Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Physics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp

Analytical approximation of optimal thermoeconomic efficiencies for a

Novikov engine with a Stefan–Boltzmann heat transfer law
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado ∗
División de Matemáticas e Ingeniería, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Av. Alcanfores y San Juan Totoltepec
s/n, Col. Santa Cruz Acatlán, Naucalpan de Juárez, 53150, Estado de México, Mexico
Departamento de Matemáticas, Escuela Superior de Física y Matemáticas, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Edif. 9, 3er Piso, U. P. Zacatenco, 07738, Ciudad de
México, Mexico

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: From a semi-analytical method, analytical expressions for the optimal thermoeconomic efficiencies are found
Thermoeconomic optimization for a Novikov model using a radiative heat transfer law. All this is within the context of finite-time
Optimal efficiencies thermodynamics for the three modes of operation: maximum power, ecological regime, and efficient power
Stefan–Boltzmann heat transfer law
regime. The analysis includes fuel-related costs and operation and maintenance costs of the power plants that
Novikov heat engine
can be studied from the model considered. The obtained expressions are a reasonable approximation compared
with the optimum efficiencies numerical results.

Introduction
In 1995 Alexis De Vos presented a thermoeconomic study of a
Novikov–Chambadal power plant model in the context of finite-time
thermodynamics (FTT) [1–3]. The Novikov–Chambadal model, which
will be called only the Novikov model, schematized in Fig. 1, consists
of two thermal reservoirs: one with temperature 𝑇1 and the other with
temperature 𝑇2 , both constants such that 𝑇1 > 𝑇2 . Between these
reservoirs is the endoreversible component such that the variable core
temperature 𝑇1𝑤 is associated with the temperature of the upper reser-
voir of the Carnot machine. Wherein a thermal conductor with thermal
conductivity denoted by 𝛼 is included. The Novikov model is a partic-
ular case of the Curzon–Ahlborn model [4]. This study will be focused
on the simplified system because the objective is to perform a ther-
moeconomic analysis, which consists of maximizing a profit function
that has been generalized over the years [1,5]. From this maximization,
the heat engine’s optimum efficiencies are obtained, characterized by
the working mode in which it is operated and the heat transfer law
used. In [5], a deep thermoeconomical study of the Novikov model was
carried out for the maximum power (MP) [1], the ecological (E) [6],
and the efficient power (EP) [7,8] regimes, and with different heat
transfer laws. Moreover, a generalization of the cost function, which
determines the profit function, was proposed [5]. From this, different
analytical expressions were found for the optimum efficiencies, which
depend on the properties of the system. In particular, the case of a
Stefan–Boltzmann-type (SB) heat transfer law was analyzed and will
be the center of this study [5]. Within this outlook, various analyses
have explored the SB heat transfer law [9–13]. The analytical approach
is challenging since the system variable’s functional form turns the
equations into more complex expressions. Taking advantage of this,
in this paper, a method already used in [12,14] will be adapted and
applied to give semi-analytical expressions of the optimum efficiencies
of the Novikov model under the three operating regimes mentioned
above by assuming an SB heat transfer law. Although these elementary
systems have already been deeply studied over the years [15–18], the
method used in this work can be adapted to explore new proposals re-
lated to quantum machines [19–23]. This work is structured as follows:
in Section ‘‘Systems general description’’, a generalized description of
the study system will be given; in Section ‘‘Semi-analytical expressions
for optimal efficiencies’’, the semianalytic approach will be presented
and applied to the various cases; finally, in Section ‘‘Conclusions’’, the
conclusion will be addressed.
System’s general description
De Vos’s thermoeconomic analysis is based on the maximization of
the profit function defined as [1]
𝑃
𝐹 = , (1)
𝐶

∗ Correspondence to: División de Matemáticas e Ingeniería, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Av. Alcanfores
y San Juan Totoltepec s/n, Col. Santa Cruz Acatlán, Naucalpan de Juárez, 53150, Estado de México, Mexico.
E-mail addresses: 876686@pcpuma.acatlan.unam.mx, aaresp@ipn.mx.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2023.107059
Received 25 July 2023; Received in revised form 1 October 2023; Accepted 3 October 2023
Available online 10 October 2023
2211-3797/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

Such that 𝑄2 is the heat output that goes directly from the internal
engine to the sink and it is determined by 𝑄1 since the engine efficiency
is defined as
𝑊
𝜂= , (5)
𝑄1
and yields to
𝑊 = 𝜂𝑄1 . (6)
From the second law of thermodynamics, that is, the endoreversible
hypothesis, for the Carnot reversible engine, it is obtained that
𝑄1 𝑄
= 2. (7)
𝑇1𝑤 𝑇2
By using (4), (6), and (7), and defining 𝜏 = 𝑇2∕𝑇1 , it is gotten that 𝜂 turns
into
𝑇
𝜂 =1−𝜏 1 . (8)
𝑇1𝑤
Owing that the Novikov model is not reversible, the total entropy
production will not be zero, and it is given by
𝑄1 𝑄 1
𝛴(𝜂, 𝜏) = − + 1 = (1 − 𝜂 − 𝜏) 𝑄1 . (9)
𝑇1 𝑇1𝑤 𝑇2
Fig. 1. Novikov heat engine model.
As can be seen, most of the expressions defined above depend on 𝑄1 ,
and this is where the heat transfer law used comes in, as well as the
irreversible component of the system. As described in the introduction,
with 𝑃 = 𝑊 , the power output, and 𝐶, the running costs function we will use a law of type SB, so for this particular case, it is assumed
defined in the most general form as [5] that 𝑄1 has the following form [5,12,15–18]:
( )
𝐶 = 𝑎𝑄max + 𝑏𝑄1 + 𝑐𝑊 , (2) 𝑄1 = 𝛼 𝑇14 − 𝑇1𝑤
4
, (10)
with 𝑎, 𝑏, and 𝑐 being constants whose units are given by $∕Watt. that can be rewritten as
( ( )4 )
Before delving into the function (2), it should be mentioned that all 𝜏
4
the thermodynamic quantities that compose it are assumed to be per 𝑄1 (𝜂, 𝜏) = 𝛼𝑇1 1 − , (11)
1−𝜂
time cycle period. Function (2) was built so that as 𝑄1 is the heat input,
from an economic point of view, 𝑏𝑄1 is the cost related to the needed by using (8). It should be noted that in reality, the only variable in the
fuel. In contrast, 𝑄max = 𝑄1 (𝜂 = 0) is the maximum heat that can be system, according to how everything was structured, is 𝜂. Therefore,
the thermoeconomic optimization consists of maximizing the profit
extracted from the hot reservoir without supplying work. Thus, 𝑄max
function 𝐹 with respect to 𝜂, and from this, the optimal efficiencies will
is related to the setup of the power plant, and 𝑎𝑄max is the cost as-
be found. Thus, for each regime, there will be a different profit function
sociated with the initial investment of the energy converter [1]. While
and, therefore, different efficiencies. To construct the 𝐹 functions, it is
the last term, 𝑐𝑊 , which corresponded to a generalization proposed needed the cost function given in (2). So that, for the particular case of
in [5] and was not initially introduced by De Vos [1], refers to the SB, it is written as follows [5,13,29]
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. Over the years, apart from the ( ( ( )4 ) ( ( )4 ))
generalization of the cost function, it has also been proposed to change ( ) 𝜏 𝜏
𝐶(𝜂, 𝜏) = 𝛼𝑇14 𝑎 1 − 𝜏 4 + 𝑏 1 − + 𝑐𝜂 1 − ,
the profit function by changing the power output to other objective 1−𝜂 1−𝜂
functions [9,12,24–27]. That is, the profit function was generalized to
(12)
𝑂𝑃 𝐹
𝐹 = , (3) where Eqs. (6) and (8) were used, as well as the definition of 𝑄max .
𝐶
By maximizing the function 𝐹 with respect to the variable 𝜂, what
such that, for instance, 𝑂𝑃 𝐹 = 𝑃 the power output (MP-regime), is sought is to find the values of the system variables operating under
or 𝑂𝑃 𝐹 = 𝐸 the ecological function (E-regime), or 𝑂𝑃 𝐹 = 𝑃𝜂 the the desired regime to configure the energy converter and achieve the
efficient power function (EP-regime) [1,6–8]. As its name suggests, the optimum thermodynamic and economic performance according to the
maximum power regime aims to maximize the power output by taking De Vos model. If power output is to be prioritized, the MP mode should
advantage of the system configuration. Following this logic, maximiz- be used [1], and the profit function should be given by [5]
ing the ecological function, defined as the difference between power ( ( )4 )
𝜏
and dissipation, seeks to achieve high power output while minimizing 𝜂 1 − 1−𝜂
𝑆𝐵 𝑃
entropy production. On the other hand, the efficient power regime 𝐹𝑀𝑃 = = ( ( )4 ) ( ( )4 ) . (13)
𝐶 ( ) 𝜏 𝜏
focuses on finding a balance between optimal efficiency and adequate 𝑎 1 − 𝜏 4 + 𝑏 1 − 1−𝜂 + 𝑐𝜂 1 − 1−𝜂
power. This is reflected in its defining function, which is the product
of efficiency and power. Also, 𝑂𝑃 𝐹 can be either one of the objective If the aim is to operate under a regime that seeks a balance between
functions proposed in [12,28]. In this paper, only the MP, E, and EP optimum power output and low dissipation, using the ecological mode
of operation is natural, which is determined by the function defined as
regimes will be considered as an extension of the analysis already
𝐸 = 𝑃 − 𝑇2 𝛴(𝜂, 𝜏), with 𝛴(𝜂, 𝜏) the entropy production already defined
performed in [5]. The thermodynamic characteristics of the Novikov
in (9) [6]. Therefore, the profit function under the abovementioned
heat engine must first be taken into account to describe more clearly
conditions is given by [5]
what a thermoeconomic analysis consists of. In general, by applying ( ( )4 )
the first law of thermodynamics to the system illustrated in Fig. 1, it is 𝜏
(2𝜂 + 𝜏 − 1) 1 − 1−𝜂
obtained that 𝐸
𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 = = ( ( )4 ) ( ( )4 ) . (14)
𝐶 ( ) 𝜏 𝜏
𝑄1 = 𝑊 + 𝑄2 . (4) 𝑎 1 − 𝜏 4 + 𝑏 1 − 1−𝜂 + 𝑐𝜂 1 − 1−𝜂

2
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

While if the objective is to maximize power output and efficiency Functions (13), (14) and (15) can be rewritten as functions of 𝑓 and 𝑔
simultaneously, it is convenient to operate under the efficient power as follows:
( )
regime whose function is given by 𝑃𝜂 = 𝜂𝑃 [7,8]. Consequently, the 𝜂(1 − 𝑓 − 𝑔) (1 − 𝜂)4 − 𝜏 4
𝑆𝐵
profit function is defined as [5] 𝐹𝑀𝑃 = ( ) ,
(1 − 𝜂)4 1 − 𝜏 4
( ( )4 ) ( )
𝜏
𝜂 2 1 − 1−𝜂 (1 − 𝑓 − 𝑔)(2𝜂 + 𝜏 − 1) (1 − 𝜂)4 − 𝜏 4
𝑃𝜂 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 = ( ) , (19)
𝑆𝐵 (1 − 𝜂)4 1 − 𝜏 4
𝐹𝐸𝑃 = = ( ( )4 ) ( ( )4 ) . (15)
𝐶 ( ) 𝜏 𝜏 ( )
𝑎 1 − 𝜏 4 + 𝑏 1 − 1−𝜂 + 𝑐𝜂 1 − 1−𝜂
𝑆𝐵
𝜂 2 (1 − 𝑓 − 𝑔) (1 − 𝜂)4 − 𝜏 4
𝐹𝐸𝑃 = ( ) .
(1 − 𝜂)4 1 − 𝜏 4
Other profit functions can be constructed by operating under other
regimes [12,28]. However, these three are sufficient because the other As was previously done in [5], taking the derivative of 𝐹 with respect
options could lead to equivalent results. In fact, in [14], it is mentioned to the variable 𝜂 and setting it equal to zero results in polynomial
that efforts should now be more focused on more realistic conditions, equations for 𝜂. It is important to note that the profit functions being
e.g., device geometry [30,31]. maximized are those that depend on the constants 𝑎, 𝑏, and 𝑐 (see
The objective functions (13), (14), and (15) are continuous on Eqs. (13), (14), and (15)). The polynomial obtained can be expressed
as a function of 𝑓 and 𝑔 by using (18), which in turn depends on the
closed intervals and are concave for 𝜂. Therefore, the values of the
efficiencies as shown in Eqs. (17). However, it is assumed that these
efficiencies 𝜂 𝑆𝐵 that maximize these functions come from 𝜕𝐹 𝑆𝐵 ∕𝜕𝜂 = 0
efficiencies are already optimal. According to the De Vos classification,
and satisfy the following inequality for each regime [1,5,13,14,29]
setting the values of 𝑓 and 𝑔 immediately determines the type of energy
𝑆𝐵
𝜂𝐶𝐴 < 𝜂 𝑆𝐵 < 𝜂𝐶 . (16) source used [1,29]. This classification was indirectly established based
on the various efficiency values reported for actual power plants. The
Such that 𝑆𝐵
𝜂𝐶𝐴 corresponds to the values of the efficiencies when maxi- methodology is quite simple. However, for the SB case, the polynomials
mizing the 𝑂𝑃 𝐹 functions and 𝜂𝐶 = 1 − 𝜏 is the Carnot efficiency [12]. obtained are of a sufficiently large degree to complicate the process
The 𝜂 𝑆𝐵 will depend on 𝜏, 𝑏, and 𝑐, however, as proposed by De Vos [1], of finding analytical expressions. Although in [5] certain analytical
it is convenient to use two new parameters denoted by 𝑓 (fuel fractional expressions were given, they lead to values greater than one, which
cost) and 𝑔 (O&M fractional cost) instead of 𝑏 and 𝑐. These quantities is not possible, and it is believed that this was an error concerning the
represent the fraction of the power plant’s running costs corresponding functions used. In the following section, analytical approximations for
to fuel or the O&M as appropriate and for the system under study are the optimum efficiencies for each of the regimes will be found.
given by [29]
( ( )4 ) Semi-analytical expressions for optimal efficiencies
𝜏
𝛽 1 − 1−𝜂
𝑏𝑄1
𝑓= = ( ( )4 ) ( ( )4 ) , The method to be used below was previously conducted in [12,14],
𝐶 ( ) 𝜏 𝜏
1 − 𝜏 4 + 𝛽 1 − 1−𝜂 + 𝛾𝜂 1 − 1−𝜂 which generally consists of making Taylor series expansions around
( points chosen according to the particular problem. These expansion
( )4 ) (17)
𝛾𝜂 1 − 1−𝜂 𝜏 points generally depend on the variable 𝜏, usually considered within the
𝑐𝑊 interval [0.3, 0.7]. This section aims to give analytical approximations of
𝑔= = ( ( )4 ) ( ( )4 ) ,
𝐶 ( ) 𝜏 𝜏 the optimal efficiencies that depend on 𝜏, 𝑓 , and 𝑔. The latter will be
1 − 𝜏 4 + 𝛽 1 − 1−𝜂 + 𝛾𝜂 1 − 1−𝜂
both considered within the interval [0, 0.5] according to the De Vos clas-
sification [1,29]. The maximum power case will be used as a reference
with 𝛽 = 𝑏∕𝑎 and 𝛾 = 𝑐∕𝑎. Their values will depend on the type
to explain the methodology. In Sections‘‘The ecological case’’ and ‘‘The
of energy source used. They must fulfill 0 < 𝑓 + 𝑔 < 1, so that, if
efficient power case’’, results for the ecological and efficient power
𝑓 + 𝑔 → 1 the reversible case, corresponding to maximize efficiency,
cases will be respectively shown by following the method presented
will be recovered, leading to the Carnot efficiency for all of the regimes.
in Section ‘‘The maximum power case’’.
But taking 𝑓 + 𝑔 → 0, is equivalent to maximizing 𝑃 , 𝐸 or 𝑃𝜂 with
respect to efficiency leading to the irreversible thermic efficiencies, The maximum power case
for instance, the Curzon–Ahlborn efficiency for the maximum power
case [1,4,5,13,29]. In the context of power generation from different According to the usual methodology, to obtain the expressions for
sources, the following ranges were established in [29]: for gas-fired 𝑆𝐵 , given in (13),
the optimal efficiencies sought, the derivative of 𝐹𝑀𝑃
power plants, the values of 𝑓 are in the interval of 0.35 to 0.45, 𝑆𝐵 ∕𝜕𝜂 =
with respect to 𝜂 must be taken and equaled to zero, that is, 𝜕𝐹𝑀𝑃
and the values of 𝑔 vary between 0.05 and 0.15; for coal-fired power 0. A polynomial will be obtained from there depending on 𝛽, 𝛾 and 𝜏,
plants, the parameter 𝑓 is restricted to the range of 0.25 to 0.35, and once (18) is used, it yields to
while 𝑔 ranges between 0.15 and 0.25; as for nuclear power plants, ( )
the parameter 𝑓 is limited to the interval of 0.15 to 0.25, and 𝑔 is 𝜏 4 (1 − 𝑔 − 𝜂(4𝑓 + 3𝑔 − 3)) − (1 − 𝑔)(1 − 𝜂)5 = 0. (20)
between 0.25 and 0.35. In addition, when analyzing scenarios related to Since (20) is a polynomial of degree 5, finding analytical expressions
carbon and gas emissions, it is common to consider the parameter 𝜏 to for physical 𝜂 is complicated, and numerical methods are commonly
be within the range of 0.3 to 0.45. In contrast, 𝜏 is usually restricted to used [9,12,13]. However, due to the functionality of the 𝐹𝑀𝑃 𝑆𝐵 -functions,
a narrower range of 0.48 to 0.52 in nuclear power scenarios. Whereas, a semi-analytical analysis can be performed to find analytical approx-
for renewables, 𝑓 is considered very close to zero; thus, 𝑔 moves from 0 imations for 𝜂𝑀𝑃𝑆𝐵 . Figs. 2 (a) and 2 (b) show the curves of 𝐹 𝑆𝐵 as a
𝑀𝑃
to 0.5, and values of 𝜏 are usually considered greater than 0.6. [32]. It is function of 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.5, taken 𝑔 = 0 and different values of 𝑓 , and 𝑓 = 0
possible to write 𝛽 and 𝛾 as a function of 𝑓 and 𝑔 using the expressions 𝑆𝐵
for different values of 𝑔, respectively. The 𝜂𝑀𝑃 values sought are those
given in (17), as follows [29] values where 𝐹𝑀𝑃 𝑆𝐵 reaches its maxima, which generally will depend
( ) on both 𝑓 , 𝑔, and 𝜏. It can be seen in Fig. 2 (a) that the 𝜂𝑀𝑃 𝑆𝐵 values
(1 − 𝜂)4 1 − 𝜏 4 𝑓
𝛽= ( ), for the different values of 𝑓 will approximately fall in a neighborhood
(1 − 𝑓 − 𝑔) 𝜂 4 − 4𝜂 3 + 6𝜂 2 − 4𝜂 − 𝜏 4 + 1 centered on a point called the expansion point 𝑘. The same is true
( ) (18)
(1 − 𝜂)4 1 − 𝜏 4 𝑔 in Fig. 2(b) for different 𝑔 values. Notably, for the case 𝜏 = 0.5, the
𝛾= ( ).
𝜂(1 − 𝑓 − 𝑔) 𝜂 4 − 4𝜂 3 + 6𝜂 2 − 4𝜂 − 𝜏 4 + 1 expansion point 𝑘 can be considered close to 0.34, for both cases, 𝑓 = 0

