Gas turbine vs.

gas engine

A comparative study of efficiency

and flexibility in combined heat and
power applications
 3

Gas turbine, gas engine, combined

Authors

heat and power, steam generation,

Hajo Hoops
MAN Energy Solutions SE,

hot water generation, flexibility

Augsburg, Germany
Hajo.Hoops@man-es.com

Dr. Karim Saidi

MAN Energy Solutions SE,
This study compares a MAN gas turbine and a Oberhausen, Germany
Karim.Saidi@man-es.com
MAN gas engine of the same output class in three
different CHP processes involving steam and hot
water generation. The aim of the study is to define
the pros and cons of the different power generators
used for the CHP processes examined in order to
help buyers choose turbine or engine technology
depending on the application. The gas turbine, with
its low power-to-heat ratios and high steam param-
eters, is generally the more economical alternative.
Steam generation is also economically feasible with
gas engines, but high steam parameters can limit
the overall fuel utilization and thus the profitability.
Gas engine solutions, particularly in the case
of higher steam parameters, require the parallel
generation of hot water to be economical.
4 MAN Energy Solutions
Gas turbine vs. gas engine

Introduction
Setting aside renewable energy tech- making MAN Energy Solutions a leading development of a project, it is essential
nologies, electricity production using supplier of highly efficient CHP systems. to analyze and assess the suitability
gaseous fuels and combined heat These powerful power generators of potential technologies in extensive
and power (CHP) offers the greatest enable extremely flexible and efficient conceptual studies. Studies comparing
potential for CO2 reduction. That is why CHP systems. gas turbines and gas engines in CHP
these technologies will become more applications are already available.4
important in future. Combining both of As a result, powerful prime movers are
these technologies enables maximum available, which enable extremely flexi- This study relates to processes
fuel utilization and minimal emissions ble and equally efficient CHP systems. involving the supply of steam, which
at the same time.1, 2, 3 are typical for a variety of industrial
Typical authorization procedures make it applications. Steam generation on two
MAN Energy Solution’s product range virtually impossible to leave the techno- different pressure levels and hot water
includes gas turbines from 6 to 12 MW logical design of CHP systems undefined generation are examined for variable
and gas engines from 7 to 20 MW, until the tender phase. This is why, in the power-to-heat ratios.
 5

Solvay GmbH’s gas turbine plant in Rheinberg operates a MAN MGT6000

1.1. The approach: Three

CHP process scenarios

The MAN MGT6000 gas turbine and For this study, the primary energy 45 % thermal efficiency achieves primary
the MAN 12V35/44G TS gas engine savings were considered as a measure energy savings of 25 %. This would be a
are compared to each other as prime of cost-effectiveness. These are typical case for a CHP system with a gas
movers in three different process sce- calculated by comparing the savings engine in a district heating application.
narios with the same electrical output. from the CHP process to two separate
In this case, “same electrical output” processes for power and heat The study explicitly does not claim to
means that the gas engine is operated generation. Economically viable CHP illustrate optimized system configura-
at approximately 90 % partial-load. This processes always display clearly tions but is instead intended to compare
would certainly be unusual for a real positive primary energy savings. EU the quality of various concepts and to
application, but is required for compar- directives define a process as “highly demonstrate the potential for primary
ative purposes and has no impact on efficient” when it has primary energy energy savings and the flexibility with
the quality of the results. savings of at least 10 % compared to regard to the power-to-heat ratio. An
equivalent processes. This is often optimized system concept must always
The power-to-heat ratio was adjusted used as a criterion for funding. be developed for the specific individual
in each scenario to examine the flexibility conditions of each project. Consider-
of the configuration. The background Fuel costs usually constitute more ation must be given to project specific
here is that a system usually has to than 80 % of generation costs, which economics as well as requirements
be economical over a wider operating makes the primary energy savings a regarding availability, maintenance,
range and not just at a single defined good indicator of system efficiency emissions, etc.
load point. Heat generation was and cost-effectiveness. A simple
increased as required using a duct example gives a sense of the level of
burner in front of the waste heat boiler primary energy savings: A reference
to lower the power-to-heat ratio. CHP process with 45 % electric and
6 MAN Energy Solutions
Gas turbine vs. gas engine

