Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fundamentals of Thermoeconomics PDF
Fundamentals of Thermoeconomics PDF
Introduce the basic concepts of exergy, cost, exergetic and monetary costs,
fuel, product, unit exergetic consumption and efficiency.
Describe the process of cost formation and distinguish between the physical
and the thermoeconomic plant models. The productive structure and its
mathematical representation.
Analyze the basic concepts to diagnose and optimize energy systems using
thermoeconomics.
CONTENTS
1.
Introduction to Thermoeconomics
2.
Basic Concepts.
2.1. The Concept of Cost.
2.2. Fuel, Product and Unit Exergetic Consumption.
2.3. Physical and Thermoeconomic Plant Models.
3.
4.
KEYWORDS
Thermoeconomics, diagnosis, optimization, costs, exergy, exergetic cost,
irreversibility, malfunction, fuel, product.
GLOSSARY
Thermoeconomics: Science that combines Thermodynamics and Economics in
order to avoid the natural resources consumption in processes.
Malfunction: Effect of an inefficiency in a/several process units of a system.
Exergy: Amount of available energy in a physical process.
Cost: Amount of resources to obtain a product.
1.
Introduction to Thermoeconomics
As the human population grows, our finite world is becoming smaller and natural
resources are more and more scarce. We must conserve them in order to
3
survive and Thermoeconomics plays a key role in this endeavor. We should find
out how energy and resources degrade, which systems work better, how to
improve designs to reduce consumption and prevent residues from damaging the
environment. Thermoeconomics and its application to engineering energy
systems can help to answer these questions.
The production process of a complex energy system (e.g. a complex power
plant) can be analyzed in terms of its economic profitability and efficiency with
respect to resource consumption.
An economic analysis can calculate the cost of fuel, investment, operation and
maintenance for the whole plant but provides no means to evaluate the single
processes taking place in the subsystems nor how to distribute the costs among
them.
On the other hand, a thermodynamic analysis calculates the efficiencies of the
subsystems and locates and quantifies the irreversibilities but cannot evaluate
their significance in terms of the overall production process.
Thermoeconomic analysis combines economic and thermodynamic analysis by
applying the concept of cost (originally an economic property) to exergy (an
energetic property), (see e.g. Valero et al. (1986)). Most analysts agree that
exergy is the most adequate thermodynamic property to associate with cost
since it contains information from the second law of thermodynamics and
accounts for energy quality (Tsatsaronis (1987, 1998), Gaggioli and El-Sayed
(1987), Moran (1990)). Exergetic efficiency compares a real process to a
reversible one, (i.e. an ideal process of the same type). An exergy analysis
locates and quantifies irreversibilities in a process. Exergy based
thermoeconomic methods are also referred to as exergoeconomics
(Tsatsaronis and Winhold (1985)).
The physical magnitude connecting physics (thermodynamics) and economics is
entropy generation or, more specifically, irreversibility. This represents the
useful or available energy lost or destroyed (exergy destruction) in all physical
processes. All real processes in a plant are non-reversible and, as a
consequence, some exergy is destroyed and some natural resources are
consumed and lost forever, which creates cost. All natural resources have an
economic cost: the more irreversible a process, the more natural resources are
consumed (higher energetic cost) and the higher the required investment (higher
thermoeconomic cost). If we can measure this thermodynamic cost by
identifying, locating and quantifying the causes of inefficiencies in real
processes, we can provide an objective economic basis using the cost concept.
Thus, thermoeconomics assesses the cost of consumed resources, money and
system irreversibilities in terms of the overall production process. Consumed
4
resource cost involves resources destroyed by inefficiencies and helps to point
out how resources may be used more effectively to save energy. Money costs
express the economic effect of inefficiencies and are used to improve the cost
effectiveness of production processes.
Assessing the cost of the various streams and processes in a plant helps to
understand the process of cost formation, from the input resource(s) to the final
product(s). This process can solve problems in complex energy systems that
cannot normally be solved using conventional energy analysis based on the First
Law of Thermodynamics (mass and energy balances only), for instance:
1. Rational price assessment of plant products based on physical criteria.
2. Optimization of specific process unit variables to minimize final product costs
and save resource energy, i.e. global and local optimization.
3. Detection of inefficiencies and calculation of their economic effects in
operating plants, i.e. plant operation thermoeconomic diagnosis.
4. Evaluation of various design alternatives or operation decisions and
profitability maximization.
5. Energy audits.
Specific examples of these applications will be given. Many reports also provide
specific information about thermoeconomic applications (Lozano and Valero
(1993), Tsatsaronis (1994), Lozano, Valero and Serra (1996), Valero et al.
(1994), Bejan et al. (1997), Valero and Lozano (1997), Valero, Correas and
Serra (1999), Lozano et al. (1994), Frangopoulos (1987), Von Spakovsky and
Evans (1993), El-Sayed and Tribus (1983), El-Sayed (1988)).
