Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387

www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Algorithm for break even availability allocation in process

system modification using deterministic valuation model
incorporating reliability
P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith *
Division of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), Cochin 682 022, Kerala, India

Received 30 September 2006; received in revised form 21 May 2007; accepted 6 January 2008
Available online 12 February 2008

Abstract

In the present scenario of energy demand overtaking energy supply, top priority is given for energy conservation programs and pol-
icies. As a result, most existing systems are redesigned or modified with a view for improving energy efficiency. Often these modifications
can have an impact on process system configuration, thereby affecting process system reliability. The paper presents a model for valu-
ation of process systems incorporating reliability that can be used to determine the change in process system value resulting from system
modification. The model also determines the break even system availability and presents an algorithm for allocation of component reli-
abilities of the modified system based on the break even system availability. The developed equations are applied to a steam power plant
to study the effect of various operating parameters on system value.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Availability; Break even availability; Reliability; Reliability allocation; System value

1. Introduction time under the specified operating conditions [3–5]. Reli-

ability of an individual component in terms of failure rate
In recent years, the reliabilities of power plants have can be expressed as
become increasingly important issues in most developed Rt
 ZðtÞdt
and developing countries. Plant availability is a critical dri- RðtÞ ¼ e 0 ð1Þ
ver for the economic performance of a plant [1]. With more
For a component with a constant failure rate, Eq. (1) re-
and more emphasis given for energy conservation pro-
duces to
grams and policies, most existing systems are being
modified or redesigned with an objective of improving RðtÞ ¼ ekt ð2Þ
energy efficiency [2]. While designing the systems, often
the focus is on immediate demands of the equipment, The constant failure rate model is widely used in the liter-
and the broader issue of how the system parameters affect ature to reduce the computational burden of the resulting
the equipment is overlooked. It is important to recognize problem [1] because the parameter MTBF, which is the
that process efficiency and reliability are equally important. average time between failures, obtained from Eq. (3) be-
Reliability can be defined as the probability that an item comes time independent in this case.
can perform a required function for a specified period of Z 1 Z 1
1
MTBF ¼ RðtÞdt ¼ ekt dt ¼ ð3Þ
0 0 k
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +91 484 2607676. Similarly, MTTR, which is the average time taken to repair
E-mail address: pssreejith@cusat.ac.in (P.S. Sreejith). a failed component, can be expressed as

