Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Emergy evaluation of power generation systems T

⁎
Siyue Ren, Xiao Feng , Minbo Yang
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: With the increasing demand of power sources, it is of great significance to evaluate different power generation
Emergy indices systems and optimize the energy structure. The emergy is proved to be a comprehensive and powerful way to
Power generation systems evaluate the sustainability of a system. In this paper, emergy is used to compare ten power generation systems by
Sustainability two calculation methods of emergy indices. The emergy data of integrated gasification combined cycle and wind
Efficiency
power generation systems are gathered from the studies of life cycle assessment, while those of the other eight
systems are taken from existing emergy evaluations and converted to the same baseline. The study of hydro-
power generation systems shows the influence of technical progress and geographical location to the sustain-
ability. The comparison of ten power generation systems shows that the hydropower generation system has the
best sustainability while the wind and solar systems demonstrate relatively low sustainability. Besides, the
sustainability is relative to the carbon dioxide tax. The sustainability of wind and concentrated solar power
generation systems is tend to be better than that of integrated gasification combined cycle power generation
system with an increase in the carbon dioxide tax. The results indicate that the technology, investment cost and
carbon dioxide emission are essential factors to sustainability of power generation systems.

1. Introduction
With the growth of the global population and the industrialization
process, the demand for electrical energy is increasing. Traditional
fossil fuel fired power stations emit polluting gases such as sulfides,
nitrides and carbon dioxide, which puts greater pressure on the en-
vironment [1]. In addition, the threat of fossil fuel depletion asks for a
more sustainable way of electricity production [2]. Therefore, making
use of renewable energy is of great significance [3]. However, there are
still certain issues in implementation of renewable power generation
systems. The stability of the energy supply and the impact on local
ecosystems are all important factors for their development [4]. Besides,
the high investment is also a great limitation [5].
Therefore, it is important to evaluate the economic and ecological
performance of power generation systems and find an optimal solution
for energy investment choices. Liu et al. [6] developed the techno-
economic indicators through simulating the long-term implementation
of solar, wind and biomass energy based renewable power generation
systems. Ma et al. [7] developed a comprehensive evaluation index to
evaluate the renewable energy systems, which integrates all the tech-
nical, economic and environmental performance indicators. Marrasso
et al. [8] defined four power plant efficiency indicators and three
carbon dioxide emission factors and evaluated fossil and renewable
power generation system with an hourly time resolution over the years
2016 and 2017. Though these studies evaluated power generation
systems by different indicators from the economic, technical and en-
vironmental perspectives, the sustainability of power generation sys-
tems is not sufficiently demonstrated.
The emergy analysis differs from the above analysis because it has
wider boundaries and is more comprehensive [9]. The emergy theory
was first proposed based on the eco-thermodynamic theory by Odum
[10]. He believed that emergy is the amount of available energy of one
kind directly or indirectly used to make a service or product. Generally,
for convenience of calculation, any form of energy input is converted
into solar emergy (sej) by multiplying its transformity. The emergy
analysis considers both the resources in the market and environment.
Therefore, the economic and ecological cost of a system could be
evaluated by emergy analysis to unveil the sustainability of the whole
system.
The emergy analysis has been used to evaluate some power gen-
eration systems. Brown and Ulgiati [11] first compared six power
generation systems from the perspectives of energy and emergy and
found that the energy efficiencies and emergy indices of renewable
power generation systems is better than traditional power generation
systems. Afterwards, there have been many publications on emergy
analysis of power generation systems. Buonocore et al. [12] presented

