Energy 35 (2010) 820–829

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Advanced exergetic analysis of a novel system for generating electricity

and vaporizing liquefied natural gas
G. Tsatsaronis a, T. Morosuk b, *
a
Technische Universität Berlin, Institute for Energy Engineering, Marchstr. 18, 10587 Berlin, Germany
b
Maritime Academy of Szczecin, Institute of Marine Propulsion Plants Operation, Waly Chrobrego 1-2, 70500 Szczecin, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: LNG technology has been in use since the 1960s. During the last 20 years the total cost of LNG technology
Received 18 March 2009 has decreased by 30% due mainly to improvements of the liquefaction process and shipping. However,
Received in revised form the regasification system has not been significantly improved. The paper presents a detailed advanced
22 July 2009
exergetic analysis of a novel co-generation concept that combines LNG regasification with the generation
Accepted 19 August 2009
Available online 22 September 2009
of electricity. The analysis includes splitting the exergy destruction within each component into its
unavoidable, avoidable, endogenous and exogenous parts as well as a detailed splitting of the avoidable
exogenous exergy destruction. The results of the advanced exergetic analysis are confirmed through
Keywords:
LNG a sensitivity analysis. Finally, some suggestions for improving the overall system efficiency are developed.
Regasification Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Co-generation
Exergy analysis
Advanced exergy analysis

1. Introduction
Demand for electricity in the industrialized nations is expected
to exceed on the average 1% per year until 2025 whereas for the
developing countries the corresponding number is estimated at
above 3% per year [1]. Natural gas (NG) is becoming one of the
most important primary energy sources for the 21st century.
Compared with other fossil fuels, natural gas is relatively ‘‘clean’’,
when we consider air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,
and has larger proven reserves than oil. Worldwide, the
consumption of natural gas for electricity generation increased by
an average 6.9% per year from 1970 to 2001. In absolute terms,
electricity generation in the world using natural gas is expected to
be more than twice as great in 2025 than it was in the year 2001.
The relative contribution of natural gas to the overall electricity
generation in the world is expected to increase from 18% in 2001
to over 25% in the year 2025. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is
expected to have a large share in this expansion of use of natural
gas in the future [2,3].
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 30 314 24765; fax: þ49 30 314 21683.
E-mail addresses: tsatsaronis@iet.tu-berlin.de (G. Tsatsaronis), morozyuk@iet.
tu-berlin.de (T. Morosuk).
URL: http://www.energietechnik.tu-berlin.de
At the import terminal, two processes are mainly used for the
regasification of LNG; both require energy [2–6]:
 Open-rack vaporizers using sea water. The energy consumption
is approximately 0.008 kWh/kg(LNG) for driving the sea water
circulating pumps [4].
 Submerged combustion vaporizers that are water baths heated
by burning fuel gas. Between 1.5 and 2% of the imported gas is
used as fuel gas for LNG vaporization [2,4,5].
The idea of using the exergy associated with the low tempera-
ture of LNG is not new. For example, the discussions on using the
waste heat from different power systems started in the 1970s (for
example [4–7]). Some of these ideas have been applied in practice.
A good overview of those publications can be found in Refs. [6,8,9].
The thermodynamic advantages and the operating disadvantages
of such systems have been discussed in Refs. [4–9].
Griepentrog and the authors developed a novel co-generation
system for generating electricity while vaporizing LNG [10,11]. This
co-generation system has some thermodynamic and economic
advantages compared with systems proposed in the past.
A detailed discussion of this system can be found in Refs. [10,11].
The purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate the appli-
cation of a detailed advanced exergetic analysis on this novel
co-generation system. Some advancement in the method of

0360-5442/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.08.019
 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829 821

Nomenclature M mechanical
mexo mexogenous
E_ exergy rate (W) PH physical
e specific exergy (J/kg) T thermal
H_ entropy rate (W) th theoretical
h specific entropy (J/kg) UN unavoidable
LHV lower heating value (J/kg) S sum of exergy destruction caused by the component
k kth component being considered
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
p pressure (bar) Subscripts
Q_ heat rate (W) D exergy destruction
r rth component F exergy of fuel
s specific entropy (J/kg K) k kth component
T temperature ( C) L exergy loss
W _ power (W) P exergy of product
x parameter of a component tot overall system
y exergy destruction ratio (%) 0 thermodynamic environment (reference state)
1 open gas-turbine sub-system
Greek symbols 2 N2 sub-system
D difference 3 LNG sub-system
3 exergetic efficiency (%)
h energetic efficiency for the overall system (%), or Abbreviations
isentropic efficiency of a pump, compressor or RAH reversible adiabatic heater
expander (%) CL cooler
s structural coefficient (dimensionless) CC combustion chamber
CM compressor
Superscripts EM electrical motor
AV avoidable EX expander
CH chemical HE heat exchanger
EN endogenous P pump
EX exogenous

exergetic analysis and options for improving the investigated After the combustion process in the combustion chamber (CC),
system are presented here. the combustion gases are expanded in expander I (EX I) and
rejected to the atmosphere after being cooled in HE I. The open
2. Base case gas-turbine power sub-system is based on an LMS 100 gas
turbine [12], with T21 ¼15  C; p21 ¼1.013 bar; T26 ¼ 1290  C;
The system shown in Fig. 1 represents the novel co-generation p24/p21 ¼ 42:1 [10], hCM I ¼ 90%, hCM II ¼ 90%, hEX I ¼ 94%, and
system for generating electricity and vaporizing LNG. The overall heat loss in the combustion chamber ¼ 2% of the lower heating
system consists of three sub-systems with the following initial data value of the fuel.
and assumptions:
For the simulation and the exergetic analyses, the software
 LNG sub-system (process 1–2–3–4) – LNG from the storage GateCycle [13], Gatex [14], and EES [15] were used.
system is (a) compressed by an LNG pump (P), (b) vaporized in
heat exchanger II (HE II) by using the waste heat from the
3. Conventional analyses
nitrogen power system, and (c) expanded in expander III (EX
III). The LNG is leaving the storage system as a subcooled liquid
3.1. Energetic analysis
at T1 ¼ 160  C and p1 ¼10 bar. After vaporization, superheated
vapor at p4 ¼ 80 bar and T4 z 2  C is obtained. For the analysis,
For the simulation, natural gas was assumed to consist entirely
the LNG pump is considered together with the required elec-
of methane. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results obtained from
trical motor. The isentropic efficiency of expander III is
the simulation and the energetic analysis, respectively.
hP ¼ 66.5%. Here the energetic efficiency of the overall system was defined
 N2 sub-system (process 11–12–13–14) – After removing the
by
heat in HE II, the nitrogen is compressed in compressor III (CM
III), heated in heat exchanger I (HE I) using the waste heat from  
_ NET;tot þ H_  H_
W 4 1
an open gas-turbine power system, and expanded in expander htot ¼ (1)
m_ 25 LHV
II (EX II). The N2 sub-system is a closed-cycle gas-turbine power
system [5] with hCM II ¼ 85%, hEX II ¼ 88%, p12/p11 ¼15, and where the lower heating value (LHV) of methane is 50.01 MJ/kg and
p11 ¼ 2.85 bar. W _
_ NET;tot ¼ W _ _ _
NET;1 þ W NET;2 þ W NET;3 . The values of W NET;1 ,
 Open gas-turbine power sub-system (process 21–22–23– W_ and W_ represent the net mechanical power generated
NET;2 NET;3
24 þ 25–26–27–28) – Air after compression in compressor I in the open gas-turbine sub-system, the N2 sub-system and the LNG
(CM I) is cooled in the cooler (CL) transferring thermal energy sub-system, respectively (Table 2). The generators required for
to the environment, and is compressed in compressor II (CM II). producing the electric power were not considered in the analysis.
822 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829

Fig. 1. Co-generation system for vaporizing LNG: (a) schematic of the real system; (b) schematic including the assumptions used for the advanced exergetic analysis.

H_ 4 and H_ 1 represent the enthalpy flow rates at the thermodynamic and E_ L;tot ¼ E_ 28 since the exergy destruction in the cooler is
states 4 and 1, respectively. calculated as E_ D;CL ¼ E_ 22  E_ 23 .
A more appropriate definition of the exergetic efficiency would
have been the following which is used in the present paper

3.2. Exergetic analysis  

W _ NET;tot þ E_ M  E_ M
E_ P;tot 4 1
3tot ¼ ¼  T T
 (6)
The variables used for the conventional exergetic evaluation of E_ F;tot E_ 25 þ E_ 21 þ E_ 1  E_ 4
the kth component in a system include the following [14]:
The following definitions of the exergy of fuel ðE_ F;k Þ and
 Exergy destruction rate that depends on the mass flow rate the exergy of product ðE_ P;k Þ are used for the components
through the component and the specific entropy generation [16,17]:
ðsgen;k Þ within it
 Compressor I – E_ F;CM I ¼ W_ _ _ _
CM I and EP;CM I ¼ E 22  E 21
E_ D;k ¼ E_ F;k  E_ P;k ¼ T0 S_ gen;k ¼ T0 m
_ k sgen;k (2)  The cooler is a dissipative component, therefore we calculate
E_ ¼ E_  E_
D;CL 22 without defining the exergy of fuel and
23
 Exergetic efficiency product for the cooler
 Compressor II – E_ F;CM II ¼ W _ _ _
CM II and E P;CM II ¼ E 24  E23
_
E_ E_  Combustion chamber – E_ F;CC ¼ E_ 25 and E_ P;CC ¼ E_ 26  E_ 24
3k ¼ _ P;k ¼ 1  _ D;k (3)  Expander I – E_ F;EX I ¼ E_ 26  E_ 27 and E_ P;EX I ¼ W
_ EX I
E F;k E F;k
 Heat exchanger I – E_ F;HE I ¼ E_ 27  E_ 28 and E_ P;HE I ¼ E_ 13  E_ 12
 Expander II – E_ F;EX II ¼ E_  E_ and E_ F;EX II ¼ W
13 14
_ EX II
 Exergy destruction ratio  The pump operates below the reference temperature:
ePH PH T T M M
2 > e1 , but e2 < e1 , and e2 > e1 . According to the defini-
E_ D;k tion of the exergy of product and fuel in the SPECO approach
yk ¼ (4)
E_ F;tot [17], the change (decrease) in the thermal exergy is associated
with the fuel and the increase in mechanical exergy is asso-
The exergy balance for the overall system is _ Pþ
ciated with the product for the pump. Therefore, E_ F;P ¼ W
T T M M
X ðE_  E_ Þ and E_ P;P ¼ E_  E_
1 2 2 1
E_ F;tot ¼ E_ P;tot þ E_ D;k þ E_ L;tot (5)
 In heat exchanger II the reference temperature is crossed:
k
T2 < T0, T3 > T0 and T14 > T0, T11 < T0. Because of the pressure
T T
_ NET;tot þ ðE_ M  E_ M Þ
where E_ F;tot ¼ E_ 25 þ E_ 21 þ ðE_ 1  E_ 4 Þ, E_ P;tot ¼ W drop on both sides of heat exchanger II, eM M M M
4 1 2 > e3 and e11 < e14 .
 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829 823

Table 1
Thermodynamic data for the material streams in the Base Case.

Material stream State _ (kg/s)

m T ( C) p (bar) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K) eT (kJ/kg) eM (kJ/kg) ePH (kJ/kg) eCH (kJ/kg) e (kJ/kg)
LNG 1 65.03 160 10 904 6.638 669.7 339.3 1009 – 1009
LNG 2 65.03 144 272 812 6.390 250.5 778.5 1029 – 1029
NG 3 65.03 86 270 5 2.803 25.3 777.7 803 – 803
NG 4 65.03 2 80 150 2.709 1.0 630.0 631 – 631
N2 11 217 129 2.85 163 1.075 58.6 88.4 147 – 147
N2 12 217 70 42.75 41 0.983 5.0 319.0 324 – 324
N2 13 217 415 40.61 415 0.215 162.2 314.8 477 – 477
N2 14 217 101 2.99 79 0.085 11.4 92.6 104 – 104
Air 21 209 15 1.013 100 6.866 – – 0 1 1
Air 22 209 242 6.66 131 6.915 – – 217 1 218
Air 23 209 117 6.53 3 6.636 – – 170 1 171
Air 24 209 416 43.47 315 6.682 – – 468 1 469
CH4 25 5.1 15 45 4689 9.561 – – 566 51,534 52,100
Combustion gases 26 214.1 1290 41.95 123 7.902 – – 1281 9 1290
Combustion gases 27 214.1 435 1.08 940 8.001 – – 190 9 199
Combustion gases 28 214.1 90 1.025 1318 7.288 – – 18 9 27

T T M M M M
In this way, E_ F;HE II ¼ ðE_ 14 þ E_ 2 Þ þ ðE_ 14  E_ 11 Þ þ ðE_ 2  E_ 3 Þ and  The isentropic efficiency of the pump was varied in the range
T T
E_ P;HE II ¼ ðE_ þ E_ Þ
11 3 between hP ¼ 60% and 85%.
 In Compressor III the reference temperature is crossed:  The isentropic efficiency of expander III was varied in the range
E_ F;CM III ¼ W _ T _ _M _M _T between hEX III ¼ 80% and 92%.
CM III þ E11 and E P;CM III ¼ E12  E11 þ E 12
 The isentropic efficiency of expander II was varied in the range
 In expander III the reference temperature is also crossed. Thus,
M M T between hEX II ¼ 85% and 94%.
E_ F;EX III ¼ E_  E_ þ E_ and E_ P;EX III ¼ W _ EX III þ E_ T
3 4 3 4  The isentropic efficiency of compressor III was varied in the
range between hCM III ¼ 80% and 92%.
 The minimum temperature difference in heat exchanger I was
For the exergy analysis we assumed: T0 ¼ T21 ¼15  C (288.15 K)
varied in the range between DTHE I ¼ 5 and 40 K.
and p0 ¼ 1.013 bar. The results from the exergetic analysis are given
 The minimum temperature difference in heat exchanger II was
in Tables 1 and 3.
varied in the range between DTHE II ¼ 5 and 40 K.
The chemical exergies of LNG, NG and N2 do not need to be
considered in the exergetic analysis of this system because only the
Figs. 2 and 3 show the effects of the above variables on the
physical exergy of the working fluid is used in the corresponding
energetic and exergetic efficiencies of the overall system.
sub-systems. Only the chemical exergies in the open gas-turbine
In addition to the sensitivity analysis, the structural coefficients
sub-system, where combustion takes place, need to be considered.
proposed by Beyer [19] and mentioned in Ref. [20] were calculated
The chemical exergy of air is not zero because of the humidity (60%)
(Table 3)
considered in it. The physical exergies of LNG, NG and N2 are split !
into their thermal and mechanical parts according to the approach vE_ D;tot
presented in Ref. [18]. sk ¼ (7)
vE_D;k xk ¼var

Here xk is the parameter of the kth component which leads to the

3.3. Sensitivity analysis changes during the sensitivity analysis, i.e. xk is the isentropic
efficiency for the pump, compressors and expanders or xk is the
In the present paper a sensitivity analysis was conducted by minimal temperature difference for the heat exchangers.
assuming that (a) the efficiencies for all components of the open If sk > 1, then the change in xk improves not only the kth
gas-turbine system remain unchanged, and (b) component but, owing to the interdependencies among them, also
E_ P;tot ¼ constðE_ P;tot ¼ 163:801MWÞ. In each calculation, the effi- other components. The higher the value of sk (sk > 1), the more
ciency of only one component was varied within the range given advantageous it is to improve the kth component because of the
below while the efficiencies of all the remaining components were potential favorable impact of this improvement on the overall
kept unchanged: system efficiency.

Table 2
Results obtained from the energetic analysis of the Base Case.

Sub-system Component Component variables Sub-system variables Overall system variables

Open gas-turbine power sub-system CM I W _ _ _ NET;tot ¼ 144:886 MW
CM I ¼ 48:415 MW W NET;1 ¼ 113:920 MW W
CL Q_ CL ¼ 26:816 MW htot ¼ 75:5%
CM II W _
CM II ¼ 65:220 MW
CC m_ 25 LHV ¼ 256:866 MW
EX I W _ EX I ¼ 227:555 MW
N2 sub-system HE I Q_ HE I ¼ 81:069 MW _
W NET;2 ¼ 28:597 MW
CM III W _
CM III ¼ 44:228 MW
EX II W _
EX II ¼ 72:825 MW
LNG sub-system HE II Q_ HE II ¼ 52:472 MW _
W NET;3 ¼ 2:369 MW
Pa W _ P ¼ 7:045 MW
EX III W _ EX III ¼ 9:414 MW
a
The pump is considered together with the required electrical motor.
824 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829

Table 3
Results obtained from the conventional exergetic analysis, the sensitivity analysis. The last three columns present variables used or obtained from the advanced exergetic
analysis.

