~ Pergamon

Energy Convers. Mgmt Vol, 38, No. 15-17, pp. 1535-1542, 1997
/ © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0196-8904(96)00215-4 0196-8904/97 $17.00 + 0.00
EXERGY- AI DED COST MI NI MI ZATI ON
GEORGE TSATSARONIS ~ and MICHAEL J. MORAN 2
' Institute for Energy Engineering, Technical University of Berlin, Marchstr. 18, 10587 Berlin, Germany
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 206 W. 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH.
43210-1154, U.S.A.
Abstract--This paper shows how exergy-related variables can be used to minimize the cost of a thermal
system. These variables include the exergetic efficiency, the rates of exergy destruction and exergy loss,
an exergy destruction ratio, the cost rates associated with exergy destruction, capital investment and
operating and maintenance, a relative cost difference of unit costs and an exergoeconomic factor. A simple
cogeneration system is used as an example to demonstrate the application of an iterative exergy-aided cost
minimization method. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.
NOMENCLATURE
c - cost per unit of exergy
C' = cost rate associated with exergy
C'D = cost rate of exergy destruction
L" -- exergy flow rate
/~O = time rate of exergy destruction
EF = exergy rate of fuel
L'L ----- time rate of exergy loss
L'p ---= exergy rate of product
f = exergoeconomic factor
HRSG -- heat-recovery steam generator
m -- mass flow rate
p --= pressure
PEC = purchased-equipment cost
r -- relative cost difference
T = temperature
yD ---- exergy destruction ratio
yc = exergy loss ratio
ZCi ~ cost rate associated with capital investment
~#OM__=cost rate associated with operating and maintenance expenses
2 = 2c'+ ~oM
Greek symbols
E --- exergetic efficiency
~/sc = isentropic efficiency of compressor
q,, = isentropic efficiency of turbine
Subscripts
D --- destruction
F = fuel
L = loss
P = product
k = kth component
tot = overall system.
INTRODUCTION
Thermoeconomics combines exergy analysis and economic principles to provide the system
designer or operator with information not available through conventional energy analysis and
economic evaluations, but crucial to the design and operation of a cost-effective system.
Thermoeconomics can be considered as exergy-aided cost minimization.
The objective of a thermoeconomic analysis might be: (a) to calculate separately the cost of each
product generated by a system having more than one product; (b) to understand the cost formation
1535
1536
TSATSARONIS and MORAN: EXERGY-AIDED COST MINIMIZATION
Feedwater
Saturated Vapor,
@ ~ 20 bars, 14 kg/s Air Preheater
L i . ®
@ ..
- . ~ Natural Gas
Steam Generator 1 . ~ I ~
C o mb u s t i o n ~
, ~ C h a mb e r [ / , . , /
J Power to Air Compressor
( 9
i•Net
Power
30 MW
Air
Fig. 1. Base-case design of the cogeneration system.
pr ocess a nd t he fl ow o f cost s i n t he syst em; (c) t o opt i mi ze specific var i abl es i n a si ngl e c o mp o n e n t ;
o r (d) t o opt i mi ze t he over al l syst em. A t h o r o u g h di scussi on o f t h e r mo e c o n o mi c s is pr es ent ed i n
Ref. [1]. I n t hi s pa pe r we di scuss h o w cer t ai n exer gy- r el at ed var i abl es can be used t o mi ni mi ze t he
cos t o f a t he r ma l syst em. The i t er at i ve opt i mi z a t i on t echni que pr es ent ed her e r equi r es a mi n i mu m
o f avai l abl e da t a a nd pr ovi des effect i ve assi st ance i n opt i mi z i ng t her mal syst ems, par t i cul ar l y i n
deal i ng wi t h c ompl e x syst ems a n d / o r i n cases wher e c onve nt i ona l opt i mi z a t i on t echni ques c a n n o t
be appl i ed t o t he s ys t em opt i mi zat i on.
