에너지공학 (Journal of Energy Engineering)

  • 제29권2호
  • /
  • Pages.40-60
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1598-7981(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-7074(eISSN)
한국에너지학회 (The Korean Society for Energy)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

열병합발전에서 비용배분 방법론의 합리성 검토

Rationality Review of Cost Allocation Methodology at CHP

  • 투고 : 2020.04.07
  • 심사 : 2020.05.15
  • 발행 : 2020.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

단일 에너지 시스템으로부터 다양한 종류의 제품이 생산될 때, 공통비를 각 제품으로 배분하는 방법론은 생산자와 구매자의 손익과 직접적으로 관련되기 때문에 매우 중요하다. 열병합발전에서 전기와 열의 비용배분 방법론에는 Heat 방법, Work 방법, Benefit distribution 방법, Exergy 방법 등이 있다. 전 세계적으로 Benefit distribution 방법이 가장 많이 알려져 있고, Exergy 방법은 열공학자들 사이에서 크게 인정받고 있다. 검토 결과 Benefit distribution 방법은 일반 상식과 어긋나는 결과가 도출되어 합리성이 낮고, Exergy 방법은 일반 상식과 일치하는 결과가 도출되어 합리성이 높다고 판단된다. 회계학에서는 메리트 방법론으로 계산하여 그 결과를 생산자와 구매자 간의 협상에 활용하고 있으나, 열공학에서는 엑서지 방법론의 합리성을 논문으로만 서술하고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 메리트 방법론과 엑서지 방법론의 합리성을 비교 검토하는 데 있으며, 생산자와 구매자가 각 방법론의 합리성을 이해할 수 있도록 세부적으로 서술하고자 한다.

When various kinds of products are produced from a single energy system, the methodology which allocates the common cost to each product cost is very important because it is directly related with the profit and loss of producer and purchaser. In the cost allocation methodology of electricity and heat for CHP, there are heat method, work method, benefit distribution method, exergy method, and so on. Benefit distribution method is the most widely known worldwide, and exergy method is widely recognized among thermal engineers. As a result of review, it is judged that the rationality of benefit distribution method is low because the result deviates from common sense, and the rationality of exergy method is high because the result consistent with common sense. In accounting, it is calculated as merit methodology and the result is used for negotiations between producer and buyer, but In thermal engineering, the rationality of exergy methodology is described only as a thesis. The purpose of this study is to compare and examine the rationality of merit methodology and exergy methodology, and the aim is to describe in detail in order that producer and buyer can understand the rationality of each methodology.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Carolyn, G., 2003, Regulation of heat and electricity produced in combined-heat-and-power plants, The world bank, pp. 29-36.
  2. Abusoglu, A., Kanoglu, M., 2009, Exergoeconomic analysis and optimization of combined heat and power production: a review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 2295-2308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.05.004
  3. Kim, D., 2010, A new thermoeconomic methodology for energy systems, Energy, Vol. 35, pp. 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.10.008
  4. Lozano, M. A., Valero, A., 1993, Theory of the exergetic cost, Energy, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp. 939-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(93)90006-Y
  5. Bejan, A., et al., 1996, Thermal design and optimization, Wiley, New York
  6. Lazzaretto, A., Tsatsaronis, G., 2006, SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems, Energy, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1257-1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.03.011
  7. Oh, S. D., et al., 1996, Exergy analysis for a gas turbine cogeneration system, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbine and Power, Vol. 118, pp. 781-791.
  8. Derya, H., Aysegul, A., 2018, A comparative thermoeconomic cost accounting analysis and evaluation of biogas engine-powered cogeneration, Energy, Vol. 159, pp. 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.102
  9. Derya, H., Aysegul, A., 2018, Application and comparison of exergetic cost theory and wonergy methods to a biogas engine powered cogeneration, 8th International Renewable Energy Conference, IRENEC 2018
  10. Kim, D., 2015, Suggestion of environmental thermoeconomics, Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Plant Engineering & Construction, Conference, pp. 95-98.
  11. Kim, D., 2014, A suggestion of thermoeconomic power efficiency and heat efficiency: CGAM analysis, The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineeers, Conference, pp. 2976-2981.
  12. Eurostat, 2017, Combined heat and power (CHP) generation, Directive 2012/27/Eu of the European Parliament and of the Council.
  13. Anke, E., et. al., 2016, Review of the default primary energy factor (PEF) reflecting the estimated average EU generation efficiency referred to in Annex IV of Directive 2012/27/EU and possible extension of the approach to other energy carriers.
  14. European Standard, EN 15316:2007, Heating systems in buildings - method for calculation of system energy requirements and system efficiencies. Brussels
  15. The Danish Energy Agency, The danish levelized cost of energy calculator.
  16. British Standards Institution, PAS 2050:2008, Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. London.
  17. World Energy Council (WEC), 2004, Comparison of energy system using life cycle assessment, A Special Report of the World Energy Council. London:
  18. John, A., 2013, Linking energy efficiency to economic productivity: recommendations for improving the robustness of the U.S. economy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
  19. Paul, B., et al., 2016, Think exergy not energy, Science Europe
  20. IAEA, 2017, Opportunities for cogeneration with nuclear energy, International Atomic Energy Agency
  21. The National Energy Report 2019, KAZENERGY Association, Republic of Kazakhstan.
  22. Romanov, M., 2017, The national power grid and the room for feed-in energy supply, Sustainable Energy in Kazakhstan.
  23. Dittmann, A., et al., Allocation of CO2-emissions to power and heat from CHP-plants, Technische Universitat Dresden.
  24. Kim, D., 2009, Suggestion of the worth evaluation of cool air and the allocation methodology of cooling cost, Korean Journal of The Society of Air-Conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of Korea, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 201-208.
  25. Kim, D., 2016, A suggestion of penalty cost appropriation methodology for performance acceptance test of CGAM cogeneration, Journal of the Korea Institute of Plant Engineering & Construction, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 36-40.
  26. Kim, D., 2015, Suggestion of thermal environmental pollution cost pricing methodology, Proceeding of The Society of Air-Conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of Korea, Conference, pp. 817-820.