Component Conventional exergetic analysis Advanced exergetic analysis

Real operating conditions ðE_ L;tot ¼ 5:768 MWÞ Structural Unavoidable Hybrid Sum of avoidable
coefficient sk operating operating exergy destruction
(dimensionless) conditions conditions caused by the
component
E_ EN AV;S
E_ F;k (MW) E_ P;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW) 3k (%) yk (%) ð _ D;k ÞUN (dimensionless) E_ P;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW)
EP;k
CM I 48.418 45.434 2.984 93.84 0.95 – – – –
CL – – 9.993 – 3.21 – – – –
CM II 65.224 62.458 2.766 95.76 0.89 – – – –
CC 267.603 178.131 89.466 66.57 28.73 – – – –
EX I 233.661 227.569 6.092 97.39 1.96 – – – –
HE I 36.926 33.091 3.834 89.83 1.23 1.513 0.0451 28.701 1.982
CM III 57.021 51.222 5.799 89.83 1.86 1.995 0.0593 36.897 2.703
EX II 80.956 72.829 8.127 89.96 2.61 2.080 0.0511 68.709 4.678
HE II 19.722 14.427 5.295 73.15 1.70 2.244 0.0973 13.114 3.435
P 34.295 28.582 5.713 83.34 1.83 1.866 0.0874 25.360 3.159
EX III 11.249 9.479 1.770 84.26 0.57 2.612 0.0913 8.373 1.347

Overall system 311.415 163.801 141.846 52.60 45.55

4. Advanced exergetic analysis optimization (for example, using exergoeconomic or/and exer-
goenvironmental analysis [25,26]).
In an advanced exergetic analysis, the exergy destruction within The interdependence among the system components can be
each system component is split into its avoidable/unavoidable evaluated if the exergy destruction within the kth component is
[21,22] and endogenous/exogenous [23] parts. Finally a combina- split into its endogenous and exogenous parts
tion of these two splitting approaches provides unambiguous and EN EX
_E _
¼ E _
þ E . The endogenous part of exergy destruction
D;k D;k D;k
valuable detailed information with respect to options for improving EN
the overall efficiency [24–26]. These splittings improve the accu- ðE_ D;k Þ is associated only with the irreversibilities occurring within
racy of exergy analysis and our understanding of the thermody- the kth component when all other components operate in an ideal
namic inefficiencies and facilitate an exergy-based method of way and the component being considered operates with its current
EX
efficiency. The exogenous part of exergy destruction ðE_ Þ is caused D;k

Fig. 2. Energetic (a) and exergetic (b) efficiencies of the overall system as a function of Fig. 3. Energetic (a) and exergetic (b) efficiencies of the overall system as a function of
the isentropic efficiency of the pump, expander II, expander III, and compressor III. the minimal temperature difference in heat exchanger I and heat exchanger II.
 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829 825

Table 4 In the present paper the advanced exergetic analysis is applied

Thermodynamic data for the theoretical operating conditions for the advanced to the complex energy-conversion system consisting of one closed
exergetic analysis.
and one open gas-turbine systems, i.e. to the LNG and N2 sub-
Material stream State _ (kg/s)
m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg) systems. For the advanced exergetic analysis we assumed that the
LNG 1 63.1 160 10 1009 efficiencies of all components of the open gas-turbine system
LNG 2 63.1 154 272 1070 remain constant. Only the mass flow rate through this sub-system
LNG 2a 63.1 144 272 1030
can change. As before, the condition E_ P;tot ¼ const was maintained
NG 3 63.1 98 272 812
NG 4 63.1 2 80 631 in this analysis.
N2 11 205.9 144 2.85 165
N2 12 205.9 23 27.65 285
N2 12a 205.9 90 27.65 291
4.1. Splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and
N2 13 205.9 435 27.65 456 exogenous parts
N2 14 205.9 102 2.85 100
Combustion gases 27 202.2 435 1.08 199 For splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and
Combustion gases 28 202.2 90 1.025 27
exogenous parts, we need to describe the theoretical operation
conditions for each component of the LNG and the N2 sub-systems
of the overall co-generation system.
in the kth component by the irreversibilities that occur in the The theoretical operating conditions for the pump, compressor
remaining components. III and expanders (EX II and EX III) are similar:
The realistic potential for improving the kth component can be th
E_ D;k ¼ 0ð3th
k
¼ 100% or hth k
¼ 100%Þ. For the heat exchangers (HE I
assessed by splitting the exergy destruction within each system th
and HE II), the only possible condition is E_ D;k ¼ min, with DTHE th ¼
component into its unavoidable and avoidable parts 0 [23–25]. Therefore, both sub-systems can be described at theo-
UN AV
E_ D;k ¼ E_ D;k þ E_ D;k . The part of the exergy destruction that cannot th
retical operation conditions, i.e. E_ D;k ¼ min which leads to
be reduced due to technological limitations (e.g., availability and th
3k < 100%. The thermodynamic data for the theoretical operating
cost of materials) and manufacturing methods is the unavoidable conditions of the LNG and the N2 sub-systems are given in Table 4.
UN AV
ðE_ D;k Þ part. The remaining part represents the avoidable ðE_ D;k Þ part The hybrid processes-I (only one component is real, i.e. operates
of the exergy destruction. with its real efficiency while all other components operate in
By combining these two concepts we obtain: a theoretical way) are employed to split the exergy destruction into
endogenous and exogenous parts. In a hybrid process-I, the exergy
 The unavoidable endogenous part of the exergy destruction destruction within the component being considered represents the
UN;EN
ðE_ D;k Þ which cannot be reduced because of technical limi- endogenous exergy destruction for this component. The step-by-
tations for the kth component, step introduction of irreversibilities in each system component
 The unavoidable exogenous part of the exergy destruction enables us to calculate the endogenous exergy destruction within
UN;EX
ðE_ D;k Þ that cannot be reduced because of technical limita- each component [23–25].
tions in the other components of the overall system for the The following methodology was used for creating the hybrid
given structure, processes-I for the N2 sub-system, and the LNG sub-system: To
 The avoidable endogenous part of the exergy destruction exclude the effect of irreversibilities within a compressor or a pump
AV;EN
ðE_ D;k Þ which can be reduced by improving the efficiency of on a heat exchanger immediately following this device, a reversible
the kth component, and adiabatic heater can be used (Fig. 1b).
 The avoidable exogenous part of the exergy destruction The reversible adiabatic heater I (RAH I) shown in Fig. 1b is
AV;EX
ðE_ D;k Þ which can be reduced by improving the efficiency of a hypothetical component of the N2 sub-system. It is located between
the remaining components and of course by improving the CM III and HE I. In this way the temperature at the outlet of RAH I
efficiency in the kth component. (state 12a) is equal to T12a ¼ T28  DTHE I. We use: (a) DTHE I ¼ 20 K and
the pressure drop DpHE I equal to the one in the real system for
The methodology for splitting the exergy destruction into the EN
calculating E_ D;HE I , and (b) DTHE I ¼ 0 and DpHE I ¼ 0 for calculating the
above mentioned parts has been discussed in detail for closed values of endogenous exergy destruction within other components.
cycles (for example, refrigeration machines [23–25]) and for open The reversible adiabatic heater II (RAH II) is a hypothetical
gas-turbine power systems [26,27]. component of the LNG sub-system. It is located between P and HE
II. In this way the temperature at the outlet of RAH II (state 2a)
remains the same as in the Base Case (T2a ¼ 144  C), and

Table 5 Table 6
Advanced exergetic analysis: thermodynamic data for the hybrid process with Advanced exergetic analysis: thermodynamic data for the hybrid process with
irreversibilities only in heat exchanger I. irreversibilities only in compressor III.

Material stream State _ (kg/s)

m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg) Material stream State _ (kg/s)
m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg)
LNG 1 58.0 160 10 1009 LNG 1 58.1 160 10 1009
LNG 2 58.0 154 272 1070 LNG 2 58.1 154 272 1070
LNG 2a 58.0 144 272 1030 LNG 2a 58.1 144 272 1030
NG 3 58.0 98 272 812 NG 3 58.1 98 272 812
NG 4 58.0 2 80 631 NG 4 58.1 2 80 631
N2 11 189.3 144 2.85 165 N2 11 189.7 144 2.85 165
N2 12 189.3 27 26.22 281 N2 12 189.7 4 27.65 283
N2 12a 189.3 70 26.22 283 N2 12a 189.7 90 27.65 291
N2 13 189.3 415 24.91 434 N2 13 189.7 435 27.65 456
N2 14 189.3 102 2.85 100 N2 14 189.7 102 2.85 100
Combustion gases 27 185.4 435 1.08 199 Combustion gases 27 186.3 435 1.08 199
Combustion gases 28 185.4 90 1.025 27 Combustion gases 28 186.3 90 1.025 27
826 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829

Table 7 Table 9
Advanced exergetic analysis: thermodynamic data for the hybrid process with Advanced exergetic analysis: thermodynamic data for the hybrid process with
irreversibilities only in expander II. irreversibilities only in the pump.

Material stream State _ (kg/s)

m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg) Material stream State _ (kg/s)
m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg)
LNG 1 58.8 160 10 1009 LNG 1 57.7 160 10 1009
LNG 2 58.8 154 272 1070 LNG 2 57.7 144 272 1029
LNG 2a 58.8 144 272 1030 LNG 2a 57.7 144 272 1030
NG 3 58.8 98 272 812 NG 3 57.7 98 272 812
NG 4 58.8 2 80 631 NG 4 57.7 2 80 631
N2 11 192.2 144 2.85 165 N2 11 188.2 144 2.85 165
N2 12 192.2 13 44.18 322 N2 12 188.2 23 27.65 285
N2 12a 192.2 90 44.18 331 N2 12a 188.2 90 27.65 291
N2 13 192.2 435 44.18 497 N2 13 188.2 435 27.65 456
N2 14 192.2 101 2.85 100 N2 14 188.2 102 2.85 100
Combustion gases 27 190.0 435 1.08 199 Combustion gases 27 184.8 435 1.08 199
Combustion gases 28 190.0 90 1.025 27 Combustion gases 28 184.8 90 1.025 27

4.3. Combination of the two splittings

T11 ¼ T2a þ DTHE II. The combination of DTHE II ¼ 15 K with the DpHE II
EN
from the real process is used for calculating E_ D;HE II and the To calculate the unavoidable endogenous part of the exergy
combination DTHE II ¼ 0 with DpHE I ¼ 0 is used for calculating the destruction within a system component, we apply the following
values of endogenous exergy destruction within other components. equation [26,27]
The thermodynamic data for the hybrid processes-I of the LNG
and the N2 sub-systems are given in Tables 5–10. !UN
_
UN;EN EN E D;k
E_ D;k ¼ EP;k (9)
E_ P;k

