The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1379–1390 | Cite as

Improved exergetic life cycle assessment through matrix reduction technique

  • Stuart Sweeney Smith
  • Adelaide Calbry-Muzyka
  • Adam R. Brandt



The concept of exergy can be used in LCA to quantify the value of natural resources consumed in production processes, as well as to assess the environmental impacts of waste streams. Prior studies noted the complexity of exergy accounting for wastes due to the diversity and complexity of waste streams. We develop an improved method to allow for rigorous exergy accounting of both resources and wastes.


The exergy content of a mass stream depends on many physical characteristics, including temperature, pressure, and chemical composition. We develop a novel matrix reduction technique to reduce data gathering requirements by multiple orders of magnitude. This method predivides the impact matrix into key rows and processes and “rest of economy” flows. Thermodynamic data can then be gathered for key flows emitted by key processes, and all other flows can be modeled using default values with little loss of accuracy.

Results and discussion

Our method is applied to an example LCA of electricity production via a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) system. The case study finds that life cycle (economy-wide) exergetic efficiency of NGCC electricity production is ≈43 %, compared to a plant-level (local) exergetic efficiency of ≈54 %. The exergy content of life cycle waste flows is contained primarily in chemical exergy and physical exergy of flue gases, with nearly equal contributions. These waste exergy fluxes represent ≈3 % each of total input exergy.


The matrix reduction technique is found to be robust to assumptions about flows that are not directly modeled. By examining ranges of reasonable assumptions about mass flows not specifically modeled, we show that key rows and processes account for the vast majority of exergy content of interventions.


Exergy Life-cycle Natural gas Resource depletion Thermodynamics Wastes 



This project was funded by the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University. We thank collaborator Christopher Edwards for many helpful discussions.


  1. Alvarenga RA, Dewulf J et al (2013) Exergy-based accounting for land as a natural resource in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(18):939–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres RU, Ayres LW, Martinas K (1996) Eco-thermodynamics: exergy and life cycle analysis. INSEAD working paperGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres RU, Ayres LW, Martinas K (1998) Exergy, waste accounting, and life-cycle analysis. Energy 23:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black J et al 2013) Cost and performance baseline for fossil energy plants volume 1: bituminous coal and natural gas to electricity. Technical Report, 2013. National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosch ME, Hellweg S et al (2007) Applying cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt AR, Dale M (2011) A general mathematical framework for systems-scale efficiency of energy extraction and conversion: energy return on investment (EROI) and other energy return ratios. Energies 4:1211–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandt AR, Dale M, Barnhart CJ (2013) Calculating systems-scale energy efficiency and net energy returns: a bottom-up matrix-based approach. Energy 62:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornelissen RL, Hirs GG (1998) Exergy analysis of cryogenic air separation. Energ Convers Manag 39:1821–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornellisen R (1997) Thermodynamics and sustainable development: the use of exergy analysis and the reduction of irreversibility. Ph.D. thesis, Universitet Twente, Enschede, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. Crane P, Scott DS, Rosen MA (1992) Comparison of exergy of emissions from two energy conversion technologies, considering the potential for environmental impact. Int J Hydrogen Energy 17:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeMeester B, DeWulf J et al (2006) An improved calculation of the exergy of natural resources for exergetic life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 40:6844–6851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H (2002) Assessment of the sustainability of technology by means of a thermodynamically based life cycle analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 9:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H et al (2000) Illustrations towards quantifying the sustainability of technology. Green Chem 2:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H, Dirckx J (2002) Exergy analysis in the assessment of the sustainability of waste gas treatment systems. Sci Total Environ 273:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewulf J, Bosch ME et al (2007) Cumulative exergy extraction from the natural environment (CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource accounting. Environ Sci Technol 41:8477–8486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dincer I, Rosen MA (2012) Exergy: energy, environment and sustainable development, 2nd ed; Elsevier LtdGoogle Scholar
  17. Dukes JS (2003) Burning buried sunshine: human consumption of ancient solar energy. Clim Chang 61:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ecoinvent Centre (2013a) Introduction to ecoinvent version 3 for existing users.
  19. Ecoinvent Centre (2013b) Documentation of changes implemented in ecoinvent database 3.0Google Scholar
  20. Eliasson ET, Thorhallsson S et al (2011) Short course of geothermal drilling. Resource development and power plantsGoogle Scholar
  21. Finnveden G, Ostlund P (1997) Exergies of natural resources in life-cycle assessment and other applications. Energy 22:923–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. GISS (2014) GISS Surface temperature analysis, The elusive absolute surface air temperature. Page updated February 2014
  23. Gutowski TG, Branham MS (2009) Thermodynamic analysis of resources used in manufacturing process. Environ Sci Technol 43:1584–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  25. Hermann WA (2005) Quantifying global exergy resources. Energy 31:1685–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kameyama H, Yoshida K et al (1982) Evaluation of reference exergies for the elements. Appl Energy 11:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koroneos C, Stylos N (2014) Exergetic life cycle assessment of a grid-connected, polycrystaline silicon photovoltaic system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1716–1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madden M, Lewis A, Davis M (2013) Thermal effluent from the power sector: an analysis of once-through cooling system impact on surface water temperature. Environ Res Lett 8:035006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Majewski W (1979) Predicting effects of power plant once-through cooling on aquatic systems. UNESCO technical reportGoogle Scholar
  30. MathWorks (2012) MATLAB, the language of technical computingGoogle Scholar
  31. Patil SS, Verma HK, Kumar A (2010) Efficiency measurements of hydro machine by thermodynamic method. IGHEM-2010, Oct. 21–23, 2010, AHEC, IIT Roorkee, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Rant Z (1956) Exergy, a new word for “technical available work” (in German). Forsch Ing-WesGoogle Scholar
  33. Rivero R, Garfias M (2006) Standard chemical exergy of elements updated. Energy 31:3310–3326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rocco M, Colombo E, Sciubba E (2014) Advances in exergy analysis: a novel assessment of the extended exergy accounting method. Appl Energy 113:1405–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sciubba E (1999) Exergy as a direct measure of environmental impact. Proce ASME Adv Energy Syst Div:573–581Google Scholar
  36. Sciubba E (2001) Beyond thermodynamics? The concept of extended exergy accounting and its application to the analysis and design of thermal systems. Exergy Int J 1:68–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sciubba E (2003) Extended exergy accounting applied to energy recovery from waste: the concept of total recycling. Energy 28:1315–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seager TP, Theis TL (2002a) Exergetic pollution potential: estimating the revocability of chemical pollution. Exergy Int J 2:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seager TP, Theis TLA (2002b) Uniform definition and quantitative basis for industrial ecology. J Clean Prod 10:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simpson AP, Edwards CF (2011) An exergy-based framework for evaluating environmental impact. Energy 36:1442–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sweeney Smith S (2014) Exergetic life cycle assessment of carbon capture and sequestration technology. MS Thesis, Stanford University, Department of Energy Resources EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  42. Szargut J (1978) Minimization of the consumption of resources. Bull Pol Acad Sci-Tech 26:41–45Google Scholar
  43. Szargut J (1985) Application of exergy for the calculation of environmental cost. Bull Pol Acad Sci-Tech 34:475–480Google Scholar
  44. Szargut J (2005) Exergy method—technical and ecological applications. WIT PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Szargut J, Valero A et al (2005) Towards an international legal reference environment. Proceedings of 18th international conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systemsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Sweeney Smith
    • 1
  • Adelaide Calbry-Muzyka
    • 2
  • Adam R. Brandt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Energy Resources EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations