Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Review Article

A comprehensive review of 4E analysis of thermal power plants,

intermittent renewable energy and integrated energy systems
∗
Muhammad Faizan Tahir a , Chen Haoyong a , Han Guangze b ,
a
School of Electric Power, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
b
School of Physics and Optoelectronics, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The concern for environmental devastation due to high dependency on fossil fuel sources is shifting
Received 31 March 2021 focus towards efficient utilization of energy by integrating renewable energy and integrated energy
Received in revised form 26 May 2021 system. Efficient energy deployment can be attained by alleviating the actual losses, costs and
Accepted 7 June 2021
environmental impact of the energy sources. This paper aims to address the above issues by reviewing
Available online xxxx
the 4E analysis known as energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironment analysis of thermal
Keywords: power plants, intermittent renewable energy and integrated energy system. Amongst other noteworthy
Exergy aspects outlined in this paper, it has been found out that extensive work has been done on TPP
Exergoeconomics energy and exergy analysis but exergoeconomic and exergoenvironment analysis are still considered
Exergoenvironment as emerging fields. Moreover, most of the analysis conducted for intermittent renewable energy and
Integrated energy system
integrated energy system is based on energy analysis. Some vital conclusions have been drawn from
Thermal power plants
literature survey like boiler, PV surface module and wind rotor are the major sources of exergy
Intermittent renewable energy
destruction/losses in thermal power plants and intermittent renewable energy system. Decreasing
the above components losses will significantly increase the energy quality, thereby will achieve a
cost-efficient, sustainable and eco-friendly energy system.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3517
2. Some important definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3518
2.1. FLoT, SLoT and entropy ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3518
2.2. Exergy.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3519
2.2.1. Types of exergy .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3519
3. 4E analysis formulation ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3520
3.1. Energy & exergy analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3520
3.2. Exergoeconomics (EXEC) analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 3521
3.3. Exergoenvironmental (EXEN) analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 3522
4. 4E analysis of different energy systems ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3524
4.1. Thermal power plants 4E analysis................................................................................................................................................................... 3524
4.2. Intermittent renewable energy systems 4E analysis..................................................................................................................................... 3525
4.3. Integrated energy systems 4E analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 3528
5. Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3529
Declaration of competing interest................................................................................................................................................................................ 3532
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3532
References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3532

1. Introduction

∗ Corresponding author. Energy requirements of the present world are mostly met by
E-mail addresses: faizan@scut.edu.cn (M.F. Tahir), eehychen@scut.edu.cn finite stocks of fossil fuel sources (Newell et al., 2019; FaizanTahir,
(C. Haoyong), phgzhan@scut.edu.cn (H. Guangze). 2016; Tahir et al., 2020). These sources release a substantial

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.06.006
2352-4847/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
amount of pollutants which cause global warming, abrupt climate
change and ozone layer depletion (Tahir and Saqib, 2016; Letcher,
2019; Hassan et al., 2020). Intermittent Renewable Energy (IRE)
sources (like wind and solar-PV) having infinite availability and
no Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGE) characteristics can explic-
itly cope the aforementioned issues but it has its own problems
like low conversion efficiency, uncertainty and variability (Tahir
et al., 2019b; Sinsel et al., 2020; Tehzeeb-Ul-Hassan et al., 2020).
Integrating different energy carriers in an energy hub are proving
crucial levers to provide a resilient, efficient and cost-effective
energy system (Tahir et al., 2019a; Krause et al., 2010a; Tahir
et al., 2018) by addressing prior issues of both fossil fuel and IRE.
However, to attain an efficient Integrated Energy System (IES), it
is imperative to find the origin, causes and magnitudes of actual
losses in the system. As it has been known that energy is de-
graded in every conversion process (Sangi and Müller, 2019; Luo
et al., 2019), thereby evaluating energy quality along with energy
quantity becomes very important for any system analysis. Such an
analysis is known as exergy analysis that uses both the First Law
of Thermodynamic (FLoT) and Second Law of Thermodynamic
(SLoT) (Biserni and Garai, 2015; Rosen, 2021) which have been
covered in detail in the next section.
Higher losses in a system give insight to higher costs of the
system’s core components and GHGE which will imply an un-
economical and carbonized system. Consequently, losses com-
putation along with costing brings us one step closer to an ef-
ficient and economically viable system that can be inferred by
Exergoeconomic (EXEC) analysis (Açıkkalp et al., 2014; Desideri
and Asdrubali, 2018; Miar Naeimi et al., 2019; Mabrouk et al.,
2018). Other than the economic aspect, high energy losses in
the energy conversion process and burning of natural sources
jeopardizes environmental protection. Hence, improving environ-
mental performance by mitigating the impacts of products on the
environment is equally requisite. Different pollution strategies
and methods like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is considered in
Exergoenvironment (EXEN) analysis (Miar Naeimi et al., 2019;
Cavalcanti et al., 2020) to get rid of carbon contaminants by de-
creasing losses. This analysis will help in reducing environmental
impact to attain decarbonized energy system (Salehi et al., 2018;
Cornelissen and Hirs, 2002).
Many researchers have conducted energetic and exergetic
analysis of Thermal Power Plants (TPP) and there have been a
few review articles on these analysis (Vundela Siva et al., 2010;
Kaushik et al., 2011). On the contrary, the other two analysis
(EXEC and EXEN) are recently receiving attention and yet need
to be investigated more at a larger scale. As far as IRE and IES is
concerned, a noticeable gap has been observed regarding exergy,
EXEC and EXEN analysis as most of the work are limited to energy
analysis. Up to the author’s best knowledge, there has not been a
single article that covers all 4E analysis of either IRE or IES. There
have been few review articles regarding exergetic performance
analysis of the IRE system (Aberoumand et al., 2018; Hepbasli,
2008; Park et al., 2014; BoroumandJazi et al., 2012) but did not
account other two analysis. Thus, for the first time, this work
provides a comprehensive review of 4E analysis of TPP (coal and
gas-fired), IRE (PV and wind) and IES as displayed in Fig. 1. First, it
provides the basic definitions like FLoT, SLoT, entropy and exergy,
followed by each analysis formulation. In a subsequent step,
this paper illustrates previous studies 4E analysis comparison
in tabulated form and elaborated different methods/techniques
authors have applied to improve performance evaluation of the
above-mentioned systems.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 1 presents
an introduction and Section 2 covers brief information about
FLoT, SLoT, entropy and exergy. Sections 3 and 4 provides energy,
exergy, EXEC and EXEN analysis formulation. Section 4 demon-
strates 4E analysis studies of TPP, IRE and IES while Section 5
concludes the paper.
3518
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
2. Some important definitions
2.1. FLoT, SLoT and entropy
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT), energy
being a conservative property can neither be created nor de-
stroyed, it just changes the form (Hadfield and Wieman, 2010).
It can be expressed as shown in (1) (Dincer, 2018).
∆E = Q − W (1)
Change in total energy (∆E) is in the form of heat transfer (Q )
and work done (W ) on the system and there is no such difference
between Q and W according to FLoT, both are just energy inter-
actions. The net change in total energy (∆E) is the summation
of change in internal energy (∆U), kinetic energy (∆KE) and
potential energy (∆PE) as illustrated in (2).
∆E = ∆U + ∆KE + ∆PE (2)
1
(∆U = m(u2 − u1 ), ∆KE = m(v22 −v12 ), ∆PE = mg(z1 − z2 )) (3)
2
For stationary systems, the change in both kinetic and potential
energy is zero. Now, FLoT can be expressed as shown in (4);
∆U = Q − W (4)
Internal energy (∆U) is the summation of all microscopic forms
of energy that depends on environmental entities or inherent
quantities (Tadese and Tesema, 2014). This law is also known as
the law of conservation of energy that only measures the quantity
of energy but does not state the degradation of energy in the
process of converting from one form to another and the direction
of processes (whether a reverse process is possible or not). En-
ergy discrepancy happens due to devices internal irreversibilities
and energy wastage to the environment (in the form of heat).
Therefore, another thermodynamic law (second law) is required
to address the directionality of processes and to measure the
quality of energy.
There are several ways to define the Second Law of Thermo-
dynamics (SLoT). As Kelvin and Clausius stated in Xue and Guo
(2019) and it can also be stated in terms of entropy which is
discussed in Egan and Lineweaver (2010) as ‘‘the total entropy
(∆S) of any isolated system (universe) always increases’’. It is true
for all natural irreversible processes but for reversible processes,
change in entropy is zero.
∆S = 0 (Isolated system, reversible process) (5)
∆S > 0 (Isolated system, irreversible process) (6)
∆S is computed in two ways as represented in Eqs. (7) and (8)
(Dincer and Cengel, 2001)
S = K ln(Y ) (7)
R
where K = NA
, Y = number of macroscopic states, K = Boltz-
mann constant = 1.380649 ∗ 10−23 J/K
∆Q
∆S = (8)
T
The more entropy generation inside the system, the more it
deteriorates the quality of energy (exergy) because when entropy
escalates then a certain quantity of energy becomes unavailable
to do some useful work. It means SLoT can also be stated in terms
of exergy, both these laws can be summarized in terms of useable
and useless energy.
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Fig. 1. 4E analysis sequential order for proposed generation systems.
2.2. Exergy
The word exergy is derived from the Greek words ‘ex & er-
gon’ that means ‘from work’ (Gundersen, 2011) which is an
extensive property. It has many other names such as essergy,
available energy, irreversible energy, work availability, useful en-
ergy and so on (Dewulf et al., 2008). The thermodynamic state
function, ‘Exergy’ is referred to the maximum useful work gen-
erated by a system or flow of matter or energy when it comes
in equilibrium with respect to the reference/benchmark/baseline
environment (Tsatsaronis, 2007). Hence, reference environment
properties (like temperature, pressure and chemical composition
of the environment) specification is requisite when evaluating
exergy.
In other words, energy is the combination of useful energy
available to do work (exergy) and useless energy (anergy) which
is wasted in the form of heat. The interlink between energy,
exergy and anergy as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Exergy is a property (characteristics that used to define state
or condition) of the system and Fig. 3 implicitly represents the
exergy characterization parameters.
where, o represents a dead state.
Unlike energy, exergy can be equal to zero (in the dead state)
and is not conserved but always consumed/destroyed during an
irreversible process (Dincer, 2002). It can be represented as
shown in Eq. (9):
Ex = (U − Uo ) + p(V − Vo ) − To (S − So ) + KE + PE
As exergy accounts for the internal consumption of running ma-
chine/device (due to irreversibilities), therefore, exergy analysis is
employed as a comparative measure to point out the cause, mag-
nitude and location of degradation of energy. Exergy destruction
or losses can be represented as shown in Eq. (10):
0 No irrev ersibilities in a system
{ }
Ed = > 0 Irrev ersibilities exist in a system
< 0 Impossible
2.2.1. Types of exergy
In absence of nuclear reaction, magnetism, electricity and
surface tension, exergy can be divided into four types: physical
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
(Exph ), chemical (Exch ), potential (ExPot ) and kinetic exergy (ExKin )
(Arango-Miranda et al., 2018; BoroumandJazi et al., 2013) as
shown in (11).
Ex = Exph + Exch + ExPot + ExKin (11)
Different energy systems possess different exergy types according
to its properties. For instance, in a wind energy system, there is
no height difference and chemical affinity, therefore its potential
and chemical exergy is zero while TPP and solar PV possess only
physical and chemical exergy which can be observed in Fig. 4.
(i) Physical exergy This exergy depicts the maximum useful work
which can be attained via system when its properties like T
and p are distinctly changed to temperature and pressure of
the reference environment (To , po ). Physical exergy can be split
into mechanical physical exergy (Exmech ) which is associated with
pressure and thermal physical exergy (Exther ) which is associated
with temperature. Physical exergy (of water and steam) is calcu-
lated by entropy and enthalpy values at given temperature and
pressure and at reference environment temperature and pressure
as shown below (Morosuk and Tsatsaronis, 2019; Shukuya and
Hammache, 2002).
Exph = [H(T , po ) − H(To , po )] − To [S(T, p) − S(To , po )] (12)
Exph = Exmech + Exther (13)
The physical exergy of air/perfect gas is calculated as shown in
(9) Eq. (14) (Ghannadzadeh, 2013).
[( ( )) ( )]
T P
Exph = m ∗ SHp,a T − To − To ln + Ra To ln (14)
To Po
(ii) Chemical exergy This exergy computes the maximum useful
work which can be attained when any substance is brought
to a dead state from the reference environment via a process
that includes heat transfer and exchange of substance (Kaushik
(10) and Singh, 2014). In the combustion process, it is considered a
very important part of exergy. Chemical exergy can be further
divided into reactive exergy (ExR ) and non-reactive exergy (ExNR )
(Tsatsaronis, 2007).
Exch = ExRea + ExNRea (15)
3519
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