Table 12 presents the results obtained from splitting the exergy

destruction within each component of the LNG and the N2 sub-
EN
4.2. Splitting the exergy destruction into unavoidable systems. The values ðE_ D;k =E_ P;k ÞUN and E_ P;k are given in Table 3.
and avoidable parts
4.4. Splitting the exogenous exergy destruction
For calculating the value of the unavoidable exergy destruction
within the kth component, the procedure described in Refs. To better understand the interactions among components, the
[21,22,26,27] is used with exogenous exergy destruction as well as the exogenous unavoid-
!UN
UN E_ D;k able and the exogenous avoidable exergy destructions within the
E_ D;k ¼ E_ P;k (8) kth component are split [24].
E_ P;k
We create a so-called hybrid processes-II [24], in which each time
where the value ðE_ D;k =E_ P;k ÞUN should be calculated using the two processes (two components denoted by the indices k and r) are
process with unavoidable irreversibilities. conducted with the same efficiency as in the real process while all
The following operating conditions are assumed to calculate the the remaining processes correspond to the ideal or the theoretical
unavoidable exergy destruction for the components of the closed (N2) process. For each hybrid process-II is valid
and the open (LNG) sub-systems: hUN P ¼ 85%; DpUN
HE II ¼ 1ðN2 sideÞ, II EN EX;r
DpUN and DTHEUN ¼ 5 K; hUN E_ D;k ¼ E_ D;k þ E_ D;k (10)
HE II ¼ 0:5 barðLNG sideÞ II EX III ¼ 92%;
hUN
CM III ¼ 92%; Dp UN ¼ 1%ðN sideÞ and DT UN ¼ 5 K; hUN ¼ 94%.
HE I 2 HE I EX II and
As before, the efficiencies for all components of the open gas-turbine
sub-system remain unchanged. II EN EX;k
E_ D;r ¼ E_ D;r þ E_ D;r (11)
The thermodynamic data for the process with unavoidable
EX;r
irreversibilities within the LNG and the N2 sub-systems are given in Using the above equations we calculate (a) the part of the ðE_ D;k Þ
Table 11. exogenous exergy destruction within the kth component that is

Table 8 Table 10
Advanced exergetic analysis: thermodynamic data for the hybrid process with Advanced exergetic analysis: thermodynamic data for the hybrid process with
irreversibilities only in heat exchanger II. irreversibilities only in expander III.

Material stream State _ (kg/s)

m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg) Material stream State _ (kg/s)
m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg)
LNG 1 57.3 160 10 1009 LNG 1 56.8 160 10 1009
LNG 2 57.3 154 272 1070 LNG 2 56.8 154 272 1070
LNG 2a 57.3 144 272 1030 LNG 2a 56.8 144 272 1030
NG 3 57.3 98 270 811 NG 3 56.8 87 272 805
NG 4 57.3 2 80 631 NG 4 56.8 2 80 631
N2 11 190.6 129 2.85 147 N2 11 186.5 144 2.85 165
N2 12 190.6 1 26.22 278 N2 12 186.5 15 30.78 293
N2 12a 190.6 90 26.22 287 N2 12a 186.5 90 30.78 300
N2 13 190.6 435 26.22 452 N2 13 186.5 435 30.78 466
N2 14 190.6 113 2.993 107 N2 14 186.5 91 2.85 97
Combustion gases 27 187.0 435 1.08 199 Combustion gases 27 183.4 435 1.08 199
Combustion gases 28 187.0 90 1.025 27 Combustion gases 28 183.4 90 1.025 27
 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829 827

EX;r
Table 11 The sum of all E_ D;k
terms is lower than the exogenous exergy
Thermodynamic data for the operating conditions with only unavoidable irrevers- destruction within the kth component. The difference is caused
ibilities for the advanced exergetic analysis.
by the simultaneous interconnections of all (n  1) components.
Material stream State _ (kg/s)
m T ( C) p (bar) e (kJ/kg) We call this difference mexogenous exergy destruction within the
mexo
LNG 1 59.0 160 10 1009 kth component ðE_ D;k Þ and calculate it through the following
LNG 2 59.0 150 272 1055 equation
LNG 2a 59.0 144 272 1030
NG 3 59.0 92 271.5 808 n1
X
mexo EX EX;r
NG 4 59.0 2 80 631 E_ D;k ¼ E_ D;k  E_ D;k (12)
N2 11 195.7 139 2.85 159
N2 12 195.7 17 35.34 303
r ¼ 1
N2 12a 195.7 85 35.34 311
r sk
N2 13 195.7 430 34.99 474
N2 14 195.7 97 2.879 100
The approach for splitting the exogenous exergy destruction
Combustion gases 27 192.7 435 1.08 199 for the kth component may also be applied to the exogenous
Combustion gases 28 192.7 90 1.025 27 unavoidable and to the exogenous avoidable exergy destructions
separately (Table 12). The thermodynamic data for the hybrid
processes-II of the LNG and the N2 sub-systems are not shown
caused by the irreversibilities occurring within the rth component here.
EX;k
and (b) the part ðE_ D;r Þ of the exogenous exergy destruction within To identify priorities for improving components based on
the rth component that is caused by the exergy destruction taking information obtained from the advanced exergetic analysis, a new
place within the kth component. With the aid of hybrid processes-II variable is introduced: The sum of the avoidable endogenous
we can quantify the effects that the exergy destruction within one exergy destruction within the kth component and the avoidable
system component has on the exergy destructions of the remaining exogenous destructions within the remaining components caused
system components. by the kth component

Table 12
Advanced exergetic analysis for the N2 and the LNG sub-systems of the co-generation system for vaporizing LNG.
EN EX UN AV real
Component E_ D;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW) Splitting E_ D;k (MW)
UN AV
E_ D;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW)
UN;EN UN;EX AV;EN AV;EX
E_ D;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW) E_ D;k (MW)
HE I 3.295 0.539 CM III 0.082 1.492 2.342 1.294 0.198 CM III 0.032 2.001 0.341 CM III 0.050
EX II 0.171 EX II 0.055 EX II 0.116
HE II 0.092 HE II 0.038 HE II 0.054
P 0.057 P 0.023 P 0.034
EX III 0.036 EX III 0.012 EX III 0.024
mexo 0.101 mexo 0.038 mexo 0.063