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.01.001
 P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387
Nomenclature
ABEP break even availability of modified process sys-
tem
Ai steady state availability
AS process system availability
b pay back period
C cost of process system components and equip-
ments
Cm cost of additional equipments towards modifica-
tion
E expected yearly savings due to modification
g expected percentage growth of operating and
maintenance cost per year
H system operating hours in year
i interest rate
m mass flow rate of steam
M maintenance cost for first year
1 ano and Valero [12] and Tsatsaronis and Winhold [13].
MTTR ¼ ð4Þ
l This was further extended to include environmental impli-
Availability can be defined as the probability that an item
will be available when required, or as the proportion of
total time the item will be available for use [4]. The propor-
tion of total time that the item is available is the steady
state availability. Availability is determined by the reliabil-
ity and maintainability of an item. For a simple unit with a
constant failure rate and a constant mean repair rate, the
steady state availability can be expressed as
l MTBF
Ai ¼ ¼ ð5Þ
k þ l MTBF þ MTTR
Typical approaches to achieve high system reliability are:
(1) increasing the reliability of system components and
(2) using redundant components in various subsystems in
the system [6–8]. The modification of an existing system
with a view to improve energy efficiency should consider
these factors. The change in system configuration resulting
from system modification can adversely affect the system
reliability.
Any new proposal for improving the energy efficiency of
the process or equipments should prove itself to be eco-
nomically feasible for gaining acceptance for implementa-
tion. In order to determine the economic feasibility of the
new proposal, the general trend is to compare the benefits
that can be derived over the lifetime as well as the operating
and maintenance costs with the investment to be made.
Several methods have been suggested to perform analyses
of energy conversion systems and supply information from
different view points. In the area of energy investigations,
especially worth mentioning are the life cycle assessment
(LCA) method presented by Valero [9], its exergetic version
ExLCA proposed by Cornelissen et al. [10] and the thermo-
economic theory presented by Lazzaretto et al. [11], Loz-
1381
MTBF mean time between failure
MTTR mean time to repair
n expected life of process system in years
O operating cost for first year
P/A present value given annual rate
R hourly production rate
RBD reliability block diagram
R(t) reliability expressed as function of time
U unit price of process output
V process system value
VC change in process system value
Z(t) failure rate expressed as function of time
Dh change in enthalpy of steam between inlet and
outlet of turbine
k constant failure rate
l constant mean repair rate
cations by Badino and Baldo [14]. Cumulative exergy cost
accounting (CExC) was proposed by Szargut [15], extended
exergy accounting (EEA) by Sciubba [16], environomic the-
ory by Von Spakovsky and Frangopoulos [17] and emergy
accounting by Odum [18].
Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
have used life cycle costing in the United States Depart-
ment of Energy’s rulemaking for residential central air con-
ditioners [19]. The life cycle cost consists of two main
components: (1) the first cost of buying and installing
equipment and (2) the operating costs summed over the
lifetime of the equipment, discounted to the present.
Plifetime
n¼1 operating cost
Life – cycle cost ¼ installation cost þ
ð1 þ iÞn
ð6Þ
Recently, the United States Department of Energy initiated
a rulemaking process to consider whether to amend the
existing energy efficiency standards for residential furnaces
and boilers. The approach involves comparing the total life
cycle cost (LCC) of owning and operating a more efficient
appliance with the LCC for a baseline design. Lutz et al.
[20] presented the method used to conduct the LCC analy-
sis and also presented the estimated change in LCC associ-
ated with more energy efficient equipment. The LCC
calculated in this analysis expresses the costs of installing
and operating a furnace or boiler for its lifetime starting
in the year 2012 – the year a new standard may take effect.
The analysis also calculated the payback period for energy
efficiency design options. The pay back period represents
the number of years of operation required to pay for the
increased efficiency features. It is the change in purchase
1382 P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387
expense due to an increased efficiency standard divided by
the change in annual operating cost that results from the
increased efficiency. The payback period equation is ex-
pressed as
Equipment costoption  Equipment costbase
Paybackoption ¼
Operation costbase  Operation costoption
ð7Þ
where base is the base case design and option is the design
option being considered.
Lekov et al. [21] also presented payback period calcula-
tions for furnaces and boilers based on the United States
Department of Energy test procedure. The test procedure
uses specific, prescribed values to calculate annual energy
consumption. At the time the test procedure was written,
these values were considered to be relatively typical of con-
ditions in US homes.
It is evident from the above discussions that the system
valuation and pay back analysis hardly take the reliability
and availability aspects into consideration. That is, it hap-
pens that, while determining the economic feasibility of the
new option, reliability aspects (or loss due to unavailabil-
ity) are not taken into consideration. The objective of this
paper is to present a system valuation model by incorporat-
ing reliability.
2. Model development
In this section, the development of a system valuation
model by taking into consideration system availability in
addition to the other cost elements, like investment cost
and maintenance as well as operating cost, is described.
The model is based on the following assumptions:
(1) Process components are assumed to have a constant
failure rate as well as a constant repair rate.
(2) Availability under consideration is steady state
availability.
(3) Interest rate is constant throughout.
(4) Depreciation of the plant is not considered.
AS R H U
V =?
1 2 n-1 n
0 for a given pay back period. The modified system availabil-
Year
Operating & Maintenance Cost
Fig. 1. Cash flow model for system valuation.
The value of the system is determined by considering the
present worth of expected future cash flows. The cash flow
model developed for system valuation is shown in Fig. 1.
With reference to the cash flow model, the system value
can be expressed as
 