Fig. 2. Interactions among energy, exergy and losses (Anergy).

Fig. 3. Exergy characterization parameters.

Fig. 4. Exergy types and its relation with TPP, PV solar and wind energy systems.

(iii, iv) Kinetic and Potential exergy: Unlike microscopic objects, General energy balance represents
∑ total energy inputs must equal
∑
macroscopic objects always have the same value for exergy and to total energy outputs: Ein = Eout (total input and output
energy. Consequently, these microscopic forms of energy (kinetic energy remain same according to FLoT).
and potential) are considered high-quality energy and has the ∑
same content as of exergy (Tsatsaronis, 2007). Q −W = m(Hout − Hin ) (19)

1 where, enthalpy (H) is represented as H = U + PV . The exergy

EKin = ExKin = mv 2 (16)
2 analysis (also known as 2nd law analysis) combines both FLoT and
EPot = ExPot = mgz (17) SLoT to evaluate quantity as well as the quality of energy (Koca
et al., 2008; Abusoglu and Kanoglu, 2008). Though it acknowl-
3. 4E analysis formulation edges the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed but
it also states that energy degrades or loses its quality in the
conversion process until it reaches equilibrium stage, wherein
3.1. Energy & exergy analysis
no useful energy (exergy) left to perform work and in that case
exergy value becomes zero. Accordingly, exergy is always de-
Energy analysis as per FLoT focuses only on the quantity of
stroyed partially or totally in a process and destroyed exergy
energy and provides no information at all about the waste energy
is directly proportional to generated entropy (Robinett III and
during the process (Dincer and Rosen, 2012; Blok and Nieuwlaar,
Wilson, 2009; Streckiene et al., 2019). This analysis is considered
2020). Energy flows in and out of the system with mass flows,
the third step in any system analysis after mass and energy
heat transfers and work interactions but the total amount of
balances. Consequently, four balance equations (mass, energy,
energy remains constant in a process.
exergy, and entropy) are applied to determine work done and
General mass balance means total mass at the inlet is equal to
heat transfer, exergy losses/destruction and energy and exergy
total mass at outlet:
∑ ∑ efficiencies. Mass and energy balance equations are already rep-
min = mout (18) resented above while the rest of the balance equations are shown
3520
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

in (20) and (21): Though IRE sources produce electrical energy and their en-
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ergy content should be equal to exergy content. Contrarily, both
Exout = Exin − ExL or Exout contents are not equal, for instance, in case of solar-PV, thermal
energy is also generated (along with electrical energy) at the
∑ (∑ ∑ )
= Exin − ExD + Exwaste (20)
surface of the PV module which is considered as loss (Bayat and
Ozalp, 2018). The useful energy part (electrical exergy) is calcu-
∑ ∑ ∑ lated by determining maximum power operation point with the
Exout − Exin = ExL (21)
help of maximum voltage (Vm ) and maximum current (Im ) while
( To
) thermal part (Exh ) is heat loss from PV surface to the surrounding
where, ExQ = 1 − T Q , ExW = W
The exergy of a pure substance can be represented in the same environment is calculated with the help of temperature factor
1 − TTo as given in (27) and (28).
( )
way as shown in (9) while exergy of solid fuel and gas phase are
deduced in Kaushik and Singh (2014) and Ðorđević et al. (2014).
Exse = Vm Im (27)
Entropy balance can be represented as shown in (22) (Dincer, ( )
2018). To
Exh = 1− Q (28)
T
Sin − Sout + Sgen = 0 (22)
Similarly, wind energy and exergy contents are also different as
This analysis primary task is to detect the system’s thermody- only 40% of wind does the useful work while the rest of it is
namic inefficiencies by providing the cause, location and source dissipated as heat due to losses in turbine and friction among
of energy degradation. It is a reasonable index to detect how far components (Şahin et al., 2006). There are four types of exergy as
a system can deviate from the ideal position but the benchmark mentioned in (11) but the wind energy system does not possess
environment state must be specified completely. Subsequently, chemical and potential exergy as there is no chemical affinity
it is considered a potential solution to improve economic and and height involved. Therefore, wind exergy (Exw ) only possesses
environmental assessment by evaluating exergy efficiency and physical (Exph ) and kinetic exergy (ExKin ) which are computed as:
losses as portrayed in Fig. 5.
Unlike energy efficiency that can be often misleading (Eboh Exw = Exph + ExKin (29)
et al., 2017; Rosen and Bulucea, 2009), exergy efficiency provides 1
valuable insight in the direction of ideality (reversibility). Exergy Exw, Kin = Exe = ρ Av 3 (30)
2
efficiency sometimes also known as 2nd law efficiency or exer-
getic efficiency can.be represented in two ways as depicted in Kinetic exergy can also be calculated by mass and velocity as
Fig. 5. (Mistry and Lienhard, 2013) The ratio of product exergy given in (16) but it is difficult to measure the mass of wind, that
(desired output generated by the system such as electricity, shaft is it is converted in the form of area (A), density (ρ ) and velocity
work, heat transfer and so on, Expr ) to fuel exergy (resources used (v )
to provide desired product like natural gas, coal, oil ExFu ) and this
Exph = ∆H − To ∆S (31)
exergy efficiency is known as functional exergy efficiency.
Expr where ∆H and ∆S represents enthalpy and entropy.
ψ= (23)
ExFu
3.2. Exergoeconomics (EXEC) analysis
Another way to represent is the ratio of summation of all output
exergy terms (Exout ) to all exergy inputs (Exin ) and is called
An Exergoeconomic (EXEC) analysis identifies the source, mag-
rational energy efficiency.
nitude and location of costs of thermodynamic inefficiency to
Exout ExL Exwaste + ExD determine the cost-optimal solution. EXEC (exergy costing or
ψ= =1− =1− (24)
Exin Exin Exin 2nd law costing) is a method that combines exergy and cost
There are two types of exergy losses: external exergy losses/ (microeconomic) analysis to evaluate exergy destruction cost, ex-
external irreversibilities/waste energy output (Exwaste ) and in- ergoeconomic factor and the relative cost difference (Tsatsaronis,
ternal exergy losses/internal irreversibilities/exergy destruction/ 2008, 1996; Tsatsaronis et al., 1993). Last in First out (LIFO), Spe-
exergy consumption (ExD ) as shown in Fig. 5. External exergy cific Exergy Costing (SPECO) and Modified Productive Structure
losses are the losses in the form of emissions (waste heat, stack Analysis (MOPSA) are the most popular methods (Cardona and Pi-
gases) via material and energy streams to the surroundings while acentino, 2006) to assess aforementioned performance indicators
internal exergy losses are within the system boundary and it in exergoeconomic analysis as illustrated in Fig. 6.
can be due to many reasons such as heat transfer, uncontrolled It serves as a mediator tool to understand the relation between
combustion, friction and so on (Wang et al., 2015). thermodynamics and economics and its aim is not only to identify
but also to quantify the exergy losses.
ExL = ExD + Exwaste (25) After performing energy and exergy balances, it is viable to
According to Gouy–Stodola relation (Lucia, 2012), exergy losses/ evaluate cost balances. It calculates the costs consumed, gener-
consumption is computed as shown in Eq. (26): ated and destroyed in a system depending on the amount of
exergy for each stream. A cost rate (C ) is assigned to each exergy
ExD = To Sgen (26) transfer and is calculated by multiplying the average cost per unit
Energy and exergy analysis of TPP by computing losses and ef- of exergy (c) to the respective exergy transfer like exergy streams
ficiencies can be done by using Eqs. (23)–(26). Though energy entering (Exi ), exiting (Exe ), heat transfer (ExQ ) and work done
and exergy analysis have different major loss components but (ExW ) (Tsatsaronis, 1996; Abusoglu and Kanoglu, 2009).
the overall efficiency (energy and exergy) of TPP do not vary Ci = ci ∗ Exi , Ce = ce ∗ Exe , CW = cW ∗ ExW , CQ = cQ ∗ ExQ (32)
much (Guoqiang et al., 2011; Regulagadda et al., 2010). Many
researchers have carried out different aspects of these analysis All these exergy rates (Exi , Exe , ExW , ExQ ) are computed in the
for TPP which are discussed in Table 1. exergy analysis step. Other than costs associated with each exergy
3521
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

Fig. 5. Exergy analysis performance parameters.

Fig. 6. Exergoeconomic analysis methods and aims.

stream, it is imperative to include capital investments (CInv ) and Exergoeconomic factor is computed according to (39).
operation and maintenance costs (COM ). CInv,k CInv,k
fEx,k = = (39)
CTot , k = CInv, k + COM , k (33) CInv,k + CExD ,k CkInv + cFu,k ExD,k
Cost balances can also be written in terms of fuel (CFu ) and In a nutshell, the EXEC analysis goal is to find the lowest possible
product (Cpr ) costs as represented in the below equations. value of cost against the highest possible value of efficiency.