Thermoeconomic methods can generally be subdivided into two categories
(Tsatsaronis (1987)), those based on cost accounting (e.g. Exergetic Cost
Theory, Lozano et al. (1993), Average-Cost-Approach, Bejan et al. (1997),
Last-In-First-Out Approach, Lazzareto and Tsatsaronis (1997)) and those based
on optimization techniques (e.g. Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis,
Frangopoulos (1987), Engineering Functional Analysis, von Spakovsky and
Evans (1993), Intelligent Functional Approach, Frangopoulos (1990)). Cost
accounting methods help to determine actual product cost and provide a rational
basis for pricing, while optimization methods are used to find the optimum design
or operating conditions.
Unfortunately, there are almost as many nomenclatures as theories. This causes
confusion, complicates method comparison and impedes the development of
thermoeconomics in general (Tsatsaronis (1994)). The Structural Theory of
Thermoeconomics (Valero et al. (1992,1993)) provides a general mathematical
formulation using a linear model which encompasses all thermoeconomic
5
methodologies. The most systematic and widespread methodologies (see above)
use exergy to linearly apportion costs when two or more coproducts appear, and
their results can be reproduced using the Structural Theory (Erlach (1998),
Erlach et al. (1999)). For this reason, all concepts and procedures explained here
are based on the general and common mathematical formalism of the Structural
Theory.
This introductory section on the fundamentals of thermoeconomics is divided into
three parts. First the basic concepts needed to perform and understand the
thermoeconomic analysis of complex energy systems are presented. Special
attention has been paid to explaining the thermoeconomic cost concept. Once
the average and marginal costs are defined, in the second part their meaning,
relationship and calculation procedures are fully explained with examples.
Finally, the third part describes some applications of thermoeconomic analysis as
applied to operation diagnosis and optimization of complex energy systems.
2.
Basic Concepts
6
1
Com bus tor
1
3
2
5
Compres sor
6
Turbine
3
4
HRSG
Ai r
7
4
Gases
Natural Gas
Work
Water/Steam
Bo
Bi
(1)
(2)
The average costs are only known after production, when we know how many
resources were used and the production obtained. The average cost is not
predictive. Knowing the average unit cost of a product does not provide the cost
7
of a production process P + P. Thermoeconomic cost accounting theories
calculate average costs and use them as a basis for a rational price assessment,
under physical criteria, of the internal flows and the products of the plant.
Marginal costs can be used to calculate additional fuel consumption when the
operating conditions are modified. Thermoeconomic optimization methods
(Frangopoulos (1990, 1997)), Von Spakovsky and Evans (1993)) are based on
marginal costs when solving optimization problems.
2.2. Fuel, product and unit exergetic consumption.
A productive purpose, a certain good or service to be produced, can be defined
for every plant. In order to generate this product, some resources have to be
supplied to the plant and are consumed in the process. For example, in the cogeneration plant, natural gas is supplied to the plant to generate electric power
and process steam.
A productive purpose expressing a process unit function in an overall production
process can be defined for each process unit. The productive purpose of a
process unit measured in terms of exergy is called product. To create this
product, another exergy flow(s) is consumed. The flow of exergy which is
consumed in the process unit during the generation of its product is called
fuel(s).
Real process exergy is destroyed in any process. That is, part of the fuel exergy
is destroyed during product generation. Using the definitions of fuel and product,
the exergy balance for a process unit can be formulated as:
F = P+I
(3)
F
P
(4)
k = 1+
I
P
(5)
8
The reciprocal of the unit exergy consumption is defined as the exergetic
efficiency . It is equal to one for reversible processes and is less than one for
all real processes.
P
I
= 1
F
F
(6)
Fuel and product definitions for some typical process units in a dual-purpose
power and desalination plant are shown in Table 1. The fuel-product definition
for the process units of the co-generation plant (Figure 1) are shown in Table 2.
Process unit
Fuel
Product
Boiler
Natural gas
Pump
Work to drive
pump/compressor
Turbine without
extraction
Generated work
Turbine with
extraction
Generated work
Generator
Mechanical work
Electric Work
Heat exchanger
Table 1. Fuel and product definitions for typical power plant units.
No.
Subsystem
Fuel
Product
Technical
production
coefficients
Combustor
F1 = B1
P1 = B3B2
k cb = F1/P1
Compressor
F2 = B5 = Wcp
P2 = B2B0
k cp = F2/P2
Turbine
F3 = B3B4
P3 = B5 + B6 = Wcp
+ Wnet
k gt = F3/P3
HRSG
F4 = B4
P4 = B7 = BHEAT
k HRSG = F5/P5
Junction
P1 = B3B2
P2 = B2B0
Pj1 = B3
r1 = P1/Pj1
r2 = P2/Pj1
Branching 1
Pj1 = B3
F3 = B3B4
F4 = B4
Branching 2
P3 = B5 + B6 =
Wcp + Wnet
F2 = B5 = Wcp
B6 = Wnet
Table 2. Fuels and Products of the process units of the co-generation plant.
2.3. Physical and thermoeconomic plant models
A plant is analyzed using a physical model with a set of equations to describe the
physical behavior of the process units. It calculates parameters such as
temperatures, pressures, efficiencies, power generated etc. to describe the
physical state of the plant. Depending on the analysis, a decision has to be taken
on the detail required i.e., which flows and process units are to be considered.