CM III 4.461 1.338 HE I 0.042 3.037 2.762 2.188 0.849 HE I 0.012 2.273 0.489 HE I 0.030
EX II 0.861 EX II 0.599 EX II 0.262
HE II 0.116 HE II 0.013 HE II 0.103
P 0.186 P 0.118 P 0.068
EX III 0.090 EX III 0.047 EX III 0.043
mexo 0.043 mexo 0.060 mexo 0.017

EX II 7.693 0.434 HE I 0.294 3.722 4.405 3.511 0.211 HE I 0.135 4.182 0.223 HE I 0.159
CM III 0.342 CM III 0.138 CM III 0.204
HE II 0.310 HE II 0.017 HE II 0.293
P 0.211 P 0.079 P 0.132
EX III 0.636 EX III 0.160 EX III 0.476
mexo 0.151 mexo 0.014 mexo 0.137

HE II 4.813 0.482 HE I 0.126 1.404 3.891 1.279 0.125 HE I 0.029 3.534 0.357 HE I 0.097
CM III 0.132 CM III 0.035 CM III 0.097
EX II 0.248 EX II 0.052 EX II 0.196
P 0.080 P 0.021 P 0.059
EX III 0.073 EX III 0.030 EX III 0.043
mexo 0.031 mexo 0.018 mexo 0.049

P 5.068 0.642 HE I 0.005 2.498 3.125 2.216 0.282 HE I 0.002 2.855 0.360 HE I 0.003
CM III 0.104 CM III 0.045 CM III 0.059
EX II 0.152 EX II 0.066 EX II 0.086
HE II 0.054 HE II 0.023 HE II 0.031
EX III 0.088 EX III 0.038 EX III 0.050
mexo 0.249 mexo 0.112 mexo 0.137

