You are on page 1of 230

ComparativeEvaluationofPower

PlantswithCO2Capture:
Thermodynamic,Economicand
EnvironmentalPerformance

Dissertation

Dipl.Ing.FontinaPetrakopoulou

Berlin


ComparativeEvaluationofPowerPlants
withCO2Capture:Thermodynamic,
EconomicandEnvironmentalPerformance

vorgelegtvon
DiplomIngenieurin

FontinaPetrakopoulou
ausGriechenland

vonderFakulttIIIProzesswissenschaften
derTechnischenUniversittBerlin
zurErlangungdesakademischenGrades
DoktorderIngenieurwissenschaften
Dr.Ing.

genehmigteDissertation

Promotionsausschuss

Vorsitzender:Prof.Dr.Ing.FelixZiegler
Berichter:Prof.Dr.Ing.GeorgiosTsatsaronis
Berichter:Prof.Dr.Ing.GnterWozny

TagderwissenschaftlichenAussprache:6.12.2010

Berlin,2011
D83

Foreword
This work has been conducted during my stay as a research assistant at the Institute for
EnergyEngineeringandProtectionoftheEnvironmentaloftheTechnischeUniversittBerlin.
DuringtheperiodofSeptember2006September2009,thisresearchwassupportedbythe
European Commissions Marie Curie 6th Framework Programme of the CT2005019296
INSPIREtrainingnetwork.
Withthisopportunity,Iwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetothepeoplethatfacilitatedthe
completionofthiswork.
IammostespeciallygratefultoProfessorGeorgeTsatsaronis,whosupervisedthisworkand
was always willing, helpful, creative and patient. His support was the most important
motivatortocompletethiswork.
Professor Tatiana Morosuk was always present and willing to assist. Her energy and
excitementbrightenedsomecloudydays!
IwouldliketothankProfessorGnterWoznyforthereviewofthisthesis.Iamalsothankful
toProfessorFelixZieglerforhiswillingnesstochairmythesisdefence.
I am indebted to the students that contributed to this work: Anna Carrasai, Christopher
Paitazoglou,CostanzaPiancastelli,FoteiniKokkali,IvanGallioandMarleneCabrera.
Special thanks to my colleagues from the INSPIRE network and the Institute for Energy
Engineering and Protection of the Environmental for the fruitful collaboration, eventful
meetingsandniceexperiencesgathered.MycloseandfulfillingcollaborationwithDr.Alicia
BoyanoLarribadeservesaspecialreference.
ForthecomfortofapersonallicenceforthesoftwareEbsilonProfessionalbyEvonikEnergy
ServicesGmbH,Iamverygrateful.
I truly appreciate the help from my companion, Alex Robinson. Without his presence and
support, the completion of this work would have been more difficult and definitely not as
fun!
Finally,Iwouldliketothankmyfamilyfortheirunderstandingandeternalencouragement.

Berlin,October2010

FontinaPetrakopoulou

InmemoryofMatteoMilanesi

Synopsis

CCS(CarbonCaptureandSequestration)intheenergysectorisseenasabridgetechnologyfor
CO2 mitigation, due to the evergrowing environmental impact of anthropogenicemitted
greenhouse gases. In this work, eight power plant concepts using CO2 capture technologies
areassessedbasedontheirefficiency,economicfeasibilityandenvironmentalfootprint.
Exergybased analyses are used for evaluating the considered power plants through
comparison with a reference plant without CO2 capture. While conventional exergybased
analysesprovideimportantinformationthatcanleadtoimprovementsinplantperformance,
additional insight about individual components and the interactions among equipment can
aid further assessment. This led to the development of advanced exergybased analyses, in
whichtheexergydestruction,aswellastheassociatedcostsandenvironmentalimpactsare
split into avoidable/unavoidable and endogenous/exogenous parts. Based on the avoidable
parts,thepotentialforimprovementisrevealed,whilebasedontheendogenous/exogenous
parts,thecomponentinteractionsareobtained.

AmongtheexaminedplantswithCO2capture,themostefficientarethoseworkingwith

oxyfueltechnology.Anexergoeconomicanalysisshowsaminimumincreaseintherelative
investmentcost(in/kW)of80%fortheconventionalapproach(chemicalabsorption)andan
increaseof86%fortheoxyfuelplantwithchemicalloopingcombustion.Thelattershowsa
somewhatdecreasedenvironmentalimpactwhencomparedtothatofthereferenceplant.On
the contrary, the plant with chemical absorption results in a higher environmental penalty
duetoitshighefficiencypenalty.Therefore,acceptingthatallassumptionsanddatarelated
tothecalculationsoftheenvironmentalimpactsarereliable,efficiencyimprovementseemsto
be a more significant factor in potentially decreasing a plants environmental impact. With
advanced exergybased analyses, interdependencies among components are identified, and
the real potential for cost and environmentalrelated improvement is revealed. A common
trend for all plants examined is that most thermodynamic inefficiencies are caused by the
internaloperationofthecomponents.Additionally,avoidablequantitiesaregenerallyfound
to be low for components with high costs and environmental impacts, leaving a relatively
narrowwindowofimprovementpotential.

Synopsis

iv

TableofContents

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

2. CO2capturefrompowerplants ..................................................................................................5
2.1

Carboncaptureandstorage(CCS)...................................................................................5
2.1.1

CO2capture ...........................................................................................................5

2.1.2

CO2transport ........................................................................................................7

2.1.3

CO2storage............................................................................................................7

2.2

StateoftheartofCCS.........................................................................................................8

2.3

Theplantsconsideredinthisstudy ...............................................................................12
2.3.1

Thereferenceplant.............................................................................................15

2.3.2

The plant with chemical absorption using monoethanolamine (MEA


plant) ....................................................................................................................16

2.3.3

Thesimpleoxyfuelconcept .............................................................................18

2.3.4

TheSGrazcycle .................................................................................................19

2.3.5

Theadvancedzeroemissionplantwith100%CO2capture(AZEP100) ....20

2.3.6

Theadvancedzeroemissionplantwith85%CO2capture(AZEP85) ........21

2.3.7

Theplantwithchemicalloopingcombustion(CLCplant) ..........................22

2.3.8

The plant using a methane steam reforming membrane with


hydrogenseparation(MSRplant) ....................................................................24

2.3.9

Theplantusinganautothermalreformer(ATRplant) .................................26

2.4

Simulationsoftware..........................................................................................................27

2.5

Preliminarycomparison...................................................................................................27
2.5.1

Simulationresults...............................................................................................27

2.5.2

Additionalconsiderations .................................................................................28

3. Methodologyexergybasedanalyses....................................................................................31
3.1

Stateoftheart ....................................................................................................................31

3.2

Conventionalexergybasedanalyses..............................................................................33
3.2.1

Exergeticanalysis ................................................................................................33

3.2.2

Exergyandeconomics ........................................................................................35

TableofContents

vi

3.2.3

3.2.2.1

Economicanalysis............................................................................. 35

3.2.2.2

Exergoeconomicanalysis................................................................. 36

Exergyandenvironmentalimpacts ................................................................. 38
3.2.3.1

Lifecycleassessment........................................................................ 38

3.2.3.2

Exergoenvironmentalanalysis........................................................ 39

3.3 Advancedexergybasedanalyses ...................................................................................... 41


3.3.1

3.3.2

Advancedexergeticanalysis............................................................................. 42
3.3.1.1

Splittingtherateofexergydestruction ......................................... 42

3.3.1.2

Splitting the avoidable and unavoidable rates of exergy


destructionintoendogenousandexogenousparts ..................... 43

3.3.1.3

Calculatingthetotalavoidableexergydestruction ..................... 43

Advancedexergoeconomicanalysis ................................................................ 44
3.3.2.1

Splittingthecostratesofinvestmentandexergydestruction.... 45

3.3.2.2

Calculatingthetotalratesofavoidablecosts................................ 44

3.3.3 Advancedexergoenvironmentalanalysis....................................................... 47
3.3.3.1

Calculating the total avoidable environmental impact of


pollutantformationandexergydestruction................................. 47

4. Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants ...................................................... 51
4.1

Conventionalexergybasedanalyses ............................................................................ 51
4.1.1

Exergeticanalysis............................................................................................... 51

4.1.2

Exergyandeconomics....................................................................................... 54

4.1.3

4.2

4.1.2.1

Resultsoftheeconomicanalysis .................................................... 54

4.1.2.2

Resultsoftheexergoeconomicanalysis......................................... 55

4.1.2.3

Sensitivityanalyses........................................................................... 58

Exergyandenvironmentalimpacts ................................................................ 59
4.1.3.1

Resultsofthelifecycleassessment ................................................ 59

4.1.3.2

Resultsoftheexergoenvironmentalanalysis ............................... 60

4.1.3.3

Sensitivityanalyses........................................................................... 61

Advancedexergybasedanalyses .................................................................................. 70
4.2.1

4.2.2

Advancedexergeticanalysis ............................................................................ 70
4.2.1.1

Applicationoftheadvancedexergeticanalysis ........................... 70

4.2.1.2

Splittingtheexergydestruction...................................................... 74

4.2.1.3

Splittingtheexogenousexergydestruction.................................. 77

4.2.1.4

Calculatingthetotalavoidablerateofexergydestruction ......... 78

Advancedexergoeconomicanalysis ............................................................... 79

TableofContents

vii

4.2.3

4.2.2.1

Splittingtheinvestmentcostrates ..................................................80

4.2.2.2

Splittingthecostrateofexergydestruction ..................................82

4.2.2.3

Splittingtheexogenouscostratesofinvestmentandexergy
destruction..........................................................................................84

4.2.2.4

Calculating the total avoidable cost rates associated with


plantcomponents ..............................................................................87

Advancedexergoenvironmentalanalysis.......................................................88
4.2.3.1

Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction..........89

4.2.3.2

Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofpollutantformation........90

4.2.3.3

Splitting the exogenous environmental impact of exergy


destruction..........................................................................................90

4.2.3.4

Calculating the total avoidable environmental impact of


exergydestruction.............................................................................92

5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 95
5.1.

Exergeticanalysis.............................................................................................................. 96

5.2.

Economicanalysis............................................................................................................. 97

5.3.

Exergoeconomicanalysis................................................................................................. 97

5.4.

Lifecycleassessment........................................................................................................ 97

5.5.

Exergoenvironmentalanalysis........................................................................................ 98

5.6.

Advancedexergeticanalysis ........................................................................................... 98

5.7.

Advancedexergoeconomicanalysis .............................................................................. 98

5.8.

Advancedexergoenvironmentalanalysis ..................................................................... 99

5.9.

Summaryandfuturework .............................................................................................. 99

Appendices

A. Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants ......................................... 101


A.1. Thereferenceplant ......................................................................................................... 102
A.2. TheAZEP85 .................................................................................................................... 108
A.3. TheAZEP100 .................................................................................................................. 118
A.4. TheMCMreactor............................................................................................................ 124
A.5. TheCLCplant ................................................................................................................. 125
A.6. TheMEAplant ................................................................................................................ 135
A.7. TheSGrazcycle.............................................................................................................. 145
A.8. TheATRplant ................................................................................................................. 149
A.9. TheMSRplant................................................................................................................. 153
A.10. Thesimpleoxyfuelplant .............................................................................................. 157

TableofContents

viii

B. Assumptionsusedinthesumulationsandtheconventionalanalyses...........................161
B.1

Calculationofefficienciesandpressuredropsforcommoncomponentsofthe
powerplants .................................................................................................................... 161
B.1.1

Compressors and expanders of GT systems (C1 and GT1) and


CO2/H2Oexpanders(GT2).............................................................................. 161

B.1.2 Remainingcompressors.................................................................................. 161


B.1.3 Steamturbines.................................................................................................. 163
B.1.4 Pumps................................................................................................................ 163
B.1.5 Generatorsandmotors.................................................................................... 164
B.1.6 Heatexchangers ............................................................................................... 165
B.1.6.1

Pressuredrops..................................................................................165

B.1.6.2

Minimumtemperaturedifferences(min) ..................................167

B.1.7 Reactors ............................................................................................................. 167


B.2

Applicationoftheconventionalexergybasedmethods .......................................... 168


B.2.1 Applicationoftheexergeticanalysis ............................................................ 168
B.2.2 Applicationoftheeconomicanalysis ........................................................... 168
B.2.3 Applicationoftheexergoeconomicanalysis................................................ 172
B.2.4 ApplicationoftheLCA ................................................................................... 173
B.2.5 Applicationoftheexergoenvironmentalanalysis....................................... 178

C. Designestimatesforconstruction,operationalcostsandenvironmentalimpactof
heatexchangers ....................................................................................................... 179
C.1

Calculationofthesurfacearea,A .................................................................................179
C.1.1 Calculationoftheoverallheattransfercoefficient.......................................179
C.1.1.1

Calculationofthenonluminousheattransfercoefficient, hN .180

C.1.1.2

Calculationoftheconvectiveheattransfercoefficient, hc .........183

C.1.1.3

Calculationofthetubesidecoefficient, hi ..................................185

C.1.2 Designofthetubes ...........................................................................................188


C.1.3 Materials.............................................................................................................189

D. Generalizedcostingequations............................................................................................... 193

References ........................................................................................................................................ 197

ListofFigures

Figure2.1:CO2capturegroupsandtheircharacteristics.................................................................5
Figure2.2:OptionsforgeologicalstorageofCO2 .............................................................................8
Figure2.3:275CCSprojectsofallindustrialsectorsandscales,categorizedbycountry.........10
Figure2.4:Breakdownofthe213active/plannedprojectsclassifiedbycapturetype...............11
Figure2.5:Simplifieddiagramofthereferenceplant ....................................................................15
Figure2.6:SimplifieddiagramoftheMEAplant...........................................................................16
Figure2.7:SimplifieddiagramofaCAU.........................................................................................17
Figure2.8:ExergeticefficiencyandenergyrequirementrelativetotheleansorbentCO2
loading ..............................................................................................................................18
Figure2.9:Simplifieddiagramofthesimpleoxyfuelplant.........................................................18
Figure2.10:SimplifieddiagramoftheSGrazcycle.......................................................................19
Figure2.11:SimplifieddiagramoftheAZEP100...........................................................................20
Figure2.12:StructureoftheMCMreactor.......................................................................................21
Figure2.13:SimplifieddiagramoftheAZEP85.............................................................................22
Figure2.14:ConfigurationoftheCLCunitandthechemicalreactions......................................24
Figure2.15:SimplifieddiagramoftheCLCplant ..........................................................................24
Figure2.16:SimplifieddiagramoftheMSRplant..........................................................................25
Figure2.17:ConfigurationoftheMSRreactorandthechemicalreactions ................................25
Figure2.18:SimplifieddiagramoftheplantwithanATR............................................................26
Figure3.1:GeneralstructureoftheEcoindicator99LCIAmethod ............................................38
Figure3.2:Optionsforsplittingtheexergydestructioninanadvancedexergeticanalysis.....41
Figure4.1:InfluenceoftheinvestmentcostoftheMCMreactor,theCLCreactorsandthe
CAUontheoverallCOEoftherespectiveplants ......................................................59
Figure 4.2: Influence of pollutant formation on the EIE of the reference and MEA0.2
plants, with consideration of an environmental impact of 4.9 Pts/t of CO2
associatedwithtransportandstorage..........................................................................62
Figure 4.3: Influence of pollutant formation (on the EIE of the reference and MEA0.2
plants, without consideration of the environmental impact associated with
CO2transportandstorage..............................................................................................62
Figure4.4:TheGTsystemofthereferenceplant............................................................................73
Figure4.5:TheCLCunitaspartoftheGTsystemoftheCLCplant...........................................73
Figure4.6:TheMCMreactoraspartoftheGTsystemoftheAZEP85 ......................................74

ListofFigures

FigureA.1.1:Structureofthereferenceplant ............................................................................... 102


FigureA.2.1:StructureoftheAZEP85.......................................................................................... 108
FigureA.3.1:StructureoftheAZEP100........................................................................................ 118
FigureA.4.1:TheMCMreactor ...................................................................................................... 124
FigureA.5.1:StructureoftheCLCplant ....................................................................................... 125
FigureA.6.1:StructureoftheMEAplant...................................................................................... 135
FigureA.7.1:StructureoftheSGrazcycle.................................................................................... 145
FigureA.8.1:StructureoftheATRplant ....................................................................................... 149
FigureA.9.1:StructureoftheMSRplant....................................................................................... 153
FigureA.10.1:Thesimpleoxyfuelplant ...................................................................................... 157
FigureB.1:Influenceofmassflowonthepumpefficiency ........................................................ 163
FigureB.2:Influenceofthecapacityonthepumpefficiency..................................................... 165
FigureB.3:Connectionbetweencondenserandcoolingtower ................................................. 173
FigureC.1:GraphsusedfortheestimationofthehNandforbeamlengthevaluation............181
Figure C.2: Estimation of gas emissivity at different flue gas temperatures and beam
lengths............................................................................................................................ 182
FigureC.3:EstimationofthefactorKatdifferentwallandfluegastemperatures .................182
FigureC.4:EstimationofthehNatdifferenttemperaturesandbeamlengths ..........................182
FigureC.5:Estimationofthehcofdifferentgasesatdifferenttemperatures ............................185
FigureC.6:InfluenceofthehoandhivariationontheUo .............................................................185
FigureC.7:Effectoffingeometryonperformance.......................................................................189

ListofTables

Table2.1:Storageoptions.....................................................................................................................7
Table2.2:OperatingCCSprojectsinthepowergenerationindustry............................................9
Table2.3:Operatingcommercialscale,integratedCCSprojects ...................................................9
Table2.4:CompletedCCSprojectsofallindustrialsectors ..........................................................11
Table2.5:Mainoperatingparameters ..............................................................................................13
Table2.6:Efficiency,generatedpower,andinternalpowerconsumptionforthe
consideredplant ................................................................................................................28
Table3.1:Splittingthecosts ............................................................................................................... 46
Table3.2:Splittingtheenvironmentalimpacts ............................................................................... 49
Table4.1:Selectedresultsoftheexergeticanalysis ........................................................................ 51
Table4.2:Selectedresultsoftheeconomicanalysis ....................................................................... 54
Table4.3:SelectedresultsoftheLCA............................................................................................... 60
Table4.4:EnvironmentalimpactofoverallandavoidedpollutantformationduetoCO2
capture................................................................................................................................. 60
Table4.5:Resultsoftheconventionalexergybasedanalysesfortheoverallplants................. 63
Table4.6:Selectedresultsatthecomponentlevelforthereferenceplant .................................. 63
Table4.7:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP85 ............................................. 64
Table4.8:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP100 ........................................... 65
Table4.9:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheCLCplant .......................................... 66
Table4.10:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0.2.................................................. 67
Table4.11:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0 .................................................... 68
Table4.12:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheSGrazcycleandthesimpleoxy
fuelplant............................................................................................................................. 69
Table4.13:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheMSRandATRplants ..................... 69
Table4.14:Assumptionsrelatedtothetheoreticalandunavoidableoperationofthe
components ........................................................................................................................ 71
Table4.15:Selectedresultsatthecomponentleveloftheadvancedexergeticanalysis ........... 76
Table4.16:Splittingtheexogenousrateofexergydestruction..................................................... 77
Table4.17:Splittingtherateofexergydestructioncausedbyeachcomponent ........................ 79
Table4.18:Assumptionsforthecalculationoftheunavoidableinvestmentcostrates ............ 80
Table4.19:Splittingtheinvestmentcostrates................................................................................. 81

ListofTables

xii

Table4.20:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexergydestructioncostrates...............................83
Table4.21:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexogenousinvestmentcostrate..........................85
Table4.22:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexogenouscostratesofexergydestruction ......86
Table4.23:Avoidableinvestmentcostrate......................................................................................87
Table4.24:Avoidableexergydestructioncostrate.........................................................................87
Table4.25:Rankingofthecomponentswiththehighesttotalavoidablecostrate ....................88
Table4.26:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction ...89
Table4.27:Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofpollutantformation.......................................90
Table4.28:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexogenousenvironmentalimpactofexergy
destruction ..........................................................................................................................91
Table4.29:Avoidableenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction ............................................92
Table5.1:Thefourmostinfluentialcomponentsasrankedbyeachanalysis.............................95
TableA.1.1:Resultsoftheyearbyyeareconomicanalysisforthereferenceplant................ 103
TableA.1.2:Resultsatthecomponentlevelforthereferenceplant.......................................... 104
TableA.1.3:Resultsatthestreamlevelforthereferenceplant.................................................. 105
TableA.1.4:Splittingtheexergydestructioninthereferenceplant.......................................... 106
TableA.1.5:Splittingtheinvestmentcostrateinthereferenceplant ....................................... 106
TableA.1.6:Splittingthecostrateofexergydestructioninthereferenceplant...................... 107
TableA.1.7:Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestructioninthereference
plant .................................................................................................................................. 107
TableA.2.1:ResultsoftheeconomicanalysisfortheAZEP85.................................................. 109
TableA.2.2:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP85..................................................... 110
TableA.2.3:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheAZEP85 ............................................................ 112
TableA.2.4:SplittingtheexergydestructionintheAZEP85..................................................... 114
TableA.2.5:SplittingtheinvestmentcostrateintheAZEP85 .................................................. 115
TableA.2.6:SplittingthecostrateofexergydestructionintheAZEP85 ................................ 116
TableA.2.7:SplittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestructionintheAZEP85 ....... 117
TableA.3.1:ResultsoftheeconomicanalysisfortheAZEP100................................................ 119
TableA.3.2:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP100................................................... 120
TableA.3.3:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheAZEP100 .......................................................... 122
TableA.5.1:ResultsoftheeconomicanalysisfortheCLCplant ............................................... 126
TableA.5.2:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheCLCplant.................................................. 127
TableA.5.3:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheCLCplant.......................................................... 129
TableA.5.4:SplittingtheexergydestructionintheCLCplant.................................................. 131
TableA.5.5:SplittingtheinvestmentcostrateintheCLCplant ............................................... 132
TableA.5.6:SplittingthecostrateofexergydestructionintheCLCplant.............................. 133

ListofTables

xiii

TableA.5.7:SplittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestructionintheCLCplant ......134
TableA.6.1:ResultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0.2............................................................138
TableA.6.2:ResultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0...............................................................139
TableA.6.3:ResultsatthestreamlevelforMEA0.2....................................................................140
TableA.6.4:ResultsatthestreamlevelforMEA0.......................................................................143
TableA.7.1:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheSGrazcycle ...............................................146
TableA.7.2:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheSGrazcycle.......................................................147
TableA.8.1:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheATRplant ..................................................150
TableA.8.2:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheATRplant ..........................................................151
TableA.9.1:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheMSRplant ..................................................154
TableA.9.2:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheMSRplant ..........................................................155
TableA.10.1:Resultsatthecomponentlevelforthesimpleoxyfuelplant .............................158
TableA.10.2:Resultsatthestreamlevelforthesimpleoxyfuelplant .....................................159
TableB.1:EfficienciesofC1,GT1andGT2....................................................................................161
TableB.2:Efficienciesoftheremainingcompressorsoftheplants............................................162
TableB.3:Calculatedefficienciesofpumps...................................................................................164
TableB.4:PressuredropswithintheHXsofthereference,MEAandsimpleoxyfuel
plants .................................................................................................................................166
TableB.5:Powerplantcharacteristics ............................................................................................168
TableB.6:Dataforcostcalculations................................................................................................170
TableB.7:Assumptionsinvolvedintheeconomicanalysis........................................................172
TableB.8:Typicalconstructionmaterialsforprocessequipment ..............................................174
TableB.9:Designdataforplantcomponents ................................................................................176
TableB.10:EIofincomingandexitingstreamsofthesystems...................................................178
TableC.1:BeamlengthL ..................................................................................................................181
TableC.2:ApproximationofthehNwithmassratios8:1H2Oand25:1CO2 ............................183
TableC.3:Gasandsteamproperties ..............................................................................................184
TableC.4:EstimationofthehcforhighconcentrationsofCO2andH2O...................................185
TableC.5:Dataofthereferenceplant.............................................................................................186
TableC.6:DatafortheAZEP85......................................................................................................186
TableC.7:DatafortheAZEP100....................................................................................................187
TableC.8:DataoftheplantwithCLC............................................................................................187
TableC.9:DataforMEA0 ...............................................................................................................188
TableC.10:DataforMEA0.2 ..........................................................................................................188
TableC.11:MainconstructionmaterialsofHRSGs......................................................................190
TableC.12:DesignestimatesfortheHXsofthereferenceplant ................................................191

ListofTables

xiv

Nomenclature

Symbols
a

Sizeexponent

Surfacearea(m2)

b
B

Environmentalimpactperunitofexergy(Pts/GJ)

Environmentalimpactrateassociatedwithexergy(Pts/h)

c
C

Costperunitofexergy(/GJ)

Costrateassociatedwithanexergystream(/h)

di , do

Insideandoutsidetubediameter(in)

Exergyrate(MW)

Exergoeconomicfactor(%)

f b

Exergoenvironmentalfactor(%)

Totalinletfluegasflowrate(kmol/h);gasmassvelocity(lb/ft2h)

hi , ho

Tubesideandgassidecoefficients(W/m2K)

hc , hN

Convectiveandnonluminousheattransfercoefficients(W/m2K)

Constant

Totalsorbentflowrate(kmol/h);beamlength(m)

Massflowrate(kg/s)

mwlean

Averagemolecularweightoftheleansorbent(kg/kmol)

Pressure(bar)

Relativecostdifference(%)

rb

Relativeenvironmentalimpactdifference(%)

ST , S L

Longitudinalandtransversepitch(in)

Temperature(C)

Uo

Overallheattransfercoefficient(W/m2K)

Volumetricflowrate(m3/s)

Exergydestructionratio(%)

Componentrelatedenvironmentalimpact(Pts/h)

y CO2

CO2concentration(w/w,%)

Costrateassociatedwithcapitalinvestment(/h)

Subscripts
CH

Chemical(exergy)

Nomenclature

xvi

Destruction(exergy)

Fuel(exergy)

i,j

Enteringandexitingexergystreamindices

in

Incoming

is

Isentropic(efficiency)

k , r , Y ,W

Componentindices

Loss(exergy)

l,m,n

Countingindices

out

Outgoing

Product(exergy)

PH

Physical(exergy)

pol

Polytropic(efficiency)

tot

Overallsystem

mech

Mechanical(efficiency)

Superscripts
AV

Avoidable

UN

Unavoidable

UN,EN

Unavoidableendogenous

UN,EX

Unavoidableexogenous

AV,EN

Avoidableendogenous

AV,EX

Avoidableexogenous

MX

Mexogenous

PF

Pollutantformation

Abbreviations
AR

Airreactor

ASU

Airseparationunit

ATR

Autothermalreformer

AZEP

Advancedzeroemissionplant

CAU

Chemicalabsorptionunit

CC

Combustionchamber

CCS

Carboncaptureandstorage

CEPCI

Chemicalengineeringplantcostindex

CLC

Chemicalloopingcombustion

COACO2

CostofavoidedCO2

COE

Costofelectricity

COND

Condenser

COOL

Cooler

CPO

Catalyticpartialoxidation

CT

Coolingtower

Nomenclature

xvii

DB

Ductburner

EC

Economizer

ECBMR

Enhancedcoalbedmethanerecovery

EGR

Enhancedgasrecovery

EIE

Environmentalimpactofelectricity

EOR

Enhancedoilrecovery

EV

Evaporator

FC

Fuelcost

FCI

Fixedcapitalinvestment

FG

Fluegas

FR

Fuelreactor

GEN

Generator

GT

Gasturbine

HP/IP/LP

Highpressure/intermediatepressure/lowpressure

HT/LP

Hightemperature/lowtemperature

HTT

Hightemperatureturbine

HRSG

Heatrecoverysteamgenerator

HX

Heatexchanger

IC

Investmentcost

ID

Insidediameter

IGCC

Integratedgasificationcombinedcycle

LCA

Lifecycleassessment

LCIA

Lifecycleimpactassessment

LHV

Lowerheatingvalue

LNG

Liquefiednaturalgas

LPG

Liquefiedpetroleumgases

LPT

Lowpressuregasturbine

MEA

Monoethanolamine

MCM

Mixedconductingmembrane

MMV

Measurement,monitoringandverification

MSR

Hydrogenseparatingmembrane

NG

Naturalgas

NGPH

Naturalgaspreheater

O&M

Operatingandmaintenancecosts

OC

Oxygencarrier

OD

Outsidediameter

PEC

PurchasedequipmentCost

RH

Reheater

SH

Superheater

ST

Steamturbine

TCI

Totalcapitalinvestment

TRR

Totalrevenuerequirement

Nomenclature

xviii

Greeksymbols

Exergeticefficiency(%)

Gasemissivity

Energeticefficiency(%)

Excessairfraction

Density(lb/ft3)

Annualoperatinghours

lean

LeansorbentCO2loading

1. Introduction

Greenhousegasesabsorbandtrapheatintheloweratmosphere.Acontinuous,rapidincreasein
anthropogenicatmosphericgreenhousegasconcentrationssincetheindustrialrevolutionhasled
to pronounced temperature increases and climate change. Accounting for about 80% of the
enhanced global warming effect, CO2 is thought to be the main contributor among the
greenhouse gases (VGB PowerTech, 2004). Electricpower generation remains the single largest
source of CO2 emissions, equal to those of the rest of the industrial sectors combined (IPCC,
2005). Additionally, most of the energy demand across the globe is covered by fossil fuels that
generate large amounts of pollutants like CO2, CH4 and NOX. An everincreasing demand for
energyprolongsenvironmentalaggravation,butitsimultaneouslyactsasastrongmotivatorfor
the development of new technologies to mitigate climate change. As mentioned in the IPCC
report(2005),measurestoreducetheincreasingmanmadeCO2concentrationintheatmosphere
include: (1) reducing energy demand; (2) increasing the efficiency of energy conversion and/or
fuel utilization; (3) switching to less carbon intensive fuels; (4) increasing the use of renewable
energy sources or nuclear energy; (5) sequestering CO2 by enhancing biological absorption
capacityinforestsandsoilsand(6)carboncapturingandstoring(CCS).
Carbon capture and storage is a three step process: (1) CO2 capture and compression to a
highpressure,(2)CO2transporttoaselectedstoragesiteand(3)CO2storage.CCSfrompower
plantsisatopicthatstartedattractingattentionfromalargegroupofscientistsonlyalittlemore
thanthreedecadesago,asapowerfultoolforlimitingtheimpactoffossilfueluseontheclimate
(Herzog,2001).Thisfieldis,therefore,stillinitsinfancy,butexpertiseisgrowing.
When evaluating options for CO2 capture from power stations, engineers are faced with a
large variety of alternative approaches. However, dissimilar assumptions and hypotheses in
evaluationsmakethecomparisonandassessmentofdifferentconceptsdifficult,ifnotinfeasible.
Moreover, although several alternative approaches for capturing CO2 have been proposed in
such a short time, few appear promising with respect to efficiency and cost, while the
environmentalimpactofthetechnologiesisstillunknown.Althoughenergybasedcomparative
studiesofselectedCO2capturetechnologieshavebeensporadicallyperformedinthelastdecade
(e.g.,Kvamsdalet al.,2007;Bolland, 1991; Bolland andMathieu,1998),acompletepresentation
andcomparisonofafairnumberofalternativemethodsisstillmissing.Anyemissionreduction
(up to practically 100%) can be achieved with a sufficiently high level of expenditure. The
question,however,iswhetheraCO2capturetechnologyisareasonablemeasurewhenbalancing
thebenefittotheenvironmentagainstagreatlyincreasedcostandrisk(VGBPowerTech,2004).

Chapter1.Introduction

ThisthesisaimstoevaluateavarietyofCO2capturetechnologies,takingintoaccountboth
theeconomicandtheenvironmentalperspectives(riskassessmentisnotincluded).Eightlowor
zeroemissionpowerplantswithdifferentCO2capturetechnologiesarepresentedandcompared
under equivalent conditions, based on their efficiency, economic feasibility and environmental
footprint. The focus is the evaluation of CO2 capture technologies integrated in combined cycle
power plants operating with natural gas and used for electricity production. Advantages and
disadvantages of each technology and ways to reduce the cost and environmental impact
associatedwithelectricityproduction,whilekeepingtheCO2emissionsataminimumlevel,are
discussed.
The methods used for the evaluation of the plants are based on exergy principles. An
exergeticanalysisisthefirststepinevaluatinganenergyconversionsystem,identifyingthesource
and cause of incurred thermodynamic inefficiencies (Bejan et al., 1996; Tsatsaronis and Cziesla,
2002;MoranandShapiro,2008;Tsatsaronis andCziesla,2009).Thecombinationofanexergetic
analysiswithaneconomicanalysisandalifecycleassessmentconstitutestheexergoeconomicanalysis
(Bejan et al. 1996; Tsatsaronis and Cziesla 2002; Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis, 2006) and the
exergoenvironmental analysis (Meyer et al., 2009; Tsatsaronis and Morosuk, 2008a and 2008b),
respectively.
With conventional exergybased analyses, information about improvements of an energy
conversion system is revealed. Monetary costs and environmental impacts are assigned to all
exergy streams of the plants, as well as to the exergy destruction incurred within each plant
component, exposing appropriate compromises among thermodynamic, economic and
environmentalconsiderations.However,althoughconventionalexergybasedanalysesuncovera
path towards plant improvement, they suffer from some limitations, which are addressed by
advancedexergybasedanalyses.
Advanced exergybased methods identify mutual interdependencies among plant
components, and reveal the real improvement potential both at the component and plant level
(Tsatsaronis, 1999a; Tsatsaronis and Park, 2002; Cziesla et al., 2006; Morosuk and Tsatsaronis,
2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b, 2009a and 2009b; Tsatsaronis et al., 2006; Tsatsaronis
andMorosuk,2007,2010;Kelly2008;Boyanoetal.,2009;Kellyetal,2009;Tsatsaronisetal.,2009).
Data obtained from advanced exergybased methods are crucial for pinpointing strengths and
weaknessesofcomplexplantswithalargenumberofinterrelatedcomponents.
This thesis is the first evaluation of CO2 capture technologies using exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analyses, and it is the first complete and thorough application of the
advancedmethodstocomplexenergyconversionsystemsingeneral.Chapter2providesashort
descriptionofthedifferentstepsinvolvedinCCStechnology,aswellasanoverviewofthestate
oftheart.GlobalCCSprojectsarealsopresentedandcategorizedbasedontheirsize,application
sector and state of realization (Section 2.2). A detailed description of the eight CO2 capture
technologiesconsideredinthisthesis,andtheirincorporation intopowerplants,isprovidedin
Section 2.3.Chapter3presents the exergybasedmethodsused fortheevaluation of the plants.
Both conventional and advanced exergybased methods are described, and all the required

Chapter1.Introduction

mathematicalequationsandvariablesofthemethodologiesareincluded.Chapter4presentsthe
application of the exergybased methods to the simulated systems and the results obtained.
Lastly, conclusions and future plans are included in Chapter 5. The appendices and the
supplementaldataprovideadditionaldetailedinformationfortheanalyticalstudyoftheresults.

Chapter1.Introduction

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

2. CO2capturefrompowerplants

2.1 Carboncaptureandstorage(CCS)
The three steps comprising CCS are CO2 capture, transport and storage. Transport and
storageofcarbondioxidearenotthefocusofthisthesis.However,here,inordertopresent
thecompletechainoftheCCSprocess,informationaboutallthreestepsisprovided.

2.1.1

CO2capture

CO2capturemethodscanbeclassifiedintotwomaincategories1,dependingonwhetherthe
CO2 is captured before or after the combustion process (Figure 2.1). However, the main
distinction among capture methods stems from the treatment of the fuel used: when no
treatment of the fuel occurs, the method is classified as postcombustion capture, while when
the fuel undergoes a decarbonization process, the method is classified as precombustion
capture.

Figure2.1:CO2capturegroupsandtheircharacteristics

When air is used as the oxidant in postcombustion capture, CO2 is captured with
chemical or physical solvents. The most conventional representative of this type of CO2
capture is chemical absorption, a process developed about 70 years ago to remove acid gases
1

In literature, CO2 capture technologies are generally separated into three groups: post-, pre- and oxy-combustion concepts.
Although post- and pre-combustion refer to when the carbon capture takes place, oxy-combustion refers to the oxidant type used
in the combustion process. Here the distinction is based exclusively on when the carbon capture takes place. Thus, oxycombustion is considered part of the post-combustion methods (since the produced CO2 is separated after the combustion
process).

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

fromnaturalgasstreams(Herzog,2001).Theadvantagesofpostcombustioncapturearethat
existingplantscanberetrofittedwithacaptureunitwithoutfurtherrearrangements,andthat
the technology is well established. However, the prominent disadvantage of the method is
theverysignificantamountofthermalenergyrequiredfortheregenerationofthechemicals
used, resulting in a significant efficiency penalty. In recent years, many studies have
revieweddifferentpostcombustiontechnologiesandcomparedtheeffectivenessofdifferent
typesofabsorbentsforchemicalabsorption(e.g.,RubinandRao,2002;Kothandaramanetal.,
2009). Analyses have yet to reveal any significant breakthrough, so chemical absorption
remainsoneofthemostenergyintensivemethodologies.
Whenoxygenisusedastheoxidantinpostcombustioncapture(oxyfuelcombustion),the
energydemandisreduced,whencomparedtochemicalabsorption,andtheCO2separation
process is simplified. Because oxygen is used, the combustion products consist mainly of
water vapour and carbon dioxide; the carbon dioxide is freed after the water is condensed
without requiring further treatment, keeping the energy demand of CO2 separation at
relatively low levels. In addition, with oxyfuel combustion, NOX emissions are reduced to
less than 1 ppm for natural gas use (Sundkvist et al., 2005). The most common method to
produce oxygen for largescale oxyfuel plants is a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU).
However,compressionandtheenergyrequirementofthedistillationcolumnincludedinthe
process result in a relatively high cost that makes the method less attractive. Oxyfuel
conceptsalsohaveimplementationchallengesassociatedwithtechnologicallimitationsofthe
components (Wilkinson et al., 2003; Anderson et al. 2008). Nevertheless, there has recently
beenalargeincreaseinprojectsassociatedwithnewlyintroducedoxyfuelapproaches.These
technologies include oxygenseparating membranes and new types of reactors that seem
promising with respect to their efficiency and their relatively low CO2 capture cost (e.g.,
(Kvamsdaletal.,2007).
In precombustion methods, suitable decarbonization methods are applied to the
availablefueltoseparatethecarboncontainedinitbeforethecombustionprocess.Thegoalis
to produce a hydrogenbased fuel that will result in clean combustion gases. If the de
carbonization method results in a mixture of CO2 and gases that do not allow the required
purity of CO2 for separation (e.g., CO2 mixed with N2), chemical absorption is used.
Otherwise, if the produced CO2 is kept separate by the decarbonization process, no
additional treatment is needed and the CO2 is captured after water condensation. The de
carbonization of the fuel is highly energy demanding, relatively expensive and its
implementationrequireslargestructuralchangestoanypreexistingplant.Oneofthemost
wellknown technologies that can be easily adopted for precombustion capture is the
gasificationofcoal.Fromthisprocesssyngasisproduced,whichcanbeusedingasturbines,
increasing the overall efficiency of the plant. However, integrated gasification combined cycles
(IGCCs),presentchallengesthatdelaythebroaderacceptanceofthistechnology.

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

2.1.2

CO2transport

OnceCO2hasbeencaptured,itmustbetransportedtoastoragefacilityasgas,liquidorsolid.
Transportation can be performed via pipeline, ship, rail, truck or a combination of these
means.
TransportofCO2bypipelineintheliquidphase(above7.58MPa,ambienttemperature)
is,atpresent,themosteconomical meansofmovinglargequantitiesofCO2longdistances.
Transportation infrastructure would be needed for large quantities of CO2 to make a
significant contribution to climate change mitigation, and would imply a large network of
pipelines.Asgrowthcontinues,itmaybecomemoredifficulttosecurerightsofwayforthe
pipelines, particularly in highly populated zones that produce large amounts of carbon
dioxide.Existingexperiencehasonlybeeninzoneswithlowpopulationdensities,andsafety
issues will most probably become more complicated in populated areas. Although some
experiencehasbeengainedbyenhancedoilrecovery(EOR)operations,thestandardsrequired
for CCS are not necessarily the same and, therefore, new minimum standards for pipeline
qualityforCCSarerequired(IPCC,2005).
In some cases, transport of CO2 by ship may be economically more attractive,
particularlywhentheCO2mustbemovedoverlargedistancesoroverseas(IPCC,2005).The
properties of liquefied CO2 are similar to those of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG). LPG
technology could be scaledup to large CO2 carriers, transporting CO2 by ship in a similar
way(typicallyatapressureof0.7MPa).
Road and rail tankers are also technically feasible options when there is no access to
pipelinefacilitiesorwhenthecapturedgasmustbetransferredoverlargedistances.Herethe
CO2istransportedatatemperatureof20Candatapressureof2MPa.Thesesystemsare
moreexpensivecomparedtopipelinesandships,exceptonaverysmallscale.

2.1.3

CO2storage

AvailablealternativechoicesforCO2storageareshowninTable2.1.Carbondioxidecapture
withstorageindeepgeologicalformationsiscurrentlythemostadvancedandthemostlikely
approachtobedeployedonalargescaleinthefuture.Possiblegeologicalstorageformations
includeoilandgasfields,salineformations,andcoalbeds(seeFigure2.2).
Table2.1:Storageoptions(WorleyParsons,2009)a
Geological
Salineformations

Ocean
CO2lakes

Beneficialreuse
Enhancedoilrecovery(EOR)

Terrestrial
Forestlands
Agriculturallandsincluding
Depletedoilandgasreservoirs Solidhydrate Enhancedgasrecovery(EGR)
biochar
Enhancedcoalbedmethanerecovery Grasslandandgrazingland
Unmineablecoalseams
Dissolution
(ECBMR)
management
Saltcaverns

Algaefarmingforrecycling
Desertsanddegradedlands
Basaltformations

Otherindustrialmanufacturing
Wetlandsorpeatlands
Shaleformations

aCO2canalsobestoredinothermaterials,i.e.,throughmineralcarbonation(IPCC,2005)

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

Everywhere under a thin overlay of soils or sediments, the earths surface is made up
primarilyoftwotypesofrocks:thoseformedbycoolingmagmaandthoseformedasthick
accumulationsofsand,clay,salts,andcarbonatesovermillionsofyears.Sedimentarybasins
consistofmanylayersofsand,silt,clay,carbonate,andevaporite(rockformationscomposed
of salt deposited from evaporating water). The sand layers provide storage space for oil,
water,andnaturalgas.Thesilt,clayandevaporitelayersprovidethesealthatcantrapthese
fluidsundergroundforperiodsofmillionsofyearsandlonger(BensonandFranklin,2008).
Sedimentary basins often contain many thousands of meters of sediments, where the
tiny pore spaces in the rocks are filled with salt water (saline formations). Oil and gas
reservoirsarefoundundersuchfinetexturedrocksandthemerepresenceoftheoilandgas
demonstrates the presence of a suitable reservoir seal. In saline formations, where the pore
space is initially filled with water, after the CO2 has been underground for hundreds to
thousandsofyears,chemicalreactionswilldissolvesomeoralloftheCO2inthesaltwater,
and eventually some fraction of the CO2 will be converted into carbonate minerals, thus
becomingpartoftherockitself.

Figure2.2:OptionsforgeologicalstorageofCO2(CO2CRC)2

2.2 StateoftheartofCCS
ThefirstcommercialplantswithpostcombustionCO2capturewereconstructedinthe
late1970sandearly1980sintheUnitedStates.TheseprojectsdidnottreatCO2asapollutant,
but as a new economic resource (Herzog, 2001), separating and injecting CO2 into oil
reservoirs to increase their productivity (EOR). This also led to the first longdistance CO2
pipelines.However,withthedeclineoftheoilpriceinthemid1980s,theseparationofCO2
was too expensive, forcing the closure of these capture facilities. An exception is the North

http://www.co2crc.com.au/

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

Projectname

Capturetype

Country Feedstock

Size

CO2use(currentorplanned)

SuaPan

Postcombustion Botswana Coal

109,500tpaCO2,20MW

Carbonationofbrine

LoyYangPower(LYP)/CSIROPCCProject

Postcombustion Australia Coal

1,000tpaCO2

Vent

MunmorahPCCPilotPlantProject

Postcombustion Australia Coal

3,000tpaCO2

Vent

HazelwoodCarbonCaptureProject

Postcombustion Australia Coal

10,000tpa

Chemicallysequestered

HuanengCoGenerationPowerPlantCO2CaptureProject Postcombustion China


EsbjergPilotPlant

Coal

3,000tpaCO2

Industrial(food,medical)

Postcombustion Denmark Coal

8,760tpaCO2

Vent

100,000tpaCO2,30MWth

Storageandindustrial

OxPPVattenfallOxyfuelPilot

Oxyfiring

SumitomoChemicalsPlantCO2Project

Postcombustion Japan

Germany Coal

Gas,Coal,Oil 54,75060,225tpaCO2,8MWe Foodindustry

NankoPilotPlant

Postcombustion Japan

NaturalGas

730tpaCO2,Power0.1MWe

Vent

WarriorRunPowerPlant

Postcombustion USA

Coal

54,750tpaCO2

Foodprocessingandrelatedpurposes

BellinghamCogenerationFacility

Postcombustion USA

NaturalGas

116,800tpaCO2

Foodgrade

IMCGlobalInc.SodaAshplant,Trona

Carbonationofbrine

Postcombustion USA

Coal

292,000tpaCO2

WeEnergiesPleasantPrairieChilledAmmoniaPilotProject Postcombustion USA

Coal

15,000tpaCO2atfullcapacity Vent

AESShadyPointLLCpowerplant

Coal

65,700tpaCO2

Postcombustion USA

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

Table2.2:OperatingCCSprojectsinthepowergenerationindustry(Source:WorleyParsons,2009)

Foodprocessing

Table2.3:Operatingcommercialscale,integratedCCSprojects(Source:WorleyParsons,2009)
Estimatedoperation
State/District,Country
Capturefacility
date
1986

Sleipner

1996

Transporttype

Storagetype

Appr.CO2
storagerates

Beneficialreuse(EOR)

1.0Mtpa

SaltCreekEOR

2006

ShuteCreekgasprocessingfacility NGprocessing 201kmPipeline

Beneficialreuse(EOR)

2.4Mtpa

2007

SnhvitLNGPlant

Geological

0.7Mtpa

NorthSea,Norway

ValVerdeCO2Pipeline Texas,USA

Wyoming,USA

SnhvitCO2Injection BarentsSea,Norway

NGprocessing 160kmPipeline

Geological(salineaquifer)(16.3Mt
1.0Mtpa
storedattheendof2008)
Beneficialreuse(EOR)

1.0Mtpa

Beneficialreuse(EOR)

2.4Mtpa

Geological(3.0Mtstoredtodate)

1.2Mtpa

1998
2000(usingCO2as
WeyburnOperations Saskatchewan,Canada
floodingagent)
InSalah
Ouargla,Algeria
2004

ShuteCreekgasprocessingfacility NGprocessing 285kmPipeline


Pipeline(capture
CO2separatedfromproducedgas
NGprocessing andstorageat
gasprocessingplatform
samelocation)
Fivenaturalgasprocessingplants NGprocessing 132kmPipeline
GreatPlainsSynfuelsplant,
Precombustion 330kmPipeline
DakotaGasification
Naturalgasprocessingplant
NGprocessing 14kmPipeline

RangelyEORProject Colorado,USA

Capturetype

Projectname

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

10

American Chemical Plant in Trona, CA, which produces CO2 for the carbonation of brine.
Thisplantstartedoperationin1978andstilloperatestodayasthelargestCCSrelatedproject
inthepowergenerationindustry(VGBPowerTech,2004).
Inthelast20years,therehasbeenasignificantoutbreakoftheoreticalandcommercial
CCSprojects.Fortunately,thereareavailablesourceskeepingtrackoftheprogress,providing
data for all completed and planned projects around the globe. An overview of largescale
CCS projects in the power generation industry is provided by the Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage Power Plant Project Database of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)3,
while a complete list of CCS projects in all different industrial sectors can be found on the
website of National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)4. Additionally, a survey of all
availableprojectsisprovidedintherecentreportoftheGlobalCCSInstitute(WorleyParsons,
2009).Thelattersurveyisusedheretopresentashortoverviewofthecurrentlyactiveand
plannedCCSprojects.
Inthepowergenerationindustry,therearecurrently14operatingCO2captureprojects
in the world (Table 2.2), 13 of which use postcombustion technology and 1 that uses oxy
combustion.Alloftheseprojectsaresmallscale,capturinglessthan290ktpaofCO2,withthe
majority of them capturing less than 100 ktpa. None include geological storage or EOR. It
shouldbenotedthatthetwolargestplants(with292and117ktpaofCO2)arelocatedinthe
USA (projects Trona and Bellingham). Outside the power generation industry, there are 7
commercialscale5,integrated6projectsoperatingtodate,6ofwhichperformNGprocessing
(Table2.3).

Figure2.3:275CCSprojectsofallindustrialsectorsandscales,categorizedbycountry(Source:
WorleyParsons,2009)

http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/database/index.html
5Commercialscaleisconsideredthescalewithastorageratehigherthan1MtpaofCO2.
6IntegratedprojectsareprojectsthatincludeallthreestepsoftheCCSchain:CO2capture,transportandstorage.
3
4

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

11

In total, 499 activities are listed as CCS projects (WorleyParsons,2009). From these 499
activities, 275 CCS projects7 are recognized as projects that produce advancement in
components, systems and processes and support the commercialization of integrated CCS
solutionswithemissionsgreaterthan25,000tpa ofCO2.Thebreakdownoftheprojectsby
countries is shown in Figure 2.3. From the 275 CCS projects, 213 are active or planned, 34
have already been completed, 26 have been cancelled or delayed and from 2 projects, the
status was withheld. No integrated projects have been completed at any scale. The
breakdown, both by scale and type, of the completed 34, smallscale projects is shown in
Table2.4.
Table2.4:CompletedCCSprojectsofallindustrialsectors(WorleyParsons,2009)
Bench Pilot Demonstration Commercial N/C
3

15

10

Capture Storage Transport&storage

18

15

Capture type

Size

Sector of application

27
39

108
77

76
63

56

62

49

14
postcombustion
capture

pre-combustion
capture

oxy-fuel
combustion

small-scale

demonstration

Integrated projects

commercialscale (storage
rate higher than
1 Mtpa)

power
generation
sector

other sectors

Projects in the planning stage

Figure2.4:Breakdownofthe2138active/plannedprojectsclassifiedbycapturetype(green),size
(blue)andsector(yellow)(WorleyParsons,2009)

Threedifferentbreakdownsofthe213activeorplannedprojectsareshowninFigure2.4
in different colors: the CO2 capture technology used is shown in green (oxyfuel is shown
separatelyforclarity),thescaleoftheplantsinblueandtheappliedsectorinyellow.Some
additionalinformationispresentedindifferentcolorshades.Itisclearthatpostcombustion
technology is the dominant capture method. 49% of the active or planned projects (105
projects) are in the power generation sector, 77 of which are in the planning stage and 27
(shown in dark yellow) in the stages of construction or operation. In total, 101 are
commercialscaleprojects,62ofwhichareintegrated.Fromthe62integratedprojects,27are
7
8

Academicstudiesarenotincluded.
159 of the 213 active or planned projects employ a form of CO2 capture.

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

12

inEurope,15intheUnitedStatesofAmerica,7inAustralia,6inCanada,4inChinaand1in
each of the following: Algeria, Malaysia and United Arab Emirates. 41 of the integrated
projects are commercialscale integrated CCS projects in the power generation sector, 38 of
them use coal as fuel and most of them integrate geological storage or perform beneficial
reuse(EOR;enhancedgasrecovery,EGRorenhancedcoalbedmethanerecovery,ECBMR).
EOR projects are common practice in Canada, USA and the UAE. Due to limited
experience in geological storage, on one hand, and the mature technology related to EOR
projectsontheother,whenpossible,beneficialuseofCO2ispreferred.AlthoughEORcould
incorporate robust measurement, monitoring and verification (MMV) systems to evaluate the
capacityandqualityofaCO2storagereservoir,onlyalimitednumberofoperationsinclude
MMV. There are 22 active or planned, commercialscale, integrated projects with geological
storage in Europe. In constrast, only one CCS project has already started performing
geological storage in Algeria (In Salah, NG processing in operation since 2004) and one is
planned(tooperatein2018)intheUnitedStates(Illinois,FutureGen).Thestoragesitesoftwo
facilitiesintheUnitedStateshavenotbeendeterminedyet.
Currently there are three integrated operating projects with CO2 geological storage
(outside the power generation industry): Sleipner operating since 1996, In Salah operating
since2004(commercialscaleprojects)andSnhvitoperatingsince2007.Inallthreeofthese
projects, gas processing is performed. In Sleipner and Snhvit, offshore storage is being
realizedtoexaminethepotentialforfurtheruseofstoragesitesbelowtheseafloor.Thereare
alsoanotherfourintegratedcommercialscaleCCSprojects,allofwhichperformEOR:three
intheUnitedStates:RangelyinColorado,ValVerdeinTexasandSaltCreekinWyoming,in
operation since 1986, 1998 and 2006, respectively, and one in Saskatchewan, Canada:
Weyburnoperations,inoperationsince2000.ThetwolargestprojectsaretheSaltCreekand
theWeyburn,storing2.4Mtpaeach.

2.3 Theplantsconsideredinthisstudy
This thesis compares eight technologies for CO2 capture in power plants producing
electricity.ThestructureandoperationofthesystemswithCO2capturehavebeenbasedona
baseplantwithoutCO2capture,thereferenceplant.Basicparametervaluesweredetermined
forthisplantandhavebeenkeptconstantinthesimulationsoftheplantswithCO2capture.
Toconsidercomparablepowersystems,eitherthefuelinputorthepoweroutputofthe
facilities should be kept constant. The choice of a specified power output would lead to
different sizes of similar plant components, since, for example, a respective increase in the
poweroutputofthegasturbine(GT)systemwouldberequiredtocompensateforthepower
consumedbytheCO2compressionunit.WithcompletelydifferentGTsystems,acomparison
wouldnothavebeenmeaningful.Thus,thefuelsupplyhasbeenkeptconstantforallplants.
The resulting output has then been calculated according to structural and operating
requirements of each CO2 capture method. The goal is to reveal to which extent the
construction

and

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

13

CLCunit(Reactors)
Adiabaticreactors,oxygencarrier:NiO/Ni(nolosses)
Inletpressure:17bar
Reactorspressuredrop:3%
Fuelconversion:98%

Shifters
Pressuredrop:3%

CO2compressionunit(4intercooledstages)
Compressorspolytropicefficiency(4stages):seeAppendixB
CO2endpressure:103bar

13

Coolingwater:inlet/outlettemperature:21C/31C
CO2condenserexittemperature:30C
Coolersexittemperature:40C
Coolerspressuredrop(4stages):seeAppendixB

Pumpstotaleff.(includingmotor)6190%(seeAppendixB)

Chimnie:pressuredrop:0.015bar

Ambientair
15C,1.013bar,60%relativehumidity
Composition(mol%):N2(77.3),O2(20.73),CO2(0.03),H2O(1.01),Ar(0.93)

Fuel
14kg/sec,15C,50bar,LHV=50,015kJ/kg
Naturalgascomposition(mol%):CH4(100.0)

Gasturbinesystem&CO2/H2Ogasturbine(GT1andGT2)
Compressor(C1):polytropicefficiency94%,mechanicalefficiency:99%,pressureratio:16.8
Airturbine(GT1):polytropicefficiency:91%,mechanicalefficiency:99%,coolingair:11%ofincomingair
CO2/H2Oturbine(GT2):polytropicefficiency:91%
Generators:electricalefficiency:98.5%
Combustionchamber:pressuredrop:3%,losses:1%,=2.05

Steamcycle
HRSG:1reheatstage,3pressurelevels(excepttheSGrazcycle):HP(124bar),IP(22bar),LP(4.1bar)
HRSGpressuredrop:hotside:30mbar(20mbarintheSGrazcycle),coldside:10%ineachpressurelevel
SHs,ECONs(HP,IP,LP):Tmin:20C
EVAPs(HP,IP,LP):Approachtemperature:6C,pinchpoint:10C
Livesteamtemperature:(ref.plant)560C,(plantwithCLC)497C
Steamturbinepolytropicefficiency:HP(90%),IP(92%),LP(87%)
Condenseroperatingpressure:0.05bar,Tmin:10C

MCMreactor:
Pressuredrop:0.07bar
Oxygenseparation:38%
MCMHTHXoutlettemperature:1250C

*Ifnototherwisestated,thecommoncomponentsoftheplantsoperateunderthesameconditions

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

Table2.5*:Mainoperatingparameters(seealsoAppendixB)

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

14

operation of zero or nearzero emission plants are effective and feasible, from economic,
environmentalandthermodynamicviewpoints.
TheplantswithCO2captureare:aplantwithchemicalabsorptionusingmonoethanolamine,
fiveoxyfuelplants(asimpleoxyfuelplant,theSGrazcycle,twovariationsofanadvancedzero
emission plant with both 100% and 85% CO2 capture and a plant with chemical looping
combustion) and two precombustion CO2 capture plants (a plant with a hydrogen separating
membrane and a plant with an autothermal reformer). These plants have been chosen as
representativesofpromisingtechnologiesforCO2capturefrompowerplants,aspresentedin
variousreferences(e.g.,Kvamsdaletal.,2007;BollandandMathieu,1998).
In all of the oxyfuel concepts, the oxygen reacts with the provided fuel in nearly
stoichiometricconditions(excessairfraction:=1.05)(Kvamsdaletal.,2007).Intheremaining
plants,theexcessairfractionissetbylimitingtheoutlettemperatureofthereactors.Thefuel
usedineverysimulationismethane.Thisassumptionhasbeenmadetosimplifytheanalysis,
since the composition of natural gas can differ depending on its source. The ambient
conditions, as well as the composition of the input streams, are shown in Table 2.5, where
selectedoperatingparametersofthesimulatedplantsareprovided.Detailedflowdiagrams
of the plants and all thermodynamic data (mass flows, temperatures, pressures,
compositions) at the stream level are provided in Appendix A. If not otherwise stated,
commoncomponentsoftheplantsoperateunderthesameconditionsasthereferenceplant.
The efficiencies of compressors and expanders considered in each plant are shown in
AppendixB.Asvolumetriccomponents,theirisentropicefficienciesaredirectlyrelatedtothe
volumeofthegasused.
TheGTsystemoftheplantsissimulatedwiththreeseparatecomponents:acompressor,
a reactor/combustion chamber (CC) and an expander. This allows the adjustment and
examinationoftheoperationofeachcomponentseparately.Touserealisticvariablesforthe
simulation of the gas turbine system, the software GateCycle has been used. From the
availableGTlibrary,theSiemensgasturbine;modelV94.3,50Hz,withnetpowerof263MW
was chosen for the reference plant. An increase of 2.5% in the isentropic efficiencies of the
systemisassumed,inanattempttoaccountfortechnologicaladvancementachievedbythe
timetheexaminedpowerplantsmightberealized.Theinlettemperatureandpressureofthe
expanderoftheGTsystemhavebeenkeptconstantinallplants,exceptinthesimpleoxyfuel
plant and the SGraz cycle, where the inlet temperature was set to 1400C and the inlet
pressureto40bar,accordingtoavailableliterature(seesection2.3.4).
Thesteamcycleoftheplantsincludesthreepressurelevelheatrecoverysteamgenerators
(HRSGs, 124/22/4.1 bar) with one reheat stage, except for the SGraz cycle, where a single
levelHRSGhasbeenused,inordertosatisfythestructuralrequirementsoftheconcept.The
overall pressure loss assumed along the hot side (flue gas) of the HRSGs depends on the
numberofpressurelevelsineachplant(AppendixB).Thedistributionoftheoverallpressure
loss to the individual heat exchangers (HXs) of the HRSGs depends both on the number of
components constituting the HRSGs and on the temperature reduction of the gas in each
component(AppendixB).
Eachpumpandcompressorsmallerthan3MWissuppliedbyamotor.Whenthepower
requirement is higher, the component is supplied by integrated steam turbines (STs). For

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

15

example, intermediatepressure (IP) steam is expanded down to 0.1 bar to produce the
necessary power to feed the CO2 compression units, as well as the recycling compressors
(whereused).Forlargerenergydemand(duetolargercompressorsizes,e.g.thesimpleoxy
fuelplantandSGrazcycle),smallexpandersareused.Itisassumedthatcomponentsonthe
sameshaftoperateatthesamespeedandnogearsarerequired.
Lastly,inalloftheplantswithCO2capture,theCO2streamissenttoafluegascondenser
(FG COND), where most of the included water vapor is extracted. The almost pure CO2 is
thencompressedinafourstage,intercooled,compressionunittoafinalpressureof103bar.
AnexceptionistheATRplant,whereonlytwoCO2compressorsareused,duetothehigher
exitpressureoftheextractedCO2stream.Carbondioxideatover100barand30Cisinliquid
phase and is ready for transport and sequestration. A more detailed description of specific
characteristicsofeachplantandeachCO2capturetechnologyisprovidedinthefollowing.

2.3.1

Thereferenceplant

ThereferenceplantisacombinedcyclepowerplantwithoutCO2capture,anditisusedasthe
base case for the simulation of plants that incorporate CO2 capture. A simplified flow
diagram is shown in Figure 2.5, while its detailed diagram can be found in Appendix A
(FigureA.1.1).

Natural gas

Combustion
chamber
C1

GT1

Air

HRSG
3 pressure
levels

exhaust gas

De-aerator
1 reheat
stage

STs

Figure 2.5: Simplifieddiagramofthereferenceplant

FluegasexitingtheCCat628kg/secisledtotheexpander(GT1)oftheplantandfrom
theretotheHRSG.ThecombustionproductsentertheHRSGwithapressureof1.058barat
580C. In the HRSG, the gas provides thermal energy to produce steam at three pressure
levels, 124/22/4.1 bar, and it is then exhausted to the atmosphere at 95C. Highpressure
steamproducedat560Cisexpandedto23barinthehighpressuresteamturbine(HPST)and
returns to the HRSG, where it is reheated to 560C. The reheated steam is sent to the
intermediatepressure steam turbine (IPST), where it is expanded to 4.1 bar. The lowpressure
steamisthenmixedwithlowpressuresuperheatedsteamfromthelowpressurelevelHRSG
and it is led to the lowpressure steam turbine (LPST), where it is expanded to 0.05 bar. The

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

16

steamiscondensedinthecondenser,preheated,ledtothedeaeratoroftheplantandfurther
conveyedtothefeedwaterpumpstocontinuethecycle.Operatingparametersoftheplant
areprovidedinTable2.5.

2.3.2

Theplantwithchemicalabsorptionusingmonoethanolamine(MEA
plant)

Theplantwithpostcombustioncapturebearsminimalstructuralchangeswhencomparedto
the reference plant. The modifications needed to incorporate CO2 capture here are: (1) the
addition of a chemical absorption unit (CAU) at the outlet of the exhaust gases, (2) the
extractionoflowpressuresteamtoproduceadequatethermalenergyfortheregenerationof
the chemical solvent used and (3) the addition of STs to drive the flue gas and the CO2
compressors(C2&C3C6inFigureA.6.1).Thelasttwopointsresultinasignificantdecrease
in the power output and, consequently, in the efficiency of the overall system. A simple
diagramoftheplantwithchemicalabsorptioncaptureisshowninFigure2.6.Thegreybox
highlights the additional parts of this plant, when this is compared to the reference plant.
ThedetailedflowdiagramoftheplantisshowninFigureA.6.1ofAppendixA.Thefluegas
enteringtheCAUoftheplantconsistsof3.9%(v/v)CO2,resultingin38kg/secofCO2,85%of
whichiscaptured.Thesolutionusedconsistsof40%MEA.
Natural gas

CO2 -depleted gas

Combustion
chamber
C1

GT1

HRSG
3 pressure
levels

flue
gas

Chemical
Absorption Unit

CO2

FG
COND

H 2O

De-aerator
1 reheat
stage
H2O

STs

CO2
CO2
Compression
(C3-C6)

Figure2.6:SimplifieddiagramoftheMEAplant(greyboxhighlightsdifferencesfromthereference
plant)

In the CAU, the CO2rich gas enters the absorber flowing upwards, countercurrent to
theleanMEAsolution(Figure2.7).AftertheCO2isabsorbed,thecleangasisexhaustedto
theatmosphereandtheCO2richsolutionisheatedinaHXandsenttoaregenerator.Inthe
regenerator, lowpressure steam extracted from the ST of the plant provides the necessary
thermal energy to regenerate the absorption medium. In this thesis, all of the components
includedintheCAUhavebeensimulatedasablackboxwiththeembeddedEquations(2.1)
(2.4) derived from (Rubin and Rao, 2002). Two input streams (the steam that provides the
regeneration heat and the exhaust gas of the power plant) and three output streams (the

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

17

exitingliquidwater,theCO2streamandthestreamcontainingtheremainingelementsofthe
fluegas)havebeenconsidered.

L / G

exp 1.4352 0.1239 y CO2 3.4863 lean 0.0174 CO2 0.0397 C 0.0027 Tfg,in

Q / L

exp 2.4452 0.0037 y CO2 6.2743 lean 0.0254 C 100

41.15 0.062 Tfg,in 1.307 y CO2 18.872 lean 0.270 C )

fg,out

mw lean

16.907 2.333 lean 0.204 C

(2.1)

(2.2)
(2.3)

(2.4)

Here,Listhetotalsorbentflowrate(kmol/h),Gisthetotalinletfluegasflowrate(kmol/h),
y CO2 istheCO2concentrationintheinletfluegas(v/v%), lean istheleansorbentCO2loading

that represents the part of the leftover CO2 within the regenerated solvent (mol CO2/mol
MEA), Q is the total sorbent regeneration heat requirement (GJ/hr), C is the MEA
concentrationinthesorbent(w/w%),Tfg,inisthetemperatureofthefluegasenteringtheCO2
absorber (C), Tfg,out is the temperature of the flue gas leaving the CO2 absorber (C) and
mw lean istheaveragemolecularweightoftheleansorbent(kg/kmol).

CO2 + H2O

CO2 -depleted gas

A
B
S
O
R
B
E
R

HX

R
E
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
O
R

Low-pressure steam

Flue
gas
cooler
Rich CO2 solution

Flue gas

Figure2.7:SimplifieddiagramofaCAU

MEA is not included as a chemical compound in the simulation software


(EbsilonProfessional, 2010), rendering the calculation of its thermodynamic variables
impossible.Thisleavesuswithtwochoices:eithernoconsiderationofsolventlosses( lean =0)
orconsiderationoflossesthatcauseaminorviolationofmassconservationbecausenoMEA
inputstreamisconsidered.WithoutleansolventCO2loading,theMEAisassumedtobefully
regenerated.Thisresultsinarelativelylargeamountofregenerationenergy(6MW/kgofCO2
captured).Therefore,theleansolventCO2loadinghasbeenvariedfrom0.00.3molCO2/mol
MEA. The influence of this variation on the energetic efficiency and on the energy
requirementoftheplantisshowninFigure2.8.Ascanbeseen,withmeanvalueofthelean
solvent CO2 loading (0.2 mol CO2/mol MEA), the energy requirement is reduced from 6
MW/kgofCO2,calculatedwithoutlosses,to3.7MW/kgofCO2.InChapter4,theMEAplant
isevaluatedwithboth0.0and0.2molCO2/molMEA(MEA0andMEA0.2),tofurtherassess
theeffectofthisvariable.

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

18

50

7
6
5

48

4
3
46

2
1

44

0
0

0.05

0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
leansorbentCO2loading(molCO2/molMEA)

Exergeticefficiency(%)

0.3

0.35

Energyrequirement(MJ/kgCO2)

Figure2.8:Exergeticefficiency(blueline)andenergyrequirement(greyline)relativetotheleansorbent
CO2loading

2.3.3

Thesimpleoxyfuelconcept

AsimplifieddiagramoftheoxyfuelplantisshowninFigure2.9.Thedetailedflowdiagram
can be found in Appendix A (Figure A.10.1). The main differences relative to the reference
plantare:(1)theincorporationofanASUand(2)anadditionalrecirculationloopoftheflue
gastokeepthecombustiontemperaturewithinacceptablelimits.

Natural gas

C1,
C8/C9
Air

Recycle
compressors
(C6, C7)

Combustion
chamber

Recycling gas
~90%

GT1

Oxygen
production
(ASU)

HRSG
3 pressure
levels

FG
COND

CO2 + H2O

H2 O

De-aerator
1 reheat
stage

CO2
Compression
(C2-C5)

STs

Figure2.9:Simplifieddiagramofthesimpleoxyfuelplant(greyboxhighlightsdifferenceswiththe
referenceplant)

The oxygen stream generated in the ASU contains 95% O2 and 5% (w/w) Ar. This
composition was chosen to avoid the presence of nitrogen in the gas (Anderson et al, 2003;
Anderson and Johnsson, 2005). The penalty for O2 compression is calculated to be ca. 1.5
MJ/kgofO2(includingcompressorsC1,C8&C9ofFigureA.10.1).TheCCoperatesat40bar.

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

19

Aftertheoxyfuelcombustion,thefluegaspassesthroughtheHRSGoftheplantanditisled
totheFGCONDoftheplant.PartofthegasisthenledtotheCO2compressorunit,whilethe
restofthegasiscompressedintherecyclecompressors(C6&C7ofFigureA.10.1)anditis
sentbacktotheCCtocontroltheoutlettemperatureofthecombustionproducts.

2.3.4

TheSGrazcycle

The Graz cycle, developed in 1985 by Jericha (Jericha, 1985), was presented as a
combined cycle power plant with a hightemperature steam cycle, using hydrogen as fuel.
According to the initial idea, hydrogen and oxygen should be derived from the splitting of
waterusingsolarenergy.However,thelackoftechnologyrelatedtosolarenergyinthe1990s
madetherealizationoftheinitialGrazCycleinfeasible.Thisledtotheintroductionoffossil
fuelstothelayoutoftheconceptin1995(JerichaandFesharaki,1995).Theworkingfluidof
theplantconsistedofapproximately75%watervaporand25%CO2,whilechangeswerealso
made in 2000 to include the use of syngas instead of methane (Jericha et al., 2000). A
reduction in the steam content in favor of a higher concentration of CO2, with the intent to
reduce the compression work was considered, which led to a subsequent reduction of the
inlettemperatureoftheCC.In2004,thesteamcontentwasincreasedbacktoitsinitialvalues
and the name of the cycle was changed to SGraz Cycle (Sanz et al., 2005). This concept
considered a relevant increase in the inlet temperature of the CC and a decrease in the
amountofthermalenergytransferredtherebytherecyclingstream,whilethemassflowrate
ofthecoolingsteamusedforthehightemperatureturbine(HTT,GT1&GT2ofFigureA.7.1)of
theplantwasincreased.

Recycle
compressors
(C7, C8)

Natural gas

Recycling
gas

Combustion
chamber

GT1/
GT2

C1/C2
Air

CO2
Compression
(C3-C6)

Oxygen
production
(ASU)

CO2

GT3
HRSG

FG COND

De-aerator
1 pressure
level
H2O

STs

H2O

H2O

Figure2.10:SimplifieddiagramoftheSGrazcycle(greyboxhighlightsdifferenceswiththereference
plantandredlinesshownewconnections)

AsimplifieddiagramoftheSGrazcycleisshowninFigure2.10.Asinthesimpleoxy
fuel plant, the penalty for the O2 (95% O2 and 5% Ar) compression is 1.5 MJ/kg of O2
(includingcompressorsC1,C9&C10ofFigureA.7.1)andtheCCoperatesat40bar.Afterthe
HRSG, the gas is separated into two parts: one part is led to a lowpressure gas turbine

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

20

(LPT/GT3)followedbytheFGCONDoftheplant,whiletheremaininggasissentbacktothe
CC, after it is compressed in the recycle compressors (C7 & C8, compression with
intermediatecooling).Therecyclingcompressorsrequirelargeamountsofpowerduetothe
large mass flow of the recycled flue gas. Thus, they are assumed to be driven by the main
expanderoftheplant,theHTT.

2.3.5

The advanced zero emission plant with 100% CO2 capture (AZEP
100)

The AZEP with approximately 100% CO2 capture is referred to here as the AZEP 100. The
configuration of the AZEP 100 is shown in Figure 2.11, while a detailed diagram of the
conceptcanbefoundinAppendixA(FigureA.3.1).IntheAZEP,theconventionalCCofthe
GT system is replaced by the mixed conducting membrane (MCM) reactor, in which the
necessary oxygen for the oxyfuel combustion is produced (Sundkvist et al., 2001 and 2005;
Griffin et al., 2005; Mller et al., 2006). The MCM reactor, shown in Figures 2.12 and A.4.1,
consists of a mixed conducting membrane, a high and a lowtemperature heat exchanger
(HTHXMCMandLTHXMCMinFigureA.4.1),ableedgasheatexchanger(AirHX)anda
CC(Sundkvistet.al.,2007).
The MCM consists of complex crystalline structures, which incorporate oxygen ion
vacancies.Theoperationofthemembraneisbasedonoxygenadsorption.Oxygenatomsof
the incoming air are adsorbed onto the surface of the membrane. The atoms are then
decomposed into ions and the oxygen ions occupy the oxygen vacancies of the membrane.
The transfer of the oxygen ions is counterbalanced by an opposite electron flow. The
selectivity of the membranes is infinite as long as the membrane surface is perfect, i.e., no
cracksorporesarepresent.Forthepurposeofthisthesis,theMCMissimulatedasablack
boxusingdataprovidedin(Jordaletal.,2004).

HRSG II

FG
COND

CO2
Compression

Natural gas
GT2

CO2 + H2O

MCM reactor
C1

H2O

Oxygen
depleted
air

GT1

Air

HRSG
3 pressure
levels

exhaust gas

De-aerator
1 reheat
stage

Steam
turbines

Figure2.11:SimplifieddiagramoftheAZEP100(greyboxhighlightsdifferenceswiththereference
plant)

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

21

IntheAZEP,airiscompressedinthecompressor(C1)oftheplantto17bar.90%ofthe
airenterstheMCMreactoranditisheatedto900CintheLTHXofthereactor.Closeto38%
of the oxygen included in the air is separated in the MCM and it is transferred at a
temperature of 490C to the reactors CC with the help of a recycling sweep gas. The
circulatedsweepgasenteringtheCC(60%v/vH2O,30%v/vCO2,10%v/vO2)isalsousedto
control the temperature of the combustion process.By specifying the massflow of thisgas,
andsettingtheexcessairratio()oftheCC,themassflowofthemethaneisdetermined.The
methaneispreheatedto250Cinagasgasheatexchanger(NGPH)beforeitissenttotheCC
ofthereactor.Thecombustionproductsthatconsistof33.5%v/vCO2,66%v/vH2Oand0.5%
v/v O2, expand in a CO2/H2O expander (GT2) to 1.051 bar and are then driven to the
secondary, singlepressurelevel HRSG of the plant. The oxygendepleted air (14% v/v O2)
exits the MCM at 1000C and it is heated to 1200C (restricted due to material and reactor
designconstraints)intheHTHXofthereactor.Itismixedwith10%oftheincomingair,exits
thereactoranditisexpandedinthemainGToftheplantto1.058barand497C.Themixture
isthensenttothemain,threepressurelevelHRSGoftheplant.There,theheatprovidedby
thegasisusedtoproducesteamatthreepressurelevels,asinthereferenceplant.Inthehigh
pressure superheater (HPSH) and the reheater (RH) of the plant the steam is heated to a
temperature not higher than 477C, due to the relatively low outlet temperature of the GT
system and the predetermined minimum temperature difference in the heat exchangers.
Additionally,steamisgeneratedinthesecondaryHRSGoftheplant(HRSGII).

air
Low
Temperature
Heat
Exchanger
(LTHX)

O2

O2

High
Temperature
Heat
Exchanger
(HTHX)

Oxygendepleted
air

CO2, H2O
recycling gas
(O2-rich)

Combustion
chamber

recycling gas
(no O2)

Preheated methane

Figure2.12:StructureoftheMCMreactor

2.3.6

Theadvancedzeroemissionplantwith85%CO2capture(AZEP85)

TheAZEP85operatesinasimilarwaytotheAZEP100,butitincorporatesasupplementary
firing(ductburner,DB)attheexitoftheMCMreactor(Sundkvistetal.,2005).TheDBisused
toincreasethe,otherwisemateriallylimited,exittemperatureoftheMCMreactor.Theoutlet
gas temperature of this secondary combustion is near 1300C, a temperature that enhances
the overall efficiency of the plant. Cooling of the turbine blades has not been taken into
accountinthesimulationofthisplant.Inthesupplementaryfiring,partoftheprovidedfuel
is burned with the oxygen left in the oxygendepleted air. The gas emissions from this
supplementaryburningprocessarenottreated,thustheCO2captureoftheplantisdecreased
by approximately 15%. Since the mass flow of the separated CO2 in theAZEP 85 issmaller
thanthatoftheAZEP100,thepowerneededforitscompressionislower.

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

22

HRSG II
GT2

CO2 + H2O

MCM reactor
C1

FG
COND

Oxygen
depleted
air

CO2
Compression
(C2-C5)
H2O

DB
GT1

Air

HRSG
3 pressure
levels

exhaust gas

Natural gas
De-aerator
1 reheat
stage

STs

Figure2.13:SimplifieddiagramoftheAZEP85(greyboxhighlightsdifferenceswiththereference
plant)

AlthoughthestructureoftheAZEP85(Figures2.13andA.2.1)issimilartothatofthe
AZEP100,thetemperatureprofilesoftheHXsdiffer,duetotheincreasedinlettemperature
oftheexpanderoftheGTsysteminthecaseoftheAZEP85.Thiscausesanincreaseinthe
inlet flue gas temperature of the main HRSG to 580C, which is used to heat the steam to
560C.Inthisway,thesteamcycleworksmoreefficientlyinthisplantthanintheAZEP100.

2.3.7

Theplantwithchemicalloopingcombustion(CLCplant)

Previousstudies(RichterandKnoche,1983;HossainanddeLasa,2008)showthatCLChas
the potentialto become arelatively efficient and low cost technology. The process wasfirst
introducedbyLewisandGillilandin1954.In1968itwasproposedbyKnocheandRichteras
anoptionfordecreasingirreversibilitiesincombustionprocesses,butlateritwasidentifiedas
having important advantages due to its nitrogenfree CO2 production. This allows minimal
contributiontoNOxemissionsandalsoCO2separationwithminimalthermodynamiclosses
(Brandvoll and Bolland, 2004; Hossain and de Lasa, 2008). CLC has been examined using
natural gas (Brandvoll and Bolland, 2004; Lyngfelt and Thunman, 2005; Abad et al., 2006,
2007; Naqvi and Bolland, 2007; BolhrNordenkampf et al., 2008; Kolbitsch et al., 2008),
synthetic gas (Jin and Ishida, 2004; Abad et al., 2006, 2007; Klara, 2007) and hydrogen
(Brandvolletal.,2003).
Inthisplant,theconventionalCCisreplacedbytworeactors,anoxidizingorairreactor
(AR)andafuelreactor(FR),asshowninFigure2.14.Ametaloxideisusedasasolidoxygen
carrier(OC)betweenthesetworeactors,thusnodirectcontactbetweentheairandthefuel
takes place. Atmospheric air is introduced into the AR, where the metal (or metal oxide) is
oxidized.ThemetaloxidethenexitstheARanditisfedtotheFR,wherethefuelcombusts
withthetransportedoxygentoproduceCO2andH2O.Atthesametime,themetaloxideis
reducedandledbacktotheARcontinuingitsloopbetweenthetworeactors.Theresulting
carbon dioxide can be easily separated after water condensation, without further costly

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

23

energy requirements. The design of the reactors is based on two interconnected fluidized
beds and should have advantages over alternative designs, since good contact between the
gas and the solid material is required. In recent years, various arrangements of alternative
designsofthefluidizedbeds(Lyngfeltetal.,2001;MattisonandLyngfelt,2001;Abadetal.,
2006), as well as alternative GT configurations (Brandvoll and Bolland, 2004; Naqvi et al.,
2005;NaqviandBolland,2007)forintegratingCLCinpowerplants,havebeenproposedand
examined.
ThenetreactionofCLC(Figure2.14)anditsheatgenerationisequaltothatofthefuel
combustion. The oxidation is an exothermic reaction, whereas the reduction can be either
exothermic or endothermic, depending on the fuel and the metal oxide. The OC reduction
with CH4 is endothermic for all oxides examined, with the exception of CuO. Conversely,
whensyngasisused,themetalreductionisalwaysexothermic.Thiscanbeconsideredasan
advantageofcoalgasusewhencomparedtoCH4,sincethecoalgasreactionisdrivenwith
stronger intensity due to its exothermic character. Part of the produced thermal energy
duringtheoxidationisusedinthereduction,ifthelatterisendothermic.
Manydifferentmetalshavebeensuggestedasoxygencarriers,mainlybasedonnickel,
Ni(Brandvollandet.,2003;JinandIshida,2004;LyngfeltandThunman,2005;Johanssonet
al., 2006; BolhrNordenkampf et al., 2008; Kolbitsch et al., 2008), iron, Fe (Johansson et al.,
2006;Abadetal.,2007;Klara,2007)andmanganese,Mn(Abadetal.,2006;Johanssonetal.,
2006).Importantfactorsarethereductionandoxidationrates,thechemicalandmechanical
stabilities,aswellasthepriceandtheenvironmentalcharacteristicsoftheoxidizer.Generally
NianditscorrespondingoxidesshowhigheroxidationandreductionratescomparedtoFe
and Mn, as well as greater durability after many repeated cycles. A detailed status of the
developmentwithrespecttooxygencarrieralternativesispresentedinLyngfeltetal.(2008).
The compressed air and the preheated methane are sent to the CLC reactors that are
simulated here as a black box. In the FR, 98% of the methane provided is assumed to react
withoxygentransferredfromtheAR.Theremainingunreacted2%ofthefuelisnotrecycled
backtothefuelreactor,butisregardedasaloss.Theairratiotheratiobetweentheoxygen
included in the air and the oxygen needed for stoichiometric combustion required to
achieveoutlettemperaturesoftheairandthefuelreactorsof1200Cand930C,respectively,
issetto2.9.Thesetemperaturesarealsotheinlettemperaturesoftheexpandersoftheplant,
for which no cooling has been taken into account. It has been suggested that the inlet
temperature of the CO2/H2O expander (GT2) should be as low as 900C, to increase the
conversionofthefuelintheFRandtheenergyavailableforoxidationofthemetalintheAR
(Lewis and Gilliland, 1954; Brandvoll and Bolland, 2004; BolhrNordenkampf et al., 2008,
Abadetal.,2007;NaqviandBolland,2007).Withthislowertemperature,alowercostforthe
expanderisalsoachieved.AhighertemperatureintheFR,equaltothatattheoutletofthe
ARcouldbringanincreaseintheenergeticefficiencyofabout1percentagepoint(to54.2%),
iftheCH4conversionisassumedtoremainconstant.ANibasedOCisconsidered,andthe
CH4reactingisfullyconvertedtoCO2.Asimplifieddiagramoftheenergyconversionplantis
showninFigure2.15,whilethedetailedcanbefoundinAppendixA(FigureA.5.1).

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

24

Oxygen depleted air


(15% v/v O2)

CO2 + H2O

FR,reduction
2n m MexOy1 mH 2O nCO2
Cn H 2 m 2n m MexOy
Mex + Oy

Air
reactor,
AR

AR,oxidation
2n m MexOy
2n m MexOy1 n m 2 O2

Fuel
reactor,
FR

Mex + Oy-1

Netreaction

Cn H 2 m n m

CH4

Air

mH O nCO
O
2

Figure2.14:ConfigurationoftheCLCunitandthechemicalreactions

HRSG II

FG
COND

CO2
Compression
(C2-C5)

Natural gas
GT2

CO2 + H2O

CLC unit
C1

H 2O

Oxygen
depleted
air

GT1

Air

HRSG
3 pressure
levels

exhaust gas

De-aerator
1 reheat
stage

STs

Figure2.15:SimplifieddiagramoftheCLCplant(greyboxhighlightsdifferenceswiththereference
plant)

The two streams exiting the CLC unit are the combustion products, consisting of CO2
andwatervapor,andtheoxygendepletedair,consistingof15%v/vO2.Theoxygendepleted
airexitsthemainGTsystemat659kg/secanditisledtothemainHRSGoftheplant.The
highpressure steam produced has a temperature of 500C, which is lower than that of the
referencecaseduetothelowertemperatureattheexitofGT1andtheminimumtemperature
difference defined in the HXs (Tmin=20C). The combustion products (CO2 stream) are
expandedinaCO2/H2Oexpander(GT2)andarethensenttoasecondaryHRSG(HRSGII),
where additional steam is produced. The CO2rich gas is finally cooled in a FG COND and
compressed.

2.3.8

The plant using a methane steam reforming membrane with


hydrogenseparation(MSRplant)

This plant incorporates a hydrogenseparating membrane reactor (Figures 2.16 and


A.9.1). The included membrane uses thermal energy from the flue gas to reform the fuel
entering the plant into CO2, H2 and H2O. 99.7% of the generated hydrogen is automatically

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

25

separatedinthemembrane,sweptbyintermediatepressuresteamat17barandledtotheCC
oftheplant.Theremainingproducedgases(CO2andH2O)exitthemembraneandtheCO2is
capturedafterwatercondensation(Jordaletal.,2004;JohannessenandJordal,2005).
Theprovidedmethaneismixedwithsteam(massratio1:4)extractedfromaHPST(50
bar). The mixture is preheated and led to the feed side of the reactor at a temperature of
600C (Figure 2.17). The reforming process is a strongly endothermic reaction, for which
thermal energy is provided by the combustion products of the plant. After the reforming
process,theexothermicshiftingreactionfollows.99.8%oftheincomingmethaneisreformed
and99%oftheproducedCOisshifted(Bottinoetal.,2006).Themembraneseparatesthefeed
andpermeatesidesofthereactor.Thehydrogenformediscontinuouslytransportedthrough
themembraneandsweptbyIPsteamprovidedtothepermeatesideofthereactor.Tohave
sufficient energy for the reforming process of the reactor and for the HRSG of the plant, a
supplementary firing is added after the CC, increasing the temperature of the combustion
gasesto960C(Jordaletal.,2004).

CH4 + H2O

Combustion
chamber

H2 + H2O

GT1

C1

CO2 + H2O

Air

DB

MSR-H2

HRSG
3 pressure
levels

exhaust gas

GT2

FG
COND

De-aerator
1 reheat
stage

H2O

STs
CO2
Compression
(C2-C5)

H2O

Figure2.16:SimplifieddiagramoftheMSRplant(greyboxhighlightsdifferenceswiththe
referenceplant)

flue gas
flue gas
to
supplementary
firing

CO 3 H 2 206.41kJ/mol
CH 4 H 2O

feed side
CH4 + H2O

CO2 + H2O

CO2 4 H 2
CH 4 2 H 2O

H2

permeate side
H2 + H2O

CO2 H 2 +41.3kJ/mol
CO H 2O

H2O

Figure2.17:ConfigurationoftheMSRreactorandthechemicalreactions

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

2.3.9

26

Theplantusinganautothermalreformer(ATRplant)

IntheATR,bothpartialandcompletecombustiongivethenecessaryheatforreformingthe
methane.Inmoredetail,anATRconsistsofanadiabaticvesselwherethecatalystisplaced
andthethreemainreactionsshownontherightsideofFigure2.18canbeconsidered(Horn
et al., 2007). While the first and second reactions are the steam reforming and water shift
reactions,respectively,thethirdreactionisacombinationofthetotalcombustionthatusually
takes place in an oxygenrich environment and catalytic partial oxidation (CPO). CPO has
received considerable attention in recent years because of its close to 100% CH4 conversion
and its high H2 yields. The amount of methane converted in the reaction depends on the
steamtocarbon(S/C)andthecarbontooxygen(C/O)ratios.AsaresultoftheworkofLuwei
Chenetal.(2007),anoptimalC/Oinletratioof2wassetforanATRoperatingat15barand
850C,allowingxandyoftheCPOtobesetto1.2and0.9,respectively,asshowninEquation
2.5.TheS/Cratiowasalsosetto2.

1.2H 2 0.9CO 0.8H 2 O 0.1CO2


CH 4 0.95O2

(2.5)

The necessary air is supplied by compressor extraction (Figures 2.18 and A.8.1). The
equilibriumtemperatureofthemixedstreamisapproximately380C,atemperaturetoolow
for the ATR working at 850C. For this reason, a HX is used for the preheating of the gas
stream. The ATR outlet stream, a mixture of the combustion and the reforming products,
exitstheunitat850CandisusedtopreheattheATRinletstreamto640C.AftertheATR,
thegasissenttothetwoshiftreactorsoftheplant,wheretheproducedCOisconvertedto
CO2andH2O.Thesimulationoftheshiftreactorshasbeenrealizedwiththecalculationofthe
equilibrium

ATR
40% N2
56%H2

C1

Combustion
chamber

H2O

GT1

Air

CO2

HRSG
3 pressure
levels
De-aerator

Chemical
Absorption
Unit (CAU)
H2O

CO2
Compression
(C3-C4)

1 reheat
stage

CO 3H 2
CH 4 + H 2O

CO + H 2O CO2 H 2

Steam
turbines

xH 2 yCO + 2 x H 2O + 1 y CO2
CH 4 + 2 x y O2

FG
COND

LTS

HTS

Natural gas

Figure2.18:SimplifieddiagramoftheplantwithanATR(greyboxhighlightsdifferenceswiththe
referenceplant)

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

27

constantsofthereaction,whichiscontrolledbytheequilibriumtemperature.Becauseofthe
highpercentageofnitrogeninthegas,chemicalabsorptionisneededtocapturetheproduced
CO2. Therefore, the gas is sent to a CAU (CAU, Figure A.8.1) after it is cooled to 60C
(otherwisethevolumeofthestreamwouldrequirealargerCO2captureunit).Thenecessary
thermal energy for the regeneration of the chemical solvent (MEA) is provided from low
pressure steam extraction. After the CAU, the captured CO2 is led to the compression unit,
whiletherestofthehydrogenrichgas(fuel)issenttotheCC.

2.4 Simulationsoftware
All simulations have been performed with versions 6.0 and 7.0 of the software
EbsilonProfessional (EbsilonProfessional, 2010). GateCycle (GE Enter Software LLC, 2000),
AspenPlus (Aspen Plus, 2009) and EES (EES, 2009) have been used redundantly, for
operationalandprogrammingconfirmation.ThesoftwareEbsilonProfessionalhasbeenchosen
as the main simulation software because of its easily accessible modelling options. User
programmable components were necessary in this study, because many of the required
componentsinCO2capturetechnologyhavenotyetbeenincludedincommerciallyavailable
simulationsoftware.

2.5 Preliminarycomparison
2.5.1

Simulationresults

All plants with CO2 capture, except the AZEP 85, the MEA and ATR plants, perform with
approximately100%CO2capture.AsshowninTable2.6,thebestperformancewasachieved
by the two AZEPs (with the AZEP 85 first) and the CLC plant. Comparing the simple oxy
fuelplantandtheSGrazcycle,somedifferencesshouldbenoted.Relativetothesimpleoxy
fuelplant,GT1intheSGrazcycleresultsinahigherpoweroutput,althoughtheexpander
drivesmuchlargerrecyclecompressors.Thispowerdifferencestemsmainlyfromthelarge
amountofwatervapor,reachingthe87%v/v,intheexpandedgasinthecaseoftheSGraz.
AlargeefficiencydecreasewasalsofoundfortheMSRplant.Inthisplant,lesspoweris
producedintheGTandSTsystems,whilemorepowerisrequiredbytheCO2compressors
than,forexample,intheotherprecombustiontechnology,theATRplant.Thus,theoverall
netpoweroftheMSRplantisfoundtobelowerthanthatoftheATRplant.
TheoperationoftheMEAplantdiffersdependingontheleansorbentCO2loading(i.e.,
theprescribedsolventlosses).Whenahighervalueisassumed,theregenerationrequirement
of the plant decreases, resulting in an increased net power output (i.e., increased plant
efficiency).
A more detailed comparison and evaluation of the plants is provided in Chapter 4,
wheretheresultsoftheexergybasedanalysesarepresented.

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

28

Table2.6:Efficiency,generatedpower,andinternalpowerconsumptionoftheplants(showninorderof
descendingefficiency)
Ref.
plant

Energeticefficiency(%LHV)

AZEP
AZEP100 CLC
85

SGraz

MEAa

ATR MSR

Simple
oxyfuel

58.9

55.7

53.9

53.7

50.3

288.0

239.6

232.0

239.6

285.1

125.7

97.9

83.6

86.2

30.4

GT2aftergenerator(MW)

53.7

63.1

51.4

69.5

50.8

AdditionalST(s)(MW)

21.1

24.8

15.7

33.3

9.9

19.1

GT1 Wnet ,aftergenerator(MW)


STs W aftergenerator(MW)
c

50.5(47.8) 48.5 47.8


288.0

268.7 257.0

67.0(47.8) 72.5 44.1

243.0d
104.6

CO2compressors,(MW)

13.8

16.3

15.7

18.8

Recycle/fuelcompressors(MW)

7.3

8.6

225.2

4.3

118.5

Fluegascompressor(MW)

12.5(C2)

18.5

34.1

ASUcompressors(MW)
Remainingcomponents(MW)
NetPoweroutput(MW)

14.7(13.9) 5.6 16.0

44.8

34.2

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.5

1.2

412.5

389.9

377.5

376.0

352.0

1.3 1.3

353.8(334.6) 339.8 334.5

19.1

1.2
312.3

Resultsfor0.0and0.2molCO2/molMEAleansorbentCO2loading
TheGToftheSGrazcycle(GT1&GT2)drivestheair,therecycleandtheASUcompressors(C1,C7C10)
cIntheSGrazcyclethisturbinereferstothelowpressuregasturbine(GT3)
dInthesimpleoxyfuelplanttheGT1drivestherecyclecompressors(C6andC7)
c

2.5.2

Additionalconsiderations

When different plants are compared, several parameters must be taken into consideration.
These parameters differ among the plants and depend on, among other things, structure,
technologyandoperation.
Animportantcriterionisthatsomeoftheplantspresentedinthisthesisemployalready
commercialized technology (e.g., the MEA and the ATR plants), whereas others include
components not yet available on the market. These are, therefore, components of uncertain
effectiveness,costandoperation.
Theplantthatcouldbeappliedwiththeleastpossibleimplementationchallengesisthe
MEA plant, since its structure is approximately the same as that of the reference plant.
Furthermore,itsoperationmainlydependsonthechemicalchosen.Incontrast,theoperation
of the other power plants depends on a combination of factors, such as material and
technologydevelopment(likemembrane,ASUandturbinedevelopment).Thesefactors,that
determinetheplantavailability,cannotbeestimatedeasily.
Furthermore, some of the plants are more complex than others, since they include
structuralsubsystems,likerecirculationgasroutes(e.g.,thesimpleoxyfuelplantandtheS
Grazcycle).Thehigherthenumberofthesesubsystems,themorechallengingandinvolved
theoperationofaplantbecomes.
Althoughnotconsideredhere,anothercriterionfortheevaluationofaplantcouldbethe
quantityofresources(e.g.,water)required.Insomeplants,likeintheATRandMSRplants,
the need for a constant additional water supply is dominant. This would demand specific
conditionsandextraenvironmentalconsideration.
Safety and maintainability are also very important issues to consider when CCS
technologies are considered. Components under development should satisfy safety
constraints and must be examined under realistic conditions. More safety issues are

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

29

associatedwiththesequestrationoftheCO2,whereallpossibleoptionsmustbethoroughly
examinedandtheirviabilitymustbeguaranteedbeforelargescalefacilitiesforCO2capture
areestablished.
Uncertainties related to the abovementioned points have not been considered in this
thesisbecausetheylieoutsideitsscope,buttheyshouldbeconsideredinthefuture.

Chapter2.CO2capturefrompowerplants

30

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

31

3. Methodologyexergybased
analyses

3.1 Stateoftheart
Exergyasanideawasconceivedinthe19thcenturybyCarnot,buttheconceptwasapplied
to industrial processes in the 20th century. The theoretical foundations of the exergetic
analysis(formulatedwellbefore1970)havebeenfurtherexpandedandsupportedbyalarge
number of published work over the last 40 years. Thus, the use of exergetic analysis has
developedrapidlyanditsconnectiontoeconomic(exergoeconomicanalysis)andenvironmental
(exergoenvironmentalanalysis)principleswasonlyamatteroftime,practiceandexpertise.
The idea of combining exergy with costs was first introduced in the beginning of the
1930s by J. H. Keenan (1932), while the first application to an air separation plant was
presentedinanunpublishedlecturein1949byM.BenedictandE.Gyftopoulos(1980).Inthe
1960s,an application of the methodology to the optimal selection of steam piping by Obert
andGaggioli(1963)wasrealized.Duringthatperiodnumerousactivitiesandpublicationsby
a large group of scientists set the foundations of the methodology (e.g., Evans and Tribus,
1962, 1965; ElSayed and Evans, 1970; ElSayed and Aplenc, 1970). Further applications are
those of Bergmann and Schmidt (1965), Szargut (1967, 1971, 1974), Gaggioli (1977), Fehring
and Gaggioli (1977), Gaggioli et al. (1978), Wepfer (1979, 1980), Beyer (1972, 1978, 1979),
Knoche and Funk (1977) and Eisermann (1979). In 1984, the term exergoeconomics was
introduced, by Tsatsaronis (1984) as an accurate and unambiguous characterization of a
combination of economics with the exergy concept. Later contributions to the field include
those byValero (1986, 1989,1994), Lozano and coworkers (1986,1994, 1989), Frangopoulos
(1983, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1994), von Spakovsky (1986, 1994), Knoche and Hesselmann (1985,
1986),LazzarettoandAndreatta(1995),ToffoloandLazzaretto(2003),VerdaandBorchiellini
(2002)andtheresearchgroupsofTsatsaronis(TsatsaronisandWinhold,1984,1985a,1985b,
1986;LinandTsatsaronis1993;Tsatsaronis,1987,1993,1995,1999a,2008,2009;Tsatsaronis
and Pisa, 1994; Tsatsaronis and Krane, 1994; Tsatsaronis and Moran, 1997; Lazzaretto and
Tsatsaronis,1997,2006;MorosukandTsatsaronis,2008a,2009a,2009b,Petrakopoulouetal.,
2010af;Tsatsaronisetal.,1989,1990,1991,1992a,1992b,1993,1994a,1994b,2006,2008,2009,
TsatsaronisandCziesla,2002,2009).
The common thread behind all exergoeconomic methodologies is the use of exergy
instead of energy as the commodity of value, and the application of the exergy costing
principle,i.e.,theassignmentofcoststoexergy.Exergoeconomicmethodscanbedividedinto
two main groups: (1) exergoeconomic accounting methods (e.g., Obert and Gaggioli, 1963;

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

32

Gaggioli, 1977; Tsatsaronis, 1984; Valero et al., 1986) and (2) Lagrangianbased approaches
(e.g.,EvansandTribus,1965;Frangopoulos,1983;TribusandElSayed,1980,1981,Evanset
al.,1983).
In exergoeconomic accounting methods, cost balances are explicitly formulated and
resources used in the production process are valued at the costs at which they were
purchased or generated. The aim is to (a) provide product stream costs, (b) evaluate
componentsandsystems,and(c)iterativelyimproveenergysystems.TheLagrangianbased
approaches use mathematical techniques to calculate costs. These methods aim to allow
optimizationofasystemasawholeandthecalculationofmarginalcosts.
Accounting and Lagrangianbased methods are interrelated, since their development
took place in the same time period, under similar considerations and on similar theoretical
bases. When the fuel and product definitions are the same, the costs calculated by both
methods are the same. It can also be proven that the cost balances and auxiliary equations
used in accounting methods can be obtained through derivatives in the Lagrangianbased
approaches. As a result, the use of one methodology or another differs only in practical
implementation. Accounting methodologies have no limitations with respect to the
complexity of the system being considered. Lagrangianbased methods are limited when
complex systems are considered. Therefore, there have been no new developments or
interestingapplicationsofthesemethodsinrecentyears.Inaddition,thebooksthatdealwith
someaspectsofexergoeconomics(e.g.,Moran,1982;Kenney,1984;Kotas,1985;Szargutetal.,
1988;Bejanetal.,1996;ElSayed,2003)areoutdated.Inthisthesis,accountingmethodshave
beenused.
Although exergoeconomics have been applied over the last few decades, the
exergoenvironmentalanalysisappearedonlyveryrecently(TsatsaronisandMorosuk,2008a,
2008b; Meyer, 2009). This analysis basically aims to modify the exergoeconomic analysis to
convert the problem from involving an economic assessment to involving an ecological
evaluation.
The main objective of the implementation of an exergybased approach is to find
appropriate tradeoffs between fuel cost and investment cost or environmental impact, in
ordertoimproveaprocess.Nonetheless,theconventionalexergybasedanalyses,mentioned
above, have some significant limitations: they do not provide information about (1)
componentinteractionsor(2)realpotentialforimprovement(Tsatsaronis,1999b).Toaddress
the shortcomings of the conventional methods, advanced exergetic, exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analyses were developed. In advanced exergybased analyses, the
thermodynamic inefficiencies, costs and environmental impacts associated with each plant
componentaresplitintoendogenous/exogenous,avoidable/unavoidableparts,aswellasinto
their

combined

parts:

avoidable

endogenous/exogenous

and

unavoidable

endogenous/exogenous parts (Tsatsaronis and Park, 2002; Tsatsaronis and Morosuk, 2007a,
2007b,2010;Czieslaetal.,2006;Morosuketal.,2008a;MorosukandTsatsaronis,2006,2007,
2008b;Kellyetal.,2009).
The advanced exergybased analyses have been developed in the last 10 years
(Tsatsaronis, 2008). These analyses provide valuable information about how, and to what
extent,changesinaplantcomponentaffecttheoperation,costsandenvironmentalimpactof

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

33

theremainingplantcomponentsandtheoverallplant.Inaddition,withtheseapproachesthe
real potential for improvement is revealed through the distinction between avoidable and
unavoidableparts.Suchresultssaveengineeringtimeandshedlightontothenecessarysteps
neededfortheoptimizationofasystem.Untiltoday,advancedexergeticandexergoeconomic
analyseshaveonlybeenappliedtorelativelysimplesystems(MorosukandTsatsaronis,2006,
2008a, 2009a; 2009b, 2010; Tsatsaronis et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2009, 2010), while applications of
the advanced exergoenvironmental analysis have not yet been completed. This thesis is the
first complete application of advanced exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental
methodstocomplexpowerplants.

3.2 Conventionalexergybasedanalyses
Conventional exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses constitute a
rigorous

evaluation

of

energy

conversion

systems.

In

exergoeconomic

and

exergoenvironmental analyses, investment costs and environmental impacts, calculated


through an economic analysis and an life cycle assessment (LCA), respectively, are linked to
irreversibilities (Meyer, 2009; Tsatsaronis and Morosuk, 2008a, 2008b; Petrakopoulou et al.,
2010a,2010b).Adetaileddescriptionoftheresultsofeachanalysisisprovidedbelow,while
theapplicationofthemethodsisdescribedinAppendixB.

3.2.1

Exergeticanalysis

An exergetic analysis reveals the locations and causes of inefficiency and loss in an energy
conversion system and provides insight into factors that cannot be found with an energetic
analysis. For a considered process, the exergetic analysis consists of a system of balance
equations,statedatthecomponentlevel,andageneralequationfortheoverallsystem.The
rateofproductexergyofcomponentk, E ,istheexergyofthedesiredoutputresultingfrom
P,k

theoperationofthecomponent,whiletherateoffuelexergyofthesamecomponent, E F , k ,is
theexpenseinexergeticresourcesforthegenerationofthedesiredoutput.Therateofexergy
destruction within component k, E , is calculated as the difference between its rate of fuel
D,k

and product exergy ( E D , k E F , k E P , k ). For the analysis at the component level, streams
exiting a component are considered either as part of the product, or they are used in the
definition of the components fuel. Thereafter, exergy loss is only defined for the overall
E
E
E
.
system(tot): E
L , tot

F , tot

P , tot

D , tot

The exergetic efficiencies of component k and the overall system consisting of n


componentsaredefinedbyEquations(3.1)and(3.2),respectively:

k P,k 1 D,k
EF , k
EF , k

(3.1)

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

tot

E
P ,tot 1
E
F , tot

E
k 1

D,k

34

E L ,tot

E F ,tot

(3.2)

General guidelines for the definition of exergetic efficiencies have been proposed in
Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis (2006). In dissipative components, like condensers, intercoolers
andthrottlingvalves,exergyisdestroyedwithoutanyusefulproductinthecomponentitself;
thus, no exergetic purpose can be defined (Bejan et al., 1996; Lazzaretto and Tsatsaronis,
2006).Theessentialroleofthesecomponentsistoserveotherplantcomponents,leadingtoa
moreefficientoperationoftheoverallsystem.
Variablesoftheexergeticanalysis,relatedtoexergydestructionandexergylossarethe
exergy destruction ratio (defined both at the component level and the overall system,
Equations (3.3) and (3.4) and the exergy loss ratio (defined only for the overall plant,
Equation3.5).

yD , k

E D , k

(3.3)

F , tot

yD ,tot

E D ,tot

(3.4)

F , tot

yL ,tot

E L ,tot
E

(3.5)

F , tot

Theexergydestructionratioisameasureofthecontributionoftheexergydestructionwithin
eachcomponenttothereductionoftheoverallexergeticefficiency.Itcanbeusedtocompare
dissimilarcomponentsofthesamesystem,whilethetotalexergydestructionandexergyloss
ratioscanbeusedtocomparedifferentthermodynamicsystems.
Withtheexergeticanalysisthemainsourcesofthermodynamicirreversibilitieswithina
plantareidentified.Ifnecessary,modificationstotheplantcanthenbeapplied,inorderto
reducetheseinefficiencies.Sincetheadoptionand/orthedevelopmentofsystemsaremainly
drivenbyeconomics,thethermodynamicallyoptimaldesigncanbeusedasthestartingpoint
forcostreductionandeventuallyforcostminimization.Nowadays,theconceptofcostcould
also be substituted with environmental impact, since a rapid increase in energy demand is
foreseenthatwillimpacttheenvironmentsignificantly.
ThemethodologyofaneconomicanalysisandanLCA(astheyapplytothermodynamic
systems),aswellastheircombinationwithanexergeticanalysis,aredescribedbelow.

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

3.2.2
3.2.2.1

35

Exergyandeconomics
Economicanalysis

Throughaneconomicanalysis,theeconomicfeasibilityoftheconstructionandoperation,as
well as the cost of the generated product of a facility can be estimated. To conduct an
economicanalysis,differentapproachescanbeused.Inthisthesisthetotalrevenuerequirement
(TRR)methodisused(Bejanetal.,1996).
Themosttroublesomepartofcostestimatesforlargepowerstationsisthecalculationof
thepurchasedequipmentcost(PEC).Awidevarietyofdatarelatingsizeandcostofdifferent
types of components can be found in literature. However, most of these data consider
facilities much smaller than largescale power stations. To calculate costs of largescale
components using available data that consider reference equipment of different capacity, a
scaling exponent must be determined and used. This exponent, , is assumed to stay
constant within a given size range and it is usually lower than unity, expressing that a
percentageincreaseintheequipmentcostissmallerthanthepercentageincreaseincapacity
(Bejanetal.,1996):

X
CY CW Y
XW

(3.6)

Equation3.6isusedtocalculatethecostofpurchasedequipment(CY)ofanewcapacity(XY),
when a given cost (CW) at a certain capacity (XW) is known. In absence of specific cost
informationanexponentvalueof0.6maybeused.
Whenabasecost,CB,representingthecheapestpossibledesignwithbasicmaterialsat
low temperature and pressure is known, different factors depending on material,
temperature,pressureanddesign,( f m , fT , f p , f d )shouldbedeterminedtoestimatethefixed
capital investment (FCI). The cost of the module (i.e, the FCI) is then calculated as:

CM CB f m fT f p f d f BM .ThebaremodulefactorfBMconsidersanysupportingequipmentand
connectionsrequired,anditalsoincludesallindirectcostsrelatedtotheequipment.ThePEC
is then calculated as a percentage of the FCI using specified modular factors (e.g., Guthrie,
1974).
When all costs have been calculated, they must be brought to the same reference year
thatisusedasthebaseyearforallcostcalculations(ref.).Thisisrealizedusingcostindices
that are basically inflation indicators for both the reference year and the year of the
calculated,knowncosts(calc.):

Cref .Y Ccalc.,Y

Indexref .
Indexcalc.

FromthePEC,thecostrate Z k ofeachcomponentkisestimatedusingEquation(3.8).

(3.7)

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

36

carrying _ charges O & M


PECk
Z k
PECtot

(3.8)

Here,representstheannualoperatinghoursandO&Mtheoperatingandmaintenancecosts
of the plant. The carrying charges are calculated subtracting the fuel and O&M costs of the
plantfromitsTRR(Bejanetal.,1996). Z isassociatedwithboththeinvestmentcost(IC)and
k

the O&M costs of component k ( Z k Z kIC Z kO & M ), but it is mainly determined by the
investmentcost.Thecalculatedcostratesareusedasinputfortheexergoeconomicanalysis.
3.2.2.2

Exergoeconomicanalysis

An exergoeconomic analysis is an appropriate combination of an exergetic analysis with


economic principles. This is achieved through exergy costing, by which a specific cost c is
assignedtoeachexergystreamoftheplant.Thespecificcostofstreami, ci ,multipliedbythe
exergyofthesamestream, E i ,providesthecostrate Ci ,associatedwithstreami:

Ci ci E i

(3.9)

Toperformanexergoeconomicanalysisonaplant,costbalancesarestatedatthecomponent
levelresultinginasystemofbalanceequations.Forexample,thecostbalanceofcomponentk
isstatedasfollows:

C
i 1

i,k

C j , k Z k 0

(3.10)

j 1

Here, C i , k is the sum of the cost rates associated with the l steams entering component k
i 1

and C j , k isthesumofthecostratesassociatedwiththemstreamsleavingcomponentk.
j 1

Inthesystemofbalanceequations,whenthenumberofunknownstreamcostsislarger
thanthenumberofequationsstated,auxiliarystatementsarerequired.Foreachcomponent,
streams entering are assumed to be known, while streams leaving the component are
unknown.Whenthenumberoftheoutgoingexergystreamsofacomponentishigherthan
one(m>1),m1auxiliaryequationsareneeded.ThePprinciple(ontheproductside)andthe
Fprinciple (on the fuel side) are used to determine the auxiliary equations (Lazzaretto and
Tsatsaronis, 2006). The Pprinciple states that the cost per unit of exergy is supplied to all
streamsthatbelongtothedefinitionoftheproductofthecomponentatthesamecost.TheF
principle states that the cost, associated with the exergy removed from a considered
component,hasthesamespecificcostastheexergysuppliedtotheupstreamcomponents.
When the necessary balance equations are stated and solved, the exergoeconomic
evaluation follows. Through the evaluation, iterative steps to improve and finally optimize

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

37

theconsideredsystemarerevealed.Animportantoutcomeoftheexergoeconomicanalysisis
therelationofexergydestructionwithcosts:

C D , k cF , k E D , k (3.11)

where, cF , k isthespecificcostoffuelofcomponentk.
The calculation of the cost of exergy destruction facilitates the evaluation of plant
componentsandallowscomparisonbetweencostofexergydestructionandinvestmentcost.
The components are first ranked and evaluated based on their total costs C Z . The
D,k

higherthecostsare,themoresignificanttheeffectofthecomponenttotheoverallplant.The
contributionof the capital cost, Z , to the sum of costs is expressed by the exergoeconomic
k

factor f k ,definedbyEquation(3.12).

fk

Z k

Z k C D ,k

(3.12)

Theexergoeconomicfactordependsontheoperationofeachcomponent.However,for
each component type, there are some common value ranges that usually apply (lower than
55%forHXs;3575%forcompressors/turbines;higherthan90%forpumps).Highvaluesof
the factor f suggest a reduction in the investment costs, whilelow values of f suggest a
reduction in the incurred irreversibilities. Depending on the calculated values, tradeoffs
between exergy destruction and investment costs are suggested.The goalis to improve the
overallplantfromboththermodynamicandeconomicviewpoints.
Another important variable of the exergoeconomic evaluation is the relative cost
difference, rk .Foragivencomponentk,thedifferencebetweenthespecificcostofproduct,
c ,andthespecificcostoffuel, c ,dependsonthecostofexergydestruction, C ,and
P,k

F ,k

D,k

therelated Z k .

c cF , k C D , k Z k
rk P , k
(3.13)

c

F ,k

cF , k E P , k

Information about compromises between the cost of exergy destruction and the

investment cost of components, resulting from the exergoeconomic evaluation, can be used
for the iterative design improvement of the plant. The objective is to reduce the cost
associatedwiththeproductoftheoverallplant.

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

3.2.3
3.2.3.1

38

Exergyandenvironmentalimpacts
Lifecycleassessment

In analogy to the economic analysis used to calculate costs, an LCA is used to assess the
environmental impact associated with a product over its lifetime (Meyer et al., 2009). It is
carriedoutfollowingtheguidelinesofinternationalstandardapproaches(ISO14004).

Figure3.1:GeneralstructureoftheEcoindicator99LCIAmethod(Source:GoedkoopandSpriensma,
2000)

The quantification of environmental impacts caused by depletion and emissions of a


naturalresourcecanbecarriedoutusingdifferentlifecycleimpactassessment(LCIA)methods.
ThedamageorientedimpactanalysismethodEcoindicator99isconsideredhere(Goedkoop
and Spriensma, 2000). Ecoindicator 99 defines three categories of damage: (1) damage to
humanhealth,(2)damagetotheecosystemand(3)depletionofresources.Aftercalculating
the environmental effects of the different categories, the values are optionally normalized,
weighted and the result is expressed in Ecoindicator points (Pts). Higher values of the Eco
indicator are associated with higher damage. Depending on the attitude and perspective of
differentsocieties,thereisaweightingperperspectiverepresentedbythreeArchetypes:

Hierarchists keep a balance between short and longterm perspectives and take
environmentaldamagesintoaccountbasedonconsensus.

Egalitarians weigh the effect on future generations and take all possible effects
intoaccount,evenwithminimalscientificproof.

Individualists focus on the present, neglecting longterm effects and take only
proveneffectsintoaccount.

Thearchetypeofthehierarchistshasbeenadoptedinthisthesis.
The standard Ecoindicator 99 inventory values are available for the production and
processingofalargenumberofmaterials,fortransportprocesses,fordisposalscenarios,etc.
The impact is calculated with reference to the annual environmental impact of a European
inhabitant.Thescaleischoseninsuchawaythatthevalueof1Pointisrepresentativeforone

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

39

thousandthoftheyearlyenvironmentalloadofoneaverageEuropeaninhabitant(thisvalue
iscalculatedbydividingthetotalenvironmentalloadinEuropebythenumberofinhabitants
andmultiplyingitby1000).
The application of an LCA assists in understanding the formation of environmental
impactsinenergyconversionsystemsatthecomponentlevelandprovidesinformationabout
theinfluenceofthermodynamicinefficienciesinthearrangementofenvironmentalimpacts.
However, an LCA on its own is not capable of allocating the environmental impact of fuel
consumption to the specific components of a system. This is performed with an
exergoenvironmentalanalysis(Meyer,2009).
3.2.3.2

Exergoenvironmentalanalysis

In an exergoenvironmental analysis, the concepts of exergy and environmental impact are


combined.Thecomponentrelatedenvironmentalimpactofcomponentk, Y ,isobtainedin
k

anLCAconsideringtheentirelifecycleofthecomponent.Itisthesumoftheenvironmental
impact of: (a) construction, Y CO , (including manufacturing, transport and installation), (b)
k

operationandmaintenance, YkOM and(c)thedisposal, YkDI ,ofcomponentk:

Yk YkCO YkOM YkDI

(3.14)

Similartotheexergoeconomicanalysis,theexergoenvironmentalanalysisisperformed
withasystemofequationsstatedatthecomponentlevel.Theenvironmentalimpactbalance
for component k states that the sum of the environmental impact associated with all input
streams of the component equals the sum of the environmental impact associated with all
outputstreamsofthesamecomponent:

B
i 1

i ,k

B j , k Yk B kPF 0

(3.15)

j 1

Here, Bi / j bi / j E i / j (b: specific environmental impact of stream i/j), Bi , k is the sum of the
i 1

environmentalimpactsassociatedwiththelsteamsenteringcomponentk, B j , k isthesum
j 1

oftheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththemstreamsleavingcomponentkand B kPF is
theimpactofpollutantformation.Thelatterisrelatedtotheproductionofpollutantswithin
a component is charged to the specific component, representing the potential impact that
could be caused by the generated pollutants. Pollutant formation is defined only when a
chemicalreactiontakeplace;inanyothercase,itiszero.Itiscalculatedas:

PF

Bk

b m
PF
i

i ,out

m i ,in

(3.16)

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

40

where, m in and m out arethemassflowratesofpollutantsenteringandexitingcomponentk,


respectively. The pollutant streams that are taken into account here include: CO, CO2, CH4
andNOX.
Whenauxiliaryequationsneedtobeformulated,tomakethenumberoftheunknowns
equal to the number of equations, the same principles are valid as for the exergoeconomic
analysis.
Theenvironmentalimpactoftheexergydestructioniscalculatedas:

B D , k bF , k E D , k (3.17)

Here,bF,kisthespecificenvironmentalimpactofthefuelprovidedtocomponentk. B D , k can
thenbecomparedtothecomponentrelatedimpactofcomponentk, Yk .Thisisthefirststep
inevaluatingtheplantcomponents,byrevealingthosewiththehighesteffectontheoverall
plant.
The exergoenvironmental analysis not only identifies the components with the highest
environmental impact, but it also reveals the possibilities for improvement, in order to
decreasetheenvironmentalimpactoftheoverallplant.Theseimprovementpossibilitiescan
be identified through the sum of the componentrelated environmental impact and the
impactofexergydestruction, Y B ,theexergoenvironmentalfactor, f ,andtherelative
k

D,k

b,k

environmentalimpactdifference, rb , k .

fb,k =

Yk
Yk B D,k

(3.18)

rb , k

F,k

bP,k

bF,k

B D , k Yk
b E
F,k

(3.19)

P,k

Withtheexergoenvironmentalfactor,thecontributionofthecomponentrelatedimpact,

Yk ,tothetotalenvironmentalimpact, Yk B D , k isexpressedatthecomponentlevel.Intheory,
whenthevalueof fb , k isrelativelyhigh, Yk isdominant,whereaswhenthevalueof fb , k is
low, exergy destruction is dominant. Thus, the higher the exergoenvironmental factor, the
highertheinfluenceofthecomponentrelatedimpactontheoverallperformanceoftheplant.
In practice, the results of the exergoenvironmental factor differ from those of the
exergoeconomic factor significantly: the componentrelated impact is very low when
compared to the impact associated with the operation of the plant (exergy destruction).
Therefore, the values of fb , k are lower than 1% for the majority of the components. This is
discussedinmoredetailinChapter4,wheretheresultsoftheanalysesarepresented.
Theenvironmentalimpactdifferenceofcomponentk, rb , k ,dependsontheimpactofits
exergydestructionanditscomponentrelatedimpact.Thus,itisanindicatorofthereduction
potentialofthecomponent.Afterthecalculationandevaluationofthementionedvariables,

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

41

design changes are suggested, in orderto reduce the environmentalimpact associated with
theproductoftheoverallprocess.

3.3 Advancedexergybasedanalyses
With conventional exergybased analyses, the locations, magnitudes and causes of
irreversibilities, costs and environmental impacts are identified, and a general direction for
improvement is indicated. However, none of the conventional analyses are able to reveal
interactions among plant components or to estimate the real potential for improvement.
Withoutconsiderationofcomponentinteractions,optimizationstrategiescanbemisguided,
especiallywhencomplexsystemswithalargenumberofmutuallyaffectedcomponentsare
considered.Advancedexergybasedanalysesattempttoaddressthisshortcoming.
Part of the exergy destruction, cost and environmental impact of a system can be
avoided with structural modifications, reduction of the investment costs/environmental
impactsorefficiencyimprovementsofindividualcomponents.Exergydestruction,costsand
environmental impacts that can be avoided through technically feasible design and/or
operationalimprovementareconsideredavoidable,(AV).AVquantitiesplaythemainrolein
the determination of improvement steps, as well as the estimation of the improvement
potential of a system. The remaining exergy destruction, costs and environmental impacts,
associatedwithphysical,technologicalandeconomicconstraints,thatcannotbeavoided,are
considered unavoidable, (UN). Additionally, exergy destruction, costs and environmental
impacts can be separated depending on their source: if they are incurred by component
interactions,theyareexogenous(EX),whileiftheystemfromtheoperationofthecomponent
itself,theyareendogenous(EN).Usingtheendogenousandexogenousquantities,interactions
amongcomponentsandimprovementalternativesareidentified.Furthermore,theavoidable
and unavoidable estimates are further split into their endogenous and exogenous parts. A
schematic example of the paths to split irreversibilities is shown in Figure 3.2. The same
processisappliedtocostsandenvironmentalimpacts.

Figure3.2:Optionsforsplittingtheexergydestructioninanadvancedexergeticanalysis(Source:
MorosukandTsatsaronis,2008b)

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

3.3.1

42

Advancedexergeticanalysis

3.3.1.1

Splittingtherateofexergydestruction

Todistinguishwhetherexergydestructionwithinacomponentiscausedbythecomponent
itself (endogenous, E EN ) or by the operation of other plant components (exogenous, E EX ),
D,k

D,k

theoperatingconditionsofthesystemmustbemodified.Tocalculatetheendogenousexergy
destruction of component k, the considered component must operate under real conditions,
whileallothercomponentsoftheprocessoperatewithoutirreversibilities(theoretically).In
all cases, the power output of the overall plant is kept constant and equal to the initial
simulation (real case). When chemical reactions take place, theoretical conditions cannot
easilybedefined.Toovercomethisproblem,differentmethodshavebeenproposed(Kellyet
al., 2009). The exergy balance method is more appropriate for complex systems and it has
beenappliedhere.
The exogenous part ( E DEX, k ) is calculated by subtracting the endogenous exergy
destructionfromtherealexergydestruction, E Dreal
, k :
EN
E DEX, k E Dreal
, k ED , k (3.20)

Theexogenousexergydestructionis,thus,theexergydestructionimposedoncomponentk
through the operation of the remaining n1 plant components that constitute the overall
process.The E EX ofcomponentkcanalsobetracedtothespecificcomponentsthatcauseit.
D,k

The sum of the individual exogenous exergy destruction terms differs from the exogenous
exergydestructionofcomponentk.Thisdifferenceisthemexogenousexergydestruction(MX,
E MX )anditoriginatesfromthesimultaneousinteractionsofthecomponentsoftheprocess
D,k

(MorosukandTsatsaronis,2008b):

E DMX, k E DEX, k E DEX, k, r

(3.21)

r 1
r k

r 1
r k

r 1
rk

with E DEX, k, r E DEN, k, r k E DEN, k .

As mentioned earlier, technological and economic limitations determine a minimum


valueofexergydestruction.Thisunavoidablepartofexergydestruction, E UN ,iscalculated
D

considering each component in isolation, separated from the system. The ratio of exergy
UN
destructionperunitofproductexergy E D* E P iscalculatedassumingoperationwithhigh
k

efficiencyandlowlosses.Forcomponentk,withrateofproductexergyintherealcase E real
P , k ,
theunavoidableexergydestructioniscalculatedas:

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

43

* UN
UN
real ED

ED , k E P , k
(3.22)

EP k

When the unavoidable part of the exergy destruction within component k is known, the

avoidablepartisobtainedwithEquation(3.23):

AV
D,k

UN
E Dreal
, k ED , k

(3.23)

For dissipative components no rate of product exergy can be defined, thus no distinction
betweenavoidableandunavoidableexergydestructionhasbeenmade.
3.3.1.2

Splitting the avoidable and unavoidable rates of exergy destruction into


endogenousandexogenousparts

Theunavoidableendogenousandexogenousexergydestruction E DUN, k, EN and E DUN, k, EX within


componentkiscalculatedwithEquations(3.24)and(3.25):

* UN
UN , EN
EN ED

ED , k E P , k


EP k

E UN , EX E UN E UN , EN
D,k

D,k

D,k

(3.24)

(3.25)

The avoidable endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction E DAV, k, EN and E DAV, k , EX is then
calculatedbysubtractingthecorrespondingunavoidablepartfromthetotalendogenousand
exogenousexergydestruction,respectively:

E DAV, k , EN E DEN, k E DUN, k, EN

(3.26)

E DAV, k , EX E DEX, k E DUN, k, EX (3.27)


3.3.1.3

Calculatingthetotalavoidableexergydestruction

In general, high avoidable exergy destruction reveals high improvement potential for a
component. However, it is possible that a component has relatively low avoidable exergy
destruction, but relatively high total avoidable exogenous exergy destruction (exergy
destruction caused by the component both within itselfand to the other components of the
system).Thus,anevaluationshouldtakeintoaccountalldataavailableandtheconclusions
should be adjusted accordingly. To facilitate the identification of the real improvement
potential of plant components, the total amount of avoidable exergy destruction caused by
eachcomponentkisdefined(MorosukandTsatsaronis,2008b):

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

44

E DAV, k , E DAV, k , EN E DAV, r , EX , k

(3.28)

r 1
r k

Here,

E
r 1
r k

AV , EX , k
D,r

is the sum of the avoidable exergy destruction caused by component k

within the remaining n1 plant components. Each part of this sum is calculated for each
componentrseparately,viatheunavoidableexogenousexergydestruction.Theunavoidable
exogenous exergy destruction is calculated through the unavoidable endogenous exergy
destructionofeachcomponentr,whenrandkoperateunderrealconditions(Morosukand
Tsatsaronis,2008b),:

E *
E DUN, r , EN , r k E PEN, r , r k D

EP r

UN

(3.29)

E PEN, r , r k is the E P of component r, when components r and k operate under real conditions

and all remaining components operate under theoretical conditions. The unavoidable
exogenousexergydestructionincomponentrduetocomponentk, E UN , EX , k ,iscalculatedas:
D,r

E DUN, r , EX , k E DUN, r , EN , r k E DUN, r , EN (3.30)

Finally,theavoidableexogenousexergydestructionofcomponentrcausedbycomponentk,
is found by subtracting the unavoidable exogenous exergy destruction from the total
exogenousexergydestructioncausedtorbycomponentk:

E DAV, r , EX , k E DEX, r , k E DUN, r , EX , k (3.31)

3.3.2
3.3.2.1

Advancedexergoeconomicanalysis
Splittingthecostratesofinvestmentandexergydestruction

Similar to exergy destruction, the endogenous and exogenous parts of investment cost and
cost of exergy destruction are the parts related to internal operating conditions and to
component interactions, respectively. Moreover, depending on whether the costs can be
avoided or not, they can be split into avoidable and unavoidable parts, respectively. All
equationsusedforthesecalculationsareshowninTable3.1.

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

3.3.2.2

45

Calculatingthetotalratesofavoidablecosts

To identify the real potential for improving plant components, the sum of both avoidable
costsassociatedwithexergydestructionandavoidableinvestmentcostsarecalculatedatthe
componentlevel:

C DAV, k , C DAV, k , EN C DAV, r , EX , k (3.32)


r 1
r k

Z kAV , Z kAV , EN Z rAV , EX , k (3.33)


r 1
r k

C
r 1
r k

AV , EX , k
D,r

and Z rAV , EX , k are the totalavoidable cost rates associatedwith the exogenous
r 1
r k

exergydestructionandinvestmentcostofcomponentr,respectively,causedbycomponentk.
The term related to the avoidable exogenous investment cost is calculated for each
component r separately, via the unavoidable exogenous investment cost of the component
causedbycomponentk, Z UN , EX , k :
r

Z rAV , EX , k Z rEX , k Z rUN , EX , k (3.34)

The unavoidable exogenous part of the cost is calculated through the unavoidable
endogenouscost, Z UN , EN :
r

Z rUN , EX , k Z rUN , EN , r k Z rUN , EN

(3.35)

UN
Z
,with E PEN, r , r k equivalentto E P , r ,whencomponents rand k
where, Z DUN, r , EN , r k E PEN, r , r k

E
P r

operateunderrealconditionsandallremainingcomponentsoperatetheoretically.
Tocomparetheavoidablecostofexergydestructionwiththeavoidableinvestmentcost,
thecostofexergydestructionmustbesplitintoitssources,aswell.Theavoidableexogenous
costofexergydestructioniscalculatedwithEquation(3.36):

AV , EX , k (3.36)
C DAV,r , EX ,k cFreal
, r ED , r
where, E DAV, r , EX , k hasbeencalculatedusingEquation(3.31).
Thetotalcost,uponwhichtheperformanceofacomponentisevaluated,isthesumof
theavoidablecostratesofexergydestructionandinvestment.

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

46
Table3.1:Splittingthecosts

Definition
ofcostrate

Endogenous

Costratewithincomponentkassociatedwith
theoperationofthecomponentitself

( Z

EN

, C D )
EN

EX

Costratewithincomponentkcausedbythe
remainingcomponents

Differencebetweenexogenousandsumof
splitexogenouscostratesforcomponentk,
causedbysimultaneousinteractionsbetween
thecomponentandtheremaining
componentsoftheplant

Costratethatcannotbeavoided

, C D )
EX

Mexogenous
( Z

MX

, C D )
MX

Unavoidable
( Z

destruction, C D ,k , (ofcomponentk)

UN

, C D )
UN

Comments

Z kEN

Exogenous
( Z

Costrateofinvestment, Z k ,andexergy

EN
D ,k

F ,k

Z k Z
C

real
D ,k

E Preal and Z real :Rateofproductexergyandinvestmentcostintherealcase


cFreal
,k :Averagecostperunitoffuelexergyprovidedtocomponentkintherealcase

D ,k

real
k

EX

EX
D ,k

E PEN,k :Rateofproductexergyofcomponentkwhentheremainingcomponentsoperatetheoretically

real
Z
E PEN,k

EP k
c real E EN

EN
k

EN
D ,k

Z kMX Z kEX Z kEX ,r


r 1
r k

n
Z
Z kEX ,r Z kEN ,r k Z kEN ,with Z kEN ,r k EPEN ,r k k

E
r 1
r 1
P ,k
r k
r k
n

Avoidable

Costratethatcanbeavoided

PECUN
Z kreal forHXs
Z kUN
real
PEC k
real
%of Z forothercomponents

Z kUN :Unavoidableinvestmentcostrate,i.e.,minimumcostassociatedwithcomponentk.Foreachheat

r 1
r k

r 1
r k

EX ,r
D ,k

EN ,r k
C DEN,k ,r k C DEN,k ,with C DEN,k ,r k cFreal
,k E D ,k
r 1
r k

exchanger a new simulation of the component in isolation, operating with low effectiveness and high
irreversibilities,isrequired.Forothercomponents,partoftheir Z

PEC

C DMX,k C DEX,k C DEX,k ,r

real

UN
C DUN,k cFreal
,k E D , k

UN
k

real

ischosenasunavoidable.

:Purchasedequipmentcostofcomponentk,calculatedattheunavoidableconditions

E DUN : Unavoidable part of exergy destruction rate (calculated in an advanced exergetic analysis with
mostfavorableoperatingconditionsthatresultinthelowestpossibleexergydestruction).

( Z

AV

, C D )
AV

Unavoidable Endogenous
( Z

UN , EN

, C D

UN , EN

Unavoidable
( Z

UN , EX

Exogenous

, C D

UN , EX

AvoidableEndogenous
AV , EN
AV , EN
, C D
)
( Z

AvoidableExogenous
( Z

AV , EX

, C D

AV , EX

Unavoidablecostratewithincomponentk
associatedwiththeoperationofthe
componentitself

Unavoidablecostratewithincomponentk
causedbytheremainingcomponents
Avoidablecostratewithincomponentk
associatedwiththeoperationofthe
componentitself
Avoidablecostratewithincomponentk
causedbytheremainingcomponents

Z kAV Z kreal Z kUN

UN
C DAV,k C Dreal
,k C D ,k

, EN
Z UN
k

UN
Z *

E PEN,k

EP k

UN
Z *
Z UN
real
E
P k
EP k

UN ,EN
C DUN,k,EN cFreal
, k E D ,k
UN , EX

Z k

UN , EX
D ,k

UN
k
UN
D ,k

UN , EN
k

UN , EN
D ,k

E DUN ,EN :Unavoidableendogenouspartofexergydestructionrate(calculatedinanadvancedexergetic

analysis)

, EN

Z kAV ,EN Z kEN Z UN


k

C DAV,k ,EN C DEN,k C DUN,k,EN


Z kAV ,EX Z kEX Z kUN ,EX
C DAV,k ,EX C DEX,k C DUN,k,EX

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses46

TERM

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

3.3.3

47

Advancedexergoenvironmentalanalysis

Asbrieflydiscussedinthedescriptionoftheconventionalexergoenvironmentalanalysis,the
componentrelated environmental impact, Yk , is significantly lower than the impact
associatedwiththeoperationoftheplant(representedbytheexergydestruction).Therefore,

Yk hasnotbeensplithere.Thefocusisratherontheimpactsrelatedtotheexergydestruction
andpollutantformation(Boyanoetal.,2010).Liketheexergydestruction,theenvironmental
impacts associated with exergy destruction and pollutant formation are separated into
avoidable/unavoidable, endogenous/exogenous and the respective combined parts. The
equationsusedtoperformthisanalysisareshowninTable3.2.
3.3.3.1

Calculatingthetotalavoidableenvironmentalimpactofpollutantformationand
exergydestruction

As mentioned in the description of the advanced exergoenvironmental analysis, to identify


the real improvement potential of plant components, the total avoidable environmental
impactassociatedwithexergydestructionmustbecalculatedatthecomponentlevel:

B kPF , AV , B kPF , AV , EN B rPF , AV , EX , k

(3.37)

r 1
r k

B DAV, k , B DAV, k, EN B DAV, r , EX , k

(3.38)

r 1
rk

r 1
r k

r 1
r k

Here, B rPF , AV , EX , k and B DAV, r , EX , k arethetotalavoidableenvironmentalimpactsofpollutant


formationandexergydestructionofcomponentr,respectively,causedbycomponentk.The
avoidableexogenousimpactofexergydestructioniscalculatedwithEquation(3.39):

AV , EX , k
B DAV,r , EX ,k bFreal
, r ED , r

(3.39)

where E DAV, r , EX , k has been calculated for all components in a preceding advanced exergetic
analysis.
The term related to the avoidable exogenous environmental impact of pollutant
formation is calculated for each component r separately, via the unavoidable exogenous
impactofpollutantformationcausedbycomponentk, B PF ,UN , EX , k :
r

B rPF , AV , EX , k B rPF , EX , k B rPF ,UN , EX , k

(3.40)

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

48

The unavoidable exogenous environmental impact of pollutant formation is calculated


throughitsunavoidableendogenousimpact, B PF ,UN , EN :
r

B rPF ,UN , EX , k B rPF ,UN , EN , r k B rUN , EN (3.41)

UN
B PF
,with E PEN, r , r k equivalenttothe E P , r ,whencomponentsrandk
B DPF, r,UN , EN , r k E PEN, r , r k

E
P r

operateunderrealconditionsandallremainingcomponentsoperatetheoretically.
The total avoidable environmental impacts (Equations 3.37 and 3.38) reveal the
components with the largest influence on the overall plant. Actions to improve their
operationshouldleadtoanimprovementoftheimpactoftheplantasawhole.

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

49

Table3.2:Splittingtheenvironmentalimpacts
Definition
ofenvironmentalimpact

Environmentalimpactofpollutant
formation, B k

PF

andexergy

Comments

destruction, B D ,k (forcomponentk)

Impactwithincomponentkassociatedwiththe
operationofthecomponentitself

Endogenous
PF , EN
EN
, B D ,k )
( B k

EN
B kPF ,EN biPF m i ,out m i ,in

biPF :Specificpollutantformation(variesdependingonthepollutant)

EN
B DEN,k bFreal
, k ED , k

i ,out

real
F ,k

b
Exogenous
( B k

PF , EX

Impactassociatedwithcomponentkcausedbythe
remainingcomponents

Differencebetweenexogenousandsumofsplit
exogenousimpactsforcomponentk,causedby
simultaneousinteractionsbetweenthecomponent
andtheremainingcomponentsoftheplant

, B D ,k )
EX

Mexogenous
( B

PF , MX
k

, B

MX
D ,k

Unavoidable
( B k

PF ,UN

B kPF ,EX B kPF ,real B kPF ,EN


B

EX
D ,k

EN
D ,k

:Averagespecificenvironmentalimpactperunitoffuelexergyofcomponentkintherealcase

B DMX,k B DEX,k B DEX,k ,r

B kPF ,UN biPF m i ,out m i ,in

B kPF ,UN : The unavoidableenvironmental impactofpollutantformation rateincludes allemissions of

r 1
r k

r 1
r k

UN
D ,k

real
F ,k

EX ,r
D ,k

EN ,r k
B DEN,k ,r k B DEN,k ,with B DEN,k ,r k bFreal
,k BD ,k
r 1
r k

CO2 whencompletecombustiontakesplace(i: CO2 )

:massflowdifferenceofpollutanti,betweenoutletandinletintheendogenouscase

UN

EN

Impactthatcannotbeavoided

, B D ,k )

real
D ,k

m i ,in

UN
D ,k

E DUN :Unavoidablepartofexergydestructionrate(calculatedinanadvancedexergeticanalysiswith

mostfavorableoperatingconditionsthatresultinthelowestpossibleexergydestruction).

( B k

PF , AV

PF
B kPF , AV bNO
m NOX ,out
X

Impactthatcanbeavoided

Avoidable
, B D ,k )
AV

UN
B DAV,k B Dreal
,k BD ,k

Unavoidable
Endogenous
( Bk

PF ,UN , EN

, B D ,k

UN , EN

PF ,UN , EX

, B D ,k

UN , EX

AvoidableEndogenous
( Bk

PF , AV , EN

, B D ,k

AV , EN

Unavoidableimpactassociatedwithcomponentk
causedbytheoperationofthecomponentitself

B PF
B kPF ,UN ,EN E PEN,k k
E
P ,k
UN
,
EN
real
UN
B
b E ,EN

Unavoidableimpactwithincomponentkcaused
bytheremainingcomponents

B kPF ,UN ,EX BkPF ,UN B kPF ,UN ,EN

Avoidableimpactwithincomponentkcausedby
theoperationofthecomponentitself

B kPF , AV ,EN B kPF ,EN B kPF ,UN ,EN

UnavoidableExogenous
( Bk

B kPF , AV :NOXemissionsthatcanbeavoidedassuming,forexample,differentexcessairfraction()

D ,k

F ,k

UN

D ,k

B PF

EP

B DUN,k,EX B DUN,k B DUN,k ,EN

B DAV,k ,EN B DEN,k B DUN,k,EN

AvoidableExogenous
( Bk

PF , AV , EX

, B D ,k

AV , EX

Avoidableimpactwithincomponentkcausedby
theremainingcomponents

B kPF , AV ,EX B kPF , AV B kPF , AV ,EN


B DAV,k ,EX B DEX,k B DUN,k,EX

UN

B PF ,UN
real
EP k
k

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses49

TERM

Chapter3.Methodologyexergybasedanalyses

50

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

51

4. Applicationoftheexergybased
analysestotheplants

This chapter includes details and particularities of the applied methods and the obtained
results. Information about the application of the conventional exergybased analyses can be
found in Appendix B.2. Selected results for the considered plants of each method are
presentedintherespectivesectionsandsummarizedinTable4.5.Resultsforselectedplant
components are shown in Tables 4.64.13 (end of section 4.1), while analytical results are
presentedinAppendixA.

4.1 Conventionalexergybasedanalyses
4.1.1

Exergeticanalysis

Alloftheplantsareprovidedwiththesameamountoffuel.Thus,thederivedrateofproduct
)dependsontheoperatingcharacteristicsofeachplantandtherequirementsof
exergy( E
P , tot

eachCO2capturetechnology.SelectedresultsoftheanalysisarepresentedinTable4.1.
Table4.1:Selectedresultsoftheexergeticanalysis
Ref.Plant

AZEP AZEP
85
100

CLC
Plant

MEA0.2 SGRAZ

ATR
MEA0
Plant

MSR
Plant

Simpleoxy
fuelPlant

tot (%)

56.5

53.4

51.7

51.5

48.4

48.0

46.5

45.8

45.8

42.7

E P ,tot (MW)

412.5

389.9 377.5

376.0

353.8

352.0

339.8

334.6

334.6

313.4

E F ,tot (MW)

300.4

313.4 320.7

307.4

349.1

349.3

358.1

368.3

338.7

388.7

E L ,tot (MW)

17.6

27.2

32.5

47.3

27.6

31.9

32.7

27.7

57.3

31.1

yD ,tot (%)

41.1

42.9

43.9

42.1

47.8

47.6

49.0

50.4

46.4

53.0

The reference plant performs with an exergetic efficiency of 56.5%. Of the plants that
include CO2 capture, the AZEP 85 achieves the best performance (53.4%), followed by the
AZEP100(51.7%)andtheCLCplant(51.5%).MEA0.21isrankedfourth(48.4%),whiletheS
Graz cycleis rankedfifth(48.0%),followed by theATR plant(46.5%). MEA0and theMSR
plantoperatewithasimilarefficiency(45.8%)and,therefore,occupythesamerankingplace

0and0.2standfortheassumedleansorbentCO2loading(0or0.2molCO2/molMEA).Seealsosection2.3.2.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

52

(the efficiency of the MSR plant is slightly lower than that of MEA0). Lastly, the lowest
efficiencyisfoundforsimpleoxyfuelplant(42.7%).TheresultsofMEA0.2agreebetterwith
publishedwork(RubinandRao,2002).Therefore,althoughMEA0willsometimesbeused
for comparison purposes, MEA0.2 is considered as the main representative plant for
chemicalabsorption.Ifnototherwisestated,MEAplantreferstoMEA0.2.
The three most efficient plants (AZEP 85, AZEP 100 and CLC plant) are oxyfuel
concepts.ThisindicatesthatthisgeneralapproachisrelativelypromisingforCO2capture,as
long as current implementation challenges, related to their operation and component
feasibility,aremet.Whencomparedtothereferenceplant,theseplantsresultinarelatively
smallreductionintheexergeticefficiencyofaboutfivepercentagepoints.Althoughthetotal
) in the CLC plant is lower by 613 MW than that of the
rate of exergy destruction ( E
D , tot

AZEPs,therateofproductexergyofbothAZEPsisfoundtobehigher.Withthesame E F ,tot
andlower E D ,tot ,thelower E P ,tot oftheCLCplantisexplainedbyitslargerrateofexergyloss
( E L ,tot ).Indeed,theexergylossoftheAZEP100andAZEP85is32.5and27.3MW(4.5and
3.7%ofthe E F ,tot ),respectively,whileintheCLCplantitis47.3MW(6.5%ofthe E F ,tot ).The
higherexergylossinthelatterisaresultoftheassumed2%nonreactedmethane(seealso
section 2.3.7). The lower exergy loss of the AZEP 85 is smaller than that of the AZEP 100,
becauseofthereducedmassflowratesof(1)thecapturedCO2,(2)theMCMworkingfluids
and(3)theGTsystem,andthesmallermassflowrateandlowertemperatureoftheexhaust
gases.ThecombinationofrelativelylowexergydestructionandlossintheAZEP85resultsin
highernetpoweroutput,i.e.higherexergeticefficiency.
The large difference between the simple oxyfuel concept and the SGraz cycle results
from a combination of factors. In the SGraz, (1) additional power is produced in the low
pressureGT(GT3),(2)theexergydestructionwithinthesinglepressurelevelHRSGislower
whencomparedtothatofthethreepressurelevelHRSGofthesimpleoxyfuelplant,(3)the
waterseparatedthroughgascondensationisrecycledandreusedintheplantand(4)steamis
addedatdifferentpressurelevelsoftheGTsystem,increasingtheexpandingmassflowand
allowingalowcondenserworkingpressure.Allofthesepointscontributetoanincreasein
the net power output of the SGraz cycle. The SGraz cycle performs with lower efficiency
whencomparedtotheCLCplantandtheAZEPconcepts,mainlybecauseofthelargepower
demandofitsrecyclecompressors.
Thetwoprecombustionplantsperformwithrelativelylowefficiencies.Thejustification
ofthisresultfortheATRplantisthatitcombinestwocostlyCO2capturemethods:chemical
absorptionandfueldecarbonization.Chemicalabsorptionrequireslargeamountsofthermal
energy, while the decarbonization process includes a, strongly endothermic, reforming
reaction that is fueled by a supplementary fuel burning. The low effectiveness of the MSR
plantisexplainedbyitshighrateofexergyloss.TheMSRplantpresentsthehighestrateof
),duetotherelativelyhighexergyrate
exergylossamongalloftheplants(7.8%ofthe E
F , tot

ofthestreamexhaustedtotheenvironment.
The MEA plant results in an efficiency of 8 percentage points lower than that of the
referenceplant,withanexergylosssimilartothatoftheAZEP85becauseofthelowexergy

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

53

rateoftheexhaustgases.However,theMEAplantpresentsaloweroverallefficiencyof35
percentage points when compared to the three most efficient oxyfuel plants. The relatively
lowpenaltyofthethreeoxyfuelplantsstemsfromtheirmoreefficientcombustionprocesses,
the additional power produced in the additional expander(GT2in FiguresA.2.1,A.3.1and
A.5.1),andtheadditionalHRSG(SHII,EVII,ECII)thatincreasesheatrecovery.
Asexpected,themainexergydestructioninalloftheplantsoccurswithintheirchemical
reactors(CC,CLCreactors,DB),causedbythehighirreversibilitiesincurredthere.Whenthe
reactants are preheated, the thermodynamic irreversibilities within the reactors decrease
significantly.ThecombustionprocessisrealizedmoreefficientlyintheAZEPsandtheCLC
100
85
CLC
/ yDAZEP
plant resulting in an exergy destruction ratio yDAZEP
, CC
, CC DB / y D , reactors 1218% lower (the

best case being the AZEP 100), when compared to the reference plant. Furthermore, in the
AZEP 100 the exergy destruction ratio of the combustion process is lower than that of the
AZEP85,whichincludesbothaCCandaDB.Thisisrelatedtothelowerexergeticefficiency
oftheDB.TheexergydestructionwithintheCCoftheMEAplantisexactlythesameasthat
ofthereferenceplant,becausetheGTsystemsofthetwoplantsareidentical.
Apart from the GT system, with a dominant influence due to its high values of E D , k ,
othercomponentsappeartobeequallyimportant.IntheCAUoftheMEAandATRplants,4
6%, and in the ASUs of the simple oxyfuel plant and the SGraz cycle, 56% of the plants
E
isdestroyed.TheCAUintheMEAplant,andtheASUsintheSGrazandsimpleoxy
F , tot

fuel plants have the second highest values of exergy destruction among the plant
components. In the ATR plant, the second highest exergy destruction is found within the
ATR,followedbytheCAU.Intheremainingplants,theCCisfollowedbytheexpanderand
the compressor of the GT system (GT1 and C1) in descending order of exergy destruction.
ThehighpressureleveloftheHRSG(HPHRSG)isthemostimportantpartoftheHRSGinall
oftheplants,followedbyitsrespectivelowpressurelevelpart(LPHRSG).Lastly,theLPST
and the additional ST used to drive the CO2 compressors (ST4) also present relatively
significant values of exergy destruction. The CO2 compression unit is responsible for
approximately 3% of the E F ,tot in the AZEPs, the CLC and MSR plants, 2% in the MEA,
simpleoxyfuelandSGrazplantsand1%intheATRplant.
In general, the AZEPs and the CLC plant perform comparably, resulting in similar
component efficiencies. While on close inspection, the majority of the components in the
AZEPs operate slightly more efficiently than those in the CLC plant, the total exergy
destruction ratio in both of the AZEPs is higher because of the higher exergy destruction
withintheMCMreactors,HRSGIIandST4.ST4presentsahigherexergydestructionratioin
theAZEPs,becauseitcoversboththeCO2compressionunitandtherecyclecompressorofthe
plants.HRSGIIoftheAZEPshashigherexergydestruction,becauseofthelargersteammass
flows,whicharearesultofthelargeramountofavailablethermalenergyintheCO2stream.
The CO2 compression unit in the AZEP 100 operates with larger CO2 mass flow, therefore
requiring a higher mass flow of cooling water that results in higher exergy destruction
compared to the AZEP 85. Between the AZEP 100 and the CLC plant, the CO2 mass flow
differencesaresignificantlysmallerandarecausedbytheloweramountofCH4reactingin
thelatter.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

54

The subsequent analyses of sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 have been applied to the reference
plantandfourplantsincorporatingCO2capture:theMEAplants(MEA0andMEA0.2),the
CLC plant, the AZEP 100 and the AZEP 85. The chemical absorption technique has been
chosen as representative of the most conventional CO2 capture method, whereas the three
oxyfuel plants have been chosen due to their high efficiencies, when compared to the
alternativetechnologies.