1  ð1 þ gÞn ð1  iÞn
V ¼ AS RHU ðP =A; i; nÞ  C  ðM þ OÞ
ig
ð8Þ
The valuation Eq. (8) can be used only for cases where
i 6¼ g, and when i = g, the equation will get modified as
nðM þ OÞ
V ¼ AS RHU ðP =A; i; nÞ  C  ð9Þ
1þi
If operation and maintenance cost are assumed to remain
constant, the equation for process value will get simplified as
V ¼ AS RHU ðP =A; i; nÞ  C  ðM þ OÞðP =A; i; nÞ ð10Þ
The quantity (P/A, i, n) in Eq. (10) is the uniform series
present worth factor [22] and can be obtained as
n
ð1 þ iÞ  1
ðP =A; i; nÞ ¼ n ð11Þ
ið1 þ iÞ
Whenever a process system is to be modified for energy
savings, it is important to know the expected change in sys-
tem value. In this case, the investment for modification and
the expected annual savings due to modification, as well as
the change in system availability, have to be taken into
consideration. Change in process availability results from
change in system configuration. The change in process
value can be expressed as
V C ¼ ½ðAm  AS ÞRHU þ EðP =A; i; nÞ  C m ð12Þ
The equation for change in process value can be used to
study the impact of system modification on system value
and a positive value for VC is desirable. The equation can
also be used to study the effect of variation of operating
parameters on the system value.
3. Break even availability of the modified system
A positive value for VC implies that the cost of modifi-
cation can be recovered, and the equation can be used to
determine the pay back period. On the other hand, a neg-
ative value for VC implies that the modification will only
result in decreasing the earnings of the system with the pas-
sage of time. In this case, the equation can be used to cal-
culate the break even availability of the modified system,
ity should be greater than this break even availability for
VC to be positive. The break even availability is the value
of Am corresponding to VC = 0, at a given payback peri-
od.The break even availability of the modified system for
a given pay back period can be expressed as
h i
Cm
ðP =A;i;bÞ
E
ABEP ¼ þ AS ð13Þ
RHU
 P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387
4. Reliability allocation in system modification
The system valuation model can be used to develop an
algorithm for allocation of component reliabilities of the
modified system based on the break even system availabil-
ity. Reliability engineers are often called upon to make
decisions as to whether to improve a certain component
or components in order to achieve the minimum required
system reliability. It happens that even by raising the indi-
vidual component reliability to a hypothetical value of 1,
the overall system reliability goal will not be met by
improving the reliability of just one component. This
requires that the reliability goal be apportioned among
the system components, and an algorithm is developed
for this purpose.
The inputs to the algorithm include the process system
reliability block diagram (RBD) as well as the failure and
repair rate of the process components before and after
modification. The failure and repair rates of the compo-
nents can be obtained from the MTBF and MTTR, respec-
tively. For a given process, a RBD can be derived that
would reflect the consequence of equipment failure(s) in
the process system and, therefore, can be used to derive
the analytic expression for system reliability and availabil-
ity. Different equipments present in the process system are
represented as series and parallel configurations in the
RBD. It should be noted that the connectivity between
equipments in the RBD is based on logic and may be quite
different from the actual physical configuration of the sys-
tem. This is explained with the help of a simple illustrative
example shown in Fig. 2.
A fluid pump supplies liquid under high pressure to a
vessel. It is essential that the liquid be permitted to flow
only in one direction, i.e. from the pump to the high pres-
sure vessel. Otherwise, if the pump fails, there will be the
danger of liquid flowing back to the pump. This can be pre-
vented by providing a non-return valve in the pipe system.
To assure greater reliability, two non-return valves are used
in series between the pump and the high pressure vessel, as
shown in Fig. 2a. It can be seen from Fig. 2a that the sys-
tem will fail only if both non-return valves do not function.
Alternatively, for successful working of the system, it is suf-
Non-return valves
High
Pressure
vessel
1 2
Pump
(a) Actual configuration
Fig. 2. Illustrative example (a) actual configuration (b) reliability block diagram.
1383
ficient that any one of the two non-return valves operates
successfully. Thus, the appropriate RBD for the system will
be as shown in Fig. 2b.
The process by which the failure allowance for a system
is allocated in some logical manner among its sub-systems
and elements is termed reliability allocation [5]. The pur-
pose of reliability allocation is to establish a goal or objec-
tive for the reliability of each component. The principal
adopted for apportioning the system allowance is that the
failure allowance of each component is directly propor-
tional to the predicted probability of failure.
The 10 step algorithm developed for reliability alloca-
tion of the modified system based on break even availabil-
ity is listed below:
(1) Draw the RBD for the process system before and
after modification. Equipments or components with
short service periods and those that can be repaired
without affecting the process system are omitted from
the RBD.
(2) Calculate the process system reliability and availabil-
ity based on the known values of failure rate and
repair rate of the components before and after
modification.
(3) Calculate the break even availability of the modified
system using the equation for break even availability.
(4) Compare the modified process system availability
with the break even system availability. If the modi-
fied system availability is less than the break even sys-
tem availability, the component reliabilities have to
be apportioned in some equitable manner.
(5) Increment the system reliability in steps and after
each increment obtained the reliability allocation of
the individual components.
(6) Obtain the respective failure rate of the components
corresponding to the incremented component
reliabilities.
(7) Based on the failure rate corresponding to the incre-
mented component reliabilities and under the
assumption that the constant component repair rate
does not vary after modification, calculate the com-
ponent availabilities.
Valve 1
Pump High
Pressure
vessel
Valve 2
(b)Reliability block diagram
1384 P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387