1.2. The power generators

The gas turbine

The MAN MGT6000 is one of the

world’s most advanced industrial gas
turbines in the 6 MW class. Based on
decades of experience, MAN Energy
Solutions has developed its own range
of modern gas turbines which combine
the advantages of industrial gas tur-
bines with those of aeroderivatives. The
MAN MGT6000 single-shaft gas turbine
has a compact design and high power
density. It is built for power generation,
with high overall efficiency in CHP and Fig. 1: MAN MGT6000 gas turbine
power, and low emissions as required
by stringent environmental standards
(NOx / CO: 30 mg / Nm³ at 15 % O2, dry
at 50 – 100 % load).

The MAN MGT6000 has a modular

structure that ensures easy access for
maintenance and, with 40,000 EOH
(equivalent operating hours), provides
sufficiently long service intervals
between two main inspections (Fig. 1).

The gas engine

The MAN 12V35/44G TS gas engine is a

highly efficient, two-stage turbocharged,
medium-speed engine with a rated speed
of 750 rpm. The gas engine features
gas valves upstream of every cylinder
(port injection) and prechambers with
spark plugs to ensure optimum carbura-
tion and combustion. The high charging
air pressures due to the two-stage
turbocharging enable a high power
density of more than 600 kW/cylinder
and optimum heat extraction, particu-
larly in district heating applications.

The engine also boasts the best

electrical efficiency in its class thanks Fig. 2: MAN 12V35/44G TS gas engine
to the moderate speed of 750 rpm
and its modern design (Fig. 2).

The electrical output at the alternator

terminals of the two power generators
is 6.63 MW for all simulations.
 7

1.3. The three system Boundary conditions and characteristic data of the power generators
configurations examined
Ambient temperature [°C] 15

The three different configurations are Site elevation [m] 0

referred to as CHP 1, CHP 2 and CHP 3: Ambient air pressure [kPa] 101.3
Relative air humidity [%] 60

CHP 1: CHP system with power Natural gas net calorific value [kJ/kg] 48,000

generation and 8 bar(a) saturated

Power generator Gas turbine Gas engine
steam generation (170 °C) (Fig. 3)
Model MAN MGT6000 MAN 12V35/44G TS
Load [%] 100 91.4
CHP 2: CHP system with power
Electrical output [MW] 6.63 6.63
generation, 8 bar(a) saturated steam
Electrical efficiency [%] 32.2 45.2
generation and additional hot water
Exhaust gas temperature [°C] 505 315
generation (60/130 °C) (Fig. 4)
Exhaust gas mass flow [kg/s] 26.2 11.78

Table 1
CHP 3: CHP system with power
generation, 15 bar(a)/240 °C
superheated steam generation and
additional hot water generation
(60/130 °C) (Fig. 5) Heat generation process parameters

Steam parameters for CHP 1 and 2 [bar(a)/°C] 8/170

The configurations consist of:
––Power generator for the Steam parameters for CHP 3 [bar(a)/°C] 15/240

electric alternator Feed water temperature to the waste heat boiler [°C] 103

––Feed water tank (deaerator) Make-up water temperature [°C] 20

and feed water preheater Share of condensate return [%] 80

––Waste heat boiler for steam generation Condensate return temperature [°C] 90

––Additional heat exchangers in the Hot water return and flow temperature [°C/°C] 60/130

exhaust gas route (economizer) and Th. output of hot water in CHP 2 [MW] 6

for the engine solution for recovering Th. output of hot water in CHP 3 [MW] 3

heat from engine cooling water and Table 2

engine lubricating oil

Table 1 and 2 present the boundary

conditions and assumptions. A hot water Nomenclature
requirement of 6 MW was assumed
CHP_Pη [%] Electrical efficiency of the CHP system
for the CHP 2 process. For the CHP 3
process, this requirement is only 3 MW CHP_Hη [%] Heat generation efficiency of the CHP system

since more energy is converted into η CHP [%] Total efficiency/fuel utilization

steam as a result of the higher steam Power-to-heat ratio Ratio of electrical to total thermal output

parameters. The connection of the feed Pnet [MW] Net electrical output of the CHP system

water preheater upstream of the steam Q steam [MW] Thermal power of steam generation

generator is the same for all processes Q HW [MW] Thermal power of hot water generation