4.1.2
4.1.2.1

Exergyandeconomics
Resultsoftheeconomicanalysis

The investment cost of the reference plant is calculated to be 213 million (Table 4.2). The
largestcostincreaseisestimatedfortheAZEP100(414million),followedbytheAZEP85
(395million)andtheCLCplant(362million).TheMEAplantsarefoundtobetheleast
expensivealternatives,sinceanoverallinvestmentcostincreaseof50%hasbeenassumed.
Table4.2:Selectedresultsoftheeconomicanalysis
Ref.Plant AZEP85 AZEP100 CLC MEA0.2 MEA0.0
FCItot(106)

213

395

414

362

326

319

FCIMCMreactor(106)*

130

153

FCICLCunit(106)

123

FCICAU(106)

52

55

FCICO2compr.unit(106)

40

45

43

40

39

517

1012

1097

962

921

953

12.1

10.8

9.6

9.9

9.7

FCItot(/kW)
FCItot(106/kgCO2captured)
*itdoesnotincludetheDB

BetweenthetwoMEAplants,theregenerationrequirementinMEA0.2isreducedand
the CAU is smaller and, therefore, cheaper. However, since a smaller steam mass flow is
neededfortheCAU,moresteamwillflowthroughthecondenseroftheplant(COND,Figure
A.6.1). Thus, the cooling water requirement of the plant increases, resulting in a larger
condenserandalargercoolingtower(CT).Moreover,thefirstCO2compressor(C3)islargerin
MEA0.2 than in MEA0, because the outlet temperature of the CAU is calculated to be
higher. Finally, the investment cost of MEA0.2 (326 million) is higher than that of the
referenceplantandslightlyhigherthanthatofMEA0(319million).
Taking into account the relative costs (/kW), MEA0.2 is the most economical
alternative (921 /kW), followed by MEA0 (953 /kW) and the CLC plant (962 /kW).
Although the relative cost based on the power output is more representative of the cost
effectivenessofaplant,arelativecostbasedontheCO2capturedshouldalsobeconsidered.
BecausetheMEAplantsonlycapture85%oftheproducedCO2,whiletheCLCplantcaptures
essentially the complete amount of CO2 produced, the relative cost per captured CO2 is

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

55

calculatedtobelowerfortheCLCplant(9.6million/kgCO2capturedversus9.7and9.9
million/kgCO2capturedforMEA0andMEA02,respectively).
The most expensive parts of the plants are the components used for the production of
thenecessaryoxygenorthecombustionprocess.TheCLCandMCMreactorsareaccountable
for34%and33%/37%ofthetotalinvestmentcostoftheCLCplantandtheAZEP85/AZEP
100,respectively.ThelowercostassociatedwiththereactoroftheAZEP85isjustifiedbyits
smallersize.
TheCO2compressionunit,i.e.,theCO2compressorsandcoolers,isaccountablefor10
11% of the investment cost in the AZEPs, and 1213% in the CLC and MEA plants. The
investment cost of both the main and the additional HRSG in the AZEP 100 is higher than
thatoftheAZEP85,duetothelargersizeoftheequipmentused.ThecostofthemainHRSG
oftheCLCplantissimilartothatoftheAZEP100,whilethecostofthesecondaryHRSGis
estimatedtobemuchlower,duetothedecreasedwater/steammassflow.Additionally,the
mainHRSGofalloftheoxyfuelplantsissomewhatcheaperwhencomparedtothatofthe
reference plant, due to lower steam temperatures and mass flows. Lastly, the cost of the
HRSGoftheMEAplantsissimilartothatofthereferenceplant.
4.1.2.2

Resultsoftheexergoeconomicanalysis

ResultsforselectedcomponentsoftheexergoeconomicanalysisareshowninTables4.64.13
attheendofsection4.1,whilethecompleteresultsatthecomponentandthestreamlevelcan
befoundinAppendixA.
An important outcome of the exergoeconomic analysis is the correlation of exergy
destructionwithcosts.Thecostrateofexergydestructioniscalculatedatthecomponentlevel
and it is then compared to the respective investment cost rates. The components are then
ranked depending on their total cost rate, which consists of their investment and exergy
destruction cost rates ( C Z ). The higher this total cost, the higher the influence of the
D ,k

componentontheoverallplantandthus,themoresignificantthecomponentisconsidered.
Thiscostrankingexposesthecomponentsthatshouldhaveimprovementpriority,inorderto
improvethecosteffectivenessoftheoverallplant.
Inthereferenceandtheoxyfuelplants,thethreecomponentswiththehighestcostrates
are those constituting the GT system: reactors, GT1 and C1. In the reference plant, the
componentsthatfollowtheGTsysteminorderofimportancearetheLPSTandtheHPHRSG.
IntheAZEPs,thecomponentsthatfollowarethegroupoftheCO2compressors,theMCM
LTHXandtheMCMandintheCLCplant,theCO2compressorsandtheLPST,duetotheir
relativelyhighexergydestruction.IntheMEAplants,theCAUpresentsthesecondhighest
costofexergydestructionandtotalcost,rightaftertheCCoftheplant.GT,C1andthegroup
oftheCO2compressors,followtheCAU.
AlthoughthecostofexergydestructionassociatedwiththeCLCreactorsislowerthan
thatoftheCCofthereferenceplant,theirtotalcostishigher,duetotheirapproximatelyfour
times higher investment cost rate. The smaller reaction range in the MCM reactor of the
AZEP 85, when compared to that of the AZEP 100, leads to lower exergy destruction and

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

56

investment cost rates of its constitutive components. The exergy destruction within the
components of the GT system in the AZEP 85 is lower than in the AZEP 100, while the
oppositeistruefortheinvestmentcostsofthecompressorandtheexpander.Asinthecost
calculations GT1 and C1 are considered parts of the same GT system. The larger power
output,relatedtotheincreasedinlettemperatureoftheexpander,intheAZEP85increases
thecostofC1.
The LPST has a significantly large total cost in most of the plants. In the AZEP 85 this
cost is higher than in the AZEP 100 because of the higher power output of the turbine,
resultingfromthehigherinlettemperatureoftheexpandedsteam.Althoughthecostrateof
exergydestructionoftheLPSTintheCLCplantishigherthanintheAZEP100(andthesame
as in the AZEP 85), its investment cost rate is lower2, resulting in a lower total cost. An
importantcontributiontotheoverallcostisalsomadebyST4intheAZEPs,becauseitdrives
theCO2compressionunitandtherecyclecompressoroftheMCMreactors(C6).IntheCLC
plant,thesteammassflowofthisSTisreducedsignificantly,becauseitonlydrivestheCO2
compressors. The higher steam mass flow and inlet temperature, relative to the AZEP 100,
increasetheimprovementpriorityoftheHPHRSGintheAZEP85andtheCLCplantabove
thatofST4.IntheMEAplants,theHPHRSGperformssimilarlytothatofthereferenceplant,
exceedingtheSTsincost.
Effectivemeanstocompareandevaluatedifferentcomponentsaretheexergoeconomic
factor, f k ,andtherelativecostdifference, rk (calculatedwithEquation3.13). rk ishighfor
compressors and pumps, where electric power is used as fuel. rk shows the theoretical
improvement potential of the components. However, the exergoeconomic factor will be the
maintoolforevaluatingthecosteffectivenessofaconsideredcomponent.Highvaluesofthe
exergoeconomic factor for components with high total cost suggest that a reduction of the
investment cost should be considered. On the other hand, low values of the factor suggest
thatareductionintheexergydestructionshouldbeconsidered,evenifthiswouldincrease
theinvestmentcostofthecomponent.
The low exergoeconomic factors of the CC in the reference and MEA plants and the
AZEPs, show that most of the components total cost is related to exergy destruction. This,
however,iscommonforreactors,duetothehighlevelofirreversibilitiespresentthere.The
exergoeconomicfactoroftheCLCreactorsissubstantiallyhigher,duetothelargesizeofthe
unit,whichresultsinarelativelyhighinvestmentcost.
Ingeneral,thevaluesoftheexergoeconomicfactorarewithintheexpectedvalueranges
for the most influential components (see section 3.2.2). Exceptions could be the high
exergoeconomicfactorscalculatedfortheMCMHTHXandLTHX,suggestingthatadecrease
intheinvestmentcostofthesecomponents(iflessexpensivematerialscouldbeintegrated)
should be considered in an attempt to improve the cost effectiveness of the plant. The
recyclingcompressor(C6)oftheMCMreactorintheAZEPsandtheCO2compressors(C2C5
for the AZEPs, CLC; C3C6 for MEA) also exhibit relatively high values of the

TheabsoluteinvestmentcostoftheLPSTintheCLCplantishigherthanthatoftheLPSTintheAZEP100,dueto
theslightlyhigherpoweroutputofthecomponent.However,theinvestmentcostratesfortheCLCplantarefound
tobesmallerduetoitslowercarryingcharges,whencomparedtothoseoftheAZEP100.
2

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

57

exergoeconomicfactor.Itisthuslikelythatlessexpensivecompressors(ifpossible)wouldbe
morecosteffectivefortheoverallplant.AlowexergoeconomicfactoriscalculatedforST4in
all of the plants. This relates to the exergy destruction within this component, which is
consideredtobehighbothonitsownandwhenitiscomparedtotheotherSTsoftheplants.
Thus, to improve the overall operation of the plants, the efficiency of this ST should be
increased.Lastly,relativelylowexergoeconomicfactorsarefoundfortheairpreheaters(HX
Air)andthenaturalgaspreheaters(NGPHs).However,bothoftheseresultsareassociated
withdesignrequirementsandcalculationassumptions.Thelargevalueofexergydestruction
intheHXAirresultsfromthehightemperaturedifferencebetweentheworkingfluids.This,
however, is required to sustain the performance of the MCM reactor and to keep the inlet
temperature of the GT2 within acceptable limits. The low factors for the NGPHs are
associatedwithhighpressurelossesinthevalvepriortheheatexchangers,whicharecharged
to them3. Additionally, for all of the plants, low factors are calculated in coolers and
condensers,whererelativelyhighexergydestructionisfound.
Sincealloftheplantshavethesame cF ,thetotalcostrateofexergydestruction, C D ,tot ,
depends on the E D ,tot of the plants (i.e., C D ,tot cF E D ,tot ). Thus, the C D ,tot increases with
increasing values of the E D ,tot . The cost of exergy destruction of the oxyfuel plants is
comparable to that of the reference plant, while a larger difference is found for the MEA
oftheAZEPsishigherby47%,thatofCLCplantby2%,thatof
plants.Specifically,the C
D , tot

MEA0 by 23% and that of MEA0.2 by 16%. As expected, all cost differences are
of the plants and that of the reference
representative of the differences between the E
D ,tot

plant.
ValuesfortheoverallplantsareshowninTable4.5andunderTotalinTables4.64.13.
Theoverallexergoeconomicfactorofthereferenceplantiscalculatedtobe40%.Ontheother
hand,thetwoAZEPspresentincreasedfactorsof52and53%,slightlyhigherthanthatofthe
CLC plant (51%). These factors reveal roughly equal contributions between investment cost
andcostofexergydestruction.Thedifferencesamongtheplantsareessentiallyrelatedtothe
highinvestmentcostofthecomponentsusedforoxygenproductionand/orCO2separation
andcompression.Whilethecommoncomponentsinalloftheplantshavecomparablevalues,
the MCM and CLC reactors increase the investment costs and, consequently, the
exergoeconomic factors significantly. The total investment cost rates of the MEA plants are
similar to that of the CLC plant, while their cost rates of exergy destruction are higher,
resultinginloweroverallexergoeconomicfactors(4345%).
TheoverallrelativecostdifferenceishigherfortheplantswithCO2capturethanforthe
referenceplant.Thisisjustifiedwiththeadditionalchargesofthesupplementaryequipment
used. Among the oxyfuel plants, the total relative cost difference remains essentially
unchanged,whileitbecomeshigherfortheMEAplants.

3Approximately40%ofthetotalexergydestructionassignedtotheNGPHisassociatedwiththepressurelossesof
thevalve.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

58

To further compare the costs of the plants, the cost of electricity (COE) and the cost of
avoidedCO2(COACO2)areconsidered.Thelattershowstheaddedcostofelectricityperton
ofCO2avoidedbasedonnetplantcapacity(RubinandRao,2002):

COA-CO2=

/ kWh capture / kWh reference

CO2

/ kWh

emitted
ref . plant

tCO2 / kWh

emitted

(4.1)

plant capture

The COACO2 cost relates only to the capture of the CO2 and it does not include
transportationorstoragecosts.
TheresultinglevelizedCOEandtheCOACO2fortheplantsareshowninTable4.5.CO2
capturecausesaminimumincreaseinthecostofelectricityof22%,achievedbytheAZEP85.
Increases of23% and 28% are calculated for the CLC plant and the AZEP100, respectively.
BetweenthetwoMEAplants,alowerCOEisachievedbyMEA0.2.TheCOEofthisplantis
28% higher than that of the reference plant. Larger differences in the energy penalty of the
plantsareobservedwhentheCOACO2isconsidered.ThecostdifferencesbetweentheMEA
plantsandtheotherplantsaremainlyassociatedwiththehighenergydemandofthesolvent
regeneration in the CAU and the relatively low percentage of CO2 capture (85%), in
comparisontothecloseto100%captureoftheoxyfuelconcepts.WhiletheAZEP85hasthe
lowestCOE,itisrankedsecond,aftertheCLCplant,whentheCOACO2isconsidered.The
CLCplanthasthesameCO2emissionsastheAZEP100,butitresultsinalowerCOACO2,
duetoitslowerCOE.
ThethreeoxyfuelplantsperformCO2captureinarelativelycosteffectiveway.Someof
the differences in the costs and the general results of the plants are based on calculation
assumptionsanddesignrequirements.Thechoiceofthebestalternativecandifferdepending
ontheprioritiesofthedecisionmaker.
4.1.2.3

Sensitivityanalyses

InordertoexaminetheeffectofthecostoftheCAU,CLCandMCMreactorsontheCOEof
thepowerplants,sensitivityanalyseshavebeenconducted(Figure4.1).Intheseanalysesthe
assumed costs have been varied from 50% to +100% of the base cost. The results show a
lowerinfluenceoftheCAUontheCOEoftheMEAplants,whilearapidincreaseintheCOE
of the AZEPs and the CLC plant is revealed with changes in the costs of the respective
reactors.ItshouldbenotedthatbecausetheCOEoftheAZEP100increasesrapidlywiththe
cost of the MCM reactor and that the base COE of the AZEP 100 and the MEA plant are
similar.ThebaseCOEoftheMEAplantwilleventuallybesurpassedbythatoftheAZEP85
ifanincreaseofapproximately50%inthecostoftheMCMreactortakesplace,whileitwill
onlybesurpassedbythatoftheCLCplantifanincreaseofover40%inthecostoftheCLC
reactorstakesplace.ItcanbeconcludedthattherelationshipsamongtheCOEofmostplants
ismaintainedforawiderangeofcostvaluesoftheexaminedcomponents.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

59

Figure4.1:InfluenceoftheinvestmentcostoftheMCMreactor,theCLCreactorsandtheCAUonthe
overallCOEoftherespectiveplants

Asensitivityanalysisoftheassumedcostofthefuel(7/GJLHV)hasalsobeenperformed.It
wasfoundthatwhilechangesinthecostofthefuelaffecttheCOEoftheplants,therelative
differenceoftheCOEamongtheplantsremainsessentiallyunchanged.

4.1.3

Exergyandenvironmentalimpacts

4.1.3.1

Resultsofthelifecycleassessment

ThecomponentrelatedenvironmentalimpactsdeterminedbytheLCAoftheplantsdifferin
relative magnitude from costs obtained in the economic analysis. While in the economic
analysis, the cost rates (calculated in /h), are relatively substantial, in the LCA, the
componentrelated environmental impact rates, ( Y , in Pts/h) are much lower in scale.
k

Relatively high values are calculated for components constructed with materials of higher
environmentalimpactandfortheCTsoftheplants,duetotheirlargesize.Ascanbeseenin
Table4.3,theMEAandCLCplantshavethelowestincreaseinrelativetotalenvironmental
impact (Pts/kW), when compared to the reference plant, because of the similar equipment
usedinbothplants.ComparingMEA0withMEA0.2,thedifferencesarealsosmall.While
theabsorberofMEA0.2issmallerandresultsinalowerimpact,itsCONDandCTarelarger.
This happens because of the larger mass of steam flowing through the COND, which is a
direct result of the lower mass of steam extracted and used in the CAU of this plant. An
impact ten times higher is found for the two AZEPs, mainly associated with the MCM
reactors.
For the completion of the LCA, the environmental impact of pollutant formation B PF
(see section 3.2.3) of the reactors of each plant has been calculated separately. The specific
environmental impact associated with each pollutant and the results of the calculations,
includingtheimpactthatisavoidedduetoCO2capture,areshowninTable4.4.Ascanbe

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

60

seen,60%ofpollutantformationinthereferenceplantisrelatedtotheCO2emissionsofthe
plant,whiletheremaining40%isrelatedtoitsNOXemissions.ThesameNOXemissionsare
considered for the MEA plants, while no NOX emissions are considered for the oxyfuel
plants.IntheDBoftheAZEP85,combustiontakesplacewithair,buttheNOXemissionsare
lowduetotheloweramountofreactingmethane.Theenvironmentalimpactofpollutants,
like CO2, can affect the result of the overall analysis. A sensitivity analysis of the impact of
CO2 emissions for the reference and MEA0.2 plant (with and without consideration of the
environmental impact of CO2 sequestration, Figures 4.2 and 4.3) has been performed in the
exergoenvironmentalanalysis.
Table4.3:SelectedresultsoftheLCA
Ref.

Plant AZEP85

Totalenvironmentalimpact(103Pts) 2,592
Totalenvironmentalimpact(Pts/kW)

AZEP100

CLC

MEA0.2

MEA0.0

26,066

26,061

3,414

3,223

2,871

66.9

69.0

9.1

9.1

8.6

6.3

Table4.4:EnvironmentalimpactofoverallandavoidedpollutantformationduetoCO2capture
CO2

(kg/s)

Ref.Plant

38.41

AZEP85

DB

5.76

CC

32.65

NOX

(Pts/t)

5.4

(kg/s)

(Pts/h)

(Pts/h)

1259

0.03

459

641

641

(Pts/t)

PF

BCO
2 _ capt

2749.4

(kg/s)

B PF

0.05

(Pts/t)

CH4

114.6

AZEP100

38.42

754

754

CLCplant

37.73

0.28

856

741

MEA0.2

38.42

0.05

1270

646

MEA0.0

38.42

0.05

1268

646

4.1.3.2

Resultsoftheexergoenvironmentalanalysis

As shown in Table 4.5, the componentrelated impact ( Ytot ) differs among the plants.
However, this difference is almost negligible and differences among the total impact
Y ) of the reference and oxyfuel plants are determined by the impact of exergy
( B
D , tot

tot

destruction. This indicates that the construction phase is not the key area for reducing the
environmentalimpactoftheseplants.
In the reference plant, the highest environmental impact ( B D , k Yk ) corresponds to the
CC, GT1, the LPST and C1. In the oxyfuel plants, the highest impact is caused by the
reactors,GT1,theFGCONDandC1.IntheAZEPs,theMCMLTHXalsohasahighimpact.
In the MEA plant, the CC is followed by the CAU, which presents a high environmental
impact of exergy destruction. In the exergoenvironmental analysis, dissipative components
becomemoreimportantthanintheexergoeconomicanalysis:ahighimpactiscalculatedfor

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

61

the condensers (COND and FG COND) of all of the plants. As already mentioned, in the
exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses, the influence of the nonexergy related
costs/impacts (investment cost rate and rate of the componentrelated impact) is different.
Becauseintheexergoenvironmentalanalysisthecomponentrelatedenvironmentalimpactis
almostnegligible,theexergydestructionandthespecificenvironmentalimpactoffuelarethe
main deciding factors of the significance of a component. Differences between the results
oftheexergoenvironmental analysis and that of the exergetic analysis are found for the
components constituting the MCM reactors.Here, thetotal environmental impact results in
relatively high values, leading to conclusions that diverge from those obtained by the
exergeticanalysis.
The total exergoenvironmental factor is similar for plants with similar component
related environmental impact: approximately 4% for the AZEPs and around 0.5% for the
reference, CLC and MEA plants. A reduction in the overall environmental impact could be
achievedbyincreasingtheexergeticefficiencyoftheGTsystemandthereactors.Ingeneral,a
decrease in the irreversibilities present in reactors is difficult because they are mostly
unavoidable.However,preheatingofthereactants,aswellastheuseofdifferentGTsystems
(e.g.,steamcooledexpanders)wouldleadtobetterefficiencies,thusdecreasingtheincurred
exergy destruction. In the case of the oxyfuel plants, a further reduction of the overall
environmentalimpactcouldbeachievedbydecreasingthecomponentrelatedimpactofthe
reactors (e.g., by replacing the construction materials assumed, with materials of lower
impact),orbyincreasingtheexergeticefficiencyoftheremainingcomponents.Ingeneral,in
order to reduce the overall impact of the plants, more attention should be given to the
effectivenessofthecomponentoperation,thustheexergeticefficienciesofthecomponents.
To compare the overall performance of the plants, the environmental impact of electricity
(EIE)hasbeencalculated,theresultsofwhicharepresentedinTable4.5.Theenvironmental
impactoftheelectricityproducedbythereferenceplantisfoundtobe25.1Pts/MWh.Thisis
comparabletotheEuropeanaverageimpact oflowvoltageelectricity:26Pts/MWh(SimaPro
7.1 manual, 2000). When compared to the reference plant, the EIE of the oxyfuel plants
presents a relatively low reduction, while that of MEA0.2 is increased by 2.3 Pts/MWh.
Consideringthatnoimpacthasbeenconsideredforpollutantsgeneratedbytheprocessingof
the solvent used in the plant, the case presented is considered the best case scenario of this
plant.
4.1.3.3

Sensitivityanalyses

ThehighenvironmentalimpactoftheMEAplantcanhavetwopossibleinterpretations:(1)
eithertheCO2capturetechnologyhasnoenvironmentalbenefit,butapenaltyduetothehigh
decreaseoftheefficiencyoftheplant,or(2)theprovidedvaluesoftheenvironmentalimpact
ofpollutants/reactantsarenottrustworthy.Toexaminethelatter,asensitivityanalysisofthe
environmentalimpactsoftheCO2emissionshasbeeninvestigated.MEA0.2hasbeenfurther
considered for the sensitivity analysis, because it represents the most realistic alternative
between the two MEA plants and because it has the highest impact when compared to the
oxyfuelalternatives.TheenvironmentalimpactofCO2emissions(usedforthecalculationof

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

62

pollutant formation) has been varied from 90% to +500% and the EIE has been calculated
withandwithouttheadditionofimpactassociatedwithmineralstorageoftheCO2captured
(Khoo and Tan, 2006). The influence of these variations on the EIE of the MEA and the
reference plants is presented in Figures 4.2 and 4.3. As shown, CO2 capture becomes
meaningful when the environmental impact of CO2 is higher than 20 Pts/t (when storage is
also accounted for). This is a value approximately four times higher than that provided by
Goedkoop and Spriensma (2000), shown by the grey, dotted line. As shown in Figure 4.3,
when CO2 transport and sequestration are not accounted for, the limit for a positive
environmentalimpactofCO2capturedecreasesto14Pts/t.

EIE(Pts/MWh)
35

30

25

20
0.0

5.0

10.0
15.0
20.0
ImpactofCO2(Pts/t)

EIEMEA0.2/EI_CO2

25.0

30.0

EIERef.plant/EI_CO2

Figure4.2:InfluenceofthespecificenvironmentalimpactofCO2ontheEIEofthereferenceandMEA
0.2plants,withconsiderationofanenvironmentalimpactof4.9Pts/tofCO2associatedwithmineral
storage(thegrey,dottedlineshowsthechosen,basevalueoftheimpactofCO2emissions)

EIE(Pts/MWh)
35

30

25

20
0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0
20.0
ImpactofCO2(Pts/t)

EIEMEA0.2/EI_CO2

25.0

30.0

EIERef.plant/EI_CO2

Figure4.3:InfluenceofthespecificenvironmentalimpactofCO2ontheEIEofthereferenceandMEA
0.2plantswithoutconsiderationoftheenvironmentalimpactassociatedwithCO2mineralstorage(the
grey,dottedlineshowsthechosen,basevalueoftheimpactofCO2emissions)

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

63

Ref.Plant
38.72
337.90

CO2emitted(kg/s)
CO2emitted(kg/MWh)
CO2captured(kg/s)
CO2captured(%)

AZEP85
6.06
55.97
32.71
84.4

TotalFCI(106)
TotalFCI(/kW)
TotalFCI(106/kgCO2capt.)

213
517

COE(/MWh)
COACO2(/t)
EIE(Pts/MWh)

74.1
N/A
25.1

3,414
9.1

90.4
57.8
24.9

326
921
9.9

26,061
69.0

3,223
9.1

94.7
61.6
24.5

SGRAZ ATRPlant
0.00
9.62
0.00
101.87
38.58
29.08
100.0
75.2

362
962
9.6

26,066
66.9

MEA0.2
5.81
59.10
32.91
85.0

414
1097
10.8

2,592
6.3

CLCPlant
0.35
3.39
37.73
99.1

395
1012
12.1

Totalenvironmentalimpact(Pts)
Totalenvironmentalimpact(Pts/kW)

AZEP100
0.35
3.36
38.48
99.1

91.4
52.0
24.5

94.6
73.5
27.4

MEA0.0
5.81
62.49
32.91
85.0

MSRPlant SimpleoxyfuelPlant
0.26
0.13
2.80
1.54
37.95
38.58
99.3
99.7

319
953
9.7

2,871
8.6

99.5
92.2
29.0

COACO2:CostofavoidedCO2,COE:Costofelectricity,EI:Environmentalimpact,EIE:Environmentalimpactofelectricity,FCI:Fixedcapitalinvestment

Table4.6:Selectedresultsatthecomponentlevelforthereferenceplant

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
Total
Exergyloss
B kPF (Pts/h)

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

(MW) (MW) (MW)


242.68 231.30 11.38
729.62 508.76 220.87
551.15 530.67 20.47
35.07 31.72 3.35
43.64 39.91 3.73
28.92 24.91 4.00
26.47 23.89 2.58
0.18
0.12
0.06
6.10
5.67
0.43
1.06
0.87
0.19
1.43
1.04
0.38
19.03 15.48 3.55
11.49 7.71
3.78
70.99 61.35 9.64
730.58 412.54 300.41
17.63

1259

y D ,k

(%)
95.3
69.7
96.3
90.5
91.5
86.2
90.3
69.0
92.9
82.5
73.3
81.4
67.1
86.4
56.5

(%)
1.56
30.23
2.80

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

fk

(/h)
693
7,276
1,140

(/h)
1,423
1,017
1,627

(/h)
2,116
8,293
2,766

(%)
67.3
12.3
58.8

617

432

1,049

41.2

181

186

367

50.7

429
743
9,897

287
764
6,519

716
1,508
16,416

40.1
50.7
39.7

cF ,k

1.52

0.44

1.06
1.32
41.12

cP , k

(/GJ) (/GJ)
16.9
19.5
9.2
13.7
15.5
16.9
15.5
19.4
15.5
19.0
15.5
20.4
15.5
19.4
15.5
35.4
15.5
20.5
15.5
22.3
15.5
29.5
15.5
24.2
15.5
30.8
21.4
29.7
9.2
20.6

rk

bF ,k

B D ,k

bP ,k

Yk

(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)


15.0
6.1
6.4
249.71
0.24
49.5
3.5
5.6
2746.20 0.38
9.4
5.9
6.1
432.58
1.12
25.6
5.9
6.8
23.1
5.9
6.7
234.07 1.42
31.8
5.9
7.2
25.4
5.9
6.8
128.8
5.9
9.7
32.8
5.9
6.5
68.64
0.85
44.3
5.9
7.7
90.9
5.9
9.0
56.4
5.9
7.8
162.97 0.23
99.3
5.9
10.1
38.5
7.2
8.8
251.49
0.49
124.8
3.5
7.0
3735.22 17.33

B D ,k Yk

f b ,k

(Pts/h)
249.94
2746.58
433.71

(%)
4.9
63.3
3.9
15.5
13.6
0.60 23.3
15.8
65.2
11.1
1.22 30.9
53.0
33.3
0.14 71.3
0.20 21.5
0.46 101.7

235.49

69.49

163.20
251.98
3752.54

rb ,k

(%)
0.09
0.01
0.26

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

Table4.5:Resultsoftheconventionalexergybasedanalysesfortheoverallplants

63

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

64

Component,k
C1
CC
MCM
MCMHTHX
MCMLTHX
DB
GT1
C6
AIRHX
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
ST4
C2
C3
C4
C5
Total
Exergyloss

B PF (Pts/h)

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

(MW)
238.30
620.26
82.65
120.72
221.06
109.46
495.66
7.31
6.91
5.80
31.65
39.82
26.17
1.06
15.25
11.20
49.32
27.92
3.38
3.48
3.47
3.52
730.56
27.25
641(CC)
459(DB)

(MW)
227.13
466.61
77.03
119.49
211.51
78.20
477.85
7.07
5.15
0.10
28.65
36.29
22.65
0.77
12.50
7.83
42.62
21.14
2.81
2.88
2.85
2.85
389.89

(MW)
11.17
153.65
5.62
1.24
9.55
31.26
17.81
0.24
1.76
5.70
3.00
3.54
3.52
0.29
2.75
3.37
6.70
6.78
0.57
0.60
0.62
0.66
313.43

y D ,k

(%) (%)
95.3 1.53
75.2 21.03
93.2 0.77
99.0 0.17
95.7 1.31
71.4 4.28
96.4 2.44
96.8 0.03
74.5 0.24
1.7 0.78
90.5
91.1
86.6 1.38
72.5
81.9
69.9 0.88
86.4 0.92
75.7 0.93
83.3
82.8
82.2
81.2 0.33
53.4 42.90

cF ,k

cP , k

C D ,k

Z k

(/GJ) (/GJ) (/h) (/h)


19.8
22.2
797
1,169
9.3
12.7 5,120
746
13.6
18.9
275
1,192
13.6
15.4
61
696
13.6
15.7
467
1,113
9.3
13.9 1,042
277
18.4
19.8 1,177 1,336
36.4
61.5
31
607
13.1
18.0
83
8
13.1 795.8
269
6
18.4
22.6
18.4
22.2
18.4
23.6
664
383
18.4
34.2
18.4
27.6
18.4
33.8
424
262
24.4
32.8
587
489
22.8
36.4
557
257
36.4 169.1
36.4
86.6
36.4
91.2
36.4
93.2
320
1,425
9.2
25.1 10,326 11,198

C D ,k Z k
(/h)
1,966
5,866
1,468
757
1,580
1,318
2,513
638
91
275

1,047

686
1,077
814

1,745
21,524

fk

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(%)
(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)
59.5 12.1
6.2
6.5
250.79
0.19
12.7 37.7
3.5
5.0
1932.51
0.31
81.2 38.9
5.1
8.9
103.16 53.34
92.0 12.9
5.1
5.2
22.79
32.67
70.4 15.3
5.1
5.4
175.99 67.57
21.0 50.6
3.5
6.5
393.12
0.05
53.2
8.0
6.0
6.2
385.39
0.91
95.1 68.9
10.0
10.4
8.54
0.60
8.8
37.5
5.1
6.8
32.09
0.00
2.2 5974.4
5.1
301.0
103.97
0.00
23.1
6.0
6.9
21.2
6.0
6.8
36.6 28.6
6.0
7.3
217.49
1.29
86.3
6.0
9.2
50.4
6.0
7.9
6.0
9.7
38.3 83.9
138.76
0.22
45.4 34.6
7.3
8.8
175.98
0.37
31.5 59.6
7.0
10.0
170.64
0.22
364.3
10.0
39.8
137.9
10.0
13.7
150.5
10.0
14.3
81.7 156.0
10.0
14.5
88.15
0.23
52.0 174.3
3.5
6.9
3897.09 174.95

B D ,k Yk
(Pts/h)
250.98
1932.82
156.50
55.46
243.56
393.17
386.30
9.14
32.09
103.97

218.78

138.98
176.35
170.86

88.37
4072.05

f b ,k

rb ,k

(%)
(%)
0.08
4.9
0.02
43.9
34.08 75.2
58.90
2.5
27.74
6.2
0.01
86.6
0.23
3.7
6.53
3.6
0.01
34.2
0.00 5843.8
14.9
13.8
0.59
21.9
53.6
31.1
60.7
0.16
0.21
21.1
0.13
43.5
297.3
36.2
42.9
0.26
45.1
4.30 100.2

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

Table4.7:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP85

64

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

65

Component,k
C1
CC
MCM
MCMHTHX
MCMLTHX
GT1
C6
AIRHX
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
ST4
C2
C3
C4
C5
Total
Exergyloss

B kPF (Pts/h)

E F ,k
(MW)
280.47
729.72
97.30
142.04
260.08
532.11
8.59
8.20
5.82
18.82
32.96
22.53
1.08
16.73
12.06
44.78
32.85
3.96
4.08
4.07
4.13
730.73
32.50
754

E D ,k

(MW) (MW)
267.32 13.15
549.07 180.65
90.54
6.75
140.61 1.43
248.86 11.22
512.51 19.60
8.31
0.28
6.12
2.09
0.10
5.72
17.15
1.68
30.50
2.46
19.04
3.49
0.78
0.31
13.76
2.97
8.19
3.87
38.70
6.08
24.83
8.02
3.31
0.66
3.39
0.69
3.35
0.72
3.36
0.78
377.52 320.71

E P ,k

(%)
95.3
75.2
93.1
99.0
95.7
96.3
96.8
74.6
1.7
91.1
92.5
84.5
71.8
82.2
67.9
86.4
75.6
83.4
83.0
82.2
81.2
51.7

0.39
43.89

y D ,k
(%)
1.80
24.72
0.92
0.20
1.54
2.68
0.04
0.29
0.78

1.04

0.98
0.83
1.10

cF ,k

cP , k

C D ,k

Z k

(/h)
(/GJ) (/GJ) (/h)
20.6
22.8
975
1,133

9.3
12.7
6,020
831
13.6
19.1
330
1,459
13.6
15.3
70
791
13.6
15.6
548
1,270
19.2
20.6
1,352 1,295
37.7
61.5
38
675
13.1
18.0
98
9
13.1
791.7
269
6
19.2
23.8
19.2
23.0
19.2
25.3
526
340
19.2
36.2
19.2
28.6
19.2
36.1
494
277
25.8
34.5
564
435
23.7
37.7
686
288
37.7
167.7
37.7
86.1
37.7
90.7
37.7
92.8
387
1,583

9.2
26.3 10,566 11,706

C D ,k Z k
(/h)
2,108
6,851
1,789
861
1,818
2,647
713
107
275

866

771
999
974

1,970
22,272

fk

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(%)
(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)
53.8 10.6
6.1
6.4
288.47
0.18
12.1 37.4
3.5
5.0
2272.15 0.30
81.6 40.4
5.1
8.4
123.85 35.87
91.9 12.5
5.1
5.2
26.38
38.37
69.8 15.0
5.1
5.4
206.67 79.33
48.9
7.5
5.9
6.1
414.12
0.87
94.7 63.1
9.9
10.2
9.85
0.60
8.6
37.3
5.1
6.8
38.02
0.00
2.2 5955.1
5.1
300.1
104.32
0.00
24.2
5.9
6.7
19.9
5.9
6.5
39.3 32.2
5.9
7.4
161.13
1.03
88.7
5.9
9.2
49.5
5.9
7.7
36.0 88.5
5.9
9.8
151.16
0.23
43.5 33.7
7.2
8.8
158.54
0.34
29.6 58.9
6.9
9.9
198.25
0.24
344.5
9.9
39.4
128.3
9.9
13.5
140.4
9.9
14.1
80.3 145.8
9.9
14.3
101.52
0.23
6.8
3987.65 174.91
52.6 187.4
3.5

B D ,k Yk
(Pts/h)
288.65
2272.44
159.72
64.75
286.01
415.00
10.44
38.02
104.32

162.16

151.39
158.88
198.49

101.75
4162.56

f b ,k

rb ,k

(%)
(%)
0.06
4.9
0.01
43.8
22.46 65.9
59.25
2.5
27.74
6.2
3.8
0.21
5.71
3.5
0.01
34.1
0.00 5826.8
14.1
11.5
0.63
26.1
56.0
30.8
0.15
67.4
0.21
21.1
0.12
44.0
298.4
36.1
42.9
0.22
45.0
4.20
97.0

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

Table4.8:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP100

65

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

66

Table4.9:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheCLCplant
E F ,k

Component,k
C1
CLC
GT1
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
ST4
C1
C2
C3
C4
Total
Exergyloss

(MW)
281.78
694.73
540.99
6.32
22.43
35.74
24.25
16.60
0.63
11.97
2.03
1.12
17.03
11.28
48.80
20.73
3.85
3.96
3.91
3.93
730.73
47.33

B kPF (Pts/h)

856

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

(MW) (MW)
268.57 13.21
500.67 194.06
521.34 19.65
1.12
5.20
20.43
1.99
32.97
2.77
20.58
3.67
14.36
2.24
0.49
0.14
11.00
0.97
1.70
0.33
0.81
0.32
13.99
3.03
7.52
3.76
42.17
6.63
15.66
5.06
3.24
0.61
3.32
0.64
3.27
0.64
3.26
0.67
375.99 307.41

(%)
95.3
72.1
96.4
17.7
91.1
92.2
84.9
86.5
78.1
91.9
83.6
71.9
82.2
66.6
86.4
75.6
84.1
83.8
83.5
83.0
51.5

(%)
1.81
26.56
2.69
0.71

0.35
42.07

1.15

0.50

0.97
0.91
0.69

cF ,k

cP , k

C D ,k

Z k

(/GJ) (/GJ) (/h)


(/h)
19.3
21.3
919
964
9.1
15.5
6,391 4,974
18.1
19.3
1,278 1,102
11.8
69.1
220
10
18.1
22.2
18.1
21.5
18.1
23.7
548
301
18.1
23.4
18.1
30.2
18.1
22.8
18.1
24.8
240
161
18.1
33.4
18.1
26.7
18.1
34.4
463
221
24.6
32.5
587
387
23.2
36.5
424
157
36.5
165.8
36.5
76.3
36.5
78.8
36.5
79.8
338
1,275
9.2
25.4 10,128 10,347

C D ,k Z k

fk

(/h)
1,884
11,365
2,380
231

(%)
51.2
43.8
46.3
4.4

850

35.5

400

40.1

684
974
580

32.4
39.7
27.0

1,612
20,474

79.1
50.5

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)


10.1
6.0
6.3
286.48
0.19
68.9
3.5
5.3
2418.44
2.54
7.0
5.8
6.0
410.68
0.91
487.2
4.1
22.9
75.87
0.01
22.7
5.8
7.1
19.2
5.8
6.6
31.2
5.8
6.5
176.20
1.16
29.4
5.8
7.3
67.0
5.8
8.2
26.1
5.8
6.5
37.4
5.8
7.4
77.03
0.53
84.8
5.8
9.1
47.7
5.8
7.6
90.7
5.8
10.0
148.65
0.22
32.0
7.2
8.8
172.69
0.36
57.2
6.9
10.0
125.88
0.18
353.6
10.0
40.4
108.9
10.0
13.1
115.8
10.0
13.5
118.5
10.0
13.6
92.03
0.23
177.5
3.5
6.8
3822.32 22.84

B D ,k Yk

f b ,k

rb ,k

(Pts/h)
286.67
2420.97
411.59
75.88

(%)
0.07
0.10
0.22
0.01

177.36

0.65

77.56

0.69

148.87
173.05
126.07

0.15
0.21
0.15

92.26
3845.17

0.25
0.59

(%)
4.9
52.5
3.8
465.6
14.3
12.1
25.6
22.6
40.5
12.8
28.2
56.2
31.2
72.1
21.3
44.3
305.3
31.0
35.5
36.6
94.5

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

66

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

67

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
CAU
Total
Exergyloss

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

cF ,k

cP , k

(MW)
242.68
729.62
551.15
35.06
43.64
28.92
26.46
0.18
6.10
1.06
1.43
19.02
11.57
40.94
18.53
4.33
3.45
3.44
3.49
59.28
730.58
27.62

(MW)
231.30
508.76
530.67
31.72
39.91
24.91
23.89
0.12
5.67
0.87
1.05
15.47
7.81
35.38
16.93
3.78
2.86
2.82
2.83

353.82

(MW)
11.38
220.87
20.47
3.34
3.73
4.01
2.57
0.06
0.43
0.19
0.38
3.54
3.76
5.56
1.59
0.55
0.59
0.61
0.66
40.59
349.14

(%)
95.3
69.7
96.3
90.5
91.4
86.1
90.3
69.0
92.9
82.5
73.3
81.4
67.5
86.4
91.4
87.3
82.9
82.1
81.1

48.4

(%)
1.56
30.23
2.80

(/GJ)
16.9
9.2
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
21.4
22.5
22.4
22.4
22.4
22.4
23.7
9.2

(/GJ)
19.4
13.7
16.9
18.9
18.6
19.6
18.9
33.3
20.1
21.3
27.8
23.1
28.5
27.8
43.6
132.9
100.1
77.0
77.4

26.3

B kPF (Pts/h)

1270

1.52

0.44

1.05
0.76

0.46
0.09
5.56
47.79

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

fk

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

(/h)
691
7,276
1,137

(/h)
1,396
997
1,595

(/h)
2,086
8,273
2,732

(%)
66.9
12.0
58.4

615

424

1,040

40.8

180

182

362

50.3

427
428

284
296

711
723

39.9
40.9

270
53
3,463
11,502

2,297
354
1,023
9,440

2,567
406
4,486
20,942

89.5
87.0
22.8
45.1

(%)
14.9
49.4
9.3
22.6
20.4
27.3
22.2
115.7
30.3
38.2
80.4
49.8
84.5
30.0
94.0
493.8
347.2
244.3
245.7

187.0

(Pts/GJ)
6.1
3.5
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.9
3.5

(Pts/GJ)
6.4
5.6
6.1
6.7
6.6
7.1
6.7
9.2
6.4
7.5
8.6
7.6
9.5
8.6
8.0
25.8
16.3
11.5
11.4

7.6

B D ,k

Yk

B D ,k Yk

f b ,k

rb ,k

(Pts/h)
249.98
2746.20
433.06

(Pts/h)
0.24
0.38
1.13

(Pts/h)
250.22
2746.59
434.18

(%)
0.09
0.01
0.26

234.36

1.46

235.82

0.62

68.58

0.83

69.41

1.19

162.68
144.91

0.23
0.32

162.90
145.23

0.14
0.22

87.31
17.13
1006.53
4341.17

4.90
0.20
1.75
21.63

92.21
17.34
1008.28
4362.80

5.31
1.18
0.17
0.50

(%)
4.9
63.5
3.9
13.5
11.9
20.4
13.8
57.1
9.7
27.0
46.4
29.1
61.2
19.2
10.3
256.9
125.2
58.3
57.5

120.7

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

Table4.10:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0.2

67

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

68

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

cF ,k

cP , k

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
CAU
Total
Exergyloss

(MW)
242.68
729.62
551.15
35.06
43.64
28.92
26.46
0.18
6.10
1.06
1.43
19.02
11.57
17.84
18.53
3.54
3.45
3.44
3.49
86.54
730.58
27.68

(MW)
231.30
508.76
530.67
31.72
39.91
24.91
23.89
0.12
5.67
0.87
1.05
15.47
7.81
15.42
16.93
3.00
2.86
2.82
2.83

334.63

(MW)
11.38
220.87
20.47
3.34
3.73
4.01
2.57
0.06
0.43
0.19
0.38
3.54
3.76
2.42
1.59
0.54
0.59
0.61
0.66
67.95
368.27

(%)
95.3
69.7
96.3
90.5
91.4
86.1
90.3
69.0
92.9
82.5
73.3
81.4
67.5
86.4
91.4
84.6
82.9
82.1
81.1

45.8

(%)
1.56
30.23
2.80

(/GJ)
19.4
13.7
16.9
18.7
18.4
19.3
18.6
32.2
19.9
20.8
27.0
22.6
27.3
29.3
43.2
153.7
78.6
77.2
77.6

9.2

(/GJ)
690
7,276
1,137
615
18.7
19.6
180
33.3
20.4
21.2
427
23.1
28.0
200
191
161.9
83.6
82.2
52
5,417
27.6

B kPF (Pts/h)

1268

1.52

0.44

1.05
0.33

0.33
0.09
9.30
50.41

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

(/h)
1,395
997
1,595

(/h)
2,086
8,273
2,732

(/h)
66.9
12.0
58.4

423

1,039

40.8

182

362

50.3

284
134

711
334

39.9
40.1

1,435
1,626
360
412
1,086
6,503
12,133 9,257

88.2
87.3
16.7
21,390

fk

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

(%)
(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ)
14.9 19.4
6.1
6.4
49.4 13.7
3.5
5.6
9.3
16.9
5.9
6.1
5.9
6.6
20.9 18.7
19.0 18.4
5.9
6.5
24.9 19.3
5.9
6.9
20.6 18.6
5.9
6.6
108.7 32.2
5.9
8.9
29.2 19.9
5.9
6.4
35.0 20.8
5.9
7.3
5.9
8.3
74.7 27.0
46.3 22.6
5.9
7.4
77.3 27.3
5.9
9.1
27.9 29.3
7.5
8.8
95.4 43.2
7.1
7.8
594.8 153.7
7.1
30.2
255.3 78.6
7.1
11.8
7.1
11.3
249.1 77.2
250.8 77.6
7.1
11.2

6.8

43.3 201.9
67.8
73.0

B D ,k

Yk

B D ,k Yk

f b ,k

rb ,k

(Pts/h)
249.94
2746.20
432.98

(Pts/h)
0.24
0.38
1.13

(Pts/h)
250.17
2746.59
434.11

(%)
0.09
0.01
0.26

234.32

1.45

235.77

0.62

68.57

0.83

69.40

1.19

162.65
65.52

0.23
0.19

162.87
65.71

0.14
0.29

61.40
16.79
1658.02
4579.01

1.32
0.20
3.50
19.27

62.72
16.99
1661.52
4598.28

2.11
1.20
0.21
0.42

(%)
4.9
63.5
3.9
12.1
10.6
18.2
12.3
51.0
8.7
24.1
41.4
26.0
54.6
17.4
10.3
325.7
66.4
58.7
57.8

7.6

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

Table4.11:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0

68

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

69

Table4.12:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheSGrazcycleandthesimpleoxyfuelplant
SGrazcycle

Component,k
C1
CC
GT1
GT2
GT3
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
NGPH
WPH1
WPH2
WPH3
ASU
C2
C3
C4
C5
C7
C8
C9
C10
Total
Exergyloss

ATRplant

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

(MW)
53.76
736.37
264.57
362.41
78.21
52.48
65.48
1.35
7.05
5.57
31.83
16.19
51.24
12.45
4.69
4.70
4.75
92.86
132.31
16.43
17.72
733.16
31.89

(MW)
50.84
551.82
253.32
345.23
69.56
46.00
58.00
1.27
3.61
3.09
25.56
14.67
11.46
11.04
3.95
3.93
3.94
86.56
124.67
13.73
14.93
352.01

(MW)
2.92
184.55
11.25
17.18
8.65
6.48
7.47
0.08
3.44
2.48
6.27
1.52
39.78
1.41
0.74
0.77
0.81
6.30
7.63
2.70
2.80
349.26

y D ,k

(%) (%)
94.6 0.40
74.9 25.17
95.7 1.53
95.3 2.34
88.9 1.18
87.7
88.6 1.91
93.9
51.2 0.47
55.5
80.3 1.40
90.6
22.4 5.43
88.7
84.1
0.51
83.5
83.0
93.2
1.90
94.2
83.5
0.75
84.2
48.0 47.64

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
ST4
ASU
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
Total
Exergyloss

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

(MW)
56.60
733.81
437.91
41.65
51.98
33.59
22.83
0.10
4.45
0.77
0.85
12.43
10.23
51.25
21.91
53.95
4.82
4.80
4.76
4.83
62.77
56.67
16.43
17.89
733.18
31.08

(MW)
53.53
512.57
420.80
35.88
45.21
28.22
18.78
0.06
4.20
0.65
0.62
10.24
7.73
44.29
19.22
11.59
4.05
4.01
3.95
3.96
57.08
54.82
13.73
15.08
313.40

(MW)
3.07
221.24
17.11
5.78
6.78
5.37
4.05
0.04
0.25
0.13
0.23
2.20
2.50
6.96
2.69
42.36
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.87
5.70
1.85
2.70
2.81
388.71

y D ,k

(%) (%)
94.6 0.42
69.9 30.18
96.1 2.33
86.1 2.44
87.0

84.0

82.3 0.61
61.4

94.4

83.7

72.9 0.67
82.3

75.6

86.4 0.95
87.7 0.37
21.5 5.78
83.9 0.44
83.5

83.0

82.1

90.9 1.03
96.7

83.5 0.75
84.3

42.7 53.02

Table4.13:SelectedresultsatthecomponentlevelfortheMSRandATRplants
MSRplant

Component,k
C1
CC
DB
GT1
GT2
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
NGPH
LPST
MSRH2
C2
C3
C4
C5
Total
Exergyloss

ATRplant

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

(MW)
206.31
598.70
338.16
481.89
54.18
36.79
47.13
32.45
3.17
27.16
13.93
32.62
22.33
180.20
3.84
4.06
4.04
4.10
730.63
57.29

(MW)
196.73
455.59
252.94
463.51
50.81
32.41
40.95
25.58
2.40
21.11
9.33
28.56
19.29
171.88
3.19
3.37
3.33
3.34
334.64

(MW)
9.58
143.11
85.23
18.37
3.37
4.38
6.17
6.86
0.77
6.05
4.60
4.06
3.03
8.32
0.64
0.69
0.71
0.76
338.70

(%)
95.4
76.1
74.8
96.2
93.8
88.1
86.9
78.8
75.7
77.7
67.0
87.6
86.4
95.4
83.2
83.0
82.4
81.4
45.8

(%)
1.31
19.59
11.66
2.51
0.46
2.38

1.56
0.56
0.42
1.14
0.38
46.36

Component,k
C1
CC
GT1
HPSH1
HPSH2
HPEV
HPEC
RH1
RH2
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH1
LPSH2
LPEV
LPEC
NGPH
H2PH
APH
LPST
ATR
SHIFTER1
SHIFTER2
CAU
MixCH4/Air
MixCH4/H2O
Total
Exergyloss

E F ,k

E P ,k

(MW)
221.95
659.64
519.91
2.37
26.00
36.90
10.69
11.37
8.76
5.51
30.37
6.89
1.54
3.37
19.39
13.01
34.36
32.61
9.38
23.85
809.32
690.54
659.61
33.54
428.31
507.54
730.62
32.75

(MW)
211.43
502.80
500.85
2.06
23.38
32.76
9.40
10.65
7.95
4.72
26.75
5.75
1.14
2.86
15.73
8.44
30.19
25.32
5.91
20.61

419.98
500.94
339.81

E D ,k k yD ,k
(MW)
10.53
156.84
19.06
0.31
2.62
4.14
1.29
0.72
0.81
0.79
3.62
1.14
0.40
0.52
3.66
4.57
4.17
7.30
3.47
3.24
51.81
3.43
0.63
29.95
8.33
6.60
358.06

(%)
95.3
76.2
96.3
86.9
89.9
88.8
87.9
93.7
90.8
85.6
88.1
83.5
74.1
84.7
81.1
64.9
87.9
77.6
63.0
86.4

98.1
98.7
46.5

(%)
1.44
21.47
2.61
1.14

0.97

1.25

0.57
1.00
0.47
0.44
7.09
0.47

4.10
1.14
0.90
49.01

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

70

4.2 Advancedexergybasedanalyses
The advanced exergetic, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses have been
appliedtothereferenceplantandthetwomosteconomicalplantsperformingCO2capture,
theAZEP85andtheCLCplant.

4.2.1
4.2.1.1

Advancedexergeticanalysis
Applicationoftheadvancedexergeticanalysis

Toconducttheadvancedexergeticanalysis,thetheoreticalandunavoidableconditionsforall
the components must be defined (see section 3.3). For the calculation of the unavoidable
exergydestruction,thebestpossibleoperatingconditionsareconsideredforeachcomponent.
These calculations regard each component in isolation, thus simultaneous component
interactions are not a concern here. On the other hand, the calculation of the endogenous
exergydestructioninvolvestheoreticaloperationofcomponents,considerstheoverallplant
and it, therefore, examines simultaneous component interactions (mexogenous exergy
destruction,Equation3.21)aswell.Forthecalculationoftheendogenousexergydestruction
of component k, component k operates under real conditions, while all other components
operate theoretically. For the calculation of component interactions, the examined
componentsoperateunderrealconditionsinpairs,whileallremainingcomponentsoperate
theoretically. The assumptions made for the theoretical and unavoidable operation of all of
thecomponentsareshowninTable4.14.
Assumptions related to the theoretical operation of components include zero pressure
losses, high efficiencies, low temperature differences, etc. When a component operates
withoutpressurelosses,thepressurelossesofanyparallelcomponentsarealsoconsideredto
bezero,eveniftheparallelcomponentsoperateunderrealconditions.Additionally,changes
in the minimum temperature differences of some components might affect the operation of
parallel components by increasing or decreasing their exergy destruction. As already
mentioned, in the description of the methodology (section 3.3.1), theoretical reactors are
definedusingtheexergybalance,whilethemassandenergybalancesofthecomponentsare
notmaintained.Toachievethis,theplantsaresplitintotwopartsaftereachreactor.
In the case of the reference plant, when either the CC or the neighboring components
operatetheoretically,streams3and4Figure4.44willdiffertomaintainthepredefined(either
real or theoreticalrelated) exergy balance of the reactor. When theoretical operation is
assumedforacomponentoragroupofcomponents,themassflowsoftherequiredairand
fuelarecalculatedthroughthenetpoweroutputoftheplant, W ,andtheexcessairfraction
net

( ) of the CC, which have the same values as in the real case. For the calculation of the
endogenous exergy destruction, the CC must operate with its real exergetic efficiency

4Forsimplicity,thenumberingofthestreamsinFigure4.4differsfromthatinFigureA.1.1.Thecorrelationofthe
numbersinFigure4.4withFigureA.1.1isthefollowing:1is1,2is2,3&4are4,5is5and6is3.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

71

Table4.14:Assumptionsrelatedtothetheoreticalandunavoidableoperationofthecomponents
Component,
k
GT1
GT2
C1

CC

DB

STs

CLC
Reactors

MCM

EDreal
,k

EDUN, k

is=9294%
mech=99%
is=9094%
mech=99%
is=9194%
mech=99%
Qloss=0.01
P=3%f
=2.05
Qloss=0.01
P=1%f
=10

Theoretical
operation
is=100%
mech=100%
is=100%
mech=100%
is=100%
mech=100%
Qloss=0
P=0
=2.05
Qloss=0
P=0
=10d

=8694%

is=100%

mech=99%
Qloss=0

mech=100%
Qloss=0

P=3%f

P=0

P=0

=1.05

=1.05

=1

Qloss=0.0

Qloss=0

Qloss=0

p=0.3%f

p=0

p=0

is=96%
C2C5
mech=100%
is=96%
C6
mech=100%
is=94%
mech=100% SH/RH
Qloss=0
P=0
=1
EV
Qloss=0
P=0
=1
is=95%HP,
EC
IP92%LP
mech=100%
Qloss=0

Tmin=60 Tmin=dependant

Qloss=0.01
CCMCM

Component,
k

Qloss=0

P=3%f
P=0
=1.05
=1.05
Tmin=35C Tmin=dependantg
MCM
PHP=0.65%
HTHX
P=0
bar/100C
Tmin=60C Tmin=dependantg
MCMLTHX PHP=0.65%
P=0
bar/100C

NGPH

AirHX

Tmin=20
Qloss=0
P=0
=1
Tmin=20
P=0

COOL

Pumps

Tmin=20 Motors
P=0

Generators

EDreal
,k

EDUN, k

is=7579%
mech=99%
is=96.8%
is=8588%
Tmin=20C
PHSa
PCS=5%f
Pinchpoint=10C
Appr.T=6C
PHSa
PCS=5%b,f
Tmin=dependantg

Theoretical
operation
is=100%
mech=100%
is=100%
mech=100%
Tmin=0
P=0

Tmin=0
Appr.T=0
P=0

Tmin=0

is=94%
mech=100%
is=94%
mech=100%
Tmin=4
P=0

Tmin=1
Appr.T=0
P=0

Tmin=1

PHSa

P=0

P=0

PCS=3%/100C

Tmin=400e
Tmin=dependantg
PHP=0.65%
P=0
bar/100C
PLP=0.60%

bar/100C
Tmin=700e
Tmin=dependantg
PHP=0.65%
P=0
bar/100C

Tmin =20C(10C
Tmin=0
inFGCOND)
PHSa
P=0
PCS=3%/100C

is=6790%c
is=100%

Tmin=20
P=0

Tmin=20
P=0

Tmin=1
P=0

is=95%

mech=98%

mech=100%

nmech=100%

el=8095%

nel=100%

nel=98%

el=98.5%

el=100%

el=99.5%

Here,HS:hotsideandCS:coldside
aThePHSofaHXiscalculatedbasedonthepressuredropwithintheoverallHRSGandthetemperaturevariationwithintheHX
(seeAppendixB)
bCoveredbyanintegratedpump
cSeeAppendixBformoredetailsaboutthecalculations
dResultoftemperaturelimitationattheexitofthecomponent
eDuetodesignrequirements
fPercentagedecreasebasedonthepressureoftheincomingstream
gDependsontheoperationofothercomponents(seebelow)

real
), while in the theoretical case its exergy destruction must be
( E 2 cc E 6 E 4 , with cc CC

settozero( E D ,CC 0 CC 1 E 2 E 6 E 4 ).Thethermodynamicvaluesofstream4agree


with those of the real case throughout the analysis, while stream 2 differs depending on
different combinations ofoperating states of the compressor(C1) and the CC. For example,
whenbothofthecomponentsoperatetheoretically,nopressurelossesareincurredwithinthe
CC. With lower pressure losses present, stream 1 must be compressed to a lower pressure,
since theinlet pressure ofthe expander is kept constant, resulting in lower temperatures in
streams 2 and 3. Moreover, the temperatures of streams 2 and 3 are also decreased by the
high isentropic efficiency of the theoretical compressor. In total, there are two possible

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

72

thermodynamicstates(realandtheoretical)andtwoconsideredcomponents(theCCandthe
compressor),thus22=4possiblecombinationstotakeintoaccountwhendefiningtheexergy
balance of the CC. The temperature and pressure of stream 2 is calculated for all 4
combinationsanditsexergyisprovidedasinputtotherespectivesimulation.

NG

3
CC

4
2

C1
GT

1Air

5toHRSG

Figure4.4:TheGTsystemofthereferenceplant

IntheCLCplant,therearetwostreamsexitingthereactors(CLCunitinFigure4.55):theCO2

stream(stream8,ledtoGT2)andtheoxygendepletedair(stream4,ledtoGT1).Inorderto
controltheexergybalanceofthereactors,bothexitingstreamsmustbesplit.

6NG

7
8

CLC
GT2

Unit/reactors 3

9 toHRSGII

4
2

C1

GT1

1Air

5 tomainHRSG

Figure4.5:TheCLCunitaspartoftheGTsystemoftheCLCplant

Analogously to the reference plant, the Wnet and the excess air fraction, controlled here
through the mass flow ratio between the streams 1 and 6, are kept constant. When the
reactorsoperateasintherealcase,theirexergeticefficiencyagreeswiththatoftherealcase
E E E with
real ). When the CLC unit is assumed to operate
( E
2

reactors

reactors

reactors

theoreticallyitsexergydestructionissettozero( E D , reactors 0 reactors 1 E 2 E 6 E 4 E8 ).


Todefineallunknownsoftheconsideredsystem,anauxiliaryassumptionisrequiredforone
ofthetwostreamsexitingtheCLCunit.Duetomateriallimitations,thetemperaturesofthe
streamsexitingtheCLCunitshouldnotexceed1200C.Therefore,thetemperatureofstream

5Forsimplicity,thenumberingofthestreamsinFigure4.5differsfromthatinFigureA.5.1.Thecorrelationofthe
numbersinFigure4.5withFigureA.5.1isthefollowing:1is1,2is3,3&4are4,5is5,6is60,7&8are61and9is62.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

73

4 has been kept constant at 1200C and the temperature of stream 8 has been varied
dependingonsimulationrequirements.Theexergyofstream2isalsodefinedherebasedon
thethermodynamicstateofthecomponentsthataffectit,i.e.C1andtheCLCunit.Asinthe
reference plant, there are four possible component operating combinations that result in
differentvaluesofexergyforstream2.
InthecaseoftheAZEP85,thingsbecomemorecomplex(Figure4.66).Heretworeactors
(CCandDB)areusedandinordertomaintainbothoftheirexergybalances,thesystemmust
be separated in two places, once after each reactor. Analogously to the previous plants, the
W and the excess air fractions of the CC and the DB are kept constant. When the CC
net

operates as in the real case, its exergetic efficiency matches that of the real case
real
).WhentheCCoperatestheoretically,itsexergydestruction
( E 21 CC E 22 E13 with CC CC
is set to zero ( E D ,CC 0 CC 1 E 21 E 22 E13 ). The same conditions apply for the DB of
the plant: The real DB performs with the same efficiency as it does in the real case
real
) , while the theoretical DB presents no exergy destruction
( E 6 DB E 23 E8 with DB DB
( E D , DB 0 DB 1 E 6 E 23 E8 ). The exergies of streams 21 and 6 at the inlet of the CC
and the DB, depend on the operation of the components that can cause a change to their
pressure and/or temperature. For example, the exergy of stream 21 depends on the MCM
LTHX,theMCM,theMCMHTHXandtheCC(16possiblecombinations),whiletheexergy
ofstream6dependsontheMCMLTHX,theMCM,theMCMHTHXandtheC1(16possible
combinations).Whenthepressuresofstreams2and6aredefined,thepressuresofstreams10
and 11 are adjusted accordingly. Because the predefinition of this many different exergy
valuesisnotrecommended,aroutineforthecalculationofthephysicalexergyofstreamshas
beenaddedintheEbsScriptofEbsilonProfessional(thechemicalexergyofthestreamsagrees
withtherealcase).