(8) Based on the component availabilities obtained in Table 1

step 7 and based on the modified RBD, obtain the Power plant component details
process system availability. Sl. No. Component MTBF (h) Availability
(9) Continue the iteration till the process system avail- 1 Fuel supply pump 2000 0.9940357
ability obtained in step 8 becomes equal to the break 2 Boiler 1440 0.9756097
even system availability. 3 Condensate return pump 1 3500 0.9965831
4 Condensate return pump 2 3500 0.9965831
(10) The component reliabilities corresponding to the 5 Condenser 2500 0.9952229
break even system availability is the required reliabil- 6 Turbine 7000 0.9948834
ity allocation. 7 Generator 5000 0.9952229
8 Piping 7500 0.9984025
9 Draft fan 6000 0.9980039
5. Results and discussion
that the pay back period will only be a few months. How-
We can demonstrate the implementation of this tech-
ever, a more realistic approach will be to take reliability
nique with a simple example. The power requirement of a
aspects also into consideration, and the developed valua-
company is met by a captive power plant operating on a
tion model can be used to check the economic feasibility
Rankine cycle with the following parameters:
of this modification. The valuation equation, in this case,
has to be modified and can be expressed as
Pressure limits: 0.08 bar and 20 bar
Maximum temperature: 360 °C V ¼ AS Dh:mHU ðP =A; i; nÞ  C  ðM þ OÞðP =A; i; nÞ ð14Þ
Steam flow rate 2 kg/s and the change in process system value becomes
The RBD of the power plant is shown in Fig. 3 and the V C ¼ ½ðAm  AS ÞDh:mHU þ EðP =A; i; nÞ  C m ð15Þ
failure and availability data of the components as obtained The equation for the break even availability of the modified
from the plant are presented in Table 1. Different equip- steam system can be expressed as
ments present in the system are represented as series and h i
Cm
parallel configurations in the RBD. It should be noted that ðP =A;i;bÞ
E
the connectivity between equipments in the RBD is based ABEP ¼ þ AS ð16Þ
Dh:mHU
on logic and differs from the actual physical configuration.
To achieve greater reliability for condensate pumping, two The variations of the change in process value with respect
8 kW pumps are connected in parallel and are running at to steam flow rate, market price of the power generated,
half loads. The pumping system will fail only if both pumps interest rate and system life are shown in Figs. 4–7.
fail simultaneously. Fig. 4 shows that with the increase of steam flow rate,
As a part of an energy conservation program, the com- the change in process system value becomes negative. For
pany decided to replace these two parallel pumps by a sin- VC to be positive, the steam flow rate should be very much
gle 10 kW pump that runs at nearly full load. The MTBF less than the design flow rate of 2 kg/s. Fig. 5 indicates that
of the replaced pump is 3750 h and is superior to that of the increase in the selling power price of power is inversely
the earlier used pumps. The modification resulted in an proportional to the change in process value. Fig. 6 shows a
expenditure of $600, and the projected energy saving was very high rate of return is required to make the value of VC
of the order of 2500 $/year. A simple tradeoff between favourable. Fig. 7 indicates that under the existing
the cost of modification and the projected savings will show
8

6
Fuel Supply Boiler Condenser
Pump
Change in process value

4
(Thousands of dollars)

2
Condensate 0
Ret. Pump 1
-2
Turbine
-4
Condensate Ret. -6
Pump 2
-8

-10
1 1.5 2 2.5
Generator Piping Draft Fan
Steam flow rate (kg./sec)

Fig. 4. Variation of change in process value with steam flow rate.