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xfeng@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (X. Feng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112749
Received 25 December 2019; Received in revised form 10 March 2020; Accepted 17 March 2020
Available online 27 March 2020
0196-8904/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Ren, et al.
Nomenclature
A Solar radiation area
Cp Specific heat capacity of water at constant pressure
CSP Concentrated solar power generation system
E Input energy
ELR Environmental loading rate
ESI Sustainability index
EX Input Exergy
EYR Emergy yield ratio
F Emergy flows imported from outside (purchased)
Gb Direct normal irradiance
h Specific enthalpy
IGCC Integrated gasification combined cycle
LCOE Levelized cost of electricity
the environmental performance of a 20 MW dry steam geothermal
power plant located in Italy through life cycle assessment (LCA) and
emergy analysis. Pang et al. [13] evaluated the 24 MW Maowusu Bio-
mass Direct-fired Power Plant in Inner Mongolia, China. Zhang et al.
[14] conducted an emergy evaluation and economic analysis of the
4.1 MW Jiangxia tidal power station in China, aiming at evaluating the
environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness of the
power plant.
Solar power generation systems including photovoltaic (PV) and
concentrated solar power (CSP) systems have also been studied by
emergy analysis. Paoli et al. [15] evaluated PV and CSP systems sepa-
rately, and compared plants with both mutual and traditional energy
sources, aiming at an evaluation in a cross and parallel quality per-
spective. Zhang et al. [9] systematically evaluated the advantages and
disadvantages of a CSP system. They showed the technological progress
in the 1.5 MW Dahan solar power plant in Beijing, China, by comparing
it with six other forms of power stations in Italy and a PV power station
in the United States. Campbell [16] revised the calculation results of
emergy yield ratio (EYR) in the work of Zhang et al [9] by changing the
transformity of steel [17].
As for wind power generation systems, Yang et al. [18] used emergy
theory to evaluate wind power generation and compared different
electricity generation systems. The results showed that wind power is
more sustainable than PV and CSP systems, but its ecological perfor-
mance and sustainability are not as good as biomass power generation
systems. Yang and Chen [19] proposed the indicator carbon dioxide
emission (EmCO2) as a useful objective function for potential system
optimization in the context of low-carbon and sustainable development,
and evaluated the environmental pressure, renewability, economic
benefits and sustainability of a 33 × 1.5 MW wind farm in Inner
Mongolia, China. The results show that wind power is a promising
means of substituting traditional fossil fuel-based power generation
systems.
Hydropower generation systems are widely applied due to its high
power generation efficiency, low cost and easy adjustment. Many
countries in the world use hydropower as their main energy source,
such as Brazil [20] and Norway [21]. Some hydropower stations of
Mekong River such as two hydropower stations in Thailand [22] and
Manwan dam in China [23] were evaluated from the perspective of
emergy. The results show that the emergy indices are sensitive to the
treatment of sediment and the hydropower exploitation plays an im-
portant role in improvement of the emergy yield of the regional system.
Similar conclusion was obtained by Kang and Park [24] and Yang [25]
who analyzed the Korean multi-purpose dam and Three Gorges Hy-
dropower Station in China respectively. Otherwise, Zhang et al. [26]
evaluated a small hydropower station in Guizhou Province in south-
western China by emergy analysis. The results showed that the en-
vironmental performance of this station is superior to large hydropower
2
Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749
LHV Low heating value
PV Photovoltaic power generation system
QH Heat value of liquid fuel
QL Calorific value of standard coal
R Locally renewable emergy flows
r Latent heat of vaporation
SHP Small hydropower plant
s Specific entropy
sej Solar equivalent joule: unit used to quantify emergy flows
Tr Emergy transformity
w Water content of coal
Y Total emergy supporting the process or system under in-
vestigation
ηen Energy efficiency
ηex Exergy efficiency
stations, mainly because the small hydropower generation system has
simple equipment and does not cause the loss of artificial drainage and
sediment. The authors further comparatively studied the environmental
performance and sustainability of three small hydropower stations in
Tibet, China [27]. Because of the much higher resource cost but smaller
installed capacity, all the three plants in Tibet present worse perfor-
mance than that in Guizhou Province. In addition, Tassinari et al. [28]
transformed the emergy flow into currency and area indicators to make
the emergy evaluation intuitive, and studied two hydroelectric power
stations in Jupia and Porto Primavera of Brazil.
From the above literature review, it can be found that emergy
analysis is a powerful tool in the assessment of power generation sys-
tems. However, there are still some shortcomings in the previous works.
Firstly, the existing power generation systems have not been compared
longitudinally. For example, the hydropower generation systems have
not been longitudinal studied considering the technology and geo-
graphical location. Secondly, the horizontal comparison of different
power generation systems is not complete enough and the method of
environmental loading rate (ELR) has not been unified. For example,
there is currently no study on the emergy evaluation of new power
generation technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC), and therefore the comparison with other systems has not been
studied. In addition, the revised ELR in [9] is only used in the CSP
power generation system and not unified when the comparison with
other systems is performed.
To fill the research gaps mentioned above, in this paper, the fol-
lowing works with novelty are made. (1) The IGCC and wind power
generation systems are systemically evaluated by emergy analysis. (2)
Based on the existing studies, the hydropower generation systems are
compared longitudinally considering the technical progress and geo-
graphical location. (3) Ten power generation systems are compared and
analyzed horizontally including hydro, wind, biomass, PV, CSP, geo-
thermal, tidal, IGCC and traditional coal and oil fired power generation
systems. The calculation of ELR is unified in the comparison. The en-
ergy and exergy efficiencies of each system are also calculated to assist
the emergy analysis.
2. Method
In order to evaluate the sustainability of power generation systems,
emergy assessment is performed because it is proved to be an efficient
way to present the economic and ecological performance of a system.
Emergy is amount of available energy that is directly or indirectly ap-
plied in the process of product or service formation. The emergy theory
can convert all input and output quantities in a system into the same
baseline, so as to evaluate different systems.
The emergy evaluation of a system mainly includes determination of
the research scale, determination of the emergy baseline, organization
S. Ren, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

of input and output data, and calculation of emergy indices. the system influence on the environment. Therefore, if the system has a
high ELR, it will exert great pressure on the environment. The tradi-
2.1. Determination of research scale tional expression for ELR is
N+F
In this paper, the emergy theory is used to evaluate different power ELR =
R (2)
generation systems. The research scale is a power generation system. As
an example, Fig. 1 shows the emergy flow diagram of an IGCC power Wang et al. [33] believed that the majority of the input resources
generation system [29]. are nonrenewable in many cases and the renewable resources is very
The plant is located in Southern Illinois, USA, with a capacity of small. Then the applicability of the traditional ELR is questionable.
622 MW and a life cycle of 30 years. The input energy of the system is Thus, they presented an improved emergy environment loading rate,
divided into three types, renewable energy (R), nonrenewable energy which is expressed as:
(N) and purchased energy (F). 6 6
Fi Fi
ELR = ∑ Ft
= ∑F + Fcn
i=1 i=1 cr (3)
2.2. Determination of emergy baseline
where Fcr is the improved benefit by material circular and energy cas-
The emergy baseline is a basic parameter for emergy evaluation of a cade utilization; Fcn is the improved benefit by using clean energy
system. The ecological emergy baseline used in current emergy theory technique.
is composed of solar exergy, geothermal exergy and tidal momentum Zhang et al. [9] proposed that waste discharged into the local en-
exergy received by the Earth [10]. The value is 9.44 × 1024 sej/yr from vironment will require environmental emergy for its processing, the
Odum in 1996 [10]. In 2000, Odum calculated it as 15.8 × 1024 sej/yr decrease of waste charge can be accounted for by the investment cost.
[30]. Brown and Ulgiati [31] calculated it as 15.2 × 1024 sej/yr in 2010 They modified the ELR as follow:
based on the definition of emergy value of Odum [10] by using more
F
advanced estimates of Earth resources. The most recent value is ELR =
FN + FR (4)
12.1 × 1024 sej/yr in 2016 calculated by Brown and Ulgiati [32], who
used the approximate solar equivalence ratio to represent the other two where FN is the emergy of the coal saved by using renewable energy,
resources as the solar equivalent exergy. The data from references and FR is the emergy of the emission cost saved by renewable power
adopted in this paper have different emergy baseline and the data will generation. This method could be used to the renewable power gen-
be unified with 12.1 × 1024 sej/yr. eration systems.
Combining the above research, the ELR of IGCC power generation
2.3. Emergy indices system can be simplified as
F
The emergy indices of the system mainly include emergy yield ratio ELR =
FE + FN + FR (5)
(EYR), environmental loading rate (ELR), sustainability index (ESI) and
emergy transformity (Tr). where FE is the emergy of the raised efficiency in terms of the amount of
The emergy yield ratio (EYR) represents the ratio of the total electricity generated comparing to traditional coal-fired power gen-
emergy output to the purchased emergy of the system, as shown in Eq. eration system, FN is the emergy of the coal saved, and FR is the emergy
(1). The higher the ratio, the lower the dependence of the system on the of the emission cost saved.
purchased emergy, and the system will be more competitive. In this study, both the traditional (named as Method 1 using Eq. (2))
and revised ELR [33] (named as Method 2 using Eqs. (4) and (5)) are
Y R+N+F
EYR = = used to evaluate the renewable and IGCC power generation systems.
F F (1)
The sustainability index (ESI) as shown in Eq. (6) indicates that if a
where R, N, F represent the renewable, nonrenewable and purchased system has better production efficiency and less environmental pres-
emergy, respectively, and Y is the total emergy of a system. sure, there will be a higher ESI. Generally, the system with an ESI higher
The environmental loading rate (ELR) indicates the degree to which than 1 is sustainable, but above 10 will be a symbol of underdeveloped

Fig. 1. Emergy flow diagram of an IGCC power generation system.