22NG

21

10

12 13 14
17

CC

C6

18
2

LTHX

GT2

20

15

AirHX

MCM

11

HTHX

DB

C1

21

19

toHRSGII 16

23NG

GT1

1Air

9tomainHRSG
Figure4.6:TheMCMreactoraspartoftheGTsystemoftheAZEP85

6 For simplicity, the numbering of the streams in Figure 4.6 differs from that in Figures A.2.1 and A.3.1. The
correlationofthenumbersinFigure4.6withFigureA.2.1/A.3.1isthefollowing:1is1,2is83,3is84,4is85,5is88,
6is96,7and8are4,9is5,10is82,11is81,12and13are90,14is60,15is61,16is62,17is91,18is92,19is86,20is
87,21is89,22is93and23is95.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

74

Assumed restrictions related to the operation of the MCM inevitably lead to a strong
interaction between the MCM and the MCM LTHX. When the LTHX is real, the inlet
temperatureofstream20mustbehighenoughtoachieveamin(determinedbystreams20
and 3) as close as possible to the real case. The minimum inlet temperature of the MCM is
900C and the minimum temperature of stream 20 would, in this case, be 964C. When the
LTHXortheMCMoperatetheoretically,thetemperaturesofstreams4and20aredecreased
tolowertheminofthecomponents.Lastly,asinthepreviouscases,theinletpressuresof
bothoftheGTsmustagreewiththoseoftherealcaseandanypressurevariationsmustbe
accountedfor.
4.2.1.2

Splittingtheexergydestruction

Results for selected components of the advanced exergetic analysis for the three analyzed
plantsareshowninTable4.15andwereobtainedusingEquations(3.20)(3.27).Thecomplete
resultscanbefoundinAppendixAandthesupplementaldata.
The main variable used to evaluate the potential for improvement of a plant is the
avoidable exergy destruction, EDAV . Larger values of avoidable exergy destruction indicate
significant improvement potential. A second quantity for consideration is the endogenous
part of the exergy destruction, EDEN . Endogenous irreversibilities are usually easier to
manipulatethanexogenous( EDEX ),becausetheydependontheoperationofthecomponent
itself and not on component interactions that are more difficult to manage. Nonetheless, a
changeintheendogenousexergydestructioncanaltercomponentinteractionsaswell.Thus,
thesetwopartsoftheirreversibilitiesshouldbeexaminedinparallel.
As already mentioned, in the conventional exergetic analysis, the larger the absolute
valueoftheirreversibilitieswithinacomponent,thehigheritsimprovementprioritymustbe.
Withtheadvancedexergeticanalysisthisvalueisscaledtoreferonlytoitsavoidablepart.In
general, the reactors in allof the three plants are the components with the highest absolute
valueofexergydestruction.However,theresultsrelatedtothereactorsoftheAZEP85show
someparticularities.AlthoughintheAZEP85,theCChasarateofexergydestructionalmost
fivetimeshigherthantheDBoftheplant,theDBresultsina23%higher EDAV .Thus,ithas
the highest improvement priority, followed by the CC, GT1, ST4 and C1. Moreover, while
68% and 67% of the exergy destruction in the reactors of the reference and CLC plants,
respectively, is unavoidable, 91% of the exergy destruction in the CC of the AZEP 85 is
unavoidable. The high unavoidable exergy destruction within the CC of the AZEP 85 is
justifiedbyitsoperation.Becausepreheatedgasesofhighphysicalexergyareused,itsexergy
destruction decreases less with decreasing lambda than for the conventional CC of the
referenceplant.IntheCLCplant,thereactorsresultinsimilarvaluestothatoftheCCofthe
referenceplant.InthereferenceandCLCplants,GT1andC1followthereactorsinabsolute
valuesofavoidableexergydestruction.IntheCLC,ST4andtheLPSTfollowC1.
Ingeneral,themajorityoftheexergydestructionwithinthecomponentsoftheplantsis
unavoidable.ExceptionsaretheCO2compressors,theHXsthatintherealcaseoperatewith
high minimum temperature differences due to design requirements, ST4 of the oxyfuel

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

75

plants, the DB of the AZEP 85 and GT1 in the reference plant and the AZEP 85. Moreover,
mostofthetotalexergydestructionoftheplantsisendogenous(83%inthereferenceplant,
77% in the AZEP 85 and 79% in the CLC plant). This shows that component interactions,
represented by the exogenous exergy destruction, do not play a very significant role.
Therefore, focus should be placed more on the improvement of internal component
inefficiencies.
For the reactors, C1, the IPST, the LPST and the majority of the HXs, most of the
endogenous exergy destruction is unavoidable ( EDUN, k, EN ). In contrast, more than half of the
irreversibilitieswithintheDBoftheAZEP85areavoidable( EDAV, k , EN ).Also,inalloftheplants,
GT1,theHPSTandtheCO2compressors(oftheCLCplantandtheAZEP85),presenthigher
avoidable endogenous exergy destruction. Similarly, the exogenous exergy destruction is
foundtobemostlyunavoidableforthemajorityofthecomponents.
Negativevaluescalculatedfortheexogenousexergydestruction(Table4.15)resultfrom
changes in the mass flow rates between the real and the endogenous cases. As already
mentioned, for the calculation of each components endogenous exergy destruction, the
examined component operates under real conditions, while all other components operate
theoretically. When the conditions of the theoretically operating components result in
increasedmassflows,theendogenousexergydestructionishigherthanintherealcase, EDreal ,
andthe EDEX is,therefore,foundtobenegative.Forexample,inthecalculationofthe EDEN of
thegeneratoroftheGTsystem(GEN1)intheCLCandreferenceplants,thepoweroutputof
the steam cycle is decreased, due to the lower temperature of the combustion products
entering the HRSG a result of the high isentropic efficiency of the theoretical expander.
Withthislowertemperature,thepowerofthesteamturbinesisreduced.Tokeeptheoverall
power output of the process constant, the power output of GT1 must increase. This is,
however,determinedbythemassflow,sincetheinlettemperatureofGT1remainsconstant.
With increased mass flow, the EDEN of the generator is higher than its EDreal , resulting in a
negative EDEX .Similarexplanationscanbegivenforthenegativevaluesofthe EDUN , EX ,since
theircalculationdependsonthecalculationofthe EDUN , EN ,whichisafunctionofthe EPEN (see
Equation3.24).Generally,withtheexceptionofthegeneratorsandmotorsthatareinfluenced
onlybythecomponentstowhichtheyaredirectlyconnected,thecomponentswithnegative
exergydestruction(e.g.,someHXsoftheIPHRSG,SHIIandEVIIandtheCO2compressors
andGT2oftheAZEP85)shouldoperatewithreducedperformance,inordertoimprovethe
overallsystem.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

76

Ref.Plant

EDreal
,k

EDEN, k

EDEX, k

EDAV, k

EDUN, k

EDUN, k, EN

C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
LPEC
LPST
GEN1

11.38
220.87
16.09
3.35
3.73
4.00
3.78
8.71
4.39

6.94
193.06
13.52
1.78
2.00
2.24
2.42
6.10
4.76

4.44
27.80
2.57
1.57
1.72
1.76
1.37
2.61
0.38

5.11
71.03
8.32
0.87
0.67
1.28
1.83
3.61
2.94

6.26
149.84
7.77
2.48
3.06
2.72
1.95
5.10
1.45

3.79
130.81
6.23
1.30
1.84
1.75
1.13
3.57
1.57

AZEP85

EDreal
,k

EDEN, k

EDEX, k

EDAV, k

EDUN, k

EDUN, k, EN

C1
CC
MCM
MCMLTHX
DB
GT1
NGPH
HPEC
LPST
ST4
C5
FGCOND
GEN1

11.17
153.65
5.62
9.55
31.26
14.16
5.70
3.52
6.05
6.78
0.66
13.52
3.65

7.39
120.57
3.41
4.58
20.16
10.64
3.72
1.72
4.65
4.53
0.91
18.21
3.39

3.78
33.09
2.21
4.97
11.10
3.53
1.98
1.79
1.40
2.25
0.25
4.69
0.26

5.02
13.56
1.40
4.90
16.74
7.11
5.66
1.04
2.51
5.78
0.53

1.24

6.15
140.10
4.23
4.65
14.52
7.06
0.05
2.48
3.54
1.01
0.13

4.89

4.06
109.81
1.45
3.54
9.43
5.12
0.01
1.33
2.72
0.67
0.17

4.54

CLC

EDreal
,k

EDEN, k

EDEX, k

EDAV, k

EDUN, k

EDUN, k, EN

C1
CLC
GT1
GT2
NGPH
HPEV
HPEC
LPEV
LPEC
HPST
LPST
ST4
GEN1

13.21
194.06
16.01
2.02
5.20
2.77
3.67
3.03
3.76
1.39
5.99
5.06
3.65

7.79
166.54
13.00
1.49
2.98
1.26
1.86
1.52
2.26
0.81
4.33
2.82
3.99

5.42
27.52
3.01
0.54
2.22
1.51
1.80
1.52
1.50
0.57
1.66
2.25
0.34

5.94
64.72
7.69
1.21
0.04
0.79
0.94
0.83
1.65
0.73
2.48
4.32
2.44

7.27
129.34
8.31
0.81
5.17
1.98
2.72
2.20
2.11
0.66
3.51
0.74
1.20

4.26
109.49
6.33
0.60
2.84
1.03
1.55
1.24
1.13
0.37
2.53
0.41
1.32

EDUN, k, EX

2.47
19.03
1.53
1.18
1.21
0.97
0.82
1.53
0.12

EDUN, k, EX

2.09
30.29
2.78
1.11
5.08
1.94
0.04
1.15
0.82
0.34
0.04

0.35

EDUN, k, EX
3.01
19.85
1.98
0.22
2.33
0.95
1.17
0.97
0.98
0.29
0.97
0.33
0.11

EDAV, k , EN

EDAV, k , EX

3.14
62.25
7.29
0.48
0.16
0.49
1.28
2.53
3.19

1.97
8.77
1.03
0.38
0.51
0.79
0.55
1.08
0.25

EDAV, k , EN

EDAV, k , EX

3.33
10.76
1.96
1.05
10.73
5.52
3.71
0.39
1.93
3.87
0.74

1.15

1.69
2.80
0.57
3.86
6.01
1.59
1.95
0.65
0.58
1.91
0.20

0.09

EDAV, k , EN

EDAV, k , EX

3.53
57.05
6.67
0.89
0.14
0.23
0.31
0.28
1.14
0.44
1.79
2.40
2.67

2.41
7.67
1.03
0.32
0.10
0.56
0.63
0.55
0.52
0.28
0.69
1.92
0.23

EPreal

EPEN

231.30
508.76
535.06
31.72
39.91
24.91
7.71
62.29
288.00

140.05
444.15
429.50
16.59
24.09
16.00
4.47
43.60
312.87

EPreal

EPEN

227.13
466.61
77.03
211.51
78.20
481.50
0.10
22.65
43.27
21.14
2.85

239.55

149.88
365.73
26.35
160.99
50.82
349.47
0.02
12.18
33.26
14
3.85

222.58

EPreal

EPEN

268.57
500.67
524.99
52.13
1.12
32.97
20.58
13.99
7.52
22.75
42.81
15.66
239.56

157.27
423.84
399.90
38.28
0.61
17.16
11.74
7.85
4.02
12.79
30.96
8.65
262.13

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

Table4.15:Selectedresultsatthecomponentleveloftheadvancedexergeticanalysis(MW)

76

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

4.2.1.3

77

Splittingtheexogenousexergydestruction
Table4.16:Splittingtheexogenousrateofexergydestruction(MW)a

EX

E D,k
Ref.plant Component,k

CC
27.80

C1
4.44

AZEP85

Component,k

E EX
D,k

33.09

DB
11.10

MCMLTHX 4.97

C1
3.78

CC

E EX
D,k

E EX , r
D , k

Component,r
C1
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX
Component,r
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX

5.59
8.84
3.39
25.67(7.96)
2.14
3.51
0.29
0.11
4.18(6.78)
0.26

,r
E EX
D,k

0.05
0.06
3.44
5.13
0.06
0.81
1.66
24.68(5.86)
8.41
4.27
0.01
0.46
0.71
0.01
0.18
0.35
8.18(0.26)
2.92
0.76
0.04
0.27
0.23
0.20
0.11
0.10
2.84(0.24)
2.13
1.59
0.03
0.01
0.27
0.01
0.07
0.10
2.88(6.98)
0.91

E EX , r
D,k

Component,k
LPST

GT1

Component,k
GT1

MCM

ST4

LPST

E EX
D,k
2.61

2.57

E EX
D,k

3.53

2.21

2.25

1.40

E EX

Component,r
CC
C1
GT1
SUM
MX
CC
C1
LPST
SUM
MX
Component,r
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
SUM
MX

Component,r
Component,r
CLCplant Component,k
Component,k D , k

CLC
27.52
C1
3.13
ST4
2.25
C1

GT1
8.27

CLC

ST4
1.10

GT1

SUM
23.46(12.81)

SUM
MX
4.06
MX

C1
5.42
CLC
3.77
GT1
3.01
C1

GT1
0.35

CLC

ST4
0.05

ST4

SUM
4.65(5.17)

SUM
MX
0.78
MX

aThesumofexergydestructioncausedbycomponentktotheremainingcomponentsrisshowninparentheses

E EX , r

D , k
0.70
0.19
1.07
1.96(4.57)
0.65
1.12
0.29
0.25
2.22(14.08)
0.35
EX , r

E D , k

2.21
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.10
0.16
3.34(11.78)
0.19
0.66
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.19
0.03
0.07
1.65(0.57)
0.56
1.17
0.01
0.07
0.31
0.14
0.16
0.05
1.85(1.77)
0.40
0.39
0.04
0.10
0.14
0.82
0.00
0.25
0.93(0.54)
0.47

E EX , r

D , k
0.10
0.39
0.12
1.63(1.41)
0.62
0.34
1.36
0.08
2.65(14.23)
0.36

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

78

Although the exogenous exergy destruction accounts for a relatively small amount of the
exergydestructionintheplants,thedeterminationofitsspecificsourcescanshedlightonto
improvementoptions.Splittingtheexogenousirreversibilities(alsousedinthecalculationof
themexogenousexergydestruction)requiresadditionalsimulations,becausethecomponents
are considered to operate under real conditions in pairs, while the necessary quantities are
calculated as defined in Chapter 3. The operating assumptions lead to a total of n 2 n 2
simulations,withnbeingthenumberofthecomponentsintheplant.
The results for the components with the highest exogenous exergy destruction of the
plants and their mexogenous values (MX) are shown in Table 4.16. Four components have
beenchosenfromthereferenceandCLCplantsandeightfromtheAZEP85tobeexplained
here.Thecompleteresultscanbefoundinthesupplementaldata.Asshown,themexogenous
values are relatively low for all of the plants. The highest difference between the starting
resultsoftheexogenousexergydestructionandtheamountcalculatedthroughthesplitting
is found for the reactors, while for the remaining components, the mexogenous values are
small.IntheAZEP85themexogenousexergydestructionoftheCCishigher,revealingmore
intensecomponentinteractions.AsshowninTable4.16,52%,41%and26%oftheexogenous
exergy destruction in the reactors of the reference plant, the CLC plant and the CC of the
AZEP85stemfromGT1andC1,asmallpartofwhichisavoidable.Similarly,inGT1andC1,
theexogenousexergydestructionismainlyimposedbythereactors.Nonetheless,alargepart
oftheexogenousexergydestructionstemmingfromthereactorsisavoidable(3233%forGT1
inthereferenceandCLCplantsand52%intheAZEP85andapproximately44%forC1inall
of the plants). It should be noted that the exogenous exergy destruction caused by GT1 is
higherthanthatcausedbythereactorsby77%inthereferenceplantandby12%intheCLC
plant (SUM, the value in parentheses in Table 4.16). In the AZEP 85, the exogenous exergy
destructioncausedbytheCCisfoundtobenegative.Thisisaresultmainlydeterminedby
thecomponentsrelatedtotheCO2capture.InefficienciesintheCCresultinanimprovement
ofGT2,andallofthecomponentsconstitutingtheCO2compressionunit.Thiscontradictsthe
resultsofthereferenceandCLCplants,butitisjustifiedwiththemorecomplexstructureof
theplantandthestrongerinterrelationsofitscomponents.
4.2.1.4

Calculatingthetotalavoidablerateofexergydestruction

To better understand the improvement potential of the components, the variable E DAV, k, , as
stated in Equation (3.28) has been calculated (Table 4.17). The total avoidable exergy
destruction of component k, consists of both its avoidable endogenous and avoidable
exogenousexergydestructioncausedbyittotheremainingcomponentsoftheplant.When
this value is high, the component is considered to have a large influence on the overall
system.
Inthereferenceplant,theavoidableexogenousexergydestructionofGT1is34%higher
thanthatoftheCC,intheCLCthetwovaluesaresimilar(withtheexergydestructionofGT1
14%lowerthanthatoftheCLCreactors)andintheAZEP85boththeCCandtheDBhave
negative avoidable exogenous values. In the reference and CLC plants, due to the

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

79

significantlylargeendogenousexergydestructionofthereactors,theirtotalavoidableexergy
destruction( E AV , ) resultsinavalueapproximatelyfivetimeshigher,whencomparedtothat
D,k

ofGT1.IntheAZEP85,theendogenousavoidableexergydestructionoftheCCisrelatively
lowandsimilartothatoftheDB,whileitsexogenousexergydestructionishighlynegative.
Therefore,itstotalavoidableexergydestructionislow(1.61MW).Becausethe E AV , EX ofthe
D,k

DBisslightlynegative,theDBresultsinthelargesttotalavoidableexergydestructionamong
theplantcomponentsoftheAZEP85,closelyfollowedbyGT1.WhencomparingGT1with
C1, GT1 causes higher avoidable exogenous exergy destruction in all of the plants.
Additionally, due to the much higher avoidable endogenous exergy destruction of GT1, its
totalavoidableexergydestructionisfoundtobemorethandoublethatofC1inthereference
plant,approximatelythreetimeshigherintheCLCplantand54%higherintheAZEP85.
Table4.17:Splittingtherateofexergydestructioncausedbyeachcomponent(MW)
Ref.Plant
Component,k

r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

E DAV, k , EN

E DAV, k,

CC

3.65(6%)

62.25(94%)

65.90

GT1

4.89(40%)

7.29(60%)

12.18

C1

2.52(45%)

3.14(55%)

5.67

LPST

1.81(42%)

2.53(58%)

4.34

AZEP85
Component,k

E
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

E DAV, k , EN

E DAV, k,

DB

0.09

10.73

10.64

GT1

3.76(41%)

5.52(59%)

9.28

C1

2.68(45%)

3.33(55%)

6.02

MCM

0.63(24%)

1.96(76%)

2.60

LPST

0.63(25%)

1.93(75%)

2.56

CC

9.15

10.76

1.61

MCMLTHX

0.10(9%)

1.05(91%)

1.15

CLCplant
Component,k

4.2.2

E
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

E DAV, k , EN

E DAV, k,

CLC

6.71(11%)

57.05(89%)

63.76

GT1

5.75(46%)

6.67(54%)

12.42

C1

0.74(17%)

3.53(83%)

4.28

ST4

0.66(63%)

0.39(37%)

1.05

Advancedexergoeconomicanalysis

Selected results of the advanced exergoeconomic analysis at the component level are
presented in Tables 4.194.20. More detailed tables can be found in Appendix A and in the
supplementaldata.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

4.2.2.1

80

Splittingtheinvestmentcostrates

Theassumptionsmadeforthecalculationoftheunavoidableinvestmentcostrates, Z kUN ,are


showninTable4.18.MostofthecostoftheGTsystem,theSTsandthepumpswasassumed
heretobeunavoidable,duetolimitedmodificationpossibilitiesintheirdesign.Ontheother
hand,mostoftheinvestmentcostoftheHXsisfoundtobeavoidable.Theunavoidablecost
associated with HXs is estimated through additional simulations, where each component is
consideredinisolation,operatingwithhighirreversibilities,i.e.highminimumtemperature
differences and pressure drops. The lowest possible cost of production of the plant
componentsisthenestimated.Theresultsfromsplittingtheinvestmentcostratesforselected
componentsoftheplantsareshowninTable4.19.
Table4.18:Assumptionsforthecalculationoftheunavoidableinvestmentcostrates

Z kUN
Componentsa

Z kUN

(operatingconditions
or%of Z k

real

Components

(operatingconditionsor
%of Z k

real

GT

90%

SH/RH

GT2

90%

Tmin=100C

PUN=Preal

C1

85%

EV

Tmin=50C

C2C5

90%

PUN=Preal

C6

85%

EC

Tmin=75C

CC

80%

PUN=Preal

DB

80%

NGPH

Tmin=600C

STs

90%

PUN=Preal

CLCreactors

80%

AirHX

Tmin=800C

MCM

80%

PUN=Preal

CCMCM

80%

Coolers

Tmin=75C

MCMHTHX

Tmin=100C

PUN=Preal

PUN=Preal

Pumps

60%

MCMLTHX

Tmin=100C

Motors

Incl.withpumps

PUN=Preal
Incl.withturbines

Generators
Nodistinctionbetweenavoidableandunavoidableinvestmentcostrateshasbeenmadeformixers,deaerators,or
dissipativecomponents.
a

The endogenous investment cost rate, Z kEN , is found to be higher than the exogenous,
Z kEX , for all of the plant components, with the exception of the MCM and some HXs in the

AZEP85.Thisemphasizesagainthatinternaldesignchangesplayamoresignificantrolein
thedeterminationofeachcomponentscost.Inaddition,theorderofthespreadbetweenthe
absolutevaluesoftheendogenousandexogenousinvestmentcostratesissignificantinsome
cases:fortheCCandGT1,forexample,inalloftheplantstheendogenousinvestmentcost
ratesaremuchhigherthantheexogenousrates(inthereferenceplant,sevenandfourtimes

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

81

Table4.19:Splittingtheinvestmentcostrates(/h)

Z kreal

Z kUN

Z kAV

Z kEN

Z kEX

C1
CC
GT1
HPSH

1423.3
1016.7
1626.7
111.2

1209.8
813.3
1464.0
50.8

213.5
203.3
162.7
60.4

861.8
887.6
1305.7
73.5

561.5
129.1
320.9
37.7

129.3
177.5
130.6
39.9

84.2
25.8
32.1
20.5

732.6
710.0
1175.2
33.6

477.3
103.3
288.8
17.2

HPEV
HST
IPST
LPST

157.7
181.7
328.9
764.1

68.5
163.5
296.0
687.7

89.2
18.2
32.9
76.4

82.4
115.3
230.1
534.9

75.2
66.4
98.8
229.2

46.6
11.5
23.0
53.5

42.6
6.6
9.9
22.9

32.7
59.7
89.0
206.3

Z kAV

Z kEN

Z kEX

Ref.Plant

Z kAV
Z AV , EN Z AV , EX
k

Z kUN
Z UN , EN Z UN , EX

35.8
103.8
207.1
481.4

AZEP85

Z kreal

Z kUN

Z kAV
Z AV , EN Z AV , EX

Z kUN
Z UN , EN Z UN , EX

C1
MCM
GT1
CC
DB

1169.3
1192.3
1336.4
745.9
276.8

993.9
953.9
1202.8
596.7
221.5

175.4
238.5
133.6
149.2
55.4

771.7
407.9
970.0
584.6
179.9

397.7
784.4
366.4
161.3
96.9

115.7
81.6
97.0
116.9
36.0

59.7
156.9
36.6
32.3
19.4

655.9
326.3
873.0
467.7
143.9

338.0
627.6
329.8
129.0
77.5

MCMLTHX
MCMHTHX
HPST
IPST
LPST
LPEV

1113.0
696.3
182.6
201.8
489.2
145.0

320.2
108.9
164.3
181.7
440.3
70.1

764.5
548.8
18.3
20.2
48.9
74.8

847.1
434.4
124.4
161.0
376.1
77.0

265.8
261.9
58.2
40.8
113.2
68.0

558.5
309.8
12.4
16.1
37.6
39.7

206.0
239.0
5.8
4.1
11.3
35.1

288.7
124.7
112.0
144.9
338.5
37.2

31.6
15.8
52.3
36.7
101.8
32.9

LPEC
ST4
GT2
C2
C3
C4

102.5
256.7
247.3
347.9
358.4
356.9

44.1
231.1
222.5
295.7
304.6
303.3

58.4
25.7
24.7
52.2
53.8
53.5

59.0
170.0
341.1
448.8
479.9
480.3

43.5
86.8
93.9
100.9
121.5
123.5

33.6
17.0
34.1
67.3
72.0
72.0

24.8
8.7
9.4
15.1
18.2
18.5

25.4
153.0
307.0
381.5
407.9
408.3

18.7
78.1
84.5
85.8
103.3
104.9

362.1

307.8

54.3

488.2

126.1

73.2

18.9

415.0

107.2

Z kUN

Z kAV

Z kEX

Z kAV
Z AV , EN Z AV , EX

C5
CLCplant

Z kreal

Z kEN

Z kUN
Z UN , EN Z UN , EX

C1
CLC
GT1
HPSH

964.4
4974.5
1102.2
105.2

819.7
3979.6
992.0
40.6

144.7
994.9
110.2
64.6

564.7
4211.1
839.6
46.0

399.7
763.3
262.6
59.2

84.7
842.2
84.0
28.2

59.9
152.7
26.3
36.4

480.0
3368.9
755.6
17.8

339.7
610.7
236.4
22.9

HPEV
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
GT2

139.7
102.8
148.5
386.9
156.5
215.8

71.4
92.5
133.6
348.2
140.9
194.2

68.3
10.3
14.8
38.7
15.7
21.6

72.7
57.8
107.5
279.8
86.5
158.5

67.0
45.0
40.9
107.1
70.1
57.3

35.5
5.8
10.8
28.0
8.6
15.8

32.7
4.5
4.1
10.7
7.0
5.7

37.2
52.0
96.8
251.8
77.8
142.6

34.3
40.5
36.8
96.4
63.1
51.6

C2
C3
C4
C5

313.8
322.8
318.4
320.0

266.7
274.3
270.7
272.0

47.1
48.4
47.8
48.0

216.8
230.7
228.8
230.3

97.0
92.0
89.6
89.7

32.5
34.6
34.3
34.5

14.6
13.8
13.4
13.5

184.3
196.1
194.5
195.7

82.5
78.2
76.2
76.3

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

82

higher,intheCLCplantfiveandthreetimeshigherandintheAZEP85fourandthreetimes
higherfortheCCandGT1,respectively).Forthecompressor,thisdifferenceissmaller.Some
HXsinalloftheplants,aswellastheCO2compressorsintheAZEP85resultina Z EN thatis
k

higher than the Z kreal . This is again related to increased mass flow rates in the endogenous
case,whencomparedtotherealprocess,whichresultsinahigherrateofproductexergy.The
interpretation of these results is that the cost of a component with negative Z EX increases
k

when all other components operate under theoretical conditions. Thus, to decrease its cost,
theirreversibilitieswithintheothercomponentsmustbeincreased.
Theresultsfromsplittingtheinvestmentcostratesindicatethat,priorityshouldbegiven
totheGTsystem,withthereactorsfirst,C1secondandGT1thirdfortheCLCplantandC1
first,CCsecondandGT1thirdforthereferenceplant.Thesecomponentshavethehighest
avoidable cost rates, while the components that follow prioritywise, in the reference and
CLC plants, are the HXs of the high and lowpressure HRSG (ranking varies among the
HPSH,HPEVandtheLPEV).Ontheotherhand,intheAZEP85priorityshouldbegivento
thetwoHXsoftheMCMreactor,theMCM,C1,theCCandthentoGT1.
Since the components with the larger investment cost rates, Z k , are the main
turbomachinery and the reactors and their investment cost is mainly unavoidable, the
investmentcostrateoftheplantislargelyunavoidable.Additionally,mostoftheexogenous
values are relatively low, when compared to the endogenous values, showing that
components interactions are not as important as the internal operation of the components.
Specifically,6487%and7380%oftheinvestmentcostofthereactorsandGT1,respectively,
canbeavoidedthroughoperatingchangesinthecomponentsthemselves.
4.2.2.2

Splittingthecostrateofexergydestruction

The calculations used for splitting the cost of exergy destruction, C D , k , are based on the
equationsshowninTable3.1.Theresultsforselectedcomponentsoftheplantsareshownin
Table4.20.
Inalloftheplants,themajorityoftheHXs,theLPST,thereactors(withtheexceptionof
theDB)andC1,presenthighratesofunavoidableexergydestruction.Theoppositeistruefor
GT1, the CO2 compressors, the high and intermediatepressure ST. The highest values of
bothavoidableandunavoidablerateofexergydestructionarefoundforthereactors,GT1,C1
and the LPST. In the case of the reference plant, the LPST presents a 13% higher avoidable
costrateofexergydestructionwhencomparedtothatofC1.
In the reference and CLC plants, more than 67% of the total cost rate of exergy
destruction of the reactors is considered unavoidable, whilefor the CC of the AZEP85 this
percentage reaches 91%. Yet, the absolute values of the avoidable cost rates of exergy
destruction associated with these components are significantly larger than other plant
components,withtheexceptionoftheCCintheAZEP85thatresultsinalowervaluethan
GT1andtheDB.Furthermore,6587%oftheunavoidablecostofthereactorsisendogenous.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

83

Table4.20:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexergydestructioncostrates(/h)
Ref.Plant

C Dreal
,k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k

C DEN, k

C DEX, k

C DAV, k
C DAV, k , EN

C DUN, k
C DAV, k , EX

C DUN, k, EN C DUN, k, EX

C1

692.7

381.3

311.4

422.3

270.4

191.5

119.9

230.9

150.4

CC

7276.3

4936.4

2339.9

6360.4

916.0

2050.8

289.1

4309.5

626.9

GT1

1139.7

432.3

707.4

752.7

387.0

405.6

301.7

347.0

85.3

HPEC

222.8

151.4

71.4

124.8

98.1

27.5

43.9

97.2

54.2

LPEV

197.5

166.0

31.5

93.4

104.1

1.4

30.1

91.9

74.0

LPEC

210.7

108.8

101.9

134.6

76.1

71.5

30.4

63.1

45.7

LPST

743.4

393.2

350.2

470.0

273.4

194.7

155.5

275.3

117.9

C Dreal
,k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k

C1

797.1

438.8

358.3

527.2

MCM

275.3

206.8

68.5

166.9

GT1

1176.9

466.3

710.6

702.9

CC

5120.2

4668.5

451.8

4017.7

DB

1041.6

483.8

557.8

671.8

MCMLTHX

467.4

227.5

239.9

224.4

AZEP85

C DEN, k

C DEX, k

C DAV, k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k , EN

C DAV, k , EX

C DUN, k, EN

269.8

237.7

120.6

289.6

149.2

108.4

96.2

27.7

136.1

474.0

364.5

346.2

338.4

127.9

1102.5

358.5

93.3

3659.2

1009.3

369.8

357.4

200.4 314.4

169.4

243.0

51.2

188.7 173.2

54.3

70.8

C DUN, k, EX

MCMHTHX

60.5

41.0

19.5

37.6

22.9

12.0

7.5

25.6

15.4

HPST

186.9

69.2

117.7

103.4

83.4

56.3

61.4

47.2

22.0

HPSH

198.0

142.6

55.4

67.0

131.0

6.8

48.6

60.2

82.4

HPEC

232.5

163.9

68.6

113.9

118.6

25.8

42.8

88.1

75.8

LPEV

182.0

152.3

29.7

85.4

96.5

4.6

25.1

80.8

71.4

LPEC

222.6

63.8

158.8

136.2

86.4

99.5

59.3

36.7

27.0

ST4

557.2

82.5

474.6

372.1

185.1

317.4

157.2

54.7

27.9

GT2

131.9

31.3

100.6

128.7

3.2

85.5

15.1

43.2

11.9

C2

74.2

17.0

57.2

98.1

24.0

76.2

19.0

21.9

4.9

C3

78.2

16.8

61.4

106.6

28.4

84.2

22.7

22.5

5.7

C4

81.0

16.7

64.4

110.9

29.9

88.5

24.1

22.4

5.8
5.8

C5

86.8

16.7

70.1

119.0

32.2

96.5

26.4

22.5

NGPH

268.9

2.2

266.8

175.5

93.4

175.0

91.8

0.5

1.7

AirHX

83.0

15.9

67.1

104.2

21.2

81.7

14.6

22.4

6.5

CLCplant

C Dreal
,k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k

C DEN, k

C DEX, k

C DAV, k
C DAV, k , EN

C DUN, k
C DAV, k , EX

C DUN, k, EN

C DUN, k, EX

C1

919.2

506.0

413.2

542.0

377.2

245.7

167.5

296.3

209.7

CLC

6390.8

4259.4

2131.4

5484.5

906.3

1878.7

252.7

3605.8

653.6

GT1

1277.8

540.4

737.4

845.2

432.6

433.5

303.9

411.7

128.8

HPEC

238.5

177.0

61.4

121.2

117.2

20.3

41.1

101.0

76.1

LPEV

197.3

143.3

54.0

98.7

98.6

18.3

35.7

80.4

62.9

LPEC

244.7

137.2

107.5

147.3

97.4

74.0

33.6

73.3

63.9

LPST

587.3

310.7

276.7

383.6

203.8

158.9

117.8

224.6

86.0

ST4

423.8

62.3

361.5

235.6

188.2

201.2

160.3

34.4

GT2

118.9

34.5

84.4

63.0

55.9

37.6

46.8

25.3

9.2

C4

84.6

19.2

65.4

61.8

22.8

48.0

17.4

13.8

5.4

C5

87.8

19.2

68.7

64.3

23.6

50.5

18.2

13.8

NGPH

220.5

5.7

214.8

126.3

94.2

5.9

208.9 120.4

27.9

5.4
114.7

Similar to the investment cost rates, here the rates of exergy destruction are mostly
endogenous for the majority of the components. Thus, most of the cost stems from the

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

84

operation of the components themselves and component interactions are of lower


importance.
Evaluatingtheresultsofthesourcesofthecostofexergydestruction,thereferenceplant
canpotentiallybeimprovedthroughimprovementoftheCC,GT1,theLPSTandC1.Onthe
otherhand,intheCLCplant,priorityshouldbegiventotheCLCfirst,GT1second,C1third
and last ST4. In the AZEP 85 the component with the highest avoidable cost of exergy
destructionisGT1,followedbytheDB,ST4andthentheCC.
4.2.2.3

Splittingtheexogenouscostratesofinvestmentandexergydestruction

Although the exogenous costs are of relatively low significance when compared to the
endogenouscosts,theirsourcescanrevealadditionalimprovementpotentialfortheoverall
plant.Thesplittingoftheexogenouscostsforthecomponentswiththehighestinvestment
related cost and exergy destructionrelated costs is shown in Tables 4.21 and 4.22,
respectively.
ThemainsourceoftheexogenousinvestmentcostrateforthereactorsisGT1,withthe
exceptionoftheDBintheAZEP85thatisinfluencedmorebytheCC.Themainsourceofthe
exogenousinvestmentcostrateforC1andGT1ofallplantsisthereactors.Themexogenous
cost,thatisthecostdifferencebetweenthecalculatedexogenouscost(showninTables4.21
and 4.22) and the sum of the split parts caused to each of the remaining components
(complete tables can be found in the supplemental data), is found to be very high for the
MCMandtheMCMLTHXbecauseoftheirintenseinteraction.
Theeffectofthechemicalreactorsontheremainingcomponentsiscritical,sincetheyare
responsible for large parts of the costs in other components. The reactors first and GT1
second, cause relatively high total exogenous costs in the CLC plant (SUM, values in
parenthesesinTables4.21and4.22),whilethesameistruefortheinvestmentcostratesofthe
referenceplant.GT1causesahigherexogenouscostrateofexergydestructionthantheCCin
the reference plant (SUM, values in parentheses inTable 4.22). In the AZEP 85, GT1 causes
the highest rate of investment cost, followed by C1, the MCM HTHX (436.7 /h) and the
MCM (because of their large influence on the CO2 compressors), while the exogenous
investment cost of the CC is relatively low, due to its negative effect on other components
(mainly those processing the CO2 stream). Also, in the AZEP 85, GT1 causes the highest
exogenouscostrateofexergydestruction,whiletheCC,hasanegativeexogenousvalueof
exergy destruction, due to the inverse relationship between its efficiency and that of other
equipment.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

85

Table4.21:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexogenousinvestmentcostrate(/h)a

Ref.plant

Component,k
CC

C1

Z kEX
129.11

561.51

Component,r
CC

DB

MCMLTHX

C1

24.62
40.65
15.58
116.90(741.68)
12.22
416.85
36.39
13.98
500.58(110.47)
60.93

161.26

96.93

265.85

397.70

EX

Z k

EX , r

Component,r
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX

Component,k
LPST

GT1

Z k

EX

AZEP85

Component,r
C1
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX

Z kEX , r

Component,r

0.22
0.28
16.70
24.87
0.48
3.94
8.05
105.69(138.96)
55.57
37.55
0.08
4.29
6.33
0.13
1.65
3.11
80.76(403.28)
16.17
28.82
44.11
31.80
77.08
99.30
53.97
82.20
34.14(357.00)
299.98
166.14
4.39
1.12
27.86
1.54
7.54
10.10
302.97(611.92)
94.73

EX , r

GT1

MCM

ST4

LPST

EX
Z k

229.19

1305.74

Component,r
CC
C1
GT1
SUM
MX
CC
C1
LPST
SUM
MX

61.69
16.31
93.66
172.17(68.57)
57.02
156.23
41.23
24.15
275.42(352.64)
45.51

Z k

EX

366.45

784.44

86.76

113.16

EX

Z k

EX , r

Component,r
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
SUM
MX

Z k
Component,r
Component,k Z k
Component,r
CLCplant Component,k Z k

CLC
763.33
C1
141.71
ST4
70.06
C1

GT1
209.03

CLC

ST4
27.77

GT1

SUM
655.70(667.11)

SUM
MX
107.64
MX

C1
399.66
CLC
278.97
GT1
262.62
C1

GT1
25.40

CLC

ST4
3.39

ST4

SUM
342.58(246.67)

SUM
MX
57.09
MX

aInparenthesesthesumofexergydestructioncausedbycomponentktotheremainingcomponentsrisshown

Z kEX , r

202.46
1.18
0.78
27.34
1.47
9.24
14.51
328.52(757.44)
37.92
114.35
17.88
13.17
8.89
3.47
3.86
25.36
452.41(430.00)
332.03
43.98
0.47
2.73
11.76
6.04
5.88
2.05
70.49(405.77)
16.28
31.38
3.02
7.79
11.08
66.52
0.00
0.25
75.58(329.87)
37.57

Z kEX , r
3.09
12.02
3.78
50.53(30.94)
19.52
31.50
122.79
5.11
215.32(478.35)
47.30

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

86

Table4.22:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexogenouscostratesofexergydestruction(/h)a

Ref.plant

AZEP85

Component,k
CC

C1

Component,k
CC

DB

MCMLTHX

C1

C DEX, k
915.97

270.36


C
D,k

Component,r
C1
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX

EX

1102.53

369.78

243.02

269.82

Component,r
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX

EX , r
C
D,k
184.26
291.31
111.65
845.53(488.33)
70.44
213.62
17.84
6.85
254.65(256.93)
15.70

C DEX, k, r
1.51
1.90
114.59
170.92
2.15
27.11
55.32
822.32(560.5)
280.21
142.13
0.22
15.45
23.63
0.36
6.15
11.74
272.45(16.80)
97.33
37.21
2.05
13.05
11.24
9.92
5.35
4.77
138.75(10.08)
104.27
113.52
1.79
0.53
19.04
0.76
5.15
6.90
205.15(350.05)
64.67

Component,k
LPST

GT1

Component,k
GT1

MCM

ST4

LPST

C DEX, k
273.40

752.65


C
D,k

EX

474.05

108.37

185.09

179.60

Component,r
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
SUM
MX

Component,k CD , k Component,r
Component,k CD , k Component,r CD , k
CLCplant

CLC
906.30
C1
103.23
ST4
188.20
C1

GT1
272.24

CLC

ST4
36.17

GT1

SUM
772.62(813.84)

SUM
MX
133.68
MX

C1
377.20
CLC
262.15
GT1
432.64
C1

GT1
24.38

CLC

ST4
3.25

ST4

SUM
323.20(236.06)

SUM
MX
54.00
MX

aInparenthesesthesumofexergydestructioncausedbycomponentktotheremainingcomponentsrisshown
EX

EX , r

EX

C
D,k
EX , r

Component,r
CC
C1
GT1
SUM
MX
CC
C1
LPST
SUM
MX

54.20
14.333
82.276
151.23(175.24)
122.17
62.20
16.414
13.921
123.55(625.37)
263.49

C DEX, k, r
145.81
0.43
0.50
9.69
1.02
6.70
10.51
220.70(605.62)
253.35
32.14
1.67
1.09
3.39
9.11
1.58
3.37
80.85(33.25)
27.51
95.71
1.02
5.98
25.70
11.88
12.87
4.48
151.85(76.26)
33.24
34.02
3.27
8.46
12.01
72.12
0.00
0.25
81.70(109.45)
103.39

C DEX, k, r
8.43
32.72
9.75
136.13(52.23)
52.07
22.37
88.40
5.14
172.20(689.31)
260.44

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

4.2.2.4

87

Calculatingthetotalavoidablecostratesassociatedwithplantcomponents

The total avoidable cost of component k is calculated through theaddition of the avoidable
cost of exergy destruction or investment cost caused by its operation on the remaining
componentsanditsendogenouscostofexergydestructionorinvestmentcost.Theresultsof
the most influential components of the plants are shown in Tables 4.23 and 4.24. The total
avoidablecostsofcomponentkarecalculatedusingEquations(3.32)(3.36).
Table4.23:Avoidableinvestmentcostrate(/h)Table4.24:Avoidableexergydestructioncostrate(/h)
Ref.Plant
Component,k

AV , EX ,k
Z r

r 1
rk

Z kAV , EN

Z kAV ,

Ref.Plant
Component,k

C
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

C DAV, k , EN

C DAV, k,

CC

121.09(40.6%) 177.51(59.4%) 298.60

CC

170.37(7.7%) 2,050.85(92.3%) 2,221.22

GT1

74.80(36.4%) 130.57(63.6%) 205.38

GT1

156.63(27.9)

405.64(72.1)

562.27

C1

20.41(13.6%) 129.27(86.4%) 149.69

C1

84.82(30.7)

191.45(69.3)

276.27

LPST

12.71(19.2%) 53.49(80.8%) 66.21

LPST

51.15(20.8)

194.71(79.2)

245.87

AZEP85

C DAV, k , EN

C DAV, k,

AZEP85
Component,k

Z
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

Z kAV , EN

Z kAV ,

MCMLTHX 346.02(38.3%) 558.49(61.7%) 904.51

Component,k

C
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

GT1

119.25(24.7%) 364.45(75.3%) 483.70

CC

720.80(86.0%) 116.93(14.0%) 837.73

DB

5.95

357.44

351.49

GT1

446.91(82.2%) 97.00(17.8%) 543.91

CC

26.49

358.53

332.04

MCM

398.52(77.5%) 115.75(22.5%) 514.27

C1

67.37(22.1%) 237.68(77.9%) 305.05

C1

391.29(77.2%) 115.75(22.8%) 507.04

LPST

44.69(20.9%) 168.94(79.1%) 213.63

DB

358.92(90.9%) 35.98(9.1%)

394.90

MCM

34.02(26.1%) 96.16(73.9%)

LPST

287.20(88.4%) 37.61(11.6%) 324.81

CLCPlant
Component,k

Z
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

Z kAV , EN

Z kAV ,

MCMLTHX 3.95(7.2%)
CLCPlant
Component,k

C
r 1
rk

51.23(92.8%)

AV , EX ,k

D,r

C DAV, k , EN

130.18
55.18

C DAV, k,

CLC

109.79(11.5%) 842.23(88.5%) 952.02

CLC

241.83(11.4%) 1,878.68(88.6%) 2,120.51

GT1

102.51(55.0%) 83.96(45.0%) 186.47

GT1

179.12(29.2%) 433.52(70.8%) 612.64

C1

47.07(35.7%) 84.71(64.3%) 131.78

C1

19.99(7.5%)

245.71(92.5%) 265.70

ST4

7.00(44.7%)

ST4

12.52(5.9%)

201.17(94.1%) 213.69

8.65(55.3%)

15.65

Among GT1, C1 and the reactors of the plants, the lowest avoidable exogenous investment
costrateiscalculatedforC1.TheavoidableendogenouscostsaresimilarforC1andGT1in
the reference and CLC plants, while in the AZEP 85, C1 has a 19% higher cost rate.
Nonetheless,C1haslowertotalcostratesinalloftheplants.ItshouldbenotedthatGT1and
the reactors of the CLC plant cause similar total avoidable exogenous investment cost rates
(first column in Table 4.23), but the reactors have amuch highertotal costrate due to their
significantlyhigherendogenousvalue.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

88

Table4.25:Rankingofthecomponentswiththehighesttotalavoidablecostrate, C DAV, k, + Z kAV , (/h)


Component,k

Ref.Plant

Component,k

AZEP85 Component,k CLCPlant

CC

2,519.8

CC

1,169.8

CLC

3,072.5

GT1

767.7

GT1

1,027.6

GT1

799.1

C1

426.0

MCMLTHX

944.5

C1

397.5

LPST

312.1

C1

812.1

ST4

229.3

DB

746.4

MCM

644.5

LPST

538.4

While the differences in the investment cost rates are kept at relatively low levels, the
differences in the exergy destructionrelated costs show large spreads among the different
components. The avoidable exogenouscost of exergy destruction of GT1 and the CC in the
reference plant are relatively close. However, again, the significantly larger avoidable
endogenous cost of exergy destruction for the CC, results in an overall cost rate that is
approximately four times higher. C1 follows GT1 with an approximately two times lower
overall cost of exergy destruction. In the CLC plant, the reactors result in a 35% higher
avoidable exogenous cost rate of exergy destruction when compared to GT1 and since the
difference between the endogenous values of the components is much larger, the total cost
rateofthereactorsisapproximatelythreetimeshigher.InthereferenceandCLCplants,the
avoidableexogenouscostcausedbyGT1isthesecondhighest.C1followsGT1incost.Inthe
AZEP85thehighestcostofavoidableexogenousexergydestructionisfoundfortheMCM
HTHX(200.2/h),followedbyGT1andC1.However,duetoitslowavoidableendogenous
exergy destruction cost, the MCM HTHX has a low total avoidable cost and GT1 has the
highest total cost. The total avoidable cost of exergy destruction of the CC is relatively
reduced(rankedafterGT1andtheDB)duetoitsnegativeavoidableexogenouscostrate.
The most important result of the component evaluation is the sum of the avoidable
exergy destruction and investment costs. As shown in Table 4.25, the cost of exergy
destruction is the main deciding parameter of the overall cost in the CLC and reference
plants. On the other hand, in the AZEP, both costs affect the overall results. In all of the
plants,thereactorsarerankedfirstandGT1second.

4.2.3

Advancedexergoenvironmentalanalysis

Selected results of the advanced exergoenvironmental analysis at the component level are
presented in Tables 4.264.27. Detailed tables can be found in Appendix A and in the
supplemental data. In contrast to the advanced exergoeconomic analysis, in the advanced
exergoenvironmental analysis, the componentrelated environmental impact has not been
split,duetoitsnegligibleinfluenceonthetotalimpact.Thus,heretheenvironmentalimpacts
associatedwithexergydestructionandpollutantformationaresplit.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

4.2.3.1

89

Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction

Table4.26:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction(Pts/h)
Ref.Plant

C1
CC
GT1
HPEC
LPEV
LPEC
LPST

B Dreal
,k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k

B DEN, k

B DEX, k

69.36
762.83
120.16
23.49
20.82
22.21
69.86

38.18
517.52
45.58
15.96
17.50
11.47
36.95

31.18
245.31
74.58
7.53
3.32
10.74
32.91

42.29
666.81
79.35
13.15
9.85
14.19
44.17

B Dreal
,k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k

B DEN, k

69.66
28.66
107.05
536.81
109.20
48.89
6.33
16.06
18.01
21.15
16.55
20.25
47.40
14.16
5.67
5.98
6.20
6.64
28.88
8.91

38.35
21.53
42.41
489.44
50.72
23.79
4.29
5.95
12.97
14.91
13.85
5.80
7.02
3.36
1.30
1.28
1.27
1.28
0.23
1.71

31.31
7.13
64.64
47.36
58.48
25.09
2.04
10.11
5.04
6.24
2.70
14.44
40.38
10.80
4.37
4.70
4.92
5.36
28.65
7.20

46.08
17.38
63.93
421.22
70.43
23.47
3.93
8.89
6.10
10.36
7.77
12.39
31.65
13.82
7.50
8.16
8.48
9.10
18.84
11.19

23.58
11.28
43.12
115.59
38.77
25.42
2.40
7.17
11.92
10.79
8.78
7.86
15.75
0.34
1.83
2.17
2.29
2.47
10.04
2.27

B DEN, k

B DEX, k

27.07
96.03
40.81
10.34
10.97
8.02
25.69

B DAV, k
B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k , EX

19.17
215.01
42.77
2.90
0.15
7.54
18.30

12.01
30.31
31.81
4.63
3.17
3.21
14.61

B DUN, k
B UN , EN B UN , EX
D,k

D,k

23.12
451.80
36.59
10.25
9.69
6.66
25.87

15.06
65.72
8.99
5.71
7.80
4.82
11.08

AZEP85

C1
MCM
GT1
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
MCMHTHX
HPST
HPSH
HPEC
LPEV
LPEC
ST4
GT2
C2
C3
C4
C5
NGPH
AirHX

B DEX, k

B DAV, k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k , EX

B DUN, k, EN

B DUN, k, EX

20.77
10.01
33.15
37.59
37.47
5.36
1.26
4.83
0.62
2.34
0.42
9.05
27.00
9.18
5.83
6.44
6.77
7.38
18.79
8.78

10.54
2.88
31.49
9.78
21.01
19.73
0.78
5.28
4.42
3.90
2.28
5.40
13.37
1.62
1.46
1.74
1.85
2.02
9.85
1.57

25.31
7.37
30.78
383.63
32.96
18.11
2.68
4.05
5.48
8.02
7.35
3.34
4.65
4.64
1.67
1.72
1.71
1.72
0.05
2.41

13.04
14.17
11.63
105.81
17.76
5.68
1.61
1.89
7.50
6.89
6.50
2.46
2.37
1.28
0.38
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.18
0.70

CLCplant

C1
CLC
GT1
HPEC
LPEV
LPEC
LPST
ST4
GT2
C4
C5
NGPH

B Dreal
,k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k

79.58
671.79
114.08
21.29
17.62
21.85
47.97
34.97
11.37
6.41
6.65
21.08

43.81
447.74
48.25
15.80
12.80
12.25
25.37
5.14
3.30
1.45
1.45
0.55

35.77
224.05
65.83
5.48
4.82
9.60
22.60
29.82
8.07
4.96
5.20
20.53

46.92
576.52
75.45
10.82
8.81
13.15
31.33
19.44
6.02
4.68
4.87
12.07

32.65
95.27
38.62
10.46
8.81
8.70
16.64
15.53
5.35
1.73
1.78
9.00

B DAV, k
B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k , EX

21.27
197.48
38.70
1.81
1.63
6.61
12.98
16.60
3.60
3.64
3.82
0.56

14.50
26.56
27.13
3.67
3.19
3.00
9.62
13.23
4.47
1.32
1.38
19.97

B DUN, k
B UN , EN B UN , EX
D,k

25.65
379.04
36.75
9.01
7.18
6.54
18.35

2.84

2.42

1.04

1.04
11.51

D,k

18.15
68.71
11.50
6.79
5.62
5.70
7.02
2.30
0.88
0.41
0.41
10.96

The splitting of the environmental impact of exergy destruction, B D , k , is based on the


equationsshowninTable3.2.Theresultsforselectedcomponentsoftheplantsareshownin
Table4.26.
Inthereferenceplant,theenvironmentalimpactismostlyunavoidableforthemajorityof
thecomponents,withthemainexceptionsofGT1,theHPSTandIPST.Thesameistruefor
theAZEP85andtheCLCplant.IntheplantswithCO2capture,mostoftheenvironmental
impactisavoidablefortheCO2compressors,ST4andGT2.Moreover,morethanhalfofthe

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

90

impact associated with exergy destruction within the DB of the AZEP 85 is also avoidable
(54%).
As in the previous analyses, most of the B D , k is endogenous, again exhibiting lower
significanceofcomponentinteractions.Specifically,theendogenousenvironmentalimpactof
the reactors of the reference and the CLC plants is 67 times higher than the exogenous
impact.IntheAZEP85,theendogenousimpactisapproximatelyfourandtwotimeshigher
theexogenousimpactfortheCCandtheDB,respectively.Similarresultsareobtainedforthe
endogenouspartsoftheavoidableandunavoidableenvironmentalimpactsoftheplants.
Theconclusionsdrawnbytheapplicationoftheadvancedexergoenvironmentalanalysis
are similar to those of the advanced exergoeconomic analysis. The reference plant can
potentiallybeimprovedviabetterperformanceoftheCC,GT1,theLPSTandC1.IntheCLC
plant, priority should be given to the CLC first, GT1 second, C1 third and ST4 last. In the
AZEP 85, the component with the highest avoidable cost of exergy destruction is GT1,
followedbytheDB,theCCandST4.
4.2.3.2

Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofpollutantformation

The results from splitting the environmental impact of pollutant formation within the
reactorsoftheplantsareshowninTable4.27.
Table4.27:Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofpollutantformation(Pts/h)

Ref.plant
CC
AZEP85
CC
DB
CLCplant
CC

B kPF , real

B kPF ,UN

B kPF , AV

B kPF , EN

B kPF , EX

349.69

209.5

178.11
127.51
237.89

B kPF , AV
B kPF ,UN
B kPF , AV , EN B kPF , AV , EX B kPF ,UN , EN B kPF ,UN , EX

140.19

332.56

17.12

149.67

9.48

182.89

26.61

178.11
31.43

0.00
96.08

125.93
118.69

52.18
8.82

0.00
98.26

0.00
2.18

139.60
20.42

38.51
11.01

205.89

32.09

206.46

31.44

32.24

0.14

174.22

31.58

All CO2 emissions are considered to be unavoidable because complete combustion is


assumed.Avoidableemissionsincluderemainingemissions(NOXandCH4).Theendogenous
environmental impact has been calculated using data from the simulations used in the
calculationoftheendogenousexergydestruction.
As shown, the majority of the environmental impact of pollutant formation is
endogenous and unavoidable. Moreover, the avoidable impact of pollutant formation is
endogenousandcan,therefore,bedecreasedthroughchangestotherespectivereactors.Due
totheobtainedresults,theimpactofpollutantformationhasnotbeensplitfurther.
4.2.3.3

Splittingtheexogenousenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction

Results from splitting the exogenous environmental impacts for selected components are
showninTable4.28.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

91

Table4.28:Selectedresultsfromsplittingtheexogenousenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction
(Pts/h)a

Ref.plant

AZEP85

Component,k
CC

C1

Component,k
CC

DB

MCMLTHX

C1

B DEX, k
96.03

27.07

B DEX, k
115.59

38.77

25.42

23.58

Component,r
C1
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
GT1
LPST
SUM
MX
Component,r
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
GT1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX

EX , r
B
D,k
19.32
30.54
11.71
88.64(48.92)
7.39
21.39
1.79
0.69
25.50(26.62)
1.57

B DEX, k, r
0.16
0.20
12.01
17.92
0.22
2.84
5.80
86.21(47.92)
29.38
14.90
0.02
1.62
2.48
0.04
0.65
1.23
28.56(1.50)
10.20
3.89
0.21
1.36
1.18
1.04
0.56
0.50
14.51(1.07)
10.91
9.92
0.16
0.05
1.66
0.07
0.45
0.60
17.93(32.80)
5.65

Component,k
LPST

GT1

Component,k
GT1

MCM

ST4

LPST

B DEX, k
25.69

79.35

B DEX, k

43.12

11.28

15.75

14.95

Component,r
CC
C1
GT1
SUM
MX
CC
C1
LPST
SUM
MX
Component,r
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
MCM
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
ST4
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
LPST
SUM
MX
CC
DB
MCMLTHX
C1
GT1
MCM
ST4
SUM
MX

B D , k Component,r B D , k
B D , k Component,r
Component,k
CLCplant Component,k

CLC
95.27
C1
10.85
ST4
16.06
C1

GT1
28.62

CLC

ST4
3.80

GT1

SUM
81.22(70.89)

SUM
MX
14.05
MX

C1
32.65
CLC
22.69
GT1
38.62
C1

GT1
2.11

CLC

ST4
0.28

ST4

SUM
27.98(22.92)

SUM
MX
4.67
MX

aInparenthesesthesumofexergydestructioncausedbycomponentktotheremainingcomponentsrisshown
EX

EX , r

EX

B DEX, k, r

5.09
1.347
7.732
14.21(18.04)
11.48
6.56
1.73
1.47
13.03(63.56)
27.78

B DEX, k, r
13.26
0.04
0.05
0.88
0.09
0.61
0.96
20.07(56.03)
23.04
3.35
0.17
0.11
0.35
0.95
0.16
0.35
8.42(3.13)
2.86
8.14
0.09
0.51
2.19
1.01
1.09
0.38
12.92(7.31)
2.83
2.83
0.27
0.70
1.00
6.00
0.00
0.25
6.80(10.39)
8.95

B DEX, k, r

0.72
2.79
0.83
11.23(5.24)
4.30
2.00
7.89
0.46
15.37(64.16)
23.25

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

92

Highvaluesoftheexogenousenvironmentalimpactarefoundforthereactorsandthe
components of the GT systems of the plants. A large part of the impact of the reactors is
causedbyC1andGT1:52%,41%and26%oftheimpactimposedtothereactorsstemsfrom
GT1 and C1 in the reference plant, the CLC plant and the AZEP 85, respectively. This
percentagedecreasesto11%fortheDBoftheAZEP85.Analogously,largeamountsofthe
impactimposedonC1andGT1stemfromthereactors.
RelativelyhighmexogenousvaluesarefoundforGT1inalloftheplants,whilethesame
is true for the reactors of the oxyfuel plants with emphasis on the CC of the AZEP 85. In
general, the mexogenous values of the AZEP 85 are higher than those of the other plants
because of the more intense interactions of its constitutive components (e.g., a high
mexogenousvalueoftheFGCONDduetothelargeinfluenceoftheCC).
Insummary,intheCLCplant,thehighestexogenousenvironmentalimpactiscausedby
the reactors, followed by GT1 and C1 (SUM, value in parentheses in Table 4.28). In the
referenceplant,GT1causesthehighestimpact,followedbytheCCandC1.IntheAZEP85,
GT1isfollowedbytheMCMHTHX(35.2Pts/h)andC1.
4.2.3.4

Calculatingthetotalavoidableenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction

TheresultsofthemostinfluentialcomponentsoftheplantsareshowninTable4.29.Thetotal
avoidableexogenousenvironmentalimpactiscalculatedusingEquation(3.38).
Table4.29:Avoidableenvironmentalimpactofexergydestruction(Pts/h)
Ref.Plant

Component,k
CC
GT1
C1
LPST
AZEP85

Component,k
GT1
CC
DB
C1
LPST
MCM
MCMLTHX
CLCPlant

Component,k
CLC
GT1
C1
ST4

B
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

17.15(7.4%)
15.95(27.2%)
8.82(31.5%)
5.35(22.6%)
n

B
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

10.91(24.8%)
1.24(3.2%)
0.71
5.73(21.6%)
4.53(24.4%)
3.33(25.0%)
0.39(6.8%)
n

B
r 1
rk

AV , EX ,k

D,r

20.48(9.4%)
16.93(30.4%)
1.31(5.8%)
1.34(7.5%)

B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k,

215.01(92.6%)
42.77(72.8)
19.17(68.5%)
18.30(77.4%)

232.16
58.72
27.99
23.65

B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k,

33.15(75.2%)
37.59(96.8%)
37.47
20.77(78.4%)
14.06(75.6%)
10.01(75.0%)
5.36(93.2%)

44.06
38.83
36.76
26.50
18.59
13.34
5.75

B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k,

197.48(90.6%)
38.70(69.6%)
21.27(94.2%)
16.60(92.5%)

217.96
55.63
22.58
17.94

Inthereferenceplant,GT1causesanavoidableexogenousenvironmentalimpactsimilar
tothatcausedbytheCC.However,theendogenousimpactoftheCCisapproximatelyfour

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

93

timeshigherthanthatofGT1,resultinginatwotimeshigheroverallimpact( B DAV, k, ).Inthe


CLC plant, both the avoidable endogenous and exogenous values of the CLC reactor are
higherwhencomparedtothoseofGT1,resultinginahigheroverallimpact,aswell.Inthe
AZEP85,theavoidableexogenousenvironmentalimpactoftheDBisfoundtobenegative,
whilethatoftheCCisrathersmall.FortheCC,thisisaresultofitsnegativeinfluenceonthe
CO2 compression unit, while for the DB it is a result of the negative influence of the
componentontotheMCMLTHXoftheplant.Althoughtheavoidableendogenousvaluesof
the CC and DB are similar, the CC has a slightly higher avoidable impact due to its higher
avoidableexogenouspart.ThehighestexogenousimpactiscausedbytheMCMHTHX(19.9
Pts/h),followedbyGT1andC1.Againhere,asinthecaseofthecosts,theGT1surpassesthe
MCM HTHX in total impact, due to its relatively high avoidable endogenous part and it is
rankedfirst,followedbytheCCandtheDB.

Chapter4.Applicationoftheexergybasedanalysestotheplants

94

Chapter5.Conclusions

95

5. Conclusions

Inthisthesis,eightpowerplantswithCO2capturehavebeencomparedandevaluatedbased
on a reference power plant of similar configuration without CO2 capture. The plants have
been analyzed using exergybased analyses, i.e. conventional and advanced exergetic,
exergoeconomicandexergoenvironmentalanalyses.Amongtheeightexaminedconcepts,the
conventionalpostcombustionapproachwithchemicalabsorptionusingmonoethanolamine
(MEA)1hasalsobeenconsidered.Theremainingsevenconceptsincludetwoprecombustion
concepts (MSR plant and ATR plant) and five postcombustion plants operating using oxy
fuel technology: the chemical looping combustion (CLC) plant, two variations of the advanced
zeroemissionplant(AZEP)with85%and100%CO2capture(AZEP85andAZEP100),theS
Graz cycle and a simple oxyfuel plant. All of the plants have been examined using an
exergeticanalysis,whilethereference,MEA,CLCplantsandthetwoAZEPvariationshave
beenfurtherevaluatedwitheconomicandenvironmentalconsiderations.Advancedexergy
basedanalyseshavebeenappliedtothereferenceplant,theCLCplantandtheAZEP85.
Table5.1:Thefourmostinfluentialcomponentsasrankedbyeachanalysis

Ref.Plant

AZEP85

CLCplant

AZEP100

A.Conventionalanalyses(basedon:exergydestruction B.Advancedanalyses(basedon:totalavoidableexergy
ratio,totalcostsandtotalenvironmentalimpacts)
destruction/costs/environmentalimpacts)
A.1
A.2
A.3
B.1
B.2
B.3
Exergetic Exergoeconomic Exergoenvironmental
Exergetic
Exergoeconomic Exergoenvironmental
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
GT1
GT1
GT1
GT1
GT1
GT1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
LPST
LPST
LPST
LPST
LPST
LPST
CC
CC
CC
DB
CC
GT1
DB
GT1
DB
GT1
GT1
CC
GT1
C1
GT1
C1
MCMLTHX
DB
C1
MCMLTHX
C1
MCM
C1
C1
CLC
CLC
CLC
CLC
CLC
CLC
GT1
GT1
GT1
GT1
GT1
GT1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
LPST
LPST
LPST
ST4
ST4
ST4
CC
CC
CC

GT1
GT1
GT1

C1
C1
C1

MCMLTHX
MCMLTHX
MCMLTHX

Ingeneral,CO2captureisacostlyprocess,sinceiteitherinvolvesexpensiveequipment
thatincreasestheoverallinvestmentcostofthefacilityorenergydemandingprocessesthat
decreasetheefficiency,inturnincreasingthefuelconsumption(i.e.thefuelcosts)ofaplant.
TheCLCplantrepresentsapromisingprocessfromtheperspectiveofrelativelylowabsolute
values of investment cost and absolute componentrelated environmental impact. The
resultingcostofelectricity(COE)isfoundtobeslightlylowerfortheAZEP85,whilethecostof
1

Here,onlyMEA0.2ispresented.

Chapter5.Conclusions

96

avoidedCO2(COACO2)islowerfortheCLCplantduetoitshigheramountofCO2captured.
The environmental analysis shows that the efficiency decrease of the plants causes a
significant environmental burden. The oxyfuel plants show only minor reductions in the
overall impact compared to the reference plant. Furthermore, the conventional approach of
chemical absorption results in a higher environmental impact compared to the reference
plant,becauseofthehighefficiencypenaltyassociatedwiththetechnologyused.Advanced
exergybased analyses have been used in order to pinpoint equipment and processes that
must be altered to improve the economic and environmental effectiveness of the overall
powerplants.
As shown in Table 5.1, with the exception of the AZEP 85, the four most influential
components are the same in all conventional analyses. Although the DB of the AZEP 85 is
importantfromanexergeticperspective,itisrelativelycheapand,thereforenotsoimportant
fromanexergoeconomicpointofview.Theresultsoftheadvancedanalysesassociatedwith
thefourmostinfluentialcomponentsofthereferenceandCLCplants,presentedinTable5.1,
agreewiththoseoftheconventionalanalyseswiththeexceptionoftheST4intheCLCplant.
This is not the case when the AZEP 85 is considered, due to its more complicated
configurationandinteractionsofitscomponents.
Ashortsummaryofthemainresultsfromeachanalysisispresentedbelow.

5.1. Exergeticanalysis
When compared to the reference plant that has an exergetic efficiency of 56.5%, the best
exergeticefficiencyamongallplantswithCO2capturewasachievedbytheAZEP85(53.4%),
followed by the AZEP 100 (51.7%) and the CLC plant (51.5%). The plant using chemical
absorptionresultedinanefficiencypenaltyofeightpercentagepoints(48.4%).
The three most efficient plants revealed in the exergetic analysis (AZEP 85, AZEP 100
andCLCplant)areoxyfuelconcepts.Amongthethreeplants,theCLCplanthasthelowest
exergy destruction and the highest exergy loss (a result of the assumed 2% nonreacted
methane). The combination of relatively low exergy destruction and loss (related to lower
massflowsoftheexhaustedgases)intheAZEP85resultsinhighernetpoweroutput,i.e.a
higherexergeticefficiency.Themainadvantageofthethreeoxyfuelplantsisthattheadded
components associated with CO2 capture do not consume high amounts of energy and the
energy penalties are mainly related to the production of oxygen necessary for the oxy
combustion. Moreover, the irreversibilities of the combustion processes in these plants are
lowercomparedwiththereferenceandMEAplants,duetothenitrogenfreecombustionand
thepreheatingofthereactantsused.TheMEAplantresultsinahighefficiencypenalty,due
totherelativelyhighenergyrequirementsofchemicalabsorption.

Chapter5.Conclusions

97

5.2. Economicanalysis
Thesmallestcostincrease,relativetothereferenceplant(total213million),isestimatedfor
theMEAplant(total326million),followedbytheCLCplant(total362million),theAZEP
85(total395million)andtheAZEP100(total414million).
Relative costs based on the power output of the plants present the MEA plant as the
mosteconomicalalternative(921/kW).However,ifthecostisbasedontheamountofCO2
captured,theCLCplantisfoundtobemoreeconomicalthantheMEAplantbecauseofits
approximately100%CO2capture(9.6million/kgCO2capturedversus9.9million/kgCO2
capturedfortheMEA).

5.3. Exergoeconomicanalysis
Thecostofexergydestructionoftheoxyfuelplantswasfoundtobecomparabletothatof
the reference plant, while a larger difference was found for the MEA plant. Since all of the
)
plants have the same fuel cost rate ( c ), the total cost rate of exergy destruction ( C
F

D , tot

depends on the rate of exergy destruction ( E D ,tot ; i.e., C D ,tot cF E D ,tot ). Thus, all differences
between exergyrelated cost rates are representative of the differences between the rates of
exergydestructionoftheplantsandthatofthereferenceplant.Differencesamongtheplants
mainly result from the high investment cost of components used for oxygen production
and/orfacilitationofCO2separationandcompression.
CO2capturecausesaminimumincreaseinthecostofelectricityof22%,achievedbythe
AZEP85.Anincreaseof23%iscalculatedfortheCLCplant,whilethehigherinvestmentcost
oftheAZEP100resultsinamoresignificantincreaseintheCOE,similartothatoftheMEA
(28%higherthanthatofthereferenceplant).
LargerdifferencesintheenergypenaltyoftheplantsareobservedwhentheCOACO2is
considered. The cost differences between the MEA plant and the other plants are mainly
associated with the high energy demand of the solvent regeneration and the relatively low
percentageofCO2capture(85%),incomparisontothecloseto100%captureoftheoxyfuel
concepts. The CLC plant has the same CO2 emissions as the AZEP 100, but it results in the
lowestCOACO2,duetoitslowerCOE.

5.4. Lifecycleassessment
The construction phase of the two AZEP concepts is associated with a significantly higher
environmental impact, with respect to the reference plant. The lowest relative component
related environmental impact (Pts/kW) among all plants with CO2 capture is found for the
CLCandMEAplants.However,thecomponentrelatedenvironmentalimpactoftheplantsis
negligible when compared to the impact associated with the exergy destruction that takes
placeduringtheoperationphaseoftheplants.

Chapter5.Conclusions

98

5.5. Exergoenvironmentalanalysis

The calculation of the overall environmental impact is mainly influenced by the impacts of
fuel processing (methane) and the impact of pollutant emission. With data provided by
GoedkoopandSpriensma(2000),theimpactoftheproducedelectricityoftheoxyfuelplants
isfoundtobeslightlylowerthanthatofthereferenceplant.Specifically,theCLCplantand
the AZEP 85 present the lowest environmental impact (0.6 Pts/MWh lower than that of the
referenceplant).Thismarginaldecreaseinenvironmentalimpactraisesquestionsconcerning
therealenvironmentalandcostviabilityofCO2capturefrompowerplants.Additionally,the
impactoftheelectricitygeneratedintheMEAplantisfoundtobesignificantlyhigherthan
that of the reference plant (2.4 Pts/MWh higher), due to the plants high efficiency penalty.
ConsideringthatpostcombustionisthemostconventionalwaytocaptureCO2frompower
plants,theplanthasbeenconsideredinasensitivityanalysisconcerningthevariationofthe
environmental impact of CO2 emissions. This analysis showed that postcombustion
technologywillnotdecreasetheenvironmentalimpactofpowerproduction,unlessaspecific
environmentalimpactapproximatelyfourtimeshigherthanthepresentestimateisassigned
totheCO2emissions.

5.6. Advancedexergeticanalysis
Most of the exergy destruction of the plants is endogenous and, for the majority of the
components, unavoidable. Thus, improvement potential lies with the internal operating
conditions of the components (endogenous exergy destruction), while component interactions
(exogenous exergy destruction) are less significant. To examine the overall significance of the
differentplantcomponents,thetotalavoidableexergydestructioncausedbyeachcomponent
has been calculated. The total avoidable exergy destruction includes the exergy destruction
causedbyeachcomponentbothtoitselfandtotheremainingcomponentsoftheplant.The
results are similar to those of the conventional analysis: the improvement priority of the
reactorsisrankedfirst,followedbyGT1andC1.

5.7. Advancedexergoeconomicanalysis
Inthisanalysis,theinvestmentcostrateandthecostrateofexergydestructionaresplitinto
avoidable/unavoidable and endogenous/exogenous parts. The improvement potential is
relatedtotheavoidablepartoftheinvestmentcostandthecostofexergydestruction.Forthe
referenceandCLCplants,themostimportantcomponentsintermsoftheabsolutevaluesof
the total avoidable costs are the reactors, GT1 and C1. In the AZEP 85, the ranking order
differs slightly when the total avoidable cost is considered, due to the large avoidable
investmentcostoftheMCMLTHX.
For the three most influential components of the plants, the largest part of their
investmentcostratesandtheircostofexergydestructionisunavoidable.Moreover,forboth

Chapter5.Conclusions

99

the investment cost and the cost of exergy destruction, the interactions of the components,
representedbytheexogenouspartofthecosts,areoflowerimportance,sinceforthemajority
ofthecomponents,theendogenouspartofthecostsissignificantlylarger.

5.8. Advancedexergoenvironmentalanalysis
The results of the advanced exergoenvironmental analysis generally agree with those
obtainedintheotheranalyses.Ingeneral,themostimportantcomponentsarethoseoftheGT
system, the LPST or ST4 and the MCM LTHX (in the case of the AZEP 85). A significantly
different result stems from the influence of the CC in the AZEP 85: The CC has an inverse
effect on the components processing the CO2 stream. Therefore, a low avoidable
environmentalimpactiscausedbytheCC,resultinginasmallimprovementpriorityofthe
component(followingthatofGT1).Onthecontrary,intheothertwoplants,thereactorshave
approximatelyfourtimeshighertotalavoidablecosts,whencomparedtoGT1.
Similar to the results of the advanced exergoeconomic analysis, the majority of the
environmental impact related to the exergy destruction is unavoidable and endogenous.
Thus,theinteractionsofthecomponentsareoflowerimportancehereaswell.

5.9. Summaryandfuturework
CO2 capturefrom powerplants is a costly process.However, for CCS to be deemed viable,
the real economic and environmental benefits have to be considered. To do so, the
environmental perspective must be examined in detail, and different databases must be
compared and assessed. If it is decided that the obtained benefits represent realistic
expectations, the most cost effective solutions should be further promoted for largescale
implementation.
Ingeneral,oxyfuelconceptsrepresentarelativelypromisingtechnologythatkeepsthe
energy penalty of CO2 capture at relatively low levels, in contrast to the conventional
approach:chemicalabsorptionwithMEA.
The exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental analyses provide important information
about how to improve both the structure and operating conditions of plants, in order to
decrease their economic penalty and increase their environmental advantage. Advanced
exergybased analyses are valuable supplements to the conventional analyses, providing
informationaboutrealimprovementpotentialandcomponentinteractions.Nonetheless,the
analysesneedtobefurtherdevelopedformorereliableprocessspecificevaluationandeasier
dataprocessing.
Additionally,forafaircomparisonofdifferentpowerplants,variousdecisionparameters
thatmaydifferinimportancefromthepointofviewoftechnologicalavailability,structureor
operation must be considered. Further research is essential, in order to find and evaluate
solutions which will avoid causing further environmental problems or creating additional
needs.

Chapter5.Conclusions

100

Lastly, the information provided in this thesis should be used to realize improved
designs of the plant structures provided. This will provide a helpful guide on how
environmental and economic considerations interact and how optimized structures of the
plantscanbeobtained.