(Fig. 3). Condensate is returned to the Q fuel [MW] Fuel heat input

feed water tank. The make-up water PES [%] Primary energy saving

is preheated in a heat exchanger con- Ref_Hη [%] Reference efficiency of a boiler 90 %

nected between the feed water tank Ref_Pη [%] Reference efficiency for power generation with natural gas 53 %

and the economizer. Table 3

8 MAN Energy Solutions
Gas turbine vs. gas engine

CHP 1
Fuel (natural gas)

Steam 8 bar(a)
C

Gas turbine
or gas engine Duct firing
Waste heat boiler

Condensate return
at 90 °C

Feed water 103 °C

Preheater Deaerator

Make-up
Fig. 3: CHP 1 configuration diagram

CHP 2
Fuel (natural gas)

Steam 8 bar(a)
C

Gas turbine
or gas engine Duct firing
Waste heat boiler

Condensate return
at 90 °C

Hot water
return 60 °C Feed water 103 °C
Hot water Preheater Deaerator
flow 130 °C
Make-up

Fig. 4: CHP 2 configuration diagram

The CHP 2 and CHP 3 processes lubricating oil heat of approximately The CHP 3 process differs from
generate hot water in addition to steam. 750 kW at a level of 70 °C. More than CHP 2 as a result of the higher steam
Additional heat exchangers are 2 MW of heat can be extracted from the parameters (15 bar(a) and 240 °C) and
installed in the exhaust gas route for engine cooling water and intercooler the lower hot water output of only
this purpose. In addition to the exhaust at temperatures of up to 110 °C. 3 MW (Fig. 4 and 5).
gas heat, the gas engine provides
 9

CHP 3
Fuel (natural gas)
Steam 15 bar(a)
and 240 °C
C

Gas turbine
or gas engine Duct firing
HRSG

Condensate return
at 90 °C

Hot water
return 60 °C Feed water 103 °C
Hot water Preheater Deaerator
flow 130 °C
Make-up
Fig. 5: CHP 3 configuration diagram

1.4. Thermodynamic calculation

and simulation

The three configurations were modeled

and calculated using the GateCycleTM
software.

The parameters are calculated on the

basis of known formulae:

ฺ
Pnetฺ
Power-to-heat ratio σ=
Ǫsteam + Ǫhot water
ฺ
Pnetฺ + Ǫhot water
Efficiency of CHP 1 ƞCHP 1 =
Ǫfuel_CHP 1
ฺ ฺ
Pnet ฺ + Ǫsteam+ Ǫhot water
Efficiency of CHP 2 and 3 ƞCHP 2+3 =
Ǫfuel_CHP 2+3

Net electrical output Pnet = Pgenerator - Pown consumption

1
PES (primary energy savings) PES = CHP_Hη CHP_Pƞ
Ref_Hƞ + Ref_Pƞ
10 MAN Energy Solutions
Gas turbine vs gas engine

Results of the
calculations
and analysis
2.1. Results and analysis
of scenario CHP 1 (Fig. 6)