The process units for the analysis do not necessarily correspond to physical
units. Various parts of the installation can be combined into one process unit and
physical units can be further disaggregated. It is important to choose an
appropriate aggregation level that properly defines the behavior of each process
unit and its purpose in the overall production process. The physical structure
(see Figure 1) depicts the process units, mass and connecting energy flows
considered in the physical model.
10
F2 = B5
Comp
F3 = B3 B4
Turb
P2 = B2 B0
Wnet
b2
Pj1 = B3
j1
b1
P1 = B3 B2
P4 = B7 = Bheat
F4 = B4
F1 =B1
P3
HRSG
Comb
11
The productive structure is a graphical representation of resource distribution
throughout the plant. Thus, its flows are fictitious and are not necessarily
physical flows. While each plant has only one physical structure to describe the
physical relations between the process units, various productive structures can
be defined depending on the fuel and product definitions as well as decisions on
how the plant resources are distributed among the process units.
Thus, the thermoeconomic model (mathematical representation of the productive
structure) is a set of mathematical functions called characteristic equations,
which express each inlet flow as a mathematical function of the outlet flows for
all the productive structure process units and a set of internal parameters x l:
Bi = gi(x l, Bj )
i = 1,,ms
(7)
where the index i refers to the input flows of the process unit l, the index j
refers to the output flows of the process unit l, and m is the number of flows
considered in the productive structure. Every flow is an input flow of a process
unit and an output flow of another process unit or the environment. For the flows
interacting with the environment, we define:
Bm-s+1 = i
i = 1,,s
(8)
where s is the number of system outputs, and i is the total system product, i.e.
an external variable which determines the total product. The characteristic
equations for the system in Figure 2, are shown in Table 3:
Process
unit
Entry
Outlet
Equation
Combustor
F1
P1
F1 = g
F1
(x 1 , P1 ) = k P1
Compressor
F2 = Wcp
P2
F2 = g
F2
(x 2 , P2 ) = k
cp
P2
Turbine
F3
P3 = Wgt
F3 = g
F3
(x 3 , P3 ) = k
gt
P3
H.R.S.G.
F4
P4 =B HEAT= 4
F4 = g
F4
(x 4 , P4 ) = k
P =k
HRSG 4
P1 = g
P1
P2 = g
P2
cb
HRSG
4 = k
HEAT
Junction 1
P1 , P2
Pj1
Branching 1
Pj1
F3 , F4
Pj1 = g
Branching 2
P3
F2 , Wnet
P3 = g
Pj1
P3
(x 6 , F3 , F4 ) = (F3 +F 4 )
(x 7 , F2 , 3 ) = F2 + 3 = Wcp + Wnet
HRSG
12
Table 3. Characteristic equations of the co-generation plant.
The inlet and outlet flows of the productive structure units are extensive
magnitudes, which are the product of a quantity (usually mass flow rate) and a
quality (specific magnitude). The magnitudes applied by most thermoeconomic
methodologies are exergy (Tsatsaronis (1987)), negentropy (Frangopoulos
(1983)) and money. Other magnitudes, like enthalpy or entropy, can also be
used.
The internal variables appearing in the thermoeconomic model depend on the
behavior of the subsystem and they are presumably independent of mass flow
rates. This implies that relations like efficiencies or pressure and temperature
ratios -which are mainly independent of the quantity of the exiting flows- can be
used as internal parameters.
Note that the main objective of the productive structure, and hence of the
thermoeconomic model, consists on sorting the thermodynamic magnitudes
related to the physical mass and energy flow-streams connecting the plant
subsystems, in a different way that the equations modeling the physical plant
behavior do, in order to explicitly determine for each subsystem its energy
conversion efficiency.
It is important to take in mind that, as it was already explained, thermoeconomics
connects thermodynamics, which is a phenomenological (black box analysis)
science, with economics. That is, by sorting the thermodynamic properties of the
physical mass and energy flow-streams of a plant, which in turn provide the
energy conversion efficiency of each subsystem, thermoeconomics analyzes the
degradation process of energy quality through an installation, i.e.
thermoeconomics evaluates the process of cost formation.
Depending on the analysis scope each subsystem can be identified with a
separate piece of equipment, a part of a device, several process units or even
the whole plant. Sometimes the objective consists on analyzing a plant in a deep
detail. In this case it is advisable, if possible, to identify each subsystem with a
separate physical process (heat transfer, pressure increase or decrease and
chemical mixture or reaction) in order to locate and quantify, separately if
possible, each thermal, mechanical and chemical irreversibility occurring in the
plant. If the objective consists on analyzing a macro-system composed of
several plants, probably in this case the more convenient approach is consider
each separate plant as a subsystem.
Thus, thermoeconomics always performs a systemic analysis, no matter how
complex the system is, basically oriented to locate and quantify the energy
conversion efficiency. It is out of the scope of thermoeconomics to model the
13
behavior of the process units, which is made by the mathematical equations of
the physical model.
