INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH

Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289

Published online 13 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/er.1353

Exergoeconomic analysis of a combined heat and power (CHP) system

Ozgur Balli1, Haydar Aras2,*,y and Arif Hepbasli3

1
First Air Supply and Maintenances Center, TUAF, Eskisehir, Turkey
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey

SUMMARY

This study deals with exergoeconomic analysis of a combined heat and power (CHP) system along its main components
installed in Eskisehir City of Turkey. Quantitative exergy cost balance for each component and the whole CHP system
is considered, while exergy cost generation within the system is determined. The exergetic efficiency of the CHP system
is obtained to be 38.33% with 51 475:90 kW electrical power and the maximum exergy consumption between the
components of the CHP system is found to be 51 878:82 kW in the combustion chamber. On the other hand, the
exergoeconomic analysis results indicate that the unit exergy cost of electrical power produced by the CHP system
accounts for 18:51 US$ GW
1 : This study demonstrates that exergoeconomic analysis can provide extra information
than exergy analysis, and the results from exergoeconomic analysis provide cost-based information, suggesting
potential locations for the CHP system improvement. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: combined heat and power; cogeneration; exergy; exergy analysis; exergy efficiency; exergoeconomic
analysis; exergy cost; unit exergy cost

1. INTRODUCTION for improving the efficiency of energy-recourse use

Combined heat and power (CHP) system (cogen-
eration) involves the production of both thermal
energy, generally in the form of steam or hot
water, and electricity. As a result of this applica-
tion, the efficiency of energy production can be
increased from current levels that vary from 35 to
55% in the conventional power plants to over 90%
in the CHP systems [1].
Exergy is generally not conserved as energy but
destroyed in the system. Exergy analysis is useful
for it quantifies the location types and magnitudes
of wastes and losses. In general, more meaningful
efficiencies are evaluated through exergy analysis,
since exergy efficiencies are always a measure of
how nearly the efficiency of a process approaches
the ideal. Therefore, exergy analysis identifies
accurately the margin available to design more
efficient energy systems by reducing inefficiencies.
Many engineers and scientists suggest that the
thermodynamic performance is best evaluated
using exergy analysis because it provides more

*Correspondence to: Haydar Aras, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Eskisehir
Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
y
E-mail: h aras2002@yahoo.com, haras@ogu.edu.tr

Received 5 November 2006

Revised 27 May 2007
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 30 May 2007
274 O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI
insight and is more useful in efficiency improve-
ment efforts than energy analysis [2]. Exergy
analysis has been widely used by many investiga-
tors in the design, simulation and performance
evaluation of energy systems.
The exergoeconomic analysis is a method that
combines exergy analysis with economic analysis.
The method provides a technique to evaluate the
cost of inefficiencies or the costs of individual
process streams, including intermediate and final
products [3]. Exergoeconomics is currently a
powerful tool to study and optimize an energy
system. The application field is the evaluation of
utility cost as products or supplies of production
plants, the energy cost between process and
operations of an energy converter. These costs
are applicable in feasibility studies, in investment
decisions, on comparing alternative techniques
and operating conditions, in a cost-effective
section of equipment during an installation, an
exchange or expansion of an energy system [4].
As for the study conducted on exergoeconomic
analysis of CHP systems installed in Turkey,
Colpan and Yesin [5] analyzed the energetic,
exergetic and thermoeconomic aspects of the
Bilkent combined cycle cogeneration plant. The
Figure 1. The schematic of the CHP system investigated.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
electrical power unit exergy cost was accounted to
be 18:89 US$ GW
1 by them.
The main objectives of this study are (i) to
calculate the exergy values of streams entering and
leaving the CHP control volume and its compo-
nents; (ii) to evaluate the performance of this
system by analyzing the exergetic parameters of
each component and the CHP system using the
actual operational system data; (iii) to derive the
exergy cost balance equations for each compo-
nents and the CHP system and (iv) to evaluate the
exergoeconomic performance of this system by
analyzing the exergetic cost parameters of each
component and the CHP system.
2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND
ASSUMPTIONS MADE
A schematic of the CHP system investigated is
illustrated in Figure 1. This system consists of
a fuel pump (FP), an air compressor (AC), a
combustion chamber (CC), a gas turbine (GT), a
GT electrical generator ðG1 Þ; a HRSG, two steam
turbines (high-pressure steam turbine: HPST and
low-pressure steam turbine: LPST) with a steam
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM 275

turbine electrical generator ðG2 Þ; a medium-pres- H2 O [9–11]. The other gases in air, such as argon,
sure steam collector (MPSC), three pressure drop- carbon monoxide, etc., are assumed to be negli-
ping valves ðV1; V2; V3Þ and a condenser (COND). gible in this study. For a 45.07 air/fuel mass ratio
Under the local conditions on March 2006 (an (air/fuel ratio in moles: 26.5187), the general
ambient air temperature of 287:15 K and an combustion equation of this system is as follows:
atmospheric pressure of 101:325 kPa), the GT
0:9334CH4 þ 0:00211C2 H6 þ 0:00029C3 H8
electrical generator of PG 6551(B)-gas turbine, the
ST electrical generator and MPSC produced þ 0:00012C4 H10 þ 0:06408N2 þ26:5187ð0:7748N2
36 300, 15 625.9 and 11 991 kW as a process steam
þ 0:2059O2 þ 0:0003CO2 þ 0:019H2 OÞ
ð1790 kPa; 505:85 K; 4:27 kg s
1 Þ; respectively.
The FP power and the utilized power used by ! 0:9469CO2 þ 2:3800H2 O þ 3:5831O2
the CHP system are 120 kW ðWFP Þ and 330 kW
þ 20:8671N2 ð1Þ
ðWUP Þ; respectively [6].
The following assumptions were made during After combustion reaction, the mass composi-
this study: tions of combustion gases are obtained as 5.32%
(i) The CHP system operates in a steady-state CO2 ; 5.47% H2 O; 14.63% O2 and 74.58% N2 :
condition. Each specific heat capacity equation in mole unit
(ii) The ideal gas principles are applied to air and of CO2 ; H2 O; O2 and N2 is given by Cengel and
combustion gas. Boles [12]. Using these equations, the specific heat
(iii) The combustion reaction is complete. capacity of the combustion gases is calculated
(iv) The exergies of kinetic and potential are from a composition of equations of each compo-
neglected. nent in its mass percentage given as follows:
(v) The temperature and pressure of dead (en- 0:010577
Cpgas ðTÞ ¼ 0:935301 þ T
vironmental) state are 287:15 K and 101:325 102
kPa; respectively. 0:017218 2 0:072386 3
(vi) The exergetic analyses are made on the lower þ T
T ð2Þ
105 109
heating value (LHV) basis of natural gas.
The natural gas compositions are taken from where the unit of temperature is Kelvin.
the average values of second and third data
measured by Arin and Akdemir [7], as Table II. Fixed parameters of the CHP system.
illustrated in Table I. Item Unit Value
(vii) The fixed parameters of the system are listed
in Table II. T0 K 287.15
P0 kPa 101.325
The basic molar compositions of air consist of mMGTG;MGTAC % 97
77.48% N2 ; 20.59% O2 ; 0.03% CO2 and 1.90% mMST % 98
mG % 98
mCC % 94
T5n K 393.15
Table I. Natural gas composition. P5 kPa 101.3
W’ UP n kW 330
Volume Mass ’ FP n
W kW 120
Component (%)n (%) LHV ðkJ kg
1 Þ
Rgas kJ kg
1 K
1 0.2947
CH4 93.3401 88.832 50 000 Rf kJ kg
1 K
1 0.4932
C2 H6 0.2109 0.376 47 525 CACCHP n 103 US$ 36 150
C3 H8 0.0290 0.100 46 390 OMCHP n 103 US$ 2850
C4 H10 0.0124 0.043 45 775 ER YTL ðUS$Þ
1 1.48
N2 6.4076 10.649 } Pry YTL ðkWhÞ
1 0.0315
Total 100.00 100 44 661
y Source: BOTAS [8].
n n
Source: Arin and Akdemir [7]. Source: EEE [6].