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

101

AppendixA
Flow charts and simulation assumptions of
thepowerplants

C12

54

56

GT1
5

RH

40

10

12

11

26

13

38

HPEC

HPEV

28

HPSH

27

14

35

LPP

IPEV

M2

33

37

22

25

HPP

34

21

15

IPPM

43

32

IPEC

24

23

De-aerator

30

HPST IPST

41

42

31

M1

36

16

51

LPEV

20

CT P

COND P

COND

52

50

GEN2

LPSH

45

44

LPST

FigureA.1.1:Structureofthereferenceplant

IPSH

40

M3

39

GEN1

: 58.9% , : 56.5%
Wnet: 412.5 MW

53

CC

55

57

29

46

47

17

CT

49

48

19

18

LPEC

Chimney

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
102

A.1:Thereferenceplant

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

103

TableA.1.1:Resultsoftheyearbyyeareconomicanalysisforthereferenceplant
Ref.Plant

Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Total

Debt
Book
Adjustment CommonEquity
Book
Adjustment
TCR

Calendaryear beg.ofyear depreciation


beg.ofyear
depreciation

2013
145,843,425
7,292,171
461,985
145,843,425
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2014
138,089,269
7,292,171
461,985
139,713,386
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2015
130,335,112
7,292,171
461,985
133,583,348
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2016
122,580,956
7,292,171
461,985
127,453,309
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2017
114,826,800
7,292,171
461,985
121,323,271
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2018
107,072,644
7,292,171
461,985
115,193,232
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2019
99,318,487
7,292,171
461,985
109,063,194
2020
91,564,331
7,292,171
461,985
102,933,155
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2021
83,810,175
7,292,171
461,985
96,803,117
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2022
76,056,018
7,292,171
461,985
90,673,078
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2023
68,301,862
7,292,171
461,985
84,543,040
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2024
60,547,706
7,292,171
461,985
78,413,001
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
52,793,550
7,292,171
461,985
72,282,963
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2025
2026
45,039,393
7,292,171
461,985
66,152,924
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2027
37,285,237
7,292,171
461,985
60,022,886
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2028
29,531,081
7,292,171
461,985
53,892,847
5,027,429
1,102,609
13,884,195
2029
21,776,925
7,292,171
1,847,940
47,762,809
5,027,429
1,207,316
9,264,345
9,264,345
2030
16,332,694
7,292,171
1,847,940
43,942,695
5,027,429
1,207,316
2031
10,888,462
7,292,171
1,847,940
40,122,582
5,027,429
1,207,316
9,264,345
2032
5,444,231
7,292,171
1,847,940
36,302,469
5,027,429
1,207,316
9,264,345
2033
0
0
0
32,482,355
0
0
0

1,457,438,358 145,843,425
0
1,798,503,086
100,548,585 12,812,485 259,204,494

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

104

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
HPST
IPST
LPST
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
Deaerator
M1
M2
M3
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

E P ,k

E D ,k

(MW)
242.68
729.62
551.15
35.07
43.64
28.92
26.47
0.18
6.10
1.06
1.43
19.03
11.49
31.29
37.39
70.99
0.04
1.12
0.03
0.00
0.56
1.81
0.63
0.18
12.43
3.19
730.58
17.63

(MW)
231.30
508.76
530.67
31.72
39.91
24.91
23.89
0.12
5.67
0.87
1.04
15.48
7.71
29.18
35.21
61.35
0.04
0.96
0.02
0.00
0.53
1.63
0.58
0.18

412.54

(MW)
11.38
220.87
20.47
3.35
3.73
4.00
2.58
0.06
0.43
0.19
0.38
3.55
3.78
2.11
2.18
9.64
0.01
0.17
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.18
0.04
0.00
9.24
2.04
300.41

1258.87

y D ,k

(%) (%)
95.3 1.56
69.7 30.23
96.3 2.80
90.5 0.46
91.5 0.51
86.2 0.55
90.3 0.35
69.0 0.01
92.9 0.06
82.5 0.03
73.3 0.05
81.4 0.49
67.1 0.52
93.2 0.29
94.2 0.30
86.4 1.32
78.8 0.00
85.3 0.02
65.3 0.00
67.2 0.00
95.4 0.00
90.1 0.02
92.9 0.01
99.9 0.00

1.26

0.28
56.5 41.12

cF ,k

cP , k

(/GJ) (/GJ)
16.9
19.5
9.2
13.7
15.5
16.9
15.5
19.4
15.5
19.0
15.5
20.4
15.5
19.4
15.5
35.4
15.5
20.5
15.5
22.3
15.5
29.5
15.5
24.2
15.5
30.8
20.3
24.2
20.3
24.7
21.4
29.7
20.0
84.2
20.0
36.7
20.0 147.4
20.0 406.5
25.1
41.2
20.3
22.8
20.3
24.7
15.5
15.5
21.4

9.2
20.6

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

(/h)
693
7,276
1,140
186
207
223
143
3
24
10
21
197
211
155
159
743
1
12
1
0
2
13
3
0
712

9,897

(/h)
1,423
1,017
1,627
158
185
89
111
4
65
5
19
174
93
182
329
764
7
40
8
3
28
0
0
0
91
96
6,519

(/h)
2,116
8,293
2,766
344
392
312
255
7
90
16
41
372
304
336
488
1,508
8
52
8
3
30
13
3
0
803

16,416

fk

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(%)
(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)
67.3 15.0
6.1
6.4
249.71
0.24
12.3 49.5
3.5
5.6
2746.20
0.38
58.8
9.4
5.9
6.1
432.58
1.12
5.9
6.8
70.75
1.20
45.8 25.6
47.1 23.1
5.9
6.7
78.75
0.13
28.6 31.8
5.9
7.2
84.57
0.09
43.7 25.4
5.9
6.8
54.42
0.80
56.3 128.8
5.9
9.7
1.17
0.00
6.5
9.13
0.04
73.1 32.8
5.9
33.4 44.3
5.9
7.7
3.93
0.00
47.7 90.9
5.9
9.0
8.05
0.01
46.9 56.4
5.9
7.8
74.95
0.12
30.7 99.3
5.9
10.1
79.97
0.09
53.51
0.28
54.0 18.9
7.0
7.7
67.4 21.7
7.0
7.6
54.88
0.32
50.7 38.5
7.2
8.8
251.49
0.49
91.3 321.6
6.7
9.3
0.23
0.00
77.3 83.8
6.7
8.4
4.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
91.4 637.6
6.7
11.7
97.4 1934.8
6.7
11.3
0.02
0.00
92.4 64.3
8.1
8.6
0.74
0.04
0.0
12.2
7.0
7.8
4.52
0.00
0.0
21.3
7.0
8.4
1.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.1
5.9
5.9
11.3

7.2

241.02
0.03

11.95
39.7 124.8
3.5
7.0
3735.22 17.33

B D ,k Yk
(Pts/h)
249.94
2746.58
433.71
71.95
78.88
84.66
55.22
1.17
9.16
3.93
8.06
75.07
80.07
53.79
55.20
251.98
0.23
4.00
0.25
0.02
0.77
4.52
1.12
0.00
241.05

3752.54

f b ,k

rb ,k

(%) (%)
0.09 4.9
0.01 63.3
0.26 3.9
1.67 15.5
0.16 13.6
0.10 23.3
1.46 15.8
0.18 65.2
0.42 11.1
0.09 30.9
0.16 53.0
0.16 33.3
0.12 71.3
0.51 10.0
0.57 8.6
0.20 21.5
0.13 37.5
0.01 24.0
0.01 73.8
0.50 68.2
4.55 6.6
0.00 12.1
0.00 19.2
0.00 0.1
0.01

0.46 101.7

B kPF

E F ,k

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.1.2:Resultsatthecomponentlevelforthereferenceplant

104

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

105

TableA.1.3:Resultsatthestreamlevelforthereferenceplant

Stream,
j
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

m j

Tj

(kg/s)
614.5
614.5
14.0
628.5
628.5
268.5
268.5
360.0
360.0
628.5
628.5
628.5
628.5
628.5
628.5
628.5
628.5
628.5
94.6
94.6
95.4
72.4
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
72.4
72.4
72.4
22.1
22.1
0.8
23.0
23.0
23.0
65.2
65.2
65.2
65.2
65.2
65.2
94.6
94.6
94.6
5177.4
135.6
74.0
5239.0
7396.2
7396.2
7396.2
14.0
498.5
512.5
116.0
116.0

(C)
15.00
392.90
15.00
1264.03
580.64
580.64
447.61
580.64
449.30
448.58
341.18
257.92
257.35
237.62
234.08
229.27
156.37
95.34
32.89
135.62
140.01
140.01
140.01
140.49
216.62
222.62
237.92
305.14
560.64
317.23
214.08
146.37
146.37
140.01
140.02
146.37
140.01
141.75
325.17
331.17
560.64
313.21
293.03
32.88
32.88
15.00
15.00
16.00
22.88
22.88
16.00
16.00
15.00
392.90
1435.04
392.90
392.90

p j E PH , j
(bar)
1.01
17.00
50.00
16.49
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.06
1.05
1.05
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.03
3.73
3.62
3.62
3.62
3.62
25.13
24.38
24.38
23.16
23.16
22.00
4.10
4.10
4.32
4.32
3.62
4.32
4.32
3.62
134.56
130.53
130.53
124.00
23.16
4.10
0.05
0.05
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.33
1.01
1.37
17.00
17.00
16.49
17.00
16.49

E CH , j

E tot , j

(MW) (MW) (MW)


0.00
0.96
0.96
231.30
0.96
232.25
8.15
721.47 729.62
735.74
5.27
741.01
184.60
5.27
189.87
78.86
2.25
81.11
52.39
2.25
54.64
105.73
3.02
108.75
70.66
3.02
73.68
123.05
5.27
128.33
79.42
5.27
84.69
50.50
5.27
55.77
50.32
5.27
55.59
44.22
5.27
49.49
43.16
5.27
48.43
41.74
5.27
47.01
22.71
5.27
27.98
11.22
5.27
16.49
0.24
0.24
0.47
7.95
0.24
8.18
8.55
0.24
8.79
6.49
0.18
6.67
0.65
0.02
0.67
0.67
0.02
0.68
1.54
0.02
1.56
7.21
0.02
7.23
7.33
0.02
7.35
79.35
0.18
79.53
103.24
0.18
103.42
65.85
0.18
66.03
17.95
0.06
18.01
16.91
0.06
16.96
0.63
0.00
0.63
2.06
0.06
2.12
2.06
0.06
2.12
17.54
0.06
17.60
5.84
0.16
6.01
6.80
0.16
6.96
31.72
0.16
31.88
71.63
0.16
71.79
103.35
0.16
103.51
72.06
0.16
72.22
83.62
0.24
83.86
12.63
0.24
12.87
0.20
0.24
0.44
0.00
8.06
8.06
0.00
0.34
0.34
0.00
0.18
0.19
1.84
7.52
9.36
3.51
18.47
21.98
0.05
18.47
18.53
0.32
18.47
18.80
5.90
721.47 727.37
187.64
0.78
188.41
704.31
5.80
710.10
43.66
0.18
43.84
43.37
0.18
43.55

C1
242.68

ST1
29.18

ST2
35.21

ST3
61.35

CONDP 0.04

LPP
0.00

HPP
1.12

IPP
0.03

GT1
288.00

tot
412.54

cj
(/GJ)
0.0
19.4
9.2
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
0.0
26.1
30.6
31.1
31.1
31.1
34.4
27.6
22.1
22.3
20.6
20.3
20.3
25.3
25.1
25.1
31.1
31.5
25.1
31.1
31.9
22.9
20.8
20.3
20.3
21.4
21.4
21.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

16.9
24.2
24.7
29.7
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
16.9
20.0

bj

B j

(/h) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h)


0
0.0
0
16,198
6.4
5,326
24,037
3.5
9,072
41,252
5.9
15,658
10,570
5.9
4,012
4,515
5.9
1,714
3,042
5.9
1,155
6,054
5.9
2,298
4,102
5.9
1,557
7,144
5.9
2,712
4,715
5.9
1,789
3,105
5.9
1,178
3,095
5.9
1,175
2,755
5.9
1,046
2,696
5.9
1,023
2,617
5.9
993
1,558
5.9
591
0
0.0
0
44
7.4
13
900
9.9
292
986
9.8
310
748
9.8
236
75
9.8
23
85
9.9
24
155
8.6
48
574
7.0
182
590
7.0
186
5,885
7.0
2,017
7,553
7.0
2,601
4,822
7.0
1,661
1,642
8.1
526
1,531
8.1
492
57
8.1
18
237
9.8
75
240
9.8
75
1,588
8.1
511
674
9.8
212
800
9.6
241
2,628
7.8
890
5,363
7.1
1,848
7,581
7.0
2,622
5,290
7.0
1,829
6,465
7.2
2,187
992
7.2
336
34
7.2
11
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0

14,775
6.1
5,326
2,542
7.7
813
3,130
7.6
962
6,549
8.8
1,944
3
6.7
1
0
6.7
0
81
6.7
27
2
6.7
1
17,534
6.1
6,321
29,669
6.7
10,010

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

106

TableA.1.4:Splittingtheexergydestructioninthereferenceplant(MW)
Component, real
ED , k
k
C1
11.38
CC
220.87
GT
16.09
HPSH
3.35
HPEV
3.73
HPEC
4.00
RH
2.57
IPSH
0.06
IPEV
0.43
IPEC
0.19
LPSH
0.38
LPEV
3.74
LPEC
3.78
HPST
1.67
IPST
1.65
LPST
8.71
CONDP
0.45
HPP
0.11
IPP
0.01
LPP
0.03
COND
9.24
CT
2.04
GEN1
4.39
GEN2
1.91
MOT1
0.01
MOT2
0.15
MOT3
0.06
MOT4
0.00
Total
300.97

Total(%)

EDEN, k EDEX, k EDAV, k EDUN, k EDUN, k, EN


6.94
193.06
13.52
1.78
2.00
2.24
1.98
0.09
0.41
0.16
0.19
1.68
2.42
1.11
1.19
6.10
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.01
6.49
1.30
4.76
1.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
248.94
82.71

4.44
27.80
2.57
1.57
1.72
1.76
0.59
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.19
2.06
1.37
0.56
0.46
2.61
0.44
0.11
0.06
0.02
2.75
0.74
0.38
0.48
0.01
0.15
0.06
0.00
52.03
17.29

5.11 6.26
71.03 149.84
8.32 7.77
0.87 2.48
0.67 3.06
1.28 2.72
0.89 1.68
0.05 0.01
0.15 0.28
0.07 0.12
0.22 0.16
0.76 2.98
1.83 1.95
0.89 0.78
0.71 0.94
3.61 5.10
0.45 0.00
0.11 0.00
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.00

2.94 1.45
1.28 0.63
0.00 0.00
0.15 0.00
0.04 0.02
0.00 0.00

3.79
130.81
6.23
1.30
1.84
1.75
1.11
0.01
0.25
0.18
0.06
1.65
1.13
0.50
0.65
3.57
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00

1.57
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

EDUN, k, EX

EDAV, k , EN

EDAV, k , EX

2.47
19.03
1.53
1.18
1.21
0.97
0.57
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.10
1.33
0.82
0.29
0.28
1.53
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

0.12
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

3.14
62.25
7.29
0.48
0.16
0.49
0.87
0.07
0.16
0.01
0.13
0.03
1.28
0.61
0.54
2.53
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.01

3.19
0.96
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00

1.97
8.77
1.03
0.38
0.51
0.79
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.08
0.09
0.73
0.55
0.28
0.17
1.08
0.44
0.11
0.07
0.02

0.25
0.32
0.01
0.15
0.05
0.00

TableA.1.5:Splittingtheinvestmentcostrateinthereferenceplant(/h)

Z kAV

Component,k

Z kreal

Z kUN

Z kAV

Z kEN

Z kEX

Z kAV , EN

Z kAV , EX

C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
HPST
IPST
LPST
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP

1423.3
1016.7
1626.7
111.2
157.7
185.0
89.2
4.0
65.5
5.2
19.3
174.2
93.4
181.7
328.9
764.1
7.1
40.5
7.8
2.5

1209.8
813.3
1464.0
50.8
68.5
102.6
45.2
1.2
31.5
2.8
7.6
89.2
44.9
163.5
296.0
687.7
6.1
34.4
6.6
2.1

213.5
203.3
162.7
60.4
89.2
82.4
44.1
2.8
33.9
2.4
11.7
85.0
48.5
18.2
32.9
76.4
1.1
6.1
1.2
0.4

861.8
887.6
1305.7
73.5
82.4
111.7
57.3
7.1
58.2
7.6
7.7
96.5
54.2
115.3
230.1
534.9
5.6
23.9
9.8
0.0

561.5
129.1
320.9
37.7
75.2
73.4
31.9
3.1
7.2
2.4
11.6
77.7
39.2
66.4
98.8
229.2
1.5
16.6
2.1
2.5

129.3
177.5
130.6
39.9
46.6
49.7
28.4
5.0
30.2
3.5
4.7
47.1
28.1
11.5
23.0
53.5
0.8
3.6
1.5
0.0

84.2
25.8
32.1
20.5
42.6
32.7
15.7
2.2
3.7
1.1
7.0
37.9
20.4
6.6
9.9
22.9
0.2
2.5
0.3
0.4

Z kUN
Z UN , EN Z UN , EX
k

732.6
710.0
1175.2
33.6
35.8
61.9
29.0
2.1
28.1
4.1
3.1
49.4
26.1
103.8
207.1
481.4
4.8
20.3
8.4
0.0

477.3
103.3
288.8
17.2
32.7
40.7
16.3
0.9
3.5
1.3
4.6
39.8
18.9
59.7
89.0
206.3
1.3
14.1
1.8
2.1

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

107

TableA.1.6:Splittingthecostrateofexergydestructioninthereferenceplant(/h)

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
HPST
IPST
LPST
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP

C Dreal
,k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k

692.7
7276.3
1139.7
143.4
186.4
207.5
222.8
3.1
24.0
10.4
21.2
197.5
210.7
154.7
159.3
743.4
0.7
11.9
0.7
0.1

381.3
4936.4
432.3
93.7
138.2
170.2
151.4
0.4
15.5
6.7
8.9
166.0
108.8
57.3
68.3
393.2
0.1
2.5
0.0
0.0

311.4
2339.9
707.4
49.7
48.2
37.3
71.4
2.7
8.6
3.7
12.3
31.5
101.9
97.4
91.0
350.2
0.6
9.4
0.7
0.1

C DEN, k
422.3
6360.4
752.7
110.5
99.2
111.6
124.8
4.8
22.8
9.0
10.8
93.4
134.6
81.0
86.9
470.0
0.2
4.5
0.6
0.0

C DEX, k
270.4
916.0
387.0
32.9
87.2
95.9
98.1
1.7
1.2
1.4
10.4
104.1
76.1
73.7
72.5
273.4
0.5
7.4
0.2
0.1

C DAV, k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k , EN

C DAV, k , EX

191.5
2050.8
405.6
48.6
27.0
8.9
27.5
4.1
9.1
0.8
7.2
1.4
71.5
44.6
39.1
194.7
0.1
3.0
0.5
0.0

119.9
289.1
301.7
1.2
21.2
28.4
43.9
1.4
0.5
4.5
5.1
30.1
30.4
52.8
51.9
155.5
0.4
6.4
0.2
0.1

C DUN, k, EN

C DUN, k, EX

230.9
4309.5
347.0
61.9
72.3
102.7
97.2
0.6
13.7
9.8
3.6
91.9
63.1
36.4
47.8
275.3
0.1
1.5
0.1
0.0

150.4
626.9
85.3
31.7
65.9
67.5
54.2
0.3
1.7
3.1
5.3
74.0
45.7
20.9
20.5
117.9
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

TableA.1.7:Splittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestructioninthereferenceplant(Pts/h)

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
HPST
IPST
LPST
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP

B Dreal
,k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k

69.4
762.8
120.2
15.1
19.7
21.9
23.5
0.3
2.5
1.1
2.2
20.8
22.2
14.9
15.2
69.9
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.0

38.2
517.5
45.6
9.9
14.6
17.9
16.0
0.0
1.6
0.7
0.9
17.5
11.5
5.5
6.5
37.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0

31.2
245.3
74.6
5.2
5.1
3.9
7.5
0.3
0.9
0.4
1.3
3.3
10.7
9.4
8.7
32.9
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.0

B DEN, k
42.3
666.8
79.4
11.6
10.5
11.8
13.2
0.5
2.4
0.9
1.1
9.8
14.2
7.8
8.3
44.2
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0

B DEX, k
27.1
96.0
40.8
3.5
9.2
10.1
10.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.1
11.0
8.0
7.1
6.9
25.7
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0

B DAV, k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k , EX

19.2
215.0
42.8
5.1
2.8
0.9
2.9
0.4
1.0
0.1
0.8
0.2
7.5
4.3
3.7
18.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0

12.0
30.3
31.8
0.1
2.2
3.0
4.6
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
3.2
3.2
5.1
5.0
14.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0

B DUN, k, EN

B DUN, k, EX

23.1
451.8
36.6
6.5
7.6
10.8
10.3
0.1
1.4
1.0
0.4
9.7
6.7
3.5
4.6
25.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0

15.1
65.7
9.0
3.3
7.0
7.1
5.7
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.6
7.8
4.8
2.0
2.0
11.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0

86

85

92

93

84

87

88

90

96

83

91

60

82

DB

C1

81

M4

62

ST4

51

63

40

11

10

12

54

HPEV

28

13

9 HPSH

59

42

29

121

35

14

38

34

21

33

43

IPST

EC II

52

68

22

25

15

IPEC

24

23IPP
M

De-aerator

30

55

56

HPP37

66

65

HPST

41

LPP

M5

IPEV

M2

EV II

27

64

57

FG COND

32

45

105

GEN2

LPEV

COND P

36

16

LPSH

COND

53

M6

M1
31

44

LPST

67

C2

17

19

71

COOL1

106

112

20

97

69

113

103

107

C3

LPEC

70

18

72

114

101

115
73

108

C4

Chimney

74

COOL2

102

FigureA.2.1:StructureoftheAZEP85(fortheMCMreactorseeFigureA.4.1)

26

IPSH

39

HPEC

M3

RH

GEN1

58

SH II

NGPH

120

GEN3

94

50

GT1

61 GT2

: 55.7%, : 53.4%
Wnet: 389.9 MW

89

95

MCM REACTOR

104

75

98

116

117

100

99

77

COOL3

46

C5

47

109

CT

49

76

101

48

78

118

119

111

CT P

COOL4

110

80

79

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
108

A.2:TheAZEP85

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

109

TableA.2.1:ResultsoftheeconomicanalysisfortheAZEP85

Debt

Year Calendaryear beg.ofyear


1
2013
254,669,410
2
2014
241,085,942
3
2015
227,502,474
4
2016
213,919,005
5
2017
200,335,537
6
2018
186,752,068
7
2019
173,168,600
8
2020
159,585,131
9
2021
146,001,663
10
2022
132,418,195
11
2023
118,834,726
12
2024
105,251,258
91,667,789
13
2025
14
2026
78,084,321
15
2027
64,500,852
16
2028
50,917,384
17
2029
37,333,916
18
2030
28,000,437
19
2031
18,666,958
20
2032
9,333,479
21
2033
0

Total

2,538,029,145

Book
Adjustment CommonEquity
Book
Adjustment
depreciation
beg.ofyear depreciation

12,733,471
849,998
254,669,410
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
242,710,060
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
230,750,709
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
218,791,358
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
206,832,008
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
194,872,657
9,933,140
2,026,210
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
182,913,306
12,733,471
849,998
170,953,956
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
158,994,605
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
147,035,254
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
135,075,904
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
123,116,553
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
111,157,202
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
99,197,852
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
87,238,501
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
849,998
75,279,150
9,933,140
2,026,210
12,733,471
3,399,992
63,319,800
9,933,140
2,223,779
12,733,471
3,399,992
55,610,439
9,933,140
2,223,779
12,733,471
3,399,992
47,901,077
9,933,140
2,223,779
12,733,471
3,399,992
40,191,716
9,933,140
2,223,779
0
0
32,482,355
0
0

254,669,410
0
2,879,093,873
198,662,808 23,524,248

TCR

25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
25,542,819
17,042,840
17,042,840
17,042,840
17,042,840
0

476,856,466

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

110

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

(MW)
238.30
620.26
82.65
120.72
221.06
109.46
495.66
56.53
7.31
6.91
5.80
31.65
39.82
26.17
17.52
0.11
5.16
0.90
1.06
15.25
11.20
6.74
7.95
4.98
34.12
24.90
49.32
27.92
0.04
1.21
0.03
0.00
3.38
3.48
3.47
3.52
0.46

(MW)
227.13
466.61
77.03
119.49
211.51
78.20
477.85
53.73
7.07
5.15
0.10
28.65
36.29
22.65
15.70
0.07
4.85
0.75
0.77
12.50
7.83
6.03
7.14
4.46
31.81
23.45
42.62
21.14
0.04
1.04
0.02
0.00
2.81
2.88
2.85
2.85
0.44

(MW)
11.17
153.65
5.62
1.24
9.55
31.26
17.81
2.80
0.24
1.76
5.70
3.00
3.54
3.52
1.82
0.05
0.31
0.15
0.29
2.75
3.37
0.71
0.81
0.52
2.30
1.45
6.70
6.78
0.01
0.17
0.01
0.00
0.57
0.60
0.62
0.66
0.02

(%)
95.3
75.2
93.2
99.0
95.7
71.4
96.4
95.1
96.8
74.5
1.7
90.5
91.1
86.6
89.6
57.5
94.0
83.5
72.5
81.9
69.9
89.5
89.8
89.5
93.3
94.2
86.4
75.7
78.9
86.0
64.3
65.7
83.3
82.8
82.2
81.2
95.6

(%)
1.53
21.03
0.77
0.17
1.31
4.28
2.44
0.38
0.03
0.24
0.78
0.41
0.48
0.48
0.25
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.38
0.46
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.31
0.20
0.92
0.93
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.00

cP , k

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

fk

(/GJ) (/GJ)
19.8
22.2
9.3
12.7
13.6
18.9
13.6
15.4
13.6
15.7
9.3
13.9
18.4
19.8
13.1
15.1
36.4
61.5
13.1
18.0
13.1 795.8
18.4
22.6
18.4
22.2
18.4
23.6
18.4
22.8
18.4
50.2
18.4
24.1
18.4
25.6
18.4
34.2
18.4
27.6
18.4
33.8
13.1
16.6
13.1
16.5
13.1
16.7
22.6
26.4
22.8
27.2
24.4
32.8
22.8
36.4
21.6
84.4
21.6
37.7
21.6 156.5
21.6 466.7
36.4 169.1
36.4
86.6
36.4
91.2
36.4
93.2
28.4
47.1

(/h)
797
5,120
275
61
467
1,042
1,177
132
31
83
269
198
234
233
120
3
20
10
19
182
223
33
38
25
187
119
587
557
1
13
1
0
74
78
81
87
2

(/h)
1,169
746
1,192
696
1,113
277
1,336
247
607
8
6
141
160
82
70
3
70
5
15
145
102
20
22
17
183
202
489
257
7
42
7
2
348
358
357
362
27

(/h)
1,966
5,866
1,468
757
1,580
1,318
2,513
379
638
91
275
339
393
314
190
6
90
15
34
327
325
53
61
41
369
321
1,077
814
8
55
8
2
422
437
438
449
29

(%)
59.5
12.7
81.2
92.0
70.4
21.0
53.2
65.2
95.1
8.8
2.2
41.6
40.6
26.1
36.7
46.2
77.4
33.7
43.9
44.3
31.5
37.2
37.0
40.6
49.4
62.8
45.4
31.5
90.4
76.0
90.8
97.4
82.4
82.1
81.5
80.7
92.9

cF ,k

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)


12.1
6.2
6.5
250.79 0.19
37.7
3.5
5.0
1932.51 0.31
38.9
5.1
8.9
103.16 53.34
12.9
5.1
5.2
22.79 32.67
15.3
5.1
5.4
175.99 67.57
50.6
3.5
6.5
393.12 0.05
8.0
6.0
6.2
385.39 0.91
15.0
5.1
5.3
50.98
0.19
68.9
10.0
10.4
8.54
0.60
37.5
5.1
6.8
32.09
0.00
5974.4
5.1
301.0 103.97 0.00
23.1
6.0
6.9
64.85
1.10
21.2
6.0
6.8
76.51
0.11
28.6
6.0
7.3
76.14
0.08
24.0
6.0
7.0
39.39
0.49
173.5
6.0
12.3
1.05
0.00
31.3
6.0
6.6
6.68
0.04
39.5
6.0
7.7
3.20
0.00
86.3
6.0
9.2
6.29
0.01
50.4
6.0
7.9
59.58
0.10
83.9
6.0
9.7
72.88
0.11
26.8
5.1
6.0
12.90
0.11
25.8
5.1
5.9
14.77
0.01
27.8
5.1
5.9
9.52
0.01
17.2
7.0
7.7
57.80
0.29
19.2
7.0
7.6
36.61
0.24
34.6
7.3
8.8
175.98 0.37
59.6
7.0
10.0
170.64 0.22
291.6
6.6
9.0
0.22
0.00
74.8
6.6
8.1
4.01
0.00
626.2
6.6
11.6
0.22
0.00
2065.1
6.6
11.3
0.02
0.00
364.3
10.0
39.8
20.41
0.12
137.9
10.0
13.7
21.53
0.05
150.5
10.0
14.3
22.30
0.02
156.0
10.0
14.5
23.90
0.03
65.4
8.1
8.6
0.59
0.04

B D ,k Yk

f b ,k

rb ,k

(Pts/h)
250.98
1932.82
156.50
55.46
243.56
393.17
386.30
51.18
9.14
32.09
103.97
65.94
76.62
76.22
39.88
1.05
6.72
3.20
6.30
59.68
72.99
13.01
14.78
9.54
58.10
36.85
176.35
170.86
0.22
4.01
0.22
0.02
20.53
21.58
22.33
23.93
0.62

(%)
0.08
0.02
34.08
58.90
27.74
0.01
0.23
0.38
6.53
0.01
0.00
1.66
0.15
0.11
1.22
0.14
0.64
0.10
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.88
0.08
0.14
0.51
0.65
0.21
0.13
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.63
0.58
0.23
0.11
0.15
5.66

(%)
238.30
620.26
82.65
120.72
221.06
109.46
495.66
56.53
7.31
6.91
5.80
31.65
39.82
26.17
17.52
0.11
5.16
0.90
1.06
15.25
11.20
6.74
7.95
4.98
34.12
24.90
49.32
27.92
0.04
1.21
0.03
0.00
3.38
3.48
3.47
3.52
0.46

110

E F ,k

Component,k
C1
CC
MCM
MCMHTHX
MCMLTHX
DB
GT1
GT2
C6
AIRHX
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C2
C3
C4
C5
Deaerator

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.2.2:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP85

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

B kPF

1.43
1.28
0.15
0.60
0.55
0.05
1.70
1.69
0.01
37.46 34.20 3.26
15.09

13.52
0.68

0.61
0.81

0.73
0.76

0.69
0.79

0.71
12.29

9.14
4.92

3.05
730.56 389.89 313.43
27.25

CC

641.18

DB

89.5
92.3
99.1
91.3

53.4

0.02
0.01
0.00
0.45
1.85
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.10
1.25

42.90

22.8
22.6
18.4
18.7
13.2
46.3
53.8
59.9
64.7
23.9

9.2

26.5
25.2
18.6
20.5

25.1

459.05

12
0
4
0
1
0
220
0
642
90
101
9
141
9
149
8
165
11
786
87

93
10,326 11,198

12
4
1
220
732
110
150
157
176
874

21,524

0.0 16.4
0.0 11.7
0.0
1.3
0.0
9.5
12.3

8.2

6.0

5.2

6.0

10.0

52.0 174.3

7.0
7.0
6.0
5.9
5.1
12.5
12.7
12.9
13.2
7.2

3.5

8.1
7.8
6.1
6.4

6.9

3.78
0.00
1.16
0.00
0.31
0.00
68.92
0.00
248.14 0.09
27.28
0.01
33.17
0.01
32.15
0.01
0.01
33.61
237.06 0.03

15.42
3897.09 174.95

3.78
1.16
0.31
68.92
248.23
27.28
33.17
32.15
33.62
237.09

4072.05

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01

4.30

1.43
0.60
1.70
37.46
15.09
0.68
0.81
0.76
0.79
12.29
4.92
100.2

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

M1
M2
M3
M4
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

111

111

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

112

TableA.2.3:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheAZEP85

m j T j
pj
Stream,
(kg/s) (C)
(bar)
j
1
603.6 15.00
1.01
2
603.6 392.82 16.99
3
14.0
15.00 50.00
4
558.2 1301.93 16.81
5
558.2 578.70 1.06
6
218.2 578.70 1.06
7
218.2 466.96 1.05
8
340.0 578.70 1.06
9
340.0 447.82 1.05
10
558.2 455.31 1.05
11
558.2 341.18 1.04
12
558.2 252.75 1.04
13
558.2 252.34 1.04
14
558.2 232.62 1.04
15
558.2 229.08 1.04
16
558.2 224.88 1.04
17
558.2 156.37 1.03
18
558.2 84.65
1.03
19
95.0
32.89
3.73
20
95.0 136.37 3.62
21
95.7 140.01 3.62
22
77.1 140.01 3.62
23
6.2
140.01 3.62
24
6.2
140.50 25.13
25
6.2
216.62 24.38
26
6.2
222.62 24.38
27
6.2
232.75 23.16
28
77.1 307.14 23.16
29
48.4 558.70 22.00
30
48.4 315.74 4.10
31
17.9 209.08 4.10
32
17.9 146.37 4.32
33
0.7
146.37 4.32
34
18.5 140.01 3.62
35
18.5 140.02 4.32
36
18.5 146.37 4.32
37
71.0 140.01 3.62
38
71.0 141.72 134.56
39
59.3 325.17 130.53
40
59.3 331.17 130.53
41
71.0 561.95 124.00
42
71.0 314.23 23.16
43
66.2 286.89 4.10
44
66.2
32.88
0.05
45
95.0
32.88
0.05
46
6680.5 15.00
1.01
47
180.4 15.00
1.01
48
95.4
16.00
1.01
49
6765.5 23.60
1.01
50
48.4 307.14 23.16
51
28.8 307.14 23.16
52
28.8
32.88
0.05
53
95.0
32.88
0.05
54
59.3 141.72 134.56
55
11.7 141.72 134.56
56
11.7 325.17 130.53
57
11.7 331.17 130.53
58
11.7 578.56 124.00
59
59.3 558.70 124.00
60
59.4 1275.57 16.48
61
59.4 1200.00 16.47
62
59.4 684.07 1.04
63
59.4 598.56 1.04
64
59.4 490.15 1.04
65
59.4 341.18 1.03
66
59.4 222.27 1.02
67
33.6
30.00
1.01
68
25.7
30.00
1.01

E PH , j

E CH , j

E tot , j

cj

(MW)
0.00
227.13
8.15
649.44
153.78
60.11
42.59
93.67
62.02
104.60
64.78
38.61
38.49
33.33
32.43
31.38
16.13
4.92
0.24
8.07
8.58
6.91
0.55
0.57
1.32
6.18
6.24
84.69
68.78
43.88
14.40
13.64
0.52
1.66
1.66
14.16
6.36
7.40
28.83
65.12
112.61
78.50
58.13
8.81
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.88
53.09
31.60
3.68
12.49
6.18
1.22
5.67
12.82
18.85
93.77
104.08
97.17
40.64
34.84
28.10
20.15
15.17
0.04
0.04

(MW)
0.94
0.94
721.47
1.43
1.43
0.56
0.56
0.87
0.87
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.19
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.19
0.12
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.24
10.40
0.45
0.24
9.72
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.24
0.15
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.15
10.48
10.48
10.48
10.48
10.48
10.48
10.48
10.42
0.06

(MW)
0.94
228.07
729.62
650.87
155.21
60.67
43.15
94.54
62.89
106.03
66.21
40.03
39.92
34.76
33.86
32.80
17.55
6.35
0.48
8.31
8.82
7.11
0.57
0.59
1.34
6.19
6.26
84.88
68.91
44.00
14.45
13.68
0.53
1.71
1.71
14.21
6.54
7.57
28.98
65.27
112.79
78.67
58.30
8.98
0.44
10.40
0.45
0.24
12.60
53.21
31.68
3.75
12.73
6.33
1.25
5.70
12.85
18.87
93.92
114.56
107.65
51.12
45.32
38.58
30.63
25.65
10.45
0.10

(/GJ)
0.0
22.1
9.2
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
0.0
28.4
33.5
34.1
34.1
34.1
37.6
30.9
25.6
25.8
22.8
22.8
22.8
28.7
28.4
28.4
34.1
34.5
28.4
34.1
34.6
26.0
23.9
22.6
22.6
24.4
24.4
23.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.8
22.8
22.8
23.9
34.6
34.6
20.6
18.3
17.8
23.5
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
0.0

bj

B j

(/h) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h)


0
0.00
0
18,168
6.51
5,349
24,037
3.45
9,072
43,005
6.01
14,082
10,255
6.01
3,358
4,009
6.01
1,313
2,851
6.01
934
6,246
6.01
2,045
4,155
6.01
1,361
7,007
6.01
2,294
4,375
6.01
1,433
2,646
6.01
866
2,638
6.01
864
2,297
6.01
752
2,238
6.01
733
2,168
6.01
710
1,160
6.01
380
0
0.00
0
49
7.34
13
1,001
9.53
285
1,082
9.47
300
873
9.47
242
70
9.47
19
79
9.53
20
148
8.49
41
570
6.97
155
581
7.03
158
6,971
6.99
2,135
5,656
6.99
1,734
3,612
6.99
1,107
1,495
8.13
423
1,401
8.07
398
54
8.07
15
210
9.47
58
212
9.47
58
1,455
8.07
413
803
9.47
223
943
9.28
253
2,714
7.75
809
5,620
7.24
1,702
9,158
6.98
2,833
6,388
6.98
1,976
5,112
7.30
1,532
787
7.30
236
38
7.21
11
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
4,370
6.99
1,338
2,601
6.99
797
308
6.99
94
1,095
7.21
330
788
9.28
211
155
9.28
42
424
6.67
137
848
6.25
289
1,208
6.16
418
7,950
7.14
2,415
5,403
5.06
2,089
5,077
5.06
1,963
2,411
5.06
932
2,137
5.06
826
1,820
5.06
703
1,445
5.06
558
1,210
5.06
468
493
5.06
191
0
0.00
0

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138

33.6
33.4
0.3
33.4
33.2
0.2
33.2
33.1
0.1
33.1
33.1
0.0
60.4
60.4
543.2
543.2
495.7
354.5
402.0
495.7
402.0
413.9
354.5
354.5
11.9
14.0
2.1
556.1
7314.8
7314.8
9543.6
2228.9
2137.4
2051.4
1956.4
1867.6
1867.6
9182.4
9271.1
9366.2
9452.1
9543.6
9543.6
88.8
88.8
95.1
95.1
85.9
85.9
91.5
91.5
14.0
28.8

138.23
40.00
40.00
152.09
40.00
40.00
153.10
40.00
40.00
155.13
30.00
30.00
522.50
392.82
392.82
900.00
1000.00
1060.23
964.22
1250.00
487.78
1275.57
1275.57
1286.22
250.00
250.00
250.00
1174.45
16.00
22.88
23.60
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
15.00
45.81

3.22
3.21
3.21
10.22
10.21
10.21
32.46
32.45
32.45
103.09
103.09
103.09
16.98
16.99
16.99
16.96
17.00
17.09
17.02
16.98
16.99
16.48
16.48
17.10
16.99
16.98
16.98
16.98
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.01
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
17.00
0.10

2.85
10.42
13.26
2.16
10.41
12.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.05
10.41
15.46
4.23
10.42
14.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.08
10.42
17.50
6.31
10.43
16.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.16
10.43
19.59
8.36
10.44
18.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.86
0.09
27.96
22.71
0.09
22.81
204.41
0.85
205.26
415.92
0.85
416.77
427.27
1.21
428.48
507.81
62.58 570.39
492.04
61.01 553.05
546.76
1.21
547.97
270.99
61.01 331.99
725.55
73.06 798.60
621.47
62.58 684.04
628.54
62.58 691.11
7.01
613.25 620.26
8.25
721.47 729.72
1.24
108.22 109.46
571.44
1.23
572.67
0.32
18.27
18.59
3.47
18.27
21.74
5.34
23.84
29.18
1.98
5.57
7.55
1.90
5.34
7.24
1.82
5.12
6.95
1.74
4.89
6.62
1.66
4.67
6.32
0.08
4.67
4.75
0.40
22.94
23.33
0.40
23.16
23.56
0.41
23.40
23.80
0.41
23.61
24.02
0.07
23.84
23.91
0.41
23.84
24.25
0.00
0.22
0.23
0.08
0.22
0.30
0.00
0.24
0.24
0.08
0.24
0.32
0.00
0.21
0.22
0.08
0.21
0.29
0.00
0.23
0.23
0.08
0.23
0.31
5.90
721.47 727.37
6.02
0.07
6.09

C1
238.30

ST1
31.81

ST2
23.45

ST3
42.62

CONDP 0.04

LPP
0.00

HPP
1.21

IPP
0.03

GT1
239.55

GT2
53.73

C6
7.31

C2
3.38

C3
3.48

C4
3.47

C5
3.52

ST4
21.14

tot
389.89

46.2
46.2
0.0
53.7
53.7
0.0
59.8
59.8
0.0
64.7
0.0
0.0
21.4
22.1
22.1
18.9
19.7
13.6
13.6
18.7
13.6
13.1
13.1
13.6
9.3
9.3
9.3
19.0

19.8
26.4
27.2
32.8
21.6
21.6
21.6
21.6
19.8
15.1
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
36.4
21.6

2,204
2,091
0
2,990
2,833
0
3,768
3,603
0
4,561
0
0
2,151
1,817
16,351
28,284
30,325
27,918
27,069
36,930
16,249
37,664
32,261
33,826
20,669
24,317
3,647
39,081

16,999
3,027
2,293
5,032
3
0
94
2
17,088
2,913
958
443
456
454
461
2,771
30.2

113

12.43
12.43
0.00
12.66
12.66
0.00
12.93
12.93
0.00
13.17
0.00
0.00
6.57
6.51
6.51
5.97
6.05
5.12
5.12
5.87
5.12
5.06
5.06
5.12
3.49
3.49
3.49
5.94

6.23
7.66
7.58
8.83
6.59
6.59
6.59
6.59
6.23
5.33
10.02
10.02
10.02
10.02
10.02
10.02
6.59

594
563
0
705
668
0
815
779
0
929
0
0
661
535
4,814
8,955
9,328
10,512
10,192
11,586
6,118
14,561
12,472
12,736
7,801
9,178
1,377
12,246

5,349
878
640
1,356
1
0
29
1
5,377
1,031
264
122
126
125
127
763
9,250

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

114

TableA.2.4:SplittingtheexergydestructionintheAZEP85(MW)
real

EN

EX

ED , k ED , k ED , k
Component,k
C1
11.17 7.39 3.78
CC
153.65 120.57 33.09
MCM
5.62
3.41 2.21
MCMHTHX 1.24
0.77 0.47
MCMLTHX 9.55
4.58 4.97
DB
31.26 20.16 11.10
GT1
14.16 10.64 3.53
GT2
1.98
2.73 0.75
C6
0.24
0.00 0.24
AIRHX
1.76
2.21 0.45
NGPH
5.70
3.72 1.98
HPSH
3.00
1.01 1.98
HPEV
3.54
1.51 2.02
HPEC
3.52
1.72 1.79
RH
1.82
1.19 0.63
IPSH
0.05
0.07 0.02
IPEV
0.31
0.38 0.07
IPEC
0.15
0.13 0.02
LPSH
0.29
0.15 0.14
LPEV
2.75
1.29 1.46
LPEC
3.37
2.06 1.31
SHII
0.71
0.89 0.18
EVII
0.81
1.13 0.32
ECII
0.52
0.45 0.07
HPST
1.82
1.27 0.54
IPST
1.10
0.91 0.19
LPST
6.05
4.65 1.40
ST4
6.78
4.53 2.25
CONDP
0.00
0.00 0.00
HPP
0.11
0.07 0.04
IPP
0.01
0.01 0.00
LPP
0.00
0.00 0.00
C2
0.57
0.75 0.18
C3
0.60
0.81 0.22
C4
0.62
0.85 0.23
C5
0.66
0.91 0.25
FGCOND
13.52 18.21 4.69
COOL1
0.61
0.47 0.14
COOL2
0.73
0.61 0.11
COOL3
0.69
0.57 0.12
COOL4
0.71
0.56 0.15
COND
9.14
6.40 5.89
CT
3.05
2.82 0.23
MOT1
0.01
0.00 0.00
MOT2
0.00
0.00 0.00
MOT3
0.06
0.03 0.03
MOT4
0.00
0.00 0.00
GEN1
3.65
3.39 0.26
1.24 0.25
GEN2
1.49
GEN3
0.82
1.22 0.40
Total
309.94 238.45 74.63

76.94 24.08
Total(%)

EDAV, k EDUN, k EDUN, k, EN EDUN, k, EX EDAV, k , EN EDAV, k , EX


5.02 6.15
13.56 140.10
1.40 4.23
0.40 0.84
4.90 4.65
16.74 14.52
7.11 7.06
1.31 0.66
0.16 0.08
1.42 0.34
5.66 0.05
0.84 2.16
0.52 3.01
1.04 2.48
0.64 1.18
0.05 0.00
0.11 0.20
0.05 0.09
0.18 0.11
0.45 2.30
2.40 0.96
0.15 0.55
0.07 0.74
0.20 0.33
0.96 0.85
0.47 0.62
2.51 3.54
5.78 1.01
0.00 0.00
0.07 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.44 0.13
0.47 0.13
0.49 0.13
0.53 0.13

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.01
0.00 0.00
1.24 4.89
0.51 2.00
0.28 1.10

4.06
109.81
1.45
0.52
3.54
9.43
5.12
0.92
0.00
0.48
0.01
0.91
1.51
1.33
0.84
0.01
0.20
0.13
0.05
1.22
0.56
0.78
1.01
0.46
0.58
0.50
2.72
0.67
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.54
1.66
1.64

2.09
30.29
2.78
0.32
1.11
5.08
1.94
0.25
0.08
0.14
0.04
1.25
1.50
1.15
0.34
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.06
1.08
0.41
0.23
0.27
0.14
0.27
0.13
0.82
0.34
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.34
0.54

3.33
10.76
1.96
0.25
1.05
10.73
5.52
1.81
0.00
1.73
3.71
0.10
0.01
0.39
0.36
0.07
0.17
0.00
0.10
0.07
1.51
0.11
0.12
0.01
0.69
0.41
1.93
3.87
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.58
0.64
0.68
0.74

0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
1.15
0.42
0.42

1.69
2.80
0.57
0.15
3.86
6.01
1.59
0.50
0.16
0.31
1.95
0.74
0.52
0.65
0.29
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.38
0.90
0.05
0.05
0.21
0.27
0.06
0.58
1.91
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.17
0.18
0.20

0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.09
0.14

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

115

TableA.2.5:SplittingtheinvestmentcostrateintheAZEP85(/h)

Component,k
C1
CC
MCM
MCMHTHX
MCMLTHX
DB
GT1
GT2
AIRHX
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C2
C3
C4
C5
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND

Z kAV

Z kreal

Z kUN

Z kAV

Z kEN

Z kEX

Z kAV , EN

Z kAV , EX

1169.3
745.9
1192.3
696.3
1113.0
276.8
1336.4
247.3
8.0
6.0
141.3
159.5
81.9
69.8
2.7
69.9
5.0
15.1
145.0
102.5
19.7
22.4
16.8
182.6
201.8
489.2
256.7
6.9
41.6
7.1
2.4
347.9
358.4
356.9
362.1
90.4
9.1
9.0
8.2
10.6
6.0

993.9
596.7
953.9
108.9
320.2
221.5
1202.8
222.5
1.8
2.8
58.6
84.9
39.3
31.5
0.7
25.6
2.3
5.6
70.1
44.1
8.8
14.3
7.3
164.3
181.7
440.3
231.1
5.9
35.4
6.0
2.0
295.7
304.6
303.3
307.8

175.4
149.2
238.5
548.8
764.5
55.4
133.6
24.7
6.2
3.2
82.6
74.6
42.6
38.3
2.0
44.3
2.7
9.4
74.8
58.4
11.0
8.1
9.6
18.3
20.2
48.9
25.7
6.9
41.6
7.1
2.4
52.2
53.8
53.5
54.3

771.7
584.6
407.9
434.4
847.1
179.9
970.0
341.1
11.3
1.4
59.7
79.9
44.0
49.6
8.0
72.5
6.8
6.3
77.0
59.0
27.9
30.7
23.8
124.4
161.0
376.1
170.0
5.5
25.6
8.4
0.0
448.8
479.9
480.3
488.2

397.7
161.3
784.4
261.9
265.8
96.9
366.4
93.9
3.3
4.7
81.6
79.7
37.9
20.2
5.3
2.6
1.8
8.8
68.0
43.5
8.1
8.3
7.0
58.2
40.8
113.2
86.8
1.5
16.0
1.3
2.4
100.9
121.5
123.5
126.1

115.7
116.9
81.6
309.8
558.5
36.0
97.0
34.1
8.7
0.7
34.9
37.4
22.9
27.2
5.8
45.9
3.7
3.9
39.7
33.6
15.5
11.1
13.5
12.4
16.1
37.6
17.0
0.8
3.8
1.3
0.0
67.3
72.0
72.0
73.2

59.7
32.3
156.9
239.0
206.0
19.4
36.6
9.4
2.5
2.5
47.7
37.3
19.7
11.1
3.8
1.6
1.0
5.5
35.1
24.8
4.5
3.0
4.0
5.8
4.1
11.3
8.7
6.1
37.8
5.8
2.4
15.1
18.2
18.5
18.9

Z kUN
Z UNEN
Z UN , EX
k

655.9
467.7
326.3
124.7
288.7
143.9
873.0
307.0
2.5
0.6
24.8
42.5
21.1
22.4
2.2
26.6
3.1
2.3
37.2
25.4
12.4
19.6
10.3
112.0
144.9
338.5
153.0
4.7
21.8
7.1
0.0
381.5
407.9
408.3
415.0

338.0
129.0
627.6
15.8
31.6
77.5
329.8
84.5
0.7
2.2
33.9
42.4
18.2
9.1
1.4
0.9
0.8
3.3
32.9
18.7
3.6
5.3
3.0
52.3
36.7
101.8
78.1
1.2
13.6
1.1
2.0
85.8
103.3
104.9
107.2

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

116

TableA.2.6:SplittingthecostrateofexergydestructionintheAZEP85(/h)

Component,k
C1
CC
MCM
MCMHTHX
MCMLTHX
DB
GT1
GT2
AIRHX
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C2
C3
C4
C5
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND

C Dreal
,k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k

797.1
438.8
5120.2 4668.5
275.3
206.8
60.5
41.0
467.4
227.5
1041.6 483.8
1176.9 466.3
131.9
31.3
83.0
15.9
268.9
2.2
198.0
142.6
233.6
199.0
232.5
163.9
120.3
77.7
3.2
0.2
20.4
13.0
9.8
6.2
19.2
7.3
182.0
152.3
222.6
63.8
26.1
33.4
38.2
34.8
24.6
15.4
186.9
69.2
119.4
51.3
587.4
310.7
557.2
82.5
0.7
0.1
13.1
2.9
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
74.2
17.0
78.2
16.8
81.0
16.7
86.8
16.7
716.8

113.8

156.3

164.3

183.1

1057.6

358.3
451.8
68.5
19.5
239.9
557.8
710.6
100.6
67.1
266.8
55.4
34.7
68.6
42.6
3.0
7.4
3.6
11.9
29.7
158.8
7.3
3.4
9.3
117.7
68.2
276.7
474.6
0.6
10.2
0.7
0.1
57.2
61.4
64.4
70.1

C DEN, k

C DEX, k

527.2 269.8
4017.7 1102.5
166.9 108.4
37.6
22.9
224.4 243.0
671.8 369.8
702.9 474.0
128.7
3.2
104.2 21.2
175.5
93.4
131.0
67.0
100.0 133.6
113.9 118.6
78.8
41.5
1.6

4.8
25.0
4.6

8.5
1.3

9.9
9.3

85.4
96.5
136.2
86.4
8.5
41.8
15.2
53.4
21.2
3.4
103.4
83.4
74.9
44.5
407.8 179.6
372.1 185.1

0.2
0.5

5.1
8.0

0.5
0.2

0.0
0.1

24.0
98.1
106.6 28.4
110.9 29.9
119.0 32.2
864.6 147.8
78.3
35.4
118.7
37.6
123.1
41.2
130.1
53.0
550.4 507.1

C DAV, k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k , EN

C DAV, k , EX

237.7
358.5
96.2
12.0
51.2
357.4
364.5
85.5
81.7
175.0
6.8
0.4
25.8
23.6
4.3
11.5
0.1
6.8
4.6
99.5
5.0
5.7
0.6
56.3
34.0
168.9
317.4
0.1
3.4
0.5
0.0
76.2
84.2
88.5
96.5

120.6
93.3
27.7
7.5
188.7
200.4
346.2
15.1
14.6
91.8
48.6
34.3
42.8
19.0
1.3
4.1
3.5
5.1
25.1
59.3
2.3
2.3
9.8
61.4
34.1
107.7
157.2
0.5
6.9
0.2
0.1
19.0
22.7
24.1
26.4

C DUN, k, EN

C DUN, k, EX

289.6
3659.2
70.8
25.6
173.2
314.4
338.4
43.2
22.4
0.5
60.2
99.6
88.1
55.2
0.5
13.4
8.4
3.1
80.8
36.7
36.8
47.7
21.8
47.2
40.9
238.8
54.7
0.1
1.8
0.1
0.0
21.9
22.5
22.4
22.5

149.2
1009.3
136.1
15.4
54.3
169.4
127.9
11.9
6.5
1.7
82.4
99.4
75.8
22.5
0.3
0.5
2.3
4.3
71.4
27.0
10.7
12.9
6.4
22.0
10.4
71.9
27.9
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
4.9
5.7
5.8
5.8

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

117

TableA.2.7:SplittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestructionintheAZEP85(Pts/h)

Component,k
C1
CC
MCM
MCMHTHX
MCMLTHX
DB
GT1
GT2
AIRHX
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C2
C3
C4
C5
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND

B Dreal
,k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k

69.7
536.8
28.7
6.3
48.9
109.2
107.1
14.2
8.9
28.9
18.0
21.3
21.1
10.9
0.3
1.9
0.9
1.7
16.6
20.2
3.6
4.1
2.6
16.1
10.2
48.9
47.4
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.0
5.7
6.0
6.2
6.6
77.0
8.5
10.2
9.9
10.4
88.6

38.3
489.4
21.5
4.3
23.8
50.7
42.4
3.4
1.7
0.2
13.0
18.1
14.9
7.1
0.0
1.2
0.6
0.7
13.9
5.8
2.8
3.7
1.7
5.9
4.4
25.9
7.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3

31.3
47.4
7.1
2.0
25.1
58.5
64.6
10.8
7.2
28.6
5.0
3.2
6.2
3.9
0.3
0.7
0.3
1.1
2.7
14.4
0.8
0.4
1.0
10.1
5.8
23.0
40.4
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.0
4.4
4.7
4.9
5.4

B DEN, k
46.1
421.2
17.4
3.9
23.5
70.4
63.9
13.8
11.2
18.8
6.1
9.1
10.4
7.2
0.4
2.3
0.8
0.9
7.8
12.4
4.5
5.7
2.3
8.9
6.4
33.9
31.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
7.5
8.2
8.5
9.1
92.8
5.9
7.8
7.4
7.4
39.4

B DEX, k
23.6
115.6
11.3
2.4
25.4
38.8
43.1
0.3
2.3
10.0
11.9
12.2
10.8
3.8
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.8
8.8
7.9
0.9
1.6
0.4
7.2
3.8
14.9
15.7
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.5
15.9
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.0
49.2

B DAV, k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k , EX

20.8
37.6
10.0
1.3
5.4
37.5
33.2
9.2
8.8
18.8
0.6
0.0
2.3
2.1
0.4
1.1
0.0
0.6
0.4
9.0
0.5
0.6
0.1
4.8
2.9
14.1
27.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
5.8
6.4
6.8
7.4

10.5
9.8
2.9
0.8
19.7
21.0
31.5
1.6
1.6
9.9
4.4
3.1
3.9
1.7
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.5
2.3
5.4
0.2
0.2
1.1
5.3
2.9
9.0
13.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0

B DUN, k, EN

B DUN, k, EX

25.3
383.6
7.4
2.7
18.1
33.0
30.8
4.6
2.4
0.1
5.5
9.1
8.0
5.0
0.0
1.2
0.8
0.3
7.4
3.3
4.0
5.1
2.3
4.1
3.5
19.9
4.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7

13.0
105.8
14.2
1.6
5.7
17.8
11.6
1.3
0.7
0.2
7.5
9.0
6.9
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
6.5
2.5
1.2
1.4
0.7
1.9
0.9
6.0
2.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

89

86

87

91

83

60

88

82

M4

C1

81

62

51

50

RH 6

GT1

GT2

ST4

61

39

11

10

IPSH

12

HPEC

28

HPSH

40

64

55

54

HPEV

59

M5

SH II

57

13

26

27

66

42

29

14

LPP35

HPST

41

EC II

IPEV

38

M2

EV II

65

56

105

25

15

IPP

23
24

IPEC

22

37

43

De-aerator

HPP

34

21

33

68

IPST

FG COND
67

32

97

69

31

106

44

16

36

LPEV

20

52

GEN2

112

71

COOL1 70

COND P

LPSH

M1

COND

30

45

53

LPST

C2

113

118

17

107

19

C3

103

72

18

98

COOL2

LPEC

114

115

108

C4

Chimney

74

73

102

FigureA.3.1:StructureoftheAZEP100(fortheMCMreactorseeFigureA.4.1)

40

M3

58

NGPH

63

GEN1

94

GEN3

: 53.9%, : 51.7%
Wnet: 377.5 MW

84

92

85

90

93

MCM REACTOR

104

100

75

CT

46

49

77

COOL3

99

116

117

47

109

76

48

C5

101

78

95

96

111

110

CT P

COOL4

79

80

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
118

A.3:TheAZEP100

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

119

TableA.3.1:ResultsoftheeconomicanalysisfortheAZEP100
AZEP100

Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Total

Calendaryear
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033

Debtbeg.of
Book
year
depreciation
266,444,264
13,322,213
252,230,071
13,322,213
238,015,877
13,322,213
223,801,683
13,322,213
209,587,489
13,322,213
195,373,296
13,322,213
181,159,102
13,322,213
166,944,908
13,322,213
152,730,714
13,322,213
138,516,521
13,322,213
124,302,327
13,322,213
110,088,133
13,322,213
95,873,939
13,322,213
81,659,746
13,322,213
67,445,552
13,322,213
53,231,358
13,322,213
39,017,164
13,322,213
29,262,873
13,322,213
19,508,582
13,322,213
9,754,291
13,322,213
0
0

2,654,947,891 266,444,264

CommonEquity
Book
Adjustment
beg.ofyear
depreciation Adjustment
891,981
266,444,264
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
253,854,188
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
241,264,112
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
228,674,036
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
216,083,960
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
203,493,884
10,463,934
2,126,142
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
190,903,808
891,981
178,313,732
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
165,723,656
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
153,133,580
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
140,543,504
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
127,953,428
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
115,363,352
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
102,773,276
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
90,183,200
10,463,934
2,126,142
891,981
77,593,125
10,463,934
2,126,142
3,567,922
65,003,049
10,463,934
2,333,761
3,567,922
56,872,875
10,463,934
2,333,761
3,567,922
48,742,702
10,463,934
2,333,761
3,567,922
40,612,528
10,463,934
2,333,761
0
32,482,355
0
0

0
2,996,012,620
209,278,684
24,683,225

TCR
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
26,804,270
17,884,464
17,884,464
17,884,464
17,884,464
0

500,406,174

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

120

E F ,k

E P ,k

(MW)
280.47
729.72
97.30
142.04
260.08
532.11
66.39
8.59
8.20
5.82
18.82
32.96
22.53
13.12
0.80
13.29
2.24
1.08
16.73
12.06
8.61
9.74
6.06
27.79
20.33
44.78
32.85
0.05
1.10
0.06
0.00
3.96
4.08
4.07
4.13
0.48

(MW)
267.32
549.07
90.54
140.61
248.86
512.51
63.11
8.31
6.12
0.10
17.15
30.50
19.04
11.38
0.63
12.15
1.88
0.78
13.76
8.19
7.70
8.73
5.45
25.82
19.06
38.70
24.83
0.04
0.94
0.04
0.00
3.31
3.39
3.35
3.36
0.46

E D ,k k yD ,k
(MW)
13.15
180.65
6.75
1.43
11.22
19.60
3.28
0.28
2.09
5.72
1.68
2.46
3.49
1.73
0.17
1.14
0.37
0.31
2.97
3.87
0.91
1.02
0.61
1.97
1.27
6.08
8.02
0.01
0.16
0.02
0.00
0.66
0.69
0.72
0.78
0.02

(%)
95.3
75.2
93.1
99.0
95.7
96.3
95.1
96.8
74.6
1.7
91.1
92.5
84.5
86.8
79.0
91.4
83.6
71.8
82.2
67.9
89.4
89.6
90.0
92.9
93.8
86.4
75.6
79.4
85.3
69.9
66.3
83.4
83.0
82.2
81.2
95.6

(%)
1.80
24.72
0.92
0.20
1.54
2.68
0.45
0.04
0.29
0.78
0.23
0.34
0.48
0.24
0.02
0.16
0.05
0.04
0.41
0.53
0.12
0.14
0.08
0.27
0.17
0.83
1.10
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.00

cF ,k
(/GJ)
20.6
9.3
13.6
13.6
13.6
19.2
13.1
37.7
13.1
13.1
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
13.1
13.1
13.1
23.2
24.0
25.8
23.7
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
29.6

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

fk

(/GJ) (/h)
22.8
975
12.7 6,020
19.1
330
15.3
70
15.6
548
20.6 1,352
15.2
154
61.5
38
18.0
98
791.7
269
23.8
116
23.0
170
25.3
241
24.9
119
31.6
12
24.5
79
26.5
25
36.2
21
28.6
205
36.1
267
16.6
43
16.5
48
16.7
29
27.2
164
28.6
109
34.5
564
37.7
686
83.5
1
38.9
13
110.9
1
434.4
0
167.7
89
86.1
94
90.7
98
92.8
105
48.3
2

(/h)
1,133
831
1,459
791
1,270
1,295
327
675
9
6
113
164
62
57
11
114
11
16
162
99
24
26
21
145
161
435
288
7
39
11
2
386
398
397
402
28

(/h)
2,108
6,851
1,789
861
1,818
2,647
482
713
107
275
229
334
303
176
23
193
37
37
367
367
67
74
49
309
270
999
974
8
52
12
2
476
492
495
508
30

(%)
53.8
12.1
81.6
91.9
69.8
48.9
67.9
94.7
8.6
2.2
49.5
49.2
20.5
32.2
48.7
59.1
30.9
43.0
44.1
27.1
35.5
35.2
42.0
46.9
59.5
43.5
29.6
90.4
75.2
88.9
97.3
81.2
80.8
80.1
79.3
92.6

cP , k

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h)


10.6
6.1
6.4
288.47
37.4
3.5
5.0
2272.15
40.4
5.1
8.4
123.85
12.5
5.1
5.2
26.38
15.0
5.1
5.4
206.67
7.5
5.9
6.1
414.12
16.2
5.1
5.3
59.82
63.1
9.9
10.2
9.85
37.3
5.1
6.8
38.02
5955.1
5.1
300.1
104.32
24.2
5.9
6.7
35.40
19.9
5.9
6.5
51.95
32.2
5.9
7.4
73.79
30.1
5.9
7.1
36.60
65.0
5.9
8.1
3.54
27.7
5.9
6.7
24.14
38.1
5.9
7.5
7.76
88.7
5.9
9.2
6.47
49.5
5.9
7.7
62.81
88.5
5.9
9.8
81.87
27.0
5.1
6.0
16.60
26.5
5.1
5.9
18.53
27.4
5.1
5.9
11.08
17.5
6.8
7.5
48.32
19.1
6.9
7.5
31.53
33.7
7.2
8.8
158.54
58.9
6.9
9.9
198.25
280.1
6.4
8.7
0.22
77.1
6.4
7.9
3.74
405.1
6.4
10.2
0.40
1877.8
6.4
10.9
0.02
344.5
9.9
39.4
23.44
128.3
9.9
13.5
24.73
140.4
9.9
14.1
25.76
145.8
9.9
14.3
27.60
63.0
7.9
8.4
0.60

Yk

B D ,k Yk

(Pts/h)
0.18
0.30
35.87
38.37
79.33
0.87
0.21
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.12
0.06
0.39
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.25
0.21
0.34
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.04

(Pts/h)
288.65
2272.44
159.72
64.75
286.01
415.00
60.02
10.44
38.02
104.32
36.25
52.06
73.85
36.98
3.55
24.21
7.77
6.48
62.93
81.98
16.74
18.54
11.10
48.57
31.74
158.88
198.49
0.22
3.74
0.40
0.02
23.56
24.78
25.78
27.63
0.63

f b ,k

rb ,k

(%) (%)
0.06
4.9
0.01 43.8
22.46 65.9
59.25 2.5
27.74 6.2
0.21
3.8
0.34
5.2
5.71
3.5
0.01 34.1
0.00 5826.8
2.35 14.1
0.22 11.5
0.08 26.1
1.04 21.8
0.20 37.8
0.31 13.4
0.11 27.9
0.17 56.0
0.18 30.8
0.13 67.4
0.84 17.7
0.07 17.4
0.15 16.6
0.52 10.4
0.66
9.1
0.21 21.1
0.12 44.0
0.13 35.9
0.01 23.9
0.02 59.6
0.47 70.6
0.51 298.4
0.20 36.1
0.09 42.9
0.13 45.0
5.54
6.2

120

Component,k
C1
CC
MCM
MCMHTHX
MCMLTHX
GT1
GT2
C6
AIRHX
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C2
C3
C4
C5
Deaerator

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.3.2:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheAZEP100

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

B kPF

0.57
0.15
1.49
40.18
2.11

377.52

754.33

0.04
0.00
0.01
3.82
0.09
15.75
0.71
0.85
0.81
0.83
9.25
3.24
320.71

93.8 0.01
98.9 0.00
99.3 0.00
91.3 0.52
96.0 0.01

2.16

0.10

0.12

0.11

0.11

1.27

0.44
51.7 43.89

24.0
23.2
19.2
18.9
17.9
13.2
46.0
53.5
59.5
64.3
25.1

9.2

26.2
23.5
19.4
20.7
19.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

26.3

3
0
0
0
1
0
260
0
6
0
747
105
118
10
164
10
173
9
193
12
835
88

94
10,566 11,706

3
0
1
260
6
852
128
174
183
205
924

22,272

0.0
9.2
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.1
0.0
9.5
0.0
6.4
12.4

8.1

6.0

5.2

6.0

9.6

52.6 187.4

6.9
6.8
5.9
5.8
6.2
5.1
12.4
12.6
12.8
13.0
7.1

3.5

7.5
6.9
5.9
6.4
6.5

6.8

0.93
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.23
0.00
79.79
0.00
1.96
0.00
289.12
0.11
31.72
0.01
38.52
0.01
37.37
0.01
39.04
0.01
236.92
0.03

15.80
3987.65 174.91

0.93
0.04
0.23
79.79
1.96
289.23
31.72
38.53
37.38
39.05
236.94

4162.56

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01

4.20

8.9
1.6
1.0
9.5
5.9

97.0

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

0.61
0.16
1.50
43.99
2.19
17.60
0.80
0.95
0.90
0.92
12.45
0.00
730.73
32.50

121

121

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

122

TableA.3.3:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheAZEP100

Stream,
j
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

m j

Tj

pj

E PH , j

E CH , j

E tot , j

cj

(kg/s)
710.1
710.1
14.0
654.2
654.2
299.2
299.2
355.0
355.0
654.2
654.2
654.2
654.2
654.2
654.2
654.2
654.2
654.2
99.3
99.3
100.0
79.6
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
79.6
44.0
44.0
19.7
19.7
0.7
20.4
20.4
20.4
64.1
64.1
49.8
49.8
64.1
64.1
63.7
63.7
99.3
7012.7
190.1
100.2
7102.6
44.0
35.5
35.5
99.3
49.8
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
49.8
69.9
69.9
69.9
69.9
69.9
69.9
69.9
39.6
30.3

(C)
15.00
392.97
15.00
1174.58
496.96
496.96
431.87
496.96
417.44
424.04
341.17
277.38
274.97
232.62
225.00
221.25
156.37
91.97
32.89
136.37
140.01
140.01
140.01
140.43
216.62
222.62
257.38
265.73
476.96
253.39
205.00
146.37
146.37
140.01
140.02
146.37
140.01
141.74
325.17
331.17
501.53
267.78
238.34
32.88
32.88
15.00
15.00
16.00
23.69
265.73
265.73
32.88
32.88
141.74
141.74
325.17
331.17
592.48
476.96
1276.25
1200.00
685.00
612.48
495.75
341.18
217.57
30.00
30.00

(bar)
1.01
17.01
50.00
17.00
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.06
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.03
3.73
3.62
3.62
3.62
3.62
25.13
24.38
24.38
23.16
23.16
22.00
4.10
4.10
4.32
4.32
3.62
4.32
4.32
3.62
134.56
130.53
130.53
124.00
23.16
4.10
0.05
0.05
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
23.16
23.16
0.05
0.05
134.56
134.56
130.53
130.53
124.00
124.00
16.48
16.47
1.05
1.05
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.01
1.01

(MW)
0.00
267.32
8.15
672.40
140.29
64.17
51.05
76.13
57.30
108.35
75.39
52.86
52.06
38.77
36.52
35.44
18.71
6.65
0.25
8.44
8.96
7.13
1.39
1.43
3.30
15.45
16.08
83.45
57.58
37.25
15.82
15.04
0.55
1.83
1.83
15.59
5.74
6.68
24.24
54.74
95.16
67.37
53.03
8.25
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.09
46.19
37.26
4.41
12.66
5.20
1.49
6.93
15.66
23.36
71.88
122.52
114.31
47.92
42.10
33.49
23.75
17.69
0.04
0.05

(MW)
1.11
1.11
721.47
1.45
1.45
0.66
0.66
0.79
0.79
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
1.45
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.20
0.11
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.25
10.92
0.47
0.25
10.20
0.11
0.09
0.09
0.25
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.12
12.33
12.33
12.33
12.33
12.33
12.33
12.33
12.25
0.08

(MW)
1.11
268.43
729.62
673.85
141.74
64.83
51.71
76.91
58.09
109.80
76.84
54.31
53.51
40.22
37.97
36.89
20.16
8.10
0.50
8.68
9.21
7.33
1.43
1.47
3.34
15.49
16.12
83.65
57.69
37.36
15.87
15.09
0.55
1.88
1.88
15.64
5.90
6.84
24.36
54.86
95.32
67.53
53.19
8.41
0.46
10.92
0.47
0.25
13.30
46.30
37.35
4.49
12.91
5.32
1.52
6.97
15.70
23.40
72.01
134.85
126.64
60.25
54.43
45.82
36.08
30.02
12.30
0.12

(/GJ)
0.0
22.7
9.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
19.2
0.0
29.4
35.8
36.3
36.3
36.3
38.4
31.7
26.0
26.3
23.7
24.0
24.0
29.9
29.6
29.6
36.3
36.7
29.6
36.3
36.7
27.8
25.1
23.2
23.2
25.8
25.8
25.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.7
23.7
23.7
25.1
36.7
36.7
21.0
18.5
17.9
24.8
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
0.0

bj

(/h) (Pts/GJ)
0
0.00
6,092
6.37
6,677
3.45
12,914
5.87
2,716
5.87
1,242
5.87
991
5.87
1,474
5.87
1,113
5.87
2,104
5.87
1,473
5.87
1,041
5.87
1,026
5.87
771
5.87
728
5.87
707
5.87
386
5.87
0
0.00
15
7.23
310
9.68
335
9.60
266
9.60
52
9.60
56
9.62
106
8.43
403
7.04
423
7.08
1,987
6.87
1,383
6.92
896
6.92
475
7.97
447
7.91
16
7.91
68
9.60
69
9.60
463
7.91
215
9.60
251
9.37
678
7.83
1,379
7.12
2,207
6.82
1,563
6.82
1,371
7.24
217
7.24
12
7.11
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
1,100
6.87
887
6.87
107
6.87
324
7.11
195
9.37
56
9.37
147
6.66
291
6.26
419
6.16
1,787
7.02
1,763
5.06
1,656
5.06
788
5.06
712
5.06
599
5.06
472
5.06
393
5.06
161
5.06
0
0.00

B j
(Pts/h)
0
6,153
9,072
14,238
2,995
1,370
1,093
1,625
1,227
2,320
1,624
1,148
1,131
850
802
780
426
0
13
302
318
253
49
51
101
393
411
2,068
1,438
931
455
430
16
65
65
445
204
231
687
1,405
2,339
1,657
1,387
219
12
0
0
0
0
1,145
923
111
330
180
51
167
354
519
1,819
2,458
2,308
1,098
992
835
657
547
224
0

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135

39.6
39.3
0.3
39.3
39.0
0.3
39.0
38.9
0.1
38.9
38.9
0.0
71.0
71.0
639.1
639.1
583.2
417.1
473.0
583.2
473.0
487.0
417.1
417.1
14.0
14.0
107.5
107.5
7407.9
7407.9
10018.2
2610.2
2502.7
2401.8
2290.1
2186.0
2186.0
9593.9
9698.1
9809.7
9910.7
10018.2
10018.2
104.2
104.2
111.6
111.6
101.0
101.0
35.5

137.96
40.00
40.00
151.81
40.00
40.00
152.95
40.00
40.00
154.99
30.00
30.00
523.80
392.97
392.97
900.00
1000.00
1060.92
964.88
1250.00
488.67
1276.25
1276.25
1286.89
250.00
15.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
22.88
23.69
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
45.81

3.22
3.21
3.21
10.22
10.21
10.21
32.46
32.45
32.45
103.09
103.09
103.09
17.00
17.01
17.01
17.00
17.00
17.09
17.02
17.00
16.99
16.48
16.48
17.10
16.99
17.00
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.01
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
0.10

3.35
12.25
2.55
12.25
0.00
0.00
5.93
12.25
4.98
12.26
0.00
0.00
8.33
12.26
7.42
12.27
0.00
0.00
10.77
12.27
9.84
12.28
0.00
0.00
32.85
0.11
26.73
0.11
240.59
0.99
489.45
0.99
502.67
1.43
597.85
73.62
579.28
71.77
643.28
1.43
319.20
71.77
854.10
85.95
731.58
73.62
739.89
73.62
8.25
721.47
5.90
721.47
0.00
0.27
0.10
0.27
0.32
18.50
3.51
18.50
5.70
25.02
2.32
6.52
2.22
6.25
2.13
6.00
2.03
5.72
1.94
5.46
0.09
5.46
0.42
23.96
0.42
24.22
0.43
24.50
0.43
24.76
0.07
25.02
0.43
25.02
0.00
0.26
0.09
0.26
0.00
0.28
0.10
0.28
0.00
0.25
0.09
0.25
7.20
0.09

C1

ST1

ST2

ST3

CONDP

LPP

HPP

IPP

GT1

GT2

C6

C21

C3

C4

C5

ST4

tot

15.60
14.80
0.00
18.19
17.24
0.00
20.59
19.69
0.00
23.05
22.12
0.00
32.96
26.84
241.58
490.44
504.10
671.47
651.06
644.71
390.97
940.04
805.20
813.51
729.72
727.37
0.27
0.36
18.83
22.02
30.73
8.84
8.48
8.13
7.76
7.40
5.56
24.38
24.65
24.93
25.19
25.10
25.46
0.26
0.35
0.28
0.38
0.26
0.34
7.29
280.47
25.82
19.06
38.70
0.05
0.00
1.10
0.06
232.04
63.11
8.59
3.96
4.08
4.07
4.13
24.83
377.52

45.8
45.8
0.0
53.3
53.3
0.0
59.4
59.4
0.0
64.3
0.0
0.0
21.8
22.7
22.7
19.1
19.9
13.6
13.6
18.9
13.6
13.1
13.1
13.6
9.3

20.6
27.2
28.6
34.5
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
20.6
15.2
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
37.7
22.0

715
678
0
970
920
0
1,223
1,170
0
1,481
0
0
719
609
5,483
9,365
10,047
9,112
8,835
12,195
5,306
12,291
10,528
11,040
6,755

5,777
703
544
1,334
1
0
24
1
4,780
959
324
150
154
154
156
937
8,292

123

12.34
12.34
0.00
12.54
12.54
0.00
12.80
12.80
0.00
13.03
0.00
0.00
6.45
6.37
6.37
5.89
5.96
5.12
5.12
5.80
5.12
5.06
5.06
5.12
3.49

6.09
7.53
7.55
8.77
6.41
6.41
6.41
6.41
6.09
5.33
9.89
9.89
9.89
9.89
9.89
9.89
6.41

693
657
0
821
779
0
949
908
0
1,081
0
0
765
615
5,538
10,407
10,819
12,366
11,990
13,473
7,200
17,133
14,675
14,982
9,178

6,153
700
518
1,222
1
0
25
1
5,091
1,210
306
141
145
145
147
884
8,713

MCM

84

CC

AIR HX

MCM LTHX

C6

FigureA.4.1:TheMCMreactor

MCM HTHX

CH4

From C1

To GT2

To GT1 or to DB

M4

MCM REACTOR

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
124

A.4:TheMCMreactor

81

C1

60

NGPH

CLC

58

62

55

56

40

M3

RH

55

GEN1

51

50

ST4

65

GEN3

EV II

GT1

GT2

64

61

SH II

: 53.7%, : 51.5%
Wnet: 376.0 MW

63

57

66

11

12

28

26

54

13

27

M4

HPEV

59

FG COND

M2

42

91

38

IPEV
14

35

LPP

HPST

41

68

34

33

30

43

97

25

24
15

23IPP

IPEC

22

32

31

53

16

36

LPEV

52

20

82

92

C3

GEN2

70

COND P

LPSH

M1

45

COND

44

LPST

71

COOL1

De-aerator

21

69

IPST

C2

HPP37

29

67

98

88

FigureA.5.1:StructureoftheCLCplant

IPSH

39

HPEC

10

90

HPSH

EC II

89

17

105

72

19

99

100

74

LPEC

COOL2

87

18

73

93

83

75

Chimney

C4

101

102

85

77

COOL3
76

84

46

CT

49

C5

47

86

48

94

78

103

104

96

CT P

COOL4

80

79

95

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
125

A.5:TheCLCplant

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

126

TableA.5.1:ResultsoftheeconomicanalysisfortheCLCplant
CLCplant

Calendar
Debt
Book
Year
year
beg.ofyear depreciation
1
2013
234,946,943 11,747,347
2
2014
222,419,917 11,747,347
3
2015
209,892,891 11,747,347
4
2016
197,365,866 11,747,347
5
2017
184,838,840 11,747,347
6
2018
172,311,814 11,747,347
7
2019
159,784,789 11,747,347
8
2020
147,257,763 11,747,347
9
2021
134,730,738 11,747,347
10
2022
122,203,712 11,747,347
11
2023
109,676,686 11,747,347
12
2024
97,149,661 11,747,347
84,622,635 11,747,347
13
2025
14
2026
72,095,609 11,747,347
15
2027
59,568,584 11,747,347
16
2028
47,041,558 11,747,347
17
2029
34,514,533 11,747,347
18
2030
25,885,899 11,747,347
19
2031
17,257,266 11,747,347
20
2032
8,628,633
11,747,347
21
2033
0
0

