Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2016
June 13 – 17, 2016, Seoul, South Korea

GT2016-57872

EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A COMBINED CYCLE OF THREE LEVELS OF

PRESSURE

Edgar Vicente Torres González Raúl Lugo-Leyte Martín Salazar-Pereyra

Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana - Universidad Autónoma Tecnológico de Estudios
Iztapalapa Metropolitana - Iztapalapa Superiores de Ecatepec
Iztapalapa, Distrito Federal, México Iztapalapa, Distrito Federal, México Ecatepec, Estado de México,
etorres@xanum.uam.mx México
Miguel Toledo Velázquez Helen Denise Lugo-Méndez Alejandro Torres Aldaco
ESIME-Zacatenco, IPN, SEPI Universidad Autónoma Universidad Autónoma
Gustavo A. Madero, Distrito Federal, Metropolitana - Iztapalapa Metropolitana - Iztapalapa
México Iztapalapa, Distrito Federal, Iztapalapa, Distrito Federal,
México México

ABSTRACT wants to grow its economy and improve living standards must
This paper presents an exergoeconomic analysis of the secure a robust energy supply. There are several reasons which
combined cycle power plant Tuxpan II located in Mexico. The probably explain the current preference for combined cycle
plant is composed of two identical modules conformed by two power plants rather than conventional plants: thermal
gas turbines generating the required work and releasing the efficiencies in excess of 50% are possible with current designs;
hot exhaust gases in two heat recovery steam generators. capital cost is relatively low; short construction times; plant is
These components generate steam at three different pressure available in a wide range of configurations and capacities; the
levels, used to produce additional work in one steam turbine. scheme is compatible with a range of configurations of fuels;
The productive structure of the considered system is used to and atmospheric emissions are relatively low (1, 2). An
visualize the cost formation process as well as the productive important component of the combined cycle is the heat
interaction between their components. The exergoeconomic recovery steam generator, which is the connection between the
analysis is pursued by 1) carrying out a systematic approach, Brayton and Rankine cycles.
based on the Fuel-Product methodology, in each component of In 2011, Mexico accounted for 18,050 MW of installed
the system; and 2) generating a set of equations, which allows electric generating capacity based on combined cycle,
compute the exergetic and exergoeconomic costs of each flow. representing 35% of the total electric generating capacity and
The thermal and exergetic efficiency of the two gas turbines 47.7% of the total electrical power generated in the country
delivering 278.4 MW are 35.16% and 41.90% respectively. (3).
The computed thermal efficiency of the steam cycle providing Recently exergy and exergoeconomic analysis have been
80.96 MW is 43.79%. The combined cycle power plant used in power plants. The exergy not only determine
generates 359.36 MW with a thermal and exergetic efficiency magnitudes, location and causes of irreversibilities (exergy
of 47.27% and 54.10% respectively. destruction and exergy losses) in the plants, but it also provides
INTRODUCTION more meaningful assessment of plant individual components
Energy is vital to modern economies (for industry, efficiency. Therefore, exergy can play an important issue in
transport, infrastructure, technological information, building developing strategies and in providing guidelines for more
heat and cooling, agriculture, household uses, among others) effective use of energy in the existing power plants (4, 5, 6, 7).
and its production, conversion and use closely affects the Exergoeconomics combines the exergy analysis with the
environment and sustainable development. Any nation that economic principles and incorporates the associated costs of

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

the thermodynamic inefficiencies in the total product cost of an mGT output of gas turbine,
energy system. Exergoconomics identifies the major exergy mST output of steam turbine,
losses and the costs that these represent. These costs may op óptimo (máximo),
conduct designers to understand the cost formation process in P pump,
an energy system. Furthermore, exergoeconomic analysis pp pinch point,
estimates the unit cost of products such as electricity and s steam,
quantifies monetary loss due to irreversibility (8, 9, 10). T turbine,
In this study, exergoeconomic analysis is performed for the th thermal.
359.36 MW combined cycle plant, shown in Figure 1. This Abbreviations
analysis is important because proper estimation of the C compressor,
production costs is essential for plants to operate profitably. cc combustion chamber,
CC combined cycle,
1