3
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 2. 𝐹𝑀𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.5, (a) 𝑔 = 0 and different values for 𝑓 ; (b) 𝑓 = 0 and different values for 𝑔. The dotted line indicates the location of the 𝑘 expansion point. The
𝑆𝐵
orange curve of (a) is the graph of a Taylor approximation function of 𝐹𝑀𝑃 given in (19) for 𝑓 = 0.3, 𝑔 = 0 and 𝜏 = 0.5 around 𝑘𝑀𝑃 (0.5) up to the second order, over the vicinity
[𝑘𝑀𝑃 (0.5) − 0.05, 𝑘𝑀𝑃 (0.5) + 0.05]]. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 3. 𝐹𝑀𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.3, (a) 𝑔 = 0 and different values for 𝑓 ; (b) 𝑓 = 0 and different values for 𝑔. The dotted line indicates the location of the 𝑘 expansion point.

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 4. 𝐹𝑀𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.7, (a) 𝑔 = 0 and different values for 𝑓 ; (b) 𝑓 = 0 and different values for 𝑔. The dotted line indicates the location of the 𝑘 expansion point.

and 𝑔 = 0. Figs. 3 and 4 show the same behavior but for 𝜏 = 0.3 and a polynomial of degree 2, and from its physical solution for the case
𝜏 = 0.7, where the expansion points can be taken to be around 0.54 and 𝑔 = 0, it yields to
0.18, respectively. In fact, it is proposed that the following expression √
𝑆𝐵 ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) − ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 )2 − 4ℎ1 (𝑘)ℎ2 (𝑘, 𝜏)
determines the expansion points for 𝜏 within [0.3, 0.7]: 𝜂𝑀𝑃 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) = , (22)
2ℎ1 (𝑘)
𝑘𝑀𝑃 (𝜏) = 0.950803−1.58003𝜏 +1.08944𝜏 2 −0.693995𝜏 3 +0.238488𝜏 4 . (21) with

Although the proposal given in (21) was based on an analysis for the ℎ1 (𝑘) = 10(1 − 𝑘)3 ,
cases 𝑔 = 0 and 𝑓 ≠ 0, 𝑓 = 0 and 𝑔 ≠ 0, Fig. 5 shows that this same ℎ2 (𝑘, 𝜏) = 𝑘3 (3(5 − 2𝑘)𝑘 − 10) − 𝜏 4 + 1, (23)
expression will work for cases where 𝑓 and 𝑔 are not held constant. ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) = (3 − 4𝑓 )𝜏 4 + 5(1 − 𝑘)3 (3𝑘 + 1),
Because even if 𝑓 and 𝑔 vary, the values of 𝜂𝑀𝑃 𝑆𝐵 remain on the same
and 𝑘 = 𝑘𝑀𝑃 (𝜏) given in (21). While for the case 𝑓 = 0, the following
line. From Figs. 2,3, 4, and 5, it can be observed that the maxima of the
𝑆𝐵 defined on the neighborhoods centered on the expansion is obtained
functions 𝐹𝑀𝑃 √
points coincide with the maxima of 𝐹𝑀𝑃 𝑆𝐵 defined on the whole domain.
𝑆𝐵 ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 0) − ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 0)2 − 4ℎ1 (𝑘)ℎ2 (𝑘, 𝜏)
𝜂𝑀𝑃 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = . (24)
According to what was done in [12,14], the idea is to make a series 2ℎ1 (𝑘)
expansion around the expansion points of the polynomial given in (20). Interestingly, the above expression does not depend on the value of
First, it will be considered the cases 𝑔 = 0 with 𝑓 ∈ [0, 0.5] and 𝑓 = 0 𝑔, which has already been reported in [5,29]. Fig. 6 shows the curves
with 𝑔 ∈ [0, 0.5], and to obtain manipulable expressions, the expansion (solid curves) for the optimum efficiencies for the cases considered,
will be up to the second order. Thus the polynomial (20) will become where they are compared with the numerical solutions (dashed curves).

4
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 5. 𝐹𝑀𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.3, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5]. See Appendix A for the illustrative examples for the cases 𝜏 = 0.5 and 𝜏 = 0.7.

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 6. 𝜂𝑀𝑃 versus (a) 𝑓 with 𝑔 = 0; (b) 𝑔 with 𝑓 = 0. The solid lines correspond to the semi-analytical (SA) approximations given in (22) for 𝑔 = 0, and (24) for 𝑓 = 0. The solid
curves are the numerical solutions (N).

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 7. 𝜂𝑀𝑃 versus (a) 𝑓 with 𝑔 = 0; (b) 𝑔 with 𝑓 = 0. The solid lines correspond to the first-order semi-analytical approximation given in (25). The solid curves correspond to
the second-order semi-analytical approximation given in (22) and (24).