The results show decreasing total Figure 7 shows the development of

efficiencies as the power-to-heat ratio steam generation and the exhaust gas
increases. At its best point, the gas en- temperature after the duct burner. The
gine process achieves a total efficiency steam output varies between 22 and
of less than 75 %, and the primary 5 MW over the range of the power-to-heat
energy savings are below 5 %. Only the ratio considered, which corresponds
gas turbine process achieves an overall to steam generation of 32.3 t/h to 5.7 t/h.
efficiency of above 80 % and primary Below a power-to-heat ratio of 0.64,
energy savings of more than 10 % at duct firing is required in the gas turbine
power-to-heat ratios of below 0.7. process in order to achieve the steam
output. Not all of the available steam can
The gas engine is therefore unlikely to be used above a power-to-heat ratio
enable an economical system as the of 0.64.
high exhaust gas temperature of more
than 130 °C downstream of the econo- The gas engine always requires duct
mizer already indicates. firing in the range of the power-to-heat
ratio, as not enough steam can be gen-
The gas turbine is only able to provide erated otherwise due to the relatively
attractive parameters for power-to- low exhaust gas heat. However, only a
heat ratios between 0.3 and 0.6. With minimum power-to-heat ratio of 0.54 is
power-to-heat ratios of more than 0.8, possible with the gas engine. With this
the overall efficiency drops below 70 %, power-to-heat ratio, the exhaust gas
making the application uneconomical. temperature is approximately 1050 °C
The point where the curves intersect after the duct burner and the residual
at a power-to-heat ratio of ~ 0.9 is oxygen content is only around 3 %. For
striking. Below 0.9, the gas turbine is technical reasons, a further increase in
the better solution; above 0.9, the gas duct firing is therefore not possible.
engine takes the lead.
 11

Left: CHP with turbines, right: CHP with engines

Conclusions of simulation CHP 1 η_CHP_gas turbine PES_gas turbine

η_CHP_gas engine PES_gas engine
––With power-to-heat ratios of < 0.9, 100 30

the gas turbine (MAN MGT6000) is

the most efficient solution.
η CHP (Total efficiency) [%]

80 20

––With power-to-heat ratios of > 0.9,

60 10
the gas engine (MAN 12V35/44G TS)

PES [%]
is the most efficient solution.
40 0

––The primary energy savings for the

gas engine solution are always 20 -10

positive.
0 -20
––The primary energy savings for the 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

gas turbine solution only become Power-to-heat ratio

positive at power-to-heat ratios of
< 0.9 but then reach a significantly Fig. 6: Results of CHP 1 (8 bar saturated steam generation)
higher level of > 10 %.

––With power-to-heat ratios of < 0.54, Gas turbine w/ and w/o duct firing Steam power
the gas engine process is unable to Gas engine with duct firing
meet the steam requirements since 1200 25
Exhaust gas temperature after DF [°C]

the residual oxygen content in the

exhaust gas is not sufficient for the 1000 20
increased duct firing.
Steam power [MW]

800 15

600 10

400 5

200 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Power-to-heat ratio

Fig. 7: Analysis of CHP 1 (8 bar saturated steam generation)

12 MAN Energy Solutions
Gas turbine vs. gas engine

2.2. Results and analysis

of scenario CHP 2 (Fig. 8)

The results of the second scenario are In contrast to the curves in scenario 1, As the power-to-heat ratio increases,
more attractive overall. In contrast to there is no point where the overall effi- the steam output decreases from
the first scenario, both processes now ciency curves intersect in scenario 2. 20 MW to almost 0 MW since the
achieve a total efficiency of more than thermal output of hot water generation
80 % and primary energy savings of The primary energy savings and the is kept constant at 6 MW. Auxiliary
more than 10 %, namely for power-to- overall efficiency with the gas engine are combustion is always required for the
heat ratios of less than 0.7. The highest higher than for the gas turbine across gas engine; this is only necessary for
primary energy savings are achieved by the entire range of power-to-heat ratios. the gas turbine at power-to-heat ratios
the gas engine with approximately 20 % of < 0.64.
at power-to-heat ratios of above 0.8.
The efficiency drops as the power-to- As in scenario CHP 1, the technically
heat ratio increases, but only slightly for feasible extent of auxiliary combustion
power-to-heat ratios ranging from for the gas engine is limited to power-
0.35 to 0.65. to-heat ratios of > 0.36.

