Tools for Measuring Energy Sustainability: A Comparative Review

Abstract

This paper is intended to perform a comparative and qualitative review among eight tools to measure energy sustainability. Therefore, it was necessary to create a theoretical and conceptual framework based on four criterias of selection and six categories of comparison. In this work, the conceptual bases that supported the research and the methodology created to carry out the comparative review will be presented. This analysis was based on the intrinsic concepts of energy sustainability of each of the reviewed tools with a critical qualitative analysis. Some conclusions shown through the conceptual framework developed that it was possible to apply an innovative methodology to qualitatively compare different tools to measure sustainability. The importance of this reflects the difficulty of conceptualizing the subjectivity of sustainable development, as shown throughout the paper, where it is often not possible to obtain a measurable result since the measured phenomenon is too complex to reduce it to a numerical value.

Energy use categorization with performance indicators for the food industry and a conceptual energy planning framework

“…In previous studies, some authors have highlighted the importance of energy auditing in energy planning (eg: study by Micieta et al [38]), while some authors address the importance of EnPIs in energy planning to evaluate the performance of significant energy users (eg: study by Muniz et al [56]), and some authors highlight the importance of identifying the advanced technology (eg: study by Micieta [38]). Another highly relevant study by Prashar [39] adopts the PDCA cycle in energy management.…”

Framework for Assessing Urban Energy Sustainability

“…Poverty alleviation Households with access to electricity and other fuels [73,74] Satisfaction of inhabitants with the power plant [73] Health and well-being Accident fatalities per energy produced by fuel chain [75,76] Employment Investment in clean energy, as a proxy for job creation [77] Economic Energy prices End-use energy prices by fuel and by sector [75] Macroeconomic impacts Per capita GDP (Gross domestic product) [76,78] Industrial production Resources-to-production ratio [75] Reserves-to-production ratio [75] Public budgets Burden of energy investments on the public sector [77] Disposable income Share of household income spent on fuel and electricity [75] Environmental Energy savings Energy self-sufficiency [79] GHG emissions Sum of released CO 2 equivalents due to energy use [75] Greenhouse gasses from transport [80,81] GHG emissions from energy production [75,82] Local air pollution Ambient concentrations of air pollutants in urban areas [75] Air-pollutant emissions from energy systems [75] Resource management Contaminant discharges in liquid effluents from energy systems [75,82] Ratio of solid-waste generation to units of energy produced [75,82] Share of renewable in total energy production [74,79]…”

Experimental Comparison of Preferential vs. Common Delta Connections for the Star-Delta Starting of Induction Motors

“…Thus, since this part of the switching current does not depend on the form of delta connection, for the same load condition of a given motor, the reason for the common connection to give a total switching current with a higher amplitude relies on the residual magnetic field of the magnetic circuit of the motor. Specific projects are needed to improve the efficiency of electrical machines [22][23][24], and thus meet the development of the industrial sector in a sustainable manner [25].…”