Total

2,342,194,338 234,946,943

Adjustment CommonEquity
Book
Adjustment
beg.ofyear depreciation

779,678
234,946,943
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
224,044,035
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
213,141,127
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
202,238,219
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
191,335,311
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
180,432,403
9,044,079
1,858,829
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
169,529,495
779,678
158,626,587
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
147,723,680
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
136,820,772
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
125,917,864
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
115,014,956
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
104,112,048
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
93,209,140
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
82,306,232
9,044,079
1,858,829
779,678
71,403,325
9,044,079
1,858,829
3,118,714
60,500,417
9,044,079
2,039,564
3,118,714
53,495,901
9,044,079
2,039,564
3,118,714
46,491,386
9,044,079
2,039,564
3,118,714
39,486,871
9,044,079
2,039,564
0
32,482,355
0
0

0
2,683,259,067 180,881,587 21,583,000

TCR

23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
23,429,933
15,633,149
15,633,149
15,633,149
15,633,149
0

437,411,530

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

127

E D ,k

y D ,k

Component,k (MW) (MW) (MW)

(%)

(%)

E F ,k

E P ,k

cP , k

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

fk

rk

(/GJ) (/GJ)

(/h)

(/h)

(/h)

(%)

(%)

cF ,k

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)

B D ,k Yk

f b ,k

rb ,k

(Pts/h)

(%)

(%)
4.9

C1

281.78 268.57 13.21 95.3

1.81

19.3

21.3

919

964

1,884

51.2

10.1

6.0

6.3

286.48

0.19

286.67

0.07

CLC

694.73 500.67 194.06 72.1 26.56

9.1

15.5

6,391

4,974

11,365

43.8

68.9

3.5

5.3

2418.44

2.54

2420.97

0.10 52.5

GT1

540.99 521.34 19.65 96.4

2.69

18.1

19.3

1,278

1,102

2,380

46.3

7.0

5.8

6.0

410.68

0.91

411.59

0.22

3.8

GT2

54.16

51.35

2.81

94.8

0.38

11.8

13.6

119

216

335

64.5

15.4

4.1

4.3

40.91

0.19

41.11

0.47

5.5

NGPH

6.32

1.12

5.20

17.7

0.71

11.8

69.1

220

10

231

4.4

487.2

4.1

22.9

75.87

0.01

75.88

0.01 465.6

HPSH

22.43

20.43

1.99

91.1

0.27

18.1

22.2

130

105

235

44.8

22.7

5.8

6.6

41.68

0.97

42.66

2.28 14.3

HPEV

35.74

32.97

2.77

92.2

0.38

18.1

21.5

180

140

320

43.7

19.2

5.8

6.5

57.88

0.12

58.00

0.21 12.1

HPEC

24.25

20.58

3.67

84.9

0.50

18.1

23.7

238

56

295

19.1

31.2

5.8

7.3

76.64

0.07

76.70

0.09 25.6

RH

16.60

14.36

2.24

86.5

0.31

18.1

23.4

146

54

199

26.9

29.4

5.8

7.1

46.85

0.45

47.30

0.95 22.6

IPSH

0.63

0.49

0.14

78.1

0.02

18.1

30.2

17

46.5

67.0

5.8

8.2

2.89

0.01

2.89

0.21 40.5

IPEV

11.97

11.00

0.97

91.9

0.13

18.1

22.8

63

91

154

58.9

26.1

5.8

6.5

20.33

0.07

20.41

0.35 12.8

IPEC

2.03

1.70

0.33

83.6

0.05

18.1

24.8

22

30

28.3

37.4

5.8

7.4

6.95

0.01

6.96

0.11 28.2
0.17 56.2

LPSH

1.12

0.81

0.32

71.9

0.04

18.1

33.4

20

13

34

39.7

84.8

5.8

9.1

6.59

0.01

6.60

LPEV

17.03

13.99

3.03

82.2

0.42

18.1

26.7

197

135

332

40.7

47.7

5.8

7.6

63.42

0.11

63.54

0.18 31.2

LPEC

11.28

7.52

3.76

66.6

0.51

18.1

34.4

245

73

317

22.9

90.7

5.8

10.0

78.65

0.09

78.74

0.11 72.1

SHII

0.48

0.42

0.05

88.6

0.01

11.8

16.9

62.0

43.9

4.1

4.9

0.79

0.02

0.81

2.64 21.2

EVII

2.03

1.93

0.10

95.2

0.01

11.8

14.4

11

15

71.8

22.0

4.1

4.4

1.42

0.01

1.43

0.43

ECII

1.47

1.20

0.27

81.8

0.04

11.8

17.0

11

14

18.2

44.6

4.1

5.5

3.89

0.00

3.90

0.05 36.1

HPST

24.14

22.41

1.73

92.8

0.24

22.9

26.6

143

103

246

41.9

15.7

6.9

7.6

42.83

0.23

43.06

0.54 10.6

IPST

22.98

21.57

1.41

93.9

0.19

23.3

27.3

118

148

266

55.7

17.3

7.0

7.6

35.22

0.23

35.44

0.64

LPST

48.80

42.17

6.63

86.4

0.91

24.6

32.5

587

387

974

39.7

32.0

7.2

8.8

172.69

0.36

173.05

0.21 21.3

27.0

8.3

9.0

20.73

15.66

5.06

75.6

0.69

23.2

36.5

424

157

580

57.2

6.9

10.0

125.88

0.18

126.07

0.15 44.3

0.04

0.03

0.01

78.6

0.00

20.9

75.2

89.0 259.6

6.3

8.7

0.21

0.00

0.21

0.13 38.3

HPP

0.98

0.84

0.14

85.3

0.02

20.9

35.7

11

29

40

72.7

70.9

6.3

7.8

3.26

0.00

3.26

0.01 24.3

IPP

0.05

0.04

0.02

70.1

0.00

20.9

98.6

10

87.9 371.8

6.3

10.0

0.35

0.00

0.35

0.02 60.0
0.48 71.1

LPP

0.00

0.00

0.00

66.5

0.00

20.9

359.7

96.8 1620.6

6.3

10.7

0.02

0.00

0.02

C1

3.85

3.24

0.61

84.1

0.08

36.5

165.8

80

314

394

79.6 353.6

10.0

40.4

21.92

0.12

22.04

0.54 305.3

C2

3.96

3.32

0.64

83.8

0.09

36.5

76.3

85

323

407

79.2 108.9

10.0

13.1

23.09

0.05

23.13

0.21 31.0

C3

3.91

3.27

0.64

83.5

0.09

36.5

78.8

85

318

403

79.0 115.8

10.0

13.5

23.08

0.02

23.10

0.10 35.5

C4

3.93

3.26

0.67

83.0

0.09

36.5

79.8

88

320

408

78.5 118.5

10.0

13.6

23.95

0.03

23.98

0.15 36.6

Deaerator

0.44

0.42

0.02

95.6

0.00

27.7

43.3

21

23

91.7

56.6

7.9

8.4

0.55

0.03

0.58

5.31

M1

0.85

0.79

0.06

92.5

0.01

23.3

25.9

0.0

11.4

7.0

7.7

1.60

0.00

1.60

0.00 11.1

6.3

127

ST4
CONDP

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.5.2:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheCLCplant

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

128

0.08

0.08

0.00

99.3

0.00

22.9

23.2

0.0

0.9

6.9

6.9

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.00

M3

1.99

1.97

0.02

99.1

0.00

18.1

18.3

0.0

1.4

7.0

7.6

1.18

0.00

1.18

0.00

8.8

M4

0.77

0.73

0.05

93.9

0.01

23.2

25.3

0.0

9.1

7.2

7.2

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

FGCOND
COOL1

22.36

20.31

2.78

11.8

866

69

935

7.4

4.1

297.82

0.09

297.91

0.77

0.69

0.09

28.7

71

79

10.8

8.1

19.88

0.01

19.89

COOL2

0.91

0.82

0.11

33.6

99

108

7.9

8.6

25.26

0.01

25.27

COOL3

0.85

0.77

0.10

37.9

104

112

6.9

9.0

24.85

0.01

24.86

COOL4

0.86

0.78

0.11

41.6

116

10

126

7.9

9.4

26.38

0.01

26.39

COND

11.52

8.57

1.17

24.3

749

68

818

8.3

7.2

220.83

0.02

220.86

CT

5.22

3.19

0.44

72

15.66

10,128 10,347

20,474

50.5 177.5

0.9

Total

730.73 375.99 307.41 51.5 42.07

9.2

25.4

3.5

6.8

3822.32

22.84

3845.17

Exergyloss

47.33

0.59 94.5

B kPF

856.41

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

M2

128

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

129

TableA.5.3:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheCLCplant

Stream,
j
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

m j

Tj

pj

(kg/s)
713.5
713.5
14.0
658.6
658.6
313.6
313.6
345.0
345.0
658.6
658.6
658.6
658.6
658.6
658.6
658.6
658.6
658.6
91.1
91.1
91.8
71.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
71.0
48.4
48.4
20.1
20.1
0.7
20.8
20.8
20.8
57.0
57.0
53.9
53.9
57.0
57.0
68.5
68.5
91.1
6785.2
184.7
96.9
6873.0
48.4
22.6
22.6
91.1
53.9
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
53.9
14.0
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
68.9
38.7
30.2

(C)
15.00
392.90
15.00
1200.00
517.40
517.40
439.94
517.40
421.11
430.09
341.18
272.65
270.73
232.62
225.76
221.92
156.37
97.65
32.89
136.37
140.01
140.01
140.01
140.42
216.62
222.62
252.65
257.27
497.40
268.87
205.76
146.37
146.37
140.01
140.02
146.37
140.01
141.73
325.17
331.17
489.03
258.42
250.24
32.88
32.88
15.00
15.00
16.00
23.79
257.27
257.27
32.88
32.88
141.73
141.73
325.17
331.17
368.91
497.40
300.00
932.20
486.70
388.91
381.19
346.18
319.31
30.00
30.00

(bar)
1.01
17.00
50.00
16.49
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.06
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.03
3.73
3.62
3.62
3.62
3.62
25.13
24.38
24.38
23.16
23.16
22.00
4.10
4.10
4.32
4.32
3.62
4.32
4.32
3.62
134.56
130.53
130.53
124.00
23.16
4.10
0.05
0.05
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
23.16
23.16
0.05
0.05
134.56
134.56
130.53
130.53
124.00
124.00
17.00
16.49
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.01
1.01

E PH , j E CH , j E tot , j
(MW)
0.00
268.57
8.15
691.60
150.61
71.72
55.12
78.89
56.46
111.56
75.83
51.58
50.95
38.98
36.95
35.83
18.80
7.52
0.23
7.74
8.23
6.37
1.26
1.29
2.99
13.99
14.48
73.78
64.62
41.63
16.16
15.35
0.50
1.86
1.86
15.85
5.11
5.95
26.20
59.16
83.43
59.29
57.73
8.93
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.07
50.26
23.51
2.79
11.72
5.62
0.33
1.53
3.46
3.89
79.59
9.27
86.91
32.75
26.43
25.95
23.92
22.45
0.04
0.05

(MW)
1.11
1.11
721.47
1.43
1.43
0.68
0.68
0.75
0.75
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
1.43
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.18
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.18
0.12
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.23
10.56
0.46
0.24
9.88
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.23
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
721.47
26.42
26.42
26.42
26.42
26.42
26.42
26.34
0.08

(MW)
1.11
269.68
729.62
693.03
152.04
72.40
55.80
79.64
57.21
113.00
77.26
53.02
52.39
40.41
38.38
37.26
20.23
8.95
0.46
7.97
8.46
6.54
1.29
1.33
3.03
14.03
14.52
73.95
64.74
41.76
16.21
15.40
0.50
1.91
1.91
15.91
5.25
6.09
26.33
59.30
83.57
59.43
57.90
9.10
0.42
10.56
0.46
0.24
12.94
50.38
23.57
2.85
11.95
5.75
0.34
1.54
3.47
3.89
79.73
730.74
113.32
59.17
52.85
52.37
50.34
48.87
26.39
0.12

cj

bj

B j

(/GJ)
0.0
21.2
9.2
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
18.1
0.0
28.1
34.1
34.5
34.5
34.5
36.2
29.8
24.3
24.5
23.2
23.3
23.3
27.9
27.7
27.7
34.5
34.8
27.7
34.5
34.7
26.1
23.6
22.9
22.9
24.6
24.6
24.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.2
23.2
23.2
24.3
34.7
34.7
20.9
17.3
17.2
23.2
9.2
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
0.0

(/h)
0
20,571
24,037
45,058
9,885
4,707
3,628
5,178
3,720
7,348
5,024
3,448
3,407
2,628
2,496
2,423
1,316
0
46
978
1,050
813
160
173
325
1,227
1,280
6,189
5,424
3,499
1,630
1,533
50
238
240
1,584
652
760
2,473
5,030
6,903
4,909
5,131
807
37
0
0
0
0
4,216
1,973
238
1,045
718
42
116
215
241
6,660
24,315
4,802
2,507
2,239
2,219
2,133
2,071
1,118
0

(Pts/GJ)
0.0
6.3
3.5
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
0.0
7.3
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.8
8.5
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
9.7
9.7
7.9
9.7
9.5
7.8
7.1
6.9
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.2
9.5
9.5
6.4
5.3
5.2
7.0
3.5
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
0.0

(Pts/h)
0
1,697
2,520
4,023
882
420
324
462
332
656
449
308
304
235
223
216
117
0
3
78
82
64
13
13
26
98
102
511
450
290
129
121
4
19
19
125
51
58
205
419
575
409
419
66
3
0
0
0
0
348
163
20
86
55
3
10
18
20
555
2,546
459
240
214
212
204
198
107
0

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120

38.7
38.4
0.3
38.4
38.1
0.3
38.1
38.0
0.1
38.0
38.0
0.0
14.0
6859.0
6859.0
9693.2
2834.2
2731.6
2634.5
2525.9
2424.5
2424.5
9283.5
9384.9
9493.5
9590.6
9693.2
9693.2
101.4
101.4
108.6
108.6
97.1
97.1
102.6
102.6
22.6

136.22
40.00
40.00
149.82
40.00
40.00
149.84
40.00
40.00
150.79
30.00
30.00
15.00
16.00
22.88
23.79
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
26.00
45.81

3.22
3.21
3.21
10.22
10.21
10.21
32.46
32.45
32.45
103.09
103.09
103.09
17.02
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.01
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
0.10

3.28
2.51
0.00
5.83
4.91
0.00
8.18
7.32
0.00
10.58
9.70
0.00
5.90
0.30
3.25
5.64
2.52
2.43
2.34
2.24
2.15
0.11
0.40
0.41
0.41
0.42
0.07
0.42
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.09
4.56

26.34
26.34
0.00
26.34
26.35
0.00
26.35
26.36
0.00
26.36
26.37
0.00
721.47
17.13
17.13
24.21
7.08
6.82
6.58
6.31
6.06
6.06
23.19
23.44
23.71
23.96
24.21
24.21
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.26
0.06
C1
ST1
ST2
ST3
CONDP
LPP
HPP
IPP
GT1
GT2
C2
C2
C3
C4
ST4
tot

29.63
28.85
0.00
32.17
31.26
0.00
34.53
33.68
0.00
36.94
36.08
0.00
727.37
17.43
20.39
29.85
9.60
9.25
8.92
8.55
8.21
6.16
23.59
23.85
24.13
24.37
24.28
24.63
0.26
0.34
0.28
0.37
0.25
0.33
0.26
0.35
4.61
281.78
22.41
21.57
42.17
0.04
0.00
0.98
0.05
239.56
51.35
3.85
3.96
3.91
3.93
15.66
375.99

28.6
28.6
0.0
33.5
33.5
0.0
37.8
37.8
0.0
41.5
0.0
0.0

19.3
26.6
27.3
32.5
20.9
20.9
20.9
20.9
19.3
13.6
36.5
36.5
36.5
36.5
36.5
20.9

3,053
2,973
0
3,886
3,775
0
4,703
4,587
0
5,525
0
0

19,606
2,142
2,121
4,933
3
0
74
4
16,669
2,511
507
521
514
517
2,061
28,295

130

8.0
8.0
0.0
8.5
8.5
0.0
9.0
9.0
0.0
9.4
0.0
0.0

6.0
7.6
7.6
8.8
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
4.3
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
6.3

238
232
0
275
267
0
311
304
0
348
0
0

1,697
171
163
370
0
0
6
0
1,443
219
38
39
39
39
156
2,360

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

131

TableA.5.4:SplittingtheexergydestructionintheCLCplant(MW)
Component,k
C1
CLC
GT1
GT2
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C1
C2
C3
C4
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND
CT
MOT1
MOT2
MOT3
MOT4
GEN1
GEN2
GEN3
Total
Total(%)

EDreal
EDEN, k EDEX, k EDAV, k
,k

EDUN, k

EDUN, k, EN

13.21
194.06
16.01
2.02
5.20
1.99
2.77
3.67
2.24
0.14
0.97
0.33
0.32
3.03
3.76
0.05
0.10
0.27
1.39
1.08
5.99
5.06
0.00
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.61
0.64
0.64
0.67
20.31
0.69
0.82
0.77
0.78
8.57
3.06
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.01
1.31
3.65
0.78
307.13

7.27
129.34
8.31
0.81
5.17
1.31
1.98
2.72
1.55
0.03
0.57
0.23
0.11
2.20
2.11
0.02
0.05
0.14
0.66
0.62
3.51
0.74
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.43
1.20
0.26

4.26
109.49
6.33
0.60
2.84
0.57
1.03
1.55
1.00
0.03
0.46
0.23
0.05
1.24
1.13
0.01
0.03
0.10
0.37
0.45
2.53
0.41
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10

0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.33
1.32
0.21

7.79
166.54
13.00
1.49
2.98
0.66
1.26
1.86
1.35
0.15
0.85
0.21
0.17
1.52
2.26
0.02
0.04
0.16
0.81
0.81
4.33
2.82
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.43
0.47
0.47
0.49
14.84
0.31
0.40
0.37
0.36
5.62
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.99
3.99
0.62
242.77
79.04

5.42
27.52
3.01
0.54
2.22
1.33
1.51
1.80
0.89
0.01
0.12
0.12
0.14
1.52
1.50
0.03
0.05
0.11
0.57
0.27
1.66
2.25
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.18
5.47
0.38
0.42
0.39
0.41
2.95
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.32
0.34
0.16
64.36
20.96

5.94
64.72
7.69
1.21
0.04
0.68
0.79
0.94
0.69
0.11
0.40
0.10
0.21
0.83
1.65
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.73
0.45
2.48
4.32
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.46
0.50
0.50
0.52

0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.88
2.44
0.52

EDUN, k, EX
3.01
19.85
1.98
0.22
2.33
0.74
0.95
1.17
0.55
0.00
0.11
0.01
0.06
0.97
0.98
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.29
0.17
0.97
0.33
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04

0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.11
0.05

EDAV, k , EN

EDAV, k , EX

3.53
57.05
6.67
0.89
0.14
0.09
0.23
0.31
0.34
0.11
0.39
0.02
0.13
0.28
1.14
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.44
0.36
1.79
2.40
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.33
0.36
0.37
0.38

0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.67
2.67
0.42

2.41
7.67
1.03
0.32
0.10
0.59
0.56
0.63
0.34
0.00
0.01
0.12
0.08
0.55
0.52
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.28
0.10
0.69
1.92
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14

0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.21
0.23
0.11

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

132

TableA.5.5:SplittingtheinvestmentcostrateintheCLCplant(/h)

Z kAV

Component,k

Z kreal

Z kUN

Z kAV

Z kEN

Z kEX

C1
CLC
GT1
GT2
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C1
C2
C3
C4
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND

964.4
4974.5
1102.2
215.8
10.2
105.2
139.7
56.3
53.6
7.8
90.7
8.6
13.5
135.2
72.5
3.8
10.5
2.5
102.8
148.5
386.9
156.5
5.6
28.9
8.4
2.0
313.8
322.8
318.4
320.0
69.1
8.6
8.5
7.7
10.0
10.2

819.7
3979.6
992.0
194.2
2.7
40.6
71.4
30.3
25.0
2.5
38.5
4.1
5.0
64.8
35.0
1.2
5.4
1.6
92.5
133.6
348.2
140.9
4.8
24.6
7.2
1.7
266.7
274.3
270.7
272.0

144.7
994.9
110.2
21.6
7.6
64.6
68.3
26.0
28.6
5.3
52.2
4.5
8.5
70.4
37.5
2.6
5.2
0.9
10.3
14.8
38.7
15.7
0.8
4.3
1.3
0.3
47.1
48.4
47.8
48.0

564.7
4211.1
839.6
158.5
5.6
46.0
72.7
32.1
34.7
8.9
73.2
8.3
6.0
75.8
38.8
1.9
5.4
1.8
57.8
107.5
279.8
86.5
4.1
15.3
7.1
0.0
216.8
230.7
228.8
230.3

399.7
763.3
262.6
57.3
4.6

59.2
67.0
24.2
18.9
1.1
17.5
0.2

7.5

59.3
33.8
1.8

5.2

0.7

45.0
40.9
107.1
70.1
1.5

13.6
1.3

2.0

97.0
92.0
89.6
89.7

Z kUN

Z kAV , EN

Z kAV , EX

84.7
842.2
84.0
15.8
4.2
28.2
35.5
14.9
18.5
6.0
42.1
4.3
3.8
39.5
20.1
1.3
2.6
0.6
5.8
10.8
28.0
8.6
0.6
2.3
1.1
0.0
32.5
34.6
34.3
34.5

59.9
152.7
26.3
5.7
3.4
36.4
32.7
11.2
10.1
0.7
10.0
0.1
4.7
30.9
17.5
1.3
2.6
0.2
4.5
4.1
10.7
7.0
0.2
2.0
0.2
0.3
14.6
13.8
13.4
13.5

Z kUN , EN

Z kUN , EX

480.0
3368.9
755.6
142.6
1.5
17.8
37.2
17.3
16.2
2.8
31.1
4.0
2.2
36.3
18.7
0.6
2.7
1.2
52.0
96.8
251.8
77.8
3.5
13.0
6.1
0.0
184.3
196.1
194.5
195.7

339.7
610.7
236.4
51.6
1.2
22.9
34.3
13.0
8.8
0.3
7.4
0.1
2.8
28.4
16.3
0.6
2.6
0.4
40.5
36.8
96.4
63.1
1.3
11.6
1.1
1.7
82.5
78.2
76.2
76.3

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

133

TableA.5.6:SplittingthecostrateofexergydestructionintheCLCplant(/h)

C Dreal
,k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k

Component,k
C1
CLC
GT1
GT2
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C1
C2
C3
C4
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND

919.2
6390.8
1277.8
118.9
220.5
129.7
180.1
238.5
145.8
9.0
63.3
21.6
20.5
197.3
244.7
2.3
4.1
11.3
142.8
117.9
587.3
423.8
0.7
10.9
1.2
0.1
80.4
84.7
84.6
87.8
952.8
79.8
110.3
115.5
129.3
1007.8

506.0
4259.4
540.4
34.5
5.7
85.3
129.0
177.0
38.9
2.0
37.1
15.1
7.1
143.3
137.2
0.7
2.1
5.8
54.6
52.3
310.7
62.3
0.1
2.3
0.1
0.0
19.6
19.5
19.2
19.2

413.2
2131.4
737.4
84.4
214.8
44.4
51.1
61.4
106.9
7.0
26.2
6.5
13.4
54.0
107.5
1.6
2.0
5.5
88.2
65.6
276.7
361.5
0.6
8.6
1.1
0.1
60.8
65.2
65.4
68.7

C DEN, k
542.0
5484.5
845.2
63.0
126.3
43.0
81.9
121.2
87.7
9.5
55.2
13.7
11.3
98.7
147.3
0.9
1.9
6.7
67.2
67.7
383.6
235.6
0.2
3.6
0.6
0.0
56.9
61.6
61.8
64.3
632.3
32.1
48.0
50.6
54.3
491.2

C DEX, k
377.2
906.3
432.6
55.9
94.2
86.7
98.2
117.2
58.1
0.5
8.1
7.9
9.2
98.6
97.4
1.4
2.2
4.6
75.6
50.2
203.8
188.2
0.5
7.3
0.6
0.1
23.5
23.1
22.8
23.6
320.5
47.6
62.3
64.9
75.0
516.7

C DAV, k

C DUN, k

C DAV, k , EN

C DAV, k , EX

245.7
1878.7
433.5
37.6
5.9
5.8
14.7
20.3
22.4
7.3
25.3
1.0
8.2
18.3
74.0
0.6
0.8
2.5
36.5
29.8
158.9
201.2
0.1
2.4
0.5
0.0
43.4
47.6
48.0
50.5

167.5
252.7
303.9
46.8
208.9
38.7
36.3
41.1
84.5
0.2
0.9
7.5
5.2
35.7
33.6
1.0
1.2
3.0
51.7
35.8
117.8
160.3
0.5
6.2
0.6
0.1
17.4
17.6
17.4
18.2

C DUN, k, EN

C DUN, k, EX

296.3
3605.8
411.7
25.3
120.4
37.3
67.2
101.0
65.3
2.2
29.9
14.7
3.1
80.4
73.3
0.3
1.1
4.3
30.7
37.9
224.6
34.4
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.0
13.6
13.9
13.8
13.8

209.7
653.6
128.8
9.2
114.7
48.0
61.9
76.1
26.4
0.3
7.1
0.4
3.9
62.9
63.9
0.3
1.0
1.6
23.9
14.4
86.0
27.9
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
6.1
5.6
5.4
5.4

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

134

TableA.5.7:SplittingtheenvironmentalimpactofexergydestructionintheCLCplant(Pts/h)

Component,k
C1
CLC
GT1
GT2
NGPH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
C1
C2
C3
C4
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND

B Dreal
,k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k

79.6
671.8
114.1
11.4
21.1
11.6
16.1
21.3
13.0
0.8
5.6
1.9
1.8
17.6
21.8
0.2
0.4
1.1
11.9
9.8
48.0
35.0
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.0
6.1
6.4
6.4
6.7
91.1
6.2
7.8
7.6
8.1
82.5

43.8
447.7
48.2
3.3
0.5
7.6
11.5
15.8
3.5
0.2
3.3
1.3
0.6
12.8
12.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
4.6
4.3
25.4
5.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

35.8
224.0
65.8
8.1
20.5
4.0
4.6
5.5
9.5
0.6
2.3
0.6
1.2
4.8
9.6
0.2
0.2
0.5
7.3
5.4
22.6
29.8
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.2

B DEN, k
46.9
576.5
75.5
6.0
12.1
3.8
7.3
10.8
7.8
0.8
4.9
1.2
1.0
8.8
13.1
0.1
0.2
0.6
5.6
5.6
31.3
19.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
4.3
4.7
4.7
4.9
60.4
2.5
3.4
3.3
3.4
40.2

B DEX, k
32.7
95.3
38.6
5.3
9.0
7.7
8.8
10.5
5.2
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
8.8
8.7
0.1
0.2
0.4
6.3
4.2
16.6
15.5
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
30.6
3.7
4.4
4.3
4.7
42.3

B DAV, k

B DUN, k

B DAV, k , EN

B DAV, k , EX

21.3
197.5
38.7
3.6
0.6
0.5
1.3
1.8
2.0
0.6
2.3
0.1
0.7
1.6
6.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
3.0
2.5
13.0
16.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.8

14.5
26.6
27.1
4.5
20.0
3.5
3.2
3.7
7.5
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.5
3.2
3.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
4.3
3.0
9.6
13.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4

B DUN, k, EN

B DUN, k, EX

25.7
379.0
36.8
2.4
11.5
3.3
6.0
9.0
5.8
0.2
2.7
1.3
0.3
7.2
6.5
0.0
0.1
0.4
2.6
3.1
18.3
2.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0

18.2
68.7
11.5
0.9
11.0
4.3
5.5
6.8
2.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.4
5.6
5.7
0.0
0.1
0.1
2.0
1.2
7.0
2.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4

C1

103

105

CC

102

104

106

GT1

40

RH

39

M3

GEN1

10

IPSH

40

12

26

13

38

HPEC

11

HPEV

28

HPSH

27

IPEV

M2

29

14

35

LPP
M

33

22
37

21

HPP

34

25

15

IPEC

24

32

IPP

43

23

IPST

77

De-aerator

HPST

41

42

76

45

71

19

67

101

17

LPEC

M4

ST5

72

83

C2
18

46

94

47

COOL
CAU

30

107
66

69

49

93

48

C3

FigureA.6.1:StructureoftheMEAplant

36

16

20

44
68

73

ST4

75

LPEV

COND P

LPSH

31

M1

74

GEN2

COND

LPST

70

50

96

COOL1

95

52

51

92

C4

85

Chimney

53

98

97

91

55

86

COOL2 C5
54

MEA-0
: 47.8%, : 45.8%
Wnet: 334.6 MW

MEA-0.2
: 50.5%, : 48.4%
Wnet: 353.8 MW

56

100

99

58

COOL3 57

90

C6

87

82

59

88

89

80

79

62

78

61

64

CT P

63

60

CT

COOL4

81

65

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
135

A.6:TheMEAplant

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

136

TableA.6.1:ResultsoftheyearbyyeareconomicanalysisforMEA0.2
Ref.Plant

Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Total

Calendaryear
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033

Debt
Book
Adjustment
beg.ofyear depreciation

213,525,868
10,676,293
703,303
202,146,272
10,676,293
703,303
190,766,675
10,676,293
703,303
179,387,078
10,676,293
703,303
168,007,482
10,676,293
703,303
156,627,885
10,676,293
703,303
145,248,289
10,676,293
703,303
133,868,692
10,676,293
703,303
122,489,095
10,676,293
703,303
111,109,499
10,676,293
703,303
99,729,902
10,676,293
703,303
88,350,306
10,676,293
703,303
76,970,709
10,676,293
703,303
65,591,112
10,676,293
703,303
54,211,516
10,676,293
703,303
42,831,919
10,676,293
703,303
31,452,323
10,676,293
2,813,213
23,589,242
10,676,293
2,813,213
15,726,161
10,676,293
2,813,213
7,863,081
10,676,293
2,813,213
0
0
0

2,129,493,106 213,525,868
0

CommonEquity
Book
Adjustment
beg.ofyear
depreciation

213,525,868
8,078,458
1,677,021
203,770,389
8,078,458
1,677,021
194,014,911
8,078,458
1,677,021
184,259,432
8,078,458
1,677,021
174,503,953
8,078,458
1,677,021
164,748,474
8,078,458
1,677,021
8,078,458
1,677,021
154,992,995
145,237,516
8,078,458
1,677,021
135,482,037
8,078,458
1,677,021
125,726,559
8,078,458
1,677,021
115,971,080
8,078,458
1,677,021
106,215,601
8,078,458
1,677,021
96,460,122
8,078,458
1,677,021
86,704,643
8,078,458
1,677,021
76,949,164
8,078,458
1,677,021
67,193,686
8,078,458
1,677,021
57,438,207
8,078,458
1,839,495
51,199,244
8,078,458
1,839,495
44,960,281
8,078,458
1,839,495
38,721,318
8,078,458
1,839,495
32,482,355
0
0

2,470,557,835
161,569,166
19,474,347

TCR

21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
21,135,075
14,102,044
14,102,044
14,102,044
14,102,044
0

394,569,381

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

137

TableA.6.2:ResultsoftheyearbyyeareconomicanalysisforMEA0
Ref.Plant

Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Total

Calendaryear
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033

Debt
Book
Adjustment
beg.ofyear depreciation

209,287,081
10,464,354
688,190
198,134,537
10,464,354
688,190
186,981,993
10,464,354
688,190
175,829,449
10,464,354
688,190
164,676,905
10,464,354
688,190
153,524,360
10,464,354
688,190
142,371,816
10,464,354
688,190
131,219,272
10,464,354
688,190
120,066,728
10,464,354
688,190
108,914,184
10,464,354
688,190
97,761,640
10,464,354
688,190
86,609,096
10,464,354
688,190
75,456,552
10,464,354
688,190
64,304,008
10,464,354
688,190
53,151,464
10,464,354
688,190
41,998,920
10,464,354
688,190
30,846,376
10,464,354
2,752,760
23,134,782
10,464,354
2,752,760
15,423,188
10,464,354
2,752,760
7,711,594
10,464,354
2,752,760
0
0
0

2,087,403,945 209,287,081
0

CommonEquity
Book
Adjustment
beg.ofyear
depreciation

209,287,081
7,887,380
1,641,047
199,758,654
7,887,380
1,641,047
190,230,228
7,887,380
1,641,047
180,701,802
7,887,380
1,641,047
171,173,376
7,887,380
1,641,047
161,644,949
7,887,380
1,641,047
7,887,380
1,641,047
152,116,523
142,588,097
7,887,380
1,641,047
133,059,670
7,887,380
1,641,047
123,531,244
7,887,380
1,641,047
114,002,818
7,887,380
1,641,047
104,474,391
7,887,380
1,641,047
94,945,965
7,887,380
1,641,047
85,417,539
7,887,380
1,641,047
75,889,113
7,887,380
1,641,047
66,360,686
7,887,380
1,641,047
56,832,260
7,887,380
1,799,904
50,744,784
7,887,380
1,799,904
44,657,308
7,887,380
1,799,904
38,569,831
7,887,380
1,799,904
32,482,355
0
0

2,428,468,674
157,747,595
19,057,131

TCR

20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
20,680,970
13,799,070
13,799,070
13,799,070
13,799,070
0

386,091,806

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

138

E P ,k

E D ,k

(MW)
242.68
729.62
551.15
35.06
43.64
28.92
26.46
0.18
6.10
1.06
1.43
19.02
11.57
31.29
2.62
40.94
19.39
15.39
0.04
1.12
0.03
0.00
0.46
18.53
4.33
3.45
3.44
3.49
1.40
0.63
0.18
3.11
59.28
9.50
2.30
0.80
0.75
0.78
7.03
3.06
730.58
27.62

(MW)
231.30
508.76
530.67
31.72
39.91
24.91
23.89
0.12
5.67
0.87
1.05
15.47
7.81
29.18
2.46
35.38
18.54
14.71
0.04
0.96
0.02
0.00
0.44
16.93
3.78
2.86
2.82
2.83
1.26
0.58
0.18
2.96

353.82

(MW)
11.38
220.87
20.47
3.34
3.73
4.01
2.57
0.06
0.43
0.19
0.38
3.54
3.76
2.11
0.15
5.56
0.85
0.68
0.01
0.16
0.01
0.00
0.02
1.59
0.55
0.59
0.61
0.66
0.14
0.04
0.00
0.15
40.59
8.54
2.15
0.72
0.68
0.70
5.23
1.88
349.14

1270.3

y D ,k

(%) (%)
95.3 1.56
69.7 30.23
96.3 2.80
90.5 0.46
91.4 0.51
86.1 0.55
90.3 0.35
69.0 0.01
92.9 0.06
82.5 0.03
73.3 0.05
81.4 0.49
67.5 0.51
93.2 0.29
94.2 0.02
86.4 0.76
95.6 0.12
95.6 0.09
78.8 0.00
85.4 0.02
61.0 0.00
71.8 0.00
95.6 0.00
91.4 0.22
87.3 0.08
82.9 0.08
82.1 0.08
81.1 0.09
89.7 0.02
92.9 0.01
99.9 0.00
95.0 0.02

5.56

1.17

0.29

0.10

0.09

0.10

0.72

0.26
48.4 47.79

C D ,k

Z k

C D ,k Z k

(/GJ) (/GJ) (/h)


16.9
19.4
691
9.2
13.7
7,276
15.4
16.9
1,137
15.4
18.9
185
15.4
18.6
207
15.4
19.6
223
15.4
18.9
143
15.4
33.3
3
15.4
20.1
24
15.4
21.3
10
15.4
27.8
21
15.4
23.1
197
15.4
28.5
209
19.7
22.6
150
19.6
23.5
11
21.4
27.8
428
19.6
22.5
60
19.6
22.4
48
18.5
80.0
1
18.5
34.2
11
18.5
140.4
1
18.5
421.7
0
23.9
42.1
2
22.5
43.6
129
22.4
132.9
44
22.4
100.1
48
22.4
77.0
49
22.4
77.4
53
19.6
21.9
10
19.7
21.2
3
15.4
15.4
0
21.4
22.5
12
23.7

3,463
29.7

914
55.7

432
64.0

166
66.0

162
67.6

171
21.8

410

9.2
26.3 11,502

(/h)
1,396
997
1,595
155
181
88
109
4
64
5
19
171
94
122
21
296
114
86
7
40
8
2
27
1,159
439
350
348
354
0
0
0
0
1,023
59
10
8
7
9
54
18
9,440

(/h)
2,086
8,273
2,732
341
389
310
252
7
88
15
40
368
303
272
31
723
174
134
8
51
8
3
29
1,288
483
398
398
406
10
3
0
12
4,486
974
441
174
170
180
464

20,942

cF ,k

cP , k

fk

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(%)
(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)
66.9 14.9
6.1
6.4
249.98
0.24
12.0 49.4
3.5
5.6
2746.20
0.38
58.4
9.3
5.9
6.1
433.06
1.13
45.6 22.6
5.9
6.7
70.64
1.24
46.7 20.4
5.9
6.6
78.95
0.13
28.2 27.3
5.9
7.1
84.77
0.09
43.3 22.2
5.9
6.7
54.34
0.79
56.0 115.7
5.9
9.2
1.17
0.00
72.8 30.3
5.9
6.4
9.13
0.04
33.0 38.2
5.9
7.5
3.93
0.00
47.4 80.4
5.9
8.6
8.10
0.01
46.4 49.8
5.9
7.6
74.98
0.12
31.0 84.5
5.9
9.5
79.59
0.10
44.9 14.9
6.9
7.5
52.44
0.28
65.7 19.5
6.8
7.4
3.76
0.10
40.9 30.0
7.2
8.6
144.91
0.32
65.4 14.4
6.8
7.2
21.04
0.20
64.2 14.0
6.8
7.2
16.70
0.18
91.7 333.3
6.5
8.7
0.22
0.00
78.8 85.2
6.5
7.9
3.83
0.00
90.3 660.4
0.5
10.7
0.02
0.00
98.1 2183.8
78.1
19.4
0.21
0.00
94.0 76.5
7.8
8.2
0.56
0.04
90.0 94.0
7.2
8.0
41.57
3.78
90.8 493.8
7.2
25.8
14.36
0.70
88.0 347.2
7.2
16.3
15.40
0.28
87.6 244.3
7.2
11.5
15.99
0.14
11.4
17.13
0.20
87.0 245.7
7.2
0.0
11.5
6.8
7.6
3.56
0.00
0.0
7.6
6.9
7.4
1.10
0.00
0.0
0.1
5.9
5.9
0.00
0.00
0.0
5.2
7.2
7.6
4.02
0.00
22.8

6.9

1006.53
1.75
6.1

6.9

213.65
0.06
2.2

11.7

90.74
0.01
4.6

12.6

32.59
0.01
4.3

12.4

30.43
0.01
5.0

12.2

30.90
0.01
11.7

7.4

138.99
0.01

9.31
45.1 187.0
3.5
7.6
4341.17 21.63

B D ,k Yk
(Pts/h)
250.22
2746.59
434.18
71.89
79.07
84.86
55.13
1.17
9.17
3.94
8.12
75.10
79.68
52.72
3.86
145.23
21.25
16.87
0.22
3.83
0.02
0.21
0.60
45.35
15.05
15.68
16.13
17.34
3.56
1.10
0.00
4.02
1008.28
213.71
90.74
32.59
30.44
30.91
139.00

4362.80

f b ,k

rb ,k

(%)
(%)
0.09
4.9
0.01
63.5
0.26
3.9
1.73
13.5
0.16
11.9
0.11
20.4
1.42
13.8
0.17
57.1
0.41
9.7
0.08
27.0
0.16
46.4
0.16
29.1
0.12
61.2
0.53
8.9
2.53
7.8
0.22
19.2
0.95
5.7
1.05
5.7
0.13
33.6
0.01
21.4
0.11 1886.0
0.05 75.1
5.87
5.8
8.33
10.3
4.62 256.9
1.81 125.2
0.86
58.3
1.18
57.5
0.00
11.5
0.00
7.6
0.00
0.1
0.00
5.2
0.17

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.50 120.7

138

B kPF

E F ,k

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
ST5
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
Deaerator
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
M1
M2
M3
M4
CAU
COOLCAU
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.6.3:ResultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0.2

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

139

E P ,k

E D ,k

k y D ,k

(MW)
231.30
508.76
530.67
31.72
39.91
24.91
23.89
0.12
5.67
0.87
1.05
15.47
7.81
29.18
3.23
15.42
18.54
13.93
0.04
0.96
0.02
0.00
0.44
16.93
3.00
2.86
2.82
2.83
0.26
0.58
0.18
2.32

334.63

(MW)
11.38
220.87
20.47
3.34
3.73
4.01
2.57
0.06
0.43
0.19
0.38
3.54
3.76
2.11
0.20
2.42
0.85
0.64
0.01
0.16
0.01
0.00
0.02
1.59
0.54
0.59
0.61
0.66
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.11
67.95
8.54
0.90
0.72
0.68
0.70
2.25
1.17
368.27

(%) (%)
95.3 1.56
69.7 30.23
96.3 2.80
90.5 0.46
91.4 0.51
86.1 0.55
90.3 0.35
69.0 0.01
92.9 0.06
82.5 0.03
73.3 0.05
81.4 0.49
67.5 0.51
93.2 0.29
94.2 0.03
86.4 0.33
95.6 0.12
95.6 0.09
78.8 0.00
85.4 0.02
61.0 0.00
71.8 0.00
95.6 0.00
91.4 0.22
84.6 0.07
82.9 0.08
82.1 0.08
81.1 0.09
88.5 0.00
92.9 0.01
99.9 0.00
95.5 0.02

9.30

1.17

0.12

0.10

0.09

0.10

0.31

0.16
45.8 50.41

1268.4

cP ,k C D ,k
cF ,k
(/GJ) (/GJ) (/h)
16.9
19.4
690
9.2
13.7
7,276
15.4
16.9
1,137
15.4
18.7
185
15.4
18.4
207
15.4
19.3
223
15.4
18.6
143
15.4
32.2
3
15.4
19.9
24
15.4
20.8
10
15.4
27.0
21
15.4
22.6
197
15.4
27.3
209
19.4
22.1
147
19.3
22.5
14
22.9
29.3
200
19.3
22.1
59
19.3
22.1
45
17.9
78.7
1
17.9
33.2
11
17.9
139.4
1
17.9
405.7
0
23.3
41.4
2
22.1
43.2
127
22.1
153.7
43
22.1
78.6
47
22.1
77.2
49
22.1
77.6
52
19.3
21.8
2
19.4
20.8
3
15.4
15.4
0
22.9
24.0
9
22.1

5,417
29.5

908
56.7

184
60.8

157
63.4

156
65.4

165
23.4

190

9.2
27.6 12,133

Z k

C D ,k Z k

fk

(/h)
1,395
997
1,595
155
181
87
109
4
64
5
19
171
94
127
21
134
118
89
7
40
8
2
27
1,159
365
356
354
360
0
0
0
0
1,086
60
8
8
7
9
26
11
9,257

(/h)
2,086
8,273
2,732
340
389
310
252
7
88
15
40
368
303
274
35
334
178
134
8
51
8
3
29
1,286
408
403
403
412
2
3
0
9
6,503
968
191
165
163
174
216

21,390

(%)
66.9
12.0
58.4
45.5
46.7
28.2
43.3
55.9
72.8
33.0
47.2
46.4
31.0
46.2
60.6
40.1
66.6
66.7
92.0
79.2
90.6
98.1
94.1
90.1
89.4
88.3
87.9
87.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
6.2
4.1
4.9
4.5
5.2
12.1

43.3

rk

bF ,k

bP ,k

B D ,k

Yk

(%) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h) (Pts/h)


14.9
6.1
6.4
249.94
0.24
49.4
3.5
5.6
2746.20
0.38
9.3
5.9
6.1
432.98
1.13
20.9
5.9
6.6
70.63
1.24
19.0
5.9
6.5
78.93
0.13
24.9
5.9
6.9
84.76
0.09
20.6
5.9
6.6
54.33
0.79
108.7
5.9
8.9
1.17
0.00
29.2
5.9
6.4
9.13
0.04
35.0
5.9
7.3
3.93
0.00
74.7
5.9
8.3
8.10
0.01
46.3
5.9
7.4
74.97
0.12
77.3
5.9
9.1
79.57
0.10
14.4
6.8
7.3
51.61
0.28
16.5
6.7
7.2
4.87
0.10
27.9
7.5
8.8
65.52
0.19
14.4
6.7
7.1
20.72
0.20
14.4
6.7
7.1
15.57
0.17
338.7
6.3
8.3
0.22
0.00
84.9
6.3
7.6
3.75
0.00
677.1
0.5
10.4
0.02
0.00
2161.2
76.4
14.0
0.20
0.00
77.9
7.6
8.0
0.55
0.04
95.4
7.1
7.8
40.73
3.78
594.8
7.1
30.2
13.88
0.70
255.3
7.1
11.8
15.07
0.28
249.1
7.1
11.3
15.67
0.14
11.2
16.79
0.20
250.8
7.1
12.9
6.7
7.6
0.83
0.00
7.6
6.8
7.3
1.08
0.00
0.1
5.9
5.9
0.00
0.00
4.7
7.5
7.9
2.98
0.00

6.8

1658.02
3.50

6.9

211.13
0.06

12.0

38.78
0.01

12.0

30.92
0.01

11.8

29.10
0.01

11.7

29.65
0.01

7.7

62.38
0.01

5.34
201.9
67.8
73.0
4579.01 19.27

B D ,k Yk
(Pts/h)
250.17
2746.59
434.11
71.87
79.06
84.85
55.12
1.17
9.17
3.94
8.12
75.09
79.67
51.89
4.97
65.71
20.93
15.74
0.22
3.75
0.02
0.20
0.58
44.51
14.57
15.35
15.81
16.99
0.83
1.08
0.00
2.98
1661.52
211.20
38.78
30.93
29.10
29.66
62.38

4598.28

f b ,k

rb ,k

(%) (%)
0.09
4.9
0.01
63.5
0.26
3.9
1.72
12.1
0.16
10.6
0.11
18.2
1.43
12.3
0.17
51.0
0.41
8.7
0.08
24.1
0.16
41.4
0.16
26.0
0.12
54.6
0.54
8.1
2.07
7.0
0.29
17.4
0.97
5.2
1.10
5.2
0.14
30.3
0.01
19.3
0.12 1880.4
0.05 81.7
6.02
5.3
8.49
10.3
4.78 325.7
1.85
66.4
0.87
58.7
1.20
57.8
0.00
12.9
0.00
7.6
0.00
0.1
0.00
4.7
0.21

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.42
7.6

139

B kPF

E F ,k
(MW)
242.68
729.62
551.15
35.06
43.64
28.92
26.46
0.18
6.10
1.06
1.43
19.02
11.57
31.29
3.43
17.84
19.39
14.57
0.04
1.12
0.03
0.00
0.46
18.53
3.54
3.45
3.44
3.49
0.30
0.63
0.18
2.43
86.54
9.50
0.98
0.80
0.75
0.78
3.02
1.99
730.58
27.68

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
ST5
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
Deaerator
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
M1
M2
M3
M4
CAU
COOLCAU
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.6.4:ResultsatthecomponentlevelforMEA0

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

140

TableA.6.5:ResultsatthestreamlevelforMEA0.2

m j

Tj

p j E PH , j

E CH , j

E tot , j

cj

(MW)

(MW)

(MW)

(/GJ)

0.00

0.96

0.96

0.00

0.0

231.30

0.96

232.25

19.28 16,124

6.4

5,332

8.15

721.47

729.62

9.15

24,037

3.5

9,072

735.74

5.27

741.01

15.43 41,158

5.9

15,675

184.60

5.27

189.87

15.43 10,546

5.9

4,016

78.86

2.25

81.11

15.43

5.9

1,716

bj

B j

Stream,
j

(kg/s)

(C)

(bar)

614.50

15.00

1.01

614.50

392.90

17.00

14.00

15.00

50.00

628.50 1264.03 16.49

628.50

580.64

1.06

268.50

580.64

1.06

268.50

447.62

1.05

52.40

2.25

54.65

15.43

3,035

5.9

1,156

360.00

580.64

1.06

105.73

3.02

108.75

15.43

6,040

5.9

2,300

15.43

4,093

5.9

1,559
2,715
1,792

(/h) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h)


0

4,505

360.00

449.30

1.05

70.67

3.02

73.69

10

628.50

448.58

1.04

123.07

5.27

128.34

15.43

7,128

5.9

11

628.50

341.18

1.04

79.43

5.27

84.70

15.43

4,704

5.9

12

628.50

257.91

1.04

50.51

5.27

55.78

15.43

3,098

5.9

1,180

13

628.50

257.35

1.04

50.33

5.27

55.60

15.43

3,088

5.9

1,176

14

628.50

237.62

1.04

44.23

5.27

49.50

15.43

2,749

5.9

1,047

15

628.50

234.08

1.04

43.17

5.27

48.44

15.43

2,690

5.9

1,025

15.43

2,611

5.9

994
592

16

628.50

229.24

1.04

41.73

5.27

47.00

17

628.50

156.37

1.03

22.72

5.27

27.99

15.43

1,554

5.9

18

628.50

94.79

1.03

11.14

5.27

16.41

0.00

0.0

19

94.71

32.89

3.73

0.24

0.24

0.47

26.10

44

7.5

13

20

94.71

136.37

3.62

8.05

0.24

8.28

28.33

845

9.4

279

21

95.40

140.01

3.62

8.55

0.24

8.79

28.99

917

9.3

294

28.99

696

9.3

223
22
23

22

72.43

140.01

3.62

6.49

0.18

6.67

23

7.22

140.01

3.62

0.65

0.02

0.67

28.99

69

9.3

24

7.22

140.49

25.13

0.67

0.02

0.68

32.12

79

9.3

25

7.22

216.62

24.38

1.54

0.02

1.56

26.06

146

8.3

46

26

7.22

222.62

24.38

7.21

0.02

7.23

21.39

557

6.8

178

27

7.22

237.91

23.16

7.33

0.02

7.35

21.59

571

6.9

182

28

72.43

305.14

23.16

79.35

0.18

79.53

19.87

5,689

6.9

1,975

29

72.43

560.64

22.00

103.24

0.18

103.42

19.64

7,311

6.8

2,550

30

39.00

9.85

3.90

0.02

0.10

0.12

19.64

6.8

31

22.28

214.08

4.10

18.06

0.06

18.12

24.09

1,571

7.8

511

32

22.28

146.37

4.32

17.01

0.06

17.07

23.85

1,466

7.8

479

33

0.68

146.37

4.32

0.52

0.00

0.52

23.85

45

7.8

15

34

22.96

140.01

3.62

2.06

0.06

2.12

28.99

221

9.3

71

35

22.96

140.02

4.32

2.06

0.06

2.12

29.34

224

9.3

71

36

22.96

146.37

4.32

17.53

0.06

17.59

23.85

1,511

7.8

493

37

65.21

140.01

3.62

5.84

0.16

6.01

28.99

627

9.3

201

38

65.21

141.75 134.56

6.80

0.16

6.96

29.70

745

9.1

228

39

65.21

325.17 130.53

31.72

0.16

31.88

21.84

2,506

7.5

863

40

65.21

331.17 130.53

71.63

0.16

71.79

20.02

5,175

7.0

1,807

19.68

7,334

6.9

2,569
1,793

41

65.21

560.64 124.00

103.35

0.16

103.51

42

65.21

313.21

23.16

72.06

0.16

72.22

19.68

5,117

6.9

43

55.71

275.88

4.10

48.31

0.14

48.45

21.36

3,725

7.2

1,263

44

55.71

32.88

0.05

7.37

0.14

7.51

21.36

577

7.2

196

45

94.71

32.88

0.05

0.20

0.24

0.44

21.77

34

7.4

12

46

628.50

122.27

1.30

28.08

5.27

33.35

29.73

3,569

6.9

834

47

628.50

51.00

1.30

18.58

5.27

23.85

29.73

2,552

6.9

596

48

595.25

46.74

1.03

5.98

1.47

7.45

181.88

4,877

44.4

1,191

49

33.25

139.10

1.03

0.67

10.57

11.24

29.73

1,203

6.9

281

50

33.25

267.18

3.22

4.45

10.57

15.02

55.68

3,010

11.7

632

51

33.23

40.00

3.20

2.14

10.57

12.71

55.68

2,548

11.7

535

52

0.01

40.00

3.20

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

53

33.23

151.78

10.22

5.01

10.57

15.58

63.84

3,580

12.5

704

54

33.01

40.00

10.21

4.20

10.58

14.78

63.84

3,396

12.5

667

55

0.22

40.00

10.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

56

33.01

152.67

32.46

7.02

10.58

17.60

65.96

4,179

12.4

784

57

32.94

40.00

32.45

6.25

10.59

16.84

65.96

3,999

12.4

750

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

58

0.07

40.00

32.45

0.00

0.00

0.00

59

32.94

154.69 103.09

9.08

10.59

19.67

60

32.92

30.00

103.09

8.30

10.60

18.89

61

0.03

30.00

103.09

0.00

0.00

62

4036.07

15.00

1.01

0.00

63

109.58

15.00

1.01

64

57.66

16.00

65

4088.00

23.73

66

39.00

67

141

0.0

67.60

4,787

12.2

866

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.0

6.28

6.28

0.00

0.0

0.00

0.27

0.27

0.00

0.0

1.01

0.00

0.14

0.14

0.00

0.0

1.01

1.80

5.87

7.67

0.0

317.23

4.10

35.45

0.10

35.55

19.64

2,513

6.8

877

33.43

317.23

4.10

30.39

0.08

30.48

19.64

2,154

6.8

751

68

94.71

32.88

0.05

7.23

0.24

7.47

21.77

586

7.4

199

69

72.43

317.23

4.10

65.85

0.18

66.03

19.64

4,668

6.8

1,628

70

5.07

317.23

4.10

4.61

0.01

4.62

19.64

327

6.8

114

71

67.37

317.23

4.10

61.24

0.17

61.41

19.64

4,341

6.8

1,514

19.64

1,920

6.8

670
1,049
1,322

0.00

0.00

72

29.80

317.23

4.10

27.09

0.07

27.17

73

29.80

560.64

22.00

42.48

0.07

42.55

19.64

3,008

6.8

74

37.56

560.64

22.00

53.54

0.09

53.63

19.64

3,791

6.8

75

37.56

317.23

4.10

34.15

0.09

34.24

19.64

2,421

6.8

844

76

67.37

560.64

22.00

96.02

0.17

96.19

19.64

6,799

6.8

2,372

19.64

511

6.8

178

77

5.07

560.64

22.00

7.22

0.01

7.24

78

5765.82

16.00

1.37

0.25

14.40

14.65

79

5765.82

16.00

1.01

0.04

14.40

14.44

80

1580.32

26.00

1.33

1.40

3.95

5.35

81

5765.82

23.73

1.33

3.31

14.40

17.72

82

4185.50

22.88

1.33

1.99

10.45

12.44

83

4185.50

16.00

1.37

0.18

10.45

10.64

84

5320.01

16.00

1.37

0.23

13.29

13.52

85

5495.45

16.00

1.37

0.24

13.73

13.97

86

5589.87

16.00

1.37

0.24

13.96

14.21

87

5675.09

16.00

1.37

0.25

14.18

14.42

88

90.73

16.00

1.37

0.00

0.23

0.23

89

90.73

26.00

1.33

0.08

0.23

0.31

90

1489.59

26.00

1.33

1.32

3.72

5.04

91

1404.37

26.00

1.33

1.25

3.51

4.76

92

1309.95

26.00

1.33

1.16

3.27

4.44

93

1134.51

26.00

1.33

1.01

2.83

3.84

94

1134.51

16.00

1.37

0.05

2.83

2.88

95

175.44

26.00

1.33

0.16

0.44

0.59

96

175.44

16.00

1.37

0.01

0.44

0.45

97

94.42

26.00

1.33

0.08

0.24

0.32

98

94.42

16.00

1.37

0.00

0.24

0.24

99

85.22

26.00

1.33

0.08

0.21

0.29

100

85.22

16.00

1.37

0.00

0.21

0.22

101

39.00

9.94

0.05

0.00

0.10

0.10

102

14.00

15.00

17.00

5.90

721.47

727.37

103

498.50

392.90

17.00

187.64

0.78

188.41

104

512.50 1435.04 16.49

704.31

5.80

710.10

105

116.00

392.90

17.00

43.66

0.18

43.84

106

116.00

392.90

16.49

43.37

0.18

43.55

107

C1

242.68

16.86 14,728

6.1

5,332

22.61

2,375

7.5

789
65

108

ST1

29.18

109

ST2

2.46

23.47

208

7.4

110

ST3

35.38

27.78

3,538

8.6

1,099

111

CONDP

0.04

18.46

6.5

112

IPP

0.03

18.46

6.5

113

HPP

1.12

18.46

74

6.5

26

18.46

6.5

0
6,328

114

LPP

0.00

115

GT1

288.00

16.86 17,479

6.1

116

C2

18.53

22.47

1,499

7.2

483

117

C3

4.33

22.38

349

7.2

113

118

C4

3.45

22.38

278

7.2

90

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

119

C5

3.44

120

C6

3.49

121

ST4

18.54

122

ST5

14.71

tot

353.82

142

277

7.2

281

7.2

91

22.47

1,499

7.2

483

22.38

1,185

7.2

383

18.46 23,520

6.5

8,253

22.38
22.38

90

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

143

TableA.6.6:ResultsatthestreamlevelforMEA0

m j
Tj
Stream,
(kg/s)
(C)
j
1
614.50 15.00
2
614.50 392.90
3
14.00
15.00
4
628.50 1264.03
5
628.50 580.64
6
268.50 580.64
7
268.50 447.62
8
360.00 580.64
9
360.00 449.30
10
628.50 448.58
11
628.50 341.18
12
628.50 257.91
13
628.50 257.35
14
628.50 237.62
15
628.50 234.08
16
628.50 229.24
17
628.50 156.37
18
628.50 94.79
19
94.71
32.89
20
94.71 136.37
21
95.40 140.01
22
72.43 140.01
23
7.22
140.01
24
7.22
140.49
25
7.22
216.62
26
7.22
222.62
27
7.22
237.91
28
72.43 305.14
29
72.43 560.64
30
69.00
19.25
31
22.28 214.08
32
22.28 146.37
33
0.68
146.37
34
22.96 140.01
35
22.96 140.02
36
22.96 146.37
37
65.21 140.01
38
65.21 141.75
39
65.21 325.17
40
65.21 331.17
41
65.21 560.64
42
65.21 313.21
43
25.71 227.74
44
25.71
32.88
45
94.71
32.88
46
628.50 122.27
47
628.50 51.00
48
595.25 50.52
49
33.25
61.43
50
33.25 173.56
51
33.23
40.00
52
0.02
40.00
53
33.23 151.60
54
33.01
40.00
55
0.22
40.00
56
33.01 152.67
57
32.94
40.00
58
0.07
40.00
59
32.94 154.69
60
32.92
30.00
61
0.03
30.00
62
2312.94 15.00
63
64.32
15.00
64
33.04
16.00
65
2344.22 24.30
66
69.00 317.23
67
3.43
317.23
68
94.71
32.88

p j E PH , j
(bar)
1.01
17.00
50.00
16.49
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.06
1.05
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.03
3.73
3.62
3.62
3.62
3.62
25.13
24.38
24.38
23.16
23.16
22.00
3.90
4.10
4.32
4.32
3.62
4.32
4.32
3.62
134.56
130.53
130.53
124.00
23.16
4.10
0.05
0.05
1.30
1.30
1.03
1.03
3.22
3.21
3.21
10.22
10.21
10.21
32.46
32.45
32.45
103.09
103.09
103.09
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
4.10
4.10
0.05

(MW)
0.00
231.30
8.15
735.74
184.60
78.86
52.40
105.73
70.67
123.07
79.43
50.51
50.33
44.23
43.17
41.73
22.72
11.14
0.24
8.05
8.55
6.49
0.65
0.67
1.54
7.21
7.33
79.35
103.24
0.03
18.06
17.01
0.52
2.06
2.06
17.53
5.84
6.80
31.72
71.63
103.35
72.06
21.15
3.31
0.20
28.08
18.58
6.41
0.13
3.13
2.15
0.00
5.00
4.20
0.00
7.02
6.25
0.00
9.08
8.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.19
62.73
3.12
3.23

E CH , j E tot , j
(MW)
0.96
0.96
721.47
5.27
5.27
2.25
2.25
3.02
3.02
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.27
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.18
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.06
0.06
0.24
5.27
5.27
1.47
10.57
10.57
10.57
0.00
10.57
10.58
0.00
10.58
10.59
0.00
10.59
10.60
0.00
3.60
0.16
0.08
3.37
0.17
0.01
0.24

(MW)
0.96
232.25
729.62
741.01
189.87
81.11
54.65
108.75
73.69
128.34
84.70
55.78
55.60
49.50
48.44
47.00
27.99
16.41
0.47
8.28
8.79
6.67
0.67
0.68
1.56
7.23
7.35
79.53
103.42
0.20
18.12
17.07
0.52
2.12
2.12
17.59
6.01
6.96
31.88
71.79
103.51
72.22
21.21
3.37
0.44
33.35
23.85
7.88
10.71
13.70
12.72
0.00
15.58
14.78
0.00
17.60
16.84
0.00
19.67
18.89
0.00
3.60
0.16
0.08
4.56
62.90
3.13
3.46

cj

bj

B j

(/GJ) (/h) (Pts/GJ) (Pts/h)


0.0
0
0.0
0
19.3 4,479
6.4
5,331
9.2
6,677
3.5
9,072
15.4 11,432
5.9
15,672
15.4 2,929
5.9
4,016
15.4 1,251
5.9
1,715
15.4
843
5.9
1,156
15.4 1,678
5.9
2,300
15.4 1,137
5.9
1,558
15.4 1,980
5.9
2,714
15.4 1,307
5.9
1,791
15.4
861
5.9
1,180
15.4
858
5.9
1,176
15.4
764
5.9
1,047
15.4
747
5.9
1,024
15.4
725
5.9
994
15.4
432
5.9
592
0.0
0
0.0
0
27.5
13
7.7
13
27.4
227
9.0
269
28.0
246
8.9
283
28.0
187
8.9
215
28.0
19
8.9
21
31.2
21
9.0
22
25.4
40
8.0
45
21.1
153
6.7
175
21.3
156
6.8
179
19.6 1,555
6.8
1,943
19.3 2,000
6.7
2,511
19.3
4
6.7
5
23.5
425
7.6
498
23.3
397
7.6
466
23.3
12
7.6
14
28.0
59
8.9
68
28.4
60
9.0
68
23.3
409
7.6
481
28.0
168
8.9
193
28.7
200
8.8
220
21.3
680
7.3
843
19.7 1,413
6.9
1,776
19.4 2,005
6.8
2,528
19.4 1,399
6.8
1,764
22.9
486
7.5
574
22.9
77
7.5
91
23.4
10
7.7
12
29.5
985
6.9
824
29.5
704
6.9
589
0.0
0
65.2
1,850
29.5
316
6.9
265
56.7
777
12.0
590
56.7
721
12.0
548
0.0
0
0.0
0
60.7
945
11.9
669
60.7
897
11.9
635
0.0
0
0.0
0
63.3 1,115
11.8
749
63.3 1,067
11.8
717
0.0
0
0.0
0
65.4 1,286
11.7
831
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
19.3 1,216
6.7
1,527
19.3
61
6.7
76
23.4
81
7.7
96

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122

72.43 317.23 4.10


6.65
317.23 4.10
65.78 317.23 4.10
28.22 317.23 4.10
28.22 560.64 22.00
37.56 560.64 22.00
37.56 317.23 4.10
65.78 560.64 22.00
6.65
560.64 22.00
3304.20 16.00
1.37
3304.20 16.00
1.01
1504.35 26.00
1.33
3304.20 24.30
1.33
1799.85 22.88
1.33
1799.85 16.00
1.37
2934.36 16.00
1.37
3034.01 16.00
1.37
3128.25 16.00
1.37
3213.47 16.00
1.37
90.73
16.00
1.37
90.73
26.00
1.33
1413.62 26.00
1.33
1328.40 26.00
1.33
1234.16 26.00
1.33
1134.51 26.00
1.33
1134.51 16.00
1.37
99.65
26.00
1.33
99.65
16.00
1.37
94.24
26.00
1.33
94.24
16.00
1.37
85.22
26.00
1.33
85.22
16.00
1.37
69.00
19.34
0.05
14.00
15.00 17.00
498.50 392.90 17.00
512.50 1435.04 16.49
116.00 392.90 17.00
116.00 392.90 16.49

65.85
6.05
59.80
25.65
40.22
53.54
34.15
93.76
9.48
0.14
0.02
1.34
2.14
0.85
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.08
1.26
1.18
1.10
1.01
0.05
0.09
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
5.90
187.64
704.31
43.66
43.37

0.18
0.02
0.16
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.16
0.02
8.25
8.25
3.76
8.25
4.50
4.50
7.33
7.58
7.81
8.03
0.23
0.23
3.53
3.32
3.08
2.83
2.83
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.17
721.47
0.78
5.80
0.18
0.18
C1
ST1
ST2
ST3
CONDP
IPP
HPP
LPP
GT1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
ST4
ST5
tot

66.03
6.07
59.96
25.72
40.29
53.63
34.24
93.92
9.50
8.40
8.28
5.09
10.39
5.35
4.57
7.46
7.71
7.95
8.17
0.23
0.31
4.79
4.50
4.18
3.84
2.88
0.34
0.25
0.32
0.24
0.29
0.22
0.18
727.37
188.41
710.10
43.84
43.55
242.68
29.18
3.23
15.42
0.04
0.03
1.12
0.00
288.00
18.53
3.54
3.45
3.44
3.49
18.54
13.93
334.63

19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3

16.9
22.1
22.5
29.3
17.9
17.9
17.9
17.9
16.9
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
17.9

1,277
117
1,159
497
779
1,037
662
1,816
184

4091.0
646.1
72.8
451.7
0.8
0.6
20.1
0.0
4855.0
409.7
78.3
76.3
76.0
77.1
409.9
308.0
6004.1

144

6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7

6.1
7.3
7.2
8.8
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.3

1,603
147
1,456
625
978
1,302
831
2,280
231

5,331
770
84
489
1
1
26
0
6,327
473
90
88
88
89
473
356
7,643

C1

51

ASU

21

C9

22

23

COOL7

25

C10

NGPH

29

: 50.3%, : 48.0%
Wnet: 352.0 MW

26

24

C8

CC

18

M2

17

44

16

74

GT1

M5

GT2

IPST

M1

44

42

GEN1

40

41

COOL1

76

40 1

43

HPEV
HPST

10

38

15

32

33

77

52

40 0

39

C7

GEN2

11

55

31

30

38

14

12

20

75

19

34

WPH1

36

M3

27

52

53

HPP

GT3

35

HPEC

54

W PH2

20

28

82

G
83

GEN3

13

37

84

C2
F G C OND

COND P

78

45

FigureA.7.1:StructureoftheSGrazcycle

HPSH

WPH3

56

86

80

50

34

C5

62

59

C3

88

60

C4

M4

COOL2 57

81

85

90

91

63

94

89

58

COOL3

61

COOL4

92

64

65

87

93

97

COOL5

96

95

79

100

C6

67

66

73

68

72

70

101

47

CT

49

CT P

46

M5

99

98

COOL6

48

70

69

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
145

A.7:TheSGrazcycle

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.7.1:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheSGrazcycle

Component,k
C1
CC
GT1
GT2
GT3
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
NGPH
WPH1
WPH2
WPH3
HPST
IPST
ASU
CONDP
HPP
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COOL5
COOL6
COOL7
CT
Total
Exergyloss

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

(MW)
53.76
736.37
264.57
362.41
78.21
52.48
65.48
1.35
7.05
5.57
31.83
16.19
30.46
1.60
51.24
0.01
1.61
12.45
4.69
4.70
4.75
4.84
92.86
132.31
16.43
17.72
15.59
13.73
0.49
0.04
5.52
13.67
1.53
4.55
1.03
1.03
1.05
19.22
4.81
7.42
733.16
31.89

(MW)
50.84
551.82
253.32
345.23
69.56
46.00
58.00
1.27
3.61
3.09
25.56
14.67
28.56
1.50
11.46
0.01
1.41
11.04
3.95
3.93
3.94
3.97
86.56
124.67
13.73
14.93
13.20
11.40
0.31
0.02
4.50

352.01

(MW)
2.92
184.55
11.25
17.18
8.65
6.48
7.47
0.08
3.44
2.48
6.27
1.52
1.90
0.10
39.78
0.00
0.20
1.41
0.74
0.77
0.81
0.87
6.30
7.63
2.70
2.80
2.39
2.33
0.19
0.02
1.02
7.36
1.35
4.30
0.94
0.94
0.95
1.00
4.53
3.63
349.26

(%)
94.6
74.9
95.7
95.3
88.9
87.7
88.6
93.9
51.2
55.5
80.3
90.6
93.8
93.6
22.4
78.1
87.7
88.7
84.1
83.5
83.0
81.9
93.2
94.2
83.5
84.2
84.6
83.0
62.2
40.8
81.6

48.0

(%)
0.40
25.17
1.53
2.34
1.18
0.88
1.02
0.01
0.47
0.34
0.85
0.21
0.26
0.01
5.43
0.00
0.03
0.19
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.86
1.04
0.37
0.38
0.33
0.32
0.03
0.00
0.14
1.00
0.18
0.59
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.62
0.50
47.64

146

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.7.2:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheSGrazcycle

m j
Stream,
(kg/s)
j
1
256.1
2
256.1
3
14.1
4
379.1
5
379.1
6
383.8
7
369.1
8
10.0
9
383.8
10
383.8
11
383.8
12
383.8
13
213.0
14
213.0
15
213.0
16
213.0
17
213.0
18
293.0
19
85.1
20
85.1
21
62.0
22
62.0
23
62.0
24
62.0
25
14.1
26
14.1
27
31.5
28
116.7
29
80.0
30
170.8
31
13.1
32
6.4
33
6.7
34
3.5
35
157.7
36
157.7
37
41.1
38
94.8
39
94.8
40
94.8
41
94.8
42
80.0
43
4.8
44
4.8
45
116.7
46
6143.5
47
177.2
48
87.8
49
6232.9
50
41.1
51
194.1
52
9.6
53
94.8
54
94.8
55
94.8
56
41.1
57
44.5
58
0.0
59
44.5
60
44.5
61
0.0
62
44.5
63
44.5
64
0.0
65
44.5
66
44.5
67
0.0
68
44.5

Tj
(C)
15.00
218.93
15.00
1373.30
1069.85
1059.05
1401.51
393.86
614.29
504.92
346.17
342.48
342.48
144.00
394.07
315.00
646.91
547.48
36.16
95.00
15.00
297.19
60.00
359.60
15.00
330.00
36.16
36.16
331.66
342.48
342.48
89.12
89.11
30.00
342.48
75.09
36.16
321.29
325.17
331.17
560.00
393.86
393.86
220.31
36.16
15.00
15.00
16.00
25.15
40.86
14.99
30.00
88.43
89.61
263.21
351.80
40.00
40.00
157.32
40.00
40.00
157.57
40.00
40.00
158.58
40.00
40.00
160.92

p j E PH , j
(bar)
1.01
6.00
50.00
38.80
10.71
10.71
38.80
42.96
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.01
6.33
6.33
40.00
40.00
1.03
1.00
1.01
6.80
6.79
40.00
40.02
40.00
1.03
1.03
40.81
1.02
1.02
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.02
0.06
0.06
134.56
130.53
130.53
124.00
42.96
42.96
10.71
0.06
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
143.02
138.73
1.02
1.00
1.00
3.22
3.21
3.21
10.22
10.21
10.21
32.46
32.45
32.45
103.09