It is demonstrated that both (22) and (24) are good approximations.
Since, for instance, the difference on average between the numerical
and semi-analytic approach is around 1.5 × 10−5 for the 𝑔 = 0 case, and
for the 𝑓 = 0 case the difference is approximately 4×10−5 . Based on the
numerical values, these differences generally correspond to less than
0.0047% (𝑔 = 0) and 0.013% (𝑓 = 0) of these values. To further strengthen
the validation of the semi-analytical results, it is essential to have a
parameter that indicates how far they deviate from the actual values.
A Taylor series expansion of the polynomial (20) was performed when
𝑔 = 0 to derive the expression stated in (22), taking as expansion points
those indicated in (21) as a function of the value of 𝜏. Although it would
be logical to perform a residual analysis based on such a polynomial,
this implies a complexity requiring further investigation. Nevertheless,
it is possible to change the approach and indirectly evaluate the error
between the semi-analytical and analytical values using the curves
generated by the profit functions. Fig. 2(a), corresponding to the case
𝑓 = 0.3, presents an orange curve representing the Taylor series plot
of Eq. (19) calculated around 𝑘𝑀𝑃 (0.5) up to second order, in the
vicinity [𝑘𝑀𝑃 (0.5) − 0.05, 𝑘𝑀𝑃 (0.5) + 0.05]. Following the indications
of [33], it is possible to calculate the absolute value of the remainder,
which in this specific case turns out to be less than 0.00375. This means
that the discrepancy between the values of the approximate curve and
the actual curve of the profit function does not exceed this number.
Therefore, at least in this neighborhood, the approximation is satisfac-
tory, and the semi-analytical expressions proposed in this paper follow
a similar methodology. It is important to note that this same analysis
should be carried out for all other cases with a mathematically rigorous
approach, which requires a detailed analysis that will be addressed
in subsequent studies. It is complex to work with the approximations
(22) and (24), so it makes sense to analyze the cases up to first order
and thus obtain more malleable expressions. Moreover, the 𝑓 and 𝑔
parameters can be easily considered simultaneously in the first order.
This is of major interest since, according to De Vos’s classification,
actual power plants can be characterized by varying 𝑓 and 𝑔 [1,29],
and the limit cases 𝑓 = 0 and 𝑔 = 0 work as a reference to validate

5
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado
𝑆𝐵
Fig. 8. (a) 𝜂𝑀𝑃 versus 𝑓 and 𝑔 for different values of 𝜏; (b) 𝜂𝑀𝑃 versus 𝑓 for different values of 𝜏 with 𝑔 = 0 and 𝑔 = 0.4.
the analytical approximations. Hence, in this case, (20) will turn into
a polynomial of one degree, and it is obtained that
( )
(𝑔 − 1) (𝑘 − 1)4 (4𝑘 + 1) − 𝜏 4
𝑆𝐵
𝜂𝑀𝑃 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 , 𝑔) = . (25)
𝜏 4 (4𝑓 + 3𝑔 − 3) + 5(𝑔 − 1)(𝑘 − 1)4
Fig. 7 shows how the first-order expressions fit very well with the
second-order results, at least for 𝑓 and 𝑔 within the interval [0, 0.4]. The
average difference between the second-order and first-order values for
the 𝑔 = 0 is about 3.4 × 10−4 , representing approximately, in overall,
0.15% of the second-order efficiencies values within the appropriate
domain. For the 𝑓 = 0 case, the mean difference is approximately
1.2 × 10−3 , corresponding in average to the 0.4% of the second-order
efficiencies values within the interval [0, 0.4]. Based on our previous
results, the approximation (25) gives good results, at least for 𝑓 and 𝑔
within [0, 0.4], and Fig. 8 shows the behavior of 𝜂𝑀𝑃𝑆𝐵 as a function of
both 𝑓 and 𝑔 for different values of 𝜏. As expected, the system becomes
more efficient as the cost associated with operation and maintenance
increases. In the next section, the ecological case will be analyzed.
The ecological case
Following the same methodology of Section ‘‘The maximum power
case’’, the polynomial associated with the ecological case, coming from
𝜕𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 ∕𝜕𝜂 = 0, is given by
( )
2𝜂 𝜏 4 (𝑓 (2 − 4𝜂) + 3𝜂 − 1) − 2(𝑓 − 1)𝜏 5 + (𝜂 − 1)5
( )
− 𝑔(2𝜂 + 𝜏 − 1) (3𝜂 + 1)𝜏 4 + (𝜂 − 1)5 = 0. (26)
Since (26) is a higher degree polynomial, one can naturally approach
the problem as in the case of maximum power. Fig. 9 shows the behav-
ior of 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 as a function of 𝜂 for the cases 𝑔 = 0 with 𝑓 ≠ 0 and 𝑓 = 0
with 𝑔 ≠ 0 for 𝜏 = 0.5. Although only the case for 𝜏 = 0.5 is shown, this
same behavior is found within the whole interval [0.3, 0.7]. With this
example, it is exhibited that, again, the values of 𝜂 that maximize 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵
fall within a neighborhood centered on the corresponding expansion
points. Accordingly, the problem can be conducted by taking only these
neighborhoods as the domain of 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 . In general, when doing data
analysis, it is proposed that the expansion points of the ecological case
be determined by
𝑘𝐸 (𝜏) = 0.956645 − 1.36177𝜏 + 0.834738𝜏 2 − 0.648046𝜏 3 + 0.222629𝜏 4 . (27)
Eq. (27) also determines the expansion points for the more general case
where both 𝑓 and 𝑔 vary, and this can be seen in Fig. 10, where it is
shown that the critical point 𝜂 stays within the same line even if both
𝑓 and 𝑔 run within the interval [0, 0.5].
Proceeding as in Section ‘‘The maximum power case’’, for the cases
𝑔 = 0 with 𝑓 ≠ 0 and 𝑓 = 0 with 𝑔 ≠ 0, the series expansion up to
6
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059
𝑆𝐵
second order lead to the following
𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) =
√ ( )
ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) − ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 )2 − 4ℎ1 (𝑘) ℎ2 (𝑘, 𝜏) + 2𝑓 𝜏 5 − 2𝑓 𝜏 4 − 2𝜏 5 + 2𝜏 4
,
2ℎ1 (𝑘)
√
𝑝2 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) − 𝑝2 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔)2 − 4𝑝1 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔)𝑝3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔)
𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = ,
2𝑝1 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔)
(28)
such that ℎ1 (𝑘), ℎ2 (𝑘, 𝜏), and ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) are given in (23), with 𝑘 = 𝑘𝐸 (𝜏)
and
𝑝1 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = 10 𝑔(𝑘 − 1)3 𝜏 + 10(𝑘 − 1)3 (3(𝑔 − 1)𝑘 − 2𝑔 + 1) + 6(𝑔 − 1)𝜏 4 ,
( )
𝑝2 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = (𝑘 − 1)3 48(𝑔 − 1)𝑘2 + 3(2 − 7 𝑔)𝑘 − 7𝑔 + 2
+ 5 𝑔(𝑘 − 1)3 (3𝑘 + 1)𝜏 + (4 − 3 𝑔)𝜏 5 + (𝑔 − 2)𝜏 4 ,
(
𝑝3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = 𝑔 20𝑘6 + 6𝑘5 (𝜏 − 11) − 15𝑘4 (𝜏 − 5)
)
+ 10𝑘3 (𝜏 − 3) + (𝜏 − 1)𝜏 4 − 𝜏 + 1 − 20(𝑘 − 1)3 𝑘3 .
(29)
Contrary to what was obtained for the maximal power case, a de-
pendence on 𝑔 is obtained for 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) [5,29]. As illustrated in
Fig. 11, by comparing the results from (28) with the numerical data,
it is found that the approximations fit very well. This is strengthened
by the fact that the average differences between the numerical and
semi-analytical results are around 5.19 × 10−6 for the case 𝑔 = 0 and
1.28 × 10−6 for the case 𝑓 = 0. This generally represents 0.0013% and
0.00034%, respectively, taking the numerically calculated values as
a reference. However, the second-order expressions of the ecological
case are even more complicated than those of the maximum power
case. It makes even more sense to find the first-order expressions to
obtain simpler approximations to manipulate. Again, it can be included
𝑓 and 𝑔 simultaneously and arrive at (See Box I.) Fig. 12 compares
the first-order approximations with the second-order ones, and again
the fit is reasonable, at least within the interval [0, 0.4] for 𝑓 and 𝑔.
The mean discrepancy between second-order and first-order values for
𝑔 = 0 is roughly 6.8 × 10−5 , which accounts for approximately 0.018%
of the second-order efficiency values across the relevant domain. In the
case of 𝑓 = 0, the average difference is about 8.9 × 10−5 , equivalent
to an average of 0.024% of the second-order efficiency values within
the interval [0, 0.4]. Accordingly, in Fig. 13(a), the 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 surfaces as a
function of 𝑓 and 𝑔 are shown. While Fig. 13(b) illustrates the impact of
the parameter 𝑔 on 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 . Finally, in Section ‘‘Conclusion’’, the efficient
power regime will be discussed.
The efficient power case
Following the previous sections, Fig. 14 shows the equivalent graphs
to those shown in Figs. 2–4 and Fig. 9, but for the efficient power
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