Fig. 3. RBD for the steam power plant. (H = 8000 h; i = 12%; N = 20 years; U = 0.07 $/kW h).
 P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387 1385

8 the modified system availability should not be less than

6
0.22% of the existing system availability. However, with
the modification, the change in availability is less by
Change in process value
(Thousands of dollars)

4
0.28%. The break even availability is determined by consid-
2 ering a pay back period of 3 years. That is, if the modified
0
system availability is corresponding to the break even sys-
tem availability, the change in process system value will be
-2 positive for all values of n > b. The improvement in avail-
-4 ability of the process system can be achieved either by
-6
changing the process system configuration further or by
decreasing the failure rates of the system components.
-8 However, for small improvements, the latter method of
0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Market price of the power generated ($/kWhr.)
increasing the MTBF of system components is more pref-
erable. Fig. 8 indicates how the variation of process system
Fig. 5. Variation of change in process value with power price availability from the break even value affects the process
(H = 8000 h; i = 12%; m = 2 kg/s; N = 20 years).
system value.
In order to attain the break even availability for the
0 modified system, the MTBF of the condensate pumping
has to be improved by around 25%. This value is deter-
Change in process value

-1
mined by considering that the MTTR of the pumping sys-
(Thousands of dollars)

-2
tem before and after modification remains the same. This
requires an improvement in pumping reliability of the mod-
-3 ified system corresponding to the MTBF by about 20%.
However, rather than significantly improving the reliability
-4
of a single component, in this instance the condensate
-5 pump, what is more preferable is to improve the reliability
of all the components in some equitable manner. The reli-
-6
6 8 10 12 15 ability improvements needed will be very small, and the
Interest rate (%) algorithm for allocation of break even availability can be
used. Starting from the existing system reliability of the
Fig. 6. Variation of change in process value with interest rate
(H = 8000 h; m = 2 kg/s; N = 20 years; U = 0.07 $/kW h). modified system, the reliability goal is increased in steps,
and this reliability goal is apportioned to the system com-
ponents. Based on these new component failure rates and
2 under the assumption that the MTTR of the components
Before allocation
1 After allocation does not vary, the component availabilities and thereby
Change in process value
(Thousands of dollars)

the system availability is obtained. The procedure is per-

0 formed until the system availability is matched with the cal-
culated value of the break even system availability. The
-1
improvements in component reliabilities required to attain
-2
80
-3
60
Change in process value

-4
(Thousands of dollars)

0 1 3 5 10 15 20 40
Valuation period ( Years)
20
Fig. 7. Change in process value before and after reliability allocation 0
(H = 8000 h; i = 12%; m = 2 kg/s; U = 0.07 $/kW h).
-20

-40
conditions, the earnings of the company will only get de-
creased with the years of operation, when compared to -60

the state before modification. The change in process value -80

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
works out to be negative because the change in the modi-
fied system availability is more than the allowable varia- % Variation of system availability from the
tion. The allowable variation corresponds to the break breakeven availability

