Energy Convers. Mgmt Vol. 36, No. I, pp.

1-5, 1995
Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0196-8904(94)00040-9
0196-8904/95 $9.50+ 0.00

ENDOREVERSIBLE THERMOECONOMICS

ALEXIS DE VOS
Vakgroep voor Elektronika en Informatiesystemen, Universiteit Gent, Sint Pietersnieuwstraat 41,
B-9000 Gent, Belgium

(Received 7 February 1994; received for publication 7 September 1994)

Abstract--An endoreversible power plant is optimized with respect to economical exploitation. This leads
to an optimum performance, depending on the relative costs of investment and fuel.

Endoreversible thermoeconomics Endoreversible thermodynamics Curzon-Ahlborn engine

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
In 1957, Novikov [1] introduced a model for a nuclear power plant, see Fig. l(a). It consists of two
heat reservoirs: one at the high temperature T~ and one at the low temperature T2. Both
temperatures are assumed constant and of known value. Between the two reservoirs are two
components:
• one reversible component: a Carnot engine
• one irreversible component: a thermal conductor g.
The hotter side of the Carnot engine (or, equivalently, the colder side of the conductor) is assumed
to be at some (variable) temperature T3.
If T3 equals T,, the engine converts heat into work at its maximum efficiency, i.e. at the Carnot
efficiency, r/c = 1 - Tz/T~. However, then the energy conversion happens infinitely slowly and thus,
no finite power W is produced. Therefore, Novikov proposed not to maximize the efficiency r/,
but rather the power production rate W. He demonstrated that this happens when T3 equals
~ . The conversion efficiency r/is lower than the Carnot value and equals 1 -
In 1975, Curzon and Ahlborn [2] (unaware of the Novikov result) introduced a model for a
power plant, with two thermal conductors gt and g2, see Fig. l(b). We have now two intermediate
temperatures, i.e. T3 and /'4. The Curzon-Ahlborn scheme reduces to the Novikov scheme if the
thermal conductance g2 tends to infinity, such that T4 becomes identically equal to T2. It is
remarkable that the Curzon-Ahlborn generalization of the Novikov model leads to the same result
for the maximum-power efficiency, namely

r/om = 1 - ~ T ~ ,

a value often referred to in the literature as the Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency.

Engines such as the Novikov engine and the Curzon-Ahlborn engine are known as endore-
versible engines, after the name proposed by Rubin [3] for irreversible engines, where all the
irreversibility is restricted to processes happening in the communication between the converting
engine and the external world and where, thus, no irreversibilities happen in the energy converter
itself. For an overview of endoreversible thermodynamics, the reader is referred to Refs [4-7].
In the present paper, we will shortly review the thermodynamics (see Section 2) and then
introduce the thermoeconomics (see Section 3) of the Novikov plant. All results are equally valid
for the more general Curzon-Ahlborn plant. But, in order to make the mathematics more
2 DE VOS: ENDOREVERSIBLETHERMOECONOMICS

transparent, explicit calculations refer to the model in Fig. I(a). The reader will easily generalize
for the model in Fig. l(b). Whereas, in thermodynamics, we treat heat and work fluxes (in J/s = W),
in thermoeconomics, we will also treat money fluxes (in ecu/s).

2. E N D O R E V E R S I B L E THERMODYNAMICS
The heat flux Q is governed by the constitutive law of the thermal conductor. Like Novikov and
Curzon and Ahlborn, we will assume a linear (i.e. Newtonian) transport equation:

Q =g(T~ - T3). (1)

The heat-to-work conversion is governed by the Carnot law:

T3)"
Together, the above formulae lead to

W =g(1- ~ ) (Tt - T3), (2)

where W appears as a function of the variable temperature T3. Figure 2(b) shows the function
W(T3). The curve has two zeros: one at /'3 = / ' 2 and one at T 3 = Tj. Between the two zeros, the
curve displays a maximum. The reader will easily verify that d W/dT3 = 0 leads to T3 = ~ and,
subsequently, to W,,,x= g ( v / ~ - x / / ~ ) 2. With the efficiency equation r / = W / Q = I - T 2 / T 3 ,
this leads to qopt = 1 - ~ .
Note that, in the range T2 <~ T3 <~ T~, the engine works as a true heat engine, whereas for T3 < 7"2
it functions as a refrigerator and for/'3 > T~ as a heat pump. The maximum heat we can convert
in the true heat engine, i.e. the maximum heat we can extract from the hot reservoir without
supplying work (i.e. without negative W) is given by Qmax= 0(7/'2) = g(Tl - 7"2).