Even though (it is out of the scope of thermoeconomics simulate the behavior of
the subsystems), it is very important build the thermoeconomic model with
physical meaning. This is the reason, as already explained, of defining different
thermoeconomic models for the same plant. Depending on the aggregation level
and on the nature of the thermoeconomic equations the model will content
physical information about the actual system behavior with different accuracy
degrees. The obtained results from a very rough thermoeconomic model, without
any physical sensitivity related with the actual behavior of the plant, probably will
be useless.
The more extended thermoeconomic methodologies use exergy linear equations
in their thermoeconomic models, because they present practical (the model is
simpler and for this reason easier to understand when applied to very complex
energy systems) and conceptual advantages, as it will be explained. Moreover,
in many real plants it is possible to find an aggregation level where the system
and subsystems linearly behave with enough accuracy, under an engineering
point of view (Valero et al. (1999).
Thus, if the characteristic equations are first grade homogeneous functions with
respect to the subset B, of independent variables (as linear equations do), that is:
Bi = gi(B1 ,Bj , x l)
(9)
Eulers Theorem states that the homogeneous function of first order verify:
g
Bi = i
Bl
B + g i
l1
Bl
B + ... + g i
l2
Bl
B
ls
l1 ,,ls in Sl
(10)
ij B j
jSl
ij =
g i
B j
This property means that the input of a process unit varies at the same rate as
its outputs. Note that this property does not imply that the function must be
linear.
14
For instance, a Cobb-Douglas function z = a x y(1-), is also a homogeneous
first order function.
15
ij are the technical production coefficients and represent the portion of the i-th
process unit production:
ij =
g i
B j
(12a)
The sum of ij coefficients of a unit is the unit exergy consumption of that unit:
n
j=
Fi
i =0
Pj
ij = i =0
Fj
Pj
(12b)
as for instance
F1 = gF1 (x 1 , P1 ) = k cb P1
(13a)
There is one such equation for each process unit's fuel. These types of
equations are generated in the pieces of equipment and they inform about:
(i) the productive function of each process unit, i.e. its production (product)
(ii) what the process unit needs (fuel) to develop its productive purpose, and
(iii) the thermodynamic efficiency of the process in the process unit.
2. Structural equations model how the resources consumed by the plant are
distributed through the plant process units. They show how the process units are
connected from a productive point of view. Structural equations are
characteristic equations to describe the productive model of junctions and
branches, e.g.:
P1 = gP1 (x 5 , Pj1 ) = r1 Pj1 = r1 (F3 +F4 )
(13b)
3.When the capital cost of the equipment is also considered in the analysis, a
third type of characteristic equation is required; costing equations. These
equations are very often not linear, but in the case of these equations this is a
minor problem, because they can be linearized for different operation intervals.
They relate the investment cost of the process unit with thermodynamic
variables and its product. They express the amount of resources needed to build,
install, maintain (etc.) a process unit.
16
For example, a costing equation proposed by ElSayed (1996) for a MSF
desalination unit is on the form:
Z = 0.02 10 Q Tn 0. 75 Tt0.5 Pt0.1
(13c)
Pi = Bi 0 + Bij
j =1
i = 0,1,,n
(14)
This equation shows how the production of a process unit is used as fuel by
another unit or as a part of the total plant production. In the above expression,
Bij is the production portion of the i-th process unit that fuels the j-th process
unit, and Bi0 represents the production portion of the process unit i leading to the
final plant product (the subscript 0 refers to the environment, which is
considered another process unit interacting with the plant).
Equation (14) can be expressed in terms of the unit exergetic consumptions as:
n
Pi = Bi 0 + ij Pj
j =1
i = 0,1,,n
(15)
P = Ps + KP P
(16)
where Ps is a (n1) vector whose elements contain the contribution to the final
production of the system Pi0 obtained in each process unit, and KP is a (nn)
matrix, whose elements are the unit exergy consumption ij. This expression
helps to relate the production of each process unit as a function of the final
production and the unit consumption of each process unit:
P = P Ps
where
P (UD KP
)1
(17)
In the same way, we can express the irreversibility of each process unit as:
I = I Ps
where
I (K D U D ) P
(18)
17
FT = t e P Ps
(19)
3.
Once the thermoeconomic model has been defined and the characteristic
equations corresponding to the productive structure of the system are known,
the costs of all flows in the productive structure can be easily calculated.
There are two different types of thermoeconomic costs: average costs and
marginal costs (equations 1 and 2). It is important to note that (as discussed
below) the average and marginal costs coincide when the characteristic
equations of the thermoeconomic model are first grade homogeneous functions
(Serra (1994), Reini (1994), Uche (2000)).
This result is very important since both costs can be calculated using the same
procedure. Marginal costs are a derivative (see equation 2) and can be
calculated by applying the chain rule of the mathematical derivation. Similarly,
average costs can also be obtained from the rules of the mathematical derivation
applied to the thermoeconomic model when the characteristic equations are first
grade homogeneous functions.
According to the previous premises, the cost of the plant resources can be
defined as:
Bo =
k*o ,i Bi
i =1
(20)
where e, is the number of system inputs, and k *o,i is the unit cost of the i
external resource.
Each flow, as a process unit input, is a function (defined by the characteristic
equation) of a set of internal variables, x, external variables and the output
flows of the process unit. The cost of the plant resources is then a function of
each flow, the set of internal variables of each process unit and the final product
of the plant B0 = B0 (Bi, x, ), according the relations (7) and (8).
18
B0 g j
j =1 B j Bi
m
i = 1, ,e
(21a)
i = e+1, ,m
(21b)
j i
The expression
B0
represents the marginal costs which evaluate the additional
Bi
g i
B j
the marginal
i = 1, , e
(22a)
i = e+1, , m
(22b)
jik *j
j =1
j i
Note that the unit exergetic cost of each fuel entering the plant is unity because
there is no energy quality degradation nor exergy destruction at the very
beginning of the productive process. Hence, the amount of exergy consumed to
obtain each plants fuel is its own exergy content and therefore its unit exergetic
cost equals one.
It can easily be proved that the cost of each flow P* ij of the productive
structure using the Fuel/Product notation is:
(23)
And the exergetic cost of the product of each process unit is the same as the
cost of the resources needed to obtain it, hence:
19
n
i = 1,,n
(24)
This cost equation can also be expressed in terms of the unit exergetic
consumptions:
n
k *P ,i = 0 i + ji k *P , j
j =1
i =1,,n
(25)
which can be used to obtain the unit exergetic cost of the flows appearing in the
productive structure diagram as a function of the unit exergetic consumption of
each process unit.
Then, if the characteristic equations and the marginal consumptions for each
*
process unit are known, the marginal cost k for each flow can be obtained by
solving the system of linear equations (25).
Example 1
For the example of a co-generation plant (Figure 2), equations (21a), (21b) can
be written as:
k*F1 =
B1
F1
k*F2 =
B1 B1 P3
=
= k *P3
F2 P3 F2
k*F3 =
B1 B1 Pj 1
=
= k*Pj 1
F3 Pj1 F3
k*F4 =
B1 B1 Pj1
=
= k *Pj 1
F4 Pj1 F4
k*P1 =
B1 B1 F1
=
= k*F1 kcb
P1 F1 P1
k*P2 =
B1 B1 F2
=
= k*F2 kcp
P2 F2 P2
k*P3 =
B1 B1 F3
=
= k*F3 k gt
P3 F3 P3
20
k*P4 =
B1 B1 F4
=
= k*F4 k HRSG
P4 F4 P4
k*Pj1 =
B1 B1 P2 B1 P1
=
+
= k *P2 r2 + k *P1 r1
Pj1 P2 Pj1 P1 Pj1
*
kW
=
net
B1
B P3
= 1
= k*P3
Pnet
P3 Wnet
(26)
B0
Bi
i = 1, ...,m
(27)
21
3.1. Economic resources and thermoeconomic costs
Thermoeconomic cost calculation considering the process unit capital cost Z, is
similar to the above method but should be explained in more detail. The capital
cost of each process unit Z can be considered an external flow of plant
resources from the environment to the process unit (see Figure 3). This will
represent the monetary units per second needed to compensate the depreciation,
maintenance cost and so on, of the process unit.
Economic
Resources
Zl = Z l ( Bl , B j , B h)
B
xl
i
j
h
(28a)
Z j = Z(Bj, zj)
(28b)
Bi * Z j
k +
= k *j ij + zj
B j i B j
(29)
22
4.
Flow (kW)
Design
11 781
2704
9614
3831
2977
2500
2355
388
Operation
11 914
2758
9753
3887
3056
2500
2355
424
Table 4. Design and operation exergy flow values of the co-generation plant
(Figure 1)
23
4.1.1. Technical exergy saving
Once the exergy flows have been supplied by an appropriate performance test
or a model simulator, the irreversibilities in each productive unit can be obtained
from the exergy balance. But not all exergy losses can be saved in practice. In
fact, the potential exergy saving is limited by technical and/or economic
constraints. It also depends on the decision level that limits the actions to be
undertaken. In contrast to conventional thermodynamic analysis,
Thermoeconomics assumes a reference situation of the plant operating under
design conditions. From this perspective, in the plant of Figure 1, we see that
only 133 kW, of the 7.06 MW of total irreversibilities can be saved with respect
to design conditions.
Therefore, the additional fuel consumption can be expressed as the difference
between the resource consumption of the operating plant and the resource
consumption for a reference or design condition with the same production
objectives:
FT = FT FT0
(30)
and it can be broken up into the sum of the irreversibilities of each process unit:
n
FT = I T = I j I 0j = I j
j =1
j =1
(31)
However, even though the methods based on Second Law Analysis (Kotas
(1985)) and Technical Exergy Saving are useful to quantify the additional fuel
consumption, they fail when trying to identify the real causes of the additional
resources consumption.
4.1.2 Impact on resources consumption
The Fuel / Product diagram of the co-generation plant is shown in Figure 2. This
diagram can be simplified by merging junction 1 and branching point 1 in a new
fictitious process unit called junction branching point (see Figure 4). This new
productive structure is slightly different than Figure 2, and is more compact.
The characteristic equations of this new productive structure are obtained as in
the previous section applying equation (16)
P = Ps + KP P
For the sake of simplicity we did not consider thermal and mechanical exergies
as separate entities. Two auxiliary variables also appear r1 = (B3-B2)/B3 and r2
= B3/B2, which correspond to the part of the fuel of the turbine and the heat
24
recovery steam generator (HRSG) coming from the combustor and the
compressor respectively. Flow #8, produced in part in the combustor and in the
compressor, also leaves the system as a residue. Only a part of the entering
gases to the turbine: B3-B8 are used as a fuel of other process units of the
system. Therefore, only a part of the combustors and compressors product is
used as a fuel for other process units (useful product). Accordingly, Figure 4
shows the chosen disaggregation scheme of the system and the Fuel/Product
values for the design conditions are shown in Table 5. The F-P definition is
shown in Table 6.
(5)
2
(6)
(3)-(4)
(4)-(8)
(2)
(3)-(2)
(7)
(1)
(8)
F1
F2
F3
F4
Total
P0
11 781
11 781
P1
4156
2474
6631
P2
1627
968
2595
P3
2500
2977
5477
P4
2355
2355
Total
4855
11 781
2977
5783
3443
Table 5. Fuel and energy flows (kW) in design conditions for the co-generation
plant shown in Figure 1
Process unit
Fuel
Product Residu
e
25
Combustor
B1
B3-B2
Compressor
B5
B2
Turbine
B3-B4
B6
HRSG
B4-B8
B7
B8
KP
0.4006
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-0.1667
0.3857
0.0000
0.0000
0.1593
0.4636
0.0000
1.1147
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4006
1.1147
-0.0074
0.8493
FT = t e P 0 + t e P
(32)
The increase of the process unit production from equation (16) may be
expressed in terms of the unit exergy consumption as:
P = Ps + KP P 0 + KP P
(33)
26
hence, applying equation (17), we obtain:
?P = P ?Ps + ? KP P0
(34)
If we want to analyze the fuel impact due to an increment of the exergy unit
consumption of the process units, equation (32) could be written as:
FT = t e P 0 + t *P KP P 0 + t *P Ps
(35)
FT = t e +t k*P KP P 0
(36)
n n
FT = k*P, j ji Pi 0
i =1 j = 0
(37)
or in scalar format:
The KP matrix is the key to predict the impact on fuel of a physical variation
of a parameter in the system.
Using the above equation, the additional resource consumption FT (also called
Fuel Impact; Reini (1994)) can be expressed as the sum of the contributions of
each process unit.
The variation of the exergetic unit consumption of each process unit increases
its resources consumption and its irreversibilities in a quantity ji Pi0 , which we
call, malfunction. Consequently, this implies an additional consumption of
external resources given by k *P, j ji Pi 0 , which is also named the malfunction
cost. Therefore, the total fuel impact can be written as the sum of the fuel
impact or malfunction cost of each process unit, as shown in equation (37).
The proposed method provides the exact values of the additional resource
consumption of each process unit malfunction for any operational state. Other
methods, such as the Theory of Perturbations (Lozano et al. (1996)), only
provide an approximate predictive value, based on marginal costs (Lagrange
multipliers) which is valid for an operating state close to the reference
conditions.
Figure 5 compares the fuel impact and the increase of irreversibilities or the
technical exergy saving of each process unit and also compares (first column)
the malfunction and the fuel impact for each process unit. Three malfunctions in
the plant are shown in the combustor, the compressor and the HRSG. The
largest irreversibilities increase is in the combustor, but the largest fuel impact is
27
in the compressor. The question that arises is, What causes the irreversibilities
increase and the fuel impact, and how are they related?
80
Fuel Impact
Malfunction
Technical Saving
60
40
20
0
Combustor
Compressor
Turbine
HRSG
F1
F1
1
I1
P 1
F 2
F2
I2
I2
2
P2
I = K D P 0 + (K D U D ) P
(38)
28
From the above expression, we can distinguish two types of irreversibilities:
Endogenous irreversibility or malfunction produced by an increase of the unit
consumption of the process unit itself:
n
(39)
j =0
DFi = ( ki 1)Pi
(40)
The malfunction only affects the behavior of the process units; the dysfunction
is a result of how the process units adapt themselves to maintain the total
production. The dysfunction generated by a process unit is defined as:
DIi = Fi MFi
(41)
Turbine
HRSG
Total
DI
0.000
30.699
4.979
22.243
57.921
MF
26.562
28.925
-0.408
20.000
75.079
26.562
59.624
4.571
42.243
133.000
DF
46.664
6.849
4.408
0.000
57.921
MF
26.562
28.925
-0.408
20.000
75.079
73.226
35.774
4.000
20.000
133.000
29
How do we approach this problem? The relationship between operation and
efficiency of the process units could be analyzed using a simulator. If all the
plant process units were isolated, the efficiencies of those process units would
be independent variables (Lozano et al., 1996). So we will assume that there is
an operating parameter xr affecting the efficiency of the i-th process unit of the
plant and thus, in most cases, also indirectly affecting the efficiencies of the
other plant process units.
Once the relationship between unit exergy consumption and the operating
parameters is known, the above methodology can be applied to distinguish the
effect of an operating parameter on the internal economy of a process unit, i.e.
its malfunction and the cost of its malfunction.