Fig. 9. 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.5, (a) 𝑔 = 0 and different values for 𝑓 ; (b) 𝑓 = 0 and different values for 𝑔. The dotted line indicates the location of the 𝑘 expansion point.

Fig. 10. 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.5, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5]. See Appendix B for the illustrative examples for the cases 𝜏 = 0.3 and 𝜏 = 0.7.

Fig. 11. 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus (a) 𝑓 with 𝑔 = 0; (b) 𝑔 with 𝑓 = 0. The solid lines correspond to the semi-analytical (SA) approximations given in (28). The solid curves are the numerical
solutions (N).

( ) ( )
𝜏 4 2𝑘2 (4𝑓 + 3𝑔 − 3) + 𝑔 + (𝑘 − 1)4 10(𝑔 − 1)𝑘2 − 4 𝑔𝑘 − 𝑔 + 𝑔(𝑘 − 1)4 (4𝑘 + 1)𝜏 − 𝑔𝜏 5
𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 , 𝑔) = .
𝜏 4 (4𝑘(4𝑓 + 3𝑔 − 3) − 4𝑓 − 𝑔 + 2) + 𝜏 5 (4𝑓 + 3𝑔 − 4) + 5 𝑔(𝑘 − 1)4 𝜏 + (𝑘 − 1)4 (12(𝑔 − 1)𝑘 − 7𝑔 + 2) (30)

Box I.

regime. While Fig. 15 illustrates the analogous to Figs. 5 and 10. Due to Taking the expansion up to the second order, for 𝑔 = 0 and 𝑓 ≠ 0, it
the similar behavior as in the previous cases, the following is proposed yields to
for the expansion points
𝑆𝐵
𝑘𝐸𝑃 (𝜏) = 0.958171−1.39848𝜏 +0.825383𝜏 2 −0.581584𝜏 3 +0.200368𝜏 4 . (31) 𝜂𝐸𝑃 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) =
√
( )2
Taking 𝜕𝐹𝐸𝑃 𝑆𝐵 ∕𝜕𝜂 = 0, and using (18), the following polynomial is ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) + 2𝑓 𝜏 4 − 2𝜏 4 − ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) + 2𝑓 𝜏 4 − 2𝜏 4 − 4ℎ1 (𝑘)ℎ2 (𝑘, 𝜏)
,
obtained 2ℎ1 (𝑘)
( ) (33)
𝜏 4 (𝜂(4𝑓 + 3𝑔 − 2) + 𝑔 − 2) + (𝑔 − 2)(𝜂 − 1)5 = 0. (32)

7
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

Fig. 12. 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus (a) 𝑓 with 𝑔 = 0; (b) 𝑔 with 𝑓 = 0. The solid lines correspond to the first-order semi-analytical approximation given in (30). The solid curves correspond to
the second-order semi-analytical approximation given in (28).

Fig. 13. (a) 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus 𝑓 and 𝑔 for different values of 𝜏; (b) 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus 𝑓 for different values of 𝜏 with 𝑔 = 0 and 𝑔 = 0.4.

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 14. 𝐹𝐸𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.7, (a) 𝑔 = 0 and different values for 𝑓 ; (b) 𝑓 = 0 and different values for 𝑔. The dotted line indicates the location of the 𝑘 expansion point.

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 15. 𝐹𝐸𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.7, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5]. See Appendix C for the illustrative examples for the cases 𝜏 = 0.3 and 𝜏 = 0.5.

8
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 16. 𝜂𝐸𝑃 versus (a) 𝑓 with 𝑔 = 0; (b) 𝑔 with 𝑓 = 0. The solid lines correspond to the semi-analytical (SA) approximations given in (33) for 𝑔 = 0, and (34) for 𝑓 = 0. The
solid curves are the numerical solutions (N).

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 17. 𝜂𝐸𝑃 versus (a) 𝑓 with 𝑔 = 0; (b) 𝑔 with 𝑓 = 0. The solid lines correspond to the first-order semi-analytical approximation given in (36). The solid curves correspond to
the second-order semi-analytical approximation given in (33) and (34).