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
276 O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI

3. EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE associated with a material or energy stream as

CHP SYSTEM stack gas and condenser outlet water is rejected to
the environment. The exergy losses for the CHP
3.1. Exergetic aspects and other thermodynamic system are given as follows:
parameters
’ LCHP ¼ Ex
Ex ’ g þ Ex
’ st ’ st ’ st
12 þ Ex17 þ Ex19 ð3Þ
5
The main exergetic relations are presented in more
detail elsewhere [11] while the schematic of The exergy consumption (Ex’ C Þ for a system is the
subcomponents of the investigated CHP and sum of the exergy destructions and the exergy
exergy balance equations are given in Table III. losses for the CHP system. The exergy consump-
The exergy destructions ðEx ’ D Þ occur due to tion is given as follows:
irreversibilities within a component or system.
’ L Þ occur when the energy ’ C
Ex ’ L ’ D
CHP ¼ ExCHP þ ExCHP ð4Þ
The exergy losses ðEx

Table III. Energy balance equations for the subsystems of the investigated CHP.
No. Control volume Exergy balance equations

24
1 Fuel pump 2.2 Ex ’ W
’ f2:1 þ Ex ’ f ’ D
24
Ex2:2 ¼ ExFP
2.1

29
2 AC 2 Ex ’ W
Ex
’ air þ Ex ’ air ¼ Ex
’ D
1 29 2 AC
1

2.2
3 CC 3 ’ air
Ex ’ f ’ g ’ D
2 þ Ex2:2
Ex3 ¼ ExCC
2

4
4 3 GT 27 ’ g
Ex
Ex ’ g
Ex
’ W
Ex
’ W ¼ Ex
’ D
3 4 27 28 GT
28

28 GT-AC shaft 29
5 ’ W
Ex ’ W ’ D
28
Ex29 ¼ ExGT-AC shaft

27 GT-G1 shaft 26
6 ’ W
Ex ’ W ’ D
27
Ex26 ¼ ExGT-G1 shaft

26 GT generator 25
7 ’ W
Ex
Ex ’ W ¼ Ex
’ D
26 25 G1

4 ED(4-4.1) 4.1
8 ’ g
Ex
Ex ’ g ¼ Ex
’ DED
4 4:1

4.1 5
9 6 HRSG 8 ’ g
Ex
ðEx ’ g Þ
ðEx
’ st
Ex
’ st Þ
ðEx
’ st
Ex
’ st ’ D
7 Þ ¼ ExHRSG
4 4:1 8 6 9
7 9

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM 277

Table III. Continued.

No. Control volume Exergy balance equations

10 8 ’ st
Ex
Ex ’ st ¼ Ex
’ D
HPSL(8-10) 10 8 10 HPSLð8210Þ

11 9 LPSL(9-14) 14 ’ st
Ex
Ex ’ st ¼ Ex
’ D
9 14 LPSLð9214Þ

11
12 10 HPST 13 Ex ’ st
Ex
’ st
Ex ’ st
Ex
’ W ¼ Ex
’ D
10 11 13 30 HPST
30
’ st
Ex ’ st ’ st
13 þ Ex14 ¼ Ex15
16
13 15 LPST
’ st
Ex ’ st ’ W ’ D
15
Ex16
Ex31 ¼ ExLPST
31

33 ’ W þ Ex
Ex ’ W ¼ Ex
’ W
14 ST generator 34 30 31 32

’ W
Ex ’ W ’ D
32
Ex33 ¼ ExST shaft

15 33 ST generator 34 ’ W
Ex ’ W ’ D
33
Ex34 ¼ ExG2

’ W ¼ Ex
Ex ’ W þ Ex
’ W
35 34 36

11 Valve-1 20
16 ’ st
Ex
Ex ’ st ¼ Ex
’ DV1
11 20

20 Valve-2 21
17 ’ st
Ex ’ st ’ D
20
Ex21 ¼ ExV2

21 Valve-3 22
18 ’ st
Ex ’ st ’ D
21
Ex22 ¼ ExV3

22 MPSC 12
19 ’ st
Ex ’ st ’ D
22
Ex12 ¼ ExMPSC

16 17
23 COND. ’ st
Ex
ðEx ’ st Þ
ðEx
’ st
Ex
’ st Þ ¼ Ex
’ D
16 17 19 18 COND
18 19

I 1 P
24 n 23 r ’ g þ Ex
Ex ’ st þ Ex
’ st þ Ex
’ st ¼ Ex
’ L
2.1 o
5 12 17 18 CHP
p CHP
u 6 d ’ air þ Ex
ðEx ’ f2:1 þ Ex
’ st þ Ex
’ st ’ W ’ W ’ L
7 Þ
ðEx23 þ Ex36 Þ
ExCHP
1 6
t 36 u
8 ’ D Ex
¼ Ex ’ L þ Ex
’ D ¼ Ex
’ C
s c CHP CHP CHP CHP
t
5 12 17 18 s
Losses

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
278 O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI

The MPSC steam (outlet) as process steam The relative exergy consumption ratio is defined
produced by this system is not used or sold due to as the ratio of the exergy consumption of kth
the presence of corrosion preventive chemical component to the exergy consumption of the CHP
compounds. In this situation, for this system, the system and is given as follows:
exergy losses consist of the stack gas (state no. 5)
’ C
Ex
exergy, MPSC outlet exergy and exergy of wk ¼ k
ð11Þ
condenser outlets (state nos. 17, 19). ’ C
ExCHP
The exergy efficiency of the HRSG and con-
The productivity lack is defined as the ratio of
denser is calculated as
the exergy consumption of kth component to the
’ cold;out
Ex
Ex ’ cold;in exergy of products and is given as follows:
ZHRSG=Condenser ¼ ð5Þ
’ ’
Exhot;in
Exhot;out
’ C
Ex ’ C
Ex
k k
The exergetic efficiency of FP is calculated from dk ¼ ¼
’ netproducts
Ex ’ G1 þ W
ðW ’ G2
W’ FP
W
’ UP Þ
’ D;FP
Ex
ZFP ¼ 1
ð6Þ ’ C
Ex
W’ FP ¼ k
ð12Þ
’ W þ Ex
Ex ’ W
23 36
The exergetic efficiency of the ith component
(except the HRSG and condenser) of CHP system Van Gool [14] also stated that the maximum
is obtained from improvement in the exergy efficiency for a process
or system can be achieved when the exergy
’ D;k
Ex
Zk ¼ 1
ð7Þ consumption is minimum. Consequently, he sug-
’ in;k
Ex gested that it is useful to employ the concept of an
The exergetic efficiency of CHP system is exergetic ‘improvement potential’ when analyzing
obtained from different processes, as applied by some investiga-
tors [15, 16]. The ‘exergetic improvement potential’
’ netproducts W
Ex ’ G1net
23 þ W ’ G2net
36
ZCHP ¼ ¼ can be written as follows:
’ in
Ex ’ in
Ex
’ k ¼ ð1
ZÞEx
ExIP ’ C ð13Þ
’ D þ Ex
Ex ’ L þW ’ FP þ W
’ UP k
¼ 1
CHP CHP
ð8Þ
’ in
Ex For investigating the effect of exergy consump-
tion of kth component of the CHP system to
The exergy consumption ðExC Þ consists of the
capital cost, Rosen and Dincer [17] suggested a
exergy destruction for the components, exergy
new parameter called ‘the ratio of exergy con-
losses for the MPSC outlet exergy (state nos. 12),
sumption rate to capital investment cost’ given as
the condenser outlet exergy (state nos. 17,19) and
follows:
the stack gas (state no. 5) for the CHP system. ’ C
Ex k
Accordingly, the inlet exergy depletion ratio is Rxk ¼ ð14Þ
the ratio of the exergy consumption rate of kth CACCHP
component to the exergy rates input of the CHP
system and is calculated from 3.2. Exergoeconomic aspects
’ C
Ex The exergoeconomic analysis is a method
k
ak ¼ ð9Þ
’
Exin;CHP that combines exergy analysis with economic
analysis. Cost balance of a system may be written
The fuel depletion ratio is defined as the ratio of
as follows [18]:
the exergy consumption of kth component to the
X X
fuel exergy rate input of the CHP [13]. System is C’kþZ’ Tk ¼ C’k þC’W ð15Þ
given as follows: in out
’ C
Ex
bk ¼ kf ð10Þ ’ k ¼ ck Ex
’ k
’
Ex C ð16Þ

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM 279

’W
C ’
k ¼ ck W ð17Þ Hourly levelized capital investment cost of kth
component ðZ’ CI Þ:
k
Z ’ CI
’ Tk ¼ Z ’ OM
k þ Zk ð18Þ PECk
Z’ CI ’ CI
k ¼ Z CHP P ð26Þ
where C ’ k and C ’ W
are the exergy costs of the CHP PEC
streams and power; c is the unit exergy costs of where t; i; j; n and PEC are the total annual
stream and power; Ex ’ k and W ’ are the exergy
number of hours of system operation at full load,
of stream and power entering and leaving the the interest rate, the salvage value ratio, the
control volume; Z ’ CI ; Z’ OM and Z ’ T are the hourly
k k k lifetime of system and the purchased equipment
levelized costs of capital investment, operating and cost, respectively. For this system, t; i; j and n are
maintenance, and the total cost of equipment taken as 8200 h; 10%, 12% and 25 year, respec-
inside the control volume. tively. The hourly operating and maintenance cost
In order to calculate Z ’ CI ; the hourly levelized
k of kth component is obtained from the annual
cost method is used. The algorithm of this method operating and maintenance costs of the CHP
is composed of six steps. These are given as system ðC’ OM Þ:
CHP
follows.
’ OM
C PECk
The present worth of the investigated system ’ OM
Z ¼ CHP P ð27Þ
’
ðPWÞ:
k
t CHP PEC

PW ’ CHP ¼ C ’ CHP
S’ CHP PWFði; nÞ ð19Þ The annual fuel cost in the energetic terms
ðFC’ e Þ:
’
The salvage value ðSÞ:
S’ CHP ¼ C
’ CHP j ð20Þ FC ’ e ¼ Pr LHVt ð28Þ
ER
The present value factor (PWF): where Pr; LHV and ER are the fuel sell price
1 in the New Turkish Lira (YTL), the LHV of
PWF ¼ ð21Þ
ð1 þ iÞn natural gas, the exchange rate ðYTLðUS$Þ
1 Þ;
’ respectively.
Annual capital cost ðCAÞ: ’ f Þ:
The hourly fuel cost in the exergetic terms ðC
’ CHP ¼ PW
CA ’ CHP CRFði; nÞ ð22Þ

’
’ f ¼ FCe LHV
C ð29Þ
Capital recovery factor ðCRFÞ: t ef
iði þ 1Þn
CRF ¼ ð23Þ
ði þ 1Þn
1 3.3. Exergoeconomic balance equation of the CHP
Annualized equipment cost of CHP system system and its components
’ TCHP Þ:
ðZ
The aim of the exergoeconomic analysis in this
fCA’ CHP study is to understand the cost formation process
’ TCHP ¼
Z ð24Þ
3600ðs h Þtðh year
1 Þ