NOMENCLATURE COND condenser,

c unit exergoeconomic cost; [USD/GJ], EG electric generator,
CED cost of exergy destruction; [USD/h], g1,…, g4 state point of the gas turbine,
cP specific heat capacity at constant pressure; [kJ/kg K], g5,…, g15 state point of the heat recovery steam generator,
exergy flow; [kW], D drum,
E* exergetic cost; [kW], EC economizer,
resource exergy flow; [kW], EV evaporator,
h specific enthalpy; [kJ/kg], HP high pressure,
irreversibility; [kW], LP low pressure,
IP intermediate pressure; [bar], pump,
k* unit exergy cost; [-], H preheater,
LHV lower heat value; [kJ/kgf], SH superheater,
m mass fraction; [-], HRSG heat recovery steam generator,
mass flow rate; [kg/s], RH reheater,
P pressure; [bar], M stream mixer,
product exergy flow; [kW], ST steam turbine,
qH heat supplied per unit of mass; [kJ/kg], T turbine,
qL waste heat per unit of mass; [kJ/kg], v1,…, v18 state point of the steam cycle.
R gas constant; [ kJ/(kg K)],
far fuel/air ratio; [kgf / kgair], THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS
RH relative humidity; [%], The basic configuration of the combined cycle with a
s specific entropy; [kJ/(kg K)], three-pressures reheat in the heat recovery steam generators
T temperature; [°C or K], (HRSGs) is shown in Figure 1. Tuxpan II plant is a 359.36
w work per unit of mass; [kJ/kg], MW combined cycle plant installed in the Tuxpan area (about
power; [MW], 250 km north-east from Mexico City), State of Veracruz,
[X] molar composition of natural gas; [%]. Mexico. The plant is conformed by two Mitsubishi M501F3
Greek symbols gas turbines coupled to their respective HRSGs. The steam
 drop or increment, generated in both HRSGs is supplied to a steam turbine, and
exergy per unit mass; [kJ/kg], seawater is used as the cooling fluid in the condenser. The
plant is in operation since December 15, 2001 (11, 12).
 efficiency; [%],
 compression pressure ratio; [-], Gas turbine cycle
P exergoeconomic cost; [USD/h]. A gas turbine has an upstream rotating compressor
Subscripts coupled to a downstream turbine, and a combustion chamber
0 dead state, in between. The gas turbine has a compressor pressure ratio of
a ambient, 16 and a turbine inlet temperature of 1300°C. Some
af adiabatic flame, characteristic data of one gas turbine and environmental
air air, conditions are shown in Table 1 (11, 12). The gas turbine is
C compressor, fueled with natural gas. Table 2 shows the composition of
cg combustion gas, natural gas used (13) in this work. Based on this composition,
ex exergetic, its LHV is 49.494 MJ/kg and its adiabatic flame temperature is
f fuel, 2088.34 °C. For the exergetic analysis, the dead state is taken
F resource, for T0 = 25 °C and 0=1.013 bar.

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 g15 v9 In this analysis, mass and energy conservation laws are
LPEC v10 applied to each component. The following equations are used
g14 LPD
v11
HRSG 2
to carry out the thermodynamic performance of the gas
LPEV v11 v10c v1a’ turbine:
g13
HRSG 2
HPPH v15 HPP
v10b v4a’ - Heat supplied
v12
g12 HRSG 2
IPP v10a
cPcg 1
 
IPEC v13 v14 v9’
v5a’ qHGT  (1  far ) y -1-  xair - 1 (1)
C C
g11 HRSG 2
IPEV
IPD
v8
cPair
v13
g10
v14 v4 v5b
v5 - Thermal efficiency
IPSH v3a
v1
g9
cPcg  1  1
 
EGST
LPSH v5a (1  far ) y T 1  x   C xair  1
cPair   cg  
g8
v16 thGT   T  C
(2)
HPEC v18 HPT IPT
cPcg 1
 
LPT
g7
HPD (1  far ) y 1   xair  1
C C
v2
HPEV v17
v6 COND
v7
cPair
g6 v17
v3
M v2a - Air mass flow rate
IPRH v4a LPP
v2a’
g5
WmGT
m a  (3)
HPSH v18 v1a HRSG 2  cPcg  1  1 
cPair Tg 1 (1  far )

y T 1  x  
   C  1 
x


air

 cPair  T  C 
cg
f
g3
cc
g2
HRSG 1
where
EGGT
g4 T
TG1 C
Rair Rcg TIT
xair  , xcg  , and y  .
g1 cPair cPcg Tg1

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the combined cycle. - Fuel mass flow rate
WmGT far
Table 1. Gas turbine characteristics and environmental m f  (4)
 cPcg  1  1 
conditions. cPair Tg1 (1  far )
 cPair
y T 1  xcg  


C xair  1 

  T  C 
Parameter Value
.
W mGT , MW 139.2 - Combustion gases mass flow rate
TIT or Tg3, °C 1300
16 WmGT (1  far )
C m cg  (5)
C 0.88  cPcg  1  1 
T 0.9 cPair Tg1 (1  far )

y T 1  x
   
C xair  1 

cPair  T  C
cg

LHV, kJ/kgf 49,494  

Pcc, % 2 - The exergy flows for the thermodynamic states of air and
PT, % 1 combustion gases are expressed respectively as follows:
PHRSG, % 3
.
Ta, °C 25 i  m air  hi  h0   T0  si  s0  (6)
Pa, bar 1.013
.
, % 45 i  m cg  hi  h0   T0  si  s0   (7)

Table 2. Chemical composition of natural gas. - Exergy flow for natural gas

Gas component [Xi] (%) 

 f  m f LHV 1  T0 Taf  (8)
CH4 88
C2H6 9 - ower supplied to the compressor
C3H8 3

Wc  m air hg 2  hg1  (9)

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

- Exergetic efficiency Steam cycle
   In the steam cycle, steam flows to a steam turbine to
cPcg 1  1
 (1  far ) y T 1  x  
 cg 
C xair  1    generate mechanical energy, which is used to drive an
exGT

 far 
cPair  T  C  electrical generator. The reduced–energy steam flows out of the
 (10)
 LHV 1  T0 Taf    turbine and enters the condenser, where it is condensed to
saturated liquid. A feedwater pump returns the condensed
 
  liquid to heat recovery steam generator. Table 5 presents some
Table 3 presents the thermodynamic properties of the gas characteristic data of the steam cycle (11, 12), and Table 6
turbine cycle. The temperature of exhaust gas turbine, shows the pinch-point temperature differences in the heat
Tg3=617.57°C, is greater than the temperature at the recovery steam generator.
compressor outlet, Tg4=433.77°C, indicating that the Table 5. Characteristic data of the steam cycle.
integration to combined cycle or cogeneration is feasible. The
performance parameters of the gas turbine cycle are shown in Tv1, °C 525.8
Table 4. HP, bar 106.3
Table 3. Thermodynamic properties of the gas turbine cycle. IP, bar 25.2
. LP, bar 4.1
Edo. T (°C) P (bar) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K) m (kg/s) PCOND, bar 0.08
g1 25 1.013 0 6.7591 313.40 T 0.88
g2 433.77 16.21 415.04 6.8321 313.40 P 0.85
g3 1300 15.88 1,566.86 7.7327 321.08 Table 6. Pinch point temperature differences in HRSG.
g4 617.57 1.023 728.22 7.8420 321.08
Evaporator of the HRSG Tpp (°C)
Table 4. Gas turbine operating parameters. L EV 40
wm GT, kJ/kgair 444.14 I EV 40
H EV 160
qH GT, kJ/kgair 1,262.87
m air , kgair/s 313.40 In the steam cycle, mass and energy conservation laws
are applied to each component. The exergy flows for the
m f ,kgf/s 7.68
thermodynamic states of steam is given by:
m cg , kgcg/s 321.08 .

th GT, % 35.16 i  m i  hi  h0   T0  si  s0  (11)

ex GT, % 40.25 Table 7 represents the thermodynamic properties of the
steam cycle.
Figure 2 shows the thermodynamic states of the gas
turbine in the exergy-enthalpy diagram of the gas turbine Figure 3 shows the exergy-enthalpy diagram for the steam
cycle. Since the highest temperature and pressure reached in cycle. Intermediate pressure turbine inlet state, v4, has the
the gas turbine correspond to the turbine inlet state, g3, this highest energy content of the steam cycle but live steam state,
state presents therefore the maximum exergy. v1, presents the highest exergy because it has the highest
P g2 pressure.
1050 g3 v1
P g3
1400
v4
900 1 kg
1200
v18
750 v3a
1000 v
v2 3
(kJ/kg)

v14 1+mv2
(kJ/kg)

600
800 m v2 v5

450 g2 Pg4
600 v17
g4 Pg15 m v5
300 g6 Pg1
g7 400 1+m v2+mv5
g9 g5 v12
g11 g8
150 g13 g10 200 v10
g1 g 15 g12 1+mv2+mv5
g14 v7 v6
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
h (kJ/kg) h (kJ/kg)
Figure 2. Exergy-enthalpy diagram of the gas turbine cycle.
Figure 3. Exergy-enthalpy diagram of the steam cycle.

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 Table 7. Thermodynamic properties of the steam cycle. includes three main groups of heat exchangers: economizer,
. evaporator and superheater. When the gas turbine exhaust
Edo. T (°C) P (bar) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K) m (kg/s) x gases pass over the HRSG heating elements, water inside tubes
v1 525.8 106.3 3,434 6.6483 44.01 VSC recovers (absorbs) energy from the hot exhaust gases, and
v1a 525.8 106.3 3,434 6.6483 22.00 VSC changes its phase into steam. The produced steam is used to
v2 322.81 25.2 3,063 6.7346 44.01 VSC drive steam turbines and generate shaft power in a steam cycle.
v2a 322.81 25.2 3,063 6.7346 22.00 VSC Water preheating and evaporation occur in economizers and
v3 329.21 25.2 3,078 6.7597 25.14 VSC evaporators respectively. After separating the liquid water and
v3a 375.09 25.2 3,183 6.9279 3.13 VSC steam in the drum, water goes through evaporator, while steam
v4 525.8 25.2 3,519 7.3944 47.14 VSC enters the superheater, as shown in Figure 1.
v4a 525.8 25.2 3,519 7.3944 25.14 VSC An important design parameter for analyzing the HRSG
v5a 288.31 4.1 3,042 7.5137 8.79 VSC
is the pinch point temperature difference. This is the difference
v5b 288.31 4.1 3,042 7.5137 47.14 VSC
between the temperature of the gas turbine exhaust exiting the
v5 288.31 4.1 3,042 7.5137 67.87 VSC
evaporator and the temperature of water evaporation. The
v6 41.51 0.08 2,434 7.7773 67.87 0.94
pinch point temperature differences of the evaporators are then
v7 41.51 0.08 173.85 0.5925 67.87 0
given by:
v8 41.54 4.1 174.30 0.5928 67.87 LC
v9 41.54 4.1 174.30 0.5928 33.93 LC Tpp HP  Tg 7  Tv17 (16)
v10 144.50 4.1 608.56 1.7857 33.93 0
v10a 144.50 4.1 608.56 1.7857 3.13 0 Tpp IP  Tg11  Tv14 (17)
v10b 144.50 4.1 608.56 1.7857 22.00 0
Tpp LP  Tg14  Tv11 (18)
v10c 144.50 4.1 608.56 1.7857 8.79 0
v11 144.50 4.1 2,739 6.8871 8.79 1 The gas temperature and water properties are derived
v12 144.84 25.2 611.27 1.7869 3.13 LC from the mass and energy balance for gas and water in each
v13 224.38 25.2 963.95 2.5583 3.13 0 heating element of the HRSG with triple pressure and reheat.
v14 224.38 25.2 2,802 6.2529 3.13 1 These balances are given by:
v15 146.03 106.3 621.57 1.7905 22.00 LC - High pressure superheater (H SH)
v16 230.77 106.3 995.47 2.6018 22.00 LC
v17 315.52 106.3 1,434 3.4045 22.00 0 m cg cP ( Tg 4  Tg 5 )  m v1( hv1  hv18 ) (19)
v18 315.52 106.3 2,713 5.5770 22.001 1 - Intermediate pressure reheater (I RH)
To analyze the thermodynamic performance of the steam m cg cP ( Tg 5  Tg 6 )  m v1(1  m2 )( hv 4  hv 3 ) (20)
cycle, the following set of equations are used:
- High pressure evaporator (H EV)
- Output work of the steam turbine
m cg cP ( Tg 6  Tg 7 )  m v1( hv18  hv17 ) (21)
wm ST  hv1  hv 2  (1  mv 2 )(hv 4  hv 5 )  (1  mv 2  mv 5 )(hv5  hv 6 )
(12) - High pressure economizer (H EC)
 (1  mv 2  mv 5 )(hv 8  hv 7 )  mv 2 (hv12  hv10 )  (hv15  hv10 ) m cg cP ( Tg 7  Tg 8 )  m v1( hv17  hv16 ) (22)
- Net power of the steam turbine - Low pressure superheater (L SH)
Wm ST  m v1 wm ST (13) m cg cP ( Tg 8  Tg 9 )  m v1 mv 5 ( hv 5 a  hv11 ) (23)

- Heat supplied - Intermediate pressure superheater (I SH)

m cg cP ( Tg 9  Tg10 )  m v1 mv 2 ( hv3 a  hv14 ) (24)
qH  hv1  hv15  mv 2 (hv 4  hv12 )  mv 5 (hv5  hv10 ) (14)
HRSG - Intermediate pressure evaporator (I EV)
- Thermal efficiency m cg cP ( Tg10  Tg11 )  m v1 mv 2 ( hv14  hv13 ) (25)
wm ST - Intermediate pressure economizer (I EC)
thST  (15)
qH m cg cP ( Tg11  Tg12 )  m v1 mv 2 ( hv13  hv12 ) (26)
HRSG
- High pressure preheater (H H)
The performance parameters of the steam cycle are: wmST
m cg cP ( Tg12  Tg13 )  m v1 ( hv16  hv15 ) (27)
= 1,879.58 kJ/kgs, Wm ST , = 80,960 kW, qH HRSG = 4,200.09 kJ/kgs
- Low pressure evaporator (L EV)
and th ST = 43.79 %.
m cg cP ( Tg13  Tg14 )  m v1 mv 5 ( hv11  hv10c ) (28)
Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)
- Low pressure economizer (L EC)
The HRSG has three pressure levels: low pressure,
intermediate pressure and high pressure. Each pressure level m cg cP ( Tg14  Tg15 )  m v1 (1  mv 2  mv 5 )( hv10  hv 9 ) (29)

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 The set of energy and mass balance equations are -To facilitate feasibility and optimization studies during the
numerically solved and the temperature profile in the gas and design phase for an energy system, as well as process
water/steam section of HRSG are predicted. Figure 4 shows the improvement studies for an existing system.
exergy profile by heat transfer in the heat recovery steam -To assist in decision-making procedures concerning plant
generator. The shaded areas represent the exergy loss. I EV operation and maintenance and allocation of research funds.
presents the least exergy loss, corresponding to 26.03% of the -To compare technical alternatives.
total earning exergy in the HRSG while the exergy loss in the The productive structure is a graphical representation of
H EV is 16.2%. the fuel and product distribution derived from the
1.0 1.0 exergoeconomic methodology. In this methodology, fuel and
0.9 0.9 products are defined for each component in terms of exergy
flows, depending on its main function. Figure 5 shows the
0.8 0.8
productive structure of the combined cycle depicted in Figure
0.7 g4 g5 g6
0.7 1.
g7
Quantitative balances of the exergy, exergetic and
1 - T0 / T (-)

0.6 g8 g 0.6
9g
v1 10

0.5
v4 v5a v3a g11 g 0.5 exergoeconomic costs for each component and for the whole
v18
v3 v18 v17 12
system are carefully determined. Table 8 presents the exergetic
IPSH g13
0.4 v16 v16 g14 0.4
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
v14 IPEV v13 g15 and exergoeconomic cost balances of the gas turbine cycle,
0.3 IPRH
LPSH
v11
IPEC
v12
v10 0.3 assuming the mean price of natural gas is 6.47 USD/GJ, i.e., cf
v15 v11
0.2 HPPH 0.2 = 6.47 USD/GJ (14).
LPEV v9
0.1 0.1
These combinations of exergetic and exergoeconomic
LPEC
balances equations were numerically solved. Table 9 present
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
the exergetic and exergoeconomic costs of the gas turbine.
qHi / qHHRSG (%)
Table 8. Exergetic and exergoeconomic cost balances of the
Figure 4. Exergy profile by heat transfer in the HRSG with 3 gas turbine.
pressure levels.
Component Exergetic cost Exergoeconomic cost
The thermal and exergetic efficiencies of the combined
External Eg*1  E g1  g1  0
cycle are then given respectively by the following two
equations: resources E *f  E f  f  c f E f

2Wm GT  Wm ST Compressor Eg* 5  Eg* 2  Eg*1  g 5   g 2   g1

th CC  (30)
  * * * *
Combustion E  E  E  E  f  g 4   g 3  g 2
cPcg 1 xair
2 m air cPair Tg1 (1  far )
c
y 1 

 1    chamber
f g4 g3 g2

 Pair C  Eg* 3 E g 4  Eg* 4 E g 3  g 3 E g 4   g 4 E g 3

2Wm GT  Wm ST Eg* 3  Eg* 4  Eg* 6  Eg* 5 g 3   g 4  g 6  g 5

ex CC  (31) Turbine
2 m f LHV 1  T0 Taf   Eg* 5 E g 6  Eg* 6 E g 5  g 5 E g 6   g 6 E g 5

The computed thermal and exergetic efficiencies of the Table 9. Exergetic and exergoeconomic costs of one gas
combined cycle are respectively: th CC = 47.27 % and ex CC = turbine.
54.10 %.
Stream  (kW) k (-)  * (kW) c (USD/GJ)  (USD/h)
*

EXERGOECONOMIC EVALUATION
F 332,166 1 332,166 6.47 7,736
The exergoeconomic analysis is a methodology that
combines exergy and conventional concepts of economical g1 0 1 0 0 0
engineering to evaluated and optimize the design and g2 123,255 2.5168 400,298 21.01 9,323
performance of energetic systems. The main objectives of an
g3 409,904 2.2956 941,538 14.86 21,930
exergoeconomic analysis are (13):
-To identify the location, magnitude and source of g4 130,159 2.2956 298,971 14.86 6,963
irreversibilities. wC 130,078 2.3848 310,400 15.43 7,229
-To estimate the cost associated to the irreversibilities.
-To assess the production costs of each product in an energy wmGT 139,200 2.3848 332,166 15.43 7,736
system that has more than one product.

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 g2–g1 wC g2’–g1’ wC
g1 C g1’ C

wmGT wmGT
g2 T g2’ T
g3–g4 g3’–g4’
f f’
cc cc
g3 g4 g3’ g4’
g3–g2 g3’–g2’
g15 g15’

Node 1 Node 2

g8–g9 g9–g10 g8’–g9’ g9’–g10’

LPSH IPSH LPSH IPSH
v5a–v11 v3a–v14 v5a*–v11 v3a*–v14’
g7–g8 g10–g11 g7’–g8’ g10’–g11’
HPEC IPEV HPEC IPEV
v17–v16 v14–v13 v17’–v16’ v14’–v13’
g6–g7 g11–g12 g6’–g7’ g11’–g12’

HPEV IPEC HPEV IPEC

v18–v17 v13-v12 v18’–v17’ v13’-v12’
g5–g6 g12–g13 g5’–g6’ g12’–g13’

IPRH HPPH IPRH HPPH

v4a–v3 v16–v15 v4a’–v3’ v16’–v15’
g4–g5 g13–g14 g4’–g5’ g13’–g14’
HPSH LPEV HPSH LPEV
v1a–v18 v11–v10 v1a’–v18’ v11’–v10’
g14–g15 g14’–g15’

LPEC LPEC
v10–v9 v10’–v9’
v5a’+v4a’+v3a’
+v1a’-v3’-v9’
IPP & HPP Node 3 Node 4 IPP & HPP
v5a+v4a+v3a Node 5
WIPP&HPP v15 + v12 v15’ + v12’
+v1a-v3-v9 WIPP&HPP

WLPP v8-v7 v9
v4a
LPP #1 v9’ +v4a’
v8 #1
v7 v3a v3
v3a’
v1a #6
COND +v1a’ v3’
#7
Qc v5a+v5a’
v6 #2 #3 #4
v5b v2a’
v5 v4 v1
v2a
HPT, IPT & LPT Node 6
WmST v1-v2+v4-v5b+v5-v6 #5
v2

Figure 5. Productive structure of the combined cycle power plant.

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 The cost associated to the exergy destruction in a process Table 12. Exergetic and exergoeconomic cost balances of the
can be revelated only through an exergoeconomic analysis. In steam cycle.
the cost balance, there is no cost term directly associated to the
Component Exergetic cost Exergoeconomic cost
exergy destruction; however this affects directly the cost of
product. The cost of the exergy destruction is given by L EW* LPP  Ev*8  Ev*7 WLPP  v 8  v 7
Ev*6  Ev*7  Eq*L  v 6   v 7   qL
CED  cF  F  P  (32) COND
It should be mentioned that the irreversibility of each Ev*7  Ev 7 v7  0
component is the difference between its fuel and product. The E *
WmST E *
WIPP& HPP  WmST  WIPP&HPP 
exergetic efficiency of a component is defined as the ratio
between the product and fuel. Table 10 presents the Ev*1  Ev*2  Ev*4  v1   v 2   v 4
H T, I T & * *
irreversibilities, exergetic efficiencies and costs of exergy E v 5b E v6   v 5b   v 6
destruction of the gas turbine components. L T
*
E WmST EWIPP&HPP  WmST EWIPP& HPP 
Table 10. Irreversibilities, exergetic efficiencies and costs of EW* IPP&HPP EWmST WIPP& HPP EWmST
exergy destruction of one gas turbine components.
I &H EW* IPP&HPP  Ev*15  Ev*12 WIPP& HPP  v15  v12
F P I cF CED
Component ex
(kW) (kW) (kW) (%)(USD/GJ)(USD/h) These set of exergetic and exergoeconomic balances
Compressor 130,078 123,255 6,822 94.7 15.43 379 equations are numerically solved. Tables 13 and 14 present the
Combustion chamber332,166 286,649 45,517 86.2 6.47 1,060 irreversibilities, exergetic efficiencies and costs of exergy
Turbine 279,745 269,278 10,467 96.2 14.86 559 destruction of the HRSG and steam cycle respectively.
The computed exergetic efficiency and costs of exergy Table 13. Irreversibilities, exergetic efficiencies and costs of
destruction of one and two gas turbines are: ex GT = 40.25 %, exergy destruction of the HRSG components.
CEDGT1 = 1,999.41 USD/h and CEDGT2 = 3,998.83 USD/h.
F P I cF CED
Table 11 presents the exergetic and exergoeconomic cost Component ex
(kW) (kW) (kW) (%) (USD/GJ) (USD/h)
balances of the HRSG, while the exergetic and H SH 20,773 17,647 3,125 84.95 11.8 132.77
exergoeconomic cost balances of the steam cycle are shown in I RH 15,128 12,680 2,448 83.81 11.8 103.99
Table 12. H EV 55,862 27,777 28,085 49.72 11.8 1,193.06
H EC. 28,920 24,910 4,010 86.2 11.8 170.34
Table 11. Exergetic and exergoeconomic cost balances of the
L SH 3,422 2,056 1,366 60.07 11.8 58.05
HRSG.
I SH 1,531 1,131 399 73.87 11.8 16.99
I EV 6,100 5,670 430 92.9 11.8 18.26
Component Exergetic cost Exergoeconomic cost
I EC 1,283 770 513 59.99 11.8 21.81
H SH Eg* 4  Eg* 5  Ev*1a  Ev*18  g 4   g 5   v1a  v18 H H 9,364 5,809 3,555 62.03 11.8 151.02
L EV 20,157 10,722 9,434 53.19 11.8 400.79
I RH Eg* 5  Eg* 6  Ev*4 a  Ev*3  g 5   g 6   v 4a   v 3
L EC 14,201 5,334 8,867 37.56 11.8 376.67
* * * *
H EV E E g6 g7 E v18 E v17  g 6   g 7   v18   v17
The computed exergetic efficiency, cost of exergy
H EC Eg* 7  Eg* 8  Ev*17  Ev*16  g 7   g 8  v17   v16 destruction of one HRSG and two HRSGs are: ex HRSG = 64.78
%, CEDHRSG1 = 1,321.875 USD/h and CEDHRSG2 = 2,643.75
L SH Eg* 8  Eg* 9  Ev*5a  Ev*11  g 8   g 9   v5a   v11
USD/h.
* * * *
I SH E Eg9 g 10 E v 3a E v14  g 9   g10   v3a   v14 Table 14. Irreversibilities, exergetic efficiencies and costs of
I EV E *
E *
E *
E *
 g10   g11   v14   v13 exergy destruction of the steam cycle components.
g 10 g 11 v14 v13