CASE STUDY
Fi gur e 1 pr esent s t he base- case desi gn o f a c oge ne r a t i on syst em t ha t devel ops a net powe r
o u t p u t o f 30 MW and pr ovi des 14 kg/ s o f s at ur at ed wat er v a p o r at 20 bar . The first five
c ol umns o f Tabl e 1 s how r el evant t h e r mo d y n a mi c a nd e c o n o mi c dat a. The s econd c ol umn
o f Tabl e 2 s hows t he pur c ha s e d- e qui pme nt cost s ( PEC) f or each c o mp o n e n t i n t he base- case
desi gn.
Table 1. Mass flow rate, temperature, pressure, exergy rate, and cost data for the streams of the cogeneration system
State Stream
Mass flow Exergy flow Cost flow Cost per
rate Temperature Pressure rate rate exergy unit
m T p ~ ~' c
(kg/s) (K) (bar) (MW) (S/h) (S/G J)
1 Air
2 Air
3 Air
4 Combustion products
5 Combustion products
6 Combustion products
7 Combustion products
8 Water
9 Water
10 Methane
11 Power to air compressor
12 Net power
91.28 298.1 1.01 0.000 0 0
91.28 603.7 10.13 27.538 2756 27.80
91.28 850.0 9.62 41.938 3835 25.40
92.92 1520.0 9.14 101.454 5301 14.51
92.92 1006.2 1.10 38.782 2026 14.51
92.92 779.8 1.07 21.752 1137 14.51
92.92 426.9 1.01 2.773 145 14.51
14.00 298.1 20.00 0.062 0 0.00
14.00 485.6 20.00 12.810 1256 27.23
1.64 298.1 12.00 84.994 1398 4.57
- - - - - - 29.662 2003 18.76
- - - - - - 30.000 2026 18.76
TSATSARONIS and MORAN: EXERGY-AIDED COST MINIMIZATION 1537
Table 2. Values of the purchased-equiment costs (PEC) and the thermoeconomic variables for the base-case design
(T~ = 850 K; T4 = 1520 K; pz/p~ = 10; ~/~ = r/~, = 0.86)*
PEC E IZt~ yD CV Cv CD 2 Or~ + 2 r f
Component [1065] [%] [MW] [%] [$/ GJ] [S/G J] [S/h] [S/h] [S/h] [%] [%]
Combustion 0.34 80. 37 25. 48 29. 98 11. 45 14.51 1050 68 1118 26.7 6.1
chamber
Gas turbine 3.74 95.20 3.01 3.54 14.51 18.76 157 753 910 29.2 82.7
Air compressor 3.73 92.84 2.12 2.50 18. 76 27.80 143 753 896 48.2 84.0
HRSG 1.31 67.17 6.23 7.33 14. 51 27.36 326 264 590 88.5 44.8
Air preheater 0.94 84.55 2.63 3.09 14.51 20.81 137 189 326 43.4 57.9
*For the overall plant we have CP.,o, = $3617/h and CL.~o, = (77 = $145/h.
These cost s are obt ai ned f r om the cost equat i ons given in Appendi x B of Ref. [1]. These cost
funct i ons are used for illustrative pur poses onl y and do not pr ovi de cur r ent cost s f or pur chasi ng
the respect i ve equi pment items. I n t he design of t her mal syst ems cost equat i ons such as t hose in
Ref. [1] are not usual l y avai l abl e. Thus, in t he di scussi ons of t her moeconomi c eval uat i on and
i t erat i ve opt i mi zat i on, we recogni ze t hat aft er each desi gn modi f i cat i on the new pur chased- equi p-
ment cost s woul d be cal cul at ed by a cost engineer. For simplicity of pr esent at i on, however, we
assume t hat the cost val ues pr ovi ded by the cost engi neer are in full agr eement wi t h the
cor r espondi ng val ues cal cul at ed f r om these cost equat i ons. The r emai ni ng di rect costs, as well as
t he i ndi rect costs, are est i mat ed usi ng aver age fact ors. The t ot al capi t al i nvest ment of the
cogener at i on syst em in the base case is est i mat ed at appr oxi mat el y 46 mi l l i on (mid-1994) dollars.
Tabl e 7.9 in Ref. [1] summar i zes t he par amet er s and assumpt i ons used in the economi c anal ysi s,
which is based on the r evenue- r equi r ement met hod discussed in Ref. [2].
The year - by- year economi c anal ysi s results in the levelized annual cost s for fuel ($10.4 × 106),
oper at i ng and mai nt enance ($5.9 x 106) and car r yi ng charges ($10.5 x 106), for a levelization
t i me peri od of 10yrs. The val ues given in the previ ous sent ence are the cor r espondi ng
levelized cur r ent - dol l ar cost s obt ai ned for the base case. The levelized cost s are used as i nput
dat a for the t her moeconomi c anal ysi s and opt i mi zat i on. The cost flow rat es in the syst em are
obt ai ned by di vi di ng the levelized annual cost s by the number of hour s of syst em oper at i on per
year.
In this paper pri nci pl es of t her moeconomi cs are used t o det er mi ne changes in the design
var i abl es of the cogener at i on syst em t hat resul t in an i mpr ovement of the cost effectiveness
of the overal l system. The met hodol ogy used pr ovi des a pl ausi bl e expl or at or y appr oach for
i mpr ovi ng the cost effectiveness of t her mal syst ems general l y and the case st udy of Fig. 1 in
part i cul ar.
THERMOECONOMI C VARI ABLES
A det ai l ed t her moeconomi c eval uat i on of a t her mal syst em is based on a set of vari abl es
cal cul at ed for each c ompone nt of the syst em as pr esent ed in the Appendi x. For the kt h c ompone nt
these include the following:
• Exerget i c efficiency E~ (Section 3.5.3).
• Rat es of exergy dest r uct i on /~D,k and exergy loss EL.k (Section 3.5.2).
• Exergy dest r uct i on rat i o yo.k and exergy loss rat i o yL,k (Section 3.5.2).
• Cost rat es associ at ed wi t h capi t al i nvest ment 2",' c~ , oper at i ng and mai nt enance expenses 2~ TM , and
t hei r sum Zk (Section 8.1).
• Cost r at e of exergy dest r uct i on (~o,~ (Section 8.2.1).
• Rel at i ve cost difference r, (Section 8.2.2).
• Exer goeconomi c f act or j~ (Section 8.2.3).
The section references given in par ent heses l ocat e in Ref. [1] where the cor r espondi ng vari abl e is
i nt roduced.
1538 TSATSARONIS and MORAN: EXERGY-AIDED COST MINIMIZATION
THERMOECONOMIC EVALUATION AND OPTIMIZATION
The following methodology can be used in an exploratory approach aimed at improving the cost
effectiveness of a thermal system:
(1) Rank the components in descending order of cost importance using the sum Zk + (~D,k.
(2) Consider design changes initially for the components for which the value of this sum is high.
(3) Pay particular attention to components with a high relative cost difference rk, especially when
the cost rates Zk and Co,k are high.
(4) Use the exergoeconomic factorf~ to identify the major cost source (capital investment or cost
of exergy destruction): (a) if the f~ value is high, investigate whether it is cost effective to reduce
the capital investment for the kth component at the expense of the component efficiency; (b) if the
j~ value is low, try to improve the component efficiency by increasing the capital investment.
(5) Eliminate any subprocesses that increase the exergy destruction or exergy loss without
contributing to the reduction of capital investment or of fuel costs for other components.
(6) Consider improving the exergetic efficiency of a component if it has a relatively low exergetic
efficiency or relatively large values of the rate of exergy destruction, the exergy destruction ratio,
or the exergy loss ratio.
When applying this methodology, it is important to recognize that the values of all
thermoeconomic variables depend on the component types: heat exchanger, compressor, turbine,
pump, chemical reactor and so forth. Accordingly, whether a particular value is judged to be high
or low can be determined only with reference to a particular class of components. It is also
important to consider the effects of contemplated design changes in one component on the
performance of the remaining components. These effects may be determined either by inspection
of the system flow sheets or by using a simulation program.
The methodology introduced above will now be applied to the case study cogeneration system.
The objectives are to identify the effects of the design variables on the costs and suggest values
of the design variables that would make the system more cost effective. The key design variables,
the decision variables, for the cogeneration system are the compressor pressure ratio pz/pl, the
isentropic compressor efficiency r/so, the isentropic turbine efficiency q~, the temperature of the air
entering the combustion chamber T3, and the temperature of the combustion products entering the
gas turbine T4.
First iteration
The following nominal values of the decision variables correspond to the first workable design
(base-case design) developed for the cogeneration system of Fig. I, Tables 1 and 2:
p2/p~ = 10, r/~ = qst = 0.86, T3 = 850 K, T4 = 1520 K.
The last two columns of Table 1 and the last 10 columns of Table 2 summarize the values of
the thermoeconomic variables calculated for each component of the cogeneration system for the
base-case design. In accord with the presented methodology, the components are listed in order
of descending value of the sum ~'D + 2.
The combustion chamber, the gas turbine and the air compressor have the highest values of the
sum Z + ~'D and are, therefore, the most important components from the thermoeconomic
viewpoint. The low value of the variable f for the combustion chamber shows that the costs
associated with the combustion chamber are almost exclusively due to exergy destruction. A part
of the exergy destruction in a combustion chamber can be avoided by preheating the reactants and
by reducing the heat loss and the excess air, but this usually leads only to a small reduction in
the exergy destruction. For simplicity, we assume here that the heat loss cannot be further reduced.
The excess air is determined by the desired temperature T4 at the inlet to the gas turbine. The
temperature T4 is a key design variable, for it affects both the performance of the entire system
(exergy destruction in the combustion chamber, gas turbine, air preheater and HRSG, and exergy
loss associated with stream 7), and the investment costs of the components.
An increase in the heat transfer rate in the air preheater achieved through an increase in
temperature T3 also results in a decrease of the exergy destruction in the combustion chamber.
TSATSARONIS and MORAN: EXERGY-AIDED COST MINIMIZATION 1539
Thus, the temperature T3 is also a key design variable because, in addition to the combustion
chamber, it affects the exergy loss associated with stream 7 as well as the performance and
investment costs of the air preheater and the heat-recovery steam generator. Holding all other
decision variables constant, the higher the temperature T3, the smaller the average temperature
difference in the air preheater and the heat-recovery steam generator. A decrease in the average
temperature difference in these heat exchangers results in an increase in both the exergetic efficiency
and the capital investment for each heat exchanger.
Summarizing, by considering measures for reducing the high cost rate associated with the exergy
destruction in the combustion chamber of the cogeneration system, two key design variables
have been identified, the temperatures T3 and T4. An increase in these temperatures reduces the
CD value for the combustion chamber and other components, but increases their capital investment
costs.
Turning next to the gas turbine, which has the second highest value of the sum 2 + CD, the
relatively large value of factor f suggests that the capital investment and O&M costs dominate.
The capital investment costs of the gas turbine depend on temperature/4, pressure ratio p2/p~ and
isentropic efficiency r/st. To reduce the high ,~ value associated with the gas turbine, we should
consider a reduction in the value of at least one of these variables.
The air compressor has the highestfvalue and the second highest relative cost difference r among
all components. Thus, we would expect the cost effectiveness of the entire system to improve if
the Z value for the air compressor is reduced. This may be achieved by reducing the pressure ratio
p2/p~ and/or the isentropic compressor efficiency t/~.
The heat-recovery steam generator has the lowest exergetic efficiency and the highest r
value among all the components. As t hefval ue indicates, almost 45% of the relative cost difference
is caused by the Z value in this component, with the remaining 55% caused by exergy
destruction. Thus, we might conclude that a decrease of the exergy destruction in the HRSG could
be cost effective for the entire system, even if this would increase the investment costs
associated with this component. The exergy destruction in the HRSG can be reduced by
decreasing the values of 7"6 and TT. A decrease in the value of 7"7 also results in a decrease in the
exergy loss from the total system. In terms of the decision variables, temperatures 7"6 and T7
may be reduced by increasing T3 and/or decreasing T4 at fixed values of the remaining decision
variables.
The relatively high value of f in the air preheater suggests a reduction in the investment costs
of this component. This can be achieved by decreasing T3. It should be noted, however, that
changes suggested by the evaluation of this component should only be considered if they do not
contradict changes suggested by components with a larger value of Co + Z.
Summarizing the foregoing conclusions, the following changes in the design variables are
expected to improve the cost effectiveness of the system.
• Increase the value of Z~ as suggested by the evaluation of the combustion chamber and
HRSG.
• Decrease the pressure ratio p2/pl (and thus p4/ps) and the isentropic efficiencies ~/~c and t/s,, as
suggested by evaluation of the air compressor and gas turbine.
• Maintain T4 fixed, since we get contradictory indications from the evaluations of the combustion
chamber on one side and the gas turbine and HRSG on the other side.
Second iteration
Contemplating the effects of changes made in accord with the above list in the values of the
design variables used in the first iteration, the following new values are selected for the second
iteration:
T3 = 870 K, T4 = 1520 K (unchanged), p2/p~ = 9, t/so = 85%, r/st = 85%.
The new values of the thermoeconomic variables for each component are summarized in Table 3.
In the new design, the combustion chamber, the gas turbine and the air compressor also have the
highest values of the sum d?t, + 2 and are, therefore, still the most important components from
the thermoeconomic viewpoint. The high cost rate associated with the combustion chamber can
be reduced by increasing the values of 7"3 and T4. In the evaluation of the cogeneration system we
1540 TSATSARONI S and MORAN: EXERGY- AI DED COST MI NI MI ZATI ON
Tabl e 3. Compone nt dat a f or t he second i t erat i on case: (7"3 = 870 K; 7"4 = 1520 K; p:/p~ = 9; q~ = 0.85; r/st = 0.85)*. The
values given in par ent heses refer t o t he t hi r d i t erat i on case consi der ed here (T3 = 910 K; T4 = 1480 K; p2/p~ = 7;
r/~ = 0.83)**
E Eo yo cv co C~D 2 CD + 2 r f
Compone nt [%] [MW] [%] [S/G J] [S/G J] [S/h] [S/h] IS/h} [%1 [%1
Combustion 80.3 25.93 29.77 10.50 13.26 980 72 1052 26.3 6.8
chamber (81.3) (27.47) (29.92) (9.42) (11. 71) (931) (55) (986) (24.35) (5.5)
Gas turbine 94.9 3.18 3.66 13.26 16.97 152 647 799 28.0 81.0
(94.3) ( 3. 69) ( 4. 01) (11.71) (13.75) (155) (296) (451) (17. 45) (65.6)
Air 92.1 2.34 2.69 16.97 23.96 143 546 689 41.2 79.2
compressor (90.5) ( 2. 99) ( 3. 25) (13.75) (18. 38) (148) (324) (472) (33. 61) (68.7)
HRSG 66.6 6.40 7.35 13.26 25.60 305 261 566 93.1 46.1
(67.6) ( 6. 10) ( 6. 65) (11.71) (23.51) (257) (284) (541) (100.74) (52.5)
Air 84.7 3.15 3.62 13.26 18.94 150 206 356 42.9 57.8
preheater (85.6) ( 4. 97) ( 4. 90) (11.71) (16.53) (190) (275) (464) (41. 20) (59.2)
Overall 49.1 41.01 47.09 4.57 21.80 675 1922 2597 377.0 74.0
plant (46.6) (44.79) (48.79) (4.57) (19.06) ( 736) (1424) (2160) (317.17) (65.9)
*For the overall plant in the new design case we have C'p.,o, = $3355/h and ~'L.,o, = ~'7 = $157/h.
**For the overall plant in the last design case we have ~P.~o, = $2934/h and C'L.,o, = C'7 = $167/h.
shoul d, however, consi der t hat the val ue of this sum f or the combus t i on chamber will al ways be
the highest a mong t he (~D + Z val ues f or t he component s of the cogener at i on system.
The gas t ur bi ne now has the highest f value. The r educt i on in this val ue f r om 82. 7% in the
base desi gn to 81. 0% in the new desi gn is rel at i vel y small c ompa r e d wi t h a t ar get val ue of
bel ow 75%. Thi s obser vat i on suggests: (1) a significant decrease in t he val ues of r/s, and/ or
p2/p~, t hat is a decrease gr eat er t han the decrease in these var i abl es in the previ ous step: f r om 86
t o 85% and f r om I0 t o 9, respectively; and (2) a r educt i on in the val ue of T4. Not e t hat the decrease
in t he T4 val ue cont r adi ct s t he cor r espondi ng suggest i on f r om t he combus t i on chamber .
The hi gh val ues of the exer goeconomi c f act or f and the rel at i ve cost difference r f or the ai r
compr es s or suggest a decrease in the val ues of the deci si on var i abl es p2/p~ and r/~. The ant i ci pat ed
i ncrease in t he exerget i c efficiency of t he HRS G (see first i t erat i on) was not realized because of the
i nt er dependence of t he component s: t he r educt i on in the val ues of p:/p~, q~ and qs, f or t he
compr es s or and t he t ur bi ne leads t o an i ncrease in t he t emper at ur e differences (and, t herefore, a
decrease in t he exerget i c efficiency) of t he HRSG. Thus, the HRS G t her moeconomi c eval uat i on
suggests t hat the 7"3 val ue i ncreases and t he 7"4 val ue decreases.
The rel at i vel y hi gh val ue of f i n the ai r pr eheat er suggests a r educt i on in t he T3 value. As not ed
in t he first i t erat i on, however, changes suggest ed by t he eval uat i on of this c ompone nt shoul d onl y
be consi dered i f t hey do not cont r adi ct changes suggest ed by component s wi t h a hi gher val ue of
t he s u m ~"D "31- J~'.
Summar i zi ng t he f or egoi ng suggest i ons f r om the t her moeconomi c eval uat i on of each
component , the fol l owi ng changes in the deci si on var i abl es are expect ed t o i mpr ove the cost
effectiveness of the cogener at i on system:
• Increase the val ue of 7"3 as suggest ed by t he eval uat i ons of t he combus t i on chamber and HRSG.
• Decr ease the pressure rat i o p2/pJ and the i sent ropi c efficiencies r/~ and qst as suggest ed by the
eval uat i ons of t he ai r compr es s or and gas t urbi ne.
• Decr ease t he t emper at ur e 7"4 as suggest ed f r om t he eval uat i ons of t he gas t urbi ne and the HRSG.
Thi rd iteration
To i l l ust rat e the effect of the suggest ed changes in t he deci si on vari abl es on the overal l costs,
we use t he fol l owi ng new set of val ues f or the desi gn vari abl es:
T ~ = 9 1 0 K; T 0 = 1 4 8 0 K; p2/ p~=7; ~/= --- 0.83; and r/ ~, =0. 83.
The results f r om the t her moeconomi c anal ysi s f or the l ast set of val ues are summar i zed in Tabl e 3
by the val ues given in parent heses. A compar i s on of the cor r espondi ng val ues shown in Tabl e 3
demons t r at es t he i mpr ovement in t he cost effectiveness of t he l ast desi gn case. As a resul t of these
changes, t he val ue of t he obj ect i ve funct i on ~p.,o, is reduced f r om $3355/h t o $2934/h. The t~7 val ue
TSATSARONI S and MORAN: EXERGY- AI DED COST MI NI MI ZATI ON 1541
has increased from $157/h in the new case, to $167/h in the last case. This increase is, however,
outweighed by the decreases in the values of CD.k + Zk.
Additional iterations
Some additional iterations, conducted in a similar way, are necessary to further decrease the
value of the objective function and/or establish a nearly-optimal design case. The cost-optimal
values of the decision variables calculated using Box's complex method and the corresponding
computer program from Ref. [3] are:
T~=910. 2K; T4=I463. 0K; p2/pl=5.77; r/so=0.811; and qst=0.845.
With these values we obtain for the objective function Cv,tot = $2870/h. For the cost-optimal case,
the exergetic efficiency of the overall system is 45.0%, the cost rate associated with the exergy loss
is $205/h, and the pinch temperature difference in the heat-recovery steam generator is 49.7 K.
THE B E NE F I T S OF THE T H E R MO E C O N O MI C O P T I MI Z A T I O N
Complex thermal systems cannot always be optimized using mathematical optimization
techniques. The reasons include incomplete models, system complexity and structural changes:
• Some of the input data and functions required for the thermodynamic and, particularly, the
economic model might not be available or might not be in the required form. For example, it
is not always possible to express the purchased-equipment costs as a function of the appropriate
thermodynamic decision variables.
