Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02

13
th
International Conference on
AEROSPACE SCIENCES & AVIATION TECHNOLOGY,
ASAT- 13, May 26 – 28, 2009, E-Mail: asat@mtc.edu.eg
Military Technical College, Kobry Elkobbah, Cairo, Egypt
Tel : +(202) 24025292 – 24036138, Fax: +(202) 22621908

1



Energy and Exergy Analysis of a Steam Power Plant in Egypt

A. Rashad
*
, and A. El Maihy
*


Abstract: In this study, the energy and exergy analysis of Shobra El-Khima power plant in
Cairo, Egypt is presented. The primary objectives of this paper are to analyze the system
components separately and to identify and quantify the sites having largest energy and exergy
losses at different load.

The performance of the plant was estimated by a component-wise modeling and a detailed
break-up of energy and exergy losses for the considered plant has been presented at different
loads (Maximum load, 75% load and, 50 % load). Energy losses mainly occurred in the
condenser where (404.653 MW at Max load, 306.747 MW at 75% load and 278.849 MW at
50% load) is lost to the environment. The percentage ratio of the exergy destruction to the
total exergy destruction was found to be maximum in the Turbine system (42% at Max load,
59% at 75% load and 46.1 at 50% load) followed by the condenser (28% at Max load, 20.3%
at 75% load) while at 50% load the feed water heaters showed more exergy destruction
(27.7%) than condenser (23.8) and then the feed water heaters (20.8% at max load, 12.1 at
75% load) . In addition, the calculated thermal efficiency based on the specific heat input to
the steam was ~43% while the exergy efficiency of the power cycle was (44% - 48%).

Keywords: Exergy analysis; exergy efficiency; dead state; steam power plant.


Nomenclature
h Specific enthalpy (J/kg) s Specific entropy (J/kg.K)
I Exergy destruction rate (W) T Temperature (K)
o
m Mass flow rate (kg/s)
o
W Work done rate or power done by
the system (W)
P Pressure (Pa)
o
X Total energy rate (W)
Q Heat transfer rate to the system (W)

Greek symbols
η
II
efficiency
ψ Specific exergy (J/kg)

Subscripts
e exit
i inlet
o Dead state condition


*
Egyptian Armed Forces
Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


2/12

1. Introduction
Studies of energy and exergy analyses for power generation systems are of scientific interest
and also essential for the efficient utilization of energy resources. For this reason, the exergy
analysis has drawn much attention by scientists and system designers in recent years. Some
devoted their studies to component exergy analyses [1,2] and efficiency improvement[3].

Efficiency is one of the most frequently used terms in thermodynamics, and it indicates how
well an energy conversion or process is accomplished. Efficiency is also one of the most
frequently misused terms in thermodynamics and is often a source of misunderstanding. This
is because efficiency is often used without being properly defined first [4]. Efficiency
traditionally has been primarily defined based on the first law (i.e., energy). In recent decades,
exergy analysis has found increasingly widespread acceptance as a useful tool in the design,
assessment, optimization and improvement of energy systems [5:7]. Determining exergy
efficiencies for an overall system and/or the individual components making up the system
constitutes a major part of exergy analysis. A comprehensive analysis of a thermodynamic
system includes both energy and exergy analyses in order to obtain a more complete picture
of system behavior.

To assist in improving the efficiencies of power plants, their thermodynamic characteristics
and performances are usually investigated. Power plants are normally examined using energy
analysis but, as pointed out previously, a better understanding is attained when a more
complete thermodynamic view is taken, which uses the second law of thermodynamics in
conjunction with energy analysis via exergy methods. Although exergy analysis can be
generally applied to energy and other systems, it appears to be a more powerful tool than
energy analysis for power cycles because of the fact that it helps determine the true
magnitudes of losses and their causes and locations, and improve the overall system and its
components.

The use of energy and exergy analysis of a steam power plant is pioneered by the very
fundamental works of the early years such as Birnie & Obert [8] who evaluated and located
the losses in a 60 MW power station, Keller [9] who evaluated of steam power plant losses by
means of the entropy balance diagram.

Recently; Habib et al. [10] presented a procedure for optimization of the first and second
reheat pressures in thermal power plants. The analysis was based on the first-law efficiency
and exergy-balance equations. Also Habib [11] presented a first and second-law procedure for
the optimization of the reheat pressure level in reheat regeneration thermal-power plants.

Aguilar et al. [12] introduced a new thermodynamic model of the Loss Factor in order to
implement it in the algorithms for steam turbine energy audits and for on-line monitoring
systems. Kwak et al. [13] presented exergetic and thermo-economic analyses for the 500-MW
combined cycle plant. In these analyses, mass and energy conservation laws were applied to
each component. Quantitative balance of the exergies and exergy costs for each component
and for the whole system was carefully considered. Khaliq et al. [14] used the second-law
approach for the thermodynamic analysis of the reheat combined Brayton/Rankine power
cycle. Sciubba et al. [15] presented a brief critical and analytical account of the development
of the concept of exergy and of its applications. Aljundi et al. presented the energy and exergy
analysis of Al-Hussein power plant in Jordan. They analyzed the system components
separately, identified and quantified the sites having largest energy and exergy losses. In
addition, the effect of varying the reference environment state on this analysis was presented.
Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


3/12


The objective of this work is to analyze one generating unit found in Shobra Elkheama steam
power plant from an energy and exergy perspective. Sites of primary energy loss and exergy
destruction will be determined. The effect of varying the plant load on the exergy analysis
will also be investigated.


2 Plant Description
The power plant has a total installed power capacity of (1260) MW. It is located in Shobra
district, in Cairo. It started to produce power in the middle eighties. The power house consists
of (4) steam turbines units (4x315) MW at 100% load. The power plant uses Natural gas and
heavy fuel oil. The schematic diagram of one (315) MW unit is shown in Fig. 1.

This unit employs regenerative feed water heating system. Feed water heating is carried out in
(1) stage of high pressure heater (HPH1), (2) stages of intermediate pressure heaters (IPH2,
IPH3) and (4) stages of low pressure heaters (LPH4, LPH5, LPH6, LPH7). Steam is
superheated to (811) K and (16.64) MPa in the steam generator and fed to the high pressure
turbine. At full load the mass flow rate of the steam entering the high pressure turbine is 236
kg/s, the high pressure turbine exhaust stream at pressure 3.75 MPa is sent to a reheater where
it is reheated to 811 K and enters the intermediate pressure turbine at 3.378 MPa. The
intermediate pressure turbine exhaust stream is fed to the low pressure turbine at 0.982 MPa
and it exhausts to a water cooled condenser operates at .0836 atm. Then, the cycle starts over
again.

At 75 % load the mass flow rate of the steam entering the high pressure turbine is 170 kg/s,
the high pressure turbine exhaust stream at pressure 2.72 MPa is sent to a reheater where it is
reheated to 811 K and enters the intermediate pressure turbine at 2.45 MPa. The intermediate
pressure turbine exhaust stream is fed to the low pressure turbine at 0.718 MPa and it
exhausts to a water cooled condenser operates at 0.0836 atm. Then, the cycle starts over
again.

At 50 % load the mass flow rate of the steam entering the high pressure turbine is 147.729
kg/s, the high pressure turbine exhaust stream at pressure 2.37 MPa is sent to a reheater where
it is reheated to 811 K and enters the intermediate pressure turbine at 2.13 MPa. The
intermediate pressure turbine exhaust stream is fed to the low pressure turbine at 0.822 MPa
and it exhausts to a water cooled condenser operates at 0.0836 atm. Then, the cycle starts over
again. The operating conditions of the power plant are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 The operating conditions of the power plant

Operating Condition Value
Feed water inlet temperature to boiler 494.15 K
Steam Flow rate (100%: 969.5 ton/h)
(75%: 693 ton/h)
(50% 607 ton/h)
Steam temperature 811K
Steam pressure 166.4 bar
Power output 315 MW max


Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


4/12

3. Thermodynamic Analysis
Exergy is a measure of the maximum capacity of a system to perform useful work as it
proceeds to a specified final state in equilibrium with its surroundings. Exergy is generally not
conserved as energy but destructed in the system. Exergy destruction is the measure of
irreversibility that is the source of performance loss. Therefore, an exergy analysis assessing
the magnitude of exergy destruction identifies the location, the magnitude and the source of
thermodynamic inefficiencies in a thermal system.

Mass, energy, and exergy balances for any control volume at steady state with negligible
potential and kinetic energy changes can be expressed, respectively, by [16]

¿ ¿
=
i
i
o
e
e
o o o
h m - h m W - Q
¿ ¿
+ + =
i
i
o
e
e
o o
het
o
m - m W - X
where the net exergy transfer by heat ( heat
o
X ) at temperature T is given by
o
o
heat
o
Q
T
T
X
¿
|
.
|

\
|
÷ = 1
And the specific exergy is given by

+ = h ÷ h
o
÷ T
o
(s ÷ s
o
)

Then the total exergy rate associated with a fluid stream becomes
| | ) (
o o o
o o o
s s T h h m m X ÷ ÷ ÷ = + =
For a steady state operation, and choosing each component in . 1 as a control volume, the
exergy destruction rate and the exergy efficiency are defined as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Definitions of the exergy destruction rate and the exergy efficiency plant

Exergy Destruction Rate
2
nd
Law Efficiency (
II
q )
Pumps
pumpt
o
out
o
in
o
pump
o
W X X I + ÷ =
pump
o
pump
o
pump II
W
I
÷ =1
,
q
Heaters
out
o
in
o
heater
o
X X I ÷ =
in
o
heater
o
heater II
X
I
÷ =1
,
q
Turbine
el
o
out
o
in
o
turbine
o
W X X I ÷ ÷ =
out
o
in
o
turbine
o
turbine II
X X
I
÷
÷ =1
,
q
Condenser
f
o
out
o
in
o
condenser
o
W X X I + ÷ =
f
o
in
o
out
o
condenser II
W X
X
+
=
,
q
Cycle components ¿
=
nt allcompone
o
cycle
o
I I
fuel
o
out net
o
cycle II
X
W ,
,
= q


Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


5/12


















































Fig. 1a Cycle Scheme and operating conditions at 100 % load

Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


6/12


















































Fig. 1b Cycle Scheme and operating conditions at 75% load

Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


7/12


















































Fig. 1c Cycle Scheme and operating conditions at 50 % load

Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


8/12

4. Results and Discussion
The power plant was analyzed using the above relations noting that the environment reference
temperature and pressure are 298.15 K and 101.3 kPa, respectively. The thermodynamic
properties of water at indicated nodes shown in Fig. 1 were calculated using KATT software
and summarized in Appendix A.

The energy balance of the power plant at different loads is presented in Table 3. It shows that
the thermal efficiency ( ~43%). Clearly, this efficiency was based on the specific heat input to
the steam. The energy balance also reveals that (~55%) of the energy added in the boiler is
lost in the condenser and carried out into the environment. Nonetheless, efficiencies based on
energy can often be non-intuitive or even misleading, in part because it does not provide a
measure of ideality. In addition, losses of energy can be large quantity while it is
thermodynamically insignificant due to its low quality. Exergy-based efficiencies and losses,
however, provide measures of approach to ideality or deviation from ideality.


Table 3: Energy balance of the power plant at different loads

Component
Heat added or Loss, (kW)
Max Load 75 % Load 50% Load
Condenser 404653 306747 278849
Net power 311982 232428 217476
Boiler 744121 556142 494350
Thermal
efficiency
41.9 % 41.7 % 43.9%
Heaters

Heater (1): ~ 0
Heater (2): ~ 0
Heater (3): ~ 0
Heater (4): 539
Heater (5): 7874
Heater (6): 1123.7
Heater (7): 2472
Heater (1): ~ 0
Heater (2): ~ 0
Heater (3): 7
Heater (4): 58.2
Heater (5): ~ 0
Heater (6): 60438
Heater (7): ~ 0
Heater (1): 444
Heater (2): 2149
Heater (3): 4422
Heater (4): ~ 0
Heater (5): 50836.4
Heater (6): 14991.6
Heater (7): ~ 0

Exergy and percent of exergy destruction along with the second law efficiency are
summarized in Table 4 for all components present in the power plant. It was found that the
exergy destruction rate of the turbine is dominant over all other irreversibilities in the cycle. It
counts alone for (42% - 46%) of losses in the plant, while the exergy destruction rate of the
condenser is only (20%- 28%). According to the first law analysis, energy losses associated
with the condenser are significant because they represent about (55%) of the energy input to
the plant. An exergy analysis, however, showed that only (20% - 28 %) of the exergy was lost
in the condenser. Contrary to the first law analysis, this demonstrates that significant
improvements exist in the Turbine system rather than in the condenser. Among all the turbine
stages, stage 4 in the low pressure turbine has the lowest second low efficiency (3% - 51%).
The calculated exergy efficiency of the power cycle is (45% - 49%), which is low. This
indicates that tremendous opportunities are available for improvement. However, part of this
irreversibility can not be avoided due to physical, technological, and economic constraints.

Figure 2 shows the variation of exergy during expansion in the turbine for different loads.

Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


9/12



Table 4 Exergy, percent of exergy destruction and the second law efficiency

Loading: Maximum load 75 % load 50 % load





Components
E
x
e
r
g
y

D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

M
W

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

E
x
e
r
g
y

D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)

2
n
d

L
a
w

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
%
)

E
x
e
r
g
y

D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

M
W

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

E
x
e
r
g
y

D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)

2
n
d

L
a
w

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
%
)

E
x
e
r
g
y

D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

M
W

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

E
x
e
r
g
y

D
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)

2
n
d

L
a
w

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
%
)

Boiler
T
u
r
b
i
n
e

High pressure turbine: 6.983 12.6 93.4 9.293 16.9 89 10.351 18.6 87
Intermediate pressure
turbine:
Stage (1)
Stage (2)


3.289
1.215


6
2.2


93
97


5.227
6.414


9.5
11.7


38
82


2.935
0.382


5.2
6.8


89
98.7
Low pressure turbine:
Stage (1)
Stage (2)
Stage (3)
Stage (4)
Stage (5)

2.127
3.325
0.558
1.584
4.111

3.9
6
1
2.9
7.4

94
92
98
30
90.4

1.589
2.51
1.673
2.365
3.706

2.9
4.6
3
4.3
6.6

94
92
91
48
87

1.663
5.467
0.107
4.65
0.04

3
9.9
0.19
8.4
0.07

92.6
85
99
51
99
Total 23.192 42 88 32.777 59.6 74 25.595 46.1 89.7
Condenser 15.424 28 11.138 20.3 13.189 23.8
Pumps 5.086 9.2 37.8 4.324 7.9 53.4 1.362 2.5 77
F
e
e
d

w
a
t
e
r

h
e
a
t
e
r
s

Heater (1)
Heater (2)
Heater (3)
Heater (4)
Heater (5)
Heater (6)
Heater (7)
0.919
0.89
0.6114
1.808
2.7
1.476
3.083
1.7
1.6
1.1
3.2
4.9
1.8
5.6
73
83
83
82
93
87
86
1.504
0.786
0.466
1.155
0.971
1.219
0.526
2.7
1.4
0.8
2.1
1.8
2.2
1
64
66
58
82
98
65
99
1.417
0.1862
2.913
0.917
1.923
7.642
0.358
2.6
0.33
5.2
1.6
3.5
13.8
0.6
29
95
44
81
96
99
97
Total 11.5 20.8 6.627 12.1 15.4 27.7
Power Cycle 55.2 44.8 54.9 45.5 48.8

Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


10/12


Fig. 2 Variation of exergy during expansion of steam in the turbine


5- Conclusions
In this study, the energy and exergy analysis of Shobra El-Khima power plant in Cairo, Egypt
is presented. The primary objectives of this paper are to analyze the system components
separately and to identify and quantify the sites having largest energy and exergy losses at
different loads.

The maximum energy loss was found in the condenser where 56.4%, 55.2% and 54.4% of the
input energy was lost to the environment at 50%, 75%, and full load respectively. In addition,
the calculated thermal efficiency of the cycle based on specific heat input to the steam was
41.9%, 41.7% and 43.9% at 50%, 75%, and full load respectively.

The exergy analysis of the plant showed that lost energy in the condenser is
thermodynamically insignificant due to its low quality. In terms of exergy destruction, the
major loss was found in the turbine where 46.1%, 59.6% and 42% of the fuel exergy input to
the cycle was destroyed at 50%, 75%, and full load respectively. The percent exergy
destruction in the condenser was 23.8%, 20.3% and 28 % at 50%, 75%, and full load
respectively, while all heaters and pumps destroyed less than 30.2%, 32.4%, and 30% at 50%,
75%, and full load respectively.

The calculated second law efficiency of the power cycle was found to be 48.8%, 45.5%, and
44.8% at 50%, 75%, and full load respectively which is comparable to modern power plants.
It was found that exergy destruction rate of the turbine is dominant over all other
irreversibilities in the cycle. It counts alone for (42% - 46%) of losses in the plant. This
indicates that tremendous opportunities are available for improvement. However, part of this
irreversibility can not be avoided due to physical, technological, and economic constraints.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Turbine State Points
E
x
e
r
g
y

k
J
/
k
g
Max Load
75% load
50% load
Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


11/12


6- References

[1] Badran OO. "Gas-turbine performance improvements". Applied Energy , 1999; 64:263–
73.
[2] Abdel-Rahim YM. "Exergy analysis ofradial inflow expansion turbines for power
recovery. Heat Recovery System & CHP" 1995;15(8):775–85.
[3] Chuang CC, Ishida M. "Exergy analysis of an absorption heat pump by energy
utilization diagrams. A future for Energy (FLOWERS ‘90)". Tokyo (Japan): Pergamon
Press; 1990, p. 309–21.
[4] Cengel, Y.A., Boles, M.A.," Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach", fifth ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York. 2006.
[5] Szargut, J., Morris, D.R., Steward, F.R." Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and
Metallurgical Processes". Hemisphere Publishing Corp., New York. 1988.
[6] Kotas, T.J.,. "The Exergy Method in Thermal Plant Analysis", second ed. Krieger,
Malabar. 1995.
[7] Bejan, A.," Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics", third ed. Wiley, New York. 2006
[8] Birnie, C., Obert, E. F. “Evaluation and location of losses in a 60 MW power station”,
Proc. Midwest Power Conf., vol. 11, pp. 187-193, Exergy, Power engineering, 1949.
[9] 9- Keller, A.” The evaluation of steam power plant losses by means of the entropy
balance diagram”, Trans. ASME, vol. 72, p. 949, Exergy, Power engineering, 1959.
[10] 10- Habib M. A.; Said ,' S. A. M. and Al zaharana, I.” Optimization of Reheat Pressure
in Thermal Power Plants: ” Energy Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 555-565, 1995
[11] 11- Habib M. A.; Said ,' S. A. M. and Al zaharana, I.” Thermodynamic optimization of
reheat regenerative thermal-power plants “Applied Energy 63 (1999) 17:34
[12] 12- Aguilar, A. Z. , Vega, L.V.; Munoz A. G. and Guerrero A. H.” Thermodynamic
characterization of the power loss factor in steam turbines” Energy Conversion and
Management 43 (2002) 2369–2378
[13] 13- Kwak, H.Y, Kim,D.J. and J.-S. Jeon, J. S.” Exergetic and thermo-economic
analyses of power plants “Energy 28 (2003) 343–360.
[14] 14- A. Khaliqa, A., S.C. Kaushikb, S.C’ Second-law based thermodynamic analysis of
[15] Brayton/Rankine combined power cycle with reheat” Applied Energy 78 (2004) 179–
197
[16] 15- Sciubba, E.; Wall, G. “A brief Commented History of Exergy From the Beginnings
to 2004” Int. J. of Thermodynamics ISSN 1301-9724 Vol. 10 (No. 1), pp. 1-26, March
2007.
[17] 16- Aljundi, I.H.” Energy and exergy analysis of a steam power plant in Jordan”
Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 29, Issues 2-3, February 2009, Pages 324-328.

Paper: ASAT-13-TH-02


12/12

Appendix A

The thermodynamic properties of water at indicated nodes shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3

Max Load:
Point
T

(K)
P

(MPa)
o
m
(kg/s)
H

(kJ/kg)
S

(kJ/kg-K)
Ψ

(kJ/kg)
o
X
(MW)
1 811 16.64 269.317 3391 6.406 1484.7 399.9
2 596 3.75 236.317 3026 6.5 1093.5 256.8
3 811 3.378 234.82 3531 7.257 1264.2 296.857
4 717 1.35 226.42 3346 7.304 1174 274.716
5 627 0.982 209.919 3166 7.322 988.6 223.847
6 542 0.4873 195.73 3000 7.356 812.5 169.814
7 434 0.169 187.3 2793 7.413 588.5 115.169
8 368 0.0833 179.55 2668 7.423 460.5 82.667
9 346 0.0347 170.32 2631 7.719 423.5 72
10 315.7 0.0085 170.554 2403 7.8 80.2 13.636


75 % Load:
Point
T

(K)
P

(MPa)
o
m
(kg/s)
H

(kJ/kg)
S

(kJ/kg-K)
Ψ

(kJ/kg)
o
X
(MW)
1 811 16.64 192.5 3391 6.406 1484.7 285.8
2 568 2.72 169.2 2990 6.575 1035 199.284
3 811 2.45 169.2 3540 7.46 1330.5 225.1
4 718 1.348 163.238 3175 7.48 1136 192
5 628 0.718 152.3 3175 7.48 950.6 154.94
6 544 0.357 142.749 3009 7.515 774 118.246
7 436 0.124 136.918 2802 7.574 549.5 78.54
8 370 0.0571 131.737 2675 7.615 410.3 56.173
9 339 0.02573 127 2619 7.822 292.6 38.540
10 369 0.0085 127.2 2429 7.9 153.99 19.402


50 % Load:
Point
T

(K)
P

(MPa)
o
m
(kg/s)
H

(kJ/kg)
S

(kJ/kg-K)
Ψ

(kJ/kg)
o
X
(MW)
1 811 16.64 168.627 3391 6.406 1486.6 250.641
2 560 2.37 147.729 2977.8 6.612 1012 170.6
3 811 2.13 146.99 3543.4 7.464 1323.7 194.574
4 718 1.165 142.185 3372 7.531 1132 166.445
5 631 0.822 132.889 3171 7.54 928 123.354
6 545 0.3116 124.837 3012 7.582 757 99.945
7 457 0.1085 119.96 2844 7.729 545 68.06
8 360 0.0498 115.6 2657 7.732 357 42.88
9 336 0.0226 112.08 2614 7.867 274.2 31.7
10 315.7 0.0085 112.023 2442 7.92 130.2 14.597

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful