEEDS and an EROEI perspective on our Industrial and Domestic energy budgets transparency is essential.The jist of the attached article is that corrupt rent-seekers in the Green Lobby ( Al Gore Anyone) are instituting an ideologically driven energy solution onto the poorest in society completely ignoring the sensible transition that is possible for the payback of large subsidies from Big Central Government.The Problem that Gore and his like say they are urgently solving is Climate Change, as a climate realist i do not burden my investigations into energy budget solutions with Climate Alarmist dogma that many do make it very easy for StopTheseThings to call out the renewables lobby who have been economic with the actualite much of the time and who are fanatically closed minded to mixed solutions at the expense of upfront pain.( bourne as a sort of penance for past sins).The Energy Cliff does not make an appearance in the linked article and SEEDS would add rather a lot to StopTheseThings advocacy, Australian energy abundance surely leads to the idea that they have far more than they can use themselves and can use surpluses to exchange for what they do not have enough of?At this point things like Leitaers TERRA currency proposals come to mind but most of all this quote from Benjamin Franklin which fits the polarised and binary state of the renewables versus legacy fuels debate.In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”a modest enquiry,
”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.
Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
This leads us to the following general Considerations.”
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0041 -
The Makers community is something to behold not all of it is driven by survivalism.
-
From Storm clouds gathering. I do not buy into catastrophe porn and the Private Frasier ***We are all doomed ** mindset.The best attitude I have come up with is a sort of Stoic form of Ghandis dictum, *Be the change you wish to see in the world”Saskia Sassen says as much in this paper which resonated with me when I read a few years back.
http://www.columbia.edu/~sjs2/PDFs/savage.pdfIt was introduced to me in a discussion about Coercive aggregation which reminded me of Marx’s Primitive Accumulation.There are a number of dialogues on my Blog with Green Party CLimate Catastrophe and Population catastrophe pornographers.Population gets a few mentions above, a key question is ”Who’s Reality * are we setting for the benchmark metric?The Oligarchy is a bad idea, they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves time for some more bottom-up joined up distributed network thinking,
author = {Wu, Xiaofang and Chen, G.Q.},
year = {2017},
month = {12},
pages = {85-94},
title = {Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade},
volume = {111},
journal = {Energy Policy},
doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024}
On Notions of Debt, GDP and monetary measures of the Dismal science one asks the question what is the blogger problem, The end of Cheaply available Oil or the End of the Debt Based Petro Dollar?The Story of the petro dollar figures in my on Line PDF for understanding Climate Science. Which draws on the drilling into debt report linked above.
There is an online book here,
http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.
However, I see your graph “ECoE by fuel group, 1980-2030F” as a stand-alone proof
that renewables will compete with fossils in the near time span. Normally you give a full explanation of how you reach your figures. But not this time. Do you base your assumptions on figures from ‘renewables interest groups’? Are subventions ex- or included? Costs in connection with the integration and accumulation of intermittent energy? Unfortunately there are lots of negatives which you do not mention. I very much hope that you will take all minusses into account by your next article about the usefulness of wind, waves and sun.
https://www.waterstillar.com/ , It is an invention of a Friend and Neighbour of mine.
Would be great to see a paper on SEE.
resources after essentials’ should read disposable resources after essentials in my opinion.
A great report overall and easy to read. Excellent.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/discretionaryincome.asp
Bernard Hartley
Solar Breeders and another energy plant will surely produce the industrial quantities of Electricity required, why would that be impossible?
to imagine the future, distributed networks and symbiotic systems have to be embraced. Top Down centralised command and control systems simply do not lend themselves to whole system thinking.
Thank you for your reply (regarding current Peak Oil reports). I did indeed read your ‘Perfect Storm’ report back in 2013 .
Like houtskool in his comment above, I find it difficult to imagine that certain countries will avoid the permanent recessions experienced by the majority of nations. Specifically your projections for Spain (+3.2%) and Germany (+0.1%) are difficult to understand as these countries will be embedded in a recession bound Europe (UK -10%, France -6.9% etc.). Could you explain this briefly ?
Bernard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
The Contractors Principle of Valuation is a residual method of valuation which adds up all the input costs and then applies a discount rate to generate an annual economic rent ( Net Present Value )
which can then be used to calculate the rating assessment. At shell I did hundreds of these types of Valuations and the Largest such valuation was for the St Fergus Gas Terminal.
Concepts such as Embodied energy also feed nicely back into measures of Levelized costs of electricity. Pulling these concepts of energy value as opposed to financial value into the equations should hopefully result in seeing what the problem we are trying to solve is? DO we want to save Society or the financial system as it currently operates?
Discount rates based upon the cost of Capital are pretty subjective as you will know Tim but it seems to me that EROIE measures Levelised costs of Electricity production and so forth and a residual valuation approach can yield a good method by which to assess the Economic potential for future prosperity based upon access to energy.
exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to
recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
Quigley Tragedy and hope.
Energy economic rent row 94.
the main obstacle to delivering energy as required for society is the tendency to reward gaming the system to create super profits for a small number of people at the expense of the general population.
Sadly people buy the cons and fairy tales and mythologies. I have very little doubt that much political effort is used to protect the centralised command and control model of late financialised Capitalism, that said creating artificial deadlines is always a sure fire way that nefarious motives are being pursued.
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/economic-financial-tools.html
This project is visionary and for people like me who oppose capitalism quite frankly, it is a strong argument against our case that Capitalism does not deliver, in this case, it has.
Tims SEEDS is a very important insight into energy based economics it is not in my opinion fully reflective of advances in technology or indeed technology generally.
For our first chapter on consumption, let’s study that icon of modern civi-
lization: the car with a lone person in it.
conversion rates, it’s simple arithmetic:
car, let’s use 33 miles per UK gallon (taken from an advertisement for a
family car):
Rather than willfully perpetuate an inaccurate estimate, let’s switch to the
actual value, for petrol, of 10 kWh per litre.
played this estimate in the left-hand stack in figure 3.3. The red box’s
height represents 40 kWh per day per person.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320445428_Global_primary_energy_use_associated_with_production_consumption_and_international_trade
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321586512_Global_energy_flows_embodied_in_international_trade_A_combination_of_environmentally_extended_input-output_analysis_and_complex_network_analysis
The work of
Xiaofang Wu
21.81Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
The analysis could only be dreamed about in the Early 80’s when this paper with Energy expåpressed as BTU’s was the norm.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6029194_Embodied_Energy_and_Economic_Valuation
To recap our requirements: we’d like to be able to store or do without
about 1200 GWh, which is 20 kWh per person; and to cope with swings
in supply of up to 33 GW – that’s 0.5 kW per person. These numbers are
delightfully similar in size to the energy and power requirements of electric
cars. The electric cars we saw in Chapter 20 had energy stores of between
9 kWh and 53 kWh. A national fleet of 30 million electric cars would store
an energy similar to 20 kWh per person! Typical battery chargers draw a
power of 2 or 3 kW. So simultaneously switching on 30 million battery
chargers would create a change in demand of about 60 GW! The average
power required to power all the nation’s transport, if it were all electric, is
roughly 40 or 50 GW. There’s therefore a close match between the adoption
of electric cars proposed in Chapter 20 and the creation of roughly 33 GW
http://old-interface.2050.org.uk/pathways/3111444444444442111441111333111111111111111111122111/primary_energy_chart
Placing all of ones’ analytical ammo into the seeds weapon would be a strategic mistake.
Another mistake is accepting the starting assumptions and definitions moulded in the Growth Paradigm and applying them to a post-growth paradigm.