EX III 1.561 0.209 HE I 0.031 0.865 0.905 0.764 0.101 HE I 0.015 0.797 0.108 HE I 0.016
CM III 0.041 CM III 0.021 CM III 0.020
EX II 0.063 EX II 0.031 EX II 0.032
HE II 0.014 HE II 0.008 HE II 0.006
P 0.021 P 0.010 P 0.011
mexo 0.039 mexo 0.016 mexo 0.023
828 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829
n1
X pump while the numbers for compressor III and heat exchanger I
AV;S AV;EN AV;EX;k
E_ D;k ¼ E_ D;k þ E_ D;r (13)
r ¼ 1
r s k
AV;S
The values of E_ D;k for the components of the LNG and the N2 sub-
systems are given in Table 3.
5. Results and discussions
The calculated overall energetic and exergetic efficiencies
(htot ¼ 75.5% and 3tot ¼ 52.6%) demonstrate the thermodynamic
advantages of this novel co-generation concept that combines LNG
regasification with the generation of electricity. A comparison of
this concept with other concepts in the literature will be conducted
in a forthcoming paper.
In the following, we discuss some suggestions for improving the
co-generation system (Base Case) based on the results obtained
from the conventional and the advanced energetic analysis.
5.1. Suggestions from the conventional exergetic analysis and the
sensitivity analysis
The results obtained from the conventional exergetic analysis
are based on the values of E_ D;k and yk (Table 3). Assuming that no
changes can be conducted in the open-cycle gas-turbine sub-
system, the priorities for improving the components of the LNG and
the N2 sub-systems are the following:
 Expander II should be considered first because it exhibits the
highest exergy destruction among all components of the
considered sub-systems.
 Compressor III, heat exchanger II, and pump have comparable
values of E_ D;k and yk, therefore they have the same importance
for the improvement procedure.
 The exergy destruction within heat exchanger I and expander
III is relatively low, therefore these components cannot
significantly affect the efficiency of the overall co-generation
system.
The results obtained from the sensitivity analysis can be
analyzed using two approaches:
 The first one is based on the values of 3tot ¼ f ðxk Þ shown in
Figs. 2b and 3b. According to these data, expander II and heat
exchanger II have the highest priority for improvement.
Compressor II comes after that, while expander III and pump
have lower priorities for improvement.
 The second approach is based on the values of the structural
coefficients sk (Table 3). According to this information,
expander III should have the highest priority among all
components. After that come heat exchanger II, expander II and
compressor III. Pump and heat exchanger I have the lowest
priority.
5.2. Advanced exergetic analysis
Splitting the exergy destruction into its endogenous and exog-
EN EX
enous parts (fist two columns of Table 12) shows, that E_ > E_
D;k D;k
for all components of the LNG and the N2 sub-systems. The
numbers indicate that the interconnections among these compo-
nents are not very strong.
The results from splitting the exergy destruction into its
avoidable and unavoidable parts show that the largest avoidable
exergy destructions occur in expander II, heat exchanger II, and the
are lower.
The real potential for improving the components can be
AV;EN AV;EX;r
obtained using the values of E_ and E_
D;k (the last two
D;k
AV;S
columns of Table 12), and the newly introduced variable E_ D;k (Eq.
(13), shown in the last column of Table 3).
According to these data, the highest priority should be given to
AV;S
expander II. Based on the values of E_ D;k , heat exchanger II and
pump should be considered next. Compressor III has a lower
priority for improvement than expander II. HE I and EX III have the
lowest priority for improvement.
The results obtained through the advanced exergetic analysis
are more detailed and more reliable than the results obtained from
any other thermodynamic analysis method.
6. Conclusions
A detailed advanced exergetic analysis was presented here to
demonstrate its advantages compared with conventional exergy-
based analyses. The information obtained from the advanced
analysis allows engineers to better understand the interconnec-
tions among components and the potential for improving such
systems. Decisions regarding system improvement can be taken
now with a higher degree of confidence and ‘‘surprises’’ are
reduced to a minimum.
Users should not be scared with the large number of tables and
data used in an advanced analysis and presented in this paper.
Detailed tables are given here to enable readers to verify the results
presented in this paper. The application of the method is rather
easy and straightforward.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Professor Hartmut Griepentrog
(Greif-Foundation, Gelsenkirchen, Germany) for developing the
initial system and for many helpful discussions regarding gas-
turbine power systems and LNG vaporization.
References
[1] International energy outlook 2004, energy information administration. U.S.
Department of Energy, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/elctricity.html; 2004.
[2] Liquefied natural gas: current expansion and perspectives. 19-th informatory
note on refrigerating technologies. Paris, France: International Institute of
Refrigeration, www.iifiir.org; Nov 2006.
[3] Foss MM. Introduction to LNG: an overview on liquefied natural gas (LNG), its
properties, the LNG industry, safety considerations. Centre for Energy
Economics, The University of Texas at Austin, www.beg.utexas.edu/
energyecon/lng; 2003.
[4] Krey G. Utilization of the cold by LNG vaporization with closed-cycle gas
turbine. In: Proceedings of the gas turbine conference and exhibit and
solar energy conference, San Diego, CA, USA; March 12–15, 1979 [paper 79-
GT-84].
[5] Griepentrog H, Sackarendt P. Vaporization of LNG with closed-cycle gas
turbines. In: Proceedings of the gas turbine and fluid engineering conference,
New Orleans, USA; March 21–25, 1976 [paper 76-GT-38].
[6] Frutschi HU. Closed-cycle gas turbines. Operating experience and future
potential. New York: ASME Press; 2005.
[7] Angelino G. The use of liquid natural gas as a heat sink for power cycles. ASME
J Eng Power 1978;100:160–77.
[8] Zhang N, Lior N. Proposal and analysis of a novel zero CO2 emission cycle with
liquid natural gas cryogenic exergy utilization. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
2006;128(1):81–91.
[9] Szargut J, Szczygie1 I. Utilization of the cryogenic exergy of LNG for the
production of electricity. June 25–28. Padova: Italy. In: Mirandola A, Arnas O,
Lazzaretto A, editors. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on
efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy
systems, vol. 2; 2007. p. 1293–8.
[10] Griepentrog H, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. A novel concept for generating
electricity and vaporizing LNG. June 23–27. Cracow-Gliwice: Poland. In:
Ziebik A, Kolenda Z, Stanek W, editors. Proceedings of the 21st international
 G. Tsatsaronis, T. Morosuk / Energy 35 (2010) 820–829
conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental
impact of energy systems, vol. II; 2008. p. 559–65.
[11] Griepentrog H, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. LNG vaporization using a novel
co-generation system. In: Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical
engineering congress and exposition, Boston, MA, USA; November 2–6, 2008
[file IMECE2008-67208].
[12] Reale MJ. New high efficiency simple cycle gas turbine – GE’s LMS100Ô. USA:
General Electric Company, www.ge.com; 2004.
[13] GateCycle for windows, version 5.52.0.r. The General Electric Company, http://
www.gepower.com/enter; 1989–2004.
[14] Gatex. Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Energietechnik; 2002;
Ref: Eisermann W, Hasberg W, Tsatsaronis G. THESIS - Ein Rechenprogramm
zur Simulation und Entwicklung von Energieumwandlungsanlagen, Brennst.-
Wärme-Kraft 1984; 36(1–2): 45–51.
[15] EES (engineering equation solver) V7.847, #92. McGraw-Hill; 1992–2009.
[16] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New York:
Wiley; 1996.
[17] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31(8–9):
1257–89.
[18] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. Graphical models for splitting physical exergy. In:
Kjelstrup S, Hustad JE, Gundersen T, Rosjorde A, Tsatsaronis G, editors. Shaping
our future energy systems, vol. 1; 2005. p. 377–84.
[19] Beyer J. Strukturuntersuchungen-notwendiger Bestandteil der Effekivitatsa-
nalyse von Warmeverbrauchsysteme. [[Structural investigations – an essential
pat of the analysis of the efficiency of thermal systems]]. Energieanwendung
1970;19(12):358–61.
829
[20] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Florida, USA: Krieger
Publishing Company; 1985.
[21] Tsatsaronis G, Park MH. On avoidable and unavoidable exergy destructions
and investment costs in thermal systems. Energy Convers Manage
2002;43:1259–70.
[22] Cziesla F, Tsatsaronis G, Gao Z. Avoidable thermodynamic inefficiencies and
costs in an externally fired combined cycle power plant. Energy Int J
2006;31(10–11):1472–89.
[23] Kelly S, Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergetic analysis: approaches for
splitting the exergy destruction into endogenous and exogenous parts. Energy
Int J 2009;34:384–91.
[24] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. Advanced exergoeconomic evaluation and its
application to compression refrigeration machines. In: Proceedings of the
ASME international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Seattle,
USA; November 11–15, 2007 [file 2007-41202].
[25] Morosuk T, Tsatsaronis G. New approach to the exergy analysis of absorption
refrigeration machines. Energy Int J 2008;31(8–9):890–907.
[26] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. A general exergy-based method for combining a cost
analysis with an environmental impact analysis. Part Idtheoretical develop-
ment. In: Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical engineering
congress and exposition, Boston, MA, USA; November 2–6, 2008 [file
IMECE2008-67218].
[27] Tsatsaronis G, Morosuk T. A general exergy-based method for combining
a cost analysis with an environmental impact analysis. Part IIdapplication to
a cogeneration system. In: Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical
engineering congress and exposition, Boston, MA, USA; November 2–6, 2008
[file IMECE2008-67219].