3
S. Ren, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

economy. The exergy of coal or oil fired and IGCC power stations is calculated
EYR according to the Langte formula [34], which are expressed as Eq. (14)
ESI = for liquid fuel and Eq. (15) for solid fuel:
ELR (6)
Emergy transformity indicates how much input is required to obtain Ex,h,f = 0.975QH (14)
the product, as shown in Eq. (7). A high emergy transformity represents
a product with high emergy level in the system. However, for a certain Ex,ch,s = QL + rw (15)
product, the low emergy transformity means that a small amount of
emergy is consumed. where QH is the heat value of liquid fuel, QL is low calorific value of
solid fuel, r is the latent heat of vaporization of water and w is water
Y content of coal.
Tr =
Eelectricity (7)
where Eelectricity is the system output. 3. Case studies

2.4. Energy and exergy efficiencies An IGCC and a wind power generation system are studied in detail
in this section.
The energy and exergy efficiencies are the ratio of electricity pro-
duced to the energy or exergy consumed. They are calculated as
3.1. Integrated gasification combined cycle power generation system
Eelectricity
ηen =
E (8) The studied IGCC power generation system consists of two parts,
Eelectricity namely the gasification and purification part of coal, and the gas-steam
ηex = combined cycle power generation part. The main equipment of the first
Ex (9)
part includes a gasifier, air separation unit, gas purification equipment
where Eelectricity is the electricity produced, E and Ex are the energy and (including sulfur recovery unit), and the main equipment of the second
exergy consumed, respectively. part includes a gas turbine, waste heat boiler and steam turbine. The
For electricity generation systems by renewable energy in forms of IGCC process is shown in Fig. 2. The coal is gasified into a low calorific
mechanical energy, such as tidal, hydropower and wind energy, the value gas, which is turned into a clean gaseous fuel by purification to
exergy is equal to the value of energy [34], which is remove sulfides, nitrides, dust and other pollutants in the gas, and then
Ex,mech = Ep sent to the combustion chamber of the gas turbine. The gas turbine
(10)
exhaust gas enters the waste heat boiler to heat the water, and gen-
For biomass power generation systems, the exergy of biomass erates superheated steam to drive the steam turbine to work.
mainly include the chemical exergy, which is calculated as [35]: The input and output data of the IGCC power generation system are
Ex,boimass = βLHVbiomass (11) summarized in Table 1, which is based on the model simulated in Ref.
[38] with a capacity of 622 MW and a life cycle of 30 years. The cost of
1.0414 + 0.0177[H / C ] − 0.3328[O / C ][1 + 0.0537[H / C ]]
where β = H/C and O/C re-
1 − 0.4021[O / C ]
, this system is estimated by Skone and James [29] and the levelized cost
present the mole ratio of hydrogen to carbon and oxygen to carbon of electricity (LCOE) is adopted in this paper.
respectively in the biomass. LHV is low heating value of biomass. According to Yang et al. [39], the transformity of the world cur-
According to literature [36], the solar exergy is: rency has been less volatile since 1996. The emergy transformity of the
1 T0 4 4 T US dollar in 2006 could use the value of 2005 calculated by Ref. [39],
Ex,sun = A·G b (1 + ( ) − ( 0 )) which is 1.11 × 1012 sej/$. The baseline in Ref. [39] is 9.44 × 1024
3 Tsun 3 Tsun (12)
sej/yr, which is converted to 12.1 × 1024 sej/yr in this article. There-
where A is solar radiation area, Gb is direct normal irradiance, fore, the emergy transformity of US dollar is obtained to be 1.42 × 1012
Tsun = 6000 K, and T0 is ambient temperature. sej/$. The input and output emergy of the IGCC power plant are shown
For geothermal power generation [37], the physical exergy of steam in Table 2.
and water: The calculation results of the emergy indices by the two methods are
Ex,geothermal = eph = h − h 0 − T0 (s − s0) shown in Table 3. Note that in Method 2, the carbon dioxide (CO2) tax
(13)
is 0.02 $/kg. The results show that the ELR of the IGCC system is low,
where h and s are specific enthalpy and specific entropy, respectively, indicating that this power generation system is environmentally
h0 and s0 are specific enthalpy and specific entropy at 25 °C, friendly. Meanwhile, the ESI of this system is higher than 1, which
101.325 kPa. means that it is sustainable and worth implementing.

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of IGCC power generation system.

4
S. Ren, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

Table 1 4.1. Longitudinal comparison of hydropower generation systems

Input and output data of the IGCC power generation system.
Items Value Units Value (yr) Units The recently emergy evaluation of hydropower generation systems
Capital costs 0.0689 $/kWh 3.75 × 108 $/yr is gathered in Table 6. The emergy indices of hydropower generation
Utility cost 0.022 $/kWh 1.20 × 108 $/yr systems from literatures are converted to the emergy baseline used in
Labor costs 0.0173 $/kWh 9.42 × 107 $/yr this paper, which is 12.1 × 1024 sej/yr. From Table 6, it can be found
Variable O&M cost 0.0112 $/kWh 6.10 × 107 $/yr
Coal 5.60 × 103 t/day 5.03 × 1016 J/yr
that the emergy indices have a strong relationship with the technology,
Natural gas 1.31 × 102 mmBtu/day 5.04 × 1013 J/yr the scale and geographical location.
Process water 3.41 × 106 gallons/day 7.62 × 105 t/yr The energy and exergy efficiencies of hydropower generation sys-
Air 9.98 × 103 t/day 3.34 × 107 t/yr tems in Table 6 are also calculated. The calculation results show that
Electricity 1.96 × 1016 J/yr
the overall efficiency of hydropower generation is more than 40%, up
to 80%, much higher than that of the traditional thermal power gen-
eration systems.
Table 2
In later sections, when comparing with other forms of power gen-
Emergy of the IGCC power plant.
eration systems, Kunming Manwan hydropower generation system will
NO. Items Unit Data (unit/year) Transformity Emergy (sej/ be adopted. The reason is that among the recent studies, there are no
(sej/unit) year)
enough data for the efficiencies of two hydropower generation systems
Renewable (R) in Brazil, and the hydropower generation system in Guizhou Province is
1 Process t/yr 7.62 × 105 6.64 × 1011 5.06 × 1017 small in scale and cannot represent most hydropower generation sys-
water tems.
2 Air t/yr 3.34 × 107 5.16 × 1013 1.72 × 1021
[10]
Nonrenewable (N) 4.2. Horizontal comparison of ten power generation systems
3 Coal J/yr 5.03 × 1016 4.00 × 104 [10] 2.01 × 1021
4 Nature gas J/yr 5.04 × 1013 4.80 × 104 [10] 2.42 × 1018
The emergy indices of various forms of power generation systems
Purchased emergy (F)
5 Capital costs $/yr 3.75 × 108
1.42 × 1012
5.33 × 1020 are compared, including hydro, wind, biomass, PV, CSP, geothermal,
6 Utility cost $/yr 1.20 × 108 1.42 × 1012 1.70 × 1020 tidal, IGCC and traditional coal and oil-fired power generation systems.
7 Labor costs $/yr 9.42 × 107 1.42 × 1012 1.34 × 1020 Two methods are used in the calculation of environmental loading rate
8 Variable O& $/yr 6.10 × 107 1.42 × 1012 8.66 × 1019 (ELR).
M Cost
Emergy yield (Y)
9 Electricity J/yr 1.96 × 1016 2.38 × 105 4.66 × 1021 4.2.1. Traditional calculation method of emergy indices
The emergy indices of each system are firstly calculated by the
traditional method (Method 1). The results are shown in Table 7. The
Table 3 EYRs of the PV, CSP and wind power generation systems are low. It
Emergy indices of the IGCC power generation system. means that the investment cost of per unit power generation is too high,
Items Traditional method (Method 1) Method 2 (when CO2 tax is 0.02 $/kg) that is, a low purchase emergy conversion rate, or a low economic ef-
ficiency.
EYR 5.04 5.04 For the ESI in Table 7, it can be found that some renewable power
ELR 1.70 1.16
generation systems are currently unsustainable, including wind, PV,
ESI 2.96 4.35
CSP, and tidal power generation systems, with values as 0.20, 0.02,
0.18, and 0.41, respectively. The ESIs of these systems are even less
3.2. Wind power generation system than that of the traditional coal-fired power generation system. Among
them, the PV system has the worst sustainability, because its ELR is as
The ESIs of wind power generation systems in Refs. [18,19] are less high as 49, which is much higher than that of other power generation
than 1, which means unsustainable and is disagree with the study in systems.
Ref. [11]. In order to further clarify the results, this paper analyzed an
offshore wind power generation system in Singapore [40] with a life 4.2.2. Revised calculation method of emergy indices
time of 25 years. The benefit of efficiency improved, coal saved and the CO2 emission
Ref. [40] gave a life cycle assessment for the offshore wind power reduced is considered in the revised ELR (Method 2). Based on the
generation system. The emergy transformities and emergy of labor re- existing studies, the revised ELR is used to calculate emergy indices of
fers to Refs. [18] and [19] whose baseline is 15.83 × 1024 sej/J. The the ten power generation systems. The benefit of CO2 emission reduced
calculation method of emergy indices refers to Ref. [18]. The obtained is relative with the CO2 tax. Therefore, the ELR and ESI are not constant,
emergy data are shown in Table 4. The emergy indices by two methods and will change with the CO2 tax. The emergy indices are shown in
are shown in Table 5. The result of Method 1 is in consistent with the Table 8 when the CO2 tax is 0.02 $/kg [42].
results of Refs. [18] and [19] which applied the traditional method to
wind power generation systems. The emergy transformity of the elec- 4.2.3. Energy and exergy efficiencies
tricity generated should be converted to the baseline in this study when The energy and exergy efficiencies are calculated and the results are
the comparison is performed. shown in Table 9. Systems supported by mechanical energy, including
wind, hydro and tidal energy, have higher efficiencies than other sys-
4. Results tems. The efficiencies of biomass, PV, CSP and geothermal power
generation systems are low and need to be further improved.
Based on data from literatures and case studies, emergy indices of
different power generation systems are obtained and organized. Firstly, 5. Discussion
the hydropower generation systems are compared longitudinally. Then
ten power generation systems are compared horizontally by the two To further analyze the sustainability of different power generation
calculation methods. systems, the longitudinal and horizontal analysis are performed.

5
S. Ren, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

Table 4
Emergy data of the offshore wind power generation system.
Items Total amount of material Unit Tr (sej/unit) [19] Emergy (sej)

Renewable energy (R)

Wind power 2.57 × 1014 J 2520 6.48 × 1017
Nonrenewable purchased energy (FN)
Wind turbine
Rotor Resin and fiberglass 57.45 t 8.07 × 1015 4.64 × 1017
Cast iron 41.86 t 3.23 × 1015 1.38 × 1017
Cabin Iron 22.41 t 3.23 × 1015 7.24 × 1016
Steel 26.18 t 3.23 × 1015 8.46 × 1016
Silicon 0.41 t 5.05 × 1015 2.06 × 1015
Copper 4.26 t 1.01 × 1016 4.31 × 1016
Resin and fiberglass 119.82 t 8.07 × 1015 9.67 × 1017
Tower Steel 300.80 t 3.23 × 1015 9.72 × 1017
Substation
Converter Silicon 0.48 t 5.05 × 1015 2.42 × 1015
Steel 8.64 t 3.23 × 1015 2.79 × 1016
Copper 3.84 t 1.01 × 1016 3.88 × 1016
Construction work
Tower foundation Cement 583.23 m3 3.03 × 1014 1.77 × 1017
Metal rod 81.62 t 4.82 × 1015 3.93 × 1017
Substation foundation Cement 129.55 m3 3.03 × 1014 3.93 × 1016
Metal rod 23.34 t 4.82 × 1015 1.12 × 1017
Steel Pipe 699.06 t 3.23 × 1015 2.26 × 1018
Reinforcing bars in piles 42.37 t 3.23 × 1015 1.37 × 1017
Core concrete 530.08 m3 3.23 × 1015 1.71 × 1018
Blade Resin and fiberglass 2.88 t 8.07 × 1015 2.32 × 1016
Generator Silicon 0.16 t 5.05 × 1015 8.08 × 1014
Copper 1.76 t 1.01 × 1016 1.78 × 1016
Metal 0.16 t 4.82 × 1015 7.71 × 1014
Operation and maintenance
Lubricating oil 1.20 t 1.55 × 1015 1.86 × 1015
Resin and fiberglass 19.40 t 8.07 × 1015 1.57 × 1017
Iron 3.40 t 3.23 × 1015 1.10 × 1016
Steel 4.00 t 3.23 × 1015 1.29 × 1016
Diesel 19.40 t 1.41 × 1015 2.47 × 1016
Renewable purchased energy (FR)
Water supply 925.55 t 4.65 × 1011 4.30 × 1014
26% FR, 74% FN
Construction phase labor 424,000 $ 5.78 × 1012 2.45 × 1018
Operation and maintenance phase of labor 276,000 $ 5.78 × 1012 1.60 × 1018
Benefits (Y)
Electricity 2.16 × 1014 J 5.83 × 104 1.26 × 1019

Table 5 technical progress. Besides, the scale and geographical location are
Emergy value and indices of the offshore wind power generation system. important factors. Therefore, it is worth studying the influencing factors
Items Traditional method (Method 1) Method 2 (when CO2 tax is 0.02 $/kg)
of power generation systems.
Fig. 3 shows the emergy transformities of different hydropower
EYR 1.16 1.17 generation systems. The emergy transformities of the three systems
ELR 6.40 0.33 marked with shadow line are superior to the ones in former decade
ESI 0.18 3.49
(Pamong and multi-purpose dam) and tend to be stable, indicating the
progress of hydropower technology. The emergy transformity of the
5.1. Longitudinal analysis of hydropower generation systems Three Gorges Dam is the highest, mainly because the Three Gorges Dam
is located in the Yangtze River with a large sediment load of 5.3 × 108
From the longitudinal comparison of hydropower generation sys- t/yr. This results in a large amount of non-renewable emergy input and
tems, it can be found that the emergy indices are strongly relative to the leads to a higher emergy transformity. Besides, the Lhari hydropower
plant in Tibet has high emergy transformity because of its remote

Table 6
Emergy data of various hydropower generation systems.
Capacity MW Year Region Tr (sej/J) EYR ELR ESI ηt ηe

5
18,000 2016 Three gorges, China [25] 4.28 × 10 0.70 0.73 0.98 0.414 0.414
1500 1996 Pamong, Thailand [22] 2.08 × 105 1.39 3.20 0.43 0.617 0.617
4 2002 Multi- purpose, Korea [24] 3.26 × 105 1.86 2.94 0.63 0.430 0.430
1.5 2016 Lhari, Tibet, China [27] 2.39 × 105 3.45 4.71 0.73 0.804 0.804
8 2014 Small hydropower plant (SHP), Guizhou, China [26] 7.80 × 104 4.40 0.92 4.77 0.800 0.800
1250 2011 Manwan, Kunming, China [23] 7.36 × 104 9.09 0.45 20.37 0.594 0.594
1540 2016 Porto Primavera, Brazil [28] 6.25 × 104 15.30 0.59 26.10 – –

Note: The transformities of electricity in [22], [23], [24] and [25] are recalculated by considering the outputs as co-products and assigning all the emergy output to
electricity in order to be consistent [41].

6
S. Ren, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

Table 7
Comparison of performance indices for each power generation system by traditional method (Method 1).
Power generation systems Power generation stations Tr (sej/J) EYR ELR ESI

5
Tidal [14] Jiangxia, China, 4.1 MW 2.69 × 10 1.52 3.72 0.41
Biomass [13] Inner Mongolia, China, 24 MW 3.84 × 104 1.43 1.15 1.25
Wind Off shore wind power generation system, Singapore 4.42 × 104 1.17 5.84 0.20
Solar PV [15] 1.13 × 105 1.01 49 0.02
CSP [9] 8.19 × 104 1.13 6.53 0.17
Hydro [23] Manwan, China, 1250 MW 7.36 × 104 9.09 0.45 20.37
Geothermal [12] Italy, 20 MW 1.74 × 105 3.73 0.59 6.31
IGCC America, 622 MW 1.98 × 105 5.04 1.70 2.95
Oil-fired [11] Italy, 1280 MW 2.54 × 105 4.21 14.24 0.30
Coal-fired [11] 100 MW 1.61 × 105 4.48 5.85 0.77

location. However, the emergy conversion of tidal system need to be improved.