1 and calculate the cost rate of each product
generated by the plant. Since the MPSC steam
where f is the factor of operating and maintenance
(outlet) as process steam produced by this system
cost and was taken as 1.06 in the literature [19].
is not used or sold as it contains the corrosion
In this study, since the operating and maintenance
preventive chemical compounds, the CHP plant
costs are calculated separately, f is taken to
produces only electrical powers. While the ex-
be 1. Equation (25) can be arranged as the
ergoeconomic analysis is made, firstly, the unit
hourly levelized capital investment cost of CHP
’ CI Þ and is given by the exergy cost of net electrical power produced by the
system component ðZ CHP CHP system is found. Then, the exergy cost and
relation
unit exergy cost rate of the subcomponents of the
’ CHP
CA CHP system are calculated from the F-rule (Fuel
’ CI
Z CHP ¼ ð25Þ
t rule) and P-rule (Product rule). The F-rule refers

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
280 O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI

to the removal of exergy from an exergy stream
within the component being considered, when
for this system, the exergy difference between inlet
and outlet is considered in the definition of the
fuel. The F-rule states that the total cost associated
with this removal of exergy must be equal to the
cost at which the removed exergy was supplied to
the same stream in the upstream components. The
P-rule refers to the supply of exergy to an exergy
stream within the component being considered.
The P-rule states that each exergy unit is supplied
to any stream associated with the products at the
same average cost [5, 20].
The cost balance and auxiliary equations of the
components of the investigated CHP system are
given in Table IV.

Table IV. Cost balance and auxiliary equations for the subsystems of the investigated CHP.
No. Control volume Cost balance and auxiliary equations
’ air þ C
C ’ f2:1 þ Z T ¼ C
’W þC’W
1 CHP 23 36

1 ’W þC
C ’W ¼ C
’W
1 23 23 36 netelectrical
CHP ’W ’W ’W
2.1 C 23 C C
36 ¼ 36W ¼ netelectrical P-rule
’
Ex W ’
Ex ’ W
Ex
23 36 netelectrical

’ air
C 1 ¼ 0 Assumption

23
25 C’W C’W C’W
23 24 25
2 ¼ ¼ P-rule
24 ’ W Ex
Ex ’ W Ex ’ W
23 24 25

24
3 Fuel pump 2.2 C ’W
’ f2:1 þ C T ’f
24 þ ZFP ¼ C 2:2
2.1

26 GT generator 25
4 ’W
C T ’W
26 þ ZG1 ¼ C 25

27 GT-G1shaft 26
5 ’W
C T ’W
27 þ ZGT-G1 shaft ¼ C 26

C’W C’W
27
6 ¼ 28W P-rule
28 27 ’ExW Ex ’
27 28

28 GT-AC shaft 29
7 ’ W þ ZT
C ’W
28 GT-AC shaft ¼ C 29

29
8 AC 2 ’W þC
C ’ air þ ZT ¼ C
’ air
29 1 AC 2
1
’ air
C 1 ¼ 0 Assumption

2.2
9 CC 3 C ’ air
’ f2:2 þ C T ’g
2 þ ZCC ¼ C 3
2

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM 281

Table IV. Continued.

No. Control volume Cost balance and auxiliary equations

4
10 3 GT 27 ’ g þ ZT ¼ C
C ’g þC
’W þC’W
3 GT 4 27 28
28

4 ED(4-4.1) 4.1
11 ’g þZ
C ’g
’ TED ¼ C
4 4:1

C’g C’g
4.1 5 4:1 5
HRSG(hot) ¼ F-rule
12 ’ g
Ex ’ g
Ex
4:1 5

35
C’W C’W C’W
13 34 34
¼ 35W ¼ 36W P-rule
36 ’ExW Ex ’ ’Ex
34 35 36

33 ST generator 34
14 ’W þZ
C ’W
’ TG2 ¼ C
33 34

32 ST shaft 33
15 ’W þZ
C ’W
’ TSTshaft ¼ C
32 33

30 32 ’W
C ’W ’W
HPST-30 þ C LPST-31 ¼ C 32
16 31

11 ’ st
ðC ’ st ’ st ’T ’W
10
C 11
C 13 Þ þ Z HPST ¼ C HPST-30

17 10 HPST 13
C’ st C’ st C’ st
30 10
¼ 11st ¼ 13st F-rule
’
Ex st ’
Ex ’
Ex
10 11 13

18 8 HPSL(8-10) 10 ’ st þ Z
C ’ st
’ THPSLð8210Þ ¼ C
8 10

’ st
C
ðC ’ st Þ þ Z ’W
’ TLPST ¼ C
16 15 16 LPST-31

19 15 LPST ’ st ’ st
C 15 C
31 ¼ 16st F-rule
’
Ex st ’
Ex
15 16

13
20 15 ’ st þ C
C ’ st ¼ C
’ st
13 14 15
14

21 9 14 ’ st
C ’T ’ st
9 þ Z LPSLð9214Þ ¼ C 14
LPSL(9-14)

’g
C
ðC ’ g Þ þ ZT ’ st ’ st ’ st ’ st
4.1 5 4:1 5 HRSG ¼ ðC 8
C 6 Þ þ ðC 9
C 7 Þ

22 6 HRSG 8 ’ st
C
C ’ st ’ st
C
C ’ st
7
8 6
¼ 9st P-rule
7 9 ’
Ex
Ex st ’ st ’
Ex
Ex ’ st
8 6 9 7

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
282 O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI

Table IV. Continued.

No. Control volume Cost balance and auxiliary equations

24 11 Valve-1 20 ’ st
C ’T ’ st
11 þ Z V1 ¼ C 20

25 20 21 ’ st
C ’T ’ st
20 þ Z V2 ¼ C 21
Valve-2

26 21 22 ’ st þ Z
C ’ st
’ TV3 ¼ C
Valve-3 21 22

27 22 12 ’ st
C ’T ’ st
22 þ Z MPSC ¼ C 12
MPSC

ðC’ st
C
’ st Þ þ ZT ’ st ’ st
16 17 COND ¼ ðC 19
C 18 Þ
’
C16 st
C’ st
16 17 ¼ 17st F-rule
’ st
Ex ’
Ex
23 COND. 16 17

19 C’ st C’ st
18 18 19
¼ st F-rule
’ st
Ex ’
Ex
19 19
’ st ’
C16
C17 st
C ’ st
’ st
C
¼ 19 18
P-rule
’Exst
Ex’ st ’Exst
Ex’ st
16 17 19 18