even system availability of the modified system, and for Fig. 8. Effect of variation of the process system availability from the break
the change in process value to be positive, the change in even level (H = 8000 h m = 2 kg/s; N = 20 years; U = 0.07 $/kW h).
1386 P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387
Table 2
Reliability goals to achieve break even availability
Serial no. Component
1 Fuel supply pump
2 Boiler
3 Condensate return pump
4 Condenser
5 Turbine
6 Generator
7 Piping
8 Draft fan
8000
7000 Before allocation
6000 After allocation
MTBF (hours)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Component Number
Fig. 9. Component MTBF before and after allocation.
the break even system availability is presented in Table 2.
The reliability values are evaluated at the time equal to
the MTBF of the condensate return pump. It can be seen
that the percentage improvement in condensate pumping
reliability is only 1.25% as opposed to 20% before alloca-
tion. The variation of the change in process value with
respect to system life after reliability allocation can be seen
in Fig. 7. It can be seen that, corresponding to the break
even point, the change in process value is zero. Below this
point, VC will be negative, and above this point, it will be
positive. The relative improvement in MTBF required for
the modified system components to achieve the break even
system availability is presented in Fig. 9. The relative
improvements required are very minute and can be
achieved by proper planning of preventive maintenance
procedures. The methods and techniques of maintenance
need not be changed as the improvement needed in the
MTBF of the components is very small. However, the fre-
quency of checkups can be increased slightly, and as the
preventive maintenance is performed by the in house team
itself, the increase in preventive maintenance cost will be
negligible.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, a model for process system valuation
incorporating reliability was presented. The developed
model was used to determine the change in process value
of the modified system and was also used to study the effect
Improvement in of variations of operating parameters on the process system
reliability required (%) value. The model was also used to determine the break
2.35 even availability of the modified system. An algorithm
3.28 for reliability allocation in system modification was devel-
1.25
1.88
oped and was applied to a power plant. A measure of the
0.63 component reliability improvements required to achieve
0.94 the break even system availability was obtained using this
0.63 algorithm. The impact of the variation of process system
0.78 availability from the break even level on the system value
is also studied. The studies indicate that the change in sys-
tem configuration resulting from system modification plays
a vital role in deciding the process value.
References
[1] Goel HD, Grievink J, Hetrder P, Weijnen MC. Integrating reliability
optimization into chemical process. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2002;78:
247–58.
[2] Shouri PV, Sreejith PS. Importance of pumping reliability in system
valuation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on emerg-
ing challenges in fluid power technology, Chennai, India; 2005. p.
265–74.
[3] Patrick DTO. Practical reliability engineering. 4th ed. England: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2002.
7 8 [4] Charles EE. Reliability and maintainability engineering. 1st ed. New
Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd; 2000.
[5] Srinath LS. Reliability engineering. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Affiliated East
West Press; 1991.
[6] You PS, Chen TC. An efficient heuristic for series-parallel redundant
reliability problems. Comput Oper Res 2005;32:2117–27.
[7] Kuo W, Prasad VR. An annotated overview of system-reliability
optimization. IEEE Trans Reliab 2000;49(2):176–87.
[8] Hsieh YC, Chen TC, Bricker DL. Genetic algorithm for reliability
design problems. Microelectron Reliab 1998;38:1599–605.
[9] Valero A. Thermoeconomics as a conceptual basis for energy-
ecological analysis. In: Proceedings of the international conference
on advances in energy studies. Porto Venere, Italy; 1988. p. 415–
44.
[10] Cornelissen RL, Marquart EN, Hirs GG. The value of the exergetic
life cycle assessment besides the LCA. In: International proceedings
of ECOS ’99, Tokyo, Japan; 1999. p. 282–6.
[11] Lazzaretto A, Macor A, Mirandola A, Stoppato A. Potentialities and
limits of exergoeconomics methods in the design, analysis and
diagnosis of energy conversion plants. In: Proceedings of the
international conference on advances in energy studies. Porto Venere,
Italy; 1988. p. 515–30.
[12] Lozano MA, Valero A. Theory of the exergetic cost. Energy
1993;18(9):939–60.
[13] Tsatsaronis G, Winhold M. Exergoeconomic analysis and evaluation
of energy conversion plants; part I: a new general methodology; part
II: analysis of a coal-fired steam power plant. Energy 1985;10(1):
81–94.
[14] Badino V, Baldo GL. LCA, instructions for use. Bologna: Progetto
Leonardo Edition (in Italian); 1998.
[15] Szargut J. Depletion of unrestorable natural exergy resources as a
measure of the ecological cost. In: International proceedings of
ECOS ’99, Tokyo, Japan. p. 42–5.
[16] Sciubba E. Exergy as a direct measure of environmental impact. In:
Proceedings of international mechanical engineering conference and
exposition – ASME Winter Annual Meeting Nashville, USA; 1999.
p. 231–8.
[17] Von Spakovsky MR, Frangopoulos CA. A global environomic
approach for energy systems analysis and optimization; part I and
 P.V. Shouri, P.S. Sreejith / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1380–1387
part II. In: Proceedings of the international conference on energy
systems and ecology, ASME, vol. 1. Cracow, Poland; 1993. p.
123–44.
[18] Odum HT. Environmental accounting, emergy and decision mak-
ing. New York: Wiley; 1995.
[19] Rosenquist G, Chan P, Lekov A, McMahon J, Van BR. Consumer
life-cycle cost impacts of energy-efficiency standards for residential-
type central air conditioners and heat pumps. ASHRAE Trans
2002;108(Part 1):619–30.
1387
[20] Lutz James, Lekov A, Chan P, Whitehead CD, Meyers S, McMahon
J. Life-cycle cost analysis of energy efficiency design options for
residential furnaces and boilers. Energy 2006;31:311–29.
[21] Lekov A, Stevens G, Lutz J, Meyers S. Cost and energy consumption
of energy efficiency design options for residential furnaces and boilers,
Report No. LBNL-52762. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, 2003.
[22] James LR, David DB, Sabah UR. Engineering economics. 4th
ed. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc; 1996.