E * *
E E *
E *
 g11   g12   v13   v12 F P I cF CED
I EC g 11 g 12 v13 v12 Component ex
(kW) (kW) (kW) (%) (USD/GJ)(USD/d)
H H Eg*12  Eg*13  Ev*16  Ev*15  g12   g13   v16   v15 L 31.01 23.80 7.21 76.7 3.25 0.084
L EV E *
E *
E *
E *
 g13   g14   v11   v10 COND 8,169 - 8,051 - 13.83 400.84
g 13 g 14 v11 v10
H T, I T & L T 88,228 80,960 7,267 91.7 17.6 460.46
* * * *
L EC E g 14 E g 15 E v10 E v9  g13   g14   v11   v10 I &H 589.74 524.45 65.28 88.9 3.25 0.763

Considerable irreversibilities occur at the combustion

chamber; about 13.65% of the fuel exergy is lost in such

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

energy conversion processes. The highest irreversibility is current operating conditions, point A, to the conditions of
located in combustion chamber, corresponding to 45.321 kW maximum engine work, point C, allows increasing the cost of
and representing 1995.08 USD/h of the cost of exergy exergy destruction of the gas turbine having in 2.20%.
destruction.
C
=10.17
The lowest irreversibilities correspond to the steam cycle 2400
TIT=1300°C
pumps, since they have the lowest costs of exergy destruction,
0.847 USD/d. 2200 13.42 11.74

CDE GT (USD/h)
For the heat recovery steam generator, the high pressure
=15.21
evaporator presents the higher irreversibility, and therefore the 2000 17.11
16
op Wm

highest cost of exergy destruction represents 45.12 % of the 20.91

19.11
cost of exergy destruction for HRSG. 1800
28.87 23.95
PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS 1600 40.52
op hth
=34.39
A parametric analysis is performed to determine the 47.31
performance of the combined cycle, using the parameters: 1400
6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
output specific work, thermal and exergetic efficiencies, and
cost of exergy destruction. The variables used to analyze the f (kg/s)

changes in these parameters are: the temperature inlet turbine, Figure 7. Costs of exergy destruction as function fuel
the pressure ratio of the compressor and the fuel mass flow consumption in different C with TIT = 1300 ° C.
rate.
Figure 8 shows that at constant temperature, an increase
Figure 6 shows that for a c = 16, the lowest fuel in C leads to an increase of the gas turbine exergetic
consumption (7.64 kg/s) and cost of exergy destruction of the efficiency, except for TIT = 1000 °C, which corresponds to the
gas turbine is obtained for TIT = 1200 °C. Furthermore, by highest exergetic efficiency of 45.3% for C = 34.39, point F.
changing the design conditions, point B, to current operating By changing the design conditions, point B, change to the
conditions, point A, a cost of exergy destruction for the gas current operating conditions, point A, the gas turbine exergetic
turbine is generated and the fuel consumption decrease in efficiency increases in 0.2%. While changing the current
1.23% and 0.52% respectively. Moreover, by modifying the operation condition, point A, to the optimal output work (TIT
current conditions, point A, to the conditions of lower fuel = 1300 °C and C = 15.21), point C, causes an increment in
consumption, point E, the cost of exergy destruction of the gas the gas turbine exergetic efficiency of 0.49%.
turbine and fuel consumption decrease in 0.26% and 0.37% TIT=1500°C
1400
respectively. 50
1200
1300 47.31
40.52
1000 48 1100
2080 =16 34.39
C

TIT=1500°C 28.87
46
2060 23.95
1000
44 20.91
CDE GT (USD/h)

 exGT (%)

op th 19.11

2040
42 A 17.11
B
B C 15.21
2020 1100 40
1400 13.42

2000 A 38 11.74
E op wm
1300 36 C=10.17
1980
1200
100 200 300 400 500 600

7.64 7.66 7.68 7.70 7.72 7.74 7.76 7.78 7.80 w mGT (kJ/kg)

f (kg/s) Figure 12.Exergetic efficiency and output work for

different TIT and C.
Figure 6. Costs of exergy destruction as function of fuel
consumption in different TIT with C = 16. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 7 shows that for a TIT = 1300 °C, an increase in The evaluation of the exergy losses in the combined cycle
the pressure ratio results in a decrease of the cost of exergy plant shows that these losses are mainly dominated by the
destruction of the gas turbine. For example, changing the exergy losses of combustion. Because the combustion chamber