Cpr ,k = CFu,k + Ck or (34) 3.3. Exergoenvironmental (EXEN) analysis

The combination of exergy and environment analysis to en-

cpr ,k Expr ,k = cFu,k ExFu,k + Ck (35) hance thermodynamic efficiencies by evaluating ecology impacts
on system components is known as exergoenvironment analy-
Unlike exergy analysis, this analysis dispenses information about
sis (Caliskan, 2015; Meyer et al., 2009b). This analysis primary
exergy destruction (ExD ) and exergy loss (ExL ) costs. Exergy de-
focus is to alleviate global emissions by evaluating potential im-
struction/losses cost within k-component can be written as shown
pacts of emissions while increasing the efficiency of systems
in Eq. (36).
⟩ components in energy conversion system (Meyer et al., 2009b;
CExD ,k = cExFu ,k ExD,k Cavalcanti, 2017; Tsatsaronis et al., 2011). Mostly, Life Cycle As-
(36)
CExL ,k = cExFu ,k Exwaste,k sessment (LCA) is used to assess this analysis and all the environ-
mental values can be obtained by the LCA method (Ansarinasab
Cost balances can be written as depicted in (32). et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2018).
∑ ∑
(ce Exe )k + cW ∗ ExW = cQ ∗ ExQ + (ci ∗ Exi )k + Ck (37) The environmental impact balances of each system k-
e
component in terms of product (Bpr ) and fuel (BFu ) can be ex-
i
pressed as shown in (40) (Meyer et al., 2009b,a).
The relative cost difference can be determined as expressed in
Bpr ,k = BFu,k + Yk + BPF
( )
(38). k (40)
cpr ,k − cFu,k 1−ψ CK where Yk is linked with a life time of kth components comprises
Cr ,k = = + (38)
cFu,k ψ CExD ,k of environmental impacts which are associated with construction
3522
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

Table 1
4E analysis of thermal power plants (coal and gas-fired TPP).
Ref 4E Analysis Determined Significant findings
parameters
Energy Exergy EXEC EXEN
Mitrović et al.   × × ExD , EL Sgen Major energy losses source = condenser
(2010) Major exergy destruction source = boiler
Regulagadda   × × ExD Major exergy destruction source = condenser and turbine
et al. (2010)
Ray et al.   × × ExD Exergy-economy offline guarantee test in formulated.
(2010)
Kaviri and   × × η, ψ Role of energy and exergy efficiency in energy management
Jaafar (2011)
Ehsana and ×  × × ExD Major exergy destruction source = boiler
Yilmazoglu
(2011)
Suresh et al.   × × η, ψ TPP optimization is done by ANN and GA.
(2011)
Guoqiang et al.   × × ExD , EL Major energy losses source = condenser Major exergy destruction source =
(2011) boiler
Zhao et al.  ×  × ExD Major exergy destruction source = boiler
(2012)
Li and Liu ×  × × ExD Major exergy destruction source = boiler
(2012)
Xiong et al. ×  × × ψ ψ of oxy-combustion boiler is higher than conventional boiler.
(2011)
Helios et al.   × × EL Major energy losses source = condenser
(2012)
Hasti et al. ×  × × ExD ExD is maximum in furnace.
(2013)
Yang et al. ×  × × ExD ExD of TPP is compared with subcritical units.
(2013)
Ðorđević et al.   × × EL , ExD EL in condenser is insignificant.
(2014)
Adibhatla and   × × EL , ExD Major exergy destruction source = boiler
Kaushik (2014)
Bolatturk et al.    × EL , ExD CExD , ψ , Costs are examined by increasing TPP efficiency.
(2015) η
Ahmadi and   × × EL , ExD Major energy losses source = condenser Major exergy destruction source =
Toghraie (2016) boiler
Fouladi and ×   × ExD Major exergy destruction source = combustion chamber
Saffari (2010)
Khaldi and   × × ExD Major exergy destruction source = combustion chamber
Adouane (2011)
Kaviri and ×  × × ψ ψ of combustion chamber is lower than other components.
Jaafar (2011)
Amrollahi et al. ×  × × ψ ψ of CO2 capture unit and absorption unit is compared.
(2011)
Ehyaei et al.    η, ψ η, ψ of inlet fogging system is evaluated.
(2011)
Ahmadi and    × Total costs GA is applied to improve efficiency and ExD costs.
Dincer (2011)
Anozie and ×   × ExD , CExD To influence is investigated on exergy and exergoeconomic parameter.
Odejobi (2013)
Kumari (2015)   × × ψ , ExD ExD is lower in inter cooled gas turbine than basic gas turbine.
Eke et al.   × × ψ , ExD Major exergy destruction source = boiler
(2018)
Rudiyanto et al.   × × η, ψ EL , ExD Highest irreversibility rate is in boiler.
(2019)
Kabiri et al.     ExD , CExD BExD ,k TPP efficiency increases, GHG emission decreases and ExD costs drop to 57%.
(2020)
Unal and    × ExD , CExD TPP costs are evaluated to improve plant efficiency.
Ozkan (2018)
Ameri et al.     η, ψ CExD η, ψ increases while generation & environmental costs decreases.
(2016)
Oyedepo et al. ×  ×  ExD , CO2 ExD and CO2 emissions decreases by increasing gas turbine inlet temperature.
(2015b) emissions
Li et al. (2012)   × × η, ψ Effect of condenser pressure on ψ is observed.
Kumar et al.   × × EL , ExD Major energy losses source = condenser Major exergy destruction source =
(2018) boiler
Vandani et al. ×  × × ExD , ψ ψ is optimized using GA and PSO
(2015)
Wang et al. ×  × × Endogenous ExD Advanced exergy analysis for TPP is presented.
(2017)
Arriola- ×  × × ExL Optimization of TPP by combining exergy and pinch technology
Medellín et al.
(2014)
(continued on next page)

3523
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

Table 1 (continued).
Ref 4E Analysis Determined Significant findings
parameters
Energy Exergy EXEC EXEN
Hou et al. ×  × × ψ , ExD High pressure turbine has lowest ψ
(2012)
Abuelnuor   × × ExD , EL Sgen After combustion chamber, gas turbine is the main source of ExD
et al. (2017)
Elhelw and ×  × × ψ , ExD Full and half mode operations are examined for exergy analysis
Al Dahma
(2019)
Goyal et al.   × × ExD , EL Major energy losses source = condenser Major exergy destruction source =
(2014) boiler
Seyyedi et al. ×   × CExD Minimizes total cost flow rates.
(2010)
Shamoushaki ×   × ψ , CExD Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimizer (MOPSO), Non-Dominated Sorting
et al. (2017) Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm based
on Decomposition (MOEA-D) are applied to evaluate and efficiency trade-off.
Oyedepo et al. ×   × ψ , ExD CExD Combustion chamber has highest ExD costs.
(2015a)
Almutairi et al.    × ψ , ExD Effect of load and To are varied on gas turbine to improve ψ and reduce ExD .
(2016)
Mousafarash ×   × BExD ,k , ExD Environmental impact is greatest during combustion process
and Ameri
(2013)

(YCO, k , manufacturing, transport and installation), operation and
maintenance (YOM , k , production of pollutants) and disposal (YDI , k )
(Meyer et al., 2009b).
Yk = YCO, k + YOM , k + YDI , k
Bpr and BrFu are product and fuel environmental impacts while bFu
and bpr are corresponding environmental impacts per unit exergy
of fuel and product.
exergy losses occur in the boiler (Kaushik et al., 2011; Ahmadi
and Toghraie, 2016). The rest of the components in subsequent
order for energy and exergy losses are depicted in Fig. 8.
The reason for the highest losses in the boiler is the increased
(41)
entropy generation due to high temperature difference (between
the flame and generated steam or gases) and incomplete combus-
tion. Below are the techniques that have been used in the above
studies (see Table 1) to reduce exergy losses in boiler

bpr ,k Expr ,k = bFu,k ExFu,k + Yk + BPF

( )
k (42) i The temperature difference between flame and generated
gases/steam should be reduced as much as possible.
A new variable BPF
is introduced to evaluate pollutant formation
k ii The heat transfer area should be enhanced.
of any k-component during system operation. It is only needed
iii Preheat the combustion air.
where components release some GHGE during any chemical re-
iv Reduce air–fuel ratio.
actions such as combustion but its value is zero in processes like
compression, expansion and heat transfer. The complete detail The studies mentioned in Table 1 have focused on varying
of how to calculate BPFk is discussed in Boyano et al. (2011). In temperature, pressure and operation modes to maximize exergy
addition, the environmental impact rate is associated with ExD . efficiency and minimize exergy losses in a boiler which is the
The relative environmental difference and exergoenvironment most exergetically inefficient component of TPP. Boiler perfor-
factor are calculated by using below formulas. mance parameters and its relation with losses are displayed in
bpr ,k Expr ,k = bFu,k ExFu,k + Yk + BPF Fig. 9.
( )
k (43)
Though energy and exergy efficiency considerably increase by
BExD ,k = bFu,k ExD,k (44) incrementing boiler temperature (as depicted in Fig. 9) but there
bpr ,k − bFu,k 1−ψ Yk is a limit up to which boiler temperature can be increased due to
Br ,k = = + (45)
bFu,k ψ BExD ,k the constraints of material properties and equipments costs. It has
YkCO YkCO been noted that the boiler ψ tends to increase by 0.05% with each
fb,k = = (46) 1 ◦ C rise in temperature. The boiler is divided into combustion
YkCO + BExD ,k YkCO + bFu,k ExD,k and heat transfer zone and Adibhatla and Kaushik (2014) noted
Relative difference indicator provides the potential for minimiz- that entire energy loss occurs in the heat transfer zone only due to
ing the environmental impact associated with a component while heat transfer between working fluid and flue gases. Additionally,
exergoenvironment factor main source of environmental impact increasing boiler pressure slightly increases both efficiency (η, ψ )
is linked with components (see Fig. 7). but the cost curve should be kept in mind while increasing boiler
pressure for realistic feasible models. Another method is to vary
4. 4E analysis of different energy systems reference temperature, though variation in reference conditions
have no effect in energy analysis but it may have little effect to
4.1. Thermal power plants 4E analysis improve the performance of exergy analysis results. An increase
in reference temperature do not yield any impact on boiler exergy
The exergy criterion in TPP has been started since the 1980s, losses but it decreases condenser losses. Few authors escalated
therefore, this paper focuses on the more recent studies and turbine (high pressure turbine) inlet temperature which helped
reviews the last 10 years papers of TPP conducting 4E analysis. in reducing exergy losses and increasing exergy efficiency. Exergy
Table 1 summarizes coal and gas-fired TPP 4E analysis. destruction related to turbine control valves is reduced during
In coal-fired thermal power plants, energy losses mainly occur sliding pressure operation in comparison to constant pressure
in a condenser (almost 66% of energy input) while the highest operation because throttle pressure requires to be maintained.
3524
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Fig. 7. Exergoenvironment analysis steps in sequential order.
Fig. 8. Energy and exergy losses in coal-fired TPP components.
However, no significant reduction is observed in the boiler dur-
ing sliding pressure region. An increase in condenser pressure
also plays a role in increasing turbine efficiency. Furthermore,
various load conditions were also investigated and concluded
that exergy efficiency tends to increase by increasing load and
operating at full load in comparison to half load mode operation.
It is estimated that TPP exergy efficiency increases up to 5%
when load increases to full load. Lower exergetic efficiency during
partial/half load is due to high cycle of TPP components.
Exergy analysis findings are in line with EXEC analysis. For
instance, TPP exergy losses are highest in boiler followed by
turbine and condenser (evaluated by exergy analysis) and exergy
destruction costs of the same component (boiler) is maximum
(evaluated by EXEC analysis). Therefore, it can be concluded that
exergy analysis results are in line with EXEC analysis. Thus, re-
ducing exergy destruction and increasing exergy efficiency by the
aforementioned methods (discussed in above paragraph) will not
only decrease the losses but also minimizes exergy destruction
costs that will help to obtain the cost-optimal solution. As far
3525
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
as EXEN analysis is concerned, it is not necessary that its results
always align with EXEC analysis. For instance, though exergy de-
struction costs decreases due to high exergy efficiency during full
operating mode but emissions increase which will increase the
environmental impact of the system. Therefore, sometimes (not
always) a trade-off has to choose between costs and emissions.
It becomes a multi-objective problem to find a carbon-free and
cost-optimal alternative. With the aim to attain such a sustainable
system, usually evolutionary algorithms like genetic algorithm,
ANN and fuzzy logic are being employed.
4.2. Intermittent renewable energy systems 4E analysis
Unlike TPPs analysis that has spurred a couple of decades ago,
IRE energy/exergy analysis has recently garnered attention. There
are few studies (in comparison to TPP) to conduct 4E, 3E or 2E
analysis due to the fact that only in the last decade, it has become
a perennial focus to invest in IRE sources because of its perpetual
and replenished features.
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Fig. 9. TPP most inefficient component (Boiler) performance parameters and its performance relation with energy and exergy losses (
while signifies decrease in quantity).
Among all renewable energy sources, wind and solar photo-
voltaic (PV) are the ones that are increasing rapidly especially
since the last decade. This pioneer work covers the 4E analysis
of these two volatile/intermittent renewable energy sources as
discussed in Table 2. There have been few review articles related
to renewable energy sources analysis (Hepbasli, 2008; Park et al.,
2014; BoroumandJazi et al., 2012; Kalogirou et al., 2016; Saidur
et al., 2012; Bayrak et al., 2017a) but these articles are limited to
2E (energy and exergy) analysis but this study focuses on all the
4E analysis of two of the most promising and emerging renewable
energy technologies (solar and wind) of last 10 years. Furtherly,
much of the focus regarding solar energy is being given to solar
collectors and hybrid systems (PV/T and CPV/T) but this work
reviews the articles related to PV system only which are least
discussed in present studies. In comparison to solar PV, there
have been very few studies that carried out energy and exergy
analysis on wind energy systems. Till now there has been only 8
and 3 studies being conducted on wind energy system for 2E and
3E (energy, exergy, exergoeconomic) analysis respectively. Up to
the author’s best knowledge, nobody investigated 4E analysis of
wind energy system.
Both the volatile renewable energy sources (solar and wind)
exergy analysis results influenced by seasonal variations. There-
fore, results vary depending upon the season and meteorological
variables value on that particular day or month. Solar exergy
is characterized by solar irradiance, baseline temperature and
module temperature. Energy and exergy analysis of PV depends
on the designed parameters, operating and climatic conditions.
All the energy and exergy losses in PV and its relation with the
aforementioned factors are outlined in Fig. 10.
Fig. 10 exhibits that an increase in solar radiation intensity, PV
array temperature and ambient temperature increases the energy
and exergy losses but increases in wind speed tend to reduce the
losses. In addition, the PV design parameter (PV array area) have
little effect on losses while load variations (from no load to full
load) will not have any effect on energy and exergy losses.
The external and internal losses of the PV module cause lower
exergetic efficiency than energy efficiency. Therefore, the exergy
efficiency of solar PV is lower than energy efficiency for the same
reason as discussed above (internal irreversibilities). Maximum
3526
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
signifies increase in quantity
exergy losses occur in the PV panel due to thermal and elec-
trical losses. Fig. 10 mentioned that losses can be mitigated by
employing any of the below mention methods.
• Decreasing ambient temperature and cell temperature. Max-
imum efficiency can be attained by keeping the PV array
temperature (cell temperature) close to ambient tempera-
ture. There are some practical methods available to reduce
cell temperature like spraying water on the top surface of
the PV module.
• Increasing wind speed thereby increases the overall heat
loss coefficient that reduces PV array temperature.
• Increasing solar radiation intensity (global solar irradiation)
but up to a certain point. The above studies have concluded
that up to 200 W/m2 , it follows the linear relation with
efficiency but after this point, the increase in solar radiation
intensity decreases efficiency.
Observing Fig. 10 from left to right signifies that blue arrows
on the left side imply an increase or decrease in quantity such
as solar radiation intensity, wind speed, PV array temperature
and so on which are enlisted in a block right below rectangular
blocks (that represents designed parameters, climatic and oper-
ating conditions). Meanwhile, parallel blue arrows on the right
side imply that the left side increase/decrease will result in either
increase or decrease of energy and exergy losses. For instance,
an increase in solar radiation intensity (represented by left blue
arrow) will increase energy and exergy losses (represented by
right blue arrow).
Both of the last two parameters (wind speed and solar radia-
tion intensity) varies during day time. Therefore, the PV module
design should be based on a daily or monthly average of this
parameter. Apart from the factors mentioned in Fig. 10, different
PV cells like semitransparent and opaque have different losses
to costs ratio (usually represented with Len/ex ) (Gaur and Tiwari,
2014a). Opaque PV modules have a lower loss rate in comparison
to semitransparent. Any or all of the above methods decreases
exergy destruction that not only decreases exergy destruction
costs but also reduces the environmental impact. It proves that
EXEC and EXEN analysis results are in accordance with energy
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Fig. 10. PV system performance parameters and its relation with energy and exergy losses (
and exergy analysis. Therefore, solar-PV is preferred in terms
of the exergetic efficient component only if we consider that
solar irradiations are continuously wasted without being used.
Moreover, solar-PV is also considered an economically compet-
itive component irrespective of its high initial costs because of
its fuel-saving feature.
As we can see from below Table 2, there are very few studies
pertain to wind system exergy analysis and this analysis de-
pends upon various factors like meteorological variables, geome-
tries, designed parameters and operating conditions as shown in
Fig. 11.
Usually, the inclusion of meteorological variables in such anal-
ysis is ignored. On the other hand, these variables play an in-
dispensable role to overcome technological gaps in energy in-
vestments. The two most important meteorological variables are
temperature and pressure which are assessed by chilling effect
(includes enthalpy and entropy components) and Bernoulli equa-
tion (includes entropy of wind). Other variables like wind speed,
density and humidity are interlinked with the change in the
quantity of these variables (temperature and pressure). Wind
speed is caused when air flows from high a pressure region to low
pressure region due to temperature differences while the density
of air is directly proportional to pressure and inversely propor-
tional to temperature. The last meteorological variable (humid-
ity/moisture) is also interlinked with these two variables and its
changeability is insignificant, therefore, the air is assumed to be
dry in most of the studies. Besides this, wind turbine geometries
such as Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT) and Vertical Axis
Wind Turbine (VAWT) and other prominent parameters like tilt
angle and power factor also plays a crucial role in evaluating wind
farms losses.
Fig. 11 sums up the relation of the aforementioned parameters
with losses. An increase in temperature decreases the air den-
sity, thereby decreasing energy and exergy losses. Accordingly,
3527
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
signifies increase in quantity while signifies decrease in quantity).
exergy efficiency at various wind speeds considering temperature
differences between inlet and outlet of valve follows the linear
relation unlike when considering pressure differences between
these two state points (inlet and outlet). An increase in pressure
differences causes the exergy efficiency to decline and lower wind
speed has higher ψ in comparison to higher wind speeds during
the same pressure difference values. Subsequently, humidity also
follows the same relation: the increase in humidity decrease
exergy efficiency and increase exergy losses. High wind speeds
results in less difference between energy and exergy efficiency
and usually exergy efficiency are lower than energy efficiency.
One of the above studies concluded that maximum useful power
is obtained in March due to high wind speeds. Furthermore, it has
been observed that an increase in power factor and tilt angle close
to 45o also helps to increase the exergy efficiency and maximum
exergy destruction occurs in a rotor of wind turbine followed by
gearbox and generator. HAWT has more exergetic efficiency (only
if wind quality is high) than VAWT because it covers a vast area.
Similarly, EXEC results are in line with exergy analysis. It
concludes that reducing exergy destruction by any of the above
methods will reduce exergy destruction cost and will provide rea-
sonable exergoeconomic results. An increase in specific humidity
and density of air due to weather variation will result in increases
in the ratio of exergy loss to capital cost while increasing wind
speed increases both: ratio of energy and exergy loss to the
capital cost.
These IRE sources play a positive role towards achieving a
sustainable energy system. Usually, a sustainable energy system
is characterized by two features: availability and efficiency. Dif-
ferent sources like sun, wind and water lie in the category of
the first feature of sustainable energy system which is long-
term available at a reasonable cost and this feature has been
widely discussed. However, the second feature has been given
less attention and at this point, exergy can become an essential
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