𝑆𝐵 𝑆𝐵
Fig. 18. (a) 𝜂𝐸𝑃 versus 𝑓 and 𝑔 for different values of 𝜏; (b) 𝜂𝐸𝑃 versus 𝑓 for different values of 𝜏 with 𝑔 = 0 and 𝑔 = 0.4.

so that ℎ1 (𝑘), ℎ2 (𝑘, 𝜏) and ℎ3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 ) are given in (23), and 𝑘 = 𝑘𝐸𝑃 (𝜏). 𝑡3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = 5(2 − 𝑔)(1 − 𝑘)3 (3𝑘 + 1) + (2 − 3 𝑔)𝜏 4 .
On the other hand, for 𝑓 = 0 and 𝑔 ≠ 0, it is obtained 𝑆𝐵 as a function of 𝑓 for 𝑔 = 0 and as a function of 𝑔
√ The behavior of 𝜂𝐸𝑃
𝑆𝐵 𝑡3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) − 𝑡3 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔)2 − 4𝑡1 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔)𝑡2 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) for 𝑓 = 0 is illustrated in Fig. 16. The numerical results are compared
𝜂𝐸𝑃 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = , (34)
2𝑡1 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) with those from the analytical approximations given in (33) and (34)
such that as appropriate. Again, it is shown that the semi-analytic expressions
are a good approach since the mean difference between the analytical
𝑡1 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = 10(2 − 𝑔)(1 − 𝑘)3 ,
approximations and the numerical for 𝑔 = 0 is about 1.06 × 10−5
( ( ) )
𝑡2 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑔) = (2 − 𝑔) (1 − 𝑘)3 6𝑘2 + 3𝑘 + 1 − 𝜏 4 , (35) corresponding to 0.0029% of the numerical results, in overall. And

9
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

the previously described semi-analytical method could be applied to get

analytical approximations. This way, different heat transfer laws could
be included and even extend the results for the different regimes to
obtain analytical approximations.

Conclusions

This study focused on a thermoeconomic analysis of the Novikov

model with a Stefan–Boltzmann heat transfer law. Previously studied
results were extended, and analytical approximations were found for
the optimum efficiencies under three different operating regimes. These
approximations resulted in a good fit when compared with numerical
results. The method used had already been implemented in analyses
Fig. 19. 𝜂 𝑆𝐵 versus 𝑓 and 𝑔 for 𝜏 = 0.5 for each of the regimes. similar to the one presented, and accordingly, a natural extension
would be to include the modified ecological function. The specific
epsilon parameter for the SB heat law needs to be found, and the
same semi-analytical method can be applied. The analytical expressions
derived in this study can provide valuable insights into the optimal
for the 𝑓 = 0, the numbers are around 7.69 × 10−6 and 0.0021%
design and operation of power plants and economic considerations.
as appropriate. To include both 𝑓 and 𝑔 simultaneously and to have
simpler expressions, the first order case is considered, from which it is Future research could investigate the applicability of this method to
obtained the following expression other thermodynamic models and heat transfer laws.
( )
𝑆𝐵
(2 − 𝑔) (1 − 𝑘)4 (4𝑘 + 1) − 𝜏 4
𝜂𝐸𝑃 (𝑘, 𝜏, 𝑓 , 𝑔) = . (36)
𝜏 4 (2 − 4𝑓 − 3 𝑔) + 5(2 − 𝑔)(1 − 𝑘)4 CRediT authorship contribution statement
In Fig. 17, the first-order results are compared with the second-order
ones, and congruently with the other regimes, the first-order approx- A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado: Conceptualization, Methodology,
imation is adequate, at least in the interval [0, 0.4] for 𝑓 and 𝑔. The Writing – original draft, Investigation.
average differences between the second-order and first-order approxi-
mations for the case 𝑔 = 0 are approximately 2.7 × 10−4 , representing
0.075% of the overall second-order values. As for the case 𝑓 = 0, the Declaration of competing interest
corresponding values are 4 × 10−4 and 0.1%. Finally, Fig. 18 shows
the behavior of 𝜂𝐸𝑃𝑆𝐵 as a function of parameters 𝑓 and 𝑔. It follows
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
that the more invested in the operation and maintenance of the energy
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
converter, the more efficient it will be. As already noted in [5,29], and
influence the work reported in this paper.
as often happens, the ecological regime is the most efficient, while the
maximum power regime is the least efficient, and the efficient power
operation mode is always in the middle of these two, that is Data availability
𝑆𝐵 𝑆𝐵
𝜂𝑀𝑃 < 𝜂𝐸𝑃 < 𝜂𝐸𝑆𝐵 . (37)

The latter is presented in Fig. 19, where the 𝜂 𝑆𝐵 surfaces are shown for Data will be made available on request.
the three regimes as a function of 𝑓 and 𝑔 for 𝜏 = 0.5.
Recently, in [34], a Stochastic Novikov engine was used as a proto-
Acknowledgments
type of a solar power plant. Equations were derived for the performance
measures of the maximum expected work output and the correspond-
ing efficiency for arbitrary hot heat bath temperature fluctuations. A A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado acknowledges División de Matemáti-
stochastic solar irradiance model obtained a distribution function of cas e Ingeniería of the Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán of the
these fluctuations. The distribution function described the behavior Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and SNII-Conahcyt.
of the temperature fluctuations caused by varying solar irradiation.
By analyzing the system as a control problem, they characterized the
quantities of interest based on the different control types. The results Appendix A. Extension of Fig. 5 for the cases 𝝉 = 𝟎.𝟓 and 𝝉 = 𝟎.𝟕.
obtained were compared with values from real solar power plants, and
the reported efficiencies in this work described in the previous sections
See Figs. 20 and 21.
are congruent with comparable outcomes. That is, the efficiencies
documented in [34] in general terms vary from 0.25 to 0.4. Looking at
the representations in Figs. 6, 11, and 16, specifically for the scenario Appendix B. Extension of Fig. 10 for the cases 𝝉 = 𝟎.𝟑 and 𝝉 = 𝟎.𝟕.
where 𝑓 is equal to 0 and for 𝜏 values greater than 0.6, which represent
solar power converters [32], it is evident that the efficiencies in the
three regimes are approximately between 0.18 and 0.33. These values See Figs. 22 and 23.
are even closer to some of the actual values of the devices reported
in [34], which, on average, show an efficiency of about 0.16. However,
Appendix C. Extension of Fig. 15 for the cases 𝝉 = 𝟎.𝟑 and 𝝉 = 𝟎.𝟓.
it is essential to note that this study is a theoretical approach exploring
limiting cases, although the treatment in [34] is undoubtedly much
more refined. However, all the results were numerically computed, and See Figs. 24 and 25.

10
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 20. 𝐹𝑀𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.5, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5].

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 21. 𝐹𝑀𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.7, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5].

Fig. 22. 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.3, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5].

11
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059

Fig. 23. 𝐹𝐸𝑆𝐵 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.7, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5].

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 24. 𝐹𝐸𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.3, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5].

