Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
(a) (b)
C1+C'2 C1+C2
C1+C2 C1+C'2
R
C1
Cost C
Cost C
C'2 C2
C2 C'2
T'' opt Topt
Topt T' opt
MC1
MC1
Marginal Cost MC
Marginal Cost MC
MC2' MC2
MC2 MC'2
Topt T' opt
(b)
Optimization
The optimization procedure described above
coincides with cost minimization by
considering only one independent variable
and a unique industrial process for producing
the adsorbent.
In practice, there are several independent
variables, possibly categorized/homogenized
or merged/integrated in groups, while the
adsorbate may change itself, especially in the
case it is a pollutant under diffusion/
dispersion in heterogeneous environment.
Optimization
Such an example is a complex contaminant (like
hydrocarbons coming from oil spill in seawater)
adsorption in aquatic environment, where the
adsorbate constituents change significantly in the
time course, due to
(i) weathering, which is a combination of natural
processes, like coagulation, sedimentation,
evaporation, chemical reaction, complexation,
dilution, flotation, photodegradation, and
(ii) diversification because of human intervention,
like the addition of either a dispersant/detergent
or/and nutrients/fertilizers to enhance the
microbial population growth for achieving higher
rate of bioremediation.
start 22 23
Methodology 1 16 C
no
C1
C2
Production temperature T
T'opt Topt
(b)
C1+C2
Shifting of Topt when
C1 (a) a fossil fuel is used
C'' 1+C2
as an energy source,
Cost, C
C'' 1
and (b) RES are used
C2
for producing the
Production temperature T
novel adsorbent.
Topt T'' opt
At any case, likewise the corresponding analysis presented in
the Introduction section, we can minimize Topt shifting (i.e.,
maximize stability) by subsidizing the R&D investment on
RES provided that refunding will take place enough after
surpassing the breakeven point when gains are expected to
increase significantly.
The expression we have developed for calculating the amount
M of refunding is the following:
t m 1
1 i
1
M
qIS
1 i m 1 j t m 1 j
tm 1 i
1
1 j
where I is the optimal subsidy expressed as a fraction of capital S invested
initially in the project, q is the refunding fraction of (IS), t is the
dimensionless number of time periods taken into account as the investment
useful life, m is the number of time periods elapsed from starting the project
up to the start of refunding, i is the common interest rate (used also for
determining equivalence of money over time), j is the return on refunding
used to estimate money value at the end of the m time periods.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have proved (through case
examples) the functionality of the methodology
presented herein for synthesis/selection of criteria to
be used in decision making on adsorbent selection.
The backbone of the proposed algorithmic
procedure is dynamic ontological mapping of
adsorbate and this is illustrated by estimating
normalized values for the adsorption rate constants
of the constituents of an oil spill in aquatic
environment.
Conclusion
It is indicated that independent control variables, like
temperature in the production of adsorbent from
waste, can be merged to form an integrated
criterion like energy cost and, vice versa, operating
cost can be decomposed to partial costs depended
on the different kinds of energy sources used.
The mixing of technical with economic criteria may
lead to stabilizing optimal values of the independent
variables, on condition that refund policy can apply
on a quantified basis, like the one presented herein.
This work is part of a research project co-
financed by the European Union (European
Social Fund - ESF) and Greek national
funds through the Operational Program
"Education and Lifelong Learning" of the
National Strategic Reference Framework
(NSRF) - Research Funding Program:
THALIS - UNIVERSITY OF PIRAEUS -
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MATERIAL
FROM WASTE BIOMASS FOR
HYDROCARBONS ADSORPTION IN
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS.
Thank you
for your attention