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Exergetic analysis
Using the data given in Table II and the thermo-
dynamic basic equations, the measurement
and unmeasurement data (temperature, pressure,
energy rate, exergy rate) are calculated. The
fluid type, temperature, pressure, mass flow rate,
energy rate and exergy rate data for the CHP
system streams are given in Table V in accordance
with their state numbers as specified in Figure 1.
Using the values given in Table V and the exergy
balance equation illustrated in Table III, the inlet
exergy rate, the outlet exergy rate, the exergy
consumption, the exergetic efficiency, the inlet
exergy the depletion ratio, the fuel depletion ratio,
the relative exergy consumption ratio, the produc-
tivity lack, the exergetic improvement potential
and the ratio of the exergy consumption to the
capital cost are calculated for each component and
CHP system and are given in Table VI. According
to Table VI,
* The works of the air compressor ðWAC Þ;
gas turbine ðWGT Þ; high-pressure steam
turbine ðWHPST Þ; and low-pressure steam
turbine ðWLPST Þ are determined to be
45 279.1, 84 867.4, 8134.98 and 8135:2 kW;
respectively.
* The exergetic efficiencies of AC, FP, CC, GT,
ED, GT-G1 mechanical shaft, GT-AC mechan-
ical shaft, GT electrical generator (G1), HRSG,
HPST, LPST, ST mechanical shaft, ST electrical
generator (G2), MPSC, condenser, high-pressure
steam line (8–10), low-pressure steam line (9–14),
valve-1, valve-2 and valve-3 are calculated as 88:
66; 77:53; 69:87; 99:13; 93:61; 97; 97; 98:00; 77:83;
98:39; 98:51; 98; 98; 97:97; 61:49; 99:08; 99:19; 97:
41; 97:09 and 96.67%, respectively.
* The exergetic efficiency of the CHP system
amounts to 38.33% with 51 475:9 kW as

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM 283

Table V. The energy rate, exergy rate and other properties at various system locations for one representative unit (for
state numbers refer to Figure 1 for the CHP system).
Mass flow rate Temperature Pressure Energy rate Exergy rate
State no. Fluid type ’ ðkg s
1 Þ
m T (K) P (kPa) E’ (kW) ’ (kW)
Ex
0 Air 287.2 101.3 0.0 0.0
1 Air 128.9 287.2 101.3 0.0 0.0
2 Air 128.9 610.2 1050.3 45 279.1 39 239.8
2.1 Fuel 2.9 305.2 1826.0 127 671.3 132 863.0
2.2 Fuel 2.9 309.2 2294.0 127 656.1 132 956.1
3 Combustion gas 131.8 1283.5 997.8 165 240.7 120 317.1
4 Combustion gas 5.7 818.2 111.7 80 373.3 34 407.8
4.1 Combustion gas 134.6 801.8 106.4 77 543.8 32 209.3
5 Combustion gas 137.5 393.2 101.3 13 779.3 2077.5
0 Water 287.2 101.3 0.0 0.0
6 Water 14.9 358.4 6890.0 4517.6 575.5
7 Water 3.0 355.8 580.0 848.1 89.1
8 Steam 14.9 772.3 6590.0 49 947.0 21 650.7
9 Steam 3.0 469.4 540.0 8218.1 2464.7
10 Steam 14.9 764.3 6460.0 49 683.5 21 451.3
11 Steam 4.3 575.2 2710.0 12 586.7 4745.6
12 Steam 4.3 505.9 1790.0 11 991.0 4250.5
13 Steam 10.6 438.2 397.0 28 961.8 8225.0
14 Steam 3.0 464.0 530.0 8185.4 2444.6
15 Steam 13.6 443.8 425.9 37 143.8 10 677.9
16 Steam 13.6 313.4 7.5 29 008.6 2375.2
17 Steam 13.6 312.2 7.0 1418.1 58.1
18 Water 680.6 298.2 300.0 31 443.7 760.5
19 Water 680.6 307.2 285.0 57 102.3 2185.3
20 Steam 4.3 559.7 2410.0 12 463.7 4622.6
21 Steam 4.3 542.7 210.0 12 329.2 4488.1
22 Steam 4.3 523.8 1810.0 12 179.7 4338.6

electrical products. The exergy consumption in
this system is found to be 82 812:3 kW:
* The exergetic efficiency of the CC is 69.87%.
The highest exergy consumption between the
components of the CHP system has the CC with
51 878.8 kW.
* The inlet exergy depletion ratio, fuel depletion
ratio, relative exergy consumption ratio, pro-
ductivity lack, exergetic improvement potential
and ratio of exergy consumption rate to capital
cost of the CHP system are calculated to be
38.63, 39.05, 62.65, 100.78%, 15 629.94 kW, 1:4
35  10
3 kW (US$)
1 for the CC, respectively.
Because the MPSC steam (outlet) as process
steam produced by this system is not used or sold
as it contains corrosion preventive chemical
compounds, the exergetic efficiency of the CHP
system decreases from 41.5 to 38.3%.
4.2. Exergoeconomic analysis
The purchased equipment cost, the hourly levelized
capital investment, operating and maintenance, total
costs of the CHP system and its components are
given in Table VII. The exergy cost and unit exergy
cost the net electrical powers produced by the CHP
system are calculated and listed in Table VIII. Using
the values given in Tables VII and VIII as well as the
cost balance equations presented in Table IV, the
exergy rate data, exergy cost and unit exergy cost for
the components of the CHP system are calculated as
given in Table IX in accordance with their state
numbers as specified in Figure 1.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 284

Table VI. The exergy rate, exergetic efficiency and the other thermodynamic parameters of the components of the CHP system.
Ex
’ in Ex
’ out Ex
’ C Z a b w d ’
ExIP Rx
Component (kW) (kW) (kW) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (kW) 10
3 kW ðUS$Þ
1
Compressor 45 279.1 39 239.8 6039.3 86.66 7.29 4.50 4.55 11.73 805.5 0.167
Fuel pump (FP) 120.0 93.0 27.0 77.53 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 6.1 0.001
Combustion chamber (CC) 172 195.9 120 317.1 51 878.8 69.87 62.65 38.63 39.05 100.78 15 629.9 1.435