Table 2
4E analysis of intermittent renewable energy system (wind and solar PV).
Ref 4E analysis Determined Significant findings
parameters
Energy Exergy EXEC EXEN
Sarhaddi et al.   × × ψ ψ increases by increasing wind speed and slightly changes with respect to
(2010a) inlet air temperature.
Vats and Tiwari   × × E, Ex Crystalline Silicon (Si) cell is suitable for generating electrical power whereas
(2012) amorphous Si is apt for space heating
Pandey et al.   × × η, ψ η and ψ of solar PV are found to be least in December and July respectively.
(2013)
Sukumaran and    × η, ψ , EL , CExD PV plant CExD is high. Annual ψ is less than annual η.
Sudhakar
(2018)
Sudhakar and   × × η, ψ , ExL ψ is lower for electricity production by PV module ExL increases by increasing
Srivastava module temperature
(2014)
Fares and Bicer   × × η, ψ Anti-soiling coated PV has higher than uncoated PV
(2020)
Kumar et al.   × × η, ψ Water cooled PV module has better performance.
(2017)
Shaygan et al.   × × ψ , ExD ExD is highest in PV cells and lowest in compressor.
(2019)
Bayrak et al.   × × η, ψ Partial shading effect on PV panels η and ψ are observed.
(2017b)
Sarhaddi et al. ×  × × ψ ψ can be improved if heat is removed from PV array surface.
(2010b)
Sidney (2016) ×  × × ψ , ExD Reduce cell temperature to increase ψ and to improve PV panel performance.
Kiyaninia et al. ×   × ψ , fEx fEx increases for first 4 years but decreases for later years.
(2019)
Izgi and ×   × ψ , fEx EL , ExD Higher differences between energy and exergy losses and costs are observed
Akkaya (2013) in high and low solar irradiation months.
Bayat (2016)    × CExD ExD ExD are lower than energy losses.
Gaur and ×  ×  ExD , c-Si has minimum exergy and energy losses while semitransparent PV
Tiwari (2014b) environmental modules exhibits larger CO2 reduction means have higher environmental
impact impact.
Pope et al.   × × η, ψ Exergy method improves ψ , decreases cost and increases wind energy system
(2010) capacity.
Ozturk (2011)   × × η, ψ ψ of wind power is lower than η
Ghorbani et al.   × × ψ , ExD Maximum ExD occurs in phase material in hybrid wind energy system
(2020)
Mohammadi   × × ψ , ExD Major sources of ExD in hybrid system are wind turbine, combustion chamber
et al. (2017) and compressed air energy storage.
Baskut et al.   × × η, ψ η, ψ are investigated against different values of reference temperature,
(2011) humidity, wind speed and atmospheric pressure.
Aghbashlo ×  × × ψ Extended exergy accounting method for wind power plant is more effective
et al. (2018) than standard exergy analysis.
Ehyaei et al.   × × η, ψ η is higher in windy areas unlike ψ .
(2019)
Asgari and   × × η, ψ Optimization by GA increases η and ψ
Ehyaei (2015)
Ozgener et al.    × ExD CExD Maximum cost to loss (energy and exergy) ratio is attained at 12 m/s wind
(2009) speed.
Baskut and    × ψ , CExD Maximum cost to exergy loss ratio is directly effected by temperature and
Ozgener (2012) humidity
de Queiróz    × CExD , interest Wind power cost is directly related to interest rate.
Lamas (2017) rate

tool to lead the way towards an efficient system by pinpointing
the accurate location, cause and magnitude of losses. This might
be the first step towards replacing a sustainable energy system
with a sustainable exergy system.
4.3. Integrated energy systems 4E analysis
Multi-energy systems or integrated energy system (IES) com-
bine different energy carriers like electricity, heating or cooling
to overcome the conventional grid losses and renewable en-
ergy sources intermittency issues (Tahir et al., 2019c; Tahir and
Hayong, 2020). Conversely, integration of different technologies
like Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Combined Cooling and
Heat Power (CCHP), heat pumps is a challenging task to find the
cost-optimal solution as generally adopted energy analysis often
misguides about the true location and magnitude of energy losses.
Therefore, recent studies are focusing to include exergy analysis
3528
along with energy analysis to evaluate the true performance of
IES system. There can be numerous configurations for combining
different energy carriers to produce different energy demands.
However, this study is limited to pinpoint only those IES that
produces two of the most used energy carriers (electricity and
heat) by the integration of TPP (including CHP and boilers), IRE
(PV and wind only) and heat pumps as mentioned in Table 3.
As stated above that in IES configurations, there can be many
combinations of different energy conversion technologies to meet
consumer energy demand (electricity, heating, cooling and hy-
drogen). Therefore, it would require tremendous effort and time
to compare and systematically analyse each and every possible
combination to assess IES performance (Huang et al., 2017). Typi-
cally, IES performance can be summed up by factors like the share
of IRE, system configuration (like CHPs replaced by boilers or
heat pumps), energy structure (ratio of energy demands to fixed
power) and components individual performances (like boiler and
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Fig. 11. Wind energy system performance parameters and its relation with energy and exergy losses (
and signifies increase or decrease both depending upon situation).
CHP efficiencies or heat pump Coefficient of performance (COP))
as shown in Fig. 12.
Observing Fig. 12 from left to right signifies that blue arrows
on left side implies increase or decrease in quantity/share of left
side blocks (like components performances, IRE share, energy
demands and system configuration) while its parallel arrow on
right side implies that left side increase/decrease will result in
increase or decrease of energy and exergy losses. For instance,
second block (IRE share) has two arrows, left arrow pointing
upward (represents increase in quantity) and right arrow pointing
downward (represents decrease in quantity). The left upward
arrow indicates that increase in IRE share while right downward
arrow represents that this increase in IRE will result in reduced
energy and exergy losses. Contrarily, increasing energy demands
(depicted in 3rd block on left side) will increase exergy losses
but decreases energy losses. This is due to the fact that user’s
energy demand low quality indicates that more and more exergy
is destroyed. One of the most employed system configurations
(Last/4th block on left side) in the heating system of IES is re-
placing boilers with CHP (1st sub block of 4th block). Though this
configuration decreases the energy efficiency of IES but increases
exergy efficiency which minimizes the exergy losses. Introducing
the role of heat pump always results in reduced energy and
exergy losses as elaborated in Fig. 12. It should also keep in mind
when dealing with different energy sources that improvement
remedies in one of the components may result in increasing
losses in other components. Usually, an energy hub is employed
for IES coupling but a relatively new concept exergy hub can be
tried for IES coupling where components energetic values will be
replaced with their counter-part exergetic values for numerous
IES configurations.
Most of the literature is still focused on simple and single
processes and do not undertake a multi-energy system for 4E
analysis. Generally, the results of separate technologies (carriers)
like TPP and IRE sources analysis are in line with the integrated
energy system. For instance, the boiler is the main source of
exergy destruction, this fact remains the same either in single
energy carrier (TPP) or multi-energy carrier (IES). In contrast, it is
3529
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
signifies increase in quantity, signifies decrease in quantity
not necessary that the most cost-effective system proves to be the
most decarbonized system as well just like previous exergy and
EXEC results of the single energy system (TPP and IRE system).
However, the exergy efficiency of various energy system such
as TPP, IRE tend to increase when coupled together to form IES
which lead towards cost-effective scenario. Moreover, it depends
upon the scheduling, modelling and approach used by authors
in IES to precisely evaluate the exergy and EXEC analysis. Few
authors (Di Somma et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2020) stated that energy
analysis is still more useful for IES in comparison to exergy anal-
ysis because it still entails further evaluation and some proper
baseline before replacing or complementing energy analysis. Con-
trarily, other authors (Ramirez-Elizondo et al., 2013; Saloux et al.,
2019) approved exergy analysis effectiveness in IES to avoid the
misleading energy efficiency approach to improve system perfor-
mance. There is no doubt that exergy analysis method enhances
the system efficiency but the complex IES configuration and lack
of proper baseline makes it tedious to calculate exergy efficiency
that limits the exergy method usage in IES planning. Therefore,
the role of exergy and EXEC and EXEN analysis in IES needs to
be explored and evaluated at a larger scale to complement the
energy analysis method.
5. Conclusions
This work provides a comprehensive review of 4E analysis
of conventional coal and gas-fired TPPs, fluctuating renewable
energy sources (solar and PV) and IES. From the literature review,
it has been corroborated that exergy analysis is a reasonable
index to complement the energy analysis by computing the losses
to the environment (external losses or waste exergy) and losses
due to components internal irreversibilities (internal losses or
exergy destruction). Computation of these exergy losses proves
pertinent to improve the system performance by locating and
quantifying the explicit source of inefficiencies. EXEC and EXEN
analysis substantiate that system which has least exergy destruc-
tion (or higher energy and exergy efficiency) are the one’s which
are economically competitive and ecologically benign. After a
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

Table 3
4E analysis of integrated energy system (electricity and heat carriers).
Ref 4E analysis Determined Significant findings
parameters
Energy Exergy EXEC EXEN
Krause   × × η, ψ ψ can be applied on a IES system to assess its performance.
et al.
(2010b)
Huang   × × η, ψ Energy and exergy analysis of IES are inconsistent and sometimes completely opposite.
et al.
(2017)
Di Somma   × × ExD , energy The trade-off is offered between ExD and energy costs. Branch and cut method is used.
et al. costs
(2014)
Guo et al.   × × ψ , costs Proposed model improves ψ and reduces total costs
(2018)
Hu et al.   × × η, ψ , costs Energy quality coefficient is proposed to model and plan IES system. Electricity EQC = 1,
(2019) renewable energy EQC = 0.
Li et al.   × × ExD , costs Boiler is the major source of ExD followed by heat exchanger, temperature and pressure
(2020) reduce and turbines.
Ramirez-    × η, ψ , costs Optimal dispatch comparison obtained from energy and exergy analysis are given.
Elizondo
et al.
(2013)
Chen   × × η, ψ , costs Adaptive GA.is employed to optimize Exergy economic IES losses.
et al.
(2020)
Chen ×  × × ψ , costs ExD Multi-energy flows expressed in exergy forms and NSGA-II is used to solve multi-objective
et al. problem.
(2018)
Meesen- ×   × ψ , ExD costs Demand flexibility causes more ExD
burg
et al.
(2018)
Hu et al.   × × η, ψ , costs ψ is preferable to access energy utilization level in IES
(2020)
Huang   × × η, ψ , costs IES decreases energy costs and exergy input with the help of demand response program.
et al.
(2019)

Fig. 12. IES performance parameters and its relation with energy and exergy losses ( signifies increase in quantity, signifies decrease in quantity.

rigorous literature survey on 4E analysis of the aforementioned
systems following decisive concluding remarks can be drawn.
i TPP exergy analysis exploited that major exergy loss con-
tributors in coal-fired and gas-fired TPP are boiler and
combustion chamber (not condenser). On the other hand,
EXEC and EXEN deemed helpful to determine that these
two components (boiler and combustion chamber) exergy
3530
destructions costs and environmental impacts are greater
than other components. Different techniques and meth-
ods such as increasing boiler temperature, boiler pressure,
varying reference temperature, operating at various load
conditions have been tried to increase the exergy efficiency
of TPP.
ii Unlike TPP, IRE sources 4E analysis results are affected
by seasonal variations. The energy efficiency of both solar
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534

and wind energy systems is greater than exergy efficiency o Dead/Reference state
due to thermal and electric losses. Maximum exergy losses ρ Density
z Elevation/altitude coordinate
occur in the PV surface and rotor of a wind turbine in
∆H Enthalpy
solar PV and wind energy system respectively. Therefore,
S Entropy
decreasing PV cell temperature, removing heat from the Ex Exergy
PV surface, increasing the power factor of the wind energy ψ Exergy efficiency
system or varying tilt angle to 45◦ are a few of the many fEx Exergoeconomic factor
techniques to achieve reasonable EXEC and EXEN results. B Environmental impact
iii Integration of different energy carriers makes the 4E anal- b Environmental impact per unit exergy
ysis of IES a little complex. Moreover, not many studies g Gravity of earth
have investigated IES 4E analysis to date. Therefore, there Q Heat transfer
is much scope available to explore this area by evaluating R Ideal gas constant
U Internal energy
how resources can be used effectively to attain a sustain-
KE Kinetic energy
able, cost-effective and green energy system with the help
Y Life time
of exergy, EXEN and EXEC analysis. m Mass flow
Im Maximum current
The above conclusions regarding 4E analysis on different en- Vm Maximum voltage
ergy systems can serve as a useful tool for investors, energy Y Number of macroscopic states
planners and decision-makers to use exergy more efficiently and PE Potential energy
effectively that would help mitigate irreversibilities and improve p Pressure
sustainability index. This work can lay a strong foundation for SH Specific Heat
future works to replace the definition of a sustainable energy E Total energy
system with a sustainable exergy system which helps to promote v Velocity
W Work done
circular economy with zero GHGE. Exergy utilization in TPP can
Common subscripts
be extended to supercritical, ultra-supercritical and advanced su-
2 Final state
percritical cycles as not much work has been done on these cycles Fu Fuel
due to materials limitation to sustain high pressure and temper- 1 Initial state
ature. Additionally, it can be effectively applied to other types of i Inlet/entering streams
TPPs which are not mentioned in this study like combined cycle in Input
TPP. k kth component
On the other side, exergy analysis on IRE sources still needs a OM Operation & Maintenance
lot of work on many areas like the inclusion of meteorological out Output
e Outlet/Exiting streams
variables, particular siting of sources, wind turbine/PV-module
pr Product
design and types of losses. These inter-disciplinary IRE research
Tot Total
will indicate the potential usefulness of exergy by addressing Subscripts related to exergy
IRE sources impact on the environment and economy. As far as ch Chemical
IES is concerned, as stated above, much work needs to be done D Destruction
on different configuration of IES (involving other carriers than e Electrical part
electricity and heat) before replacing generally accepted energy L Losses
analysis. First, researchers need to work on the exergy role in Kin Kinetic
buildings installation before moving towards the city, district or mech Mechanical
country-wide IES cascade utilization. Moreover, IES future works NRea Non-reactive
ph Physical
may also include closed-loop network infrastructure and give
Pot Potential
importance to other crucial factors (like reliability and secu- Rea Reactive
rity) as well. Research and advancements in this area will help s Solar
Government, administrators and engineers to adapt suitable mea- ther Thermal
sures and initiatives while formulating energy and environment h Thermal part
policies to improve system efficiency and decreasing economic w Wind
costs. waste Waste
Subscripts related to entropy
Nomenclature gen Generated
Subscripts related to costs
T Absolute temperature CO Construction
a Air DI Disposal
To Ambient temperature Inv Investment
A Area r Relative difference
NA Avogadro’s Number Subscripts related to environment impact
K Boltzmann constant CO Construction
∆ Change in quantity DI Disposal
C Costs