Plant operating parameters could be classified according to their effect on the
efficiency of the process units of the system:
Local variables: They mainly affect the behavior of the process unit related to
the variable, e.g, the isoentropic efficiency of a turbine. From a practical point of
view, a variable is considered local and therefore related to a subsystem. The
total fuel impact due to its perturbation is basically located in this process unit.
Global and/or zonal variables: This is the case when an operating parameter
cannot be associated with a specific process unit. We must identify them as
operating set points, environmental parameters and the production load or fuel
quality.
In this lecture we will focus our analysis on local variables and how they affect
additional fuel consumption and the other plant process units. This analysis is, in
fact, the next step in the thermoeconomic diagnosis.
Unfortunately the problem of locating causality of losses in a structure is rather
more complex than locating malfunctions and dysfunctions.
When a plant unit deteriorates (when its behavior is degraded) its physical
variables are modified, its efficiency is decreased and its unit exergy
consumption increases.
The unit exergy consumption increase of each process unit, due to the variation
of an operating parameter xr, is:
ijr = ij (x 0 + xr ) ij (x 0 )
(42)
30
n
MFi rji Pi 0
r j =1
(43)
MFi L rji Pi 0
rLi j =1
(44)
(45)
31
very symple way. This possibility allows us in turn to assume that with the
appropiate calculation strategy the problem of the global optimization of the plant
could be reduced to a sequence of subsystem to subsystem optimization. Here
we describe strategies for optimizing complex systems as proposed by Lozano et
al. (1996). They are based on sequential optimization from process unit to
process unit using the Thermoeconomic Isolation Principle (Evans (1980)). In
this section, we see how the cost of the resources consumed by the system
varies when the unit of the cost of the resources consumed, the technical
production coefficients of the productive structure and/or external demand of
products vary. Once we know the relationship between the technical production
coefficients and the design free variables the chain rule of derivation can be
applied to distinguish the effect of a design free variable on the internal economy
of subsystems.
A process unit of a thermal system is thermoeconomically isolated from the rest
of the system if the product of the unit and the unit cost of its resources (internal
product and/or external resources) are constant and known quantities. If a unit
of a thermal system is thermoeconomically isolated, the unit may be optimized by
itself (without considering the modifications of other variables of the rest of the
system) and the optimun solution obtained for the unit coincides with the
optimum solution for the whole system.
Of course, T.I. (Thermoeconomic Isolation) is an ideal condition which cannot
be achieved in most of the real systems: Pj and k *P,i change when design
variables of other process units change ,due to feedback. But the more constant
Pj and k *P,i are, the closer to T.I. conditions and the fewer iteration loops
needed to achieve the optimal solution for the whole system. Thus, the goal is
not to achieve T.I. but to approach it as much as possible in order to obtain
maximum advantages, which include:
(1) Improvements and optimal design of individual units in highly interdependent
complex systems are greatly facilitated, as well as of whole systems.
(2) The designers can be specialized and their efforts concentrated on
designing the variables of single units, while resting assured that these
efforts yield optimum design and/or improve the overall system
(3) The convergence of the solution is faster.
To optimize individual units, the objective function of the cost of product of the
process unit j could be defined as:
n
Min k ij k *P ,i P j
k i=0
(46)
32
where the unit cost of the input resources k *P,i and the production Pj are known
and constant.
In real world optimization problems, the design free variables do not necessarily
coincide with the technical production coefficients. In practice there will be a
function of the actual design free variables which can be named x
We say that a free variable x is a local variable of a subsystem j when the
production coefficients ij of this subsystem only depend on x. When a design
variable is attached to several subsystems, the previous expression must be
extended to all concerned subsystems.
To determine whether a design free variable is local or not and which process
units are involved, the cost resource impact of the design variables to each
process unit can be computed:
ij z P , j
n
AC0x, j = k*P ,i
+
x
x
i=0
P x
(47)
=
x
j
C0x, j
n
C
i =1
(48)
x
0, i
If this ratio is equal (or close) to 1, the design variable is local for process unit
j, if it is equal (or close) to zero, the design variable is independent of the
referred j process unit. In other cases the design variable involves several
process units.
These ideas could be used to design a strategy for global optimization problems:
(0) Determine which variables are local and which are regional (involve several
process units)
(1) Determine a sequence for local optimization of each process unit
(2) Take an initial value of the design variables
(3) Calculate technical production coefficients and unit product cost
(4) Find optimum values for local variables
(5) Find optimum values for global variables
33
Iterate from (3) to convergence when design variables or unit product cost do
not vary in the next iteration. In each iteration the unit cost of total product must
decrease.
NOMENCLATURE
LATIN SYMBOLS
k*: Exergy unit cost.
B: Exergy flow (kW).
F: Fuel (kW).
P: Product (kW).
I: Irreversibility (kW).
k: Unit exergy consumption.
g: Characteristic function.
Z: Capital cost of a process unit ($).
T: Temperature ( C).
f: Function.
r: Exergy ratio.
MF: Malfunction generated in a component (kW).
DF: Dysfunction generated in a component (kW).
DI: Dysfunction generated by a component (kW).
C: Total economic cost ($/s).
X: Variable.
GREEK SYMBOLS
: Exergetic efficiency.
: Total system product.
: Lagrange multiplier.
: Technical production coefficients.
: Coefficient in the Cobb-Douglas function.
34
: Difference.
: Ratio (thermoeconomic optimization).
MATRICES AND VECTORS
x: Set of internal parameters
P: Product vector.
PS: Final product vector.
|P: Product matrix operator.
KP: Matrix of unit exergy consumption.
I: Irreversibility vector.
|I: Irreversibility matrix operator.
UD: Identity matrix.
KD: Diagonal matrix with the unit exergy consumption.
SUBSCRIPTS
o: outlet
i,j: index.
e: external (inlet).
t: total.
n: stage.
t: tubes.
SUPERSCRIPTS
-1: Inverse.
t: Transpose.
0: Design conditions.
L: Local.
G: Induced.
35
r: Operating parameter.
36
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
El-Sayed Y. M. (1988).
A Decomposition Strategy for Thermoeconomics Optimization of a
Given New Configuration, Approaches to the Design and Optimization
of Thermal Systems. Wepfer and Moran eds., 41-47. ASME. New York,
USA.
5.
El-Sayed Y. M. (1996).
Second-Law-Based Analysis and Optimization of Seawater Desalting
Systems. Private Communication.
6.
Erlach B. (1998).
Comparison of Thermoeconomic Methodologies: Structural Theory,
AVCO and LIFO. Application to a Combined Cycle. Department of
Mechanical Engineering. University of Zaragoza.
7.
8.
Evans R. B. (1980).
Thermoeconomic isolation and essergy analysis, Energy 5, N 8-9, 805-822.
9.
Frangopoulos C. A. (1983).
Thermoeconomic Functional Analysis: A method for the optimal design
or improvement of complex thermal systems. Ph. D. Thesis. Georgia
Institute of Technology.
37
38
Second Law Analysis. What is the state of the art?. International
Symposium: A future for energy. Florence (Italy), 249-260. Pergamon
Press,.
22. Reini M. (1994).
Analisi e sviluppo dei metodi termoeconomi per lo studio degli impianti
di conversione dellenergia. Ph. D. Thesis. Universit di Padova.
23. Serra L. (1994).
Optimizacin Exergoeconmica de Sistemas Trmicos. Ph. D. Thesis.
Department of Mechanical Engineering. University of Zaragoza.
24. Tsatsaronis G. and M. Winhold (1985).
Exergoeconomic analysis and evaluation of energy conversion plants, Part
II: Analysis of a coal fired steam power plant, Energy 10, 81-94.
25. Tsatsaronis G. (1987).
A review of exergoeconomic methodologies. International Symposium on
Second Law Analysis of Thermal Systems. Rome (ASME Book I00236),
81-87. ASME, New York.
26. Tsatsaronis G. (1994).
Invited papers of exergoeconomics, Energy 19, 279.
27. Tsatsaronis G. (1998).
Recent Development in Energy Economics. Proceedings of ECOS98,
Vol. I, 37-38. Nancy, France.
28. Uche J. (2000).
Thermoeconomic Analysis and Simulation of a Combined Power and
Desalination Plant. Ph. D. Thesis. Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Zaragoza.
29. Valero, A., M.A. Lozano, M. Muoz (1986).
A General Theory of Exergy Saving ASME Book H0 341A. WAM 1986
AES, vol. 2-3, pp. 1-22.
30. Valero A., L. Serra, and C. Torres (1992).
A General Theory of Thermoeconomics: Part I: Structural Analysis.
International Symposium ECOS92. ASME Book I00331, 137-145.
Zaragoza, Spain.
31. Valero A., L. Serra and M. A. Lozano (1993).
Structural Theory of Thermoeconomics. International Symposium on
Thermodynamics and the Design, Analysis and Improvement of Energy
Systems. ASME Book N H00874, 189-198. Richter H. J. eds. New
Orleans, USA.
39
32. Valero A., M. A. Lozano, L. Serra and C. Torres (1994).
Application of the Exergy Cost Theory to the CGAM problem, Energy 19,
N 13, 365-381.
33. Valero A. and M. A. Lozano (1997).
An introduction of thermoeconomics. Published in Developments in the
design of thermal systems (Boehm Editor), 203-223. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, UK.
34. Valero A., L. Correas and Serra L. (1999).
On-Line Thermoeconomic Diagnosis of Thermal Power Plants. Published
in Thermodynamics and Optimization of Complex Energy Systems, 117136. Klumer Academic Publishers (Bejan and Mamut eds.).
35. Valero, A., C. Torres and F. Lerch (1999).
Structural Theory and Thermoeconomic Diagnosis. Part III: Intrinsic and
Induced Malfunctions. Proceedings of the ECOS99 Conference, 35-41.
ASME. Tokyo, Japan.
36. Von Spakovsky M. R. and R. B. Evans (1993).
Engineering Functional Analysis. Part I. ASME Journal of Energy
Resources Technology 115, 86-92.