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Gas turbine (GT) 120 317.1 119 275.3 1041.8 99.13 1.26 0.78 0.78 2.02 9.0 0.029
Exhaust duct (ED (4–4.1)) 34 407.8 32 209.3 2198.5 93.61 2.65 1.64 1.65 4.27 140.5 0.061
GT-AC mechanical shaft (26–27) 46 679.5 45 279.1 1400.4 97.00 1.69 1.04 1.05 2.72 42.0 0.039
GT-G1 mechanical shaft (25–25) 38 187.9 37 042.3 1145.6 97.00 1.38 0.85 0.86 2.23 34.4 0.032
Gas turbine electrical generator (G1) 37 040.8 36 300.0 740.8 98.00 0.89 0.55 0.56 1.44 14.8 0.020
Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) 30 131.8 23 450.7 6681.1 77.83 8.07 4.98 5.03 12.98 1481.4 0.185
High-pressure steam turbine (HPST) 21 451.3 21 105.5 345.7 98.39 0.42 0.26 0.26 0.67 5.6 0.010
Low-pressure steam turbine (LPST) 10 669.6 10 510.4 159.2 98.51 0.19 0.12 0.12 0.31 2.4 0.004
ST mechanical shaft 16 270.2 15 944.8 325.4 98.00 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.63 6.5 0.009
Steam turbine electrical generator (G2) 15 944.8 15 625.9 318.9 98.00 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.62 6.4 0.009
Medium pressure steam collector (MPSC) 4338.6 4250.5 88.2 97.97 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.17 1.8 0.002
Condenser (COND.) 2317.0 1424.8 892.2 61.49 1.08 0.66 0.67 1.73 343.6 0.025
High-pressure steam line (HPSL (8–10)) 21 650.7 21 451.3 199.4 99.08 0.24 0.15 0.15 0.39 1.8 0.006
Low-pressure steam line (LPSL (9–14)) 2464.7 2444.6 20.0 99.19 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.2 0.001
Valve I (V1) 4745.6 4622.6 123.0 97.41 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.24 3.2 0.003
O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI

Valve II (V2) 4622.6 4488.1 134.5 97.09 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.26 3.9 0.004
Valve III (V3) 4488.1 4338.6 149.5 96.67 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.29 5.0 0.004
Stack gas (5) 2077.5 2.51 1.55 1.56 4.04 2077.5 0.057
MPSC outlet (12) 4250.5 5.13 3.17 3.20 8.26 0.118
Condenser outlet (17+19) 2243.4 2.71 1.67 1.69 4.36 0.062
CHP

DOI: 10.1002/er
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM 285

Table VII. The purchased equipment cost, the levelized capital investment, operating
and maintenance, total costs of components.
PEC ZkCI ZkOM ZkT
Cycle Component ð103 US$Þ ðUS$ h
1 Þ ðUS$ h
1 Þ ðUS$ h
1 Þ
Gas turbine cycle Air compressor (AC) 3850 51.2 50.7 101.8
Combustion chamber (CC) 1550 20.6 20.4 41.0
Gas turbine (GT) 4970 66.0 65.4 131.5
Gas turbine electrical generator (G1) 1350 4.7 4.6 9.3
Fuel pump (FP) 850 3.3 3.3 6.6
GT-AC shaft 350 3.3 3.3 6.6
GT-G1 shaft 250 17.9 17.8 35.7
Exhaust Duct [ED(4–4.1)] 250 11.3 11.2 22.5
Total 13 420 178.3 176.7 355.0

Steam cycle Heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) 1530 20.3 20.1 40.5
High-pressure steam line (8–10) 250 3.3 3.3 6.6
Low-pressure steam line (9–14) 250 3.3 3.3 6.6
High-pressure steam turbine (HPST) 3750 49.8 49.4 99.2
Low-pressure steam turbine (9–14) 3500 46.5 46.1 92.6
Steam cycle electrical generator (G2) 800 10.6 10.5 21.2
G2 shaft 250 3.3 3.3 6.6
Valve 1 (V1) 50 0.7 0.7 1.3
Valve 2 (V2) 50 0.7 0.7 1.3
Valve 3 (V3) 50 0.7 0.7 1.3
Medium-pressure steam collector (MPSC) 250 3.3 3.3 6.6
Condenser (COND.) 500 6.6 6.6 13.2
Total 11 230 149.2 147.8 297.1

CHP cycle Gas turbine cycle 13 420 178.3 176.7 355.0

Steam cycle 11 230 149.2 147.8 297.1
Other units 1750 23.3 23.0 46.3
Project management/contingency/financing/ 9750 129.5 129.5
engineering and materials/labor
Total 36 150 480.3 347.6 827.9

Table VIII. The fuel exergy cost, levelized investment cost, operating and maintenance cost, total cost, product exergy
rate, exergy cost and unit exergy cost of the CHP system in a representative unit.
Capital Operating and Product Unit exergy cost
Fuel cost investment maintenance cost Total cost exergy of products

C’ f2:1 ’ CI
Z ’ OM
Z C ’ f2:1 þ Z
’ TCHP ¼ C ’ CI þ Z
’ OM ’ P
Ex ’ TCHP
C
k k k k c¼ ðUS$ GW
1 Þ
ðUS$ h
1 Þ ðUS$ h
1 Þ ðUS$ h
1 Þ ðUS$ h Þ
1
ðGW h
1 Þ ’ P
Ex
2601.98 480.30 347.57 3429.85 185.31 18.51

The following may be listed from Tables VIII
and IX:
* The fuel exergy cost entering the CHP system is
2601:98 US$ h
1 : The capital investment cost,
operating and maintenance cost and total cost
of CHP cycle are 480.3, 347.57 and 827:87 US
$ h
1 : The net electrical powers produced by
this system are 185:31 GW h
1 : The exergy cost
and unit exergy cost of net electrical power

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
286 O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI

Table IX. The exergy rate, exergy cost and unit exergy cost respectively. The exergy cost and unit exergy cost of
at various system locations for one representative unit (for fuel entering the CC (state no. 2.2) are calculated
state numbers refer to Figure 1 for the CHP system). as 2632:81 US$ h
1 and 5:50 US$ GW
1 :
’
Ex ’
C c * The exergy cost and unit exergy cost of steam
State no. ðGW h
1 Þ ðUS$ h
1 Þ ðUS$ GW
1 Þ produced by HRSG are found to be 1024:1 US$
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 h
1 and 13:14 US$ GW
1 for high-pressure steam
1 0.0 0.0 0.0 line and 130:77 US$ h
1 and 14:74 US$ GW
1
2 141.3 3016.1 21.4 for low-pressure steam line, respectively.
2.1 478.3 2602.0 5.4 * The exergy cost and unit exergy cost of process
2.2 478.6 2632.5 5.5
3 433.1 5648.5 13.0
steam (state no. 12) in MPSC outlet are
4 123.9 498.7 4.0 238.6 US$ h
1 and 15.59 US$ GW
1 ; respectively.
4.1 116.0 505.3 4.4
5 7.5 32.6 4.4 To verify the results of exergoeconomic analysis,
00 0.00 0.0 0.0 some previous studies were reviewed. The results
6 2.1 491.4 237.2 obtained from these studies are briefly listed
7 0.3 70.7 220.5
8 77.9 1024.1 13.1
below:
9 8.9 130.8 14.7 * Tsatsaronis and Moran [21] analyzed a 30-MW
10 77.2 1030.7 13.3
11 17.1 228.0 13.3 base case cogeneration system and calculated
12 15.3 238.6 15.6 the unit exergy cost of net power as
13 29.6 395.2 13.3 18.76 US$ GW
1 :
14 8.8 137.4 15.6 * Kim et al. [22] obtained the unit exergy costs of
15 38.4 532.6 13.9 electrical power as 27.5 and 28.1 US$ GW
1 :
16 8.6 118.5 13.9
17 0.2 2.9 13.9
* Bilgen [23] estimated the product exergy costs
18 2.7 68.7 25.1 of a combined cycle power plants as
19 7.9 197.5 25.1 37 US$ MW
1 h
1 (10.28 US$ GW
1 ).
20 16.6 229.3 13.8 * The specific costs per unit of exergy were
21 16.2 230.7 14.3 calculated with the new approach that
22 15.6 232.0 14.9
23 130.2 2410.7 18.5 amounted to 17.05 US$ GW
1 for electricity
24 0.4 8.0 18.5 power and 14.89 US$ GW
1 for thermal energy
25 130.7 2418.7 18.5 by Erlach et al. [24].
26 133.3 2383.0 17.9 * Kwak et al. [19] analyzed a 500 MW combined
27 137.5 2376.3 17.3 cycle plant and estimated the specific costs
28 168.1 2905.0 17.3
29 163.0 2914.2 17.9 per unit of electrical power as 16.95
30 29.3 506.7 17.3 US$ GW
1 for 25% load, 12.53 US$ GW
1
31 29.3 506.7 17.3 for 50% load, 10.99 US$ GW
1 for 75% load
32 58.6 1013.4 17.3 and 10.45 US$ GW
1 for 100% load.
33 57.4 1020.0 17.8 * Colpan and Yesin [5] analyzed the Bilkent
34 56.3 1041.2 18.5
35 1.2 22.0 18.5 combined cycle cogeneration plant in terms of
36 55.1 1019.2 18.5 energetic, exergetic and thermoeconomic as-
pects. The electrical power unit exergy cost was
calculated to be 18.89 US$ GW
1 :
* Without considering the load effect, the unit
exergy cost of net electrical power varied from
produced by the CHP system are accounted as
29 to 32 US$ MW
1 h
1 (7.78–10.28US$ GW
1 )
3429:85 US$ h
1 and 18:51 US$ GW
1 :
in a study conducted by Unver and Kilic [25].
* The exergy cost and unit exergy cost of
fuel entering the CHP system (state no. 2.1) The comparison of the exergoeconomic analysis
account for 2601.98 US$ h
1 and 5.44 US$ GW
1 ; results showed that the values of unit exergy costs

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM 287

with 18.51 US$ GW
1 for electrical power and
15.59 US$ GW
1 for thermal power obtained
from the present study are in a good agreement
with those reported by Tsatsaronis and
Moran [21], Erlach et al. [24] and Colpan and
Yesin [5]. Some slight difference may be present
because of the variation of the unit cost of fuel,
the power capacity of system, type and cost of
components of CHP system that are operated in
power plants.
exergy cost of the investigated plants and
checking the exergy consumption locations
within the plants. Especially, the extracted
steam (sate no:11) from HPST to MPSC line
for process steam will be used to produce the
electrical power with a intermediate pressure
steam turbine added to the CHP system.
Additionally, for decreasing the exergy con-
sumption in the CC, a preheater will be added
to the GT.

5. CONCLUSIONS
NOMENCLATURE
This study presents a comprehensive exergy and
c ¼ unit exergy cost (US$ GW
1 )
exergoeconomic analyses of a CHP system along- ’
C ¼ exergy cost (US$ h
1 )
with its essential components, such as AC, FP, CC,
Cp ¼ specific heat capacity
GT, HRSG, HPST and LPST, MPSC (for process
ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ
steam), pipe lines and electrical generators. The ’
CA ¼ annual capital cost flow (US$y
1 )
exergetic performance assessments are made in
CAC ¼ capital cost (US$)
terms of exergy efficiency, the improvement poten-
CRF ¼ capital recovery factor
tial, the inlet exergy depletion rate, the fuel
ER ¼ exchange rate (YTL(US$)
1 )
depletion rate, the relative exergy consumption, ’
Ex ¼ exergy rate (kW or GW)
the productivity lack factor and the ratio of exergy
ExIP’ ¼ improvement potential rate
consumption of the components to the capital cost
(kW)
of the CHP system. The exergoeconomic analysis ’
FC ¼ annual fuel cost flow (US$ y
1 )
assessments are performed in terms of exergy cost
h ¼ enthalpy ðkJ kg
1 Þ
and unit exergy cost.
i ¼ interest rate (%)
Some concluding remarks drawn from the
j ¼ salvage rate (%)
results of the present study may be listed as
LHV ¼ lower heating value of fuel
follows:
ðkJ kg
1 Þ
* The exergetic efficiency of the CHP system is ’
m ¼ mass flow rate ðkg s
1 Þ
obtained to be 38.33% with 51 475.9 kW as P ¼ pressure (kPa)
electrical products, while the exergy consump- PEC ¼ purchased equipment cost
tion in the system is found to be 82 812.3 kW. (US$)
* The exergetic efficiency of the CC is 69.87%. Pr ¼ fuel sell price (YTL(kWh)
1 )
The highest exergy consumption between the PW ¼ present worth
components of the CHP system occurs within PWF ¼ present worth factor
the CC with 51 878.8 kW. Q ¼ heat transfer (kW)
* The maximum capital cost consumption of the R ¼ universal gas constant
CHP system is in the CC with 1:435  10
3 kW ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ
(US$)
1 : Rx ¼ ratio of exergy consumption to
* The exergy cost and unit exergy cost of net capital cost (kW(US$)
1 )
electrical power produced by the CHP system s ¼ specific entropy ðkJ kg
1 K
1 Þ
amount to 3429.85 US$ h
1 and 18.51 S ¼ salvage value (US$)
US$ GW
1 ; respectively. T ¼ temperature (K)
* The plant owner may maintain an opinion for W ’ ¼ work rate or power (kW or GW)
future improvements by decreasing the unit Z’ ¼ capital cost flow ðUS$ h
1 Þ

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
288 O. BALLI, H. ARAS AND A. HEPBASLI

