100
6 Applications
ET
PP
OS
RF
VA
RP
NR
WUS
VD
VU
Food
Energy
river
Fig. 6.3 Typical schematic for water–energy–food (WEF) nexus (Haie (Sefficiency (Sustainable
efficiency) of Water-Energy-Food Entangled Systems 2016) by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd,
http://www.tandfonline.com)
is transpiration, which makes (crop) ET a direct and proper proxy for representing
food. It should be noted that like everything else ET has limits (FIW4c) and depends
on water as well as other factors, but from the point of view of Sefficiency, ET is one
of the WPTs of the WUS under analysis.
However, energy and more precisely energy costs influence the beneficial Pillar
of a WUS. This cost has more than one dimension, however from the point of view of
a farmer/producer, such costs reduce the profits. For example, as a producer pumps
more water to produce more crop, the net profit changes, which has non-linear effects
on the performance of the system. To quantify it, we should convert energy cost to
some form of energy factor (varying between 0 and 1), which negatively influences
the beneficial weights of the relevant WPIs. To find those factors various methods
can be employed, the simplest being ENN = (EN − EN min )/(EN max − EN min ), with
EN X being a (stepwise) energy cost as a function of a WPI, and ENN X a normalized
energy function between 0 and 1 as given in Eq. (6.1).
E N X = f (X )
E N N X = f (E N X ), 0 ≤ E N N X ≤ 1
(6.1)
For this example, considering W bET 1 and W bET 2 as the weights without and with
energy, respectively, we get W bET 2 = (1 − ENN VA ) ∗ W bET 1. Furthermore, we chose
linear functions for both EN and ENN as follows: EN = 4.41 VA − 352.9 and ENN
= 0.0013 EN with more details at Haie (2016) or its preprint at my Google site (Haie,
2020). Table 6.9 gives the input data and Table 6.10 the 3ME values for this example.
Table 6.10 reveals that among the four significant Sefficiencies iMacroSE came
out to be acceptable. However, cMacroSE and cMesoSE as well as iMesoSE should
be the focus of improvement, which need various changes to the WEF systems. One
thing worth noticing is that the energy cost is steep, which makes much impact on
6 Applications
ET
PP
OS
RF
VA
RP
NR
WUS
VD
VU
Food
Energy
river
Fig. 6.3 Typical schematic for water–energy–food (WEF) nexus (Haie (Sefficiency (Sustainable
efficiency) of Water-Energy-Food Entangled Systems 2016) by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd,
http://www.tandfonline.com)
is transpiration, which makes (crop) ET a direct and proper proxy for representing
food. It should be noted that like everything else ET has limits (FIW4c) and depends
on water as well as other factors, but from the point of view of Sefficiency, ET is one
of the WPTs of the WUS under analysis.
However, energy and more precisely energy costs influence the beneficial Pillar
of a WUS. This cost has more than one dimension, however from the point of view of
a farmer/producer, such costs reduce the profits. For example, as a producer pumps
more water to produce more crop, the net profit changes, which has non-linear effects
on the performance of the system. To quantify it, we should convert energy cost to
some form of energy factor (varying between 0 and 1), which negatively influences
the beneficial weights of the relevant WPIs. To find those factors various methods
can be employed, the simplest being ENN = (EN − EN min )/(EN max − EN min ), with
EN X being a (stepwise) energy cost as a function of a WPI, and ENN X a normalized
energy function between 0 and 1 as given in Eq. (6.1).
E N X = f (X )
E N N X = f (E N X ), 0 ≤ E N N X ≤ 1
(6.1)
For this example, considering W bET 1 and W bET 2 as the weights without and with
energy, respectively, we get W bET 2 = (1 − ENN VA ) ∗ W bET 1. Furthermore, we chose
linear functions for both EN and ENN as follows: EN = 4.41 VA − 352.9 and ENN
= 0.0013 EN with more details at Haie (2016) or its preprint at my Google site (Haie,
2020). Table 6.9 gives the input data and Table 6.10 the 3ME values for this example.
Table 6.10 reveals that among the four significant Sefficiencies iMacroSE came
out to be acceptable. However, cMacroSE and cMesoSE as well as iMesoSE should
be the focus of improvement, which need various changes to the WEF systems. One
thing worth noticing is that the energy cost is steep, which makes much impact on