(MW)
0.00
50.84
8.19
951.61
687.04
690.45
941.38
12.62
328.04
275.56
210.08
208.74
115.83
84.00
170.57
154.38
279.05
370.66
0.26
3.35
0.00
13.73
8.92
23.84
7.72
11.80
0.10
0.36
93.94
92.90
7.12
1.32
0.23
0.00
85.78
7.57
6.49
44.83
46.09
104.10
150.10
100.99
6.03
4.43
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.84
0.01
0.00
0.02
3.18
4.60
30.16
4.56
0.01
0.00
3.96
2.93
0.00
6.86
5.83
0.00
9.76
8.71
0.00
12.68

E CH , j E tot , j
(MW)
0.40
0.40
724.58
28.26
28.26
28.27
28.24
0.02
28.27
28.27
28.27
28.27
15.69
15.69
15.69
15.69
15.69
15.89
0.21
0.21
7.40
7.40
7.40
7.40
724.58
724.58
0.08
0.29
0.20
12.58
0.96
0.95
0.02
0.94
11.62
11.62
11.37
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.29
9.56
0.44
0.22
8.97
11.37
4.06
0.02
0.24
0.24
0.24
11.37
12.29
0.00
12.29
12.29
0.00
12.29
12.29
0.00
12.29
12.29
0.00
12.29

(MW)
0.40
51.24
732.76
979.87
715.30
718.72
969.62
12.65
356.31
303.83
238.36
237.01
131.52
99.69
186.26
170.07
294.74
386.55
0.48
3.57
7.40
21.13
16.31
31.24
732.30
736.37
0.18
0.65
94.14
105.49
8.09
2.27
0.25
0.94
97.40
19.19
4.88
45.06
46.33
104.34
150.34
101.19
6.04
4.44
0.64
9.56
0.44
0.22
12.80
11.38
4.06
0.04
3.42
4.83
30.40
15.92
12.30
0.00
16.25
15.22
0.00
19.14
18.11
0.00
22.05
21.00
0.00
24.97

147

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119

44.5
0.0
8776.5
8776.5
329.1
329.1
551.0
221.9
221.9
8156.4
8447.4
291.0
291.0
7934.5
7473.0
7473.0
461.5
7764.0
8315.0
111.1
111.1
350.4
111.3
111.3
8426.1
239.1
113.6
113.6
8537.4
125.5
125.5
8651.0
8776.5

30.00
30.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
26.00
16.00
16.00
25.00
16.00
25.04
25.10
16.00
26.00
16.00
16.00
26.00
25.11
16.00
16.00
26.00
25.12
16.00
26.00
25.14
25.15

103.09
103.09
1.01
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.33

11.56
0.00
0.06
0.38
0.01
0.29
0.49
0.20
0.01
0.35
0.37
0.01
0.26
0.34
0.32
5.54
0.02
5.80
6.29
0.00
0.10
0.02
0.00
0.10
6.38
0.01
0.00
0.10
6.48
0.01
0.11
6.58
6.69

12.31
0.00
21.92
21.92
0.82
0.82
1.38
0.55
0.55
20.37
21.10
0.73
0.73
19.82
18.67
18.67
1.15
19.39
20.77
0.28
0.28
0.88
0.28
0.28
21.05
0.60
0.28
0.28
21.33
0.31
0.31
21.61
21.92
C7
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C1
C9
C10
P2
P1
C8
GT2
GT3
ST1
ST2
GT1
tot

23.86
0.00
21.99
22.30
0.84
1.11
1.87
0.75
0.56
20.73
21.47
0.74
0.99
20.16
18.99
24.21
1.17
25.19
27.06
0.28
0.38
0.89
0.28
0.38
27.43
0.61
0.29
0.38
27.81
0.32
0.43
28.19
28.62
92.18
12.52
4.64
4.70
4.68
4.76
53.76
16.43
17.72
1.52
0.01
132.38
344.16
69.50
28.71
1.65
253.37
352.07

148

57

83

GT

Mix CH4/Air

59

51

H2 PH

71

79

60

NGPH

M4

RH2

27

53

61

57

72

69

C3

APH

94

C2

CAU

ATR

G GEN1

CC

70

: 48.5%, : 46.5%
Wnet: 339.8 MW

Mix CH4/H2O

58

55

62

85

C5

104

105

56

114

HPSH2

C1

28

39

51

117

81

82

116

68

53
88

10

RH1

64

WPH1

HPEV

55

C4

67

38

38

41

LPSH2

63

63

109

92

78

37

11

WPH2

65

S HIFTE R2 66

77

36

HPSH1

80

115

107

108

42

12

HPEC

119

COOL2

26

100

M3

IPS H

25

M2

55

13

125

95

24

HPST40

39

27

102

120

111

110

86

HPP

IPST1

IPE V

36

ST5

89

99

FigureA.8.1:StructureoftheATRplant

26

WPH3

COOL1

S HIFTE R1

COOL CAU

106

118

30

31

14

35

23

IPP
22

21

20

32

19

80

15

43

M1

90

29

30

29

GEN2

IPE C

LPST

De-aerator

IPST2

54

89

33

LPSH1

16

LPP

97

46

COND

91

43

M5

LPEV

101

34

17

84

44

45

98

87

50

49

M8

LPEC

COND P

M6

47

18

MUW P

48

103

M7

45

44

112

CT P

73

CT
74

Chimne

93

113

76

75

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
149

A.8:TheATRplant

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

150

TableA.8.1:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheATRplant

Component,k
C1
CC
GT1
HPSH1
HPSH2
HPEV
HPEC
RH1
RH2
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH1
LPSH2
LPEV
LPEC
NGPH
H2PH
APH
WPH1
WPH2
WPH3
HPST
IPST1
IPST2
LPST
ST5
ATR
SHIFTER1
SHIFTER2
CAU
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
MUWP
C2
C3
C4
C5
Deaerator
M1
M2
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
MixCH4/Air
MixCH4/H2O
COOLCAU
COOL1
COOL2
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

(MW)
221.95
659.64
519.91
2.37
26.00
36.90
10.69
11.37
8.76
5.51
30.37
6.89
1.54
3.37
19.39
13.01
34.36
32.61
9.38
3.05
10.38
1.26
19.56
19.98
15.88
23.85
11.30
809.32
690.54
659.61
33.54
0.04
1.05
0.18
0.05
0.01
10.21
2.70
2.87
4.34
0.65
0.17
0.23
1.79
2.11
1.01
0.31
0.08
428.31
507.54
13.71
0.73
0.62
5.17
2.50
730.62
32.75

(MW)
211.43
502.80
500.85
2.06
23.38
32.76
9.40
10.65
7.95
4.72
26.75
5.75
1.14
2.86
15.73
8.44
30.19
25.32
5.91
2.69
9.53
1.10
18.30
18.91
14.64
20.61
9.91

0.03
0.89
0.14
0.01
0.01
9.84
2.21
2.33
3.58
0.62
0.16
0.23
1.78
2.11
0.95
0.27
0.04
419.98
500.94

339.81

(MW)
10.53
156.84
19.06
0.31
2.62
4.14
1.29
0.72
0.81
0.79
3.62
1.14
0.40
0.52
3.66
4.57
4.17
7.30
3.47
0.36
0.86
0.16
1.26
1.07
1.24
3.24
1.39
51.81
3.43
0.63
29.95
0.01
0.17
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.37
0.48
0.54
0.76
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.05
8.33
6.60
12.63
0.67
0.56
3.85
1.48
358.06

(%)
95.3
76.2
96.3
86.9
89.9
88.8
87.9
93.7
90.8
85.6
88.1
83.5
74.1
84.7
81.1
64.9
87.9
77.6
63.0
88.1
91.7
87.2
93.6
94.6
92.2
86.4
87.7

77.5
84.3
77.8
28.9
68.0
96.4
82.0
81.2
82.4
95.7
95.9
99.4
99.2
100.0
94.1
88.9
43.0
98.1
98.7

46.5

(%)
1.44
21.47
2.61
0.04
0.36
0.57
0.18
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.50
0.16
0.05
0.07
0.50
0.63
0.57
1.00
0.47
0.05
0.12
0.02
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.44
0.19
7.09
0.47
0.09
4.10
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
1.14
0.90
1.73
0.09
0.08
0.53
0.20
49.01

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.8.2:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheATRplant

m j
Tj
pj
Stream,
(kg/s)
(C)
(bar)
j
1
590.89 15.00
1.01
2
590.89 375.07 15.46
3
14.00
15.00 50.00
4
588.87 1250.87 16.49
5
588.87 577.02 1.11
6
178.87 562.53 1.06
7
178.87 498.89 1.05
8
410.00 562.53 1.06
9
410.00 479.33 1.05
10
588.87 485.28 1.05
11
588.87 395.77 1.05
12
588.87 367.81 1.05
13
588.87 352.91 1.05
14
588.87 263.09 1.04
15
588.87 240.05 1.04
16
588.87 234.70 1.04
17
588.87 158.26 1.03
18
588.87 83.81
1.03
19
112.53 142.17 3.84
20
89.32 142.17 3.84
21
34.11 142.17 3.84
22
34.11 142.74 39.68
23
34.11 242.09 38.49
24
34.11 248.09 38.49
25
34.11 347.81 36.57
26
78.85 352.99 36.57
27
78.85 532.53 33.00
28
17.69
60.00 13.20
29
22.26 220.05 4.32
30
22.26 148.26 4.54
31
0.95
148.26 4.54
32
23.21 142.17 3.84
33
23.21 142.56 4.54
34
23.21 148.26 4.54
35
55.21 142.17 3.84
36
55.21 144.16 146.05
37
55.21 329.19 137.40
38
55.21 335.19 137.40
39
55.21 542.53 124.00
40
55.21 356.97 36.57
41
30.28 228.43 4.32
42
30.28 331.00 4.10
43
30.28
32.88
0.05
44
3078.21 16.00
1.37
45
3078.21 22.88
1.33
46
80.52
32.88
0.05
47
31.05
15.00
1.01
48
31.05
15.02
4.08
49
111.57 27.92
4.08
50
80.52
32.90
4.08
51
105.94 350.00 14.06
52
55.21 268.18 141.65
53
78.85 457.45 34.74
54
39.77 251.79 4.32
55
31.05 411.52 15.00
56
60.89 375.07 15.46
57
60.89 530.00 14.69
58
14.00
15.00 15.00
59
45.05 297.03 15.00
60
105.94 640.00 14.67
61
105.94 850.00 14.09
62
105.94 619.43 14.07
63
55.21 178.15 141.67
64
105.94 470.24 13.63
65
105.94 200.00 13.62
66
105.94 212.43 13.21
67
105.94 170.00 13.20
68
105.94 150.00 13.20

E PH , j

E CH , j E tot , j

(MW)
0.00
211.43
8.15
701.33
181.42
52.24
43.48
119.78
93.78
137.25
100.35
89.66
84.14
53.77
46.88
45.34
25.95
12.94
10.41
8.26
3.15
3.30
9.05
35.80
40.52
94.21
112.81
0.26
18.30
17.16
0.74
2.15
2.16
17.89
5.11
5.99
27.61
60.37
85.81
66.25
25.12
27.97
4.12
0.13
1.46
0.17
0.00
0.01
0.17
0.20
66.40
18.21
104.86
33.83
36.56
21.79
27.70
5.63
38.14
92.02
133.33
99.01
8.68
76.00
48.51
48.67
45.62
44.36

(MW)
0.92
0.92
721.47
1.78
1.78
0.54
0.54
1.24
1.24
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.78
0.28
0.22
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.20
0.20
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.08
7.69
7.69
0.20
0.08
0.08
0.28
0.20
624.13
0.14
0.20
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.09
721.47
721.51
717.30
624.18
624.13
0.14
611.10
611.10
610.31
610.31
610.31

(MW)
0.92
212.35
729.62
703.11
183.19
52.78
44.02
121.02
95.02
139.03
102.13
91.43
85.92
55.55
48.66
47.11
27.72
14.72
10.69
8.48
3.24
3.38
9.13
35.89
40.61
94.41
113.01
0.30
18.35
17.21
0.74
2.20
2.22
17.95
5.24
6.13
27.74
60.51
85.94
66.39
25.19
28.05
4.20
7.82
9.15
0.37
0.08
0.09
0.44
0.41
690.54
18.34
105.06
33.93
36.64
21.88
27.79
727.11
759.66
809.32
757.51
723.15
8.82
687.10
659.61
658.98
655.93
654.67

151

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

88.25
58.87
58.87
1088.22
3363.76
90.98
48.05
3406.68
105.94
105.94
530.00
111.57
1552.28
1552.28
105.94
111.57
58.87
47.80
39.77
55.21
30.28
8.03
80.52
105.94
4805.37
530.00
44.74
10.46
10.46
50.24
39.77
0.00
39.77
39.77
1727.16
0.13
29.24
29.24
29.11
0.14
29.11
29.09
0.02
4805.37
4805.37
174.88
1643.63
91.35
91.35
83.53
83.53
1727.16

60.00
63.12
510.46
31.23
15.00
15.00
16.00
23.64
372.99
318.25
392.88
137.89
16.00
25.00
385.00
130.00
97.75
411.52
20.09
338.32
331.00
251.79
32.88
351.00
16.00
375.07
356.97
356.97
32.88
32.88
251.43
331.00
20.00
251.43
16.00
57.11
57.11
155.75
40.00
40.00
147.40
30.00
30.00
23.64
16.00
16.00
25.00
25.00
16.00
16.00
25.00
25.00

13.20
12.94
17.00
14.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
13.63
13.62
17.00
3.84
1.37
1.33
14.69
3.96
17.08
15.00
0.05
130.53
4.10
4.32
0.05
13.63
1.37
15.46
36.57
36.57
0.05
0.05
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
1.37
12.94
12.94
34.60
34.59
34.59
103.09
103.09
103.09
1.33
1.01
1.37
1.33
1.33
1.37
1.37
1.33
1.33

30.39
610.27
26.00
604.75
54.89
604.75
3.42
2.72
0.00
5.24
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.12
1.46
4.89
64.63
611.10
58.89
611.10
199.48
0.82
9.70
0.28
0.07
3.88
1.15
3.88
61.83
717.30
8.60
0.28
29.57
604.75
56.27
0.12
0.00
0.10
62.43
0.14
27.97
0.08
6.83
0.02
5.34
0.20
62.26
611.10
0.21
12.00
189.64
0.82
53.69
0.11
12.56
0.03
1.26
0.03
1.22
0.13
33.56
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.10
33.56
0.10
0.07
4.31
0.00
0.00
4.16
9.34
6.37
9.34
5.63
9.36
0.00
0.00
7.96
9.36
7.33
9.36
0.00
0.00
2.71
12.00
0.03
12.00
0.01
0.44
1.22
4.11
0.07
0.23
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.21
0.06
0.21
1.28
4.31

C1

ST1

ST2

ST3

ST4

CONDP

LPP

IPP

HPP

C2

MUWP

C5

C3

C4

GT1

ST5

tot

640.65
630.75
659.64
6.14
5.24
0.23
0.12
6.36
675.73
669.99
200.31
9.98
3.94
5.03
779.12
8.88
634.32
56.39
0.10
62.56
28.05
6.85
5.54
673.37
12.21
190.47
53.80
12.58
1.29
1.35
33.66
0.00
0.12
33.66
4.39
0.00
13.50
15.71
14.98
0.00
17.32
16.69
0.00
14.71
12.04
0.44
5.32
0.30
0.23
0.21
0.27
5.60
221.95
18.30
18.91
14.64
20.61
0.04
0.05
0.18
1.05
10.21
0.01
4.34
2.70
2.87
268.69
9.91
339.81

152

M3

55

NGPH

56

91

93

68

C2

94

CC

92

59

1 02

84

70

1 04

71

64

GT2

COOL1

83

81

57

C3

63 58

GT1

MSR-H2

1 03

69

: 47.8% , : 45.8%
Wnet: 334.6 MW

C1

60

38

61

72

66

67

37

1 01

DB

86
1 05

C4

12

11

10

75

13

IPSH

HPEC

HPEV

26

HPSH

RH

24

25

36

88

14

77

1 06

76

33

LPP

COOL3

87

1 00

IPEV

M2

48

HPST

39

40

41

20

C5

23

15

78

IPEC

22

IPP

21

46

M1

16

M5

90

COOL4

89

99

30

LPSH

29

52

80

79

LPEV

54

GEN2

COND

43

42

COND P

LPST

De -ae rator
19

HPP35

32

31

63

28

47 IPST2

IPST1

27

FigureA.9.1:StructureoftheMSRplant

73

COOL27 4

85

82

65

FG COND

GEN1

34

44

17

CT P

53

M4

49

LPEC

1 07

1 08

M UW P
51

45

18

50

95

96

CT

98

97

Chimney

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
153

A.9:TheMSRplant

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.9.1:ResultsatthecomponentlevelfortheMSRplant

Component,k
C1
CC
DB
GT1
GT2
RH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
NGPH
HPST
IPST1
IPST2
LPST
MSRH2
CONDP
LPP
HPP
IPP
MUWP
C2
C3
C4
C5
Deaerator
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

(MW)
206.31
598.70
338.16
481.89
54.18
8.28
36.79
47.13
32.45
0.70
10.47
3.45
3.17
27.16
13.93
32.62
17.71
8.22
0.29
22.33
180.20
0.02
0.00
1.14
0.12
0.03
3.84
4.06
4.04
4.10
0.51
0.02
1.17
569.88
0.06
0.53
16.69
0.68
0.94
0.89
0.92
4.02
2.93
730.63
57.29

(MW)
196.73
455.59
252.94
463.51
50.81
7.21
32.41
40.95
25.58
0.59
9.89
2.84
2.40
21.11
9.33
28.56
16.64
7.78
0.27
19.29
171.88
0.01
0.00
0.98
0.08
0.02
3.19
3.37
3.33
3.34
0.49
0.02
1.07
565.03
0.01
0.45

334.64

(MW)
9.58
143.11
85.23
18.37
3.37
1.07
4.38
6.17
6.86
0.11
0.59
0.62
0.77
6.05
4.60
4.06
1.08
0.45
0.02
3.03
8.32
0.01
0.00
0.16
0.03
0.01
0.64
0.69
0.71
0.76
0.02
0.00
0.10
4.85
0.05
0.08
15.06
0.60
0.85
0.80
0.83
2.99
1.62
338.70

(%)
95.4
76.1
74.8
96.2
93.8
87.1
88.1
86.9
78.8
83.7
94.4
82.2
75.7
77.7
67.0
87.6
93.9
94.6
93.6
86.4
95.4
68.5
69.4
85.7
70.7
77.0
83.2
83.0
82.4
81.4
95.6
96.1
91.5
99.1
22.9
85.1

45.8

(%)
1.31
19.59
11.66
2.51
0.46
0.15
0.60
0.84
0.94
0.02
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.83
0.63
0.56
0.15
0.06
0.00
0.42
1.14
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.66
0.01
0.01
2.06
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.41
0.22
46.36

154

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.9.2:ResultsatthestreamlevelfortheMSRplant

m j
Tj
pj
Stream,
(kg/s)
(C)
(bar)
j
1
523.00 15.00
1.01
2
523.00 392.51 17.00
3
14.00
15.00 50.00
4
542.30 1230.15 16.49
5
542.30 567.08 1.11
6
553.20 994.77 1.10
7
553.20 674.76 1.06
8
553.20 609.47 1.06
9
553.20 592.38 1.06
10
553.20 513.25 1.05
11
553.20 401.68 1.05
12
553.20 314.01 1.04
13
553.20 311.97 1.04
14
553.20 280.43 1.04
15
553.20 269.55 1.04
16
553.20 259.32 1.04
17
553.20 156.38 1.03
18
553.20 72.68
1.03
19
111.13 139.81 3.60
20
79.81 139.81 3.60
21
12.89 139.81 3.60
22
12.89 140.86 57.12
23
12.89 264.43 55.40
24
12.89 270.43 55.40
25
12.89 294.01 52.63
26
23.81 347.74 52.63
27
23.81 559.47 50.00
28
0.83
217.70 4.10
29
30.57 249.55 4.10
30
30.57 146.37 4.32
31
0.75
146.37 4.32
32
31.32 139.81 3.60
33
31.32 139.82 4.32
34
31.32 146.37 4.32
35
66.92 139.81 3.60
36
66.92 141.54 134.56
37
66.92 325.17 130.53
38
66.92 331.17 130.53
39
66.92 559.38 124.00
40
10.92 422.41 52.63
41
31.40 248.71 4.10
42
0.00
32.88
0.05
43
31.40
32.88
0.05
44
2394.26 16.00
1.37
45
2394.26 22.88
1.33
46
31.40
32.88
0.05
47
0.83
392.96 17.00
48
56.00 422.41 52.63
49
4731.69 16.00
1.37
50
78.98
15.00
1.01
51
78.98
15.01
3.71
52
31.40
32.90
3.71
53
110.38 20.10
3.71
54
110.38 136.38 3.60
55
70.00 321.58 50.00
56
70.00 600.00 49.98
57
62.78 816.97 47.98
58
30.20 684.06 17.00
59
19.30 684.06 17.00
60
10.90 684.06 17.00
61
10.90 684.06 1.11
62
70.00 600.00 47.98
63
22.98 392.96 17.00
64
62.78 288.45 1.02
65
24.02
25.00
1.01
66
38.75
25.00
1.01
67
24.02
25.00
1.01
68
38.75
25.00
1.01

E PH , j

E CH , j E tot , j

(MW)
0.00
196.73
8.15
652.06
170.17
422.50
242.30
209.68
201.40
164.61
117.48
85.04
84.34
73.86
70.41
67.23
40.07
26.14
9.93
7.13
1.15
1.24
4.07
13.96
14.55
28.84
36.05
0.67
25.74
23.34
0.58
2.80
2.80
23.92
5.98
6.96
32.54
73.50
105.91
14.39
26.42
0.00
4.09
0.10
1.14
0.07
0.97
73.81
0.21
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.05
9.38
77.15
105.71
70.90
88.36
56.47
31.90
20.42
112.27
26.85
16.73
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

(MW)
0.81
0.81
721.47
1.07
1.07
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
0.28
0.20
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.08
5.98
5.98
0.08
0.00
0.14
11.82
0.20
0.20
0.08
0.28
0.28
721.58
721.58
18.31
848.50
542.23
306.27
306.27
861.61
0.06
18.31
0.06
18.25
0.06
18.25

(MW)
0.81
197.54
729.62
653.13
171.25
424.18
243.98
211.37
203.09
166.30
119.17
86.72
86.02
75.55
72.09
68.92
41.76
27.82
10.21
7.33
1.18
1.27
4.11
13.99
14.58
28.90
36.10
0.68
25.82
23.42
0.58
2.88
2.88
24.00
6.15
7.13
32.71
73.67
106.08
14.41
26.50
0.00
4.17
6.08
7.12
0.15
0.97
73.95
12.02
0.20
0.22
0.16
0.33
9.65
798.72
827.28
89.22
936.86
598.70
338.16
326.68
973.88
26.91
35.04
0.08
18.27
0.08
18.27

155

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125

38.75
0.14
38.61
38.61
0.26
38.36
38.36
0.08
38.28
38.28
0.03
38.25
1932.57
1932.57
86.75
86.75
111.06
111.06
100.23
100.23
106.82
106.82
419.00
438.30
104.00
104.00
3312.18
92.58
47.32
3357.45
2337.43
2230.61
2130.38
2019.32
4326.83
4413.58
4524.64
4624.87
4731.69
4731.69

131.81 3.22
40.00
3.21
40.00
3.21
151.95 10.22
40.00 10.21
40.00 10.21
152.83 32.46
40.00 32.45
40.00 32.45
154.99 103.09
30.00 103.09
30.00 103.09
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
392.51 17.00
1392.45 16.49
392.51 17.00
392.51 16.49
15.00
1.01
15.00
1.01
16.00
1.01
24.42
1.01
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.01
24.42
1.33

3.21
0.00
2.54
5.91
0.00
4.96
8.29
0.00
7.39
10.73
0.00
9.80
0.08
1.72
0.08
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.09
0.00
157.61
624.23
39.12
38.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.75
2.08
1.98
1.89
1.79
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.03
3.13

18.25
0.00
18.25
18.25
0.00
18.26
18.26
0.00
18.27
18.27
0.00
18.28
4.83
4.83
0.22
0.22
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.65
1.04
0.16
0.16
5.16
0.23
0.12
4.83
5.84
5.57
5.32
5.04
10.81
11.02
11.30
11.55
11.82
11.82
C1
ST1
ST2
ST3
ST4
CONDP
LPP
HPP
IPP
GT1
GT2
MUWP
C2
C3
C4
C5
tot

21.47
0.00
20.79
24.16
0.00
23.22
26.55
0.00
25.66
29.00
0.00
28.08
4.91
6.54
0.29
0.22
0.38
0.28
0.34
0.25
0.36
0.27
158.26
625.27
39.28
39.02
5.16
0.23
0.12
6.57
7.92
7.55
7.21
6.84
11.00
11.22
11.50
11.75
11.85
14.95
206.31
16.67
7.80
0.29
19.33
0.02
0.00
1.15
0.12
256.99
50.81
0.03
3.84
4.06
4.04
4.10
334.53

156

C1

48

58

ASU

49

NGPH

C8

50

87

CC

47

51

GT

88

COOL5

C9

89

28

38

37

26

GEN1

IPS H

12

13

24

HPEV

HPSH

RH

HPEC

11

10

IPE V

36

14

33

LPP

28

IPST

41

31

M
19

23

20

HPP 35

32

15

22

GEN2

1 05

30

16

34

LPEV

COND P

COND

M3

M1

44

45

LPSH

29

46

110

43

LPST

42

1 06

56

17

LPEC

55

100

18

86

89

101

FG COND

53

52

1 11

85

59

C2

90

54

60

73

72

91

C6

1 02

1 03

62

COOL1 61

COOL6

FigureA.10.1:Structureofthesimpleoxyfuelplant

IPP

IPE C

21

De-aerator

ST4

109

HPST

108

39

40

27

: 44.8%, : 42.7%
Wnet: 313.4 MW

25

M2

107

C7

84

C3
63

75

74

65

COOL2

1 04

83

64

C4

92

66

94

M4

77

76

99

CT

96

68

COOL3

95

98

67

97

C5

93

82

69

79

78

81

COOL4

80

CT P

71

70

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants
157

A.10:Thesimpleoxyfuelplant

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.10.1:Resultsatthecomponentlevelforthesimpleoxyfuelplant

Component,k
C1
CC
GT
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
RH
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
NGPH
HPST
IPST
LPST
ST4
ASU
CONDP
LPP
HPP
IPP
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
Deaerator
M1
M2
M3
M4
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COOL5
COOL6
COND
CT
Total
Exergyloss

E F ,k

E P ,k

E D ,k

y D ,k

(MW)
56.60
733.81
437.91
41.65
51.98
33.59
22.83
0.10
4.45
0.77
0.85
12.43
10.23
3.56
35.41
28.63
51.25
21.91
53.95
0.04
0.00
1.25
0.02
4.82
4.80
4.76
4.83
62.77
56.67
16.43
17.89
0.46
0.65
0.50
0.17
1.20
9.39
1.16
1.14
1.07
1.10
4.87
17.07
11.84
6.62
733.18
31.08

(MW)
53.53
512.57
420.80
35.88
45.21
28.22
18.78
0.06
4.20
0.65
0.62
10.24
7.73
1.04
33.02
26.97
44.29
19.22
11.59
0.03
0.00
1.08
0.01
4.05
4.01
3.95
3.96
57.08
54.82
13.73
15.08
0.44
0.61
0.46
0.17
1.02

313.40

(MW)
3.07
221.24
17.11
5.78
6.78
5.37
4.05
0.04
0.25
0.13
0.23
2.20
2.50
2.52
2.39
1.66
6.96
2.69
42.36
0.01
0.00
0.17
0.01
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.87
5.70
1.85
2.70
2.81
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.18
7.63
1.03
1.03
0.97
1.00
4.59
15.78
8.81
3.78
388.71

(%)
94.6
69.9
96.1
86.1
87.0
84.0
82.3
61.4
94.4
83.7
72.9
82.3
75.6
29.3
93.2
94.2
86.4
87.7
21.5
78.5
64.3
86.1
63.9
83.9
83.5
83.0
82.1
90.9
96.7
83.5
84.3
95.6
93.1
92.4
100.0
84.9

42.7

(%)
0.42
30.18
2.33
0.79
0.92
0.73
0.55
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.30
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.23
0.95
0.37
5.78
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.78
0.25
0.37
0.38
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
1.04
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.63
2.15
1.20
0.51
53.02

158

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

TableA.10.2:Resultsatthestreamlevelforthesimpleoxyfuelplant

Stream,
j
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

m j

Tj

p j E PH , j

(kg/s)
(C)
(bar)
269.63
15.00
1.01
62.00
362.30 40.00
14.06
15.00 50.00
14.06
200.00 49.99
14.06
200.00 40.00
382.00 190.05 40.00
458.06 1400.60 38.80
458.06 706.24 1.04
458.06 649.69 1.04
458.06 539.56 1.04
458.06 381.68 1.03
458.06 253.47 1.02
458.06 253.03 1.02
458.06 232.65 1.02
458.06 228.98 1.02
458.06 224.88 1.02
458.06 156.38 1.02
458.06
66.08
1.02
94.41
140.01 3.62
79.22
140.01 3.62
5.36
140.01 3.62
5.36
140.52 25.13
5.36
216.62 24.38
5.36
222.62 24.38
5.36
233.47 23.16
56.94
304.77 23.16
56.94
560.24 22.00
56.94
323.28 4.32
14.51
208.98 4.10
14.51
146.37 4.32
0.68
146.37 4.32
15.19
140.01 3.62
15.19
140.02 4.32
15.19
146.37 4.32
73.86
140.01 3.62
73.86
141.70 134.56
73.86
325.17 130.53
73.86
331.17 130.53
73.86
560.19 124.00
73.86
312.86 23.16
71.46
255.91 4.10
0.00
32.88
0.05
71.46
32.88
0.05
7048.82 16.00
1.37
7048.82 22.88
1.33
93.73
32.88
0.05
56.94
267.96 4.10
269.63 218.93 6.00
62.00
15.00
1.01
62.00
297.19 6.80
62.00
60.00
6.70
427.59
35.00
1.01
30.47
35.00
1.01
382.00
35.00
1.01
93.73
32.89
3.73
93.73
136.38 3.62
1851.17 16.00
1.37
207.63
15.00
1.01
45.59
35.00
1.01
45.59
150.46 3.22
44.93
40.00
3.21
0.66
40.00
3.21
44.93
157.80 10.22
44.62
40.00 10.21
0.31
40.00 10.21
44.62
158.62 32.46
44.53
40.00 32.45
0.09
40.00 32.45

(MW)
0.00
23.94
8.19
9.70
9.23
95.67
627.23
189.31
166.49
124.83
72.85
39.26
39.16
34.71
33.94
33.08
20.65
10.42
8.46
7.10
0.48
0.49
1.14
5.35
5.41
62.36
81.13
52.50
11.70
11.08
0.52
1.36
1.36
11.60
6.62
7.70
35.92
81.13
117.00
81.59
60.60
0.00
9.35
0.31
3.34
0.20
48.94
53.53
0.00
13.73
8.86
0.95
0.08
0.84
0.23
7.96
0.08
0.00
0.10
4.15
2.99
0.00
7.00
5.85
0.00
9.80
8.71
0.00

E CH , j

E tot , j

(MW)
0.42
7.40
724.58
724.58
724.58
102.82
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
115.16
0.24
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.00
0.18
17.61
17.61
0.23
0.14
0.42
7.40
7.40
7.40
115.09
0.08
102.82
0.23
0.23
4.62
4.19
12.27
12.27
12.27
0.00
12.27
12.28
0.00
12.28
12.29
0.00

(MW)
0.42
31.33
732.76
734.27
733.81
198.49
742.39
304.48
281.65
240.00
188.01
154.42
154.32
149.87
149.10
148.25
135.81
125.58
8.70
7.30
0.49
0.51
1.16
5.36
5.42
62.50
81.27
52.64
11.74
11.12
0.52
1.40
1.40
11.64
6.80
7.88
36.11
81.31
117.19
81.77
60.78
0.00
9.53
17.91
20.95
0.43
49.08
53.95
7.40
21.13
16.25
116.03
0.16
103.66
0.47
8.20
4.70
4.19
12.37
16.42
15.26
0.00
19.27
18.12
0.00
22.08
21.00
0.00

159

AppendixA.Flowchartsandsimulationassumptionsofthepowerplants

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130

44.53
44.49
0.04
147.63
147.63
131.16
131.16
118.20
118.20
125.21
125.21
11504.08
11504.08
11378.87
11260.66
11129.50
10981.87
3933.05
1522.06
329.12
329.12
2410.99
2558.62
2689.78
2807.99
2933.20
8052.86
221.94
115.04
8159.75
11504.08
2081.87
2081.87
382.00
1522.06
4455.26
377.84
4.16
51.59
22.27
22.27
93.73
30.47

160.61 103.09
30.00 103.09
30.00 103.09
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
1.37
16.00
26.00
1.33
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.01
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
15.00
1.01
15.00
1.01
16.00
1.01
24.09
1.01
24.09
1.33
16.00
1.37
26.00
1.33
210.13 6.37
26.00
1.33
26.00
1.33
60.00
6.36
60.00
6.36
312.86 23.16
312.86 23.16
32.88
0.05
32.88
0.05
35.00
1.01

12.67
12.29
24.97
11.56
12.31
23.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.37
0.50
0.01
0.37
0.38
0.12
0.33
0.44
0.01
0.33
0.33
0.11
0.30
0.40
0.01
0.30
0.30
0.11
0.31
0.42
0.01
0.31
0.32
506.75
28.74 535.48
0.50
28.74
29.24
0.49
28.42
28.92
0.49
28.13
28.62
0.48
27.80
28.28
0.48
27.43
27.91
0.17
9.82
10.00
0.07
3.80
3.87
0.01
0.82
0.84
0.29
0.82
1.11
2.14
6.02
8.16
2.27
6.39
8.66
2.39
6.72
9.11
2.49
7.01
9.51
2.61
7.33
9.93
0.00
12.53
12.53
0.00
0.55
0.55
0.00
0.29
0.29
3.92
11.73
15.65
7.12
28.74
35.86
0.09
5.20
5.29
1.85
5.20
7.05
57.92
102.82 160.74
1.35
3.80
5.15
3.96
11.13
15.09
40.80
102.81 143.61
0.06
0.01
0.07
56.99
0.13
57.12
24.60
0.06
24.66
2.70
0.06
2.75
12.04
0.23
12.28
0.08
0.08
0.16

C1
56.15

C7
56.23

ST1
32.70

ST2
27.64

ST3
44.23

CONDP 0.04

LPP
0.00

HPP
1.17

IPP
0.03

C6
62.28

C2
4.78

C3
4.76

C4
4.73

C5
4.79

GT1
299.14

C8
16.30

C9
17.75

ST4
19.07

tot
312.27

160

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

161

AppendixB
Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandthe
conventionalanalyses

B.1 Calculationofefficienciesandpressuredropsforcommon
componentsofthepowerplants
B.1.1 CompressorsandexpandersofGTsystems(C1andGT1)and
CO2/H2Oexpanders(GT2)
The same polytropic efficiency has been assumed for C1, GT1 and GT2 (94% for the
compressorand91%fortheexpanders).

TableB.1:EfficienciesofC1andGT1GT2(allcomponentshaveamechanicalefficiencyof99%)
Compressors(C1)a
pol(%)

Base

94.0

MEA0

94.0

Expanders(GT1)a
is(%)

pol(%) is(%)

91.5

Base

91.0

93.4

91.5

MEA0

91.0

93.4

MEA0.2

94.0

91.5

MEA0.2

91.0

93.4

Simpleoxyfuel

94.0

92.4

Simpleoxyfuel

91.0

93.1

SGraz

SGraz

94.0

92.4

AZEP85

94.0

91.5

AZEP100

94.0

91.5

91.0

93.0

CLC

94.0

91.5

AZEP85

91.0

93.5

MSR

94.0

91.6

AZEP100

91.0

93.6

ATR

GT1
GT2

91.0

92.0

CLC

91.0

93.6

94.0

91.6

MSR

91.0

93.3

C2
94.0
Ifnototherwisestated

93.9

ATR

91.0

93.5

C1
a

B.1.2 Remainingcompressors
The polytropic efficiencies of other types of compressors have been determined based on
their inlet volumetric flows and on whether or not they are centrifugal or axial. The CO2
compressorsinalloftheplantswithCO2capture,aswellasfuelcompressor(C5)intheATR
plant,operatingwithlowermassflowsandhigherpressureratios,havebeenassumedtobe

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

162

TableB.2:Efficienciesoftheremainingcompressorsandexpandersoftheplants(themechofall
componentsis99%)
Recyclecompressors
O2compressors

pol(%) is(%) Vin(m3/s)

pol(%)is(%)Vin(m3/s)
Simpleoxyfuel
Simpleoxyfuel

C6 88.9
C8 77.1 71.2 45.00
86.6
291.40
C7 86.9
C9 75.4 69.5
84.6
38.72
7.80
SGraz
SGraz

C7 89.1
C9 77.1 71.2 45.37
86.8
345.55
C8 87.6
C10 75.4 69.5
85.0
77.61
7.83
AZEP85(C6)
Fuelcompressor
87.9
87.9
103.36
AZEP100(C6)
ATR(C5)
88.1
88.0
121.65
79.5 78.7
9.15
Fluegascompressor
GT2

pol(%) is(%) Vin(m3/s)

pol(%)is(%)

MEA0(C2)
SGraz
89.7
89.5
656.68
91.0 90.0

MEA0.2(C2)
AZEP85
89.7
89.5
656.68
91.0 92.9

AZEP100

91.0 92.9

CLC

91.0 93.0

MSR

91.0 93.8

CO2compressors

pol(%) is(%) Vin(m3/s)

pol(%)is(%)Vin(m3/s)
MEA0
AZEP85

C3 80.3
C2 80.3 77.9 19.58
78.1
20.66
C4 79.1
C3 79.2 76.6
76.7
6.21
6.26
C5 78.0
C4 78.0 75.6
75.6
1.92
1.94
C6 76.9
C5 76.9 74.1
74.1
0.60
0.61
MEA0.2
AZEP100

C3 80.5
C2 80.4 78.1 23.03
78.3
25.43
C4 79.2
C3 79.3 76.8
76.7
6.22
7.36
C4 78.2 75.7
C5 78.0
2.28
75.6
1.92
C6 76.9
C5 77.0 74.2
74.1
0.60
0.71
Simpleoxyfuel
CLC

C2 80.8
C2 80.4 79.2 22.72
78.2
34.99
C3 79.5
C3 79.3 78.0
77.3
8.58
7.26
C4 78.3
C4 78.2 77.7
76.5
2.65
2.25
C5 77.2
C5 77.0 76.9
75.1
0.83
0.70
SGraz
MSR

C3 83.3
C2 80.4 78.2 22.32
78.5
412.33
C4 80.6
C3 79.3 76.9
78.2
27.19
7.33
C5 79.5
C4 78.2 76.0
77.3
8.48
2.27
C6 78.3
C5 77.0 74.4
76.5
2.67
0.71
C3 77.2
ATR
74.9
0.84

C3 76.7 74.5

0.50
C4 77.7 75.2

1.37

centrifugalandtheirefficiencieshavebeencalculatedusingEquationB.1(Ludwig,2001).The
efficiencies of the remaining compressors have been calculated based on the calculation
method used for axial compressors. However, depending on the size and operation of the
compressors,theirefficiencieshavebeenadjustedanalogously.Largercompressors,suchas
therecyclecompressorsintheSGraz(C7andC8)andthesimpleoxyfuelprocesses(C6and
C7),aswellasthefluegascompressorintheMEAplants(C2),havebeenassumedtobeaxial
with polytropic efficiencies of about 6 percentage points higher than that calculated for the
respective centrifugal compressors (Equation B.2). Oxygen compressors have also been
considered as axial compressors. However, due to higher risk that requires stronger
precaution measures, their efficiency has been estimated to be 10 percentage points lower
thantheefficiencyoftherespectiveaxialcompressor(EquationB.3).Throughthepolytropic

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

163

efficiencies, the isentropic efficiencies have been calculated as a function of mass flows,
pressureratiosandcompositionsoftherespectivestreams.

0.0098ln(V ) 0.7736 ,forcentrifugalcompressors

(B.1)

(B.2)

0.0098ln(V ) 0.7336 ,foraxialO2compressors

(B.3)

0.0098ln(V ) 0.8336 ,foraxialcompressors

Here, V is the volumetric flow rate of the gas entering the compressor. The resulting
efficienciesfortheremainingturbomachineryoftheplantsareshowninTableB.2(Ludwig,
2001,Sinnott,2005).

B.1.3 Steamturbines
Thepolytropicefficienciesofthehigh,intermediateandlowpressuresteamturbineshave
beenassumedtobe90%,92%and87%,respectively.DuetothesimilarSTsusedinallofthe
plants the isentropic efficiencies have been generalized for all processes: 91.6% for HPSTs,
93.3%forIPSTsand88%forLPSTsandtheadditionalST4ofsomeplants.

B.1.4 Pumps
The isentropic efficiencies of the pumps have been calculated using Figure B.1, where the
behaviour of the total efficiency of pumps versus the mass flow rate of the component is
provided.

Efficiency,tot()

1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

flow(kg/s)
Mass

FigureB.1:Influenceofmassflowonthepumpefficiency(adoptedfromPeters,2003)

TheisentropicefficiencyofthepumpshasbeencalculatedusingEquationB.4andassuming
amechanicalefficiencyof98%.TheresultsofthecalculationsareshowninTableB.3.

mech is tot

(B.4)

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

164

TableB.3:Calculatedefficienciesofpumps(themechofallpumpsisassumedtobe98%)

Referenceplant
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
MEA0
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
MEA0.2
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
Simpleoxyfuel
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
SGraz
HPP
LPP
AZEP85
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
AZEP100
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
CLCplant
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
MSRplant
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
MUWP
ATRplant
CONDP
HPP
IPP
LPP
MUWP

Massflowrate
(kg/s)

tot
(%)

is
(%)

Win,motor
(kW)

motor
(%)

94.6
65.2
7.2
23.0

94.5
65.4
7.0
22.9

94.5
65.4
7.0
22.9

93.7
73.9
5.3
15.2

94.8
116.7

95.6
71.0
6.2
18.5

101.1
64.1
15.5
20.4

93.3
68.1
14.0
20.8

31.3
67.4
12.4
31.3
79.0

80.5
55.3
34.1
23.2
31.1

89.9
86.5
66.2
76.8

89.9
86.5
65.8
76.8

90.0
86.5
65.8
76.8

89.8
87.6
63.3
73.0

89.9
91.8

90.0
87.3
64.7
74.9

90.5
86.3
73.2
75.8

89.8
86.9
72.3
75.9

79.7
86.8
71.2
79.7
88.2

88.4
84.9
80.5
76.9
79.6

91.7
88.2
67.5
78.4

91.7
88.3
67.2
78.4

91.7
88.3
67.2
78.4

91.6
89.4
64.6
74.5

91.8
93.7

91.8
89.0
66.1
76.4

92.4
88.1
74.7
77.3

91.6
88.6
73.8
77.5

81.3
88.5
72.6
81.3
90.0

90.2
86.7
82.1
78.5
81.2

45
1122
29
3

45
1123
28
3

45
1123
28
3

44
1255
22
2

1648
15

45
1207
26
2

46
1100
58
3

43
979
51
3

16
1203
102
4
32

43
1073
185
50
15

87.2
94.8
86.2
80.7

87.2
94.8
86.2
80.7

87.2
94.8
86.2
80.7

87.2
95.1
85.6
79.9

95.7
84.7

87.2
95.0
85.9
80.3

87.3
94.7
87.8
80.5

87.1
94.5
87.6
80.5

84.8
95.0
89.2
81.5
86.4

87.1
94.7
90.6
87.5
84.6

B.1.5

Generatorsandmotors

Theelectricalefficienciesofthegeneratorshavebeenkeptconstantandequalto98.5%,while
theelectricalefficiencyofthemotorsfollowsthecurveshowninFigureB.2.

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

165

Efficiency()

0,8

0,6

0,4
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Capacity (kW)

FigureB.2:Influenceofthecapacityonthepumpefficiency(adoptedfromSinnott,2005)

B.1.6 Heatexchangers
B.1.6.1 Pressuredrops
The pressure drops in the HXs have been determined depending on the working fluid and
the temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet of this fluid. The pressure drop
hasbeensetto3%and5%oftheinletpressureforwaterandsteamstreams,respectively.In
the evaporators, the pressure drops are handled by internal pumps. In gas/gas HXs, low
pressure and highpressure gases have been assumed to suffer by 0.6% and 0.65% pressure
dropsper100C,respectively,alwayswithrespecttotheinletpressure.
FortheHXsthatconstitutetheHRSGs,theoverallpressuredropofthehotside(HS,fluegas)
hasbeenconsideredtobe30mbarinalloftheplants,withtheexceptionoftheSGrazcycle
that includes a singlepressure level and has been assumed to have a pressure drop of 20
mbar (Ganapathy, 1991). These total pressure drops have been distributed among the HXs
dependingontheirheattransfer.TheoutletpressureoftheHRSGhasbeensetto1.028bar,
assuminga15mbarpressurelossinthechimney.
ThecalculatedpressuredropwithineachHXisprovidedinTableB.4.

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

TableB.4:PressuredropswithintheHXsofthereference,MEAandsimpleoxyfuelplants

PHRSGper100C

RH/RH1
RH2
HPSH/HPSH1
HPSH2
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH/LPSH1
LPSH2
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
NGPH
AirHX
MCMLTHX
MCMHTHX
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COOL5
COOL6
COOL7
COOLCAU
CONDFG
WP1
WP2
WP3
H2PH

Referenceplant
0.58%
T
(C)
132

132

107
83
1
20
4
5

73
61

MEA0
0.58%
Pflue
Pfluegas T
gas
(102bar)
(C) (102bar)
0.82
129
0.79

0.82
129
0.79

0.66
108
0.67
0.51
84
0.52
0.00
1
0.00
0.12
19
0.12
0.02
3
0.02
0.03
5
0.03

0.45
73
0.45
0.38
62
0.38

133
0.80

112
0.67

113
0.68

125
0.75

71
0.43

MEA0.2
0.58%
Pflue
T
gas
(C) (102bar)
129
0.79

129
0.79

108
0.67
84
0.52
1
0.00
19
0.12
3
0.02
5
0.03

73
0.45
62
0.38

227
1.36
112
0.67
113
0.68
125
0.75

71
0.43

Simpleoxyfuelplant
0.35%
Pflue
T
gas
T
Pgas
(C) (102bar) (C) (102bar)
57
0.25

110
0.48

158
0.69

128
0.56

0
0.00

20
0.09

4
0.02

4
0.02

68
0.30

90
0.40

185
1.11
57
0.05

110
0.66

118
0.71

119
0.71

131
0.78

237
1.54

150
0.90

34
0.20

PHRSGper100C
T

RH/RH1
RH2
HPSH/HPSH1
HPSH2
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH/LPSH1
LPSH2
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
NGPH
AirHX
MCMLTHX
MCMHTHX
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COOL5
COOL6
COOL7

(C)

109

159
4

315

59
311
117
118
119
131
237

SGraz
AZEP85
AZEP100
0.73%
0.57%
0.70%
Pflue
Pflue
Pflue
Pflue
Pflue
T
T
T
T Pgas T
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
(102
(102
(102
(102
(102
(102
(C)
(C)
(C)
(C)
(C)
bar)
bar)
bar)
bar)
bar)
bar)

123
0.75

73
0.54

73
0.54

0.81

123
0.75

1.17

114
0.69

83
0.61

0.03

88
0.54

64
0.47

0
0

2
0.02

20
0.12

42
0.31

4
0.02

8
0.06

4
0.03

4
0.03

69
0.42

65
0.48

72
0.44

64
0.48

108
0.43

117
0.47

149
0.6

155
0.62

119
0.48

124
0.5

1.89
62
0.37
86
0.51
235
1.53
73
0.44
235
1.53

76
0.49
130
0.84
76
0.5
131
0.85

476
3.1
507
3.3
476
3.1
507
3.3

226
1.47
250
1.63
226
1.47
250
1.63
0.35

1.87

98
0.59

98
0.59

0.7

112
0.67

112
0.67

0.71

113
0.68

113
0.68

0.71

125
0.75

125
0.75

0.79

1.54

166

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

COOLCAU
CONDFG
WP1
WP2
WP3
H2PH

39
253
198
79

PHRSGper100C

RH/RH1
RH2
HPSH/HPSH1
HPSH2
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH/LPSH1
LPSH2
LPEV
LPEC
SHII
EVII
ECII
NGPH
AirHX
MCMLTHX
MCMHTHX
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
COOL5
COOL6
COOL7
COOLCAU
CONDFG
WP1
WP2
WP3
H2PH

T
(C)
87
87

89
69
2
38
7

4
66
59
8
35
27
98

96
110
110
121

289

0.23
1.52
1.29
0.47

192

1.15

295

167

1.77

CLCplant
MSRplant
ATRplant
0.68%
0.50%
0.56%
Pflue
Pflue
Pflue
Pflue
Pflue
gas
T
gas
T
gas
T
gas
T Pgas T
gas
(102
(102
(102
(102
(102
(102
bar)
(C)
bar)
(C)
bar)
(C)
bar)
(C)
bar)
(C)
bar)
0.62

17
0.10

97
0.63

0.62

79
0.44

64
0.40

22
0.14

83
0.52

0.64

112
0.62

90
0.56

0.49

88
0.49

28
0.18

0.01

2
0.01

15
0.09

0.27

31
0.18

90
0.56

0.05

11
0.06

23
0.14

33
0.21

0.03

10
0.06

5
0.03

0.47

103
0.58

76
0.48

0.42

84
0.47

74
0.47

0.03

0.14

0.11

0.59
285
1.85
65
0.39
278
1.81
231
1.50
255
1.66

92
0.55

0.58

112
0.67

102
0.61

0.66

113
0.68

117
0.70

0.66

125
0.75

0.72

90
0.54

1.74

42
0.27

118
0.77

20
0.13

269
1.75
412
12.37

B.1.6.2 Minimumtemperaturedifferences(Tmin)
In the evaporators of the HRSGs, the pinch point has been set to 10C and the approach
temperatureto6C.TheminintheremainingHXs(superheatersandeconomizers)hasbeen
set to 20C. The min of the condenser, as well as the temperature increase of the cooling
water, have been kept at 10C. With some exceptions related to specific operating
requirements,theminofgas/gasHXshasbeensetto60C.

B.1.7 Reactors
IntheCCoftheGTsystemsandtheCLCreactorthepressurelosseshavebeensetto5and
3%oftheinletpressure,respectively,whileintheDBsithasbeensetto1%.

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

B.2

168

Applicationoftheconventionalexergybasedmethods

B.2.1 Applicationoftheexergeticanalysis
Matlab is the programming language used to perform the exergetic analysis. In Matlab,
exergybalancesarestatedbothatthecomponentlevelandfortheoverallplant,i.e.,balances
regardingtherateofproductexergy,therateoffuelexergyandrateofexergydestructionfor
eachcomponentandfortheoverallsystem.Thestatementsoftheexergyratesarecarriedout
basedontheSPECOapproach(LazzarettoandTsatsaronis,2006).Tocalculatethe(physical
andchemical)exergiesofstreams,inordertousethemintheexergybalancesoftheanalysis,
the software THESIS, originally developed at the RWTH Aachen, has been used. The main
thermodynamic values of the streams (mass flows, temperatures and pressures) and their
compositionareexportedfromEbsilonProfessionalusinga.dllfileandtheyaresuppliedas
input to the exergy calculation software. The respective enthalpies, entropies and exergy
valuesarethencalculated.Thenumberofthecomponentsandthestreamsincludedineach
plantareshowninTableB.5.
TableB.5:Powerplantcharacteristics

Ref.
plant

Simple
oxyfuel
plant
131(19
shafts)

SGraz
cycle

MEA

Numberof
67(10
119(18
122(17
streams
shafts)
shafts)
shafts)
Numberof
26
45
40
40
componentsa
ofwhich
2
9
9
8
dissipative
aNotincludingvalves,splitters,generatorsormotors

CLC

AZEP
100

AZEP
85

ATR

MSR
H2

120(16
shafts)

135(17
shafts)

138(17
shafts)

138(17
shafts)

125(17
shafts)

42

48

48

55

43

B.2.2 Applicationoftheeconomicanalysis
The main challenge in an analytical economic analysis is the estimation of the investment
costs of plant components, since most of the available cost sources refer to relatively small
scalefacilities.Thesevaluesaredifficulttoadjustwhenlargeequipmentisconsidered.Inthis
thesis, various sources are combined and a large number of different data are used as
reference. The reference data used for all components, their design characteristics and their
sourcesarepresentedinTableB.6.
Thesizeexponentshavebeenusedtoextrapolatecostsbasedonsizingparametersand
have been calculated through cost comparisons with equipment found in the references.
Temperatures,surfaceareasandheattransferrateshavealsoeitherbeenextractedfromthe
reportsused(TsatsaronisandWinhold,1984;Buchananetal.,2000;TsatsaronisandCziesla,
2002; Turton et al., 2002; Framer, 2006) or they have been calculated after simulations in
EbsilonProfessional.ThemodularfactorsshowninTableB.6areusedtoconvertPECtoFCI

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

169

andtheyhavebeenderivedfromBuchananetal.(2000)asaresultofcomparisonsbetween
equipmentandtotalcostsofcomponents.
To calculate a HXs surface area, its overall heat transfer coefficient, Uo, must first be
estimated.Typicalvaluerangesoftheoverallheattransfercoefficientsforvariantcomponent
typescanbefoundinliterature(NaimAfganet.al,1996).Nonetheless,coefficientvaluesare
spreadoverwideranges,andusuallyameanvalueischosen.Inthisthesis,theheattransfer
coefficientshavebeencalculatedindetail,followingtheprocessdescribedinAppendixC.
Constructionmaterials are also important for cost calculations. However, at first, plant
components in this thesis are assumed to be constructed with similar materials as the
reference components. For hightemperature HXs, where no real economic data have been
found, the materials have been assumed to be two to five times higher (depending on the
operating temperature) than the base cost of the most economical HX (economizer). A
detailedexaminationofdifferentmaterialsisperformedintheLCAoftheplants.
Because each part of the system (e.g., GT and ST systems) is simulated as a separate
component, a strategy to split the system costs had to be defined. For example, in the GT
system, 40% of the total cost is assumed to correspond to the expander, 35% to the
compressor and 25% to the CC. In the ST system, the cost is shared among the different
pressurelevelSTs,basedontheircontributiontotheoverallpoweroutputoftheSTsystem.
This is also in agreement with a general design assumption of the STs that lower pressure
requireslargershuffles,thusitisassociatedwithcostlierconstruction.
To extrapolate the cost of the GT systems of the plants with CO2 capture from the GT
systemofthereferenceplant,therespectivesystemcomponentshavebeencompared,based
onthepoweroutput(fortheexpander),thepowerinput(forthecompressor)andthemass
flowofthecombustionproducts(fortheCC).ThecostoftheadditionalST(ST4)iscalculated
based on the LPST of each plant, since the inlet and outlet pressures and temperatures of
thesecomponentsarecomparable.
TheMCMreactorwasinitiallyregardedasonecomponentforthecostcalculations.The
costs of the included HXs and CC were calculated separately following the guidelines
describedabove.Finally,thecostoftheMCMiscalculatedbysubtractingthecostoftheCC
andtheHXsfromthecostoftheoverallreactor.
In the CLC plant, the cost of the metal oxide has not been calculated because of high
uncertainty (Lyngfelt and Thunman, 2005). However, even at the highest suggested prices
andquantitiesitcouldbeconsiderednegligibleincomparisontothetotalcostoftheunit.The
installationandthemetaloxidecostsoftheCLCunithavebeenconsideredtobe20%ofthe
equipmentcost.
The cost of the CAU in MEA0.2 was calculated based on a predefined 50% overall
increase in the total FCI of the plant, when compared to the reference plant (IPCC report,
2005) and has then been split into its constitutive components: 55% absorber, 18%
regenerator,27%remainingcomponents(AbuZahraetal.,2007).TheextrapolationtoMEA0
hasbeenperformedbasedoncomparisonbetweenthesizeoftheequipmentusedhereand
thatusedinMEA0.2.Theabsorberisdesignedasapackedvessel.Theheightanddiameter
oftheabsorptioncolumnhavebeenestimatedfollowingcalculationspresentedbyRubinand

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

170

Ref.cost

GTsystem,ref.
plant(GT1,C1
andCC)
HRSG

(106)
50.0

Design
Factorx Ref. Costindex Typeof
characteristic
year
cost
(varies)
()

Modular
factor
()

2006

15%

PEC

1.3

Sizeexponent

()
0.90forexpander/
Framer,2006;SGT44000F,286MW,
compressor,0.67for
Tout,fg=1071F
CC

SH,SHII

1.3

4120m2

2005

CEPCI

FCI

1.7

0.87

EV,EVII
EC,ECII

3.7
2.0

20474m2
16247m2

2005
2005

CEPCI
CEPCI

FCI
FCI

1.7
1.7

0.87
0.87

COND

9.0

1kW

1999

CEPCI

FCI

1.7

0.87

STs

26.0

120MW

1999

15%

FCI

1.5

HPP

1.4

3.37MW

1990

CEPCI

FCI

1.3

0.80

IPP
LPP
CONDP
CT
Deaerator

18.3
0.9

217MW
190kg/sec

2001
2001
2001
1999
1990

CEPCI
CEPCI
CEPCI
CEPCI
CEPCI

FCI
FCI
FCI
FCI
FCI

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5

1.00
1.00

GT2

2006

15%

PEC

1.5

ST4a

CostofLPST

2008

15%

FCI

1.5

0.90

3.8

1.42MW

1990

15%

FCI

1.5

0.70

Recyclecompr.b
CO2compr.c

3.8

1.42MW

1990

15%

FCI

1.5

0.70

FGcompr.d

3.8

1.42MW

1990

15%

FCI

1.5

0.70

FGCOND&
COOLs

2.0

16247m2

2005

CEPCI

FCI

1.7

0.87

21.9

14kg/secfuel

2008

CEPCI

1.3

0.67

FCI

DB

Reference

Comments

Splittingofthecost:40%expander,35%
compressorand25%CC

JavierPisa,pers.com.

Uo(Source:BEAMA,
http://www.taftan.com/xl/condens.htm
Splittingofthecosttothedifferentpressure
Buchananetal.,2000
levels,dependingonthepoweroutputof
eachST
Differsfromotherpumps,duetoitslarger
Tsatsaronisetal.,1991
size(>300kW)
Turtonetal.,2002

Turtonetal.,2002

Turtonetal.,2002

Buchananetal.,2000
Ebs.simulationforthecalculationoftheQCT
Tsatsaronisetal.,1991
Themassflowreferstooutgoingstream

GTsystemwithnetpoweroutputhalfasthat
oftheexpanderhasbeenconsideredas
Framer,2006;differentmodels
reference.40%ofthiscostisthecostofthe
GT2
TsatsaronisandWinhold,1984(used CostsdifferdependingontheLPSTineach
forcomparisonpurposes)
plant

Tsatsaronisetal.,1991

meanspecificvalue(/kW)hasbeenusedfor
Tsatsaronisetal.,1991
allcompressors,differentineachplant
Tsatsaronisetal.,1991

Newcalculationofhcandhnfortheoverall
JavierPisa,pers.com.
heattransfercoefficient

Ref.costistheCCofthereferenceplant

JavierPisa,pers.com.
JavierPisa,pers.com.
Buchananetal.,2000,BEAMA,
http://www.taftan.com/xl/condens.htm

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses 170

TableB.6:Dataforcostcalculationse

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

171

MCM

1MWthfuel
0.2

2001

CEPCI

FCI

3.0

Mlleretal.,2006

Noexponentused,duetothealready
realizedextrapolationofthegivencost

Newcalculationofhcandhnfortheoverall
heattransfercoefficient
Newcalculationofhcandhnfortheoverall
heattransfercoefficient
Newcalculationofhcandhnfortheoverall
heattransfercoefficient
Newcalculationofhcandhnfortheoverall
heattransfercoefficient

MCMHTHX

2.0

16,247m2

2005

CEPCI

FCI

1.7

0.87

JavierPisa,pers.com.

MCMLTHX

2.0

16,247m2

2005

CEPCI

FCI

1.7

0.87

JavierPisa,pers.com.

NGPH

2.0

16,247m2

2005

CEPCI

FCI

1.7

0.87

JavierPisa,pers.com.

AirPH

2.0

16,247m2

2005

CEPCI

FCI

1.7

0.87

JavierPisa,pers.com.

Splittingofthecost:55%absorber,18%
stripperand27%remainingcomponents

CLC

16.2

180m3

2000

CEPCI

PEC

1.2

0.60

Klara(2007),Wolfetal.(2005),
LyngfeldandThunman(2005)

CAU

50%>FCItotof
toref.plant

FCI

3.0

sensitivityanalysis
0.60

AbuZahraetal.,2007,IPCC2005

ST4andST5areconsideredpartoftheIPSTintheMEAplant
bRecyclecompr(C6,AZEPs)
cCO2compr.(C2C5,AZEPs,CLC;C3C6,MEA)
dFGcompr(C2,MEA)
e1=1$
a

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses 171

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

172

TableB.7:Assumptionsinvolvedintheeconomicanalysis(referenceyear:2009)
Parameter(units)

Averagegeneralinflationrate(%)

Averagenominalescalationrate(%)

AveragenominalescalationrateforNG(%)

Beginningofdesignandconstructionperiod

Dateofcommercialoperation

Planteconomiclife(years)

Plantlifefortaxpurposes(years)

Plantfinancingfractionsandrequiredreturnsoncapital
Typeoffinancing
Financingfraction(%)
Requiredannualreturn(%)

Resultingaveragecostofmoney(%)

Averagecombinedincometaxrate(%)

Averagepropertytaxrate(%ofPFI)

Averageinsurancerate(%ofPFI)

Averagecapacityfactor(%)

Laborpositionsforopeningandmaintenance

Averagelaborrate(/h)
6

Annualfixedoperatingandmaintenancecosts(10 )

Annualfixedoperatingandmaintenancecosts

atfullcapacity(103)

Unitcostoffuel(/GJLHV:50,015MJ/kg)

Allocationofplantfacilitiesinvestmenttothe

individualyearsofdesignandconstruction(%)
Jan.1Dec.31,2011
Jan.1Dec.31,2012

Value

2011

2013

20

15

Commonequity Debt
50
50

12
8

10

30

85

30

50

1.5

624

40

60

Rao,2002.Theheightoftheregeneratoragreeswiththatoftheabsorber,whileitsdiameteris
calculatedbasedonitsvolume.
Generalized cost equations for common components of the plants, as an example for
similarsidedequipmentareprovidedinAppendixD.
AftertheestimationoftheFCIoftheplant,adetailedeconomicanalysisfollowingthe
TRRmethod(seeAppendixA)wasrealizedforeachplant.Themainassumptionsmadefor
thisanalysisareshowninTableB.7.

B.2.3 Applicationoftheexergoeconomicanalysis
Theexergoeconomicanalysisconsistsofagroupoflinearequationsstatedatthecomponent
level.Thesumofallcostsenteringacomponent(costofincomingstreamsplusinvestment
costofthecomponent)mustbeequaltothecostofthestreamsexitingthecomponent.The
costofairandwaterprovidedtotheplantsisconsideredtobezero.
Dissipative components (e.g., throttling valves, coolers, condensers, gas cleaning units)
serve productive components in a system, facilitating an overall effective operation, cost
reduction or achievement of required emission standards. Thus, costs associated with
purchasing and operating a dissipative component are usually charged either to the

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

173

component(s)servedbyitortothefinalproduct(s)ofthesystem(LazzarettoandTsatsaronis,
2006).Inthisthesis,thecostsrelatedtodissipativeequipmentarechargedtothecomponents
served by it (e.g., the cost of each cooler is charged to the subsequent compressor served).
When more than one component is served by a dissipative component, the cost is
apportionedtoallofthecomponentsserved,usingweightingfactors.
Forexample,theinvestmentcostofaCTischargedtothecondensers/coolerssupplied
with cooling water, using the respective heat transfer rates ( Q ) as weighting factors. The
condenser serves the components of the steam cycle, allowing the perpetuation of the
water/steam cycle. The cost of the condenser is, therefore, shared by the components
constitutingthesteamcycle,dependingonthecontributionofeachcomponenttotheirtotal
exergydestruction.ForthecondenserandCT(FigureB.3),theexergycostingequation(with
specificcostofwaterequaltozero)iswrittenas:

c1 c2

C1 Z COND Z CT C 2 c1 E 1 Z COND Z CT c1 E 2 c1 E 1 E 2 Z COND Z CT 0 1

COND

CT

FigureB.3:Connectionbetweencondenserandcoolingtower

However, because c1 E 1 E 2 Z COND Z CT 0 , an imaginary value, C diff , is introduced to


maintainthecostbalance:

c1 E1 E 2 Z COND Z CT C diff 0

Tocalculatethe C diff andtheexergydestructionusedasweightingfactorforthecostsharing,


the exergoeconomic analysis must be realized. When all dissipative components have been
accountedfor,theyareremovedfromthecycleandtheanalysisisrepeated.

B.2.4 ApplicationoftheLCA
In an LCA, the component variables, the consumption and the release of materials are
identifiedandquantified(FiaschiandLombardi,2002).Inordertoidentifythematerialinlet
flows,theoveralllifecycleofeachcomponentoftheplantmustbeconsideredand,hence,the

The auxiliary equation of the condenser is c1=c2.

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

174

phases of construction, operation and dismantling must be taken into account. For the
quantificationofthematerialsneeded,itisnecessarytoapproximatethesizeoftheplantand
collectinformationaboutthemainmaterials,theirproductionprocessesandweights,aswell
asthescrapoutputofallequipmentassembledfortheplant.Toshiftfromthemanufactured
materialstotherawsubstancesandemissionsinventory,thecommerciallyavailablesoftware
PackageSimaPro7.1hasbeenused(SimaPro,2006).
Theselectionofconstructionmaterials,basedonstrength,corrosionresistanceandcost
offabrication,isvitaltoprocessdesignestimates.Expertiseaboutequipmentcanalsoassist
inthefinalselectionofmaterials.Ingeneral,carbonsteelisusedwheneverpossiblebecause
of its low cost and ease of fabrication (Seider, 2004). Details about component design and
suitable construction materials are obtained from equipment design handbooks and
manufacturing leaflets. Typical construction materials for conventional process equipment
arelistedinTableB.8.
TableB.8:Typicalconstructionmaterialsforprocessequipment
Component

Materials

GTexpandera

Discs:Highstrengthsteels,Vanes:CobaltNickelbasedalloys,Blades:Nibased
alloys

Compressora

Discs:Highstrengthlowsteel,Blades:lowcarbonsteel

CCa

Cans:Nibasedsheetsuperalloys

ST

Valvechest,shafts,discs:Alloysteel,Steamrings,cylinders:Carbonsteel,Blades:
Stainlesssteel

HRSG

Carbon/Stainlesssteel

Storage/Processvessel Steel/Reinforcedsteel
Condenser

CopperNialloys,Stainlesssteel,Titanium,Brass

Deaerator

Carbon/Stainlesssteel

Pump

Carbon/Stainlesssteel,Castiron,Nickel,Titanium

CT

Steel,Stainlesssteel,PVC,FRP,Concrete,Polyethylene

ThematerialsusedinGTsystemsareintherangeofmetallurgicalalloysfromhighstrengthsteelto
lightweightaluminumortitaniumandaremainlytemperatureresistant.
bMaterialstoenhancecorrosionresistance,reducemaintenance,andpromotereliabilityandlongservicelife
areused
a

As mentioned in section 3.2.3, in order to quantitatively assess environmental impacts, the


environmental impact indicator Ecoindicator 99 is used. The Ecoindicator 99 impact
assessment method (HierarchistAverage database version) (SimaPro, 2006) is used in a
similar way as costs in the exergoeconomic analysis. Standard Ecoindicator 99 points
summarize the environmental impacts associated with the complete upstream chain
(productionanddistribution)of1kgofeachrequiredrawmaterial.Designestimatesdepend
ontherequiredconstructionmaterials.Inordertoaccomplishthisitisnecessaryto:
a) Estimate the equipment weight using product information sheets and mechanical
designcharacteristicsprovidedbymanufacturers.Inmostcases,weightestimationisa
function of the operating conditions and the mechanical design requirements of each
unit.Thus,theequipmentweightcouldbeestimatedbasedmerelyonmechanicaldesign
calculations and on rules of thumb. Reference values are extrapolated taking the
operatingconditionsoftheconsideredprocessesintoconsideration.

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

175

b) Estimate the percentage of each construction material required to manufacture a


component. This estimate is based on available manufacturing information data sheets
andmechanicaldesignstandards.
For the estimation of environmental impacts, the environmental boundaries of the
systems have been defined to incorporate all relevant processes (see section B.2.5). The
constructionstageincludestheconsumptionofconstructionmaterialsforthemanufactureof
system components, while the operating stage includes the consumption of fossil fuel as
inflowstreamandthegasemissions(mainlyCO2andNOx)asoutflowstreams.
The design characteristics, the construction materials, the references used and the
environmental impact of the chosen materials, represented by the ECOindicator, are
presentedforalltypesofcomponentsinTableB.9.

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

176

Component,k

DesignParameter

Designcharacteristics

GT1/GT2

C1

C2C5(C3C6for
MEAplant)

CC/DB

STs

Power
Exhaustvolumeflowrate

Dischargepressure
Volumeflowrate

Fuel/airmassflowrate

Power
Exhaustvolumeflowrate

Conventionalturbinefor200300MWpoweroutput

Centrifugal

Sequentialcombustionwithair

3060MWpoweroutput

MCMreactor

Thermalpower

MCM/
HT&LTHX

CLCreactors
(AR&FR)

Usedconstruction Ecoindicator
Material
materials
99
composition
(Pts/t)
(%,w/w)
Steel
Steelhighalloy

86
910

25
75

Steel

86

33.33

Steellowalloy

110

44.45

Castiron

240

22.22

Steel
Steelhighalloy

Steel
Steelhighalloy

Rhodiumenriched
(catalyzator)

86
910

86
910

33.34
66.66

25
75

12.000.000

1.24

Membranedensity

Mixedconductingmembranewithoxygenion
vacancies

Zinccoating(catalyst
support)perm2

49

11.16

Thermalpower

Monolit(membrane)volume=47.18m3
Surfacetovolumeratio=>500m2/m3

Steelhighalloy
Castiron

910
240

56.94
30.66

Oxygencarriercapacity

Energydensity=15MW/m3

Steelhighalloy

910

65

References

NuovoPignone,2009;
Soares,2002.

Cooper,2009.

NuovoPignone,2009;
Seideretal.,2004.

Mitsubishi,2009;
Soares,2002.

Erikssonetal.,2007;Griffinetal.,2005;
Sundkvist,2005,2007;Reinke,2005;
Kolbitsch,2008;Seideretal.,2004.

www.hyundai.eu;

Oxygenproductionrate=37molO2/(m3.s)

Castiron

240

35

Catalyzatoractivearea=0.26m2/g

Twointerconnectedpressurisedfluidisedbedreactors
withacyclonesystem
Solidsinventory=100200kg/MW
Solidsresidencetime:
AR=4.8s,FR=60s
Gasvelocity:
AR=10m/s,FR=15m/s
Oxygencarrierparticles(NiO):
meandiameter=150m
averagedensity=2400kg/m3

Linderholm,2008,Wolf,2005;Kolbitsch,
2009;www.durofelguera.com;
Naqvi,2007;Naqvi,2006.

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses 176

TableB.9:Designdataforplantcomponents

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

177

Heattransferarea
Heattransfercoefficient

tubelength=10ft,thickn.=0.120in

Steelhighalloy

910

74

COND/COOL/EV/
EC

findensity=2fin/in,height=0.500in
finthickn.=0.075in

Ganapathy,1991,PerryandGreen,1997;
committees.api.org/standards,2009;Seider
etal.,2004

tubeOD=2in,ID=1.770in

Steel

86

100

Soares,2002;Seideretal.,2004.

tubelength=10ft,thickn.=0.105in
findensity=4fin/in,height=0.750in
finthickn.=0.050in
HyperboliccounterflowNaturaldrafttowerwith
PVCfilmfill

Concrete

3.8

91

www.gammonindia.com, June 2009;

Steel

86

26

CT

Watervolumeflowrate

Heattransferarea

PVC(highimpact)

280

Storage/Process
Vessel
Deaerator

PUMP(P)

www.evaptech.com, June 2009;Gouldetal.,


1999;
http://process-equipment.globalspec.com;
www.alpinebau.de,June2009.

PerryandGreen,1997.

Volumeflowratecapacity
Pressure
Fluidvolumeflowrate(GPM)

Deaeratingboilerfeedwater

Centrifugal

Steel

Steel

86

86

100

35

Dischargepressure

Castiron

240

65

Gestra,2009;
committees.api.org/standards,2009.
www.pumpexpert.com, May 2009;
Blochetal.,1998;www.chempump.com,
2009.