𝑆𝐵
Fig. 25. 𝐹𝐸𝑃 versus 𝜂 for 𝜏 = 0.5, (a) and versus 𝑔, for different values of 𝑓 ; (b) and versus 𝑓 , for different values of 𝑔. The dotted lines indicate the location of the 𝑘 expansion
points as 𝑔 or 𝑓 varies along the interval [0, 0.5].

References [9] Barranco-Jiménez MA. Finite-time thermoeconomic optimization of a non-

[1] De Vos A. Endoreversible thermoeconomics. Energy Convers Magnag 1995;36:1–
5.
[2] Novikov II. The efficiency of atomic power stations (a review). At Energ
1957;3:409; English translation, J Nucl Energy 1958;7.
[3] Chambadal P. Les Centrales NuclÉares. Paris: A. Colín; 1957.
[4] Curzon FL, Ahlborn B. Efficiency of a Carnot engine at maximum power output.
Amer J Phys 1975;43:22–4.
[5] Pacheco-Paez JC, Angulo-Brown F, Barranco-Jiménez MA. Thermoeconomic
optimization of an irreversible Novikov plant model under different regimes of
performance. Entropy 2017;19:118.
[6] Angulo-Brown F. An ecological optimization criterion for finite-time heat engines.
J Appl Phys 1991;69:465–7469.
[7] Stucki J. The thermodynamic-buffer enzymes. Eur J Biochem 1980;109:257–67.
[8] Yilmaz T. A new performance criterion for heat engines: efficient power. J Inst
Energy 2006;79:38–41.
endoreversible heat engine. Rev Mexicana Fís 2009;55:211–20.
[10] Barranco-Jiménez MA, Sánchez-Salas N, Angulo-Brow F. Finite-time ther-
moeconomic optimization of a solar-driven heat engine mode. Entropy
2011;13:171–83.
[11] Ramírez-Moreno MA, González-Hernández S, Angulo-Brown F. The role of the
Stefan–Boltzmann law in the thermodynamic optimization of an n-müser engine.
Physica A 2016;444:914–21.
[12] Ares de Parga-Regalado AM, Ramírez-Moreno MA. On the analysis of an
ecological regime for energy converters. Physica A 2022;605:128049.
[13] Ares de Parga-Regalado AM, Valencia-Ortega G, Barranco-Jiménez MA. Thermo-
economic optimization of irreversible Novikov power plant models including a
proposal of dissipation cost. Physica A 2023;613:128535.
[14] Ares de Parga-Regalado AM, Ramírez-Moreno MA, Angulo-Brown F. A com-
parative thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analysis between two ecological
regimes for the Novikov energy converter. Physica A 2023;615:128611.

12
A.M. Ares de Parga-Regalado
[15] Sahin B, Ust Y, Yilmaz T, Akcay IH. Thermoeconomic analysis of a solar driven
heat engine. Renew Energy 2006;31:1033–42.
[16] Yilmaz T, Ust Y, Erdil A. Optimum operating conditions of irreversible solar
driven heat engines. Renew Energy 2006;31:1333–42.
[17] Ahmadi MH, Dehghani S, Mohammadi AH, Feidt M, Barranco-Jimenez MA. Opti-
mal design of a solar driven heat engine based on thermal and thermo-economic
criteria. Energy Convers Manag 2013;75:635–42.
[18] Ahmadi MH, Mehrpooy M. Thermo-economic modeling and optimization of an
irreversible solar-driven heat engine. Energy Convers Manag 2015;103:616–22.
[19] Deffner S. Efficiency of harmonic quantum otto engines at maximal power.
Entropy 2018;20:875.
[20] Filgueiras C. Quantum heat machines enabled by the electronic effective mass.
Results Phys 2019;15:102556.
[21] Myers NM, Abah O, Deffner S. Quantum thermodynamic devices: From
theoretical proposals to experimental reality. AVS Quantum Sci 2022;4:027101.
[22] Chen L, Meng Z, Ge Y, Wu F. Performance analysis and optimization for
irreversible combined carnot heat engine working with ideal quantum gases.
Entropy 2021;23:536.
[23] Ferketic EE, Deffner S. Boosting thermodynamic performance by bending
space–time. Europhys Lett 2023;141:19001.
[24] Barranco-Jiménez MA, Angulo-Brown F. Thermoeconomic optimization of
Novikov plant model under maximum ecological conditions. J Energy Inst
2007;80:96–104.
[25] Barranco-Jiménez MA, Angulo-Brown F. Thermoeconomic optimization of an
endoreversible heat engine under a maximum modified ecological criterion. J
Energy Inst 2007;80:232–8.
13
Results in Physics 54 (2023) 107059
[26] Ocampo-García A, Barranco-Jiménez MA, Angulo-Brown F. Thermodynamic
and themoeconomic optimization of isothermal endoreversible chemical engine
models. Physica A 2017;488:149–61.
[27] Ocampo-García A, Barranco-Jiménez MA, Angulo-Brown F. Thermodynamic and
thermoeconomic optimization of coupled thermal and chemical engines by means
of an equivalent array of uncoupled endoreversible engines. Eur Phys J Plus
2018;133:342.
[28] Levario-Medina S, Valencia-Ortega G, Arias-Hernandez LA. Thermal optimization
of curzon-ahlborn heat engines operating under some generalized efficient power
regimes. Eur Phys J Plus 2019;134:348.
[29] Valencia-Ortega G, Ares de Parga-Regalado AM, Barranco-Jiménez MA. On
thermo-economic optimization effects in the balance price-demand of generation
electricity for nuclear and fossil fuels power plants. Energy Syst 2022;1868–3975.
[30] Vargas-Almeida A, Olivares-Robles MA. Geometric conditions for minimizing
entropy production in thermocouple design. Results Phys 2022;41:105893.
[31] Frim AG, DeWeese MR. Geometric bound on the efficiency of irreversible
thermodynamic cycles. Phys Rev Lett 2022;128:230601.
[32] Barranco-Jiménez MA, Ramos-Gayosso I, Rosales MA, Angulo-Brown F. A pro-
posal of ecologic taxes based on thermo-economic performance of heat engine
models. Energies 2009;2:1042–56.
[33] Brauer F. A simplification of Taylor’s theorem. Amer Math Monthly
1987;94:453–5.
[34] Schwalbe K, Hoffmann KH. Stochastic Novikov engine with time dependent
temperature fluctuations. Appl Therm Eng 2018;142:483–8.