Fig. 4 shows the other emergy indices of the hydropower generation
systems. The Small Hydropower Plant (SHP), Manwan and Porto Pri-
mavera are sustainable while the Three Gorges, Pamong, Multi-purpose
Dam and Lhari are unsustainable.
According to these results, the main factors affecting the sustain-
ability of hydropower generation systems are the technical progress,
sediments and the geographical location. As for technical progress, the
Three Gorges, Porto Primavera and Manwan hydropower generation
systems have adopted the pumped energy storage technology. As a
consequence, the impact of water flow fluctuation on power generation
can be avoided and the economic benefits can be improved. However,
the sustainability of Three Gorges dam is influenced by the large
amount of sediment. On the contrary, the emergy proportion of sedi-
ment in Porto Primavera system is less than 1% [28], which determines
the low investment in nonrenewable energy and therefore a high sus-
tainability. The SHP in China is sustainable due to its small scale, which
leads to a low sediment loss and investment cost. The Lhari hydropower
generation system in Tibet has poor sustainability, mainly because the
location is relatively remote. The high construction cost results in the
poor environmental performance. Therefore, more attention should be
paid to the scale and location of hydropower generation systems in
further development.
5.2. Horizontal analysis of different power generation systems
The horizontal comparison of the ten power generation systems is
analyzed. Besides, the emergy indices obtained by the two methods are
discussed.
5.2.1. Comparison of emergy transformities and efficiencies
Fig. 5 compares the emergy transformity for each power generation
system. The value represents the amount of emergy input to produce a
unit of electricity. The results show that the emergy transformities (Tr)
of renewable power generation systems are lower than fossil fuel-based
systems except tidal system, indicating that the most renewable power
generation systems are excellent in terms of emergy conversion.
The energy and exergy efficiencies are compared in Fig. 6. The solar
power generation systems have the lowest efficiencies, while the me-
chanical energy supported systems have high efficiencies. The effi-
ciencies of IGCC system is higher than the traditional coal and oil-fired
power generation systems, which means that the gasification and
combined cycle technology could make a good use of fossil fuel.
5.2.2. Analysis based on traditional method (method 1)
The ESI of each power generation system is compared in Fig. 7. The
order of the systems in terms of the ESI is Hydro > Geothermal >
IGCC > Biomass > Coal-fired > Oil-fired > Tidal > Wind >
CSP > PV.
The hydropower generation system has the best sustainability while
the sustainabilities of PV, CSP and wind power generation systems are
less than traditional coal and oil-fired power generation systems. In
order to further study the development direction of these unsustainable
power generation systems derived from method 1, the wind and solar
power generation systems are analyzed in terms of the sustainability
changing. In addition, the IGCC and traditional coal-fired power gen-
eration systems are compared in detail.
(i) Wind power generation system
Table 10 is the different types of emergy input for the studied off-
shore wind power generation system. Taking the investment cost,
maintenance and operation cost and life cycle as variables, the change
of the ESI is observed.
The relationship between ESI and the three variables is shown in
Fig. 8, in which the horizontal coordinate represents percentage of in-
vestment costs reduction, operation and maintenance costs reduction
and length of life cycle increase. The ESI of the wind power generation
system is mostly affected by the investment cost, while the maintenance
and operation cost and the length of life cycle have weak impacts.
Therefore, the development direction of wind power generation sys-
tems should mainly focus on reducing investment cost, such as using
new materials in the manufacture of wind turbines. When the

Table 8
Comparison of emergy indices for each power generation system by revised method (Method 2).
Power generation systems Power generation stations CO2 emission (gCO2/kWh) CO2 tax ($/kg) EYR ELR ESI

Tidal [14] Jiangxia, China, 4.1 MW – 0.02 1.52 1.40 1.09

Biomass [13] Inner Mongolia, China, 24 MW 74.8 0.02 1.43 0.10 13.90
Wind Off shore wind power generation system, Singapore 78.0 0.02 1.17 0.33 3.49
Solar PV [15] 144 0.02 1.01 0.63 1.62
CSP, 1.5 MW [9] 36.3 0.02 1.13 0.33 3.38
Hydro [23] Manwan, China, 1250 MW 171.03 0.02 9.09 0.02 454.5
Geothermal [12] Italy, 20 MW 248 0.02 3.73 0.45 8.28
IGCC America, 622 MW 905.32 0.02 5.04 1.16 4.35
Oil-fired [11] Italy, 1280 MW 923.19 0.02 4.21 14.26 0.30
Coal-fired [11] 100 MW 1109.82 0.02 4.48 10.36 0.53

7
S. Ren, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

Table 9
Comparison of energy and exergy efficiencies for each power generation system.
Power generation systems Tidal [14] Biomass [13] Wind PV [15] CSP [9] Hydro [23] Geothermal [12] IGCC Oil- fired [11] Coal- fired [11]

ηen 0.67 0.15 0.84 0.08 0.15 0.59 0.15 0.39 0.38 0.32
ηex 0.67 0.13 0.84 0.09 0.16 0.59 0.20 0.39 0.39 0.31

Fig. 3. Comparison of emergy transformities for different hydropower genera-

tion systems.
Fig. 6. Energy and exergy efficiencies comparison of different power generation
systems.

Fig. 4. Emergy indices comparison of hydropower generation systems.

Fig. 7. Sustainability comparison of each power generation system by tradi-

tional method (Method 1).

Table 10
Different types of emergy in the offshore wind power generation system.
Items Annual average Total value Unit
(25 year)

FN + SN
Investment cost 9.49 × 1018 sej/yr 2.37 × 1020 sej
Operation and 1.39 × 1018 sej/yr – –
maintenance
FR + SR
Investment cost 6.38 × 1017 sej/yr 1.59 × 1019 sej
Fig. 5. Comparison of emergy transformity of each power generation system. Operation and 4.15 × 1017 sej/yr – –
maintenance
R
Wind power 6.48 × 1017 sej/yr – –
Total amount of emergy 1.26 × 1019 sej/yr – –

8
S. Ren, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749

Fig. 10. Emergy indices and efficiencies comparison of traditional coal-fired

and IGCC power generation systems.

Fig. 8. Changes in ESI of the offshore wind power generation system with cost
reduction and life cycle increasing.

Table 11
Emergy indices of solar power generation systems.
Items Value

PV, 2008 CSP, 2012

14
R (sej) 1.00 × 10 8.31 × 1016
N (sej) 3.05 × 1013 5.94 × 1016
F (sej) 4.88 × 1015 4.83 × 1017

Fig. 11. Proportion of different forms emergy (a): Traditional coal-fired power
generation system; (b): IGCC power generation system.

the purchased emergy reduction. It can be seen that when the pur-
chased emergy of the PV system is reduced by 96%, its ESI is the same
as that of the traditional coal-fired system. For the CSP system, it needs
40% reduction in purchased emergy to achieve the same ESI as tradi-
tional coal-fired system.

(iii) Comparison of coal-fired thermal power generation systems

Fig. 9. Trends of the ESI of solar power generation systems with purchased
emergy reduction.
investment cost is reduced by 75%, the ESI could be equal to that of the
traditional coal-fired system, which is 0.77.
(ii) Solar power generation systems
Solar power generation systems include PV and CSP systems. Each
of them has some advantages and disadvantages because their princi-
ples are different with each other. In this study, the PV system in Ref.
[15] and the CSP system in Ref. [9] are adopted. Three kinds of emergy
input of solar power generation systems are shown in Table 11. The ESIs
of PV and CSP systems are low. It is mainly due to the relatively high
amount of purchased emergy, so reducing the purchased emergy should
be the development direction of solar power generation systems.
Fig. 9 shows the ESI of solar power generation systems changes with
China has a relatively rich coal resource, and the form of power
generation is mainly based on traditional coal-fired systems, which
mainly uses Rankine cycle with regenerating and reheating. Traditional
coal-fired system is not only inefficient for coal use, but also high
polluted. The new power generation technology IGCC combines the
technology of coal gasification and combined cycle. It could increase
the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of pollutant emis-
sions. However, the high investment cost limits its implantation.
Therefore, it is important to evaluate its economic and ecological im-
pact comprehensively by emergy analysis and compare with traditional
coal-fired power generation systems.
Fig. 10 shows the comparison of the two power generation systems.
The smaller EYR value of the IGCC power generation system indicates
that its economic benefit is lower than that of the traditional coal-fired
system. However, the energy and exergy efficiencies of the IGCC power
generation system are higher. In addition, the ELR of the IGCC power
generation system is lower, and the ESI is higher than that of the tra-
ditional coal-fired system. On the whole, the IGCC power generation
system is superior to the traditional coal-fired system in terms of effi-
ciency and sustainability. Therefore, the IGCC power generation system
has a certain development potential.
Fig. 11 shows emergy in different forms of the traditional coal-fired
and IGCC power generation systems. The proportion of renewable

9
S. Ren, et al.
Fig. 12. ESI of each power generation system under different CO2 tax by the revised method (Method 2).
Fig. 13. Results comparison of the two methods.
energy of the IGCC power generation system is higher than that of the
traditional coal-fired system, while nonrenewable energy accounts for a
relatively low proportion. The low proportion of nonrenewable emergy
indicates that IGCC power generation system can improve the efficiency
of coal conversion because the main nonrenewable emergy of these two
systems is coal. However, the proportion of purchased emergy of the
IGCC power generation system is higher than that of the traditional
coal-fired system, therefore, the sustainability of IGCC power genera-
tion system could be further improved by reducing the equipment in-
vestment.
5.2.3. Analysis based on the revised method (method 2)
The ESI obtained by the revised method (Method 2) is changing
with CO2 tax. According to the ESI in Table 8, the hydropower gen-
eration system has the best sustainability and its ESI is much larger than
other systems. The traditional oil and coal-fired power generation sys-
tems are unsustainable because the ESIs are less than 1. For the other
systems, the changing of ESI with the CO2 tax is shown in Fig. 12.
According to Fig. 12, the wind and CSP power generation systems
will become more sustainable than IGCC power generation system with
increasing CO2 tax. The reason is that the CO2 emission of the wind and
CSP power generation systems is lower than that of the IGCC power
generation system. Therefore, high CO2 taxes could increase the bene-
fits of these systems. It could also be obtained that reducing the CO2
emission, for example, adding the carbon capture system, could effec-
tively improve the sustainability of the IGCC power generation system.
5.2.4. Discussion of the two methods
In Method 1, the proportion of nonrenewable emergy and purchased
emergy to renewable emergy is considered in the traditional ELR, while
in Method 2, the benefit of efficiency improved, coal saved and CO2
emission reduced is considered in the revised ELR. Therefore, there are
some differences in the results of the two methods, as shown in Fig. 13.
Firstly, all the renewable power generation systems are more
10
Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749
sustainable than traditional fossil fuel fired systems in Method 2. Sec-
ondly, the ESI of biomass power generation system is higher than the
geothermal and IGCC power generation systems in Method 2, and the
ESI of tidal power generation system is lower than the wind, PV and
CSP power generation systems in Method 2, which are reversed in
Method 1.
6. Conclusion
This paper compares seven renewable power generation systems
and three fossil fuel based systems from the perspective of emergy. The
following conclusions are obtained.
(1) In the longitudinal comparison of hydropower generation systems,
the sustainability is closely related to the scale and geographical
location. In addition, the emergy transformities of hydropower
generation systems tend to be stable.
(2) Most of the renewable power generation systems are excellent in
terms of emergy conversion because the emergy transformities (Tr)
of renewable systems except tidal system are lower than fossil fuel-
based systems.
(3) In the horizontal comparison by traditional emergy indices (Method
1), the investment cost of wind, PV and CSP systems should be
reduced by 75%, 96% and 40% respectively to achieve equal ESI
with the traditional coal-fired system. For coal-fired thermal sys-
tems, the IGCC system is superior to traditional coal-fired system in
terms of sustainability and efficiencies.
(4) In the comparison by revised emergy indices (Method 2), the ESI is
relative to the CO2 tax. All the renewable power generation systems
are more sustainable than traditional fossil fuel fired systems. The
ESIs of wind and CSP systems are tend to be higher than that of
IGCC system.
In the future research, the emergy transformities of electricity
generated by different systems could be unified since the source of
electricity will not be considered in the industry systems, and it is dif-
ficult to perform further analysis with different transformities. The total
inheritance problem of emergy theory in the multi-product systems, i.e.
the heat-power-chemicals poly generation systems, also need to be
further discussed.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Siyue Ren: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft.
Xiao Feng: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision,
Writing - review & editing. Minbo Yang: Writing - review & editing.
S. Ren, et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (21736008) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Wang Y, Yan W, Komonpipat S. How does the capacity utilization of thermal power
generation affect pollutant emissions? Evidence from the panel data of China's
provinces. Energy Policy 2019;132:440–51.
[2] Hou J, Zhu X, Liu P. Current situation and future projection of marine renewable
energy in China. Int J Energy Res 2019;43:662–80.
[3] Hanif I, Aziz B, Chaudhry IS. Carbon emissions across the spectrum of renewable
and nonrenewable energy use in developing economies of Asia. Renew Energy
2019;143:586–95.
[4] Guo S, Liu Q, Sun J, Jin H. A review on the utilization of hybrid renewable energy.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;91:1121–47.
[5] Gräbner M, Morstein Ov, Rappold D, Günster W, Beysel G, Meyer B. Constructability
study on a German reference IGCC power plant with and without CO2-capture for
hard coal and lignite. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51:2179–87.
[6] Liu G, Li M, Zhou B, Chen Y, Liao S. General indicator for techno-economic as-
sessment of renewable energy resources. Energy Convers Manage 2018;156:416–26.
[7] Ma W, Fan J, Fang S, Liu G. Techno-economic potential evaluation of small-scale
grid-connected renewable power systems in China. Energy Convers Manage
2019;196:430–42.
[8] Marrasso E, Roselli C, Sasso M. Electric efficiency indicators and carbon dioxide
emission factors for power generation by fossil and renewable energy sources on
hourly basis. Energy Convers Manage 2019;196:1369–84.
[9] Zhang M, Wang Z, Xu C, Jiang H. Embodied energy and emergy analyses of a
concentrating solar power (CSP) system. Energy Policy 2012;42:232–8.
[10] Odum HT. Environmental accounting–emergy and environmental decision making.
Child Dev 1996;42:1187–201.
[11] Brown MT, Ulgiati S. Emergy evaluations and environmental loading of electricity
production systems. J Cleaner Prod 2002;10:321–34.
[12] Buonocore E, Vanoli L, Carotenuto A, Ulgiati S. Integrating life cycle assessment and
emergy synthesis for the evaluation of a dry steam geothermal power plant in Italy.
Energy. 2015;86:476–87.
[13] Pang M, Zhang L, Liang S, Liu G, Wang C, Hao Y, et al. Trade-off between carbon
reduction benefits and ecological costs of biomass-based power plants with carbon
capture and storage (CCS) in China. J Cleaner Prod 2017;144:279–86.
[14] Zhang LX, Tang SJ, Hao Y, Pang MY. Integrated emergy and economic evaluation of
a case tidal power plant in China. J Cleaner Prod 2018;182:38–45.
[15] Paoli C, Vassallo P, Fabiano M. Solar power: an approach to transformity evalua-
tion. Ecol Eng 2008;34:191–206.
[16] Campbell E. Response to embodied energy and emergy analyses of a concentrating
solar power (CSP) system (2012). Energy Policy 2013;60:424–6.
[17] Zhang X, Jiang W, Deng S, Peng K. Emergy evaluation of the sustainability of
Chinese steel production during 1998–2004. J Cleaner Prod 2009;17:1030–8.
[18] Yang Q, Chen GQ, Liao S, Zhao YH, Peng HW, Chen HP. Environmental sustain-
ability of wind power: an emergy analysis of a Chinese wind farm. Renew Sustain
11
Energy Conversion and Management 211 (2020) 112749
Energy Rev 2013;25:229–39.
[19] Yang J, Chen B. Emergy-based sustainability evaluation of wind power generation
systems. Appl Energy 2016;177:239–46.
[20] Sgarbi FDA, Uhlig A, Simões AF, Goldemberg J. An assessment of the socioeconomic
externalities of hydropower plants in Brazil. Energy Policy 2019;129:868–79.
[21] Kjærland F. A real option analysis of investments in hydropower—the case of
Norway. Energy Policy 2007;35:5901–8.
[22] Brown MT, Mcclanahan TR. Emergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong
River dam proposals. Ecol Model 1992;91:105–30.
[23] Cui B, Hu B, Zhai H. Employing three ratio indices for ecological effect assessment
of Manwan Dam construction in the Lancang River, China. River Res Appl
2011;27:1000–22.
[24] Kang D, Park SS. Emergy evaluation perspectives of a multipurpose dam proposal in
Korea. J Environ Manage 2002;66:293–306.
[25] Yang J. Emergy accounting for the Three Gorges Dam project: three scenarios for
the estimation of non-renewable sediment cost. J Cleaner Prod 2016;112:3000–6.
[26] Zhang L-X, Pang M-Y, Wang C-B. Emergy analysis of a small hydropower plant in
southwestern China. Ecol Ind 2014;38:81–8.
[27] Zhang L, Pang M, Wang C, Ulgiati S. Environmental sustainability of small hydro-
power schemes in Tibet: an emergy-based comparative analysis. J Cleaner Prod
2016;135:97–104.
[28] Tassinari CA, Bonilla SH, Agostinho F, Almeida CMVB, Giannetti BF. Evaluation of
two hydropower plants in Brazil: using emergy for exploring regional possibilities. J
Cleaner Prod 2016;122:78–86.
[29] Timothy Skone RJ. Life cycle analysis: integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) power plant. National Energy Technology Laboratory; 2010.
[30] Odum HT. Handbook of emergy evaluation: a compendium of data for emergy
computation issued in a series of Folios, Folio #2 emergy of global processes. Center
for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences; 2000.
[31] Brown MT, Ulgiati S. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the geo-
biosphere: a review and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecol Model
2010;221:2501–8.
[32] Brown MT, Ulgiati S. Assessing the global environmental sources driving the geo-
biosphere: a revised emergy baseline. Ecol Model 2016;339:126–32.
[33] Wang L, Ni W, Li Z. Emergy evaluation of combined heat and power plant eco-
industrial park (CHP plant EIP). Resour Conserv Recycl 2006;48:56–70.
[34] Feng X, Wang Y. Principles and technologies of chemical energy saving. Beijing:
Chemical Industry Press; 2015.
[35] Mehrpooya M, Khalili M, Sharifzadeh MMM. Model development and energy and
exergy analysis of the biomass gasification process (Based on the various biomass
sources). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;91:869–87.
[36] Leiva-Illanes R, Escobar R, Cardemil JM, Alarcón-Padilla D-C, Uche J, Martínez A.
Exergy cost assessment of CSP driven multi-generation schemes: integrating sea-
water desalination, refrigeration, and process heat plants. Energy Convers Manage
2019;179:249–69.
[37] Nasruddin SK, Masdi A Surachman. Exergy analysis and exergoeconomic optimi-
zation with multiobjective method of unit 4 kamojang geothermal power plant.
Appl Mech Mater 2016;819:523–9.
[38] Black J. Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants, Volume 1:
Bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. National Energy Technology
Laboratory; 2010.
[39] Yang ZF, Jiang MM, Chen B, Zhou JB, Chen GQ, Li SC. Solar emergy evaluation for
Chinese economy. Energy Policy 2010;38:875–86.
[40] Nian V, Liu Y, Zhong S. Life cycle cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy
under the climatic conditions in Southeast Asia – setting the bottom-line for de-
ployment. Appl Energy 2019;233–234:1003–14.
[41] Pang M, Zhang L, Ulgiati S, Wang C. Ecological impacts of small hydropower in
China: Insights from an emergy analysis of a case plant. Energy Policy
2015;76:112–22.
[42] E.a.V.E. the World Bank. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2017; November 2017.