CAU

Absorber:packedvessel.Height
anddiameter
Stripper:regenerationheat
requirement

Steel
Steelhighalloy

86
910

1%
99%

RubinandRao,2002;Rennie,2006;
www.sulzerchemtech.com

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses 177

HXs/HRSG

SH/RH,AirHX,NGPH
OD=2in,ID=1.738

AppendixB.Assumptionsusedinthesimulationsandtheconventionalanalyses

178

B.2.5 Applicationoftheexergoenvironmentalanalysis
Theoperatingparametersofthisanalysisarethesameasthoseconsideredintheeconomic
analysis: 20 years of operation with 7446 h/yr. To determine the impact associated with the
production of electricity, the same group of equations as in the exergoeconomic analysis is
used.Thedifferencehereisthatthecostratesarereplacedwithenvironmentalimpacts.The
environmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeproductionofmethaneandwitheachcomponent
separatelyarecorrelatedinthesystemoflinearequations.
The environmental impact associated with the production of electricity in each energy
conversion system is compared, taking the environmental impact of the outflow streams,
suchasCO2andNOxemissions,intoconsideration(TableB.10).Inthecaseofthethreeoxy
fuel technologies, AZEP 85, AZEP 100 and CLC, the environmental impact associated with
the CO2 sequestration of the separated CO2 stream is also considered, using LCA data
reportedinrecentpublications(Khooetal,2006).Thepartofthepollutantformationrelated
to the amount of CO2 captured in each plant is subtracted from the overall environmental
impact.
Exergoenvironmentalvariablesarecalculatedinordertoidentifytherelativeimportance
ofeachcomponentwithrespecttotheirenvironmentalimpactand,toidentifythemagnitude
and location of the environmental impact caused by system inefficiencies. The results are
usedtoevaluateandcomparetheenvironmentalperformanceofthefourconsideredpower
plants.
TableB.10:EIofincomingandexitingstreamsofthesystems(Ecoindicator99,HA)
Product

Systemboundaries

Ecoindicator Reference
(Pts/t)

Naturalgas Productionanddistribution 180.0

GoedkoopandSpriensma,2000
SimaPro,2006

CO2

Emission

5.4

CO2

Sequestration

4.9

Khooetal.,2006

CH4

Emission

114.6

GoedkoopandSpriensma,2000
SimaPro,2006

NOx

Emission

2749.4

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

179

AppendixC
Designestimatesforconstruction,
operationalcostsandenvironmental
impactsofheatexchangers

C.1

Calculationofthesurfacearea,A

TocalculatetheareaAofaHXinm2,EquationC.1isused:

Q
U o log

(C.1)

Here, Q is the heat transfer rate (W), Tlog is the logarithmic mean temperature difference,
log

A B
, with TA and TB the temperature differences on sides A and B (K),
A
ln

respectively, and Uo is the overall heat transfer coefficient (reciprocal of the overall thermal
resistance)thatdiffersdependingonthedesignandoperation,aswellastheworkingfluidof
theHXconsidered(W/m2K).

C.1.1 Calculationoftheoverallheattransfercoefficient
The overall heat transfer coefficient is a function of several variables such as tube size,
spacing, and gas velocity (Ganapathy, 2003). For HRSGs in combined cycle power plants
operating with natural gas, the overall heat transfer coefficient of a HX is calculated as
(Ganapathy,1991):

d
d
do
1
1
o
ln o
U o ho hi di 24 K m
di

do
ff i ff o
di

(C.2)

Here, hi isthetubesidecoefficient, ho isthegassidecoefficient, d o and d i aretheoutside


andinsidediametersofatube,respectively, ff o and ff i arethefoulingfactorsontheoutside

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

180

andtheinsideofthetubes,respectively,and K m isthetubemetalconductivity.Thethermal
resistanceofgasesaffectstheresistancedistributioninaHXsignificantly,renderingthemetal
resistanceandthefoulingfactorstermsnegligible.Inotherwords,themaincontributorsto
the overall heat transfer coefficient are the tubeside coefficient, hi , and the gasside
coefficient, ho .Thus,EquationC.2becomes:

d
1
1
o
U o ho hi di

(C.3)

In economizers and superheaters working with liquid or steam/water mixtures on the


tubesideandgasontheoutside,theoverallheattransfercoefficientismainlydeterminedby
the gasside coefficient ( ho ), which presents the highest thermal resistance. This coefficient
consistsoftheconvectiveheattransfer, hc ,andthenonluminousheattransfer, hN :

ho hc hN

(C.4)

C.1.1.1 Calculationofthenonluminousheattransfercoefficient, hN

hN depends on (1) the partial pressures of triatomic gases (e.g., CO2, H2O and SO2) formed
duringcombustionoffossilfuelsthatcontributetoradiation,(2)thebeamlengthLofatube,
whichdependsonthepitchandarrangementofthetubebundleoftheHXconsideredand(3)
the temperatures of the gas stream and surface of the bundle. It can be calculated in a
simplifiedway:

hN K g

(C.5)

where g istheemissivityofagas(relativeabilityofagastoemitenergybyradiation).The
factorKiscalculatedusingFigureC.1,leftpanel.Assumedvaluesofthebeamlength(Figure
C.1, right panel), the longitudinal pitch, S L , the transverse pitch, ST and the outside tube
diameter, d o areshowninTableC.1.
Thebeamlengthandthefluegastemperaturearethemaindecidingfactorsof g ,while
the wall and flue gas temperatures determine K. An increase in the flue gas temperature,
keeping the beam length and the wall temperature constant, decreases g and increases K.
Because hN is influenced more by larger values of K, it increases as well. If the wall
temperature is increased, while the flue gas temperature and the beam length are kept
constant, g remainsunchanged,whereasKincreases,resultinginanincreaseof hN .Lastly,
ifthebeamlengthisincreased,whilethewallandfluegastemperaturesarekeptconstant,K
remainsunchanged,while g increases,resultinginanincreaseofthe hN .Thus,ifthereisan

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

181

increase in the flue gas or wall temperature and/or in the beam length, hN will increase as
well.
FiguresC.2C.4wereobtainedusingdataderivedfromFigureC1.FigureC.2showsthe
variationof g withthefluegastemperatureandthebeamlength,whileFigureC.3shows
the variation of K with the wall and flue gas temperatures. Figure C.4 combines the two
previousfigures,showingtheoverallinfluenceof hN bythewallandfluegastemperatures
andthebeamlength.Nexttoeachfigurethepolynomialtrendlinesofthedifferentcurvesare
shown.Itcanbeseenthat hN isnotstronglyinfluencedbythewalltemperature,especially
for higher flue gas temperatures and smaller beam lengths. Thus, one general equation has
beenassumedforeachdifferentbeamlength(trendlinesofFigureC.4).

SL

FuelExcessair%
1Bituminouscoals20
2Naturalgas
10
3No.2oil
10
4No.6oil
10
5Blastfurnacegas10
6Blastfurnacegas30
7No.2oil
20

FigureC.1:GraphsusedfortheestimationofthehN(leftpanel)andbeamlengthevaluation(right
panel).(Source:Ganapathy,1991)
TableC.1:BeamlengthL
L

( ST

do

ST *

SL *

(m)

(in)

(in)

(in)

1.25

2.50

2.80

1.50

3.00

3.36

2.00

4.00

4.48

2.50

5.00

5.60

2 d o and S L 1.12 ST

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

182

Polynomialtrendlines

0.18

L=5: 2E08x2+2E05x+0.1096

0.16

0.14

0.12
0.10

L=6: 2E08x2+2E05x+0.1196
L=7: 2E08x2+2E05x+0.1246
L=9: 2E08x2+2E05x+0.1546

0.08

0.06
600

800

1000

1200

1400

Temperature (F)
L=5

1600

1800

L=6

2000

L=7

FigureC.2:Estimationofgasemissivityatdifferentfluegastemperaturesandbeamlengths(L), g
K

50

Polynomialtrendlines
40

1E05x20.0071x+7.4156

T=400:
30

20

10

T=500:

1E05x20.0076x+8.3206

T=600:

1E05x20.0082x+9.2255

T=700:

1E05x20.0092x+10.930

0
600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Temperature (F)
W all Temperature 400F

Wall Temperature 600F

W all Temperature 500F

Wall Temperature 700F

FigureC.3:EstimationofthefactorKatdifferentwallandfluegastemperatures
hN Btu/ft 2 hF
4.5

Polynomialtrendlines

4.0

L=5:

E07x2+0.0002x+0.8674

3.0

L=6:

E07x2+0.0001x+0.9767

2.5

L=7: 5E07x2+9E05x+1.0314

2.0

L=9: 8E07x20.0002x+1.3593

3.5

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Temperature (F)
hN,
hN,
hN,
hN,

T=800,
T=800,
T=800,
T=800,

L=6
L=7
L=5
L=9

hN,
hN,
hN,
hN,

T=700,
T=700,
T=700,
T=700,

L=6
L=7
L=5
L=9

hN,
hN,
hN,
hN,

T=600, L=6
T=600, L=7
T=600, L=5
T=600, L=9

FigureC.4:EstimationofthehNatdifferenttemperaturesandbeamlengths

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

(0.8 1.6 pw )(1 0.38Tg / 1000)


( pc pw ) L

183

( pc pw )

(C.6)

pc and pw arethepartialpressuresofCO2andwatervaporincludedinthegasstream,and
Tg istheaveragegastemperature(K). hN isapproximatedanewusingEquationC.5andthe
newtrendlines,obtainedforstreamswithdominantconcentrationsofH2OorCO2(shownin
TableC.2).
TableC.2:ApproximationofthehNwithmassratios8:1H2Oand25:1CO2(basedontherespective
elementcontentintheconventionalfluegases)
Beamlength(m)

L=5
L=6
L=7
L=9

hN
8:1H2O
1E06x2+0.0012x+3.1418
1E06x2+0.0011x+3.2511
1E06x2+0.001x+3.3058
1E06x2+0.001x+3.3604

25:1 CO2
6E07x2+0.0006x+1.7772
7E07x2+0.0005x+1.8865
8E07x2+0.0005x+1.9411
8E07x2+0.0004x+1.9958

C.1.1.2 Calculationoftheconvectiveheattransfercoefficient, hc
TheconvectiveheattransfercoefficientiscalculatedusingEquationC.7:

hc Nu

12k
do

(C.7)

NuistheNusseltnumber( Nu 0.033 Re0.6 Pr 0.33 )andkthethermalconductivityinBtu/fthF.


To calculate the Nusselt number, Re (Reynolds number) and Pr (Prandtl number) are
estimatedas:

Re

Pr

Gd o
12

(C.8)

C p

(C.9)

Gisthegasvelocityinlb/ft2h,theviscosityinlb/fthand C p thespecificheatinBtu/lbF.The
gasmassvelocity G isdefinedas:

12Wg

N S
w

do L

Here,NwisthenumberoftubeswideandWgthegasflowinlb/h.

(C.10)

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

184

Duetolackofinputdata,assumptionsincludesteadyfluegasandmassvelocityof35ft/sec
(10m/sec) and 5000 lb/ft2h, respectively, throughout the HRSG. With these values, the gas

density, g , is found to be 0.04 lb/ft3 g

; an intermediate value of g

G
3600Vg

is calculated

withdataderivedfromEbsilonProfessional.However,theviscosity,thespecificheatandthe
conductivityvarywithtemperature(TableC.3)andresultindifferentReandNunumbers.
Also,thediameterofthetubes, d o ,dependsontheHX. hc hasbeenestimatedfordifferent
temperatures using a constant d o of 2 in. (Figure C.5). When d o is different than 2 in., the
coefficienthasbeenadjustedusingtheequation:

hc

Nu12k

'
o

(C.11)

do

Here, d o' isadiameterdifferentthan2in.


TableC.3:Gasandsteamproperties(Source:Ganapathy,1991)
Temperature
(F)
200
400
800
1200
1600
2000
Temperature
(F)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000

Air(dry)
Cp

(Btu/LbF) (Lb/fth)
0.2439
0.0537
0.2485
0.0632
0.2587
0.0809
0.2696
0.0968
0.2800
0.1109
0.2887
0.1232
Watervapor
Cp

(Btu/LbF) (Lb/fth)
0.4532
0.0315
0.4663
0.0411
0.4812
0.0506
0.4975
0.0597
0.5147
0.0687
0.5325
0.0773
0.5506
0.0858
0.5684
0.0939
0.5857
0.1019
0.6019
0.1095

k
(Btu/fthF)
0.0188
0.0221
0.0287
0.0350
0.0412
0.0473

Temperature
(F)
200
400
600
800
1000

k
(Btu/fthF)
0.0134
0.0197
0.0261
0.0326
0.0393
0.0462
0.0532
0.0604
0.0678
0.0753

Temperature
(F)
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000

GTexhaustgas
Cp

(Btu/LbF) (Lb/fth)
0.2529
0.0517
0.2584
0.0612
0.2643
0.0702
0.2705
0.0789
0.2767
0.0870

CO2
Cp

(Btu/LbF) (Lb/fth)
0.2162
0.0438
0.2369
0.0544
0.2543
0.0645
0.2688
0.0749
0.2807
0.0829
0.2903
0.0913
0.2980
0.0991
0.3041
0.1064
0.3090
0.1130
0.3129
0.1191

k
(Btu/fthF)
0.0182
0.0218
0.0253
0.0287
0.0321

k
(Btu/fthF)
0.0125
0.0177
0.0227
0.0274
0.0319
0.0360
0.0400
0.0435
0.0468
0.0500

Air, GT exhaust gases and CO2 streams present similar behavior, with respect to
temperature changes. The hc of steam streams, on the other hand, presents a much more
intensechangewithtemperature.
The composition of the gas passing through the secondary HRSGs differs from the
conventional GT flue gases and, therefore, hc must be adjusted properly. To reflect the
percentageofCO2andH2Oincludedinastream,thecurvesrepresentingpureCO2 andH2O
steams,showninFigureC.5,areshifteddependingontherelativeconcentrationsofthetwo
elements. In other words, the molecular fractions of carbon dioxide and water vapor in a
stream are used as weighting factors for recalculating the multipliers of the CO2 and H2O
curves(e.g.,TableC.4).

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

185

hc Btu/ft 2 hF

Lineartrendlines

35

30

25

H2O:

0.0100x+10.904

CO2:

0.0053x+8.3433

GT:

0.0042x+10.036

Air:

0.0034x+10.322

20

15

10

5
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Temperature, F
GT exhaust gas

dry Air

CO2

FigureC.5:Estimationofthehcofdifferentgasesatdifferenttemperatures
TableC.4:EstimationofthehcforhighconcentrationsofCO2andH2O
hc
2:1CO2:H2O

32:1 CO2:H2O

0.0069x+9.214

0.0054x+8.420

C.1.1.3 Calculationofthetubesidecoefficient, hi
U o Btu/ft 2 hF
25.00
23.00
21.00
19.00
17.00
15.00
13.00
11.00
9.00
7.00
5.00
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

ho/hi(Btu/ftFh)
ho

hi

FigureC.6:InfluenceofthehoandhivariationontheUo

hi onlyinfluencesthetotalheattransfercoefficientwhenitissmall(FigureC.6).Whengas
flowsontheoutersideoftubesandhighheattransfercoefficientsarecalculatedforthetube
side, the overall coefficient is governed by the gasside resistance. Assuming the other

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

186

resistancescontributeaspecificpercentagetotheoverallcoefficient,thecalculationoftheUo
canbesimplifiedto 0.8 0.9 ho (Ganapathy,1991).
Thefollowingequationshavebeenassumeddependingonthecomponentconsidered:
U o 0.9 ho foreconomizersandevaporators,
U o 0.8 ho forsuperheatersand
U o 0.6 ho forgasgasHXs,where hi issignificantlysmallerandofasimilarrangeasthe

ho .
After the Uoand the surface area ofaHX are calculated, its cost is estimatedbased on
areacomparisonwithreferencecostsandsizingfactors.InTablesC.5C.10thecalculatedheat
transfercoefficientsandtheresultingFCIofallHXsoftheplantsarepresented.
TableC.5:Dataforthereferenceplant

HX
RH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
COND

Heattransfer
(kW)
41,540
55,003
76,290
57,804
391
13,535
2,423
3,287
49,439
40,883
212,767

Tlog
(K)
62.4
55.2
43.6
50.5
26.7
23.5
48.6
44.2
34.5
37.9
10.9

Uo
(W/m)
63.8
63.9
66.0
62.1
64.7
71.7
71.2
53.3
58.0
55.6
3,580.8

Surface,A
(m)
10,431
15,585
26,507
18,425
226
8,031
701
1,395
24,730
19,424
5,446

FCI
(2009)
3,128,631
4,436,778
5,205,396
2,510,897
111,737
1,842,071
146,109
543,582
4,900,487
2,628,905
2,558,596

TableC.6:DatafortheAZEP85

HX
RH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
COND
SHII
EVII
ECII
NGPH
AIRHX
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
MCMLTHX
MCMHTHX

Heattransfer
(kW)
27,293
49,710
69,360
52,562
242
11,594
2,075
2,465
39,913
41,374
210,424
10,378
13,650
10,344
8,433
8,526
78,122
3,713
3,977
3,595
3,827
311,365
150,532

Tlog
(K)
67.3
54.8
45.3
49.1
24.5
18.1
42.4
42.8
33.2
33.4
10.9
67.0
53.9
39.9
505.1
779.8
59.6
51.0
55.1
55.4
43.9
78.6
47.2

Uo
(W/m)
64.2
63.8
66.1
62.0
64.5
71.5
70.9
53.1
57.9
55.4
3,580.8
104.6
104.6
92.5
43.1
58.4
67.7
52.8
52.8
52.8
52.8
72.7
100.3

Surface,A
(m)
6,319
14,215
23,140
17,285
153
8,959
690
1,085
20,727
22,351
5,386
1,480
2,424
2,799
388
187
19,356
1,379
1,367
1,229
1,652
54,526
31,804

FCI
(,2009)
2,022,881
4,095,394
4,625,276
2,375,214
79,506
2,025,853
144,078
436,722
4,202,664
2,970,409
2,534,065
572,296
649,647
487,385
174,490
231,586
2,620,873
263,311
261,231
238,128
308,074
32,265,525
20,186,113

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

187

TableC.7:DatafortheAZEP100

HX
RH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
COND
SHII
EVII
ECII
NGPH
AIRHX
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4
MCMLTHX
MCMHTHX

Heattransfer
(kW)
21,331
30,867
58,306
44,177
1,660
29,009
5,198
2,551
43,941
43,235
213,104
13,187
16,680
12,639
8,433
10,121
91,439
4,358
4,669
4,224
4,496
366,209
177,096

Tlog
(K)
69.0
45.3
37.2
56.0
33.6
25.6
41.2
41.6
32.2
36.1
10.9
68.6
55.2
38.5
511.9
779.4
58.6
50.9
55.0
55.4
43.8
79.3
47.9

Uo
(W/m)
61.8
61.5
65.5
62.5
65.4
72.0
70.8
53.0
57.9
55.5
3,580.8
105.4
104.8
92.3
43
58.5
67.5
52.8
52.8
52.8
52.8
72.7
100.3

Surface,A
(m)
4,998
11,063
23,945
12,633
755
15,747
1,781
1,158
23,568
21,573
5,455
1,823
2,883
3,560
382
222
23,121
1,622
1,607
1,445
1,943
63,529
36,859

FCI
(,2009)
1,649,469
3,292,736
4,764,861
1,808,108
318,432
3,309,015
328,922
462,291
4,699,592
2,880,176
2,562,119
686,095
755,487
600,791
172,468.5
268,813
3,059,209
303,140
300,736
274,204
354,779
36,853,012
22,950,277

TableC.8:DataoftheplantwithCLC

HX
RH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
COND
SHII
EVII
ECII
NGPH
FGCOND
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4

Heattransfer
(kW)
26,688
36,418
63,015
47,749
1,328
26,268
4,707
2,635
44,688
39,692
197,313
819
3,686
2,794
10,582
101,416
4,242
4,542
4,062
4,292

Tlog
(K)
73.5
46.5
38.8
54.7
32.0
24.3
41.4
41.8
32.4
38.1
10.9
32.7
29.1
73.3
269.6
80.6
50.4
54.4
54.5
42.8

Uo
(W/m)
62.4
62.0
65.6
62.4
65.3
71.9
70.9
53.0
57.9
55.6
3,580.8
91.2
99.8
97.0
44
71.1
52.4
52.4
52.4
52.4

Surface,A
(m)
5,815
12,621
24,753
14,000
635
15,057
1,604
1,190
23,825
18,724
5,051
274
1,270
393
889
17,716
1,607
1,592
1,424
1,914

FCI
(,2009)
1,881,804
3,692,758
4,904,542
1,977,257
274,129
3,182,549
300,168
473,220
4,744,024
2,546,260
2,396,131
132,036
370,248
88,229
359,222.7
2,426,575
300,747
298,249
270,650
350,132

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

188

TableC.9:DataforMEA0

HX
RH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
COND
COOLCAU
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4

Heattransfer
(kW)
41,540
55,519
76,481
57,949
363
13,036
2,334
3,299
49,229
41,165
51,017
47,121
4,179
3,941
3,565
3,796

Tlog
(K)
63.7
54.2
43.8
50.3
26.4
23.3
48.6
44.3
34.5
37.0
13.6
61.6
69.4
62.6
63.0
53.2

Uo
(W/m)
64.0
63.8
66.0
62.1
64.6
71.7
71.2
53.3
58.0
55.6
3,580.8
65.0
52.7
52.7
52.7
52.7

FCI

Surface,A
(m)
10,185
16,049
26,435
18,545
213
7,817
675
1,400
24,610
20,003
1,051
11,778
1,141
1,193
1,074
1,354

(,2009)
3,064,369
4,551,454
5,193,210
2,525,057
105,794
1,799,282
141,318
545,022
4,879,876
2,696,976
738,649
1,701,151
223,285
232,104
211,703
259,001

Surface,A
(m)
10,185
16,147
26,435
18,545
214
7,817
675
1,408
24,610
20,003
2,485
11,778
1,455
1,193
1,074
1,354

(,2009)
3,170,644
4,734,122
5,373,316
2,612,628
110,040
1,861,683
146,219
566,895
5,049,115
2,790,510
1,615,906
1,760,149
285,325
240,154
219,045
267,984

TableC.10:DataforMEA0.2

HX
RH
HPSH
HPEV
HPEC
IPSH
IPEV
IPEC
LPSH
LPEV
LPEC
COND
COOLCAU
COOL1
COOL2
COOL3
COOL4

Heattransfer
(kW)
41,540
55,519
76,481
57,949
363
13,036
2,334
3,299
49,229
41,165
120,636
47,121
7,333
3,941
3,565
3,796

Tlog
(K)
63.8
63.5
66.0
62.1
64.3
71.7
71.2
52.9
58.0
55.6
3,580.8
765.1
76.7
62.9
56.6
71.4

Uo
(W/m)
64.0
63.5
66.0
62.1
64.3
71.7
71.2
52.9
58.0
55.6
3580.8
65.0
52.7
52.7
52.7
52.7

FCI

C.1.2 Designofthetubes
ThenumberanddesignoftubesinHXsarespecifiedbysettingtheiroutsidediameterand
wall thickness. Smaller diameter tubes yield higher heat transfer coefficients, but larger
diametertubesareeasiertocleanandmorerugged.Here,alloutsidediametersoftheHXs
areassumedtobe2.5in,withtheexceptionofthecondenser,theIPHRSGandthesecondary
HRSG,wheretheyareassumedtobe2in,becauseofthesmallerwater/steammassflows.
FinscanincreaseheattransferanddecreasethesurfaceareaofaHX.Fourfinsperin.of
0.75in.heightareassumedforeconomizers,condensersandcoolers,andtwofinsperin.of
0.50in.heightarechosenforsuperheaters,reheatersandgasgasHXs.Toaccountforusing
fins in the HXs, Figure C.7 has been used. Assuming 16.5 MMBtuh are transferred without
includingfinsandthat17.5or16.6MMBtuharetransferredusingfourortwofinsperin.of

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

189

0.75/0.50 in. height, respectively, the Uo values are increased by 6% or 0.6% (17.5/16.5=1.06
and 16.6/16.5=1.006). This increase has been considered here and it is included in the
presentedresults.
Theareaofeachfinnedtubeiscalculatedas:

4d o h 4h 2 2bd o 4bh
24

do
12

1 nb

(C.12)

Here,nisthefindensity,histhefinheightandbisthefinthickness.

FigureC.7:Effectoffingeometryonperformance.(Source:Ganapathy,1991)

C.1.3 Materials
Materials widely used for the construction of tubes in HXs are those of group 178 of the
gradesA,CandDthatstandforcarbonsteel,group213ofthegradesT11,T22,T5andT91
thatstandforintermediatealloysandgroup213ofgradesTp304,Tp316,Tp321andTp347
that represent the use of stainless steel. The letters H and L indicate high and low carbon,
respectively.Series300includes0.15%carbon,aminimumof16%chromiumandsufficient
nickel or manganese. The materials of the HXs comprising the HRSGs have been chosen
dependingontheouterwalltemperature.Foralloftheplants,thematerialshavebeenkept
thesameforsimilarcomponents,sincethesizeandoperatingconditionsarecomparable.The
maximumallowedtemperaturesforthemostcommonlyusedmaterialsareshowninTable
C.11:

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

190

TableC.11:MainconstructionmaterialsofHRSGs(Ganapathy,1991)

Material

Maximumallowance
temperature,C

SA178,gradeA

482

SA178,gradeC
SA213,gradeT2
SA213,gradeT11
SA213,gradeT22
SA213,gradeT91
SA213,gradeTp304H,321H

510
552
566
607
649
760

Component

HPEV,HPEC,IPEV,
IPEC

RH,HPSH

ThenamesofthemetalsfollowtheAmericanSocietyofMechanicalEngineers(ASME)specifications.

TheappropriatematerialsfortherestoftheHXshavebeenchoseninasimilarway.InTable
C.12 the design estimates related to the reference plant that lead to the calculation of the
weight of the HXs are presented as an example of the calculations performed for all of the
plants.

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

191

tube
fin
fin
thickn. density height

fin
mat. finnedtube numberof casing
area
tubes
width
thickn. densitya

tubes/ weight/
row
tube

weight weight weight total


offins oftubes ofcasing weight

do

di

tube
lenght

HeatExchanger

(in)

(in)

(ft)

(in)

(fin/in)

(in)

(in)

(lb/in)

(ft2)

(n)

(in)

(n)

(lb)

(lb)

(t)

(t)

(t)

HPSH

2.5

2.380

10

0.120

0.500

0.075

0.289

22.65

7,408

563.5

86

31.9

26.0

195

62.4

257

HPEV

2.5

2.395

10

0.105

0.750

0.050

0.283

58.38

4,887

458.4

70

27.4

54.1

181

40.5

221

HPEC

2.5

2.395

10

0.105

0.750

0.050

0.283

58.38

3,397

382.9

58

27.4

54.1

126

28.2

154

RH

2.5

2.380

10

0.120

0.500

0.075

0.289

22.65

4,958

461.7

70

31.9

26.0

130

41.9

172

IPSH

2.0

1.880

10

0.120

0.500

0.075

0.289

18.72

130

72.5

11

24.8

21.7

1.0

IPEV

2.0

1.895

10

0.105

0.750

0.050

0.283

49.22

1,756

255.5

42

21.8

45.8

54

12.6

66

IPEC

2.0

1.895

10

0.105

0.750

0.050

0.283

49.22

153

78.3

12

21.8

45.8

1.2

LPSH

2.5

2.380

10

0.120

0.500

0.075

0.289

22.65

663

171.4

26

31.2

26.0

17

5.8

23

LPEV

2.5

2.395

10

0.105

0.750

0.050

0.283

58.38

4,560

442.9

68

27.4

54.1

169

37.8

206

LPEC

2.5

2.395

10

0.105

0.750

0.050

0.283

58.38

3,581

393.0

60

27.4

54.1

132

29.7

162

2.0

1.895

10

0.105

0.750

0.050

0.283

49.22

5,797

460.8

76

21.8

45.8

37

40.9

77

COND
Materialdensitiesof0.289and0.283lb/inareassociatedwithstainlessandcarbonsteel,respectively

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

TableC.12: DesignestimatesfortheHXsofthereferenceplant

191

AppendixC.Designestimatesforheatexchangers

192

AppendixD
Generalizedcostingequations

Thefollowingequationsarebasedoncostcalculationsrealizedforthisthesisandareshown
here as a generalized guide for fixed capital cost calculations of similarsized components.
ThesourcesusedareshowninTableB.6ofAppendixB.

1.Gasturbinesystem1,2(referenceyear:2009;forotherGTsystems,seeGasTurbineWorld;
Framer,2006).


W
net 65.6 106
290
0.9

CostGT _ system

Expander

Costexp ander CostGT _ system 0.4

Compressor

Costcompressor CostGT _ system 0.35

Combustionchamber

Costcompressor CostGT _ system 0.25

Or

CostCC

fg
m

628.5

0.67

21.9 106

Pressureratio:16.8
Thetotalcosthasbeensharedamongthethreemaincomponentsofthesystemasfollowing:40%totheexpander,
35%tothecompressorand25%totheCC.
1
2

AppendixD.Generalizedcostingequations

2.Heatrecoverysteamgenerator

Reheater,Superheater

CostSH / RH

SH / RH3
4.1 10

0.87

1.3 106

CICEPSI

468.2

Evaporator

AEV
Cost EV
3
20.5 10

0.87

3.7 106

CICEPSI

468.2

Economizer

AEC
Cost EC
3
16.3 10

0.87

2 106

CICEPSI

468.2

3.Condenser

0.87
Q

CI
CostCOND COND 1.9 106 CEPSI
213.0
390.6

4.STsystem(referenceyear2009)3

0.9
W
6
CostST _ sys
26.4 10
120

HPST
W
Cost HPST
CostST _ system

Wtot
IPST
W 1.5
Cost IPST
CostST _ system

Wtot

LPST
W 2
Cost LPST
CostST _ system

Wtot
Where,
W W
tot

HPST

1.5 W IPST 2 W LPST

Highpressure:124bar

194

AppendixD.Generalizedcostingequations

5.Pumps4

0.3 MW
a)For W
P

Oulet Pressure ~ 5 bar

2 2,328 W
61, 233 CICEPSI
Cost Pump 2.9 W
P
P
357.6
o

Oulet Pressure ~ 25 bar

2 3, 277 W
86, 205 CICEPSI
Cost Pump 4.05 W
P
P
357.6

Oulet Pressure ~ 100 bar

2 3, 795 W
102, 268 CICEPSI
Cost Pump 4.3 W
P
P
357.6

Oulet Pressure ~ 130 bar

2 4,197 W
113,100 CICEPSI
Cost Pump 4.8 W
P
P
357.6

0.3 MW
For W
P

Cost Pump

0.8
W
CI
P 1.4 106 CEPSI
357.6
3.4

6.CoolingTower

CostCT

CI
Q
1.8 106 CEPSI
216.9
390.6

7.Deaerator

s m
w
Cost Deaerator 4.9 103 m

CICEPSI

357.6

II.AddedcomponentsinplantswithCO2capture

1.SteamTurbine(referenceyear2009)

0.9
W
CostST
Cost LPST

WLPST

Centrifugal;carbonsteelpumps,includingthecostofmotors(Turtonetal.,2002)

195

AppendixD.Generalizedcostingequations

196

2.RecyclecompressorsandCO2compressors,(referenceyear2009)

1.4 MW
W
0.5
W
6
Costcomp
1.7 10 1.15
0.3

1.4 MW
W
0.7
W
6
Costcomp
4.2 10 1.15
1.4

3.CO2coolerandfluegascondenser

ACooler
CostCooler
3
16.3 10

0.87

2 106

CICEPSI

468.2

4.Gasgasheatexchanger

For Tmax 800C


AHX
Cost HX
3
16.3 10

0.87

107

CICEPSI

468.2

For Tmax 800C


AHX
Cost HX
3
16.3 10

0.87

4 106

CICEPSI

468.2

5.DuctBurner(referenceyear2009)

fuel
m
Cost DB

14

0.67

21.9 106

A isthesurfaceareainm,( ASH _ RH , AEvap , AEcon , Acond , AHX , Acooler

Tlog

Uo

CICEPSI istheCEPSIindexofthecalculationyear,

fg isthemassflowrateofthecombustionproductsinkg/sec,
m
ms and mw arethemassofsteamandwaterenteringthedeaeratorinkg/sec,
Q istheheatrateinMW,

isthetotalpowerproducedbyacomponentinMWand
W
isthetotalpowerconsumedinapumpinMW.
W
P

References

Abad,A.,Mattisson,T.,Lyngfelt,A.andRydn,M.(2006)Chemicalloopingcombustionina300
W continuously operating reactor system using a manganesebased oxygen carrier, Fuel, 85,
11741185.
Abad, A., Mattisson, T., Lyngfelt, A. and Johansson, M. (2007) The use of iron oxide as oxygen
carrierinachemicalloopingreactor,Fuel,86,10211035.
AbuZahra, M.R.M., Niederer, J.P.M, Feron, P.H.M., Versteeg, G.F. (2007) CO2 capture from
power plants Part II. A parametric study of the economical performance based on mono
ethanolamine,InternationalJournalofGreenhouseGasControl,I,135142.
Afgan,N.,etal.(1996)NewDevelopmentsinHeatExchangers,ISBN:905699512X.
Anderson,R.,MacAdam,S.,Viteri,F.,Davies,D.,Downs,J.andPaliszewski,A.(2008)Adapting
Gas Turbines to Zero Emission Oxyfuel Power Plants, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo,
Berlin,G200851377.
Anderson, K. and Johnsson, F. (2006) Process evaluation of an 865MWe lignite fired O2/CO2
powerplant,EnergyConversionandManagement,47(1819),34873498.
Anderson, K., Johnsson, F. and Strmberg, L. (2003) Large Scale CO2 CaptureApplying the
ConceptofO2/CO2CombustiontoCommercialProcessData,VGBPowerTech83,Heft10,2933.
AspenPlus,Aspentech,http://www.aspentech.com,accessed:December,2009.
Bejan,A.,Tsatsaronis,G.andMoran,M.(1996)ThermalDesignandOptimization,J.Wiley,New
York.
Benedict, M. and Gyftopoulos, E. P. (1980) Economic Selection of the Components of an Air
Separation Process, in: Thermodynamics: Second Law Analysis (R.A. Gaggioli, Ed.) A.C. S.
SymposiumSeries,122,195203.
Benson,S.M.and Orr, Jr., F.M.(2008) Carbon DioxideCapture and Storage, MRSBulletin,33,
303305.
Bergmann, E. and Schmidt, K. R. (1965) Zur kostenwirtschaftlichen Optimierung der
Warmeaustauscher fr die regenerative Speisewasservorwarmung im Dampfkraftwerk ein
StorungsverfahrenmitderExergie,in:EnergieundExergie,VDIVerlag,Dsseldorf,6389.
Beyer, J. (1979) Einige Probleme der praktischen Anwendung der exergetischen Methode in
wrmewirtschaftlichen
Untersuchungen
industrieller
Produktionsprozesse
II,
Energieanwendung28(2),6670.
Beyer, J. (1978) Einige Probleme der praktischen Anwendung der exergetischen Methode in
wrmewirtschaftlichenUntersuchungenindustriellerProduktionsprozesseI,Energieanwendung,
27(6),204208.

References

198

Beyer,J.(1972)ZurAufteilungderPrimrenergiekosteninKoppelprozessenaufGrundlageder
Strukturanalyse,Energieanwendung,21(6),179183.
Bloch, H. P. and Soares, C. (1998) Process Plant Machinery, Second Edition, Butterworth
Heinemann,USA,249276.
BolhrNordenkampf,J.,Prll,T.,Kolbitsch,P.,Hofbauer,H.(2008)PerformanceofaNiObased
oxygen carrier for Chemical Looping Combustion and reforming in a 120kW unit, 9th
InternationalConferenceonGreenhouseGasTechnologies,WashingtonDC.
Bolland, O. and Mathieu, P. (1998) Comparison of two CO2 removal options in combined cycle
powerplants,EnergyConversionandManagement,39,16531663.
Bolland, O. (1991) Comparative evaluation of advanced combined cycle alternatives, Journal of
EngineeringforGasTurbinesandPower,113,190197.
Bottino, A., Comite, A., Capannelli, G., di Felice, R. and Pinacci, P. (2006) Steam reforming of
methaneinequilibriummembranereactorsforintegrationinpowercycles,CatalysisToday,118,
214222.
Boyano, A., Tsatsaronis, G., Morosuk, T. and Marigota, A. M. (2010) Advanced
exergoenvironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming system for hydrogen production,
ASME,IMECE201038551.
Boyano,A.,Tsatsaronis,G.,Morosuk,T.andBlancoMarigorta,A.M.(2009)Advancedexergetic
analyses of chemical processes, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Mechanical
EngineeringCongressandExposition,LakeBuenaVista,IMECE200910463.
Brandvoll,.andBolland,O.(2004)InherentCO2CaptureUsingChemicalLoopingCombustion
inaNaturalGasFiredPowerCycle,ASMEJournalofEngineeringforGasTurbinesandPower,
126,316321,GT200230129.
Brandvoll,.,Kolbeinsen,L.,Olsen,N.andBolland,O.(2003)ChemicalLoopingCombustion
Reduction of nickel oxide/nickel aluminate with hydrogen, in: Proceedings of the Sixth Italian
Conference on Chemical and Process Engineering, Pisa, Italy, Chemical Engineering
Transactions,3,105110.
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (2007) (Pachauri, R. K. and Reisinger, A., Eds.), IPCC,
Geneva,104.
Chen,L.,Hong,Q.,Lin,J.andDautzenberg,F.(2007)Hydrogenproductionbycoupledcatalytic
partialoxidationandsteammethanereformingatelevatedpressureandtemperature,Journalof
PowerSources,164,803808.
Cooper
Turbocompressor
Inc.,
Centrifugal
http://www.fluidenergy.com/pdf/cooper_ta_msg.pdf,accessed:May,2009.

Compressors,

Cziesla,F.,Tsatsaronis,G.andGao,Z.(2006)AvoidableThermodynamicInefficienciesandCosts
inanExternallyFiredCombinedCyclePowerPlant,EnergyTheInternationalJournal,31,1472
1489.
EES,EngineeringEquationSolver,http://www.mhhe.com/engcs/mech/ees,accessed:July,2009.
Eisermann, W., Hasberg, W. and Tsatsaronis, G. (1984) THESIS Ein Rechnerprogramm zur
Simulation und Entwicklung von Energieumwandlungsanlagen, Brennstoff Wrme Kraft, 36
(1/2),4551.

References

199

Eisermann, W. (1979) Analysis of Processes for Production of Synthetic Gaseous Fuels, Final
Report,NATOFellowshipContractNo.4304025668,UniversityofKentucky.
ElSayed,Y.M.(2003)TheThermoeconomicsofEnergyConversions,Pergamon,1stedition.
ElSayed,Y.M.andTribus,M.(1983)Strategicuseofthermoeconomicsforsystemimprovement,
in:EfficiencyandCostingSecondLawAnalysisofProcesses,A.C.S.SymposiumSeries,235,215
238.
ElSayed, Y. M. and Aplenc, A. J. (1970) Application of the thermoeconomic approach to the
analysisandoptimizationofavaporcompressiondesaltingsystem,Trans.ASME,J.Eng.Power,
92,1726.
ElSayedY.M.andEvans,R.B.(1970)Thermoeconomicsandthedesignofheatsystems,Trans.
ASME,J.Eng.Power,92,2734.
Environmental management, Life cycle assessment, Principles and framework (2006), ISO
14040:2006.
Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme (ETBPP), Life Cycle Assessment An
IntroductionforIndustry,ET257GUIDE,http://www.tangram.co.uk,accessed:March,2000.
Buchanan,T.,DeLallo,M.,Schoff,R.,White,J.,Wolk,R.(2000)EvaluationofInnovativeFossil
Fuel Power Plants with CO2 Removal, Palo Alto, CA, U. S. Department of Energy Office of
Fossil Energy, Germantown, MD and U. S. Department of Energy/NETL, Pittsburgh, PA: 2000.
1000316.
Eriksson,O.,Finnveden,G.,Ekvall,T.andBjklund,A.(2007)Lifecycleassessmentoffuelsfor
district heating: A comparison of waste incineration, biomassand natural gas combustion,
Energypolicy,35(2),13461362.
Evans,R.B.,Kadaba,P.V.andHendrix,W.A.(1983)Essergeticfunctionalanalysisforprocess
design and synthesis, in: Efficiency and Costing Second Law Analysis of Processes, A. C. S.
SymposiumSeries,235,239261.
Evans,R.B.andTribus,M.(1965)ThermoEconomicsofSalineWaterConversion,Industrialand
EngineeringChemistry,ProcessDesignandDevelopment,4(2),195206.
Evans, R.B. and Tribus, M. (1962) A Contribution to the Theory of Thermoeconomics, UCLA,
Dept.ofEngr.:ReportNo.62/63,LosAngeles,CA.
Fehring, T. H. and Gaggioli, R. A. (1977) Economics of feedwater heater replacement, Trans.
ASME,J.Eng.Power,99,482489.
Fiaschi, D. and Lombardi, L. (2002) Integrated Gasifier Combined Cycle Power Plant with
Integrated CO2H2S removal: Performance Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and Exergetic Life
CycleAssessment,InternationalJournalofAppliedThermodynamics,5(1),1324.
Framer,R.(2006)GasTurbineWorld2006Handbook,PequotPublishing,Fairfield,CT.
Frangopoulos,C.A.(1994)CGAMproblem:Definitionandconventionalsolution,EnergyThe
InternationalJournal,19(3),323342.
Frangopoulos, C. A. (1992) Optimal synthesis and operation of thermal systems by the
thermoeconomicfunctionalapproach,JEngGasTurbinesPower,114,707714.

References

200

Frangopoulos, C. A. (1988) Functional decomposition for optimal design of complex thermal


systems,EnergyTheInternationalJournal,13(3),239244.
Frangopoulos,C.A.(1987)Thermoeconomicfunctionalanalysisandoptimization,EnergyThe
InternationalJournal,12(7),56371.
Frangopoulos,C.A.(1983)Thermoeconomicfunctionalanalysis:amethodforoptimaldesignor
improvementofcomplexthermalsystems,Dissertation,GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology.
Gaggioli, R. A., ElSayed, Y .M., ElNashar, A. M. and Kamaluddin, B. (1986) Second Law
Efficiency and Costing Analysis of a Combined Power and Desalination Plant, in: Computer
AidedEngineeringofEnergySystems(Gaggioli,R.A.,Ed.),23,ASME,NewYork,7785.
Gaggioli, R. A. (1983) Second Law Analysis for Process and Energy Engineering, in: Efficiency
andCostingSecondLawAnalysisofProcesses(Gaggioli,R.A.,Ed.),A.C.S.SymposiumSeries,
235,350.
Gaggioli, R. A. (1977) Proper evaluation and pricing of energy, Proc. Int. Conf. Energy Use
Management,11(2428),3143.
Gaggioli,R.A.,Rodriguez,L.andWepfer,W.J.(1978)AThermodynamicEconomicAnalysisof
theSynthaneProcess,Final ReportpreparedforthePittsburghEnergyTechnologyCenter,U.S.
D.O.E.,ContractNo.EY77S0245891.
Ganapathy, V., (2003) Industrial Boilers and Heat Recovery Steam Generators, Marcel Dekker,
NewYork.
Ganapathy,V.,(1991)WasteHeatBoilerDesktop,TheFairmontPress,Lilburn,GA.
GEEnterSoftwareLLC(2000),GateCycle,MenloPark,CA.
Gestra,A.G.,DeaeratingPlantforBoilerFeedwaterC4.FLOWSERVEFlowControlDivision,
http://www.flowserve.com/files/Files/Literature/ProductLiterature/FlowControl/Gestra/813938.p
df,accessed:May,2009.
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R. (2000) The Ecoindicator 99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life
CycleImpactAssessment,MethodologyReport,Amersfoort,Netherlands.
Griffin,T.,Sundkvist,S.G.,Asen,K.andBruun,T.(2005)AdvancedZeroEmissionsGasTurbine
PowerPlant,JournalofEngineeringforGasTurbinesandPower,127,8185.
Grubbstrm, J. (2008) Chemical Looping Combustion, Status of Development, ALSTOM,
ChemicalLoopingProgramme,Elforsk.
Guthrie,K.(1974)Processplantestimating,evaluationandcontrol,ISBN:091046051.
Herzog, H. (2001) What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?, Environmental Science
andTechnology,35,148.
Hesselmann, K. (1986) Heat exchanger networks An exergoeconomical evaluation, in:
ComputerAidedEngineeringofEnergySystems,ASME,W.A.M.,NewYork,23,2334.
Horn,R.,Williams,K.,Degenstein,N.,BitschLarsen,A.,Nogare,D.D.,Tupy,S.andSchmidt,L.
(2007) Methane catalytic partial oxidation on autothermal Rh and Pt foam catalysts: Oxidation
andreformingzones,transporteffects,andapproachtothermodynamicequilibrium,Journalof
Catalysis,249,380393.

References

201

Hossain, M. M., de Lasa, H. I. (2008) Chemicallooping combustion (CLC) for inherent CO2
separationareview.ChemicalEngineeringScience,63,44334451.
INSPIRE, RTN supported by the European Communitys Sixth Framework Programme,
http://www.http.www.mcinspire.net,accessed:July,2009.
IPCC,SpecialReportonCarbonDioxideCaptureandStorage,PreparedbyWorkingGroupIIIof
the IntergovernmentalPanelon ClimateChange(2005)(Metz, B.,Davidson,O.,deConinck, H.
C., Loos,M. and Meyer,L.A.Eds.),Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UnitedKingdom
andNewYork,NY,USA.
Ishida, M. and Jin, H. (1994) A novel combustor based on chemicallooping reactions and its
reactionkinetics,JournalofChemicalEngineeringofJapan,27,296301.
Jericha, H., Lukasser, A. and Gatterbauer, W. (2000) Der Graz Cycle fr Industriekraftwerke
gefeuertmitBrenngasenausKohleundSchwerlvergasung,VDIBerichte1566,VDIConference
Essen,Germany.
Jericha,H.andFesharaki,M.(1995)TheGrazCycle1500CMaxTemperatureCO2Capturewith
CH4O2Firing,ASMEpaper95CTP79,ASMECogenTurboPowerConference,Vienna.
Jericha, H. (1985) Efficient Steam Cycles with Internal Combustion of Hydrogen and
Stoichiometric Oxygen for Turbines and Piston Engines, CIMAC Conference Paper, Oslo,
Norway.
Jin,H.andIshida,M.(2004)Anewtypeofcoalgasfueledchemicalloopingcombustion,Fuel,83,
24112417.
Johannessen, E. and Jordal, K. (2005) Study of a H2 separating membrane reactor for methane
steamreformingatconditionsrelevantforpowerprocesseswithCO2capture.EnergyConversion
andManagement,46,10591071.
Johansson, M., Mattisson, T., Lyngfelt, A. (2006) Comparison of oxygen carriers for Chemical
LoopingCombustion,ThermalScience,10,93107.
Jordal, K., Bredesen, R., Kvamsdal, H. and Bolland, O. (2004) Integration of H2separating
membranetechnologyingasturbineprocessesforCO2capture,Energy,29,12691278.
Kakaras, E., Doukelis, A., Giannakopoulos, D. and Koumanakos, A. (2005) Emission reduction
technologiesforthefossilfuelfuelledelectricitygenerationsector,ScientificconferenceHELECO.
Katalytisch,R.M.(2005)StabilisierteVerbrennungvonCh4/LuftGemischenundH2OundCO2
Verdnnten Ch4/Luft Gemischen ber Platin unter Hochdruckbedingungen. Dissertation.
EidgenssischenTechnischenHochschuleZrich,26,1117.
Keenan,J.H.(1932)Asteamchartforsecondlawanalysis,Trans.ASME,54(3),195204.
Kelly, S., Tsatsaronis G. and Morosuk, T. (2009) Advanced Exergetic Analysis: Approaches for
Splitting the Exergy Destruction into Endogenous and Exogenous Parts, Energy The
InternationalJournal,34(3),384391.
Kelly, S. (2008) Energy systems improvement based on endogenous and exogenous exergy
destruction,Dissertation,TechnischeUniversittBerlin,Berlin,Germany.
Kenney,W.F.(1984)Energyconservationintheprocessindustries,AcademicPress,Inc.

References

202

Khoo, H. H. and Tan, R. B. H. (2006) Life Cycle Evaluation of CO2 Recovery and Mineral
SequestrationAlternatives,EnvironmentalProgress,25(3),208217.
Klara, J. M. (2007) ChemicalLooping Process in a CoaltoLiquids, Independent Assessment of
the potential of the OSU Chemical Looping Concept, U.S. Department of Energy, National
EnergyTechnologyLaboratory,DOE/NETL2008/1307.
Knoche, K. F. and Funk, J. E. (1977) EntropieProduktion, Wirkungsgrad und Wirtschaftlichkeit
derthermodynamischenErzeugungsyntetischerBrennstoffe,DerSchwefelsureHybridProzess
zurthermochemischenWasserspaltung,BWK29(1),2327.
Knoche, K. F. and Hesselmann, K. (1986) Exergoeconomical Analysis of chemical processes
Evaluation of an Air separation plant, in: ComputerAided Engineering of Energy Systems,
ASME,W.A.M.,NewYork,23,3543.
Knoche, K. F. and Hesselmann, K. (1985) Exergokonomische Bewertung einer Luftzerlegungs
Anlage,Chem.Ing.Techn.,57,602609.
Knoche, K. F., Richter, H. (1968) Verbesserung der Reversibilitt von VerbrennungsProzessen,
BrennstoffWrmeKraft,5,205210.
Kolbitsch, P., Prll, T., Hofbauer H. (2008) Modeling of a 120kW chemical looping combustion
reactorsystemusingaNiOoxygencarrier,ChemicalEngineeringScience,64,99108.
Kotas,T.J.(1985)Theexergymethodofthermalplantanalysis,Butterworths,London.
Kothandaraman,A.,Nord,L.,Bolland,O.,Herzog,H.J.andMcRae,G.J.(2009)Comparisonof
solvents for postcombustion capture of CO2 by chemical absorption, Energy Procedia, 1, 1373
1380.
Kvamsdal,H.,Jordan,K.andBolland,O.(2007)Aquantitativecomparisonofgasturbinecycles
withCO2capture,Energy,32(1),1024.
Lazzaretto,A.andAndreatta,R.(1995)Algebraicformulationofaprocessbasedexergycosting
method, in: Symposium on thermodynamics and the design, analysis, and improvement of
energysystems(KraneR.J.,Ed.),35.ASME,NewYork,395403.
Lazzaretto, A. and Tsatsaronis, G. (2006) SPECO: A Systematic and General Methodology for
Calculating Efficiencies and Costs in Thermal Systems, Energy The International Journal, 31,
12571289.
Lazzaretto,A.andTsatsaronis,G.(1997)OntheQuestforObjectiveEquationsinExergyCosting,
Proceedings of the ASME, Advanced Energy Systems Division (Ramalingam, M. L., Lage, J. L.,
Mei,V.C.,andChapman,J.N.,Eds.),37,197210.
Lewis,W.K.andGilliland,E.R.(1954)Productionofpurecarbondioxide,USpatentNo.2665972.
Lin,L.andTsatsaronis,G.(1993)CostOptimizationofanAdvancedIGCCPowerPlantConcept
Design,ThermodynamicsandtheDesign,Analysis,andImprovementofEnergySystems1993
(Richter,H.J.,Ed.),30(266),157166.
Linderholm C., Abad A., Mattisson T. and Lyngfelt A. (2008) 160 h of chemicallooping
combustion in a 10 kW reactor system with a NiObased oxygen carrier, The 4th Trondheim
Conference on CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control,2(4),520530.

References

203

Ludwig,E.(2001)AppliedProcessDesignIII,3rdEdition,ISBN:0884156516.
Lyngfelt, A., Leckner, B. and Mattisson, T. (2001) A fluidizedbed combustion process with
inherent CO2 separation; application of chemicallooping combustion, Chemical Engineering
Science,56,31013113.
Lyngfelt,A.andThunman, H.(2005)Construction and 100h ofoperational experienceof a 10
kW chemical looping combustor, in: The CO2 Capture and Storage Project (CCP) for Carbon
DioxideStorageinDeepGeologicFormationsForClimateChangeMitigation,1,625646.
Matlab7,TheMathWorks,MatlabonlineDocumentation,
http://www.mathworks.com/access/helpdesk/help/techdoc/math/f185462.html,accessed:
December,2009.
Mattison,T.andLyngfelt,A.(2001)Applicationsofchemicalloopingcombustionwithcaptureof
CO2,2ndNordicminisymposiumonCO2captureandstorage,Gteborg,Sweden.
Meyer, L., Tsatsaronis, G., Bushgeister, J. and Schebek, L. (2009) Exergoenvironmental analysis
for evaluation of the environmental impact of energy conversion systems, Energy The
InternationalJournal34,7589.
MITSUBISHI Heavy Industries, LTD, Steam Turbine Generator, Standard Turbine Frames,
http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/products/pdf/at_turbine.pdf,accessed:April,2009.
Moeller, B., Torisson, T., Assadi, M., Sundkvist, S. G. and Asen, K. I. (2006) AZEP Gas Turbine
Combined Cycle Power Plants Thermoeconomic Analysis, International Journal of
Thermodynamics,9,2128.
Moran,M.J.(1982)AvailabilityAnalysisAGuidetoefficientenergyuse,PrenticeHall,Inc..
Morosuk, T. and Tsatsaronis, G. (2009a) Advanced Exergy Analysis for Chemically Reacting
Systems Application to a Simple Open GasTurbine System, International Journal of
Thermodynamics,12(3),105111.
Morosuk, T. and Tsatsaronis, G. (2009b) Advanced Exergetic Evaluation of Refrigeration
MachinesUsingDifferentWorkingFluids,EnergyTheInternationalJournal,34(12),22482258.
Morosuk,T.,andTsatsaronis,G.(2008a)ANewApproachtotheExergyAnalysisofAbsorption
RefrigerationMachinesEnergyTheInternationalJournal,33(6),890907.
Morosuk,T.andTsatsaronis,G.(2008b)HowtoCalculatethePartsofExergyDestructioninan
AdvancedExergeticAnalysis,in:Proceedingsofthe21stInternationalConferenceonEfficiency,
Costs, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems (Ziebik, A.,
Kolenda,Z.andStanek,W.Eds.),CracowGliwice,185194.
Morosuk, T. and Tsatsaronis, G. (2007) Exergoeconomic Evaluation of Refrigeration Machines
BasedonAvoidableEndogenousandExogenousCosts,in:Proceedingsofthe20thInternational
Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy
Systems(Mirandola,A.,Arnas,O.andLazzaretto,A.,Eds.),Padova,1,14591467.
Morosuk, T. and Tsatsaronis, G. (2006a) Splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and
exogenouspartsapplicationtorefrigerationmachines,in:Proceedingsofthe19thInternational
conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy
systems (Frangopoulos, C., Rakopoulos, C. and Tsatsaronis, G., Eds.), Aghia Pelagia: Crete, 1,
165172.

References

204

Morosuk, T. and Tsatsaronis, G. (2006b) The Cycle Method used in the exergy analysis of
refrigeration machines: from education to research, in: Proceedings of the 19th International
conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy
systems (Frangopoulos, C., Rakopoulos, C. and Tsatsaronis, G., Eds.), Aghia Pelagia: Crete, 1,
157163.
Obert,E.F.andGaggioli,R.A.(1963)Thermodynamics,McGrawHill,NewYork.
Naqvi, R. (2006) Analysis of Natural GasFired Power Cycles with Chemical Looping
CombustionforCO2Capture,Dissertation,NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology.
Naqvi, R. and Bolland, O. (2007) Multistage chemical looping combustion (CLC) for combined
cycleswithCO2capture.Int.J.ofGreenhouseGasControl,1,1930.
Naqvi,R.,Bolland,O.andWolf,J.(2005)OffDesignEvaluationofanaturalgasfiredChemical
Looping Combustion combined cycle with CO2 capture, Proceedings of The 18th International
Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy
Systems(ECOS),Trondheim,Norway,827834.
Nuovo
Pignone
S.p.A.
GE
Oil
&
Gas

Gas
Turbines,
http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/downloads/gas_turb_cat.pdf, accessed:
April,2009.
Perry R. H. and Green, D. W. (1997) Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, Seventh Edition,
McGrawHillCompanies,Inc.,NewYork.
Peters, M. S.(2003) Plant designandeconomicsfor chemicalengineers, 5th Edition,New York,
ISBN:0072392665.
Petrakopoulou F., Boyano A., Cabrera M. and Tsatsaronis G. (2010a) Exergoeconomic and
exergoenvironmental analyses of a combined cycle power plant with chemical looping
technology, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, In press, DOI:
10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.06.008.
Petrakopoulou F., Tsatsaronis G., Boyano A. and Morosuk T. (2010b) Exergoeconomic and
Exergoenvironmental Evaluation of power plants including CO2 capture, Carbon Capture &
Storage Special Issue of Chemical Engineering Research and Design, In press, DOI:
10.1016/j.cherd.2010.08.001.
Petrakopoulou F., Tsatsaronis G. and Morosuk T. (2010c) Conventional Exergetic and
Exergoeconomic analyses of a power plant with chemical looping combustion for CO2 capture,
InternationalJournalofThermodynamics,Vol.13(3),pp.7786.
PetrakopoulouF.,BoyanoA.,CabreraM.andTsatsaronisG.(2010d)Exergybasedanalysesofan
advancedzeroemissionplant,InternationalJournalofLowCarbonTechnologies,Vol.5(4),pp.
231238.
Petrakopoulou F., Tsatsaronis G., Morosuk T. and Carassai A. (2010e) Conventional and
advanced Exergetic Analyses applied to a combined cycle power plant, ECOS 2010, Lausanne,
Switzerland,pp.13631371.
PetrakopoulouF.,TsatsaronisG.,MorosukT.andCarassaiA.(2010f)AdvancedExergoeconomic
Analysis applied to a complex energy conversion system, ASME IMECE 2010, Vancouver,
Canada,CDROM,IMECE201038555.

References

205

Reistad, G. M. (1970) Availability: Concepts and Applications, Dissertation, The University of


WisconsinMadison,USA.
Rennie,(2006)Corrosionandmaterialsselectionforamineservice,Materialsforum,30,(Wuhrer,
R.andCortie,M.,Eds.),InstofMaterialsEngineeringAustrialasia,Ltd.
Richter, H. J. and Knoche, K. F. (1983) Reversibility of combustion processes, ACS Symposium
Series,235,99719985.
Rubin, E. S. and Rao, A. B. (2002) A Technical, Economic and Environmental Assessment of
Aminebased CO2 Capture Technology for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Control, U.S.
DepartmentofEnergy,NationalEnergyTechnologyLaboratory,DOE/DEFC2600NT40935.
Sanz, W., Jericha, H., Moser, M. and Heitmeir, F. (2005) Thermodynamic and Economic
Investigation of an Improved Graz Cycle Power Plant for CO2 Capture, Engineering for Gas
TurbinesandPower,127,765772.
Seider, W. D., Seader, J. D. and Lewin D. R. (2004) Product and Process Design Principles,
Synthesis, Analysis andEvaluation,SecondEdition, John Wiley and Sons,Inc.,New York,412
440,785786.
SimaPro LCA Software, Database Manual (2006), EcoIndicator 99, PR Consultants B.V.,
Amersfoort,Netherlands,http://www.pre.nl.
Sinnott, R. K. (2005) Chemical Engineering design, 4th Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam, ISBN: 0
750665386.
Soares, C. (2002) Process Engineering Equipment Handbook, McGrawHill Handbooks, New
York,C13C16.
Sofbid,Ebsilon.http://www.sofbid.com,accessed:2009.
Sundkvist,S.G.,Julsrud,S.,Vigeland,B.,Naas,T.,Budd,M.,Leistner,H.andWinkler,D.(2007)
Development and testing of AZEP reactor components. International journal of greenhouse gas
controlI180187.
Sundkvist, S. G., Klang, K., Sjdin, M., Wilhelmsen, K., Sen, K., Tintinelli, A., McCahey, S. and
Huang,Y.(2005)AzepgasturbinecombinedcyclepowerplantsThermaloptimisationandLCA
analysis.GreenhouseGasControlTechnologies7,263271.
Sundkvist, S. G.,Griffin,T. and Thorshaug, N. P. (2001) AZEP Development of an Integrated
Air Separation Membrane Gas Turbine, 2nd Nordic minisymposium on CO2 capture and
storage,Gteborg,Sweden.
Szargut, J., Morris, D. R. and Steward, F.R. (1988) Exergy analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and
MetallurgicalProcesses,HemispherePublishingCorporation,NewYork.
Szargut, J. (1974) Wrmekonomische Probleme des Umweltschutzes/Energieanwendung,
Energieanwendung,23,306310.
Szargut,J.(1971)AnwendungderExergiezurangenhrtenwirtschaftlichenOptimierung,BWK,
23(12),516519.
Szargut, J. (1967) Grenzen fr die Anwendungsmglichkeiten des Exergiebegriffs, BWK, 19 (6),
309313.

References

206

Toffolo,A.andLazzaretto,A.(2003)Anewthermoeconomicmethodforthelocationofcausesof
malfunctionsinenergysystems,ProceedingsoftheASME,AdvancedEnergySystemsDivision,
43,355364.
Tribus, M. and ElSayed, Y. M. (1981) A specific strategy for the improvement of process
economicsthroughthermoeconomicanalysis,Proc.2ndWorldCongressofchemicalengineering
II,Montreal,278281.
Tribus,M.andElSayed,Y.M.(1980)ThermoeconomicanalysisofanindustrialProcess,Center
foradvancedEngineeringStudy,M.I.T.,Cambridge,MA.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Morosuk, T. (2010) Advanced Exergetic Analysis of a Novel System for
GeneratingElectricityandVaporizingLiquefiedNaturalGas,EnergyTheInternationalJournal,
inpress.
Tsatsaronis, G. (2009) Application of Thermoeconomics to the Design and Synthesis of Energy
Plants, in: Exergy, Energy Systems Analysis and Optimization of the Encyclopedia of Life
SupportSystemsII(Frangopoulos,C.,Ed.),EOLSSPublishers,Oxford,121146.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Cziesla, F. (2009) Exergy, Energy Systems Analysis and Optimization, in:
EncyclopediaofLifeSupportSystems,EOLSSPublishers,Oxford,UK,1,34146.
Tsatsaronis, G., Morosuk, T. and Cziesla, F. (2009) LNGbased cogeneration systems. Part 2:
Advanced exergybased analyses of a concept, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International
MechanicalEngineeringCongressandExposition,LakeBuenaVista,IMECE200910460.
Tsatsaronis, G. (2008) Recent Developments in Exergy Analysis and Exergoeconomics,
InternationalJournalofExergy,5(5/6),489499.
Tsatsaronis,G.,Kapanke,K.,andBlancoMarigorta,A.M.(2008)ExergoeconomicEstimatesfora
Novel ZeroEmission Process Generating Hydrogen and Electric Power, Energy The
InternationalJournal,33,321330.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Morosuk, T. (2008a) A general exergybased method for combining a cost
analysiswithanenvironmentalimpactanalysis.PartITheoreticalDevelopment,Proceedingsof
the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Boston, IMECE2008
67218.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Morosuk, T. (2008b) A general exergybased method for combining a cost
analysiswithanenvironmentalimpact analysis.PartII Applicationto a cogenerationsystem,
Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
Boston,IMECE200867219.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Morosuk, T. V. (2007a) Advanced Exergoeconomic Evaluation and its
Application to Compression Refrigeration Machines, Proceedings of the ASME International
MechanicalEngineeringCongressandExposition,Seattle,IMECE2007412202.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Morosuk, T. (2007b) Design improvement of an energy conversion system
basedon advancedexergyanalysis.Proceedings ofthe4thEuropean CongressEconomics and
managementofenergyinindustry,Porto.
Tsatsaronis, G., Kelly, S. O., and Morosuk, T. V. (2006) Endogenous and Exogenous Exergy
DestructioninThermalSystems,ProceedingsoftheASMEInternationalMechanicalEngineering
CongressandExposition,Chicago,IMECE200613675.

References

207

TsatsaronisG.andCzieslaF.(2002)Thermoeconomics,in:EncyclopediaofPhysicalScienceand
Technology,16,3rdEdition,659680.
Tsatsaronis,G.andPark,M.H.(2002)OnAvoidableandUnavoidableExergyDestructionsand
InvestmentCostsinThermalSystems,EnergyConversionandManagement,43,12591270.
Tsatsaronis, G. (1999a) Design optimization using exergoeconomics, in: Thermodynamic
Optimization of Complex Energy Systems, (Bejan, A. and Mamut, E., Eds.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers,Dordrecht,101115.
Tsatsaronis, G. (1999b) Strengths and limitations of exergy analysis, in: Thermodynamic
Optimization of Complex Energy Systems, (Bejan, A. and Mamut, E., Eds.), Kluwer Academic
Publishers,Dordrecht,93100.
Tsatsaronis,G.andMoran,M.J.(1997)ExergyAidedCostMinimization,EnergyConversionand
Management,38,1517,15351542.
Tsatsaronis,G.(1995)DesignOptimizationofThermalSystemsUsingExergyBasedTechniques,
ProceedingsoftheWorkshopSecondLawAnalysisofEnergySystems:Towardsthe21stCentury
(Sciubba,E.andMoran,M.J.,Eds.),Rome,Italy,57.
Tsatsaronis,G.,Lin,L.andTawfik,T.(1994a)ExergoeconomicEvaluationofaKRWBasedIGCC
PowerPlant,JournalofEngineeringforGasTurbinesandPower,116,300306.
Tsatsaronis, G., Tawfik, T. and Lin, L. (1994b) Exergetic Comparison of Two KRWBasedIGCC
PowerPlants,JournalofEngineeringforGasTurbinesandPower,116,291299.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Pisa, J. (1994c) Exergoeconomic Evaluation and Optimization of Energy
SystemsTheCGAMProblem,EnergyTheInternationalJournal,19,287321.
Tsatsaronis, G., Krane, R. J. and Krause, A. (1994d) Thermoeconomic Evaluation of the
Columbian Chemicals Standard Carbon Black Process, Final Report submitted to Columbian
ChemicalsCompany,Swartz,Louisiana.
Tsatsaronis,G.(1993)ThermoeconomicAnalysisandOptimizationofEnergySystems,Progress
inEnergyandCombustionSystems,19,227257.
Tsatsaronis,G.,Lin,L.,andPisa,J.(1993)ExergyCostinginExergoeconomics,JournalofEnergy
ResourcesTechnology,115,916.
Tsatsaronis, G. (1987) A Review of Exergoeconomic Methodologies, Proceedings of the Fourth
InternationalSymposium,SecondLawAnalysisofThermalSystems(Moran,M.J.andSciubba,
E.,Eds.),8187.
Tsatsaronis, G. (1984) Combination of Exergetic and Economic Analysis in Energy Conversion
Processes, in: Energy Economics and Management in Industry (Reis, A., Smith, I., Peube, J. L.,
Stephan,K.,Eds.),PergamonPress,Oxford,151157.
Tsatsaronis, G., Pisa, J., Lin, L. and Tawfik, T. (1992a) Optimization of an IGCC Power Plant
PartI: Optimized Cases, in: Thermodynamics and the Design, Analysis, and Improvement of
EnergySystems1992(Boehm,R.F.,etal.,Eds),1992WinterAnnualMeetingofASME,27,37
53.
Tsatsaronis, G. Lin, L. and Pisa, J. (1992b) Optimization of an IGCC Power Plant PartII:
Methodology and Parametric Studies, in: Thermodynamics and the Design, Analysis, and

References

208

ImprovementofEnergySystems1992(Boehm,R.F.,etal.,Eds),1992WinterAnnualMeetingof
ASME,27,5567.
Tsatsaronis,G.,Lin,L.,Pisa,J.andTawfik,T.(1991)ThermoeconomicDesignOptimizationofa
KRWBased IGCC Power Plant, Final Report submitted to Southern Company Services and the
U.S. Department of Energy, DEFC2189MC26019, Center for Electric Power, Tennessee
TechnologicalUniversity.
Tsatsaronis, G., Tawfik, T. and Lin, L.(1990) Assessment of Coal Gasification/Hot Gas Cleanup
BasedAdvancedGasTurbineSystemsExergeticandThermoeconomicEvaluation,FinalReport
submitted to Southern Company Services and the U.S. Department of Energy,
DE_FC21_89MC26019,CenterforElectricPower,TennesseeTechnologicalUniversity.
Tsatsaronis, G., Pisa, J. J. and Gallego, L. M. (1989) Chemical Exergy in Exergoeconomics, in:
ThermodynamicAnalysisandImprovementofEnergySystems,ProceedingsoftheInternational
Symposium,PergamonPress,195200.
Tsatsaronis, G., Winhold, M. and Stojanoff, C. G. (1986) Thermoeconomic Analysis of a
GasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant,EPRIAP4734,RP20298,FinalReport,ElectricPower
ResearchInstitute,PaloAlto,CA.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Winhold, M. (1986) Exergoeconomic Analysis of an Integrated
CoalGasificationCombinedCyclePowerPlant,WinterAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanSociety
ofMechanicalEngineers,23.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Winhold, M. (1985a) Exergoeconomic Analysis and Evaluation of Energy
Conversion Plants. PartIA New General Methodology, Energy The International Journal, 10
(1),6980.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Winhold, M. (1985b) Exergoeconomic Analysis and Evaluation of Energy
Conversion Plants. Part II Analysis of a CoalFired Steam Power Plant, Energy The
InternationalJournal,10(1),8194.
Tsatsaronis, G. and Winhold, M. (1984) Thermoeconomic Analysis of Power Plants, EPRI AP
3651,RP20298,FinalReport,ElectricPowerResearchInstitute,PaloAlto,CA.
Turton, R., Bailie, R.C., Whiting, W.B., Shaeiwitz, J.A. (2002) Analysis, Synthesis and Design of
ChemicalProcesses,2ndEdition,PartofthePrenticeHallInternationalSeriesinthePhysicaland
ChemicalEngineeringSciencesseries,PrenticeHall,ISBN13:9780130647924.
Valero,A.,Lozano,M.A.,Serra,L.andTorres,C.(1994)Applicationoftheexergeticcosttheory
totheCGAMproblem,EnergyTheInternationalJournal,19(3),365381.
Valero,A.,Lozano,M.A.andMunoz,M.(1986)AGeneralTheoryofExergySaving,PartI:On
the exergetic cost, Part II: On the thermoeconomic cost, Part III: Energy savings and
thermoeconomics, in: ComputerAided Engineering of Energy Systems (Gaggioli, R. A., Ed.),
ASME,NewYork,122.
Valero,A.,Torres,C.andLozano,M.A.(1989)OntheUnificationofThermoeconomicTheories,
in: Simulation of Thermal Energy Systems (Boehm, R. F., ElSayed, Y. M., Eds.), ASME, New
York,6374.
VGBPowerTeche.V.(2004),CO2captureandstorage,VGBReportontheStateoftheArt,Essen.

References

209

Toffolo, A. and Lazzaretto, A., A new thermoeconomic method for the location of causes of
malfunctionsinenergysystems,ProceedingsoftheASME,AdvancedEnergySystemsDivision,
43,355364,2003.
Vilson,R.D.,AirSeparationControlTechnology,YEAR.
von Spakovsky, M. R. (1994) Application of engineering functional analysis to the analysis and
optimizationoftheCGAMproblem,EnergyTheInternationalJournal,19(3),343364.
von Spakovsky, M. R. (1986) A practical generalized analysis approach to the optimal
thermoeconomic design and improvement of realworld thermal systems, Dissertation, Georgia
InstituteofTechnology.
von Spakovsky, M. R. and Evans, R. B. (1990) The Design and Performance Optimization of
ThermalSystems,ASMETrans.,JournalofEngineeringforGasTurbinesandPower,112(1),86
93.
vonSpakovskyM.R.andEvans,R.B.(1990)Thefoundationsofengineeringfunctionalanalysis
(PartIandII),in:Afutureforenergy(Stecco,S.andMoran,M.,Eds.),Flowers90,Florence,Italy,
May28June1,445472.
Wepfer,W.J.(1980)ApplicationsofAvailableEnergyAccounting,in:Thermodynamics:Second
LawAnalysis(R.A.Gaggioli,Ed.),A.C.S.SymposiumSeries,122.
Wepfer, W. J. (1979) Application of the Second Law to the Analysis and Design of Energy
Systems,Dissertation,TheUniversityofWisconsinMadison,USA.
Wilkinson,M.,Simmonds,M.,Allam,R.andWhite,V.(2003)OxyfuelConversionofHeatersand
BoilersforCO2Capture,SecondNationalConferenceonCarbonSequestration,WashingtonDC.
Wolf, J., Anheden, M., Yan, J. (2005) Comparison of nickel and ironbased oxygen carriers in
chemicalloopingcombustionforCO2captureinpowergeneration,Fuel,84,9931006.
WorleyParsons (2009), Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage
Report1:StatusofCarbonCaptureandStorageProjectsGlobally,FinalReport,Commonwealth
ofAustralia.