3531
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China under Grant 51937005.
References
Aberoumand, S., Ghamari, S., Shabani, B., 2018. Energy and exergy analysis of a
photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system using nanofluids: An experimental study.
Sol. Energy 165, 167–177.
Abuelnuor, A., Saqr, K.M., Mohieldein, S.A.A., Dafallah, K.A., Abdullah, M.M.,
Nogoud, Y.A.M., 2017. Exergy analysis of Garri 2 180 MW combined cycle
power plant. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 960–969.
Abusoglu, A., Kanoglu, M., 2008. First and second law analysis of diesel engine
powered cogeneration systems. Energy Convers. Manage. 49, 2026–2031.
Abusoglu, A., Kanoglu, M., 2009. Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of
combined heat and power production: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
13, 2295–2308.
Açıkkalp, E., Aras, H., Hepbasli, A., 2014. Advanced exergoeconomic analysis of an
electricity-generating facility that operates with natural gas. Energy Convers.
Manage. 78, 452–460.
Adibhatla, S., Kaushik, S., 2014. Energy and exergy analysis of a super critical
thermal power plant at various load conditions under constant and pure
sliding pressure operation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 73, 51–65.
Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M., Hosseini, S.S., Dashti, B.B., Soufiyan, M.M., 2018.
Performance assessment of a wind power plant using standard exergy and
extended exergy accounting (EEA) approaches. J. Cleaner Prod. 171, 127–136.
Ahmadi, P., Dincer, I., 2011. Thermodynamic analysis and thermoeconomic
optimization of a dual pressure combined cycle power plant with a
supplementary firing unit. Energy Convers. Manage. 52, 2296–2308.
Ahmadi, G.R., Toghraie, D., 2016. Energy and exergy analysis of montazeri steam
power plant in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 454–463.
Almutairi, A.S., Pilidis, P., Al-Mutawa, N., 2016. Exergetic, exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analysis of intercooled gas turbine engine. In: 52nd
AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. p. 5060.
Ameri, M., Mokhtari, H., Bahrami, M., 2016. Energy, exergy, exergoeconomic and
environmental (4E) optimization of a large steam power plant: a case study.
Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Mech. Eng. 40, 11–20.
Amrollahi, Z., Ertesvåg, I.S., Bolland, O., 2011. Thermodynamic analysis on post-
combustion CO2 capture of natural-gas-fired power plant. Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control 5, 422–426.
Anozie, A.N., Odejobi, O.J., 2013. Influence of reference temperature on exergy
and exergoeconomic performance of a natural gas fired thermal power plant.
Int. J. Exergy 13, 102–123.
Ansarinasab, H., Mehrpooya, M., Sadeghzadeh, M., 2020. Life-cycle assessment
(LCA) and techno-economic analysis of a biomass-based biorefinery. J. Therm.
Anal. Calorim. 1–21.
Arango-Miranda, R., Hausler, R., Romero-López, R., Glaus, M., Ibarra-Zavaleta, S.P.,
2018. An overview of energy and exergy analysis to the industrial sector, a
contribution to sustainability. Sustainability 10, 153.
Arriola-Medellín, A., Manzanares-Papayanopoulos, E., Romo-Millares, C., 2014.
Diagnosis and redesign of power plants using combined Pinch and Exergy
Analysis. Energy 72, 643–651.
Asgari, E., Ehyaei, M., 2015. Exergy analysis and optimisation of a wind turbine
using genetic and searching algorithms. Int. J. Exergy 16, 293–314.
Baskut, O., Ozgener, L., 2012. Exergoeconomic assessment of a wind turbine
power plant (WTTP): Cesme, Izmir, example. Energy 47, 577–581.
Baskut, O., Ozgener, O., Ozgener, L., 2011. Second law analysis of wind turbine
power plants: Cesme, Izmir example. Energy 36, 2535–2542.
Bayat, M., 2016. Exergoeconomic analysis of a solar photovoltaic mod-
ule in Karabük, Turkey. In: 4th International Symposium on Innovative
Technologies in Engineering and Science (ISITES2016) 3-5 Nov 2016
Alanya/Antalya-Turkey.
Bayat, M., Ozalp, M., 2018. Energy, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of a solar
photovoltaic module. In: Exergetic, Energetic and Environmental Dimensions.
ed: Elsevier, pp. 383–402.
Bayrak, F., Abu-Hamdeh, N., Alnefaie, K.A., Öztop, H.F., 2017a. A review on
exergy analysis of solar electricity production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
74, 755–770.
Bayrak, F., Ertürk, G., Oztop, H.F., 2017b. Effects of partial shading on energy and
exergy efficiencies for photovoltaic panels. J. Cleaner Prod. 164, 58–69.
3532
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
Biserni, C., Garai, M., 2015. First and second law analysis applied to building
envelope: A theoretical approach on the potentiality of Bejan’s theory. Energy
Rep. 1, 181–183.
Blok, K., Nieuwlaar, E., 2020. Introduction to Energy Analysis. Routledge.
Bolatturk, A., Coskun, A., Geredelioglu, C., 2015. Thermodynamic and exergoeco-
nomic analysis of Çayırhan thermal power plant. Energy Convers. Manage.
101, 371–378.
BoroumandJazi, G., Rismanchi, B., Saidur, R., 2013. A review on exergy analysis
of industrial sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 27, 198–203.
BoroumandJazi, G., Saidur, R., Rismanchi, B., Mekhilef, S., 2012. A review on the
relation between the energy and exergy efficiency analysis and the technical
characteristic of the renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
16, 3131–3135.
Boyano, A., Blanco-Marigorta, A., Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., 2011. Exergoen-
vironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming process for hydrogen
production. Energy 36, 2202–2214.
Caliskan, H., 2015. Novel approaches to exergy and economy based enhanced
environmental analyses for energy systems. Energy Convers. Manage. 89,
156–161.
Cardona, E., Piacentino, A., 2006. A new approach to exergoeconomic analysis
and design of variable demand energy systems. Energy 31, 490–515.
Cavalcanti, E.J.C., 2017. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses of
an integrated solar combined cycle system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67,
507–519.
Cavalcanti, E.J., Carvalho, M., da Silva, D.R., 2020. Energy, exergy and exergoen-
vironmental analyses of a sugarcane bagasse power cogeneration system.
Energy Convers. Manage. 222, 113232.
Chen, H., Chen, S., Li, M., Chen, J., 2020. Optimal operation of integrated energy
system based on exergy analysis and adaptive genetic algorithm. IEEE Access
8, 158752-158764.
Chen, J., Liu, J., Wang, Q., Zeng, J., Yang, N., 2018. A multi-energy microgrid
modelling and optimization method based on exergy theory. In: 2018
Chinese Automation Congress (CAC). pp. 483-488.
Cornelissen, R.L., Hirs, G.G., 2002. The value of the exergetic life cycle assessment
besides the LCA. Energy Convers. Manage. 43, 1417–1424.
de Queiróz Lamas, W., 2017. Exergo-economic analysis of a typical wind power
system. Energy 140, 1173–1181.
Desideri, U., Asdrubali, F., 2018. Handbook of Energy Efficiency in Buildings: A
Life Cycle Approach. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dewulf, J., Van Langenhove, H., Muys, B., Bruers, S., Bakshi, B.R., Grubb, G.F., et
al., 2008. Exergy: its potential and limitations in environmental science and
technology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2221–2232.
Di Somma, M., Yan, B., Luh, P.B., Bragin, M.A., Bianco, N., Graditi, G., et al., 2014.
Exergy-efficient management of energy districts. In: Proceeding of the 11th
World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation. pp. 2675–2680.
Dincer, I., 2002. The role of exergy in energy policy making. Energy Policy 30,
137–149.
Dincer, I., 2018. Comprehensive Energy Systems. Elsevier.
Dincer, I., Cengel, Y.A., 2001. Energy, entropy and exergy concepts and their roles
in thermal engineering. Entropy 3, 116–149.
Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2012. Exergy: Energy, Environment and Sustainable
Development. Newnes.
Ding, Y., Liu, C., Zhang, C., Xu, X., Li, Q., Mao, L., 2018. Exergoenvironmental
model of Organic Rankine Cycle system including the manufacture and
leakage of working fluid. Energy 145, 52–64.
Eboh, F.C., Ahlström, P., Richards, T., 2017. Exergy analysis of solid fuel-fired heat
and power plants: a review. Energies 10, 165.
Egan, C.A., Lineweaver, C.H., 2010. A larger estimate of the entropy of the
universe. Astrophys. J. 710, 1825.
Ehsana, A., Yilmazoglu, M.Z., 2011. Design and exergy analysis of a thermal
power plant using different types of turkish lignite. Int. J. Thermodyn. 14,
125.
Ehyaei, M., Ahmadi, A., Rosen, M.A., 2019. Energy, exergy, economic and
advanced and extended exergy analyses of a wind turbine. Energy Convers.
Manage. 183, 369–381.
Ehyaei, M., Mozafari, A., Alibiglou, M., 2011. Exergy, economic & environmental
(3E) analysis of inlet fogging for gas turbine power plant. Energy 36,
6851–6861.
Eke, M., Onyejekwe, D., Iloeje, O., Ezekwe, C., Akpan, P., 2018. Energy and
exergy evaluation of a 220 MW thermal power plant. Nigerian J. Technol.
37, 115–123.
Elhelw, M., Al Dahma, K.S., 2019. Utilizing exergy analysis in studying the
performance of steam power plant at two different operation mode. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 150, 285–293.
FaizanTahir, M., 2016. Optimal load shedding using an ensemble of artificial
neural networks. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. Syst. 7, 39–46.
Fares, E., Bicer, Y., 2020. Comparative performance evaluation of c-Si and GaAs
type PV cells with and without anti-soiling coating using energy and exergy
analysis. Renew. Energy 146, 1010–1020.
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Fouladi, S., Saffari, H., 2010. Modeling and exergy and exergoeconomic opti-
mization of a gas turbine power plant using a genetic algorithm. In: ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. pp. 293–304.
Gaur, A., Tiwari, G., 2014a. Exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analysis of
photovoltaic modules of different solar cells. J. Solar Energy 2014, 1–8.
Gaur, A., Tiwari, G., 2014b. Exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analysis of
photovoltaic modules of different solar cells. J. Solar Energy 2014, Hindawi
Publishing Corporation.
Ghannadzadeh, A., 2013. Exergetic balances and analysis in a process simulator:
a way to enhance process energy integration.
Ghorbani, B., Mehrpooya, M., Ardehali, A., 2020. Energy and exergy analysis of
wind farm integrated with compressed air energy storage using multi-stage
phase change material. J. Cleaner Prod. 120906.
Goyal, V., Dondapati, R., Dang, R., Mangal, S., 2014. Exergy analysis of a 210
MW unit at 1260 MW thermal plant in India. In: 2014 2nd International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation. pp. 228–233.
Gundersen, T., 2011. An Introduction to the Concept of Exergy and Energy
Quality, Vol. 4. Department of Energy and Process Engineering Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Version.
Guo, Z., Yao, S., Gu, J., Xu, C., Li, G., Zhou, M., 2018. Bi-level optimal scheduling
of demand response integrated energy hub through cost and exergy assess-
ments. In: 2018 2nd IEEE Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System
Integration (EI2). pp. 1–6.
Guoqiang, L., Hua, W., Wenhui, M., Chunwei, Y., 2011. Energy and exergy
analysis for 300MW thermal system of Xiaolongtan power plant. In: 2011
International Conference on Computer Distributed Control and Intelligent
Environmental Monitoring. pp. 180–184.
Hadfield, L.C., Wieman, C.E., 2010. Student interpretations of equations related
to the first law of thermodynamics. J. Chem. Educ. 87, 750–755.
Hassan, T.-u., Abbassi, R., Jerbi, H., Mehmood, K., Tahir, M.F., Cheema, K.M., et
al., 2020. A novel algorithm for MPPT of an isolated PV system using push
pull converter with fuzzy logic controller. Energies 13, 4007.
Hasti, S., Aroonwilas, A., Veawab, A., 2013. Exergy analysis of ultra super-critical
power plant. Energy Procedia 37, 2544–2551.
Helios, M., Pipatmanomai, S., Nasir, S., 2012. Energy and exergy analysis of coal-
fired power plants: The selected case studies in Thailand and Indonesia. In:
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Sustain. Energy Environ. pp. 509–516.
Hepbasli, A., 2008. A key review on exergetic analysis and assessment of
renewable energy resources for a sustainable future. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 12, 593–661.
Hou, D., Shao, S., Zhang, Y., Liu, S.L., Chen, Y., Zhang, S.S., 2012. Exergy analysis of
a thermal power plant using a modeling approach. Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 14, 805–813.
Hu, X., Shang, C., Wen, M., Wang, L., Liu, Y., Zhang, F., et al., 2019. Integrated
modelling and planning of regional integrated energy systems based on
exergy analysis.
Hu, X., Zhang, H., Chen, D., Li, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, F., et al., 2020. Multi-objective
planning for integrated energy systems considering both exergy efficiency
and economy. Energy 197, 117155.
Huang, Y., Li, S., Ding, P., Zhang, Y., Yang, K., Zhang, W., 2019. Optimal operation
for economic and exergetic objectives of a multiple energy carrier system
considering demand response program. Energies 12, 3995.
Huang, Z., Yu, H., Chu, X., Peng, Z., 2017. Energetic and exergetic analysis of
integrated energy system based on parametric method. Energy Convers.
Manage. 150, 588–598.
Izgi, E., Akkaya, Y.E., 2013. Exergoeconomic analysis of a solar photovoltaic
system in Istanbul, Turkey. Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 21, 350–359.
Kabiri, S., Khoshgoftar Manesh, M.H., Amidpour, M., 2020. 4E analysis and
evaluation of a steam power plant full repowering in various operations.
Energy Sources A 1–21.
Kalogirou, S.A., Karellas, S., Badescu, V., Braimakis, K., 2016. Exergy analysis on
solar thermal systems: a better understanding of their sustainability. Renew.
Energy 85, 1328–1333.
Kaushik, S., Reddy, V.S., Tyagi, S., 2011. Energy and exergy analyses of thermal
power plants: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 1857–1872.
Kaushik, S., Singh, O.K., 2014. Estimation of chemical exergy of solid, liquid and
gaseous fuels used in thermal power plants. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 115,
903–908.
Kaviri, A.G., Jaafar, M.N.M., 2011. Thermodynamic modeling and exergy optimiza-
tion of a gas turbine power plant. In: 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference
on Communication Software and Networks. pp. 366–370.
Khaldi, F., Adouane, B., 2011. Energy and exergy analysis of a gas turbine power
plant in Algeria. Int. J. Exergy 9, 399–413.
Kiyaninia, A., Karimi, H., Avargani, V.M., 2019. Exergoeconomic analysis of a solar
photovoltaic-based direct evaporative air-cooling system. Sol. Energy 193,
253–266.
Koca, A., Oztop, H.F., Koyun, T., Varol, Y., 2008. Energy and exergy analysis of a
latent heat storage system with phase change material for a solar collector.
Renew. Energy 33, 567–574.
3533
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
Krause, T., Andersson, G., Fröhlich, K., Vaccaro, A., 2010a. Multiple-energy
carriers: modeling of production, delivery, and consumption. Proc. IEEE 99,
15–27.
Krause, T., Kienzle, F., Art, S., Andersson, G., 2010b. Maximizing exergy efficiency
in multi-carrier energy systems. In: IEEE PES General Meeting. pp. 1–8.
Kumar, S., Kumar, D., Memon, R.A., Wassan, M.A., Ali, M.S., 2018. Energy and
exergy analysis of a coal fired power plant. Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol.
37, 611–624.
Kumar, P., Shukla, A.K., Sudhakar, K., Mamat, R., 2017. Experimental exergy
analysis of water-cooled PV module. Int. J. Exergy 23, 197–209.
Kumari, A., 2015. Investigation of parameters affecting exergy and emission
performance of basic and intercooled gas turbine cycles. Energy 90, 525–536.
Letcher, T.M., 2019. Why do we have global warming? In: Managing Global
Warming. ed: Elsevier, pp. 3–15.
Li, X., Gao, J., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Du, Q., Wu, S., et al., 2020. Energy, exergy
and economic analyses of a combined heating and power system with
turbine-driving fans and pumps in Northeast China. Energies 13, 878.
Li, Z., Li, Z.M., Yan, Z.L., 2012. Energy and exergy analysis for three type 500 MW
steam power plants. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials. pp. 1131–1136.
Li, Y., Liu, L., 2012. Exergy analysis of 300 MW coal-fired power plant. Energy
Procedia 17, 926–932.
Lucia, U., 2012. Gouy–Stodola Theorem as a variational principle for open
systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.0177.
Luo, J., Zhang, S., Sun, M., Yang, L., Luo, S., Crittenden, J.C., 2019. A critical review
on energy conversion and environmental remediation of photocatalysts with
remodeling crystal lattice, surface, and interface. ACS Nano 13, 9811–9840.
Mabrouk, A., Labidi, J., Rekik, A., Jeday, M.-R., 2018. Exergoeconomic analysis. In:
Exergy for a Better Environment and Improved Sustainability 1. ed: Springer,
pp. 895–904.
Meesenburg, W., Ommen, T., Elmegaard, B., 2018. Dynamic exergoeconomic
analysis of a heat pump system used for ancillary services in an integrated
energy system. Energy 152, 154–165.
Meyer, L., Castillo, R., Buchgeister, J., Tsatsaronis, G., 2009a. Application of
exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analysis to an SOFC system with
an allothermal biomass gasifier. Int. J. Thermodyn. 12, 177–186.
Meyer, L., Tsatsaronis, G., Buchgeister, J., Schebek, L., 2009b. Exergoenvironmen-
tal analysis for evaluation of the environmental impact of energy conversion
systems. Energy 34, 75–89.
Miar Naeimi, M., Eftekhari Yazdi, M., Reza Salehi, G., 2019. Energy, exergy,
exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analysis and optimization of a
solar hybrid CCHP system. Energy Sources A 1–21.
Mistry, K.H., Lienhard, J.H., 2013. An economics-based second law efficiency.
Entropy 15, 2736–2765.
Mitrović, D., Zivkovic, D., Laković, M., 2010. Energy and exergy analysis of a
348.5 MW steam power plant. Energy Sources A 32, 1016–1027.
Mohammadi, A., Ahmadi, M.H., Bidi, M., Joda, F., Valero, A., Uson, S., 2017. Exergy
analysis of a Combined Cooling, Heating and Power system integrated with
wind turbine and compressed air energy storage system. Energy Convers.
Manage. 131, 69–78.
Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., 2019. Splitting physical exergy: Theory and
application. Energy 167, 698–707.
Mousafarash, A., Ameri, M., 2013. Exergy and exergo-economic based analysis
of a gas turbine power generation system. J. Power Technol. 93, 44–51.
Newell, R., Raimi, D., Aldana, G., 2019. Global Energy Outlook 2019: The Next
Generation of Energy. Resources for the Future, pp. 8–19.
Ðorđević, M., Mančić, M., Mitrović, D., 2014. Energy and exergy analysis of
coal fired power plant. In: Facta Universitatis-Series: Working and Living
Environmental Protection, Vol. 11. pp. 163–175.
Oyedepo, S.O., Fagbenle, R., Adefila, S., Alam, M.M., 2015a. Exergoeconomic
analysis and performance assessment of selected gas turbine power plants.
World J. Eng..
Oyedepo, S.O., Fagbenle, R.O., Adefila, S.S., Alam, M.M., 2015b. Thermoeconomic
and thermoenvironomic modeling and analysis of selected gas turbine power
plants in Nigeria. Energy Sci. Eng. 3, 423–442.
Ozgener, O., Ozgener, L., Dincer, I., 2009. Analysis of some exergoeconomic
parameters of small wind turbine system. Int. J. Green Energy 6, 42–56.
Ozturk, M., 2011. Energy and exergy assessments for potential wind power in
Turkey. Int. J. Exergy 8, 211–226.
Pandey, A., Tyagi, V., Tyagi, S., 2013. Exergetic analysis and parametric study of
multi-crystalline solar photovoltaic system at a typical climatic zone. Clean
Technol. Environ. Policy 15, 333–343.
Park, S., Pandey, A., Tyagi, V., Tyagi, S., 2014. Energy and exergy analysis of
typical renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 105–123.
Pope, K., Dincer, I., Naterer, G., 2010. Energy and exergy efficiency comparison
of horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines. Renew. Energy 35, 2102–2113.
Ramirez-Elizondo, L.M., Paap, G., Ammerlaan, R., Negenborn, R.R., Toonssen, R.,
2013. On the energy, exergy and cost optimisation of multi–energy–carrier
power systems. Int. J. Exergy 13, 364–386.
Ray, T.K., Datta, A., Gupta, A., Ganguly, R., 2010. Exergy-based performance
analysis for proper O & M decisions in a steam power plant. Energy Convers.
Manage. 51, 1333–1344.
M.F. Tahir, C. Haoyong and H. Guangze
Regulagadda, P., Dincer, I., Naterer, G., 2010. Exergy analysis of a thermal
power plant with measured boiler and turbine losses. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30,
970–976.
Robinett III, R.D., Wilson, D.G., 2009. Exergy and irreversible entropy production
thermodynamic concepts for nonlinear control design. Int. J. Exergy 6,
357–387.
Rosen, M.A., 2021. Exergy analysis as a tool for addressing climate change. Eur.
J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 5, em0148.
Rosen, M.A., Bulucea, C.A., 2009. Using exergy to understand and improve the
efficiency of electrical power technologies. Entropy 11, 820–835.
Rudiyanto, B., Wardani, T.A.K., Anwar, S., Al Jamali, L., Prasetyo, T., Wibowo, K.M.,
et al., 2019. Energy and exergy analysis of steam power plant in paiton,
Indonesia. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.
012091.
Şahin, A.D., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2006. Thermodynamic analysis of wind
energy. Int. J. Energy Res. 30, 553–566.
Saidur, R., BoroumandJazi, G., Mekhlif, S., Jameel, M., 2012. Exergy analysis of
solar energy applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 350–356.
Salehi, N., Mahmoudi, M., Bazargan, A., McKay, G., 2018. Exergy and life
cycle-based analysis. In: Handbook of Environmental Materials Management.
Springer, Cham, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_84-2.
Saloux, E., Sorin, M., Teyssedou, A., 2019. Exergo-economic analyses of two
building integrated energy systems using an exergy diagram. Sol. Energy
189, 333–343.
Sangi, R., Müller, D., 2019. Application of the second law of thermodynamics to
control: A review. Energy 174, 938–953.
Sarhaddi, F., Farahat, S., Ajam, H., Behzadmehr, A., 2010a. Exergetic performance
assessment of a solar photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) air collector. Energy Build.
42, 2184–2199.
Sarhaddi, F., Farahat, S., Ajam, H., Behzadmehr, A., 2010b. Exergetic performance
evaluation of a solar photovoltaic (PV) array. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 4,
502–519.
Seyyedi, S.M., Ajam, H., Farahat, S., 2010. A new approach for optimization of
thermal power plant based on the exergoeconomic analysis and structural
optimization method: Application to the CGAM problem. Energy Convers.
Manage. 51, 2202–2211.
Shamoushaki, M., Ghanatir, F., Ehyaei, M., Ahmadi, A., 2017. Exergy and exer-
goeconomic analysis and multi-objective optimisation of gas turbine power
plant by evolutionary algorithms. Case study: Aliabad Katoul power plant.
Int. J. Exergy 22, 279–307.
Shaygan, M., Ehyaei, M., Ahmadi, A., Assad, M.E.H., Silveira, J.L., 2019. Energy, ex-
ergy, advanced exergy and economic analyses of hybrid polymer electrolyte
membrane (PEM) fuel cell and photovoltaic cells to produce hydrogen and
electricity. J. Cleaner Prod. 234, 1082–1093.
Shukuya, M., Hammache, A., 2002. Introduction to the Concept of Exergy-for a
Better Understanding of Low-Temperature-Heating and High-Temperature-
Cooling Systems. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
Sidney, S., 2016. Exergy analysis of a solar PV driven DC refrigerator for different
ambient conditions. In: 2016 International Conference on Energy Efficient
Technologies for Sustainability (ICEETS). pp. 280–284.
Sinsel, S.R., Riemke, R.L., Hoffmann, V.H., 2020. Challenges and solution tech-
nologies for the integration of variable renewable energy sources—a review.
Renew. Energy 145, 2271–2285.
Streckiene, G., Martinaitis, V., Bielskus, J., 2019. From entropy generation to
exergy efficiency at varying reference environment temperature: Case study
of an air handling unit. Entropy 21, 361.
Sudhakar, K., Srivastava, T., 2014. Energy and exergy analysis of 36 W solar
photovoltaic module. Int. J. Ambient Energy 35, 51–57.
Sukumaran, S., Sudhakar, K., 2018. Performance analysis of solar powered airport
based on energy and exergy analysis. Energy 149, 1000–1009.
Suresh, M., Reddy, K., Kolar, A.K., 2011. ANN-GA based optimization of a high
ash coal-fired supercritical power plant. Appl. Energy 88, 4867–4873.
Tadese, T., Tesema, G., 2014. Energy, entropy and exergy concepts: thermody-
namic approach, a critical review. Abhinav Natl. Mon. Refereed J. Res. Sci.
Technol. 3, 4–17.
3534
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 3517–3534
Tahir, M.F., Chen, H., Javed, M.S., Jameel, I., Khan, A., Adnan, S., 2019a. Integration
of different individual heating scenarios and energy storages into hybrid
energy system model of China for 2030. Energies 12, 2083.
Tahir, M.F., Chen, H., Khan, A., Javed, M.S., Cheema, K.M., Laraik, N.A., 2020.
Significance of demand response in light of current pilot projects in China
and devising a problem solution for future advancements. Technol. Soc. 63,
101374.
Tahir, M.F., Haoyong, C., Idris, I.I., Larik, N.A., ullah Adnan, S., 2018. Demand
response programs significance, challenges and worldwide scope in main-
taining power system stability. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. (IJACSA)
9.
Tahir, M.F., Haoyong, C., Khan, A., Javed, M.S., Laraik, N.A., Mehmood, K., 2019b.
Optimizing size of variable renewable energy sources by incorporating
energy storage and demand response. IEEE Access 7, 103115-103126.
Tahir, M.F., Haoyong, C., Mehmood, K., Ali, N., Bhutto, J.A., 2019c. Integrated en-
ergy system modeling of China for 2020 by incorporating demand response,
heat pump and thermal storage. IEEE Access 7, 40095–40108.
Tahir, M.F., Hayong, C., 2020. Socioeconomic analysis of integrated energy system
of China for 2020. IEEE Syst. J..
Tahir, M.F., Saqib, M.A., 2016. Optimal scheduling of electrical power in energy-
deficient scenarios using artificial neural network and Bootstrap aggregating.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 83, 49–57.
Tehzeeb-Ul-Hassan, H., Tahir, M.F., Mehmood, K., Cheema, K.M., Milyani, A.H.,
Rasool, Q., 2020. Optimization of power flow by using hamiltonian technique.
Energy Rep. 6, 2267–2275.
Tsatsaronis, G., 1996. Exergoeconomics: Is it only a new name? Chem. Eng.
Technol.: Ind. Chem.-Plant Equip.-Process Eng.-Biotechnol. 19, 163–169.
Tsatsaronis, G., 2007. Definitions and nomenclature in exergy analysis and
exergoeconomics. Energy 32, 249–253.
Tsatsaronis, G., 2008. Recent developments in exergy analysis and exergoeco-
nomics. Int. J. Exergy 5, 489–499.
Tsatsaronis, G., Bakshi, B., Gutowski, T., Sekulic, D., 2011. Exergoeconomics and
exergoenvironmental analysis. In: Thermodynamics and the Destruction of
Resources. pp. 377–401.
Tsatsaronis, G., Lin, L., Pisa, J., 1993. Exergy costing in exergoeconomics.
Unal, F., Ozkan, D.B., 2018. Application of exergoeconomic analysis for power
plants. Therm. Sci. 22, 2653–2666.
Vandani, A.M.K., Bidi, M., Ahmadi, F., 2015. Exergy analysis and evolutionary
optimization of boiler blowdown heat recovery in steam power plants.
Energy Convers. Manage. 106, 1–9.
Vats, K., Tiwari, G., 2012. Energy and exergy analysis of a building integrated
semitransparent photovoltaic thermal (BISPVT) system. Appl. Energy 96,
409–416.
Vundela Siva, R., Subash Chndra, K., Sudhir Kumar, T., Narayanlal, P., 2010. An
approach to analyse energy and exergy analysis of thermal power plants: a
review. Smart Grid Renew. Energy 2010.
Wang, L., Fu, P., Wang, N., Morosuk, T., Yang, Y., Tsatsaronis, G., 2017. Mal-
function diagnosis of thermal power plants based on advanced exergy
analysis: The case with multiple malfunctions occurring simultaneously.
Energy Convers. Manage. 148, 1453–1467.
Wang, J., Liu, W., Liu, Z., 2015. The application of exergy destruction mini-
mization in convective heat transfer optimization. Appl. Therm. Eng. 88,
384–390.
Xiong, J., Zhao, H., Chen, M., Zheng, C., 2011. Simulation and exergy analysis
of a 600 MWe oxy-combustion pulverized coal-fired power plant. In:
International Symposium on Coal Combustion. pp. 1195–1199.
Xue, T.-W., Guo, Z.-Y., 2019. What is the real clausius statement of the second
law of thermodynamics? Entropy 21, 926.
Yang, Y., Wang, L., Dong, C., Xu, G., Morosuk, T., Tsatsaronis, G., 2013. Com-
prehensive exergy-based evaluation and parametric study of a coal-fired
ultra-supercritical power plant. Appl. Energy 112, 1087–1099.
Zhao, H., Liu, C., Bai, Y., Zhang, H., Wei, L., 2012. Exergy analysis of a 600 MW
thermal power plant. In: 2012 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering
Conference. pp. 1–4.