9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

present the highest cost of exergy destruction, which means 4.- S. C. Kaushik, V. Siva Reddy and S. K. Tyagi, “Energy and
that the highest losses are caused by the combustion of the fuel. Exergy Analyses of Thermal ower lants: A Review”,
The possibilities to reduce these losses are limited because the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 15, pp.
Carnot coefficient indicates that the maximum work that can 1857-1872, 2011.
be produce is 87.37%, considering the temperature of the 5.- I. Dincer, H. Al-Muslim, “Thermodynamic analysis of
adiabatic flame temperature, i.e., the exegy losses during the reheats cycle steam power plants”, International Journal of
combustion process are 12.62% and these are unavoidable. Energy Research, Vol. 25, pp. 727–39, 2001.
6.- . Ahmadi , M. Ameri, A. Hamidi, “Energy, exergy and
Since the same fuels of the gas turbine and steam cycle
exergoeconomic analysis of a steam power plant (a case
power the combined cycles, the combined cycle exergetic
study)”, International Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 33,
efficiency is greatest than the gas turbine and steam cycle
pp. 499–512, 2009.
exergetic efficiencies. The combined cycle power plants
7.- A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis, M. Moran, “Thermal design and
provide additional work, and at the same time they are less
optimization”, New York, Wiley, 1996.
contaminant.
8.- . Ahmadi, I. Dincer, “Thermodynamic and
For the two gas turbines delivering 278.4 MW, the exergoenvironmental analyses, and multi-objective
computed results for the thermal and exergetic efficiencies are optimization of a gas turbine power plant”, Applied Thermal
35.16% and 41.90% respectively. For the steam cycle Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 2529–2540, 2011.
generating 80.96 MW, the computed thermal efficiency is 9.- H.-Y. Kwak, D.-J. Kim, J.-S. Jeon, “Exergetic and
43.79%; and for the combined cycle power plant producing thermoeconomic analyses of power plants”, Energy, Vol. 28,
359.36 MW the thermal and exergetic efficiencies are 47.27% pp. 343-360, 2003.
and 54.10% respectively. Furthermore, the combustion 10.- A. Valero, L. Correas, A. Zaleta, A. Lazzaretto, V. Verda,
chamber presents the highest cost of exergy destruction M. Reini, V. Rangel, “On the thermoeconomic approach to the
representing 52.93 % of the gas turbine cost of exergy diagnosis of energy system malfunctions”, Energy, Vol. 29, pp.
destruction, while the contribution of the turbine and the 1875-1887, 2004.
compressor are of 28.06 % and 19% respectively. The high 11.- Comisión Federal de Electricidad. Manifiesto de Impacto
pressure evaporator has the highest cost of exergy destruction Ambiental: Tuxpan conversión de turbogás a ciclo combinado
in HRSG representing 45.12 % of the cost of exergy (Tuxpan conversión de TG a CC). CFE, 2006.
destruction for HRSG. 12.- The thermal balance of the combined cycle power plant
Tuxpan II.
When the current operating conditions are changed, the
13.- G. Tsatsaronis, “Thermoeconomic analysis and
gas turbine costs of exergy destruction a decrease in 1.23%, the
optimization of energy systems”, rogress in Energy and
fuel consumption decrease in 0.52%, and the gas turbine
Combustion Science, Vol. 19, pp. 227-257, 1993.
exergetic efficiency increase in 0.2%. This shows that by
14.- http://www.gas.pemex.com.mx
modifying the gas turbine condtions can lead to improve its
performance.
Moreover, there is no improvement in the performance
of the gas turbine when the current operating conditions are
changed to the conditions of maximum output work because
the costs of exergy destruction of the gas turbine increase in
2.20% and its exergetic efficiency decreases of 0.49%.
REFERENCES
1.- Akber asha and Sanjeev Jolly, “Combined Cycle Heat
Recovery Steam Generators Optimum Capabilities and
Selection Criteria”, Heat Recovery System & CHP, Vol. 15,
pp. 147-154, 1995.
2.- ouria Ahmadi and Ibrahim Dincer, “Thermodynamic
Analysis and Thermoeconomic Optimization of a Dual
ressure Combined Cycle ower lant with a Supplementary
Firing Unit”, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 52,
pp. 2296-2308, 2011.
3.- Comisión Federal de Electricidad, “ rograma de obras e
inversiones del sector eléctrico 2011-2025”, CFE
(Subdirección de programación), 2011.

10 Copyright © 2016 by ASME