• Even if all the required information is available, the complexity of the system might not allow
a satisfactory mathematical model to be formulated and solved in a reasonable time.
• The analytical and numerical optimization techniques are applied to a specified structure of the
thermal system. However, a significant decrease in the product costs may be achieved through
changes in the structure of the system. It is not always practical to develop a mathematical model
for every promising design configuration of a system. More importantly, analytical and
numerical optimization techniques cannot suggest structural changes that have the potential of
improving the cost effectiveness.
The usual approach to the optimization of such complex systems is to iteratively optimize
subsystems and/or ignore the influence of some structural changes and decision variables. An
alternative to this approach is the iterative thermoeconomic optimization technique presented here.
This technique improves the engineer's understanding of the interactions among the system
variables, and generally reveals opportunities for design improvements that might not be detected
by other methods. It enhances the knowledge, experience and intuition of design engineers, but
does not substitute for engineering creativity.
RE F E RE NCE S
1. Bejan, A. , Tsat sar oni s, G. and Mor an, M. , Thermal Design and Optimization. Wiley, New Yor k, 1996.
2. EPRI Technical Assessment Guide ( TAG) , Electric Power Resear ch Inst i t ut e, TR-100281. Vol. 3, Revi si on 6.
1991.
3. Kuest er, J, K. and Mize, J. H. , Optimization Techniques with Fortran. McGr aw- Hi l l , New Yor k, 1973.
A P P E N D I X
i n defi ni ng t he exerget i c efficiency and ot her key vari abl es it is necessary t o i dent i fy bot h a pr oduct and a fuel for t he
t her modynami c syst em bei ng anal yzed. The pr oduct represent s t he desi red result pr oduced by t he system. Accordi ngl y, t he
defi ni t i on o f t he pr oduct mus t be consi st ent wi t h t he pur pose of pur chasi ng and using t he system. The fuel represent s t he
resources expended t o generat e t he pr oduct and is not necessarily rest ri ct ed t o bei ng an act ual fuel such as nat ural gas,
oil or coal. Bot h t he pr oduct and t he fuel are expressed in t er ms o f exergy. An exergy loss is handl ed similarly. Usi ng t hese
concept s an exergy rat e bal ance for c ompone nt k of an overall syst em at st eady st at e consi st i ng of a number o f component s
may be expressed as
/ ~ F k = E p .k + E D ,k + E L , { ( A 1 )
where F: fuel, P: product, D: destruction, L: loss. Exergy losses are associated wi th discarded matter and/ or heat transfer
t o t he sur r oundi ngs.
1542 TS ATS ARONI S and MORAN: E XE RGY- AI DE D COST MI NI MI Z AT I ON
For c o mp o n e n t k , t he exerget i c efficiency is t hen
~ p . , _ ( t ? o . , + E L . , )
E, = ~ = 1 ( A 2 )
E F . k
The exer gy des t r uct i on r at i o a nd t he exer gy l oss r at i o are, respect i vel y,
/~ D .k
yD~ = L'r .... (A3)
yL., = EF .... (A4)
wher e ~PF.to, is t he exer gy rat e o f t he fuel pr ovi ded to t he over al l syst em.
The cost rat e o f exer gy des t r uct i on is
( ; r , . , = c v . , E o . , . (EP., fixed) (A5)
wher e Cv.k: cost per uni t o f fuel exergy.
The rel at i ve cost di fference for c o mp o n e n t k is
CP,k - - CF,k
r k - - - -
CF,*
=cF.,(Eo.k + & , ) + (2~ ~ + 2 °'~)
cv.*Er,,* (A6)
= 1 - e , + 2 ' / , I + 2", °M
Ek CF,k EP, ,
wher e cv., : cost per uni t o f pr oduct exergy, 2c~: cost rat e as s oci at ed wi t h capi t al i nves t ment , Z~, M : cost r at e as s oci at ed wi t h
oper at i ng a nd ma i nt e na nc e expenses.
The exer goeconomi c f act or o f c o mp o n e n t k is
2,
f i = Z , + c v . , (ED., + E r . , ) (A7)
wher e 2 , = 2 cx + 2 °M.