3. E N D O R E V E R S I B L E THERMOECONOMICS
Independently, De Vos [5, 6] and Gordon and Huleihil [8,9 ~ m a r k e d that neither reversible
operation (T 3 = T~) nor maximum-power operation (T 3 = x/Tl T2) is the economically optimum
condition. Indeed,

• the higher the delivered power IV, the faster the investments for building the plant will be
recovered, but
• the higher the efficiency ~/, the better the expenses for procuring the primary fuel will be
recovered.

Therefore, the optimal exploitation point lies somewhere between the maximum-power point and
the maximum-efficiency point. Thus, the optimal T3 satisfies:

T2 < (T3)opt < Tl

and, therefore, we have

/'2
1 -- </']opt < 1 TI

We will now work out this idea quantitatively.

The running costs C of the plant consist of two parts:

• a captial cost that is assumed to be proportional to the investment and, therefore, proportional
to the size of the plant, and
• a fuel cost that is proportional to the fuel consumption and, therefore, to the heat
production Q.
 DE VOS: ENDOREVERSIBLE T H E R M O E C O N O M I C S 3

® ® Omax
_ _ m

®
o[ r, px,,, -
I
L
W~
Wmox

Fig. 1. Endoreversible engines. (a) Novikov engine; Fig. 2. Heat and power as a function of temperature T 3.
(b) Curzon-Ahlborn engine. (a) Heat consumption; (b) power production.

We now assume that Qm,x is an appropriate measure for the size of the plant. Thus, the running
costs C of the plant exploitation are given by

C = aQmax + bQ,
where the coefficients a and b both have the dimension ecu/J.
The profits are
W
q=--
C'
a quantity expressed in J/ecu. It is this quantity we will maximize. This approach is somewhat
different from

• Bejan [10] who minimizes the simple cost function gTt/HI, that leads to neglecting the fuel cost,
and
• Ibrahim et al. [11] who minimize a very complicated cost function that leads to complicated
computations involving Lagrange multipliers.

Thus, we will, in the present paper, maximize

W(T3)
q(T3) =
aQm,x + bO(T~)

aq

9.5

Table 1. Relative fuel cost for various energy sources

T3 Fuel f (%)
oT d T2 TI~ Renewable 0
Uranium 25
Coal 35
Gas 50
Fig. 3. Profit as a function of temperature T~.
 DE VOS: ENDOREVERSIBLETHERMOECONOMICS

t~opt
qopt,
I- I--

0.5-
-•'1=0.5 -,,..-.I - T2 0.5-

1 2

f re/'rl
O i I I I I I I r I ~ O I ! I i [ I I i f [
0 0.5 O 0.5 I
Fig. 4. Optimal efficiencyas a function of relative fuel cost Fig. 5. Optimal efficiencyas a function of the temperature
f, calculated numericallyfor the case T2/T ~= 0.5. ratio T2/TI.

with respect to /'3. With equations (1) and (2), the expression becomes

1 (T3- Tz)(T, - T3)

q(T3) =
a T3[(T, - T2) + f l ( T , - T3)]'

where fl is the dimensionless ratio b / a .

Figure 3 shows the function q(T3) for various values of the fl-parameter. For fl = 0, this curve
is of the same form as the W(T3)-curve of Fig. 2(b). Indeed, if fl = 0, then

1
q(T3) = ~ W(T3),

with a maximum at T3 = T w / ~T~. For fl--, + oo, the maximum of the curve comes closer and closer
to its reversible point at T3 = T,.
Explicit manipulation of d q / d T 3 = 0 for arbitrary fl leads to the quadratic equation

[T, -- (1 + fl) 7'2] T23 + 2flT~ T 2 T 3 - [(1 + fl) T l - T2] T, T2 = 0

with solution

T~ - ( I + ,O) T2

and, therefore, to

t/opt = 1 _ ~ T~ T,-(I +fl)T2

,/1 +
Instead of expressing the result in terms of fl, a number difficult to recover from the literature,
we can also express it in terms of the fractional fuel cost

bQ fl(T,- T3)
f=
aQmax + b Q = (T, - ~ ) + [3(7"1 - T3)"

For various technologies, this number is approximately given by Table 1. The values in the table
have been deduced from the Belgian situation [12-15], but have, nevertheless, an indicative general
value.
For various values of fl, we can now calculate, numerically, b o t h f a n d rlopt, giving rise to Fig. 4.
We see how the optimum r/varies smoothly from the Novikov value f o r f = 0, i.e. for energy sources
where the investment is the preponderant cost, to the Carnot value f o r f = 1, i.e. for energy sources
where the fuel is the predominant cost.
If we repeat this calculation for various ratios I"2/7'1, we finally get curves of Fig. 5. As all f-values
in Table 1 are in the range 0 ~<f ~< 0.5, we see from Fig. 5 that, in all cases, the optimum is closer
to 1 - ~ t h a n to 1--I"2/Tl.
 DE VOS: ENDOREVERSIBLE THERMOECONOMICS 5

4. C O N C L U S I O N
We have calculated the o p t i m u m economic m a n a g e m e n t of a power plant. We treated various
energy conversion technologies, the relative fuel cost r a n g i n g from 0 (renewable energy sources)
to 50% ( n a t u r a l gas). It turns out that the o p t i m a l w o r k i n g p o i n t lies between the N o v i k o v or
C u r z o n - A h l b o r n w o r k i n g p o i n t a n d the C a r n o t or reversible w o r k i n g point, somewhat closer to
the former t h a n to the latter.

Acknowledgements--The present research is supported by the Commission of European Communities in the frame-work
of the "Copernicus" programme (pan-European network on thermodynamics and thermoeconomics). Professor J. Parrott
(University of Wales---College of Cardiff), Professor E. Selleslagh (Universiteit Gent and Electrabel) and Engineer G.
Goossens (E.S.P.) are greatly acknowledged for valuable discussions.

REFERENCES
1. 1. Novikov, Atomnaya Energiya 3, 409 (1957); in English translation: J. Nucl. Energy H 7, 125 (1958).
2. F. Curzon and B. Ahlborn, Am. J. Phys. 43, 22 (1975).
3. M. Rubin, Phys. Rev. A 19, 1272 (1979).
4. A. Bejan, Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics, pp. 404-527. Wiley, New York (1988).
5. A. De Vos, Her lngenieursblad 59, 62 (September 1990).
6. A. De Vos, Endoreversible Thermodynamics of Solar Energy Conversion. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1992).
7. A. De Vos, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 31, 75 (1993).
8. J. Gordon and M. Huleihil, J. Appl. Phys. 69, 1 (1991).
9. J. Gordon, Am. J. Phys. 59, 551 (1991).
10. A. Bejan, Trans. A.S.M.E.--J. Energy Resour. Technol. 115, 148 (1993).
11. O. Ibrahim, S. Klein and J, Mitchell, AES--Vol. 24, Thermodynamics and Energy Systems: Fundamentals, Education,
and Computer-aided Analysis, A.S.M,E., pp. 15-20 (1991).
12. G. Goossens, Private communications (1992).
13. E. Selleslagh, Private communications (1992).
14. G. Frederick, J. Gillon and J. Delvoye, Electricity generation costs in Belgium. Conf. Spanish Nucl. Sot., Puerto de
Santa Maria (30 October 1992),
15, Jaarverslag 1991 van her Controlecomit~ voor de elektriciteit en het gas, Brussels (1992).