Conclusions of simulation CHP 2 η_CHP_gas turbine PES_gas turbine

η_CHP_gas engine PES_gas engine
––With power-to-heat ratios of > 0.6, 100 30

the gas engine is the most efficient

solution because the heat from the
η CHP (Total efficiency) [%]

80 20
lubricating oil and intercooler can be
used to generate hot water. Attractive
60 10
values of 17 – 20 % can be achieved

PES [%]
for the primary energy savings.
40 0

––With power-to-heat ratios between

0.6 and 0.36, both solutions achieve 20 -10

a similar total efficiency but signifi-

cantly increased auxiliary combustion
0 -20
is required for the gas engine. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Power-to-heat ratio
––With power-to-heat ratios between
0.2 and 0.4, a high overall efficiency Fig. 8: Results of CHP 2 (8 bar saturated steam generation and 6 MW hot water generation)
of approximately 90 % can be
achieved for the gas turbine process.
Gas turbine w/ and w/o duct firing Steam power
––With power-to-heat ratios of < 0.36, Gas engine with duct firing Hot water power
no solution is possible with the gas 1200 25
Exhaust gas temperature after DF [°C]

engine since the residual oxygen

content in the exhaust gas is not 1000 20
sufficient for the required auxiliary
Thermal power [MW]

combustion.
800 15

600 10

400 5

200 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Power-to-heat ratio

Fig. 9: Analysis of CHP 2 (8 bar saturated steam generation and 6 MW hot water generation)
 13

2.3. Results and analysis

of scenario CHP 3 (Fig. 10)

The results of the third scenario with Only the gas turbine achieves an overall The steam output decreases from 23.3
15 bar steam generation and 3 MW hot efficiency of above 80 %, at power-to-heat to 1.4 MW as the power-to-heat ratio
water generation differ considerably ratios of less than 0.7. The gas engine al- increases. The thermal output of hot
from the second scenario, since ways remains below an overall efficiency of water generation is kept constant at
the higher steam pressure and the 80 %, and the primary energy savings are 3 MW. Auxiliary combustion is always
superheating cause a clear shift in virtually constant in the low range of 7 %. required for the gas engine; this is
heat transfer. This has a significant only necessary for the gas turbine at
impact on the gas engine process in As in scenario 1, there is also a point power-to-heat ratios of < 0.6. As is the
particular, as the lubricating oil heat where the curves intersect in scenario 3, case for the first two scenarios, the
and the engine cooling water heat this time at a power-to-heat ratio of ~ 0.8 technically feasible output of the aux-
cannot be used to the same extent Below 0.8, the gas turbine process is iliary combustion is limited for the gas
as in the second scenario. better; above 0.8, the gas engine takes engine, for CHP 3 at a power-to-heat
the lead. ratio of 0.43.

Conclusions of simulation CHP 3 η_CHP_gas turbine PES_gas turbine

η_CHP_gas engine PES_gas engine
––With power-to-heat ratios of < 0.8 100 30

the gas turbine enables the most

efficient solution; duct firing is only
η CHP (Total efficiency) [%]

80 20
required at a power-to-heat ratio
of < 0.6. High efficiencies of
60 10
approx. 90 % are being achieved.

PES [%]
––With power-to-heat ratios of > 0.8 40 0

the gas engine enables the most

efficient solution as only moderate 20 -10

duct firing is required.

0 -20
––The higher steam parameters com- 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

pared to CHP 2 (8 ->15 bar) require Power-to-heat ratio

increased duct firing for the gas
engine. As a result, it is no longer Fig. 10: Results of CHP 3 (15 bar steam generation and 3 MW hot water generation)
possible to use the heat from the
lubricating oil and intercooler in full,
and the overall efficiency decreases Gas turbine w/ and w/o duct firing Steam power
by approximately eight percentage Gas engine with duct firing Hot water power
points for the gas engine compared 1200 25
Exhaust gas temperature after DF [°C]

to scenario CHP 2.
1000 20
Thermal power [MW]

800 15

600 10

400 5

200 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Power-to-heat ratio

Fig. 11: Analysis of CHP 3 (12 bar steam generation and 3 MW hot water generation)
14 MAN Energy Solutions
Gas turbine vs. gas engine

Conclusions
Combined heat and power

Heat-driven Power-driven

Gas turbine Gas engine

Power-to-heat ratio ~ 0.8

Fig. 12: Simplified summary

In scenarios CHP 1 and CHP 3, the heat In all three cases, the overall efficiency
sources of gas engine lubricating oil and curve of the gas engine process with
cooling water cannot be utilized at all or regard to the power-to-heat ratio is rather
only partially. For this reason, the gas flat compared to the curve of the gas
turbine is the more efficient solution for turbine process, i.e. the gas engine is
power-to-heat ratios of less than 0.8. more advantageous at high power-to-heat
ratios and where there are high require-
In scenario CHP 2, both units achieve ments for the variability of the power-
a similar overall efficiency in a to-heat ratio. However, the gas turbine
power-to-heat ratio range of 0.4 to 0.7 solutions in scenarios CHP 1 and CHP 3
since the heat sources of gas engine achieve higher values for the primary
lubricating oil and intercooler can be energy savings in this comparison with
used for hot water generation. low power-to-heat ratios.

With power-to-heat ratios of < ~ 0.4, the With low power-to-heat ratios and high
gas engine generally does not allow for steam parameters, the gas turbine is
a useful configuration since the oxygen generally the more economical alternative.
content in the exhaust gas does not Economically viable steam generation
permit sufficient duct firing. is possible with gas engines but high
steam parameters can limit the overall
With power-to-heat ratios of > ~ 0.8, fuel utilization and therefore the cost-​
the systems with gas engine generally effectiveness. In order to be economical,
achieve improved total efficiencies gas engine solutions require hot water to
and also considerably higher primary be generated in parallel, particularly in
energy savings. the case of higher steam parameters.
References Figures and tables

1
P. Neil; 2012; Combined Heating, Cooling & Power Handbook:
MAN MGT 6000 gas turbine
Fig. 1
Technologies & Applications, second edition
MAN 12V35/44G TS gas engine
Fig. 2

2
 . Kalam, A. King, E. Moret, U. Weerasinghe; 2009;
A Fig. 3
CHP 1 configuration
Combined heat and power systems: economic and policy
barriers to growth Fig. 4
CHP 2 configuration
Fig. 5
CHP 3 configuration
3
 . Saidi, U. Orth, S. Boje, C. Frekers; A Comparative Study of
K
Combined Heat and Power Systems for a Typical Food Fig. 6
Results of CHP 1
Industry Application; ASME Turbo Expo 2014, GT2014-26234 Fig. 7
Analysis of CHP 1
4
Vergleichende Studie von Gasmotoren und Gasturbinen in der Fig. 8
Results of CHP 2
Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung am Beispiel eines typischen Fig. 9
Analysis of CHP 2
öffentlichen Wärmeversorgungsnetzwerks [Comparative study
of gas engines and gas turbines in combined heat and power Fig. 10
Results of CHP 3
using a typical public heat supply network as an example]; Fig. 11
Analysis of CHP 3
Tobias Vogel, Gerd Oeljeklaus, Thomas Polklas, Christian
Frekers and Klaus Görner; VGB PowerTech 3/2016 Fig. 12
Simplified summary
Table 1
Boundary conditions and characteristic
data of the power generators
Table 2
Heat generation process parameters
Table 3
Nomenclature
MAN Energy Solutions
86224 Augsburg, Germany
P + 49 821 322-0
F + 49 821 322-3382
info @man-es.com
www.man-es.com

All data provided in this document

is non-binding. This data is for informa-
tion only and is not guaranteed in any
way. Depending on the subsequent
specific individual projects, the
relevant data may be subject to
changes and will be assessed and
determined individually for each
project. This will depend on the partic-
ular characteristics of each individual
project, especially specific site and
operational conditions.

Copyright © MAN Energy Solutions