Greek letters V ¼ valve

0 ¼ dead (environment or reference)
a ¼ inlet exergy depletion ratio (%) state
b ¼ fuel exergy depletion ratio (%)
g ¼ fuel exergy grade function (%) Superscripts
d ¼ productivity lack (%)
e ¼ specific exergy rate (kJ kg
1 ) air ¼ air
Z ¼ exergy (second law) efficiency (%) ch ¼ chemical
m ¼ mechanical yield and combustion C ¼ exergy consumption
chamber efficiency (%) CI ¼ capital investment
t ¼ the total annual number hours of D ¼ destroyed; destruction
system operation at full load (h) e ¼ energetic
f ¼ operating and maintenance factor f ¼ fuel
w ¼ relative exergy consumption g ¼ gas
ratio (%) L ¼ exergy loss
OM ¼ operating and maintenance
Subscripts ph ¼ physical
st ¼ steam
a ¼ number of carbon T ¼ total
air ¼ air W ¼ work
AC ¼ air compressor
b ¼ number of hydrogen Abbreviations
CC ¼ combustion chamber
CHP ¼ combined heat and power AC ¼ air compressor
COND ¼ condenser CC ¼ combustion chamber
ED ¼ exhaust duct CHP ¼ combined heat and power
f ¼ fuel COND ¼ condenser
FP ¼ fuel pump ED ¼ exhaust duct
gas ¼ combustion gas FP ¼ fuel pump
G ¼ electrical generator G1 ¼ gas turbine electrical generator
GT-AC ¼ gas turbine to air compressor G2 ¼ steam turbine(HPST/LPST)
shaft mechanical shaft electrical generator
GT-G ¼ gas turbine to electrical generator GT ¼ gas turbine
shaft mechanical shaft HPST ¼ high-pressure steam turbine
HPSL ¼ high-pressure steam line HRSG ¼ heat recovery steam generator
HPST ¼ high-pressure steam turbine LPST ¼ low-pressure steam turbine
HRSG ¼ heat recovery steam generator MPSC ¼ medium-pressure steam collector
in ¼ input ST ¼ steam
k ¼ location V ¼ valve
LPSL ¼ low-pressure steam line YTL ¼ new Turkish lira
MGTAC ¼ mechanical yield of GT-AC shaft
MGTG ¼ mechanical yield of GT-AC shaft
MST ¼ mechanical yield of ST shaft REFERENCES
out ¼ output 1. Rosen AM, Le NM, Dincer I. Efficiency analysis of a
p ¼ constant pressure cogeneration and district energy system. Applied Thermal
ST shaft ¼ steam turbine to electrical Engineering 2005; 25:147–159.
2. Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic aspects of renew-
generator mechanical shaft ables and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustain-
UP ¼ utilized power able Energy Reviews 2005; 9:169–189.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er
 EXERGOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF A CHP SYSTEM
3. Chang H. Exergy analysis and exergoeconomic analysis of
an Ethylene process. Journal of Science and Engineering
2001; 4(2):94–104.
4. Silvera JL, Tuna CE. Thermoeconomic analysis method for
optimization of combined heat and power systems. Part 1.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2003; 29:
479–485.
5. Colpan CO, Yesin T. Energetic, exergetic and thermo-
economic analysis of Bilkent combined cycle cogeneration
plant. International Journal of Energy Research 2006;
30:875–894.
6. EEE. Combined Cycle Power Plant Catalog, Eskisehir
Industrial Energy Auto-Production Group. www.eee.
com.tr (Access date: 26 October 2006).
7. Arin S, Akdemir S. Seralarda doğal gazın ısıtma amaçlı
kullanılabilirliği (Applicability of the natural gas in green-
houses for heating purposes). Scientific Researches Journal,
Series B 2002; 3(1):89–99 (in Turkish). www.trakya.edu.tr./
enstituler/fenbilimleri/dergi/arsiv/2002-1/12sel.pdf
8. BOTAS. Petroleum Pipeline Corporation. www.botas.
gov.tr/dogalgaz/dg tarifefiyat.asp (Access date: 26 October
2006).
9. Colpan CO. Exergy analyses of combined cycle cogenera-
tion systems. Thesis, The Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey, 2005.
10. Karakoc H, Turgut E, Hepbasli A. Exergetic analysis of an
aircraft turbofan engine. Proceedings in Summer Course on
Exergy and Its Applications. Anatolia University, Eskisehir,
Turkey, 14–16 August 2006.
11. Balli O, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Exergetic performance
evaluation of a combined heat and power (CHP) system
in Turkey. International Journal of Energy Research 2007;
31:849–866.
12. Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: An Engineering
Approach (2nd edn). Literature Yayincilik: Istanbul,
Turkey, 1996 (in Turkish).
13. Xiang JY, Cali M, Santarelli M. Calculation for physical
and chemical exergy of flows in systems elaborating
mixed-phase flows and a case study in an IRSOFC
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
289
plant. International Journal of Energy Research 2004; 28:
101–115.
14. Van Gool W. Energy policy: fairly tales and factualities. In
Innovation and Technology-Strategies and Policies, Soares
ODD, Martins da Cruz, Coasta Pereira, Soares IMRT,
Reis AJPS (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1997; 93–105.
15. Hepbasli A. Thermodynamic analysis of a ground-source
heat pump system for district heating. International Journal
of Energy Research 2005; 29:671–687.
16. Ozgener L, Hepbasli A, Dincer I. Energy and exergy
analysis of Salihli geothermal district heating system in
Manisa, Turkey. International Journal of Energy Research
2005; 29:393–408.
17. Rosen MA, Dincer I. Exergoeconomic analysis of power
plants operating on various fuels. Applied Thermal
Engineering 2003; 23:643–658.
18. Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal Design and
Optimization. Wiley: New York, 1996.
19. Kwak H-Y, Kim D-J, Jeon J-S. Exergetic and thermo-
economic analyses of power plants. Energy 2003; 28:
343–360.
20. Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. On calculation of efficiencies
and costs in thermal systems. Proceedings of the ASME
Advanced Energy Systems Divisions, AES-vol. 39,
Nashville, Tennessee, 1999.
21. Tsatsaronis G, Moran MJ. Exergy-aided cost mini-
mization. Energy Conversion and Management 1997;
38(15–17):1535–1542.
22. Kim SM, Doek S, Kwon YH, Kwak HY. Exergoeconomic
analysis of thermal systems. Energy 1998; 23:393–406.
23. Bilgen E. Exergetic and engineering analyses of gas turbine
based cogeneration systems. Energy 2000; 25:1215–1229.
24. Erlach B, Tsatsaronis G, Cziesla F. A new approach for
assigning costs and fuels to cogeneration products. Inter-
national Journal of Applied Thermodynamics 2001; 4(3):
145–156.
25. Unver U, Kilic M. Second law based thermoeconomic
analysis of combined cycle power plants considering the
effects of environmental temperature and load variations.
International Journal of Energy Research 2007; 31:148–157.
Int. J. Energy Res. 2008; 32:273–289
DOI: 10.1002/er